Scoring Methodology

Every score on iHeartGeek is the product of a fixed rubric, not a gut feeling. Reviewers rate each category out of 10; the CMS multiplies by predetermined weights and calculates the final 100-point score. Scores are immutable after publication — if a score changes, a dated retest note is added.

The 100-point system

Every full review receives a score from 0 to 100. Reviewers do not arbitrarily decide whether something “feels like an 83.” Each category is rated from 0 to 10 in 0.5 increments, multiplied by its category weight, and summed.

Category contribution = rating ÷ 10 × weight

A gaming Gameplay category worth 25 points receiving 8/10 contributes 8 ÷ 10 × 25 = 20 points. The final calculated score is rounded to the nearest whole number.

Score bands

Category rating language

Every category across all three subjects uses the same 0–10 scale:

Gaming rubric — 100 points

Formula: (gameplay × 2.5) + (design × 1.5) + (narrative × 1.5) + (visuals × 1.0) + (audio × 0.8) + (technical × 1.2) + (accessibility × 0.5) + (value × 1.0)

Gameplay receives the largest weight because interactivity is the fundamental characteristic separating games from other media. A stunning story can rescue mediocre gameplay to an extent, but a game should not achieve 90/100 merely because its cutscenes would make a cracking Netflix series.

Gameplay and Controls — 25 points

Is the fundamental act of playing the game good? Evaluates core gameplay loop, controls and responsiveness, mechanical depth, combat or interaction systems, feedback, enemy and companion AI, balance, challenge and fairness, and moment-to-moment engagement.

Game Design, Progression and Structure — 15 points

Do the developers use their mechanics intelligently? Evaluates level design, quest construction, tutorials, progression systems, economy, difficulty curve, reward structure, variety, encounter design, and pacing of new mechanics. A massive map does not automatically mean good design.

Narrative, Characters and World — 15 points

Evaluates plot, writing, dialogue, characterisation, character arcs, world-building, lore, themes, narrative coherence, player agency, and emotional payoff. A linear story is not inherently inferior to branching narrative. For non-narrative games, this category may be marked N/A.

Visuals, Art Direction and Interface — 10 points

Evaluates art direction, character and environment design, animation, lighting, visual clarity, effects, UI presentation, and readability. Do not confuse technical horsepower with artistic success. Frame-rate stability belongs under Technical Performance.

Audio, Music and Voice — 8 points

Evaluates music, sound design, environmental audio, positional audio, voice performances, mixing, dynamic range, and use of silence. Audio should be judged on its effect, not simply whether an orchestral soundtrack exists.

Technical Performance and Polish — 12 points

Evaluates frame rate, frame pacing, stutter, loading, crashes, bugs, save reliability, network performance, matchmaking, server reliability, input latency, and general optimisation. All hardware and settings used for testing should be documented.

Accessibility and User Experience — 5 points

Evaluates controller/keyboard remapping, subtitle options, colour accessibility, difficulty options, assist modes, text size, camera controls, menu clarity, onboarding, and save/ checkpoint flexibility.

Value, Monetisation and Longevity — 10 points

Evaluates launch price, content quantity and quality, replayability, DLC strategy, microtransactions, battle passes, pay-to-win elements, grind, completeness at launch, and upgrade value from previous versions. Especially important for annualised sports games.

Technology rubric — 100 points

Formula: (core_performance × 3.0) + (design × 1.5) + (features × 1.5) + (ux × 1.5) + (reliability × 1.0) + (longevity × 0.5) + (value × 1.0)

Core Performance receives the largest weight because the first question is always: does the product do its main job properly? The meaning of Core Performance changes by device category — frequency balance for headphones, camera quality for phones, throughput for networking equipment — but the weights remain consistent.

Core Performance and Function — 30 points

How well does the product perform the primary task for which people buy it? Actual measurements, not specification sheets. A phone with seventeen cameras is not automatically good at photography.

Design, Build and Ergonomics — 15 points

Materials, construction, durability, weight, portability, comfort, controls, and everyday handling. A cheap plastic product should not automatically score badly — plastic may be exactly the right material.

Features, Connectivity and Ecosystem — 15 points

Useful features, ports, wireless standards, compatibility, expandability, accessories, ecosystem integration, codec support, and customisation. Features should be rewarded for usefulness, not existence.

User Experience, Setup and Software — 15 points

Initial setup, interface clarity, companion apps, OS integration, firmware updates, stability, documentation, everyday friction, advertisements/bloat, and account requirements.

Reliability, Battery, Efficiency and Thermals — 10 points

Battery runtime, standby drain, charging, power efficiency, heat, thermal throttling, noise, connection stability, and long-session performance. Manufacturer claims recorded separately from observed performance.

Longevity, Support, Repairability and Privacy — 5 points

Update commitments, warranty, spare parts, repair options, proprietary lock-in, long-term software support, security updates, and data collection. Privacy criticism must be supported by documented behaviour, published policy, or credible research.

