Patreon button  Steam curated reviews  Discord button  Facebook button  Twitter button 
PC | PS4 | PS5 | SWITCH | SWITCH2 | XB1 | XSX | All

 ()

() review


""

This submission is not yet live and ready for general viewing. Please check back later!

Feedback

If you enjoyed this review, you're encouraged to discuss it with the author and with other members of the site's community. If you don't already have an HonestGamers account, you can sign up for one in a snap. Thank you for reading!

board icon
honestgamer posted December 31, 1969:

Boo.
board icon
honestgamer posted December 31, 1969:

Again.
board icon
honestgamer posted April 06, 2008:

The standards regarding game listings have changed, but you should still use this form to request any new listings. You can use this thread to request additions to the HonestGamers database. Provide the following info:

- Game Title
- System(s) under which the listing should be added
- Link to listing or coverage of game on another site (for verification)

Don't bother providing any other information. I'll research and add additional information myself, as appropriate. Once a decision and/or listing has been made, I will generally modify your original post so that you know to look for it.

When requesting listings, please keep the following in mind:

* The database already contains thousands upon thousands of game listings. The best way to see if a listing already exists is to start by clicking the system, then browse alphabetically. The search box often works, but games with very short words in their title will in some cases not show.

* Mods and expansion packs will only rarely be added, and only if you will be immediately contributing a high-quality review. Otherwise, you may be better off covering them on your blog. We also don't maintain separate listings for Virtual Console and Nintendo Switch Online titles, or similar.

* HonestGamers does not cover games released exclusively in regions other than North America, Europe, and Japan.

HonestGamers listings are added routinely, even without requests using this thread, but for the most part I am working on older system libraries first and moving forward toward the present. Thanks for your assistance as I work to ensure that the site includes listings for the games that fall within our intended areas of coverage. We don't have the resources to cover everything, but I hope to be thorough when it comes to those systems that we do cover.
board icon
EmP posted April 06, 2008:

Thanks to some patented "Venter Coding", the entire forums took a nose-dive and everything we've collected on this tourney over the last three months went up in flames.

(And for those looking to beat me this year, good news! So did half a dozen draft reviews I stored on my blogs forum!)

So it's time to start again. The name of this game is Alphabetic Marathon and the aim is to write a review for every letter in the alphabet by the end of the year. Plus that pesky number, which will bite everyone in the arse!

The last topic started to get a little bit cluttered, so at least the death of several years worth of activity might benefit here, so we're going to effectively start from scratch. Those joining or re-joining will keep the following in mind:

  • Keep an up-to-date listing of their progress intact. I will not be rooting through everyone's review listings to do the tally for you.


  • Make a fresh post for each new review you wish to have added to your tally to prompt me into counting it in the main league. This is so I don't need to randomly sweep through the topic counting up your progress when I don't know if any had been made.


  • If you don't list it in this topic, I don't count it.


  • I reserve the right to make up more as I go along.

    Now redraft your lists, and best of luck to all!



    WINNER: EmP - 27 Letters

    Wolfqueen - 22 Letters

    Felix - 21 Letters
    HonestGamer - 21 Letters
    Suskie - 21 Letters

    Overdrive - 17 Letters

    Dagoss - 16 Letters

    DoI - 10 letters
    Zanzard - 10 Letters

    BELISARIOS - 9 Letters

    Ashy - 8 Letters

    Genj - 6 Letters

    Boo - 5 Letters

    PP - 3 Letters

    DE - 1 Letter
    board icon
    board icon
    bluberry posted April 06, 2008:

    B is for BioShock

    C is for cookie and that's good enough for me

    D is for DMC4

    F is for FEAR

    M is for MGS4

    P is for PO'ed

    I'm lazy.
    board icon
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 06, 2008:

    - - -
    board icon
    zanzard posted April 06, 2008:

    (No links. I'm lazy and stupid. Use the site search function.)

    B= Barkley: Shut up and Jam, Gaiden.
    G= Growl.
    I= Icewind Dale.
    M= Miracle Warriors.
    P= Phantasy Star Gaiden.
    S= Star Control 3.
    T= Third World War.
    U= Ultima: Martian Dreams.
    X= X-COM Apocalypse.
    W= Warning Forever.
    board icon
    board icon
    asherdeus posted April 06, 2008:

    D - Democracy (PC), Democracy 2 (PC)
    F - Full Auto 2 (PS3)
    G - Gemsweeper (PC), Grand Theft Auto IV
    H - Half-Life 2: Episode Two (PC)
    L - Lost: Via Domus (PC)
    M - Max Payne (PC), Medal of Honor: Airborne (PC), MLB 2K8
    S - SimCity Societies (PC), Soldier of Fortune: Payback (PC)
    T - TimeShift (PC)
    Z - Zoo Tycoon 2 (DS), Zoo Tycoon 2 (PC)

    I won't link since they're posted on Thunderbolt and I don't want to seem like I'm spamming.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted April 06, 2008:

    Remember that you can find what reviews you've contributed (to this site) by clicking on 'more' under the 'User Reviews' bar from the front page, then selecting your username and the period of time you want to go back. Simply select enough days to go back to January 1st (count on a calendar if you must). The page that displays will show all of your reviews and you can view the source to get any links you need without loading a bunch of individual pages.

    My alphabetic list of games I've reviewed this year is:

    # is for 1943: The Battle of Midway
    A is for Arkanoid DS
    B is for Bully: Scholarship Edition
    C is for The Club
    D is for Destroy All Humans: Big Willy Unleashed
    E is for El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera
    F is for Furu Furu Park
    G is for Gran Turismo 5 Prologue
    H is for Hot Shots Golf: Out of Bounds
    I is for Izuna 2: The Unemployed Ninja Returns
    K is for Kung Fu Panda
    L is for The Lost Cases of Sherlock Holmes
    M is for MX vs. ATV Untamed
    N is for Ninja Gaiden DS
    O is for Overlord: Raising Hell
    P is for Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection
    R is for R-Type Command
    S is for Super Swing Golf: Season 2
    T is for Toy Shop
    W is for Women's Volleyball Championship
    Z is for Zoo Tycoon 2 DS

    I'm not listing games above that start with letters already covered, since that just needlessly complicates things.

    Current Plans: Cover 'X' and maybe 'Y' next, in no particular order.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted April 08, 2008:

    As we all know, this is the locale where all the cool cat FAQers hang out and post about their current labors of love. The few, the proud, the FAQers!

    Anyway, Lunar 2 Eternal Blue for me...maps n' stuff. /brevity
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 09, 2008:

    It's time for me to run one of these contests, so here I go.

    It's the OVERDRIVE All or Nothing Super-Spectacular Spectacle!!!! The rules are simple.

    EITHER:
    1. Write a review where you give the game a 10.
    OR:
    2. Write a review where you give the game a 1.

    AND:
    Make me feel the emotion (positive or negative). I want to come away from each and every review with the feeling I either need to play this game right away or that this game never should have been even remotely considered for release.

    Deadline (tentative....could change depending on....stuff): Midnight as May 3 turns to May 4 (HG time).

    Judges: Me and up to two other people.

    Contestants: The rest of ya!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 09, 2008:

    I want to judge.
    board icon
    draqq_zyxx posted April 10, 2008:

    Haven't frequented these forums in a while, but I'll be glad to judge this special event.
    board icon
    Genj posted April 10, 2008:

    I shall throw my head into the ring.
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 10, 2008:

    Well, looks like we have our three judges now. So get to writing, folks!
    board icon
    bluberry posted April 10, 2008:

    I'll be pretty PO'ed if this doesn't go well.
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 10, 2008:

    I'm in.
    board icon
    ImmumpJep posted April 12, 2008:

    Âñåì ïðèâåòèê!
    Ïîäñêàæèòå äåâóøêå êàê ñäåëàòü ÷òîáû è ó ìåíÿ êàðòèíêà ñáîêó!
    Çàðàíåå ñïàñèáîíüêè!
    board icon
    zanzard posted April 12, 2008:

    Hello everyone!

    This contest shows up exactly at a time when I am planning to write a review for a grade 1 game and a grade 10 game.

    Anyway, i just submitted a review for the SMS game 'my hero'. It scored 1 in my analysis.

    Would you accept it as a entry for this contest? I promise you it is better than my last contest entry! :p
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted April 14, 2008:

    My services will enter this competition. I have never given a game below a 4 and I have only ever given 2 games a 10, Half-Life 2 and Tetris. As HL2 is already on this site, I have a Tetris review from eons ago that I think I'll revamp.

    Or should I shun Mario Galaxy to the uber extreme?

    As for you Zanzard, I don't want to sound like a snide critic, but do request some feedback.
    board icon
    board icon
    EmP posted April 18, 2008:

    IN THIS TOPIC: We make fun of ourselves. I have decided to do so via my second most viewed review that is commonly employed as a cure for insomnia and Genj personal favourite.

    <Center>Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis.

    The attraction of the Jurassic Park franchise has always lain in the dinosaurs.

    Gee, thanks, EmP. The attraction of a franchise based around giant flesh-eating lizards is said lizards. That needed clarifying

    Let's face it: we all got caught in the hype; the possibility of one of them chewing someone's face off is just to irresistable to pass up. So is the potential to make oodles of cash off it, it seems; Jurassic Park is guilty of squeezing every last possible penny out of its popularity, appearing in literature, the silver screen and, yes, video games.

    This is what we call a ramble intro. If I was trying to make a point, I've lost the hell out of it somewhere. There's also two typos in there that have eluded me all these years. Insolence! I think I'm trying to be funny and suggest that JP is evil for wanting to make money from its popularity. Fight da power! And what the hell is with the last sentence? I sound like I'm smoking a pipe and wearing tweed while typing it. "and, yes, video games, Darcy?" Urgh.

    Upon hearing about this title on its launch date, I got quite excited about the prospect of a Jurassic Park game that might actually not suck - a lofty aspiration indeed, given the series' past.

    So, after just saying that JP is evil for releasing so much, I then go on to say that I wanted them to bring out more stuff before changing my stance before the sentence is even completed.

    Shortly afterwards, I forgot all about my initial excitement until I recently had the chance to stealthily 'borrow' the game from a friend, who is probably cursing my name at this very moment.

    Nothing says creditability more than "I stole this game and therefore played it illegally". For the record, I did eventually return the game.

    Thankfully, forgotten are the earlier attempts which have Jurassic Park as a shoot-the-nasty-dinosaurs snorefest. Instead you're presented with a simulation which gives you the chance to build and run your own park full of dinosaurs. While the game lasts, it's an intriguing and worthwhile task.

    See, this right here should have been the into., No attack-the-popular-franchise rubbish, no tales of my stealth thief skills. Could I be any more dull about it, though?

    The game manages to feel familiar to other park-building sims, yet at the same time is different enough to be a little more engaging. The standard sim fare is present: build your park with adequate paths, eateries, toilets, and attractions to pull in the public. The difference is that your attractions are huge, extinct lizards.

    The answer, then, is yes.

    You start with your island of choice, complete with everything any self-respecting exotic park location would come with: trees, mountain ranges, rivers, and so on.

    If you ever need to start a zoo containing ten-ton monsters that view you as snacked sized, just grab some trees.

    It is your task to turn this rather ordinary-looking slab of land into the most successful theme park in the world. You start with the bare minimum, including basic conveniences such as toilets and food stands, pavement, basic security measures such as dinosaur enclosure fencing, and two dinosaur species ready to produce. All this is well and good, but you need to do three things to ensure the growth of your park: make money, research better accommodations, and produce more dinosaurs to keep the crowds happy. It's not as easy as it sounds, as the crowd consists of a variety of people looking for different things to enjoy at your park, be it excitement or an authentic slice of prehistoric life.

    Like you were there, isn't it?

    Luckily, you are not alone in your duties -- you have the original Jurassic Park cast at your side as staff. You send Dr. Grant away on palaeontology digs to find new strains of dinosaur DNA so you can breed new species. Also returning is Dr. Wu, who oversees all your research needs, such as the extraction of the dino DNA and research into park-beneficial projects, such as stronger dinosaur containment fencing, vaccines for various dinosaur diseases, and attractions for your park (e.g. balloon rides and safari jeep tours). To ensure the list of returning faces is complete, you'll also gain Dr. Sattler for any veterinary needs that may arise and even have Muldon is on hand as head ranger. All the familiar faces are present in game, which is meaningles dribble for those new to Jurassic Park, but a nice little touch for those already familiar with the franchise.

    Luckily, you are not alone -- you have the original Jurassic Park cast at your side. And now, I'll list every single one of them for no reason whatsoever! Then make fun of the people who already know all this despite clearly knowing it all myself! Plus, typo and space error!

    Explore the research and development stages and you'll find you have two different sets of research labs set up, which function independently of each other.

    Why do I sound like a D- grade paper?

    The first allows you to research the various attractions, vaccines, and so on. (You can research a lot of things, actually; it will take you quite a while to exhaust your options on this one.)

    Full stop then bracket. Clever.

    You have to be clever with your choices here, as each project is equally important.

    No they're bloody not! Some things are clearly more important than others. Why do I tell such a dumb lie?

    Vaccines are obviously a priority to prevent your attractions from picking up various illnesses, but you need to make money to fund your park, so the rides are vital for squeezing more money from your visitors. Just as vital is upgrading the strength of your dinosaur-holding fences, bulking up your security, looking into a visitor holding centre for your guests should an emergency break loose, updating your various methods of extracting DNA and hatching your assorted beasts, and so on. Keep in mind that all this still costs money, so ensure that the cash keeps rolling in.

    Why only offer the most relevant examples when the full sodding list is readily available?

    You'll never read this far in the actual review, and nor can I.
    board icon
    zanzard posted April 18, 2008:

    Whilst thou wert writing this parchment and posting in the board...

    ... thy X-COM review surpasseth thy Jurassic Park one in number of views.

    (therefore thou maketh fun of thy THIRD most viewed review)
    board icon
    EmP posted April 19, 2008:

    Stupid X-Com and its awsomeness that makes people want to read about it..

    Felix once deleted my X-Com review. Out of spite.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 19, 2008:

    ^^^

    More like out of quality control.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 19, 2008:

    6424 readers (and rising) beg to differ.

    You're a twisted, bitter man. We only keep you around because you make me look friendly in comparison.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 19, 2008:

    :-'(
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 19, 2008:

    Please add the following for the TurboGrafx-16:

    Valkyrie no Densetsu
    Volfied
    Wai Wai Mahjong
    Wallaby!!
    Winning Shot
    World Jockey
    World Stadium Baseball
    World Stadium Baseball ‘91
    Youkai Douchuuki
    YouYouJinsei
    Xevious: Fardraut Saga
    Zero 4 Champ
    Zipang

    I’ll add cover art and screens. Thanks.
    board icon
    zanzard posted April 20, 2008:

    This topic went kinda dead. Where's everyone? No one else rose to the challenge here?

    I'd like to shamelessly also promote a new review i submitted here. It's for 'Phantasy Star Gaiden' and it gives it 1/10. Since it is in the spirit of the competiton, I might as well use this thread to ask for feedback for it!

    (Although I'm not sending it for the contest, per se. Sending 2 reviews for 1 contest sounds tacky, especially when nobody else seems to have sent theirs. :p )
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 20, 2008:

    We're still here . . . =T
    board icon
    Genj posted April 20, 2008:

    I'm in your refrigerator. Drinking your beers.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 21, 2008:

    Everyone'll probably do last minute subs... like they always do. Including myself.

    Anyway, here you go, zanzard. It's really, really long... but I hope you read through it all the way. I really wouldn't have wanted to waste two hours of my time only to be ignored.
    board icon
    Crazyreyn posted April 21, 2008:

    Gradual Mario Kart Wii updates for now, and some Fire & Ice (Amiga)
    board icon
    EmP posted April 21, 2008:

    I will also enter. Perhaps.
    board icon
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted April 23, 2008:

    I forgot I was in this!
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted April 29, 2008:

    Doing a large amount of reading and research prior to whipping something up for Hoshigami Remix for the Nintendo DS
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted May 01, 2008:

    Aaaand, work is progressing...
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted May 01, 2008:

    Still doing Lunar 2...disc two.
    board icon
    darketernal posted May 03, 2008:

    One Must Fall

    [EmP with the hyperlink save!]

    There you go.
    board icon
    darketernal posted May 03, 2008:

    O = One must fall 2097
    board icon
    Halon posted May 03, 2008:

    If no one shows up for this OD will cry.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 03, 2008:

    We can count on you not showing up, Sportsman!
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 03, 2008:

    Yes....tears of rage.

    Followed by me taking out that rage on all those who did show up, by starting my scoring at 50 and dropping it quickly for any real and/or imaginary flaws.
    board icon
    bluberry posted May 03, 2008:

    you wouldn't do that to me.

    you don't have the balls.
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 03, 2008:

    Gonna have to back out of this one, I'm afraid. The game I was planning to review for this competition (which I'll tell you right now is Deus Ex) I haven't finished yet, and it seems I won't be able to have a review up by tonight's deadline. With a few more days, maybe, but I think the limits of this competition (so few of the games I play are worthy of either a 1 or a 10) have made it more difficult to participate than I'd have liked.

    Go ahead, Felix. Break out b0r0 again. I'd rather lose to him than be one of those people who chokes up some half-assed last-minute review to prevent the stigma of being a no show.
    board icon
    mardraum posted May 03, 2008:

    that's enough to make a guy PO'ed
    board icon
    Genj posted May 03, 2008:

    Well I better get started.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 03, 2008:

    EmP's in.

    Utawarerumono
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 03, 2008:

    Me, too. I've done all the editing I can do for now... Might try poking at it later, I don't know.

    Just Breed
    board icon
    Genj posted May 03, 2008:

    I was going to review Shadow of the Colossus but that would have been lame and I'm lazy. So here's an updated piece of shit I farted out earlier this week:

    Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
    board icon
    Halon posted May 03, 2008:

    This tournament needs more 1/10 reviews. What a shame.
    board icon
    Halon posted May 03, 2008:

    I submitted my review about an hour ago and I'm going to bed now so add that to the list when it's up.

    Metriod
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 04, 2008:

    Here are all the review unless I missed one, which I didn't.

    Booberry - PO’ed
    Dark Eternal - One Must Fall
    EmP - Utawarerumono
    Genjuro - Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
    Sports - Metroid
    Wolfqueen001 - Just Breed
    Zanzard - My Hero

    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 04, 2008:

    OD, I just HG mailed you my results.
    board icon
    Genj posted May 04, 2008:

    I just hope draqq doesn't disappear/hasn't forgotten causing us to wait a month before the results are posted much like a certain comic contest.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 04, 2008:

    Yeah, I think that if we don't get any confirmation from Draqq within a week that he's still doing this, we should just post the results assuming OD's done by then. I only say this since Draqq isn't around much and we haven't heard from him since the start of this topic. I would imagine he'll show in a timely manner, though.
    board icon
    Genj posted May 04, 2008:

    That's good to know. I only said it becauseof how annoying it is when there are delays from no shows and draqq's appearance seemed kinda random. So NO OFFENSE DRAQQ.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 05, 2008:

    The comic deal was Lasty

    I'm sure we all remember this, I just like to remind everyone that Lasty is useless.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 05, 2008:

    Poor LH found himself in a situation where he couldn't exactly give out judgments.

    If you want to talk about purely useless judges, one only needs to mention Korubi and Destinati0n. They're bad reviewers, too.
    board icon
    bluberry posted May 05, 2008:

    yeah I was about to say, not to curry favor because I know either way he's going to fucking hate my review but I didn't think it was draqq who no-showed.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted May 06, 2008:

    Decent chunk of work done. 1/3rd done the walkthrough.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted May 06, 2008:

    Decent chunk of work done. 1/3rd done the walkthrough.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 07, 2008:

    Currently muddling through at 5/7 done. Which means my judging will either be done today or tomorrow at the latest! Have to give my brain a bit of a break. Partied a bit too much yesterday and it hurts to think too much today.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 08, 2008:

    And now, my judging is done! Just waiting for Draqq,now!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 08, 2008:

    Draqq or 3 more days, whichever comes first.

    (Though it's safe to say that Draqq probably forgot since he hasn't given any indication that he was still judging despite four days already passing since the deadline.)
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 08, 2008:

    I should have judged.
    board icon
    draqq_zyxx posted May 09, 2008:

    It's true. I totally forgot. But luck is on my side for bringing me here at midnight.

    So what I'll do is DO IT NOW. **** sleep.

    Edit (4:03 AM): Judgments have gone overdrive.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 09, 2008:

    Awesome, thanks Draqq!
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 09, 2008:

    Booberry:

    FELIX —  When I read the bit about the interstellar chef marooned aboard an alien-infested spaceship, I immediately imagined Steven Segal starring in this game. Good work. Then I thought back to the part where Booberry explains how lying is fun. Hm, I thought to myself. Can I trust him when he tells me that we vicariously exist through an interstellar chef who says, “I’ve got a frying pan to protect me. Look at my soufflé… flattened by a walking butt. I’m not angry. I’m PO’ed.” This immediately made me think of GUTS’ awesome Test of Fire review (it may not be a real game, but it should be, damn it). And then I wasn’t sure what to think when I did some research and found out that Booberry hadn’t made up any of these shenanigans. Not only is this game real, but you do play as a sassy saucier. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard! With the content given here, this review is hilarious. There were some great lines and some good descriptions and a lot of really great humor. I’m taking off three points, though, because now I will never get to see that 10/10 PO’ed review that TELLS THE TRUTH. SCORE: 97

    OD —  You start out by taking a jab at EmP, which is absolute MONEY in my book! Felix took my Steven Seagal comment away from me, which makes me sad. The concept of a chef fighting aliens, as portrayed by you in the early paragraphs, just seems to be one of those hilariously over-the-top "WTF WERE THEY THINKING?!?!?!" game concepts. It took awhile to get into the review (while amusing, the intro parts did go on a bit long — I don't know that the "Let's be clear: I wanted to like this game" part was remotely necessary, as it was like four paragraphs into the review and you still haven't gotten to making any real point. However, when you do, this review is pure gold. I mean, this was just one of those surreal reviews that has me laughing and then I stop and think to myself with no small amount of shock, "Holy shit! Someone actually put this thing on the market! Dude....." While it took you longer to get started with the good stuff than I'd like, I have to say that as far as the bash element of this competition goes, a good chunk of your review perfectly meshes with what I had in mind. SCORE: 91

    DRAQQ — I think the review would have been better if it didn't state the reasons why the review was written the way it was - that it was written in compliance with the rules of the contest. It makes the "1/10" seem forced, even despite the fact that PO'ed is quite the up-the-disc-hole kind of game. With that in mind, the introduction could have been condensed, though the backstory is light and entertaining. Only a few mechanical issues like a missing quotation mark at the end of the, err..., quotation and the need of a semicolon in "Textures aren't the new black, black is the new textures!" Overall, it's a convincing piece that could have been made convincing if it had been stronger in telling me what genre this game is (the reference to Doom makes it sound like a first-person shooter, but all the jumping makes it seems like a platformer), giving a discrete description on how disappointing the jetpack is (instead of saying the interpretations "differ"), and really honing in on the fact that enemies are freakin' buttmen. But for actually having to sit through PO'ed, I think you deserve more than a penny. SCORE: 81

    Dark Eternal:

    FELIX — So reviewers once held a meeting in the seventh circle of hell, huh? Was I there? Once we get past that atypical introduction, the review goes into detail on a fighting game. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’m not a fighting game fan, nor am I a fan of reading about fighting games. This review goes into risky territory due to its genre and because it dishes out a perfect score. A lot of the description, such as the modes and the combat, didn’t really appeal to me despite the claims DE made about this being wheat among chaff for PC-exclusive fighters. I can see that he likes the game; his writing just didn’t convince me that I had to play this or that it deserved the high score it received. Sounds like a decent game and the review does cover all of its bases, but I wasn’t gripped by what was said. SCORE: 70

    OD — The main thing I have to say about this review is that it didn't really convince me of the game's awesomeness in any way, shape or form. Now, sure, it does seem like a cool game and you did it justice in writing about it, especially in mentioning things like the various styles of play and how the various characters have their own strengths and weaknesses (and, sure, those things are part of most quality games in the genre, but the way you wrote about them made them seem a bit more vivid and important to me), but when I was finished with this review, I just had the impression that you wrote an "8" or so review and just tossed a "10" on it. Especially when you come right out and say the reason you gave it a "10" has more to do with how it's a good game on a platform without many good games, as opposed to simply being a great game that's transcendent in its genre. Well-written, but not convincing. SCORE: 73

    DRAQQ — First, a misplaced modifier: is it the meeting that is without violent people or is it Hell? Second, please use commas; that second sentence just about crushed my mind with its unbroken totality (and the verb it needs is "would mean" not "meant"). Now that that's out of the way, I must bring attention to the style of the review, which drifts between formal writing and fiction-esque descriptive writing, and as a result, just looks like it's trying too hard. Also, if you're trying to convince us that this is worthy of a 10, focus on the positives and cut out (or hide) the parts of the game that sound boring. Does I really need to know the specifics of how each robot and each pilot differ, or that there is a training mode? Ultimately, I'm not convinced the game deserves a 10, because the writing doesn't make it sound like a 10. Words have expression, and this review needed to express excitement and a sense that if I don't play this game, I should be maimed, skewed, and sent to whatever hell Paris Hilton's dog came from. SCORE: 60

    EmP:

    FELIX —  Initially I was very confused by this review, not because it was hard to follow, but rather because its angle is very story-laden and I felt that a lot of the more mechanical aspects of the game weren’t being covered. This score hasn’t changed much from the original, but now I can at least say after a bit of research that this review covers a few aspects in a subtle manner. Nowhere will you see EmP declare that any specific segment presented here is a battle, but he does indeed describe at least some of them. It’s obvious that Utawarerumono has a very interesting and complex story. Still, if I were the type of reader who came into this review without any previous knowledge on the game (and that description fits me), I would still be confused about the lack of explicit gameplay discussion. After speaking with EmP about this, I now know that it’s more implicitly described. But as an effective review that should both informative and interesting, I can only say it’s interesting. EmP does a pretty darn good job making the story sound really cool. He sacrifices description on the other aspects, though, as a result. It’s still an interesting experiment and I would personally like to see more people try to write dynamic reviews that are both interesting and informative. It’s a tough thing to pull off, though, as evidenced here. SCORE: 65

    OD — This seems to be of the same ilk of a review as Zig's Emerald Dragon, where gameplay elements take a definite back-burner to vivid descriptions of the story. I know I've tried doing this sort of thing before and it's not as easy to pull off as I had thought it would be when I started. This review kind of reiterates that in that I can see what you're saying and can understand why you like the game, but I don't know that came away from this review looking at this game as some amazing turn-based strategy game. I can think of lots of similar games that have strong characters such as conflicted villains and more heroic types with "depth" to their personality. Still, you did a strong job of portraying the characters and plot. But, like Felix mentioned, I'd like a bit more understanding of the gameplay and battle system; with TBS games, that can be the difference between greatness and just being there. And, really, other than mentioning the battles are "frantic and full of meaning" (which is a bit vague to me), I didn't get any real insight on much of anything besides the plot and characters. Good review, but one that left me feeling a bit empty and wanting more knowledge about the game. SCORE: 77

    DRAQQ: This review essentially makes the same mistake I made with my review for Ocarina of Time - it focuses so heavily on the story that it reads solely as fiction. However, I feel that a story-driven review has the potential to be a review (and if one can be pulled off, the game it's for probably deserves the 10), and that this would have been more successful if it was able to describe how the game's battles worked (without, of course, explicitly stating the mechanics of it all). But the main point for this type of review is to showcase the story, which is the main reason for picking this game up - and on that, it largely succeeds. Though it teeters so often on the edge of too much information that a spoiler alert might have been necessary, I'm drawn to the characters and that's hard to achieve. Some better sentence structures, however, would have helped: "man leaves his bed quicker than his injuries should allow" is a tad awkward; knowing that Nuwangi is a "tax collector" earlier in the paragraph and that Mutikapa is the "odd monkey" earlier would have made things clearer in the first pass; and what do you mean by "stop the villagers from righting the wrongs committed"? Still, I'm left with a feeling that I need to know about how the game works, particularly since it's a strategy title that isn't all about the narratology. SCORE: 72

    Genjuro:

    FELIX —  Holy crap, now here’s a review with a score attached to it that doesn’t feel like a stretch. Genjuro didn’t win RotW with this piece for no reason, folks. The game sounds like crap and Genjuro goes beyond just explaining why by injecting some pretty good descriptions and bits of humor all throughout. The paragraph on the levels was my favorite, and I also loved how he poked fun at Sony. This piece made me snicker, the subject matter was interesting and refreshing, the writing was informative, and I never questioned the author’s honesty. That makes for a pretty solid review in my mind. SCORE: 90

    OD: You know, "handle like a limping sack of decayed flesh" just might have been the single best line of this competition. Definitely the sort of thing I was looking for in a bash review. You don't waste any time ripping into this game and you show no mercy in skewering it. As an amusing sidenote, of the first four reviews I've read for this, both yours and DE's include reference to one of the Circles of Hell. Weird. Probably the thing I liked most about this review was how few words you needed to emphatically denounce this game. In one paragraph (the fourth), you were able to say all that needed to be said about the dull, repetitive gameplay (including a humorous comment on reusing sprites). And the incredible thing was that you mentioned four different levels and how they tie into the dullness and repetitiveness without even coming close to being cumbersome in your writing. That was just a great example of how good, concise writing can enhance the point you're trying to make. Very fun and entertaining review. SCORE: 95

    DRAQQ: Some out-of-the-ordinary mistakes: not "Robert Di Nero", but "Robert De Niro"; not "wolfs", but "wolves". For better or worse, this review takes a very traditional approach in arguing that this game completely sucks. It goes through the motions of why the controls blow, why the stroy is completely baloney, and why the entire experience is as lumbering and laborious as Frankenstein himself. But I know you can take this to the next level, perhaps injecting more hostility and just plain rage at the total bullshit nonsense - I mean, your entire weapons arsenal is a freakin' piece of dead plant cells. Reading the review just makes me feel like, "Oh, okay, it's a crappy game" instead of "Being an electricity-wielding freak of nature from a legendary novel shouldn't suck this much". SCORE: 79

    Sportsman:

    FELIX — Sportsman proves this fortuneteller wrong by coming out of nowhere and subbing a 1/10 review for Metroid. I could have sworn that he had one posted here already. That makes me wrong on two accounts. This must be a re-written or at least refurbished piece. And judging by the way things are presented here, I’m guessing that this review contains a good amount of ‘original’ writing because I thought this review’s message was conveyed unconvincingly in parts. So Metroid’s a game that tortures the player yet is really addictive to play, hm? There’s a boss fight that ‘isn’t as fun as it looks’ yet there isn’t any real description on what we’re fighting or who we’re even fighting as. I didn’t see the name ‘Samus’ appear once. Nor did I see anything to indicate that this is a Metroid game besides 1) the title being used and 2) some images on the sidebar. The review, as a result, lacks informational character. I certainly can see that Sportsman has some issues with the game (filling up eight health tanks would piss me off, too), but I don’t feel that his delivery is very effective. A lot of the descriptions feel too vague, both when he describes ‘lousy mechanics’ and skimps on the meatier aspects of the game. I know Metroid is a very primitive game by today’s standards, but couldn’t there have been at least a little bit of imagery to describe portions of the writing that deal in the aforementioned boss battle, the ‘darker environment’, and the part where it’s written that, “There is still plenty to do and see . . .”? Unfortunately, reading about navigation through claustrophobic corridors without a map and filling up eight health packs from the start just doesn’t make for a convincing argument by itself. SCORE: 50

    OD — You know, this is one of those critiques where I'm typing although I'm not really sure what I'll wind up saying. As someone who's written a somewhat negative review for this game, I see what you're saying and agree with virtually all of it. This is a game considered a legend. My best friend utterly loves this game and has gone so far as to recently say that if he was stranded on a desert island with any eight games (as well as the necessary systems, a TV and electricity), this would likely be one of them. But I just don't see it. When I first played it, I looked at it as a large game, but also a frustrating one. I didn't dislike it, but I didn't get into it like he did. And when I replayed to review it, my feelings had gotten more negative to where I disliked it, but didn't hate it. You're at that next step — where you actively hate the game. And you do a fine job of getting that point through by going off on how you have to slowly build up from 30/100 of one tank to up to eight full tanks when you restart a game and how, since there's no computer map, you have to make maps of a gazillion identical corridors. My main qualm, though, is that the whole section where you're describing a playthrough of the game from one region to the next just seems choppy and was hard to read in comparison to the intro and the concluding paragraphs. It just seemed like you were going from one part of the game to the next as quickly as possible and the result was some very jarring, abrupt transitions that were only connected by variations on "it gets worse". Still, a pretty good bash review that definitely got its point across. SCORE: 73

    DRAQQ —  Second sentence: "The idea of fighting in an alien world while finding hidden items and secrets is a great one that has influenced countless classics, but Metroid is certainly not one of them." By the way the sentence is constructed, it sounds like Metroid wasn't influenced by the idea, when I think your point is that Metroid was influenced by it, but just completely fails to realize it. Other than that, it's important that you edit: your simple, straightforward, cut-to-the-point style is best when your words choices also cut to the point. Always look for places where you don't need phrases or where you can condense: "with the mechanics", "there were several instances", "in the matter of fact", the entire third paragraph, and the introduction of the first person. About three paragraphs in, the review shifts from a formal style to a first-person narrative style, and continues to shift back and forth between the two (as well as the second-person "you" in the penultimate paragraph) when only one is necessary. Keep the point of reference fluid throughout. Another place to edit comes from being confident that your examples already explains something clearly; your example of fighting lame enemies for a half an hour just for health already makes it sound like the game is unplayable. A glowing nega-review of a classic is (partially) buried somewhere here, waiting to come out. You're almost there. SCORE: 76

    Wolfqueen:

    FELIX — Wolfqueen continues her whirlwind tour of good NES games with an interesting piece on Just Breed. Considering that genre is usually very technical – and it’s easy to sound boring when describing the intricacies that go into the mechanics – I am glad to see that this piece tries its hardest to avoid that. As Jason pointed out in the RotW topic, some of the writing gets a little bogged down. But most of it is more pleasing to read since I could see that this game really had an effect on you. The amount of options presented, and the dynamism behind waging such successful skirmishes, clearly indicates to me that this is a pretty interesting game. I liked her Rainbow Islands piece used in Brevity or Bust III more than this one, but this certainly isn’t a bad review. It’s actually rather good. SCORE: 80

    OD — I really have to get around to downloading this one and giving it a try. I'd thought about it once, but never got around to it (mainly because my old pre-software-upgrade NES emulator couldn't handle this game for some reason) and this review really makes me think I should rectify that. As a fan of turn-based strategy games, you really made this one seem like a special one. Now, one thing I have to say is that it took you a decent amount of time to get my attention. It seemed like for a good portion of the early stages of the review, you were gushing about standard TBS things (like how in your fifth and sixth paragraphs, you go into detail about strategically fighting enemies and conquering strongholds). But after that, you bring up some really interesting things, like how you can start or come back to levels from different places and the general-only battles. It just seemed like the more I read of this review, the more it picked up speed. Initially, I was somewhat skeptical it'd be anything more than a someone generic strategy game review, but by the end, I was halfway considering aborting my current projects to start this up. Those last few paragraphs just seem perfectly designed to really pump up a fan of this sort of game. SCORE: 86

    DRAQQ — The first sentence gets to me: I think you mean that Japan gets the best of everything, not particularly Japanese people in general all over the world. In some places, the review tends to choose sentences that seem to come out of a fact sheet or a back-of-the-box quote: "Stride into battle against hordes of monsters, carefully maneuvering your units to minimize damage and maximize special abilities" and "Further test your mettle with mind-blowing general-only battles." These kind of sentences don't get me excited as much as I feel like I'm being hawked. However, I think this review does a stellar job in showing why you, as a strategy fanatic, love every morsel of this game to death. Winning the ever-challenging battle from such an extraordinary array of possibilities is the hallmark, and the description help in convincing me of that, though many times I felt that they were simply describing what makes strategy games addicting in general, rather than what makes Just Breed the best in its league. Another plus is that, aside from "but every questions has an answer", there were hardly any issues with your mechanics. Still, though I'm convinced about the 10/10, I don't think the review is attuned enough to the general gamer. It doesn't particularly get me excited, but it at least makes me wish I was as happy of a tactician as you are. SCORE: 84

    Zanzard:

    FELIX —  Zanzard returns with a vengeance and pens a review that is 2x better than that incoherent jumble he used in Brevity or Bust III. First and foremost, this review makes sense. Its message makes sense. The descriptions make sense. I can understand the author’s frustrations with the game (some of the observations, such as the amount of hits needed to tackle an end-of-stage boss, were interesting), and I didn’t feel clueless once I got the concluding one-lined paragraph. Some of the writing in this piece read like fluff, though. When saying that, “These thugs kill you with 1 punch,” is it then necessary to say, “GETTING TOUCHED ONCE BY ANY RANDOM HOODLUM KILLS YOU.”? Of course it isn’t. It’s redundant because it adds even more short paragraphs to the mix. With that said, this review, like his others, suffers from a lack of proper paragraphs. Short paragraphs that are very important or well-placed can be a marvelous thing for a review’s flow. Any short paragraphs that do that here lose that effect because the entire review is nothing but a bunch of one-to-three-lined paragraphs. Zanzard, please combine some of these into one paragraph. I am glad that random capitalization didn’t appear (except for the passage I used as an example here), and I am also glad that this review didn’t fabricate ‘statistics’ for the sake of being cute. I do wish for some tighter transitions, and I strongly believe that paragraph development can lead to that. Overall, while this wasn’t a review to write home about it, it was a huge improvement and I hope Zanzard continues to build on it. SCORE: 40

    OD — Well, on the good side, you did a great job of making your point. This looks like one of those crap retro games that get reviewers like me all hard-as-a-rock to write a good scathing review of and you did a good job of that. Dying from frog spit, fighting the same boss after every level and other things you described about this game definitely painted a picture of a horrible game with little value beyond unintentional comedy. However, there were some things I didn't like about this. Your style of using a ton of really short paragraphs just seemed to make this one read really choppily. It was just tough to maintain my focus reading this because it was just this huge collection of three-line paragraphs. And it seemed that there was either a lot of repetition or poor organization for much of this review. When I got to the "Simply put, you'll die in this game. A lot." line, I was thinking that you could have easily condensed everything you'd said into a much smaller span of words. It seemed like you were repeatedly going back to things like the ineffectiveness of various moves and how it's easy to die for various reasons to the point where, if anything, it was detracting from the good parts of the review, as I felt like I was being deluged by the repetition. SCORE: 65

    DRAQQ —  Where do I start? Unless you're writing for a print newspaper, there is little reason why every paragraph needs to be one or two sentences long. It makes your review look choppy and broken into pieces, as if nothing is connected to anything else. Look again at paragraphs three through five; they all can be combined together and be condensed to about half the size while maintaining the "you press start, you have girl, you lose girl, you beat people to save girl" point that you're trying to make. In fact, before I go any further, you can burn about 80% of the review and still get the same message across. Focus on convincing me that My Hero is an epic failure; any piece of information that doesn't have that purpose should be deleted. Apart from that, I give you a list of things not to do until you can use them in the right way: writing "&" instead of "and", using the phrase "you see" and "you know" and variants thereof, putting low numbers in written form, telling me manual information like "Button 1 does this" and "Button 2 does that", telling me something more than two times (or even just one time, unless the second time is for very well-executed emphasis).??Honestly, you should just stick to this outline if you ever rewrite this: "My Hero sucks. The kidnapped girl story is a cliche that sucks. Punch and high-kick suck because they are useless. The backgrounds are suck-ugly. That the main character has the constitution of powdered sugar sucks. Dying sucks. Dying repeatedly sucks even more. Realizing that you're an idiot for playing this is the suckiest. In conclusion, sucky-suck-suck-sucky-suck." SCORE: 37

    Final Rankings
    01) Booberry – 269
    02) Genjuro – 264
    03) Wolfqueen – 250
    04) EmP – 214
    05) Dark Eternal – 203
    06) Sportsman – 199
    07) Zanzard – 142

    Anyone catch math errors, let me know. I can't handle numbers for crap, so that's always a possibility.
    board icon
    bluberry posted May 09, 2008:

    thanks to the judges for doing their thing, and congrats to the winner
    board icon
    EmP posted May 09, 2008:

    I belittle the judge's lack of imagaination and creativity. Especially ODs.

    Thanks for the judges, kudos to Draqq for the last minute all-nighter and congrats to Boo who has now almost aveneged the Op Wolf review.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 09, 2008:

    It’s been a hotly-contested giveaway, as they are wont to be when there are double the usual amount of games up for grabs, I suppose, but the drawings have been made and the winners of both a copy of Fantasy Wars and Speedball 2: Tournemnt can be found below:

    Congratulations to:

    Sashanan
    Turkish12
    TheBadger
    Leigh65
    DarkEternal

    Separate congrats go to Sash and DE for having a winning stake in every EU-based give-away we’ve hosted so far. Further haha’s at Sash, because I’m holding him to my threat of holding his games until he reviews something.

    The lucky winners will need to contact me with their mailing addresses for the games to be shipped out to them. If this is not done within two weeks, then a second drawing will be held for their unclaimed prizes.
    board icon
    draqq_zyxx posted May 09, 2008:

    No prob. I blundered, so the least I could do is get it up as quickly as possible.
    board icon
    Halon posted May 09, 2008:

    That is the third time I rewrote the review (and third score I gave it as well) and it was put together in about 30 minutes or less. I typed it all in one go with little thought put into it. I was afraid no one would show up for this thing and this was actually a great contest idea. Good thing it came out coherent at least.

    Thanks to the judges for their time and congrats to everyone who entered, especially Booberry.
    board icon
    sashanan posted May 09, 2008:

    Does this also mean that unless I submit a review within two weeks, I void my chance at that prize?
    board icon
    Genj posted May 09, 2008:

    I love how I seem to be cursed to always place second at best in these things. Maybe it's because I can't proofreed.

    Generic thank yous and congratses. I'm gonna go listen to some Wolfs in the Throne Room.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted May 09, 2008:

    Finally finished Lunar 2, after about a month and a week. Now onto my main nemesis: Arc the Lad 2.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 09, 2008:

    No. I am not quite that bad. Yet.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 09, 2008:

    It looks like a really great FAQ, shotgunnova. I had started one forever ago that was super-detailed and awesome, but I got derailed. Now I don't have to bother. Good job!

    I hope you continue writing FAQs like this for a long time to come. You really do good work.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted May 10, 2008:

    C'mon, man, no formalities! I'm Shotty. :P

    But yeah, took awhile but the game was fun so it wasn't that boring or anything. I'm interested in seeing your take if y'ever finish it, though, since that Gurumin guide was pretty swiz, too.

    Aside: is your avatar Tina Fey?
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 10, 2008:

    My avatar is Tina Fey, yes. Bluberry and I were chatting once about girls with glasses, and of course he linked a picture of Tina Fey (required for any online discussion of girls with glasses). I thought "Wow, that's the best picture of her that I've ever seen" so I cut out a 100x100 square for my avatar and the rest is history.

    As for Lunar 2, I don't plan to finish the FAQ. It was a huge project and I don't have time for that now. I'd rather write for newer games, on those rare occasions where I FAQ at all. I'm glad you liked the Gurumin one, but I just don't have it in me to keep writing any with that level of depth. It rocks that people like you do, but I'm more of the reviewer sort.

    Doesn't mean I won't write more FAQs, though... I seem to write a few each year.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted May 10, 2008:

    Of course, the positioning in the snapshot is just wrong.

    In other news, nearing completion. Hopefully I shall get it done by the night of the 14th. I want that bounty, damnit (and before June).
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted May 11, 2008:

    Tina Fey <3

    I plan on getting the PSX Hoshigami one of these days. Heard it was really annoying and difficult. Would've done the DS bounty myself but man, those emulators ain't too useful. The only game I've gotten to run at a semi-reasonable pace is Izuna the Unemployed Ninja. =/
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted May 11, 2008:

    I have been thinking about picking up a flash card for whenever the bounties turn to some of the rarer/super new DS games, but for now, I am perfectly content to use my own collection/leech off others temporarily.

    As for the DS Hoshigami, it has three difficulty modes, the Hard one being the original PSX's (only) difficulty, so you may still want to get the DS Hoshigami instead (that and you will still be contributing moolah to the guys who produced it if you get a new copy). It is still frustratingly long to FAQ, though; the main walkthrough is not that bad (and since I have beaten it already on Normal, I am going through it on easy), but there are so many side sections that it is taking me forever to get through it.
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 11, 2008:

    This is odd. Those of you familiar with our Review of the Week system know that no matter how many reviews a person subs in a given week, he or she can only earn one mention in that RotW. Well, this past week has presented us with the work of a mere three reviewers for a grand total of four reviews. Which means that all three people must be mentioned, regardless of quality. Had our old friend Wolverinefan been one of those people, he would have scored a spot. And I'd have told him the truth: That he got a mention only out of necessity, and not because he has any discernible talent. Because he doesn't.

    Anyway. I suppose the overall lack of content I have to deal with can be attributed to OD's comp (which featured a whopping seven entries), or we could blame it on the fact that staff reviews are not eligible. Either way, this was a very light week and I hope -- no, demand -- that my next RotW be a little more engrossing.

    SPOILER ALERT: Felix will appear on this list.



    Review of the Week: Grand Theft Auto IV (X360) by Felix_Arabia

    Easily the most complete and relevant of this week's reviews, as you tackle a game that just released and offers a lot to talk about. This review seems to cater specifically to those familiar with the GTA series, as you spend a lot of time explaining the various additions the game makes to its predecessors, such as the cell phone, the internet, dating, etc. Works for me, but I can imagine those who have never played GTA getting a little lost in all this minor details. I'd cut back a bit on such content and elaborate a little more on the specific examples that you simply skim over, such as the warehouse shootout or the hospital mission. Get more into the core of the game, you know? My only other suggestion is to revise your intro paragraph, which came off feeling pretty generic-sounding and didn't quite pull me in. Otherwise, your strong reviewing voice and struggle to nail all the important aspects of GTA IV made this an easy read despite its length, and since I'm playing through the game right now as well, I found myself nodding. Good work.

    First Runner Up: Prism: Light the Way (DS) by darkstarripclaw

    Not much to say about this one. Puzzle games aren't very interesting to read about by default, so it's a good thing you kept this one brief and told us only what we need to know, by explaining how the game works, what's wrong with it, and why it might still be worth your money if you're into stuff like this. My only real complaint is that you might want to incorporate your coverage of the game's flaws more naturally into the structure of your review rather than slapping a generic "but the game has a few flaws" paragraph on at the end. This isn't the most exciting review around but it's solid work nonetheless.

    Second Runner Up: Metal Slug 3 (Arcade) by Credit_Card

    No one could ever make the argument that your reviews lack personality. In fact, I usually think the opposite: That you're trying too hard to come off as energetic and witty, and usually just wind up sounding like a guy who can't be taken seriously. This is most evident in your often juvenile and excessive use of profanity. You would have placed on this list regardless, so at least I'm glad to see that this review is a noticeable improvement over your previous work. Your attitude still kind of bugs me, though. It often felt like you were talking down to me, as if to say I'm an idiot if I don't agree with what you're saying. DE was also right about the review being too long, though I can't say it was ever boring to read. You've definitely got the enthusiasm to sell me on why Metal Slug 3 is so great. Whether or not I want to be taking the advice of the guy writing this is a different story altogether.



    Congrats to the winners. You've earned it... I guess.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted May 11, 2008:

    New version going up tomorrow. From the time that I had this weekend, I managed to chip away at about a third of the game and add on 90KB.
    board icon
    Genj posted May 11, 2008:

    Congrats to felix on the win. Even if he had to review some lame MAINSTREAM game (yuck!).
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted May 11, 2008:

    Thanks for the placement (although I guess that was mandatory, given circumstances).

    In regards to the awkward positioning of my critique of its flaws, I must agree. Part of the reason for putting it where it is was something I pointed out in the review - the gameplay itself is not flawed, but the game built around it is lacking. I was trying to combine the two points at the time, had a difficult time, and ended up separating it.

    For shortness and solidness, I take that as a compliment ;). I cannot ever imagine myself as trying to compel emotion out of a review, as it is not really something of my philosophy, so I try to do a damn good job of still getting my reader interested, filling him or her on what the game is about, giving my critical thoughts on the game, and getting out with a conclusion with a resolution before it drags on too long.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 11, 2008:

    Thanks for the win.
    board icon
    Credit_Card posted May 12, 2008:

    I tell it like I see it. That's the way it should be. Thanks for reading.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 13, 2008:

    Wow... Sorry guys. I would've had one up last week, but moving out circumstances and all that (read blog) prevented me from doing so. ...plus technically I didn't finish the review until Sunday. >_>

    Congrats to the winners nonetheless. Light as it was. There was still competition for ranking, anyway.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 13, 2008:

    Wow. Can't believe I missed this. Hate being 'net deprived for so long...

    Anyway, thanks a lot guys! To Felix, I'll say: I didn't really like the review as much as Rainbow Islands, either, but it works, I guess, as attested to by my placement, so I feel a bit better about it. Thanks to boo and EmP for looking this over, too.

    Congratulations to the other winners and contestants as well.
    board icon
    darketernal posted May 15, 2008:

    Thanks for judging.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted May 15, 2008:

    Damn work that keeps coming up.

    Another two to four hours and I could be done this walkthrough. Grr.
    board icon
    zanzard posted May 16, 2008:

    Thank you all for the feedback!

    Lesson learned: no more small paragraphs!
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted May 17, 2008:

    Finally getting some ATL2 done after being sick for the last four days.
    board icon
    qxz posted May 18, 2008:

    Game: Chameleon
    Platform(s): PSP
    Publisher: UFO Interactive
    Developer: StarFish
    Genre: Puzzle
    Release Date: May 5, 2008


    Game: Austin Powers Pinball
    Platform(s): PlayStation
    Publisher: Take Two Interactive
    Developer: Wildfire Studios
    Genre: Casual (pinball)
    Release Date: October 25, 2002



    One question I'd like to ask: If there's any information that's not present in a game's profile, how would I go about submitting such data?

    Added

    As to your note, we go through the database on occasion to fill in missing back data (of which there is still a lot), so it's probably just best to wait for that to happen over time. Individually going through and adding game details here and there isn't time-effective. We're happy to add games as needed if you plan to review one or contribute a FAQ, or even if you just own the game and want to add it to your collection. Otherwise, we just wait for weekends where I feel especially industrious and add/modify a few hundred games at a time.
    board icon
    dagoss posted May 20, 2008:

    Game: Densetsu no Stafy 2
    Platform(s): GBA
    Publisher: Nintendo
    Developer: TOSE
    Genre: Platformer
    Release Date: 09/05/03 (Japan)

    Game: Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: Atari
    Developer: Obsidian
    Genre: CRPG
    Release Date: 10/09/07 (US)
    board icon
    timrod posted May 20, 2008:

    Game: Dwarf Fortress
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: Bay 12 Software
    Developer: Bay 12 Software
    Genre: RTS/Roguelike
    Release Date: 2007
    board icon
    sashanan posted May 21, 2008:

    Fantasy Wars and Speedball 2 Tournament sitting on a pretty pile next to me now. That leaves only SunAge, right, or did I lose track of everything I'm robbing you of?
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 28, 2008:

    Time for my usual late RotW. My excuse this time: Memorial Day alcohol binge followed by a couple panicky days of getting caught up on the job. Come to think of it, I think all my excuses have the words "alcohol binge" involved somehow. Maybe all those friends, family members and total strangers who say I have a problem are on to something after all. Hmmm......food for thought.....

    Anyway, here are the reviews and placements. As always, staffers/freelancers/people I dislike get no recognition and users can only have one review count. If this RotW leads to the naughty sorts of e-drama that Pup's did, rest assured that I WILL abuse the post edit feature to make all involved look like fools. Well, unless one person gives the other an utterly hilarious, yet devastating, slam. In which case, I'll take their side completely and totally ostracize the other person to the point they may look at suicide as the only way out. You hear me, Tristis Usurper? Mainstream Mike?

    Alright, now that I puffed myself up and feel like a badass, I submit to you THREE REVIEWS I LIKED!




    Review of the Week: Neverwinter Nights 2 (PC) by dagoss

    It wasn't really a matter of having a tough time picking who'd win this week, but which of their two reviews would get the win. In the end, I went with this one, just because there was this certain sort of quirky humor that really won me over. At first, I was like, "WTF are you talking about with this filler opening paragraph?!?!". Then, after reading the second paragraph, I was just amazed. That was a genius way to start this review. Overuse a tactic like this and it'll get tired very quickly. But in the context of this review, it really worked. And it seemed to set the stage for an informative review that, for the most part, hit on all cylinders. The paragraph about the poor dialogue and annoying characters was pure gold -- especially with the surreal mentioning of how, when you're talking to someone about the dangers of lizardmen, you see a group of them going off to burn a barn. And that was just one highlight. About the only qualm I had was that after reading it, I thought a "5" was a bit too generous, as you did have a laundry list of frustrations, but I loved how this review read.

    First Runner Up: Fatal Frame (PS2) by sashanan

    You know, I've heard about the Fatal Frame games for some time and had considered playing them, as I do like a good survival horror game, but something about the way they sounded to me just didn't click with me as something I'd get into. Probably the whole camera concept. Your review here is the sort of thing that could convince me to give this game a try at some point despite those qualms. Just a well-written, detailed, informative review that doesn't mince any words about the game's weak points, but still gives me a strong feeling that this is a fun, challenging game that has the definite capacity to genuinely freak a player out. You did a great job of conveying how the game's gimmick (the camera) adds to that atmosphere and how, to really damage enemies, you have to put yourself in danger of taking a very damaging hit. Games like this thrive due to their atmosphere and you did a good job of bringing that out in this review.

    Second Runner Up: Okami (Wii) by disco

    Another review that's detailed and informative. I'd heard plenty of negative things about the Wii's controller and how it relates to this game, so it's good to see a well-written counterpoint, where you refer to them as being more along the lines of minor inconveniences in an otherwise excellent game. Hard to say much else about this review other than it was a very enjoyable read and that if I wasn't already familiar with this game, I'd have learned all I needed to know about it from your review.




    And there were a lot of other good reviews. We had the Felix/Wolfqueen contest, which produced a couple good reviews that were hurt for me by how they're for a genre which I just can't get into reading about, playing or writing about (explaining why Adventures of Lolo has been on my back burner for a year or two). And yes, I did dodge offering my judgment on your little competition just now. I'll get to it this week, but not right now. As well as solid stuff by other writers that made this a pretty fun week as far as reading goes for me.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 28, 2008:

    OD, let's hold an argument about Neutopia 2.

    Congrats to Dagoss for his win. I haven't read this piece yet, but I liked his Gun Nac review a lot, so I'm glad that he got the victory.

    Congrats to Sashy and Disco-ey for their placings.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 28, 2008:

    Well, what should we argue about? You said that from what you heard from Ruder that it's a crappy game. From what I've played, it seems to be a......crappy game that strips all of Zelda's soul, leaving a hollow clone that might rival the Playstation's Monkey Hero for the coveted "bottom of the barrel" award.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 28, 2008:

    Hm, in that case . . . let's disagree that we agree that the game sucks.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 28, 2008:

    Monkey Hero was fun.

    You're all fools. Let's fight about it.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 28, 2008:

    Go away, me!
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 28, 2008:

    Oh. Yes. And the most fun part of Monkey Hero, for me, was the time where the game glitched in the first dungeon and a door that was supposed to open when I did something like kill all the enemies in a room didn't trigger and never did no matter what I did and I had to start the whole game over. That was great fun.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 28, 2008:

    Actually, I never beat the game due to a glitch. But I got right near the end and it was quite a lot of fun.

    Its forever been on my list of games I want to go back and beat.

    ALSO: EmP approves of these reviews. Dagoss' is great.
    board icon
    dagoss posted May 28, 2008:

    I never thought "great" and "genius" could be used to describe something written by me. Thank you overdrive, Felix, and EmP!
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 28, 2008:

    You called me mainstream, har har!

    And we can't hold an argument about Neutopia 2, because Felix's opinion is no longer credible and he should stop making ludicrous comments about games he's obviously never played.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 28, 2008:

    Judging by the images I've seen, Neutopia 2 looks like a fun little game. Judging by what I've heard, it isn't. But when you get past all of the hullabaloo and look at it from the grand scheme of things, no one cares about $6 chip that's just a poor man's Zelda.
    board icon
    sashanan posted May 29, 2008:

    especially with the surreal mentioning of how, when you're talking to someone about the dangers of lizardmen, you see a group of them going off to burn a barn.

    Loved that line, I could picture it precisely. It was one of the best in the review, but it was an entertaining read throughout. Good pick.

    Also thanks for the mention, I was happy myself with how that review turned out. Had been dry for like 9 months again.

    Second Runner Up: Okami (Wii) by disco

    Didn't read. Time to rectify that.
    board icon
    Masters posted May 29, 2008:

    Neutopia 2 is a fun game. It's a lot like the first one, which is a lot like Zelda. Probably it's not as charming and quaint as Neutopia 1... it tries to be a bit more badass and that makes it less likable. But it's still worth having for fans of the genre. The problem was, as I saw it, that the game was anything but a $6 Hu-Card; it used to be really expensive. Maybe that's changed now.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 29, 2008:

    I only paid $6, but then I did buy the JP version since I only own a PC Duo. Perhaps the American version is more expensive?
    board icon
    Masters posted May 29, 2008:

    Maybe.

    How come you haven't played it if you own it? Did I miss something?
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 29, 2008:

    Part of it is due to my laziness. The other part of it stems from having to play through a plethora of seemingly better titles first. At least you tell me it's a fun little game, though. That makes me feel better about the purchase.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 01, 2008:

    This has been a while in the making. Not for sinister reasons like careful planning and delicate timing but because both our systems decided to blow up one after another. Of course, Boo could have done this while I was on a PC KO, but hes as lazy as he is rotund. He doesnt even know what Operation Wolf is.

    Heres some backstory.

    Before it became a winner in an OD-run tourney, the seeds where long planted for POed. It wasnt a long process and what it all boils down to is we saw a game we knew nothing about and pushed each other towards reviewing it. It worked; we found ourselves looking forward to reviewing this game that I had dug out from the dank recesses of my mind and, somewhere along the way, one of us said we should do this for everyone.

    So, now were going to. BWHY is a tourney with a twist. Well be picking your game for you.

    Were not total monsters. Youll have some say in the platform and, if youre not willing to drop $10 or so in Ebay costs, well work with you in ROMS or abandonware, but be aware that the odds are we will abuse this position and use it to torture you.

    Your game of (our) choice will be worked out with you through HG Mail (or AIM). Were not going to burden you all with real rubbish because we have to read all these reviews, after all. Well negotiate if need be, but the final say is ours.

    The incentive: Win the thing and level vengeance on both of us.

    Once you get your game, its completely up to you whether you go public with the information or not. Either way, the real aim of this tourney is to push you into a review you otherwise would have never written. Think outside the box, because youre going to be airlifted beyond the boundaries.

    We are now open for sign-ups. Don't be a bunch of girly folk, now.

    DEADLINE:
    July 27th

    Judges:

    Emp & Boo

    Entries:

    Felix
    Sash
    MartinG
    Genj
    Belisaros
    DoI
    CJ
    Sporty
    Suskie
    Will
    Vorty
    Dagoss
    WQ
    Jerec
    iamtheprodigy
    OD -- Cyberdreams
    DE
    Drella
    credit_card
    Drella
    Twilightauora
    Crazyreyn
    Darkstarclaw
    Cairo
    Ben
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 01, 2008:

    Touch me.

    Edit: The only console I own is an NES.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 01, 2008:

    Give me a reasonable time frame to play the game in - time is ever so precious nowadays - and you're on.
    board icon
    MartinG posted June 01, 2008:

    All right, count me in! Where's the fun in reviewing games you've chosen?
    board icon
    Genj posted June 01, 2008:

    I'll go ahead and enter, but I won't be able to start anything until June 20th.
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted June 01, 2008:

    I skipped the last event. But I'll be in for this one. Tell me which game I am to review through the mail system here, please.

    I'd be willing to emulate anything old school or see what PSX/PS2 games there are as long as they aren't more than a few dollars.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted June 01, 2008:

    Sign me up, skipper.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted June 01, 2008:

    Enlist me sir. But I won't be able to get down to real work until the 17th of June, from good old English A-levels.
    board icon
    Halon posted June 01, 2008:

    Cool idea, I suggested this a while back in a reviewer chat and nobody took me seriously. =(

    I'll try to get on AIM either tonight or tomorrow. I'm sorry if I haven't been around much on AIM lately; I don't have time to use the internet much anymore except for 3 minutes here and there.

    Keep in mind that I only have a PC (with plenty of emulators) and don't want to spend more than $10-20.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 01, 2008:

    Sounds interesting. I'm in.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 01, 2008:

    I would like it known for the record that I am signing up for this under duress for super happy times.
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted June 01, 2008:

    I'll sign up.
    board icon
    dagoss posted June 01, 2008:

    I want to sign up too!

    I have an NES, N64, PS2, and DS (and thus PSX and GBA). Thanks to emulation, the only systems I could not conceivably review games for are the PS3, 360, Xbox, PSP, Wii, Gamecube, Dreamcast, and Saturn. I can handle most PC games except those released in the last year or two.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 01, 2008:

    Well, this certainly is different. Turns out I was wrong in assuming which contest you were putting together. I had based my assumption on something I saw on sportsman's archive page (he needs to update that, btw), but I couldn't remember which one it was.Until I looked it up just now.

    Anyway, enough rambling. I would totally do this, but I don't have access to e-bay, or any electronic money transferring internet accounts, and even if I could get them, I wouldn't because I don't trust the internet with my money. Also can't download ROMs now because I'm on this useless dial up connection, so I might have to sit this one out. =( It makes me sad.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 01, 2008:

    ROMs for old systems are very, very small. I'm on dialup now, actually, and it hasn't stopped me from nabbing Gradius II just now.

    bite me EmP, at least I'm not so cheap didn't give up on PO'ed after one auction ended at the exorbitantly high price of $2.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 01, 2008:

    also, the other thing is that it would be very helpful if you could get the ball rolling and post what systems you have, what systems you can emulate, whether you have a PC that can play 2000-ish games or recent games, and what if any nominal amount you'd be willing to spend.

    also of note being that I have loads of old, low-value Xbox/N64/whatever games I'd be willing to send out if you just hooked me up with a few bucks for shipping, and I'm sure EmP does too if you live in the UK.
    board icon
    Halon posted June 01, 2008:

    I prefer any PC game that I don't have to spend money on and something that I can ROM for NES/SNES/Genesis/Turbo 16.

    I could also do (but prefer not to) any PC game that is $20 or less or any arcade game (pain in the ass to set up MAME again).

    You could post my game here if you want unless it's supposed to be private. Then HG mail me and I'll inform you either via HG mail or AIM if it's no good.
    board icon
    jerec posted June 02, 2008:

    I wonder if I could actually write a review for a game that someone else tells me to review. It'll be an interesting experiment for me. So, I'll sign up.

    I have a 360, Xbox, PS2, PS1, GameCube, N64, SNES, DS and GBA. I can play old PC games that have low requirements. I could probably play a 2003 PC game without any problem (checked the most recent PC game I have). Anything from the 90's is ideal.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 02, 2008:

    WQ: NES ROMs are still minute-long downloads on dial-up. You're doing this.

    Boo: 2, actually. In dollars, they would have been paying me to take it.

    Jerec: Best of luck, bud! I'll scour for an AU-only title.
    board icon
    iamtheprodigy posted June 02, 2008:

    I could very well regret this but I'll give it a shot.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 02, 2008:

    I'll be in. Preferably pick something I don't gots to put money into, as I'm P-O-O-R at the current time. You know, like a ROM. I can handle that.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 02, 2008:

    I currently have SNES, Genesis, and Sega CD emulators set up, and I think I might still have an NES emulator swimming around my hard drive somewhere. Realistically, I should be able to emulate just about anything reasonable.

    As for systems I own, I do still have a Nintendo 64 and PSX, though getting games cheap nowadays is pretty tough. I've also got a GameCube, Xbox, Xbox 360, DS, and a PC that can run most games as long as they're not too demanding in the system requirements area. Note that some Xbox 360 games are really cheap if they're used, so don't leave that out.
    board icon
    iamtheprodigy posted June 02, 2008:

    I have Genesis, N64, DS, 360, and PS2. I think I'd prefer DS or N64 but I'm willing to try others. Only thing is I don't want to spend too much, I have some cash but there's several things I'm looking at buying so I need to save up.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted June 02, 2008:

    OK, if we're listing platforms here, guess I'll have to follow suit.

    I currently own a Mega Drive, Master System (via Power Base converter), PSX (modded, so I can burn an ISO if need be), PlayStation 2, Wii, GBA and a PC that should run most PC games up to 2006.

    As for emulation, my PC should be fine for consoles that have fully functional emualtors, that is, up to N64. I do frown on reviewing emulated games, as its not playing on the original platform and consequntly different controls and a differnet style. But if need be, I'll emulate.
    board icon
    Genj posted June 02, 2008:

    Emulate:
    Arcade (MAME)
    NES
    SNES
    Genesis
    Turbo 16 (may be able to download some CD games)
    GBA (and thus GB & GBC)

    Own:
    PS2 & PSX (I have experience with PSX emulation too if someone wants to give me an obscure ISO)
    GameCube
    Xbox
    DS
    N64
    Saturn

    No Dreamcast - hasn't been working well.

    PC: The only game I've played on my Vista machine is Vampire: Bloodlines and it had frame rate issues when there were a lot of enemies. Plus my hard drive is quickly getting filled with music and I don't have an external hard drive yet. Probably not a good option anyway because of Vista.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 02, 2008:

    Ok, EmP. >_> There's still one other problem, though. I'm not playing anything on this computer for two reasons: 1) I (still) don't lke being caught down here by my parents, and 2) the sounds fucked up on this thing.

    I'd have to transfer the ROM by CD to my laptop... but I'm not sure if doing that will corrupt the file or something. If that doesn't cause any problems, then it should be fine. Though I still have a feeling just downloading the thing will take me twenty minutes... might not be a big deal, though.

    E: You know what emulators I have. Or should. NES and Genesis, though I'd prefer NES. If this all works out.
    board icon
    darketernal posted June 02, 2008:

    Sure. Anything but Gamecube, Xbox-Xbox360, PS3 or Wii. I think that takes care of what I do not own.
    board icon
    Synonymous posted June 02, 2008:

    Oh, what the heck; I'm curious about what game I'd get, so I'll try. I'm limited to a DS (& GBA) and a middle-range PC, plus whatever's currently on GameTap.
    board icon
    Credit_Card posted June 02, 2008:

    Someone asked me to do this. I'm not willing to spend cash because that seems ridiculous to me, but I will emulate anything pre-32bit.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 02, 2008:

    Well, no one would expect a dude named Credit Card to spend cash!

    And there's the OD Horrible Joke of the Day! Feel esteemed that you were the focal point of it!
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 02, 2008:

    we're on Venter's turf, OD. we're immune to bad jokes.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 04, 2008:

    The last time I did one of these, I had an interesting dilemma: Only four reviews by a grand total of three writers that week meant everyone was guaranteed a spot on the list. This is outrageous, of course, and I demanded a longer list of potential RotW winners for the next time I did one. Well, some guy named Whelkman apparently took my words to heart, submitting a grand total of 27 reviews over the last week. Yar. And he covered mind-blowing classics like Minesweeper and Solitaire to boot! You guys really did put me to work this week, though, and the quality was high enough on average that even those regulars who didn't get mentioned (you know who you are) deserve a shout-out.

    Only one review per human is allowed, as always, and staff reviews are ineligible. That guy who goes by Usurper is also ineligible, because Felix submitted a slightly better review, and they're both the same person. With that out of the way, let's do this thing.



    Review of the Week: Yume Penguin Monogatari (NES) by Felix_Arabia

    This is a great example of how the subject of a review (i.e. the game itself) can be a major factor in just how compelling that review is. Yume Penguin Monogatari is a genuinely kooky game, with goofy characters and weird settings and odd gameplay mechanics. This kind of thing by its very nature is interesting to read about, and Felix embraces the opportunity. Had you taken on any other NES game, I'd be annoyed that you spend so much time detailing the story, but it's definitely an important element of this game, and your transition from plot to gameplay (since the two go hand-in-hand) is silky-smooth. I love reading about quirky, obscure games like this, and now, even after hearing your warnings that the game is too short and easy, I still want to check it out, and I share your frustration in Nintendo for not localizing it. As much as I want to give someone else a shot at winning RotW for once, you definitely earned your victory this round. You over-achiever, you.

    First Runner Up: Miracle Girls (SNES) by BELISARIOS

    I was definitely skeptical of this review at first when I saw your "this game is too girly" thesis. Then I kept reading and thought to myself: Yeah, I would definitely have to chop my balls off if I ever played this. What's great, though, is that you aren't judgmental. You don't let the game's appearance and history get to you, and you admit that the game isn't bad, even if it's not particularly good, either. Not being able to destroy enemies (only stun them) sounds aggravating indeed, and the fact that you're throwing CANDY at them sells your point: That this isn't a very enjoyable game anyway, and that its feminine exterior only exacerbates the pain. It would have been too easy to write a straight-up bash, so I'm glad you took the mature route. I have no desire to play this game, but at least I'm not laughing at it.

    Second Runner-Up: The King of Dragons (Arcade) by Synonymous

    Hey guys: Here's another reviewer who has only just recently emerged on the HG scene and is one to look out for. This review's intro paragraph mentions Golden Axe and The King of Dragons, both hack-and-slash arcade games I admittedly have no interest in. The thesis is that The King of Dragons attempts to be much like Golden Axe, and holds a number of similarities, but doesn't quite hold up to the game that inspired it. Fine, that's a start -- but many reviewers would collapse right then and there, leaning on Golden Axe like a crutch, with the remainder of the review reading like a list of comparisons. What's great is that not only does your thesis work, but you still manage to illustrate what goes right and wrong with this game to a guy like me, who has never played Golden Axe and probably never will. I especially liked the "end, damn you" bit near the end; that got a laugh out of me. Good work.



    Now imagine there's some rad concluding paragraph here that totally inspires you to greater heights, especially if you're one of the reviewers (like Disco or Wolfqueen or Pickhut) who didn't quite make it into this week's list of winners. That's it, you're inspired... Now go do great things.
    board icon
    drella posted June 05, 2008:

    At your mercy.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 05, 2008:

    Thanks for the win.

    Congrats to the others mentioned.
    board icon
    Synonymous posted June 05, 2008:

    I'm going to have to resign; looks like moving-related activities are going to interfere. Sorry.

    ETA: Vacillation ahoy: I'm most probably going to be AWOL late June/early July. With this schedule, would I be better sitting out?
    board icon
    Synonymous posted June 05, 2008:

    I submitted this last week? Some memory I have. Thank you very much, and congratulations to the other winners.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 05, 2008:

    I'd actually never heard of Whelkman before, but it was pretty obvious he was importing these reviews from somewhere else -- they were pretty varying in quality. I challenge anyone to write a compelling review for Solitaire, but yeah, I agree that some of his NES reviews were far more interesting to read.
    board icon
    Masters posted June 05, 2008:

    Whelkman used to rock. Glad to see his work here at HG.

    Ha, I like this "in light of our recent scuffle". Baha. I think, really, I just like the word "scuffle".
    board icon
    Masters posted June 05, 2008:

    http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/gbadvance/review/R65171.html

    Brilliant.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 05, 2008:

    Oh wow. I read that sentence quickly and thought he said "shuffle." I must agree I like the word scuffle a great deal better.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted June 05, 2008:

    He jsut imports his reviews? I at least try and rewrite mine, or at least tweak it to current standards, before they see this site. That's why I have almsot 80 on GFAQ's and about 15 here still. It's not that I'm lazy.

    Nonetheless, full credit for his NES contributions.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 05, 2008:

    Welky quit reviewing a long time back. He basically just gave permission for his backlog to be ported here.
    board icon
    Halon posted June 05, 2008:

    Even though his best work was already posted here (Dragon Warrior, Guardian Legend, etc) it's great to see the rest of it here. Not to mention he's probably the greatest poster in the history of all the reviewing forums.

    And we can't forget the choking on an acorn emoticon.
    :-@
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 05, 2008:

    it depends on whether you'd be able to/comfortable with pulling the whole thing off (get game, play game, review game) in the course of a week or two. I haven't worked it out exactly with EmP but the deadline won't be as early as early July for sure, this sort of thing will take some time for obvious reasons.

    edit: I'll run this by EmP later to make sure we're on the same page, but late July (possibly like the 27th) sounds right to me.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 06, 2008:

    We'll pencil that in as the date for now. I can start sorting the TT out in the background of this.

    You should all have HG mails with your chosen game in. If you don't, or you have problems with the game, let me know here or through HGMail.
    board icon
    Synonymous posted June 06, 2008:

    Game: Trilby's Notes
    Platform: PC
    Publisher: AGS
    Developer: Ben Croshaw
    Genre: Adventure
    Release Date: 6/26/06


    Game: 6 Days a Sacrifice
    Platform: PC
    Publisher: AGS
    Developer: Ben Croshaw
    Genre: Adventure
    Release Date: 1/25/07


    Game: Tender Loving Care
    Platform: PC, [interactive] DVD
    Publisher: Aftermath [PC], DVD International [DVD]
    Developer: Aftermath
    Genre: Interactive Movie
    Release Date: 7/31/98 [PC], 4/6/99 [DVD]
    board icon
    Muk1000 posted June 06, 2008:

    Game: Penny Arcade Adventures: On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness, Episode One
    Platform(s): Xbox 360, PC, Mac, Linux
    Publisher: Hothead Games
    Developer: Hothead Games
    Genre: RPG/Adventure
    Release Date: May 21, 2008
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 07, 2008:

    What an interesting pick. And almost two months to finish it and write for it? You're on.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 07, 2008:

    Anyone else making progress on this? I have a 'K' review coming soon. No one has posted in the topic in a bit. Let's see some progress. :-D
    board icon
    EmP posted June 07, 2008:

    I keep reviewing for the same bloody letters. It's so bloody annoying to see a hige line of A and S games trickling onto the line.

    I do have a D I should have done by Monday. Then it's back to letters I already have some more with T, C and E.

    I do have a V planned now.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 07, 2008:

    The V review is going to be the greatest review HG has ever seen. It will literally change how reviews are written. I'm getting tingly just thinking about it.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 07, 2008:

    Really? Have you seen this review, Felix? Or is it just for a game that's like... really awesome?

    But as to progress, I've been making progress... I did just get five reviews in a month. I should have M done soon... then I'm planning G, P and H.

    Oh, also to Felix, if you haven't done this already, you should count one or more of your Panzer Dragoon reviews for P. I haven't seen taht recently.

    Also, EmP made one of the most epic titles when inputting his Ys review. Haha.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 07, 2008:

    I have not read the review yet because EmP has yet to to write it. But I can GUARANTEE that the game is the most awesome and influential piece of excellence in the history of the university.
    board icon
    twilightaurora posted June 07, 2008:

    All right! T.T I'll give it a shot.
    board icon
    Crazyreyn posted June 07, 2008:

    Count me in - I'd like to emulate (Amiga, DS, GameBoy, GameBoy Color, GBA, Master System, Mega Drive, NES and SNES).
    board icon
    EmP posted June 07, 2008:

    Apologies to those of you who have been waiting a while for their games to be input. I would have done them earlier, but I mistakingly assumed that this site had staff members besides me. Clearly, I was mistaken.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 07, 2008:

    I've put a couple letters up for me in recent times. Well, at least one. But, I'll have two more done next week.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 07, 2008:

    I've written 28 reviews this year and only 17 of them count toward the alphabetic marathon. It's rather unfortunate. I'm like EmP and don't really have much time to review anything but the games we're sent with an obligation to review.

    Still, I'm at the top (for now) and loving it. I could definitely get used to this. Oh, yes. I could indeed!

    On a side note... 28 reviews. 28! My plan at the start of the year was to write maybe that many over the course of the whole year. I guess that idea is out the window...
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 08, 2008:

    I'm filling in this week for pup, who as you might have read has moved on from his staff position here on the site. Until his place in the RotW rotation is filled, you will see guest faces (like mine).

    This week, there were 10 reviews to go through, many of them quite excellent (and none of them poor, certainly). That's a lot of great writing to sort through, but below you'll find my picks for my three favorites, with commentary.

    As usual, staff reviews are excluded from the list of reviews and I'm only commenting on one review from any individual. If you submitted multiple pieces and I referenced one, know that it's the one I liked best. And now, without further ado...

    ---

    Second Runner-Up: Metal Storm (NES) by dagoss

    The battle for the third-place finish this week was brutal, but finally it came down to two possible candidates. I ultimately went with dagoss (sorry, woodhouse) because the review focused slightly more on details not pertaining directly to plot (woodhouse dallied there a bit longer than felt right to me), and because the writing throughout was just so darn cool! The introduction on the one hand feels a little bit bloated, yet I wouldn't recommend cutting any of it because it so perfectly sums up many gamers who consider themself experts of the 8-bit era. This review is a bit of a call to action. "Try this game you thought wasn't worth your time," it seems to say, and then it tells exactly why you'll want to. Moving from that introduction to the reference of standing on the ceiling and firing bullets downward to hit an enemy above was the right move. That just sounds so bizarre and the rest of the review is spent establishing just why it's a breath of fresh air and executed wonderfully. The end result is that I want to play the game more than ever and I want to see more reviews that are similarly insightful from dagoss.

    First Runner-Up: Metroid (NES) by Felix_Arabia

    The introduction to this review worked perfectly and was the start of one of Felix's best reviews to date. My hackles always rise just a little bit when I see someone bashing a game I like--and I do like Metroid--but this review took a balanced and persuasive approach as it told me just why Felix didn't much care for the time he spent in the 8-bit corridors of Brinstar. His introduction set the scene perfectly and then he followed through with excellent descriptions of a game that slowly leeched his enjoyment away. I think what I liked best was how he made the game sound suitably cool in all the right places, then showed why that wound up not particularly mattering in the grand scheme of things. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging what a game you don't like does right, especially if you then demonstrate so effectively why it doesn't save the day. Felix did that very well here. On most other weeks, it would have been enough to get him the win. This time around, though, that instead went to someone else.

    Review of the Week: Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES) by drella

    There were a lot of fine reviews this week, but after reading through them all, I could tell that the most they could hope to do is fight it out for second and third place. In my mind, this review for Super Mario Bros. 3 was the undisputed leader. I've read a lot of stuff about various Nintendo-developed titles over the years, but I can't remember the last time a review so perfectly nailed what it's like to play those games, to revel in the feeling of being a Mario fan when his games are at their best. I've already gushed about this review elsewhere so I'll shut up now, but let it be known that this just became (in my opinion) the definitive review of one of my favorite games. Stellar.

    ---

    I'm not sure who is up to bat next week, but I hope that you'll give him as much great material to agonize over as you did this week. Good job, and keep those excellent submissions coming!
    board icon
    drella posted June 08, 2008:

    NES dominated week it looks like.

    Thanks!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 08, 2008:

    Thanks for the mention and congrats to Drella for his fine win. This truly was a magnificent week and I hope that the subsequent weeks are just as good. Though he wasn't mentioned elsewhere in this topic, I want to give props to BigCj34 for writing a really good Sonic review. Great job from everyone all around.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted June 08, 2008:

    Full credit to everyone, although it would be nice to break onto the podium one day, there's no questioning these winners!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 08, 2008:

    The best suggestion I can offer for any of you looking to break into the top three is to write and submit something new each week. Not only will you improve with the practice--though some of you are doing quite well already--but you also have that hope that one week not as many people will submit and you'll sneak in that way. ;-)

    I remember back in the old days when RotD was a fierce competition over on GameFAQs, I tried several times for the crown before I finally got it. I was starting to get impatience but it really drove me to produce some of my best work at the time. Regular contests like this do a person good and I hope that all of you looking to improve will take advantage of RotW and the education (and motivation) it can provide!

    Anyway, it's like I said. This was a great week. It truly was. I was startled by the sheer quality of many of the submissions through and through. If we could have more weeks like this one, I would be ecstatic.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted June 08, 2008:

    I'll participate as well; preferably something for DS, and to less degrees, SNES, Wii, or GBA.
    board icon
    johnny_cairo posted June 09, 2008:

    I will enter so long as you don't make me review anything based on an anime/manga.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 09, 2008:

    Cairo, check your HG mail.
    board icon
    dagoss posted June 09, 2008:

    The NES was the winner this week. She earned it!
    board icon
    Genj posted June 10, 2008:

    I have to reshuffle for another game. I sent EmP an HG mail back explaining how Comcast DSL is a piece of shit.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 10, 2008:

    You should all have reviews now. Anyone without one, let me know
    board icon
    drella posted June 11, 2008:

    Biomechanical Toy

    "Run and Gunner" would be a better fit for the genre.

    It's up.

    Thanks huge amounts.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 11, 2008:

    Dude. You should totally add all those new people to the entries list. Your turn out is huge. It's amazing!

    <_<
    board icon
    EmP posted June 11, 2008:

    You know me: I don't like to brag.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted June 11, 2008:

    I do not have a review yet.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 11, 2008:

    yeah, my bad. I told EmP I'd HG mail you and then I had trouble logging in. all set now, though.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 13, 2008:

    As promised, forum now open for questions and slurs.

    Or just use it to mock Sash. He can't win this one!
    board icon
    georox posted June 13, 2008:

    *Mocks*

    Someone had to.
    board icon
    zombie posted June 13, 2008:

    hey guys, I think it's sexy you have the ZX Spectrum listed, and I'm going to be concentrating on the Spectrum for a short while. But I need this added:

    Game: Adventure A: Planet of Death
    Platform(s): Sinclair ZX Spectrum
    Publisher: Artic Computing Ltd
    Developer: Artic Computing Ltd
    Genre: Text Adventure
    Release Date: 1982

    http://www.worldofspectrum.org/infoseekid.cgi?id=0005913

    The only thing I'm not sure on is developer. Many of these games were developed by a single person... if it;s more appropriate to find that name I could see if it;s available.

    Thanks guys. Believe in the true power of friendship and all that.

    Added.
    board icon
    yamishuryou posted June 13, 2008:

    Sashi-wan Kenboi could win a 360 just to spite you.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 13, 2008:

    Given that owning a 360 is not a listed requirement for participation, I could too win this. It is by choice that I'll pretend there are other participants and sit this one out.
    board icon
    MartinG posted June 14, 2008:

    Well, it may not be listed right there, but if the very organisers of the giveaway explicitly tell you, repeatedly and addressing you specifically, that you're not entering this competition, well, I think they may have some ground here! :/

    Now, if you used an alias and didn't reveal yourself (with appropriate dramatism, and laughter of the "muhuhaha" kind) until you had the game on your hands...
    board icon
    EmP posted June 14, 2008:

    I've hired elite security to screen every last person who enters to keep this Sash-free.

    Tourney runner: just say NO to Sash.

    He'll get the last laugh when the PC give-aways flare back up.
    board icon
    jerec posted June 15, 2008:

    I'm glad for having most of July to do this, mainly because I'm not going to have much time to do anything I want to do until the end of June. Still, I'm already familiar with my game, so it's really just a matter of replaying it and taking notes (and I already made some notes!), then writing the review I could knock out in a single evening. I hope.
    board icon
    Crazyreyn posted June 15, 2008:

    I assume we have until the end of July to this then, ja? I'm busy until 2nd July, but really want to take part.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted June 15, 2008:

    This thread can't die -- it's like the Highlander, remember? Anyway, God of War crap to me. I was mapping Pandora's Temple and realized I'd skipped a room, and had to do a 180-degree spin on it. Lame!
    board icon
    EmP posted June 15, 2008:

    Worry not, Shotty: I have abused my powerz to ensure that this thread is immortal.
    board icon
    yamishuryou posted June 15, 2008:

    The last topic was for Forever, and it died too!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 15, 2008:

    All threads in the database will now purge after a certain period of inactivity. The powers EmP abused delay that miserable end, but it's up to active posters to keep things going. Nothing is archived beyond around 30 days.
    board icon
    drella posted June 16, 2008:

    Growl

    It has been added. At first, I thought the hyper-linked text meant some other staff member had already done the addition, so that kind of threw me for a loop there for a minute or two. All's well that ends well, though!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 17, 2008:

    Dang it! I wrote a fresh new review tonight for a game of my choosing and it doesn't even go toward scratching another one off this list! What was I thinking?
    board icon
    drella posted June 18, 2008:

    KLOV link - R-Shark

    Could have sworn I put this in months ago. I remember doing it! Here it is anew, anyway

    EDIT: I actually kind of remember seeing it too...
    board icon
    drella posted June 18, 2008:

    Here you go:

    R-Shark

    I hope others made out a little better with their picks.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 18, 2008:

    Sorry, man -- I thought it'd be really good! At least you've saved me fron having to play it. +2 points.

    Yes, Crazyreyn, you'll have most of next month.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 18, 2008:

    Very strong collection of reviews this time. I actually had to put more than the usual half-assed thought and deliberation into picking which three got my ever-desirable STAMP OF APPROVAL, as all nine (by eight folk) were very good reads. So, if you're not listed, don't be sad and start cutting yourself to cope, as the problem probably wasn't you it was just the overall high level of competition.

    After those pleasantries, let's get down to TEH ROOLZ! Only one rule from a user may be eligible. That way, you struggling, starving artists don't have to read that Felix got both his reviews in the top three while you got nothing. Hell, if I feel like it, you won't see ANY of his stuff in the top three. Today or ever again. Even when I'm not doing RotW. Second, staff people aren't eligible. That's too bad, as I'd totally give the win to my MoH: Vanguard review, not read any of yours and just pick two recognizable names and give them inspiring comments like, "I really liked this review. You did a great job with.....words.... Cheerio, old pip!"

    Alrighty, then, now that I've made a complete mockery of this process, it's time to give you the three reviews you can't live without.




    Review of the Week: Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance (XBox) by pickhut

    This review just flat-out impressed the hell out me. You took an older game that's been covered to hell and back, but did so in a unique way that made this review a way better read than I was expecting. You only the final two paragraphs actually mentioning the MGS2 game, while focusing on how the "missions" game was this intense arcade-like test of skills that actually can supersede the game. Reading this review made me think about how, with some games, there are optional add-ons that wind up so cool and challenging that they wind up actually being the most enjoyable thing on the disc. Kind of an unorthodox way of looking at this game, but one that I liked, as it was a fresh new take on one of those games a large number of reviewers not named Overdrive already have some sort of opinion on.

    First Runner Up: Biomechanical Toy (Arcade) by drella

    Well, first off, the TMNT you mentioned is Raphael. Rafael makes me think of some crack dealer/pimp. Take that away and this was a very brightly-written review. Your intro discussion how checkpoints can be a cool thing in some games, but how they don't necessarily work so well here was a great way to segue into how this is a fun, quirky little game, but gets broken up unnecessarily by the checkpoints. And the way you described that was great, saying that it's like breaking a favorite movie into five-minute intervals and interspersing lots of rewinding. Very well-written stuff.

    Second Runner Up: Xevious 3D/G (Arcade) by Felix_Arabia

    In the days of eld, I played the old X-to-the-evious on my Atari 7800 (making me one of the 11 people who owned that P.O.S.). Back then, I kinda liked it because I was young, dumb and didn't know better. After growing up a bit and sampling some NES shmups, I went down memory lane and could only take about 15 seconds of X-evil before turning it off....for good. Reading those opening couple paragraphs really gave me a vivid reminder of how I felt trying to replay that game. It was just old and so far outclassed by that point, it lacked any ability to maintain my interest. Then you go into the 3D upgrade and I'm reading (and seeing pics) of what seems to be this really nice upgrade to the old system. Then, you mention, the game goes on rails down tunnels, taking away from the atmosphere from the early parts. Very nice review of a decent game that just doesn't quite live up to its potential that just edges out a couple of others for third place.




    And that's that. Tune in later as I make my shocking entrant into this whole arcade writing challenge thing and wildly speculate as to which game will be my first entrant in that (or just look at recent photo galleries if you want to spoil the surprise).
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 18, 2008:

    Thanks for the mention. I wasn't sure how Xevious 3D/G was going to read for people. Nice to see it was good enough to finish third in a strong week.

    Congrats to the that sexy little bastard pickhut and Leroux.
    board icon
    drella posted June 18, 2008:

    Haha. Loved pickhut's take on MGS 2. Congrats to him and thanks for the kind words (and typo catch) OD.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted June 18, 2008:

    Whoa, wasn't expecting at all to get RotW with the competition that week. Thanks for the comments on the review, it was something I wanted to do for some time, but only finally bothered to write it up now.

    Congrats to le.. drella and us... felix on their runner-up placements, and good job to everyone who put up reviews that week.
    board icon
    Muk1000 posted June 19, 2008:

    *cuts self just because you said not to*

    ;_;

    Nah, I'm good. Congratulations to pickhut and the runner-ups this week!

    ...hm. That's a good band name. "Pickhut and the Runner-Ups"
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted June 19, 2008:

    EmP, is there a set date for the deadline?
    board icon
    EmP posted June 19, 2008:

    Yeah, Boo posted it. I'll throw it up on the first post when I dig it out.

    For you, though, it's tomorrow.
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted June 19, 2008:

    Ah! oh no! :@
    board icon
    espiga posted June 20, 2008:

    Game: Vantage Master Portable
    Platform(s): PSP
    Publisher: Falcom
    Developer: Falcom
    Genre: Strategy RPG
    Release Date: 2008 (JP)

    Added.

    Thanks. <3
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted June 20, 2008:

    Onto Castlevania III, at least until I finish MOH European Assault or get Saiyuki Journey West in the mail.
    board icon
    drella posted June 22, 2008:

    This one wasn't even on KLOV.

    Game: The Return of Lady Frog
    Platform(s): Arcade
    Manufacturer: Microhard
    Release Date: 1993
    Genre: Bomberman with tiles and tits. Or Action.

    Added.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted June 23, 2008:

    Did a quicky with Jake Hunter: Detective Chronicles. Not very much of a game, more of an interactive detective novels (which are short and not so hot at that).

    If I have time, I might be inspired to do something up for Pokemon Mysterious Dungeon; $40 bounty for it on GameFAQs (the guy with a complete up there seems to be from Nauru, which isn't beneficial for claiming bounties) AND a free game from faqs.ign

    Oh well, for now, work is consuming my soul.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 23, 2008:

    Ive watched now as the other staffers got easy weeks on this before deciding the time was right to drop myself back into the RotW rotation. I saw weeks with only three reviews subbed, weeks with clear and undisputed winners and weeks where the top three where as obvious as ODs wine glass is huge. So, I make my return and faced the hardest week Id ever come up against.

    My job wasnt just about picking the top three in some cases but which review a given reviewer should lead with in the first place. It was a tough call in every aspect, and the top three are somewhat interchangeable with numerous other reviews nipping at their heels. Youll notice that Ive left feedback for other reviews, and this is mainly because these originally had RotW spots and I swapped them out after thought. It really was very close.

    One review per person, no staff reviews, blah blah blah. Lets do this thing:



    FIRST

    DRELLA - POW

    Drella teaches us a lesson here in justified anger while ripping POW to shreds. Even the scattered cursing used sparing throughout did a great job i highlighting the frustration and overall lack of foresight that the game forced upon him. I especially enjoyed the paragraph about being teased with a helicopter and a tank, thinking that a break from the never-ending flood of goons was incoming only to be presented with even more of the bugger -- that's a killer example right there.

    And with an intro like the one you employed, you had to do a lot to prove that this game was awful. You did this and you did it intelligently; the tone made the review amusing, bit the strength here was the poignant examples you kept pulling out. There's no dead words anywhere, which is hard to do when you fall into a negative rant for a review.

    TYPO WATCH: Last line of paragraph three should end in a question mark.

    SECOND

    WQ: Metal Gear Solid

    I'm not a MGS fan (or, if you ask the right people, a fan of anything at all), but I'm not going to give you the clichd praise of "your review makes me want to give the game another chance". It doesn't. I gave up at the bit where I had to go around watching guy's butts to make sure they weren't the slinky girl in disguise and I'm not going back for anyone.

    But the review is a very good one for what it is: a fair look in from someone who enjoys looking at guy's pixaly arses the game more than I. And you do a good job in explaining why while still pointing out that it's got its own hosts of flaws to contend with. I liked the point about guards beaming in from nowhere once the alarm goes despite everyone in the area being killed, and kudos for not taking the easy and oft-travelled path of mocking the horny ninja like everyone else has done to death. In fact, you did pretty well in avoiding a lot of the before-mentioned aspects in a game verging on over-covered, which, in itself, is commendable. Good job: you're coming along nicely and I'm going to take full credit for it all.

    THIRD

    FELIX: METAL SLUG 2

    Oh No!, scream the masses. Its Another Slug Review!

    The masses talk in capitals.

    The reason we get a lot of reviews on Metal Slug is probably because its such an easy game to write about. The entire thing is packed full of examples and here young Felix does a good job pointing out the ones weve all heard before, but with STYLE! As I mentioned in one of the feedbacks Ive left somewhere (Ive left loads, making you all look like the lazy slackers you are, so Im allowed to forget) Im not fused about retreading covered ground as long as its covered well, and Felix does just that. The review feels alive at points as he throws example after example at you. Then he tells you not to play the game, which is odd, but thats okay; MS1, which he demands you play first is a goodie, too.

    But in this insistence of playing order, the conclusion feels like a let down. I didnt come to this review for advice on my order, I came to see why I should play MS2 at all! This review, though does its job well, aside from wonky ending -- it makes Slug 2 sound as great as it is plus it adds another arcade review to Lerouxs tally.




    Close calls came in CJs surprisingly good Lemmings review, Dagoss heartfelt ICO review and Discos solid Space Invaders. Also good was a new entry from Welsh-ton with a good TWEWY review, a long-awaiting Genj piece that seemed lacking in his trademark humour and a strong Espiga return. If Ive not mentioned you, theres no need to fret, you got buried in reviews that, in any other week, would have walked away with a top three spot or win.

    Its like you waited for me to come back then flooded me with work. I hate you all.
    board icon
    drella posted June 23, 2008:

    Awesome. Thanks EmP, and congrats to everyone else, because it was a really quality week for the site as far as submissions.
    board icon
    dagoss posted June 23, 2008:

    I feel honored to not only be mentioned but to have my name completely butchered.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 23, 2008:

    'Grats to my boy Leroux for his quality victory, though I did prefer his Growl review, personally.

    I'm also happy to see WQ do so well (she FINALLY placed higher than me!). Her MGS review came a long way from when she first asked me to look over it a week or so ago. The next review she subs is going to be even better. Yes, I'm putting her on the spot, haha. She'll deliver.

    As for me, well, I think my 'wonky conclusion' just shows that I was getting a little burnt out from my 2-3 reviews a week shenanigans. I probably won't sub anything this week so I can let my brain rest a bit. But the next review I sub should be back on track.

    Edit: RotD?

    Double Edit: Haha, Dragos.
    board icon
    Genj posted June 23, 2008:

    a long-awaiting Genj piece that seemed lacking in his trademark humour

    Don't worry. I just finished The Bouncer.

    Congrats to Drella, wolfqueen, and felix on the mentions.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 23, 2008:

    I'm a busy guy: I have no time for correct spellings.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 23, 2008:

    Thanks, EmP! Though if I had known earlier that you were doing this, I wouldn't've bothered you about it...

    I don't know how you have the time, anyway. o.O

    One thing, though. I gave up at the bit where I had to go around watching guy's butts to make sure they weren't the slinky girl in disguise...

    XD That's the easiest part in the entire game! All you have to do is wait for the male guards to use the bathroom - one's already in there waiting for you - and either cap them with your pistol or choke them to death. Meryl will go to the other bathroom after a while.... to the lady's one. Nevermind any butt watching... XD

    Anyway, thanks again; I really appreciate the comments, and for teaching me how to write these in the first place.

    Congrats to Drella and Felix, too. Yay - I didn't have to wait till a day not ending in "y" to beat you after all.

    Still, I thank your editing for the MGS one; couldn't have done it without you.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 23, 2008:

    Well, my review's done. Just needs to be approved.

    Edit: Thanks.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 23, 2008:

    Thought I was up for this week. I need to get the schedule straight.

    Congrats to the deserving winners :)
    board icon
    timrod posted June 23, 2008:

    Game: S4 League
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: PMang
    Developer: Pentavision Entertainment
    Genre: 3rd-Person Shooter
    Year of Release: 2008

    Crappy generic Korean shootan gaem. I want to give it a bash review.

    Added. Now get on that bash review!
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 23, 2008:

    Just a minor note, if you don't mention anything about the game's region, I'm going to assume it's NA, so be sure to specify if needed.
    board icon
    timrod posted June 23, 2008:

    I'll join. I've got all of the following:

    GoodSNES Romset 2.01 (6766 of 6766)
    GoodNES Romset 2.0 (10783 of 10783)
    GoodN64 Romset 2.02a (2614 of 2614)
    GoodSMS (Master System) 0.999.5 (645 of 645)
    GoodGen/32x/MegaDrive 0.999.8b (4809 of 4809)
    DS Flashcart (Slot 1 only)
    Swap Magic-ready PS2 (only if you find me the ISO first since 99% of the sites with them died)

    I can also get my hands on pretty much any old Gameboy/Gameboy Color game, most of the MAME/CPS1/CPS2/Neo-Geo roms, and most pre-2007 PC games (that means nothing like Crysis) provided they're not huge downloads and provided they're not online-only. PSX games are also a possibility as long as there is an ISO availible.

    board icon
    bluberry posted June 23, 2008:

    posts like that are why I love you, timrod.
    board icon
    Halon posted June 24, 2008:

    My game is still not working on Vista 64-bit. I'm going to keep trying and if it's hopeless I'll try to get my old computer back and then run it.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted June 25, 2008:

    FF Tactics A2 rough draft started. I might as well keep working on FF3 and Suikoden, also.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted June 25, 2008:

    I still suck!
    board icon
    dagoss posted June 25, 2008:

    Game: Wizardry I-II-III: The Story of Llylgamyn
    Platform(s): Super Famicom
    Publisher: Media Factory
    Developer: Sirtech
    Genre: CRPG
    Release Date: 01 June 1999 (Japan only)

    Game: The Ultimate Wizardry Archives
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: Interplay
    Developer: Sirtech
    Genre: CRPG
    Release Date: 30 April 1998

    Game: Genmu no Tou to Tsurugi no Okite
    Platform(s): DS
    Publisher: Success
    Developer: Success
    Genre: CRPG
    Release Date: 22 May 08 (Japan only)

    Game: Persona 2: Innocent Sin
    Platform(s): PSX
    Publisher: Atlus
    Developer: Atlus
    Genre: Console RPG
    Release Date: 24 June 1999 (Japan only)

    (Note: This is not the same game as Persona 2: Eternal Punishment, which is already in the database.)

    (Note: ADDED)
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 26, 2008:

    Since you're all staff, I thought I'd expand upon the mention of 'security issues' I made elsewhere on the forums. The information this post will contain should be considered proprietary and is not to be shared outside this forum. The last thing I want to do is give potential hackers ideas by stating publicly where security holes were/are on the site, but I'd like you all to know.

    Basically, the site's open permission for HTML use can be problematic on a small scale--when users run joke scripts or start music playing in the background without user approval and what have you--but the real problem is that they highlight the potential for a malicious attack that could disable multiple computers and make DNS (denial of service) attacks simple to launch against the site (a common but often successful tactic used by beginning hackers to bring down smaller sites such as HonestGamers). Perhaps they even invite them, since they call attention to the possible security holes.

    Thanks to functions such as s--which zigfried has used in the past by way of non-malicious example--it was possible to load another site's content within a given page on this site. This would allow a user to make each forum page actually load another site (possibly in the background or in some other window users wouldn't even notice). Translation: every page on our forums could load computers with computer-crashing viruses and possibily compromise security and even result in stolen identities.

    I don't think that sort of risk is worth leaving live and the increasing number of casual visitors that might disagree aggressively with our site's editorial content is on the rise. If those people want to mount a successful attack on the site, they're probably going to eventually find a way to do so, but there's no point in making it simple for them. Tonight's changes reduce or remove altogether the chance of such an attack from the most obvious angle, in part because they disable scripts such as Java, Javascript and most HTML (except HTML that I have specifically enabled due to its benign nature and popular use within previous forum posts).

    I view this change as an important one, particularly in the case of forums where someone could make a post and it could stay live and do damage for a significant period of time before it was detected and removed (since we don't filter forum posts before they go live). Tonight I have closed the gate through which we might previously have allowed potential enemies to roll the Trojan horse.

    The site may still be vulnerable in other ways and I will continue to look at ways to reduce that risk to a reasonable level while ensuring that we retain all creative tools that we possibly can. Every time your computer connects to the Internet, you run the risk of downloading something you don't even know about, that a web site's operators don't even know about. I'd like to do my part to ensure that HonestGamers doesn't unknowingly become a hacker's playground and the steps I took tonight were important for that reason.

    If users ask you privately about any security risks on the site, I hope you will assure them (accurately) that we are taking all reasonable steps to address them as we become aware of them and as they become more likely to be abused, and that we also want to balance that security with the independent environment that we have maintained now for years. Please do not go into specifics about any of the above information at this time. Feel free to refer any more detailed questions that you might receive on the matter to myself--since I am the only one with true access to the source code and some answers--and I will address them appropriately. Thanks!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 26, 2008:

    Huh... what happened to some of the hyperlinks here...? Especially Felix's. Or is it just my connection?

    Anyway, I have 9 now... and genj has 4. >_>

    Should have ten in about a week.

    Isn't this fun?
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 26, 2008:

    And I just noticed that of all the games my best friend has let me borrow and keeps nagging me on when I'm going to finish them, all but one is for a letter I've already done. Not good.....not good at all for me.....
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted June 26, 2008:

    Take a seat, Castlevania III -- it's Saiyuki time! I'd consider doing MOH European Assault if my idiot comrades didn't lumber in front of a machine-gun nest and die within the first minute; or, disappear from the radar like a bunch of yellow-bellied wussbags.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted June 26, 2008:

    All my reviews suck because I was doing battle with gigantor word limits. Pretty sure I added an extra 700 words for the exorbitant Golden Sun quota at some point. Oh, good times. Humility, nice to know you!
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 26, 2008:

    Yes, Golden Sun. If you compare my review of it here with the near-identical GF one, you'll notice that one has an unnecessary extra paragraph where I just provide a long-winded second example of something I'd made very clear in the previous one.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 26, 2008:

    Pretty sure I added an extra 700 words for the exorbitant Golden Sun quota at some point.

    I wouldn't fret. That's only a fraction of the unnecessary dialogue Golden Sun itself added to pad out the game.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 26, 2008:

    why I used to suck

    and that's edited, there were whole paragraphs that said like "locking on with R3 works really well!"

    hey look, it's HTML that still works. this'll be broken within a week.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 26, 2008:

    good work, champ.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 26, 2008:

    This is what happens when Jason puts restrictions on our HTML usage.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 26, 2008:

    Oh no. It's the end of the world.
    board icon
    Genj posted June 26, 2008:

    It's the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeend of the world as we know it (and I feel fine).
    board icon
    disco1960 posted June 27, 2008:

    I'm sucking right now! Luckily, no one has to see this yet.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 28, 2008:

    Sorry; Boo thought I was picking for you and I thought he was dealing with the people coming in late.

    In your HG-Mail now.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted June 28, 2008:

    F = Final Fantasy III, Front Mission

    I rox.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 29, 2008:

    haha, one of these days I'll not be too lazy to edit in the (few) reviews I've done.
    board icon
    iamtheprodigy posted June 29, 2008:

    Oh good, I haven't missed this yet. >_>

    I've gotta see if I can find this game now.
    board icon
    Genj posted June 30, 2008:

    I'm dropping out because I really don't want to waste time playing an RPG that I'm not enjoying at all.
    board icon
    dagoss posted June 30, 2008:

    Want to swap games? I'm pretty meh about mine too (though I was still planning to write a half-assed review for it -- like writing a paper on a book I never read).
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted June 30, 2008:

    Now seriously, it's a bit silly to refuse to play a game because it's rubbish, if this is the purpose of the competition.

    I've just realised how to play this atrocious game I got and I'm going to crack on with it. Think of all the poor journalists who write for mags! This will be only be my second sub-5/10 review the way things are going.
    board icon
    Genj posted June 30, 2008:

    Yeah I know. It's like I want to use my free time to have fun or something! How silly.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 30, 2008:

    You're not allowed to have fun, Genjuro. That goes for the rest of yas.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 30, 2008:

    there are scores below 5, you know.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted June 30, 2008:

    Well bluberry, that's what I was about to discover in the competition. How dare you spoil the surprise!
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 30, 2008:

    @bigcj: you've got balls being snarky to a judge. so I'll take all of genj's points and give them to you, since he won't be needing them anyway.

    @sportsman: sorry to hear that. I'll think something else up for you within a few hours.
    board icon
    Halon posted June 30, 2008:

    Game still isn't working. I still have time!
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted July 02, 2008:

    Tch, I already finished Saiyuki. Apparently if I need a project I can sink my teeth into, it has to be of Unlimited Saga proportions... =/
    board icon
    honestgamer posted July 02, 2008:

    I can't believe how quickly you churn out quality FAQs for interesting and complex games. Unlimited SaGa is an awesome game that almost no one likes and last I knew, there was a bounty for it on GameFAQs. Are you really going to write for it?
    board icon
    disco1960 posted July 02, 2008:

    Okay! Give me something cheap and easily obtainable for Xbox classic.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted July 02, 2008:

    I'd like to write for it, but since it's multi-path and I've only been able to stand about 2 hours of it, probably not in the near future. Wouldn't say the game is as bad as the rep it's gotten, but it's certainly got a weird insular/esoteric feel to it that pushes about 90% of the RPG public away. Might get away with writing a guide on the first playthrough for a simpler RPG, but that one seemed like something that has to be gone through first for a good understanding. Did you play all the way through?
    board icon
    honestgamer posted July 02, 2008:

    Unlimited SaGa is a huge game, yeah. I didn't play all the way through but I sank quite a few hours into it and enjoyed myself a lot. I really look forward to some day playing lots and lots more. I love how dungeons are explored, I enjoyed the plot and art style, the music was fantastic and the battle system worked pretty well for me. It's definitely a unique game and to me that was a huge part of its appeal. I wouldn't want to FAQ it, though. I could imagine that taking forever!
    board icon
    timrod posted July 02, 2008:

    Game: Final Fantasy Tactics Advance 2
    Platform(s): DS
    Publisher: Square-Enix
    Developer: Square-Enix
    Genre: Turn-based Strategy
    Release Date: 2008

    Already have a bash review set up. You heard how much it sucks from me first.

    Already in the database as Final Fantasy Tactics A2, its actual title. Thanks!
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted July 03, 2008:

    Thanks for the invite, Felix.

    I have a decent Powerbook w/emulation capabilities, so pretty much any NES/SNES/Genesis/GB/GBA game I can do.

    Console wise, DS I have a flash cart for so any game is doable. PS1/PS2 I have mod chips for and plenty of legal/not so legal games.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted July 03, 2008:

    Title: Amorous Professor Cherry
    Genre: Dating Simulation (Hentai)
    Publisher: G-Collections.com
    Developer: ZyX
    Release Date: July 3, 2008
    ESRB: A

    GameFAQs: Other Regional Information

    Added with LOVE.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 03, 2008:

    I know, I'm late again. I blame my own forgetfulness. And EmP for doing the week I was all set to do. And the already messed up RotW schedule. And my addiction to Team Fortress 2! And my desire to replay Half-Life 2, which I was going to review tonight but didn't because I had more pressing matters to attend to. You see how I sacrifice for the greater good? YOU SEE WHAT I DO FOR YOU?!

    Staff reviews are ineligible, as always, and only one review per person is allowed. So Felix, whatever you think you're achieving but submitting three reviews in one week, stop that! You're making everyone look bad. Now on to business.



    Review of the Week: The Bouncer (PS2) by genj

    It's difficult to be at all insightful about a review that, above all else, succeeds for one simple reason: It's funny. The Bouncer seems like a very easy game to make fun of, and Genj takes all possible opportunities to do so, his delightfully sarcastic tone providing laughs with too many great lines to name individually. What impressed me, though, is that he doesn't go all-out on The Bouncer and admits the game has potential: The battle system shows promise in unique ways, but isn't given enough time to flourish, as it's bogged down with too much story content. And the game is over quickly, anyway. This review started as a stright-up bash and evolved into something far deeper. Way to pull that one off.

    First Runner-Up: Final Fantasy X (PS2) by Felix_Arabia

    It's remarkable that Felix is able to review a game as over-covered as Final Fantasy X (just look at all those reviews!) and still come off sounding fresh and making me want to play the game more than ever. I've played bits and pieces of the game but have never actually owned it, and Felix's emotionally-charged coverage of the plot makes me really feel like I'm missing out. While the review flows beautifully, upon closer inspection I realized that Felix doesn't really talk about the gameplay very much at all, and what's here isn't all that compelling. So you attack enemies? And you gain special abilities? And sometimes it's challenging? It doesn't sound too compelling, and while I'm sure there's a lot more to the game than what you described here, I'd love to see you go into more detail in those areas. Nonetheless, this review makes me want to run out and buy a PS2 with a copy of FFX. In fact, I think I'll go do that. Bye.

    Second Runner-Up: The Return of Lady Frog (Arcade) by drella

    Good lord. The first two lines are utterly hilarious. This review is handicapped by default because it covers a puzzle game, and you can see Drella somewhat struggling to find something to talk about. He succeeds: The in-depth discussion about the game's nude images had me cracking up, mainly because it's funny to see someone analyzing something so crude with such a matter-of-fact tone, and because the game itself is so uninteresting that this is what you have to sink to in order to write an effective review. It works, somehow, and the final paragraph does a nice job of pulling together everything I've read up to that point.



    There were plenty of worthy reads this week that didn't quite make the list: Bluberry's casual and informative SpyHunter would have had a shot at runner-up status if he'd ditched the overused "I was skeptical" device at the beginning, Dagoss took a chance with a letter-styled Etrian Odyssey that oddly worked, and Credit_Card surprised me with a review that opens and closes wonderfully. Everything I read this past week was solid, and it seems that every time I do RotW, the quality maintains a consistent high while the quantity steadily rises. Keep the good work coming, folks! HG's reputation as the number-one place for online user reviews is only growing more firm.
    board icon
    Genj posted July 03, 2008:

    I tried to get a good balance of humor and technical gameplay observation, so I guess I achieved that! Thanks for the win and congrats to drella, felix and everyone else that submitted. There have been a lot of quality user submissions lately.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 04, 2008:

    Cool! Thanks for the mention and congrats to Genjuro for the win and Leroux for the other mention.

    Genjuro, I forgot to answer your question in your feedback topic over your review, so I'll answer it here. The Bouncer looks awesome because it's so hokey. And since it's short and cheap, it would make for a fantastic purchase.

    As for the commentary on my review, I could have delved into some of the more technical stuff, but I figured that since my review was already 11KB, and that there are 17 or 18 other FFX reviews, it wasn't necessary for me to explain the finer points of gameplay.
    board icon
    Masters posted July 04, 2008:

    Who is supposed to do this next week?
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 04, 2008:

    I understand what you mean, Felix, but your review is so compelling that it could have gone on a good deal longer and still held my interest. You're already on your way to having the definitive FFX praise review (quite an accomplishment, considering how many there are), so I just wanted to make sure you covered all the bases.

    Masters: You are, but I guess you know that now.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 04, 2008:

    Everyone should have games now. Let me know if you don't or have problems with your pick.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted July 04, 2008:

    I've played US a bit lately to see if I can get through its nigh impenetrable...uh, self. Kinda have a feel for it but there's still a lot of alien aspects to me.
    board icon
    drella posted July 05, 2008:

    Haha. Wasn't expecting that little review to even be mentioned, let alone praised. Thanks!
    board icon
    timrod posted July 05, 2008:

    Title: Meccha! Taiko no Tatsujin DS: 7-tsu no Shima no Daibouken
    Genre: Rythym Game
    Publisher: Namco-Bandai
    Developer: Namco-Bandai
    Release Date: April 24th, 2008
    ESRB: N/A
    CERO: A

    Japan-only release, in case the whole name being in Japanese and it having a CERO rating didn't tip you off.

    I hope this is a DS game.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 05, 2008:

    I need to do two more H reviews -- for the Half-Life 2 episodes -- and then I swear I'll move on to a different letter.
    board icon
    Halon posted July 07, 2008:

    I need a new game. DOSbox isn't working on Vista 64 and there's no way the game is going to work without it. My old computer running XP isn't available right now and I don't want to install games on my laptop at the moment.

    Since old PC games is a gamble and I don't want to spend any money on something newer anything I could emulate would be great. I have emulators for NES, SNES, Genesis, and Turbo 16 so anything for those should work. Oh, and please no RPGs or fighting games.
    board icon
    disco1960 posted July 08, 2008:

    I couldn't find my game. It looked really cool, though.

    Also, something came up and I won't be able to do this now because I am lame.
    board icon
    dagoss posted July 08, 2008:

    I'm have a few technical issues with my game. Some of them are things that would effect my review (slowdown, sound glitches), and obviously I don't want to blame the game for something that is the fault of emulation.

    It's a 32x game. I'm using the Gens (windows version) 2.1.4.0. I'm not familiar at all with the 32x, but as far as I know there is only one version of the bios. Does anyone have any suggestions, short of ignoring possible technical issues in my review?
    board icon
    Crazyreyn posted July 09, 2008:

    I probably won't be able to send anything until the 17th, rather annoyingly. Is there a confirmed deadline?
    board icon
    EmP posted July 09, 2008:

    Disco: You will be forgiven upon receipt of a Sybria review. Forst or second will do.

    Dagoss: I will change your game. Look to your HG mail shortly

    Reyn: Deadline is July 27th.
    board icon
    espiga posted July 09, 2008:

    'Tis a shame I came back late for this one, it's one of the more interesting tourneys you guys have had here. Good luck to those who entered.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 09, 2008:

    I don't think I'll be able to compete in this one. Finding a working version of my game has proved to be quite difficult (despite my usual ability to get just about any Sega CD game running), and this month will be quite busy for me, including a vacation at the end that I believe I'll be on during the deadline. Sorry guys.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 10, 2008:

    I'm going to have to drop out of this one, too.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 10, 2008:

    It's a shame that over two months isn't long enough for some people.
    board icon
    espiga posted July 10, 2008:

    I should join in late, finish my obscure game, and beat all the dropouts!

    What I have:

    Famicom (with an adaptor for US NES releases)
    SNES (modded for JP games)
    N64 (buried somewhere)
    Wii
    GBA SP
    DS

    Genesis
    Sega CD (buried somewhere; probably doesn't work anymore)
    Game Gear (If I can find batteries)
    Saturn (compatible with any region as long as I donakt need a RAM expansion
    Dreamcast (with a freeloader disc)

    PC Engine DUO

    PS2 (JP)
    PS3 (original 60 GB with BC intact)
    PSP

    Xbox
    Xbox 360 (both are US versions, unmodded)

    Basically, through region-free and/or mods and backwards compatibility I can play basically any game for those consoles except Xbox and 360.

    As for genre, I try to keep an open mind for anything except sports games, which are the spawn of satan himself. However, I greatly enjoy rpg, shmups, fighters, and manly brawlers.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 10, 2008:

    Espiga: your game is in your HGMail.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 10, 2008:

    Well, due to a wee bit o' miscommunication, it wasn't until yesterday that I found out that this was my RotW week. So, to celebrate that knowledge, I got really wasted at a friend's place last night and am kinda fuzzyheaded right now. So if my comments don't make any sense, I hotlinked the wrong reviews or I go against the rules repeatedly, well, those things happen.

    As for the rules, as far as I know, they're the same. No staffers eligible, only one review by any given person can be in the top three, all complaints go to EmP, all compliments go to me.

    So, here we go!




    Review of the Week: Wizardry: Knight of Diamonds (NES) by dagoss

    While all three of your reviews had certain attributes that really impressed me, this one was the best in my eyes. I think the big thing you did here was perfectly sum up the way those of us who played those old-school pre-storylines RPGs feel about them. The way you can get slaughtered by an unexpected "oopsie", but you're still having fun going through the maze and mapping it block by block, leading to that feeling of triumph when you finally figure out how to successfully get somewhere or do something. And I also give you high marks for having the knowledge about the game to be able to talk about how the NES version is improved over the PC version and how you feel this is the best of the three NES Wizardrys. Reading this makes me want to get on my computer tonight and start back up with the SNES Wizardry I-II-III compilation, so I can finish I to get to II (as I do want to see if, with all three on one cart, you can transfer character data from one game to another after beating each one). I won't do that, as I'm too busy with Okami and Dragon Quest V right now.....but you did make me want to!

    First Runner Up: Drakengard (PS2) by Felix_Arabia

    Yet another Drakengard review. It actually surprises me that this is only the seventh one for this game on the site, since I feel like I've read reviews of this game from everyone who's ever submitted here. Still, as you might guess from the high rating of approval you got from me, you did a good job covering subject matter that could be considered "tired" by now. Those opening few paragraphs do a great job of setting the mood of the game and the writing here is top-notch. I'd say that, really, the only complaint I have about this review could be it's biggest strength how it seems you assume the reader already is familiar with this game in writing about it. It's cool because it allows the review to focus on the greatness of the atmosphere and allows you to talk about the things you liked in it but, on the other hand, for someone who hasn't yet played the game like me, it could be a bit confusing to figure out exactly what you're talking about when you're briefly mentioning certain things under the assumption I know what's what with it and then moving quickly along to something else. Still a very energetic and entertaining review and it's nice to see you do something besides energetic and entertaining reviews of obscure Japanese-only NES games BEFORE I CAN GET TO THEM!!!

    Second Runner Up: Trauma Center: Under the Knife 2 (DS) by Chacranajxy

    Very nice review about a new game in what seems to be a pretty popular series today. Did a good job of going from the basic plot to a recap of the general Trauma Center gameplay (since I've not touched one of these games, that was a nice addition) to mentioning how the game is fun and appealing despite not breaking any new ground. It's an easy read that is full of information and the sort of review that I'd like a guy like newalone4 to take a look at and learn from. Obviously he loves retro shooters and has a ton of info in some of his reviews, but a couple of them were pure "PC clocking" material due to excessive length. The biggest strength of this review is how tight the writing is. I learned everything I needed to know about this game in six concise, well-written paragraphs.




    And another RotW bites the dust! Now off to find some other form of mischief!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 10, 2008:

    Congrats to the winners! I almost wish I subbed that week, but I feel the competition would've stifled me. <_<

    Is it me or has dagoss been on fire lately? Like within the past month or two? Seems like we're starting to see him around a lot more. Good job, I say.

    Great job to the rest, too. Especially Felix, whose skill always seems to assure him a placement here, even if it's not first. Heck, I don't think I remember a week he entered where he didn't place somewhere. Fantastic. Wish I were that good. Haha.
    board icon
    dagoss posted July 10, 2008:

    I only seem like I'm on fire because I use the feedback reviews sometimes attract to determine my worth as a human being.

    You can import characters between scenarios in The Story of Llygamyn, but they lose all their experience and items. I'm not sure if you can keep those things if you export a character that has completed a scenario though.

    EDIT: "Heart of Diamonds"?
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 10, 2008:

    I'm pleased that I managed to take an 'over-covered' game, give it a lengthy write-up, and still place 2nd. I think anytime anyone is interested in a game, they would be wise to read more than one viewpoint (assuming there is more than one). With Drakengard, just as with FFX, there are plenty of other good reviews on this site that cover some of the stuff I may not have gone into great depth, but that's okay. I'm just trying to delve beyond the obvious. I hope it continues to work.

    Congrats to Dagoss on his win and Chacrana on his mention. Dagoss sure has proven that he's a good writer in these past several months!
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 11, 2008:

    Dagoss
    See, I said I was fuzzyheaded yesterday when I did the RotW and I proved that to be true with that "Heart" of Diamonds screw-up! It's corrected, now.
    board icon
    Genj posted July 11, 2008:

    Congrats to the winners. Good RotD.
    board icon
    espiga posted July 11, 2008:

    Congratulations dagoss on a well-deserved win! Your review made me want to go dig out my copy of Wizardry V, but it seemed like too much hassle so I didn't.

    Also congrats to the rest of you turkeys.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 14, 2008:

    I have 11 now. I love how EmP's only (independently?) updating the list for the top four or five placers. <_<
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 14, 2008:

    Haha. I'm trying my hand at self-analyzing myself. <_< It's the same sort of format as EmP's, only I decided not to be merciful and have indeed done he whole thing.

    This is my first review ever and the one with the most hits, ashamed as I am to admit.

    Enjoy! =D
    _______________

    Two travelers hike along a winding road, heading toward some unknown destination when suddenly, the first stops, looks around, and tells her companion to wait. The traveler is Xena, the mighty warrior, destroyer of men, bringer of justice. Her companion is Gabrielle, best friend to the invincible warrior. Yet at this time, something is about to happen that neither expected something that will turn an innocent hike into one of the largest searches ever conducted by none other than Xena herself, for Gabrielle is missing. And its up to you to find her.

    Haha. Its actually not a terrible intro, but seriously. Unnecessary foreshadowing and lack of explanation. Gabrielle is missing? Howd that happen? She was just standing there a sentence ago! I actually think this fact was pointed out to me in the tournament I entered this in

    Xena the game sets you off near the town of Oebalus where smoke rises from various houses above, and Xena discovers her friend dying near the main gate. This is but the first step on the road to Gabrielle. Yet this simple beginning leads to far more complicated, though somewhat predictable plot twists. And as the plot turns, so too does Xenas travels, bringing her to areas as far-reaching as an Amazon jungle (literally) to a snowy mountain village to the deepest pits of Hell. The areas, though diverse, are less than expected, and the way the game is set up, it will leave you in one area for at least three different levels.

    This was pointed out, too: discovers her dying friend? Well, thats going to ruin the rest of the game Oh, wait, you meant someone else.

    Also, wtf was up with describing the layout of the worlds? Just say theyre diverse, explain why, and be done with it. No one needs to hear how one area is used three times or whatever. At least make it more interesting if its that important.


    The levels are set up like this: the plot takes you to an area, from which you face challenges in each of the three corresponding levels. The third of these often is a character boss beatable by simply attacking it. The fourth in the series is strictly a boss level with a complicated means of defeat. After this, Xena is taken to a new area, with three new levels plus the boss, a system which only lets up after fifteen of the twenty-one levels. Afterwards, the levels are in systems of threes, with the same character boss at the end of each third. The only exception to this is the final three levels, which are all boss levels with the final being the evil goddess which got you into this mess in the first place.

    Can I sound any drier? This can be shortened significantly without consequence. And look at the statistics! Numbers numbers numbers. Who cares? Lets try to be a bit more general next time. Variable, many, multiple, several, series all of these can serve the same purpose as three levels in, levels 18-21 are bosses only haha

    Perhaps the greatest part of the game is the requirements in beating each level. Each level has a different means of beating it, whether its collecting a key to open the main gate, saving a certain number of hostages, or releasing a switch or lever to open the gate for a certain boss. Almost never will you simply have to just defeat all your enemies and get to the end of the level. The game designers seem to have specifically designed the game to have some sort of requirement, no matter how simple, just to make each level more interesting. Further adding to this are the various power up items and hints distributed throughout each level. Xena can acquire a total of four defense and attack power up items, all of which are hidden in various levels, as well as pick up two hints (in the form of scrolls) per level. Collect all the scrolls and unlock a secret ending! Xena can even go back to previous levels and pick up the power up item again, so if you havent found one of your power ups, you can go back and repeat a level where you know where it is. However, this is not advised unless you have just beaten that level because once you save, all future levels you have completed will be erased. However, the game will remember that you had picked up the power ups and scrolls in future levels, so youll not have to worry about picking those up again. Still, this can be quite unfortunate when say you had almost beaten the game. So, dont let the acceptable plot, semi-decent background graphics, diverse level requirements, and hidden pick-me-ups throw you off. And even a secret ending cant redeem all the games worst qualities. This game presents a challenge all its own that of the controls.

    Wall of text. Honestly. Cut off at the power-ups bit. And why do I feel the need to explain every little thing? With various power-ups scattered throughout the game, Xenas power becomes even greater, or some other such phrasing would work just fine. And really, limit all that crap about the game overwriting all future levels to something less drawn out. Make an example of it, even, instead of this dry, wordy nonsense.

    Yes, the controls. These bothersome character manipulation devices, although not complex in the slightest, (at least in this game) can prove most difficult in traversing dangerous areas. Need to cross a narrow bridge over a large expanse of deep water? You can count on the shaky, super-sensitive controls to get you across safely! Or not. Even when using the analog stick, the slightest touch in the desired direction sends the character bounding forward. So, best you keep your finger off the L1 button, lest Xena accidentally get one foot off the bridges narrow planks. Yes, walking seems to be the only safe way to traverse dangerous distances, a fact which can prove devastating when trying to reach or run away from an enemy quickly. Of course, directional control cant be the only problem. No. There are at least two other poor control factors that turn a relatively easy game into a tedious venture of tortured frustration.

    Remove parentheses. Everyone knows Im talking about this game its the one Im reviewing, thanks. And why explain with the actual button names? Thats just confusing and pointless. And I use traverse or some variation thereof twice in the same paragraph. Go me! Also, can I have a worse transition?.

    The second difficult control feature is jumping. Ah, jumping, probably the most important aspect of gaming save combat. Jumping can get you to secret areas, across gaping gorges, to certain levers, switches items, or other game material otherwise inaccessible by normal means. It is one of the driving forces in game play at least to the games that feature it. But somehow this game manages to ruin it. First of all, the normal, stationary jump acts as a forward jump, not a vertical jump controllable by slight forward movement like in most games. No. This one is a forward jump, but not only that, its a fixed forward jump, meaning youd better be several feet away before jumping to that potion perched precariously on a narrow ledge over a cliff just inches past said ledge. But perhaps the fixed jump is a good thing. The running jump the walking jump is the same as a stationary jump is also a fixed jump, so at least you dont have to worry about pressing the forward direction too far or too short of a critical jump. Still, this is not the last of the control grievances.

    Ah, jumping lol Thats all Im going to say about that.

    And again, I get too wordy Examples would work better rather than trying to explain everything like this *yawn* Some of this paragraph isnt all that bad, but I seem to be obsessed with detailing every intricate detail. Ugh.


    The third problem may be trivial, and in most cases, not critical to survival, but it is very annoying. This is the simple matter of your Chakram aim. Xenas trusty throwing weapon often results in instant death to all it touches save zombies and bosses. However, aiming it requires pressing and holding the R1 button something which in normal circumstances would be quite easy, except that the games sensitivity makes it difficult. So, if youre not firmly pressing the button, you will either lose the hard work of aiming the deadly weapon before release or you will lose the flight control of the weapon after release. Both can prove rather frustrating, especially when Xena is returned to the direction and camera angle she originally stood before aiming. Though this too may have fortunate consequences, for it certainly is a good thing to release the aiming feature when you are suddenly attacked by man, beast, or undead. Also, most Chakram use is at a distance, so such occurrences are few and far between. In fact, the only good control seems to come from the three combat buttons, all of which have proven no difficulty whatsoever. Even so, these few redeeming factors cannot redeem the atrocious camera angles.

    I love how I sound all listy with my transitions the last few paragraphs. Yeah, thats going to grab attention. And again, I talk about the R1 or some other button. No one cares, just explain that its the aiming button or whatever. k. Also, dear lord. Do I even need this section? If I remember right, this really wasnt a big deal. I mightve just put it in for the I need three things because thats how I learned to write essays in school garbage. The way I explain it, I wouldnt be surprised if nobody understood what the hell Im talking about. Release, aim, release aim what?

    Wow, did I actually end with a semi-decent transition? Too bad everything before it is so dry and confusing.


    Xena: Warrior Princess has to have some of the worst camera angles in gaming history. Like in most games, the camera is designed to follow your character; however, unlike most games, the camera lags in its efforts to keep you oriented and sometimes it doesnt even function at all. Often times, the camera will not orient you when Xena is running back the way she had come, leaving you to stare at her frontal image while at the same time, waiting for your slow camera to adjust to her new direction and wondering just what youll run into next.

    Alright. This ones not too bad Some bits sound awkward, and I could probably sound a little more interesting, but this ones not as bad as the previous paragraphs have been.

    Overall, the game is not the greatest game for the Playstation out there. Its few redeeming factors dont make up for its many control and camera glitches. The game is still easy, albeit frustrating because of the controls, and once you get used to them, you can get through the game quickly enough. But who knows? Maybe all these control misfortunes I had may not have been the game at all, but the mere work of my lack of coordination. Perhaps others whove played this game will think differently, and find things good or bad that Ive missed. But even so, opinion is opinion, and in this review, my opinion is all that matters. The game was probably the most wasted week of my gaming life, but even so, the games redeeming features made it worthy of a 5. Or maybe I just dont have the heart to give it a lower rank. Either way, I wouldnt recommend this game unless you were looking for a way to torture yourself for a few days. So, to those of you who love to torture yourselves, buy this game, and best of luck! Youll need it.

    Oh, boy. Time to lay into myself for real. Worst conclusion ever. It doesnt even sound like part of the review starting out Maybe all these control misfortunes I had may not have been the game at all, but the mere work of my lack of coordination. What a fine way to sound credible! Dismiss everything I just bitched about as possible lack of coordination. Way to go! The next two sentences after that are completely unnecessary. Ugh. Theyre just bad I cant I cant even tell you why except that theyre completely pointless. Ugh. No need to explain the score I give it, or mention the score at all. God. I think the only good sentence(s) in this whole paragraph is the last two. I swear, shorten it to just a summary of the bad stuff and end it with something like So for those masochists out there, this game is for you, or something.

    Haha. Even that better ending sounds kind of bad. Better than the whole paragraph put together, though. Man I needed work


    One of these days Im going to edit this thing. I think.
    board icon
    dagoss posted July 14, 2008:

    What should we do with our review once it is completed? Should we just submit it as usual? Should we send it to someone?
    board icon
    EmP posted July 15, 2008:

    Just sub as normal and link on from this topic. If you want to keep it a secret for a while, link in nearer the deadline.
    board icon
    dagoss posted July 15, 2008:

    Here it is then. I'm not very happy with it, but there's only so much you can do with yet another shooter.
    board icon
    espiga posted July 16, 2008:

    Title: Zwei II
    Platform: PC
    Save: Hard Drive
    Publisher: Falcom
    Developer: Falcom
    Release date: September 25, 2008 (JP)
    Genre: Action RPG

    Added.

    Title: Eiyuu Densetsu: Sora no Kiseki the 3rd (translated as Legend of Heroes: Miracle of the Sky the 3rd )
    Platform: PSP
    Publisher: Falcom
    Developer: Falcom
    Release Date: July 24, 2008 (JP)
    Genre: Turn-based RPG
    Additional information: Custom Sora no Kiseki the 3rd PSP theme available on Falcom's website

    Added.

    Thanks babycakes. <3
    board icon
    jerec posted July 17, 2008:

    Ugh, I dunno how I ever played Jedi Knight back in the day with the mouse and keyboard set up. It was a different mouse, anyway. I've tweaked the controls as much as I can, but I still can't get it how I like it. The mouse is either too sensitive (i move it slightly and my character spins around), or it does nothing at all. Unplayable, really.

    I tried to get a wired 360 controller, or find that wireless device to use my wireless 360 controller on the PC, but I wasn't able to get one (lack of money etc.), so I'm close to the deadline now and I'm still only a few minutes into the game. It's been years since I've played, so I'm not sure if I could review it by memory alone. But as things go, it is impossible to play properly, so I can't really be honest as to whether the game is still actually fun or not, and without that integrity, I have no chance of reviewing it.

    Blah. I might have a review for JEDI KNIGHT up by the deadline, but then again, I might not.
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 18, 2008:

    but then again, I might not.

    ...

    No. Too easy.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted July 18, 2008:

    Just acquired the game I am playing for my review. I am glad I entered this tournament, I would have never in a billion years have played this one otherwise. Maybe a monthly thing where a person randomly selects a random game for people to review would be a fun and creative idea. No judging or anything.. just a way to get people like me to try new things.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 20, 2008:

    Most of the guys up the top are staff, so can edit the scores as they progress.

    I asked for people to post to say when they had new games up, otherwise it's a huge pain to keep up with the scores!
    board icon
    board icon
    EmP posted July 20, 2008:

    Balls to Venter being all smug about being on time. I live in a different (and, I might add, VASTLY SUPERIOR) time zone and spat out no less than two review today. If I wasnt staff, and they were allowed, they would have come first and second today. Except only one review per person.

    See that? Thats an original way to reillustrate the rules. Man, Im so awesome.




    FIRST
    The Getaway (PS2) Wolfqueen

    Heres an odd phrase: This person also decided itd be a good idea to totally forego any sort of plot whatsoever, allowing the player a choice on whether he or she followed it or simply rampaged through the city.

    You say theres no plot, then say that the player has the choice to follow it or not. Im complaining early because this review really does highlight how far youve come since you stumbled through Xena way back when. Theres no real killer lines to point out, no poetic prose; what you do is deliver a solid review that tells me what I need to know about the game and rarely makes any mistakes in doing so. I know the games frustrating and I know why. I know what works and what doesnt, and I know why. And you intertwine the plot throughout everything; nothing is overbearing.

    Good job.

    SECOND
    Gleylancer (GEN) Dagoss

    Oh, Im on to you. Want to sub on my week and get some advanced feedback on how to up your BWHY score? Not on my watch, bucko. You just get the placement and will have to wait on your feedback.

    Thats how I roll. With valid excuses that let me do less work.

    THIRD
    Lost Winds (WII) Disco

    The review is a little jumpy in a way Ive never seen before. You tend to say This is good but then heres a bad thing. This game is bad, but then heres a good thing. and so on. I like all the stuff in between, and you describe the game well within this odd structure, but it feels like being on a see-saw, Im constantly bobbing up and down.

    Thats not to say its not effective, though. I find myself really liking how the game seems to work, what with drawing in gusts of wind. But you dont let the novelty sell you and point out the negatives convincingly. Its a very solid review held down only by something Im probably the only person that it bothers in the first place. Sorry!




    Epsiga threw out a kooky little review that VM is too geeky even to acknowledge despite the dedication and we were treated to another solid review from Zipp, whos review did run on a little too long at points (and misuses its instead of its now and then), but was still informative and for the PS3, which, Im told, is a change! Good week this time around, kids; be sure to give Suskie hell next turn around.
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted July 20, 2008:

    Emp, Add the game you asked me to review for the contest to the database so i can submit my review....

    Good RotW
    board icon
    dagoss posted July 21, 2008:

    I didn't know this was your week. Now I just feel unloved that I don't comments.

    Wolfqueen's review totally deserved to win.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 21, 2008:

    Good RotW. I like it when these things are on time because it makes the entire event that much better. I'm also glad WQ won. I proofread this review for her, but I only directed her to make minor edits. I think she did a fine job.

    I haven't read the other two reviews that placed, but I will when I can. Congrats to everyone involved.

    I probably won't sub anything for Suskie to read over this week because I'm still returning from my self-imposed reviewing vacation, but we'll see if anything turns up.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 22, 2008:

    Wow. Thanks, guys! I honestly didn't expect to win this round - I thought disco's was better than mine - but then again, I always say this. And then I always get proven wrong.

    Congrats to everyone else, too.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted July 22, 2008:

    Figure I might as well do Legaia 2 stuff while it's fresh in my mind. Puttin' FFT on a shelf again...tch.
    board icon
    iamtheprodigy posted July 23, 2008:

    I didn't get my game, I'm a lazy asshole, everyone forget about me.

    *hides in shame*
    board icon
    espiga posted July 23, 2008:

    Now to announce the top-secret game I've been playing that none of you were curious about in the first place!

    Namco X Capcom

    I'll update it with the link if I'm still online when the review gets accepted.

    In your face, slackers that decided to drop out.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 23, 2008:

    Mine will be up tomorrow.

    I hope, because I ain't gonna have the time to type things up over the days after that. Or, to be more accurate, I may have the time, but I won't be sober enough during that time to type.

    As a sidenote to Blu, I will get revenge because I know you picked this one for me. Couldn't you have given me Memento Mori or Requiem? As opposed to the Doom World's "Adventures of Lolo on Crack"?
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 23, 2008:

    i'm untouchable
    board icon
    Crazyreyn posted July 24, 2008:

    Submitted.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 24, 2008:

    Cyberdreams

    Hopefully I'll remember to put some cover art up tonight. Which will be a generic image of a Cyberdemon as this was a fan-made megawad and not some stupid official mass market game.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 24, 2008:

    That's the thing, EmP. I did post in here updatting my score once... twice, even, before I nagged you on AIM about it. >_> But at least that answers the "biased updating" question.

    12 for me now, in any case.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 24, 2008:

    Square no Tom Sawyer

    Here's my review for the game I said I wouldn't have time to write about.
    board icon
    Halon posted July 24, 2008:

    I should write my review soon.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted July 27, 2008:

    Game: Guardian of Darkness
    Platform(s): PSX
    Publisher: Cryo?
    Developer: Cryo
    Genre: RPG
    Release Date: 1999

    Added
    board icon
    Halon posted July 27, 2008:

    Here's my review.

    I'm sorry for such poor quality. Right now I really don't have any inspiration to write for a tourney so at least I kept it short.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted July 27, 2008:

    Aw drat, I forgot today was the deadline. I've already played the game, and I could pump out a review in the next four and a half hours, but I'm half-drunk right now, and I'm tripping over my fingers here on my keyboard, so no go for me.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 27, 2008:

    Hm... Roughly 24 sign up, only 9 submit so far (on this topic anyway). Hope more fill in. >_> Night's still young, though. <_< Sort of. Haha.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 27, 2008:

    I personally would be very entertained with a drunk review from darkstar.

    and a fake drunk review from Scott.
    board icon
    johnny_cairo posted July 27, 2008:

    You know what my submission was.
    board icon
    bodo_parkour posted July 29, 2008:

    http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/gbadvance/data/931655.html

    Cabbage Patch Kids: The Patch Puppy Rescue
    Gameboy Advance

    Added.
    board icon
    Genj posted July 29, 2008:

    Please add this fine piece of software:

    Naruto: Ninja Council
    Gameboy Advance
    Publisher: D3
    Developer: Aspect
    Genre: Action Platformer
    Release: 5/01/03 (JP)
    3/07/06 (US)

    ADDED
    board icon
    board icon
    drella posted July 31, 2008:

    For the record, I blame my impending loss on EmP giving me a shooter with nothing to fucking talk about.

    Awesome review, Cairo. You should throw the lengthy plot examination up on your blog.
    board icon
    johnny_cairo posted August 01, 2008:

    Thanks for the ego boost. The early draft is embarassing in its awfulness, but I will see about posting it.

    EmP, can you change the first post so all the hyperlinks show for those who bothered to submit?
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 01, 2008:

    did you say Nord?

    expect results by Sunday night I imagine, folks, EmP's always on the ball with these things and I'm working on things now that I don't have work and other shit to deal with. thanks to everyone who did show up, too.
    board icon
    timrod posted August 02, 2008:

    Game: Savage 2: A Tortured Soul
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: S2 Games
    Developer: S2 Games
    Genre: FPS/RTS
    Release Date: 2007

    Added.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 02, 2008:

    Funny thing is, I sent him a mail with all the hyperlinks in for him (I missed a few because they weren't subbed yet, though). I would've thought he'd have taken care of it by now. All he has to do is hit the reply button and copy/paste the html there. >_>
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 03, 2008:

    and by Sunday, I of course meant Monday. it's just implied. sorry folks, timing hasn't been kind to either of us for judging this (plus I can't get on HG at work), but it's just about done and just needs to be finished up and posted. I would say by between 8 and 9:00pm EST tomorrow barring anything unusual.

    for what it's worth I was pleasantly surprised by a good number of these reviews.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 04, 2008:

    NOW WITH ACTUALLY TELLING YOU WHO GOT WHAT! Our bad.

    Foreword by EmP:

    I'm a pioneer and Boo's riding my coattails like a tiny goblin-like creature [editor's note: OGC]. Because We Hate You is a twisted concoction of my pure love for our shared craft and his deepest desires to see you all dead. We want you to write, but we want you to suffer. Mainly, we wanted to do something different, and we did. Thanks for playing the games we gave you to those who turned up. To those who no showed, you're rubbish writers anyway, and we're glad we didn't have to read your crap.

    Love and hate. It's a theme!

    But! We're not content to simply throw a new tourney at you. I'm revolutionary, after all! You will get your blasted feedback, but, rather than get two run-downs from individuals, we got together and stopped slagging off Doom 3 just long enough [editor's note: it's dreadful] to work through the review list and discuss each entry in depth, with pure hearts and open minds. We liked how it turned out, and hope you do, too; it gave us both the chance to argue for your case on points we liked, or damn them to Hades for the bits we didn't. It was a huge pain in the arse to arrange thanks to Boo's inferior time zone [editor's note: don't make us liberate you], so your gratitude best be as deep as our displayed love!

    However, for those of you feeling traditional, we're willing to back-track and offer more expected feedback upon request. Just ask, and we'll get right on the case.

    I'm glad we did this tourney, and I appreciate the work of those who entered and seriously grafted. Though we were harsh at points, don't take it to heart: in a lot of cases, we damned you with our choice of game but I think those of you who where challenged the most preformed the best. I want you all to take on board the impact writing outside your comfort zone can have on your works. And next time you turn your nose up at reviewing an unfamiliar genre. even the 'dull' ones like puzzles or sports, I want you to consider the very serious possibility that you're stunting your own growth [editor's note: eventually he'll remember he's just talking about reviewing videogames].

    That's what I wanted to say in this tourney. That and we hate you. Thanks for playing!




    The scores are in boo/EmP order, if you couldn't gather.

    Ben: A Sound of Thunder

    Very good. The you're a statistic line was great. We both really liked it, but to slightly different degrees. I thought it was a bit rote in places, like when you're discussing box pushing puzzles; EmP thought it tried too hard in places, but that this was vastly preferable to not trying hard enough. He liked that the comparisons between the game and the movie were non-invasive, they kept it light and not overbearing. I'd agree with that. He also says it's not very rusty at all, especially considering you've been out of the game for a while. It was a convincing and well written review I thought, I had a few niggles but in general it worked well. 84/84.

    BigCJ: Guardian of Darkness

    To clarify, I was actually being snarky to Genj for quitting over the fact that he didn't like his game haha, not telling you that scores under 5/10 exist. Good last line, haha. Anyway, this was a solid effort. EmP's right when he says bashing suits you, you pick the game apart pretty well. It's a bit formulaic, thoughboth of us are almost at a loss for things to say since it's just such a solid but unnoteworthy bash review, though if the lack of a substantial critique here bothers you don't hesitate to let us know and we'll try a bit harder to pin it down. Props for getting by with what turned out to be so little, though, and it worked pretty well. I know I said you'd get all Genj's points as a bonus, but I was going to give him a 0 anyway. Sorry. 75/75.

    Cairo: Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty

    Great tagline. For my money you're probably the best writer on this site, and I'm not just saying that to suck you off since we're buddies. That's what kills me about this reviewit's still written incredibly well, but as a review, it's an absolute mess. All it did was go "holy shit the Tanker is awesome Tanker Tanker Tanker Tanker, oh but an arm talks 2/10". There's so much more to bash in MGS2 than the superficial Talking arm! Rollerskating fatty! Raiden LOL! Like how the gameplay is borderline broken considering that all you ever have to do is headshot the retarded guards with your silenced pistol the moment you walk into a room. I probably would've enjoyed that longer version a lot more even if it was flat. EmP felt the same way despite never playing it. He didn't like how you say the talking arm is only 5% of what is wrong, then ignore the other 95%. He also thought even with the oh shit, I forgot to bash the game ending it still read like an 8/10. The writing is great, it just doesn't even come remotely close to saying what you want it to say. Sorry. 58/48.

    Crazyreyn: Cannon Fodder

    This was probably the surprise of the contest, at least for me. I've never read any of your reviews before and then after reading this I agreed with EmP that you should review more, haha. It made me want to give the game a try, and EmP liked the Sensible Soccer name-drop since apparently that's a rad game too. Neither of us has much to say in particular, it was just a great and enthusiastic review that really made its point well. The Rambo with ants line rocked, and the gravestones thing sounded cool. Possible nitpicks... it could have used an example or two of those puns, and also a final proofread for typos. Still, you took a basic game and ran with it. Great shit. 89/87.

    Credit Card: Appleseed

    This was one of the few we really split on, EmP found it a solid read and though I hate to be the bastard judge for once, it completely rubbed me the wrong way. The lines like calling certain anime fans dolts made it feel more akin to a 4chan troll post in my head, like timrod amplified tenfold, though the analysis itself isn't bad. The I'm too lazy to dodge that shit when it came to bullets struck me the wrong way too. EmP, on the other hand, thought it was a good way to show that the game just isn't dangerous enough, that you're simply too lazy to dodge the bullets. He doesn't disagree that the writing is a bit juvenile, but he thought that it worked and that this was an effective enough bash. Maybe I'd agree if only it were toned down a bit, go check out my AWFUL Contra Advance review (if I haven't taken it down, but it's probably up on GameFAQs still) if you want to see where that sort of thing leads you. 59/72.

    Dagoss: Gleylancer

    Didn't know what to expect since I've never read any of your reviews before, but I liked this one a lot, it was a light and entertaining read that made its point really well. Personally your use of strikeouts was awesome and made me chuckle every time, though EmP thought you overdid it. If there's anything I myself would pick it, it's that it feels like it's running out of steam toward the end, and EmP thought the same thing. As if you finished up writing and then went oh shit, I forgot to talk about graphics and sound! even though you really don't have to (and those 1337ness/cat lines were clunkers too :P). The information isn't useless or anything, but would be better worked into the bulk of the review than kind of tacked on at the end. EmP also thought it dragged in places, as in you made your point and then instead of moving on, kept running it into the ground. Still, I liked this one a lot and though not as much, EmP enjoyed it too. 83/76.

    One other thought, in chat excerpt form:

    bluberry: "racist" should be xenophonic
    bluberry: *xenophobix
    bluberry: *xenophobic
    bluberry: FUCK THIS KEYBOARD

    Darketernal: Shadowrun

    The third of the three pleasant surprises. This one was a great read, it was funny (who doesn't have a gnome fetish?) and really made me want to give Shadowrun a try. You balance the good with the bad perfectly and I can totally see why it got an 8/10, and considering I didn't mind the grinding in No More Heroes very much, I definitely want to give this game a shot. What kept you from edging out Leroux on my card was occasional bits of awkward writing (that All in all should have been a But or something). What kept you from it on EmP's was that he knows more about the game and thought you needed to discuss the fantasy elements a bit more, which I can see, since your review didn't even give me the impression that there were any. Still, I really liked this one. 90/91.

    Espiga: Namco x Capcom

    EmP likes that you tackled a big, complex game in a week where so many whiners couldn't do anything with much simpler fare in two months. Anyway, this was solid, not either of our favorites but a good look at the game that I would've been happy to come across if I was looking to know about the game. We each had issuesI thought you made the lack of character diversity sound worse than you meant to, EmP wanted to hear more about how the tie-ins actually worked in the storybut it told us what it needed to and made parts of it like the way the combat works compared to other SRPGs sound really cool. Like, if they were tied into the plot of if it was more "Look, by the bush -- it's a Chun Li! Throw the pokeball!" The Nippon Ichi comparison was a bit lost on me, but I can't complain since it wouldn't be to anybody in this game's target audience. Hate to skew the critique so negative though, because I really did like this. In a nutshell: good, though could have been fleshed out further. 79/80.

    Leroux: R-Shark

    -5 for EmP bashing. Prototypical Leroux, but prototypical Leroux is some of the best reviewing to be read. You took a very different approach to the generic shmup aspect of the game than Dagoss and it worked out great, mostly because you're such a good writer. If this review were any better I'd probably have to just shut up praising it and blow you. EmP pointed out that you did a good job explaining the weird bullet problem too, it would have been easy to assume that the reader understands it too soon and leave us confused but you didn't. We both had a few nitpicksI thought utilize was an incredibly jarring word choice on par with me dropping fucking shit cockers in the middle of an otherwise seriously written piece, EmP thought the conclusion could have been strongerbut by a tiny margin, this was our favorite. Good work. 91/86.

    Overdrive: Cyberdreams

    -100 for admitting to IDDQD abuse. This was still a good review though, I really enjoyed reading it and we both agree you did a lot with what in retrospect might not have been the best of picks for you to write about. The Plutonia comparison was incredibly effective to me who played it, and it worked for EmP too even though he (shamefully) hasn't. He's the Doom equivalent of hipster kids with Chrome bags and fixie bikes who've never even spent a day messing. A few off bits, though, the "run, click, run, click" line stopped working once you started tacking shit onto it like "make a drink, play the next level". Still, while not the best read ever or anything, you did an effective job of explaining how this game worked and why it didn't turn out so great. Plus, props for avoiding the trap with mods where you assume familiarity, I think it's much better than my take on Alien Vendetta for that reason. -14/81.

    Sportsman: STALKER

    EmP is a bastard and thinks that the best thing about this review is that there's a picture of a Cacodemon from Doom in the while you're here window. Then you realize how much he loves Cacodemons and realize that saying this doesn't make him a bastard after all. Personally, it was representative of what I've always thought were your best and worst traits when it came to reviewing. You're good at picking apart why a game works, but sometimes have a bit of trouble transcribing it. This was one of those times to me, unfortunately. Bit disorganized, if anything, as it never felt like you had much of a reason for putting the review together the way you didwhich adds up, considering you admitted to not putting much effort in. EmP thought pretty similarly about it, but also found it more formulaic than I did. He also thought that comparing something's depth to Deus Ex is a bit unfair (though I disagree if it's a game like STALKER or BioShock that's trying to be as deep). 74/60

    Timrod: Umihara Kawase

    Not your best, but also not your worst. I know I've said this before but I think you'd be a great reviewer if you started proofreading and also if you stopped letting yourself get carried away, but this review doesn't get carried away very much and so I like it. You're good at picking apart why games don't work, and that shows here, you took what sounded like a cool game (without calling it retarded and dumb, which would have been overdoing it) and just discussed what didn't work about it. EmP agreed, though he's a bit more underwhelmed by the roughness and gave the nod to WQ's more polished piece over this. He thought it was kind of disjointed and occasionally clunky... or, in other words, that you really just needed to proofread it again and maybe reorganize it a bit. Still, good analysis and good read. 78/70.

    Usurper: Square no Tom Sawyer

    I personally liked this review more than EmP did, but it still wasn't your strongest work by any means. We were tossing around words like serviceable and generic for the first part, and it was fairly informative, but incredibly dry. EmP pointed out that it felt like you were just running down what he had to run down to get a tourney pick in. I'm more inclined to not mind that sort of thing, but I'd definitely agree; most of the review felt like you were going through the motions, particularly with lines like characters are large and detailed; settings are luscious and imaginative. I liked the bit at the end myself, but he thought it was superfluous and overdone, and that it got in the way of talking about the game itself. Anyway, while this is one of the few we split on, we'd both certainly agree that you've done and can do better. 68/52.

    Vorty: Zaxxon Motherbase 2000

    Not bad. The jokes on this were good, though you've always had good ones (Viking dating service still cracks me up). Anyway, while I didn't mind it and thought it made its points fairly well, it read incredibly rough to meI feel bad saying this since I know you've always kind of struggled with it seeming like you don't care even though you do, but to be honest it still just reads like you, you know, don't care. Things like, as EmP pointed out, some word over-use, or that triple question mark. He agreed about the cleverness but was also more bothered by the roughness. Still, as a review it does its job and it's a pretty good read, so it's not like I'm knocking it or anything. Solid effort. 75/73.

    Wolfqueen: Musashi no Bouken

    Good job, buddy. Research impresses EmP, just like Sportsman (Was it? Could've been Vorty.) researching the fact that vikings were also farmers way back. To me, this review was informative but a bit dry; I'm sure I've let on when giving you feedback on a couple of your other reviews that your writing can strike me as a bit too formal at times, or just a bit awkward in places. Still, it did its job of actually telling us about the game better than some other masterfully written pieces have (sorry, Cairo) so I can't be at all harsh on it. EmP agreed almost entirely, though thought you could have played up the wackiness you mention a bit better, and also that you shouldn't have fixed the breast/beast typo. Because he is a pervert. 78/73.




    FINAL TALLY!

    Just kidding, OD and Leroux.

    1.) Leroux (91 + 91 = 182)
    2.) Darketernal (90 + 91 = 181)
    3.) Reyn (89 + 87 = 176)
    4.) Ben (84 + 84 = 168)
    5.) Overdrive (86 + 81 = 167)
    6.) Dagoss/Espiga TIE (83 + 76 = 159)/(79 + 80 = 159)
    8.) Wolfqueen (78 + 73 = 151)
    9.) BigCJ (75 + 75 = 150)
    10.) Timrod/Vorty TIE (78 + 70 = 148)/(75 + 73 = 148)
    12.) Sportsman (74 + 60 = 134)
    13.) Credit Card (59 + 72 = 131)
    14.) Usurper (68 + 52 = 120)
    15.) Cairo (58 + 48 = 106)




    Thanks to everybody who participated, as I alluded to in a couple of the critiques there were some nice surprises here. Particularly, at least to me, Dagoss, Reyn, and Darketernal. Sorry to my pals. Apparently EmP is a better friend if Ben and Darketernal are vying for the lead and the only guy I know to even crack my top five is OD.

    Finally, she may be over 50 but Siouxsie Sioux is a hottie and I would let her do terrible things to me. Just putting that out there.

    -boo
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 04, 2008:

    Thanks judges for the nice critiques and all. Congrats to Leroux on his victory.

    I always sub my worst possible work for contests (except for Gate of Thunder, which is a fantastic review), so I can't say I'm surprised by my placing. I also agree with the verdict entirely. I can do much better when I feel like it. Outside of Gate of Thunder, I never feel like it when I enter a competition. Maybe I should stop entering in these things!
    board icon
    yamishuryou posted August 04, 2008:

    Consider it's boobius I'm 88% sure the typo was deliberate.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 04, 2008:

    :3
    board icon
    yamishuryou posted August 04, 2008:

    My last topic got deleted by Venter's coding. It was supposed to be forever =(

    In any case, I'm working on Top Spin 3 Wii, which is my first project in like, 2 years?
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 04, 2008:

    Congratulations to everyone!

    I'd like to point out that it's a Dagoss/Espiga tie; not Espiga/Dagoss. Just so everyone's clear.
    board icon
    drella posted August 04, 2008:

    I'd like to thank myself, and solely myself, simply because my game was really lame. The -least- the judges could have done was let me win. Seriously, they handicapped me with a Korea only release. KOREA. I hate both these men.

    Perhaps I'd have some nice words for the competition, but there was never a link topic, so I really don't know what the fuck I beat. But good work anyway!
    board icon
    Halon posted August 04, 2008:

    Congrats to Leroux and everyone else in this and thanks to the judges for their hard work. My review definitely was a half-assed effort. I'm not really inspired to write anything thoughtful at the moment and figured that it's better for me to write something mediocre than to be one of many who didn't show up for this thing.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 04, 2008:

    At first I thought "resluts" was a typos until I looked closely, and realized Boo was the one you posted it.

    Congrats to those who scored well, and my apologies once again for dropping out. I'll probably wind up reviewing Fahrenheit anyway just for kicks.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 04, 2008:

    Since it doesn't really jump out at you skimming the topic, I want to reiterate: we're totally cool on giving you a more detailed/lengthy commentary if any of you would like one. These ended up coming out real short when we put our thoughts together and we don't want anyone to feel jipped, next time we'll probably do the same thing but try to work it out better so that we're going more in-depth. Again, don't hesitate to ask here (or on AIM, or over HG Mail, but preferably not by carrier pigeon) if you'd like elaboration.

    Haha, I didn't realize there was no link topic, Leroux. And the contest topic got quite messy with some people not even linking (or even posting). I'll edit in links to the results in a little while to make this easier to follow and to let other people have an idea of what's going on, good point. I hope/think you're just dicking with the first part of that post, almost everybody got shitty games. Because we hate you.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 04, 2008:

    Thanks for the critiques and I'm fairly pleased with getting fifth out of 15, especially since I only spent enough time with this game to get a fair grasp on what it's about (ie: using level skip codes to see most of them and little more outside the first few) and then playing Doom wads I like to wash the taste of that one out of my mouth.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 04, 2008:

    I think that might be why you gave it a 4 and not the 6-ish I would then. I 100% agree with the text of your review and wouldn't change my score if I knew you didn't beat it, but it does have some really clever moments which I tried to hint at in my screens (but it's hard). Like the one with the narrow, winding bridge you can't go too fast on or you'll fall, but you can't slowly cross or else you'll get blown to hell.
    board icon
    johnny_cairo posted August 04, 2008:

    It kind of feels like half a review doesn't it? Pawning off the project was kind of a dick move but I've gotta admire how you killed like three birds with one stone.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 04, 2008:

    haha, I offered in the HG Mail to keep the "project" idea intact (and this time I actually had time, hooray temporary unemployment) but just assumed you didn't believe me after the last 10+ times I flaked and would just go at it yourself.

    :( sorry. though if you're gunning for a 2/10 I think we would have killed each other over creative differences either way.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 05, 2008:

    Sorry about the no show. I guess it just isn't time for my SUPER AWESOME COMEBACK review. God, I don't know how I used to play Jedi Knight with a freaking mouse and keyboard. It was impossible when I tried to play it a month ago.
    board icon
    Crazyreyn posted August 05, 2008:

    Wow! Didn't expect to do this well. Thank you! Gives me motivation to get on with more reviews (currently on a slight stall). Could you explain 'it could have used an example or two of those puns' by the way? Meaning that the puns should go along with explaining the gameplay a little more?
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 05, 2008:

    That might be true, but I don't know. Like I'd told you before, Cybers are kind of boring for me -- even if you have to find inventive ways to kill them and I think even the most innovatively designed level in that wad would have been horrifically tedious for me after playing any number of other ones. I started skipping through the levels after I'd gotten through the first three, started the fourth (where there's a Cyber on a ledge and you have to run up a few seperated platforms to get to a switch or something) and realized I just couldn't do this game straight-up (or as straight-up as IDDQD permits) anymore.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted August 05, 2008:

    Still doing Legaia 2 stuff at a sluggish pace, and really more interested in Beyond Good & Evil since it seems a good cleanin' got around a nasty glitch. Probably that and Summoner 2 are gonna get done after I'm freed up again.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 05, 2008:

    Reyn: nah man, just when you mentioned that the level names were all puns or something along those lines, it would have worked in your favor to toss in an example or two.

    OD: fair enough, I've certainly said my piece on Cyberdemon abuse before. I think I'm ready to go ahead and call Hell Revealed shit, that "cream of the crap" comment I left with my Alien Vendetta rating is looking more and more true by the pwad.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 05, 2008:

    Well, I'm not going to pretend I'm not disappointed, but that's how things go, I guess.

    I'd actually felt pretty good about this one. Felix said he thought it was one of my best, and so I actually got some cofidence in it.

    Ah, well. This is why I pretend like my stuff sucks. At any rate, I'd appreciate more thorough feedback even if it's not entirely flattering (live and learn, right? >_>). Plus I'm feeling vindictive and want to make you both do extra work. =P

    Anyway, congrats to everyone else who did better than me; you deserve it. I'll have to go through and read all your reviews for that - the ones I haven't. Congrats to those who didn't do so well, too; at least you participated. (I hope that doesn't sound patronizing)
    board icon
    darketernal posted August 06, 2008:

    Thanks to Boo for the ranking and Emp for stabbing me in the back and taking that one, precious point away from me.

    Still, good show.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 07, 2008:

    I could blame myself for the absence of the last two weeks' worth of RotWs, but it's probably no one's fault. Long story short: I went on vacation (or holiday, if you live in a country that lost a war to its colonists) and couldn't do my regularly scheduled week, and so I left a message hoping someone else would take care of it. No one did, so now it's being taken care of by Masters and will presumably be up shortly. And for this RotW's lateness... well, that's just me being me. It's moot now anyway so let's try to put this pressing matter behind us.

    You should know how this works by now, but just to reiterate, only one review per person is accepted, and staff reviews are inelgible. But that last point is irrelevant since I was on vacation last week and didn't post any reviews. Hey now!



    Review of the Week: AeroFighters Assault (N64) by dagoss

    First of all, read over this review and fix those typos, or I'm going to be sorry I picked this. It's an otherwise very absorbing review, beginning right with the excellent opening line. That's the kind of bluntness I try to incorporate into my own reviews, so obviously I'm fond with it. The whole review has a very sarcastic, mocking tone to it, very appropriate for a game so ripe with reasons to mock -- if anything, you never quite justify the 6/10, starting up with a head-on bash and never quite raising the scale to an above-average rating. Still, you've managed to overcome the two biggest problems that kept many of this week's reviews from hitting the top spot: It's not overlong, and you're not simply going through the motions. You've given genuine thought to the wittiness of each paragraph while still making a point and describing the game well, and as a result I found this to be the most accessible and entertaining review of the week. You seem to be enjoying yourself, too, and that's often a sign the reader will as well.

    First Runner-Up: Q*bert by wolfqueen001

    Here on HG, you can tell which writers are really serious about what they do, because they'll review something as simple and unremarkable as Q*bert and still give it their fullest effort. In that sense, I'm surprised to see this review land on the RotW rankings. What impressed me is that you don't waste any time on needless exposition to make the review longer; you jump right into this thing from the get-go. Reviews are obviously supposed to follow the basic introduction-body-conclusion structure, but the good reviews are the ones where you don't even notice such parts because they all blend seamlessly together. On a similar note, this review is very short, as it should have been. Even with your colorful detail (again, more effort than most would show for something as trivial as Q*bert), this review could have dragged had it gone on too long. You made the right decision in keeping it lean and concise.

    Second Runner-Up: Trauma Center: Under the Knife 2 by darkstarripclaw

    I mentioned in my brief critique for Dagoss's review that too many of this week's entries seemed overlong and not particularly enthusiastic, as if the writers' hearts weren't quite into what they were writing. While Darkstarripclaw's review isn't as entertaining as the above two reviews, it still manages to avoid those complaints. It's detailed but not talky, and written with a clear understanding that game analysis comes first and foremost. Maybe my distaste for the first Trauma Center keeps me from getting too enthused from your review, though for my money you don't spend quite enough time talking about the game's positive points. The 8/10 still seemed to match the review's tone, somehow, so I guess it's not a big issue. Solid stuff overall.



    It was typical solid work this week, and for the BWHY entries that I snubbed, allow me to say that I pretty much agree with what was said in the results topic. Sorry again about the lateness, and I hope you all have a good four to five weeks before I make my epic RotW return.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted August 07, 2008:

    Thank you for the critique and placement (even though my review was technically posted on the 26th!). I will try looking a bit at adding in a bit of the positive stuff for the review.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 07, 2008:

    !?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    Damn it. Well, I screwed this one up in more ways than one. Do I have to pick out a new third-place spot, or are we happy enough as is?
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 08, 2008:

    (Tsk, typos!)

    Darkstarripclaw's review must be really good to be included for the wrong week! Wolfqueen's review is excellent (as usual); it hits all the right points without doing anything flashy or needless.

    Three of the four featured reviews currently on the front page are mine. That's -- kind of strange.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 08, 2008:

    Wow. I honestly wrote that fully expecting nothing special for it. Since the game's so simple and there's really not a whole lot I can say about it. I really didn't expect to beat people like vorty and Felix this week. It's kind of odd.

    Congratulations to dagoss, though, who really is on fire now. Well done, and thanks for the compliments.

    Heh. I hope darkstar's review gets that kind of placement for its proper week so that this little bungle won't be that huge a deal. And if not, at least you can be contented with the fact that you beat out a lot of good writers for a week that wasn't even supposed to be yours. Haha.

    This should be an easy enough fix, though (hopefully). I hope no one makes too big a deal about it. It's not like he did it on purpose.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 08, 2008:

    If it were up to me, Suskie(and it kinda is!) I would replace the third place. You wouldn' want Mr. Claw popping up again in the previous RotW when it gets penned.
    board icon
    Masters posted August 08, 2008:

    Here we go. Apparently, staff reviews are excluded and only one review from any one contributor can be selected as one of the winners. On with the picks...



    Second Runner Up
    Namco X Capcom (PS2) [Import] by espiga
    Espiga's work was irreverant and conversational, and the tone did well to draw in the reader rather than alienate. It's a tricky balance, but espiga pulls it off. I was especially pleased at the length -- it's on the short side, but manages to say what it needs to say with style, and then get the hell out.

    First Runner Up
    A Sound of Thunder (GBA) by Ben
    I was pleasantly surprised by this piece; not because Ben doesn't write good stuff -- just that I've never heard of him before. The line about statistics was priceless. This review is a lesson in how to deliver succinctly and with personality.

    REVIEW OF THE WEEK
    Alien Syndrome (WII) by bloomer
    Nice to see Wade still contributing his typically high quality work. What can I say? Reading a bloomer piece always leaves you knowing exactly how it feels to play the game, delivered in a smooth as lube fashion that can only be properly described as polished. My attention never wavered.


    Really, this week was ridiculous. I was impressed with EVERYONE'S work on this day, notably, both efforts from Felix, as well as work by Wolfqueen, Crazyren and Disco.

    EDIT: I am open to do critiques if anyone on the day is interested.
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 08, 2008:

    (The consistency of the error perplexes me...)
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 08, 2008:

    Congrats to Bloomer. He's ancient, but excellent.
    board icon
    bloomer posted August 08, 2008:

    Hey thanks Masters. As I contribute more I'm trying to get back into the habit of coming to the forums more, too.
    board icon
    Masters posted August 09, 2008:

    (The consistency of the error perplexes me...)

    The hell?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 09, 2008:

    I think he means that you called it "review of the day" instead of week.

    Congrats to the winners, though, and thanks for at least mentioning me.
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 09, 2008:

    The hell?

    I'm just not sure how review of the day can really cover an entire week.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 09, 2008:

    Us oldies have all done that at one time or another. Back in "the day", there was a GameFAQS feature we used to run know as Review of the Day. It was exactly what it sounds it was.
    board icon
    espiga posted August 09, 2008:

    Well now, this was a pleasant surprise to come home to. Thanks for the mention, and congrats to Bloomer and Ben. =D
    board icon
    Masters posted August 09, 2008:

    A simple "I think you mean 'week', not 'day'" would have sufficed, and would surely have been more useful than the smart ass remarks which came instead.
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 09, 2008:

    I'm sorry. I thought it was obvious to what I referred. I mean, you called it "day" like five times. For all I could tell, it was some inside joke that I didn't get.
    board icon
    Masters posted August 09, 2008:

    No problem. I dunno if I did RotW here before--I can't remember. But back in ye olde GameFAQs days, there was a time when I did RotD everyday. Damn, I guess it's hard to shake. :T
    board icon
    EmP posted August 11, 2008:

    So, heres the deal. We have twenty two people in and eleven matches set. The rules are simple: Ill release the first three, the six people involved will select a review (if not done in 24 hours, then its a random pick for you) and we, the posters, vote on which we prefer. Feedback is preferred. Then the next two stages will involve eight people and four rounds. I think its too much top ask you all to read, digest and vote on twebty-two reviews in one big chunk.

    In this round, there will be an extra slot available for the loser with the highest amount of votes.

    LET THE GAMES BEGIN!








    Disco1960 vs. DoI









    Overdrive vs. Beli









    Genj vs. VM
    board icon
    disco1960 posted August 11, 2008:

    3D Pinball: Space Cadet

    I will start with my most awesome.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 11, 2008:

    Today, as I do this RotW, I am sad. Very sad. No one apparently jumped on my Atari 2600 bandwagon and contributed any reviews for that system. And if someone did, I would have AUTOMATICALLY given them the win. Even if it was like 50 words where none of them formed legitimate sentences. "Fun maze time good!!!! GO PAC-MAN GO!!!! Atari 2600 not Pac-Man I like!!!! DIE PAC-MAN DIE!!!! Ghosts eat yellow gobble machine!!!!" And I'd be like, "Damn, that's the most original Pac-Man review ever. You win, dude!"

    Anyhow, usual stuff applies. No staff reviews. Only one from any of you who submitted. On with the show. I got to pick a tourney review for myself and then get back to figuring out what I'm missing in Icarus L8 (Doom megawad).




    Review of the Week: Contra: Shattered Soldier (PS2) by pickhut

    Man, this was one fun roller-coaster of a review to read. You start out indicating you didn't have high expectations for this one due to a crappy PS Contra game. And then you blow that out of the water with some great descriptions of a huge confrontation with a multi-form submarine boss. You do a great job of explaining that while the game's insanely difficult, after you learn how to get through obstacles, they're not so tough anymore. And then, you break the news this game ain't perfect by going into detail with how you have to replay the first four stages any time you die on a later one, making this game potentially tedious as you do the same four stages over and over, only to die on the fifth and have to do it again. You did good with this one. Very good.

    First Runner Up: Worms Armageddon (PC) by wolfqueen001

    One of your biggest strengths, which I alluded to in my really late critique of Fire-n-Ice, is on display here. You have a knack for writing really good personal anecdotes pertaining to your playing of a game. And that eighth paragraph, where you spin a tale about surviving a seemingly lost battle due to a fortunate item acquisition, is a great example of that. Things like that are great for showing your enthusiasm for a game and really add to a review. Only real complaint I had was that your review does seem to assume the reader has a certain amount of familiarity with Worms, which I really don't. Might have been nice to sneak in just a sentence or two giving a bit of detail on if it's turn-based strategy, real-time strategy, strategy with an action-oriented gameplay style or something else.

    Second Runner Up: Star Wars: Shadows of the EmPire (N64) by Felix_Arabia

    Overall, in some ways I might have liked this better than WQ's, but the first two paragraphs just threw me for a loop. You start out blasting the game's control, but then neuter that criticism with the last couple of sentences of the second paragraph to the point where, to me, it essentially read like, "The control in this game sucks and leads to horribly cheap deaths....unless you switch to first-person, in which case it's not that bad." After that bit got out of the way, though, this was a very good review I really enjoyed reading. You did a very nice job of showing both the positives and negative aspects of this one with the usual easy-to-read, entertaining writing I expect when I see your name.




    Enough of this foolish praise of non-Overdrives. It's off to find my glory!
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 11, 2008:

    good luck, your readers have never been able to.

    uh, I mean, congrats to the runners-up! but fuck the winner.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted August 11, 2008:

    I look forward to seeing your meaty meat take a dive into my dark pit of doom!

    Um... I mean, thanks for the RotW, OD. For the millionth time, I'll say I'm surprised I got it considering the competition this week. Congrats to wolfqueen and felix for their runner up wins.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 11, 2008:

    Lufia: The Ruins of Lore

    This is my pick unless I change it. Which I might. I'm indecisive, but just wanted something up in case I forget about this tomorrow while I'm totally swamped at work and wind up with EmP "randomly" picking something of mine that sucks, just so he can gloat over my foolishness.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 11, 2008:

    oh yeah, let me know what's up in that map if you beat it. I thought it was real stupid and just skipped it.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 11, 2008:

    Getting ready to get back into it now. You start with the mancubi and then the cacos when you push the switch in the courtyard. Then you go to the yellow key room where you get teleported all over the place. I'm at a dead end, but have a switch that opens a door or operates a lift for five seconds or whatnot. I just have to figure out where what it operates is, as the map isn't helping me.

    The yellow key room is very nicely done. It's in a little box in the middle, but off the ground. You enter the box, you get teleported. Hitting switches opens sides of the box and you get teleported somewhere else depending on what side you enter the box. Now if I can just solve the fucker....
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 11, 2008:

    yeah, I got to the yellow key part (and found a teleporter to some other room with a divider between you and the half with a switch in it) and called it quits about there. generally, complicated Doom puzzles do nothing for me.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 11, 2008:

    I finished that part of the level. To call it complicated would be an understatement. I'd have liked it if not for all the speed-running to get to places quickly before doors close, as playing with a keyboard like I do makes that sort of thing tougher than it needs to be. Have other things to do tonight, so I haven't finished the level, but I hope the rest is less "puzzley".
    board icon
    Genj posted August 11, 2008:

    In case my Internet dies, I will use this as a placeholder, so subject to change:


    PIKACHU I CHOOSE YOU!
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 11, 2008:

    playing Doom with just the keyboard is like playing Guilty Gear with PS2's analog stick. it just ain't the same, man. you'll be a UV/NM pro like me if you make the change, I highly recommend it.
    board icon
    drella posted August 12, 2008:

    I told you to rig this so I knock Overdrive out first round you tool!

    I better be facing you instead.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 12, 2008:

    I am a man of great honour. Everything will be done fairly until it suits my agenda to cheat.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 12, 2008:

    Drella
    I made a deal with EmP that if he allowed me to duck you as long as possible, I'd actually start doing RotWs in a timely manner. I'm still working on another deal that would allow me to create 15-20 alternate accounts to ensure my victory over everyone, but negotiations currently are at an impasse.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted August 12, 2008:

    Within a Deep Forest
    board icon
    viridian_moon posted August 12, 2008:

    NetHack
    board icon
    EmP posted August 12, 2008:

    Beli has an hour extension before the dreaded RANPICK hits. The other two matches are now open for votes.

    EDIT: Beli's time is up. His RANPICK is live.
    board icon
    viridian_moon posted August 12, 2008:

    Voting time:

    DoI: Disco's is good for a pinball review, but...it's a pinball review, and there's almost nothing to it. DoI's review (and game) have a lot more substance, and his enthusiasm is tangible.

    Beli: While OD's review dissects his game's flaws well, Beli's review does that and has a lot of classic lines (poking), and plus it's written with a warm humor that really appealed to me. Both were good reviews, but Beli's is more engaging.

    I will tastefully refrain from voting on my own match.
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted August 12, 2008:

    You actually picked the review I was going to choose! Good going, my friend!
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 12, 2008:

    Disco1960 vs. DoI

    To repeat what VM said, this is a great example of how something as simple as game choice can affect the outcome of a match. Disco1960's Space Cadet is about as well written as a pinball review can be, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a pinball review. Even at such a short length, it barely held my interest. DoI's doesn't read quite as smoothly -- honestly, I've got no idea what's going on with those opening snippets -- but he's taking on a quirky hidden gem that he obviously feels a certain passion for (it's his friggin' avatar), and that passion emanates throughout the review. It's hard to work up passion for a pinball game, which is understandable but doesn't change the fact that DoI's review is far more gripping. Winner: DoI

    OD vs. Beli

    Another instance where I'm basically just reiterating what VM said. Both are bash reviews, and both do a fine job of picking apart exactly what goes wrong with each title. Belisarios gets the edge because his is simply more entertaining. You used to write up quick little three-paragraph bashes for games that deserved even less, and while they were always fun to read, there wasn't much substance to them; I always saw this review as your true breakthrough, and, random or not, it's an excellent pick against a review that's perfectly fine but not nearly as endearing. Winner: Beli

    Genj vs. VM

    I gave Genj's review RotW a while back, so obviously I like it a lot. It's funny, and impresses because it appears at first to be a straight-up bash and evolves into a much deeper dissection of exactly everything that goes wrong in Bouncer. Very well done. VM's is perhaps more elaborately written, with a more colorful vocabulary, but doesn't quite work up the enthusiasm to sell the 10/10. It's a perfectly good review that, like OD's, just isn't as enjoyable as its competition. Winner: Genj
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 12, 2008:

    Disco vs. Dragoon of Infinity
    WINNER: Disco

    Disc's game is a hard sale right from the start, being one of the through-away games that came with Windows. I'm not sure I was really sold on it in the end, and the cheesy space jokes didn't always pan out, but it is still clear and concise. I think your biggest problem was simply the choice of game. Dragoon's review started out well, but didn't flow. I caught a few typos and there were some unintuitive sentence structures that forced me to pause a few times. I also left Dragoon's review with several questions about the game, like the role of traits (were the a bonus feature? Integrated into level design? What?). Overall, it was choppy. To be honest, I didn't like either of these reviews; I've chosen what is a mediocre review for a mediocre game, rather than a mediocre review for a game that didn't have to trap the writer in said mediocrity. Really, it could go either way.

    Overdrive vs Beli
    WINNER: Overdrive

    First off, Overdrive, Atlus only published your game; you should be blaming Taito instead. That's really the only problem I had with OD's review. It was informative yet bitchy; conversational yet skilled. It hit most every point that needed to be made and provided enough information in a way that was enjoyable to read. Beli's review, while good, had too much fluff and not enough review. There's one sudden transition that made me think a paragraph is missing. I got "unfair" and "bad controls" out of this review , but not much else; in fact, I don't even know what type of game it is, which suggests that this review needs a lot more substance.

    Genj vs Viridian Moon
    WINNER: Genj

    Despite the low score, Genj clearly had fun with his/her game (or at least the review part of it). Were this a different game, this mocking style might have come across as superfluous, but you really used the game's negative features to your advantage. Some of the minor tangets were a bit of a miss with me, but they never felt out of place, and it never felt like you were trying too hard to be witty. Viridian's review was also good, but it was on the dry side. It had a very unenthusiastic tone, which isn't a good thing considering the perfect score you gave your game. It felt like you were just going through the motions, so to speak.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 12, 2008:

    Um, Genj is a dude.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 12, 2008:

    Disco vs Doi
    Surprisingly I have familiarity with both of these here games. Space Cadet came packaged with my 90's era Compaq (lol)and one time I saw my roommate play Within a Deep Forest and said to him "What the fuck is this you're playing? Well at least it's not that Maple Story shit." Reviewing a pinball game is a big gamble - it's not immediately an enticing read, but if you can sell it, then you've done an outstanding job. Unfortunately I wasn't really sold on this one. It's good for a pinball review, but not enough to really combat DoI's entry. Within a Deep Forest sounds cool and different, and DoI's review demonstrates this with his love of the game. Winner: DOI

    Overdrive vs Belisarios

    Now I'm a big fan of JRPGs (read: nerd), but I have to say that OD's rather lengthy section of all story for what seemed like the first half of the review had me PC clocking. I think it just went on for too long to have all of it all appear first. When it got to the gameplay, it became clear why this wasn't a very good RPG. Belisarios' review is for a far simpler game and frankly a lot of the anecdotes could probably have been cut out to make the review shorter, but I liked the tone and thought it was funny. This is a close call, but I'm going with Belisarios for the more entertaining, consistent read. Winner: Belisarios

    Genj vs VM

    I didn't read either of these losers' reviews, so I vote for BORO!


    Genj clearly had fun with his/her game

    I have a penis (and was born with it!), though I can see how 'hot yaoi action' could cause confusion.

    board icon
    dagoss posted August 12, 2008:

    I'll leave Genj's options open, just in case.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 12, 2008:

    Disco1960 vs. Dragoon of Infinity
    Winner: Dragoon of Infinity

    I liked both of these reviews, but one of them was more ambitious in subject material. That was obviously DoIs review. As it has been stated already in this topic, pinball isnt as invigorating as this intriguing stuff DoI covered. That doesnt mean, however, that a pinball review couldnt win this match or any other match, for that matter. I think if the pinball game were, for example, Devils Crush (which Sho reviewed, and deals with Satan) it could have stood up better. But as it stands, one good review is for a meh subject and the other good review is for an intriguing subject.

    BELISARIOS vs. Overdrive
    Winner: BELISARIOS

    OD has written about many classics spanning a ton of consoles, and he has been one of the most consistently excellent reviewers Ive encountered since I began doing this stuff. However, this Lufia review reads like other good OD material, and the game is bad, but not in a good way. Belisarios review is for a worse game, but he writes about it in a fun manner, makes his subject sound interesting despite its obvious horridness, and gets out faster than OD does.

    Genjuro Kibagami vs. Viridan Moon
    Winner: Genjuro Kibagami

    VM is a very good reviewer who has a very commanding grasp of the English language and knows how best to utilize it when reviewing quirky PC games that Ill never play (I own a Mac). Genjuro, specifically in this review, on the other hand, is absolutely goofy. If I werent familiar with either reviewer or game in question, VM would be the more credible writer for her Nethack review while Genjuros The Bouncer may not seem like something Id be so ready to trust. But unfortunately for VM, I know that Genjuro tells it like it is, and he often does it in a humorous way without sacrificing the validity of his points. Plus, after reading his review, he actually intrigued me into wanting to play a bad game.
    board icon
    disco1960 posted August 13, 2008:

    Odd. Somehow, my foolproof strategy of appealing to the pinball and astronomy lover vote doesn't seem to be working.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 13, 2008:

    DISCO1960 vs. DoI

    I must give props to Disco for pulling out whats actually a very good review on such a limited game, but its not enough for him to edge out DoI, who picks a game that none of us have ever heard of and makes me want to play it sometime. Really, the biggest divide here was the choice in material; Disco may do a great job with what he had, but DoI allows him to be more creative, and its an advantage he uses well.

    WINNER: DoI

    Beli vs. OD

    Poor OD got blindsided by a fateful RANPICK here -- justice for the early promise breaking after subbing a post-2008 review? Maybe, but the oldster still comes out swinging with a solid review. Its easy to see that Oddys review shares the most information about the game while Belis fine effort is the more amusing read. His review makes great use of in-game snapshots to boarder a goofy review that I enjoyed a great deal. OD is more ambitious, but Belis explains his game just as well with charm to spare.

    WINNER: BELI

    Genj vs. VM.

    Both these reviews make me want to play the games in question, just for other reasons. Genjs laid-back affair does a fantastic job of taking apart a game universally mocked, while Veems take a title made by people nerdier than us. Genjs review is lively, but he attacks an easy target, while VMs actually makes me want to play a game comprised of nothing but ASCII art with some clever examples. I think this is her third or forth rewriting of the review -- leave it alone, already!

    WINNER: VM
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 13, 2008:

    Disco1960 vs. DoI
    I have to give Disco credit here for tackling a pinball game and making it entertaining. Your review consistently maintained the "space" theme and made this a very fun review. But, as others have said, this is just a pinball game and not really what I'd call a good contest entry for that reason. I thought DoI's got off to a slow start, but when he started talking about the game, its ambient mood and whatnot, I was hooked.
    Winner: DoI

    VM vs. Genj
    This was one hell of a tough choice for me. I actually downloaded NetHack once and played it a bit before throwing in the towel due to having a lack of time to really get into all its nuances (and I was even playing the cool version, where stuff looks like stuff, and not keystroke symbols). Her review made me wonder if I should make time to give it another shot. I probably won't in the near future because I'm having too much fun DOOMing, but you never know. On the other hand, we have what I call "good Genj", where he uses good humor to easily skewer a blah game without going over-the-top or appearing to try to hard to bash it. And that's what makes it touch to make a call here. One review is informative and makes me want to try a game again. The other was entertaining as hell. I have to go with VM, though, as maybe my previous short-lived playing of NetHack caused that review to have a bit more meaning to me.
    WINNER: VM

    And, it looks like I REALLY screwed up here. Beli's great at short, energetic reviews for quirky, bad, obscure old games, so I went for something the opposite of that. Bad idea, as his is so good, it seems to just be magnifying the flaws of mine (which placed fifth at the ABCs). Should have used Swordquest: Fireworld or something shorter and more energetic.

    Oh, EmP, funny story. I thought that was a 2008 review. And after you posted your thing, I went back and looked and, you're right....I did it in late Dec. 2007. So, due to that error causing me to break my word, I have to say this review should be considered null and void and I should get to pick a new one so I don't look like HONESTgamers' disHONEST mod. Right? So, who's with me? Anyone? Please? Damn......
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 13, 2008:

    Wow. This took off well after all. Good considering no one votes for anyoone else's ideas. >_>

    Anyway, I'll try to get feedback in sometime within the week... maybe... I've been kind of busy/distracted lately.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 13, 2008:

    Thanks, OD. Honestly, I wasn't really sure how to explain any vagueness away, so I just sort hoped that contextual clues in my writing would be enough. There's really not a whole lot to explain about the game, anyway, at least in that regard, and that's partly what made reviewing it a bit difficult. But I guess you're right in saying I could've spared some time to explain how the turns worked at least, but I think I had difficulty figuring out where to put something like that without interrupting flow. If I remembered to try and put anything like that in it at all. Haha. I think I forgot to enlighten unfamiliars with the game more than I usually do...

    Congrats to the rest, in any case. And wow, I can't believe I beat Felix again.
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted August 13, 2008:

    disco1960 vs. dragoon_of_infinity

    I can empathize with disco1960 since I have written a bunch of short reviews for silly little games. None of them have been for pinball, I don't think, but I can see myself myself writing about it someday. DOI's review is the overall stronger piece of the two, though. DOI wins.

    genj vs. viridian_moon

    I laughed when I read genj's review. I didn't laugh when I read VM's review. However, her review was very good and definitely was the more professional sounding piece. But I can't say that I necessarily prefer that style (look at the way I write, friends!) to humorous or campy writing. It was a close match for me, but I'm going to have to go with genj on this one. Genj wins.

    BELISARIOS vs. overdrive

    I liked both of these reviews, but I forgot how to use the voting machine for this match.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 13, 2008:

    Voting is still open on Stage One, but its time to start the ball rolling on the second phase. The match-ups are as follows:








    Janus vs. Dagoss









    Ben vs. Suskie









    WQ vs. Boo





    You all have 24 hours to pick your review.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 13, 2008:

    WINNER: DOI
    This was a tough decision. Disco's writing is stronger, and he has the best line (xenomorphs can smell that), but it wasn't a terribly exciting read. DoI, on the other hand, reviewed a more interesting title and did so with obvious enthusiasm. However, his writing was baffling in places: "it's at once calming like the forest you're in, and a reminder of the bomb."???? I'm going to go for DoI, though. Despite the inconsistent writing, his enthusiasm made the review a more interesting read that disco's.

    WINNER: OVERDRIVE
    This was another tough decision! Overdrive wrote the better review, but Beli had him beaten in the entertainment stakes. Bash reviews that are heavy on the sarcasm tend to merge together after you've read enough of them, but I thought belisaroars's succeeded in finding a fresh approach. His review was funny and scathing but without being over-sarcastic. However, I have to give OD the win. His review was more thorough: the bit about Eldin's father was priceless and the observation about not wanting to carry on after losing 70,000 worth of equipment was spot on. These were the sort of insights that made it the stronger review for me.

    WINNER: VIRIDIAN MOON
    The new Batman film is awesome. Viridian Moon's review was my favourite of the whole round. I thought it was really impressive. She has this knack for making a game sound really special without saying "this game is really special". I can't really put my finger on how she does this, but I think it probably has something to do with the flawless writing. She doesn't resort to hyperbole, instead delivering a subtle and endearing account of her love for NetHack that culminates with the last two paragraphs. And this is an ASCII RPG! Genj's effort was very strong too. The jokes in the intro hit the mark but he's good enough to realise that humour can't carry the whole thing. His analysis of the Bouncer is thoughtful and convincing. I would have picked him over any of the other reviews.
    board icon
    espiga posted August 13, 2008:

    Disco vs. DoI

    I remember really liking DOI's review when he used it in last year's TT, and nothing has changed about that feeling since then. I could reiterate what everyone else has said about the subject material of Disco's, but I'm not going to. I found DoI's to be a more solid, more convincing, and more entertaining read.

    DoI > Disco

    OD vs BELISARIOS

    I really liked both of these reviews. Being a huge RPG gamer, it should come as no surprise that I've played through OD's choice and could relate to it better, while BELISARIOS' review, though well-written, seemed to sort of lose me. Despite this, BELISARIOS' review was much more entertaining and made me want to download a ROM of it to try it out just for the lulz.

    BELISARIOS > OD

    Genj vs. VM

    This one was a pretty tough call, being as I'm familiar with both The Bouncer and Nethack. I think I have to give the edge to Genj though, since although both reviews were convincing and entertaining, Genj's also has the laugh-out-loud factor that comes from his excellent humour in his writing style.

    Genj > WM
    board icon
    disco posted August 13, 2008:

    Game: Bangai-O Spirits
    Platform(s): DS
    Publisher: D3
    Developer: Treasure
    Genre: Shooter
    Release Date: 8/12/08

    Added.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 13, 2008:

    better read Janus' review now before he pulls it, people! that really makes me, well,

    PO'ed
    board icon
    disco posted August 13, 2008:

    Game: Windy x Windam
    Platform(s): DS
    Publisher: Success
    Developer: Success
    Genre: 2D Fighting
    Release Date: 7/31/2008 (Japan only)

    Added.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 13, 2008:

    I'm going to be old school and pretend you can't hyperlink.

    [Link deleted because it was fucking up the page.]
    board icon
    espiga posted August 13, 2008:

    Game: Fire Emblem: Shin Ankoku Ryuu to Hikari no Ken (New Dark Dragon and the Sword of Light)
    Platform: DS
    Developer: Intelligent Systems
    Publisher: Nintendo
    Genre: Strategy RPG
    Release Date: August 7, 2008 (JP)
    Additional Details: An enhanced remake of the first Fire Emblem game for Famicom, features additional character and chapters, etc.

    Added.
    board icon
    mardraum posted August 13, 2008:

    I find myself agreeing with Janus' assessments almost completely and don't really want to find other ways to word the exact same things, so here you go: DoI, OD, Veems. I may edit in actual text later, but it would be a formality--just read JANUS2's post.
    board icon
    drella posted August 13, 2008:

    Will judge OD/Beli later, but I don't know when this voting closes, so I wanted to get something in.

    DoI d. disco- Generally, half of tournament competition is picking the right material. Windows pack-ins usually don't work too well and neither do pinball games; the fact is there's just not a lot of room expand unless you're a really talented writer. Disco's Space Cadet Pinball isn't bad... it starts with a lot of promise. It -should- be a lot duller than this, but for some reason I felt immediately open to hearing his argument. But by the end it starts to fall into very basic descriptions of the game that do very little, and it becomes fairly dull. And it's easy to fall into that trap when you pick a game like this. DoI countered with a simple game also -- Within a Deep Forest -- but makes it feel beautiful and elegant and worth playing. It doesn't fall into the trap of explaining its simplicity; it's simplicity is understood, and the review goes beyond to show the emotion that simplicity captures. Or something. Overall, there's a lot more substance to DoI's as far as perspective even if the games are almost equally simple. A good match to learn from.

    Mint d Genj - Genj's review is uneven, at least from my point of view, because it represents him at his best, his mediocre and his worst. The beginning wonderfully introduces this goofy game, mockingly describing the main character without immediately condemning the title. The sarcasm here works great. It treads into meh, generic descriptions of the combat; it works, but I think a lot of this has been dully noted before, and similarly to boot. And then it sort of falls apart into a rambling slew of fucks and gay jokes and poorly built comparisons (The Bouncer is compared to MGS, three Final Fantasies, two arcade beat 'em ups, an FMV game and two brawler series... and few of these name drops accomplish much). This kind of stuff probably makes for humorous AIM conversations, but I don't like it's translation into a review. The yaoi tangent is "hip internet culture columnist" shenanigans when the review could be taking the time to better show Final Fight has more substance than The Bouncer, a glancing point that I just didn't buy after reading this. And I love Final Fight. Following in the DoI/disco approach, Mint takes a very simple game and attaches emotion. It's a very convincing argument, grabbing examples as necessary to make its points and ultimately selling an incredibly tough sell, a dungeon crawling MS-DOS relic. The review is trying to do more and does more; it not only has to convince me to play the game, but it has a greater uphill battle to paint a picture of what the game actually is. I think it does that and I would have loved to see this matched up directly against DoI's.
    board icon
    drella posted August 13, 2008:

    Overdrive d. Beliaros - I think I can keep this one short and sweet. Beliaros' review is summarily summed up by one line within it: "The combat consists of ruthless, unfair engagements confounded by stiff play control and crazy amounts of poking." And the rest of review consist of 1) establishing this point (fairly easy to believe) and 2) adding quite a bit of fluff (like the whole first two paragraphs, largely). I like the fluff. It's entertaining, and Beliaros wrote a smoother piece. But there's not a lot of depth to any of this so it doesn't make the ideal competition review. Overdrive has written a lot of better RPG reviews. This was a very average one, taking a very tried and true approach (here is the plot, here is my analysis of it, with neither intertwined). It's just a solid review but a more ambitious effort by a country mile, and no amount of slickness on Beliaros' part can really out-do that.
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 13, 2008:

    A competent person would pick a review that won RotW or something.

    Since I'm not competent, here's Etrian Odyssey!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 13, 2008:

    I decided to take the liberty of tallying up all the votes for all the posts above this one. Here are the current standings, according to my counting.

    Disco1960 vs. DOI
    Disco1960: 1
    DOI: 12

    BELISARIOS vs. Overdrive
    BELISARIOS: 6
    OD: 5

    Genjuro vs. VM
    Genjuro: 5
    VM: 6

    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted August 13, 2008:

    Disco vs. DoI

    EmP said that this contest is all about laziness, so I just skipped this match.

    Winner: Lethargy

    Beli vs. OD

    I have to say, at first glance the screenshots in Beli's review turned me off to it quite a bit. It seemed almost too intrusive and overbearing. But the rest of the review is so charming and the last screen shot ties it all together so well that by the time I finished it I didn't mind. Major points for overturning a first impression like that. OD's review is solid, I came out of it convinced that this particular entry in the Lufia series trips over itself in a lot of ways. However, for every well made point that I nodded my head to in OD's review, I grinned in Beli's. That's gotta mean something.

    Winner: Beli

    VM vs. Genj

    I'm trying to figure out how to say this without being too derivative, and failing. Genj's review is more amusing, to be sure. VM's is more 'solid'. Everyone's already said this. Genj's review seems to fall apart near the end. It starts off very well. It maintains its steam through the middle, and then just drops the ball at the end. I wouldn't say it ever got bad, really. But I think that by the time it descends into talk about yaoi, the point was lost. VM's review is much more consistent. It's strong throughout and solidly displays love for a game. Even a strange one. At the end of the day, Genj's review makes me convinced that I was right to not buy a bad game, and it does so in a mostly entertaining fashion. That's wonderful in its own way. VM's review, on the other hand, makes me want to play a game that I've played before, but given up on. Suddenly, falling down a random pit onto a cocatrice corpse sounds almost pleasant, instead of something that makes me want to snap my keyboard over my knee.

    Winner: VM
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 13, 2008:

    Okay, so I'm looking through my backlog and... yeah, I hate all of my reviews. I'm working on one right now that should be done in time and may be good enough to put to use here, but just in case, I'm using Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare as a placeholder. It's one of the few reviews of mine I'm actually happy with.

    Edit: Ugh. I was at Six Flags all day, and I'm very tired now. I thought I'd be able to work up the energy to finish my Portal review, but it seems I'm burned out. CoD4 it is.
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 14, 2008:

    I just revised my review substantially. It probably won't save it though.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 14, 2008:

    QUESTION: I might have missed this, but how long is the voting period for each round/stage/whatnot? Just so I know if I have to get my verdicts up as soon as possible after the reviews are all up or if I can take a day or two if I'm busy, which I will be for the next week or so because of a work project.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 14, 2008:

    It's more or less when I think we're not going to gather more feedback without an abnormal wait. But I'm keen to keep things running smoothly.

    EDIT: Voting is open now on Janus/Dagoss and Suskie/Ben
    board icon
    EmP posted August 14, 2008:

    ROUND CLOSED

    DoI DEFEATS Disco1960 12 votes to 1.
    BELISARIOS INCHES PAST OD 7 votes to 5
    Viridian Moon ROCKS A COMEBACK to pip Genj 7 votes to 5.

    DoI, Beli and VM advance.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 14, 2008:

    JANUS over dagoss:

    My synapses were really firing in this one (yes, that's a nod to Bloomer). Two positive reviews for DS games I want to play. Janus' was packed with exquisite description of the action and enemies as well as intelligent observation on how the stylus is handled by developers. Dagoss makes me want to play Etrian Odyssey, but the silly letter gimmick kinda ruins it for me. I got a good enough explanation of the game, but reading all the "will feature," "we put" and so on was too awkward compared to Janus' smooth descriptions.


    Suskie over Ben

    I'm personally a little glad Suskie didn't finish his Portal review because I'm sick of hearing about Portal. Suskie knows how to make games sound cool or especially sucky. His COD4 is an interesting enough read in why the game deserves its hype, though I'm skeptical that plot twists stay with you for a long time (maybe I'm just a heartless bastard who doesn't care about polygonal men). I judged Ben's review last year. I'm tempted to just copy and paste what I wrote last time but that would be evil. It's an interesting enough review but goes a little too quick after the horror elements are over and done with. I found myself liking suskie's thorough descriptions of war a lot more.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 14, 2008:

    Janus vs. Dagoss
    Winner: Janus

    Fun fact: this is Janus first new review in nearly 2 years! The guy still has it. Hopefully he wont delete this one after a week. With that said, Im not voting for him just because hes finally decided to write something new. In fact, Im pretty sure Ive read similar introductions for other DS games comparing the usefulness of the handhelds gimmicky stylus to the easy way out that so many developers seem to take. While that may not be the most original approach in the world, the writing was pretty good, the descriptions were nice, and I got a good understanding that this is a special game on a system I loathe. With Dagoss, weve seen so much better from him. While his Etrian Odyssey review isnt bad per se, the tone got annoying for me. Ive seen darkfact write truly amazing dungeon crawler reviews for Dragon Knight II and Madou Monogatari both of them definitely aim to tug at your emotions as they certainly had an effect on his. The writing style doesnt get in the way of actual review in those cases. Here, unfortunately, it does. The love letter gimmick could certainly work, and I think Dagoss has the ability to make it work. It just didnt happen for me.

    Ben vs. Suskie
    Winner: Suskie

    Whoever subbed the cover art for Bens game should be shot. And no, it wasnt me who added it, grumble grumble. Anyway, I never noticed Ben much prior to reading his BWHY review, and I was once again pleasantly surprised with this effort. His Sherlock Holmes review is nicely written. It also gets in and gets out, but it also does a good job at making its points. The game has great ideas but poor execution. I can dig that. I hope he finds more time to write reviews, assuming he enjoys doing it. The kids got talent that Ive only recently come to realize. Dont let me down. Suskies review, on the other hand, is so marvelous that I nearly passed out after reading the political correctness of his opening sentence. I spell it Jeddah. This debacle almost made me want to give the review a 3/100 (even though we arent giving scores)! Alas, I didnt. I love reading about games where America kills terrorists/Nazis and Suskie describes it exceptionally well. Both reviews were very good, but Im giving my nod to Suskie because his review was the more ambitious of the two, I felt.

    Wolfqueen vs. Booberry
    Winner:Booberry

    It's unfortunate that WQ wasn't able to choose her own review, and that EmP's ranpicking skils didn't choose her best review in her stead. This LotR piece is fine and all, but it's not her best effort and it's certainly nowhere near as colorful as Booberry's, uh, whatever you want to call it. I remember giving his PO'ed review the top rank in some competition I judged. It's just as hilarious now as it was then. It's nevertheless a very silly effort that admits its own incredulity. A more serious piece should get the nod over that -- after all, WQ put more effort into playing (and perhaps writing) about her game than Boo did. But his review is just so ridiculous and more enjoyable for me to read, I unfortunately have to pick the little fatty for the win.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 14, 2008:

    WQ has been RANPICK'd. All rounds now open for votes.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 14, 2008:

    Didn't Ben used to be Hobunn?

    By the way, Genj, you're right about there being too much talk about Portal. I actually sort of play off the game's overpopularity in my review, but yeah, it's probably not a good idea to cover an over-covered game for a tournament. Luckily, the game I'll hopefully review for the next round (if I make it, that is) doesn't currently have any reviews on HG at the moment.

    Janus vs. Dagoss

    I agree that Janus's intro is very cliched; this kind of thing was used to open DS reviews years ago, we get it by now. Thankfully, he recovers very quickly, as his love for NGDS propels the review to a lightning pace that never wavers, nor suggests a dent in Janus's enthusiasm for the subject. His unique way of describing things hits its peak labels the game as Itagaki's way of boasting. Very effective and convincing -- I'd pick up this game in a second if I hadn't already. As far as gimmicks go, structuring your review like a letter isn't very original and is also quite difficult, as it typically makes the delivery feel more forced. A more experienced writer may have been able to make this work (in fact, I've seen it done), but Dagoss's just felt too awkward. I got all the information I needed, but the same can be said about Janus, who presented his review in a far more straightforward, reader-friendly manner. Winner: Janus

    WolfQueen vs. Boo

    WQ's review is perfectly fine but doesn't flow very smoothly -- you jump into mechanics a little too quickly, I think, and there's little in the way of transitioning from one paragraph to the other -- and isn't particularly polished from a writing standpoint. I feel a massive tone shift, too. This game sounds terrible from the get-go, and then gradually evolves into praise by the end as it gets a 7/10. Sometimes this move from bad to good is intentional, but here, I don't think it is -- it doesn't feel natural. Boo's may not be very ambitious, but that's explained in a surprisingly appropriate anecdote at the beginning. Boo has a talent for making funny things funnier, and his writing voice here seems to imply that he went into this thing with the confidence that he'd treat it like more than just a simple bash. This is why you need to be here to pick your tourney entries, because there's no contest here. Winner: Boo
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted August 14, 2008:

    Finished Gears of War after rewriting the last eighth from memory (stupid laptop!). Probably Legaia stuff again...unless the wind changes, haha.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted August 15, 2008:

    You're fast becoming my favorite active FAQ writer. Keep up the good work as long as you can, though I don't see how you do it!
    board icon
    drella posted August 15, 2008:

    dagoss d Janus -- It's wonderful to see Janus back and Ninja Gaiden DS is reminiscent of the Janus of old. The focus is on the implementation of the stylus and Janus establishes without a doubt that Dragon Sword is incredible at its innovative combat system. I don't own a DS, but of all it's titles I'd probably be most interested in seeing this one in action, because a classic series like this with this kind of implementation sounds great on paper. Janus convinces it's even better in action. I suppose one of my few complaints is that I read some of this before with Suskie's NG: DS, and his piece stuck in my mind as a great review, and going only from memory I don't think this tops it. I'm pretty sure I would have given dagoss the win anyway simply because he nails his game. It's a beautifully charming breezy read with a creative approach that speaks directly to it's target audience. Moreover, most complaints about this game a person would raise are justified as homages or quirks -- it's target audience would likely see them as such. In a lot of praise reviews they'd go unrecognized, yet here they're convincingly argued to make the game better. And yet this is such an easy going piece no one is arguing at all. Atlus couldn't promote this game better. Even when the review sounds somewhat awkward, it only comes across as more charming. This is the kind of spirited review an author only comes up with once in a while, and dagoss is at the most impressive I've seen him here. Really good match.

