Do reviewers in gaming sites hold any credentials in legitimate criticism or are they just...regular people? A small rant.

I think worthwhile reviews mix subjective and objective, adjust for audience and make it fun to read for them.

Easy, difficult? What does it do well or innovate. Did it try to accomplish something, did it succeed there. Does it build on some previous work. Does it run well.

How hard game is can be compared with other games, mechanics in other games, harder or easier, requires planning, thought or reflexes. Innovation is implementing something unseen or very unique in the game. "There is no other game that does this". Things like that. What game is trying to accomplish is usually mentioned from developers and you can objectively compare their vision versus reality. Can objectively talk what does game nr.3. does differently compared with previous game nr.2. or nr.1. Runs well is just saying whether you need expensive PC to run it or not.

I think all above is more or less objective and only difference then between reviews would be strength of reviewer analysis.

/r/truegaming Thread Parent