Editorial Policy

Our reviewing standards

Every review on GameShockers is based on hands-on play, not press releases or trailers. Reviewers spend a minimum of one week with a game before publishing a verdict, and most reviews involve two to four weeks of play. For daily-puzzle games specifically, we play every day for the full review period — a daily puzzle's design only really reveals itself across multiple sessions.

Scores reflect what the game is, not what we wanted it to be. A 7.0 from us means a genuinely good game with real flaws; an 8.5 means a game we'd recommend without hesitation; a 9.0+ means a game that's reshaping its category. We don't grade on a curve.

How we choose what to cover

We cover what we'd play if we weren't writing about it. That means our coverage skews toward word puzzles, daily brain games, and casual titles — the categories our editors actually engage with. We don't review games we don't care about just for traffic.

We also avoid the launch-day rush. A game that just shipped hasn't had time to reveal its long-term character, especially in the daily-puzzle category where puzzle quality varies day-to-day. We'd rather publish a useful review three weeks late than a shallow one on launch day.

Sponsorships, advertising, and free games

We don't accept payment in exchange for reviews, coverage, list placements, or favorable mentions. We don't publish sponsored articles dressed up as editorial. If we ever run advertising on the site, it will be clearly labeled as such and will have no influence on editorial decisions.

Game publishers occasionally offer free access to paid games or beta keys. We accept these when useful but treat them no differently than games we paid for. A free review copy doesn't earn favorable coverage, and we say so explicitly in any review where we received free access.

Affiliate and outbound links

Where we link out to other sites, we do so because we think the destination is useful to the reader. We do not currently participate in affiliate programs. If that changes, we'll disclose it clearly on every page where affiliate links appear and add an indicator to the link itself.

Sources and attribution

When we cite numbers, claims, or external reporting, we link to the original source. We don't use anonymous sources for routine coverage. For news pieces that depend on industry contacts, we'll note the nature of the source ("a person familiar with the matter," "according to two people at the company") and the reason for anonymity if applicable.

Quotes are accurate. We don't tighten quotes to make them better; we paraphrase if a quote needs cleaning up.

Corrections

We correct mistakes openly. Any factual error in a published article gets corrected in place, with a note at the bottom indicating what was changed and when. We don't silently rewrite history. For significant errors that change the substance of an article, the correction is also flagged at the top.

If you've spotted a mistake, our contact page has the fastest way to reach us.

AI use

Our articles are written by the editors named on each byline. We use AI tools the way most modern editorial teams do — for research assistance, draft cleanup, and editing — but the analysis, opinions, and verdicts are ours. We don't publish AI-generated reviews, and we don't pretend an AI-generated piece was written by a human.

Conflicts of interest

If a reviewer has a personal connection to a game's creator, publisher, or a company we're covering, they don't write that piece. If a connection emerges mid-coverage, the piece is reassigned or the connection is disclosed in the article.

Updates to this policy

We update this policy as our practices evolve. Material changes get noted here with a dated revision history. The current version is dated April 2026.