Review System

In order for the vision of a critic debate and our social club to be understood by anyone and everyone who reads our reviews, certain criteria needs to be established. Not only is it important but its well known that the day of the critic has been long stifled by the likes of the BIG news outlets such as IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, Rotten Tomatoes and others. To combat this, our criteria, in which we research, report, review and broadcast our content, must be established and held strong. 




This Is How We Do Things


The following statements are how we deliver our content to our readers:


How we review

We have two types of reviews: A second-opinion (2nd OP) review or a debate review. A 2nd OP review is a review with two author opinions. One author writes the review and the other gives their summary opinion at the end. This is a technique used in Game Informer magazine for some of their reviews. A debate review is similar to a Q&A session. Two authors are chosen to answer questions based on topics gathered from the entertainment or tech piece to form a debate. 


How we Recommend

We have created our own universal principles and criteria to measure entertainment and technology on various types of review scales. 


How we report news/debate

We start an argument or news topic. Then we either have a user-debate or author-debate for the article. A user-debate uses a social poll to vote which argument side is best. An author-debate is similar to the debate review but may include more than 2 authors. 


How we podcast

We use a round-table format with segments. One segment called Table Spin ends with a winner of having the best arguments of that segment. That winner will have a spotlight on homepage until the next podcast publish. They will also have other perks.


How we tell featured stories

What take the most interesting part from news or our own experience, relate it to the current state of the industry or our own personal lives then provide an opinionated rant or a delightful article. It’s a one-author feature.


How we curate debates

We research and find the hottest forums, blog and video comments and social networks to scan for entertaining debates. We manually remix them into a magazine-style format for an easier view of what debates are currently taking place globally. This curative formula is similar to Critical Distance’s “week in videogame blogging” manual curation feature. 



How we present ourselves

We are a panel of critics with different disciplines in entertainment and technology debating what’s right or wrong in the genres based on our original criterion. Our round-table formats are similar to the Rotten Tomatoes segment in the canceled Infomania by Current TV, Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption on ESPN. 



Defining Our Arguments/Debates 


In a news press, we look for the message only decoded with a black bulb light. What is the overall message and how does it relate to the industry and/or our own lives? We stop to ask ourselves can this decision or action presented make or break the industry in question. Or does it have any relevancy in our lives? Something we can learn from?


Review Scales


The global criteria set used at our site is called The Universal Principles of Entertainment and Technology. Each review type uses the criteria set and a review score type having numerical or alphabetic values. View the chart below for descriptions and rating values.


Review Type Rating Type Values
Video Games Number 0.0 – 10.0 
Movies Star 0 – 5 stars 
Anime Percentage 0% -100%
Television Letter Grade A – F 
Music Star 0 – 5
Literature Letter Grade A – F
Live and Recreational Letter grade A – F
Technology Percentage 0% – 100%
Debates in Motion Series ** Letter Grade A – F

Overall Scoring

The following is the overall scoring for each review type. To understand how we came to these overall scores, please view the charts further below for explanations of criterion and review value scores.

Entertainment Overall Scores

0.0 – 3.9  /  0% – 39%  / D-  –  F /  0 stars – 1.9 stars
No enjoyment, only frustration lies here. Totally unworthy of your time and erasable from memory. 
4.0 – 5.9 / 40% – 59% / C-  –  D / 2 stars – 2.9 stars
Slight enjoyment or average use, however its a cheap thrill and easily forgettable.
6.0 – 7.9 / 60% – 79% / B  –  C / 3 stars – 3.9 stars
Better than expected and at a good value. Not at a lost but still a decent time killer.
8.0 – 10.0 / 80% – 100% / B+ – A+ / 4 stars – 5 stars
Very high enjoyment with great quality. Most recommended and unforgettable. 

Technology overall scores

80% – 100%: Get a high value for a reasonable or expensive price.
60% – 79%: Get a good value at a reasonable or decent price but could be too expensive for an averaged value product or service.
40% – 59%: Less than average value for a high or similar valued price range. Don’t expect much from product features, durability and life cycle. 
0 – 39%: There’s no value at any price amount and is cheaply made.


Debates in motion

D-  –  F
Trolling and spam galore which could be high volume but nothing beneficial. Minimal educated user interactions so readers beware. Topic subjects are non-relative, could be just filler for the site.

C-  –  D
Mediocre discussions with traces of stupidity and low level of maturity. Might be entertaining enough to read but you should carry on. The topics might be relative but the community isn’t responding.

B  –  C
Good discussions with a better level of intellect and consistent user interaction. Matched with a higher level of maturity and a nice user-friendly environment. Most topics are relative to its community.

B+ – A+
The best discussions with no tolerance of immaturity nor disrespect. It’s a high river of interaction and very user friendly. Topics are epic for its community.

Criterion Charts

Note: To use this chart, here are simple instructions – Each principle has a rating type and set of values. The values are repeated for each principle and the rating types stay the same. The only difference is the description of the principles and how to apply it to the rating values. We use Levels for an easier correlation because there are 4 value sets.


