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 4 games where press consensus and players sharply disagreed, this reviewer sided with players 1 time.
Computed 5h 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 (9 tracked)
- 90
“The biggest and only serious bummer of Half-Life 2 is the installation -- and it's so bad that we're knocking the game's final score.”
read full review ↗ - 70
“The least inspired "Jedi Knight" game yet still has some thrills. [Nov 2003, p.100]”
- 40
“This stunning mood is crushed by an interface that has all the charm and convenience of a TPS report. [Sept 2003, p.95]”
- 80
“Offers just enough new content to warrant being called a sequel...It is like "Doom II" was to "Doom." [Apr 2002, p.96]”
- 0
“Until someone boxes up syphilis and tries to sell it at retail, Postal 2 is the worst product ever foisted upon consumers. [July 2003, p.90]”
- 80FATE–
“Fate isn't going to glue new brain cells inside your skull, but it isn't going to murder the ones you have. It's a good time, it really never reaches an end, and it may be the best way to while away the lifetime between now and "Diablo III."”
read full review ↗ - 70
“A really good game hampered by the same pesky bugs and problematic A.I. as the original. [Feb 2004, p.78]”
- 90
“Probably the best shooter I've played all year. The only real knocks against it are that it's a relatively short game (I finished in about 10 hours) and the multiplayer is lackluster. But let's be honest: If you're into playing a World War II game online nothing compares to "Battlefield 1942" or Day of Defeat.”
read full review ↗ - 80
“Easily the best new adventure game in years, though it loses some steam after its outstanding first act. [Oct 2002, p.112]”