Ruby Radio

Listen and fall in Love

How To Write A Critical Review Of A Journal Article?

How To Write A Critical Review Of A Journal Article
Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article

  1. Start Here.
  2. Analyzing the Text. Identify how and why the research was carried out. Establish the research context. Evaluate the research. Establish the significance of the research.
  3. Writing Your Critique.

How do you write a critical review of an article?

Critique – The critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths, weakness and notable features of the text. Remember to base your discussion on specific criteria. Good reviews also include other sources to support your evaluation (remember to reference). You can choose how to sequence your critique. Here are some examples to get you started:

  • Most important to least important conclusions you make about the text.
  • If your critique is more positive than negative, then present the negative points first and the positive last.
  • If your critique is more negative than positive, then present the positive points first and the negative last.
  • If there are both strengths and weakness for each criterion you use, you need to decide overall what your judgement is. For example, you may want to comment on a key idea in the text and have both positive and negative comments. You could begin by stating what is good about the idea and then concede and explain how it is limited in some way. While this example shows a mixed evaluation, overall you are probably being more negative than positive.
  • In long reviews, you can address each criterion you choose in a paragraph, including both negative and positive points. For very short critical reviews (one page or less), where your comments will be briefer, include a paragraph of positive aspects and another of negative.
  • You can also include recommendations for how the text can be improved in terms of ideas, research approach; theories or frameworks used can also be included in the critique section.

How to write a critical analysis of a journal article example?

Analysis –

  1. State what you like and what you do not like about the article or a news report in a critical way.
  2. Explain your own ideas by offering specific examples from an actual article, a news report or a book.
  3. Next, you have to state and explain whether the author has achieved his or her intentions and goals or not.

You have to use analysis to see whether an original journal article or a paper is focused, clear, unbiased, informative, and persuasive enough. Another important point to check is whether an article directs to appropriate and specific audience and if it really meets intentions and a purpose. Check for correct conclusions and summing up of a research being done.

What is critical review of research articles?

Research Guides What is a Critical Review of a Journal Article? A critical review of a journal article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of an article’s ideas and content. It provides description, analysis and interpretation that allow readers to assess the article’s value. Before You Read the Article

What does the title lead you to expect about the article? Study any sub-headings to understand how the author organized the content. Read the abstract for a summary of the author’s arguments. Study the list of references to determine what research contributed to the author’s arguments. Are the references recent? Do they represent important work in the field? If possible, read about the author to learn what authority he or she has to write about the subject. Consult Web of Science to see if other writers have cited the author’s work. (Please see ‘How to use E-Indexes’.) Has the author made an important contribution to the field of study?

Reading the Article: Points to Consider Read the article carefully. Record your impressions and note sections suitable for quoting.

Who is the intended audience? What is the author’s purpose? To survey and summarize research on a topic? To present an argument that builds on past research? To refute another writer’s argument? Does the author define important terms? Is the information in the article fact or opinion? (Facts can be verified, while opinions arise from interpretations of facts.) Does the information seem well-researched or is it unsupported? What are the author’s central arguments or conclusions? Are they clearly stated? Are they supported by evidence and analysis? If the article reports on an experiment or study, does the author clearly outline methodology and the expected result? Is the article lacking information or argumentation that you expected to find? Is the article organized logically and easy to follow? Does the writer’s style suit the intended audience? Is the style stilted or unnecessarily complicated? Is the author’s language objective or charged with emotion and bias? If illustrations or charts are used, are they effective in presenting information?

Prepare an Outline Read over your notes. Choose a statement that expresses the central purpose or thesis of your review. When thinking of a thesis, consider the author’s intentions and whether or not you think those intentions were successfully realized.

  1. Eliminate all notes that do not relate to your thesis.
  2. Organize your remaining points into separate groups such as points about structure, style, or argument.
  3. Devise a logical sequence for presenting these ideas.
  4. Remember that all of your ideas must support your central thesis.
  5. Write the First Draft The review should begin with a complete citation of the article.

