Please send this post to the Trash Can.

Probably because people rarely shy away from the 6 category format (Graphics, Sound, Addictiveness, Depth, Story, Difficulty).

I've seen plenty of reviews in the past where users try something creative and get told by others that "next time splitting it into categories would be a good idea". And while I don't necessarily disagree with this I do think it might scare some people away from creative writing.

I personally like to talk about gameplay elements before getting into other sections of the review (take this review of mine for example).

I do 100% agree on the titles though. I always try and make mine have a name pun in them or have some fun references to the game in question. With the one I linked before I kind of struggled to find something so I just thought back of the time I had spent playing it with friends the day prior, and I felt like that title summed up the experience perfectly for me.

I personally don't really care about GameFAQs, cool that it exists I guess but I see no use comparing the two sites and their content seeing how reviews over there are regulated for their content, structure, etc. when over here you can write them however you want. To each their own preference I guess.

Furret : As for the six category format, that's just plain stupid, lazy, and cheap. Heck, I only use a custom five category format; Gameplay, Difficulty, Graphics, Sound/Audio, and Story. I rarely change it up, though, like in my review for Corpse Party 3DS (https://www.vizzed.com/boards/thread.php?id=102170). I brought up GameFAQS because the reviews there are top-quality and I thought the people here could learn a thing or two from the reviews there. Even they don't have a specific way of writing their reviews, by the way.

Also, I read your review, and while it's good by Vizzed standards, you should seriously have Gameplay categorized like the other six categories. It only makes sense. I could nag on about other gameplay aspects you could have mentioned (like how in New Super Mario Bros. Wii, you can Ground Pound, spin-hover in the air for a tiny bit, etc.), but that's not the main issue here. And before you get the wrong idea, it is a fine review.

Actually I've used the normal 6 categories, but I always add extra categories just so I can talk about more features the specific game has or what's different from other games in its series, whether it's a remake, that kind of thing. I always add in a gameplay section as well as a Controls and Camera section. I even sometimes give some insight to the story like the background story line, sometimes facts about the pay and how it's grossed over the years. It's just a preference some people add that stuff in some don't.

For me, the gameplay ties into the addictiveness category of the review. I feel like the controls and design of the game has a whole lot to do with how likely I am to recommend this game to others or how much I enjoy playing it. If a game is designed well it has highly addictive gameplay, if the gameplay and design isn't much fun or difficult, the game has a type of gameplay that isn't very addicting.

While I do stay true to the six categories, I tend to add a note at the end remarking the most positive and negative aspects of a game. That's where I'd make direct mentions to the gameplay, should there be any.

I've basically treated gameplay as part of the difficulty category. If controls are hard, it is here where I should mention it. Sometimes graphics are also responsible for offering a wrong gaming experience, but overall I'd group it more with difficulty.

And well, GameFAQS is top-notch indeed. I write guides there as well, and the format they allow me to use is simply amazing. Plus, they have a much bigger community, so they've surely evolved over the years into the almost-perfection they're now.

Also, totally agree with the names. I've always tried to give them original titles, though there was a time I struggled to come up with them.

I feel like you could discuss depth and addiction in the same category. There are some finer details, but generally, the game has stuff for you to do, you keep wanting to do it. If there's a specific reason any aspect in question keeps you hooked,

GAMEPLAY SEGMENT

So yeah, I'd definitely like to see the review system revamped a bit. Even if it has been like this since time immemorium. This isn't a re-inventing the wheel process.

Mecha Leo : You are so correct about discussing depth and addictiveness in the Gameplay segment, though I personally wouldn't mention either depth or addictiveness unless it's a game with A LOT of depth like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Anyway, you've seen my review for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 4: Turtles in Time on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (https://www.vizzed.com/boards/thread.php?id=102161). That review had a Gameplay section just like for Graphics and Sound/Audio, and that's what I'm kindly asking everyone else on Vizzed to do with their reviews. You don't explain gameplay in Depth or Addictiveness, you simply just give it it's own category - simple as that. And yes, the review system should be revamped to include Gameplay because I can't stress enough how important it is to explain gameplay in a video game review.