Scoring Guidelines For Game Reviews

This is a a small post to explain how I should rate games in my reviews. I think that review scores should be meaningful. I don't like reviewers who just average different metrics. In the end the a rating should be indicative of the reviewer's recommendation. Should it be bought, should it be played, or should it be avoided completely?

• 10/10 - Revolutionary.This game redefined how rich a gaming experience can be. It improved gaming as a whole.
• 9/10 - This game is a masterpiece.
• 8/10 - I strongly recommend this game.
• 7/10 - Good game. The game is not perfect but delivers what is expected from a decent title.
• 6/10 - Ok. The game is fun sometimes but is not especially remarkable.
• 5/10 - There's probably an other game that you should be playing instead. I recommend skipping this one.
• 4/10 - This game is not good. I would rather work.
• 0-3/10 - The game is bad, its a pain to play or is unplayable. It fails as a video game.

The rating can be relative to the moment when the game release. A game could be revolutionary at release and not age well later. I think that a masterpiece that shaped the future of its genre deserves its 10/10 even if it did not age well because it is partly responsible for the success of the following titles in the genre. For example, Dune 2 helped define the RTS genre, and we probably would not have Starcraft, Warcraft, Command and Conquer and Age of Empire today if not for this game. Even if the later games might be more fun to play now, when Dune 2 was released, it shocked gamers and developers and showed them a new world of gaming possibilities.