Previously when rating indie games or budget games (i.e. games that were cheap) I gave them a boost to their score to reflect the low production budgets. I thought it was unfair rating an indie game against a blockbuster game, especially in the areas of graphics, music and sound, as they simply didn't have the money to go for a live orchestra or the latest in 3D graphics engines.
However, when it came to other areas like the plot or gameplay for example, they shouldn't really need help in these areas as these are irrelevant when it comes to budgets (well at least not as much as the other areas). So I thought, maybe I should just eliminate the boost on these rating areas instead?
Ultimately, I decided I would take the boost off all ratings areas since at the end, sure a game might be cheap but it's still no excuse for a bad game. A great example is Mosby's Confederacy. You might not feel as bad for wasting your money but it also means you're not going to play the game - a bad game deserves a bad score regardless of its price.
This may mean some indie and budget games will start to have lower scores but I've noticed that the original scoring system skewed the scores in their favour anyway.
What do you guys think? Should price be taken into account for the score when reviewing indie/budget games or should it be judged on its own merits?