Paul O’Brian makes it three reviews in a row with his in-depth analysis of Cryptozookeeper. (permalink)
A reviewer does not review his taste. He reviewes the game.
Which is what he is doing. Now, a review is by necessity somewhat subjective - the ideal reviewer would be 100% objective, but that’s nigh impossible, what with expectations, past experiences, knowledge of everything else that other people are doing and how THIS game compares to THAT in that it tries to achieve THIS and does it better that THAT one but not as good as THAT ONE OVER THERE…
So rather than go into that madhouse, it’s rather standard for a good, honest reviewer to establish, up front, whether he has any sort of pre-existing bias or favoritisms towards the genre/game/author/whatever (I tend to dislike certain types of puzzlefests, but can still review them fairly). Then he will probably explain how those preconceived notions affected his experience, and even whether they were changed by the game, which would result in a very helpful review (if a guy hates thrillers and loved, say, “Border Zone”, then there must be a reason for it).
After all, a reviewer isn’t isolated from the rest of the world. Furthermore, a reviewer is a human being and has tastes. And those tastes will dictate his experience through the game, and therefore his review.
And finally - he wasn’t just expressing taste, he was commenting on two aspects of the game that he found overbearing. Those aspects (bloodthist and buggines) were factual; it’s only the impression they caused on him that was subjective, which is hardly the information that a reader will capture here: they’ll focus on the relevant information (bloodthirst and bugginess). Unless, of course, they happen to be Pudlo.
EDIT - Oh, I just noticed your signature…
“Reality is God’s conspiracy against me.”
You know, we have all sorts of characters around in our public transport. One of the flashiest is this blind guy in the tube who has a metal spoon that he beats against his metal cane in very cool rhythms; sometimes he’s “asking for alms” (is that how you say it?) in rap, sometimes in reggae, sometimes in God-knows-what. He also happens to be a bit off, and tends to insult the very people he’s asking money from, often rambling about “the weak of the society”. People who know him tend to disregard him - he’s a bit of a troll, really, once the novelty wears off, and has zero compassion from people who got used to him.
Here’s my favourite tirade of his. Compare it to your signature. Draw your own conclusions.
“This is a veritable xenophoby against me.”
Obvious good points, Peter. If only they would do some good…
Conrad.
Oh, I’ve stopped hoping for Pudlo to answer to my arguments with his own arguments thus provoking a good and healthy discussion (it almost happened once, I thought, and then he stopped responding). Apart from the edit, my replies to Pudlo are now strictly an exercise - how best to illustrate how I disagree with him (I never seem to agree…) in a rational way, providing clear arguments and putting them in context, and in such a way as to try and excite discussion rather than a flame war.
I mean, he’s still here, and he’s still posting the same sort of thing - sometimes in groundless, vague ways, such as here, and sometimes in more detail as in Blue Lacuna, but he’s still doing it. I figure I might as well use him to sharpen my argumentative skills; it’s only a pity he makes it so easy.
This would have been so much nicer had you been a good-looking woman.
You have a crush on me! You Pudlophile, you!
What will Jacek do next? Will he be drawn in by Peter? Who cares? You do, you Pavlovian dogs secreting saliva at the very mention of my name. If you think I’m Shaytân (that’s Persian for Satan, you drooling monoglots) and Paul O’Brien is Skywalker, how come you’re more eager to comment on my eleven-word comment than the original review? Is it because Paul’s praise is too submental even for you to bear?
Mostly because a newcomer took you seriously once; I wouldn’t like for that to happen again.