How we actually score a game

People ask us all the time what a 4.3 means versus a 4.5. The honest answer is that the number comes last. We play the game, write down what worked and what didn't, and only then argue about where it lands.

Our scale runs from about 3.8 to 4.9, and that's on purpose. A game has to be genuinely broken to fall lower, and honestly we rarely finish reviews for games that bad. The interesting differences live in that narrow band, where a game is good but has one flaw that nags.

We also weight a game against what it's trying to be. A cosy town sim isn't judged for lacking challenge, because challenge isn't its goal. A strategy game absolutely is judged on depth. Context matters more than a checklist.

The scores are subjective, and we're fine saying that. Two of us might disagree by half a point. What we promise is that the number always reflects real time spent with the game, not a first impression.