Well if it is a 10 point scale then yes. But a 100 point scale is different. That's a 100 points variation. Why would you have so many different points on the scale unless you really wanted to be expressive about how well you think a game stands? So if it is a 100 point scale and someone subtracts only two points, then yes, it seems like you are saying the game is nearly flawless in its genre.
Whereas something like a 10 point scale or a 20 point scale is where yes, 9.5-10 translates to "Awesome/really fucking good".
This is why these morons at IGN deserve only a 10 point scale. They are so moronic, they don't understand the responsibility a 100 point scale brings.
I personally think a 10 or 5 point scale is best. Less headaches for the editing staff.
I remember Gregg Vederman (former EiC at PCGAMER) talking about how him and Garry Whitta have had tons of arguments over a game deserving a 79 or a 78.
So yes, you can take review scores that literally, when they are gauging it on such a huge scale.
It is like a three point scale that says bad, ok, or great... vs 10 point scale that says a piece of shit, terrible, quite bad, bad, below average, average, above average, good, very good, excellent. The more points you add to your scale, the slipperier the slope.
OK, that post was much longer than I intended. I really don't care about this stuff anymore. Games journalism sucks, because I feel I am smarter than these guys when it comes to these things.
