Quote:
Originally Posted by SnorkleCat
I concur...doing that is tantamount to saying "Our product is a derivative, unoriginal, and hackneyed copy of something you may have enjoyed in the past and we'd like to cash in on that!!"
|
..or as I like to put it: "
It's exactly like everything you've ever played... but better! 
Okay, that was off-topic. Back to phrases.
Two words that get on my nerves when overused in reviews: "
solid" and "
flawed". Explain to me what "solid" means in the context of a game. That it's on a nice, sturdy disc that won't crack in half? Okay, too literal. That it's not riddled with bugs, maybe? Big deal- it's only an issue if it's
not there. That the gameplay won't drive you crazy? Ditto. And "flawed"- what's that supposed to mean? If it's talking about not achieving what it set out to achieve, then why is it used so often for cases which just don't satisfy the critic's personal preferences? Why do I have to hear critics call a game "flawed" for not including voice acting, or the latest in a long-standing series "flawed" for not reinventing the wheel? Not every personal disappointment is a flaw. And even if there
were a genuine flaw, the only one who would really know in most cases is the creator himself, since no one else knows so precisely what he was going for as to identify such a flaw.
