I've already gone on record saying that I really like the VGChartz reviews, but I do agree with Squilliam that perhaps having more than 3 sections would help. If I were organising it, I would have

Graphics

Sound

Controls

Value (multiplayer and online would come into it here)

Gameplay

Innovation

An addendum to the previous question: how should these scores be weighted in your decisions?

Hmm, fairly evenly I would say. perhaps gameplay should be worth slightly more than the others

Just my opinion.

Equally except maybe graphics because all these components make up the whole experience of the game.

Or depending on what the game is setting out to acheive weigh it higher in those areas.

I myself would really like to see a second or third opinion. The secend and third opinion can be averaged together but have only half the weight as the main review. If only a second opinion then 1/3 the weight. (Could use a little revision just off the top of my head)

If it were my system I would create a table something like this and give an overall reviewers tilt score at the end.

• Single player:
• Multi player:
• Visual presentation:
• Game presentation:
• Tilt: XX%

Single player score represents length, and quality of experience, but ignores other aspects. Games like SOC can have great single player experiences but intimidating controls and frame-rate issues which vary in impact between people hence why I believe they should be seperate.

Multiplayer is self explanatory, its seperate as many games neglect one aspect of their design to favour another. Also many people don't touch either the single or multi-player modes on games so a game scoring highly on a good single-player may not be relevant to them.

Visual presentation, just a seperate score on the visual impact of a game. Some people don't care for visuals and other people care a lot for visuals, since both perspectives are valid it needs to be considered independantly.

Game presentation: Things like, how easy it is to play the game. Does the game have a consistant frame-rate, will people new to gaming be able to play it/does it have a good tutorial, etc.

Overall score/Tilt: Weighted by the above considerations but overall is the reviewers personal feelings about the game. An average doesn't work because there are games which exceed the highest levels in one category and fall flat on another such as SOC which has a great single-player but poor controls/frame-rate so the game is allowed to score highly but people who are averse to poor frame-rates etc are warned to steer clear.

im still not sure whether to give the first four categories a score or a short paragraph explanation/both, im leaning towards the latter of the three as it gives the most information and allows for some comparison between games.

Just my quick ideas. Its not fully fleshed out, but my hands are stiff and I can't write much more.

If you don't mind, I would also like to comment on this.

Graphics: Basicly the games visuals and how good the game is graphicly.

Presentation: This would include a number of things such as the games atmosphere, attention to detail, dialog, the games pacing ect.

Sound: This would cover things from the games stoundtrack to voices and sound effects.

Gameplay: The games core gameplay mechanics and how well they are executed, a long with many more things.

Lasting appeal: The games length and replay value.

If we did that, wouldn't the second opinion make it a communal score? At that point you're moving towards a law of averages rather than an actual, critical review.

Let m ask you guys something: you're kind of referencing categorical scores that some big sites (namely IGN) use because you think that our categories, as they are now, are unclear. Would there be any way to alleviate this problem without just adding on more categories?

@ Squlliam

If you separate SP and MP than you have two possiblities

Single player only games get 0 for MP score - this would stop some of the greatest games of all time from getting decent scores - Orcarina of Time, FFVII, MGS4 as 3 good examples

Single Player doesn't get a score for MP, and the score comes only from the other sections. This would primarily single player games that add in a multiplayer mode as an extra feature. It seems harsh that a game can be penalised for adding in bonus features

Yes I see what you mean but it worked fine for old GameInformer (Sorry I say them so much but I grew up with the magazine). Maybe make a total score out of 20 or 30 kinda like Famitsu but that may be too much of an over hall.

Hard to say. I have grown up with these score systems so they seem mostly logical to me. Maybe someone else can come up with something better. As I stated just some ideas :P

The score I feel is best left to the reviewers overall impression of the game. This score is more a pointer for those who appreciate single-player more than multi-player or vice versa. It indicates how a game may have scored high or low, but it doesn't neccessarily cause a game to review high or low.