Veknoid_Outcast on 10 July 2017
| Slarvax said: I agree mostly with Dunkey. Specially the parts where the review reads like a manual, and when reviewers start getting harsh on the game but still give it an amazing score (repetitive, unimaginative soundtrack, chaotic, too easy. 9/10). The inconsistencies between staff's opinions is unavoidable, and not that big of a deal. I just want the critics to be harsher on games. I rarely read reviews this days, because I can tell what they're gonna say just from the public opinion. They're not adding a critical, different point as to why this game sucks or rocks. They just echo what everyone else, gamers or reviewers, have already said. |
This is really helpful. I'm always trying to improve as a critic, and I'll take this advice to heart.
I wanted to follow up on the point of the review reading like a manual. I've heard complaints from readers that reviews can be too focused on the reviewer's personal experience at the expense of cold, objective data about the game. But in Dunkey's review and in your post, I hear a call for less summary and more analysis.
I try to find a middle ground between objective information and subjective analysis in my reviews, with varying degrees of success. What would be a good balance for you?
