Our evaluation methodology explained: the criteria, frameworks, and principles that guide every review and recommendation we publish.
We reject simplistic numerical scores in favour of multi-dimensional analysis. A single aggregate score cannot capture the complexity of a gaming experience or platform. Instead, we evaluate across distinct criteria, allowing you to weight factors according to your personal priorities.
Our approach recognises that a game perfect for one player might be entirely unsuitable for another. A mechanically brilliant competitive multiplayer game means nothing to someone seeking narrative depth. A technically flawless AAA title with poor accessibility features fails players who need those accommodations.
Every review breaks down performance across multiple independent dimensions, providing the information you need to make decisions aligned with your specific requirements, budget, and gaming preferences.
We assess mechanical sophistication, control responsiveness, learning curve balance, skill ceiling, and moment-to-moment engagement. This covers combat systems, puzzle design, movement mechanics, and interaction quality.
Frame rate stability, load times, visual fidelity, bug frequency, and platform-specific optimisation. We test across multiple hardware configurations and document performance on Australian internet infrastructure.
Comprehensive evaluation of visual, auditory, motor, and cognitive accessibility options. We consult accessibility frameworks and disabled gamers to ensure accurate assessment.
Cost versus content, monetisation ethics, replayability, and long-term support. We account for Australian regional pricing and assess whether games respect player time and money.
Art direction, UI/UX quality, audio design, narrative structure, and overall cohesion. This evaluates aesthetic vision and execution quality across all presentational elements.
We evaluate whether games bring fresh ideas, iterate meaningfully on established formulas, or execute familiar concepts with exceptional polish. Innovation isn't required, but it's noted and valued.
We purchase all games and hardware at retail pricing using our own funds. We accept no free review copies, promotional consideration, or early access that might compromise objectivity.
Reviewers complete games when applicable, spending minimum 20 hours with service games. We experience multiplayer at various skill levels and test accessibility features personally when possible.
Cross-platform releases are tested on multiple systems to document performance variations. We note Australian-specific server performance and regional pricing differences.
Reviewers complete our evaluation framework covering all core criteria. This ensures comprehensive coverage and consistency across different reviewers and genres.
A second editor reviews the evaluation for completeness, clarity, and adherence to our standards. We verify claims and ensure Australian context is appropriately addressed.
Reviews publish with clear date stamps. We update reviews when major patches significantly alter experience, documenting changes and maintaining version history for transparency.
When assessing gaming platforms (consoles, PC, cloud services, mobile ecosystems), we apply a distinct framework accounting for hardware capabilities, ecosystem maturity, and Australian infrastructure realities.
We measure processing power, graphics capabilities, storage speed, thermal management, and noise levels. Testing includes sustained performance under load, frame rate consistency across various games, and comparison against competing hardware at similar price points.
For Australian buyers, we specifically note regional availability, warranty support through local retailers, and compatibility with Australian power standards and display equipment.
Library breadth, exclusive titles, backwards compatibility, and digital storefront quality all factor into platform assessment. We evaluate regional pricing policies, sale frequency, and refund policies specific to Australian consumers.
Cross-platform play support, modding ecosystems, and community tools receive consideration, as does the platform's historical commitment to supporting older titles and maintaining digital purchases.
Australian server presence dramatically affects online gaming experience. We test latency to local servers, matchmaking speed, and connection stability from multiple Australian locations and internet service providers.
Subscription services, cloud saves, social features, and voice chat quality are evaluated. We assess whether online services offer fair value and whether free-to-play online gaming is supported or requires paid subscriptions.
System software speed, interface clarity, search functionality, and parental controls matter for daily use. We evaluate installation processes, update frequency and intrusiveness, and media capabilities beyond gaming.
Accessibility features at the system level (screen readers, button remapping, high contrast modes) receive specific attention, as these affect usability across all games on the platform.
Initial hardware cost represents only part of platform investment. We calculate total cost including necessary accessories, online subscription fees, expected game pricing, and potential upgrade cycles.
Australian regional pricing often differs significantly from international markets. Our value assessments specifically account for what Australians actually pay, not theoretical international pricing that doesn't reflect our reality.
Manufacturer support quality, warranty terms, repair service availability in Australia, and community resources all influence long-term platform satisfaction. We evaluate whether customer service operates during Australian business hours.
Community size, developer support commitment, and platform longevity expectations help buyers understand whether their investment will remain relevant and supported through typical hardware lifecycles.
