We try our best to choose reviewers based on their experience with a series, game, genre or platform, but always aim to balance specialist knowledge against a wider understanding games and game design. This means sometimes you’ll find gamers trying new things and experimenting with different releases, because it’s important to test a game not just on the merits of its fan base.
We expect our writers to spend enough time with a game to understand it intimately and with a lot of detail, but this is not an exact science and the time that’s required to spend on different games comes with many different factors. We trust and expect our reviewers to make informed judgements about what is appropriate and get a solid opinion.
This also affects the timing on reviews; in some cases, we get games to review before they are released which allows us plenty of time, but sometimes we get our reviews as they come out, which means we’d rather delay a review and discuss it at an appropriate time rather than rushing.
At Checkpoint, we don’t believe in ‘putting a score’ on games that we have reviewed. The reason for this is that scores are subjective based on the reviewer, like anything else in a review really, and we feel like giving something a rating out of 10 or even 100 doesn’t give a good reflection on the amount of nuance that can appear in video games.
We will always make an effort to ensure that our reviews are honest and have taken the care to make sure you understand not just of what our opinion is, but why we feel that way as well.