Back to Basics?

[scotland171]

As Actraiser and JustLikeHeaven said, your output for a site that is a time intensive hobby based on another time consuming hobby is amazing. That you have been at it since Clinton was president is doubly so. Maybe a vacation to just game is in order. E3 is coming, why not give the keyboard a break.

A 100 proto reviews in the queue? Wow. Maybe drafting a mod as an editor to help the backlog is something to consider. Still your work. After all the time you spend playing and drafting a review, shame to let the experience fade before the review goes out and feedback comes in.

[VideoGameCritic]

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback guys.  I think a compromise is a good idea.  You may notice the new reviews are a little shorter, but if I miss any important details I know you will call me on it.  And I think you know I'm pretty good at taking constructive criticism.  Writing longer reviews takes a lot out of me so I will avoid that.

In case you're wondering why I do re-reviews, well, in some cases I just don't like the original reviews.  In most cases however I'll be playing a game I already reviewed and notice a few interesting things I didn't mention in the original review.  In those cases I can't resist the urge to retrofit the review with the new details.

I keep my reviews-in-progress in Googledocs files in categories like Atari, Sega, Xbox, Nintendo, Other, etc.  Some of these files are out of control.  That's what happens when you hop around between games.  I need to tame my backlog.

Although I do not have an official editor, one of the moderators (Gleeberglobin) is really good about shooting me emails with typos soon after I post.  Other readers do too on occasion.  I really welcome these - not only to report typos in new reviews but old ones as well.  I love fixing mistakes - it feels like I'm cleaning up the site.

[Atarifever1]

I vastly prefer the shorter reviews.  In fact, I prefer your retro reviews more generally (and those are the shorter ones by and large).  Not because I don't agree with your modern reviews (I tend to agree with you more in the modern era than the older systems), but because I find short reviews of older games more valuable.  I like to know what you thought of Super Mario Bros U., but I already know about that game from everywhere else, and your review is just one of many. Your Arcadia 2001 reviews are some of the only ones on the entire internet.

The times your reviews are most indespensible to me is actually when I am at a used store and see a used NES, or 2600, or Genesis game.  In that situation I will always break out the Blackberry and check your review.  I will base the entire purchase on your brief description.  I wouldn't say don't do the modern reviews, as in a decade I'll need those to figure out about buying used PS4 games, but that "at the store" review is best for me if the original review was only a paragraph or so long.  I say the shorter the review, the more valuable it is for me anyway.  

Aside: I really wish you had done the book you were planning.  I have two of the ones from Brett Weiss (those reviews are brief like yours) in hardcover and would buy the same thing from you in an instant.   

[Crock1]

I agree with you Dave.  Love the shorter reviews, and prefer the reviews of older games / systems.  Like you say, this how you started out!

Besides, now that the internet has shortened all of our attention spans to about 0, I have....wait, what were we talking about again?

[goldenband1]

Just wanted to thank you for all the time you've put into this project. I don't always agree with your final evaluations, but even the reviews with which I disagree are usually very helpful, and I've made quite a few purchases based on your reviews (including some games you've panned!). I hope you're able to find a way to make the process less taxing; having unfinished business is always a drag, and as someone with a review site of my own, I know it inhibits me from having fun and feeling spontaneous when I know I've got a backlog to address.

BTW like an earlier poster, I come mainly for the retro reviews, though occasionally I'll venture into more recent territory.

[TheLastNightmare1]

Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. What you see in editing, isn't what we'll see when reading, and many authors are horrible judges of what will connect with their audience.

Honestly, at this point, you could type anything about your opinions of the original Gameboy games you've played, and I'd be thankful for just knowing what your opinion is. You've been cruelly teasing your readers for so long...

[Orion1]

Do what you want, but I would cut down on the re-reviews.  I'd rather see more reviews period, rather than more polished reviews.  If I were you I'd be proud of the fact that you've kept it up for this long.  Do whatever keeps you motivated.

[Astrosmasher1]

Smaller reviews are better to be honest.  That way I can see what you like.  I am not a big sports but like to see your views on these American sports games.

[Jake_JacobZu7zu71]

My take on it is... (FIND THE HAPPY MEDIUM) not too short, not too long either... give breathing room but still put the Dave stamp on your game reviewing.

Acceptions should be when a games is down right facinating and needs a long review... but most don't.

I noticed a few reviews run a little bit longer these days, it's explaining that can run in a circle. Look for ways to explain without going long about it. Generaly speaking, they're not too long but a few suffer now and then.

I thought the 1999 ones were great, and yeah they improved since then... and the accuracy of the grades.
Wasn't it called Daves Classic Game Reviews or somethin' ? So much has changed since then lol, and not surprisingly.