What do you mean "less popular" video game genre? That's obviously some massive BS. It's popular as heck. What are turn-based games about? Isn't it obvious that they are games where you take turns..? It's pretty much in the name, mate.
I'm sorry, but if you want some constructive criticism, I have some for you here. Don't mistake it for hatred or anything, but I'll be honest and say that reading this actually triggered me a bit. However, that being said, I am not trying to be rude, just lay down some honesty and truth for you. Sometimes it can be hard to hear, I suppose, and I am far from perfect myself. But...
I did read the article, and it seems to me that it is a rushed effort. Since you just spammed out several top this and that lists in one go, I am gonna guess that you wanted to get a lot done in as little time as possible, rather than focusing on quality of the content. This shows. It seems that you just jotted down, at least in the introduction parts of it, the first things that came to mind without any further thought. That you just wanted to finish this article quickly really shows. I mean... If you read through the introduction part of it, but pretend you are someone else than yourself... does that seem like something that would entice you to read further? Or does it seem lazy? To me it seems lazy. For instance;
"but today we’re gonna talk about a less popular video game genre - turn-based style video games." <--- do you have any facts what so ever to back this statement up with? Statistics for player-bases/income from such titles as Civilization 6 etc. would indicate quite the opposite of what you are stating. Hence, it seems ill thought out to state such.
"Now, you might ask me, what exactly are turn-based games about?" <--- I honestly don't think anyone would ask you that. I don't think anyone would ask anyone that ever in the history of mankind, to be honest. It's literally in the name. "...What is turn-based?" -> "It's turn-based." -> "Oh. Literally what it says then?" -> "Yes. Exactly what it says." <--- do you see how for this conversation to occur, at least one of it's participants have to be stupid?
"Anyways, I’ll save you my senseless explanations and begin with the article!" <--- After cringing a bit at the first parts, this was the first part I actually was on board with.
I only read through the top post of yours, but this is truth I am giving you here. It might be subjective truth from my perspective. You can either listen to it, ignore it, hate me for it, take it personal, or; take it as constructive criticism and work on improving the quality of your work. I hope I'm not too harsh here, but as I said, reading this actually triggered me. It seemed sloppy and devoid of actual effort. That's my two cents. You can of course disagree. That's the beauty of humanity - we're all different. I just hope you take this as what it is. Criticisms, and not a personal attack.
Basically - don't hate me for this, this is just a truth-pill I think you might want to swallow in order to improve your work. You should be thankful instead of feeling the rage you might potentially feel right now. Thankful that I took time out of my day to not be a toxic a-hat, but actually give you constructive criticism and honesty. I can guarantee you I am not the only one that would read your article and think these things, although I might be the only one that bothers pointing it out for you.
Myself, I used to work as a journalist, and lazy and sloppy journalism does not make my day, to put it that way. I get that you are probably trying to establish yourself as a game-journalist. But if this is a field in which you wish to work, ask yourself this; "do I want to be known for churning out a buttload of lazy articles, or do I want to be known for making few, but memorable articles?"
Peace and love.
