This is the order of how difficult different kinds of reviews are to write, in descending order.
Well Thought-out Positive Review > Well Thought-Out Negative Review > Poorly Thought-Out Negative Review > Poorly Thought-Out Positive Review
So basically, it's easiest to say that something is "awesome" or "cool" or that you "love" it, or "like it alot," but without giving any real reasons as to why or even acknowledging what flaws it might have regardless, or rebutting common criticism of it. You might just be agreeing with the common concensus.
It's still easy, just slightly harder, to say that you "hate" something, or that it "sucks." Again, with no real argument, or maybe you're saying it just to ruffle people's feathers, or push their buttons, or whatever. You may also just be jumping on the band wagon, making mockery of something just because everyone else is doing it, even if you don't hate it quite so much as other people seem to.
These first two might actually be interchangable, depending more on your personnality or temperment.
Much harder to write is a well thought out negative review. One that provides actual criticism and is relevent. One that is able to challenge commonly praised aspects of the game. One that makes valid arguments and doesn't pull any punches. Perhaps hardest of all is to make a review like this sincere: you might be inclined to rip into a game more than is due; perhaps you don't hate it quite as much as you pretend. So often, we are polarized to the extremes.
Then, hardest of all is to write a well-thought out review that praises something. It has to acknowledge any flaws that may exist, and provide enough good, valid praise to outweigh the bad. So many reviews seem to fabricate praiseworthy things when they give something a positive review. For example, like people praising Duck Hunt for not being able to shoot the dog, or Star Fox 64 for "do a barrel roll!"
I believe that the reason it's so hard to write a review like this last category is because sometimes we simply don't know what it is about something that makes us like it. Katamari Damacy has gained a huge cult following, by virtue of its quirky charms alone, but is it really a good game? Not really; there's just something irresistable about the Prince, and that weird, quirky music. It's not a reason to praise the game, but it is a reason to like the game. Still, we must allow for introspection upon our own opinions. How are we supposed to defend our opinions if we can't even validate them?
This obviously doesn't involve game reviews exclusively, but encompasses all forms of reviewing, and just opinions in general. Speaking of opinions, do you agree with my conclusions? Do have your own hierarchy when it comes to the difficulty of reviewing things? Comment below!
PS: If this makes entirely no sense at all, just know I wrote this right before going to bed.
Well Thought-out Positive Review > Well Thought-Out Negative Review > Poorly Thought-Out Negative Review > Poorly Thought-Out Positive Review
So basically, it's easiest to say that something is "awesome" or "cool" or that you "love" it, or "like it alot," but without giving any real reasons as to why or even acknowledging what flaws it might have regardless, or rebutting common criticism of it. You might just be agreeing with the common concensus.
It's still easy, just slightly harder, to say that you "hate" something, or that it "sucks." Again, with no real argument, or maybe you're saying it just to ruffle people's feathers, or push their buttons, or whatever. You may also just be jumping on the band wagon, making mockery of something just because everyone else is doing it, even if you don't hate it quite so much as other people seem to.
These first two might actually be interchangable, depending more on your personnality or temperment.
Much harder to write is a well thought out negative review. One that provides actual criticism and is relevent. One that is able to challenge commonly praised aspects of the game. One that makes valid arguments and doesn't pull any punches. Perhaps hardest of all is to make a review like this sincere: you might be inclined to rip into a game more than is due; perhaps you don't hate it quite as much as you pretend. So often, we are polarized to the extremes.
Then, hardest of all is to write a well-thought out review that praises something. It has to acknowledge any flaws that may exist, and provide enough good, valid praise to outweigh the bad. So many reviews seem to fabricate praiseworthy things when they give something a positive review. For example, like people praising Duck Hunt for not being able to shoot the dog, or Star Fox 64 for "do a barrel roll!"
I believe that the reason it's so hard to write a review like this last category is because sometimes we simply don't know what it is about something that makes us like it. Katamari Damacy has gained a huge cult following, by virtue of its quirky charms alone, but is it really a good game? Not really; there's just something irresistable about the Prince, and that weird, quirky music. It's not a reason to praise the game, but it is a reason to like the game. Still, we must allow for introspection upon our own opinions. How are we supposed to defend our opinions if we can't even validate them?
This obviously doesn't involve game reviews exclusively, but encompasses all forms of reviewing, and just opinions in general. Speaking of opinions, do you agree with my conclusions? Do have your own hierarchy when it comes to the difficulty of reviewing things? Comment below!
PS: If this makes entirely no sense at all, just know I wrote this right before going to bed.
