Order of the Sinking Star Reviews & Critical Reception

Full-game reviews: the verdict and the conditions

The differences are useful. A Switch 2 performance complaint concerns that reviewer's console copy; it does not establish PS5 or Deck behavior. A critic who spent dozens of hours without reaching an ending can describe that experience, but cannot supply an observed account of every later puzzle.

Sources: Phil Hornshaw, GameSpot — original full-game review · Stephen Tailby, Push Square — PS5 review · Jordan Biordi, CGMagazine — Switch 2 review · Noah Kupetsky, SteamDeckHQ — review and Deck assessment · Chris Selogy, SmashPad — original PC review · OpenCritic — critic scores and aggregate snapshot

The disagreement is about what keeps you solving

Variety versus repetition

Kupetsky finds the changing interactions enough to keep the familiar core fresh. Biordi instead sees too much of the same activity beneath those changes. Both describe their own response to the puzzle loop; neither reaction predicts yours.

Freedom versus mental overload

Hornshaw values leaving one difficult area for another, while also describing moments when remembering the accumulated rules became the challenge. Tailby similarly appreciates the open structure but loses momentum across the game's scale.

Mystery versus weak story motivation

Kupetsky finds enough intrigue to keep exploring. Hornshaw and Tailby are less persuaded by the dialogue and fragmented stories. Enjoying the puzzles themselves may therefore matter more than expecting a tightly paced narrative.

Presentation versus readability

Biordi likes the colors and soundtrack. Selogy raises a separate concern about distinguishing colored beams, noting additional visual details that he initially missed. His concern is not a complete accessibility assessment or proof of an available corrective setting.

As an editorial reading of these accounts, the positive case is strongest for someone who enjoys learning rules and combining them across many grid puzzles. The reservations matter if repetition, weak story motivation or a large time commitment already puts you off. The gameplay overview describes the actual puzzle approaches so you can compare them with your preferences.

Sources: Phil Hornshaw, GameSpot — original full-game review · Stephen Tailby, Push Square — PS5 review · Jordan Biordi, CGMagazine — Switch 2 review · Noah Kupetsky, SteamDeckHQ — review and Deck assessment · Chris Selogy, SmashPad — original PC review

OpenCritic, Metacritic and individual scores answer different questions

The October 13 OpenCritic capture shows a Top Critic Average of 83, 87% Critics Recommend and 31 listed critic reviews. Those are the site's separate measures, not three versions of a player approval score. The listing covers PC, PS5 and Switch 2; the overall figure does not establish equal quality or performance on each platform.

Metacritic organizes critic and user scores separately and exposes different platform review sets. The supplied flattened capture includes multiple review counts without preserving which selector each belongs to. It would be misleading to assign its displayed number to every platform. Check the platform on the original Metacritic page when looking up its current score.

Keep individual scales intact. SteamDeckHQ's content score and its Deck usability rating judge different things, and an 8/10 review is not a claim that 80% of owners recommend the game. These snapshots were collected on October 13; later reviews or ratings can change the aggregate.

Sources: OpenCritic — critic scores and aggregate snapshot · Metacritic — original game listing · Noah Kupetsky, SteamDeckHQ — review and Deck assessment

Player feedback and June previews have narrower scopes

The supplied Steam top-rated review capture includes different launch-week reactions: EterIll complains about optimization, while the review by 叶怀归 praises the difficulty progression but finds some scenery visually busy. Those are individual Steam players' reports. The selected helpful-review feed is not a representative poll, and neither post supplies enough hardware and settings detail for a controlled performance comparison.

Tom Marks' June 25 IGN article concerns the demo. Its enthusiasm and playtime observations describe that sample, not the full game's later areas or an October launch review. Similarly, a recording titled “review” needs its own edition, platform and stated play scope checked; a title or video length cannot establish full completion.

Sources: Steam — original top-rated user review feed · Tom Marks, IGN — June demo preview

Match the review concern to your buying decision

• If puzzle variety is the deciding factor, compare the critics' explanations of combined mechanics rather than choosing by score alone.
• If handheld play is essential, read the Deck support and settings or Switch 2 performance accounts for the edition you intend to buy.
• If the commitment worries you, the length and completion reference separates reported playing time from developer estimates and optional completion.
• If a reported technical fault is the deciding issue, check the specific Steam fixes and support route instead of assuming a pre-launch review proves the current problem persists.

The scores, playtime reports and judgments above belong to their named sources. This roundup offers a comparison of those accounts; an original final verdict, accessibility test or hardware benchmark would require separate work that this site has not performed.

Sources: Phil Hornshaw, GameSpot — original full-game review · Stephen Tailby, Push Square — PS5 review · Jordan Biordi, CGMagazine — Switch 2 review · Noah Kupetsky, SteamDeckHQ — review and Deck assessment · Chris Selogy, SmashPad — original PC review