Yh that makes sense, I thought of that too. Naturally there would be set "normals" for the minimum expected time to completion  for games based on their pricing. 

Were you a professional reviewer and if so, what site/magazine did you work for, if I may ask?

I also intend to include a value rating in my rating system once finished, but that one will be seperate from the main rating as it is dependent on it, the games' overall length and it's price tag (basically game length divided by pricetag, modified by it's initial rating to get it's value)

The idea of giving a numbered rating to the game is a flawed concept.

Giving your own personal opinions of the game and trying to point out the good and bad points of a game is the only way a game should be reviewed. An arbitrary number is pointless.

I agree. I actually don't think a review can be anything else, even if the reviewer thinks he/she writes an "objective", or "unbiased" review, but what's wrong about having a score that accurately reflects how much the reviewer personally likes or dislikes a game?

By definition, this system is anything but abritary. Its designed to prevent just that, whimsical point scores with no grounds or basis whatsoever. Personal opinions should only give a review context. Basically an elaboration of a an observation or highlight. But a stringent point system is important cause it makes the overall review system fair.

Heh, not even remotely professional. I had a short stint on a podcast / website, fistfullofcomics.com. We had a goofy review system (wasn't really my creation - the other guy in charge of video games wanted the top-tier score to be 'Jizzed in My Pants,' or the JIMP...I petitioned that get changed promptly). The details were different, but IIRC we scored over multiple categories, added them up & averaged the result for the final verdict...it was all kind of ridiculous. I don't even know if that website is still up, and am a little wary of looking at my past "work."

 Oh, I see. I remember a magazine that also did something like that, but I always say that a game can be pretty mediocre in various departments, and still be an overall outstanding experience. So, I never liked the idea of having to give out a lower score to an amazing game, just because the graphics aren't up to par, for example.

And yeah, that site still seems to be up! :)

Nah, the perfect review doesn't have fixed categories. It analyzes the most important aspects of that particular game/genre. For example, the God of War games want to be "epic" action games. So it sounds fair to rate the "scope" of the game. Does it do what it's trying to do? An rpg would see some sort of Battle System "category", etc.

The exception are the technical stuff, which is important on EVERY game. That is, Visuals, Sound (music, voice-acting...), Presentation, these are categories that should be rated for every game.

Then the reviewer explains how the game mechanics works, and gives his own personal thought on it, making sure to clarify that your mileage may vary. Then the flaws are presented.

As for story, I feel the game should only be penalized for story if it really throws it in your face, and really bothers you. Like Sonic 06. Plot is considered an integral part of rpgs, but take Grandia 3: fantastic battle system, ho-hum story. Plus, you can skip all the cutscenes. Of course it depends on the tastes of the person, some players are ALL about the plot, while I can't tolerate a game with great plot but boring gameplay.

And throw away this 0-10 system with half points. What's the difference between a 9 or a 9.5 game anyway? A 1-5 system is perfectly acceptable, or better yet, divide the games into tiers:

- Bad, only hardcore fans of the series/genre should play just for bragging rights (e.g. Sonic Boom)
- Average, there may some decent moments,, but approach with caution (Super Mario Land)
- Good, a fun game, recommended for fans of the genre/series (Final Fantasy III)
- Great, a game you're likely to revisit multiple times. Recommended for most people (Crash Bandicoot 2)
- Outstanding, a game essential for any gamer. Worst case scenario, you're gonna find a decent game (The Last of Us)

Something like that. Now somebody make a better site than Metacritic, because that thing is terrible

A perfect review system is one that:

1: Doesn't assign arbitrary numbers to the game
2: Accounts for the opinions of every person ever

I generally don't like reviews. While they're good for knowing what content the game has, and how polished it is, I don't like to rely on other people to conclude whether or not I would have fun wit the game.

I actually prefer Let's Plays, since I can just see the game for myself, and see if it's enjoyable.