Explain how you rate games and your reasoning behind the scoring.

[LegitHyperbole]

Jumpin said:

I usually define them as: One of my favourite games of all time, I really love this one, I like this game, or this game is not for me. There's no real score, no real reason, it's just how I feel about them. For me, the positives outweigh the negatives, and the negatives only really mean anything serious if I don't care much about the positives.

Some of my most disliked mechanics exist in or originated in my favourite games. For example, Xenogears is my favourite game of all time, it is also the birth of one of my least favourite mechanics of all time - battle combos, that is combining multiple attacks when a single attack would suffice.
Final Fantasy 6 is another one of my favourite games of all time, it was also the birth of mini-game battle inputs, another thing I loath in RPGs.
One of my least favourite things in any type of game is dungeon crawling, yet I love NES's Metroid, and that game is one big dungeon crawl.
Shallow Mary Sue characters are also a giant turn-off for me, but Skies of Arcadia somehow won me over.

Aye. A rating system off the best games so you can compare is a pretty cool idea. Like...

This game is on The level of the Witcher 3 in Fun, scope and detail and while it is looks on par with Astrobot in visuals it lacks some technical aspects and in many areas it's akin to Cyberpunks disastrous launch in those areas, ready to crash at a button press. 

... that gives me so much information but only works if you've played every big game.