A WAY better rating system for games would have two ratings:

>one that representsa the value of the game if you have bought the last year's game from the franchise, which would be based on the evolution from last year's, new features addition and, in general, if you should buy this year's game or not

>and the other representing the value of the game for itself, valuable for people that don't own any game of the franchise

the reason is that the current system tends to rate lower a game if it does not presents enough evolution from the games before in the franchise, but the most recent version is usually undeniably better than the ones before, but with the current rating the latter game would have a LOWER score then the previous, because the first one was original, and the most recent does not provide enough changes to make it worth if you played the first one

if I never played a series before and I'm interested in getting into it, I look at the scores and the first game has a HIGHER score than the last, but the reallity is that the LATTER is better, more polished, more complete, more matured than the first one

I'll give you an example with the Gran Turismo series:

>GT1 on Playstation- score 8.6

150 cars, 11 tracks

>GT2 on Playstation- score 8.5

650 cars, 30 tracks, rally mode, better graphics, longer campaign, lower score

which game of the two should you buy?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

enter Playstation 2

>GT3 A-Spec- score 9.4

180 cars, 19 tracks (plus reverse)

>GT4 score 8.9

700 cars, 50 tracks, longer, lower score

which game of the two should you buy?

in conclusion I believe a dual rating system would solve this diference between a games value in itself, and evolution from last installement, making the score really mean something for the two readers, the ones that own the previous installement and the ones wanting to try it for the first time