Review · Fictional sample
The Lantern Archive
A fictional mystery explores character voice and deliberate storytelling.
Games. Human creativity. The role of AI.
Look beyond
the tool.
Find the intent.
Independent reviews and analysis of AI-assisted games. We examine the experience, investigate the process, and ask where human creative direction makes the difference.
Edited by Ricardo Vazquez · Five years of video game journalism experience
AI use is not a verdict. The work—and the evidence—come first.
The journal
Criticism with context.
Review · Fictional sample
Signal Garden
A fictional strategy game separates simulation design from confusing onboarding.
Our founding position
Curiosity without
the free pass.
Games deserve to be examined as creative work—not reduced to a label about their tools.
AI assistance does not excuse weak writing, incoherent worlds, or design that disregards the player. Nor does using a tool, on its own, establish that a creator lacked imagination or care.
Our job is to play closely, ask specific questions, and distinguish an observed result from a developer’s account. We examine decisions: what was imagined, rejected, rewritten, and why.
Small teams and larger studios receive the same evidence standards. Resources provide context, not an exemption from responsibility.
Fair to the creator.
Useful to the player.
Accountable to the evidence.
A public methodology
Show the work.
Explain the judgment.
Does the game deliver?
- Narrative & writing — 30%Character, coherence, voice, and emotional purpose.
- Design & agency — 30%Mechanics, choices, and the relationship between them.
- Direction & identity — 20%How visual, audio, and interactive elements fit together.
- Execution & access — 20%Usability, technical issues, accessibility, and polish.
What supports the story?
- Creative intentWhat the creator wanted players to experience.
- Tool contributionWhere AI was used and what people contributed.
- Revision & selectionRejected outputs, rewrites, and iteration.
- Limits & accountabilityWho approved the work and what remains unknown.
Evidence labels,
not creativity scores.
Observed in play: directly encountered in the reviewed build.
Developer-reported: an account not independently established.
Materials examined: representative examples, not a complete provenance audit.
Not established: insufficient evidence for a firm conclusion.
Scores, disclosures, and their limits
Scores are subjective judgments of the player experience, rounded to one decimal—not measurements of human authorship or ethical certification. Analysis may remain unscored. 9–10: exceptional; 8–8.9: strong; 7–7.9: good with limits; 6–6.9: mixed; 5–5.9: substantial shortcomings; below 5: major shortcomings.
Reviews disclose version, platform, time played, completion, access, conflicts, editorial AI use, and evidence limits. Explain any change to the default rubric or publish unscored analysis when it does not fit. We do not infer AI use from appearance alone.
The person behind the publication
Ricardo Vazquez
Independent game analyst.
Journalist. Critic.
Five years in video game journalism. A continuing focus on AI, writing, and human creative judgment.
I founded Intent & Play to examine where human vision meets AI-assisted development—and to give players a reasoned assessment of the work, not a verdict based on the tools alone.
My professional experience includes five years of video game journalism across radio, television, web blogs, and newspapers. That background informs an editorial approach centered on clear communication, specific questions, and a distinction between reported claims and critical judgment.
I have pursued studies in artificial intelligence for career advancement and studied video game writing with industry professionals. These studies inform the questions I ask about tool use, narrative structure, character, and deliberate creative decisions.
My background provides context, not an exemption from scrutiny. Every assessment must stand on observation, evidence, transparent disclosures, and a willingness to correct the record.
Five years. Multiple formats.
Radio, television, web blogs, and newspapers.
Understanding the tools.
Studies in artificial intelligence pursued for career advancement.
Attention to the craft.
Video game writing studies with industry professionals.
For creators
Let’s examine
what you made.
Submitting does not guarantee coverage, approval, or certification.
Trust is a practice, not a badge
Our editorial commitments.
Independence & conflicts
This is an editorial publication, not a studio, storefront, or showcase for the editor’s games. Payment does not determine verdicts. Relevant access, outside interests, and relationships must be disclosed. The editor’s own games are not independently reviewed here. Unmanageable conflicts mean declining independent review coverage.
Fair scrutiny & corrections
Apply the same evidence standards to teams of all sizes. Missing evidence is not proof of deception. Seek a response for material disputed factual claims. Developers may flag errors, not approve criticism. Substantive corrections must explain changes. A direct contact/corrections channel must be configured before actual review reporting begins; this launch base does not yet provide one.
AI transparency
This website, draft copy, sample art, and fictional reviews were created with AI assistance at the founder’s direction and require editorial approval. Actual reviews must be based on human play and judgment. Never present invented reporting, observations, or quotes as real.
Privacy
No audience trackers or remote fonts are included. The submission form sends nothing. Hosting may retain request logs. The optional editor loads Decap from a third-party CDN and, when configured, uses GitHub and an authentication service. Never store confidential submissions or credentials in public content files.