what are some reviewers smoking here?

[Phantar]

I don't think we have any profesional full time writers here.

I am! Working full-time for a german Computer magazine for more than two years now. But I started working (professionally) as a journalist after I started contributing to this site, I'm not a native speaker of English, and I don't review video games for a living. So I wouldn't count myself as a professional when it comes to penning articles about video games either.

I also don't get what the fuzz is all about? Which so-called professional computer magazine can be said to be the be-all, know-all of video game ressources? If I just recall the scores that EGM tended to hand out at times... and just remember that infamous IGN-incident regarding Kane & Lynch! In my opinion, Sega-16 offers more opportunities for correction and reacts more to its reader-feedback than any so-called professional site I know of: There's the opportunity for a Double Take, there's the reader scores and whatnot.

However, people have this strange tendency that before they start to voice their own opinion, they need someone to voice it for them first! And many want to judge from some numerical scale to see whether a game is good or not - even though tastes differ immensely: What is just a "meh" game worthy a 4 another might see as a very good 8, what someone sees as a must-have game another would never even give a second glance.

It's only when people disagree with someone else's opinion that the discussion starts. That's when people complain or bring up their own thoughts about a particular matter. And that's a good thing! That's how someone who isn't quite sure about the matter can see if he actually agrees or disagrees with the views of the reviewer, and gets a better idea about whether the game might be something for him or not. And Sometimes noone brings up a discussion at all... that might be because the game is practically unknown and/or of such a mediocre quality that noone is interested in it. Only very, very rarely is a game that bad or that good that everybody agrees on it's quality - though that's an incredibly rare occasion, and even then someone may (or usually does) voice that he thinks otherwise. And that's a good thing, too! Nobody has to agree with what everybody thinks just because everybody feels like that.

Remember, review scores can be one of two things: If you haven't played the title, it can be a recommandation whether or not to get a particular game. If you already know the game, it can be a scale to compare to, to find out how much you like the game when compared to other titles. You don't have to agree with it - it may just enable you to think about other aspects you maybe hadn't thought of before, and that helps you decide how much you actually like the game. If you disagree with the review score, this feat has been accomplished (unless it was a totally useless, crappy review (which I admit may exist, but are really, really rare). And if you totally, utterly disagree, this site offers the chance to issue a second opinion - as I said, that's more than most sites I know offer in that regard.

Bottom line: In my eyes a review doesn't, nay CAN'T satisfy everybody - one reviewer simply cannot cover all the different tastes and opinions that exist out there (and neither can two, for that matter). But whether you agree or not, it can serve as a very good guideline - just the fact that you feel the need to utter your opionion about a few particular scores shows that you care about the game, the issue at hand! And that's all that matters IMO.

/edit: btw, in regards to the title of this thread: Galoises blue and occasionally Pall Mall. I'm thinking about quitting, though!

[Barone]

You review the version at hand. It's really that simple. If there's a big enough difference between the U.S. and Japanese versions, then a case can be made to do another review for that different region's version. But here's the issue with the Sega version of SotB. I touched on the differences already at the end of my review. I mentioned the music and game playing at the proper speeds, the tweaked graphics, and so forth. Not in depth, but enough to let people know that if they want to get a version, to get the Japanese version (which I specifically told them).

If such comments aren't made in a review, then one could argue about reviewing the regional version not covered, so that the changes could be made known. Or, a double take could be done on it, to show the differences in more detail. But in all honesty, it would just be easier to add a special note at the end of the review, briefly touching on the differences if they're major enough (like with SoR 3, SotB, etc.), rather than having a second review written just to talk about them. Plus, reader comments can be made to point out the differences, and comments in the review thread could be made.

Thanks for the info.
But sometimes I think that a DT will do the job better than only comments or final notes in the review... BK III has differences beyond cosmetic changes like in the Japanese SotB. You can mention that the AI (I'm talking about BK III) is easier and all but the feeling of the game can be very different due to that and IMO it would deserve more than a few lines in the end of the review.

I only realized about the Japanese SotB after reading your review!

