Nah, the perfect review doesn't have fixed categories. It analyzes the most important aspects of that particular game/genre. For example, the God of War games want to be "epic" action games. So it sounds fair to rate the "scope" of the game. Does it do what it's trying to do? An rpg would see some sort of Battle System "category", etc.
The exception are the technical stuff, which is important on EVERY game. That is, Visuals, Sound (music, voice-acting...), Presentation, these are categories that should be rated for every game.
Then the reviewer explains how the game mechanics works, and gives his own personal thought on it, making sure to clarify that your mileage may vary. Then the flaws are presented.
As for story, I feel the game should only be penalized for story if it really throws it in your face, and really bothers you. Like Sonic 06. Plot is considered an integral part of rpgs, but take Grandia 3: fantastic battle system, ho-hum story. Plus, you can skip all the cutscenes. Of course it depends on the tastes of the person, some players are ALL about the plot, while I can't tolerate a game with great plot but boring gameplay.
And throw away this 0-10 system with half points. What's the difference between a 9 or a 9.5 game anyway? A 1-5 system is perfectly acceptable, or better yet, divide the games into tiers:
- Bad, only hardcore fans of the series/genre should play just for bragging rights (e.g. Sonic Boom)
- Average, there may some decent moments,, but approach with caution (Super Mario Land)
- Good, a fun game, recommended for fans of the genre/series (Final Fantasy III)
- Great, a game you're likely to revisit multiple times. Recommended for most people (Crash Bandicoot 2)
- Outstanding, a game essential for any gamer. Worst case scenario, you're gonna find a decent game (The Last of Us)
Something like that. Now somebody make a better site than Metacritic, because that thing is terrible
