There's nothing inherently wrong with Gamespot's rating system. That's not the point of this entry. The paradigm to which Gamespot goes about reviewing games is probably the best one I've come across.

This being said, I've for some time had a view on how I think a rating of a game. There are flaws within the system that have been caused by the explosion of gaming technology. The categories that have governed the reviews of games have become incredibly broad that the game seems to be reviewed several times over. Looking for instance at Gamespot's ratings, I feel the game is reviewed five different times and not five different parts of a game.

Let me give an example of what I mean. The biggest culprit seems to be the graphics rating. Let's see two potential aspects of a graphics score. One part is to analyze the artistic quality of a background that is portrayed from a field perspective. Another part is collision detection. Those two items are very different from each other if you ask me.

Other examples include the judging the quality of the music composition and the analysis of the appropriateness and execution of sound effects lumped into one score, the interface of the menu and how the game plays lumped into one score. These examples lead to the conclusion that the three standard categories to review games, graphics, gameplay, and sound, have become outdated.

So what is my solution? I look toward literature and film to come up with a response. Hell, I'll even throw a nod to figure skating. In all three areas, the overall quality of the piece of work is to judge it technically and artistically. I believe the same principle should be applied to video games.

I retain three major categories, with room for other categories or break offs, depending on how specific one wants to be. The basic formula ends up being a resemblance to the major parts of a vertebrate organism.

First off, I have a category I label "atmosphere." This category contains most if not all of the artistry a game has to offer. What makes a game's atmosphere? The ways a game can draw you into include the visual artistry. Do the visual match the mood of the scene? Do the backgrounds accurately depict a living world? Are they bland? These are all questions that one would answer when describing the graphics for your atmosphere score. Likewise, how the musical score draws you into the game is a part of this score. It's appropriateness, general quality, and artistic nature would be included in this score. There's quite a lot for this category, and more could go in, as this rough model isn't crystallized, such as the artistic nature of the menu screens. In the end, the commonality among all these parts is that they are all judged on artistic value.

The next category is one I name "playability." This is reserved primarily for gameplay, and as the idea of gameplay is the most important part of the game, the concept is the bulk of the playability score. Other elements to this score will include how it plays online along with its multi- and single player usability. How the set-up and menu screens will work fit under this category. Accessibility is part of this score.

The final category of the big three is named "functionality." This is the place where the game's technical aspects are explored. Items like frame rates, slow down, crispness of polygons, camera work, and invisible walls are discussed in this category. Sound effects are another part of this score. Appropriateness of them as well as timing of them can be judged here.

Thus, functionality provides the bone structure of the game. Should it be broken, like mass crashing, game altering glitches, etc., then the structure falls and the game falls on itself.

The playability factor is the muscle of the game. It's what drives the game, allowing it to move and flourish and be strong. Should if be highly unplayable, with convoluted controls or horrible artificial intelligence, then it becomes weak and useless.

The atmosphere portion of the review correlates to the skin of a game. A game's beauty is contained here. Should it be poor, containing bland aesthetics and boring music, then it becomes ugly, and unwantable.

I am a fan of Gamespot's "Value" score, and would keep it and add it to my three. In our human example, the value would be akin to both the life expectancy as well as the excitedness of the person. Should it be bad, then it becomes old and boring.

I hope some of you are telling yourself, "there's one thing missing." You would be right. I have purposefully omitted one category. The reason being is that I haven't yet been able to place it with anything. The omission, of course, is the story and plot line, comparing to the brain of the individual. The best solution I've contemplated is an "Intelligence" score. This score delves into the concepts of storyline and character development. Gamespot's "Tilt" score is included here. This is because the concept of tilt is to affect a score basically on how the game is, free from a pin pointed factor. A good tilt implies something done right, translated to smartly and then intelligently. A bad tilt implies something less smart. Should this be done wrong, a game becomes laughable and stupid.

Five scores. Five parts of a game. Five parts of a game judged and brought together to determine the value of the game (i.e. score). This is in contrast to the game being reviewed five times based on a general factor. Reviewing in this fashion will bring the industry more in line with what many are hoping the gaming industry will strive for, that of film and literature.

The Age of Innocence. It's a phrase much more than a title of an Edith Warton novel. Everyone has this stage in his/her life. In the case of video games, it's the age where knowledge is scant, and the game's the thing.