    Suskie d. Ben -- This is a Sherlock Holmes game and Ben is complaining that Watson isn't providing helpful advice? Have you read the books? But the review itself is okay -- not a huge fan of tentacle equipped killer vaginas, and the goofiness of stuff like this takes away from the serious, gruesome theme the review otherwise tries to present. Also, it's not as ambitious a title. Suskie's Call of Duty 4 is great, probably one of the best FPS reviews I've read. Starting by describing the opening was somewhat of a tired device but it leads well into the rest of the review, which makes strong points and makes the game seem very appealing for its deviations from standard fair.

    (more here later)
    board icon
    espiga posted August 15, 2008:

    Going to keep this short; I'm hella tired.

    JANUS2 vs.Dagoss

    Dagoss' love letter review felt like some of the gimmicky trite I normally use, with the exception that this review didn't make me feel any real passion toward the game. If you write a love letter you gotta use love, and I just wasn't feelin' it.

    And now I can't decide if my critique makes me sound like an emo or like a hippie.

    Despite the shitty intro, I felt a lot more from Janus' review. You can very clearly tell that this man loved his game and the solid writing only serves his points even stronger. Both of you are talented writers but what should have been this round's hardest bout to pick became one of the easiest.

    Winner: JANUS2

    Ben vs. Soos-kee

    I've admired Suskie as a writer ever since we fought alongside Zig in last year's TT, and this review is a stunning example of why. While Ben's attempts to make humour by calling a demon a big green vagina, Suskie wastes no time whipping out example after example to detail the experience he had. FPS has never been my favourite genre and it's very hard to sell me on one but Suskie manages to. Excellent work, old chap.

    Winner: Soos-kee

    Tired now... Will do queenie vs. Boo later. Night.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 15, 2008:

    JANUS vs. DAGOSS
    Tough one to start out with. For a while, I really liked Dagoss' unique reviewing style here, as the love letter concept was a neat way to emphasize how first-person dungeon crawlers are a RPG sub-genre that's only for the hardcore RPGer (hell, I'm an RPG junkie and I can only stomach doing one of these every so often!). And you did a great job of effortlessly putting tons of factual info in with the more "cutesy" writing style. But, as the review went on, the appeal seemed to dissapate a bit and some of the "lovey" comments seemed a bit forced and awkward. Janus doesn't have any real weaknesses in his review. I loved how you came right out and mentioned how many developers haven't figured out how to do anything useful with the stylus, but this game is different and then you go on to explain just how you're expected to use it in this game. And you do a very nice job of explaining how the shortness of the game could actually be a positive, instead of a negative. Very good review that gets my vote by a slim margin.
    WINNER: JANUS

    BEN vs. SUSKIE
    Ben's review starts out very strong, with the decapitated body w/ serpents coming out paragraph having me hooked. But after you mentioned that was a highlight of the game and things went downhill from there in the game, they also seemed to go downhill in your review. Maybe it was the adventure game subject matter that didn't interest me or maybe it was just that you didn't have the same enthusiasm for that subject matter when it came time to talk about its failings, but the second half of this one just didn't live up to the first half. And "Mainstream" probably wasn't the opponent to have that problem with because that was one hell of a Call of Duty review. I could probably go on for a while with all sorts of adjectives praising this one. A quick, energetic read that left no doubt in my mind this game kicks all kinds of ass. I really liked how you cleverly dismissed the possible concerns about the game being short (by saying it gave more thrills than most 50 hour games) and linear (by noting it's so intense you don't even think about the barriers preventing you from "exploring" because you have a job to do). Just an excellent review, in my mind.
    WINNER: SUSKIE

    WOLFQUEEN vs. BLU
    The perils of random picks. Sometimes they work out really well for you (YOU ACCURSED SON OF A CAMEL, BELISARIOS!!!!! I WILL GET REVENGE!!!!!) and sometimes they don't. I was actually surprised to see you'd done this review only a couple months ago as it didn't seem to have the same flow that your reviews I've read and liked do. Sportsman once mentioned to me something along the lines that when I'm on, my reviews are as good as anyone's, but I also have a lot where it's obvious that I'm just writing to write something and it shows in the quality. And that's almost the impression I got here. You wanted to write about the game, but nothing really clicked. Like, for example, you mention the stealth segment with Frodo and the Ringwraith's is the toughest part of the game, but are really vague on exactly why that's so hard. Is it a long stealth level? Is it really unforgiving? As for Blu, I critiqued this one for MY COMPETITION, which you won. I gave you a 91. My comments still stand. Funny review for a horrible game.
    WINNER: BLU
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted August 15, 2008:

    Hah, thanks. Idle hands are the FAQer's playthings, as they say.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 15, 2008:

    Thanks! For what it's worth, I liked your review a lot as well which is why I was so careful in choosing my entry.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 15, 2008:

    Ugh. Well, there's that then. I'd've picked a different review, but at least you didn't pick one of my abominatoins. Regardless, I have no hope of winning this at all, which would be fine if I had my own say in it. Curse you and your impatience. And I'd intended on leaving feedback for the last round, too! And damn me for being too busy/distracted to pay that much attention. Though for Christ's sake, I was here two days ago....

    Thanks for the comments, those who voted. It's more than most of me and Felix's thing. So that's something.

    Suffice to say, while I wasn't really fond to this review in the first place, since it was one of the first where I didn't ask for outside help (see where that leads me?), I still didn't think it was as bad as you all say. Though that's not really surprising when the only real comment received on it until now was from EmP saying it was good and that it somehow inspired him to try and finish an LotR review of his own. Still, I'm glad he said that. As long as he meant it.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 15, 2008:

    Yet another letter has been tallied.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 15, 2008:

    WINNER: SUSKIE
    I didn't really care for the intro, and then I was like 6 hours?? I think what this review did really well was to stir my FPS-playing impulse, though. I could really go for some Veteran CoD4 action right now, which is a testament to the energy of Suskie's writing as it describes and praises the game. For me CoD 2 on Vet was pretty much perfect, but Suskie makes 4 sound like a whole different level. Ben's review started better and integrated the screenshot well, but it faded after that. The criticism about having to look for stuff seemed to contradict the whole point of the adventure genre (especially when you then praise the more obscure puzzles).

    I'll do the other one tomorrow.
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 15, 2008:

    Dagoss vs. Janus
    Winner: n/a

    Clearly I took a risk using this review. Perhaps I should have played it safer. Or maybe used more sexual inuendo. At least I got feedback for it now.

    Ben vs Suskie
    Winner: Suskie

    Ben's review actually starts out a lot better. Suskie's first paragraph utilizes a tatctic that is really beneath him, and his second paragraph prattles on about the obvious, which happened in a couple other places too. Another problem Suskie's review has is that it almost completely ignores the actual game in favor of talking about the experience and his reaction to it. That said, Suskie's prose is incredibly well put together. When the writing is of this high of a quality, the content is almost a mute point. Ben's review starts out well enough, but it feels like he's getting bored about halfway through. Also, I had to stare at the picture for a moment before I finally saw a vagina.

    Wolfqueen vs Boo
    Winner: Boo

    I really want to give Wolfqueen a pity vote. You have several reviews that could have stood up to Boo, if only you had been able to pick one of them! Boo's review is very funny, which is considerably difficult to pull off given how humour varies from person to person. It informed me, was interesting, and kept me entertained. This was such a landslide victory that I feel obliged to offer condolences rather than justifications. I hope there is a losers bracket so WQ can exact some revenge, because we all know that this is not representative of your work.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted August 15, 2008:

    Majora's Mask to satisfy a coauthor. Fun stuff. I will have to shut myself up in my room for the next two days to get a large chunk done.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 16, 2008:

    JANUS vs. DAGOSS

    I dont mind Janus intro as much as everyone else; in fact, I think its a point that, even now, still needs to be made. A lot of games really do seem to shoehorn in a touch screen gimmick just because, and I want to know when a game does this. It probably tops the list of things I look for in a DS review, and Im convinced that its more innovation than gimmick here. If feel this way, because Janus goes to great lengths to sell the entire game to you with solid cut-outs of the game and clever examples. I best not find this deleted in a few days, Janus -- I know where you live, now! I made this tourney for Dagoss, so Im glad he came out swinging with a heartfelt review. If I had one complaint from my HG chums, its that no one really tries to write outside the box as much as they used to, so I appreciate it, even when they dont work, when authors try to do something new. Dagoss effort does work. Its clever, the complaints are mixed in with the strengths, which shows the reviewer understands the flaws, but saw them overwritten in pros and isnt afraid to commit that to paper -- something thats not easy to do. Just as I start to think the letter might be overbearing, a clever line like the naming of characters or the last line about the potions draw me back in. This is the toughest call Ive made this tourney, but I feel the need to reward Dagoss irregular efforts. Both of you have made me head right to Ebay to buy two games I have neither the fund to purchase nor the time to play. Bastards,

    WINNER: DAGOSS

    BEN vs. SUSKIE

    Ben knows how much I like his review; I remember helping him with it last years TT while I was holidaying in Ibiza. Sright, even when surrounded with intense heat and topless girls, I make time for my buds. Im pretty sad Ben stopped reviewing for the most part because it was around the time he penned Awakened that he starting writing some frankly fantastic reviews, and this one tops the heap. The intro is great, the discrediting of the title strong and the brevity of the entire piece refreshingly light while still managing to leave no stones unturned. It could probably beat most of the reviews penned this round. Suskies, on the other hand, starts off clumsy, switching tenses while seemingly wanting to keep things in the harder-to-pull-off past tense. Theres numerous little quirks that poked out to bother me, like a There is where a theres would have been a better call. From a technical stand-point, Bens review bulldozes Suskies. But Im giving Suskie a very tight win, and heres why. He spells out that CoD4 doesnt really do a great deal differently from your standard FPS, it just does the same thing much, much better, and then he tells you why. The examples are poignant; the flashback, the difficulty, the locations -- its all fantastic until a depressingly weak first line in the conclusion comes along and says I wasnt really sure how to transition into this great idea I had to close this review, so thisll do! Id say this is one of the best FPS reviews on the site, but I write FPS reviews and I dont like to admit to being upstaged. (needs more Tank Beats Communists)

    WINNER: SUSKIE

    WQ vs. Boo

    Ill tell you why I like WQs review. She approaches everything like its a tourney piece and she wants it to be her very best, and I appreciate it. While my RANPICK wasnt as kind to her as it was to Belis (sorry!), its still a competent review, and one that really did make me want to re-draft a review that Venters coding nuked from the face of the earth (coming soon!) This review isnt one of her best, and Im sure shed have picked a different one if she was able, but its very competent. Theres parts where it gets a little listy (such as the run-down of the characters abilities) but you justify your score and you tell us what works and what does not. But, Ill tell you, too, why I like Boo reviews; because he steals all my lines and passes them off as his own writes the reviews Jason wont let me. I may not have bought POed like his intro tells you I was meant to, but I know exactly why I would think it sucks, and hes squeezed all that in between some funny writing that drips with personality. Its a wonderful review in a tone I demand he uses more often.

    WINNER: BOO
    board icon
    Probester posted August 16, 2008:

    Syphon Filter: Logan's Shadow
    Playstation Portable
    Publisher: SCEA
    Developer: SCEA
    Genre: Third Person Shooter/Adventure
    Release: 10/02/07 (US), 11/30/07 (EU),12/06/07 (AU)

    ADDED
    board icon
    hmd posted August 16, 2008:

    Siren: Blood Curse
    Playstation 3
    Sony
    Japan Team
    Survival Horror/Stealth (TACTICAL ESPIONAGE ACTION)
    July 24, 2008

    Everyday Shooter
    Playstation 3
    Sony
    Queasy Games
    Arena Shooter
    October 11, 2007

    Pixeljunk Eden
    Playstation 3
    Sony
    Q-Games
    Platformer/Puzzle
    July 31, 2008

    Added all three.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted August 16, 2008:

    PSP games.

    Title: Pump It Up Exceed Portable
    Genre: Music
    Publisher: Andamiro
    Release Date: Nov 30, 2006 (JP)

    Title: Pump It Up Zero Portable
    Genre: Music
    Publisher: Andamiro
    Release Date: Oct 15, 2007 (JP)

    Added both.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 16, 2008:

    Thanks dagoss, but as humiliated as I feel right now, I'd rather not receive pity votes. I appreciate honesty more than sympathy when deciding whose is better.

    Thanks, EmP. Maybe I'll stop sulking now, hut really, when you (meaning me) get hammered twice in a row like this (contest wise, I mean), it really takes a toll on your confidence. I started doubting whether my recent stuff was really all that great after all, despite what RotW and other commentary might say. And despite knowing full well that this piece is old(er) and nothing really special to begin with and that it might not represent me the way I wanted it to. Ugh.
    board icon
    disco1960 posted August 16, 2008:

    If we're talking about humiliation and the stink of failure, I too can understand.

    We should start, like... a club.
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 16, 2008:

    Hey, there was only an 8 point difference between you and me in that other tournament. I thought I put a decent effort into that one too.

    You know you're a good reviewer, so don't let it get you down. And if it does get you down, then you should pick a shitty game to review and really go to town on it. (Seriously.)
    board icon
    honestgamer posted August 16, 2008:

    JANUS vs. DAGOSS

    Janus has an advantage here in that I hadn't read his review before. I like the review Dagoss wrote a lot and it gets points for originality and readability, but Janus' more conventional approach worked better for me because though he used a standard style, he also made his point in a compelling fashion. The statement at the end praising the game and saying how it is a DS game that was better for having appeared on that hardware is one that most people--including me--wouldn't necessarily accept without proof. There was a lot of proof throughout the review, though, and I give the nod to Janus because he took the more challenging angle of the two reviews and made it work.

    WINNER: Janus

    BEN vs. SUSKIE

    These are both excellent reviews, but I liked Ben's piece more because it was a less overwhelming read. That's kind of hard to explain, so I won't go into further detail except to say that I especially liked how Ben showed the full potential the game had with his awesome first example, then proceeded to dismantle the game experience as a whole and show that even though it had promise, it ultimately didn't deliver the way it should have. That was an effective approach. Suskie's review was typically strong and this was, in my opinion, the closest set out of the match.

    WINNER: Ben

    WQ vs. Boo

    I give the nod here to Boo because WQ's review got off to such a rocky start. With a little bit more work on organization and transitions, WQ could have easily won this one. Boo's review isn't necessarily as solid from the angle of justifying everything, but it's a smoother read and quite lively, taking full advantage of its dreadful source material. That counts for a lot and allows it to edge out its competition.

    WINNER: Boo
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted August 16, 2008:

    How long did it take you for Radiata?
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted August 16, 2008:

    I think it took me about a week and a half for the entirety of the walkthrough and most of the appendix.

    That beast of a recruitment section took me at least another week I think.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 16, 2008:

    Bluberry over Wolfqueen

    This isn't one of the stronger reviews from WQ, but I like Boo's review a lot anyway. Everyone else said a lot of the same stuff I would have said and I doubt echoing it would be very helpful.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 16, 2008:

    see how fun it is to give into laziness?

    Dagoss > Janass

    I liked both of these reviews quite a bit, but I had problems with each of them. Dagoss' felt awkward and forced at times, mostly the longer paragraphs that felt like he was writing a normal review and then shoehorning it in. Janus' was very good and held its opinion well, but it just feels... rusty. for good reason, the guy's been away for a while. like, reading a "Picture this" makes me hate my Devil May Cry review even more knowing that I did the same thing. both were convincing, and both had awkward elements; in the end I'm more willing to give the nod to the more unique one. I hope this doesn't make Janus take down his review.

    Ben > Suskie

    Ben's review was an enjoyable read that made me agree that I probably wouldn't want to play his game. Suskie's review was an enjoyable read that made me agree that I should probably play his game. but Suskie's felt more generic in places, and I really disliked the opening paragraph, so I'm going to give the nod to Ben on this one. close, though. I did appreciate Suskie mentioning how you won't notice the barriers though, the worst thing I hate in videogames like Ocarina of Time is how it tries to convince you you're exploring some giant land... some giant land that can be walked across in about ten minutes.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted August 16, 2008:

    It's my turn this week and there were a lot of reviews to read through, but look how timely my topic is. See how much I love you?

    The usual rules apply: no staff reviews and only one review will be mentioned from any particular author. Here goes!

    ---

    Runner Up Number 2: Castlevania (N64) by dagoss

    What I liked about this review was the way it went right into the main thesis, that the game is cheating the player out of a great experience. There were some compelling arguments, such as the bit about not letting you see the end if you play on 'Easy' mode and the comments about having to play through twice because the experience as each selectable character differs substantially. Comments like that are persuasive on multiple levels, both because they talk to my own interests when I play a game and because they show that the person writing the review 'gets it' and is worth listening to when he makes other points. I liked how this review established other points, too, and the end of the reviw with its throw-away comment on skeletons on motorcycles was also a good way to bring things to a close because it ended with something that sounds so random yet still manages to feel typical of the game that has just been reviewed. I've probably made a mess out of my efforts to explain why I liked this review, but there you have it.

    Runner Up Number 1: PilotWings 64 (N64) by Felix_Arabia

    I've never played PilotWings 64 and I've never read any reviews of it that I recall. With my fresh pair of eyes, I came to this review not particularly expecting much (because, after all, one reason that I never played the game is that it never conjured up any interest from me). By the time I was partway into the review, I felt almost as if I were playing--and loving--the game. The enthusiasm behind many of the descriptions is infectious and I really got a feel for why this game was rated so highly at the end of the text. There were a lot of nice touches throughout that accomplished that--almost like the N64 flag the text referenced--so I won't point to one but instead will say lazily that it was all pretty good stuff.

    Review of the Week: Ninja Gaiden: Dragon Sword (DS) by JANUS2

    I've commented on this review elsewhere, so I'll keep my thoughts here brief. Basically, this review took a potentially difficult point to sell--that the game is better for having appeared on the DS platform--and then proceeded to do so with apparent ease. The descriptions were great and the writing strong, plus the logic made sense and connected things together well. The review was both interesting and informative, too. That never hurts. Good going!

    ---

    Thanks to all who participated this week, and I hope that you'll put forth similar effort next week to keep EmP busy. See you next time!
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted August 16, 2008:

    I pick Dagoss over Janus because I really thought the Etrian Odyssey review was presented in a fresh, if somewhat forced, manner. (I read many reviews in secret, sort of like a literate chameleon blending into its surroundings. This makes me a discreet expert!) The love letter approach could become very interesting and appropriate for games of this nature. I thought the Ninja Gaiden review was good, too, but it didn't contain that same level of novelty. It wasn't risky in style, so I can't reward it as highly. Really, both reviews were close in every other category except novelty.

    Novelty, just like brevity, is important for me in reviews because it makes them fun and quick to read. I don't think Suskie's was novel in approach, and it certainly isnt short. Come to think of it, I just wrote the longest review of my life yesterday. Maybe brevity isnt that important as long as the review is interesting, which makes sense, right? This Call of Duty 4 review was very exciting for me to read, though I do agree with some of the complaints directed toward the opening paragraph. Still, I choose Suskie over Ben because the Call of Duty 4 review was exciting and the Sherlock Holmes one, while nevertheless entertaining and shorter, wasn't as satisfying. Satisfaction is important.

    And boy did I feel satisfied after reading that POed review. I choose Bluberry over WQ (question: what is a Booberry?) because the review was very funny and it kept me on the edge of my seat. The Lord of the Rings review was very by the book in style and substance. It explains how the game works and what problems are present. It just wasnt very entertaining, which didnt settle well for going against a very entertaining piece.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 16, 2008:



    apparently I'm a strung out ghost who loves cereal--which makes no sense since I'm still alive, prefer pussy drugs like weed and acid to anything else, and wake up too late to eat breakfast.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 17, 2008:

    Just to note, I will be deleting user reviews throughout the week to make my run easier. Thank you for your time.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 17, 2008:

    Thanks for the mention, Jason. You should always expect something when you enter a Felix Arabia review. ;)

    Congrats to Janus and Dagoss. Both reviews were great.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted August 17, 2008:

    Janus vs. Dagoss

    Janus's review accomplished just about everything I could ask for it to. The intro, while maybe not unique, is only not unique because it's still relevant. All his points were enthusiastic and well made, and by the end I felt like I should go give Ninja Gaiden a chance. The only real difference between that and its competition is that Dagoss took a bigger risk. I actually quite enjoyed the love letter approach he used. For the most part it remained entertaining throughout, and never really seemed like it was forced just to maintain the gimmick. I tried something similarly gimmicky once upon a time and failed miserably, maybe that's why I look fondly upon a more successful attempt.

    Winner: Dagoss

    Ben vs. Suskie

    Call of Duty just worked. Every scenario described was a small taste of what it was really like for Suskie as he played it. There was a nearly palpable sense of excitement. The two greatest concerns that one generally would have, length and linearity, are both dispelled so convincingly that they seem like nonissues. It's one of the few 10/10 reviews where by the end I really felt the score was completely justified. Ben's review has a lot of the trappings of greatness, but it lost some steam somewhere in the middle when it stops talking about the fantastic and starts talking about the doldrums. Maybe this isn't his fault. But in the end this was like a sumo westler pushing against a bulldozer. Suskie's review is a machine that won't be stopped.

    Winner: Suskie

    WQ vs. Boo

    Part of me wants to give it to WQ, because as awesome and entertaining as Boo's review is, it reads like a long inside joke written specifically to get a laugh out of a certain few people. And while that's great fot those of us who get it, it seems like a serious review should win over a joke review. Unfortunately, at some point seriousness loses to style, and WQ's piece was just so by the book ho hum that I can't say it was really better. Unfortunately for WQ, the Random number generator wasn't kind to her, and Boo's review was kind to my sense of humor.

    Winner: Boo
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 18, 2008:

    I tallied up the votes thus far:

    Janus - 6
    vs
    Dagoss - 7

    Ben - 2
    vs
    Suskie - 11

    Wolfqueen - 0
    vs
    Bluberry - 10

    EDIT: Now with 100% more Wolfqueen votes.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 18, 2008:

    We need someone wise to vote in the Janus/Dagoss match. It's a real nail biter!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 18, 2008:

    Thanks, guys. I know you're right. Sorry for making you read all that, but I guess I just get a bit flustered sometimes. I'm over it now, in any case. I'll try to get feedback on this round, especially since one of them is tied.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 18, 2008:

    Janus vs. Dagoss

    I like how Janus handles the description of the game, for the most part. I like how he focuses the review around the stylus, since that, ideally, is supposed to be an important DS feature. I also like his examples; they're pretty thorough and informative, and they paint a clear picture of what's going on. However, I didn't like how he seemed to be appealing to fans of the series as is. Even if that was his purpose, as someone who's never played Ninja Gaiden, I was a bit confused in some areas. But these were minor, mostly because the comparisons he did make made sense even to one who hsn't played the game before. I may not know what the various places he was alluding to were, but I could picture them by the way he described them. I was only really confused with that one example describing a sequence in some other game... something about beetles, I think. Another thing I noticed, though, was that the review seemed to be checking things off a list, as they say I guess, towards the end of the review.

    But I think I'm giving this vote to dagoss, and I'll tell you why.

    I like how he tells us how the game works from the get go, and the way he does so is so interesting that it got me laughing pretty much from start to finish.. The humor thrown in there along with the innovative structure (I've never seen a review written like a letter before!), just got me rolling. It's also largely informative, though some things like F.O.E.s and certain skills could've used explaining. And the fact that it was a love letter makes it even more entertaining. Seriously, some lines in there sounded so wrong... like this one: You might not think that grinding so much could be gratifying, but the way we do it to you will really pleasure you. I'm pretty sure "pleasure" was intentional. XP

    In short, while Janus's may have done a better job overall of orienting us with the game, dagoss's was a lot more entertaining.

    Second round opinions to come later.

    EDIT

    Ben vs. Suskie

    Ben does a good job telling us about the game. His intro bit is great, especially that really creepy sounding paragraph talking about the corpse. Unfortunately, his transitions into the next couple of paragraphs are a bit jarrring, and effectively ruin that awesome atmosphere. But, considering that he's explaining that the rest of the game is pretty much dull, this is to be expected. Still, I feel like he could've eased into it a bit better or something. The rest of the review seems well-written, and we get a clear idea of what he's talking about. But I don't think he picks up the same amount of feeling in the later half of the reiew as in the first one. Still, it was an intereting read. And one that can't be ignored when expressions like "killer vagina" are used. Haha. (Did King really describe it thusly? Or is that just you being silly? <_< )

    As for Suskie's I love how he pulled us in with that introductory paragraph. It was atmospheric, beautiful and totally clear. But then he diverges from that, and totally crushes that atmosphere as well. Only this time, he could've easily maintained it. Not that the rest of the review is bad or anything. It's not - it's very informative and descriptive and well written. I just never got any sort of feeling back. I think part of this has to do with talking about the devolopers and how it's their innovations or whatever... Kind of throws me off. In fact, both of you do it, and to me, it kind of feels like it messes up the flow of the writing a bit. I can understand their purpose and functionality, but to me, they just don't serve the purpose I think they're supposed to. I dunno. I'm one of those who likes to be sucked in and stuck there. Neither of your reviews are bad or anything, especially Suskie's since I think his won something. But to me, they just don't have the impact they should. This might change upon a second read through, but I don't have time for that now. But as it stands, I'm giving the vote to Suskie. Sorry, Ben. This was a very difficult choice.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 18, 2008:

    Any word on when stage three starts?
    board icon
    EmP posted August 18, 2008:

    Whenever I feel like it!

    The site slows down on weekends and not as many of the regulars check it. I don;t want to ask people to check for review picks when they very well might not be around, so the serious answer is probably some time tomorrow once I figure out your backwards time zone.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 18, 2008:

    Voting is still open on Stage Two, but its time to start the ball rolling on the third phase. The match-ups are as follows:








    Felix vs. DE









    Will vs. EmP









    HG vs. Cairo





    I will go over the 24hour rule a little as weekends tend to be deader time on HG for posts, but not by a great deal. Do no test my patience!
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 18, 2008:

    That's interesting, WQ -- the biggest complaint against my review so far has been the opening paragraph, so your critique is a topsy-turvy one, indeed!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 18, 2008:

    Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance
    board icon
    honestgamer posted August 18, 2008:

    My review: The Bourne Conspiracy
    board icon
    EmP posted August 18, 2008:

    CLOSED

    Janus - 6
    vs
    Dagoss - 7

    Ben - 2
    vs
    Suskie - 11

    Wolfqueen - 0
    vs
    Bluberry - 10
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 18, 2008:

    . . .
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 19, 2008:

    hey, thank you!
    board icon
    darketernal posted August 19, 2008:

    I can't hyperlink
    board icon
    EmP posted August 19, 2008:

    The first two matches are open to votes now. The third will be as soon as Cario posts or exceeds his time limit.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 19, 2008:

    WINNER: FELIX
    This wasn't an easy decision, because I had issues with both reviews. felix made some strange word choices throughout his review, with the epochs and promulgates, etc. This was excessive and detracted from the writing. However, his introduction was thought-provoking and provided a neat structure for the review. Although I'm not convinced that Basted is particularly good, his enthusiasm won me over and made this the more entertaining read. For all the hyperbolic writing, he brought a personal touch to the review that was lacking in DE's effort. Dark Eternal's review was also good, but it felt like reviewing-by-numbers. DE seemed to dodge his opportunities to make Indiana Jones sound unique. I would've liked to learn more about the more thought-provoking puzzles and about how your choices affect the adventure. As it is Indiana Jones sounds like your average adventure game, whereas Basted is at least made to sound unique.

    WINNER: EMP
    I feel a bit bad for voting against Will Roy. His review was very good, but I was just baffled at times by the turtling and the farming and all the other RTS terms. I can understand why the Honest Gamer sent you the RTS game. I can't think of a reviewer who could deliver a more thorough or knowledgeable review of a RTS expansion pack. The writing is excellent too. The tone is authoritative and informative, without becoming too dry or monotonous. My one complaint is that it finishes very abruptly. The reason I've picked Emp is that I found his review easier to read. Straight away I'm more familiar with the subject matter and so, unlike with Will's review, there were no moments of confusion. The crocodiles twist was funny and justified the extended gothic build-up because it gave us the game at its best and worst. It was a succinct and descriptive (if a little overwhelming) effort that did what it set out to do: make Origin sound like a compelling adventure let down by moments of madness.

    WINNER: CAIRO
    I liked the way Jason's review dealt with the issue of longevity. Too many people are happy to dismiss a 6 hour adventure as too short, but here the brevity of the game is shown to be a good thing. Venter explains and justifies the adrenaline-pumped gameplay very well and comes to the convincing conclusion that The Bourne Conspiracy is a short action-packed thriller. However, I think one thing the writing fails to do is engage the reader. For example, the 'parking garage' description explained how missions are brief but filled with action, yet it wasn't particularly exciting. For a 9/10 game, I was never really given the impression that The Bourne Conspiracy is all that special and it does feel at times as if Jason is going through the motions. Cairo's bash review, on the other hand, is extremely engaging. Assassin's Creed is dissected in a very effective and witty manner. It helps that I agree with every point, but even if I didn't then it would be hard to fault Cairo's argument as he exposes the tedium of the missions and the ridiculous plot. I was wondering if he would praise the free-running (as it's actually quite fun), and he did without undermining his criticism of the game.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 19, 2008:

    Felix vs. DE

    "D W," eh? Anyway. These are both good reviews from a couple of writers whose work I've consistently enjoyed in the short time I've been here. Felix finds the right thesis and gets off to a smooth start, but I think it's interesting that his main selling point for the game is its wealth of gorgeous cinematics, yet I know virtually nothing about the story now that I've read the review. That's why I'm giving the very slight edge to DE on this one. His Indy review manages to appeal to someone who isn't even interested in this type of game (i.e. me), and the whole thing reads a little more smoothly and makes all of the necessary points without dragging on for too long. An ever-so-slightly more accessible read. Winner: DE

    Will vs. EmP

    This is a tough one because, honestly, I wasn't a fan of either of these reviews. Will makes me nervous early on with a wholly unnecessary opening paragraph telling us how much of an RTS expert he is and how excited he was to get Jason's copy of Supreme Commander. Then he follows it up with the biggest cringe-inducer of the tourney so far: "Onto the review." Argh! That's one of the worst amateur GameFAQs cliches I can think of. From there, I found the extensive SupCom vocabulary (too many proper nouns!) a bit overwhelming, though I admit you certainly do seem to know what you're talking about, and how to relay that information onto the reader for their benefit. (Like mentioning how SupCom is the alleged successor to Total Annihilation. THAT got my attention.) On the other hand, I felt EmP's review was completely overblown. He's usually a fantastic writer, but this felt like someone imitating EmP, with pretentious lines like this: "Bloody shrines run red with fresh liquid while a swirling vortex of water takes centre stage." Ugh. It felt like you were more focused on enticing us with your writing abilty than informing us about Dracula: Origin, and even that didn't work, since the language is often so thick and muddled that there were a few paragraphs I had to read two or three times. I'm giving the very slight edge to Will on this one, if only because I actually got something from his. Winner: Will
    board icon
    EmP posted August 19, 2008:

    I should point out, as it's been bought to my attention that people have overlooked it, that my pick was auto fed into the first post via hyperlink rather tha selected in a standalone post. It seemed silly to tell myself I had choosen.

    Click on the EmP!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 19, 2008:

    willthegreat vs. EmPleh
    Winner: EmP

    I couldnt get into Wills review. Besides containing portions that were off-limits to a guy like me who isnt too knowledgeable with RTS games (combonerf? turtling? Aeon Illuminate?), the review used the taboo phrase On with the review. This isnt a pay-per-view wrestling match. While someone interested in Star Commander: Forged Alliance may find this review useful (seeing as how they would be interested in the expansion, and therefore be familiar to the discussion), a review like this doesnt work in a competition because its not interesting if you dont have a clue as to whats going on, and the material isnt that informative since its jumbled and a little vague. EmPs review, on the other hand, was pretty good and I remember telling him this back when he first wrote it. Im also glad he changed his concluding line, because there are indeed crocodiles in Egypt. Anyway, looking at these two reviews, I see one written buy a guy who enjoys his hobby at writing while the other appears to be written by someone whos just doing it for the sake of getting a free game that was up for grabskis. This match wasnt close at all.

    Venter vs. Cairo
    Winner: Cairo

    This was such a difficult match. Venter provides a strong-if-standard review for The Bourne Conspiracy. Cairo destroys one of my more favorite 360 games. Let me first discuss Venter's. The guy is consistent, but at times, and this is one of those times, I feel that he's just writing the review because he has to. I didn't feel the charge that I usually can sense when I read one of his works. I can't say I'm disappointed or surprised, though, seeing as how the guy writes a lot of stuff. I write a bunch of reviews and get tired, too. And while this Bourne review may be nice, it's a little too by-the-book for my taste. Cairo's review is very well written, and even though I agree with it, I still like it a ton more than he does. Also, modern-day Syria and Israel (where the game takes place) isn't Mesopotamia, which is Iraq. It's a small error, but one I nevertheless noticed. That region of the Middle East is usually called the Levant. Anyway, I'm giving my vote to Cairo because his review felt more alive than Jason's did despite the over-use of the word "douche" and the 3/10 score.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 19, 2008:

    I was getting to your match!
    board icon
    EmP posted August 19, 2008:

    Blame DE! He was asking why I'd not picked yet.

    Crazy foreigner.
    board icon
    johnny_cairo posted August 19, 2008:

    Didn't realize voting started so early.

    My pick
    board icon
    Genj posted August 19, 2008:

    Felix over DE

    Ugh, bad match to be brutally honest. I too had issues with both reviews. The message to Felix's intro was interesting, but it was too long. You basically spent 3 paragraphs just to say the game had a lot of cutscenes. Felix's writing is tight and his apparently enthusiasm is infectious, but when you sit back and think about it, the game doesn't sound too appealing. So basically there's very little combat and mostly a lot of story that I won't be able to understand. Ok. DE, didn't you have anything newer to choose? We got a 2005er here - one I'm sure I had to judge last TT even. It feels like a rough, by-the-book effort too. I'll give the nod to the fresher, more enthusiastic Basted review.


    Will over EmP

    Hi, my name is Mike. I'm 6'2" 140lbs, starting my Masters this fall and I like long walks on the beach while listening to Japanese harsh noise music. Will, your intro stinks like my ass after I eat a whole pepperoni pizza. From there it was a very technical piece detailing the game it's an expansion to. All the RTS stuff was pretty over my head for JRPG nerd like me, though it's a workable review giving a lot of good information. EmP's review sometimes reads like fan fiction. It felt overblown and overwritten spending most of the time describing game environments and a crocodile. Puzzles then get pigeonholed into a brief paragraph at the end making it feel more like an afterthought.

    Venter vs Cairo will come later. Both reviews were fantastic enough that I need to mull things over.

    board icon
    johnny_cairo posted August 19, 2008:

    Felix vs. DE

    Both reviews had gauzy, nostalgic intros that bandy about the term Golden Age; DE's appraisal of Last Crusade as "remarkable" trumps Mr. Arabia's clumsy reminiscing opening paragraph.

    Felix may have damned himself by reviewing a story-intensive import with no translation to speak of. His enthusiastic descriptions don't hide the fact that the gameplay sounds pretty routine and boring. The mention of Final Fantasy in the intro did pay off abstractly, since it sounds like Basted may have pioneered the whole "cinema sequences interrupted by bits of hack & slash and item collecting" genre that passes for most modern RPGs. "Old school" is a phrase that annoys me to no end.

    DE's review, although a bit old and creaky, did bring back memories of playing IJatFoA on my old VGA Pentium I machine. There is much praise heaped on the puzzles yet no examples are given. "You actually control Indy's punches" during fights? Elaborate, please. Still, it made me think about the sad state of the adventure genre, and the sadder state of LucasArts and George Lucas' sheer insanity in general. Then I thought about Ziro the Hutt and cracked up laughing.

    A WINNER IS D.E.

    Will vs. EmP

    Again there were commonalities in angle. Both require some degree of familiarity with source material and genre. The intros make it clear enough: EmP thrusts you into Stoker's universe of gothic horror and establishes how the game distorts that vision; Will leaps atop his soap box and proclaims "HAY GUYS I'M THE RTS GUY" before laying down a barrage of dry technical information.

    EmP doesn't bash you over the head with info, and describes gameplay in an organic fashion (I really dig the "with a triumphant click" sentence) without becoming self-aware or even referring to D:O as a "game" more than a few times. Will goes into digressions and uses the hated phrase "on with the review" at one point. Plus it's almost impossible to understand what all the verbage is about without prior familiarity with Supreme Commander. At the very least, there could have been epic battle descriptions instead of saying "here's a new unit and here's what they do" over and over again.

    EmP's piece was more compact and felt like a lot more was conveyed in about 2/3 the time. Proving once and for all the old adage "It's not the size, it's what you do with it."

    A WINNER IS EmP
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 20, 2008:

    Felix vs Darketernal
    Winner: Felix
    Felix wins because, to be perfectly honest, I thought Darketernal's was poorly written. There were several setences with a structure that forced me to stop and reread. In general, this review read awkwardly up until the very last sentence. I mean, "blushes?" Who uses that the describe marks from a whip? It was moments like this that really hurt this review. He or she (I hate gender pronouns!!) also claims that the way puzzles are executed are "timeless and [have] managed to age well," but considering that this is a genre notorious for aging poorly, you're going to need to be a lot more convincing.

    I don't know if Felix can read Japanese, but the impression this review gave me was that he cannot. If that is the case, claims like "if there is one thing that Basted excels in, that would be its storytelling" are rather suspicious. I think if the reviewer has such a handicap, it is his or her duty to explicitly make that clear rather than leaving it ambiguious. I also had a problem wih the way he frames the review. You seem to be saying "Basted is part of those lost golden days," "games today have too much 'gliz!'" and "Basted is interesting because it has glitz," and some of those are not compatible. I think the sweeping generalizations at the beginning were overlong without contributing enough, though I can understand why you felt they were necessary. Your prose is still imecible nonetheless, and you seemed genuinely interested in your game, which is enough for me.

    Will vs EmP
    Winner: EmP

    Will's opening paragraph reads like the type of thing one would find in a GameFAQs review. So did the brief rant in the 3rd paragraph. Once he actually gets "on with the review," I had a lot of trouble understanding what the heck he was talking about. That's probably because I never played Supreme Commander and know very little about RTS games, and I suppose this review is for people that are really into RTS titles, but that doesn't change the fact that I kept drifting off. Anway, "to wrap up," this review was too casual in tone and too esoteric in the details.

    I don't really like reviews that begin with the whole present tense, right-in-the-action narrative thing, but that is usually because it is tacked on as the first paragraph before the tone awkwardly shifts to be more review-like. EmP should really be commended for staying consistent with the present tense throughout. I'm not sure I got as much as I could have about the way the game plays, but it is well-written and entertaining enough that it doesn't really matter that much.

    I still don't know what the difference is between alligators and crocodiles.

    Venter vs Cairo
    Winner: Cairo

    I think this is the hottest contention this bracket-tournament-thing has managed to create.

    Cairo wins because he made an off-hand reference to Shakespeare this review made me laugh my ass off. The excessive embellishment might not be entirely fair to the game, but it is certainly fair to my sense of humor. Even if it was unrealistically negative at times, it never seemed like it was trying to take itself too seriously, a problem that many reviews suffer from when they give a popular game a low score. While I think it could flow better in some places, for the most part this nailed how one should write a bash review.

    I think the problem with Venter's review is that it actually tries to sell the game too much. Any licensed game for a popular film is going to be greeted with skepticism, and the fact that the only complaint you could seem to muster was its shortness (and even that you tried to spin in the game's favor!) and this made me suspicious. It came off like someone who was trying to oversell a breakfast at Dennie's or something else that really doesn't need lavish praise, even if it is immediately satisfying. I think you did the exact opposite of Cairo in that you embellished to make the game seem more exciting than it probably is.

    The fact that I'm differentiating these reviews on such subjective ground shows just how good they are, and just how close this match is. Maybe if I come back to it in a different mood, I'll be like "Hooray Venter for trying to prove that licensed games don't have to blow; Shame on Cairo for exaggerating negativity for the sake of entertainment!" Right now though, Cairo's cynicism wins the day.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 20, 2008:

    I think the blushes line was part of an extended innuendo about people using whips for sexual purposes. But I might be horribly wrong about that.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 20, 2008:

    I'm glad that the complaints against my Basted review are mostly homogenous. Dagoss, I do not speak Japanese, but I still understood what was going on. Anyway, just for everyone to know, after this round is over, win or lose, I'm going to edit this review to elucidate on the ambiguity that you've all be kind enough to point out!
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 20, 2008:

    I hope you didn't take offense to my comments, Felix. I was reading over my feedback and realized that it was decidedly negative for your review even though I liked it. That's my fault.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 20, 2008:

    I didn't take any offense to your comments. They, along with everyone else's, are very helpful.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 20, 2008:

    This stage is not allowed to end until either tomorrow night or Friday. The Overdrive is swamped with a work project. He will be unable to give verdicts until one of those days. Any attempt to prevent him from doing so will be met with wrath and other stuff. Bad other stuff. Like messing with my stage so that I wind up beating Belisarios because three people that voted for him mysteriously disappear. Yeah....Overdrive will go there.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 20, 2008:

    Genj wants to know what's the deal with referring to yourself in the 3rd person.

    Cairo over Venter

    I loved both of these reviews. Venter gave a good case for Bourne being a great game. One of the things I like about Venter's reviews is it feels like he knows exactly what's important enough to mention and does so as concisely as he can. This one was no exception, and I chuckled at his intro comparing himself to Jason Bourne (though I'm sorry to say this but as much as you wish it were true, you're not as hot as Matt Damon, Venter). Cairo's review was a detailed, humorous and scathing look into Assassin's Creed. I was a bit worried when I saw long, bulky paragraphs, but I pretty much forgot about them once I started reading. Cairo's writing has sort of lively tone that grabs your attention, whereas honestly I found my mind wondering occasionally while reading Venter's review. This is a close match and I would have picked Venter's review over any of the other entries this round.
    board icon
    Masters posted August 21, 2008:

    Emp vs Will

    Will's review was well written, but inaccessible, crowded with tall tales and rammed with jargon.

    Emp's review was overwritten, wrought with overfed clauses, but ultimately, engaging.

    Emp gets the nod from me.

    Incidentally, what the hell is it with the cliche police around here? Everyone uses cliches. We try not to (really we do), but it seems as if some of us are reading reviews as cliche Easter Egg hunts. Finding one doesn't devalue the entire rest of the work.

    If I saw "on with the review" in a shit review, I'd groan. It would be the STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK. But seeing it in Will's review actually elicited no response from me at all. It's about context.

    Cliches are supposed to be indications of a lazy mind and pedestrian writing. And sentence fragments constitute poor English (but they're everywhere, even in the best writing). Same thing with run-on sentences (someone tell Ernest--wait, he's not around).

    Cliches are FROWNED UPON on because they're overly familiar. We've heard them a MILLION TIMES before. Sometimes familiar flows. Sometimes the usual works.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 21, 2008:

    Well, Masters, I'm glad that a little cliche like "on with the review" doesn't detract from an inaccessible review in your opinion.

    A cliche like that does detract from an inaccessible review for me, though.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 21, 2008:

    Incidentally, what the hell is it with the cliche police around here?

    Because it's been mentioned so many times since the GameFAQs days that it's become a very safe, easy thing to pick on? That's my guess.
    board icon
    Masters posted August 21, 2008:

    Dave, we're all sorted out now, right?
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 21, 2008:

    It's all crystal clear to me now, Marc.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 21, 2008:

    Incidentally, what the hell is it with the cliche police around here? Everyone uses cliches. We try not to (really we do), but it seems as if some of us are reading reviews as cliche Easter Egg hunts. Finding one doesn't devalue the entire rest of the work.

    Thank you, Masters. It's nice to see somebody on HG shares my viewpoint.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 21, 2008:

    And by tonight or tomorrow, I mean my verdicts will be up tomorrow. Not tonight. Too burnt out. Just going to go home in a bit, pour a nice strong drink and level grind in FF XII or something that takes an equally few number of brain cells to do (like.....sleeping).
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 21, 2008:

    The main reason I hate the use of the phrase "onto the review" isn't because it's overused and is most often utilized by GameFAQs amateurs who have a lot of other problems with their reviews, though that's certainly part of it. What I hate about that phrase is what it implies. I thought I was already reading the review? So what have I been reading the last few paragraphs if the review hasn't begun yet? And it applies as such to Will's: His opening paragraph was more of a personal entrance than a legimate introduction. So not only does that phrase make me cringe, but it usually means something is wrong with your review.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 21, 2008:

    While true, that means that one should be criticising the thing that is wrong, rather than the phrase that tends to imply something is amiss. To instead harp on about that string of words is like trying to cure leprosy with stitches.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 21, 2008:

    The phrase "onto the review" wouldn't be there if you actually had been reviewing the game beforehand. Yours in no exception.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 21, 2008:

    While true, that means that one should be criticising the thing that is wrong, rather than the phrase that tends to imply something is amiss. To instead harp on about that string of words is like trying to cure leprosy with stitches.

    I GUESS THAT'S WHY EVERYONE WROTE A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF IN THEIR CRITIQUES, BOSS. People overreact to them (though really it's best to avoid cliches), but no one is handling them as an instant loss either. I don't see why this warrants so much discussion.

    Onto the critiques.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 21, 2008:

    That's because you're too busy trying to troll. You're terrible at it, by the way, which is odd because I never see you do anything else.

    But no, you're absolutely right. Heaven forbid we discuss anything on a discussion forum. That's lunacy!
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 21, 2008:

    I think you need to calm down, Will. I know your review isn't being received well, but there's no reason to take it out on Genj. He's only trying to justify what many of us have been saying about your review. Don't enter a competition if you can't take criticism.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 21, 2008:

    Criticism, which is what has chiefely populated this thread, is fine. Mockery, i.e. people taking phrases they despise out of my review and throwing them back at me, among other things, I will not tolerate.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 21, 2008:

    Mockery, i.e. people taking phrases they despise out of my review and throwing them back at me, among other things, I will not tolerate.

    If this is directed to me, then you better re-read my critique, chief!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 21, 2008:

    It's not directed solely at you, no, but there's a fair bit of mock-esque being thrown in my direction.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 21, 2008:

    Don't take Internet mockery seriously because you're likely interpreting far more malice than was intended. Sorry, I think it's funny that we're having a discussion on a tiny, minor part of a review that had bigger problems. This isn't really the kind of thing you can argue to people to think your way. It's just opinion. You have to take what you want from critiques because you're likely not going to agree with everything. Drella for example wasn't too keen on my FUCK SHIT SHIT BITCH CUNT sailor talk in my Bouncer review, but some (sick) individuals seem to think this Trademark Humor is funny. It'd be a little different if for example people were saying your review was otherwise fine but instant crap due to one sentence. That would be stupid.

    I'm sorry I upset you, bro. I'd buy you a beer but I'm a cheap asshole.

    EDIT: VVVVVV this man seems to have more than enough beer for you!
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 21, 2008:

    Okay, I haven't read any of the reviews yet, as I'm not doing my judging until tomorrow, but with the ongoing hostility over things at the time, I have to say a couple things.

    TO WILL: I was in your place last year at the Summer Team Tournament. Pissed at the judges for why I got voted against. In a match I was confident I'd win, I lost 2-1. The reason: I reviewed Hydlide -- a horrible NES game that had been bashed to hell and back before I started reviewing. To me, it was a fun, witty bash review.....to two judges it was a "been there/done that....NEXT!" review. And I didn't exactly handle that reasoning well, either. But that's the thing....we all have our prejudices. I'm not overly fond of puzzle games, so if I'm judging something and you hit up Adventures of Lolo or something.....you're not going to score well with me unless you absolutely kick ass with your review to the degree I forget what your subject matter was.

    TO NON-WILLs: Most of us have been there, where something we wrote we liked got derided by others. Suskie took down a Riddick review (or said he would) because it was judged as "not a review", but just a promo of the intro. I had my STT 2007 incident over Hydlide. Others have had their issues with a score they've received. Probably the reason non-HGers occasionally bring up the "elitist" tag....a lot of us are very demanding when it comes to judging things and minor stuff one person might think is okay or cool will get blasted by others.

    Overall, it's no huge thing, nor should it be. Write how you want. As long as it's quality, it'll be accepted. I have my share of more gimmicky reviews....some I've used in contests; others I haven't....overall, each review you write, whether they get received well or not, is just another brick in the wall.

    Okay, the alcohol is disrupting my coherency as far as making points. I'm ending this now and going to bed....
    board icon
    Genj posted August 21, 2008:

    a lot of us are very demanding when it comes to judging things and minor stuff one person might think is okay or cool will get blasted by others.

    A lot of it comes from doing the 1 on 1 match-ups. Normally minor things aren't going to affect your numeric score much, but when you're just trying to choose one review over another, every little point matters (especially when it's a close match like Venter v. Cairo).
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 21, 2008:

    thread summary: WHARRGARBL

    I'm in OD's boat on voting, give me till tomorrow evening. I'd do it at work but I can't.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 21, 2008:

    Good summary.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 21, 2008:

    I'm surprised you remember the details of that Riddick thing, OD. For what it's worth, I did take it down.
    board icon
    disco1960 posted August 22, 2008:

    I think "on with the review" is kind of a lazy segue, but it's not that big a deal.

    It's no "Gameplay is the real meat of the game", anyway.
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted August 22, 2008:

    Felix over darketernal. The Basted review was well written if not entirely convincing, as most everyone else has stated. I thought it was more enjoyable to read than darketernal's, though, because his did feel a little rough in spots and I'm pretty sure I've read it before where as I haven't read Felix's review until now.

    EmP over willthegreat. EmP's review was very thick in the way it was written. Thankfully, I'm a brilliant man, so I could understand what he was saying. Will's review made me feel like a naive fool. I didn't understand a lot of the RTS terms he was using. I don't think I was the intended audience for that review.

    honestgamer over johnny_cairo. I probably would have given Cairo the vote if not for having read Suskie's equally entertaining bash review for Assassin's Creed not too long ago (Developer's Creed, hilarious). I'm not sure whose review came out first. It may have been Cairo's since I'm too lazy to check, but sometimes that's how these things go. It was a close match otherwise. Honestgamer's review was very clean and convincing given its subject matter. I walked away feeling confident in knowing that his review had just taught me something new.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 22, 2008:

    FELIX vs. DE

    I have some problems with both reviews. Felix harps on for a while about how a console I have proven does not exist beats out the 16bit generation, and thats fine so long as youre delusional. Also, heres a typo:

    Its s simple us against them theme with a silly love story thrown in for good measure. Its nothing epic, but it sure if heartfelt.

    I dont think that the lack of story is as killer here as people are saying. Seeing as the game can only last a few hours, I wonder what plot analysts you can offer without straying into mid-game spoilers. But it does mean like the review is missing a chunk of information that Id expect to see. The intro was overcooked, hazy and needed a stronger focus point.

    DE could and should have picked something more recent. This review is good, but it has all the structure of a DE review before he really hit his stride and the fact that so much of this review is my editing hangs heavy in my mind. I get the blush joke at the end (Janus assumption is correct) but I also dont know why I didnt push you for more solid examples back in the day. Theres a lot of tell, but dont show.

    Felix is the more adventurous, DEs is the more solid. But, in the end, DEs review convinced me of more while Felix seems to have made the whole Golden Age intro gave him a lot to build towards and I dont think he effectively hits the bar he set for himself. You both have better reviews to call on.

    WINNER: DE

    VENTER vs. CARIO

    I had something here, but it looks like I only copy & pasted the above thoughts from my wordpad, and then closed the app and lost all the pretty wrods.

    So you all get a RECAP version. I think Jason's review is great, the guy's been on a run of solid reviews which has helped mask the fact I've been on a review hiatus and this is no different. Cario, though, writes a savage review that may clearly exagerrate flaws to help slide the game into the 3/10 score he' decidedc it deserves. I'll shock Mike and agree with him on something; it was a case of a majestic review beating a brilliant one, forcing me to give the nod to Cario. Venter goes out on a shield.

    WINNER: CARIO
    board icon
    EmP posted August 22, 2008:

    Voting is still open on Stage Three and has been for a while (youre all slow), now we have the last stage of the last round. This one has a SUPER-SECRET match!








    Drella vs. PAJ89









    Vorty vs. Espiga





    The usual rules apply. As soon as a round goes live, you are all free to vote.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 22, 2008:

    Dear me. Don't close this yet! I wanted to get feedback for you, but I can't now because I'm too busy with getting ready for school... If you want to hear from me, you'll have to wait till Sunday/Monday or later when I'm settled in again... and have decent time to put proper thought into this.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted August 22, 2008:

    Felix vs. DE

    Both reviews had a similar tone right out of the gate. "Wasn't gaming great back in the day? ~sigh~". It's a bit of a sour note for me, but then I'm one of those crazy folk who honestly think that gaming has gotten better in recent years, on the whole. Felix's review wasn't bad. Mechanically, it flowed pretty well and whatnot, although there was some odd word choice. In the end I just don't feel like it explained its stance well enough. It's a kind-of-but-not-really-RPG with a fun combat system, but almost no combat. Eh. Further, no levels, and no equipment to manage. Meh. I do agree that a good story can make up for those things, and the story is reportedly the strength, but aside from some zany snippets, we know nothing about the story. DE's review was much safer, though it did read like an early attempt at reviewing, partially because it was so safe. It's standard fare from beginning to end. Nothing really stood out as bad, nor as excellent. However by the end I feel like it made its point better, so he gets the nod.

    Winner: DE

    Will vs. EmP

    First of all, I feel like Will's use of "On with the review" worked fairly well in the context that it was used. It was less of the jarring filler transition you see in Gamefaqs reviews and more of a legitimate way to move from discussing system requirements (an important thing to note in a PC review) to discussing the actual game. I felt it worked. A lot of people don't. ~shrug~

    That said, Will's review was almost completely impenetrable. I've played my share of RTS, I enjoy the genre, I know what turtling is. The review is just so laborious in its description of everything that it's hard to take all at once. However! That kind of dry dissection of facts is probably what people who play SupCom want. I could say that this review appeals to a very niche crowd, and it does, but it's a review for an expansion pack, so I imagine only that niche crowd is going to ever read it. I think it's a fine review at what it's for, but it's probably not the strongest tourney piece. It's a very dry read. EmP's review, on the other hand, was half over before it felt like it got out of the introduction. The point was made, however. I understand that the game is almost, but not quite, good at what it does. With random design flops that destroy the mood. It's also a shorter and easier read than Will's behemoth. Not EmP's best work, but it takes the round.

    Winner: EmP

    Venter vs. Cairo

    These reviews were both really good. Even though I quite enjoyed Assassin's Creed, I found myself smiling at many clever observations Cairo made, and even agreeing with many. A bash for the ages, one that I somehow agree with, even if I don't agree with it. Venter's review is a bit more textbook. By no means bad, and it makes its case. Most of his examples are solid, I found myself especially glad of the paragraph on timed action sequences, as those are a major stumbling block nowadays. And it did serve well to illustrate the general polish on everything. This was easily the closest match of the round, but I have to say I enjoyed Cairo's review more. It was longer, and yet it still flew by.

    Winner: Cairo
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 22, 2008:

    FELIX vs. DE
    I have a thought in my head that I might have judged Felix's review for something at some time. Or at least read it critically. I recall liking it a lot, as it was an engaging read of an RPG I'd never heard of. I still like it. But, this time, it did feel like you took a bit too long getting to the point. Three paragraphs building up to how this was one of the earliest cinema-driven RPGs might have been a bit of overkill. Still, overall, it was a good read about interesting subject matter. On the other hand, while I liked reading DE's review, after finishing it, I realized I really didn't know much more about the game than I had when I started it. With point-n-click adventures, the main focus tends to be on puzzles, but you only really gave a vague description of how some (like putting pen on paper) are easy, but others aren't. If puzzles are a focal point of the game, I would have liked a bit more of a description of them, but instead it seemed like you went into more detail about every other aspect of the game.
    WINNER: FELIX

    WILL vs. IMP
    You know, I once played a RTS. It was the original Warcraft. I had a good time until the orcs got more aggressive on about the seventh or eighth level. There I was, methodically trying to build my community and next thing I know catapults and shit are just destroying me. So, I entered the game's god mode and blasted through it, not taking it out of god mode until I was ready to destroy the final building of the final level. Since I did that in regular mode, I considered it an honorable victory. The end. In other words, I'm not an experienced RTS player and, from my experience, I utterly suck at 'em when the computer makes it so I actually have to think fast. While I thought your review was good, it did seem to be a niche review, as it assumed a lot of familiarity with RTS games in general and the initial Supreme Commander. Which would be great if I was reading this as an aid in determining if I wanted to buy this game. Not so great when it's a contest, as a lot of stuff here kinda went over my head. It still wasn't a blowout decision though, as EmP's adventure review reminded me of the one by (maybe) DoI (or someone else) in that it started out very eloquently written, but when the flaws started to be mentioned, tailed off a bit. It was a solid review, just not one of your best. You did give a better puzzle description than DE, so you get credit for that, but I don't know that anything could convince me that a game in which you get "attacked" by a monk that never moves, giving you infinite time to figure out how to kill it by methodically searching a room is actually fun, regardless of how gothic or atmospheric it may be.
    WINNER: IMP

    HG vs. JC
    With a random draw tournament, there is the opportunity for tragedy in this case that when this round is over, one of these two excellent reviews will still send its writer on the long, one-way trip to LOSERVILLE: POPULATION YOU.
    My verdict later. I'm tired and need a nap now. Either late tonight or over the weekend. So, yeah, EmP! You can't close this round yet! Maybe not for days! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
    board icon
    PAJ89 posted August 22, 2008:

    Before I forget, I'll go with my Sega Superstars Tennis review.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 22, 2008:

    Well, guess since this is closing tonight, I'll just put my votes in without feedback. I'll come back and edit feedback in when I'm settled back in school... Which might take at least a week. I dunno. Hopefully then you'll all know why I voted the way I did. Since it may or may not confuse some people.

    Felix over DE

    EmP over Will

    Jason over Cairo.
    board icon
    espiga posted August 22, 2008:

    Two Worlds =o
    board icon
    espiga posted August 22, 2008:

    Felix vs. DE

    Felix's review was written with a ton of heart and while there may be some technical hiccups here and there that have been beaten into the ground by everyone else at this point, it's a more engaging read than DE's more structured piece. My mind wandered while reading DE's but when reading Felix all eyes were on Basted and its two lovable main characters.

    Felix spanks DE

    Will vs. ShrEmP Burger

    This wasn't even a contest. Will's review starts out with a self-introduction and making the claim that he's the HG RTS guy.

    Uh, ok. So what?

    With even more words like grabskis and then all the LOLINTERNETDRAMA over "on with the review" (Which is a shitty line, by the way.) You're a much better writer than this, Will.

    EmP's review is filled with flowery language and though sometimes it seems like he's trying to connect as many adjectives to nouns as he can get away with, it at least showcases his excellent vocabulary, whereas mine's just filled with words like cockfucking shitstain.

    ShrEmP Burger spanks Will

    Venter vs. Cairo

    Venter wrote an engaging, gushing review about a game that ultimately failed to register a blip on my radar, most likely because:

    A. I barely watch movies because Hollywood has about 2 good ideas a year.
    B. Thus movie-based games are basically a lost cause.

    However, with Venter's consistently strong writing, he manages to sell me on a game that I WOULD buy if I cared enough about the Bourne series to actually be interested in the areas its trying to sell.

    But I don't.

    Cairo's review, on the other hand, is a nice bash of some game that I own but have never placed into my Xbox 360 (fucking backlog...). The review is dripping with witty sarcasm and is a very entertaining read. However, it's also filled with juvenile lines like Douche Desmond. *groan* In the end, I came away liking Venter's just a hair more, despite Cairo's very strong entry. This was the hardest match for me to judge for this entire tournament.

    Venter spanks Cairo
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 22, 2008:

    Eh...

    Sorry for being such a drama llama, guys. I guess I sometimes forget that The Internet Is Serious Business. :)
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 22, 2008:

    Just realized I never voted in the Jason vs. Cairo match. I don't feel like getting into a big explanation here, but I vote for Cairo. It's a case of a great review being beaten by a fantastic one.
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted August 22, 2008:

    :@
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 22, 2008:

    Scores tallied from the above posts and Will's score:

    Felix Arabia - 7
    Vs.
    Dark Eternal - 6

    EmP - 11
    Vs.
    Will the Great - 2

    Johnny Cairo - 7
    Vs.
    Jasey Venter - 5

    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 22, 2008:

    Almost forgot.

    LAST MINUTE ENTRY

    Felix vs darketernal

    ADVANTAGE: DE

    HG vs Cairo

    ADVANTAGE: HG
    board icon
    EmP posted August 22, 2008:

    OD has until I go to bed or get bored waiting before he loses his chance to vote on the last match.

    Other voters should head over to the forth stage and start there.
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted August 22, 2008:

    Felix
    EmP
    Cairo
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 22, 2008:

    since it sounds as if you'll close this soon:

    darketernal, you, and Cairo

    I'll edit in some text later if you've not locked it all up by then.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 22, 2008:

    I'm not going to be back by a computer until 10ish at the earliest (3.5 hours or so), so as to be counted, my last pick is

    CAIRO

    I'll edit in my reasoning then. And it will be epic.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 22, 2008:

    CLOSED. New votes will be nuked.

    I'll leave the topic open for people who want to edit in comments. For now.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 22, 2008:

    OD can still unlock it anyway.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 22, 2008:

    But Boo can't.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted August 22, 2008:

    I vote Venter over Cairo.
    board icon
    drella posted August 22, 2008:

    Ed Randy

    P.S. I just recently moved and don't consistently have Internet, so my apologies for not keeping up with this too well.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 23, 2008:

    Vorty vs. Espiga
    Winner: Espiga

    No one is better at wang lines than Golden Vortex. From his infamous precious cock line in his extinct X-CHANGE review to the closing line in this excellent Splatterhouse review, this guy knows how to incorporate the phallus into his writing. The introduction was a little standard in that Ive seen plenty of reviews begin in similar manners. Game X influenced Game Y and Game Z. Its not earth shattering, but its an appropriate intro. Espigas Two Worlds review, on the other hand, doesnt contain any penis lines, but it does start off with him mentioning his friend SPAZ. SPAZ reminds me of Zigs pal Mats, but not as cool. Anyways, once we get to the body of these two reviews, a lot of good information is given and the delivery is admirable. I really liked both reviews quite a bit. Espigas flowed a little better, but I think Vorty gave better descriptions. I thought this match was incredibly close, probably the closest for me of all the matches so far in this competition. Im going to give Espiga the slightest of slight edges, though. And the reason why is because in Vortys review, the first line of the second to last paragraph is missing a word, so the thought is left dangling. Its a minor thing, but it's enough to make a difference since both of these reviews were really good.

    Drella vs. PAJ
    Winner: Drella

    This match was a lot closer than I thought it would be, though Drella is still the clear winner in my mind. Having not read PAJs Sega Superstar Tennis review before, I initially wasnt too thrilled about having to read about tennis since its, you know, tennis. Despite those preconceived feelings of dread, this review turned out to be very well written and even interesting! Unfortunately, it loses out to Drellas excellent Edward Randy review because SST just isnt as exciting of a game, partly because PAJ described it as a hit or miss kind of title. Edward Randy is full of craziness, and those descriptions ring clear in Drellas extremely descriptive writing. The Jackson Pollack and spilled milk comparisons, while a possible point of contention for some readers, made a lot of sense to me in their outlandishness. I mean, this is an outlandish game, so the metaphors fit.
    board icon
    dagoss posted August 23, 2008:

    Drella vs PAJ89
    Winner: Drella

    I liked Drella's review -- a lot. Right from first paragraph, it does an amazing job of grabing the reader by the genitals squeezing out the good stuff. I've never known quite how to approach "bad ass" games like Contra: Shattered Soldier, but Drella sets up a paradigm here that is both intiutive and functional -- brute force your way through it. The main appeal of this game is clearly its over-the-top action sequences, and Drella does a great job of matching his style to the subject at hand. He even manages to work in the game's faults with such brutual honest that they are rendered mute, which is certainly a difficult feat to achieve. I think this is one of the best reviews that have been posted for this tournament-thing.

    PAJ89's review is a lot more conventional, so perhaps I should have read it before Drella's. It's the type of thing I'd want on the front page of this site as an example of how one should write a solid, traditional review. No outlandish puns, no jokes, no experimentation, no self-reflexivity -- just one person, one game, and some text describing the game for the purpose of consumer information. This is a problem for me because I tend to like reviews that do something radically different (and do it well). I actually read reviews more for my own amusement rather than learning whether or not I should purchase a game, and in this sense Drella's review appealed a lot more to my tastes.




    Goldenvortex vs Espiga
    Winner: Vorty

    This was an easy choice. And by easy I mean not easy at all. Espiga's review is an easy read, well reasoned, not overlong, not underlong, not superfluous, and of overall high quality. Vorty's framing does a good job of putting his subject into context, the tone is consistent throughout, and it doesn't really lose steam anywhere.

    So what thing am I going to nit-pick to differentiate these reviews so I can get out of here and go back to doing whatever it was that I was doing before I got lost wondering the internet? Ordinarily, I'd go after Vorty for a typo at the beginning of the 7th paragraph -- but instead I'm going to go after Espiga, because he uses those one-liner paragraphs that really irrate me. He used four of them, whereas Vorty only made one typo (that I saw). Four is greater than one, thus mathematically I have to pick Vorty.

    I think I already regret my vote. Could one of you please edit your review to make it suck? It would make our lives a lot easier.
    board icon
    bostonfuse51 posted August 23, 2008:

    Working on a FAQ for MLB 08: The Show
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 24, 2008:

    Drella and Espiga. I'll write critiques later, I promise.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 24, 2008:

    Review of the WEEK. Im on time because Im better than you. There are rules like no staff and only one review per writer counts. This week has been arse with only five reviews subbed and only two of them really deserving a spot in this. They are as follows




    FIRST PLACE: DMC4 -- Boo

    Of course this was going to win -- I wrote all the best lines for it.

    Youve already had a ton of feedback from me, so you get an abridged version here. Boos review is probably better than he thinks it is because, while a lot of it is aimed at people who have already played a DMC or three, I still know what hes saying with relative ease. Sure, the specifics are lost on me, but its well written enough for the context to carry me so Im not throwing up question marks every third line. Its a justified score, even if the review is a typical list pros/detract with cons rundown, its one that works.

    SECOND PLACE: The Incredible Crash Dummies -- WQ

    You spelt humour wrong. Silly yank.

    Dear Wolfy treads dangerous ground with the shattered rose tinted specs intro, but pulls it off well enough to not have the clich police crash through her bedroom window. What hurts more is a sense of disjointedness when a number of short paragraphs link gracelessly together. Its not until the latter half of the review when everything seems to work so much better and you come up with some good lines, such as the dummies loosing their heads being a drawback for mobility. This isnt one of your best; it feels forced at points, but I think you do a good job with the limited material you have. Kudos for not taking a cheap shortcut like Felix did with his version.

    THIRD PLACE: X-COM:TftD -- Cornwell

    I hope youll excuse the rudeness, but this doesnt really belong here. Not only should all (post apoc) X-Com review be 10/10, this is a review that does a good job or skirting the edges, but never really delving in to the heart of the game. It makes a good case for TftD being little more than an add on, but, in using this tactic, assumes that readers are familiar already with Enemy Unknown. People should be, but a lot of them are not. They are fools.

    Well done on not making your review a billion words like my original EU is, but I would have appreciated more time spent on actual discussion of the game.




    RotW over.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 24, 2008:

    you need to stop claiming you've written half my reviews when you help me transition between paragraphs or something. at least I can spell.

    congrats to the winners!
    board icon
    EmP posted August 24, 2008:

    If you had come to me first, that post would have read so much better.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 24, 2008:

    Eh. I didn't really try really hard with this one, admittedly. Not to mention that it was sort of hard to talk about anyway. Thanks for the comments, anyway, though I know this really probably wouldn't've been here if more people had submitted.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 24, 2008:

    You'll have to give me more time, then. At least a week... I'm very busy this week.

    Also, Felix ad DE are tied now, I think, so... what'll we do with that? Hm...
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 24, 2008:

    We're not tied. EmP just is too lazy to keep current scores since he's a s bloody shrimp. DE has the most votes of the losers, so he advances any way.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 25, 2008:

    WINNER: DRELLA
    Drella's review was entertaining, but not his best. The review was at its strongest when it was detailing the kind of wacky scenarios present in Edward Randy. Fortunately, this took up most of the review. These moments are described with wonderfully engaging writing that really sells Edward Randy as a crazy, crazy experience. I didn't even mind the list, because it added to the impression that the game is bursting with ideas. I thought that the introduction set this approach up well -- the Jackson Pollock reference was a clever way to establish the game's imaginative ambition. However, I thought the "if I ended it here" transition was awkward. The last three paragraphs felt tacked on. It's almost as if drella couldn't fit the gameplay information in earlier and so tacks it on at the end. The review therefore feels unbalanced. However, the first two thirds are strong enough to secure the win. PAJ's review is decent. The writing is solid and the game is covered well, but I think the 5/10 score created a tone of indifference. The result is that this review feels a bit dull, whereas drella's is more creative and entertaining.

    WINNER: ESPIGA
    I really liked espiga's review. The introduction was entertaining, and establishes the idea that although Two Worlds is generic, it's not awful. Aside from the bit about the heavily flawed online experience, this is the review's only real argument. But I thought that this was enough. I hate to use the dreaded phrase "this review flowed well", but well, it did. The examples lead on from each other in a structured and amusing way, and even the bit about being good or bad added weight to the review. So yeah, this was a succinct and amusing review, which is an achievement, as 4 or 5/10 RPG reviews usually tend to be as dull as the game. Golden Vortex's review wasn't bad, but I don't buy the "without Splatterhouse there would be no survival horror" routine, and this review didn't sell it particularly well anyway. There are some good lines here, but it felt too brief to really do the game justice. Espiga, on the other hand, probably wrote the same amount, but managed to give a more thorough impression of what it is like to play Two Worlds.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 26, 2008:

    Yo! How much time are we gonna have for this stage of this round? I'm just finishing up a big work-type project today and likely won't have time to pass judgment until tomorrow. I could make time to do so today if I HAD to, but it'd be a lot easier for me to hold off for one more day.
    board icon
    espiga posted August 26, 2008:

    Leroux vs. PAJ[insert numbers here]
    Winner: Leroux

    This was a pretty easy match to judge. The tennis review is pretty lost on someone that has no interest in sports whatsoever. While it was technically sound and I didn't see any flaws in the writing itself, it was dull compared to Leroux's action packed, energetic writing that got me pumped for the game, despite the fact I'll never play it. But, Leroux made me regret that I won't be playing it, and that says a lot about how good of a review it is.

    Goldenvortex vs. Some douche
    Winner: EmP

    ...Because he talked me into joining this silly thing at the last minute. ='[
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 26, 2008:

    Oh. Well, I thought the score you'd posted hadn't included the three or so later votes.

    Most everything (if not all of it) I have to say has been said already. But here's my feedback anyway. If it's not as detailed as I usually make it, I'm sorry. But time still isn't really my friend right now.

    Felix over DE

    Alright. Upon reading Felix's review again, I can see why it got the commentary it did. I understand it's unconvincing nature in that I'd likely not want to play a game whose main focus seems to be cutscenes and has very little in the way of combat. However, this appears to be the point of his review. That the game is one of (if not the) first of its kind to produce cutscenes in any sort of important fashion like that. Also, he clearly pointed out that the combat, while lacking, is unique, something that may actually be worth checking out despite the othewise uappealing nature of the game. He's also colorful enough in his writing to hold my attention, and also somewhat removes the sense of unconvincingness present there.

    On the other hand, while DE's review is more convincing in the end, I had difficulty paying attention. Perhaps it's because this is so old, but this one reads a bit too slowly for me... The writing feels dry and elongated, if that makes sense. So much so that even though it's clear, for the most part, I have to reread sentences several times because I just can't stay focused. It's also plagued with minor errors and sentences that could use shortening or better phrasing. In a sense, it reads like a rookie review - a decent review, but a rookie review nonetheless. It's obvious in lines like the first of his real concluding paragraph. Still, I liked how he described the game. It just could've been done so much more smoothly.

    And I think the somewhat unnecessary sexual references actuallyhelped in this case since they added a bit of humor... or... something... >_>

    EmP over Will

    I don't know what everyone's so uptight about "ooh, it's too fanficky". Ok, sure, maybe that's what fanfics are for, but still, I like reading that sort of thing in a review. As long as it's appropriate. And it definitely is here with EmP's review. I honestly can't see any better way of him describing those various scenes. Considering it's a puzzle game, which are really hard to review in the first place, this only adds to the imagery of the game. It paints a clear (and gross, with all the gore, apparently) picture of the world which may not be presented as easily with other writing styles. It grabs your attention, pulls you in and leaves you there. And when he does transition into talking about puzzles themselves, it's hardly noticeable. Really, the only jarring thing in this whole review is when he's describing that opening sequence or whatever in third person than abruptly switches to narrative in the following paragraph. But then the atmosphere is restored soon enough anyway. It's a good read. To those who complain of lack of puzzle explanation (which I thought was enough anyway), I'd counter that that wasn't so much the point as was the atmosphere and setting. Since this story is completely different from the book, apparently.

    P.S.

    I found typos in your review... eihter I missed them the first time I read through or you didn't fix them when I sent them to you. (I did send you edits for this one, right? >_>)

    Either way, you can thank me later. Haha.

    Will's review, on the other hand, while very informative - really - is way too technical. I mean, I know RTS's pretty well, I think, but he really uses way too much in-game jargon without enough (or in some cases too much) explanation to keep me oriented properly. It's also kind of like DE's in the sense that it's a bit longwinded in places, and is diffiult to pay attention to after a while. Don't get me wrong - I definitely agee that this would be a great review for someone already familiar with the game, and, it being an expansion, maybe that was your point. But I wouldn't have subbed it for this contest either. Sorry, man. =(

    Jason over Cairo

    These were both great reviews. But to keep it simple, I liked Jason's more because it seemed to get to the point a lot sooner. I mean, the examples were right there, fast, explosive and powerful, and kept me attentative throughout.

    Cairo's is great, too, with it's witty sarcastic approach to a game much smiled upon around here (I think). His examples are clear and poignant (oops, stole EmP's word), and generally kept me amused throughout. However, I would complain that some of the analogies or jokes made might be a little high-brow for me. Where I'm not familiar with what he's comparing it to. Still, fun read, and typical Cairo in bashing well-popularized games. A very interesting approach. Honestly, the choice was tough, but I'm ultimately leaning towards Jason.

    Edit: Oh. I guess the feedback wasn't that bad after all. Except for maybe Jason's and Cairo's. I hope that's OK. But it's really getting late now... >_>
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 27, 2008:

    DRELLA vs. PAJ89
    Some may call this blasphemy (possibly including myself), but I think Edward Randy would kick the shit out of Earnest Evans. And this review did a good job of making me come to that crazy idea. I mean, this game sounds completely insane and over-the-top with a ton of obscenely goofy ideas that somehow work to create a pretty exhilarating game. Sweet review for a game I'd never heard of, man. You did a good job in describing some of the more memorable scenes from the game and I really liked the tone of this review. While PAJ89's review was very sound and a good read, it just couldn't compare to Drella's. I can't really point out anything negative about your review, but while Drella's inspired my imagination, this review for a tennis game couldn't accomplish that. Like I said, this is a very good review -- you were just stuck against an imaginative and entertaining review from one of the RC's more acclaimed writers.
    WINNER: DRELLA

    VORTY vs. ESPIGA
    This was one of the better reviews I've ever read by Vorty. And that it sticks out in my mind as so is noteworthy, as over the years, a few really good writers have tackled Splatterhouse. The imagery here is good, doing the subject matter justice. And the occasional touch of humor (like the Spinal Tap bit) fit in well. But, Espiga made this a very tricky decision with a well-written review for a blah RPG. A lot of times when a person writes about a blah game, they write a blah review, but this one had a good deal of personality. I liked the lines about how all the wolves look the same, but they're different because the game says so and how you can't even kill everything because the game brings townspeople back to life. By a narrow margin, I have to give this one to Vorty, though. For some reason, the online part of the review didn't click...possibly because I've never online RPGed and the concept's never interested me or, more likely, because overall, I kinda felt this was two mini-reviews as opposed to one game review.
    WINNER: VORTY

    Oh, and for my HG-JC critiques, jus' so you two don't feel sad, forlorn and left out. As you may recall, I picked Cairo as the winner.

    I really liked both of these reviews. Jason Venter gave me a huge belly-laugh by comparing himself to Jason Bourne, but that wasn't the main strength of this review. One thing I love is when a writer can tackle a real or perceived flaw of a game and legit make me think it's not a flaw. Jason does this well when he tackles things like the short length of the game, by saying it has tons of replay value and six hours or not, he wound up spending more time with it than games with a much longer duration. That's a great point right there and the highlight of a very good review for me. Unfortunately, if there's one kind of review I really like above all others, it's a great bash review especially when the writer can just decimate a hyped game. This is a long review, but consistently entertaining. Nothing like reading about a stealth game that seems a lot more fun, hectic and easy when you forego stealth and just slaughter anyone who gets in your way. You put out a laundry list of questionable and laughable aspects of this game and let your writing speak for itself here. This was just one fun review, which is why I picked it.
    board icon
    AssibExcisp posted August 29, 2008:

    I'm totally unfamiliar with forums and am very impressed by all that people helping others on forums.
    Why do they do so?
    board icon
    honestgamer posted August 29, 2008:

    They do it in hopes that those people will then stick around and become part of the experience and that things will grow so that the site can be a really cool place to kill time. At least, that's how I see things. It's not like we're a bunch of philanthropists at heart or anything. ;-)
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted August 30, 2008:

    Whew, almost done with Legaia stuff. Kinda want to start Summoner 2 afterwards but I've got a weird hankering to do something for Survival Kids (GBC), the awesome deserted island exploration game.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 31, 2008:

    DRELLA vs. PAJ89

    Theres not a lot I can really say thats not already been said. Theres nothing wrong with PAJs review, and its almost refreshing to read something that focuses purely on the game, and why you might and might not like it. Drella, however, opens up with probably his strongest effort since hes produced since he returned with a repackaged persona. Its funny, well-written and still manages to inform you on his choice of game just as well as PAJ does. Good showing from both guys.

    WINNER: DRELLA

    VORTY vs. ESPIGA

    I remember judging this Splatterhouse review for something or other that I probably nagged Vorty into in the first pace, and I recall saying then that I didnt buy into the whole Splatterhouse birthed horror titles vibes, and the review didnt even try to convince me otherwise. On the other hand, all I knew about Two Worlds was that it sucked arse, and Espiga didmanage to sway my view on this, I enjoyed botn reviews greatly, but this is the one aspect I feel sets them apart.

    WINNER: ESPIGA
    board icon
    EmP posted August 31, 2008:

    RESULTS:

    Espiga: 4 vs Vorty: 3
    Drella: 7 vs PAJ89: 1

    CLOSED
    board icon
    EmP posted August 31, 2008:

    The first round is over. The second round has just begun.

    And now, to change the rules -- completly!

    I have already made the draws for who faces who next, but the whole 24 hours to pick left a bad taste in my mouth. I wasn;t ocerly happy to have to throw out ranpicks now and then, and I dislike the whole throwing down a placehoilder ploy and the sitting around waiting to see what the other guy picks before you pick yours. So, now you submit them differently.

    I want the people in the following list to HG mail me their pick. Once I have paired reviews from each match-up, I'll post the topic and you can all vote. We're now down to the following twelve:

    DoI
    Beli
    VM
    Dagoss
    Suskie
    Boo
    Espiga
    Drella
    Felix
    DE
    EmP
    Cairo

    I picked my review before I knew who I was up against in the interest of fairness. If I go through again and/or I continue the next round in that fashion, I shall do so from here on.

    There IS going to be a time limit for getting your reviews in so this doesn't lose even more pace than it has already. I'm thinking 3 days, but we'll see how things go. For now, I need an HG mail from tnhose above with the reviews they want to use.

    Go.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 31, 2008:

    I'll HG mail my pick as soon as I'm done looking at it with with a fine toothed comb -- sometime in the next few hours.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 31, 2008:

    A four-way tie! See now, this is exciting.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 31, 2008:

    Not much this week. Not counting staff reviews (which are, as always, excluded), only three people submitted their work this week, with only five reviews between them. Wait? Three people? That must mean they'll all place on this week's RotW, then, right? Since only one review per person is accepted? That is correct. Thankfully, all three presented work worthy of a mention, so I don't have to say "begrudgingly" or any other needlessly long words. Let us begin.



    Review of the Week: Yggdra Union (GBA) by woodhouse

    Hey, so check this out. First line and Woodhouse already has my attention. A strategy game made for masochists? I like the sound of this. It could be that I'm awarding Woodhouse the top spot based on his game choice alone, but I can't help but be eager to play Yggdra Union having read this review... more than his 7/10 score implies I should, though I don't think that's his fault. I loved how this review answered every single question one could possibly have about the game without ever topic-hopping or feeling like it's trying to hit all the bases. And how no time is wasted; every sentence is relevant. Excellent conclusion, too, especially this line: That's a lesson this game teaches. The currency of war is blood, and the balance is paid by anyone pulled into the conflict. Great work from a reviewer who's not preoccupied with implementing his ego into his reviews.

    First Runner-Up: Castlevania (NES) by Felix_Arabia

    I like your introduction a lot because I think you summarize the feelings of many of your fellow reviewers when they decide to tackle an old game and are worried about whether they'll like it, or whether they're supposed to like it. Whereas I felt your other review struggled too much for a hook (the "lost in translation" bit just felt like an attempt to make Kawa no Nushi Tsuri sound better than it really was), this one just flows and hit the age-old question of how good a "classic" game used to be versus how much it holds up today. I have a lot of Castlevania games to catch up on and the NES original has never been high on my list, but who knows -- I might just give it a try now.

    Second Runner-Up: Galaga Legions (XLA) (Xbox 360) by pickhut

    "In and out" is a strategy that works well for XBLA games that wouldn't really inspire much in-depth conversation, and while I didn't think it would be easy to write a compelling Galaga review, Pickhut sells it rather well by taking us through a typical round and making it sound very intense... more intense than a game as old as Galaga should. I'm guessing that was Pickhut's intention: To take our expectations about this game and turn them upside down. There were a few typos here and there (this seems to be the most common problem with your reviews), so sort them out and this'll be a surprising winner of a review.



    And I was on time this week, despite the hassle of moving to school this past weekend. See how committed I am? Let's see how well I do next time, in about a month or so. Until then...
    board icon
    dementedhut posted August 31, 2008:

    Congrats to woodhouse on his rotw, and felix on his runner-up win. I read his Castlevania review, and it was pretty good. Didn't read woodhouse's yet, though. I should try to read it now.

    Thanks for the comments, suskie. It was pretty hard to describe the action in the game without sounding repetitive with the use of the word "formation". I should have at least tried different words...
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted September 01, 2008:

    Kawa no Nushi Tsuri wasn't submitted this week, so I hope that whoever does this week's RotW gives it a fair shot, and I think you missed the point of the review. I'm not trying to hook someone like a fish into reading it. I'm simply telling the truth about a simple game with incredible, implicit depth. I think you should read it again. ;-)

    Anyways, thanks for liking Castlevania. I'm glad you liked it, too Pick. Congrats to everyone involved.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 01, 2008:

    August 30th, my friend. I think you should read that date again :)
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted September 01, 2008:

    Well, it was listed under the 31st after I posted it and then went to see under which week it fell. You should still read it again, though.
    board icon
    dagoss posted September 02, 2008:

    Can I please, please have until Thursday? I just finished moving; my Internet access at home isn't up yet and I'm still unpacking, in addition to the semester restarting. I want to use either a new review that is currently half-finished or revise another review. This is the first time I'm seeing this topic (and the first time I've actually visited this site in like a week). If need be, I can produce more excuses. You must show me mercy.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 02, 2008:

    I'll talk to the person you are up against and square it with them. If they're okay with it, then, fine. Though it does put a large spanner in the works, and I would prefer it sooner.
    board icon
    zombie posted September 02, 2008:

    Aiyyo folks. I have a guide underway for this particular game, and a partial ready to go...

    Game: Densetsu no Stafy: Taiketsu! Dire Kaizokudan
    Platform(s): Nintendo DS
    Publisher: Nintnedo
    Developer: TOSE
    Genre: Platformer
    Release Date: 07/10/08

    :)

    Added, though I'm pretty sure it's spelled "Starfy." Let me know if my correction is, uh, wrong.

    WRONG!

    Hmm. Then GameFAQs is wrong.

    Zombie Edit:
    Call him whatever you like for your site my friend. There's much contention as to what to call Stafy. There's at least four variations in the common vernacular. Don't sweat the technique on it, he'll be Stafy in my guide but that's because the community has resigned to calling him that. Phew :).
    board icon
    EmP posted September 02, 2008:

    Round Two starts now! Below youll find the first two of six matches. The voting will remain open until further notice.








    Drella vs. Suskie









    DE vs. Espiga





    The usual rules apply. Four walk in: two leave.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 02, 2008:

    Drella vs. Suskie

    It was nice knowing all of you. Winner: Sandvich

    DE vs. Espiga

    DE's King Kong review is a little more detailed, and I think the one noteworthy problem with Espiga's is that it's not quite long enough. This may be due to the fact that you didn't have experience with the multiplayer mode, but isn't that the draw of the FFCC series? Well, needless to say, both reviewers give their games a 6/10, but Espiga somehow still does a better job justifying his score. His review is more personable, contains fewer typos (I didn't catch any at all), and flows better, whereas DE's felt a little awkward at first. Both are fine, but chalk it up to Espiga's charisma that he came out on top here. Winner: Espiga
    board icon
    espiga posted September 02, 2008:

    Leroux v. Suskie

    I had a much harder time judging this match than I thought I was going to have, probably because neither review really clicked with me. On Leroux's side, he has an Altered Beast review that tries to convince me that it's trying to be an imitation of a cheesy 1950's sci-fi/pseudohorror flick. On Suskie's side there was a review that started out sounding like a bash review and then ended up giving an 8/10. What? However, over the course of the two reviews Suskie's does a better job of convincing me that his game is 8/10 material than Leroux's does... Even if I don't like most FPS and wouldn't enjoy FarCry nearly as much, it's also not trying to force-feed some overblown drivel about how a cheesy arcade game from the Genesis' early years is some sort of campy take on the nature of video games. I've had enough of that in Lewis' blog, thank you. It was what finalized my decision so, I've gotta give the win to Suskie.

    DE vs. Dumbass

    One of these reviews is a winner.
    board icon
    Daisuke02 posted September 02, 2008:

    This is somewhat pointless and irrelevant (two things I excel at writing), but I'm finishing up the freelance review for Bazooka Cafe, and I noticed that HG has it listed as Pururun (or some spelling like that) Cafe. Perhaps we could switch that to Bazooka Cafe so people know what's going on?

    Fixed.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 03, 2008:

    SUSKIE vs. DRELLA

    Mikes review is a good one. I know, me praising the guy comes from left field, but the guy knows how to write. He gets off to a great start by telling the reader that hes up against unusually stacked odds without breaking out the crayons and spelling it out. We walks you through it, shows you that its hard going and lets you come to the realisation yourself. I like the little details he drops in like being able to listen in to chatting guards. But as the review goes on, it feels like its retreating old ground at times, and its guilty of an Oh shits -- I forgot to mention the flaws! paragraph at the end. This paragraph is simpleminded into well, but its then nothing more then a dressed up checklist. We hate monkeys. Theres obligatory indoor levels that stifle me. I would have perhaps liked to have seen the indoors compliant used earlier, put side-by-side with the praise for the wide-open jungle to accent the agoraphobia. The end would have worked much better if the big negative were these monkeys which do sound like arse.

    Drella tries to be more ambitious in his review, and, in my eyes, succeeds. Look at the fifth paragraph where he melds in the negatives with his praise, more effectively showing the reader that, while flaws exist, theyre eclipsed by the cons. This is what I would have liked to have seen with Suskies indoors example. Drella doesnt even try to review this as a video-game at points, but instead as an experience. Its easy to say that something deserved better treatment and present a strong opinion that the media has won out over its numerous critics, but this is what happens here. It reminds me a bit of his earlier Pong review, which, if youve not read yet, you should go do so right now.

    Suskies review could have beaten some of the reviews in Drellas backlog, but it cant beat this one. Thanks though, Mike; you made me feel a lot better about plucking FarCry of Ebay recently.

    WINNER: DRELLA

    ESPIGA vs. DarkEternal.

    These reviews make for a good contrast. Espigas is light, playful, easy to read but the focus is on the writing other than the game. This isnt a bad thing -- I probably do this more often then not. DEs effort is more clunky. The sentences are big and blocky and the information plopped out on your page in digestible chunks. Its still an entertaining read, but the conclusion especially seemed rushed into.

    Both reviews offer the same score, but only DEs convinces me of the games flaws. Espiga convinces me (further) that I was right to chose X-Com over girls. X-Com never made me go shoe shopping.

    WINNER: DE
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 03, 2008:

    I'm bumping this GameFAQs-style so it can be seen on the main page. We need more responses!
    board icon
    drella posted September 04, 2008:

    You'd think a match between the two biggest, baddest writers in this tournament would garner some interest wouldn't you?

    Plus Suskie and I are the undercard! We try really hard. Vote people!
    board icon
    darketernal posted September 04, 2008:

    Drella vs Suskie.

    I honestly liked both of these reviews. The Altered Beast one because it made me wear my fancy nostalgia googles once again, and Farcry because I hear that Uwe boll is on that one next to ruin for all eternity and that amuses me for some odd reason. However, I will give the nod to Drella's review because it captured the campy feeling quite good, something that the game was famous for. On the other hand I don't know what I expected out of Suskie's review, but a high mark such as an 8 certainly wasn't it. Awful story, check, game ruined by tossing in unecessary enemies, check. Maybe it was because I played the game and I know that the AI is a piece of crap, and the only thing that really got to me was the graphics, but even from reading your review I didn't get the feeling why exactly this game deserves an 8.

    Winner: Drella
    board icon
    Genj posted September 04, 2008:

    I've been busy starting the semester and I'm going to the wilderness of New Hampshire to wrestle bears today and tomorrow, so leave this open so I can do my civil duty and vote then. Or else!
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 04, 2008:

    DRELLA vs. SUSKIE
    Got a tough one to judge here, as both of these reviews brought the goods. Suskie does a great job emphasizing how Far Cry is non-linear with you getting multiple ways to get through most things. Drella does a really impressive job of providing historical context to add a lot of weight to his positive review of the maligned Altered Beast WHILE doing a great job of describing the over-the-top concepts present in this game. This was a hard-as-hell contest for me to decide as both guys did great with their subject matter, but for me, Drella's vivid descriptions may have won me over just a wee bit more.
    WINNER: DRELLA

    DE vs. ESPIGA
    Espiga's review suffers from one kinda glaring flaw. Everything in the tone of your writing kinda seems contemptful of this game, but you gave it a score that's one touch above average. Your writing was entertaining, but when you're cracking on the voice acting; mentioning that working to combine spells is a waste of time, as fights are easy enough with just Yuri's sword; bringing up that the game has generic characters and plot AND concluding with how you broke up with your "girlfriend" because she convinced you to play this game, I'm thinking 3, not 6. Come to think of it, I felt the same way about DE's review. Controlling Kong is cool. Controlling Jack sucks. The game AI of Jack's buddies sucks. But at least I got a sense that you legitimately got a good deal of enjoyment out of part of the game to at least partially justify giving what seems to be a mediocre title a 6, so you get the nod from me.
    WINNER: DE
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted September 04, 2008:

    DE vs. Espiga
    Winner: Espiga

    DE loves to use reviews that are older than a year. It's a good piece, I've read it before. What can I say? I hadn't read Espiga's until now because I thought it would be silly, taking the subject matter into account. It was a silly review, but because it was the fresher piece, I was able to get more out of it since the entire experience was new.

    Drella vs. Suskie
    Winner: Suskie

    Now that Zig's gone, Drella's my pick for the best writer on this site . . . when he adds to his impressive library. This Altered Beast review was great, but come on. You'd rather watch Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, which is a horrible movie, over Citizen Kane? Even if that's true -- is it? -- it doesn't matter since I get the point that Altered Beast is a fun game for its kitschiness. But SCCtM? That's like saying Altered Beast is incredibly hokey and crappy because that's what SCCtM is. I can tell that Altered Beast has more to it than just silliness. It's also a fundamentally quality game. The movie comparison was weird. I really like Citizen Kane, and I really like Suskie's review. The two are pretty close, and I'm going to give my pick to Suskie for two reasons. 1) Far Cry not containing anything about SCCtM is a good thing and 2) I want to see this match tied up. Like I said, both were great reviews, but that intro for Leroux's review had me scratching my head.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted September 04, 2008:

    Drella vs. Suskie

    Both of these reviews were well written, well thought out, amd pretty convincing, and that makes the match close. Drella took a very non standard route with his. It reads like a sports movie where the underdog altered beast team beats the big corporate media team in the big game at the end. I dunno why, but it clicked with me. It worked. Suskie's review was safer. Nothing wrong with safe, it made its points strongly and I agreed with almost every one. Those damn Tigrens especially. But in the end it was that safe feeling that gave Drella the edge, if only slightly.

    Winner: Drella

    DE vs. Espiga

    Espiga's review is weird. It seems extremely bitter from beginning to end, and then gives the game a passable score, not a great one, but decent. It really read almost like a bash with a couple glimmers of decent design, which had me scratching my head when it came to the scoring. Maybe that's partially because it's so short, but far be it from me to say anything bad about short reviews. It was still a charismatic review with some solid points.

    DE's review is longer and more detailed, and it has a few more grammatical hiccups. I do feel it does a better job of justifying its score, describing some doldrums and some moments of glory overshadowed by more doldrums. I think it makes a stronger case, and that's going to get it the nod.

    Winner: DE
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 04, 2008:

    Suskie vs. Drella

    I already told Suskie what I thought about his review, and that still stands. The description is excellent and engaging - it really draws you in. The humor's well-placed, and works. I don't read the "bashy" kind of humor and sarcasm as necessarily detracting from the review. I read it as something a bit silly and/or annoying, but nothing that makes the game any worse to play. The only thing I really didn't like about the review, as I said before, was that Tigen paragraph. It felt tacked on, and maybe didn't quite flow with the rest of the review as well as the other paragraphs did. Regardless, I felt the score was justified, and he does a well enough job everywhere else to keep me entertained. I should check this game out some time...

    Drella's is also good, though it doesn't quite pull me in like Suskie's. I liked his argument, though, which is odd because normally I probably wouldn't like something like this. And the fact that I sometimes just "not get" Drella's style (either due to inexperience, simple particular favoritism with styles), not enough study, or what have you I'm not entirely sure) further adds perplexity to this. Still, he argued the point that the game is long-lasting because of its goofiness and dysfunctional controls. I especially liked the weird superpowers and strange beast combinations bits, and how critics, for whatever reason, just take them too seriously. These things, and the way he argued them, make it seem like a game I'd very much enjoy.

    I'll admit that I didn't uderstand the Abbot & Camello reference... but commend myself for getting the rest of those. And I also don't thik I missed the point behind it either (dealing with the fact that critics take this game too seriously, as something for its time when really, it's the things they're arguing against that make it durable). It's a good review, and didn't seem to have any structural flaws whatever (unlike Suskie's). This is a tough choice, but I think I'm going with Suskie's. Because even with those flaws, his ultimately grabbed my attention more, made me laugh more, and stuck better with me.

    Winner: Suskie

    I'll get Espiga/DE later...
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted September 05, 2008:

    DE vs ESP

    Much as I love a good bash of a bad JRPG, that's really all Espiga's is. Don't get me wrong, it's a blast to read, but it doesn't tell me much about the game except that it sucks.

    DE's review is also about a game he doesn't like much, but it comes off as more impartial and informative. I'm going to have to give this one to Dark. Tough call, because I like these both.

    ADVANTAGE: DE

    SUSKIE VS DRELL


    As much as I can get behind retrogames, Drella's review seems to argue that the only reason I should get behind Altered Beast is because it's a retrogame. If you've ever tried to explain to someone what a cult hit like Fear and Loathing in Las Vagas is about and why it's so great, you'll be familiar with the reaction you get; a polite nod and half-hearded "Yeah, sounds great." I'm sure Altered Beast is a similarly timeless classic, but it's just one of those things that you can't describe to another.

    I'm leaning towards Suskie here because of that; that Suskie-fu just makes his game sound much more appealing.

    ADVANTAGE: SUSKIE
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 05, 2008:

    You'd think a match between the two biggest, baddest writers in this tournament would garner some interest wouldn't you?

    the last round, in other words?
    board icon
    EmP posted September 05, 2008:

    Round Two, Stage Two. Three will be up shortly, so all three wil be active at once. The match ups are as follows:








    Cario vs. Boo









    DoI vs. Beli
    board icon
    Halon posted September 05, 2008:

    These arent proofread because I wanted to quickly get them out before its too late. Ill do the other topics (hopefully) in the next few days or so.

    DRELLA vs SUSKIE
    Both writers brought their best. Suskies really nailed Far Cry and made it sound like a tremendous game, and really capitalized on what made it initially great. Im glad he brought up the Trigens as well since thats a game-crippling flaw that people tend to ignore. Overall interesting points, great flow, great review. Drella on the other hand doesnt have the interesting subject matter of Suskie but really knows what makes these games great (or not). His approach makes an old game that Im not interested in sound fresh again and really gives me a vivid description of whats going on. The Citizen Kane comparison was great as well and not something I spent much time thinking of about games in general. Fantastic matchup, but Im going to have to give the nod to Leroux, who went over and above with his piece. As good as it was, Suskies seemed a bit too standard by the end (intro, premise, strengths, weaknesses, conclusion) where Drella surprised me with every turn.

    WINNER: DRELLA

    DARKETERNAL vs ESPIGA
    This was a much easier match to call. Ive always thought King Kong was one of DEs best (if not his very best). Sure, the writing couldve been smoother but this piece is well organized and has a strong argument supported by tons of convincing facts. And the review didnt go off on tangents like it so easily couldve in some places. I didnt care for Espigas review too much primarily because he didnt have much to work with. He even admitted at the end that its just another hack n slash. I liked the informal tone but there really isnt a lot of information here. Its too short and basically just says nothing special here, move on. DE gave his game the same score and was able to come up with much more interesting insights which is why Im giving him the nod here.

    WINNER: DARKETERNAL
    board icon
    drella posted September 06, 2008:

    It appears to be tied 5-5....

    My interest in this is waning, and the likelihood of drawing deeper into my backlog is increasing (which is boring). And while I appreciate the feedback, it hasn't been especially helpful. I could get into some specific points and comments, but I don't really care to bicker. It just wouldn't accomplish much, and AB is a review I wrote to strike a chord with a specific audience, and if you're not a part of that I wanted it to rub you the wrong way (I take absolute delight in espiga calling it overblown drivel - it's the most rewarding comment in the topic to me).

    So I relent! Hand this one to the rising star and not the hardened vet.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 06, 2008:

    Uh, I have no objections to that.
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 06, 2008:

    Because you can't spell "overblown drivel" without OVERDRIVE?
    board icon
    Halon posted September 06, 2008:

    If you really want that I can change my vote. The match was already really close so it won't bother me at all.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 07, 2008:

    suck my dick HG
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 07, 2008:

    "Cario" vs. Boo

    Cairo's didn't really strike a chord with me because I walked away with the same impression I got from EmP's Dracula review last round: While the general quality and vocabulary are impressive (pick out any one sentence and you'd conclude the review is a masterpiece), the writing is simultaneously so thick and dense (in an almost literal sense) that I often had trouble making heads or tails of what you were saying and had to read over certain parts again to fully understand. Your Assassin's Creed is a fantastic example of what happens when your obvious talent as a writer is put to good use. Here, it's overdone, as if you were too preoccupied trying to come off as artsy than with actually supplying us with the information we need. Boo's BioShock is just as impressive from a technical standpoint -- the difference is that I don't have to dig too deep to get the info I want. Boo somehow finds a way to make nearly every sentence witty or clever in its own way while at the same time painting a very clear picture of what he likes and doesn't like about the game. Which may be easier for him, since I just finished BioShock about a month or two ago, and since so much discussion on the game has risen on HG recently, but he nonetheless struck me as the clear winner. I thought the psychiatric help line was kinda lame, and the numbered points at the end broke up the flow of your review (you're basically saying, "I don't know where else to mention these, so I'll just dump them here"), but otherwise this is outstanding work. I meant what I said about you being one of my favorite reviewers. Winner: Boo

    DoI vs. Beli

    This match surprised me because both reviews are excellent. DoI's Painkiller is detailed and engrossing, Beli's is funny and shows off his constantly creative approach to reviewing. (Even the opening two lines make it clear that this guy does not just phone it in.) I don't have anything particularly insightful to say about either, unfortunately. I'm voting for DoI's simply because every inch of his review is relevant, whereas I felt Beli took as much time to talk about less. That's difficult to describe, so know that it's not a huge complaint, that I enjoyed both reviews very much, and that this was a tough one to call. Winner: DoI
    board icon
    Masters posted September 08, 2008:

    This was a very light week. Is this a trend? Couldn't tell you -- for me to know, I'd have to have been paying attention.

    Anyway, there were only four submissions, of which two were written by the same dude. What that means is that everyone places. In an obscure tribute to the winner: huzzah!

    Staff submissions don't count, but then, you knew that. Alright then, on to the reviews! Heh.

    Second Runner-up
    N+ by timrod

    This is a pretty straightforward, no-frills review -- and it's short. That being said, the subject material doesn't lend itself to anything much more interesting.

    I found what may be a typo: The one major problem is that a lot of doding the various traps involves a technique called grazing.

    One last thing: I thought the 3/10 was pretty generous given that you describe a thoroughly execrable and broken gaming experience.

    First Runner-up
    Tail of the Sun by pickhut

    Another very brief review of a weak title. This isn't pickhut's best work, but it gets the job done (if the horrific screenshots don't already do that for you).

    My only other comment would be that some mention of the genre of game up front would help.

    REVIEW OF THE WEEK
    Silent Hill 3 by bloomer

    Bloomer has two gems up this week, but of the two, Silent Hill 3 is the more entertaining and 'rich'.

    I already sang the praises of this review in the feedback topic I made for it, but for the sake of completeness, I'll repeat it here.

    Having re-read the review for the purposes of RotW, the below passage still strikes me as utterly comprehensive and dead-on in its summation of the Silent Hill experience:

    My favourite phase in SH3 comes after Heather escapes the horror version of the mall and makes for the subway to catch a train home. The station is deserted. A series of locked gates herd her deeper underground. Dispassionate tracking shots follow her as you guide her down one repeating tiled tunnel after another, the metronomic clatter of her boots taking over the soundtrack. Your sense of passing time begins to dissolve. It's hard to tell if the emptiness is due to it being late at night or if something supernatural is taking place. The artful design of such stretches of SH3 stretches which do not necessarily affect the outcome or involve fighting, but which manipulate your apprehension of a world is what continues to most strongly voice the series' unique identity and attraction in horror gaming.

    There's not much else to say. Wade's review takes notice of everything worth noticing about the game, and communicates the insight in a smooth, effortless fashion.

    Kudos -- you're on your way to winning every RotW I do for the year.

    C'est tout.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted September 08, 2008:

    I felt bad, so I actually decided to read the reviews for this round.

    cairo vs. blu

    I think the problem I had with cairo's review is that he took a bit long getting into the game. There are bits and pieces of it in the early paragraphs, but he really doesn't start talking about Max Payne until the 4th paragraph. And at that time, I was starting to lose interest, but I still read on.

    I guess that's why I prefered blu's BioShock review much better, because he gets right into the game, talking about enviroments and describing certain moments, giving you a good idea about Rapture. One problem I can point out is that he never really tells you the genre the game belongs to until the final paragraph, so people who have never played or heard about the game before will probably have disjointed images of the game in their mind as they read the descriptions.

    I pick blu.

    doi vs. beli

    DoI's review was very interesting, and gave some very amusing descriptions about screaming ninjas and severed heads that shoot lasers. The problem I had with it was that his arguments about the game's problems didn't feel strong enough. He mentions the flaws, but it really didn't seem like he found them that annoying.

    Beli's review was very lively and colorful, but I had a hard time figuring out if he hated the game or loved it. It was only until the end that I realized he actually enjoyed the game. That was the main problem I had with his review.

    So, the pick for this is for DoI.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted September 08, 2008:

    Yeah, I should have given a better idea about what the game is like. I also was gonna do a mmorpg comparison, too, which I should have done as well.

    Congrats to bloomer on his victoly.
    board icon
    bloomer posted September 09, 2008:

    Thanks Marc.

    I read your Tail o the sun review during the week Pickhut and it's definitely another very funny review to read about a game I definitely don't want to play.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 09, 2008:

    CAIRO vs. BOO.

    Sometimes, I decide to spell Johnnys name right. For kicks.

    But Im not going to vote him through this round! I wouldnt change a damn thing about his review, but its so damn heavy, it makes Boo look wafer thin. This is to fit in with the leaden Noir narration Max Payne drips with and, once the intended audience is hit, its magic. Thats not to say its easy going at times though and sometimes the writing simply gets in the way of the review. Boo gives his game the same score of six, but he earns that rank with more evidence then the game wanes second half which, for all his fancy writing, is the only thing Cairo really attacks. Boo takes an adventurous stand; he gets on his pedestal in an internet swarming with love for a game and yells Your game bites! then he tells you why. Its good writing (of which Ill take my obligatory and undeserved credit for, thankyouverymuch) and a great review. I remember judging it and saying the writing is so good in places that I had to double check it was a Boo review. Yeah, those are now the bits Ill claim to have written.

    (But Im lying. For the most part)

    WINNER: BOO

    DoI vs. BELI.

    God bless BELI. He may have written this review too late to squeeze it in to the BWHY tourney it was intended to, but he at least he came through with his review. DoI didnt. Im pretty sure Im petty enough for that to matter.

    BELIs review is much improved from the initial effort I remember me and Boo left feedback on as a curious gesture for completing the review (Pre Venter-coding. Id link you in, but.) A good job is done in selling what makes Rayman tick; unique colourful locations and lashing of challenge. The biggest problem his review has s it seems to keep going well after the best place for the review to end is. From here out, were given recap paragraphs starting with As I already mentioned, shots at game mascots were all trying to forget and a lot of text we dont really need. This review would work so much better if it ended at its glorious! DoIs waste no such space and instead shows you the very best the game has to offer right at the start before then slowly striping away at the things that detract from the experience. Its a well-used tactic, but one pulled off particularly well in this review. Im left with a clear idea of the games pros and cons at the end of the piece and Ive enjoyed the writing along the way. Hes lucky, too; Im still bitter about that no show. Id given him Quake. Im still not convinced that game exists.

    WINNER DoI
    board icon
    dementedhut posted September 09, 2008:

    Thanks, you've written a pretty good review, too.
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 10, 2008:

    Alrighty, having a flat tire has put me in a bit of a pissed-off mood, so my comments might be more of an abrupt, antagonistic sort of thing, but my intentions are good. So, don't take it personally if I say you suck.

    CAIRO vs. BOO
    Let's see, Cairo's review was a fun, entertaining read, but I felt I had to work to get to the gist of the review -- that this was an okay game that didn't really do anything special. Most of it seemed to be more of a creative writing exercise than anything else. Which is cool when I'm in the mood for it, but if I'm not (like today), it doesn't do much for me. On the other hand, Blu's also was fun and entertaining, but also to the point. He did a good job of praising the premise while damning the execution. The rating of 6 worked for me, as the review's description of the story made me want to play it, even if the rest of the review made me pretty sure I'd be disappointed by that experience.
    WINNER: BOO

    DoI vs. BELISARIOS
    After an opening paragraph where DoI went for an Olympic medal for "MOST TIMES USING HATRED IN ONE PARAGRAPH", this turned into a pretty good review. Maybe not one of the best I've read, but a good, informative piece with a couple parts I really liked. You did a great job of making your point about Belial overusing a limited number of taunts and I have to say, your description of the tasks to get tarot cards gave me a "fun" flashback to the requirements to get certain non-important medals in Dark Cloud 2. You'd have a bunch of enemies you NEEDED to use your one character's robot to beat (or risk getting butchered), but you'd have to use a melee attack, so you'd be getting pounded while barely damaging them. Putting things in that make me think, "Yeah, it really does SUCK when you have to do that!" always is good. While Beli's was a fun read that deserves credit from having the perfect whimsical tone for what sounds like a whimsical platformer (makes me want to play the GBA Rayman game on my computer), Problem is it's got more style than substance. Kinda reads like "This game's cool and I like it so you should too!" with little more to convince me. To me, the game sounds like a standard platformer (collect 100 of something for a 1-UP!) with really cool artwork. DoI had more substance to his, so he gets the win. And that's the only reason. Being the SON OF A CAMEL that beat me the last round didn't enter into my decision at all. Nope. Not at all.
    WINNER: DoI (the guy who DIDN'T eliminate me). Like I said.....not at all!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 10, 2008:

    I'll try to vote in this later tonight... if I have time.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 12, 2008:

    Cairo vs Boo

    Wow, Cairo's is thick. And heavy. And long.

    People complain about EmP's Dracula review being thick in the writing, but I didn't really have a problem with his. I knew what he was trying to say, and for the most part, it had a point. Cairo's, however, just seems to go on a tangent a lot of the time... I can't make much sense of what he's talking about because the text is so heavy. Perhaps he had a point to this - maybe he tried to emulate the game's narrative style or whatever that I heard talk about - but it really doesn't work for me. And lines like this only add to the confusion:

    George Will writing in stream-of-consciousness while on a heroin bender...

    This'll only make sense to people who know who George Will is. In fact, Cairo has a habit of putting obscure (or at least to me) things in his reviews, and he does so several times throughout this one. It just confuses me, really.

    Boo's, however, reads much more smoothly. For the most part, I know what he's talking about despite never playing the game, and I can read it and be quite entertained. I'm not wondering when the thing'll be over every second paragraph with this review. The examples are relevant - I really liked the bees thing, that was amusing - and the criticisms believable. It is a lot more convincing.

    Boo also uses Cairo's method of inserting "obscure" references in his pieces... but these are fewer, and most of them I feel like I should know. (Ayn Rand, for example).

    Overall, it's pretty good. I dunno why I didn't read it earlier.

    Winner: Boo
    board icon
    drella posted September 12, 2008:

    The last time we had a beat 'em up contest, The Punisher stole the show while bluberry put himself on the map as Final Fight topped Ninja Baseball Bat Man from beat 'em up master dogma. But that was four long years ago. Times have changed. And I'm apparently the only one entertained by shirtless mayors fighting criminal syndicates with their bare fists anymore. That has to change.

    So time for something bluberry is all too familiar with: a second fisting.

    The rules are simple: review a beat 'em up between now and Saturday, September 27th 2008 (yes, that soon, suck it up). Multiple entries are allowed per user, so review more than one! Simply put, I think a short contest is in order to keep the pulse of this place going as EmP's summer bracket winds down and more and more guys are eliminated and left on the sidelines.

    Judges include myself and any other hearty, brawling types that would like to volunteer.

    Participants include YOU. By virtue of having read this far, you're obviously keen on the notion. Write something. These are short, entertaining, often hilarious titles.

    If you need a ruling on whether something is beat 'em up enough, just ask. As a guideline, Final Fight is the ideal. Viewtiful Joe is really, really pushing the boundaries, but was allowed last time.


    PARTICIPANTS:
    Dug
    Bred
    Jake
    Andore
    EmP
    Wrench T.
    Abobo
    espiga
    Wolfqueen
    Mess O.
    Bonebreaker
    Sportsman
    Bayou Billy
    bluberry
    Overdrive
    ...and that's not even counting palette swaps!

    WEARS GIRLS PANTIES:
    Mandy
    Jerec
    Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon
    Suskie

    REVIEWS TO READ OR YOU WILL BE PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY THE MAYOR:
    Burning Fight by darketernal
    Battle Circuit by pickhut
    Toxic Crusaders by Overdrive
    Nightmare Circus by EmP
    Double Dragon II by Overdrive
    Mutation Nation by Janus
    Robo Army by pickhut
    BAD DUDES by wolfqueen
    Final Fight by bluberry
    Crystal Crashers by espiga
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted September 12, 2008:

    Boo vs. Cairo

    Winner: Boo

    That other match

    Winner: Whatever

    Justification to come.
    board icon
    espiga posted September 12, 2008:

    Castle Crashers. Can I has it?
    board icon
    drella posted September 12, 2008:

    Passable.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 12, 2008:

    Neat. I'll probably do this. So long as there are ones for NES or Genesis, and I'm sure there are.

    As a side note, I... don't know any of those people besides EmP... Or do I?
    board icon
    drella posted September 12, 2008:

    EmP actually doesn't know he volunteered for this yet.

    The rest are my only friends.
    board icon
    Halon posted September 12, 2008:

    If I enter I will score higher than Abobo.

    That is, I can find a game that I want to play and review by the deadline.

    EDIT: also this avatar needs to go
    board icon
    drella posted September 12, 2008:

    You'll be lucky to top Bayou Billy if you enter.
    board icon
    Halon posted September 12, 2008:

    Well even Mess O can't do that.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 12, 2008:

    Hm... So just as a general idea, anything classified under the Fighting Action (Brawler) category will work? There's a few there I'm seeing that I might check out. Might even download a MAME emulator for some of these...
    board icon
    drella posted September 12, 2008:

    Yeah, most of those will work. HG's listings are a bit incomplete but a good starting point.

    Just don't review Buffy. Or Charlie's Angels. Or whatever the fuck "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy" is. Someone is playing a cruel joke on me listing those as beat 'em ups.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 12, 2008:

    Haha. No worries there. I've no particular interest in Buffy, Charlie or silly kids cartoons. Not in a videogame anyway.
    board icon
    drella posted September 12, 2008:

    If you did want to review a girly franchise, Pretty Solider Sailor Moon for the arcade is actually a good beat 'em up. Just overly long. I swear this is true.

    We don't have a listing for it yet though. I'll do that now.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 12, 2008:

    XXXX YOU

    I assume this means 2D brawler, in which case I might do Streets of Rage 3 but probably won't enter due to not playing 2D brawlers much any more.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 12, 2008:

    Haha. Thanks, but I'm about as furtherest from girly as any girl you can probably imagine (except maybe lesbians >_>). But maybe I'll check that out sometime, anyway, if you say it's actually good.

    But it'll probably have to wait. I'd rather do shorter stints right now, with school and evrything.
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 12, 2008:

    Great gadzooks!!!!! It's been an eternity since I strapped on the gloves of Aeternal Pain and Suffering for a beat 'em up game!!!!

    An eternity too long!

    It's pain time, kids!!!!
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 12, 2008:

    (accept maybe lesbians >_>). But maybe I'll check that out sometime, anyway, if you say it's actually good.

    Minus the misspelling of "except", this segment of your post totally rules in my perverted mind!

    OVERDRIVE BEAT 'EM UP VICTIM #1
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 12, 2008:

    Error? I don't see any error. >_> <_<
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 12, 2008:

    :X
    board icon
    disco1960 posted September 12, 2008:

    I like the Buffy game. :P
    board icon
    EmP posted September 13, 2008:

    In typical EmP fashion, I got into the TV series some four years after it had finished.

    One way or another, I pledge to take part in this tourney. This statement would have more impact had this call already been made for me.

    If I was a random brawler goon, I'd be one of the cheap ones that pelt players from outsde the screen with uzi fire.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 13, 2008:

    DRELLA 5 - 5 SUSKIE

    SUSKIE progresses.

    DarkEternal 6 - 2 Espiga

    DarkEternal progresses.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 13, 2008:

    Cairo 0 - 7 Boo

    Boo wins

    DoI 5 - 0 Beli

    DoI wins
    board icon
    honestgamer posted September 13, 2008:

    If I was a random brawler goon, I'd be one of the cheap ones that pelt players from outsde the screen with uzi fire.

    Also known as 'the smart one.'
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted September 13, 2008:

    What does it say about me that the first game I thought of when I read this contest was the Sailor Moon arcade game? It's already been mentioned, so it can't be THAT bad, right? Right?
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted September 13, 2008:

    Finally finished Half-Life 2 after a week of crappy stumbling blocks. Guess it's onto Summoner 2 or something.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 13, 2008:

    Game: Yuu Yuu Hakusho: Makyo Toitsusen
    Genre: Fighting Action
    Developer: Treasure
    Release Date: 09/30/1994 (JP)
    Platform: Genesis

    Couldn't find the publisher.

    Added
    board icon
    drella posted September 13, 2008:

    Other people who should sign up before I volunteer them:

    Suskie
    pickhut
    DAMND
    Janus

    You've been warned.
    board icon
    drella posted September 13, 2008:

    When I do review of the week, there are no rules, though please don't be surprised if I adhere to past regulations out of a combination of classical conditioning and fear of change. Thanks to all those that contributed this week, but I can only highlight three reviews, because those are the rules.

    Winner:
    Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance by mariner
    Long-time contributor Mariner comes back from the dead, having not submitted since January, and in true veteran form shows little rust in tackling Path of Radiance. The review, though clear that a lack of strategy is a fault of the title, still convinces that FE is worth playing for its team management aspects, in particular, the life-and-death situations of its characters after the player grows an attachment. The use of rhetorical questions works well to establish this point, though a few character name drops come out of nowhere. Building a deeper backstory before questioning whether your party could (or should) do without them might have captured the reader more (the first paragraph describing the cliched story works against this), but this is still an effective approach and a terrific piece. Great job covering a game with these kind of complexities.

    Runner-Up:
    Earthworm Jim by wolfqueen
    A heated competition for the top spot, wolfqueen's Earthworm Jim was just barely edged out this week, so you better check this one out too. Worth reading for the hilarity of the subject matter alone, WQ is spot-on in what makes the Earthworm Jim franchise so goofy and endearing, describing everything from how Jim bides his time to avoiding lawyers in the depths of Hell. This is quality retro reviewing, only topped this week by a powerful review with more ambitious subject matter.

    Third Place:
    Sonic 3D Blast by pickhut
    This is another quality Genesis review only knocked down the charts because of a tad of carelessness ("The isometric viewpoint gets a little getting used to, but you'll get the hang of it" being a particularly redundant line). Pickhut establishes a well-backed and believable case that Sonic 3D Blast --admittedly, a game I never played -- showed promise but could have easily turned out a lot better. While currently replaying Donkey Kong 64, I can relate to some of these complaints about objectives being too far spread out. And I love the sarcasm at the end -- patented pickhut, and he had readers that know him well waiting all review for it. Quality work.

    Taking the RotW reigns next week is.... Overdrive? Really? We let him do this? Anyway, best of luck to all and keep the contributions coming.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 13, 2008:

    I was going to review The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy but now I can't so I'm out.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 14, 2008:

    Me? I don't play beat 'em ups. Or at least I don't think I do. Name something I might have played.
    board icon
    drella posted September 14, 2008:

    You look like a STREETS OF RAGE wimp if I ever saw one. I don't believe you never played it. And if not, you'd probably like it.

    Or BAD DUDES. BAD DUDES counts five times over. Most people know of BAD DUDES.

    There's also a slew of Ninja Turtles games, most of which I never played (besides the only non-beat 'em up one, their first release on the NES). Even non-beat 'em up fans rave over those.

    There's the archaic VIGILANTE and KUNG FU. And DOUBLE DRAGON. And RIVER CITY RANSOM.

    There's also probably some free PC ones you could be ambitious and teach me about. Half the ones here don't sound like beat 'em ups, but BROKEN KNUCKLES 1.01 and STREETKICKER sound damn promising. I'd check them out myself if I used Windows.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 14, 2008:

    Thanks, drella. I won't say I wasn't expecting to win this week (WHOMG, ego from me, really?! =O), so second was kind of disappointing. Still, I realize it's still good, and the things you said made it sound really close, so that's good enough to me. Especially coming from someone as renowned and revered as you are. I'm glad you considered it as good as you did.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted September 14, 2008:

    Congratulations to the winners, and kudos to drella for stepping immediately into the RotW rotation and posting a topic like this one with such fine analysis for those who placed. Can Overdrive do as well next week?!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 14, 2008:

    Hm... Will Thnder Fox work? I've got the GEN one, but there's no game info on that one here. It's arcade version is classified as action, though. But I've played a few minutes of it, and it feels like the definition of a brawler (walking in a single straight direction while random enemies attack you from all sides).
    board icon
    drella posted September 14, 2008:

    In one of the arcade screenshots pickhut submitted, a shirtless man is punching a tank. So while Thunder Fox is not -quite- a beat 'em up through and through, I'll allow it on that basis alone.

    board icon
    Suskie posted September 14, 2008:

    I think the closest I've ever come to playing a beat 'em up is Viewtiful Joe and Battletoads, neither of which I'd review for this comp because I'd feel like a cheating ass.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 14, 2008:

    Mmm... Well, I just talked to Felix about that game, and he said it's actually more like Contra... and that he's actually knifing the tank in that screenshot. So I think I'll just do something else... even if you already approved it. It kind of wouldn't feel fair to review something like that. Even if oddities like Viewtiful Joe got in last time.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted September 15, 2008:

    Congrats to mariner for the top spot, and congrats to wolfqueen for getting pretty close. And thanks for the comments on the review, I do have a habit of making those types of mistakes. It sounded normal when I typed it up, and even when I was proofreading the review, but when you grab a sentence out like that, yeah.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 15, 2008:

    "Can Overdrive do as well next week?!"

    So... we check back in a month or so?
    board icon
    Masters posted September 15, 2008:

    Thunder Fox is nothing like Contra. What it's got in common with Contra is that it rocks.

    It's not a shooter like Contra, but it's barely a Final Fight-like beat-em-up either. You just walk to the right (usually) and jumpkick, stab or gun-swing your enemies, who take one shot and come at you in waves a la Kung Fu. But then again, if Kung Fu counts, why not Thunder Fox? God knows, it's manly.

    And I'm pretty sure we have a game listing for it up -- I have two reviews up for it!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted September 15, 2008:

    I will enter and review Deus Ex.

    EDIT: I can't find Gekido Advance. Any MAME suggestions? (I like beat-'em ups that are unique, creative, preferably with some sort of grim city setting, maybe even one set in Victorian London - that would be ideal. I also like long walks on the beach but strictly no pets.)
    board icon
    drella posted September 15, 2008:

    Yeah, games like Thunder Fox, Kung Fu, Splatterhouse (but not SH3. No question that one is a beat 'em up), etc. are all borderline cases, and honestly, I wouldn't classify them as true beat 'em ups. But most borderline cases are allowed just to increase participation. I'd prefer if everyone reviewed MUG SMASHERS, but not everyone is a goon like me.

    Suskie - Arcade Battletoads is a beat 'em up through and through and totally bad ass. I think Sho has screens up. Check it out. Someone whose not big on the whole gritty streets and guys named Dug thing should review this.

    Janus - Hmm. Not many fit that bill. There's the over-covered Final Fight, the just covered Undercover Cops, and maybe 64th Street (though that one is not creative at all. It could be confused for London at points though, which is really rare to find). But my absolute professional recommendation for you is MUTATION NATION.
    board icon
    japanaman posted September 16, 2008:

    Game: Midnight Play Pack
    Platform(s): Nintendo DS
    Publisher: Ubisoft
    Developer: GameLoft
    Genre: Casino/Casual Sports
    Release Date: June 24, 2008

    Game: NFL Quarterback Club '96
    Platform(s): Sega Genesis
    Publisher: Acclaim
    Developer: ???
    Genre: Sports
    Release Date: 1995

    Game: Atari: 80 Classic Games in One!
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: Atari
    Developer: Atari
    Genre: Classic Game Compilation
    Release Date: 2003

    Game: King of Fighters '99
    Platform(s): PS one
    Publisher: Agetec
    Developer: SNK
    Genre: Fighting
    Release Date: 1999

    Game: Xbox Music Mixer
    Platform(s): Xbox
    Publisher: Microsoft
    Developer: Wild Tangent
    Genre: Music
    Release Date: December 1, 2003

    ADDED
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 18, 2008:

    Hey, Jerec, I have a good streak of getting my RotWs done in a timely fashion. A streak of ONE!!!!
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 19, 2008:

    I DLed all the brawler-types listed for the GameBoy on this site. Playing Toxic Crusaders right now. Wouldn't class it as a beat 'em up.....more of a low-rent (very low-rent) side-scrolling action game, but there's so much unintentional hilarity here, I'll be reviewing it anyway, even if not for this particular contest!
    board icon
    dagoss posted September 19, 2008:

    I will enter this with dire reservations about my abilities with this genre, about which I know nothing.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 19, 2008:

    Dagoss, thank you for finally changing that stupid fucking avatar to something cool.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 20, 2008:

    NOTE: It's obvious I'm pushing it as far as interest is going, so the three winner go right into the final. Congrats all six of you: you reached the semis.

    Six matches. Three winners. Students clash with mentors, friends collide in pride-filled bloodbaths and other dont show up and leave themselves at the mercy of a RANPICK. Plus, notice a pleasingly symmetrical view to the last two names in the match ups? Oh, god of fate, how you ply your artistic eye.

    Gentleman and others, cast your votes!








    Suskie vs. Boo






    DE vs. VM






    DoI vs. EmP




    Voting open until I say so. Gogogo.
    board icon
    disco1960 posted September 20, 2008:

    Boo
    DE
    EmP.

    I will have insights later!

    (Maybe.)

    EDIT: Rejudged.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 20, 2008:

    Pardon me, EmP, but that's the wrong review. I said in my HGmail that I wanted to use Trauma Center: Under the Knife. I'd have to be pretty stupid to use that cruddy Tetris DS review in any tourney.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 20, 2008:

    *groan* Uh-oh... Not again...

    *raises e-drama shield* Meep.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 21, 2008:

    everybody vote now before EmP notices.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 21, 2008:

    best Zelda, no IMO implied.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 21, 2008:

    EDIT: Apologies, I'm an idiot.

    Suskie's was the very first pick sent in and I read it, but then lumped him with the rest of the lazy slackers that will turn up last second and thought he'd no-showed. Tetris was a RANPICK, but it has now been changed to the game he picked. Kindly rejudge the round, all one of you.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 21, 2008:

    Thanks. My worries actually weren't centered on the possiblities of losing, but on the knowledge that people would think I'd actualy use that Tetris DS review in a tourney :)
    board icon
    darketernal posted September 21, 2008:

    Suskie vs Boo:

    Ahhh, the good part about giving your own, subjective alas, view on reviews is when you have played both of the said games and understand what the author wanted to say better then if you never even heard of the game. Both of these reviews were pretty good, Boo's Doom review managed to fix on the atmospheric feeling that was the staple in the said game, speaking of twists and turns and the monstrosoties that the crack filled heads of Id software level designers dreamt up, while Suskie spoke of the flaws in a game that tries to be a sim. That's honestly my greatest problem with Suskie's review. He looks inside of the box, dismissing the story part of the game and deeming it unimportant.

    I do not agree with the said asessment, because obviously it is a powerful part of the game and should be added into the actual mark as a factor that could decide whether it is a good game or not. You focused only on the flaws from my experience and not on the pros of the game, citing an unbearable nurse that keeps correcting you or that the game is too simple. It depends on the age demographic that the game was intended for, plus the dialogues within the operation often again contribute to the "trivial, unimportant" story. Well, my rant here is over and the conclusion on your part is that your view on the flaws was excellent, but you didn't, in my opinion focus on finding the good parts of the game. Also, fun fact, all the patients in the game are more or less named after Scrubs characters and their respective actors.

    Winner: Boo.

    DoI vs EmP:

    I honestly want EmP to fail. He's been gaining speed up the reviewer's chart for far too long and it is time for the old to be replaced by the young. I liked DoI's review because it was very sturdy and well written and in more ways then one reminded me of my own style of writing. So, the natural thing would be to stroke my own, already over inflated ego and give the nod to him, because he mentioned everything that needed to be mentioned in an rpg, right? The characters, the story, the system and the addictability or lack of it. It's a really good review. And yet EmP+s review gets the nod for the simple factor that it oozes personality and a personal touch. He still needs to be taught that Final Fantasy tactics is a good game, but that aside, this review spoke of a cheerful, if not simple rpg in those same terms. There are no heavy words in it, no speech if the DS has any problems performing certain actions, if there is any slowdown or if the story speaks of an ancient evil that deals with the destruction of the world. No, in this review EmP is very much a giggly schoolgirl playing with his pigtails in a verbal manner. For any other game, this would not be a compliment, but here it transfers well.

    Winner:EmP
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 21, 2008:

    I don't want to sound like an ass here DE, but it seems to me that your main problem with my review was the fact that you didn't agree with it.
    board icon
    darketernal posted September 21, 2008:

    No problem, I always answer to criticism. No, my problem with it, was that you only named the flaws in the game while completely disregarding anything and everything that is a major part of the game. Like I said, I agreed with all those bad parts, but it seems to me like you didn't even try to find anything good with it. Just to look at the game from every angle. If I were to judge a review by personal bias, then Boo would get a verbal rape attack because Doom II is one of the most over rated games in the history of Fps, that and I was a Duke 3d guy anyway.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 21, 2008:

    Doom II is one of the most over rated games in the history of Fps

    woah, woah, woah

    woah

    hold up there, champ.
    board icon
    mardraum posted September 21, 2008:

    BAN HIS ASS
    board icon
    darketernal posted September 21, 2008:

    What can I say, John Romero is a filthy bitch. I hate her.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 21, 2008:

    Romero on his own brings out games like Daikatana. I find it hard to believe he was anything more than a coffee boy for iD, and nothing will ever change my view.

    NOTHING!
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 21, 2008:

    Levels by Romero:

    Doom/Ultimate Doom

    * E1M1: Hangar
    * E1M2: Nuclear Plant
    * E1M3: Toxin Refinery
    * E1M5: Phobos Lab
    * E1M6: Central Processing
    * E1M7: Computer Station
    * E1M9: Military Base
    * E4M2: Perfect Hatred
    * E4M6: Against Thee Wickedly

    Doom II

    * MAP11: Circle of Death
    * MAP15: Industrial Zone
    * MAP17: Tenements
    * MAP20: Gotcha!
    * MAP26: The Abandoned Mines
    * MAP29: The Living End

    try again. he probably just clicked really well with the dudes at iD and isn't very good on his own, but except for Tenements every one of those maps is a fucking powerhouse. Perfect Hatred and The Living End especially.

    edit: and The Industrial Zone! and Against Thee Wickedly! and The Abandoned Mines! and Circle of Death! and Hangar! fucking Hangar, man! E1M1!
    board icon
    EmP posted September 21, 2008:

    Hence the 'on his own', little buddy.

    Now stop bitching and start putting votes down. Slackers.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 21, 2008:

    "I find it hard to believe he was anything more than a coffee boy for iD"

    was what I was getting at.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 21, 2008:

    DE, if I spend thirty bucks on a game, I'm going to make an honest attempt to get some entertainment out of it. I obviously didn't enjoy the narrative very much if I didn't let it tilt the final score, or my overall opinion on the game. If this were an RPG or something even like Beyond Good & Evil where the story has a clear influence on why I enjoy the game, then it would be more appropriate. But this is a surgery game, so I'd expect the surgery aspect to be excellent while the ER drama is kept to a minimum. That perhaps we're looking for different things in our medical games is fine, but "you didn't mention the good stuff" still seems like a less blatant way of saying you didn't vote for me because you disagree.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 22, 2008:

    Suskie vs. Boo

    Ive not played Trauma Centre. Suskie pulls it apart quite cleverly with a review that has a much stronger start than finish. The first few paragraphs were clever, but, from there, it feels more like a checklist than some of his stronger works. The BZZZT line was used twice in too close proximity, robbing the last line of the review of the impact it could have had, which is a shame, and, while the writing remains strong throughout, the spark the well thought out intro introduces is lessened. Boo, though, writes probably the cleverest review hell ever write without me holding his hand (this jab will never get old. If it does, Ill continue to use it, anyway). I commented back when Suskie threw our CoD4 that it was one of the best FPS reviews on the site. Boos Doom II is, then, the very best. Its the familiarity he has with Doom that allows him to make insights only the super-nerdy can ever grasp but manages to voice it in such a way that those of us who dont play at least two hours of D2 a day still get it. Mostly, this is achieved through some great examples and delivered in a tone that never takes itself seriously (a lecture would have turned the entire thing into a disaster). You almost lost because you seem to say something nice about Doom 3 at the end, there, but its the best review you have. Shame youve not topped it in 3+ years of trying.

    And theres the backhand.

    WINNER: BOO

    DE vs. VM.

    VM didnt show for this round, and the RANPICK was not kind. Exile was her second review and while its not bad, its certainly not as good as DEs. And, frankly, Im happy to leave it at that. VMs not going to read this and I judged DEs Shadowrun back in BWHY, as well as proofed it for him, so hes had enough feedback. He just gets a win, instead.

    WINNER: DE
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 22, 2008:

    ...I judged DEs Shadowrun back in BWHY, as well as proofed it for him...

    Proofed it after the judging, I hope. You seemed to have qualms about doing that very thing during the Challange last year, so I did it instead, remember? >_>

    I'll get to voting in this if I ever get time again...
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 22, 2008:

    Oh shit, Boo played his Doom II? If I'd noticed I probably wouldn't have bothered to get the correct review posted in the first place.

    DE vs. VM

    It's a good thing I don't disagree with your review, DE, or I might just have voted against you out of spite! If I were to vote against you, it would be because of the hilariously pointless opening sentence (so we're talking about Shadowrun, then? yeah, no shit), the occasional over-wordiness, and the familiar and straightforward structure with the obligatory "but not all is good" paragraph towards the end. It's still a very solid review that kept me engaged from beginning to end, which I can't say about VM's. She starts off rather weak (from my experience, a series history briefing is never a compelling way to begin a review) and rambles on for far too long. I say "ramble" because a truly excellent review could get away with a length like this; it's the matter-of-fact tone that makes it drag, and I feel you dwell on details that could have been cut while the picture would still have been made clear. It's not a bad review by any means, but DE's is far more energetic, and shorter anyway. Winner: DE

    DoI vs. EmP

    I don't feel like elaborating too much because I don't have anything insightful to say. DoI's is good; EmP's is great and scores a laugh (if an easy one) first and foremost. DoI's Brave Story exhibits the kind of quality I've come to expect from the guy, and would have beaten a number of opponents, but to bring down EmP's Luminous Arc simply requires the kind of writing experience few of us have. Winner: EmP
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 22, 2008:

    well shit, if I knew that I would've said Doom II and used N3.

    edit: it would be an empty promise to say I'll add feedback later, but I might. regardless, I vote for EmP and that crazy dick-holder who hates Doom II aka DE
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 22, 2008:

    I think we should just close the voting right now and spare DoI, VM and myself any further rejection.
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 22, 2008:

    NO!!!!

    I haven't voted yet. Ergo, this WILL NOT be closed.

    Note: I will vote either tomorrow or Wednesday. Ergo, you three rapscallions have up to two more days of pummeling before I deliver my verdicts, which shall either be the knockout blow or one brief taste of sweet redemption!
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 22, 2008:

    Ergo, you like saying "ergo."
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 22, 2008:

    leggo my ergo
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted September 23, 2008:

    I can take three more days of buldgeoning if my comrades can.

    Also I should probably vote.
    board icon
    dagoss posted September 23, 2008:

    I can take three more days of buldgeoning if my comrades can.

    That's what she said.

    ... sorry.

    Oh yeah, here's like some voting and stuff:

    Suskie vs Boo
    Winner: Booberries 'n Cream

    I think the primary analogy you draw between Trauma Center and Operation is quite unfair -- I mean, that's like trying to draw a comparison between Tetris and Legos, then claiming that Tetris lacked anything new. Also, can't you skip dialogue? I haven't played Under the Knife, but I walked away from this review with the impression that it was unfair. I had some trouble with Boo's review too, mostly because I just don't "get" Doom. He's so overly enthusiastic for pixeled action that all I can really do is say "... I'll take your word for it." His review does have some charm to the way it is written though, and I'd rather pick a review that gives unfair praise rather than one that gives unfair criticism.

    DE vs VM
    Winner: DE

    I want to vote for VM simply because of the "crappy 3D bandwagon" line, but alas I cannot. The review just kept rambling on and on in a tone that was fairly unenergetic. DE's review has more of a bounce to its step.

    DoI vs EmP
    Winner: EmP

    DoI's review could have beaten everyone else in this round EXCEPT EmP, so this is most unfortunate. Both of these games seems to have a fair amount of self-reflexive humour, and it's nice to see both taking that with equal seriousness (i.e. no seriousness). Both reviews actually made me want to play their respective games, so points there too. I guess the deciding factor is the quality of writing, and I felt that EmP's had more wit (the section of quotes made me laugh my ass off -- on the inside, obviously), and an overall coherence and flow that would have been tough to beat.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 23, 2008:

    Dagoss, I think you completely missed the point of that comparison to Operation. If I came off as too harsh, well, that's the point. I'm saying that the game is so simplistic in practice that it's little more than an interactive version of that board game. That's like comparing Tetris to Legos? What the fuck?

    I don't really care that much since I don't have anything in my backlog that could beat Boo's Doom II (certainly not this one), but complaining that my review is unfair, and then backing that up with an unfair criticism of your own, demands a response.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted September 23, 2008:

    Boo vs. Suskie

    Boo's review is enthusiastic. Suskie's doesn't tell about the story, and, darn it, that's important. I had more written here, but my computer blew up. True story.

    Winner: TIE
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 23, 2008:

    See? I get two criticisms I consider unjust, and now everyone thinks I'm frantic over losing. I've accepted my defeat at this point anyway, but feel free to rub it in as much as you want, Felix.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted September 23, 2008:

    There is nothing to rub in.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 23, 2008:

    smb3 seems gay, it's pixellated. I'm just going to have to take everybody's word on it.
    board icon
    dagoss posted September 23, 2008:

    If two people said that your review is a unfair, perhaps your review is unfair. If you don't think that's the case, if you think that I didn't read close enough, etc, that's fine -- but I don't think it is justified for you act like I did something wrong.
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 23, 2008:

    I have to say, this was one hella week to be judging as it was really tough to only pick three reviews here, as everyone who submitted kicked a few different kinds of ass. So, you know who you are.....give yourselves a hearty bit of congratulations!

    And now sit through my umpteenth lame attempt to cleverly tell you the rules that likely will include at least one uncreative attempt to mock EmP!

    Only one review per user can make the top three. Since two people had multiple reviews this week, this rule MAY have come into play! If you wrote a staff review (even if you're not pure staff) those reviews are not counted. Jason made that rule to placate EmP, who was getting disgruntled at never getting recognition.....so he told him that staffers were ineligible and now the rest of us suffer to maintain that veil of deception....

    Alright, rules are explained. Uncreative attempt to mock EmP in place (and from re-reading it, I really have to work on new, better material....). Now, it's time for YOU!




    Review of the Week: Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 FES (PS2) by dagoss

    If I wanted to be overdramatic, I'd say your review clinched my decision to take a road trip to the nearest gaming store today to buy this game and Rogue Galaxy, but I'd have done that anyway. Still, your review did a great job of reaffirming anything good I'd heard about this game in an engaging manner. One thing I thought was a bit amusing was late in your review when you finally get back to the dungeon a bit (with the "remember the dungeon" line), I had to scroll back through to make sure you hadn't been really talking about it profusely. Your review just flowed that well and did such a good job explaining how the many elements of this melded together so well that the dungeon just seems like another piece of the pie, instead of this huge thing everything else revolves around.

    First Runner Up: Doom 3 (PC) by bloomer

    I think the thing I liked the most about this review was how, as a Doom/Doom 2 fan, this one seems to speak directly to me. You mention these things which I take for granted in those games and many fan-made levels and then cut my feet out from under me by telling me how those elements aren't present or are neutered in Doom 3. Very effective review that reaffirmed my desire to not play this game ever.

    Second Runner Up: Hacker (C64) by sashanan

    It was a WAR for the third spot between this review and blah or blah's very effective review of Spore. In the end, you might have snared the spot by giving me a bit of nostalgia, Sash. Not of this game I never played it. But of how important packaging was back in the day. I remember all the goodies packaged with those Infocom games or how Thomas Disch's Amnesia came with a map of Manhatten so you could find your way around those city streets in an attempt to find your identity. And you do a great job of explaining how this game's packaging played into the sense of mystery. You have no idea what's going on right from the beginning and you won't until you've gotten through the game. Utterly brilliant and you do a great job of bringing out that aspect of the game.




    Good week. Now I have games to play and rum to drink. Until the next time, folks!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 23, 2008:

    Excellent. I fully endorse dagoss's victory; truly an amazing review.

    Congratulations to the runner-ups, too. Good week all around.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 23, 2008:

    Could be. It's not that you two didn't like it that bugs me -- EmP voted against me as well an I had no problem with his critique -- but I don't think I've ever so strongly disagreed with the reasons. But I think I've said enough. Sorry if I've given the impresson of lashing out, as that was not my intention.
    board icon
    sashanan posted September 23, 2008:

    Great picks, I enjoyed dagoss' and bloomer's reviews a lot. And thanks for the heads up, of course. Sounds like my review hit precisely the note I had in mind for it, and I once again got away with not mentioning some of the mainstays (graphics, audio) whatsoever.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted September 24, 2008:

    Here's the RotW schedule outlined through the end of May, 2009. If someone drops out of rotation, someone else will hopefully step in and we can simply replace the name and keep the chart.

    09/21/08 - Overdrive
    09/28/08 - Jason

    10/05/08 - EmP
    10/12/08 - Masters
    10/19/08 - Drella
    10/26/08 - Overdrive

    11/02/08 - Jason
    11/09/08 - EmP
    11/16/08 - Masters
    11/23/08 - Drella
    11/30/08 - Overdrive

    12/07/08 - Felix
    12/14/08 - EmP
    12/21/08 - Masters
    12/28/08 - Drella

    01/04/09 - Overdrive
    01/11/09 - Felix
    01/18/09 - EmP
    01/25/09 - Masters

    02/01/09 - Drella
    02/08/09 - Overdrive
    02/15/09 - Felix
    02/22/09 - EmP

    03/01/09 - Masters
    03/08/09 - Drella
    03/15/09 - Overdrive
    03/22/09 - Felix
    03/29/09 - EmP

    04/05/09 - Masters
    04/12/09 - Drella
    04/19/09 - Overdrive
    04/26/09 - Felix

    05/03/09 - EmP
    05/10/09 - Masters
    05/17/09 - Drella
    05/24/09 - Overdrive

    If any swaps are made, please arrange them within this thread so that other staff members know what's happening. Thanks!
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 24, 2008:

    time to get pumped:

    PickHut: if you topple me again, I'll murder you
    PickHut: ah
    PickHut: yes
    PickHut: this will be the highlight of video gaming journalism
    PickHut: NEW AGE OF WRITERS, WATCH OUT
    board icon
    dagoss posted September 24, 2008:

    I hope that I didn't compel you to buy Rogue Galaxy, because if I did, then I owe you an apology.
    board icon
    bloomer posted September 24, 2008:

    Yeah, definitely an excellent review by Dagoss. It's of an RPG strand that's pretty foreign to me, but the review is able to create the context so I can still understand that world, which is no mean feat.

    Re: the old boxes... I do miss them. The main thing was, the box was absolutely all you had to go on to find out about the game. In the early 80s you could read about 3 game reviews once a month in a magazine like Creative Computing. Everything else was down to the box, when you dragged your dad to the shop at birthday time to pick a new game (which was my schtick every birthday). The back of the box was super important. I mean the front grabs your eye, but without screenshots and actually useful information on the back, you potentially didn't trust what was on the floppy inside.

    Now we're just totally saturated in info. We know what game is coming half a year out and have seen and heard an insane amount of stuff about it before we even get near it. And as such the box decoration has become depressingly redundant.
    board icon
    darketernal posted September 24, 2008:

    Alright, here you go.

    Burning Fight

    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/content.php?review_id=7403&platform=Neo%95Geo&abr=NEO&gametitle=Burning+Fight
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 24, 2008:

    SUSKIE vs. BLU

    I didn't have the problems that others had with Suskie's review. In fact, I quite enjoyed it. Doing RotW, I've noticed that a lot of people have been big into these and the Phoenix Wright games in recent months and have read a ton of reviews of them. At least the the TC games, I'd never seen a negative review until now. And, to me, this was a very convincing one. The concept of operating on "people" in a game is a concept that strikes me as something I'd like to sample on a rainy day. But if I knew I'd be deluged by text, have even simple processes dominated by a chattering nurse AND wind up doing the same sorts of tasks over and over again, I'd be opting out of this experience. You did a good job of showing the dark side of this title and illustrating how annoying parts of it could be.

    Unfortunately, you're not just going against the pinnacle of Blu's reviewing career, but also of his life and the lives of his immediate family members. I remember when I first saw this review. In the team tournament of whatever year this was, interest was barely higher than it was this year. We had six teams (as compared to the usual eight) and only two judges (lots of ties). Well, after not making the playoffs, I volunteered to judge the postseason so we'd have decisive results and Blu responded with this review.....which wound up beating the illustrious Fix. With the amount of time me and Blu have talked shop about Doom games over the years, we know far more about these games than is healthy. Whenever I've read this review, I spend the whole time basically nodding my head at the examples he uses and wanting to add my own (like the simple little area near the beginning of L10 where you have a ton of pitiful regular soldiers that are placed JUST SO in order to make you constantly paranoid that one of them is right behind you OR the godly awesomeness of Downtown's cityscape). Even after a few years, I'd have to say this still is one of my personal favorite reviews on this site for many reasons.

    WINNER: BLU


    DE vs. VM

    It took DE's review a bit o' time to grow on me, but it did its job of making this game seem pretty frickin' interesting. Might have to give it a look assuming I ever dig myself out of the bottomless pit of games yet unplayed or unfinished I'm working on. You made things sound pretty interesting with how every class has its own uses and you have to hire people to do the jobs you personally can't do because of the limitations of your class. On the other hand, I don't know that you needed the paragraph explaining each class, as you could have mentioned that in talking about the need to hire mercenaries. That part just kinda seemed like filler to me.

    However, you do squeak out a win here. It's not that VM's RAN-PICK is a bad one -- in fact, it makes me want to scour the web in search of this game.....but it just goes on and on and on. This review would be potentially great with some condensing (or a decent amount of it), but as it is, I found myself losing interest long before the end.

    WINNER: DE


    DoI vs. EmP

    It's not that DoI's review is a bad one. I know I've read it before and possibly had positive comments for it, but in reading it this time, it just seemed like a "RPG template" review. A little bit about the background, mentioning a particularly personable character, talk about gameplay/battling, mention the game's length while adding there's plenty of extra things to do. I love RPGs, but this review doesn't really say or do anything that would make me want to play this one any more or less than any number of other decent-to-good RPGs out there. It's in the "good review for a good game" category, but isn't really any more than that. Which is perfect for a submission, but not so great for a contest.

    On the other hand, EmP's descriptions of the characters and how his game is happy to keep them right in genre archetypes cracked me up. You have to love the classic evil villain who ALWAYS kills or has killed someone close to a main character and revels in being evil simply for the sake of being evil.....and how characters seem to constantly be surprised or shocked that he is doing evil things. And EmP does a fine over-the-top (well, unless the knight really does brag about kicking puppies.....which would be the greatest moment in SRPG history) portrayal of that to get his review off to a funny, personable start. Which he maintains through the course of the whole thing. Your goal seemed to be to label this as a game content to be generic, but one that has so much fun with it that it's a joy to play. And you succeeded in doing so.

    WINNER: EmP
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 24, 2008:

    This'll be quick because I don't have time.

    Suskie vs. Boo:

    I liked Suskie's review. It was entertaining and informative. It's clear that whatever story element is in that game doesn't matter to him, so I don't see it as an issue needing mentioning. The review was effective; I saw why he hated the game, and I probably won't play it myself now. I was also amused in places, too, which also helps.

    Unfortunately for him, though, Boo's is just amazing. It takes off right from the get-go and throws you straight into the action without letting go. It's a very entertaining read that clearly expresses his love for the game.

    Winner: Boo

    DE vs VM:

    I read VM's over summer. It was good, but not that great. DE's is good, too, but I still have trouble with his style sometimes. Either way, his review's stlil good. It's informative and interesting, and Shadowrun is definitely a game I'd been meaning to check out. Ultimately, though, his was better.

    Winner: DE

    EmP vs. DoI:

    EDIT: All is forgiven

    I read EmP's review when he first wrote it, and absolutely loved it. I think it's one of my favorites of his. It's hilarious (those character quote things still made me laugh my ass off, even though I'd read them before) and witty and well-described. It definitely seems like a game worth cheking out. Great review.

    DoI's review was actually a lot better than I expected (no offense). I'd only read a few of his reviews, and wasn't too impressed with them, but this one was quite entertaining. And there were amusing bits, too, that were quite enjoyable. I do agree that this one could've beaten almost anyone else's review except maybe Suskie's and Boo's, but bad luck got him here, ufortunately.

    Winner: EmP

    Sorry this is still really half-assed guys. But I really am too busy for this....
    board icon
    drella posted September 24, 2008:

    DING DING DING

    Let's fight.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 24, 2008:

    board icon
    dementedhut posted September 25, 2008:

    Game: Robo Army
    Platform: Arcade
    Publisher: SNK
    Genre: Fighting Action (Brawler)
    Added

    Thanks.
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 26, 2008:

    Double Dragon II

    No shirtless men punching (or stabbing) tanks here, but you do get to fight a fat guy who runs into you and the world's lamest ninja in this one!
    board icon
    darketernal posted September 26, 2008:

    Abobo IS NOT fat.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 26, 2008:

    Hm.... Just out of curiosity, when you said "finish by September 27th", does that mean we get tomorrow, too? >_>

    There's a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny possibility that I might be able to make this after all... having tomorrow will likely increase that.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 26, 2008:

    EmP sits up 'till 2:30am. He gets extra points for dedication.

    Nightmare Circus
    board icon
    drella posted September 27, 2008:

    You guys can have Saturday. I'm not judging until Sunday.

    Sorry if that was unclear, but isn't it better having your reviews in early for a change!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted September 27, 2008:

    Much to my own surprise, I have actually written and submitted a review for this.
    board icon
    drella posted September 27, 2008:

    I think I have all submissions listed so far...

    Judging will be conducted Sunday and winners announced Monday morning!
    board icon
    japanaman posted September 27, 2008:

    Game: Counter Force
    Platform(s): Wii
    Publisher: Conspiracy Entertainment
    Developer: Hyper-Devbox Japan
    Genre: Shoot 'Em Up
    Release Date: October 5th, 2007

    Added.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 27, 2008:

    wrote a quickie Final Fight praise, not sure if I want to bother turning it in. I might anyway since I have proven in the past to be a terrible judge of my own writing.

    Final Fight
    board icon
    espiga posted September 27, 2008:

    Just submitted mine. It's still the 27th over there, I think >_>

    Castle Crashers

    I'd link it but I'm on my phone... Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go bandage my fingers after writing that entire review on a tiny keyboard.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted September 27, 2008:

    Whoops, almost forgot to post the review I'm gonna use here.

    Battle Circuit
    board icon
    honestgamer posted September 28, 2008:

    This was always going to be a tough week to produce a Review of the Week topic. Even before you all flooded the queues with entries for the current competition, there were some great reviews posted and I was looking forward to having a difficult time choosing the best. Then a bunch more dropped just a few hours ago, and that meant more work still. I'm not complaining, just saying...

    Anyway, I've finally picked my favorite three for the week. As usual, staff and freelance reviews are excluded and I named only one review from any given contributor. Here goes!

    ---

    Runner Up #2: Mount & Blade by magicjuggler

    The only problem I had with this review was the occasional sort of grammatical error that creeps into even the best of reviews. This certainly was a great review, aside from that. I didn't know much about the game going in, but this review really made me think that should change. The combat sounds truly exciting as presented in this text. The open-ended nature of things sounds like it could be great. This was through and through an effective praise review and now I wish that I could play me a little bit of Mount & Blade. Good going!

    Runner Up #1: Mutation Nation by JANUS2

    When janus2 is writing at his best, he can really capture me as a member of his audience. The descriptions of the fighter at the start of this review--though feeling generic--were effective because he followed that up so well with a single-sentence paragraph that said exactly what I was thinking, only in a more clever way. The rest of the review kept that witty flow going, for the most part, and described eloquently a game that sounded quite interesting. The angle that the review ultimately took--sometimes good memories should be left in the past--is hardly a new thing around these parts, but the review wasn't weakened terribly by its ultimate reliance on the old cliche. Additionally, things for the most part seemed to flow effortlessly and some of the sentences were just darn cool. A very good read!


    Review of the Week: Bad Dudes by wolfqueen001

    In some ways, wolfqueen perhaps had an unfair advantage here: she's a she. That normally wouldn't matter when reviewing a game, but she chose to review Bad Dudes and made it matter. The result was a really funny introduction that gets her point across splendidly. Her writing there definitely made me smile, and that lighthearted tone was carried throughout the review. If she'd just had a clever intro and left it at that, it wouldn't have been enough, but this whole review oozed personality while also describing a lot of important gameplay elements. This is her strongest review to date, I felt, and that was good enough to take the top spot on this very competitive week. Score!

    ---

    Thanks go out--as always--to those who pitched in and made this a difficult week. I hope that many of you will show up with reviews next week, when EmP will be posting his topic. Try to make his choices even harder, will you?
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 28, 2008:

    gg wq

    rad bro
    board icon
    dementedhut posted September 28, 2008:



    Erm, I mean, congratulations and victoly to the wolfqueen, and the runner-ups, Janus and magicjuggler!
    board icon
    jerec posted September 28, 2008:

    JANUS2??
    board icon
    EmP posted September 28, 2008:

    EmP's note: No reviews after the first three submited to site this week will be hosted. I can and will abuse my possition for ease of life.

    Congrats to the mentioned three for coming up trumps on a very crowded week.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 28, 2008:

    Wow. Thanks, guys! As usual, I'm surprised it did so well, but I'm glad you liked it.

    I'm glad the humor worked. I really wasn't sure whether it would come off funny or cheesy.

    Anyway, congrats to the other winners and participants.

    And LOL EmP had better be joking. >=O Haha.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 28, 2008:

    I need to follow up Pickhut's post and find a picture of GLaDOS's anger module to post here. Nevertheless, congrats to the winners.

    Edit: Got it.



    RRRAARRRRRRRR
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted September 28, 2008:

    JEREC?!
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 28, 2008:

    DAD?
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 28, 2008:



    KHAN!!!
    board icon
    dagoss posted September 29, 2008:

    This one of (if not) the best reviews I've read from WQ, though I was a little confused about the conflation of manliness and pure evil (punching kittens isn't manly! And what kind of man steals from orphans!?). Perhaps this reveals more about WQ than was intended...!
    board icon
    drella posted September 29, 2008:

    POISON!

    Toxic Crusaders by Overdrive

    Think about what you're saying: if in your introduction you say you want to come across as an authority on a game, and three paragraphs later you say you "can't be bothered to remember the characters' names," you come across as a smug asshole reviewer. No lie. And this is ignoring the fact all those paragraphs in between seem largely extemporaneous (especially compared to the size of the rest of the review). Poor start. After that, it's just your surface level impression of the first two levels with a lot of overplayed gimmicks (you'll have the "pleasure" of doing platforming segments). Sorry, but I'm not buying a reviewer mocking the creativity of a game when he uses the word "stuff" to describe things four times. This is not how you want to come across in a review.

    Double Dragon II by Overdrive

    While certainly better than Toxic Crusaders, I can't say I enjoyed this one either. The introduction is meandering thoughts about the NES version which even you admit doesn't carry a great deal of weight (even though you actually say the opposite because of sloppiness). There's horrible progression from there. "First let's look at the plot" is a lead-in you should be above by now. The story sounds ridiculous, but not necessarily a sign of shoddiness, and I think that argument's lacking. Then there's the patented "moves" paragraph where... you're complaining about the tiny handful of moves of a GameBoy beat 'em up. Which still manages to be not so feeble because of the uppercut and knee drop. Though I see how this all gets fairly repetitive, I don't see how you could act surprised or incredulous or even disappointed. "And it's not just the fighting that's repetitive, it's also the graphics." Are you really using these kind of transitions?

    DUG IT!

    Burning Fight by darketernal

    Hohum. This isn't a great review; it too obviously comes across as an assignment and that the writer isn't particularly avid of the genre. Which is fine, I suppose, but you've still got to build a convincing case. Burning Fight is a bad beat 'em up. Even I know this. But I'm not convinced at all because too many of the major complaints here are often true of the best in the genre as well. It's easy to die in Final Fight and Undercover Cops. There are limited moves in Streets of Rage and Cadillacs & Dinosaurs. There's shaky collision detection in Altered Beast. These complaints are simply not enough to deter people that know the genre; you've also got to illustrate why they're worse or intolerable here. Another point: proofread your work. It's than, not then. Don't change tense mid-sentence (Bikers trying while dockworkers will try). Too many sentences get bogged down by extra commas or ideas that feel tacked on at the end of a train of thought. This shoddiness is untypical of your work, so it's really disappointing.

    Battle Circuit by pickhut

    A quick and dirty review of Battle Circuit. The recaps of a lot of the particular scenes could have been a lot more captivating; be descriptive and creative and over-the-top. Plain summaries of crazy happenings don't hit with the same impact as intense summaries of crazy happenings. And try and get some opinion or enthusiasm in there as well; the best parts here are where that starts to creep through. These reviews are also a bit better with some analysis of why this goofy stuff works (Knuckle Bash is crazier than C&D, but no one would put them on the same level). Really poor conclusion at the end. Just laziness there. This has the makings of a good review, but currently reads like a bunch of notes rattled off in a row.

    BAD DUDES by wolfqueen

    This would be a solid review except for the fact Bad Dudes sucks. Kidding aside, I like the descriptions here a lot. They're entertaining and enthusiastic and well-written. But this assortment of random descriptions isn't tied together very well since whatever the point was of a lot of these paragraphs, it goes unsaid. I get what the point is of a lot of them, but I think the review needs to be a little more analytical, which is a strange thing to say about a beat 'em up review but I feel it would stress some of the points (weapons are needed, jumping is tough) better. Also, "impregnating women by looking at them" and "punching kittens" are tired! See EmP writing about tile-grouting man. Creativeness goes a long way. And also, really, Bad Dudes does suck.

    BRED AND BUTTER!

    Robo Army by pickhut

    Maybe I like this review because I already trashed a robot-based brawler and I see eye to eye with you trashing another one, but regardless, I like this review. More than Battle Circuit. It's a bit jumpy in some paragraphs and seems to grab its ideas out of the air; the pink buggy in the first, the "dash back" in the penultimate. Those kind of things give the impression this was written quick and without much care. But still, I think the core points of this review are very believable, and that's the main place I've been finding fault with a lot of reviews thus far. Too generic complaints like a lack of variety or limited moves don't work without specific examples... mentioning the disappointment of not being the pink buggy for longer, or the specific attack soldier are invulnerable too, the limited health meter, the boss rush... these are the convincing details a lot of the other reviews were lacking. All that's missing is a more polished presentation here.

    Crystal Crashers by espiga

    Simple and elegant come to mind. Which should be fitting, because this sounds like a different breed of beat 'em up even though its roots are still firmly in the genre. There's certainly enough covered here to pique my interest in Castle Crashers. Its leveling system sounds like that of The King of Dragons, except not completely superfluous, which would be really cool. But the truth is, I don't think this review covers enough material for me to want to purchase it. Just in general, I'd like to know more about the combat besides the boss battles, and maybe a few more examples of the game's sense of humor... they can't all be that bad. This is a great read, but maybe a little incomplete. But when the best advice is simply "add more" you're certainly on the right track here.

    Mutation Nation by Janus

    Well I'm glad at least the first two levels of my recommendation won you over! This is a quality review that takes a subtle look at the high points and the low points of a beat 'em up, and probably one that covers a major fault of a lot of these games: too many aren't designed with beyond the third level in mind. Still though, I don't think the review illustrates just how tedious this game gets, especially for knocking it down so much after the terrific beginning. I get the feeling you found it pretty bad later on. But I'm not -exactly- sure why besides the fact the enemies don't change a ton (which is a fair point, but keep in mind, even Final Fight blew it's load early). Encountering just a couple new enemies seems like more the norm than the extreme to me. Then again, the intro makes it clear you're a Streets of Rage guy....

    AN ANDORE AND A HALF

    Nightmare Circus by EmP

    Great review. This is what I wanted this competition to be. A short, goofy stupid game. Creative and imaginative descriptions (the sort of guy who takes you upstairs and shows you his bathroom tile... nice). A fun approach. A solid closing summary that ties together why it doesn't work at all. This is how you tackle a beat 'em up. Moreover, the game is called NIGHTMARE CIRCUS. About a guy who goes to beat up CIRCUS ZOMBIES and FLYING BIRTHDAY CAKES. Do your homework people! Awesome game choice.

    TOO DAMND GOOD

    Final Fight by bluberry

    The complete opposite of what I expected from another Final Fight review. It's calm. It's witty. It's self-referencing (smash up your car with pipes... HA!). Yet it comes across with the same hard-hitting attitude that characterizes Final Fight. It shows how strategy makes the game cooler (kicking Rolento out of the sky). And most importantly, I love the general, prevalent theme. This is not repetitive. Shmups have the same enemies over and over. Run and gunners have the same enemies over and over. But beat 'em ups, far too often, taken the brunt of the complaints here when too many others were just as guilty. Somehow, even I never argued that before, and I think it works well here. This review is as bold as Final Fight. It's one of those reviews that you can only write if you've -really- spent too much time with a game. Maybe you didn't think this one was coming together well, but it did.
    board icon
    darketernal posted September 29, 2008:

    Thanks for the comments though I don't agree. I am actually quite a fan of the genre since I played all of those games. You mention said problems crossed all over the various beat'em ups and I agree. The thing is, Burning Fight has all of them packed in the same game.

    As for proofreading, that will go on Emp's head. I need to whip him back into shape.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 29, 2008:

    Hahaha. Nah; this review is not a reflection of my true nature. In fact, I almost considered scrapping it because it didn't really sound like me.

    As for the punching kittens/stealing from orphans thing, I just thought it would be funny. But I suppose you're right; it's not technically "manly", just mean. =P

    Thanks for the kind words, though.

    EDIT: Oh, yeah. The "punching kittens / stealing from orphans" thing is also supposed to represent how bad they are. >_>
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 29, 2008:

    NOTE TO SELF:

    When essentially in a pure RPG frame of mind, churning out two brawler-type reviews in quick succession for a contest almost as an afterthought just to participate in said contest might not have been the best of moves.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 29, 2008:

    Huh. I guess for once in his life, EmP was wrong.

    Well, thanks for the comments anyway. I honestly wasn't expecting this to do well. That's why the RotW surprised me so much.

    I kind of get what you're saying with it not flowing together or whatever, and I agree that I would have done better to try and transition the stuff better instead of being all over the place, but I really did write that to be kind of random and silly.

    I also Tried taking EmP's advice to just write as you go with it, which produces pieces like this I guess. Only with me, half of it follows that advice and the other follows my usual style, so that probably didn't help any.

    I guess the review's just one of those things that works for some people but not others. Most (if not all) of the people I talked to seemed to like it, anyway, and Jason liked it enough to award me that victory, so I guess it's worth something.

    I'll be honest, though; I haven't exactly read (or played) that many beat-em-up reviews, so as far as my "lack of creativity" goes, I didn't really realize those things were overused.

    Guess I'll try harder next time.... Or something.

    Thanks again.

    Congrats to EmP and boo for being favorites again. EmP's resally did read better after editing twice (you're welcome), and boo's was pretty much good from the start.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 29, 2008:

    I think it's safe to assume that DoI, VM and I have lost.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 29, 2008:

    DoI is a very close friend of mine and, therefore, can never be beaten enough when he's against me.

    Worry not: the final is being drafted as we speak.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 29, 2008:

    Welcome to the final. Its your atypical three way dance where you, the great voting public, will need to tell us, the, er, rest of the public, the order of your preferred reviews from third to first. So, for example

    EmP > Boo > DE

    Ill figure out a winner from this via complex mathematical calculations and then let the winner commence gloating.

    Let me you introduce you to our finalists:





    Who Is He?: DarkEternal started life in an underground fiction ring that called the dank sewers of Croatia home. From the start, he was marked for success by gang leaders who were impressed by his ability to wordsmith in three different languages, but, with recognition, came danger. Finding himself placed on more perilous raids on bookshops and writing supply stores, he would work tirelessly at various college applications , backing them up with forged credentials until, finally, he smuggled himself into a deal with various members of the Croatian government, allowing them to employ his talents in return for political immunity. Like that guy from Lethal Weapon 2. Its exactly how he started out.

    Missing the electric buzz of Haiku Deathmatches, he covertly slid his way into the seedy underbelly of video games reviewing under the banner of TEmP, where hes existed as a dark horse ever since.

    How He Got Here: DE lost in the first round to Felix and had to rely on being the highest-scoring loser of the group to qualify to the next round. He spent the next two rounds as an overachieving underdog as he beat Espiga (6-2) and then slaughtered bookies favourite, VM (7-0).



    Who Is He?: Boo was too successful, too fast. As soon as the youngster burst onto the scene, he was thrown into a head-first battle with highly established writer, Fix, and found himself overcoming the stacked odds time and time again. Everyone loves an underdog and this relative unknown became a household name off the back of his giant slaying. But, with the success came the fame, the big money sponsors and a lifestyle young Boo was not ready for. Swept up in the Hollywood lifestyle, Boo swapped the quill for the cheap women and expensive designer drugs, regularly stepping out with Charlie Sheen and Slash from Guns & Roses. But his alcohol-riddled mind lost the words and, soon, his writing would suffer, leaving him a mid-table finisher or a complete no show. The money stopped rolling in, the hangers-on turned their back and he downgraded high-class hookers for backstreet skanks.

    Today, we find a Bluberry getting back on form. Tourney wins have started raising his stock once more and Meg Ryan just left a message on his answering phone. Whether you're sympathetic to Boos plight or hate him enough to delete his incoherent blog posts, his inspirational comeback has prompted the recent made-for-TV movie of his life. He is to be played by Fat Albert.

    How He Got Here: Boo put Wolfqueen down early with a 10-0 drubbing before going on to knock out high-seeded Cairo next round over. Suspicions rose when it was revealed both his opponents picks were RANPICKS due to neither making the deadline, and tongues were wagging even more so when a clerical error put semi final opponent, Suskie, in the same predicament. In an evenly matched fight, Boo cruised to a memorable 7-0 victory to stake his claim to the final.



    Who Is He?: People with long memories will remember the quiet, humble emp that existed silently in the bottom echelons of reviewing four some years ago. How things have changed. Judged as nothing particularly special, emp specifically stayed off the radar until he was ready to storm the reviewing world harder than Germany over Belgium.

    Soon after transforming 66% of his screen name into full caps, the now monikered EmP went on the offensive with a bloody rampage the likes of which has never been seen. His ferocity in the 2005 TT saw him brutalise crowd favourite Masters so heavily that he would have to fall into forced retirement for a number of years, and, even now, has to employ a stair lift at his stately Canadian mansion.

    Since this violent change of persona, he has chased out numerous contenders to what he sees as his number one spot. Ruder dropped out the picture as soon as the monster many people say he had created started to set its sights on him. Protg LastHero found himself jailed for crimes against young children he still claims he was framed for, and rumours of Zigfrieds fingers being found strewn across the California beaches remain unconfirmed, but believed by many. Even as soon as last week saw Mike Suskie Suskies car explode in mysterious circumstances. No one was hurt in the explosion, but suspicions were cast.

    EmP has found himself fired from staff and rehired as a necessary evil several times and heads up the sinister Team EmP (Or TEmP). If you cant see EmP right now, you may be only seconds away from death.

    How He Got Here: EmP saw off fellow TEmPer Will in the opening round before dismissing Dagoss, for whom the tourney was constructed, in a heartless second round slaughter. The semis saw the steamrolling of close chum, DoI, for his spot in the finals.









    DarkEternal vs. Bluberry vs. EmP



    We are go.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 29, 2008:

    Apologies on my fumbles with DE. I did write three reviews of my own in about 24 hours, so was word-blind by then. That's my excuse and I'm sticking ot it.

    Thanks for the placement and the kind words, I appreciate the time you took to read and comment on the review. Congrats to Boo who was convinced he'd be picking up the wooden spoon here and kudos to everyone who showed.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted September 29, 2008:

    Crystal?

    Ha, blu really believed he was gonna place last in this contest. Bet he'll be surprised once he sees this topic.

    Thanks for the comments you provided for both of my reviews. I thought Battle Circuit was the better of the two reviews I wrote, but maybe I should read through both again. Congrats to blu and emp, and good job to the rest for trying their best.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted September 29, 2008:

    well done bluberry.

    thanks for the comments, drella. I think perhaps I didn't do enough to explain why Mutation Nation is repetitive in a bad way (generic character with ordinary attacks, boring stage design, no new ideas after stage 2) as opposed to Final Fight which is repetitive in a good way. Or something. Maybe I'll revise it.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 29, 2008:

    what

    but cool, thanks man. good to hear it went over well. maybe I'll move that over to my (now) main account, but pick's right, I had no confidence in that review.

    good job to everyone else too.

    and thanks for judging/organizing this, too.

    edit: "I still call it great" was probably the most inspired moment in the review even if nobody else will get it.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 29, 2008:

    you could have drank like so much more if you hadn't wasted the time making this topic
    board icon
    espiga posted September 29, 2008:

    I believe there's another clerical error. You actually mean 66.66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666667% of your name.
    board icon
    dagoss posted September 30, 2008:

    Ill figure out a winner from this via complex mathematical calculations...

    (Votes_for Boo + Votes_for_DE) - Votes_for_EmP = Total_votes_for_EmP

    Where Votes_for_EmP is a number equal to or less than 0, and Votes_dagoss_should_have_gotten is a constant equal to 3x EmP_total_votes_from_the_entire_contest.
    board icon
    japanaman posted September 30, 2008:

    Game: Buzz! The Hollywood Quiz
    Platform(s): PS2
    Publisher: SCEE
    Developer: Relentless Software
    Genre: Party
    Release Date: March 11th, 2008

    Added.
    board icon
    darketernal posted October 01, 2008:

    My pick is made.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 01, 2008:

    We are go, people.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 01, 2008:

    I added this contest to the archive page. The link to it is in my blog.

    Also congrats to Bluberry and everyone else and thanks to Leroux for judging this. I knew I couldn't write anything decent for River City Ransom or Double Dragon and didn't want to half-ass another contest.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted October 02, 2008:

    Done with Assassin's Crap...err, Creed. Summoner 2 maybe?
    board icon
    dagoss posted October 02, 2008:

    It must be my imagination, but it seems like there's been a Doom review in every round. Come on people! Put your phalli away and review Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure or The Little Mermaid or something!

    Third Place: EmP
    As I mentioned in the feedback topic for this review, I think this review is openly unfair. It comes across as a knee-jerk reaction from an angry fan of Doom 2, which in my opinion lacks credibility. You didn't like all the darkness; you didn't think it was scary; you didn't like the enemies -- that's fine (and I actually agree with you that this is was not a good direction for the series), but a 2/10 is pretty hard to swallow for a game that has sold fairly well and been received a somewhat positive reception. I hated Doom 3 and still couldn't swallow it. The burden is on the reviewer to justify such disgust and I'm not finding that justification here.

    Second Place: DarkEternal
    Arcanum definitely isn't a typical RPG, and it is wonderful to not only see you making that perfectly clear from the outset but altering your approach to accommodate it. You avoid many of the staple topics of RPGs (like combat), but the way you focused on the setting and such really made issues like graphics and the Charles Manson-like battles feel beside the point. I think you really succeed in defamiliarizing the genre in the tone you take. The grips I have are mostly stylistic -- for example, I did not like the first paragraph at all -- but there aren't many rough transitions or awkward structures, so the point is probably mute.

    WINNER: Bluberry
    I think this is the perfect example of how an older and extremely influential game needs to be reviewed. You manage to strike a perfect balance between highlighting it's significance, how it came to be so significant, and how the ravages of time have effected it. I got the sense that you not only knew your game, you really knew it. This is the type of review I would keep in the back of my mind and try to emulate if I was ever reviewing Pool of Radiance, Mario Kart (SNES), or one of the many highly popular and influential games that have aged poorly. I did find an error though:

    ...nobody is dumb enough to stand near a wall if their enemy's got a rocket launcher.

    Look, maybe if I stand really flat against the wall, the enemy won't see me. Did you ever think of that!?
    board icon
    Masters posted October 03, 2008:

    Hey, didn't Blu submit his Final Fight this week??
    board icon
    EmP posted October 03, 2008:

    He did.

    He was beat. By a girl.
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 03, 2008:

    girl... debatable.

    it always happens, Venter snubs me and goes "no your MGS4 where you talked about the graphics and then a paragraph about the music and then a bit about the STORY! was better" and then the review goes and wins a contest.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 04, 2008:

    Wow. This is a really, really tough call. All three of these reviews are fantastic. I think I actually hate having to decide which ones are better.

    Third Place: Boo

    This was a tough choice... I was strongly debating between you and DE. I like your review, and I agree with dagoss that this is a great example of how older games should be reviewed, especially those who may have lost their appeal. I honestly can't give a sound reason for placing you here - that's how close it is. But I think part of it had to do with how you concluded it, though. Introducing the Ultamate Doom stuff sort of felt tacked on, even though the point you make with it is perfectly valid. It also sort of felt like it came out of nowhere. But really, this is a great review all around, and you argue your points very well. This was just a really tough call. I hope you don't take it personally. >.>

    Second Place: DE

    Man... This was even harder than the last one, I think. This is a really strong review from you, probably the best I've seen from you. You make the game sound totally awesome, with all the varied choices and consequences and everything. You take a different approach than the typical RPG review, like dagoss said. You make the game sound very much like Morrowind, even, at least in its capacity for free choice and exploration. The two minor details you brought up, mainly the graphics... hell, I think that was the only one, obviously didn't really affect your opinion of the game. In fact, it almost felt tacked on with how you were praising the game and everything, but it is good to know how unrewarding casting high-level magic feels, for example. I'm glad it didn't affect your experience that much, though.

    I think the reason why it's here and not in first is because of stylistic reasons. My problem wasn't with the intro - I quite enjoyed the reiew for the large part - but towards the end. It's not that your argument weakens, necessarily, because in the last few paragraphs (except hte very last conclusion), it's very strong. It's just that up until the very end, there, your writing had been very strong; I noticed it got a bit carried away in places towards the end where it could've been easily abridged. I also think you need to find a better way to give examples than by just saying "For instance/example" all the time. This works fine once or twice in a review, but after like 5 of them, it just reads oddly.

    I also didn't like that conclusion, either. Felt kind of just thrown together, but that's unavoidable sometimes.

    Anyway, I really liked this review. Like I said, I think it's your best one yet. Your argument is very convincing, and it definitely sounds like a game that might appeal to me. I think I'd made up my mind about wanting to play it only about 4 paragraphs in.

    Winner: EmP

    If I could give DE the top spot, I would, but at least in my mind, EmP's review is the strongest of the three. His review, for the most part, reads uniquely. It's apparent that he tried to write Doom 3 from a different angle, and for the most part, he did. The only parts where I felt like I was reading the same review occurred mostly with the "BOO!" line. Even if he cites the same examples as other people who've reviewed this game, he uses them for another reason aside from just the typical scare tactics.

    That reason being the monsters. He focused a lot mmore on how the enemies changed from the menacing hordes of previous Dooms to the wimpy, pathetic incarnations they are now, whose only means of even hurting you occur from the not-so-startling surprise attacks.

    That said, even if more than I mentioned did sound similar to other reviews, he describes it in a different enough way, and for a brief enough time, to bring out that sense of uniqueness.

    I also like that you cropped the conclusion; now I can't complain about that, I guess.

    The argument reads strongly, too. I understand perfectly why you think the way you do, and you justify it well enough so that I'm not unconvinced at the end. The thing just works for me, but I guess everyone has their own opinions about stuff.

    Anyway, like I said, this was really close. To use a boo analogy, it would probably be within .0003434 random numbers of each other for all places. If I could grade them all evenly, I would, but I can't.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 05, 2008:

    Me & Masters have switched for this week. Aparently, there's some pagan Canadian holiday going on next weekend or some such, and he needs the time free to slaughter a goat.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted October 06, 2008:

    I GUESS I MUST BREAK THE CHAINS THAT MAKE UP THIS TENSION, RESULTING IN THE EPICNESS THAT IS THis... tiebreak?

    Last: Darketernal's review. It's a nicely written review, and you gave lots of examples of the gameplay. But, I just wasn't convinced it was a great game. Like I said, it's a good review, but for this contest, emp and blu's "negative" reviews were more convincing.

    Second: EmP's review. Maybe it was because two other Doom 3 reviews were put up before this within the past few weeks that affected my judgement here, like how it would be hard to read one Mega Man review after another... or something like that. Despite that, you still manage to keep me reading with your interpetation of Doom 3. Entertaining read.

    First: blu's review. I don't want to type anymore. I just like his the most or something...











    Okay, a little more. I figured since it was a Doom review from blu, I would end up reading paragraphs about how he molested his computer whenever he played the game. But, to my surprise, it was a somewhat negative review about the game, and he makes good points about its aging. Okay, I'm gonna stop for real this time.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted October 07, 2008:

    F = Final Fantasy III (DS), Front Mission (DS)
    K = Koudelka (PS1)
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted October 07, 2008:

    Damn I can't believe I missed this, I am about to review some beat em ups.

    PS - Pirates of Dark Water blows.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 07, 2008:

    I shall either have my feedback, results, etc. up today or tomorrow. Wait in eager anticipation!
    board icon
    Masters posted October 07, 2008:

    THIRD:
    darketernal

    SECOND:
    bluberry

    FIRST:
    Emp

    I actually critiqued DE's review a bit in my RotW. I think it's well written, but lacking a bit in showing me why the game -- one which I think to be obscure (this is especially difficult in a contest) -- is so good.

    Blu's review is an amazing short review, replete with hook intro, good lines and intimate knowledge of his subject matter.

    But I give Emp the nod for his slightly longer review, which contains more good lines and a particularly effective summary/conclusion. It's really one of the best wrap ups I've read in a long while. Emp takes it by a very narrow margin.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted October 08, 2008:

    Have some votes!
    Third: DE

    Second: EmP

    First: Boo
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 08, 2008:

    DE:
    Very interesting game you have here and I liked how you delved into little neat things like how you can give your character a diverse background that will give him/her expected and/or unexpected strengths and weaknesses. Don't know that it's a great contest finale review, though, as the main thing I was thinking when I was done reading it was that I wanted more information. Like, what's the point of the game? To just go around and do random stuff to see what happens. Or is there a grand plot tying all this together. You did great at telling me how decision can have consequences in this game (ala the magic vs. technology part), but I'm not sure as to what the point of it all is.

    BLU:
    Following up Doom 2 with Doom, eh, Blu....... While I don't like this one as much as your Doom 2, you do make a very good point as to how this game hasn't necessarily aged so well because of how the enemies are generally non-threatening, making it easy. I can relate to that, as after going through all four Ultimate Doom scenarios, I haven't played it once, even though a few levels did strike me as memorable. That provided a pretty convincing argument and you didn't waste time with unnecessary words. Not as memorable as your Doom 2 review, but a very strong effort anyway.

    EMP:
    And the last review I critique for this contest is the 147th review of a Doom game I've seen in the last few months (including the one I wrote for Cyberdreams). I posted on the message board topic about this review and said this: "I understood the score from the context of the review. There was total contempt at how Doom 3 handled classic monsters and how they went from a shoot-em-tha-fuck-up mindset to a "spooky" dark corridors one. I also understand the score from a personal context in that I'm one of those CLASSIC Doom freaks that could spend hours BSing with people about iD-made and fan-made Doom levels. So, to me, a game with the Doom name that seems to utter bastardize everything that made MY Dooms special deserves a rating in the realm of 2. I'd wager to say that if you never played the classic Dooms or if you did briefly, but looked at them as these archaic things not worth playing, EmP's review wouldn't be for you. But if you're like me, this is a very good review." And that's all I'm going to say. Fortunately for you my mind hasn't changed, so congratulations.

    OVERDRIVE'S VERDICT:
    1. Emp
    2. Blu
    3. DE
    board icon
    Genj posted October 09, 2008:

    No thanks. I have plenty of hair on my ass.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 09, 2008:

    Game: Manhunt
    Platform(s): PC
    Developer: Manhunt
    Genre: Action
    Release Date: 4/20/04 US

    Added.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 09, 2008:

    (Felixs money guessed it)
    Welcome to the seventh annual Alphabetolympics tournament! For those of you who dont know about it this is held every fall and usually is the largest single round tournament on the site, with up to 27 people competing.

    So how do you enter and what is it all about? Well pick a number in this topic from 1-27 and post it in this topic. You can have any number that isnt taken already by someone else. Ill try to update this list often but unfortunately cant sit in front of my computer all day so dont rely on it. Once every spot is filled (or its pretty close, well see) everyone will be assigned a letter from A-Z or #. Now you must review a game that begins with whatever you get. It could be any game from any genre as long as it begins with that letter. So if your letter is M you can review Mega Man or Metal Gear Solid and cant review Viewtiful Joe or Deus Ex (hopefully someone gets that reference).

    Finally well need three judges for this. Anyone who is interested in that let me know.

    IMPORTANT!!! READ BEFORE ENTERING:
    Please only enter if you are willing to get ANY letter. We dont know what you are going to get. It could be your dream letter or it could be Y or Q or #. Therefore you might need to resort to ROMs. If youre not willing to download ROMs and dont own at least a game youre willing to review for every letter its probably not smart to enter. Obviously some are going to drop out, but we dont want half attendance because everyone with a less than perfect letter quits. So only enter if youre open to every letter and can make a deadline that will most likely be in the second half of November.

    There will be no trading letters after the deadline. In previous years it got out of hand and kind of defeats the purpose of the whole thing. Im undecided about allowing people to pick up dropouts letters but dont count on it.

    Now pick away!
    If there isnt a name next to the spot you can take it by posting what number you want in this topic.

    1. Overdrive (by force)
    2. Iraff
    3. Will
    4. Pickhut
    5. Venter
    6. Genj
    7. Wolfqueen
    8. Timrod
    9. Dagoss
    10. True
    11. BELISARIOS
    12. Lewis
    13. Sportsman
    14. Penguin
    15. Ulv
    16. EmP
    17. drella
    18. Suskie
    19. Bboobb
    20. Blah
    21. Cario
    22. Darketernal
    23. Sho
    24. Zippdementia
    25. Bluberry
    26. Janus
    27. DoI
    board icon
    Halon posted October 09, 2008:

    Also I apologize for the tardiness and making people wait, I had to run out and couldn't make it back in time.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 09, 2008:

    18
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 09, 2008:

    7

    God I hope we get enough people for this. >_>
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 09, 2008:

    I don't know. This one actually requires one to write a new review.
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 09, 2008:

    don't worry buddy, I get the reference.
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 09, 2008:

    and I pick (3 + 4i)(3 - 4i)

    you better figure it out and put me in real quick so all of the nerds who don't know their complex numbers don't step on my pick.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 09, 2008:

    I would pick 8 and disrupt your plans, but it seems I've already chosen a number.

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...Yes? Did I get it?
    board icon
    Halon posted October 09, 2008:

    I haven't done complex numbers since high school so I'm relying on Maple for this one.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 09, 2008:

    16
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 09, 2008:

    I have humbly entered with much modesty.
    board icon
    Genj posted October 09, 2008:

    6 come on give me my dream letter
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 09, 2008:

    (a + bi)(a - bi) = a^2 + b^2

    geeks, go outside more
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 09, 2008:

    The number I claim is 1 (one). I will continue to claim it until it sticks.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted October 09, 2008:

    This is usually the only contest I end up partaking in every year, but since I was forced against my will to write two reviews for the last contest, I was gonna skip this.

    BUT SUDDENLY, I WAS BLACKMAILED. 4.
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 09, 2008:

    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 10, 2008:

    As I am unwilling to leave matters of such importance to the Random Number Gods, I shall use a simple mathematic equation to determine my spot.

    We'll start with the number of reviews I've submitted: 13. Then we take the median of hits for each reviews, which happens to be 390, divide that by the number of times our beloved webmaster has messed up the site this month(10), and add it. Now we subtract the number of people who think genj is funny(3) multiply the number of times EmP would normally have to nag me to join(42), and divide by the number of days remaining in lasthero's jail sentence(686).

    That gives us 3. I'll take that one, please.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted October 10, 2008:

    14
    board icon
    jerec posted October 10, 2008:

    Interesting.
    board icon
    darketernal posted October 10, 2008:

    22
    board icon
    dagoss posted October 10, 2008:

    I'm clearly #9
    board icon
    drella posted October 10, 2008:

    17
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted October 10, 2008:

    27 for me.
    board icon
    Iraff posted October 10, 2008:

    I believe I will rock Numero 2
    board icon
    Halon posted October 10, 2008:

    Jerec you're judging. But you knew that already, right?
    board icon
    johnny_cairo posted October 10, 2008:

    21
    board icon
    BLAH_Or_blah posted October 10, 2008:

    Since both my class year (2009) and current squadron (27) are taken, I'll just go ahead and take my freshman squadron.

    Gimme 20.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 10, 2008:

    One question. You said I could get my dream letter or I could get "Y" or "Q" or "#". What if one of those three is my dream letter? Just wondering as last night, I had a very vivid dream involving a "#" spinning around and around and around in circles.

    Surprised me, as I don't have the slightest idea what I'd review starting with a number.......but it apparently is my dream letter!
    board icon
    EmP posted October 10, 2008:

    I won it all one year with Y

    One of my favourite reviews I've penned thus far was for Q

    Ruder scored my # entry 96 once.

    I'm just saying.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 10, 2008:

    OD, haven't you (and EmP) already had pretty much every bad letter there is before? Maybe you'll get a good letter just this one time for a change of pace. Then you can go back to getting Y and #.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 10, 2008:

    I had L last year. Two years ago, I tied EmP for first (until he had Blu cast the tie-breaker in his favor) with W. Had J the first year I did this. Had A once.

    Is that all or was there one more year? Can't recall off the top of my head.

    Actraiser 2, Jikkyou Oshiberi Parodius, Lufia: Shitty GBA Version and Wild Arms 3.....seems there was one more, but I might be imagining things.....

    EDIT: After checking the archieves, I found it. Also had Z with Zero Tolerance once.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted October 10, 2008:

    I'll take 5, I guess.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 10, 2008:

    I'm sure I can find some time to judge this for you. This comp is sort of a tradition for me. I think I've always been involved in it in some form. Mostly as a judge.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 10, 2008:

    I had X once.... that was my first review ever. >_>

    Last year I had A... which might've tehchnically done worse than X did when adding all the points up. I can't remember. XD
    board icon
    timrod posted October 10, 2008:

    I'll take #8.
    board icon
    True posted October 10, 2008:

    Count me in for this.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 10, 2008:

    You should sign for this, too! =D
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 11, 2008:

    Why not?

    Let's hit us for 12.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 11, 2008:

    Jerec since you're judging (or at least for now) can you scramble the letters and HG mail them to me? Since I'm entering it wouldn't make much sense for me to do it. If you don't want to I'll bother EmP or the other judge (or both).
    board icon
    True posted October 11, 2008:

    I lied. Sign me up for this one. #10
    board icon
    Ulv posted October 11, 2008:

    I'll go for 15.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 11, 2008:

    5 more spots!
    board icon
    jerec posted October 11, 2008:

    Yeah, I'll do that for ya.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 11, 2008:

    Who the hell is Ulv?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 11, 2008:

    Friend of mine. Be nice.
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted October 11, 2008:

    ELEVEN
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted October 12, 2008:

    26
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted October 12, 2008:

    19
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 12, 2008:

    Only two more slots available!
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 12, 2008:

    ZOMG
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 12, 2008:

    I'll take "x." Er, that's 24, right?
    board icon
    Halon posted October 12, 2008:

    I should've posted in the topic that each letter doesn't necessarily correspond with the appropriate number. Of course 24 could be X but it has an equal chance of being anything else.

    WHO WILL TAKE THE LAST SPOT?
    board icon
    sho posted October 12, 2008:

    I will take the last spot.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 12, 2008:

    Signups are now closed! Jerec HG mail me the letter assignments whenever you're ready.
    board icon
    disco1960 posted October 12, 2008:

    Darn. I was going to do this, but it seems it's too late! Although I would only be able to do like three possible letters anyway.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 12, 2008:

    Don't give up yet; if people drop out, you might be able to jump in and snag one of their letters. Depends on sportsman, though.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 12, 2008:

    I'm not dropping out. Last year I was robbed of the first-place spot by a man who didn't even sign up for the event! This year shall not see a repeat.
    board icon
    disco1960 posted October 12, 2008:

    Was that me? Did I win last time? I feel like I won last time.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 12, 2008:

    Nobody wins the Alphas.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 13, 2008:

    I have.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 13, 2008:

    No no, you misunderstand: My point was that when the alphas come around, everyone loses.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 13, 2008:

    Pretty sure I already HG mailed them to you.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 13, 2008:

    There are plenty of winners come Alpha time. The biggest of all? Me HG.com.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 13, 2008:

    Didn't get anything yet.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 13, 2008:

    Here are the letter assignments for the Alphabetolympics. They are final and there wont be any trading. HOWEVER, you can change your letter by acquiring a dropouts letter. It kinda defeats the purpose of this tournament but is a clever way to beat the system and probably worth considering if you got a crappy letter.

    Also if you must drop out (even though I asked you not to sign up if you cant make the deadline or dont want to deal with a crappy letter) please do it at least two weeks before the deadline. The reason for this is so someone can take your place. There might be other people who want to join this but missed signups, and its not fair to drop out a few days before the deadline when someone else couldve taken that spot.

    The deadline will be Friday, November 14th at 11:59PM HG-time. So basically you have all day Friday to finish your review and any review submitted between the moment I created this topic and the deadline can be used. This is exactly a month, and if youre new to this and want to pace yourself this should give you a week and a half to find a game, two weeks to play it, and a week to write the review. If you have any questions about your game being allowed or not or anything else either post them in this topic or send me a private message. Remember that its better to be safe than sorry, so even if you have the slightest bit of uncertainty youre probably better off asking me than risking reviewing an invalid title.

    There are two judges confirmed: Jerec and a mystery judge (for now at least). We still need one more.

    Now on to the letters !

    # - Timrod - 3x3 Eyes
    A - EmP - Alisia Dragoon
    B - Suskie - Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts
    C - DoI - XLA) target=new>Castle Crashers
    D - Genj
    E - Sho - Exile
    F - Iraff
    G - Pickhut - Guilty Gear 2
    H - Lewis - Half-Life 2
    I - Bbobb
    J - Wolfqueen - Jim Power: The Arcade Game
    K - Penguin
    L - Sportsman - The Legend of Zelda
    M - Zipp - Mirror's Edge
    N - Blah
    O - Darketernal - Out of this world
    P - BELISARIOS
    Q - Dagoss
    R - True - Resistance 2
    S - Venter - The Sims 2: Apartment Life
    T - Will
    U - Overdrive - Ultima: Quest of the Avatar
    V - Drella - Vigilante
    W - Bluberry - WAD
    X - MYass - X-Kaliber 2097
    Y - Cairo
    Z - Janus
    board icon
    dementedhut posted October 13, 2008:

    Wow, I actually have a big choice of titles to review this time around. That's a first.
    board icon
    Ulv posted October 13, 2008:

    Well, isn't luck with me these days?

    *gets to working*
    board icon
    EmP posted October 13, 2008:

    Oh, come on! Have I not written enough A reviews this year?

    I wrote one just bloody yesterday!
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 13, 2008:

    Awesome, I already know what I'll review. This is certainly better than the letter I had last year, though I made that work so this should be no problem.

    Poor Timrod. And Dagoss. And Cairo. Hey, didn't Cairo have Y last year too?
    board icon
    dagoss posted October 13, 2008:

    I already have the perfect game in mind.

    (Tee hee hee!)
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 13, 2008:

    Eh. J... this'll be interesting.

    Haha. Ulv got the same letter as I did on my first Alpha contest.
    board icon
    johnny_cairo posted October 13, 2008:

    By the time this tourney is over I will have reviewed 25% of all games starting with the letter Y. Fate (or at least Jerec??) doesn't favor me.
    board icon
    Iraff posted October 13, 2008:

    Capital! I have a wide array to choose from. My compliments to the letter F!
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted October 13, 2008:

    Holy cows, I just reviewed Koudelka like 3 days ago! :(
    board icon
    Genj posted October 13, 2008:

    D LIKE THE GRADES I GET
    board icon
    Halon posted October 13, 2008:

    Dammit why didn't I make the deadline a week later so I can review Left4Dead?

    Oh, well. For being such a common letter 'L' isn't as good as I initially thought it would be but far from the worst. Think I know what game I will review.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 13, 2008:

    I don't think anyone here would complain about an additional week, were you to change the deadline.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 13, 2008:

    Nah, I don't really care that much. If the deadline is pushed back too far people tend to lose interest and forget all about these things.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 13, 2008:

    Actually, I was pushing for my own ulterior motives: An extra week would give me more than three days to play and review my game. Don't worry though, I'll manage.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 13, 2008:

    Wow! U!!! FUCKING THANKS!!!!!

    Do you people think I'm dagoss and simply able to pop out an Ultima review on the drop of a hat?!?!? Which he would do if you asked him, considering he loves RPGs of the AD&D Gold Box and Wizardry clans. Me? No.....hell no.....

    So, I have no option but to deliver punishment with a review of a game deserving of nothing less than my "best". My best praise for a truly iconic game. My best glorifying adjectives. My best eloquence. Prepare to be devoured by my majestic prose and then spit out as you're deemed unworthy of viewing it!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted October 13, 2008:

    Ironically, 'S' is generally one of the best letters you can get in a thing like this--and something I would never get--yet I have around 10 games lined up to review in the coming month (games I pretty much have to review, and the sooner the better) with none of them starting with that letter. So even though I should be singing Jerec's praises... I'm not.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted October 13, 2008:

    Anybody know a good game that starts with K? I already reviewed Kung Fu and Kung Fu Heroes. Maybe Kiwi Kraze. AHA! YES! SUCCESS GET!!
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 13, 2008:

    Kuru Kuru Kururin.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 13, 2008:

    I just used a random string generator, and I didn't even look at who was assigned each letter, only the numbers. Therefore, no bias. Good luck to all!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted October 14, 2008:

    Can I do Zelda?
    board icon
    True posted October 14, 2008:

    GAH! I was one letter away from my dream choice! I'm still going to do Silent Hill to cast off the rust, but now I must go backwards in the Alphabet. Damn you, Venter. Even though you had nothing to do with this, I blindly blame you and now promise your demise!
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 14, 2008:

    Ace, I reckon I probably got the best letter there. Though I might try not to do the obvious one.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 14, 2008:

    T, hmm?

    Does it count if the game starts with "The"? As in, for example, "The Bard's Tale?"
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted October 14, 2008:

    Oops. I totally missed this.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 14, 2008:

    No, Will; it doesn't.

    Janus, I hink the only Zelda one you can do is Zelda II since all the others technically start with "The Legend of" meaning they're all Ls. It's really up to sportsman, though.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 14, 2008:

    I have written a RotW. I would have written it sooner, but I was too busy writing three reviews in three days. Go and ask OD when the last time he wrote three reviews in a month is. Go on -- he won't be able to remember.

    Here are some rules. Staff reviews do not count. If you write two reviews in the week -- which none of you did, because you are not me -- only one would count. My word is law.

    Here come the line breaks.

    Third -- Woodhouse: Time Hollow

    Woodhouse often turns up with reviews of note, and this one is no different. Do I have complaints? Of course I do -- its all I can be relied on for! The review somehow feels like its a couple of paragraphs shy of completion, like there are some missing elements. Personally, I would have liked to have seen an in-depth example rather than a vague one-line description like the note in the locker or the bike. I appreciate the game is short and that giving away much in a short game often results in giving away a sizeable chunk of the game, but I come away not fully convinced of your full argument.

    Its done more than enough to dampen my interest here, though. I had thought it looked like an interesting concept -- and you make it clear it is. Just one pulled off poorly and with unwelcome limits and artificial padding.


    Second -- WolfQueen: Kingdom Hearts

    WQ claims her spot here this week because she employs one thing better than probably any review this week: she plugs examples. But she plugs the right examples.

    A good example, kids, is something that explains several aspects of the game all at once without having to write it in crayon for your readers. This review has a lot of them, and its to her credit. It does suffer from the typical List everything good then throw the worst bits in at the end to simmer praise that all our reviews suffer from (some more obvious that most) but its a good effort.


    First -- Bloomer: Resident Evil Outbreak #2

    Admit it: you thought Masters was going to be judging this week. I'm on to you.

    Ive always been curious about the Outbreak games but never bothered picking them up. Ill pause while you ask why out loud.

    Ill tell you why.

    Servers never went live in PAL, so the main draw of playing the game -- the online co-op -- was never present. So there was no point. I thought Outbreak would be crippled with this flaw and you do a great job confirming this doubt.

    The review is long, but never feels long. Theres nothing in the review that I read where I thought I dont really need to be reading this making the entire thing relevant. The writing itself is strong, which it needs to be to keep interest once you stray over that 800-or-so word mark and I find myself fascinated by the thought of a zombie elephant. Very strong, straight-forward review.

    This is a topic end. Now, we give thanks. To me.

    Bow your heads.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 14, 2008:

    The rule of thumb in the past has been to use GameFAQs' game listings by alphabet. For example, they don't include the "The" games under T. So you can't.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 14, 2008:

    September was the last month I wrote three reviews. Pretty easy for me to remember just the last month.....well, actually, I had to go to my blog because I couldn't remember....so you were right on that....

    And by either tomorrow or the next day, I'll have my third for this month completed! En guarde!
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted October 14, 2008:

    I guess my review sucked. Oh well
    board icon
    EmP posted October 14, 2008:

    It didn't suck, I just thought there was better this week. I'll make you a feedback topic on it later. OD can comment in it too. He has nothing but free time.

    Days that strech on, forever and ever and ever....
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted October 14, 2008:

    Thanks. It's my first review in ages so I'm a bit rusty.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 14, 2008:

    Hey, EmP; I don't think it matters, but I think your week was supposed to go 6-12. Granted, no one subbed on the 5 and the only 12 entry was another woodhouse review that I personally don't think is as good as his Time Hollow one.

    Anyway, thanks for the spot. I honestly didn't think I was going to place at all here, with how thrown together my review was.

    Congrats to bloomer. Typically I don't like his kind of style, but I see why this won. It's very detailed and thought out and leaves no confusion in the readers mind. It does a fantastic job of making it's argument. It's also more entertaining than the straight-up analytical review I was expecting when I tried reading it a few days ago.

    Good job to woodhouse, too. I liked his review a lot.

    EDIT: wait. I think your dates are fine. Masters' should've been from 9/28-10/4, but like I said, it doesn't really matter in this case. Though if done this way, woodhouse's newest review counts for next week.
    board icon
    Masters posted October 14, 2008:

    I'm curious: what is Bloomer's kind of style?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 14, 2008:

    Just that his reviews seem to be more analytical than most. Like the really descriptive sort that aren't necessarily always entertaining, but that doesn't really matter because the argument they present is so strong. I dunno; it's kind of hard to describe. That's how I see it, anyway.

    I mean no offense by any of this, either. I'm just tryiing to explain how I read these things. None of it is bad, but I, like anyone else, have preferences, too. And this review really was good, anyway.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 14, 2008:

    Janus and Will: What Wolfqueen and Jerec said. Your best bet is to refer to GameFAQs.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted October 14, 2008:

    Or, you know... HonestGamers. We do have a pretty huge database of games (around 34,000), also alphabetically organized. If you're reviewing a console game, we've probably got you covered.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted October 15, 2008:

    Bloomer's reviews tend to kick ass but I am not sure if that is a "style" ;)
    board icon
    Masters posted October 15, 2008:

    I wasn't trying to start an argument, btw, wolfqueen -- I was genuinely curious.

    I hold Bloomer's reviews up as pretty much a blueprint for how to write a review: what is a review if not analytical? He doesn't crack a lot of jokes, but he organizes his thoughts so well, and his prose is effortless, so that you don't feel as if you're reading an 'essay.'

    I think it's the most difficult thing of all to pull off -- anyone can wax poetic, or else get obscene and crazy for laughs, but all that frill can interfere with communicating the most critical thing: is this game good or not?
    board icon
    EmP posted October 15, 2008:

    To back up the above claims, these come fresh from an AIM chat:

    IImastersII: I can barely get through your reviews.
    IImastersII: There's too much fancy dan writing clogging it up -- just tell me about the damn game
    IImastersII: You pretentious limey bastard.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 15, 2008:

    Yeah, you're right there, Masters - analysis is important. A review that only presents an outline isn't going to inform anyone of anything; it has to be detailed in order to present the right picture. Howevever, I think it's how you present that analysis that also matters. If it's stuffy and boring, you're not going to be able to pay attention all the way through and get the important details. But if it's too flowery in an attempt to be entertaining, those details might be clouded. I think a really awesome review is one that can strike a balance between the strictly analytical approach and a more entertaining one. But that's just not something easy to do... at all... (though bloomer's review does a really good job of striking that balance here, I think). Usually I find, with myself or in other people, that we can do one thing or the other in some proportion or another, but not both to equal degrees. And as far as preferences go when reading something that can't strike that balance well enough, or at least to the point where it's noticeably one thing or the other, I tend to prefer the more entertaining ones. Just as long as I still feel satisfied that I know everything I need to know at the end.

    And ow, harsh. I really like EmP's reviews. But I guess it's just what appeals to different people and how people see these different elements in a review.
    board icon
    Masters posted October 15, 2008:

    Are you calling Bloomer stuffy? :P Kidding.