The hit detection's iffy, not utterly broken. I beat the game, and I'm no wiz at gaming. The core gameplay is still all there, the graphics are nice (even after some of the changes done to them in the port to the Genesis... like the removal of all the smaller touches in some levels), and as long as you turn down the sound, you can still get some enjoyment from it. It's not "barely worth playing", as it's still a decent game, despite how it's littered with flaws that diminish what the end product could have been. To me, it's average... a decent port of a classic game that could have been handled better.
To go from unlistenable, to being average, is a considerable improvement. The Genesis has done better to be sure, but at least now you get more of a feel for what the original music was like, and the instruments don't make your ears bleed copiously.

Agreed.

On par with the first part? The Genesis version of SotB was missing quite a few sounds over the Amiga game, and the ones that were there were quite wimpy.

I never noticed that... Could you, please, give me at least on example? This information is valuable for hacking purposes.

SotB II took a considerable step up again in this department, giving the game not only more sound effects, but in some cases, better ones than in the original Amiga game. That's more than just being "on par" to me. Where the Genesis SotB didn't capture anything of the original game's sound, the Genesis SotB II did a considerably better job on the fronts of both music, and SFX.

As I said, I didn't notice that the first ported also missed sfx, this can change my judgement about it being on par with the second one.
The rest I had already noticed.

You're not taking into account that the Amiga original was a visual downgrade from the first game as well, and the Genesis version reflects this.

No, you missed it in my text (or it was not clear enough):

The foregrounds and characters sprites aren't as good as in the first game, but it is excusable since the original Amiga game suffered the same downgrade.

Genesis SotB II is almost at the same level in terms of capturing the Amiga version's graphics, as Genesis SotB was to that game's graphics. They both missed the little touches, but came fairly close with color use, animation, and such. Yes, there's a lot of brown and two backgrounds were cut from the Genesis SotB II, but the Amiga was just as guilty of using grays, and those removed backgrounds were noted and taken into account for the ending score. But in truth, losing an ugly repeating pattern of green rocks that looked to use maybe three colors, wasn't exactly a tragedy.

I still strongly disagree with part in bold (maybe we will have to agree in disagree...).
Actually, it's a tragedy to lose those "ugly repeating pattern of green rocks that looked to use maybe three colors" 'cause it brakes the visual concept of those levels/segments. You're an artist, you know what it means:
1) The game was released unfinished. It is even clearer when you see that the "first" indoor level (that house at the left, where in the Amiga version in have a transition scene with a man opening the door to you) has a background (by the way, far superior to the Amiga version so we actually didn't lose only those same ugly backgrounds) and the boss level has a lame one. It does look like they ran out of time.
2) The levels' characterization is broken. It's not that it became ugly as hell, they went to the non-sense world, that is a different world from the original Amiga game. You are in "The Crystal Caverns" and you can see the horizon in the background, how come? It was supposed to be a cavern! In this case, those bad looking rocks would really make all the difference. That's my point. It's not about what we lost, it's also about how it ruined the levels characterization.

Here's where you're quite wrong. The controls of the U.S. version of SotB DO need to be judged on their own. They're worse than the other versions due to a poor porting job, and the hit detection isn't perfect on any of the Sega ports. They improve in the EU and Japanese versions with the game playing at normal speed, but they're still not spot on like they could have been.

It is related with the first question that I asked (about what version should be considered). According to your response, I agree with what you said.

A seven says, "Great fun but notably lacking in a few areas (i.e. too short, poor music, etc.)", and that pretty much describes SotB II on the Genesis.

I can't see where's is the "Great fun" since the gameplay is exactly as you described in your review, with a single life and no continues:
"This sequel, like the first game, is hard. In fact, it’s harder in some ways. You can die in a matter of seconds, on top of the “do it in the right order” gameplay. Where the first game had you get hit and then gave you a moment or two of invulnerability, enemies now run into (and through) you, draining you of life steadily as they touch you. There’ll be more than one enemy on the screen at a time in spots as well and they’ll come at you from all sides. In other words, this game’s out to kick your ass in a hurry.".
IMO the game clearly is closer to the following:
6. Better than average and a decent game to be had for a cheap price.

5. Strictly average. Nothing spectacular but nothing horrible either.

It lost two bland backgrounds,

Actually there are four parts with the same first outdoor background where should be another: two indoor parts in buildings that had a neat windowed background, "The Crystal Caverns" that had the bland one, and a the second outdoor segment (with the big snail) that should have a altered outdoor background.

traded lots of gray for lots of brown (but still nice shading), kept the animation and deeper gameplay,

Agreed.

has all the same levels,

No, at least least three levels are broken in their original visual concept.
You can't say that those backgrounds lacking are just a "hit" in the graphical department and that the levels are complete that way.

