Thanks for the feedback, it is most appreciated.

Structure is a thing I’ve been playing around with for a while now, but the way I’m going about it at the moment – and this may well change in the future – is to, first, make my general opinion of the game clear. Then I try to summise as succinctly as possible the story and gameplay (the facts and nothing but the facts, please!). After that, though, what I do is just talk about what I felt was interesting, what worked and what didn’t, and this eventually leads to a final paragraph, usaully reiterating my introduction in some way. I won’t claim that this is the best method or that I’ve mastered it, but I’m of the opinion, more now than ever, that people can watch a gameplay video, look at a synopsis and a couple of screenshots and know, roughly, how a game will play. To me, critical evaluation is far more interesting to read and outweighs the explanation of how, exactly, a game plays.

I only just started properly reviewing games earlier this year, and I’ve found it a very interesting, rewarding experience as you gradually learn what these hidden rules are. One of the most curious aspects of writing is that you know when you’ve written crap, and when writing becomes a slog, it’s usaully because you’ve stopped listening to your own inner voice and that also often results in sub-standard work.