    And that idiot Emp actually fabricated those "AIM messages" from me. Look around! I'm always singing that fool's praises. He's definitely good for a b-level reviewer.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 15, 2008:

    Using the term "fancy dan writing" = +1
    Calling EmP a "pretentious limey bastard" = + infinity

    Struggling with writers block while doing my FF XII review = pure suckitude
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 15, 2008:

    Hahaha. I should've figured he'd do something like that. That's just like him, lovable oaf. Knew it was a bit too early for him to be on AIM when he posted that.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted October 15, 2008:

    Using the term "fancy dan writing" = +1
    Calling EmP a "pretentious limey bastard" = + infinity

    Struggling with writers block while doing my FF XII review = pure suckitude


    There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, I play the Masters card.
    board icon
    Masters posted October 15, 2008:

    That's pretty good, Venter. You ARE a clever one. By the way Venter, the thing you sent me is being held for ransom at some dingy Canadian post office. Bastards.

    Rob: Writers block = laziness.

    I'm just sayin'.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 15, 2008:

    Then I guess I must have overcame my laziness. Or watching youtube vids of my favorite Dragon Quest VIII cutscenes motivated me to write. Which sounds even more geeky now that I've typed it than it felt while I was doing it.....
    board icon
    Masters posted October 15, 2008:

    I forgot to point out that this RotW blows chunks. But at least he didn't call it RotD.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 15, 2008:

    Ouch. I love you, too.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 15, 2008:

    This has been the most popular RotW in years. And Bloomer probably hasn't even seen it yet.
    board icon
    Masters posted October 15, 2008:

    I'm not sure where WQ is directing her lovin'?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 15, 2008:

    That would have been sarcasm, since your statement suggested you liked none of the reviews here (except bloomer's, obviously). >_>

    <_< Unless you were referring to the topic and its contents as a whole...

    >_>

    I'm shutting up now.
    board icon
    Masters posted October 15, 2008:

    Haha, no no, I wasn't commenting on the reviews at all -- just Emp's sucktitude.
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted October 16, 2008:

    If anyone drops out, let me know.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 18, 2008:

    Wow. I think even EmP forgot about this.
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 18, 2008:

    !
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 18, 2008:

    I win, you suck.
    board icon
    Genj posted October 18, 2008:

    Congrats to the winner.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 18, 2008:

    Somehow I don't feel like this is official, but ok.

    Haha. Boo, you won by one point. Shame no one else voted, really. Would've been interesting.

    Good job, thouogh. If this is made official, this would be the 800000 tourament you won in a row.
    board icon
    dagoss posted October 18, 2008:

    Seven votes? The first few rounds have a bunch more than that! This tournament really lost steam after I was eliminated, for obvious reasons.
    board icon
    bloomer posted October 18, 2008:

    You were right Emp. I've been on holiday on an island off Queensland for a week. Not touching the internet at all during that time really helped my brain deflate.

    Thanks for the win, and for all these comments. It's good to see how your reviews are being read by people you haven't heard from before (pretty much IE Wolfqueen.)

    I'd say when I'm dealing with these survival horror games, that's when I write longest, and there's no consciousness about reaching for length, they just come out that way naturally from my sense about what I want to say. This genre interests me most and occupies most of my time, and the games don't lend themselves to much explicit humour in writing (except when they go bad) that I wouldn't find forced.

    Years back on gamefaqs I wrote a lot of really huge reviews for games that I'd never write about at even half that length now (EG Gungage, many others). I've also written a lot of reviews that went out of their way to be Hilarious, or just generally funny. Actually, the majority of them! But I haven't written much like that lately partly because of what I've been reviewing, and partly 'cos a lot of those old ones I now find too manic or schticky. I mean if you want going all out for funny, kinda overkill, try 'Chaos Break'. 'Canyon Climber' was a review deliberately grabbing schticks from all other reviewers at the time. 'Gekido' might be hella funny but it's also such a ripe and sustained assault it almost makes me avert my eyes now.

    Game badness tends to invite explicit humour, otherwise I like to see it come naturally from the way a person's thoughts move. And that happens all the time in reviews you don't necessarily think of as having the humourous label on them. Like a lot of Jason's, for instance.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted October 18, 2008:

    I am of the opinion that it lost steam after I was eliminated, actually.
    board icon
    bloomer posted October 18, 2008:

    I see gamefaqs have rejected this review a 2nd time, but I won't budge any more on it. I removed bastard, bitch, and even 'walking pile of pus', but because of 'motor retardation', Sailor Cheesecloth still thumbs downed it. And I ain't changing valid language. That's the kind of really stupid censorship I hate.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 18, 2008:

    Aw, don't feel too bad. Your reviews probably aren't much served on GFs, anyway. I mean, it's Gamefaqs. No offense or anything; I'm just saying GFs doesn't have very high reviewing standards. In other words, you're too good for it.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 18, 2008:

    Go the hell away, spambot. Can't even use the right hyperlinking codes.

    EDIT: Haha. Very clever, mysterious staff member.

    EDIT DOS: Damn straight I'm a very clever and mysterious staff member!
    board icon
    Halon posted October 18, 2008:

    Both are probably fine I said GameFAQs because it's more complete and the search works much better. It's more convenient for me to keep track of one. No offense, Venter.
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 18, 2008:

    hilarious avatar jerec, the FMV scenes in that game are abominations.
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 19, 2008:

    actually--

    oh yeah, hahahaha.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 19, 2008:

    I was of the opinion that, seeing as no one could be bothered to vote, I couldn't be bothered to do anything else with it. So this may as well be 'official'.

    Winner: Boo
    Second: EmP
    Third: DE

    Losers: HG's army of slackers.
    board icon
    drella posted October 19, 2008:

    The three winners all have something in common this week: the macabre! This week bare witness to the startling plots of some great (or not so great) modern games: there are serial killers and military sons battling the most gruesome and devastating of society's menaces, from snuff film makers to grizzly alien invaders, some for their brother, some for their country and some merely for survival. Moreover, it's great to see three reviews that appropriately tackle the atmosphere of these games.

    Apologies to Woodhouse and pickhut; I couldn't follow the beat of the former's, whose rhythm review left me a bit lost because of my lack of familiarity with the genre, and the latter showed me plenty of puzzles, but didn't highlight any that seemed to involve an abstract craftiness. Probester's Homecoming review was competent but basic; he'd benefit from checking out the winner this week, I think, to see that players don't just care what they're doing in games, but how games will affect them.

    Let's pretend I rattled off the usual stipulations and away we go:

    Third Place
    Resistance: Fall of Man by mrmiyamoto

    Mrmiyamoto takes a look at Resistance: Fall of Man by doing what any review of the game should; combining both atmosphere ("Crushed and downtrodden buildings provide cover from the onslaught of enemies, but you can't help but feel exposed amidst the sheer devastation.") and technical description of the gunfire bouts. It does so quite well. I think the biggest complaint here is that there is room for more; it could be both slightly more technical about what the battles are like (especially some of the ones where you battle the giant Chimera robots -- those are a big drawing point) and maybe a little more development of the setting. But this is a quality review regardless.

    Second Place
    Manhunt by Suskie

    Suskie takes an in-depth look at Manhunt -- its inspirations, its motives, its ambitions -- which is something that has been done before, but still worth reading another take here. It's a solid recap, if not shedding too much new light on the material. One complaint would be that once it gets to discussion of the actual game, the major complaint (or at least the one that struck me hardest) was the lack of stealth involved in a supposedly stealth game. And if that's your main knock against it, and not the gratuitous violence, maybe it's better to focus more on that for the first several paragraphs besides a general history lesson. But this is still a fairly complete look at the game from start to finish, while appropriately delving into the psyche of the game, and well worth a read.

    Winner
    Silent Hill: Homecoming by True

    Maybe some will find it a bit over the top. Maybe a few incomplete sentences -- which are used primarily for effect -- will annoy some grammarians. But read this review, and you come away with three overwhelming feelings. One is that Homecoming is an incredibly psychological game; it will play on emotions. Two is that the Silent Hill series is back... not that I'm a big enough fan to even know it -was- gone, but even I believe it's back after this. And third, you need to play this game. I'm admittedly a tough sell on almost any modern game, but even -I- want to see this one. It sounds surreal, relentless, and all because of the approach True took. And that's why it's the winner this week.

    Now let's part ways for another month. See you around Turkey Day.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 19, 2008:

    Back in the day, I remember getting a BoFIII review through after calling a couch fire retarded. This surprised me, especial since, a while later, I was refused a review because I called something a usless monkey. It was a racial slur, or some such.

    The thing I labaled as such was a monkey without use. I think I quit uploading my reviews there shortly afterwards.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 19, 2008:

    Thanks for the mention. I was kind of hoping to get feedback on that review but never did, so I'm happy to finally hear the review didn't suck.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 19, 2008:

    Congrats to the winners; this certainly was a good week.

    Sorry Suskie; I meant to talk to you on AIM about your review because I didn't feel like leaving feedback here for some reason. I really liked it, though, and I honestly thought yours was going to win until true subbed his, at which point I thought it would be either of yours.
    board icon
    bloomer posted October 19, 2008:

    Manhunt - really good writing, and argument for the most part, even when I found I didn't agree with most of it, apart from at the broadest level that - Manhunt ultimately isn't all that good, and it's long and samey. I agree with Drella about the opening and maybe the targeting of the violence/stealth stuff.

    Silent Hill - Again what Drella said. Though I don't think Silent Hill was ever in trouble. If anything it's amazing it always stayed pretty good in general, considering how weird it was from the get-go. But that's me.
    board icon
    True posted October 20, 2008:

    Thanks for the honor and the positive feedback Drella. I appreciate it. I'm going to try not to let it go to my head that I beat out awesome reviewers like Suskie and Mrmiyamoto.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted October 20, 2008:

    Thanks for the comments on the review. I admit I got lazy with the main example in the review; I didn't want it to drag out for more than one paragraph, so I picked one of the easier stages.
    board icon
    True posted October 20, 2008:

    Hmm. I am thinking of doing Resistance 2, but it doesn't come out until the 4th, and if Gamefly doesn't send it to me that day I'm screwed.

    board icon
    Lewis posted October 20, 2008:

    Is there a deadline yet?
    board icon
    EmP posted October 20, 2008:

    Bolded on the first page, Lew: Friday, November 14th at 11:59PM HG-time
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 20, 2008:

    I have no eyes. A Splicer ripped them out with his hook-hands this morning in Rapture.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 20, 2008:

    What's a Splicer? Where's Rapture?
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 20, 2008:

    Get out. Get out of your website.
    board icon
    Linkamoto posted October 20, 2008:

    Thanks for the mention, and congrats to the other winners. True's review was undoubtedly deserving of first place.
    board icon
    dagoss posted October 21, 2008:

    Game: Quick Yoga Training
    Platform(s): DS
    Publisher: Ubisoft
    Developer: Ubisoft
    Genre: Edutainment? Mini-game? Stupid?
    Release Date: 6 Aug 08 (US), 29 Aug 08 (EU), 3 Sept 08 (AU)

    Added
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 21, 2008:

    sticky this shit
    board icon
    Ulv posted October 21, 2008:

    Have to drop out, I'm afraid.
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted October 21, 2008:

    I'll take up your spot then.:P
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted October 23, 2008:

    Damn. I really should've checked my letter first.

    X.....
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 23, 2008:

    X is for...

    X-Com, X-Men, Xenosaga/gears.... Man, X is tough. Haha.
    board icon
    Genj posted October 23, 2008:

    X-Change 2
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 23, 2008:

    After seeing the screens Felix put up for it, I wholeheartedly recommend you doing the Atari 2600 version of Xevious.
    board icon
    Masters posted October 24, 2008:

    Hello. Something Overdrive said the other day struck a chord with me. Unlike me, Overdrive actually reads a ton of reviews on the site, but doesn't bother to comment on them. My issue has always been that I don't actually read enough of them, but when I do, I always try to comment.

    Now, judging from the amount of hits our reviews get, not everyone is as lazy as me when it comes to reading. But apparently a lot of us are like Overdrive when it comes to leaving feedback.

    As reviewers, we all want to feel as if we aren't writing in a vacuum. An ear on the other end compels us to keep speaking. So even if it's just "Nice job." or something equally, seemingly thoughtless, it helps.

    I'm trying to do better these days to read more. And maybe we can all do better to comment more. Collectively stroke each other's bums a bit more.

    On a related note, what I'd personally like to stay away from is the topics that get started that rip the reviewer right off the bat like "Meh, this review is all over the place, what were you thinking" kind of thing.

    Anyway. I'm rambling, but just my two cents.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted October 24, 2008:

    I try to comment on every review I read. Which is admittedly not as much as I'd like to read, but I feel these reviewers work really hard on the reviews and the least I could do is take 10 seconds of my life to tell them I appreciate it.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted October 24, 2008:

    I'm doing a Japanese game that starts with K. It was translated to English as "Villgust Gaiden" but that's a fan translation as the game never came out in America officially, and HG lists it under the letter K. Good to go. Now I just need to play it. XD
    board icon
    Masters posted October 24, 2008:

    You are the ideal human being.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 24, 2008:

    I'm in your position, Masters. I should get into a habit of leaving more feedback, but the problem is that I just don't read very many reviews. This is something I can fix, though.
    board icon
    dagoss posted October 24, 2008:

    I try to comment on one review for every review I post. In an ideal world I would comment on like 3 reviews for every one of mine. Also in an ideal world, someone with a college education wouldn't be working 2 demeaning jobs for meager pay.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 24, 2008:

    I'm kind of in the middle on this thing. I don't really read as many reviews as I should, and of those I do read, I don't always leave feedback, though I'm trying to be better about it. Most of the time the reviews I read are by people I know so I just talk to them on AIM about it. Others I wait for RotW to give feedback; often it's only around then that I read some of the reviews I should have earlier, anyway.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted October 24, 2008:

    Finished Tomb Raider TLR, maybe back to Wild ARMs 3.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 24, 2008:

    I'm trying to get in the habit of leaving more feedback, even if it's just an inane comment that acknowledges I read and did not hate the review.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 24, 2008:

    I don't read many reviews, but when I do, I'll leave comment if someone else has already started a feedback thread for it.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted October 25, 2008:

    Holy cow dude, good work. I'm almost done Rhapsody (DS).
    board icon
    japanaman posted October 25, 2008:

    Game: Boogie
    Platform(s): Playstation 2
    Publisher: EA
    Developer: EA Montreal
    Genre: Music
    Release Date: November 12, 2007

    Game: Hot Shots Golf: Open Tee 2
    Platform(s): PSP
    Publisher: Sony Computer Entertainment America
    Developer: Clap Hanz
    Genre: Sports
    Release Date: June 3, 2008

    Added.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 26, 2008:

    Here we go with another RotW from your favorite reviewing icon who has covered both Swordquest: Fireworld and Zero Tolerance over the years. Yep, no one else can say that! So, now, let's have a moment of awed silence to honor me.

    .......
    .......
    .......

    Alrighty, now on to you guys. Usual rules apply. Which are BLAHBLAHBLAH this and that and something or other about that one thing. Also, for some good ol' fashioned 80s power metal, listen to Twilight of the Gods by Helloween.




    THIRD PLACE: Video Life (Atari 2600) by Felix_Arabia

    This was a fun, quirky little review. Like with a lot of blah old Atari games, it's more fun and, oftentimes, a better read when one focuses on the utter weirdness that seems to circle around these titles. Which you do here with a sort of whimsical tone that made this an enjoyable review to read. I loved the "Maybe one could be in your possession. Wouldn't that be nice?" line. Sadly one is not in my possession.... And putting a good amount of the focus on its rarity and why it's rare was a nice touch, letting readers know that just because there isn't much to this game doesn't mean it's pure throwaway drek.....but actually a pretty valuable little piece of drek.

    SECOND PLACE: Grand Theft Auto IV (PlayStation 3) by zippdementia

    You put up a ton of reviews this week, most of which I found entertaining. I think I liked this the best because a lot of it mirrors just how I felt about San Andreas. While I gave that game a 10 for various reasons, mainly the vast game world and all the stuff you could do, there were a lot of things I didn't find all that entertaining. Like the arcade games, playing pool, etc. And you mentioned how all those sorts of diversions are in this game, but if you want to do them, you can find far better games featuring them. And on top of that, you did a good job explaining how this game takes things away from the Auto, focusing more on you doing missions with the cars only being used for transport. Very effective review. While I haven't played GTA IV, I still found myself nodding my head in complete understanding of what you were trying to say.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE (aka: the winner): Fable (XBox) by Suskie

    I'd actually complimented this review earlier this week because it did something very good. While it might not have gone into great detail on every aspect of this game, it did give an in-depth shredding of its ballyhooed "good or evil" aspect where your actions would affect how people acted towards you and so forth. Here, you get to find out all this stuff is cosmetic and meaningless.....and screwed up to the degree that simply killing monsters that just attacked you gives you points toward being good.....meaning that to maintain "evil" status, you have to do a lot of time-consuming "busywork" and go out of your way to kill humans and do other evil deeds. I really liked this review because it focused on one very important aspect of the game and completely exposed it as a letdown, making for a very strong effort.




    Farewell for now, my subjects! There's beers to be drank in my immediate future.....or I'll be wicked pissed!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted October 26, 2008:

    Thanks for the mention, Rob. And congrats to Suskie for the win. I haven't read Zipp's GTAIV review, but I really enjoyed his Linger in Shadows one.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted October 26, 2008:

    Congrats to the winners! Though, of the three, I only read felix's review so far.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 28, 2008:

    You have to wonder if random-spam like that actually ever works. I suppose it must, otherwise we wouldn't still be seeing it.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted October 29, 2008:

    It doesn't work on a site like HonestGamers and actually takes more effort than normal, since the forums are proprietary. But whoever decides to do that can't know that... so we'll keep seeing it as our audience continues to grow.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 29, 2008:

    Persistent little buggers.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 31, 2008:

    I dug into my old collection and have posted my review. I did M, so I choose "Metal Gear Solid: VR Training." Maybe not the most interesting title, as there really isn't that much meat for a reviewer to chew on, but I was surprised no one had reviewed it yet.

    And the real point of the contest is to fill HG with good reviews, so I felt it was all very much in the correct spirit.

    M is a surprisingly tricky letter to do. There's tons of options, but most of them have been done ten times over. Metroid, Mario, Morrowind... some good cult classics, too. Monkey Island, Maniac Mansion, Masochistic Young School Girls... lots of good stuff.

    I really wanted to do Morrowind, cause I've got a lot to bitch about with that game, but like I said... it's been done.

    Anyways, I may STILL do a Morrowind review in the future.

    Hey... that was ALMOST a rant, wasn't it?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 31, 2008:

    Morrowind's techinically under E for Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, anyway.

    I love Morrowind. I want to write a review of my own some day, and have consistently been beaten to it. By the time I get around to it, it'll truly be over-reviewed.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 31, 2008:

    Morrowind for me is a wonderful failure of a game.
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 01, 2008:

    I found Morrowind to be utterly spellbinding despite it's flaws. By comparison, Oblivion felt polished yet bland.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 01, 2008:

    That's a good assesment. I played Morrowind for months, but I only played Oblivion for about an hour.

    Both games lacked focus, though. There were too many random little quests without meaning that bogged me down.
    board icon
    EmP posted November 01, 2008:

    To be fair, the first hour of Oblivion is god awful.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 01, 2008:

    13 days left!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted November 01, 2008:

    I liked the first hour of Oblivion. Certainly, it didn't lack focus. It's the rest of the game after you get out of the tunnels that leaves a person wondering "What now?"
    board icon
    EmP posted November 01, 2008:

    It's the "What now?" feeling that makes the game! The claustrophobic and confined start of the sewers are universally hated!

    I spent far too much time with Oblivion. It's just now hit home just how many words I ploughed into that review. Yikes!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 01, 2008:

    When playing Oblivion for the first time, experiencing the opening sewer segment was kind of enthralling. But experiencing similar segments, be they in sewers, catacombs, or caves, got kind of tiresome because the majority of quests required you to delve into banal underground areas. Traversing the outside world, though, that never got old for me.
    board icon
    johnny_cairo posted November 01, 2008:

    The expansion packs didn't help to break up the monotony of endless dungeon diving, although I must give Shivering Isles credit for trying to be really weird. (It's mostly irritating thanks to the Prince)
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 02, 2008:

    Good point. The underground areas could never be as interesting as the outside.

    But then, I really didn't like any of the Elder Scrolls games.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted November 02, 2008:

    Though it's a very light week, I'd like it if someone else can take on the RotW. Here's the list of eligible reviews:

    Metal Gear Solid: VR Missions (PSX) by zippdementia
    Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Pool of Radiance (NES) by dagoss
    Mother 3 (GBA) by timrod

    Please let me know if someone is willing to step in for me. Thanks!
    board icon
    MASTERSNUMBA1FAN posted November 02, 2008:

    FEEDBACK:

    1) Read Masters catalog of writing
    2) Study it
    3) Get good
    4) ????
    5) Profit.

    WE HERE AT LITTLE RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL LOVE YOU MARC

    THINGS NOT TO DO: READ VENTER'S REVIEWS. WATCHING PAINT DRY IS MORE EXCITING AND FAR MORE EDUCATIONAL.


    MASTERS4EVER
    board icon
    Sclem posted November 02, 2008:

    I'm writing for this and making an appearance writing for a game with an asterisk in it, such as Q*bert.


    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 02, 2008:

    Haha. Go for it. I reviewed Q*bert once.

    And I have become the third person to finish his/her tourney review.

    Jim Power: The Arcade Game

    Hope it's good.
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 02, 2008:

    I'm plodding along with an odd Half-Life 2 piece that isn't quite working yet. Might as well be a little ambitious with my writing for a competition's sake.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 03, 2008:

    It might have been obvious, but I want to say I think this is a great idea for a contest. Great way to get a bunch of writers together, great way to produce more material for the site, great way to compare your work with that of others... excellent.

    Is there a place where the submissions can be listed, so that we know what's been written already, by whom, and where we can read it?
    board icon
    EmP posted November 04, 2008:

    I've no problem swapping weeks, if it helps.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted November 05, 2008:

    Here's a review I just wrote. I might turn in something better before the deadline, but there's a better chance that I won't, so here's the link:

    The Sims 2: Apartment Life

    Enjoy... and pick me the winner!
    board icon
    dagoss posted November 05, 2008:

    Yet another week that I failed the make an impression.

    One of these days I'm going to post a review so impressive and so thought-provoking that it will not only win all three spots on RotW for an entire month, it will causes billions of people to visit this site, burning the HG server to the ground, it will blot out the sun, and it will raise Harry Truman from the grave to yell at everyone in a grandfatherly I-hit-you-because-I-love-you voice.

    Such is the power of my hypothetical review. BEWARE!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 05, 2008:

    Haha. I look forward to it.

    As an aside, I wish these stupid spammers would stop posting in super old topics... especially RotW ones. Makes me keep thinking the several-days late one for last week is up and it's not. Though, there were only 3 reviews that week, and who knows how busy whichever staff's doing it is (I forget who's up).
    board icon
    dementedhut posted November 06, 2008:

    Congrats to the two runner-ups and the RotW winner!
    board icon
    dementedhut posted November 08, 2008:

    Game: Vigilante 8 Arcade (XLA)
    System: Xbox 360
    Publisher: Activision
    Developer: Isopod Labs
    Genre: Driving Shooter? (there's only one game listed in that category)

    Added.

    Thanks.
    board icon
    zigfried posted November 09, 2008:

    I missed the sign-ups, but I posted a B review in case Suskie doesn't show. Actually, I just posted a B review for the hell of it, and then happened to notice that was Suskie's letter. But still, you know what I mean. Yeah.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Genj posted November 09, 2008:

    Hey men, I still don't have a fuckin' D game. Any suggestions?
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 09, 2008:

    Desert Falcon (Atari 2600 OR 7800).....knowing that the difference between the two is the difference between a 1 and a 3.
    board icon
    True posted November 10, 2008:

    What the hell?! How can this game not be on here already...ooooh, if I ever become staff again.

    Game: Resistance 2
    Platform: Playstation 3
    Publisher: SCEA
    Developer: Insomniac Games
    Genre: FPS
    Release Date: 11/4/08

    Added.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted November 10, 2008:

    I was this close (-> <-) to getting Rhapsody but it fell through.

    Finished Tomb Raider II and almost conned myself into starting Drakengard...then I did the first chapter and realized how boring most of it is! Ahaha...meh...
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 10, 2008:

    Dragon Warrior
    board icon
    EmP posted November 10, 2008:

    But... I love Drakengard!
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 10, 2008:

    My review is very slowly coming together...
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted November 10, 2008:

    It's great except for the mind-numbing monotony that permeates every action. ^___^
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 10, 2008:

    Oh, that's right.....I still have to get my game done....

    Oh, that's right.....I still have the letter "U"....
    board icon
    drella posted November 10, 2008:

    Because it's never too soon to break out the holiday music...

    Here's a new idea, and maybe it works, and maybe it doesn't, but let's give it a shot and see what comes of it. So this topic poses a simple question:

    What games do you want reviewed for Christmas?

    We all have favorite games we enjoy (or would enjoy) reading about. There are plenty of great writers around here that can spin a new or interesting take on anything. And you know, this being the season of giving and whatnot, maybe one (or more!) of them answers your call and you've got something to read Christmas morning. Maybe they give you a big lump of coal in your stocking and pan your favorite game. Maybe no one even cares and writes a review. Who knows!

    But you'll never know until you wish for a game to be reviewed!

    So post what games you'd like to see reviewed for Christmas (don't make requests of a particular author). I'll keep a wish list going. Those secret santas (keep it a surprise if you decide to review anything requested!) answering the call are encouraged to wait until the night of December 24th or Christmas Day to post their gifts. Because half the fun of Christmas is anticipation!

    Make as many wishes as you want. Maybe you get what you want. Maybe you don't. But it's a non-competitive and fun contest for everyone, and it has the potential for great writing and surprises. So muster up some fucking holiday spirit and join in.

    CHRISTMAS WISHES

    Dagoss - Baldur's Gate: Throne of Bhaal
    drella - Cadillacs & Dinosaurs
    drella - Kingdom Under Fire
    drella - Good Zelda/Bad Metroid or Good Metroid/Bad Zelda
    emp - Shining in the Darkness
    felix - Lot Lot
    felix - Panzer Dragoon Saga
    felix - Ys
    janus - Braid
    masters - Alone in the Dark 3
    masters - System Shock
    meeptroid - Wario Land 3
    overdrive - Brave Fencer Musashi
    overdrive - Fire Emblem (anything)
    overdrive - Vagrant Story
    venter - Daikatana (GBC)
    wq - Dynowarz
    wq - Golden Axe
    zigfried - Arcana Heart
    zigfried - Twinkle Tale
    zip - Shaiya
    zip - Any old Hugo games
    dogma - Guardians/Denji Makai II
    sho - Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall (PC)
    sho - Secret of the Silver Blades (any version)
    sho - Any good review for an Apple II game
    sho - Super Punch-Out!! (SNES)
    sho - Dead of the Brain 1&2 (Turbo CD)
    sho - Dragon Knight & Graffiti (Turbo CD)
    genj - Doki Doki Majo Saiban
    penguin - Luminous Arc (DS)
    penguin - Magical Starsign (DS)
    penguin - Shadow Hearts: Covenant (PS2)
    penguin - Mega Man X Maverick Hunter (PSP)
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 10, 2008:

    Oh come on, you have a vast series of Unreal and Ultima games at your disposal.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 10, 2008:

    And Urban Dead. You only need to play that for like two weeks to get the gist of it. Though a longer period of play is recommended for thorough enjoyment and understanding of the game.

    And I forgot you only have five days. <_<
    board icon
    zigfried posted November 10, 2008:

    Arcana Heart and Twinkle Tale!

    //Zig
    board icon
    jerec posted November 10, 2008:

    Feel free to step in as the third judge, Zig.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 10, 2008:

    This seems like a neat idea. I'll try to think of something later.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 10, 2008:

    This is a pretty good idea, Drella. Here's what I'd like to see underneath my Christmas tree:

    -Panzer Dragoon Saga (SAT)
    -Ys (NES)
    -Lot Lot (NES)

    I've been pretty good all year. I don't ask for much!

    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 10, 2008:

    Thanks for the win.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 10, 2008:

    Now you're all doing it to torture me.

    Someone lock this topic or something... Seriously... Stupid spammers. Nothing wrong with keeping it around, but there's no longer a need to post in it, I don't think.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 10, 2008:

    Thanks for the win.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 10, 2008:

    XD Oh, fine then.

    I will congratulate the winners for that week, since I somehow discourteously forgot to do so then, anyhow. Though I know I at least told you how I felt about your review.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 10, 2008:

    Ok. Thought of a couple.

    Dynowarz (NES) Pretty sure it there's only one. Might have a longer title.
    Golden Axe (GEN)

    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 10, 2008:

    I'd like to see a review of that new free MMORPG, Shaiya I think it's called.

    I'd also be tickled if someone did reviews of the old Hugo games.
    board icon
    True posted November 11, 2008:

    Here's my entry.

    Resistance 2
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 11, 2008:

    I'm intrigued as to what people mean when they say "you only need to play for two weeks."

    What, two weeks nonstop? How often do you play games a day?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 11, 2008:

    In the case of UD, you can only play for about fifteen minutes a day because of the way the action point system is set up. Makes for great strategy.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 11, 2008:

    THREE DAYS LEFT!!!

    I'll link the reviews before the deadline... assuming someone doesn't beat me to the task. ;)
    board icon
    honestgamer posted November 12, 2008:

    I'll start a list here, sure. I'd like to see people review:

    Daikatana (Game Boy Color)

    I'll add more as I think about them.
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 12, 2008:

    Daikatana! Bless it.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted November 12, 2008:

    Braid
    board icon
    EmP posted November 12, 2008:

    Shining in the Darkness
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 12, 2008:

    Brave Fencer Musachi
    Vagrant Story
    Anything Fire Emblem

    board icon
    Masters posted November 12, 2008:

    System Shock
    Alone in the Dark 3
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 12, 2008:

    I'm roughly four paragraphs into my review.

    OUTLINE:
    1. Start out mentioning that Undead Line is a Genesis shooter that was also on......other things. Finish paragraph with "and now, on with the review" to get bonus points from the judges.
    2. Start playing Undead Line. Die repeatedly. Get really frustrated. Swear a lot in my review, which is going to be a really experimental live blog of my game experiences.
    3. By the middle of the third paragraph, switch to U.N. Squadron, leaving in all the Undead Line-related material.
    4. Realize that Undead Line sapped my desire to play a shooter after writing a paragraph and a sentence or two, say "enough o' this foolishness, now here's the game I'm really reviewing!"
    5. Figure out which game that will be. Play for about 15-30 minutes, as that's about all the time I'll have for it and tack on a couple of paragraphs about it to what I already have for Undead Line and U.N. Squadron. Maybe I'll just pick a random "U" game no one's covered, and "borrow" a couple paragraphs and screens from Zig's RapeLay review so I get a lot of hits out of this tournament. Yeah.....that sounds good!

    Things are looking pretty good for ol' Overdrive right now!
    board icon
    Suskie posted November 12, 2008:

    I said I was planning to come back to finish this Alphabetolympics business, but it looks like that isn't going to happen. My plan was to buy Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts on launch day (which I was going to do anyway) and review it by the deadline, thus offering up a game that was not only quite new, but interesting to talk about as well. Unfortunately, the move to college has left me downgraded to an SDTV, and the game's microscopic text is literally unreadable. On top of that, most of the dialog is timed, and there's no voice acting. Considering that the game is heavy on tutorials, and thus heavy on text, the game is quite literally unplayable at the moment until either I upgrade to an HDTV or Rare finishes the patch they're supposedly working on.

    Either way, I won't be able to review the game before the deadline. I might muster up the strength to review some other game that starts with B (maybe one of the earlier Banjo-Kazooie games), and I also have reviews for Fallout 3 and Gears of War 2 in the works should Pickhut or Iraff not show up (if that's even allowed), but for the time being, consider my participation in this comp suspended.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 12, 2008:

    Pickhut's already got his, I think. He just... didn't link it in this topic for some reason.
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 12, 2008:

    So many awful deadlines :(
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 12, 2008:

    Ys for NES, too, I think, even if it's already requested. Is that allowed? =/
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 12, 2008:

    I would say if you specify the NES version, yes. Because I'd guess that, as someone who did review the NES version, that anyone asking for a Ys review ISN'T looking for the NES one, necessarily....
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 13, 2008:

    Review submitted.

    I've very intentionally submitted it as a user review instead of a staff one. There are two staff pieces on my game already, and the review itself is... well, you'll see. While I reckon it's a good piece of writing, it's not exactly in keeping with the site's general style.
    board icon
    EmP posted November 13, 2008:

    Mine's on site now, too.
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 13, 2008:

    Here it is!
    board icon
    Halon posted November 13, 2008:

    Ok, just picked out the game I will be reviewing. Thought this would be resolved tonight, who knew that I would be ahead of schedule?
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 13, 2008:

    U = Lick It Up

    And for anyone who thought I was actually unsure of what game I was going to review, let this be a lesson to you: NEVER TRUST OVERDRIVE!
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted November 13, 2008:

    HAVE TO DROP OUT SORRY :@
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 13, 2008:

    Come on people... there's only 8 reviews so far... *hopes for a last day super rush*
    board icon
    Genj posted November 13, 2008:

    Gentleman, I still don't have a game to review. Any suggestions?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 13, 2008:

    NES

    Dragon Warrior 1-4
    Dig Dug - it should be easy if nothing else
    Donkey Kong
    Don Doko Don
    Double Dragon
    Any Dragon Ball Z game
    Duck Hunt
    Duck Tales

    Genesis

    Dinosaurs for Hire
    Anything with Dragon in it.

    Some of these are for both systems.

    Most of these you can just play for a few hours and get the idea of what they are. Some are RPGs, though, where you'll need more time investment.

    Just pick something. lOL
    board icon
    Halon posted November 13, 2008:

    Day of the Tentacle!

    EDIT: Or you can just make up a game. Didn't GUTS do that a few years back and get second place or something?
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 14, 2008:

    Daikatana would be a funny one to do. You don't even need to play that again, for goodness' sake. Just remember how abominable it was.

    Deus Ex, if you're feeling ambitious.
    board icon
    jerec posted November 14, 2008:

    "Didn't GUTS do that a few years back and get second place or something?"

    Yeah, but weren't the judges people like Ruder and Fix? =T
    board icon
    drella posted November 14, 2008:

    Not sure if anyone caught this in my blog but...

    Vigilante
    board icon
    timrod posted November 14, 2008:

    Submitted mine for 3x3 Eyes: Juuma Houkan (SNES)

    (translator's note: Juuma Houkan means Constipated Japanese Man)
    board icon
    japanaman posted November 14, 2008:

    I don't know how to find info on PSN games, so if you can, please add: Guilty Gear Judgement (PSN), Twisted Metal 2 (PSN), and Wild Arms (PSN) to the PSP section.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 14, 2008:

    Please post the link to your review in this thread when it's done. I can't be bothered to search the site for everyone.

    Also Zig do you want to judge? I'll add your review to the list if Suskie doesn't show up but since there are only two judges you can do that if you want.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 14, 2008:

    Yeah, but weren't the judges people like Ruder and Fix? =T

    And you. =)
    board icon
    jerec posted November 14, 2008:

    >_>
    <_<

    Changing the subject, this post is just to see what time it is in HG land. It's already Saturday morning for me.
    board icon
    Suskie posted November 14, 2008:

    Change of plans: I endured the small text enough to get a monstrous amount of playing time in and have submitted my review. That's my entry.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 14, 2008:

    Metal Gear Linkage:

    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/content.php?game_id=695&console_id=8&review_id=7508
    board icon
    zigfried posted November 14, 2008:

    Sportsman:

    Thanks for asking about judging -- I discussed this briefly with Emp, too. I don't think that would work out since I don't have internet (I would have to print all the entries, read them at home, then come back to email verdicts)

    Sorry :(

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted November 14, 2008:

    I see that "X" has become available. If I can pick that letter up, I will post again in about 3 hours to say that my review is underway (which I believe would be 8:00 PM HG time, giving me 4 hours from then to finish).

    I have an idea, but it requires some prep work before I can write the review.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Halon posted November 14, 2008:

    Zig if you can get it done it's yours.

    Time to start my review. What a way to spend Friday night!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 14, 2008:

    You guys forgot to link EmP's and pickhut's reviews.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted November 14, 2008:

    I was just about to link that, too. But thanks. XD
    board icon
    Halon posted November 14, 2008:

    time check
    board icon
    darketernal posted November 14, 2008:

    I sent mine for Out of this World to Emp to proofread so I can submit it a day ago, so the review is over, just will need said amount of time to get it all polished back to me.
    board icon
    zigfried posted November 14, 2008:

    My three-hour report:

    X isn't happening -- the game I had in mind is a bit longer than expected, and I discovered that my second choice technically starts with Y. So if someone else wants to grab the X spot, please take it.

    //Zig
    board icon
    jerec posted November 14, 2008:

    Jason needs to make a clock on the page which automatically shows us what time it is in HG Land.
    board icon
    bluberry posted November 14, 2008:

    WAD.wad
    board icon
    Suskie posted November 14, 2008:

    Okay, so. Today was one of the most cramped days of my life, as it involved work, two classes, a concert, a car crash, and traveling a span of several hundred miles. I actually had to type up my review on a train, so if it seems a little rushed, I apologize, but I really didn't want to end my experience at HG with a no-show. So I hope you enjoy my last HG review:

    Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts

    Edit: I see that it's already been added. Thanks.

    Edit Xtreme: Oh yeah, and I sorted out all of those typos I didn't have time to correct before.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 14, 2008:

    My review is submitted. It's almost 3am here so I'm off to bed. I'll clean up this mess tomorrow.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted November 14, 2008:

    Castle Crashers
    board icon
    MYass posted November 15, 2008:

    Once mine is accepted, put it up.
    board icon
    jerec posted November 15, 2008:

    I'll start judging tomorrow morning. Approx. 12 hours from now.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 15, 2008:

    I suppose I could claim my Mirror's Edge review instead of my MGS:VT review... but we'll go ahead and keep it as is.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 15, 2008:

    Can someone double check the topic and make sure I didn't miss anything?
    board icon
    darketernal posted November 15, 2008:

    Submitted my review, courtey of WQ for proofing it since EmP didn't show up in the last few days. When it is accepted it is for this contest.

    Out of this World.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 15, 2008:

    Well, since it seems submissions are still being accepted, we'll go ahead and switch to Mirror's Edge after all:

    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/content.php?review_id=7561&platform=PlayStation+3&abr=PS3&gametitle=Mirror%27s+Edge
    board icon
    Genj posted November 15, 2008:

    Hey losers, way not to show up. Pfft.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 15, 2008:

    I changed the review, but if it was already judged it will have to be changed back since it was technically posted after the deadline.

    EDIT: Judges take your time. I'm very busy next week and won't be able to post the results until Thursday night. Also HG mail them to me or send them by email to sportsman30@gmail.com
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 16, 2008:

    Game: PAIN
    Platform(s): PS3 (PSN)
    Publisher: SCE (Sony Computer Entertainment)
    Developer: Idol Games
    Genre: Action
    Release Date: US Nov 29, 2007 UK March 20, 2008

    Added.
    board icon
    EmP posted November 17, 2008:

    I could tell you all a tale of mistakes and misinformation, mostly those of other people, that have so delayed this RotW, but, frankly, I dont have the time to do so. So this is as much as an introduction as youre going to get. You all know the rules by now, anyway.


    THIRD:Metal Gear Solid: VR Missions (PSX) by zip dementia

    You keep telling me not to read your review! I am not a Metal Gear Solid fan in the slightest, and, so, took your advice and read no further than the intro.

    If only I could actually get away with that. Oh well.

    The review feels more like an essay on what you argue as the media tainted evolution and, while you make this argument well, it doesnt really tell me much about the title. You have some brief examples squeezed into one paragraph an you make the games option sound interesting -- mission accomplished -- but you then go no further than a quick gloss over before you move right on back to what you really want to talk about. I think its good to use your review to make a bigger point than simply this game is worth X/10, but not at the price of all but ignoring the game itself.

    SECOND: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Pool of Radiance (NES) by dagoss

    Ive never heard of Pool of Radiance -- how do you like them apples, you Alpha no-show, you!

    Now Ive put you in your place, I enjoyed the review despite (or, perhaps, because of) how you drop wordy prose to revel instead in pure nerding. Its a cerebral read that takes even the ignorant such as myself on an educational tour around a game that I can now only assume deserves the praise you lavish upon it. There is the odd thing I would change, like how too many of your paragraphs start with and, but you did what you set out to do; give this game a level of grandeur. Not an easy task to accomplish


    FIRST: Mother 3 (GBA) by timrod

    A 10/10 Timrod review makes me nervous. Perhaps, to show this, Ill pledge never to read a GBA review he writes ever again!

    If I did read the review, I would proclaim it solid. Timrod doesnt need to start with fantastic writing, because its for a game that, so long as you pick the right examples, will write itself. Timrod does pick the right examples, letting the kooky sign about flower trampling and timing your attack combinations with the background music. You make Mother 3 sound great, fully justifying the 10/10 score slapped on the end but, more than that, though you dont skimp on details and the review is long, it feels shorter than it is. Its not an ambitious review, but it is the most effective of the week.

    Thats all
    board icon
    Masters posted November 17, 2008:

    Congrats, I guess, bahaha.
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted November 17, 2008:

    Hey, you bums needs to create a database entry for the XBLA version of Banjo-Kazooie!

    Added.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 17, 2008:

    XD I just realized that this wasn't combining the last two weeks after all. That dispels a ton of confusion right there. Good lord.

    Sorry guys. I know I sounded crass earlier, but man...

    Too many damn ones... I read too many ones.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 18, 2008:

    Seeing as how RotW is two weeks behind now (as opposed to three), I'll gladly play catch up and post the new topics this evening, barring any objections.

    I'll assume no news gives me the green light.

    And please add me to the end of this rotation.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted November 18, 2008:

    It would be easier to just swap you out with someone. My preference has been to be a back-up option, anyway, so why don't I just change my name for yours? I am hoping to get a lot of database work done, in addition to PR contacts and working closely with my freelancers and keeping on top of news postings, so I'm usually a bit frazzled by the time RotW comes around.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 18, 2008:

    Good deal then.

    I'll still catch up and do the 2 we're behind, though.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 18, 2008:

    There were some solid reviews this week. Lets see how things went.

    As always, staff reviews are excluded from the running. Only one review may be selected per reviewer.




    2nd Runner Up: Guilty Gear 2: Overture (X360) by Pickhut

    In general, I like Pickhuts written work for two notable reasons. His style is casual and conversational, yet usually enlightening and thorough, which is notable considering his reviews are rarely lengthy. I also like Picks writing because he covers interesting games in an interesting way, and Guilty Gear 2: Overture is no exception. The intro utilizes dry humor well, and the body of the review works well to inform the reader how certain game inclusions may be misleading. A solid effort.

    1st Runner Up: Jim Power: The Arcade Game (GEN) by Wolfqueen001

    WQ begins this review with vigorous descriptions that make Jim Power: The Arcade game sound like a winner. Then, as she so candidly reveals in the next paragraph, this game isnt quality. It serves as a minor disappointment, as I like the color palette utilized in this game, and it looks like it could at least be a decent title, but the review says otherwise. From the second paragraph on, WQ does an admirable job describing how things get continuously worse. The game may not have been very exciting, but the review contained a consistent energy level from start to finish that made this a fun read.

    Review of the Week: Trilbys Notes (PC) by Synonymous

    Synonymous immediately begins this review by dropping a name Im not familiar with. Ben Croshaw, sure hes the developer behind Trilbys Notes, but who is he really? Well, I went ahead and looked him up. Turns out hes responsible for other several other games in the same series as Trilbys Notes, has developed the 1213 series, and is currently working on a video reviewing project called Zero Punctuation. I wouldnt have cared had Synonymous review not been engaging, but the writing in the review made me curious. It not only tutored me on the game Trilbys Notes, but it opened up my curiosity to a slew of other Croshaw titles. If that doesnt make this piece RotW-worthy, I dont know what does.




    There you have it, folks! Three different women have swept this weeks top three rankings! You go, girls!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 18, 2008:

    But... I thought I was the only woman here.... ;-;

    Haha.

    Thanks, though. That commentary gives me confidence that hopefully I'll meet my goals for the tourney.

    Anyway, congrats to Synonymous, who's name I don't feel I can spell right without a spellchecker. for her victory (girl power!), and to pickhut for placing third, which isn't too bad considering the competition.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 18, 2008:

    This was a competition deadline week. I expect greatness.

    As always, staff reviews are excluded from the running. Only one review may be selected per reviewer.




    2nd Runner Up: Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts (X360) by Suskie

    If this proves to be Suskie's last review for this website, we should be glad that it was for a franchise so well-loved by the author. I can discern Suskie's love for Banjo Kazooie, not because he used to mention how much he enjoyed the N64 games, but because of the way he conveys his opinion over this game. It's easy to throw digs at Rare. Even people who like their games have little issue going against their word when the times seem opportune. Suskie explains the pros and cons to Nuts & Bolts, but he does it in a way that would cater to someone who remembers the greatness of the N64 titles and may be wary about the relaunch of the famous Bear and Bird. I'm one of those people, so I greatly appreciated the information that this review conveyed through Suskie's writing.

    1st Runner Up: Silent Hill 4: The Room (PS2) by Bloomer

    I've read some very good Silent Hill 4 reviews in the past. In spite of the fact that they're negative towards the game, they're nevertheless interesting analyses. Bloomer's SH4 review is also very good, but it's also more forgiving for the game in question. The writing is incredibly engaging in spite of the paragraphs appearing lengthy. My eyes glided across the text with little obstacle, leaving me very satisfied with what I had just read. This would have won RotW in most weeks, so be sure to read it if you haven't yet.

    Review of the Week: Resistance 2 (PS3) by True

    This is a review that strives to place palpable emotion, rage, and excitement into words. It succeeds. Sometimes a reviewer can get a little too fan-fic-y in his writing, but Trues Resistance 2 review contains an excellent balance of styles. The style is incredibly engaging as it paints a detailed picture of the game, but its also informative enough for the reader to get some useful information. I wanted a fight. A damn good one. Looks like True got it.




    There were some other really good reviews submitted this week, but alas there is no room to laud them here. Thankfully, Drella (I believe) has this current week, so be sure to swamp him with some skill.

    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 18, 2008:

    Good job guys. These are some great reviews.

    And thanks to Felix for catching us up finally.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted November 18, 2008:

    Thanks for the various comments, Felix. Congrats to Wolfqueen on her placing and Synonymous for the RotW spot.
    board icon
    True posted November 19, 2008:

    Thanks for the honor, Felix. It's nice to know that I've still got it after a year, especially being matched against reviewers like Suskie and Bloomer, whom both did a wonderful job.
    board icon
    bloomer posted November 19, 2008:

    Yep, very good work everyone. Though I agree with what Zipp said in the feedback, True, about that 'war/brilliant' line. I don't think there's anyway around it looking like it's saying war per se is brilliant and flawless. Gotta change!
    board icon
    Masters posted November 19, 2008:

    Thanks for stepping in Felix. I've already read and enjoyed Bloomer's review; I'll check out the other two later today.
    board icon
    jerec posted November 19, 2008:

    Since you let me take my time, I've done just that. Got 5 more to go, then I'll be done.

    EDIT: Finished judging and it's all been sent to Sportsman.
    board icon
    yamishuryou posted November 20, 2008:

    It could be worse.

    You could be playing Chrono Cross or Legend of Dragoon.

    Oh, wait

    Zing!
    board icon
    Halon posted November 20, 2008:

    Just waiting on the other judge's verdict now!
    board icon
    bluberry posted November 20, 2008:

    there is no mystery judge, you just don't have yours done and it's all an act. I see how it is.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 20, 2008:

    Sportsman's in the ontest. He can't judge.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 20, 2008:

    You'll be amazed what I'm capable of doing.
    board icon
    Synonymous posted November 20, 2008:

    who's name I don't feel I can spell right without a spellchecker

    Heh; my real name isn't much of an improvement.

    Thanks very much for the early birthday present, thanks to EmP for the kind words earlier, and congratulations to wolfqueen and pickhut!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 20, 2008:

    Can't wait to see what the judges think!
    board icon
    jerec posted November 20, 2008:

    Didn't take much effort to judge your entry, Bluberry.
    board icon
    bluberry posted November 20, 2008:

    I aim to please.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 21, 2008:

    Jerec's critique might actually be longer than the review.
    board icon
    jerec posted November 21, 2008:

    Nah, it's the same amount of words. I made sure of that.
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 21, 2008:

    That might be a feat all unto itself!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 21, 2008:

    "Fucking hell, this review is horrible."
    board icon
    jerec posted November 21, 2008:

    Actually, it's one word less. I can't count.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 21, 2008:

    Just got word from the other judge. He's working on the results and they should be up when he's done.
    board icon
    timrod posted November 21, 2008:

    Is the other judge on the Duke Nukem Forever devteam?
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 21, 2008:

    The other judge is me. I gave myself a cool 100/100. Now I'm just trying to get Jerec's scores, so I know how to score you in order that I win, but not by so much as to arouse suspicion (at least not any more than would be aroused by me judging a contest I'm in and giving myself a perfect score).
    board icon
    jerec posted November 21, 2008:

    Hurry it up, then.
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 22, 2008:

    *twiddles thumbs*
    board icon
    drella posted November 23, 2008:

    Usually the week following a contest deadline is slow, and with only four submissions to choose from, my expectations were met. These four reviews are all competent, but none of them standout as being especially better than any another.

    The 3D Battles of the World Runner by wolfqueen is a short, simple look at an NES game. There's nothing to get too excited over, and even WQ admits World Runner isn't much more than a time killer. It's hard to get excited over a time killer. Are the foundations for its 3D marvels locked within its simplistic coding? Well, maybe, but if you're going to lump any amount of credit on it, you should at least try to then point to a game where its influence can be seen. The review doesn't paint much of a picture either; no mention of the garish green shrubbery or the bizarre checkerboard Earth the World Runner tromps.

    Fallout 3 by Ness is the longest of the four reviews, but because it takes so long to get to -- yes, I'm going to use that phrase -- the "meat and potatoes" of the game I wouldn't even necessarily call it the most comprehensive. I understand the Oblivion reference, but like Lewis, I don't see enough parallels to keep building so much around it. But really, when five paragraphs into a review I read the line "Once youve finished the tutorials and character creation activities" I'm wondering it the author had any kind of outline, even in his head, before sitting down to write. It's got to be more succinct or attention-grabbing. The party dynamic and objectives are left fairly vague; you briefly mention people joining your party but don't mention anything more and you mention the main quest takes 10-15 hours but convey almost nothing as to what that consists of. It's not a bad attempt for such a complicated game, but this feels unfocused.

    Pickhut offers up Gears of War 2 and I can only offer more of the usual advice to him, which is while he knows exactly what material to cover about a game to get his point across, he needs to proofread his work. Such simple mistakes include subject/verb agreement or the use of "distract" instead of "detract." Thoughts need to be organized and structured better with more thought put into how to transition from one point to another, not just always "speaking of" or "then" or something else. There's a lot of good points that only hit with half their power because the writing is loose and without much tone.

    And the winner this week is Iron Tank: The Invasion of Normandy by zippdementia, which came across as the most genuine, because walking away I really thought zipp enjoyed the game. I wasn't a big fan of the strange introduction or even getting into the Solid Snake bit, but he seems to be having the most fun out of the four writers too. The approach works for his nostalgic angle, and it's always great to convey you enjoy what you're doing. Enthusiasm breaks ties; it's not a complicated formula.

    Ultimately, nothing really separates the reviews submitted this week, so read them all! And, with Thanksgiving approaching, it should be noted that the HG.com crew really is thankful for the continued support of our user base. Even in the dry weeks. Now pass the gravy.
    board icon
    drella posted November 23, 2008:

    Edit: Date should read 11/16/2008 - 11/22/2008.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 23, 2008:

    Heh. *passes gravy* Thanks for the feedback. I admit this wasn't the easiest game to write about, so that's probably reflected in the review. I'd really just wanted to keep it short and simple, so hopefully I did that at least. I agree that I should've maybe backed up my argument a bit more, but as usual when I think I should do something and don't, I couldn't really find a good place or way to do that. And the better imagery thing never really crossed my mind, haha. I don't think I considered it all that important, though, but I understand your point with it.

    Anyway, congrats to the winner(s?). Zipp's might be a game I'd check out later, since the other two are too current for me at the moment.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 23, 2008:

    Hey hey! That's awesome!

    You're spot on in your take on my review. Definitely the style was not as focused as I'd like it to be, but like you surmised, I was basically having the same kind of fun with the review that I did with the game.

    I've said it before, but reviewing older games is tough! Usually there's very little to say, so there's a challenge to be both fun to read while simultaneously critiquing what you can.

    Anyways, not my most polished work, but one of my favourite reviews just because I had fun writing it in between playing Legendary.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted November 23, 2008:

    Congrats to zip on hos RotW spot, and the rest of the reviewers mentioned.

    Thanks for some of the advice you gave, leroux. I'm not really surprised you had problems with the review, because I submitted it a bit too fast. Like, a day after I wrote it. Normally, I'd check and sit on a review for a few days, then finally put it up. Back then, I thought there was no more to say or change, so I figured it would be okay to submit to the site, but a week later, I do kinda regret putting it up pretty quick. While I still feel the way I do about the game in the campaign and multiplayer segments, I do feel bad for neglecting the Horde mode, which is really the game's highlight.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted November 25, 2008:

    I have sent my verdicts to your gmail address, sportsman.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted November 25, 2008:

    Yeah, well...your face!

    But luckily I dropped Drakengard for Ace Combat 5, which has more explosions.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 25, 2008:

    Heeeey! LoD's AWESOME! And you're just jealous.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 25, 2008:

    My suspense turns to apathy...

    Nah, I'm still waiting with bated breath. But it's probably because I didn't brush my teeth yet today.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted November 25, 2008:

    Yeah, a deep-seated jealousy of Chrono Cross and LOD would explain much of EmP's behavior.
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 25, 2008:

    OD's sick of waiting, so here are your results!

    1. Overdrive. COMMENTS: Overdrive is awesome. He should have won every year, but got screwed.

    2. Blu. COMMENTS: Us judges appreciate brevity in large contests and no other review was as short and to the point as this one.

    3. Sho. COMMENTS: He reviewed Exile. 'Nuff said. Now take your heroin (heartpoison, if you go with the Genny version) and go home.

    4. The rest of you. COMMENTS: Better luck next year, but you all picked the wrong games. No AD&D Gold Box, no Wizardry, no Dragon Quest, no Shin Megami Tensei, no Ultima (other than WORLD CHAMP OVERDRIVE), no Doom wads (unless that was what Blu's WAD.wad review was for, which is part of the reason why he got second in the first place), no dice.
    board icon
    bluberry posted November 26, 2008:

    you're thick as shit, of course WAD.wad is a wad. that's the whole joke...
    board icon
    drella posted November 26, 2008:

    This has been a disappointment.
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 26, 2008:

    This was not a triumph.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted November 26, 2008:

    This is CNN.
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 26, 2008:

    Blu
    I was operating under the impression that you could have, like GUTS, made up a game in order to place highly in this contest. For your insolence, I'm considering switching you and Sho around to give him second place and you third.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 26, 2008:

    Blame Canada.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 26, 2008:

    All the results are in. I have to run to a store now so the topic should be up in 2-3 hours.
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 26, 2008:

    Place your bets.

    I'm edging towards WolfQueen, with an outside bet on Drella. Though I'm quite tempted to put a quid down on Blu and see if I get seven thousand back.
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 26, 2008:

    My bet is that EmP will win the prestigious Jason "HG" Venter Wild Arms 3 Award. The prize handed out is the skeleton of a small animal whose bones have been bleached by the relentless sunlight.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted November 26, 2008:

    I'm aiming for that trophy myself, Overdrive. Only I am so capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
    board icon
    Halon posted November 26, 2008:

    I apologize for the tardiness; there was a confusion about the deadline with one of the judges.

    Congrats to everyone who entered this thing and made it great. Turnout wasnt as great as I was hoping but there were plenty of great reviews in this. Also special thanks to the judges, Janus, Jerec and Masters for their hard work.

    Now on to the results!

    # is for 3x3 Eyes by Timrod

    JANUS: Are Japanese workers renowned for standing around absentmindedly?
    My problem with this review is that I have absolutely no idea what's going on. I realise that this confusion is partly intentional because you also found the game baffling and the central argument for the 1/10 score is the inanity of the gameplay. 3X3 Eyes does seem completely incomprehensible to someone who has no knowledge of the anime series upon which it is based. On that level I'm convinced. However, I found the review itself hard to engage with for different reasons. As a reader there is nothing substantial to relate the writing to and as a result most of the humour was lost on me (if I knew for sure the genre I would be able to visualise the writing better). Most of the sentences are also fairly long (and punctuated with dashes), which works against comprehension when you're linking several random crazy examples. But you do get my sympathy for drawing the numbers. 49

    JEREC: The intro seemed a little bitter at the contest, but fair enough. I'm not sure it belonged in the review itself, though. It makes sense now, but it's going to look pretty weird to anyone who happens to read your review any time after this. If that happens at all... But that's really my only negative comment about the review. It's a funny bash review. I liked how you called the Constipated Japanese guy CJ. I liked how you made fun of the weird and crappy stuff in the game without resorting to venomous attacks. 82

    MASTERS: Funny intro for the purposes of the contest, but for a random reader coming across it, it would be extremely confusing and maybe off-putting. The jokes keep coming, but after awhile I got bogged down by them and wanted to picture the game, and couldn't. It also sounds like Timrod beat the game, but how did he manage that? What's the point of the game? I think the language PLUS subject matter barriers are too great for the review to be credible so we get wit in place of info. 48

    A is for Alisia Dragoon by EmP

    JANUS: The theme established at the start of this review (innocent Alisia in comparison to other idealised heroines) was fantastic, and I think it strikes right to the heart of the appeal this game has. There's something different about playing as a ordinary girl (albeit one blessed with extraordinary powers). I liked the way Emp opened with this thread then returned to it at the close, because it really emphasises this as a unique strength of the game. Emp does a good job of making Alisia Dragoon seem like a dramatic, thrill-a-minute experience with some typically vivid descriptions. For example: the zombie legionnaires that appear from the sky in emerald flashes. The lightning attack is also made to sound particularly impressive. So Emp succeeds in making me want to play Alisia Dragoon. The only things holding the review back are some awkward phrasing and over-long sentences: the "This helps when she's stalking beneath..." line, for example. Sometimes this makes the review hard to follow, but otherwise this was an strong, entertaining effort. 92


    JEREC: This could have read like any of the other hundred reviews I've read for Genesis action game, but it didn't. I enjoyed how you talked about the character, because not only did it make the review interesting to read, it actually made me interested in the game. Well, not interested enough to actually go and play it, but that's due to my own lack of time or motivation. But if I were to poke through my list of Genesis roms, I'd give this a go. The only issue I had with this review is that a few sentences here were much too long - divided up with far too many commas that they got a little difficult to follow. Also, you typo'd the game's name in the intro. 88

    MASTERS: If there's one thing Emp can do, it's great intros. I like the girl hook, but the following two paragraphs feel a bit overwritten. The review concludes nicely with the girl theme coming full circle, and the thing is well written as Emp reviews always are, but I felt it was lacking in analysis. We get the 'show, don't tell' type of reviewing where a nice picture is painted, but not enough emphasis as to how the goodness of the picture impacted the reviewer. 86

    B is for Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts by Suskie

    JANUS: This was a fantastic review. Two things impressed me about it -- actually, make that three things. Firstly, the structure was faultless. Every time I had a question in my head Suskie answered it in the very next paragraph, and the fact that I had these questions show how effective the review is at enticing the reader in and making them WANT to read more about the game. So when learning about the limitless possibilities for construction I was thinking "OK, this sounds great, but what purpose do they serve?" Suskie answered this in the next couple of paragraphs, and the fact that he did it in this order made the main selling point (the construction) the dominant theme. My second point is that the writing was impeccable. Suskie adopted this sort of "post 3D-platformer" tone, judging Nuts & Bolts as a new game for the mini-game age, but at the same time allowed a sense of nostalgia to creep in during the intro and conclusion. I thought this was a superb way to handle a game that tries to resurrect Banjo and Kazooie because it made it feel relevant and fresh and not a tired cash-in. I forgot my third point, but oh well. Excellent review. 97

    JEREC: I was looking forward to this review, and I'm glad you were able to get it done. This is one of those new games I'm interested in, but I still have second thoughts. Until now, I had no idea what to expect of the game, but you've answered a whole lot of questions for me with this review. Like, how did it compare to the first two? I realise now that they're taking the series in a different direction, and you do make it sound like a good thing. I was worried that this whole game was just a gimmick, but... it sounds fun. The review itself is perhaps a little long and wordy, especially in the first few paragraphs. But it picks up later, and there's that bit where you talk about trying your flying chair in a situation. You know what this review feels like? It's like I'm sitting next to you while you're playing this and showing me all the cool stuff you can do. Not many reviews can really do that effectively, but you pull it off here quite well. 90

    MASTERS: Things start off dry, but the Mario throwing parties joke turns it around in a hurry. The second paragraph, I don't 'get' at all.
    In fact, the continuing "LOG" thing completely escapes me. As I read, I got the impression that I might appreciate the review more if I had any experience at all with the series. It's written well as always, but it goes on a bit long, and feels a bit more like a blog entry than a review. 68

    C is for XLA) target=new>Castle Crashers by DoI

    JANUS: The introduction was spot-on: there really are so many internet based time-wasters these days. I like the way you relate Castle Crashers to this movement, which I think is fairly emblematic of most independent XLA games in that they take simple genres like the beat-'em-up and cram them with wacky ideas. I thought this review was strongest when it was covering this craziness. I actually would have enjoyed hearing more about this because it allows you to convey your enthusiasm and makes Castle Crashers sound like a game with tons of personality. Discussion of the intensity and creativity of the enemies and settings made the game sound great fun, and the fights over the princess sound hilarious. However, I'm not convinced about the depth. Or rather, I think that while there may be depth, it's not exactly the sort of longevity that is unique. Different elemental powers and combos have been a beat-'em-up staple since time began, and so in this respect Castle Crashers doesn't really seem to differ from the flash tradition of using unoriginal formulas. Still, this was an enjoyable read and I liked the way you used short sentences at the beginning of paragraphs to hone in on your point, with the most amusing example being "Pretty much everything in Castle Crashers hates you". 80

    JEREC: Short, to the point, and sadly, kinda boring. I never really got into this review, just sort of reading along with half my mind paying attention. I wasn't distracted by anything, I don't think. I can see what you're saying about this game, about its art style and masses of enemies... and something about flash games and then this game not being a flash game. What this review lacks, I think, is why it's fun. You tell me it's fun, and I'll have a good time, but I'm not convinced. 70

    MASTERS: An excellent intro transitions into the incredibly smoothly written meat of this review before Dragoon loses steam, giving way to a bit of redundancy and decidely less style. It's a review of a simple game, and it's a short review, so the issues with prose quality tend to stand out more. 78

    E is for Exile by Sho

    JANUS: Sho wins the award for opening line of the competition. As always, the writing is superb and the analysis is succinct and insightful. In a ROM-happy competition such as this, sho's knowledge of Working Designs and the previous exploits of Sadler give him an authority and authenticity that a writer can lack if they randomly pick a 16-bit game to review. Something feels missing, though. Maybe it's the subject material, which sounds fairly ordinary outside its few quirks, but this seems about as close to a cookie-cutter sho review as you're likely to get. There's something about the plot-humour-one paragraph of gameplay criticism structure that feels uninspired, particularly when compared to Suskie's beautifully organised review. Nevertheless, sho's writing, knowledge and commentary are still strong. 82

    JEREC: A lot of time is spend talking about the outrageous things the main character does, and the setting, but aside from a small bit about how simple the game is, I don't know much beyond that it's an action RPG. Oh, and something about level grinding. I suppose I can't complain, since the game is supposedly simple. And I did like the comment about the Virtual Console. I can't see something like this on a Nintendo console, and it would be awesome if it managed to sneak under the radar. A decent, short review. 83

    MASTERS: This review is ridiculously well-written. It's the perfect length, it is relentlessly paced, and it informs in a knowing yet irreverent fashion. There are no missteps here. Of course, I'd have applauded the game based on the author's use of the word "eldritch" alone. Brilliant. 93

    G is for Guilty Gear 2 by Pickhut

    JANUS: The MegaMan joke was funny because I didn't think you were going to be funny. If that makes sense.... Anyway, this was a good review. Overture is explained thoroughly and your judgments are clear and well-supported. I didn't expect anything else, and maybe that's an issue in itself. Although good, this is entirely what I expect from a pickhut review and maybe a contest is a time to confound these expectations and attempt something different (even if it doesn't work)? I think I'm probably going to reiterate some of the things Leroux mentioned about your Gears of War 2 review, too. My main issue with this review is that any sense of thematic progression is abandoned just over half way through and you rush through settings, story and online play in a very strict and dull manner. The result is that the ending of the review is plain and forgettable. So I think in terms of organisation you could have held the review together better, especially given that the first half actually does a good job of linking different points in a structured way. In other words, good review, but room for improvement. 83

    JEREC: I kinda lost the plot about half way through this review, when at one moment, the game was like a brawler based on a fighting game series, and then there's capture ghosts and masterghosts and units and it seemed like out of nowhere I was reading about a completely different game. But then I re-read it and saw the transition I somehow missed the first time (often, when I get bored, I find I read on auto-pilot, so when something snaps me back to attention like this... I get confused). Okay, so once I got back on track, I realised that it was sounding very complicated and not very fun, and perhaps that works in your favour, because I can see the 6/10 score. In a round-about way, the review manages to get its point across. I just found it really boring and confusing. Much like this game seems to be. 60

    MASTERS: Pickhut makes me laugh right away with the Megaman bit and the bit about getting the game as soon as it comes out. He keeps things conversational and flowing for most of the review (which seems longer than his usual works). The issue as I see it, is that the 'how' of the gameplay isn't properly tied to the 'how good is it'. I am informed in an entertaining way up until the end when I see the score, and am truly at a loss as to why the game received it. 72

    H is for Half-Life 2 by Lewis

    JANUS: This is exactly what I mean about a contest being the place to experiment and attempt something different (see comments on pickhut's review). My initial impressions were OH NO NOT HALFLIFE 2, but the greatest achievement of this review is that it manages to feel fresh and unique even in the ocean of Half-Life 2 praise. This is mainly down to the writing, which is wonderful. Half-Life 2 is described in extremely succinct, very visual chunks that take you right back into the game (if you've played it) or entice you into Gordon Freeman's world (if you haven't). It doesn't say anything particularly new, but then when you aren't breaking new ground the key is in finding little things that people have forgotten. This is why the description of the hillside village is especially striking. The writing is so strong and the examples offer such a thrilling and engaging account of Half-Life 2's appeal that the repetition of "imagine" was never an issue. The only minor blemish was the cringe-worthy paragraph on Alyx, but otherwise this was brilliant. 96

    JEREC: One of those reviews, huh? Oh, very lovely writing, full of dichotomy, imagery, and a whole lot of pretentiousness that doesn't really tell me anything. I haven't played Half Life 2, and I don't know much about it. I don't feel like I know any more about the game, and it certainly doesn't make me want to play the game. Because I know what these reviews are like, I've seen too many of them try to evoke the mood of a game to a player that has no idea what you're on about. I inherently don't trust reviews like this, because they exaggarate, fabricate, and can be quite misleading. If I were to play this game, would it be anything at all like you've tried to get me to imagine? I don't know. You get 30 points for good writing, but as a review, this doesn't work. 30

    MASTERS: This is an ambitious effort which is mostly successful. I was blown away for the opening few paragraphs, before the uniformity of the approach started to wear on me, and the line "Your reputation precedes you..." is rather jarring after every sentence prior began with "imagine". Towards the end, the 'imagines' are interspersed with some insights sans-gimmick, and I think the review could benefit from that happening earlier on. Still, it doesn't get much better than this. 88

    J is for Jim Power by Wolfqueen

    JANUS: I was about to give you 99 until you mocked the mighty GENESIS GUITAR! This was a difficult review to judge. One the one hand, it was an entertaining read, explored the game's levels fully, and delivered a convincing assessment of its main faults (repetition and difficulty). In some of the reviews I have read so far it has taken a while to establish the style and genre of the game, but here the descriptions create a very vivid picture of Jim Power right from the very first sentence. The result is that the review is very engaging and easy to read. However, sometimes the writing is a little rough. Here's an example: "Its greatest variation lay between levels." This is a sudden change in tense and should really read "Its greatest variation lies between levels", but even then it isn't totally clear. "There's plenty of variety in the level design" is simpler (if that's what you mean). Also, the effort to be descriptive results in some over-worded sentences: hostile Roman-style legionnaires could be shortened to hostile Roman legions, for example. Still, I think you're clearly attempting to push your writing forward and make it more descriptive, analytical and entertaining. I would encourage all of these things, but make sure that you reread your reviews to identify what works and what doesn't work so you can improve your technical accuracy and expression. 81

    JEREC: I enjoyed reading about the various ways you died. It sounds incredibly frustrating to me, and I'm impressed you stuck with it when there's so many other games out there to play. The cheating bit was good, and quite honest. Not many of us will admit to cheating in a game, but here I can completely understand why. It's a well written review, easy and enjoyable to read. I know enough about this game to avoid it, and you've convinced me it was bad. I did like the way the game got the last laugh, too. Serves you right for cheating. 90

    MASTERS: Wolfqueen's review boasts solid prose, but has issues with flow. The intro makes the game sound good, which she doesn't think it is. The following paragraph which is supposed to be describing how frustrating the game is, doesn't quite make its point, because many of the examples of death cited could be chalked up to a shit player at the controls. Then suddenly we're told the game is boring which is a bit jarring. The review comes into its own later, but then has a somewhat confusing paragraph about laser blasts. The final two 'cheat' paragraphs are a good, funny read, but the review ends abruptly and unfairly on a note brought about by cheating. 70

    L is for The Legend of Zelda by Sportsman

    JANUS: My predicament with this review is that I like it, but I'm not sure I'm convinced by it. I'll begin with the things I like. I thought the measured, subtle tone of the writing was appropriate. It lacked enthusiasm and wouldn't suit every game, but here I felt it matched the gist of your argument, which is that the Legend of Zelda offers very pure and simple adventuring in the literal sense. I thought this approach was very refreshing, because dealing with the mythology of this title is a tired formula by now. It's almost as if you rediscover the charms of this game and judge it based on what it is, rather than the series that it's a part of. However, there were times when I just wasn't totally convinced by your arguments. My response to the opening paragraph is: see Oblivion. I think selling Zelda on this basis relies a lot on appreciating the historical perspective, given that a lot of games have moved towards freedom recently. Nevertheless, the puzzle angle is more persuasive, but even within this I have issues. Fighting eight enemies and a pillar doesn't sound especially exciting. You don't really express the intensity of this other than stating that it is intense (twice!), so some variation in the description would be good here to elevate Zelda beyond historical relic status. I did enjoy this review and, as I've said, the approach is takes was refreshing, but it doesn't really convince me of the 10/10. 80

    JEREC: I was quite intrigued how you would approach a game like this... and I am glad that it was a short, honest piece which didn't talk glory about the Zelda franchise and how this was the start of it all. Instead, you just simply talk about what makes this one a true adventure, and describing the game as one huge puzzle has certainly made me look at the old game in a new way. I hadn't really thought of it like that. I found the game far too non-linear, and I never knew where I was supposed to go, but I think I was missing the point. As far as the review goes, it was a pretty gripping read until the conclusion, where it just seemed to be repeating lines from earlier in the review. I know repetition is a good way to sum up, but it felt tacked on here. 86

    MASTERS: Sportsman writes a focused essay which implores the reader to agree with him that LoZ is THE adventure game, that its appeal has survived the years because it's OUR adventure and can be approached in any number of ways. I admire the way he rides his thesis, but there isn't enough showing here to go with the telling. I know the concept behind why he thinks Zelda is so great, but show me more of the sights and sounds and describe those intense later battles you mention so I can more easily believe this old relic is a ten. 76

    M is for Mirrors Edge by Zippdementia

    JANUS: I agree completely with the introduction. I've lost count of the number of games that have looked promising in preview stage only to ruin my expectations on their release. I was impressed most by the level of analysis in this review. Your response to the dystopian environment, for example, was considered, accepting that it's rather sterile but explaining how this turns out to be a positive in the context of the game. In terms of criticism, this review was very thoughtful and interesting, especially when you analyse what makes a good platformer (and how this relates to Mirror's Edge). However, as a contest review, I didn't enjoy it as much as some of the others and I think this is because of the way it is structured. As an essay it lacks unity, and this detracts from the readability (couldn't think of a better word!). It almost works as four distinct sections: the summary-style intro which ends with the question, all the good points, then all the bad points, then the observations on the platform genre. So although the review is strong, it lacks coherence and flow. 84

    JEREC: I've got no problem with lengthy reviews when they're as good as this one. Despite not having a PS3, I found this review incredibly interesting. I found myself wanting to know about this game, and how it did some things so well, and others not so well. I would think a first person platformer would not work, but here I'm convinced it does work. And there's lovely bits of writing that seem so simple, but say so much about the game. This line, for example, "In a game where the draw is soaring through the open air, there seems to be little to gain from clipping the player's wings." I can visualise this game, though I haven't seen a single screenshot or video. I can imagine what it's like to play this game. I can see why you'd like it, why you'd keep it, even with the flaws. This is a wonderful piece of persuasive writing. I'm glad you went with this over that Metal Gear Solid something review. 95

    MASTERS: I love that this review is brimming with enthusiasm. The intro is engaging, if overly dramatic, and the review arrives at its score quite ideally. The only issues with the review are some grammatical quirks, and the transitions. More finesse moving from one topic and one paragraph to the next would elevate this review to rarer air. As it stands, still a solid piece. 85

    O is for Out of this World by Darketernal

    JANUS: I am a member of the DE fan-club but this review was just too baffling for me. I think creativity is a good thing, and as reviewers we should always use contests as an opportunity to produce unique and uncharacteristic efforts, but this review was just really, really confusing. I've read it about five times now and I'm still not sure I have a clue what is going on. The creative narrative is so dominant that I don't have any idea what Out of the World is about or what it's like to play. I don't really understand what makes it different. This sort of approach can work, but here the balance is skewed too much in favour of story-telling at the expense of reviewing. When being creative you still need to review the game, and this effort doesn't do that. 30

    JEREC: I liked the third person perspective used here, both on your younger self, and the game's character. The review seemed overly negative, and I was surprised to see the 6, and the fact that your younger self seemed to like the game a lot, though it was obviously frustrating for him. Kinda reminds me of my gaming youth. I liked games like the Keen series (as you referenced it, it brought a grin to my face). They weren't great games, but we played them anyway. Stuff like that helped me identify with this review quite well, making it quite effective. 86

    MASTERS: The review starts strong, but hits a rocky patch with the "Instead, what awaited..." paragraph. I like the theme of 'young boy held in rapt attention by frustrating game' and it mostly works, but later on you move away from it, substituting 'you' for the boy or Lester, which threw me. Also, I know you're working a 'gimmick', but to say "through a series of challenges" just makes me want more actual gameplay details, and I don't get it, so that's disappointing. Still, you've got an excellent ending here. One more thing: BEER? Really? 86

    R is for Resistance 2 by True

    JANUS: True is a good example of how much you can improve if you really work on your writing. Without wishing to sound cliched, this review takes the reader on a journey, with True guiding us through the memorable moments and experiences to be had in Resistance 2. This approach is fantastic because it's entertaining to read and allows True to express just how striking and awesome the game is. It helps that the writing is almost flawless, describing the game with grace, enthusiasm and conviction. I also liked the way you dismissed the inferior FPS games in the first paragraph because it gives you a basis to really persuade us that Resistance 2 is something special and unique. The accounts that you then use to illustrate the game's qualities are wonderful because they are vivid and descriptive but still show restraint. Take the "From edge to edge..." sentence. You create an incredibly powerful image using only one sentence, and I think the ability to be concise in such an elegant way is the mark of a great writer. The only blemishes are a couple of minor writing errors ("keep your peace", "isolate Antarctica", etc.) and the unintentionally ambiguous "war is brilliant and flawless" ending. 95

    JEREC: You need to proof-read this. I don't mind a few errors, but some of them were quite jarring. Other than that, your love of this game shines through with every line. I could visualise what you were saying about the game (helped, I suppose, by the pictures to the right). If I played FPS's at all, and had a PS3, I'd feel compelled to give this game a go. Judging by the last lines in this review, I'm guessing that's what you were going for, so mission accomplished. Just proof-read the review, fix up a few silly little errors, and you'll have a fantastic, persuasive review that few could find fault with. 89

    MASTERS: What does it mean that Hale is 'one-sided'? The paragraph immediately following could be less awkward and that would help make your point. That being said, you turn around and write a brilliant paragraph right after that, describing the magnitude of the game. The "I ran faster" one sentence paragraph is very strong -- and I found that an issue, because you follow it up with a description of another boss, where I thought you might expound on the running and what happened next. After that, it's all smooth sailing, but this doesn't smack of the caliber True normally achieves. 82

    S is for The Sims 2 by Honestgamer

    JANUS: I'll be honest and say that this review left me feeling a bit disappointed. I think there are generally two types of Venter reviews: ones where you are obviously interested in the title and let this enthusiasm come across in the description of the gameplay, and ones where you don't seem as excited by the concept but still deliver a very professional assessment of the game (an example off the top of my head would be your recent Cooking Mama review). This one, however, doesn't really fit into either category. The extended introduction is cute, but all it really tells me is that you don't really care for The Sims and that the person who should probably be writing this review is your wife. You need to review expansion packs from a position of authority because you have to assume your audience is going to very well informed. This review undermines this straight away by declaring that you only checked your wife's progress occasionally. This lack of familiarity with the game results in a review that feels like an extended press release. It therefore provides adequate information on the gameplay features, but fails to offer precise analysis of how Apartment Life works as an expansion pack. Magic, to take one example, is tossed in almost as an aside, without you really explaining how it works or what it adds to The Sims experience. I think that instead of reviewing this game by proxy it would have been more valuable had you just let your wife share her thoughts. 65

    JEREC: This review was a mess. Reviewing expansions is tough, I know, but something like this, where it's just a bunch of new features... it's absolutely meaningless in a context like this. I'm not even sure a Sims player would need to read a review for this, just find a list of what's new and decide for themselves. But that's beside the point. This review starts off with an overly long anecdote on Mr. and Mrs. Venter's Sims experience, and at least you didn't line up in the store to get the game, or we'd be hearing about that, too. The rest of the review is just all over the place, really. As a non-Sims player, I can't make much sense of it. Doesn't mean a thing. It seemed like an interesting experiment, to review a game based on someone else's play experience, but... here it does not work. 25

    MASTERS: I like Venter's intro. It's casual and relatable. The bit about "I do, after all, field press releases from HUNDREDS OF CONTACTS" is probably true, but sounds like braggadocio so it made me laugh. Anyway, I think you're missing a word in the "...EA cash cow..." line. And unfortunately, after the anecdote starring your wife began the review nicely, the back and forth with your young lady seems to go on for a bit too long in the following paragraphs. Also, I didn't expect a score of 8 after reading a mostly unenthusiastic and mostly negative account of an expansion pack that either doesn't offer much in the way of new material, or if it does, you don't recognize it. It's good writing, but it's dry, and I think apathy toward the subject matter is to blame. 74

    U is for Ultima: Quest of the Avatar by Overdrive

    JANUS: I was going to make a joke here about OD being the HG Mail Man in that he always deliv.... Anyway, I don't really have a whole lot to say about this entry. This is not a world-beater Overdrive review for me because it doesn't really do anything special or unique in the same way that Lewis or Suskie do, but even standard Overdrive is excellent. This review starts with the sort of opening sentence that makes you want to read on, then goes through the gameplay in a logical, insightful manner. I particularly liked the way you balanced up the positives and negatives -- so you started by discussing how Quest of the Avatar is unique, then addressed its flaws before ending on a higher note with your conclusion that the positives of the dungeon-crawling and the later stages of the adventure outweigh the faults. This is just sensible structuring. As someone who mentally groups NES RPGs into one big lump, your ability to differentiate between RPGs is also impressive. The point about talking to townsfolk being particularly relevant to this game is a good example of this. Having the knowledge to hone in on specific parts of Quest of the Avatar that matter to your target audience (like the manual) gives your writing credibility and authority. I expected this review to be good... and it was! 89

    JEREC: This game sounds interesting. Mostly because it is, as you say, different from most other RPGs. I might've even wanted to play it, had my eyes not strayed to the right of the review where the screenshots were. Ick. I know what to expect from an Overdrive review, I've read so many of them by now, and I was not disappointed by this one. It flows perfectly. I never had to re-read a sentence. And most importantly, I felt like I was missing something by not playing this game. That is good writing. 94

    MASTERS: I could find no fault with Rob's review. It has smooth transitions, no awkward word choices, makes sensible arguments and weighs pros and cons effortlessly. It also engaged me from start to finish, and I don't care for RPG's of any sort, least of all old school Ultima-types -- so to keep me reading was a feat in and of itself. There aren't many frills or big words bandied about to make this review any kind of Promethean drama 'piece', but who says that's what reviewing should be about anyway? 90

    V is for Vigilante by Drella

    JANUS: If OD is the HG RPG expert, then Drella has the beat-'em-up side of things covered. I think the difference between the two writers, though, is that I generally know what to expect from an Overdrive review, whereas a Drella review always manages to surprise me in terms of style and writing. This Vigilante review, for example, is hilarious in places, whether mocking the ludicrous story or ridiculing the limited gameplay ("one fucking bald guy", "dick punch", etc.). Stylistic techniques, such as the repetition of the "Skinheads have taken Madonna hostage" line, and the level of conviction and hostility in the writing make it a highly engaging read. You can't help but become absorbed by Drella's argument, especially given that the style is backed up by a core of extremely precise and detailed analysis. This review does not simply mock the game, it analyses exactly why the gameplay is broken (an example would be the bit about the limited options at your disposal for fighting enemies). The closing line was brilliant, too. I think a good comparison would be to true's review. That was a shining example of a convincing praise review, and this is an equally impressive example of a scathing yet justified bash review. 95

    JEREC: This bash review was hilarious. I absolutely love the way you pick apart this game's premise. Skinheads with one bald guy. Madonna. Wow. "The Skinheads... have taken Madonna hostage." Read like that with the appropriate pauses, I couldn't help but laugh out loud. It really looks like you had fun with this one, Drella. At first I thought this review was too silly, too over-the-top with ridiculue, but I can see it's entirely warranted. The conclusion packs a punch, too. 93

    MASTERS: I am blinded by BOLD! Kidding. Drella's review drips personality and knowledge (and love) of his subject matter, so he's got one up on most of the reviewers in the contest from the start. It doesn't help other competitor's chances that this might be one of his best reviews, either. It's hilarious, and accomplishes what many of the other reviews in the competition did not, despite anything else they did well: it SHOWS how the game plays and proceeds to tear it apart in the process. Truly, this is the ideal bash review. Paint for me a picture of the mess we shouldn't be playing, and in so doing, convince me as to why I shouldn't be playing it. And who else uses imagery like this: "...a lopsided column of sticks and mud between two gleaming towers." Right, nobody. 96

    W is for WAD by Bluberry

    JANUS: I've seen videos of this "game". I hope the 3/10 is a joke. 0

    JEREC: This is not a review. 0

    MASTERS: Ha. 0

    X is for X-Kalibur by MYass

    JANUS: There isn't much to say about this review, because there isn't much of it. I think your central point is a good one and I agree with it. Sometimes games can be so bland that if they were awful they would be more memorable. Unfortunately, I think a side effect of reviewing an unremarkable game is that this review is fairly unremarkable itself. I can't argue with you, but there isn't much here I can engage with. I was sort of confused by your observation that X-Kalibur 2097 is like a beat-'em-up but without the beating. In the next sentence you describe conventional beat-'em-up gameplay, so is X-Kalibur noticeably light on beat-'em-up action? Also, in the opening sentence you use the past tense form of "slink" even though we're in the future. These are minor things. There's nothing horribly wrong about this review. Maybe you could have delved into the gameplay more, but given that it's so ordinary perhaps there wouldn't have been much point? Ultimately, this review is solid yet unremarkable, but that's as much down to the game itself as anything else. 75

    JEREC: X can be a tough letter to review for, and digging into a pile of old roms is sometimes the only way. What makes this game so fascinating to read about is how boring the game must have been to review. Nothing good, nothing bad. No huge problems, nothing really noteworthy at all to talk about. So you did the only sensible thing, you kept the review short, informative and readable. I was thinking this game seems so boring... must suck to have to review it, an I realised I was right when I got to this very good line, "X-Kaliber is neither offensive, enthralling, exciting, or disturbing. It simply is." 80

    MASTERS: I like the snarky tone of this review -- reminds me of the work of a young Nick Evil. Sort of. MYASS certainly can write HISASS off. The issue I had was that MYASS tells us that the game is vanilla and does nothing to make itself stand out, immediately after describing just how amazingly singular (and retarded) many of its elements are in the first half of the review. Essentially, I'm reading: it's really, really WEIRD, but it doesn't stand out because it's the same as every other game in the genre. I know that's the point he's making--that IN SPITE of the weirdness it's still vanilla, but then what more could it have done to appear otherwise? Also, I know there's not much to the game, and you're illustrating it's just another sidescroller, but some gameplay description would have been nice. 65

    THE RESULTS!

    1. Drella (284)
    2. Overdrive (273)
    3. EmP (266)
    True (266)
    5. Zipp (264)
    6. Suskie (255)
    7. Sho (250)
    8. Sportsman (242)
    9. Wolfqueen (241)
    10. DoI (228)
    11. MYass (220)
    12. Pickhut (215)
    13. Lewis (214)
    14. Darketernal (202)
    15. Timrod (179)
    16. Honestgamer (164)
    17. Bluberry (0)

    If you catch any errors let me know ASAP. I added up the results pretty quickly so it is very possible I screwed up somewhere.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted November 26, 2008:

    And I was right! Courtesy of bluberry, I managed a second-place finish this year just as I did during that infamous 'W' year.
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 26, 2008:

    My congratualations to Drella for relegating me to the runner-up status for the second year, making this tournament my official albatross. I swear, if I ever win this thing, I'm taking a one-year sabbatical just to let it sink in. Think I have two second-place finishes, a third, a fourth and two fifths in it. At least I beat EmP this year.

    And good work by the judges. It was well worth the wait for the critiques and NOT just because I got to make random posts proclaiming myself the winner due to delays.
    board icon
    drella posted November 26, 2008:

    Thanks!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 26, 2008:

    Hah. Well, I'll take this as a going home present. I wanted to place 6-10 in this tourney, and I did. My other goal was to receive all 80s, which didn't quite make it, but Jerec's 90 complements Masters' 70, anyway, and marks my first 90 ever, which makes me very happy. Thanks! And I laughed my ass off when the game got the last laugh at me. The irony was so awesome, I really couldn't help it.

    Congrats to drella, OD, and EmP/true for winning. I read all these reviews (except for OD's, sorry) and they were all really good, so this result isn't too surprising. Congrats to the other participants as well for showing up and making this more interesting than I thought it was going to be. And thnaks to the judges for taking time out of their lives to grade this thing.

    Anway, onto a very long-winded response to my critique(s). Haha, Janus. I hope you were kidding about the guitar thing. =P I actually really liked the song in there, but it was the same one over and over again and it totally got really annoying after a while.

    Anyway, that tense thing you pointed out was actually me getting lie/lay confused. I'd intended that to be in the present tense from the get-go... but I guess I still have those sorts of issues sometimes. I also still have a problem where I try to describe something as accurately as possible, and thus my writing may get confusing or stretched out to where concision would be necessary. With that "Roman-style legionnaires" thing, for example, I left it that way on purpose because the soldiers you're fighting aren't literally Roman soldiers, but just a mock up, but I guess saying they are wouldn't make much of a difference. I think things like that lead to many of the complaints in this review, and it's still something I need to work on.

    Some of Masters' points are valid. I suppose I could have made that second paragraph sound more like the game's fault, and it's something I tried to do (and that EmP warned me against), but I guess I couldn't really do it. And I'll agree that the laser blasts thing may be a bit confusing, and looking at it now, I'm wondering why I put it in there in the first place since it really does seem kind of minor. I guess my point with it at the time was that I was trying to explain that you seemed to get powered down in some levels but powered up in others, and it's really stupid. However, the intro was meant to sound like praise so I could debunk it completely later, and the second paragraph was supposed to imply a frustration that leads to boredom, but I don't think I ever really say it's fun anywhere, except in the intentionally misleading intro. Though I will admit that it may be kind of jarring if my first two paragraphs failed their purpose for some people (or even just because I never expressly say the game's fun/boring any time before that).

    Thanks for the feedback, though. I'm pleased enough with this. I did loads better than second-to-last like the last two times I entered this, which was really all I wanted to do.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted November 26, 2008:

    Thanks for the feedback on my review. It definitely was an experiment and one that didn't work as well as I hoped owing to my wife's complete and utter inability to critically dissect the game (or to justify the few thoughts she did have on... anything). If you think the review is light on details now, you should have seen her notes before I coaxed as much info out of her as I could!

    This is one experiment that I don't intend to try again... Anything that I did right in the review felt like it was done right in spite of having my hands tied behind my back while a figurative blindfold blocked my vision and squeezed my brain.

    I wish that I could have reviewed something else for the competition. My problem right now is that I have far too many games piling up--with a few of them being perfectly interesting titles that start with 'S'--and the deadline for this competition came two or three weeks too soon for me. I'll probably be reviewing Star Ocean: First Departure in the near future, for example. I expect a much better review to result from that, if only because I'm actually playing through every moment myself and framing my own discussion. I had hoped to review it for this comeptition, but it was simply not in the cards.

    Anyway, I'm grateful for the analysis of the review (which I mostly agree with) and I apologize for inflicting such a failed experiment on all of you. Maybe we'll have another of these next year and I can bring my 'A' game. My 'S' game clearly didn't work. ;-)
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 26, 2008:

    Hahaha

    Yes, you did. The bleach-bone skeleton is back in your possession!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 26, 2008:

    Wow! Just... wow! Great work by the judges! It's hard to review a review, and it was well worth the wait to get this constructive criticism! This has been really helpful, and I plan on using the feedback in my next review, for Valkyria Chronicles.

    Let's do this contest again, it was an awesome idea all around!

    And hey, 5th place ain't bad!
    board icon
    jerec posted November 26, 2008:

    I like how Janus' critique of Darketernal's entry is pretty much identical to mine of Lewis. What works for some people doesn't work for everyone else, hmm.

    board icon
    Lewis posted November 26, 2008:

    My outside bet won! Where do I claim my money?

    Well done to Drella and everyone. My piece got more praise than I was expecting, to be honest. Glad some people liked the approach; I'd imagine it's the sort of thing I'll look back at in years and cringe (the last being this horrifically horrible horror), but yeah. A complete experiment. Glad it struck a chord with a couple of you.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted November 26, 2008:

    I think when reviews are as experimental as Lewis's and DE's they're always going to strike a chord with some readers AND put others off completely. That's just the way it is. Familiarity/interest in the game/genre usually help tip the balance one way or the other. The fact that I can remember the bits Lewis described from Half-Life 2 probably did help.

    I enjoyed judging this. When's the next one!
    board icon
    darketernal posted November 26, 2008:

    Thanks for taking the effort of judging.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted November 26, 2008:

    It's pretty interesting how each of the judges managed to nail the review in their own ways. It was longer than my usual reviews, since I wanted to see what it would be like to add a bunch more details than I do. Funny how it ended up being for a game were I actually had to describe the game in detail for readers to really get what it is. Though, in that attempt, I risked boring the reader, like jerec, by being too descriptive. Should have thrown in some RTS game comparisons to help a little, as well. And janus was right about the review feeling worn out halfway through, since that's how I actually felt when I wrote it.

    Congrats to leroux on his win, and blu on his attempt at being a runner-up.
    board icon
    EmP posted November 26, 2008:

    Mad congrats to Drella for getting his long-overdue alpha win. Equal congrats to OD who slew me this time -- the next chair-lift payment is on me, buddy.

    Kudos to my boy True who shed his rust more than enough to justify more bullying into further reviewing in the near future.

    This was a strong field this year, so I'm pleased with nabbing third for the second year running. My hat is off to everyone who showed; I don't recall any other tounrye where I've enjoyed every review I've read for it. Aside from Boo. But he's a constant dissapointment.
    board icon
    bluberry posted November 26, 2008:

    I demand a recount.
    board icon
    jerec posted November 26, 2008:

    Okay! 0 for Boo, 0 for Boo, 0 for Boo. That adds up to 0/300.
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 28, 2008:

    PC - Pathologic, please, since Gary isn't acting on my email.

    Format: PC
    Released: 9th June 2005 (Russia) / 16th August 2006 (UK)
    Genre: Oh my, take your pick. Probably lump it with 'adventure', but it's really hard to define.
    Developer: Ice-Pick Lodge
    Publisher: Buka Entertainment

    Added
    board icon
    woodhouse posted November 28, 2008:

    Nintendo Wii
    Samba De Amigo

    Genre: Music
    Developer: Gearbox Software
    Publisher: Sega
    Release:
    US - Sept 23, 2008
    EU - Sept 26, 2008
    AU - Oct 2, 2008
    JP - Dec 11, 2008

    ESRB : E

    Added
    board icon
    Halon posted November 28, 2008:

    Game: Crysis Warhead
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: EA
    Developer: Crytek
    Genre: First Person Shooter
    Release Date: 09/16/08 (US), 09/19/08 (EU), 09/25/08 (AU)

    Added

    Game: Serious Sam: The Second Encounter
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: Take-Two Interactive (EU), Gathering (US)
    Developer: Croteam
    Genre: First Person Shooter
    Release Date: 01/18/02 (EU), 02/04/02 (US)

    Added
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 29, 2008:

    Pathologic release date a decade out.

    And, for that matter, literally all the other details are wrong too. wtf?
    board icon
    drella posted November 29, 2008:

    Fixed
    board icon
    drella posted November 29, 2008:

    I've got a new request:

    I'd like to read a positive Metroid review and a negative Legend of Zelda review, because it strikes me as utterly bizarre everyone who has written about them on this site has turned against one but not the other...

    All of the "Metroid flaws" seem to apply to both. There's no map in either (well, really not much of one in Zelda); only in Metroid is this a complaint. There's a lot of similar looking areas in both; only Metroid gets tagged as flawed here. There's some repetitive backtracking to gather supplies: health and missiles in Metroid and rupees and health in Zelda. Neither character can attack diagonally.

    Maybe I'm missing something here, but fundamentally they seem pretty similar to me. I still like them both. I don't see this supposedly huge difference; Sportsman, to pick on someone, gave Zelda a 10 and Metroid a 1, and this seems both rash and extreme. There's nuance between the two for sure, but I don't follow this at all. So maybe someone could better explain this, because I'm reading labyrinths are engrossing in one and tedious in another.
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 29, 2008:

    New PC and an X Box please.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 29, 2008:

    My Metroid review was a bit harsh, I just to give it a 1 (or 10) for the contest it was in. It's probably more of a 3.

    The difference between Metroid and Zelda is most of the flaws in Zelda can be overlooked. You don't really have to search for rupees unless you want the blue ring early in the game and the heart problem can be solved in less than two minutes by walking up and a few screens to the left to reach the fairy. In Metroid this can take up to 20-30 minutes. I would've liked diagonal controls in Zelda but it didn't seem to make it much more difficult for me, which in Metroid the lack of diagonal shooting made it impossible to dodge certain enemies and severely crippled how you could attack (and it kinda makes sense since in real life you can only swing a sword in front of you).

    The only aspect I would have a hard time defending is the map. In Zelda I never got lost and in Metroid I got lost plenty of times so maybe that's why it was never an issue to me.

    In other words, I also wouldn't mind seeing a praise Metroid and a bash Zelda, but it won't be from me!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted November 29, 2008:

    Yeah, even if Zelda uses a lot of the same graphical tiles, its world map is quite distinctive. I can easily find my way around it and most screens (aside from Death Mountain) are completely unique. That's the overworld. As for the dungeons, they're so distinct from one another that it's incredible. Each has a unique sense of atmosphere--brought about large in part by the enemies--and any sense of "Where in the world am I?" is the result of never having been there before (as opposed to the sensation of wondering if the screen you've just reached in Metroid is new territory... or somewhere that you've already been three times).

    I can agree that from a 'nuts and bolts' perspective, there are a lot of similarities in the formula. However, Zelda nails it pretty spectacularly and Metroid doesn't really. I still wouldn't personally give Metroid terribly low marks (even the 3 that Sportsman cited seems extremely low) because the core formula makes for good gameplay either way, but I do feel that Zelda went with the same sort of stuff and took it to a much better place.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 29, 2008:

    Nintendo was on to something with Metroid but the actual game was extremely flawed. Super Metroid (and to a lesser extent Zero Mission) took the forumla and turned it into something fantastic. Metroid might be better if it was the only game of its type but with better offerings out there it is completely obsolete.
    board icon
    EmP posted November 29, 2008:

    let's face it: both suck pretty hard.
    board icon
    True posted November 29, 2008:

    Tied for third with EMP, beat out only by Drella and OD...

    I'll take it.

    My thanks to Jerec and Masters for judging what was at least a reasonable turn out, and for their well thought out critiques. And as well, Janus, for stepping up and making this a traditional contest by giving us three judges.

    But come on, guys. You could have at least given Blue one or even two points. He has so little in life as it is.
    board icon
    zigfried posted November 30, 2008:

    Whether I review it from a "modern" perspective or a "how I felt about it when it was new" perspective, Zelda would score somewhere in the middle range. Perhaps I should bring myself to play it again -- the last time was a couple years back. It was basically do the same thing over and over and over again.

    Metroid, on the other hand, I always loved. The secrets had more variety to them (even if some were "unofficial"), the settings had more variety, and it was just a cooler concept in general.

    //Zig
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 30, 2008:

    A friend of mine's back in town right now. We hung out yesterday and had ourselves a number of brews. I'm not feeling so sturdy right now. Which makes me really happy that Thanksgiving was last week, leading to a lower-than-usual number of reviews. Well, Sportsman was really busy.....so he gets the unofficial and just made up OVERDRIVE AWARD FOR DILIGENCE honor. Congratulations. You've ensured my poor hung-over little brain is going to have to do a lot of reading. Or at least more than it likely can handle.

    Standard rules apply. Only one thing per dude (or dudette) counts. No staff stuff counts. Yeah. Right now, if you want, just imagine me making my usual quip at EmP's expense. Be as creative as you want.




    THIRD PLACE: Guitar Hero: On Tour (DS) by bigcj34

    I do have to tell you that you did kinda have one strike against you entering this week in that I personally am not a fan of all these music-oriented Guitar Hero and Rock Band kinds of games. It's weird, because I love to listen to music.....but have absolutely no desire to sit down with a plastic prop to "play" a bunch of songs in a game. So, I definitely wasn't the target audience for your review and likely was far less receptive to it than the average staffer would be. However, you did really intrigue me with one particular point that made me think a lot. Right in your first paragraph, you mentioned how it's a legit challenge for a developer to "scale down" a game for a handheld system, while keeping it a good game. I can't even think of how many times I (or another reviewer) has played a port of a "big system" game on a handheld and been disappointed by how much it lost in translation (right off the top of my head, my review of the GBA Baldur's Gate port of the PS2 game popped into my head as one such disappointment. So, this made me interested in seeing how this game handled the transition and you did a good job of illustrating that it did pretty good in the process. Nice review that did a very good job of mentioning the pros and negatives of a Guitar Hero game on a portable system.

    SECOND PLACE: Ikaruga (GameCube) by grassroots

    This is your alt account, ain't it Sportsman? Interestingly, I liked your alt account review the most of any of the ones you submitted. I think a lot of has to do that since I never bought a GameCube, I probably have less knowledge about this game than any supposed shmup fan (which I pass off by saying I'm a retro shmup fan). You did a very good job of explaining the nuts and bolts of this game, so a guy like me who knows very little about this game was able to understand the polarity system and how it affects and influences the gameplay. And you sounding convincing in your primary argument that while the game's very good and deserving of praise, it really isn't this be-all, end-all classic that redefined the shooter genre.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Mega Man 9 (PSN) (PlayStation 3) by dagoss

    Very interesting review that, as someone who's played all those old school NES Mega Man games (but not to the level you have), I was easily able to get into. Thought you made a number of very good points here. Especially where you were talking about how this is a good game, but one that's extremely self-aware of how it is simply a re-hash of a beloved NES series. And that ties in greatly with your point of how that's a sign of the lack of originality. You have a game constantly telling you "this is retro Mega Man, dood!" because that's all it brings to the table. Sure, that's cool and all because those games were very good, but in today's day and age, that means this game will be little more than a novelty that fans of the series will play through and likely cast it aside for some kickass new game like that Valkyria Chronicles you were mentioning in your intro paragraph. You really did a good job of making that point clear.




    Off for the ol' hair of the dog treatment so I can get to feeling better at some point today.....
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 30, 2008:

    With me, I'd give these as my main reasons for putting Zelda over Metroid.

    1. Nostalgia. Zelda was (along with the SMB/Duck Hunt combo, Rygar and RC Pro-Am) my first NES game. It was a ways later that I borrowed Metroid from a friend.

    2. While they have a lot of things in common, as far as those annoying points, they don't bother me in Zelda like in Metroid. Like, you have fairy ponds to regain all your life, so when you start up a saved quest, you don't have to fight a bunch of enemies to get maxed out on life, like you do in Metroid. Also, while Zelda has no real overworld map, at least there's a radar-like box on the screen, so you can see roughly where you're at in the world. And Zelda doesn't have lava pits where you can fall into and watch your life melt away amazingly quickly while you're trying to jump out of the accursed thing.

    Still, this is a very valid request and I'd be very interested in reading the reviews of someone who likes Metroid more than Zelda.
    board icon
    drella posted November 30, 2008:

    Shouldn't Overdrive place be second place?

    ZING!
    board icon
    Halon posted November 30, 2008:

    Thanks for the mention! My only RotW win is with a grassroots review (Animal Crossing) so maybe it's the better account after all.

    The reason it's under this account is because I really don't like what I said and don't agree with it (I agree with the score but not the reasoning).
    board icon
    dagoss posted November 30, 2008:

    Shouldn't Overdrive place be second place?

    That better be a dig at Overdrive...!
    board icon
    dagoss posted November 30, 2008:

    I want a review for Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted December 01, 2008:

    Finally!
    board icon
    meeptroid posted December 02, 2008:

    I'd really like to see Wario Land 3 reviewed.
    board icon
    jerec posted December 02, 2008:

    I was never able to get into the original Zelda, but I first played it post-2000. So there's no nostalgia there for me. Too bad I'm a retired reviewer. :P
    board icon
    zippdementia posted December 02, 2008:

    Wow, it's turned into a Zelda-Metroid thread!

    My thoughts (cause you KNOW you want em):

    I see where people are coming from when they give Metroid a lower score than Zelda. Zelda was, overall, better designed. I would probably give Zelda an 8, myself. It holds up very well in modern times, but I can't STAND the last dungeon. Drives me frickin' crazy.

    Metroid I would give a 6 or a 7. Certainly not a 3. But I do agree that it's more confusing, more boring, more back tracking, and has worse controls. So... maybe a 5, actually.
    board icon
    Fedule posted December 05, 2008:

    Can't believe this isn't in the database yet:

    Game: Mother 3
    Platform(s): GBA
    Publisher: Nintendo, HAL Laboratories
    Developer: Shigesato Itoi, Brownie Brown
    Genre: RPG
    Release Date: 04/20/06 (JP), 10/17/08 (English Translation Patch)

    I signed up with the intent of contributing one specific review (and then some others just because), but...
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 05, 2008:

    Mother 3 is in the database and has been for awhile:

    right here

    I did fill out the profile with some of the info you provided, though. :-)
    board icon
    Fedule posted December 05, 2008:

    That... is very strange. Because I clicked Submit and chose GBA, and was given a list of games. I Ctrl-F'd "mother" and got no results. It is very definitely not in that list. Why did that happen?
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 05, 2008:

    Your settings are probably locked on North American releases only. If you perform a search using the search box on each page of the site, Mother 3 will come up just fine. If you're browsing, however, only North American releases will display with your current setting. You can click "All" to see releases from all regions, or you can click "JP" to see releases only from Japan, or "EU" to see European releases only. Clicking "AU" at this point will show only releases that were available in Australia, but those listings aren't complete so it's really not advised. Note that the settings affect only genuine releases. Mother 3 wasn't actually released here in North America, so that's probably why it didn't show for you.
    board icon
    Fedule posted December 05, 2008:

    I changed the setting, and looked again, still didn't see it.

    BUT.

    I noticed a large number of entries simply called "(import)". On a whim, I clicked on the "(import)" between Mortal Kombat: Tournament Edition and Motocross Maniacs Advance, and sure enough, there was Mother 3.

    This seems like... a rather annoying feature. Is there any way to make titles display properly?
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 05, 2008:

    Ah, I see what you're doing. You're following links from the 'Submit' link in the site's upper left corner, right? The page that lists games does appear to have a bug that I wasn't aware of. That's because I and most people tend to forget the 'Submit' link is even there. Instead, we browse the site by clicking the system that interests us (along the black bar near the top of the site), then the letter the game starts with ('M' in this case). That gets us to the game profile page, and there we just scroll to the bottom of the page and click the link to submit a review.

    The issue you found definitely needs to be fixed. I wasn't aware that it existed, but I'll bump it near the top of my list now that I know about it. There's a long explanation about why it's even there, but I'll spare you the details. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted December 07, 2008:

    Last week was interesting with Sportsman receiving an Overdrive Award for Diligence, but this week had three contenders vying for most review contributions in one seven day period. We saw 7 reviews from BigCJ34 and 4 from Sportsman. Newcomer Fedule posted 6. Whether or not these reviews are totally new, refurbished, or reposted from other places is irrelevant. All three of you have performed well by simply sharing your love for games.

    But is it enough to earn a spot in this weeks Review of the Week? This was a pretty competitive week, after all, and unfortunately I have only three spots to hand out. Someone will be left out in the cold, but take note. There were many quality reads this week, and youre encouraged to read as many of them as you can.

    As always, staff reviews are excluded from the running.




    2nd Runner-Up: The Reviews of BigCJ34 by BigCJ34

    I know Im breaking the established rules set forth nearly five years ago when RotW came into existence by picking multiple reviews from one reviewer in a given week. But given the amount of effort that BigCJ34 put into this week, I hope youll forgive me. Before Saturday afternoon, I was already trying to decide which reviews I would select for the top three spots. BigCJ had subbed only 4. But then he decided to add 3 more reviews, which convinced me that I should, rather than pick one of his reviews, give him a nod for all of them. Each one of these reviews is more than adequate. They are quality pieces that provide solid information about a variety of games. Most importantly, they read easily. Considering the past where BigCJ reviews were often filled with wordy, awkward sentences, I have to say that this man has made huge progress in his reviewing skills and I feel it necessary to give him a spot in this weeks RotW. Keep up the good work.

    1st Runner-Up: bit Generations: Boundish (GBA) by Synonymous

    Excluding one overly lengthy sentence containing a few grammatical errors, the writing in this review is very, very good. Boundish the game isnt good, but rarely do we see prose this engaging. She could have taken the easy way out by giving a dry run-down of the game, but instead were given a very articulate analysis. I found myself learning something new after coming away from this review, just as I had when I read her piece on Trilbys Notes. Puzzle/Pong games dont tend to get a lot of attention since its assumed that the writing is dry, but this is a review that was enjoyable to read throughout, and I guarantee that anyone who enters this review will come away feeling that they read something that was more than worth their time.

    Review of the Week: Sonic the Hedgehog (X360) by Fedule

    We dont give many first place finishes to newcomers on their first attempt at RotW, but heres an exception that goes against the grain. Fedule breaks the mold and subbed 6 quality reviews this week. All of them are really good, but this Sonic the Hedgehog review is the best one in my mind for two major reasons. First, its intro is excellent, and it spearheads the way for some very good writing. Fedule makes his points effectively without resorting to nonsensical descriptions or venom. Good! Because I hate incredulity, and there isnt any of that here. This is a lengthy review (I originally read the 19KB version), but it didnt feel that way because the author keeps his prose fluid (the new, somewhat shorter version is even easier to digest). There arent any gimmicks employed to keep things lively; the writing maintains a high energy level all throughout; the authors knowledge on Sonic titles is impressive.

    Second, theres a paragraph where he describes racing through levels in previous Sonic games with the objective of posting a remarkable time. I thought the example with Sonic Adventures Emerald Coast was excellent because I had the exact same sentiment nearly a decade ago when I wondered how I could go from 4 minutes to 2 in that level! This is a very good negative review for a very bad game. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

    On a related note, have you played Sonic Unleashed?




    Congrats to the winners. EmP has this current week. Flood him.
    board icon
    Halon posted December 07, 2008:

    From what I hear Sonic Unleashed isn't anything spectacular but way better than what the professional reviews are suggesting.

    As you probably noticed all of my reviews are old ones from 2004-2005. I'm still contemplating over whether or not I should post one more (and rewrite two). If not those eight I posted in the last two weeks should be it.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted December 07, 2008:

    From what you've heard, Sportsman. But you haven't played it.


    board icon
    Fedule posted December 07, 2008:

    Well, this was unexpected. Er, hi everyone, I'm Fedule, I came here from GameFAQs, nice to meet y'all.

    Though yes, I'm gonna have to plead guilty to resubbing some of my old stuff from GameFAQs. See, my REALLY old stuff there is... not so good in my eyes, so I picked out the ones I thought were better and subbed them here. Also, while resubbing, I went and "updated" some of them - some just had changed scores, others I almost completely rewrote and marked as exclusive, like this here Sonic 2006 one. Which is fortunate, since if one of the straight up copy/paste ones had been chosen, I'd have felt a bit awkward... And yes, I did trim it a lot following some advice from HonestGamer. I'm glad to see the changes were appreciated.

    To Felix's question, no, I haven't yet played Sonic Unleashed, though I probably will this week. It seems to be one of the most curiously polarizing titles ever released from what I've heard, I mean, I've heard of games where some fans liked it and some hated it, and the same with critics, but with Unleashed, it seems that the fans almost without exception are in favour and the critics are equally without exception in their dislike of it (Though everyone seems to agree that the Werehog is rubbish).

    Anyway, thanks a bunch for the mention, and I will definitely continue to contribute... though never this much at once.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted December 07, 2008:

    Good man. Straight off FAQ's and winning the HG RotW! It was a great detailed review where you underlined how this game went wrong and why Sonic seriosuly has sucked for the last billion years.

    I did notice your summarisation section, which is a common habit from GFAQ's users, I used to do it all the time otheir. Don't put them, that's what the rest of the review is for ;)
    board icon
    Synonymous posted December 07, 2008:

    Whoops; I was a little confused about the difference between "alacrity" and "celerity". Thank you very much, and congratulations to Fedule and BigCJ.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted December 07, 2008:

    ...I don't even know what alacrity and celerity mean.....

    Anyway, congratulations everyone!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted December 07, 2008:

    Alacrity is like a cheerful readiness where as celerity is the rapidity of motion, I think.
    board icon
    EmP posted December 08, 2008:

    When Felix said to flood next week with reviews, he didn't mean it. Just to clarify.
    board icon
    dagoss posted December 08, 2008:

    Game: Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn - Collector's Edition
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: Interplay
    Developer: Black Isle Studios
    Genre: Computer RPG
    Release Date: 24 Sept 2000 (US)

    Added.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted December 10, 2008:

    Game: Playstation HOME
    Platform(s): PS3
    Publisher: Sony
    Developer: SCE London Studio
    Genre: Online Community
    Release Date: Open Beta Dec 11th

    Not adding. Though advanced compared to what the competing platforms are offering, HOME is not a game. We don't feature listings for hardware and software interfaces.
    board icon
    Blood_Lion1986 posted December 10, 2008:

    please add for GBA

    medal of honor underground

    ADDED.
    board icon
    dogma posted December 10, 2008:

    Guardians / Denjin Makai II
    board icon
    drella posted December 10, 2008:

    You're not clever enough, DOGMAN. We all know you only showed up to gloat about C.C.

    Well the Mets now have the guy with the most ninth inning appearances in games where his team leads by one to three runs. And Luis Castillo is an awesome second baseman. Seriously, he is totally going to try this year. Really. So bite me.
    board icon
    Halon posted December 10, 2008:

    Isn't this the same situation that the Mets are in every year? Their team gets better and better but the same results every year.
    board icon
    dogma posted December 11, 2008:

    Given the last 5-7 years' worth of overpriced Yankee pitcher signings, I'm pretty skeptical of what just happened re: CC.

    That said, it's pretty safe to say that NYY cannot pull off what NYM has the last couple Septembers. Your team is truly prolific at making fans feel secure in mid-July and crushing their spirits with great swiftness
    board icon
    Halon posted December 12, 2008:

    The difference between the Yankees and Mets in the last few years is the Yankees are playing worse and actually getting worse. The Mets, on the other hand upgrade their team every year and still manage to collapse in September. I'm a big Yankees fan but like both teams and hope they both do well.

    I'm also not too excited about CC, since big Yankee signings generally don't pay off (see: A-Rod). They used to have the best farm teams in the league (and probably still do, we just don't hear from them much anymore) and some of their best players are ones they got from there.
    board icon
    drella posted December 12, 2008:

    We won't have any lamebrain baseball talk here.

    "I'm also not too excited about CC, since big Yankee signings generally don't pay off (see: A-Rod)."

    A-Rod joined the Yankees in 2004. In the five season since 2004, the Yankees have had only seven seasons where a starting pitcher has posted an ERA+ of 100 (league average) and pitched in at least 28 games.

    Wang 2006 and 2007
    Mussina 2006 and 2008
    Pettite 2007
    Wright 2006
    Johnson 2005

    Now let's look at how many such seasons there were from 1996 to 2000:

    1996 - Pettite, Key, Rogers, Gooden
    1997 - Pettite, Wells, Cone
    1998 - Pettite, Wells, Cone, Irabu
    1999 - Pettite, Cone, Clemens, Hernandez
    2000 - Pettite, Clemens, Hernandez

    So 18 compared to 7.

    Wouldn't one think that has more to do with the Yankees recent lack of success than A-Rod, the guy who has won two MVP awards in the past five years and is statistically only behind Pujos for the best offensive player in baseball over that span? The fact that the Yankees haven't even had league average innings eaters?

    Is there anyone the Yankees didn't sign because of A-Rod's contract and A-Rod contract alone (the answer is no)?

    So let's keep myth from reality. A-Rod is a smart signing for any team not bound by a strict budget, and he has done nothing but help keep the franchise treading 90-win water longer than it should.

    I'm not sure how the Mets upgrade every year unless you mean they "make a big off-season move" every year, which is undoubtedly true, for better or worse. Santana was a good move. Alou and Castillo were not. Wagner was a good move. Delgado (despite three good months last year, finally) and Lo Duca were not. Glavine was okay. Beltran was amazing (like A-Rod, a top ten player over the past five years). But I don't think upgrade is the right word if you're still constantly trotting out relics like Jose Valentin, Fernando Tatis, Orlando Hernandez and Damien Easley on a regular basis year in and year out. And over that time your original core (Piazza, Floyd, Martinez, Glavine) regressed and left.
    board icon
    dogma posted December 12, 2008:

    "I'm also not too excited about CC, since big Yankee signings generally don't pay off (see: A-Rod)."

    ...Oy. And you know who's really killing the Angels? Vlad Guererro. And the Tigers? Miguel Cabrera. Man they suck.

    www.firejoemorgan.com

    Read up.
    board icon
    Halon posted December 12, 2008:

    By upgrade I meant big off-season moves since you're right, they're not all upgrades.

    I never blamed A-Rod for the Yankees lack of success. I was just trying to say most of their recent success (I'm talking 96-01) came from their farm teams, NOT from offseason signings. If they still have this farm team (I don't follow baseball as much as I used to but it couldn't have gotten too much worse) they should shift their focus back to bringing up stars rather than signing them. Of course they have signed big players in the past that have had positive impacts but they're at their best when that's not their focus. At least with CC they're focusing on pitching, though.

    If I was GM of the Yankees I would nuke the whole team except for Jeter, Chamberlain, Rivera and Posada and rebuild from there.
    board icon
    dogma posted December 13, 2008:

    "If I was GM of the Yankees I would nuke the whole team except for Jeter, Chamberlain, Rivera and Posada and rebuild from there."

    I positively bleed pinstripes, but this is insanity. Rivera is 38 years old. Jeter is 34 with declining offensive skills (let's not even get into how bad of a defensive SS he is because my heart can't take it). I don't think he'll ever again reach the level of his last really admirable offensive season (2006). Posada put up ridiculous numbers for a mid-30s catcher (catcher!) a couple seasons ago, but had 195 PAs last season -- why am I confident that a 36-37 year catcher is going to bounce back to even his personal average-level of productivity? Chamberlain you're obviously correct about.

    So you want to build a team around Jeter, Posada, Rivera, and Chamberlain. J, P, and R should be starting their post-career reminiscing about the good old years on goofy ESPN Classic documentaries when Chamberlain is hitting his peak age 27-30 years. I understand the want for nurturing home-grown farm players, but the reality is that what the Yankees had '96-'01 is not perpetually sitting in their farm system, waiting for their time to shine. With your philosophy, you should be pinning your hopes to the emergence/health of Phil Hughes. Ian Kennedy I'm even less optimistic about.






    board icon
    dogma posted December 13, 2008:

    And in the interim, if I understand correctly, the Yankees have all but acquired A.J. Burnett. I feel decidedly Kevin Brown-ish about this (but hopefully it doesn't go THAT badly). I see numerous missed starts due to injury on the horizon.
    board icon
    Halon posted December 13, 2008:

    You can't get rid of Rivera; even though he has maybe two years left he's still one of the best in the game. Jeter and Posada (especially the former) are past their primes and not even that good anymore but are a tremendous presence in the clubhouse and mean a lot to the organization. I would start looking for replacements, though.

    I think (hope) we can all agree that they need to start younger. Damon, Abreu, etc are decent offensive players but getting worse and worse and signing hitters past their primes is not making up for the lack of pitching. I'd rather them get younger players that are either in or haven't yet reached their primes and have a few rough seasons and then be on top again than struggle for the wild card every year. The Yankees won't be able to milk this current strategy much longer, since their team is only getting older and with the competitive AL east it will only be tougher and tougher to win 90+ games.
    board icon
    drella posted December 13, 2008:

    You speak a lot about clubhouse presence. Maybe you frequent it, but if not, you're basing opinions on second-hand beat writer bullshit. Don't do that. To equate it to reviewing, it's as if I assume a game is better than it is because of the company that released it. Because the Konami label just has an intangible quality. They have good clubhouse programmers.

    If Jeter and Posada and Rivera are tremendous clubhouse presences, why did nearly every Yankee youngster (Cabrera, Cano, and Kennedy in particular) have disappointing years? The point is "good clubhouse guys" are anointed after the fact for being on winning teams. You think the Yankees in the late 90s didn't have similar sideshows? Canseco, Fielder, Leyritz, Gooden, Strawberry, Irabu, Wells, Rogers... if the great clubhouse guys kept these bums on track, why can't they do it now?

    Because most of it is sportswriter myth. It was a great clubhouse... after the fact. They won because of great pitching and having hitters that worked the count and got on base. Not because Scott Brosius talked about the kids with Chad Curtis and Wade Boggs ate a bucket of fried chicken before each game.

    I'm not saying you dump Jeter, Posada and Rivera (you can't), but if you're rebuilding the Yankees and you decide to keep any 30-somethings, Alex Rodriguez is the first one. Because he's been the second best hitter in baseball over the past five years. Proceed from there.

    Frankly, I think fixing the rotation with prime starting pitchers is a great first step, as long as they can stay healthy. Which you can't predict, but they don't have the parts to trade for more durable guys (like Peavy or Zambrano). And they're picking the right guys -- with as lousy a defense as they have, these strikeout pitchers are going to hide some flaws (whereas Jamie Moyer would not).

    I also like adding Swisher for nothing. That's a smart bet. About the only thing I don't like that the Yankees did thus far was not offer Abreu and Pettite arbitration. Yes, they need to get younger, but it doesn't hurt at all to sign these guys to one year contracts at fair market value (because there's no one better internal or external, really) and when they decline arbitration (guaranteed for Abreu, maybe for Pettite) you get draft picks as compensation. It'd lessen the blow of losing so many picks for Sabathia and Burnett.
    board icon
    Halon posted December 13, 2008:

    Maybe you frequent it, but if not, you're basing opinions on second-hand beat writer bullshit.

    Maybe not the clubhouse directly, but getting rid of Jeter, Posada, and Rivera would piss off most Yankees fans who have so much respect for what they've done, even if they are past their primes. As you know the media would be all over it and portray them as a bunch of heartless bastards like when Torre was basically forced to resign which could in return hurt the team. Starting in a new Stadium with little respect and the media out to get you can't be good for the team.

    Frankly, I think fixing the rotation with prime starting pitchers is a great first step, as long as they can stay healthy.

    Agreed

    if you're rebuilding the Yankees and you decide to keep any 30-somethings, Alex Rodriguez is the first one. Because he's been the second best hitter in baseball over the past five years. Proceed from there.

    I see what you're saying and that's a valid point although I disagree with you. I just don't think any player in the league is worth 28 million or whatever he's making per year. Even Jeter is making at least three times more than he deserves but as GM I just wouldn't be able to get rid of him (it would be tough to get rid of A-Rod with his high salary as well but I'd rather he go and never wanted him in the first place). Plus his contract expires in 2010 if I'm correct which isn't too far away.

    Yes, they need to get younger, but it doesn't hurt at all to sign these guys to one year contracts at fair market value

    They could keep on doing that and signing older players (in the NBA the Celtics did that a year ago and won the finals so it obviously can work) but I'd rather start over and begin another dynasty again. However I do agree about Pettite and am neutral over Abreu.
    board icon
    dogma posted December 13, 2008:

    Jeter and Rivera are not actually going anywhere, so you need not worry about pissing any fans off. Of course, the unavailability of some all-star replacement simplifies the problem for us. It's not like the Yanks could easily acquire Hanley Ramirez right now (oh, how I wish).

    But your staunch refusal to admit A-Rod is the stalwart who has kept these recent Yanks teams from being even worse than they are puzzles me. Who would otherwise have been the 3B over that period? Aaron Boone? Would he have been 2-time MVP in the last 5 years? Putting up, without fail, .280+, 35+, 110-140+, .400+?

    Please refrain from using the words "clutch" or "intangible" in your answer.
    board icon
    jerec posted December 13, 2008:

    What the hell happened to this topic?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted December 13, 2008:

    I DON'T KNOW JEREC but it needs ENDING!
    board icon
    drella posted December 13, 2008:

    This is my topic about my shitty contest no one is going to write for so I'll lead it where I wish.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted December 13, 2008:

    Hey, hey, now. Never say never. =D
    board icon
    Halon posted December 13, 2008:

    But your staunch refusal to admit A-Rod is the stalwart who has kept these recent Yanks teams from being even worse than they are puzzles me.

    A-Rod is one of the greatest players in the game today, without a doubt. The Yankees are much better off with him than without him, I don't think anyone would argue there. With that being said, unless he's hitting .400 with 80 home runs or winning 25+ games with an ERA of less than one I don't think anyone is worth $28 million per year. Yes, I would much rather that money be spent on maybe two solid starting pitchers and a solid hitter/fielder or two. With the Yankees payroll A-Rod's contract is nothing but overall for 28 million per year I am disappointed.
    board icon
    drella posted December 13, 2008:

    If you're the Yankees you don't have to make choices between paying A-Rod 28 million or signing two starting pitchers, etc. You do both. This isn't a one or the other situation.

    You could use that 28 million to buy more wins... maybe. The going rate is about 5 million per win a player adds to the team in the free agent market. See some articles on FanGraphs. The five years ARod was with the Yankees he was worth: 3.2, 6.7, 3.4, 7, and 4.1 wins to them offensively. On average, he's added 4.88 wins above an average third basemen per year. This doesn't include positional or defensive adjustments, but A-Rod has been almost worth his contract, believe it or not (4.8wins*5mil/win= 24 million per year market value). So the Yankees are overpaying a little, but there's also only 25 spots on the roster and only so many at-bats to go around, and condensing four wins above league average production into one player at a premium position might be worth a few extra dollars.

    Fiscally, A-Rod makes sense for them, because their payroll bound is just north of 200 million. If you're the Brewers or Marlins, you value wins differently. Teams like that are non-factors in the free agent market because they can't afford market rates -- they need to look at cheaper alternatives, find inefficiencies and grow their own talent. The Yankees can benefit by doing the same, but they can also afford market rates, so why limit your options? Why not have A-Rod and find your market inefficiencies (like Swisher, who had a bad luck BABIP last year and was worth zilch in a flooded all-bat, no-field FA outfield market) too?
    board icon
    overdrive posted December 13, 2008:

    This is my topic about my shitty contest no one is going to write for so I'll lead it where I wish.

    Actually, I can guarantee I'll have either one or two reviews for this one!
    board icon
    sho posted December 14, 2008:

    Dear Satan, for Christmas I would like:

    Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall (PC)
    Secret of the Silver Blades (any version)
    Any good review for an Apple II game
    Super Punch-Out!! (SNES)
    Dead of the Brain 1&2 (Turbo CD)
    Dragon Knight & Graffiti (Turbo CD)
    Any import review by Zigfried

    Oh, and NO BASEBALL.
    board icon
    overdrive posted December 14, 2008:

    Sho
    All that did was remind me that at some time, I really have to get back to Curse of the Azure Bonds and resume trying to beat that game, so I can move on to Secret of the Silver Blade.

    Gold Box stuff is fun as hell, but damn, it can get brutally tough. I think I threw in the towel on CotAB after coming across some room loaded with various Drow who tended to get in a few Hold Person spells on me to ensure death on my party members.
    board icon
    Genj posted December 14, 2008:

    I would like a review for Doki Doki Majo Saiban on DS.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted December 15, 2008:

    Game: Liquid War
    Platform(s): Windows, Mac, Linux
    Publisher: Free under the GNU public license
    Developer: Thomas Colcombet and Christian Mauduit
    Genre: Er... unique?
    Release Date: Version 5.6 2007

    Added.
    board icon
    Lewis posted December 15, 2008:

    Game: March! Offworld Recon
    Dev: HBM
    Pub: Buka Entertainment / Oxygen Interactive
    Genre: FPS
    Format: PC
    Release: 27 February 2004 (EU)

    Added
    board icon
    drella posted December 18, 2008:

    Seven more days until Christmas. SEVEN.
    board icon
    dogma posted December 18, 2008:

    I expect you to handle my request (Denjin Makai II) personally.
    board icon
    drella posted December 18, 2008:

    THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL.

    But yeah, I gathered that.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted December 18, 2008:

    F = Front Mission, Final Fantasy III
    K = Koudelka
    S = Shadow Hearts
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted December 18, 2008:

    Luminous Arc and Magical Starsign (both for DS)
    Shadow Hearts: Covenant (PS2)
    Mega Man X Maverick Hunter (PSP)
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted December 18, 2008:

    21 letters for me. Though you could probably tack on 22 with what I have planned in the next week.
    board icon
    drella posted December 19, 2008:

    FIVE COUNT 'EM FIVE DAYS.

    Get to work, elves.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted December 20, 2008:

    Alright, let's see what I've done in the couple of months I've been here...

    A is for Assassin's Creed
    B is for Bionic Commmando (REarmed)
    C is for Chrono Trigger DS
    D is for Dead Space
    E is for Everyday Shooter
    F is for Far Cry 2
    G is for Grand Theft Auto IV
    H is for Home (does this count?)
    I is for Iron Tank: The Invasion of Normandy
    J
    K
    L is for The Longest Journey
    M is for Metal Gear Solid IV
    N
    O
    P is for PAIN
    Q
    R
    S is for Soul Calibur IV
    T
    U
    V
    W
    X is for Xargon
    Y
    Z is for Zack and Wiki

    So 15/26 so far. I have some of the other letters filled in (like Red Steel and Wii Sports) but I can't honorably claim them, since I wrote them last year. In the next week I plan on getting Wii Play (very belated) and Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories up, so I should have 17 by the end of the year. Odin Sphere might bring me to 18. I'd love to have up Valkyria Chronicles, but it's a slow game at the best of times, and I haven't played it in a week...
    board icon
    bluberry posted December 24, 2008:

    Game: Scythe
    Dev: Erik Alm
    Pub: N/A
    Genre: FPS
    Format: PC
    Release: 2003? it's not in the accompanying text but it showed up on the idgames DB in the middle of 2003, so that's the safe guess
    Notes: Doom II mod

    Game: Scythe 2
    Dev: Erik Alm
    Pub: N/A
    Genre: FPS
    Format: PC
    Release: June 7, 2005
    Notes: Doom II mod

    BOTH ADDED
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted December 25, 2008:

    Looks like we're running behind on the current rotation.
    board icon
    EmP posted December 25, 2008:

    I'm on mine now.

    Between working thirteen hour days and having my kneecap put back together like an overly moist jigsaw, I've fallen a little (read: a lot) behind on stuff here.

    Xmas day is overrated, anyway.
    board icon
    EmP posted December 25, 2008:

    And that, kids, is 27. I said I'd win this thing -- further proof that EmP is always right.

    Ego-inflation aside, I like how this one played out. I beat the thing with a scant five days to go and, at recent count, it has been the catalyst for 16 of the reviews i've written this year. My plan with this was to give me reason to write reviews I otherwise may not have, and it's obviously done its job.

    There's still time for someone else to join me across the finishing line.
    board icon
    overdrive posted December 25, 2008:

    I'm fairly confident I'll get one more letter in thanks to Janus' contest.

    But despite not winning or even hitting my objective, I really liked this idea. It should be an annual thing (if you weren't already planning that). I know I reviewed a couple of games solely for the purpose of getting another letter.....and no, they weren't all 2KB Atari 2600 reviews).
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted December 26, 2008:

    Oh, sure. Only update yourself why don't you.

    Good job, though. I don't know how the hell you found the time. I'm probably not going to write anything else the rest of the year. I'm not really in a writing mood. But I'll take second place anyway especially since this thing made me write more reviews than I ever had before.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted December 27, 2008:

    Platform: PSP

    Title: DJ Max Portable Emotional Sense - Clazziquai Edition
    Genre: Music
    Developer: Pentavision
    Publisher: Gamecon
    Release Date: Oct 23, 2008 (JP)

    Title: DJ Max Portable Emotional Sense - Black Square
    Genre: Music
    Developer: Pentavision
    Publisher: Gamecon
    Release Date: Dec 29, 2008 (JP)

    BOTH ADDED
    board icon
    drella posted December 27, 2008:

    Mine will be up a few hours late on Sunday. Going out of town.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted December 27, 2008:

    EmP, I don't mean to be a pain, but you did Masters' spot for RotW. That's fine though, because his was late too. If no one minds, I'll do the RotW from the the 7th to the 13th and have it out by tonight.
    board icon
    EmP posted December 27, 2008:

    I though the odd American date put by my name was the start, not the end.

    Curse you, odd American dating system!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted December 27, 2008:

    This RotW is late. The reason isnt important, but the tardiness is unacceptable. Even though there were only 4 reviews for this particular week (further confounding the reason why this topic is so late), we are happy to host each and every one of them. To Beverage, Pickhut, Wolfqueen001, and Woodhouse, the HG staff would like to apologize for making you wait such a long time.

    As always, staff reviews are exempt.




    2nd Runner-Up: Samba De Amigo (Wii) by Woodhouse

    I remember once holding a conversation with a certain Michael LoCascio. He made a comment regarding how Woodhouse, who he acknowledged as a very good video game reviewer, would seemingly always follow up crazy hentai reviews with sports game reviews. I dont know how true that is, seeing as I wasnt around for that period, but Ill assume the statement has some merit for the sake of making my point. Regardless of which genre Woodhouse reviews, youre likely to find an informative and interesting piece that answers yours questions. This Samba de Amigo game is one I recall from the days when the Dreamcast was alive and all sorts of strange and interesting concepts were getting turned into games. Now Sambas on the Wii, and Woodhouse explains what makes the game turn. There isnt any catchy writing in this piece, but then catchy writing isnt needed, because its far more important to establish what kind of game this is rather than make cutesy jokes/statements/etc. Woodhouse tells you what there is, how it works, and how it stacks up. So thats solid.

    1st Runner-Up: Ys (NES) by Wolfqueen001

    This review was borne from a request. WQ followed her end of the bargain, and I seemingly have reneged on mine. Sorry, the holiday season is brutal. But the good news is that this is typical quality WQ material. Maybe its a little too typical in some senses. After reading this review at least 37 times (give or take), I came to notice at least one line that isnt particularly great, such as the old over-elaboration bit, which chucked three boomerangs at me while sidling left and right at the top edge of the screen. Thats negligible, though, because WQ reviews contain one major inherent quality. You can tell that the author really likes writing about games. Thats exactly how this Ys review is. You can sense that WQ enjoys describing the worlds of Ys, and that makes the review all the better.

    Review of the Week: Sonic Unleashed (X360) by Pickhut

    I shouldnt give Pickhuts Sonic Unleashed review the win because it will undoubtedly serve as the linchpin that initiates the Sonic Sucks Forever Curse, but whatever. I like this review the most among this weeks collection for a couple of reasons. On its merits alone, its just as interesting and informative as any other piece. But the real reason why I choose it for the victory stems from the fact that I am very interested in Sonic Unleashed. If you have kept track of my occasional postings on the forums (I know Drella has), youll know that Im curious to see how this game turns out. And according to Pickhut, it turns out well enough despite its quirky werehog gimmick. I think by now most sensible people have come to expect all Sonic games to kind of suck, or at least not live up to expectations, so its nice to read a review that bucks that preconception. My only (minor) complaint is that this review needs a slight bit of polish, as a few words dont fit well with the sentence structure thats employed in places. Nevertheless, I dug this review. And in spite of the fact that I called Pickhut a wily dork just the other day, I still think hes hands down the second or third sexiest reviewer on this website, right after Soberdrive and possibly the Shadow of Tachibana Ukyo.




    There it is, three solid reviews. Beverage, who has contributed work to this site on and off over the years, posted a very interesting Alone in the Dark review. This piece, as (I believed) stated in the feedback topic it received, could use a little word trimming, but I like the style it employs. I hope to see more from Beverage and the rest of you crazy little wombats in the immediate future. Happy holidays. Drella has this week, and I believe OVERDRIVE have the following one. I expect greatness all around.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted December 27, 2008:

    I am indeed a sexy bitch, though, blu keeps on insisting that I have a mullet based on a now 4 or 5 year old picture he's seen of me.

    Unfortunately, I'm gonna have to go off-topic and tell you my thanks for the RotW placing. I really liked the game, which is why I'm so... surprised at the negativity it's been getting. I can understand if people would think it's a decent game in comparison to my liking of it, but it has been getting bashed a lot. Oh well. I did enjoy Sonic Heroes, as well, another Sonic game people seem to dislike.

    Also, congrats to wolfqueen and woodhouse!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted December 27, 2008:

    Thanks, Felix. After reading pickhut's review, I knew I had a slim chance for winning this, even if EmP had done this like he was supposed to. Pickhut's review was really good and for a much more popular (or at least looking-forward-to) game.

    Also, shame on EmP for not doing this week. Lazy bum.

    Congrats to woodhouse on his placing, too.
    board icon
    EmP posted December 28, 2008:

    I would have thought that, by now, if I was particularly tardy on something, people would know there were outside factors heavily involved. But, no, we'll make snide snipes instead.

    The wrong week was kind of my fault though; I'll never get used to the odd way you yanks illogically numerically order your dates.

    This was a solid week, however, and the placements probably in the order I would have given them anyway. Good job to all that showed.
    board icon
    drella posted December 28, 2008:

    This is the last Review of the Week of the year 2008; it seems only appropriate to extend the tremendous thanks of the HonestGamers.com staff to our talented and underappreciated user base. Your work is tremendous. Were not really sure why you do it, but it makes the site a better place, and were in your debt. I check this site at least once per day, and its a delight to see a review waiting in the queue for approval. Its like getting a present for no particular reason. Its great.

    Thank you.

    Perhaps indicative of the user base as a whole, this week has no standout reviews. It has none because all six efforts are quality and they could have been ranked in any particular order, and I dont think anyone could make a strong argument otherwise. So Im left with the very unenviable task of making the distinctions between them. The usual rules spiel applies, but this week is all returning customers, so they know the drill by now.

    Third Place

    Guitar Hero: On Tour Decades by woodhouse

    Woodhouses consistence amazes me, taking the same levelheaded approach into any game and coming out with an informative and well-justified review. Moreover, I dont think there are many writers here that know the target audiences of games as well as Woodhouse; almost every piece carefully explains how it stacks up amongst its predecessors and peers. Here, the subject is portable Guitar Hero, and if youre the least bit interested, youll find everything you need to know here. Nothing extemporaneous. Nothing self-serving. I picture Woodhouse as the Wayne Jarvis character in Arrested Development: professional.

    Runner-Up

    Half-Life by dagoss

    This is a review that sits better with fans and players of Half-Life (see the feedback forum topic) than it does with those of with little experience. When discussing Half-Life, dagosss main point is that its role-playing characteristics separate it from the pack; Im ready to buy that, and its summed up with one fantastic line: Half-life adheres to this narrative paradigm which is one of the core tenets of any self-respecting RPG better than most games that actually populate the formal genre. Im interested, but aside from much lauding, I dont know the narrative and its not explained here. Neither is a lot else. I love this piece as an after-the-fact, VH1 Why We Loved Half-Life retrospective viewpoint. Anyone that has played Half-Life must read this, I think. Anyone wondering if they should play Half-Life might have to look elsewhere. But the review knows its niche audience and hits it.

    Winner

    Twinkle Tale by wolfqueen

    A lot has been written about Twinkle Tale, but I like the way this review captures it, and the ease with which it introduces you into the game. Its well paced. It doesnt try to be slick, only suitably convincing. It doesnt try to walk you through any particular scenario, but presents many. It offers up strategy to make the game more enjoyable, such as holding off better weaponry for boss battles so its not downgraded beforehand. The review has a somewhat whimsical, imaginative spirit to it that sums of Twinkle Tale well; I feel like if I didnt play it before, Id feel not only informed but comfortable the first time I played it after reading this. Thats a completely unnecessary but welcomed thing for a review to do, and its accomplished here. Great work.

    2008 Statistics (to date):

    Number of User Reviews: 499

    Most User Reviews:
    Pickhut 33
    Dagoss 31
    Whelkman 27
    Wolfqueen 27
    Disco 26
    Zippdementia 25

    Number of distinct contributors: 81

    Most Covered Game: The Word Ends With You (Nintendo DS) 4 Reviews

    Thanks again for your spectacular work and have a great new year!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 28, 2008:

    Excellent work, all who contributed to this final (full) week in 2008! Drella said everything I would've said, so for now I'll say "ditto" unless the urge to post an inflated topic later strikes (it could).

    I think the stats referenced at the end of the post show that we're doing very well as a community, so let's strive to keep the ball rolling through 2009 with more weeks like this one! As for the specific reviews referenced in this topic, I agree with the comments and also agree that reasonable arguments could be made to change the ranking. One of the most difficult things to do when you're reviewing is to consistently manage excellent material, and it's good to see you all doing precisely that.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted December 28, 2008:

    Very good RotW topic, both for the content in the reviews chosen for top billing, but also in the message it conveys.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted December 28, 2008:

    Venter has a time machine.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted December 28, 2008:

    Sure - if outside factors means watching anime. =P

    You know I'm kidding anyway.

    Also, I got used to British dating ages ago. And I'm also in GMT AND central time zone all the time, so no complaining!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted December 28, 2008:

    Wow. Well, I'll admit that I definitely wasn't expecting a win - or even a placement - this week with how I felt about the reviews after I wrote them this time. It's good to know that everything this week was fairly equal and in hot contention with each other.

    Thanks and congrats to the other winners/contestants.

    Hopefully next year will be more even more exciting.
    board icon
    AdultDatingSingles posted December 28, 2008:

    BANNED
    board icon
    hmd posted December 28, 2008:

    It might be a while before all those games get added, champ.

    ADDED
    board icon
    dagoss posted December 28, 2008:

    When did I find the time to submit that many reviews!?

    I wonder how many of those reviews were spared from winning RotW thanks to WQ's efforts. Maybe it's just in my head, but it feels like it's happened more than once.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted December 29, 2008:

    25 reviews since joining up in... what? October? I'm feeling good about that.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted December 29, 2008:

    Don't worry, dagoss. You're still beating me and probably always will be.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted January 02, 2009:

    Ugh, took about three weeks on Deception III but finally crapped it out. Might start tying up loose ends on unfinished projects or just plink away at Ghost in the Shell SAC/Sly Cooper 2.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 02, 2009:

    Sly Cooper 2? I own all three of those and thought the first one was fantastic, but I was having trouble getting into the second one and forgot all about it. Maybe what I needed was a FAQ.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted January 02, 2009:

    It's pretty fun overall, but every mission is broken down so much that it can be annoying (particularly since the only way to switch characters is to return to base manually). Dunno about the first one, but having Sly do everything might've made the game more enjoyable -- he has all the best abilities anyway.
    board icon
    EmP posted January 03, 2009:

    The end of the year is recorded late is now, and the final points are tallied. Only one person could win, and it was always going to be me, like I said at the start, but good job to those that took part. Special kudos go to WQ for almost making it to the finishing line and to Zipp for a valiant late charge. Wooden spoon to OD. As usual.

    I am a man of infinite mercy. I will shortly allow you another shot to take my throne.
    board icon
    EmP posted January 03, 2009:

    The year was 2008. A year of infamy so infamous that the word needs repeating a second time. Just this time, in italics.

    Infamy!

    It was the first year of the Alphabetic Marathon a feature so gruelling that it forced several competitors into retirement after it ground them into the, um, ground. Via grinding.

    There was only to be one winner and, in fact, one man to make it over the finishing line. Hes been very smug about the entire thing. Infamously smug.

    In 2009, the chance to do it all other again is about to be presented.

    Welcome to Alpha Marathon 09. Im going to win this one, too.

    The rules are simple enough for anyone to follow, but the schedule is not. You have one year and one year only to write a review for every letter in the alphabet (including #) by the end of the year. Sounds easy on paper, yet only one man has yet to finish it.

    Did I mention that was me, by the way?

    Here are the rules. Do try to follow them:

  • Keep an up-to-date listing of your progress intact. I will not be rooting through anyone's review listings to do the tally for you.


  • If you want to drop out of the running, please say so rather than deleting your list in a huff and then say nothing about it


  • Its advisable to make a fresh post for each new review you wish to have added to your tally to prompt me into counting it in the main league. This is so I don't need to randomly sweep through the topic counting up your progress when I don't know if any had been made. Ill do this at points anyway, because its be proven youre all of no help at all. Staff members can keep their own tallies added


  • And even if you do post your tally regularly, I may not update it without continuous nagging.


  • If you don't list it in this topic, I don't count it.


  • I reserve the right to make up more as I go along.

    Game: Start

    WINNER
    EmP = 27 Letters
    SECOND
    aschultz = 27 Letters
    THIRD
    Suskie = 27 Letters


    honestgamer = 21 Letters
    Woodhouse = 21 Letters

    overdrive = 18 Letters
    Zipp = 18 Letters

    Zigfried = 17 Letters

    Wolfqueen = 7 Letters

    Fasty = 5 Letters
    Janus = 5 Letters

    Jerec = 5 Letters

    Genj = 4 Letter
    Will = 4 Letters

    Boo = 3 Letters
    DoI = 3 Letters

    Psyschopenguin = 1 Letter
    Drella = 1 Letter
    board icon
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted January 03, 2009:

    Why not just put your letters in the intro post?

    Also, I think you should add another sentence in that rule about updating: "And even if you do post your tally regularly, I may not update it without continuous nagging." =P

    C = Cutie Suzuki no Ringside Angel
    G = God of War
    H = Half-Life 2
    K = Kouryuu Densetsu Villgust Gaiden
    M = Mother
    P = Psychonauts
    V = Vay
    Z = Zombies Ate My Neighbors
    board icon
    bluberry posted January 03, 2009:

    oh snap
    board icon
    bloomer posted January 04, 2009:

    This seems dangerous. I reckon I could do it, but my quality control would nosedive. And my quality control is really the only thing I revere.
    board icon
    bloomer posted January 05, 2009:

    Well, I've kicked the year off with great RSI, so I'd be nuts to commit now. I'll see how I'm travelling 6 months from now :)
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 05, 2009:

    Mine will be up tomorrow. Had a friend up to hang out with on Saturday. He had car troubles Sunday and was stuck at my place an extra day, so I didn't have time to get it done. Swamped at work today. Tomorrow is more free.
    board icon
    drella posted January 05, 2009:

    I'm on board for this year.
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 05, 2009:

    During the course of this week, I shall make my impact felt with one or PERHAPS two letters taken care of.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 05, 2009:

    I plan to participate, if only because I plan to review a lot of games. So... same story as last year. Last round I didn't review any games specifically for the marathon but almost made it to the finish line in spite of that. Let's see a bit more competition this time around!
    board icon
    EmP posted January 05, 2009:

    I already have an insurmountable lead.

    Catch me if you can, suckers!
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 06, 2009:

    Sorry for being a bit late. A friend of mine came down to hang out Saturday to play Fallout 3. We had fun. The original plan was for him to crash on my couch that night and then leave the next day. His car didn't start the next morning, so he was here an extra day. So, no RotW that day. I was utterly swamped yesterday with work (daytime) and the Buckeyes' game with Texas and all the required partying that goes along with Buckeye football games (night). Was a touch hung over today, so after getting my work done, I slept through the rest of the afternoon. But I'm here now!

    Usual rules apply. No staff people allowed and Belisarios can't get both his reviews in the top three due to that little rule forbidding that sort of shenanigans.




    THIRD PLACE: Shounen Ashibe (SNES) by BELISARIOS

    I'd say your two reviews were the most humorously entertaining of the ones I read this week. This one gets the nod over the other because there's some good info about the game, too. One of my next reviews is for a children's game, so I was able to understand just what you meant how the game's simple platforming concept became a bit tiresome for you after a while. I could perfectly get you were saying that it might not be a game that everyone would want to play repeatedly, but that it's the sort that if someone picked it up for a little while, they'd have fun while playing it. You did a good job making that point throughout this review.

    SECOND PLACE: Fallout 3 (Xbox 360) by johnny_cairo

    Man, I must be a jinx on RotW. It was my week when Suskie's, "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" Fable review was posted and, according to what Cairo said on his now-deleted feedback thread, I might have got his, as well. Anyway, you know how I know this is a good review? After playing Fallout 3 extensively over this weekend, there's a part of me that wants to just rip some of his arguments apart, but the writing is so good and well-reasoned that most of those arguments really won't have the impact I'd want. Your familiarity with related materials (Oblivion and the first two Fallouts) really comes into play here, both for good and for bad. For good in that it really makes a lot of your complaints come off as more convincing (very important when taking a more negative stance on a very popular game....especially a "hot new thing"). As for the negative, it might be the reason this review came in second instead of first --- to me, it seemed like there was an assumption of that same familiarity in your readers. Take me for example: I just bought a 360 in mid-December and have a "mere" 40+ hours in Oblivion. The only other dialogue tree RPG I recall playing was that atrocious final Ultima game on the NES (Warriors of Destiny, I think). As a result, I didn't find the intro to be that condescending, nor do I understand why you'd prefer a game with "impossible situations" to one where, depending on how you make your character, you have multiple ways to handle situations. I do have complaints about this game (mainly how its big combat draw slows fighting down to a crawl), but at times, it seems yours are of a sort that only long-time fans of the series could relate to. Still, this was a very good, convincing review that does provide an effective counterpoint to the praise ones that I've read.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Shadow Hearts: Covenant by psychopenguin

    I think the biggest thing I liked about this review was the energetic tone, which made reading it very enjoyable. I work at a newspaper, where you're supposed to use a "just the facts" tone with most of your writing and I feel I have a lot of trouble getting as far out of that mindset as I'd like with my reviews. This was far different than that, as you definitely aren't shy about showing how you feel about this game, as you have a good conversational tone where you let readers know just how much you like the game, making the rating of 10 seem more than justified. It doesn't hurt that you've reviewed the first Shadow Hearts. You really seem to know what you're talking about and, while there's a ton of information here, that conversational tone keeps it from becoming tiresome to read. A very good review that might be one of the best, if not the best, from you that I've read over the years.




    This was a very good week, as just about every review here received definite consideration for the top three spots. And with that, I'm out!
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted January 07, 2009:

    Thanks so much! I really worked hard on it and edited it a lot.
    board icon
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 08, 2009:

    Well, EMP, come week's end I should have three of the letters covered. I think by year's end you'll have a serious competitor on your hands.

    Finding those X's, Y's, and Z's could be tough, though. As could the #'s and W's. It may be time for a Warcraft review, and a 7th Guest review.
    board icon
    psychopenguin posted January 08, 2009:

    R = Rhapsody (DS)
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 08, 2009:

    V= Valkyria Chronicles
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 09, 2009:

    Title: Lumines: Supernova
    Genre: Puzzle
    Developer: Q Entertainment
    Publisher: Bandai
    Release Date: Dec 23rd, 2008

    Added.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 09, 2009:

    L is for Lumines: Supernova.

    I'm gonna give you a run for your money this year, EMP. Nobody gets the "latters" like I do.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted January 10, 2009:

    I'll take a run at it.

    Y -> Yggdra Union (PSP)
    board icon
    jerec posted January 10, 2009:

    Just for the fun of it. Can't believe I've done 3 so far. It's only March! I'm setting myself a goal for 12 by the end of the year.

    A - Animal Crossing: City Folk
    C - Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII
    L - Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga
    T - Tales of Vesperia
    W - Wii Fit
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted January 11, 2009:

    There were only four new reviews this week, but each was compelling in its own separate way. I would recommend that you read all of them because, if youre wanting to become better at this hobby, you can see how different writers attempt to describe different types of game qualities in relation to the different inherent issues associated with each title in question. All four reviews are solid, but only three can make this list.

    As always, staff reviews are exempt from the running.




    2nd Runner Up: Yggdra Union (PSP) by Woodhouse

    Woodhouse writes about Yggdra Union, elaborating on how the game demands the players patience and determination. Its very challenging, frustrating, and time-consuming. Each side can only attack once per turn? This doesnt sound like a game I would enjoy! But thats beside the point, and Woodhouse does a pretty good job at explaining why people who enjoy tactical RPGs may enjoy playing such a game. He doesnt really come out and say it, but I think you can tell by reading his descriptions over the various aspects of the game whether or not youll find this to be your cup of tea. Its also nice that he compares this game to its GBA predecessor, which I believe is quite the cult classic, and fans of the original would probably be curious to know how the PSP port fairs in certain areas. People interested in Yggdra Union will get the most out of this review, but those of us who couldnt care less about its demanding qualities can also gain some knowledge. It is a well-written, informative piece, after all.

    1st Runner Up: Animal Crossing: City Folk (Wii) by Jerec?!

    All Jerec had to do was wait an additional two months and eight days, and he could have celebrated the four year anniversary of posting his last review. But he decided to crash that party early by posting a new review, this one being for Animal Crossing: City Folk. If you read his blog, hell explain how hes old school, baby and how it was written directly into the submission box. You think youre a tough guy, Jerec? But in all seriousness, its nice to see some new material from HGs most prolific review competition judge. Its also nice that the review accomplishes the goals Jerec set for it. This piece is replete with comparisons from other renditions of Animal Crossing, and each one is important. By the sound of things, Animal Crossing Wii is a major let down, not just to fans of the series in general, but also to owners of the PAL version, who cant even transfer their DS character to the Wii. That sucks. And since Jerec does a very convincing job at explaining why the other features in Animal Crossing Wii feel superfluous, its easy to understand why he didnt care for the game at all. Lets hope that he writes a few more reviews before the year is out.

    Review of the Week: Braid (X360) by JANUS2

    This is a great review. The writing is fluid, interesting, informative we can see that Janus is a guy who likes the game hes writing about for what is, not what pretentious reviewers try to convey it as. Some may dislike his use of quotes from other publications, but I think they only help to solidify his point. The competition is trying to make Braid sound like its something that its not. Even then, Janus line stating Im turning into a BRAID REVIEWER! is classic, and it explains how even logical people could get fixated on the games whimsy by embellishing it. Despite all the talk in explaining what Braid isnt, Janus also does a pretty good job at explaining what the game is. It sounds like a very unique platformer with a time gimmick. You have to read his descriptions to fully understand how platformer with a time gimmick can be unique, but never once did I feel bored by reading this review. It was incredibly convincing all the way throughout, and now that Jonathan Blows name has been replaced with the appropriate source, I dont think anyone can claim contrary to this reviews citations. I really enjoyed reading this one.




    EmP will see you next week!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted January 11, 2009:

    Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed the review.

    Line of the week: "And there's an Auction house I haven't used, so I'm not sure how pointless it is."

    EDIT: before I forget again, thanks for the screenshots, EMP.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 11, 2009:

    I really miss being a part of the ROTW. There should be a staff ROTW.
    board icon
    EmP posted January 11, 2009:

    That's the ideal thing about being freelance: not all of your reviews need be staff. You have the best of both worlds.
    board icon
    jerec posted January 11, 2009:

    Thanks for the comments! I knew I wouldn't win this week, because that Braid review was pretty awesome. I've been playing that game a bit lately, and Janus is spot on. But getting second place was a happy surprise for me. Not sure how I'd have faired in a more competitve week, though. I'll have to write some more reviews STRAIGHT INTO THE BOX on some other weeks!
    board icon
    Masters posted January 12, 2009:

    I'm actually really happy staff isn't in the RotW running.
    board icon
    AusROM posted January 12, 2009:

    Game: Dungeon Keeper II
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher:Electronic Arts
    Developer: BullFrog Productions
    Genre: Strategy
    Release Date: 1999


    Now nominated by me as game of the Century. haha!!

    Added.





    AusROM
    board icon
    woodhouse posted January 12, 2009:

    Progress 2/27

    New
    ---
    B -> B-Boy

    Past
    ----
    Y -> Yggdra Union (PSP)
    board icon
    threetimes posted January 13, 2009:

    Game: My Little Pony Pinkie Pie's Party
    Platform: DS
    Developer: THQ
    Genre: Adventure/General
    Release Date 09/22/08 (US)

    Kid's game but cute. Can't resist pink ponies. ;)
    And hi Honestgamers. :D

    added
    board icon
    EmP posted January 13, 2009:

    You have a long way to go if you think you'll be taking my champion of horsie games off me!

    Hey Threetimes. About bloody time, too!
    board icon
    threetimes posted January 13, 2009:

    Wanna bet? ;)

    Oh well, nice things come to those who wait. :p
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 14, 2009:

    Let's see how I do this year, then. I'll update this post as I go and will probably help out with the original tally to make sure that my number is accurately reflected. That's what I did last year, anyway. It seemed to work out well for me. ;-)

    # is for ?
    A is for Active Life: Extreme Challenge (Wii)
    B is for Bookworm Adventures Vol. 2 (PC)
    C is for Castlevania Judgment (Wii)
    D is for Dokapon Kingdom (Wii)
    E is for ExciteBots: Trick Racing (Wii)
    F is for Fuel (PS3)
    G is for Ghostbusters: The Video Game (PS3)
    H is for ?
    I is for I'm Gonna Nurse You -Voice Plus!- (PC)
    J is for ?
    K is for The King of Fighters XII (PS3)
    L is for Left Brain Right Brain 2 (DS)
    M is for The Maw (Xbox 360)
    N is for Nancy Drew: Ransom of the Seven Ships (PC)
    O is for Overlord II (PS3)
    P is for Prinny: Can I Really Be the Hero?
    Q is for Qix++ (XLA)
    R is for Rygar: The Battle of Argus
    S is for Safecracker: The Ultimate Puzzle Adventure (Wii)
    T is for Terminator: Salvation (PS3)
    U is for Up (Xbox 360)
    V is for ?
    W is for Wheelman (PS3)
    X is for ?
    Y is for ?
    Z is for Zen Pinball (PS3)

    I have a bunch more games to play and review, so I should be making decent progress in the weeks ahead. Not sure what my next project will be, though...
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 15, 2009:

    D is for Devil May Cry 4. That's three in as many weeks. "O" will probably be next, if anyone cares to take a guess at the title.
    board icon
    Genj posted January 15, 2009:

    H = Hotel Dusk: Room 215

    Hopefully I can top the 5 or 6 I did last year!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 15, 2009:

    I was wrong, "#" was next, for 7th Guest.

    TAKE THAT! I GOT THE # IN THE BAG!

    You know, one year we're not gonna be able to do the # anymore. There simply aren't enough games to go around.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted January 16, 2009:

    Lessee... Ghost in the Shell / Jet Force Gemini stuff right now, and maybe Rogue Galaxy after that. I should really restart Koudelka, though, or 3X will have my head.
    board icon
    timrod posted January 18, 2009:

    Game: i-Fluid
    Platform(s): PC (through Steam)
    Publisher: Exkee
    Developer: Exkee
    Genre: Platformer
    Release Date: Unknown

    Added.
    board icon
    threetimes posted January 19, 2009:

    On a platter please. ;)

    There's no escape!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted January 20, 2009:

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the first time a contestant in the Alphas has submitted a review and achieved a score of zero?

    I think Boo deserves recognition for that at least. You know, sort of a "biggest loser" award.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted January 20, 2009:

    ...the "review" was just a sentence. It wasn't even accepted. He just "wrote" it as a joke.
    board icon
    EmP posted January 20, 2009:

    Zero's still a higher score than Willers got.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted January 20, 2009:

    Well, no, since a null-score is not a number. It'd be like saying that an old, beat-up, falling-apart car has better steering than a pinapple.
    board icon
    EmP posted January 20, 2009:

    It would. One is still clearly better than the other.
    board icon
    Masters posted January 20, 2009:

    Mmmmm... pineapple...
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 22, 2009:

    "W" is next, for Way of the Motherfucker... I mean, Samurai.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted January 22, 2009:

    Game: Banana Nababa
    Platform: PC
    Genre: Action
    Notes: Freeware game.

    added

    Thanks.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted January 23, 2009:

    Haha. JFG is in the bag, and now it's time to find something else to do.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted January 23, 2009:

    I have a review, screenshots, and a video ready for submission. :0

    But... I'm typing this as I'm about to go to bed. So, you probably won't see them until about 9 hours after this post...
    board icon
    woodhouse posted January 24, 2009:

    Progress 3/27

    New
    ---
    C -> College Hoops 2K8

    Past
    ----
    B -> B-Boy

    Y -> Yggdra Union (PSP)
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted January 27, 2009:

    1 for me plz.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted January 30, 2009:

    Parasite Eve in the hizzouse.
    board icon
    TrikkeGalCeleste posted January 31, 2009:

    Sure love google, fascinating read.

    Will read up and hopefully have something to post.

    Thanks.
    TrikkeGalCeleste
    board icon
    drella posted February 01, 2009:

    A RotW, that while not a day late, is a dollar short, because the 25th was accidentally included last week in RotW. I suppose I should be thankful Masters made my job easier. With those three reviews from dagoss, cornwell and fastkilr ruled out, there were still eight articles vying for three spots.

    Mostly I came away disappointed after an hour or so of reading through them, not at anyone in particular, but because almost everyone as a whole -- will, wolfqueen, DoI, true, Janus -- are writing in the same stylistic manner. The same types of transitions. The same types of "action snapshots" that are supposed to make you realize how cool the title is. The same way of approaching a game's faults. A nifty trick here or well reasoned paragraph there adds some character and keeps the lot from being too homogeneous. I'm not sure it's enough, though. Maybe as an experiment deliberately try writing something no one else would write and see what happens; when this many reviews strike me the same way I worry. They're not bad. They're just... the same, in a lot of ways.

    Winner:
    Call of Duty: A World at War by hmd

    Hmd's unique look at Call of Duty this week stands out the most amongst the pack and is my recommendation for the top read. Some of the hyperbole concerning Infinity Ward is a bit much, but it centers in on its main point well, and its main point is justification enough. Thinking about it, a lot of these realistic combat games based on wars do seem to promote stereotypes and keep alive covert racism; A World at War seems like the most egregious of offenders by a mile based on the examples here, but it's a topic rarely recognized and probably worth noting. There's nothing nostalgic or entertaining about calling people japs or gooks and it doesn't seem like it should have any avenue as far as video games are concerned. Hmd wins for a review that falls well short on achieving answers, but raises very good questions.

    Runner-Up
    Mass Effect by JANUS

    While I can harp about similar writing styles and such, this is by far one of the most unique looks at Mass Effect I can remember reading and the best "pound for pound" review this week. It covers a lot of bases, reaches for and defends a lot of good points, and keeps a level head while looking at one of the modern day blockbusters. That level head when it comes to hyped titles is a Janus staple though. The comparisons here are apt and the introduction capturing, because after reading a few of the reviews this week, I didn't think anyone would write something like that and then go in a different direction. Great work.

    Third Place:
    Operation Darkness by turducken

    Aside from the fact the genre could have been made a little more obvious from the start (I assumed FPS based on talking about the nationality of the group members), this was a solid, witty read throughout. I think it covers the pros and cons pretty well without being too in-depth. Is it leagues ahead of God or War by wolfqueen, or Space Quest 1 by will, or Little Big Planet by true? No, not really. This one just stuck with me a little more than the others, for whatever reason (I liked the humor with the guns doing more damage when you're a werewolf and the clever way of mentioning the dated graphics), and someone has to round out the group of placers. Congrats!

    See you all in a month or so for another RotW.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 01, 2009:

    Hm... Well, I can understand your need to see something different, and I'll be the first to admit that my review was pretty "standard" as far as these things go, but I have to disagree with the HMD verdict. His review merely discussed the issue of racism without any context, in a game about a very racist war to begin with. This was the only focus in the review; he provided no other information about the game in question. I can't imagine many people seriously deciding whether or not to buy this game would have their opinion swayed solely based on the argument of racism alone. His review would have been much stronger if he had argued his points much more effectively, but his tone, style, and abrupt ending didn't do him much favor in my opinion.

    Anyway, enough of that. Congrats to the winners.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 01, 2009:

    It's true, as far as a review goes, there's little to really praise in the Call of Duty review. As far as an article goes, it's pretty good, though.

    I see where the win comes from, though. It is a compelling read guised as a review, and it does stand out from amongst the others this week.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 01, 2009:

    Couldn't disagree more with your choice, for reasons I have already gone over.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 01, 2009:

    Congrats to the winner, and more so to the losers.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 01, 2009:

    Personally I thought it was Janus win this week, for a new look at Mass Effect that isn't oozing with gushing love.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 01, 2009:

    I'd better start keeping it straight for myself...

    # is for 7th Guest
    A is for Archmage: Reincarnation
    B is for Bioshock
    C is for Clive Barker's Undying
    D is for Devil May Cry 4
    E is for Evil Zone
    F is for Flower
    G is for God of War
    H is for
    I is for
    J is for
    K is for Killzone 2
    L is for Lumines: Supernova
    M is for Mytran Wars
    N is for
    O is for Odin's Sphere
    P is for
    Q is for
    R is for Resident Evil 5
    S is for Syberia DS
    T is for Trackmania DS
    U is for
    V is for Virtua Fighter CG Portait 11: the Final Dural
    W is for Way of the Samurai
    X is for X-Men for the NES
    Y is for
    Z is for
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 01, 2009:

    Thank you.

    I sort of understand where you're coming from on the style issue. I suppose my defence is that my intention with this review was to make a really strong argument given how universally adored Mass Effect is on HG. If the writing isn't all that "different" then that's probably because I was concentrating on content more than achieving a unique style.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 01, 2009:

    A noble endeavor.
    board icon
    i_am_a_towel posted February 01, 2009:

    i am a towel
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted February 01, 2009:

    As usual I'll kick off the year late, start behind, and do a letter I'll certainly review about twelve more games for. A fine start!

    A = Ar Tonelico 2
    B = Blazblue
    K = Knytt Stories
    L = Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete
    S = Sonic Unleashed
    board icon
    turducken posted February 01, 2009:

    I'm genuinely shocked I placed at all. Glad ya liked it.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 01, 2009:

    That is not a review, it's a blog entry. Last time I checked, we did not do a "Blog entry of the week" thing.

    It's well-written, sure, but it's not a review. It says hardly anything about the game, and the only question it raises is whether or not the author finished the eighth grade. If you want something different and experimental, how about a review that attempts to seamlessly blend images into a body of text? You don't see too many people trying that.

    I call shenanigans. But mostly not to do with this, but rather to do with having my review, my attempt at avant-guarde, dismissed as being bland and overdone. Did you even read the damn thing?
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 01, 2009:

    Somebody give me a heads-up the next week Drella is due for a RotW. If a discussion-starter is his idea of a cure for all those boring old "reviews," I'm gonna have fun with this.
    board icon
    True posted February 02, 2009:

    Challange! is coming to a close, I'll be doing the Pro-Rookie towards the end of March so between now and then, since no one has claimed February yet, I propose a new tournament idea I like to call...

    The Magical Mystery Tournament!

    We as writers like to challenge ourselves, and push ourselves to new heights, all while maintaining our desire to have fun.

    So in the spirit of that, this is what I propose: Fifteen slots, sign-up starts...hell, now. Once you claim your spot, you pick a color from the list below. That color is associated with a gimmick that only Felix (hopefully my second judge) and I know. Once your color is assigned and all slots are filled, we'll reveal your requirement and leave you to write the reviews. The deadline is dependent on how quickly the sign-up goes, so I will let you know.

    There will be no trading colors after the shroud is lifted. What you get is what you get. If you fail to meet it, we'll still critique you, but your score won't count and you won't be able to claim what we all so desperately seek: Bragging rights.

    I'll admit that some of them are fun, silly, and some downright screw jobs that you will enter into blindly, but that's the amusment of it. Maybe...not so much for you, though it will be a blast for Felix and I. It's a gamble. It's fun. So get to picking.

    DEADLINE: MARCH 20, 2009

    Red - Janus

    Blue - Wolfqueen Zombies Ate My Neighbors

    Orange - Zigfried - Starflight

    Yellow - Turducken

    Green - EmP Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?

    Purple - Dagoss Ultima

    White - Dark Eternal Dead Head Fred

    Black - Jerec - LEGO Star Wars

    Magenta - Vorty

    Fuchsia - Sportsman

    Brown - Genjuro

    Teal - Suskie - Fahrenheit

    Lavender - Will

    Tangerine - Overdrive - Legend of the Ghost Lion

    Violet - Zippy D - Liquid Wars

    All right, Reviewers. Have at you!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 02, 2009:

    Actually, Zippy D has a contest going too.

    I pick red.

    board icon
    goldenvortex posted February 02, 2009:

    I pick Magenta
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 02, 2009:

    Yeah, I'll judge.
    board icon
    drella posted February 02, 2009:

    Obviously I'm out of touch.

    I resign as staff. Someone else should redo this week because after nearly ten years, I'm obviously clueless still. And, as Masters noted privately, no one ever shows much thanks or gratitude in these topics. Funny that all it takes is one perceived sense of injustice and as soon as one person complains, you all act like vultures.

    Will, your images stood out as obtrusive in a very ordinary review; it was darketernal with pictures. I'm usually nicer, but you've lost me when you think what you wrote was avant-guarde. Ridiculous. Get a load of yourself :

    Janus wrote the best review this week, which I noted in the first post.

    Review of the week is something, to me, that people should read. Not something that people should like. I saw a review that was different enough it might influence people to take a different approach, and when everyone sounds like everyone else, a different approach is needed.

    But I'm not going to get kicked around here anymore or have people gunning for me next time my RotW is up. That's really fucking childish, Suskie. Imagine, the guy who ran off in a huff saying this site wasn't fun when he was under fire comes back only to deliberately keep trying to goad responses from one of the guys that went out of his way and asked him to stick around. Over one minor decision that two weeks from now no one will care about.

    Hope it was worth it.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 02, 2009:

    I was hoping you'd pick up on the fact that I was joking, since, as you'd wager from my current situation, I'm not the kind of guy who would say something like that and actually mean it.

    From what I've seen in the past, RotW winners are usually very grateful, and those who have gone unmentioned are almost always good sports about it. Frankly, this is the first time I've seen such outspoken disagreement with the final decision. But knocking all of last week's reviews for being reviews, then awarding the top spot to a piece of writing that barely qualifies as a review in and of itself just because it's a discussion-starter, is a pretty big move. Did you honestly think everyone would just nod their heads and approve?

    In the end, it's your call and none of us can change that. You'll note that most of my outspokenness thus far on the topic has been here, on the subject of the review itself. However much I may disagree with your decision here, I ultimately don't care very much. Others in this topic may feel differently, but even if they do, why should that affect you? I know it sucks when so many people gang up on you like this, but if I've learned anything recently, it's that running away with your tail in between your legs isn't the answer.

    Also not the answer: Re-doing this week's RotW. HMD has already won and it would be very unfair to take his victory away from him. I'm assuming you haven't changed your mind about him? If that's your criteria for a RotW victory... well, I disagree, but who cares? I urge you to stick with that, since you're the one writing up RotW in the first place. You don't need our approval. For a guy who waves his lengthy reviewing career around like it entitles him to some level of authority, you're doing a remarkable job letting the public opinion sway you.
    board icon
    EmP posted February 02, 2009:

    I feel the need to fly the TEmP colours. With pride and distinction.

    Green is the only colour for me.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 02, 2009:

    It may have been darketernal with pictures, but at least it was a review and not a rant.
    board icon
    Lewis posted February 02, 2009:

    I think this topic would have gone down a lot better if Drella hadn't have spent so much time talking about what other people are doing wrong, instead of just what these ones are doing right. It just seemed a little... off, and particularly odd within what is usually such a strong, supportive community spirit.

    It sounded like the sort of thing you'd say in a specific article feedback topic, or even by email if you were feeling constructive... but not in a public 'competition-style' forum thread.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 02, 2009:

    I choose teal. If you can't figure out why, you don't know me very well.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 02, 2009:

    I really like Led Zeppelin's song Tangerine, so I pick that color.

    In other news, Super Bowl hangovers suck. I seem to have still been up and talking smack on a message board at around 3:30-3:45 a.m. No wonder I feel so utterly abysmal at the moment.....
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 02, 2009:

    Yeah, but I can see the need to input "what went wrong" with the reviews in general. This was a contest week being judged and, in my opinion, that can lead to reviews being what he was saying about them, even though not all the reviews mentioned by Drella were for the CHALLANGE.

    When a person is just doing a review for the hell of it, they're writing for themselves primarily. When a person is doing a review with the intent of putting into a contest, they're writing for judges and, I think, sometimes, that causes people to unconsciously slip into a template where the writing likely will be very good, but the review itself is by-the-books. I know I fall victim to doing that a lot and can't count the number of times I've gotten comments along the lines of "standard OD review". Granted, that sort of line often has been used as praise for a review that's scored good, but it could be taken to mean when it comes to contests, I go with what feels most comfortable and write something I know will likely score well in a contest......but don't take the sort of chance that may score amazingly or might get horrible scores, but will definitely grab the attention of the judges and other readers. On the other hand, I have a few reviews that are of more of an experimental style, but those never seem to be written for contests.

    I'd say pretty much every current reviewer here puts out stuff of very high quality with consistency. However, there are only a tiny few writers who I can be counted on to read each and every thing they submit without fail because, to me, they don't fall into the trap of doing "typical (username) review" reviews. That's something I'd like to work on for this year --- taking more chances with my writing so that people get surprised when they click on something I write, instead of basically thinking, "Yep, that's about what I expected from him"......but still maintaining the strong points of my style.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 02, 2009:

    Blue is my favorite color.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 02, 2009:

    Yeah, you might want to make the deadline March, since my contest has a February deadline.

    I choose violet.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 02, 2009:

    The main point is, as Suskie says, that this was Drella's turn to pick the ROTW, and if he choose it based on what he thought were strong grounds, then that's all there is to it.

    Now, that doesn't mean people can't disagree, and I personally enjoyed the discussion that erupted from this. even if at times it came close to personal bashing.

    But I'm all for freedom of speech. To maintain it is a responsibility of not only the speakers, but the listeners. This is all just opinion, Drella. Keep on doing your thing, man, and don't fret.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 02, 2009:

    Yeah. If there's one thing that I think many people (including me, at times) struggle to comprehend is that different people have different opinions on what makes a good review and no one opinion is a be-all marker which everyone else should use as their judging standard. For me and my style of writing, I've noticed over the years that some judges are near locks to give me a high score. I also know with other ones that I'll have my work cut out for me even get into the low 80s. That's just the way things go. I've written things I've looked at and thought were up there with my best and then got very blah opinions for judges (ie: many of my new reviews for the '07 Summer Team Tourney). I've written things where I found myself wishing I'd have played another game for the contest it was for.....and wound up getting a very high score. My recent Rogue Galaxy review for Janus' Dec. competition works there. Getting a 92 or so for a review I felt was utterly mediocre by what I expect from my reviews surprised the crap out of me.

    To use Will's review as an example, since he's been the most vocal about the "injustice" of it all, I'd guess if you had every single staff member and regular/semi-regular user of this site now, as well as some of the more esteemed people who used to be prolific, but for whatever reasons, don't come 'round here no more give a brief opinion on it --- I'd guess you'd have a few people who shared his "avant garde" feelings about it to various levels. I'd guess you'd have a few people whose opinions were more along the lines of what Drella said, once again, to various degrees. And there'd be a lot of people who shared more neutral feelings to various degrees.

    It all depends on which of those viewpoints is possessed by the guy judging that review on that day. One negative commentary doesn't mean your review sucks. One positive commentary doesn't mean it's awesome. Anyone who looks at old contest results will likely not have to look for long to find a review with wildly different scores given to it by judges (like in the 88, 75, 40 realm).

    All I know is that I'll have some big shoes to fill with my RotW week being next week......man, I'll have to have my "a-game" on to create this sort of outrage.
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 02, 2009:

    Emp and Wolfqueen stole my favorites, so I'll take ugly orange.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Genj posted February 02, 2009:

    I'll take poo brown.
    board icon
    jerec posted February 02, 2009:

    Black. This sounds very interesting.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 02, 2009:

    It is very interesting, Jerec. And I know what all the colors mean!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 02, 2009:

    Don't misunderstand me; there's no injustice here. As has been correctly pointed out it's drell's turn to do the RotW by whatever criteria he sees fit. I just happen to think his picks are ridiculous.

    Does that constitute an injustice? No, not at all. It's bullshit, but it's completely fair bullshit. Besides, we'll probably all forget about it in a week.
    board icon
    True posted February 03, 2009:

    First off, to Zippy D:

    I appologize. I wasn't aware that you were running a contest and in no way meant to step on your toes. I hope you don't think I was trying to out you, or outshine you. I will pull back on my deadline to give your contest and those reviewing in it ample time to complete their entries without a constraint to meet another deadline. I just wanted to get word out and give those people plenty of time to sign up.

    Second, to the person who is editing my post:

    Thank you for filling in the names, and taking the time out to HTML them so they're reflecting the proper colors. It was something I was going to do, but seeing as you're on top of it, I'll leave it be. It's much appreciated though. (I'm pretty sure it's Felix, but I don't want to discredit someone else who may be doing it.)
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 03, 2009:

    I want Lavender.

    ...what?
    board icon
    True posted February 03, 2009:

    Drella is one of those few people that I've never talked to, or never taken the time to get to know. He's judged some of the contests I've entered, and oddly I always thought he kind of had it out for me. Nothing personal, he just doesn't like my style. So I'm probably the last person that should be backing him, but... he has a point.

    What are we here for? I mean, really here for. To write consistent, bland reviews that never stray from a normal structure in hopes that one day we'll become professionals and work for a magazine? Maybe...

    But in all honesty... fuck that. Magazines are boring. Big IGN sites are boring. Ever read Game Informer and their "Second opinion"? Nine times out of ten the second score is reasonably close to the first. There's rarely a difference of opinion, and even less writers trying to press the boundaries. To me, most writers for sites and magazines strike me as carbon-copies of their chief editor.

    Honestgamers is not your normal, everyday, sell out, IGN/toothpaste add, soul-less writers site. And that's why I still come here. That's why I still write here. Because it's fun, because it's original, and because every now and then it shakes things up. This site is full of diverse, original, not-of-the-norm talent and reviews here are ones you can't find anywhere else.

    And while I could easily sting Drella for his choice, or get butt-hurt because he mentioned me only in a brief segment for a review I thought was at least up to par with everything else produced this week, I'm not going to.

    Instead, I commend him for making a decision that not everyone was going to agree with, or curse him for. Was his choice right? Don't know. It's his opinion and his week. Drella has always struck me as a person with obscure taste, but most artists have that same curse. I, however, appreciate his outlook and his attempt to call-out the writers of this site and to inspire them to try something different, then giving us an example of what shatters the mold.

    He's trying to keep this place original, and trying to help us tread the path that makes us one of the most ingenious, creative, entertaining sites out there.

    At least, that's how I see it.

    It'd be a damn shame if this silly bickering really did drive him away.

    Remember: There's always next week.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 03, 2009:

    That's no problem, true. It couldn't be any worse than when I started my contest in the middle of the Challange... and forgot that I was in the Challange...
    board icon
    darketernal posted February 04, 2009:

    White I guess.
    board icon
    turducken posted February 04, 2009:

    Yellow = chicken. Chicken is a third of a turducken. Using the Power of Science I have determined which color I am stuck with.
    board icon
    dagoss posted February 04, 2009:

    Purple is mine!
    board icon
    jerec posted February 04, 2009:

    Maybe putting darketernal's name in actual white font isn't the way to go...
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 04, 2009:

    I was going to scream for my stipulation RIGHT NOW, but then I realize that at the current time, I don't think anyone has picked fuckyea as their color, yet.
    board icon
    Halon posted February 04, 2009:

    Guess I'll take the last color. Whatever that is.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 05, 2009:

    Hey wait, you're doing Pro-Rookie in March? I hope it goes better than the last attempt to get that started.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted February 05, 2009:

    Platform: PSP

    Title: DJ Max Fever
    Genre: Music (Rhythm)
    Developer: Pentavision
    Publisher: PM Studios
    Release Date: Jan 27, 2009 (US)

    Added. With style.
    board icon
    True posted February 06, 2009:

    Yeah. This time I'm actually just going to do the Pro-Rookie tournament the way it was originally set up, and not try to add all sorts of crummy gimmicks and ask everyone what they think. Not that I don't value your opinions of course, but I tried too hard to make it like the Team Tournament, which it's not. However, I do want to add a little incentive so it's going to be towards the end of March.

    On that note, the colors filled up a lot faster than I thought. I perhaps should have done twenty...but, what's done is done. Zipp has given everyone in the, what I like to call, "Zippy D's Beat the game that's been sitting on your shelf tournament" until the end of February. I'm giving you two more weeks after that, though you may not need it. Deadline is March 15th. And I was going to wait and be a dick until I revealed this, but it's probably best you get started now.

    Janus/Red Review a game that starts with a number

    Wolfqueen/Blue Review a retro game (and by retro I mean before 95)

    Zig/Orange Brevity. Review a game in 750 words or less

    Turducken/Yellow Include some element of fiction in your review

    Emp/Green Review a genre thats not main-stream (I.E. Trivia, Music, Puzzle, Hentai, Dating Sim, Etc.)

    Dagoss/Purple Review a cross-genre game (a game mixing genres, like Fallout 3 as a first-person shooter and RPG, or Dungeon Maker mixing RPG/Sim)

    Dark Eternal/White Review a game not previously seen on this site

    Jerec/Black Write a review for a licensed game (A game that is made from a movie, tv show, comic book, etc.)

    Vorty/Magenta No Gimmicks. (Meaning no dialogue, no screen-shot prompts, no fluffy fonts or funny colors.)

    Sportsman/Fuchsia Review a game and intentionally work-in a bash on Coldplay.

    Genj/Brown Review a free game. (Games on Aeria should suffice. Shameless Plug.)

    Suskie/Teal Review a genre that youve never attempted

    Will/Lavender Review a multi-gen game (Castlevania, Zelda, Metal Gear, Metroid, etc.)

    O.D./Tangerine Review a game with a female lead

    Zippy D/Violet Review a game that few people have ever even heard of.

    On a side note, coding those was a pain in the ass, so--again--to whomever took the time to do that the first time, thank you.
    board icon
    jerec posted February 06, 2009:

    I was worried for a moment there, then I realised I have a whole bunch of Star Wars games. Now to pick one.
    board icon
    Lewis posted February 06, 2009:

    "Sportsman/Fuchsia Review a game and intentionally work-in a bash on Coldplay."

    Wonderful.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 06, 2009:

    Poor Janus got screwed.

    I'm a little unclear on what qualifies as a multi-gen game. Would that be a series that spans across many years (and thus, generations of gamers), or simply across many systems?

    For example, would Armored Core or Prince of Persia count?
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 06, 2009:

    It's a game franchise that spans multiple console generations.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 06, 2009:

    Fuck.

    Edit: Wait. I know what I'm going to do. Stand back and observe as I change the world!
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted February 06, 2009:

    Hmm, my reviews lack gimmicks and stuff anyway. So, I guess I'll write a normal review for anything...
    board icon
    Lewis posted February 06, 2009:

    Hotel Giant 2

    Format: PC
    Genre: Management
    Developer: Enlight
    Publisher: Nobilis
    Release: February 2009

    Added
    board icon
    darketernal posted February 06, 2009:

    Alright. I can do that. Just a question, a "game not seen" on this site means the game not in the database, or a game that's got no reviews on this site made for it yet?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 06, 2009:

    Awesome. I have one lined up already! (and it just barely makes the cut! =D)

    I think I got the easiest one, haha.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 06, 2009:

    A female lead? Piece of cake. Victory is mine!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 06, 2009:

    Perfect. I think I've got one.
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 06, 2009:

    750 words or less, huh? Hmmmmmmm......

    //Zig
    board icon
    jerec posted February 06, 2009:

    Doing some research, I'm finding I owned more licenced games than I initially thought. I never really think of Goldeneye as such, but I won't be reviewing that. Sam & Max was based off a comic book... could do that. I've completed the game a few times. And then there's still that stack of Star Wars games I own. So many choices!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 06, 2009:

    Dark Eternal, to answer your question, I believe True means a game that hasn't been reviewed yet at HG.
    board icon
    Lewis posted February 07, 2009:

    Dear Esther

    Half-Life 2 mod

    Format: PC (w/ copy of HL2)
    Genre: Adventure (perhaps?)
    Developer: The Chinese Room

    Added.
    board icon
    Lewis posted February 07, 2009:

    Soz - could someone add the release date to Esther?

    19 June 2008

    Also, it's up as Developer: Unknown. It's 'The Chinese Room', as above.

    Ta!

    Done.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 07, 2009:

    I've got a couple candidates for games people haven't heard of... difficult for me, since I don't have a ROM emulator. But would any of these work:

    Evil Zone
    Liquid Wars
    Hugo's House of Horrors
    board icon
    EmP posted February 07, 2009:

    I wouldn't worry about DE being able to find an obscure game.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 07, 2009:

    TEmP v1

    EmP -- Big Bang Mini

    Felix: Some of the descriptions were vivid, such as a triangle sitting alone against the neon backdrop of Hong Kong. Others werent as smooth, like the entire sentence about the penguins clad in pirate hats. That sentence, and other phrases in the review, were too heavy, and there were moments where the sentence structure was too jam-packed with denser synonyms of clearer adjectives. The images assist in providing a clearer picture in regards to what Big Bang Mini looks like, but the writing left me unaware at times as to what I should have been picturing in my head. The game sounds very interesting and colorful, yes, and there seems to be some great amount of variety in what you see/do throughout the course of its duration. Yet this is a shooter, as you clearly alluded to several times. Besides colorful imagery and DS gimmicks that allow you to draw short-lived shields and such, how does it compare to other shooters on the handheld? Or other shooters in general? Going back to the penguins clad in pirate hats, one could think that they are a unique staple to Big Bang Mini, but arent they also in Parodius? Which shooter doesnt employ DOOM in some way or another? In other words, to someone who has played a lot of shooters, your argument stemmed around areas you thought were unique, or at least nominally special, to BBG. But to me it didnt seem as refreshing since so many other shooters employ the same, or similar, kinds of imagery/events/assaults/et cetera that this game does. For a shooter review to be really good, as Ive been told, you have to give the reader a deeper sense of empathy of what its like to play the game, and thats really hard to do. Score: 78/100

    Janus: Any review that makes a DS puzzle game sound as compulsively addictive and energetic as this has to deserve high marks. This is a review with some vivid imagery (pandas lobbing firecrackers, etc.), yet it succeeds in explaining clearly how Big Bang Mini works. I like how you build a picture of the game gradually so we aren't bombarded with everything straight away but are instead introduced to different aspects of the game over the course of the review. My only complaint is that the writing sometimes loses itself in a stream of words. Here's an example: "Eyepatch-wearing penguins in pirate hats ride giant snowballs like space hoppers lob globes of snow while cones of ice surge from the bottom of the screen to try and catch you unawares." This would be grammatically correct if you add an "and", but it would still be a very wordy sentence. This is not a critical problem because you're generally very good at weaving together descriptive images and wordy sentences, and this review contains plenty of neat examples. It's just that sometimes an awkwardly placed word detracts from the overall effect. E.G: "Rapidly blind fire at the top screen, and expect the prettiest bullet hell you'll ever see as your own misaimed attempts descend, spiralling and spinning, coating Hong Kong's neon skyline in purple, pink and blue." This is a fantastic description that makes the game sound exciting, but "rapidly blind fire" is awkward. "Rapidly fire blindly" would be a better way to express what you mean. Nevertheless, this was an excellent review. Straighten out these stumbling blocks and it would score in the 90s. Score: 89/100

    Masters: Good review from Gary, but a trifle overwritten, and the odd subject matter doesn't help things, as the thick prose and game's inherent weirdness make for a read that is occasionally hard to follow. Now had the fool used something more like his Halo 3... Score: 83/100

    Dragoon of Infinity -- Sonic Unleashed

    Felix: You say that some of the werehog levels at times resemble those in God of War. Other times they resemble those in Prince of Persia. How? You say the boss fights are fun, but you dont provide any elaboration. There really isnt a clear sense of what kinds of things Sonic does until the third to last paragraph when you briefly detail his jaunts over the sides of buildings, across bodies of water, and over whales. I would have liked to read more in-depth descriptions over the sights and sounds of the game. Whats presented in this economical review is more of a generalization of what goes on in Sonic Unleashed. Most of the analysis is a little dry, and it doesnt really provide any clear picture as to what really goes on in the game. Yeah, the average reader is smart enough to know that Sonic levels are fast. But what makes them stand out, positively or negatively, from the previous renditions stages? And, since the werehog gimmick is new, how does that element work into the game? I know you touch upon the werehogs combos and allude to platforming segments. But some noteworthy examples would have been wonderful to read about. Instead, I have to refer to the images to the right of the review to get a greater sense as to how this game looks and plays. This review contains all the basic information, but it provides very little beyond that. Score: 72/100

    Janus: I disagree slightly with the intro. If you actually go back to the original Sonic titles they're not just about running really fast. There's a whole lot of waiting around too. Having said that, this is a great review! I think the way it's structured is spot on. The danger with bipolar Sonic games is that if you break them down to their individual parts your review can lose coherence and feel like an assessment of individual parts. That's not the case with this effort, though. I like how you address the werehog stages first, arguing that actually, although they have their flaws, they aren't what ruins the game. This allows you to delve into the specific aspects that DO spoil the adventure. But then you bring it back around with a fantastic analysis of the Sonic sections. The observation that it's the kind of speed that makes you lean closer to the screen is spot on and, as an old Sonic fan, the line about this being proof that the hedgehog isn't dead made me smile. So yeah, this is a great example of how to successfully review a 3D Sonic game. Score: 88/100

    Masters: Solid effort from DoI that starts well enough, finishes very strong (the running paragraph is exceptional), but gets bogged down in the middle by strange word choices and analogies and a few bad cliches ("mixed bag"). Score: 76/100

    Dark Eternal -- Relentless: Twinsens Adventure

    Felix: You do an OK job of explaining some of the quirky elements to a game like Twinsen or, as you call it, Little Big Adventure. I had a difficult time imagining what you were describing to me though. The pictures helped immensely, but as Ive said in other critiques for this contest, the writing should convey whats going on just as well as any image. There are some awkwardly written lines in this review, like that one sentence where you describe Quetches and Grobbos drinking beer together. The games intro, as you describe it, also felt segregated from the rest of the review. Lines like, And heres where things get interesting . . . leave me to wonder if you truly mean that all I read before wasnt, or if its just a colloquialism that youre employing because you fear that the reader wouldnt find the games intro to be interesting. I know you like the game because you scored it high and outlined how it allowed for a great amount of freedom back in its day. But you really only describe the actual game, as opposed to its intro, for about 5 or 6 paragraphs, and I didnt feel that was enough to convince me that this is the great game you say that it is. I feel you could have done more with it. Score 67/100

    Janus: The third sentence completely lost me. I've read it about ten times but I still don't get it. Also, what does a smug elephant who has everything in life look like?! Anyway, I enjoyed this review. You explain the unique mechanic at the heart of this game very well. I like the way you demonstrate how you must use the different modes and not simply rely on the aggressive mode. The bit about your encounter with the elephant was both amusing and interesting because it illustrates the complexity of the gameplay. My first impression on seeing the cover art was OK, this game looks goofy, but this review succeeds in make Twinsen's Adventure seem better than that. There were a couple of grammatical errors that hindered the review slightly (misplaced commas mainly), but overall this was a very good review. Score: 85/100

    Masters: This is an okay review, hampered by some mistakes that some more proofreading would surely catch ("Dr. Funfrock, residential mad genius" -- I think you mean "resident"). Also, while I get that you don't want to give away the story developments, I couldn't help but feel lost as to the point of the game. Does Twinsen just run around... doing random things? To what end? Score: 70/100

    Turducken -- Operation Darkness

    Felix: The intro was a little confusing until I understood how Operation Darkness presents its subject matter. Once we get into the meat of the review, you present the reader with some rather interesting, clear descriptions. This game sounds ridiculous in places, but in a good way. Some of your observations, such as the game looking archaic, as well as the option to name your avatar whatever you desire, were not only somewhat comical, but they were also very smart. Youre right! Why, in an age with full-game voice acting, are games still asking you to name your avatar something beyond the character default? I also liked the nicely timed inclusions of sarcasm scattered across the review. I was also pleased to see this game remained fairly true to the real events of WWII. You take part in many historical battles, and destroy a good deal of zombies, skeletons, and Nazi vampires. Good stuff. Your descriptions on the games mechanics are adequate, if not particularly exciting. A good example or two could have perhaps presented things in a more interesting manner. The conclusion also felt flat. But with all that said, you were able to inject some personality into the review. I got a clear understanding behind how the game works. And you also made it sound interesting in the best parts. Score: 80/100

    Janus: I found that opening paragraph really funny. This review is decent enough, but the writing needs a lot of tidying up. It's very choppy in places which makes it awkward to read and there are also a few notable errors. Here's an example: "A major deterrent in the war between the Wolf Packs cast of healthy, hearty heroes and the same half-dozen kinds of German troops. Yeah, sad to say enemy variety and characterization arent the games strong points." I think a word is missing here, or something. The review uses a lot of very short or very long sentences, long bracketed remarks and exclamation marks. The effect is that the writing becomes disjointed and hard to follow because it's jumping about all over the place. You make some good points about the game's failings, so it's not like the content's not there, but you need to tighten up the writing. Also, who are the literary and historical figures who join the party? I don't think you need to keep this a secret (and I actually wanted to know!). By the way, what's up with all the anti-British humour?! Score: 69/100

    Masters: At sentence level, Tur puts together some conversational phrases that are easily digestible and infused with personality. The problem lies in the string of sentences together -- the piece reads disjointedly, lacking the organization, flow and focus that some of the better pieces in this competition boast. Score: 69/100

    Team Wolfqueen

    Wolfqueen001 -- God of War

    Felix: I didnt like the intro. If God of War reminds you of The Odyssey, yet you clearly state that comparing the two is a stretch, whats the point in beginning your review with a comparison that doesnt fit? You could say to contrast, I suppose, but The Odyssey really has nothing to do with the game in question. And starting your review out with a superfluous comparison feels unnecessary. You could have just began it by saying, Kratos is no hero, and that would have trimmed this lengthy review down a little. Thankfully, the conclusion, where you yet again bring up The Odyssey, had more purpose. Contrasting between Kratos primeval instincts borne out of the virtues and values of ancient Greek culture was a pretty nice way to wrap things up. You could have made the same conclusion without that same intro, I feel. The actual review was also very nice for the most part. You employed a lot of clear, good descriptions to help formulate how the game looks and plays. Though Ive beaten God of War, and therefore know what its like, someone who hasnt should have a very good understanding on this game after having read this review. Even though its lengthy, its not needlessly lengthy, except for the first paragraph and the second to last paragraph. The second to last paragraph felt like a tack-on, and I dont think youd lose anything if you omitted it, because you had already talked about traversing hazards and spiked traps in other places in the review. Assuming you agree with my suggestions and follow my advice, I think this would be a really great review. As it is now, its merely pretty good. Score: 85/100

    Janus: This is a good, well-written review for an over-covered game. But we'll come to that in a bit. First the good stuff: it's obvious wolfqueen has put a lot of effort into the sort of "action snapshots" (to quote Drella) that can make a game seem fun and exciting. The writing is impeccable and the descriptions are clear and apt. This is evident in the paragraph that emphasises how gory the game is. The description of how you can create a blood geyser by shoving a sword down a minotaur's throat is a great way of illustrating this. The intro is a bit awkward (being a man on a mission makes Kratos similar to almost every videogame hero!), but otherwise this is a polished review. However, the problem I have is that I've heard it all before. This is not wolfqueen's fault, but the danger of reviewing an over-covered game is that unless you approach the game from a completely different perspective you're only ever going to reiterate what's already been said. This review is well-executed, but its effect is diminished by the fact that I've already read similarly gory descriptions of the action from Zig, Jihad, True and Disco in the past. I would love to see wolfqueen apply this sort of stylish, descriptive writing to a game no one has written about. In this case, however, it's impact is lessened by the fact that it repeats the same sort of points and images I was reading about four years ago. Score 80/100

    Masters: This is one of the best WQ reviews I have read. She lends her considerable writing skills to review a game which is inherently competition-friendly. The review bandies about impressive imagery and boasts an effortless flow. It loses a bit of steam in the third quarter, but ends strong. Score: 87/100

    Will the Great -- Space Quest 1

    Felix: Just so I understand, you gave this game a 10/10 largely because of its creative death sequences? Okay. So . . . how is the actual game? Are these death sequences brought forth because the puzzles (Im assuming there are puzzles here) are difficult/illogical, or is the death purposely built into the gameplay? Im guessing the answer is no for the latter, since you clearly advise the reader to save early and often. I just dont see why I would want to play a game thats going to kill me every couple seconds, even if those deaths are silly, or as you put them, wtf moments. I dont understand how that makes a game fun. Your descriptions of some of the areas youll visit were interesting, and I noticed you made brief mention of Rogers ability to sniff or taste things. But how is all of that successfully incorporated into the game to make it really worth playing when it sounds like such a frustrating title thanks to all the deaths? As for the images included in the review, just because theyre there doesnt mean that theyll automatically improve the writing. Score: 68/100

    Janus: This was a quirky review of a quirky game. I can't say I'm entirely convinced, but your argument/defence of the severe challenge makes this an interesting review to read. Personally, I think games resort to the sort of hand-holding or rail-roading that you criticise just because it's easier. It's easy to say Save early and save often, but in practice this doesn't always happen, because it's an inconvenience to save every five minutes and it can be hard to predict when the next major challenge is coming (speaking from my experience with Oblivion, Mass Effect, etc.). But you obviously feel otherwise and you support your argument with charming, succinct writing and well selected screenshots. I admit that some of those death messages did make me smile (especially the don't drink the water one). My other issue is that although you describe how the game works well enough, it doesn't sound all that fun. For example, you say you have to click on everything to figure out what to do. This does not sound enjoyable on its own. I wanted to hear more about the warped logic and silly outcomes of the puzzles to bring these ordinary gameplay mechanics to life. As entertaining as the death messages are, I'm not going to play a game purely for them. So this is a good review of what seems like a neat, if murderously difficult, adventure, but I need more to convince me that it's a 10/10. Score: 79/100

    Masters: He's the problem I have with Will's review. It's the best writing I've seen from him, and it showed great promise, initially blowing me away with how smoothly it read, how it rolled up informative and entertaining so neatly. And then I got to the score. A 10. I didn't see it coming. I really don't have much of an idea as to why the score would seem to indicate that Will not only likes the game, but *loves* it and thinks we will love it too. To that, I say, why? The review should have answered this question. Score: 72/100

    Dagoss -- Mortal Kombat: Deception

    Felix: I dont want to imagine someone screaming in pain due to your immeasurable girth. Dagoss, you have presented Mortal Kombat in a way that I never thought I would see. You have placed Freudian concepts into a game that, interestingly enough, is built upon such ideas. This is an educated mans review, or maybe I should say an educated mans editorial. The actual review is given second importance as you spend the first half of the piece trying to back up your point that this game caters to our inner, dark instincts. This is probably the smartest review Ill read throughout the whole contest, and its certainly the most intelligent one Ive read up until this point in Challange IV. At the same time, though, youre submitting this as a review. Chances are, if Im a reader coming into this piece, I want to know more about Mortal Kombat: Deception, the game, rather than Mortal Kombat: Deception, the Freudian concept. What information you divulge in your review is what I would expect to see, that the game is trashy, that it is gory, and that it contains several modes, none of which sound to exciting to a guy like me. If you could have perhaps based your argument around this MK title in particular as opposed to, say, the franchise in general, you could have more easily killed two birds with one stone. As it is, I think you killed half of one bird, and the second bird is too busy feeling your immeasurable girth. Score: 83/100

    Janus: I'm not sure what score to attach to this review to be honest. As a review, it's not that great. It doesn't tell me anything about Mortal Kombat that I don't already know. After reading it I have no idea what makes Deception different from the thousand other MK titles. But then do I really care about this? Dagoss doesn't make this judgement (perhaps the review would benefit if he did), but I suspect there really isn't anything unique about Deception. This same can't be said for this review. As a piece of writing I could easily give this 100 purely on entertainment value. Not only does Dagoss make a strong argument, he makes it with hilarious, unflinching and often quite graphic writing. The opening paragraph was funny, disturbing and unbelievably manly all at once. Aside from the paragraph on beating up your partner, which I didn't quite get (you hit your partner by accident but wanted to rip his spine out?), this was a great read. I can't tell if Dagoss is being sarcastic or not, but the fact that he revels in the violence gives the review a punch that a more restrained editorial would lack. In fact, this makes the brainless simplicity of MK actually sound fun in a way that a conventional review could never match. I think that deserves a 90. I'm going to stop typing now before I change my mind again. Score: 90/100

    Masters: I'm lazy and I think I said everything I wanted to say in my RotW, but for those who missed the topic (90% of you), I'll quote myself: This is a notable work by Dagoss. It's a great essay on fighting games and human depravity, though it's a stretch to make the argument made here so slickly, exclusive to the MK series. The other issue is that we're afforded no MK context with which to rate this particular MK game; no one-on-one fighting game context at all. So while MK: Deception exists in a fighting game vacuum for the purposes of making the theme of the review work, the theme is so well expressed here, the review is still a must-read." Unfortunately, while RotW mentions *notable* writing, this contest has to recognize how well these things work as reviews. Hence my score. :( . . . Score: 65/100

    Lewis -- Resident Evil

    Felix: This is a really good review, from the viewpoint of someone who agrees with you. I dont care for the survival-horror genre either because it has always felt broken (at least in the Resident Evil franchise; for others, I cant say), even when it was at its apogee. To someone who loves the genre, though, its easy to understand why they wouldnt care for how you present your opinion. Its incredulous they could say or it lacks objectivity! But then you do something that a lot of reviewers dont when reviewing a franchise as beloved as RE. You tell it like it is, but you also do it by providing examples to back up your stance. One exception to that is where you lambaste the games script. Hasnt Resident Evil always been about scares popping around corners and really, really stupid writing? Used to be you couldnt read a review for the game without seeing someone laud the master of unlocking lines corny delivery. Does it fit in the game? I think so, because I always took RE to be more of an homage to B-horror films than . . . smarter horror films. Anyway, I like what you say for the majority of the review. You deliver the coup de grace when you make that comparison with System Shock 2. Now I fully remember how Resident Evils play control hurt me more than any zombie ever did. Score: 84/100

    Janus: I'm not quite sure how to evaluate this review. It's a provocative assessment of Resident Evil, albeit one that's very intelligent and persuasive. However, it's clearly using the GameCube version of Resident Evil to represent the genre as a whole and as such you could probably submit this review for a dozen other games without changing the content much. But then maybe that's the point. I don't learn much about this remake as a distinct title after reading the review, but by criticising core elements of the genre the review suggests that title-specific issues are mostly irrelevant. To put it simply: who cares about the puzzles if the camera sucks? In fact, delving into the aspects of this specific game would probably weaken the review. So I guess what I'm saying is: good review. Your dislike of early Resident Evil/survival horror games is articulated with typically engaging, critical writing and the arguments are well substantiated. It hard to argue with the paragraph on the inept camera, or any of the others for that matter (but then I haven't played any Resident Evil other than 4). This review is thought-provoking, well argued and comes at an ages old game/genre from a relatively fresh angle. Score: 90/100

    Masters: I admire Lewis's adventurous spirit -- it worked rather well for me with his review of Half-Life 2. Here though, his review comes off as a blog entry rant about what's wrong with the old guard of survival horror at large. I won't get into the issue of 'should non-fans review niche games' here; suffice to say that I think as a detractor of these types of games, his review could still be more useful if he made more acknowledgment of what it was that gave RE a fan base in the first place. As it is, the greatest utility the review offers is to fans who will read it and say "oh, he hates X and Y? Ah, right then -- I'll discount his opinion and pick up what sounds like a great game." Score: 67/100

    Team Boo

    Overdrive -- Emerald Dragoon

    Felix: This review presents its facts, but it doesnt have the eloquence that that other Emerald Dragon review had. Luckily, for you, OD, I dont judge competition pieces against non-competition pieces. It sounds like this game is in the same boat as another wonky RPG, Basted. I enjoyed Basted because its stupid, even though its one the easiest Turbo CD games ever. SNES Emerald Dragon is also easy, but its touching, as you say. Your examples added light to why you believed this RPG had more going for it story-wise than your typical 16-bit offering. Your entire offering was presented very smoothly, too. I dont think it took me that long to read this review, which is always nice. I could see why you enjoyed this (inferior) port. I probably would too, and you convinced a skeptic who, at the start of the review, thought he was going to have to say that this version looks basic compared to the Turbo version. My only major complaint is that, while the review does a pretty good job analyzing the game, I felt that the writing was a little flat in places. Maybe thats largely because there arent any dynamic anime cutscenes mentioned (do they even exist in this port?), and that the story elements are presented over the course of the review in a more general way, rather than in a manner that would be indicative of their spellbinding emotion. Or whatever. Score: 82/100

    Janus: I went back and read Zigfried's Emerald Dragon review before this one. This actually makes a nice companion piece to that review, emphasising the specific aspects that makes this SFC port unique while reiterating the strength of the plot. This review isn't quite as eloquent as Zig's, but you still make the story sound impressive. I particularly liked the emphasis on the side characters in this review as it demonstrates the depth of the plot and brought out an aspect that I didn't hear about too much in Zig's review. Reading about Elm made the battles sound interesting, too. Your analysis of the RPG mechanics is typically insightful and your points are well explained and argued. This is a good review, although I do agree with Zipp that the combat sounds pretty broken. At the moment you cover this critical flaw then cut to a fairly abrupt ending that leaves me with a negative impression of the adventure. Perhaps returning to the quality of the story with a bit more detail in the conclusion would help outweigh this issue. Score 87/100

    Masters: OD is the consummate reviewing professional. His reviews are always virtually error free, with smooth transitions, and well reasoned arguments that arrive at the ideal score: he makes it look easy. That he's one of the best reviewers around is not a question. This review is no exception. The work's only weaknesses are the rather dry opening, and the un-compelling subject matter. Score: 88/100

    HMD -- Call of Duty: World at War

    Felix: This critique may seem harsh, but I want you to know that Im sure you are a decent person, HMD, and that you meant well when you wrote this. You are convinced that you have a reason to tell of the woes of World at War. And that is your right. However, I dont like how you delivered a single point. Please dont say that the game employs racism, and then state that the only victim is Infinity Ward. It looks ridiculous when you decry that kind of vulgarity only to spew the f-word all throughout your writing. Just because Treyarch develops the game doesnt make it a 1/10. You fail to give any credible evidence, and the evidence you do give (the racism thing) is so out of context that youre fooling people who havent played the game into believing that what is there is far worse than it actually is. You even admit not playing past the third level, and you state that you dont even care to do so. This is a war game meant to be historical in its perception. It briefly shows real footage of innocent people being killed, not to try to give people hard-ons, but because thats the kind of cruelty that went on in the war. You should find it repulsive, but not as a slight to your character. Also, dont make stupid jokes about Big Red One, or tell me that this game is like a virgin wandering into an area replete with rapists. Thats crap writing, and it tells me nothing about the game. Provide credible evidence to try and back up your point. Dont come preaching the evils of this game, and then resort to chicanery and exaggeration. Your argument doesnt hold any water. Score: 10/100

    Janus: OK, I agree with pickhut that if you find a game's opening scenes morally reprehensible then you aren't likely to stick around to experience the rest of the adventure. And I think reviews are as a good a place as any to raise this as a concern. Watching documentary footage of civilians being executed is no one's idea of entertainment. However, the point about racism is less convincing. I generally assume that most war games are going to feature moderate to excessive racism and glorification of The Good Guys (i.e. the USA) at the expense of all other nations. In CoD II it's ridiculous to hear Russian soldiers speaking perfect English and throwing potatoes because real grenades are worth more than Soviet lives (OK, we get it, Stalin was ruthless). War games have always dealt in stereotypes. Nailing Treyarch on this point seems slightly unfair considering Call of Duty has never been especially liberal when it comes to portraying other nationalities. I'm not saying this approach is right, but it's inaccurate to suggest that Infinity Ward have never dabbled in racism (count the number of times "kraut" is used in CoD II). This review definitely has shock value and it's unlike anything I've ever read before, but I was hoping you'd go further than the racism thing. World at War probably is a shameless insult to Infinity Ward's genius. Maybe if you ever finish the game (and your blog suggests that you're still playing it) you can tell me why. Score 55/100

    Masters: I'm not entirely sure what to make of this review. It opens dubiously, with off-handed references that don't wash and a terrible bit which tries to make sending your franchise to a bad developer analogous to sending your daughter to a neighborhood fraught with rapists. Huh? I understand the outrage at what is perceived as racial insensitivity in the game. But even without exploring that issue -- this fails as a review because I don't know how the game plays, which is especially paramount once the 1/10 score is attached. 56/100

    Timrod -- I-Fluid

    Felix: You chose a game with some great subject matter, and then you wrote the review in a generic fashion. Theres nothing wrong with presenting the facts straight up, but even though this game had a few major issues (like the climbing dry surfaces glitch), it still sounded like a really cool idea. The review could have been more interesting, but it suffers from flat writing in parts, and from really bad transitions in others. The intro was really generic. Some of the technical information also went over my head. However, that stuff probably has relevance to someone who will come into the review, wanting to know that kind of information. You cant really make spec-info interesting, but you can do that when describing the stuff that occurs in the game. Score: 65/100

    Janus: This is a good review: it explains a bizarre concept well and provides the sort of technical information that would be vital to a potential buyer. The paragraphs on the FPS issues and physics engine didn't mean much to me, but I can appreciate their relevance in the grand scheme of things. The review doesn't exactly seize on the absurd hilarity of guiding a water drop around a house, but it does mention plenty of in-game examples to demonstrate just how unique the experience is. I don't really have a lot else to say. I like how you took a fairly ordinary opening (the "went into the shop and came out with this game" scenario) but used it to emphasise how obscure I-Fluid is. I also thought it was good that you picked out the ability to climb dry surfaces as a potential flaw. Using "The last comment I am going to make is..." as a transition wasn't quite as impressive, but overall there isn't much to dislike here. It's a decent, concise review of a weird game. Score: 75/100

    Masters: This is a very good review from Timrod, of a very strange game. He makes it a compelling read though, by virtue of clear description and cogent analysis. The only weaknesses are parts like "The last comment I'm going to make..." -- but missteps like these are few and far between. A strong effort. Score: 80/100

    Team Name

    Honestgamer -- Castlevania: Judgment

    Felix: Typical Venter. Its a nice, solid review. Parts of it are interesting. Parts of it just make you want to groan, such as when you poke fun at your own writing and say that your intro should have been epic. Hell, any opening line that begins the way yours did is sure to be anything but epic, unless were talking about B-movie epic. But enough about that. I found the review to be convincing, and it makes several good points in its argument. Here we have a fighting game based off the Castlevania franchise, and it still manages to come off feeling a little underwhelming. But, uh, did you proofread this thing? Did you read this sentence Why would someone bother mastering the art of knocking someone into the air, canceling out of a ground-based combo to follow-up with an air attack and then come down with a crushing to finish things off when just waving the Wii Remote around in circles while holding the 'B' button proves equally effective? How about this one She racks up combos like a jock collects hickeys? Should I name this tactic of using silly metaphors Venteritis? The argument is good. Just be cognizant that some of your sentences arent. Score: 78/100

    Janus: I don't understand the moron caught in a revolving door joke. Surely, if Dracula was caught in a revolving door he would keep on coming and going? Or is that the joke? I'm confused. I don't know if you've edited this review since I read it originally or if I just glossed over it before, but there are several cringe-worthy phrases: "fight, fight, fight", "gazelle with sugar rush", "combos like a jock collects hickeys" (actually, I do remember that one). These flourishes are slightly distracting because your writing doesn't really need them. Despite this complaint, this is still a good review. I think your ability to take a Castlevania Wii game seriously and not just ridicule it with anti-Nintendo hostility pays off here. I know you criticise the game, but you do so with specific points about the gameplay, such as the observation that mastering the art of combat is a waste of time when you can just swing the Wii Remote around. This sort of relevant, sensible criticism is also present when you expose the limitations of the different modes. You demonstrate convincingly that Judgement is lacking the magic present in older Castlevania titles, yet you also succeed in placing the game firmly within the series. The introduction was a clever way of doing this, as were the references to clock towers and Dracula's castle. Score: 87/100

    Masters: I consider this one of Venter's finest. The opening is the best in the competition and he's seen fit to address the most common Jason review complaint: the lack of personality. The only issue I had was with how long it took to dissect precisely what you were leading up to for several paragraphs prior (you even hint at this yourself, with the "finally we get to that in concrete terms" line). Also, you win the prize for having the third review I've read thus far with the term "mixed bag" in it. The prize is a set of steak knives. Score: 89/100

    Zigfried -- Dragon Knight

    Felix: Well, Zig, you certainly put a lot of swagger and panache into this one. Sometimes this is a good of way of saying my review really sucks, so please look at the shiny pictures! But thankfully that wasnt the case here. This went from being a decent review to a really good one by the time you began giving the history lesson, and it stayed very interesting all the way to the end. I found your anecdote on being unable to finish the game very well placed. If it isnt true, I wouldnt even have known better. As someone who has beaten Dragon Knight II on the Duo, I definitely can understand how such a simple little game like Dragon Knight can be intriguing. You reviewed an intriguing game, but you also gave us intriguing information that didnt deal with how the game works or plays, and thats what made this into a great review. All those aesthetics were nice frosting, too. Score: 90/100

    Janus: Zigfried has this knack of making old adventures on ancient systems seem deep and involving by selecting the perfect examples to convey their emotional depth. He does this here with the section just before the screenshot about rescuing girls from the clutches of evil monsters. Being able to make these sort of observations is vital when you're dealing with simple gameplay. Not only does Zig select the right examples, his obvious enthusiasm for the game comes across in the review. It's almost as if the enjoyment he felt while playing the game has been translated straight into the writing, which makes it a very engaging read. Plus it's always interesting when Zigfried writes about the history of games, companies and even systems that I've never heard of. His knowledge is impressive, but he never drones on (the bit about Elf selling soap was a particularly amusing bit of trivia). The conclusion was strong, too. It was a clever way of emphasising the fact that Zig's opinion of Dragon Knight is not purely nostalgic. The game still holds up today. So yeah, excellent review. Score: 94/100

    Masters: I'm not sure that this will come as a surprise to anyone: but Zig's is the best review in the contest. Sure, he rambles on at the start, giving us a history lesson that we don't really need, but he delivers it in such an easy breezy way, the way only the best writers can, such that we don't mind learning about these old dusty RPG's. And sure, he whines at the end about his broken computer and broken emulator experience -- blog fodder to be sure -- but it just colours an already rich review. I would like to have seen a bit more about why DK is a great game, as he states in the penultimate paragraph, but I'm just being picky. Lines like these:

    The monster will look at you. The words "GO AWAY" will be written on its face, kind of like the time you walked in on your roommate having sex.

