Accuracy before urgency
We aim to publish information that a reader can verify and use. News should identify the original source, the date of the event and the limits of what has been confirmed. A rumour must not acquire certainty through repetition. When an announcement is historical, the article should make that context clear rather than presenting an old development as breaking news.
Primary sources are preferred for release dates, official features and studio statements. Independent reporting may supply additional context when its origin is identified. We avoid quoting a secondary account as if it were direct evidence. Dates, platforms, editions and version numbers should be checked separately where they affect the reader's decision.
Reporting, analysis and review are distinct
A reported fact describes evidence. Analysis explains what that evidence may mean. A review offers a critical judgement. Articles should make those roles understandable through their wording and structure. A persuasive interpretation does not become an announced fact, and a review score is not a measurement of universal quality.
We do not invent interviews, personal experiences, testing hours, access to unreleased material or performance measurements. If an article contains a technical test, it should identify the relevant hardware, software version, settings and method. A design-focused retrospective should not imply new hands-on benchmarking that was not performed.
Guides should be reproducible
A useful guide identifies the game, relevant version or scope and the assumptions behind its advice. Steps should explain why a choice helps, not merely list commands. Suggested routes must be distinguished from mandatory progression. We flag meaningful spoilers and avoid treating one play style as the only legitimate way to enjoy a game.
Where a mechanic changes, an update should improve the actual guidance. Changing a publication date alone is not a meaningful revision. Readers should be able to understand whether advice depends on a platform, a difficulty setting, a modification or a specific stage of progression.
Independence and commercial relationships
Advertising and affiliate arrangements must not determine a review's score or factual conclusion. Sponsored content should be clearly labelled, and commercial links should be identified where present. Receiving information or access from an organization does not transfer editorial control to that organization. Relevant relationships belong near the coverage they may affect.
The current editorial articles contain no paid placement or affiliate purchase links. If that changes, the affected material should disclose it. A commercial enquiry is not a promise of publication, favourable language or a particular search position.
Corrections and reader challenges
Readers can submit a correction through the contact page with the article URL, disputed statement and supporting evidence. Material factual corrections should be acknowledged in the article with a useful explanation of what changed. Minor spelling or formatting fixes may be made without a separate note. We do not remove justified criticism merely because its subject dislikes it.
Respect for people and creative work
We credit relevant sources and artwork. Images must not be presented as evidence of an event they do not depict. A publisher image is different from an independently captured screenshot. We avoid unnecessary personal information, harassment and claims about individuals that cannot be supported. Comments follow the community guidelines and may be moderated before appearing.
These standards are a working commitment. An article should be assessed by the evidence and reasoning it contains, and readers are welcome to ask where a conclusion needs stronger support.