Bringing in Another Side to Reviews – How Do We Compare the Average Player’s Opinion?

You may have read some of those reviews where a game may be praised for its innovative ludonarrative harmony while ignoring the fact that the menus can be a nightmare to navigate. For the past few months, I approached games like a mad scientist in a lab coat and dissected titles from the eyes of a professional critic. Let me be honest: that’s not how most of us actually play. Starting today, we will be putting down the abrasive tones that have accompanied my past reviews and picking up the controller as a fan first.

There’s a growing gap between what critics love and what players actually enjoy. A game can be a technical masterpiece and still be boring to play after 20 minutes. I realized that by reviewing titles strictly through a professional lens, several readers realized I was missing the most important question: How would this resonate with the average player? From here on out, we will change the way we look at the games I cover.

I cover a lot of indie titles, particularly fangames. They are made on a much smaller scale and don’t match the style of AAA titles that most critics expect. In some cases, a player may like it, but a critic might not. By bridging the gap between a high-level critique and everyday gameplay, we hope to provide a more honest look at the titles either side may love. The problem is some of these developers are technical demos or school projects, and while the people who program them are just starting out, my abrasive tone may prove too intense for them. Heck, some may have no ability to tolerate criticism!

What is the “Average Player”?

Before we dive into the numbers, we need to talk about what an average player actually is. In the context of a review, the average player isn’t someone looking to speedrun a game or dissect its source code. They are typically time-crunched, value-oriented, experience-driven, and accessible. The average gamer has a job or is enrolled in school where they only have a few hours a week outside of study or work time to play. They only play when a game is worth a download or price tag, or care about the vibe and fun factor more than technical perfection or complex ludonarrative concepts.

To make a review easy to read at a glance, there will be a dual metric system. Every title will be measured against two distinct standards:

• The Critic’s Lens focuses on technical and creative polish, original mechanics, sound design, and narrative cohesion.
• The Player’s Heart focuses on the engagement and fun factors, replayability, learning curve, and how it feels just to play.

By showing the two side by side, you can decide which side of the fence you sit on. A game may get a lower critic score for being a bit buggy or unpolished, but a high player score because it’s just plain fun to experience. The table below shows all the games we have reviewed, which includes the original Critic’s Lens and the new Player’s Heart (out of a scale of 10).

Game	Critic’s Lens	Player’s Heart
PacMan Survivors	1.5	5
Touhou Lensed Night Sky, Kaseigai	7.5	9
Tewi Jumps Off a Mountain and Dies	2 (first) 4 (second)	5
Mizuchi Takeover	6	7
Touhou Beastly Territorial Game	7	8
Touhou: Lost Fragment of Aether	8	9
Sakuya’s Spring Cleaning	8	9
Legend of the Demon God’s Heart	4	6
DreamEscape	4	6

The Goal is Support and Not Destruction

We want to be clear: changing the tone doesn’t mean we will go easy on games. We’re changing how that feedback is delivered. Many of the titles are passion projects, technical demos, or the very first steps of a new developer’s journey. An abrasive one can shut down a creator’s drive before they’ve even had a chance to improve. By balancing the Critic’s Lens with the Player’s Heart, this will result in constructive feedback that helps developers grow while telling players exactly what kind of fun they can expect to have.

Starting with the next review, this dual-metric system will be in full action. You can expect more focus on how a game actually handles on a Steam Deck or keyboard, an assessment of whether the title is worth the time commitment for a busy person, and identifying what is broken, but also offering a vision for what it could become.

At the end of the day, would you find yourself agreeing more with critics or often find hidden gems that the pros seem to hate? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.