For example: Platt, Kevin M.F. “History and Despotism, or: Hayden White vs. Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great.” Rethinking History 3:3 (1999) : 247-269. NOTE: Use the same bibliographic citation format as you would for any bibliography, works cited or reference list.

a statement of your thesis the author’s purpose in writing the article comments on how the article relates to other work on the same subject information about the author’s reputation or authority in the field

The body of the review should:

state your arguments in support of your thesis follow the logical development of ideas that you mapped out in your outline include quotations from the article which illustrate your main ideas

The concluding paragraph may:

summarize your review restate your thesis

Revise the First Draft Ideally, you should leave your first draft for a day or two before revising. This allows you to gain a more objective perspective on your ideas. Check for the following when revising:

grammar and punctuation errors organization, logical development and solid support of your thesis errors in quotations or in references

You may make major revisions in the organization or content of your review during the revision process. Revising can even lead to a radical change in your central thesis. NOTE: Prepared by University of Toronto Mississauga Library, Hazel McCallion Academic Learning Centre. : Research Guides

How long should a critical article review be?

A critical review is generally one to four pages in length and has a structure similar to the one given here. Starts with opening sentences that state the writer, the title and give a brief explanation of the topic of the text. The aim of the text and a summary of the main findings or key argument are presented.

What is the difference between article review and critical review?

Essays Critical Reviews – What’s the Difference Between a Reviewer and a Critic

Hot I always wondered what the difference is between a reviewer and a critic, or even a review and a critique. These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, sometimes they’re describing two different things, but very often they seem to be used for things that have a lot of overlap and are very similar in many ways.

  1. In this article, I’m trying to grapple with those terms and decide for myself what I think they mean.
  2. Let me start with review and critique, which I think are quite clearly defined – even though it’s not quite as simple as that, as we’ll see in a bit.
  3. Anyway, both are a way of evaluating and assessing a piece of work, which could be a piece of art, the product of someone’s creative work, a scientific discovery or something else.

Reviews and critiques alike both look at the good, the bad and the ugly of the piece of work in question. The main difference is, that a critique is written by an expert in the field, who will assess the piece of work much more objectively and usually from a more technical viewpoint, often with the aim of offering constructive advice and suggestions, while a review is often written by a layperson, which isn’t meant in a negative way, but simply describes that the person hasn’t had any formal training in the field, and a review is often more subjective and often results in an overall summary of the piece of work, usually a grade or rating of some sort.

In the context of board games, a critique could be something a game designer tells another game designer after a playtesting session. It could also be a game developer explaining to a game designer how to improve their game or how to make it fit into a publisher’s catalogue. A review, on the other hand, is something I write about a game, where I explain how the game made me feel when I played it, what bits I liked and what I didn’t – and why.

Of course, some reviewers know so much about board games that they are experts, but in the end, they’re still writing reviews, not critiques – except, of course, when they don’t. There are people in the board game community who could probably be board game designers, that’s how much they know about it.

  • They actually create critiques of board games and not reviews.
  • They explain how a mechanism works really well, for example, comparing it to similar implementations in other games and really analysing the game from a more functional viewpoint.
  • They draw conclusions about why a game was, or wasn’t, enjoyable based on that much more objective analysis.
See also:  How To Leave A Review On Airbnb After 14 Days?

So even though these people often call themselves reviewers, they’re actually experts in the field and what they write, or the videos they make, are critiques and not reviews. Yet, for the person reading or watching them, they’re still very useful to decide whether a game is for them or not – and I think that’s quite an important point.

As a consumer of board games, a review and a critique can be equally useful to me. Both will allow me to decide what’s good or bad about a game and decide if I want to buy it or not. Now, I’ve already talked about reviewers and basically defined them as those people who write reviews. Yet, that doesn’t mean that critiques are written by critics.

To me, what differentiates a critic from a reviewer is whether they do it professionally or not. Of course, that’s not completely true and the phrase “everyone is a critic” doesn’t help here either. Yet, on the whole, someone who writes reviews professionally is going to be a critic.

That would imply that everyone else is a reviewer, and I think many people would actually not agree with this, at least not fully, when we think about people writing reviews for a product they bought – and I don’t mean the so-called influencers or professional review writers who get paid to write a review in order to boost a product’s sales.

I’m talking about you and me who just bought a new set of headphones and who have fallen in love with them – or really hate them – and then take to the reseller’s website and leave a glowing – or passionate – review. Technically, that would make us all reviewers, but I think many of us wouldn’t call these people as such.

I certainly don’t consider myself a reviewer just because I left a sentence or two on a reseller’s website. However, someone who regularly writes, or films, a review of a game and shares it with the world is, in my view, a reviewer. If they do that work professionally, I would call them a critic – but that doesn’t automatically mean they also write critiques, because even critics usually write reviews.

