How we pick

Four figures decide almost every recommendation here, and all four are published facts rather than judgments: the player count, the playing time, the age rating and, where a publisher states it, the box dimensions.

The source order is fixed. The publisher's own product page first. Where the publisher's site is unreachable from our end -- several are -- the game's Wikipedia infobox, which cites the same publisher material and is publicly checkable. Every game's review page lists which source each figure came from, with a link, so you can verify any number on this site in one click.

Where sources disagree, the publisher wins. Where the publisher states a range, we record the range even when convention says otherwise. That is exactly the Codenames: Duet case, and rounding it quietly to 2 would make every other label on the site worth less.

Every game carries one of two labels and there is no third option and no judgment call:

• Built for two -- the publisher states a player count of exactly 2. Currently 10 of the 16 games we cover.
• Plays at two -- the publisher states a range beginning at 2. Currently 6 games.

The label is not a quality judgment. Several Plays at two games are better purchases than several Built for two games, and we say so on the pages where that is true. It exists to remove an ambiguity you would otherwise resolve by reading forum threads.

Three things, applied before anything else is considered.

• An unverifiable player count. If we cannot cite the stated count, the game does not appear on the site at all.
• A minimum above two. Codenames is an excellent game listed at 4-8+ players. It gets discussed where relevant and it never gets a buy link, because two people cannot play it.
• No honest reason to skip it. Every game we recommend carries a stated who-should-skip-this. If we cannot write one, we do not understand the game well enough to recommend it.

Prices render only from a live data layer refreshed from Amazon. Anything older than 48 hours disappears rather than being shown stale, and when there is no live price the button says “Check price on Amazon” instead of printing a number.

You will currently see that fallback everywhere on this site, and the reason is worth stating plainly: the price feed is not yet connected for this brand. Rather than display a remembered or estimated figure, we display none. A price you cannot rely on is worse than no price, because you would plan around it.

We have not played these games. There is no test table, no review copies, and no accumulated hundreds of plays. Every page says so.

We also do not publish community ratings. Our usual source for those was unreachable from our environment when this site was built, and rather than print a remembered score we print none at all -- which is why you will not find a rating out of ten anywhere here, on any game.

Scooter M. holds no credential in game design and this site claims none. No expert panel, no years of experience, no medical or professional review. Where we have an opinion we mark it as an opinion; where we have a number we link to where it came from.

Pick any game page. Every figure in the spec table traces to a link in the Sources section at the bottom. Click it, and you will land on the publisher's page or the reference entry that figure came from.

If a number does not match, that is a correction we want: tell us. Our correction standards are on the editorial policy page.