Well, actually the discussion on how to review a game seems slightly more interesting than the game itself, so braving the risc of being off topic
‘n just setting the record straight, I’m not out to start a flame war posting this. In fact in the prior posts in this thread I haven’t seen any attempts to start one; all I’ve seen is a fellow giving some criticism on a review.
And criticism in itself is a good thing; it is like the pruning shears of a gardener, trimming away the brown leaves from the healthy plant.
So is there a problem in this review? Well yes there is. And what is the problem?
Well, this quote hits the spot quite well
"For all I meant it could have been visually a "masterpiece", atmosphericaly, sound-wise, anything"
What does the writer really mean, when he says this game is a masterpiece?
Though I think that the word “masterpiece” should be reserved for games such as Civ, UFO and TOTD the question is easily answered. It means he enjoyed playing the game. But I still need some details as to what he has found enjoyable in this game.
Overall this review is too vague to convey any sort of impression of what kind of game “Shogun” really is.
And let me point out, that what I request is specificness, not length. The only reason that reviewers spout out lengthy reviews too long for any gamer to read is that noone ever gave them a good criticism telling them that they wrote too long. You can write for pages and pages without ever addressing the important issues of a game and you can tell how a game plays and what’s it like in a short text.
Sadly, this review does neither.
But the main point of this post is that you should state your oppinion on reviews, be it positive or constructive, in these threads, because the writer will benefit from the criticism.
|