So, there you have it. That’s how I’m trying to grapple with the terms, and I hope I haven’t confused things further. What do you think about those terms? How would you define them? Does it matter to you if something is a review or a critique? Please share your thoughts in the comments below. When they write the history of “The Rise & Fall Of Boardgaming from 1990 to 2020” I hope they do a chapter on how every boardgaming nitwit suddenly felt empowered enough to consider themselves a “reviewer.” In the good old days people self-policed their area of expertise & didn’t attempt to present themselves as almighty scions of knowledge across all aspects of human endeavor.

In the 90’s I wrote punk rock record reviews because in the 90’s I was punk as fuck. But I never decided to deem myself a reviewer of jazz just because I bought Miles Davis Birth of the Cool. Tom Vasel’s enthusiasm for gaming & cheery demeanor has gone a long way towards propagating the BGG mentality of “just say something nice!” where generally genial people decide to “review” what they buy, and SURPRISE, it’s all super duper awesome! Like O.K.

wrote above, there is unfortunately no professional licensing agent for reviewers with actual critical experience, so we live in an age of “reviewers” who are far more aptly described as “enthusiasts with time on their hands.” One reason that I rarely visit BGG anymore is the rampant hostility there towards negative reviews. The prevailing attitude there is that you should either say something nice or nothing at all, and that’s just one more big reason why their site is of limited utility. I think the phrase should be “influencer” versus “critic” because that’s more accurate for 99% of the field. That shouldn’t be pejorative, either. An influencer serves a role as long as they are honorable and put their preconditions out front, easily accessible and understandable, so you know where they are coming from.

But. there are also entertainers. The gentleman who posts those throwback-motif videos here (whose name escapes me, my apologies) is an example of that. Super entertaining and also has good information. Same with that guy who did the Dragon Strike video (et al), Board James. Meh, I don’t care anymore.

At this point the critics have lost and have all gone PODCAST (see: So Totally Wrong.) and the video guys are mostly all influencer/salesmen. And that’s fine. I’m glad they can make money doing what they love, and I wish them all the luck in the world. mc replied the topic: #313487 25 Aug 2020 16:45 I’m not sure how universal the use of those terms are. For me – review = consumer advice, critique = analysis (which will involve usually putting the work in a wider contextual analysis too). There are probably a handful of people writing boardgame critique. In my view a critic should have something more significant to say than whether the product is good or bad. The critic should be making an artistic or cultural judgement. I think its hard to pin down what that may look like precisely. This is fairly common in film or videogames. In boardgames because it is a lower value market the product review is still the dominant form. To me: Review: analysis of the thing itself and how or poorly well it meets its goals. Critique: much broader in scope. Analysis of the thing, how the thing fits into the historical and cultural context of similar things which have come before, how well or poorly it meets its goals, whether its goals are worth meeting or not, and why. Et cetera. There’s not concrete definitions, otherwise we wouldn’t have this conversation in the first place, but: review: information about the thing that ascertains the quality of it, generally presented to assist prospective purchasers/consumers critique: offers more than the above, often using review as a springboard to a specific point I’m dumb as hell though so idk So is there any game that merits “critique” using dysjunct’s definition? Is there any boardgame that has the reach, cultural impact, and social commentary like a film, book, or documentary? I’d guess chess, go, maybe DnD? Poker? Something that reflects the culture from which is was created and can change the player and the audience. I think games like An Infamous Traffic or Angola open the opportunity for a broader discussion. You can question whether they bring insight into the moment in history they present, but that question, regardless of answer, is warranted. You could also include something like Greed Inc. in that, or Food Chain Magnate. There are a number of games that I would argue are a critique of their subject. John Company implictly is, as well, but Sagrilarius brings up the similar Infamous Traffic. Games can be good at answering the question of “why?” for things that tend to be inexplicable if viewed from outside the system or from the future. mc replied the topic: #313516 26 Aug 2020 16:33 I mean, the wider context can still be the context of boardgaming – it doesn’t have to be like, where does the game fit into humanity or whatever (not that it can’t include that either). I think that you can critique a souless euro with no trouble, you can critique a party game, and absolutely, you can critique games like Wehrle’s which are trying to make a statement/argument – particularly has he has been quite vocal about that.

