It's not about "professional" versus "user" review, it's about writing well. When I read any review on the site, including user reviews, I expect a certain level of competence.
- it is much more massive in scales than others
Your review does not say it's more massive in scale than others. What you do say is that it has "scale" because it looks "not bad" and you can control hundred or thousands of troops (which is a good point), even though the lack of fog of war is "sad" and the developers omitted "management and production". But then after saying management was omitted, you say that you command hundreds or thousands of units! How can you command units if it's impossible to manage them? What do you really mean here?
- it has no micromanagement so the player may focus completely on warfare
- this is the first WWII RTS that used cinematic camera feature
- this game allows playing as Germans
Your review does not say any of these things. They would be good things to write about (and the first point would help explain my question about "managing units"). You do say the cinematic camera is the game's one-of-a-kind feature, but that could simply mean that the camera is somehow different from other cinematic cameras. I've played non-RTS WWII strategy games with cinematic cameras, so what you've written in the review does not make me think "this is the only WWII RTS with a cinematic camera". There are also a lot of definitions of what makes a camera "cinematic". Explaining more about it would be useful... and since it sounds like one of the game's strong points, it would help justify the final score. As for the Germans bit, you never say that in the review.
- it offers much space for tactics, there's no only one correct solution to win
This is true of every RTS I've ever played. It's true of every strategy or tactical game in general that I've played. I don't know why you're saying this is special. I suspect that what you mean and what you've written are two different things, or perhaps you just need to explain this point better. Are there multiple goals that can end a mission? Are there multiple worthwhile tactics, as opposed to just one worthwhile tactic? Again, how is this really different from other RTS games?
As for grammar "nuances", here are some of the significant grammar errors you made:
I consider myself an ordinary gamer with interest in shooters
Still however, developers’ simplistic approach doesn’t hurt
Graphics is not bad
Movies between the missions are extremely beautiful, top notch ones
Still some scenes captured are senseless
This is simply unforgettable feeling
The game offers much space for tactics, there’s no.....
OOW is historically correct game
I believe it deserves it, very decent thing
In a review this short, that's a lot of mistakes. And they're more than "nuances".
All reviews posted on the site are open to feedback, whether it's a staff or user review. You're free to say that you "don't bother that my review is too short for you or has grammar nuances", and I'm free to call you out for writing a bad review.
I can understand being defensive when your points are questioned. But to actually say that you don't care if the review was too short and that you don't care about grammar "nuances"? This isn't like you wrote a decent review that I happen to disagree with. You wrote a bad review. You NEED to improve -- dramatically -- if you hope to get anything else posted in the future.
If you really don't care whether people understand or believe your opinions, then you should reconsider whether you're prepared to express those opinions. Not just here, but anywhere in life -- the opinions that matter are the opinions that are explained clearly.
//Zig
