Quote:
I'd like to know more about this rule on when flaws really count or when they should be brushed aside as insignifcant or whining.


Believe it or not, I've given that subject a great deal of serious thought - possibly more thought than to any other issue concerning reviews.

I used to think that I had an intuitive grasp of what was whining and what was legitimate. When I discovered Roger Ebert's reviews, one thing I immediately liked was how convincing they seemed - far more than just about any videogame review - even when I disagreed with him. I think one simple reason for that is that his complains just about never seemed like whines, and that, if he awarded a movie a very high score, he almost never tried to dismiss serious flaws as insignificant.

I think there are several ways to decide whether something is whining or not.

I think one of the most useful way to demonstrate that you're not whining is to be as general as possible, and to relate your argument to Obvious-es. Yes, a word I just made up, but Obvious-es are things that are obviously true for all games. For instance, words like "original", "exciting", "thought provoking" and so on obviously describe good things. "Fun" does as well, but word that should be used sparingly, because that word says very little in particular. Defending a game because it's "fun" can lead to arguments that go nowhere ("This game is fun" "No, it's not" "Yes, it is" - and there's no way for either side to really prove the other wrong) Words like "derivative", "boring", "tedious", and so on, describe obviously bad things. In my personal opinion, "challenging" is an obviously good trait, "easy" an obviously bad one, but I often craft my arguments around those issues in terms of other issues (for instance, a challenging game is generally more exciting than an easy game)

Since I used the word obvious about a million times in the above paragraph, you might think everything I said was obvious - But I've seen countless videogame reviews where the reviewer is swimming against the current. Maybe more or less acknowledging, or at least implying, that a game is boring and derivative, yet somehow exerting so much effort into trying to convince us, against the odds, that the game is still great. On the other hand, I've also seen countless reviews where the reviewer complains about some thing or another, and it's not obvious why that complaint is a bad thing, and there's no way to reduce that complaint to something axiomatic. (Something like, "Super Punchout sucks because King Hippo isn't in it")

Another good technique to demonstrate that you're not whining is to consider alternatives of what you're complaining about.

I have a lot more to say about this, but I'm tired and don't have the time.