My Process

My process has somewhat changed over time, in how I manage what games I play, and how I write about them. The addition of my YouTube channel has also complicated the process further. So my process outline is in desperate need of a rewrite, which was hideously bloated and overcomplicated before. It's actually quite embarrassing to read. I'll leave that original version at the bottom for posterity.

Basic Principles

1. The basic premise of the blog is to play and review every video game ever made, in chronological order (which exceptions, which I'll deal with shortly.) My Master Games List is compiled from various online databases, primarily MobyGames, Gaming-History, and IGDB, and is viewable through the Master List link in the sidebar. I do my best to order everything in terms of release date, but precise dates aren't always available. As a rule, games with less specific dates will be played at the end of the month/year in which they were released.

2. Each game is given its time in the spotlight - its history, development and full gameplay explored and detailed. For longer games, like RPGs, they will become their own multi-part series, with history and development covered in the first article, with all subsequent articles dedicated to gameplay. Typically, I will try to post the blog and YouTube video simultaneously, but this is likely to become increasingly difficult as time passes, so this isn't a hard-and-fast rule.

3. I intend to fully complete all games, when possible. This includes all in-game extras to achieve 100%, and all achievements. There are exceptions to this, of course, as some games are impossible to complete for various reasons. Some games are also just a nightmare to deal with, so excessively tedious completion requirements will be skipped if I feel like the time investment is too great. I have a "game status" column in the Master List, which denotes the play-status of the game. The key for that is in the "Key of Play Status Symbols" sheet of the Master List.

4. Each game, along with its history and gameplay detailed, will also be reviewed and given a score, based on a 100-point scale (I'll detail the 100-point scale at the bottom of the page.) They will all then be compiled into my "World's Biggest Video Game Tier List." This is also available in the sidebar - it's now a separate document from the Master Game List.

5. Exceptions. There are various exceptions for excluding games.

• Most obviously are adult games - these will not be included under any circumstances. Other games that would be considered controversial/immoral will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As a Christian, I do have different standards to most, but I'm also more permissive than you might expect. Doom is most certainly getting played. Slaying demons is actually a very Christian pastime. Although, I do hate horror games, which is the one area of contention for myself that I don't know how to deal with yet.
• Games that turn out to be non-games will also be covered on a case-by-case basis as "gaiden" articles. Any newly discovered lost games that I have to go backwards to play will also end up in this "gaiden" category. These articles are denoted by an "x" at the end of the game number in the article title. I ripped this off from the old Fire Emblem games, in case you were wondering where I got the idea from.
• Direct clones will not be covered. I don't want to be bogged in the miserable mire of mid-70s Pong clones forever. Ports, however, will be covered on a case-by-case basis, depending on how similar/different they are to the original game. Games released under several different names will be covered under their original title.
• I will try my best to also review multiplayer-only games when possible, however these scores may be delayed, depending on whether I can find friends that are willing to play these old fossils with me. It didn't feel right to exclude these previously, especially when so much of 1970s gaming is geared towards multiplayer-exclusive titles. Online multiplayer-only games are a trickier prospect, however. I may need to come back to this once I sus out how I'm going to handle these.
• Finally, there are just some games that are impossible to play. Thinking especially of the Magnavox Odyssey library, which is mostly video/board game hybrids. I don't have access to the board game components, so those games simply aren't playable for me. Emulation limitations are also a consideration, as some games might technically be available, but the software isn't there to play them, like early 70s discrete logic arcade games. One day I'd like to develop software to play them, but that's a long, long way away from ever happening.

6. Extra articles. Whenever a game shows up that's based on a real world game, I will be writing an article about the history of that particular game, and its relationship with video games. Each new console, company, or significant individual that arises as the years pass will also get a feature article (or several, depending on the significance and longevity of the company/person.) I may also throw in a random thinkpiece article at any time on some random thing I've been pondering relating to the gaming world.

The 100-Point Scale

My scoring system and philosophy has evolved over the years, and needs clarifying. It's developed from 70, to 80, to 90, and now to 100 points. I've always wanted it to be at 100, for ease of understanding. It's at a point now that I'm satisfied with, though my philosophy is always evolving and developing.

The 100 points are divided as follows:

• Game Design and Fun Factor count for half of the overall total, with a maximum of 25 points available in each. Since the actual gameplay experience is most important to me, I think this makes sense. These two metrics cover all aspects of game design, from level design, mechanics, depth, and balance, to replayability and reward.
• Controls, Graphics, Sound and Story all cap at 10 points each. I think each are self-explanatory.
• Functionality and Accessibility count for 5 points each. The former covers the technical functionality of the game - bugs, glitches, programming errors and the like. The latter concerns how understandable the game is; like, can I pick up the game and easily understand what's going on, or does it take a lot of effort just to get into the game?
• I also separately rank difficulty out of 10, but this score isn't factored into the 100-point scale. Difficulty may affect other metrics, however. A 1/10 difficulty is a "brain-dead" game that requires next-to-no though to beat, and a 10/10 is next to (or just outright) impossible to beat. A zero score is also possible, which is kept for games that are entirely luck-based (like slot machines, or other games where the player has no control over the outcome.)
• The only other data I record is time played and high score (the latter only when applicable.)

