This is generally how I rate my games, and the 20 different categories I factor in and consider. you'll notice the "Gameplay" aspect is 50% of the total, the Video, Audio, and Story categories add up to 50%. I find I generally consider a lot more than most people I know.


Here's my scale, which is similar to yours but elaborated a bit more.

100% - Perfection: Unfathomable that anyone could dislike it
95-99 - Masterpiece: virtually flawless and excells in every way
90-94 - Exemplary: cream of the crop, game of the year type stuff
85-89 - Fantastic: very fun and well done, top of its genre
80-84 - Amazing: also quite fun but has a few imperfections
75-79 - great: well done and balanced in every way, but is missing something
70-74 - good: overall well done but some flaws keep it from greatness
65-69 - enjoyable: but no special recommendations
60-65 - decent: worth playing in spite of its flaws.
55-59 - playable: perhaps worth your time, but has flaws that keep it from being recommendable
51-54 - tolerable: but nothing special at all.
50% - neutral: has good but is balanced out by the bad. not really recommended
45-49 - forgettable: has some good but is overwhelmed by the bad
40-44 - poor: unrefined but may still have something worth checking out
35-39 - bad: may have a thing or two that doesn't suck, but definitely not worth it
30-34 - horrible: should certainly avoid
25-29 - terrible: avoid at all costs
20-24 - broken: hardly worth calling a game
15-19 - unplayable: so glitchy and poorly made it's practically impossible
10-14 - irredeemable: absolutely nothing is done right
05-09 - atrocious: just fails epically on every level
01-04 - Worst: absolute trash with no redeemable factors
00% - Painful: can't possibly be for playing, a physically detrimental experience


Audio:

Score - The background music, made to set the mood
Sound Effects - All the clicks, footsteps, explosions or noises that are relevant to context
Voice Acting - character dialogue, narrative

Visual:

Art Direction - the game's chosen visual style, be it realistic or stylized,as well as the atmosphere
Technical - the quality of the graphics, framerate, and performance
Animation - character movements and lip sync, where applicable
Interface - the menus, written text, and HUD

Story:

Plot - the narrative and writing of the events that transpire
Characters - heroes, villains, and everyone in between, focussing on their depth
World - the environment, and how fleshed out/believeable it is

Gameplay:

Controls - namely the precision and intuitiveness of them
Difficulty - focussing mostly on how fair it is and how manageable the curve is
Innovation - bonus points for doing something new or original
Replay - Whether or not the campaign is worth playing again to get another ending or play with a different build
Fun Factor - comparing the mundane with the gleeful
Variety - the number of gameplay styles that you can utilize throughout the game
Content - the amount of things to do in the campaign, such as sidequests and minigames
Level Design - the creativity involved in the levels
Multiplayer - the different dynamics that are involved with competitive or cooperative play
Value - the price/overall content ratio

If I was to do my own reviews, I would do it by those four headings (audio, visual, story, gameplay), and likely do it in that order. I'd also have an introductory and concluding paragraph. does that sound/look like a method that'd work for you?

Your rubric looks very detailed and cover most of the bases I can think of. I have two real suggestions. First, I would factor in dialog when talking about story (this might fall under characters). I've actually had some games where I think the characters and story are pretty good, but the dialog is noticeably sub-par. To explain better, I think some characters are strong on a conceptual level and represent important themes or points of view, but the importance of the characters often gets buried under bad or frustrating dialog (personally, I think Final Fantasy X and XIII both fall prey to this).

The other suggestion is to include replayability as its own section. I think it is important enough to gets its own section and be considered separtely from gameplay. For example, I consider God of War III to be about a 9.8/10 in the gameplay department but only consider it to be about a 7/10 in the replayability department (things like no level select, inability to skip cutscenes, and no rating system detracting from its score).

Also, where would you address things like glitches and camera issues? I usually consider it in the gameplay department, but I didn't see it on your list. Some glitchy camera issues are the reaon why I actually knock God of War III down to a 9.8 in terms of gameplay.

Well for dialogue, I think that's about the writing, which I put in the Plot section, since a person's talking is an action, therefore part of the events.  

I actually do mean stuff like that to be in the "replay" section, I just wanted to be clear and concise and not go into too much depth for a basic rubic.  To me, replayability is a combination of variable paths/endings and just plain desire to return to the campain for whatever reason. 

I've always considered glitches and camera to be a part of the visual/technical/performance cagegory.  some glitches are gameplay, but that'd be more of an aside, like in a misc section.  I also think "camera" could be a part of controls if you control it, etc.  a lot of games are subjective, and not all games even HAVE all of these categories.  

if I was to do a 'misc' section, I would include stuff like glitches and hype.  I may even include stuff like value and refinement to a misc category since they're all pretty all-encompasing. 

I'm having a lot of fun with this! Any complaints?

I shared some thoughts about the scoring system back in July in this thread:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=131251&page=1#

I like a review that looks at the game from all angles.

How's the story, music, SINGLE PLAYER gameplay, are the characters likeable?, how does it compare to other games in the genre, how are the technical issues, and most of all is the game fun?

That sort of thing. I don't like how certain critics review genres they don't like and then destroy the games score because of it. I will be making a future post in the forums regarding Xenoblade and other JRPGs. So please look forward to that.

I do operate on a full spectrum, but to be honest, when it comes to games, it's a lot harder to find examples of stuff that has NO redeemable qualities.  almost all games out there ARE varying shades of good.  it's very rare to see a game that is poorly made, poorly presented, and has no value.  even the worst games (Duke Nukem Forever, for example) that are released to the mainstream still have good parts.  I had fun in some parts of that game, and I gave that a 37 (I did the review for this site).  

While I do agree that it sucks that game review seems to be constrained within 30-40% of the total scale, but that's because that's what most games ARE.  few games are BAD or TERRIBLE, but many are overrated.  

I also factually backed your point up, the link is actually in my sig, appropriately named too.

I see you failed to heed my advice and did not read up on statistics...

That old clamshell again?  Seriously dude, let it go.  I understand statistics quite well, but no amount of pestering will make me think that your method is any better than mine.  If you want to do it 'statistically accurate', and you want the average to hover around 50, then start your own site, do your own reviews.  I do my own reviews, I review for here, and the methods GamrReview and I have work just fine.