I started to comment, but it went a little long. So here's what I've got.

Let me say right up front that I dig what you do, Anthony Burch. I got something out of Runner, I like the way you frame games in terms of player agency (as a form of analysis), and I enjoy HAWP a whole bunch. I still think you're a really cool guy that does really cool things and I don' t need you to change a thing for me, or even engage this blog personally. That said, I'm not always a fan of your focus on what a given game *can be* over appreciating what a given game *actually is*.

Take your Not-Review of Metro 2033. I would have tried the knife next. But then again, I work in QA.

I get what's up here. Both from what you've written and how Sentry broke it down in the comments. On one hand, I can really appreciate the honesty of that decision to Not-Review. A game that puts a premium on the use of bullets and provides you with a situation that should reasonably result in the economic use of bullets should allow you to sneak up on a guy and bust him in the head with four shotgun rounds and move on. Instead, you get shot in the face for it and die. Frustrating, busted design when you think about it. Makes no sense. Sure.

But, I'll go ahead and say that quitting on a game for a balance issue sounds like you're quitting on a game for not letting you win it your way. Games have rules that run throughout and that's just what you're up against. Even if its a bug or a busted mechanic... that's the rule. If not for rules, why have a game?

Or to put it another way, a game is defined by its rules.



Consider Chess. Look, I think its stupid that the knight, riding the presumably most mobile thing for the era (a horse) can only move in these short, crooked movements, while the rook, whatever the heck that is, can move the entire length of the field. Does he have a teleporter? I dunno. But that's the evident rule of the board: Horses are retarded and Rooks have TARDIS's. You could say Chess is a game that denies its otherwise logical constructs of order and power. You could just as easily walk away from it unhappy with the rules. But you'll similarly be missing whatever someone that invests their time in the web of rules may see in the game.

Do what you will, as you have, and make your honest point about effective/efficient/supportive rulesets. But I'd have to understand anyone willing to plainly call you out on walking off in a huff because a game isn't what you suspect it could be. 'Cuz, I've got to say, that's kinda what you're doing.

If its busted, call it busted and score it. If you've made that determination without completing the game, sure, call it busted and score it. You can walk out on a movie and review it, I think that's fine for games too, right? If you feel compelled to see a game to its narrative end, sure, go for it. As someone very plainly stated in the comments 'bump it down to easy". I've done that as a consumer. But stopping short, and throwing your hands up? You might as well just follow procedure and add your lot to the local and global record of opinion. Your non-review has the same effect as a low score. It just doesn't hit meta critic. And if D-Toid is still pressing its edict of a true 10 point scale of opinion, I think its worth following through, one way or another, and adding your voice to this game's rap sheet.