    But you won't go away. The girl needs you. She doesn't want to be a human sushi tray. She doesn't want to work in Demon City's "soapland".


    Lines like those had me entertained. Even as I learned about a hentai-tinged game on obscure operating systems. And I didn't even WANT to. Score: 96/100

    Zippdementia -- Way of the Samurai

    Felix: I had to start this review three or four times. Thats not because I didnt understand what you were trying to convey, but rather that Id get distracted at around the same part of the review, and then have to go focus on that distraction, instead of continuing onward. This is a very captivating review. The first few short paragraphs seem kind of pointless, honestly, but things get interesting once you arrive at the part about how you created Menji, which, by the way, is a horrible name for an avatar. You keep things fresh and funny, detailing noteworthy moments as they unfolded over the course of the game. Towards the end, when you reveal how unmerciful the game is to you when you die, just devastated me. So even though Ill never play this game, I feel like I have after reading this review. Score: 89/100

    Janus: This is the most entertaining review I've read in ages. I can only echo what Masters said when awarding it Review of the Week -- it's a light and witty read but at the same time it delivers a razor-sharp analysis of the game's flaws. I particularly enjoyed the section describing the mechanics of combat. You explain the system with simple clarity, and then go on to describe exactly why it doesn't work. The detail is so precise, especially the observation about the inefficiency of throwing blocking enemies (and this leaving you off-balance and vulnerable), that I feel like I've played the game myself. I really don't think you could have worded this any better. Plus you found space for amusing comments such as the "awase" line. This contributes to the humorous tone that is established with the brilliant anecdote about character creation. This tone is skillfully continued throughout the review, which is why it's such a lively, entertaining read. The structure is spot-on, too. Instead of abandoning the almost narrative style, you maintain it right to the end which allows you to finish with the critical point about losing everything once you die. This is just a fantastic review. I could read it again and again and not get bored. Score: 98/100

    Masters: This is a brilliant review. Everything came together for Zipp here, for the first time, as I see it. It's fun *and* evocative -- surely a difficult balance to achieve. It won my RotW, so the score should come as no surprise. Score: 91/100

    Team BECAUSE I SAID SO!

    Golden Vortex -- Super Fantasy Zone

    Felix: Bless your heart, Vorty, for writing a review in Challange IV. Even though this review is pretty short, coming in at only 2KB, it still contains a good amount of information on Fantasy Zone in general. You give the reader a few allusions to other games in the series, such as when you briefly touch upon how this rendition isnt as seizure inducing as some of the Genesis/32X editions. Still, the review probably could have benefitted from being a little lengthier. These Fantasy Zone games are always really colorful, and I think you probably could have extracted some good examples from the game to make your review stronger. Also, for clarification, in one spot you say the boss fights are generally a walk in the park, and in another you described them as elongated. Care to comment? Score: 70/100

    Janus: You say that with a well stocked up arsenal of weaponry you can overwhelm most bosses without too much strain. But then you seem to suggest that bosses actually do take a long time because of the weakness of the primary weapons and the limited usefulness of secondary weapons. I'm not sure I really follow this argument. Aside from this issue, this is a neat little review that describes Super Fantasy Zone well enough. It's a little vague in a couple of places, though. This is partly because it's so short, but some of the points are unclear too. I wasn't sure what you meant by "sluggish removal of enemy pods" at first, but after rereading the gameplay paragraph I think this is a reference to the limitations of the primary weapons when it comes to killing enemies? Score: 68/100

    Masters: Vorty has taken his self-assuredness and way with words to a higher level with this review. Regrettably, while his command of the language is impressive, he employs his skills in the 'short review zone' and doesn't quite manage to accomplish that most difficult of reviewing feats: to seem to delve, without actually delving. A good deal more carefully selected, colourful examples would breathe more life into this review. Score: 79/100

    Genj -- Hotel Dusk: Room 215

    Felix: I know you felt that this review wasnt up to snuff for a contest, but I actually feel that it is. These DS games always get on my nerves because theres always gotta be a paragraph dedicated to how the stylus works, and then I also have to read somewhere how the stylus wasnt utilized to its full potential. While you do chronicle the stylus importance to an extent, I didnt have to read any of that other nonsense. It gives me a reason to be optimistic. This is a good review. Its not as wet as some of your reviews, but that didnt matter to me a whole lot by the time I got to the end of the piece. You still make your points convincingly, and the review is nicely written to the point that I never Mac-clocked this one. The game sounds kinda bad, and you declare it as so. How refreshing it is to read a final sentence that suggests the reader spend his money on a book rather than the game in question, or another game in its absence. I thought all video game players were fat and lazy and just liked staring at their computer screens and TV monitors all day. Score: 82/100

    Janus: I admire this review's honesty, specifically the line about the game sounding like crap because that's exactly what I was thinking. You raise plenty of valid, interesting points in this review. The inanity of the touch screen dependent puzzles is exposed with several damning examples. This process is repeated with the observations on the linearity of the adventure and the frustrations of having to go through critical dialogue scenes twice. The story doesn't sound very interesting and overall I don't get the impression that this is even worth a 6, but then you do admit that the plot isn't exactly brilliant. Maybe some more info on the mysteries would have helped us understand why you stayed up late playing it. Score: 83/100

    Masters: A pretty good review from Genj that gives us a mostly no-frills account of his experience with the game. While there's certainly no harm in that, given the generally unambitious nature of the piece (especially by the author's standards), what's actually there needs to be completely sound -- and unfortunately, there are a few very noticeable issues, like the close of the first paragraph which kicks off the first of three sentences all featuring the word "quickly". Or the gameplay paragraph, which is much too stop and start: "Sometimes... Othertimes.... Another time..." etc. Score: 74/100

    True -- LittleBigPlanet

    Felix: Im glad you liked LBP. I liked this review. I think you do a good job at describing, to varying degrees, all that the game has to offer. You make it clear that character and level customization abounds, and that the main character is charming, and that this is a game that can really get stuck in your head. At the same time, though, I think you could have dedicated a little more on what actually goes on in the main game, as well as in the custom-made levels. There was a lot of telling, not a lot of showing. You give a brief montage of events, describing tidbits from levels like The Garden and The Canyon, but you didnt really shed light on what really made those levels special. Perhaps it was deliberate, but I would have loved to have read about Sheriff Jalapeno, those strange blue genies in the Indian level, freeing captured animals towards the end of the game, etc. I would have also to read something on finished customizable levels. I played one based off of ICO, one off of Shadow of the Colossus, one off of God of War, one off of Batman you could have really given some sweet examples that would have perfectly paralleled what was already in the review. Also, there are a few typos scattered throughout the review. Just so were clear, I still enjoyed the review. But I also had played the game. If I hadnt, Im sure I would have been more curious about the actual levels than their construction. Score: 78/100

    Janus: My problem with this review is that it doesn't really focus on the game's obvious strength: custom stages. I know you explain the options available, but level editors are fairly mundane on their own. You need to describe the end results. I've seen YouTube videos of stages based on Silent Hill, Green Hill Zone, Lost, Super Mario Bros., etc. It would be nice to read about the kind of imaginative creations that other people have made, especially given that the level editor seems to be your main justification for the high score. I also found it difficult to visualise some of the editing features, namely the pre-rendered items. I'm not clear whether you mean they're pre-rendered in the sense that this is their default design and you can change it with the Material Changer or whether you have to have these items in your level. The comment that you can fill in any object makes me think that the latter is accurate. Outside of the online content, I just don't believe that this is all that innovative. You describe ordinary platform mechanics (admitting that the game is limited in this respect). I could see myself getting tired of the game pretty quickly. This leads onto my other issue: challenge. You mention that getting puzzles bubbles is the main motivation for progress. But I really want to know how challenging the custom-made levels generally are, otherwise this seems suspiciously like a nice but shallow novelty. This review opens well -- the intro sets up LBP as something different and you manage to make SackBoy seem interesting -- but ultimately I'm just not convinced. The review leaves too many questions unanswered and doesn't sell me on the concept of a platform stage editor. Score: 73/100

    Masters: True reviewed a game he loved. With his Silent Hill: Homecoming review, he managed to take that love and focus it, so that the reader knew exactly what made the game so special. This review contains even more love, but far less focus, and reads a bit like, "And THIS is good about it... and also this! And another thing you'll love is this!" I found myself distracted by the effusive energy of the review, and some strange errors in the text further distracted me (eg: why is there an extra quotation mark in the first sentence, and why is the word 'epic' capitalized?) It's not a bad review, but I believe it could benefit from some fine tuning. Score: 76/100




    Team Rankings:

    01. Team Name: Zigfried/Zippdementia/Jason 812/900
    02. Team Wolfqueen: Wolfqueen001/Lewis/Dagoss/*Will - 731/900
    03. TEmP v1: EmP/DoI/Dark Eternal/*Turducken - 708/900
    04. Team BECAUSE I SAID SO!: Golden Vortex/Genj/True 683/900
    05. Team Boo: Overdrive/Timrod/HMD - 598/900

    *Individuals' scores not counted into total team score.

    Individual Rankings:

    01. Zigfried 280/300
    02. Zippdementia 278/300
    03. Overdrive 257/300
    04. Honestgamer 254/300
    05. Wolfqueen001 252/300
    06. EmPleh 250/300
    07. Lewis 241/300
    08. Genj 239/300
    09. Dagoss 238/300
    10. DoI 236/300
    11. True 227/300
    12. Dark Eternal 222/300
    13. Timrod 220/300
    14. Will 219/300
    15. Turducken 218/300
    16. Golden Vortex 217/300
    17. HMD 121/300

    If any numerical errors are noticed, please indicate so.

    Congratulations to Team Name on netting the win and doing it with only three players. Lesser congrats to Zigfried, who managed to post the best individual aggregate score. Thanks to everyone who participated in CHALLANGE IV!
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 07, 2009:

    Congrats to the winners, especially Zipp, because is it just me or has this guy's writing ability really skyrocketed in the little time he's been here?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 07, 2009:

    Wow. Well, as always, I'm surprised (and pleased) to see our team do well. Second's pretty good, especially considering any team with Zig on it is virtually unbeatable to begin with.

    Thanks to the judges for their time. I actually don't feel like explaining what I agree with and what I don't regarding the critiques this time around (my own, anyway; I'd rather not speak for my team), so I'll spare you that. But I am pleased to receive the highest praise from Masters I've ever received from him.

    Congrats to the winner(s) and everyone else who participated as well.

    As an aside... huh. I beat EmP.
    board icon
    Masters posted February 07, 2009:

    Congrats to Zig, who proves that he still has it, despite being a withered old man who's still using the same tricks he's used his whole career. =D

    Incidentally, chalk my much shorter comments up to my being so incredibly precise and concise, rather than say, laziness.

    Also, this just in: Felix and Janus are ramblers. Yeah, that's it. ^_^
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 07, 2009:

    Thanks, as always for the comments, judges. I also have to congratulate myself for being the only person good enough to prevent Team Name from taking a monopoly on the top three spots and for beating every single person on any team with EmP affiliation, including EmP.

    As for a couple of specific points.....

    Felix, no real anime cutscenes. There were occasional moments where you'd have a still anime shot of a character (think I have a couple of them in my screenshots for the game) that oftentimes would be accompanied by a little digitalized attempt to replicate a parrot imitating a human talking. As you might expect from a SNES game, the quality of such "conversation" wasn't particularly high.

    Janus, yeah....I could have concluded things a bit better and I see what you mean by how it did kinda abruptly go from complaining about the combat system to "oh well, that's that! C-YA!".

    Overall, I'm happy. I said somewhere...possibly last week's firestorm of an RotW...that I wanted to take a few more chances with my writing and try some different things. So I figured that there wouldn't be a much better way to start than by entering the first contest of the year with a review that instantly would get people to think about one of the most praised reviews that I can remember seeing since I started writing......just to see how mine would be received. Good fun.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 07, 2009:

    We're ramblers who write quickly. You . . . just take your sweet time!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted February 07, 2009:

    Congruatulations to all who participated, but especially to my teammates. We won! I knew that we would, but to have the victory be this decisive was especially nice. Good going!

    Thanks also to the judges for taking the time to read through all of these reviews and leave such excellent commentary. Much appreciated!
    board icon
    EmP posted February 07, 2009:

    Good tourney; thanks to the judges for their time an efforts and congrats to everyone who turned up.
    board icon
    Genj posted February 07, 2009:

    "The story doesn't sound very interesting and overall I don't get the impression that this is even worth a 6, but then you do admit that the plot isn't exactly brilliant. Maybe some more info on the mysteries would have helped us understand why you stayed up late playing it."

    Heh I was pretty much thinking this exactly when I was done and then just shrugged it off as a warm up. I'm surprised that I placed in the upper half individually with that. Thanks to the judges for taking the time to read and comment on all the reviews, and congrats to everyone.
    board icon
    Lewis posted February 07, 2009:

    Genuinely surprised to see my piece didn't completely bomb. Apologies for giving the judges a toughie to analyse yet again. Who knows - maybe one day I'll enter a proper review into one of these competitions.

    Congrats to everyone involved. Literally every single piece entered formed some sort of talking point, which is more than can be said for most writing in professional magazines.
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 07, 2009:

    As an unbiased observer, I would like to congratulate "team name" on their victory. Congratulations to the judges for their astute judgements. Congratulations to Zipp for doing awesomely with his awesome review. Congratulations to Venter for forming a team and then capitalizing on that daring move with a daring victory. And congratulations to me for placing first in another of EmP's Challanges. I'll do it again next year ;)

    PS - the bits about my computer exploding and the emulators crashing is true.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 07, 2009:

    I'm glad I was able to hold up my end of the bargain for team-name. Only two points less than Zig? I'm honored.

    Congrats to Jason for writing a great Castlevania review. I wouldn't have wanted to have to write that one, it seemed a tough game to pick, but you did brilliantly with it.

    And Zig... I'm so glad you went with this review instead of your original choice. It really is one of your best works.

    Thanks to the judges for taking the time to write such detailed comments. I'm glad I was able to make you laugh.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 07, 2009:

    DE?
    board icon
    EmP posted February 07, 2009:

    DarkEternal.
    board icon
    turducken posted February 07, 2009:

    Third from last. Blegh.

    Couple points I wanted to address, though.

    "I don't think you need to keep this a secret (and I actually wanted to know!)."

    I felt I should keep it secret, because they're characters you get a ways in or are revealed to be people you had. I didn't want to spoil storyline stuff like that.

    "By the way, what's up with all the anti-British humour?!"

    Oh, there wasn't that much! Just some friendly jabs at my pals across the pond. And to give Gary a taste of his own meds.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 07, 2009:

    Zippy D, to answer your question . . . "review a game that few people have heard of" is very subjective. Obviously it's implausible to poll people to see if those three choices you listed fit the criteria. I'm guessing those three would fit, though. Maybe True will elaborate.
    board icon
    True posted February 07, 2009:

    Well, it happens...

    And as much as I could be upset about my recent hiccup after such a strong showing the past few tournaments I've done, I can't be. The judges, as usual, were spot-on and nailed every flaw with my review that I had myself. It was just a bad choice and a lack of focus.

    I thank you guys for taking the time out to give so much feedback. Your opinions are very much appreciated. I thank Vorty and Genj for teaming up with me as well. It was fun.

    board icon
    goldenvortex posted February 07, 2009:

    Thanks for all comments.

    It was fun. i wish I'd planned my review out a bit instead of writing something last minute. Maybe next time.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 08, 2009:

    I just noticed I got the highest individual score of anyone. 98/100 from Janus! Thanks, Janus!
    board icon
    darketernal posted February 08, 2009:

    Thanks for judging.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 08, 2009:

    Ha ha, EMP, I was talking about MY requirements! DE is on his own!

    Thanks, Felix, I'll assume they'll work.
    board icon
    EmP posted February 08, 2009:

    People should show concern over DE more. He's all foreign and is prone to hilarious sports injuries.
    board icon
    True posted February 08, 2009:

    In order to elaborate, or perhaps clarify.

    To my surprise, Fallout 3 has not actually been reviewed--at least for the PS3--on this site, and several other popular games along with it. When I picked the "review a game not previously chosen on this site" I was hoping to steer it more towards games that could be well-known, just not reviewed.

    As far as Zippy D goes, I'll make another reference. I am probably the only person who is old enough to remember this, but it was a little known bonus that if you turned the Sega Master System on without a cart it would give you the blank screen for a while. Though, if you waited you could start a game built into the system, where you played a snail eeking his way through mazes before time ran out. When I picked the "game few people have heard of" I was more looking for a game that isn't widely popular--like Fighting Warrior, Little Britain or some game called Grand Theft Auto. Kidding, but games along the lines of those first two would be suitable. Chances are if neither Felix or I have heard of it, you'll do fine.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 09, 2009:

    Welcome to my nightmare aka: the task of trying to make coherent comments on reviews and whatnot (a) after a long day and (b) while working feverishly towards taking the edge off said long day BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY. Back in the day, the Grateful Dead were known for just riding the waves of whatever substances they were on while doing concerts, leading them to go off on extended tripped-out periods of instrumentation. If I do the writing version of that here, going off on extended tangents and just trailing away and/or forgetting to actual name a RotW, don't blame me --- blame my place of occupation or society or whatever gets you through the night....

    Like usual, there are rules that this site function follows. They will be adhered to. And that's that.

    We had a bit of a light week with four people combining for seven reviews, to be expected right after a tournament (with a couple of the reviews being written for said tournament). After putting your hearts and souls into impressing three judges, it's quite understandable that people would want to take a few days off to collect their thoughts. I didn't, though, jumping right back into the mix with this one, which you should all read (or read again, if you've already done so). That's why I consider myself a role model for all of you.

    Anyway, while I'm sure I could continue to praise myself for an infinite number of pages, while each and every one of you clung to every last word like holy scripture, I do have things to do, so let's get onto the reviews!




    THIRD PLACE: Relentless: Twinsen's Adventure (PC) by darketernal

    This review really could have used two things: (1) vigorous proofreading and (2) a bit more fleshing out. Right from the beginning, you had me at a standstill as this ("One could see Grobbos, bipedal elephants wearing trousers were often seen laughing over a pint of beer with the human looking Quetches, it seemed like the peace would never be shattered.") reads very awkwardly. As for the contest of the review, you make the game sound very interesting, but I think I'd like a bit more detail on how things work in its world outside of the mode system. Twinsen apparently becomes this heroic figure, but all I know about him is that he can punch stuff, sneak around stuff, run and do side missions. This review gets stuck in third mainly because it didn't make me want to play the game (like a 9/10 should), but instead made me want to know more about why you liked it so well.

    SECOND PLACE: Super Fantasy Zone (Genesis) by goldenvortex

    Reading this review made me think about the Brevity or Bust competition we run here from time to time and how much I hate it. I kinda take a freestyle approach to my writing, where I have thoughts in my head and I type them onto my text document and then submit it. Being confined to a certain word limit goes against that style of writing and I'm a really stubborn person who likes to do things HIS WAY, so I tend to just review an Atari 2600 game or very simplistic 8-bit one and wind up placing really low in the contest with all sorts of mean, hateful comments that make me sad. Or if I try to play within the spirit of the contest, I get "back of the box" comments, which also make me sad. And that's why I like and respect this review. When the Brevity or Bust comes around, I gather this is the sort of review the judges would want to see, as opposed to whatever I crap out for it. While I haven't played this game, I have played the first SMS one and I could relate to everything you said. It's a refreshing game as far as visuals and the way you advance through levels.....but by the end of the game, the pure repetition becomes a drag. Also, the limited nature of those purchased weapons, combined with the weakness of your regular one, can make parts of the game drag on. In only a handful of paragraphs, you did a very good job of summing this game up.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Shadow Madness (PSX) by threetimes

    As someone who played Shadow Madness, reviewed it about five years ago and HATED everything but the storytelling, I have to admit your review didn't change my mind about anything. However, you did make me want to look and see if anyone transcribed the game's script online. You did well to focus on the one thing I felt the game did well and did cause me to remember that I did like the characters and the way the plot unfolded. And if the gameplay and stuff didn't bother you as much as it did me, that's more power to you, as it means you were able to get more enjoyment out of playing this game than I did. Very good review, I thought.




    And before I go, just to mention our fourth contestant this week, good to see new blood here, G_Dub. If you're looking for advice on reviewing and whatnot, the first piece I'd give is that sectioned reviews really aren't used here, as pretty much everyone uses an essay style. As someone who started out with sectioned before going to essay, it isn't the easiest thing to do to switch over, but there are a number of good writers here, so you have plenty of resources to read in order to see how people work to tie all the relevant information together without separating it into sections.

    And that's that. See you whenever it's my next week to do this!
    board icon
    threetimes posted February 09, 2009:

    Thanks! I read your review of it, and it's easy to damn the game to hell on the basis of the gameplay. A major failing in something that's supposed to be a game. And yes, there is script online...that's why I appreciate it so much. Strange game really, and one I never got bored playing. By the way, I might have to challenge your view of Metal Saga next. ;)
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 10, 2009:

    Evil Zone should pop up soon. That marks my fifth.

    Still working on playing through FF Tactic REmake, Persona 4, Castlevania L'Innocence, and Odin Sphere.

    Also, Trackmania should pop up in March.

    That's five more on the back burner.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 10, 2009:

    In that case, I give you Evil Zone

    It might change if I end up writing one of the other mentioned reviews.
    board icon
    EmP posted February 10, 2009:

    I own Evil Zone. Shenanigans!
    board icon
    LindaDCarson posted February 10, 2009:

    Definitely love msn, fine website.

    Will read up and hopefully have something good to say.

    Have a nice day.



    _____________________________________
    LindaDCarson
    Attorney at Law
    Personal Injury Case Law
    board icon
    woodhouse posted February 10, 2009:

    Progress 4/27

    New
    ---
    # -> 3 on 3 NHL Arcade


    Past
    ----
    B -> B-Boy

    C -> College Hoops 2K8

    Y -> Yggdra Union (PSP)
    board icon
    board icon
    EmP posted February 11, 2009:

    Bah -- Woody's sorted # out early! That's a blow.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 11, 2009:

    Pfft....I have # taken care of, as well. I haven't played the game yet, but I have one picked out, so that whenever I have time to get to it, it shall be done.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 11, 2009:

    I'm saving # till after the Olympics in the chance that I actually draw it.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 11, 2009:

    Edit: Whoops. My requested game is already there. Carry on.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 11, 2009:

    Yeah, but you also own Psychic Detectives... and Pony Luv.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted February 13, 2009:

    Doin' FFT stuff now, and I might actually finish this time. Pretty lame though...it's the first time I've hunkered down to play in 5 years, and afterwards I probably won't want to play for as long... Better have a ball before I get totally burnt out. :D
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 14, 2009:

    Okay, question: When you say I have to review a genre I've never attempted before, is that only counting my HG backlog, or are we counting my GameFAQs reviews, too?
    board icon
    True posted February 14, 2009:

    Here or there. It has to be something you've never, ever done before.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 14, 2009:

    Fuck you.
    board icon
    True posted February 14, 2009:

    Hey, Buddy. You picked it. Heh heh heh.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 14, 2009:

    Then fuck the Eagles.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 15, 2009:

    I'm yet thinking of changing mine up for something REALLY obscure, like Nigel's World or Lone Wolf: The Mirror of Death. But getting those to work on my computer could be a chore.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 15, 2009:

    There was a nice collection of reviews this week. Unfortunately I can only select three unique authors. Lets see how things turned out!

    And, as always, only one review per user may be ranked in a Review of the Week topic. Staff reviews are forsaken.




    2nd Runner Up: Silent Hill Origins (PS2) by m0zart

    Silent Hill reviews always catch my eye because the series has such a reputation for the fear that it conjures in every (good) installment. M0zart begins this review with a lamentation elaborating on the downfall of the series. While weve seen similar introductions for Silent Hill reviews in the past, m0zart continues by cutting through the gloom and giving the reader a nice, in-depth look at how Silent Hill Origins will appeal to fans of what made the franchise so unique in the first place. The real does tend to drag a ways through, but the information is good. This is a solid review for anyone interested in Silent Hill Origins, or the series in general.

    1st Runner Up: Crackdown (X360) by pickhut

    Pickhut gives us a vicarious Crackdown experience through his slick, interesting writing. It sounds like a goofy, farfetched action game, but it also sounds like a mindlessly absorbing title that could sap away hours of your life if you get into it. There are plenty of descriptions as to why this game rocks and Grand Theft Auto doesnt. I still like GTA, or at least GTA 4 a bunch, but this sounds like a worthwhile substitute for those with spare time and little spare coin. Now, I must admit something. It may just be me, but I think pickhut is a giant pepperoni pizza. Dont ask me why I think this is true. I just know that it is. Pickhut, you are soo gooey.

    Review of the Week: Tonic Trouble (N64) by Suskie

    Its nice to see Suskie back in the writing fold, and he graced this week with not one but two excellent reviews. His Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia was a pretty solid read with some good observations. His Tonic Trouble review, on the other hand, was far more interesting to me personally, because it covered a game I had totally forgotten about. No, Tonic Trouble isnt a good game, and Suskie clearly explains why it fails. But I can recall back in the day reading issues of Nintendo Power and thinking that this game looked kind of interesting. Then years past, I totally forgot about TT, and that was that. Until this review came forward and reminded me of that silly looking purple protagonist named Ed. The writing is fresh and even funny in parts. All in all this is a very interesting review because the subject matter isnt tired, and you can tell Suskie had fun penning it. Just because Tonic Trouble may be a relatively pointless game doesnt mean it isnt worth reading about, and to ensure that it does get its 15 minutes of fame, Im awarding it to the win. It deserves it.




    EmPs up next, so give him a ton to read!
    board icon
    dementedhut posted February 15, 2009:

    Interestingly, I ate pizza about a day ago. It didn't have pepperoni.

    Thanks for the kind words and comments, and congrats to Suskie for his RotW placing. Good job to m0zart, too.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 15, 2009:

    Glad you liked it. Thanks a lot for the win, and congrats to Pickhut and m0zart for their placements as well.

    Edit: Soon I will review another N64 game you've probably forgotten about. But this one doesn't suck. In fact, it's awesome.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 16, 2009:

    Now wait a minute! I believe "I" was the first one to get the # done this year! I'm feeling blatantly ignored, here!
    board icon
    EmP posted February 16, 2009:

    It's not a big thing; I'm still going to win this at a stroll.

    I've already started double-reviewing for letters. Because I can!
    board icon
    Lewis posted February 17, 2009:

    ShellShock 2 details are wrong (on the 360 at least, not checked the others). In fact, it looks as though they're just for a different game.

    Should be:

    Genre: First-person shooter
    Developer: Rebellion
    Publisher: Eidos

    FIXeD
    board icon
    honestgamer posted February 17, 2009:

    This is the official thread for the Grand Theft Auto 4: The Lost and Damned T-Shirt Giveaway, open to all users with a mailing address in the US or Canada. For more information, see the contest page. Questions? Ask them here!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 17, 2009:

    You're going to have a partner at the finish line this year, boy.

    Update me with one more... S for Sucky game. I mean... Syberia DS.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted February 17, 2009:

    We're offering fortunate gamers the chance to win Ar Tonelico II just by participating on the site in a meaningful way. What's meaningful? We'll let you decide! For more details, view the contest page. And if you have any questions, feel free to post them here. That's meaningful to us!
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 17, 2009:

    This is an interesting idea, and I'd participate if I owned a PS2.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 17, 2009:

    I might shoot for this one... I'm not entirely sure what the popularity thin entails, though. Like it has to be more than just referring people... And that's really hard to do anyway since I"ve tried asking several people and only managed to get tentative interest most cases. Could it just be visibility around the site? Or other visible contributions?
    board icon
    honestgamer posted February 17, 2009:

    It's all of that stuff or perhaps none of it. This is a pouplarity contest, so a lot of it will come down to just being visible and helpful on the site. Refer any friends you have--no better time, now that we have multiple contests running for cool stuff--and encourage them to get involved. Contribute stuff yourself so that others can enjoy the site more. Post thoughtful responses to new reviews. The possibilities are endless if people get involved, and the idea here is to reward not just any participation, but participation that the bulk of the community can appreciate on an ongoing basis.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 17, 2009:

    Site staff members are ineligible.

    Well, looks like I'll just be an unpopular asshole for the duration of this one. That is, assuming this game is a highly-rated good RPG I'd like. If not, I'll be cool like I usually am. By which, I mean super-cool, like the other side of the pillow if it was in an igloo.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 18, 2009:

    Oh, why not? I'll throw whatever tickets I own at this. They can be used for other contests as well, right?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 18, 2009:

    Am I staff, or just freelance? Is there a difference? I'll totally participate in site building if it means a chance at a unique RPG!

    First thing's first... I'll head on over to Devil's Lair and get some buzz stirred up.

    Then it's off to secure us some advertisement at fanime with my connections there.

    Hmmm... I could maybe even talk to Capcom through Reuben Langdon and Dan Southworth...
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 18, 2009:

    By the way, has anyone else heard about the massive nigh-unavoidable glitch in the American version of this game, where they took out a boss' attack code (last boss, no less!) but left in the attack option, so that if it uses the attack, the game freezes and you have to restart from your last save?

    That along with many other localization issues (such as removing huge amounts of text and other random codes, as well as changing names and voices... the usual bullshit) makes me sadly skeptical of what is definitely a unique RPG experience.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 18, 2009:

    Well, Zipp, if you're right about that glitch, it looks like I'll remain as cool as the other side of that igloo pillow. I'm not a big fan of staging epic protests over not receiving games that may have major issues such as broken final boss fights.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted February 18, 2009:

    There's a difference between staff and freelance, zipp, and you're the latter. Staff have a whole bunch of extra duties on top of things and also access to stuff that you don't... like the ban feature. So don't be giving us no lip!
    board icon
    KimSGriggs posted February 18, 2009:

    Love that google, neat stuff.

    Will read up and hopefully have something to post.

    Have a great day.



    _____________________________________
    Kim S. Griggs
    Attorney at Law
    Medical Malpractice Case Law
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 18, 2009:

    How about tongue? Can I give you tongue?
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 18, 2009:

    Well I've already written more reviews than last year so I might as well enter!

    B - Braid
    D - Dragon Blaze
    M - Mass Effect
    board icon
    woodhouse posted February 18, 2009:

    Progress 6/27

    New
    ---
    E -> EA Playground

    I -> Iron Chef America: Supreme Cuisine

    Past
    ----
    B -> B-Boy

    C -> College Hoops 2K8

    Y -> Yggdra Union (PSP)

    # -> 3 on 3 NHL Arcade
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted February 20, 2009:

    Is AR2's story a continuation of the first?
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted February 20, 2009:

    Still doing FFT, although I got sidetracked by watching all episodes of Death Note (alright) and Samurai Champloo (also okay).

    If I get five posts in a row, I think I get a free sub.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 20, 2009:

    Friendly reminder -- I'm up to five.
    board icon
    Lewis posted February 20, 2009:

    All me at the moment, isn't it?

    Game: Spelunky
    Genre: Platformer
    Format: PC
    Developer: Derek Yu
    Release Date: 21st December 2008

    Available for free from: http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=4017.0

    eDITeD
    board icon
    threetimes posted February 20, 2009:

    I'll stay unpopular then, since I've already got the game. :p
    board icon
    EmP posted February 21, 2009:

    I like to make this topic every few years due to forum uprooting. So, here we are again!

    My story is pretty dull. When the GFAQs scene fell apart, I was just starting to write and was one of the guys trying to hold RotD together. I started cross-posting my work and, shortly after I got fed up with RotDing, completly left FAQs behind and became exclusive here. Shortly after this, Jason begged me to rock staff, and this I did like a fool. I've been rocking it ever since.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 21, 2009:

    Nonsense. One of these topics was around only a few months ago.

    Mine's even duller! Since it just involves an AIM convo:

    EmP: Join HG! *linklinklink*

    Me: OK

    Two years of inactivity and here we are.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 21, 2009:

    I also came from the GameFAQs Review Contributor Board when it died out in 2004.
    board icon
    jerec posted February 21, 2009:

    When Jason Venter's agents managed to kill off the GameFAQs Reviewing Scene in 2004, he was well placed to offer us refuge and sanctuary. He'd been spamming HonestGamers for some time, but not all of us had made the move across. But then it seemed like our only real option in the end. And once Venter had us here, all his original agents (staff members) disappeared, so they couldn't be traced back to the devious work they'd done to undo the RC board. Venter made a bunch of people staff members, and I ported over a few reviews, wrote a few more, then became dormant for a few years pretty much just judging tournaments.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 21, 2009:

    There aren't many ex-GameFAQs people left these days. Jerec, Zigfried, Bloomer, Masters, Drella, genj.... Emp, bluberry and Jason Venter from a little later on.

    Come to think of it, that is quite a few after 5 years.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 21, 2009:

    Jason Venter found my Metal Gear Solid 4 review (and presumably all the criticism of it for not being "fanboyish" enough: They do have a point about Dirge of Cerberus, perhaps.) and invited me to join HG. I believe he invited me from Devil's Lair, though I can't remember, now. Then I wrote a bunch of crap until my Mirror's Edge review, which landed me a freelance position.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted February 21, 2009:

    Like most of the others, I found out about this site at the GameFAQs Review Contributor board, back when hilarious amounts of drama used to occur on almost a daily basis. It was right at the end of 2003, and I ended up lurking for the next few months. I finally joined somewhere at the beginning of 2004.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 21, 2009:

    Suskie was from Gamefaqs, too.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 21, 2009:

    I do miss the RC board a little bit. Especially whelkman.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 21, 2009:

    There aren't many ex-GameFAQs people left these days. Jerec, Zigfried, Bloomer, Masters, Drella, genj.... Emp, bluberry and Jason Venter from a little later on.

    Never forget Overdrive. Never. Hell, I'm prolific over there. I think I still am, at least. Some day I'll care enough again to check that out.....
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted February 21, 2009:

    I found a link to HG on Nick Evil's web site, and from there I registered this account. That was around 2004.
    board icon
    Lewis posted February 22, 2009:

    Genuinely didn't know about the GAFQs link until now.

    Atfer an extended hiatus from games writing, spent chasing bands around the country for interviews and writing about albums I had precisely no interest in, I Googled for some decent games sites to offer my services to.

    This was one of them. I was accepted into this crazy world.

    This isn't very long ago compared to most of you lot.
    board icon
    disco1960 posted February 22, 2009:

    Uh... crap, I forget. Did I click a popup?
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 22, 2009:

    Was recruited for TT, found subsequent success.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 22, 2009:

    Deadline for this event is March 20, 2009 (it's also in the 1st post). Now you know, OD.
    board icon
    Lewis posted February 22, 2009:

    Argh, sorry sorry.

    Could you amend the release date to:

    18/02/09 (current build)

    Thanks!

    eDITeD
    board icon
    jiggs posted February 22, 2009:

    from jason venter spamming the link on yahoo game room chat. =P


    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 23, 2009:

    As always, I blame EmP.

    The actual story behind how I joined HG is hidden deep within my blog archives if anybody cares enough to look it up. If not, visit the entry for Genesis Rising.
    board icon
    threetimes posted February 23, 2009:

    From GameFAQs people telling me to come here if I wanted to improve my reviews.
    board icon
    darketernal posted February 23, 2009:

    EmP nagged me to join like he did to half of the reviewers on the roll.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 23, 2009:

    Well, you've been here longer than me, Lewis! I think I'm still the newest freelancer.
    board icon
    EmP posted February 23, 2009:

    Im ill. Im coughing up a yummy mix of phlegm and blood and it feels like my head is stuffed with wool and razors. Im ill, yet I do this topic for you, the ungrateful masses. Its 1am, Im ill and Im going to bitch about it.

    Theres a RotW in here somewhere.

    One review per person -- just as well as this was a busy arse week -- and staff dont get to play. Even the ill ones. Which consists of me. And OD if senility counts.

    Gamestart


    WINNER: Red Faction LEWIS

    Lewis review is not one I could probably read in a second review. Its special because its a unique effort, but I think the sentiment would flounder if used again.

    We know what youve done; your focus is not so much on the game but, instead, on the experience itself. And it could have been a complete disaster. Though Im tempted to try and make out it was, Im felling uncharacteristically kind-hearted towards the person who dumped Last Remnant on me.

    I hate you I will is say that its time you stopped linking to that article, even if I do suspect youre getting a plug commission, but the review flows along, assimilating points and arguments smoothly, telling the gamer just enough to get a good idea of the game itself and of how its not actually that great before then prompting a more artistic discussion on how all the disappointment fades away in one potent moment. I should still dock you a place for crying, you big girl.

    Dragon Blaze Janus

    Janus is still a review-deleting shit. There, I said it.

    In fact, he only placed this week so I could say so. I have no feedback to offer on this review as it will be deleted before you see it.

    Fine, Ill point out one typo. ONE!

    .Technical Bonus awarded if you manage survive the daunting patterns

    Missing word.

    The reviews well put together and your early admittance that youre far from the genres best player, while usually a creditability vacuum, works wonders in selling the games accessibility. Its not your most passionate review and Im not overly sure that the 10/10 is as justified as well as it could be, but its still a very clever piece of writing; you decided with aspect of the game you wanted to promote and focused on it brilliantly.


    Third place was bloody hard. It fell between three reviews:

    I started Suskies Deus Ex: Invisable War review and thought itd be battling for the top spot, but the review really started to unravel into rambling as it progressed, losing that tight and analysing tone the first half boasted and lapsing into unfortunate irrelevancies. (While Suskies second best of the week, Rocket, was solid, but felt very formulaic and offered up some transitions that were, frankly, beneath him (So thats great and everything, but how is the physics engine used in-game? Really? Venter would cringe at that!))

    Pickhut produced a typically funny and to-the-point review on killing zombies with slutwear equipped, but I never felt I was learning much more than the very basics of the game. Sure, I assume that its a very bare-bones game, but the review seems to want to say more but never gets there because you get distracted by another easy tit gag.

    Woodhouse takes a hard title to make interesting then does just that with his review for EA Playground and is only hampered really by the awkward subject material. The review is interesting despite being yet another bloody Wii minigame collection, and the analysis dished out evenly, not just a simple list of This is good, this is bad

    After more deliberation that my ill, ill state really allows, Im going to go with Woodhouse for third. His review was just as good as the other two but it was that little bit more impressive for being so on a harder subject matter.

    Third: EA Playground Woodhouse


    Other good reviews included a lengthy return from our second review-deleting shit, Spaceworlder who had an awesome premises for a review, but sadly didnt flesh much out once hed voiced it. Some other staff guy is up next week, someone healthy and well. Id check, but Im ill, you know.

    /gameover
    board icon
    dementedhut posted February 23, 2009:

    In imagination land, I would like to thank EmP for giving me the RotW, and good job on the runner-ups, Janus and Woodhouse.

    As for the review, it's as bare bones as it sounds. But I did neglect to mention the environments in the game: all seven of them. There's 20 stages. Seven areas. Uh-huh. Though, I decided to leave that mention out, since it wasn't as bad as the other problems I mentioned.

    Thanks for the comments on the review, and congrats to Pi... Lewis.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 23, 2009:

    Congrats to the winners. Lewis' was awesome. I'll have to read Janus' sometime... meant to do that today but ran out of time (sorry). I like how EmP handled third place; it really did seem like a tough one.

    Haha. I also like how his html got wrecked due to typos and otherwise incompabatability, I guess, since font sizes might not work on forums anymore.
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted February 23, 2009:

    Thanks for the shout out, EmP. I promise to post twice as many reviews as I deleted!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 23, 2009:

    Hey, who does the ROTWs? Everyone seems to bitch about them, but I wouldn't mind doing one, if someone wants to trade off.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 23, 2009:

    Staff only, I believe. But I dunno. We've never had freelancers do them... I suppose it wouldn't be unreasonable, though. Ask Jason. =/ Though the staff only thing is kind of tradition... Might be kind of weird if freelancers started doing it all of a sudden.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 23, 2009:

    This was a pretty good week. Congrats to Lewis and the others!
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 23, 2009:

    Your criticisms seem a little unwarranted, EmP. I was initially happy to receive a mention, but I didn't place on your list, and you have almost nothing but negative things to say about not one but TWO of my reviews, which makes me wonder why you bothered to mention me at all. I don't believe that you're using RotW as an excuse to criticize me, EmP, but going out of your way in a topic that's supposed to celebrate the week's best reviews to point out what two of my reviews did wrong doesn't sit well with me.

    I'm fine with constructive criticism, and I would have been grateful if you'd left those comments on the feedback threads (with a little elaboration, of course, since you haven't actually said anything helpful). Here, it seems out of place. Hopefully you can understand where I'm coming from.

    Anyway, congrats to the winners.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 23, 2009:

    Yeah, I'm not looking to step on anyone's toes. It's just everyone seems to complain about doing them so much, I'd be willing to help out.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 24, 2009:

    When I read that sentence I though OK I know he hates me, but there's no typo there! I just couldn't see it. Weird. Anyway, thank you for the mention. I won't be deleting that review because I am perfectly happy with my opinion of the game and the way I expressed it!

    I'm not sure what I think about Lewis's review. Definitely the most unique entry of the week, but the way he worked in the NGJ link annoyed me. This is a really, really petty issue, but I remember thinking that it felt a bit false. I know that you're well aware of who wrote about travel journalism to imaginary places, so why can't you just say so!??! Sorry, just ignore me.

    ROTW for me was spaceworlder, but I can't argue with this topic. It was very honest and thorough.

    board icon
    Lewis posted February 24, 2009:

    Surprised at the win, not surprised at the feedback comments about the piece. Very grateful for both.

    NGJ link was almost a sly nod towards Bow Nigger than anything else. As in, well, read that article here. This was a bit of an homage, to say the least. But I appreciate it maybe looks a bit hackneyed and, since it's in the 'User Reviews' section, I can snip it out, so that's grand.

    And it's not a review - which is why I'm somewhat surprised to see it even included in, let alone winning, ROTW. It's one of my silly-essays that I didn't have anywhere else to put. It's certainly an argument that would bomb if used again. It's a one-off.

    Suskie's IW review would have been my personal choice. Thoroughly enjoyed reading that one, and agree with absolutely everything, even though I'd draw different conclusions.
    board icon
    EmP posted February 24, 2009:

    I'd accuse this place of being nought but a hive of ingratitude, but, frankly, I'm over the bloody moon that I'm already well over the reply rate of my last RotW topic. That topic got one reply. Even if most of you are calling for my immediate castration, I honestly appreciate the discussion. These things are hard work, so it's always nice to know people are actually reading and reacting.

    I'll keep editing this post to get up to speed on the myraid of hate-filled question shot at me.

    Zipp: RotW used to be done by just one person -- honestgamer himself -- but he's since decided that this practise made him too useful and shrugged it off onto the rest of us who provide gruelling free labour. I'll open the discussion here: what are people's thoughts are about allowing willing freelancers, or even people from the userbase to do RotW slots? Frankly, I have no real problem with it -- just because we're on staff doesn't mean we're any better writers and/or critics than the rest of you, but would you feel it lost something if we started letting it fall out of ranks?

    As for the complaining, the vast bulk of it is in jest.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 24, 2009:

    I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a guy to elaborate when he's offered criticism, but it's your decision. More on topic, I'm kind of neutral about non-staff members doing RotW and will go with what everyone else decides.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 24, 2009:

    My instinct would be to stick with a rota, but open a topic that lets freelancers or respected users (by that I mean the entire community) volunteer to do a particular week. I get the feeling that staff sometimes see ROTW as an obligation that they don't particularly enjoy or are unable to fulfill until late into the week (for whatever reason). If there was a topic for them to say, I don't fancy doing it this week, any volunteers? then I think it would keep things interesting for both users and staff. In my idealistic imagination, user involvement might break the tendency to see ROTW as almost a routine chore and therefore inspire the sort of discussion/response we're seeing this week on a regular basis.
    board icon
    Masters posted February 24, 2009:

    Mike: I understand where you're coming from re Emp's comments (ie unsolicited criticism), but I don't quite think he's said "almost nothing" positive. He said the first review looked to be vying for top spot but got bogged down in the second half, and the second review was more consistent but had some abnormally weak transitions. Not as harsh as your response would seem to indicate.

    That being said, I've often wondered if are are doing too much critiquing in this topic, which, as you say, was meant to be a celebration of greatness, not a checklist of supposedly required improvements. I found myself doing a bit too much criticizing, thinking that the writers might appreciate a bit more feedback than just "hey great job, YOU WIN, PERFECT!"

    But -- and this cleverly ties itself to the topic of whining RotW-staffers -- it occurred to me that writers who are mentioned in RotW really aren't looking for feedback so much as a pat on the back for a job well done. I say this because there is so little discourse occurring in these topics. I imagine the winners checking the topic, sitting back smiling at their placement, and moving on. I rather doubt there is much call for "what SPECIFICALLY do you think I did well there?" or "how do you think I could tighten things up even more?" to be answered.

    This is probably one of the reasons for the RotW-ers swallowing so much of what tastes like gall -- we (probably) incorrectly approach these topics as if we're judging a tourney, offering up thought out insight when it's not required, requested or appreciated.

    In the old days at GameFAQs, Fact and I would just list winners with little or no commentary added. The response volume was the same as now.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 24, 2009:

    I guess that's because RotW is itself an ongoing contest, one in which all users are automatically participants whether they want to be or not. As I said, there are feedback topics, and there's rarely anything that can be said in RotW that wouldn't also belong in one of those. I'd say you've summed up RotW perfectly -- a nice little pat on the back and the chance to have one of your reviews listed as featured.

    On that note, I guess my issue with my mention this week was that EmP never specifically mentioned what was good about either of those reviews, while he was happy to specify what wasn't. It was as if he was saying, "Oh, by the way, I was briefly considering giving Suskie a spot here, except not really, because here's what was wrong with his reviews." I don't want EmP to feel obligated to bring me up just because I subbed four reviews in one week. If none of them were good enough to earn a mention, then so be it.

    I'm probably making too big a deal out of this, as I usually do. I don't want this to become a big thing so that's the last I'll say about it.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 24, 2009:

    Edit: Hooray for double posts.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 24, 2009:

    I actually find Masters' point as kind of depressing. I value the feedback I receive in RotW, especially when no one bothers to make a topic about my review in the first place. And really, feedback in general for reviews is rare, even on the feedback topic (also depressing), so I take any opportunity that grants me feedback gratefully. But I guess that's just me.
    board icon
    Masters posted February 24, 2009:

    Mike, I'm going to tell you something which may come as a surprise to you. But, I think the reason there wasn't much raving about the positives in your review is because you are already a well respected writer.

    As much as it may be a bummer, nobody raves much about stuff a great reviewer is doing well because they always do those things well and the perception is that they already know it.

    Sad, I know.

    But I think I would have done the same thing in terms of balancing good-to-bad delineation (had I actually read this batch of your work). It sorta goes like this: "Same great stuff we normally expect from Suskie, but ODDLY, some parts weren't as good as normal, SUCH AS BLANK AND BLANK."

    So the good stuff is a given. Count yourself (un)lucky when you've reached that level of being taken for granted.
    board icon
    EmP posted February 24, 2009:

    Suskie: I understand where youre coming from, especially (despite your disclaimer) as these comments are from me in the first place, so I'll expand. By the time I'd decided on who was going to get the top two places, I was hacking up blood, distracted by the Rapelay user review dramabomb unfolding elsewhere constantly plagued by WQ's never-ending AIMS and it was 1am. Therefore, and as I was commenting on three reviews for a place rather than the usual one, I made things more brief than perhaps I should have done.

    Originally, I had started collecting the reviews I needed to read from the reviews link in the sites top-most toolbar. Give it a click, and you'll see that half of the reviews subbed to site do not appear on the list. This caught me unaware and, by the time I had realised this, I'd already starting writing out the critique for Rocket, which I thought was your best of the ones that did turn up there. I threw in the bit I did so as not to waste the time, but the dig was meant more playfully than you've obviously taken it.

    As for the Deus review, I thought it started brilliantly, but then degraded as it went on, loosing focus and spilling out into looser observations and an almost-jarring change of tone. I mentioned the review because I really did have a lot of trouble trying to decide which of the three mentioned reviews should get third spot and, because if I was a sloppy sell-out, would have happily thrown it down as a three-way tie. I didn't, because it would have been lame, but I still wanted you and Pick to know how very close it was in my mind.

    Still, I'm not in agreement that RotW should be only sunshine and rainbows, and it's not something (on my rounds, at least) that should ever become a pandering arse-pat topic filled with cheesy grins and thumbs up. You're probably right; I should have either said and done more for you, Pick and Woody or not bothered at all, but you're far from the only one I criticised. Lewis won, but I still told him his link was cringeworthy and I was hardly overflowing with glitter-sparkled praise for Janus' effort, either. I'm not out to get you -- any of you -- but I'm not going to ignore flaws just because some people seem to think this topic should only view the prettier side of the coin.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 24, 2009:

    Okay, thanks for the clarification, and just to reiterate, I didn't take this as a personal attack or anything -- I would have said something if this topic had been written by someone else. I frankly find criticism a lot more helpful than praise and I'm in no way retaliating for you having issues with those reviews, I just felt the way you phrased it in this topic (added with the fact that I didn't win anyway, thus making my mention altogether kind of pointless) was a bit puzzling.

    I don't think RotW topics should ignore the flaws of the winning reviews either, but I also don't think this is the place to bring up the reviews you want to criticize for no particular reason, which is what this felt like until you explained.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 24, 2009:

    I'm with WQ on this one. Feedback can be pretty rare in the forums. Sometimes I submit user reviews just so they can be entered into ROTW and then have a better chance at gaining some notice.

    EDIT: To go further on this, I would say that once feedback occurs, it comes in droves. But it's hard to start that flow.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 24, 2009:

    Well, with any luck, we'll grab some new reviewers from the sites I've advertised us at. I know that for sure we should be seeing some interesting reviews from some of the folks at the Lone Wolf fan site:

    Tower of the Sun

    And I hope to see some more from Devil's Lair

    OCREMIX is more of a long shot, but there's no harm in trying.
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 24, 2009:

    Holy heck, a Lone Wolf fansite? I never even thought to look for one of those. I remember reading those... Kai, Magnakai, and whatever came after that. I kind of regret selling them.

    //Zig
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 24, 2009:

    Zig. There's a website up called Project Aon that has all the Lone Wolf (and Grey Star spinoff mini-series) up online, so you can play through the books again. I made myself a little set of 10 cards to signify the random number table and have been going back through them. Those books were just awesome. You got better from one book to the next and didn't have the insane "death unless you do everything perfect" insanity like that line with Deathtrap Dungeon and the rest.

    Speaking of insane difficulty.....my next review will be for Leather Goddesses of Phobos.....just to capitalize on this hardcore crazy-ass hentai vibe our site's on.
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 24, 2009:

    Those were Fighting Fantasy, and they ruled too. Had to make maps and stuff, though I cheated like hell on those ;)

    Lone Wolf was definitely more forgiving, and it was cool learning new skills from one book to the next.

    //Zig
    board icon
    georox posted February 24, 2009:

    I can't vote for Venter huh...
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 24, 2009:

    Hell yeah, Lone Wolf! I've been part of the LW community for years... about six years now. I even wrote some expansions to the gamebooks which were later translated into three languages.

    OD has it right. Go check out Project Aon.

    Dever has also rewritten and re-released the books through Mongoose publishing.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 25, 2009:

    That's right....Fighting Fantasy.....and yeah, unless you had the luck of the gods with rolling dice, you had to cheat like hell to beat some of those. I remember in Trial of Champions (the sequel to Deathtrap Dungeon), you had to not only be utterly perfect in getting all the necessary items to pass certain tests (or die), but you had to beat something like three encounters towards the end that all had 10-11 combat skill and a decent amount of HP......meaning you had to pretty much roll consistent 11s and 12s to have a chance. That was just cruel.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 25, 2009:

    I'd accuse this place of being nought but a hive of ingratitude, but, frankly, I'm over the bloody moon that I'm already well over the reply rate of my last RotW topic. That topic got one reply. Even if most of you are calling for my immediate castration, I honestly appreciate the discussion.

    1. I've been calling for your immediate castration for far, far longer than since you did this RotW. We're talking a good few years.

    2. My last RotW only got one reply, too. I now see what I must do to get the number of comments I deserve. I'll be going Andrew "Dice" Clay on some poor soul who submits during my next week!
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 25, 2009:

    Okay, so apparently I'm supposed to specifically request for my 1000 points. So that's what I'm doing.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 26, 2009:

    Done.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 26, 2009:

    Thank you, good sir.
    board icon
    board icon
    Genj posted February 27, 2009:

    Hey, why is "free game" in quotes for my rule? I'm assuming I supposed to review freeware here and not something I steal.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 01, 2009:

    As suspected, I couldn't get my computers to play Mirror of Death or Nigel's World. But I DID get it to play Liquid Wars, so I'll probably bust out that review (among with a couple others) this week and turn it in to replace Evil Zone.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 01, 2009:

    Genj, that would be freeware, yes.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 01, 2009:

    Throw Flower into the mix, that's one more for me.
    board icon
    Masters posted March 02, 2009:

    Apparently, it's my week this week, and NOT Drella's, as everyone seemed to have thought. So I need to get to work.

    My other issue is that we need to rework this list, and in doing so, must address several questions: is Zipp helping out? Is he doing Drella's spot? Or is Drella's spot being phased out altogether? If so, will the order need to be juggled slightly?

    Where's our fearless leader?
    board icon
    EmP posted March 02, 2009:

    I suppose I better stop slacking if I want to keep my lead.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 02, 2009:

    The Path

    Format: PC
    Developer: Tale of Tales
    Release Date: 18/03/09 (worldwide)

    Genre: Someone make an informed decision... it's a sandbox 'exploration' game with an ambiguous narrative and no element of challenge. 'Adventure' is a little misleading, but is perhaps the closest.

    Available from Steam and Direct2Drive.

    Added like nobody's business.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 02, 2009:

    I'd rather not phase out drella's slot if possible, but we might have to go that route. After all, drella is no longer staff. If the slot is replaced, it'll need to be by a staff member. I can try handling it in the short term if necessary. We're not going to have freelancers or any other non-staff user handling RotW topics as long as they're posted in an official capacity.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 02, 2009:

    Just you wait... I'm writing twenty reviews simultaneously, and when you least expect it, I'm going to post them all.
    board icon
    Masters posted March 03, 2009:

    Good to have a final word on the issue, thanks.
    board icon
    disco posted March 03, 2009:

    Title: Onechanbara: Bikini Zombie Slayers
    Platform: Wii
    Genre: Action
    Developer: Tamsoft
    Publisher: D3
    Release Date: 2/10/09
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted March 04, 2009:

    New month, same project. Might be done by week's end, though.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 04, 2009:

    I'm up to eight.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 05, 2009:

    Suskie's not the only one...

    I race to eight on the tailwind of Trackmania DS.
    board icon
    Masters posted March 05, 2009:

    It's RotW time! Actually it was RotW time days ago, but never mind that. A tip of my cap to those mentioned below, and away we go.



    Review of the Week
    Sonic's Ultimate Game Collection by Janus

    I've already gone on about what I loved about Janus's review in his feedback topic, but I'll reiterate here. The review flows like stream-of-consciousness writing, in any easy, conversational way, but really Janus brings great authority to the content. He doesn't waste time with fancy intros -- just gets down to the business addressing the HD-enhanced graphics misnomer, the inevitable whining by Genesis fans about what DIDN'T make it to the disc, nostalgia and the appeal of the more obscure games. He's done a really masterful job with a compilation -- the hardest thing of all to review.

    Second Place
    Skies of Arcadia by Cornwell

    Cornwell's work always fares well in my RotW's and this week is no exception. Skies of Arcadia is just about perfect, boasting good flow, smooth transitions, and a convincing exploration of the author's thesis: great games can be derivative. Oh, and flying boats kick ass. Kudos.

    Quest 64 by Suskie, and DJ Max Portable Emotional Sense by Woodhouse earn a tie for Third Place. Suskie delivers his usual impeccable prose, expertly dissecting the universally panned N64 RPG, thereby providing a greater depth of the "whys" of it all than we are probably accustomed to. Woodhouse, who is known for his detailed analysis, writes a shorter review than usual with a great hook to reel us in before the cogent breakdown begins.


    That's all folks!
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 05, 2009:

    Thanks for the mention and congrats to Janus and everyone else.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted March 05, 2009:

    Even though I did not submit a review for this week, I will appear in this topic to stroke everyone's egos!

    Congratulations to Janus on his RotW placing. He wrote a very interesting review of a compilation game, which is a tricky thing to do. And good job to the rest of yous! Keep up the good work.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted March 05, 2009:

    Thank you masters. I spent a lot of time redrafting this one, so I'm glad that you enjoyed the finished review. Congrats to Cornwell, Suskie and Woodhouse, too. Even though there were only three other reviews last week, they were all good reads.
    board icon
    Masters posted March 05, 2009:

    See, that's the thing. When something reads as well as your review did, it doesn't seem as if it took much effort to write. It reads as if you're just a super smart guy with personality talking about the compilation, almost casually.

    Oh, and there were more reviews than that; somebody named something-or-the-other electronics submitted three.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 05, 2009:

    Good RotW! I definitely agree with Masters on who won this week, too. That review really was great, easily one of the best compilation reviews I've ever read. Good job to everyone else that placed, as well!
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted March 05, 2009:

    Okay, FFT's in the bag. Cruisin' for chi-...new stuff.
    board icon
    zigfried posted March 05, 2009:

    I have an idea for the focus window.

    When you have created the asset you intend to post for THAT DAY'S focus, post here. That way, no one else jumps in and steals the focus spot. Also, it serves as a record (for those of us who can't log in everyday due to not having internet) as to whether the current focus is old or new.

    It's great if we can pre-plan, but plans fall through. Or assets can't easily be found. Etc etc. This could also serve as a reminder -- there should be a new post in this topic every night! If not, then we're slacking.

    I see that FEAR 2 was focused tonight. Now if someone shows up on Sunday and FEAR 2 is still up there, they know it's been there for 3 days and it's time to make a new focus!

    If you think this idea sucks arse, then just say so and I'll ditch it. But I figured it was a fresh approach instead of just reviving the focus window topic. If you like the idea, I'll sticky it.

    //Zig
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 06, 2009:

    Welcome to the site! We're glad that you joined and we hope to get to know you. There's a lot of great stuff to do on the site, stuff we hope that you'll enjoy as much as we do. First, though, we'd love to hear about you. Tell us how you found the site. Tell us what games you love... or hate. Tell us about your pet cat, Chester. Anything that defines who you are is fair game, as long as it doesn't violate forum guidelines. Let the introductions commence! Soonish. Any time now. We'll wait patiently, honest!

    Uh... I guess I'll get things started. My name is honestgamer, but you can call me "Jason," because that's my real name from back before I was famous for being the first person on record to ever visit the honestgamers.com URL. I manage the site, so that could have had something to do with it. When I'm not coding new features for the site or tweaking existing ones, I'm usually posting news stories, tending to various PR and administrative duties, playing games or writing about them. When I'm not doing one of those things, I sometimes turn my attention to reading and writing fantasy and science fiction. Mostly, though, I'm a gamer who will happily try almost any game you care to name... and probably enjoy it in one way or another. My first console was the NES and I haven't stopped loving Nintendo, but I frequently play and enjoy games on all major platforms (excluding iPod and iPhone, because I can't afford those). I'm about to turn 30 (next month, actually) and I'm married and no, you can't see a recent picture because I don't have a digital camera. Your loss!

    Find out more about my day-to-day life on my blog. Just be forewarned that like the above forum post, it's pretty dull. Paint drying on the wall is sometimes more fascinating. I'm not even joking.
    board icon
    draculasrevenge posted March 06, 2009:

    So social commentary is eligible for ROTW now? Tell me, what will someone who is looking for information about this game think when he reads it as a FEATURED review on HG? He'll likely never come to HG ever again.

    The developers of the game obviously aren't trying to perpetuate racism. It's about authenticity. I don't think a game should sacrifice trying to create an authentic atmosphere of its subject matter to avoid offending an overly sensitive few. It's god-damn warfare, a soldier doesn't have racial sensitivity on his mind.

    Tell me what sounds more appropriate:

    American Soldier: Not that I mean to imply any disrespect, the Japanese are a wonderful people and civilization, but DAMN THOSE JAPANESE SOLDIERS.

    or

    American Soldier: DAMN JAPS!

    Besides, the Japanese themselves were far more egregiously racist during the war. Just look at the enmity today between them and China. For example, the Japanese PM drew a lot of criticism from China a few years ago for this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junichiro_Koizumi#Visits_to_Yasukuni_Shrine
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 06, 2009:

    Congratulations, Drella. I do believe you have the distinction of creating the only ROTW to draw socio-political criticism.
    board icon
    EmP posted March 06, 2009:

    Good job, everyone else. Drella's not visited the site since his honest opinion was lampooned to such meteoric proportions in this very topic.

    So let's all make sure it says that way with a spot of necro-bumping. Hurrah!
    board icon
    Masters posted March 06, 2009:

    FYI guys: I don't think Drella visits the site anymore.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted March 06, 2009:

    Aw, man, who's going to write awesome beat 'em up reviews now?
    board icon
    EmP posted March 06, 2009:

    You're going to have to.

    Hop to it.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted March 06, 2009:

    But I just wrote one...
















    Two months ago.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 06, 2009:

    Drella quit after this?! Dammit, we have to stop chasing our good reviewers away! Then again, criticism comes with the territory. Even though it was a bit overblown in this case, if you can't handle criticism, why are you putting your opinions out on the web, the NUMBER ONE place to receive criticism no matter your beliefs or strength of argument?
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 06, 2009:

    I don't pretend to know the full reasons why drella quit, and he's not around to clarify. However, the Internet is a bit of a cesspool at times. Make that most of the time.

    One thing I like to see around here--and hopefully do my part to foster--is a sense of community. It sounds absurdly idealistic, but I like to think that people can get along on the Internet, that they can take each other seriously and treat one another as human beings instead of insult sponges.

    It's one reason that the whole "Internet is serious business" meme is one of the most destructive things going around. Maybe instead of refusing to take anything seriously, more people should do the opposite and show some respect. Then maybe we wouldn't all be so grumpy and cynical and the occasional argument here or there wouldn't turn into hurt feelings and the abrupt departure of one person or another that most of us would have preferred to see around the site indefinitely.

    Anyway, that's my little rant on the Internet and its actual connection to the drella business is tenuous.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 06, 2009:

    A good rant, yes... also tenuous connection, yes. But I always like to hear your words of wisdom, Jace.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 06, 2009:

    Drella quit a month ago and you guys are only just now noticing? Yeah, you must really miss him.

    Edit: As if his resignation wasn't made clear enough when he said, "I resign as staff."
    board icon
    draculasrevenge posted March 06, 2009:

    Guess my post was overkill. I haven't been to this site in months so I started looking at some recent reviews. I couldn't believe that this one was featured. How can HG be taken seriously as a review site when material like this is awarded?
    board icon
    EmP posted March 06, 2009:

    We didn't bother saying anything until the necro-bumps came in.

    Sometimes, Mike, people quit things like this site and then come back later once they've reflected a little. We try not to make a big deal out of it when it happens or jump all over it that very second for that person's sake but driving them into the ground after they've gone and directing posts at them they'll never see seems a futile exercise.
    board icon
    bluberry posted March 06, 2009:

    the smart ones only leave their staff positions in a huff, not the site. then nobody can call them out when they come back.
    board icon
    threetimes posted March 06, 2009:

    Dunno how you find the time to write FAQs, and post in numerous FAQ topics. But I'll make an effort here too. DQ5 is happening! Just wish I knew I'd like the game so much when I started playing and taken some notes at least. Can't decide on a format though, despite writing a fair amount of the walkthrough part. There's so many optional things, and places to return to later, and changes in what enemies you find, and what you can do. So I'm just waiting to find out what I can come up with that works. Not sure about maps either. I did one dungeon and it took me hours, and with 7 floors it takes up too much space. So I might ditch the maps apart from one or two as separate image FAQs. Been looking at your DW3 FAQ for inspiration, and this might sound a stupid question, but how do you get your maps so compressed and set alongside each other?



    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 06, 2009:

    Well, I didn't really KNOW Drella, so his absence affects me on more of a general, rather than personal, level. I'm just now beginning to get clear ideas of who everyone is, after all. When I first joined, only the more extroverted personalities were clear to me (EMP, Suskie, Wolf Queen, Lewis).
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 06, 2009:

    Assuming you're addressing me, EmP (since for some reason everyone is now calling me Mike), I don't believe that Drella is gone for good, which is why I'm not getting too worked up about this. I just recently went through something similar, and even in my "absence" I kept a close eye on the site, so who knows?
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 07, 2009:

    I'm increasingly astonished by the mounting tension on here. Everyone, all together, let's do a bit primal scream...

    Anyway, I thought the CoD thing was a weak article, but not because it isn't a straightforward review. I think it's weak because it presents a criticism then fails to form a reasonable argument around it, which is a shame, because it's more ambitious than a lot of the work posted around here.

    What's important to consider is that it's a user review. Where this may have been rejected by Jason or Gary if added by a staff member, in the Users section there's an "anything goes as long as it isn't in breach of guidelines" attitude, which is fantastic. It allows for experimentation and initial failure. How else do people learn, and hone their craft?

    Also remember that editorial take time out of their busy schedules to run the weekly RotW competition, which is a lighthearted way of encouraging contributions from the readership. Ultimately, it's of very little consequence to the staff who wins (aside from that, occasionally, a rising star might emerge from the competition and be offered a more official position), and so it's always going to be a subjective offering of how much that particular staff member enjoyed the reviews in question.

    As such, getting at Drella for his choice was inherently silly, and any discussion should have been aimed, maturely, at the writer of the piece - but hey, it could have been a lot worse elsewhere on the 'net.

    HG thrives on its strong, friendly, intelligent community. Let's not mess that up.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 07, 2009:

    Keep an eye out in the next couple of days for a Liquid Wars review to replace my Evil Zone review as my submission for this contest.
    board icon
    EmP posted March 07, 2009:

    Oddly, I don't recall when I started calling you Mike or know why I seem to randomly switch your name around so. It's a mystery. In Drella's case, he's told someone that he's not checking the site when asked about his thoughts on this topic. It's not the first time he's left the site -- nor is he the first to do so -- and maybe he will come back like he and others like myself and you have done in the past. The point seems to be lost in the scuffle and that point is that continuing to call him out is moot. It's falling on deaf ears.

    Personally, I'm just happy RotWs are starting to get some comments behind them. Even if they are just to call for the judge's head half the time.
    board icon
    overdrive posted March 07, 2009:

    Hopefully the "I can take this spot for a little while if necessary" thing Jason said pans out because moving my spot back a week to adjust for a lack o' Leroux wouldn't be a good idea. Having a hellishly long work week (14+ hours yesterday) and am very burned out at the moment. Which sucks, as I have about four hours of work in front of me today that I have to find a way to motivate myself for.

    Tomorrow, I'm not doing anything related to thinking and I'll be swamped at the office Monday, so if I'd be expected to do this week's, Tuesday's the absolute earliest it could get done.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 07, 2009:

    I'll plan to do this topic tonight when I get off work, or perhaps tomorrow if I'm too wiped out this evening.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 07, 2009:

    This can be salvaged! Let's go back to talking about racism and/or cookies!
    board icon
    jerec posted March 07, 2009:

    Okay. I've got a problem. I've been playing through Lego Star Wars quite happily, working my way through completing it. Yesterday, the game froze, then to my horror, my 360 red-ringed. Couldn't believe it. I could probably write a review based on what I've played, for the main mode, but there's quite a few other modes in the game I haven't even tried yet. I'm hoping I get my 360 back soon, or it's going to seriously hurt my review chances for this contest. =(
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 07, 2009:

    Just make stuff up.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 07, 2009:

    The good news is that if it's anything like here in the US, you'll have your Xbox 360 back in only about 4 weeks. How's that for speedy service?
    board icon
    EmP posted March 07, 2009:

    I got mine back in a week. With "We're really sorry!" goodies, to boot.
    board icon
    jerec posted March 07, 2009:

    But Felix, if I make stuff up, you'll know! I know you've played it! I remember judging your review.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 07, 2009:

    A part of me wants to scream "Serves you right for owning an Xbox360!"

    Another part of me suffocates it and tries to offer sympathy, but seriously man... Red Rings of death come with the territory. I know exactly NO people who own their original Xbox360.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 07, 2009:

    Clive Barker's Undying makes it nine. Liquid Wars... doesn't make it ten, sadly.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 07, 2009:

    Okay, THIS is the review I'm submitting for this contest.

    Have at you!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 07, 2009:

    I'm suddenly very hard-pressed to make deadline for this. I'll try - I really will - but... school's just a bitch right now.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 08, 2009:

    I know this is True's contest, but as one of the judges, I'm changing the deadline for this event!

    The new deadline is March 20, 2009 at midnight HG time. That's a Friday. It's in the first post, too.

    This benefits people like WQ and Jerec who may be able to get by with more time. It also helps me out because the 15th is a major deadline for the work I'm doing now. Plus, I'll be going to New York a few days after that, and the earliest I could have my results would be the 21st or 22nd, anyway. The deadline being on the 20th gives all of us more breathing room.
    board icon
    Halon posted March 08, 2009:

    Great! Wasn't sure if I could make the first deadline but I can definitely do this.
    board icon
    overdrive posted March 08, 2009:

    It definitely helps me! I've been so busy with work that it's been a good week since I've had time to play my game, so it'd have been very doubtful that I'd be able to provide anything more than a half-assed attempt at a review based on 20% of my game by the 15th (and that might be the best-case scenario). Now, I should be able to give ya as half-assed attempt at a review based on 45% of my game!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 08, 2009:

    That's 5% more than you would normally give!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 08, 2009:

    Bless you, Felix. The chances of me making this one are much higher now. I hope.
    board icon
    jerec posted March 08, 2009:

    Excellent! Thanks Felix.
    board icon
    True posted March 08, 2009:

    I appreciate Felix changing it to a more suitable date, as I would have done it myself. The 20th, for now, will work. Though I have encountered some very... drastic personal issues, so that date may be subject to change again.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 09, 2009:

    All rise and pay homage to the presiding judges Zipp, Suskie, and Wolf Queen! Alright, sit your asses down. We're ready to begin.

    First of all, a big thanks to the people who participated in this, including the judges who volunteered their time to help out. This is my first time providing feedback in an official capacity to people on their reviews, and I hope my efforts are helpful to the writers. I understand it's also WQ's first time doing it, so an even bigger thanks to her for putting herself out there for the tourney.

    Some interesting scoring happened in this tournament. There were a couple definite disparities in judge's opinions, but personally I think that makes things more interesting. Anyway, far more important than the scores given is the feedback given, and I think all the feedback was excellent. This trio of judges made for a good match up. We should do this more often.

    Sportsman, if you could archive the winner of this. I think the Challenge IV winner also needs archiving.

    Lewis' Red Faction Review

    Zipp: Im impressed by your intro, Lewis. You manage to pretty much sum up the whole game within a single anecdote while moving steadily on with another point. Its a nice break from the heres what the games about that we all have to deal with at some point.

    Theres a line in here that deserves a shout out for its clever word play and striking imagery: and the chance to rise from everyman to every man's hero...

    Theres also some strange word choices, a number of comma splices, and a few spelling errors that dont show your usual attention to detail. Also, much of the review seems to repeat itself, as you continually go back to the same point: its a boring game, but I beat it anyway... why is that? I think you end up answering it admirably at the end, but you ask it (and propose answers) at least twice before this. This took away a lot of the power of your dramatic ending note. Had much of the middle of this review been cut and you gotten to your real answer earlier, I think it wouldve read better. 73

    Suskie So heres the thing? So youre stealing my lines now?! But anyway. This review is an ambitious undertaking that kind of rubbed me the wrong way. Youve got this wonderful introduction that paints an explicit picture of what appears to be one of the most memorable moments for you in any game, and then you toss it aside and say, Well, forget about that. Heres what the game is REALLY like. Having read the full review, its apparent to me now that this is the dominant theme of your review: You like Red Faction more than you believe it deserves, and youre trying to figure out why. But Im not sure that you pulled it off. It just conveys a jarringly inconsistent tone to write such a glowing introduction (which sounds like something youd say about a Half-Life game) only to later label certain levels abominable. You cite escapism as a possible cause for enjoying the game more than you should have, and I know thats a major factor for you so the argument makes sense, but I dont know that its presented in such a way that someone whos unfamiliar with your work would understand. The game still sounds pretty cruddy, and I still have no desire to play it. Which may have been your goal; who knows? The writing is terrific, as usual, and I get the sense that you could simply remove that intro altogether (with a few accompanying edits within the rest of the review) and this would have worked much better. Its an excellent introduction, but I kept thinking that it belongs in a review for a game that actually deserves it. 70

    Wolf Queen Lewis needs to stop doubting his experiments so much because sometimes they work really well. Like in this case. What youre doing here is extremely difficult to pull off explaining how a mediocre game managed to affect you in such an emotional way. Most people wouldnt associate mediocrity with emotional reaction its just not natural but you manage to explain yourself intelligibly and strongly that your argument is believable. That said, some of the things you mention seem superfluous. I have no idea what the premise behind the neo-journalism thing is, really, so that link is meaningless to me. Also, theres really no need for you to explain that you gave Belief & Betrayal a 4/10 on this site youd be better off just hyperlinking to your review if you wanted to point that out, since I can see a point to you mentioning the score (it suggests that the games you beat in a day are all average), but writing it out like that just feels excessive. Also, you throw some references around that I dont understand (Ive never seen Total Recall), but at least with that case, you explain yourself enough to where my ignorance of the subject(s) doesnt really matter. Anyway, another thing I really liked about this review besides its utter convincingness is its style. The almost story-like in-game personal examples give the review a great personal touch that really add to the atmosphere of the piece, and make your argument all the more convincing. Combined with the fantastic analysis characteristic of your reviews, that just makes the thing all the more powerful. Id say this definitely deserved RotW, and Im glad you entered it for this contest.

    I do have one question: did you review this from memory? The eight-year remark in one sentence almost suggests this, but I thought you were just referring to something in-game, too. Id imagine you played it again specifically for this contest. But if you didnt, thats amazing that you managed to write such an interesting and informative piece just from memory. 93

    Janus2's Dragon Blaze Review

    Zipp Another one of those themes of why do I keep coming back to this? You handle that question well. What this review lacks for me is a clear sense of why I would want to pick this game up in the first place. You do a good job of describing game mechanics, but you dont really describe the games style. Late in the review you mention that this game is different. You mention dark fantasy. But you never really describe what that dark fantasy is. You give us a set of rules, but none of the setting in which these rules apply. So the whole things come off as a little stiff, especially for a 10/10. An overview of the games style could help ground this more. 75

    Suskie This reviews opening words seem calculated specifically to win me over given my uncompromising love for Space Megaforce (and the heat I received to giving that game a perfect score). Acknowledging that youre no shmup expert really should feel like a shortcut to excuse you from living up to any considerable standards within the review itself but its a fair argument, and you get the feeling early on that this review is tailored towards people like me, who dont know the genre inside out but still enjoy it, and who, by the looks of it, would enjoy Dragon Blaze as well. That said, the rest of the review beyond your intro is surprisingly matter-of-fact in contrast. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, and its blended together seamlessly (you build your thesis and move forward from there), but after the intro was over, the review felt like it lost that certain energy that really made me believe youd justify the 10/10 in the first place. And you spend a number of paragraphs explaining the games mechanics, but rarely pull any actual examples from the game itself, so I guess the review lacks a certain flair? I guess I dont have much to say beyond that. Its still a very solid and informative review, and I want to play this now, for what thats worth. I do think it could have been better, though. 82

    Wolf Queen This is a very well-written review. Its informative and focused probably the best thing you could have done was focus on the scoring system the way you did since it makes the game (and the review) stand out among any others in the genre, as opposed to just being this is a shooter. This is the basic, general information for it that you can probably see anywhere. However, I will admit that your explanation of the Dragon Shot confused me a little (as most descriptions of this sort of thing in shooter reviews usually do). You made it sound like you actually lose the beast youre riding, but somehow that doesnt make sense for this game. Rather I sort of pictured it like a power-up gauge or something, and thats what the screens seem to suggest. Anyway, my initial confusion there didnt really affect the rest of my perception of the review as it was the results of that attack, and how effectively the attack killed that mattered here. And these came off quite well. Im not a huge shooter fan I like them, but I find them overly difficult sometimes, so theyre not something I actively seek. You make me want to try this one out. Anyway, the only other real complaint I can levy against this is that I didnt get much of a sense of your emotion behind the game sure I can tell you enjoyed it quite a bit, but I agree with EmP that its not your most passionate piece. However, that you described everything so beautifully makes the review extremely effective otherwise, so the need for that passion isnt as necessary.

    P.S.: EmP didnt point out all the typos. The word concentrate next to Psykio Pattern Memorisation should be concentration and you have the word florescent in there, but I cant tell if that should be fluorescent or if its fine as is. 88

    Overdrive's CastleQuest review

    Zipp An example of story-reviewing at its best. This review made me feel like I was in the room with you while you played, hearing you deliver snappy comentary punctuated by frequent swearing while I watched to make sure I was ready to catch any tossed controllers. Not only that, but you manage to provide a clear analysis of the games controls, structure, and purpose. Well done, sir. I tried to find something wrong here, I really did. But even the lists work. I'm sorry... I have to give you 100

    Suskie Ha. I like the heros creed and the accompanying disclaimer, even if it does seem a little out of the blue. You know, youre gradually becoming one of my favorite writers here, mainly because I dont think Ive ever read a review of yours that I didnt like. Youre consistent, and thats important. Your Castlequest here displays the same kind of writing flair that I see Boos and Cairos reviews all the time: Not a single sentence is wasted. Castlequest does admittedly seem like a pretty easy target, and I get the sense that pretty much anyone could convince me that the game sucks but not everyone could go into such scrutinizing detail and make me laugh so consistently. I guess the bullet points underlining different scenarios you found reprehensible was a little lazy, but then again, this review really wasnt meant to be anything more than a series of Castlequest-related outtakes anyway, right? Now that I think about it, the reason this review is so effective for me is that it reminds me of Dark Castle. I guess thats a good thing, because Dark Castle is one of the worst games ever made. It would be a lot more difficult to convince me that a game is awesome, but hey, whatever works.93

    Wolf Queen OD does a great job making this game sound awful. His describes everything well enough that we get the message without terrible overkill while at the same time sounding clever in places. For example, I really liked the list of deaths and found myself particularly amused by this line, even if its not an in-game death specifically: I died emotionally due to having to endure the game's short, annoying, constantly looping attempt at music while controlling some little puke as he seemed determined to prove that 50 lives only equals 30 minutes of gameplay. However, it seemed to me that this same list of deaths would have been a lot more effective had you managed to keep each point short. The elevator, drowning, and crate deaths were great for that, but the others could have been shortened up to one or two sentences without losing much. Though I did appreciate the detail on the jumping section as it seemed kind of important to note. That being said, I did feel I learned everything I needed to know about this game and just how bad it is. It almost makes me want to try it just to see the utter horrendousness of it. I mean, from the sound of this review, it almost sounds like they purposely gave you 50 lives because they knew how easy it was for you to die, as if thats a good thing. I also commend you for sounding like you actually own this game. Haha. And if you do, I pity your soul, you poor man. 83

    EMP's Blacksite Review

    ZippCutting out the first part of your intro and beginning with I can end the review now for readers in a hurry... wouldve been more effective. Similarly, a lot of this review reads like it didnt get a chance at the editing table. One thing in particular that bothered me was the word but being repeated too often, sometimes more than once within a single sentence.

    Furthemore, the review is laid out very blandly, with a standard template, yet at the same time, it manages to flop around uncomfortably. Like it jumps into talking about the team members before introducing them or the team mechanics enough to give me a sense how the whole thing works. It seems like what happened here is that you started out strong with your usual commentary on ridiculous things like the setting and the game's approach, and then felt that you had to get some gameplay stuff in, so you started down that road... but before finishing, ended up in more commentary.

    Your commentary is great,l but it's not grounded in anything. You explain from the start that this is just an average shooter, but I would like to know what was holding it back. You give me a decent idea of the setting, but I'm not convinced by the end that the game isn't for me, I'm left feeling somewhat unfulfilled, as if I really HAD skipped the entire review when you told me to.

    The end of your review is your strongest point. I really like how you had one whole paragraph devoted to describing amazing moments in the game, and then how you follow that paragraph with Then its right back to basics... It cuts off the reader in the same way the game cuts off the player, and its my favourite part of this review, one that demonstrates your usual knowledge of where your reader is at, and your ability to lead them along. If only the rest of the review lived up to your abilities. 62

    Suskie I guess its worth mentioning right up front that Id probably place you within the top three best reviewers on HG I know! I cant believe Im saying that, either! As a result, this review is probably as good as it could be. Frankly, it seems like youve put more energy into this review than the game deserves. The problem is that mediocre, insignificant, insubstantial games like this rarely inspire any sort of interesting commentary, and it seemed to me while I was reading this that you were struggling to stay interested long enough to write the review in the first place. Your opening paragraph, from what I can tell, is all that the reviews needs: You underline your thesis, and in fact make it pretty clear that in short, BlackSite is just another shooter, and its boring and bland and pointless without actually being BAD. It even sounds like youre acknowledging that most people dont need to read any further, and the rest of the review comes across as padding as a result. You point out the cheesy plot; okay. But as colorful as your writing is, the problem, again, appears to be that there just isnt much to say about BlackSite in the first place. Its a generic shooter and thats all there is to it. Like I said, this is probably as good a review as could be written for this game given your thesis, but it seems like a weird choice for a contest. Having interesting material to work with certainly helps. 75

    Wolf Queen This is the third time Ive read this review now, and I still like it. I stand by everything I said in that feedback topic and on AIM. You describe everything very well without ever really wasting a word. The bad points in the game are often satirical while the good ones described in such a manner as to make it exciting. The transitions between good and bad points are effortless; I dont feel like Im reading two reviews with this, which is often hard to pull off when reviewing an average game. I suppose if I wanted, I could complain about recycling that one sentence you used in the intro, but really, the way you presented this, and with the dj vu reference near the end, it works well, so I cant.

    Nitpick: I missed a typo. Again. Five-stories tall monstrosity should be five-story (or storey if thats the one you prefer). Haha. 92

    True's Code Veronica Review

    Zipp Anyone who has played CV will understand the annoyance of the Steve/Claire relationship. You do an admirable job of bashing it, and I thank you for that. Same goes for the boss fight in the middle. Classic bitching moments that deserve all the hatred they get.

    I have to completely disagree with your end point, though. You shouldve done a bit more research into the history of the RE series: they made three more games between this and RE4, not to mention rereleasing the entire series (minus RE2) on the gamecube. Just claiming that this is the one that created RE4 is a large (and in your review's case, unsubstantiated) statement that I think is blatantly false based on other evidence.

    Also, while I appreciate your bash, it wont help anyone who hasnt actually played Code Veronica. While entertaining, it definitely appeals to the in-crowd. Going into a bit more depth as to the setting, the plot, and the handling of the controls wouldve helped this. As it is, it comes off as more of an article or blog post than a review, and while i enjoyed it, I have to take points off for that. 64

    Suskie So, wait. Youre a diehard Resident Evil fanboy, but now youre dissing Code Veronica for sticking with series conventions, and giving it a 2/10 as a result? If thats the effect of post-RE4 syndrome (and it seems like you only just played this recently) then I cant blame you, but I dont know which of your multiple personalities to believe. In all honesty, Im surprised I didnt like this review more. Youre usually a very good writer (if a somewhat humorless one), but this piece fell flat on what appeared to be too many attempts to give the writing a sort of witty flair. Your overplayed emphasis on the failings of the plot lost its luster the moment you labeled the love story emo, and your depiction of the zombie-from-fifteen-feet-away is a good example of over-dramatization where it isnt needed. (Isnt there a way to incorporate this more smoothly into the review than by saying, Let me describe what was going through my mind?) Frankly, the review is awkward in spots, and I can safely say that the if its going to screw you line is one of the worst transitions Ive ever seen. All of this, and by the end of the review Im wondering if your comment about having played Code Veronica before was actually true, or if it was just the setup for your line about blacking out, which, by the way, didnt offer anywhere near the payoff you were obviously hoping for. I suppose this review gets the job done, but its a very disappointing effort. Sorry. 60

    Wolf Queen The first thing I will say about this is that I loved the sarcasm in here. You make the game sound as bad as Im guessing you think it is (Ive never played it), which is good because this game in particular seems to warrant a lot of praise or at least the individual ratings do. However, there are some parts that feel like they might need elaboration the two monsters you mention, for one, but I can see your dismissal of them as suggesting theyre quite meaningless, much like the game is. Also, while MGS is a popular game and Im sure many people have played it, there might be a few who havent (I hadnt until a year ago), so they might not get the Otacon reference. Still, these things aside, I did enjoy the way you tore this game up. I like personal examples I think they add to the review, both in atmosphere and argument. I especially liked how you attacked the story, the way the game can screw you up, and how lame the zombies are (and I guess other monsters, toobut you dont talk about those much save that one boss). However, some of your tactics start feeling overused after a while. The quoted sections, while amusing sometimes, get a bit gimmicky or excessive in other places (like the section in that fight on the plane). Still, I think this is an effective review that thrashes an awful-sounding game.

    I also really liked the island seething with undead thatll probably blow up bit. Reminds me of RE4. (Though Im not really sure you can claim this game inspired that one but that struck me more as a matter of opinion thing versus an actual argumentative point, especially since it came near the end of the review). 85


    Alright, that's the feedback. Now for the final scores, in order from lowest to highest:

    True: Wolf Queen and Zipp liked True's approach, but both Zipp and Suskie had trouble with his conclusions. Suskie also found error with his "attempt at flair" that he thought fell short. Final score: 209/300

    EMP: Opinions differed wildly on EMP's review. Zipp thought it was confusing and unconvincing. Suskie thought it was a poor choice for the reviewer but a solid review nonetheless. Wolf Queen found it to be entertaining and well-crafted. Final score: 224/300

    Lewis: Judges agreed that Lewis had style and that his analysis was top-notch, but a couple of us wanted to see more focus with that style. Final score: 236/300

    Janus 2: Janus drew compliment for his choice of game and the layout of his review, but drew criticism for not having enough flair and for some confusion in what the game was actually about. Final score: 245/300

    Overdrive: Some thought the review was a little lazy and not as well-edited as it could've been, but no-one denied it was a fun (and funny) read that got all the points across in an entertaining and precise fashion. Final score: 276/300
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 09, 2009:

    The Castlequest review was absolutely fantastic - a deserving winner.

    Very interesting comments regarding my piece, as I'd hoped. I'm obviously not going to argue on the judges' opinions, though I would mention that the oddly contrasting tone that grated with Suskie was very intentional: an attempt to replicate the shift between escapist poignancy and mediocre game design that I was describing. In other words - prosaic, emergent writing for the bits I loved; generic, analytical stuff for the bits I didn't. Whether I pulled it off, of course, is an entirely different matter.

    NGJ link was obviously stupid. I'd meant to remove that, but totally forgot.

    Thanks to Zipp and the others for running this compo! I have my competition idea still do realise... when would be a good time to run one, dya think? Spoilers: it shouldn't clash too much with other review competitions.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted March 09, 2009:

    WQ: You actually do lose your dragon. This is why it's so unique. Also, thanks for spotting those typos. I've read this review several times but I've never noticed them. Weird.

    Thanks to all the judges for their in-depth comments. This review probably wasn't ideal for a contest like this. Although I say I'm no shooter expert, the review is geared towards people who play these games for score and are familiar with the Psykio style (why else would you pick up an obscure arcade shmup?). This is why I concentrated on the mechanics and rules at the expense of the setting,etc. I think the danger with shooters is that people might appreciate the setting and style but credit feed through the game and miss the intricacies of the scoring system because it's too complicated or whatever. With this review I almost wanted to say THIS GAME HAS A GREAT SCORING SYSTEM! PLAY IT LIKE THIS AND YOU'LL GET THE MOST OUT OF IT!!

    Anyway, congrats to Overdrive and the others. There may not have been many entries but this was an interesting contest.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 09, 2009:

    About your above comment, Lewis, consider this: You're obviously not very fond of the game, so don't repeat its mistakes.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 09, 2009:

    Perhaps very good advice. I doubt 'Faction did it intentionally to make a point, however ;)

    EDIT: Further self-critical post-mortem -- I think the main issue with my piece is that it suffers from having had to be put on a 'reviews' site. If I had a different outlet for it (I could have put it on Resolution, I guess, but I like the idea of having stuff instantly accessible on here), it'd have probably been less 'reviewy', and I could have got rid of the analytical detail that, as Suskie fairly points out, contrasts a bit too heavily with the "glowing" sections of the piece.

    In other words: it's an article I've wanted to write for ages, toned down to meet the specifications of "writing a review."

    It's also an example of me writing in a train-of-thought manner, e-scribbling a thousand thoughts down without much idea of where it's going, just seeing where my gut instinct led me. That's the point of my Not A Reviews on my blog; maybe this would have been better suited for that.

    Thoroughly interesting and infinitely valuable feedback, once again, from three writers I really respect on here. Thanks all!
    board icon
    overdrive posted March 09, 2009:

    Thanks to the judges for their critiques and the really, really high scores I received!

    I'd decided to try putting a bit more personality into my writing, as I felt a lot of my stuff could get a bit dry or "by-the-book", especially when playing a game that doesn't overly motivate me to write something "epic". While I do admit that CastleQuest is an easy target for a personable bash review, I wanted to start with easier targets for this idea just to get into the groove of typing more engaging reviews. And from the scores and comments I received, I have say I feel pretty good about that right now. Next contest might see me get universally panned, but at least for one day, I feel good!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 09, 2009:

    See, OD? I tell you to write about Castlequest and it nets you the golden trophy. Listen to Felix if you want to win at life.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 09, 2009:

    Well, you were second place, Janus, so I wouldn't say it wasn't an ideal choice! The truth is, no matter what audience you were appealing to, a review has to assume a more general audience, I think. Lewis makes a good point about reviews being a somewhat limiting medium. There are certain things you have to do. The trick is doing them in an interesting manner. You rarely have trouble with this. In this review, I just wanted a bit more of the sense of how the game worked. Not so much the basic shooter mechanics, but maybe just a phrase or two to ground me, like "Asteroids where the asteroids are demons and your ship is a little guy on a dragon," or something similar.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted March 09, 2009:

    While I agree that staff reviews need to assume a general audience, I think it's OK to target a specific audience with a user review because you're only an individual voice. If the reader can't identify with that voice then he can go read another user review. Saying that, by entering the review in this contest I should really have tailored my writing for a more general audience (who aren't familiar with Psykio). So in other words, I agree!

    That's what I meant by it not being ideal for this competition. I didn't mean to sound ungrateful. I'm happy with second given the writers that participated.
    board icon
    EmP posted March 09, 2009:

    Thanks to all three judges for the time taken to read and comment on my review, and congrats to OD for actually beating me at something.
    board icon
    overdrive posted March 09, 2009:

    and congrats to OD for actually beating me at something.

    Alphabetolympics AND Challange (individually), making this the third time in a four-contest span where I've outranked you.

    THREE TIMES IN FOUR CONTESTS!!!!!! Now that's a factoid everyone should ponder for some time.
    board icon
    EmP posted March 09, 2009:

    Even if that's true, it still puts you at something like 4/116.
    board icon
    pomkane posted March 09, 2009:

    Hi im Poe and im new to the site...

    Im an MMORPG player and I am currently playing Atlantica Online by nDoors interactive.

    See u guys in the discussions.
    board icon
    pomkane posted March 09, 2009:

    Overdrives castlequest review is pretty hilarious! Because of these i would still give the game a try just to see how hard this game is...
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 09, 2009:

    Awesome. You listened to my idea after all, Jason! =D

    Anyway, I'm WQ, a regular currently busy in college. I welcome you, Poe, and anyone else to this site. I hope you have a good time here.
    board icon
    True posted March 10, 2009:

    First off, Congratulations to O.D. for winning.

    To Zipp and Wolf, I appreciate the time you've taken to judge and your criticism towards my review. It's because of the judges that we have contests every month, and there's always an enjoyable experience.

    As for Suskie, I appreciate you taking time out as well.

    That being said, you can take this however you choose. And it quite possibly could be Drac's earlier comment that made this complaint surface, but you've basically made the same statement he did using different words.

    So, wait. Youre a diehard Resident Evil fanboy, but now youre dissing Code Veronica for sticking with series conventions, and giving it a 2/10 as a result?

    No. Actually I'm not. I can point out three or four examples of where I demonstrated how Veronica went the opposite direction in a negative way, and that was my major problem with the game. That is why I went with the 2/10 score.

    Again, I appreciate you judging. And you may question my integrity when it comes to having played the game before. (Which, by the way is kind of silly. I'm known for a lot of things on here, filling my reviews with lies simply to place a line is not one of them.) In all honesty--and no offense--when you complain about something that is so blaringly non-existant I have to question your integrity as a judge.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 10, 2009:

    Hey True, glad you made your way in here. We should have a chat about RE sometime, or at least a bitch session about it's various mishaps (the Steve and Claire pairing being one of the big ones). Are you a member over at Devil's Lair? There's a big contingency of RE fans there. You'd fit right in.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 10, 2009:

    I can point out three or four examples of where I demonstrated how Veronica went the opposite direction in a negative way, and that was my major problem with the game.

    Please do so, then. From what I can tell, you literally say that Code Veronica is "so far down the line series wise that the formula by now is tired," then you go on to say this:

    For the most part, youll deal with Zombies, and allow me to play out a typical scene for you on those: Oh my God. That undead prison guard is only fifteen feet away and I need to reload! Okay. Open my menu, reload, get my feet planted, turn a bit, aim, calibrate my sight, organize my inventory, re-aim, breathOh my god. Hes fourteen feet away now!

    How does that not apply to every single Resident Evil game ever made? (Excluding RE4, as always.) It's a perfectly valid complaint, of course, but it's the kind of line I'd expect to see written by someone who despises the series. You claim to be a huge RE fan, and I'm reading over that and thinking, "Well, yeah. What did you expect?"

    Looking over the remainder of your review, I see several other valid points about item limitations, backtracking, and having to retrace your steps, but again, those are series conventions as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, okay, I can follow that CV takes them to new extremes, where they're nuisances, but nothing to indicate that the game "went in the opposite direction" as you put it. If anything, CV seems like a culmination of everything the naysayers hate about RE games. The one exception is the plot, which you obviously feel was handled wrong, but is it really reasonable to expect anything worthwhile out of a RE game's story?

    I haven't read the feedback, but you should understand that my comments were based on what I picked up from this review after a single read. And I read reviews carefully. If more than one person has misinterpreted the contrasting tones of your writing here, who's at fault, really?

    As for your last comment, well, you're right: I probably shouldn't judge again, because it seems like somebody (usually the lowest scorer) "questions my integrity" every time I do so. You blacked it out? You blacked it out? How would you even remember that if you blacked it out? I'm not saying it's a lie. I'm saying it's intended wit, and not very effective at that. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's still a bad line. Christ.
    board icon
    True posted March 10, 2009:

    It's trivial. As Blue would say, "It's a contest. What are you going to do? Put it on your resume?"

    I'm not looking to start some silly little spam war over it, or make a big deal. If you didn't like the line, you didn't like the line. To me, it came across as "Oh, he made that up just to try and be funny", which, yeah, I'm going to call you on. I make a lot of attempts to be amusing, most of which fail, but I don't lie in order to get there.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 10, 2009:

    I don't think there's an issue with the "I blacked it out" line. It's clearly just used for effect. Would we criticise stand-up comedians for fabricating events in the name of humour?

    Whether it's a successful use would be a more pertinent question.

    I think the more pressing issue with this particular review is that it seems a little confused in what point it's trying to make.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 10, 2009:

    Relax, Suskie. Not everyone's going to agree with the judge's opinion, especially people who received low scores. That's just how things are. I don't always agree with the judges opinions on my reviews, for example, but I use that to try and get clarification on their points so I can hopefully learn from them. I don't see true's rebuttals as anything more than trying to get clarification on what you thought and counter any perceived misinterpretations about his character. To me, this whole credibility issue strikes me as one huge misunderstanding. Did he perhaps go a little too far? Maybe, but... well, these things happen. =/ The important thing is, I seriously doubt any of this will affect anyone's perceptions on your ability at all. Just for the record, I think you're a fine judge whose critiques are fair and unbiased. You shouldn't give it up just because of a little disagreement.

    Beseides, I'm sure you're not the first judge to elicit disagreement from, and you certainly won't be the last. No one's really targeting you specifically, really. It's a contest - disagreements should be expected.
    board icon
    overdrive posted March 10, 2009:

    You know, youre gradually becoming one of my favorite writers here, mainly because I dont think Ive ever read a review of yours that I didnt like.

    Anyone who says something like that concerning me is correct about EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYONE!!!!!

    So sayeth I.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 10, 2009:

    WQ, could you please stop assuming that I'm paranoid about everything? I've judged three different contests now, and each time I've run into some problem or another with somebody who wasn't happy with the score/comments I gave them. You can see why I'm starting to get a little sick of this.

    Lewis kind of said what I was getting at, which is that "lying" is a pretty strong word, and it doesn't apply here. Taking poetic license is more appropriate. Like you said, it's trivial, and I'm glad you're not willing to start a big thing over this (as you can imagine, I'm starting to get tired of that), but if you don't want my opinion on your review, then don't submit it for a contest I'm judging.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 10, 2009:

    Sorry. =/ I just don't want to see any unnecessary conflicts is all. But I suppose you can say I'm getting a little carried away now. Sorry for that. Still, to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a contest judged by anyone where some sort of disagreement didn't happen. =/ Ah, well; I'll just leave it alone for now, then.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 10, 2009:

    Yeah, hopefully this kind of thing just comes with the territory, and not with my knack for attracting unnecessary conflicts.
    board icon
    doncheadle posted March 10, 2009:

    Hi.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 10, 2009:

    I'm Zipp Dementia, reviewer extraordinaire and creator of the phrase "Ego-testical."

    I'm also an all-around nice guy who is desperately in need of a new girlfriend. Anyone interested? It comes with access to my extensive collection of video games... and 50% off at the Spaghetti Factory :P
    board icon
    asscam posted March 10, 2009:

    You can have me, baby.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 10, 2009:

    Ego-testicle?
    board icon
    bloomer posted March 10, 2009:

    Re: true's review.

    True, I feel you overcomplicate the issue in defending your review at length.

    If you look at the unmediated response to your review (EG my first comment in the feedback thread, then Drac's revenge comments - then the more mediated response in this comp thread as well) it is clear that several people get mixed messages from your review, or find parts of it don't make sense to them. The very first people who read it and responded to it in print felt that way and said so.

    Then you get to this comp thread and more people have said similar stuff at length. In such a case there isn't anything to be gained for the review from saying, 'Well, this is what I actually meant.' There is only what people get when they read the piece of writing. I don't think enough people are getting what you thought you put across, in which case it needs to be put across more precisely.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 10, 2009:

    I don't have anything to add to this except to once again thank all the judges and writers for their effort and time to make this contest happen. None of the reviews submitted were amateur reviews. That's why I (and I imagine the other judges) felt no qualms in really digging into them where we felt it was appropriate. Similarly, all the judge feedback I read was solid advice, more interesting in this case because it came from three people with pretty different opinions, so everyone got hit from a different angle. As long as the reviewers came away from this feeling like they'd learned something about their writing style, I'm happy.
    board icon
    goatx3 posted March 10, 2009:

    why hello there!
    board icon
    goatx3 posted March 10, 2009:

    my story is awesome but i feel like i've told it too many times. sorry.
    board icon
    True posted March 11, 2009:

    As for your last comment, well, you're right: I probably shouldn't judge again, because it seems like somebody (usually the lowest scorer) "questions my integrity" every time I do so.

    I never said you should quit judging, at all. They're too few and far between as it is, and I would never ask that of anyone. Maybe that shot about your integrity was a bit overboard. It just seemed that...ugh, I don't even know. That you were doubting my validity, in either playing it the first time, or even being a fan of the genre.

    And Bloomer's right. If I have to write a review on the review, just to further explain myself, then the original work didn't convey what I was trying to get across. Which is odd...because I've had reviews that people haven't "got" before, but this one I seem to defend more adamently. Why, I don't know.

    Regardless, those were probably shit things to say and I'm sorry. I should have simply thanked you, took what you said--be it good or bad--and went on about my business.

    So...

    Thank you.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 11, 2009:

    True, what you need to understand is that if you felt my critique was unfair, you were perfectly in the clear to voice your disagreement and explain how I should have read/approached your review differently. Where I draw the line is when someone questions my validity as a judge, and that's precisely what you did.

    And yes, I'm done judging. I understand that's not what you're getting at, but I'm done anyway. Like I said, I'm three for three: Every time I've judged a contest, I've had someone blow my criticisms out of proportion and attack me for it. I'm sick of putting up with it. I know this is hard to believe given my track record, but I'm not looking for trouble here. I'm really not. I'd love to cut back on all this drama bullcrap, and refraining from judging seems like a pretty good start.
    board icon
    True posted March 11, 2009:

    In the end, that's your choice.

    I'm not the first person to complain about a score, I won't be the last. As much as it's a part of reviewing, it's a part of judging. No one is going to like everything you have to say, and it's going to go as far as someone questioning your right to say it. Even though it's only an opinion.

    Unfortunately, people forget that. And they take things to heart, and don't always remember that writers are artists, and they are intense in defending their work sometimes. It's nothing personal, nor do I think any of those three disagreements were aimed at you directly as a person.

    That's life, and that's the life of a reviewer. If I were to buy into all the negative things said about me, I'd probably hang it up, or hang myself. Not everyone is going to like you. In my case--no one. But it's not about doing this because you want people to love you, or even like you. It's about doing it because you love the craft.
    board icon
    bloomer posted March 11, 2009:

    I was happy to duplicate my reviews from gamefaqs here when Jason asked, but after that I don't think I did anything on HG for about three years. This was simply because I'd stopped reviewing during that time.

    When I did start writing some more reviews, it was just natural to get a bit more involved and enjoy the HG site, especially since the reviewing community at gamefaqs had shrunk to almost non-existence during that time.
    board icon
    draculasrevenge posted March 12, 2009:

    I thought the Code Veronica review was too weak to warrant the 2/10. More/better support would greatly enhance it.

    About half the review complains about the story, specifically, Claire's change in character from RE2 and the love subplot. Now, we may differ in how we view the importance of storylines in games, but I don't think the crappy love subplot detracts a lot. If I remember correctly, you couldn't skip the cutscenes in RE1 and RE2, whereas you can in CV. You're not forced to put up with them every time you play the game.

    The criticisms are especially weaker regarding the gameplay. These are the reasons you don't like the game, as I gathered from your review:

    -You didn't get the magnum

    -You played sloppily, thus preventing you from beating a boss. As someone well-versed in the Resident Evil series, you should KNOW that conserving ammo and health items is essential. Until 4, Resident Evil was never about "run and gun" tactics. I remember not being able to beat a boss in RE2 because I didn't have enough ammo. But I didn't fault the game for my own sloppy playing.

    -You think the second part is "rehashed garbage". You neglect to mention that entire new areas of the island are accessible (kind of like the return to the mansion in RE1.)

    I also didn't get any indication that you got anywhere near the end of the game from the review. Because like I already said, there are far better examples you could use against the game being "unfair" -- for instance, there literally is an impossible battle near the end, where unless you have 3-4 first aid sprays, you WILL die (unavoidable hits). Also near the end, there is a brief moment where you switch from Chris to Claire, then back again. I made the mistake of equipping my best weapons on Claire, so, when the game went back to Chris, they were lost forever.
    board icon
    True posted March 12, 2009:

    Drac's just proving my point here, Suskie.

    It's obvious he hates my review, and while I appreciate his criticism (though I think at some point he should turn his passion towards a review of his own, and give readers another side of the story) I stand by my review, my score and my opinions. I'll emphasize them, argue them, but I'm not going to change them. Because as much as he and Bloomer and you hate it, Jason liked it enough to warrant a mention. And there's probably other readers who went through exactly what I did and can agree with me, or other people who will now play the game and avoid my issues. If I took what they said completely to heart, I would start to doubt my own skills and eventually my self.

    This is said with all due respect, because I do think you're a good reviewer with the potential to be one of the best. If I didn't, I wouldn't have taken the time out to track you down, IM and steer you in a different direction after you got sick of HG. But if you're going to question yourself anytime some pretentious, whiney, over-inflated bloke doubts your integrity, then, yes, maybe you might want to take a break and harden your ego a bit.

    People on here argue--about everything. They argue about reviews (See: Drac), they argue about scores (See: Me) and they even argue about silly Avatars (See: Me again and Zig's weird ugly wig wearing man). It's a part of the community, and it's probably never going to change. The best reviewers learn how to rise above it, and use it. I wouldn't know this persononally, but take a look at Jason sometime.

    On a side note, if I was butt-hurt about everything people were saying about my review, why would I do.... this!

    Resident Evil was never about "run and gun" tactics

    It is when you're playing it for one stupid scene at the end and desperate to get through it...
    board icon
    draculasrevenge posted March 12, 2009:

    haha, I've tried several times to write a review for CV. Never was able to.

    board icon
    Suskie posted March 12, 2009:

    Apparently you completely missed my point, True, so I'll be more blunt: You're free to disagree all you want if you feel you've had an injustice done upon you, but if you needlessly insult me, you're only going to piss me off.

    And with that, I'm done talking about this.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 12, 2009:

    It's good to stand by your review, True. If there's one thing I've learned while writing it's that there's a member in every audience who will love you. That said, I hope you're taking our advice to heart, because it's hard to make an ENTIRE audience like you, but it IS doable if you listen to enough feedback. As for Suskie, I'm glad you at least participated in my contest, but I think it's silly to pull out of future. Where's that hard-assed underdog I've come to love?
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 12, 2009:

    You weren't around for the Belisarios thing. If only you knew.
    board icon
    zigfried posted March 12, 2009:

    I'm where I am today because other great writers respected me enough to praise some of my reviews, but ridicule some with insult and derision. I trained with ninjas and exacted vengeance upon them in reviewer deathmatches, and the fact that I'm still alive proves I won.

    A chip on the shoulder can be a powerful source of energy, but it's best focused on writing that proves people wrong by impressing the world. Message board posts don't garner that kind of attention.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 13, 2009:

    Zig wins the thread.
    board icon
    bloomer posted March 13, 2009:

    > I'll emphasize them, argue them, but I'm not going to change them. Because as much as he and
    > Bloomer and you hate it, Jason liked it enough to warrant a mention.

    Uch... You have missed the point and continued to personalise responses to the review.

    I don't 'hate' your review. I feel it's been obvious that lots of people aren't getting what you thought you conveyed. The review is not controversial because of what your opinion is, it's controversial because the opinion is not clear and perhaps logically troubled. There are zero issues of honour or ethics of not 'budging' from your position involved here. The only issue is whether this piece of writing is working or is not, and I'm convinced it's not, resulting in a ratio of about 1 in 2 people getting it in the first place.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted March 13, 2009:

    You mean for the multi-tier floors? Probably just sketched 'em all in a tablet and translated that to ASCII; it's a hassle to start with ASCII.

    Anyway, finished The Suffering and onto something else...although I might just end up playing Gears of War instead of doing something productive. I'm finally getting good and then I get sidetracked by FAQing, then suck again. D:
    board icon
    draculasrevenge posted March 13, 2009:

    I don't hate the review either.

    The review is simply too weak for the 2/10 score. Keep in mind, a lot of people consider CV to be the best of the "original" series, so a 2/10 review better have some damn good arguments behind it. Even arguing that "the formula has become too stale/bland at this point" would have been admirable. Instead, you mention nothing that couldn't be applied to every other game in the series.

    board icon
    Suskie posted March 14, 2009:

    Why this thread? I mean, really.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 16, 2009:

    NOTE: There is already a game entitled "Watchmen" in the database, and I assume it is this game, but the title is incomplete along with the information.

    Title: Watchmen: The End Is Nigh
    Platform: PC, Xbox 360, PS3
    Genre: Action (Brawler)
    Publisher: Warner Bros. Interactive
    Developer: Deadline Games
    Release date: March 4, 2009 US

    It's there.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 16, 2009:

    K for Killzone 2.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 17, 2009:

    Game: The Nameless Mod
    Format: PC
    Developer: Off Topic Productions
    Release Date: 15 March 2009 (worldwide)

    Additional information: Deus Ex mod. Requires a copy of Deus Ex to play.

    It is done
    board icon
    darketernal posted March 17, 2009:

    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/content.php?review_id=7872&platform=PSP&abr=PSP&gametitle=Dead+Head+Fred

    Dead Head Fred is my review for this tournament.
    board icon
    jerec posted March 17, 2009:

    I got my 360 back today. This is gonna be cutting it mighty close.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 17, 2009:

    I believe in you.
    board icon
    dagoss posted March 17, 2009:

    Here is my entry
    board icon
    overdrive posted March 18, 2009:

    Legend of the Ghost Lion

    Hopefully I have time over the next couple of days to do some editing, since I typed the whole thing up in one sitting. Hard to tell, though.....as I won't be near a computer for any real period of time for a few days.
    board icon
    jerec posted March 18, 2009:

    Time check.

    Edit: Still had time. Still have time.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 19, 2009:

    *gentle prod*
    board icon
    dementedhut posted March 19, 2009:

    That's Lewis' gentle way of saying he'll pop a cap in your ass if you don't put this up within the next hour.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted March 19, 2009:

    Everyone. Dead.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 19, 2009:

    Ha!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 19, 2009:

    I have NO idea, but it's really annoying.
    board icon
    jerec posted March 19, 2009:

    Can I have an extension?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 19, 2009:

    Heh. I'm thinking the same thing, actually. Maybe pushing it till Saturday or Sunday would be better... but... this was already extended once, and I'm going to shoot for tomorrow anyway just to see if I can. I really can't afford to be working on this all weekend anyway.

    I'll probably produce something come hell or high water; I just... won't be very happy with it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 20, 2009:

    An extension may be good... right now, I think there's only four entries. Even my little contest had five.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 20, 2009:

    Oh come on!

    ;)
    board icon
    True posted March 20, 2009:

    In the end it's up to Felix as well, because he's my second judge but as it stands I would like to give you (and me) the weekend to finish up, and make the deadline Monday the 23rd.
    board icon
    EmP posted March 20, 2009:

    It's funny because it's you.

    Adding them now.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 20, 2009:

    An extension would be grand!
    board icon
    EmP posted March 20, 2009:

    I need no more time. I'm a hero.

    My review is up.
    board icon
    turducken posted March 20, 2009:

    Check!
    board icon
    Halon posted March 20, 2009:

    Saved me again! I had a family emergency and just got home like 20 minutes ago so it is doubtful that I will be able to get a review up tonight. I should be able to pump something out by Monday.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 22, 2009:

    I'm at twelve, which means I'm officially tied at first.
    board icon
    elit3gam3r posted March 22, 2009:

    i found this site have a little community or much better is that there are no active users here in this Honest Gamers site. Because i can't find anyone who i can talk to about in some mmorpgs or some things that can catch my interest.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 22, 2009:

    Here's mine, I guess: Zombies Ate My Neighbors
    board icon
    baneierytenks posted March 22, 2009:

    I decided to say hello :)
    board icon
    jerec posted March 23, 2009:

    I've submitted my review.

    Lego Star Wars

    ...I'm still not used to the idea of actually writing reviews again. So weird.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 23, 2009:

    Whoops! When you said kill them all, I killed even you. =/
    board icon
    jerec posted March 23, 2009:

    Well I'm up to 3, which is 3 more than I ever expected!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted March 23, 2009:

    I have four! Must keep ahead of Jerec!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 23, 2009:

    OMG. Whyyyy...?!?!?

    It's like there's an invasion all of a sudden! And it was so much quieter earlier...
    board icon
    jerec posted March 23, 2009:

    The spammers are more active posters than we are!
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 23, 2009:

    It's sad how true that actually is.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 23, 2009:

    Over the past few days, we've had a lot more people coming to the site. Nearly twice the regular amount and there's a chance that it'll even be sustained, not the result of a brief spike that dies away almost as fast as it began. If that's the case, then we might see more spam around here regularly, but hopefully more new users engaged in the community, as well.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 23, 2009:

    This will be very tight. I hope there'll be some mods online around the time of the deadline.
    board icon
    zigfried posted March 23, 2009:

    For my "brief" review, I'll be using Starflight, which comes in at 746 words.

    //Zig
    board icon
    jerec posted March 23, 2009:

    For the first time ever, it seems the mods actually have to moderate the forums :P
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 23, 2009:

    Review subbed. Just waiting for it to get accepted.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 24, 2009:

    GAH! All my favourite internal organs! You've cut through them with your scythe of deletion, Felix! What am I supposed to tell the other half of my spleen?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 24, 2009:

    I've slowed down a bit. I have a Resi5 Review coming, though. Also, I really SHOULD get to work on an Odin's Sphere review. And Fear Effect will come as well.

    I've got plans.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 24, 2009:

    You wanted it, you got it.
    board icon
    jerec posted March 24, 2009:

    Viagra is such a spamming cliche, man. Can't you be a little more creative? We haven't heard of the Nigerian Prince and his requests for funding lately.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted March 24, 2009:

    Have I missed the deadline? If so I can fill the third judge spot?
    board icon
    True posted March 24, 2009:

    It's fine with me Janus, if it's okay with Felix.
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 24, 2009:

    Too bad Sportsman was a no-show, I was looking forward to seeing his.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 24, 2009:

    Sure, that's fine.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 24, 2009:

    So this is an idea I've been playing around with for a while, and with one competition drawing to a close and seemingly nothing coming up to take its place, now seems like the perfect time to do it.

    I don't know how well this will resonate with people. Let's try it.

    The one rule for this reviewing competition is simple: do not, under any circumstances, write a review.

    Okay, so maybe it's not quite that simple. Let's explain.

    You should, largely, base your piece on a single game. But this isn't about being analytical, looking at its pros and cons and objectively summarising. I want to hear about your experiences, your passions, your philosophies, that go hand in hand with your gaming life.

    You should use your game of choice to form the basis of a wider argument, looking at issues surrounding gaming, or even issues specific to that game. You're not to get caught up in technical inconsistencies (unless that's your specific argument) or whether the graphics are up to scratch. I'm looking forward to seeing some deeply personal, though-provoking, games-related articles.

    While I by no means want to plug my own work, by way of example, I'd point you towards the Red Faction article I submitted to Zipp's competition a while back. Not necessarily something exactly like that, but that's something that could fit nicely in with what this competition's about.

    Obviously, I'll need a couple more judges. So feel free to offer your services if you don't fancy writing something along these lines.

    Who fancies it? If it bombs, fair play, scrap it. But I hope it won't. No idea about deadlines - make reasonable suggestions.

    And then, y'know. Let's go.

    DO NOT POST ENTRIES AS STAFF OR FREELANCE REVIEWS. USER REVIEWS SECTION ONLY.

    UPDATES:

    Judges are:
    Lewis
    Zigfried
    Zippdementia
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 24, 2009:

    Haha, this sounds like exactly the kind of comp you'd think up. Count me in.

    And while they're free to correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think the staff will have any objections to such pieces being subbed as reviews (as opposed to blog entries, etc.).
    board icon
    Halon posted March 24, 2009:

    I apologize. I had a major deadline moved up about a week on Sunday so I haven't had time to do anything. I planned on reviewing SiN Episode 1 but unfortunately this had to come first.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 24, 2009:

    I would like to reiterate the suggestion that Lewis made. If you're particiapating in this contest and you have staff clearance, please do not post your review as a staff or freelance review. This is a great opportunity for writers to experiment and evolve their writing into new territory, but it's not likely to produce the sort of content that we're specifically looking for from staff reviews (which have to appeal to a general audience more than they do an audience of review critics or essayists).
    board icon
    espiga posted March 24, 2009:

    I submit my Dragon Quest V review from a million years ago.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 24, 2009:

    I'll either submit that Dead Space analysis I've been working on... or something else... or I'll judge. Can I hold off on declaring which for a little bit?
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 24, 2009:

    Take as long as you need, love.
    board icon
    zigfried posted March 24, 2009:

    I'll be sitting this one out for personal philosophical reasons, but I heartily approve. This is a fantastic idea, and this is exactly what I was hoping you'd do when I heard you were planning a contest. I'm really excited about reading the entries for this one.

    I'd like to judge if you've got room for me.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 24, 2009:

    I cast you into eternal flames of woe, Sportsman. In the meantime, I will begin judging.
    board icon
    bloomer posted March 24, 2009:

    I may write something. And I will take zero offense if HG wants it removed later for not being a real review :)
    board icon
    turducken posted March 24, 2009:

    Sorry about missing it. Real-life stuff came up and took priority. If it's any consolation it was garbage and barely qualified as a review.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 25, 2009:

    Zig, you would be more than welcome as a judge.

    "personal philosophical reasons" - how interesting. I find it intriguing that you would have personal objections to getting involved with something you support...

    Not that it's my place to say anything, of course!
    board icon
    dagoss posted March 25, 2009:

    So would something like this or this count? That's not to declare that I will be using either of those though.
    board icon
    True posted March 25, 2009:

    If it's any consolation it was garbage and barely qualified as a review.

    So are all mine, so you're forgiven.

    I'm about halfway through, so I should be done within the next day or two.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 25, 2009:

    I think I want to judge this one. While I love the idea and will probably write a "review" to honor it, I think it would be even more fun to read all the entries and provide feedback for them.

    So for now, I'd like to judge. If I write a review that I just fall in love with, I'll submit it and withdraw from judging. Sorry to be so wishy-washy. But my participation is gaurenteed in either case.
    board icon
    overdrive posted March 25, 2009:

    I just might have a game for this contest.

    Or I might decide I'm not really all that into this concept when the time comes and just wind up being all like, "Screw dat!". Only time will tell.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted March 25, 2009:

    I echo overdrive's comments!
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 25, 2009:

    dagoss: the Half-Life one definitely would! That's exactly the sort of thing I'm on about.

    Zipp: do you want me to put you down as a judge, then, or shall I leave the slot open 'til you decide?
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 25, 2009:

    Im afraid this is going to have to be a shorter RotW topic. If any of the three mentioned authors would like additional feedback on what I thought about their review, I will be happy to further explain myself in a few days when Ill have more time to go in greater detail. However, I do thank all those who contributed for making this a competitive week.

    As always, staff reviews are exempt and only one review per writer may get a nod.



    2nd Runner-Up: Madworld (Wii) by Disco
    As usual when reading a Disco review, I gain a clear picture of whats going on and why the content in the game is either good or bad. This Madworld game looks and sounds intriguing, and Discos smooth writing helps to parallel the awesomeness that is conveyed through the images provided on the bar to the right of the review. However, for once Id like to see him begin a review without beating around the bush in the intro. Hes beaten that one trick pony into the ground. Please, figure out a new way to start out your reviews!!!

    1st Runner-Up: Wii Fit (Wii) by Jerec
    Its nice to see Jerec contributing on a regular basis now, what with this being his second of three reviews on the year. I think part of the reason why a review like this is so effective, at least from the standpoint of someone who would be interested in Wii Fit (thats not me, but I can pretend), is that Jerec provides all the necessary information regarding how all the elements come together to form one lackluster package. All I care about is the quality of the game in question, not whether or not the author can solely make cute statements. This review answered all the questions I would have if I were interested in buying it, and Jerecs even willing to admit that he received this game for the very reason it exists.

    Review of the Week: Ultima: Quest of the Avatar (NES) by Dagoss
    I dont want to say too much since Im judging this piece for the MMT, but I found the argument to be very intriguing. The conclusion sucks, but beyond that, I think this review is strong enough that we can just pretend that the last paragraph doesnt exist because Dagoss is so passionate about what hes saying for the first 15 paragraphs that that final one, if taken with a grain of salt, doesnt do anything to make this review any worse than the other 9 or 10 quality reviews subbed this week. I will elaborate later as to why I dislike the final paragraph, but rest assured that in spite of its existence I still think this is the strongest user review of the week. So thats gotta mean something, right?


    EmPs up next!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 25, 2009:

    Congrats to the winners! =D Especially dagoss, who's review I really liked and endorse, and Jerec for submitting content again - and good content at that.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted March 25, 2009:

    Good job, each of you get spankings.













    From Felix.
    board icon
    jerec posted March 25, 2009:

    Thank you for that lovely comment. I felt I had to be honest about Wii Fit and why I was using it, because I think it might have undermined the review had I neglected to mention it. >_>

    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 25, 2009:

    Ookies, I'm up to 11.
    board icon
    dagoss posted March 26, 2009:

    Good job, each of you get spankings.... From Felix.

    Finally -- !
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 26, 2009:

    . . .
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 26, 2009:

    Go ahead and mark me as judge. I've got too many other reviews on my plate to any sort've "theme" right now.
    board icon
    True posted March 26, 2009:

    Felix has sent his results, and I'm going over mine briefly for typos. So I'm just waiting on Janus... I think.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 27, 2009:

    Done.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted March 27, 2009:

    Not writing reviews is my specialty. I'm in.
    board icon
    dagoss posted March 27, 2009:

    I have a "review" in my head right now. This competition is the excuse I needed to post it -- as soon as I extract it from my head and convert it to some sort of communicable text, that is.

    I'm actually looking forward to seeing what people post for this thing.
    board icon
    Calvin posted March 27, 2009:

    I managed to ignore it for a while but peer pressure got the best of me and so now I check in once every 5 months or so.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted March 27, 2009:

    I just HGmailed you my verdicts.
    board icon
    EmP posted March 27, 2009:

    I'm already doubling up on letters. This is quite the thorn in my side.
    Luckily my next letter is... oh good, another S.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 27, 2009:

    Don't worry, EmP. It's the same here. I have something like four games I'll soon be reviewing and I think I gain maybe one letter, at most. And I've already doubled up on several this year as it is.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 27, 2009:

    Not me! I've got three new letters coming in the next few weeks.
    board icon
    True posted March 27, 2009:

    Hey, Lewis. I wrote a blog (the one Inspired By Suskie) recently. Maybe it will work, and there's no reason I can't spin that to talk about Sewer Shark directly to express my overall idea.

    Can I use that?
    board icon
    overdrive posted March 27, 2009:

    I know what you mean about doubling up letters. So far, I'm averaging one "L" review a month. And the main game I'm playing at the moment in Lost Odyssey, so that trend should continue through April!

    But I did add a new letter today!
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 28, 2009:

    Use whatever you like :)
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 28, 2009:

    This is interesting... I've been thinkng about it since you put it up (which is why I haven't said anything yet). I might try to write something for this, but what you're looking for really does go way beyond my usual style, so picking something to fit (and feel emotional enough about) would be tricky. Really, I've been having a lot of trouble even figuring out what to say in something like this let alone the appropriate game for it.

    I've been talking to people, though, (mainly dagoss), and they've given me some idea... I think... We'll see how things go. Unfortunately, time's not my friend at the moment, with school and everything, so that'll just make things even more difficult.

    I admire how you can handle that and all the 8 million other things you need to do. It's amazing.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted March 29, 2009:

    When's the deadline?
    board icon
    jerec posted March 29, 2009:

    That's some really effective spamming, I am left in no confusion what-so-ever about what you're trying to advertise.
    board icon
    EmP posted March 29, 2009:

    Gather around your loved ones and turn off all the lights -- wouldnt want people a knockin on your door and interrupting this moment of greatness -- for, once again, its EmPs fantabulious RotW slot.

    Now with extra commas. (,,,)

    Despite my insistence that the rules should be changed to the loser being shot out of cannon into the fiery inferno that we call the sun, my radical ideas have been shot down. Instead, were back to dismissing staff reviews and only allowing one entry per user validity. I know, its all backwards and obsolete. But my hands are tied.

    Hear that noise? Thats the noise of your expectations soaring after seeing its my week. You lucky bastards, you.

    FIRST: Pickhut: Robitica

    Pickhut wins because he clearly shares my love of comma overkill, as his first paragraph shows.

    I appreciate Picks soldier-like trudge through the Saturn titles of yore because theres a thousand of them out there that I really wanted to try but never got the chance (the downshot of working in a video games store in the 32 bit generation) and, as one of the four people who have played and enjoyed Krazy Ivan and have at least played Kileak The Blood, I always wondered about Robitica and how it stacked up to these two. The answer, then, is poorly.

    You point this out effectively with a walkthrough the game as you played it, which lead brilliantly to the conclusion that trying to stay alive as long as you can and stretch your resources is completely counterproductive compared to just offing yourself every few stages and enjoying the replenished resurrection. Its an effective way to not only draw the resurrection idea into a harsh light but to describe the games smaller flaws without having to spell them out. I could complain that the allusion to the two Mega Drive games might be a little vague to people not already in the know, so I will. The allusion to the two Mega Drive games might be a little vague to people not already in the know. But I have no other complaints. Best review Ive seen from you in some time.

    SECOND: Jerec LEGO Star Wars

    Its still surreal as hell to be commenting on a Jerec review. I half expect Lasty to pop around the corner or Scott step out of the shadows.

    Jerecs effort here is a little ramblely, which brings pros and cons. It lends a conversational feel to the review which lends to its accessibility, but it also feels loose at times, targeting off randomly or spending far to much time on new points or revisits to points already made. The review suffers more from this as it goes on -- look out, here come some examples! You start two consecutive paragraphs the same way and the last few paragraphs feel like things you need to shoehorn into the review, but youre nearing the end and realise that youve not spoken about then yet.

    Still, for a game you say is hard to describe into words, you tell me pretty much everything I need to know about the title. I should mark you down a place for lying so fervently in your intro!

    THIRD: Fastklr Yaris

    I joked about phantom writers resurfacing not one critique ago, but its nice to see Fasty around again, even if he did give me three times the work everyone else did. I preferred his Yaris review to his other submission because it was -- and youll excuse that lack of clever twists to my reasoning, I hope -- written better. Sometimes, its just that simple. Yaris doesnt give you a lot to talk about, so you dont waste words trying to find anything. The writing is clear and sometimes clever and I come away with a solid picture of the game youve played and why I shouldnt bother myself. Thats pretty good going for about 500 words.

    My dearest of dear chums, Masters, is up next. Hes not done anything of note in months, the lazy bum, so be sure to work him hard with an avalanche of submissions!
    board icon
    EmP posted March 29, 2009:

    This shall be done. Unpopularly.

    This is why I have a bside account.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 29, 2009:

    Congrats to the winners. Wish I'd subbed something for this week (though not the review I wrote last week >_>), but oh well. Haha.

    And wow. This is like the most "fantabulous" RotW topic ever. Like, it's so authentic; even down to the numerous spelling errors in the critiques. Go EmP!
    board icon
    Dobormajamb posted March 29, 2009:

    Mr EmP, I wish to bear your children.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted March 29, 2009:

    Cool, first. Thanks for commenting on why you liked the review, I didn't think I would be able to pull off writing my first experience with the game, remembering certain details. But since it was almost the exact same thing for every floor, it wasn't that hard.

    What's sad about going through all these Saturn games is that I'm not going out of my way to try and bad mouth them. I'm genuinely curious about how these titles play. Thankfully, I'm getting all these used, so I'm not spending a lot of money on them. However, most of the "good" Saturn titles I've heard about that I want to try sell like crazy some times, so that's why you rarely see me review familiar Saturn games.

    Also, congrats to jerec and fastkilr on their placings! Good job.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 29, 2009:

    I still can't figure out what the hell your avatar is, EmP. I think you may have even told me once, but it's so obtuse, it continually slips my memory. I think it's probably something boring. Unlike these critiques and this week's reviews. Good job everyone.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 29, 2009:

    Yay! More necromancy from spam bots!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 29, 2009:

    His avatar is the slime from Shining in the Darkness, which both he and I reviewed (though I'd rather not talk about mine *sigh*).
    board icon
    Suskie posted March 29, 2009:

    Too bad Drella isn't still around, otherwise I might've had a chance this week! (Yes, I still think that was funny.)

    Good job to those who won and I second EmP's comment about being glad to see Fastkilr back.
    board icon
    jerec posted March 29, 2009:

    Neat. All 3 of my new reviews this year have taken second place. I think. Anyway, thanks for those comments, EmP! The rambling into the submission box might work in the writing phase, but I should probably start editing what I write, too, huh.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted March 29, 2009:

    Piddling along with Mass Effect, whose situation is constantly exacerbated by faulty laptops, flash drives that don't work with the desktop, and other nonsense. I've had to resort to unplugging the box and sticking it in the computer room, haha...
    board icon
    bloomer posted March 29, 2009:

    Yes Jerec, you can't trade on that 'I'm back from the dead!' schtick forever you know!
    board icon
    jerec posted March 29, 2009:

    Maybe I need another 5 year hiatus.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 30, 2009:

    I'll enter this competition with my Metal Slug 3 review at the very least, and at the very best I will submit something else for this event.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 30, 2009:

    When seems reasonable as a deadline? Late April?
    board icon
    elit3gam3r posted March 30, 2009:

    hey no other updates or is there new thread or active users here?
    hmm i guess no one again. how sad. My friend introduce me this site but nobody are here.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 30, 2009:

    There are people here posting daily, but apparently not in the threads that you're checking! There are still some areas where we don't have a lot of active participants, including MMORPGs, but we're growing!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 30, 2009:

    It's true we don't really have an extremely dedicated forum user base. We're more focused on the actual reviews.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted March 30, 2009:

    Now works for me.
    board icon
    espiga posted March 30, 2009:

    ESPIGA'S TOTALLY AWESOME HG STORY V: 1.117

    Once upon a time, deep in Honestgamers Hell, which is located one tier higher than Bluberry's Realm Blog, there was a reviewer named Scott. The aim conversation went something like so:

    Scott: Join honestgamers and look at all of my awesome reviews, blah blah I'm so awesome I'm so awesome me me me me me

    Me: Not really but ok.

    And so I joined and didn't post a review for months. And then real life took me by the balls and I didn't post a review for months. And here I am. Wanna cuddle? =D
    board icon
    zigfried posted March 30, 2009:

    I'm fine with whatever deadline you choose. Nothing is really better or worse for me.

    //Zig
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 30, 2009:

    End of April, middle May please... >_<
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 31, 2009:

    I'm gonna be out of action for a couple of days at the start of May. So either before or after that is ideal.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 31, 2009:

    I'm gonna be out of action for a couple of days at the start of May. So either before or after that is ideal.
    board icon
    EmP posted March 31, 2009:

    Let's try to avoid yet another huge multi-month deadline on this one. That's a trend I'd like to break as soon as.
    board icon
    Lewis posted March 31, 2009:

    How's Sunday 26th April for people? That allows everyone a nice weekend to finish it all.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 31, 2009:

    Aweesome! That'll be fun. Two huge term papers and finals to worry about right around there. This'll be the challange of a lifetime. =D

    Haha. Compared to you, though, I suppose it's nothing. >_>

    And you double-posted btw. Haha.
    board icon
    elit3gam3r posted April 01, 2009:

    heya no new thread?
    wtf!!? this forum site is good to be dead. lol ^^
    how sad no other active user here.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 01, 2009:

    Thank you guys, I think your comments and ads are very helpful. I'll take all of it into consideration for my next contest.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted April 04, 2009:

    Game: F1 Challenge
    Platform: Sega Saturn
    Publisher: SEGA (Japan) Virgin Interactive (US)
    Developer: Bell Corporation
    Genre: Racing
    Notes: F-1 Live Information (Japanese title)

    ADDED'D
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted April 05, 2009:

    Still massing effects; should be done within the week if I can scrape together an equipment list. Already have all the skills and junk tabulated, but I've been watching so much Burn Notice lately...I dunno if I'll make it in time. :D
    board icon
    dementedhut posted April 05, 2009:

    board icon
    disco posted April 05, 2009:

    Title: Space Invaders Extreme 2
    Platform: DS
    Genre: Shooter
    Developer: Taito Corporation
    Release date: March 26, 2009 (Japan)

    ADDED'D
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 06, 2009:

    I'd like to call contest after this, if no-one has any objections. I have an idea for a fun one.
    board icon
    espiga posted April 06, 2009:



    ...Sorry, I couldn't resist.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted April 06, 2009:

    Stop playing HGWars for a second so I can actually submit something to the site.

    DONE'D

    Thanks. Now go play HGWars!
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 06, 2009:

    Hi, my name is ASchultz, and I'm an HGWars-a-holic.

    It's bloomer's fault I'm in HGWars. Blame him next time I attack you for what for no discernible reason.

    But seriously, it felt like the right time to come back and update some old reviews when I had spare time(which can get wasted anyway) and maybe even knock off some old stuff I never got around to, and catch up with old GameFAQs acquaintances. It's just so hard for me to change home base. I think I am shifting more from faq/review writing to writing writing, but it's always nice to have a place where I can send stuff if I want, and people may even give feedback on it.
    board icon
    Synonymous posted April 07, 2009:

    Title: Musaic Box
    Platform: PC
    Genre: Casual
    Developer: KranX Productions
    Publisher: 1C Company
    Release Date: 10/11/08

    Added.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 07, 2009:

    Game: Short Circuit
    Platform(s): Apple II
    Publisher: Micro-Lab
    Developer: Micro-Lab
    Genre: Action
    Release Date: 1984

    This is different from the Commodore game, which was 2 years later and about the movie Short Circuit.

    Added.
    board icon
    randxian posted April 07, 2009:

    Game: One Piece
    Platform(s): Game Boy Advance
    Publisher: Bandai
    Developer: Dimps Corporation
    Genre: 2-D Action Platformer
    Release Date: 09/07/2005 (US)

    Added.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 09, 2009:

    Another one I could have a guide/review for up shortly.

    Game: Gobbler
    Platform(s): Apple II
    Publisher: Micro-Lab
    Developer: Micro-Lab
    Genre: Action
    Release Date: 1981

    Added.
    board icon
    ilovenintendo111 posted April 10, 2009:

    IDK if this is still the main topic, but I found this site on Neoseeker when I was looking at a Walkthrough a few months ago, so I'm a newbie here...
    board icon
    ilovenintendo111 posted April 10, 2009:

    Hey!! My name is Lucille, but most people call me Lucy! =D Anyway, computer people know me as ilovenintendo111!! Hee'hee! I'm so new here I don't really know what I'm doing...
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 10, 2009:

    Elite, what the hell are you talking about? There's new threads being created all the time. Check out the actual forums (big blue button along top of the screen that says "forum"). Try making some new posts yourself, if you think there aren't enough.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 10, 2009:

    Can we write a piece of fiction? What I am thinking of would fit that.

    Also, I have two potential ideas. Can a person enter two pieces, or do we have to stick with one?

    This might not be a relevant question, because I probably won't have the time, but just in case, I want to ask and make sure.
    board icon
    threetimes posted April 10, 2009:

    I lost this site, somehow. Not a clue how, but every link came back as dead, so I thought it had ceased to exist. You're keeping the fires burning, as ever;)

    I can only cope with simple maps, even with a tablet.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 10, 2009:

    I'm impressed with the time you find too.

    I can't see myself doing that many more games but I have some ideas for some oldies. I had a good flare up this week including games not in the HG database yet. But I'm pretty much trawling for old-school suggestions at this point. I've looted Quest for Clues for games to write maps for. I suppose there is always the weird NES or Apple game that will pop up.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 11, 2009:

    A piece of fiction? I doubt it. It still has to be a legitimate article.

    I'm not Lewis, but I would imagine it's one piece allowed per person. Though I'm sure if you wrote two and asked the judges (including myself) we could reccomend which piece to enter.
    board icon
    Lewis posted April 11, 2009:

    It depends whether the fiction serves another purpose. Are you making a point about videogame narratives, for example? If so, it could fit. If not, then probably not.

    One piece per person.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 11, 2009:

    Nah, what you need is a huge run at the Alphamarathon comp. I think you should focus on beating out Genj and Janus.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 11, 2009:

    Now that yet another S is out of the way I have... A C and a B. Both letters I already have covered.

    Crap.

    EDIT: C is down on the same day!
    board icon
    EmP posted April 11, 2009:

    Rub your unbelieving eyes because, yes, its EmP again, rocking the RotW like only he can. Masters has had an unfortunate case of being too Canadian to do his slot this week, and hes very, very sorry, so, one begging IM later, and here comes your hero. Hes British, and he probably doesnt like you.

    The rules remain the same. You get one shot at immortality unless you reside on staff, in which case you get nothing. Theres been some atypical efforts mixed in with the more expect staple reviews you might expect from our library of talented writers. If this week had a theme, the theme would be GAMBLE! Some profited and some were doomed to the murky depths of non-placement, but EmP appreciates you all! Just not equally.

    Turducken: Resident Evil: Gaiden

    Ive already said that I like the review in the writers feedback thread, so Ill do so again now. Because I kind of have to.

    Its always a risk to try and turn your review into a fanfic and Tur took the extra risk of making his a constantly sarcastic and lampooning effort that exists to do nothing but shoot its subject matter in the kneecaps the hit it with a German suplex. Theres a lot of series knowledge exhibited within, including numerous sly nods to games that predate or game after Gaiden which I appreciate as a long-running Res-head and it way its written affords the writer to make him complaints in an amusing and unique fashion. Instead of complaining statically about how you cant pick up shotgun shells without a shotgun and how the game ended for you because of an inventory flaw, you integrate it and tell the reader without actually spelling it out. Its effective and clever writing that makes a long review not feel like its that long at all.

    The risk worked; the bulldoze your way through this one with a mixture of personality and convincing series knowledge. Good job; this gamble paid off.

    Pickhut: Beyond OasisStory of Thor

    Ill let you off getting the games name wrong for no other reason than my infinite well of forgiveness, and that I liked seeing someone take on a game I really enjoyed in the past. You cover it well, too; youre quite right in saying that Oasis is a patchwork game borrowing from several genres and nailed it when you put the brawling aspect at the forefront. I think I probably enjoyed the game a bit more than you (its always been one that stuck in my mind for an eventual reply) but I agree with everything youve said and how youve gone about explaining it all.

    Felix: Metal Slug 3

    Felixs argument drips with merit in which he justifies the very odd position hes placed himself in by claiming that a game he acknowledges as great should deserve a lacking score. And, lets face it, hes right. The XBOX fully-commercial release of the third slug game predated by only a few years the complete compilation of Metal Slug being released on a same generation console for a budget price. Its a brave argument to make and its one that is made convincingly.

    Randxian puts forth some solid reviews, but they all suffer from some clumsiness, be it missing or overused words (examples available upon request) and Ashultz works off more and more rust with dry but appreciated efforts (even if they are just to continue to destroy everyone on HGWars). I have more to say on Lewis efforts than this wrap-up will allow, so its extra feedback for you, and Woodhouse wrote a great review which I had to think long and hard before omitting from the top three. If I missed anyone, then its worth note that Im not even supposed to be here today -- blame Masters. You can find him in Canada.

    Get well soon, buddy.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 11, 2009:

    Sounds good. Thanks for the clarification. Actually, when I woke up this morning, I sat down and figured out which I liked better, and the choice was clear. I think it'll work, but even if it doesn't, I should have fun.

    So the other will get rehashed as just plain old fiction.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 11, 2009:

    I might actually have the choice of three things I could sub to this. I've one all written out ready and I plan to do a second in tanduem with someone else as it seems a clever way to help resolve a bickering fight.

    Maybe I'll make ghostly alts so you have to judge all three. Beware of PmE.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 11, 2009:

    Thanks for the mention and congratulations to those above me! It's good to be back and to see what other people are doing to make reviews exciting, and somehow, when they place ahead of me in RotW, it gives me motivation to try to experiment more than I would just writing in a bubble, or just seeing what is on the "what's new" page.

    By the way, if I pull over/rewrite a bunch of GameFAQs reviews, can I specify 1 or 2 that I feel are most worth looking at, so RotWers have that much less to do? I want to redo a lot of reviews, and HG points are a nice motivator, but quite frankly I recognize the redos may not be that exciting to most people.
    board icon
    Lewis posted April 11, 2009:

    In a way, I'm almost tempted to say, actually, fuck it, submit as many pieces as you want...
    board icon
    EmP posted April 11, 2009:

    I would advise against it, simply because you never know what will work with different people and what won't. Something you put up that you might not represent you best might instead click with someone else who will disagree with your initial personal rankings.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted April 11, 2009:

    You put me down for using the wrong title, then you go on to use it in the paragraph! I'm giving wolfqueen your phone number as punishment.

    Thanks for the comments on the review, though. The way I wrote the review sounded good in my head, but by the time I was finishing it up, I had my doubts about my point actually getting across to the reader. So, it's comforting to know that someone got it.

    Congrats to Turducken on his RotW placement, and to Felix on getting a runner-up mention.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 11, 2009:

    Yeah, it wouldn't actually affect scoring, now that I think about it.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted April 11, 2009:

    I'm Shotty, the midnight marauder of women's hearts. My claim to fame is FAQing, although I did get 5th in the state spelling bee years ago and that's pretty cool too. My fave games are FFT, Chrono Cross, Xenogears and Wild ARMs 3; my least faves are JRPGs with gee-whiz characters and bland combat, which is about 90% of 'em. I live in Montana, the real name's Patrick, and I like girls with pigtails. =3

    Oh, and I love westerns.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted April 11, 2009:

    One Mr. Venter told me about this site, drawing lofty comparisons such as "It's like the treasure of the Sierra Madre!" and "5.5% financing!" And here I am to this day. The end.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 11, 2009:

    Lies! You followed me here to deepen out ever-growing rivalry which will end when I take your head.

    And that day is coming....
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 11, 2009:

    ^ Or just negatively reviews all the games he knows and loves.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 11, 2009:

    Uh-oh. Now I'll never leave him alone! =D

    XD

    (Cograts to the winners!)
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted April 11, 2009:

    Haha, as soon as you log into HGwars, I'm going to take YOUR head and stick it on a pike. I'll tell Chuckles it's a shishkabob.
    board icon
    sashanan posted April 12, 2009:

    From GameFAQs, obviously, though I don't remember how exactly.
    board icon
    sashanan posted April 12, 2009:

    Howdy. I'm Sashanan, software developer, Dutchman, and that guy that seems to have been around from the dawn of time in everybody's mind without having written a whole lot of reviews. I crosspost my work over GameFAQs and Honestgamers, and I participate in HGWars without anything resembling skill.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 13, 2009:

    Story of Thor is a much better name. Even if it makes no sense whatsoever.

    I've owned the saturn sequel for countless years now and have yet to play it even once.
    board icon
    turducken posted April 13, 2009:

    I still dunno why you like that poop review, but thanks all the same.

    Burp.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 13, 2009:

    This needs serious reshuffling. Who's doing this week just past?
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 13, 2009:

    Yeah. Drellla and Felix aren't staff anymore, so the whole RotW calender needs shuffled. Are you covering for Drella's spot at the time, Jason? Is Masters doing it because EmP did his spot? Or should I do it if I have free time today.....which I might?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 13, 2009:

    I'll admit that Turducken's review has grown on me. It took time for me to get it, but never let it be said that Zipp is unwilling to change his opinion!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted April 13, 2009:

    I'm still recovering from about 50 different obligations that have kept me busy these past few weeks, overdrive, so if you're interested in doing the topic this week I'm all for it. I'm just a relief pitcher, anyway. We're supposed to have a rotation made up of more permanent fixtures.

    This is a good time to evaluate who can be on the regular schedule and construct one accordingly, whether that consist of three people or five. So before we start charting, let's hear from the people who want a regular spot in the rotation and go from there. Speak up!
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 13, 2009:

    Okay. I'll do this week's, although "free time today" has turned into free time tomorrow......or possibly even Wednesday, since with tomorrow being April 14, is my annual day to do my taxes. I'll try to get it out tomorrow, though.
    board icon
    Oxygiesusuags posted April 13, 2009:

    Hi Everyone,
    Lots of quality post here, than you for making such a great forum.
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 15, 2009:

    Greetings, friends. Tear yourselves away from HGWars for a few minutes and READ THIS!!!! It's my all-important RotW for the previous week. This is the part of this site where I judge your writing and deems three of you as being worth my time, leading to me spending time whispering sweet nothings into your ears. Or something less disturbing to visualize.

    Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, the rules. Staff people are ineligible. Mere mortals are eligible......but only one review by any one person can make the top three. You all can learn a lot from reading my words. The main thing you've learned from HGWars is that it's fun to mock and kill EmP for horribly building up his beast character to be slightly weaker than soggy generic toilet paper. Which is useful info, but not as practical as this. So get to reading!




    THIRD PLACE: Crystalis (NES) by randxian

    To start with the negative, you really could work on your flow a bit. It seems so many paragraphs start with something like "Game play itself is....", "Challenge progression is....", "Graphically, this game is...." and "The soundtrack is...."; making it seem like a sectioned review without headers at times. A little work to segue from one topic to another instead of just abruptly going from one topic to the next would do a world of good. As someone who has played Crystalis a couple of times, though, I do have to say that you did a great job of giving a very in-depth review of the game where you said pretty much everything I'd want and expect to read. To the point where I was a bit disappointed you didn't wax poetic on how awesome the sad tune that plays while you're in that one late-game dungeon (pyramid, I think) is. Basically I'd call this a great review that's just presented in a somewhat clunky fashion.

    SECOND PLACE: F1 Challenge (Saturn) by pickhut

    Very nice use of brevity in a review. This sounds like the sort of game that you really can't talk about too much without bloating things and you definitely didn't fall into that trap. I really liked how you started out by mentioning some very intriguing aspects of this game that, on the surface, make it seem far deeper than the average arcade-style racer; but then bring up how things like how much fuel you can have and when to take pitstops are really things that you simply learn after playing for a bit, which basically turns it into a typical arcade racer where you do one or two more things. Good show.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Harry Hatsworth in the Puzzling Adventure (DS) by disco

    This was a really nice look at one of those delightfully quirky games that just seems destined to obscurity. The kind of thing casual gamers will never hear of, but the more hardcore kinds will treasure as a hidden gem. And the reason I have that impression of this game is solely because of the great job you did in reviewing it. You usually have more of a dry, by-the-books style than the average reviewer here and, for this game, that works out perfectly. This game seems to be a challenging game with a strong dose of off-the-wall humor included and your style helped to perfectly take note of that, while not getting carried away in the moment. That gives us a very informative review where you mention some of the nutty things (like Tea Time and the simple fact a dude is named Leopold Charles Anthony Weaslby the Third) and let our imagination do the work as to how nutty things are instead of overplaying the humor card. I really liked this review, if you can't tell.




    Okay, now that you've read this, you can go back to killing each other and mocking EmP's character on HGWars. We're doing RotW spring re-organizing here, so I don't know exactly who's doing next week.......but if you're lucky, you'll get a double-dose of me! Which would only be fair to all of you, as you were stuck with two straight weeks of EmP.

    Hmmm.....I'm raising my game here. I usually only take one cheap shot at EmP per RotW, but this week, I've put three in. Good for me! Now I'm off to work on a super-duper top secret review.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 15, 2009:

    I agree with this week's ROTW. EmP does indeed suck ^_^

    I really should throw in another user review. I miss winning these things ^_^
    board icon
    dementedhut posted April 15, 2009:

    I'm surprised I managed to make second place, thanks for the comments on the review! It really was hard to make this anything other than a standard review, because it's just a simple arcade racer, basically.

    Good job on randxian on his placement, and congrats to disco!
    board icon
    EmP posted April 16, 2009:

    As with everything that matters, things matter only when EmP is involved. So blame OD not for needing to shoehorn my mention in here -- one day he'll fly on his own, but that day is not now.

    Congrats to everyone, just for being who you are, you crazy savages.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 16, 2009:

    Congrats to the winners. Again, some good stuff in here that gives me ideas of what I should be doing/want to do. I'd think HGWars might make people submit more stuff, because we need a few points to get a level boost...or maybe we are all preparing well in advance for the Pretentious Bastards competition.
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 16, 2009:

    Schultz
    I actually was planning to put this in the RotW post, but got caught up in some actual work I needed to do at work (imagine that!) and wound up forgetting about it.

    On a structural level, your reviews are very sound and are very informative, but I think in some ways, your extensive history of FAQ-writing works against you at some time. In these reviews, I get a certain sense of how you're able to describe the nuts-and-bolts of a game, but you don't put much of anything in that keys me into your actual opinion of it. Take Champions of Krynn, for example, as it was my favorite of the four (probably due to how I have a bit of experience with it). You describe how the game works well, but I was a bit surprised by the subpar rating, as your review's tone seemed to be along the lines of, "It's a Gold Box game much like the other ones where you kill stuff, explore dungeons and improve your party until you've won." Not a glowing endorsement, necessarily, but nothing I would have taken as a somewhat negative assessment, which made me think your review would have been better served if you'd gone into a bit more detail as to why you found aspects of the game to be tedious and/or sub-par.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 16, 2009:

    Thanks, overdrive. This was a sort of legacy review in a way--maybe it's the software tester in me that looks for mistakes, but sometimes I forget the parts that were actually fun, and while I take guide notes during a game, I realized I -don't- take review notes. Which is too bad. I should. If I like something, I'll sort it out later.

    I do approach reviews a lot differently than most people, and it helps for people to point out what they'd like to hear more of. FAQ writing doesn't have to work against me, but I think I rely on it too much as a default.

    I've managed to create text files that sort out my general writing notes, and I think taking a few minutes to do this for reviews would be a big help, too. I think I see how to do this.

    Thanks very much for the tips. I appreciate your comments and hopefully I can work through the other two Krynn games with something more constructive!
    board icon
    disco posted April 17, 2009:

    Sweet, it's been a while since I've won one of these. Thanks! I'm glad you liked the review, OD. And yeah, more people need to play Henry Hatsworth. Good luck to next week's contenders!
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted April 18, 2009:

    Lesse...might do Golden Sun now, just so I never have to play it again and can do the much more fun GS:TLA!
    board icon
    EmP posted April 18, 2009:

    Golden Sun is awful.

    Lessee -- do Sabrewulf!
    board icon
    threetimes posted April 18, 2009:

    Haha. I'm doing something similar with Shadow Hearts 3. Remember that one?
    I dropped it a couple of years ago, and suddenly got the urge to get it out my system. Might manage a few maps too. At least I won't be tempted to do the script. :D
    board icon
    EmP posted April 19, 2009:

    There's an R out of the way. next up is.... another B and another G. Great.

    I will have an incoming D if my PC can run it. My money is on "it can't".
    board icon
    honestgamer posted April 19, 2009:

    You don't have it as bad as I do, EmP. I just covered Wanted: Weapons of Fate, which amazingly is the second consecutive 'W' game for me and doesn't help my tally at all. Plus, here's my lineup of forthcoming reviews:

    PopCap Arcade Vol. 2 = P (already covered)
    Dragon Quest V = D (already covered)
    Dokapon Journey = D (already covered)
    My World, My Way = M (already covered)
    Star Ocean: Second Evolution = S (already covered)
    Valkyrie Profile: Covenant of the Plume = V (not covered!)

    As you'll see, ONE of those gains me a letter. Out of 6. Not a particularly hefty percentage, especially considering that I actually haven't even covered that many letters yet (my count is at 8, despite already reviewing 15 games this year). How is it that almost every game I get to review starts with one of the few same letters?

    What's more, there are two more games I might wind up reviewing and only one of those two would add another letter. Over the course of a given year, it seems like 1 in 3 or 4 games goes toward my count. That's just how it goes for us folks who review the most because we're scrambling to cover the games we receive to review.

    If people can't come in ahead of me in this thing, they clearly weren't very careful with their choices of games to review, or they didn't review more than a few games the whole year.
    board icon
    board icon
    EmP posted April 19, 2009:

    My entry, for now
    board icon
    Lewis posted April 19, 2009:

    Exquisite.

    Everyone still on course for Freitag deadline, or do we need a little longer?
    board icon
    EmP posted April 19, 2009:

    Foolish ZigFIEND! Your review count last year probably didn't even hit double figures! Let alone reach the heady heights only soared by EmP!

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to grow a handlebar 'tash so I may twirl it. Evily.
    board icon
    zigfried posted April 19, 2009:

    Just tell me when to start reading.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted April 19, 2009:

    Correct. Hence, I have yet to finish.

    //Zig
    board icon
    bloomer posted April 19, 2009:

    Are you saying the deadline is Friday, the 24th? The earlier post says April 26 (Sunday).

    I'm fine with Friday, but I want to know if that is the deadline.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 19, 2009:

    It better not be Friday... I'm screwed enough as is!
    board icon
    bloomer posted April 19, 2009:

    It should probably stay 26th as listed. It's all Lewis' fault, he started speaking in German and not mentioning dates ;)
    board icon
    Lewis posted April 20, 2009:

    Oh, sorry. 26th. Friday is someone's Reso deadline. Arf!
    board icon
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted April 21, 2009:

    Yes, Golden Sun is awful. Sabrewulf is tolerable, but it was never my favorite (although it's cool to see someone remember it). As for SH3, man, I haven't touched it since last January...still have a half-finished guide for it, too. As much as I like Mao and Frank, the game just doesn't really cut it for me; in fact, I like Koudelka about 50 times more.
    board icon
    WRDavid posted April 22, 2009:

    I am gibberish.

    Love me? LOVE ME!
    board icon
    EmP posted April 22, 2009:

    Sneaky stuff, Woodhouse.

    I'm going to be mired in pre-completed letters for a while, so someone can forge a lead if they tried.

    I feel the need to offer you all hints now.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 22, 2009:

    Here's what I have.

    C: Champions of Krynn
    J: Jawbreaker
    G: Gegege no Kitaro 2
    S: Secret of the Silver Blades

    Might have a few more once games are added to the HG database. And also if I manage to write in what I want to be added.

    I also have some rewrites from gamefaqs which I assume don't count.
    B: Beyond Zork
    P: Progress Quest
    T: Taxman
    Z: Zork I/II/III
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 22, 2009:

    For the second straight week, you will be blessed to receive an OVERDRIVE REVIEW OF THE WEEK PRESENTATION. Now sit in awed silence as I go through the technical jargon.

    1. No staff members shall be allowed to win ANYTHING!!!!!
    2. Only one review by any given reviewer is eligible for PLACEMENT!!!!!
    3. You are all my property, to buy, sell and barter as I PLEASE!!!!!

    Ahem. And now let the good times roll!




    THIRD PLACE: Panzer Dragoon (Saturn) by pickhut

    As I said before, that Back to the Future reference was very clever. As is this review in general AND all three that got recognized here AND a couple that didn't. It wasn't easy for me to make my choices here. The thing I liked most about this review was how well you tackled a game that was this big, important, significant Saturn game that just hasn't aged well. You did a good job of demonstrating why this was the first attention-grabbing game for that system and how it did a fine job of overcoming the limitations of being an on-rails shooter.....but also mentioning how in the grand scheme of things now, it's kind of outdated with dull graphics, a lack of length and easy end-stages. The sort of game that was great at the time, but kinda "meh" now.

    SECOND PLACE: Madworld (Wii) by Suskie

    And the tough placement decisions continued for brave Overdrive, as he nobly read reviews. Since I'm getting used to reading "Overdrive-style" or something like that during contest judging as a way to simply describe how awesome my writing is, I'll bestow the same honor on you and say that you did a great job of a "Suskie-style" review. One of your strong points is your ability to vividly describe things in a game so that a guy like me, who has no knowledge of this game other than seeing a commercial for it a handful of time, can essentially visualize just what is going on. This was just a very good review that was carried by some very good verbal renditions of the over-the-top gore and carnage you can inflict on stuff in this game.....with a few interesting points about quick-time events and how the Wii is a great console for them.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: System Shock 2 (PC) by Lewis

    While I don't know that I can call this a "Lewis-style" review or not, it does have what I'd consider a staple of your writing. You seem to have this knack for bringing up and focusing on those little things that make a high (or low) score seem meaningful. They might not be the most crucial or integral parts of the game, but the care gone into presenting them in the review just makes your overall point that much more vivid. With this review, your paragraph about "The Many" does that. There's just something about the way you describe your foes and how you're actually being merciful by killing them that reached out and grabbed me by the throat turning what had been a good read into a pretty memorable one. The fact you're fighting alien-possessed humans isn't overly interesting or important in itself, but the way you wrote that paragraph was just beautiful and did a great job of making me understand why you really liked this game.




    And with all that and whatnot, I'm out! Peace!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted April 22, 2009:

    Very good "overdrive style" ROTW. Three great reviews this week.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted April 22, 2009:

    Entry updated elsewhere.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 22, 2009:

    I'm of the mind that if a rewrite was extensive, then it counts towards your score. So I'll let you decide if they should count towards your tally or not.

    I'll put four down for now. If you think any of the others are rewritten enough to count, then add them to the top list and I'll bump up your score.
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 22, 2009:

    Thanks for the mention, and I'm genuinely surprised to hear I've got any sort of discernible "style" at all. Makes me wonder if someone would be able to pick out a Suskie review without knowing for sure that I wrote it. Hmm... may be time to put the old alt to work...

    Edit: Oh yes, and congrats to Pickhut and Lewis for their well-deserved placements.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 22, 2009:

    Suskie, you remind me of an interesting idea I was going to do last year, then forgot to do it. Now, I shall make forth on it before I forget again!
    board icon
    dementedhut posted April 22, 2009:

    Thanks again for the comments, Overdrive. In your honor, my next review will be nothing but BttF references.

    Congrats to both Suskie and Lewis on their placements, especially so for Lewis' RotW placing.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 23, 2009:

    Let's face it; there's not enough staff left to shrug slots off. Currently, Sho only exists in whispered campfire legends, Zig's got no solid internet connection, so it leaves three viable people. In an ideal world, this is something I'd like to phase myself out of, as I'm swamped with my own freelance and publisher contact work, but the RotW is something that needs to be done, so I'll just have to find the time.
    board icon
    dagoss posted April 23, 2009:

    I demand an extension! This deadline is like the week before finals & due dates. Either that, or I might have to reuse an old review and hope no one notices.
    board icon
    Lewis posted April 23, 2009:

    I am fine with whenever. Just let me know.
    board icon
    Lewis posted April 23, 2009:

    Suskie's MadWorld review, being the best thing he's written, is the one I'd have gone for over mine. Thanks for the honour, and well done to the others.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 23, 2009:

    Just let me know when we're reading to start reading and judging.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 23, 2009:

    You are? I thought you said you were busy with final stuff, too, next week...

    Because May 1st would be hella better for me, anyway. Since I still have two papers and some other things to worry about...
    board icon
    HAMMER-time posted April 24, 2009:

    Lost Odyssey

    I enter fun-time contest of reviewing with all my new happy writing friends!!! Fun writing good time!!!! Must do more often!!!!
    board icon
    HAMMER-time posted April 24, 2009:

    I like write stuff!!!! I come here write stuff!!!!! We all friends, yes????
    board icon
    EmP posted April 24, 2009:

    There was a time, back before I let other people come up with odd colour-coded tourneys and review writing contest about not writing a review, when you had simply one month, one unbreakable criteria your keyboard and a videogame. Were going back to those simple days. But with an EmP twist.

    Its bloody May (almost). Youve forgotten what May is, and youre all twits for doing so. But Im here to save the day. May, then, is the Month of the Obscure.

    Welcome to MOTO2.

    Here, we give thanks to the games youve never heard of, from the PSX Tunguska to pretty much everything released on the N64DD. Here, the 32X holds masterful power over the PS2, the wonderswan sits on a throne of chibi anime statuettes and that Brazil-only Master System brawler demands your attention. You, the overall populace, have ignored their tiny pleading voices and now I make you take note.

    You are to write a review. A review for a game no one has ever heard of.

    And game choice is vital. Vital! Not only will our judge panel be marking your writing out of 100 as usual, but they have 10 extra points to distribute or destroy as they please! Go for a Turbo CD Japan import thats only had three physical versions released? Score up to 110. Go with Sonic III instead? Ten points off, you slave to commercialism!

    Careful, now -- here comes another twist.

    The world of the obscure is a slippery slope, greased with regret and linger disappointment. Government heath warnings suggest you do not partake such a dangerous path alone, so you will do battle in a bonded team of two. You and partners completed scores will be combined and the highest coupling walk away smug and victorious.

    NEEDED: Judges.

    DARED: Combatants

    Dare you open Pandoras box? Do you sense the power of the unknown?!

    Judges:
    Overdrive
    Bloomer

    Teams:

    WQ'S DREAM HAREM!
    WQ: Kouryuu Densetsu Villgust Gaiden
    EmP: Osomatsu-kun: Hachamecha Gekijou

    Cardboard Boxes
    Turducken: Sheep
    Will: Sword of the Stars

    Imperial Scarscalps
    Sashanan: Hoosier City -- Assault of the Orcs
    Aschultz: Super Black Onyx

    TEAM SPOILER
    Zigfried: Dark Spire
    Janus: A Fading Melody

    Team Complaining
    Felix: Aquarium
    Ofisal: Mario Kart 64

    Team Makeshift
    Suskie: Insurgency
    DarkEternal: Dreamweb
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 24, 2009:

    I, Overdrive, am a noted reviewer of obscure games. I have a certain knowledge of stuff about them.

    I therefore am a qualified judge of people's attempts to review games they......think are obscure.

    Overdrive shall judge!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 25, 2009:

    Lewis, what's your verdict on this? As it stands now, I really don't think I'll be able to finish my review by the deadline, as I haven't even started it, and my mound of schoolwork is currently taking priority.

    So if you keep the deadline the same (Me and Dagoss are only two people, after all), you probably won't see it from me, though I may try as a last ditch effort depending on how much progress I've made with my paper by the end of tomorrow. However, even if I don't make this, I still plan to write the review, so you should still have the pleasure (or displeasure if it turns out bad, lol) of reading it.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted April 25, 2009:

    Sign me up. It's about time I get back to work around here.
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 25, 2009:

    I can say for sure at this point that without an extension I'll be a no-show as well. I had several ideas for this comp but none of them materialized, and I'm working on several other reviews right now that don't fit the guidelines here. Given another week I might be able to come up with something, but as it stands, I've got nothing.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 25, 2009:

    Extensions are nothing more than rewards for laziness.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 25, 2009:

    Two term papers, five finals, and study abroad to worry about. Yeah, real fucking lazy.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 25, 2009:

    Non-extensions would be a repression of the creative outburst that would've occurred if you extended the deadline. Or something.

    Just one point of clarity--I'm running low on time, because I actually procrastinated some of this with work(go figure, it was interesting too) but think I can get it done. When's the latest it can be submitted? 12 PM Pacific on the 26th? Or earlier than then?
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 25, 2009:

    Don't worry, WQ, it's aimed at me. Notice he didn't actually say anything until I chimed in.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 25, 2009:

    It's more aimed at the fact that every tourney we've run this year has had to have two month plus deadlines. I made mention of this right at the start of the topic.

    But if you need it to feel better, sure. It's all about you. You lazy arse.
    board icon
    zigfried posted April 25, 2009:

    In the absence of any official decision, I'm saying that I personally don't care if there's an extension or not, but my portion of the verdict will be extended by a like amount (for karmic balance). So if you need two extra weeks, it'll be two weeks before I finish judging.

    Thanks

    //Zig
    board icon
    Lewis posted April 25, 2009:

    I'm happy to extend. Mainly since there's been, like, what, one or two submissions?
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 25, 2009:

    Chalk it up to creative bankruptcy. Basically, you're welcome to extend the deadline, but my ability to participate will depend on my capacity to come up with something interesting to talk about. And since I'm a boring fool I can't guarantee anything.

    P.S.: I'm playing up the laziness for comedic effect.
    board icon
    espnking2002 posted April 25, 2009:

    I found the site from Google that linked to one of Jason Venter's old editorials about growing up on Nintendo. I used to really like reading those things, I wish there was a feature still like it on the site.

    I miss the old green and black format that used to be on the site back in '03ish. It gave the site a certain underground feel, like it was a secret that not many people knew about it. It was fucking miserable though, and I doubt it attracted many visitors besides myself. I just kinda miss the old days where I would pretend to be older than I really was by entering competitions and writing the most shitty, terrible reviews in which I made myself look like a complete idiot. I could probably write a decent review now but I don't really have any motivation to do so.
    board icon
    bloomer posted April 25, 2009:

    My piece is ready, I just wasn't gonna submit 'til the deadline. So if you're moving the deadline, you'll see it then.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 25, 2009:

    Don't extend it too much, because that just waters things down period, and the people who turned it in on time lose interest.

    But if other people would like a few days too, great. I have something serviceable but I think the time to proofread it would be nice. Hopefully others can speak up to say "almost done" or "need extra time" or estimate how much has been done. This competition sparked some other stuff I wanted to try, so I definitely want to give a shot.
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 25, 2009:

    I... wait, what?
    board icon
    espiga posted April 26, 2009:

    I'm both intruigued and willing to participate. I'm sure I can find some random Japanese title that hasn't been covered.
    board icon
    sashanan posted April 26, 2009:

    You shall know my fury. Count me in.
    board icon
    darketernal posted April 26, 2009:

    Being forced to join this via threats of endless bitching.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 26, 2009:

    Game: Magic Candle III
    Platform: PC
    Developer: Mindcraft
    Publisher: Electronic Arts
    Genre: RPG
    Release date: 1991

    Game: Happy Pairs
    Platform: NES
    Developer: Thin Chen
    Publisher: Sachen
    Genre: Puzzle
    Release date: 1991 (Asia)

    Game: Crossfire
    Platform: Apple II
    Developer: On-Line
    Publisher: On-Line
    Genre: Action
    Release date: 1981

    Game: Outpost
    Platform: Apple II
    Developer: Sierra
    Publisher: Sierra
    Genre: Action
    Release date: 1981

    Game: Jawbreaker II
    Platform: Apple II
    Developer: Sierra
    Publisher: Sierra
    Genre: Action
    Release date: 1982

    Game: Bard's Tale II
    Platform: NES
    Developer: Atelier Double
    Publisher: Pony Canyon
    Genre: RPG
    Release date: 1/25/92(source: GameFAQs)

    Note: Jason here. I don't have time to add games right now, so maybe someone else will or maybe I will later, but I wanted to note that of the two NES games, one is already in the database (The Bard's Tale 2) and the other was released solely in a region we do not cover (Happy Pair), which is the reason for its absence. Our database of NES titles is otherwise more complete and accurate than the GameFAQs one and no additional games should be added for that system.
    board icon
    jerec posted April 26, 2009:

    The game I was thinking of reviewing is on a system so obscure that it's not even on this site! Yes, I still have a working VECTREX!

    I may dust it off and review a game for it.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 26, 2009:

    Well, I managed to submit something a minute or two ago. It's the fan fiction for Deathlord entitled Even Deathlords Get the Blues.

    If it's accepted, that is. Of course, if it is not accepted, the only reason could be because it is so unimaginably pretentious that nobody could hope to match it, and you would have to give me the victory based on my writing's pretentiousness alone.
    board icon
    bluberry posted April 27, 2009:

    word don't delete that guys, i need to bookmark the sadistic domme link.
    board icon
    sashanan posted April 27, 2009:

    Now that you mention it, I was just going to pick a Commodore 64 review off my stack but why not be more interesting and hook up my Sega Master, which I bought 4 years ago at a flea market and never even tried?

    Or...ooh, I have an even better idea. You'll see, if it works out.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 27, 2009:

    I used to love my Vectrex.
    board icon
    jerec posted April 27, 2009:

    EmP, put the Vectrex on the site please. I ask you because this doesn't seem to concern HGWars, so Venter isn't the one to ask. I think you're more capable. :)
    board icon
    EmP posted April 27, 2009:

    Jason doesn't trust me enough to give that much access to the website. Frankly, I don't blame him.

    If I see him before he reads this, I'll give him a nudge.
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 27, 2009:

    Oh by the way, I am participating in this and so on and so forth.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 27, 2009:

    Title: Archmage: The Reincarnation
    Platform: Web based
    Genre: Text strategy
    Developer: MARI
    Piblisher: Fan published and maintained
    Published: 1997-current

    Added.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 27, 2009:

    Hey, could someone please add Archmage to the server? I've got a review all primed and ready. I know Jason is busy so... could someone help me out with this?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 27, 2009:

    Thank you much!
    board icon
    dagoss posted April 28, 2009:

    I work 3 jobs and I go to grad school (and I tutor English!). I balk at the very idea of calling me lazy -- !

    board icon
    EmP posted April 28, 2009:

    It took you three days to rise to that one? Laziness!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 28, 2009:

    lol Or it could just be that he only checks here every few days anymore.
    board icon
    Genj posted April 28, 2009:

    I'm going to find a game for this and play it and then either review it or get lazy and do nothing.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 28, 2009:

    Without a stable emulator, the most obscure title in my collection is probably Neon Genesis Evangelion for the N64. And this site already has a review for it. The only other things that leap to mind are some old PC games... and incedentally, my PC doesn't like me.

    I wouldn't mind judging, though!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 28, 2009:

    Actually... wait a minute... I COULD review Knarf's House. I bet no-one here has ever heard of Knarf's House. That's because I'm one of maybe six people who actually played the game back when it was released on floppy with old school pixel graphics.

    I could probably also review Think Quick. But I'd have to play it again. It wasn't near as memorable as the loveable Knarf's House.
    board icon
    bloomer posted April 29, 2009:

    So is there ever going to be a deadline?
    board icon
    Lewis posted April 29, 2009:

    I don't want to run past this weekend really.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 29, 2009:

    Archmage and Odin Sphere brings me up to 13, boyo.
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 29, 2009:

    Rather than give Zipp the temporary illusion that he is ahead of me, I'll chime in and note that I'm up to 14.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 01, 2009:

    Anyone? Anyone at all?

    Or are we just going to ignore this one and hope it goes away.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 01, 2009:

    I eventually could get around to it, but today I'm primarily working on a comp'd game review.

    Guess there probably should be some sort of actual in-place schedule to replace the one that's defunct due to how 3/5 of the people on it aren't staff any more. That would probably prevent there from being huge delays due to little things like me assuming that because you did two weeks straight and then I did two weeks straight that the duty would switch to........someone else for this week.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 01, 2009:

    I can do last week's tomorrow. Pulling a weekend shift and I'll do it over that. It means shoving back the freelance stuff I'm having to work on, but you can't win them all.

    This needs serious rescheduling. And the best place to start is to find out who's available to do a slot and who isn't.

    I don't have time if I'm expected to do the billion other things I'm wanted to do, but I think this is just as -- if not more -- important, so I'll have to keep a slot. If everyone else just just give a yes/no, we can try and make a new scehule rather than try and make one up on the fly.

    I think it's about time we seriously consider letting willing freelancers take a spot if they want one. If we think they can write well enough to represent the site on reviews, then it's silly to say that their ability to judge reviews is inferior and less authentic than ours.

    Eitherway, this issue needs to stop being ignored and get seriously addressed.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 01, 2009:

    That works for me. I'm still in as far as RotW goes.

    And the freelancer idea seems to be more feasible now than it did when initially brought up. Then, we had about five people doing this. Now, it's down to two and like you've said, with your freelance projects and other things you do, you'd like to segue out of this. That would leave me. That would lead to two potential problems. Eventual burnout on my part and the fact that would mean when it comes to this feedback feature, users would only get awarded based on how one specific person feels about their work. Having a couple extra hands in RotW would be a real help in allowing you to focus on other things, as well as not putting the whole thing on one or two people after we just had 4-5 people doing it for an extended time.

    Oh, if you want last week's to be a bit easier, HAMMER-time is an alt account I created for Lewis' contest. I decided that after I beat it, I'd like to do a "real" review of Lost Odyssey, so I created an alt for that contest and then put up a couple mangled message board posts for shits and giggles. So since it's essentially a staff person's review and it will get critiqued eventually (that is, assuming there ever is an actual deadline for the contest), you can ignore its existence if you want.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 01, 2009:

    Yeah, that wasn't the most subtle alt, man. You called him R-Type and then threw your last name on top of it.

    If I get the chance, I'll start on last week's tonight but tomorrow's the most likely outcome.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 01, 2009:

    Within a few days, I will be losing electricity and Internet access for a period of a week or two, due to my inability to pay the bill for another two weeks or so and due to the cable and electricity companies wanting payment NOW!!!!. I will be busy with that situation and probably won't have the time or ability to help out in the queue for a little bit. Don't worry, though. The site's hosting is paid for the next few months and I will have money to restore electricty and power soon. The utility companies just aren't interested in waiting. I'll check in regularly until I lose power and will check back in after the fact, once able. You may have to resolve this issue without me for the above reasons, however.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 01, 2009:

    I just doubled up on "M". And I think every single game I'm currently playing is for a letter that I've already covered. Which means that the only thing that will keep my progress from grinding to a total halt is my ability to run through a blah old NES game during boring afternoons to come up with the periodic bash review.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 01, 2009:

    EmP: Yeah, I kinda halfassed it. At first, I thought it'd be fun to mess with people with it, but then realized that I can't find enough hours in the day to do all the stuff I want to/should do, so it'd be kinda dumb to just add one more frivolous thing to my load.

    Jason: Damn, that sucks....
    board icon
    zigfried posted May 01, 2009:

    I say we allow interested freelancers to do ROTW. Especially since I'm not stepping up to this particular plate anytime soon. I'm willing to fill in for an emergency, but not for taking a spot on the rotation.

    The question is: if freelancers are doing ROTW, is it still "official" and deserving of featured prominence on the site's front page? I say yes, because in a reviewing capacity, freelancers have already been granted a form of "official" status. And if there ever were any indication of goofiness, the freelancer could easily be removed from the rotation. After all, only staff has the ability to actually confer featured status. So ultimately, the freelancers' ROTW would still be at staff discretion.

    //Zig
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 01, 2009:

    My personal dilemma might not be so terribly bad. I think I can just use rent moneey to pay utilities and the bank will likely cover me anc charge me a few overdrafts. I can probably make it work after all. Obviously, I'm still financially strapped, but I probably won't be going without electricity after all. Whew!
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 01, 2009:

    Thanks for the clarification!

    "B" is moot because I wrote for Bard's Tale 2. Taxman is a legitimate rewrite. And "M" is for Miner, which I think I forgot to include first time around.

    B: Bard's Tale 2(NES)
    C: Champions of Krynn
    J: Jawbreaker
    G: Gegege no Kitaro 2
    M: Miner
    S: Secret of the Silver Blades
    T: Taxman(*considerable rewrite)-but I still want to write another

    I'll be happy clearing 15 this year. But I have a few letters targeted with my next few review(s).
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 01, 2009:

    Personally, I think rewrites should only count if the old review is taken off the site first.
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 01, 2009:

    Title: Insurgency: Modern Infantry Combat
    Platform: PC
    Genre: First-Person Shooter
    Developer: Insurgency Team
    Release: October 23, 2007
    Additional Information: Source mod.

    Added.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 02, 2009:

    I agree a lot with Zig. It's a dumb statement to make that outsourcing RotW slots to freelancers makes it less official when some of them kick out considerably more staff reviews than some of the staff we have on. Staff here is the lowest its ever been and the workload is at the highest, which is not a great combo.

    There's freelancers that would show an interest in this and we should give them the chance. It's mutually beneficial and, should one of them balls up, it's as simple as nuking a topic, rewriting it and removing them from the rota.

    And I'll push for this because I seriously need some of the workload taken off me. I think I past burnt out some months back and I've been dangling in overkill ever since.

    board icon
    bloomer posted May 02, 2009:

    With the weekend half over (in Australia) and no deadline date brutally laid down, I suspect this line has already slid at least another week.
    board icon
    Lewis posted May 02, 2009:

    Like I said, I'd have hoped everyone would have submitted before the end of tomorrow. But if I were to set that as a deadline and no one else submitted, it'd have been a pretty fucking embarassingly low output. Is anyone even really interested in this?
    board icon
    zigfried posted May 02, 2009:

    I think people are waiting for a deadline to either:

    1) submit their shocking last-minute entry, or
    2) spur themselves on to actually finish what they've started

    I propose no more extensions. Make the deadline tomorrow!

    //Zig
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 02, 2009:

    Well, I don't know if interest was an issue as much as time was... That's the problem with tourneys being scheduled for the end of April/start of May - it's during big time college exam week.

    I'll try to get mine done today or tomorrow, though, since in a few hours I'm finally freeeeeeeeee!

    I will admit, though, that I'm really freaking burnt out, so... if I even get it done, it might not be as good as I'd have liked.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 02, 2009:

    True dat, WQ. I'm free, but then I'm a bum.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 02, 2009:

    As you might have noticed, HonestGamers has a limited number of staff members that is nearly the lowest that it's ever been since the site was large enough to attract regular contributors. I've been working with several freelancers to produce quality content for the site and I've been very pleased with the results. It ensures that our editorial content remains frequent and excellent.

    However, tha tleaves the question of Review of the Week. With several staff members struggling to avoid burnout, or with staff members otherwise obligated and only able to help out in an emergency situation, that leaves us without enough staff members to ensure long-term success of the system.

    Review of the Week is important to the site, a final tradition--even if it's not daily--of the Review of the Day tradition that for years was so popular on GameFAQs. I initially took it upon myself to do Review of the Week topics myself as I say Review of the Day dying over on that other site, and I was successful for several years. I'm just not in a position to resume that, at least not yet, and so the question becomes: how do we continue forward?

    In the past, freelancers have offered to step in and carry some of the load. Before we lost several staff members who were helping out with Review of the Week, that notion was rejected. However, the time has come to reconsider and the general consensus among staff is that the time is right to let other people step in and contribute to the topic.

    The way it would work is this: if you are contributing freelance reviews and you would like to join the rotation, let us know in this topic. We'll consider all applications of interest and will add you to the official rota if we feel that you make a good addition. Then you would be expected to post the topic within a short time of the end of the week. Review of the Week initially ran from around 9PM (PST) on Saturday to the same time the next Saturday. When I was doing the topics weekly, I very rarely failed to post one around that time each week. Since then, we've fallen extremely short of that goal, but a good idea would be to have any people involved in the rota in the future stick as close to that as possible. Timly RotW topics are better for everyone.

    If you're interested, qualified and able to produce timely topics, then hopefully we can assemble a new rota of four people, probably to include one or two current staff members. Freelancers will be able to post their topic and staff members will update the winning review so that it receives 'Featured' status. Please do note that staff members will have veto power. Reviews posted at the staff or freelance level would continue to be excluded, plus a RotW poster should not--even as a joke--give himself the winning position on weeks where the number of user submissions exceeds the limit of 3. If a RotW is thrown together and clearly represents a failure to provide a topic that is up to the standard site users rightfully expect, that person will likely be removed from the rota and the topic in question may also be removed.

    Questions and discussion are welcome within this topic, as are volunteers. Let's try to get a rota together fairly quickly so that no one has a chance to develop additional burnout!
    board icon
    Lewis posted May 02, 2009:

    Zigfried has spoken. Tomorrow.
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 02, 2009:

    I'm not gonna have anything for this. Seriously.

    Edit: Queue EmP saying GRRR YOU GUYS ARE LAZY AND I AM IN NO WAY REFERRING TO SUSKIE.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 02, 2009:

    People need deadlines to galvanise them one way or another. That said, this was all cover for me as I was ready for even the original deadline!

    My entry will be up soonish (-dear staff, please don't reject the next thing I submit -)

    board icon
    bloomer posted May 03, 2009:

    My entry -
    Resident Evil (Gamecube)
    board icon
    Lewis posted May 03, 2009:

    There are now four entries. Let's see if we can at least make it five or six... You have until I wake up tomorrow (probably about 9am GMT on Monday, whenever that is where you are.)
    board icon
    Lewis posted May 03, 2009:

    Yeah I'm happy to doodily-do it.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 03, 2009:

    In that case, I conclude that it is just Suskie who is lazy, and suggest we stone him.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted May 03, 2009:

    Not sure whether I qualify, but I'd do it.
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 03, 2009:

    Is there a plan to do last week's RotW, or are you guys skipping over that one?

    (Yes, I'm curious because I subbed a review that fit in that time frame.)
    board icon
    EmP posted May 03, 2009:

    I'm belatedly on the week-before-last that has your Valk Profile in. There's a current death-match on to decide who's on the one afterwards.

    If you're going to make bribes, now's the time.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 03, 2009:

    What an odd collection of reviews we have this week, ranging from long forgotten short-jockeys that may or may not be elongated practical jokes to malicious staff alts that probably should be allowed to enter the running, but wont be because judging myself would only lead to an ego heavy and predictable winner. Instead, I suppose Ill judge the rest of you.

    Rules are unchanged; you get one entry per RotW, if you write more Ill deem which I preferred. Staff reviews do not count. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE THREE!. In ascending order!

    FIRST! --Valkyrie Profile Suskie

    The vast amount of Suskies review is brilliantly penned , often verging on the edge of being overwritten, but managing to instead weave right into the games biggest strength in an engaging an effective manner. I dont remember enough about my play through of Valk Profile to know if the examples you used were late enough into the game to be considered spoilers, so Ill let that one go, too. Which this in mind, I would be unable to note any disappointment with real merit at this effort if not for the last two paragraphs which is seemingly the author saying Oh shit -- I forgot to mention X! then jarringly changing the direction and tone of the piece to shoehorn it awkwardly in. Its also here that your first few typos pop up, which suggests to me that you lost patience in trying to wrap the review up and just put the concussion in to finish the job.

    Its a great review, but, should you tidy up the last two paragraphs, it could be outstanding.

    SECOND! --WII Game Party Woodhouse.

    While the title doesnt exactly lend itself to a exciting review (and its probably one Woodhouse did just to nab the elusive W letter!), this review is extremely competent and covers exactly what it needs to. Each part of the game is highlighted then youre told in an assured tone that it doesnt work and, most importantly, very clearly told why. Really, the only thing holding this back is the source material, but its worth a mention just by being so bloody solid and competent. I find myself without any way of complaining -- and Im great at complaining.

    THIRD! --Sword of Sodan Sashanan

    A lot of this review is clumsy, a lot more bordering on irrelevant. I dont need to know that you dont have a game manual on hand to delve further into the games plot; if the title does a crap job of covering the plot, then you dont need to back it up by saying that it could be better if you have a slip of paper further explaining it -- especially in these days rife with emulation. What helps this review is some of the observations on how things go wrong, such as the message warning you about pits only appearing after youve fallen into them and how the avatars are pointless. Its a review that could do with some editing and some dead wood cut away, but it gets what you want to say across.

    Hammers biggest problem is that this is a tourney piece for an ambitious event that effectively stops it from stacking up to reviews when having to be compared to reviews. Its engaging writing that will probably fare much better in that it was intended for than in a feature like this. Likewise, that bside guy has the same problems, but would have done poorly, anyway, because hes just too cross.

    Randxians review is certainly informative, but it does often read like hes working off a checklist, moving to one point to the next without much transition, much like Ultrablue who tell us all we need to know in an extremely stiff fashion. Ascultzs review warred bitterly with Sashs for that third place finish, but I felt Sash made his points stronger and didnt constantly forgot to add the space needed between a word and a bracket. This(bad), this (good). Im not overly sure Mids stuff is Mid, so I ignored him completely. Im open to be proved wrong, in which case, these reviews were his early work and wouldnt have placed top three, anyway.

    Next week is someone else. What follows is the sweet sound of pure confusion.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 03, 2009:

    Re: Sword of Sodan. I think talking about the silliness of the title 'Sword of Sodan' is totally legitimate, and done here with the same tone of bemusement that's carried through the whole thing. If I had to get down to individual sentences, I would probably lop the 'Not that it really matters...' final line of that paragraph, as it overstates the point the preceding few lines have already made, but that's the only line.
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 03, 2009:

    Thanks a lot. Unfortunately, I was actually aware of that issue and, yeah, wasn't sure how to fix it. The point of the review was supposed to be that Valkyrie Profile's unique and complex narrative is the game's main draw, and that the gameplay (while perfectly fine) kind of took the backseat, so I really tried to sell the story as well as I could but didn't know how to shift out of storybook mode and into gameplay. I've tried similar things before (Star Ocean, Mass Effect) with similarly jarring results.

    I'm actually surprised you didn't mention the generic graphics/sound paragraph, haha.

    (Didn't see any typos, though. I'll check again.)

    Anyway, thanks again, and well done to Woodhouse and Sashanan for their placements as well.

    Edit: Oh, and no, those weren't really spoilers. I was careful to only use examples from the beginning of the game.

    Super Edit: I request 1000 HG points.
    board icon
    sashanan posted May 03, 2009:

    Hee, didn't expect to get an RotW spot on that old thing. I deliberately avoided rewriting the review (it's a 2001 piece IIRC) because I feel that that would be opening the floodgates in my mind and convince me to spend a lot of time doing that with all of my old work. Time much better spent exploring new titles.

    Thanks for the heads up at any rate.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 03, 2009:

    Here's my entry, which I may or may have not already linked to.

    Metal Slug 3
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 03, 2009:

    I'm at 15.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 03, 2009:

    I'm going to announce that I wrote about half of this tonight but I am now too tired to finish it. So, regardless of your deadlines, I'm going to try and finish it tomorrow after my final... because I'll be spending the morning studying.

    This thing's turning out like crap anyway, so I supose it's better this way.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 04, 2009:

    Thanks for stepping in here to do this! The reviews ahead of me were all fun to read, so good job to everyone there. I always forget the space before the parentheses. Come to think of it, I probably abuse parentheses in general. They are a lot like what you mention is a small problem with Suskie's last two paragraphs.

    But I can still write a dumb Perl script to fix the parentheses/space thing.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 04, 2009:

    I see what you mean about placing these reviews--they're all very enjoyable and worth reading and rereading. Some of these games, I don't have a clue about, so it is interesting to read about them in detail.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 04, 2009:

    Just in case, as I finally figure out you use links by avoiding spaces after href:

    Even Deathlords Get the Blues
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 04, 2009:

    Virtua Fighter brings me right behind Suskie, at 14.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 04, 2009:

    Just subbed mine. I'm strangely quite happy with it. I hope that's justified. If I technically missed the deadline for this, oh well. I still wrote the review; I said I would. Haha.

    EDIT: Here it is
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 04, 2009:

    AHEM.
    board icon
    Lewis posted May 05, 2009:

    AAAAND we are closed. You guys got lucky that my internet was broken yesterday.

    Judges, start reading and rating. PM me numbers and comments as and when asap.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 07, 2009:

    I'm totally interested in doing an ROTW. I'd take it pretty seriously, too. Look at the attention I gave the people in my tournament. You should see the same attention coming up with Lewis' contest.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 07, 2009:

    Well, since I don't think we have our new, improved RotW roster all finalized and stuff, I guess I'm doing this week, mainly since it probably be my turn anyway. I don't know, I'm all confused and all. But I have a free afternoon, so here comes the pain!

    Anyway, onto what I do know......staffers don't get anywhere here. And only one review by anyone can count on any given week.



    THIRD PLACE: Hover Bovver (C64) by sashanan

    This was another pretty difficult week for me to make my picks. I'd say that overall, not just my top three, but a good couple of non-placing reviews all were very close together in my eyes, meaning that my top three order was likely determined by various factors possibly including my health, how hungry/full I was, how sleepy I am, etc. I could have done this yesterday and had a completely different order with a couple different reviews listed and the same could be said if I had waited another day. In short, some very tight competition. What gave you third place was primarily how you took an entertaining look at what is essentially an old-school arcade-ish game on an old computer system.....but with a comical premise. This is a sound review that doesn't go overboard with witticisms revolving around the game's theme of stealing a lawnmower and having to fight off neighbors and your own dog to mow your lawn, but still has some good lines. Particularly the "don't presume that Sash doesn't mind if you borrow his Commodore" one at the end.

    SECOND PLACE: Legacy of the Wizard (NES) by randxian

    I'd have to say that this is not only the best of your four reviews this week, but also the best review I've ever seen by you. Engaging, lively tone presented here and you don't pull punches in skewering this game. I've had a bit of experience with this game and can't say I disagree much with anything you said. I recall borrowing it from a friend and.....eventually getting stuck. I might have got one crown. But yeah, this game really is the pits. Better than CastleQuest, but in the same vein of horribly-executed puzzle-adventure game.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Archmage: The Reincarnation (PC) by zippdementia

    You caught my attention with that little narrative dialogue at the beginning, which was some good stuff that made me interested in what sort of game you were playing, but more importantly, when you got around to the actual game, you did a very good job of explaining it while not losing my interest. This game seems like it has a ton of strategy and you did a very good job of bringing it to the forefront — with both resource management and with unit stacking. But all the while, you can get through your alloted turns in a handful of minutes, making it deep and accessible. Very good review that really makes this game look intriguing.




    Whew. Might be taking a nap now. Or eating something and then entering a food coma. Kinda a lazy day for me, so that sounds like a wonderful option.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 07, 2009:

    Wow! Another win for Zipp! I tried some new things with both my latest reviews (Odin Sphere and Archmage). To be honest, I would've put the money on Odin's Sphere for this one, figuring it was a safer review, but safer isn't always better!

    I'm glad to see some of my risks paid off.

    As always, thanks to the people who take the time to do these every week. Hopefully I'll be able to ease your jobs a little bit in the future by taking one myself!

    On another note, Archmage is a really fun game that I reccomend for anyone with 15 minutes a day to kill. The first time you play, it will probably take more like an hour to get into it, but it really is a fifteen minute game after that. If you join up, join the blitz server, that's the one I'm on. Let me know!
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 07, 2009:

    I had read Zipp's review, but I think HGWars will be my first and last MMORPG, at least for a year. In fact I was thinking of using HG points I thought I might have won in this ROTD to help my cause :)
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 07, 2009:

    Zipp
    As far as Odin Sphere goes, I really liked the review, but it did kinda have one glaring weakness in that it was a 10/10 review that ended on a negative note as far as the game goes. Great praise review, but the last things that stuck in my mind were the flaws (like how you'll be in a high-drama situation.....but have to do a bunch of character-building stuff AND how you visit the same regions in every chapter). You would have been served better by more subtly interspersing the negative aspects instead of slamming the reader with them right at the end.

    Bloomer
    Of your reviews, I loved the RE one....but not as a review of one particular game. As an entrant in Lewis' contest, it was a great look at RE and video game horror. But I had the conflict with the whole concept of the contest and what I feel should be an RotW review....in that while I really enjoyed what you wrote, it wasn't a review of that game, which kinda took it out of contention for me. If it's any consolation, it might be my personal favorite of the entries I've read for the contest, though.

    For Aztec, it was one of those "in contention" reviews. I think the thing that kept it out was simply that it might be the kind of game I'd have to have experienced to truly get what you mean, as you essentially said the game's horribly glitchy.....but those glitches help make it good, as they can get you through seemingly impossible rooms. If you haven't played the game and experienced that in person, that's a hard concept to wrap the brain around.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 07, 2009:

    I was thinking specifically of Aztec. Don't worry about RE I wasn't thinking about that, as it was specifically for the contest. To the extent I almost forgot I submitted it this week. I also wacked the reply button quickly here to try to avoid seeing anything you might have said about it, just to avoid any feedback on it in advance of the contest thingy!

    In ROTD/ROTW you often have to deal with reviews for stuff you haven't played and still decide on them as reviews in their own right. In a sense you have to do all you can to negotiate this issue whenever it comes, but maybe as you say you found it too hard a bridge to cross in this particular case.
    board icon
    sashanan posted May 07, 2009:

    Muchas gracias. I'm on the whole pleased with how that review turned out. It does need a little editing still, such as getting rid of a couple of abuses of first person plural.

    Congrats to randxian and zipp, obviously. *goes to read said reviews as he hasn't yet*
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 08, 2009:

    I may even give Hovver Bovver a try. I've known the name for what feels like centuries (but is more realistically 19 years?) but never knew what the game was about. So I feel pretty good having read this review.

    Au contraire, I don't think I'll give Legacy of the Wizard a try.
    board icon
    MASTERSNUMBA1FAN posted May 08, 2009:

    looks like tons of talent since I left.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 08, 2009:

    Game: Fortress of the Witch King
    Platforms: Apple II / Commodore 64
    Publisher+Developer: Avalon Hill
    Genre: Strategy/RPG
    Release Date: 1983

    I am writing a FAQ, and maybe a review. Thanks.