What about playing Marble Zone and Spring Yard Zone using Green Hill's background?
What about MK using the same background for like three different stages?

Can you tell me how we would recognize this stage if its visual concept had been broken like in Genesis's SotBII?


When the original concept is preserved, you'll be able to recreate the game's "world" no matter what hardware you're using.
When you brake it things go non-sense, like a cavern where I can see the horizon in the far view.

has a better and more rewarding ending over the Amiga version, lost the long opening cinema (like that was a surprise), gained voices, did a better job of reproducing the music, and overall comes off as a fun, damn challenging game.

The Sega CD version remixed the music completely, added more color and sound effects, made the game easier, added in the opening cinema, added in pointless and unneeded cinemas to the cooler ones, threw in some poor voice acting, and added back in the backgrounds. In other words, it fits in line with an eight, "Very well polished and a blast to play but with a few minor flaws." One was lacking, but still plenty of fun. The other, was a more polished version of that.

There's a bigger difference between the numbers than you appear to believe, agostinhobaroners. The wording alone for a seven and an eight shows that they're not as close as the numbers suggest. If I give the Sega-CD version an eight, does that mean the Genesis version has to get a 5 because it doesn't have what the Sega-CD version does? No. The Genesis version may be lacking in comparison, but it's still a good game, just with some flaws that quite honestly, don't break the game at all. They cost it some visual diversity, sure, but that's it. And if it's still fun, still solid in gameplay, controls, etc., then you can't just drop it's score drastically when it's not called for.

SotB II on the Genesis is a good, solid game, with flaws. SotB II on the Sega-CD is a more polished version of that game. Not drastically different, just more polished with some extra bells and whistles.

I still see a 7 as a "too damn high" score for an incomplete game and it has nothing to do with the Sega CD version.

However, even considering the manifest, I can't see how a incomplete version and a complete one, significantly improved in all areas can differ just by one point... The score, by itself, has also a meaning to every reader.

[The Coop]

I never noticed that... Could you, please, give me at least on example? This information is valuable for hacking purposes.

Sure. The ones that come immediately to mind, are things like how there's no impact sound when you hit an object. Next, there's no voice when you get hit, there's no creaking door when you go into the tree, there's no sound when the fireball at the beginning of the tree is launched, there's no sound when those tree hands reach down to grab you early on in the tree... and all that's just from the opening first few minutes. The Japanese version fixed a few of those, but not all of them.

I still strongly disagree with part in bold (maybe we will have to agree in disagree...).
Actually, it's a tragedy to lose those "ugly repeating pattern of green rocks that looked to use maybe three colors" 'cause it brakes the visual concept of those levels/segments. You're an artist, you know what it means:
1) The game was released unfinished. It is even clearer when you see that the "first" indoor level (that house at the left, where in the Amiga version in have a transition scene with a man opening the door to you) has a background (by the way, far superior to the Amiga version so we actually didn't lose only those same ugly backgrounds) and the boss level has a lame one. It does look like they ran out of time.
2) The levels' characterization is broken. It's not that it became ugly as hell, they went to the non-sense world, that is a different world from the original Amiga game. You are in "The Crystal Caverns" and you can see the horizon in the background, how come? It was supposed to be a cavern! In this case, those bad looking rocks would really make all the difference. That's my point. It's not about what we lost, it's also about how it ruined the levels characterization.

Those backgrounds, while great for visual diversity, didn't break the game when they went away. Their loss, along with some of the sneaky mandatory hits, are parts of what dropped the score. And yes, I am an artist. I'm also someone who knows when a visual aesthetic does and doesn't cause something to completely fall apart. It's strange looking that the background landscape stays in place for much of the game, but that's a visual anomaly that takes points away, not a game breaking issue. Like the flat backgrounds in Insector-X, having just the one landscape background does give anything to game, and looks like someone got lazy (or ran our a memory space).

Yes, it's a visual problem, and one I addressed. But at the same time, there were visual improvements over the Amiga version, which helped to counter at least some of the loss from those main two backgrounds going away (the improvements being, less muted looking colors, some of the character retouches, etc.). The graphics didn't suddenly become utter garbage because we lost two backgrounds. You have to weigh the pros and cons before deciding how much it all affects the score. And while the backgrounds getting dropped hurt, it wasn't a "Well, this game's no good" situation when it came to the visuals.

