Home
Review Policy

Review Policy

Our website uses a 10-point numerical scale (1–10, whole numbers only) for all primary review scores.

  • No decimal points or half-scores will be used to avoid false precision and maintain clarity.
  • Component breakdowns (e.g., separate scores for gameplay, visuals, audio, etc.) may be provided as supplementary information, but the headline score will always be a single integer from 1 to 10.

Why do we use the 10-Point Numerical Scale?

The choice of scoring scale is foundational to the review process. It affects not only how readers interpret scores but also how reviewers approach their evaluations.

  • Familiar to most audiences, aligning with school grading and consumer surveys.
  • Provides sufficient granularity to distinguish between games of similar quality without overwhelming readers with excessive precision.
  • Supports advanced statistical analysis and normalization, which is valuable for aggregating scores and identifying trends.

Score breakdown:

10 – Essential

A genre-defining, landmark release with near-flawless execution. Sets a new standard.

9 – Superb

Outstanding in most respects, with only minor flaws. Highly recommended.

8 – Great

Strong, memorable, and enjoyable, with notable strengths outweighing any issues.

7 – Good

Solid and enjoyable, but with clear limitations or missed opportunities.

6 – Alright

Competent but unremarkable; enjoyable for fans, but with significant flaws

5 – Mediocre

Passable, but lacking in key areas. Not recommended unless you have a strong interest.

4 – Poor

Substantial problems or lack of polish; difficult to recommend

3 – Bad

Major flaws or design failures; not enjoyable for most players.

2 – Terrible

Fundamentally broken or unenjoyable; avoid unless you have a specific reason

1 – Unplayable

Severely flawed, incomplete, or nonfunctional; not recommended under any circumstances.

Reviewer Assignment:

  • Expertise Matching: Reviews are assigned to contributors with demonstrated knowledge of the game’s genre, platform, or series, ensuring informed and relevant criticism.
  • Interest and Disclosure: Reviewers should have a genuine interest in the game but must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal relationships with developers, prior employment, crowdfunding support).
  • Diversity of Perspectives: The editorial team will strive to represent a range of voices and backgrounds, recognizing that diversity enriches critical analysis.

1. Review Process

  • Thorough Playthrough: Reviewers are expected to play the game extensively, completing the main campaign and engaging with significant side content, multiplayer modes, or endgame features as appropriate.
  • Note-Taking: Detailed notes should be kept on gameplay mechanics, narrative, technical performance, and other relevant aspects.
  • Comparative Analysis: Reviews should contextualize the game within its genre, platform, and the developer’s previous work, highlighting innovations or shortcomings.
  • Evidence-Based Critique: All opinions must be supported by specific examples and observations. Vague or unsupported statements are discouraged.
  • Objectivity and Subjectivity: While reviews are inherently subjective, reviewers must strive for fairness, acknowledging both strengths and weaknesses and considering the game’s intended audience.

1.2. Ethical Standards

  • Separation from Commercial Interests: Reviewers must not accept gifts, payments, or incentives from publishers or developers beyond the provision of review copies necessary for coverage.
  • Disclosure of Review Copies: If a review copy is provided by a publisher or developer, this must be disclosed in the review.
  • Embargoes and NDAs: Reviewers must respect embargoes and non-disclosure agreements but will not allow such agreements to influence the content or tone of the review.

2. Criteria for Re-Review

A game may be considered for re-review if:

  • Major Updates: Substantial changes to gameplay, content, or technical performance (e.g., major patches, expansions, overhauls).
  • Community Impact: Significant shifts in player experience or reception.
  • Editorial Judgment: The editorial team determines that the original review no longer accurately reflects the game.

2.1. Re-Review Procedures

  • Transparency: Any re-review or score update will be clearly labelled, with the date of the update and a summary of changes since the original review.
  • Preservation of Original Review: The original review and score will remain accessible for historical context. The updated review will reference the original and explain the rationale for any score change.
  • Addenda vs. Full Re-Review: Minor updates may be addressed with an addendum or update log appended to the original review. Major overhauls warrant a full re-review, potentially by a different reviewer to provide a fresh perspective.

2.2. Frequency and Limitations

  • Resource Considerations: Due to resource constraints, not all games will be eligible for re-review. Priority will be given to titles that are highly relevant or of significant audience interest.
  • Score Stability: Scores will not be changed lightly or in response to minor patches or community feedback alone. The editorial team will exercise judgment to avoid score volatility.