After four years of writing for this site, I figured it was finally time to explain my grading system, a.k.a. the skulls with sunglasses. It’s scaled from one to five, where one is horrible and five is an extremely rare experience of total bliss—to me, that is. By that I mean, it’s a highly subjective rating that has no basis in any kind of objectivity, as it’s an ENJOYMENT rating, and not a rating on the quality of the game from some kind of made-up list of “objective points”—for example, a criterion for gameplay, visuals, etc.
I am the solo writer for this site, after all, so my rating is entirely based on what I enjoy. This means a game without substantial gameplay, like a “walking sim”, still has a chance of hitting the fabled five-rating—if the game is enjoyable regardless. Naturally, it must hit high notes in the form of atmosphere, visuals, narrative and such, making gameplay not the end all. It’s actually more likely that a great narrative carries the gameplay than the opposite, as I find having a good story to follow is almost always essential—as it provides context to what you do.
The ratings:
 | “Dear God, what is this [rare] abomination! Burn it with fire!“ |
 | “Zero fun to be found, avoid!“ |
 | “Not a total flop, but close. A disappointment, overall“ |
 | “A good game that is missing that extra to take it higher. Enjoyable time spent, however“ |
 | “Surprisingly fun game that will be remembered, and probably played again“ |
 | “Extremely [rare] unicorn game that sent me to heaven when playing—a legendary title, in other words“ |
I hope this all makes sense, and remember, I don’t strive for objectivity, as I find even the notion absurd. It’s a review, which ninety-nine percent of the time is based on taste, so it can’t be based on anything else but subjectivity. Anyone telling you otherwise is most probably confused.
Thanks for reading.
– Thomas