Unlike many other websites that claim to ‘review’ slots, we test and evaluate games with the players’ best interests at heart – not just to encourage readers to play. We have a steadfast policy of never accepting commissions or payments from game developers that could compromise our ability to remain impartial. Free from obligations to the companies creating the games, we’ve taken it upon ourselves to write honest, transparent reviews to help our readers make informed decisions. Our commitment to integrity and our reputation as an independent, trustworthy source are values we hold above all else.
Despite our occasionally blunt criticism, most game developers remain deeply interested in Bigwinboard and are eager to have their games featured. This is not only because of the credibility we enjoy within the industry but also because developers appreciate the constructive feedback we and our community provide to help them refine and improve their games. Over time, Bigwinboard’s scoring system has become a respected benchmark across the industry.
However, not all developers welcome scrutiny. Some may prefer to avoid the spotlight in hopes of dodging negative publicity. If you don’t see certain providers featured here, it could be due to subpar game quality – or, in some cases, more troubling issues such as fraudulent practices. A key requirement for reviewing any game is full access to it before its public release, without any legal strings attached that could influence our review process. This includes resisting any pressure to sign contracts or agreements that might compromise our independence. Failure to comply with these standards can result in the loss of accreditation and even blacklisting. You can find a list of our accredited game studios here. Furthermore, any threats, legal or otherwise, aimed at influencing our reviews will be disclosed to our readers, as such behavior raises serious concerns about a developer’s transparency and trustworthiness.
If we don’t review games from a particular provider, it’s usually due to concerns about game quality. Denying us access to their games may also lead to reduced coverage or complete exclusion from our platform. Be aware that some providers may pay websites or casino streamers to promote their products in a positive light – learn to recognize this and always do your own research.
What we review
We understand that not every player is the same. Some like to try new games while others stick to old proven favorites. There are recreational players who don’t worry too much about variance or RTP; they only regard it as a form of entertainment. Then you also have the hardcore gamers who are into high variance and high risk, who love the thrill of chasing big wins. Because of this, we need to keep an open mind and see the big picture when reviewing the games. That is also why we allow a test panel to try the games before we settle on a final score. All our reviews are concluded with a summary and personal reflection.
The following are some of the key factors we take in consideration when we test new slots:
- Balancing – Does the game give you some play time or is the mathematical design unforgiving. Low-quality games tend to be straight-out cash grabbers, but some providers have mastered the art of keeping their games fairly well-balanced even when highly volatile.
- Playability – Annoying cut scenes? Bad sound engineering? Slow win count-ups? Clunky and sluggish gameplay? These are factors that can have a substantial impact on the overall experience.
- Variance – Most providers try to cater to a wide audience by producing a mix of low, medium and high-variance games. In some cases, we’ve seen games that have been designed to behave like high-variance slots but have the potential of low-variance slots. Not the best combination.
- Bonus frequency and RTP – How long do we have to wait in between the features? Some providers are known to have significantly lower bonus frequencies than others. RTP is also a crucial factor that we look at. As a general rule, an RTP of 96%+ is still considered to be the average and anything below that number is typically viewed upon as negative by the casino community. However, we do understand that tough regulations have had a major impact on the industry, causing a loss in revenue, which in turn may be causing the RTP to creep downwards. This is not necessarily the game providers’ or casino operators’ fault, but a direct result of stringent regulation.
- Originality – A slot doesn’t necessarily have to be innovative to be good. There are even examples of clones that outshine the original. What we don’t like, however, are lazy providers who systematically clone and re-skin their own (or others’) games.
- Potential – For years now, there’s been a demand for increased potential and high variance brought on by massively successful slots such as Bonanza and Dead or Alive 2. Unfortunately, there are still providers out there who genuinely seem to believe that 20x is an “epic win”. It’s not. On the flip side, this is an entertainment industry, and a good game does not necessarily need to have ridiculous potential or brutal volatility in order to become successful.
Many providers utilise what’s known as flexible RTP (payout percentage) which allows operators (casinos) to choose from a range of predefined RTP settings. Please be advised, we review the games based on their highest RTP setting and we want to urge readers to keep that in mind when reading some of the conclusions brought forward in our reviews. The difference in ‘performance’ between a 96% version and a 92% version can be significant.
