I kinda have to agree that tone is really important to me when reading something. I certainly don't like reading a preview which sounds like an ad or a viral marketing attempt, but at the same time I think the "boo hoo this job sucks look at how SICK the publishers events are getting I hate my job!!!!!" thing is a huge turn off. When I read a game preview, I want to be informed by someone who gives a shit. I want to hear about what's in the game, how it plays, how it compares to the last entry if it's a sequel, and I want to be able to relate to the writer. Reading a preview or review of a game written by someone who clearly has little or no interest in the actual subject matter is a waste of anyone's time.
Exactly. The problem with Polygon's piece isn't that he prefaced it by the fact he doesn't enjoy the genre. That's totally fine. Sometimes you cover genres and games you don't like, so when you're going to give an opinion piece on it it is always important to preface that piece with some honesty about the series/genre (whether you like it or not, have you played many of them, etc). I feel like there is a valid opinions that came come from all angles (veteran players, ones who have played it once or twice, those who don't like the genre, etc).
What I really take issue with is that the preview they wrote was 75% about how much he dislikes the games (and even going so far as to call videogames trash) and doesn't want to be there instead of giving a real preview of the game. The only points I got out of it were the following:
- Game has leveling up/ranking
- Game rewards you for singing to the way it wants you to sing (like all prior games)
- He treated the singing part like it was new (ones google search could of solved that problem)
- He didn't even talk about playing any of the instruments outside of confirming legacy instruments
That's 3 press release points. There was no opinion there. No passionate insight into it. It doesn't even sound like he PLAYED the game, outside of the singing portion. Like, he didn't even give the game a thoughrough run through.
That's what bugs me - love or hate the game, you need to play it. We have a team going to E3. The game we cover might have a demo. If it does, we are going to be playing that demo a dozen+ times, exploring every aspect of it, and forming our thoughts off it. Becuase it;s a preview and despite E3 being a huge event, there are millions who can't be there that want to know, and yes, if we don't like it, we can break down every single reason why we don't in a passionate explanation, rather than being all "so we waited in line for the 10th time, why are we here again? Right E3. There is a game here and by now I know it sucks, but I have to play it again because of some artificial obligation. Really, the most enjoyable time I am having is chatting with folks in the line about politics and religion"
He barely talks about the game. He doesn't break it down passionately - even if he's totally against the series, break it down from that preview. Tell us what isn't working for you - not one aspect, but ALL aspects of it based upon you playing, not watching. Don't tell us what you're drinking or how cool the rooftop experience is - none of that matters to the readers. They aren't there to read about you, but to read your thoughts about the game - honest thoughts, good or bad.