You know why we weren't included in this article's discussion? Yeah, it's because all of our reviews are dead-on and always right. It's an interesting look at what can be wrong with many reviews of games, such as the example of Enchanted Arms. Look, the game still sucks, but many claimed that only after an hour or so of gameplay, and it is evident in things they talk about in their reviews.

From the article:

Most videogame reviews are “broken.” I don’t mean this in the sense that they do not work, but in the sense that this is how they term their view on games. Reviews, as they stand right now, only serve to tell you how broken a game is. The graphics do not run at a solid 60 fps. The voice acting is stilted. Multiplayer isn’t fun. On and on, most reviews read like they follow an outline in which they insert numbers into a formula, and out pops a review score.

This is good. Yes, you read that right, this formula is good. Describing the technical flaws of a game is is a vital process. Regardless of how amazing the ideas contained within a game are, they do no good if they are wrapped in a broken system.

The issue is that not being broken is only part of the experience of gaming. Games tell stories. Games involve us in a way other media simply cannot. Every game has its own rhythm, character, and soul. It has to be more than simple mechanics that make a game like Okami vastly different than a game like Metroid Prime.

Read the full article over at 4colorrebellion.com