Having reviewers announce what they're primarily interested in would allow you to choose the reviewer that best matches your own preferences. Then you can easily give that reviewer greater weight when reading reviews. If you don't want to or don't need to choose a reviewer, you can instead look at individual reviews for the specific points that best line up with your interests. If good networking functionality is very important to you, then you just skip over reviews that don't include it as a metric. If you see a metric, good or bad, appear in multiple reviews for the same game, then you know that feature really stood out and should probably be considered if it is even remotely interesting to you.

Translated to a 1-10 scale, that is 5-8, 9+, and 1-4.
Translated to 5 stars, that is 3+, 4.5+, and 1-2.

Better is to find a specific reviewer that favors the same types of games that you favor and read what they have to say about a particular game. Reviewers themselves should be given scores in different genres to reflect their interest, and scores in different aspects of games that don't necessarily translate between genres and are not necessarily used on every game (perhaps each reviewer chooses 3 most important factors of a set list of say, 10 different areas); then have multiple reviewers on each game.

Excellent game with networking issues:
"Mary the FPS guru" says:

"Matt Foley the puzzle champ" says:

You get the idea. Sorry for the babbling. No time to reword this.

Incorrect. You have to get past the headline & read the article. The ruling was not that using the data was illegal. The ruling was that using the data without telling the public how you obtained it, was illegal. Now that they've explained how they got it, it is back to business as usual.

From the article:

emphasis mine.

They're cheap too!

Morality is never objective.

The effects are just one piece of the equation. The goal & motivation are also important. Who is protected by a law against armed robbery?

Oh, no, she does not live in poverty conditions, but she is also not disconnected. I'm not doing the story justice. You have to know her. She is awesome.

SSSHHHH!!!! I don't want Apple inventing a 40" smartphone.

:D My mother-in-law once got stuck overnight near SFO waiting for a delayed flight (She is a millionaire). She ended up sharing a piece of cardboard with a random guy. Even with millions she is still the type to say "It was only 5 hours, why would I waste money on a hotel?!" She is awesome.

I generally trust /. still on moderating such posts enough for meed to weed them out, but I browse lower... probably lower than I should with my emotional baggage.

Remember that over 80% of people support mandatory labeling of foods containing DNA.

Most (I am not exaggerating, I believe the number actually is > 50%) people are stupid and/or uneducated enough to be quite serious with comments such as yours. It is pretty safe to assume people are in the majority.