I just started thinking about this after reading through my reviews and noticing people don't seem to like it when I "forget" to average out ALL the scores between Gameplay, Graphics, Sound, and Replay. (Protip: I am not forgetting. I am purposefully not doing this.) And then I started thinking about how annoying numerical review scores [i]are[/i] because it invites comparison. "You gave Arkham City a 10 but Skyward Sword an 8? What's WRONG WITH YOU?!" Then I came here and decided to make this topic because I'm honestly curious about how you guys see the reviewing system. How do [i]you[/i] prefer to do your reviews - if you do 'em at all? Do you like the site's system? Do you average out your scores and give equal weight to each category, or do you place more emphasis on certain aspects of a game and therefore give them a bigger piece of the review pie? What do you consider an "average score?" A seven? A five? Do you even like the size of the scale? Do you wish it was smaller? Bigger? Why? Me, I usually avoid numbers. But on the Main Site I usually write each section, assign a score based on what I wrote, then assign a final score based on how much I would recommend the game - NOT on an average of all the categories because I think that's pretty silly, giving graphics as much weight as the gameplay which is kind of the main part of playing the game. See? Playing a game. Gameplay. It's almost like they did that on purpose But yeah if I absolutely hated a game but the graphics and music were both tens, averaging the score would be at least a five, which in my book is average. I do not consider a game I hated to be "average." I consider a game I hated to be "extremely below average and deserving of burning in a volcano." In numerical terms probably a one So yeah. What about you guys?

Alright for numbers basically use this methods: 1 - Worst - Goomba go and Squish (Right title?) 2 - Really Bad 3 - Bad 4 - Kind of Bad - Hello's fangames 5 - Average - Mario in Space 6 - Okay 7 - Good 8 - Very Good - Highway Trouble 9 - Great - Midas Machine 10 - Extraordinary - Psycho Waluigi For over used graphics, or sounds, I usually use 4 or below. For engine, if it's good or smooth, I'll give 5 or 6 otherwise I'll give 4 or below.

Personally, I find MFGG's review system to be pretty good - in fact, I voluntarily use the same categories when I've written reviews on GameFAQs, MW, or my own forum. There are a few times in which I find myself wishing there was a category for Story instead of having to lump that in with Gameplay, however. I don't average all the other categories when choosing the final score. For example, a game can have very poorly-made graphics but still be very enjoyable to play, and a lot of games that are of a very high quality might not have much in the way of replay value. Moreover, to some extent I grade games based on what they are - it's hard to make a direct comparison between a freeware fangame or indie game made by a single person with a game that costs $60 and took 200 people four years to make. Also, I need to get back to writing reviews more often like I used to.

The way I review games is similar to how you review them. I don't take the average of all of the scores. I assign a number value for each category based on how good it is, but my final score usually ends up being the same as the "gameplay" score, as I think gameplay is the most important part. Unless one of the other categories is severely bad (or good) the other categories really don't influence my score.

I ususally just rate on whether I actually had fun playing the game or not. If it was bad looking, but was fun to play in the end, I rate higher than bad games that are visually pleasing. Same goes for music, sound, etc. As long as I enjoyed playing the creator's idea, I'm fine. Same goes for Hello games. I will not rate low just because they're Hello games. He has had some...alright ideas in the past...when he hasn't been using the same idea with a different story over and over again. But enough on that subject, as I have digressed too much. Anyway, as long as the fun factor is high, it's a pretty high rated game in my book. (This is also taking into account the fact that many reviews and judgments towards games I have made were not added to the site. Most were just made on the spot.)

Averaging out ratings? Why would you do that? I always treat them separately. Anyone who claims you should average them isn't thinking clearly; ever played a good game that you would never pick up again, maybe because it was entirely linear and had no extras? You'd give the replay score a 1/10 (or 0/10 if you can), but that doesn't mean the game itself can't be a 10/10. The whole point in manually specifying the overall rating is any set of categories is never going to be even close to universally acceptable for properly judging how good a game is. (All of my questions above are simply rhetorical and not directed at anyone in particular.)

[quote="[url=http://phpbb.mfgg.net/viewtopic.php?p=342145#p342145]onpon4[/url]"]You'd give the replay score a 1/10 (or 0/10 if you can), but that doesn't mean the game itself can't be a 10/10.[/quote] That too. And plus I average the scores to give the final score.