Compare games on any two criteria
Pick what goes on each axis. Price, audience size, accessibility and hardware demand are derived from store data and cover most of the catalogue. Story, gameplay, graphics, originality and variety are our reviewer's sub-scores, so they exist only where a person has actually played the game.
1,839 games have both · top 18 labelled
Price. Current asking price, inverted and indexed so that free scores 100 and a full-price release scores near zero. It moves whenever the price moves.
Players. The share of Steam reviews marked positive, pulled toward the catalogue average in proportion to how few reviews stand behind it. A game with 200 reviews moves a long way toward the average; one with 200,000 barely moves at all. Without this a title sitting at 100 percent on nine reviews outranks Half-Life 2 at 98 percent on 278,000.
- Mobile
- Multi-platform
- Nintendo
- PC
- PlayStation
- Xbox
Every point links to that game's entry. The value map and the reception map are fixed views of the same data.
How positions are decided
No paid placement, no favouritism, live third-party data
- Placed by the published method, not by us. Every coordinate is computed from the axis definitions and weights printed on this site. Nobody moves a point. See the axes.
- Nothing here is paid for. No sponsored placements, no promoted slots, no arrangement of any kind affects a position. If that ever changes it will be labelled and sit outside the ranking.
- No favouritism, including our own. The 16 games we have written full reviews of are scored by exactly the same formula as the other 1,510, from the same third-party inputs, and they land where it puts them. Our own opinion of a game does not enter its coordinates.
- A position is not an endorsement. It says how a game was received and what it costs, not that we recommend it. Where we do recommend something, it carries a written review with a name on it.
- Fetched from live third-party data. Player sentiment from Steam, critic aggregates as published on store pages, prices checked hourly, attention from Wikipedia. Each figure carries its source and the date it was read, and we do not adjust any of them.
What each criterion measures, and how far it reaches
| Criterion | Source | Games with it |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | Derived from store data | 3,201 |
| Accessibility | Derived from store data | 2,040 |
| Hardware | Derived from store data | 2,040 |
| Players | Derived from store data | 2,037 |
| Audience | Derived from store data | 2,035 |
| Price | Derived from store data | 1,849 |
| Critics | Derived from store data | 1,008 |
| Score | Our reviewer, after playing it | 6 |
| Value | Our reviewer, after playing it | 6 |
| Story | Our reviewer, after playing it | 6 |
| Gameplay | Our reviewer, after playing it | 6 |
| Graphics | Our reviewer, after playing it | 6 |
| Originality | Our reviewer, after playing it | 6 |
| Variety | Our reviewer, after playing it | 6 |
| Replay | Our reviewer, after playing it | 6 |
Why the editorial rows are small. Story, gameplay, graphics, originality, variety and replay value are judgements. They cannot be derived from an API and we will not generate them, so they exist only on the 16 games a reviewer has played and scored. Everything else is read from a store listing and is checkable against it.
On "how many people played it"
Nobody publishes player counts. Valve does not, and publishers only announce sales when the number flatters them. So the Audience axis uses reviews written, log-scaled.
That is a floor, not a count. Only a small and self-selecting slice of players ever writes a review, so the real number is far higher and the multiplier varies by genre, price and how angry the community is. Treat it as an order of magnitude: a game with 200,000 reviews was played by vastly more people than one with 2,000, and that comparison holds even though neither figure is a player count.
We do not multiply it by an assumed ratio to produce an owner estimate. Several sites do, and the estimates disagree with each other by a factor of three.
Fixed views of the same data: value and quality, critics and players, reach and reception.