Everyone's a fucking editor..

Ok, so my Rise of The Argonauts review is up.
http://www.gamersdigest.net/1826/review-rise-of-the-argonauts/

Took me two days to write the first version. That was about 2000 words. Then it took another two weeks to eventually get it down to 1600 words.

Personally, I'm not sure if there's a particular point readers will start to snore and click away on something else. I've read reviews on 500 words that bored me to tears - but I managed to get through it because it was so short. And I've read large treatises on games like Planscape Torment and stopping naturally on the paragraphs to think a little bit before going on.

Should you really aim for short reviews like that, because your readers tend to struggle through a review in the first place?

You could maybe defend a large review if the game is entirely useless to people who can't hold their concentration for more than three seconds at a time as well.. so why cut it down?

I mean, reviews are more and more like complicated versions of "I like it, and so should you" commercials already. But is that what people actually want every time they read a review?

Sort of wonder how a book or a film- review like that would look: "yeah, and lots of interesting characters, but they fail and shit - junky directing, I don't like it. [insert witty retort directed at imaginary detractor]".

Well.. So I ended up rewriting a lot of it. And it probably became better in the end. *sigh*. Or maybe not - I posted the full review on Honestgamers under PS3 reviews. If it gets approved:

http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/game.php?console_id=59&game_id=35225