Letters
Tell us we are wrong, and be specific about it
The most useful letter we receive is one that points at a sentence and explains why it is factually incorrect. The second most useful is one that disagrees with a conclusion and says why. We print both. What we cannot do anything with is a letter that simply announces that a write-up was bad.
The post box
Fill this in and it joins the pile
This form runs entirely in your browser. There is no server behind this site, so nothing is transmitted anywhere when you press the button — the confirmation is a rehearsal of what a live post box would tell you. To reach us for real, use the postal address in the footer.
How long we take
Factual corrections are dealt with inside two working days. Everything else is answered in the order it arrived, which currently means about a fortnight. If a letter turns into a correction, you get invited to a Thursday edit meeting — three people have accepted and one of them now writes here.
Suggesting a game
Say which strand it belongs in and why you think nobody has covered it properly. We decline most suggestions, almost always because no one in the room has the background to write about that genre without embarrassing themselves. A decline is not a judgement on the game.
Writing for us
There is no application process and no money. The only route in is the one Priya took: send a letter that improves something we published. That is not a policy so much as an observation about how it has happened twice.
Publishers and developers
Offers of lent copies are welcome and are accepted on one condition: no conditions. Read the lending and disclosure section before writing, because it will answer most of what you were about to ask.
Corrections log
Everything we have got wrong so far
Kept in full, oldest at the bottom, with the date the correction arrived rather than the date we got round to it. Where a reader asked to stay anonymous, that is noted instead of a name.
| Arrived | Concerning | What was wrong | Raised by |
|---|---|---|---|
| 28 July 2026 | Tactics, 30 July piece | We stated the campaign layer tracked all unvisited map nodes. It tracks only bridge crossings. Corrected in the third paragraph. | Anonymous |
| 19 July 2026 | Narrative, 23 July piece | Subtitles can in fact be given a background, though not resized. Our accessibility block overstated the problem and has been amended. | Helen Ashworth |
| 2 July 2026 | Puzzle, 16 July piece | Room count given as eighty-eight; it is ninety. Marta counted from her notebook rather than the game. | Tomas Lindqvist |
| 21 June 2026 | Narrative, 25 June piece | We undersold how much the fixed linear structure limits any reason to replay. A dated note now sits above the original text. | Priya Sandhu |
| 14 June 2026 | Tactics, 11 June piece | Described the logistics screen as unmarked in the tutorial. It is mentioned once, briefly. Wording softened accordingly. | Anonymous |
| 30 May 2026 | Survival, 14 May piece | Repair actions need three confirmations, not four. Small, but it was the basis of a complaint we made twice. | Gareth Pryce |
| 11 April 2026 | Narrative, 27 February piece | Three separate errors in one write-up: a misnamed character, a wrong runtime, and an invented control option. All corrected, original judgements left standing. | Priya Sandhu |
Letters we printed
“Your survival write-up spent forty-one hours praising a game that cannot be paused during travel, then put that in a footnote. For anyone with children in the house, that footnote is the entire review.”
Gareth Pryce, 30 May. He was right, and pause behaviour now appears in the opening paragraph when it fails.
And one we disagreed with
“Removing the score out of ten was cowardice dressed up as principle. Readers want a number and you know it.”
Anonymous, 6 March. Printed in full, argued about for an hour, and the score stayed gone.
The Friday round-up
One plain-text message a week: what went up, what is next, and any correction we have had to make. No tracking, no attachments, no partners.