Here you will find the latest video game reviews from finder as well as the details of how we score games.
2016 has been a brilliant year for first-person shooters (FPS) with Overwatch taking the world by storm, the unholy resurrection of Doom and a new Battlefield and Call of Duty on the horizon. Amidst the craze of Pokémon GO and the hype of No Man's Sky there's been some real gems from AAA developers and indies alike. Here's every game reviewed by finder in 2016.
Check out finder's review scale for a breakdown on what each score means.
Check out finder's top 10 games of 2016 so far.
Finder reviews and scores each game on its own merits using a scale from 1 to 10 (1 being the worst and 10 the best). We do not disclose or discuss review scores with developers, publishers or any other party before a review is published.
Reviewers will at the very least complete a game's single-player campaign before deciding on a review score. For multiplayer games, or open-ended games a review score is decided upon once the reviewer is content they have seen all the game has to offer at launch. Scores for games with significant online multiplayer portions are subject to change after the reviewer has managed to spent an adequate amount of time with the multiplayer content on offer.
Our reviewers also offer a review summary in the form of a verdict and a handful of pros and cons. These are not indicative of the entire review, but a snapshot of the reviewer's opinions.
Finder's highest accolade. We don't believe there's such a thing as an absolutely perfect game, but Finder's flawless score is as close to perfect as a game can get. Flawless games match and exceed the reviewer's expectations. They manage to hit all the notes that have proven to work within their genre while bringing something new and exciting to the table that will provide a template for future games to draw inspiration from. They showcase the very best contemporary gaming has to offer in graphics, gameplay, sound design and narrative without any hitches along the way.
9 - 9.5: AMAZING
An amazing game provides a unforgettable experience for the reviewer. Its design and technical elements should be airtight with characters and story that are so captivating that the reviewer shows up to work the next day bleary-eyed from a night full of adventure. Amazing games are ones that demand a sequel or spiritual successor and will remain on players hard drives for years in the case they ever feel the urge to dive back in. Amazing games may have a slight graphical blemish here and there or even a stray mission that fails to live up to the entire game's standard, but they're such small problems they don't affect the overall quality of the game.
8 - 8.5: EXCEPTIONAL
First of all, let's get this straight: an 8.0 or 8.5 game is not a bad game in any respect. Exceptional games exhibit outstanding merits in a range of categories, whether it be in its graphical or audio prowess, or an intriguing plot with loveable characters. These games are still the cream of the crop, worthy of your attention and time. They fall just below the ranks of Amazing and Flawless thanks to few missteps in areas that don't have a lasting impact on the game as a whole. Exceptional games have far more high than lows, making them a commendable experience despite their shortcomings.
7 - 7.5: VERY GOOD
Should you play a Very Good game? Without a doubt. Very Good games may absolutely nail a concept core to the gameplay, but are lacking in aspects that would otherwise make the game a well-rounded experience. A Very Good game might shine in the way it improves a single mechanic specific to its genre, like shooting, cover systems etc. but fail to truly inspire the player to the see the game through to its end. Very Good games can be highly recommended to some audiences and fanbases, but fail to sink is claws into the wider gaming community. They are good games that could have been improved with more time and consideration.
6 - 6.5: GOOD
Good games will please some, offering up small doses of genius that hint at a great game buried somewhere amongst noticeable design faults and technical follies. They still come as a recommended gaming experience, but they're not without their fair share of annoyances. These might turn away a broad audience, but the player has to put some work in and forgive some imperfections to truly enjoy these games. Good games can still appeal to longtime fans of a series, but may disappoint anyone outside the inner circle of fandom.
GOOD GAMES: Bound
5 - 5.5: AVERAGE
Average games are a doozy to review. As a whole they're hard to hate, but various bugs, subpar graphics, a grating soundtrack or a boring story make it hard to enjoy despite its strong points. There are flashes of brilliance in Average games, moments where you think the game could be picking up despite poor first impressions. This feeling doesn't last long and you generally leave the game feeling a little let down. Even hardcore fans of a series or genre will struggle to see the good in average game, despite playing through a lens of fandom of nostalgia. Average games can be interesting enough to complete, as long as they don't ask for too much of your time.
4 - 4.5: BELOW AVERAGE
A Below Average game's shortcomings outweigh its strengths. While an average game is bearable even with all its flaws, a Below Average game's strengths are swallowed up by some really bad decisions or bugs. There could have been a good, or even great concept here somewhere down the line, but a series of bad design and publishing decisions lead to a mostly disastrous release that could have used another 6 months or so in the oven. That's not to say they're pure garbage, Below Average games can still be fun in very short bursts.
Is it free or heavily discounted? Knock yourself out. But you can't justify a full-price purchase of a below average game.
3 -3.5: POOR
Anything that scores below Below Average more or less speaks for itself. Poor games are often loveless creations rushed to market to meet a deadline or movie tie-in schedule. They resemble a game for the most part. Moving the joystick forces your janky character to move left and right, pressing other buttons attack, interact or jump, standard stuff. But past the basics of game design 101 there's otherwise a total lack of imagination and innovation.
Poor games can look quite nice, but it's just a mask to cover what's otherwise a rotten core.
POOR GAMES: Trials of the Blood Dragon
2 -2.5: BAD
At some stage during a Bad game's life cycle there was an idea that had all the bells and whistles of a video game. However, somewhere during development hell those ideas were tossed out the window for something just barely operable.
Bad games can be a result of poor QA or simple carelessness and they usually beg the question "why was this released?". If there was ever an idea for a good game here, there's little to no trace of it in the final product. They're near impossible to recommend, thanks to either an abundance of game-breaking bugs, or just unpolished game mechanics that suck all joy and enthusiasm out of the game.
1 - 1.5: TERRIBLE
It looks like a game. It's available on digital stores or physical store shelves, retailers accept money in exchange for it, and it comes on a disc or as a digital download that seems compatible with your console or PC of choice. Everything beyond that is a mystery. A Terrible game is one that was pushed out into the wild without a second thought about its potential audience.
Terrible games typically don't want to be played. They will boot you out at first chance with a game breaking bug so you don't see the lifeless, hollow shell of a game that lies beyond. We can't reasonably ask you to waste any time or money on a Terrible game and will do our best to point you in the direction of a title more worthwhile.
While we review on a scale of 1 to 10, creating any video game is an admirable feat and any developer up to the task has our utmost respect and appreciation. All reviews are written in good nature, without spite and malice and are geared towards helping gamers make the best decision when spending their money.