With reasoning ut sound like almost all games games would be like 6-8 with some occasional 5's and 9's. That scale just does't make sense to me. Why shouldn't you be able to use the whole scale?
A 10/10 does not mean perfect or close to perfect. That game doesn't exist. Game development is extremely complex and it is impossible to make a perfect game, especially in a game of this size and this amount of content. 10/10 is for the few best AAA games in every genre. A master price. 1 / 10 is harder to define, but should be reserved for the absolute worst and unplayable games. 5 / 10 should be decent but quite meh.
I haven't got to Act 3 yet, but so far, this is one of my favourite games ever together with Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, Planescape: Torment and Witcher 3. SO it is an easy 10/10 for me so far. It has to be really bad in act 3 to drop down to even a 9. I also think there will be more and more patches that fixes the problems in act 3.
Even before act 3 a 10/10 is not justified; not with the bugs present early on (they do not show up only in act 3) and odd plot inconsistencies that show up early. Even if you want to argue that a 10/10 should not mean a flawless game, but rather just a game that is better than anything else available, BG3 is simply not that. And it is especially not justified after act 2 and 3 are taken into account. People giving this game a perfect score is a function of the hype this game received.
