Do you need to complete a game to review it?

My relationship with video game reviews has evolved over the years. After publishing them every week to then stopping completely, I now exist somewhere in the middle where I write them whenever the mood takes me or there’s an obligation to do so.

At the time of drafting this post, I’m trying to complete an upcoming title for which the developer kindly sent me a key. I don’t accept them as frequently as I used to and don’t look at all those I receive, because I’ve learnt it’s important to play video games for playing’s sake and there’s no point in slogging through something which isn’t your cup of tea. I now take review keys for point-and-clicks and narrative release only, as it’s more likely I’ll find something I’ll enjoy if I stick to my preferred genres.

This should be the case with this current game. The forty minutes I spent with a demo during one of the Steam Game Festivals last year showed promise of a sweet adventure with an interesting storyline and logical puzzles. The thing is though, I’m stuck. I’ve been searching for an object or what I need to make it for over two hours now and I have no idea what else to try. Although I don’t have a problem with checking a walkthrough when I need to, none have been published so far as the title hasn’t yet been released.

Sure, I could get in touch with the developer and ask for a hint, but it doesn’t feel entirely right to do so and I’m struggling to put my finger on why. Maybe it’s to do with pride? I’d feel embarrassed if their response pointed towards an obvious solution that I’d overlooked. The game is due to come out in two days’ time so it’s unlikely I’ll be able to finish and write a post about it before then – and it’s this situation that made me start thinking about whether you need to fully complete a release to be able to review it.

The default answer on many forums is ‘yes’ but commentors seem to have a range of opinions when it comes to the definition of ‘finishing’. Does it mean experiencing every possible bit of content within a title? Do you need to go for 100% completion or just get through the central storyline? What about games like Minecraft where no such thing exists, or The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim where the main quest-line is only a fraction of the whole? And what about those releases where certain content is optional?

Although I’m not sure I can give a definitive answer, I certainly think there’s a line. For example, there’s no way you could play an hour of something like Horizon Zero Dawn and then be knowledgeable enough to write a full critique. The reviewer needs to at least get to a point where they feel confident in saying they understand what the title is trying to do and the message it’s attempting to convey, but even this doesn’t account for unforeseen plot-twists or mechanic changes that appear late in the game.

Maybe it’s more appropriate to publish a review about an unfinished release when it’s light on narrative and focused on gameplay? Let’s consider a simple example. I shared my thoughts on colouring-by-numbers title Coloring Pixels in September 2019 after completing several of the images. It didn’t feel necessary to wait until I’d finished all those available back then because, once I’d had my fill of clicking, the only thing that was going to change was the size of the pictures.

But adventure games are different and more complex. It’s impossible to properly critique a release which concentrates on narrative when you haven’t witnessed how the entire storyline unfolds; and there’s always the possibility of a bad puzzle right at the end which spoils the whole experience. But what about choice-based entries in the genre where the conclusion depends on your decisions? Do you have to keep replaying until you’ve seen all of them or will just once suffice for review purposes?

As a general principle, I’ve always set out to complete at least the main storyline in a game before writing about it. And in those situations where it isn’t yet available to the public or I’ve played only the demo, I’ll classify the post as a preview so there’s a boundary and readers know what to expect. But what about those titles I really don’t enjoy and can’t bring myself to finish, yet still want to write about? Should I force myself to continue with them even if I’m bored or frustrated?

My immediate answer is ‘no’. There’s absolutely no sense in wasting your precious free hours on something which isn’t entertaining. Although my review policy explains that I usually choose not to cover games I haven’t enjoyed, if there did happen to be one at some point, the post would make it clear that I hadn’t reached the end and go over the reasons why. This behaviour is something I’d respect from other bloggers too – but would I feel the same if it were a journalist?

blogging, laptop, hands, keyboard

On one hand, I think it’s important to take a step back and remember that people who review video games for a living are just like us. They have adult responsibilities, family commitments and conflicting priorities at work, and having to slog through a terrible release is soul-destroying for anyone. But on the other, journalists are paid for their content. I’m expected to complete projects fully as part of my job so shouldn’t they have to finish releases in their entirety before reviewing them?

