I like to review things. I review games, movies, websites, products, and cuisine, and I enjoy every bit of it because I am pretty good at it. The thing is, this is the internet, and it doesn't matter what someone does in a review, someone will find something wrong with it.

So I'm here to ask you all, what do YOU like to see in a review? How do YOU review? What do you think is in good taste, what do you think is unacceptable. I want to ensure that my reviews are the best written and most fair I can, and I want to know what you like or dislike in a review.

For example:

is it okay to compare a game to another game, or should the references be vague?
What is your ideal review grade? What does each number or letter mean to you?
Do you prefer the review to be free-flowing or structured?
Do you prefer letter or number grading?
What's the ideal length for a review? Do you like longer or shorter reviews?
Do you care about the reviewer's story and how he came to play this game?
What is the most important thing in a videogame? Story? Gameplay? Production values?
Do you prefer to laugh while reading a review, or would you prefer it to be serious?
Do you prefer a review that points out flaws or one that highlights the good? Is Balance best?
Do you prefer written or video/audio reviews.
Is it okay to use a review as a platform to discuss a game mechanic you feel strongly about?
Should it be about opinion or should it stick to the straight facts?

I just want to know what everyone thinks, because I've caught myself writing reviews and doing a lot of things I personally find distasteful (like going on full-on rants about a genre's stagnancy or a game mechanic I dislike), even though it's relevant. I've written reviews that could double as short stories and even did an entire review in a paragraph before.

So in an eternal attempt to be the best reviewer I can, I want to know what people like or prefer in a game review. Any points at all are good.   

I think this is the smartest thing you have posted yet, I am surprised.

I don't give a shit about you, the reviewer, so keep yourself out of it, that means no video or audio.
I don't give a shit about it being compared to other games, with one exception.
All i want to know is what mechanics are in it, how they work, how long it is, etc. and you can use another game to give examples. I can't give a rat's ass if you liked it or not so keep that shit out, remember I don't give a shit about you.
The score is where you compare it to other games, and as you can see in my sig, the review scores are failing pretty hardcore on this site as far as distribution goes. Right now using scores for face value comparison is pointless. That also means that games need to be penalized based on missing features that other games have. coughDedicatedServers/LANcough

detail's of the good and bad, and i'd like to see them in video form.

Reviews should not have any spoilers. That's the no.1 important factor for a good review.
Comparison should be made to other games in the same genre but it should be vague. Comparing skyrim and dark souls is ok for eg.
Funny reviews are always a plus unless they fail at being funny.
A review should always be your honest opinion.

with how heated discussions have gotten on these forums about review styles, and how opinionated people are about it, I honestly thought I'd get a much bigger reaction than this.

a very, VERY good point!  

But what if my "honest" opinion is that, say, First person shooters all suck and should die in a fire?  Is my opinion still valid if I review a shooting game? 

Here's a review scale I think would work

10: Game of the Generation contender
9: Game of the Year contender
8: Great game. Should be enjoyed by most people.
7. Good game. Should be enjoyed by fans of the genre
6. Okay. Maybe enjoyabe fans of the genre
5. Meh. A forgettable game
4. Game has some mechanical issues
3. Shovelware
2. This game is unplayable (literally)
1. This game physically hurts you when you play it

Here's my advice:

1. Get to the point quickly. Write the introduction like you would write the thesis or abstract for a research paper. Let the reader know if the game is good and briefly explain why. Then expand on it in the body of your review.

2. On a related note, keep personal stories out of the review. I could care less whether the reviewer grew up playing SNES games or whether they enjoyed or disliked past entries in the series (I often times see reviewers use this as an intro).

3. Be fair and balanced (easier said than done sometimes). My main advice would be to not exagerrate how good or bad a game is- just be truthful.

4. Related to the first point, I prefer reviews to be structured. Once again, get to the point and be clear and concise. Discuss different elements separately. I personally prefer sub-heading although that might be asking too much given the length of reviews.

5. Let the readers know why the game got the score it did. This is why I honestly like sub-heading in reviews or atleast a recap at the end of the review. If you give a game a 7.5/10 in the gameplay department, let the reader know why it got that score. Otherwise, the scoring system just seems arbitrary.

That's all I have right now. I also agree with what other users have posted, particularly about keeping spoilers out of reviews. This is one of the reasons why I have actually stopped reading most reviews until I actually beat a game, at which time they are actually useless.

While I do appreciate your input, I'm not sure if that really gives much leeway as far as most games are concerned.  That and I never give 100's.  so far my games of the generation are Smash Brothers Brawl and Red Dead Redemption, which got 95 and 93, respectively (in my eyes, not the eyes of the site.  never checked to see what this site gave those games.) 

But the more I look at it, the more I see your point as far as this scale is concerned.  it's a good scale :P

1 - That seems to be my biggest issue...I tend to usually start with the story/graphics/audio first, because that USUALLY takes up a small portion of the game and gets it out of the way quickly, leaving me to go on about the gameplay, value, difficulty, controls, etc.  

2 - another 'problem' of mine.  I certainly see both sides of the coin here.  While I see now that a decent amount of people don't like it (you're the second to point it out), I generally tended to think that my views and thoughts going into a review was important, perhaps enforcing my score by explaining why it took me by surprise or something.  I did refrain from this in my Resistance 3 review, however.  truth be told, I didn't much care for the first two in the series (decent but nothing special.  probably give the first a 75, the second a 63-65), and I usually don't care much for first person shooters, but something about it really jumped out at me.  it was a combination of the overwhelming hopelessness enforced by the visuals and a lot of the little things in the game that stood out for me (that I couldn't discuss due to spoilers).  http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/review/39894/resistance-3/

3 - I think I'm pretty fair,b ut I agree.  you shouldn't be letting your biases get in the way of fair reviewing.  you wouldn't expect someone who plays RPG's to play a sports game unless there were hit points or whatever.  

4 - I always liked the structured style myself.  I like seeing the Gameplay, Graphics, Story, and sound all split up into their own categories so it's easy to see how the game plays if you don't care about the video/audio and want to avoid spoilers.  (I also have, I think 20 catetories of gaming split up into those four main headings).  

5 -  totally agreed.