Okay, so after reading rocketpig's thread, I began wondering... if I were rating games, how would I do it?

This is what I came up with:

(5 star system)

One Star (*): This is the lowest rating a game can have.  It not only means the game isn't fun, it means that game is almost unplayable.  One star games are the kind that are filled with bugs, glitches, and other problems that even a night of drunken play couldn't make fun.  These are the games that you tell all your friends to avoid like the plague and wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.  You cringe when you see a child or parent buying this game knowing the crushing disappointment that is going to ensue.  

Two Stars (**):  Have you ever been up really late surfing TV channels and began watching a strange show that was on simply because there was nothing else?  That's pretty much what this game is.  It's better than watching paint dry, but that's not saying much.  If you're playing this game, it's because you literally have nothing better to do with your time or money.  It's not the bottom of the barrel but it's close.  It's not that you can't have fun with it, but you have to be a certain kind of person to really enjoy it and generally most people aren't that kind of person.  If you absolutely must play this, rent it first.  

Three Stars (***): This game is worth your time.  It may not be something you want to buy, but you should play it at least once.  Three star games are typically short, lacking in content, repetitive, or simply not worth replaying.  These are the kind of games that are interesting to play at first but get old quickly or they're interesting to play all the way through but never again.  There's no really definitive buy/avoid with these games simply because it very much comes down to simple personal preference.  You should give these games rentals at very least as you'll probably have quite a bit of fun and get your money's worth from them as rentals if nothing more.

Four Stars (****):  Now we're into the buy range.  Four star games are worth owning.  These are the kind of games that you'll generally have a great time with.  They'll be fun, engaging, interesting, quirky... the bottom line is that you should most definitely play them if not own them.  And make no mistake, you should own them.  They are really that good.

Five Stars (*****):  This is the cream of the crop.  These are your console or generation defining games.  These are the games that are so awesome that you will be playing them weeks, months, and years after buying.  These are the games that make your inner child weep in happiness and serve to remind you why you love video games and began playing them in the first place.  They're also the games that will drive your friends crazy as you obsess about them for weeks on end at their sheer level of awesome.  If you consider yourself a gamer with the appropriate console and you don't own these you should smacked with a 10 lb. tuna fish... repeatedly... until you do own them.

In sum:

* : Avoid
** : Avoid, Maybe Rent.
*** : Rent, Maybe Buy.
**** : Buy.
***** : Get smacked with a 10 lb. tuna fish if you don't buy.

So that's my personal rating system.  I find it works for games and it makes sense to me. 

Do you like it? 

Do you have one of your own that you'd like to share?

So how much will you give brawl?

If i do it "proffesionally" it's a 100 point system with weighted categories based on the genre... with stuff broken down per category.

Innovation in a genre gets you "extra credit" off the board based on the level of innovation and if it worked.

50-60 is an average score. 

Mine is very close to yours. Three basic points:

1. There's no need for a silly 100-pt scale. Obsessing over the diference between an 89.9 and a 90.2 isn't productive or illuminating.

2. Similarly, what's the difference between a 25 and a 40? The game sucks - do we need to know precisely how badly? Just ascertain that it's not worth the time, and move on.

3. No categories, for two reasons. One, nothing is merely the sum of its parts. Two, when it comes to games, I don't care about graphics, sound, or story - just gameplay. The only occasions on which I'll factor these surface attributes into a review is if they detract from the gameplay (draw distance, for example) or are truly exceptional. Even then, it's almost never important enough to alter the score.

 So one star for poor, two stars for average, and three, four, or five stars for varying levels of above-average quality is how I review. On rare occasions I'l put in half a star, but in general I don't like to split hairs lke that.

Two Categories.

Don't Buy.
Buy.

Mines a 100 point system with 50 being an average game thats actually worth playing (For example I would place a game like FEAR at around 50).

I hate systems that don't allow you to compare one game to another if both Halo 3 and CoD4 got 4 stars which one is better to buy? However if Halo 3 got an 84 and CoD4 got an 73 then I would obviously buy Halo 3.

One interesting system I remember is like dtewi's: How much would you pay for the game?

You know the answer to that.  If you don't I shall take up collections in the Brawl thread for a 10 lb. Tuna fish.  ^_^

@Kasz

I don't really like point scores.  When I read a written review, I'm looking for fun aspects of the game and less fun aspects.  When it comes down to a star/number, I'm looking for an answer to the question "Is this game worth my time?"  The more numbers you put out, the harder it is to get that answer.  I don't know how big the difference between an 82 and an 84 is.  I don't even think any reviewer out there could qualify that.  

In reality, I could probably only go with 4 stars:  Avoid, Rent then Not Buy, Rent then Maybe Buy, and Buy.  The 5th is there to round it off and to mark the truly exceptional games.

@Desroko

For the most part, I don't believe in half anythings.  A game is either worth buying or it's not.  A game is either worth renting or it's not.  The only wishy-washy part is whether a game is worth buying after a rental and that's pure individual preference in my rating system.

@dtwei

The problem with that is that there are a lot of games that would be fun to play but not something I'd want to own or ever really play again.  Zack & Wiki falls into that category for me.  Playing through it once is a lot of fun, but not necessarily something I'd want to do over and over.

My main problem with the limited star system is that I have seen a very similar system in our schools (we have 4 grades, N/A/M/E) which is absolutely terrible for distinguishing between students.
I feel that such a system will also fail to distinguish between good or bad games.

I do like the 'How much would you pay to play the game' rating system though.

The thing that makes it different is that schools have tests that can quantify those grades.  There's no question about whether a student can play an instrument well if she can hit 14 out of 16 notes prefectly in a test.  You can measure it exactly.  The difference between an 84 and an 86 could be one or two questions on a test.  Simple.

Compare that to games.  Let's measure a game's Sound/Music.  What's the difference between an 84 and an 86?  I have no idea.  Would the reader automatically know?

The "how much would you pay" system runs into the same problem.  What does it take to differenciate a $45 game from a $46 game?  If you increase it to denominations of $10, you now have maybe 5 or 6 choices... so what has the reader really gained if you say a game as worth $40 when the price is $50?  What are you telling the reader with that statement?  Should she buy it?  Should she not?  I don't know.