I still remember the exact moment I realized my game review was a lie. It was 11 p.m. on a Sunday, I’d just finished my 200th hour in Elden Ring, and I was staring at the draft review I’d written three days earlier. It was glowing. Five stars. “A masterpiece.” “The defining game of the generation.” I’d used words like “transcendent” and “unparalleled.” I’d compared it to Dark Souls, to Breath of the Wild, to my own wedding day.
And yet, sitting there with the controller still warm in my hands, I felt something I couldn’t name. Not satisfaction. Not the hollow completion of a checklist. Something closer to… resentment? I’d spent 200 hours in a world I admired more than I enjoyed. I’d memorized boss patterns I found tedious. I’d farmed runes for builds I didn’t care about. I’d explored every corner of the Lands Between not because I was curious, but because I was afraid of missing something that might justify the time I’d already invested.
I deleted that review. I started over. The new one was complicated, contradictory, and deeply personal. I gave it a 6/10. Not because it’s a bad game—it’s objectively extraordinary in many ways. But because, for me, it was a game that demanded everything and gave back less than it took. The review was controversial. I lost followers. I got called names. But it was the first review I’d written that I actually believed.
If you’re reading this because you want to write game reviews that matter, because you’re tired of the hyperbole machine that treats every AAA release as either a 10/10 masterpiece or a 0/10 disaster, because you want to help players find games they’ll actually love instead of games they’re supposed to love—this is for you. I’m going to show you exactly what I learned from that Elden Ring review, the framework I now use for every game I cover, and how to write criticism that serves the reader instead of the algorithm.
The Real Problem: We’re Reviewing for Engagement, Not for Players
Here’s the trap that caught me, and it catches almost every game reviewer: the incentive structure rewards extremes. A measured, nuanced review gets buried. A hot take—”This is the best game ever made” or “This is an unplayable disaster”—gets shared, commented on, argued about. The algorithm doesn’t reward thoughtfulness. It rewards velocity and volume.
The first issue is that we review games before we’ve actually finished them. Embargos demand day-one coverage. Traffic rewards being first. So we play for 20 hours, form an impression, and publish. But many games don’t reveal their true nature until hour 40. Elden Ring’s late-game level design is radically different from its early open world. The Witcher 3’s pacing issues don’t appear until the mid-game slog. Destiny 2 doesn’t become itself until you’ve reached the endgame. A review written at hour 15 is a review of a different game than the one players will experience at hour 50.
The second problem is that we review games as products rather than experiences. We count frames per second, resolution modes, feature lists, and “content hours.” We treat games like spreadsheets to be optimized. But players don’t fall in love with frame rates. They fall in love with moments—the first time a game’s world opens up, the emotional beat of a questline, the satisfaction of mastering a difficult system. These are harder to quantify and therefore harder to review, so we default to the quantifiable.
The third issue is fear. Fear of the fanbase. Fear of being wrong. Fear of disagreeing with consensus. I gave Elden Ring a 6/10 not because I wanted to be contrarian, but because I was terrified of being honest and did it anyway. The 10/10 draft was safe. It would have been praised. The 6/10 was vulnerable. It opened me to attack. But it was true, and truth is the only thing that justifies criticism’s existence.
And the final problem—the one that truly separates useful reviews from useless ones—is that we don’t know who we’re writing for. A review for a Souls veteran should be different from a review for someone who’s never played one. A review for a parent with limited gaming time should be different from a review for a college student with infinite weekends. When we write for everyone, we write for no one.
The Game Review Framework That Actually Works
What follows is the exact system I developed after my Elden Ring crisis. I’ve since used it for reviews of Baldur’s Gate 3, Starfield, Tears of the Kingdom, Spider-Man 2, and dozens of indie games. It doesn’t guarantee popularity. It guarantees honesty. And honesty, I’ve learned, builds the only audience worth having.
Step 1: Define Your Relationship (Who Are You, and Who Is This For?)
Before I write a single word, I answer two questions:
Who am I as a player?
-
What genres do I naturally gravitate toward?
-
What mechanics do I find satisfying or tedious?
-
How much time do I typically have for gaming?
-
What emotional experiences do I seek from games?
For me: I love deliberate, methodical combat. I hate farming and repetitive grinding. I value narrative cohesion over open-world freedom. I have 10-15 hours a week for gaming, max. I want games that respect my time.
Who am I writing for?
-
A player similar to me, looking for validation of their potential interest?
-
A player different from me, looking for warning signs they might miss?
-
A curious observer trying to understand what a game is actually like?
I write primarily for the second group. If you’re a Souls veteran who loves everything FromSoftware makes, you don’t need my review. You already know you’re buying Elden Ring. I’m writing for the person who heard the hype, who wonders if this is for them, who might spend $60 and 100 hours on something that makes them miserable.