Principles Descriptions Rating Type Values
Orbital Replay or buying value Number


Letter Grade


[Level 1] 10.0 – 8.0: High Replay Value/ High usability
[Level 2] 6.0 – 7.9: Moderate Replay Value/ Moderately usable
[Level 3] 4.0 – 5.9: Low reply value/ Low usability
[Level 4] 0.0 – 3.9 – No reply value / non-usable

100 – 80%: High Replay Value/ High usability
60 – 79%: Moderate Replay Value/ Moderately usable
40 – 59%: Low reply value/ Low usability
0 – 39% – No reply value / non-usable

A+ – B+: High Replay Value/ High usability
B – C: Moderate Replay Value/ Moderately usable
C- – D: Low reply value/ Low usability
D- – F: No reply value / non-usable

5 – 4 Stars: High Replay Value/ High usability
3 – 3.9: Moderate Replay Value/ Moderately usable
2 – 2.9: Low reply value/ Low usability
0 – 1.9: No reply value / non-usable
Worthiness The quality or time value.  
Letter Grades
[Level 1] Best Quality/ Worthy of your time
[Level 2] Good quality / Honorary Mentions
[Level 3] Cheaply made 
[Level 4] Eyeball Acid / Unworthy
Awe Factor The Buzz or emotional value
Letter Grades
[Level 1] (Factor of 1) Too much Buzz / Emotions Implode
[Level 2] (Factor of 2) Buzzing / High emotions
[Level 3] (Factor of 3) Enough buzz to last for one enjoyment / Emotions stable 
[Level 4] (Factor of 4) Fizzled before take-off
The Stain Impressionable value
Letter Grades
[Level 1] Unforgettable Stains
[Level 2] Noticeable Stains
[Level 3] Forgettable Stains
[Level 4] Erasable Stains


Principles for Technology


Principles Descriptions Rating Type Values
Life Cycle How long the product lasts given the correlation of extended product support and software updates (battery life, performance, etc). Percentages 100 – 80%: Long extended life cycle, consistent updates, excellent support
60 – 79%: Moderate life cycle, standard support, comfortable update schedule
40 – 59%: Low life cycle, poor support, sporadic updates or too many updates
0 – 39% – None reusable battery/overwhelming drainage of power, no support, too little updates if any
Features Static or customizable features. If static features, how resourceful. If customizable or downloadable, how effortless.  Percentages [Level 1]: Best static resourceful features or the best effortless downloadable/customization features
[Level 2]: Good static resourceful features or user-friendly customization/downloadable features
[Level 3]: Low usefulness of static features or hard to understand or use customization/ implement features
[Level 4]: Incompetent overall features, too hard to implement or use
Design How intensionally useful, comfortable or awkward the manufactured product or service was designed. Percentages [Level 1]: Designed to last for comfort and usefulness for a better life cycle
[Level 2]: Good comfort and usefulness for a decent life cycle
[Level 3]: Awkward design and not practical for a decent life cycle
[Level 4]:  Intentional discomfort. Designed to only last, if any time frame, for a limited time (basically made to break)
Performance How much the tech accomplishes your goals of the type of product.  Percentages [Level 1]: The product exceeds performance goals in the genre of products
[Level 2]: Good comfort and usefulness for a decent life cycle
[Level 3]: Awkward design and not practical for a decent life cycle
[Level 4]: The product is inferior to the goals of the type of product or it does not meet any goals set
Ecosystem How well the tech interacts with the community of related tech in its environment.  Percentages [Level 1]: The product interaction flows naturally or sci-fi-ish with its ecosystem.
[Level 2]: Standard interaction with ecosystem. Works well but not flashy or over-the-top.
[Level 3]: Lacking stable interaction with ecosystem. Could be the compatibility of additional tech, the OS or the features.
[Level 4]: Unnatural inter-connectivity and non-relative to its environment (non-user-friendly in most cases).
Value Overall value of the product (tally). Percentages [Level 1]: High value for reasonable or expensive price.
[Level 2]: Good value at a reasonable price or decent value but too expensive.
[Level 3]: Low value for either high priced or similar value. Don’t expect much from product features, durability or life cycle.  
[Level 4]: No value at any price amount and cheaply made. 

Debates in Motion


Rating type is the Letter grade.


Criteria Descriptions Values
Discussions Debates rated based on knowledge of the subject, facts represented and user interaction
A+ – B+: Best discussions with highest level of intellect, user interaction and user-friendly options.
B – C: Good discussions with moderate level of intellect and user interaction. Decent user-friendly environment.
C- – D: Low value discussions with traces of stupidity and low user interactions. Ungraceful user-friendly environment.
D- – F-: No value chit-chats. Traces of fanboyism. May be high volume interaction but nothing beneficial.
Respectability Debates rated based on the level of maturity and respectability. Includes derogatory and trolling measures. [Level 1] High level of maturity and respectability community.
[Level 2] Moderate level of maturity and mostly respectable community.
[Level 3] Low level of maturity with traces of trolls and vile creatures in community. You won’t get much respect for your arguments here.
[Level 4] Non-debatable subjects and give the gaming community a bad name. A trolling metropolis.
Popularity Debates rated based on the level of popularity only.  [Level 1] High volume of comments / best community relativity 
[Level 2] moderate volume of comments and relativity 
[Level 3] low volume of interactions and relativity 
[Level 4] minimal interactions and community abandonment