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 17h 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)
- 67
“The levels often feel flat and uninspired. [Nov 2003, p.62]”
- 100
“Ikaruga owns you. It's hard as heck, but it's also a pleasure to play and watch. Don't wuss out; play it. [May 2003, p.41]”
- 50
“Competent, and it's really nice to look at, but it's also terribly uninspired. [Oct 2002, p.50]”
- 91
“Despite its brevity and lack of good multiplayer, though, Call of Duty is easily one of the most fun shooters I've played all year. [Jan 2004, p.66]”
- 91
“Sure, you won't be spending "Final Fantasy X"-calibur time with it, but it's a good way to kill a dozen or so hours. [Sept 2002, p.30]”
- 100
“The delicate balance of combat and exploration is done to perfection. [Sept 2003, p.61]”