This positioning changes everything. It means I emphasize accessibility, time demands, and emotional tone over technical comparisons to previous games. It means I’m a translator, not a cheerleader.
Step 2: Play to Completion (Or Honest Exhaustion)
I no longer publish reviews before I’ve finished the main narrative or put in at least 40 hours, whichever comes first. For live-service games, I play until I understand the endgame loop. For open-world games, I play until the design philosophy becomes clear—usually when the map reveals its repetitive structures.
For Elden Ring, this meant 80 hours to reach the final boss and understand the late-game level design. It meant recognizing that the second half of the game recycled bosses, inflated health pools, and abandoned the careful environmental storytelling of the first half. A review at hour 20 would have missed this entirely. A review at hour 200 would have been too influenced by Stockholm syndrome.
The honest exhaustion clause: Some games don’t deserve completion. If I’m actively dreading my play sessions after 15 hours, I stop and review based on what I’ve experienced, with explicit disclosure. I did this with a recent looter-shooter that revealed its monetization structure at hour 12. I didn’t need 40 hours to know it was predatory.
Step 3: Catalog the Specific, Not the General
Bad reviews traffic in generalities: “The combat is great.” “The story is engaging.” “The graphics are stunning.” These words mean nothing. They could apply to any game. They tell the reader nothing about whether they’ll enjoy this specific game.
I now force myself to catalog concrete, specific observations:
Instead of “combat is great”:
-
“Each weapon type has a distinct moveset that changes your positioning and timing. The greatsword requires commitment—swings are slow but stagger enemies. The twinblades demand aggression, building meter through rapid hits. I preferred the greatsword because it matched my deliberate playstyle, but the twinblades felt frantic and punishing.”
Instead of “the world is beautiful”:
-
“The early regions have distinct visual identities—the golden fields of Limgrave, the poison swamps of Caelid, the crystalline cliffs of Liurnia. But by the late game, areas blend into generic grey castles and repeating cave structures. The art direction peaks at hour 30 and declines thereafter.”
Instead of “it’s difficult but fair”:
-
“Early bosses telegraph attacks clearly and leave generous punish windows. Late bosses chain combos with unpredictable delays and area-of-effect attacks that punish the recovery animations of their own previous attacks. The difficulty curve inverts—early game teaches you skills that late game punishes you for using.”
Specificity builds trust. It also helps readers calibrate: if you describe a mechanic precisely, they can assess whether it matches their preferences.
Step 4: The Time Audit (What Does This Game Actually Demand?)
This is the section I wish every review included. Games are not just purchases—they’re time commitments. And time is the resource most players have least of.
For every game I review, I now document:
Minimum viable experience: How long to complete the main narrative? For Elden Ring, 60-80 hours for a focused playthrough, 100+ for typical exploration.
Completionist demands: How long to see everything? Elden Ring’s “everything” is functionally infinite—multiple endings, New Game+ scaling, PvP builds, challenge runs. I note when a game’s structure encourages unhealthy completionism.
Pace of revelation: When does the game show you what it actually is? Elden Ring’s open world is front-loaded; its late-game linearity is a surprise. Some games hide their true nature behind 20-hour tutorials.
Respect for player time: Does the game have fast travel? Can you skip cutscenes? Is there unnecessary backtracking? Are there difficulty options? Elden Ring has no pause button, no difficulty settings, and requires significant farming for certain builds. This matters to players with limited time.
Step 5: The Emotional Ledger (What Did This Game Cost You?)
This is the most personal and most important part of my reviews. I ask myself: what did this game give me, and what did it take?
For Elden Ring, my ledger looked like this:
Gave me:
-
30 hours of genuine wonder exploring Limgrave and Liurnia
-
The satisfaction of mastering Malenia after 48 hours of practice
-
Aesthetic admiration for the creature design and environmental art
-
Conversations with friends about shared discoveries
Took from me:
-
100+ hours of repetitive farming and rune grinding
-
Significant late-game frustration with recycled content
-
The anxiety of missing content due to opaque quest design
-
The nagging sense that I was playing out of obligation, not enjoyment
The balance was negative for me. Not because Elden Ring is bad, but because its demands exceeded its rewards for my specific temperament and time constraints. Another player with different preferences and more available time might have a positive ledger. Both reviews can be true simultaneously.
