The author(s) of any given review must adhere in full to the following regulations:
1a. The game in question must be reviewed as objectively as possible.
1b. When unavoidable, the author(s) must state when their preferences are affecting the overall rating.
2. Scott promises to be a bit less objective than Daniel R. Moniz... but just a bit
3. The author(s) must provide two ratings adhering to the following disjoint regulations (Intra-Game, Extra-Game), upon which the mean will be calculated and submitted as the final rating for that game:
3.1: Intra-Game: The game must be rated as a game in itself, with no comparison to other games of any genre. Note that this includes predecessors and sequels. This rating amounts to a 'fun' rating; the reviewer should be judging this rating entirely based on the enjoyment that they receive from the game. Thus, categories should include (but not be limited to): game longevity/re-playability, game interest (ability to grab and hold the player), actual enjoyment during each hour of play (not necessarily constant or linear), overall polish (eg. (non)existence of bugs), tactical/strategic emphasis, graphics, etc. It is worth noting that while being technically impossible to provide a relative rating for a game with no comparison to other games, Clause 3.1 should be carried out with the best intent by the author(s). NOTE: System requirements may affect a reviewer's recommendation of the game, but should not influence the rating.
3.2: Extra-Game: The game must be rated in terms of its place in the world of gaming. This involves a discussion of the game's features, overall fun level, game longevity/re-playability, overall level of polish, tactical/strategic emphasis, graphics, etc., all in comparison to other existing games. Games existing in the same genre should be analyzed for the same categories mentioned previous, but more briefly; one should highlight features that the game in question possesses that others lack, and vice-versa. Games that have similarities but are in different genres should also be analyzed for features. This is because many modern games no longer fall under a specific category; thus, instead of debating the category in which they exist, one compares all similar games and thus voids the issue. In discussing these other games, the reviewer should highlight areas where the game in question could be improved, as well as areas where it has improved it's (sub)genre. NOTE: While popularity may be used as a reason to recommend the game (eg. high level of competition), it should not influence the rating.
3.3: Any ratings provided in the form (a/10, b/10), eg. (8/10, 9/10), mean that the game received an intra-game rating of a/10, and an extra-game rating of b/10.
4. The author(s) must not only provide an overall game rating, but should provide a statement which recommends whether or not one should purchase the game. For example: "Supreme Commander is an excellent game, but the system requirements mean that unless these issues are fixed in a patch, nobody with a computer more than 1 year old should play this game. To those who like grand strategy games, this game is for you." This is an area where the reviewer should attempt to define who should and should not be interested in buying this game. This is because a rating, while helpful, may be meaningless to someone who dislikes that genre of game.
5. The author(s) will provide a short review in all cases where the review for the game in question is long.