For a while I got completely sick of the modern games writing scene. I now try my best to read many of the sites, but I look at myself strictly as a game critic. The news doesn't interest me because it feels like marketing and hype. I am interested when something big happens, such as the split between Infinity Ward's founders and Activision, but most of the time I just look at game announcements and trailers to keep note games I plan on critiquing.

As such, I've found most reviews hard to get through. This day and age half of the games discussion I follow is somehow linked to The Escapist, be it The Game Over Thinker (run by MovieBob), Zero Punctuation, Extra Credits (I loooooove this series), or Shamus Young. That they chose to do a five star system for their own reviews is magnificent to me, as it's the best scoring system out there in my opinion.

Yet what I've learned trying to pick up recent issues of GamePro and EGM and the like is that reviews just aren't interesting. They might work for someone that wants to purchase the product, but they will never stand the test of time nor are they fun to read. Sometimes you'll find a writer that can do such a job, but it is rare and uncommon.

So I wrote a column piece focusing on my latest philosophy and attempts to build better reviews. I have my own influences and reasoning for my own methods, but I was curious if anyone else felt the same issues as I do and has taken steps to try and improve them.

I like it to be clear that I don't view myself as a games journalist. That's not my bag. I have no taste for the hype and marketing, and if I am to preview a game I want to be able to say "This doesn't work, this aspect of it sucks" which goes against what modern previews are (marketing. Think about it. Have you read a preview that says "I can't recommend this game" lately? The only one that comes to my mind is Too Human, this generation's whipping boy). If I interview a developer I want to be able to ask them why they made stupid decisions, or even be specific in design choices. I don't get news, I get analysis. So it could be my concept of what a review should be is drastically different from anyone else's.

Anyway, feed your thoughts, let me know what you think and maybe together we can all start pondering how to build better reviews.

I believe that games should actually be reviewed and previewed based on their actual quality. Most of the reviews that I read are sugar coated in a sense. I don't read many reviews that suggest I don't get a certain game.