All Comments on 'Review: Dragon Pink #1'

Though the work the reviewer put into this submission is obvious the objective of a review has not been achieved. We have only three sentences that offer any objective criticism while the rest is a play-by-play synopsis of what happens in this title. No time was spent asking questions about the material and answering them in the review.

What was there to not like about the material reviewed? Why were each of the things not liked by the reviewer? Are there members of an audience for which this would not be a problem? Is there something which could have been done to improve these elements? Are these criticisms realistic given the medium, market, and time period in which this title was released?

Was there anything good about the title? Was the story coherent or did it have plot-holes and inexplicable jumps in the story? What made the video, art, and animation "not too great" and in comparison to what? Would that opinion be altered by comparing the visuals to its contemporaries? What about the audio? Does the voice acting talent provide a good performance in inflection, tone, intensity, and emotion? Why or why not? Music? Sound-effects? Design? Story pacing?

Are there other titles similar to the one you reviewed? If a person likes title X then the should also check out titles Y & Z. Maybe title Z does the same thing but is better because of <insert reason here>.

A review is the composition of answers to these sundry questions so that an uninformed person can understand why this title should or should not be viewed. Unfortunately, the current review leaves a person wondering what the reviewer considers to be enough sex and if the artistry is great enough just not too great. Also, a spoiler alert would be nice if one is going to reveal every story element and conflict resolution of the title.