5.0 / 5
Outstanding
An exceptional experience with a strong recommendation. Outstanding does not mean flawless; a game can have minor shortcomings and still achieve something special.
How We Rate Games
A score is a starting point. The review tells you whether a game is right for you.
Our scale: 1–5, with one decimal place.
We consider what a game sets out to achieve, how well its systems work together and the experience it offers its intended audience. Small budgets and unusual ideas deserve fair consideration, without overlooking problems that affect play.
What the numbers mean
4/ 5
4.0–4.9 / 5
Great
Highly recommended, despite some limitations. Its strengths make it a rewarding experience for the audience it is designed for.
3/ 5
3.0–3.9 / 5
Good
Worth considering, especially for its intended audience, but with noticeable weaknesses. The review explains who is likely to enjoy it and what might get in the way.
2/ 5
2.0–2.9 / 5
Disappointing
Significant problems outweigh much of what works. There may be worthwhile ideas, but the experience struggles to deliver on them.
1/ 5
1.0–1.9 / 5
Poor
Fundamental issues make it difficult to recommend. A promising concept alone cannot overcome serious problems with the experience.
Why use decimals?
Whole numbers are broad. Decimals let us show where a game sits within a rating band without pretending every good game offers the same experience. We use one decimal place, from 1.0 to 5.0.
3.1/5
At the lower end of Good: worthwhile strengths, with substantial reservations.
3.7/5
At the stronger end of Good: an enjoyable experience with clear limitations keeping it below Great.
4.5/5
Firmly Great: a particularly strong recommendation, while the written review still explains its weaknesses.
A 3.7 is higher than a 3.5, but the difference is not a scientific measurement. It does not mean a game is “74% good.” Read the verdict, pros and cons to understand what the number represents.
What we assess
Gameplay
Controls, mechanics, responsiveness, balance and how satisfying the game is to play. We consider whether its systems support the experience it promises.
Content
Variety, progression, pacing, structure and the quality of what there is to discover. Story matters where it is part of the game’s appeal. More hours or a bigger world do not automatically earn a higher score.
Graphics
Artistic direction, visual clarity, animation and execution. An expressive pixel-art game can score as highly as an elaborate 3D production. We judge how the presentation serves the game, not how expensive it looks.
Performance, accessibility and audio also inform the written assessment when relevant. Technical problems are described in the context of the platform and version we played.
How we reach the final score
The average of Gameplay, Content and Graphics provides a starting point, rounded to one decimal place. For example:
Content 3.0Gameplay 4.5Graphics 3.5Average: 3.7 / 5
The reviewer can adjust that suggested result if equal weighting does not fairly reflect the overall experience. The final verdict should explain the recommendation and any important reservations. A score summarises the review; it does not replace it.
What you can expect from our reviews
- First-hand experience. Reviews are based on playing the game. We identify the reviewed platform and version and explain the scope of play where relevant.
- Clear distinctions. Previews and demos are early impressions and do not receive final review scores. Gameplay videos and developer trailers are not scored reviews.
- Editorial independence. A review copy does not buy a favourable score. Review-copy disclosures appear with the review.
- Context matters. A game may appeal strongly to a particular audience even when its overall score is modest. We explain who we recommend it to.
- A review reflects its time. Updates can change a game. Scores refer to the reviewed version; any reassessment should be clearly identified.