EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
For me, my favourite reviews, as in the reviews I like to read, the reviews I'm inspired by, and the reviews I aspire to write, are ones that blend an objective statement with a subjective opinion to describe the game and the author's feelings.
What I mean by this is that I want to walk away from the review with a clear idea of the game's mechanics and functions. This is where objectivity is important. Is the game short, or is it long? Does it have a lot of enemy types, or only a couple? Are there puzzles, or just combat? What is the premise? Is story the focus, gameplay, or a blend of the two? What kind of production values does the title have? Bugs? Animation problems? Etc.
These are objective points that help paint a neutral picture of the game. Reading this gives you an idea of the game's fundamentals, and they cannot be argued against. They are, quite literally, the game.
Objective statements should then be coupled with a subjective one, and this is where the reviewer explains how they feel about an objective point, and why. A good reviewer is able to articulate their subjectivity in an easily understandable and believable manner, making a point that you can identify with even before playing the game.
For an example of the two, a review could say: "This game is quite long, with many stages/levels, and is likely to take players ~20 or more hours to complete. However, there are only three different enemy types, and as these are stretched over a long experience, the combat can be come tiring and dull."
I get an idea of the game's rough length, as well as how many different enemy types are in the game. Length is an iffy one, but is a nice average to go off, and you cant really argue with enemy types. That is the game. The reviewer then specifies why they found the combat dull and tiring, their subjective opinion, backing it up with a reason I can respect. When I play the game I might not find it dull or tiring. I might not dislike combat the same way they did. But I can't argue that they're 'wrong', as they haven't said anything wrong. They've simply expressed their opinion and backed it up with reasonable fact.
I don't like reviews that are too wishy washy and emotion driven. It's a style I can understand some people love (I have some friends who write in that style), but it does absolutely nothing for me. I don't want to read reviews to get hyped, I can do that on my own. I want to read reviews to paint a picture of a game I might not be entirely sold on. Over emotional whimsical rants tend to describe the author's purely personal experience, and I can't relate to that. It's fine for them, but it doesn't tell me what kind of game I'm going to play.
What I mean by this is that I want to walk away from the review with a clear idea of the game's mechanics and functions. This is where objectivity is important. Is the game short, or is it long? Does it have a lot of enemy types, or only a couple? Are there puzzles, or just combat? What is the premise? Is story the focus, gameplay, or a blend of the two? What kind of production values does the title have? Bugs? Animation problems? Etc.
These are objective points that help paint a neutral picture of the game. Reading this gives you an idea of the game's fundamentals, and they cannot be argued against. They are, quite literally, the game.
Objective statements should then be coupled with a subjective one, and this is where the reviewer explains how they feel about an objective point, and why. A good reviewer is able to articulate their subjectivity in an easily understandable and believable manner, making a point that you can identify with even before playing the game.
For an example of the two, a review could say: "This game is quite long, with many stages/levels, and is likely to take players ~20 or more hours to complete. However, there are only three different enemy types, and as these are stretched over a long experience, the combat can be come tiring and dull."
I get an idea of the game's rough length, as well as how many different enemy types are in the game. Length is an iffy one, but is a nice average to go off, and you cant really argue with enemy types. That is the game. The reviewer then specifies why they found the combat dull and tiring, their subjective opinion, backing it up with a reason I can respect. When I play the game I might not find it dull or tiring. I might not dislike combat the same way they did. But I can't argue that they're 'wrong', as they haven't said anything wrong. They've simply expressed their opinion and backed it up with reasonable fact.
I don't like reviews that are too wishy washy and emotion driven. It's a style I can understand some people love (I have some friends who write in that style), but it does absolutely nothing for me. I don't want to read reviews to get hyped, I can do that on my own. I want to read reviews to paint a picture of a game I might not be entirely sold on. Over emotional whimsical rants tend to describe the author's purely personal experience, and I can't relate to that. It's fine for them, but it doesn't tell me what kind of game I'm going to play.
