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 2 games where press consensus and players sharply disagreed, this reviewer sided with players 0 times.
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 (6 tracked)
- 70
“Brilliantly chaotic, relentlessly quick and rammed with gaming modes to keep you at it. Fasten your seat belts. [July 2006, p.82]”
- 70
“Buy it if you didn't play it the first time, but otherwise prepare to be disappointed. [Feb 2008, p.107]”
- 100
“Massively expansive, even over "Vice City." The biggest game ever. [Jan 2007, p.106]”
- 80
“Genuinely disturbing survival horror, dripping with menace. [Jan 2007, p.106]”
- 90
“A beautifully blended oddball collage of colour, sound and playability. Original and inventive - it's PSP gaming at its best. [July 2006, p.86]”
- 80
“Even seven years after the original it looks and plays like few other RPGs. [June 2007, p.96]”