Even after spending the afternoon writing this discussion, I’m still no clearer on where I stand on this subject and can’t give a definitive answer to most of the questions raised here. I guess it depends on what the release is, why you’re reviewing it, whether you received it from a developer or purchased it yourself, how much free time you have available and a whole bunch of other factors. What do you think: do you need to complete a game to be able to review it?

As for the title I’m playing right now, I’d like to finish it before publishing my post. The developer was kind enough to send me a review key and I’d like to show them the same respect by completing their project and doing it justice. There’s only two days to go now until it’s released. Hopefully someone will publish a walkthrough straight away and I can finally find that damn object.

45 thoughts on “Do you need to complete a game to review it?

  1. Generally, I would say it’s preferred to play the game to completion, but there is a grey area of what that might qualify as, and it’s not always possible to do so anyway. I agree with beating the main story, but in the case of some 80 hour RPG, for instance, that would be difficult to do in a timely manner. I’d say in cases like that, you would have the “gist” of the game in far less time and would be ok to review it. Like most things, each game needs to be handled a little differently.

    Liked by 2 people

    • As someone who sticks to shorter games nowadays, I can’t imagine having to play long RPGs and critique them for a living. I tend to dip into and out of such releases as the desire strikes but I’m not sure I ever play enough to feel I was able to review them. Like you said though, it’s to understand the gist of a longer game without necessarily completing every single part of it – so I guess the most important thing is to be honest in your writing and explain how far you got.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. However do people review MMOs or games with no ending then? Of course it’s possible to review games before fully completing them. The big question is, how much stock should readers put in a review that has only seen 1/10th, or 1/5th or 3/4th of what a game has to offer?

    Personally, I think it’s about full disclosure by the reviewer and how comprehensive the review aims to be. If it wants to come across as speaking for the complete game experience as an overall package, then yes, one would expect a reviewer to have completed the game in order to sum it up from head to tail. If it’s about the general gameplay loop and say, the first couple hours of experience, one should be able to get a feel for that quite quickly for most normal games that don’t do a bait-and-switch.

    The most egregious reviews are those where the reviewer has barely played for an hour or two, patently missed significant portions of the game and yet purport to speak for the entire game experience comprehensively. The whole review winds up reading like the reviewer should have egg on their faces, but somehow the review still gets published anyway. Heck, sometimes those incomplete reviews garner more reader comments and feedback than ‘properly’ written ones, so… seems almost counter-productive to spend effort fully completing a game, if one is rewarded more for eliciting reactions.


    • Although I’m still not sure I could say how much of a game should really be played before a review is written, I totally agree with your point on disclosure. I’ve come across articles on a few sites recently where the author has implied they’ve completed an entire release – but it seems very difficult for them to have done so in the time available, or they’ve missed a key point, or their final opinion seems to be basically what an internet search has told them. I’d rather read an article written by someone who hasn’t finished a game and has been honest about it, than a person whose words I feel I have to take with a pinch of salt.


  3. I would say it’s alright if you haven’t completed the game or reached the end of the main storyline quest (for those big RPG titles). Many reviewers don’t. I watch Jake Baldino a fair bit and even he admits to not always finishing a game before reviewing.

    I think it’s important to put many hours into it so you have a grasp of the mechanics, the game world, audio and plot so that you can cover the main areas of the game’s review, but you don’t need to go into detail about the end. Readers don’t read reviews to hear about the last few hours of the game.

    IGN are guilty of not even getting the basics right though, they don’t seem to put much time into the early-to-mid sections of a game and gloss over a lot of the basics that viewers/readers are there to get from the review.


    • I have to admit, I stopped regularly visiting sites like IGN a long time ago as I just don’t like their content. I’d much rather read what someone who hasn’t been paid to play a game has to say about it and understand how the experience made them ‘feel’, rather than a journalist writing for views or following a format given to them by an editor. 😕

      The articles from the blogs I follow here are much more interesting!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Transparency is more important than completion, I think. Without a disclosure statement to the contrary, I tend to assume games are played to completion by the reviewer. If it becomes clear they have *not* done so and yet not made any commentary on this fact, it is then that I lose faith in that particular reviewer.

