How this trust score was computed
Trust blends alignment (40%): does the outlet rank games the way players do; decoded accuracy (30%): after translating the outlet's own scale habits (a '7/10 means mediocre' scale is decoded, not punished), how well its reviews predict player sentiment; and player-side (30%): on games where press consensus and players sharply disagreed, whose side it took. Recent reviews weigh more (2-year half-life), and the blend is shrunk toward a neutral prior (60) so small samples can't peg the scale. Player quality is launch-window Steam sentiment, so outlets aren't punished for reviewing a launch build that later got patched.
Controversy record: on 3 games where press consensus and players sharply disagreed, this reviewer sided with players 1 time.
Computed 7m ago · full methodology →
Outlet vs. players
Each dot is a game both this outlet and players scored. The dashed line is perfect agreement: dots above it mean the outlet was more generous than players, below it more harsh.
Biggest disagreements with players
The receipts: games where this outlet's verdict landed furthest from player sentiment.
Recent reviews (16 tracked)
- 60
“Should have been the next glorious chapter in that game's story. Instead, it's a mildly disappointing epilogue.”
read full review ↗ - 100
“It's a game that somehow manages to simultaneously fulfill all expectations yet finish with the player unsatisfied and craving for more. [Feb 2005, p.92]”
- 70
“With the exception of battling other Jedi, you'll be slicing your way through this game in no time. [Dec 2003, p.80]”
- 50
“Little more than an exercise in monotony. [Sept 2003, p.77]”
- 90
“It's very clever; the political overtones are great for that last-minute term paper. [Feb 2003, p.97]”
- 80
“An exhaustive open-ended RPG that essentially allows you to make it up as you go along, with hundreds of people to talk to. [Feb 2003, p.95]”
- 90
“Brainless running and gunning is an underappreciated way to waste a couple of hours with a great-looking game. [Feb 2003, p.94]”
- 0
“Including a coin-op arcade game called "Fag Hunter" in the game world is not only not funny, it's disgusting and hateful. [July 2003, p.73]”
- 70
“It's a claustrophobic eye-dryer whose thrills are offset by the demands it places on the gamer. [May 2003, p.65]”
- 100
“The crystals return to the series, along with a four-member party, blue magic, and black mages. [Feb 2003, p.97]”
- 80
“It's "Star Wars" with a proven and well-executed game concept. And if that's not enough to persuade you, you're able to murder Ewoks. Enjoy. [Nov 2004, p.120]”
- 90
“There is also a distinct lack of overall polish, mostly noticeable in the smallest ways: ugly character models, cluttered maps (the custom waypoint is a welcomed and downright necessary addition), unnecessarily complex wardrobe management, odd misspellings ("Cobra Marital Arts"), and even repeated references to Los Angeles instead of Los Santos.”
read full review ↗ - 70
“Instead of cramming three divergent threads into one game, the developers should have split them up. The Russian campaign could have stood on its own, but it feels like an afterthought.”
read full review ↗ - 90
“A fine RPG - it's just not the earth-shattering sequel that people might expect. [Feb 2005, p.100]”
- 100
“The battle system rocks. Not quite real-time, not quite turn-based, but somewhere in-between, KOTOR's battle engine offers tremendous depth while being intimately adjustable. [Sept 2003, p.78]”