- Don't make ASSUMPTIONS about development. Feel free to provide POSSIBILITIES, as long as you aren't talking out your ass, but don't present them as definitive explanations or justifications. Don't use invented development issues, which are only *possibilities*, as defense of bad design. Once it's a final product, problems are problems, even if they're understandable. Don't be so sympathetic.
- In Crash 1, the physics *were bad*. They were not *necessarily* hard to program - I know nothing about the programming process of Crash's physics - but they were *definitely* poor. Analyze what's readily apparent. Don't make unsubstantiated claims, about development OR otherwise.
- On the other hand, be sure to consider the INTENT of the developers. Is this aspect of the design actually executed poorly, or have the developers simply prioritized an aspect of the design that doesn't interest you personally, or considered something you haven't?
- Give EVIDENCE for EVERY claim.
- Don't make assumptions about others' experiences, use specific personal anecdotes.
- Don't be nice to a game just because people like it.
- What makes an element trivial or difficult? Don't dismiss stuff - go in-depth on everything or don't bring it up at all.
- ALWAYS try to give constructive ideas as to how a bad aspect of a game could have been done better, preferably with contemporary examples that didn't have the benefit of hindsight. This requires you to ARGUE WITH YOURSELF.
RAW Paste Data