Review Methodology
Signal & Circuit assigns numeric scores only when a documented rubric applies. This page defines that rubric — the criteria, their relative weights, what each score band means, and how disclosures are handled. If you read a scored review on this site, these are the rules that produced it.
Core Principles
No score without a rubric
A score that cannot be traced to documented criteria is an opinion dressed as a fact. We do not publish it.
Platform and version documented
Every review states the platform tested and the patch/build version at time of publication. Scores may be updated post-patch.
Disclosures are mandatory
Review copy provided, press event attendance, early access status — all disclosed in the article body and in the review verdict block.
Scoring Criteria
Scores are computed by evaluating five weighted criteria. Each criterion is assessed against documented evidence — player data, patch notes, press materials, or verified play sessions. Subjective observations are labeled as such.
Systems Design
How well do the game's core mechanics serve its stated intent? Are rules internally consistent? Does the design create meaningful decisions?
Player Experience
Accessibility, onboarding, friction points, UI clarity, and whether the game respects the player's time. Evaluated against documented player reports and our own assessment.
Execution & Polish
Technical performance, bug severity, and stability at time of review. Patch version is noted. Post-launch fixes may trigger a score update.
Contextual Significance
What does this game contribute to the medium or its genre? Does it advance, refine, or retreat from what came before? Cultural and historical context is applied explicitly.
Value Proposition
Price-to-content ratio benchmarked against comparable titles at the same price point. Monetization systems are documented, not editorially condemned — but their structure is described accurately.
Score Bands
Essential
A landmark title. Advances the medium or definitively executes its vision. Exceptionally rare — reserved for titles that meaningfully shift genre expectations or represent a genuine artistic achievement.
Recommended
Strong execution with documented evidence of quality design. Worth your time and money at full price. Minor flaws do not materially undermine the core experience.
Mixed
Notable strengths offset by documented design failures or systemic inconsistencies. May be recommended at a discount or for genre enthusiasts, but not broadly.
Flawed
Fundamental problems that undermine the stated intent of the design. Some redeeming qualities may exist but do not justify the full price of admission.
Avoid
Documented failure to deliver on any meaningful criteria. Significant technical, design, or ethical failures. Not recommended at any price.
Previews
Preview scores are provisional and clearly marked as such. They are assigned only when sufficient hands-on material exists — press event build, public demo, or extended early access. A preview score is not a final review score.
When a reviewed game was previously previewed, the preview score is retired and the final review score takes precedence. Both remain accessible on the game's coverage page.
Score Updates
Scores may be updated following significant patches that materially alter the experience documented in the original review. Updates are logged in the article's correction record with the specific version that prompted re-evaluation. The original score is preserved in the corrections log.
We do not retroactively adjust scores based on reader pressure, publisher requests, or commercial relationships. Score changes are driven solely by documented changes to the product.