As a suggestion, to be counted in the list of ideas, I'd rate and do rate games on the way I play them. I pretty much play every P2P game that comes along and give it its free month, not many make it past that month but some do and then they get a full 3 months further view, sometimes up to 5+yrs if it really gets me. Anyway, I'd like to post these  thoughts on my own internal review and usually what I put out to others if I were to rate it.

1=i would take it out back for target practice, while 10=Glory to thy name you are the 2nd coming

1. Gameplay- Is it fun, what was my fun factor, how long did It take to get bored, did grinding start right away, was in difficult or hard to level, was there a new twist on mechanics that made it interesting. Twists to guild tools, UI differences good/bad. Is there more then one race to play, a few classes, many skills, FPS? Is there interesting things to do other then combat pve/pvp? is there a crafting system, how deep is the crafting system, how weak? (Rate 1-10)

2. Sound-Does the sound jive with the world, is it just a compilation of crap standard music, do sounds happen when they should (i.e. animations sequences)., Does it sound choreographed, does the sound help me immerse myself into the world and really get into it and lose tract of hours.  (Rate 1-10)

3. Video-Does it have stuttering, does it chunk my card and make it crawl in FPS, does it have to high requirements to be good for casual gamers or too low. Do I have to go spend money on upgrades to really play this properly, and is it worth it to do so. (Rate 1 - 10)

4. Quest System-Is it kill 10 rats and fetch quests repeated exponentially, is it realistic, does it make sense, does it change the world, does it do anything different to expand the genre. Is the quest system linear, open, no quests, few quests, significant quest story lines/arc that feed into an epic real quest line that shakes the foundations of the world on discovery?  (Rate 1-10)

5. Visually Appealing-Does the textures and background make sense for the world, is it appealing, does it flow properly or look patched and hacked together, are there seams ready to burst open. Does the overall art design follow the vision of the game and flow together right, to cartoony, too reaslistic, to over shaded.. (Rate 1 - 10)

6. Combat (PVE) -general feeling of combat is fun and immersive, does it give everyone soemthing to do to feel a part of a group, a party or effective as a solo player. Does it feel like i have to grind incessantly to reach end-game to compete or have fun. Is it a race or casual game where it occurs naturally.      (Rate 1 - 10)

7. Combat (PVP)-Balanced? Fair, Zerg Fest, ganksquads, FFA, does it fit the world, does it make sense, is it all instanced or world pvp, does it support other areas of the gameworld, does it only happen at end-game highest level, is it a race to the end game to compete?    (Rate 1 - 10)

8. Roleplay-Does the game support role play, is it immersive enough to encourage roleplay, does the community support roleplay, are there us and thems? Pickup roleplay groups? are there tools that assist roleplayers in doing what they like, is it an open enough world to facilitate events.   (Rate 1 - 10)

9. World/Environment-Overall world design makes sense, does the world look different then other games, is it a clone? Are there glitches? To much instancing, zoning, phasing, or to little?       (Rate  1 - 10)

10. Support-Community, forums, customer service ticket response, helpful forums or chat areas, trade and tech areas in chat, ingame voice support, in-game gm support, quickness of response time? Helpful community leaders, designated helpers? Asshats? Barrens Chats?      (Rate  1 - 10)

I take these 10, rate them and then add together and divide by 10 and there ya go you got your score and a pretty overall fair rating touching most elements of the game.  Granted many of these kinda of slide over each other but try to stay unbiased as possible while still getting the idea across of how you feel about a game to say guildies or what not and I have used that method before in the past.

I would recommend dividing up your scores into two categories.  Subjective and Technical.  Then have the reviewer write it up along these lines.

Graphics:
-Graphical Quality (frame rate, polygons, lighting, textures, etc.) - Technical score
-Art Style - Subjective score

Sound:  
-Sound Quality (Clarity, volume levels, 3d effects, etc)
-Acoustic Style - Subjective Score

etc.

Each category should have two scores.

At the end, provide 3 scores:  Technical Score, Subjective Score, and  the average of the two.  The overall technical score should be an average of the tech scores, but the overall subjective should not have to be.  Though if the review is written properly, the overall subjective score SHOULD be around the same area as the individual subjective scores.

A review needs an actual opinion in it.  Otherwise a box-stacking game might make a perfect 9 on the technical side, but actually be about as fun as well, stacking boxes. 

Other than that I would like to see some other subjective scores on the potential of a game.  There are many games out there that start off not-so good, but have great potential and should be "watched".  There are others who are great, but didn't leave themselves alot of room to "grow" (Champions Online, i'm thinking of you.)  Lastly I would like to see some sort of meter for determining how well a game is meeting its potential.  Some games squander it, others start to develop it.

Remove the rating system completely. Make the review as informative as possible. Describe the game mechanics without giving any kind of opinion. Make a suggestion what kind of players might enjoy the game and what don't.