How We Rate Games
So just how does a game come in at a glowing 90,
or fall all the way down to a 25? We have a basic system for figuring this out, and
we thought it would be of interest to you to know the method behind the madness. We're
also always interested in hearing what you think of our ratings and whether or not we've
been fair. Feel free to send us feedback whenever you have
something to say.
90-100 (Excellent)
These games distinguish themselves by combining the latest
technology with inspired design. These are the industry's innovators, defining trends,
setting a new standard of excellence, and reaching across genres to gain respect from
gamers and game makers on a universal level. A game at this level will have rock-solid
gameplay, technological surprises, a great interface and a friendly relationship with your
machine and your friend's modem. These are the games that keep you up at night, make you
thirst to upgrade your machine even further, and sometimes make you cry when the phone
bill comes.
|
80-89 (Very Good)
Alas, many almost-great games will never achieve the upper echelon.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy them. These may not be instant classics, but they
are often among the better games within their genre and usually gain recognition for
innovations of their own. A game at this level is fun right out of the box, and has likely
been anticipated by its target audience for some time, yet might not be of interest to
gamers who prefer a different genre. It should have little, if any, problems in terms of
hardware requirements and performance on baseline systems.
|
70-79 (Worthy)
Not far back in the pack, these games are often worth a look for
fans of a specific genre. They usually excel in some areas but fall short in others,
keeping them just this side of greatness. A game in this range might work great on one
machine but not at all on another, or might just be the 15th game this year to look an
awful lot like Quake. Sometimes, a really good game with a really narrow audience
will also find its way into this category.
|
60-69 (Disappointing)
These are usually good ideas that went bad. You waited months for
them, only to find out that that the time would have been better spent flossing your toes.
Examples include a game that bought a million dollars' worth of prime advertising only to
look like 1994 technology, or one that's so full of bugs, bad documentation, and general
headaches that it's tough to play long enough to enjoy. A game in this category might be
technologically OK, but is just downright dull and repetitive.
|
50-59 (Yawn)
With no real distinction or inspiration, these are just so-so games
at best. You'll play them for a few minutes, then get back to Quake or Red Alert.
These are games that are almost criminally guilty of ripping off another game or of
putting what look like screen shots on the box but really turn out to be cutscenes
between level after level of monotony. These are the games that will make their way into a
cheap 10-pack of has-beens in the very near future.
|
40-49 (Wannabes)
These are either your basic underachievers or are trying really,
really hard to be someone else, just to cash in on a trend. "Look, I'm DOOM!"
"Look, I'm Myst!" No, you're not. Other titles in this category:
"add-on" packs with DOS 2.1 interfaces for a bunch of levels you could get free
over the Internet, games that require you to know the complete plot of a previous B-movie
or comic book in order to solve the puzzles, or games which obviously would have been a
big seller for the Atari 2600, but just missed by 10 years.
|
0-39 (Waste of Time)
These "games" are better off in the incinerator than in
your PC. All they have going for them is a pretty box, if that. Stay clear. Don't go
there. Period. These are games that either don't work, are so cheesy that an old episode
of CHiPs looks like high drama by comparison, or are so simple that you can play
through the exciting parts (all 3 of them) in about the first 15 minutes. If you need a
drink coaster, consider them; otherwise, spend your money on something higher up the food
chain.
|
|