    How disclosure could be made is myriad depending on the circumstance, from, ‘I haven’t played to end credits, but here are my experiences with the first xx hours’ through to, ‘I completed the singleplayer experience but am yet to so much as dip my toes into the online portion’ (or the opposite!) and everything in between. Putting this earlier rather than later in the review is probably preferable too, just so that if someone is looking for a particular section to be reviewed they can tell whether or not your review will do the trick for them before they potentially waste time going through.

    But otherwise?

    As long as the disclosure is there?

    I think a review without completion is every bit as valid and can absolutely hold value to people.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think you make a great point there about reviewers. Regardless of whether it’s a friend, blogger or professional journalist, you need to find someone whose opinions you feel you can trust. For me, it helps if they like the same kind of games I do and we’ve had similar points-of-view about past releases; that makes me feel more confident I can believe in their words about titles I haven’t played yet.

      I’d much rather have that, than read an article by someone simply because ‘they’ve finished the game’.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I think this is a tricky one. I’ve been thinking along the same lines when I’ve been beta testing games – I don’t always have time to play through the whole game, but what if I miss something important? Or what if I comment on something that is rectified or clarified later in the game? I run into the same problems in terms of there being no walkthrough – and I too feel embarrassed asking the dev for help, haha.

    Like you say, it does depend on the genre a bit though. If you can garner a taste of what the game is, then it probably doesn’t matter too much. But ideally a review would be based on the whole game.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m glad I’m not the only one who can make that confession about walkthroughs ha ha! I always feel as though it’s going to be something obvious that I’ve missed and then get too embarrassed to ask the developer for help. 😅

      In terms of the sort of adventure games we play, I generally think it’s best to finish an entire release before reviewing it. That’s usually because of the story more so than the puzzles. How highly I rate a game has a lot to do with its narrative so it’s important for me to experience how it ends – what if there’s a plot-twist or a major reveal I haven’t seen, or something that makes the whole story fall flat? There could be something you don’t see that turns your entire review on its head.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Like most people here said, transparency and honesty are probably more important than completion. However, I’d say that it depends not only on the (type of) game, but on your review as well. If the review is generally positive and you’d recommend people to buy the game, then not having it finished seems weird to me. Why would the reviewer tell me to buy the game if she couldn’t even be bothered finishing the main story?

    Still, for a “proper” review, I’d say the bare minimum is to 1) Finish the main storyline, 2) Get comfortable with all major mechanics and areas, and 3) At least inform yourself about what else there would have been to experience.

    (1) is pretty self-explanatory. The main storyline is what the game is about, the core message will be conveyed here, and the adventure will be over (for better or for worse). Even though most games’ endings won’t completely change how you see the experience (save for a few exceptions), I still think we should give every game the chance to surprise us. Also, playing through the story at least once will probably take you through the major mechanics and it is a clearly defined point.

    (2) will be “completed” along with (1) for many games, as the main story will show you everything you need. But, as you mentioned, some games are open-ended, and I think this is a good way to tackle this issue. By “getting comfortable” I mean that you have experienced with them long enough to be able to formulate a well-structured opinion about that part of the game. If someone asks you “What’s your take on Diplomacy in Civilization V?”, you shouldn’t have to say “Uhm, I dunno, I always killed everyone.” Similarly, when asked about the final bossfight in Doom (which correlates with point 1) or the different biomes in Subnautica, you should have experienced them first-hand, in my opinion.
    Notice that I said “major” areas and mechanics. If there’s one tiny sidequest where stealth is required, or a secret area that can only be accessed by defeating three random enemies while your keyboard is unplugged, I see no need to bend over backwards to include that in the review. That being said, you know that I still would do that 🙂

    However, (2) goes a bit deeper than that. Can you review Dark Souls if you’ve never used magic abilities? Can you review WoW, if you’ve only ever played one class/faction/role? I’d say “no”. But I’d also say that you wouldn’t need to play through the whole game again using another playstyle, just enough to understand how the mechanics work and to get a feel how the game changes based on it.

    Finally, (3) is to give you more insight into the game. Let’s say you found 3 secrets during your playthrough. Were those the majority or is the game riddled with easter eggs, secret locations and funny shout-outs? Do the sidequests tie into the main story or are they simply there to stretch out play time? Is the game really that difficult or did you misunderstand/misuse certain concepts? You can’t know with a “limited” playtime, but the “quality” of this information does not change if you simply read it up on the Internet. These things probably won’t take up entire paragraphs in your review, but people might still want to know about them.