Scores are not written in stone
Although reviews are snapshots in time, slots are not video games and require a different approach when reviewed. Whilst the visual elements rarely change, the mathematical model that powers the game may. For example, a slot may have its RTP lowered or go through re-certification due to other changes to the mathematical model, essentially qualifying it as a new game. Generally, a score is a reflection of where the game was around the time of its release, but due to the reasons mentioned above, the score may be subject to change at any time. Moreover, several factors may be taken into account post-release, such as the frequency of big wins, if there is a general agreement in opinion among players that greatly contradicts our score, or if the game behaves differently in a live environment compared to demo play. It’s never about our own egos; the most important thing is that players find value in the reviews and that the reviews help guide them in their decision making process of where to spend their hard earned money.
Bigwinboard Review Scale
Slot reviews don’t just boil down to “good game” or “bad game”. Bigwinboard reviewers, which include both hardcore gamers and recreational players, are dedicated to thoughtful, well-considered criticism that takes several factors into account. The final score is a point of reference, but if you really wish to understand whether a slot is for you or not, you will find what you’re looking for in the content of the review itself – including demo play in many cases.
Historically, Bigwinboard used a 100-point scale, briefly switching to a 20-point scale during 2023. However, starting in February 2024, we’ve changed over to a 10-point scale for slots. We are convinced that this rating scale communicates the definitive stance of the reviews clearly and directly, without becoming entangled in the minutiae of minor score differences.
The examples here are meant to clarify and describe what those scores most often mean to us. Scores are a helpful summation to the reviewer’s opinion, but it’s worth to accentuate that they’re not the review itself. A final score may be subject to change after a game has been released as the live performance of the slot can end up giving us a better understanding of it.
- 1 (Abysmal): Broken or offensively bad, possibly even rigged. Horrible value. A clear indication to stay far away.
- 2 (Painful): In best case scenario, and if in a good mood, we might find one nice thing to say about it, but still far from being worth your time or money.
- 3 (Bad): A slot that has fallen short of its goals with very few qualities. Don’t waste your time.
- 4 (Poor): Disappointing or flawed.
- 5 (Mediocre): A slot of mediocre qualities. Other slots likely do it better, or its unique features aren’t executed as well as one would expect.
- 6 (Fair): There’s something to it that there is to like, but can still only be recommended with major caveats.
- 7 (Good): A well-executed slot with solid features, great potential and compelling visuals.
- 8 (Great): It’s not just good, this is a slot that stands out in the crowd.
- 9 (Amazing): Extremely brilliant. This is far and away one of the best slots we’ve ever played and recommended to everyone who’s into gambling.
- 10 (Masterpiece): In essence, this is our highest recommendation. While the concept of a flawless game remains elusive, titles awarded the “Masterpiece” distinction by Bigwinboard are as close to perfection as one could realistically anticipate.
Updated Reviews
In almost all cases, slots are reviewed before they go live. In reality, some slots are not final at launch, or even a few weeks after launch, once bugs are patched out and other issues are dealt with. Whilst a final Bigwinboard review is mostly final, there are some cases where we will want to revisit a slot down the line and update the score, or even the review itself, to reflect the times.
It is also true that, once a slot has been released, our opinion of it may change as the time invested into playing it increases, thus allowing us to gain a better understanding of the mathematical model. To some extent, we also listen to, and factor in, what the casino community has to say. If there is overwhelming negative criticism, we may inspect the game even closer and make necessary changes if need be. Don’t forget that you can use our commenting section to voice your opinion!
Source Protection & Confidentiality
Bigwinboard.com is not just a reviewing site; it’s also an independent news site. Source protection is a right accorded to journalists under international law that prohibits authorities, including courts, from compelling a journalist to reveal the identity of an anonymous source for a story or article. The right is based on a recognition that, without a strong guarantee of anonymity, many would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interests with journalists.
It’s not uncommon for industry representatives to try to pressure us into revealing our sources about how information has been found. This is typically done by expressing concerns about potential ‘leaks’. Whilst we sympathize with that concern, representatives must understand that we are a news site and that we always protect our sources. Moreover, a person who represents a game studio today may go on to become a competitor tomorrow, therefore we do not discuss our sources with outsiders.