Editorial Policy

Rage Quit Reviews currently reviews publicly available consumer releases acquired by its reviewers without publisher- or developer-provided review copies, free review keys, special review builds, or sponsored access. Reviewers play the versions available to ordinary players through normal consumer channels.

The ordinary-player experience is part of the point. If a subscription, free-to-play release, retail purchase, digital purchase, or another normal access method materially affects the value judgment, the review should give readers enough context to understand it.

Review conclusions and scores are set by the reviewer and RQR editorial judgment. A publisher, developer, advertiser, affiliate relationship, sponsor, or other business relationship cannot purchase or guarantee a favorable score, positive conclusion, or editorial approval.

Scores are a compact verdict on the reviewer's actual play experience, not laboratory measurements. RQR's existing Manifesto and Score Guide explain what the ranges mean and how the site approaches praise, punishment, and the bottom line.

Read the Score Guide on the About page for the current scale.

A review reflects the experience and judgment of the individual reviewer. People can reasonably have different reactions to the same mechanics, story, performance, difficulty, or value. RQR scores are informed opinions, not claims of objective truth.

Factual errors may be corrected. When useful, the surrounding text may be clarified so readers can understand what changed. A score is not routinely changed because a comment section, publisher, or wider public opinion disagrees with it.

RQR may revisit or update a review when major patches, significant technical fixes, rereleases, remasters, definitive editions, or substantial content changes materially alter the context of the original experience. Any meaningful update should preserve enough context for readers to understand the basis of the verdict.

Reviewers should avoid assignments where a meaningful personal or business relationship could compromise—or reasonably appear to compromise—editorial independence. If a material conflict exists, it should be disclosed clearly or the review should be assigned differently when appropriate.

The current process uses ordinary consumer access without publisher- or developer-provided review copies, keys, special builds, or sponsored access. If that process materially changes in the future, any relationship or benefit that could affect how a reader interprets a review should be disclosed clearly on the relevant content. A future change in access would not give an outside party control over the verdict.

Send editorial questions or correction notices to christianwilson399@gmail.com. Include the review or page link and the specific fact you believe needs attention.