How we rate

The three criteria, in order of use

1. Input

   The conversation across your thumb and the glass. We test on small and large screens, with and without a case, and note any control scheme that assumes two free hands and perfect lighting.

2. Intent

   What the game is trying to be, and how close it gets. A tightly made twenty-minute puzzle can outscore a sprawling one that never decides what it wants. We judge ambition against execution, not against size.

3. Investment

   What the game asks for in time, storage and money, set against what it gives back. Clear pricing helps a game here. Pressure to spend in order to keep ordinary progress moving hurts it.

How the shortlist is drawn

We start with what is actually on the store in our market, not with a list of games we already like. The two of us read listings during the week, note anything that looks worth an evening, and keep a running file of candidates. A game gets into that file for one of three reasons: it does something structurally unusual, it is a familiar idea executed with unusual care, or readers keep writing in about it. Popularity alone is not a reason, and neither is a high star average.

Then the file gets cut. We open every candidate on a phone we own, play it until we can describe what the game asks of a player, and throw out anything we cannot describe honestly. A game we could not get running, or could not spend a real session with, does not appear. That is the whole gatekeeping step, and it is deliberately dull.

Input, at more length

Most mobile games fail here first, and it is rarely the fault of the idea. A control scheme can be fine on a tablet on a desk and unusable on a bus. We look at where the fingers sit, how much of the screen they cover, whether the game expects precision that a thumb cannot deliver, and whether it recovers gracefully when the touch is late. We also look for the small courtesies: a pause that actually pauses, a way to restart quickly, text you can read without moving the phone closer.

Games that only work in one posture lose ground. Games that work leaning against a wall in poor light gain it.

Intent, at more length

This is the criterion that most often changes an order after an argument. A game with a modest goal that hits it cleanly can outrank a larger one that leaves half of its ideas unfinished. We try to state what each game seems to want to be — a five-minute distraction, a long campaign, a single tense scenario — and then judge how close it gets. That is why a smaller game can beat a bigger one on this page, and why a game with a lower star average can sit higher than one with a better score.

Investment, at more length

Price is the easy part: we print the price label from the listing as it stands, whether that is a one-time figure or a free download with extras. The judgement is about pressure. A game that sells cosmetic things is different from one that slows ordinary progress until you pay to unpick the slowdown, and readers feel the difference within an hour. Storage and battery belong here too. A game that asks for a large slice of a modest phone has to give something back for it.

From notes to a number

Each game leaves the process with a score between 5.0 and 9.8, printed to one decimal place. There is no formula, no percentage weighting and no spreadsheet that spits out a verdict. Two people compare notes on the three criteria and agree on a number, then check that the numbers still read sensibly against each other from top to bottom. If they do not, the argument continues until they do. We would rather describe that honestly than dress it up as measurement.

The scale, in words

Nothing below the low fives reaches the page at all, because a game we would not recommend at any point does not need a ranking. In the middle fives and low sixes sit games with a real idea and a real flaw — usually controls, sometimes pressure to spend. From the high sixes to the mid sevens are games we would happily suggest to somebody who already likes the genre. The eights are for games we kept opening after the notes were finished. The very top of the scale is reserved and mostly unused; a nine and a half means we could not find a reader we would warn away.

Why our number is not the star average

The star figure on a listing answers a different question. It gathers thousands of individual verdicts, many of them written in the first ten minutes or in the middle of an irritation, and averages them. It is useful, and we print it beside our own number for exactly that reason. But it does not distinguish craft from convenience, and it does not care whether a game is still interesting in week three. Our figure is a judgement by two named roles at one desk, and it will sometimes disagree with a very large crowd.

What we do not do

We do not take payment for a place in the ranking, and there is no arrangement under which a developer, publisher or agency could buy one. We do not score a game we have not opened ourselves. We do not copy another publication's verdict, and we do not reprint marketing copy as though it were our assessment. We do not invent testing figures, and you will not find claims about hours logged or devices surveyed anywhere on this site, because we have not counted them.

What a ranking is not

This page is editorial opinion. It is not a purchase recommendation, and it is not advice about whether any particular game suits you, your household or your phone. Every entry links out to its own Google Play listing, and that listing is where price, content rating, permissions, device compatibility and availability are actually determined. Read it before you decide. The Weekly Report is an independent publication and is not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by Google LLC.

See the current ranking