Hey guys, I don't think I have ever made this apparent but I just wanted to outline my thinking when I rate a game. First off, my scoring system.
10-9.0: The gold standard, games that earn this from me are must buys to me, something that everyone should AT LEAST experience so they understand what constitutes a great game. To earn this the game has to define (or redefine) a genre that sets the standard for what games after it should meet or exceed. A game will not earn this score if it just copies game-play or rehashes something that has been done before.
8.5-7.0: Good games that are worth a consideration of a purchase, usually by people that either like the genre or storyline that the game encompasses. These games have a few flaws that keep them from making it into the top tier but still are good enough to warrant you spending your hard earned money on them.
6.5-6.0: Mediocre games that have more flaws than redeeming qualities, usually are fun but can't stand the test of time and therefore are not recommended to buy, but if the game picks your interest then by all means these are worth a rental or even a pickup at a bargain basement price.
5.5 or lower: These games are not recommended to be played and certainly not purchased. Only people that are fanatics of the game should even think about spending money on these, mainly because developers that put out garbage like this should go out of business or at least get the message that we will not stand by and allow stuff like this to clog our store shelves, taking up the space of games that are much better. The main difference between games that score a 5, for instance, and a 2.5 are usually just the amount of headache that this game will bring you. The lower the score, the more bugs, glitches, crashes and so on that you will experience, or the inverse ratio of hairs that you will be pulling out of your scalp after inserting these into your system.
Next on my list is what I look for when I am critically reviewing a game.
The first thing I look for is of course, fun. Is a game fun? That seems pretty simple right? Well, it is a little more complex than that. What I look for is a price to time ratio, how long was this game intended to be fun vs. how much it costs? If a game is meant to be (and actually will be) enjoyed for months or even years then you can bet that it will at least score a 7.0. Games that will only capture you for a day or a couple of weeks on the other hand will have to be an incredible experience to make up for this (especially if the game is selling at full price).
Second is genre specific. How does the shooter/rpg/sports game compare to similar titles that are available on the same system? If it is a sports game, does it have a franchise mode? If it is a shooter, does it have a deep multiplayer component? This is where you will see me talking up the features of the game compared to others in the genre, again if the game has features that can only be found on it then that will help it out score-wise. If it is a lame copy of a game that came out last year, then that will also affect the score as well.
The last thing that comes into play are measurables, graphics, control scheme, A.I., etc. These are pretty straight-forward, the better these are, the higher the score.
I would appreciate any comments either praising or criticizing me about how I look at games. Overall it is a pretty simple process that easily can help you know where you should be supporting the gaming industry, and is very much like gamespot's very own scoring system as well. Thanks for reading and don't forget to comment!