IGN Ratings and Reviews Policy

Are you curious how IGN reviews the products we cover on a daily basis? Ever wonder what our scores mean and how we determine them? Curious as to what the heck "Presentation" means to us? If the answer to any of those questions is "yes," then you've come to the right place. Below you'll find our complete review and ratings guide that explains the IGN review process. After all, no other article on IGN is as important to us as well as to you -- our readers -- as our product reviews.

In addition to our written impressions and overall score for each game, we break down games into five categories at the end of each review for your convenience:

Presentation
This category includes everything from the quality of the manual and packaging to the menu layout, load times, and included game options. We also consider the overall production, licenses, atmosphere, and style.

Graphics
How the game looks as well as technical issues like animation quality, texture design, and framerate.

Sound
This is where we rate the quality of the audio effects and voice acting as well as the music in the game.

Gameplay
In a nutshell, how fun and satisfying the game is to play. Usually considered the most important part of any title, this category encompasses the controls, design, and overall feel of the experience.

Lasting Appeal
This rates how much time you're likely to spend with the game before you get tired of it. This rating also reflects the depth of replay and options such as multiplayer and mini-games that keep you going after you finish the single-player experience.

It's important to note that the overall rating is not an average of the five individual categories. We believe that no game will ever fit into a simplistic numeric formula. Many titles are more than a sum of their parts, so the overall score is left to the judgment of the reviewer. This gives you a better sense of the reviewer's overall experience with the game rather than forcing our editors to use an average to determine the final rating for games of multiple types.

Overall scores as well as individual categories are rated between 0 and 10, with 10 representing as close to perfection as you can possibly get. Here's a breakdown of what each score means to us:

	10.0 (Masterful) No game is absolutely perfect, but 10s represent the pinnacle of gaming brilliance. It doesn't get any better than this, and products in this range are virtually flawless. This is like winning the lottery on your birthday. It takes a rare and special game to earn a 10 from IGN.
	9.5 to 9.9 (Incredible) Titles in this range are exceptional indeed. They're fantastic achievements in design, gameplay, and concept or "all of the above," with only minor flaws or imperfections. Without a doubt, these are must-own titles that stand at the top of their field.
	9.0 to 9.4 (Outstanding) If a game scores a 9.0 or better, you know it's a worthwhile experience with just a few imperfections. Games of this caliber are also must-haves, even if you're not particularly fond of the genre.
	8.5 to 8.9 (Great) An excellent gaming experience that misses the boat in just a few key areas, titles that score in this range are still highly recommended by IGN. More often than not, these games also earn our prestigious "Editor's Choice" award, although it's not a guarantee.
	8.0 to 8.4 (Impressive) On the cusp of greatness, "Impressive" games may not always have the award-winning qualities of our higher-rated titles, but they're still a heck of a lot of fun and should appeal to most gaming enthusiasts.
	7.5 to 7.9 (Good) A good game has some obvious flaws, but these blemishes are overshadowed by one or several first-rate elements. While these games may not be for everyone, they're still entertaining enough to provide genuine entertainment while they last.
	7.0 to 7.4 (Decent) Though titles in this range have shortcomings that keep them from achieving "classic" status, they still boast enough credible ingredients to make them fun in smaller doses.
	6.0 to 6.9 (Passable) Games in this range have more faults than strengths, but still might be worth a look if you're into genres of its type. Other games are polite to the sixes, but they don't get invited to any of the parties. Rent these games or download the demo first before spending your hard-earned money on it.
	5.1 to 5.9 (Mediocre) Sure, it's a clich�, but we have to say it: only diehard fans of the particular genre will get any enjoyment out of middling games like these. You might squeeze some fun out of them as a rental, but you probably wouldn't want to own any game that scores in the 5s.
	5.0 (Meh) A 5.0 game is the epitome of "middle of the road." A product with this score leaves our reviewers so indifferent that there's really nothing else to do other than shrug our shoulders and move on.
	4.0 to 4.9 (Poor) Any game that scores in or below this range isn't worth your attention, and if you happen to end up with one, you'll probably find yourself returning to the store for a refund. These are the games your grandmother buys for you because she thinks they're cute. Trust us, they aren't.
	3.0 to 3.9 (Bad) When you get to the threes you know you have some major suckage going on. These are games that run into numerous technical problems and suffer from meager design efforts. If your parents give you a 3 game for your birthday, suggest they start getting you socks instead.
	2.0 to 2.9 (Terrible) Games of this caliber aren't even good enough to recycle. It's more fun to play catch with the box than it is to play the game. Titles in this category have gameplay and technical problems that are so severe, they border on being completely "broken." Maybe the cat could find some use for them.
	1.0 to 1.9 (Abysmal) The absolute worst of the worst; put them in a paper bag, set them aflame on your neighbor's porch, ring the doorbell, and run like hell. Just as it's rare to see a 10 on IGN, it's just as unusual to see a game score in the 1.0 to 1.9 range. Expect unforgivable technical issues and/or absolutely horrendous gameplay and design.
	0.1 to 0.9 (Worthless) Okay, so we lied. 1.0 to 1.9 isn't "the absolute worst of the worst." However, we don't even consider titles that score below 1.0 "games;" We think of them as sewage in a box. This range is saved for titles that are just so incredibly bad that we question the sanity of the developer and publisher... and don't say it can't happen, because it has.
	0.0 (WTF?) Few games have ever been this horrific, but when they do come along, run! Run far, far away and never look back. They are the personification of pure, frothing ass. Yes, we said "frothing ass."