I can't see where's is the "Great fun" since the gameplay is exactly as you described in your review, with a single life and no continues:
"This sequel, like the first game, is hard. In fact, it’s harder in some ways. You can die in a matter of seconds, on top of the “do it in the right order” gameplay. Where the first game had you get hit and then gave you a moment or two of invulnerability, enemies now run into (and through) you, draining you of life steadily as they touch you. There’ll be more than one enemy on the screen at a time in spots as well and they’ll come at you from all sides. In other words, this game’s out to kick your ass in a hurry.".

Being a challenge, without being wholly unfair, isn't a mark to made against a game in my opinion. The Turrican series does the same thing (hitting you steadily, instead of bouncing you away or making you invulnerable for a few moments), and no one holds it against those games, because you have a fighting chance in the game and can get away quickly. The enemy numbers in SotB II are bigger than in SotB, but they're not overwhelming. If they'd thrown almost double digit enemy counts at you a lot, it would be one thing. But considering there are spots where you can run from the enemies and not have to worry about hitting more than one or two of them to get away unscathed, it shows that it's not a game made to kill you unfairly (despite the occasional mandatory hit). Thus, I don't hold this gameplay trait against SotB II, because I like a game that's trying to kick my ass without being incessantly cheap.


[QUOTE=agostinhobaroners;436265]No, at least least three levels are broken in their original visual concept.
You can't say that those backgrounds lacking are just a "hit" in the graphical department and that the levels are complete that way.

What about playing Marble Zone and Spring Yard Zone using Green Hill's background?
What about MK using the same background for like three different stages?

Can you tell me how we would recognize this stage if its visual concept had been broken like in Genesis's SotBII?


When the original concept is preserved, you'll be able to recreate the game's "world" no matter what hardware you're using.
When you brake it things go non-sense, like a cavern where I can see the horizon in the far view.[quote]

Yes. The sections (thus "levels") are all there. The castle, the cottage, the forest, the water, the area where you get taken prisoner... it's all there. Removing a background or two didn't remove the sections, only the visual differences between some of them.

I still see a 7 as a "too damn high" score for an incomplete game and it has nothing to do with the Sega CD version.

However, even considering the manifest, I can't see how a incomplete version and a complete one, significantly improved in all areas can differ just by one point... The score, by itself, has also a meaning to every reader.

That's for the reader to decide. I know what the scores mean to me, and that's how I review. I don't see SotB II as being "above average," I see it as a good game with flaws that don't break it. And the Sega-CD version being "significantly improved" is subjective. Not everyone's going to like the CD soundtrack, or half the added cinemas (did we really need a cinema for riding an elevator?), or the voice "acting" (I shut it off every time). You think it's a vast improvement, others won't agree. Opinions are like that


Anyway, I think we've hit that point where we've gotten down to bits and pieces we just don't agree on, and that's fine. I believe we both understand where we stand and why the scores we'd give SotB II would be given... and it got done without name calling. Go figure

[Barone]

Sure. The ones that come immediately to mind, are things like how there's no impact sound when you hit an object. Next, there's no voice when you get hit, there's no creaking door when you go into the tree, there's no sound when the fireball at the beginning of the tree is launched, there's no sound when those tree hands reach down to grab you early on in the tree... and all that's just from the opening first few minutes. The Japanese version fixed a few of those, but not all of them.

Thanks a lot! I'll try to map the other ones, but this is a very good start.

Those backgrounds, while great for visual diversity, didn't break the game when they went away. Their loss, along with some of the sneaky mandatory hits, are parts of what dropped the score. And yes, I am an artist. I'm also someone who knows when a visual aesthetic does and doesn't cause something to completely fall apart. It's strange looking that the background landscape stays in place for much of the game, but that's a visual anomaly that takes points away, not a game breaking issue. Like the flat backgrounds in Insector-X, having just the one landscape background does give anything to game, and looks like someone got lazy (or ran our a memory space).

Yes, it's a visual problem, and one I addressed. But at the same time, there were visual improvements over the Amiga version, which helped to counter at least some of the loss from those main two backgrounds going away (the improvements being, less muted looking colors, some of the character retouches, etc.). The graphics didn't suddenly become utter garbage because we lost two backgrounds. You have to weigh the pros and cons before deciding how much it all affects the score. And while the backgrounds getting dropped hurt, it wasn't a "Well, this game's no good" situation when it came to the visuals.