Value — 10 points

Current realistic selling price, competitors at similar prices, capabilities delivered for the money, cost of accessories, required subscriptions, and long-term ownership cost. Value is not the same thing as cheapness.

Anime rubric — 100 points

Formula: (story × 2.5) + (characters × 2.0) + (direction × 1.5) + (visuals × 1.5) + (sound × 1.0) + (world_themes × 1.0) + (impact × 0.5)

Anime criticism contains substantial subjective judgement. The goal is not to eliminate subjectivity but to make it consistent and explainable.

Story and Script — 25 points

Premise, plot, structure, coherence, conflict, narrative development, dialogue, setup and payoff, internal logic, foreshadowing, resolution, and genre execution. Originality is valuable but should not dominate — an anime can use every trope known to humanity and still execute them brilliantly.

Characters and Relationships — 20 points

Character motivation, development, personality, consistency, chemistry, relationships, dialogue, conflict, supporting cast, character agency, and emotional credibility. Character development does not necessarily mean dramatic transformation.

Direction, Pacing and Structure — 15 points

Episode construction, scene transitions, rhythm, pacing, tonal control, framing, editing, suspense, comedy timing, action staging, and seasonal structure. This category is deliberately separate from Story — a brilliant story can be badly told.

Animation, Art and Visual Storytelling — 15 points

Art direction, character design, background art, animation, expressiveness, consistency, action choreography, cinematography, colour, compositing, effects, CG integration, and visual identity. Do not equate animation quality with raw frame count.

Sound, Music and Voice Performance — 10 points

Voice performances (Japanese or dub being reviewed), casting, emotional delivery, music, sound effects, mixing, atmosphere, opening/ending music, and use of silence. The reviewer must specify which audio track was used.

World-Building, Themes and Originality — 10 points

Setting, internal rules, culture, history, social structures, power systems, thematic depth, ideas, symbolism, originality, genre subversion, and consistency. World-building should be judged according to need.

Emotional Impact and Lasting Appeal — 5 points

Engagement, emotional response, memorability, satisfaction, desire to continue watching, rewatch potential, and lasting impression. This is the intentionally subjective component — only five points because enjoyment is already produced by the other categories.

Universal review rules

Score what exists, not what was promised

Roadmaps, proposed DLC, forthcoming firmware updates and promises do not receive points. A product is reviewed in the state readers can actually obtain it. Never score potential.

Intent matters; excuses do not

Judge a product against what it is trying to achieve. A retro pixel-art game should not lose Visual points for lacking ray tracing. However, deliberate stylistic choices can still fail. “That was intentional” is an explanation, not immunity from criticism.

Do not double-count faults

Every major issue should have a primary scoring home. Poor frame rate belongs under Technical Performance, not Visuals. A fault may be mentioned elsewhere when it causes a separate consequence, but reviewers should avoid punishing the same defect three times.

Evidence before adjectives

Every major scoring claim should be supported by something observable. Instead of “the battery is bad,” prefer “the phone consistently needed charging before the end of a working day during our test period.”

The score must agree with the review

A reader should be able to read the article without seeing the score and approximately predict where the number will land. The final number should not be manually moved merely because an 82 looks prettier than a 79.

N/A rule

A category can be removed only when it genuinely does not apply. A missing expected feature is not N/A — it receives a terrible score. When a category is legitimately N/A, its weight is removed and the remaining categories are proportionally normalised:

Normalised score = earned applicable points ÷ total applicable weight × 100

N/A decisions should be visible in the published score breakdown and require editor approval.

Critical-failure rules

Games

If a reproducible issue prevents completion or destroys progress: maximum score 49. If the game is essentially non-functional on the reviewed platform: maximum score 19.

Technology

If the product routinely fails its advertised primary function: maximum score 49. A verified safety defect overrides normal scoring — the site issues a clear warning instead.

Anime

No equivalent cap. Severe failures appear across the relevant categories. Incomplete series do not receive a definitive season score.

Updating reviews

A review displays the original review date, last tested date, and version/firmware tested. A score may change where an update materially affects the experience. When it does, an editor’s note explains the previous score, new score, and reason for change. We do not silently rewrite history.

Editorial independence

Review scores cannot be purchased. Advertisers do not approve reviews. Providing a review sample does not guarantee coverage. Sponsored content is clearly labelled and does not receive editorial review scores. Affiliate relationships do not affect scoring. Manufacturers may be contacted to clarify factual questions but may not negotiate the verdict.

Awards

Editor’s Essential — 95+, no critical category below 8/10, reviewer and editor agreement required. Rare.

Outstanding — 90+. For genuinely exceptional work.

Recommended — 80+. A straightforward recommendation for its intended audience.

Great Value — 75+ overall and Value score 9/10 or higher. Free garbage remains garbage.

Anti-inflation policy

The site does not target a predetermined score distribution. If everything reviewed during one month is excellent, scores may all be excellent. Scores should describe quality. They should not be curved like an examination.

← Back to iHeartGeek