I like a deduction point system to review games. when I get a new game it automatically has 100 points (the perfect score) and during gamplay I start reducing the score based on what I find.

• -No. of minor bugs during NORMAL gameplay
• -No. of annoying bugs in NORMAL gameplay
• -No. of Glitches in NORMAL gameplay
• -Bad or misuse of sound effects
• -Bad Soundtrack or bad useof the music.
• -Bad use of controls
• -Graphics that has shoverware all over
• -Stupid AI desicions on basic things
• -Errors in Localization
• -Voice acting with no emotions when the game character is actually having one
• -Lags in online gameplay when there are no conditions to suffer one
• -No. of B-o-r-i-n-g moments in the game (yawn)
• -No. of FMV's I can't skip
• -No of moments where is better to control the character than warchim him act
• -WTF is this "physics" system? (only on games that MUST have physics)

... there's more

..... as you see.... with this system no game can keep the 100 points

 http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/919220.asp

I'd have a 100 point scale that is normally distributed with a mean of 50. I'd have two reviewers review the game, one who is a fan of the genre and one that is largely indifferent or isn't a fan. That would help with balancing the bias that reviewers are often accused of having.

I would finally have a "Better than/Worse than" category for easy comparisons between similar games.

 Don't you actually reveiw games?

 The way I usually look at game scores.

0 - 6.4 = Don't even think about buying it.

6.5 - 7.6 = Decent/Average, not worth full price. Usually rent if anything.

7.7 - 8.6 = Great, buy if it's your type of game.

8.7- 9.6 = Awesome, buy unless you hate it's genre.

9.7 - 10 = Extraordinary, buy at all cost.

I use a 1000 point scale.

An example is Oblivion which got 999 points.