A new way to rank games…what do you think?


Possibly the most vital part of any game review is the final score. Raise your hand if you have ever skipped an entire review to get straight to the final score in order to decide whether you should buy the game.

So now that we’ve established that, here’s my idea for a fresh new take on that oh-so-essential part of review anatomy: a game gets ranked based on how much money it should be worth. For example, I would rate Super Street Fighter IV: 3D Edition as $30 (sorry, it’s just not what you’d call a mustbuy game to me). Keep in mind this is not going to be incorporated into actual Infendo reviews. I’m simply responding to this recent episode of Infendo Radio.

But here’s the big question for all of you Infendo readers: under this system, should an exceptional game such as The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D receive a perfect $40 score? Or should the system accommodate scores that extend beyond suggested prices, thereby providing the possibility of Ocarina of Time receiving say, a $45 score? Let us know what you think!


  1. That’s an interesting way to do it, and I always try to factor in hours/dollar of gameplay…but that doesn’t always mean quality. There are always exceptions. A game like Uncharted 2 is worth every penny for the single player alone, but the multiplayer adds an insane amount of extra hours. On the other hand a game like COD you could easily sink 60+hrs into online, but the single player alone is definitely not worth 60, imo.

  2. And also a game like Kirby’s epic yarn is so unique that I don’t mind that it’s as short as it is. Again, quality beats quantity any day…

  3. The problem with this ranking system is that a good big chunk of gamers today think games should only be priced between $0.99 and $9.99…

  4. i prefer numbers. it’s unclear what the top possible price could be. it’s messier to write. it’s unclear how $ criteria relate to traditional game rating criteria.

    innovative though!

  5. It’s a nice idea, but I doubt it’s gonna work that well. If price is capped, then the scale loses all meaning in terms of differentiating between great games. If it isn’t, it just seems insane to say games should be worth more than the sale price, and for MMORPGs…

    Besides, some short games are good too. Value doesn’t equal quality.

  6. I agree with the general sentiment (that price just won’t cut it). I am not even sure I agree with stars, hearts (marshmallows, clovers, or blue moons…..sorry…..). I like something like….tiers.

    Sorry for the hijack, but here’s my thoughts:
    Must buy – This is the top tier. It doesn’t matter what your interests are, this game is worth purchasing, probably as soon as you physically (fiscally) can.

    Fan of series, must buy – These games are good, usually amongst the best in their series. Well worth trying out for people who have never tried the series or genre of game. While worth purchasing for many, no rush.

    Must play, high replay – These games are just good to play. You are guaranteed one good play through with additional plays still being enjoyable for most. Don’t see anything else you want? Pick this game up.

    Good single play – Great game….one time through. Like the movie Butterfly Effect much magic is lost after your first full experience. Unless you are a collector/fan of the series, genre, or developer, rent this title ONLY.

    Rental only – Provides some fun in specific situations or conditions. Has flaws that continued play would probably just frustrate players or too simplistic to enjoy for even a complete play. These games are often good for young children, maybe.

    Stay away – Just don’t look at this(these) games. Not worth the time to pick up the box or even to read the title without having to touch it.

    I know this is similar to a “star” system/ranking, but putting this out there makes it painfully obvious what you, as the reviewer, meant/experienced. If you want to stick with stars and use this system, the bottom is zero stars with no half-stars awarded: you would just complicate things more.

  7. I really like the way Kotaku reviews games. They don’t attach a number, but rather bullet the likes and dislikes of a game. I may not always want to read the extensive review, but I’m down to check out the list of things that really sell or don’t sell the game. I don’t always need details since I’ll see them once I play the game.

  8. I agree with this article. Although everyone will have a different opinion regarding how to rate games. personally I prefer reading up on what the game is about, watching videos of gameplay then deciding either to give it a chance or not. If the game has a demo out I would try that out too, but I believe in taking risks.

  9. I’ve never thought about the ‘should-have’ pricing. I think there’s a well-thought out system with it.

    But I’ve been thinking about rating games too, and rating in general, and it much concurs with RisnDevil’s way of rating: use words instead of symbols, numbers or abstract nonsense. Words are a lot more definable, correct and can summarize a game perfectly.

    Now the only question is: what words to use?
    Or do you just come up with words that describe each game perfectly, without having a specific, word-pool to choose from?

  10. Hmm….@RisnDevil actually gave me a bit of an idea, one I didn’t have coming into this post.

    Instead of tiers, though, a game is awarded…erm…awards at the end of the review à la Gamespot (http://i.imgur.com/OI0A6.png).

    Actually, I think the image I just posted shows a great alternative to review scores (though Gamespot continues to use scores as well.)

    ….Why do I never go to Gamespot anymore, again?

  11. Ratings out of 100 are silly. I would much prefer a 5 point system where even a 3 star game is pretty good if average. If there is a problem with price for value, it should just be written in the review. Rating a 3 or 4 sounds much better than a game that gets 60% or 70%.

  12. I may be biased since I made this a part of my private metrics but I like the idea. Game plays like a 1-10, Each component of the game when judged is a 1-10, based upon X amount of playtime and considering the games value as a whole it is worth experiencing at $XX.XX max.

    That, like the $0.25 I found on the ground, is change that I can believe in.

  13. This is weird because, I have created my own ranking system years ago for the Wii games in particular but, it could easily be adapted for any system. Check this out! I don’t mind sharing my logic.

    1. (WHAT I LOOK FOR)
    When looking for a new game I now look for length/replay over all things except quality. Quality weighing 60 percent and length/replay weighing the remainder 40 on a purchasable scale. Quality is a big factor in my book and can be broken down into three categories.

    Quality categories
    A. Concept/Vision (30% of 60)
    B. Graphics (15% of 60)
    C. Controls (15% of 60)

    2. (WHAT KEEPS ME)
    length/replay categories are completely subjective, I think it depends on the individual. I can justify Metal Gear Solid:The Twin Snakes as a purchase for me because, it had some replay incentives, dog tags, pictures, outfits, etc. Honestly only to a fan would this matter. This case will make or break the length/replay value. For some it’s online for me I could care less in some cases. Depends on the genre…FPS online preferred for me but, RPG I don’t prefer it in most cases. Even games with no seeming replay value have replay value depending on the individual and how fond they are of the title.This is why I base most of the purchasable title on quality and it’s three counterparts. Because, truthfully the length/replay are needed icing on a cake depending on whether the cake was baked right to your favorite taste. =)

    PS. A game that has a score between 75~100 up for grabs and, on my radar. If I am looking for that genre and game system entertainment atm.