An honest starting point
This site does not have an independent fact-checking department, and we are not going to describe an internal review as if it were one. What we have is a specific, limited process that works well for the kind of claims we make.
Most statements here are about games we built ourselves. That is an unusual advantage: we can check a claim about reload timing by reading the code that implements it.
The three classes of claim
| Class | Example | How it is verified |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanical | 'The magazine holds twelve rounds' | Checked against the game source and confirmed in the live build |
| Observational | 'Most damage is taken during the clear phase' | From our own playtesting, and labelled as our own testing |
| General | 'Simple visual reaction takes about 200–250 ms' | Stated as a range, hedged, and kept to widely established figures |
The distinction matters because the confidence differs enormously. A mechanical claim is verifiable to certainty. An observational claim is a report of what we saw. A general claim is background context and is deliberately not presented as precise.
What we actually do
- Mechanical claims are checked against the build. Numbers in an article — cooldowns, health values, timers, spawn schedules — are read from the code, not remembered.
- Playtested claims are labelled. When we say something happens frequently, we say it is from our own testing rather than implying a study exists.
- Uncertain claims get removed. If we cannot support a statement and cannot test it, it does not go in.
- Numbers are re-checked when games change. A balance update triggers a review of every page that quoted the old value.
- Links are verified by the build. Every internal link is checked automatically; a broken one fails the build.
What we do not do
Being specific here is the point of the policy.
- No third-party verification. Nobody outside the team reviews this content before publication.
- No academic citation. We do not cite studies. Where general claims about perception appear, they are stated as approximate and are not dressed up with references we have not read.
- No claims about other companies' games. We write about our own titles, which is the only place we can verify anything.
- No invented sources. If a reference is not real, it does not appear. This is worth stating explicitly because fabricated citations are common on content sites.
If you see a claim on this site that you think is wrong, the fastest way to fix it is to tell us. Corrections take priority over new content.
Challenging something we published
Email editor@zombiegameshub.xyz with the page URL and the specific claim.
- We check it against the build or by testing.
- If it is wrong, we correct it and note the correction with a date where the change affects the advice.
- If it is a matter of judgement, we will say so rather than pretending there is a definitive answer.
- If we cannot resolve it, the claim is softened or removed rather than left standing.