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lead to the conclusion that the three standard categories to review games, graphics, gameplay, and sound, have become outdated.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.