    Done, I (Overdrive) am looking forward to this, as in the dingy depths of my memory, I vaguely recall possibly playing this game, as the title seems like it might be familiar. Might be wrong, though....
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 08, 2009:

    Good feedback on the Odin's Sphere review, OD. Thanks for that, I hadn't thought about that when constructing it.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 08, 2009:

    I had Hovver Bother for the good old Speccy 128k. Good times.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 08, 2009:

    Guess I'll throw my name in here, too. Though I just reviewed the most obscure game in my collection that I can do anything decent with, so.... yeah.

    ...if this even goes anywhere that is. So far turnout looks kind of miserable. =/ Which is really quite sad.
    board icon
    Lewis posted May 09, 2009:

    Welcome to this pompously themed thread, complete with hilariously self-indulgent commentary and Edge-style scoreboxes.

    So, the results are in, and the most pretentious bastards are about to be announced. As I write, I have no idea what the scores are. I haven't looked at the other judges' votes when compiling this, as I hadn't quite finished off my own, and I wouldn't want anything to cloud my judgement. Not even the numerous death threats from literally everyone involved. Including myself!!!!

    Seriously, though: thank you to everyone who contributed in some way to this competition. In essence, the most pretentious bastard here is me: this was totally a self-conscious experiment to see how people approached this sort of editorial writing, and to try to get more people doing it - 'cause I think it's a very healthy thing indeed. That this many people bought into it is lovely. You all deserve stickers and stars.

    The following is brought to you by myself, along with esteemed judge-fellows ZIPPO and ZIGATRON, who flew down from furthest Jupiter to be with us today, and to make me look lazy by writing around three shitloads more than me for their feedback.

    ***

    So I've just compiled the scores. The other two seemed a little harsher than me with their lower marks, but it hasn't really affected the overall placings. Interestingly, there's a pretty significant jump between second and third place. This isn't to say anything against those with a lower placing - I enjoyed reading pretty much every one of these articles - but it is testament to the fantastic quality of the top two. Either of them would have been deserving winners, and both are better than the standard I expected. Kudos.

    I've talked enough. It's been fun, people. It's been fun.

    PS. Further amusement as I notice that I'm not the only one to attempt to steal someone's entry for another publication. LULZ!

    ---------------------------------

    Aschultz - Deathlord
    ZIPPO!
    Argument: uhhh... Deathlords should... get respect...?

    I really like the IDEA here. Taking a game and reviewing it from within the confines of a novella is pretty awesome.

    Its also really hard to execute.

    In your case, this fiction needs a lot of editing. Not just on the occasional spelling error or missing word... it needs to be cut down to about a quarter of its current length. The problem is, you say the same thing, the same joke, about ten times. Pick out which of those times is your favourite, and discard the others. Dont worry. They wont be missed. They were just stepping stones on the one true path.

    The other thing that hits me here is that theres not a lot of variety in how the Deathlord laments his position. My interest was held for the first couple of paragraphs, but then he didnt stop speaking and I got bored. I would have him move around the room more, look at things... interact with his surroundings. Adding some movement to break up the monotony of inner monologue would help a lot.

    Either that, or just make it really short and sweet, as I said before. I wrote a similar piece which had similar problems: click if youre interested... indeed, we seem to have similar tastes in style and subject. Id like to read more of your work.

    In any case, as far as this contest goes, Im not quite sure this really fits the subject. It doesnt overtly say anything about gaming in general and comes burdened with the usual pains of fiction, which requires a lot of editing and redrafting to be solid. I wouldnt give up on this piece, but I wouldnt have submitted it to this contest. [35]

    DENBO!
    A tricky one. Can't really say much about it. I had to read a couple of times to make much sense of it. I'm going to take it as a cheeky rant about the sloppy development, or similar. Am I correct? I'm not familiar with the game, and I think this is kind of exclusive of people like me. It looks like it could be quite a nice in-joke. You get the benefit of the doubt for that. [55]

    ZIGATRON!
    I'll be curious to see how this one scores in the other judges' eyes. Fiction would *appear* to go against the premise of this contest, because it wouldn't appear to put forth any type of personal commentary. However, I disagree. You and I come from the same age of gaming. We've both played through RPGs with endless stats and nameless characters, we've both envisioned stories in our heads. Sometimes adding a personality to a hollow shell is the best way to make a point!

    This is a great way to poke fun at old-time RPGs... and many of the practices herein pertain to modern RPGs as well. I liked the mention of ridiculous town architecture/mazes... things that no sane lawful human would dream up, so it must be the work of the DEATHLORD! (Even though the Deathlord is really supposed to be confined to his dungeon. But somehow he MUST have influenced such ridiculous designs.)

    But then you also address what Deathlord did RIGHT (and it does sound very imaginative), and how other later games failed to capitalize on its concepts... while retaining the silly genre staples that don't make much sense when viewed objectively.

    Mentioning the Doom Golem was brilliant. I didn't realize how brilliant until I Google'd it. That would probably be my main criticism here; some of the bits that are Deathlord-specific are not necessarily self-evident. The dungeon that's all doors, yes. The stairs and sinkhole dungeon, no. It might be very cool, but based solely on the words you wrote, I'm really left without any mental image at all. I haven't actually played Deathlord, you see.

    I also liked the mention of Tarjan's gimmick as a way to FORCE players to use a sucky character class. Ha! I actually knew that one! And I was so shocked -- in a good way -- when I finally played a dungeoncrawler that dispensed with the 16x16 square and used irregularly shaped dungeons (surprisingly, it was a Japanese game).

    All of this points out the closed-mindedness and adherence to nonsensical mechanics of RPG developers. But the fact that you wrote a piece of fiction, for what is now such an obscure game, demonstrates a love of the genre staples that you mock.

    This was a nice piece that made me smile and feel a personal connection to a game I've never played. And it makes a ridiculous number of clever references to other games of varying levels of obscurity. In a year, after playing through a few more oldschool games, I can probably read this again and get even more of the references. Sweet.

    PS -- Be the Deathlord! Buy a PSP and purchase "Holy Invasion of Privacy, Badman!" when it comes out. [85]


    bloomer - Resident Evil
    ZIPPO!
    Argument: Resident Evil taps into the horror genre by a focused fascination with the death and physical suffering of the main characters

    Where to start? How about... this was an excellent article AND a wonderful review. Not only did it present quite clearly what the feel of Resident Evil Remake is, it also managed to tie the whole thing into a broader (but still localized and focused!) point about survival horror in general.

    You do everything right. You jump right into your point without fussing about with general introductions. You immediately understand what point it is you are trying to make and you jump to evidence that supports those points. You use a lot of personal experience and some well placed personal pro-nouns to bring the audience in. Its great stuff.

    Or at least it is until about half way through. Then we start getting lines like The artifice involved is moving in a way that a degree of reality much beyond this ceases to be. or ...to apprehend the animus of your character at such multifarious length. Cmon, man... theres more human ways to say those things. Though I like apprehend the animus. Thats got a nice ring to it. But dont disengage your audience by over speaking. Its weird, because you start off with simple language, but then you resort to technicalities. Im not an advocate of technicalities. Knowing how to use them is great, but you rarely should. It ultimately alienates.

    You also start to get more sloppy in your sentence structure, using run on sentences and taking the personal pro-noun to lengths it probably shouldnt be brought to. Telling us what you experienced is one thing. Thats good. Telling us straight out your personal opinion on the horror genre or on Davids interview is a bit heavy handed and doesnt fit with the more modestly written first half.

    You even start dropping words, ending up with lines like The concerns of the horror genre found in RE an ideal gaming form... Its like you stopped editing after the half way point.

    I actually hope you come back to this and rewrite it. I think the first half is near perfect, while the second half lowers the score quite a bit. The second half is overly lengthy, overly wordy, and doesnt flow near as well as the first half. If you rewrite this, let me know. I would feature it in The Examiner.

    Theres no denying this is a solid effort. Its the HG review Ill be sharing with all my RE friends... though they probably wont know what half the words mean and they might stop reading half way through. [82]

    DENBO!
    So I've been playing Fahrenheit recently, and I'd make a similar argument about some of the filmic elements of that. It's perhaps easier to spot in something like that, where all it is is the filmic elements, really, but... oh, basically, this:

    I was plodding along with this one, quietly disagreeing but enjoying the read, until I reached the "games as art" paragraph. It's a subject that's been tackled so much, not least by myself, that I groaned a little. But then you went and pulled out a hugely original take on the matter, one that totally makes sense and lent your overriding argument enormous weight. And it sort of clicked.

    I've never seen this argument before in games journalism, and now that I have, I can't understand why it's not been used more. There's loads of academic stuff on this, about what defines an artistic product. About whether it can be interactive. About whether it needs to be static, and the artist's vision. About whether art is in the reading, or in the creating, or in the creator's vision.

    The flow of this piece isn't always remarkable, and your register sounds ocasionally forced - as if you're writing for an academic journal or something - which, as the piece went on, began to grate a bit. But when it all comes together, this is fascinating and enlightening. Most of all, I reckon it's convincing enough to make me see this HORRIBLE GAME SERIES in a new light. Which has gotta be worth a reasonable mark, eh? How's 90 for reasonable? [90]

    ZIGATRON!
    This is an interesting one. People could easily interpret it as a "review of the Resident Evil series", but this is more than that. It's a celebration of effective design, including "limitations by choice"... because believable limitations are what make horror gripping. The paragraph on camera angles does a great job of contrasting players' desires (3D camera) against effective presentation (fixed angle).

    You then segue into an explanation of why video games do not produce the same response as art, which casts an interesting new light on the series' stodgy, reviled controls. The controls and game structures force a player to linger; that's critical for players to soak in the full scenario and achieve anything close to an artistic experience.

    Resident Evil 5 is nothing like what you've described here.

    Anyways, this is more than I expected from this contest. I expected articles that reveal how games influenced people or genres on a personal level. This does that, but it's also an instruction manual on how to create an effective horror game. I hope some upstart indie developer stumbles across this piece someday. [95]


    HAMMER-time - Lost Odyssey
    ZIPPO!
    Argument: Living forever sucks

    Im not sure whether to applaud you for picking a philosophical topic or to berate you for choosing a topic so unrelated to gaming. I think Ill do both.

    My praise comes from the way you use this topic to broach the game and focus on its story and character. You paint an interesting view of the setting that makes me want to play the game.

    Despite this, you have a bad habit of repeating the same point over and over in a different way each paragraph. You basically say Kaim is lonely... because he lives forever. Im not minded to mark you down too much for this, since it sounds like thats what the game itself says over and over. However, if that IS what the game says, I fail to see how that will hold peoples interest enough to warrant giving this game a 9.

    I know this contest was meant more as an essay-rather-than-review contest, but even so I think your entry couldve benefitted from a bit more review. For instance, you mention Thousand Years of Dream stories, but you dont give me a clear sense of how that works in the game. Is it side quests? Is it a fancy name for the plot? Is it a free roam system? What makes them so awesome and accesible?

    If you wanted to steer away from mechanics, then you could at least have given us a more detailed walkthrough through one of the stories, to give us an idea of what its like. Instead you try to cover the feel of the game as a whole and actually leave us with very little. Indeed, the whole thing comes off a bit like a half review... you even end at a weird place, in the middle of telling us more about the story. I can tell you struggled to fit the feel of the game in. Its like what I told Bside... start micro, then go macro.

    As for structure, you have a formula that becomes old quickly. You start out each paragraph saying what does a man who lives forever do? Then you say one thing he does (twice using the same set up of he goes from... to....). Then you conclude: he is lonely.

    Ultimately, I dont get a lot out of your argument. [50]

    DENBO!
    This is a really interesting piece that attempts to engage with the core themes of the game. Much of it is hugely successful. I love the pondering of loneliness, tapping into Kaim's mind and the inevitibility of all his life. It's really nice stuff.

    Which is why it feels so awkward how suddenly your register shifts (I sound like an English teacher today, don't I?) on a couple of occasions. To go from "a real bummer, dude" to "a certain poetic nature" so starkly destroys the ambience you've strived so hard to create. Maybe it's a British thing: I don't like your use of the word "guy" in the last paragraph, either, but I'm almost certain that wouldn't sound out of place at all to you lot across that giant swimming pool we call the Atlantic Ocean. Whatever. I like this. Not a bummer at all, dude. [80]

    ZIGATRON!
    This was a nice review. It picks an interesting aspect of the game to focus on; there's not a lot of attention to what we'd expect to read about, but there's a ton of attention to what we wouldn't expect to read about. I am far more interested in the game now than I was before.

    However, this contest is not for reviews. It is for deeply personal writing. This review does get across that Lost Odyssey had an effect on you -- the writing has a strong emotional sense that belies a powerful grip. But the experience is never related to anything outside the game's world. It isn't related to your personal desires/fears, your own struggles in the real world, or your own feelings were you to live in Kaim's world and walk his shoes. Even though this review treads the boundaries of mankind's wish for immortality, it stops itself and doesn't leap and give in to the true despair that wish could bring.

    As it is, this is a completely acceptable review. But as a personal article, it reads more like a prelude. I wish I could give this a better score, because I did enjoy reading it and the writing shows tremendous potential, but I really can't. What I will say is that what you did here -- finding the element that struck a personal chord -- will serve you well in future contests. [40]


    wolfqueen001 - Mother
    ZIPPO!
    Argument: Emulation isnt piracy
    Secondary argument: Nintendo totally shouldve ported Mother and a bunch of other games, the wankers

    WQ, thank you for reviewing Mother. The Earthbound series is one of the greatest series to grace the console market, and the main reason Im consistently looking for a decent emulator for the Mac. Ive yet to play Mother or Mother 3. Earthbound Ive played so much on the SNES that I can no longer enjoy it. I have the damn thing memorized.

    Anyways, enough about me.

    I wish you had gone more with your secondary argument than your first. Mother is the perfect game to launch a bitching rant at Nintendo for never porting their cream-of-the-crop titles and for bashing their numerous stupid reasons for not doing so. You mention it little, but mostly you spend a lot of time talking about emulation... and then you throw that argument aside and leap into a review.

    Now, your review is solid. You manage to tell me everything I need to know about Mother in a couple of paragraphs without so much of a mention of the battle system or plot. But the piece as a whole wouldve been stronger with an argument that tied in more to your conclusion.

    Instead, your piece comes off a little rushed, more like a blog post than a proper essay or review. A good blog post, mind you... but a blog post nonetheless. [72]

    DENBO!
    This one takes a little time to get going, but I do like the slight controversy of the opening. And once it's there, this is incredibly strong.

    It's funny. I expected something really, fiercely argumentative from you. There are a few games that you've become feverishly involved in heated discussions over, and I was surprised to see you not tackling one of those. Instead, you hold back quite a bit. And it really, really works.

    I can imagine this sitting towards the front of a UK mag like PC Gamer - one of those pieces that's a bit nestled away, but actually a really good read. Informative, opinionated and thorough, it's the sort of editorial I'm dead into - even if it's not the sort of thing I was expecting to see much of in this contest. I'm glad you wrote this, and snuck in just in time. My joint-favourite entry, methinks. Bravo!

    (It's also the sort of thing that would totally fit in with the Food For Thought section at Reso. So you might want to expect an email about that.) [90]

    ZIGATRON!
    Upfront, I disagree with your statement that downloading ROMs isn't piracy. I'm not going to say I'm vehemently opposed to downloading ROMs -- but I wouldn't say "perfectly OK", either. When I download a game to play, I know that I'm harming someone. I'm harming the reseller who gambled and put forth personal expense in an effort to bring an obscure, old, Japanese game to the North American market. The prices may seem high, but how else is someone going to get a legitimate copy of Jimmu Denshou? And honestly, how many people are likely to even want that game? I could sit on a copy of it for two years before finding a willing taker. Downloading ROMs harms the people who actually try to provide those games.

    And yes, the prices are sometimes higher than people would like to pay. The alternative is flying out to Japan, scouring the bins at Akihabara, and paying "too much" at the store. Then flying back home.

    That being said, I don't generally take issue with pirates unless they're proud of it or unless they claim they're actually *doing the world a favor* by taking money out of resellers' pockets. There are a lot of reasons for choosing to download. It could be financial inability to purchase (although I'd suggest those people find a more productive way to spend time), it could be because they know the game will suck and just want a laugh, maybe their legit copy got damaged beyond repair, maybe they know the game is short and they'll be done with it in two hours, etc.

    So when you talk about "strict personal use", I can buy that even though I do see the harm.

    Now, what's interesting is that you end up pointing your argument specifically at TRANSLATED downloadable ROMs. I can't tell you how many times I've heard stuff about "the original developers make no money", "resellers charge too much", "it's my right to enjoy art for free", etc etc. You'd think that people would play the "translated ROMs are a way to share one's love for obscure old games" card more often, but they don't.

    And when they do, it's not in the form of a tribute to Mother. (Although it's not exactly the same kind of "translated ROM" as Just Breed or Ys 4 or somesuch).

    Tying it to a specific game is what makes this article work. You almost make something illegal sound noble. Contrary to the contest's expectations, I think this would have worked even BETTER if you had spent more time discussing the actual game. As it is, I'm not convinced enough that Mother is sooooo different from the games that we Americaners did get to play. Sure, there are some wacky things going on, but there are lots of games with some wacky elements. Instead of describing moments, get at the heart of Mother. Explain why Mother is an undeniably unique experience.

    Do that, and then you'll truly demonstrate why emulation is an integral aspect of "world peace through shared pop culture". [90]


    Felix_Arabia - Metal Slug 3
    ZIPPO!
    Argument: Felix doesnt like paying for ports

    I think this is a fairly weak entry, which I mean as no offense to you, Felix. I respect you as a writer and reviewer. I can easily see how this review wouldve come about, too. You had an idea and went with it, only to realize its a difficult subject weighted down by an argument which is hard to fit into reviewing a single game.

    What you end up with is sortve a washed out argument thats basically centered around personal opinion. As a review, it doesnt really cover Metal Slug. As an essay, its not backed up by any real evidence.

    As usual, youve got a fun casual style of writing that lends itself well to this topic. But you really dont crack the nut to get at the juicy insides. Or maybe you did crack the nut, but a squirrel had already made off with all the goodies.

    Enough with the metaphor. Its a weak argument, is all Im saying. Its more fitting for a rant than a review, and I am sorry you didnt go off on a huge rant. Your rants are funny. This is more of a mash up of thoughts of the moment. Theres no real through line here, no real argument.
    [38]

    DENBO!
    I can't rationalise you owning it across a load of platforms, either. I can rationalise someone buying it 'cause they have no access to the original. Not everyone has a Mac, or similar. Which seems to undermine your point a bit, unless I've missed it. Which is extremely possible.

    I quite like this, though. I'd have liked to see something a bit longer, but, y'know. It's straight to the point, and nicely cohesive, so all is well. Probably not the most memorable thing you've written - well, certainly not. That was your excellent Fallout 3 review - but not a bad effort by any means. Collect a tentative "well done" sticker. [65]

    ZIGATRON!
    This article is clearly in opposition to superfluous ports. Your second sentence appears to define "superfluous ports" as games that are repeatedly released on successive console generations. That doesn't really fit Metal Slug 3, since when the Xbox version came out, it was the only readily-accessible version (for North America). It might be pointless to purchase today (since there are now several ports of Metal Slug 3 out there), but this game's existence alone does not serve as an example of why ports are bad.

    The article then turns into a brief review of Metal Slug 3. You never really get back to explaining why ports are bad, although you do touch on why you'd rather emulate the game than play this specific version.

    The end of the article sounds like you're not necessarily opposed to ports, you'd just rather play games for free. But it doesn't address any of the pro's or con's to emulation, aside from being free.

    Basically, this is a really uneven piece. It assumes two conclusions: it assumes that people will agree that free emulation is superior, and it assumes that people will agree that ports are bad. When writing it, you may have believed that you were saying something controversial. But by not providing evidence, it *sounds* like you believe these stances to be self-evident. As a review (and it does read like one), you score the game a 5 even though it sounds like you love it.

    More length was needed here. [50]


    bside - Pass Your Driving Theory Test
    ZIPPO!
    Argument: the Nintendo Wii has failed to capture and hold an audience, despite being aimed at a crowd no one else is really interested in.
    Secondary argument: the DS is becoming a non-gaming platform

    Bside, I think splitting this piece into two separate arguments hurts your case. You start out with the Wii, but that in itself is a complicated topic to topple. Theres a lot of different angles that you have to approach that subject from. Your argument about it seems very rushed and not entirely supported by fact. Like, despite your arguments, how do you explain that the Wii is STILL the best selling of all the consoles, even with the PS3 having several hundred dollars over it, and the Xbox several years?

    Your real argument lies with the DS and it being turned away from a gaming device. This is a much stronger argument since you are reviewing a DS game. Your final paragraph is ten times stronger than anything in your opening. In fact, one of your earlier paragraphs contradicts your conclusion. You say the DS has gained middle ground, but then you rave about it losing the middle ground. The second one is the better argument. It feels like you came to this in the course of writing your review and simply never went back to change the opening.

    I can see why you thought the Wii might make a grand general sort of opener for this piece, but in reality an essayist should always steer away from general points and get straight to the microscopic. General is best left for later, if you can find a way to tie the micro into the macro.

    Theres also the matter of your sentence structure being overly confusing. Especially this paragraph: Believe the rumours, and the DS was... I had to read that paragraph over, like, ten times. Your first sentence is exactly 99 words long. Thats a mother of a run-on sentence.

    Next time, focus in on your argument a little more and try to cut the fat off your sentences. Kudos for picking one of these crazy test games, though. Your last couple paragraphs say it all. Its just too bad it took you that long to get there. [58]

    DENBO!
    So I'm critiquing the work of someone who, for all intents and purposes around these parts, is my boss. That's a bit weird. So yeah. 95%.

    ...Oh, no, wait. I'm not allowed to do that. He didn't take me out for dinner in exchange for an exclusive review.

    It's too long. But that's not disastrous. It's nicely worded, often very amusing, and rather interesting. I think it's important to separate Ninty's current-generation consoles from Sony and Microsoft's efforts, because it's a totally different demographic. That in mind, there's a tendency for this article to stray into "it doesn't appeal to me, so it's rubbish" territory - which is always dangerous ground to tread.

    And, y'know. Really, the Wii isn't stagnant at all. It's outselling all competition combined - just not to "us".

    Comes across rather closed-minded. But then, I pretty much feel the same way on all accounts, so you're saved by my own blinkers. [70]

    ZIGATRON!
    "Somewhere along the line, someone decided that handheld consoles weren't really meant as gaming machines anymore."

    That line, coupled with the subject/example of this article, leads me to believe this was originally intended as an editorial against the transformation of handheld gaming into handheld... something.

    The initial paragraphs read very anti-Nintendo in general, which weakens the impact of the (initial) argument that Nintendo is ruining what handhelds were meant to be. Sure, they do have a track record for releasing horrible consoles like the Gamecube and Wii, but there's not much sense in pulling out the high-precision sniper rifle after you've already fired a few shotgun blasts.

    It would actually work better in reverse -- show how they've ruined handhelds, and then lambast Nintendo for spreading their vile, leprous ambitions into the console market. Sniper rifle to the head... then shotgun blasts to the prone, twitching corpse.

    The timeline of the Wii's shenanigans/success is also a bit off. This article makes it sound like Nintendo regrouped and licked their wounds after the abysmal failure of Twilight Princess. Two problems there: Twilight Princess was successful (at least on this side of the ocean) and the Wii was already selling really well from the get-go.

    When the article does get around to talking about handhelds, it almost turns around and says that Nintendo has done okay with the DS. But then turns back towards attacking Nintendo's master plan, which is... not very clear, actually.

    This one lacks focus. It's decidedly anti-Nintendo, but doesn't focus that hatred into a sharp, meaningful point. There are some nice bits (like the beginning and end references to the color printer), and the spelling/grammar is almost impeccable (I did notice an it's that should be its), but it needs some restructuring to really perform well as an article. [65]

    ----------------------------

    At the end of the game, what are the scores, George Dawes?

    [Insert drum roll here. Anyone?]

    6. FELIX_ARABIA [153]
    5. HAMMER-TIME [170]
    4. ASCHULTZ [175]
    3. EMP(WEALLKNOWWHOYOUARE) [193]
    2. WOLFIE-Q [252]

    THE MOST PRETENTIOUS BASTARD IN THE WHOLE FUCKING SWEARY WORLD IS....

    BLOOOOOOOOMEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRR! [267]

    ---------------------------

    Congratulations to Bloomer, who wrote an incredibly effective and convincing piece. And congrats to the rest of you, even though you WERE NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

    I'm going to crawl back into my hangover now. Goodbye!
    board icon
    EmP posted May 09, 2009:

    The best two review for this finished were they certainly should have. Congrats and well done to Bloomer and WQ.

    Vile hexes to the judge staff who seemed to have overlooked the fact that I lambasted the Wii's softwares sales and mentioned how the hardware sales left everyone in the dustThanks for taking the time to read and coment on mine. The original idea I had went off on a bit of a tangent at the start and I figured I might as well try and ride it home. This was a good idea for a tourney and it's a shame more people didn't get on board.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 09, 2009:

    You people are making WQ sad, and this is unacceptable.

    Stop being slackers! Signed, EmP
    board icon
    e-dvdcopyAA posted May 09, 2009:

    Even though I originaly came to spam videos of boy-on-boy handjobs, I, too agree that you're all slackers.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 09, 2009:

    Thanks a lot guys. You wrote a lot on everyone's, and I was surprised after I went through all the commentary how many screens I'd just read without noticing it. Zigfried also said stuff about the Deahtlord fiction I hadn't noticed. And thanks to the writers for all the other pieces.

    This comp gave me motivation to write something like what I normally go towards in horror, but with various parameters removed that would normally hold me back in some areas (actually, there were almost no parameters..) so it was inspiring like that.

    Zipp said a lot about my editing but still gave me 80. This is good as I now want to talk back about that. I've been having an arrogant week, and now I also have a crown that says 'pretentious' on my head, which is like having a huge novelty microphone!

    At the word for word level, I've rarely spent as much time proofreading and editing any one piece of game-related writing as this. It went for weeks. The whiches and thats are right, the numbers and tenses and cases etc. for some very complicated sentences all match up, and the pronouns are no denser than in a Ruth Rendell novel.

    'The concerns of the horror genre found in RE an ideal gaming form' isn't missing a word.

    The problem with the 'multifarious' sentence is that it manages to convey what I mean with precision. To say the same thing with other words, I'd have to unpack them and use more of them, and then the sentence just gets longer and klunkier, and maybe needs to be split into two sentences, and the idea can lose clarity. But I agree that the sentence just sounds too clotted cream thick, and I have accused others of doing that many, many times. Best policy is to just chuck a word or two.

    On the other hand:

    'The artifice involved is moving in a way that a degree of reality much beyond this ceases to be'

    is perfect :)

    I'm surprised anyone dared question my academic tone. I mean, if you can't write pretentiously in the 'Pretentious Bastards' writing competition, when can you?
    board icon
    zigfried posted May 09, 2009:

    'The concerns of the horror genre found in RE an ideal gaming form'

    Whether or not it's missing a word depends on the inflection provided by the reading mind. When reading, my brain applied "subject sound" to "the concerns of the horror genre", "primary verb sound" to "found", and then continued from there. All cool.

    When Zipp read the sentence, his mind provided "subject sound" to "the concerns of the horror genre found in RE"... which left his mind searching for a verb.

    In the US (can't speak for other areas), "found" is more often used to establish a descriptor than as the primary verb. Proper reading of the sentence also requires a pre-emptive mental leap to personify the horror genre's concerns enough for them to be finding anything. In addition, "concerns" is being used in a non-common manner.

    The sentence is technically sound, but its intent is sabotaged from the start for a number of reasons, none of which are easy to solve. Perhaps it would be easier to digest as "The horror genre found in Resident Evil an ideal gaming form" ? That still requires a mental leap, but it eliminates the uncommon usage of "concerns". I normally would suggest turning it all around (Resident Evil embodies the horror genre's ideal gaming form...) but then you'd be starting two sequential sentences with "RE" as well as providing a different shade of meaning.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 09, 2009:

    @ Bloomer: quiet you ^_^

    Zigfried said it best about the one sentence. The other... eh, take it or leave it. The point is, I thought this review was good enough to actually post on a press website and get it out to wider audience as a message about RE and survival horror in general. HOWEVER! Once I start looking at something at that level, I expect a little more out of it. Being pretentious is one thing, but you also want people to be able to understand what you're saying, unless you intend for your articles to sit around as dusty tomes in libraries and have college students bitch about having to read them.

    Also, I stand by my comment that your second half is much weaker, and I'd love to see you rewrite it. The article as a whole is worth the rewrite. That's my opinion.

    @ Aschultz: Click here.

    This is the correct link.
    board icon
    zigfried posted May 09, 2009:

    Unusual words thrown around to look smart is one thing, but sometimes a word like "artifice" is the most concise and most precise way to present the writer's exact thought.

    It's true that some people might wince at having to look up the meaning of certain words, but it's also true that some people -- having looked up said word -- would feel good about having added a new item with a new shade of meaning to their vocabulary. Of course, some people would know the word's meaning from the start (or could surmise it well enough from context to move on without dwelling).

    Outside of this pretension-endorsing contest, we shouldn't promote pretentious writing, but we should promote precise writing. I found Bloomer's piece to be far more precise than pretentious. There's always room to tinker and make an article more accessible, but at some point we have to say "enough's enough" and if someone doesn't want to read it, then to heck with them!

    //Zig
    board icon
    Lewis posted May 09, 2009:

    "The concerns of the horror genre found in RE an ideal gaming form" is a garden path sentence. Many people will read to the end before they realised they'd organised it incorrectly in their heads. Fix with a rephrase:

    "In RE, the concerns of the horror genre found an ideal gaming form."

    Not that it matters. Your piece was excellent.
    board icon
    Sclem posted May 09, 2009:

    I wish to be teamed with the mighty, venerable, knightly, honorable PILLAR PILLAR masters PILLAR PILLAR.

    Or I'm no showing for the first time in 1 year.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted May 09, 2009:

    I'm in. I need someone to be Robin to my Batman, unless we're abandoning that idea due to lack of competitors?
    board icon
    EmP posted May 09, 2009:

    Hells no. MOTO has always been about teams, and teams it shall forver remain.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 09, 2009:

    Ah, brave HAMMER-time, you fought well, but were not pretentious enough to win a pretentious competition. Now you shall be relegated to penning angry, unprofessional 1/10 reviews of popular games that your more well-known persona deems a bad idea to promote under his name.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 09, 2009:

    Poppycock! I post them under my main name!
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 09, 2009:

    As far as I know I'm teamed up with Espiga. Haven't heard from him since, though...
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted May 09, 2009:

    I'm going to team up with e-dvdcopyAA
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 09, 2009:

    Oh finally I can see what you're talking about in the 'found' sentence!

    Re: HOWEVER! Once I start looking at something at that level, I expect a little more out of it.

    I actually expect less of capital J Journalism than what I wrote. That is to say, if I was thinking of this in terms of typical commercial press, this to me is already too much. Words you baulked at (Zipp), others would baulk at. Ideas are longer than the average reader expects. It's more like the literary review section of the newspaper, but for games, except that doesn't really exist yet. That was the whole point of this competition to me. So if anything I would go more in this direction, not less. We didn't develop sophisticated writing so that we would never use it for fear of what some college students would think along the way.
    board icon
    Lewis posted May 09, 2009:

    I think you can write in a sophisticated manner without it becoming a draining read, though. Your piece stayed just on the right side of the line to work extremely well, but it was certainly close to the line - and I think you could perhaps have delivered the same argumentative strength by toning it down a little.

    You can stick within the "careful criticism" genre without checking your thesaurus every sentence. Not that you did that, at all. Just by way of example.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 10, 2009:

    Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'm glad this went over remarkably well, considering I wrote it in about the span of a few hours after writing that first half which was revised quite a bit anyway. This certainly does my satifaction with it justice, so I'm quite pleased.

    I'm going to argue a little here, though, and say that if I went any further into that secondary argument I think I would've committed the sin of repetition, and that ultimately would be worse than anything wrong with it now. I mean, I could only argue so much about how Nintendo are all dunderheads who don't listen to the public, but it'd really just be the same argument over and over with different games as examples without any other points made within that same argument. Further, I was afraid of broadening it too much because I'd loes focus. I really feel the thing works better short like it is now, but I will admit that maybe a little more expansion wouldn't hurt, though it's too late to do anything now with how it's structured and still have it reading well. So better as it is now, I suppose.

    I pretty much agree with everything Zig and Lewis said, except with Zig's stance on piracy. In regard to that, though, I do see where you're coming from. But even so, especially with games that are no longer produced, like the really old retro games, and with how rare actual physical working copies probably are, I still think emulation has really opened that up to people who really wouldn't have it before. I'll say that it may be a shame for the average (well, not so average to be owning it) person who owns a super rare copy of some game they can't sell because it's just easily emulatable, but, really, I'm sure there would be game collectors out there willing to buy it, since those people are more interested in just owning the game than actually playing it.

    And, well, if companies or other people really wanted, they could make emulation profitable by requiring a fee for it to be downloaded or some such. Though the nature of emulation may mean that some files could be found underground regardless of such practices. I personally hope such a time doesn't happen. But, then, I'm just a person who uses ROMs to play games I otherwise wouldn't be able to (or able to again), and intends nothing else with them but to enjoy my own experiences with them, and then maybe review them.

    Though I do think that some emulatable things should be left alone for now. Like PS2 and Xbox emulators out there is a bit overboard, especially since they're still such recent platforms. But eh.

    Anyway, enough about that, lol. To Lewis I say: this was the review / argument I was talking about with that mail all those weeks/months ago. I'm not sure whether I'll be able to rewrite it and still have it come out as well as this, but then, if I wrote for Reso I might just expand the argument anyway depending on your thoughts on the matter. But that all depends on time right now anyway. I'm glad you enjoyed this, though! Very glad I got this in on time, even if I did cut it super close.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 10, 2009:

    Bloomer, there is a thin line you walk in your review. The first part walks the right side of that line. Using big words is fine when they make your point clearer. There were parts where they only complicated matters without vadding to you point.

    Don't get me wrong. I spent six years of college studying literature. I thought your review, when on spot, was amazing. But it's not perfect, and I think the point is valid enough that it deserves to be. Once again, I urge you to do a rewrite. This isn't "just another review."
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 10, 2009:

    Bah. I was too tired and busy writing a post that was longer than the results one last night to remember adding this in I guess. Sorry.

    Congrats to bloomer for winning and the rest for participating. Kind of surprised EmP's wasn't as well received as I'd thought it'd be, but third is still good.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 10, 2009:

    Yes. You all make me very sad indeed. Where is everyone? lol I think there's only like 4 teams possible so far, if that...

    Anyway, Suskie: I've seen espiga on AIM frequently enough before I left, though I hadn't talked to him in a while. And he hasn't really been active around here lately, but still. I'd just try IMing him if you have his current AIM address. Evening's usually the better bet.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 10, 2009:

    I will be producing several reviews over the next few weeks, most likely, but none scream "obscure" to me. Well, one might. Maybe. If that kind of potential excites you, I'm available for drafting.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 10, 2009:

    This is a note to let you all know that Fan Fiction no longer displays throughout the site and that's how things are planned to remain. I haven't removed the functionality, but it's unlikely that I will reactivate the feature.

    Fan fiction is disappearing for a variety of reasons, but a few of them are the most pertinent.

    The first is that each piece of fan fiction, while no doubt written with love, is a sort of copyright infringement. Numerous game publishers are understandably growing more ambitious in their efforts to protect their intellectual property and it's difficult--not to mention costly, if it came down to lawsuits--to argue against that.

    Second, there's a tendency among many reputable sites and users to look down on sites that host fan fiction. Such sites can receive the 'amateur' label whether they deserve it or not, which is unfair to other content hosted on the site.

    Third--and this is closely tied to the second point--the quantity and quality of fan fiction submitted to HonestGamers over the years has been uneven. While we've recently had some very promising submissions, the fact remains that in the long term, fan fiction is not as good a fit for the site as perhaps it once was. HonestGamers is growing, its audience is growing and what it really comes down to is that the best-case scenario for fan fiction on the site is still unpleasant: it becomes really popular and suddenly gets pulled down because of legal threats. The reality is that it would probably just continue to sort of exist, not really well supported but also possibly hurting the site's credibility and preventing it from getting the exposure that would allow other content--such as reviews, for which we hopefully always will be known--to flourish.

    I have removed all references to fiction that I could easily find throughout the site, though more may remain. If you find any, please report them to me so that I can remove them.

    If you are one of those individuals who recently--or in the distant past, even--submitted some fan fiction to the site and you would like to retrieve it for use on your own computer, please feel free to contact me and I will hook you up! The fiction remains in the database and will for at least the immediate future, plus you should still be able to find the fiction content listed on Google if you search for "HonestGamers fan fiction [game title]" or something similar.

    Thanks go out to all of you for your continued suport of the site as we continue to emphasize and expand on its core content. I hope for some very exciting things in the near future, so be sure to stay tuned as we work to continue providing some of the most high-quality content around for the games you care about, new and old, popular and obscure, domestic and import!
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 11, 2009:

    If I were to help judge, how much stuff would I need to read and by when?
    board icon
    Sclem posted May 11, 2009:

    man Bloomer you're still kicking?
    board icon
    EmP posted May 11, 2009:

    I'd estimate between 8-12 reviews and I'm now setting the UNBREAKABLE deadline of 13/6.

    P.S: Deadline may be broken.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 11, 2009:

    When you say 'kicking'... In gamedom I guess I didn't kick for about four years. I'm in a kicking period again now, but who can say when I will cease to kick and turn instead to a course of low impact arm movements?
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 11, 2009:

    8-12, that sounds manageable. OK I will sign on to help judge. Just tell me important stuff later, closer to the time :)
    board icon
    turducken posted May 11, 2009:

    Ditto. I mean, er... HI BUDDIES
    board icon
    turducken posted May 11, 2009:

    Dang it, I was 'ditto'ing to DE's comment about being nagged into this. Friggin' non-quote quoting.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 11, 2009:

    I can find a link to my fan fiction on my contributor page.

    I have it all backed up, so there's no problem there. And I am glad I was able to push through the fiction before this change. It was something I wanted to do. So thanks for having it here, and I wish I'd done it sooner.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 11, 2009:

    That is a tremendous bummer. A lot of people have been coming from other sites to read my ChronoTrigger fic.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 11, 2009:

    The most fun for me will be using utterly unfair and draconian methods to determine how non-obscure your supposedly "obscure" game is.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 11, 2009:

    Thanks to each of the judges for your comments. I was hoping for a wide range since you guys seem to have a wide range of gaming experience.

    Lewis--yeah, I needed to establish the in-jokes a bit better, but on the flip side I didn't want to telegraph them. I don't think I established, overall, that Deathlord is a flawed game that has so many great ideas for puzzles that I don't care about the stupid silly details, which are worth mentioning. For instance, people don't [T]alk, they [O]rate. Yeah, the game used keyboard commands. But it did clever stuff like allow for Macros, and (I forgot to mention) it was incredibly efficiently compressed into 2 5.25" disks(280k) for the towns, terrain etc. And I think that if I had enough quality etc., it could have compensated for your lack of knowledge of olds-chool PC RPGs in general.

    Zippdementia--I noticed some stuff which was doubly-written and agree that if I take a risk at this, I better root it out. If I had to rewrite it, I might have the Deathlord reading his Slam Book re: Dreax and those other guys, or maybe running through Hell and making observations, trying to keep ahead of the adventurers. Thanks for sharing your piece with me, and I see clearly what you mean, being on the other side.

    One thing I would ask, when you say "overtly..." isn't fiction not supposed to be too overt? I think the gist of the piece is that there is a hell of a lot that can be done with abstract puzzles that ISN'T. It should have been explicitly stated in a sentence, such as "evil guys who give out participation ribbons to good guys and offer them easy level ups, pff, that's not evil." Of course the "that's not evil" strophe can be overused, but I think that is the idea. And I know that one problem I find with my writing on rereading is, I really could've done a bit more here and there--but it can take me some time to realize it.

    And I think what you said folds into what a lot of Zigfried mentioned, about the ordinary details not needing to be there. I was worried about mixing too many lists with the narrative to slow it down, but now I think they would break it up. I can't have the Deathlord walking around his cramped room reading them, but at the same time part of what I liked about the game was, given how the map was laid out, the Deathlord sacrificed even space, in the end, to create one final big annoying maze.

    Zigfried--thanks for the nice words and for still pointing out things that can be made better. I'm glad you got--and enjoyed--the name dropping. I was worried that this might seem weighted towards old school gamers. It was supposed to make old-school gamers smile and I know my work generally isn't directed towards that, so I am glad to be able to do that.

    In general...I recognized the risk I was taking by looking at an obscure game, that I had to be exact. And it seems in some cases I wasn't. Even though HG fan fiction is mostly de-linked now, I've still recognized stuff I could've proofread & anything that gives me the desire to do that is a good thing. A lot of points where I wanted to be extra-subtle was too subtle & I think that is the wrong sort of pretentious. At any rate, I got good different feedback from all 3 judges which is what I was hoping for and I think you guys did a good job of working independently on my piece and in general.

    The novelty of fan-fiction was a lot of fun. It got in the way of wanting to change things ASAP, but that's just another reason to get to writing what I -really- want to that much earlier. I don't think I quite achieved what I wanted to, but a lot of that was probably down to my not putting in all the time I could have, while others did so and were rewarded accordingly.

    Enjoyable reads from everyone here & the judges' insight on all the people's writing was also a big boost. I think Wolfqueen's idea touched on giving me ideas of things to write about there and Bloomer had a lot of good stuff on what makes a good game a good game. And as the judges said, everyone else had something worthwhile.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 11, 2009:

    What the heck. I think I have a game. But it just might not be obscure enough.
    board icon
    sashanan posted May 12, 2009:

    You people are making WQ sad, and this is unacceptable.

    Stop being slackers! Signed, EmP


    Technically, the people in this thread are not the ones making WQ sad. We signed up.

    How are we doing teams, in advance or do we just let you know by the time it comes to judging?
    board icon
    EmP posted May 12, 2009:

    Throw your teams out whenever.

    That said, I officially release the name of the winning team. The team made up of EmP and WQ.

    WQ thought up said name. It is WQ's DREAM HAREM.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 12, 2009:

    XD I did not come up with the name. That was your idea. I just went along with it because it was funny. But you renamed it to look like it was my idea, and added an adjective for flair. I'm onto you. Haha.

    Now where's that reply I'm expecting? I only have 3 days to get a game lined up after all. =P
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 12, 2009:

    Actually...I have 3 games. One is VERY satisfyingly weird and captivating and it doesn't have much Japanese!

    I recognize I may be the odd man out, or I may be too late to register(don't ask me why I didn't click here a couple months earlier,) but I'm willing to be a substitute if someone pulls out, or a partner if someone wants to join. I won't be upset if I am not chosen, though...I'll just go write the review(s) I wanted to on my own. But I'm interested enough to rehash my post above, just to check off on things.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted May 12, 2009:

    Actually you're not the odd man out. I signed up but emp didn't add me to the draft list.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 12, 2009:

    You're both clearly quite blind. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
    board icon
    fleinn posted May 13, 2009:

    Game: Demon's Souls
    Platform: Playstation 3
    Publisher+Developer: From Software
    Genre: Hacknslash Action/RPG
    Release Date: 2009 (Asia/Japan)

    I have a short review ready.

    Added.

    edit: :) thanks
    ..if anyone want to help me out with some writing advice/feedback, that would be great.
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted May 13, 2009:

    I'll enter this as long as the deadline is after May 18th.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 13, 2009:

    So how do we team up? Behind the scenes? And if nobody has a partner after a certain date, then are we randomly paired up? Can we place ads on the message boards? I think I'd be happy working with any of the other contestants here, and I think I have a good game.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 13, 2009:

    You can form your teams anyway you deem acceptable. This includes kidnap, stalking and chainsaws. WQ used all three to trap me.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 13, 2009:

    The RotW rota has been moved to the freelance board, so interested partys should go there and try and work out how best they can slot themselvces into the (currently completly open) rotation. I'm doing last week's now, so we need to get a new system penned up by Sunday so we can move on from thos week forward.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 13, 2009:

    The official Review of the Week topic has been moved to the freelance forum. Any discussion should take place there, where all parties involved can participate. I am closing this topic and removing its sticky nature.
    board icon
    sashanan posted May 13, 2009:

    How about we make it easy and just join up, Schultz? When it comes to the obscure, we're hard to beat.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 13, 2009:

    Pfft. EmP exaggerates. Only two of those methods were necessary. Well, and whining. He didn't mention whining. But that falls in with stalking.

    Secretly, though, I didn't need to do anything; he came straight to me. It was quite flattering. Haha
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 14, 2009:

    Sashanan, check your gmail. It sounds pretty good but I want to make sure you're okay with the game choice I had & what we want to accomplish with all this.
    board icon
    Genj posted May 14, 2009:

    Please add this. I'm gonna review this shit:

    Touhou Bunkachou: Shoot the Bullet
    Genre: Shooter (Vertical but not scrolling)
    Developer & Publisher: Team Shanghai Alice
    Platform: PC
    Release: December 30, 2005 (Japan)
    System requirements: Pentium 800MHz, 140MB hard disk, Direct3D, DirectX 8, VRAM 32M, DirectSound, 128MB RAM

    Added.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 15, 2009:

    Quick question... despite the links no longer being supported, can I request that I be allowed to finish out the fan fiction that's partially hosted on my blog? As long as i can continue to link people to the blog links, readers will keep coming. Seriously, I haven't been able to bring over many reviewers, but I know a lot of people come for the Chrono Trigger fan fiction I wrote and go on to read reviews and give the site as a whole.

    I've gotten many emails to that affect!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 15, 2009:

    The links on your blog will eventually disappear, as well, since the site is not allowing new fiction submissions and will likely remove existing ones at some point in the not-so-distant future. If you want to post fiction on your blog, or host it elsewhere online and link to it from your blog, I have no objections until such a time as a publisher or developer gives us grief for allowing it to take up space on our server. I'm actually a big fan of creative writing.
    board icon
    jerec posted May 15, 2009:

    Venter, can you please accept my Animal Crossing "Fanfiction" as a review, like it was intended to be? I still have that awful rejection note from lassarina :(

    Edit: I was able to access my fiction, but there's no way for me to edit it or remove it. Anyway, if I can submit it as a review, I'll give it a quick edit.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 15, 2009:

    Go ahead and submit it as a review with any edits that you have in mind. There's no need to worry about editing the fiction or removing it, since that will happen naturally over the course of time as the disappearance of fan fiction on the site becomes complete.
    board icon
    jerec posted May 15, 2009:

    Cheers!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 17, 2009:

    We have a new lineup of folks ready to contribute RotW topics in the weeks ahead--and an expection that the topics will finally be timely again--so that's good news for everyone. In the meantime, here's some bad news: I'm stepping in for this week and will be posting the topic... right about now!

    The usual rules apply: reviews posted as staff and freelance content over this past seven days are ineligible. Only a single submission from any one user will be considered (not an issue this week). I can't give myself the award, either (darn!). Re-posts of known content are also excluded from the running. I don't think anyone snuck anything like that past me... or even tried. With that out of the way, it's on to the picks.




    Second Runner Up: Touch Detective 2 (DS) by woodhouse

    This review was a bit on the short side, rather abrupt and not qutie as analytical as I would have liked. There was a lot of time spent examining the characters and how this game differs from the previous one in terms of the protagonist, plus some healthy discussion of the random nature of puzzles, but the general framework of how the game plays wasn't ever really established to my satisfaction. That meant that what here was very good (some excellent phrasing and such), but there were some missing details that would have made the review really stand out from the crowd.

    First Runner Up: Defenders of the Dynatron City (NES) by aschultz

    I enjoyed this review for an old NES game that I never played. I remember when Howard left Nintendo Power that it was for some odd game... I think this one! The descriptions throughout were suitably detailed, arguably to the point of excess. The text was quite long and there were descriptions of each of the character styles and weapons and stages and some thoughtful descriptions, but after a certain point it just started to feel like a bit of a FAQ and less of a review. There was a lot of good content here, but some self-editing would've made it an even more enjoyable read.

    Review of the Week: Metal Slug Anthology (PS2) by pickhut

    Aside from a few sloppy moments with grammar, there's not much about this review that I would have cared to see change. The introduction was effective, quickly establishing that "arcade perfect" isn't quite right but not an issue. There were some good nods to the various titles included on the collection without ever resorting to a list or a rundown of each game--a wise choice, I felt--and the technical details discussed always were discussed with a purpose, not to satisfy some theoretical checklist. The comments on the continue system and the slowdown showed a good understanding of what fans will be wondering about prior to playing this port and the review skirted nerd debate but didn't jump into a pointless fray or troll anything. I mentioned a few sloppy moments with grammar, but really this was one of the most polished pieces that I can recall seeing from its author, a real joy to read that got in, did its job well and then got out. That was enough to earn it this week's top spot.




    Jerec also asked on his blog for commentary on his not-new review of Animal Crossing for GameCube, which at one point was rejected on the site because it felt like fan fiction. It still does, but it's fan fiction with an obvious and reasonable goal: exploration of what it feels like to play Animal Crossing. While I would caution people against trying the fan fiction gimmick for reviews in the future, it actually worked out really well in the case of Jerec's review and gave as clear and concise an examination of the many separate elements that make Animal Crossing great as any number of other more standard reviews that we have posted.

    And since I've commented on Jerec's piece, it really wouldn't be fair to leave out fleinn's quality submission, which just barely missed out on a ranking this week. It was a good analysis of the game, but unfortunately there were just too many awkward phrases. One early one comes to mind: "Much lighter than this everyday life in Boletaria never seems to become after that." There's really no reason that I can see for the awkward phrasing. A simpler, punchier "Boletaria never seems to become any brighter after that" would probably make things more dramatic (and certainly less passive). Little examples like that held back the review as a whole, or else it might have placed higher (as the content explored and the rationalizations were quite worthwhile).

    With that, I leave you to your debate over my choices... Be sure to contribute more great content this coming week as we break in our new faces. Wouldn't want them to have it easy now, would we?
    board icon
    jerec posted May 17, 2009:

    Thanks :D
    board icon
    EmP posted May 17, 2009:

    Im late because I dont conform to things like deadlines. I once met a deadline on the Mean Streets of Surrey, England and I stabbed it right in the eye. Thatll show you, deadline!

    RotW is undergoing a bit of a change that should see these late entries banished to the misty mists of the mist-filled pasts. But what does not change is the rules which remain as follows:

  • NO staff reviews

  • NO duplicated reviews for authors

  • NO respect for deadlines


  • We shall begin

    FIRST: WolfQueen 001 Mother

    If you people could see my HG mail inbox over the last few weeks, you would see a barrage of mails from Wolfy demanding I tell her about this review. Every time Id politely brush her off, shed return, twice as persistent as before and using more vile threats. So, here.

    This is, by quite a margin, the best presented argument of the week. I found myself disagreeing with a few things the judges said on Lewis tourney, such as how you should have built more of a mocking tone towards Nintendo, and instead fall into the view that you absolutely nailed this. The problem I now have is to ask myself how this works as a review for the premises of the competition Im to judge it on. And how much Im going to dock you for after I see you named not a single character in your play though after me.

    The answer is, its still great as a review because, much like Drellas awesome piece on Pong, it bases its focus on the most important aspect of the title -- which isnt always necessarily strictly gameplay related. This was a fascinating read, despite your constant, constant whining that youd blow it.

    SECOND: Suskie: Zelda II

    Foolish Suskie! The world is split into two; but its between those who like Doom 3 and those who do not!

    For the most part, you do what many others cannot resist and attack the game more than you do the fanbase, and you do so using solid examples, but the review often wavers, unsure if it wants to be an deconstruction of a well-loved game to smacking around the fan base. Hey, Im cool with mocking fanbases -- Ive made a career of it -- but it comes across as jarring on a few occasions because of how well you set out your anti-Zelda II stall. The last line is the biggest culprit although I personally really liked it (which explains why Ive used it before. Lawsuit pending.)

    A Zelda II bash is a big project to take on, and its one I feel you have tackled competently, leaving those who support the game having to agree with the bulk of your points. Look at them swarm into the feedback topic and the only defence they can give is that they all hated the game at first but kept playing it until they loved it! Fools! You get extra points just for making their defences looks so paper-thin weak.

    THIRD: Quasimodo Batman Forever

    This review sometimes feels like its main aim is to squeeze in as many one liners as it can -- something it accuses the [awful] Batman Forever film of being guilty as, but its a very effective way to walk the reader through what is a point-blank awful game. Maybe it was laid on thick at points, but the review was exactly the right length, let me know what was wrong with the game without spelling it out on crayon and was a fun read. Great review. I demand more!

    Hear that? Its the winds of change! Unless you mean that squelching noise: thats deadline slowly bleeding to death in the corner. Im off to watch the life slowly drain out of its eyes.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 17, 2009:

    Pfft. I only nagged once. Or twice. I cant remember.

    Thanks, though! <3 Im really glad you liked it, especially since Id felt pretty good about it myself.

    Im also requesting my points this time around. Thanks.

    P.S. I almost named a character after you, but didnt because I thought itd be hella weird. XD None of the screens have the character in question anyway.

    Congrats to Suskie and the new guy as well.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 17, 2009:

    Congrats to the winners. Haha. I like that Jason typoed 4 instead of 5 for the month. Thought this would be spam.
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 17, 2009:

    Thanks for the mention, and yeah, I found the feedback pretty funny as well. On a side note, WQ wrote an excellent review and she absolutely deserved to win, so congrats to her, and to this Quasimodo person too.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted May 17, 2009:

    Thanks for the comments and the RotW placing, Venter! And yeah, I always find compilation reviews to be a challenge, because you could easily fall into the simple trap of just listing the games in the collection and explaining how each of them play.

    Congrats to woodhouse and aschultz for their placings as well!
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 17, 2009:

    Be sure to contribute more great content this coming week as we break in our new faces. Wouldn't want them to have it easy now, would we?

    ......
    ......
    ......

    According to our schedule, it's me (not a new face) that's doing this coming week. Therefore, the above posted line by be is not only inaccurate, but cruel.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 17, 2009:

    Gratzes on jobs well done.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 17, 2009:

    Hm, I think Pickhut's opening needs heart surgery, as it leads the reader well off the path.

    The opening statement is basically 'The title's claim to be Arcade Perfect is top five nonsense'. But that never is followed up with any conviction. When you get to the second last paragraph, two things are mentioned, that the games no longer have arcade slowdown, and that there's the odd 3-4 second load. That's it. These two observations can't stand up to the content of the first paragraph or its tone, or the lead it generates about what's to follow in the review, which isn't bourne out.

    Content is v good, intro I'm pretty certain needs a retool.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted May 17, 2009:

    Hm, I think Pickhut's opening needs heart surgery, as it leads the reader well off the path.

    The opening statement is basically 'The title's claim to be Arcade Perfect is top five nonsense'. But that never is followed up with any conviction.


    Because it was never intended to be. I defuse the situation at the start of the second paragraph, telling the reader that the compilation not being arcade perfect doesn't matter, and that it's just great that all these titles are on one disc.

    I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding how you think that the game not being arcade perfect is the main focus of the review.
    board icon
    zigfried posted May 17, 2009:

    I suspect the issue is because you said "top five" nonsense. Top five seems to be pretty strong nonsense, better reserved for sweaty Mortal Kombat ports than an elimination of slowdown and loading times.

    I agree with the point that arcade perfection can go screw itself when it comes to having fun. The awesome DDP DOJ BLX on 360 (commonly referred to as "that horrible, horrible port") has gotten similarly maligned, for pretty much the same reasons -- elimination of slowdown and a bit of loading.

    //Zig
    board icon
    dementedhut posted May 17, 2009:

    Well, that part was meant as things said in the back of game boxes, since a lot of game's have a lot of silly sayings in the back of their cases. But, I guess I can understand the confusion.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 18, 2009:

    Thanks for the placement and for the comment on how I could make things better! You are not the first to point out that I can lapse into FAQ mode if I do not watch it. As always, I proofread the piece, but it is very valuable to know if there's anything particular to look for when proofreading.

    Congratulations to the other people on here, too. It's good to have this sort of competition to pick up my efforts.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 18, 2009:

    Good to see someone new, and I guess wolfqueen's piece won a 1st place on the heels of a 2nd place in a big tournament.

    Wolfqueen's thoughts on piracy/emulation and its good/bad triggered the recurring question I have of of how much emulation can improve a formerly bad/too-difficult game. Obviously Mother doesn't need the improvement, but I can think of games that could.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted May 19, 2009:

    Whoa, it's almost been three weeks. Finished up the walkthrough junk for Golden Sun TLA, and hopefully I can cut down on the boring class work by reusing stuff from the first GS. Kinda hoping to finish in a week's time but who knows...
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 20, 2009:

    Game: Esh's Aurunmilla
    Platform: Arcade
    Publisher+Developer: Funai
    Genre: Arcade/Action(basically it's a laser disc game like Cliff Hanger/Dragon's Lair)
    Release Date: 1984(US)

    Game: Shadowkeep
    Platform: Apple IIe
    Publisher: Trillium
    Developer: Ultrasoft
    Release Date: 1984(US)
    Genre: RPG(1st person)

    Added.

    --thanks for the quick add!
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 20, 2009:

    So do we only have 2 teams, or are people waiting to see each other's reviews before deciding who to join up with?

    (Sashanan and I being the Imperial Scarscalps.)
    board icon
    zigfried posted May 20, 2009:

    I am now signing up, and my mystery partner shall be named at a later date closer to the deadline. Speaking of, when is the deadline? I'll be gone May 28 through May 31, so knowing in advance whether I need to rush or if I have the beginning of June to finish would be quite useful.

    In any case, I hereby unveil

    TEAM SPOILER
    Member 1: Zigfried
    Member 2: ??????

    //Zig
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted May 21, 2009:

    The deadline is the 13th June.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 23, 2009:

    I've been horrified that there's no entry for the original version of Prince of Persia for the Apple II either here or on gamefaqs. So I'm taking measures to fix this.

    Game: Prince of Persia
    Platform: Apple II
    Publisher: Broderbund Software
    Developer: Broderbund Software
    Release Date: 1989 (US)
    Genre: Action - 2D Platformer

    ADDED'D
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 24, 2009:

    To commemorate the beginning of a new era of people doing RotW, you get me.....the lone experienced veteran of the circuit. So, here I am, taking a break from my three-day weekend binging to bring you whatever the closest thing to insight and wisdom my battered brain can muster.

    Like usual, there are rules. Cruel rules you might consider draconian and unfair. They shall be followed. Also, you can't fool me, hmd. I know your Call of Duty is a re-publish of your former RotW winner that someone vandalized. So, I'm thinking it probably shouldn't be eligible. That saves us the controversy of potentially having one review win two RotWs and saves me the grief of potentially having to read a whiny "OH THE HUMANITY!!!!" series of posts saying my RotW is a joke. So, just shine up your old RotW trophy (which I'm sure Jason did promptly send you) and read what I saw about these people.



    THIRD PLACE: Crazy Taxi 2 (Dreamcast) by fastkilr

    It was a bit of a duel for third place. First, for aschultz, who narrowly lost out: I swear, when I read those two reviews, I'd have killed for a couple of screenshots. You were describing the screens of your games and I was reading and thinking, "Man, I can ALMOST see what he's talking about, but I need to see the screen to see if my imagery is accurate." If you have the capacity to take screens of these games and you're playing ones without them, I'd be very in favor of you doing so (hint: more HG Points for your HG Warring). With these two reviews, it's a "picture is worth 1000 words" scenario, as you wouldn't have to go into such detail describing the scene on the screen, which can drag down the pace of things, as when reading something, I find it a bit tiring to realize I need to take what I just read and put it all together to "see" what you're playing.

    Fastkilr winds up in third place with a brief, engaging look at Crazy Taxi 2. I enjoyed much about this review, but felt it might have hurt itself a bit by being so vague about things at least to readers who might not be overly familiar with the original Crazy Taxi (assuming there are people not familiar with the original who would be interested in playing the second). For example, you mention the two new levels early on. Are they the game's only levels, or does the game simply rehash CT's levels and give you two new ones? And what exactly is the Crazy Pyramid, other than apparently some sort of tutorial-place? And mentioning there's a change to the ability to jump and following it up with "Theres really no point spending extra time covering that function; its reception will vary." really fell short for me. Despite those issues, I still liked this review, as it did a very good job of getting across the point this game would be fun for fans of CT, but really offers nothing new and is, in essence, a slightly different version of that game. I just think certain parts of it could be expanded on to make it a REALLY good review.

    SECOND PLACE: Spyro the Dragon: Season of Ice (GBA) by bigcj34

    As I recall, you've reviewed a good number of the Spyro games, so have know what you're talking about concerning them. That might be part of why this review seems a bit more tight and focused than some others I remember reading from you. I remember seeing there were two Spyro games on the GBA and wondered how the series would translate to a small-screen isometric view and, sadly, your review more of less confirmed my uneducated guess. A bunch of areas that essentially play the same and only superficially look different combined with the occasional cheap death caused by awkward angles. The way you made your points in a short, sweet fashion combined with the sense of authority about the subject I felt in this review work together to make it a very good effort.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Silent Hill: Homecoming by jill

    This is one of those reviews that might fit into the "love or hate" category. I could understand a person (especially one who isn't a diehard follower of the Silent Hill series) looking at this review and thinking things like "really long and dry" and "PC clocking.....commence....NOW!". But to me, who's played the first three and is considering adding this game to my list o' SH conquests, I found this a very informative review that discussed this game effectively on multiple levels. The parts where you were noting the monsters didn't seem to fit with the psyche of Alex, as has been the case in past games.....or where you were theorizing that Pyramid Head was included solely because he was in the SH movie and many others show a depth of knowledge and passion about this series that kept me reading and left me feeling I'd actually learned something from the time I spent with this review. Kudos!




    All right! With that done, I can put my full attention on the Indy 500. Or the back of my eyelids. One of the two.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 24, 2009:

    The back of my eyelids and Indy 500 have so much in common, but the one thing they have most in common is this: they put me to sleep. :-D

    Good job ona timely and interesting RotW, overdrive!

    A note on RotW trophies: I had one commissioned that was constructed out of solid gold with a diamond-encrusted base, but I quickly realised that shiping it out and insuring it would be too costly. I melted it down and used the proceeds to pay for porn.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted May 24, 2009:

    Oh darn. I wouldn't have won it anyway. XD
    board icon
    hmd posted May 24, 2009:

    Why are you paying for porn Jason only stupid people do that! PROTIP: Torrents.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 26, 2009:

    Nice job, overdrive. Thanks for requesting the screenshots as I didn't realize the latest version of AppleWin had them. I know that feature now, so I may pour them on for all the games I want to write reviews for. There's a thorny problem with all the games I want to write for in that we don't have screenshots to verify what's written.

    I've actually had a bit of a moral dilemma submitting screenshots for my retro contest game, as there are some good ones, but on the other hand I want the description to stand on its own. It feels somewhat like tapping-up the judges to drop in a screenshot just before the contest.

    Anyway, thanks to you, and congratulations to the winners including the sort-of extra-bonus winner today.
    board icon
    QuasidodoJr posted May 26, 2009:

    I just now noticed this. Thanks for the honor (even though you spelled my username incorrectly :p .) I had been recently messing around with my old Sega Genesis and Sega CD and found that pile of drivel in my collection. After revisiting its awfulness, I felt a proper bash-fest of a review was in order.

    Oh, and I have also written a few reviews for Honest Gamers as a contributor under my real name, Jeremy Wood. So, I'm not entirely new.
    board icon
    True posted May 28, 2009:

    Why are you paying for porn Jason only stupid people do that! PROTIP: Torrents.

    Here's a better question: Why did Jason take a picture of himself in a wig and then use it as his avatar?*


    * - No offense meant by that, I'm just trying to goad you into a Light Vs. Darkness battle.
    board icon
    goldenvortex posted May 28, 2009:

    I'm in. Who wants to form a team?
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 28, 2009:

    Vorty and I will form

    THE CULT OF PERSONALITY, FEATURING SEMI-AUTOMATIC MEATLOAF AND ZIGFRIED'S ENCHILADA
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 28, 2009:

    Rats, someone else used another person's name or variant thereof...and now I feel like a coward, because I think Sashanan and I were thinking about being the Supreme Jerks. But there was Jerec, who likes abbreviating his name to use team titles with "jerk" in it.
    board icon
    randxian posted May 30, 2009:

    Holy crap! I didn't even notice these until now. I guess I should check the Contributor Zone more often.

    Thanks for the feedback. I did feel Legacy of the Wizard is one of my better works so far.

    Liked the Hover Bower review. Very informative and fun to read.

    I tip my straw hat to zipp for making a text game sound so interesting. Very convincing review.
    board icon
    randxian posted May 30, 2009:

    Wow. Amazed Crystalis finished third this week since I don't consider it to be one of my better works.
    board icon
    randxian posted May 30, 2009:

    I realize this topic is old by now and you probably forgot the examples you would provide for me, but do you happen to remember anything specific?

    Really appreciate the feedback you've given me so far though. Now at least I have a sense of direction.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 30, 2009:

    Thank you, randxian. This is by far my most popular review, having risen to almost a 1000 views in nary but a couple weeks.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 01, 2009:

    My MOTO entry for anyone who cares.
    board icon
    hell posted June 05, 2009:

    Finally...................... Hell has returned to HG!!!!

    (much to the chagrin of some of you I am sure!)

    lol.... sorry I have been gone far too long.... what have I missed?
    board icon
    dagoss posted June 05, 2009:

    I'm David. I wrote an assload of reviews last year when I was unemployed, living alone in an unfamiliar city, and drinking heavily. I've written hardly anything this year, but I'm considering various actions in my life that might result in spiral back into a pit of mania and depression, at which point I'll post more awesome reviews.

    Also, I'm cynical.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted June 05, 2009:

    Game: Naruto: Ninja Council 2
    Platform: GBA
    Publisher: D3 Publisher
    Developer: Aspect
    Release Date: October 4, 2006 US
    April 29, 2004 JP
    Genre: Action
    ESRB: E10+
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Game: Naruto: Ninja Council 3
    Platform: DS
    Publisher: D3 Publisher
    Developer: Aspect
    Release Date: May 22, 2007 US
    April 27, 2006 JP
    Genre: Action
    ESRB: E
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

    ADDED
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted June 06, 2009:

    Whoa, page 40 already? I missed a lot. Oh wait, that's page 4 and I didn't. That's okay, though. Doing Wild Arms stuff right now and wasting time with My World My Way appendices until I can finally beat that annoying final boss.
    board icon
    randxian posted June 06, 2009:

    Game: Star Wars The Clone Wars: Jedi Alliance
    Platform(s): Nintendo DS
    Publisher: Lucas Arts
    Developer: Lucas Arts
    Genre: Sci-Fi Action
    Release Date: 11/11/2008 (US)

    Our database of NES titles is otherwise more complete and accurate than the GameFAQs one and no additional games should be added for that system.

    More importantly, this site doesn't list the same game two or three times under slightly different names. I always found that annoying as hell on GameFAQs.

    ADDED
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 06, 2009:

    My mystery partner for TEAM SPOILER will be

    So there you have it.

    //Zig
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 08, 2009:

    It is so typical for me that when inspiration finally hit, it was for a completely different game that certainly does not qualify as obscure. Come on, brain. Do as I tell you.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 08, 2009:

    * * * Draft order has been posted. Please refer to the next post. * * *

    The 2009 Team Tournament Draft will be conducted in this topic. The draft order has been processed and is currently under lock and key. Only one person knows the draft order, and it will remain secret until Wednesday morning. In the meantime, here are a few points to keep in mind.

    Important dates and deadlines:
    Tuesday, June 9 at midnight HG time is the deadline for signing up for the draft
    The draft will commence on Wednesday, June 10.
    Monday, June 22 is when the 2009 Team Tournament will officially commence
    Season schedules will be made before the 22nd but only after the draft has ended

    How draft selection works:
    Captains, once Wednesday rolls around, be sure to check this topic often! The draft kicks off as soon as the draft order is revealed, so we dont want to have to wait days for you to make your pick if it can be avoided. The draft order must be followed. In other words, the guy with the #2 pick cant go ahead of the guy with the #1.

    To make a selection, just post your pick in this topic. And please, for the love of God, make sure you dont draft someone who has already been drafted or isnt signed up for the draft. Lets try to make the draft fast so we can get on to scheduling and, eventually, competing.

    If there are any questions, either from captains or draftees, please ask them now.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 08, 2009:

    Commissioners:
    EmP
    Felix


    Judges:
    Jerec
    Sportsman
    Lewis


    Captains:
    Bluberry
    Dagoss
    EmP
    Felix
    Janus
    Overdrive
    Suskie
    Will


    Draft Members:
    ASchultz
    BELISARIOS
    BigCJ34
    Dark Eternal
    Disco1960
    Dragoon of Infinity
    Espiga
    Golden Vortex
    Honestgamer
    Mister E
    Radical Dreamer
    Randxian
    Sashanan
    True
    Turducken
    Wolfqueen
    Woodhouse
    Zigfried
    Zippdementia


    Draft Order:

    Round 1: Will / Dagoss / Felix / Bluberry / EmP / OD / Janus / Suskie
    Round 2: Suskie / Janus / OD / EmP / Bluberry / Felix / Dagoss / Will

    #1 - Zippdementia
    #2 - Wolfqueen001
    #3 - Zigfried
    #4 - Woodhouse
    #5 - Dark Eternal
    #6 - Venter
    #7 - Radical Dreamer
    #8 - True

    #9 - ASchultz
    #10 - Disco1960
    #11 - BELISARIOS
    #12 - Dragoon of Infinity
    #13 - Espiga
    #14 - Mister E
    #15 - Golden Vortex
    #16 - Sashanan

    Teams:
    Will / Zippdementia / Sashanan
    Dagoss / Wolfqueen001 / Golden Vortex
    Felix / Zigfried / Mister E
    Bluberry / Woodhouse / Espiga
    EmP / Dark Eternal / Dragoon of Infinity
    OD / Venter / BELISARIOS
    Janus / Radical Dreamer / Disco1960
    Suskie / True / ASchultz
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 08, 2009:

    I HAVE A QUESTION!!!

    Can I be a Commissioner/Captain, too? I like fancy titles!



    Either way, people, two of you will be lucky enough to serve me throughout the summer. Yes, I feel great things will be in the future for Overdrive, Lackey #1 and Lackey #2. TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS shall prevail!

    And, yes, I have decided our name will be TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS. Unless I change my mind, which I likely will about 17 times during the course of the season.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 08, 2009:

    Damn. The number of draftees was perfect until Beli had to come in and ruin everything! This draft will suck for precisely one person.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 08, 2009:

    Can't have one person ruin things all on his own. I'm in, too.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 08, 2009:

    OD, you should change your name from Rob to Morgan so we can call you Captain Morgan Overdrive.

    Sashanan has entered as a draftee hopeful!!
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 08, 2009:

    let's take bets, who's dumb enough to go for Mister E?
    board icon
    Mister_E posted June 08, 2009:

    Yes, let's!

    I would especially recommend you do!


    M_E
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 08, 2009:

    I might be! It sounds like just the sort of crazy thing TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS would do!

    Then again, if it sounds like the sort of crazy thing TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS would do, I might not do so in order to show off the sort of enigmatic chaotic thinking TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS has long been known for.
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 08, 2009:

    That's okay, Sashanan. Your Thy Dungeonman 2 review is dynamite. As is my Peasant Quest review.

    Those fools won't know what hit them!

    ...err, fools being the other competitors of course, not the judges. Hi judges!

    (sees other competitors massing near him)

    Uh, err, hi, you guys too! Say, how 'bout Gabon in those World Cup qualifiers?
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 08, 2009:

    Hey, EmP, when are you going to add Vorty's and my team to the listing? We've got review comps to win!
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 08, 2009:

    Any time you want to add me and Espiga, that would be awesome, too.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 08, 2009:

    My Thy Dung...oh! Oh yes, certainly. Exquisite, even.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 08, 2009:

    I've heard of Homestar Runner. -6.79 on obscurity from me, Schultz/Sash.

    Yes, I am an unreasonably harsh judge. This tournament will see me break all of you to see which of you have the fortitude to be broken again and again until I can mold you into soldiers in the New Overdrive Army!
    board icon
    jerec posted June 08, 2009:

    I hereby name myself Captain of the JUDGE TEAM! We are the KINGMAKERS!
    board icon
    dagoss posted June 08, 2009:

    It seems silly that we're still going to have a draft when my team has already won the tournament.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 08, 2009:

    The only thing that seems silly here is your face.

    OOH! BURN!
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 08, 2009:

    Oops. I got the numbers wrong. We actually wrote reviews for the not yet released Thy Dungeonman IV(get a lantern to go with that flask) and Peasant Quest II(get a bride to henpeck you for the none-too-copious rest of your days, with the Plague visiting in 5 years.)

    Still, the surprise value is gone. However, Sashanan and I will temporarily postpone our contributions to Great Art to conform to the utterly repressive restrictions of this contest, because we care.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 09, 2009:

    I have a lantern - otherwise I'd be likely to be eaten by a grue - but ye can't get ye flask.

    Oh well, Mana Khemia is out of my system (and hilariously unsuitable for MOTO), so with any luck I'll be able to pull my half soon. Not a lot of time left.
    board icon
    dagoss posted June 09, 2009:

    Silly... like a fox!
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 09, 2009:

    This draft shoulda had a scouting combine. Honest.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 09, 2009:

    I have decided who I want to draft. If I don't get my way then I quit.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 09, 2009:

    If Janus gets his way I quit.
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 09, 2009:

    If willthegreat and Janus either both quit or both don't quit, I quit.

    Sorry, I've been re-taking the Self-Referential Aptitude Test again.

    Edit: Wolfqueen, what COULD you be talking about?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 09, 2009:

    If Aschultz screws up his hyperlinking one more time, I quit.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 09, 2009:

    Nothing will make me quit, so I win by default!

    FINALLY!!!! I AM CHAMPION!!!!!!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 09, 2009:

    Article XVI Rule 13.1 Paragraph 2 Line 3 states that for a Team Tournament Champion to be crowned, they have to fit two criteria:

    1) Win the Team Tournament Championship Match
    2) Not be named Overdrive
    board icon
    randxian posted June 09, 2009:

    If I get drafted by the Chargers, I quit.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted June 09, 2009:

    Put me in the draft pool.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 09, 2009:

    Radical Dreamer a.k.a. theREALbbobb has entered as a draftee hopeful!!

    And for those of you not keeping count, that leaves any other potential draftee hopefuls just over 4 hours time before the deadline for signing up for the draft.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 09, 2009:

    I thought Radical Dreamer was Sportsman. Am I missing something?

    Edit: Wait, maybe not. Why did I always think Radical Dreamer was Sportsman?
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 09, 2009:

    After one look at that aptitude test, I categorically refuse to try it unless free aspirin is supplied.

    As for the tournament, I will quit only on condition that I quit.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 10, 2009:

    Aschultz: don't look if you're not done, but picking Q20 to be E, I worked out:

    1D, 2A, 3D, 4B, 5E, 6D, 7D, 8E, 9D, 10A, 11B, 12A, 13D, 14B, 15A, 16D, 17B, 18A, 19B, 20E

    you get the same sol'n? or is there a different one for different answers to Q20? it really clicks into place so long as you keep an eye out for the easy ones and the questions that give you subtle but enormous hints.

    all the masochism of a real analysis exam with none of the helping me get into grad school if I do well. fuck you, I was going to go to sleep an hour ago!
    board icon
    True posted June 10, 2009:

    Bbobb has signed up?!

    I may have my revenge yet...
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 10, 2009:

    Bluberry, the author intended there to be a specific answer to #20. It helped the answers form a sentence, which was an allusion to "Fatal Attraction." So you can check for yourself if you got the right answer for #20 :).

    Nice job getting through it. Apparently there are even tougher and worse ones. I was pleased I got through it but anything more difficult would probably take too much time to actually be fun.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 10, 2009:

    Game: XBLA)ion=all>A Fading Melody
    Console: XBox 360
    Developer: Anchorcast
    Publisher: Microsoft
    Genre: Platformer
    Release Date: 20/03/2009
    Notes: XNA Community Game

    ADDED
    board icon
    Mister_E posted June 10, 2009:

    Best of luck to all captains and participants! Although I've been deemed least likely to be drafted in a few cold remarks, I'm still excited at the remote possibility of ending up on a team. I'll repeat that I will try my hardest for any captain that selects me and guarantee him or her 9 reviews.

    M_E
    board icon
    EmP posted June 10, 2009:

    THE ORDER IS AS SUCH:

    Will / Dagoss / Felix / Boo / EmP / OD / Janus / Suskie

    EmP has spoke, thus it is law.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 10, 2009:

    I demand a recount!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 10, 2009:

    Does no one want to team up with me?

    I may have to take drastic action and team up with myself!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 10, 2009:

    And with that the 2009 Team Tournament Draft has officially begun!!

    The order will be found on the first two posts in this topic, in addition to EmP's post. You're on the clock, Will!
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 10, 2009:

    Two questions:

    1. Jason, as a staff member, is it possible for me to hack into the accounts of others to manipulate their picks?

    2. If it is possible, would it be considered unethical for me to do so in order to ensure I get who I want?

    plz answer quickly
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 10, 2009:

    1. Jason, as a staff member, is it possible for me to hack into the accounts of others to manipulate their picks?

    Not that I'm aware of!

    2. If it is possible, would it be considered unethical for me to do so in order to ensure I get who I want?

    Unethical? You pose a deep question with an answer that isn't entirely obvious, but the answer to the first question fortunately renders it moot.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 10, 2009:

    Let's make it obvious, then. Yes, hacking into people's accounts for personal gain, sabotage, and/or any other inappropriate misconduct is unethical on grounds of invasion of privacy and theft (using the account without permission).

    Ah. Well, I'm just boring, aren't I? What a bummer.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 10, 2009:

    While we wait for Will . . .

    Anyone interested in swapping picks? I have the #3 and the #14 and wouldn't mind moving down a little.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 10, 2009:

    Which is why, when I cheat, I simply don't get caught.

    EmP Fact #16: If EmP's not cheating, EmP's not trying.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 10, 2009:

    I'll swap with you, felix.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 10, 2009:

    I'm gonna be gone for most of tonight, so you people might want to hurry this up lest you find yourselves waiting for me to make my two picks.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 10, 2009:

    I may switch with you Janus, but only if my other alternative falls through. I'll let you know regardless once I know, which should be pretty soon.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 10, 2009:

    Game: Hoosier City - Assault of the Orcs
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: Wetware
    Developer: MVP Software
    Genre: Action
    Release Date: 1992
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 10, 2009:

    thanks for adding A Fading Melody, mystery staff member, but maybe putting (XNA) after it would help distinguish community games from regular XBLA titles? Also, could you change every (XLA) tag in the database to (XBLA) like everyone else on the internet.

    I'll stop being annoying now.

    As you saw from my previous tag, I use XBLA. If someone else uses XLA, then I denounce them.

    The edits have been made. All is well.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 10, 2009:

    TEAM VERBOSE ELOQUENCE drafts...

    Zipp.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 10, 2009:

    oh, it's like that is it!!

    well... DRAFT ORDER LOCKED! WILL PICKED! any changes now and the whole TT must be called into disrepute!
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 10, 2009:

    Don't think the strikethrough tag works on HG forums, Felix.

    So we're waiting for Dagoss now? Great.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 10, 2009:

    Good call, Suskie. I'll make drafted players black as opposed to red from here on out.

    Also, I have decided against trading my picks. Turns out I'd rather not fall to #7 and the other option I had has declined to swap.
    board icon
    darketernal posted June 10, 2009:

    Dreamweb

    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/content.php?review_id=8084&gametitle=Dreamweb
    board icon
    EmP posted June 10, 2009:

    The strike option seems to work fine. Observe as I prove it.

    Will's chances
    board icon
    dagoss posted June 10, 2009:

    Since Will has gone, I will now name the first person who will be on the winning team: Wolfqueen
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 10, 2009:

    I, uh, draft Zigfried.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 10, 2009:

    Boo's gone to work, so don't expect the next pick to be timely.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 10, 2009:

    It's ok, bluberry told me via HGMail that he wants to draft Mister E!
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 10, 2009:

    Yeah! He told me that, too!

    Ah well, probably for the best. I have errands that need run if I want things like liquor in the house and food in the belly tonight, so I have to be away from the computer for a bit, anyway.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted June 10, 2009:

    Mister E, MYSTERY - I get it!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 10, 2009:

    Clap. Clap. Clap.
    board icon
    jerec posted June 10, 2009:

    As captain of the KINGMAKERS team, I hereby draft Sportsman and Lewis.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted June 10, 2009:

    I just realized I've never done a TT as a draft hopeful. I only played twice, both times as a captain.
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 10, 2009:

    Does no one want to team up with me?

    I may have to take drastic action and team up with myself!


    Hahaha, I think it's time we drop the joke and let everyone in on the truth, partner.

    That's right, Janus and I are teaming up in a cross-national alliance to spoil every other team's hopes for anything even close to victory!

    //Zig
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 10, 2009:

    As if cross-national alliances are anything new.

    THIS IS WAR!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 10, 2009:

    Someone would be wise to draft you. I should have done a mock draft / scouting report.
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 10, 2009:

    Are there other cross-national alliances?

    Let me rephrase...

    Are there other cross-national alliances that matter?

    //Zig
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 10, 2009:

    Yeah, it's called Vorty / Felix.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 10, 2009:

    woodhouse.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 10, 2009:

    DE
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 10, 2009:

    Venter gets the responsibility to handle all the mundane responsibilities on my team like.....well, most everything but talking shit to others. That's my job!

    Congrats, dude! I'll either make a new man out of you or kill you trying. And I don't care which happens.....
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 11, 2009:

    radical dreamer
    board icon
    True posted June 11, 2009:

    Should I be getting nervous and... slightly depressed?

    Cause I am.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 11, 2009:

    Don't worry true, I predict that suskie will draft you.
    board icon
    True posted June 11, 2009:

    Isn't Suskie the guy I insulted, and then questioned his integrity as a judge?

    Yeah... I think I'd sooner get Venter to both give me another shot at being Staff, and convince him to do the "Light Vs. Darkness" battle in the same day.

    But thanks for the vote of confidence, Janus.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 11, 2009:

    You may be a second round steal, True.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 11, 2009:

    True, ASchultz.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted June 11, 2009:

    Put me down to sign on! Desptie it being late. But my names not crossed off the draft pool, or are those names crossed off people are have dropepd out altogether?
    board icon
    woodhouse posted June 11, 2009:

    The names crossed off are for people who have been drafted so far. You're still available to be chosen, BigCJ.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 11, 2009:

    No need to panic, old chum; the striken out people are those who have been drafted. Those unstruck are still there to be picked, and there's still another round of pickin' yet.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 11, 2009:

    Additionally please add episodes two and three, namely:

    Game: Hoosier City - Liberating Freedom City
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: Wetware
    Developer: MVP Software
    Genre: Action
    Release Date: 1992

    Game: Hoosier City - Return to Oil City
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: Wetware
    Developer: MVP Software
    Genre: Action
    Release Date: 1992


    Particularly the swift addition of the first episode, Assault of the Orcs, would be appreciated on account of MOTO2.

    ALL ADDED
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted June 11, 2009:

    You need to create XBLA listings for the following games:

    Shinobi
    Sonic the Hedgehog 3
    Comix Zone
    Altered Beast
    Gunstar Heroes

    Publisher: Sega
    Developer: Backbone Entertainment
    Release Date: 2009

    All Added.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 11, 2009:

    Willthegreat, your decision to have me on your team is only further evidence of your greatness.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted June 11, 2009:

    Cool as cool bananas. And that's pretty cool. Enlist me for this round!
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 11, 2009:

    For that matter, the Imperial Scarscalps span an entire Atlantic Ocean as well.

    Now hurry and add my game to the database, that I might submit my latest piece. You wouldn't want all the glory to go to GameFAQs, now would you?
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 11, 2009:

    Somehow, my heart would go on.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 11, 2009:

    disco
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 11, 2009:

    10 picks down, 6 to go!
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 11, 2009:

    Dang, I have a tough choice here......give me a few.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 11, 2009:

    BELISARIOS or Sashanan would be my recommendation, if you care. :-D
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 11, 2009:

    For that matter, the Imperial Scarscalps span an entire Atlantic Ocean as well.

    Not only that, our countries have different languages. Wolfqueen's only temporarily in Spain, so that doesn't count.

    You know, it would be cool to have a 2-person-team tournament where teammates had to be from different countries. That'd probably be in a few months--we have enough going on right now.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 11, 2009:

    I CARE NOT FOR THE INPUT OF SUBORDINATES!!!!!!


    In a completely unrelated note, I pick BELISARIOS.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 11, 2009:

    DoI.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 11, 2009:

    Most the teams in this come under that heading.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 11, 2009:

    Oh, and as a result of that pick, Jason, I've added to your list of responsibilties. Now, you're also in charge of (if necessary) restoring Beli's old reviews that, according to EmP on the interest thread, are still in the database. So if, by chance, the friend of the Mutant Camels doesn't write like he's never written before, I don't get screwed over by that turn of events.

    Oh....and my floor needs vacuumed and the dishes need washed. I'm far too deep in "Genius In Planning" mode to bother with trifles such as that, so.....well, I'll be expecting you on a plane ASAP.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 11, 2009:

    I hope this means that you're going to review all of them!
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted June 11, 2009:

    Shinobi, definately. Maybe Comix Zone and Sonic 3, if I download them.
    board icon
    randxian posted June 11, 2009:

    I have a feeling what's hurting me is most people have more than twice as many reviews as me.

    I'm starting to wonder why I even bothered in the first place.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted June 11, 2009:

    Janus, do you check HGmail?
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 11, 2009:

    Yes.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 11, 2009:

    The Ascendant Grotesque draft Espiga.
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 11, 2009:

    Felix can't make it to the computer right now, so I'm taking this show over and picking as the amazing interim captain...

    Mister_E

    (note to Felix: hahahahaha take that, biatch)

    If you don't believe me about Felix being unavailable, then go ahead and wait three days for him to log on again! So add MISTER_E to the team and finish up this draft. Nothing more to see here, folks. We're off to an exciting start!!!

    //Zig
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 12, 2009:

    No surprise there. The only question that might (or indeed, might not) remain is the mystery man or woman's identity.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 12, 2009:

    Uh, I can make my own draft pick, Zig. But I guess we'll go with Mister E since it's clear who you're pulling for . . . Good grief. You better not let me down, M_E.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 12, 2009:

    All right, there are two picks left and five people to choose from. Here are my thoughts on the five:

    BigCJ34 - I remember critiquing this guy's reviews in the past. He's willing to listen and obviously wants to be in this competition (has posted in this topic to prove it). An underrated writer!

    Randxian - Another guy who's relatively "new" yet has shown that he's more than willing to take advice and has just started to become a regular around here. Has good upside if he can land on a team!

    Golden Vortex - My man Vorty has a ton of good reviews, so you won't have to worry about finding a quality piece in his catalogue to go against the competition. Plus, he has TT Championship experience!

    Sashanan - Sash writes about games that usually don't get too much coverage, so you probably won't have to worry about the judges remarking that the subject matter in his reviews is stale.

    Turducken - I remember liking one of this guy's reviews. I'm sure the other 7 or so that he has posted contain equally entertaining values.
    board icon
    Mister_E posted June 12, 2009:

    Thank you for drafting M_E, Captain Zigfried.

    I will get to work.

    M_E

    board icon
    randxian posted June 12, 2009:

    For the reason Felix outlined, I'm shocked Sash is still on the board.
    board icon
    dagoss posted June 12, 2009:

    I will take Vorty, because anyone that is commonly referred to by an abbreviated form of their full username simply must be good.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 12, 2009:

    IT'S CAPTAIN FELIX!! >:-O
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 12, 2009:

    Laugh's on Felix if I remain unpicked. I joined the roster at his insistence.
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 12, 2009:

    Whoever remains unpicked, the three would make a good spoiler team.

    But I suppose it is much too late to add in bye weeks and such. (Not that I'd mind. I could use the extra proofreading time.)

    Now if someone can just poke Willthegreat to leave HGWars a minute...or maybe he is playing HGWars to postpone a tough final selection.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 12, 2009:

    My submission is up here.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 12, 2009:

    Dagoss

    That's a good point about how people known by abb. forms of their username have to be great.

    Signed by the members of TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS

    OD, HG and Beli
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted June 12, 2009:

    Haha, typical Zigfried maneuver.
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 12, 2009:

    Let's see if this time I can get the hyperlinks right the first time.

    My review is here.

    EmP, I guess you're right, so never mind. But it might be cool to have some sort of competition where people team up with someone they don't know very well at all, or at least that could be on the honor code. Eh well. I suppose we should get through this competition and the team tourney first!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 12, 2009:

    Gimmie a Sashanan.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 12, 2009:

    And that concludes the 2009 Team Tournament Draft. Schedules will be posted today or tomorrow. Remember, competition begins on Monday, June 22.

    To those who weren't drafted, you are still eligible to compete in the event if a draftee gets waived. That has happened in the past. It may happen again . . .
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 12, 2009:

    Some of these teams are frankly frightening in their potential.

    Of course, none even come close to matching the Zipp, Will, and Sashanan combo, but I have to acknowledge some good team picks.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 12, 2009:

    Our fates are now intertwined. This should be an interesting tournament.

    Good luck everybody!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 12, 2009:

    Mi espaol es mucho mejor desde que venir aqu, gracias.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 12, 2009:

    Check your HGmail, you two!
    board icon
    EmP posted June 12, 2009:

    This topic is now locked.

    To those not drafted, don't lose heart: every year, unfortunatly, someone has to be left out, and in previous years it's even been people who have won the tourny before like Honestgamer or Golden Vortex.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 12, 2009:

    Here's my entry: A Fading Melody

    I think I'm on Zigfried's team?
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 12, 2009:

    Game: Tower of Myraglen
    Platform: Apple IIgs
    Publisher: PBI Software
    Developer: PBI Software
    Genre: Action RPG
    Release Date: 1987

    Reference: here and this seems to indicate that PBI software did indeed publish all games they developed and vice versa.

    Hopefully more soon but this is the only IIgs game I've really played.

    Added.
    board icon
    turducken posted June 12, 2009:

    So...it turns out that the game I ended up reviewing is SO OBSCURE IT'S NOT EVEN IN THIS SITE'S DATABASE. That's gotta be worth some tasty pointy. Still, it is done, because I would never let Wirr down. SHEEP!!! on the GBA it is, and it's quite a weird little ditty.

    So once I'm able to submit it to the site, I'll do that. But in the meantime I can't and it's not my fault so don't even think about penalizing me or Wirr for this, or else you're done for.
    board icon
    turducken posted June 13, 2009:

    Alright, thanks Emp!

    Here it be. http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/content.php?game_id=36042&console_id=3&review_id=8098
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 13, 2009:

    Oh, man. I just made mine and with half an hour to go before I need to leave!

    Well, i don't have time to link to it, I don't think, as it might not get subbed for a while, but you'll know it when you see it. Thanks!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 13, 2009:

    Vorty has dropped out of this competition, but I press on. Ive formed a new team with Ofisil from GameFAQs. Hes agreed to help me out, and has made an account on this website as a sign of good faith. If he cant get his review posted to HG in time, I ask that you accept the link that shows you the GameFAQs version of the review he plans to use in this event. He doesnt intend to change anything between the two versions of the review, so I ask that you just go with the FAQs link since I cant guarantee the HG version will be up in time.

    Ofisil's review

    And heres my horny Aquarium review.

    Edit: He is my partner for this comp. Don't try to tear me away and place me on the side of someone else. Ofisil 4 lyfe.
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 13, 2009:

    I'll use my review of The Dark Spire, a game you've only heard of because of me.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 13, 2009:

    I'm not in good shape for this thing. I had two reviews planned, but the first had to be canned because I didn't finish the game in time and the second never materialized because I hate my writing. Plus, my teammate seems to have run off.

    I'll play my Insurgency review, but unless Espiga gets a review up within the next hour, looks like I'm screwed anyway.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 14, 2009:

    I'll use my review of The Dark Spire, a game you've only heard of because of me.

    Objection, your honor! This Amazon order confirmation clearly shows the witness' statement is faulty.

    *goes to read*
    board icon
    bloomer posted June 14, 2009:

    Game: Kukulcan
    Platform: Apple II
    Publisher: American Eagle
    Developer: American Eagle
    Genre: Adventure
    Release Date: 1984

    Publisher info here: http://gue.vintagegaming.org/galleries/index.php?pub=3&item=12&id=2&key=0

    Game info: http://gue.vintagegaming.org/galleries/index.php?pub=3&item=12&id=2&key=0

    Game added right here

    Edit backatcha: Thanks again for your outrageous speed, assorted imps
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 14, 2009:

    HOLD IT!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 14, 2009:

    Below is the season schedule for the 2009 Team Tournament. Captains, please check this schedule to make sure that a) your team plays the other seven teams only once and b) that you have three home games, three away games, and one neutral match. Keep in mind that Week 4 is the only point in the season where neutral matches occur.

    Week 1:
    Felix at Suskie
    Will at EmP
    Overdrive At Janus
    Dagoss at Boo

    Week 2:
    Boo at Felix
    EmP at Suskie
    Janus at Will
    Dagoss at Overdrive

    Week 3:
    Felix at Dagoss
    Overdrive At EmP
    Janus at Boo
    Suskie at Will

    Week 4:
    Felix vs. Overdrive
    Janus vs. Suskie
    Boo vs. EmP
    Will vs. Dagoss

    Week 5:
    Janus at Felix
    EmP at Dagoss
    Will at Boo
    Suskie at Overdrive

    Week 6:
    Felix at EmP
    Dagoss at Janus
    Overdrive At Will
    Boo At Suskie

    Week 7:
    Will at Felix
    EmP at Janus
    Suskie at Dagoss
    Boo at Overdrive


    Here is an another way to see who each team will be playing at home / away, as well as for the neutral match.

    Boo home Dagoss, Janus, Will
    Boo away Felix, Suskie, Overdrive
    Boo vs. EmP

    Dagoss home Felix, EmP, Suskie
    Dagoss away Boo, Overdrive, Janus
    Dagoss vs. Will

    EmP home Will, Overdrive, Felix
    EmP away Suskie, Dagoss, Janus
    EmP vs. Boo

    Felix home Boo, Janus, Will
    Felix Away Suskie, Dagoss, EmP
    Felix vs. Overdrive

    Janus home Overdrive, Dagoss, EmP
    Janus away Will, Boo, Felix
    Janus vs. Suskie

    Overdrive home Dagoss, Suskie, Boo
    Overdrive away Janus, EmP, Will
    Overdrive vs. Felix

    Suskie home Felix, EmP, Boo
    Suskie away Will, Overdrive, Dagoss
    Suskie vs. Janus


    Will home Janus, Suskie, Overdrive
    Will away EmP, Boo, Felix
    Will vs. Dagoss



    Remember, home team gets to pick its teams individual matches. Hopefully well see many highly publicized blood battles among the contestants. The best guaranteed week, match-wise, will occur in Week 4 when every team plays its only neutral court match. We WILL see battles pitting the #1 pick against the #2, Boo versus EmP, Zigfried against Mein Fuhrer Venter, mystery man Beli against mystery man Mister_E, Captain Felix against Captain Morgan Overdrive, rookie captains Will and Dagoss go head-to-head, and The Death Match 2 featuring True and Radical Dreamer a.k.a. bbobb will finally go down.

    Teams:

    TEAM VERBOSE ELOQUENCE
    Will / Zippdementia / Sashanan


    WOLVES, WHIRLPOOLS, AND A DUDE NAMED DAVE
    Dagoss / Wolfqueen001 / Golden Vortex


    FRZ with Patron Saints Masters and Drella
    Felix / Zigfried / Randxian

    THE ASCENDENT GROTESQUE
    Bluberry / Woodhouse / Espiga


    NATURAL BORN THRILLERS
    EmP / Dark Eternal / Dragoon of Infinity


    TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS
    OD / Venter / BELISARIOS


    TEAM CREEPING DEATH
    Janus / Radical Dreamer / Disco1960


    TEAM WHISPERING EYE
    Suskie / True / ASchultz

    Also, post your team names here. I dont want to go through the other topics posts to see what you guys decided to call yourselves, if anything.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 14, 2009:

    Wait, I'm teamed up with DE now? Okay, I can live with that.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 14, 2009:

    Tentatively calling ourselves Suskie (The Team) until we can think of something better, which is probably never.

    When are we posting Week 1 matchups?
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 14, 2009:

    assuming Woodhouse and Espiga have no problems with obscure metal references, we are The Ascendent Grotesque.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted June 14, 2009:

    How could I have a problem with such a charming name?
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 14, 2009:

    Team Will will henceforth be known as Team Verbose Eloquence.
    board icon
    True posted June 14, 2009:

    I vote we call ourselves Team Whispering Eye.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 14, 2009:

    Sure.
    board icon
    True posted June 15, 2009:

    HA! Are you serious? Do you know what that means?
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 15, 2009:

    it's too late. you guys are Team Vag.
    board icon
    True posted June 15, 2009:

    Well, Blue, it will be all the more amusing when we beat your ass then.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 15, 2009:

    ooh, sounds good sailor.
    board icon
    True posted June 15, 2009:

    And technically, Felix, we would need to have Death Match 1 before we could have 2. We could call it Death Match 2nd attempt, or Death Match revisited but we can't call it 2. Sorry.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 15, 2009:

    True, compared to some of the names we've come up with, Team Whispering Eye is gold.
    board icon
    True posted June 15, 2009:

    Don't you mean names that I've come up with?
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 15, 2009:

    Team CREEPING DEATH will bring, uh, creeping death to everyone, starting with OVERDRIVE.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 15, 2009:

    So Felix updated some team names, but not ours? Perhaps I was not specific enough in my previous post; maybe if I use the bold tag...

    Attention: The team presently known as Team Will or Team TBA will, henceforth from this announcement, be in all respects referred to and known as "Team Verbose Eloquence".
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 16, 2009:

    What day is first match? What's our plan, o Will Greatness?
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 16, 2009:

    The first day of competition is on the 22nd. EmP will make an official topic for all that planning to take place.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted June 16, 2009:

    Does that mean the first set of reviews are due on the 22nd, or roughly a week later?
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 17, 2009:

    It just means that home teams can start figuring out individual matches. The deadline for selecting which reviews will be used will be midnight HG time every Wednesday (and in the case of the first week, that date is the 24th).
    board icon
    EmP posted June 17, 2009:

    Will's initial plan is lose.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 17, 2009:

    Also, there will be another deadline for setting matches. So for the first week, it'll look like this:

    Monday, 22nd - Topic opens

    Tuesday, 23rd - Deadline for home team to pick individual matches will be at midnight HG time, otherwise the matches will be straight seeds if the home team doesn't pick

    Wednesday, 24th - Deadline for all teams to pick their reviews, otherwise a review will be randomly selected from the penalized reviewer's catalogue

    And that's the format that we'll use for the rest of the tourney, excluding the week where every team plays on a neutral court (in other words, no individual mixing and matching).
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 17, 2009:

    I demand to face Suskie, True, and ASchultz simultaneously. I will defeat them all.

    //Zig
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 17, 2009:

    4 now thx
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 17, 2009:

    Game: The Usurper: Mines of Qyntarr
    Platform: PC, Apple II
    Publisher: Sir-Tech
    Developer: Sir-Tech
    Genre: Adventure (text adventure)
    Release Date: 1989

    Source for this: http://wizardry.wikia.com/wiki/Sir-Tech

    Added Here
    (Sirtech was already in the system with this alternate spelling, so I had to use that.)
    Edit: This was my typo. Sorry about that.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    Game: Questmaster I
    Platform: Apple IIgs
    Publisher: Miles Computing
    Developer: Miles Computing
    Genre: Adventure (text/graphic adventure)
    Release Date: 1990

    Source for this: http://www.whatisthe2gs.apple2.org.za/questmaster-i/

    Added Here
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 17, 2009:

    Will's initial plan is lose.

    That was the idea, but then we got seeded against you for the first round, so no guarantees I'm afraid.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 17, 2009:

    Results will be up tomorrow.

    I have Bloomer's. I just have to finish mine. I had a goal of doing so this afternoon, but all the indepth thinking and typing has overloaded my brain, meaning that if I continued on in this fashion, the final four reviews would have really half-assed comments. Like, "Oh boy, this is good!...... 45/100" "And very obscure!..... NEGATIVE 7/10". And you don't want that. Especially in comparison to the handful of people who got small books written about their review.
    board icon
    jerec posted June 17, 2009:

    How long are you giving the judges to do their bit?
    board icon
    Halon posted June 17, 2009:

    Isn't it usually something like 2 days to pick matchups, 2 days to pick reviews and 3 days for the judges? I'm going to try to judge each round in 2-3 days.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 17, 2009:

    Judges will have from Thursday through Sunday to get their results prepped and ready. If you can get them posted prior to Sunday, great. Just don't mail them to me because I won't be timely at putting them together / posting them.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 17, 2009:

    *Zipp gives Sashanan a high five

    Oh snap
    board icon
    Halon posted June 17, 2009:

    For the record that's Friday to Monday for Jerec. Just trying to make it clear for everyone now so having three judges from three different continents doesn't become a problem. :)
    board icon
    jerec posted June 17, 2009:

    Ah, cool. So should I send results to EmP, then? Or should I compile them?
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 17, 2009:

    Yeah, send the results to EmP so he can say he's done something other than taking 5 seconds to use a random number generator to come up with the draft order. :D
    board icon
    EmP posted June 18, 2009:

    I'll compile if I have to, but I'd rather a judge does it if they can. I'd like to see the results the same as everyone else taking part if at all possible.

    But I've compiled and played in previous years, so it's not a huge deal if none of the judges want to do it.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 18, 2009:

    Before entering THE VERDICT ZONE, a brief word from the judges about OBSCURANCY.

    Bloomer: Googling a game offers one way to help assess OBSCURANCY. So in the OBSCURANCY section for each review, I list how many 10-result pages of google came up for that title before google decided results had run out, or were repeating themselves, or I decided the results had started to be significantly about something else. The lower the google number you see with your review, the more it probably helped your cause of OBSCURANCY.

    OD: I do things in a much less scientific way than my Australian counterpart. My grade is half based on my personal knowledge of the game and half based on a brief check of a place like Wiki, to see if the game has its own page and how detailed it might be. You know, just to make sure you don't get a great score because you fooled me. Despite what you all have been led to believe, I'm not 100 percent all-knowing......yet.

    TEAM WQ'S DREAM HAREM!

    (1) WolfQueen: Kouryuu Densetsu Villgust Gaiden: NES (1993)

    OVERDRIVE: You gave yourself a bit of a challenge here, as you immediately go through a laundry list of undesirable elements in this game.....and then get to work on redeeming it with an in-depth analysis of the fighting system. You might have been helped a bit because I've played this game a little bit and know what you're saying. It is fun fighting the enemies and that can carry the game and, in fact, has to carry the game. Extra props go to you for highlighting the positives of the equipment shop. One thing I think we've gotten spoiled by is how the games of today give you all the info you might want about a piece of equipment and how it compares to what you're using. Back in the NES days, that was a rarity and the only indication of an item's quality was simply its cost (which wasn't always accurate, as there were many poor weapons that simply had a secondary use, such as casting a weak spell or inflicting status ailments, that were super-expensive). So mentioning a small detail like this was a positive.

    I'd say I have two qualms about this review. First, to me, if I have to go to a FAQ to find out little things like where I'm supposed to go because the game does nothing to explain it AND it's nowhere near even remotely logical or obvious.....that's a real problem in either the game's design or the translator's efforts that I think deserves a bit more condemnation than simply a cheerful, "That's what FAQs are for!" Possibly more serious of a concern is the conclusion. First off, a question about the second sentence. Did you mean to say that you basically ONLY are fighting stronger versions of old enemies by about the halfway point? Because I'm cool with that, but as written, it sounds like you're saying that you aren't even getting stronger enemies by this point and basically play through half the game with the exact same foes, which (in my eyes) would make the game really easy down the stretch which would just add to the list of flaws. Speaking of that list, I don't know that reminding the reader of them down the stretch is such a great idea. You'd done this great job of selling me on the positives of the game, but then came right back and reminded me of its flaws. I can understand the desire to tie everything up, but I think mentioning the plot is "quite unintelligible and nonsensical" is a pretty strong statement that outweighs the more positive concluding sentences and detracts from the overall positive sentiment of the review.

    76/100

    BLOOMER:This review gets off to a troublingly confusing start. Precarious use of 'its', dangling participles and an ostensibly curious choice of initial direction (though which makes more sense once you continue) make a bumpy story bumpier. I just rolled back and forth over paragraphs one and two until I knew what was happening. For onlookers, it's about a Japanese RPG that was made into an animation which made more sense than the game. We can understand (sorry Sashanan) why when we learn that WQ is playing a fan translation.

    Paragraph three covers all of the plot and event action in the game via the humour of bewilderment, like a less extreme version of part of WQ's Mother review. Paragraph 3 was entertaining to the extent I found I missed all this plot talk when the rest of the review was about battle mechanics. However, the rest of the review was also sharp, with good examples, comparisons to other games and... just, it was good.

    It's probably churlish to say 'by paragraph 10 I was missing paragraph 3' in a ten paragraph review. You know, I think the human mind can handle this kind of thing. But this is a review comp and I'd still have liked a more interwoven structure. And the start of this review is rocky.

    68/100

    OBSURANCY:

    OVERDRIVE: This is a tough one for me. I reviewed a SNES RPG Villgust (teeth gnashing ever so slightly at remembering that) and have played this game a bit, so it's not obscure to me. However, in the grand scheme of things, it is an action-RPG that never was brought to America and never has gotten the "WHY THE EFF NOT?!?!?" fan outcry that other titles have. So you get +6.

    6/10

    Bloomer: (Google: 20)

    Or, 'So, you reviewed a game from Japan.' Well the bad news for you re: me is that we Australians, or AustralASIANs, basically live in Japan. But I have nowhere else to go with that.

    Fans have translated this game. Fans implies community, community implies anti-obscurity. There's also a cartoon. Due to the difficulty of convincing myself either way here, combined with my minor optimism, I bequeath you the microscopically hopeful score of 3.

    3/10

    (2) EMP: Osomatsu-kun: Hachamecha Gekijou: Genesis (1988)

    Bloomer: Emp has a good way with the funny misdirections and amusing mucking around with English. A review of this very strange platform game turns out to be a good venue for his way.

    From paragraph four onward, we enter the 'sightly tour of the game' mode of reviewing. This will supply all of your weird game imagery needs until Christmas, and there's no shortage of playing with language. In serious terms of 'IS THIS REVIEW EDUCATING ME?', its structure actually looks more artful on a re-read, when it becomes apparent that all areas of gameplay are attended to one at a time first there's a sample of game, then there's what the baddies look like, then there's the mechanics of health and fighting, and then there's the structure of the game's worlds. The reason I didn't notice all this at first was that I think the review drifts a bit into one of the danger zones of the tourism style, which is accumulated repetitiveness. No matter what is being talked about, there's always another vivid aside to 'a chubby, floating Buddha with a love of dripping lightning', etc. The constant list of sights, regardless of context, starts to make all the contexts feel similar.

    This is not a huge issue in an entertaining and thorough review with some Emp-flavoured humour.

    79/100

    OVERDRIVE: You open with a nice whimsical introduction, reminding us that your muscles and bones do seem to be made of paper mache or soggy cardboard and then go into reviewing a nice whimsical game in a nice whimsical fashion. This is one of those games where I was reading your "out there" descriptions of various enemies......and then I'd look at a screenshot and be like, "Welp, he did a pretty good job of describing it.", which is noteworthy because when you mention things like the caveman's tragic fishing accident, it sounds too over-the-top exaggerated to be realistic.....until I see the pic.

    I would say, though, that at times I felt too much attention was being given to those eloquent (but factual) descriptions and not enough to your actual purpose in the game. The genre seems to be "adventure" and you walk around fighting weird enemies in what seems to be a non-linear world, but other than that, I must admit a certain amount of cluelessness as to what's going on. Or maybe that's all there is to the game. Or maybe you'd have to be familiar with the manga. I didn't know before reading this review and I don't know afterwards. Which, to me, makes this a very well-written review with vivid descriptions, witty lines (like the aside about drawing a better cast yourself in MS Paint) and engaging personality......that just needs a bit more actual factual stuff about the game, itself.

    84/100

    OBSCURANCY:

    Bloomer: (Google: 13)

    The freak show of Osomatsu was a day one launch game for the Japanese Genesis. That's kind of an impressive fact. I am then impressed that in spite of this fact, the world at large doesn't know about the game. Emp has cleverly exploited the vicissitudes of history by choosing a game that appears to be genuinely obscure, yet was a launch title (albeit a really weird one) and became obscure in spite of it. By the rules I get to invent on the fly as I dole out these obscurity points, Emp's choice of game was as crafty as could be, and I must award 10 points to Gryffindor... I mean, Emp.

    10/10

    OVERDRIVE: I'm really gnashing my teeth right now. I've never heard of this game, nor the anime. When I went to Wiki, typing in "Osomatsu-kun" only directed me to a very brief description of the anime (WHICH IS OLDER THAN ME, YOU BASTARD!!!!) with no mention of the game. If I really wanted to be petty, I could try to detract points because of my uneducated guess that hordes of Japanese children were shown the manga by their parents in the late 80s/early 90s, making this game beloved by an entire generation of gamers who have chosen to keep it their secret. And I really want to. But I can't. Grrrr.....

    10/10

    TEAM CARDBOARD BOXES
    (1) turducken: Sheep: GBA (2002)

    BLOOMER: Extremely funny review. In fact it has been a long time since I read any review this consistently funny. And what's best about it is that it doesn't go off on a bunch of extended forced tangents to wallow in the alternate reality view of the game it constructs as it reviews it, it just keeps building it up side-by-side with the real thing, until Jan is a given.

    The age old question of how valid is it to beef up reviews of simple or cruddy games (Sheep is the former) with a lot of humour may be relevant here, but if you are as ultimately successful at it as this, that is the best way to deal with such questions.

    87/100

    OVERDRIVE: First, the reference to "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" was very witty. As was much of the review, although at times I felt like I was reading the ramblings of a crack addict in desperate need of fix. You kinda toed the line of awesomeness and over-the-top, but only stumbled to over-the-top a handful of times, with my only real complaint as far as that goes being that it took you an eternity to say anything tangible about the game because you're in this stream-of-conscious mode where you're going on and on about whatever you're seeing on the screen. I, not playing the game and just reading your descriptions, was in "nod politely and hope things pick up" mode for a little bit.

    Overall, though, I really do have high praise for this review. You took a chance with your reviewing style and, for the most part, it really paid off. After reading this review, I don't think I could stomach reading one for this game with a serious tone to it. The confusion on who "Sheepman" is, the evil that is Jan, the awesome concept of French sheep Legionnaires. I had fun reading this.

    88/100

    OBSCURANCY:

    OVERDRIVE: Another tricky one for me. You got me with this one, but I tend to ignore games of this sort more often than not. It's been released on multiple platforms, though, and Capcom did the GBA version. It seems this is a fairly obscure game connected to a big company, so while you don't get killer points for it, I do deem ye as worthy of a positive score.

    2/10

    BLOOMER: (Google: 15, surprisingly low for a Capcom game.)

    Bloomer's Assessment: 'Sheep.' The title is boring and sheep are common in the world. This game is also the work of Capcom, who are largeish. In its favour, I haven't heard of it, and it pulled less google results than a fan-translated Japanese videogame from 1993. Again, these are some tentative pointers to obscurity, but with a title as bland as 'Sheep', I'm not sure this game can ever be truly obscure.

    -4/10

    (2) Will Roy: Sword of the Stars Ultimate Collection: PC (2009)

    OVERDRIVE: You did something here I really liked an overview of what exactly these 4X games are. I think I read one of your strategy reviews for some reason or another once and found it a bit inaccessible for me, as I was being overwhelmed by jargon and stuff with no inherent knowledge of what you were talking about. Here, I got a nice tutorial into what this game's about. Think of it as "4X Strategy for Dummies" with me being the dummy in this case. When it's a highly complicated, in-depth sort of game, it's always good to help the reader out, which you did here. And you made this seem like a very rich game, loaded with replay value due to the six races, each with their own style.

    It's actually kinda weird reading this right after your teammate's review, as the styles couldn't be more different. While I would have liked for Turducken to cut down on the chatter a few times, I think I would have liked for you to have a bit more chatter just to lighten the feel of the text. I can't speak for other readers (who may be more of a fan of this sort of game than me), but I found myself stopping to re-read a paragraph frequently just to make sure I grasped what you were saying. It was all very good and all.....but maybe not as smoothly-flowing as it could be. To give one example, take your warship-designing paragraph. You spend a lot of it rattling off these fancy names of parts that fit into the various types of ships which made my head spin a bit. It might have worked better to simply allude to how there are many different sorts of ships and then describe a couple of ships that you might be able to create. That would give the reader a bit more of a connection to what you're writing instead of just getting these lists of things that fit under "Command" or "Mission".

    81/100

    BLOOMER: A good play for nerd/obscurity points is made in the opening paragraph:

    'Sword of the Stars: Ultimate Collection is what MoO3 should have been.'

    This is an effortless-seeming review of high quality control in all the areas of structure, grammar and delivery. The intro is great for nerd and noob alike. Game mechanics may seem a little fully described to the casual passer by, but this is the stuff you need to know about to distinguish your strategy games. There's no mess, no fuss and it's all on mission, whether or not it has the fun or spectacle of some other entries in this comp.

    89/100

    OBSCURANCY:

    OVERDRIVE: Let's see. Seems to be a big-time strategy game. Think it was focused on our site for a bit. Huge Wiki page about it. And it's brand spanking new. The reason I LOVED the idea of judging this contest was solely in the hopes that someone would try sneaking in a game I would never consider obscure, so EVIL OD could be unleashed. You get a bit of positive since it is a bit obscure to me because I don't delve into the genre, but the rest is ALL NEGATIVE! BAHAHAHA!!!!!!

    -8/10

    BLOOMER: (Google: 30)

    This is a brand new, well-lit game. MINUS 9!!!

    -9/10

    TEAM IMPERIAL SCARSCALPS

    (1) Sashanan: Hoosier City - Assault of the Orcs: PC (1992)

    BLOOMER: The game sounds like silly-ish, amiable fun. Its name is definitely silly. Tonally, the review is a good match for such content, expressing surprise and turning around occasionally to deal with each new bit of frippery the game throws up. The list of the game's weapons and their diminishing returns is pretty funny. Maybe the shareware and series information could be alluded to at the start. It seems it might help explain some of the game's nature.

    82/100

    OVERDRIVE: Seems like a fun, quirky title, highlighted by (as you phrased it) "the rule of cool". I enjoyed this review a lot, as you made the most of this title's quirkiness. You did a great job of weaving together the game's pros and cons, too....to the point, I had to read the review twice to catch everything both because I'm notoriously bad at focusing on what I'm reading and because you were very subtle about mentioning some things, such as how the game is very linear.

    It's really hard for me to find much to criticize about this review. There's a nice low-key sense of humor about the proceedings with nice little lines like how moving up to the pistol isn't the surprise you make it seem like because the room's called "home of the pistol keeper". Like Wade said, you could have mentioned how the game is shareware earlier on, but I think that would have taken away from how good things worked out. You painted a tale of this quirky, fun-sounding game.....and then mentioned it was shareware as a way to help explain some of the quirky things you mentioned. It was a nice, effective way of essentially keeping the review flowing.

    91/100

    OBSCURANCY:

    BLOOMER: (Google: 5)

    Why didn't more people review shareware? I'm giving an 8 for Hoosier City. Even though it appears to be empirically more obscure than Emp's choice, Emp wielded more cunning.

    8/10

    OVERDRIVE: Fun Fact: If you look up Hoosier City on Wiki, you get a very short article and two of the three sources quoted are Sash's GFAQ review and FAQ of this game. Just part of the advantage of picking a shareware title.

    9/10

    (2) ASchultz: Super Black Onyx: NES (1988)

    BLOOMER: In a bound we go from the dumbest named game in the comp to the coolest sounding. Not that you can gain or lose points for that.

    This is a dense review with a complex and ultimately rewarding argument to make about the game's goodness in the context of this kind of RPG. Nobody reading this would doubt the author knows his way through this genre from front to back. If anything, they may stumble a little in all the mechanical details of the first half. Those details don't fail to impress, but I felt I would have liked to have seen some of the positive conclusions of the review drawn back through its length, rather than having a kind of chronological trip through the game as it fell, then the wider ideas all towards the end. You will still come away from this review with more specific knowledge of this game than the vast majority of folk are able to convey in their reviews of Japanese 8-bit RPGs.

    85/100

    OVERDRIVE: I struggled to get into this review, but it was a pretty rewarding read once I did. I think you mentioned somewhere, perhaps in one of the TT threads, about your tendency to get a bit FAQ-ish in your reviews and that was a bit of an issue here, especially in the early paragraphs. I'd say you might have gone a bit overboard with going into detail on how to obtain gold and improve characters, but after you started talking about the tower itself and its design and monsters, things picked up.

    I'd say my main critique would be that when you're writing a review and it's getting longish, to look at what parts may not be so essential to be described in detail. I'd say the first half of this game could easily be trimmed down, which would have made this a bit easier of a read. Still, this sounds like an intriguing game and after you got into more of the actual exploration/gameplay aspects of it, your review really picked up.

    72/100

    OBSCURANCY:

    BLOOMER: (Google: 28) (page 29 is about the SUPER BLACK ONYX Sunbed Cream Tanning Lotion or something)

    Bloomer's Assessment: Strong google presence indicates a lot of Japanese support for this game, even if most of us have never heard of it. With not much else to go on, I'm gonna have to slide to the centre of the dial.

    0/10

    OVERDRIVE: Hmmm....I'm not particularly familiar with it. Wiki has a short article saying that it originated on the NEC PC-8801 and was ported to "several other systems", apparently the Sega SG-1000, MSX, NES and Game Boy Color. I'm of the opinion this game may have had a certain degree of Japanese popularity, but never became known worldwide. So a good choice. Not a great one, but a good one.

    4/10

    TEAM SPOILER

    (1) Zigfried: Dark Spire: DS (2009)

    OVERDRIVE: This review is just the sort of thing I'd expect from Zig in a competition something that has all the bits of fundamental knowledge a reader might expect to read, but in an entertaining, unique way. Zig has a knack for catching onto little things about games that a casual player might not deem as important......and running with them to the point where if you play the game, those things will be at the forefront of your mind. Here, the object is the game's humor. When I think "level grinding, dungeon crawling monolith of a game", I don't think about all the laughs that await me. But by just focusing on a couple of early game examples, you've suddenly added a good deal of appeal to this game which, considering your high rating for it, I could easily assume was your goal.

    But one of the most impressive things about this review is that while you might use the bulk of its length for a discussion of its humor and other little observations and humorous comments (alas, poor RUDER....), when it comes time to get into the nuts-and-bolts, you do so with amazing efficiency. In college, I took a course on feature writing where one of the key things the professor talked about was "tightening" essentially the practice of trimming all unnecessary words to make your points without any fluff. Your next-to-the-last paragraph where you discuss the dungeon and what you do inside of it: a perfect example of a tight paragraph that gives a ton of fundamental knowledge without bloating the review with long-winded descriptions. Earlier paragraphs where you talk about the early stages of dungeon exploration and unlocking class seamlessly weaved knowledge about the gameplay with a conversational style.

    About the only thing I could find any fault with was that your paragraph about how the game's also creepy seemed a bit abrupt.....like you wanted to make a point, but weren't sure how to tie it back into the review, so you ended it with a hammer-smashing line and then jumped to your description of the Spire. But I don't know if that's a real problem or just me being desperate to find something to criticize. Sterling effort here.

    96/100

    BLOOMER: I had read this review prior to the competition, and was surprised that the trick turnabout after the poker-faced opening tricked me a second time. I understand that potentially makes me a fool, what with the whole review being predicated on a liking of this kind of game. Anyway... This is fine reviewery. It has a little schtick and a humourous story to draw you in. It reviews two versions of this game for the price of one and compares their effect. It drops examples from all areas of the game throughout the writing, which is free to follow chronology, mechanics or ideas as it sees fit. It is a pleasure to read and makes me want to buy a DS to play the game, even though that will certainly not happen. And for superb writing housekeeping (EG bulletproof sense, grammar, punctuation et al) there are only a few competitors.

    93/100

    OBSCURANCY:

    OVERDRIVE: But things kinda go wrong for you here. Maybe in 10-15 years, we'll all look at this game as "obscure", but The Dark Spire is a 2009 American release (2008 Japanese) for the DS. I'd guess it's obscure as far as current American releases go, but any media coverage it will get, it's been getting in recent times, which doesn't currently make it obscure in my book. If it'd been a couple years older (like say, the GBA's Mazes of Fate), I'd be a bit more lenient.....it's just hard to call a game obscure before it's gotten proper time to fall into obscurity.

    -5/10

    BLOOMER: (Google: 64)

    Anecdotally I would say this is less populist than a Sword of the Stars, but it's both new (you didn't fool me with that 'Way back in April 2009, when the world was young' business) and sports stronger google presence than any other game chosen for this competition. MINUS 8!!!

    -8/10

    (2) Janus A Fading Melody: Xbox 360 (2009)

    BLOOMER: I didn't realise Janus went in for these psychological shenanigans. Anyway, the sophistication of Janus' writing is definitely up to the task with this game, going to great lengths to make sure its thematic/action relations are clearly described. This is always a difficult area in reviewing. It's easy to fail to get this kind of message across, but in the striving for it, it's also easy to just go too hard and ossify your point so that the people who can follow it end up getting sick of it before you're done. This review is done before the second thing happens, and gets to feel denser and longer than it really is for its pains.

    Btw, what's wrong with beholders being in girls' dreams? They're like 100 eyes and phallic symbols combined.

    88/100

    OVERDRIVE: Pretty stylish review here that really intrigued me, especially since I've never really paid attention to the whole "community games" part of XBox Live. This was an interesting review for me to read and a tricky one to critique just because of what sort of game it is a traditional platformer with a sort of avant-garde artistic side to it and that delves into psychology; not necessarily the sort of thing I necessarily expect to read and comment on. Fortunately for me, you did everything you could to make the critiquing part easy.

    I really liked the way you weaved the ingredients of this game together, making a smooth-flowing review that covered all the bases with a sort of simple eloquence that makes this game sound very artistic and intriguing. I don't know that there's any one part of it that sticks out in my mind as particularly witty, but the review as a whole just worked. Kind of a "the whole was greater than the sum of its parts" sort of thing.

    91/100

    OBSCURANCY:

    BLOOMER: (Google: 20)

    As noted with Emp's review, strong weirdness in a game within a reasonably popular context can help create a trendy feel of OBSCURANCY. Still, I am suspicious of the obscurity of anything with an XBOX logo attached.

    Look at this way without thinking, what's more obscure, 'A Fading Memory' or 'Super Black Onyx?' The answer is: 'Duh! Super Black Onyx', so you can't score above an already cruelly delivered zero, and did in fact score:

    -2/10

    OVERDRIVE: I am totally hating you right now. I fashion a way to determine obscurity that I'm cool with (regardless of how anyone else feels) and you find a loophole that means I'll find myself going against it. No Wiki page for this game. I've never heard of it. BUT, it's new and according to my comments to Will and Zig, it's hard to credit a game as obscure when it hasn't had time to fall into obscurity. Hell, a few months from now, this game might win some huge "indy designing" award that sets up the designer for fame and fortune and leaves this title recognized as a cult classic. But also, like Sash, you were wise to essentially review a shareware title, which tend to be very obscure simply because, well, they're shareware. Many conflicting messages......the voices won't stop....

    3/10

    SPECIAL NOTE BY OVERDRIVE:
    Felix requested that his team not be included. That is being respected.......except that I'm docking his partner 15.4 BILLION points of OBSCURANCY for picking Super Mario Kart 64. That is all.

    TEAM MAKESHIFT

    (1) Suskie: Insurgency: Modern Infantry Combat: PC (2007)

    OVERDRIVE: Interesting little review. At first, I wasn't particularly enamored by how you started a short review about one game by spending a paragraph talking about another.....but you quelled my reservations by instantly tying things together by illustrating how being proficient at a standard FPS sort of game makes it hard to adjust to one striving for total realism.

    I think what I liked most about it was the aura of knowing what you're talking about when it comes to this sort of game, which is most highlighted by describing the "sniper crowd" of the online shooter players and how this game is essentially designed for them. Since I've not gotten into playing these games online, that provided some good information to me into a certain type of player in them, leading me to more easily grasp the points you were making.

    If there was one thing I can safely say I didn't like, it would probably be the conclusion, which felt a bit indecisive to me. I can understand wanting the reader to form their own opinion on the game, but with a review being an opinion piece, I'd want to read more about your opinion of the game. I know from this review that you suck at the game, I know the nuts and bolts of how it compares to other online FPS games and I know you gave it a 7, so you personally must have some enjoyment of it. But with a conclusion that simply states you give a cautioned recommendation and urge me to reach my own conclusion about the game to me, that's kind of a letdown. A good review, but one where I'd have preferred a stronger ending.

    85/100

    BLOOMER: A gripping review for anyone. If you don't know what it's about, that's okay, as Suskie takes the guiding role of the guy who isn't very good at this game in spite of knowing everything about the world it's a part of.

    86/100

    OBSCURANCY:

    OVERDRIVE: A Half-Life 2 source port online shooter that, according to Wiki, received two "Mod of Year" awards in 2007. When OD thinks in third-person about obscure games, OD doesn't think about this.

    -8/10

    BLOOMER: (Google: 47)

    It's hard to be a very obscure game when servers all over the place are hosting online games of you. This is ironic considering this game is mostly about trying to be inconspicuous.

    -6/10

    (2) darketernal Dreamweb: PC (1994)

    BLOOMER: Excellent and involving review that also makes me curious to try this game. The intro grants a bit of a voice of authority (not a schizophrenic voice telling you to kill) and the rest follows the fascinating ideas of the game to conclusion. With good subject matter like this, the main thing you want to do is successfully get it across, and that's what this review does. There are a few little typos/glitches, but nothing huge.

    86/100

    OVERDRIVE: Writing-wise, this is a very good review. As a pure review, it's kind of lacking, though. I know about Ryan and his mental state and his quest, which may just be insane delusions. I don't know little things like how gameplay is done (do you control Ryan with action-packed shootouts, or is this more of a cerebral thing where by making the right choices, everything just sort of falls into place).

    Maybe this is a game where the focus is on the storyline and Ryan's journey to kill the "evils", but it'd have been real nice to have more insight on the game itself, instead of just the plot. In the end, that makes me intrigued by this game, but intrigued in the "want to read more to fill in the blanks" way than intrigued in the "I gotta play this!" way.

    73/100

    OBSCURANCY:

    BLOOMER: (Google: 15ish...)

    darketernal had the chutzpah to tell me early in his/her review that it was for a game I'd never heard of, and that I was poorer for my lack of acquaintance with it. I admired darketernal's moxy and responded slavishly.

    6/10

    OVERDRIVE: While there is a decently detailed Wiki page on this game, the lack of any sources attributed makes me think an isolated fan of the game decided to type up a summary of the plot as well as an overview of the game. I also have never heard of this title, meaning you were correct in your assumption in the review.

    5/10

    TEAM RESULTS
    Zig-n-Janus: 356
    Sash-n-Schultz: 351
    WQ-n-EmP: 336
    Suskie-n-DE: 327
    Turducken-n-Will: 326

    INDIVIDUAL SCORES (base review +/- OBSCURANCY = final score)
    Sashanan: 173 + 17 = 190
    EmP: 163 + 20 = 183
    Janus: 179 + 1 = 180
    Zigfried: 189 - 13 = 176
    Turducken: 175 - 2 = 173
    Dark Eternal: 159 + 11 = 170
    ASchultz: 157 + 4 = 161
    Suskie: 171 - 14 = 157
    WolfQueen: 144 + 9 = 153
    WilltheGreat 170 - 17 = 153

    Any math errors should be reported to me. I'm really dumb with numbers, so that's not beyond the realm of comprehension.
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 18, 2009:

    Congratulations to the winners! Congratulations to my teammate, too, for topping the list and for getting me to play Hoosier City and putting out a great review despite time constraints. And to the judges, for expediently making insightful insights to every review contributed. And to everyone else, including EmP for thinking this up.

    What's frustrating is, I deliberately looked for what was FAQ-ish, and I -missed- it, or all the details I saw seemed very important to me. I suppose I there's still some work for me to figure how to render unto the FAQ gods that which is FAQ-ish, and render unto the review gods that which is review-ish. The team tourney will provide me with a few more chances to separate these things.

    And as much as I try to make the review about the game, and what to know about it, I'm conscious that it bends back around to The Reviewer's Knowledge and away from What Was Just Fun.

    Anyway, six...more...points. Perhaps I should have gone in for Airball, an NES proto...regrets...etc.

    But not really. This was a lot of fun. I'm already thinking of a MOTO3 title.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 18, 2009:

    Bloomer, I'm going to have to call shenanigans on your Obscur-O-Meter rating for Sheep. You seem to be giving it a negative rating for two reasons: one, it's a Capcom game, and two the title is boring.

    To the first, even big fish like Capcom have games that are obscure, as should be apparent by the fifteen Google results you pulled. The second flags my own Non-Sequit-O-Meter. If the aim of this competition were to pick games with interesting titles such a criticism might be accurate.

    Of course, this may just be a misunderstanding on my part, in which case I hope I don't come off sounding like a nickpicker.
    board icon
    darketernal posted June 18, 2009:

    Thanks for the fairly quick judging of this competition. All people that are judges in these contests could learn from this.

    Also, the only reason the team I was on didn't win is the reason of guilt that can be properly placed on everyone that is not me.
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 18, 2009:

    Willthegreat, I played Sheep for the PSX, and it seems to be the same game, roughly. That doesn't change the review's entertainment value, of course. Just that I think bloomer's assessment was [edit: reasonably--randomness and subjectivity and all] accurate/justifiable.

    Edit: I also remember this game too much because KingBroccoli and falsehead both wrote entertaining reviews for it. It's actually the only game I'd played of all the ones in the tourney. Besides mine.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 18, 2009:

    Ah, well yes, the fact that it's a port/remake would clear that up quite nicely.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 18, 2009:

    I have to agree with Will on this one. I enjoyed (immensely enjoyed, in fact) the comments from the judges, and everything seemed spot on and good... until I came to the obscurity scoring for Sheep. I can attest that this is an extremely obscure title. I actually recently was at an online convention with several Capcom officials (for Devil's Lair stuff) and asked about this game on a whim, remembering this review... they didn't have any idea what I was talking about.

    And lowering it's obscure score because it's about sheep? That'd be like lowering Dark Spire's score because it's about a dungeon crawl.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 18, 2009:

    Thanks bestowed upon the judges for timely critiques and admitence of my tactical brilliance. Congrats to several of the people who took part and vile threats to others -- the trick is, I'm not revealing who gained what!
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 18, 2009:

    Perfectly happy with that result considering the review wasn't written for this comp at all and, frankly, was just a way of knocking that pesky "I" out of the way for the Alpha Marathon. So thanks to the judges for putting up with a game that, let's face it, isn't obscure in the slightest.
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 18, 2009:

    Recounting tales of how you gratuitously spread the name of Sheep to anyone and everyone who would listen does not establish obscurity!

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 18, 2009:

    PS - Thanks for the prompt judging (buy a DS, Bloomer!) and awarding TEAM SPOILER the victory. Janus and I will proceed to use the trophies as moonshine goblets, because that's how we roll.

    //Zig
    board icon
    bloomer posted June 18, 2009:

    The reviews were of a very high standard, so good work everyone.

    Will, I actually had a disclaimer in my intro section saying how arbitrary my obscurity scoring was going to be. Overdrive did not paste it->

    --------
    EDIT: WHOA! This is untrue. I removed it myself before I sent it to him.

    I guess I decided that the tone of the obscurancy assessments was consistently fickle, and was the indication :)

    ------

    I view this tourney as a regular tourney with the obscurancy being an extra fun+danger score component which you agree to when you enter. Sheep may be more obscure than I gave it credit for, knowing zilch about it beforehand, but even after that, people could argue about it and never agree really how obscure it is, as this term is so relative. But I am sorry if I offended your ideas about the status of Sheep. Let them live untouched in your mind forever.
    board icon
    turducken posted June 18, 2009:

    As was much of the review, although at times I felt like I was reading the ramblings of a crack addict in desperate need of fix.

    ...They're onto me!

    As far as the obscurity goes, I saw and said 'hey I've never even heard of that one'. Which is about as complex as my decision making gets. Like hell was I gonna play some wacky J-import! And the game Emp provided for me--while appreciated--I just couldn't get into partly because I didn't find it myself, I think.

    Anyways, thanks judges for the judgery, thanks for being entertained, and good on ya to those who won and got higher scores and lower scores and so on.

    board icon
    randxian posted June 18, 2009:

    Is there going to be a thread that will keep a running tally of what reviews have been used so far? That way all competitors have a quick reference to make sure they don't inadvertently submit a review for a previously covered game and screw themselves out of a potential win.

    Just think that would be really helpful, particularly in the later weeks.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 18, 2009:

    Thanks to the judges and to my teammate. Congrats to the others. But sorry for winning an obscurity contest with reviews for games that really aren't that obscure!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 18, 2009:

    I would be happy to do that, if it's OK with felix? I don't mind compiling results either, but I don't want to be accused of stealing the other comissioners' jobs!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 18, 2009:

    I personally consider Aschultz to be my understudy, whether he likes it or not.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 18, 2009:

    Congratulations everyone! Issues of obscurity aside, we're looking at overall strong reviews here awarded overall good grades. Also cool to see my choice of game - which was a last minute inspiration - carry my piece to the top. All in all I'm pleased with how it turned out, though some credit must go to my teammate and proofreader. For the record, my review made him play through Hoosier City entirely and then dig into its sequels, while I lasted not five minutes in Super Black Onyx because I couldn't figure out how to harm the first enemy I came across.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 19, 2009:

    To facilitate further portfolio crossposting please add:

    Game: Moraff's Revenge
    Platform: PC
    Publisher: Moraffware
    Developer: Moraffware
    Genre: RPG
    Release Date: 1989

    Game: Moraff's World
    Platform: PC
    Publisher: Moraffware
    Developer: Moraffware
    Genre: RPG
    Release Date: 1991 *

    Game: Moraff's Dungeons of the Unforgiven
    Platform: PC
    Publisher: Moraffware
    Developer: Moraffware
    Genre: RPG
    Release Date: 1993


    * confirmed at http://www.softwarediversions.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=68. GameFAQs has it incorrectly listed as 1993 now - which is my own data submission, anyway.

    ADDED.
    board icon
    jerec posted June 19, 2009:

    Okay judges, I'll be compiling! Send your shit to me each week via HG Mail.

    BTW does anyone have the template for the scores and leaderboards that I can use from a previous tourney, to save myself the effort of making it up from scratch?
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 19, 2009:

    You could argue my FAQ didn't explain things clearly enough...while Sashanan's did. But enough of this backslapping, naw-YOU-the-man-dawgging, and reveling in my highest finish ever. We're rivals now in the team tourney, and that's serious business! I see your teammate is already talking a little trash :). You have no clues of the platforms I will unleash on you, I say!
    board icon
    EmP posted June 19, 2009:

    Sadly, all such things vanished with the last great forum purge.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 19, 2009:

    Sure, you can make a list of which reviews have been used in the tourney, Janus.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 19, 2009:

    Thanks for judging and congrats to the other winners/participants.

    I won't pretend that my review was actually worth anything. It was horrifically rushed and written with the final two hours of internet access in Spain before I had to leave. Therefore it got no editing or even any commentary from anyone, not even my teammate (sorry for disappointing you.)

    But to overdrive (or was it bloomer?), I'll clarify. By about halfway through the game (probably a little later; I can't remember exactly, though maybe 2/3 through would be more accurate), you stop fighting new monsters all together. The strongest monster you'll see other than something you've fought would be the recurrence of a boss you'd fought at the beginning of the game that appears as a regular monster.
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 19, 2009:

    We're rivals now in the team tourney, and that's serious business! I see your teammate is already talking a little trash :). You have no clues of the platforms I will unleash on you, I say!

    You amuse me, herr Schultz. I'll kill you last.
    board icon
    jerec posted June 19, 2009:

    You archived all that stuff, didn't you Sportsman? Or were you just linking to it?
    board icon
    ManOWarr posted June 21, 2009:

    My name is Man O Warr, after my favorite heavy metal band. I've been a frequenter of Honest Gamers for a while, although this is the 1st time I've actually registered for the forums.

    Just wanted to say "hi". Now pass the Pez.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 21, 2009:

    hi, I'm a big dick and I have a big dick.
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 21, 2009:

    now I can have an even bigger dick.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted June 22, 2009:

    Game: Heir of Zendor: The Legend and The Land
    Platform: Sega Saturn
    Developer: Micronet
    Genre: Strategy

    Added.

    Thanks.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 23, 2009:

    First off, my apologies for both the lateness and the brevity of this RotW. I judged a contest last week, was away from my computer for the majority of Friday through Sunday, swamped at work yesterday and now am finding myself trying to decide if I want to finish a game I'm currently playing and review it for the TT or use one of a handful of already-written ones as my week one pick. If it's any consolation to you, this was a really good week with a lot of stuff that I enjoyed reading, making it difficult to only pick three reviews.

    As for this, only one review by any one person. No staffers allowed. No arguing with me. Prepare for doom, Janus and whoever Janus' cannon-fodder teammates are. NO MERCY!!!!!



    THIRD PLACE: Sonic the Hedgehog (iPhone) by JANUS2

    Janus barely edges out Suskie, BELISARIOS, Bloomer, Pickhut and others with this review. I just found it a nice combination of nostalgic and informative as to the flaws. This port of Sonic seems like a very easy target for a bash review, but you never took the easy way out instead focusing on how you loved Sonic originally; now realize the game isn't amazingly great because you've played it on so many ports, but more a part of your heart due to the nostalgia of your youth; and then go on to how disappointing this port is and how that disrupts the whole positive vibe the game's nostalgia gives you.

    SECOND PLACE: Soul Blazer (SNES) by zippdementia

    A few years back, I reviewed this game. From reading your review, you seem to like this game for many of the same reasons I do, but overall, your version of things comes off as more vivid the kind of review that makes me kinda want to play it again, even though I have projects up the ass I'm working on and really would like to muster a few new reviews for the TT. You really brought up just about everything I'd want to read about this game and did so with enough humor and charm to keep things flowing smoothly. I have to admit I did chuckle out loud at your "cat/mouse" motivational poster.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Prototype (PS3) by true

    This is just an excellent review. You start with a very nice description of the intro which does a great job of showing how you immediately got into the game. From there, you nicely transition into discussion your hero (anti-hero?) and his abilities and then go into explaining some really neat details about the game. Most specifically, how conditions in the city gradually deteriorate as you progress, showing the spread of the infection. That's a very nice touch.




    Time to get to bidness, now!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 23, 2009:

    Edged out of first place by True! Well done, True, that Prototype IS an extremely good review. It makes me want to play the game even though other reviewers have bitched about numerous issues with it. Your review is so overwhelmingly powerful that I refuse to believe the game can be bad.

    Thanks for second place, OD. I'm really pleased to see (a) that the review made you want to go back to the game (b) that you actually compared it favourably to your own great review of the game and (c) that the cat/rat joke didn't fall flat.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 23, 2009:

    So are these 7 weeks just play offs, or is that the whole tournament? I'm debating how best to stack my current catalouge of reviews, and trying to plan the release of new material.
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 23, 2009:

    The teams with the top records after 7 weeks face each other in the finals.

    EDIT: or it might be the top 4 teams in a quick two-round playoff

    //Zig
    board icon
    True posted June 24, 2009:

    Damn. Thanks, O.D. I didn't really expect to place on the top, but I appreciate you choosing me for such a prestigious and coveted award. This may give me the momentum I need to go in there and trump Felix.

    Did you plan it that way?

    Thank you, Zipp and congratulations with your review as well. I can't believe I actually scraped past you, but I'll take it none the less. I'm looking forward to the week where you and I will go head to head.

    Congratulations to Janus, and everyone else who submitted. With the deadline coming up, this was a great week.

    And it's only going to get better from here.




    board icon
    aschultz posted June 24, 2009:

    Update:

    A: Airball
    B: Bard's Tale 2(NES)
    C: Champions of Krynn
    D: Defenders of (the) Dynatron City
    J: Jawbreaker
    G: Gegege no Kitaro 2
    H: (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) A nearly complete rewrite, but I have a few H games in the wings.
    M: Miner
    S: Secret of the Silver Blades
    T: (Taxman) This was a nearly complete rewrite, as between the original GameFAQs submission and now I wrote a FAQ for it, but I think I will be writing for the IIgs's Tower of Myraglen soon, rendering any rewriting rules moot.
    U: (The) Usurper: Mines of Qyntarr. I sent it to GameFAQs a month ago and here today.

    So, I'm up to 9 (11 if I bend the rules.) I could conceivably write for 26, not having anything new for Z--my Zork reviews were just pulled over. But I think I will have to target letters to get to 26. I'm going to do better than half, and that is good.

    Anyone else find N and O unusually hard to find games for despite these being common letters? I'm surprised how few games start with these letters. I found an X before either of these.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 24, 2009:

    I had trouble with N last year, so it became pretty much the first one I did this year. O I waited for the obscure tourney to sneakily remove.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 24, 2009:

    True
    If I was trying to plan anything, I'd have just given the win to Beli without even reading his review, as that would have to be great for MY TEAMMATE'S morale. Although, building you up for the purpose of personally crushing your esteem......that's a nifty plan, too!

    Zipp
    I think the one thing I liked about your SB review that puts it definitely above mine is that you maintain a good flow throughout. Mine got critiqued somewhere for something......and the person doing so made mention of something I didn't notice when typing it, but now can't help but not notice. After the fourth.....or fifth paragraph, I go from a conversational, personable style of writing to a more analytical "by-the-books" style with no segueway, making it kinda feel like it's parts of two reviews of the game put together. With your review, everything flows together nicely.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 24, 2009:

    A = A Fading Melody
    B = Braid
    D = Dragon Blaze
    M = Mass Effect
    R - Resident Evil: Degeneration
    S = Sonic the Hedgehog

    I now have five. Not that it changes my place, but oh well.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 24, 2009:

    Thank you for the mention overdrive and congrats to true and zipp. I haven't read those reviews but I will go and do so now!
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted June 24, 2009:

    What is the reward for all of this?
    board icon
    drella posted June 24, 2009:

    I just read Prototype as I was checking out some of the team tournament selections. Excellent review, True.
    board icon
    True posted June 25, 2009:

    Thanks, Drella.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 25, 2009:

    Same as all the other events. Bragging rights.

    I've not bragged in a while. Did I mention I was the only person manly and awesome enough to ever beat this challange? Because I am. This makes me roughly 7.4 times more awesome that you, random reader.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 25, 2009:

    Yeah, it's the top four teams record-wise in a two round playoff format.
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 27, 2009:

    If you have not already read it, I finally posted my first torturous experience:
    Mr. Nutz (SNES)

    Now it's time to pick another! The original thread has unfortunately been lost to time, so I'm coming up with a list of ten off the top of my head. Pick the worst game. All that I ask is that in return for my pain, you leave feedback on the review when it's done. I'll, uh, try to be a bit quicker this time. Although with how my stack of incoming games has been going lately (go go Shooting Love!), I can't promise a date.

    1) Beast Wrestler (Genesis)
    2) Black Hole Assault (Sega CD)
    3) Browning (Turbo CD)
    4) Death Sword (PC)
    5) DoDonPachi Dai-Ou-Jou Black Label eXtra (Xbox 360)
    6) Mega Man 2 (iPod Touch)
    7) Night Creatures (TurboGrafx)
    8) Revengers of Vengeance (Sega CD)
    9) Space Megaforce (SNES)
    10) Zelda: Link to the Past (SNES)

    VOTE NOW!

    //Zig
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 27, 2009:

    I didn't realise they released Mega Man 2 on the iPhone. I vote for that.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 27, 2009:

    I vote for Browning. It just sounds crappy for some reason.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted June 27, 2009:

    Judging by the pictures alone on HG, I'll pick Night Creatures.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 27, 2009:

    Revengers of Vengeance, dammit!
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 27, 2009:

    drip hot candle wax onto your nipples.
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 27, 2009:

    That would bring me pleasure, which is not the purpose of this thread.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 27, 2009:

    Night Creatures.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 27, 2009:

    Night Creatures
    board icon
    randxian posted June 27, 2009:

    10) Zelda: Link to the Past (SNES)

    What in the hell? If this is supposed to be some kind of joke, I don't get it.
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted June 27, 2009:

    "Revengers of Vengeance", if only to investigate the "based on a true story" claim. O_o
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 27, 2009:

    Oh yes, if that is chosen, I would definitely investigate how a game starring giant armored rhinoceri and elves duking it out could be "based on a true story" =D

    //Zig
    board icon
    randxian posted June 27, 2009:

    You want torture? Muppet Adventure: Chaos at the Carnival for NES.

    Hell, Hydlide and Action 52 are better games.
    board icon
    True posted June 27, 2009:

    I vote for Browning. It just sounds crappy for some reason.

    A game with the word brown in it makes Jason think of crap...

    Way to put it together, there, Detective Dodger.

    I vote for Zelda, only because I know no one else will.
    board icon
    True posted June 27, 2009:

    Can I get my points for this, by the way?

    D.O.N.E.

    Thank you, Ninja Staff Person.
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 27, 2009:

    Revengers of Vengeance. I love redundantly named games. I cast my vote despite the legions demanding Night Creatures, in the belief time will show me to be right, in some weird way or another.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted June 27, 2009:

    Forget about it Zig. Review Godhand instead.
    board icon
    Calvin posted June 28, 2009:

    #: 3 on 3 NHL Arcade
    C: Crazy Taxi 2
    F: Frogger
    S: Spyglass Board Games

    Is it okay to count reviews brought over from Thunderbolt if they weren't written this year, or is that cheating? If it's not okay, I'll need a new strategy.
    board icon
    EmP posted June 28, 2009:

    Ports are fine, but they do need to be from this year unless heavilly revised. Otherwise you're just cheating yourself.
    board icon
    jerec posted June 28, 2009:

    Cheaters never win, and winners never cheat.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 28, 2009:

    I'm pretty determined this year to be the second person to ever complete this. It is a tough task, but I've got two more letters on the way. That brings me up to 17, and only 9 more letters needed.

    I WILL get them if it takes ghost writers to do so.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 28, 2009:

    Might as well use this opportunity to remind you guys that I'm at 19.

    Yeah, I've been winning for a while.
    board icon
    Calvin posted June 28, 2009:

    B: Banjo Kazooie, makes 5.
    board icon
    jerec posted June 28, 2009:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Felix at Suskie
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Suskie vs Zig

    JEREC: There's a certain type of review that will always do well in a tournament, and that's the sort of review where it's just made up of examples of really cool shit you can do in the game. Only a few lines into the review, and Suskie has already convinced me that this game would be an absolute blast to play, and the rest of the review just builds on that more and more. As far as game choices go, Suskie absolutely nailed it with this one. MadWorld is one of those games that sounds really awesome to talk about, which helps make it an incredibly interesting game to read about. To you tourney people out there, less artsy descriptions of explosions in Metal Slug, and more reviews like this, please! Then there's Zigfried. He's at his best when reviewing games has some sort of passion for. There's absolutely none of that here. I'm not exactly sure why he chose his "Torture Zigfried" review instead of something much more interesting. This is a fairly short review that only touches on the game for a short while, in between commenting on the practice of reviewing bad games, children gamers, and playing a game with your butt. There's also a whole paragraph on Sega CD's Popful Mail which seems to come out of absolutely nowhere. I'm not going to insult Suskie by saying Zigfried threw the match. I'm certain that's not the case, it's just that Zigfried gambled on a review that didn't work. And Suskie's review was brilliant enough that it would have held its own against a stronger piece from Zig, anyway. By using MadWorld against Zig, Suskie shows that he knows his opponent, and makes a good first impression for the rest of the tourney season.
    WINNER: SUSKIE

    LEWIS: Zig's is decent, but takes a bit long getting to the point. I like the commentary on developers' approach to children's games having the opportunity to deviate from the norm, and this one not doing that. Shame you're up against Suskie's MADWORLD, Zig, as it's one of the most passionate, detailed, illustrative reviews I've read on this site in ages. Absolutely superb stuff, from the first word to the last, and one that left me desperate to play the game despite mediocre write-ups elsewhere. Suskie wins.

    SPORTSMAN: It sucks that I have to pick a loser between these two because they were my two favorite reviews of the round. Madworld is probably the best piece Ive ever read from Suskie; Im not a fan of these types of games or the Wii but this sounds totally awesome. Normally these super violent games are all about style and no substance but this one seems like one hell of a ride. Even though with all of the crap going on in the game the review practically writes itself, Suskie didnt just settle for mediocrity and actually convinced me that the game works. I dont know how many reviews Ive read about Gears of War and Ninja Gaiden that emphasize the violence and how awesome that is that just dont work. Suskie was able to turn that into a convincing argument that made this sound like nothing before and how the Wii actually works in favor o the game. Very impressive review. Zigfried, on the other hand didnt disappoint, either. Normally middle of the road game reviews bore me but he couldnt have handled this one any better. His argument isnt as relevant today as it was in the past since I dont think developers are using childish themes to sell games anymore but it still works nevertheless. Only Zig can take such a simple argument one pertaining to the games mediocrity and turn it into something so much more and deeper Wow, I really dont know which one to pick now. Im going with Suskie because he really stepped up his game this round and went over and above but this is one that can go either way. Maybe in an hour from me typing this Ill prefer Zigs, and then an hour later Ill prefer Suskies again. I hope both writers leave this match with the heads held high, since they are both winners here and this is more like a finals match than a first round match to me. Hopefully both of these teams do well so well see a rematch between these two sometime down the road.
    WINNER: SUSKIE

    True vs Felix

    JEREC: Like Suskie, True also picks a game that sounds incredibly awesome, and through some very enthusiastic, very persuasive writing, I am convinced it is awesome. I actually want to go and look up this game to learn more, which says something these days - my apathy is a tough shell to crack. True managed it, though, with a series of examples of why this game is awesome, why the main character's story is compelling, and what sets the game apart from others in the genre. If I had one complaint about this review, it would be that it is a tad long, specifically the paragraph with the run down of moves (press this button, etc.) which seemed a bit instruction-manualish. But that's a minor complaint, and it doesn't take away from the impact of this review. Felix's review seems more experimental. Two things work against him here, one is the overuse of screenshots which overshadows and distracts from his writing, and the other is that the game doesn't seem that interesting, despite how much Felix tries to make it sound interesting. The writing was strong enough in its own right, though. Images should be used to enhance the text rather than overshadow it. Because if we're relying on images, why not just post up a YouTube video of this game in action and slap a score on it?
    WINNER: TRUE

    LEWIS: True's is very nice. It starts strong, grabs me, entertains me from the outset. It's also, again, totally illustrative, showing me the game rather than telling me about it. That's something I look for a lot in writing these days. I wonder if it might gloss over negatives of the game in favour of mindless enthusiasm, but that's not for me to decide. A splendid piece. Felix's... hmm, well that said, this might go further the other way. How strict are we being about these being reviews? This is a lovely piece of writing about a game that sounds genuinely entertaining. Does it read like a recommendation or in-depth analysis piece? No, not really. It's very good. But so is True's and, well, I'm going to do the bizarre thing and stick to format here. True wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Wow, True wrote a real winner here. I wasnt expecting much since he usually starts off slow in these things and picks it up as the tourney progresses. This might be his finest work yet; it reads and flows smoothly and really made this game sound awesome. The descriptions of the powers and were great and it never even came close to getting bogged down with technical details like so many of these reviews tend to do. Very impressive review. Felix, on the other hand, also put on a good show with an unusual game. Im glad he decided to focus on the wackiness of the game instead of the typical dodging bullets is intense and the bosses are awesome argument because at this point Im really tired of hearing about shmups. This focus on the premise also kept me really interested, I mean who wouldnt want to read about a Satan-fighting rabbit? Unfortunately for Felix the review was still a shmup review with a neat twist and True really delivered something lights out this round and his passion and enthusiasm for Prototype gives him the win. Another good matchup.
    WINNER: TRUE

    ASchultz vs Randxian

    JEREC: ASchultz paints a clear picture of Airball, illustrating the differences between this and the original PC version. After reading this, I have no trouble imagining what this game must be like to play. It sounds challenging as well as rewarding. I can always count on ASchultz to review something I've never even heard of, and because he's such a credible voice on games like this, it really makes it easy to get into his writing. Randxian reviews a game I've heard of, but never quite believed up until now. I'm a fan of the Wheel of Time books, and now I know the Wheel of Time game is actually quite a fun play. You don't need to be well versed in the books to read this review, either, as Rand "WoT reference?" xian explains the necessary aspects of the story and setting. For a WoT fan, it's quite interesting to learn what the game is about. It's a fairly close one, but Schultz's writing is more engaging, and Randxian's review had a "the gameplay is where this game really shines" type moment, which made me laugh and cringe at the same time.
    WINNER: ASCHULTZ

    LEWIS: Aschultz' reminds me of a Tom Francis review. Tom Francis won an award for his reviews last year. You are off to a good start, aschultz. I like how you scale the difficulty chart to describe the game. A special idea, that. Works really well. Reads beautifully. Rather nice work there. Randxian's review seems to assume all FPS games are the same except this one. Which is a bit inaccurate and reflects badly, I think. It's also a bit of a static piece, a bit formulaic, and has nothing that gripped me at any point. Adequately written; not great. Aschultz wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Solid review by Schultz. Personally I wouldnt get too comfortable reviewing these puzzle games since its tough to convey excitement over them through a review and they generally dont make the greatest reads. I didnt mind this one, though; not quite a memorable piece but more than serviceable. A solid effort from a vet. Unfortunately rookie Randxian is going against someone who has been around for probably ten or so years. The review had some good parts but contains quite a few rookie mistakes, the biggest one being the one I made for many years (and still make to some extent haha): bringing up a topic and not conveying what actually makes it so great. Im really trying to bang these results out before I go away for the weekend so I wont go into too much detail here but I can elaborate on this point once I get back and the results have been posted. Still this match was probably closer than I made it sound and basically came down to a solid effort from a vet versus a solid effort from a rookie.
    WINNER: ASCHULTZ

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Will at EmP
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    EmP vs Will

    JEREC: I noticed EmP fixed up the typo of the game's title in the introduction, something I pointed out when I judged this review during the last alpha-comp. It was a pretty good review then, and it's still good now, but I still remember this one pretty vividly. The writing is tight, even restrained except for one or two overlong sentences. It's still a convincing review, but I'm no more likely to play this game than I was last time (though if I do go through my Genesis roms, perhaps...) Will's review is something I remember a bit of fuss about in the feedback topic, but I don't think I'd actually read the review. Space Quest seems like a fairly frustrating sort of game to play, and I'm not sold on the 10/10 and the recommendation to actually give it ago, since the only justification for that is the constant deaths. The writing itself is fast paced and enjoyable to read, even if I don't find it convincing. This is actually the first match I'm judging (as I'm jumping around the list), and it's already looking like a tough call. Do I go with Emp for a review that has overall better writing and is more persuasive? Or do I go for Will, whose review is enjoyable and energetic, not to mention enthusiastic? It's a close one. My synapse is firing at...
    WINNER: EMP

    LEWIS: EmP's review is solid, entertaining, flowing and generally nice. There's nothing that really stands out as being remarkable or memorable, for me, but it serves its purpose perfectly, and I can't see anything acutely wrong to complain about. Faint praise? Maybe, but sometimes that works fine. Will's review is very funny, but to me fails at its job. There's no consistency to it: the majority of the text goes on about how unfair the game is, then we're told it's great, and there's not a substantial enough link between the two. You've got to be careful with things like this - I'd say it's why my Invisible War review wasn't great. EmP wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Interesting matchup, as both reviewers take a different approach but ultimately try to achieve the same result; bring you into the games worlds and try to make it sound like something special. EmPs is easily the more eloquent piece; great intro, fantastic writing outside of a few overly verbose and clunky sentences and at the end raped up the argument perfectly and made the premise sound like so much more than just another 16-bit action game. Will, on the other hand had a few rough spots (PLEASE no more emoticons in reviews) and didnt initially grab me but once he started talking about the janitor and wackiness of the game I was dying to know more. These are not easy games to review but Will seemed to capture it perfectly and really knows what makes them great (or not). While EmPs review is definitely the more ambitious piece of the two, Space Quest is the game that I ultimately want to play and will remember.
    WINNER: WILL

    DarkEternal vs Zipp

    JEREC: Darketernal's first paragraph did not put me in a good mood. The idea was good - mixing games like colours, but the example was irrelevant, though it sounded much more interesting than the game he ultimately reviewed. I wanted to know if this Tomb Raider/Indiana Jones/MGS/Splinter Cell mix was any good. But he doesn't know that. He's here instead to talk about something else entirely. As far as reviewing goes, this is what I'd like to call a Wallbanger Intro. It makes me want to bash my head into a wall. The rest of the review picks up, and the game does sound somewhat interesting, I grudgingly admit. Had I not been judging this, I would have clicked back after the second paragraph. Zipp plays it safe with a review he knows I like, as I gave it a 95 back in the last Alpha comp. Honestly, there isn't much I can say about this one that I didn't say last time, so Zipp, if you want me to repost my original comments on this later, just ask. I'll put it up on my blog. It's still an awesome review, especially convincing for a 6/10 game. I can see why I'd like this game, and also why I wouldn't. Great writing.
    WINNER: ZIPP

    LEWIS: Darketernal's starts really well. I love the colour metaphor. I just wish you extended it a bit and stuck with that style. By the end it's rather generic, and not particularly enjoyable to read. Zipp's improved a lot since this review, though I remember liking it at the time. Now, it feels stilted, and a few of the constructions read rather awkwardly. But I do think it serves its purpose nicely, and is critical in all the right places. Sometimes, it's okay for the writing to be unremarkable if the content's spot on. Zipp wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Good matchup here. DEs review isnt the best Ive read from him but definitely not one of the worst. It was quite effective at convincing me that the game is something interesting and worth checking it out. Zipps, on the other hand, didnt read so smoothly. The review itself was sloppy, with some odd wordings and non-existent transitions, but once it got going it was fantastic. The analysis was brilliant and although it was longer and a middle of the road review it kept me glued to my seat and wanting to know more. This is something I can relate to as well and seems to answer my questions to why I thought the ME demo was lame. DE definitely wrote the more consistent review, but Zipps has more highs and more lows. In the long run Ill remember Zipps great analysis and not his clunky transitions so he wins this round.
    WINNER: ZIPP

    DoI vs Sash

    JEREC: I absolutely loved the story of DoI's hero who tried to do the right thing, but ended up going on a quest for revenge. This story of a personal experience in the game did more than descriptions ever could. I'm interested in this game now, despite some shortcomings mentioned towards the end, just to see what sort of experience I could find in this game. It seems kind of like Oblivion, with less emphasis on story, and more emphasis on what you want your character to be. Sashanan's review is also quite an interesting read, for a game that seemed to work at the time. The trial and error stuff puts me off completely, though. It's a nice look at the past, and the review certainly captures that mistique the game apparently has. I also need to apologise - while trying to read this I was interrupted no less than four times, making my read through a little disjointed. This was a tough match for Sashanan, as his review is excellent and probably would've beaten many other reviews this round, but DoI pulled off a review that really got my attention.
    WINNER: DOI

    LEWIS: Dol's piece falls into the same trap as True's. It's an entertaining story piece, but it's not really telling me anything about the quality of the game until right at the end. As such, I find it impossible to claim this is a great review. I'm still not sure whether I should be marking down for that. Which is tricky, as Sash's piece is one I'm really not taken with either. It could do with a big old prod-edit, this one. Characterless and a bit uninspiring? Am I being a right cock today? Maybe, as I'm stressed from trying to do this while moving house. Tough: Dol wins. Just.

    SPORTSMAN: Both of these reviews were interesting reads. DoIs story was pretty interesting because its something that I can relate to (I always wind up starting off as the good guy and sometimes fall to the bad side) and I think this approach worked perfectly for this type of game. Sashanans review is one of the best, if not the best that Ive read by him. Normally reviews for these odd games get either bogged down in technicality or confuse the hell out of the reader. This review did neither; well Im still not 100% sure of how the game works but neither was Sashanan when he initially played it. The bit about it being a novel concept but obsolete today was a convincing argument, and DoI never really convinced me that his game is any different from KOTOR, Mass Effect or any other choose your path RPGs. Everything seemed a bit too familiar to me here so the concept didnt intrigue me like Sashs did.
    WINNER: SASHANAN

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Overdrive At Janus
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Radical Dreamer vs HonestGamer

    JEREC: I'd been wanting to read a Radical Dreamer review, especially since this is the first new piece in a few years. I did read his blog entry prior to this, too, which might not have been a good idea. I think the review is still a bit too long, but I'm not sure how much should be cut. I've played this game, so I know all about the fairly unique battle system, the puzzle dungeons and the story. What I find odd about this review is that while it feels long, it doesn't really say that much. Dreamer does make many excellent points about the gameplay/story segregation in RPGs, the way history is used in Shadow Hearts, and one point that I found incredibly interesting, how simplistic towns were. I'd barely even noticed it until now, but I realise it is quite true. It's not a bad effort at all, and I look forward to seeing what Dreamer writes in the coming weeks. Venter's writing is tight, focused, and full of that typical easy-going voice on expects from him. Unfortunately, this review could be interchanged for another of the many, many reviews, and the comment would still read the same. I suppose that's not really a bad thing at all, Venter is usually a consistent reviewer, and he certainly approaches it like a natural. I did notice that this review seems to be fairly negative, pointing out all the various nitpicks, which is fine and all, and seems to in itself justify the 9/10 from a 10, but I'm having trouble believing the game is that good to start with. I'm unfamiliar with the earlier Punch Out games, so I'd be one of those people new to the franchise. But I find myself struggling to care. Perhaps Venter's tone is too casual, sometimes, because it lacks that persuasiveness that reviews tend to need. This is one of those matches where it's two people from completely opposite ends of the reviewing spectrum. Dreamer is long-winded, a little rusty, and had a very interesting game to talk about, making points that reminded me of how much I liked the game, while Venter's review is tighter, well practiced, but ultimately not that interesting or convincing. Close one.
    WINNER: RADICAL DREAMER

    LEWIS: Radical Dreamer writes a remarkably in-depth, thorough, fantastic review, really tapping into what's at the heart of the game. I don't really have any more to say about it other than that this is exactly the sort of write-up I love. Great work. Honest Gamer's exclamation mark in the opening paragraph makes me wince. I really hate them. Probably a personal point, but hey. This is a solid review, with plenty of detail, but it fails to leave much of a lasting impression. Sorry, boss. Radicaldreamer wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Even though it started off slowly and is a longish review for a JRPG I liked this Bbobb review quite a bit. What I liked best about this one is how Bbobb made everything tie together as a whole (sorry for the lack of better wording!). Most JRPG reviews tend to get bogged down in sections such as story, battle system, characters, etc, but this one looked at the game as one big picture and how every aspect brought up either enhanced (in most cases) or worked against it. The approach really worked and made the game much more interesting to someone who wouldve zoned out multiple times. Not a bad effort for Venter, either. Ive played the NES game so I could relate to his review and it made it a much more interesting read. Its no secret that Im not a Wii fan but Venter made this sound like a novel concept that is a faithful follow up to an NES classic. A good matchup here but Bbobb took more risks and had the more ambitious project so he wins this round. Im glad Venter didnt look too deep into his game (a philosophical look at Punchout wouldve been a disaster) but Bbobb had the opportunity to take a risk, took his chances and succeeded.
    WINNER: RADICAL DREAMER

    Disco1960 vs Belisarios

    JEREC: I have to admit, I was thinking many of the things Disco said people would probably think about this game. Except the last one: he doesnt have superpowers, so its fine if we shoot him in the mouth! That doesn't even make sense to me. Anyway, this is a fairly standard, if smoothly written review for an old NES platformer. I wasn't quite expecting the 9 by the end of the review, as there did seem to be a few nitpicks about the game, but they must have been pretty minor. I didn't see what makes this a must play NES game, and even Disco asserts that any normal person would be able to find appeal in this game. I dunno, still seems like a platformer from an obselete era to me :P Belisaros offers up a fairly informal bash review on some crappy Genesis game. There's plenty of sarcasm, lots of opinion, and pointing out the stupid elements of the game. Short and sharp. I like this. The final line is perfectly worded, too. Disco's was the better written of the two, but Beli's was a lot more interesting to read, and a lot more convincing. I can believe this is a 3/10, while I have trouble thinking of Batman as a 9, though I've never played either of the two games.
    WINNER: BELISARIOS

    LEWIS: I think there's a bit too much filler in disco's review at times. Not much - most of it is to the point - but I still want to run my prod-edding finger over this one. It makes its points reasonably well, but I occasionally found my attention wandering. BELISARIOS' review is filled with character, and makes its points in a concise way that's still overflowing with personal touches and idiosynchratic style. I really enjoyed reading this. A lot. Lovely stuff. You win, BELISARIOS. You totally win.

    SPORTSMAN: Two short but sweet reviews here. Disco writes a praise review for an old NES game and makes it sound surprisingly decent (I say surprisingly because I dont think I can stand playing an 8-bit game today). I dug the lighthearted approach in the beginning and end of the review and it really made this one catch my attention. It slowed down a bit in the middle but luckily it was short so there wasnt a PC-clocking problem or anything. On the other hand, Belisarious also writes a short but sweet piece for an old Genesis game. His trademark humor is there and he comes in and then leaves while providing enough information to make his opinion clear. Bel gets the win this round because overall it was the more entertaining piece of the two and I could see him becoming a force in this third spot.
    WINNER: BELISARIOUS

    Janus vs OD

    JEREC: I almost bought the Mega Drive Collection the other day, but decided against it. I'd never really been much of a Sega fan, even though the price of this disc would equate to $1 per game... I'm not sure I'd play them. Janus doesn't really help me in this regard, as he grew up with Sega and has a lot of fun with the nostalgia side of it, but what I did find really interesting was his story of finding Alien Storm fun, since he'd overlooked it in the past. Perhaps for me, a Sega newbie, who's only played a couple of these games before, and not for very long, could find some enjoyment here. Janus doesn't bore me with rundowns of every game, just an overview of the package, which is probably the best way to approach something like this. Overdrive's review, going by the date, was posted not long before the deadline. It shows. There's more than a few badly worded sentences that would probably get fixed up when he re-reads it at some point, and these were fairly distracting. There was also a paragraph of "how I bought this game" which is remarkable in that this is a review for a XLA game. The essence of the review is good, if a little long, but it needs a polish.
    WINNER: JANUS

    LEWIS: Janus, like others before him, needs to be careful in throwing a load of negatives at the reader when the overwhelming message is a positive one. For the record, I think it just about works here, but it's a dangerous line to tread. It's well written and nicely flowing, though, which always counts for something. I don't really care what time OD got home from work, if I'm honest. Fortunately, the rest of the review works really well for the most part. A few lines grate and stick out a little bit ("The only flaws I've noticed are very minor" seems particularly convoluted to me), but on the whole it's nice work. Blimey, did I just say "on the whole"? Okay, I just waived the right to complain about anyone's writing ever again. Er, OD wins, I think.

    SPORTSMAN: Good review from Overdrive here. He really knows what makes these games great (or not so great) and comes off as a very credible source. OD has written much better before, but in the end this piece isnt bad and is a solid first round entry. Unfortunately for him Janus really stepped it up this round and did much more than submit a first round review. Normally reviewing compilations isnt a good idea because they tend to be list oriented and become tedious reads but Janus avoided that. Instead of feeling obliged to talk about every game he focuses on the package as a whole. I also thought that the idea of mentioning the lesser known titles was a fantastic approach, because as Janus said everyone has played Sonic and would not want to read about those games again. Plus he had a great argument for Alien Storm, Golden Axe, etc. Ive played those games and didnt care for them and this makes me want to give them another try and made their inclusion seem worthwhile. So while OD played it relatively safely and put forth a solid effort, Janus really took a chance and in the end wrote probably the best compilation review Ive ever read, so he gets the win.
    WINNER: JANUS

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Dagoss at Boo
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Bluberry vs Dagoss

    JEREC: BioShock is one of those games where everyone has an opinion, and it is usually a very different opinion. I still haven't made up my mind whether I want to play it or not, and after reading Bluberry's review... I still haven't. But at least now I have a clearer picture of why: the premise and setting of the game is great, but the bulk of the gameplay is not. It's a fairly neutral review, and it doesn't have that usual obnoxious Bluberry voice behind it. And I did laugh at the dig at EmP, even if it is a little too in-joke for my liking. The writing was excellent, as I would expect. Dagoss reviews... Half-Life, a game fairly similar to BioShock, and probably more oversaturated with reviews, if only because it's older. A little too much time is spent explaining the definition of RPG, and why Half-Life has elements of it. Stuff like that isn't that important or interesting. When Dagoss mentioned how the story and gameplay work together so well, that is what I wanted to learn more about. I don't think there was actually any talk about the game's premise, now I look back. I hate to say this for a review of Half-Life, since I'm almost sick of reading about it, but a little more substance would be appreciated. Show me some more examples of the story and/or gameplay, rather than just telling me how well it works. This last point made rather more amusing to me by the fact that there's a "Show, not tell" reference in the review. Back to 9th grade, Mr. Dagoss!
    WINNER: BLUBERRY

    LEWIS: Er, hang on. Is this some weird alter-ego? The tournament page lists it as Bluberry's, but the review's credited to mardraum. Curious. We'll go with the latter for the purpose of this criticism. Difficult not to let my preconceptions get in the way with this one. For me, mardraum just totally misunderstands and misrepresents BioShock. It strikes me as an example of reviewing it based on what the writer wanted rather than what is there. How much am I allowed to criticise it for this? I think that's pretty key, really. You have to represent a game properly and understand why it's built the way it is. And I think this kind of fails to do so, even aside from the fact that BioShock is obviously the greatest game of the last two years. dagoss' review is brilliant. I love its approach. It's a daring path to take, but it succeeds entirely. Sure: why can't Half-Life exemplify how to make an RPG? It's totally role-playing. A fabulous piece of criticism, which is the only reasonable approach to take when reviewing an older game. Mr Goss wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Ugh, lousy matchup here. Boo knows I love that Bioshock review but it just isnt very relevant today. It was fantastic in 2007 or 2008 when it was the first non-praise for the game but many bashes later it just isnt as appealing. Seriously, how many times has this game been discussed on this site? I appreciate Dagoss slightly different approach to Half Life but in the end it still says the same thing that everyone else has said over the past 11 years. Im going with Boo here because I can relate more his argument since I dont play RPGs and would probably give the same argument if I was to ever review Bioshock, though neither review impressed me the slightest.
    WINNER: BLUBERRY

    Woodhouse vs Wolfqueen001

    JEREC: Woodhouse presents a short review, which is a remarkably interesting review for a game that sounds really dull. What I get from this review is that Touch Detective is a poor man's Phoenix Wright. Woodhouse's tone of disappointment at the wasted potential helps give this review a good amount of personality. Which is what the characters in this game apparently lack. Good to see Woodhouse is not a hypocrite. I found myself a bit confused in Wolfqueen's review. I'm unfamiliar with previous games in this series, and the concept seems incredibly strange, though it's never really explained in any great detail. Some bits like the main character having to go through a tutorial again sound amusing, but most of the review is fairly unaccessible for me, and until I saw the score at the end, I wasn't even sure if Wolfqueen liked the game or not. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of opinion... just a lot of description.
    WINNER: WOODHOUSE

    LEWIS: Snappy and to-the-point, Woodhouse's review shows you don't have to vomit a million words on a page to write an in-depth, critical review of a game. After a slightly clumsy opening two sentences, it finds its rhythm and makes every word count. It's mature, sensible, critical and measured. Well done sir. I think Wolfie-Q's could start with a little more strength. It covers a lot of ground, and I like a lot of what's here. But I feel it could be trimmed, in order to make it flow a little better. Ultimately, it lacks some of the personality I'm accustomed to in WQ's writing. Not bad, by any means, but Woodhouse still wins.

    SPORTSMAN: WQs review is a good look at .hack though a bit formulaic. It reads like most other JRPG reviews: intro, story, characters, battles/dungeons, depth, conclusion. I know what I was coming every turn and although the information and descriptions were great I got a sense of Dj vu while reading it. Add a graphics and sound paragraph and you have a very good gamespot review. Woodhouses wasnt as detailed and definitely isnt his finest work but is the more interesting of the two, because I didnt know where it was going. It started a bit slow but the conclusion surprised me and some of the quirky situations were fun to read about. He gets the win here because it was more unpredictable and shorter in length (my mind drifted a few times in WQs piece). Both writers have written better and Im hoping theyre just playing it safe and step it up in future rounds.
    WINNER: WOODHOUSE

    Espiga vs Golden Vortex

    JEREC: This must be one of the few Espiga reviews I haven't read before, which is nice, since I didn't really want a retread of previous Team Tournies. It's a short, elegantly written review of a PS3 game that actually sounds quite fun. I liked the observation on the dark and gritty style of PS3 games, too. Not much more to be said about this one, as it's a pretty clear winner. Vortex's review is short, and not really good at all. I'll gladly give feedback on more recent reviews. There's nothing wrong with using old reviews in a tournament, but they need to be pretty good ones. This one isn't anything remarkable, and I know Vortex is capable of better.
    WINNER: ESPIGA

    LEWIS: With the PSN's indie-burst, I'd disagree with Espiga that the majority of the PS3's titles are gritty and "mature" in that horrible not-at-all-mature sense. This is a reasonable review, though. The comment about the boss fights made me chuckle. This is pretty good stuff. I don't think Golden Vortex's review goes into anywhere near enough critical or analytical depth. Much of it is just description. I know what the game's about and a bit about how it plays. Is that enough? To some, maybe, but I tend to want more. Identify with what makes the game tick, and go from there. As it is, this barely scratches the surface. Sorry. Espiga wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Pretty easy one to call here. I wouldnt say Folklore is Espigas best work but it was certainly a good read. The intro grabbed my attention (not sure if the bolding helped or not but it got me interested nevertheless) and the rest of the review was short but sweet. Dont think I ever heard of the game but next time Im tempted to say PS3s library of games is complete crap Ill think twice. A good effort. Unfortunately I cant say the same about Vortex. Ive read enough of his work in the past to know that hes capable of much better than this. Its a half-assed effort that was probably written in 30 minutes, which makes me wonder why he picked this when he has at least 50 better reviews written to his name. Hopefully he decides to start picking better reviews and/or writes something new or else this could be trouble for him and his team. I also read his review after EmPs much better effort for the same game, not that it wouldve changed the outcome or anything.
    WINNER: ESPIGA

    RESULTS

    Most of the team names are awful, long, or just plain irritating to type, so while they will be in the leaderboard images below, I'm not gonna bother adding them here.

    ---------------------------------

    Team Suskie vs Team Felix 3-0

    Suskie vs Zig 3-0
    True vs Felix 3-0
    ASchultz vs Randxian 3-0

    ---------------------------------

    Team EmP vs Team Will 2-1

    EmP vs Will 2-1
    DarkEternal vs Zipp 0-3
    DoI vs Sash 2-1

    ---------------------------------

    Team Janus vs Team Overdrive 2-1

    Radical Dreamer vs HonestGamer 3-0
    Disco1960 vs Belisarios 0-3
    Janus vs Overdrive 2-1

    ---------------------------------

    Team Boo vs Team Dagoss 3-0

    Bluberry vs Dagoss 2-1
    Woodhouse vs Wolfqueen001 3-0
    Espiga vs Golden Vortex 3-0

    ---------------------------------

    LEADERBOARDS

    Hurry for embedded images! If they do not work, please tell me. This took a bit of fiddling.

    Team Leaderboard

    Individual Leaderboard
    board icon
    bluberry posted June 28, 2009:

    right, then: Lewis, why is BioShock built the way it is? why is the hacking minigame stupid, why do the plot twists manage to miss the mark by changing nothing, why is the moral choice pointless, why...

    you know what, last time we did this it went on for an embarrassingly long time, so let's not.

    thanks to the judges and congrats to the winners!
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 28, 2009:

    it's just that Zigfried gambled on a review that didn't work

    That's it right there. Oh well! Next round is another day =D

    His argument isnt as relevant today as it was in the past since I dont think developers are using childish themes to sell games anymore but it still works nevertheless

    Thanks for the feedback -- I was curious to see what people would say about the argument I make. I'd say that the Sonic games we see nowadays are a modern example of childrens' games, and as reviewers we shouldn't worry about whether it will make kids happy, since anything will make kids happy. That's not necessarily a problem here at HG, but I think people do lower their expectations for certain genres. I agree that I could have done a better job making the argument feel more relevant to today's world.

    Now that I can edit the review, I'll probably also stress the reviewer's burden to be fair but demanding in general. Pickhut's review of Zendor is a great example. He loathes the developer, but he was fair and didn't bash the game. But he was also demanding; he didn't exaggerate the game's quality just because it happened to be the first "acceptable" game he's played from Micronet. He still gave it the mediocre score it deserved. People sometimes have a tendency to be overly generous when they're surprised, so I was really pleased to read Pickhut's review.

    I guess the theme I want to stress when I edit the review is: "be fair but demanding".

    NOW REGARDING MR SUSKIE
    I had never read your Madworld review before, and it was excellent. I suggest you prepare something else for me... because when you and I meet again in the finals, I will have something specifically written for YOU!

    //Zig
    board icon
    randxian posted June 28, 2009:

    Well, Suskie's team scared me the most prior to when I was chosen in Drella's stead, so it's no surprise they won. I know Aschultz is a really intelligent individual, so I knew this would be a tough one. Congratulations on a job well done, all three of you.

    However, I'm a bit stunned we didn't even win a single vote. I honestly thought it would at least be close. I never dreamed of a shutout.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted June 28, 2009:

    Interesting turn of events. Some of my predictions went 3-0 in the other direction. I was surprised at some of the reactions to the Boo-Dagoss match. Those were my favorite reviews this round. I first read Boo's and thought, wow, this is a great review, Boo's got it in the bag. But then I read Dagoss' review, really liked that too, and couldn't easily call that match. Leroux was right when he said CREEPING DEATH would pull off a narrow victory though.

    Team Suskie has way more going for it than I realized.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted June 28, 2009:

    Thanks judges for the excellent verdicts. True, losing to your very good Prototype review is something I can live with. We'll get better as this event goes on.
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 28, 2009:

    Thanks randxian. I wanted to be on my game for the opener, and the Airball review was one where I had bits and pieces floating around--and I was able to revise it a few times, with Zipp pointing out some last minute errors. Don't expect that'll happen every week. Your review also encouraged me to re-look up the Wheel of Time series. I think I bought the game for $2 then pitched it, and the book totally swamped me, though your review touched off some faint memories. People who have a good grasp on that impress me greatly. I think you did a good job exposing non-initiates to the series without dumping too much on.

    I was also surprised by the scoreline, too, but the critiques seemed closer than that. This sort of 3-close-ones score will balance out over the tournament, and it's probably more important to apply some of each judge's critique. For instance, puzzle games have huge potential to backfire as a safety valve for me.

    I also suspect Zigfried won't gamble on a review, either, come playoff time. It probably had the most thought provoking criticisms, + and -, of any review this round, and that will pay off down the stretch for trying new stuff. I have to admit I don't have the guts to try something like that in this tourney. And if I did, it probably wouldn't turn out as well.

    Edit to add: Interesting scoreline in EmP vs Will--5-4 on total votes, 2-1 the other way in the team score. Anyone remember any time that's happened before?
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 28, 2009:

    Good lord. Well, we're certainly off to a good start. On a personal note, I can't think of a better way to begin TT than a 3-0 victory against Zig.

    Thanks to the judges for their feedback, and I'll be saying that every week. I also want to extend gratitude to my two teammates, who really gave it their all this week. Here's to hoping the coming rounds will play out similarly well for us!

    Schultz: I remember that awkward scoreline happened in the final round of TT '07, where Zig and I both won 2-1 but Espiga lost 0-3. So we won, but OD's team had more individual votes.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 28, 2009:

    Well, that's disappointing, but we were sort of just testing the waters this round anyway and wound up learning a few things. Thanks for the feedback. I can now rule out a few reviews that I might have used previously but won't now based on this.

    Congrats to dagoss for being the only one on our team to win a vote this round. Haha.
    board icon
    timrod posted June 28, 2009:

    I'm sorry, but I feel the need to greentext.

    >BioShock is obviously the greatest game of the last two years.
    >Implying that Bioshock is somehow better than Team Fortress 2
    >Implying that Bioshock went deeper than being "Club the Splicers: The Movie The Game"
    board icon
    Halon posted June 28, 2009:

    Got back earlier than I thought I would.

    Zig: I don't think the argument holds up today too well because I don't think developers are targeting kids at all. Most kids are playing games such as Halo and Call of Duty even though they're aimed at a more mature audience. That wasn't why you lost or anything, though; Suskie's passion and excitement for his game is ultimately what gave him the nod. Just a small point I thought I would address.

    Schultz: I was thinking Bush/Gore 2000 (Gore winning popular vote Bush winning election)
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 28, 2009:

    Oh, I know, I was just discussing the point because I think it's interesting. I had interpreted your original comment differently, but now I understand -- and that actually brings up an interesting side-point. Maybe kids are playing games like Call of Duty now because the games that were marketed towards them sucked and, like any reasonable person, they were attracted to quality?

    //Zig
    board icon
    jerec posted June 28, 2009:

    By the way, Captains, if you feel like changing your team names to things a bit shorter, please do. I'm looking at you Dagoss.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 28, 2009:

    You can just go with Team Suskie for us. We're three men here so there's no reason to associate us with vaginas.
    board icon
    True posted June 28, 2009:

    Felix:

    I feel almost as sorry for who you'll face next, as I do for the person facing Zig. And everyone after. Know that I appreciate the battle we had, and that I brought one of my very best just to beat you. I get the feeling that by the end of this tournament we will face each other again, and it will be remembered for many years to come.

    Jerec, Lewis and Sportsman:

    We're all going to say this week-in and week-out, but I hope you know how glad I am to have all three of you as judges. Your job is the most grueling of any of them. It requires an integrity and resolve that not everyone on this site has. It's fierce that you guys took on a such a role, and it shows an incredibly positive commitment to this site. There may be feuds and death-matches, wars and smack talking. Someone may rise up to go undefeated this year. He is most likely my captain, but you guys are the real stars of this Tournament.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 28, 2009:

    And how would changing your name to Team Suskie erase the association with vaginas?

    As for Team Verbose, I am pleased the Mirror's Edge review still packs a punch. Honestly, it was a very calculated choice for this first round. I know it's a bit dated in style compared to my recent work, but I also figured it could beat anything DE would want to throw at me in this first round. Either way, I figured I'd be using up a review that was middle of the road and would give me a chance to study the judge's reactions. I'll be thinking extremely carefully about next round's picks. I am sad to see my team lose the overall match, but I am happy to have held my ground as MVP.

    On another note, I think the version of MIrror's Edge I did for Lewis' mag, Resolution, is damn near perfect.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 28, 2009:

    Maybe kids are playing games like Call of Duty now because the games that were marketed towards them sucked and, like any reasonable person, they were attracted to quality?

    Call of Duty games are fun and generally high-quality, so there's bound to be some of that, but I would point to the fact that kids also are attracted to a lot of really bad games that also happen to be "catering toward adults." Kids don't necessarily seek out those games because they think there will be higher quality, but rather because they want to prove their maturity by playing games full of profanity, or violence or other adult themes, in much the same way that kids like to smoke cigarettes to look cool or tough or to be rebels.

    So it's different for every kid, but I would wager overall that quality plays second fiddle to "Will this make me look more adult-like?"
    board icon
    sashanan posted June 28, 2009:

    Mmm. A pity, but no shame in losing to an old hand. 'sides, the war has only begun.

    On the topic of content, from what I remember from my own youth, being able to show off the adult content of what we played was definitely a primary factor - at least among the people that played in the first place because the hobby itself was only starting to become mainstream. I remember the cool kid among the geeks, who due to a wealthy father tended to have the best stuff years ahead of us, primarily wowed us with his early access to Mortal Kombat and Doom when we were at best 13. Of course in this case, the fact that he already had the games and the PC that could run them when no one else did was probably a bigger factor than the fact that there was a lot of blood.
    board icon
    Halon posted June 29, 2009:

    Of course kids aren't only playing Halo and Call of Duty; I just used those as examples because they're popular games. Developers in general are marketing the vast majority of games towards the 18-30's demographic since I suppose they are the ones that buy most games and kids are jumping along. That's probably why mediocre "mature" games are selling more than mediocre kids games. for instance, Kane & Lynch (which I haven't played but has received average scores) sold over 1 million copies and I guarantee that's far more than what Mr. Nutz sold.

    So it's different for every kid, but I would wager overall that quality plays second fiddle to "Will this make me look more adult-like?"

    That's probably true, but why is every non-Nintendo blockbuster a game catered towards adults? Of course kids are going to want to get their hands on mature games but this time around they don't really have a choice. As much as I love a good Mario, Sonic or Zelda game, the average adult gamer wants something more mature and realistic than that so that's what people are going to create. Most developers probably got the picture that it just isn't worth investing in projects such as Mr. Nutz when you can create a game aimed at adults that will sell 1 million+ copies.
    board icon
    True posted June 29, 2009:

    And how would changing your name to Team Suskie erase the association with vaginas?

    Does Zipp not know what Whispering Eye means, or was he trying to make some sly, silly attempt at insulting Suskie? Like a lot of his reviews, it wasn't clear what he was trying to convey.

    :)
    board icon
    Lewis posted June 29, 2009:

    Bluberry: I guess it depends on how you look at it. The hacking mini-game is something I liked, actually - it was tense and hands-on - but you're irrefutably right about the game's lack of consequence.

    Personally? I didn't care. And while I think the ending was a problem, it's an artful, wise and tremendously mature videogame, one that can only be thoroughly applauded for being so.

    Besides, those aren't why I didn't gel with your review. It was your picking apart of the "weak gameplay" that grated. What weak gameplay? It's an absolutely exemplary shooter, yet you spend a large amount of time complaining that the RPG elements aren't in-depth enough. It ain't an RPG, and never intended to be.

    I dunno. Re-reading your review now, in slightly less stressed-packing-argh mood, it didn't grate as much. But I'd still stand by my decision, even though you wrote a polished review.
    board icon
    darketernal posted June 29, 2009:

    It was all a calculated maneuver to barely defeat our opposition. It would have been unfair and demoralising to utterly crush them.

    Still, hard to know what to change and if change is needed when one judge hates the stuff the other one likes. Yes, people have varying tastes, but still, doesn't help me much in deciding what needs to be changed.

    board icon
    zigfried posted June 29, 2009:

    Regarding kids' games, I think we also need to be clear what we mean by kids: are we talking 6-12 range, or 13-16? I doubt that 8-year-olds are playing Call of Duty, so I'm assuming that we're discussing the latter range right now (for reference, I was thinking the former when writing my review).

    Regarding why older kids are playing mature games, Honestgamer makes a good point -- it's the same reason kids want to see R rated films -- but I would also argue that time has shown a mediocre "mature" game to generally be better than a mediocre "kids" game.

    But setting that aside for a bit, look at Mario. It sells buckets (to kids -- adult sales aren't relevant in this context) because they know it will be really fun. They know this from experience with what they played in the 6-12 range. Kids outgrow silly/bad/repetitive and begin to seek out "mature", but they will continue to recognize quality. If developers approached kids' games from that perspective, then 13-16 year olds would want the sequel to something they loved when they were 6-12. But, looking back, too many of the non-Nintendo games people play when they're little are embarrassments.

    //Zig
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 29, 2009:

    Thanks to the judges for their hard work and to my teammates for their efforts this week. Facing Team Overdrive was a tricky first round challenge, so I'm glad that we have overcome it (just!).
    board icon
    EmP posted June 29, 2009:

    Thanks to the judges. Hahas to William.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 29, 2009:

    Thanks for the comments. I really need to learn to harness my self-destructive side in this competition, as you were right, Jerec, about there being a handful of sentences that really need altered a bit.

    I have this nasty habit of getting fired up about reviewing a game and blasting one out under the impression that my excitement about the game (whether in praise or to bash) will be all I need to overcome anyone. That's potentially cost me a couple of wins about every year, as it's very rare the judges have the same high opinion of that "excitement" that I do.

    Good OD would have taken his time working with Rearmed and possibly had teammates proof it as a plan to use it in an upcoming week AND used a polished review for Janus. Bad OD typed up his review of Rearmed, briefly proofed it and posted it Wednesday afternoon; partied with friends Wednesday night; got home around 3+ hours before deadline and proceeded to enhance his buzz while proofing it again, picking a review for Jason (stuck at work) and having up to 4 IM sessions going on at once (although I think the ones with Jason and True might have not started until after deadline).

    If I ever write an autobiography, I'm titled it, "What Could Have Been If I Wasn't So Damned Self-Destructive."
    board icon
    EmP posted June 29, 2009:

    The answer, of course, is dull.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 29, 2009:

    Just you wait, True. There won't be any confusion when my review tears yours limb from limb and blood and bile come spilling out of your review like... like... like too much soup in my mouth!
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 29, 2009:

    Yeah, that probably is true. My self-destructive nature does give me all my charm. Chicks dig walking trainwrecks.
    board icon
    randxian posted June 29, 2009:

    I should also mention I found the judge's in depth commentary to be really helpful. I think I now have a good idea of what's expected.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 30, 2009:

    Bioshock and X-Men brings me up to 16. Only ten more to go, and I've got one in the works that will cover that pesky "M." Still haven't quite figured out what I'm going to do for Y... but it will come to me.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted June 30, 2009:

    Okay, I'm up to 18. Right now I'm not sure what to do about K, plus I still have Q and Z left.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted July 01, 2009:

    Crappin' along on Black Sigil (DS) and shouldn't be too long 'til it's in the bag.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 01, 2009:

    Well, I wrote the first ever Apple IIgs FAQ for the site. Tower of Myraglen. Maybe more will follow.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 01, 2009:

    Game: Number Munchers
    Platform: Apple
    Publisher: MECC
    Developer: MECC
    Genre: Educational
    Release Date: 1988

    Added

    Thanks for the quick add. Now to add some awesome screenshots back at you.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted July 01, 2009:

    Game: Half-Life: Desert Crisis
    Platform: PC
    Genre: First-Person Shooter

    Added.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 03, 2009:

    Game: Odell Lake
    Platform: Apple IIe
    Publisher: MECC
    Developer: MECC
    Genre: Educational
    Release Date: 1988

    EmP knows not of your silly Americian early gaming computers that are not Spectrums. As such, her assumes this is right. Correct me if wrong.

    Game: Jawbreaker 2
    Platform: Apple IIe
    Publisher: Sierra
    Developer: Sierra
    Genre: Action
    Release Date: 1982


    ON REFLECTION!: Is Apple IIe something we need to add to the HG databse? If so, then I shrug it all off onto Jason.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 03, 2009:

    A: Airball
    B: Bard's Tale 2(NES)
    C: Champions of Krynn
    D: Defenders of (the) Dynatron City
    E: Esper Dream
    G: Gegege no Kitaro 2
    H: Hoosier City: Return to Oil City
    L: Lutter
    M: Miner
    P: Power Soukoban(should be up shortly)
    S: Secret of the Silver Blades
    T: (Taxman, extensive rewrite) I think I will be writing for the IIgs's Tower of Myraglen soon, rendering any rewriting rules moot.
    U: (The) Usurper: Mines of Qyntarr.

    I'm assuming leading "The's" don't count. If they don't, I have ammo to spare. Oh yes.

    13 may not seem like TOO much, but several are imminent. I have targeted games for all letters. They're actual, real, good, interesting games. Others may have superior numbers at the moment, but I have a plan!

    And it goes above and beyond deluging Suskie with 20 reviews ported from GameFAQs. Strictly to ask the captain's opinion on which to use next in the team tourney, of course.
    board icon
    drella posted July 03, 2009:

    I'm up to one.

    F: Final Fantasy IV: The After Years
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 03, 2009:

    I demand updation! I am at 16 letters, and besting Suskie at the moment, thank you very much!
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 03, 2009:

    Except I'm at 20 letters. Whoops!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 03, 2009:

    Daaaaaaamn yooooooooou Suuuuuuuuskie!
    board icon
    randxian posted July 04, 2009:

    Game: Parodius da! -Shinwa kara o-warai e-
    Platform: Super Nintendo
    Publisher: Konami
    Developer: Konami
    Genre: Shooter
    Release Date: 07/03/1992 (Japan)

    Edit: I also found a review of Jikkyou Oshaberi Parodius written by Overdrive that should be under J in Super Nintendo, but it's not on the list. I found it from a link from another game by sheer accident.

    Response: Check this out. Say you're on a page like this SNES - P. There are headings for each region, as well as an 'All' option. Clicking on a region limits the listings to releases for that region. Click on 'All' shows all games in all regions.

    Response: Thanks. Should have known there wouldn't just be a review floating around in space like that. That's what I get for browsing half asleep I suppose.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 06, 2009:

    Sorry we're late. I was on time. Don't worry, Lewis. I don't mind. But watch out for that angry mob over there!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Boo at Felix
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Zig vs. Boo

    JEREC: Zig reviews a hentai game, Boo reviews a game where you shoot stuff. Well, actually, it sounds a lot more interesting than that. Zig reviews a hentai game which actually does seem like a decent experience. He does a good job of explaining why this game actually works. I actually felt sorry for Zig when his X68000 exploded like something out of a Strong Bad cartoon. And his unsuccessful attempts to emulate the game properly. Boo reviews Metroid Fusion, and sums up exactly why I found the game to be not very fun, even though I could never quite figure out the reason. As Boo says, all the elements are there, but just off somehow. And I remembered all the hand holding of the text cutscenes (JUST LET ME PLAY ALREADY!). Both reviews do an excellent job here, both analyse their games well. I still haven't made a decision. The fact is, while both reviews do such an excellent job, the actual writing is so vastly different (Zigfried opts for images and HTML abuse, whereas Boo just writes). And neither is better than the other, really. Boo's review wouldn't be better with an @ marqueeing across the screen, and Zig's review wouldn't be any worse without the various images. Okay, um... Boo wins, but only just. I hope the rest of the matchups prove to be this interesting, where both writers bring some amazing writing for me to read.
    WINNER: BOO

    LEWIS: Zig and a few others often use a technique I'm unsure about. I refer to excessive formatting. The huge text, the wandering @ sign, a red bit further down... I'm not exactly sure what they're contributing to the review. The review itself is nicely illustrative, often very funny, and probably a bit too full of stuff that could have been chopped. Over to Boo, and there's a weird couple of paragraphs in the middle about aesthetics/graphics that seems to have been written by a far less adept writer. But, fortunately, it's a minor blip. The rest is nice, and retains a strong focus throughout, instead of merely jumping between different aspects of the game. As you said, games are more than the sum of their parts. I also like how transparent you make your stance. You miss the Metroid aesthetic. Some people won't and that's fine, but that's why your mark's low. A tight match, but Boo wins with a last-minute screamer.

    SPORTSMAN: Zig over Boo. Brilliant review by Zig. The intro was hilarious and I really liked the approach he took with this one. Hentai reviews are so 2004-2005 but this one managed to seem fresh and break away from the typical H-review mold. This was not like something Ive read before. Aside from the entertaining topic and hilarity this review also made some great points and made the game sound like more than your average hentai game. Boos review didnt start off that great. It seemed like he didnt quite know what he wanted to talk about. The SAX part was pretty good and the last third or so was brilliant but it seemed like he struggled to figure out what to talk about. Although the individual parts were great it jumped around and didnt have much focus. Strong comeback review here for Zig so he gets the win. p.s. I want to see an x68k explode, something I need to do before I die.

    Felix vs. Woodhouse

    JEREC: Felix tells the story of a mediocre game which is unremarkable in all aspects, except for the story if it becoming a collector's item and people paying lots of money for it, only for a whole pile of copies to flood the market and make it worth a lot less. This review would have been one hell of a challenge to write, if not for the story Felix tells about the game. I'm not one of those people who will pay a lot for an old game just to have it sit on my shelf. Several years ago, I paid $10 for an Atari 2600 in its original box with all manuals and stuff, with four games in excellent condition. I played it a couple of times. Yeah, I wouldn't even pay a lot of money for a good game, like a SNES copy of Chrono Trigger or Final Fantasy VI. But there's people who do. Woodhouse reviews another one of those mystery solving games on DS that have become so popular. The intro pulls me in and makes me interested, and the analysis of the game is top notch. The criticism of the game's conclusion makes a lot of sense, too. This is another match that's hard to call, because they were both great reads and both were well written... and again, both were very different styles. Felix certainly has the more ambitious piece, and it takes much bigger risks. The only problem was, it read more like a feature article than a review.
    WINNER: WOODHOUSE

    LEWIS: Lovely lovely lovely lovely. That's what I think of Felix's piece. Oh, parts of it aren't really review, but it still captures the quality of the game and why that's the case, while still managing to tap into the story of the game's existance. A really good retro article, and one he should be proud of. Woodhouse's review is traditional yet totally strong, really nicely written and a great consumer-advice piece. This is a toughie. Felix wins, but only just. Both were top.

    SPORTSMAN: Woodhouse over Felix. Woodhouse is one of the smarter reviewers in this tourney in the sense that he knows very well what his strengths are and sticks to them. He is a great storyteller and really knows how to bring the reader into these games through great writing and descriptions. Felixs was also an interesting read, though Im not sure if it is a review suited well for these types of tournaments. The story about the games marketing was pretty interesting and Im really glad I read this one, but as he said (paraphrasing) this game has barely any charm or redeeming qualities whatsoever so there really wasnt much to say about this one. These completely blah games are very difficult to review and while I applaud Felix for the effort and making this read interesting he really didnt make the game sound interesting. Woodhouse has the more interesting and engaging subject so he wins this round.

    Randxian vs. Espiga

    JEREC: Randxian and Espiga both review games that I find completely uninteresting. Rand's review is a huge improvement on his Wheel of Time from last week. The writing is a lot tighter and it's free of reviewing cliches. There's also some cool moments where Ranma 1/2 does actually sound like a fun game, like laughing at the panda guy's fart sounds when he bounces on an opponent. The second half of the review has a fairly negative slant, so I was a little surprised at the 9/10, especially when I saw someone had rated this game a 3 in that user rating box. But I can see how it would be fun. Espiga's review didn't do it for me, though. I never found the game particularly interesting to read about, and Espiga doesn't seem to think so either. There's probably better games to review for a tournament. Espiga is at his best when his love and enthusiasm for a game shines through. The tone seems almost apathetic here, which doesn't make for a great read.
    WINNER: RANDXIAN

    LEWIS: I'm self-imposing a rule on judging with this stuff. If something doesn't grab me within the opening paragraph, I'm doing some serious point-docking, because ultimately people aren't going to read something that doesn't immediately seem very good, unless they have to like I do. So randaxian's opening paragraph, which tells me next to nothing about the game and just leaves me wondering where on earth everything is going, falls short. The rest of the review is okay, but never really more than that. I'm not sure I like how casual Espiga's effort is this time. It's almost like there's been no time spent on tidying up or maintaining a register. But it remains a stronger offering than the first one, so Espiga wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Randxian over Espiga. Fantastic matchup here, guys, probably my favorite of the round. HUGE improvement over last week for Rand. This time he actually made his points seem relevant and lets me know why I would care about this game, which is tough to do considering that I dont like fighting games. Plus his enthusiasm for the game showed and really made me get into it. It was still a little rough around the edges in places but thats something that youll get better at in time. Good effort by Espiga as well. Typical review for him, short, to the point and plenty of enthusiasm. It wasnt a big step up or down for him and although I like the brevity I do wish this piece was a little more detailed. The premise sounded pretty interesting for an RPG and I was wanting to know more. This really is a match that can go either way; one review is more detailed and charming and the other is more polished. Im going with Rand because he really stepped it up for this round and seemed to take the judges advice and go with it. These tourneys are all about trying to improve every round and this is one of the biggest single round improvements Ive ever seen.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    EmP at Suskie
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Suskie vs EmP

    JEREC: As a gamer, I'm much the same as Suskie - I didn't have a SNES as a kid. My first console was a N64, and I'd have friends over for multiplayer gaming like Mario Kart 64 and Goldeneye (and many others). And I'm sure there's many of us like that out there, and that may be what made me want to know more about LittleBigPlanet's multiplayer. Suskie offers up a few examples of some fun experiences playing the game. Thankfully it focuses more on the people sitting on the couch playing, rather than the plights of in-game characters, but that never would have worked with this game. It's a shame for me that I have no PS3, and that all my gaming buddies from my youth have all moved on... that final line left me feeling just a little disappointed that I might not be able to experience LittleBigPlanet in that same way. Emp's review immediately assaults my eyes with COLOURED DIALOGUE. I was about to award him the defeat based solely on that, until I kept reading. He still loses, but it was a lot closer in the end. Yeah, the only way a game as cliched as this is any fun is when it doesn't take itself seriously. It was a solid review, but ultimately outclassed in this match.
    WINNER: SUSKIE

    LEWIS: I think there are a couple of immediate problems with Suskie's review. Admitting you've not played it that much since you don't own or desire the console it's on is a little suspect. And, more generally, it all takes a while to get going, and the big paragraphs are a little heavy on the old impatient eyes. It's nice stuff, but I doubt I'll remember much of it, and I'd doubt a huge amount of people would read the full thing without skimming unless they were interested in the subject matter. I just don't know about EmP's. Are we allowed to say "Gimmick"? That big stretch of pretend-quoting seems forced and unnecessary when you could have concisely described it. It's all a little bit too much, though quite funny in places. Both of these writers can do better, but Suskie just about wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Suskie over EmP. Im glad Suskie focused on the multiplayer aspect because I played the game for a bit mostly by myself and thought it was retarded. This is the second week in a row that he wrote a super convincing, down to earth review filled with great examples. It doesnt have the intensity of Madworld but doesnt exactly need it since he was more than able to convey the games nostalgic feeling. EmPs review is equally as effective. The intro was super entertaining and I can relate to the argument since so many games JRPG or not - are like that today. Even though it got a little dull in places later on the lighthearted approach kept this one interesting. Personally I like these type of EmP reviews much more than the flowery, overly verbose type that we saw last week. I prefer Suskies straightforward approach and his subject matter was more interesting to me so he gets the win but this was a great showing from both reviewers. Ultimately it was the more interesting subject matter that gave him the win because this one couldve gone either way. With the Rand/Espiga matchup this was one of the better matchups of this round.

