This was such an interesting read! And I do mean interesting in its actual sense, not the 'I want to be nice about not liking it' way that native speakers apparently use it.
Reading some of the criticism of this game felt alienating: too often it came from the angle of hating narrative games wholesale, or denying that they are even games to begin with (because semantic nitpicking will apparently prove that something is bad).
I've seen both professional and user reviews approach it with an air of 'of course, we all hated Life is Strange, so get a load of THIS game.'
But the thing is, I like Life is Strange. In a sense I am the elusive (((that type of guy))) brought up in every other review. I'm also a '90s kid and it is ridiculously easy to make me feel things with nostalgic media.
I was prepared to love this game, but in the end I didn't. Yet every think piece or review out there seemed to be either "I expected to love it and I loved it" or "I expected to hate it and I hated it."
I'd like to think I did a decent job explaining why it didn't work for me, but that's for others to judge. That specific viewpoint, though, is what I am often missing in writing on games: "I expected to like this, but I didn't. Here's why." To me those are the most interesting takes as, at the very least, they are a safeguard against the bad-faith cynicism that seems to dictate the tone of "The Discourse" surrounding every new piece of media these days.
Another thing I like about your article specifically is the reminder to explain things and give examples. It seems simple, but I still have to actively remind myself not to make grand statements without backing them up when I write any sort of argumentative piece. Fortunately, I can still hear the echo of my thesis supervisor yelling at me, and that is an experience I would wish upon every writer.
A long comment, but I've read your entire article so I feel like I'm owed some space to ramble!