Mine is very close to yours. Three basic points:
1. There's no need for a silly 100-pt scale. Obsessing over the diference between an 89.9 and a 90.2 isn't productive or illuminating.
2. Similarly, what's the difference between a 25 and a 40? The game sucks - do we need to know precisely how badly? Just ascertain that it's not worth the time, and move on.
3. No categories, for two reasons. One, nothing is merely the sum of its parts. Two, when it comes to games, I don't care about graphics, sound, or story - just gameplay. The only occasions on which I'll factor these surface attributes into a review is if they detract from the gameplay (draw distance, for example) or are truly exceptional. Even then, it's almost never important enough to alter the score.
So one star for poor, two stars for average, and three, four, or five stars for varying levels of above-average quality is how I review. On rare occasions I'l put in half a star, but in general I don't like to split hairs lke that.
