How the number is made
Four criteria, fixed weights, three weeks minimum.
Who plays
Two of us play each world on fresh accounts on a normal live server, without press access or free premium currency. The third reads both sets of notes and asks the awkward questions. Minimum three weeks; longer where a world has a round structure worth seeing through.
The four criteria
| Criterion | Weight | The question |
|---|---|---|
| Time | 35% | Can you make real progress in a short session? Are timers pacing or pressure? Does it punish a day off? |
| Fairness | 30% | How far does a free player get, and does paying buy convenience or victory? Are prices shown plainly? |
| Depth | 20% | Is there still something to learn in week three? Do alliances or neighbours create real social play? |
| Polish | 15% | Does it load fast, run in the four major browsers and stay readable on a laptop screen? |
Each criterion is scored out of ten independently. Where we differ by more than two points we play another week. The verdict is the weighted average rounded to one decimal place.
The paid week
After the free period, one of us spends a fixed amount, roughly a cinema ticket where we live, the way a typical player would and records what it bought and how far it moved the account. That week feeds the fairness score.
Re-tests and removals
Worlds are re-tested when they change their shop, release a major update or when readers report something material. A world is dropped if it breaks an entry rule, scores below 7.0 or its community shrinks to the point where multiplayer stops working.
Independence
Affiliate links carry the sponsored attribute and are added after verdicts are locked. Publishers have no editorial input. If you think a verdict has something wrong, tell us.