Now, obviously every game doesn't actually possess all the metrics I score (like text-based games having no sound), so some compensation for them is needed to keep things fair and balanced. Those games have what I call weighted scores, which are basically their score's percentage out of the maximum possible points available. Most text-based games don't have sound or story, so they score out of 80, and whatever they score is weighted to be whatever percentage of 80 the score is. Both the original and weighted scores are tracked in the Tier List, but games are ordered by weighted score. In the event of tied scores, the tiebreaker priority goes to the highest fun factor score, then game design -> controls -> graphics -> sound -> story -> functionality -> accessibility. Always prioritise gameplay.

Gosh, this is so much clearer than the old page. It's down below if you have to read it. I'm warning you, though - it's not good.

=====================================================================

These are the essential guidelines I will be following with this blog:

1. I intend to play and review video games, in chronological order, beginning from the birth of the arcade in 1971. [Ed. not anymore. Several games prior to this date have been scored.] These reviews will hopefully include some historical trivia and tidbits if I can find any. Information on most games from the 70s (and even much in the 80s and beyond) is scarce at the best of times.

2. All these games will be compiled on my master chronological list, also including games of historical or personal interest that might not be playable that I may also write about. This master list will contain information collated from online databases: Gaming-History, IGDB, MobyGames and Wikipedia primarily, and will also have my ratings for each game alongside. For fun, I also include a tier list for quick reference to know what games are worth playing (anything C-tier and above I would consider worth your time). No doubt this will inevitably become the 'world's-biggest-video-game-tier-list-ever.' Or something like that. This part is mostly just for fun, so don't take it too seriously like I do when I spend far too long sweating over what to score a game.

3. Note that this will be a selective chronology. I'm not adding absolutely everything to my master list, since not absolutely everything is actually playable, and that would bloat my research time and master list to astronomical proportions (although it'll already be that way.) For the 70s in particular, the majority of games are either lost to time, cannot be emulated, or are the swamp of literally hundreds of redundant Pong clones. I'm only including games of interest that do not violate my redundancy clause:

• Direct clones and plagiarised titles are immediately excluded (this amusingly removes around 80% of games from the 70s)
• Same game, different name; such as exported / licensed games identical to the original (i.e. Midway's Asteroid being a licensed clone of Atari's Space Race.) Alternative names will be acknowledged in the master list for reference, however. The only exception to this is when the game receives significant change almost to the point of being a different game entirely (i.e. Taito's Western Gun being an almost completely different game to its Midway-licensed counterpart _Gun Fight.)
• Ports are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Those that are 1:1 or near 1:1 to the original are excluded. They will be added to the list for reference, however, and mentioned in the review of the original. Ports that receive significant change (i.e. Arcade Space Invaders vs. Atari 2600 Space Invaders) will be treated as separate games and will receive individual reviews.

4. As this is a selective list, I also reserve the right to veto any game of my choosing. Some games I'm simply not interested in, whether that be due to their themes, genre, content or otherwise. For example, I struggle with horror games, so I'll be dealing with them on a case-by-case basis. These sorts of games will be noted on the master list if they are accessible to me.

5. Following on from rule 4, I approach all games from an primarily single-player perspective. Things have changed a little bit since I first wrote these rules, and I do allow some multiplayer titles. If I can organise someone to play them with, usually I'll write an article about them. However, I won't score them. Instead, they'll be listed as "Gaiden" articles, meaning that they'll get a fully researched article, but no score.

6. I also write from a Christian Perspective. I need to be upfront about this because it is the defining factor in how I interact with and review every game on this blog (it's also my guiding light for determining which games to veto and why). For most games, I suspect there won't be any issues, but I will call out questionable things when I see them, and they will impact the scores I give. Also worth nothing that this won't give "Christian" games immunity from criticism.

7. In every post I write about my first, blind playthrough of a game where possible. There are many games I have played before or have knowledge of, so this isn't a hard-and-fast rule, but will be in most cases. 

8. Following on from the previous point: starting in 2025, I decided to create a supplementary YouTube channel to provide video integration for the blog. The playthroughs in these videos are - more often than not - not the same as my first playthrough I write about in the blog. In most cases they are a second playthrough that may or may not be referenced in the article on that specific game. I do this because I do not do commentary on the videos (for now), and desire the gameplay to be of high standard, after I've come to understand the inner workings of a game. I also want to show off the entire game as best I can, and put it in the best light possible, which often cannot be done on a blind playthrough.

I expect these guidelines will be expanded on in the future when unforeseen problems arise.