    With all that being said, we all know that the only way to review a game is to play through it three times, with all characters from the beginning, 100%ing them with each one, only to do it again after a year to understand how your perception has changed over time 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    • As always, you make a whole lot of very good points here! I know the last paragraph was a joke but it’s something to think about: how many times do you have to play a game to consider it ‘complete’?

      I’m not sure I could face having to do multiple playthroughs for a review. I’m usually a once-and-done kind of gamer because I’m too eager to move on to the next story, so the thought of having to start a release again from the beginning straight away kind of terrifies me. 😅

      Liked by 1 person

      • Truth be told, I was only half joking in the last paragraph. Normally, I’m a once-and-done guy as well, but lately, I have been replaying a few games, and with most of them, I found either an even deeper appreciation for the stuff I liked the first time around, or I noticed some annoyances a bit stronger than when I was distracted by other things.

        WIth every replay, I also have a lot more comparisons to other games, to see how well they did things in relation to the medium as a whole.

        Then again, whenever I replay the Splinter Cell series, I still find new things to do, new ways to complete the missions, and fun new stuff to try out. I imagine that it is with a lot of systemic driven games, like Hitman (which I mention here because Frosti wrote a post about it a few days ago), it can be the same. Sure, you can complete a mission once, but most of the time there are about 8 different ways to do it, not including the run&gun approach.

        Finally, I have noticed that replaying a game also holds value in the narrative department. When you play a game for the first time, you experience the story in the way the devs want you to, with all twists being new, and all characters being freshly introduced.
        However, when you start a game, well knowing who will betray whom, you have a whole new perspective on the happenings. You can evaluate people’s reasons for doing what they do, you can find that you emphasise more (or less) with certain characters, and maybe you’ll even discover a few hidden meanings in certain events, that you would have missed the first time.

        Of course, all of these things are not necessary for reviewing a game, and are more suited towards having fun. Still, I have found new enjoyment in replaying games, something I didn’t think I’d do, so maybe it can/will happen for you too 🙂


        • There’s a certain element of patience which comes with replaying games, something I’m just not great with ha ha! But multiple playthroughs make for more detailed reviews and you’re getting fun from it too, so it sounds like a win-win situation to me. 😉


  7. I decided a long time ago that the answer is “no”, but still haven’t published a review for a game I haven’t finished.

    For me the important determining factor in “can I review this” comes from if I feel the game has anything left for me. If the game is out of surprises and I’m comfortable with what it’s been laying down then I don’t see a need to complete it. So very many games don’t meaningfully evolve beyond the first several hours so once you become comfortable with the core mechanics you’re probably set.

    There is always a risk of the game changing toward then end with this approach though. As other’s noted it’d be important to properly convey where you were at when you tackled the review to the reading audience so they have a feel for what’s going on.

    And as Quietschisto pointed out: I will never recommend a game unless I finished it. If a game is truly worth someone else’s time then it had better be worth my time. If I couldn’t bring myself to finish an experience then that’s an automatic nope from me.

    Liked by 2 people

    • So being devil’s advocate here: you mention mechanics but not narrative. If the gameplay doesn’t evolve but you don’t know how the story ends, are you still able to review a release properly? What if something happens towards the end that you don’t see, but could potentially turn your opinion of the plot upside down?

      I’m totally get what you mean though so that’s just an attempt at furthering discussion! 😉

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’d say yes. If you’ve gotten to a point in the game where the story has come to a crawl and isn’t meaningfully progressing than that should be a huge mark against a title that is narratively driven. You’re still playing a game so pacing and engagement are still factors even if it’s narratively focused. If the narrative can’t keep you motivated to play then that speaks volumes.

        The amount that I’m surprised by games story wise happens so infrequently that I wouldn’t be bothered by a twist. There are so many games that are afraid of leaving any player behind and they never leave anything to the imagination with incredibly on the nose story-telling. This, more often than not, leads to me seeing twists in the road well before they come up. I feel like meaningful twists are more of an edge case than the norm.

        However, let me ask a question in return: what’s more important – the journey or the destination? If you are miserable playing through 90% of a game, but it has some amazing unexpected twist toward the end that changes everything are you going to come out here and tell us all that the game was amazing?


