I actually haven't googled this up and checked to see if other people already have something similar.

So, there's been a sentiment these days, that game reviews are becomming less useful. That is, they aren't properly informing us consumers about the quality of game. One (out of a few) reasons offered is that the game scores are inflated. Anothe reason is that not only are reviews subjective, but others interpret the numbers differently (reviewers like Edge may consider a 5 to be average, while others look at a 7 as being average) causing an inconsistency when the scores are gathered together in a site like Metacritic.

So, my idea is this: A score system that uses dollars to not only indicate quality, but also to advise consumers if the game is worth buying immedietly, or later.

For instance, I thought Heavy Rain was a great game (La Noire looks too). But, I don't think it was worth the 60 dollars I paid for it, due to the lack of replayability (it takes too long to replay, the outcomes aren't interesting enough to spend that time, etc. It's not the same as a Visual Novel is with its differing branches that are more interesting). So under my system, I'll give it $30. And like IGN, I'll list out reason why I deducted or added dollars to the game. For my example, I would deduct $20 for lack of replayability, so that people can add that back in if they don't care about the replayability.

Edit: And the maximum score can be something like $70. That is, not only should you buy it now, but it's underpriced as it is (for example, a Total War game, IMO, has a lot of replayability due to multiplayer, mods, etc.)

I know it sounds a bit weird, and scores should ultimately be simple and easy to understand, not complicated. What do you guys think of my idea?

How about a score system that every reviewer can reflect on as in a 7 is an average score to every reviewer.

i don't know. if i tell people that heavy rain is a good game but doesn't have much replayability, the chances are they'll still buy it; but if i tell people that heavy rain only worth half of its value that might just turn them away. the idea is not bad, but it feels like its downplaying the game in a sense, and people always tend to be more sensitive if its about money.

Well, again, if you wanted to do a "Heavy Rain vs La Noire" thing, you can simply go to the review and add/detract things you think are relevant/irrelevant.

for instance, if I review both BF3 and MW3 with this sytstem, but you wanted to just compare their multiplayer aspect, you can fine tune it down.

As for the downplaying thing, I'm not saying "Don't buy Heavy Rain", but simply "Buy Heavy Rain, once it drops to a certain price". The reason why I like my system, is that it's absolutely pure and basic valuation as you can get. That is, my system is essentially reporting my Marginal Benefit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_benefit) I get from the product. It tells me my maximum willingness to pay for it.

My opinion is that reviews are subjective by nature, so trying to come with an objective system to rate games is fruitless. Not to mention that a lot of games aren't a fixed thing. They evolve over time with patches and DLC and reviews aren't taking this into account. Some games also depend on the community that forms around them, and review don't take that into account either.

Your review system will confuse the pirates, so no.

How is my system "objective"? It's simply using a different measurement.

I really don't like the idea of that.

You're prioritising Value above everything else. You're basically saying "screw presentation and gameplay. This game is 100 hours long, which makes it worth an enormous amount of money".

Let's take your Heavy Rain example. Are you really saying that NOBODY should be willing to pay $60 for that? You think it should get zero sales until the price falls down to $30? Games are worth different amounts to different people. It's a far more specific system than our current one, and it tries to be objective by using an objective measurement - price.

I think reviews would be best with no scores at all. No numbers, no letters nothing. Just a write up of how the game was. If it had any game breaking flaws. The features it had, features it was lacking.

Its a neat idea, but I would still prefer the number system. Plus that wouldn't work worldwide (or would need adjusted) because games are more expensive in Europe/Australia than they are in North America I think.

I would keep the number system but this is how I'd do it:

10 - Absolute perfection. Only games like Pokemon Red/Blue, Ocarina of Time, etc. get 10's.

8-9 - Great games with very minor bugs/glitches that could easily be fixed by a patch. Would be enjoyed by pretty much everyone except haters of the genre/series.

6-7 - Average/Decent games. They might have some annoying bugs/glitches or just aren't all that fun. With this rating the game would only be recommended to fans of the genre or series. Game would be significantly improved by patches.

4-5 - Bad games. Not quite unplayable, but in dire need of post launch support to make it good. These types of games should be avoided until they are patched.

2-3 - Horrible games. Games so bad that no amount of patching/support could make it worthwhile as a purchase. These games would be a rent at absolute best and probably only gamerscore/trophy whores would bother with them.

0-1 - Unplayable.