I was doing a lot of thinking about game reviews and how to make the perfect review system that would be accurate and transparent and I came up with this. 

Every game starts off with 10 points. And these 10 points are divided into 5 categories.Each category is worth 2 points and is measured in 0.5 point units. 

The 5 categories should be;

1. GAMEPLAY how does the game actually play and how are its game mechanics. Is it fun, does it have depth, is it difficult, does it do anything innovative? These are the things this section should cover and 0.5 points can be knocked off for every thing it gets wrong in the this department. 
2. PRESENTATION graphical quality and artistic design. how good a looker is the game? What resolution does it run at, how is the frame rate? locked or all over the place? 
3. EMOTION this part will cover the games story and music/sound design. A game will only be penalized for trying to do something and failing at it. So a game that doesn't even try to have a story won't get points knocked off for not having one. A game that puts one in but its bad will get points knocked off.
4. QUALITY Is the game well designed? is it broken? Does it feel cheap and rushed? Does it require a day one patch?
5. VALUE How many hours does the game last. The ideal marker should be 20hrs of gameplay for a full 2 points, so as long as a game in normal/ normal + multiplayer mode gives you 20hrs of gameplay it gets full points. 

This might have something going for it. Looks good and really fair.

What does a day one patch have to do with it? I mean, if it's released day one I don't see the problem...

It's not perfect if it has any kind of score...

And what about genres where some of those categories are less important, are they still worth 2 points?

I don't think we need categories...reviewers should just make sure to include what they think is important

I kinda like the sound of it. It's fair to all genres. Best way for it to work is if someone does a review on the day of the game's release so games won't sneak by with being broken and patch it later. I hate that some people review games after they been heavily patched and completely ignore the fact that the game was broken after release.

People who do that are those who understood thé purpose of a review

I like it, but at the same time putting music/sound and story together might not be the best idea. Other than that, yes, it is a much better system than review sites just putting out a huge wall of text and then having one number to decide whether or not the game is good.

This brings back memories, as I used to use something similar. After time away from reviewing games, I came to the conclusion a lot of that is fun but unnecessary complexity for what's basically an opinion piece.

If I were to jump back in, I'd use a 1-5 rating system, no .5's, with 3 being GOOD - ie, I wanted a fun football game and got one - 2 and 4 being underwhelming and outstanding respectively, and 1 and 5 being monumental for quality or lack thereof. A separate little paragraph would cover value (possible and likely time investment, worth buying for x amount, etc.), and if the soundtrack is good enough to warrant a separate purchase.

Edit: Considering the nature of patches nowadays, a separate dated paragraph for each major revision seems necessary as well.

Shouldn't the perfect review system not have points at all?