    True vs DE

    JEREC: What sort of idiot buys an uninspired licenced game before trying it? True, obviously. At least he doesn't delude himself that it was any good. His disappointment is so strong that it makes me care - not about the game, but about True's experience with it. And with a game like this, that's the best you can hope for. True is crazy. But he's a good writer, and he's honest about the game - he could have deluded himself into liking it, and worse, he could have deluded us into thinking he did. Darketernal... yeah, I thought I'd read this review before. Another re-run from last year's Alpha comp. Only, the score seems to have been boosted to 8 from 6 (according to my previous run-down). The story of DE's younger self playing what sounds like one of the most irritating games ever... apart from that game Will reviewed last week. I dunno, I can still identify with that. I played a lot of rubbish at that age and didn't know any better. I honestly found the 6/10 far-fetched last time, based on the text, and now the score is an 8. That seems even crazier. True gets the win for not deluding himself and others about an attatchment to a mediocre game.
    WINNER: TRUE

    LEWIS: "There is a sadness in me"? Do you mean "I am sad"? I don't know, but that's a pretty weird opening sentence. You convey your disappointment really consistently and effectively throughout, though, so that's nice. And it's really quite thorough, which is also nice. I have absolutely no idea why darketernal chose to write his review as a personal narrative. There's always a fine line of what works in a review and what doesn't. Generally, making the review about the writing, over and above saying anything particularly useful, doesn't. Sorry, chuck - True wins.

    SPORTSMAN: DE over True. A bit of a gamble here from DE and Id say it paid off. Most times these scenario reviews dont click with me because they dont tell me what I want to know about the game but this one worked. This one managed to convey a clear picture of the game to me and the nostalgic approach worked because I grew up on these games as well and can relate to what hes saying. This really helped make Out of this World sound like something special, despite what Ive heard other people say about it. DE really knows what makes these adventure games great (or not so great) and what to focus on and what to not focus on. Not a bad effort from True, but his reviews problems are similar to those that he had with the game. Just how Ghostbusters was a game with loads of potential that fell flat, this review left me with the same feeling. True would describe something that sounds great to me and then mention how it just doesnt live up to its potential and that kind of left me disappointed. Theres really nothing he couldve done better here; this is why these middle of the road reviews are so tough to effectively write. I wouldnt have suggested doing it any other way but DEs subject matter was a lot more engaging and easier for me to get into.

    Schultz vs DoI

    JEREC: I have no idea what Schultz's game is about. God this is confusing. And I've only had two beers. All these random things and game concepts are just thrown at me and I can't make any sense of it. But ohhhhh... this is like a dream. So what's why that odd dream compellingness thing at the start of the review (which seemed odd at the time) is there. Um. I have no idea what's going on here. I'm gonna go look at DoI's review. DoI's game is equally strange, but I had no problem following the review itself. Sometimes these freeware games make for quite unique, fun experiences. This game sounds like one of them. I did like how DoI ended the review with the suggestion that once you run out of things to do, you can then make your own tale. Very interesting.
    WINNER: DOI

    LEWIS: Aschultz is getting really good at this. Has anyone else noticed that? This is a marvellous, gorgeously written, stylistic, informative, generally excellent review. I wanted to read all of it, man, and I've other things to do! Great work. Dragoon's piece is okay, but rather by-numbers, and not particularly enough to grab me in the same way as Aschultz's review did. An admirable effort, but an overshadowed one: Aschultz wins.

    SPORTSMAN: DoI over Schultz. I liked this DoI review a lot more than the one he used last round because he really made the experience sound like something special and unique. Ive played a ton of mods and user created games and can relate to how you often get an inferior technical experience but superior and more unique gameplay experience. The review was maybe a little too brief and I wish he went into more detail about how interesting some of the gameplay is but despite the brevity I was completely convinced. Not a bad effort by Schultz, but he didnt quite pull me into the game the way DoI did. When reviewing these super old games it is very important to make the concept still sound novel today. To me this just sounded like another 8-bit RPG so I wasnt really interested at all. A good read but forgettable.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Janus at Will
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Will vs Disco

    JEREC: Will's review is full of personality, as well as a few shooting noises that seemed a but juvenile but I'll overlook this time. This is quite an intriguing game, and though it seems like a hard one to approach in a review, Will manages it very well. There's just the right amount of explanation of the game, keeping the review nice and brief, which is how I like it. Disco, unfortunately, submits an older review which is full of grammatical errors that were more and more jarring. See if you can spot what's wrong with this sentence, "And in this game lies an abundance of snowy scenes in the game which one cant help but find kinda pretty.)" I unfortunately couldn't get into the review itself, though I am familiar with the game, having read reviews of it before. The review is a couple of years old, so I wasn't expecting these mistakes. To all of you out there submitting older stuff, at least give it one last proof read before the round starts.
    WINNER: WILL

    LEWIS: I remember Will writing this, and my suggestion that he dropped the score. A ten for Multiwinia? Really? Anyway, he did. I think it turned out he wasn't familiar with Darwinia or something, and that shows through the slightly careless and ridiculous "I gather it's an expansion for Darwinia, but I don't care." Just devalues your work, y'know? Makes you sound proud of a lack of effort. Disco: "Even though the title of the piece may conjure images having to do with the sleep cycle" -- Oh, man! Seriously, the title makes you want to fall asleep. Better yet, the title's boring. It conjures images having to do with the sleep cycle? Really? "Dreamfall is often slow in its pace"? As opposed to slow how exactly? This is often pretentious and clumsy, and Will's occasionally awkward review will always win over that.

    SPORTSMAN: Disco over Will. Yay for me, finally a matchup of two games that Ive played before (and I would probably give both of these games two points below Will and Discos scores if I ever got around to reviewing them)! Both reviews also had a similar style, which is a short, light-hearted and to the point which I like a lot. Will had a strong argument about Multiwinias simplicity and did a good job at conveying how a strategy game doesnt need to be super complex in order to be worth a look. It wasnt as engaging as Space Quest was last week but did the job. I liked Discos review better, mainly because he had a more interesting subject matter with a newish adventure rather than an archaic platformer that he used last week. It dragged a bit more than Wills since it was longer but overall convinced me (if I hadnt already played the game) that despite some rough spots Dreamfall ultimately succeeds in the end. Pretty good matchup here that could go either way but Im going with Disco because although the review wasnt as fast-paced and smooth as Wills was it ultimately had the more convincing argument. Will made Multiwinia sound like a neat, simple game but failed to make it sound like something great. The games simple, check, theres some strategy involved, check but Im left feeling he couldve done more to make the game sound like something special that could compete with the big name RTS games.

    Zipp vs Dreamer

    JEREC: Zipp's intro made me laugh. This is a fairly cleverly written review. It reads like a bash, but there's no insulting going on. Just pointing out everything that went wrong with this game. PC ports on DS are really painful, I've noticed. I tried Theme Park DS a while back, and it had none of the charm of the original PC game, and it was annoying to control. But it was passable. Syberia seems to have copped much worse. Stick it to those developers who think they can just do half-assed, unplayable ports! Dreamer also reviews a crappy game, which starts out pretty cool and fun to read, but I got about half way before I thought to myself "how long is this going to go?" and quickly scrolled to the bottom. The game already sounded like crap, and so there didn't seem to be much point reading more about lame enemies and all that. There wasn't enough interest to keep me reading through another eight or nine paragraphs of this.
    WINNER: ZIPP

    LEWIS: The song bit at the start is one of the most thoroughly pointless things he's ever written. Once we're into the review proper, it's actually very good. Organised nicely, amusing, honest and interesting, it's one of the stronger pieces he wrote until we edged towards the Summer months. Nice one. In radicaldreamer's review, I don't have any idea what's going on for two paragraphs. After that, it just sounds hate-filled. Maybe the game made you feel that way, but Zipp's review shows how you can convey that eloquently and not potentially irritatingly. Zipp wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Radical Dreamer over Zipp. Another great review from Bbobb (ok, Ill stop calling you that). Since I read the scores after I read the reviews I really appreciated this one and how I was sort of taken on a journey of the games mechanics. First it started pretty bland, then it entered bad territory, then it got worse, then there was some hope and it ended on a bad note. I never knew how the game was going to turn out next and this one kept me in constant excitement and Ive played so many games with mechanics like this so I could relate to what he was saying. Zipps review of Syberia is a solid effort and although Im probably in the minority here I found the approach somewhat entertaining. The problem is I think he had it too easy to the point where the game practically reviews itself. I mean this is almost like reviewing Big Riggs; the game is so broken that I can be convinced not to play it in a paragraph. Its mainly the topic that gives Dreamer the win. His piece had plenty of insightful analysis but Zipps didnt delve nearly as deep.

    Sash vs Janus

    JEREC: Sashanan reviews an RPG. I was initially skeptical. RPGs aren't always interesting games to read about, even though they are my favourite genre. Sashanan's game didn't really interest me at first, but the features of the game did start to sound intriguing. The item creation system sounds a bit like Star Ocean 4, and I've had enough of item creation, thanks! But Sashanan's writing is easy to read, and it flows quite well, and I still found some things about the game quite interesting (like the change in music as the story gets darker). Apart from a few clunky sentences here and there (one in the intro, and that character rundown towards the end), it's a very solid piece of writing that is hard to fault. I've read Janus' Braid review before. It was quite a relevant argument against other reviewers gushing praise at the game, though he does admit it is still a fun platformer with time travel elements. I have to agree that the story is disjointed and largely unnecessary. While this piece is well written, it's gonna lose its relevancy more and more as time goes on, and even six months on, I haven't heard anyone overhyping Braid anymore. All the opinions on it seem pretty level-headed. There's a great review of Brad in there, but the references to professional reviews doesn't work as well as it used to. It's a damn close match, as both reviews really are great. Six months ago, I probably would have given the win to Janus. Not today, though.
    WINNER: SASHANAN

    LEWIS: Sashanan, this is just a bit dull and unambitious. You go through the most traditional, standard format ever. History of genre/franchise; story; gameplay; characters; aesthetics; "All considered"... it just lacks any spark or individuality, and that's a real shame. Janus... oh, God, it's this one. I've already listed all the things I don't like about this review. Concisely: don't slag off your peers, and don't assume you know best. You're probably right about the most interesting thing about Braid being the game rather than the story, though. I really don't like either of these reviews, but for having some balls, Janus wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Janus over Sash. Was this the throwaway match for Team Will? Anyways I remember a big argument about this review a while back regarding some inaccuracies or something but I dont know anything about Eurogamer or anything so if they are true they just slipped past me. Another great review by Janus, I really liked the opening and how he decided not to focus on the plot or artistic aspects because this game is really just a simple platformer with the ability to manipulate time. I disagree with Janus opinion and personally thought the game was super dull minus the end sequence but this is a really convincing piece that for a second made me rethink my own stance on the game. Great organization, strong argument, cool examples, strong review. Sashs review is solid but didnt catch my interest as much as Janus review did. It began to drag a lot and the subject matter wasnt nearly as engaging. Overall a decent look at the game but the review didnt do much to differentiate itself from most other RPG reviews. More personality next time, please!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Dagoss at Overdrive
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Overdrive vs Dagoss

    JEREC: A repeat from Overdrive. Ultima: Quest of the Avatar still sounds as unique and cool as it did during the last Alpha comp, and I would still like to play it if I could actually bring myself to play NES games anymore. There's not a lot to say that I didn't already say last time - still a great review. Dagoss tries something new with his review, set out like a letter from the developers to the gamer (you). I think it reads quite well, even if the "because we love you" stuff is overdone to the extreme. It did give the review that personal edge, and it was quite a gripping read. The only problem I can see is due to the limitation of this particular gimmick, and there isn't much opinion or analysis of the game. I'm told about the game in plenty of detail, but without that score, there's not much to go on in deciding whether this game is good or not. You know, I've noticed this round that a lot of people are choosing reviews of games fairly similar to their competitors, and that they have very similar things to say, but they approach it completely differently. I enjoyed the uniqueness of Dagoss' style, and it was quite a good attempt. Overdrive made his game sound like a lot of fun with a very normal review, which in the end works better. I've got nothing against gimmicks, and Dagoss makes it work quite well except for the lack of any critial thought (apart from admitting that the game is not for everyone).
    WINNER: OVERDRIVE

    LEWIS: Overdrive's is a solid, expansive and generally good review. It's also one I'm having to flick back to, having read it two minutes ago, to remember what I thought of it. Again, it's a bit by-numbers, and though that's not always a bad thing, it's important to inject a bit of early life into an article to ensure people stick with it, and remember it's by you. Dagoss' does just that, and is really interesting. I'm left unsure as to exactly why you wrote it this way (it would lend itself, for example, far better to a game you hated, in my eyes), but it's eloquent and interesting. For that, Dagoss, you win.

    SPORTSMAN: Dagoss over OD. After reading the first line of Dagoss piece I cringed, thinking it was going to be a disaster bit it actually really worked. I liked how the review felt like it was written for me and the comparisons for the genre in general helped make everything seem relevant. Most RPG reviews tend to go through the motions with the intro, story, characters, battle system, dungeons, length, conclusion bit. This one was no different and all of those topics were mentioned but for once all of the so what questions were answered. ODs review didnt spark my interest as much because it was more of a by the books RPG review. Not a bad piece by any means but not an attention grabber, either, and OD has written better RPG reviews in the past. It reads like a typical RPG piece that you would find and Dagoss felt far more personal so he gets the nod for mixing things up.


    Venter vs WQ

    JEREC: Two reviews for 4/10 games. Venter's analysis of a good game idea executed poorly is quite a good read. I could see how a game like this could have been fun if the problems were dealt with. I quite enjoy the odd racing game, and the idea of going off road did sound appealing to me. Venter's arguments are logical and sound, and it's difficult to fault the review. There's no attempts of fancy wordplay or style here, it's just a review, and that's fine. Wolfqueen's review also looks at a bad game, but this is a game I expected to be awful as soon as I saw the title and platform. A licenced GBC game is bad? Shocking! It sounds like a painfully frustrating experience, especially the example of the seagull killing the lion, and the invalid passwords (what's the point of them if they don't save?) Both reviews are fairly evenly matched here, though Venter's is the better written and more interesting of the two.
    WINNER: VENTER

    LEWIS: "Fuel clearly was designed to melt your face." You basically would win for that alone. So it's lucky the rest of this review is really, really strong. Thorough as they get, analytical as required, it's a great piece that tells me everything I need to know about the game, and entertainingly. WolfQueen's review is actually really good too - it's effortlessly one of hers, y'know? That real, unforced style she has. But weighed up, Venter's is probably just about better, so he wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Venter over Wolfqueen. Unimpressive match here. After last weeks gamble WQ decides to play it safe, but unfortunately played it a little too safe. Its a mediocre review for an old Gameboy Color game. A lot of times these games can make interesting and hilarious bashes but this one didnt say much other than a bunch of reasons why the game is too tough. Fair points, but nothing to make me exciting about such a crappy title. On the other hand there are two types of Venter reviews: the ones he puts his heart into and actually tries on and those he pumps out to meet a deadline to get his site hits. While not horrible by any means this one is unfortunately closer to the latter group. He makes his points and has some valid arguments, but other than that it comes across as a dullish review for a dull game that he probably wrote in thirty minutes. I really wish I didnt have to award a winner like Jerec did a few years back but I dont want to risk screwing up the results and will go with Venter because reading a review for a below average PS3 game is almost always more interesting than reading something for a below average Game Boy color game. I hope both authors begin to take more chances and try harder in future rounds because theyre both capable of much better than this.

    BELISARIOS vs Vortex

    JEREC: Rayman is hard. Like Beli, I have played the first Rayman game. It kicked my ass so bad I never did go back to it. I really did enjoy Rayman 2, though. That game was hard, but I beat it! Not as hard as the first, though. Beli's strong WRITER VOICE is what makes these sorts of reviews effective. Not many writers could pull off this rambling, almost stream of consciousness overview of the game that manages to cover everything effectively and convincingly. Vortex's review isn't bad, but it is long. I remember when it was the thing all the reviewers were doing - creating flowery, narrative style reviews for PS2 action games. It's kind of difficult to take it seriously, now, which is a shame. The review takes way too long to get to any sort of analysis - too much time is spent turning the opening cutscene into prose. I know Vorty didn't pick this one, though.
    WINNER: BELISARIOS

    LEWIS: I think BELISARIOS is sometimes a little all over the place, but that kinda brings across the personality of these pieces. B's reviews often come across as stream-of-consciousness blog posts, but I think there's a lot of room for that. I like this, even though it's a bit mad in places. Vortex's just takes so long to get going, and doesn't really tell me a right lot once it does. I'm certain this could be trimmed to half the length. It's stylistic, but not necessarily, for me. BELISARIOS wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Bel over Vorty. Another good review from Bel; great organization, good humor and not too long. Actually I wish he went into more detail about some of the cool stuff in the game but overall Im convinced, even though Ive played it and found it to be inferior to Rayman 2. Fortunately Vortys random review choice is a great one, but unfortunately it is for Drakengard, a game that Im sick of hearing about. Ive heard everything about this game and this review didnt say anything new that I havent heard multiple times in the past. If this was for a less covered game this wouldve been a super close matchup that might actually go in the other direction but as it is Bel gets the nod for his topic alone.

    RESULTS

    ---------------------------------

    Team Felix vs. Team Boo 1-2

    Zig vs Boo 1-2
    Felix vs Woodhouse 1-2
    Randxian vs Espiga 2-1

    ---------------------------------

    Team Suskie vs Team EmP 2-1

    Suskie vs EmP 3-0
    True vs DE 2-1
    Schultz vs DoI 1-2

    ---------------------------------

    Team Will vs Team Janus 2-1

    Will vs Disco 2-1
    Zipp vs Dreamer 2-1
    Sash vs Janus 1-2

    ---------------------------------

    Team Overdrive vs Team Dagoss 2-1

    Overdrive vs Dagoss 1-2
    Venter vs WQ 3-0
    BELISARIOS vs Vortex 3-0

    ---------------------------------

    LEADERBOARDS

    Team Suskie and Bluberry's Team sit at the top of the ladder. Those on the lower half should not lose heart, we are only 2 weeks into this. There is plenty of time to turn it around and win this thing!

    Belisarios and Suskie are currently ruling the individual leaderboards with no votes against them. Can they keep up the impressive record?

    Team Leaderboard

    Individual Leaderboard
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 06, 2009:

    Was this the throwaway match for Team Will?

    Sort of, sort of not. Facing the review I did, it was pretty obvious I wasn't going to win regardless of what I threw out, so I kept the big guns in the shed. No false modesty intended or required - that Braid review is just damn good.
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 06, 2009:

    I just want to clarify something about my response to the Braid review, by the way. It has a pop at Eurogamer's review, so I worry some may assume it's a conflict of interest thing that's led me to dislike the review. It's not - my original comments about the Braid piece were ones I made a while before I started writing for Eurogamer, and my opinions haven't changed as a result of any of their paychecks or anything.
    board icon
    disco1960 posted July 06, 2009:

    oy, i'm getting creamed... no more old stuff starting from now, i think.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 06, 2009:

    You write for Eurogamer? Is that why you've stopped submitting reviews here?
    board icon
    randxian posted July 06, 2009:

    Thanks judges. Glad to see taking everyone's advice paid dividends.
    board icon
    darketernal posted July 06, 2009:

    I am pretty sure that I gave Out of this world an 8. Don't know in which tournament I used it before though. Couldn't have been too far back in the past since it was written at the end of 2008.

    Whatever, thanks for judging.
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 06, 2009:

    Janus: Been doing some writing for Eurogamer and Gamasutra, yeah. I'm still doing stuff over here, though (one review should be up tomorrow).
    board icon
    Halon posted July 06, 2009:

    Sash: I wasn't trying to say that you intentionally threw the match away but that your team intentionally mismatched you so they could have an advantage elsewhere.
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 06, 2009:

    Ah...I don't know, actually. This matchup was made without consulting me.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 06, 2009:

    Hooray for teammates! I remember reading my opponent's review and saying, "Oh rats, I'm enjoying this one." So I guess I can go back and just generally enjoy it now.

    Thanks to the judges for the feedback on this review. I'm not sure if I brought out why I feel this game deserved more than obscurity and so I'll want to look at that. While I have definite ideas of what I want to do for myself, it's valuable to read what worked and what didn't, as I find I can often keep with what works, only it doesn't really work. And this tourney is, or should be, about trying new stuff.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 06, 2009:

    Thanks again to the judges. I think both of my teammates can clarify that I had a bit of writer's block when it came to this review and was unsure of how well it turned out, so I'm glad it did me some good. Although I want to point out to Lewis that I never said I hadn't played much of the game, just that I'd been doing it on a friend's console. I will have you know that I have been playing LBP feverishly over the past month, and have beaten all of the game's campaign levels several times over by now!

    Also, Sportsman, I'd recommend you withhold judgment on LBP until you play a level called Collector's Lair. Literally one of the coolest things I've ever experienced in any game.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 06, 2009:

    sorry zigfriend.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 06, 2009:

    I'm disapointed that some of these judging results continue to have nothing to do with the review submitted and are instead centred around the game being reviewed instead of the peice itself. This isn't what judging should centre around.

    This isn't the case in my match up, I hasten to add. In that case, you're all just plain wrong. Congrats to Suskie on his unjust victory!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 06, 2009:

    WHOOOOOHOOOOOOO! And.... WAAAAAAHEEEEEEEY!

    Honestly, I was very unsure about how this match would play out. I really like my Syberia piece, but I thought it might've come off as too casual when pitted against Raddish's latest effort, which does a very good job of picking apart his game. If there was one thing I knew was off about Raddish's review, it was the length, so I was banking on that and it looked like it paid off.

    Honestly, I didn't think I'd win this round, so thank you very much to the judges! It seems my little song isn't very popular, so that's probably the last time you'll ever see something THAT inane.

    Also a huge thank you to Raddish (and Lewis, by proxy) for making me sweat bullets all week while I became more and more sure that I'd lose the match up! That makes this victory all the sweeter!

    And congrats to our team for pulling ahead of team Janus for a win this week! Let's keep up the pace!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 06, 2009:

    I'm with EmP on this one. I thought judging was supposed to be determined by the reviews themselves not "I've read about this game too much" or some similar thing; that's really not a fair way to play it.

    Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Starting to doubt myself, but I've still got 3 that I at least know are good... not just I think they are like the last two weeks have been... and provided I don't write something else (that's actually worth naything, that is), these'll be shown in consecutive order.

    Congrats to dagoss (again) for winning his match. Along with everyone else.

    Haha. Lewis, I find it amusing that for taking as long as you do, you sure leave quite the little feedback. ;-P
    board icon
    Halon posted July 06, 2009:

    I'm with EmP on this one. I thought judging was supposed to be determined by the reviews themselves not "I've read about this game too much" or some similar thing; that's really not a fair way to play it.

    It is about the reviews, but it's tough for me to get excited about a longish piece on a game that I've read so much about on this site that says exactly nothing new that I haven't read before. If you have something new to say about an overcovered game that's fine but when you're basically regurgitating what I've heard several times in the past it isn't easy for me to get into.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 06, 2009:

    Well, it's too bad Team FRZ froze for this match, but at least Randxian got a win, which he deserved. I'm also glad that Zig and I at least got a vote a piece. We're getting somewhere! Thanks for commentary, judges, and for the multiple use of lovely in my feedback, Lewis. Good match, Woodhouse.

    PREDICTION: TEAM FRZ WILL GO UNDEFEATED FROM HERE ON OUT. WE MAY NOT WIN EVERY INDIVIDUAL MATCH, BUT WE WILL GO UNDEFEATED FOR THE REST OF THE REGULAR SEASON. I CURSE YOU ALL.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted July 06, 2009:

    I really do my best to refrain from questioning the judging because I think we go into the TT, and all review competitions, with the implicit acknowledgment that judging isn't immune to human subjectivity. That's basically the reason we have three judges.

    That said, my complaint now has less to do with the general trends other people have noticed and instead a personal verdict. The comment that my review was "hate-filled" struck me as rather strange, especially in comparison to the review I was up against, so much that I reread both my and Zipp's reviews just to make sure. However, this only confirmed my initial thought, that being that I do not possibly understand how anyone could have seen my review as the less reserved bash. Not to discount Zipp's writing, but reading the content of that verdict practically made me wonder if our names were accidentally switched. If not, well, human subjectivity; maybe I'm just sour.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted July 06, 2009:

    Thanks for the commentary judges, as always. I'm pleased that I won this week. Losses are hard to take, though I suspect I have at least one more loss ahead of me in this tournament... Still, my team is going to win overall so I have to take such things in stride.
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 06, 2009:

    GRARRRR! I SO MAD I WANT TO... TO... TO...

    ...well damn, I forgot what I wanted to do. It's hard to be upset when everyone says nice things about my review!

    @ Lewis:
    Every single weird thing I do (whether the @, the red text, etc) has a two or three paragraph explanation behind it. I put as much thought into mark-up as I do with word choice. To keep it simple and general: although many rail against the "old" style of adolescent game journalism, I'm a fan of the exuberance. I enjoy critical analysis, but I also enjoy people writing about their brains turning into mush. I like to see passion and excitement... but at the same time I value accuracy above unsubstantiated hyperbole. Mark-up, images, and occasional tangents are one way of delivering that crazy over-the-top energy without sacrificing the integrity of the text. I also do it because, when used effectively, I enjoy reading/seeing that sort of stuff in other peoples' reviews. There are other reasons, individually tailored to each type of mark-up, but that's the general rationale.

    Anyway, I realize it's not a style that will appeal to everyone. If any particular mark-up ever draws your ire, please comment on it, just as you'd comment on an ill-phrased sentence. That's the only way I can ever get a feel for what specific things people do and don't like!

    Now I'm looking forward to round three.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 06, 2009:

    I totally understood that comment, Raddish, and not just cause I was on the soft end of it.
    What the judge was saying was that there were moments in your review where it feels like you just hate the game for being the game that it is, or you'll go off on how much the game sucks when you've already said that. My hatred was always specifically directed at a particular aspect of the gameplay which I took care to explain in detail so as to back up my hatred.

    That was very intentional on my part. To be honest, I was afraid, with such a big name like Syberia, that I was off my rocker, so I took a lot of time to make sure that any time I said I hated something I was DEAD SURE that it deserved to be hated.
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 06, 2009:

    @Zig - Probably personal preference, then. But I'll try to be more specific in the future with mark-up stuff.

    @Radicaldreamer - I'll have another read in the morning and double-check I wasn't way off. It was more an instinctive response than anything I considered carefully, I think, but I will double-check.

    @WQ - I've been moving house this week, as well as writing for Eurogamer and Gamasutra like there's no tomorrow. Will try to be a bit more thorough and timely next time round.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted July 06, 2009:

    I'm not asking for a rejudge or even trying to claim that my review cannot be construed as hateful. I just think it's a little absurd to fault it for that when it's being a compared to another review that, from back to front, uses much more hateful language and ideas, and on the whole has a much more hateful tone. Every such expression you could find in my review has a much more hateful analogue in Zipp's. The only real exception is the fact that I used an expletive, but I never even thought of the review itself as hateful until Lewis said so.

    The idea that my "hate" is any less directed isn't true either. If anything, I provide too much detail and/or too many examples, from gameplay and other elements, to substantiate my opinion while not providing enough of the actual opinion. The enormous bulk of the review is demonstration and description, which is why it is more reserved, and I also take fewer opportunities to outright make fun of the game. I didn't really have to because I could often describe things very factually and the game would practically make fun of itself.

    I could see how my review overstays its welcome because I used my experiences of playing and exploring the game beyond simply beating it once to provide even more examples for why I didn't like it, and how that could be annoying -- but that wasn't the criticism being leveled.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 06, 2009:

    I don't know what to tell you, Raddy. When I read your review, I similarly get a sense of bitterness from it. My own review I know uses some words like "I hate this," but the whole thing has a lighter tone, sort've an exasperated feel to it.

    I recall Suskie even saying he was shocked, after my comments on my blog, that I didn't bash it more!

    EDIT: Rereading your review, Raddy, I would say it's the sarcasm that drips from your words. Sarcasm is a very bitter technique.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted July 06, 2009:

    There is exactly one sarcastic sentence.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 06, 2009:

    Someone's a little butthurt.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted July 06, 2009:

    I actually read through the review minutes ago to see what the big deal was all about.

    Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the hate in the review. He actually goes through the trouble of explaining why he was disappointed in aspects of the game in a very normal manner. The only thing I could see, and I'm stretching here, people seeing "the hate" was the opening paragraphs when he was being jokey, and the closing paragraph.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 06, 2009:

    Alright, whatever, Radd-man. I personally like your review a lot, but thought it went on for too long. I can't pretend I'm not happy the judges gave me the win, but like I said before, I'm glad to have fought such a well-written piece. Let's do it again next year.
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted July 06, 2009:

    Thank you, my friends, for the unanimous win.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 06, 2009:

    Well, since radical dreamer said something, I feel maybe I can as well.

    This is directed at Lewis as well. Everyone else who edited my review seemed happy with my intro, but you seem to think it's bad. To be honest, I'm a bit confused as to your exact expectations. Can you please tell me what you consider to be a good introduction? I'm not arguing against your decision; I have to admit Espiga put up a hell of a fight and I feel honored to win against someone who seems to have a reputation as one of the site's best reviewers. I just don't understand what you expect from me as a reviewer. Thanks.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted July 06, 2009:

    Perhaps I should have taken this private to prevent a trend from starting.

    But that's a pretty dumb comment Will.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 06, 2009:

    The difference is I'm simply asking for clarification so I don't keep making the same mistakes every week.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 06, 2009:

    I would also like to voice a complaint with the judging:

    fuck BioShock.

    in all seriousness, though, I agree with Gary. seeing something like "this review was better, but I've read about the game before" isn't very encouraging. everyone seems scared to use even one or two of their best old reviews, too, for fear of encouraging PC clocking and causing a coma. (though if he means the match I think he means, I absolutely agreed with the verdict. just not certain associated comments.)
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 06, 2009:

    1)
    Randxian, it's not a mistake if you're happy with it and if other people are happy with it. Nothing is going to click with everyone. Some introductions take a few sentences to lead into the review, and other introductions deliver a bullet. Your introduction is the former and it sounds like he has a preference for the latter, which is fair.

    I've judged a few contests myself, and that means reading a lot of reviews for games I'm not really interested in. Your intro seemed fine to me, but I grew up wanting to play the Ranma game. But if I was reading a review for Killzone or some other game I don't care about, then I would prefer to see a real gripper of an intro. That wouldn't mean the gripping intro would be better (or even appropriate), that just means as a judge that's what would get my attention and immediately impress me.

    If you want advice on gripping intros, then good people to ask are people who don't care about the game you're reviewing. That may sound weird, but that's a great way to learn!

    2)
    Regarding my review, I'm happy with the comments I received. I posted an explanation because there was a question as to the intended effect of using mark-up in a review, so I just figured I would explain my perspective. I appreciate the comments from all three judges.

    3)
    I agree with Bluberry re: being docked for game choice isn't encouraging, but I also understand that is how contests have been ever since contests started. Some games really have been beaten to death. For example, no one wants to read another Metal Slug review. At this point, it would actually be insulting to use one in a contest (unless you really think it says something new that hasn't been done before). But I would feel sorry for someone who uses a review and doesn't realize the game has been overcovered.

    //Zig
    board icon
    randxian posted July 06, 2009:

    Thanks Zig. I believe that answers my question. You bring up a good point about how everyone may have different tastes. Given how everyone talks about how Espiga is great at bringing energy and emotion to his reviews, it would be absurd to expect a 3-0 sweep. I'm happy to win this match against someone with such a great reputation.

    Also bear in mind this TT experience is new to me so I'm still sort of fumbling my way around in the dark. However, all the judges made it clear in week 1 what was fundamentally wrong with my WOT review. I particularly like how Lewis pointed out my sweeping generalizations against FPS games. Now that I've looked over the review again, I have to admit that's a good point. I clearly deserved to lose against schultz for my carelessness there.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 06, 2009:

    As long as the judges continue to award me the matches, I'm happy.

    Seriously, though, I do think the judges deserve a round of applause for all the work they're putting into this. That's a lot of reviews to read each week, and I know I wouldn't appreciate having some lowly reviewer complain about the scoring I'd given. I think game choice is a perfectly legitimate part of the TT, especially when some matches are so tight they come down to "which game was more interesting?"
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 06, 2009:

    Also when judges say "it was close but" it is not heinously the fault of the person who lost on the relative coin-flip, and it's not the fault of the judges for maybe not having enough to go on. You never know which detail or clanger may stand out or exasperate the judges. EDIT: and when 2 good reviews match up against each other, you take your chances and maybe need a week or month to see the best ways to improve your writing.

    I've looked at reviews 3 months after writing them and being satisfied I did my best, and then I immediately said "geez, that's kind of a big error, so why didn't I do this instead." Apply that to the team tourney and there's always something more I could've done to make it stand out, though I didn't see it at the moment. Competition, if organized right, brings out the urgency to fix things a bit more, or maybe even to find one Memorable Thing (Not) to Do per week. I think it's worked well for me so far. That's about all we can ask for, and I think it's more than enough.

    (Edited for clarity, I hope)

    Because I think those of us in the tourney to improve or experiment (most of us) must, by definition, open up to the possibility that we are doing something wrong that we are not aware of. If we discover a consistent blind spot in our writing and work at eradicating it, that's very valuable indeed. And the bigger the blind spot we discover, the better--well, once we learn to deal with it.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 07, 2009:

    As far as game choice goes, it doesn't have a huge impact on my judging, but when a match is close, and both reviewers have done similar things, the more interesting of the two reviews is often for the more interesting game. I thought Venter and Wolfqueen were very evenly matched, but I found reading about Fuel a more interesting and relevant read, and that's why he got my vote in the end. In a different tournament where I score reviews out of 100, both reviews would've scored around the 80 mark, and would have been quite close.
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 07, 2009:

    People who are upset with my decisions: I am absolutely not going to enter into individual discussions every time I don't like a review. I'll try to be more thorough in my explanations next week, however.

    For one time only:

    Randaxian - by the time you get to the end of your introductory paragraph, I know practically nothing about the game you're reviewing, and loads about how many people tried to rip off Street Fighter 2. There's nothing wrong with using your introduction to set a context, but you have to be careful to stay relevant and not to put people off. It's also just a little uncreative. Try to grab people with your intro, y'know? To me, this just rambles a bit.

    For the record, though the other two judges liked your review a little more, neither of them mentions your introduction at all, so don't try that one. I also made it pretty clear that I'm coming down hard on what I find to be sloppy openings. They put people off, y'know? I do the same for actual games, do I don't see why I shouldnt' for reviews as well.

    RadicalDreamer - It's almost nothing specific, and that's why it doesn't click with me. Zipp may be more aggressive in his slating, but it's structured and predicts itself. You're gearing yourself up for the next criticism because you know it's going to come, and you know why. With yours, because things are occasionally a little all over the place, it just grates a bit. Things like "to be fair" preceding a positive, too, only serve to suggest you've made your mind up about the game and aren't going to be swayed by anything good that now happens. Like you're just mentioning it 'cause you feel you have to, y'know? "...turned off the fucking Playstation" also seemed totally gratuitous.

    Hope that helps, folks. It's the last time I'm getting into this.
    board icon
    True posted July 07, 2009:

    To Captain Dodger: though I suspect I have at least one more loss ahead of me in this tournament....

    You can count on that, actually. And it's going to come from me.

    To DE: I'm honored, and I honestly thought it was up in the air. I'm pretty sure I scraped by you on that one, but I'll take it none-the-less.

    To the judges: Again, thank you. Lewis, I don't mind that you were late, so I'm not part of the angry mob, so long as you keep up the excellent critiques I don't think anyone should chastise you for being on crazy UK time. Sportsman, as well, thank you for judging. Even though you didn't like my review as much, you're still my hero.

    And finally, to Jerec: I suppose someone is expecting me to get fired up about you calling me crazy, or a fucking idiot. I'm not, because I know neither of those were serious, and I actually found them amusing. Given your status and talent, you calling me a good writer dwarfs anything negative you could have said. I appreciate it, and the time you're all putting in to make this contest what it is.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 07, 2009:

    Well, they were fairly lighthearted comments. You may be a crazy idiot, but you're an honest, crazy idiot who is a good writer. :P

    BTW, tales of my status and talent are greatly exaggerated. You'd very likely beat me if I had to face you in a match up like this.
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 07, 2009:

    Can I suggest a new rule?

    The judges spend probably a collective six-to-eight hours a week of their spare time meticulously reading through all these reviews. That's about as much time as I can afford. I do not wish to then have to trawl through forum threads and emails asking me to clarify decisions, complaining about decisions, saying my decisions are wrong, whatever. I'm sure the others would concur.

    Our decisions are final, and hopefully fair.

    Now: everybody do a smile!
    board icon
    randxian posted July 07, 2009:

    asking me to clarify decisions, complaining about decisions, saying my decisions are wrong, whatever.

    Sorry if I came off as one of these complainers, but I my intent here is simply to improve as a reviewer and a TT competitor.

    I agree that your decisions are final; Obviously all three of you feel one review is better than the next for whatever reason, so that's just the way it works.

    Anyway, I think between you and Zig, I have a better understanding of what is acceptable as a good TT piece.

    Thank you both for clarifying matters.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 07, 2009:

    Lewis (and te rest of the judges), I understand all the work that goes into reading and writing out thoughtful critiques, and it's much appreciated. However, I don't really like the idea of just casting away any following up just because. I understand the time issue, and that's fine, but some people enter this thing to get a better idea of how to improve themselves, myself included. And sometimes, if the critiques aren't specific enough or if someone has a question about them or wants clarification, a follow up is necessary to help contribute to that person's overall improvement.

    This is especially true for people like randxian who are relatively new at this style and strive to make it better.

    That's just my take on it, anyway. I understand that you're busy, though. I was just giving you shit about being late, haha. =P It's perfectly understandable, but more in-depth critiques are always appreciated, though I know that's probably harder to do, and be fair with, when you need to talk about two reviews at the same time for 15+ matches or whatever the number is.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 07, 2009:

    As someone who has personally put judging behind him after too many angry reviewers lashed out at him for these reasons, I'm a little annoyed that so much hostility is being directed at the judges this early in the tournament. People: If the judges are making harsh criticisms, then don't dwell in the past and learn to adapt to their likings. If Sportsman says he's sick of reading about Drakengard, then don't use Drakengard. Or, better yet, take responsibility and make a choice for your teammate rather than letting EmP's random pick turn things around. I can't wait till one of you inevitably tries to use a Chrono Cross review!

    Hey judges, thanks a lot for all of the time and effort you guys have been putting into getting these critiques done these past two weeks. I know it's tough.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 07, 2009:

    I wasn't the only one, nor even the first, to point that out in the first place, Suskie.

    I don't have a problem with harsh criticism. In fact, it's greatly appreciated because it opens the eyes to things that the ego covers up. But if it's going to be delivered, and if I don't fully understand it, I'd appreciate clarification on it so that I can work to improve it in my writing or avoid using a review that uses whatever's being criticized. And I wouldn't call docking a review solely for discussing an "overcovered" game as "harsh", because "harsh" criticisms usually deal with the writing itself and not the game covered. Either way, to the point I stated earlier, sportsman clarified his reasoning for it, and I'm grateful, and I'm not going to complain about it. The only reason I assume it was brought up in the first place was to prevent something like that from being the sole contributor to a victory.

    I honestly don't have a problem with it if it's used as a "final decider" if the matches are really close or something. However, I would appreciate that more thought go into analyzing issues with the writing itself than explaining why it's an overcovered game. The way jerec explained his, for example, makes perfect sense.

    Anyway, I don't particularly care about this specific case as vorty has been AWOL for some time now, but it's the principle of the thing that I think everyone was getting at.

    Anyway, now that it's been discussed, and explanations have been given, I have no desire whatsoever to say anything more on the matter. But I will make one thing clear: I hold no hostility toward any of the judges. I can't express enough how grateful I am for their contributions, especially since it's the hardest and most time-consuming job there is as far as competitions go. If I'm calling someone out, it's merely for an explanation or clarification, and ideally something that will help with improving myself, so it's not a complete waste of time or creates a drama bomb.

    So thank you, all three of you.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 07, 2009:

    That wasn't directed specifically at you, WQ. I was just using Drakengard as an example.
    board icon
    True posted July 07, 2009:

    BTW, tales of my status and talent are greatly exaggerated. You'd very likely beat me if I had to face you in a match up like this.

    Very likely is a huge stretch. I'm not the only person here, Jerec, who still considers you to be one of the greatest on this site, and I for one am glad you're a judge this tournament.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted July 07, 2009:

    True is just saying that to suck up to Jerec because he knows he needs all the help he can get if he's pitted against me in the finals.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 07, 2009:

    In fact it was MY tournament in which Suskie lent his final judging say. For which I'm very grateful to have received his services.

    I'm pledging here and now... if I make it to this year's finals, I'll come back next year as a judge.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 07, 2009:

    I don't mind if someone uses a Chrono Cross review... I just hope it's not one of the many CC reviews I've already read on this site.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 07, 2009:

    Note to self: at 11:59 p.m. Wednesday night HG time, edit EmP's pick to make it his Chrono Cross review.
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 07, 2009:

    I'm pledging here and now... I will be the reason Zipp doesn't judge next year.

    //Zig
    board icon
    randxian posted July 07, 2009:

    but some people enter this thing to get a better idea of how to improve themselves, myself included. And sometimes, if the critiques aren't specific enough or if someone has a question about them or wants clarification, a follow up is necessary to help contribute to that person's overall improvement.

    This is especially true for people like randxian who are relatively new at this style and strive to make it better.


    Exactly. Thanks WQ. Again, I apologize if I came off as one of these whiners. I was just trying to glean some information for future reference.

    I'll be sure to apply what Zig and Lewis covered in future reviews.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted July 07, 2009:

    There haven't been any whiners in this topic. Everyone had a legit reason to complain about something, and they've all had their questions answered by now.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 07, 2009:

    I didn't mean just this topic. Lewis mentioned e-mails as well.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted July 07, 2009:

    Well, then that pretty much is something entirely different.
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 08, 2009:

    Tales of Monkey Island - Episode 1: Launch of the Screaming Narwhal

    Format: PC
    Genre: Adventure
    Developer: Telltale

    Added
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 08, 2009:

    Game: Resident Evil: Degeneration
    Platform(s): iPhone/iPod
    Publisher: Capcom
    Developer: Capcom
    Genre: Survival Horror
    Release Date: April 2009

    Added
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 11, 2009:

    Game: Fraction Munchers
    Platform: Apple IIe
    Publisher: MECC
    Developer: MECC
    Genre: Educational
    Release Date: 1987

    Game: Word Munchers
    Platform: Apple IIe
    Publisher: MECC
    Developer: MECC
    Genre: Educational
    Release Date: 1985

    ADDED
    board icon
    jerec posted July 12, 2009:

    Hey guys. Sorry Sportsman is late.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Felix at Dagoss
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Wolfqueen vs Felix

    JEREC: Wolfqueen writes an interesting argument for emulation, which I find myself agreeing with. It's actually a pretty good read. Like an article I might find on some game site or something. However, this isn't a review. There's some examples of things from the game, but these are rushed through as part of a list. I know this review was used for the pretentious tournament a little while back, but it doesn't work so well here. It could work, though. The writing is excellent and compelling, and most of the emulation argument could be kept, but there needs to be more about the game. It doesn't tell me anything useful. Emulation is a way to discover these old games... but I haven't really been told why I should bother with Mother. Felix reviews his game, some obscure NES game no one else has ever heard of. It's not as interesting as Wolfqueen's read, but that's because Felix sticks to the game and delivers a pretty convincing review. This also looks like a tactical choice, as both reviews are for NES games that were never released outside of Japan, though the reads could not be more different.
    WINNER: FELIX

    LEWIS: Well, WQ's is the piece we ended up running at Reso. The one I gave a tremendously high score to in the Pretentious Bastards contest. It's a really adept analysis, combining illustrative portions about Mother with a more overriding argument. Whether it's a review or not is immaterial to me. It's a fantastic piece of games writing, and one WolfQueen should be enormously proud of. A really strong outing from Felix, too. You tell me everything I need to know about the game through a combination of vignettes and analysis. It's a sign of a good write-up when the reader feels he/she comes away from it familiar with the game and what it's about, and I think you achieve this really well here. You almost get docked marks for "very climactic" (really? Is the "very" necessary?), but nah, I'm feeling nice. Top banana, Felix. Still, WQ wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Felix over Wolfqueen. Felix really made this game sound interesting and even though its not great and an old NES game it is something that I want to know more about. The hardest part with reviewing these old games is making them sound relevant today since 98% of the time theyre horribly outdated and not worth checking out. Regardless of whether this game is dated or not the concept sounds novel to me. I believe Wolfqueen used her review for the dont review a game contest (or some contest since Ive read it before, just guessing that one) and although it is perfect for that it isnt very effective in a contest like this. Im all for reviews that bring another topic in the mix as long as they dont abandon the topic that I care about. If you want to write reviews like this it is very important to make sure that youre writing about the game first and foremost. This review is essentially an article about emulation that happens to use Mother as an example, rather than a review of Mother that brings up emulation.

    Dagoss vs Zigfried

    JEREC: I'm not sure what point Dagoss is trying to make about Mega Man 9. It seems like he disagrees with this game on principle, though I'm convinced not to play it for the cheapness of the game's difficulty. Plus, I never was a Mega Man fan. To this day I haven't played a single game (excluding a couple of minutes spent with a rom that I did not enjoy). What I get from this review is that Dagoss isn't sure if he even likes the game or not, there seems to be some conflict there. A fairly interesting read, though. Zigfried's story of waiting 7 years for a sequel that turned out terrible makes for a gripping read. Something about the writing here makes me care, even though I normally wouldn't. The false score box also had me going for a moment, too. And I already knew he used a fake ending because people talked about it. "It can't end like that. It won't end like that!" Some excellent writing, and it convinced me that even though the game wasn't any good, the plot and cinematics made the experience worth it for Zig.
    WINNER: ZIGFRIED

    LEWIS: I'm not sure how effective or useful Dagoss' opening paragraph is. Do we really mind why he bought the game? I'm not so sure. But then I read on, and it starts to make some sort of sense. There's a really solid theme running through this piece, which is something I really like to see. There's a really clear identification with something at the heart of the game's experience, one that's followed through the whole analysis. Rather masterful stuff, and worth doing more. On to the next one, and... Ha! Very clever, Zig. It took me a while to work out what was going on here, but your dual-scoring thing (how on Earth did you do that?!) works exceptionally well. I really enjoyed reading this. There's a distinctive theme and a truckload of your personality running through this piece. Excellent stuff, and just enough to provide Zig with the win.

    SPORTSMAN: Zig over Dagoss. Good thing I read Drellas topic because I originally read Zigs review and missed the bottom part. Hope the other judges arent lazy like me. Not only was this a very creative approach but it was exactly the right one to take. Once again his passion for Wolf Team shows and although the game is incredibly flawed he managed to make it still sound relevant. One of the toughest things to do in reviewing is make an average game sound appealing and Zig succeeded in doing that. Dagoss review, on the other hand wasnt his best work. His general thesis was pretty good but the whole thing seemed a bit rushed and the attempts at humor fell flat. Hopefully Zig finally gets his much deserved first victory this round.

    Vorty vs Randxian

    JEREC: I don't know about this match up. I wasn't impressed with either review. Vorty's review is incredibly short, makes the cheap and overdone joke of wanting whatever drugs the programmers were on, and probably sums up the game itself in a single paragraph. Maybe that's all there is to the game? I don't know. Rand's review goes on for a fairly long time, and in some cases the writing itself could be edited to make it read faster, such as that whole description of the Freeza boss battle. There has to be a more succinct way of saying that. I'm giving the win to Rand, though. Vorty barely scratches the surface of his game, and Rand is much more convincing that his game deserves a low score. And I also realise that it would have been tactically stupid for Rand to bring one of his best reviews for this match up.
    WINNER: RANDXIAN

    LEWIS: GoldenVortex proves you can write a solid, thorough review of a game without having to babble for eight million words. It's concise, to the point, amusing, illustrative, and generally great. GV's developing quite a distinctive style, one I rather enjoy. I don't really have much more to say about this. It's really good. Numerous kudos to the author. Randaxian's is a solid yet mostly unremarkable review, with a couple of slightly clumsy bits thrown in for good measure. The opening paragraph seems to chop around a bit too much. Immediately afterwards, you reference two games without making it clear how they relate. You don't have to info-dump, but you do need to make sure you're not alienating readers for whom the link won't be immediately obvious. Elsewhere... it's a game review. It's alright, y'know? There's just nothing that stands out, makes it *yours*. Nothing that makes me want to recommend someone else reads it. As such, Vorty wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Vorty over Randxian. Obviously at less than 500 words Vortys review isnt as detailed or memorable as some of the others in this tourney and maybe a little bit too brief, but he goes in, gets out and leaves me with no questions. He manages to make the game sound weird but not good and it only took me a minute at most to read. Rands review wasnt as easy for me to digest. Ive seen the show maybe once or twice in the 90s and havent seen/read anything DBZ since then except for the OVER 9000!!! clip on youtube so it took me a few reads to figure out what all of the technical DBJ jargon meant.. Rands tone is probably better suited for fans of fighting games/DBZ. Id also try to smoothen up the writing a bit. While Vortys review lacked detail it was the more enjoyable and easier read of the two so he gets the win.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Overdrive At EmP
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    EmP vs OD

    JEREC: I seem to recall EmP initially giving this game a higher score, then this re-written one popped up, and it seemed much more in line with my own experience of this game. Who was it that convinced me to buy this game with a glowing praise review? I think it was Lasthero! Damn him! EmP looks at what made this game good, and what caused it to fall apart, and he's absolutely correct. This is also one of those EmP reviews where the writing is excellent enough that I didn't mind re-reading it. I can't remember if I read this one for a contest before, or I just happened upon it, but either way, it's a good one. Overdrive's review is probably the best I've read from him this tournament. Not only did the game sound very interesting, but Overdrive's problems with it, and his repeated playthrough attempts (I think we've all been there) made for a compelling read. I particularly liked the example towards the end with the fights being easy due to lame programming. Both reviews approach games that seemed good but turned bad. This was a close one, and both EmP and Overdrive should feel proud knowing that they both used excellent reviews. I'm giving this one to Overdrive, because it's more of a challenge to get me interested in a mediocre game I've never actually played than it is to convince me a game I already thought was a mess was in fact a mess. Just for that. So you could say it came down to game choice. Or just random synapse firing.
    WINNER: OVERDRIVE

    LEWIS: This is one of my favourite EmP reviews in quite a while. It's tremendously strong, finely illustrating the two sides to Fahrenheit (shut up, that's what it's called here, and it's a *much* better name). It's a fascinating game, and despite the middling score EmP awards it, the enthusiasm of parts of the review were still enough to make me buy Fahrenheit after I read this. That's got to be a successful write-up, eh? Also, the bit about the rooftop battle "in the bloody snow!" made me chuckle, both when I read it and when I eventually played out that ridiculous sequence. It really is ridiculous. OD... Hmm. I've mentioned in previous weeks that I'm not too fond of the little gimmicky interludes like the narrator/diary thing you do here. It strikes me as being more about you as a writer than it is about attempting to do any justice to the game. I'm also not entirely sure what purpose it serves here, over and above simply explaining what you meant concisely. It bounces up the word count for little reason, leaving me slightly bored by the end of the review. Elsewhere it's solid, but EmP still wins.

    SPORTSMAN: EmP over OD. Luckily I havent been paying attention to all of the coverage of Indigo Prophecy around here because if I was this is definitely one game that I wouldnt want to hear about. What I liked best about this review is how EmP made both sides of the game clear. The really good parts of the game sounded awesome and the really bad parts sounded terrible. A very effective argument here. I liked ODs personal approach more but despite the 6/10 score he didnt seem to convince me that this game is above average. He made some good points throughout and I enjoyed reading the review but in the end it seemed more like a broken game rather than a good game with a bunch of minor annoyances holding it back. This OD review is much closer to his old self than those in the previous two rounds, but unfortunately EmP isnt cutting him any slack this week!

    DE vs Venter

    JEREC: DE reviews a game that sounds pretty cool, and one I might want to look up more information about. I did have a problem with this review, though, and that was the writing. Some parts are good, such as the introduction, which hooked me into the game quite effectively. Most of the sentences in the review feel clunky, like there's an extra word in there that doesn't need to be there, or the point could be conveyed in a more concise manner. It's hard for me to pull an example of this from the review, it's more to do with the review overall. That's not to say I didn't enjoy reading the review, I just think that with a close proof read and an edit, this could be something great. Venter delivers a solid, professionally written review for Call of Juarez, and even though I'm not a fan of westerns, I actually want to give this game a go, since it sounds quite fun. Venter picks some cool examples from the game to describe, though I was a little lost during the intro. But that's okay, turns out it was supposed to be difficult to take in at first.
    WINNER: VENTER

    LEWIS: This strikes me as a slightly naive offering from DarkEternal; the work of a writer still finding their feet. It identifies with the game nicely, but the writing often feels a little clumsy and unrefined. As such, I can't really invest in it. The phrasing, with unnecessary "for instance"s and "allow me to"s, snaps me out of it too frequently for this to be a successful piece in my eyes. A slightly odd review from JV here. After an awkward, overly wordy introduction, it goes into some nice illustrative stuff... but then that totally disappears, and though thorough, it becomes a checklist race to see how many components we can talk about without obvious links. Or, at least, that's how it comes across. It's almost as if the review's been chopped via category subheaders which have later been removed. The middle is very strong - it's just a shame it can't keep up the rhythm. So Venter wins, but only just.

    SPORTSMAN: Venter over DE. This was a very close match and I really enjoyed both reviews. I didnt like DEs intro much; it seemed like something you would see in a preview for a Disney movie. After that it was great, though. It is a very personal piece and it is much easier for me to get into reviews when they seem personal compared to random descriptions and bold claims. Venters review had the opposite effect in the sense that the ending was kind of weak. It seemed to break down into sections and a lot of it didnt seem too relevant to me. Fortunately the rest of the review is among his best work. The As a bad hombre paragraph is particular is some of the best and most descriptive writing Ive seen from Venter in a long time. Both pieces had areas that I think need some improvement but as a whole they both worked. Im giving the nod to Venter because its very rare to see such powerful writing on this site, but a great showing from DE as well. Hes been writing some great stuff this tourney so hopefully he can get a win in the near future.

    DoI vs Beli

    JEREC: [DoI's Star Ocean review wasn't linked - it was a bit late, but since I see no random pick in its place, that's what I'm judging.] And I remember this review! I read it recently when trying to find opinions on the game, and it was probably the only level-headed review I could find that wasn't either bashing the game or praising it. This review did an excellent job of convincing me that Star Ocean 4 had learned from the mistakes of the previous installment, and despite a few faults, it's still a good game. This review is actually the reason why I haven't been able to finish my own review yet, because everything I want to say is pretty much covered, except I actually like the story and characters a bit more than DoI did. Beli offers a pretty creative bash review, though it's a little rough around the edges and not quite as sharp as his more recent work. Still a solid, entertaining enough read. DoI has the edge here with the more interesting and more relevant review.
    WINNER: DOI

    LEWIS: DoI writes a confident and solid review here, one that could nestle away sweetly in a given games mag. But that's almost its problem, especially when faced with someone like Beli. By comparison, there's not enough personality here, and segments of it are overly wordy. Maybe this is me being an awful judge, but when I've 24 reviews to sift through usually in a single morning, one really needs to stand out to make me love it. Once again, a heavily stylised piece by Beli. I'd kind of like to see a different side to the writing, maybe. But, once again, it's abundantly witty and gives me a clear picture of what playing the game is like. Perhaps you don't need to mess with the formula, if it's a distinctive and largely successful one. Beli wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Beli over DoI. Hilarious review from Bel, probably his most entertaining one so far in this tournament. I dont really care for reviews that use pictures but this one wasnt so bad because I could skip them. Lots of personality here. Very funny, short and to the point, and convinces me that this game sucks. I would like to see Bel attempt to go out of his comfort zone some time in this tourney but right now when hes in his element against second rounders hes pretty much unstoppable. DoIs review was solid though not spectacular. I think he tried to make it a bit too brief, and as a result didnt get out what made the great aspects so great. A lot of what he bragged about would up just sounding ok to me I guess. Seemed like typical RPG stuff that hardly makes Star Ocean 4 a classic RPG. More descriptions and excitement are needed to fully believe his argument.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Janus at Boo
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Janus vs boo

    JEREC: Two bash reviews. Janus manages to tear his game apart without resorting to cursing, insults or any of it, he simply describes the game, how it got things wrong, and compares it to a similar iPhone game that got things right. It's a longish review, now that I look at it, but it never felt long-winded. Janus writes with an easy, accessible style that you just keep reading until you hit the end. No PC-clocking. Boo's review reminds me of various PSX vs N64 arguments I had in my youth. One of the points I remember making is that the PSX had a lot of garbage, stuff that was virtually unplayable. Boo seems to have stumbled upon one. The intro was a typical "how I bought this game" and some EmP manlove, which seems like the running in-joke on this site. Once that's done with, the review launches into swearing and ripping the game to shreds. But honestly, Boo, what were you expecting? This game sounds awful. I enjoyed this review, but I enjoyed Janus' more.
    WINNER: JANUS

    LEWIS: This is a highly competent and effective piece from Janus, one that I would happily see in a pro games mag. It's a fairly formal analysis, and I tend to like these a lot, particularly when they keep my attention as much as this one did. It does little wrong, though I suppose the only criticism I'd have is that there's not a whole lot about it that makes me sure it's a Janus review. Not in any way bad, though, this. Good work! Boo's, though... well, this is a spectacular, brilliant, fantastic, amusing, fantastic, spectacular piece. Or maybe I've just entered a competition that requires me to make you sound like a 10/10 guy? You'll never know. For the purposes of keeping up appearances, though, I'll say this made me laugh a lot, kept my attention throughout, and made me want to read it again. It's also overflowing with personality. Total 10/10 reviewing. Or is it all just a lie...? You'll never know, but for the sake of consistency (and because it deserves to), Boo's piece wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Boo over Janus. Pretty sure I read this Boo piece before but liked it as much as I ever did. Props to him for actually sitting through this awful game, and the fact that he did made this one great. I can feel his pain going through each of the levels and cant believe that Sony actually let crap like this get published (this isnt an old NES game here). Great descriptions, great humor, great review. I couldnt get into this Janus review as much as his previous ones. I understand that the control is god-awful and nearly makes the game unplayable but to me it felt like he beat that point to death. A few paragraphs in my mind began to wander. It would be a lot more effective if it was a shorter piece that came in, made its point, and got out.

    bbobb vs Esssspiga

    JEREC: I'd been feeling fairly apathetic about judging this week. The reviews have been good, mostly, but it's taken a little more effort to stay interested and focused (mainly due to Tales of Monkey Island). But these two reviews... wow. This is one match where both reviewers have submitted excellent reviews. Dreamer's review is from 2005, but I can tell it's been updated recently, because the flow of sentences is near perfect, and I can almost visualise what it must be like to play the game. The reference to System Shock and Jedi Knight was a welcome one, too. His review is also shorter than the one I read last week, which makes me happy, though this review covers everything. Not a word seems to be wasted here. It's great writing. Keep it up. I've read Espiga's review before, and I know it's one of his better ones. I didn't have any trouble reading it again, because the concept is interesting, and the writing is awesome. The spiel on language in the intro walks that line between a hook opening and pretension, but at the moment I'm not sure which. These are both excellent reviews, and it's one of the harder calls I've had to make this week. I'm going to give this one to Dreamer, though. Gotta encourage this sort of improvement - though it's very close. And both reviews gave me the motivation I needed to keep going with this judging. Let's hope Disco and Woodhouse don't disappoint!
    WINNER: DREAMER

    LEWIS: This ends really abruptly, RD, which is a shame, as I was rather enjoying it up to that point. It's a strong review that isn't afraid to be assertive and isn't restricted by assuming the game will be the mere sum of its parts. But I can't get over that ending. It didn't feel ready to end. It's almost as if the clock ran out and you just sto Espiga's is a colourful, engaging and through piece, while still being fairly concise. It takes a lot of skill to achieve that, so good work. It's a little repetitive in its structure -- "this is good, too! And this is good, too!" -- but, in all, it's a successful piece that should serve you well here. It does for me, anyway. Esssspiga wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Espiga over RD. I liked this Espiga review a lot more than his last one. Last weeks lacked passion, but in this one the passion came through. Maybe it was too short since Im still not 100% sure of how this game works and what it is all about but I do know its something special. The writing really pulled me in. Solid review from RD, unfortunately thats all I can say about it. It isnt bad by any means but not an attention grabber, either. Espigas passion alone makes his the more memorial piece of the two.

    Disco vs Woodhouse

    JEREC: And Disco and Woodhouse do not disappoint. Disco claims to be a street racer, and his enthusiasm for racing games, and PGR 2 in particular, is well conveyed, making this an incredibly enjoyable read for me, even though I am familiar with this game (I like it almost as much as Disco!). Great review. Makes me want to go back and give it a go, even though my mostly completed save file was lost with my original Xbox... I'd need to start over on the 360. The writing is fast paced, almost seems to match the tone of the game - something I find quite interesting with writing. Something I've been trying to emulate, myself. Woodhouse's review is another one of those DS games where you do stuff with the stylus. It's a solid review, and the game is quite interesting that it never lags. Some clever writing in there, such as "bullet-time with a scalpel". This is another close match, but Disco wins with the enthusiasm factor.
    WINNER: DISCO

    LEWIS: The best thing about Disco's review here is how prettily it all flows. Actually, that probably does it a disservice, since it's thorough and thoughtful too, but the flow is the most immediately striking. There were a couple of bits that broke the spell - one passive phrasing struck me as awkward, and one of the clauses in "if you're a beginner and new to the game" is redundant. But generally, it's written with the panache of the racing game described. Top work. This is a really tough match-up, though, since Woodhouse delivers an excellent account of Trauma Center. Again, it reads beautifully for the most part. But I wasn't so keen on the start of this one. Disco's introduction was fabulous, so unfortunately for his competitor, he gets the win.

    SPORTSMAN: Woodhouse over Disco. Not a good matchup for Disco, as hes matched up with MVP candidate Woodhouse. There really isnt much I can say about Woodhouses review without repeating what Ive said in the past two weeks. He really knows his strengths and sticks to them. Mixing it up a little cant hurt but if he keeps on putting out quality reviews like these it probably isnt necessary. Another great Woodhouse review. Not a bad effort from Disco, its a solid and enjoyable review for PGR2 and I like it better than mine, but hes mismatched here against a much more experienced reviewer who is on fire so far. Hopefully he gets a better matchup next week because he doesnt deserve to go 0-3.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Suskie at Will
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Zippdementia vs Suskie

    JEREC: The Tale of Menji in Zipp's review is quite amusing. This sounds like an annoying game, though it was still fascinating to read about even though we're told right from the outset that this game isn't much good. I loved the comparison between what Zipp wanted his character to be, and what it really was. The final line of the review is clever, and it made me grin. Zipp did almost lose me in the intro with finding Satan's toenails at a pawn shop. That seemed completely untrue and not even vaguely amusing, but that's pretty much the only low point in an otherwise fantastic review. The Colossus himself, Suskie, reviews Shadow of the Colossus, a game I found incredibly annoying for the same reasons Suskie did. This is another great review from Suskie. I've read a few reviews for this game before, it's a favourite for reviewers trying to sound pretentious with the games are art angle, much like ICO. Suskie agrees that the game is epic, but it's just not enjoyable. Every point is nailed perfectly, convincingly and he's quite fair to the game, too. These are two excellent reviews, and it's hard to pick a winner. I like it when this happens, because it feels like a true contest when I have to actually vote for one of these reviews over the other. Well, it looks like Satan's toenail brought more damnation for Zipp, as he loses to Suskie... by a toenail.
    WINNER: SUSKIE

    LEWIS: Top marks for using the word "menagerie", Zipp! I don't care for the intro here, though. I'm generally not bothered about how you came to be in posession of a game. But I do like your illustrative style, broken by sections of analysis. And it's an engaging read throughout. Trimmed up, this could be really excellent, but there does seem to be a little filler from time to time. An interesting review from Suskie. It's of a game I've never played but always wanted to; one that most people I know absolutely adore. But you make it clear why you take this slightly negative stance, while still acknowledging why, it seems, you're in the minority. Shadow does seem to be a beautiful game, a triumphant epic, but you approach it from a transparently different angle, and that works well. It's also one of the better written reviews of the round, with a delightful flow and a fantastic yet modest writerly style. So Suskie wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Suskie over Zipp. Good matchup, I actually had to think about which review Im going to pick for a few minutes (I usually know what review Im going to pick after reading both of them). Both reviews have a similar approach, which is using personal experiences in the game to illustrate a point. Zipps was the more interesting read of the two. Aside from a few bad jokes it was a fast-paced and exciting read. It was longish but my mind didnt even almost wander. Suskies wasnt as exciting but his conversational tone is what really sold me into his argument. It was like having a conversation with him on SotC. Everything was crystal clear and Im completely convinced due to the fantastic illustrations of how the game works. Sometimes Zipp left me guessing on what to make out of a passage. I dig this (increasingly popular!) storytelling approach both authors decided to use though it is important to make sure the actual review always remains strong. Although Zipps was the more entertaining of the two is Suskies voice ultimately remained stronger than his opponent which is what made me pick him. Nice job both of you.

    Sashanan vs Aschultz

    JEREC: Battle of the old timers who like their old games! Okay, no beating around the bush with this one. Sashanan gets the win here. His game is the less interesting of the two, but the review is shorter, very nicely written, and didn't make me look at my PC clock. Schultz did, however. The review goes into perhaps too much depth with this game, and I could barely stop my mind from wandering. There's a two paragraph diversion in here, or what seems like one, on the series formula, which itself is several paragraphs into the review, and it didn't do anything to help me focus.
    WINNER: SASHANAN

    LEWIS: This is an okay effort from Sashanan, but probably a mostly forgettable one. The standard of this round has risen rapidly, so I find myself being overly critical perhaps - but I'd stick by that. It's a review that does its job, but not a lot more; and I find myself wanting to rework the structure and thin the hairs a little. Nothing remotely *wrong* with it, but, y'know. There's a lot of focus on the details by Aschultz, making it a difficult entry to judge. Many will enjoy the in-depth look at seemingly inconsequential aspects of the game (although 'Schultz does well to ensure we understand why they're important) but others will turn off. I sit somewhere in the middle. Either way, it's saved by a solid writing style and excellent introduction, which could only benefit from an earlier explanation of what Tarq actually is. I know by the end, but it's probably best to explain the first time you mention it. A tight one, but Schultz just sneaks in a late winner. Or something.

    SPORTSMAN: Schultz over Sashanan. Aww, I was hoping for reviews for C64 and Apple 2 games. Oh well. Schultz couldve seriously cut out a lot of the first few paragraphs as it really began to drag but once he got going it was an interesting read and better than last week. Great flow and organization plus his most interesting topic thus far. Sash seemed like he was into the review at first but halfway through ran out of steam. It started off with plenty of personality that slowly left as the review progressed. First half was great but second half read like a Gamespot review. The info was there, but not a very engaging subject compared to Schultzs

    WillTheGreat vs True

    JEREC: Far too many technical details, Will. I can learn this stuff if I get the game and read the manual, or start playing it for myself. The review starts out very good, though. The concept is fascinating, and Will's enthusiasm for the game shines through. I had to skim the paragraphs around the middle, because I don't care about how many maneuvers a type of ship can make, etc. True finds middle ground on the Assassin's Creed debate, and makes a very convincing argument. The good and bad parts of the game are explained in a fair manner, there's no blind fanboy hype here, and no bashing. It leans on the side of this being a game worth playing, and I feel convinced. Not convinced enough to go out and buy it, but, you know. Only because I have enough damn games to play.
    WINNER: TRUE

    LEWIS: I'm not sure whether Will's big bulk of text explaining in such detail about where the genre's name came from is entirely necessary. I do like your challenging the reader with... something... in the first sentence. But is it really a "test"? I don't know. After that shaky opening, though, this is tremendously thorough, and pleasant to read. My problem with it is that it lacks a certain enthusiasm I'd expect to see, given your overwhelmingly positive conclusion. It's very descriptive, but if you love the game that much, I'd have thought I'd see that coming across more in your writing and quality analysis. True delivers a rather nice piece, an elegant collection of illustrative passages that portray the game fabulously. It really offers a glimpse into what playing the game is like, and provides some lovely reasons as to why both sides of the Creed argument have a point. I've not played the game, yet I feel like I understand it a little better for having read this. The sentence structure could probably do to be jumbled up a bit more, and I'd probably like to see something a little more stylistic, but that's nitpicking. Generally excellent stuff, so True wins.

    SPORTSMAN: True over Will. Wills review had some great info and really made some aspects of the game sound cool but I wasnt feeling the 10/10 score. The whole review wasnt enthusiastic and there were too many technical descriptions. It all seemed a bit bloated and I began skimming the paragraphs since the length of them and explanation of the gameplay mechanics was making me tune out. In this case its probably better to focus on a few awesome aspects and explain why it makes the game so great rather than going through the basics of everything. Not a perfect piece by True, either. I loved of the review, but it didnt read like a 7/10 review at all. The one paragraph dealing with repetition didnt really convince me and saying that the first 5 out of 9 levels are amazing and the end is fantastic did not help his case. So what does that mean, two hours out of 10 or so arent so great? With 8 completely awesome hours this doesnt seem like much of a negative to me. True shouldve fleshed out this idea more with either more descriptions or examples of how the repetition ruins what wouldve been a classic game because the trust me, it gets repetitive! argument really doesnt work since he made the rest of the game sound so aweeome (even though Ive played the game and agree). Im still going to give True the win because his review was fast-paced and more enthusiastic, which made it the easier one to get into.

    RESULTS

    ---------------------------------

    Team Dagoss vs Team Felix 1-2

    Wolfqueen vs Felix 1-2
    Dagoss vs Zigfried 0-3
    Vorty vs Randxian 2-1

    ---------------------------------

    Team EmP vs Team Overdrive 1-2

    EmP vs OD 2-1
    DE vs Venter 0-3
    DoI vs Beli 1-2

    ---------------------------------

    Team Janus vs Team Boo 1-2

    Janus vs boo 1-2
    bbobb vs Esssspiga 1-2
    Disco vs Woodhouse 2-1

    ---------------------------------

    Team Will vs Team Suskie 0-3

    Zippdementia vs Suskie 0-3
    Sashanan vs Aschultz 1-2
    WillTheGreat vs True 0-3

    ---------------------------------

    LEADERBOARDS

    Team Leaderboard

    Individual Leaderboard
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 12, 2009:

    Wow...I'm the low-scorer on my team again this week!

    But seriously, nice job putting this together. I've tried to keep my KB count low but it looks like I have some work to do with making things flow. I was up against a tough opponent and review, too--heck, he introduced me to the game and I loved it.

    I think the judges are doing very well with going beyond up/down, and if it takes an hour extra, that is worth it. Winning not being everything and such. It's fun to read all the critiques and try to plan ahead for the next opponent.

    ...besides, I got a bit of cleaning done waiting for this, so that was useful for me!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 12, 2009:

    Well done for winning disco. Sorry it counts for nothing.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 12, 2009:

    Disco's victory puts your team a spot above Will's team, so not quite nothing.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted July 12, 2009:

    Thanks for the feedback, judges... and for the win for both me and my team! Now to win next week... :-D
    board icon
    randxian posted July 12, 2009:

    Wow, I should've used a better review against a some guy who isn't even participating.

    Glad to see hard work and effort pays off.
    board icon
    True posted July 12, 2009:

    Well fought, Will. I wasn't sure where the victory would lie after reading your review, and then gambling on such a well known game. You made me nervous, so you should at least be rewarded for that.

    Jerec, Lewis and Sporty...spice (ha ha ha ha): As always, you guys went above and beyond, and be it good or bad, I love to here what you have to say. I'm inspired to make my next review exciting for you, and hopefully help Jerec shake some of that grungy apathy. And Sportsman, I'm sorry if that name sticks... It just came out; a random babble induced by an overwhelming sense of euphoria for winning.
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 12, 2009:

    Looking good, congrats to the winners!
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 13, 2009:

    I'm glad I have great teammates! Currently, we're in the playoffs despite me only contributing three votes in three separate 2-1 losses. Which is great for two reasons:

    1. I'm in a writing-binge mood right now and it's good to know that me blasting out AND USING new reviews in this competition isn't hurting the team. You'll get another brand new one next week.

    2. With the second-round pick being 3-0, the first-round pick being 2-1 and me being 0-3....it's getting to the point where NOBODY can say anything about the way I pick my match-ups. After all, over here, this is the heart of baseball season and in that league, big-name players who don't perform get demoted and young guns rising to the occasion get promoted. I guarantee that Beli will be rising to the occasion and if I don't start performing, I'll be demoting myself.
    board icon
    Halon posted July 13, 2009:

    It's almost 4 am but I can't sleep so here I am:

    Rand - Vorty isn't just a random reviewer who happened to stumble across this site one day and sign up. He has hundreds of reviews to his name and has been in countless past TT's and competitions. In the matter of fact he was on the winning team in 2005. Being new to this and all I wouldn't let any loss get to you. Yes he is using older reviews and not trying to put anything new out and this might hurt him in the long run. I see the people who are putting effort into this and those who are not and believe me this does influence my decision. I don't judge this how I would judge a normal competition where I would give a score from 0-100. A writer's improvement and effort plays a key role in my decisions.

    True - I don't really care haha. I hate the name Sportsman as it is. When I first came across the reviewer's forum on GameFAQs in 2002 I posted under the name sportsman30 and it kinda stuck and when arriving at HG I didn't want to change it and confuse anyone.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 13, 2009:

    Congratulations to Team Suskie for a well-earned victory. Win or lose, it was an honour to go up against you gentlemen. (b^_^)b
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 13, 2009:

    thanks again for the effort, judges. good match Team J, especially Disco.
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 13, 2009:

    I'm not sure I understand, Randaxian.
    board icon
    True posted July 13, 2009:

    I hate the name Sportsman as it is.

    It's better than DragonForceFan111, which is almost what I called myself, so I'd say it's cool. You're so well known on here you could probably change it like Bbobb or Felix did and get away with it. I vote for something morbid, like Nightmare, or Black Phoenix.
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 13, 2009:

    Thanks (as always) to the judges for their time and effort. And I'm glad to have abandoned that "zero wins" record!

    @Lewis: It was a simple copy/paste and a bit of tweaking to make the paragraphs after the fake score look right. But then I decided to start messing with images and... it kind of got more complicated.

    //Zig
    board icon
    woodhouse posted July 13, 2009:

    Excellent commentary as usual, judges. Great job, disco. Congrats.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 13, 2009:

    I'll belittle and berate my unfortunate teammates, but I beat arch nemesis OD, so all is well.

    Good job, gang. Obligitory judge kudos goes here.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 13, 2009:

    Sixteen now.

    A: Airball
    B: Bard's Tale 2(NES)
    C: Champions of Krynn
    D: Defenders of (the) Dynatron City
    E: Esper Dream
    G: Gegege no Kitaro 2
    H: Hoosier City: Return to Oil City
    J: Jawbreaker 2(I think Joshua would've been a much better game to write for. I've been trying to avoid cheap Apple games unless they're relatively historic and even then I try to write a FAQ so that I'm not just reviewing for a letter.)
    K: Knight Lore
    L: Lutter
    M: Miner
    N: Number Munchers (No, I won't be writing reviews for Fraction/Word Munchers once/if those games are in the database. That'd be cheap. But I do have guides and amusing screenshots.)
    P: Power Soukoban
    S: Secret of the Silver Blades
    U: (The) Usurper: Mines of Qyntarr
    V: Valkyrie no Bouken etc blah argghh

    #, Q, Y, and Z still have me a bit baffled.

    Also, I have both T and U games to write, and I'm not sure if the leading "The" counts. I suspect it doesn't, as when libraries alphabetize books, but can we make an extra clarification?
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 13, 2009:

    HEY BOO'S TEAM, STOP HOGGING ALL THE WINS TO YOURSELF
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 13, 2009:

    I tip my non-existent hat to Suskie for his win. Hopefully we'll see you in the finals and I'll get another shot.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 13, 2009:

    Sports and Lewis - Most of my frustration stems from the fact I'm not sure what you're looking for. I'm almost getting the impression style, tightness, and flow are the most important elements, and actual game information and analysis are just afterthoughts.

    Okay, I understand you want reviews that flow well and are easy to follow, but when I see reviews that are barely reviews getting points, then I'm completely confused. I don't just mean one or two isolated incidents.

    Are we supposed to submit reviews of video games, or does that not matter as long as the writing is good? I honestly have no clue anymore.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 13, 2009:

    Randxian, I would say definitely not the case! See my review, which won in style but lost based on information.

    The trick is to have such a perfect blend of the two that not even the imperfect art of judging can vote otherwise. Thus Suskie's well deserved and hard won straight shot with no votes against this tournament.

    And I'm not being sarcastic or ornery. It's truly my advice, and what I'll be striving for in new reviews I write.
    board icon
    Halon posted July 13, 2009:

    Rand: If there was a perfect reviewing method then there would be no reason to have a competition, since once people get it down they're perfect. It's like learning to add and subtract. Once you know how to do it you can get the problem right every time assuming there are no careless mistakes.

    Your best bet is to take the judge's feedback and try to improve in those areas for next week. Also try reading some of the reviews that did well this week to get a feel for what to do and what not to do. In particular I liked the pieces by Suskie, Venter, Bluberry and EmP. Zigfried's was also brilliant but his style can be intimidating for the more inexperienced. Reading the weekly review of the week topics can't hurt, either.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 13, 2009:

    And it's actually quite rare that all three of us agree on something.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 13, 2009:

    Good point. I guess that's just the way it goes.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 13, 2009:

    rand: there's a line somewhere between reviews being flowery but still getting across what they want to about the game, and reviews being flowery to the detriment of game analysis. it's not either/or, a unique approach or properly discussing the game.

    with pickhut's MGS2:Susbtance review, which I loved, you could probably accuse him of letting his gimmick get in the way of talking about an important part of the game. but from a writing standpoint it was a great idea, and I still come away from the review knowing what his opinion on the game is and all that shit you come to expect from a review. so in my head, it worked great. the same goes for Zig's Annet Again review. it's not even close to an IGN rundown, but I'd say it does an even better job of explaining what's up than any "normal" review could. whereas if you take a terrible review like my Devil May Cry 1, I feel as if I missed a lot of things worth saying entirely because I was too caught up in the "flowery bullshit" fad that once swept o'er the land. it's not the best example, but I'm not going to call anyone out haha.

    (anyone else miss lilica? if anything she gave us an excuse to say flowery a lot)
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 13, 2009:

    Thanks judges for the verdicts and taking the effort to GIVE ME A WIN. This is the start of Team Freeze's turnaround. That is all I will say on that, with one exception being that I think Randxian wrote the better review but Vorty simply managed to write the more efficient review. It's tough how these things go. Goes to show that there are many different aspects behind determing how these three looney judges assign their verdicts. It wouldn't be any fun if surprises weren't involved, right?

    Good match WQ. You'll do better the second you start doing better.
    board icon
    disco1960 posted July 13, 2009:

    all according to plan! ...except the part where we lost. also, i'm actually quite surprised. (i did proofread it right before, though)

    it is comeback time for creepy oldies! hopefully, i will have something new.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 13, 2009:

    And it's actually quite rare that all three of us agree on something.

    Really? News to me.

    On a more serious note, thanks to the judges for another round of excellent feedback. And contrary to my joke in the Week 3 thread, I honestly don't care how long you guys take to get your results in as long as they're this consistently detailed and informative. Kudos to Zipp as well -- I do think you over-dramatized the hype surrounding our matchup (because who cares, really?) but you put up a good fight and that's all that counts. I think that goes for Will's team in general, I'll add.

    To echo what my teammate Schultz said, I'm really enjoying the planning stages of this tournament. Randxian, I think something you need to consider is that you're specifically catering to three unique individuals in TT, and part of winning is carefully considering what they have to say and maneuvering to fit their standards. It's tough, and it can be a frustrating process, but that's how you succeed. And really, I have little doubt that you'll find self-redemption before this tournament is over, and reconsider your decision to quit reviewing.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 14, 2009:

    Because of my over dramatization, I was able to sell tickets to our match and make enough to cut my losses on the field of ego (as in the Freudian thing... not the waffle).

    The Suskie match was, for me, a much anticipated match up. I felt I owed it a bit of drama. I honestly thought I had you there. I still consider Way of the Samurai one of my best reviews, though it doesn't quite live up, it seems, to my more refined style of modern-times. It seems that I lost by matter of sentences or a few key word choices, so at least I can take comfort in the fact that it was a close blow-out, if still a blow-out. I would've liked to have been the one to give you your first loss. Instead, you gave me my first loss, and in quite a major way!

    I'm very eager to prove myself here on Honest Gamers and live up to the honor I feel I've been given by being made a part of the freelancer team. I've never respected a community of writers as much as I do this one and I hope I'm here when HG makes its inevitable way onto the scene as a big gaming name.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 14, 2009:

    It doesn't count. Otherwise my "The Way of the Samurai" review wouldn't have nabbed me that "W"
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 14, 2009:

    Thanks.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 14, 2009:

    Random thought here...Felix's comment is interesting because it calls into a conflict I have--I write primarily for myself, and I am happy with getting across the information in the game. The excitement, I tend to worry about in a 2nd draft, if it is there.

    Other people seem to be able to do it the other way, and successfully I might add. I'd like to take that risk in my first draft, and the tournament gives me a good excuse to be a bit more motivated to try something new, even if it is just organization that opens up time to take a few shots down the field and try something more emotional etc.

    Also, despite the judges giving useful advice and pointers what to try next week, I find my writing is worst when I am thinking about The Judges and trying to match up who might like sentence X or Y or Z. For those wondering What Is Expected, I look at it as, feedback from three other people who know what they're doing is a great sounding board for what can I change, what works and what doesn't. And I think I and others try to look ahead and say, if this review loses, what will the judges have to say beyond the usual? What parts will they need to evaluate, for better or worse?

    Because I'm assuming they want to read something beyond the usual, I want to write something beyond my usual. As for how I do that, or how I'm trying to, that's confidential til the end of the tourney. I suspect others' efforts will be too. But I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say & how they approached it. Post-tourney of course.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 14, 2009:

    I want to thank everyone for their kind words. Maybe I'm just taking this whole thing too seriously. I mean it's not like this really means much outside of bragging rights. Or maybe we'll force the losing teams to play Action 52 for 24 hours straight. The winning team only has to play for 12 hours straight.

    board icon
    Lewis posted July 15, 2009:

    Man. Never, ever start catering to what us judges want. That's pretty much a sure-fire way to self-destruction.

    Pose an audience and write confidently, competently, thoroughly and entertainingly at it, and you won't go far wrong.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 15, 2009:

    Aigh...hope my post didn't give that impression. It's more that I'm still amused by the paradox, old as it may be, that competitors need to poke a review aggressively and say "is this interesting" while at the same time Caring About the Judges is a quick way to take things too seriously and lose focus on the game, which is presumably fun and fun to write about. I know I'm not the only person who writes reviews to get away from Caring What People Think, or that's fallen into that trap while writing anyway despite myself.

    Other times, there's a lot of advice I'd like to take in hand ASAP--from other matches or my own--because the tournament is about trying new stuff, or planning new stuff for after the tourney based on pieces you liked, or even seeing that you didn't like the trick writer X pulled, but it makes you able to admit you pulled it & need to fix it. But like you said, if it's too obvious it's--err, too obvious. Maybe this 2nd thing is not so much a paradox but an interesting balancing act.

    ...and ironically, this post itself may be more for people who are a bit frustrated with their early performance than for the judges. I avoided early team tournaments because I worried about these issues. I'm not perfect on thinking about them but this general idea has worked to help me enjoy things so far.
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 15, 2009:

    I wrote Mr Nutz and Dragon Knight for the judges, but they scorned my love. Now I write for Jesus. He won't let me down.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 15, 2009:

    Man. Never, ever start catering to what us judges want. That's pretty much a sure-fire way to self-destruction.

    This doesn't make much sense to me. We... are trying to win your votes, aren't we?

    Edit: I mean, yeah, it's not like we want to completely warp our own writing voices to cater to three people, but every one of the reviewers in this tourney is good enough to make adjustments based on the judges' words without altogether disrupting their own unique styles. I mean, if you're using TT as one big opportunity to get feedback, fine, but Randxian has clearly expressed disappointment in not performing as well as he could be.
    board icon
    board icon
    randxian posted July 15, 2009:

    I think I understand what Lewis really means, and his post actually makes a lot of sense.

    I think there are two things to consider:

    1) If you try to start catering toward a specific style, then you will more than likely write in a style in which you don't normally practice. Sure, it may be the type of review the judges prefer, but since it's not your forte, it's going to wind up a completle mess.

    2) You alluded to this Suskie, when you said you have to keep making adjustments based on what the judges want. And that's the thing. If you try to guess and are completely off the mark, then your review is going to look silly. I think it is better to write for a general mass of people. Otherwise it's sort of like the first point; you'll end up forcing something that isn't really what you do best.

    As disappointed as I am with this loss, I have to admit as Jerec pointed out that no, this is not my best review. I thought it would be good enough, but it wasn't good enough. So I guess the only thing I can do is write my best possible review every week and hope that does the trick.

    but every one of the reviewers in this tourney is good enough to make adjustments based on the judges' words without altogether disrupting their own unique styles

    Maybe, but I think this has more to do with how good we all are. If your main objective is to cater to a specific small group of people, then the review is going to turn out in a different direction than if you write naturally. I think you can subtly alter your style without really realizing it.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted July 16, 2009:

    Finished Black Sigil...back to Wild Arms or something.
    board icon
    threetimes posted July 18, 2009:

    Game: Megami Tensei Gaiden: Last Bible II
    Platform: Gameboy Color
    Publisher: Atlus
    Developer: Atlus
    Genre: RPG
    Release Date: 1999

    Got a review ready to roll for this, but currently it's just listed for for Gameboy.

    Done -- now change your avatar!
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 20, 2009:

    Game: Resident Evil 4
    Format: PC
    Publisher: Ubisoft
    Developer: Capcom/SourceNext
    Release dates: 01/02/07 (JA) / 01/03/07 (EU, AU)

    DONE
    board icon
    EmP posted July 20, 2009:

    Janus at Felix

    Zigfried vs Janus
    Randxian vs bbobb
    Felix vs Disco1960

    EmP at Dagoss

    EmP vs. Dagoss
    DarkEternal vs. Wolfqueen001
    Dragoon of Infinity vs. Golden Vortex

    Will at Boo

    Will vs. Bluberry
    Zippdementia vs. Woodhouse
    Sashanan vs. Espiga

    Suskie at Overdrive

    Beli vs. Suskie
    OD vs. True
    Venter vs. Schultz
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 20, 2009:

    I challenge Overdrive.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 20, 2009:

    I challange Overdrive as well. together we can take him.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 20, 2009:

    Not so fast, Blueberry! I challenge you to a duel!

    So... have we actually gotten ahead of the judging? That's... unexpected.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 20, 2009:

    Willthegreat vs. Woodhouse
    Zippdementia vs. Bluberry
    Sashanan vs. Espiga
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 20, 2009:

    =D
    board icon
    jerec posted July 20, 2009:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Felix vs. Overdrive
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    OD vs Felix

    JEREC: These two reviews could not be more different. Overdrive reviews a bad GBA game which is ruined by how dull and easy it is. I'm fairly familiar with the Gauntlet series, and Overdrive is right. It's a multiplayer experience. My friends and I would have good fun with Gauntlet Legends on the N64, but none of us liked the game AT ALL if we played it alone. I chuckled at the transition between paragraph's 2 and 3. Very clever. Overdrive's writing is very easy to read, even when I could tell this game isn't worth playing by seeing what system it's on, I still wanted to read the whole thing. Felix reviews Fallout 3, giving it a 10, and saying pretty much everything I would also say about the game. I'm glad this isn't one of those reviews that goes on and on, because there is a lot of stuff to talk about in this game. Felix picks a few things about the game he likes, and manages to sell the game based on that. Both are very good reviews, and it's hard to objectively say which of these is better, due to them being so different. In the end, though, my familiarity with Fallout 3 (having put 200 hours or more into it), made the review a little less interesting for me to read than Overdrive's. But it was a close one.
    WINNER: OVERDRIVE

    LEWIS: A strong effort from Overdrive. But I think its one Ill struggle to remember. Theres nothing that really grabbed me and drew me into this piece. Reading it thoroughly, its clear theres a lot of effort into the content here, which Ill concede is obviously the most important thing. But its almost as important to convey that content well. Its coherent and cohesive enough it just doesnt sparkle.
    Felixs Fallout 3 review is a really stunning read. It conveys such enthusiasm about the game from start to finish. Its sort of the opposite of what ODs could have done with. Convey your feelings through the tone of the writing, yknow? It works strikingly better than methodically explaining why something is or isnt good. Anyway, to make stuff even better, Felix *does* explain why its so good. But he does it with such incredible consideration for emotional impact (particularly with his introduction) that I imagine if I didnt understand a single bit of the content, and didnt glance at the score, Id still have a pretty good understanding of how wonderful the game is. Felix wins.

    SPORTSMAN: OD over Felix. This is another case of the more consistent review (OD) versus the one with more highs and more lows (Felix). OD delivers a very enjoyable bash. I like it when his reviews are based on personal experiences rather than the typical by the book perspective he has been using as of late. This always seems to be the more powerful approach to me. I wouldnt call this ODs very best bash and it wasnt as ruthless as it couldve been but it was a smooth and enjoyable read that was probably my favorite OD review in the tourney thus far. There were some parts of Felixs review that I loved and some parts that left me kind of disappointed. Ive literally played this game for about 35 hours in the past two and a half weeks or so and can say he really nailed the atmospheric aspects and made the setting sound like something spectacular. However a lot of the other bits just sounded good to me. It turned into more of a laundry list and became more focused on many smaller aspects instead of what makes them great. Fallout 3 didnt reinvent the formula with its premise but rather with its execution. What Im trying to say (its 4am!) is that I was left wanted to be convinced that some aspects stand out above the rest instead of being told about their presence. Ironically I was brainstorming a review of my own for this game Wednesday night and encountered a similar problem. This was a close match that could go either way but Im picking OD because although Felixs is probably more memorable Im not quite sure if he completely succeeded in completing his objective.

    Venter vs Zigfried

    JEREC: Venter's review almost reads like a Zig review. It's very descriptive, an engaging read, and it tries something a little different with the usual review formula. This review reads like it was written specifically to face against Zig. The "one handed play style" dig at the genre made me grin. One question, why is there a paragraph after we've made the choice to stop reading? I read it anyway, but it seemed a line like that might have worked best at the very end of the review. I'm never familiar with these sorts of games, so Zig can pretty much tell me whatever he wants and I'll likely believe it. Unfortunately, we're treated to an analysis of the hentai genre, a page into the review, we're introduced to a game. Is that what Zig's here to review? No. Not at all. This is actually a review of a fan disk that seems more like an expansion. Yes, it seems interesting, and it might have been necessary to have almost 2 pages of build up (well written build up, at least), and then the rest of the review talks about some puzzle game. I honestly don't know what to make of this. I quite enjoyed reading it, but now that I think back, that whole hospital scene described early in the review probably isn't even relevant. Or is it? I have no idea. This must have been an odd title to review, because it's certainly odd to read about. You know what? I think Venter may have out-Zigged Zig.
    WINNER: VENTER

    LEWIS: Aha a hentai direct contest! Venters strongest outing of the competition so far. Some may call it a gimmick, but its a very clever gimmick that works in conveying a particular message about the game. Its also not too intrusive, which I like, and is very much an HonestGamers review its clever, aspires to something slightly different from the norm, its well-written and thorough. Its very nice indeed.
    I think Zig could probably have done to trim the introduction a little bit. Its a clever reveal, but its already taken a little time to get to the point, and I think that same point could have been made more concisely with a little more thought and care. Be your own harshest editor! This theme kind of runs all the way through: its a bit choppy, a little unconscious of the readership. Or maybe that readership just wasnt supposed to be someone with as short an attention span as me. Theres some good stuff here, but I think its a bit clouded, so Venter wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Zig over Venter. Props to Zig for writing a Hentai review that didnt focus on the sex. Usually you get walked through some persons (usually disturbing) sexual fantasies or encounters and are left with a dirty impression on the game but here Im left thinking that this is actually a damn good game. Who wouldve known that theres more than sex to these games? The problem I had with Venters is underneath the gimmick it was a pretty uninspired review. It seems like it was trying to cover the fact that he was completely uninterested in the review. Venters piece last week was full of excitement and personality but this one was dry and seemed like he really didnt want to write it. Its a decent look at the game for those interested and I did think the gimmick was cool for the first half of the review but Zig seemed far more into his piece and actually made the game sound interesting so he gets the win and title of the rounds token pervert. GABOOOOON!!!

    BELISARIOS vs Randxian

    JEREC: I remember reading a Castle Crashers review that tried to make this game sound exciting and a whole lot of fun, but it wasn't really convincing. BELI's is convincing, though. This one seems a little more organised and planned than the usual BELIRAMBLE, but it still has that fast-paced energy to the writing, and the game seems to come alive as I read about it. Randaxian's review is a very solid read, and a fairly smooth one, too. I normally find reviews of these sorts of shooters to be DULL, but that was not the case here. I was quite interested in this, whether it's due to the subject matter or Rand's rather vivid descriptions, I can't really say. Probably both! This was looking like a fairly close match, with BELI looking like the winner, until I read this line... "This seductress produces tiny demonic babies faster than a high school cheerleading squad." I laughed out loud. And I kept laughing for longer than I would have expected. I smile and smirk at jokes in reviews from time to time, but I rarely find myself laughing like this. Humour like this turned an incredibly close match in Rand's favour, here.
    WINNER: RANDAXIAN

    LEWIS: Belisarios needs to be careful not to fall into the trap of assuming its more about the writer than the product. Its safe for now, but something to think about. The intro to this piece in particular takes the stream-of-consciousness thing and runs with it, to the point where youre finding yourself saying Anyway within just a few sentences. If you feel yourself having to snap your writing back on track, you should probably delete and re-write, as youre essentially making an admission that youve gone off-target. Celebration of videogames stuff is strong. But Id shuffle your format a little in the future to keep us on our toes.
    Randaxians offering, hell be pleased to hear from the guy who keeps rating him down, is his strongest yet. By quite some way. Its amusing, but the humour is never to the detriment of explaining the game carefully and effectively. Me? Id edit out some stuff that seems slightly unnecessary (dirty pervert sounds a bit playground can you not think of a more mature synonym that still fits the humorous style?), but really, this is getting much stronger. Strong enough for a win, anyway. Randaxian emerges triumphant.

    SPORTSMAN: Rand over Beli. Two good praise reviews that made their games sound special. This is definitely Rands best review yet. The writing is not as good as Belis but his smoothest read thus far and the whole piece seems completely convincing and from the heart . This was much more accessible than last weeks and the fact that he was into it made me interested as well. Nice review from Beli as well but it the problem I have with it is I feel he overdid it. It seemed like he tried too hard to be funny or insightful and it wasnt necessary. Beli is a naturally funny guy and great writer and hes at his best when the reviews come natural to him. This one seems a bit overdone, and Rand gets the win because his is the more honest piece of the two.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Janus vs. Suskie
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Janus vs Suskie

    JEREC: I never much cared for the Call of Duty series, but the way Janus writes about this one, I find the subject matter at least interesting, and also see how it's not that fun, even if the message of war seems like something different. When Janus was describing the cutscenes and tone of the game, I was wondering if it was any fun. "Not really." It's a very convincing argument, and even though I'm not familiar with the series, I feel like I know how this one compares to the others, which is what a CoD fan really wants to know. Suskie continues to deliver awesome reviews. Eternal Darkness is a game I've owned for years, but never gotten that far with. That's going to change, because Suskie has drawn me back into the game so effectively, I want to actually get up right now and play it, rather than finish the judging. There are some 10/10 reviews out there that can do this, but they are quie rare. Suskie's love and experience with this game really becomes apparent. He knows exactly why this game is so great, how it works on levels other survival horror games don't. The writing itself is so smooth that I read from start to finish without even looking away. Janus' review was good, but Suskie's was even better!
    WINNER: SUSKIE

    LEWIS: Janus pens a mature and considered review that taps into World at War on a somewhat deeper level than most. The introduction is a clever play on what the game itself does: present something thats going to grab attention and then provoke further thought. Thats a good way to take it, and something we could all probably do to pay attention to. A strong outing here.
    Suskies is a really strong offering, as well, so its a tough one to judge. It segues neatly between the fourth-wall-breaking shocks, into more concrete stuff about the game, and then into enthusiastic love-lettering about various smaller aspects. Its a really good read about a game I remember being thoroughly impressed by. Theres very little to fault with either of these, but I find myself siding slightly more with Janus, if only for the introduction. Even though Suskies was good too. But, man. This is one of the strongest match-ups so far. Janus wins, but only by a hairs breadth.

    SPORTSMAN: Suskie over Janus. After reading Suskies review I can almost guarantee that Ill hate Eternal Darkness. Regardless I really want to play it. I dont really know what to say about these Suskie reviews anymore. This isnt my favorite Suskie piece of the tournament and some parts mightve seemed a little bit too melodramatic but its another fantastic review. I enjoyed Janus review as well, a lot more than last weeks. The problem is when I was done I had the thats it? feeling. It felt incomplete to me, as if there was another point he was going to make or something. However I read his blog post about not mentioning Nazi Zombies and multiplayer and Im glad he didnt mention it because that wouldve killed the focus and flow of the review. Not a bad effort overall by Janus that probably wouldve beaten the majority of reviews this round. Suskies really bringing his best here and if someone wants to beat him they need to really step up their game and go over and above.

    Radical Dreamer vs True

    JEREC: Dreamer's review is very heavy in places, filled with all the FPS jargon that FPS players know, explaining the various moves and how they benefit the game (fine!)... and telling me the keystrokes (noooo!). But even for a review of some Half Life mod, this one is full of enthusiasm, and that line early on about our favourite games being the hardest to write about rings true with me. The final paragraph in particular was very good, and it really justifies the 10, that even long after this game has lost popularity, the fans will still return to it. True's review starts out very interesting, describing a game's story that is actually quite compelling. The review gets bogged down in moves and button presses, which become even more tiresome than the one's in Dreamer's review. I don't need to know which button to press to use which move. I'm not playing the game, and when I do, it'll all be there in the manual. Dreamer's review comes off as the stronger of the two reviews here.
    WINNER: RADICAL DREAMER

    LEWIS: I really like RadicalDreamers piece. Its a retrospective overflowing with nostalgic admiration for something that shaped its writer as a player and lover of videogames. Illustrative, glowing and fresh, its exactly the sort of thing I look for in write-ups of older games. A new perspective, the benefit of hindsight, and well just absolute adoration for the game in question. It shines through beautifully, so you shine as well.
    Amazingly, someones just subbed a Heavenly Sword retro to Resolution. Ha! So Ive already done a fair bit of reading about this one today. Trues is strong too. Man, youre all making it super-difficult for us judges this week. I like how expressive this is in painting a picture of the game youre conveying. I think it stumbles a little around a third of the way through, though, with a convoluted questions paragraph, and then a slightly clunky drop into plain analysis. Which is, of course, useful but when youve set that sort of precedent in your introduction you need to keep up the pace and maintain the tone. As such, though this is good, RadicalDreamer wins.

    SPORTSMAN: RD over True. Awesome matchup guys, as these were probably my two favorite reviews of the round. Ive never heard of Trues game before which made me feel kind of unfortunate that awesome games are slipping by me this generation. Trues always had the charisma and energy to write a great review but usually got bogged down with technical problems. In this tourney those technical problems dont exist anymore. Great energy, fantastic descriptions and an all around excellent review. RDs piece is equally as impressive. I wasnt sure how well the best game of all time review would work out because they usually dont match up to their claims but this one surely did. It also makes me wish I tried the game out back when it was big and I was too busy playing Science & Industry and the god-awful Counterstrike. It is not easy to write for multiplayer games since a lot of it is community based and its tough to convey that to writing without rambling on forever but this one nailed it. I am completely convinced that this mod is deep and enjoyable. Although both deserve to win in my book I have to pick one and am going with RD here because he made the bigger claim and delivered just as well as True.

    Disco1960 vs ASchultz

    JEREC: I thought this review looked familiar, but then I knew for sure when I read the line about the box (who is known as being a big liar). This is from Alpha 07, and I gave it a 70. I enjoyed it a bit more than I did that time, thanks to a few fixes I did notice. The review seems shorter than I remember it being, and is a smoother read as a result. Schultz once again goes for that over detail that the other two judges usually respond well to, but I found myself getting bored rather quickly.
    WINNER: DISCO

    LEWIS: Discos reminds me of a conversation I had at Develop with a fellow games journo, who was talking about oh, the details arent important, but basically: a child saying I got the game because the box said it would be good, but it lied! So this kind of triggered me to think about that too. I think its a worthwhile approach to take, and even if it is used primarily for a humorous focal point for the review, it does work. Theres an informal style to this one, and I think that works too its difficult to talk about mediocre games sometimes (a four or five is that horrible meh mark to justify), but this is nice.
    Aschultz has really nailed the flow of this piece. Everything runs smoothly from the previous area, the segues are neat and unintrusive, and nothing jumps out as a big shift in tone or content. Thats really useful when maintaining reader attention. Structurally, its actually pretty straightforward description, the good, the bad, the conclusion but you cant really tell, because it feels like thats the way it was intended; like that was the only logical way to present the argument. This is really good. Aschultz wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Schultz over Disco. Similar to Belis review Disco is suffering from the case of trying too hard. I normally like Discos light-hearted approach but here he went too far. It seemed like he was always trying to be funny and while I appreciate the effort too many jokes and one liners fell flat. The whole conclusion didnt make much sense to me, either. I think the problem here was the material was bland so Disco relied on jokes to make it interesting. Some of it was interesting and it was a solid read but overall its a huge step back from his PGR2 and Dreamfall reviews. Schultzs review wasnt his best and really didnt make the game sound as good as he wanted it to but his voice is credible and it came across as the more honest piece of the two.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Boo vs. EmP
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    EmP vs Bluberry

    JEREC: Oh please no. Please no. No no no no no no no. I declare no one the winner, and I subtract 1000 points from both of you. ...I suppose I should actually read the reviews. Okay. I tried to read EmP's, but I got bored very, very quickly. If I can get further through Boo's review before wanting to stab my eyes out with a fork, he wins. Let's see. Okay, I didn't get very far into Boo's, either. But I got further. I know I'm being a terrible judge here, but holy fuck Metal Slug is the most boring series to read about. EmP's going on about how we expect it to be a bad game and apparently lives up to those expectations - earning a 7, while Boo talks about how the game is competent, so it at least seems decent, and it gets a 4. I don't understand either review very well because reading either one is a painful experience. Fix ruined this series for everyone, guys. Fix, and the many others who wrote flowery reviews for this series to the extent that I can't even take it seriously anymore. It's about a fucking soldier who shoots stuff. Is it any good? Yes or no. The problem I have at this point is that I can't even decide which review should win here because I didn't read much of either. I guess I'll have to give both reviews another chance to redeem themselves... Fuck, I hate you both for doing this. Okay, I sorta skimmed through the rest of EmP's review. It seems to make a little more sense than Boo's, and seems to poke fun at the incredibly insane expectations fans have for the series, so he gets the win. Lesser of two evils or something. Fuck. I was even going to try and judge a whole bunch of stuff right now, but I'm gonna have to take a few hours break because I'm gonna be too damn annoyed to read the next reviews fairly.
    DIDN'T LOSE AS MUCH: EMP

    LEWIS: Im totally put off by EmPs opening sentence. Well, Im not, because I know him, and know its just his sense of humour. And kind of mine too, unprofessionally. But the point is: this is a review on a games website thats largely not going to be read by people who understand that. Sure, its obviously a joke, but its a crass one to make so early on. Others might find it courageously so, but to me I dunno. Id be careful with that sort of stuff. But actually, this is a strong review once that opening questionabilitys out of the way. And I do like EmPs sense of humour that runs through the entire piece (slight aside: I really like the way EmP jumps out of the main bulk of text to say something really short and snappy from time to time. Works exceptionally). So, yeah. Its good.
    Metal wait. What the fuck? Man, theres some careful match-ups this week. Am I missing something? Are we running to a theme? Im not keen on Bluberrys review, anyway. Theres nothing particularly remarkable about it. Unfortunately, the competency thing is kind of what springs to mind here too. Its alright. It needs to be more thorough and I dont necessarily mean longer, its worth saying and more striking. As it is, its one I probably wont remember, even though its not at all a bad effort. EmP wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Boo over EmP. EmPs review read like your typical Metal Slug review would: fast-paced, level descriptions that try to convey the games intensity, long sentences with big words, etc. First we have the random intro, then the games wackiness, some level descriptions, the negative catch, and conclusion. It certainly worked and Im glad I read it since Im interested in the title but after all these years this formula seems kind of dated and tired. Its almost as if the review was straight from the 2004-2005 era when everyone tried to copy that style (myself included). It just isnt as exciting today. I think EmP knew this and hoped the matchup would be a lesser of two evils designed to piss the judges off, but unfortunately for him Boo took the far superior and fresher approach. This definitely isnt the most polished review hes used in this tourney but he manages to get his point across clearly without the typical Metal Slug template. Im convinced that the title is a competent game but a bad Metal Slug game. Kudos to these two for both managing to pull off two Metal Slug reviews; when me and Boo tried to do the same with God of War two years back he wound up reviewing Doom and I came up with nothing at all.

    Dark Eternal vs Woodhouse

    JEREC: DE's review stumbles around the place, especially in that introduction that I can't make any sense of, even after reading it twice. There's also mass confusion every time he uses a hyphen... there's a space on either side of it, which means that the mind does not automatically connect the two words, leading to even more confusion. The writing itself was fairly bland and uninteresting, despite the interesting game. When DE told me to get my mind out of the gutter, I clicked back. I was not thinking anything of the sort, despite the implications in the text. Don't ever blame the reader for thinking dirty thoughts when you don't know for certain if they are. Woodhouse wins. Oh? I have to read Woodhouse's review first? Okay.Woodhouse's review has the usual smooth writing which allows me to see exactly what the game is about, what it's like to play, and this one does sound interesting. I almost even share Woodhouse's frustration at the game solving some things for him. I know that would annoy me.
    WINNER: WOODHOUSE

    LEWIS: Let us speak of Shadowrun. Well, yes, DarkEternal, its a Shadowrun review. Come on. Harshest editor. Be that editor. Chop the irrelevant or superfluous. I think this is all just a little bit clumsy and unrefined. It needs a good going over with a bit editorial stick; it needs reshuffling; it needs sections fancied up a little bit. Find a style. Present that style solidly throughout, and ensure youve your argument in your head before you start writing. It gets better as it goes along, which for me is a sign that you should have started over once you found your flow.
    Woodhouses is an example of what I mean by being through without being lengthy. This is a really good piece. The intro is striking, but the review proper gets going quickly enough that theres enough time to expand on everything sufficiently. It identifies the most important aspects of the game and discusses them, without feeling the need to go into all the peripheral stuff that no one other than the fools worries about. Its neat, tidy and pleasant to read, so Woodhouse wins.

    SPORTSMAN: DE over Woodhouse. Good review from Woodhouse and being a math nerd myself props to him for math references. However this is the fourth week and his fourth puzzle/adventure game in a row. I appreciate how he sticks to his strengths and can always be counted on to deliver something great, but it is starting to get a little stale. DE comes out with plenty of enthusiasm. He really made the game sound interesting and the writing is the best Ive seen from him thus far. Woodhouse might be the more consistent writer of the two but DE mixing it up always makes his reviews seem fresh.

    Dragoon of Infinity vs Espiga

    JEREC: The way Blazblue is described by DoI, I feel that even I might enjoy the game. I never was a fan of fighting games, finding them complicated, and like DoI very succinctly says "As your aptitude increases, the game becomes about improvisation rather than memorization." It's lines like this that help to sell the game. This is a very good review because it's not too long, but says everything I'd need to know about the game. DoI manages that fine line between too much information and not enough. I have no questions in my mind because this all seems very clear to me. Espiga's review was also pretty good, giving me a rundown of why Beowulf is CARNAL, and also why it's not that great. It's a very short review, and I know this sounds odd for me to say, but it's a little too short. Most of the game is pretty much glossed over, unless that's all the game is. But it is a quick read, and convincing enough. Lines like "the graphics are also pretty nice" is a bit of a rookie move. DoI's was the better read of the two.
    WINNER: DOI

    LEWIS: Its interesting how DoI poses an audience straight away. This is a review targeted at fighting game fans. I cant decide whether this is a positive or negative thing. Ill go with both. It has an angle, and such clear targeting is going to ensure that a particular audience trusts the review well enough. Its going to put off anyone *not* into fighting games, but thats fair too, as youre transparent about who the reviews aimed at. As such, Id say this is a successful tactic, and the quality of the writing (though nothing spectacular) does its job well enough to ensure the review as a whole is successful as well.
    But Espiga produces an incredibly strong short review. Short reviews are difficult to judge: how much information do you need to convey, while still ensuring the concise nature of the piece means everyones going to read it and enjoy it? This is how you do it: you identify a quirk, a nuance, whatever, and you run with it. The carnal thing isnt gimmick at all it works perfectly, and you bounce off it to convey various opinions about the game. An exceptionally strong review, and a deserved win for Espiga.

    SPORTSMAN: DoI over Espiga. Obviously DoIs topic was kind of boring to me since I cant stand fighting games but the review was rather interesting. It reads like a (very good) professional piece that youll find in a magazine. For someone who stays as far away from the genre as possible this piece was surprisingly accessible and I was able to understand everything he was saying. The bit about the combos in particular was interesting because it shows me how this game is special and is a bit different (in a good way) from the norm. Espigas review was entertaining but a bit too brief. Just when I was understanding how the game worked and getting into it the review ended. DoIs was more informative and complete so he gets the nod.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Will vs. Dagoss
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Will vs Dagoss

    JEREC: Will's review takes a while to get to the point, and he seems to be aware of this fact... but doesn't bother to hurry along. I'm actually familiar with MechWarrior, though I haven't played it since the mid 90's. I always thought they looked pretty cool (compared to the ridiculous looking Gundams). Once the review actually gets going, it's pretty good. Will goes through the campaign mode, talks about upgrading mechs, various tactics, and it all sounds fascinating. Made me a bit nostaligic, too. Dagoss, I think the word you're looking for is "principles"... though the review does stay more focussed on the game. The amount of detail does get a bit much at times - bad old RPGs rarely make for good reads. Two paragraphs in, we already know they're bad - the rest of the review is just a description of how bad things can get. Still, it's a decent read. Though Will's review took a while to get to the game, when he did get to the game, it was the more interesting read. It was a close one, though.
    WINNER: WILL

    LEWIS: Will as I said above in a comment to Belis, having to apologise for getting sidetracked is pretty much an admission that what youre writing wasnt strong. If you cant maintain focus, how do you expect an audience to? I think its probably more apparent here than in Belis, as its usually obvious thats just his style. But with you, it isnt so much, so it grates a little. This whole review just seems to sidetrack a lot, and I find myself struggling to follow the flow until, on a regular basis, you find time to explain where its going. If you have to explain it, theres something fundamentally wrong with what youre doing, meaning I cant find this to be wholly successful.
    Dagoss review isnt the strongest Ive ever read, but its sufficiently detailed and well written. Theres an odd tense-quirk in the first sentence (they *were* based on those mechanics, surely? Even though they still exist oh, I dont know), but its over quickly, and its all nicely explained. Its also particularly fluid, which helps convey your argument in a way that Wills failed to do. So theres an obvious winner for me here: its Dagoss.

    SPORTSMAN: Dagoss over Will. Will PLEASE NO MORE PICTURES! I think it would be wise for Will to stick to reviewing simpler games like in the first two weeks because the complexity is working against him here. Too much technicality, and once he does make a fair point Im either bored from all of the technical descriptions or it isnt as powerful as he wanted it to be. Maybe its just because Im also a MW vet, but this review was an improvement over last weeks, despite still being too long winded for my tastes. On the other side we have a solid bash effort from Dagoss. It got kind of boring at times but overall made its point more effectively than Wills review did since it contained far less technicality. It spoke about something I would want to know about a lot more and the more you can do that the better!

    Zippdementia vs Wolfqueen001

    JEREC: Zipp's game sounds like a review that writes itself, with the funny dialogue options letting the player have a different take on a familiar story. The mech stuff came out of nowhere, actually, and surprised me that this was what the game was actually about. It's a lengthy review, and I think Zipp might have found it hard to be so honest about this one, comparing it to a favoured pet that misbehaves, though I found the review started to drag a bit in the second half. The mech stuff and jobs wasn't anywhere near as interesting as the early portion of the review. Wolfqueen's review is fast paced and manly, and makes the game sound cool but irritating at the same time, hence the 6. It's a short read and it packs a lot of punch, making it the more enjoyable of the two. Slightly. I like how this review at the same time makes the game sound awesome, but also really silly at the same time. And now I know where that opening line comes from. I knew it was from some NES brawler, but wasn't sure which one.
    WINNER: WOLFQUEEN

    LEWIS: Theres an odd paragraph in Zipps review. The third one. It suddenly goes all over the place, and I had to re-read a few times in order to understand it properly. Its all a bit of an assault on the senses, with loads of concepts suddenly coming into play. I know thats exactly the thing youre trying to convey about the game, but you do have to be careful when writing about it in that fashion. Despite this, I do think this is one of the stronger reviews youve entered so far, and did enjoy reading it a lot. Just be careful not to go a bit overboard too early in the piece.
    Ah, I remember reading this WQ review last year. Its very good, and exceptionally funny. You use a variety of methods to illustrate your points effectively, without resorting to bland info-dumping or even feeling the need to stray into too much in-depth analysis. Its also structured beautifully, with quick chop-outs and back in again to the main flow. Very good. Id like to learn to write like this from time to time. Its excellent stuff indeed, and for that reason, WolfQueen wins.

    SPORTSMAN: WQ over Zipp. This WQ review is leagues ahead of everything else shes used thus far. Ironically its also probably the manliest review written this round. You guys better be ashamed of yourselves! She made her point clearly, it was a quick, engaging read, and super entertaining. Zipps review was a solid choice and Im really starting to like the conversational tone but overall he didnt seem as interested as in the previous three weeks. It didnt read like something that he put his heart into but rather something he just wrote for the sake of writing. There wasnt a whole lot of excitement in this piece (oddly enough the tentacle sex bit was the most dynamic part of the review haha) and as a result I couldnt enjoy this one as much as WQs, which was the attention grabber and smoother read.

    Sashanan vs Golden Vortex

    JEREC: This is one old Sashanan review. I remember reading this years ago, and it was supposedly the first "non-dry" Sashanan review, probably due to the "Neptune's gorgeous (and more importantly, naked) daughters" bit. However, the writing is incredibly rough in places, and I found it a bit of a chore to read. I was also distracted by those screenshots that make the game look truly awful, so two paragraphs of graphics discussion was difficult to slog through. Vorty's review is the better read of the two, and a fair bit better than the previous reviews his teammates have chosen for him. It actually contains some detail, which is nice, and makes Splatterhouse sound like quite a fun game.
    WINNER: VORTEX

    LEWIS: I think Sashs piece is okay, but a bit by-numbers. Nothing grabs me, and though theres an excellent amount of attention to detail throughout the piece, its often overly wordy or clumsily strung together. For example, starting a paragraph with Visually [comma] is almost always a turn-off for me. You should be able to link the segments of your article cohesively, without having to so explicitly signpost where youre going. Work on that, and youll get there no questions about it.
    Again, while Vortys piece conveys a decent amount of information, the actual writing strikes me as well, its not *amateurish* by any means. Just not entirely pro. Just not entirely successful in capturing my attention throughout. I dont like the whole rhetorical question thing which a few of this rounds entries have used. Influential? you may ask. No, I didnt, actually. But if I did, it was probably because you werent explaining it well enough in the first place. As with other examples Ive cited in my judging this week, it strikes me as a slightly nervous admission that your article wasnt going the way you intended, or that somehow youre self-deprecating enough to want to pretend thats the case. Both ways are ones to avoid. Sashanan wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Sashanan over Vorty. I liked this Sashanan effort a lot more than those in his past few weeks. It was a lot more personal and he seemed to be interested in his topic a bit more. Knowing that the reviewer is interested in the material always helps me get into the review more, and thats especially essential with these old games. There were some areas where he couldve trimmed a lot of the fat; for instance we didnt need 2 paragraphs on graphics for a C64 game (though the analysis was good) but as a whole I liked this one. Vortys look at Splatterhouse wasnt as exciting. It was a quicker read with good info but wasnt quite as personal as Sashs. Also it didnt contain much that I havent read or heard about this game before.

    RESULTS

    ---------------------------------

    Team Overdrive vs. Team Felix 2-1

    OD vs Felix 2-1
    Venter vs Zigfried 2-1
    BELISARIOS vs Randxian 0-3

    ---------------------------------

    Team Janus vs. Team Suskie 1-2

    Janus vs Suskie 1-2
    Radical Dreamer vs True 3-0
    Disco1960 vs ASchultz 1-2

    ---------------------------------

    Team EmP vs. Team Boo 2-1

    EmP vs Bluberry 2-1
    Dark Eternal vs Woodhouse 1-2
    Dragoon of Infinity vs Espiga 2-1

    ---------------------------------

    Team Will vs. Team Dagoss 1-2

    Will vs Dagoss 1-2
    Zippdementia vs Wolfqueen001 0-3
    Sashanan vs Golden Vortex 2-1

    ---------------------------------

    LEADERBOARDS

    Team Leaderboard

    Individual Leaderboard
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 20, 2009:

    We have lost the last three matches by one vote. How annoying.

    Last week my review was too long, this week it's too short. Based on this I now know that my optimum length is 900 words! Anyway, thanks for judging judges.
    board icon
    Genj posted July 20, 2009:

    I enjoyed Jerec's commentary for EmP vs bluberry.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted July 20, 2009:

    Thanks for your commentary, judges, and for giving me my first-ever win against zigfried. I was really anxious about this one because I wrote it specifically for this contest with less time available than I had hoped for. I was really pleased with how it came out, but I knew that I was definitely taking risks with the approach. Then zigfried produced a review that was really different and I had no idea how that would be received. I'm glad that two out of three judges liked my effort more. Now I can focus on how to win next week! :-D
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 20, 2009:

    Me too genj. I'd been waiting for that. Good to see a lot of first wins this week, too. DarkEternal's too good to go winless.

    Rough match here with Team Janus, with a 2-1 and 4-5 result...I appreciate the feedback from the judges. I tried to be a bit more spontaneous but recognize where I fell a bit short. Well, wait til next week--err Wednesday midnight.

    You guys are doing well despite the hassle of timezones. I never considered they were THIS far apart.

    P.S. arithmetic police: GoldenVortex is missing a vote against in your always appreciated individual tables. Sorry, I'm in proofreading mode. Plus I'm a math person.

    Edit: that post I made just ahead at the same time was not a duplicate post, or at least you can't prove it. Pay no attention to it.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 20, 2009:

    Jerec goes to sleep just as Lewis wakes up, which was the problem in this case. I wonder who the most efficient person to post the verdicts would have been, assuming everyone finished at the same time in the day. Sportsman as the person furthest west or lewis as the person in the middle?
    board icon
    jerec posted July 20, 2009:

    "P.S. arithmetic police: GoldenVortex is missing a vote against in your always appreciated individual tables. Sorry, I'm in proofreading mode. Plus I'm a math person."

    You're right. I'll fix that up. Doing this first thing in the morning, heh.

    I'm Australian, Lewis is in the UK (I think) and Sporty is in the US (I also think), so yeah. Lewis would have gotten his results to me just after midnight, and I was already asleep by then.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 20, 2009:

    Me, as I'm the one who is currently unemployed and has time to do this shit. Also I'm good with Excel. I usually finish judging first, though.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 20, 2009:

    Do you like cricket?
    board icon
    randxian posted July 20, 2009:

    Appreciate the feedback here. I'm glad you pointed out things that could be better even though it one. That'll help for next week.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 20, 2009:

    Both teams played hard.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 20, 2009:

    Zigfried versus Janus
    Randxian versus bbobb
    Felix versus Disco1960
    board icon
    Halon posted July 20, 2009:

    Team Suskie vs Team Janus was actually super close. Halfway through the Disco review (I read Schultz's first) I thought to myself that he was going to be the clear winner here and was almost tempted to just skim the rest. Then I got kind of annoyed by the end of it and wound up picking Schultz's. That pick determined the fate of the match, actually.

    Sry janus & co :(
    board icon
    disco1960 posted July 20, 2009:

    ...uhh, i'm gonna get beaten up now.
    board icon
    Halon posted July 20, 2009:

    http://johndavies24.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/world_time_zones.png

    I'm -5 and will guess that Lewis is 0 and Jerec is +8 - +10. HG time is -8. However I work until about 7pm eastern time (4PM HG) so actually mine would've been posted later than Jerec's if I did it.

    Janus: It isn't the length that was a problem for me, it was perfect. It just seemed like you wanted to make another point and/or flesh out one of your arguments further and didn't. Still a very good review.
    board icon
    True posted July 20, 2009:

    Tragic...

    Can't win them all I suppose and I'm glad I have a great team behind me to pick up my slack, but it doesn't hurt my feelings one bit that I had a very close match with someone extremely talented like Bbobb.

    A deal's a deal, sir. I will remove all my reviews and quit this site forever...

    Just kidding.

    Thank you, Jerec, Lewis and Sportster for judging. I know this was a tough week for you, given the Metal Slug and Hentai reviews, so you all did a stellar job. More than I would have done, I'll tell you that much.

    And as far as Venter...

    Now I can focus on how to win next week!

    You'd be better off spending that week deciding on how you're going to cope with your loss. That's my suggestion, anyway.

    :D
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted July 20, 2009:

    Suskie, of course you would challenge Overdrive who at 1-3 provides the least danger to your impeccable record. Why don't you fight someone with teeth? Overdrive has dentures. I have fangs. I'm a vampiric chameleon's shadow! You're going to need more than a stake to kill me. It'll take the best review you've ever written. Too bad you've never written a single review!

    I challenge you Suskie, you vitriolic swine, to battle. I broadcast in 1 million p. I live at a Holiday Inn Express. I've dunked on Patrick Chewing. I'm more interesting than the guy from those Dos Equis commercials. Stay thirsty, my friend. Because I'm going to drink you up. Fight me if you dare, if you dare, if you dare.

    (Dear Overdrive, please please please please please make my wildest dreams come true. If you don't, I'll never be your friend again. The end.)
    board icon
    True posted July 20, 2009:

    Um... I'm pretty sure there are better ways to proposition your Captain that don't include insulting his dental hygiene.

    If you really want a challenge, I'm sure I can talk the judges into allowing a stand-in.

    I'll get the crazy guy down the street using the burlap sack as a shirt and the lazy eye, washing windows with a news paper to muster up something. He's probably in your league, right?

    :D
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 20, 2009:

    I just want to take a moment to share something I was thinking about today at work, as I anxiously awaited for the results that would end up spelling my doom.

    I was thinking about gaming websites in general. They have staff reviews, and they often allow user reviews. Users gather to express their thoughts about the hobby they love. Staff members write because, well, that's what they're supposed to do. The same thing happens here at HG... BUT!

    Where else can you find such competitive tournaments and cutthroat contests? Where else are people so intent on demonstrating their talent to anyone who'll read, and where else would you see staff members actually risk the site's "official" reputation by pitting themselves against users? We're all in this to show off but also to improve even a little bit, to become the best writers we possibly can.

    It's a wonderful thing. Almost like street-racing, in a sense. Anyone with a car can race, anyone with passion can strive to set the best times they're personally capable of attaining. We're motivated to push ourselves through direct, head-to-head challenges that make us work harder than writing in a vacuum. In the process, we've seen talent bloom and writers put together reviews they never thought they'd see come from their own keyboard.

    .....

    That was all a very long-winded way of saying that I intend to crush Janus in round five. Have a nice day!

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 20, 2009:

    @Jerec:
    Although phrased as "hypothetical examples" (so that general readers will get some meaning out of them), the situations described in the first part of the review are actually inside jokes for fans of Kimi ga Nozomu Eien and hentai in general. It would take a long time to fully explain, and long explanations tend to make jokes lose their humor, so uh... I guess what I'm saying is those examples -- like the hospital scene -- aren't as irrelevant as they may seem.

    Just responding since your commentary sounds genuinely curious about that point.

    //Zig
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted July 20, 2009:

    I am thrilled to take all challengers, but first I must challenge the Unchallenged. Once I've challenged him, and he has fallen to my challenge, then I can tackle the challenging Challenged One. Assuming his burlap knits don't cause him to experience the most grievous chafing known to man!
    board icon
    True posted July 20, 2009:

    All I got out of that was "challenging" and "chafing".

    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted July 20, 2009:

    That's all life has to offer!
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 20, 2009:

    good to know that it's not worth writing new reviews since the judges won't even bother to fucking read them if they assume that they'll be something they're not, huh EmP? get ready for Doom II and the rest of the hit parade! he's right though, I thought my piece in particular was very flowery and gay, lilicesque even. we're trapped in Fix's shadow even when we're writing totally different stuff, how depressing is that?

    oh, this isn't HG Mail. my bad.

    I guess competent but soulless games can't get below a 7, too. or maybe we're not IGN and it's actually that they deserve a 5. I don't know. sorry the number I put on my review is off by one. maybe it would have made more sense in the context of a review, but now I know to just link to a GameRankings score page and have a really good tagline instead.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 20, 2009:

    Man. Beating Zig just isn't as magical when everybody's fucking doing it.

    And so my "perfect victory" streak comes to an end! Props to Janus's team for putting up such a good fight. Frighteningly close results, those. Drella was right about this whole round being extremely well-fought from every angle. Thanks to the judges as well, even if at this point the results for the finals won't be in until Christmas.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 20, 2009:

    Beli, you're sounding quite a bit like Zipp did a few weeks ago. How did that work out for him, I wonder?

    In the last competition I judged, I believe I told OD that he was among my favorite reviewers on HG. I consider him the most formidable opponent of you three, and feared his record would convince him otherwise. He's welcome to back down and put me against you if he's too scared. After four tough matches I could use a week off.
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted July 20, 2009:

    Exactly! There is no point trying when you know you'll lose to me!
    board icon
    randxian posted July 20, 2009:

    Man. Beating Zig just isn't as magical when everybody's fucking doing it.

    A win is a win. I would be happy if I could beat someone like Zig. If people start beating Beli, I'll still be happy about this week.

    We're all good writers, so beating anybody is a huge accomplishment.

    Besides, Zig is going to light on fire! GABOOOON!
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 20, 2009:

    We can go back and forth like this forever. I still challenge OD unless he wants to hide behind his 1-3 record, as you want him to do.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 20, 2009:

    Don't feel too bad, Boo. I hated both reviews.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 20, 2009:

    What a decision I have to make.

    1. I've promised BELI that I would ENSURE he'd get a week or two in different match-ups. He's earned the right to challAnge anyone on this site and I have a plan to give him the challAnge he desires while doing the honorable thing and holding a coin flip to see how things go with who I and Venter will take on. Fun for all!

    2. BUT THIS INSOLENCE SADDENS ME!!!! Or not. In fact, I may enjoy it, as it shows BELI has the fire to conquer all who stand in my path....or something like that (really sleepy right now). Now it will be up to him to show he has the mettle to back up his words.

    So....

    Beli steps up to the plate and takes on Suskie.

    And now, the coin flip! If this penny comes up heads, it's me vs. True and Venter vs. Schultz. If it's tales, it's Venter vs. True and me vs. Schultz. Drum roll please.........

    Okay, after four tries I actually caught the damn thing (coins landing on my carpet [two tails and one heads] don't count.....not in my damn house!). It was heads.

    OD vs. True
    Venter vs. Schultz

    Now, I just need to figure if I'll have time for another new review or if I'll be using an older one. And now I'm going to bed.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 20, 2009:

    that's why I like you. you don't take my shit too seriously. but still, fuck you.

    and technically, you hated the thought of our reviews. you didn't get any further.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 20, 2009:

    So be it, coward.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 20, 2009:

    straight up. nobody's call-outs are working this week.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 20, 2009:

    Not just coward, double coward. I think Overdrive lied about the coin flip to avoid me. Just try and prove me wrong!
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 21, 2009:

    For the record, I think "I have no interest in this series. Do you manage to win me over?" is a totally fair angle to take with judging this, even when the game in question is mediocre.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 21, 2009:

    me too.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 21, 2009:

    I might pick a game I like this time.
    board icon
    darketernal posted July 21, 2009:

    The entire point of the "Let's talk about Shadowrun" was about the universe itself since it is a pen&paper game, not about the actual Genesis game, but alright,whatever.

    Thanks for judging.
    board icon
    dagoss posted July 21, 2009:

    One of our teammates has not been participating. Is there anything we can do about this?
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 21, 2009:

    Two rounds to go (assuming no sudden scoring miracles), two reviews left to pick. All that is to decide is which it's going to be.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 21, 2009:

    Dagoss: you can sack him and hire one of the people left undrafted or you can continue to pick his reviews for him. Or you can ignore him and let fate decide!

    You've missed the deadline fpr deciding line up -- but I may show leciency if you're swift! As stands, the line up will be straight up. And I will crush you.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 21, 2009:

    Chin up, my Croatian chum. You're simply shouldering all our poor luck this season. May your dodgy badminton-injured ankle hold up under its burden.

    Thanks to the two judges who did read my review, and sorry to the one who's probably fashioning EmP and Boo voodoo dolls right now. Boo's is the especially tubby one.
    board icon
    dagoss posted July 21, 2009:

    Joke's on you you; you picked the line-up I was going to pick anyway!

    We would like to exchange Vorty for one of the the draftees that were not picked. If the judges are going to all the trouble to do write-ups, the write-ups might as well be for someone who will benefit from/enjoy them.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 21, 2009:

    I look forward to crushing you underheel.

    I've sent you an HGMail with all the details of what you'll need to do to make the legal trade.
    board icon
    Genj posted July 21, 2009:

    Hey, is it too late for me to sign up? I didn't have Internet during sign ups.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 21, 2009:

    Yes, Genj. It's too late for you. Console yourself with new episodes of Haruhi that are all exactly the same!
    board icon
    Genj posted July 21, 2009:

    "Get ready for a special announcement. We're re-airing Season 1!"
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 21, 2009:

    Weirdly enough, Vorty was undrafted in '07 and was selected as a replacement after Lisanne's second round pick went AWOL. My how the tables have turned...
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 21, 2009:

    Nothing's changed except the names. Now if lisanne suddenly pops online to take his place, THEN my jaw shall reach the floor.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 21, 2009:

    Ugh, two weeks of blow out loses, one of them to the highest ranker, and one to the lowest. I suppose I'm better off fighting the medians than the outliers.

    This week, I once again come out early as a sign of good faith (and mental exhaustion) and proclaim my review to be holy...
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 21, 2009:

    Huh. For some reason, I was under the impression that it was our opponent's pick this round instead of ours. Odd.

    Anyway, shame I didn't see this sooner and voice my opinion on it because I had planned on crushing EmP with my EWJ review. And it would've been hilarious if it had won, because I wrote it for him. Oh, well; maybe next time.

    Instead, I fight with this - not as high quality, but hopefully satisfactory enough to pull a win.

    ...I've said this before. We'll.... see how this goes.
    board icon
    JuertoLapido posted July 22, 2009:

    This is an advert.
    board icon
    janus posted July 22, 2009:

    For cheetos?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 22, 2009:

    Haha. I bet you EmP vs. Boo was entirely deliberate. I bet te dialogue between the two went like this:

    Boo: Hey, Gary. Let's both write Metal Slug reviews for TT. It'll be HILARIOUS

    EmP: This idea amuses me. I'd planned on writing this round anyway.

    Boo: Awesome. This'll totally piss off the judges.

    Or some variation. Maybe it was EmP's idea, even, but still! I know it had to have been a conspiracy.

    Haha. Anyway, thanks to the judges. I'm glad to finally win one; that's a relief. Now I can die happy knowing I'm not a complete failure. lol
    board icon
    EmP posted July 22, 2009:

    While the MC rhymes and the DJ spins I want ya'll to just get down.
    board icon
    darketernal posted July 22, 2009:

    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/content.php?review_id=5356&platform=PC&abr=PC&gametitle=LOOM

    Loom.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 22, 2009:

    Legacy of the Wizard
    board icon
    woodhouse posted July 22, 2009:

    Going with Ouendan.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 22, 2009:

    MJICITWC once it's accepted.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 22, 2009:

    I will be updating an update. hopefully Will can't figure out my clues!
    board icon
    randxian posted July 22, 2009:

    Anyone else notice the irony with dagoss asking what can be done about his inactive team mate, then a few posts later genj shows up inquiring about signing up for this madcap event?

    Maybe you two should get acquainted.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 22, 2009:

    anyone notice after that where EmP said it was too late to sign up for the draft pool, which still had a couple interested people in it last I checked? :P
    board icon
    randxian posted July 22, 2009:

    Oops. I didn't realize until recently that you could only replace team members with people who initially signed up.

    Hey, at least this was an honest attempt to stir the pot on my part.
    board icon
    hmd posted July 22, 2009:

    Game: Billy Bob's Huntin' and Fishin'
    Format: Game Boy
    Publisher: Midway
    Developer: Saffire
    Release dates: 11/30/99

    Response: We've got this for the GameBoy Color. I can't find that it's on the Game Boy. The cover even says 'ONLY for the GameBoy Color!' I did try to edit some of the release info, but it wouldn't save it.
    board icon
    dagoss posted July 22, 2009:

    Neverwinter Nights 2.

    I intended to edit this up, but I've been pulling 12 hour shifts, so.... nah.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 22, 2009:

    Dead Rising
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted July 22, 2009:

    Bubble Bobble
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 22, 2009:

    Time check!

    //Zig
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted July 22, 2009:

    Manhunt
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 22, 2009:

    I think I've got you beat this time, Woodhouse. My honor is at stake here.
    board icon
    board icon
    True posted July 22, 2009:

    What time is it?
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 22, 2009:

    Fear the Mighty Beanz.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 22, 2009:

    Time to get ill!
    board icon
    emmy5 posted July 22, 2009:

    .....................

    http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/data/934078.html
    Not sure about this one, since we don't cover that region. I'll leave it for now.

    http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/data/563048.html
    Added

    .....................

    Me have seen the homepage, do you accept "casual games" for Windows?
    But there are too many of them to be listed here (me think)..
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 22, 2009:

    FunValkyrie
    board icon
    Esssspiga posted July 22, 2009:

    This week, I'll go with Two Worlds!
    board icon
    True posted July 22, 2009:

    I don't need the element of surprise, OD.

    Viking: Battle For Asgard
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 22, 2009:

    Decathlon
    board icon
    disco1960 posted July 22, 2009:

    I just submitted one for Mirror's Edge. Hopefully it doesn't stink too much.


    EDIT: crap, it felt longer when i was writing it. and less hastily written.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 22, 2009:

    Homeworld
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 22, 2009:

    Blast from the past - MID-GARTS

    //Zig
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 23, 2009:

    Overdrive cheated! He hit "reply" at 11:48 PM.

    Suskie, True and I did it right. We procrastinated like MEN.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 23, 2009:

    Zig:

    ?
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 23, 2009:

    Yeah, but my MAC-CLOCK hit 3 a.m. (ie: midnight HG-time) right when I hit reply. So it's cool. Everything's cool. EVERYTHING!!!!!
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 23, 2009:

    Blu:

    It was actually ?? back when such things were allowed. The second one makes all the difference!

    //Zig
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 23, 2009:

    but along came The Honest Spin...
    board icon
    jerec posted July 23, 2009:

    If I was in this contest, I could so easily leave my pick right to the last second because midnight HG time is 5 PM for me. Oh well, there's always next year.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 23, 2009:

    it's no big deal for me either, just can't be out late Wednesday nights. no loss...

    I feel bad for the people who know what a morning is, though.
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 23, 2009:

    This week, I'll go with Two Worlds!

    Ooh, I remember that one. I hope I made the right pick. I hope there was a right pick.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 23, 2009:

    I thought I was cutting it fine, but it turns out I posted with two hours to spare!
    board icon
    Halon posted July 23, 2009:

    I don't see reviews for Vorty and Will so I'm going to random pick for them:

    Vorty - Toe Jam & Earl in Panic on Funkotron

    Will - Supreme Ruler 2020: Global Crisis

    Of course if they picked something that I missed ignore this post and update the topic so I don't read these by accident.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 23, 2009:

    I was trying to pick for vorty like a few minutes ago despite it being late. Wish he could just do it himself... Or that dagoss weren't so busy so he could do it instead.

    Guess it'll just have to be that, then. Ugh. The randomizer couldn't be friendlier?
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 23, 2009:

    What with all my illustrious team tournament work, I forgot all about this. I've been kinda both busy and a bit under the weather this week, so if this comes off being one of my shorter, less quality RotWs, my apologies. Odds are a couple of you just might have gotten really in-depth critiques of your reviews by three other people anyway. Unless I think you all suck and refuse to acknowledge you. Any of you that might have beaten me in the tournament could meet that fate.

    Only users (as opposed to staff) can get picked. Only the best review by any one user, if they've submitted multiple, can get picked. And now......

    GO!!!!!!




    THIRD PLACE: Call of Duty: World of War (Xbox 360) by JANUS2

    I really liked the tactic of this review. You get me into the thought of playing this game with the opening paragraphs concerning how it's a more sober look at the effects of war, as opposed to the "winners and losers" aspect you get from most of those games (like the Medal of Honor ones I've spent so much time with). And then you effectively put that thought into its grave with those final three paragraphs, painting of a portrayal of a game with an effective stance, but ineffective gameplay. This is a great example of how to hook an audience with what sounds like a promising game, so to make it seem more devastating when you point out that there are some really big flaws that make it more mediocre than anything.

    SECOND PLACE: Heavenly Sword (PlayStation 3) by true

    You make this game sound pretty damn appealing. For a while, I was looking at it as a well-written review of just another manly brawler. The sort of thing that is fun and entertaining to read about, but for a game I'd likely have only a bit of interest in playing (like you, I can only swing a sword wildly about for so long before losing interest.....which is why I only got a bit over halfway through God of War). But when you start talking about the other aspects of the game like the cannon and Kai, my interest level REALLY picked up. By the end of things, I was right with you in thinking this is more than just an action game.....which I had been thinking through the early stages of it. So, that means you did a hell of a job of essentially pulling my strings throughout the course of this review.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem (GameCube) by Suskie

    Here's how I know this review kicked ass. After reading it, I looked the game up online to see if it was also on the PS2. Then I found out it was made my Nintendo and, therefore, not on a system I own. I'm now suffering from crippling depression and just want to lay on a couch and stare at the ceiling while pondering what's gone wrong with my life. That's how good you made this game sound and that's the point of a 10/10 review.....to create that sort of lust for the product in the reader's mind and make it disappointing if said reader realizes that game might not be readily accessible to them. You gave some good vivid descriptions of aspects of the game, such as the side effects of your sanity descending. Sweet work. You get the win!




    And that's that. Ciao, folks, I'm tired and gotta do some shopping since I'll possibly be camping out this weekend.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 23, 2009:

    I was actually going to pen something but I got called away. I'm going to have to go with 1701 AD, rather than a rushed review for an overly complex expansion to an overly complex game.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 23, 2009:

    No, Will, the review you'll use is the one Sportsman randomly selected.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 23, 2009:

    I guess you can blame the team tourney for all 3 reviews existing, too. Congrats to both of my teammates, and the guy who had a high powered match against one of them.
    board icon
    Halon posted July 23, 2009:

    I didn't look at the reviews before I picked them. Just used a random number generator and whatever I got I got.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 23, 2009:

    That works, Sportsman, seeing as how Vorty and Will missed the deadline by a fair amount.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 23, 2009:

    Bah.

    For future reference, what is the deadline?
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 23, 2009:

    Hey, cool, thanks.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 23, 2009:

    The same it's always been...?
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 23, 2009:

    See that's the thing, because I remember Sportsman saying it was Thursday. Am I thinking of something else?
    board icon
    honestgamer posted July 23, 2009:

    See that's the thing, because I remember Sportsman saying it was Thursday. Am I thinking of something else?

    Maybe. I can't remember anyone saying anything was happening on Thursday, but maybe someone at some point said something. Either way, the deadline has been Wednesday throughout the entirety of this event and this already was pointed out once when someone--you, I think(!)--missed a previous deadline.
    board icon
    Halon posted July 23, 2009:

    I don't remember saying it (unless I said Thursday at midnight) but apologize if I did. If you want to want to argue further in your defense EmP and Felix are the ones to argue with but judging by Felix's response I doubt you'll have any success with that.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 23, 2009:

    You should know that it's Wednesday because Felix warned you the last time you missed the deadline!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 23, 2009:

    Look, I'm not trying to argue make excuses, why is everyone jumping to bite my head off? Does missing a deadline mark me as free game to the entire !@#$! community?

    Christ, if this is the response I get from asking for clarification, I'll be sure to keep my mouth shut from here on.
    board icon
    True posted July 24, 2009:

    Game: Tom Clancy's EndWar
    Platform: Play Station 3
    Publisher: Ubisoft?
    Developer: Ubisoft Shanghai
    Genre: First-Person Shooter
    Release Date: 11/04/2008

    Added
    board icon
    True posted July 24, 2009:

    Ha.

    Thanks for the mention, OD and congratulations to Janus and Suskie. Me and Mike actually joked about going head-to-head for ROTW. Looks like he won again. Heh.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 24, 2009:

    I have to agree with Eternal Darkness. While judging, I wanted to go grab the disc and play it. I managed to restrain myself, but once judging was over, I spent a couple of hours on the game. That's some good forceful writing.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 24, 2009:

    I was going to say the rules are clearly posted in the TT Interest Topic.... except I can't seem to find that topic now.

    Maybe the rules should be moved to the schedule topic? That would be a good place for it.

    I'm not arguing for or against Will here, but just pointing out having stuff like this clearly saved for reference would help prevent things like this from happening. Be proactive, not reactive.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 24, 2009:

    I do think there's been a lot of ambiguity around posting reviews and deadlines and active team members and what not. I'm not saying we should change anything that's already happened this time, but it's all good experiences for next year's TT.

    I still can't decide whether I'd like to captain or judge next year, but I want to be a part of it one way or another.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 24, 2009:

    Leave William alone! He's from Canada and thus deserves our pity.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 24, 2009:

    Game: Mass Effect Galaxy
    Platform(s): iPhone/iPod
    Publisher: Electronic Arts
    Developer: Bioware
    Genre: Action/Adventure
    Release Date: June 22, 2009

    Added
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 24, 2009:

    Game: Rocky's Boots
    Platform(s): Apple II
    Publisher: The Learning Company
    Developer: The Learning Company
    Genre: Educational
    Release Date: 1982

    Added

    Game: Robot Odyssey
    Platform(s): Apple II
    Publisher: The Learning Company
    Developer: The Learning Company
    Genre: Educational
    Release Date: 1984

    This one was already listed, but I updated its info.

    BTW sorry about the Apple II/Apple IIe confusion. I usually remember my "Apple IIe" but Apple II, II+, IIc, and IIe are all the same thing. The Aple IIgs is different but backwards compatible.

    Edit: Oops! I assumed Robot Odyssey wasn't there since Rocky's Boots wasn't. Oh well, glad the game info was useful. Thanks again for the quick add. Now to add some writing on these games...
    board icon
    Halon posted July 24, 2009:

    I wasn't trying to be mean if that's how you took my post. Just wanted to make it clear that I'm just here to read the reviews and give my opinions and meeting deadlines and matches isn't my responsibility. So I'm sorry if the review isn't the one you wanted to pick and changing the review and deadline is ultimately up to Felix and EmP.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 24, 2009:

    Sportsman, my comments were no no way directed at you. Unlike every Tom, Dick and Jason who suddenly decided they have a grudge against me, your posts were refreshingly neutral and clear-headed.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 24, 2009:

    This isn't sudden. I've had a grudge against you for a long time. Before I even knew you in fact.

    Bastard.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 24, 2009:

    It's worth noting that I was about to assign ranpicks or Vorty and Will before I saw Sporty had donr so. I thought about overulling them so they wouldn;t be on his shoulders, but it seemed pedantic and dumb to do so.

    In future, if someone is late to pick, it's probably best I sort it.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 24, 2009:

    On a totally unrelated note, I was looking for how tiebreakers were decided for getting in the playoffs or seeding. Is there a general rule for this? What, of these, takes precedence?

    1. head to head record
    2. total individual matches won
    3. total points in those matches
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 24, 2009:

    Maybe head to head record would be the best way to clearly separate the teams? Although I suppose individual matches/points won would be a better indication of which team has performed best over the whole TT (especially if it's a three way tie, if that's possible). Have we ever had a situation in past TTs where a team has tied for playoff spots?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 24, 2009:

    I would guess it would first go by the total number of individual votes a team has gotten. After that, it's anyone's guess.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 24, 2009:

    It goes:


    -Team wins
    -Total individual wins
    -Total votes
    -And then road record may be the fourth tie breaker. I can't remember. EmP, do you remember?
    board icon
    randxian posted July 24, 2009:

    Sportsman, my comments were no no way directed at you. Unlike every Tom, Dick and Jason

    Yeah, shame on Jason for chiming in when this contest is taking place on his friggin site!

    Dude, relax. People were just trying to clarify the rules. No need to take everything so personally.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 24, 2009:

    Yes, I'm sure the curt sentences and exclamation points were meant to convey only the deepest of manly affections.

    The only person trying to clarify rules was me. Everyone else involved in that little feeding frenzy was...well, the analogy speaks for itself.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 24, 2009:

    Your one syllable name doesn't lend itself to "Flaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanders" type mocking. =/

    FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANDERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRS!
    board icon
    Halon posted July 24, 2009:

    Currently done with 1/4 matchups (from yesterday) but I don't plan on doing too much tonight so I can probably do at least two more before I go to bed. Maybe even finish but I wouldn't count on that.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 24, 2009:

    I've been down with the flu for the last 5 days. I'm up and about today, but still finding it hard to focus on anything... so I haven't actually started yet. I'll likely be doing shorter comments this round.
    board icon
    Halon posted July 24, 2009:

    Finished 3/4 matchups and gonna head off to bed. I'll be out most of tomorrow but should be able to finish everything before the day ends.
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 25, 2009:

    Jerec: was it Swine Flu? Hope you're feeling better soon - flu's bloody horrible.

    I've read all the reviews and written about three. Will attempt to do the rest tonight, but it might be tomorrow morning. Either way, it'll be sooner than last week.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 25, 2009:

    I don't think it's swine flu, but it's sure taking me longer to recover than normal. Done 2 matches so far... it's Sunday morning and I don't have to do anything today so hopefully I'll get a fair chunk of this judging done.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 25, 2009:

    TT Week 5 Results - Blame Swine Flu!
    board icon
    Halon posted July 25, 2009:

    I'm all done but want to read through my comments before I send them to Jerec. Since no one's done yet I'll wait until tomorrow morning to do that. ;)
    board icon
    Halon posted July 26, 2009:

    Scratch what I said, insomnia kicked in and I submitted my results to Jerec.
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 26, 2009:

    Done.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 26, 2009:

    Me too. Guess I'm compiling this shit right now. Results should be up in the not too distant future.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 26, 2009:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Janus at Felix
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Zigfried vs Janus

    JEREC: Both these reviews were great, what you'd expect from two excellent writers. Zig has a way of drawing you into these old games you'll likely never ever play, no matter how good they apparently are. But he makes them seem relevant, and worth reading about. I quite liked Zig's story of Mid-Garts, and how it went from a boring two bats to something really imaginative and fun - and hard. Dead Rising is a game I own, but haven't played much of yet, and Janus makes me want to go play it now... though I don't think I will just now. This review is fairly long, though I get the feeling it could have been longer, because this is one of those big games where there's a lot to talk about. The examples of some of the in game situations you'll encounter are well written, though the review did feel a little repetitive by the end. Fairly close one.
    WINNER: ZIGFRIED

    LEWIS: Zigfrieds outing isnt particularly memorable, though theres nothing enormously wrong with it. It has a bit of a slow start, with a clumsy opening sentence, and it never really elevates itself into being eminently or enormously interesting. The thing with this competition is that stuff is almost always written to a reasonable standard, and most stuff here could sit nicely on most games sites or in mainstream mags. So I think were looking for a bit of oomph, which sadly this doesnt really have.
    So I like Janus review for the introduction alone. Its something a bit different, something that immediately grabs my attention and compels me to read on. Beyond there, it all flows well, and works hard to remain as interesting as it started out. Generally, a strong effort, one that held my interest throughout. Janus wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Zig over Janus. I liked this Janus review a lot. I wouldnt put it up there with his KOTOR and King Kong, though its one that I would have a hard time criticizing. Aside from being extremely well organized what made this review great is how he really captured the feel of the B-movie atmosphere the game provides. I was convinced that everything works because of this. If I came into the game with this mindset when I tried it a while back maybe I wouldve lasted more than 20 minutes. It was a little bit on the long side but my mind didnt wander at all.

    On the other hand, it isnt a secret around here that this Zig review is one of my favorites by him (he wanted to know how this holds up so this is gonna be a bit long!). Probably also one of my top 10 favorites on the site, maybe even top 5. If this was used when it was first written for the shmups contest (I think) it would probably beat everything used in the tourney thus far, but how does it hold up today? For the most part it held up fantastically, although I wasnt blown away and left with the holy shit impression Im left with after reading so many of his reviews. Then again I wasnt exactly shocked like this when he first wrote it, either. It doesnt have a neat gimmick and didnt start a wacky new trend (aside from the X score at the time, although that mightve been for the worse), but manages to do just about everything right. Its superbly written, very detailed yet not long at all, down to earth yet eloquent, and has that typical Zig commentary that goes well beyond the typical this game is good! or this game sucks! that you see in most reviews. Even though Im not quite sure how much Ill like this game this review really makes me want to find out. Some Zig reviews, such as Emerald Dragon and GUN blew me away at first, but once I got past that they werent as rewarding the second time around since I knew what to expect and all. Regardless of how much I read this one this is reviewing at its finest.

    Randxian vs bbobb

    JEREC: Rand's review is a very smooth, brief rundown of a crappy NES game. I'm enjoying how much Rand's writing has improved over the last few weeks. Improvement is one of the best things these tournaments can motivate people with. Usually I find bad NES games dull to read about, but this was not the case here. Dreamer's review wasn't as good, unfortunately. It's a long review that really started to sag in the second half. It's a very indepth look at why Manhunt's stealth gameplay isn't any good, though it's framed by an argument about gore and social commentary which isn't really touched on at all except in the intro and the conclusion. With no real examples of the gore, other than the premise of the game, the argument rests solely on the bad gameplay.
    WINNER: RANDXIAN

    LEWIS: Heh. Im going to point Randaxian at this [http://gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=24521] article I wrote for Gamasutra recently. Gameplays a horrible, imprecise word, one that fairs no better when you un-compound it. Telling me the gameplay stinks tells me literally nothing about the game, so youve put me off straight away. You spend the whole review saying what you mean, so its not an enormous problem, but at the same time youre letting yourself down, as its obvious you know what youre talking about so why use a turn of phrase that makes it look otherwise to begin with?
    Was Manhunt critically acclaimed, RadicalDreamer? I dont remember it being so. Anyway, this is a strong review that identifies with what the games about. Sort of. I think theres more to Manhunt than just the gore, even if its a decidedly clumsy game overall. Its about the twisted atmosphere and the brutality of being controlled in such a vicious manner. But you make your argument well it works nicely and achieves your desired effect. Strong, so RadicalDreamer wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Bbobb over Rand. Both of these are similar style reviews and both have their own strengths and weaknesses. Rands is shorter, but Bbobbs subject matter is more engaging. Bbobbs writing was much smoother but Rand had more personality. Overall Im going with Bbobb for two reasons. First his review was more organized. It flowed perfectly and I had no idea what Rands game was about until almost halfway through. Its your best bet to make sure the reader understands the premise early on. Secondly Bbobbs piece came off as much more insightful. He delved much deeper and had the stronger and more centralized argument of the two.

    Felix vs Disco1960

    JEREC: I don't know how Felix managed to make a SNES action game starring some sports player INTERESTING, but somehow... he did. This seems like one of those games that's usually bashed, but Felix quite convincingly makes it sound fun in its own silly way. Disco's review is shorter, and for a more recent game, so it puts up a good fight. Unfortunately, I can see this was fairly rushed, and it is a bit rough around the edges and a little short on the details.
    WINNER: FELIX

    LEWIS: I really like Felixs review. Theres a really strong theme running through it, one thats portrayed effortlessly by the fabulously transitioning writing. At no point does anything feel forced, unnecessary or misplaced. Its all contributing to this bizarre but endearing vibe youre going for, which works really well. An engaging read, a thorough review, and generally just very good.
    I think Discos review starts a little abruptly it dives straight in and I wasnt quite prepared for that. Not that thats intrinsically a bad thing, but it might be something worth considering. I like your touching on how the perspective functions, but I dont think the review identifies with enough aspects of the game, or in sufficient detail, for it to be an entirely successful write-up. As such, and because it was brilliant, Felixs piece wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Felix over Disco. For such an odd title, Felix did a great job. He really brought out the games wackiness and best of all made it sound like something worth playing today. There are so many wacky games out there from the 16-bit era but Felix managed to make this one like one of the more interesting ones. Someone left a feedback topic saying Discos review is too brief to be effective and I dont exactly agree with that. It was a brief and solid look at the game and probably something that would do well in a brevity of bust contest. However, the review also doesnt make me want to instantly find out more of Mirrors Edge. ME is another game with a more interesting concept and this piece, while very competent and better than last weeks, didnt exactly do that.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    EmP at Dagoss
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    EmP vs. Dagoss

    JEREC: EmP writes a funny bash review. That's all I have to say. I did not like Dag's review at all. The introduction made its point, but it was boring and turned me off the review entirely. It was also very long, took a cheap shot at Oblivion (which I happen to like), and just sort of rambles on and on until it gets to a list. Even at the best of times, my attention span isn't this good.
    WINNER: EMP

    LEWIS: I'm not really a fan of a few features of EmP's review. The list thing's slightly awkward for me. The big bold capitals. The "look at this image!" stuff. It strikes me as slightly predictable humour. But at the same time, it's something that's unique to internet journalism. Is that a good thing? Should it stop striving to be like print? I'm not too sure. This is a mildly ammusing and somewhat effective review, but I'm still not wholly taken by it.
    I see what dagoss is trying to do in his review, with the boring, inconsequential introduction attempting to ape the game's own. But again, I don't know if it's entirely successful. When it takes so long to get into the review proper, you've got to be very careful, even if it does turn into a joke. Again, there's a list -- this time it's a big bulk of the piece, too, which means there's no transitional work to speak of. I'm not at all fond of either of these pieces, but EmP just about wins.

    SPORTSMAN: EmP over Dagoss. Easy one to call here. I dont know what Dagoss was thinking using this review. Its super long and unorganized and takes forever to make a point. Ill be honest, I didnt make it through this one. Instead of feeling obliged to talk about everything youre better off focusing the most important aspects and expanding on those. Unless I was super interested in the game myself theres no way I would want to go through a laundry list of nearly every good and bad moment. EmPs review wasnt one of my favorites of his, either. It came across as a bit cheesy and seemed like he tried too hard to be goofy and entertaining. With that being said it was still a fairly enjoyable read, to the point and well organized so he gets the easy victory here. In the matter of fact EmP probably couldve penned another Metal Slug review and beat this one.

    DarkEternal vs. Wolfqueen001

    JEREC: DE used this Loom review in the great TT07 and won a match against someone. It's one of his better Adventure game reviews, because it really delves into what makes LOOM unique and fun. This is a hard genre to review - I should know. I love these games but I always find it hard to review them without spoiling things or not saying enough. Moving onto Wolfqueen's review... The Getaway sounds pretty lame. Timed missions, stealth missions, a story heavy GTA style game? Ugh. I generally enjoyed the review, however the many examples of missions made it a little tedious. But it also made the game sound tedious. Perhaps that was the point? Close one, but DE's was the more captivating read.
    WINNER: DARKETERNAL

    LEWIS: Again, we've a big introduction that strikes me as clumsy. There are a few reviews this week that lapse into narrative literature mode, which I don't think is the best way to approach game reviews. It means you're taking up loads of space with something that's not really useful for the reader. Then your transition into the review proper is abrupt and awkward. You do identify a component that drives the experience forward, but by this point, you're nearing the end of the review and it's not really paid off.
    WQ's review is really good -- smooth, flowing, illustrative and informative. It reads beautifully and tells me everything I need to know about the game, painting a fantastic picture of it. Really, this is professional quality stuff, so for that reason, WQ easily wins.

    SPORTSMAN: DE over Wolfqueen. Another not so impressive matchup here. DE knows Im a fan of his LOOM review but enough is enough! I judged this one in a contest, he used it when he was on my team and I believe used it again last year. Ive read this review a number of times and it just isnt as effective as it was back when he wrote it in 2006 or 2007 or whenever. I remember WQ saying shes going to play it safe this week and unfortunately she mightve played it a bit too safely. Compared to her brief, high energy piece last week this one was much slower and took a while to get going. It was fairly by the books and not very enthusiastic which meant I PC clocked quite a bit. All the info is there and its well organized but a bit generic and WQ really didnt seem to into it. Its better than a gamespot review but not something memorable, either. While neither review interested me, DEs was shorter and didnt have me PC clocking so Ill go with him, though Im not sure how many more times I can support this review.

    Dragoon of Infinity vs. Golden Vortex

    JEREC: DoI captures the charm of Bubble Bobble. Lines like "obnoxiously adorable" really stood out, and I really enjoyed reading about this game. I'm not that familiar with it, but now it's been described perfectly, I want to give it a go. Vorty's review is old, never really gets interesting, and is long. Sometimes a Vorty review is a mere 400 words, other times it's a lengthy essay. But I found it quite tiring to read, unfortunately.
    WINNER: DRAGOON OF INFINITY

    LEWIS: DoI's is a strong effort. While I'm not too keen on the intro, it quickly moves into a pacey, well-directed analysis of the game, with informative and unpretentious writing flowing neatly between sections. It's also brilliantly enthusiastic, conveying your feelings about the game effectively.
    Vorty's review is a little clumsily worded and structued at times, and the transitions are often quite weak. This could do with some trimming, editing back and rearranging in order to turn it into something good. For now, it's just about okay, but against the opposition's effort it's not quite there. DoI wins.

    SPORTSMAN: DoI over Vorty. The random pick for Vorty definitely isnt his best work. The writing makes it tough to be taken seriously and a lot of it doesnt seem very necessary. Some bits were pretty good (especially in the middle) though overall it needs a lot of work. Not a surprise considering that its more than five years old. Solid read from DoI. He comes in, gets out and leaves me with no questions. Im not quite convinced that BB is as epic as he claims it is and the subject matter isnt too interesting but aside from that theres really not anything else for me to complain about. So I wont.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Will at Boo
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Will vs. Bluberry

    JEREC: Reviewing expansion packs is good and noble and very useful to fans wanting to know if it was worth it. Does Will's review succeed in this? Absolutely. Is it a good review to use for this tourney? No. It talks about new units and a few other things, which have no relevance at all because I haven't even heard of the original game. I remember reading Blu's review before, probably in a similar tournament two years ago. I remember liking it. I still like it. It's a solid review, and there's not much more that needs to be said that I didn't probably already say last time.
    WINNER: BLUBERRY

    LEWIS: I don't know if Will's introduction really needs to be that long. And it isn't long, really, but merging the first two paras and chopping them back would have been more effective in my eyes. Still, the review is informative and ultimately useful, if mainly unremarkable. Again, we've a case of a game being referred to as competent in a review that's essentially best described the same.
    Bluberry's review is really good. It flows so sweetly and is fabulously yet subtly signposted throughout. I love the build from hard to difficult to brilliant. It's a really clever approach to take, and while you can feel it coming, that only adds to the effect. An excellent effort, and a comfortable win for Bluberry.

    SPORTSMAN: Boo over Will. Great review here by Boo, even though I know this game sucks because it wont let me uninvert the thumbstick he really made it sound like a rewarding experience. Its really tough to convince people that playing a game with such a steep learning curve is worth it and Boo nailed it. Great writing, great examples, great organization, great review. Havent read this one since it was written but it has always been one of my favorites from Boo. Unfortunately the random pick wasnt too kind for Will. Its a solid look at an expansion pack that would definitely be beneficial to people interested in the game but obviously not designed for a competition. Its about on par with something you would find on a professional site, which is quite forgettable matched up with some of the other entries in this tourney.

    Zippdementia vs. Woodhouse

    JEREC: Zipp's review is LOOOOOOONG. But I had no problem with it. I was getting a little sleepy, but that had nothing to do with the writing. It made for a pretty compelling read. There's been a lot of negative reviews this round. Nearly everyone has something to complain about. Zipp's game sounds really bad - the bit that really got me was the camera. It sounds like the one in that awful PS2 RPG Summoner. You could never see far ahead, and it pretty much killed the game for me. I laughed at the idea of taking the horse into peoples homes, too. Woodhouse offers up another repeat - I remember this review, and as far as Woodhouse reviews go, that says something. It is yet another quirky DS game, but it seems interesting enough. I enjoyed re-reading this, but ultimately it felt like a very safe pick (as have all of his so far), and I found myself getting into Zipp's review more. He took a risk of using a long review, but it paid off that it was actually a fascinating read.
    WINNER: ZIPP

    LEWIS: Zipp's review is solid, thorough and often amusing. It successfully conveys the mediocrity and clumsiness of the game without falling into any journalistic, stylistic cliche traps. It's all just very good, and tells me everything I need to know about the game without being too obvious about anything. Arguably Zipp's best effort of the contest so far.
    Woodhouse's piece is good too, again with little to fault. It flows equally well and is equally thorough. So this is a difficult one -- best match-up of the round so far. Zipp wins, but only just -- both were of an extremely high standard.

    SPORTSMAN: Zipp over Woodhouse. Not my favorite reviews from either author. Unfortunately for Woodhouse Ive never even heard of Elite Beat Agents and this review seemed to be geared towards those whove played it. It took me a while to figure out how the game actually works, and although I think I understand it after reading this piece there wasnt much here that made it sound interesting. If I had played EBA this probably wouldve made a lot more sense. Zipp made some great points in his review and some parts were very good but it was way too long. The problem with these first person reviews is they can become very tangential and just go on forever and leave me with the shut up and end it already! mentality, which is a big problem in this competition. Luckily this review never quite got to that level. In the matter of fact almost read like a non-flowery Lasthero review. On the plus side I came away with great knowledge about the game and Zipps argument was crystal clear so he gets the win.

    Sashanan vs. Espiga

    JEREC: This is one of my favourite Sashanan reviews. It's funny, full of energy, and the writing is clever. It's a bad puzzle game that will steal your soul, if this review is to be believed. Sash's obsession with the game carries across amazingly, as does his heartfelt, yet hypocritical, advice to never play the game. The writing conveys that feeling of hopeless obsession. I also like how every paragraph ends with "Mighty Beanz." Espiga's review is quite good, demonstrating how broken the game actually is. I liked how he plays good characters normally, but went on to kill everyone in the game because its mediocrity pushed him over the edge. It's something we can all relate to. Both reviews are strong, though Sash's review felt like the better written of the two - Espiga's review jumped around the different aspects of the game quite a bit and the order didn't feel all that logical (i.e. starting it with discussing the magic system).
    WINNER: SASHANAN

    LEWIS: Sash's is an exceptionally clever review that made me think the game was going to come away with a higher mark. I think there's a lot of room for this sort of analysis of a game -- acknowledging why some are addictive despite some really gaping flaws. Good Things About Bad Games. It's a technique that really works, because it conveys the experience of actually playing the thing better than a traditional breakdown ever could.
    Espiga's is less successful. It's an okay review, but doesn't really get doing until right at the end. The quote at the beginning doesn't work at all, for some reason I can't put my finger on. It's also a little confused -- your conclusion is really overwhelmingly negative, but earlier on you'd said it's not a bad game. Which is it? Furthermore -- yeah, the Goat's Cave was hard to find, wasn't it? Certainly a failing of the game. But be careful admitting you never found it, when doing so is the first mission. While it's an open world game, admitting you never got further than the first thread of the story could rub people up the wrong way. Sashanan wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Espiga over Sashanan. Pretty close match here and a good effort from both reviewers. Sashanan, while not the flashiest reviewer in the tourney, managed to write a very solid review that ranks among his best ones thus far He had a very strong argument and I came away believing it since there are so many games out there that suck but you cant put down just like Mighty Beanz. Espiga also writes for a mediocre game. Its longer than what hes been using thus far in this tourney but everything that needs to be covered is covered and Im not left with any questions. Im going to go with Espiga on this one because his is quirkier, gave more examples, and manages to get his point across as well as Sashanan did though this was a good showing from both.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Suskie at Overdrive
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Beli vs. Suskie

    JEREC: Beli's casual style works well for these sorts of games, 5/10 16 bit era games which would be absolutely dull to read about otherwise. Sometimes I get the feeling he's trying a little too hard to be funny, and sometimes the review is repetitive, but it does a great job of telling me why I'd hate this game. Not that that is much of a challenge. Suskie's Homeworld review makes review writing look effortless. Each paragraph just flows into the next, and I get a very clear picture of the game in my mind - why it's fun. While Eternal Darkness last week made me want to go play it, I don't really feel the desire to play Homeworld right now... but I do want to go write some reviews. Suskie makes it look easy, when I know writing this well usually isn't. Actually, I do sorta want to play Homeworld. I might someday.
    WINNER: SUSKIE

    LEWIS: I'm kind of bouncing back and forwards over Beli's stuff now. Beli -- do you have a blog? I think you should start a blog. You've such a distinctive style and I think that if you worked on it a bit more you might end up doing quite well for yourself in this writing about games game. In terms of being on a review site, I'd still like you to shake things up a bit more. But even though you commit a lot of the same crimes that I'm picking apart others for doing, somehow for you it works.
    You're up against Suskie, which is a tricky one. Suskie is *serious*. He's also very, very good at picking apart at what makes a game tick, as evidenced in this review. It's really, overwhelmingly thorough, but without ever feeling over-the-top. It's also gloriously written, meaning that while I really like Beli's work, that it's dropping into predictability means it doesn't win, when Suskie's writing as brilliantly as this.

    SPORTSMAN: Suskie over Beli. Im not sure if I like this review as much as some of the past ones hes used in this tourney but it is as solid as ever. It took a while to get going though once it did it was fantastic. He managed to make Homeworld (one of my favorite games) sound super relevant today and the analysis was spot on. Too bad most games since then including Homeworld 2 couldnt follow its lead. A good effort from Beli as well and I can tell a lot of work went into it. Some parts were brilliant though overall it didnt have the level of polish and consistency that Suskies did. This is similar to Bluberrys effort in week 2; some clumsy transitions and odd sections mixed in with otherwise brilliant analysis. So Im going against Beli this round but in week 2 I went against Boo again and he managed a win so anything could happen here!

    OD vs. True

    JEREC: Overdrive's review is quick and effective. And it seems very credible. This guy knows his stuff about old crappy games. It was a very easy read, and quite enjoyable. In fact, it only stumbled at one sentence I had a hard time understanding, "The advantages they had immediately turned this game into the experiment in sadism one expects from Color Dreams." Wut? True's review... I was not so keen on. It seemed to go on forever, and at times I got the feeling True was hating the game for not being what he wanted it to be, though the game was actually rubbish. The 1/10 surprised me for a game True actually managed to complete. The descriptions were great, but unfortunately next to Overdrive's sharp, concise effort, this one was just a bit too much for me.
    WINNER: OVERDRIVE

    LEWIS: OD's is one of those reviews that flows with the timeline of the game itself. We see quite a few of these around here, and it's difficult to make them entirely work, because you're usually having to drop writing in themes in favour of writing with whatever the game does. And if that doesn't flow well, neither will your review. This is an admirable go at quashing those problems, but they're still ultimately intrinsically linked with the style, so I'm still not too sure.
    I'm also not sure about True's review. There's nothing terribly awful about it; it just doesn't really stand out. I do like how you're looking at what a viking game should be in your eyes, and how transparent you are about that. Still, the 1/10 came as a surprise. It sounds like a bland and clumsy game, sure, but you conclude that it's hideously awful. Not entirely successful. Hmm. OD wins, just about.

    SPORTSMAN: True over OD. Two very good bash reviews. ODs is your typical OD bash review. Hes written better but managed to come up with a very organized and convincing argument. The difficulty factor really did make the game sound unplayable and although he really only argued one point it never felt like hes repeating himself and Im convinced. True, on the other hand, took a similar approach and expanded it. He also has a very organized and convincing piece. Im also impressed at how he spent a good deal of time with the game and actually tried different tactics because that makes the argument more convincing and really makes me feel for the pain he went through. Its longish but I enjoyed all of it. Im going with True because the extra detail (compared to OD) actually worked in his favor and he made more interesting points in his piece. Of course I liked ODs review a lot, but I liked Trues better!

    Venter vs. Schultz

    JEREC: I actually read Venter's review when it was posted, because I wanted to know about Overlord 2, and I was quite surprised that it wasn't any good. I still haven't got around to buying the first one, though... and it's dirt cheap. Venter's review is an easy read which effectively sums up why this game isn't good. For a prospective buyer, this is the sort of review I'd want to read. Schultz manages to keep it brief this time, making for a much easier read. And I enjoyed the fact that this is a game he has quite a history with - his interest helps make me interested. Some lines were a bit clunky, but overall I enjoyed this more than previous Schultz reviews. Unfortunately for him, I happened to like Venter's review more.
    WINNER: VENTER

    LEWIS: Venter's is another that lapses into literary mode. I think it really is important to remember what you're writing here. I mean, god knows I've done stupid pretentious stuff in reviews that far outweighs this, but I'm a judge now, so I'll conveniently disregard that. I dunno. It means you're wasting words on your own writing style, rather than conveying a judgement efficiently. It's also probably a lot less interesting to read for its target audience. Careful with it.
    Aschultz's is okay. A couple of awkward transitions here and there, but it makes the time-based transitional stuff work adequately. There's probably not a lot more to say, but it's solid, and sometimes that's all that's required. As such, Aschultz wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Venter over Schultz. Typical Schultz review here; a good look at an otherwise not so interesting title. The nostalgic bits really helped make this one interesting and Im not sure who couldve done a better job at reviewing an Apple 2 game. Similarly good review from Venter. I was interested in this game so Im glad I read it and even happier that Ill be saving $40. Similar to Schultzs piece this one also has great organization and makes some fantastic, illustrative points that convince me he knows what hes talking about. Two good efforts here but Im going with Venter because he had the more interesting topic and his great examples came across as more powerful than the nostalgia in Schultzs review.

    RESULTS

    ---------------------------------

    Team Felix vs Team Janus 2-1

    Zigfried vs Janus 2-1
    Randxian vs bbobb 1-2
    Felix vs Disco1960 3-0

    ---------------------------------

    Team EmP vs Team Dagoss 3-0

    EmP vs. Dagoss 3-0
    DarkEternal vs. Wolfqueen001 2-1
    Dragoon of Infinity vs. Golden Vortex 3-0

    ---------------------------------

    Team Will vs Team Boo 2-1

    Will vs. Bluberry 0-3
    Zippdementia vs. Woodhouse 3-0
    Sashanan vs. Espiga 2-1

    ---------------------------------

    Team Overdrive vs Team Suskie 2-1

    Beli vs. Suskie 0-3
    OD vs. True 2-1
    Venter vs. Schultz 2-1

    ---------------------------------

    LEADERBOARDS

    Team Leaderboard

    Individual Leaderboard
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 26, 2009:

    @ Lewis:
    I sent you an HG mail about your Gamasutra article. My mail's a bit rambling; that happens when I write on the fly.

    Also, thanks again for the comments. Sorry this one didn't grip you, but I've got at least a couple more rounds to try and find "the review that Lewis loves" (although that's not my purpose in writing, but still it'd be nice). Speaking of additional rounds, unlike the other judges, you didn't have past experience to know what kind of commitment you were signing up for. Your time is very appreciated.

    @ Sportsman:
    I appreciate the longer commentary, as well as the examples of reviews that don't hold up as well on repeat reads. It pretty much confirms what I was already thinking when making my pick this week, which is a good sign for me. I don't plan to drag out any more famous old reviews, but that's mainly because Emp and Zipp will be pushovers (oh yeah, that's right, I WENT THERE)

    @ Jerec:
    Thanks for pushing through and getting this done so quickly even though you've been sick. If you hadn't told us, I don't think anyone would be the wiser.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Halon posted July 26, 2009:

    If you wanna get super technical Team EmP should be in third place since they have the tiebreaker over Team Boo.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 26, 2009:

    @ Lewis - If I would have said something like "the game stinks" or "the game mechanics stink" would that have worked? I understand gameplay or game play (however the hell you want to say it) is cliche, so in retrospect I agree pointing that out makes sense. On the other hand, my objective was to state the graphics and music are great; it's the fun factor and controls that are messed up. Maybe I could phrase that all better. Thanks for the input.

    @ Sportsman - I thought I had good flow initially, but it does seem bringing up the actual plot when the review is half done seems like a bad idea now. That's something I didn't really consider until you pointed that out. Thanks for the input.

    @ Jerec - Thanks for voting for me so this match wasn't a complete disaster. :)

    Also, congratulations to Radical Dreamer for writing a great review this week. You may have won this match, but I am still the site's official Pot Stirrer. AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT! :D
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 26, 2009:

    "If I would have said something like "the game stinks" or "the game mechanics stink" would that have worked?"

    It's impossible to tell out of context. And it's not that what you wrote didn't work -- it's just something to keep in mind. Be specific about what stinks, right from the start. If you find yourself having to explain what you meant by a previous bit, then the previous bit was probably unnecessary.

    To quote Neil Kulkarni: "Be like Ed Gein -- cut out the fanny."
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 26, 2009:

    Yes, I played it safe. I'm not wasting a good review on a match we have no chance of winning. I think I only have like one left anyway. Though I bet the laws of irony dictate that something I didn't consider quite as good as the stuff I've been using would go over splendidly. Then I will laugh. Hysterically. Bahaha.

    That being said, I was going to ramble a lot here but decided not to because it's largely just unnecessary venting that we really don't need and I don't want to be that person. Just typing it out made me feel better, anyway. Though I will say that, only the opinions of three people or no, this thing has really done a number on my self-esteem. But, well, maybe the sense of mediocrity I'm feeling about myself isn't really justified since a lot of what I've been using is old anyway. Granted, I don't feel that a lot of what I've written recently is any better. Some of it's probably even worse, but I'm not going to think about that, either. Besides, the people I want to like my stuff the most usually do, so that's all that really matters (thanks Lewis).

    Congrats to DE - and the rest of his team - anyway. He should be happy now. I expect him to do a lot better than me, anyway, in the next few weeks.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 26, 2009:

    Holy shit we won! We won Sashanan! Which means that Will's throwaway review turned into an excellent boon and we still have a shot at finals if we hunker down and turn in absolutely awesome reviews for the next two weeks!

    It's too bad I'm working all day, otherwise I'd be celebrating. Sash, that was a hard won victory, I think you deserve a bow AND a tip of the hat from me.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 26, 2009:

    I'm glad to see DE finally break the most undeserved losing streak ever recorded anywhere ever, though it's a shame it was against someone else I've been rooting hard for. Chin up, Wolfie -- they're all just threatened by your insane trvia knowhow about N*SYNC.

    Kudos to DoI for continuing to silently own the third tier without anyone noticing for the third year running. Ta much to the judges and further hoorahs to me. Me! ME!

    Now then; to Zig or not to Zig? I shall base this choice on the flip of a simple coin.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 26, 2009:

    I think I heard a violin playing.

    Dammit, WQ, you're not allowed to be like this! You're the one who beat me, and I refuse to lose to someone with no confidence! The review you used against me was absolutely brilliant. Take another look at it, see what works, and then try writing some new stuff with the knowledge you've learned!
    board icon
    True posted July 26, 2009:

    Well, it happens... again. So close though, and against OD, again I can't be upset losing to such an accomplished reviewer.

    Thank you, as always, to the judges--especially this week, getting it done so quickly but giving great comments like you usually do. You guys kick ass.

    board icon
    aschultz posted July 26, 2009:

    Win by the 2-1 4-5, lose by the 2-1 4-5...well, I knew I was taking a risk with the Decathlon review, and I'm glad you all saw some good parts I was trying for. Now to try and patch up your other suggestions.

    Sportsman, I disagree on the "otherwise not so interesting" so I probably could have stated that more clearly. Decathlon simply takes the basics of controls and makes the game much more fun than a lot of shooters with more sophisticated plots, etc. At the same time, it lets you improve gradually after a few initial moments of figuring how to clear the pole vault, etc. But of course "controls" is a hot-button word like "gameplay."

    Hm, maybe should have said that in the review. Maybe I can patch it up.
    board icon
    Halon posted July 26, 2009:

    Heres a very rough look at whats happening so far. Its too early to determine playoffs and so many scenarios so Ill just nail the big ones.

    Even though they lost Team Suskie has pretty much clinched playoff birth. I say pretty much because their might be a freak way they can miss but with the amount of points they have they seem pretty safe, even at 4-3. One more individual matchup win should officially clinch it for them. The only way Team OD can miss is if they lose their next two matches, Team Will wins their next two (one again OD), and Emp and Boo win at least one of two and wind up with more points (or with both matches regardless of points). Team Felix accumulating more points than OD should knock them out as well. The scenarios for the next four teams are too complicated at this point.

    Surprisingly there might be a way where Team Janus can still make it, primarily because they have a lot of points for a 1-4 team and that could be their miracle. I'm not sure if Dagoss is completely eliminated but without the extra points Janus has it seems to be nearly impossible.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 26, 2009:

    Yes, I played it safe. I'm not wasting a good review on a match we have no chance of winning.

    I disagree with that philosophy. Yes, ultimately this is a team thing, but we are keeping track of individual stats as well. If you are just slopping up reviews that don't display your talent as a writer, then you are just cheating yourself.

    And you beat Zipp, possibly one of the best writers here. That alone counts for something.
    board icon
    Halon posted July 26, 2009:

    WQ: First of all I should mention that I judge this differently than I judge a normal contest. I usually skim a review once, then read it very thoroughly, then finally write comments while reading it again. If I did that I would probably be burned out after week 3. Now I give each review a quick read (quick meaning my average reading pace which isnt that fast) and pick which one I like better. Im not examining every part of the review and trying to find what every piece does correctly and incorrectly. I read the reviews, and the one that is initially the better read is the one that Im going with. So far youve admitted that three of the reviews youve used arent your best work and one was the experimental piece so it beats me why youre upset that it didnt win against someone who used one of his best reviews.

    Also something else to keep in mind is that the way this is set up is different than a regular tourney. Instead of being matched up with everyone and placed somewhere youre matched up with one particular person. Losing doesnt mean you necessarily suck, but the other review was better. If that one person finishes ahead of you in a contest you wouldnt make a big deal out of it because you would likely finish ahead of others. You dont perceive that as a loss as you do here, though in reality there isnt much of a difference. For instance, Ive enjoyed reading Overdrives reviews and believe he put out plenty of quality work in this tourney. Yet Ive only voted for him once. Not because hes been writing crap or anything, Ive just been enjoying the reviews hes up against more. In a tourney of such high quality work its difficult to come out on top every week.

    Schultz: This type of game might appeal to you and thats fine. But these super retro games dont appeal to me at all (I wasnt born until the mid-80s) and its important to come up with an approach that makes it sound relevant today because if someone comes up to me on the streets and says hey I played this awesome Apple II game you should check it out I wont be convinced that its worth playing at all. I see it as why play something like this when I can play something much more advanced today? Its the reviews job to convince me why this one holds up so well. However you did a pretty good job at making it sound interesting and I thought the nostalgia approach worked pretty well so Im not faulting you for that. Its just that I liked Venters a little bit more. Was a pretty close match actually.

    Actually 90% of games reviewed in this tourney dont really interest me so youre not at a disadvantage or anything haha.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 26, 2009:

    Sportsman--thanks, it was more just amusement on my part about the silly pun--and realizing I hadn't made my point as well as I'd hoped--than an actual question. I understand the risks I took with that sort of review(limited range, not helping anyone concerned with modern games,) especially one from so early in the 80s, and I'm glad the match was close as it was, with my original planned review never really gelling to tournament quality.

    Oh, and about playoff possibilities, if I may do some modest blogwhoring, I think I've created scenarios where everyone has something to play for.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted July 26, 2009:

    My review is actually a relic that I used the last time I participated in a TT -- in 2005! Ironically, I remember Jerec having very positive things to say about it back then and giving me the win, unless I'm wrong and it was Denouemont instead.

    Oh, and as for Manhunt being critically acclaimed, that is indeed questionable. When I first wrote that review, it read "excessive accolades," which was very wrong. It definitely received some very positive reviews from at least a few major gaming sites, and I think that's what I based that statement on at the time. The review aggregate sites' averages on the game are just slightly above 75%, so it appears the reception was moderately favorable.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 26, 2009:

    Holy crap. Go team!
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 26, 2009:

    Whew, that so could have gone either way. I trusted my gut on this review though, it's a personal favorite too. Nice 3-0 there, zipp.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 26, 2009:

    Well, looks like no team is undefeated now! The 'Drive's mastery of running the captain position (note: no one who has ever been on a team I've captained in the past may reply to this statement) is rivaled by none.

    Good job, team! As the new breakaway favorites to win it all, we must be aware of the bullseye those other teams are going to try painting on us as they delude themselves that we can be stopped. Next week, we kill Will and the week after, we go Count Chocula on Booberry's ass....medieval style!
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 26, 2009:

    week 7 will be hell revealed, OD. we'll be holding a requiem when we're through with you--memento mori.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 26, 2009:

    I'm glad we were able to pull out a win. Good work guys. If only we could have gotten one more vote for you, Rand, for a tantalizing additional individual win. Disco, good match.

    Thanks judges for making up for last week's verdict tardiness by having everything posted early. In regards to my review, which you all seemed to like, I'm glad that it was able to pan out because it really was a spur of the moment thing, as Zig can attest. I didn't have a clue/motivation to write something new for this match until near the last moment.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 26, 2009:

    Dreamer - I can just about remember reviews I judged in 2007, but 2005 is too far back. I did look through the comments I'd made, and found one that might have been Manhunt, but since I never mentioned the game's title, it's hard to say. Do you remember who you used it against? If you used it against King Broccoli, as I'm thinking, then no, I didn't vote for you, though I thought the review was good.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 26, 2009:

    Thank you Sash and Randxian for your comments on my personal awesomeness. It's not easy being so great.

    On a more humble note, I have to say that this site is really what pushes me to perform my best. There are so many fabulous writers here that you can't afford to slack off... or if you do, even your slacking effort has to be awesome.

    I can say, with all honesty and a straight face, that I prefer reading the reviews here to ones at EGM, IGN, and all the others. I think Honest Gamers, with so much talent behind it, has a shot to become something really big. I feel part of a team when I write here. I'm glad to have found this community. In the long run, I think we could easily shoot to have a printed magazine, or at least a subscribed site with special features for members.

    In the short run? Hold on to your butts, Team Will is not out of the running yet!
    board icon
    Halon posted July 26, 2009:

    This year OD's team might actually have more wins than all of his past TT teams combined.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted July 26, 2009:

    The one thing I remember about the verdict is that you said the conclusion was great, with words along the lines of "it slams the game one final time." If I was up against Broc though, I could certainly see how it could be viewed positively but still lose.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 26, 2009:

    That sounds like it. From the Jerec Archive:

    Bbobb vs. Broc

    Bobs review hooked me in with the quick, snappy introduction, and it did a very good job of telling me why this violent game is flawed. I was interested in this game, once upon a time, but after reading this, I have no doubts about its mediocrity now. The conclusion is also brilliantly done, and slams the game that one, final time. Brocs review is a quick, energetic, and incredibly humourous look at Mario 64. Theres a lot of charm, and Broc even finds new ways to describe the game that had been reviewed to death in the last 9 years. Its another close call.

    Winner: BROC
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 26, 2009:

    Game: Star Trek: 25th Anniversary
    Platform: PC (Mac, etc versions already in the database)
    Publisher: Interplay
    Developer: Interplay
    Genre: Adventure
    Release Date: 1992

    Added
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 26, 2009:

    Wow, good job, Beli! You totally showed me!

    Anyway.

    Thanks once again to the judges for another round of impeccable results, and thanks to my teammates for hanging in there. I'd normally take this time to congratulate OD's team for being the first to bring us down but I still think those match-ups were cowardly so fuck you guys.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 27, 2009:

    BREAKING NEWS! Golden Vortex has been sacked from his team. Turducken will be in for the rest of the season.

    Felix at EmP

    EmP vs Zig
    DE vs Felix
    DoI vs Rand

    Dagoss at Janus

    Janus vs Dagoss
    Disco vs wolfqueen
    radical dreamer vs Turducken

    Overdrive At Will

    Zipp vs OD
    Sash vs Jace
    Will vs Beli

    Boo At Suskie

    Suskie vs Woodhouse
    Schultz vs Espiga
    True vs Boo


    This is up late, so some leeway will be offered.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 27, 2009:

    Suskie --> Woodhouse
    True --> Boo
    Schultz --> Espiga
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 27, 2009:

    I will tentatively state that our match ups will be:

    Zipp at OD
    Sash at Jace
    Will at Beli

    Of course, this is subject to change by the great will of our captain (see what I did there?)

    Suskie, go back to my blowjob comment. It's less embarrassing.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 27, 2009:

    Hmm... let's see... nope.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 27, 2009:

    You do realize that if you fail to win the TT, I'll have to tar and feather you.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 27, 2009:

    Janus vs Dagoss
    Disco vs wolfqueen
    radical dreamer vs turducken
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 27, 2009:

    Zipp's post has the correct match-ups, as we discussed earlier. For reference, (and because I'm the captain, damnit!), that is:

    Zipp vs OD
    Sash vs Jace
    Will vs Beli
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 27, 2009:

    Sun Tzu would have something to say about that.
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted July 27, 2009:

    I did show you, Suskie! My sacrifice led to your team's defeat. It also indicates how much of a cry baby you are, wah wah wah HAHA!
    board icon
    threetimes posted July 27, 2009:

    Game: Anastasia
    Platform: Playstation
    Publisher: Midas Interactive Entertainment
    Developer: The Code Monkeys
    Genre: General/Miscellaneous/Puzzle
    Release Date: 04/06/01

    It was listed as an adventure game at GFs, but they changed it to "puzzle" even though there's only one puzzle in the whole damn game.

    And note the avatar, whoever it was who told me to change the thing.

    Added
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 27, 2009:

    If it makes you feel any better, I would've said the same thing if we'd won, because win or lose, a coward is still a coward. But as long as you're comfortable with your captain disregarding you and feeding you to the wolves then I suppose there's nothing more I can say. Enjoy being a part of Team Coward's legacy!

    Edit: You vitriolic swine.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 27, 2009:

    OMG!!!!!!!!!!!

    Will, you're a filthy coward because you mixed up the match-ups and didn't go straight down the line!!!!!!!! How dare you not go Capt vs Capt, 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 or whatever nonsense I've heard somewhere!!!!!!!

    I feel scandalized!!!

    Well, that's enough of that......I have important things to do, such as figure out what the hell I'm going to write about this week.
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 27, 2009:

    That sound you hear is the dropping jaws on OD's team as realisation dawns that we made precisely the right picks.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 27, 2009:

    Man, I'd hate to know what poor True must be thinking, hearing all this talk about how I'm a coward for facing him..... If I was him, I'd be seriously considering throwing matches just to send a message to the cruel, heartless captain who is so inconsiderate of his feelings.

    In fact, as an honorable staff member, I'd even be willing to help him do so, by promising to approve any match-throwing reviews he'd post to send a lesson in respect to the one so willing to publicly belittle his writing skill and ability to step into the ring against the 'Drive. It'd be the only fair thing to do.
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 27, 2009:

    Because it's not, in any way, what we've been doing left and right since the start of the tournament, given that the rules for victory invite precisely this tactic?
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 27, 2009:

    Laugh while you can, OD. For when the playoffs arrive, and we have the top ranking, you'll still be afraid to face me head on... and there's nothing you'll be able to do about it!
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 27, 2009:

    I love how this whole tournament has been filled with playful shit talking from beginning to end, but as soon as I do it, HOLY FUCKING SHIT WE'RE TAKING THIS TOO SERIOUSLY.

    I'll go back to being boring and uncharismatic now.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 27, 2009:

    Aww. I thought we were bantering. And I was enjoying the banter.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 27, 2009:

    You're absolutely right, OD. I am a filthy coward. More so I recognize and publicly admit that I am the weak link on Team Verbose Eloquence.

    Zip, on the other hand, will beat the living snot out of you.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 27, 2009:

    Stay the course, Team Cowards led by Overdrive. Through cheap tactics you might be able to win. Just don't throw it all away in the playoffs by fighting fair due to pressure and taunts from the other team. ...though it might be fitting since the man who did that to me currently sits on YOUR TEAM.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted July 27, 2009:

    Why Jerec, whatever are you talking about? 0:-)
    board icon
    Halon posted July 27, 2009:

    I don't see a problem with what OD did because it's what Beli wanted. It's wrong to put people at mismatches against their will and use them as bait but if they're up for the challenge I say go for it.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted July 27, 2009:

    Splinter Cell
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 28, 2009:

    It's wrong to put people at mismatches against their will and use them as bait

    ...it is?

    I feel so violated now. WIIIILLL!!!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 28, 2009:

    Ewww, snot.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 28, 2009:

    Get back in the box, you!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 28, 2009:

    Our match was a fight between equals!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 28, 2009:

    Thanks, EmP. You're probably right. Being a girl, I'm automatically predisposed to knowing more about N*Sync than anyone here. Haha.

    Zipp: Bad Dudes was written on a whim of sponteneity during the course of a single day in a mad rush to make deadline for a contest. Trying to replicate it would be extremely difficult if not impossible, though not for lack of trying. Besides, somehow I think that if I somehow did manage to make all my reviews like that, it'd grow old and boring after a while anyway.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 28, 2009:

    EmP: You put janus' line up incorrectly. Unless he privately changed it or something.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 28, 2009:

    I changed it after Emp told me that turducken is now on your team.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 28, 2009:

    That tells me right there that you're probably thinking too much when you write. Just write, and fix the machine once it's built.
    board icon
    threetimes posted July 28, 2009:

    Finished Last Bible and now tracking down the last remaining items of MWMW.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 28, 2009:

    To add to zipp's comments, I wouldn't be surprised when something starts to click. I think the point of thinking of ideas is finding that 1 in 100 chance something new will click, and unless you're grossly optimistic, you never expect it to happen Just Now. But if you sleep on something or have a lot of ideas that are pretty close, then one just seems to tip over spontaneously.

    Once you get into that groove you probably forget all the preliminary thinking because, well, you're in a groove.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 28, 2009:

    The thing with me is that any "groove thing" I get going feels almost completely random. And I also know that factors such as type of game help determine what kind of style I use as well. Like... I can't write something like I did there for every game.

    Zipp's pretty much spot on, though. I really do think too much when I write. Especially lately. Still, it's really hard NOT to think when you write because thinking is a fundamnetal part to writing. But... it's turning off the critic and the incessant wanting to fix things as I go thing that's hardest to ignore.

    I've subbed a review now anyway. Not expecting too much, but we'll see.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 28, 2009:

    I think it's a brilliant review of Psychonauts. Now I dont' have to write one myself.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 28, 2009:

    Thanks. Though I won't pretend the news doesn't surprise me, considering how forced and unedited it is, haha. Still appreciate it, though.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 28, 2009:

    I don't see a problem with what OD did because it's what Beli wanted.

    Does this mean that if I post the HG mail from Jihad a few years ago where he suggested I have him and Janus go against Fix and Zig, while I took on Gruel.......that everyone who ragged on me then will give me a great big apology plus massive punitive damages from the brain trauma all the criticism gave me?

    I HOPE SO!!!!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 28, 2009:

    Well, as stated in my blog, I'm using this. I'm just glad I finally wrote something new. Jesus.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 28, 2009:

    Well this ruins the perfect symmetry of my leaderboards. >_<
    board icon
    jerec posted July 28, 2009:

    "Still, it's really hard NOT to think when you write because thinking is a fundamnetal part to writing. But... it's turning off the critic and the incessant wanting to fix things as I go thing that's hardest to ignore."

    I have this exact same problem. And judging hundreds of reviews doesn't make it any easier. I want my reviews to be the best before I even write them.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 28, 2009:

    Not quite. I think "Turducken vortex" conjures up quite an image. Like the cartoon Tasmanian devil, but possibly more succulent.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 28, 2009:

    so if Turducken wins both matches, does he go to the top of the leaderboard?
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 28, 2009:

    Oh yeah. Most of my reviews (or attempts at them) never leave Notepad.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 28, 2009:

    me too. generally for every review I do get out, I have another two that I get a few paragraphs into and just don't feel good about.

    incidentally, True, I will not be reviewing Half-Life 2: Episode 2 or Quake II this round.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 28, 2009:

    It sure would be nice to declare my review well in advance of the deadline this week, but unfortunately game data for Star Trek: 25th Anniversary on the PC seems to be taking its time working through the queue.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 29, 2009:

    A Fading Melody

    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 29, 2009:

    We ARE allowed to change our review choice any time before the deadline, right? Even if we post one choice now?
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 29, 2009:

    Tick tock. Tick tock. =D
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 29, 2009:

    But...the future refused to change.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 29, 2009:

    Technically, Zipp, no. It was banned at the start of the TT after I thought I'd have to wrap the entire thing up in red tape. But since things seem to be running okay, I don't have to run this thing like a jerk. So long as it's not obused, I've no longer any problems with reviews being swapped.

    I reserve the right to change my mind if things start to get even remotely silly, though.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 29, 2009:

    Dear Zig.

    Good luck.

    Regards,
    EmP.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 29, 2009:

    Hot on my heels come DE's refurbished review. Now with new referbishment!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 29, 2009:

    A rerefurbished review perhaps?
    board icon
    randxian posted July 29, 2009:

    When I have trouble getting started writing reviews, I find a few beers helps lighten the mood. Believe it or not, I was half drunk when I wrote my Parodius review.

    And Suskie, we knew you were joking of course. We just don't take kindly to spies around these parts.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 29, 2009:

    For it's one, two, and only two judges votes to win the whole ball game.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted July 29, 2009:

    Panzer Dragoon
    board icon
    dagoss posted July 29, 2009:

    I like, use this one.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 29, 2009:

    Technically, Zipp, no. It was banned at the start of the TT after I thought I'd have to wrap the entire thing up in red tape. But since things seem to be running okay, I don't have to run this thing like a jerk. So long as it's not obused, I've no longer any problems with reviews being swapped.

    In that case, Tomb Raider! I summon you!
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 29, 2009:

    there is a chance I will be using my N3: Ninety-Nine Nights review.

    there is even a chance that I am writing a new N3: Ninety-Nine Nights review.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted July 29, 2009:

    Stalin vs. Martians
    board icon
    honestgamer posted July 29, 2009:

    my pick
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 29, 2009:

    Scotty, beam me up.
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 29, 2009:

    Jim won't mind if I borrow his mower...
    board icon
    disco1960 posted July 29, 2009:

    Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 29, 2009:

    Lots of late posters. I'm such a wimp, a whole six minutes early.

    It's Mr. Pants
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 29, 2009:

    wimp. now espiga has an advantage!
    board icon
    board icon
    True posted July 29, 2009:

    Well, Blue. Here it is.

    I may have played it off that I was nervous, but in truth it doesn't matter. As it was with EXA, I don't care if I win or lose. I'm more proud of this than almost anything I've written so far. You deserve it.

    Lunar: Eternal Blue

    board icon
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 29, 2009:

    Let's crash this party

    //Zig
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 29, 2009:

    I'm afraid I need a break this week and need to dig into the backlog, so let's see how Deus Ex: Invisible War performs.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 30, 2009:

    well I wrote about Hideo Kojima's nut sack.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 30, 2009:

    You also jinxed yourself and gave yourself cooties, because the last three posts went from 11:59 to 11:58 to 11:57 and you broke the pattern.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 30, 2009:

    Alright, preview coming in a couple days.

    Just from looking at the match ups, I think OD and Team Will are gonna have an incredible fight.
    board icon
    sashanan posted July 30, 2009:

    This should be good.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 30, 2009:

    So, er, no Turducken, then? So that means an instant loss for that match up, right?
    board icon
    woodhouse posted July 30, 2009:

    I'm sure standard procedure will be followed and a review will be randomly selected.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 30, 2009:

    I like how Dagoss's team pretended that swapping Vorty for Turducken would make any difference.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 30, 2009:

    We only did that in the hopes to get someone who'd actually pick their own reviews. Obviously that didn't matter. Which I won't pretend isn't disappointing, but whaatever.
    board icon
    EmP posted July 30, 2009:

    Tur wanted to do this, but his net is really spotty. Let's not belittle someone without knowing all the facts lest we want to look ignorant.

    His ranpick is will be linked into the first post shortly.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 30, 2009:

    That would've been nice to know before the decision had been made official. That way, crass assumptions wouldn't have been made.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 30, 2009:

    Don't be discouraged, WQ. If nothing else, the TT is a great place to get feedback on your reviews. I keep reminding myself of that.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 30, 2009:

    Tur would've been picked regardless because spotty internet or no, he's at least easier to contact and therefore more reliable.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 30, 2009:

    OMG EMP CALLED ME IGNORANT I AM OFFENDED AND ANGRY
    board icon
    randxian posted July 30, 2009:

    I AM ANGRY TOO RAARRRRGGGHHHHH!

    Wait, what are we getting pissed off about again? Oh well, screw it.

    RARRRGGHHHHH RAMPAGE! SMASH!
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 30, 2009:

    BROTHERS!

    I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS!
    board icon
    Halon posted July 30, 2009:

    Already halfway done! Maybe I should slow down a bit :)
    board icon
    jerec posted July 30, 2009:

    I'm only just about to start.
    board icon
    randxian posted July 30, 2009:

    Just don't finish early. It was fun when we got to blame someone, or something, for the results coming in late.

    Oh, I know. Week 6 Results - Blame Sportsman for hauling ass.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 30, 2009:

    THE PRICE OF PHYSICAL PRODIGY!

    guess what game I made the mistake of playing again...
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 31, 2009:

    Will try finish my judging by the end of the day. If I don't, then God help you all, because I'm going to be drinking heavily tomorrow.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted July 31, 2009:

    Finished Jake Hunter, probably onto...Eternal Ring! Maybe if I use reverse psychology on myself, I might make progress in Wild Arms.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 31, 2009:

    Almost finished with Deep Dungeon 3. The team tourney means that I miss a few final details on FAQs, or I generally settle for small games. But it's a lot of fun, of course.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 31, 2009:

    Suskie, me and EmP are just giving each other shit.

    Lewis: If you don't finish it today, finish it tomorrow morning before you start drinking. =D
    board icon
    EmP posted July 31, 2009:

    We're English -- a people who believe that alcohol is also for breakfast.

    Don't let me down, little buddy!
    board icon
    Lewis posted July 31, 2009:

    Tomorrow morning is for cashing cheques and buying the booze.

    Unity Day is awesome. You should totally all come to Leeds and attend it.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 31, 2009:

    maybe I'll come next year, once we're drunk we can fist-fight over our taste in games.

    "no, BioShock rules!"

    "no, Invisible War sucks!"
    board icon
    randxian posted July 31, 2009:

    So does this mean we can blame the results on beer?
    board icon
    Halon posted July 31, 2009:

    I'm gonna fall asleep any second now (guess that's what 3 hours a day over the week does to you) so there won't be any progress from me tonight.

    Tomorrow I'll finish.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 31, 2009:

    I'm half way done. Some of my comments so far look a little mean. But I'll stand by them.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted July 31, 2009:

    Jerec, your comments always look a little mean. You're the requisite Bitter Old Man of any judging trio, and we <3 you for it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 01, 2009:

    *Zipp refuses to make any comment on the judge's ability to finish on time, critique while drunk, or operate on a weekly dose of 30 combined hours of sleep, until after they've judged his submission.

    These are the views of Zipp and not necessarily the views of the Honest Gamers community as a whole.

    E Pluribus Unum
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 01, 2009:

    yeah but I'll take it a step further, Lewis I challange you to a rap battle.
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 01, 2009:

    I'll supply the beatboxing in the background.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 01, 2009:

    pickhut and EmP volunteered to be video sluts.
    board icon
    Lewis posted August 01, 2009:

    I remained professional and finished before breakfast, let alone before standing in a rain-soaked park drinking cheap lager and listening to rubbish bands.

    Unity Day will be awesome.

    Judging complete.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 01, 2009:

    Suppose I ought to finish up, so I can read what Lewis has to say. I haven't been too impressed this round.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 01, 2009:

    Well, at least you can't be less impressed by Team Janus than you were last week!
    board icon
    jerec posted August 01, 2009:

    Are you telling me what I can't do?
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 01, 2009:

    yo yo J
    don't be gay
    get back to work
    you fucking jerk

    i think i'ts bed time for me.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 01, 2009:

    I have 2 more matches to go. And I can only think of maybe 4 reviews I've read this round that impressed me. It's gonna take a lot of motivation to finish off the last two.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 01, 2009:

    if you're doing them in the first post's order, I'll gladly take over that last one for you.
    board icon
    Lewis posted August 01, 2009:

    Jerec, it'll be interesting to compare notes. I counted four really excellent reviews as well, though I'm sure there'll be differences in opinion over which ones.

