This page explains who writes the content on MayGame, how we decide which games to publish, how the MayGame Curator Score is calculated, and what happens when we get something wrong. It is published so that readers, developers and advertisers can hold us to a standard we have actually committed to in writing.
MayGame embeds third-party HTML5 games that are owned and operated by their developers. We do not claim to have made them. What we produce is the editorial layer around them: a written assessment, a scored judgement, strategy notes, answers to common questions, and the curated groupings that place a game in context. This page is the rulebook for that work.
Who produces our content
All editorial text on MayGame — game assessments, guides, collection introductions and policy pages — is written by the MayGame editorial team. We do not publish developer marketing copy as if it were our own review, and we do not run an automated feed that generates pages with no human input. Every listing in the catalogue has been opened, played and written up by a person before it went live.
Where a page states a fact about a game — its controls, its modes, its platform behaviour — that fact has been checked in a controlled browser session or sourced from the developer's own published information. Where a page offers an opinion, we label it as editorial judgement. We do not invent user numbers, download counts, awards or press quotes to make a recommendation look more authoritative than it is.
You can reach the team that maintains this policy through the contact page. Corrections and rights-holder notices go to the same place.
Editorial independence
Our recommendations are not for sale. The following commitments are absolute:
- Scores are not influenced by commercial relationships. Whether a game comes from a distributor feed, a direct developer submission or our own discovery makes no difference to how it is scored. Nobody can buy a higher Curator Score or a place in a collection.
- Advertising is kept separate from editorial. Ad units are clearly distinguishable from content, never disguised as a game card or a recommendation, and never placed inside the embedded game frame in a way that intercepts the player's click on the game's own controls. Advertising partners do not see, review or approve editorial pages before publication.
- Embedded games are always accompanied by original commentary. We never publish a bare frame of somebody else's content with no added assessment, curation or explanation. If we cannot write something genuinely useful about a title, we do not list it.
- We disclose what we are. MayGame is a curated portal that embeds third-party games; it is not the developer of those games. That relationship is stated on every game page.
Where our games come from
We acquire titles from licensed HTML5 distributor feeds (our largest source), from direct developer submissions, and occasionally through manual discovery when a title is genuinely interesting and its rights holder permits embedding. In every case the game itself is streamed from its distributor or the developer's own host; we do not re-host game files on our servers and we do not claim authorship of any game we list.
Because we embed rather than copy, the developer retains full control of their game. If a rights holder asks us to remove a listing, we remove it — see the takedown process below and our DMCA page.
Screening: what never reaches the catalogue
Before a title is scored, it passes a screening stage. These are hard rules, not preferences. A game is rejected outright if it fails any of them:
- It does not start reliably. If a game fails to load, or loads only intermittently, it does not go live. A dead play button destroys reader trust faster than anything else.
- It requires a download or a plugin. We host browser games only. Anything that asks the player to install software, enable a legacy plugin, or leave the page to continue is refused.
- It infringes third-party rights. Titles that make unlicensed use of clearly protected characters, trademarks or other copyrighted work are refused, however popular they are.
- Its monetisation is deceptive. We refuse games that hide the play button behind misleading overlays, that require a fake "download" to proceed, or that bury the real game under decoy close buttons.
- Its content is unsuitable. Graphic violence, sexual content, and any mechanic that resembles real-money gambling are excluded. The catalogue is kept appropriate for a general, all-ages audience.
- It is silently broken on a whole class of devices. A game that cannot be played on a phone is not automatically rejected — but only if that limitation can be stated honestly on the page. A game that is quietly unusable on a common device is refused.
