Usually, when I rate a game, (which is primarily of the PC variety). I get many a personal messages from both sides, why did you rate it so low? So high? Does your PC suck? Not all of us has a PC like yours, ect, ect, ect...

      Well, the first two of the "whys" I think are valid, and I try to answer them in my "personal" reviews from the beginning. The last ones, well are either personal attacks, or feel utterly annoyed due to some reason I am not willing to waste breath on. My PC Specs are sometimes available at the end of reviews, and if not are easily seen on the information about me.

In my reviews I look at a few main points:

•  --> I only rate the actual retail release, the demos are  just that, a demonstration.
• --> Where does my PC rate to this title, is my PC exceed recommended by good measure?
• --> First, what is it's playability without patching?
• --> Is what is there promised to the consumer?
• --> Is there anything unique or notable about the title?
• --> If the title is a remake is it faithful to the original?
• --> How is it's gameplay? Is it good for it's genre?
• --> If multiplayer is there is it good, and does it work?
• --> If single-player is in a multiplayer game does it work?
• --> Graphics, does it work with this title, why / why not?
• --> Sound, It just better be there, and work right for the genre.
• --> Post-Patch, sometimes if the game recieved a patch on release day I will usually give a "benefit", due to the understanding that not all PCs are built alike, and unforseen problems will exist.

     I try to be fair,  in fact I am overly generous. Instead of a title working its way up to a score, I rate initially at a 10 then go down with point, but there are some games that give me no reason, but to find them absolutely horrid, and give the low rating/review I feel they deserve. My three lowest ratings / review, are the epitome of what are failures, and should be noted.

    I will not rate / review off who the Publisher is. I have a few friends that rate a game off who is the publisher, and I think of it as a poor way to go. My belief is if a publisher has the desire to poorly manage a release time, or poorly pay or treat their development staff, then it will  reflect sure enough in the quality of the title alone.

    Now, consoles for one I try not to compare a title across the line from PC to console. I have a few consoles and handhelds, but they either collect dust, or my 9 year old nephew plays with them. Otherwise I am either on said PC, or traveling with a DS.

    Rating a Console or handheld will usually recieve the same type of liberal view, but I cannot give the benefit of the doubt in most cases for a patch to correct a problem. So there is really no major benefit, but in most cases I find quite a few titles to have a good amount of polish on what they can run.

    There you go pretty much a solid overview on what I look at when doing my ratings and reviews, but do remember it is my personal opinion, and my opinions can be different from someone else' s. Also, be noted I rate off of what I experience personally, and not the name on the box.