A judging rubric published before anything gets scored
Isidor Selection is an independent desk for puzzle games, logic games and small studio titles. Six criteria are fixed and published in advance; each record below shows one criterion being applied to real games, using evidence anyone can check.
Selection table — criteria and weights
Scores are not published
Rule clarity
Can a new player learn the rules from the game alone?
A rubric written after the judging is a justification, not a method. Here is how to fix criteria, weights and evidence rules in advance so that anyone can check your consistency.
Solvability
Is every stated puzzle reachable and solvable without external help?
A solvability criterion is only meaningful if it can be assessed from what the game itself tells the player. Here is how to check that without becoming a walkthrough site.
Difficulty curve
Does the challenge escalate, and can the player tell why they failed?
You can assess whether a puzzle game escalates and whether failure is legible without finishing it. The evidence is in the menu, the tutorial, the level list and the hint economy.
Accessibility
Input methods, colour reliance, text size, and pause or skip options.
Accessibility is often treated as a budget problem. Most of the checks that matter for a puzzle game cost almost nothing, and they are all observable from the options menu.
Craft of presentation
Prose, layout, sound and pacing where they serve the puzzle.
A presentation criterion quietly rewards budget unless it is written carefully. The test is whether the visual choices serve the puzzle, not whether they cost a lot to produce.
Honest listing
Do the store page and screenshots describe the game you actually get?
The honest-listing criterion compares what a store page promises with what the game delivers. That means treating marketing copy as a statement to be checked, never as a description of quality.
Writing Judging Criteria Before You Score Anything
A rubric written after the judging is a justification, not a method. Here is how to fix criteria, weights and evidence rules in advance so that anyone can check your consistency.
Testing Solvability Without Publishing the Solution
A solvability criterion is only meaningful if it can be assessed from what the game itself tells the player. Here is how to check that without becoming a walkthrough site.
Reading a Difficulty Curve From Outside the Game
You can assess whether a puzzle game escalates and whether failure is legible without finishing it. The evidence is in the menu, the tutorial, the level list and the hint economy.
Accessibility Checks a Small Puzzle Game Can Actually Pass
Accessibility is often treated as a budget problem. Most of the checks that matter for a puzzle game cost almost nothing, and they are all observable from the options menu.
Judging Presentation Without Penalising Scale
A presentation criterion quietly rewards budget unless it is written carefully. The test is whether the visual choices serve the puzzle, not whether they cost a lot to produce.
Reading a Store Page as Evidence, Not as a Claim
The honest-listing criterion compares what a store page promises with what the game delivers. That means treating marketing copy as a statement to be checked, never as a description of quality.
This site has a new owner since November 2026. Between 2001 and 2005 the domain hosted a software prize run by a different organisation; that prize has ended, is not connected to this desk, and nothing on this site continues it. There is no entry process, no fee, no trophy and no ranking that anyone can win.