How we score | Three Oaks Fold

Every game here is played by both of us, separately, for at least three weeks, on ordinary accounts we made ourselves. Then we compare sheets. This page is the whole process, including the part where we disagree.

Who we are, briefly

Rowan likes to build something and keep it: a city, a farm, a railway. Tess likes a round with a beginning and an end and a table that says who won. We chose each other for the site because of that difference, not despite it. If we both like a game, it is probably good for most people; if only one of us does, the note tells you which kind of player you need to be.

The four criteria

Time 35%: Does the game respect a working week? Can you miss a day? Are the timers set for the player or for the shop?
Fairness 30%: What can money buy, how loudly is it offered, and where exactly do the paying players sit? We score the experience of someone who never pays.
Depth 20%: Are there real decisions after week two, or only attendance?
Polish 15%: Interface, stability, readability on a laptop and a phone, and whether the game explains itself.

Separately, then together

We do not discuss a game while we are playing it. At the end of three weeks each of us fills in the four criteria out of ten, and each sheet is published as written. Where a criterion differs by more than a point we argue it, and the summary of that argument is the "where the fold closes" paragraph in every note. The agreed scores are the average once the argument is done; the agreed verdict is their weighted average.

The gap

Each pairing shows the gap between our two weighted scores. A small gap means the game is what it looks like. A large gap means it depends a great deal on what you want from an evening, and the note will say which of us you resemble.

What is not published

Anything with an agreed verdict under 7.0. We would rather have five notes we can both sign than a long list you have to read between the lines of.

Money