Review of the next deluxified soulless euro game: there’s a few things to like here; there are so many different ways to get those points and the components, wow. If you like a point salad this one is for you, etc etc. Critique of the next deluxified soulless euro game: we’ve been here before – what’s new? Nothing here is pushing the boundaries – it’s just like the last one.

nothing much. And why are we so slavishly beholden to deluxe components? What does that say about boargaming today, really? Is this papering over the cracks of a lack of innovation? Let’s compare this game to the much maligned XXXX which has arguably the same basic structure but was released 10 years ago. dysjunct wrote: To me: Analysis of the thing, how the thing fits into the historical and cultural context of similar things which have come before The “similar things” in this context is other games, not necessarily any kind of broad cultural context.

Discussing the game design within the history of game design and the current state of game design. Often by deconstructing it to determine its influences and what makes it tick. Then assessing whether aspects of its design are innovative, derivative, a variant, an iteration.Assessing its importance in the evolution of game design and its potential influence on current and future design.

Then reconstruct it and assess if the whole is great than the parts or less than, and why. Ask and answer the “why.” Why is it better or worse, more or less popular than the designs that influenced it? Or is it something completely new? Or is it just more of the same? Will people still be playing it or discovering it 5 years from now, 10 years from now. mc replied the topic: #313524 26 Aug 2020 18:55 Yes. I do think that there are opportunities for the wider context to come into it as well at times. I think that it’s possible to do that for any games, but I understand why that doesn’t happen and that most people probably aren’t interested.

See also:  In Which Jurisdiction Would Further Review Of A Federal Court Decision Fall Under?

Is a critical review the same as a systematic review?

Tabular presentation of the systematic review and critical review –

Used in studies that cover broader topics like child obesity, primary healthcare, and so on. Used in studies that are much focused on nature like the role of diet in child obesity, the significance of hospital infrastructure in primary healthcare, etc.
The systematic review is generally arranged in a chronological manner based on the date of publication. But no comparison of one source with the other is made. The critical review is arranged in descending order based on their date of publication. Nevertheless, a focal point of one empirical source is found and then compared with the one that appears next in order to estimate the similarities and differences in the perspectives of the scholars.
The systematic review is ideal for research topics that are broader in nature and have been studied from that broader perspective by many scholars. The critical review is applicable in studies where there are contradictory views of different scholars on a particular research topic.
A researcher must always select the most recent sources for conducting a systematic review of a topic The selection of sources for critical review must be such that they cover a long span of time to show how the research topic has improvised and become precise over time. Moreover, each of the sources should be critically reviewed.
A researcher is not supposed to compare and contrast empirical studies that have been referenced in a research A researcher cannot present sources randomly one after the other in the critical review instead of making the critical estimation.
The systematic review is important in creating a database on a topic of research by consolidating the most significant and most recent sources. The critical review is ideal for deriving at a conclusion when the research topic is focused on nature and subjected to debatable perspectives of different scholars.

What is the difference between systematic review and critical review?

What do you include in a critical review?

Overview – When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.

Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor. Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.

Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.

What are the 4 critical approaches in writing a critique paper?

This slide contains the topic on how to use appropriate critical approaches in writing a critique such as formalism, feminism, reader-response criticism and Marxist criticism (Marxism).

Does a critical review have an abstract?

Criteria – Critical reviews should provide an overview on emerging techniques or state-of-the-art topics with an up-to-date and innovative approach. They should serve the radiological and scientific community and allow its members to have access to the best evidence-based knowledge and to foresee the impact of new approaches within the healthcare cycle.

What is the difference between article review and critical review?

Essays Critical Reviews – What’s the Difference Between a Reviewer and a Critic

Hot I always wondered what the difference is between a reviewer and a critic, or even a review and a critique. These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, sometimes they’re describing two different things, but very often they seem to be used for things that have a lot of overlap and are very similar in many ways.

In this article, I’m trying to grapple with those terms and decide for myself what I think they mean. Let me start with review and critique, which I think are quite clearly defined – even though it’s not quite as simple as that, as we’ll see in a bit. Anyway, both are a way of evaluating and assessing a piece of work, which could be a piece of art, the product of someone’s creative work, a scientific discovery or something else.

