How I Rate Games

I give two scores for each game. The first is a rating out of five. This is my emotional reaction to the game; do I LIKE it? Will I play it again? What's my own feeling for the game.

0 = this is not a game, it's a waste of space, just a joke publication

1 = I really don't enjoy it, will never play it again if I can help it

2 = I don't really like it, but it's ok, not bad, just not my kind of game. can play it with the right people and enjoy my experience because of the people I am playing with

3 = It's ok, I would play it from time to time and enjoy, but wouldn't put any effort to find that game to play it.

4 = I really like this game. I'd probably look for it from time to time and recommend it to people. It's a good game that I enjoy playing.

5 = I love this game. I would play it at every opportunity.

Then we have The Perfect Game Score

In my mind the perfect game should have a balance of all different factors. For example, I think a game that has a little bit of luck or chaos, that is mid-level complex, where players can affect each other during the game and where anybody still has a 'chance' of winning even when they are behind and late on, these to me make a good game. I have a list of game factors and rate how much each factor affects the game on a scale of 0-5 and I have in my mind a sweet spot for each game and then how important that factor is to the overall decision on whether this is a perfect game or not. I add up all these scores, add in my own emotional reaction to the game and this gives me a score from 100. So, with my score, a 100 would, in my eyes, be the perfect game.

With this scoring system it's quite possible that I might more enjoy a game that I rate at 60/100 than a game that gets a score of 70/100. It's definitely possible.

As I review more and more games I will be interested to see how different games rate on this Perfect Score system.

Here are the game factors, on a rating of 0-5.

0 = does not exist at all in the game

1 = exists in the game, but barely noticeable

2 = affects gameplay but has a very minor involvement

3 = is apparent throughout the game

4 = is important to the game, has a big influence on most turns

5 = is imperative, absolutely crucial to how the game works

In order of importance:

LUCK - will almost always be related to dice or cards or a spinner, some kind of random event

SOLVEABLE - does the game have a known pattern of play that can be studied and learned so that in any given situation there is a definitive 'best move' for that situation. Chess and Go are examples of games that could, in theory, be solved. Tic-tac-toe or noughts and crosses is definitely a solved game and would score 5.

HIDDEN INFO - is there information that is active that I can't see that would otherwise affect my decisions if I could see it? For example, in a card game the other players would be hiding their cards and if I knew what they had I'd probably make other decisions.

COMPLEXITY - how much is going on in the game, are there are a lot of moving parts or different mechanics to keep an eye on or consider? How many different channels do I have to split my brain into to be able to make good choices?

ENGAGEMENT - For how much of the game am I involved with? When it is not my turn am I watching to see what is going on, is there still something for me to do, or would I be bored waiting for my turn?

COMEBACK - What is the potential for coming back if I fall behind in the game? Do I still have a good chance of winning if I fall behind early-on, or if the game is past halfway is it still possible to stage a late comeback however unlikely?

CONFLICT - Is there an area of conflict where I can affect other players or compete with other players for what would otherwise be common ground? For example, in a war game you are literally fighting for territory and probably destroying each other's armies. In Splendor, you might take a card from the common area that your opponent wanted, so you can affect their plan quite significantly.

TAKE THAT - Can I do something that hurts what my opponent has made or has gained? Can I harm them for no other reason than to harm them? Not like war, where you're competing for one space, more like making you miss a turn or just taking your resources away from you.

PLANNING - Is there any potential to plan further turns? Can I come up with a plan for how my game will unfold?

VOLATILITY - Can the state of the game or the playing area change from unexpected events when it is not my turn? Can my opponents or random events move the state of the game in an unexpected way?

SKILL - How important is player skill, experience or knowledge of the game? How often will better players beat novice players?

REPLAYABILITY - How much will my strategy vary from game to game if I play again? Will my experience be very similar or will the game unfold in a different pattern when I play again?