Some feedback on this review structure would be awesome Thread

Hello, ladies and mentlegen. My name is Dave, I'm a game designer and writer, and I'm running for president

No, actually I'm doing a start-up as an indie game developer, in a small company called Undefined Games (name's a reference for our love to quantum physics, but that's a long, completely different topic). We have currently come as far as being officially registered, and are setting up shop on the internet at the moment. Point is, to give people all the more reason to visit the site, it won't just be a company presentation with products.

So to further entice people's visits, I'm going to be running a blog. A blog with game reviews that aren't actually aimed at gamers, but developers. Having that said, it means - and I'll make this clear on the frontpage - that if I write about a game, I have inherently found it worth playing as an educational experience. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good game in itself, as some of the most educational experiences come from the worst games.

This also means I won't be giving any scores. I've made this choice for two key reasons:

1. I hate review scores. They mean nothing.
2. As mentioned above, if I write about something, it's because I found it worth examining regardless of it's 'fun-factor.' This is purely determined from a design perspective. Whether you should spend your money on it to actually have fun, I'll leave it up to other reviews to tell you.

But there's a small thing that's been needing some clearing up, which I need some community feedback on, before I can determine what's what. When you dissect a game, there's two different approaches one can take:

The first approach is focusing on the functional. Here we'll focus on what things work. We'll go on to explain - using the adequate terminology - exactly why that works the way it does. In other words, this will be driven by exemplification, which has already been set in front of us. I guess it's quite obvious at this point, however, that this model is hard pressed for content when we look at a really, really terrible game.

Which brings is to the second approach: Highlighting everything that's wrong with the title. This is the approach I'm personally learning the most from. This is due to the fact that, on top of highlighting all the things that went wrong, I'm suggesting how to fix it. So as with the other approach, I'll begin by using established terminology to outline where the 'disconnects' are, then go on to - using the explanations I've just provided - patch up the issues. This is, of course, purely in theory. As we all know, ideas aren't worth much until they've been prototyped, so it'll be more of a practice of thought rather than a go-to bag of solutions.

All this is well and good, but I am facing a problem here. As we all know, games are more often than not, a mixed bag of both good and bad. But if I focus on both aspects at once, it'll be some very, very long posts. For reasons rooting in current human behavior, spawning primarily from social media interactions, having reviews that are ten to fifteen pages long, is a pretty fucking terrible idea.

So what I suggest to fix this, is that I segment reviews into the two different approaches, in two different posts. First, I'll do one where I focus on the things that worked. I'm thinking the fun in this could be, for example, if the positive component makes for a very short post. Then there'll be a good deal expectation of me having a five-page long rant about all the things that sucked, waiting around the corner.

Anywho, what's your take on this approach? Anything that sounds wrong with it, or suggestions for improvement? I'm also fiddling with a name for it. Currently 'working title' is "Constructively Criticizing Reviews," or CCR for short. I'm just not really happy with that one, want one that emanates more science, like "Game Dissection Lab." Suggestions for names are also welcome, but don't forget to comment on the other stuff as well. The name is the least important issue at the moment.

Edit: Oh yes, I should mention that this blog won't be the only thing next to the company-related content. Primarily because this concept has the inherent flaw of targeting a rather small user demographic. But I only need feedback on this component as of now.

Thanks in advance for the feedback
~ Dave

Edited by: Genero

I like the concept. It's something different than usual. I mean, most reviews are the thesis "This is fun to play. Recommended." expanded over a few pages. Yours would be different. That's good!

Here's a great article that you might wanna look at:
Gamasutra.com

I also like the idea, it'd be really nice to read those reviews. CCR sounds cool as name but google will spam you with Creedence Clearwater Revival results