Oh, actually, my main gripe with VGC reviews is that they seem to love JRPGs (which I hate) and hate adventure games (which I love)

I don't mind the 3 tier system, its not bad at all. Again its not the way they review it, its the scores themselves.

I'd stick with "presentation" which encompasses graphics, presentation, and sound. "Gameplay" being just how fun it is, and "lasting appeal" which is of course if its worth playing again or how good the online is.

Edit: Maybe also "value" which means is it worth your money. A single player only game thats just 10 hours, not worth your money. That games a renter and will get a low value score. An RPG thats 100 hours, really high value. A FPS with great online, also great value for your money.

Read the thread much?  Literally every word that you just said has been addressed several times, and we're past that.

Value includes lasting appeal as well as price per hour of entertainment and quality of that entertainment. It's a better category than "lasting appeal" because lasting appeal doesn't really give any indication of how good it is for the single playthrough people.

Not to mention that "lasting appeal" isn't the sort of thing you want to give the appearance of having the same importance s "Gameplay" or "Presentation".

Think of it as a sort of Reviewer's Tilt, maybe?

See here's where the value argument breaks down.  I have no problem buying a 10 hour (heck a 3 hour) SP game if its good enough.  For me Uncharted has a much higher value than many average shooters with an online MP, or a quest game with lots of redundant side quests.

Of course if I'm in a clear minority I'll have to live with that, but is everyone really buying games because it has MP, etc. vs superior shorter games just to save money or feel they are getting more for their money?

I believe a review should give a view on value, but I absolutely feel it shouldn't be a score as that automatically skews all scores in favour of RPGs or Online titles vs SP titles - and a system with a bias is not a good system (sorry Naznatips but I'm afraid including a Value score has introduced a bias against certain titles so far as I can see).

Value will change depending upon the gamer.  There are many offline gamers as well as online gamers, who want quality over quantity, something the current scoring does not fairly reflect.

Which I'd like to point out is teh same reason that "graphics," "sound," and "story" are all combined into presentation, because we don't want those to be individually considered the same level of importance as gameplay and value.

@Reasonable I think you are having trouble separating the words "bias" and "criticism." Yes, a $60 that's 4 hours long should be criticized for it. If the rest of the game is great then of course the score reflects that in the other components, but the overall should be affected. If you are not someone who's bothered by that, you obviously can ignore that as an issue in relation to you, and just look at the other two component scores. That is, in fact, the purpose of the component scores, but in an overall view of a game's quality that is absolutely a necessary criticism.

"Value" isn't necessarily something that's going to mean the same thing for every reviewer, Reasonable. Or even every review by the same reviewer. It means what the word means - each of us holds different values in what makes a game worth playing.

People, you have to understand the important part of the review, and the part I am very strict about when editing, is the content. I'm far more concerned about how completely the content reflects the game, its style, its positives, and its negatives than I am about how well the scores, which are always ballpark at best, reflect your opinions. Reviews are to be read.

You can't possibly create a review score that everyone agrees with because as has been pointed out, everyone will view each issue and each positive with different severity. Complaining about all scores not matching your opinion is like suggesting everyone in the world share it. What we can do is make our reviews detailed and complete and try to give you a great idea of what the game is about and what things in the game might be potential positives or negatives for you.

The score is a ballpark of the reviewer's opinion on quality, but the review content is a detailed article about the game. Try reading them sometime.

I totally agree, as I commented myself earlier, that's why I'm mystified at the scoring system as it is.  With that focus you'd be better with a single percentage score, an overall tilt, and dropping the three categories IMHO.

The second you have those scores you're inviting people to go okay 8 for that, 6 for that, 7 for that, job done.

Give a single score and push the focus to reading the review to find out why.

If you really want to buck the (IMHO terrible) modern trend to provide handy dandy digestible news then drop the score entirely.  Be different.  It's read the review, draw your conclusions and proceed.

I'd love to see reviews with the balls to drop scores and stick to words.

The other issue with scores is they are not always followed well enough by reviewers or the reader.  It's normally very easy on any site to find some reviews where the scores show a completely different understanding by an individual reviewer, throwing the whole system out of wack.

Trust me Naznatips, right now just having the Value section introduces a bias to your system, and its not going to go away.  So long as the current system sits there I'd be willing to guarantee you that you'll hear no end of complaing how game X managed a 7 for Value vs game Y which only got a 6, and how come game Z managed a 9?

Every review I've read has been well written (I haven't read them all) and the content has been good.  But the scores (which even your own comments BTW undermine) are the issue, and the mechanism behind them.

FYI I mean all this constructively.  I like the site which is why I post here and read forums here, etc.  And I think it makes sense for its direction to have reviews - but I don't think you have the right system just yet and I'd advise making changes early when its easy rather than later.