Step 6: Score as Communication, Not Judgment
I use scores because readers expect them, but I treat them as compressed communication, not objective truth. My scoring rubric:
10: Transcendent. Changes how I think about games or myself. Extremely rare. 9: Exceptional. Achieves its goals with minimal compromise. Highly recommended for its audience. 8: Very good. Worth playing, with notable strengths and minor weaknesses. 7: Good. Solid execution, limited ambition, or strong vision with execution flaws. 6: Mixed. Significant strengths and significant weaknesses. Worthwhile for specific audiences, potentially frustrating for others. 5: Mediocre. Competent but unremarkable. Neither recommends itself nor offends. 4: Flawed. Notable problems outweigh strengths. Difficult to recommend. 3: Poor. Fundamental failures in design, execution, or intent. 2: Broken. Barely functional. Should not have been released. 1: Offensive. Actively harmful, exploitative, or morally repugnant.
Elden Ring got a 6 because its strengths (world design, early exploration, combat depth) were genuinely exceptional, but its weaknesses (late-game padding, opaque systems, time demands, emotional toll) were equally significant for me. The score communicates: this is a game of extremes. It might be your 10. It was my 6. Both are valid.
The Mistakes I Made (So You Don’t Have To)
Mistake #1: Writing the review before I’d finished playing. My first Elden Ring draft was written at hour 60, before the late-game decline became apparent. I would have misled readers who trusted my early enthusiasm.
Mistake #2: Using review scores to validate my time investment. The 10/10 draft wasn’t about Elden Ring. It was about me needing to believe that 200 hours was well spent. Sunk cost fallacy makes us inflate scores to protect our ego.
Mistake #3: Writing for the algorithm instead of the reader. Hot takes get engagement. Nuanced reviews get buried. But the readers who find and trust your nuanced reviews become the only audience that matters.
Mistake #4: Ignoring who the review was for. I wrote my first draft for Souls fans who already loved the game. They didn’t need me. I should have written for the curious newcomer who might waste $60 and 100 hours.
Mistake #5: Treating criticism as performance rather than service. Good reviews serve the reader. They inform purchasing decisions. They set expectations. They honor the player’s time and money. Performance reviews serve the writer’s ego and the platform’s metrics.
Real Examples: What This Framework Produces
Elden Ring (6/10):
-
Relationship: Methodical player, limited time, narrative-focused
-
Completion: 200 hours, two playthroughs, all major bosses
-
Specifics: Early open-world design vs. late-game linearity, weapon variety, boss pattern complexity
-
Time audit: 60-80 hours minimum, 100+ typical, no difficulty options, no pause
-
Emotional ledger: Wonder and mastery vs. grinding and obligation
-
Score justification: Exceptional strengths, significant weaknesses, highly audience-dependent
Baldur’s Gate 3 (9/10):
-
Relationship: RPG veteran, values narrative and player agency
-
Completion: 120 hours, one complete playthrough
-
Specifics: Reactive dialogue system, combat tactical depth, character writing quality
-
Time audit: 60-100 hours for main story, 200+ for full exploration, respect for player time via fast travel and quest logging
-
Emotional ledger: Deep satisfaction from meaningful choices, genuine attachment to characters, minimal frustration
-
Score justification: Achieves its ambitious goals with remarkable consistency
Starfield (5/10):
-
Relationship: Bethesda fan, loves exploration and emergent narrative
-
Completion: 80 hours, main quest plus faction lines
-
Specifics: Empty planet design, repetitive dungeon structures, loading screen immersion breaks
-
Time audit: 30+ hours before game reveals its loop, 100+ for completion, significant backtracking
-
Emotional ledger: Brief moments of wonder outweighed by procedural emptiness and inventory management tedium
-
Score justification: Competent but unremarkable, fails to justify its own ambition
Frequently Asked Questions
How do you review games you don’t personally enjoy? By separating execution from preference. I can recognize that Elden Ring is exceptionally well-crafted while acknowledging it doesn’t suit me. The review explains both: what the game does well, and why those strengths didn’t overcome its demands for my specific temperament.
Should you finish every game before reviewing? Ideally, yes, with the honest exhaustion clause. Some games reveal their true nature late. But if a game is actively hostile to your time after 15-20 hours—predatory monetization, broken systems, repetitive padding—disclose your playtime and review based on experience.
How do you handle review embargos and pressure? I accept embargos only if they allow sufficient playtime before publication. I don’t write reviews for games where I haven’t had at least 20 hours of hands-on time. If a publisher pressures for early coverage, I decline. The reader’s trust is worth more than temporary traffic.
What about games with ongoing updates? I review the game as it exists at publication, with a timestamp. For live-service games, I note that my review reflects the launch state and may become outdated. Some publications update reviews; I prefer to write follow-up pieces if a game changes significantly.
How do you deal with backlash from negative reviews of popular games? By being specific, fair, and transparent about my perspective. I don’t attack fans of the game. I explain precisely why it didn’t work for me. Readers who share my preferences find value. Readers who don’t can calibrate: “This reviewer values X and dislikes Y, which is the opposite of me, so I might love this game.”