Why we refuse to review games we haven't finished

There's a temptation in games writing to publish fast. A game launches, you play an hour, you post your take, you catch the traffic wave. We decided early on not to work that way, and here's why.

So many games are completely different animals after the first hour. Tutorials hold your hand, systems unlock late, and difficulty spikes or flattens in ways you can't predict from the opening. Judging a game on its first hour is like reviewing a book by its cover blurb.

We've also seen the reverse: games that dazzle in the first thirty minutes and then reveal a hollow, repetitive loop underneath. If we'd stopped early, we'd have recommended something that wastes your time.

Finishing, or at least playing deep into the endgame loop, is the only way we can tell you how a game actually holds up. It's slower and it means we cover fewer titles, but every review earns its rating.

That's the trade we've chosen. Fewer, later, and honest beats fast and shallow every time.