Why 3 stars?

I felt this needed explaining.

I've noticed that generally the easiest way people can grade things is in a binary manner; good or bad. Siskel and Ebert coined the system of simply using "thumbs up" or "thumbs down". But that isn't enough for a thorough review. Even Siskel and Ebert would often say things like "thumbs WAY up" or "I'm on the fence, but I'm going with thumbs down". So obviously having a range is unavoidable. Here is my simplified system's range:

One star:
-This can be as low as "I put the disc in, and all that happened was I got an ASCII middle finger on screen. There was no game."
-Or it could be "There are some elements that are enjoyable. There might be a niche of people who enjoy this game. Overall this is not worth recommending."
-Finally, it could be as high as "There are a number of things I like about this game. I'll bet there may even be a solid fan base for it. However, there are too many flaws for me to ignore."

Two stars:
-At the bottom, this can be "This game is very boring and generic. However, there are enough things done right that there is recognizable quality."
-Midway could be, "This is a solid game. Nothing about it really excels, but it works!"
-At its best it could be "I love this game! There are some flaws that prevent this from being truly amazing, but it should stand as a strong recommendation."

Three stars:
-Begrudgingly, this might be "I can see that a large percentage of people will really like this game. There are some stupid things in it that I hate, but it is well done otherwise."
-Then maybe something like "This is a great game! Everyone should play it!"
-And ultimately "Game of the year, baby! Wooo!"