If you are the owner/editor of a publication (website/magazine/newspaper) which reviews games and you would like it to be considered for inclusion in the Game Rankings process, please send us an email via the contacts page.

Q. Why don't you just use every review you can find in the composite score?
A. Consistency. Sites scores must effect all titles equally.  Let's say a source always gives high scores and it's lowest score ever was an 80%. It would be fine if that site reviewed every game, or at least a good number of games, and affected them all by raising their scores. Then when you compare two games, they would both have been affected. However, if it is from a site or magazine that either, we could only get a few reviews from, or only did a few reviews, then it would raise a small number of games causing their scores to be skewed.

Q. There are some sites that meet your criteria but are not in the composite score. Why?
A. There are some sites that have very short reviews that are non-informative and others that are just so poorly written, they are not included in the composite scores.

Q. Why do you only use the Fun Factor Score from GamePro instead of the composite score?
A. I use to average the four scores from there, but then they told me that they considered the Fun Factor to be the overall score.

Q. How are Letter Grades Translated?
A. Since the database is so large and everything needs to be calculated as numbers, the letter grades are actually translated to a number. When GR first started out it determined that there were 13 possible letter grades rangine from A+ to F. So We made it that an A+ was 13 out of 13 and an F was a 1 out of 13. It looked like this:
A+ 13/13 = 100%
A 12/13 = 92%
A- 11/13 = 85%
B+ 10/13 = 77%
B 9/13 = 69%
B- 8/13 = 62%
C+ 7/13 = 54%
C 6/13 = 46%
C- 5/13 = 38%
D+ 4/13 = 30%
D 3/13 = 23%
D- 2/13 = 15%
F 1/13 = 8%

As you can see, the scores drop very fast and for the most part, it was not reflective of what the reviewer meant for the score to be, so I re-thought it a bit and determined to increase the numbers:
A+ 20/20 = 100%
A 19/20 = 95%
A- 18/20 = 90%
B+ 17/20 = 85%
B 16/20 = 80%
B- 15/20 = 75%
C+ 14/20 = 70%
C 13/20 = 65%
C- 12/20 = 60%
D+ 11/20 = 55%
D 10/20 = 50%
D- 9/20 = 45%
F 1/20 = 5%

This seems more accurate of what the reviewer means for most sites. Take a Look at Bruce Lee's Reviews. Notice that the D- and D grades are actually high up in the list of reviews. If a D- was at 65%, it would be the second best review for the game, which is obviously not what the reviewer wants people to think. Therefore, I stand by my system, trust me, I have put more thought and tried more things than any of you ever will, and I feel this is the best way to reflect the scores.

Q. Shouldn't sites that score on a scale of 1-100 have more influence than sites that score out of 5 stars?
A. I couldn't agree more with this. I have a really nice formula to calculate average scores based on a weighting system, however, using the average is much more simplier and everyone understands it. I actually ran a test with the new formula and things didn't change all that much. This all goes back to the consistency issue. As long as a site is consistant and gives every good game a 5 out of 5 then it will effect all of them equally.

More coming soon....