The problem for me with the review is that a lot of what he marked the game down for are things I like about Dragon Quest and would be upset if they changed. I'm playing Dragon Quest IX right now and it is the most fun I've had with a game in a long, long time.
Criticizing a game's flaws is one thing, but criticizing aspects of the games that aren't flaws doesn't make sense to me. Examples: You don't criticize a game for being a shooter that uses guns... so why criticize a rpg with fantasy environments? MMOs aren't required to have emotionally developing playable characters... why is a JRPG where you create the characters and are supposed to use your imagination be held with higher standards? Why should a massive DS game (with clearly no room for anything else) be marked down for lacking voice overs, which would have been of poor quality and possibly from bad actors? He criticizes the game for not having a "fun battle system", claims he has nothing against turn-based systems (Dragon Quest being known for having one of the most sophisticated, fine-tuned turn-based systems), yet I have always enjoyed playing with Dragon Quest battle systems because they revolve more around strategy and being satisfied by planning out my moves just right than the quick reflex requiring, often shallow, battle systems of more flashy rpgs (I like those games too :P).
I guess I sound a bit whiny, but reviews like the above frustrate me, because it isn't a professional critique. It is a guy stating his personal preferences and saying the game is bad because they aren't lining up with those preferences. Whenever I review games, I put aside whether or not I like the game, or how much I do, and I consider whether someone else would and what the target audience would think of it and how well it performs regardless.
Oh well, I won't let IGN ruin my fun, I am going to resume my enjoyment :D!