Reviews and critiques alike both look at the good, the bad and the ugly of the piece of work in question. The main difference is, that a critique is written by an expert in the field, who will assess the piece of work much more objectively and usually from a more technical viewpoint, often with the aim of offering constructive advice and suggestions, while a review is often written by a layperson, which isn’t meant in a negative way, but simply describes that the person hasn’t had any formal training in the field, and a review is often more subjective and often results in an overall summary of the piece of work, usually a grade or rating of some sort.

  1. In the context of board games, a critique could be something a game designer tells another game designer after a playtesting session.
  2. It could also be a game developer explaining to a game designer how to improve their game or how to make it fit into a publisher’s catalogue.
  3. A review, on the other hand, is something I write about a game, where I explain how the game made me feel when I played it, what bits I liked and what I didn’t – and why.

Of course, some reviewers know so much about board games that they are experts, but in the end, they’re still writing reviews, not critiques – except, of course, when they don’t. There are people in the board game community who could probably be board game designers, that’s how much they know about it.

  • They actually create critiques of board games and not reviews.
  • They explain how a mechanism works really well, for example, comparing it to similar implementations in other games and really analysing the game from a more functional viewpoint.
  • They draw conclusions about why a game was, or wasn’t, enjoyable based on that much more objective analysis.

So even though these people often call themselves reviewers, they’re actually experts in the field and what they write, or the videos they make, are critiques and not reviews. Yet, for the person reading or watching them, they’re still very useful to decide whether a game is for them or not – and I think that’s quite an important point.

  • As a consumer of board games, a review and a critique can be equally useful to me.
  • Both will allow me to decide what’s good or bad about a game and decide if I want to buy it or not.
  • Now, I’ve already talked about reviewers and basically defined them as those people who write reviews.
  • Yet, that doesn’t mean that critiques are written by critics.

To me, what differentiates a critic from a reviewer is whether they do it professionally or not. Of course, that’s not completely true and the phrase “everyone is a critic” doesn’t help here either. Yet, on the whole, someone who writes reviews professionally is going to be a critic.

That would imply that everyone else is a reviewer, and I think many people would actually not agree with this, at least not fully, when we think about people writing reviews for a product they bought – and I don’t mean the so-called influencers or professional review writers who get paid to write a review in order to boost a product’s sales.

See also:  How To Review Posts On Facebook?

I’m talking about you and me who just bought a new set of headphones and who have fallen in love with them – or really hate them – and then take to the reseller’s website and leave a glowing – or passionate – review. Technically, that would make us all reviewers, but I think many of us wouldn’t call these people as such.

I certainly don’t consider myself a reviewer just because I left a sentence or two on a reseller’s website. However, someone who regularly writes, or films, a review of a game and shares it with the world is, in my view, a reviewer. If they do that work professionally, I would call them a critic – but that doesn’t automatically mean they also write critiques, because even critics usually write reviews.

So, there you have it. That’s how I’m trying to grapple with the terms, and I hope I haven’t confused things further. What do you think about those terms? How would you define them? Does it matter to you if something is a review or a critique? Please share your thoughts in the comments below. When they write the history of “The Rise & Fall Of Boardgaming from 1990 to 2020” I hope they do a chapter on how every boardgaming nitwit suddenly felt empowered enough to consider themselves a “reviewer.” In the good old days people self-policed their area of expertise & didn’t attempt to present themselves as almighty scions of knowledge across all aspects of human endeavor.

  • In the 90’s I wrote punk rock record reviews because in the 90’s I was punk as fuck.
  • But I never decided to deem myself a reviewer of jazz just because I bought Miles Davis Birth of the Cool.
  • Tom Vasel’s enthusiasm for gaming & cheery demeanor has gone a long way towards propagating the BGG mentality of “just say something nice!” where generally genial people decide to “review” what they buy, and SURPRISE, it’s all super duper awesome! Like O.K.

wrote above, there is unfortunately no professional licensing agent for reviewers with actual critical experience, so we live in an age of “reviewers” who are far more aptly described as “enthusiasts with time on their hands.” One reason that I rarely visit BGG anymore is the rampant hostility there towards negative reviews. The prevailing attitude there is that you should either say something nice or nothing at all, and that’s just one more big reason why their site is of limited utility. I think the phrase should be “influencer” versus “critic” because that’s more accurate for 99% of the field. That shouldn’t be pejorative, either. An influencer serves a role as long as they are honorable and put their preconditions out front, easily accessible and understandable, so you know where they are coming from.

