I dug up an old reddit post to explain why a 5 star system makes sense. A reddit user mapped the distribution of all review scores on metacritic around 4 years ago. The graph is below.
If you ditch the outliers(a game below 50 is considered bad in game reviews), games are roughly scored on a 5 point scale centered somewhere in the 70s. A 5 point scale where three is average is much more intuitive than arbitrary point increments.
This is beautiful.
Yet, people here are still arguing in favor of a 10-point scale.
Copied my own post from the Gamespot 6/10 thread:
"The 10-point scale had always been dumb. What can be said on a 10-point scale that can't be said on a 5-point scale? Broken, Bad, Okay, Great, Excellent. That's really all you need.
Personally, I keep track of every game I finish. Only the games that I actually finish. Once I finish a game, I give it a rating of 1-4, based on a rubric that I created. 4, because I won't finish a game that I consider broken.
4 - One of the best games I've ever played. Fun throughout with few moments of boredom, no control issues, very few visual/audio issues.
3 - An all-time great that just doesn't reach the highs of a 4. Maybe it's too long or has a boring segment. Maybe the graphics aren't polished or the controls could be better.
2 - An all-around decent game that is somewhere between actively fun and boring. Possibly has a fair number of glitches or other annoying issues.
1 - Almost a bad game. Tedious to play, low production value, etc... But has just enough redeeming qualities for me to finish it."