Who else doesn't give a hoot about VG Chartz game ratings?

[coolestguyever]

Khuutra said:

Squilliam said:
I don't have an issue with the reviews, I have an issue with the scores. I find the 3 tier system of value, presentation etc to be unhelpful. So many things get thrown together within these different categories it makes it difficult to seperate the relevant information from the information from the information which is irrelevent to me.

If you were to set down an ideal scoring system, how would you do so? Keep in mind this is hypothetical, so feel free to go nuts.

 

I don't mind the 3 tier system, its not bad at all. Again its not the way they review it, its the scores themselves.

I'd stick with "presentation" which encompasses graphics, presentation, and sound. "Gameplay" being just how fun it is, and "lasting appeal" which is of course if its worth playing again or how good the online is.

Edit: Maybe also "value" which means is it worth your money. A single player only game thats just 10 hours, not worth your money. That games a renter and will get a low value score. An RPG thats 100 hours, really high value. A FPS with great online, also great value for your money.