Yep, we may disagree about how much it affected the original game design but I understand what you said.
You balanced the score while I would consider the improvements almost worthless since some levels got butchered.

Being a challenge, without being wholly unfair, isn't a mark to made against a game in my opinion. The Turrican series does the same thing (hitting you steadily, instead of bouncing you away or making you invulnerable for a few moments), and no one holds it against those games, because you have a fighting chance in the game and can get away quickly. The enemy numbers in SotB II are bigger than in SotB, but they're not overwhelming. If they'd thrown almost double digit enemy counts at you a lot, it would be one thing. But considering there are spots where you can run from the enemies and not have to worry about hitting more than one or two of them to get away unscathed, it shows that it's not a game made to kill you unfairly (despite the occasional mandatory hit). Thus, I don't hold this gameplay trait against SotB II, because I like a game that's trying to kick my ass without being incessantly cheap.

Usually speaking, the European games used to have a special way to kick players' asses.
I like that style too and even the rough art that is usually common to them.

Yes. The sections (thus "levels") are all there. The castle, the cottage, the forest, the water, the area where you get taken prisoner... it's all there. Removing a background or two didn't remove the sections, only the visual differences between some of them.

I agree to disagree here.

That's for the reader to decide. I know what the scores mean to me, and that's how I review. I don't see SotB II as being "above average," I see it as a good game with flaws that don't break it. And the Sega-CD version being "significantly improved" is subjective. Not everyone's going to like the CD soundtrack, or half the added cinemas (did we really need a cinema for riding an elevator?), or the voice "acting" (I shut it off every time). You think it's a vast improvement, others won't agree. Opinions are like that

The elevator one looks fine IMO but that other in the end (the extra one), looks bad.
The voice acting is disgusting and forces long pauses during the game, I hate that.

I find the other details, together, a strong boost (even more if you compare with the orginal game), but like you said it's subjective inn some extent.

Anyway, I think we've hit that point where we've gotten down to bits and pieces we just don't agree on, and that's fine. I believe we both understand where we stand and why the scores we'd give SotB II would be given... and it got done without name calling. Go figure

Yes, thanks a lot for taking your time to discuss about the reviews and your way to score the games, without taking it as an attack or something...
IMO it brought new things to me, I hope that it could have added something to you too.
See ya!

[Thenewguy]

Its a real shame we lost the years, and years of user reviews, and scores which had built up, they did a good job of giving an idea of public opinion to compliment the main review

[shinobimusashi]

I am! Working full-time for a german Computer magazine for more than two years now. But I started working (professionally) as a journalist after I started contributing to this site, I'm not a native speaker of English, and I don't review video games for a living. So I wouldn't count myself as a professional when it comes to penning articles about video games either.

Thats funny because I actually almost edited that line out because I figured you were. You, and Ken(an English professor) are on another level of writing than anyone else. We're lucky to have a guy like you as a Staff Writer for the site. I'm a pretty big fan of your work.

[The Coop]

Yes, thanks a lot for taking your time to discuss about the reviews and your way to score the games, without taking it as an attack or something...
IMO it brought new things to me, I hope that it could have added something to you too.
See ya!

Not a problem. I don't have a issue with someone questioning why I gave a particular score. If they just ask, I'm happy to walk them through how everything was added up. And being critiqued always brings new things to light for me.

The one thing I forgot to mention though, was the last piece of the reviewing puzzle... that being, how much fun was the game?

Just as you can have games with great graphics, sound, controls, etc., yet be a complete chore to play through, you can have a game with less than stellar graphics and sound, but be an absolute blast from beginning to end. Take a game like Warning Forever, where the graphics are really pretty basic (vectors), and there's little in the way of sound outside of the FX. But the controls are solid, the gameplay is challenging, and the game is fun as hell. If you look at the graphics and sound alone, one might think of giving it a five on its aesthetics. But when you factor in how much fun the game is to play, the score goes up to a seven or eight (for me mind you). The same thing happened with me regarding SotB II. The fun of the game, added to the end score a bit. Someone else might find the game to be not very enjoyable, and so the level of fun for them would drag the score down a bit.

