More on problem 3

This also means that most videogame reviews end up being filled with clichés which makes for boring writing. I've tried to put in a reasonable amount in all three of these articles, but let me ask you how many times you've read these phrases in a game review:

"At the end of the day…"
"…doesn't re-invent the wheel"
"…a hit or miss"
"…left us wanting more"
"What makes or breaks…"
"Taking a cue from…"
"At first glance… In practice…"
"…making for a great experience"
“…is weak”

How about the structure of "Is x true? Yes. Is y true? Yes. Is z true? Depends."

Clichés make articles less interesting to read, but it also means that readers often don’t get a chance to understand what the reviewer is actually thinking. Every game starts to sound the same. Following the formula has other problems. Take a look at the DOA4 review again and you'll see that there are really two reviews. There's the real review where I'm telling you if a game is fun or not. Then at the end of the review, I tacked on a paragraph about graphics, and then a comment about sound. By this point, everyone understands that games aren't always mindless diversions, but can be art in the same way as film or music. The problem is that while there is a large library of critical thinking about film the same thing does not exist with videogames. Why is it that we break down games into subcomponents like Graphics and Sound? Can videogames be judged objectively on certain merits? Does game x have better sound than game y, or can one game have better graphics than game z? You could say that NBA Live 06 looks better than NBA 2K6 but how do you compare the graphics between Project Gotham Racing 3, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, or Ridge Racer 6? Do you focus on framerate? Texture resolution? Complexity of lighting? Do these criteria actually change the game experience?

In the film world, graphics and sound are only talked about when it makes a difference. If the CG looks fake in the movie, it affects the experience. If the music or sound effects in a movie are good, it can add a lot to the emotional response. This is true for games. Good graphics and sound can immerse yourself into the game. A choppy framerate can interfere with your experience. Why do I need to talk about the graphics of the game like DOA4 when it's not something that interferes with the gameplay? I've already said that it's fast, and you guys aren't blind – you can see the screenshots and video. Likewise, if the sound isn't unusually good or unusually bad, is there a need to talk about it?

Writing about the graphics is just filler. When we do this, we don’t spend as much time trying to help you really understand whether a particular game is one that you should buy or should avoid. You guys tell me… I think we just do it because "we're expected to" and it it's not very hard to write about graphics and sound. If reviewers only talked about graphics and sound when it mattered, it'd help make us better writers.