I changed the line. I honestly don't think it was excessively nitpicking. To give an example of what I think is excessive nitpicking, I'll post some thoughts I had recently about my Super Mario Bros. 2 review.

Most people would probably say the most fundamental fact about SMB2 is that it's a sidescrolling platformer. The next most fundamental facts are that you pick up things and throw things, and that you can play as four different characters.

By the end of my first paragraph, you [assuming a reader unfamiliar with the game] don't even know what kind of game it is. The second paragraph doesn't contain that information, either.

The third paragraph does finally suggest -- obliquely -- what kind of game it is. But now I'm talking about a specific stage, without first having supplied the basics of how the game is played. I don't mention this until the 5th paragraph, when the review is half over. And I don't explicitly say how the previous specific examples of level design tie into this play style.

So, it might be argued that the structure of this review is fundamentally flawed.

The reason I consider the above critique of my own review to be nitpicking is because I really think you'd probably have to be a moron to be confused by that review.

In my experience - say, my experience of reading reviews (which is extensive) - I have almost never had a problem holding abstract information about a game (or a movie, or whatever) in my mind until later when the specific information is supplied. The only condition on that is that, if the reviewer is starting with somewhat abstract information, I only ask that it be clear that the reviewer is going somewhere with his points. Knowing that a game is easy -- even before I know what type of game it is -- is enough for me to begin getting an idea of what the game is like. I can then immediately apply this information when I'm then later told the game is a side scroller.