We have stringent guidelines here at IGN when it comes to reviewing games, and we believe in full disclosure regarding those principals. Listed below, is an overview of how we go about reviewing videogames.

The Reader is First

As a trusted editorial staff, our number one priority is serving our fellow gamers. This means that no concern is greater to us than being completely open and honest with the visitors to our site. If we love something, we'll tell you; if we hate something else, we'll tell you that too. Regardless of how we feel about any given product, we won't pull punches, and we always remember who's asking us to throw them: you.

Fun Matters

The single most important element to remember when reviewing a videogame is how much fun it is. Sure, cutting-edge graphics, high-end sound, and 77 different multiplayer modes are all great features to have, but at the end of the day, how much enjoyment we derive from the game as a whole is what matters most.

Scores Become More Valuable Over Time

Standards and expectations are always changing. As more products are released into the marketplace it alters the perception of what's good, what's great, and what isn't. We recognize that at IGN, and as a result, new reviews are held to a higher standard than those that came before them. Everything is reviewed based on the standards of the day of release. This means that, even if a sequel is technologically better than the product that came before, it wouldn't necessarily receive a higher score because our scores are based on the standards at the time of release. Note that this doesn't mean a 9.0 earned in 2008 is better than a 9.0 earned in 1998, it just means both scores are based on different criteria since there has been a 10-year jump in technology and design, and are completely independent of one another.

We also take care to review the products as they are released, and we don't consider future patches or updates in the product review unless they are available at the time of release. Our aim is to give you an accurate snapshot of the product as it stands on day one of release. Unless otherwise noted in the review itself, game reviews are based solely on the product at the time of release. Exceptions may include retro reviews or reviews of games that are re-released years after their initial launch, and will be communicated in the review itself.

We Only Compare Games to Similar Titles on That Same Platform Near the Time of Release

For purposes of scoring titles, we only compare similar games on the same platform that are released around the same time period. Because every platform has very different technical specifications and because developers often become more adept at utilizing a system's full capacity later in the platform's lifecycle, it's impossible to directly compare a score on one platform to a score on a different platform, or a score from three years ago to a score given today.

Another factor that comes into play when we review games is that we only look at comparisons to other titles in the same or similar genres. For example, we don't use the standards of a modern adventure game as a benchmark for what it takes to make a solid sports game.

We Don't Make Assumptions

When a game is reviewed by IGN, fair analysis is a part of the deal. Our reviewers will not make assumptions of what a game should or shouldn't be prior to playing it. Its general popularity (or lack thereof) and previous coverage has no bearing whatsoever on what we ultimately think about a finished game when it's time to review it.

Reviews of Games on Multiple Platforms May be Reused When Appropriate

Though IGN is made up of multiple staffers and teams covering various platforms, we reserve the right to use the same text for multiplatform reviews if applicable. For example, if a game's content is identical on the two or three different systems, then the majority of our text will likely be identical as well. Despite these article similarities, however, we will always point out any major differences or platform specifics and adjust our scores between the games as necessary.

IGN Editors Are Gamers Too

Before we sat down and wrote about videogames for a living, we played them in-between sleeping, napping, resting our eyes, lying down for a bit, and the occasional job interview. Every single editor at IGN is a dedicated gaming fanatic who brings years of experience and knowledge to each and every review we write. Moreover, we don't just assign games to our editors on a whim; we only assign reviews based on which editors are knowledgeable and interested in that genre. This approach ensures that people that are interested in the products we're analyzing are hearing from editors with tastes similar to theirs.

Listed below are some commonly-asked questions that we receive regarding our reviews and how they're performed.

How do you decide who reviews what?