But. there are also entertainers. The gentleman who posts those throwback-motif videos here (whose name escapes me, my apologies) is an example of that. Super entertaining and also has good information. Same with that guy who did the Dragon Strike video (et al), Board James. Meh, I don’t care anymore.

At this point the critics have lost and have all gone PODCAST (see: So Totally Wrong.) and the video guys are mostly all influencer/salesmen. And that’s fine. I’m glad they can make money doing what they love, and I wish them all the luck in the world. mc replied the topic: #313487 25 Aug 2020 16:45 I’m not sure how universal the use of those terms are. For me – review = consumer advice, critique = analysis (which will involve usually putting the work in a wider contextual analysis too). There are probably a handful of people writing boardgame critique. In my view a critic should have something more significant to say than whether the product is good or bad. The critic should be making an artistic or cultural judgement. I think its hard to pin down what that may look like precisely. This is fairly common in film or videogames. In boardgames because it is a lower value market the product review is still the dominant form. To me: Review: analysis of the thing itself and how or poorly well it meets its goals. Critique: much broader in scope. Analysis of the thing, how the thing fits into the historical and cultural context of similar things which have come before, how well or poorly it meets its goals, whether its goals are worth meeting or not, and why. Et cetera. There’s not concrete definitions, otherwise we wouldn’t have this conversation in the first place, but: review: information about the thing that ascertains the quality of it, generally presented to assist prospective purchasers/consumers critique: offers more than the above, often using review as a springboard to a specific point I’m dumb as hell though so idk So is there any game that merits “critique” using dysjunct’s definition? Is there any boardgame that has the reach, cultural impact, and social commentary like a film, book, or documentary? I’d guess chess, go, maybe DnD? Poker? Something that reflects the culture from which is was created and can change the player and the audience. I think games like An Infamous Traffic or Angola open the opportunity for a broader discussion. You can question whether they bring insight into the moment in history they present, but that question, regardless of answer, is warranted. You could also include something like Greed Inc. in that, or Food Chain Magnate. There are a number of games that I would argue are a critique of their subject. John Company implictly is, as well, but Sagrilarius brings up the similar Infamous Traffic. Games can be good at answering the question of “why?” for things that tend to be inexplicable if viewed from outside the system or from the future. mc replied the topic: #313516 26 Aug 2020 16:33 I mean, the wider context can still be the context of boardgaming – it doesn’t have to be like, where does the game fit into humanity or whatever (not that it can’t include that either). I think that you can critique a souless euro with no trouble, you can critique a party game, and absolutely, you can critique games like Wehrle’s which are trying to make a statement/argument – particularly has he has been quite vocal about that.

Review of the next deluxified soulless euro game: there’s a few things to like here; there are so many different ways to get those points and the components, wow. If you like a point salad this one is for you, etc etc. Critique of the next deluxified soulless euro game: we’ve been here before – what’s new? Nothing here is pushing the boundaries – it’s just like the last one.

nothing much. And why are we so slavishly beholden to deluxe components? What does that say about boargaming today, really? Is this papering over the cracks of a lack of innovation? Let’s compare this game to the much maligned XXXX which has arguably the same basic structure but was released 10 years ago. dysjunct wrote: To me: Analysis of the thing, how the thing fits into the historical and cultural context of similar things which have come before The “similar things” in this context is other games, not necessarily any kind of broad cultural context.

Discussing the game design within the history of game design and the current state of game design. Often by deconstructing it to determine its influences and what makes it tick. Then assessing whether aspects of its design are innovative, derivative, a variant, an iteration.Assessing its importance in the evolution of game design and its potential influence on current and future design.

Then reconstruct it and assess if the whole is great than the parts or less than, and why. Ask and answer the “why.” Why is it better or worse, more or less popular than the designs that influenced it? Or is it something completely new? Or is it just more of the same? Will people still be playing it or discovering it 5 years from now, 10 years from now. mc replied the topic: #313524 26 Aug 2020 18:55 Yes. I do think that there are opportunities for the wider context to come into it as well at times. I think that it’s possible to do that for any games, but I understand why that doesn’t happen and that most people probably aren’t interested.

What is the difference between a summary article review and a critical review?

The differences between a summary and a critique While a brief summary is a part of any well-written critique, the major focus of a critical response is offering an analysis of what you read. In contrast, a summary simply shortens and restates what you read.