Peter Reviews

Some general comments and specific objections I've heard around the internet, and sometimes, sadly, in person. With answers. Anonymity protects the silly.

• Your game reviews are based on hype.

  Somewhere in a review I will often mention how a game has reviewed elsewhere, the purpose of a review is to tell you about a game, so why would I do this? Well, my reviews are not based in a vacuum, but in the real world and I expect an informed reader, so I say how well a particular game lives up to the general impression the industry gives. The idea is to weight hype against the actual game, which is nothing like basing a review on hype, quite the opposite.

• How can you be objective in a game review, surely you're talking about how much you liked a game?

  Treating a subject objectively is trivial, so long as you understand that treating something objectively is not the same thing as describing an objective reality. Why I even need to point this out is beyond me. Words can have more than one meaning. Obviously I'm talking about how good I think a game is (or how how much I think others would enjoy it), but if I started every sentence with 'in my opinion' it would just be hard to read, and obviously I think I'm right, otherwise I wouldn't hold that opinion.

• Wow, Natal (Kinect) looks awesome, why would you even bother with a balance board anymore, you could detect it with Natal?!

  Yes, of course, because shape recognition software using a stereoscopic camera system can detect weight-shifting. I'm sure Natal will be lovely, but really, remember what it actually is and how it works.

• How can you not like X? How can you say Y about X?

  Well, easily. I can't help answering rhetorical questions, getting upset over it is a bit childish though, don't you think?