Game Front’s Review Scores: Explained
At Game Front, we understand the importance of game reviews. For any consumer with limited time and money, good game reviews help you manage both. It’s something we take very seriously, and we do not underestimate the level of responsibility each review carries.
Given that game review scoring systems can vary quite a bit, we’ve broken our own system down below for you. Yes, we use actual review scores on our game reviews. Math helps people make informed decisions, and as such scores are a part of our system.
We use a full 100-point review scale at Game Front. You may see one title given an 85/100, while another (marginally better) title may receive an 87/100. Video games are difficult enough to quantify, so we find the 100-point scale’s flexibility helpful in pinpointing the quality of a given experience.
Lastly, we do not rush reviews at Game Front. We do not care about being “first.” If we’re a little late publishing a particular review, we’re likely taking our time to get it right. All game review drafts are edited several times before publication by our staff, as we work to make our reviews read nicely and deliver a fair score supported by the review itself.
Have any questions or suggestions for our reviews? Hit us up at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Amazing. While no game is “perfect,” these are exceptionally rare, powerful games that will have a lasting impact on the art. Boundaries are either stressed or shattered, driven by genuinely new ideas.
Truly excellent games, with one or more noteworthy flaws that are molecular in size when cast against the whole. Its shortcomings are few, whether they be undeveloped potential, minor technical problems, etc. Think of a game you love that you have a few “minor gripes” for.
Great games, a solid execution within a given genre, with a few meaningful problems that should be mentioned–alongside what is largely praise. Games scored in the 80s are lots of fun and have solid presentation, peppered with some irritations.
Very good games (not “terrible,” as 70 has somehow come to be defined), that are very good, fun, and mostly solid. Did we mention they’re very good? Games scored in the 70s are also somewhat disappointing, as they don’t live up to their full potential, or fulfill the main “promise” the game hopes to achieve–while still being very good. They could lack missing features, have frustrating technical problems, or uninteresting stories, for instance.
Pretty good games, but also sloppy and perhaps inconsistent. They may fit nicely within a genre and have a couple good gameplay elements, but those positives are threatened by several problems.
Tepid experiences, dead in the middle of our review scale, but not necessarily “dead in the water.” For every positive (of which 50s do have a few), there are countering negatives, which makes these games hard to recommend outright. Die hard fans of the franchise/genre will be able to forgive their shortcomings, but others may struggle to find the fun.
We’re getting into “it kind of sucks” territory now, but hang on. 40s are mostly uninteresting, unnecessary entries in a genre with pretty serious problems–tempered with a couple neat ideas.
It’s pretty bad, and you have to pull precious little moments of fun out of it with frustrating force. Nothing new, at all, and a failure in overall vision and execution. It’s not sure what it’s trying to do, and even if you guess, you’re pretty sure it failed. But it does try, which is worth something.
Horrible, and just barely playable. A shell of a game, possessing neither soul nor ideas, with serious playability problems–but you can kind of see what it’s going for. Kinda.
Unmitigated disaster. There isn’t even much of a “game” here, miles and miles away from fun. It’s also worth noting that 10s are as rare as 100s.