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, including titles submitted by creators and the community, and those discovered and selected by the editor. Every review is grounded in hands-on play, with production claims examined separately from the finished experience.
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 rubric changes or publish unscored analysis when appropriate. We do not infer AI use from appearance alone.
Each review identifies how access was obtained, whether through a personal purchase, a public demo, a developer-provided key, or another disclosed arrangement. We distinguish what we observed during play from what developers report about their production process.
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 my questions 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.
How we select games
Submissions are one way we discover games, not a requirement for coverage. We also independently seek out, play, and review titles that raise meaningful questions about human creativity, writing, design, and AI-assisted development.
Editorial selection remains independent. Submitting a game does not guarantee coverage, and supporting Intent & Play does not purchase a review or influence its conclusions.
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. Configure a direct contact/corrections channel before actual reporting begins.
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 & submissions
The submission form sends your name, email, game title, public URL, creative intention, AI-use account, acknowledgment, and form metadata to Intent & Play through Formspree for editorial screening and possible follow-up. Formspree processes the submission as the form provider; see its privacy policy. The publication does not automatically publish submissions, add submitters to a marketing list, or connect these records to its article CMS.
Do not submit private keys, sensitive personal information, confidential material, or player data. Submission records may be retained in the form provider’s dashboard and configured email inbox; access should be restricted to authorized editorial staff. A retention/deletion schedule and direct contact channel must be finalized before a public submission campaign. Submitters should not assume a specific deletion period from this launch notice.
No audience analytics or remote fonts are included. Hosting and the form provider may process standard request and security data. Footer placeholder links lead to example.com. The optional CMS uses a third-party script, GitHub, and a configured authentication service.