At LootVora, our goal is simple: give readers clear, useful, and well-supported information about the games they care about. Our guides, reviews, news coverage, and setup articles are built through structured research using current and attributable sources. When we publish an evaluation or numerical verdict, we want readers to understand what that score represents and how we reached it.
This page explains our editorial research process, scoring methodology, source standards, and approach to transparency.
Never claim hands-on testing, playtime, benchmarks, or personal experience unless LootVora actually performed it.
Accuracy and transparency come before pretending to have experience we do not have. When an article is based on research rather than direct hands-on testing, we do not write as though we personally played, tested, benchmarked, or experienced the game. Instead, our conclusions are based on evidence gathered from multiple relevant sources.
LootVora does not rely on a single review, website, user comment, or score when evaluating a game. Depending on the game and the subject being researched, our editorial process may include information from:
Not every source carries the same weight. Official sources are generally preferred for factual information such as features, prices, patch changes, release dates, system requirements, and game mechanics. Independent sources become particularly important when assessing reception, recurring problems, player sentiment, value, and areas where the developer's own description alone would not provide sufficient perspective.
Some LootVora reviews include a numerical Verdict Score from 0 to 10. A LootVora score does not automatically mean that LootVora performed a hands-on test of the game. Unless an article explicitly states that hands-on testing was performed, the score should be understood as an editorial assessment based on our published research methodology.
Our standard evaluation framework considers six main dimensions. The combined weighting equals 100%.
| Dimension | Weight | What we evaluate |
|---|---|---|
| Critical Reception | 25% | The broader assessment from established professional critics and relevant specialist publications |
| Player Reception | 20% | Player sentiment across relevant platforms, storefronts, and communities |
| Gameplay & Systems | 20% | Documented mechanics, systems, progression design, and recurring points of agreement or disagreement among credible sources |
| Content & Longevity | 15% | Available content, progression, replayability, major modes, endgame where relevant, and ongoing additions |
| Technical State | 10% | Documented bugs, stability concerns, performance reports, patches, fixes, and known technical limitations |
| Monetization & Value | 10% | Purchase price, available content, microtransactions, DLC, battle passes, progression restrictions, and overall value proposition |
The final score summarizes LootVora's overall assessment based on the evidence available at the time of publication or the most recent substantial update. Our scoring scale is:
| Score | General meaning |
|---|---|
| 9.0–10 | Exceptional |
| 8.0–8.9 | Excellent |
| 7.0–7.9 | Good |
| 6.0–6.9 | Solid, with notable drawbacks |
| 5.0–5.9 | Mixed |
| 4.0–4.9 | Significant issues |
| Below 4.0 | Major shortcomings substantially affect the overall experience |
These descriptions are guidelines rather than automatic classifications. A numerical score should always be read alongside the article itself. Two games receiving the same score may have very different strengths, weaknesses, audiences, and reasons behind their verdicts.
A LootVora Verdict is not simply copied from Metacritic, OpenCritic, Steam, or any other platform. External ratings may form part of our research, but they are evidence — not the final LootVora score.
For example, strong professional reviews alone do not automatically produce a high LootVora Verdict if substantial evidence also points to serious technical problems, restrictive monetization, limited content, or widespread player concerns. Likewise, isolated negative comments do not automatically reduce a game's score. We look for patterns across multiple relevant sources and consider their reliability, context, recency, and relevance.
LootVora distinguishes between research-based evaluation and first-hand testing.
When LootVora has not directly tested a game, our assessment is produced through the research process described on this page. In these cases, we may evaluate documented gameplay systems and reported technical conditions, but we do not present those findings as personal experience.
For example, we may write:
"Multiple recent sources report performance issues following the latest update."
We would not write:
"We experienced performance issues during our playthrough."
unless LootVora actually performed that testing.
If LootVora directly tests a game, product, feature, or technical configuration, the article may explicitly disclose relevant information such as the platform, version, testing conditions, or playtime when appropriate. Hands-on claims are only made when that experience actually occurred.
Research-based articles do not present third-party benchmarks as LootVora's own testing. If performance data comes from another publication, developer, platform, or independent benchmark, we identify or cite the source where appropriate.
Statements such as frame-rate measurements, hardware performance, latency, battery consumption, temperatures, or other measured results must not be described as "our tests" unless LootVora actually conducted those measurements. This distinction also applies to screenshots, gameplay observations, bugs, crashes, and other first-hand experiences.
Player feedback can reveal issues that professional reviews may not capture, particularly for live-service games that change significantly after launch. However, community sentiment is not treated as objective fact. Player reviews can be influenced by many factors, including:
For this reason, LootVora looks for broader patterns rather than relying on individual comments or isolated viral discussions. Where relevant, we also distinguish between recent player sentiment and lifetime ratings.
Games change. This is especially true for live-service titles that receive new seasons, characters, maps, balance changes, monetization updates, expansions, technical fixes, or major redesigns. A LootVora Verdict therefore represents our assessment at a particular point in time.
When meaningful changes materially affect our original assessment, we may update the article and its score. Where appropriate, the page will display its latest update date. A previous score should not automatically be interpreted as an assessment of the game's current state years or even months later.
LootVora does not need to assign a numerical score immediately after every game launches. If reliable information is insufficient, conflicting, or too limited to support a responsible assessment, we may publish coverage without a numerical Verdict. A score may be added later when sufficient evidence becomes available. This is particularly relevant for:
Having enough reliable evidence is more important than publishing a score quickly.
We prioritize primary and authoritative sources whenever they are appropriate. For factual claims, this can include official developers, publishers, storefronts, support documentation, and patch notes. For independent assessment, we may consult established publications, specialist sources, review aggregators, player platforms, and relevant community discussions.
We attempt to verify important claims across multiple sources when possible. We also consider the publication date of our sources. A review or technical report from launch may no longer accurately represent a game after months or years of updates.
Sources do not always agree. Professional critics may praise a game while players criticize its monetization. A game may perform well on one platform but experience technical problems on another. An update may solve an issue reported in an older review. LootVora does not hide these disagreements.
When conflicting evidence materially affects an assessment, we consider: source quality, recency, platform, sample size, context, and whether the issue remains relevant to the current version of the game. Where useful, significant disagreement is explained directly in the article.
Accuracy is an ongoing process. If we discover that an article contains a meaningful factual error, outdated information, or an assessment based on information that has materially changed, we may correct or update the article. A score may also change when substantial new evidence becomes available. Examples include:
Changing a score is not considered a problem when the underlying game has meaningfully changed. It is part of evaluating games as they exist now rather than permanently judging them by their launch state.
LootVora's editorial conclusions and Verdict Scores are determined by our editorial methodology. Commercial relationships, affiliate partnerships, advertising, or access to promotional materials do not determine the score a game receives.
When an article contains affiliate links or other commercial relationships requiring disclosure, we aim to identify them appropriately. A higher Verdict Score does not mean LootVora receives a higher commission, and participation in an affiliate program does not guarantee positive coverage.
LootVora's scoring system is designed to make complex information easier to understand — not to replace the article itself. The number provides a quick summary. The research explains why. Whenever you see a LootVora Verdict such as:
The score should always be considered together with the supporting analysis, cited evidence, publication or update date, strengths, weaknesses, and context provided in the article.
Above all, LootVora will not claim to have played, tested, benchmarked, or personally experienced something when it has not. Research should be transparent. Evidence should be attributable. And a Verdict should always have a reason behind it.
LootVora may refine this methodology as the site, games industry, and our editorial processes evolve. Material changes to the way Verdict Scores are calculated should be reflected on this page.