Sliced Gaming Australia

Review Policy

To coincide with the launch of Sliced Gaming v1.5, we're also changing the way we review games. Have you ever noticed that on other gaming websites, an ‘average’ game gets rated about seven out of ten? Or that each tenth of a point between nine and ten out of ten is exponentially more important than the last, while the difference between a two and a four is pretty negligible? Does that make much sense?

Well, it doesn’t to us. So, we've put our heads together and come up with a new review system. The idea is that an average game should get a score that’s at the midpoint of the scale – a five. In other words, a seven on other sites can be seen as a five on ours. This redistributes the scatter of the scores, resulting in more scores below five, and fewer above it.

Why do it? Well, the top-heavy nature of the videogame scoring scale always irritated us. Plus, it gives greater “weight”, if you like, to a score. You know that if a game gets an eight, it really is great. Likewise, a game that got a four isn’t a disaster, it’s simply a little unimpressive. What's the difference between a score of 8.4 and 8.5, anyway? It also places greater emphasis on innovation and creativity, by not giving games five points for simply running, which is basically the way the old system worked. An easy way to think of it is as ‘better than average’ or ‘better than expected’ for a score over five, and ‘worse than average/expected’ for a score less than five.

We rate on a twenty-one-point scale between zero and ten (including halves). Here’s an idea of what the new scores mean:


0-0.5: Terrible. Okay, this is still pretty damn awful.

1-1.5: Bad. Several major flaws make the game practically unplayable, and it’s hardly worth your time even if it was.

2-2.5: Mediocre. It had potential, but due to one or two major issues in game design it’s almost not worth playing.

3-3.5: Disappointing. It has a couple of noteworthy issues but is pretty functional if you can look past them. Offers some shallow enjoyment.

4-4.5: Underwelming. It’s let down by a couple of confusing gameplay choices, and might also be missing a feature you’d expect to be in the game. Some enjoyment can still be had.

5: Average. Not good, but not bad either – just a standard, functional, unoriginal game.

5.5-6: Decent.It’s creative in a few small ways, and offers good, simple fun.

6.5-7: Good. It impresses in one or two areas, but it is perhaps a little uneven in production value and leaves you wanting a bit more from other aspects of the game. Offers deeper enjoyment and has decent replay value.

7.5-8: Great. It contains one or two significantly creative game design choices that set it apart from others in the genre. Consistently fun to play, and excels in several areas.

8.5-9: Magnificent. It’s constantly surprising, and a blast to play. It runs well, contains basically every feature you want and has top-notch production values.

9.5-10: Practically perfect. Extremely rare, a game earning this score is creative, stylish and incredibly enjoyable. It’s a must-have game, and a system seller.


We will leave our archive of reviews scored as they are, but all future reviews will follow this format. We hope that this new system will make our review scores more meaningful and easier for you to understand.