I don't really like your review.

It feels like you're reviewing FFIV and not FFIV: DS.

Fantastic game, I hope they're working on either V or VI now, because these remakes are very well done.

This is a legitimate criticism and I would appreciate it if you would expand on that a bit! Do you feel that I spend too much time focusing on the aspects which hold over from the original, or that I don't pay enough attention to the new stuff, or what?

 Well.... Isn't that really for the best?

People who played FFIV wouldn't need to check a lot before they realize whether or not they want to buy the remake.

People who never played FFIV need far, far more info about the game before they decide to buy it.

So the number of people who have played it will generally be much smaller than the number of those who haven't.

Directing the review at the biggest group of readers seems the wisest to me.

It's a two-way street. 

With every sentence that talks about mechanics and story elements present in the original game, you tell me something I already know.  I learn nothing from it.  The review becomes less meaningful to me because when I read a review of a port, I'm looking to answer the question "What's new that makes this game worth rebuying?"  So when you're going on about the game's system or talking about Cecil, I am not getting closer to my goal in reading it.

The reason it's a two-way street is that with every sentence you devote to telling me what I want to know, you're not necessarily telling someone who has never played FFIV before what they want to know ("Why should I buy this game at all?") and, in fact, the less you talk about all the original's strongpoints the more inclined they may be to pass it entirely.

If you talk about both indepth then your review becomes long and you lose both parts of your audience to "tl;dr."  Still, I'm selfish so I want you to answer my question more than the other one.  

Ah, I see.

Well, see, in spite of my insistence at the end of the review that everyone should play this, I don't think that the purpose of a review is so much to tell people whether or not to buy something as it is to analyze the game in question, in whatever way analysis may be relevant.

So long as I write these reviews for myself, it will remain this way.

So your review is like an elevator without doors?

Reviews are not tools for consumers nearly so much as they are vehicles for discourse.

Ideally, I mean.

Eh, ideally to me use defines purpose so the two are always aligned.  Reality is we get things with purpose but no use or things used but not for their inteded purpose.

I'm sorry

What?