See Part 1 here
As a fervent reader (and writer) of video-game reviews, I can't help but see certain patterns emerging in this (admittedly) developing art. Professional journalists are not immune to criticism (as anyone who's ever visited an author's blog might attest), so I've added them into the mix and you'll see that in one case, they are the worst offenders of all!
Sites that do not allow reader review submissions seem incomplete to me, as if they encourage a seperation of opinion between industry and consumer. This is a micro cla$$ system that I feel is bad for all interested in games and game-reporting. I hope to read and write about games decades into the future - even when cybernetic simulants play and opinionate onour behalf.
So, never take these three items as discouragement (I know you've all got thicker skins than that anyhow), but more as a (hopefully) humorous poke at one of my favourite areas in game reporting. Here are three more phrases that cheese me off:
"And now, on to the review"
What does it mean? That we, the readers, are going to see a review.
Where do I see it? Again, reader reviews are the main culprit here. In the same category as the "Click to read on…" remarks, this statement is a revelation to those who need to know precisely when the review will start. Here, the authors are doing a thankless and redundant service – introducing the content already requested by the reader, and already clearly categorised and sorted by webmasters.
And now, on to the next item…
0.0/10.0
What does it mean? A numerical score representing the worth of a game, also 0%, 0/100
Where do I see it? Alarmingly, we apparently flooded with games that have zero artistic-merit. It is hard to imagine any piece of art (or craft as the detractors might say of video games) that does not even have a single, solitary pixel of worthiness. A game that has no score at all is not a game at all: it is akin to a black hole. Placing the disc into your console or PC gives zero pleasure; it is like putting nothing in – a blank DVD holds as much entertainment value. I understand that paying money for a game that is devastatingly disappointing causes anger and frustration, but an exaggeration of any score causes distortion in the games' final standings around the network. Why, even the notorious 'worst game ever created' has a meta-score infinitely higher than 0.
Your missing game play, replay ability, sound and more importantly time are inside here
"Flaws"
What does it mean? Flaws, fault, defect, failing, blemish, imperfection, shortcoming, deficiency, inadequacy, weakness, limitation…
Where do I see it? Nine-out-of-ten reviews that I read use this term. In its own right, it is a valid word to describe something just shy of perfect (a flawed diamond, for example), but to apply it to gaping shortcomings is like calling the Hindenburgs final approach "tricky".
Another web search including the term "flaws" at the sister-site GameFAQs reveals 6410 results, while searching with the equally valid word "faults" at the same site yields a mere 894 results. This means that the term "flaw" is used 700% more than "faults". Does this term have the making of a buzz word? Just as the (insult?) "Fanboy" has become?
A flaw in the airship design
See Part 1 here