        • Me personally: no. But because it’s the narrative element of gaming I enjoy the most, the story is important for me and a good one can net a few extra points for a release that’s lacking in gameplay. I’d like to think I’m open about that preference, not just in reviews but in all posts, so others know where I’m coming from.

          There are games I adore for their story but am well aware how limited the gameplay is – for example, To The Moon and its sequel. Then there are others where the gameplay is enjoyable but I’m just don’t dig the characters or the plot – Syberia is one that springs to mind.

          Have you ever played Virginia? I’d be curious to see what you’d make of it, after your comment above. 😉

          Liked by 1 person

          • I haven’t.

            I’m sure this will come as no surprise, but getting me to play narratively focused titles is a bit like pulling teeth. There have been very few games that have a strong enough story hook to keep me going without something in the gameplay department to also keep me going. I think What Remains of Edith Finch and Brothers a Tale of Two Sons are two of the only more narratively focused games that I’ve enjoyed and that was only because the developers had a very good understanding of how to use and tell their story partly through the mechanics of both of those games.

            Is Virginia one I should look into?


            • Probably not… to be honest, there’s a good chance you’d hate it! It inspired a lot of discussion when it was released because of its story and the way it tells it so I’d be curious to see what you made of it. But I can imagine that the words ‘trash’, ‘piece of s**t’ and expletives would feature so it might be better to stay away. 😉

              Liked by 1 person

  8. I think it’s best to complete the main story of a game before reviewing it — 100% completion should never be the standard unless you’re writing a 100% completion guide or something like that. However, I think there are cases in which you’d be justified in not finishing it before writing about it — for example, if gameplay flaws prevented you from finishing it, maybe if it’s broken or unreasonably grindy (though of course people have different definitions of “reasonable” in that context.) In that case, I think it’s fine to just be transparent about dropping it and why you did, since that can inform other potential players about what to expect.

    It’s not unreasonable to expect a higher standard from paid journalist as well, I agree with that. Even if they sometimes don’t live up to that higher standard. I put more trust in amateur/unpaid reviewers doing this stuff as a hobby, honestly, though maybe I’m biased because I’m one of them myself.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Maybe being one of them yourself is a good thing? You know how much effort and thought goes into one of your reviews, so it’s understandable you’d assume other bloggers do the same and would therefore be able to trust their words. It’s very rare that I read reviews by paid journalists nowadays – I’m more likely to seek out the opinions of the people I’ve made here, thanks to the friendships formed and the good recommendations I’ve received in the past. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Like you said, I think it depends on the type of game. And I think if you use a disclaimer or explain in a review how or why you approached it, then your readers’ expectations will be set right.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I don’t have much to add as it would mostly be along the same lines as everyone else – “yes, if…” or “no, but…”.

    I tend to focus more on gameplay mechanics, overall atmosphere and my general feelings while playing than breaking down a game’s story, so while I always intend to be as thorough as possible, I shouldn’t agonize over it if I don’t completely finish it. I always try to preface any piece on a specific game by pointing out these are my current impressions, rather than using the word “review” as my feelings often evolve on games(as with most things) over time….

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yeah, that totally makes sense. My feelings towards a game usually hinge on its narrative and how I react to a story often has a lot to do with what’s going on around me and in the world at the time. I might enjoy a game when I played it… but then a year later, not be able to recall what was so great about it. That could just be me getting old though. 🤔

      Liked by 1 person

  11. I personally always choose to complete a game before I write a review, or at the very least beat a game. I always have the intention to beat/complete a game so that helps. But for me personally, the most important thing to do before writing a review is to have seen everything the game has to offer for someone who is looking to play through the game casually. Taking Skyrim as an example, I doubt many people will care about getting all levels to the max, slaying legendary dragons and doing every sidequest, but instead just how fun it feels to explore the world of Skyrim and if the main quest is consistent. Games like Pokémon require the entire Pokedex for completion, but most people would just want to know how fun the main game is. If people want to complete the game afterwards, that’s usually due to them wanting to actually complete the game themselves.

    But that’s also why I have a ”before you read” section in my reviews. Some games have an excellent main story, but I just couldn’t be bothered to grind for the post-game dungeon. I put that on top of my review so people know beforehand that the review they’ll be reading will be exclusively focussed on the main game. The best of both worlds I’d say 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I don’t review games so I don’t really have anything professional to add to the discussion. Gonna take a stab at it because I like babbling at you though!

