Why Our Star Ratings Are Spread Across the Whole Scale
Most review sites cluster their ratings near the top. Wavebreak Games does not. This article explains why we use the full star scale and what that means for trust.
If you scroll through the catalogue here, you will see star ratings ranging from 2 stars to 4.5. The distribution is roughly bell-curved, with most games sitting between 3 and 4 stars. Five-star ratings are rare. Two-star ratings are also rare but they exist. This is deliberate, and it is meaningfully different from how most review sites operate.
Most review sites cluster their ratings near the top. Open any aggregator and you will find that "average" games receive 7-8 out of 10, "good" games receive 8.5-9.5, and "excellent" games receive 9.5-10. The bottom half of the scale is effectively unused. This compression makes ratings nearly useless because the difference between 8 and 9 carries enormous weight while the difference between 4 and 6 carries none.
We push against that drift on this site. This article explains why.
The problem with rating compression
When everyone uses the top of the scale, the scale stops being a scale. A 4-star game on most sites is actually a below-average game; a 4.5-star game is roughly average; a 5-star game just means "I liked it". The fine distinctions matter, and most sites have abandoned them.
Readers adapt to this compression by mental remapping. A reader who has read enough reviews knows that "an 8.5 means it is okay" and "a 9.5 means it is good". But this adaptation undermines the entire point of a rating system, which is to give readers a quick comparative sense of quality before they read the full review.
Worse, rating compression interacts poorly with the publishing economics that drive most review sites. Sites that depend on relationships with publishers cannot easily give a 2-star rating to a major release, because a 2-star review damages the relationship. The pressure pushes ratings up. The bottom of the scale becomes unusable; the top of the scale gets crowded.
How we use the full scale
The rating distribution on this catalogue at Wavebreak Games is roughly bell-curved. Most games sit at 3 or 3.5 stars because most games are mid. A few games at the top earn 4.5 stars because they actually achieve something. A few at the bottom earn 2.5 or 3 stars because they have real problems.
The 3-star rating is not damning. It means the game functions but does not stand out. A 3-star game might be worth playing if you specifically want that format; it would not be the first thing I recommend to a casual player.
The 3.5-star rating is for games that are good without being remarkable. Solid execution, thoughtful design, no major flaws. Most of the games I review fall in this band because most game-development effort produces solid-without-remarkable results.
The 4-star and 4.5-star ratings are for games that achieve something distinctive. Strong execution plus a design idea that works. These ratings are earned, not given.
The 5-star rating is rare in our catalogue and reserved for games where I could not think of anything significant I would change.
The 2.5-star ratings are for games with real problems. Broken mechanics, misleading marketing, aggressive monetisation that overwhelms the game underneath. Two-and-a-half stars gets used when the foundation works but the surrounding package is exploitative.
What this means for you as a reader
Reading reviews here requires recalibrating your expectations if you are used to most aggregator sites. A 3.5-star review on this site is roughly equivalent to an 8.0 review elsewhere; a 4-star review is roughly equivalent to a 9.0. The math is not exact but the ranking is preserved.
The benefit is that the bottom of our scale is meaningful. When I rate something 2.5 stars, I am telling you something specific about the experience. I am not just expressing "this is below average"; I am identifying actual problems with the game that you should know about before investing time in it.
When a 4.5-star review appears, it is also meaningful. It means the game is one of the strongest in its format on our catalogue. Tested across multiple Edinburgh Edinburgh tram commutes and weekend sessions, the 4.5-star games are the ones I return to weeks later.
The trade-off
Using the full scale honestly has a cost. Some developers do not like having their games rated 2.5 stars, even when the rating is fair. We get the occasional angry email. We respond to corrections (which sometimes change ratings) but not to pressure to inflate ratings.
The trade-off is worth it because the alternative is a rating system that has no information content. We would rather give two hundred honest ratings across the full scale than two hundred inflated ratings that all sit between 4 and 5 stars.
In summary
Our star ratings mean what they say. The scale is used. The distribution is bell-curved. Five stars is rare; two-and-a-half stars is real. When you read a review here and see a rating, you can trust that the rating reflects an actual assessment rather than a publisher-pleasing inflation.
That is the kind of catalogue we are trying to build. The full scale matters because honesty matters.
Frequently asked questions
Why do you give some games only 2.5 stars?
Some games have real problems (broken mechanics, exploitative monetisation, misleading marketing) that warrant low ratings. We use the full scale honestly rather than inflating ratings.
How rare are your top-tier ratings?
Very rare. The top of our scale is reserved for games that achieve something distinctive in their format. Most games settle into the 3 to 3.5 band where solid execution lives.
Are you saying most review sites lie?
Not lie exactly, but they compress their ratings near the top of the scale in a way that makes the ratings nearly useless for comparison. We push against that compression.
What does 3.5 stars actually mean on your site?
A 3.5-star game is solid without being remarkable. Good execution, thoughtful design, no major flaws. Worth playing if you are interested in that format.
How do I read your ratings if I am used to other sites?
Mentally subtract about half a star from what you would expect elsewhere. A 3.5-star review here is roughly equivalent to an 8.0 elsewhere; a 4-star review is roughly a 9.0.