As stated in the "Review Policy" above, we assign games to editors based on genre knowledge and personal interest. While this means that our editors are allotted their reviews with a specialized expertise (and sometimes even excitement), it does not mean they approach the review with a pre-disposed biased. IGN Editors, while gamers, are professionals and are mandated to evaluate a product on its own merits and illustrate those findings to our readers in an honest and comprehensive manner.

Do you review games that aren't finished?

No. IGN only reviews retail product or games that have been deemed "final gold code" by their publishers. While not all of our review builds come in a fancy box, they are identical to the master that is sent out for duplication weeks before a game's release, and contains the same code that will appear on store shelves. We do not review any early-release builds or non-final product, and deny early reviews if the publisher cannot provide us with a final build of the game. However, we don't always get titles early, and like you often rush to the stores to buy games on the day of release so we can publish our review in a timely manner.

Do you "complete" games before reviewing them?

Not always. Keep in mind, that not every game can be "beaten," which would make a blanket policy of "completing all games" flawed from the start. Sports titles, puzzlers, and MMOs are examples of software that typically has no real end, but they're not the only genres that fall into that realm. As a general rule, IGN's philosophy is that editors should play an assigned game as much as they need to in order to give a fair, in-depth review that can accurately represent the overall experience. This means that we might spend as little as 1-2 hours with a casual puzzle game or more than 100 hours on those persistent online behemoths that eat your life away.

In the end, how much a game is played before it's reviewed varies on a case-by-case basis, and comes down to the individual editors' comfort level with giving their final verdict on a product. That said, we always try to complete every game that is "beatable" and usually do so more often than not.

How do you review games on newly-released systems if there's nothing to compare to?

Just because a videogame system is new to the market, it doesn't mean that we forget about our experiences with earlier systems and games. Whether or not a game is fun is obvious no matter how much software is available for its platform, and judging games on those merits allows us to set an easy standard when reviewing. However, given that the generation leap means better technology and development tools, we do have expectations that "next generation" should be better than what came before it.

If your overall score isn't an average of the categories, then why have them?

The purpose of our scored categories -- and the overall score, for that matter -- is to provide our readers with a product conclusion "at a glance." For instance, some readers may not have time to read all the text of our reviews, so the individual categories, closing comments, and overall score are tools to give visitors a quick rundown of our analysis no matter the subject.

Your reviews are written by only one person. Why not have multiple editors weigh in on each review rather than leave it up to one author?

The answer to this question is that we don't have enough staff to assign multiple people to each title, and we never will unless we hire all of Rhode Island. With a daily publishing schedule and hundreds of products reviewed each year, having multiple people review each game would not make for the wisest use of our resources. Besides, we feel that there's a lot more value to a review written by a dedicated professional who has spent a qualified number of hours playing a game than in any other scenario.

That said, we do provide occasional secondary comments known as "Another Take" in the text of some reviews in cases where multiple editors have extensively played a game. These secondary comments may not affect the score directly, but their commentary certainly matters. We also provide the option for our readers to rate and review games themselves for any released product should anyone ever be in search of multiple opinions.

I've noticed that there are multiple reviews for some games from different branches of IGN. Why not offer a single review for one game or multiple reviews for every game?

Though IGN HQ is based in the United States, we do have offices in other regions of the world that cater to their specific readers, such as IGN UK and IGN AU. Sometimes, certain products have changed when released in other regions, or sometimes they're simply perceived differently because of cultural differences. In an effort to keep our reviews relevant to our numerous audiences, IGN offers multiple reviews for some games when deemed relevant by our regional editors. Also, since the first two Ws in "WWW" refer to "Worldwide," we open up these reviews to our entire audience as readers in Sydney, Texas may be interested what our editors in Sydney, Australia thought of a particular title.

I've seen IGN run early reviews. Does this affect what score the game ultimately receives?

It does not. IGN accepts early reviews and review "premieres" as a service to our readers so that they are appropriately informed when making purchasing decisions. Preferential treatment in our analysis for premiere reviews is not given in any way at any time. Ultimately, the only benefit to publishers who provide IGN with the opportunity to review product early is that the review reaches one of the largest audiences on the Internet prior to a game's street date. We never trade scores or favorable impressions for exclusive reviews.

Do advertisers affect how you review games?

No. Though IGN does have a broad range of advertisers that include publishers and developers of products we review, the lines between our editorial and advertising departments are thicker than the Incredible Hulk's biceps. Deals between interested parties and IGN that result in more favorable reviews or better scores are against our principles and policies in every way, and the editorial staff has no prior knowledge as to what companies are advertising on the site on any given day; the editors see advertisements at the same time as the readers. Nothing other than the editorial staff's own experience with a product itself will ever affect how we review it.