I like the breakdown you presented. But I feel that certain categories should hold more weight than others. I don't think emotion should have the same amount of points as Gameplay, or Quality.

It should be broken down more, points wise) like a class in School. i.e. Gameplay=Test, whereas Emotion= pop quizzes Value = Homework.

How can you truly enjoy a game with broken controls/features, and poor value/presentation, no matter how good/epic the story is?

I'm working on a review system on my own, since I intend to do some Indie game tests in the near future. By now my main inspiration point is doing something similar to the GIMLET used by the CRPG Addict with differnt categories

Edit: for those who want to know more about the GIMLET, follow this link: http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2010/04/ranking-and-rating-crpgs.html

Can't the same thing be said the other way around with your last question? If someone doesn't like the story of a game then most likely they won't enjoy it or it might outright turn them off the game. I like his equal point system. it's not trying to make up or give any extra value to something. 

the problem is simple. Not everyone can do the patch. and techically you are selling an incomplete game 

besides thats just an example of things in that category

I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with scores. The problem with a scoring system is when the reviewers are inconsistent and don't tell us why points are deducted. 

And with genres where those categories aren't important, the game is only rated on what they do have. Take for instance a racing game wouldn't be rated on having a story under the emotion category or even requiring a soundtrack. But under that category how accurately it depicts engine or racing sounds will determine its score.

May I ask, how would we review this review system before we put it to use?

It's a good start, for sure, but I'd remove "emotion" and "value" and change the weighting of categories.

Something like this:

Gameplay (50%) - the rules and goals of the game, and how the player is allowed to interact with them; level design, difficulty, controls, and game modes fall under this umbrella.

Graphics (20%) - graphics, lighting, physics, frame rate; all the technical specifications of the game

Presentation (20%) - everything from cover art to main menu to story to art direction; however the game is presented to the player

Sound and music (10%) - this covers sound design and musical score


That's just my two cents.

Nope, that has failed time without number. If we keep leaving it up to reviewers to do that then every review becomes too opinionated and impossible to narrow down. But when reviewers know they have guidelines and some sort of standard they have to adhere to, it becomes simpler for them and for us. 

The reviews should only give us context and their the impression the game had on them while scientifically talking about all the other key elements in relation to their written context.

Shouldn't Value be relative to price? Like, if a game gives you 5 hours of gameplay but it costs $5, it offers more value than a game that offers 5 hours for $60

Very true, I completely agree with you. What every the category value difference though, the review should clearly state the fore categories and how many points each category is worth. So when talking about a specific category, they can dock points all they want. If gameplay is worth 4 points and emotion is worth 2, the review can make 10 negative points against emotion but will still not be able to take off more than those total 2 allotted points.

You are also right and understand why I stuck with an equal point system, especially when u consider I stated that a game will not be rated on something it doesn't have.

Cause there are some games that are made with practically no story at all. And with the equal point system, someone can just go to the end of the review and see what and where max points were got.