What do I mean by this? The best way to answer this is by self experience. My Age of Innocence was the golden age of the SNES era, scanning 1993-1996 or so. Earthbound, FF III, Tetris Attack, Secret of Mana, Lufia II, BoF II were all a part of this. The topper in this was Chrono Trigger. I was 13-14 at the time. Since if my memory serves me, it was fall, so I was 14. It was the first game I bought with my own money (on a side note, despite the steep price, it was well worth the money).

What did I know about Chrono Trigger before I bought the game? Almost nothing. What information I had came through the hype machine of Nintendo Power. I never had a "hands-on" to review, or an updated preview to scan through. I didn't have dozens of screenshots, or gameplay movies to view. Hell, all I had from Nintendo Power were ambiguous, partially covered screens. The base story was never really revealed. Yeah, I knew that it dealt with time, and drawn looks of some of the characters, but I didn't have much of an idea of the game.

All I knew that it was an epic RPG. That's all I needed. I was instantly drawn in to the game. Everything was new. There was nothing I was prepared for, no surprises revealed. My opinion of the game was made solely on my playing of it. There were no reviews giving an arbitrary number to graphics, or sound, or tilt, or whatever. There was no categorization.

This leads me back to the concept of the Age of Innocence. I grew up totally within the world that the game industry wanted kids my age to be in. "Industry," "fiscal year," "Nobuo Uematsu" were all foreign. I was in the gaming world, just like I was in the Chrono world.

Now, I live in a world outside of the game industry. I read all that concerns the industry as a whole. I am outside of that boundary that I once was in. I read reviews, some previews, watch screens and videos. I go to message boards, which may be the farthest away from that world. In anthropological terms, I live the etic life. I watch the industry from an outsider's perspective, unlike the way I was growing, inside the industry bubble, the emic way.

I have Tales of Symphonia. Good game. Why? Because I'm told so. I've had the game for several months now. I have yet to play it. It's a game that should put me inside a world. I've played several games in that span of owning a game. Most of those don't have the epic tag to it, games like Advance Wars, Mario Tennis, and Donkey Konga. I guess I fear I won't be drawn in.

In addition, I feel it's not just me growing out of the early teen wonder. I also feel it's the games themselves that aren't bringing you in.

Blasphemy, you say? The way games are made today, they should be drawing you in more, correct? They do depict a more realistic world, fantastic or not. I feel this is the precise reason I'm not drawn into these games.

I'm being treated like I have no patience. Most games force you to be somewhere fast. There are two games that buck this idea, and are tended to be rebuked because of it. The games are Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker and Skies of Arcadia. Huge worlds. It takes time just to explore them. Yet I see many posters hate the games for this very reason. I fear this may be the majority, and it saddens me. What's wrong with epic games? I enjoy useless space. That's what makes a world real. Every single room, and every single "area" does NOT have to have a purpose.

I believe the reason for this is that games are being compared more to movies. Thus we have to be there, ready to go, fast. I desire games, particularly the RPG and Adventure genres, to fit more comparatively to books. A movie can't bring you into a world like a book can. Simple reason for this is you don't have to time to do it in a movie. You have plenty of time to do so for games. Let us explore. Let us take the time to move from place to place. Let us not have the path of least resistance. The next area doesn't need to be the next closest point, or right next to a warp zone. That's not a real world.

An example I can give here is Halo 2. I don't particularly like FPS games, but I do have fun playing this game with friends. In this game, I always feel trapped. The biggest map makes me feel so. I'm basically moved one area to another to another in story mode. I can never really freely explore. The game doesn't seem to want you to, either. Intense action is quickly followed by intense action. I don't feel like I'm in a game. I'm controlling a guy in a universe created by another person. I add nothing to it. In Chrono Trigger, my visualization of the characters and their clothing don't necessarily match that of the creators. The world itself I add my own imagery to it. I can't do that with today's games. Everything has already been laid out.

So yes, the Age of Innocence is gone. Mine is gone. The gaming industry's is gone. The industry is generally targeting, and rightfully so, the lowest common denominator. The epic seems to be passing. Quick and easy are coming in. Do I lament this as much as this commentary suggests? Not completely. I'd like to think there is a place for games like these. I mean, Wind Waker did win a game of the year award. I'd like to think that the industry and its gamers don't exlude this type of game experience in their paradigm. There is a place for the fantastic epic game. You don't need complete control over every aspect of the game. You don't need a ten layer graphics engine that's so complex you need to reduce the amount of explorable area in a game. Draw me in with story, ambiance, music, and the sense of exploration. Please give me some of my innocence back.