Annie D

I don't do "fair and balanced." Rather than carrying a bias and hiding behind artificial objectivity as a shield, I just review the game with those biases intact. If someone else doesn't like that, they can write their own damn review.

That whole "ethics in game journalism" debacle from several years back was just an excuse to force reviewers through coercion and harassment to echo the views of petulant readers. Homey don't play that.

Don't be sorry for expressing this - I've certainly had my own experiences where I've been in your position and it always feels like a drain,

It's absolutely important that we can discuss our experiences with these games as more than just a list to be checked off. The important part with discussion or criticism is always being able to focus on whatever sparks one's interest - and we're all going to have different tastes there.

(Not sure what I'm going for other than a I know how it feels kind of mood!)

I remember when people listened to my podcast and told me based on our review they went and bought something, and I was just shocked they got review out of “10 minutes of talking about the inventory system in X”

I also get a little frustrated when my writing is called a review, but I do find from experience that this sort of writing does a better job of selling me on a game than most reviews could.

I find putting particular aspects in focus helps illustrate what the game is doing with more concrete examples. It helps give a good idea of how the game might end up making me feel rather than just, does it play good.

That's not too say reviews can't encompass all that, but I really appreciate pieces that give the specific things a spotlight.

That's one of the things I enjoy about your articles. It's not a question of whether someone should buy/play a particular game, it's just talking about something that's interesting/noteworthy/weird. I don't know how someone would read one of your articles and take 'review' from it. 🤷‍♀️