The six criteria behind every score
Scoring happens in a controlled browser session: we load the title, confirm it starts, exercise its controls, resize the window, and check how it behaves on a mobile viewport. We record what we observe, and reason about the rest from documented genre conventions and the developer's published information. Each criterion is scored out of ten and combined using the weights below.
| Criterion | What it measures | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Gameplay | Does the core interaction feel good and fair? Is the difficulty curve sensibly shaped, and does the game teach its own rules? | 30% |
| Presentation | Do the art, sound and interface support the play? Is the screen readable when it matters, and does the visual style have an identity of its own? | 15% |
| Depth | Is there something to learn beyond the first minute? Does skill, planning or strategy change the outcome, or is it luck and reflex alone? | 20% |
| Accessibility | Can a new player understand it without a tutorial? How forgiving are the controls, timing windows and failure states? Can it be played one-handed? | 15% |
| Performance | How quickly does it start? Does it hold a steady frame rate? Is input responsive, or is there perceptible lag between action and result? | 10% |
| Originality | Does it bring an idea, mechanic or presentation the genre does not already have in abundance? Faithful, well-made takes are not penalised, but they are not rewarded either. | 10% |
Gameplay carries the heaviest weight because it is the one criterion that cannot be compensated for — a beautiful game that plays badly is a bad game. Originality carries the least because refusing every familiar idea would empty the catalogue; a well-executed familiar game is still worth playing, it simply does not earn bonus points for novelty it does not have.
How the MayGame Curator Score works
The six criterion scores are combined using the weights above into a single figure on a 0–10 scale, rounded to one decimal place. This is the MayGame Curator Score shown on every game page. It is a comparative editorial judgement about a deliberately small catalogue, not an absolute measure of quality, and it should be read with these bands in mind:
- 8.5–10.0 — Essential. Among the best things to do in a browser. We would recommend it without hesitation to almost anyone.
- 7.5–8.4 — Recommended. A genuinely good game with a clear strength and no serious flaw. Our default recommendations live here.
- 6.5–7.4 — Worth a try. Solid but limited, or excellent in a narrow situation. Good if it suits you specifically.
- Below 6.5 — Not listed. We do not publish games below this threshold. A low score is a curation decision, not a warning label.
Where a game has a significant limitation — poor touch controls, no progression, a steep learning curve — we state it plainly on the game page rather than quietly marking it down. A score without an explanation is not useful; the accompanying assessment is the part that lets you decide.
Original content and embedded games
Because MayGame streams games from their developers, it is important to be precise about what is ours and what is not. The game itself is the developer's work and remains their property. Everything written around it on this site — the summary, the assessment, the list of strengths and limitations, the strategy notes, the FAQ answers, and the collection introductions that group games by situation — is original writing produced by our team. We do not copy the developer's store description and pass it off as a review, and we do not reproduce another site's text.
This is deliberate, and it is the reason our catalogue is small. Adding a frame of somebody else's game with no commentary would be replication, not curation. Our value is the judgement layer: telling you which of hundreds of available titles is worth your twenty minutes, and why.
Corrections, updates and takedowns
We get things wrong, and the useful question is what happens next. Three processes keep the catalogue honest.
Corrections
If a factual detail in one of our assessments is wrong — an incorrect control scheme, a feature we described that a title does not have — tell us via the contact page and we will verify it and correct the page. Substantive corrections are recorded by updating the page's modified date. We do not quietly delete text to make a mistake disappear.
Re-reviews
Games change. A title that is patched, optimised or given new content is not necessarily the game we scored. When a game is materially updated, or when we learn something that changes our assessment, we revisit the score and re-date the page. Our catalogue is reviewed on a rolling basis rather than published once and forgotten.
Takedowns
If you are a rights holder and a title is listed here in error, contact us at our contact page or through the DMCA page. We act on valid notices promptly and remove the listing while any dispute is resolved.
What we do not claim
Transparency is the point of this page, so it is worth being explicit about the limits of our method. We do not claim to have completed every game, pursued every ending, or played a retail build of anything. Our assessment is based on time spent with each title in the browser, the developer's published information, established genre conventions and our own accessibility checks. Where we offer an opinion we label it as editorial judgement rather than measured fact. And we do not invent statistics, user numbers or awards to make a recommendation look more authoritative than it is.
A score is only as trustworthy as the method behind it. We publish ours so that a reader can hold us to it — and so that a recommendation from MayGame means something you can rely on.
Questions about this policy
If you would like to discuss our methodology, request a correction, or submit a game for review, use the contact page. For a shorter, narrative version of the same philosophy, see our guide to how we review and curate games, and for the practical result, browse the collections.