Reference
How the scores on this site are worked out
BrickRecap is written and maintained by one person and covers six games. There is no panel, no rubric with weighted categories and no second opinion, and pretending otherwise would be the quickest way to make everything else on the site untrustworthy.
What follows is the whole method, including the parts that are simply a matter of taste.
| Band | What it means in practice | Games here |
|---|---|---|
| 8.5 and above | Stayed on the phone after the review was finished, and I still open it | Wolf Tales |
| 7.5 to 8.4 | Genuinely good, with one thing about it I would warn you off | WildCraft, Wolf And Moon |
| 7.0 to 7.4 | Works for a specific kind of player and not for anyone else | Wolf: The Evolution |
| Below 7.0 | Competent and thin; worth an evening rather than a fortnight | Wolf Jigsaw, Animal Kingdoms |
The bands are drawn after the fact rather than before. I score the game, then notice where it landed, which is the honest order even if it is the less scientific one.
What the number is
The score is a single figure out of ten and it answers one question: how glad was I that this app was on my phone. It is not an average of sub-scores, because no sub-scores are kept, and it is not calibrated against any other publication.
Scores on this site run from 6.7 to 8.9. Nothing scores lower because nothing lower survived long enough on the handset to be written about, and nothing scores ten because I have not played it yet.
What the number deliberately ignores
Popularity. One game here has over a million ratings and another has fewer than two thousand, and they are judged the same way. The star average on the store page has no influence at all on the editorial score - the two numbers sit next to each other on every review precisely so you can see when they disagree.
Production budget. A small puzzle app can beat a large open world on this site, and it does.
Genre expectations. A nonogram and an open-world sim are scored against the same question, which is unfair to both and at least consistent.
Where the Google Play facts come from
Everything factual on a review page - developer, star rating, number of ratings, content rating and the date the app was last updated - is taken from the Australian Google Play listing for that app, checked on 10 September 2026. The table on the front page quotes the same figures.
Play listings change. Where a figure here matters to you, check it against the current listing before acting on it, and if you find something out of date, the address on the contact page is the fastest way to have it fixed.
How long each game gets
A minimum of three sessions on separate days, at the time of day the game is designed for, on an ordinary Android handset rather than a high-end one. Most of the six got considerably more than that and two got several weeks.
That is enough to describe an experience honestly and not always enough to see everything a large game contains. WildCraft in particular has years of material behind it, and where a review runs out of road it says so rather than guessing.
Why only wolves
Because a narrow shelf can be covered properly. Six games about wolves is a subject somebody can read end to end in an evening, and every one of them can be compared against the other five on the same terms.
Games with aggressive or unpleasant content do not appear here, which is an editorial choice rather than a rating, and it is why a couple of well-known titles in this corner of the store are missing.
Disagreeing with a score
The most useful disagreement is specific: a mechanic described incorrectly, a fact that no longer matches the store page, or an experience of the same game that contradicts mine. All three are welcome and the first two get corrected.
The least useful is the score itself, which is one person opinion by construction and cannot be argued into a different number.