I was lucky enough to get a Top 100 reviewers emblem. To anyone who may have assisted me in this endeavour, thanks! Though prior to receiving it, I've been pondering reviews in general, and the differences between how I may write, and how others may write. This isn't a 'how to write a review' blog, it is more some musings on things.

The first obvious question when writing a review is 'What does the reader want to know?' Of course, the answer isn't so simple, and is likely to vary depending on who you ask. One of the things I've been wondering about in particular is the intersection between facts about the game in question, and your personal feelings towards it. You can drone on for paragraphs about various game mechanics, but that doesn't mean you will tell the reader that those mechanics are actually fun or employed well. Conversely, you can say that a game was fun, has replayability and is exciting, but if you don't explain at least some general mechanics of the game, the reader won't know whether specific game mechanics that appeal to them are in the game. I think I've balanced these two things reasonably well in my reviews. But which way do you prefer? Do you want details of the game? Or do you just want a review to gloss over the details but simply know whether the reviewer thinks the game is worth your time? I've been wondering about this mainly because I'm playing Enchanted Arms, which I feel might have to lean a little more towards game description. The combat is the only good thing about the game, but I think I'm going to go in-depth to describe it so people can judge whether it is the sort of combat they would enjoy.

The other thing I've been thinking about is summaries. Gamespot has the 'Good' and 'Bad' at the top of the page. I know Jim does this as well with his reviews. Do people like these as a quick snapshot of the game? I've thought about doing them, just haven't. I guess it is all there in the review text, and if someone is looking at user reviews I expect they intend to read the whole review anyway. I have seen a couple of other similar systems, though only in print. One is the 'worse than' and 'better than', which compared the game in question with other games in the genre. A third was a 'Buy this if...' compared to 'Rent this if...'. What do you guys think of these systems? I think they all have some merit, but I've yet to bother incorporating any into my reviews.

The last thing I've been thinking about is charm. I'm pretty sure I'm a major culprit myself, but I think this word gets bandied about a lot and has become cliche. Though as Jim would say (at least I'm pretty sure it was Jim) cliches become cliches for a reason; they are effective words/phrases for getting the message across. Still, it seems like this word comes up when we can't think of how to describe aspects of the game (usually graphics), or at least I do. Is the word charm sufficient, or should more detail be required as why it has charm? The same could be considered with the word style. Do you think these words are overused in reviews?

Yeah... so that was a rambling mess. Any other thoughts on review process and layout?