    I’m leaning towards no it’s not necessary to finish a game before reviewing it. If the reviewer feels they’ve seen enough of the game to offer their opinion on it, they should go for it! For many reviewers with most games, I think they do actually need to finish the game before they reach that point where they’re comfortable reviewing it. Also, if someone quits a game I’d accept a review from them explaining why they gave up on it and all that.

    In your example, you hit a dead end in the game which you could talk about in your review. That’s your personal experience with it, your opinion about the game, and that’s entirely valid to write about. I prefer reading reviews that are from the gamer’s heart and not so much picking apart the cold technical details about a game, if that makes sense. If everyone wrote their reviews the same way it’d be so freaking boring…

    I guess as long as a review is more than “this g4me sux n00bs!!” or “ur not a gamr if you don’t play it!!11” I enjoy reading it 😆

    Liked by 2 people

    • I think it’s that ‘personal experience’ element which makes me prefer blog posts than professional reviews. They come across as more natural that the majority of those published on the big gaming websites and for me, that makes them easier to trust. I’ve had so many good recommendations from other bloggers so why wouldn’t I want more of them? 😀

      Your last line in that comment… you sure you don’t want to start writing reviews for blogz0rz?

      Liked by 1 person

  13. The best answer I can give for this is “It depends,” and it’s the same way I feel about books. I’ve reviewed games I haven’t finished, but I make sure to say I haven’t finished them or, in some cases, even played them if I watched a Let’s Play. In the latter case I can speak to the narrative, but not the gameplay unless I played a little bit of it so can have an informed opinion. If you didn’t finish it for a specific reason, you can explain that in your review, because the insight will still be helpful for some. I’ve neve finished Final Fantasy VII myself, but it’s literally my favorite narrative and I never shut up about it, so I think reviewing things you haven’t finished it totally valid, and, as I initially said, depends on the circumstances!

    Liked by 1 person

    • The general feeling from everyone I’ve chatted to seems to be that it’s more important to be honest in your reviews – and say which parts of a game you didn’t complete – rather than to finish every single part of it. I guess it’s all about having trust in the author. I’d much rather read an article written by someone I like and who can explain how a game has made them feel, than someone who mechanically dissects every aspect of a game, if that makes sense!

      Liked by 1 person

      • I completely agree with that and I try to live by that code hehe. I’ll disclose how I experienced the game and how far I got if I didn’t finish or didn’t do 100% completion. That way the reader can take what I say with a grain of salt.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. Generally speaking I prefer reviews from people who have cometed games, however thats not to say people who don’t complete them write worse reviews. For example, negative reviews of games from people who couldn’t bring themselves to finish or who simply found it wasn’t their type of game in spite of its merits are okay, I think. Depends on the reviewers experience and if they are upfront about not completing it.


  15. I feel people who are being paid to write a review should have completed the game before writing (it’s part of their job). I’m not paid for what I write and mainly write for myself so I can look back and see what I played and enjoyed. So far I have only written reviews for games I’ve finished (except Spiritfarer as I can’t bring myself to do the final task yet, but it’s there ready and waiting). When I read reviews on WordPress I find it helpful to know if the person completed the game, but I don’t mind if they have or not.

    I’ve been mainly playing shorter narrative or puzzle games recently. But I also like longer open ended games where the end point is harder to classify, particularly Stardew Valley – I’ve got to the end of year 2 (which has a feeling of closure) but then the creator released more content, so have I finished or not? What if more content gets released?

    I’ve also come from writing about boardgames which are much more self-contained unless it is a campaign game. Though they have a different question, how many times should you play a boardgame before you can review it?


    • I hadn’t considered board games while writing this post but you make a very good point: if you must complete something before reviewing it, how many times counts as ‘completed’? And does that even matter, if the author has been honest about how much they’ve played and you feel you can trust their opinion?

      It’s interesting how many bloggers see their posts not as reviews, but more as a diary of what they’ve played and how a certain game has made them feel. I like that – it’s much more personal than professional reviews.


  16. Pingback: Month in Review – March – Frostilyte Writes

Join the discussion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.