How do you structure/plan your reviews

When writing reviews for NoDPad they had a set structure to follow, so it usually went: Introduction, overview, likes, dislikes, summary.

However when writing by my own rules I generally just go with the flow. If it looks wrong I'll slot extra sentences or paragraphs in where I think they belong, but I don't plan anything in advance. Gonzo journalism is much more fun and going off on the occasional tangent can make you seem more human and can make an otherwise boring review into something more entertaining. You just have to know where to draw the line.

 

When I ran a review blog, I never really stuck to a specific structure. I just went with whatever was on my mind about the particular game. I suppose I loosely went with the intro-review-summary thing which is natural. But I was going for a more casual feel to the site because I wasn't particularly interested in coming off like a stuffy, rigid, "unified voice" type blog.

 

For me, I mostly just write about whatever I think readers would want to know about a game in order to make a purchase. I usually have one paragraph for each thing after a quick intro and overview, like one for graphics/sound, controls, gameplay, storyline, unique gameplay mechanics, and just anything that needs to be covered. I generally like to group it with either the likes first and dislikes following or vice versa, depending on whether I feel that readers should purchase the game or not, putting more emphasis on positives for good games and negatives for bad ones.

It's really up to the individual, though, as it's all about how you write. No one can tell you what's right/wrong, but as long as you structure it so it's easy for the reader to pick out what they need without much difficulty and that you use proper grammar. There's nothing worse than reading a poorly structured review with poor grammar. Like I said, though, just as long as it's easily readable, it's up to you how you want to structure it.

 

Well, generally when it comes to games, there are a few main talking points: Graphics, sound, gameplay, level design, issues/bugs, overall experience. Basically, just break your time with the game or app down into what you personally experienced using it. Try asking yourself a bunch of questions. How well was each category implemented? How well does it all fit together? What did you like? What didn't you like? Any deal breakers? What would make it better? Is this likely to appeal to a broad audience or is it fairly niche in its approach? How derivative is it, and how does it set itself apart from its peers, if at all? Do the mechanics employed to set itself apart really change the gameplay in any substantive manner, or are they merely different for the sake of being different? How does it compare to similar apps? What about to the dev's own previous ones (if any)? Is it compelling? Do you want to play more of it? Does it have that elusive coat of polish? How likely are you to be playing this a week from now? Good price point? Any updates planned that you know of? Is it universal?

I'm sure you could come up with a ton more questions, but you get the idea. Once you've thought about your talking points, just start writing. You can organize and rearrange sentences, paragraphs and points later. Just brain dump in whatever way feels comfortable to you, and then read it back repeatedly. Prioritize the important bits -- gameplay (including level design if applicable and noteworthy), graphics, sound, and likes/dislikes/problems, usually, often in that order, unless something else is so noteworthy it deserves its own paragraph -- and make them the body of the review. Summarize and include the short line items (price, universality, etc.). Write an intro if you didn't already.

That would be my advice, anyway. Yes, you do get better with time -- particularly with regard to being able to organize your thoughts. I've been writing a very long time, so generally I can write fairly well on the fly, but even I'll often go back and edit to include a point I missed, fix typos, or clarify a thought I felt was muddy after the fact.