Here's how this thing goes down

I'm not stupid. I've got a life, I want to live it, so we're going to have to cut a few corners...

In many a game I was a completionist, but as I got older and free time grew severely limited, I learned to let that go. I now find myself playing games for the story, and so I play through the story. If that's 100% completion, great. If that's just the core to an open world, then I dip my toes no further than what interests me: If a side mission seems fun, or will help me in the story when it's finished, I'll probably do it. If it looks like nothing more than a distraction, or isn't essential, or, frankly, is dull as dishwater, why should I play it?

You have to ask yourself why you're playing the game, and you have to answer honestly. 100% completion feels good. 100% completion as an attempt to justify the cost to you, both in time and money, perhaps doesn't feel so good. It might even feel like you're lying to yourself. Maybe you should have rented the game, or bought it when it was cheaper.

If you're flexible in how you approach games, then your backlog shrinks in no time at all. That game didn't feel right to continue playing, this game lost my interest early on... I'm glad the book that inspired this endeavour used play rather than complete.

This might ruffle a few feathers

If this was only for my benefit then I wouldn't need a blog, but seeing as everyone on the Internet has the right to shout their opinion, I'm going to be doing just that - I'm going to be reviewing my backlog of games.

But I've just said that I don't play games to completion these days, and have basically said that we should all abandon a game if it's just not working out the way we wanted it to, so where does that leave me?

A review should be thorough, should it not? I can't lie about these games. Well, I can, but I don't want to.

At the time of writing, there is (once again) a push for better standards in video game reviews, including disclosure of any affiliations between reviewer and developer, dropping of scores out of 10, shifts into other media or presentation styles and so on. What do I bring to the table? Just a bit of honesty.

Honesty and tagging.

Yeah, I'll start with those.

What to expect

I will probably find - early on I'd imagine - games that I simply cannot play, either in their original form or at all.

But I don't want to avoid them entirely. If possible, I'll find a way to play them via other means, such as emulation or remakes and so on. How I play these games will be tagged for easy identification, and from there we'll be able to see just how much of a gamer I actually am. (Calling it now: Casual)

If I can't find a way to play them, I'll find a way to experience them in some watered down fashion. Maybe I'll watch someone play them, maybe I'll only be able to read up on them, but whatever the case, they'll be 'reviewed' in as similar a style as I aim to do with the games I've played, and they'll be tagged.

Some games (a good few, I hope), I've already experienced, I've already played, maybe already completed. These will be incredibly trustworthy (read: probably quite biased) reviews based on my (completely infallible) memory. And they'll be tagged as such. I might play them again, I might not. I just don't know.

Throughout the reviews, I'll be dropping in some fun facts and humorous asides, partly to keep me going, partly to remind you that these aren't going to be your impartial, robot assessed reviews you'll find elsewhere.

At least that's the plan, things evolve. I'll tag that too...