Its a real shame we lost the years, and years of user reviews, and scores which had built up, they did a good job of giving an idea of public opinion to compliment the main review

If people would just sign up for a Wordpress account, those scores could be built back up in no time. But right now, not many seem interested in doing so... or even just clicking on the stars. Guess people got lazy or something.

[StarMist]

Its a real shame we lost the years, and years of user reviews, and scores which had built up, they did a good job of giving an idea of public opinion to compliment the main review

If people would just sign up for a Wordpress account, those scores could be built back up in no time. But right now, not many seem interested in doing so... or even just clicking on the stars. Guess people got lazy or something.

There really weren't that many comments. Plus there was the character limit (though the new one probably contains that as well). Most games had about 3 comments, 2 of which were either uselessly short, grossly typed, wholly self involved, or contending with each other. No great loss.

Perhaps to further a sense of community everybody should be obliged to post 1 comment under the reviews before posting again on the forums.

btw, Melf, if you're still reading this, the only reviews I called nonsense were those whose scores didn't tally with their critiques, it wasn't a question of my agreement. I continue to hold such reviews nonsense.

[havok666]

Perhaps to further a sense of community everybody should be obliged to post 1 comment under the reviews before posting again on the forums.

I'm going to post a comment once I beat a game. That will be my new years contribution to the site.

[The Coop]

There really weren't that many comments. Plus there was the character limit (though the new one probably contains that as well). Most games had about 3 comments, 2 of which were either uselessly short, grossly typed, wholly self involved, or contending with each other. No great loss.

The games that had two or three comments were a fair number, but there were plenty with more comments than that, and some well into the teens. About half of mine had five or more if memory serves.

[havok666]

I think Thunder Blade had about 20+ comments.

[StarMist]

The games that had two or three comments were a fair number, but there were plenty with more comments than that, and some well into the teens. About half of mine had five or more if memory serves.

You know I don't think I came along till after the first hack, or perhaps read some before joining and so they cut off at some premature date.

[The Sports Guy]

Alright, Alright, Alright.

My Grandpa always said at big family dinners as a joke: "If you go away hungry it's your own d*** fault." He also said "If you don't like the way I sound, you have two ears, you don't have to listen". And that's the way I feel about reviewing my games. I have no professional writing experience other than basic college English, but I DO have a great experience growing up with my Sega Genesis and try to pass that on to my games. I try to review every game as if I am coming downstairs into by big old, broken lazyboy and talking to you about it like I would a friend. Though I don't drink beer when I play video games - I think it's counter-intuitive and it slows my reaction time!

I have never been one to go in to deep gaping detail over EVERY facet of the game, instead I focus on what it feels like to play the game.

Is it fun?
Does it look good?
What does it sound like?
What are some things that a player will remember from this game?
What do I remember from playing this when I was growing up?
What is something I can add to this review that someone might not know about?

Overall, I do try to review the game legitimately and thoroughly - and that's something that I can say about 98% of the reviews on here. I believe a few of the VERY old ones that are up here (mainly that one dude who gave R.C. Pro Am a 10, and one or two ANCIENT reviews that I'm not sure are even up anymore) aren't up to snuff or aren't written up to par. I'm not talking about a popular score, I'm talking about a review written with conviction, keeping very close to the point and writing how they feel about the game.

I can understand how people could be upset with some reviewers' scores of games - one that comes to mind is my score of OutRunners for Genesis. I was floored to find out that the game was pretty much panned by everyone. I don't care that no one likes it. I think it is one of the games I had the most fun with playing when I was seven or eight years old! And that's what I'm talking about.

[Daria]

Do comments have to be approved before they show up? I've never left one before now and wanted to be certain that the server didn't just eat it.

[Kollision]

Is it fun?
(...)
I was floored to find out that the game was pretty much panned by everyone. I don't care that no one likes it. I think it is one of the games I had the most fun with playing when I was seven or eight years old! And that's what I'm talking about.

Although this is important from the reviewer's standpoint, it should not be the basis for a review in any way.
An example: I love Heavy Nova, people hate it.

Fun is relative.
What's fun for someone might be outrageously boring for others, that's why I think texts should be as objective as possible, pointing out the pros and cons in an honest way and letting the reader decide for him/herself if the game's worth checking/avoiding. Tidbits of personal appreciation are occasionally welcome, but if it's overused the result will more often than not be a biased review prone to criticism.