I’d like to take a moment to do some self-evaluation and discussion on game criticism before once again restarting the weekly game review cycle. I was quickly burnt out by the last few reviews I did, and some real life issues made me break my once-per-week pact. I’d like to try to alleviate that first problem, which will hopefully make the second problem easier to avoid. This may include altering the weekly model back to the old monthly model I had and never stuck to, or maybe a biweekly model. Anyway, let’s talk policy and upcoming reworks. Good criticism is as much a process of self-improvement as it is development and expression of ideas, so let’s begin a bit of introspection.

Where I Went Wrong

The goal of my previous format, which I dubbed “The Good, The Bad, and The Unique”, was to provide a short snapshot of the topic game. After a brief explanation section about what genre the game fit into, a bit of backstory, and some technical details, I’d usually start with the most notable positives, followed by the most debilitating negatives, with either two or three of each depending on my impression of the game. The goal of these sections was to be as objective as possible in the way I presented my opinions, but not necessarily with the opinions themselves. When I said that Persona 4 provides an interesting genre mashup, I’d be sure to make my case for it. I’d make the same effort with the negative section and the unique section, though the latter of those two certainly had a heavier subjective weight to it. After that, I would usually render some sort of conclusion where my final verdict would be apparent.

There was a problem with this format though, and a recent videogamedunkey video really nailed that home for me – the lack of focus. The meat of the format, the good/bad/unique sections, weren’t prescribed a focus on any particular merits of the game. As a result, the aspects of games I reviewed that were discussed varied wildly from post to post. Someone simply wanting to know how well Persona 4 differentiated itself from other turn-based combat games through its systems, something of paramount importance to anyone considering buying a game in the genre, would be left without any information on that subject after reading my review. The format is too loose, its goals too ambiguous, and it needs to change. I was glossing over or entirely ignoring the fundamental aspects of games in a review series designed to be maximally concise.

Can It Be Fixed?

The short answer is probably yes, but only over time, and only after establishing a new set of guidelines. I’m going to hash out exactly what my new framework will be and what my goals are before I take another stab at reviews. I’ve got a few ideas rolling around in my head right now, but I think I’ll be able to have them sorted out soon and get a few trial reviews out there, hopefully in slightly more rapid succession than usual in order to hit the ground running.

After all this vaguery, here are a few certainties to expect. Firstly, I’m suspending the Fire Emblem Fates reviews for now, but they’ll be combined into a two-for-one at a later date. They’re partially done, but they will need to be updated and remade for the new paradigm. I’ve got a pool of games ripe for discussion as well, specifically NieR: Automata, Final Fantasy X, and Persona 5, and I’m going to start off testing the new format on Persona 5. I think P5 is a good start because I have a ton to say about it, so it’ll be easy to get going. In addition, I’m going to add a generic verdict summary system of my own design to the end of reviews. Haven’t figured out exactly what kind of scheme to use, but it won’t be numbers. Think less IGN and more RLM.