    There were plenty of okay articles this week. It seemed to be a real 'play it safe' one, so people that deviated from the format generally got my highest accolades.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 01, 2009:

    Internet was acting up this morning so couldn't make as much progress as I liked. Still half way done but will finish a set now and do the last one some time later today. Sorry but I have a few plans this afternoon :(
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 01, 2009:

    I'm saying that my review was one that impressed you.....and that Zipp's made you start PC clocking before you got through the first paragraph. Sounds good to me!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 01, 2009:

    Dream on, OD. My review may be many things, but boring is not one of them.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 01, 2009:

    Your match was one of the better ones, and one of the closest.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 01, 2009:

    I have 2 matches left plus one that I want to look over. I'll definitely be done before I go to bed tonight.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 01, 2009:

    I'm done.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 01, 2009:

    Hooray!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 01, 2009:

    Your match was one of the better ones, and one of the closest.

    I know. Now if only I win it.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 01, 2009:

    Come on Sporty!

    I want to get this Round in the bag.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 01, 2009:

    Gah, I just caught and fixed a couple small errors in my review. I had an "a" before 1000 and I was missing an "of" before Greek Temples.

    If such small things cost me the win, then it was a close match, indeed!
    board icon
    Halon posted August 01, 2009:

    Ok I'm gonna finish the remaining two now. Sorry I'm late got caught with a L4D scrim that I didn't expect would happen.

    Sorry if my comments seem bitchy and briefer than usual. I'm tired and this wasn't the strongest week.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 01, 2009:

    I'm not planning on repeating everything I said in Zipp's blog, but I'm really hoping you judges stick to straight critiques rather than getting on my case for not living up to my standards this week. Being in my position right now frankly isn't as awesome as it looks.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 01, 2009:

    Done
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 01, 2009:

    Suskie, I really don't think your review was all that great this week, forgetting all set standards and what not. It just didn't grab me.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 01, 2009:

    That's fine, Zipp. I'm just saying... you know what, fuck it, I'm sick of talking about this.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 01, 2009:

    YOU'RE NOT THE JUDGE MISTER YOUR OPINION IS INVALID
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 01, 2009:

    You should know, Suskie, I'm one of your biggest fans. I definitely don't want to have it out with you on any sort of long term basis. As I've said in my blog, if I offended you, then I apologize. I just think you're a little stressed out this week. Understandably.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 01, 2009:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Felix at EmP
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    EmP vs Zig

    JEREC: EmP's review could use a quick edit. There's a few mistakes in there, and generally the review feels a bit long. It's a nice little story about nostalgic memories of an old favourite, and very much about EmP & friends' personal experiences with the game. I didn't really get much else from the review. I never really got whether it's worth playing even without the nostalgia side of it, and a bunch of friends who also played it. Seems like one of those blog articles where the writer just waffles on about some game experience from the good old days. If the writing were a bit more polished, it might work for me more. Zig's review of RE5 is pretty interesting, and I'm not really a fan of the series. Zig raises an excellent issue about how games can really draw you in, and then lose you when things get too silly. Mostly this happens to me in RPGs, but I suppose it also holds true for other story driven games. Normally I'd find this game completely ridiculous based on the descriptions, but Zig manages to make it actually sound fun. This is actually a feat, because I'm not too easily swayed by reviews... though in all likeliness I still won't be playing RE5 anytime soon. Not until I actually play and beat RE4 which I've had sitting on my shelf pretty much untouched for years. As a final comment, both writers have done a lot better than this. For all the hype and trash talking, this match seemed very subdued.
    WINNER: ZIG

    LEWIS: EmP, do we really have UT to thank for Q3A? I don't know which was announced first, but with Q3 only released two weeks after UT, I doubt the influence was too huge. Anyway, I'm kinda having trouble with pieces like this, in that they're obviously very good while straying well outside the established review format. It's like Bow, Nigger, only not saying anything quite as profound. It kind of riffs off the review thing a bit, but really, it's a retrospective think-piece about how the game affected you and your friends. It is, for the record, an absolutely delightful read, so you set yourself in very good stead indeed.
    Zig, I think this would have benefitted from going either way. Your commentary on the race row is really interesting, but it seems at odds with the rest of the review. Furthermore, you go to great lengths hinting at it, then talking about it fully, only to dismiss the claims pretty viciously. Resi's not racist, but it perhaps *was* ill-advised for Capcom not to think of those things (N'Gai Croal's interview with one of the game's producers springs to mind, in which said producer couldn't even remember which African country the researchers visited, and I can't help but feel your counter-argument isn't as solid as it could have been. Alternatively you could have missed out that stuff already and helped the flow a little, cutting back the word count and being more concise. Aside from that, it's a reasonably strong effort, but for his enthusiasm EmP wins.

    SPORTSMAN: EmP over Zig. Ive read both of these pieces before. This is one of my favorite Emp reviews. Even though I know this game is a crappy port of a crappy title the review really made it sound like something special. More importantly than the game sounding great he made the whole experience sound magical. Multiplayer games are more of an experience that youll come back to over and over again rather than a typical game you complete and move on, and this review really brought out what makes these games great. Very impressive. Zig wrote a great review as well. The individual parts of it were fantastic, but the problem I had with it is seemed a bit unfocused. The setup was interesting, the bit about race was interesting, and the whole second half was pretty well done. Its just together this one really isnt as strong and convincing of an argument as Emps. Also nice throwback to Emerald Dragon, though I dont think it worked as well in this case!

    DE vs Felix

    JEREC: I didn't like DE's review. It's rough writing. Haven't you written anything in 2 years? All I'm seeing is these 2007 reviews, and most of them haven't been that good. It's not even a very long review, but I only got about half way through before I just couldn't handle anymore. Lots of sentences are worded awkwardly, there's a then which should be a than... it's a mediocre review of a mediocre game. Moving on. I wasn't keen on Felix's, either, as it seemed a bit over-written and pretentious, but the writing was good enough to get away with it. Felix paints a beautiful picture of a game that has to be showing its age by now, but perhaps this game is a bit of a Drakengard type temptation for reviewers. Whenever you've got a game about flying on a dragon, suddenly it's deep and it's a tale of ordinary but extraordinary men, and a few paragraphs describing the intro movie. Complaints aside, Felix easily beats DE's lame effort.
    WINNER: FELIX

    LEWIS: DE's review has a few really nice moments, such as the "beating the shit out of a monkey" gag right at the start. The little interludes like this are really welcome, but unfortunately, much of the review is clumsily written, with convoluted sentence structuring, a few nasty grammatical twat-ups and A FUCKING LIST. So while a couple of genuine giggles make me want to like this, my critically engaged brain simply can't mark it up high.
    Felix, I wonder if this doesn't quite engage with the game substantially enough to be wholly successful. You spend an awfully long time in description mode, without actively, critically assessing the quality of the release; and it doesn't read fluidly enough as an expressive piece for it to entirely work in that direction. The analysis that is there is left too late in the day, and although some of the illustrative bits are quite good, I'd say DE just about wins this one, even though - sorry guys - I wasn't particularly impressed by either review.

    SPORTSMAN: DE over Felix. This has always been my favorite DE review. Also props for fixing up the writing, since based on my foggy memory this one reads a lot smoother than it did last time I read it. This piece is very well organized and with great enthusiasm DE really provides a great argument. The intro really got me hooked because he was so into it and from there the review never slowed down. Good review from Felix as well, but it felt a bit unnatural to me. This relied heavily on imagery and fancy descriptions and seemed out of his element. To an extent it worked and although I disagree (could never get into the game myself) Felix did make the game sound appealing. I like Felixs reviews best when theyre more unrestricted and hes having fun with them like the one he used last week. DEs came more natural and he was into it more so he gets the win.

    DoI vs Rand

    JEREC: DoI's game sounded awful from the title alone, a point he cleverly alluded to. This seems a very fair breakdown of a crappy game that fails to get anything right. There's no bashing, it's actually a very calm read. I get the feeling DoI gave this game more than a fair chance, and probably only had to play it as a HG Staff requirement. Must suck for these companies to send out their games for review and then they get a 2/10. Rand's review isn't bad, which is surprising since it's a double dose of what I'd normally hate reading - an Anime licenced sports game. Baseball is usually pretty boring, and though Rand describes it, and seems to like it, I never did manage to get interested. But I can tell that he tried, it's just my usual aversion to both sports and anime that held me back. Both reviews in this match up were fairly ordinary, but solid, respectable efforts. DoI's was the more interesting read for me.
    WINNER: DOI

    LEWIS: I think DoI could have done to talk a little more about the irreverant humour here. I also think it may have been worthwhile to consider Mezmer's intentions with the game -- not in drawing conclusions of quality, of course, because the game is irrefutably rubbish -- but merely in terms of an interesting angle on the review. 'Cause, y'know, it's kind of knowingly rubbish -- the awfulness is even plastered all over the game's literature with faked press quotes and "censored" opinions. It's all oddly clever in its marketing genius. But the review does explain, quite thoroughly, why it doesn't work at all. Even though it does a bit. Oh, I don't know -- anything about this game kind of confuses me a bit. I found it impossible to dislike the game. It's just so cute, offensive and ridiculous, all at once. Erm, the review, though? Yeah it was good. Sorry for the sidetracking -- but perhaps some worthwhile thoughts. Or perhaps not.
    Randaxian -- I have so little interest in baseball that it's untrue, but I'll give this my best shot. I think it's a particularly satisfactory review. It's adequate, y'know? It does its job. But to be honest, as I think I've said before, in this contest I'd rather read a clumsy, badly written but fascinating and interesting review above generica any day of the week (unusually, this time it's Thursday night, not Sunday night/Monday morning as I rush to finish this. That's 'cause my girlfriend's on the PC and I've nothing to do other than while away the hours on my underpowered -- though thankfully underpriced -- laptop). Where was I? DoI wins.

    SPORTSMAN: DoI over Rand. Two good reviews here. DoIs is one of my favorite ones hes used thus far. Its another quick look at a game that tells you everything you need to know with no wasted words. Nothing groundbreaking or insightful, but more than competent. Despite the reviews length I was more than convinced that, despite the quirky premise, there is no reason to give this game a try since it fails in just about every way possible. Some of the failures actually sounded humorous. Rands review was good as well. It started a bit slow but really picked up once he started talking about the game. He seemed really into it and that definitely helped me understand the appeal of the game. The problem I had with this piece is Rand couldve done so much more. This review was calling for examples, and so many times I was getting into what he was saying and then he just moved on to something else, leaving me wanting more. Still that wasnt too much of a big deal and this match was very close. Unfortunately for the second week in a row Rand writes a highly enjoyable review and I just cant give him the nod.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Dagoss at Janus
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Janus vs Dagoss

    JEREC: I'd never heard of the game Janus reviews, something much like Braid. The story and atmosphere of the game sound amazing, though I am turned off by the game's rough spots and frustrating platforming elements. It's a remarkable bit of reviewing that Janus takes a game I'm unfamiliar with, makes me LIKE it, before making me a lot less sure about it by pointing out its faults. I'm tempted to give the game a shot, though. [turns out I can't get indie games in Australia] Dagoss reviews that Quest of the Avatar game that Overdrive has already made me read about twice in review tournament history. He doesn't do as good a job as Overdrive. This review seems a lot less focused, and while it does provide a different perspective on the game, it does take a long time to make a point. The comparison between this and other NES RPGs was a good idea, but putting in two back of the box blurbs felt like a blunder to me. And then when the game turned out to be not that great, I wondered what the point of it all was.
    WINNER: JANUS

    LEWIS: In terms of traditional format reviewing, Janus' piece is about as good as it gets. Aside from an awkward opening, towards which I've expressed my distaste before, it's an absolutely splendid, critical and exciting analysis that's infused with regular passion about both the game and the medium as a whole. I bought A Fading Melody on Janus' recommendation and wasn't as taken with it as he was, but nevertheless, I feel in no way mislead. It's fair, expressive, descriptive and thorough, and our difference in opinion comes down to nothing more than personal taste over an aspect he describes fully. This is excellent. Top form indeed.
    Dagoss -- is that *really* what the genre's always been about for you? *Really*? That's a big sweeping statement, and one I'm not sure everyone would agree with, making your differentiating opinions stand out a little too much early on, particularly given how assertive you are about it. I don't think the quotes from boxes work either -- you're a writer; use those skills to paraphrase and explain. This is okay, though, generally. But for his exquisite article, Janus wins with a stonker.

    SPORTSMAN: Janus over Dagoss. I never even heard of A Fading Melody and Janus did a great job at making it sound like something interesting. There were a lot of comparisons to Braid, and even though I didnt like Braid it still worked pretty well. There were a few parts where my mind began to wander, but as soon as that happened Janus came up with a great point that brought my focus right back. Not a bad effort from Dagoss, but I couldnt get into the subject matter. It was a very deep analysis and Im sure that there are people who would really appreciate it. Since JRPG (and 3D fighters) is the one genre that I really cant stand my mind began to wander a lot and I just couldnt absorb this one the way it was intended. Good effort, but too much analysis for me.

    Disco vs wolfqueen

    JEREC: Disco writes a pretty convincing review of KotOR 2, and shares many of the same complaints about the game that I have, though I find it odd how he didn't mention the incomplete ending. It's a shame that the game was rushed. I think it could have been one of the best games ever if they'd allowed it to be finished. Disco's review is polished, seems about the right length, but isn't anything special. Wolfqueen tries something different, but I'm not sure if it works. Reading this review, I have no idea if it's going to be fun. All I got was a bunch of stuff about Freud and all the subtle qualities of the game's levels. It's a lot of tell without any show, the examples don't really do much for me because Wolfqueen ignores the levels themselves. I'd like to know how this game plays, if it has control issues (which a lot of platformers do), whether it's actually worth playing if I'm not a psych major. Overall I enjoyed the writing of Wolfqueen's review more, it seemed fresh, it took some risks, but I'm gonna have to go with Disco, as he reviewed the game. And in KotOR, I know there's the temptation to spend the entire review talking about choices and the nature of good and evil, and I'm glad he didn't do that.
    WINNER: DISCO

    LEWIS: Man, Disco, that's one lengthy introduction. It's one of those where I find myself glossing, just to see where the review properly starts -- and when it does, there's no overt link, no obvious reason why you took that long fannying about in the first place. Outside of the intro, it's a very normal review -- it tackles the areas of the game you'd expect, in a manner and order you'd expect, with the quality you'd expeect. It needs to do more to impress me, I'm afraid.
    WQ: Read your opening paragraph carefully, aloud. Notice anything? Every single sentence has the same grammatical structure and rhythmic pattern. That sort of stuff really stands out, so to have it so early on causes problems. Elsewhere, it's good, picking up on a nice focus and running with it. I understand what people were saying about it not picking up on the *game* bit enough, but honestly, I think you describe it adequately in your opening paragraph, and explain why it's only touched upon in the last one. It's a less holistic review, perhaps one you'd expect to read in a non-gaming mag or something, but that totally works, so WQ wins.

    SPORTSMAN: WQ over Disco. Psychonauts is also a game that I love and hate at the same time, but for different reasons. Since Ive played the game Im not so sure if the argument is all that convincing to those that havent played it, but to me it seemed like the perfect approach to take. There are some parts that I think couldve been done better but overall I really enjoyed this piece and think WQ did a great job at bringing the game to life. This is not an easy game to review, and I can say that from my own personal experience. Discos piece was competent but left a lot to be desired. The intro didnt work for me because it is done to death and wasnt too interesting to begin with. The rest was maybe a bit too brief. I understand how the game works and all (Ive played the game but would understand it if I hadnt) but Im not entirely convinced. More examples and/or descriptions wouldve definitely helped this review quite a bit. This would also probably hurt fans of the first game because it doesnt do much to make this one sound any different.

    radical dreamer vs turducken

    JEREC: Radical Dreamer's review was slow, a little boring, but descriptive. Turducken's randomly selected review made me cringe countless times in the first two paragraphs, and I decided right there I didn't want to proceed, lest my face get stuck in some painful cringe. God, those ninja jokes were awful. Dreamer, to make your review read a little quicker, and thus keep disinterested readers interested, try shortening the sentences and removing unnecessary words. It won't change the meanings of the sentences, but it makes it a much tighter read. For example, there has to be a more concise way to say "Though Splinter Cell is centered around its overarching political plots rather than its main character, the world-weary and cynical Sam Fisher is a refreshing change from the youthful idealists that spearhead the save-the-world efforts of many other games." The whole review sort of proceeds in that tiresome fashion. It isn't bad, and it probably would have lost if you were up against a tougher opponent.
    WINNER: RADICAL DREAMER

    LEWIS: RD begins with some unbelievably awkward comparisons. Splinter Cell's much, much closer to (the universally acclaimed? *Really*?) MGS2 than it is to Thief, which was all about its sprawling, non linear levels, player choices, absolute patience and care etc. It is for me, anyway. I dunno. Anyway, this is good. You do the whole "...and that's before the game even starts!" thing, which I've read so many times now it makes me want to shoot my eyes off, but other than that it's a solid if not entirely impressive or memorable review that may or may not serve you well depending on the quality of the other one in this match which I don't know about because I haven't read it yet NEXT!
    Huh. I do feel that, until right at the end, Turducken's review reads a bit like a press release. Where's the illustration, or critical analysis, you know? You're telling me about the game, sure, but you're not showing me how it feels to play, or any of the other things you need to be doing. So while the writing is good here, it falls into too many traps for me. As such, though this is entertaining, RD wins.

    SPORTSMAN: RD over Turducken. I remember reading this Splinter Cell review a long time ago. Although there are a few instances when the writing got a bit too flowery for my taste, this was an extremely smooth reading and well organized review. It is a convincing case and if I had not played the game I wouldve still came away believing all of it. There are some parts of Turds review that I liked and the level of enthusiasm was pretty high. However, a lot of it seemed forced as well. Too much quirkiness worked against him and the review felt a bit formulaic. Not a bad effort, but RDs was more organized and a smoother read.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Overdrive At Will
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Zipp vs OD

    JEREC: So both Zipp and OD review games with hot female protagonists, and both games have problems which make them disappointing. Zipp's problem is that he's playing a Tomb Raider game, but he seems to like the series, so I'll let that slide. This is one of those instances where control is good to talk about, as it pretty much ruins the whole game. "The ruins are in very good condition" but also made me laugh, but I found the Lara on drugs humour a bit off. I was not a fan of the TV show style of writing that bookends Overdrive's review. It feels tacked on and a bit lame. The actual review is pretty good, though, and though I haven't played Parasite Eve, I can see how the elements of this game, while cool sounding, would actually fall flat. It sounds pretty similar to Koudelka, another RPG that tried to invoke the survival horror theme, but actually had random battles that took place on another screen. Zipp and Overdrive seem fairly evenly matched here. Both are good reviews with a few small issues. I suppose I find it easier to ignore the silly opening and closing lines of OD's review than the sometimes forced humour of Zipp's, so that decides it.
    WINNER: OVERDRIVE

    LEWIS: Top marks for Zipp for using the word "spelunk" in the first line of the review. That's pretty special. It's also a reasonably nice review -- lighthearted, entertaining and amusing, without losing its critical value at all. Like all the best articles, you pick a focus and maintain it through the review, while touching upon the relevant peripheral areas. I feel there are a couple of clumsy sentence constructions here and there -- nothing overtly *wrong*, just stuff that reads a bit awkwardly -- but it's minor griping. Overall this is nice.
    OD, I like reading this sort of review-that's-not-a-review. They're often fun, a nice break from the norm, and interesting for different reasons. Your intro here is sublime -- I love the whole "gather round children"-storytelling-style you're utilising, in what should set the tone for the whole piece. But it doesn't. It kind of fades out and goes increasingly normal towards the end. Additionally, there are a couple of areas where you're going "and also" a bit, which leads to some slightly clumsy transitions. This one, with a bit more care, could probably have been really exceptional, but as it stands it's merely quite good. So, alas for you, Zipp wins.

    SPORTSMAN: OD over Zipp. Dont have a lot to say about this match. I didnt like the intros or conclusions for both reviews, but aside from that both reviews were good, but not great. I enjoyed them though Id be damned if I say that I havent read better from both authors. Zipps was a lot briefer than his past few but the downside is it didnt seem as inspired and I couldnt get sucked into his examples. OD has written much better and it isnt the best PE review Ive ever read but the review was overall a little bit more engaging so he gets the nod. Probably the closest match of the round.

    Sash vs Venter

    JEREC: Sash's intro is clever and sarcastic, and it helped me get into a review I otherwise would not have bothered reading. Hover Bovver sounds like a fun game, and Sash does a great job describing its many quirks. The paragraph where he describes the neighbour, the dog and the gardener really helped capture that sense of mayhem which made the review all the more convincing. Venter's review is functional and solid, but kind of bland. There's very little personality to the writing, which made it harder for me to stay focused. Everything is there, though - what makes the game good, what lets it down, and it is a professionally written review. But Sash's quicker, more enthusiastic review gets the win from me.
    WINNER: SASHANAN

    LEWIS: Sash's review is okay, but a little wordy. It could really do to be trimmed into something a lot shorter than this, as it wouldn't lose anything from the content, and it's be a lot easier on the eyes and brain. It's all just embellished a little too much through the writing, even though what the writing about is reasonable. It's never exceptional, though, and tends to stay in the region of being a typical review. So it's okay, but certainly needs some polish and inspiration.
    JV, this is a really thorough, really fair and really excellently written traditional review. I like to see people doing something different, but sometimes, if you can stick to the formula but do it *really well*, that's all that matter. You show a great understanding of both the game and games journalism generally, picking up on relevant topics, not going overboard, ensuring your writing is varied enough to maintain reader interest. It's just a really carefully constructed piece, one I really enjoyed reading. Good work. JV wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Sashanan over Venter. Wow, Sash has really been writing some great stuff lately. He might not be the most engaging writer in the competition but here he really brought out the quirkiness of this title and made it sound like something interesting. It was an enjoyable read, I was fully able to understand how this game works and I didnt lose interest or PC clock once. Not a bad review by Venter but I would say its serviceable at best. Everything you need to know is there and its presented clearly and doesnt get into any technical jargon that turns me off from many fighting game reviews. However, it isnt exactly an engaging or memorable piece, either.

    Will vs Beli

    JEREC: That's more like it, Will! This review was an enjoyable read, even for an adventure game. It's kept brief, but the review provides plenty of information, and I'm convinced that this game does the Star Trek franchise justice. I liked the idea of the redshirt acting as a sacrifice, too. I'm not that familiar with Star Trek, but I will agree that it's all very iconic. Beli's review seems a lot more subdued than his usual enjoyable blog style ramblings, but it is a decent review. It does have his usual unfocused diversions, though. It might have been a very close call if not for a few unfortunate errors that could have been picked out with a proof read. The use of pictures worked well for the review, too. Especially the first one, with calling that guy Bob.
    WINNER: WILL

    LEWIS: Hmm, yeah, I don't like this one, Will. The italic quote bits feel convoluted and out of place. There's also not enough here that critically engages with the game; most of it is describing or explaining. It needs more depth - not necessarily a higher word count - and more careful illustration. As it stands, I leave knowing you love the game 'cause it feels iconic; I know what happens in the game and what you do; I know some Star Trek quotes. That doesn't quite feel like enough for me.
    There's still something really captivating about Beli's writing. It's not quite there yet - occasionally I find myself thinking you're struggling with sentence phrasing or word-selection - but in terms of sticking to a thoroughly distinctive writerly style, you've nailed it. You've also managed to make your work less *about* that style than before, which will serve you very well. You never want your articles to become big ego boosting sessions, so that's good. And the content of the review doesn't lose anything -- everything's clear, and I don't find myself wanting to know any more, really. A successful piece. Beli wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Beli over Will. I actually liked this Will review a lot up until I read the score. 10/10? The game sounds pretty neat, but nothing about the review makes it sound extraordinary. Its well organized and the sectioned gimmick did work though maybe this isnt the greatest approach for such an epic game. Belis was a typical good Beli review for a wacky old title. Great humor, great descriptions, and he wound up making the game sound pretty cool in an odd way! He gets the win here.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Boo At Suskie
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Suskie vs Woodhouse

    JEREC: I know Suskie is tired and all that, but there's gotta be better stuff in his back catalogue than this. His Deus Ex Invisible war review just goes on and on and on and on. I lost interest about two thirds of the way through, not particularly caring about how this game isn't as good as the first. I'm glad Woodhouse reviewed something different, as I don't think I could handle another DS mystery game. This police game sounds quite interesting, thanks to the numerous examples. The review did feel a little slow and plodded along, but it might just be that I'm over this round.
    WINNER: WOODHOUSE

    LEWIS: This is a really interesting review for me, as I'm currently replaying the game myself. There are things I really disagree with about this review, but not a lot I feel I can overtly argue with. It's a strong argument, y'know? It's also an incredibly thorough review that engages with the game on a strong level. My take on IW? It's a mechanistically perfect and narratively elegant game that still manages to feel frequently lifeless for some reason. But that's not important. What's important is that Suskie's review here is an excellent one, a piece I thoroughly enjoyed reading, analysing and picking apart in my own head. It engaged with the game, and it engaged me. Good work.
    I'm not sure I like the whole narrative review structure thing. I mean, when it's done well, it can really work, but I find it to be horrifically overused -- especially here at HG. Woodhouse's doesn't stay in that style for long, but when it opens in this way, I can't help but call the cliche police. I don't know. As a gimmick, it's just not strong enough for the review to ride on, and that it's at the start puts me off from the rest of the otherwise quite good piece. As such, I can't get behind this one, so Suskie wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Woodhouse over Suskie. Both these writers clearly know what theyre doing and got the analysis down pat. Woodhouses was pretty neat and one of the highlights of the round. There were tons of great descriptions that really made this game sound wild. I was anticipating a stinker but by the end of the review it actually sounded pretty cool. Maybe Im just tired and cranky, but it often seemed like Suskie took too long to make some points. He would set it up, then bounce around a bit with certain (mostly relevant) sentences and then finally make it later. It just seemed slower paced compared to Woohouses review and therefore was tougher for me to get into. Two good reviews but Woodhouses was the smoother and more engaging read.

    Schultz vs Espiga

    JEREC: Puzzle games can be difficult to review, and although it took me two tries to read Schultz's review (the first time was much earlier this morning and I couldn't follow it), it eventually becomes easier to follow. It's a convincing review that illuminates the game's strengths, and makes me want to give it a go. The writing is energetic and enthusiastic, and that really helped. I'm not sure what it is about that intro, though, but it wasn't easy to follow at first. Espiga used this review in a tournament ages ago, and I seem to recall praising it. That was before I'd played the game myself. Now, I find the review annoys me. Namely due to the HUGE spoiler towards the end of the review. That is not cool. Also, the rest of the review seems less descriptive than I remember, simply focusing on story and characters, with brief mentions of the game's difficulty. The game's graphics are made to sound a lot better than they actually are. Try reading "Phantasy Star 2 thrusts you into a most beautiful world. Large, expansive fields have huge, domed farms spread liberally throughout the landscape." when there's a bunch of screenshots to the right that say otherwise. Technically this is a well written review, but nearly everything about it annoyed the crap out of me.
    WINNER: SCHULTZ

    LEWIS: 'Schultz' review here is really strong -- a nice retrospective that's enthusiastic without losing the analysis. It's fairly traditional, but it's also really nicely written, and taps into just the right things about the game so that I understand fully what it's all about and why you liked it so much. That's what I'm looking for in this sort of piece, so well done chuck.
    Hmm. This is sort of straying towards the narrative thing too, but I think it just about works here, Espiga. You're building up to that single moment, that defining section of the game where everything just becomes astonishingly beautiful. I dig that -- that makes sense to do. So this is well written, engaging, and really shows me what's so special about the game. That's essential when you're awarding such a high mark, so good work on that. This is a tough match-up, but just about, Espiga wins. Well done both.

    SPORTSMAN: Espiga over Schultz. Espiga is at his best when hes super passionate about a game and it comes through in his reviews. Even though Im not a fan of the genre and probably will never play this title, I can tell that its something special. Great writing as well; it takes the story telling/imagery approach but never seemed flowery to me. This Schultz review is as solid as ever, but unlike Espigas it really didnt pull me into the game or make it seem like a standout title. Espigas passion won him this round.

    True vs Boo

    JEREC: It's always a personal moment for a reviewer when they review one of their all time favourite games. I could tell from the writing just how much True likes this game, and it was conveyed perfectly. Now I want to play it. I love RPGs and this one sounds awesome. The review had a bit of a hiccup starting with a fairly in depth look at the battle system. I found it a little hard to take, but by the time I'd read the whole review, it did seem like the best place for it. But this might turn some readers off. I wasn't too interested in reading about the game until after these paragraphs - the rest of the review was an absolute joy to read. Apart from a few grammatical errors. Boo reviews a Metal Gear Solid game. Oh noes! But thankfully this one is short, makes some rather interesting points about what the game tries to do but ultimately doesn't get right. I actually enjoyed this one more than I thought I would. This makes it a rather hard match to call. Boo's is the more consistent piece, while True's sort of starts off dull before becoming really good. I'm gonna have to go with Boo on this one.
    WINNER: BOO

    LEWIS: True, this kind of jumps awkwardly from section to section. Intro! Combat! Story! Heck, you practically label it. So while I love the enthusiasm of this piece, and how effortlessly that draws me into what you're talking about, I find myself being snapped out of it on a reasonably regular basis as you transition between sections. I think it was probably an intentional ploy used for effect, representing your gradual realisation of what made the game so special -- but as a reader, that effect's kind of lost at times.
    Boo -- I kind of completely agree with your sentiments here, that MGS2 is a brave, fascinating and often hugely clever game that, ultimately, stumbles over itself. I mean, it's a game that mainly appeals to the core console market, yet its biggest achievements are those that would appeal more to the literary market than the mindless shooting one. As far as the review goes, you convey that really well, in a piece that's well written, informative, illustrative and critical. I think we all need to tone back our use of "games as art", as it's becoming a bit of a buzz-phrase that I fear I might be guilty of perpetuating a bit in these parts, but other than that, this is a fine article. Great work, and Boo's deserving of the win.

    SPORTSMAN: True over Boo. True tried to write his magnum opus here, and although I dont think he succeeded this review was pretty damn good. It wasnt powerful enough to convince me that this game is life changing or anything and the intro and conclusion came off as a bit cheesy. With that being said, this was still a great read and Im convinced that there is something special about this game, even if its not a godsend or anything. It was a bit on the long side, but Trues passion never let up and I was able to make it through this one fairly easily. On the other hand, Boos didnt impress me as much as last weeks. When it comes to MGS that last thing I want to hear about is story and that was like 75% of this review. The gameplay mechanics bit got somewhat interesting, but was too brief. The neat shit you can do is the more interesting part of the game, not the bisexual ninjas and Raiden. Im probably making this one sound worse than it probably is so let me say it wasnt bad. Trues was just the more interesting piece of the two.

    RESULTS

    ---------------------------------

    Team EmP vs Team Felix 3-0

    EmP vs Zig 2-1
    DE vs Felix 2-1
    DoI vs Rand 3-0

    ---------------------------------

    Team Janus vs Team Dagoss 2-1

    Janus vs Dagoss 3-0
    Disco vs wolfqueen 1-2
    radical dreamer vs Turducken 3-0

    ---------------------------------

    Team Will vs Team Overdrive 1-2

    Zipp vs OD 1-2
    Sash vs Venter 2-1
    Will vs Beli 1-2

    ---------------------------------

    Team Suskie vs Team Boo 0-3

    Suskie vs Woodhouse 1-2
    Schultz vs Espiga 1-2
    True vs Boo 1-2

    ---------------------------------

    LEADERBOARDS

    Team Leaderboard

    Individual Leaderboard
    board icon
    honestgamer posted August 01, 2009:

    Thanks for the comments, judges, and for making them so timely! One more week at full power and then anything after that will find you having to read through fewer reviews. Judging these things is hard work and I really appreciate all that you've done.

    Now for my review...

    I actually thought that this was one of my better reviews in recent times. I'll admit to sometimes forgetting to make things over-the-top flashy, but I do always try to cover the salient points and in this case I felt that I did better than usual at that task. Lewis really left comments that let me know my efforts were going in the right place, and even the judges who voted against me had that effect. I have no regrets. Thanks for your comments, everyone!

    Next week, I plan to use another recent review of mine that I like very much, one that I feel is a lot riskier. I lost this week with a review that I felt represented some of my best work, so maybe next week I can win with something more daring.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 01, 2009:

    Thank fucking god.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 01, 2009:

    rien ne peut m'arrter maintenant
    board icon
    Halon posted August 01, 2009:

    I was gonna say even God rested on the seventh day in my comments for Suskie's review for the lols but really didn't want to torture the guy anymore.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 01, 2009:

    Thank God that round is over. Will everyone PLEASE bring out your absolute best for the next round? Give it all you've got! No more holding back!
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 01, 2009:

    and just for the record, I know you're only going off wins and then alphabetically but we're in second place. the more you know!
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 01, 2009:

    Okay, serious response. My congratulations go to Woodhouse for being the first to beat me -- if it had to happen, I'm glad it was to someone who isn't going to be a dick about it. Same to Boo's team in general. We were out-written and that's all there is to it. Well done, guys.

    But seriously: I'm finally free of all this pressure. What a fucking relief.

    In regards to me choosing IW, I wanted to go with something fairly recent, and I'd already known that Lewis considered it one of my best reviews. I was hoping at least one of the other judges would follow his lead but apparently not. Never dreamed Jerec would dislike it as much as he did, either.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 01, 2009:

    That's the trouble with being at the top. The only way to go from there is back down again.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 01, 2009:

    Yeah, unfortunately I don't have all the tie breakers on hand when I'm sorting the results. I'll make sure I have a list of who beat who handy next week when I sort the results so we know for sure who our top 4 are.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 01, 2009:

    I'm going to bed in moment and I'll have a big shit-eating grin on my face when I do so. That PE review was one I was really experimental with when I wrote it and always wanted to know how it'd fare in a contest. To beat a writer as good as Zipp with it is a wonderful feeling. I'm legit ecstatic at the moment!
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 01, 2009:

    whereas THE ASCENDENT GROTESQUE might as well be TEAM WEIERSTRASS FUNCTION.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 02, 2009:

    Yeah, unfortunately I don't have all the tie breakers on hand when I'm sorting the results. I'll make sure I have a list of who beat who handy next week when I sort the results so we know for sure who our top 4 are.

    it's not who beat who, as far as EmP's told me, it goes team wins, then total wins, then total votes. I'm sure he'll change the rules now that it's to his advantage, though!
    board icon
    jerec posted August 02, 2009:

    Oh, that's easy. I can add a votes column!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 02, 2009:

    Well, my predictions were spot on until my team's matches. The last two teams threw me for a bit of a loop, though I think I said they probably would in my preview.

    Alas, this means that Team Will won't be going to the finals. Ah, well, I think we got some good licks in. I certainly learned a lot, and now I feel that our final bout against team Zig will be suitably epic... you know... cause it's final and all.
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 02, 2009:

    Oh look! We clinched a playoff berth! OK, that was due to Team EmP's performance, but never mind.

    Well done to Team Bluberry. Maybe we will meet again in the playoffs. I was really impressed with Woodhouse's APB review, and reading through Espiga's stuff I felt PS2 was perhaps my favorite of his, so I was honored to have it thrown at me.

    Thanks judges for the nice words--and the useful comments--even though my review fell short. I have to admit I'm getting tired of thinking up new stuff and proofreading, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been enjoyable.
    board icon
    sashanan posted August 02, 2009:

    I knew my intro would have to carry 80% of the Hover Bovver review for me - as after that brief bout of inspiration it does the usual things right and the usual things wrong for my kind of writing - so I'm pleased to see it followed through. Jason isn't exactly a formality to beat.

    Thanks everyone!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 02, 2009:

    Well, thanks as always to the judges for taking the time to do what they do. But...I don't mind saying that I'm now extremely uncertain on how to write a review that would meet your collective standards. o_O

    That said, I suppose this means Team Verbose Eloquence is out of the running for the finals. But make no mistake; our next and final match will be anything but a push-over!
    board icon
    sashanan posted August 02, 2009:

    Of course. Now we have no reason left to hold back reviews for potential future rounds. Like my grandfather before me, I intend to go out with a bang.

    (He went to find a gas leak and boy did he succeed.)
    board icon
    jerec posted August 02, 2009:

    Okay, I've updated the Team Leaderboard to show total votes, so Boo is indeed in second.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 02, 2009:

    Team FRZ! I've looked over our teams, and I think the match ups that would be most fun would be:

    Zipp-Zig
    Sash-Felix
    Will-Rand

    If you agree, then let us have at it! I don't think there's any need to be clever at this point, as neither of us is making it to finals. Let's just have a kick ass match. I want to see your best! I want to beat your best!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 02, 2009:

    Damnit, Zipp, which of us is captain here? Back to the hold with you!
    board icon
    True posted August 02, 2009:

    I have to agree with Suskie on that one. Thank fucking God. I no longer have that undue pressure of Blue never beating me over my head anymore.

    It was a good match though, and I thank him for the stress and eventual battle.

    And as always, I thank the judges. I know this was a tough round for you guys, and you're speedy response was probably just to get it out of the way, but it's appreciated all the same.

    And to Wolf, Turd... heh...or Dag. I apologize beforehand for taking out this now building aggression for being so close, yet so far to victory on you.

    Sorry.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 02, 2009:

    I was going to start posting in this because thanks to the TT, I've actually written three reviews this year.

    three reviews for Metroid Fusion, Metal Slug 4, and Metal Gear Solid 2.

    fuck all of you.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 02, 2009:

    What's that bubbling noise? Why, it's sinking Zig! Send my regards to the ocean's bottom.

    Good work, team, and thanks to the judges. Kudos to team Felix for a hard-fought match.
    board icon
    randxian posted August 02, 2009:

    Heh heh heh. I knew writing a sports game was taking a chance here. I'm just happy you all seemed to enjoy it on at least some level.

    Good work, team, and thanks to the judges. Kudos to team Felix for a hard-fought match.

    Same to you, Emp. Congrats to your team for working hard and earning those wins. Congrats to DOI. No, wait a minute. You beat a game about my favorite anime. This will not be forgotten DOI! There WILL be a day of reckoning!

    ....

    Or not, since we're not going to the playoffs now.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 02, 2009:

    We have lost. But I think HG has won. Used to be a guy like Zig was guaranteed to finish the season with a spotless record. Thanks to the judges, Zig became beatable. I don't always agree with the verdicts or the logic in the feedback, but I'm grateful that it's given. Jerec, find a way to start writing more frequently, as reviews are only words formed into sentences. Same for you Sportsman, as you should strive to remove the clunkiness that has affected some of your reviews I have read. And Lewis, video games are not Art, though they can be artistic in design.


    But with that said you guys have put a lot of effort into making this a great competition. You have posted your verdicts like clockwork. You have battled illness, a change in residence, and personal distractions and have stuck through this tourney through the thick weeks and the thin. That is admirable. More importantly, you guys have destroyed the old hierarchy. The winners are not guaranteed through past actions, and that is what makes such an epic competition like the TT all the better.


    When I first started this year's event, I wasn't expecting this strong a turnout. I think a lot of us became better writers. I think we put more effort into ensuring things got off to a strong start after its initial rocky premise. None of us could have expected the enthusiasm that arose for this competition. EmP, you've been a great co-comish. Drella has been great for providing previews, and I think you've done a very good job taking over his spot, Zipp. Really, all of you have been wonderful for showing so much interest in an interesting tournament.

    Team FRZ has nothing to play for but personal pride. Zig, Randxian, you guys have been great teammates. I don't think our record even begins to show the effort and planning we've put into this thing. I want to win this last week's match for you guys. One more team win is all we can ask for.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 02, 2009:

    And before I forget, ASchultz, your mathematical playoff previews are also a prt of ehy this TT has quite possibly been the best one. So thanks, and thanks to everyone else.
    board icon
    sashanan posted August 02, 2009:

    One more team win is all we can ask for.

    Not to be contrary but...not if we can help it.

    I look forward to an awesome trio of matches then! Good luck.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 02, 2009:

    Felix, I look forward to fighting your team next week!

    Oh and, uh, will does, too ^_^
    board icon
    zigfried posted August 02, 2009:

    I look forward to facing Sashanan.

    //Zig
    board icon
    randxian posted August 02, 2009:

    Team FRZ has nothing to play for but personal pride. Zig, Randxian, you guys have been great teammates.

    Same to you. I really appreciate the feedback you and Zig have provided thus far. You two really helped me step up my game considerably. Let's win one more for pride. THIS ONE'S FOR GLORY!
    board icon
    Halon posted August 02, 2009:

    Removing the clunkiness means I have to start writing something first. :(
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 02, 2009:

    Oh, no you don't, Zig. I still recall a certain someone (read: you) making the assertion that another certain extremely attractive someone (read: me) would be going down by your hand. Now you're obligated to attempt to make it so.
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 02, 2009:

    Thanks Felix--I agree it's good to see surprises, and justifications for them. I think gimmicks have been dissected well for if they work or don't.

    That being said, Team Dagoss should be on high alert that I am composing a review where I feel FULLY CONFIDENT in going off my usual modus operandi and writing A PARAGRAPH WITH JUST ONE SENTENCE. I may even write two of them!

    But I'm not going to review anything from 2005 or after. That'd just be crazy.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 02, 2009:

    It does kind of suck that the playoff lineup is set in stone when we still have one more regular season round to go, but after Team Suskie has had a couple of off weeks, I'll echo what Schultz said and assure you all that we'll be back in full force this round. I'll make sure of it.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted August 02, 2009:

    I'm going to admit that I'm basically just digging through my backlog at this point. I've been working a camp job that consumes too much of my time and energy.
    board icon
    zigfried posted August 02, 2009:

    @ Jerec:
    Based on what I've heard, my guess is that you'll enjoy RE5 a lot less if you play RE4 first (which is why I admitted my own failure to play part 4). If you thought that stuff sounded cool, then I would actually point you towards Devil May Cry and Devil May Cry 3, if you haven't played those yet.

    @ Lewis:
    Thanks for the feedback. I've heard of N'Gai Croal's interview, though I've yet to read it. I don't personally place too much stock in the producer's inability to remember which country the designers visited -- the important thing is the people most closely involved at least did some research -- but I've heard that the interview does touch on some interesting points. I agree that Capcom shouldn't have been surprised by the negative reaction. If they had anticipated the reaction, then they could have better capitalized on it to create an emotionally impactful game. In a way, I think my review is a victim of the times; a contemporary RE5 review that doesn't address the race controversy would feel incomplete. But by game's end, the race aspect really doesn't impact the game positively OR negatively, so there's not much to do but ultimately dismiss it. Five years from now, I expect that retrospective RE5 reviews will either omit any mention of racism, or they'll joke about how uptight people were "when the game first came out". It'll be interesting to see how time treats the game!

    @ Sportsman:
    My review doesn't make a strong argument -- it kind of just lays the information out there and says "Here's what is is. I liked it, will you?" It was an unusual review in that sense, so I was curious what people would think. Glad you liked it! The ED bit was solely intended as an in-joke for HG regulars... thanks for noticing ;)

    @ all three of you:
    I've got something special in mind for next week. I don't know if it will be "a great review" -- it might be excellent, it might be terrible! -- but I sincerely hope you'll all get a kick out of it. Think of it as my way of saying "thanks for reading through all of these for so many weeks".

    //Zig
    board icon
    jerec posted August 02, 2009:

    I never did play Devil May Cry, and I probably won't, now. I find it really hard to get into the previous generation's games unless I played them back then. The current gen has really spoiled me, so I'm more likely to try something new on the 360. But generally I'm not a fan of those types of games... mostly because I'm not very good at them.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 02, 2009:

    there's always DMC4... it was ok. not bad, but not as good as DMC1 or even DMC3. Bayonetta's gonna be sick, too.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 02, 2009:

    Well, that's kind of cool. Wasn't really expecting to win my match at all. Thanks. Shame that the rest of my team didn't do so well, though.

    Anyway, congrats to everyone else. That EmP review is still my favorite of his of all time, so I'm glad that went over well.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 02, 2009:

    Zig: I see what you were going for but in this case Emp had the more powerful and convincing argument. I liked the approach but liked Emp's better! This match (and some others) were probably closer than I made them seem.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 02, 2009:

    wolfqueen: I always believed in you.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 03, 2009:

    Team Janus actually has a pretty good individual votes record. If only a couple of those tight matches could have swayed our way... Oh well. Maybe next year.
    board icon
    wild_ookami posted August 03, 2009:

    Erm I found HG just by surfing around the net, and I found some pretty cool ones over at this site....So yeah, I decided to register. That's pretty much it.
    board icon
    disco posted August 03, 2009:

    I just followed everyone from Gamefaqs. Boring, but true.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 04, 2009:

    hey, it's espnking! I'm only three months late noticing, haha if you see this how've you been?
    board icon
    ManOWarr posted August 04, 2009:

    Some of the forums here aren't used a lot because the ones that are (the reviews) are used everyday. Discussing the latest reviews is what the Reviewers consider "Chit Chat". So if you don't see a lot of actual "chit chat" in the Chit Chat section, then now you know why.

    Right now I'm playing so many games at once that I can't post an honest review of any of them because I haven't finished them yet! And with the new DLC of Gears of War 2 out, and Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 on the Xbox Live Marketplace, and new games on the horizon....oh no...I'm getting sucked in....aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

    At least I can post a new "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" review soon. Just gotta stop playing the other games long enough to finish the review...DANG YOU RELEASE CALENDAR!!! DANG YOU TO HECK!!!
    board icon
    turducken posted August 04, 2009:

    Oh. This ended.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 05, 2009:

    Game: Space Invaders Infinity Gene
    Platform(s): iPhone/iPod
    Publisher: Taito Corporation
    Developer: Taito Corporation
    Genre: Shmup
    Release Date: July 27 2009

    Added
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 10, 2009:

    It's been a while, but I got "G" with God of War.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted August 11, 2009:

    Greetings everyone. Looking forward to being a part of this wonderful group of gamers. Honest!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 11, 2009:

    Welcome! Honest!
    board icon
    ManOWarr posted August 11, 2009:

    Welcome to HG!
    board icon
    Lewis posted August 14, 2009:

    Game: Killing Floor
    Genre: Online FPS
    Developer: Tripwire Interactive
    Publisher: Iceberg Interactive
    Release date: 14 May 2009

    But.. I subbed this! I posted a coverart and screenshots?! Where the bloodiest of bloody hells did it go? Fucking Venter....

    It's up again now, but I no longer have the screenshots the publishers sent me. Screen duty's on you, Lewis!

    --That's ok, I'll FRAPS about. L x
    board icon
    fleinn posted August 15, 2009:

    Game: Fat Princess
    Platform(s): Ps3
    Publisher: SCE
    Developer: Titan Studios
    Genre: Action/Strategy
    Release Date: 30th of July, 2009

    (Will add a review of sorts.)

    Added

    edit: thanks :)
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 17, 2009:

    Hey, what am I still doing hanging out with Overdrive? I demand to be moved up to 17! We don't associate with such riff-raff as OD, here.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 17, 2009:

    Are "we" talking about that lowly riff-raff who kindly busted a cap in yo' ass just a couple of short weeks ago during some hotly-contested one-on-one Team Tournament battle? I just want to be sure. There's so much riff-raff around the world that I struggle to keep all of them straight.

    YEAH! Who feels like riff-raff now? Now excuse me while I bask in the warm glow of my ego for the next few hours.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 17, 2009:

    OD @ Suskie

    Overdrive vs. Suskie
    Venter vs. True
    Beli vs. ASchultz

    EmP @ Boo

    Boo vs. EmP
    Espiga vs DE
    Woodhouse vs DOI

    You have until midnight Tuesday to pick and midnight Thursady to post reviews. The judges have lost a day, and the writers have gained one. It's more to give them one more day of break.

    GO!
    board icon
    jerec posted August 17, 2009:

    Yeah, but we've lost 12 reviews, so losing a day is more than a fair trade. I don't normally start judging until Friday night in my time anyway.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 17, 2009:

    Uh, what? My team is the #2 seed, whereas OD is at #3. Why don't I have home field advantage?
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 17, 2009:

    Perhaps to even the odds a bit? One could argue that, being a higher ranked team, you don't need the home field advantage.

    Of course that argument assumes the home field advantage is a potentially match-winning variable. Our resident spreadsheet guru assures us it is not.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 17, 2009:

    I think it's easier to just say EmP fucked up.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 17, 2009:

    Didn't you lose your match to Overdrive's team back in Round 5? Could that be what did it? *shrugs*
    board icon
    Lewis posted August 18, 2009:

    Worth mentioning: I'm away Thursday 'til Monday. I'll have my laptop with me and will be checking periodically, so can try my bliddy best to get judging done Friday/Saturday/Sunday, but it may be megalate on Monday evening.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 18, 2009:

    Gaaaaaaaaaah! I've been snapped!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 18, 2009:

    Wait a minute, OD... what are you doing bantering in here with me? Don't you have an ROTW to write?
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 18, 2009:

    Well, since somebody edited it, I'll assume EmP just made a mistake. Straight match-ups this round, Captain Coward isn't getting away from me again.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 18, 2009:

    When it's all said and done, you'll be wishing I'd gotten away again! Oh yes......you'll be wishing FUTILELY!!!!!
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 18, 2009:

    It's IN. THE. WORKS.

    (ie: get out of office in a bit, buy groceries, eat lunch and then either do RotW or take nap and then do RotW......not tired now, but lunch might make me tired.....that sort of thing does happen in my world)
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 18, 2009:

    OK

    Edit: That's going in my sig if you lose.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 18, 2009:

    Espiga vs DE
    Woodhouse vs DOI

    Metal Slug vs Metal Slug
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 18, 2009:

    In celebration of TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS, here is the only RotW done by a member of this legendary group. None of the eight writers who competed for this award this week are members of TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS, for that is not their right; however, one person eligible for placement will be honored this week by being defeated in mortal combat by a TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS representative.

    TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS announces the rules are as follows: only one rule per person, only users (ie: no staff reviews) allowed to compete, the rulings of TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS' Grand Leader of Firestorms, Devastation and Tsunami-ramas are final. And now, let my judgment sweep the land!

    *awed hush*



    THIRD PLACE: God of War (PS2) by zippdementia

    "Guh, another God of War review," brave Overdrive murmured mournfully..... This site loves it some manly brawler, with people trying to out-eloquentize each other on the glorious feeling of slamming a battle axe into another's skull (PROTIP: It's even more fun in real life!). I won't deny the simple fact I've read a LOT about this game might have weakened this review in my eyes, but in a way, it might have helped, as you threw me for a loop at the beginning. Very nice intro, detailing a glitch that forced you to start from scratch, which leads into the more standard fare of how badass Kratos is and how fun the fighting is. I have to admit that you're a bit more understanding and flippant about major issues like a glitch forcing you to start over. No matter how much I like a game, it's a major blow to my enjoyment when something like that happens to me. But to each their own, I guess. I enjoyed the review and that's all that matters as far as this one specific RotW thread goes.

    SECOND PLACE: Ka-Ge-Ki - Fists of Steel (Gen) by dogma

    So, you have a really bad game without much substance to it and you're planning to review it. What do you do? Many writers, including myself at times, wind up over-explaining the badness to the point where what we're saying loses its impact eventually. Dogma doesn't. His first sentence ("Let's not drag this out too much, it hurts.") is appropriate, as he doesn't drag things out in writing a short, tight review that leaves no doubt as to how unappealing his subject matter is. The section of one-line paragraphs detailed a fallen foe ("Did I remember to pay the phone bill?") is chuckle-worthy and the review as a whole is an excellent example on how to say what you have to say without wasting words or getting tiresome WHILE still maintaining some clever wit. MINOR NITPICK ALERT: It's "backpedal", not "back-peddle"

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Aladdin (Gen) by JANUS2

    And with this win, JANUS2 earns the designation of being an honorary member of TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS! Just kidding.....that ain't happening, but you do win RotW. It's kinda hard to explain what exactly makes this review the best of the week, but I'll try. You do a great job of offering vivid descriptions (your line about the transformation of the Cave of Wonders, for example); you describe the gameplay and how the levels fit into it. Well.....I guess the best way is just to use your one line, "Aladdin is definitely not a case of style over substance." and alter it to mean your review of Aladdin. There's a lot of style in this review, but it also contains all the substance needed to let me know there are legit and valid reasons behind your love of this title and that I'd probably really enjoy it if I gave it a whirl. Wonderfully written review, here.




    Overall, twas a strong week, as all eight reviews impressed me and made it tricky to winnow things down to three. I will mention that ASchultz deserves credit for reviewing a text-only game in such a way that I could visualize what was going on. Hopefully that credit is fine consolation to him as his tournament season ends this week at the hands of TEAM ENIGMATIC CHAOS!
    board icon
    Halon posted August 18, 2009:

    Weekends are when I get most of my judging done so this schedule change actually works in my favor!
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 18, 2009:

    Thanks for the mention, Overdrive. My reviews may not be the most ambitious but I am glad that they are entertaining nonetheless.

    P.S. good thinking getting this done early. Too late, and there might be no playoff run to celebrate!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 18, 2009:

    Now that was unexpected! I kind've busted that God of War review out on a whim and wasn't truly happy with it, especially after reading Zig's awe-inspiring review of the same game. Still, the one thing I WAS really fond of was that opening and it seems it was for good reason!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 19, 2009:

    Thanks Overdrive, I enjoyed writing that review so I'm glad my enthusiasm came across well.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 20, 2009:

    Not seeing much of anything happening here. It's all going to be a 11:59 PM rush, is it?
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 20, 2009:

    All that extra time, and the competitors still procrastinate.

    Plus ca change and stuff.

    *zaps HG ad*
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted August 20, 2009:

    I was doing a Google search for some very specific information on a game I am playing and I found this site had an excellent guide. As I poked around on this site I thought WOW this is really cool. How come I never knew about this before - Now all my firends know and I really like guides and reviews.

    Well, that was exciting huh?
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 20, 2009:

    I can't speak for anyone else, but every one of my TT entries has been posted at 11:59 on the dot. And I'm not one of those sissies who hits "reply" twenty minutes beforehand and posts it at 11:59, either.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 20, 2009:

    I just post mine when it's ready, and to hell with what silly litle timezone games Boo wants to play.

    I say that knowing he cares about it about as much as I.

    EmP picks: Assassin's Creed
    board icon
    zigfried posted August 20, 2009:

    Emp has gone to sleep, but he would want me to point out that his link is pointing to the wrong game. It's pointing to Assassin's Creed, but as labeled, it should be pointing to Metal Slug 2.

    //Zig
    board icon
    darketernal posted August 20, 2009:

    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/content.php?review_id=8335&platform=PSP&abr=PSP&gametitle=Dragoneer%27s+Aria
    board icon
    woodhouse posted August 20, 2009:

    X-Blades
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 20, 2009:

    For me, Robotron: 2084 if/when it gets posted.

    ETA: a stirring treatise on why 2084 should be considered Metal Slug 0.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 20, 2009:

    Metal Slug X
    board icon
    Esssspiga posted August 20, 2009:

    Look at that, I found something.

    Galactic Givilizations II
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 20, 2009:

    This is a real hero, True! A REAL HERO!!!!!

    And someone's up for the best throat-fucking of their life!

    OD DISCLAIMER: I actually haven't a clue about what anyone's doing.....including myself. If my teammates have other ideas besides the ones I've implanted in their heads, well, if they can break my control, let them make their own picks!
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 20, 2009:

    Espiga you retard, it's spelled Civilizations.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted August 20, 2009:

    Swooping in at the last minute, as per usual.

    Lunar's in the que, I'll throw up the link as soon as it's approved.

    I'll be mashing F5 in the meantime.

    Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete

    By the way, a belated thank you to whoever stays up late enough to put up with my crap every week!
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 20, 2009:

    And Suskie's team meets its fate....in a maze with no escape

    So says Overdrive!!!!
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 20, 2009:

    Hey, Jason? True mentioned something about how he was writing a review specifically for you this round. He has since posted his Infamous review. I hope you enjoy it. However, Ill be intervening here and entering his Red Faction: Guerilla instead. Because Im the captain and I can do that.

    I will be using Zelda II.

    Good day.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 21, 2009:

    I hope someone updates the first post to show the MATCHES and the REVIEWS, because I ain't judging until that happens.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 21, 2009:

    I don't remember. Something to do with big plants.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted August 21, 2009:

    Finished most Tales of Phantasia crap, just gotta stick in the walkthrough stuff. Could probably finish before month's end if I didn't get sidetracked with Left 4 Dead stuff...ughh.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 21, 2009:

    Didn't do any reading today (fridays are usually bad for me) but plan to finish them all tomorrow. No guarantees, though.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 22, 2009:

    I've done 4/6. Taking it easy since I know Lewis is not back for a little while.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 22, 2009:

    I'm only at 2/6 because I just got back from a night of drinking. I'm home all day tomorrow so I have no excuse if they're not in by then.
    board icon
    Lewis posted August 23, 2009:

    Halfway through my rather more extensive than usual comments. Will try finish this evening, though may have to be on the coach home tomorrow. Will really try for tonight though.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 23, 2009:

    I'm fingering my puckered asshole in breathless anticipation!
    board icon
    threetimes posted August 23, 2009:

    Maybe you'd like to finish MWMW for me. (just kidding!)

    I've been doing a lot of thorough tidying and sorting through stuff and been updating some old FAQs and trying to complete things as far as possible now. After that, it's back to MWMW. Though, that Shinsenden NES game is distracting me. Are you planning on doing a FAQ for it ASchultz? I saw your name in the credits for it.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 23, 2009:

    JUDGES!!!!

    If you vote in my team vs. Blu's in the finals, we will have a special surprise for you! Now, I haven't run this by Blu yet, but my plan is for us to have a lengthy AIM chat about Final Doom, which we will then cut-n-paste to a text document and submit as a review for that game. Since it will be the exact same text for both of us, your judging criteria will be which of us does the superior job with HTML formating!

    YOU KNOW YOU WANT THIS!!!!!
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 23, 2009:

    Threetimes--I have some games I want to take care of first, but yeah, eventually I want to look at Shinsenden. I also sort of wanted to look at Silva Saga, but someone took care of that. I just finished Spelunker 2, but then there are all sorts of other stray NES games, too, including Shadow Brain. We'll see.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 23, 2009:

    I thought it was going to be who has a cooler screenname.

    sexyboy69 reporting for duty.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 23, 2009:

    C is for Castlevania: Circle of the Moon
    M is for Metroid Fusion
    S is for Scythe

    even genj is doing better than me. how depressing is that?
    board icon
    threetimes posted August 23, 2009:

    I've been playing Shinsenden Fun game, but got to chapter 2 where there is a long scene and the game freezes. Tried it a few times and it's the same so unless it's a problem with the mac emulator that's the end of it for me. (And PP had the exact same thing happen.) Don't suppose you know of this happening to anyone else?
    board icon
    Lewis posted August 23, 2009:

    Yeah, not gonna happen tonight. Will save the reviews to my HD and go through them on my SIX HOUR journey home tomorrow. My results tomorrow night BST.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 23, 2009:

    I have one match left and will finish it now but since Lewis will take until tomorrow I'm going to use this time to write more in-depth comments tonight and either finish late tonight or during lunch break tomorrow.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 23, 2009:

    My comments aren't any more indepth than they usually are. I've got one left to do. I'll do it shortly, as there doesn't seem to be any particular hurry just now.

    Edit: And I'm done.
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 23, 2009:

    Well, the first thing to do is see if the gameplay freezes in the original cartridge you played. This is a slight nuisance because, well, it'll be in Japanese, but you can probably retrace your steps by now.

    If it freezes in one cart but not the other, then it is a translation bug. In either case, maybe you can email the guy who translated the patch to ask him which version he used, where you got it from, etc. I know he had some issues with spacing the text, and it's possible, though not likely that the text spilled over into the assembly language commands.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 23, 2009:

    Pretty depressing if you're you or genj. Pretty awesome for my ego, though.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 23, 2009:

    I have one more to write comments about but I'm going to bed!
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 23, 2009:

    TT prediction:

    we make it rain on them hos
    board icon
    threetimes posted August 24, 2009:

    Oh, thanks for that. I'll give that a go and see what happens or maybe try finding an alternative source for the game and using the patch on that. I was really rolling along nicely and it was such a disappointment to get stopped in my tracks.
    board icon
    threetimes posted August 24, 2009:

    Tried a different version, same thing happened. But we've found a way around it using the original Japanese game and renamed save states. But only after I'd played that version as well!
    board icon
    Lewis posted August 24, 2009:

    I have judged.

    Must say, was a little disappointed with the quality of some of these. Oh well. Not everyone can have a good week every time.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 24, 2009:

    Got home from work earlier than I anticipated, so I'm going to grab dinner in a few minutes then write the last comments. So maybe in a half hour or so I'll be all done.

    Overall 4 of the reviewers really brought their A-game. I have mixed feelings about the rest, though I'm probably more optimistic than Lewis is.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 24, 2009:

    nevermind just submitted my results now. Didn't proofread them or anything so hopefully I don't say anything completely retarded.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 24, 2009:

    Okay, I'm awake now. I'll put the results together now, and they'll be up shortly.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 24, 2009:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    OD @ Suskie
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Overdrive vs. Suskie

    JEREC: Overdrive's review has an interesting structure to it. We start off with a level that should be decent, but he's just not feeling it. Then we get the story of what happened to lead up to that point, how the game is terrible and boring and not what he expected from the genre. And we all know what it's like to get to a point in the game and simply not care anymore. There's a few small errors in the review, like the glaring "it's" in the second paragraph, but it was enjoyable otherwise. Suskie's review effectively summed up why I could never get into Zelda II. It's a very fair deconstruction of the game, taking the various elements and explaining why they don't work. It made me feel better that I never really got anywhere with this game, and I figured it was because I just wasn't good enough. Both these reviews are thematically similar, and both are very convincing. Suskie wins because I didn't spot any of those small proof-reading errors in his review.
    WINNER: SUSKIE

    LEWIS: Overdrive, I kind of like what you're trying to do here. The idea of structuring the piece as a "here's this bit, but look at all this I had to do to get there" could have been really effective. The problem is it's not quite engaging enough, and never feels like it's analysing the game on a critical enough level. Instead, you're saying "here's what happened, which I didn't like." You could have done to go into a little more depth. Furthermore, you could have done to ensure your writing was entertaining enough to make it all stick. As it is, I found myself glossing a little, meaning the information that is there ended up flying past my eyes without really going in. Maybe that's my poor attention span -- but I'd guess most gamers are a little lacking in that area. So unfortunately, I'm not sure this is so great.

    Suskie's review suffers from a similar problem, I feel. But it's caused by something different. By focusing entirely on the combat, I come away from this review feeling that there are plenty of things you could have talked about but didn't; that there are plenty of things about Zelda 2 you could have liked, but didn't give the chance. I understand it's primarily a combat-oriented game, but this review still feels like it's bypassing certain elements. It's fine to focus on the elements you feel are most important, but important to contextualise that choice somehow. I'm not sure this really does.

    So I'm not particularly enamoured with either of these reviews, and in all honesty was hoping for better from these two excellent semi-finalists. As Suskie's review is more entertainingly written, he gets the win -- but whoever finds themselves in the final will have to pick up their game.

    SPORTSMAN: This was actually a very close matchup, though I wouldnt call it the best work from both reviewers. Overdrives review read extremely smoothly and had great organization. His voice was strong throughout and the credibility is there like always. The only problem is his argument wasnt the most interesting one. Im convinced that this game blows, but I was hoping he would destroy this game and that never really happen. Perhaps this isnt the most interesting subject matter since this is one of those bad but not god-awful games. Suskies is a lot more ruthless and made the game sound more in the god-awful range than ODs did. I mean I liked the game and disagree with most of his points and it had me rethinking some of my opinions. My problem is it tried to do a little too much and seemed a bit too tangentical (if this is not a real word it is now haha). Plus it seemed to end fairly abruptly which caught me off guard.
    Despite being a soft bash, I think Im gonna go with Overdrive. Suskies hit harder, but this ones organization and flow won me over. Although Suskies was the better bash, in the end both came up with a convincing argument to why their game sucks. ODs powerful voice and credibility won me over here.
    (Also this is the last comments I did so I apologize if theyre not as long as the others. Just wanted to get them out!)
    WINNER: OVERDRIVE

    Venter vs. True

    JEREC: I kind of missed the whole G.I. Joe craze as a kid, so I had a little trouble getting into Venter's review. Well, just that first chuck where the story and premise are described. After that, there's some pretty cool descriptions that made this game sound cool, actually leaving me quite surprised by the 6/10. There were problems with the game, but they never really made the game sound that bad. And Venter admits that much of this game's target audience will find what they want... and finishes the review with a real wtf line about other gamers wanting to read a book. True's review of Red Faction makes me want to play the game, even though I don't even like first person shooters. That, and I can identify with his gaming mindset - sometimes I just want to play a mindless game. I actually want to play something mindless right now, but not all the time, you know? But anyway, back to the review. I loved the descriptions of destruction, and reading about the variety of side quests you can do. I did notice a couple of small errors, but the review was overall much stronger than Venter's, so it didn't cost him the win.
    WINNER: TRUE

    LEWIS: Venter's reviews are always solid. I don't think I can really recall a single one of your pieces that hasn't at least been competent, and you're always thorough and analytical enough, and a good enough writer, to come across as a convincing videogame critic. This review is no exception, though I'm slightly confused by why you chose to include that little bit at the start. You're illustrating a section of the game, but its only purpose seems to be to introduce the plot. As such, it feels unnecessary -- you don't seem to be making any real point through its inclusion, so why include it at all?

    Though it's clearly a very good review, I wonder if it doesn't quite go far enough to be considered truly special. We're in the semi-finals now, where there are no second chances. Jason, I think I'd like to see you pull something really special out of the bag should you reach the finals. I'm not sure something like this would cut it, as I'm sure we're all looking for something genuinely impressive in the last round of the competition.

    True, I find your writing to be occasionally odd here. There's a whole lot of first-personing, which of course is fine, but it's something that's stood out for a few writers during this tournament. It's probably a whole load of personal preferencing on my part, but I think I tend to stray towards good, convincing, assertive analysis and criticism. Here, you're talking about what you thought as you went through the game -- which can be a great method, it really can, but I don't think your writing is quite convincing enough here to pull it off. You like a character, you're excited, you're worried, this was your favourite bit etc... it's all just a little... naive, perhaps? I'm not sure, but there's something not quite right about it. Not quite professional.

    There are plenty of things I like about this review. The introduction's good, and pulls me right in. The ending rounds it off nicely. And you identify with a lot of things I thought about the game too. Ultimately, though, this isn't quite polished enough to truly shine, so JV wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Wasnt so sure how Venters review would fare since the intro style is entirely hit or miss. Fortunately this one worked pretty well. Ive never been a huge G.I. Joe fan though I know enough about it to be engaged in the subject matter. Overall this piece was very good, and although it has the figure it out for yourself approach Im a huge run n gun fan so I was able to draw my conclusions pretty quickly. Although the descriptions were fast-paced and the balance of strengths and flaws were well done, nothing jumped out at me as new and fresh or spectacular. The game still sounded like a generic run n gun to me. Maybe this is what Venter was intending, but it didnt make the subject matter as interesting as it couldve been.

    Trues review really didnt start off too great. It seems like he used these intros many times in the past and it really didnt tie into the rest of the review well. The good part is by the time I finished the review I completely forgot about the intro. It had a tendency to repeat itself and mightve been slightly too fast-paced in places, but the content is excellent. I just made a post in another thread about how games are getting generic this gen and this review really made this seem like something unique and special. The descriptions were fantastic and threw me right into the scenarios. I liked how they really emphasized the guerilla-style warfare since that is the selling point of the game that made it (supposedly) as good as it is.

    So we have one review that starts off super strong and gets kind of generic halfway in and another one that starts off generic and finishes with a bang. Both approaches really worked but Trues review hit where it counted most. RFG really sounded like a unique and cool game, especially after I recently played Far Cry 2, which has a similar concept but completely misses the point. Venters review really doesnt distinguish G.I. Joe from other run n guns (and judging by the score maybe it isnt). I wouldnt mind giving it a try since Im a sucker for these games but not quite sure why I should consider this one (apart from the not so great bits that were brought up). As I mentioned earlier this mightve been what he was going for, but regardless the more interesting and engaging topic wins.
    WINNER: TRUE

    Beli vs. ASchultz

    JEREC: Okay, the tourney references didn't work in Beli's review. I wasn't fond of the marquee red MEGAS sliding across the screen. But the rest of the review was hilarious and entertaining enough for me to read. I liked the running gag about intelligent gamers. Yeah, a straight up review of this game might have been a dull read, especially since it would be plainly obvious from the first paragraph that this game is awful. Beli's sense of humour and occasionally observant insights make this one worth reading. And was that a shot at me not completely reading some reviews this tournament? I look at the screenshots that go with ASchultz's Robotron review, and then I look at the text, and I think "You got all that from this?" Wow. I remember reviewing a few old, simple games, and I could never get much more than 400 words. The problem I have with this review is that there is too much. I didn't get until near the end that the stages were randomised, and there's a lot of tactical stuff which I'd probably be more interested in reading after I've given the game a go. Right now it's not entirely relevant to me. But it's not all bad, I did actually enjoy most of the review because it somehow made this old game sound fun. Still, Beli's was the easier read of the two, but a lot of the silly stuff held it back. I enjoyed Beli's review more, but I'm having trouble giving it the win against Schultz, who did a good job making an old arcade game sound worth playing. Sometimes it's just too easy to bash those games no one cares about. And a few weeks from now, those in-jokes will be completely worthless.
    WINNER: ASCHULTZ

    LEWIS: This is a brave, quirky review by Belisarios, with plenty of knowingly silly in-joking and referencing. It's going to be a very tricky one to judge, because that does of course work very well in the context of this tournament. Are we going on that alone, or do we have to consider wider appeal? When else is your reviewing audience going to be a panel of judges? What use is that, in day-to-day games reporting?

    So I could go either way with this. As the in-joke, it's often quite funny. As an actual review, it's bloody terrible, and doesn't work at all. It'd alienate almost your entire audience, it feels like you're just in the business for being silly for the sake of it, and as such one gets the impression you're not giving the game a fair deal. But I've said for a while you needed to shake up your formula. You've done that spectacularly here, albeit in the exact opposite direction to the one I'd hoped. It's certainly memorable, either way.

    Aschultz's piece, by contrast, is remarkably traditional. But it's also probably my favourite Aschultz piece of the whole contest. It's concise, which means within your imaginary word count you can go into an intricate level of detail. I think you do the game a lot of justice here, and the review's entertaining enough throughout to maintain my attention. A very, very good show by Aschultz, which means that while Beli's review is certainly entertaining, it'd be madness to award the win to anyone other than Aschultz.

    SPORTSMAN: Belis review was interesting in the sense that it ranged from fantastic to what the hell was he thinking. It began rough, and the picking on the tournament was rather clich and unnecessary. The big red text didnt do much for me and seemed like an attempt to capture the spirit of the html abuse age. The colored text that followed is also clich but actually worked here. The meat of the review is fantastic and some of the most entertaining bit of writing Ive read in this tourney thus far. Then comes the conclusion which features a rant and says how blah the game is. The problem here is I was really enjoying this one up to then and although the game sounded like crap the premise was pretty interesting! You didnt need to say that you were putting on a show to make a dull title sound interesting when I was actually somewhat interested in the premise.

    Schultz never reaches the level of humor or creativity that Beli demonstrated in his piece, but he didnt really have to. This is one well thought out and organized review. It doesnt stray far away from what Schultz has been doing thus far in this tourney, but out of everything hes written thus far this is probably my favorite one yet. Schultz really comes across as credible when reviewing these games. This is in many ways the Starcraft of reviews; there are some that are more dynamic, more descriptive, and hit harder, but you will rarely find one as all around good as this.

    Ultimately I prefer Schultzs consistency over Belis wildcard effort. Belis was too unfocused and I wasnt entirely sure what he was going for. The approach seemed a bit tired and after immensely enjoying the review the ending was a huge e-boner kill. As I said some parts were fantastic, but here the more consistent review is the winner.
    WINNER: ASCHULTZ

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    EmP @ Boo
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Boo vs. EmP

    JEREC: Challange, Boo? Do you not know how to spell the word or is this some sort of in joke? Other than that, this is a fantastic review. It makes the game sound worthwhile, and it gives me all I need to know to make up my own mind. This game isn't for me. But then, I've never really liked the Castlevania series. I find the whole idea boring, almost as boring as Metal Slug. And I rarely enjoy reading about this series (people like to use it as an excuse to get flowery). Thankfully Boo steers clear of that, keeping the writing fast paced, informative and enjoyable. EmP's review needs some proof reading, but they were very minor, and didn't distract me too much. Assassin's Creed is one of those polarising games, as I read before. EmP is of the opinion that the game sucks, and he's convinced me that it sucks - after earlier this tournament, someone whose name I forget right now, convinced me that it's actually not too bad. I thought the stuff with the various guards' POV was a unique and amusing way of pointing out the game's stupidity. This is the sort of epic Boo vs EmP match that I was robbed of some weeks ago when they both decided to pull out Metal Slug reviews. This time I like both reviews a lot, and I'm having trouble deciding who to go with. Boo made me interested in game I don't care about, EmP convinced me that he's right. I think EmP edges into the win solely on that awesome first half of his review.
    WINNER: EMP

    LEWIS: Boo's review makes a really odd, tremendously straightforward mistake. Imagine I don't know anything about this series, Boo. Try to put yourself in the shoes of this hypothetical me. Absolutely nothing in the piece explains anything to me, and I'm completely left guessing about a number of elements. Was Symphony of the Night the previous game, or one released way back? What context was that released in? What bloody genre even are these games? This is really basic stuff that you should be able to embed into the review really neatly, but unless I'm not looking hard enough, it's just not here.

    Elsewhere, the writing's solid but not overly impressive, and the content's nothing particularly riveting. The in-joke with another
    writer feels shoehorned in, and isn't funny for anyone else. It's also a gay joke, so probably not funny for anyone at all.

    You know, EmP, I'm reading and writing on a coach on the M1, with all the reviews copied and pasted into Notepad, so I've no game name headers here. So the original context is rather lost, but it still seems strange that I hadn't the faintest idea which game, or even what *type* of game, you were talking about until half way through. You start with an extended narrative segment that's trying to illustrate some sort of point, but instead ends up fanfic jabbering for a couple of paragraphs before detailing some moment of hilarious stupidity you could have told us about in approximately half a sentence.

    This doesn't work. The second half of the review reads like an angry user's Amazon review or something, with you attempting to qualify in every way possible why Assassin's Creed is so dumb dumb dumby dumb dumbtastic. Despite having a copy sitting in my living room back home, I'm still to play Assassin's Creed, yet I can still tell this review is terribly unbalanced and completely ignores some key features of the game. Slam Creed if you want, explain cleverly why you didn't like it -- but when it's a straight review, you need some element of balance to your subjective viewpoint, or it loses its weight altogether. This, unfortunately, is a pretty disastrous effort, so even though neither of these pieces are of anywhere near the quality I'd have expected at this stage, Boo wins.

    SPORTSMAN: I enjoyed Emps review quite a bit but Im not sure if I wouldve enjoyed it if I never played the game. Even though I dont think the game is as bad as Emp made it sound (maybe a 5 or so) I was nodding in agreement a lot and some of the observations were pretty amusing. The parts about the American accent and pickpocketing/eavesdropping were spot on. Emp really made it sound laughably bad. With that being said, if I hadnt played through two thirds of the game and agreed with his points I probably wouldnt have liked this one as much. A lot of it seems too cheesy and over exaggerated, and Im not sure if I would believe everything that he says in this one.

    Bluberrys wasnt as dynamic but the far more honest piece. Im not a fan of Castlevania and lost interest in this game after a half hour or so when he told to give it a try over AIM a few years back and this is an interesting argument that makes me think maybe I missed the point of the game. I loved the approach from the get-go. So many of these Castlevania reviews jizz themselves over how magnificent the series is, do lots of comparisons, and all this other crap that someone who never really cared for the series outside of SotN like myself wont care about. It is so easy for a Castlevania game to get clumped in with the rest of the series, but this one really made it sound unique and therefore interesting. Bluberrys is the more honest piece of the two so it gets the win.
    WINNER: BLUBERRY

    Espiga vs DE

    JEREC: I really enjoyed reading this Espiga review two years ago, and I still enjoy it now. The journal/captain's log entries really work for this sort of game. They made me care enough about what happened to Espiga's bunny race that I was fully hooked into the game. I think this review was so awesome before that I didn't notice one problem with the review - apart from ship design, I don't really know how this game plays at all, and yet I still want to give it a go. But I'm going to need some more information. DE's review has some pretty clever moments, but it's a bash review, and a particularly vulgar one at that. I could do without the unrelated vomit scene at the start of the review. It's so offputting that if I didn't have to read this review, I wouldn't have gotten any further than that (and I actually felt quite queasy this morning, which certainly didn't help). This review is at its best when it picks apart the game, telling me why it's crap. But the vomit stuff, the rape reference, and several other "witty" asides made DE seem more juvenile, and it hurt his credibility. It's a shame, too, since it's a new review, and overall his writing is much better than what I've been reading from him throughout this tournament. Gonna go with Espiga on this one.
    WINNER: ESPIGA

    LEWIS: From first glances, I thought I was going to really like your piece, Espiga. I thought I might enjoy your playing with format. But instead, it reads like another fanfic piece. I think people need to learn to separate their literary ambitions (or probably just give up on them) from their reviewing ones, because nine times out of ten, unless you're *really* good, it fails enormously.

    I'd like to invite you to explain what your piece tells the reader. I read it, twice, and only found any assessment of quality in the final paragraph. Even then, it wasn't the whole of it. It's a story about something that happened to you in a game -- which can work, but the writing's not strong enough to carry it, the fiction's not solid enough out of context, and there's no point that's being made through the delivery. So it's simply not up to scratch on any level. Enormously disappointing.

    Darketernal writes a largely solid review, and while I'm not keen on the introduction (and if you're not going to make that dodgy transition, then why even bother, as that's basically all you do...) it soon picks up and develops into an incredibly thorough review. It's also one that follows a clearly identifiable theme (the game's slow pace), so each transition after that feels fluid and natural in terms of where you take the argument next.

    It could have done with a proof-read, but that's hardly important. This is good reviewing, so Darketernal wins.

    SPORTSMAN: Personally I wasnt too thrilled about either of these reviews. DEs had some good moments and did convince me that the game is awful. Not only is it a JRPG but its a bad one! Still the review went on for too long and I began to lose interest about halfway through. What I like about DE reviews is his credibility and interest in the topic. The credibility was there like always but not so much interest in this one. It got pretty technical later on and although I was able to follow it I really didnt want to. Overall a pretty decent review that definitely gets the job done, though it isnt the most interesting effort and kind of bored me.

    Espigas was much shorter and held my interest all the way through. It had its problem, though, and that was its cheesiness. The internet meme references were cute at first but really got annoying quickly. Although it was a gimmicky review there was plenty of analysis present to the point where I was able to understand what the game is all about. With that being said, none of it was very deep and Im not sure if Im entirely convinced that this game was good as much as Im convinced that Espiga is fairly knowledgeable about internet memes. I know what the game is about and a few things about it, but what makes this one in particular special?

    So both reviews here had their strengths as well as something that bothered me. DEs got boring and Espigas had the corniness. But when it comes down to actual analysis and information present, DEs is superior and has by far the better argument. He gets the win here.
    WINNER: DARKETERNAL

    Woodhouse vs DOI

    JEREC: It's nice to see Woodhouse reviewing something different. His X-Blades review is a pretty good read, though I was surprised at the 5/10 score, as he made it sound a lot worse than that. But perhaps there is some fun to be had in playing as Ms. Fanservice in a hack and slash. Still, I learned a lot about this game, and now I know exactly why it's probably not worth playing. Though I doubt I would have played this game anyway. As I started reading DoI's review, I thought to myself "a standard RPG battle system, an old RPG, why should I care?" And DoI told me exactly why I should care. He dismisses the battle system and other aspects of the gameplay as familiar, old, etc, and spends the rest of the review focusing on the characters and the plot. This can sometimes be tedious, but it worked well here. A lot of RPGs feel interchangable with others, so reading about them can be annoying - but this is a cast of characters that is different. I tried to think of another RPG where the main character's parents were both alive, and, well, I did think of one, but it's not really a good game (Star Ocean 3). This one sounds a lot better. Wish I could play it, though I reckon tracking down a copy of this would be near impossible at a reasonable price in this day and age. Both of these reviews were awesome, which is what I like to see in the playoffs. I think DoI really understands how to review an RPG, and it looks like a review I could learn from myself, so I'll give him the nod.
    WINNER: DOI

    LEWIS: The best review I've read this round, Woodhouse, by quite a significant way. Aside from one use of the word 'ass' early on, which might grate just because I'm English so that's a type of donkey, this is certainly professional level stuff. If I saw this in a good quality games magazine, I wouldn't be at all surprised. It sticks relatively close to the established, traditional reviewing formula, but there's a reason that formula remains intact for so many publications. It works, delivering all the relevant information in an entertaining, flowing and easily identifiable manner. This round has been generally disappointing, but here, Woodhouse demonstrates that he could be the one to beat.

    DoI's review is a solid one, and it's a shame he's found himself stacked up against Woodhouse, as there were plenty of entries here that remain far, far worse than this. It's an enthusiastic, thorough and relevant take on why this game is important and should be held so dearly, again sticking to a traditional formula but really engaging with what makes the game work.

    My only problem with it is that it occasionally feels naively written. There are sections that I'd have reworded, or otherwise reworked. There are bits I'd have left out, or emphasised. Bits I'd have restructured. A lot of it's very good, but rarely does it break through into the outer stratosphere in the way Woodhouse's does regularly, if not constantly. There's a little polish missing where Woodhouse applied it liberally, so although this is good, Woodhouse wins by some way. Everyone else needs to watch out.

    SPORTSMAN: Great review here from Woodhouse. Im not the type that plays games solely for girls in bikinis but the intro really caught my attention. After that this was a fast-paced and entertaining review from beginning to end that never slowed down or had me PC clocking. Props to Woodhouse for making a review for such a repetitive game (according to him) sound so interesting. The conclusion actually came as a shocker to me because the review was so damn entertaining.

    DoI had the more ambitious project. Its tough to convince someone that a game is a classic solely based on its characters. Overall I think it sort of succeeded. I know this game is something truly special to him and probably something that every fan of the genre must experience. However Im not so sure if it is a perfect argument. I can tell that the characters are quirky and entertaining, but do they really rival conversations with your friends? Basically Im convinced that DoI thought this is something truly magnificent, but dont think its something that I would find special. Maybe the rest of the game was spoken about too negatively, dunno. This is not an easy approach to take and it wasnt entirely pulled off.

    This critique might sound a bit negative, so let me say that I applaud DoI for his effort and enjoyed the review. It just wasnt done as effectively as Woodhouses.
    WINNER: WOODHOUSE

    ---------------------------------

    Team Overdrive vs Team Suskie 0-3

    Overdrive vs. Suskie 1-2
    Venter vs. True 1-2
    Beli vs. ASchultz 0-3

    ---------------------------------

    Team Boo vs Team EmP 2-1

    Boo vs. EmP 2-1
    Espiga vs DE 1-2
    Woodhouse vs DOI 2-1

    ---------------------------------

    None of the fancy leaderboards now, we don't really need them. We know that next week, Team Suskie will face Bluberry's team.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 24, 2009:

    rawr
    board icon
    honestgamer posted August 24, 2009:

    Thanks for the commentary, judges! I had hoped to win this, but I knew going into the round that my team didn't have anything as strong as it did in previous weeks so I can't say I'm incredibly surprised that we were eliminated so close to the final match.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 24, 2009:

    when do I, woodhouse, Espiga, or an honorary delegate have to post a lineup for the FINALS by? I'll be out of town the next couple days listening to a 47 year old man jump around and scream about how he wants to come all over you and fuck you like an animal and how he won't let you fall apart etc

    good match EmP. sorry to see you go, OD!
    board icon
    Halon posted August 24, 2009:

    I usually don't have an opportunity to read reviews friday so if you want to make the deadline as late as midnight Saturday morning that's cool with me.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 24, 2009:

    Man, 3-5 this year. I think my own exuberance might have brought me down this year. 6/8 reviews were ones I'd written since the contest started. That's the highest percentage since my 1-6 year in my first TT when 6/7 were ones I'd written since the contest started and the seventh wasn't written long before.

    I just don't have the consistency to write blockbusters time-in and time-out. I come up with them here and there, but not to the point where I can pick random games that seem interesting to review and crank out top-level work. Timing might be a bit of an issue, too. After winning three straight, I lost my last two and have to give a portion of the blame to my job, as in mid-late August, I wind up having to shoulder a couple of big projects and, therefore, wasn't able to give reviewing the time I'd have liked to, especially for this match.....I really rushed this, which helped contribute to those grammar goofs, Jerec. Crap, in a way, it's a blessing I'm not in the finals, as the second of those project's deadline is this week.......so I don't know if I could have done a review of even modest quality.

    Ah well, I can't complain. I've written more during the duration of this contest's run than any other 9-week period in recent memory and had fun doing it.

    This might sound like a weird request, but just out of bizarre second-guessing curiosity, I was wondering if any of the new ones I'd written now would have fared better than ones I'd used. You know.....where one of you would be thinking, "Why'd he use this instead of that???". The reviews in question are Robodemons, Operation Secret Storm, Vagrant Story and Splosion Man. I'm not asking for critiques on them, but if any of you would be willing to skim them and just say whether any of them would have really impressed you compared to what I was using......

    I'm sort of taking notes and trying to figure out what kind of general writing style connects most with people, so if any of those are better at connecting with you guys, that'd be nice for me to know.

    If you don't want to after judging so many reviews, that's cool. Just figured I'd ask.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 24, 2009:

    #




    Suskie @ Boo

    SUSKIE vs ESPIGA
    TRUE vs WOODHOUSE
    ASCHULTZ vs BOO
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 24, 2009:

    I think considering the fact that it's impossible to even know if you're still in until Monday night, Saturday night is a sane time to have the deadline by. possibly even Sunday, it's not like the judges have to crank shit out quickly for the next week after this.

    but that's not my call.

    p.s. we made it rain on them hos.
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 24, 2009:

    Wow, Team Suskie got a win against the same tough Team Overdrive that dented our perfect record. Congrats to my teammates for their wins against 2 strong reviewers. Both teams that lost this week threw in some great reviews along the way. I've found it's tiring to keep trying for new reviews.

    Overdrive, I really enjoyed your Splosion Man review the best of all of the ones you mentioned, to throw in my non-official-judge vote. It's tough to tell if that's the subject matter or which. I generally prefer your non-NES reviews to your NES ones because I think you do find new ground with the non-NES ones, because as reliably funny as your NES bashes are, I can often say--yeah, I've seen that sort of thing before. I think that's generally the case, though.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 24, 2009:

    I don't particularly care when I need to judge the finals. It's 3 matches and I can probably do it in one sitting.

    Overdrive, I have generally enjoyed your reviews this tournament, and I voted for you more than the other two judges. But yeah, there were plenty of sloppy grammar moments, but they really only matter when the reviews are really evenly matched, and I need to nitpick to decide on a winner. I haven't read any reviews in the last 9 weeks that weren't part of the tournament. But when I find time I'll have a look at those reviews you mentioned, and I'll let you know what I think.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 24, 2009:

    Congrats to Zigfried for predicting the exact results.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 24, 2009:

    OD" I skimmed the Splosion man review and also liked it a lot (thought you were gonna use it this round). I liked it better than the one that was used but I voted for you anyways so not like it would've mattered haha.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 24, 2009:

    I'm definitely with OD on not being able to write a knockout on a weekly basis, which probably makes me look like a dick since I just beat him, but oh well. I think I set too high a standard for myself by using MadWorld the first round, because this is like the fourth or fifth week now where Sportsman said that he liked my review but it wasn't my best of the tournament.

    Anyway, thanks to the judges on that one and well done to my teammates. And if it makes you feel better Lewis, most of the people who love Zelda II cite the combat as one of the biggest draws. Still, fair observation.
    board icon
    threetimes posted August 25, 2009:

    I'd like to make a request. I've been trying to follow this tournament results, and it would be much easier if the name of the game being reviewed was shown on the results thread. I wanted to read the review before reading the critiques and I know they are listed somewhere on the other topic, but it's not that obvious.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 25, 2009:

    Well I can do that for the finals, but I won't be going back and doing it retroactively for the previous results.
    board icon
    threetimes posted August 25, 2009:

    The finals would be good. Thanks. :)
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 25, 2009:

    You could always just view the source and copy emp's hyperlinks, or get a mod to do it.
    board icon
    darketernal posted August 25, 2009:

    Thanks for judging.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 25, 2009:

    Interesting that people are saying Splosion Man. Maybe I was too hard on that one, myself, because I didn't think I'd quite captured things the way I wanted to. That was an assigned game to review that I'd put together after my Icarus review for Week 7. I typed it on Thursday, but couldn't post it because a Time Warner cable was down in my yard, so I had no internet. I was then away from home the next three days and posted it Sunday night when I finally got back.

    I guess to me, it felt a bit rushed just because all the running around I was doing around when I was typing it. Maybe it wasn't.

    Oh well, I'll put that on my short list of reviews to possibly use for next year. I don't think I want to go on the same sort of writing binge that I did this year. It was fun, but I think my overall quality suffered a bit, both in proofing and in simply coming up with great reviewing ideas and then pulling them off. Like, I was worried a bit about this review because I loved my theme of using one specific part of the game to illustrate its flaws, but I thought I wound up talking too much while illustrating the flaws, so it kinda felt like, "Okay.......after all the talk about combat, I guess he's back to the Underground Temple now......that took awhile...."
    board icon
    woodhouse posted August 25, 2009:

    Obviously I am pleased with these results. Here's another thanks to the judges. You guys are the stars of the tournament. You have the most work, can't slough off a week, and even though this is a writing competition, I'm sure your words attract the most eyeballs. So job well done.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted August 25, 2009:

    It's tangential.

    Also, "challange" is like one of the longest running HG in-jokes. It originated from the first "Challange Team Emp" when he actually didn't know how to spell it.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted August 25, 2009:

    You haven't won yet.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 25, 2009:

    How is it that I got that joke and Jerec didn't?
    board icon
    True posted August 25, 2009:

    Thank you Judges for your extended and quick critiques this week. I appreciate all the time and effort you've put into the tournament this year, and it hasn't gone unnoticed by me.
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 25, 2009:

    What True said. Let's see if both remaining teams can give you something really worth reading. This has been exhausting but rewarding for me as a competitor and I suspect for the judges too. Some weeks I can barely keep up with the what's-new.

    And in that vein, I echo sportsman's sentiments that an extra day or even two would probably make for the best matchups, as Friday night would be more valuable to the reviewers than the judges--who finally have a bit less of a workload than previous weeks. What do the commissioners/other contestants say?
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 25, 2009:

    Friday shall be the new deadline!
    board icon
    drella posted August 25, 2009:

    You better blow 'em away, kid, because I'd pull out my overly critical eyes if I judged eight weeks for an anti-climax.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 26, 2009:

    A clever line up by blueberry. It's really going to come down to a match between Woodhouse and True, then.
    board icon
    True posted August 26, 2009:

    Thank God.

    It's about time I got myself a decent brawl.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 28, 2009:

    it's getting annoying how this isn't on the front page bar, and how I'm editing a review on a Friday night. fuck this deadline brb lol
    board icon
    Esssspiga posted August 28, 2009:

    Gurumin: A Monstrous Adventure
    board icon
    woodhouse posted August 28, 2009:

    Disaster Report
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 28, 2009:

    the big break down isn't that what you wanted
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 28, 2009:

    Suskie: The Conduit

    True: Batman: Arkham Asylum

    ASchultz: Wasteland
    board icon
    jerec posted August 29, 2009:

    Here we are at the finals... only 6 reviews to read. Why couldn't all the rounds be like this? :P

    Also, you fucked up the hyperlinks to Suskie's team's reviews. Was that you, Boo? Did you think that little sabotage might actually help you win?
    board icon
    woodhouse posted August 29, 2009:

    I copied the links. They are fixed now.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 29, 2009:

    Okay, I'm finished.
    board icon
    Lewis posted August 30, 2009:

    My judgement has been passed.

    Best of luck to everyone involved. Everyone's kept praising us judges throughout this, but really it's the competitors that deserve all the plaudits. A big well done to all, and may the better team win.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 30, 2009:

    Didn't get home until after midnight last night, so nothing is done. Right now I'm going to have lunch then read the reviews. Results should be sent to Jerec in about an hour and a half.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 30, 2009:

    my results are in
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 30, 2009:

    Jerec better not take the time to attend to his morning wood.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 30, 2009:

    Yeah, I'm awake now. Actually woke up early to do this for you guys.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 30, 2009:

    Mega long comments today.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    SUSKIE @ BOO
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    SUSKIE vs ESPIGA

    JEREC: Suskie's review is brief, but it tells me so much in a small space. Control is discussed first, and at great length, but I can completely understand why - this is a Wii game, and control really can make or break a game, especially on this console. Suskie provides a compelling argument, that while the FPS is fairly simple, the controls feel right like it never has before. One of the reasons I don't like these games is due to the control, so I'd be willing to give this game a go. Maybe. This isn't as impressive as some other Suskie reviews I've read, but you know what? It doesn't need to be. The writing is tight, it flows well, and is a really easy read. This is the sort of review I would want to read if I was looking for opinions on this game. It recognises the game's faults, but still tells me why it's still a good game.

    Espiga, while your reviews have been good as a whole this tournament, I am a little disappointed that your lineup of reviews seems to be exactly the same as your lineup of reviews you used in the 2007 TT, which I also judged. The fact that I remember your Gurumin review means that it was a memorable review two years ago, which is great. But it also means that I'm reading the same thing again, and it has less impact on me now. I was really hoping you might write a new review for the finals. By the way, I would recommend against using these same reviews again in the next TT. It's great that you can get this far on past glories, but when so many other reviewers are challenging themselves to come up with new material most rounds, I find myself less than impressed. Take your opponent, Suskie, for example. Most of the reviews he's used this tournament were new, and they were very, very good, which is why he kicked ass throughout the season. You already know what I think of your review this round, though if you need a refresher, I can tell you that it is still a very good review, if a little gimmicky, and one that makes the game sound a lot more interesting than it probably is.

    Suskie's straightforward review wins over Espiga's repeat gimmick. I like both reviews a lot, but this was a very easy win for me to decide.

    LEWIS: Suskie, this is a very solid review that taps nicely into what exactly makes the game work. You don't bother spending much time on its peripheral aspects, which works well. Why bother? If the game's all about the control scheme, then that's the most important thing to cover, and you do so with care and enthusiasm.

    You do take the time to talk about why the game possibly wouldn't be as brilliant on another format, which again is a highly worthwhile angle to take. The bland narrative and level design would probably make this entirely unremarkable if played with a controller. But that's not the point, and you execute that judgement with style and confidence.

    On the downside, there's little that stands out from a writerly point of view, and while everything is solidly constructed, a little more flair may have been preferable. Still, this is a strong piece.

    Espiga, this is a tough one to judge, especially in the finals where one unfair decision could be all that counts. I'm not a fan of this type of review. The informality is fine, but the heavy use of first person to provide an illustrative voice is very tricky to get right. I don't think I'm letting my formality bias stand in the way here when I say this doesn't quite work.

    There's nothing inherenly wrong with your approach, but it's one that has to be done bloody well to stand out. Otherwise, it starts to stray towards fan-fic tendencies, which I think is what this review's in danger of doing. Often, it's very good - the bit about talking to a videogame made me smile - but it just reads a little too naively to keep my interested throughout. Sorry. Suskie wins.

    SPORTSMAN: What I liked about this Suskie review is that he convinced me - a person who never liked the Wii - that The Conduit is an interesting concept worth checking out that cant be done anywhere else. Wii has a ton of unique games so this shouldnt shock anyone, but I find most of them gimmicky and pointless and wish that they were done on another platform without the controls. However, Suskie convinced me that the Wii really works in its favor and gives you an experience you cant get on any other platform. It was also pretty short, which is good. Maybe another paragraph about the game in action wouldnt have hurt but its almost always better to be brief than too long.

    Espigas been in a bit of a slump lately but this is one of the best reviews Ive read from him in this tourney. He doesnt have an argument nearly as strong as Suskies but he didnt need it. This is the far more passionate piece of the two. The sentence Every part of Parins world is filled with so much rich detail and humour that you cant help but fall in love with her story really sums this one up perfectly. He really brought this titles quirkiness to life and got me into it. It was the longer one of the two but the writing was excellent and the review was fast-paced so I never got bored and didnt realize this was as long as it was until I finished it.

    Suskies review is the more analytical and has the more interesting argument, and Espigas is the more personal of the two. While Espiga mightve not has as ambitious of a project and delved as deeply into the mechanics, his approach really made the review interesting. I liked both and this is a very close match though Espiga really stepped it up and wrote the more interesting piece. While Suskies argument was convincing it overall just wasnt as interesting and none of his observations jumped out at me as somethingspectacular. It definitely convinced me that the game is unique, but didnt really make the game sound awesome. Its one of those reviews that give me the ok, cool impression. Still not a bad effort, but unfortunately for Suskie once again he loses a close one to someone who really stepped it up.
    WINNER: ESPIGA

    TRUE vs WOODHOUSE

    JEREC: I've been hearing a lot about Arkham Asylum lately, and True's is the first review I've read for it. There's a fair bit of descriptive stuff, setting up the premise. But it works because it well written and sets the scene perfectly, making me want to know more. I liked reading about how the game taunts you, such as with the Croc battle. Combat is adequately described towards the end of the review, but it definitely seems like the psychological aspect of this game is what True loves most. It makes me want to play the game. I've got the demo downloading on my 360 now. I'm fairly new to Batman, only really getting into it with Batman Begins and Dark Knight, and I usually don't bother with these sorts of games, but True makes it sound so brilliant that I really have to play it. It's a long review, but it never once felt that way because the writing is so sharp, so full of enthusiasm. This is the sort of review I'm expecting to see in the finals, and True delivers.

    Woodhouse's review is quite interesting. Disaster Report seems like no game I've played before, and it actually sounds quite fun, until we get to the later part of the review and we hear about the flaws in the game. Woodhouse manages to capture that adrenaline pumping experience of escaping from the sinking island very convincingly, and the paragraph about Karen and Kelly and the companionship stands out as my favourite point in the review. Woodhouse's writing is also good enough that when the flaws are discussed, I actually feel disappointed that the game isn't as great as it could have been. There were a few small goofs in the review, which a proof read will fix, but otherwise, this was an incredibly strong review.

    This was a much tougher, and much more impressive match than Suskie vs Espiga (and less one-sided). True and Woodhouse both bring out amazing, final match worthy reviews. Both of these would score above 90 in a standard contest, though True is slightly closer to the 100 mark with his piece, so he gets the win from me.

    LEWIS: This is an absolutely brilliant review of an absolutely brilliant game, True. I love how you hold back on the intro for so long -- it's carefully constructed and produces a brilliantly suspenseful atmosphere to the writing. Then, when you finally drop the bombshell on how good the game is, the rest of the review absolutely exudes utter enthusiasm in practically every sentence.

    It's the sort of review that demonstrates such an uncompromising love for the game that, even ignoring the hard content entirely, you could tell this game's a great one. It flows sublimely, but never feels too calculated, letting your unconditional admiration for Batman and Rocksteady's work guide the review along.

    I guess if I have a criticism it's that you didn't quite tap into the game's problems enough, of which there are a great deal. None that really spoil the game, but they are there. This is only an issue as I've played the game too, though, so it seems unfair to bash for that. A brilliant effort. I hope it serves you well.

    This is a fantastic match-up, though, and one that will really stretch my judging ability, as Woodhouse's review is brilliant too. Woodhouse, I love how analytical this is, while never straying into the realms of tedious. You obviously understand exactly what makes the game tick, and you're picking apart each element, examining it, and reporting back to the reader with real style.

    My criticism here would be that the introduction isn't as strong as the remainder of the review, and could have done with something to really engage the reader from the start. I'm not sure if it's a review I'd have read in its entirety unless I had to -- but I'm glad I did, because once the opening's out of the way, this is really strong. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to give my vote to True, but this is an incredibly close one. Two excellent reviews.

    SPORTSMAN: Trues review really captured the atmosphere of the game. Like last week the intro was sort of generic, and also like last week after the intro the review really took off. True has a very convincing tone and although there were a few grammar hiccups here and there the writing was very engaging and really got me into the game. Ive also always preferred the darker Batmans and the theme of the game really sounded awesome to me. Great job and setting the tone here, True. The problem I had is it didnt say much about the actual game. Its good to have fantastic atmosphere and I was more than convinced about that but very little of this review was devoted to actual gameplay. Batman having to rely on stealth and all sounded awesome and I wanted to know more about that. This is what I was really interested in and it was sort of lacking until briefly at the very end.

    Woodhouse, on the other hand wrote another killer review. This one actually reminds me of a Leroux/Drella piece from 2004 and Jihads Gitaroo-man (a favorite of mine). From start to finish this one didnt slow down. Maybe it was a little bit on the long side, but it held my interest the whole way through. The beginning in particular was great, since it really set the tone and the quirkiness worked in its favor. Valid complaints about the game were made, and they were mixed in so well with the review to the point where I didnt feel like I was reading a list and it felt like one continuous argument. Trues good parts were just as good as the good parts in this review, but Woodhouses told me a lot more about the actual game and made the gameplayt sound much more appealing so it was the superior one this round.
    WINNER: WOODHOUSE

    ASCHULTZ vs BOO


    JEREC: This ASchultz review was difficult to read in the same way that some of his other reads this tournament have been. But that's his style, and the other two judges seem to enjoy it. I find it tiring, myself. The review is long, and Schultz just fires ideas and descriptions and tells me what I could do (rarely "will do", there seem to be a lot of choices in these games). A lot of it is fairly abstract, but I never really get much of a sense of the overall. Just a lot of little aspects of the game, and it never really meshes well into a cohesive picture in my mind. I get that it's an old RPG, but the various names and things unfortunately don't mean much to me, and the review jumps into all this stuff before I even have a chance to get interested. And you know what? This is perfectly valid reviewing for a game like this - because outside of a tourney, you're really only going to read this if you're already interested in learning about some old games. A long review is more helpful than a short review in this case, as it's less of a review (because who is seriously going to read a review of a game that's 21 years old and think "Oh yes, I must play this now!"). It's a retrospective piece. It can work as a review, but it could also work on a blog, or a feature article in a magazine. It just doesn't work for me personally, and if I didn't have to read it for the tournament, I doubt I would otherwise.

    On the other hand, Boo's review is shorter, and much more accessible. The first two thirds of the review talk about how he can't bash the game because it's so interesting. Boo makes a convincing case that Breakdown is an interesting experience, even if the game itself is not good. The experience does sound amusing, thanks to the many features Boo describes, like puking poisoned food into a toilet. The last few paragraphs talk about what the gameplay did wrong. The 7/10 didn't feel out of place, but the whole "Very Good This game does enough things right that for the most part, you'll likely enjoy yourself while playing it. Recommended." did feel out of place. Seems to me that the game got enough things wrong, but was still enjoyable somehow. This is a 2005 review, but Boo seems to be writing on the same level as many of his other submissions this tourney. Was this one given a touch up just recently? Incredibly polished writing, and it left me with a very clear image of the game.

    These two reviews are so different, but Boo's is the easier review to follow and it is the more interesting read of the two. It's a review that just works, so Boo gets the win from me.

    LEWIS: Aschultz, this is very nearly a brilliant review. Like True's piece in the above match, it's one that drips enthusiasm for the material throughout. The intro's strong and draws me deeply into your review and the world you're describing. It's just such a shame about some of your sentence construction.

    There's one in the second paragraph that I had to read four times before I got it. That was the worst one, but there are a few offending phrasings here, ones that are difficult to process and could have been rectified by some simple re-wording. So while this has the potential to be an excellent write-up, there's too much editing required for me to be completely blown away by it.

    Boo, yours is an interesting piece that clearly explains what makes the game so fascinating despite its shortcomings. I like the detail you go into, I like your introduction, and I like how effortlessly you seem to understand the game and what it's trying to achieve.

    But I like the writing less. There's something a bit clumsy about parts of this. It occasionally feels a bit naive, and seeing that you wrote it four years ago doesn't surprise me at all. Again, this is a really close match-up, as both reviews are excellent yet flawed. I think I'll edge slightly towards Boo here, but both would be awesome if touched-up.

    SPORTSMAN: Im glad Schultz reviewed this game. Its a title that Ive always wanted to read about since the Fallouts are supposed to be spiritual successors to it or something. Overall he did a great job with this piece; the subject matter was interesting and he really captured what made the game so great. Im surprised how ahead of its time this game is. To me this sounds like an early Fallout, and I know this game came way before so props to Schultz for making it sound relevant and interesting today. I mean who wouldve expected a game with so much depth in the 1980s? Games today are still getting praised for something Wasteland mastered more than twenty years ago.

    I really like this approach Boo took with his review, partially because I tried it a few years back with JSRF and wound up never finishing the review. He did a really good job at making the game sound laughably bad and an equally good job at making the game sound like a great time. Theres a perfect blend of positive and negatives. I understand that from a technical standpoint the game really screws up, and Im also convinced that the game is still a bland to play. Its brief, hits hard, and leaves me with no questions. Most of all the concept sounds appealing to me and the review caught my interest and kept it for the whole time.

    This is yet another good matchup and a close round for both reviewers. While Schultzs was well organized, informative, and quite interesting, it never had the same level of intensity as Boos. Schultzs argument was strong, but today many games take on Wastelands formula. So while it might be revolutionary for its time and still great today, it didnt quite make it sound spectacular to me. I mean I dug the approach and cant think of a better way to tackle, but it overall just isnt as appealing to me.
    WINNER: BLUBERRY

    RESULTS

    TEAM SUSKIE vs TEAM BOO 2-1

    SUSKIE vs ESPIGA 2-1
    TRUE vs WOODHOUSE 2-1
    ASCHULTZ vs BOO 0-3

    So there it is, Suskie's team won, even though Boo's team managed more votes. This was actually decided last night when I made my blog post, since I received Lewis' verdicts first, and he and I voted the same way on all 3 matches, which is pretty rare. It would have looked very different to me had I received Sportsman's verdicts first.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 30, 2009:

    As I said in Zig's blog all of these reviews were great and all three matchups could've easily gone the other way. My picks were all on the spot so I didn't spend all day thinking about it and delay the verdicts anymore.

    Also I seemed to vote correctly the most out the three judges throughout so it's good to see that I'm the wildcard judge for once! I actually thought I would be the wildcard from the beginning but Jerec and Lewis opposed each other a lot. :)

    Finally a big thanks to everyone who participated. It might've not always seemed like it but I really had a good time judging this and reading so many great reviews that I probably wouldn't have read otherwise or read before.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 30, 2009:

    congrats to the other team! and thanks to the judges.

    Jerec: yeah, it was given a touch-up just now. not a drastic overhaul, though, hence I can see where Lewis is coming from.

    and if you hadn't noticed, Espiga has not been to HG since he signed up for the draft, hence all the old material. I have said this to many people, but if there's a next time for me, my first draft pick will make my second draft pick. I clearly can't fucking do it.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 30, 2009:

    Interesting, I haven't read that Espiga review before which is probably why I liked it so much. It was one of those cutesy one-time reviews so if I had read it before chances are I would've easily taken Suskie.

    Anyways I archived the entire tournament here. You can find it linked to from my archive page, which is located here if you've never seen it before.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 30, 2009:

    Congrats to the winners and everyone else. I believe Suskie has broken whatever record it was that Felix had cited all those weeks ago.

    Sportsman, I think you forgot to archive this despitehowcrapIdidinit. But it's cool you archived TT. As far as I know, that's never been done before. =/
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 30, 2009:

    Awesome. I know Boo's strategy was to guarantee each side a victory and then bet everything on the True vs. Woodhouse match, but I think all three matches wound up being closer than anyone thought they would. I even figured True nailed it as soon as I saw his Arkham Asylum review, but then Woodhouse's was great as well. This is actually the second TT in a row that ended with the winning team scoring 4-5, I'll point out. So thanks to Boo's team for making this tournament end on such an exciting note.

    One more final thanks to the judges, who had toughest job of anyone here and consistently delivered in full. Your verdicts were fair and well reasoned. Thanks as well to all of the participants, who were able to make this season as exciting and unpredictable as it was. I hope those of you who were new to TT enjoyed it enough to stick around for next year's.

    Finally, I definitely need to thank my two teammates for giving it their all and being so eager to learn, improve, and work hard for their victories. I know they wanted this more than I did and in my book, they've certainly earned it.
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 30, 2009:

    Wow...how's that for drama, a 2-1 4-5. Good job to the other team for bringing it. I thought I'd go 1-2 against Bluberry but then I'll take True winning and me going 0-3. Kind of sucks for Bluberry that he had to rely on Espiga's backlog but that backlog was entertaining for me (I'd never read it before) and he and Woodhouse both had some really good reviews this tourney.

    Nice job judges too. You guys worked independently and well and came up with different opinions. I think whether you voted for or against me, I got something from each one of you pretty much every round.

    Specifics:

    Jerec--yeah, it's tough to know what to do when you know your style doesn't match up with a judge. I was listening to what you had to say but it never seemed to fit in. As for who plays old games--well, cheapskates like me with no shelf space who are technical enough to handle emulators. I also feel they often have less rules, and I am too lazy to learn new rules.

    Sportsman--yeah, do try Wasteland. It's worth learning Apple emulators. I hadn't realized Wasteland's skill based system had been used that much and I maybe could've mentioned that up front. In fact I should've realized things. Didn't have time to play Fallout to compare it to Wasteland.

    Lewis--aaigh, you're right about the clumsiness. Bringing that against someone like Bluberry is living dangerously, especially in the finals when he's bound to bring it even more than usual.

    Thanks to my teammates for covering when I lost (like this round,) and being willing to listen to my criticism and to have faith in me despite my limited range in games.

    Good job to everyone in the tourney especially those who wrote new reviews or seriously revamped old ones. The experience surpassed my expectations. But I know I'm a bit exhausted now.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted August 30, 2009:

    Congratulations to the winning team. Your hardware is in the mail. Suskie, I'm sending you a Turbo Duo. True, you get a wired payment for Darkness. Schultz, you get IU paraphernalia.

    Again, great TT. Glad to see it turned out well.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 30, 2009:

    Wow. I just read Schultz's review, and I've got to say, you've definitely made a marked improvement from that first review I read from you all that time ago. Well done. That's the spirit of TT right there - self-improvement. Especially significant self-improvement.
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 30, 2009:

    Thanks, Wolfqueen. I am curious what that first review was? With all the proofreading that got done in the TT, I'm more interested in revisiting old stuff than before.

    Sportsman--wow, a lot to read at your site. I noticed you didn't have MotO 2 there yet? Lots of other fun ones though. Wish I'd been around for more of them.

    Jerec--I forgot to add, thanks for posting this early. Thanks to all the judges for being quick this round and being good sports about letting us have another day.

    EDIT: Oops, I see it now, Wolfqueen. For some reason I saw the link and figured you weren't in MotO2 so you were referring to something else. Apology inserted as edit to avoid bumping this needlessly--I mean, to avoid getting it noticed period.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 30, 2009:

    yeah, he's done well. Randxian also.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 30, 2009:

    Oh, I don't remember which one it was. I do know that it was one of your first ones that you subbed here, though, when you started becoming active.

    And yeah. Randxian must have improved a ton, too. I'll have to read one of his more recent ones to compare. Where'd he go, anyway? I haven't seen him in a while. But maybe I just haven't been paying attention.

    Anyway, yeah. I pointed out the MOTO thing already. Heh. I was just more subtle about it. =P Sportsman can't miss it now, though.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 30, 2009:

    Thanks WQ and Schultz, didn't even know that contest existed haha. It's up there now.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 30, 2009:

    By the way if I remember I'll be posting my choices for the awards in my blog sometime tomorrow night.
    board icon
    EmP posted August 30, 2009:

    Last year, for kicks, me and my bespectacled tubby side kick thought it would be kind of fun to put a tourney together where we picked the games the reviewers played. And, because we were arses then (and maybe even more so now -- see how I take a shot at my co-commish in the very first line of this topic) we used this as an excuse to make some of you suffer. But we learned things. We learned that the first Quake is an internet myth that doesnt really exist, that fire-fighting MEGA CD games are actually some kind of insane narcotic (with the drawback of putting the user in a month-spanning coma) and that its the reviewers you expect the least who often come up trumps when you turn things around on them.

    And now, were going to do it again. Because We Hate You (2009).

    Heres a rules breakdown for the dumb (and a refresher for Boo): Contestants give us a list of those consoles they can emulate and those they can legitimately play, as well as how good their PCs are and what their budget (if any) is. They will then be given a game assignment though HGMail, which they are free to discuss openly or keep a secret from the rest of the field. If, for whatever reason, the given game isnt going to happen, well often work with you to find something else. This isnt a free pass to cry off your choice, though -- the tourneys name isnt Because We Hate You just because we enjoy its understated eloquence.

    Keep in mind that the expected budget is $0, and it wouldn't bother us a bit if you were all cheap. It's just a way for us to make some more interesting picks if some of you have a few dollars to toss around, and we might not have to make use of it even if you post it. Most of this will happen through the wonders of emulation, which naturally, we're willing to help with. Mention systems even if it's the case, since we both have too many weird games lying around and might ship a few out here and there if need be. It's just a way for us to make some more interesting picks if some of you have a few dollars to toss around. This will not be an excuse for class warfare, with HG's famous socialites getting Madworld and Gears of War. Well help with emu problems when the need arises, and will give it about a week before we start spitting picks out.

    If you want to see how this went down last year, then this entire paragraph is an archive link!

    Were not going to set any time limits yet. We know a lot of you are still feeling TT burn, so consider this loose time frame a chance to solidify your game early so you can plot and plan. The only reason not to sign up for this is because you're lame and have not played Operation Wolf. Like Boo. You Dont want to be like Boo, do you?

    [ed: the same boo who whipped your ass in the semis?]
    [eded: and the same I smashed week 4, yes.]

    I'm sure you've figured out what the judging panel will be, but no need to fear. Critiques will be separate this time, and no Leroux, we won't forget to put the game names in the results topic either. It was an interesting idea, but our opinions can be so similar that most of the critiques were two sentences agreeing with each other and then moving on. We also will not reserve the right to not read your reviews, make some shit up, and then flip coins.

    What follows is the bit where you list your names and we make your life hell.

    Deadline:

    9th October

    Judges:

    EmP & Boo

    Victims:

    Zipp
    Lewis
    OD
    DE
    Pickhut
    WQ
    Jerec
    genj
    Melaisis
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 30, 2009:

    fuck off, I don't wear glasses and I got in shape.

    also, just to emphasize, we're willing to help with emulation. don't feel limited if all you've done is dick around with ZSNES for a few hours once. and we are 100% cool with most of you not wanting to drop any money on something like this, it's just an extra option.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 30, 2009:

    Okay, I'm in. The worst I can do is be a no show like several other times I sign up for contests. At best, I might actually write something.

    Oh yeah, budget is in the $20 AUD range, so bargain bin titles, downloadable titles for Wii or 360 are fine.

    Anyway,

    360/Xbox
    Wii/GC
    PS2/PS1
    N64
    DS/GBA
    PC (nothing newer than 2004ish, unless it's low spec)

    board icon
    dementedhut posted August 30, 2009:

    almighty Fatness (1:39:18 AM): do it
    almighty Fatness (1:39:18 AM): do it
    almighty Fatness (1:39:19 AM): do it
    almighty Fatness (1:39:20 AM): do it
    almighty Fatness (1:39:21 AM): do it
    almighty Fatness (1:40:06 AM): do it
    almighty Fatness (1:40:06 AM): do it
    almighty Fatness (1:40:08 AM): do it
    almighty Fatness (1:40:08 AM): do it

    Fine.

    Systems: Genesis, Super Nintendo that only works in B&W, Game Boy Advance SP, Saturn, Dreamcast that has a thing for freezing certain games after a bit of heating, PS2, Xbox, and a Xbox 360. As for PC, I have XP, and it usually works well for any game before 2004-ish.

    Emulation: Anything not involving 3D graphics, basically. So, anything before Saturn and PS.

    Budget: $60
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 30, 2009:

    (1:44:38 AM) almighty Fatness: YES
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 30, 2009:

    Yeah, I'm in. But seriously, no graphic/CG/FMV/whatever games this time. I'm not asking that my assigned game be good, just tolerable. You've already seen what happens when I'm forced to play that shit anyways.

    Readily have access to a Wii, DS and now a PS3 NO I DID NOT BUY ONE, two of my roommates have them. Also I can obviously play GameCube games on the Wii, but I'm not paying for anything so it's probably pointless.

    I have emulators for:

    NES
    SNES
    Genesis
    Sega CD
    N64
    PSX
    Game Boy Advance

    Anything else that's reasonably easy to emulate I can probably manage too.
    board icon
    Halon posted August 30, 2009:

    I'll give this a try but I'm not spending money. If a PC game is free and will run without DOSbox I can do that. BTW I pretty much only play PC games so I can run anything on the market right now. Actually maybe I'll try a game if it's really cheap, but I'm not spending a dime more than $10. I prefer free.

    I have emulators for:
    NES
    SNES
    Genesis
    Turbografx 16
    Possibly GBA, PSX, and N64 (do this as last resort, too lazy to check)

    Used to have MAME and DOSbox but not anymore. :(

    Most games I've played minus some sports titles and a few I probably missed are in my ratings section.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 30, 2009:

    haha, paying money for a PC game. you're adorable.
    board icon
    True posted August 30, 2009:

    Well, I won't go too into depth here because I have a very long, emotional blog planned out for a lot of people that were in this, especially the judges, so look for that either tonight or tomorrow.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 31, 2009:

    iPhone
    Genesis
    360

    budget: 5
    board icon
    True posted August 31, 2009:

    You DO NOT ruin my victory party with your lame ass spam!!

    UNDERSTAND?!
    board icon
    True posted August 31, 2009:

    Dear ECIM,

    Please expect a lot of spam in your email from me telling you how to grow your penis larger while maintaining your credit and searching the web for the best dating site while you play with an uber awesome Nerf gun and get the best deal on wine.

    Courtesy of The One, The Only True Baby.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 31, 2009:

    Oh god, why am I doing this?

    NES/SNES
    Genesis
    PSX/2/3
    Awesome PC

    New webmonkey job means I could reasonably purchase a brand-new title in the name of this competition. However the fact that I will probably hate it means I'm not willing to spend more than $20. Unless it's on a PC game.
    board icon
    Lewis posted August 31, 2009:

    Right. I'm in, but going to be fairly awkward to try to get you to assign me some bizarre PC indie thing that's either free or cheapo and I don't have to faff with emulation. Alternatively, you won't, so can play on PC, 360 or PS2 (hopefully Gamecube soon, if I can get a-hold of one, but probably best try to hold back on GC games).

    Budget... don't really wanna spend more than 5. That includes XBL membership too, since I'm offline at the moment.

    PC Specs:

    Old.

    Actual PC Specs:

    WinXP 64
    P4 3.2Ghz
    2GB RAM
    512MB GeForce 8600 video
    Enough hard drive space
    Occasionally faulty DVD drive so DL preferable.
    board icon
    randxian posted August 31, 2009:

    Congrats to Suskie, True, and Schultz for taking all the marbles.

    Yeah, I'm still around. I'm just being a lazy ass.

    board icon
    aschultz posted August 31, 2009:

    I may be a no-show too as I may still be on the rebound from the TT. But the experience may be entertaining. I'd like to know what you guys would give me.

    PC(nothing too new as my graphics card is lousy)
    GBA/GBC/GameBoy
    SNES
    NES/FDS
    Genesis
    Sega Master
    Apple
    Commodore
    Arcade
    TG16
    My PSX and Dreamcast are probably still workable as is my N64.

    Budget: $0, but if you guys have a game to send me, I'll chip in with PayPal, because I'd rather send the money to you than to someone I don't know, or to a Giant Corporate Entity. If you find a special game I may pay $10.

    So one thing I didn't see...how long will we have?
    board icon
    darketernal posted August 31, 2009:

    Systems: Most of the emulated consoles of old, PC games that are not too ground breakingly new(my computer is shit, so up to let's say...2006-2007), Psone, Ps2, PsP, DS.

    Budget: I steal games anyway. Yarr.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 31, 2009:

    I like this contest, so I accept.

    NES, SNES, Gen, SMS, GameGear, Game Boy Game Boy Color, Game Boy Advance, TG-16......are all systems I'm emulating at any given time.

    PS, PS2, 360 are all systems I own.

    If you go for the latter, just keep it reasonably cheap (aka: not some brand new $60 game......especially under the idea of, "Hehehe.....that dumb bastard's gonna fucking HATE this!!!!!!!!"
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 31, 2009:

    Fine. You know what I have, but I'll list it anyway.

    PC: lousy graphics. Could barely run HL2 on here.

    NES and Genesis. Though I may be willing to download some other emulator if absolutely necessary. Just hope that you catch me in a good / non-lazy mood as I'm busy with school.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 31, 2009:

    My system list is limited to PS3 (which includes PS2 and PS1), SNES, Mac, and the DS (includes advance) and PSP.

    I've never managed to get emulation software working on my Mac, but I've never tried all that intensely and probably could do it with some help.

    I'm in.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted August 31, 2009:

    Emulation:
    NES
    SNES
    Genesis
    GBA
    N64
    Willing to try other emulated consoles

    Own:
    PS2/X
    GC

    Budget: $15 USD
    board icon
    Halon posted August 31, 2009:

    Haha I messed up my PC a few years back from downloading a game and have been kind of afraid of it ever since. For some reason I don't mind downloading ROMs, though.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted August 31, 2009:

    Here's my lineup:

    DS
    PSP
    PS3/2/1
    Wii/Cube

    I know I have a GBA emu and an ancient version of MAME on this PC, maybe an SNES. Could probably do others.

    Budget: Have a GameFly subscription, so theoretically I can get anything they have. Not crazy about spending anything extra.
    board icon
    zigfried posted August 31, 2009:

    I will sign up. I have most game systems. But not shit ones like the Jaguar, 3DO, or PS3.

    //Zig
    board icon
    sashanan posted August 31, 2009:

    I was going to look up my results for last year, then realized that while I did write my review, it was well out of time for the contest.

    But I don't mind another shot. I could list that I own a DS, a PS1, a PS2, a Sega Master, a Sega Megadrive, a NES and a PC that smoothly plays World of Warcraft, but what would be the point? You'll just assign me another old game that I first have to find an emulator for.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted September 01, 2009:

    Yoyoyo! I can now partake in another competition after my much mourned absnece from the Team Tournament. Not even wolfqueen's/dagoss's invite could cheer me up.

    Anyway...

    Can emulate anthing up to the N64. Don't mind downlaoding a new emulator, and am about to see if I can emualate the Dreamcast or Saturn. Watch this space!

    EDIT: Tried DC emulator, not Saturn. Willing to do one of those if requested, compatibility permitting.

    I own:

    Master System, Mega Drive, Game Boy Color/Advance, DS, and a PC (Radeon 9600pro, 1GB RAM, 2.8Ghz P4) Also have a Wii but I won't be able to take it to uni when I go on the 17th.
    board icon
    aschultz posted September 01, 2009:

    Wow. This is a frickin bonanza. All these people happy and excited risk Because We Hate You getting misnomered into a lovefest.
    board icon
    Genj posted September 01, 2009:

    Like I said before, I'll join but I'd really appreciate something that doesn't take too much of a time commitment to play ("no RPGs" should be fine).

    Can emulate:

    NES
    SNES
    Genesis
    GBA/GB/GBC


    I've been able to emulate PSX & Saturn in the past but I'd like to avoid torrenting.

    The only thing I have with me at school is my DS. I'd be willing to spend $20 but only $10 if it's some shovelware crap like Hannah Montana.

    board icon
    bluberry posted September 01, 2009:

    yeah, again keep in mind the $ thing is just another option and we're not sitting here saying "haha, that stupid fuck said twenty bucks! we'll make him waste his money on the worst game ever!"
    board icon
    EmP posted September 01, 2009:

    Maybe you're not.
    board icon
    Masters posted September 01, 2009:

    XBOX 360
    XBOX
    DS
    NES
    SMS
    TG16
    GEN
    SNES
    GAMEBOY
    NEO GEO
    ARCADE
    PS1 (sort of)
    board icon
    timrod posted September 01, 2009:

    I have the following consoles emulated:

    GB/GBC/GBA
    SNES
    Any system falling under MAME
    SMS/Genesis/SegaCD
    N64
    PSX
    NDS
    PS2 (not 100%, hard to find ISOs)
    Wii (only have a handful of games)

    I really don't have much of a budget either.
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted September 01, 2009:

    I won this competition last year even though my entry wasn't even on time. I know I won because I secretly proclaimed myself winner. I am the breath of god!

    EMULATION:

    SNES
    NES
    GENESIS
    MAME
    THAT IS IT

    I am poor. I live on foodstamps. That means no high-rollin' like I did last year!!

    board icon
    turducken posted September 02, 2009:

    I've been sufficiently nagged into this. Yaaaay.

    I have pretty much any system or the ability to emulate it. Not spending any money.
    board icon
    Lewis posted September 02, 2009:

    Just a quick query: is it a good idea to have a competition that pretty clearly advocates something that's commonly considered a form of piracy and thus illegal?

    Like, outside of the debate (which WolfQueen summarised and discussed rather brilliantly in her Mother review), is it a good idea, just theoretically?
    board icon
    Halon posted September 02, 2009:

    What Genj said, no RPGs that take forever to complete and I'd prefer no fighting games because I won't know what to say about them.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 02, 2009:

    Lewis, the great thing is that nobody here cares.

    I second what Sportsman said, there are few genres I'm clueless about but add fighting games to that list.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 02, 2009:

    if you're like to put that part in quotation marks and edit in a JUST KIDDING I'm all for it. nobody's ever given a shit, though.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted September 03, 2009:

    When do we find out our games?
    board icon
    Lewis posted September 03, 2009:

    "Lewis, the great thing is that nobody here cares."

    That's a pretty dismissive thing to say regarding what's irrefutably an issue, whether it's one for this site's user base or not.

    This thread probably not the best place, though, carry on.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted September 03, 2009:

    I'm going to have to jump on the "No RPGS's bandwagon". I'll be a Uni stunnet when this comp starts, studying archtiecture and thus won't have much time. Unless there's short RPG's out there...
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 03, 2009:

    JANUS: likely next week. I'm moving and don't have internet, EmP and I wanted to get the thread up beforehand.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 03, 2009:

    Everyone trying to set conditions obviously didn't take in the name of the tourney. But, by all means, continue advertising the best ways we can annoy you best with our picks.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted September 03, 2009:

    All right, so Sportsman gets Legend of Legaia and Genj gets The Last Remnant!
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 03, 2009:

    Boy, EmP, you must really love my Fahrenheit if you want to see another review just like it!
    board icon
    drella posted September 03, 2009:

    Give me a game, crumb bums.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 04, 2009:

    Yeah, I'd be willing to throw down some money, but it would have to be chump change... you know, something I get used on Amazon for 6 bucks... maybe 12 at the most.

    I had to take a week off from nude modeling due to sickness that's set me back about 300 dollars.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 04, 2009:

    I'm not sure if even I am a big enough jerk to make someone play TLR.
    board icon
    turducken posted September 05, 2009:

    Well, I'm sure.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted September 05, 2009:

    !
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted September 05, 2009:

    Ah, why not. Anything pre-3D that can be emulated.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 05, 2009:

    Just a head's up:

    We will shortly be sorting out game picks for everyone, but that doesn;t mean the signs up are closed. In fact, sign ups never close here! You should all look to your mobile phones for your incoming picks over the weekend. If there's problems with the choice, it's on you to respond as swiftly as you can to find a timely remedy.
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 05, 2009:

    I hate you, so I'll tell you about a problem 4 hours before the final review deadline.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Melaisis posted September 05, 2009:

    Kinda stupid for me to rant on about how great writing for HG is in my blog and not enter this, so here I go.

    I got a 360 and PC. PC is fairly decent (2.4 dual, 1GB, 8000 series GeForce) and could probably emulate all 2D systems if I had an idea how, lol.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 05, 2009:

    You should all look to your mobile phones for your incoming picks over the weekend

    Receiving a call from EmP would be one of those surreal things that defines a period of my existence.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 05, 2009:

    That might well be the oddest typo I'll ever make.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted September 05, 2009:

    I once called Jason out of the blue. So stranger things have happened.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 06, 2009:

    stop living vicariously through Scott and I.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted September 06, 2009:

    Tales of Phantasia is in the bag. Deciding between Shenmue II or L4D, although any non-RPG would be good at this point.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 07, 2009:

    It's hard to find a time when both me and Boo are around long enogh to hash this out, so I'm sorry this is taking longer than we expected.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted September 07, 2009:

    Give him a call.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 10, 2009:

    picks should be incoming shortly. sorry for the delay but I moved and our internet is still fucked.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 10, 2009:

    You should all have your picks now. If you've not, let me know.

    Check your HG mails. Let the complaining begin.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted September 10, 2009:

    I, err, don't.
    board icon
    Halon posted September 10, 2009:

    About 5 years ago I played maybe a half hour of my game. It was also a port on another console. If this is a problem I'll need another game and if not I'm good to go.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 10, 2009:

    Wow. My game sounds like it doesn't actually suck. I'll get on that tomorrow.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 11, 2009:

    Heaven help you if you thought that would piss me off.
    board icon
    Lewis posted September 11, 2009:

    Ooh! Mine's one I played some of a while back and didn't understand what the fuss was about. Will be interesting to force a playthrough and see if it changes my mind.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 11, 2009:

    EmP and Boo got their revenge on me. I got a game over on the first level. :(

    I've only got the trial version (XBL) right now. I don't have enough points yet...
    board icon
    Lewis posted September 11, 2009:

    I also realise I uninstalled and deleted my game about four days ago, meaning I'll have to download the rather large file all over again.
    board icon
    darketernal posted September 11, 2009:

    My game is awful. I hate. Which is appropriate.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 11, 2009:

    Will: You have two games put aside. One's pretty good and the other is awful. Depending how late your freeelance review is will decide which you get.

    It's not all been hate this year. We've usd it as an excuse to get games we want covered covered and haver interspred this with poetic justice now and then.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 12, 2009:

    Question, EmP. What if the game is so stupid and difficult that I used up all my continues and got a game over on the first fucking level? What do you people see in these games? I'm still playing the trial, so I'm not sure I want to spend 800 points on a game I know I'm gonna hate. >_<

    Unless I just review it based on the first level, which is probably as far as I'm ever gonna get with it.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted September 12, 2009:

    What game did you get?

    My game isn't even in the site's database!
    board icon
    jerec posted September 12, 2009:

    Metal Slug 3 (XBA)

    I guess I was asking for it. :P
    board icon
    drella posted September 12, 2009:

    I need a new game. I can't get Winter Heat to work in MacMame.

    I first got an error saying I needed file epr19730.ic8, so I found the package stvbios.zip and downloaded it. I went to run the ROM again and had the game load and display copyright info, but it must be failing the checks at the beginning, because I don't get to the title screen. The game pauses and I get the error "Window Control Enabled on a Tile Map Plane = 13".

    In my experience, emulating arcade games that first appeared on the Saturn has been next to impossible to do accurately (Radiant Silvergun, Die Hard Arcade, etc.) without serious hardware. It has to do with the Saturn's graphics emulation, which has dual custom VDP chips that need to be synced, one that handles sprites/polygons and another that handles background/rotation. Arcade consoles of these games use the same chips. A basic GMA X3100 equipped MacBook just can't emulate that at anything close to an acceptable framerate, if at all.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted September 12, 2009:

    Which bit are you stuck on?

    Here's my review of Wolfenstein 3D for the iphone: this game is really old, the iphone controls are awkward but it only cost me 1. 5/10. You guys should have given me Wolfenstein RPG. That would have been a really hateful pick.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 12, 2009:

    I don't know, Doom RPG was actually pretty sick.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 12, 2009:

    Jerec: gut it out! I'm pretty sure the full game gives you unlimited continues, and me & Boo deserve this!

    Janus: The RPG was what I wanted to give you. Boo pushed hard for what you got.

    Leroux: I'll HGMail you something new shortly. Remind me what you can play?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 12, 2009:

    When's deadline?
    board icon
    drella posted September 12, 2009:

    Anything I can emulate, which still includes most arcade titles as well as the usual 8 through 16 bit consoles and portables (registered version of MagicEngine, so I can do TG16 too). I can probably emulate most esoteric platforms, like Atari 5200 or MSX, if you want to get fancy. Anything N64 I own works, and I might be willing to spend there for the right title to write about.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 13, 2009:

    Everyone should now have titles to review. Again, the quicker you let us know of issues, the quicker I can try and solve them.

    Deadline looks to be early/mid October. I'll make a note when it's finalised.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 13, 2009:

    Oh. My. God. I thought I'd gotten off easy but... oh. my. god.
    board icon
    drella posted September 13, 2009:

    So I decided to check my new pick. From Wikipedia:

    Last Legion UX is a platform game for the Nintendo 64. It was released only in Japan in 1999.

    I don't live in Japan, have a JP N64 or know any Japanese. You know this. Come on.

    I'm no longer willing to spend. It'd be silly to waste money for people that don't research the game they pick for someone at all.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted September 13, 2009:

    Can't you emulate that?

    I've kinda been playing Skies of Arcadia Legends instead of my BWHY game, heh.
    board icon
    drella posted September 13, 2009:

    According to bbitmaster on Youtube:

    "Here is another Last Legion UX video. As I said before, this game is unemulated, and so the only way to play it is to import it, or to get a backup device."

    N64 ROMs are widely available, but most of them are unplayable/work on select emulators due to hardware. That's why I said 8 and 16-bit consoles for what I'd be willing to emulate. I'm not trying nine different N64 emulators to make sure it doesn't work on all of them after the first hassle and after seeing a testimonial it won't.

    I've also never played Armored Core style games, so English would be a big help in understanding them. Otherwise I'm awfully prone to saying something ignorant.

    I'll withdraw if I'm going to get a hard time about this. I can't enter anything around here without a headache.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 14, 2009:

    Emp, seems i can muck around with the difficulty and continues on the trial version. But basically if I unlock this, it's just gonna be me running, shooting and dying my way to the end. I hear it's not a long game, either. I can just imagine the tagline for my upcoming review. "It's dreadful, but it's quite short."
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 15, 2009:

    Here we go! One review per user can be used and no staff reviews can count. Now let's see who wins what!



    THIRD PLACE: Mortal Kombat (Arcade) by spaceworlder

    I think the thing that probably pushed this review a bit above ASchultz' and/or one of Felix's is the simply "cool nostalgia" factor this one brought me. That opening paragraph basically sums up in a nutshell why MK is so sweet. It might not be the best game with the best system, but it has the most "WHOA!?!?!? WTF!!!!! SWEET!!!!!" moments of any such game. In this review, you do a great job of simply letting those moments speak for themselves from the fatalities to the secrets (real and imagined). This one brought me down memory lane (and in a good way, unlike Felix's Sneak-n-Peek.....which was a more nightmarish trip).

    SECOND PLACE: Tales of Vesperia (XBox 360) by jerec

    To get the negative out of the way first, I thought the part where you discussed the characters ran overly long. I have to admit that I did skim a bit of that to get to the rest of the review. To get more positive, as a person who has played a couple of the Tales of... games (SNES Phantasia translation, PS1 Destiny, PS2 Legendia), I feel you did nail this review on a number of levels. I've always thought the defining strength of this series is that the characters tend to be more memorably written than in most games (due in part to little things like those skits and post-battle scenes, which seem to have been greatly enhanced from those in Legendia) and regardless of how one feels about the battles (I always have gotten worn down by the sheer number of them), they at least are fast-paced. You pretty much tackled everything I'd want to see in a review of this game and, with the exception of what I feel to be a bloated list of characters, did so very well.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: System Shock 2 (PC) by darketernal

    While System Shock 2, being a PC game, isn't one I'm overly familiar with, your theme of "This game is considered godly, but I'm not so sure...." is a fairly regular one that I am familiar with. So, I was looking at your review kinda critically to see how well you made your point and you get like 15 gold medals or something (payable by EmP). I'm reading this review and thinking...."It sounds cool and everything, but it's just you on an abandoned (except for beasties) ship with all your human correspondence coming from files you find? Man.....that eliminates a sort of big component of this sort of game...." And guess what? You specifically bring up that point to good effect. As well as a number of others, such as how you can really eliminate a great deal of the difference between classes by training and how your character is a personality-free silent guy. You also do a great job of mentioning how the game is really cool, but easily spend enough attention on its shortcomings to prove your point. Actually, if anything, I think you could put a bit more attention on "fantastic experience in gaming history written in a futuristic world where you have to fight teeth and nails to survive the infestation of the parasitic alien" part of things, as if I find any real flaw with this review it's that it focuses on the character classes and the flaws while assuming the reader already knows how great this game is perceived to be.



    I'd also have to give kudos to just about everyone who made picking these three reviews so damn tough. Felix put some clever lines in both of his Atari reviews, ensuring I was well entertained by both of them, while Schultz did an admirable job reviewing a game that has to be considered a very tricky one to write about, being that it's a text adventure that's extremely dialogue-heavy. I'd put this week down as one where I didn't necessarily find any of the reviews to be exceptional, but there were a lot of them that I thought were very good. And that makes me happy. So does beer. I'm off to get happier, now!
    board icon
    EmP posted September 15, 2009:

    ODDY, my crazed chum, might you have used an earlier RotW template and left the old linkage in foe the winner? Otherwise, that's a tad confusing.
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 15, 2009:

    I..uh...errr.....have no idea what you are talking about. Yeah, that's it. No clue whatsoever! No rapid editing of any mistakes on my part or anything like that.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 15, 2009:

    There were heaps of reviews this week, so reaching second place (rusty as I am) makes me happy. I do agree that the character stuff might have gone on a little long, but looking back on the 50 hours I spent on that game, they were pretty much all I wanted to talk about. Looking through it again there isn't anything I'd want to cut.

    Thank you, Overdrive!
    board icon
    aschultz posted September 15, 2009:

    Congrats to the winners. Good to see Jerec back. ROTW next time maybe--and here's to next time being not too far away.

    This seems like the right order, too. More ambitious reviews do tend to take the day and I think DarkEternal did really well with that, and retro reviews about relatively simpler games (like I had) should take a back seat unless they're something really special. Especially since I got tangled up in some explanations, at least in my first draft.

    That said, I hope to dig into my collection of Apple RPGs to re-write GameFAQs reviews on. The more good reviews here I read, the more ammo I get.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 15, 2009:

    Oh, and thanks to you, too, Mr. Schultz. Your critique really helped me make this one tighter (I did end up moving the story/character stuff to the start of the review). It was like that in my initial plans, too. Just when I started writing, the battle stuff came easier so I ended up putting that at the start and going from there.
    board icon
    darketernal posted September 15, 2009:

    Thanks for the feedback, glad you lot liked it.
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted September 16, 2009:

    Hey, I'm going to let you finish, but JEREC HAD ONE OF THE BEST REVIEWS OF ALL TIME. ONE OF THE BEST REVIEWS OF ALL TIME!

    All joking aside, thanks Overdrive, and congrats to Jerec and Darketernal.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 16, 2009:

    Good thing Darketernal already gave his acceptance speech or he'd be too stunned to go on now.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted September 16, 2009:

    Boo, Emp, I hate you guys.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted September 17, 2009:

    Jackass.
    board icon
    Melaisis posted September 17, 2009:

    Jesus guys. Looking at some of your responses I feel I got off easy.

    Still, strategies from the early 90s are not known for their longevity and I'm actually running out of stuff to write about it.
    board icon
    Lewis posted September 18, 2009:

    Game: Enter the Story: The Divine Comedy
    Developer: Chris Tolworthy
    Publisher: Chris Tolworthy
    Format: PC
    Genre: Adventure

    ADDED
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 18, 2009:

    Alright, I've played as much as my game as I can stand. Review coming next week.
    board icon
    Genj posted September 18, 2009:

    I am really enjoying Kana: Little Sister.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted September 18, 2009:

    Though I feel that our day-to-day content is arguably the best it has ever been, something for which I am extremely grateful (good job, everyone!), our traffic has dropped significantly except for occasional peaks when we post reviews for particularly hyped games... such as our recent Champions Online coverage.

    I believe that we will rebound, as we always do, but I wanted to take a look at where we are ranking for some key terms when users look for us on Google. I believe that the bulk of our poor performance comes down to Google. Specifically, I believe that our performance in the search engine is poor. People aren't going to wade through 7 pages to find our content if they don't even know that we exist, obviously, so we ideally want to be listed on the first page, or on the second or third page at worst. No one's likely to dig much beyond that except for the truly passionate, and they probably already know about us from some other venture.

    Here's what I found after a bit of research, with the most promising results listed first and going down from there (high numbers are bad, m'kay?):

    (Search Term) - (Google.com Search Results Page #)

    video game FAQs - page 7
    video game reviews - page 8
    game reviews - page 12
    video game cheats - page 15
    video game guides - page 17
    game FAQs - page 18
    game cheats - page 20
    video game news - page 26
    game guides - page 50

    Why did I pick those terms? Because they are the ones that interest us most. If someone is looking for the type of content we offer, the content at which we excel, they will likely use one of the precise terms above, or something very close. With that being the case, those are the important ones for us to improve. Do we come up in the first few pages for some search queries? Absolutely:

    (Search Term) - (Google.com Search Results Page #)

    honest gamers - page 1
    honest game reviews - page 1
    honest video game reviews - page 1
    rapelay review - page 1

    If someone is looking for our take on something via Google, they can easily find it with any reasonable search. We'll probably show on the first page. So, how do we get there for the important terms?

    The short answer is "self-promotion." I've been putting a lot of effort into that and some of it is paying off. It's a slow process, however. Though our Twitter audience is growing, it's not doing so as quickly as I'd like. Here are a few areas where you can help if you find yourself with a few minutes to spare...

    Twitter

    We've started giving away games to Twitter readers. Though I know there are a lot of people who say that Twitter is nonsense, they're not in PR and marketing. Everyone in PR and marketing is astonished daily by how effective Twitter can be when used properly. If we can grow a large Twitter audience, we basically can be our own Google and the results of the Twitter chatter could boost our Google presence to boot! So if you have a Twitter account and we post something that you think might interest others, put a note about it on Twitter!

    Facebook

    Besides Twitter, the other marketing tool that is all the rage these days is Facebook. Nintendo and Microsoft are even looking to integrate the site into the DSi and Xbox 360. We can't afford to totally ignore Facebook. To that end, it's a simple process to click the Facebook icon at the end of any staff review, then fill out a little form and post about that review on your Facebook wall. I've even set things up so that most of the work is done for you. I've tested it and it works like a charm. Some of our competition still hasn't figured out how to do that, so we're ahead of the curve!

    I'll update this thread with more ideas and information as I stumble across them. Feel free to pitch in if you have ideas or questions about promotion!
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted September 19, 2009:

    I'm just gonna review Skies of Arcadia.
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 19, 2009:

    As much as y'all are complaining, I'm sure that my game was the meanest pick of all. Prepare to be stunned when you all find out what I was assigned.

    //Zig
    board icon
    woodhouse posted September 19, 2009:

    Do you know about Twuffer (http://twuffer.com/)? It lets you schedule future tweets, though I think you can only schedule to go out on the hour right now. Useful if to spread out a bunch of tweets or have a more constant presence. It gives other ideas there too.

    How about integrating Facebook Connect? Mostly I've seen it used to facilitate easier registration. It would be a more involved undertaking, but here's some preliminary info.

    http://developers.facebook.com/connect.php
    board icon
    Halon posted September 19, 2009:

    I downloaded the emulator and ROM for my game. This is the farthest I've gotten in a reviewing contest in a long time.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted September 19, 2009:

    I already finished writing my review a few days ago. I'm just too lazy to proofread it.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted September 20, 2009:

    What up in my neck of the woods...lessee... Was gonna do Ace Combat 3 but the dude sold me a lemon: the save function doesn't work (of all stupid things). So, defaulting to Air Combat (1) and seeing how that turns out; it's looking to be rather short so it won't be very fulfilling. Also got Aidyn Chronicles here and that's a lot meatier, and I think the Orange Box and D are both coming soon, so that's something to look forward to. Might get the first three Colony Wars games too, depending on a little luck...
    board icon
    honestgamer posted September 20, 2009:

    I like the idea of using Facebook to allow users to easily comment on site content without having to go through a registration they don't want. I've implemented it on news stories. Unfortunately, it seems that Facebook has been having issues with the feature since September 15 (I looked on the developer forum and found several comments to that effect), so right now it's only possible to comment if you sign into your Facebook account. Still, that defaults to posting on your Facebook wall so that others can comment--and includes a link to the article on this site--so I'm excited by the potential.

    Once Facebook fixes the application, this could improve the amount of feedback we get for news stories and could improve traffic in general. Besides, we almost never got any useful comments on news stories as it was, so this is a good way to experiment and see if Facebook integration can play a valuable role in the site's future.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 21, 2009:

    I'm at 18 now. Only 9 letters to go. It's nearly October, so that would be 3 reviews each for the remaining months of the year. U is gonna be covered by Uncharted 2, but Y... J? J could very well be Jeanne D'arc.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted September 21, 2009:

    I tried out the Facebook news feedback using the 'enter name/email option' and it was not posting it. It wouldn't submit the form. Didn't go anywhere when I hit Post.

    EDIT:
    I guess that's what you were talking about with the problems you saw on their forums.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted September 21, 2009:

    Yeah, currently the only way to post is to be signed into your Facebook account, if you have one. Fortunately, most people do. This will open up commenting to a whole new audience that previously may have wanted to comment but didn't want to bother registering with yet another site. Most gamers seem to have Facebook by now, and those who don't are likely to sign up in the near future or they weren't much into commenting in the first place. The benefit now is that when they do comment, we get a lot more exposure than comments got us previously. Plus... I would hope that Facebook will soon be fixing the glitch.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 24, 2009:

    Didn't you get Chrono Trigger, Zig?

    In any case, my review is... prepared. By which I mean I know how I want to write it and that I want to keep it fairly short. I even have an open document with some text. So... next week?
    board icon
    fleinn posted September 24, 2009:

    Game: Trine
    Developer: Frozenbyte
    Publisher: Nobilis
    Format: PS3
    Genre: Faery-tale platformer ;)

    Added

    edit: thanks, mod :)
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 25, 2009:

    For conveniency's sake, as well as anyone looking for that particular game, wouldn't it be advisable to link that game with the PC one? Or is that not possible with PSN titles?

    Trine can be found here, too.
    board icon
    bluberry posted September 26, 2009:

    just so you guys know, my internet is finally up so if you need to get in touch about something re: the competition then you can.
    board icon
    Cpt_Guapo posted September 26, 2009:

    By Google. I was doing a search about Games FAQs and Walkthroughs other than Game FAQs and IGN, and ended up here.
    board icon
    Panzerdrako posted September 27, 2009:

    hi guys!

    i was looking for a guide and i found this place...
    i hope help the cause!

    hehe....

    (i have a bunch of videos and screenshots to share....but it seems i need to do something special to obtain that , right? )
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 27, 2009:

    Panzerdrako - I've set your account up to send screenshots. Be sure to read through the lengthy rules when submitting for the first time... the rules should pop up whenever you submit a screen. In particular, make sure the screen is 320 pixels (or less) wide.

    For videos, the process for those is to submit them on Youtube (or similar site) and then you submit the "embedded video link" here.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Panzerdrako posted September 28, 2009:

    thnx Zig...

    just one question...
    which "youtube video size" is better to embeded...

    i do not want to "deform" the site...
    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/videos.php?game_id=36621&action=viewer&video_id=938&gametitle=DJ+Star+%28DS%29&videotitle=DJ+Star+trailer
    board icon
    woodhouse posted September 28, 2009:

    I use width="425" height="344". I think that's the default size.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted September 28, 2009:

    Yeah, when you embed a YouTube video it defaults to the appropriate size unless you've somehow modified your YouTube account settings to display differently. The site can actually contain a video as wide as 600 pixels, I believe. Any wider and you would stretch the site.
    board icon
    Sclem posted September 28, 2009:

    Sure I've been wanting to write for a while. PS1 and before. I don't like to emulate Xbox and crap.

    and why is this despicable human pile of feces bluberry still roaming these forums?

    Also, I bet I can come back from the glory days of retirement and bury this Golding character. Bets on Marc. You, me, Fatness, that odd Aussie guy that works in the biology labb, Andrew 'The Apple' Schultz, and this old perv zig are goign to have a ball out in this tournament. I'm bringing the thesaurus; you just bring the old scrolls from Shionbi 1.

    board icon
    EmP posted September 28, 2009:

    Very well, young Scott. Your game pick has been HGMailed to you.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 28, 2009:

    Out of curiosity, is anyone done with their reviews yet or getting close? I'm nearly done with mine and I'm debating whether to post it this week or hold off for a bit.
    board icon
    Panzerdrako posted September 28, 2009:

    oki doki

    thnx!
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted September 29, 2009:

    i'm only slightly more than halfway through my game =(
    board icon
    dementedhut posted September 29, 2009:

    I'm done with my review, but I just keep forgetting to submit it.
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 29, 2009:

    I've been playing my game along with others. Just sort of meandering along at my own pace.

    A friend of mine who's moved out of state is back for a week, so I haven't had time to do much of anything gaming-related the past few days, as I've been hanging out and partying with him for the last four nights.
    board icon
    Cpt_Guapo posted September 29, 2009:

    Hi everybody,

    I was looking for a FAQs site and ended up here. I'm part of the gang now...
    board icon
    Panzerdrako posted September 29, 2009:

    i think 530*360 it optimus...

    thnx again...
    board icon
    Sclem posted October 01, 2009:

    Yeah I've played mine a bit.

    When are these due anyway, fix killer?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 02, 2009:

    This has definitely been one of the hardest reviews of my career. I'm taking the opportunity to try out some things and see how they hold up "in court," so to speak. I've gone all over the place with this one, though. Originally I wrote it as a recipe. Yeah, recipe format for a review. It was meant to be all clever and shit... and it was!

    But I wasn't satisfied.

    The thing that keeps throwing me is that I actually think my game is a good game to the right crowd. I really want to speak out to that crowd and I'm trying to decide the best way to do it. The problem is I'm definitely NOT a member of that crowd, so I'm trying to figure out the best angle.

    There. My "progress blog" for the night.
    board icon
    bigcj34 posted October 02, 2009:

    Going to have to retire from this tournament unfortunately, due to external circumstances. I've moved to uni and have no TV, and have no computer (thought I would've had one sooner) making matters awkward somewhat. When I'm back in the biz with a dazzling laptop though, I'll be back on HG!
    board icon
    Halon posted October 02, 2009:

    I should be able to finish the game this weekend but will be gone Monday to Thursday. I'm definitely going to try to get something done but it will be an 11PM Friday night job.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 03, 2009:

    Well, mine has finally reached adulthood and is preparing to enter the scary world of fellow reviews. I should have the full draft done tomorrow night with a planned final release on Sunday night.
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 03, 2009:

    Tales of Monkey Island: Chapter 3 - Lair of the Leviathan
    Adventure
    PC (also on Wii)
    29/09/09
    Telltale Games

    been there all along.

    EDIT: It bloody wasn't! Someone added it for me last night, after I'd waited for ages and become impatient!

    EDITEDIT: Prove it!
    board icon
    Sclem posted October 03, 2009:

    Man what happened to the fun in reviewing? Two years ago, I used to be able to shit talk half these goons and get some real competition. Now they're coming to tournaments with skirts and play Tetris on the toilet. What happened?
    board icon
    jerec posted October 03, 2009:

    If I can review my game based on the trial only, I will. It's like one fifth of the game, and since I don't like level 1, I doubt I'm gonna like the rest of the levels. I also feel I might be missing the true essence of the game by not having anyone to play co-op, as is usually the case in the arcade version.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted October 04, 2009:

    Would it help FFM if I pointed out that you need to actually provide competition in order to get it out of other people?
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 04, 2009:

    you're definitely missing out on the game, Jerec. maybe you'll still hate it, but the first level isn't the best (I still like it!) and besides, there are tons of games I haven't dug at first.

    it would also probably hurt your review. just probably, but probably.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 05, 2009:

    Since I don't have enough to form a full review, I'm just gonna give it a mini review.

    Metal Slug 3 (XBLA)

    It's dreadful, but it's quite short.

    Run, shoot, die, repeat. Blast mutant crabs and foot soldiers, and trucks and stuff. Rescue the numerous Castaway Mel Gibsons Tom Hanks's and then die a few more times. Collect some powerups but then lose them when you die again. Replay the first level if you want to take an alternate path under the sea where you battle subs and fish and whatever else.

    If you want to play a few more levels which are probably much the same, then sure, spend 800 points to unlock the trial. That is, if you're into this sort of thing. I'm not.

    5/10
    board icon
    sashanan posted October 05, 2009:

    I've actually finished Metal Slug 3. Of course, on a game with unlimited lives/continues, how could I not have?

    Working hard on my assignment - I was already familiar with the game but never played it past the first hour, so yesterday I played the first hour. Now to see if I can tear myself loose from WoW long enough to play some more.
    board icon
    drella posted October 05, 2009:

    Castaway starred Tom Hanks.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 05, 2009:

    noted. >_>
    board icon
    Melaisis posted October 05, 2009:

    I think I've got off really lucky with my game. Like, its not that good, but I don't think its as bad as what some of you have been handed.

    Also Radical; I read your blog ont' topic of the recruitment scam you fell into. Spectacular stuff, and I've been through something very similar.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 05, 2009:

    I have to bow out -- at this point, my game is way too long to finish in time. I kind of blew my weekends on other stuff lately.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 05, 2009:

    Alright, alright, it's almost ready. I've changed my mind on this one more times than I care to count. It must be all that Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 I'm playing... damn Civil War and its constant switching of sides.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 06, 2009:

    done and done
    board icon
    turducken posted October 07, 2009:

    Metal Slug 3's an awesome game.
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 07, 2009:

    Oh, um, what's the deadline for this? I mean, I kind of have an angle, but no words so far.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted October 07, 2009:

    October 9. It was stealthily added to the original post.
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 07, 2009:

    Fuck. I'd better write this in the next few hours then.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 07, 2009:

    I think this and Dead Space were the longest reviews I've written, in terms of time taken to write them.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 07, 2009:

    No worries, Lewis. At least you've played your game! =D Mad dash ftw!
    board icon
    woodhouse posted October 08, 2009:

    I tried the non-account Facebook posting this morning and it worked!
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 08, 2009:

    Game: Minerva: Metastasis
    Developer: CargoCult
    Format: PC
    Genre: FPS
    Additional info: Half-Life 2 mod

    but this one's new
    board icon
    honestgamer posted October 08, 2009:

    Wonderful! I'd been meaning to test it to see if they had gotten around to fixing it. I'm sure some people secretly suspected that I had just screwed up somewhere in my coding, but this was all Facebook. I haven't even touched the code since implementing it! :-)
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 08, 2009:

    Right! I'm done! I'll link as soon as a staffer hits the 'post' button.

    People will be surprised that I ended up going for a traditional review format. Nothing else did it justice. 'Because We Hate You' ended up seeming like a woefully inaccurate name for the tournament. My game was awesome.
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 08, 2009:

    Here it is!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 08, 2009:

    Looks like a VICIOUS showdown between... me and lewis...
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 08, 2009:

    I've played my game, so the question is simply whether I'll be able to write a review for it in time. And I'm having trouble reviewing INTERESTING games at the moment, so no promises.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 08, 2009:

    Don't worry, Zipp. My contest-winning entry will be up tomorrow.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 08, 2009:

    Don't worry, Zipp. My contest-winning entry will be up tomorrow.

    Ah. Good. I was afraid Lewis might win too easily.
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 08, 2009:

    given the nature of the tourney and considering how it went last time, I'd be pleasantly surprised if turnout was better than half. it takes more effort than most one-offs do.

    besides, how many people ever actually post their reviews more than thirty minutes before the deadline?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 08, 2009:

    I think Melaisis got his in, too, though maybe not if he didn't post it here yet.
    board icon
    sashanan posted October 09, 2009:

    Sorry, no go. Haven't found the time to play it sufficiently to write for it.
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 09, 2009:

    This seems silly. Why not extend the deadline to after the weekend?
    board icon
    darketernal posted October 09, 2009:

    Because They Hate Us?
    board icon
    Melaisis posted October 09, 2009:

    Wolf is right - General Chaos was my selected game and I managed to sub the review last night. It resembles long-form crap (which all my reviews do if I self-edit on the same day as writing them) though.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 09, 2009:

    Hrm.

    I did finish the review. But it's a dull, formulaic piece, so I'll save the judges some trouble and just not submit.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 09, 2009:

    This seems silly. Why not extend the deadline to after the weekend?

    Because everyone's had plenty of time to review a single videogame and I'm not prepared to put myself out further for people who can't be bothered.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 09, 2009:

    I currently am psyching myself up to finish my review!

    WONDER-ROB POWERS......ACTIVATE!!!!!
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 09, 2009:

    I might fall into the same category as Will. The game I was assigned is so fucking insubstantial that there's absolutely nothing interesting to say about it. There's a chance I'll think of something by the end of the day but as of now, I really don't see a contest entry emerging out of this.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 09, 2009:

    Final Doom

    This is my not-so-humble entry which I may revise a bit tonight if I'm feeling up to it.
    board icon
    turducken posted October 09, 2009:

    I'm-a have to bow out, too. Sorry, Emp.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 09, 2009:

    Probably won't make this one since I just got home for the first time since Monday evening. Right now I'm exhausted and probably won't be able to do something until much later tonight. I might be able to put something out but I don't want to half-ass it like I did last year. I'm either trying on this one or not doing anything at all.

    Maybe I'll review Blackthorne someday. It's a shame since it was a half decent game.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 09, 2009:

    Boo, Emp, are you going to include (and judge) the mini review I spent all of five minutes writing? >_>

    Because, really, it's Metal Slug. What did you expect, some flowery piece where I talked about the nature of life and death and the poetry of shooting giant crabs?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 09, 2009:

    Suskie, Will... just submit them, guys. Are they really that bad, your reviews? I can't imagine that they are, knowing you are both fine writers.

    EmP is absolutely right. Most main review sites/mags give their reviewers a day or two (week for a JPRG) to check out their games and then a day (maybe) to write the review. It's something I've had to keep in mind as I continue reviewing whilst going to school. Completion of a game isn't always necessary. You just need to get a feel for how it works and then post!

    Save the lengthy in depth analysis for games of true substance... like Metal Slug.
    board icon
    darketernal posted October 09, 2009:

    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/content.php?review_id=8437&gametitle=Fading+Shadows

    Fading Shadows. Did this in a hurry.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 09, 2009:

    Hahahaha. My game's not even on the database. I guess I should've asked about that (though I think the reason I waited so long was that I just thought it'd be easier to get one of the staff to do it privately *coughempcough*, and then I forgot altogether. Oh well). LOL Guess if it's not up by tonight, you're all getting a review in my blog... provided I can get one out in time.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 09, 2009:

    Whoopsie.

    Name: Cutie Suzuki no Ringside Angel
    Genre: Fighting Action (Wrestling)
    Developer: Asmik Corporation of America
    Publisher: Asmik Ace Entertainment Inc.
    Release Date: December 12 1990, Japan
    Platform: Genesis

    ADDERS ~~~~~
    board icon
    jerec posted October 09, 2009:

    Okay, good news. I expanded my mini review into an actual review.
    board icon
    Genj posted October 09, 2009:

    hey how much time do i have

    edit - more than I thought I guess
    board icon
    dementedhut posted October 09, 2009:

    Space Channel 5 Special Edition

    I've done a little bit of editing in the last two days. Other than that, I'm done with it.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 09, 2009:

    Here I am. We'll see how this goes.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 09, 2009:

    Metal Slug 3
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 09, 2009:

    Sweet! Competition cometh!
    board icon
    Genj posted October 10, 2009:

    Hahaha this is so bad:

    rapewolf
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 10, 2009:

    Making your lives a little easier:

    Zipp
    Lewis
    OD
    DE
    Pickhut
    WQ
    Jerec
    genj
    Melaisis
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 10, 2009:

    A right proper turn out, I say. Eight is a beautiful number, though I don't know why. I've always felt that, though... at least, that's what I think.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 10, 2009:

    There are nine. And compared with how many people signed up, this should've been a lot better. Shame you weren't in this last year, Zipp.

    Ah, well. There are as many of us here as there are members of the Supreme Court. Can we be the Supreme Council of Tournament Entrants? Winnner gets to be Chancellor! =D
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 10, 2009:

    there's a lady in the supreme court, though.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 10, 2009:

    There are nine. And compared with how many people signed up, this should've been a lot better. Shame you weren't in this last year, Zipp.

    Hah! You only think there's nine because you count on a base ten system which counts zero as a number. If you lived in MY world... there would be... eight.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 10, 2009:

    Your game had both Jacky Chan AND Steve Coogan. I was expecting the world's first 11/10 score.
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 11, 2009:

    I'm considering giving all the TT ex-judges 100s out of a newfound empathy. my verdicts will be in by the end of the long, for us yanks, weekend.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 11, 2009:

    Pfft. I have school tomorrow.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 11, 2009:

    Pfft. I have work tomorrow.

    //Zig
    board icon
    jerec posted October 11, 2009:

    Pfft. It's already tomorrow here.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 11, 2009:

    Pfft. I just saw Paranormal Activity. Awesome film.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 11, 2009:

    I'm considering giving all the TT ex-judges 100s out of a newfound empathy. my verdicts will be in by the end of the long, for us yanks, weekend.

    This includes me as well, right?
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 12, 2009:

    even Chris is getting in on this action.

    haha, I miss that guy even though I didn't know him at all.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 12, 2009:

    That includes me, too, doesn't it? I did judge the playoffs of that one TT, blu. You know.....the one where I voted for your Doom 2 review to beat Fix. I deserve a 100 based just on that.
    board icon
    aschultz posted October 12, 2009:

    I wish I'd had time to work through mine. You guys didn't hate me as much as you could've. I'm vaguely curious what other people who haven't posted here yet got. Mine was Contra: Hard Corps.

    My excuse for not writing is FAQing Ultima Warriors of Destiny. It took a lot more energy than I thought.
    board icon
    sashanan posted October 12, 2009:

    Might as well bring it out in the open: my challenge was Sabrewulf for the GBA - a game I had actually played before, and have now played some of again, but as soon as it gets a bit harder (i.e. after the first world which is half tutorial) I find it hard to stay focused on it, even without the recent lure of WoW.

    If I get back into it - that is indeed an if - I'll still review it somewhere down the road like I did with Golden Eggcup last time.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted October 12, 2009:

    I had Hybrid Heaven for the 64. It's like a poor man's Vagrant Story and kind of sucks shit, made me wanna download ROMs for good 64 games. I tried really hard to show but I had a midterm on the 5th and two midterms on the 8th.

    Contra: Hard Corps is actually a pretty cool game.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 12, 2009:

    Oh yeah, mine was Ignition Factor. Because ha ha, we gave Suskie another firefighter game!
    board icon
    woodhouse posted October 13, 2009:

    I got God Hand, which is evidently completely awesome.
    board icon
    darketernal posted October 13, 2009:

    That it is. Totally and completely awesome. You should be happy. It's also totally hard. I did finish it, but that's because I am, again, like the game, totally awesome.

    board icon
    JANUS2 posted October 13, 2009:

    I just couldn't think of anything to say about Wolfenstein 3D. That's my excuse.
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 13, 2009:

    I was proud of your pick, Woodhouse. I was curious how you'd actually take to that game. same with Schultz and Contra. it's not like we'd be nice enough to give God Hand to somebody who hasn't reviewed Wii Cheer!

    my results are done, but I'm hanging onto them until I get home from work so that I can give them another once-over.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted October 13, 2009:

    Lol at getting Godhand. They apparently don't hate you very much, probably because you carried Boo in the TT!
    board icon
    jerec posted October 13, 2009:

    And it's not like they picked a bad game for me, either. It's probably a fairly good game. Just one that I didn't particularly like. And it's probably only because of the way I judged a certain Metal Slug review matchup in the TT.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 13, 2009:

    I don't why I was given Warhawk. Maybe because of the terrible live action sequences that they were sure would offend my film making side.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted October 13, 2009:

    I was curious how you'd actually take to that game.

    Figured that. I did actually play the first 2 sublevels (and a bit of 1-3), and while I certainly appreciate bashing fatties with a 2 x 4 (12 x 48?), it took me forever cause I was awful. Maybe a little more exposition on Gene would've spurred me on; if there was any opening sequence I accidently skipped it. Perhaps I'll give it another try after We Cheer 2.
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 13, 2009:

    "they're still sexier than you are" is all the exposition you need!
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 14, 2009:

    When are results a-happenin', then?
    board icon
    bluberry posted October 14, 2009:

    it's in G-Money's hands now. he told me today.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 14, 2009:

    Sorry kids; I wanted to do it all over last weekend because this week is crazy busy for me. I've started but unless I find the energy somewhere to sit up a portion of the night, it'll be tomorrow now.
    board icon
    Genj posted October 14, 2009:

    SPOILERS: I didn't win.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted October 15, 2009:

    Godhand is a game everyone should play and review. But then there will come a day when all that can be said about Godhand will be said and people will hate reading Godhand reviews thereafter.
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 15, 2009:

    No point. No one will beat this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBqB5LUKh8A
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 15, 2009:

    I will play and review Godhand someday, because Radicaldreamer asked me to. I hope that day comes before the world is tired of reading Godhand reviews.*

    //Zig

    * this day may or may not occur before or after the day I review Utawarerumono (PS2 version) for EmP
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 15, 2009:

    I started this RotW on Sunday, but due to being a smidge hung over from having a bit too much fun on Saturday, the actual finishing/posting of it came a bit later. Good sized turnout this week, being what that we had ourself a contest deadline as well. That also played a role in the lateness, as all you people probably deserve a bit more than grumpy antagonism, which is about all I could emotionally muster. And then I spent the week during things like getting a new car. That was kind of important due to needing things like reliable wheels to maintain things like continuing employment. But here we are with this thing anyway. Just a few days late, but still nice and spiffy and all that crap.

    As usual, we have rules. That is all.




    THIRD PLACE: Minerva: Metastasis (PC) by Lewis

    It was a tight battle between you and Disco for third place. Both of you had aspects of your reviews I loved and aspects I didn't like so much. Your negative was that to me, this review seemed a bit cumbersome at times as illustrated by how it took about five paragraphs or so for me to really have more than a really vague idea of what exactly you seem so excited about. However, you do make a great case in this review and, to be honest, some of that cumbersomeness plays a role in that. Your second paragraph about the trickiness of reviewing mods does do a good job of setting up the actual review of the game and you consistently do a great job of illustrating how well the dude who made this game did of using the source code to make his own creation that actually has vision and creativity. Focusing on that was a nice touch, as I've played a lot of Doom WADs where my main reaction was that it was okay, but didn't really have much creativity attached to it, so to illustrate the creativity used in the creation of this game really helped in making your review stronger.

    SECOND PLACE: Shin Megami Tensei: Persona (PSP) by Chacranajxy

    This was a pretty kickass review possibly my favorite out of the ones of yours I've read. I used to own the PSX version of this game and definitely agree with you on how much the series has evolved since this combat-heavy dungeon-crawler that, to be honest, didn't have much personality. This review is just a well-organized machine that gives the background on the game, paints it as a decent (if not THAT great) game and then give the reader a list of some BIG flaws that ensure this game is pretty much a mediocre experience where a few good ideas aren't enough to make up for its issues. Everything flows smoothly and I can't find anything major to complain about. As a side note, I still remember where I gave up on the original Persona. It was a forest maze where I was looking for some half of some chick's personality or bizarre claptrap like that. I was getting beyond bored with the game and just muddling through this dungeon......and got into one of many battles. Against some enemy that wasn't just invulnerable to bullets, but reflected them back. As I found out when my first character's machine gun fire decimated my entire party. It was a big dungeon without save points. I lost a good hour of exploring thanks to that. I never played it again.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Warhawk (PlayStation) by zippdementia

    It might just be me, but when confronted by an abysmal game, I love the tactic of doing a narrative review where you describe your experience with the game.....at least if you're a good enough writer to pull it off. Fortunately, you were up to the task with this game, which was the best of the week as far as combining information about the game with a humorous, entertaining style. It read quickly and easily, but I felt I'd learned all I needed to know about the game itself, as opposed to being entertained by the writing, but unsure whether the game was bad or if you were just cracking on it for the sake of entertainment. It's a fine line to walk sometimes between factual info and whimsical conversation, but you do a great job of it here.




    I also have to give a tip of the hat to Jerec, whose choice-laden review of a game I think he had to know would be selected for him by EmP and Blu after the TT made me laugh. Both because he got the game picked for him and because of the way he tackled it. And that's that. Rejoice, ye who won recognition. Shed bitter bloody tears, ye who didn't.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 15, 2009:

    Cheers, OD.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 15, 2009:

    There's a big smile on my face right now, which I have to thank you for, OD. It's replacing the look of extreme fear which has been there all week as I realize just how much work I'm going to be doing for my final paper... and how little time I have to do it in.

    I took a lot of time to write this one. I rewrote the thing at least four times trying to walk that line you describe. Really, I've been trying to put to use everything I learned from the TT tournament (thank you judges and worthy opponents!) and from the people who took me up on my critique-trading offer a little while back (thanks to the few that did!).

    I didn't expect this to win. There were a lot of really good reviews this week. Thanks for reading, OD, and I'll try to keep on pleasing. There's a lot of people to look up to, here. I've got good mentors.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 16, 2009:

    The second annual Because We Hate You is to be the last. We gave it a go to see if it sticks and the interest clearly isnt there, so congrats to the eventual winner; youll never be dethroned.

    I did plan to include a paragraph about why each person received the game they did, but it seems more important to get the results out. Ill perhaps add them in later.

    Scott

    Boo:
    0/100.

    EmP:
    0/100

    Zipp: War hawk (PSX)

    Boo:
    A very good, though prototypical, bash review. I think the big difference here is that while you are going on about how the game sucks, it doesn't read like you didn't give it a chance, or like you just wanted an excuse to make fun of a game for laughs. That lends credibility, and so it doesn't feel like you're exaggerating when you go on at lengths about Warhawk is apparently just fucking dumb.

    Outside of that, not much else to say. Now I know why Warhawk is, apparently, just fucking dumb. It was, however, kind of lame in parts. Bake for 30 minutes? Really? Groan. But still, nice work. 89/100

    EmP:
    Zipps decided to start playing with screenshots here, and he does a pretty good job of shoehorning them in, even if the second looks an odd size. [Note to me: remember to put the shots on the site server and change link.] Now Im going to nitpick.

    The controls paragraph initially strike me as a little odd; flight games are supposed to demand you graft on an extra thumb, but you go from there to make a solid argument for why Warhawks is especially counterproductive. Thats probably this reviews biggest strength, you take the time to ensure that every point you make is backed up, always explaining why you hold your opinion and making a convincing point as to why. Theres stuff I raise an eyebrow at, though: the comparison to Silent Hill feels like an odd game to gage Warhawk against (Warhawk was, more or less, a PSX launch title, after all) and theres the groan worthy cooking metaphor that has to BY LAW show up in at least one review by tourney. At least its out of the way early this time.

    But I like. Its a low scoring review, but its still respectful and doesnt revel in cheap hits. In spite of this, it was entertaining and natural to read. One of Zipps best to date. 92/100

    TOTAL 181/200

    Lewis Minerva: Metastasis

    Excellent analysis. I actually tried to review this during the TT and came up with something similar, but just not nearly as naturally written. How do you really talk about a game where the main attraction is how perfectly competent it is? Uh, like Lewis did, apparently.

    This review touched on pretty much everything that makes the game tick, such as how compact it is. Having these interlocking, small maps that don't force the game to load was the sort of brilliant touch that most people wouldn't even consciously notice. HL2's engine was always pretty miserable for the expansive, linear sort of game it is, and the work this guy did in this mod gets around that very neatly. Glad to see I'm not the only idiot who got lost once or twice, too. 92/100

    EmP:
    Boo wanted you to do this game. I think in his newest attempt to make me play something to do with Half Life again.

    For me, the most striking aspect of this review is that, when you were given it, you groaned and admitted you didnt think much of it on your previous attempt to play it, yet came away singing high praise. But you made no mention of that, so it doesnt effect your points. Ha.

    Lewis poise is characteristically strong, his strongest moment being the description of the games namesake and her interaction with your nameless avatar. This paragraph does the best job of establishing the games apparent underlying cleverness as both a well made and well written game. However, the entire thing feels much like a quick skim at times, never really delving into some subjects as much as Id like. Sometimes, the review suggestions the game is separate from the Half Life world but, sometimes, it seems safe to assume its set within. I dont know what youre fighting and, while I appreciate that spending too much time on this subject is to be avoided, Im not even sure what Im fighting aside from a brief mention of a military base with (presumably) solider in late on.

    But it does seem unfair to complain. The writing is often great, sometimes staggeringly so, and the mysteriousness of the title sold. I assume its meant to be a mysterious title, anyway. Im still not quite lest with enough information to fully decide that. As such, Boos 164th attempt to get me to play Half Life fails, but you still get a solid score. 85/100

    TOTAL: 177/200

    Overdrive Final Doom

    Boo:

    This reminded me a lot of your Icarus review. It's a breezy little discussion of a Doom add-on, only this time an official one in two parts. You nailed TNT man, that game is just full of fucking long corridors and it comes off as incredibly lazy sometimes. That after you said you couldn't really figure out what made it feel so lazy. Self-esteem, man!

    Unfortunately, I feel like the review could have been more in-depth. We've bullshitted so much about these games on AIM that I was kind of surprised, really. Things like TNT's awkward attempts to make realistic levels; or any discussion on Plutonia beyond the fact that it's tough and that Hunted is the best map ever. Not that calling Plutonia kind of lame isn't a fair opinion, that's how I felt until I recently replayed it, but the difference between this and your Icarus review is that that review felt more well justified. This is still an entertaining, fairly convincing effort, but it could be stronger. 79/100

    EmP:

    Im a little disappointed with just who much ODs Doom review feels a lot like his last few Doom reviews. My confession is that I never played much of Final Doom (Pause for shocked gasps) and as Boo slates in in between our regular bouts of slagging off Doom 3 (still rubbish) I remain glad not to. You certainly reinforce this view point with more basis and a lot less cursing, but I cant get past the feeling that you kind of phoned this one in and went to a comfortable template you were practised in. Maybe its just that Im into the Doom scene a little more than most, but I expected more from someone who feels likewise. Thats unfair if so, and Id apologise, but were competing to see who can be the arsehole judge this year and I want to win.

    I dont know what else to really add. The review itself is good, the structure feels a little lose, more like a blog post than a review at points, but its informative and submits the message you want to put across. Its an OD review, so theres some killer lines and it has personality, but Im going to bet you struggled with this one a little more than you expected to. 72/100

    161/200

    DE Fading Shadows

    Boo:

    As far as puzzle game reviews go, this is quite good. I appreciate the fact that you're admitting that it doesn't suck, just that it's not very good either. There's too much black-and-white shit in reviewing, and I'm often guilty of it myself (see: 3/10 Killer7 review), so it's refreshing to see a measured approach from somebody else besides Jason.

    That said, my one nit pick is that you could have done more to reinforce the fact that the game isn't particularly exciting. I've played enough puzzle games to intuitively know what you mean when you say that it's just not particularly engaging, and your target audience certainly has too, but a more thorough take on why the game can be so lifeless would've served you better than getting started with the story. 85/100

    EmP:

    I bet youre sorry you passed up on the first game pick now, huh?

    Puzzle games are bastards to write for, and you did an especially good job here by clinging to what makes this one a unique puzzle game and then being reasonable and fair about it. Im sure you didnt get this habit from me, so you must be getting better. I liked a lot of it; I liked how you made fun of things without making them look fantastically moronic and how you sell the game as something that can work for you and be fun, but is far from the next Tetris.

    Theres some errors in there like the dreaded it/its hiccup and the odd formatting problem that Im sure youll make me fix later but, for now, theyre just going to cost you points! But good job flying solo -- youve justified your stance on a very hard to cover game in an entertaining fashion. 85/100

    170/200

    Pickhut Space Channel 5: Special Edition

    Boo:

    Part of me wants to say you missed the point entirely for not spending more time talking about how WILD and CRAZY the games are, and how Michael Jackson is in them, but then the sane part of me realizes that your whole point is how none of that matters if they're fundamentally broken. Definitely a nice touch hitting on how it's not just the Dreamcast's shitty d-pad that ruined these games, but rather just poor programming. Of course, still the same proofreading errors as ever; quite entertaining to watch than to play?

    A nice, succinct review that maaaybe still could have mentioned a bit more about how weird these games really were, but turns that into a fairly moot point just the same. 86/100.

    EmP:

    This review needed a second read from my good self before I realised how good it really was. This is a tale of squandered potential and a thoughtful piece that puts the spotlight on exactly why, all while not burying the title. This does wonders for the reviews creditability in what I have to assume was a fortunate mistake (still gunning for arsehole judge). Theres a smattering of typos included within, and the entire though could have perhaps benefited from more explanation on why the games were considered so kooky but a tidy, thought-provoking short review. One day, Ill make you write a 2,000 worder -- thatll show you! 84/100

    TOTAL: 159/200

    Wolfqueen - Cutie Suzuki no Ringside Angel

    Boo:

    This is even worse than lilica's rant about sexism in Final Fight! Just kidding, the intro took a clean approach to the fact that a game like this is retarded T&A for 14 year old shut-ins and then got on with talking about how it actually plays. A backhanded compliment: if I wanted to know about this game, this review would be fantastic, because I'd learn everything I could want to know about it. It's thorough and informative and not at all a bad read.

    The problem: nobody gives a shit about this game. It's just much too long for what it is, and by the time you get into spending a paragraph each on pinning opponents or knocking them out of the ring, it drags a bit. I think I'd dig your writing even more if you were more willing to leave parts of your reviews on the cutting room floor. Everything that's here is good, but there's just so much information even though some of it doesn't add to your argument that beyond the tits it's just a mediocre wrestling game. 78/100.


    EmP:

    Not a fan of the girl-power intro. It seems silly considering its a wrestling game -- a genre that usually displays oiled up men wearing tiny posing pouches, especially one exclusive to Japan where they take their pro wrestling very seriously indeed. Though its nice to hear someone stick it the The Man again after Lilicas unfortunate dropping off the face of the Earth.

    I was a bastard with this pick because I put you in a kind of no win situation. Can you write great reviews about wrestling games? Sure. Is it an easy task? No. The review itself is a bit like the intro in that it gives you a lot of words but then doesnt leave you with as much useful information as you might expect. In the huge info dump, you do two thing that weaken your effort. ONE! You pretty much disprove your theory on the game being 16-bit masturbation bait for pre-teens. TWO! You often end up making the game sound more fun than you obviously mean to. The highly negative ending kind of came out of nowhere for me it was like This bits good, and this bit is also good but THE GAME IS BAD, NOW ZIP UP YOUR JEANS OR YOULL BE GOING TO HELL!

    Good writing that could have done with a good editing before it corroded the points yould worked hard to make. 72/100

    TOTAL: 150/200

    Jerec Metal Slug 3

    Boo:

    First of all, props for actually entering when our pick was basically us jamming our dicks down your throat. In a way, this is a valuable opinion to have on the site; an RPG geek may not like these games because they're still run-n-guns, in the end, and they're still kind of tough and it's often just not fun to play a game that's kicking your ass from moment one. They won't even have to scream PLEASE NO when they see this review, and cost a team a win in the TT by flipping a coin.

    Unfortunately, as you've already admitted, it feels more like a blog post. Not even in the conversational, OD Doom review way. It just feels... unfinished. The fact that you haven't played the game beyond the trial level is painfully obvious when you're describing the first level and then saying the choices don't really matter, when the game is basically three games in one with all the different ways you can go through it. If you'd played the game and gone yeah, but I still don't like it even though this happens in stage 4 and it turns into a shmup for part of stage 5 and all that, then I'd feel ok about it. As is, I'm just sitting there thinking about how many games I've played for twenty minutes, not liked, continued playing, and come to love. Not getting past those first two steps is GunValkyrie syndrome, so it's basically your fault Smilebit are out of business.

    Also, the whole choice angle was a bit heavy handed. Sorry buddy. 67/100

    EmP:

    Man, you made my day coming through with this, even if it was a half-hearted review of a trail version, the fact that you did this earns you major props.

    So I feel kind of bad for not liking the review. The biggest problem is that, as you bravely admitted, youd not played much of the game so were forced to pad the hell out of what you had to try and make the review. Really, the padding takes over what little you do say, and, in the ends, drowns any commentary of worth in talk about choosing the choice to chose over other choices.

    As such, though you raised a smile and a feeling of immense gratitude for doing what a lot of the worthless slackers didnt do and show up (and with the meanest game choice of everyone involved) I cant in good faith give you an over inflated score. Even if I secretly really want to. 45/100

    TOTAL: 112/200

    Genj Bram Stoker's Dracula

    Haha, I miss these short little genj reviews for awful old licensed games and the like. There's no bullshit with a review like this, but it doesn't feel like you're just going this sucks either. I like your approach and I like this review. Doing a long drawn out bash would have been suicide here, and what writing there is is entertaining. Maybe another line about how the subweapons are useless would have been nice, but for how long this review is, it's impressive that it doesn't feel like you're omitting anything else important. 89/100.

    The Rapewolf line rocks, but the rest of the review feels rushed and shallow a lot of the times. Even in the little time you spend with the game, theres still padding to be found in the intro and complete lack of photographic proof of the mentioned nipples. These things hurt.

    Theres a lot of repetitive qualities about the word choices, and the grammar is sometimes off (Hypocritical judge comment here), though some of them are golden. Such as rape wolf, which because I though was so good, gets a second mention. As stands, it feels too shallow to really trust in. 70/100

    TOTAL: 159/200

    Melaisis General Chaos

    Boo:

    This is a solid review, but what's bugging me is that it doesn't have much of a voice of its own. It kind of feels like you're running down an obligatory checklist, especially when you get around to spending a paragraph on how the music is pretty decent but not that noteworthy. I get the impression you're tallying up good and bad things in columns and assigning it a score based on the ratio.

    I feel bad for not being able to say much when it's one of the lower scores I've given, but I did like this review for what it is; a detached rundown of the game, something I'd expect to see on a professional site like IGN or something but if IGN were competent. It's just that I feel like I'm reading more about what General Chaos is in a generic way, as opposed to reading about what you yourself think of it. For instance, you talk about how the scoring system is a bit silly. That's important, sure, but how does it fit into your overall take on the game? I'm just not getting that from this, though the piece doesn't drone at all.

    If this critique sounds like confusing bullshit, let me know and I'll try to rephrase it. I can empathise, because this dude darkfact gave me the same advice ages back and at the time I thought he had to be tripping balls. This is in no way a bad review; it could just stand to be more your review. 75/100

    EmP:

    For ages now, Scotts been my hidden weapon in the world of freelance games journalism, so it was nice to see you get the chance to spread your creative wings. The biggest problem with this review? You didnt. You kind of just played it safe and hoped it would be enough. Sometimes, the review reads like a school assignment with the facts nicely lined up and not a huge amount of personality distilled within. This is a shame considering you were given a game were raggedly-bearded commandos turn foes into crumbling skeletons with laser cannons, or throw bundles of dynamite, then plug their ears and hope for the best.

    That may sound harsh, because what the review is is competent, informative and exhaustive in its desire to march the games facts right into your brain. Every little fact, such as the quality of the soundtrack comes along, even if this means bumpy transitions from good-to-bad-back to good are a common trail from paragraph to paragraph.

    It understandable to play the safe card when you flip out freelance work (even if it still not a guarantee thisll not have developers yell at you) but Id really like to see you use things like this to take a few more risks with your writing. Youre a strong enough writer -- go nuts now and then! 72/100


    147/100

    Zipp: 181
    Lewis: 177
    DE: 170
    Pickhut: 170
    Genj: 159
    WQ: 150
    Melaisis: 147
    Jerec: 112
    board icon
    Lewis posted October 16, 2009:

    MAN that was close. MAN! Well done Zippy McGee! And everyone else! Man!
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 16, 2009:

    1. YOU FORGOT MY NAME IN THE OVERALL TALLY!!!!!!

    2. Yeah, I agree with your comments. I wasn't overly in a Doom mood to begin with this close on the heels of playing the mediocre Icarus, but was getting into one with the fun I had with Pharoah and Caribbean.....and then realized I had a week or so before deadline. At this time, I was getting deep into Oblivion again and I'd guess you as much as anyone, EmP, knows that when you get into Oblivion, it's addictive to the point where you don't want to be putting it down for something else. Then, during that final week before deadline, I got two assigned games (don't worry Jason, I plan to have the second one done in an hour or so.....should have been done a few days earlier but I've been swamped). So, my experiences with Plutonia were VERY rushed and tended to be very short sessions where I'd "god-mode" my way through random levels.....which led to my commentary on it to be more brief than I expected.

    As a finished project, I look at that review as having (in my opinion) a brilliant segueway from Evilution to Plutonia, using the Casali Brothers' presence in one to talk about the other, which as all them. But other than that, it felt more non-descriptive and "done for the sake of doing" than I'd have preferred.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 16, 2009:

    I wrote the intro almost as a joke. I honestly thought you would've found it amusing that I even dared to go there before deciding to cut it off before I got too carried away. In any event, I certainly could have written a feemenist critique of the genre, and I even toyed with the idea earlier on, but changed my mind because I knew that wouldn't go over well and that I would have difficulty actually constructing one.

    So that the intro missed its point to at least one of you doesn't surprise me at all. It's real point was to say "This is what I think of the genre, but i'm not going to let it carry weight with the rest of the review." However, I can assure you that if you had given me your previous pick, not only would it have been highly likely that I wouldn't have entered (I almost didn't make it for this one!) but if I had, you would've gotten a worse review, for the sake of not being a review, than anyone else here (though that's not really saying much).

    Anyway, as for the rest, my excuse is writing it in the span of four hours on deadline day. It did have some editing, but not a whole lot, though I do regret now adding some of that stuff in (the stuff boo mentioned) when I should've just concluded it. Oh, well; the whole thing was sort of a struggle anyway, so I don't reallly care. Well, that's not necessarily true. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be prattling on like this. Still, I did leave perhaps a bit more satisfied than I should have after writing it just because "lol it's a stupid wrestling game" and there isn't a whole lot I can do to make it good.

    I will say that the fact this won't be around again greatly disappoints me. Not only is it an awesome idea, but more importantly, I'll never get the chance to properly prove myself here! =( haha.

    Anyway, thanks for taking the time out of your insanely busy lines to throw this thing together and judge and all that. The feedback is always appreciated.

    Congrats to the winners and everyone else. Though "everyone else" isn't a whole lot after me. ha..

    Ah, well. P.S. you should add those paragraphs about why people got their games. But I know you're busy, so you can take as long as you like with that as far as I'm concerned. I already know why I got mine, anyway - vengeful spite! =P - but I just think it's interesting to see why everyone else got theirs.

    Also, lulz at the fact that my scores are almost EXACTLY the same as last year's except with EmP's being 1 point lower.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 16, 2009:

    I'm glad you were honest with that review, guys, because if you weren't, I don't think I could trust you guys again. I know the review is bad (I don't like it at all, and I certainly ain't defending it), and the choice stuff was just me rambling on trying to fill space, trying to sound deep while not actually being deep at all (kind of the point). I wish I'd said I wasn't going to pay money to play your game choice, because then I might have played something more thoroughly.

    Anyway, I'll leave the review up for a few more days, then it's going to my blog.
    board icon
    Genj posted October 16, 2009:

    Haha I did a lot better than I thought. I know what EmP is saying about the intro feeling like padding. I had it written for weeks before the deadline but I felt so apathetic about the rest of the game that I had no idea what to write. I ended up rushing with that late Friday.

    Thanks to EmP and bluberry for judging and congrats to Zipp on his win.

    Also: rapewolf
    board icon
    dementedhut posted October 16, 2009:

    WILD and CRAZY? I dunno about that. Maybe it's because I've played way too many weird games. And 2000 words? If this contest took place in 2004, perhaps. I would have easily written a review that big back then. But thanks, both, for the comments on the review. I'm surprised at my placement overall.... I was hoping my blackmailing would place me at the top.

    Congrats to Zipp on his victory, and good job to everyone else who made it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 16, 2009:

    lol, I KNEW I shouldn't have put in that "baking" line. I personally thought it was a terrible line with no connection to the review as a whole, but that's almost why I kept it in. It just seemed to say "yeah, I know I'm a bash review," and I kind've thought that provided an ample summary.

    Wow, though, I totally didn't expect to win this or even to place high. I will say I worked really hard on this review. I worked on it to the point where I couldn't even bear to read through it any more, it was too familiar to me. And the whole time I felt like, "man, you're over thinking this," but I'm glad to see that that wasn't the case, that all that work made it feel refined and well supported.

    To ramble on for another paragraph or two... I was really trying to support this one as much as I could. For one thing, I was really afraid that I wasn't giving the game its due. In fact, in my original review of the game, I turned the whole thing around on myself at the end and proclaimed it as an innovative title that just didn't suit my playing style.

    And that's where the Silent Hill thing came in. Because I downloaded it, played through a bit, and was having a ball despite thinking the graphics and controls were shit. And suddenly I realized... some games work for their time and never again. Sometimes innovation is like that. It's cool because it's new, but then people do it better later and you can never go back.

    Anyway, that's enough out of me. Really cool to see this one so well accepted. For the record, I thought every review written was pretty solid. I kept scrolling down that list totally expecting to see someone best my score from the judges.
    board icon
    darketernal posted October 16, 2009:

    Thanks for judging, good show.
    board icon
    Halon posted October 16, 2009:

    archived

    Also congrats to everyone who participated.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 17, 2009:

    Haha. Sportsman; you archived that without OD's name in the official tally.

    I'd personally suggest OD add his name in himself. He fits between pickhut and genj.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted October 17, 2009:

    Finished about three Ace Combat games in the last month, and am totally airplaned out (although if I had AC6, I'd still play the heck out of it). I guess it's screwing around with Ephemeral Fantasia until I find something PSXish to play with.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 17, 2009:

    I don't know how you keep it up, you sonnuva...
    board icon
    honestgamer posted October 17, 2009:

    Your hard work and excellent guides continue to astound me. It's a treat every time I see a new guide in the queue from you!
    board icon
    Melaisis posted October 17, 2009:

    I totally agree with the feedback left for my review. I even tackled it like an academic assignment, drafting up the review within a week of being given the title. Its very vanilla, which is a direction I regretted after reading some of the other entries. ;)

    Congrats to all those who took part.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 20, 2009:

    So Emp... blog post about the game choices...?

    Some of them (particularly WQ and Jerec) are obvious, but I'd be really curious as to who pegged me for the flight simulator.
    board icon
    sho posted October 21, 2009:

    COWER, BRIEF MORTALS

    Hi, I'm Sho, professional gaming expert and occasionally unscrupulous ninja. You may remember me for writing Ai Choaniki, Final Fantasy X-2, or similar reviews from about a hundred years ago. Or then again, you might not. A century is a long time.

    In honor of the season I've decided to rise from my grave and inflict seven days of gaming horror upon the good readers of Honest Gamers. Beginning Sunday, October 25th I will post a new review at the stroke of midnight (Venter Standard Time) each and every night through Halloween. Each review will have been freshly written that very day, so even I'm not sure what they're going to be yet.

    The abyssal awesomeness of Demon's Crest?

    The necromantic romantics of Bible Black?

    The skimpy clothes and even skimpier gameplay of Oneechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad?

    We'll just have to wait and see; such is my solemn, manly vow. Well, assuming anyone is interested, anyway. Otherwise I'll probably just watch Night of the Creeps when it comes out instead, you dream crushing bastards.

    REVIEWS

    October 25th: SplatterHouse 3 (Sega Genesis)
    October 26th: The Colonel's Bequest (MS-DOS)
    October 27th: Castlevania II: Simon's Quest (NES)
    October 28th: Tecmo's Deception (Sony PlayStation)
    October 29th: Demon's Crest (Super NES)
    October 30th: Resident Evil: Director's Cut (Sony PlayStation)
    October 31st: Bloody Bride: Imadoki no Vampire (Sony PlayStation)

    ODDS
    90% chance of malevolent mansions
    80% chance of scythe-wielding skeletons
    70% chance of unspeakable tentacular entities
    50% chance of Atlus
    25% chance of cheerleader-eating zombies
    13% chance of Igor
    0% chance of glittery tween vampires
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 21, 2009:

    I remember you! You're that shady fellow who plunges silver arrows into beautiful women!

    //Zig
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 21, 2009:

    =O You can't do a Holloween horror rumble without classic, if predictable, titles / series such as:

    Silent Hill
    Resident Evil
    Left 4 Dead

    and... that's it. I'm not creative!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 21, 2009:

    Well, of course you will need at least one classic horror title in there. I recommend Silent Hill 1, as it has just been rereleased on the PSN recently and would make a relevant title as well an interesting study in how games are affected by time.

    I second the Bible Black suggestion (made by yourself)! I've, er, watched the anime a number of times... or at least the one disc I own. The anime is surprisingly good, if totally indecent. But then, that's what I wanted...

    Other games, other games... well, some abysmally bad game is probably in order. I'm already covering Obscure II, though... okay, well it's not ABYSMALLY bad... actually, it's shockingly satisfying, but I think it's only because I enjoy watching the hateful characters get their faces eaten all the time.

    Shadow Hearts would be a good one to consider.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted October 21, 2009:

    This makes me very happy. You're amazing Sho.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 21, 2009:

    HG needs a Demon's Crest review. Go for it!
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 22, 2009:

    Machinarium
    Platform: PC
    Genre: Adventure
    Developer: Amanita Design
    Release date: 10/16/09 NA and EU

    Added.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 22, 2009:

    Demon's Crest would be a good pick. That's a game I keep meaning to review, but just never have gotten around to playing again. I'm sure I can think of others if I try, so we'll see what happens.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 22, 2009:

    Zipp: Is Obscure II the Obscure game I reviewed? I think so. I know I reviewed one as an assignment.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 22, 2009:

    Just checked, OD, and yes it is the same game, though mine is the PSP version, where it is almost impossible to find a co-op buddy to play it with you, making combat ridiculously hard (and yet strangely mandatory).

    You used the word inconsistent in your review and it was a solid word. There are times where I really enjoy the game for its cheesy teen-horror-flick style. Then it tries to be a game and I just get frustrated.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted October 22, 2009:

    A new review by Sho is a review worth reading.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 23, 2009:

    I, the magical EmP, support this project with both of the capitalisation appearing in my wondrous username.
    board icon
    sho posted October 28, 2009:

    Tonight's piece is dedicated to Zigfried, whose GameFAQs review stood as a shining beacon of truth until it was cast down by the order-worshipping agents of YHWH.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 02, 2009:

    Myst
    Platform: PSP
    Genre: point and click Adventure
    Developer: Hoplite Research
    Release Date: July 16, 2009

    The fact that we don't have a positive review for this game seems to me to be a fucking travesty. Maybe one that I'll feel obliged to correct if the game has held up.

    Added.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 05, 2009:

    ...so.... have you given up on this, too, then?

    You haven't even updated yourself in a while. And even when you were, I'd updated myself to no avail. Can't really speak for the others, but it really doesn't look like things haven't moved much even though I know more letters have been filled (i.e. I think Suskie's winning again).

    I'm at 7 anyway.
    board icon
    EmP posted November 05, 2009:

    Given up? No. As I said, I'm not updating things until people post their progress. I'm not about to randomly trawl through the topic continiously in the off chance someone's updated their table on page 2 or whatnot.

    And Suskie's going for a stealth win. Shh -- don't let on you know!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 05, 2009:

    Fair enough; though I do remember at least one occasion where I updated that I was at six specifically as you prefer we do, and the list still wasn't updated. Likewise, I'm sure others have posted ina similar fashion before, though none recently, so that's kind of a bad example. =p

    Still, sometimes you miss. It's like I said when you made this topic:

    "I think you should add another sentence in that rule about updating: 'And even if you do post your tally regularly, I may not update it without continuous nagging.'" =P hahaha.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted November 05, 2009:

    Entry updated now that I have some letters that aren't S.

    H is for Hearts of Iron III
    K is for King's Bounty
    R is for Restaurant Empire 2
    S is for Space Quest 1, Supreme Ruler 2020, Supreme Ruler 2020: Global Crisis, Sword of the Stars, and Sins of a Solar Empire: Entrenchment, Star Trek: 25th Anniversary, and Space War Commander (phew).

    Do I get bonus points for having the most titles for a single letter?
    board icon
    honestgamer posted November 05, 2009:

    No bonus points, will. Besides, we're tied in that regard. I have reviewed seven games starting with the letter 'S,' as well, and I think I've come close on a few other letters. :-)
    board icon
    jerec posted November 05, 2009:

    I'm up to 5, EmP, if you'd like to edit the list (and get rid of the patronising !!!)
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 06, 2009:

    Alright.... 18... for the... third time... update... me... now...

    I don't know how much further I'll get. What with school and everything, I'd be happy to hit 20. Anyways, god knows what I was going to play for Q. And I'll be damned if I have to touch Xenogears again.

    EDIT: Oh... wait... I already got X...
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted November 07, 2009:

    Thanks.

    My goal for this year was to finish a Tactics Ogre series or Wild Arms 3 guide, and looks like I'll finally be able to do the latter. Walkthrough's done, now it's just dicking around with the 2343983 sidequests.
    board icon
    yamishuryou posted November 07, 2009:

    I think I gave up on that game about two thirds of the way through

    it felt like I was just trudging through the whole thing
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted November 09, 2009:

    Yeah, there's a ton of dungeons, and I suppose it can feel kinda boring, 'specially if one's not sure where the next dungeon is and stuff. WA3 might have my favorite world map of all time, though. Y'should give it another shot.
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 11, 2009:

    Yes indeed, due to a hellish work schedule over the weekend, I'm just now getting around to my RotW. If comments are a bit brief, it's because if I want to have a Brevity or Bust review, I have to get my game reasonably finished. Besides, it's a nice touch for me to use brevity here to give me more time to get a brevity-based review out. Continuity, right? Damn right!

    Like you all know, we have rules designed to stop EmP from using his alt to snare a place, like that rascally Brit tried to do this week. It was a good review, though. But you didn't fool me! We also have a rule stating that only one review per person is allowed, but that isn't such an issue, as our eight contestants all wrote one review apiece.

    And now, it's time to spin the wheel and randomly pick my three winners for this week! Uh....I mean, painstakingly read and analyze each review to find the three best. Yeah, that's it!




    THIRD PLACE: Wonder Boy In Monster World (Genesis) by spaceworlder

    It's hard to put into words just what I liked about this review. The best way to phrase it is that you really did a good job of discussing the sort of kitschy, campy feel the good old games had. Little lines like where you mention the hero isn't morally complex, but just out to save the world.....mentioning how goofy the cover art is....going into how wacky certain scenarios (like the quiz boss fight) are. I haven't played this game, but still felt I was getting a nostalgic trip the entire time I was reading.

    SECOND PLACE: Demon's Souls (PS3) by jiggs

    Very good work here. Didn't you mention this was like either your first review or first in a long time or something like that? Very impressive effort that let me know just why people seem to be looking at this game as awesome. It was well-written and does a great job of explaining how this game works. If I had a PS3, I'd be looking into this one, as you make it sound really challenging in a fun way.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Tales of the World: Radiant Mythology (PSP) by randxian

    I'm guessing you're using this for BoB. If I was judging, you'd do really well with it. You just did an excellent job of portraying a strong opinion for the game in a short span of words. You made it abundantly clear that what should have been a very good game is marred because in a world populated by Tales... games' characters, you control a generic hero who has to bend over backwards and do a ton of fetch quests to get the support of the cool Tales.... characters for one quest. Guh.... Great job in quickly and effectively putting Namco in their place with this one.




    To make up for the Brevity of Bust-style RotW, I'll offer even more brief commentary on everyone else!

    Disco: I liked the review, but it seemed like in nearly every paragraph, you mentioned some flaw or another, but gave the game an 8, which led me to wonder if I was simply supposed to know coming in that because it was Tekken, it was great....and anything you mentioned would be more of a minor annoyance.

    TheGrue: You have a kickin' username and possibly the most entertaining intro. I would have liked to see a bit more actual substantive input on the game, though, as it seemed like the PEW PEW intro dominated the thing. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it kept you out of the top three.

    WoodyBeaver: I think on the forums, Zig pretty much said everything I would in this space and more.

    LowerStreetBlues: This was another close call. You packed a ton of info into this review for an old arcade game that had me very interested from beginning to end. To be honest, I'd say the one thing putting Spaceworlder's above yours for third place was simply that his review struck a bit more of a chord with me. Still, this was impressive and I know I'll be reading your stuff more often.

    Jerec: You pretty much had all the info I'd want and you made your points well, but this one just seemed like it could have read a bit better. It kinda felt choppy like just about each paragraph was its own separate entity, as opposed to parts of a whole joined together in unison.

    Whooo....after all that, I need a drink. But it's only 2 p.m......and I'm at the office. For another four hours. Damn.
    board icon
    LowerStreetBlues posted November 11, 2009:

    Stratovox
    Platform: Arcade
    Genre: Shooter (Vertical, Fixed Screen)
    Developer: Sun Electronics Corporation
    Licensed to and manufactured by Taito
    Release: 1980
    Also Known As... Speak & Rescue (Bootleg)

    Added
    board icon
    jerec posted November 11, 2009:

    Felt the same way about mine, Overdrive. There wasn't room for smooth transitions, since I just made it under 500 words. And I figure worthwhile information is more important than making it a smooth read. After Brevity or Bust is judged, I'll hopefully expand on the review and make it smoother.

    How did I cop you AGAIN for RotW? :P
    board icon
    jiggs posted November 11, 2009:

    thanks for the mention. it is my 1st review for HG but only the 3rd review i've ever done. i wrote a couple of final fantasy reviews for Lassarina but that was almost 10 years ago and probably not worth reading!
    board icon
    randxian posted November 11, 2009:

    Thanks for the vote OD. I actually did a double take when I noticed my review was a Featured Review. I felt it was solid, but didn't expect to win anything with it.

    Of course I have to give credit to Felix, Zig, and Drella for helping me hone my skills during TT. I think that made all the difference.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 15, 2009:

    Behold - it's the fastest results topic ever created! Aren't we awesome?

    Anyway, this was an excellent turn out this year quality-wise. We're all very pleased with the reviews. Opinions were varied, more or less, amongst the judges. And despite some uncertainty about bonus distribution (whoops), things are fine now. As usual, please let us (especially me) know if anything's wrong score-wise or anywhere else.

