Cool, grats.

@twesterm

i think originality should be appreciated because it is what moves the industry forward. if we were to just keep making world war 2 clones, we will eventually bore of them.

The "fun" factor definitely has to be there too.

The hardest games to review, IMO, are party games. Not something you could "casually" review alone.

I'd advise you to find out the expected readership demographic and align your thoughts to that.  Chose a benchmark title from every genre if possible for you then review to that benchmark (and remember to consider over time you might have to move the benchmark).  That way you should be consistent and even in your scoring.  Also don't research other reviews, review for yourself based to your benchmarks and score guide.

I would, however, suggest you think carefully about your scoring guide.  It might work for the magazine in question (see my first point) but I think it has a few flaws IMHO.

For example, I'd never put replay value number 1 - in fact for me it doesn't come into the equation at all, particularly as it essentially skews away from any SP title to MP titles.

For me the four elements I'd judge equally are gameplay, innovation, stability and polish.  I'd then build an overall score from them.  And I'd score based on genre benchmarks.  If you feel there should be priorities then I'd say you're probably on the right track with 2, 3, 4 and 5 but I think having replay value at 1 is a huge error (sorry!  Please take the comment purely as my opinion meant only constructively).

I understand value has crept into reviews due to the cost of games vs volume of games to try and give a guide to where to spend your money - but in the end to me, if I can use an annalogy, it's like advising someone to see a decent 3 hour movie over an amazing 80 minute movie because the 3 hour movies gives you another 100 minutes of movie.  Clue - I think that's pretty poor advice.

Where to spend your money is in good titles that appeal to you.  So if you don't play online but love polished, narrative driven action titles you would likely see a title like Uncharted as vastly better value than say, for example, UT3, despite the fact UT3 offers almost unlimited replay value.

So, pretty please, drop replay value - if you want to have it I'd add it as a 'tilt' factor or keep it outside the core review scores and make it a seperate element - i.e. again taking Uncharted as an example, score it on its gameplay for the SP title it is, consider how innovative it is, how well polished, etc. and then note an opinion on replay value based on the game's SP elements and various 'hunt the maguffin' bits to keep you playing.

^it's funny you mentioned Uncharted. I gave that game a 7/10 because it was short, the gameplay felt repetitive, and a lack of enemy variety.

I count replay value as the top of all things because you're paying for entertainment. I mentioned above that only few people would watch the Godfather in a cinema if the ticket price was $60, because they know it'll only last for a couple of hours.

Ico is an 8 or 9 if you rent it. It's a 6 or 7 if you buy it. The game is great while it lasts, but since it's short, you can't justify the purchase if you buy it.

I'm taking value as a big chunk of the review table because I'm a realistic type of guy. I'd only buy something that I know I'll keep for awhile, not just for a one time kick and then I'll resell it.

^^
That's my point - be sure that approach is going to fit the majority of your audience. For example I never judge by length of entertainment experience but the quality of the experience. So your approach simply doesn't work for me at all.

Now, if you're sure I'm in the minority then ignore that and go with value your way.

On the other hand, if my views were to represent the majority of your potential readers, they're going to find fault with your reviews pretty quickly.

Neither of us is right, I'm just saying that commercially, the way to chose normally is to pick the approach best suited to your audience.

Of course, I do understand the value element is driven by cost considerations. I know I'm lucky enough to be in a position where I can afford to buy any game that takes my fancy, whether to play it once for a great experience or multiple times, and that many other gamers must make hard choices in terms of spending their money.

As an amusing aside, how would you rate 15 minutes of mind blowing sex vs 90 minutes of average sex? Although, to be fair, I guess we'd have to assume money was changing hands for the analogy to be accurate!

^^
Even if you can afford to buy something, it still doesn't make it worth it. It's like there's a $5000 dress in a high class shop. You can afford it, sure, but would you buy it and not feel like you just threw something away?

First off, you'd hardly wear it because you'll be afraid of it getting damaged. In the end, it'll get stuck in the back of the closet with no real purpose except to say you bought it for this one party.

I'm not talking about being able to afford something. I'm talking about worth. Is 5 hours of entertainment from ICO worth $60? Maybe, to some people. But compare that same $60 spent on Halo 3, where you get the same quality experience, only much, much longer.

In that example, I would rate ICO something like a 6, and Halo 3 something like a 9. Again, it's all about not only how much fun you have with a title, but also how much longer you have fun with it.

^^
Sorry, that's incorrect. You are assuming what you believe justifies a purchase applies to everyone. It doesn't.

I judge quality of experience, always. So I'll happily spend large somes of very good food, wine, clothes, etc. I will spend money to see very short, high quality films, I will buy short, high quality games and for me the purchase is absolutely justified.

So for you it's about not just how much fun but how long, but that's not an absolute as it precludes a shorter experience delivering more fun, which can be very much the case.

Sorry to seem to be arguing. But while people's view of worth can be different, and that is fine, claiming your view is the definitive correct view of worth is completely wrong.

This is like the "Value" score at VGChartz only taken to bizarre lengths. I canno recommend that you go with this idea, if only because it strikes me as absurd.

Lol that's hilarious, I see he is going to do an awesome work for this magazine