But since taking on a post at Aeropause, I've been getting back into it. So far, I've reviewed Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit and Soulcalibur IV... and more will come. Both of those arrived to Aeropause via a third party marketing firm, who sends out retail copies on behalf of whatever company has hired them to do so. My point being that because I get these games for free, I feel more compelled to write a review than I did when it was at my own cost. I like getting the games for nothing, so I see the review as my actual payment.

Aeropause uses a 1 to 5 review system, with half points allowed... essentially a ten point scale. Eleven if you include a zero rating. So I've been thinking lately about how to quantify those numbers, so I get my own internal consistency in my reviews. I know the trend in game reviews is to drop the number, and there's some very good rationale behind that. But flawed as it is, it's still an easy way to describe a game, one that a lot of gamers rely on... if only more reviewers would be willing to give scores below 8-out-of-10, we'd probably see more value in it (as consumers; as game companies, that's another story).

So here's what I came up with.

FIVE out of five
I don't believe in reserving this for a "perfect" game, mainly because I've never played such a thing. Invariably, even the best games end in me wishing they'd done X differently or avoided Y altogether. A five game is one that is as good as it gets. If there's a storyline, I probably want to keep playing even after it's over.

AWESOME: My examples of five-rank games: GTAIV, MGS4, Smash Brawl, Fatal Frame 2.

AMAZING, 4.5: Games will lose half a point if there's merely one critical item that seems to be holding back Ultimate Greatness. IE, the general unfinished feel to No More Heroes.

FOUR out of five
If a game seems to have a couple of those critical failings, like Soulcalibur IV still lacking a decent replay mode and screwing up the stat-keeping... then we're in four territory. Still obviously a great game, but somewhat tarnished by several factors.

GREAT: My examples of four-rank games: Ratchet & Clank Future, Professor Layton, Mario Kart Wii, Rock Band.

GOOD, 3.5: If an otherwise great game starts seeming not-fun due to those failings, then it gets dropped half a point. Like - wait for it - the don't-choose-your-own-pathiness of Super Linear Galaxy.

THREE out of five
These may be some of the most interesting titles, because, to me, three out of five means there's some serious issues but the game should totally be played anyway. It's probably fun and interesting in spite of itself. It's recommendable to others... but definitely not playing in the same league as the fours and fives.

Things start getting complicated here, because while top games and bottom games are usually obvious to all, determining the middle of the pack is wildly subjective. Games here may be stupidly difficult (or stupidly easy), be too high maintenance, contain insipid writing/acting, or simply be for fanboys only... and that's all valid discourse for the review.

ACCEPTABLE: My examples of three-rank games: Chulip, Disaster Report, Beyond Good & Evil, Eye of Judgment.

OK, 2.5: I'll drop a game half a point here, if there's just too much wrong from top to bottom. Like the recycled animation, weird presentation and low character count in Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit.

TWO out of five
We're finally into games that, generally speaking, aren't worth playing. Except now the delineation is reversed: now I'm looking for the few redeeming qualities that keep it from truly pro-grade sucking. There is still the possibility here that, for some extreme niche audience, the game is more or less fine.

LOUSY: My examples of two-rank games: Blast Works, Endless Ocean, Drawn to Life, Disgaea.

BAD, 1.5: What differentiates a 1.5 game from a 1? Probably me liking the license, as in Zatch Bell: Mamodo Fury.

ONE out of five
There is almost nothing good to say about the game. A vast array of technical errors will certainly catapult a game into this zone, but the key issue is that it is largely tedious, unplayable bullshit. The purchase is regretted almost immediately.

AWFUL: Examples of one-rank games: Lair, Cooking Mama: Cook Off, Lost in Blue, Sea Trader: Rise of Taipei.

TERRIBLE, MONSTROUS: I can't imagine a game worthy of a .5 or 0. It's just getting mean-spirited at that point. There's not a pressing need to go any lower than 1, because it's already a loss on the record anyway. I guess a game would have to not even boot up for me to award a zero, and I don't run Vista, so there's little chance of that happening.

Clearly a highly personal structure, but that's the way reviews work. I also think it's vital to keep the game bracketed in its own contemporary timeframe (unless the review is intended to explore how Game X holds up today, months or years after it was first released). Odds are, the next Grand Theft Auto will top GTAIV, but we can't give it six out of five just so it ranks higher. Of course, this sucks for just that reason... this allows games that arrive ahead of their time but then become outmoded to remain numerically competitive forever (seriously, is Ocarina that good today?), but that's why we put timestamps on our pages.