Skip to main content

About Blueprinted Gaming

I am Scot. I have been playing games seriously for more than fifteen years, across thousands of titles, and I built this site because I got tired of the same experience every time I looked something up.

You search a specific question. You land on a page that spends four paragraphs explaining what a roguelite is, shows you three ads and a video you did not ask for, and buries the actual answer somewhere near the bottom. Half the time the answer is copied from a wiki that copied it from a patch note two versions ago.

Blueprinted Gaming is the opposite of that. Every guide opens with the answer you searched for. Everything after the first paragraph exists to support that answer, not to pad it.

How guides get written​

The format borrows from technical knowledge base articles rather than from game journalism. That means a direct answer at the top, exact steps in the middle, and edge cases at the bottom, with headings phrased the way a player would actually ask the question.

Every guide follows the same shape:

  • A Quick Answer at the top. Two or three sentences that resolve the page's core question before you scroll.
  • Question-shaped headings. If you would type it into a search box, it is a heading.
  • Tables over prose for anything that is really a lookup: item stats, achievement conditions, unlock requirements, damage numbers.
  • A FAQ at the bottom for the follow-up questions the main content raises.
  • Links to related guides so you can keep going without going back to search.

How claims get tested​

Builds and routes are run in game before they publish. If a strategy only works on paper, it does not make the guide. Where a number comes from the game files or from a patch note, the guide says so.

Two things keep the guides from rotting after publication:

Patch tracking. An automated check polls Steam news and build IDs for every game covered here and flags guides whose game has shipped a patch. Flagged guides get reviewed against the actual patch notes, and only claims the patch notes literally support get written in. Anything ambiguous gets marked for manual review rather than guessed at.

Fact-check passes. Guides get re-read against primary sources, meaning the game itself, official patch notes, and developer statements, rather than against other guide sites.

Neither process is perfect. Games change, and some mechanics are genuinely disputed inside their own communities. When a guide is uncertain, it says it is uncertain.

What this site does not do​

  • No sponsored guides. Nothing here is paid placement, and no developer or publisher gets to review content before it goes live.
  • No AI-generated filler. Tooling helps with research, formatting, and catching patch changes. The claims are checked by a person.
  • No engagement padding. No autoplay video, no popups, no cookie wall, no newsletter interstitial. The site sets no tracking cookies at all, which is why you never had to dismiss a consent banner to read this.
  • No account required. Everything is free and public.

Corrections​

If a guide is wrong, I want to know, and a specific report is far more useful than a general one.

Every guide page has a feedback widget at the bottom. Use it and say what is wrong and what the correct value is. You can also email [email protected].

Corrections that name a source, a patch note, or the exact in-game conditions you tested under get fixed fastest, because they can be verified rather than taken on trust.

Where to start​