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 5 games where press consensus and players sharply disagreed, this reviewer sided with players 2 times.
Computed 6m 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 (20 tracked)
- 100
“Every time you feel that you've had your fill of a particular type of gameplay, Half-Life 2 introduces some new wrinkle that reinvigorates the entire experience...It's certainly one of the most masterfully paced [games ever]. It's the type of game that you can't wait to talk about with other people. [Jan 2005, p.60]”
read full review ↗ - 100
“Satan, your game has arrived. It spits up blood and pisses vinegar. It sprouts horns from its head like the proud minion of evil that it is. It shoots lightning bolts, for cripes' sake. It's a game of pure evil. And even purer entertainment. It's also the best action game on the planet.”
read full review ↗ - 80
“Medieval II is a good game a couple of patches away from true greatness. As it stands now, it's a beautiful, well-crafted experience with some minor balance issues. [Feb. 2007, p.56]”
- 70
“The new dual-saber and double-bladed staff make for one hell of a lightshow, but they don't have the strategy and finesse of Jedi Outcast's simpler sabers. [Nov 2003, p.94]”
- 40
“It all comes down to you and a rock, floating together in space, with all the action and serene beauty of the docking sequence from "2001." Play some Strauss and go make another sandwich. [Sept 2003, p.78]”
- 60
“While Heroes V might be a hard game to hate, it's also a hard game to love. [Sept. 2006, p.61]”
- 80
“This is the best dose of pure visceral excitement to hit shooters in years.”
read full review ↗ - 80
“This is a slightly better game than its predecessor, though the improvements are in a "Godfather vs. Godfather II" vein.”
read full review ↗ - 70
“There's enough good in D&D Online to make it worth recommending, but whether there's enough meat to inspire monthly donations beyond the 30 days that currently come with the box is questionable. [Jun 2006, p.80]”
- 40
“Once you've exhausted your ability to be offended, what's left is a sloppily made and at-best mediocre game. [July 2003, p.70]”
- 100FATE–
“If there was ever a game to hook a casual player on the charms of dungeon hacking, or absorb an old vet whose time has become a commodity, FATE is it. [Sept 2005, p.48]”
- 90
“As a game of resource management and tactical combat, Total Annihilation is not fundamentally different from anything that has come before, but it is nonetheless an evolutionary leap for the genre of real-time strategy.”
read full review ↗ - 70
- 70
“There is so much to do in this game that if you like space opera strategy, you’ll have to have it... One of the better strategy games of 1996, but one with significant flaws. Good, yes; a classic, no.”
read full review ↗ - 50
“Has very strong and very weak points, and much of the time the urge to see what's around the next corner only barely surpasses the urge to throw your hands up and walk away. [Feb 2004, p.76]”