If you ran a gaming magazine or website, how would you review games?

[Steelmaker]

With all of the inconsistency in game reviews lately, this got me to thinking about how I would review games if it were me running the magazine or website. Here's a few criteria I came up with...

1.) Games need to be reviewed by someone who has a preference for that particular genre. To me, those reviewers are more qualified to give an opinion because chances are, they play more of that type of genre and are more accute to recognize and critique things that otherwise someone else might overlook. I wouldn't want a sports fan reviewing my RPG's for example.

2.) Games need to be reviewed for what they ARE and not for what they are not. If the game was designed from the very beginning to be a single player title, don't penalize it's score for not having multi-player! Likewise, don't penalize a multi-player game for not having single player. If the game was designed to simply be a platformer, don't penalize it for not being "innovative" enough. So what if it's yet another platformer! It could be another platformer that happens to be a great game! Review the game for what it IS. Not for what you think it could be or should be!

3.) Be platform agnostic! A good game is a good game is a good game! It shouldn't matter whether it's on console A, B, or C.

4.) Review games under the following categories...

Graphics (factor into this models, textures, lighting, shadows, and animation)

Controls (factor into this precision, layout, difficulty, and customization)

Sound (factor into this music, sound fx, voice acting, and surround sound
implementation)

Replayability (factor into this the incentives the game gives you to go back
play it over and over.)

Overall Fun Factor: (fun factor is the bottom line here and I think this score
should weigh more than any of the others. The reviewer
should ask him or herself, did I have fun playing this game?