Guide to My Rating System

I score each game based on 8 individual categories, which are collected together to provide an overall score out of 90. Seeing as this doesn't get us to 100, and since not every game will score in all criteria, i.e. early text-based games have so sound, each game is tiered according to percentage rather than the base score.

As a general philosophy, I try to put each game at a baseline middle score (10 or 5,) as I view the "median" score as the baseline of what should be expected for a game to do. The score is then adjusted down or up, depending on whether the game goes beyond expectations, or below expectations, and to what degree.

• Game Design: Maximum 25 points

• Competent level design

• Complementary mechanics

• Substance (Quality vs Quantity)

• Do my choices matter? (as in, is RNG the defining mechanic?)

• Controls: Maximum 10 points

• Character control ("feel")

• Responsiveness

• Logical inputs only serve as a baseline; creativity in controls is rewarded, particularly in text-based games

• Sound: Maximum 10 points

• Quality and appropriateness of SFX (sound design)

• Soundtrack

• Visual: Maximum 10 points

• Pleasant, well-crafted graphics

• Appealing colour choices

• For text-based games, good and creative formatting is rewarded; clunky formatting and mass typos are punished

• For arcade games, cabinet design is included

• Story: Maximum 10 points

• Compelling, coherent narrative

• Character development

• World building

• Storytelling

• In non-text-based games, writing quality

• Functionality: Maximum 5 points

• UI Navigation

• Stability

• Bugs & glitches

• Accessibility: Maximum 5 points

• Easy or hard to get into?

• Intimidating or inviting?

• Is the difficulty a turn off?

• Is it easy to find the game?

• 'Fun' Factor: Maximum 25 points

• How much I enjoyed playing the game

• Replay value

You can think of the 20-pointers as being like a 10 point system including .5 decimals.

What Does Each Number Mean?

It's worthwhile giving a more detailed overview of how I determine the score I give to each game. Of course it's overwhelmingly subjective in most parts, but there is room for objectivity in terms of scoring a game's technical components. Here, though, I'm more concerned with "what does a 5/10 mean?" and questions of that nature.

To answer the above question, which I briefly mentioned earlier, I consider a 5/10 (or 10/20 in the case of gameplay and fun factor) to be the "median" score. It means that the game is sufficiently adequate in that metric, but doesn't do anything above or beyond, or worse, than the norm. What the "norm" is is contingent on the platform, era and genre of any particular game. 

Obviously a maximum score is reserved for games that truly stand out and are faultless in particular metrics, and the same of the inverse - a minimum score for games that stand out in terribleness.

To give a visual reference, here's what each number would generally represent:

0 - Completely lacking, with no redeeming features. Painful to play, listen to or look at.

1 - Maybe has one positive quality buried in an otherwise irredeemable mess.

2 - Riddled with issues. Most of the game doesn't work, but has a couple of shining moments.

3 - There are some serious problems with the game, but it's playable.

4 - The game has a bit more bad than good. Was probably a bit on the boring side.

5 - Just "okay." I would react with indifference, but no sort of dislike towards anything.

6 - I start to enjoy the game a bit. Maybe has one standout characteristic.

7 - Here I would start to think "hey, this is pretty good." I'd still have a few critiques.

8 - Several standout features, but a few small flaws.

9 - Not flawless, but pretty close. Almost everything is exceptional except a handful of things.

10 - Flawless, this is when I'd start gawking and wanting to tell everyone about the game and getting truly obsessive over it.

Just multiply these by two for the gameplay and fun factor scores. They have more nuance. Like, the difference between a 5/20 game and a 6/20 game might just be one extra small flaw. Obviously these descriptions involve a lot of subjectivity, which is simply unavoidable. I can analyse the game components as technically and objectively as I want, but a lot of the scoring comes down to how those components make me feel as I play the game.

Fun Factor works slightly differently, as that is totally subjective and involves no objective analysis. It is tied closely to gameplay, as I value gameplay far more than the other metrics, hence why both get a 20 point scale instead of 10. A 20/20 would require me to enjoy every single minute of a playthrough and want to immediately come back to replay the game in a different way. That, or I keep restarting part way through to learn the game better.

Functionality and Accessibility work differently. Being only 5 point metrics makes the process much simpler. If a game has no technical faults, it gets a 5/5 in Functionality. Accessibility is rather self-explanatory - how accessible is the game? Does it require a lot of reading? Is it difficult to get running? Is a specialty controller required to play the game properly? The better a game fares with these questions, the higher its rating is. A 5/5 would mean that it's easy for anyone to pick up and play, regardless of ability. A 0/5 would mean it either has a massive amount of hoops to jump through just to play, or is only playable to a very slim niche of people (or no one at all.)

As I play more games, and understand what I most like and most dislike, the factors constituting a particular score will become more refined in my mind. It means I'll have to come back regularly to do rescores, but hopefully those should become less frequent as I gain experience.