THE VERDICT SYSTEM

How We Score.

Every POCG review carries a numeric score out of 5.0 and a named tier. The number is the judgment; the tier is what it means at a glance.

Scores move in half-point steps: the only valid scores are 0.5 through 5.0 on a 0.5 grid. There is no 3.7 on POCG: if a game sits between bands, I decide which side it belongs on and commit. That's the point of a score.

The tier always follows the score. A 4.0 is always Excellent, a 3.5 always Good. The label is derived from the number automatically, so the two can never disagree, on a review from last week or one restored from 1999.

5.0
Masterpiece
Essential. One of the reasons its platform matters. We don't hand these out to round up a great game. A 5.0 means we think you should play it, full stop.
4.0 – 4.5
Excellent
An easy recommendation. Real flaws may exist, but the experience comfortably outweighs them.
3.0 – 3.5
Good
Solid. Does what it sets out to do and does it well enough. Worth your time if the genre or series is your thing.
2.0 – 2.5
Average
Playable and forgettable in roughly equal measure. Neither a warning nor a recommendation.
1.0 – 1.5
Poor
The problems outweigh the good. Salvageable moments don't rescue the whole.
0.5
Broken
Doesn't function as sold. Reserved for the genuinely defective.

What never gets scored

Previews are never scored. A preview covers an unreleased game and carries an anticipation level (On the Radar, Cautious, Hyped, or Must-Play), never a number. The score comes later, on the review, when the game actually exists.

Restored scores

Reviews recovered from the original 1998–2002 archive keep their original verdicts. Where the original used a 10-point scale, it's converted onto today's 5-point grid and the conversion is disclosed in the Editor's Note. We don't retroactively soften old opinions. That's what Replay is for.

Who pays for this

Mostly me, plus whatever helps cover the hosting bill. When Sega offered advertising money around the Dreamcast launch, we turned it down, not because money is bad, but because of what it pulls coverage toward. That decision is older than most of the sites we link to, and the line it drew still holds.

So here is where it stands. The podcast may carry sponsors, and the site may run a Patreon, a donation button, or an affiliate link, all to help keep the lights on. Anything like that gets disclosed, right here on this page. What never changes is the part that matters: nobody buys a score, nobody softens a verdict, and no advertiser, sponsor, or revenue decision ever touches a review. Ads pay for bandwidth. They do not pay for verdicts. No bought scores. No filters. Just opinions.