We purchase every game and hardware item we review at retail pricing. This eliminates obligation and ensures we experience products exactly as consumers do, including regional pricing and availability realities.
Reviewers receive fixed compensation regardless of scores assigned. There's no financial incentive to inflate or deflate ratings, maintaining objective assessment free from internal pressure.
Business operations remain separate from editorial decisions. Advertising partnerships and affiliate relationships never influence review content, recommendations, or coverage priorities.
Any commercial relationship with a reviewed entity is disclosed prominently. Affiliate links are clearly marked. If circumstances change regarding a reviewed product, we update content accordingly.
When major patches significantly alter a game's quality, we revisit and update reviews. All updates are clearly dated and documented, with previous versions archived for transparency.
Our reviews account for Australian-specific factors: regional pricing, server infrastructure, classification restrictions, release date variations, and local retailer support. We don't simply republish international perspectives.
Gaming hardware requires distinct evaluation approaches depending on category. Here's how we approach different hardware types:
We test controllers across multiple games and genres over extended periods (minimum 30 hours). Build quality, button feel, stick precision, battery life, and connectivity stability all receive assessment.
For adaptive controllers and accessibility-focused hardware, we consult with disabled gamers to ensure our evaluation captures usability for intended audiences.
Audio quality testing spans single-player experiences, competitive multiplayer, and voice communication scenarios. We assess positional audio accuracy, frequency response balance, comfort during extended sessions, and microphone clarity.
Compatibility with multiple platforms, wired versus wireless performance trade-offs, and battery life under real-world usage inform recommendations.
We measure response times, input lag, colour accuracy, HDR performance, and motion clarity using calibrated equipment. Testing occurs with various content types and frame rates to assess versatility.
Features like variable refresh rate implementation, local dimming quality, and viewing angles receive practical evaluation across multiple games and usage scenarios.
Storage hardware testing measures load times across multiple games, sustained transfer speeds, thermal performance under load, and compatibility with various platforms.
We verify manufacturer speed claims with real-world testing and assess whether performance gains justify pricing over alternative solutions.
A single number cannot capture gaming experience complexity. An 8/10 tells you nothing about whether a game suits your preferences. Does that score reflect incredible graphics but mediocre gameplay? Strong mechanics but poor accessibility? Excellent content but predatory monetisation?
Multi-dimensional breakdowns let you weight criteria according to personal priorities. One player might prioritise narrative depth while another values competitive balance. Our approach serves both by providing detailed analysis across independent dimensions rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all aggregate score.
Live-service games receive initial reviews based on launch content and systems, with explicit notation that ongoing updates will affect long-term value. We revisit these games quarterly or when major updates arrive, publishing updated assessments.
Our evaluations examine monetisation ethics, content cadence, developer communication, and whether updates meaningfully enhance experience versus simply extracting additional revenue. We're particularly critical of manipulative monetisation targeting vulnerable players.
For narrative-focused games with definitive endings, yes—reviewers complete the main story and substantial side content. For endless service games, we require minimum 20 hours spanning various modes and systems before publishing initial reviews.
Multiplayer-focused titles are tested across different skill levels and player counts to understand experiences from novice through competitive play. We don't review only from expert-level perspective when most players will experience games differently.
Reviewers disclose genre preferences and potential conflicts upfront. Editorial review catches subjective overreach. Our criteria-based framework requires evaluation across objective dimensions (technical performance, accessibility features, content volume) alongside subjective elements (aesthetic appeal, narrative quality).
We recognise complete objectivity is impossible. Instead, we provide transparent methodology, diverse reviewer perspectives, and sufficient detail for readers to calibrate recommendations against their own preferences.
We treat early access as released products available for purchase, reviewing them accordingly with clear notation about development status. If developers charge money, consumers deserve informed assessment of current state.
We revisit early access games at major milestone updates and at version 1.0 release. Beta or preview builds not available for purchase don't receive reviews—only coverage noting they're unfinished and subject to change.
We review controversial games based on content quality and design merit, while acknowledging and examining controversial elements. Reviews note potentially objectionable content to inform purchasing decisions without imposing moral judgements.
Developer misconduct, workplace issues, or problematic creative leadership may be noted for readers who factor corporate ethics into purchasing decisions, but don't directly affect gameplay-focused evaluation. We provide information; readers decide what matters to them.
We're committed to transparency in our evaluation methods. If you have questions about how we assess games, platforms, or hardware, we'd love to hear from you.
Get in Touch