no you dont..

you said it yourself you will never give a 10 :p

I appreciate the sentiment, but I think both these bolded requests are unreasonable. A reviewer, in my mind, need only account for one opinion: his own. We look to critics and reviewers, theoretically at least, because they have access and expertise we as consumers lack. Their job is to educate us. It's not to account for our opinions or tastes. 

As for the question of genres, which is related to the first request, I believe strongly that all games should be held to a common standard of excellence, regardless of genre. No game should be given a high score just because it manages to check off all the genre's boxes, so to speak. Sure, a critic can add a line at the end of his review stating that fans of the genre might be more interested than those who are agnostic, but the final score or recommendation should be grounded in the critic's own standards and tastes, not in the standards of the genre's fan base.

Categories USED to exist. Sites has slight variances on them. The reason they getting away from them because not all games meet categories.

For example a 3D mario game there really is no emotional story to it. So if I was rating that the max that game would ver get is an 8 but at the same time I may have enjoyed it more than say COD but because it has a campaign mode I may have given the story a 1 out of 2 and overall made the game 9/10.

Presentation is also bad because then you get reviewers comparing Wii vs PS360 scenarios all over again. Instead of being knowledgeable enough to know the system capabilities are different and assessing o how what they have works for that system. We really saw this early on in the gen and some games loosing points because they used motion controls and that person hated them.

In short there is no perfect interview were scoring is involved because each game. There will also always be bias (slight to lot depending on the person, and I guess how much publisher has bribed you) and in the end it is your opinion. 

The other problem with scores is Americans are conditioned that anything below 7 is a fail. Your category system opens up the scores being lower because of a game lacking one f them when it really doesn't need it.

Although, thinking about it again, I'm not quite sure if I agree with your approach. I mean, a fantastic game is a fantastic game, no matter how much it costs, and reviews usually include the price of a game so that the reader can immediately see if he/she is willing to pay that price or not.

Assuming I've got 60$ to buy a game and you write reviews for two games, one that costs 40$ and another that costs 60$. Now, let's say you like the game that costs 60$ better, but give it a lower score simply because of the difference in price, and I might spend my money on a game that's not as fun, when I would've been happier to spend more on a game I would've liked better. The problem is I didn't know the other one was actually better, because you gave it a lesser score.

But then again, maybe the only important thing is to make your readers aware of the fact that price factors into the score.

My 2nd statement was supposed to be sarcastic, leads into my reasoning for diskliking reviews as a whole.

The problem with the number system isnt the number itself i guess,

Its the way people will skim a very detailed review and just look at the score.

Things like Metacritic are an inherently bad idea - its just collecting numbers which are completely subjective to the individual reviewer and averaging them. Its not representative of the game as a whole.

Value is measured in hours? Since when?

20 hours is not a lot of replay value. A game with 20 hours of play time would get a 0 in value from me.

Personally, I never decide to buy or no to buy a game solely based on the Metascore, but I love to have a place where lots of reviews are in one place and I can immediately see the average reception of a game. I then usually read a couple of those listed reviews to make a decision.

I get where you're coming from though, and agree that not reading a review and just looking at the score isn't a good idea. It all comes down to how people use Metacritic.

Agree. Value should be "How much fun you had with the game", not measured in time.

BTW, I've never played Faxanadu but just recently got very interested in it and I'll be buying it soon on Wii VC =D