    _____________________________________________________________________

    EmP: Big Bang Mini
    Words: 500

    Felix: Gary, regrettably, this is the first review of yours Ive read in a while. It contains a good amount of imagery, which is instrumental for this stringent competition. Big Bang Mini sounds intriguing through your choice of words, such as muddy footprints on the wallpaper and laser-spitting crimson piggybanks. I think Ive read your other review of it for a different competition. I cant remember specifics, so this succinct piece served me well. You could have been a little more economical in your word allocation, as you allude several times to a limited word quota (couldnt that space have been used for something more compelling?). The ending was particularly, clever. You will be docked one one-thousandth of a point for not including a period, however, because punctuation does not go against your word count. Nevertheless, a nice little review for a game bursting with material to discuss.

    Score: 81.999 82

    WQ: Haha. I love your approach with this review. The constant complaining about the word limit while still doing the game the justice it deserves is quite amusing. Especially the paragraph where every sentence basically starts off Well, I would talk about this awesome feature but I wont because I have a word limit! Oh, wait. I just did! is pretty hilarious. I also thought that the neat-sounding special attacks paragraph flowed rather smoothly. In fact, this whole review flows rather smoothly for the most part. And even though its short, as are all the reviews in this contest, you do a nice job summing up everything I need to know and making it sound just as goofy as I imagine it is. That said, a few things I dont like:

    The intro, while a very intriguing metaphor, confuses me a little if for the football references. I know who Beckham is, but who the hells the other guy? It also probably carried on a bit too much for the point youre trying to make.

    Secondly, when describing your two choices, I dont like that youre so vague about the things you need to dodge, but, considering your word limit and the point of that paragraph, it really isnt that huge a deal. And you make all this clear later in the review, anyway, to great effect.

    Most importantly: You need to dodge the razor-edged leafs fluttering deceptively Leaves! Leaves! Haha.

    But yes. This is very nice work and probably better than the review you wrote here. Its really quite amusing throughout while still being effective; you cant really beat that.

    Score: 88

    P.S.: Would you believe that Felix and I were arguing about whether you shouldve ended the last sentence with a period? Ill have to tell you about it when you have more time. Its freaking hilarious. XXXD

    Suskie: Before you say anything, Im totally aware of the hypocrisy of this statement coming from the guy who wrote that Fahrenheit review, but I dont care for the constant references to the contest in this review. Youre an excellent writer, and thats on full display here, but Id say youre also occasionally too self-conscious for your own good. In the context of Brevity or Bust, it works (especially the very clever joke at the end), but whats to stop a random passerby from reading this and wondering why, if its so difficult to describe in 500 words, you limited yourself? I was going to complain about the contradiction of wasting space talking about how little you can write, but the weird truth about this review is that, in my mind, you still paint a vivid picture of Big Bang Mini. It sounds like a relatively simple game (Im thinking Geometry Wars on a touch screen), and your decision to offer only a few fleeting glimpses of the intensity and visual splendor found within the design itself, rather than spend paragraphs discussing them in great detail, seems like the right one. I guess what Im trying to say is that you chose a game perfectly suited for Brevity or Bust, that you did a fine job reviewing it with space to spare, and that your in-jokes about having a limited number of words ironically come across as filler. Ill be surprised if this doesnt wind up being the most bizarre entry of the contest.

    Score: 75

    TOTAL: 245

    Jerec: Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII
    Words 473

    Felix: Alex, this review isnt flashy, but that serves as its strength. It contains information readers would want to know. It details (with brevity) the premise and purpose of the game. I dont need to know painstaking details on how the cinematic sequences unfold. I just need to know that the game is cinematic, in the grand tradition of 3D Final Fantasy titles, yet contains flaws in its implementation (in this case text boxes). This review provides that insight without wasting time, which I find commendable.

    Score: 75

    WQ: Jerecs review, while adequate, really felt like it lacked passion and focus. It seemed extremely listy, shifting from one topic to another without much thought. I couldnt tell whether this was going to be a positive or negative review until the end because these kept switching. Im actually surprised you liked the game as much as you say you did because I felt like the only positive aspects were the story and cinema (minus text boxes). I remain unconvinced that the battle system works fairly well; I dont like the idea of not having any control, and you dont really shore up this negative with anything positive.

    Still, to be completely fair to the review, I still get a sense of how the game plays, and thats always a good thing. It also doesnt feel too spoily, and I find the new characters and their supposed depth to be interesting. Still, its a bit difficult getting past the Crisis Core in sixty seconds feel the review gives off, especially since it reads extremely emotionlessly.

    However, still not a bad effort, anyway. I imagine this isnt an easy game to write such a short review on.

    Score: 73

    Suskie: Not sure if Crisis Core was a good choice for Brevity or Bust. If you dont pick a simple game that doesnt call for a whole lot of discussion, then you must simply limit what you say, which you seem to have trouble doing here. Ill say that your opening sentence probably does a better job of illustrating your point than the rest of the review does initially taking on a negative tone (and I get the feeling you were hesitant to give the game so solid a recommendation) and then snapping back and noting that the games shallowness is merely a byproduct of the its desire to keep the story moving along. Actually, I think the first half of this review is absolutely fine, hitting all of the major points about the story without going into more detail than is necessary, but still providing enough personal response. (I especially liked it when you said that Zack is made a likeable character, and that this makes the story all the more sad since you know where its going.) As soon as you go into combat, though, youve lost me. I still dont really know how it works is it real-time? Turn-based? Why does hugging walls help? Why do enemies spin you around? And whats the deal with leveling up? Its at this point that the reviews placement in this contest hurts it, because I get the sense youre just trying to cram everything in without making any cuts, and as such, its all a blur. Its not a bad review by any means, but it could have used some serious refinement.

    Score: 65

    TOTAL: 213

    Lewis: Stalin vs. Martians
    Words: 237

    Felix: Lewis, you have taken a bold path. Your review is nicely written. It doesnt contain unneeded words. Every single letter serves its intended purpose. The screenshot boosts your count. It provides just as much information as the actual text. In what ways is Stalin vs. Martians impossible to hate? I can find ways to hate an irreverent and knowing title, especially if its inequities were deliberately produced. I would have liked you to delve into that a bit more, as your review is border-line criminally short. Unlike Zeno Clash, however, which sucked (the blog post, not necessarily the game), at least I feel that most of your claims are definitive and could not have benefited from further elaboration. If a RTS game has no means for conducting strategy, it lacks its soul. And if its developers are in on the joke, and Bolsheviks on bicycles appear in sound or sight, then what possible follow-up could be conducted?

    Score: 77

    WQ: You really leave me in a pickle, here. Your attempt to write short is brave and inspiring, yet Im finding myself struggling to determine whether it really is good enough. On the one hand, youre very succinct in your descriptions; no word really feels wasted at all. You make the game sound more quirky than awful, which is cool, but Im not entirely sure if it was your intention. In making it sound more quirky, the more awful things are more or less forgotten and not expanded upon, which leaves me wanting to know more. I dont really feel like you describe well enough the game mechanics or anything. How is the play bad? What does it do? Does it glitch whenever you click somewhere and completely misread the command? The concept of the game sounds extremely amusing to me but I really do wish I knew more about why it sucked. It could probably use more examples, too, if you could fit them. You give plenty for the quirky aspects, but almost nothing specific for the awful ones. Still, if I were to guess the score youd give it, though, Id guess somewhere between a 5 and 6, and if thats right, then that shows you did a good job making the review come across the way you actually wanted.

    So, this being said, Im really uncertain how to score this properly. What you do tell me works really well but it still feels like it couldve been elaborated on in some areas. Still, for what you tried to do, I think you succeed for the most part, despite my issues, and thats one of the reasons why I wish we didnt have to give scores for reviews. But, since I must for the sake of convention

    Score: 75

    Suskie: I dont have much to say about this review beyond the fact that I like it. What Im about to say will make this the third consecutive critique Ive written now that mentions game choice in Brevity or Bust, but really, when your only real response to Stalin vs. Martians is to point at it and laugh, what more is there to be said? Honestly, that first paragraph is all you need to illustrate that this strategy-free game completely fails in its duties as a strategy game. That point is made immediately and succinctly, and I like the position you take afterwards. It makes me weirdly eager to check the game out not to PAY for it, but to at least see how dumb it really is. I get the feeling thats exactly the reaction Im supposed to have: I have no desire to play it, and as such, Im a little sad that Ill never get to see the scene where Stalin dances. I cant imagine writing a full-length review of this thing. Good work.

    Score: 88

    TOTAL: 240 + 10 = 250

    sho: The King of Chicago
    Words: 483

    Felix: Tachibana, you have a way with words that no other reviewer on this site is able to employ. Here we have alliteration in bootleg booze, blazing bullets, and beautiful bitches. This would feel forced in most other writers work, but here it feels natural. The subject matter (Chicagoland gangster adventures!!) is alluring and intriguing. The writing is top-notch. Fast readers will understand the games foundation. Methodical readers who soak in what is written on the page will understand twice as much of the games content, ranging from cagey lieutenants to electric-chair-condemned kings of Chicago.

    Score: 90

    WQ: Wow. This is a great review. The descriptions are dynamic and creative, leaving me with a great sense of the game. They also make you sound enthusiastic about the game, which can also be seen through your explanations about how different the game is every time. Despite being for a mostly stationary graphic adventure, this review is action-packed and makes me rather intrigued about the game itself. The writing is also flawless and often clever in places. You really make the review feel like it belongs in that time period, which I think also contributes to its dynamism and vivid creativity. The screens you provided also help in portraying what youre discussing. Good stuff.

    Score: 92

    Suskie: Thanks for the recommendation, Sho! Ive never really been interested in Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, but Ill take your word for it and assume its tailored for a guy like me. (Yes, the joke there is that I hate atmospheric adventure games, as you suggest.) This is another one of the thousand or so reviews on this site that takes the you-are-there storytelling approach, which has become something of an HonestGamers clich. I mean, Im guilty of doing this too and its not inherently a BAD thing, but I feel you get a little lost in the third paragraph, more concerned with making the review sparkly and dramatic than actually painting a clear picture of how The King of Chicago plays. Im kind of wondering if the game is as exciting as you make it sound, though thats probably more due to my natural bias against adventure games than anything else. So really, the writing here is very strong and I especially appreciate the point about how the game will play out differently for everyone, which makes it sound very ahead of its time. Its a little over the top (which, again, is a trap that a lot of writers here often fall into), but its hard for me to argue when it would probably be impossible to sell this game to me otherwise. My only real complaint is that you might want to make your negative points (about the games brevity and simplicity) a little more prominent to further reflect your score, but nice work otherwise.

    Score: 80

    TOTAL: 262

    OD: Revelations: The Demon Slayer
    Words: 467

    Felix: Roberto, you have taken on an immense challenge by reviewing a game as plain as this. By no means is this review interesting. You have decreed the subject material as lifeless to all but the most RPG-enthused. I will cut you immense slack, however, because not every review has to read like an elevator on a death plunge. The purpose of this contest was to succinctly write about a game. You have done that, and with words to spare. I understand this titles offerings generic everything. And I come away knowing that I would not enjoy this game (I think I knew that before I even clicked on the review). The point Im trying to make is this: You have taken a game that is beyond pointless to most, and yet you have still done your duty in outlining its character. While the review may not be flashy, I cannot fault you too much for telling it like it is.

    Score: 70

    WQ: Hm Well, this review is definitely a competent effort, but it feels cluttered in places. Sometimes you use words that may not have been entirely appropriate or phrases that make the sentence more awkward than it should be. For example, Without gaining monstrous allies. While I know you literally mean the definition of allies composed of monsters, the other contexts that the word offers make this a poor word choice. Furthermore, I think there are two instances in the review where you meant to write something else but it translated to something weird instead. Here: you have a real incentive to convince and bribe them to help you it's the only way you'll survive and here: That's Demon Slayer in a nutshell a simple. I have no idea what these were supposed to be, and in a review this short, that really does more harm than good. Fortunately, if theyre omitted, the sentences seem to make sense for the most part anyway.

    Outside of these things, the review sounds convincing enough. I know why its not as good as its brethren in the series, and Im convinced its an average RPG with average everything that serves more to kill time than to blow you away. The lack of emotion in the review sort of comes off as indifference to the game as a whole, which, in this case, makes it more convincing because of the tone throughout and the score at the end. Im not overly impressed with it, but thats not a huge deal, really.

    Score: 80

    Suskie: I was actually going to copy and paste some of the lines from your review into this critique, and then edit them to make it sound like Im saying that your review is competent, and that Im damning with faint praise, and that its put together well but its not flashy or memorable, etc. But I dont know how familiar you are with this review and Id be taking the risk that the joke flies right over your head. In all honesty, this is very well written, and simply works from the disadvantage that the game youre talking about isnt very interesting. Its not interesting to read about and Im betting its not interesting to talk about, either. Whereas Lewis picked an excellent game for this competition and wound up coming to the most unique conclusion in fewer words than anyone else, your review more or less says what I expected it to say from the get-go: generic JRPG, save the world, gather party members, fight monsters, mediocre, bleh. I really did appreciate what you said about the game appealing to YOU and people like you, while still acknowledging that Revelations isnt very good. Your attitude about RPGs more or less mirrors mine towards shooters. I just recently played Killzone 2 and honestly enjoyed it, despite it being the most generic cookie-cutter game Ive played all year. How do you review a game like that, one that you were entertained by for reasons others would hate it? I like your approach, I think youre totally fair to the game, and I know to stay away now. Its just a shame you dont have better material to work with here.

    Score: 75

    TOTAL: 225

    Zipp: Final Fantasy VII (PSN)
    Words: 480

    Felix: Jonathan, this is a terrible staff review because it concentrates on only one of the many aspects in a beloved and famous title, therefore neglecting to mention so much of the content that makes FF7 an endearing title of the ages. With that said, I think you have the basis to a very intriguing review. If this piece can be fleshed out, it would be really cool. You wouldnt even need to mention the typical stuff seen in other reviews for this game. Just keep elaborating on your thesis. You have a really good idea here. Unfortunately, the word count went against you.

    Score: 60

    WQ: I commend you for trying to be as ambitious as you are for reviewing FF7 in 500 words, especially considering the completely different approach you take. However, I dont think its completely successful. While I really like how this starts off especially that second paragraph describing how the game broke from archetypal RPG tradition. You then do a nice job summing up some of the story elements and why they make it different (though I imagine that these things arent so unique anymore, but thats not necessarily your point). The only problems I have until the end involve the paragraph where you talk about Cloud and Barrett; some word repetition, word choice and sentence structure dont really work for me, but it still gets the job done. However, things really start to crumble for you at the end, and its there that hurts you the most, Im afraid.

    The penultimate paragraph (excluding the single-sentence finisher) does absolutely nothing for me nor does it prove any point to me. It reads like something only someone who has played the game before would understand. I, who had only beaten Jenova once before giving up on a badly scratched disk, do not remember some of these events and havent even heard of others. So, to people like me who dont know the complete story, this paragraph is so confusing and out of place that it doesnt even need to be there at all. Though, in a way, Im glad Im more confused than anything else because I also know that these events are extremely spoily; and maybe the reason theyre so confusing is because you knew they were spoily and didnt want to risk spoiling too much. But either way, the paragraph doesnt do you any favors, Im afraid.

    After this, the review just kind of summarizes and ends. I know this was done because it was short, but with such a lacking close, its a review that really needs expanding. In a way, its kind of sad that just one paragraph and a word limit can damage such a review with such potential, but thats the nature of the contest. Still, I really do admire your daring, and Im absolutely fascinated by the approach. I actually wouldnt mind if you expanded the review and fleshed out some of your points some more. I think its really interesting, but as it is now, it just kind of ends, and it makes me sad. Even so, the boldness and angle makes this kind of hard to score., but oh well.

    Score: 67

    Suskie: Before you start waving guns around because of the score I gave you, I want you to know that I like the direction youve taken with this review. I really do. Your position on FFVII being one of Squares darkest games has actually forced me to view the game in a different light, which is a considerable given how much I hate FFVII. Your decision to ignore gameplay-related aspects altogether was also an effective one, especially since even FFVIIs biggest fans seem to have acknowledged by now that the plot is the games only selling point. (Ha! Thought Id get through this critique without knocking on FFVII, did you?) Having said that, this just isnt a compelling piece of writing. After establishing your point in a particularly strong second paragraph, you seem to have run out of places to go and just wander aimlessly until youve reached your word limit. There are two whole paragraphs in a row in which you simply run through one-sentence anecdotes from the story in quick succession, without giving them the footing they need to support your central thesis. Some of them dont even make sense out of context. Like, you make it sound as if Cloud WILLINGLY hands Sephiroth the black materia. It just sounds like youre preaching to a choir here, calling FFVII the most enduring game of all time for no particular reason, bringing up one genuinely good discussion topic, and then using it as an excuse to plough through as many major plot points as you can before slapping an obligatory 10 onto the end of the review. It isnt even tailored for people who havent played the game and is too jumbled (and, weirdly, devoid of much actual praise) to work as a nostalgic piece. Ill add that the writing isnt as strong as usual, either, such as the mention of polygon characters. (I know what you meant, but theres got to be a better way to put it than that.)

    Score: 45

    TOTAL: 172

    Zig: Brutal Legend
    Words: 499

    Felix: Zig, your review makes one point that really struck a chord with me. 3D worlds even if they were plain used to be exciting to explore for secrets back when the concept was novel. And here I thought it was inquisitive youth stepping aside for aging impatience as the reason why I can no longer be damned to explore all but the most innovative video game realms. As for the review, its pretty good. The writing is typically batty, with IMPORTANT words CAPITALZED for added EFFECT, and with noteworthy dialogue highlighted for all intensive purposes. The best thing about this review, though, is that it takes a seemingly insipid, ho-hum game and makes it fun to read about. It answers questions for inquisitive readers, yet it entertains for all competitive purposes. Nifty.

    Score: 85

    WQ: Bahahaha! Love it. The way this starts is genius all the classic rock/metal puns kill me, and definitely make the game sound like the goofy parody-adventure-thing that I imagined it would be. I like the concept basically taking Iron Maidens cover art and making it a game (and maybe that of other bands, too, but I assume primarily them because Eddie seems to be the main character). Then, later, the puns end and things get more serious. In this way intentionally or not the reader gets the same sense of disappointment you do when you realized that the game wasnt anything more than just boring exploration interspersed with excitement, or however you phrased it.

    Still, I do have some issues with this that hurt a little bit. All the punnage and references to other things, while amusing, do get cluttered after a while, and I dont understand them all. Specifically, the paragraph where you add in (think Conan) ever other sentence is especially cluttered, and all the mentioning of Conan which Ive not seen and therefore only understand based on context and what Ive heard of it cloud any other brilliant puns or sentence structure. In other words, it clogs flow and takes away from the IRONHEAD joke.

    Still, I found myself very amused and later intrigued when the jokes ended throughout the review. And you do a nice job summing up its negative elements in the amount of words you had left. Great stuff. Im proud of myself for getting most of the jokes.

    Score: 88

    Suskie: So whats the deal with that opening exchange? Is it from the game? Something else? Did you make it up? Well, whatever. For however disoriented this made me, you got my attention again with the Ratts ass joke. Thats clever writing right there, folks. Anyway, I really like it when reviewers find unique ways to make simple points, such as when you said that Brutal Legend feels like it was stuck in the era when simply being in 3D was thrill enough. This is a good review that I really cant find fault with. If Brutal Legend provides a lot of potential discussion material, then you did a wonderful job of convincing me that all relevant aspects can be covered clearly and illustratively in the space of 500 words. As always, your writing is tight, creative and entertaining to read. And, uh, thats about all there is to say. How are you? Good, thanks.

    Score: 90

    TOTAL: 263

    Masters: Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2
    Words: 500

    Felix: Marc, this review was a pleasure to read. I say this after having read all but one other Brevity or Bust IV review. At 3:40 in the morning. No, I hadnt fully read it until now. I only waited because I wanted to see what my reaction would be toward it at the time that mattered most: scoring time! Anyway, for a review that spends a good portion of its length talking about purple mist and sharp breasts, I have to admit that the argument you are making is incredibly convincing. What were they thinking, exactly, when they took the very essence that made the original version of Ninja Gaiden 2 real by substituting it for watered down confusion? Its sheer madness, and Im glad you indicate so in your review. After all, sometimes its the little things that make or break the experience, and to me it sounds as if Team Ninja had no qualms about gutting their own baby just so it could appeal to wimps, from fountains of blood to suffocating challenge. Now its all gone. Your review chronicles that nicely.

    Score: 90

    WQ: *sigh* You had to give me trouble, too, didnt you? I had to read your review twice to get what you were saying, and still had a little trouble in places. I think this is largely due to the fact that Ive not played either game, and so to someone like me reading a review likely directed at an audience who probably has played the original, I find it a bit befuddling. However, that being said, your argument is an interesting and compelling one. What makes this game worse than its brother? Ironically, it seems to be the things that were meant to make it better! You do a nice job explaining the pros and cons of this versions improvements, and even someone like me can see that its inferior because it leaves the player lacking any sense of sadistic fulfillment.

    However, considering how analytical and technical your writing is, appealing to the audience you do doesnt always help, at least not to me whos played neither. For example, this paragraph: The new generation Ninja Gaiden has always been about permitting progress in the most begrudging of ways. But through the beatings would emerge an indomitable gamer pride: wed dust Ryu off, assuring ourselves that by defending prudently and patiently, awaiting openings to counterattack, our resolve would see us through. I know what youre trying to say, but it reads like youre using a huge in-game metaphor to say it, and its just really confusing to me.

    Still, that being said, this is a very nice review that has a very direct point to prove and succeeds in proving it in an artistic and technical manner. I know that this port isnt as good as the original, despite the better graphics, and I know why. And the way you present it is quite interesting (though I personally could have cared less about eye-candy =P).

    Score: 85

    Suskie: Wow. Way to go with a single point and run with it. I like this approach if its done well, and here, it absolutely is. Ive always been in defense of videogame violence as an almost integral part of the experience (in some cases, at least), so I can totally relate to what youre saying about excessive bloodletting being so empowering. Notice you say nothing of the games actual mechanics. You dont need to. Everyone knows Ninja Gaiden is an action game, and in a way, thats as detailed as you need to be. This feels kind of like a reflection piece, one that quickly examines what made Ninja Gaiden II work on Xbox 360 and explains how one presumably small change can make for a much less satisfying experience (without falling into the trap of outright reviewing the original NG2). Thats kind of the case I was making for MadWorld some games are just AWESOME. Taking away NG2s awesomeness does it a disservice. Gamers know the rush you get from games like this, and any of them should be able to instantly relate to the argument youre making here, whether theyll admit it or not. Simple but incredibly effective and I hate the Ninja Gaiden games.

    Score: 94

    TOTAL: 269

    Randxian: Tales of the World: Radiant Mythology
    Words: 483

    Felix: Dave, I really liked the following line: Everybody in the game hates you. I dont know why. It just made me laugh out loud. No other review did that for me during this competition. I guess that counts for something. The subject matter is interesting, if only because you make it sound absolutely ludicrous. This is a scathing critique of a game that is worthy of being scathed. The writing was down to earth and real. Parts of it were a tad rough, though not to the point of concern. The only part that I just refused to accept was the conclusion, about traveling to NYC dressed as a Bosox fan. By the time you fly there or, in my case, take the Thruway, youre already looking at outrageous fees comparable to purchasing a PSP and $30 copy of this game! Bits about bats, wolves, slimes, and other members of the hit parade, not to mention the actual meat of the review, made this a solid read, though. I think youre progressing nicely.

    Score: 75

    WQ: Firstly, congrats on your first RotW win. You really have improved a lot since that Crystalis review I read of yours a while ago. This review isnt flawless by any means, but it definitely has a lot of good traits. I like the sarcasm and sense of humor you instill throughout, and I find the idea of Tales in real life rather amusing. It sounds like a largely unfair and boring RPG that failed at pleasing its intended audience. It also focuses on the most important issues, which, in a review like this, is critical especially when writing about games that normally would require a lot of wordage.

    That being said, some issues I have with it are the occasional sloppy sentence structure and the somewhat repetitive conclusion. For example, this sentence than successfully getting a local Tales of yahoo to join your band of merry men. Im pretty sure you were trying to make a joke with the Tales of yahoo thing, but to me, it sounds like you were just trying to say the games title in less words. Itd honestly be beer if you just took out the of yahoo bit altogether. Either way, I found the previous prom joke to be hilarious.

    As for the conclusion, while I know the point is to sum up and then add something new, which you definitely do, in here it really sounds repetitive because all the points you summarize you already made quite sufficiently. That the review is as short as it is (and needs to be per nature of the contest) doesnt help.

    Still, these things are quite minor altogether, and overall, I rather like the effort. Good job.

    Score: 83

    Suskie: Im not really getting why you dont like this game, Randxian. You spend virtually the entire review telling me about how much the characters in this game hate you, and I dont know, that seems like a petty complaint to me. I know nothing about the story, the battle system I dont even really know how the character interaction works. How do you get them to warm up to you? How do you recruit them? How do they contribute to your party, and how do the quests play out with them in tow? I leave this review with nothing. Whats worse, halfway through you make the declaration that thus the game fails completely, like were supposed to be nodding along with what youre saying, yet I see no evidence here to support your claims. Either Im missing something or theres an underlying message in this review that you havent brought out. So the characters are mean? Dont take it so personally, man.

    Score: 50

    TOTAL: 208

    _____________________________________________________________________

    BREAKDOWN:

    1. Masters: 90 + 85 + 94 + 0 (bonus) = 269
    2. Zig: 85 + 88 + 90 + 0 (bonus) = 263
    3. Sho: 90 + 92 + 80 + 0 (bonus) = 262
    4. Lewis: 77 + 75 + 88 + 10 (bonus) = 250
    5. EmP: 82 + 88 + 75 + 0 (bonus) = 245
    6. OD: 70 + 80 + 75 + 0 (bonus) = 225
    7. Jerec: 75 + 73 + 65 + 0 (bonus) = 213
    8. Randxian: 75 + 83 + 50 + 0 (bonus) = 208
    9. Zipp: 60 + 67 + 45 + 0 (bonus) = 172
    ____________________________________________________________________

    Congrats to all who participated. May the next BoB go even better.
    board icon
    Suskie posted November 15, 2009:

    Man, am I the odd man out here? If this was TT I'd be voting for the opposite person you two vote for. Weird how I was simultaneously the nicest and meanest judge here.

    Sorry for the wall-of-text critiques, everyone; I forgot to divide them into fancy little paragraphs.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 15, 2009:

    Wolfqueen sabotaged my score for EmP. It should be 244.999 points!!

    In all serious, thank for participating, all. Congrats to Masters on his conquest!
    board icon
    randxian posted November 15, 2009:

    Im not really getting why you dont like this game, Randxian. You spend virtually the entire review telling me about how much the characters in this game hate you, and I dont know, that seems like a petty complaint to me.

    It's not a petty complaint when the whole point of the game is to team up with your favorite characters in Namco's Tales of series.

    Perhaps I could've made that arguement more clearly. I do admit that I did take a chance by taking one slice out of the game and analyzing it to death. I thought that slice, Tales of characters NOT joining you, was important enough to warrant a low score, given this is a fan based game.

    Anyway, thanks for the feedback, all three of you. It seems I still have some work to do in terms of clarity and sentence structure. When the readers aren't 100% sure what my point is, then I suppose there is a fundamental problem.

    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 15, 2009:

    Thanks for the feedback on mine. I agree it wasn't my most eloquent piece. But it was a very intriguing experience seeing the aftermath of its writing, wherein it quickly garnered more discussion across the sites I posted it on then any of my other reviews. Guess FF7's still a hot topic.
    board icon
    zigfried posted November 15, 2009:

    Thank you judges! These were very prompt and clear results, and the topic was nicely formatted too.

    Congratulations to the wieners!

    //Zig
    board icon
    jerec posted November 15, 2009:

    Thanks, judges, for such insightful comments. I can't argue with any of it. I think game choice did hurt me here, but I wasn't actually planning on contributing anything until I wrote a list of things I did and didn't like about Crisis Core on my blog, then turned it into a review (and it was turned into a review very quickly, hence the lack of polish and passion). I felt very constrained by the 500 word limit, and I ended up cutting some of what I wanted to say.

    So I suppose I'll take another run through the review soon, with your comments in mind (seems like the first half of my review is pretty good), but I'll go into more detail on the battle, and try to convey better how I still thought it was a good game, despite my overly negative review. It's a strange game, in that way. I was aware of its problems, but I still really enjoyed it. Hmm.
    board icon
    Lewis posted November 16, 2009:

    Hello! Thanks for the comments. I'd like to address a few, not because I'm complaining, but because I'm a real advocate of concise writing so this is a really interesting contest for me.

    WolfQueen: well I reviewed it for Resolution and gave it a 3. But that's based on our scoring system, which is probably a little harsher than the one here at HonestGamers. I'd have probably 4'd it here. In terms of why the play is bad... well, because you just click on things until they die. There's literally no more to it than that. There's a reason I picked SvM for such a short review, because there genuinely is very little more to say about the game.

    So I'm glad Suskie picked up on that. His reaction is the desired reading, so maybe I just needed to neaten up some of the other stuff to make sure everyone understood that position. I wouldn't have wanted to increase the length, though - rather, I'd probably rephrase a couple of bits to allow for more detailed explanation within the word count.

    If anyone's wondering what I would save said with a higher word count, here's my 700 word piece for Resolution.

    And just for Suskie, here's the dancing Stalin bit. Memory fail: it's europop, not drum and bass.

    The start of the game, including gameplay footage, is here.
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 16, 2009:

    To be honest, I was pretty much expecting the scoring range I got from the judges. I'd been playing that game for a week or so and when I started writing, the only thing I could think of was that I'm writing about a paint-by-numbers RPG that basically sticks as closely to the "competently generic" line as humanly possible. I couldn't think of a single way to make that game sound interesting because there was nothing particularly good about it nor anything particularly horrible to provide fun bashing material.

    From the comments, I feel I accomplished what I wanted with this one as a pure review. Just with the subject matter, I didn't accomplish enough to make it a good contest review.
    board icon
    Masters posted November 16, 2009:

    Thanks judges. That was VERY fast. Trust WQ to be befuddled. You're always befuddled! :P
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 16, 2009:

    Quiet, you. You still won. =P
    board icon
    zigfried posted November 21, 2009:

    Anyone interested in judging the next Alphabetolympics?

    Anyone interested in running it? I will, if no one else wants to.

    Any suggestions for what the end date should be?

    //Zig
    board icon
    Halon posted November 21, 2009:

    If you want I can run it since I did so for the past few years and it isn't a problem to me. I kind of want to enter so I have an excuse to write a review but I'll judge if that is necessary.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 22, 2009:

    I love the Alphas just on principle, so I'll probably try to write for it this time. Depends on when the contest deadline is and such. I hope we get more interested people, though... Filling up all the spots seems to become increasingly difficult each year. =/
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 22, 2009:

    I'll judge. But I won't compile the results.
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 22, 2009:

    I'm interested in PARTICIPATING. I still haven't won this one yet and will continue to enter it until I've either won it or died a pathetic failure who never deserved to live in the first place.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted November 22, 2009:

    I'm interested in participating but need more info on the time frame.
    board icon
    randxian posted November 22, 2009:

    I would like to judge.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 22, 2009:

    Since it looks like I'm running this again...

    RD: Signup/rules topic will be up around Thanksgiving (Thursday), give or take a day. Deadline will be around New Year's, giving participants roughly five weeks. This is one slack week, a week to pick out the game, 2 weeks to play it, and a week to write the review.

    Jerec gets first dibs on judging if he wants to since he's been judging it for the past few years, though we still need two more. Or three if he's not interested.
    board icon
    Halon posted November 22, 2009:

    Also there are twenty seven spots to fill up and it looks like we'll be short. So now is the time to inform people who aren't around as much as they used to be.
    board icon
    Suskie posted November 22, 2009:

    Well, we managed to run a full TT with a couple of people to spare, so I wouldn't be surprised if we fill the slots for the Alphas. Might take a little work to get everyone rounded up, though.

    Anyway, sign me up as a participant. Or, I guess if sign-ups happen later, mark me as "interested."
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted November 22, 2009:

    Yeah that time frame may be a little difficult for me since I still have school and finals until December 19th, although I have literally nothing from then until New Years. I should probably just go ahead and sign up since it may be difficult even getting 27 people.

    Definitely message anyone who participated (or wanted to participate but didn't get to) in the TT.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 22, 2009:

    I'm more worried about these 27 spots actually showing up... Last year we missed like 10 people who didn't show.

    Anyway, we already have 2-3 judges. Felix and randxian already expressed interest in that. There may have been one more also that I missed. So that spot's still open to jerec.

    EDIT: Sportsman, can you archive Brevity 4 please?
    board icon
    randxian posted November 22, 2009:

    Maybe now would be a good time to inquire as to just what the hell this contest consists of.

    I'll still judge regardless, unless Jerec or some other veteran wants the position.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted November 22, 2009:

    I'd like to give it a shot. I think maybe I can get something written in the timeline stated. Whether or not that actually proves to be the case depends on the letter I get, but consider me at least interested. ;-)
    board icon
    randxian posted November 22, 2009:

    Nevermind, Felix explained how this contest works. I'm good.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 22, 2009:

    Sportsman, Rand and I have declared our interest to judge. If you don't mind, I can get the sign-up topic started for you, that way if you'd rather play than critique, you don't have to.
    board icon
    aschultz posted November 22, 2009:

    I'd like to judge. I can compile results if need be.
    board icon
    zigfried posted November 22, 2009:

    I will participate, unless I don't.

    EDIT: Sportsman, when you archive Brevity 4, could you give me 40 extra points? Historical accuracy be damned -- I just want to win!

    //Zig
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 22, 2009:

    Imagine, a Jayhawk, a Hoosier, and Boilermaker acting as triumvirate of adjudication. I think this is a strong foundation, even if inner turmoil exists thanks to the Old Oaken Bucket!!
    board icon
    Halon posted November 22, 2009:

    please add the PC version of Left 4 Dead 2. Thanks!

    Done
    board icon
    aschultz posted November 22, 2009:

    Name: Bard's Tale III: The Thief of Fate
    Genre: RPG (First-person)
    Developer: Interplay
    Publisher: Electronic Arts
    Release Date: 1988
    Platform: Apple IIe

    I just made over my GameFAQs review for this, and if you act now, you may get a FAQ thrown in as well free of charge! It's for the Commodore, but it's really the same ideas.

    The Commodore version was also released in 1988, if you want to add that, but my review mentions an AWESOME Apple-only bug.

    ADDED'D
    board icon
    Halon posted November 22, 2009:

    Didn't even know the Brevity or Bust results were posted haha. Guess this gives me a better reason to give Zig +40 points. ;)

    Felix: If you want to create the topic go ahead. Just let me create the follow up topic so I can edit it unless you're willing to run this thing. All I ask is you put the rules in the sign ups as well as a note for people not to enter unless they're willing to commit to this since there's a finite number of reserved spots. Also HG mail me the letter assignments once I pick.
    board icon
    jerec posted November 22, 2009:

    So nice of you to leave a judging spot open to me, but I think I'll compete this time. I've had a decent track record of actually showing up to contests recently (though my actual performance in them has been questionable).
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted November 23, 2009:

    If the deadline is before the first weekend in January then I can judge. Unless you already have enough judges (didnt read the whole topic).
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted November 23, 2009:

    Pardon my ignorance but what is Alphabetolympics?
    board icon
    Halon posted November 23, 2009:

    Basically you're a assigned a letter and you have to review a game beginning with that letter. More in-depth details will be given in the signup topic.

    Speaking about that, if Janus is to judge we should make the deadline around Christmas, which means sign ups should start in the next few days. So Felix, whenever you're ready.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 23, 2009:

    I think I've got it under control.
    board icon
    zigfried posted November 25, 2009:

    ...in this topic. You know what to do.

    Panzer Dragoon Orta
    Genre: Crazy awesome dragon shooting action in an inimitable future fantasy setting
    Score: 11/10
    Why on list: The thought of Orta crying over being left off would be unbearable

    //Zig
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted November 25, 2009:

    Shadow of the Colossus
    Genre: Crazy awesome arrow-shooting action in an inimitable future fantasy setting
    Score: 11/10
    Why on list: All killer, no filler. Plus, killing the nonlethal dragon colossus = ;__;
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted November 26, 2009:

    Oh thank god, I'm not the only person who felt horrible after killing the dragon and the bird.
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted November 26, 2009:

    Shinobi
    Genre: Skill-based 3D ninja action game. (That's a mouthful!)
    Score: 12/10
    Why on list: Because if it isn't, the dogs will be set loose. The ones with swords in their mouths, and when they bark they shoot swords. Okay, the part about shooting swords isn't true, but c'mon, it's a game with sword-wielding ninja dogs!
    board icon
    darketernal posted November 26, 2009:

    Guilty Gear XX
    Genre: Crazy awesome character beating action in an inimitable future fantasy setting
    Score: 11/10
    Why on list: The most awesome character roster in history of awesomeness,great balance, great story and fantastic sound track all rolled into one.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted November 26, 2009:

    Wow Shotgunnova you are wrecking shit up

    If neither of us have not burned out in five years time I will have to recruit you for a self-imposed DS FAQ Completion Project that will span a decade and be the greatest undertaking mankind has ever known

    As for me, working through Dragon Ball Z: Attack of the Saiyans
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted November 26, 2009:

    The Last Remnant
    Genre: Crazy awesome strategy role-playing action in an inimitable future fantasy setting
    Score: 11/10
    Why on list: Scientific studies have proven that The Last Remnant is, in fact, one of the greatest games of all time. However, the uneducated gaming masses totally miss the point of it.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted November 27, 2009:

    Game: Bust-A-Move Live!
    Platform: Xbox 360 (XLA)
    Developer: Taito Corporation
    Genre: Casual (Puzzle)
    Release: September 30, 2009

    Added

    Thanks.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted November 27, 2009:

    And more working on it, it is a fairly long game really.

    I made the switch from using Metapad to EditPro Lite, though I still have to use Metapad to force word wrap since I do not both making line breaks for paragraphs manually.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted November 28, 2009:

    And I just started and completed an FAQ for SBK: Snowboard Kids today, clocking in at a half a hundred KB. Exhausting, this one, so I guess it is back to DBZ after some downtime.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted November 29, 2009:

    Haha, DS completion project. Funny you should mention something like that because it's only recently that I got my emulator to play some of the fancy-schmancy games that would lock up almost immediately (like Endless Frontier). I guess that kind of emulation is still in its nascent state, what with no save stating and some games still playing horribly, but hopefully it'll pick up in the next few years.

    And, man, I haven't played a DBZ game since the early days of GBA. Hopefully most people forgot how horrible that first game was -- I think it was "Goku's Journey" or something.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted November 29, 2009:

    .
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 01, 2009:

    As we continue to refine how HonestGamers functions and where it places it focus, I felt that it was time to at least experiment with how we report the news. One complaint users have had--a legitimate one, of course--is that we're essentially reporting the same news as everyone else. Naturally, this is unavoidable. There's only so much news in the industry, after all. The minute something new happens, 10 sites report it before it's even clear what has gone down and there will be more stories posted not long after that.

    I've been happy with our news coverage and the resulting benefits, but it is a time-consuming process and I question if it's really worth it when our regular users are saying that it's not. The only real benefit is that posting news stories helps us to get games and casual traffic, but it seems like there should be superior solutions that appeal to our users (and keep them coming back) while appealing to PR people without resulting in a mountain of work for all of us.

    The solution as I see it lies with Twitter. That's because Twitter is increasingly respected as a way to build an audience--something that potential advertisers, game publishers and PR people will appreciate--plus it's a great way for people to interact with celebrities, employees at a company, friends and so forth. I would argue, actually, that the best use for Twitter is business promition.

    So that's the role I have in mind for Twitter on our site. Without removing the news story functionality, which can still have some extremely useful benefits and can even allow us to post stories and features that we may link to from within Twitter in some circumstances, I've replaced the main display with a Twitter window that will display the four latest favorited posts on Twitter. For now, these posts will come mostly from myself. I'll be posting about site contests, linking to new reviews, commenting on industry events... whatever. I'll be doing so as honestgamerHG, to indicate that I am but one individual at the site. Others among you who have created Twitter accounts can hopefully use those accounts to drum up interest on the Internet. Then I can "favorite" posts that I feel fit our goal with this new Twitter feature. The result is that this should really be a fantastic way to interact with our community on a scale that casual vistors are more likely to see and appreciate. It could be a great way to build up the community and I'm excited by the sheer number of possibilities.

    If you'd like to get involved, I encourage you to do so. Create a Twitter account with your username in lowercase letters, followed by 'HG' to designate your official position on the site (or modify an existing account). Let me know in this thread what your account is and I'll add you to my Twitter account. Then when I see that you've posted something cool, I can share it in the little window that appears on many pages of the site. People can also follow you directly, so you can build up an individual audience that includes people interested in additional thoughts you might have to add.

    Questions? Comments? I think that this can really work if a few or all of us get behind it. I'm anxious to make it work and I hope that some of you will be, as well. Please feel free to post your thoughts here.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted December 01, 2009:

    Another thing I've seen are these link sharing services. Embed the button on any page and it makes it easy for a visitor to share a link to that page on other social sites or through email. There are certainly more out there, but these two seem to be 'big' and at least come with analytics as well.

    AddThis.com
    ShareThis.com
    board icon
    woodhouse posted December 01, 2009:

    Well, I do see you have a few things like that on staff reviews already.
    board icon
    EmP posted December 01, 2009:

    This is almost as dumb as that ugly twitter panel looks.

    I know that I'm supposed to be the negative one anyway, but this strikes me as the dumbest thing you've done yet, and I'm becoming more and more disillusioned over how you continue to make these big site-changing calls unconsulted on one hand and then try to play up the fact that this is supposed by be a site where our input matters.
    board icon
    zigfried posted December 01, 2009:

    It's ugly, and I have no suggestions. I normally try to balance the negative out with an effort to see the value, but I don't see the value in replacing the news articles section of the page with this, and I can't think of any way to post entire tweets in an eye-pleasing manner. It's just so damned big and bold.

    I suppose I'd be better with the Twitter box if it were pushed down to the bottom where it's harder to find.

    //Zig
    board icon
    overdrive posted December 01, 2009:

    I'd second what Zig says. I have no real objections to using Twitter, but it does look ugly and discordant with the site layout to have this big black box so prominently placed.

    Unfortunately, also like Zig, I'm currently drawing a blank as far as suggestions go. I have just woken from a nap, so the resulting sluggishness might play a factor in that.
    board icon
    zigfried posted December 01, 2009:

    The changes in color and placement help. I'm also pleased to see the box does not appear on individual game pages (where game data and screens are absolutely the most important thing to be seen).

    I saw the box update in real-time as Woodhouse posted something new. It could potentially be interesting to see this thing update with comments from staff, in the way that magazines often included a "what are you playing/doing now" kind of way. That being said, I personally already tried and lost interest in Twitter. So I say "it could potentially be interesting" in a distanced sort of way, because I never quite understood the purpose of those blurbs in magazines either (but I read them anyway).

    From what you've written, part of the intent is to save time in posting press releases by linking directly to companies' tweets. My concern is due to the brief nature of Twitter: (1) if a company posts several tweets in a day, will it become harder to locate their press releases?, (2) how will this impact users finding/reading actual "news" on those occasions when we do have something interesting and original? Companies don't normally tweet about "news"... plus, if the news article is linked from inside an HG staff tweet, won't it scroll off the page within a few hours and then disappear into the void forever?

    //Zig
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 02, 2009:

    I implied as much in my first post, but now I'll say it more clearly: this newest Twitter feature is an experiment. I feel that it is a necessary experiment, one that deserves to be supported fully before it is either adopted as a permanent solution or dismissed as something that doesn't work for this site. Though the experts all seem to agree that Twitter is a good idea for web sites that care to be compelling and worth sharing, we can't possibly know how well it will work within HonestGamers until we give it a try.

    That doesn't mean that I'm not interested in what you all think of the feature. Your comments can help me to tweak it so that it has the best chance of working as intended. Then if it fails, we know that we tried, while any success means that our combined efforts bore fruit.

    Some of you voiced concerns with the appearance of the application. To the greatest extent possible, I believe that I have addressed those cosmetic concerns and I hope that you will agree. So far, it sounds like the efforts were a success, though not all of you have weighed in just yet.

    EmP voiced concerns with this feature because he feels that it is one of my stupidest ideas ever (a gentle reminder that he has hated nearly every idea that I've ever had?) and joked that his function is to complain about everything. In case anyone is curious, I've long since ceased to find such comments amusing. EmP obviously does a lot more for the site than just pipe up with complaints when I make changes. We all know that, but those efforts don't excuse the persistent negativity and they don't make the role of self-appointed curmudgeon a welcome one when the time for serious discussion arrives.

    Frankly, I'm sick of the drama. The site needs to be ready to evolve or it will vanish. I'm not going to ask for feedback before each potential experiment because none of us will have the information necessary to make an intelligent decision if that experiment hasn't been conducted!

    For the record, I plan to continue working hard to make sure that the site improves its community aspects and reaches out to new users who would likely appreciate those same community aspects if only they knew that those aspects existed. In the past, I've reached out to all of you for suggestions on how we could proceed. For the most part, I've been ignored. I don't blame you, either. Really great ideas don't exactly materialize from thin air. It's not your job to think up every great idea that might propel the site forward, anyway; it's mine. What I'm asking now, then, is that if you make a contribution to the discussion and experimentation, you make that contribution a constructive one. It doesn't have to be all pro-Jason, but I need to know that you're willing to consider change and that you're anxious to make those changes serve as improvements. If we want to move forward, we're going to have to take chances. We're going to have to fail sometimes in order to succeed in the end.

    I thank those of you who have shown a willingness to contribute constructively. Regardless of any negative comments that some voiced in this thread, I thank all of you for your hard work on the site that has brought us to this point and I hope to see those efforts continue as I continue doing my part to ensure that HonestGamers becomes such a fantastic community for reviewers that other sites stop trying to even compete.

    I'm not prepared to let this site remain something that we all do as a hobby for our entire tenure on the site. That condition is likely to continue for awhile, but I don't want it for the long term and neither should you. We put too much work into the project for that to be an acceptable outcome. We make too many sacrifices and our efforts deserve more rewards and recognition than we often receive. I'm here because I believe (as I have for awhile) that the site truly can evolve to become a major force in the industry. I mean to do everything I can to make that happen. Some of the biggest sites in the industry today started out with a lot less than what we have right now and there's no reason that we can't make our strengths work for us. If any of you don't believe me when I say that or if you're not convinced that I am a competent leader, feel free to say so and to virtually tender your resignation. I'd truly hate to see any of you leave, but I'd hate to see you stay if you're unhappy with the way that things are done around here.

    On a final note, I think that there's some confusion about just how the function works. I'll address some of that in a separate post by responding to most of Zigfried's most recent message a bit at a time.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 02, 2009:

    The changes in color and placement help.

    The general placement hasn't realy changed, but I definitely worked with the color palette to help it blend in more properly with the site. The intent was never to make the Twitter box clash with the site. If it is to succeed, it needs to feel like a natural component of the site, not an unwelcome extension.

    I'm also pleased to see the box does not appear on individual game pages (where game data and screens are absolutely the most important thing to be seen).

    I agree with your comments about the game pages and reviews. Those are segments of the site where the games and the editorial content absolutely must be the focus. My goal is to make sure that they remain a proper focus. With game profile pages, the users should find all sorts of information about the game in question, along with access to content that will tell them still more about that game. HonestGamers is meant to function as a community and as a resource for information, so I consider it extremely important (and so do users and Google) to make sure that each page on the site is designed for a single main purpose that is properly executed.

    I saw the box update in real-time as Woodhouse posted something new.

    The box doesn't actually update in real-time. Every comment that appears in the box is approved by myself. My plan is to check Twitter frequently throughout the day and to approve the posts that I feel will be most interesting to our audience.

    It could potentially be interesting to see this thing update with comments from staff, in the way that magazines often included a "what are you playing/doing now" kind of way.

    That's a great example of the sort of thing that we're going for with this feature. The goal is to let readers easily follow the things that excite us. Perhaps that will inspire them to ask us questions on the forums or on our blogs, or just to start their own topic on one of those venues. For example, I might post that I'm having a tough time working through the last level in Assassin's Creed II. That will clue readers in to the fact that I'm playing that game. Then someone might post on the forums that the last level of Assassin's Creed II is cake, and I could pop in to ask for suggestions on assassinating the final target. All hypothetical, of course, but that's the sort of thing that we're going for.

    That being said, I personally already tried and lost interest in Twitter. So I say "it could potentially be interesting" in a distanced sort of way, because I never quite understood the purpose of those blurbs in magazines either (but I read them anyway).

    I'm sorry that you lost interest in Twitter. It really does have a lot to offer--particularly a site like ours--but it does take a bit of work and the rewards aren't immediately apparent. They are there, though, and they do grow on a person as new possibilities open up unexpectedly.

    The magazines put that content in for psychological reasons. If they can help you to get to know the writers, then you identify with them as people. You're more likely to care what someone says if you've found that you both share a lot of the same interests in games or that you both have trouble with the same sort of stuff or whatever. It's a connection that you aren't tempted to break once you finish reading a review. You'll want to come back a few weeks later when a game comes out and it occurs to you that "Boy, I bet Gary is playing this and I bet he'll have something interesting to say" or whatever.

    Knowing all of that, I still think it's pretty cool. The magazines that are willing to work hard to establish a connection with me, the reader, are the ones that I want to read. I don't care if they're just doing it because they want higher circulation. And of course, the same is true for a web site.

    From what you've written, part of the intent is to save time in posting press releases by linking directly to companies' tweets.

    That's true to an extent. I spend hours most days posting news articles that mostly just include a lot of PR speak and fact sheets... which our readers have chosen to largely ignore. We get traffic from search engine spiders and maybe a few occasional readers, but mostly people are already getting that information from dedicated gaming blogs like Kotaku. Have you noticed? People don't even really go to IGN and such for news these days, not really. Gaming news is all about the blogs. Unless we're ready to give up our focus on reviews--and I'm not--we can't really compete. At the same time, our readers do like reminders that we're clued into what's happening in the industry, and PR people are happier to send us games and critical information when they know that we're interested in sharing it with our readers. This feature is a good way to present the stuff we care about in a compelling manner that readers can easily digest.

    My concern is due to the brief nature of Twitter: (1) if a company posts several tweets in a day, will it become harder to locate their press releases?

    I control which tweets appear in the box on the site. Essentially, I use my Twitter account and I check the tweets that I want to appear in the box, whether I wrote them or someone else. The box updates in real time, so if I've checked a new tweet it will appear organized by the time it was originally posted on the respective Twitter account.

    (2) how will this impact users finding/reading actual "news" on those occasions when we do have something interesting and original? Companies don't normally tweet about "news"... plus, if the news article is linked from inside an HG staff tweet, won't it scroll off the page within a few hours and then disappear into the void forever?

    If we displayed every tweet, that would absolutely be an issue. Maybe it still will. That's one of the things that we're here to test. However, it's easy to click the "Join the conversation" link to see a fuller listing of recent tweets that have been featured in the box.
    board icon
    EmP posted December 02, 2009:

    I'll be clearer about the root of my annoyance now that I've had some time to dwell on it.

    I'm pissed because this change directly effects me. I can no longer post the news articles the publishers who send me games expect me to, and you knows this, yet gave no prior warning and just made the change. I make the same "I hate everything" joke to try not to make it too personal, but the truth is, I riducle most of your ideas because that's what they really deserve. I'm starting to come around more and more to the viewpoint that you take everyone who sinks work into this site and how they view something that they've work hard enough on to deserve a very strong say for granted. And, because I'm self-absorbed, when I say everyone, I really mean me.

    In an effort to be constructive, the box looks less ugly and almost presentable now, but it still looks amateurish and holds no interest for a lot of people that aren;t just me. I'd very much like to see the common option of being able to just close the thing down (I've seen sites with live chat and twitter boxes use this, so I assume it's an easy impliment).
    board icon
    zigfried posted December 02, 2009:

    Thanks for the detailed reply. That's good information and helps me understand the addition better.

    //Zig
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 02, 2009:

    I wasn't aware that a change to the News format would affect you in that way, EmP, because you haven't been doing much with the section. Every few weeks you update the site with 5 or 10 news articles--all at a whack--from the preceding several days, then you stop updating for several more weeks before doing the same thing again. I'm well aware that you don't update often because you are busy at work--and sometimes even updating from your day job--but most people who view the site don't have that knowledge and wouldn't care even if they did. Game publishers, PR people and readers have likely reached the same conclusion that I did, which is that you would rather be doing other things with your available time on the site. If I had thought otherwise, I would have talked to you before implementing this new experiment.

    In any event, nothing is stopping you from posting news articles while this experiment is being conducted. I posted two this morning. They just won't be linked from the front page. They appear on the game profile pages. In another week or two, if the Twitter box feature hasn't had the intended effect, it can go away and those articles will still be there. Any impact on the site as a result of this experiment is effectively minimized.

    And this experiment is a really good idea. Part of what annoys me when I try new ideas is that while I don't pull them out of my ass, you act as if that's precisely what I've done. I do a lot of research before I make changes. Whenever I've talked to people in marketing about expanding user interaction with the site and its exposure, their response has started with "Well, you'd want to start with Twitter and Facebook, and I'll have to get back to you on what to do after that." Those are just the ones that I've talked to personally. There are others who say the same in the numerous articles that I've read. It's a good idea, yet you called it one of the stupidest ideas I've ever had? Either you were being petty or you were paying me a huge compliment! Given the overall tone of your response, I'm going with the former.

    I don't take the work that any of you do for granted. I appreciate everything that you all put into the site and that's one reason that I'm happy to consider all constructive criticism. No matter how hard you work and how passionately you feel about a feature, though, I'm not going to put your recommendation into action if you haven't convinced me that doing so is in the site's best interest. I'm not going to eternally leave everything on the site precisely the way it is because you want nothing to change, either. If something is important to you and you want to see it implemented, then you need to care enough to present your points in a rational manner instead of resorting to petty insults. I value and respect each of you enough to listen when you tell me things, and I expect the same from all of you. I'll either ignore insults or get angry if they hit a nerve. They certainly don't convince me to do what you say. I'm human enough that the opposite is more likely to be the case!

    If the Twitter box feature does prove worthwhile and is left on the site, I will consider adding an option to prevent it from displaying when individual users wish it. You're right that it would be easy enough to add, but ease of implementation isn't really a reason to add or modify any feature. If the Twitter box feature does stay, it will play an integral role on the site. I'm not sure how anxious I am to empower users to remove such an important component, but I'm not ruling it out. I realize that some people have an irrational hatred for Twitter (with the most frequently voiced 'criticism' being that a lot of people use the service or that they post inane stuff), so that certainly will factor into any decision.

    Ultimately, my goal here isn't to spend a lot of time getting bogged down by these necessary site tweaks or by the hostile discussion that seems to accompany each change. I want to get our features hashed out so that we can all focus on the important things: community and reviewing. Those are the aspects of the site that will cause it to either sink or swim and I'd much rather be talking about that. Wouldn't you?
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted December 02, 2009:

    Attack of the Saiyans is a decent game. But enough of that, I finished the main walkthrough and do not really care to do a lot of the extra stuff since some of it requires a lot of grinding before I can finish it, so I say no way and will wait until some codes come out allowing me to do what I need to.

    Working on Lock's Quest right now, about 10% done the walkthrough.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted December 03, 2009:

    I think I've gotten as far as I'm going to get. I've updated the first post to show my final tally, which actually gives me an artificial lead! Yeah!
    board icon
    yamishuryou posted December 03, 2009:

    Do you realize just how much traffic I've driven to this site just by posting GUT's Aerobiz Supersonic fanfiction on LL?

    Hundreds of hits!

    ...yeah. BRB I'm gonna make that thousands now.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted December 03, 2009:

    Oh Jason, you are so clever with that topic title.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted December 04, 2009:

    In response to Point the First -

    Fanfiction actually falls within the "fair use" portion of the Copyright Act of 1976. To determining whether a work constitutes fair use of copyrighted material, the courts consider:

    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    When considering fair use, courts will also take into consideration whether the use is transformative, as opposed to derivative. Fan fiction falls under the transformative category. Wikipedia has more to say if you're interested.

    With regards to Point the Second - There's also a tendency among many reputable sites and users to look down on sites that flaunt hentai games on the front page. Perhaps this is another facet of the site that should be axed, no?

    With regards to Point the Third - With zero risk of legal issues (not to mention the oodles of free publicity the site would gain from filing a counter-DMCA notice citing fair use), and with the admission that the people who look down on fan fiction also look down on smut-games, this point really boils down to what other people are doing. And since when do we at Honest Gamers give a flying finagle about how other people do things? Keeping fan fiction open doesn't really hurt the site as I have demonstrated - or at least no more than other more pressing matters - and shutting off that corner of the site merely closes doors that could gather more attention in the future. HG's member base is indeed on the rise; rather than sweeping fan fiction under the rug, perhaps additional traffic could be drawn by advertising that angle more openly?
    board icon
    zigfried posted December 04, 2009:

    Fanfiction does not fall under "fair use". If you are using characters from the game in question, then you've already gone far enough that a court would find in favor of the copyright holder. Setting a new story with new characters in the same or similar world might be defensible, although you would likely be forced to remove any attachment of the game's name to the story -- ie, you could not refer to it as "a Final Fantasy fiction" or whatever.

    There are a couple reasons some fan fiction does exist. Namely: (1) Ranma's rights holders haven't bothered to mess with Western-written fiction, or (2) Star Trek fiction is allowed as long as certain rules are followed. Break those rules, and they'll come after you. Ranma and Star Trek are different mediums, but it would be easy for an RPG creator to establish that role-playing games are a storytelling medium.

    Even some professional authors write fan fiction, but they do so under the rules provided by the creators. They know that they would get sued -- and lose -- if they were to just write willy-nilly.

    Basically, if the fiction is perceived by a court as providing an extension of the game, then it is infringing on the creators' legal rights. Fanfiction is not transformative by nature. That's one thing that separates a fanfic story from a critical review that uses narrative style; the difference in purpose satisfies the legal definition of transformation.

    I'm not personally against fanfiction; I like Japan's doujin environment. But in the US, hosting fanfiction is treading very dangerous waters.

    //Zig
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted December 04, 2009:

    Debatable, but I'll agree that fan fiction in the US is presently a gray area. Having said that, should HG continue to host fan fiction the worst case scenario is a Cease and Desist letter from a copyright holder showing up on Jason's doorstep; HonestGamers itself is not the author of the "infringing" works, much like YouTube does not itself upload clips of copyrighted material, so the extent of a copyright holder's power is to request the work in question be taken down. Preemptively axing the fan fiction function altogether is a bit of an extreme measure; a more reasonable one would be a disclaimer.

    Of course if we're axing fan fiction primarily to improve the site's image, well, see my response to Point the Second.
    board icon
    LowerStreetBlues posted December 05, 2009:

    An Alphabet Olympics unveiling, since it wasn't in the game listings already. Phooey.

    Xenophobe
    Arcade
    Action -> Scrolling Third Person Shooter
    Bally Midway
    1987

    Added
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted December 06, 2009:

    Game: Chocobo no Fushigi na Dungeon
    Platform: Playstation
    Developer: Squaresoft
    Genre: RPG

    ADDED
    board icon
    japanaman posted December 06, 2009:

    Game: Buzz! Quiz T.V.
    Platform(s): PS3
    Publisher: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
    Developer: Relentless Software
    Genre: Party
    Release Date: July 4, 2008 (Europe)
    Sept. 23, 2009 (USA)

    ADDED
    board icon
    japanaman posted December 06, 2009:

    Game: Rag Doll Kung Fu: Fists of Plastic (PSN)
    Platform(s): PS3
    Publisher: Sony Computer Entertainment
    Developer: Tarsier Studios AB
    Genre: Fighting
    Release Date: April 9, 2009

    ADDED

    Game: Wheel of Fortune (PSN)
    Platform(s): PS3
    Publisher: ???
    Developer: ???
    Genre: Game Show
    Release Date: March 19, 2009

    ADDED
    board icon
    japanaman posted December 06, 2009:

    Game: Marvel Vs Capcom 2 (PSN)
    Platform(s): PS3
    Publisher: Capcom
    Developer: Capcom/Backbone Entertainment
    Genre: Fighting
    Release Date: August 13, 2009

    120% ADDED
    board icon
    japanaman posted December 06, 2009:

    Could you perhaps add a PS one Classics section and a Virtual Console section? I know the games aren't tradable or collectible, but I would like everyone to know what titles I have access to.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 06, 2009:

    We've considered listing Virtual Console games in the past, but we chose not to because at that time, there was no obvious indication that they were anything more than ROM files. Since then, it's become obvious that this is not the case, as Virtual Console titles are optimized before release and sometimes even localized in cases where given titles were not available in one region or another in the past. However, they remain largely the same as the games that we already have listed in the database. Adding them is not a priority until we catch up on some of the other games and platforms that we already have listed in the database.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 07, 2009:

    Hey!

    I thought I'd update you on a recent change that you may or may not have noticed, as well as the reasons behind the recent and ongoing changes. This information is useful if you really care about the inner workings of the site and wonder why I would spend 40 or 50 hours working on what may seem like a minor cosmetic thing. I find it all fascinating. You may not. Read through when you have time to kill. ;-)

    Essentially, what I've been doing with my last 40 or 50 waking hours (not consecutive and not counting time spent at my day job) is changing URLs around so that they are around 25 to 30 percent shorter while containing every bit as much important content as they did before... and in some cases much more.

    Here's an example of an old review URL:
    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/content.php?review_id=8550&gametitle=Viking-Battle-for-Asgard

    Here's an example of a new review URL:
    http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/8550/Viking-Battle-for-Asgard.html

    As you can see, the new URL retains the site domain but it adds 'reviews' in place of 'review_id'. It also trims some superfluous letters and makes it seem that the URL is not dynamically generated. You may have noticed that a lot of our finest competitors have had their URLs formatted this way for a good long while, and there are a few reasons:

    1) Shorter URLs allow Google and other search engines to place more significance on the text that's actually there.
    2) Google tends to interpret 'id=' as a Session ID and may rate the URL down for that reason, even if that's not appropriate (as it hasn't been for our site).
    3) Numerous '?' and '&' symbols throughout a URL can confuse some search engine spiders, plus they look ugly to users (who are less likely to click on a result link in a search engine if the URL doesn't obviously rate to the term which they were seeking).

    Another recent change was to the '+' signs when referencing URLs. Google and other search engines can be finnicky about what is considered the best way to join words in a URL. Google help files suggest that '-' is preferred to '_' and to '+', which tend to be generated dynamically. So using the '-' is another way to improve the importance that Google places on our URLs. Since 66% of our traffic comes from search engines (with the rest being split rather evenly between direct links from loyal users and referrals from sites such as GameRankings), it's well worth our while to improve our performance on Google, especially since optimization could easily double, triple or quadruple our traffic (maybe more).

    Clearly, our content deserves more traffic than it has been receiving. That's been apparent for awhile now, so I've really been spending the last few weeks examining what we could do to change that. Unfortunately, for several years the skills necessary to make things happen have eluded me. The site has functioned, but it didn't run in optimal condition. Perhaps that's still true, but my work over the past few days should have a significant impact over the coming weeks. I've also made a few tweaks that I'm not even outlining here, which you may have noticed (they pertain mostly to page titles and meta contents).

    As I've been finishing up on link changes, I found some documentation that noted a few interesting things I've sort of half known for awhile now. Chiefly, there's the fact that Google interprets different forms of the same URL as separate pages. It will assign separate forms of those same pages with separate PageRank values. Thus divided, those page rank values are dilluted to the point where a page that should rightly have a high rank of 6 or 7 (and therefore place on one of the first pages in search results, easily gleaning a lot of hits) will instead rank at 2 or 3. Effectively, that page has become nearly worthless. This has been a problem I haven't been able to do much about, but now that's changing.

    As of a few minutes ago, I've set up some 301 redirects that should consolidate things. In conjunction with mod_rewrite use, I've assured that http://honestgamers.com and http://www.honestgamers.com/ will soon count as a single page (and should gain a higher rank as a result). For a long time now, there have been 3 or 4 URLs leading to most of our reviews. Thanks to some redirect scripts I've put in place, that number should reduce to 1 or 2 (in most cases, just the 1) over the next few weeks or months. Best of all, because the 301 redirect is in place, we'll keep our page rank for the pages and it can then climb from there as people find the pages naturally while searching for reviews.

    Many of the changes that I've put in place over the last 3 days or so won't have an immediate effect. If my research is all correct, we should see a gradual improvement over the coming weeks. If things go as they should, we should be seeing a significant boost in traffic. Just improving our ranking on a few terms could mean a lot, and these changes could improve our ranking on thousands of terms! There's significant potential that we'll see a sustainable explosion in traffic without doing anything more than continuing to review the games that we love.

    If you have any questions about the changes referenced above, please feel free to ask them in this thread and I'll do what I can to answer them. In the meantime, continue using the site as you normally would and please let me know if you encounter any new issues.

    Jason
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted December 07, 2009:

    Bump because I don't feel this discussion is resolved. I'm all for making HonestGamers more professional looking, but axing fan fiction feels more like a shot in the dark than an actual step toward that goal. In fact getting rid of fan fiction only serves to make HG look a little bit more like every other review site ever.

    Also I think I'd have preferred this be discussed among the community rather than spoken from atop Mount Sinai, but that's another issue.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 07, 2009:

    Will: As much as is likely possible given our vastly different perspectives on the sanctity of IP, I understand where you're coming from. However, there are no current plans to bring back fiction and it's highly unlikely that a time will ever come when that changes. This is one of those cases where I had to make a judgment call and I did so only after careful consideration.

    Your comments have been duly noted and I'm sorry that you're disappointed. None of the remarks arguing in favor of the return of fan fiction posted within this thread have eliminated any of the core issues that prompted its removal, however, and I do consider the matter resolved.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted December 07, 2009:

    Fair enough. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my concerns.
    board icon
    overdrive posted December 07, 2009:

    Well, I'll bet you'll be happy to know that after an eternity, I've cleared my home computer's cookies, so that I might not constantly be posting outdated links everywhere! Things were running horribly online, so something had to be done.

    Now I just gotta update all the hyperlinks I have in my reviews and hyperlink more stuff.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted December 08, 2009:

    Until recently, numerous pages on the site were linking to various configurations of the URL. For example, a page might come up as:

    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/review.php?review_id=37&game_id=1&console_id=12
    http://honestgamers.com/systems/review.php?game_id=1&console_id=12
    http://www.honestgamers.com/systems/review.php?review_id=37&gametitle=Halo+Combat+Evolved

    Now that I think about it, some pages probably had seven or eight possibilities. Those listed above only scratch the surface. Now, however, most pages will have just a single URL. It's the perfect time to clear your cache and in a few weeks, we should start seeing some real results if everything goes the way that it SHOULD. There's almost no way that the last few days' work can have anything other than an extremely positive result in the long term. How things go in the short term is what remains to be seen...
    board icon
    warlock911 posted December 08, 2009:

    I would like to see Pirate Galaxy added to the review database.
    Game: Pirate Galaxy
    Publisher: Gamgio Games
    Developer: Splitscreen Studios
    Genre: Space Adventure
    Release Date : April 2009

    The game has more than 500 missions, 14 mission planets, 13 conquest planets, a pvp/pve zone and much more.

    Added.
    board icon
    Frankfurter posted December 09, 2009:

    Destructoid made a pretty solid list on this one.

    http://www.destructoid.com/the-top-50-videogames-of-the-decade-10-1--155591.phtml

    Part One - #50-41
    50. Metal Slug 3
    49. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
    48. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney
    47. Vagrant Story
    46. Super Smash Bros. Melee
    45. Team Fortress 2
    44. WarioWare: Twisted!
    43. Banjo-Tooie
    42. Psychonauts
    41. Braid

    Part Two - #40-31
    40. Kingdom Hearts
    39. Rock Band 2
    38. Marvel vs. Capcom 2
    37. Lost Odyssey
    36. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
    35. Tony Hawks Pro Skater 3
    34. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
    33. BioShock
    32. Katamari Damacy
    31. Civilization III

    Part Three - #30-21
    30. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
    29. Shenmue II
    28. Left 4 Dead
    27. Skies of Arcadia
    26. Paper Mario
    25. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
    24. Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King
    23. Cave Story
    22. Ico
    21. Ikaruga

    Part Four - #20-11
    20. Final Fantasy IX
    19. World of WarCraft
    18. Persona 4
    17. Pikmin 2
    16. Deus Ex
    15. Silent Hill 2
    14. Okami
    13. Metroid Prime
    12. Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
    11. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker

    Part Five - #10-1
    10. Resident Evil 4
    9. Super Mario Galaxy
    8. Valkyria Chronicles
    7. Diablo II
    6. Beyond Good & Evil
    5. God of War II
    4. Portal
    3. Mother 3
    2. Half-Life 2
    1. Shadow of the Colossus
    board icon
    overdrive posted December 09, 2009:

    You might be wondering why it took me until Wednesday to put out an RotW that only featured six reviews. Well, read on!

    SUNDAY: Visited my mom. When I got home, I was hungry and ate a big dinner. Too big. I was in a lethargic food coma the rest of the night.
    MONDAY: Hellish day at work. No mental energy when I got home.
    TUESDAY: Not a hellish work day, but a long one. The fact I took a lengthy afternoon nap during the break I had between my early-day work and my evening/night work also played a factor.

    Now that all that's been taken care of, let's look at our six contestants and see which three of them were worthy of my praise. As always, there are rules, but I'm not mentioning them because neither of them come into play this week.




    THIRD PLACE: Chocobo's Dungeon 2 (PS) by spaceworlder

    This is a weird review that gets its position here solely because it was wonderfully effective in convincing me I don't ever want to play this game. You probably had me filtered out after the second paragraph, as I'm not a roguehound, but in the event I was, you gave me plenty more reasons to avoid this one. I was 100 percent loving this review until the end, but I found the last paragraph/score combo to be a weak conclusion. You give a couple of positives presented halfheartedly and then give it a 5 (average -- not good, but not bad) when I was thinking 2-3. Is the 5 just because you're a roguehound and were able to at least tolerate all of those negatives due to the general essence of rogue games? I think this review could be a bit better if those positives were fleshed out a bit more to make them seem like viable reasons to play this game if one likes the genre.

    SECOND PLACE: Dragon Age: Origins (360) by PAJ89

    You went for a good tactic in this RotW: pick the game I'm primarily playing and say a lot of things that I'm currently feeling. Fun battle system that makes you think about battles, especially at higher difficulties. Check. Too easy to make companions like you due to gifts and stuff. Check. Things were well-written, too, as you did a good job of explaining the nuts-and-bolts without rambling on. When I review this game, I about dread writing about it, because as complex as things are, it could easily go on for 1500-2000 words with me still feeling I could say more. You gave me (if I wasn't currently playing it) a good basic explanation in a quick read. Kudos for accomplishing that.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Viking: Battle for Asgard (PS3) by LowerStreetBlues

    This is just a strong review. You do a great job showing how aspects of this game parallel many others, but also make it perfectly clear that it doesn't live up to the standards of those other games. You don't waste words and your conclusion really does a great job of tying everything you'd said together. It's really hard to say much more than that. Other than I find the concept of implementing stealth into a VIKING game to be funny.




    Well, that's that. I return you to your regularly scheduled......stuff. Well, except for one of you. ASchultz, the one thing that kept this review from the top three was the simple fact that I'd consider it really inaccessible and confusing for anyone not familiar with Might and Magic II. Basically, it's a review of that game for fans of that game, but neophytes would probably be lost. However, since I'm familiar with the game, having beaten it once a good number of years ago, I did want to comment on it and ask one question. To me, MMII was a fun game with a quirky sense of humor, but also one sadistic SOB. It seemed this thing went out of its way to give me an inferiority complex. Like where you, to (I think) please one king, had to take a time machine to two different centuries to find one specific overworld square to participate in one battle for an item. And, as you mentioned, as you progressed, the random battles got a bit over-the-top. But the overwhelming scale of things made this game seem really full of mystery. Like, for example, those HUGE rewards you could win by finding out-of-the-way locations in the Dragon Cave.

    I have had one question about this game for an eternity, though. If you look in the bestiary, there are a two monsters that are head-and-shoulders above the rest as far as HP go. One is the Mega Dragon. The other is called Orc God with 50000HP. Back in the day, I spent eternities searching for that thing because I figured it was one of those super-tough fixed battles, but never could find it, leading me to think it either is not actually in the game or a very rare random encounter or a fixed encounter in a place I never found. Have you encountered it? It might be the only unsolved mystery I have about this game (at least that I care to find the answer to).
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted December 09, 2009:

    Thanks for the runner-up, and congrats to PAJ89 and LowerStreetBlues!

    Is the 5 just because you're a roguehound and were able to at least tolerate all of those negatives due to the general essence of rogue games?

    Kind of. The rating stems from my conclusion that the game is more tiring than awful. I probably should have elaborated on that point a bit.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted December 09, 2009:

    That's OK, OD - you're not as late as lewis! =D

    Congrats to the winners. And wow, I commend LowerStreetBlues for his whirlwind victory in these things lately.
    board icon
    zigfried posted December 09, 2009:

    Although severely lacking in Chaos Legion and cool imports (aside from the token inclusion of Cave Story EDIT: and Ikaruga, and anything else I missed the first time) that list contains enough cool games that I won't ring the bells of war just yet.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Suskie posted December 09, 2009:

    I'll feel much more at ease if I assume every single post in this thread is sarcastic.
    board icon
    Suskie posted December 09, 2009:

    Hey there, Frankfurter! Welcome to the site! Since you're new here, I might recommend changing your avatar to something other than the default picture. I've got the perfect one for you:



    P.S. Glad to see you've been following my work so closely! It's great to know I have fans.
    board icon
    PAJ89 posted December 10, 2009:

    Glad you enjoyed. Agreed on the fact that one could easily write a lot more about DA:O. Grats to all.
    board icon
    PAJ89 posted December 10, 2009:

    Wrote up a review for Peggle on Xbox Live Arcade, doesn't appear to be on the system (iPod version is on there and various versions of Peggle Nights, but no the original Peggle on the arcade).

    Game: Peggle
    Platform(s): XLA
    Publisher: PopCap Games
    Developer: PopCap Games
    Genre: Casual (Puzzle)
    Release Date: 11/03/2009 (March 11th 2009)

    ADDED
    board icon
    aschultz posted December 10, 2009:

    Hey Overdrive--I seem to remember getting a random Orc God fight or two. I spent a lot of time mucking about in the 500's through 800's looking for the Loincloth. It wasn't on the Apple version. So I ran into a lot of weird monsters including, I think, the Orc God. It was not available.

    It is a problem that MM2 is less accessible for those who've never played it. I think also there are other problems with my review to fix (eg a bit of FAQ-itis,) and I'll look at them. At the base, the game tries a lot of abstract combinations of Cool Things to Throw without graphics. The thing about the game that sticks with me is the logical excesses it goes to and how they don't make it fall apart.

    Congrats to those who made it to the ring of honor. It's always fun to see what others do, and how they do it, and it gives me good ideas either way for what I want to do.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted December 10, 2009:

    Kinda screwing around with Pokemon Emerald but I'm getting a 360 today (been pure PS2ing since 2002, haha) so probably gonna lay right into the Orange Box' stuff.
    board icon
    zigfried posted December 11, 2009:

    Our list of "decade in excellence" thus far...

    Guilty Gear XX (specific version, or all?)
    The Last Remnant (PC, 360, or both?)
    Panzer Dragoon Orta (Xbox)
    Shadow of the Colossus (PS2)
    Shinobi (PS2)

    Here's another non-sarcastic addition to the list:

    Ninja Gaiden Black
    Genre: Engaging and stimulating ninja action frenzy
    Score: 11/10
    Why on list: I want to be a ninja master, too

    //Zig
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted December 11, 2009:

    I'm adding dis:

    Title: Shiren the Wanderer (DS)
    Genre: Cruel and addicting rogue dungeon crawler.
    Score: Awesome/10
    Why on list: Balanced gameplay that rewards those with sharp wits. Also, talking weasel.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted December 11, 2009:

    You can't talk about crazy action in inimitable future fantasy settings without mentioning Otogi and Otogi 2!
    board icon
    japanaman posted December 11, 2009:

    Metal Gear Solid 4, duh!!!!!!!!!!!
    Call of Duty 4, 6
    Saints Row 2
    Tomb Raider Anniversary
    Resident Evil 4, 5
    Metal Gear Solid 3
    Poke'mon Platinum
    Ninja Gaiden Sigma
    UT 2004, III
    Guitar Hero, Rock Band
    Super Smash Bros.
    Animal Crossing
    Feel The Magic
    Smackdown Everything
    Halo everything
    TimeSplitters: Future Perfect
    Stranglehold
    Wii Sports
    Wii Sports Resort
    Legend of Zelda Everything
    Mario Kart Wii
    Crackdown
    Amped 3
    Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2
    DOA Everything
    NBA 2K Every Game
    Madden Every Game
    Forza 2, 3
    Marvel Ultimate Alliance
    PGR 3, 4
    PDZ
    Dead Rising
    Punch-Out!

    I guess that's all for now.....
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted December 11, 2009:

    Game: Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
    Genre: Super-immersive Western RPG
    Score: Infinity/10
    Why on the list: This game is awesome and I can devote my entire life to and still not finish every aspect involved.
    board icon
    jerec posted December 11, 2009:

    Can we get Tales of Monkey Island: Chapter 5 - Rise of the Pirate God added?

    Came out on the 8th of December. I just wanted to throw up my rating for it.

    ADDED - GIVE IT A 3
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted December 12, 2009:

    Game: Fushigi no Dungeon: Fuurai no Shiren GB 2 - Sabaku no Majou
    Platform: Gameboy Color
    Developer: ChunSoft
    Publisher: ChunSoft
    Genre: RPG

    ADDED

    and...

    Game: Fushigi no Dungeon: Fuurai no Shiren DS 2 - Sabaku no Majou
    Platform: DS
    Developer: ChunSoft
    Publisher: Sega
    Genre: RPG

    ADDED
    board icon
    fleinn posted December 18, 2009:

    Game: PixelJunk Shooter
    Platform(s): Ps3/PSN
    Publisher: SCE
    Developer: Q-Games
    Genre: Shooter
    Release Date: 10th of December, 2009

    (Short review coming up)

    ADDERS ~~~~~

    :) thanks, mod.
    board icon
    zigfried posted December 18, 2009:

    I sent you an HGmail, Fleinn. (Just wanted to make sure you knew to check your blog to read it!)

    //Zig
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted December 19, 2009:

    Game: Fushigi no Dungeon: Fuurai no Shiren Gaiden: Onnakenshi Asuka Kenzan
    Platform: PC
    Developer: Chunsoft
    Publisher: Chunsoft
    Genre: RPG

    Added.
    board icon
    EmP posted December 27, 2009:

    And, with that, I win again. That sound of shock you don't hear? That's because I expected it from day one. And, deep down, so did all of you.

    I've gone through the topic and tallied up the scores as the information contained within allowed. I'll sweep through again come the end of the year so anyone looking to nip second place and not up to date with their listings might want to update and leave a little nudge letting me know they have.

    Aside from that, I'll leave the topic open so you can all offer me your congratulations for my second straight momentous victory.
    board icon
    aschultz posted December 27, 2009:

    Nice job!

    I'll be second across the finish line, I promise. IN ONLY 9 MONTHS OF ACTIVE HG-SHIP ON MY PART, HE NOTED PASSIVE AGGRESSIVELY!!!!

    (Well, second unless Suskie or Woodhouse has an ambush coming up. And really, I admit I missed a lot of chances to just send off a review. Though I bet you'd have sped things up in that case, too, if you'd seen how far I'd gotten. And anyway, my quality control may suffer.)
    board icon
    Suskie posted December 27, 2009:

    Good stuff, EmP. I was going for a stealth win with my last three, but only one of them is done. The other two... eh. Just don't know if I can work up the energy to finish them. I'll consider it a personal victory if I finish this year, though there's always next year. Assuming there'll be another, that is.

    This means I can finally post my Uncharted review. Yay.
    board icon
    aschultz posted December 27, 2009:

    Game: Wrath of Denethenor
    Platform(s): Apple
    Publisher: Sierra Entertainment
    Developer: Sierra Entertainment
    Genre: RPG
    Release Date: 1986

    I think the commodore version is in, but my FAQ and review are for the Apple.

    Added.
    board icon
    overdrive posted December 27, 2009:

    I offer begrudging congratulations. I wound up doing a bit better than last year, but played too many games with the same letters to come close to victory. Maybe next year...
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted December 28, 2009:

    Awesome. I was wondering how you'd get this done with everything else you have going on, but I'm glad you found time. And I'm glad you're trying to ease off a bit to try and preserve your interest in writing... It'd be sad if you stopped all together.

    Anyway, only 8 for me this year... which I've just updated... That's pathetic, haha, especially considering how well I did last year. Oh, well, I guess. =/
    board icon
    Halon posted December 28, 2009:

    GAME: Torchlight
    PLATFORM: PC
    DEVELOPER: Runic Games
    PUBLISHER: Runic Games*
    RELEASE: 10/27/09**
    ESRB: T

    *Wikipedia lists the publishers as Perfect World Entertainment, Inc. and Encore, Inc (I'm assuming for the retail version) but Steam just says Runic Games. Since that's the current version available I'm sticking with that.
    **Release date for downloadable version, retail version will be released January 2010.

    Added.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted December 29, 2009:

    Hey Emp, did you ever get around to sending out the reasons WHY our games were chosen? I'm still curious to see the psychology behind the whole event.
    board icon
    EmP posted December 30, 2009:

    I think I started to write something up, but the complete lack of interest in the event never made me really want to put it at the top of my list. Now, I don't really remember. In your case, I think I wanted to give you something well out of your comfort zone while at the same time, giving you the chance to record a review of note. Warhawk is a game that was released back in the days when I was selling video games as a living and, while it had its share of haters, it also had a very vocal core group who loved it. It's also a game with little review coverage on the 'net, so I bullied you into relevance.

    Few of the picks had this much thought thrown into them. A lot were about taking people out of their comfort zone (See: Woodhouse and Godhand) and others were about aiming kicks at our friends (See: DoI getting Quake every year from now until forever). Some were based on awful puns, some simply on games we'd like to see covered.

    I guess it's a mixed bag of reasons, but actually getting together and picking the games is something that took literally hours. Even if you absolve the time dedicated to groin-kicking Doom 3 that occurs every EmP/Boo colab ever. Which is why it felt like a huge slap in the face when maybe 10% of the people bothered to show.
    board icon
    kingcrappy posted December 30, 2009:

    90 people signed up? That's impressive.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted December 30, 2009:

    Yeah, EmP, that is too bad. It seems to be the way of most tournaments. A lot of hype and then very little turn out. Thanks for taking the time to hold it, though! I learned a lot writing that review, so your tactic worked!
    board icon
    aschultz posted December 30, 2009:

    It is unfortunate more people didn't--I can shoulder part of the blame, as I thought your choice for me was good (I forget which Contra) as a change of pace from what I usually do.

    I wound up not making the time, but I may wind up playing the game anyway. Don't know if I have the right mentality for this sort of tournament. I have a list of games I always wanted to play, and someone suggesting game X reminds me of horrendously retro game Y I never played but wanted to, and I just go on a tangent for that first. I'm bad at following orders. Ok, I'm good enough to keep my job, but I'd probably be less botherd without the whole decent-paycheck deal.

    I'd be interested in a list of who got what, even the people who didn't complete their reviews.
    board icon
    aschultz posted December 30, 2009:

    And then there were two.

    #: 221B Baker Street
    A: Airball
    B: Bard's Tale 2(NES)
    C: Champions of Krynn
    D: Defenders of (the) Dynatron City
    E: Esper Dream
    F: Flappy
    G: Gegege no Kitaro 2
    H: Hoosier City: Return to Oil City
    I: It's Mr Pants
    J: Jawbreaker 2
    K: Knight Lore
    L: Lutter
    M: Miner
    N: Number Munchers
    O: Order of the Griffon
    P: Power Soukoban
    Q: Quattro Arcade
    R: Rocky's Boots
    S: Secret Scout
    T: Times of Lore
    U: (The) Usurper: Mines of Qyntarr
    V: Valkyrie no Bouken: Toki no Kagi Densetsu
    W: Wrath of Denethenor
    X: Xyphus
    Y: Yo! Noid
    Z: Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders

    Thanks for providing this challenge--it got me to poke at some games I always wanted to, ones I'd written a FAQ for or others I'd just put off playing. I don't think I wrote any of these just for the letter, except maybe Yo Noid, which was fun. Oh, maybe Hoosier City.

    But watch out. I've started a list for 2010. I'm ready to rumble!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted December 30, 2009:

    Wow. Congrats to anyone who completed this and also to anyone who is waiting until tomorrow to complete it.

    For my own part, I feel proud of having gotten so far with no emulation software or a computer that can play games.
    board icon
    board icon
    jasonventer posted December 31, 2009:

    I contributed nothing. :(
    board icon
    aschultz posted December 31, 2009:

    Progress Quest, dude. You know it.

    That or the Larry Vales games.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted December 31, 2009:

    This topic is now unlame because I mention God Hand, which I'm surprised took this long to bring up.

    Also, OutRun2. How can you not love the turnips?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted December 31, 2009:

    Of the decade? Really? Well, shit... that's a tough one.

    I'm gonna say...

    Name: Metal Gear Solid 3.
    Genre: potentially stealth, definitely tactical
    Score: 10/10
    Why: When I think back on the decade, only a very few number of games made me cry. MGS3 did it with more subtlety than the others. I actually cried at the end of this game. Tears came out of my eyes.
    board icon
    Suskie posted January 01, 2010:

    I've got a question, EmP. I remember you saying in a feedback topic recently that you've enjoyed taking it easy, reviewing-wise, recently. Will you be hosting the Alpha Marathon this year, then? I ask because I don't mind taking over for you if you'd rather someone else did it.
    board icon
    EmP posted January 01, 2010:

    I appreciate the offer, but hosting this thing is pretty easy going, so even if I take all of 2010 at a laze, I can at least make it look like I've done something.

    I'll achieve this topic an put a new one up reasonably shortly. There's something I'm working on I need to complete first.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 01, 2010:

    This topic is the official topic for the Review of the Week. A calendar of sorts will plot out the available weeks and approved users will be filled into this first post by myself to eliminate any confusion in weeks to come (and to make sure that no one ever has to wonder who is doing a given week).

    January

    02 - Overdrive
    09 - Zipp
    16 - Rand
    23 - ASchultz
    30 - Overdrive

    February

    06 - Zipp
    13 - Rand
    20 - ASchultz
    27 - Overdrive

    March

    06 - Zipp
    13 - Rand
    20 - ASchultz
    27 - Overdrive

    April

    03 - Zipp
    10 - Rand
    17 - ASchultz
    24 - Overdrive

    May

    01 - Zipp
    08 - Rand
    15 - ASchultz
    22 - Overdrive
    29 - Zipp

    June

    05 - Rand
    12 - ASchultz
    19 - Overdrive
    26 - Zipp

    July

    03 - Rand
    10 - ASchultz
    17 - Overdrive
    24 - Zipp
    31 - Rand

    August

    07 - ASchultz
    14 - Overdrive
    21 - Zipp
    28 - Rand

    September

    04 - ASchultz
    11 - Overdrive
    18 - Zipp
    25 - Rand

    October

    02 - ASchultz
    09 - Overdrive
    16 - Zipp
    23 - Rand
    30 -

    November

    06 - Overdrive
    13 - Zipp
    20 - Rand
    27 - ASchultz

    December

    04 - Overdrive
    11 - Zipp
    18 - Rand
    25 - ASchultz

    Judges in Reserve:
    Jerec
    WolfQueen001

    Names will be filled into the above space as appropriate, and removed, based on comments posted within this thread. If you are up for a given week and cannot cover it for personal reasons, please post in this thread seeking a trade.

    Review of the Week should choose three individual reviewers from the preceding week, including reviews from standard users, freelancers and site staff. Weeks run Sunday - Saturday and a review may not be eligible for consideration in two weeks. In the event that fewer than five reviews are posted in a week, those reviews will not be ranked but the person in charge of the topic for that week is encouraged to provide feedback.

    When they were written by standard users and are not posted on the site as staff or freelance reviews, picks for Review of the Week will be updated by site staff so that they are "featured" on the site (staff and freelance reviews are ineligible to be featured in order to give proper exposure to user contributions).
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 01, 2010:

    As Zipp suggested in his topic, which has now been locked, let's begin by discussing who plans to retain a RotW slot that had one during 2009. Try to be realistic about what your time will permit. It's not fun for anyone when these topics are weeks late without anyone knowing what to expect, or if the topics put a serious strain on your schedule.
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 01, 2010:

    I'm still doing it. RotW needs me!!!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 01, 2010:

    Alright, I've filled in your name. Anyone else definitely still involved?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 02, 2010:

    Well of course I'm in! Thanks for starting an official topic for this.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 02, 2010:

    If someone is not available from the previous, or more established, RotWers, and someone new is willing to platoon with me, I'd be glad to take every other week in one of the remaining slots.

    Though I don't know how the site higher-ups would feel. The downside is that someone could forget their turn. I just don't know if I'd have the time I'd want to dedicate to once a month.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 03, 2010:

    Randxian is new as well, Aschultz. I think he's on his third ROTW or something. And I'm also sure he'll want back in, but he's gone at the moment.
    board icon
    jerec posted January 03, 2010:

    I don't want to do it on a regular basis, but I wouldn't mind doing a SPECIAL GUEST ROTW every once in a while. Because I used to do it a lot back on GameFAQs... well, for RotD. Here would be an absolute pleasure, since nearly everything posted is good quality.

    Plus, I have mad judging credentials.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 03, 2010:

    Jerec, would you like to be a special guest for the week Lewis missed in December? That would've been the week of December 26th (so the reviews from the 20th all the way through the 26th). I'd do it myself, but I just did an ROTW and I don't want people to get sick of me.
    board icon
    jerec posted January 03, 2010:

    All right. I'll get started on that today. Look for it soon!

    Edit. There are 4 reviews for that week, and two of them are by ASchultz, which means only one of them gets in... leaving 3 eligible reviews. Quite the unique situation. Jerec requires direction.

    board icon
    Suskie posted January 03, 2010:

    I had that happen once to me, where there were literally three reviews submitted by different contributors in one week. And one of them really wasn't that good. So what I wound up doing was simply naming the RotW and ordering the remaining two, and I acknowledged that the third-place entry only placed because it was such a slow week.
    board icon
    randxian posted January 03, 2010:

    Just so there is no confusion, I would like to be a part of the rotation.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 03, 2010:

    Yeah, as Suskie says, as long as there are four reviews, the ROTW is held. I would pick which of Aschultz's makes the cut and then go ahead and order the remaining three.
    board icon
    fleinn posted January 03, 2010:

    Game: Pinball Dreams
    Platform(s): Ps3/PSP/PSN ("Minis")
    Publisher: Cowboy Rodeo
    Developer: Cowboy Rodeo (port)
    Genre: Pinball
    Release Date: 24th of November, 2009

    Added

    ( :) thanks)

    ...don't know if you want this to go under Amiga-games. I can file it there, and edit the review a tiny little bit (tested on port available for psp/ps3, that kind of thing), if that's more appropriate. Short review.
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 03, 2010:

    Oh....this is my week. And here I was wasting the sober part of my day by working on my ABC review.

    I'll be starting the new year off by duplicating my usual lack of timeliness, it seems.
    board icon
    Cpt_Guapo posted January 05, 2010:

    Please add the following game. I have just write a FAQ about it:

    Game: The Killing Blade / Gouken Kyoutou
    Platform: Arcade
    Publisher: IGS
    Developer: IGS
    Genre: Fighting
    Category: Fighting Versus
    Release Year: 1998

    Thanks in advance

    Added.
    board icon
    EmP posted January 07, 2010:

    The year was 2008 2009. A year of infamy so infamously like the last, that I briefly considered just copying and pasting the entire topic over and changing the years. It was Alphabetic Marathon time again and I won it. Again. I can now call myself undefeated. And you know I will every half chance I get.

    It was a closer call, though, sure. Two others limped over the line where theres only previously been one. But I'm not even going to name they. They didn't win. I did. Did I mention I was undefeated?

    Welcome to Alpha Marathon 10. Who knows what will happen next!

    The rules are simple enough for anyone to follow, but the schedule is not. You have one year and one year only to write a review for every letter in the alphabet (including #). By the end of the year. Theres a time limit: its a year.

    Here are the rules copied directly from the last topic. They seemed to work.

  • Keep an up-to-date listing of your progress intact. I will not be rooting through anyone's review listings to do the tally for you.


  • If you want to drop out of the running, please say so rather than deleting your list in a huff and then say nothing about it


  • Its advisable to make a fresh post for each new review you wish to have added to your tally to prompt me into counting it in the main league. This is so I don't need to randomly sweep through the topic counting up your progress when I don't know if any had been made. Ill do this at points anyway, because its be proven youre all of no help at all. Staff members can keep their own tallies added


  • And even if you do post your tally regularly, I may not update it without continuous nagging.


  • If you don't list it in this topic, I don't count it.


  • I reserve the right to make up more as I go along.

    Game: Start



    EmP -- 23 Letters

    Suskie -- 20 Letters

    honestgamer -- 17 Letters

    overdrive -- 11 Letters
    Woodhouse -- 11 Letters

    WQ -- 10 Letters

    Genj -- 9 Letters

    Zipp -- 8 Letters

    Aschultz -- 6 Letters

    Janus -- 5 Letters
    board icon
    board icon
    woodhouse posted January 07, 2010:

    Progress: 11/27

    B -> Bakugan: Battle Brawlers (XBox 360)
    C -> Chronicles of Mystery: The Tree of Life (PC)
    F -> Fret Nice (PS3)
    H -> Heartwork (PC)
    M -> Moero!! Downhill Night (PC)
          -> Madden NFL 11 (Wii)
    P -> Polar Panic (XBox 360)
    Q -> The Quest Trio (DS)
    S -> Shimano Xtreme Fishing (Wii)
          -> The Sky Crawlers: Innocent Aces (Wii)
    T -> Trauma Team (Wii)
    W -> World Cup of Pool (DS)
    # -> 0-D Beat Drop (XBox 360)
    board icon
    Suskie posted January 07, 2010:

    I might be one of the three people who has completed the Alpha Marathon, but seeing as how I'm obviously not a threat at all, let us forget about it.

    A - Alan Wake and Alpha Protocol and Alien Swarm
    B - Borderlands, Double Game Add-On Pack and Bionic Commando and BioShock 2
    C - Crackdown
    D - Demon's Souls and Dante's Inferno
    E - Enslaved: Odyssey to the West
    F - Final Fantasy XIII
    G - God of War III
    H - Halo 3: ODST and Heavy Rain
    I - Infamous
    J - Just Cause 2
    K - Killzone 2
    L - Left 4 Dead
    M - Machinarium and Mass Effect 2 and Metroid Prime Trilogy
    N - Ninja Gaiden II
    P - Pokemon SoulSilver Version and Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands
    S - Super Mario Galaxy and Singularity
    T - Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction
    U - Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
    X - X-Men Origins: Wolverine
    Z - Zeno Clash: Ultimate Edition

    Progress: 20/27
    board icon
    jerec posted January 07, 2010:

    7 reviews last year, but 5 letters. Bah.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 07, 2010:

    EmP fails to mention that one of the contestants finished in about nine months. He took almost twelve.

    This contestant is too humble to mention his name explicitly, but in the purposes of full disclosure, a glance at the week's reviews shows he has started off with the following:

    A: American Dream
    G: Great Deal
    board icon
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 07, 2010:

    Not this year, folks. Last year was my one shot at this. I don't know where I'd come up with the # again.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 07, 2010:

    Just wanted to remind people this thread is here. We need more ROTWers. The ROTW is one of the draws of this site. Getting feedback and knowing someone is reading your reviews every week with a critical eye is great incentive for people to keep writing. Help keep it going.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted January 07, 2010:

    Well Rand volunteered, so it looks like only one more is needed.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 08, 2010:

    I will throw down the gauntlet here.

    If nobody offers to take a RotW before the end of Saturday, I'll be Mr. Fourth Week. Pending higher-ups' approval, as I've never done one before.

    One note: I'd assumed that the 5th saturday of certain months was for guest RotWers. I don't know if this has been tried or rejected, but I think it's good for people who might want to try once, but due to time constraints etc., don't.

    I know that as a competitor it's neat to see as many judges as possible. While the ones that are there have worked well, the guest presenters who come in for a week (due to absence, illness, personal stuff etc.) tend to have an idea/format/process they've been itching to share and the change-up is very cool.

    This would, of course, force a major reorder of the current list & may be unworkable for other reasons. But maybe my initial misunderstanding of how the RotW cycle works can add a neat feature.

    In a similar vein, maybe we could have other guest RotWers on a waiting list, to give first refusal to, if someone can't go?
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 08, 2010:

    It's the beginning of a New Year, so why not get the first RotW of the year done....before the second one of the year becomes the first because of me procrastinating for too long! And besides, it's better to judge reviews at work than do work at work!

    The rules haven't changed. Only one eligible review per person (looking at you Schultz and Suskie, as all the reviews you both submitted this week effectively doubled my workload this week). Also, no staff people allowed to participate in things like this. Winner owes me a bottle of Captain Morgan RIGHT F'IN NOW! Yep. That's all the rules. Same ones as always.




    THIRD PLACE: The Saboteur (PS3) by true

    Strong week of reviews this week. I've done many weeks where this review would have a legit shot of winning, but this week, it was third with a bullet. You did a strong job of illustrating the plot of what should have been a strong game, but then mentioned all these things that undermine the enjoyment factor. An annoying hero who never seems to grow as a person combined with shoddy play control makes this seem like something I'll never look to play. I'd say the one thing keeping it below the second and first place reviews is that this one does feel like it runs a bit long. I'm not going to go as far as to use the dreaded "PC CLOCK" term, but while you were describing all the ways in which the gameplay fails, I was definitely getting a bit fidgety by the time I was into the fourth good-sized paragraph describing some way in which a facet of the gameplay didn't meet expectations. Still, this is a good review deserving of credit.

    SECOND PLACE: Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (PS3) by phediuk

    I really liked this review. I've read a few reviews for this game over the past month or two, being that it is one of those "NEXT BIG THING!" games and would have to rate this as towards the upper tier of those reviews. You focused on the "interactive movie" angle of it and seemed to really hit a home run as far as making a convincing argument of how this game succeeds in that aspect. Particularly in the second paragraph where you illustrate something that sounds like a cutscene before mentioning that this is just another level you're playing through. The way you phrased things really makes this game seem like something worth experiencing. A very strong praise review.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Crackdown (X360) by Suskie

    You went on a binge of high-quality writing last week, Mike. I had two very tough choices. First, which of your five reviews was the one I liked the most. And, second, whether it was better than Phediuk's or not. Both this review and his were very impressive, but I'm giving you the nod by virtue of an obscure tiebreaker which takes "degree of difficulty" into effect. You did a great job with the angle you took in this one, stating that too much sandbox in a sandbox game isn't a good idea and perfectly illustrated your point. As I read your review, I could perfectly picture a game where you have a lot of fun running around and exploring the world for out-of-the-way goodies; but due to no story and poor, generic combat, when you actually remember you're playing a game with objectives, things fall apart a bit. Very effective conclusion here, as well. The whole review gives a great vibe of "nearly unlimited freedom is cool, but without glue to hold it together, what's the point?" as far as this game goes. It still seems like it'd be fun to play (something I thought after reading EmP's review of the game from a ways back), but the awesome freedom he was describing seems a good bit diluted after reading this and getting the impression that freedom is the only thing making the game notable. Very strong argument here, so you get the win.




    And that's that. I now return to my regularly scheduled activities. Which primarily is staring blankly at my cubicle. And wishing there was Captain Morgan in my Pepsi.
    board icon
    Suskie posted January 08, 2010:

    Hey, thanks! Although if you wanted a smaller workload, I could've told you to just skip those reviews that I rushed through just to have the Alpha Marathon finished in time.

    Edit: Can I still request 1000 HG points for this? Seems like people don't do that anymore.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 08, 2010:

    As noted in the official RotW topic for 2010, you absolutely can! I've awarded your points accordingly.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 09, 2010:

    Well, currently Jerec is our "back up" ROTWer. I do like the idea of an occasional "5th saturday" reviewer, as well, but it's really up to Jason who has final say on the lists. Also, if we did that, we'd still need another person and no one has been forthcoming as of yet.
    board icon
    zigfried posted January 09, 2010:

    This thread is for fun things you've read about Bayonetta. Additional comments are optional. I'll start!

    I hope the ratings boards are intelligent enough to give this title a proper Adults only rating. If for no other reason then the title character can be rendered completely nude from the rear, and EXTREMELY close to nude from the front.

    //Zig
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 09, 2010:

    I read a pretty scathing diatribe against the game because the female lead character is attractive--in attire that fulfills boys' fantasies when they're not masturbating to Underworld movies(?)--and therefore the game is clearly sexist. The person making those claims has admitted to never watching an Underworld movie. One of his real complaints against Bayonetta was also that women in Japan are second-class citizens(?). Bayonetta really gets him worked up.
    board icon
    zigfried posted January 09, 2010:

    I'd be interested to see someone who can convincingly explain why Bayonetta is sexist. All I've seen so far are rants against the inclusion of women who exude confidence in their own abilities and appearance. Those people then start prattling on about something unrelated, as you've pointed out.

    I haven't finished the game. Maybe Dante shows up at the end and proclaims, "only a MAN can fix everything you've ruined, WOMAN". That could possibly be construed as sexist.

    //Zig
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted January 09, 2010:

    The person making those claims has admitted to never watching an Underworld movie.

    To be fair, it's obvious the only appealing thing about Underworld is Kate Beckinsale wearing tight leather.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 09, 2010:

    Maybe if the subject matter itself doesn't interest you, spaceworlder, but there are a lot of people who for some reason seem to adore the subject matter of movies such as Underworld, even without Kate. That's something that the successful sequels have made clear, if nothing else.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 09, 2010:

    Zig, I think the interesting question that we should be asking is: Is appreciating women's (or men's) figures inherently sexist? I don't think that it is.

    If I look at a woman and think that she has an amazing figure, then I go on to ignore everything she says because I believe that she's so pretty that she couldn't possibly have anything useful to contribute to anything, obviously that's sexist. I personally have seen many women that are drop-dead gorgeous and very much in charge, entirely capable of making better decisions and doing more good than many of the men around them. I still wouldn't mind seeing them in a bikini. Is that sexist, or is that just me behaving as nature intended?

    It's natural that hormones will to a certain extent dictate how a man looks at a woman (or even another man, in some cases). Trying to put a negative label on that is absurd. Sexism begins when we start judging someone's mental capabilities based on his or her physical form, when in fact the two things rarely have any real connection at all. The women who cry out against sexism are guilty of this too, by the way. They make judgments about other women all the time.

    In the case of Bayonetta, the cries of "sexism" often seem to come from people who are trying to convince themselves and others that they're sensitive enough to understand sexism... probably so that they can get laid. The little bit I've seen about Bayonetta suggests to me that its sexy heroine isn't promoting sexism in the slightest. From what I can tell, some might even make a reasonable argument that her fantastic appearance helps to fight sexism!
    board icon
    joseph_valencia posted January 09, 2010:

    That's something that the successful sequels have made clear, if nothing else.

    Not really. The third Beckinsale-less Underworld grossed less money than the first two installments, and if you strip away inflation it sold significantly less tickets. It also failed to recoup its budget through domestic markets, which the first two movies did.

    All data points to T & A appeal.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted January 09, 2010:

    So is this game any good?
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 09, 2010:

    OK, I'll claim the last spot, if there are no objections.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 09, 2010:

    Alright, we'll call that good for the official rotation. It wouldn't hurt to have a few others who are open to being backup for this. If you're interested in such a gig, you can post in this thread and be added to that list, though you'd need to be ready to give an answer quickly if called upon. In any event, we're probably good for now. Thanks to everyone who has committed to this and I look forward to seeing the topics that you all produce in the future. If any of you have any questions down the road, this is the thread for them!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 10, 2010:

    Ugh. I have been sick in bed for three days. I can't keep anything down and am all around pretty miserable. That said, this week's ROTW was a bit of cheer in my drear. Some very good reviews came in and many of them were for games I have a history with or feel very strongly about in some way. There was no review this week that was glaringly bad. I had to resort to kicking some reviews out for grammar or spelling issues and then, with the remainder, seeing who had made the best arguments in the most presentable fashion.

    Here's the three who made it.




    Radical Dreamer's Baten Kaitos review

    This review was made of justice. Baten Kaitos pissed me off because it was such a good game destroyed by so many stupid little mistakes, such as the voice acting which really is about ten times worse than even Radical Dreamer makes it sound. I'm sure you can find the opening video on youtube, just look it up. It's terrible.

    I have no major complaints about this review. It does read a little dry at times. Phrases like "it excels at being an interactive experience relative to its counterparts" excite the English Major in me but can also sometimes sound a little contrived, like there had to be a simpler way to say that.




    Lewis' Eternal Darkness review

    I'll be upfront. This was not my favorite review of the week. I didn't really like the editorial style of the review and the whole Red Faction bit, for me, just doesn't work. In fact, very little of this was actually a review of the game and more of it seemed like Lewis blogging about... stuff.

    But hey, it's good stuff, and I like his points about the Survival Horror genre, which I feel is one of the hardest for games to do right. And even though I didn't like the style of this piece, I do like that Lewis had the gumption to give something new a try.




    The week's winner is suskie's Infamous review

    INfamous seems to be a good game to review. I'm not sure I've seen a poorly written review for it on the site yet.

    Suskie hit two good reviews this week, with it being a tough call between this and ODST. I choose this one over ODST because I felt that this review had a stronger throughline. There is one thing that interests most people about INfamous and Suskie takes the moral system here and explores it in depth while at the same time avoiding the easy trap of judging the entire game based on this one facet. After reading it, I feel like I have the details I wanted about the choice system but also a good understanding of how the story and controls handle.

    And it's all done without wasting space or being overly snarky. Good job on this one, Suskie.




    That's it for this week. Good to see so many reviews hit the boards, I enjoyed reading them all and there was a lot of variety this week to choose from.

    I'll leave myself to my misery here and not give a grand closing statement except to say that you can expect another of Randxian's Chicken Dinners next week.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted January 10, 2010:

    I think probably the simpler way to say it is something like "it has better gameplay than most other JRPG's," but 'gameplay' is a term that I try to avoid for the most part. As it is, I still used the term anyway in the review just because it can be hard not to.
    board icon
    zigfried posted January 10, 2010:

    I've read that Bayonetta has Outrun music during the Highway 666 level, but it's actually from After Burner. It's an awesome song, too. Although the Bayonetta version is instrumental, here are lyrics from the vocal version:

    When we touch I want you so much my heart is on fire
    Make it so I can't let go, you're all I desiiiiiire
    Burning Love! After Burner! Burning Love!
    After Burner! After your burnin' love!


    However, the music playing on the car radio during the Chapter 1 cinematic might be from Outrun. I'm not really sure.

    //Zig
    board icon
    dementedhut posted January 10, 2010:

    :0

    The song playing in the red car from chapter 1 is indeed an OutRun song, called Magical Sound Shower.

    I'm about to go into Highway 666 later tonight, so I can't wait to hear this.

    So is this game any good?

    I'm enjoying what I've played so far. I wouldn't call myself a pro with the controls and stringing together combos, but I'm able to pull off some cool combo attacks from time to time. And this is coming from someone who was struggling to do anything in DMC1. The game, mostly thanks to Bayonetta herself, doesn't take itself too seriously, so you will see a lot of silly moments. Not digging the QTEs, though.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 10, 2010:

    I think that I need to play this game.
    board icon
    zigfried posted January 10, 2010:

    Ah yeah, I remember the name Magical Sound Shower (just didn't remember the actual music). That makes sense, seeing as the car was so damn Outrun-ish. I think some people just got confused when they heard it has "Outrun music" and assumed it was for the highway stage. I've seen conflicting information about a later level, too, so we'll see what happens...!

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted January 10, 2010:

    I think the game is great, although it flows like they had a serious game and then said "wait, screw this, let's make it ridiculous". The result is slightly uneven.

    To provide a counterpoint, here is an excerpt from a less favorable GameFAQs review:
    Overall the game is definitely a rehash of other games and doesn't really give about its own charm to the player but luckily it's a rehash of an excellent genre that can be reused many times due to its ability to never grow old and overall nature to easily inform novices and veterans how to play. Bayonetta receives a 6.5/10.

    Reviewer's Score: 6/10


    //Zig
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 10, 2010:

    So, here are the results for the 2009/2010 Alphabetolympics. No matter which year you actually wrote them in, thanks for contributing to the 60%+ turnout. Those disappointed they didn't allot enough time, maybe make a late new year's resolution not to procrastinate next time--no matter what site, or contest, or group of people you're writing for, or even if you have non-writing goals. All three of us judges know the pressure of review writing for a tourney, and this is the biggest 1-review tourney I've seen in my (brief) time here, with some tough letters covered. Some people already expressed disappointment/worry about their work, but every review had enough for a good serious look.

    And a playful "boo" to the folks who traded letters and then neither posted a review.

    ASchultz broke the score into 2 parts--technical then aesthetic. Or, head and heart.

    Genj/A/Akira

    FELIX: Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. This was a short, straightforward review for a blah game. So it doesnt help you since there seems to be a lack of noteworthy things to talk about. However, the writing is very easy to follow and I get what youre saying. Sometimes too much to talk about a games content can make a review read awkwardly, so clearly you gave this write-up the right approach. Its an interesting game just because of its subject material it tries to copy from other mediums, and you did a sweet job capturing screens. Too bad the game just wasnt as interesting as the material it tried to ape. 65/100

    ASCHULTZ: Two things I noticed right away: the four paragraphs look very lumpy. The intro has a problem, too. Akira fans will know the summary. Non-fans may be more interested in what sort of game it is, with details later. These usually can be eyeballed right away when a review is posted. I know I've tried to focus on that. They are not, however, structural problems.

    This is a good review of a so-so game with only so much to be said about it. That limits its scope without something spectacular in the writing style, and you don't seem to have the material to work with--or the offhand natural humor--that makes your Ys III and Wild Arms 4 reviews click. Also while I have a good idea about plot control etc. I'm also wondering how critical a game-over mistake is. Are there save points? This technical stuff can get in the way of imagination if thrown out, but a sentence has to be there. Maybe that would be a good place to add a throwaway joke.

    I know my saying "needs character/needs to take risks" may be hot hot pot-kettle action, but I think you're a good enough writer to learn from getting zapped. At any rate, I don't blame the translators for ditching the translation, especially since they have to dumb down the text to fit it in the patched cart. 35+31=66

    RANDXIAN: Good job of describing a manga/anime I have heard of, but knew little about. You make it perfectly clear that the interactive sequences are lame and just seem thrown in for the sake of having some semblance of interaction. With that said, the opening line is both disorientating and unnecessary. You adequately describe why the sequences in question are simply not fun and add nothing to the core game play, so why add the succesive year argument?

    Basically, I feel this is a review with a lot of useful informative, but it lacks pizazz. The intro provides good info, but the opening line is terrible and nothing in the intro really grab's the reader's attention. There is also no real conclusion; the review just stops. This almost resembles a last minute report written for school.

    Score: 65

    Radicaldreamer/B/Baten Katios

    FELIX: Loved the last line in your review. This really brought back memories from my experience with the game, as I remember being in awe over how awesome the game looked in contrast to how woeful the voice acting was. I enjoyed the game, though, I seemed to have stopped shortly after . . . the big plot twist you alluded to. Anyway, I think this review, like you said in your blog or wherever could have benefited from a little bit of refinement. You tackle many different subjects regarding the game, as there are indeed many elements that define its uneven nature. Yet in doing so, some parts of the review felt less interesting to me than others. I felt some bits really did a lot to bring out the games nature in a show, not tell sort of way while other parts, like the part where you bring up the voice acting, were just stating facts and leaving it as that. So the writing, while good, probably would have been better if you would have started earlier and rewritten/combined some ideas through editing. 80/100

    ASCHULTZ: Your blog entry was right. There's a lot that could be chopped down here. "Such creativity and originality of world design can only reach its full potential if it is occupied by compelling actors engaged in captivating adventures." is one of your weaker generalizations, and after two very engaging paragraphs, things start to slide.

    The best bits later are discussing the RPG characters, and "layered badness." Even that gets beaten down with a bit too much on voice acting. Then throwaway phrases start popping up. "It is probably is not a good sign that..." This is intelligent writing. Unfortunately it veers toward the sort that I have to reread, as opposed to what I'd like to reread. Cleanup's no fun.

    I'm glad you found the time to get this review. I know you'll find the time to fix it into something better. You're one person who can get away with long, descriptive reviews. Long, descriptive and time-pressured? That too. 33+43=76

    RANDXIAN: Nice job of using subtle wit to poke fun at the poorly written story and cliched characters. Way to intergrate info with lively writing. I almost get the sense you are trying to point out this game rips off FF7 in some ways.
    My problem is you give the game a 7/10, which would indicate this is a solid game, yet more than half of the review is trashing the story, characters, and the voice acting. While these are important elements, I feel the bit about voice acting could've been more concise. By this time, you've beaten the game to a bloody pulp, so now convince me why this is a reasonably good game. Unfortunately, I was never convinced this game is worth even a rental.

    However, I do appreciate the part about how you explain why dungeons being short is actually a good thing. Obviously, you worked to integrate all the important details into this review, but it fails to convince me it's worth even checking out after you completely blast it for several paragraphs.

    Score: 80

    Suskie/C/Crackdown

    FELIX: This is a great review. What I like about it is that you are able to compare and contrast this games qualities and shortcomings without doing the but its not all bad! or not all is good! routine. You dont talk about good stuff for half the review and then bad stuff for half, or vice versa. I thought you were going to do that when I read the first sentence, which was my least favorite part of the review (I hate that kind of opening line, though Im sure Ive used something like it before). But when it came to actually discussing the games elements, you did a great job balancing what made the game tick while simultaneously explaining how its shortcomings are a result of the games designers ambitions. I could have swore HG had like 37 Crackdown reviews, but I cant remember what the other ones say so this turned out to be a pretty good learning experience and enjoyable read for me. 95/100

    ASCHULTZ: Foreshadowing your own review is something I'm not crazy about--and it's not necessary in such a coherent engaging review. Sometimes it's a bit too conversational for my tastes, ("grinds to a screeching halt," a few too many italics,) but I ran out of complaints after that. This isn't your first what-is-a-game discussion that I think is generally interesting, and there's the lateral knowledge of other games that never feels forced. The frustration is relatively eloquent, and I think we've all had a game like this. I'm particularly intrigued by how quickly a game like this can/should get pareto-dominated, and why, and this review does that well.

    This is well imagined and proofread, and if it isn't everything you hoped it is, you deserve credit for not trying to do too much--and still doing a lot. It takes a good look at a subgenre of games and if it's not as expansive as the NEXT review, it doesn't spill over. I never felt like I was Grading A Review here. I was busy seeing if I agreed with what was said and finding examples to agree/disagree with it. 44+44=88

    RANDXIAN: As usual, you do a good job of hooking the reader with interesting facts and nuggets about the game. For the most part, I feel you do a good job of pointing out all the relevant pros and cons to the game. I found it amusing that you were so baffled by the "ending" that you had to double check a FAQ to make sure you did finish the game. Nice touch.

    However, I'm a bit confused about your stance on the open-ended aspect. In the intro, you seem to praise the game for letting the player run free. Later on, you reprimand the game for being too open-ended. If the sporadic difficulty is such a big deal, does that mean you would rather the game be more linear? I'm really confused.

    Maybe it's just me, but I could do without having all the words in italics. Yes, I know the point is to add emphasis, but I personally don't care for it.

    Score: 75

    Lewis/E/Eternal Darkness

    FELIX: Your ejaculatory ED review really brings up some interesting points and angles. Its just . . . well, its quite a free-flowing piece of writing, which actually makes your argument feel all the more sincere, at least for a little bit. The first tangent was interesting and I think it served to back up your argument on survival horror and ED. The second tangent about your dreams did nothing for me. The third one about Red Faction just made me lose interest in the piece entirely. Come on man, you used like 3 words to write a pretty good little blurb for Brevity or Bust and then you write one of the lengthiest pieces for this tourney and its all over the place with your dreams and games that start with R. And the whole your sanity meter is dropping!!! thing just felt corny, though I understand why you tried to incorporate it, as the idea is youre losing your marbles like the characters in ED. Sorry, Lewis. I usually dig your work but this one was just too much for me, though I do appreciate your attempt to transcend traditional review writing standards by offering something different. 40/100

    ASCHULTZ: Oh boy. Lewis brings the mustard in this one. And the garlic and the Denby's Secret Super Sauce. The result is the essay version of Mike Leach drawing up a fumblerooski.

    Whether or not you like this review you're probably saying you wish you had the guts to pull something like this in a contest. Without a paid editor, there's a very real risk of a review like this flaming out. However, it largely works. It got positive AND negative curses from me.

    It brings up a Big Question first, then some humor ("retarded bus") and just as it really seems to work, the self-referentiality left me annoyed, and the brief tangent seemed unnecessary. It got too self-indulgent. You have the right, and tangents if done right feel great. The timing's off, though. You slip in a bit too much that sounds neat. It's so fun to write when you have a quirky idea, but it's rough to proofread--I know--and worse, it's tough for others to read. Yes, it's a fourth wall essay about a fourth wall game. Still with moments of hedging like "if you see what I mean" you're hedging on your audacity.

    Still the way you throw out new survival horror games works for someone who is completely oblivious to the genre, and that's a good thing. Your admission the Red Faction tangent was used elsewhere cost a couple points but even before that, I think it soups things up in the way it says Silent Hill etc. cheat. It takes too long to maneuver around the damn essay, and that pumps up the surface erudition. It's fun to read, but you just know it can be cut down to the bare experience, comparing Red Faction to Eternal Darkness, and why a bad game helps prove why a good game works. The "Point is" bit also swerves once too often--it talks down to the reader a bit, and while it's spontaneous, so is peeing on a cop. Plus I was cross about being linked to another review of yours--I mean, I see what you're doing beyond just showing another review. That was too cute.

    You probably knew that people would suggest it needs work. I hope my suggestions are constructive. But yours holds up pretty well. 34+43=77

    RANDXIAN: Didn't care for the opening paragraphc, but chuckled out loud at the following sentence in the second "But it means that, when something like the survival horror genre comes along, those two little words say a lot. You survive, and it's horrible, presumably." Good stuff here.

    While I appreciate the personality and entertainment value, at times the review is completely obnoxious. First you slam on the brakes and talk about a developer's conference. What that has to do with the reivew of Eternal Darkness, I'm not sure. Then you stop again to talk about Red Faction. Again, what that has to do with Eternal Darkness, I'm not sure. Last, but not least, you plug a completely different review.

    It's a shame. I think if you would've stuck to the task at hand, you would have a really good review. Sure, I was entertained and engaged, but only when you bothered to actually discuss the game that's supposed to be reviewed. You had a good rhythm going until your first tangent. Why screw that up?

    Score: 60

    Zipp/F/Fatalframe

    FELIX: Oh you had to focus on the controls! So why would anyone want to put himself through this kind of experience? Lets not focus on the controls for a sec. The game, it has something to it, mright? I was more interested, obviously, in the part of the review you didnt focus on. You take pictures of ghosts. Tell me more. 60/100

    ASCHULTZ: This review doesn't mess around and still gets some good shots in. It's more compact than the other reviews, but it maybe sacrifices some potential examples. I can't expect you to parrot other reviews--in fact it's good not to--but my overall reaction was "Wait, this review was low on X, Y and Z" which other reviews seemed to be able to incorporate. I also see a big contradiction: 1) your role is to stand still in a corner 2) the controls to run/power walk down a hallway are awful

    There's also some goalpost shifting. Controls are frightening, then "Im not being cute here, I literally mean" and then "fear turns to frustration." Yes, frustration is a form of fear. The transition seems awkward. This is the sort of flourish that adds little to the review & also reminded me of the golf bit at the beginning, which really went overboard with needless profanity that doesn't really add to the emotion. Crapping one's pants to describe fear has been done before.

    You've also got "Real story or no, that breaks immersion. Anyway," which is the sort of red flag that said you couldn't find a better transition. The points are valid. They can go together better. Your conclusion seems to be the strongest part, especially the final line. By then I was a bit frustrated.

    Also reading other reviews it seems some was left out about this: power ups, what ghosts look like, cheap tricks ghosts use like teleporting, and if there are stories behind the ghosts. Other reviews seem to hint at these things, and while you can't expect to span them all, a lot of questions I had after reading this review were answered in different ways in the others. What are the ghosts' stories? Your review seems control-heavy in its discussion and I am curious about the "good bits." Also, you've done the controls bit before, with Warhawk--I don't believe this affected my tourney score, but it's one of those things where you may hit a rut and not know it. 35+31=66

    RANDXIAN: Fantastic job. The review is an almost perfect blend of wit, analysis, and info, which is presented efficiently and without dallying. I see you also edited the bit about the controls so it's more clear why it's such a weak point. I really liked this review when I judged ROTW and now it's even better with the edits. I don't see any glaring weaknesses in the review. This review is like a steak dinner without so much as an ounce fat on the steak. Oh, and with cherry cheesecake for dessert.

    Score: 100

    YamiShuryou/G/Gabriel Knight

    FELIX: Yami freaking Shuryou, you wrote a pretty good review, at least in comparison to what some of these yahoos crapped out. Heres what I liked about the review: it tells me what I want to know, it has some captivating though not necessarily mind-blowing writing, and it covers a rather interesting game that I knew nothing about. The fact that you actual seem to cover the most important and interesting elements in the game is good enough for me. Like I said, this isnt some review Id want to read for pleasure while sitting on the toilet, but it should definitely appeal to people interested in the game and for those who enjoy judging review competitions. 80/100

    ASCHULTZ: I hadn't read much of your work and want to fix that after reading this. This was an easy read of a game I'd always wanted to look at, and I know that the back-and-forth about point-and-click adventure games can really heat up in the critique topics. The straightforward storytelling works through the description of gameplay well, and maybe there's a more succinct way to describe the all-star cast, but I don't see it. I'm very caught up in the story, and if the flaws paragraph might be pushed back two, or the graphics section could be a bit shorter. So be it. I never felt lost in this review, and it's got some good understated descriptions of dark emotion. This review is above-average engaging and does nothing stupid. That's a lot harder than it sounds. 38+45=83

    RANDXIAN: Good job of managing to explain all the important elements without spoiling too much. I think you injected just the right amout of information in this review; you whet the reader's appetite, but you don't seem to spoil any of the puzzles or any major plot point. Given this is a mystery/puzzle game, that's quite a feat, one you pull off masterfully.

    However, at times it reads almost like a sectioned review. I also don't like the opening statement in the second paragraph. Really, how can one tell it will be good? Because of the development team? Even the best companies bomb once in awhile. Because of the star studded cast? There are probably tons of games with good voice acting, graphics, music, etc. that have terrible game mechanics. It's like you are forcing your reader to accept this game as a gem before you elaborate on why it's so good. It's your job to prove it to us first. Just cut that line out.

    Outside of that, it's a solid read with good analysis and enough detail.

    Score: 85

    DarkEternal/I/Indigo Prophecy

    FELIX: Pretty good writing that made me interested in playing the game. The first half of the game. This is an angle that I know at least one of the 23,723,203 other Indigo Prophecy reviews used, but who really cares. Thanks for not arguing that the games PAL title is superior to the NTSC title. Again, who really cares. What is important is that you establish why the first half of the game is so compelling and why it is so depressing when the developers decided to go a totally different route. Ive never played the game and even I was disappointed as I noticed the thrill the writing had in describing the good parts give way to a more matter-of-factly tone when you were segueing to the disappointing parts. I can go for that. 85/100

    ASCHULTZ: The swerve in the 3rd paragraph really made me laugh--though you may have nailed things too far into the ground. "Immediately after said stabbing" is overdoing things--there's enough there for tension, mentioning the police officer, etc. There's a lot of good dark-humor in here, though, and if I'm slightly peeved at the paragraph spacing--one sentence about Tyler--the Chris Rock line is good. Anything that tripped my hyper-grammar-perfectionist-judge-sensor was part of something interesting, and good, and thoughtful.

    Until, like the game, it takes a downward bend. Not big, but noticeable, from the vague "probably tighten this up" to hot-button mistakes. "It's literally a..." and so forth, and I didn't know games had relations with people--I thought it was the other way around. You mentioned good gameplay, and while this review does well not to focus on it--how do you do things? Is it standard point-and-click? Does it show good variety for keyboard/multiple choice? Is the game replayable, if you block out certain parts of what Tyler, Lucas and Carla do? Are there alternate endings? It sounds like you only wanted to play through the game once, but here's where researching with FAQs could help. 38+40=78

    RANDXIAN: For the most part, this is a solid read. There are enough examples to illustrate how the game works and most of the review is presented in a way to keep the reader engaged. At times, it reads a bit awkwardly, but it's not a major problem. I found the following particularly amusing - "Hell, if you want to play it ice cold, you can return to the restaurant and finish the dinner you never remembered ordering, because murderin' is hard work. Pay the check, drop a polite nod to the police officer, and stroll casually into the snowy night considering your next moves."

    Your review begins to fall apart when you get into the negative aspects of the game. I'm not 100% sure I understand all your issues with the game. I was a bit confused by the following statement - " Suddenly from Twin Peaks we go to Matrix meets Hellblazer meets WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING?!." What exactly is this supposed to mean? It looks like you basically spend about three sentences that all say the same thing - the game takes a turn for the worse. Instead of reiterating your point over and over, provide some more vivid examples on why this game fails in some aspects.

    Score: 75

    Pickhut/K/Kengo Legend of the 9

    FELIX: Eh, you chose a boring game. As a result, I think you were content just to get in and get out with this review. You explain why the game doesnt work succinctly, but the writing didnt really hold my interest. These half-assed samurai games seem to be a dime a dozen. Thats not really your fault though. You did what you could. 65/100

    ASCHULTZ: Realism 5x in the first paragraph. I sensed a theme, til you said "realism my ass." I have to admit I beat you to saying that. The review gets its point across but my hyperactive red pen sees stuff like "one annoying aspect makes its presence known right away" and I think, cut--I like how you contrast the alleged simplicity with horrific controls, and that's an important point to make, along with the horrendous assumptions the game makes trying to help you. I'd also abbreviate Legend of the 9 further to Lo9 or something, but that's me.

    Third paragraph overuses "lock on" and too much jargon gets in the way of reeling off the points you make successfully. It's just abstract language, and something like "When opponents stand in a group, it's tough to challenge the tough enemy you need to kill first" would seem to work better. The other paragraphs have a lot of small style glitches which add up--fix this sentence here, or that there. I'm left with a good feeling for the mistakes--but with what you could've tightened up, you could maybe describe some of the non-bosses or the detail, etc. I'd like to hear about the "neat counter system"--what is being counted? The review seems low on specifics except when it focuses a bit too much on the controller--and when we play games we usually don't like to do that. 27+27=54

    RANDXIAN: "Realism my ass." Heh, heh. Good intro. Really like the snarky tone used throughout the review. This game indeed sounds like the pits and certainly doesn't sound realistic. Like the use of the anecdote with you fighting the boss to illustrate how this game falls apart.

    Couple of small issues. One is "and that's where things go soar." I'm assuming you mean "sour"? Also, I could've done without reading about Bushido Blade in the third paragraph. I can understand referencing it in the intro since it builds up to your main point that the realism argument is a bunch of hogwash, but here it just strings out the controls paragraph. That paragraph is long enough without that addition.

    But those are minor gripes. I feel this is a solid review and your personality shines through naturally. Well done.

    Score: 90

    Zigfried/L/Lunar: the Silver Star

    FELIX: I guess when you play a game that epitomizes one genres redemption coupled with the fact that it contains antagonists driving town-crushing tanks, has streams of heartfelt (if hokey to me) dialogue, and instruction manuals labored in love, you probably are going to do well in a competition because the fact that the game you chose is interesting makes (gasp!) the writing interesting! Wow, what a concept! Good work, Zig. 90/100

    ASCHULTZ: I'm always interested in history of games I'll never get around to play and the first paragraph starts well. I like how the review pins down that the game knows what it wants. I do have to question "I was a child myself" knowing we were the same age back in December '93--perhaps you still wanted a kidlike game? I like nostalgia, too, but a little lie for effect can snowball. I am agnostic on liberal quoting of game text, italics, etc. I'm cranky about that. These are stylistic differences, though, and you don't OVER-overuse them. More seriously, it jerks a bit between the soundtrack and what fairytales should be, but the payoff is there.

    I'm definitely being cranky there, though. It's a nice review to get wrapped up in and if attention flags for a bit, it always comes back. But I have to disagree with the organization. The discussion of the instruction manual goes on a bit long, and yes, it's a funny story--more or less worth going out of your way for--and it's great when an instruction manual is FUNNY--but again, hack a bit down. Still, I can't blame you for getting caught up in a review/game like this. This review showed me some gaming nostalgia I wasn't aware of, and that's no small feat. 42+47=89

    RANDXIAN: Didn't care for the intro. It took you a while to get going with the actual review, but once you got going, you were like a Dodge Viper zipping along the autobahn at 180 MPH.

    Once again, you drew me in with lively writing and vivid examples to help illustrate your point. I also like the angle you took that the game is great because it lacks all the politcal agendas/factions/sympathetic bad guy bullcrap and is simply a game designed to entertain kids. You certainly make your arguement convincingly and made me want to give this game a shot. Well done. This is definitely a GABOON!

    Score: 95

    Sportsman/N/New Super Mario Brothers

    FELIX: This was a pretty straightforward review that highlights, in your opinion, the notion that NSMB does not take the series, at least from a 2D perspective, forward. After reading the review, I wanted to know more about why you felt that giving original SMB what sounds to be a huge refurbishment didnt do anything for you. Basically I would have liked more support and fluid writing. There were a few instances where you use similar words in rapid succession, like normally unreachable platforms with a normal jump. 50/100

    ASCHULTZ: Good review choice for having relatively little time. That said, the second sentence--one I agree with--is a bit flowery. Then you mentio NSMB is 2D twice. Comparing NSMB to SMB3/SMW is good but then used-before phrases like "Instead of taking the series to the next level, NSMB feels like one giant step back" can be cut from the review with no loss. You say NSMB is predictable, then you mention some neat new features. A lot of the review restates whatever it already did. You mentioned elsewhere this was a relatively late submission and sadly some of the padding phrases remind me of my own essays from college when I had a page limit. The examples that are there work, but unfortunately the good points made twice seem to be crowding out other points that might help. 34+26=60

    RANDXIAN: For the most part, like the arguments presented here. I agree that the game deserves to be reprimanded for failing to at least include powerups comparable to SMB 3 and SMB World. Having played the game, I can say you gave it a fair assessment. I think your last line of the review also raises an interesting point. Would this game be succesful had it not starred our favorite Italian plumber?

    However, a couple of minor issues. One, the start of the review is a bit disorienting. Your first two paragraphs seem to gear the reader toward a positive review and you mention how returning to good ol' 2D platforming is a breath of fresh air, then you pull a 180 and reprimand the game for being more of the same ol' same ol'. Also, I disagree with your assessment of the difficulty. Mario games are obviously intended for younger children. Okay, any age group can enjoy them, but the target audience is kids. With that said, why is a low difficulty such a bad thing?

    Score: 80

    Jason/Q/Qix++

    FELIX: Very good work taking the initiative to tackle the evil Q. Too bad it was for a Qixx sequel. Eh, puzzle games in general are difficult to make sound lively. Shoulda reviewed Quantum of Solace on the Wii. I hear theres a martini mixing mini-game where you have to shake the Wiimote to make the most bitter Vesper possible. I was dying to know if it was worth the price of admission. Anyway, this is one of several reviews that do a good job covering the game in question. They just dont do it in a compelling way, at least for someone who doesnt have any interest in purchasing/playing the game in question. But since you seemed to have made the most out of what you chose to go with, I guess that deserves a few pity points and a kick in the ass. 60/100

    ASCHULTZ: I enjoyed this review, as I think it gets to the point pretty quickly, but recently I've nailed myself for stuff like the second paragraph where 2 sentences can be wrapped into one. Yes, it flows, but it goes on longer than it needs to. You could argue that the subject matter needs this embellishment, but you're taking a risk with that. Stuff like "It's interesting but definitely not for everybody" (also a bit generic) seems out of tune with your negative description in the paragraph. I like the concluding paragraph, and I like why online play doesn't work. But I think cutting down some of the needless quasi-detail and throwing in what the power-ups are would be helpful. Without much in the way of graphics, technical details seem to be a must.

    The 99% seems outrageous from what I know about Qix (I get 88% so I know how it feels to get ~90,) and I suspect it's tied into the power-ups or, quite possibly, bugs (see: Qix Adventure GBC.) That is what this review seems to be missing--is there a double-points "slow draw" as in the original game? Does the Qix move as godawfully randomly as in the original? Is there a Qix splitter? Multiple Qix? Obviously answering all these questions is awkward, but a few may be relevant to the remake. You referenced that the game has a franchise history, and a quick Wikipedia trawl turns up some basic "What happens in the sequel" questions to fill in the technical details a line-based game like this needs.

    You got a tough letter and chose a pretty good game for it. However, my puzzle-game spidey-sense thinks you may not have mastered it enough to describe the technical details--Qix has a strong quick-reasoning element to it. I think a good question to ask for another puzzle game would be, "what do I feel most frustrated about that I haven't learned yet" & see how to cover that. Eventually it leads to the "oh my god I overlooked THAT" that makes math problems/chess puzzles etc. so interesting. I often need to sleep on puzzle games to write reviews/FAQs. Unfortunately the payoff--creatively--isn't as much as for describing an RPG. 37+33=70

    RANDXIAN: Very efficient review that briefly, yet adequately describes a classic game I've heard of but never played. I found the following worth a chuckle - "Competitive players must be busy with Modern Warfare 2 or something." Also enjoyed the lively writing describing the pros and cons of the multi-player aspect. This is a well written review that quickly covers all the bases without any major flaws. Excelleng job!

    Score: 100

    Ben/R/Riviera

    FELIX: Well, in spite of your predictions that youd fail last, this judge begs to differ. Yeah, I guess it really is more of a first impressions write-up, or whatever. The info provided is pretty dull, but at least it explains how the game works. Some examples would have been nice, and Im sure you saw at least SOMETHING in those first 5 hours that made you say wow or gah. Anyway, the whole explanation for why you kinda sorta didnt show up properly for this comp was unnecessary for me no explanations needed, I say but thanks for feeling guilty. Hopefully you want to kill yourself now. Anyway, this review is sadly stronger than at least one of the other entries so Ill just give you some points and tell you to finish this one up if you ever feel like it. 30/100

    ASCHULTZ: First, good job pushing the review through despite delays. I know the feeling of not doing all you wanted. This review Gets Me Interested, even if it is spotty. However, a sentence I hate is "Let's be upfront." 1) up front 2) it implies dishonesty elsewhere 3) you already apologized sufficiently in the topic 4) you did it again at the end gngngn 5) with time at a premium, go for the interesting bits.

    For your five hours you provide an interesting perspective on the game, though P1 is loaded with "was" and has "costed." There are a lot of filler phrases that say lack of proofreading and it's probably cruel of me to expect you to fit in proofreading after 6 hours. I'd have liked to read the plot first, or maybe even a fun excuse for not playing the game. I'm a sucker for apologies with humor.

    You probably know this review is choppy, and it's a bit confusing, and it doesn't provide enough about the story. That's not to say I'm not intrigued. I'd be interested in reading the full review if you ever get it done. 20+25=45

    RANDXIAN: When you admit up front that "this is not a review", then how do you expect the reader to take anything you have to say seriously? Okay, you do say later on to take your advice with a "pinch of salt", but this whole thing seems like a cheap cop out to me. I believe as a reviewer you need to take a stance and stick with it; here, you act like a fence straddler.

    And it's too bad. You seem to cover, at least to some degree, all the important aspects. It seems like you are sandbagging and really know more about this game than you let on and you do indeed have your own opinion, so why hold back like this? The review comes off as a bit mechanical, but there is some useful information to be found here.

    Once you play it some more and decide to take a more firm approach, this could blossom into a really good review. As it is now, the sandbag approach doesn't cut the mustard.

    Score: 50

    True/S/Saboteur

    FELIX: True Baby, you need a line break in your review. Fundamentals, man! I was a little confused at the start of the review because I thought this was going to be a game about racing, but I guess it turned out to be a sandbox game starring an in the closet Irish mechanic turned building-climbing commando in Nazi occupied Europe. OK . . . This game sounds absolutely ludicrous. Not in the Modern Warfare 2 sense, but this is still high quality camp. Too bad the game plays like blah, which I think you do a nice job of detailing. I like how you write outside of the conventional style of reviewing. Youre not just telling me how the dumb game works in the driest way possible. Youre trying to instill some examples and some emotive stuff and I think that only helps this piece because after a while it gets rather boring to read about piss poor game mechanics. Be they of the Irish or game design variety. 80/100

    ASCHULTZ: While this review is exciting, grammatical and logical errors make it less impressive on rereading. A lot of the stuff takes time as I say, I'm pretty sure he means X--which dents the pace the review needs. Tense shifts aren't well sorted. The one-sentence paragraphs are a bit your signature and they're usually good for effect if not overdone. However, in some places, you don't have a break between paragraphs, and some paragraphs are rather long. This is the sort of thing where a glance at the review is a good idea, especially since it posted 4 days early. Phrases like "garner confusion while the German badgers him with conjectures of conspiracies" also seem to be oversalting the soup.

    This gets in the way of an interesting discussion of Nasty Vs Nazis, though maybe talking about Sean goes on for too long. And unfortunately the review falls prey to its very pertinent observation at the end--a lot of good observations that don't fit well together--though I do like the cross-game comparisons. A lot still needs to be tied up here. This is a review I liked, but I kept having to check off on what it probably meant. I know you've been busy with other writing where you've prioritized proofreading--writing that is ultimately more important for you--and it shows, both here and there. 31+41=72

    RANDXIAN: Good writing. Like the quip at how the game jettison's your Nazi uniform and the puzzle metaphor at the end. Once you started talking about the game play, I was really engaged. I don't play many games like this, but your discussions of the controls paint a vivid picture of what playing this game must be like.

    However, I think you spend too much time with the story and main character above. Yes, I realise that's important too, but I was wishing you'd hurry up and talk about the game play itself. I just thing that could either be summarized a bit better or you could somehow incorporate that in the bits about the controls and game play.

    Score: 90

    CoarseDragon/U/Ultima IV

    FELIX: U is for Coarse Dragon I hope you dont mind if I call you CD for short. Let me know if thats not kosher and Ill cease in the future. I wasnt expecting you to show for this contest simply because I am under the impression you have no written a review for HG before, so its nice to see fresh blood show up to the scene. I found the beginning of the review (the part where you indicate author and game release info) to be kinda pointless since most of that stuff is already indicated on the game/review page already. The portion of the review with what I would label as Old English also seemed campy to me, but then I suppose you were trying to set the tone. In spite of the reviews relatively short length, I gleamed some good info from it. I love reading shorter reviews and getting just as much good info out of them in place of reading longer reviews and gathering the same amount of detail. The writing never really got boring because it ends soon enough, and maybe even a little too soon. Or maybe not. Ive clearly never played the game, and Im not familiar enough with your writing to know if youre the kind of guy who just ends things before revealing other noteworthy items or not. Anyway, I hope you write some more reviews because it seems like you have some pretty cool games to talk about at your disposal. Just make sure you watch out for grammatical and sentence structure errors (see the first sentence in the last full paragraph for an edit to make). 45/100

    ASCHULTZ: First, it's brave to jump into a contest like this with established writers. I know that at first I wasn't sure what questions to ask, or what people would want to hear about a review. I want to say that a lot of what I saw to correct in your first review, happened with mine in the GameFAQs sitewide review contest in 1999. It's tough to know what to expect, or to try, or to do, your first time out. You may have tried to do too much. Organization is harder work than it appears, especially since the best reviews are imaginative enough you don't worry if they're organized. I may be harsh about details since I know the game so well, but I hope this helps you. I do, however, think you did a good job starting the meat of the review--discussing the virtues that make U4 unique. (But the starting bits that can be found elsewhere or read like the back of the box can go. I suspect you included it out of obligation.)

    I also think you jump to the dungeons too quickly, and you swapped U4 and U5 twice. Runes are in towns. Stones are in dungeons. You said "word of power" (U5) and probably meant "mantra." The second paragraph has the right idea, but listing the reagents and virtues gets into FAQ style stuff (though you shouldn't be scared to read FAQs on GameFAQs for research.) FAQing the review is a problem of mine, too. A way around is maybe to explain that talking to townsmen may help you find special reagents beyond what you can buy. Battles are worth elaborating on, as are dungeons. I like the jokes internal to the game--shepherds are lousy. Maybe you could bend that back into the question about virtues (yeah, you can cheat a bit)--but they're sort of one offs. BTW, stealing from Lord British loses THREE eighths--justice, honor and honesty--but the crazy thing? If you do that a bunch, then overpay the lady selling reagents, you can fast-track VERY nicely to several virtues!

    You make good, interesting observations about old games on the message boards. They're more relevant to reviews than you think. But I get the sense you haven't played into the old games as much as you want to. Hit up DosBox, AppleWin and Vice. Don't be ashamed to go medieval on the save states. You'll get to try all the things you wondered about. 18+20=38

    RANDXIAN: I found the ye old English bits amusing. On one hand, I'm glad you are able to summarize the most important points, but on the other, I come away with the review not understanding why you "personally rate this game very high." Sure, you touch on all the elements, but you just barely scratch the surface. I think just a few more examples would help illustrate your points and explain why the reader should be interested in this game.

    You've got a good foundation for a solid review; it just needs to be fleshed out a bit.

    Score: 70

    Wolfqueen/V/Vay

    FELIX: Two things: 1) Stop over-writing your reviews. You dont do it as much as you used to, but you still do it more than you should. 2) Stop dissing your writing all the time. Who are you, Vegita from GameFAQs? Are you going to start talking trash to yourself on the forums? Other than that, nice review, though Im taking one one-thousandth of a point off due to the fact that you find talking dogs amusing. 69.999/100

    ASCHULTZ: Another game with three letters and two rare consonants. Too bad someone didn't review Zuw or something for the hat trick. Someone needs to make a game like that! It needs to be semi-obscure with nothing written about it!

    Some minor cliche to get the review going is worth it as I enjoy reading about the characters. Things do unravel slightly around the third paragraph: This is especially true when such goofiness covers plot advancement. Then stuff like "To be fair" implies you WEREN'T being fair or "Regardless of my mixed sentiments on the storytelling" says you don't need to be taken seriously. I like the examples, but they can be linked together better. I'm confused about you questioning the developers' motives, as well--isn't it good to have that sort of contrast, the trivially amusing, to balance the serious? The Wind Elemental example is interesting too but has misplaced subjects ("Orb of Wind. Virtually..."/"Once beaten, I heaved a sigh of relief,") Oh. And you use "seriousness" twice quickly in the conclusion. It's iffy to use once.

    The teeter totter feel of this next-last paragraph gets in the way of some nice examples, and unfortunately the game mechanics are sacrificed for the story. What sort of skills help? The 3rd last paragraph reads well but borders on truism. It sounds like you're trying too hard to be fair and blending the good and bad points just wrong, til it feels like a teeter totter--and some parts like the "to be fair" paragraph hit a dead end (or at the very least, an awkward transition) and don't need ALL those words. Maybe contrast the unorthodox story with standard gameplay/character development?

    You chose a good game for your writing style, but the good stuff in your review doesn't cohoere. The red pen Lewis talked about in the team tourney would be helpful. Lots there, but it jangles, which disrupts the intrigue. Your exuberance in reviews contrasts harshly with your opinion in them and I would suggest that the process you use to get good grades in college could be nicely tweaked for reviews--I mean, the studying comes first, but it's a way to look at it. P.S. I sentence you and Ben to a deathmatch where each insults the other review's until you get tired of the charade and just accept yourselves as good writers, even if writer's block HAPPENS. 30+41=71

    RANDXIAN: Very solid review for the most part. Like how early in the review you point out some unique and interesting features found in this game to draw in your reader. Also liked the anecdote with the Wind Elemental to illustrate the difficulty.

    However, one portion of the review confused me. I don't get the line " you never really feel restricted because of the ramped up difficulty in each new area." Wouldn't the high difficulty have the opposite effect, that is to make you feel restricted? Also, you mention how the ramped up enemies will slaughter you several times before your party is beefed up sufficiently. Is there some particular reason you can't raise levels against weaker enemies prior to meeting these stronger foes?

    Score: 80

    Overdrive/Y/Ys III

    FELIX: Jeez, Roberto, now I cant get an image of you staring at the ceiling while laying on a bed, your finger touching your pursed lips with a freaking message bubble displaying Adol and Dogis gayness protruding from your head. Apparently this game sucks, which is depressing, because Ys games shouldnt be allowed to suck. Try the Turbo CD version of this. I understand that its a lot better than the one you reviewed. And finally getting the review, this was a nice, informative read. You use terms like BFF which may feel a little out of whack in some reviewers repertoires, but for some reason that and your quest to find answers regarding Chesters stupidity seem to fit. You lay all the points you have to make on the table and explain how the game works by dissecting its mechanics and shortcomings and leave it at that. A very traditional style of review, but outside of the strange character screw-ups (blame Jasons coding??) I found this to be a solid, good read. 75/100

    ASCHULTZ: I like the first paragraph a lot. Establishing quickly what makes Ys unique is great, as is WTFing on Ys III's "innovation." "Adol and his BFF Dogi" made me laugh--brevity being the soul of wit and stuff. The consternation over useless townies is quite good too. I want to meet Chester. I also like the contrast of bad programming that works for/against you. It's an old joke, and complex, but it always has a payoff. All this is the good stuff, and more major than anything below.

    I also must gleefully zing you back for FAQ-type stuff you've rightfully pointed out in my reviews. Discussing experience gains can and should be drastically chopped down. When this goes on a bit long, it exposes the other humorous bits--which is a delicate thing. Building up a joke is tricky and it doesn't just depend on the sentence. In general I think you start jokes out well but risk leaving them too long. This works in conversation but not so well in writing--at least to me. I favor laconic stuff--this is idea-sharing, not a sitcom. Serious parts of the review have needless too-soon repetitions. Like that two-line sentence to start off the conclusion? Chop it. The transition to paragraph 2, where I also disliked "The fact"x3? Too generic--I think I have seen this before in your reviews. There's more than enough to keep me interested, but often I feel there's a good chunk I could skip. It's still relatively succinct--just some soft phrases which, while agreeable, don't pull their weight.

    This dilutes but hardly destroys the overall exasperated humor of the review. 34+41=75.

    RANDXIAN: Like how the review is organized and how it flows. You manage to integrate character descriptions without too much dawdling and without detracting with explaining how the game works. I'm glad most of the review focuses on all the nuances in game play.

    However, I'm not 100% sure from the first couple of paragraphs if this game is from an overhead perspective or if it's a side-scroller, or if the game alternates between the two depending on the situation. Beyond that little hiccup, this is a solid read that gives me a good idea of the pros and cons without ever having played this game.

    Score: 90

    Jiggs/Z/Zone of the Enders

    FELIX: Hey, Jiggs. Its nice to see a guy whos been coming to this site longer than I have finally take his hand at writing reviews, though by now this is your 3rd or 4th. However, you have a really glaring fragment opening off your review. The next thing I want to point out is, despite Kojima not having much to do with the creation of this game per your review, you sure talk about him a lot instead of the disciple that actually was the brains behind it. Is this Shinkawa guy the man in charge behind ZoE or is he just a robot designer? The review is really short. Its choppy due to its length. You reveal the protagonist right at the end of the review. If this were, say, a Zigfried or Drella review, that kind of conclusion would lead me to believe that the protagonist is irrelevant to the game and/or the game is awful. Im not so sure thats the case here because you seem to enjoy the title but I dont think youre giving the reader the full picture. I know you wanted to do more with this review because you said so yourself. I hope you take the time to refine this one a little because, without trying to sound condescending, it needs it big time. 20/100

    ASCHULTZ: I have to say I'm confused as to what sort of game ZoE is. It seems to be about mechs. Do they fight each other? Sorry, but I'm a big retro game person and I think a first paragraph describing what ZoE does and your opinion on it would work better than discussing Kojima. Not that he's not important. I just think the first paragraph can be succinct-o-rayed into a sentence or two at the start of the second.

    The third and fourth paragraphs do well, but they're swamped by generalization-speak on each side. With some background, they'd make the full sense they seem to deserve to. This review feels like I walked in in the middle of a conversation. I'd have liked to know more about Leo Stenbuck early on, instead of in the final sentence. 18+24=42

    RANDXIAN: Okay, not sure why the entire intro is focused on who gets credit for developing this game. I could care less whether or not it is a Hideo Kojima game. Maybe some people do, but the entire intro shouldn't be about that subject.

    What's worse, very little of the review discusses how the game plays. About all I come away with is the controls are fast and effortless. That's not enough to give me a picture of what this game is really like, how it really plays, all the subtle nuances people should know, and whether or not I should play it.

    This review is way too esoteric and the only people who would really give a crap are people who know who this Kojima charcter is. For the average layperson who have no idea who he is and don't care, this review accomplishes nothing.

    Score: 10

    And that's the raw data! Number crunching up next. Like, after I hit "back" and cut and paste.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 10, 2010:

    "What does it all mean, Basil?"

    (apologies for the lower casing. It doesn't mean I think less of you as people.)

    1. Zigfried (l): 90 + 89 + 95 = 274
    2. Suskie (c): 95 + 88 + 75 = 258
    3. Yamishuryou (g): 80 + 83 + 85 = 248
    4. True (s): 80 + 72 + 90 = 242
    5. Overdrive (y): 75 + 75 + 90 = 240
    6. Darketernal (i): 85 + 78 + 75 = 238
    7. Radicaldreamer (b): 80 + 76 + 80 = 236
    8. Jason (q): 60 + 68 + 100 = 228
    9. Zippdementia (f): 60 + 66 + 100 = 226
    10. Wolfqueen (v): 69.999 + 71 + 80 = 220.999
    11. Pickhut (k): 65 + 54 + 90 = 209
    12. Genj (a): 65 + 66 + 65 = 196
    13. Sportsman (n): 50 + 60 + 80 = 190
    14. Lewis (e): 40 + 77 + 60 = 177
    15. CoarseDragon: 45 + 38 + 70 = 153
    16. Ben (r): 30 + 45 + 50 = 125
    17. Jiggs (z): 20 + 42 + 10 = 72

    And now for some useless stats...

    Average scores:
    Felix 64.12 ASchultz 67.52 Randxian 76.18 Total 207.82

    Standard deviation of scores:
    Felix 20.67 ASchultz 14.86 Randxian 21.25 Total 50.32

    Judges disagreed most on: Jason/Zipp then Lewis then Pickhut (range=40, 37, 36.) Or was it Lewis, with no judge within 17 of the other?

    Judges agreed most on: Genj

    board icon
    aschultz posted January 10, 2010:

    (My) editorial epilogue:

    I know I mentioned negative stuff even in the reviews I like--here I'm assuming that even in contests, people may be looking for some way to make their best even better and hopefully to avoid the criticisms they wanted to fix before. I know I do. With my own non-review writing I've come to have fun with it, and I hope my mini-critiques provide something like that, or open that sort of idea.

    A quote of CS Lewis's comes to mind, that God is easily pleased but hard to satisfy. We don't have to have a God complex to 1) pleased when we, or our friends, write something we'd wanted to, yet still 2) be aware/alert that there may be something to slip in or pare down. I'm aware I don't always take some of the advice I'm giving, but instead of feeling hypocritical I say, this is something I'll try to avoid being hypocritical about in the future. I think the same holds true for non-contest critiques. Seeing someone else do something and realizing you do it too kind of hurts. But it can be the quickest way to improve.

    More generally, the intersections/clashes between judges were interesting. There was some stuff I wasn't sure if I should say, but my colleagues corroborated. Others, I could see how/what they saw things differently. Hope everyone here with the ambition can integrate all three of our views for the future.
    board icon
    zigfried posted January 10, 2010:

    Interesting comment about the child bit, Mr Schultz. Whenever I think back on playing the game, I always remember "being a child". I didn't stop to do the math when writing, but at least I was still a couple years away from college!

    EDIT: and now it's fixed

    //Zig
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted January 10, 2010:

    Thanks Schultz and Rand for co-judging this inglorious competition alongside yours truly. Thanks, Schultz, for spending the better half of the day compiling these results.

    Congrats to Zig, Suskie, and Yami freaking Shuryou for not sucking. Lesser congrats to everyone else who took the time to write something up for our hallowed judging panel. Thank you. You're all champions in my eyes.

    board icon
    zigfried posted January 10, 2010:

    I've now finished reading the entire critiques for all reviews... there's definitely some good advice in there, well worth reading. Thank you judges!

    //Zig
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 10, 2010:

    Thanks for the comments, judges. I scored in the top 50% with this, which was basically the most that I had hoped to do since I didn't have a lot of options or time for games. I just wanted to show up with a decent effort, and I felt that I did. Judge commentary seems to indicate that I did, as well.

    ASchultz, I actually did play the game fairly extensively prior to reviewing it--given the genre--and did get most of the achievements. I think I missed two or three, but at least one or two of those couldn't be completed anyway because of the pitiful online scene. So I was pretty happy with my performance and with the chance that I gave the game to grab me before I wrote about it. I actually did enjoy it more than previous versions of Qix and Gals Panic that I've played, so I wasn't a total newcomer to the thing and had a few strategies developed that did serve me well.
    board icon
    Suskie posted January 10, 2010:

    Thanks to the judges for your extremely varied and insightful comments. Thanks as well for finally giving me an excuse to review this game! Congrats to Zig for pulling in a win, as well.

    Randxian: The conflict you noticed in my review was me trying to differentiate the game world versus the game itself, i.e., I liked that Crackdown encourages players to break out and explore, but I wish the actual campaign had more structure to it. My apologies for not explaining that clearly enough.

    Edit: Really, Schultz? Standard deviation?
    board icon
    Suskie posted January 10, 2010:

    Thank you very much, Zipp! Glad you liked the review.

    I'll now request 1000 HG points. Thanks.
    board icon
    True posted January 10, 2010:

    Felix, Rand and A-Man: Aside from the TT, this is one of the biggest tournaments we do around here and it takes a lot of time to organize and judge it, and you guys did an outstanding job--especially since the deadline fell right after a holiday weekend. So thank you, both for the critique and setting this whole thing up and making it fun.

    And to A-Man directly: I know you've been busy with other writing where you've prioritized proofreading--writing that is ultimately more important for you--and it shows, both here and there.

    I think this is your way of telling me you've started reading Darkness and in my dellusional mind, that you like it. So, again, thank you.

    I hope all three of you have some time in the upcoming weeks to take part in my Pro-Rookie tournament. Rand and A-Man are two of the main reasons I've opted to do it this year.

    True Baby Out.
    board icon
    randxian posted January 10, 2010:

    I just hope people find my commentary useful. To be perfectly honest, I didn't take as much time as I would have liked to provide feedback due to time constraints.

    Anyway, I feel Felix, Aschultz and I made a pretty darn good team and we seemed to be at least relatively close except for about three cases. I just say that because I don't want to be labeled as the "oddball judge" here. :P

    Last but certainly not least, participants should give themselves a pat on the back for putting so much effort in a contest with such strict limitations.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted January 10, 2010:

    Yeah, I cut out a lot of details of the game in favor of going in depth about its problems. I just didn't feel it was necessary to go into detail about the other aspects like the counter system when the flaws overshadow them so much.

    As for mentioning Bushido Blade so much, I was going to do a "plot twist" at the end of the review revealing all three games were developed by the same development team, and how they managed to screw up an interesting concept over the years. However, after doing a bit more research, I discovered the team left the company a few months before Kengo 9 was released. So, I wasn't 100% sure if they made the game before leaving or not. It didn't help that there are no development credits in both the game's instruction manual or ending credits... When I ran into this problem, the review was basically done, so I left the later Bushido Blade mentions in instead of editing.

    Anyway, thanks for the comments on the review. I tried working with the game, but it just wasn't giving me anything great to write about. And congrats to Zig for winning his... well, I lost count.
    board icon
    Lewis posted January 11, 2010:

    Some interesting results. Thanks to the judges for taking the time to critique.

    I do want to address Randaxian's comments, though, as they rubbed me up the wrong way a little, and I feel I'd be better politely discussing them rather than just moaning, or saying nothing at all and pretending I was okay with everything you said, Rand.

    So.

    I'm not sure if you're aware, but historically I've always used these contests as an excuse to flex my writing muscles, head out into uncharted territory and try something completely different. When I write here in freelance capacity, I'm on an assignment, and have a duty to make sure it's a solid and informative review that fits in with the site's aesthetic. I very rarely sub user reviews here, since I'm often far too busy with other writing assignments to just write for my own pleasure (except for on my One A Day blog, natch). So when these contests come along, that's my chance, my time, my space to experiment with new ways of approaching writing about videogames.

    So when you ask me "why screw that up?" -- well, that's why. Because if I'd carried on with the more traditional format, it would not have fulfilled what I set out to do in all of these contests. Whether it was successful or not is a different matter, but I almost get the impression your angle is "you shouldn't have tried this in the first place". Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how your comments come across.

    Of course, it's entirely your perogative to take that stance. That wasn't really what rubbed me up the wrong way -- I only mention it to give the piece a bit of context. What really made me raise an eyebrow was your claim that the piece is "completely obnoxious."

    This is one of those buzz words that always irritates me, because it says absolutely nothing of the quality of a piece of work while saying everything about your assumptions of the producer of that work. In no way can a piece of writing be obnoxious as of itself. It's like calling an art game "pretentious", or saying a film "tries too hard to be clever". When you call a piece of writing I've produced "obnoxious", you are suggesting - whether intentionally or not - that I wrote it with a deliberate attempt to be difficult or unpleasant. Which obviously I did nothing of the sort. The tangents were all revelant through their irrelevance. The point was to have each one get increasingly bizarre to mimic the sanity meter effects of the game, which was my central point about how the game worked. The Red Faction review and HL2 review linking were sly references to the other experimental reviews I've entered into these contests. They weren't "plugs" - again, you're here implying that I went into this with questionable motives. And that's a little cutting, y'know?

    Call that experiment unsuccessful. Say you hated every word of it. Say my writing is weak, say my messages are confused, say my arguments don't hold together. Say it's the worst review you've ever read. But when you start implying I went into it with some sort of purpose other than to write an entertaining and thought-provoking piece - that I was being obnoxious, or pretentious, or self-affirming, or whatever else one might want to go with - you're saying something about me, not about my entry.

    Does that make sense? I don't want to be a dick, because I appreciate judging these things is really difficult, and I know how I almost exploded in a fit of rage when one person HG-mailed me twice to complain about my comments on his review in the Team Tournament. So I do apologise for having this mini-rant. I just thought I'd... y'know, do it anyway.

    (Sorry. Love you really.)

    Congrats to everyone. We're all brilliant.
    board icon
    randxian posted January 11, 2010:

    Lewis - I may have been willing to let the interruptions slide, but the straw that broke the camel's back was plugging a different review at the end.

    At that point, it looked like you were trying to build a shrine to your greatness, not write a review for Eternal Darkness.

    Perhaps I did misinterpret your intentions. I still think you have a well written review, but the gimmick simply didn't work for me. It simply didn't make sense to use said gimmick when the review is perfectly fine without it.

    I simply don't understand the mentality around here that standard review = bad. Sometimes that can be a good thing. Sometimes less is more.
    board icon
    Lewis posted January 11, 2010:

    "I simply don't understand the mentality around here that standard review = bad. Sometimes that can be a good thing. Sometimes less is more."

    Does that mentality exist? It certainly doesn't from me. Thing is, I write several standard reviews a month. It makes up a sizeable portion of my job. Things like this allow me to flex my muscles. I would never suggest sticking to formula is a bad thing in reviewing. I'd hope you wouldn't say deviating from it once in a while was bad, either.

    Again - "plugging" the review. I was doing nothing of the sort.

    Eh. Maybe my piece just grated with you for reasons I didn't intend. That's probably the fault of how I presented it. But I don't want you to think that I'm this cock-sure arsehole who just wanted to show off how many big words he knew, or anything. I thought it was pretty explicit from that HL2 review link at the end that I was being pretty self-depreciating - I was trying to say "Hey, you think this is a load of complete nonsense? Well check this shit out..."

    All this said, I knew this review was ambitious. And perhaps I didn't pull it off. When I'd finished writing it, my Twitter update said "That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever written." So I guess I was setting myself up for a fall a little.

    No probs.
    board icon
    Lewis posted January 11, 2010:

    ALLLLSOOOO: Aschultz picking up on a Red Faction / Eternal Darkness comparison to show why ED worked and RF didn't? Absolutely stunning. I had no idea I was doing that, yet you read it as my central argument. That's definitely a problem with how I approached it. Honestly? The idea was just to suddenly start talking about a different game entirely, and I knew I wanted to put in a nod to my other ludicrous contest entries somewhere, so I just C&Pd directly out of that review. I love how you read more into it though. It makes me feel all fuzzy. :-)

    EDIT: Actually, I do want to add one more thing.

    As soon as I got assigned the letter "E", I got giddy. I immediately knew what I was going to write. The first game that sprang to mind was Eternal Darkness, which is obviously all about the sanity meter, which OHMYGOD was a chance for me to go completely nuts. Whenever I do one of these contests, I'm always thinking "how can I totally break format and do something completely against-the-grain?" because that's what I use them for as an exercise. But I'm also aware it hasn't always gelled well with everyone.

    So this was a piece I could only ever write here, with everyone understanding the context of a Lewis Denby contest entry, which is why I'm disappointed that it failed. That's only my fault, and I mean nothing against Rand when I argue his criticism, because to be honest, if it came across as if I was being obnoxious, then that's my fault as a writer, and not his as a judge. The intended reading, I guess, was "Oh, look. Lewis knows bloody well how ridiculous he's being, but ho ho, that's funny, because that's what Lewis does in these contests, and he's really outdone himself this time." No one picked up on that, and I could sit here all day and say "that sucks, because I thought these guys knew what I was about in these contests and would have latched onto that," but ultimately, I'm still supposed to be putting some good writing out. So that's a shame. Must try harder, eh?

    Thanks once again to the judges. You're all fab. Have Easter eggs on the house.
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 11, 2010:

    Fifth place. Not where I'd usually be hoping to place in this competition, as it means that I just picked up one more high placement that wasn't first place. But I'm still pretty happy. I'd been going through writer's block for the past couple months and barely writing anything. Having Avatar assigned to me and having this contest to write for kinda snapped me out of that, but I could still feel some rust on me while I was writing. When I finished it, I looked at it as a good review, but (in my opinion) lacking that special something that makes something a contest winner.

    Such is life. On to the next challenge. Which will be to finish a review that's been on my desktop for about a month because that aforementioned writer's block hasn't let me finish it.
    board icon
    Genj posted January 11, 2010:

    Haha pretty much what I expected considering I admitted beforehand it wasn't a good game for a contest. Glad to see my judgments weren't overly negatively. I actually thought about doing Assassin's Creed for the contest but hadn't finished the game in time. Incidentally, ASchultz, the game has the password system. I guess emulating it never made me even think about it since I could save state anytime. I'll be sure to add in a sentence since I probably have one of the few reviews for the game on the Internet.

    Congrats to Zigfried and my thanks to the judging panel.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted January 11, 2010:

    Thanks for judging and the feedback. I honestly wasn't expecting much with this review, so the scores I saw were about where I expected them to be.

    Felix: This review is better than the first draft I'd written up, which had started out sounding more like an academic essay than a review. I also found myself trying to cut down some of the lengthy paragraphs with shorter sentence structures, so in that sense, at least you didn't have to deal with those. =P As for my constantly criticizing myself, well... I dunno. I can only feel good about a review if I feel I really did a good job with it, and lately I just haven't been feeling like I've been doing a good job. =/ Sorry.

    That being said, Schultz pretty much nailed everything specifically wrong with this. A lot of the language I was using, especially transatory language like the "to be fair" bit was stuff that I'd probably cringe at in other reviews, and I did in my own. But I've been having such a problem lately with writing these that I don't feel like I can make the stuff flow together better in a more effective manner. I strongly feel that my college writing has started to impact my review writing, and not in a good way. I disagree that I should use my college style for reviewing because quite frankly, my college writing is very technical and very dull, and while some reviewers can write very technically and analytically and be really good at it, that just isn't my style and I don't feel that I have the knowledge necessary to pull it off. As it is now, though, I feel that some of these elements that I employ in college writing, such as the transitions I use and such, are creeping up in my reviews and in my mental process and it's strongly affecting my ability to write quality reviews, which is making me very sad.

    That being said, I'll try to explain some of the things you pointed out. The premise behind my review, at least with discussing the fluctuating humor and seriousness within the game, was to point out that the game had intended to be very dark and serious. Or so I thought anyhow. The humor, which is appreciated to some degree for comic relief, goes overboard and compromises - as opposed to just balances - that seriousness. I think this was the biggest problem - besides my writing itself - that you had with this, so I hope that helps. I wish I could've conveyed it better in the review, though.

    To randxian I'll try to explain the restrictedness (or lack thereof) thing. What I was trying to say with that was that players might feel restricted because they can't really explore large portions of the world at once. However, because of the difficulty involved, they won't likely notice this as they'll be too busy trying to get stronger in order to pass through the next area without much issue. Related to that, you can raise levels from any monsters you fight, but it's more effective to raise in stronger areas because of the extra experience. I also tried to say that any troubles with dying from random monsters clears up after a short while. Because of the levelling curves in the game, stronger areas don't seem as strong because you have more ways of healing yourself and can take more damage. Not really sure if that helps... I feel like the way I explained it made it more confusing. =/ Sorry for that.

    Anyway, thanks again. Maybe I'll do better next time if I can get out of this funk. Congrats to the winners and everyone else.

    P.S. Can you put spaces between all those flashy numbers and review / letter names, Schultz? It hurts my eyes seeing it all lumped together like that. Also, in the breakdown, it'd help if they were numerically ranked as well. Thanks. :)
    board icon
    darketernal posted January 11, 2010:

    Thanks for the comments. I would have been first, naturally, but due to my computer resetting every five minutes(when it manages to start up in the first place, which sometimes takes over an hour or so) I think I did good. This reply alone took a better part of the day of trying to make the computer work.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 11, 2010:

    Wolfqueen--done.

    Everyone who posted since--some stuff I definitely want to reply to but I am a bit busy. It's cool to see lots of other people with good stuff to say.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 11, 2010:

    Wow, can I please request this line up of judges again? That was the perfect mix of personalities to judge reviews, I feel. I'm going to feel slighted if I don't get this mix up of judges for the next contest.

    Thanks for the comments. I personally wondered whether I would be short changing the game a little bit but for me, the controls really WERE the experience. I found myself not wanting to play the game because I knew it controlled so badly. And I don't feel particularly bad about the approach I took, because obviously the review was well written enough to nab a 100 from one judge. But I can also see where, if I were to give a better rounded review next time, it will have wider appeal.

    Next time I'll do that, thanks!
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 11, 2010:

    These are good choices--it was interesting to see you acting as a phantom "4th judge" for the Alpha Olympics contest. I wanted to comment earlier but didn't want to spill anything.

    Hope you feel better soon.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 11, 2010:

    Zipp--2400 AD is a neat one.

    A: American Dream
    B: Blodia Land
    G: Great Deal
    H: Hottaman no Chisoko Tanken
    board icon
    nash posted January 11, 2010:

    Game: iS: Internal Section
    Platform(s): Playstation
    Publisher: Square
    Developer: positron
    Genre: Shooter
    Release Date: January 28, 1999

    Added

    Game: Raiden IV
    Platform(s): arcade, Xbox 360
    Publisher: Taito
    Developer: Moss
    Genre: Shooter
    Release Date: June 7, 2007 (arc), October 2, 2008 (360)

    Added
    board icon
    randxian posted January 11, 2010:

    Lewis - To be perfectly honest, I don't care if you or anyone else wants to argue my critcisms. I stated above I did rush the comments, so I may not have phrased certain things appropriately and I didn't get to put as much time explaining my scores as I would have liked due to personal emergencies this week. I realise we're a community of opinionated, pretentious bastards, all with our own opinions. I'm more than happy to elaborate on any comments that seem confusing or unfair. Doesn't bother me a bit.

    I also apologize if my cricism made it look like I was just trashing your review. It's obvious you put a lot of time and effort into that review, as with most contestants, so that alone is worth something. The approach simply didn't click with me. That's all there is to it. Maybe a different panel of judges would think it's the best review on the site. Who knows?

    Finally, I'm all for creative and innovative efforts, but some comments have seen appear to take this a bit too far. That's just my opinion, and I realize it's not prevalant all the time, and certainly not shared by every individual.

    Wolfqueen - Thanks for taking the time to explain that item a bit further. I suppose now that you mention it, what you wrote concerning that issue makes a certain amount of sense.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted January 11, 2010:

    Felix, Aschultz and Randxian: Thank you for your comments. As this was my first review ever I expected to fair much worse.

    I wrote the review mostly from memory so some parts (as were mentioned) were mixed a bit with other Ultima games. I suppose it could not be helped but I should have paid more attention to that (thank you for pointing that out). I did play the game long enough to get good screenshots to post with the review but I guess not long enough to remember everything I should have been more careful about.

    I could have gone on a very long time about the game and added much more detail but I was not too sure how that would be received. I was worried if I prattled on to much about the game and how much I enjoyed playing it that might seem sappy or prejudiced and people might think the review to biased or to opinionated. I wrote the review the way I like to read them short and to the point. I'll evaluate your comments some more and you can see if I learned anything in my next review. (If that is alright with you folks.)

    (Oh, and Felix CD is fine with me.)
    board icon
    yamishuryou posted January 11, 2010:

    Yo,

    Thanks for the feedback guys. My various comments;

    ASchultz: You needn't bother trying to read much of my other work (except for maybe Resident Evil 4). I gave up really on the whole reviewing thing a few years back, and recently decided to try getting back into the game. Surprisingly, just aging a few years seems to have done for my writing abilities what doing lots of reviews back in 2004, 2005, 2006 couldn't do. Gabriel Knight was something that I wanted to play and when the Alphabetolympics came up I decided to trade for a G for a convenient excuse to get myself to play it. I know you like your points-and-clicks as well, and Gabriel Knight is definitely worth looking into.

    Felix: lol what's with the whole 'freaking' thing? In any case, I'm glad to see that's what you liked about the whole review. I was doing a little bit of thinking while writing the review and decided that I'd rather not go for the whole flamboyant writing thing (well, flamboyant might be a bit too strong a word) where actual detail of the game gets buried under unwieldy phrase, so instead I tried to write it so that it was overall fairly short, did a good job of describing the game, and got out of there fast, with only a few witty lines and puns here and there. Again, judging by your feedback I seem to have done rather well on that.

    Rand: I guess I was trying to impress that there was all the talent working on the game, but the set-up to that might not have been as well as it could be, as you pointed out. Regarding it feeling a bit like a sectioned review (which Schultzy also pointed out), I quite realise that it's still a bit of a problem. I've been doing better than what I used to be like in that regard, as I try to assimilate graphics and sounds into the overall review (for example, the second last paragraph, I only use the first couple of lines on graphics, trying to connect it with the overall impression I've been spinning through the review so far). The biggest thing that I noticed I was changing while I was proofreading was when changing the beginning and ends of each line; instead of just breaking off to something else, I rewrote lines and parts of lines and beginning and endings of paragraphs so the thought process was a bit more seamless, like changing the end of the second paragraph and start of the third paragraph to connect them through a common theme of a morbid atmosphere.

    Overall, thanks guys! It's definitely inspiring to see myself place above a lot of people who in the past seemed like titans for me to catch up to their level. Like I said before, it seems amazing just how much aging a few years seems to have done for my writing.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted January 11, 2010:

    Yami: The whole "freaking" thing deals with my surprise at how much I liked your review. Sad truth: I wasn't expecting to like it as much as I did. Partially that's because I can't recall you writing a review in a long time. You have truly left me agog. Cherish "freaking" as if it were your middle name. You are truly beautiful.

    CD: Right on!
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted January 11, 2010:

    Does that make sense? I don't want to be a dick, because I appreciate judging these things is really difficult, and I know how I almost exploded in a fit of rage when one person HG-mailed me twice to complain about my comments on his review in the Team Tournament. So I do apologise for having this mini-rant. I just thought I'd... y'know, do it anyway.

    You know, it actually is surprisingly easy to move on past old passions and even forget about them when more pressing situations demand immediate attention. However, bringing them up randomly and indiscreetly can evoke bitter memories and is potentially a recipe for disaster. I'm certainly not proud of how I conducted myself in my own emotional outpouring, but I still think you fucked up. I know judging is difficult because I have done it before and at times very badly in my own opinion. I guess now you understand a little more in the sense of finding something objectionable, though you obviously have a more tempered way of going about it.

    To move on to more relevant subject matter, I would like to thank the judges for the time they put in and the feedback they provided. The best criticism always aims to provide positive and negative feedback, even if one or the other can be difficult to find.

    In regards to Felix's comments, I think the different elements I covered required different styles of writing, and I wasn't really sure how to integrate them cohesively, especially in the timeframe I left myself. Before I stopped writing reviews, my problem was always starting from nothing, and consequently not having enough information. These days I take notes as I play and jot down ideas when they come to me (usually in the shower), so that I end up having so much and not knowing what to cut (and as it is I still cut about 300 words from Baten Kaitos).

    ASchultz will force me to revisit this review because he said he knows I'll find time to make it better, and I don't want to turn him into a liar. I thought the comment about that statement being a weak generalization was very astute. For the voice acting bit, I want to cut down on verbiage without actually removing points, since I feel they're all important to that idea of "layered badness" - that all those related issues compound on and multiply one another to make something that's really bad.

    Rand, I certainly wasn't intentionally trying to point out that the game rips off FF7; that's probably just a side effect of pointing out that a game is loaded with JRPG cliches. I think there are other games it probably has more in common with. 7/10 is probably the most difficult score to write a review for since it probably requires the most delicate balance of positive and negative. I'm not sure how well I have truly achieved that balance, but as much as I bash the game, there is definitely still some very positive praise in there, and I wouldn't exactly say it's hidden. I also picked a game that was difficult to have a unified opinion on because it embodied such extremes instead of being a "uniform" 7/10.

    Finally, I would like to congratulate Yami Shoryou. Whenever there's a contest, even if I'm not the one judging, I read all reviews and try to gauge how they will place. When I read yours I knew it was one of the best in the contest and it was no surprise to me when the actual judges agreed, so nicely done.
    board icon
    yamishuryou posted January 11, 2010:

    Aw shucks thanks. The only caveat I ask is that you spell my name right :O
    board icon
    bloomer posted January 12, 2010:

    Is it just me, or is this entire thread in boldface?
    board icon
    jerec posted January 12, 2010:

    The judges gave out some really awesome comments. Makes me feel sad and ashamed for not getting my entry done.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted January 12, 2010:

    It's not just you bloomer. I thought it was something I accidentally did with my computer. It's probably something Jason accidentally did the last time he worked on site coding.
    board icon
    yamishuryou posted January 12, 2010:

    Instinctually blaming Venter for everything that goes wrong is a good habit to develop.

    (I kid, I kid...or do I?!)
    board icon
    randxian posted January 12, 2010:

    Rand, I certainly wasn't intentionally trying to point out that the game rips off FF7; that's probably just a side effect of pointing out that a game is loaded with JRPG cliches.

    I was actually amused by how subtle that seemed to have been accomplished; I certainly wasn't counting that against you. It's even funnier now that you mention you didn't intend that at all.
    board icon
    bloomer posted January 12, 2010:

    Between the reviews and the commentary, this topic has massive content. I've not read near all of it, but what I have read so far certainly makes me appreciate the efforts of all involved, especially the judges.

    Re: 2) Stop dissing your writing all the time. Who are you, Vegita from GameFAQs?

    I know it's snickerpussish to snicker at old in-jokes, but this did make me snicker.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 12, 2010:

    First, a big "wow" to all the comments here. It's great to read people's takes on this. Sometimes it feels tricky critiquing a review that's better than I've written recently.

    Zigfried--One of my red flags is "for the children" in political rhetoric so when I read that, I cringed. It doesn't happen often with your stuff. There's enough good emotion in there.

    Ben--This approach might be too audacious, but emphasizing "first impressions are important" and say if the game dragged you in enough to wish you had more time, or discussed if you wished you'd put it off. Motivational/assertiveness books I've read give several angles for stuff like not having all the skills suggested for a job and how to work around that without BSing. I'd be interested in your full work and hope to see it linked to on the front page one day.

    HG--yours was one of the toughest scores to judge, because I had to make a decision one way or the other. Looks like I guessed wrong. So I'm glad Randxian's score compensated for me a bit. This may bring up other issues with the game, like--is unlocking everything too easy?

    Suskie--standard deviations took 5 seconds in my spreadsheet program, so why not?

    True--you read between the lines! I've gotten bogged down in my own little work so I haven't gotten as far in yours as you like. Let me know if I forget to follow up. I'd like to participate in any tourney if I have a good enough review. Some, I just write to get stuff off my chest.

    Pickhut--hope you have time for the full review. It's an interesting idea.

    Lewis--don't blame you for trying crazy stuff (sometimes a plain-vanilla review is all the change of pace I can find from my own work assignments.) Your sort of review most frequently makes me say 1) He did it wrong! I'd do it like THIS, and with THIS review! or 2) He did it right, so maybe I can copy what he did/adapt it to my own style. In general with risky writing I try and picture what more it has going for it besides "you have to admit it's different." Over the years I've built up a library of stuff that seems different and original but isn't. Some of your ideas avoided this and tipped off some Big Ideas to tackle in unrelated genres, and I appreciate that. I keep forgetting to read your "regular" stuff and I need to fix this.

    Overdrive/genj--not much to say here but hope to see you both get back to writing about games you want to, if you have the desire/time. Good reviews for coming in cold off the bench and having letter restrictions.

    Wolfqueen--good idea switching from academic essay. I don't think that you should use college STYLE. I don't blame you for finding a place like here to get away from that. Just maybe use some of the methods to organize information, etc., or avoid errors of cohesion. I'm surprised how much writing a computer script has helped me organize larger writing works. Imagination and organization can coexist and even add to each other, even if it needs to be forced at first. That can be hidden later. And yes, keeping your class and review writing separate is a chore, but one I think will pay off. The best advice I can give is to put a ?! after a sentence that seems too technical in your reviews, then deal with it a day later.

    Darketernal--ouch! "Save often" should be guidelines, not requirements.

    Zippdementia--thanks for the comments even if maybe these weren't the scores you hoped. I think we all agree that tourneys are about more than getting points and when I go into one I look to gain one pivot to work on for later--whether it is what the judges said directly or something they tipped off.

    CoarseDragon--Thanks for being a very good sport about my comments. Factual errors do take a bit from a review, especially a retro one where we are closer to the only source. As for sounding too nostalgic etc.: the best advice I can give is, make your own mistakes! You learn from them quicker than others', or the mistakes you suspect society disapproves of less. You should have confidence you can fix them quickly, and you can have faith that people won't grill you here. And if something's really embarrassing, you can always edit it out later. I know it's tough to organize everything to look for in a review, and I noticed you got to the dungeons, but especially when you're starting out it's easy to think you did everything, or some combination, and things slipped through. And it's hard to put aside time to go through a game. I don't know how much you remember of how to get all the runes/stones/special items or finding the shrines, but going through the process was fun for me when I played it in 1999, as freeware, after making it to the Abyss back in '88. I'd be very interested in seeing what you thought of as overly nostalgic--this may take time to fix into something objective and insightful, but it's a great first step. If you're aware of the potential pitfalls, others will be able to help you with the details.

    Yami Shuryou--I know what you mean, or I hope I do. Looking over my old reviews, I say "hey, wait, why didn't I just say THIS" or "this detail is silly" etc and a lot of it was probably just from reading a lot more, or even plowing through my own writing. You might find a lot of concrete corrections to make--whether it's worth it to you is another matter. But over time I know I felt dissatisfied with my reviews and I didn't want to go back to them, and finally I did, first to the minor ones as warm-up and then to the ones most important to me. I'll check out what you recommended.

    Radicaldreamer--I was slightly frustrated I didn't have more to add, because I think there's a lot of game specific stuff to be added after you get rid of the stuff that maybe repurposed for another review. Don't feel obliged to rewrite it, or to do so immediately if you go through with it. I think I['m not the only one, though, who would be happy to see a blog entry or critique topic bump once you've had time to sit down and polish things.

    Jerec--I'd have liked to see you in the mix too, but you got a tough letter. I know that missing a contest has been the final push to do something I'd wanted to for a while, and there's never a wrong time to do something you may've wanted to do for a while.

    Bloomer--gosh thanks.

    It's great to have a bunch of people getting together and looking for better ways to write and avoid being a Mutual Admiration Society. Based on this topic's feedback, I admire everybody posting here for that. Wait, what I meant was...
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted January 12, 2010:

    ASchultz CoarseDragon--Thanks for being a very good sport about my comments.
    What else could I do?!
    Seriously though I really enjoy this site and what all you folks are doing for gaming and I just wanted to try to give a little something back. I really am terrible at critiquing my own work so I really do appreciate all the comments.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 12, 2010:

    By the way, I think it was actually Sportsman and Lewis who had the honor of being most disagreed upon in terms of scores by judges, not me and Jason.

    Me and Jason had a huge deviation between Randxian and the other two judges, but two of our judges agreed pretty much right on about what they thought.

    Lewis and Sportsman, on the other hand, have scores all over the board. Sportsman's review is a bit surprising in this regard, since it was a pretty straightforward review. Lewis', on the other hand, doesn't surprise me at all since it's more of an editorial piece and takes some risks with the whole reviewing format.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted January 12, 2010:

    Hey ASchultz, I don't really understand what you mean by the following:

    I think there's a lot of game specific stuff to be added after you get rid of the stuff that maybe repurposed for another review.
    board icon
    Suskie posted January 12, 2010:

    Ahem. Points. Please.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 12, 2010:

    Hm, I think I mis-remembered your review wrong, and what was in it. I think it may be more accurate to say there are some tough choices of what to cut, and even after cutting the general excess stuff, you may have to get rid of game details you really like. I tried but couldn't make any suggestions about what, so my critique has to end there.

    Yet at the same time, I want to read more about the game, from what you have.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted January 12, 2010:

    I've just awarded your 1,000 points.
    board icon
    Halon posted January 12, 2010:

    Congrats to Zig and thanks to the judges for reading through everything.

    Schultz is right, it was a last minute effort I wrote in 45 minutes max, no proofreading or anything which explains some awkward wordings. Glad I got my point across at least.

    Rand: I don't think a game needs to be difficult or something. I love Half Life 2 and that game was a joke. It's just that New Super Mario Bros was absurdly easy. Almost as if the developers wanted everyone to race to the end. I don't mind a game being on the easy side, but when you're earning 3-5 extra lives per level it is a little absurd.
    board icon
    Suskie posted January 12, 2010:

    Thank you, sir.
    board icon
    randxian posted January 12, 2010:

    Sports - I love SMB 2 for NES and all the NES Capcom Disney Games. That should tell you a bit about my stance on difficulty settings. I have no qualms with a game being "too easy."

    I suppose it can be excessive. It's just that argument didn't click with me since I have no objections to playing games that are easier.
    board icon
    Halon posted January 12, 2010:

    Well let me put it this way: a game better be damn good if it is going to allow me to march right through it how NSMB did. NSMB wasn't a great experience, so the complete lack of anything almost resembling a challenge didn't help its case at all.

    Now I'm not challenging your judging, just trying to clear it up. After rereading it agree that I didn't clarify that part as well as I could have. Writing at 2AM the night before it's due usually isn't a good idea. ;)
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 12, 2010:

    Aschultz: I was fairly brief in my comments this week because of the sickness (which is passing, thank the goddess). But I'm kind've glad it ended up that way, because I pretty much would've ended up iterating much the same things the judges did.

    Radical Dreamer's review almost won it this week for me, but I think you hit it on the head when you mentioned that it went a little overboard in terms of length and was a little too "listy," in that it jumped from paragraph to paragraph without much of a through line except that there were things the game did right and things it did wrong. A stronger throughline that dealt maybe more directly with how awful the story was might've held the attention better.

    As for Lewis' review, a part of me didn't want to give it a place this week because I was as frustrated by the judges by its arrogance and tendency towards tangentials. However, if there is one thing I can appreciate, it is a piece that makes intelligent observations on a genre and I really did feel like Lewis nailed some of the survival horror issues that developers struggle with so much, even clearing up some questions in my own mind about the genre. Now if only that could've been kept a little bit more focused on specific points about Eternal Darkness and stopped veering off into side stories about Red Faction and gaming conventions (which I have to admit came off as sounding a little bit like putting a resume into the review) I would've been all over it as an ROTW. I don't want to analyze Lewis' writing over much, because that would be annoying of me, but I do know that he does a lot of writing now as editor for Resolution and related works and I wonder if that editorial voice doesn't nag at him while he's writing reviews, which are admittedly another genre of writing than editorials.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted January 13, 2010:

    Could've had Orange Box finished a week ago, but instead of writing for Team Fortress 2, I just end up playing 2Fort sniper and doing nothing else. Never gonna get to Left 4 Dead at this snail's pace... D:
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 13, 2010:

    So, will 2010 by my year of great victory! Ah, who'm I kidding.... But it's fun to try!

    B = Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II AND Batman: Arkham Asylum

    D = Darwinia+ AND Doom 4 SNERDs

    E = Enchanted Arms

    F = Fire Emblem: Monshou no Nazo

    M = Modern Warfare 2

    P = Project: Snowblind

    S = Star Ocean: Till the End of Time

    T = Tecmo Secret of the Stars AND TwinBee 3

    V = Vandal Hearts: Flames of Judgment

    W = Wacky Races

    Y = Ys III: Wanderers From Ys

    IN. THE. WORKS. -- C or X, I guess.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 13, 2010:

    If I see one more wacky races review... grrr...
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 14, 2010:

    But....it's only the second one on this site....

    Which means SOMEONE ELSE needs to do a Wacky Races review to have a holy trio of them!
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted January 14, 2010:

    That is good.

    It just means that us mortals can catch up with you.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 14, 2010:

    Say! My current plan-sheet for W has a pretty wimpy game. Maybe I oughtta look into that.

    Or is it an unspoken rule that 2 people shouldn't use the same game for this, as the intent is to cover all games?
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 14, 2010:

    There's no such rule, Andrew. I personally prefer to see people cover games that others haven't, of course, but I see this particular event as something fun for each of us to try independent of that.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 15, 2010:

    And anyway, I'm just being snarky. Write as... many... wacky racer... reviews as... you... want............


    ........ that wasn't easy.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 15, 2010:

    Thanks--I confess, I was just trying to get a reaction.

    I agree this is a great way to motivate reviews I'd wanted to write a lot but never got to. Turned up some neat old games too. I've been able to find better games along the way, too--whether that translates to better reviews, others must judge.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted January 16, 2010:

    weighing in at over a hefty 400kb I finally finished Dragon Ball Z: Attack of the Saiyans

    soon I will descend into a megalomaniacal rage as I start working on Lock's Quest again
    board icon
    board icon
    Cpt_Guapo posted January 17, 2010:

    Thanks a lot, Sir!
    board icon
    randxian posted January 17, 2010:

    Okay ladies and gentlemen, let's get this ROTW show on the road and grant one lucky reviewer a featured review for the site. Really like the effort I saw this week. Even those who didn't place here did an excellent job by describing the games in question and giving honest assessments. Without further ado, here are the results:










    Third Place: Brutal Legend by genj

    Woah! Nice intro! I like how you give a taste test of the game play, the weapons, and the music all at once. This review goes from 0-90 in a split second. You certainly didn't fool around and got right to the task at hand.

    This reivew is chalk full of vivid descriptions of the game play. I enjoyed reading about battling beasts in KISS make-up and the demonic nuns, not to mention ordering around an army of headbangers. You certainly put some oomph into making this game sound exciting.

    One issue I have is in the second to last paragraph, you mention some of the tracks are questionable. Elaborating on why said tracks are questionable would be helpful here. I also don't care for your statement in the conclusion. If you have to freely admit the review is confusing, then you have a problem. Ironically enough, I wasn't confused and felt this does read like a 7/10 review. There are certainly enough positives sprinkled in your negative points to warrant at least some interest from me, especially since you open with a bang.

    Really, the writing here is fine for the most part. There is no need to sand bag during the conlusion. Your introduction is spectacular. You manage to provide enough interesting nuggets about this game to make me wish I owned an X-Box 360 so I could at least rent this game. That's quite a feat considering I'm one of those people who just brushed off the X-Box as a system with no games that would interest me. From what I can tell, all your complaints seem valid and you present them as someone just trying to given an honest assessment instead of someone just trashing the game.










    Second Place: Brodia Land: Puzzle Quest by aschultz

    Once again, this is a well written and informative review. I'm particularly impressed with the pacing. You don't horse around with a long winded intro; instead you roll your sleeves up and get into the nitty gritty of the game. Since some people may be a bit trepidatious concerning puzzle games, it's nice you explain how this one isn't too frustrating and throws in some power ups and mini games to help lighten the mood.

    My only problem is with paragraph four. For one thing, I would like to see a few more examples of these power ups you mentioned. Second, I'm a bit confused about the sentence that talks about sacrificing lives, which immediately follows a description of a power up that allows the player to skip levels. So does that mean these power ups mentioned beforehand are so off the beaten path you'll have to sacrifice lives to get them? Or did you mean something else entirely? I'm not entirely sure here.

    No big deal. You more than make up for that with the rest of the review, which doles out information at a good pace. Excellent work as usual.










    Winner Winner Chicken Dinner: Uncharted 2: Among Thieves by Suskie

    "Call Uncharted 2: Among Thieves a cinematic experience all you want, but that alone never would have sold it to me, because a game needs to function as a game to be worth my time." Wow. I really wanted to stand up and appluad when I read that. Kuudos for referencing other movies and video games that are well known to help illustrate your points instead of making a bunch of esoteric references. I found the Prince of Persia refernce really helpful in the second paragraph.

    Nice job handling paragraph five. I appreciate how you whet my appetite without really spoiling anything important. I felt throughout the review you provided sufficient examples without going overboard.

    While the review is certainly well written, to some degree you go against your wonderful line by spending the majority of the review gushing over the cinematic aspect. On the other hand, you do cover the game play portion too, so it's not a huge deal. I also like how you speculate on how the game truly holds up minus the cinematic flair. That convinces me you're giving an honest(pun intended) assessment of the game in question.

    This is a damn fine review. You do a great job of incorporating fundamental and subtle touches that amount to a fantastic finished product. Most importantly, you made sure this is a review that can be understood by any audience.








    board icon
    Genj posted January 17, 2010:

    I'm probably going to change the conclusion since that's now two people that thought it didn't seem as negative as I thought (I felt like I was writing a 5 or a 6 - frankly I'd have probably shot for a 6 if it weren't for the game's humor). Never occured to me that name dropping Cradle of Filth and Manowar wasn't enough of an explanation. I forgot not everyone knows how notoriously bad those bands are. Thanks for the critique though and congrats to Suskie and ASchultz. Incidentally, the game is on PS3 as well...
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 18, 2010:

    Whoa whoa whoa... is that three Suskie wins in a row?

    You're not allowed to write a review next week.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 18, 2010:

    Is it possible to add an entry for Castlevania: Symphony of the Night on the PSN? I've got a review waiting to be posted for it. Did you want me to post it under PSN (where I played it and where it is available for download and still being heavily advertised as such) or do you want me to go with the old PSX?

    Game: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night/Akumajō Dracula X: Gekka no Yasōkyoku
    Platform: PSN
    Publisher: Konami
    Developer: Konami
    Genre: Action-Adventure
    Release Year: 2007 (PSN) 1997 (original)

    Added
    board icon
    Suskie posted January 18, 2010:

    Zipp stole my words; I'm one win away from dominating the Featured Reviews box! So thanks for the win and congrats to Schultz and Genj for their mentions as well.

    You make a very fair point about the apparent contradictions in my review, Rand, and it's one of the reasons I had trouble writing it. I'm not sold by cinematic appeal alone, which is why I brought up BioShock -- phenomenal production values, but the game itself was average. On the other hand, Uncharted 2 has the basics down pat and uses its production values to elevate the experience to a whole new level. That sort of flair can't make a bad game good, but oddly enough, it can make a good game great.

    I request 1000 HG points. Thank you.
    board icon
    woodhouse posted January 19, 2010:

    Boom. 1000 points to you.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 19, 2010:

    Thanks and congratulations to Suskie and Genj, who definitely had more ambitious reviews than I did & it's good to see Genj back in the swing of things and putting quality into his potential Alpha Olympics run. It was good to see some other good reviews for the week as well.

    I agree I have some stuff to clean up there. I tried working at the review and FAQ at once, and that's how stuff can slip through. Would almost certainly not have been enough to get the top spot, but a good reminder to focus or just wait a few days/proofread a bit later.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 19, 2010:

    Are there any conventions to use while doing this?

    Do people submit and proofread at their own risk? For instance, if reviewer X submits on Tuesday and proofreads Saturday afternoon, is it the RotWer's responsibility to wait for the final proofread? Or is it legitimate for the RotWer to start reading before the end of the week?

    I'm asking because I want to give RotW feedback (eg for 4th- and 5th-place writers so as not to clutter the main topic) as soon as possible without delaying the feedback process unnecessarily. I am also considering giving feedback topics, and I am wondering if doing so before Saturday midnight would give unfair advantages to whomever I notify first.

    Also, is there any set number of days we should have RotW out by? 1-2 days seems ideal. And how far in advance is it ideal to let people know if we can't complete RotW judging? I don't want too many rules, but a few set general guidelines could give us something to check off on.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 19, 2010:

    1) The conventions are as follows:
    - Only three reviews can place each week (which also means that only three should be mentioned within the review topic, though you are always welcome to post feedback in the individual topics)
    - Only one review per person can place
    - Only one winner

    Aside from that, it's really up to you how you want to format it or pick the winner. Some people like to drama it up, some people get technical, some use line breaks between each review, others put a border around them. Generally it's good manners to link to the review. It takes a little more time but it's nice to advertise for those who placed with an easy link to their work.

    2) Proofreading
    Once a review is submitted to the site, it's on the site. You have no obligation to hold back from reading it. If someone really wants you to re-read it, they should personally let you know that they have re-edited it. We do wait until Sunday to post the reviews, so that stragglers (and the British) can make it on Saturday night.

    3) How many days...?
    Generally you'll get a message from me bugging you about not having finished the ROTW if I don't see it by Wednesday after the week you were assigned. Life happens and sometimes people are late, but that's really the cut off date. After that, we call in Jerec.

    As for letting us know in advance, it's an ASAYK (As Soon As You Know) thing.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 19, 2010:

    Bump
    board icon
    honestgamer posted January 19, 2010:

    2) Proofreading
    Once a review is submitted to the site, it's on the site. You have no obligation to hold back from reading it. If someone really wants you to re-read it, they should personally let you know that they have re-edited it. We do wait until Sunday to post the reviews, so that stragglers (and the British) can make it on Saturday night.


    Not entirely true. When I do the topics, I generally post it around 10PM to 11PM on Saturday night, which is the preferred timeframe that pretty much no one else has ever followed because RotW people have lives or something (the nerve!). The official cutoff for years has always been 9PM local site server time on Saturday night. Waiting until Sunday to post accomplishes nothing, because any reviews posted in the wee hours of Sunday morning are only eligible for the next week, anyway!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 19, 2010:

    Well that's good to know. Nonetheless, I generally wait until Sunday these days because my brain stops working after 9:00pm. That's video game time.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 19, 2010:

    Thanks, good to have these questions answered! Most of what's mentioned is about what I expected but there are some neat points I hadn't considered.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted January 19, 2010:

    Oh. Now that I'm back at school with better internet access, I can throw my name in the reserve pool. I wouldn't want to commit fully in case something comes up or I become too busy, but I'll at least make myself available for back up if it should be needed and I can spare it.

    Anyway, the months I'll be available for, then, would be the rest of January until the start of May, and then from September until the start of December.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 19, 2010:

    Good luck with school, WQ.
    board icon
    randxian posted January 19, 2010:

    Once a review is submitted to the site, it's on the site. You have no obligation to hold back from reading it.

    That's a good rule to enforce. Otherwise, the ROTW judge essentially has to cram reading and judging 5-10 reviews within a short time span. It's rough on me, and I'm sure others, since I have to work weekdays and thus must make the most of my weekend spare time. Not having to hold off on Friday night and Saturday is good news.

    board icon
    aschultz posted January 20, 2010:

    I forgot to write here seeing as how some of these were alpha olympics reviews. But roughly, yeah, I agree with the choices and criticism. Guess I'll try to get the Alpha Marathon done early this year to avoid a glut later.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 24, 2010:

    Any word from Aschultz? I know he was all geared up for his first ROTW. Hopefully he didn't have a heart attack from the excitment.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 25, 2010:

    I needed to sleep on the ordering. It'll be up today. Hopefully at lunch.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 25, 2010:

    This was a close RotW, as three good reviews by three good reviewers vied for the top spot. Each had its plusses and minuses, and either of #2 or #3, with some positive futzing, could've leapt to #1. I felt slightly on the spot potentially keeping Suskie's RotW streak alive, then I still did potentially breaking it, and I thought it best to sleep on it to remove that distraction. Still I flipped the order a few times.

    THIRD PLACE: Spaceworlder Torneko

    I like this review because although I disagree with the first line--I often like half-forgetting dungeon layouts, or even assuming I have to do something in a certain order. For me it's neat to find a quick way through a dungeon and enjoy the side bits a bit more. I also like the name-dropping in the second paragraph--nothing too fancy, yet combining some interesting titles and concepts, and why they work. I suppose I'd be curious just to check that each floor contains the same bosses, ultimately. And I'm curious about the plot--how many levels are there? Do you need to knock bosses off? What disappears for good if you return to the town? Is there one? How *tough* is it?

    I'm not sure how best to put this sort of custodial information into a review without drying it too much, since roguelike reviews can get technical quickly, but my attention meter was close to 100% at the end, so you could've fit in. As for technical stuff, maybe parentheses are used a bit too much, and rhetorical tricks too: "No, really, it is" is one example, and "The real centerpiece" is a lazy transition that leads to some tangling in the explanation--an example might be good there, as I suspect certain item combos work better on certain monsters. The last paragraph also feels abrupt. But these complaints are minor.

    Still, this is a good, succinct review about a game with a simple concept that provides a good idea of what the author finds fun and why the game works. Half makes me want to dust my PSX off and look around on eBay.

    SECOND PLACE: Suskie Borderlands

    While the author admitted this is a rough review in places, with some of the conversational bits falling a bit flat and the narrative voice wandering (I Guess and Trust Me clash mightily,) it covers what the creators expect, what the player should expect, and why this game works while others do/don't. The problem is that a lot of the review wanders around before getting to the point, so the ease of reading doesn't get us anywhere, and on rereading there was a lot less meat than I thought. The repetition doesn't really build to anything--it feels like someone trying to keep your attention.

    For instance, "I guess" and "Trust me" are conversational things that clash mightily in a review. "Alex thats my roommate " is the sort of un-Suskie-like thing that made me cringe. And sentences like "Its a predictable game, but only in the sense that its not doing anything new." make sense later--nothing new in the mechanics--but this feels like a failed Oscar Wildeism. Stuff like 17 million weapons gets through nicely, though I don't think the story feels unique--I mean, you could argue a similar experience happens with an arcade game and a continue feature. Healing with time doesn't seem unique either, unless the closer you are, the more you heal?

    A day of proofreading and this review, the most ambitious, would've jumped past the other two pretty easily.

    FIRST PLACE: Genj Ghostbusters

    This is a fun review that contrasts nicely with True's annoyance about a game he looked forward to but that wound up sucking for him. It sounds like it's good as a bargain title but not a full priced one. Ghostbusters seems to be a good game to write about because people understand the cultural phenomenon. This review doesn't make any big mistakes and the examples are pretty fun and straightforward without dipping into "the controls work like such." Some transitions near the end are awkward, but the review is enjoyable and informative, the best paced of the three, and gets away with a crack at Sigourney Weaver.

    There's some cleanup work for the review. Passive voice pops up a lot ("Weapons should be chosen.") "Basically" and parentheses get overused. (Yes, I'm hypocritical. I'm just spraying examples, though.) Maybe an example of the new dialogue would be nice.

    This is poking, though. In the end, this review is much like it claims the game to be--fun you can sit down and enjoy, with some small flaws, but it works overall. This has the higher signal-to-noise ratio, so it ekes out a win.

    Credit to Suskie, though, for leaving the unfinished result out there. And for having a good streak going. There may be others in the future. I hope so.

    Credit also to the three reviewers who all tried interesting stuff, even if it didn't quite work for me. Winning being less important than willingness to try new things, etc etc so forth.
    board icon
    Suskie posted January 25, 2010:

    While the author admitted this is a rough review in places

    I did? My original draft had a lot of typos, and that's what I was talking about. I agree, though. Not one of my best by a mile. It played out better in my head, but the finished review kinda jumps all over the place. Interesting comment about my conversational tone, though, because other people have told me that's one of my strengths as a reviewer. I guess it all comes down to preference, which makes sense since it's more of a stylistic choice than anything else.

    Thanks for the mention and congrats to Genj and Space for their placements.
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 25, 2010:

    When I say "rough places" I don't mean typos. With the reviews I've read here, typos are usually not an issue--we're all at the next step up, at the very least. I mean the sort of conversational stuff that really doesn't feel fleshed out. I tend to be wary of conversational stuff, so it takes time for me to evaluate how potent it can be & hopefully not ultimately impose my own dogmas on my critiques.

    I know you've pulled it off before, but I think the key things I look for are 1) no contradictions/cross-purposes, 2) no talking one's way into a contradiction and out of it and 3) no dressing stories up too much. This can be annoyingly subjective for the reviewer and the critiquer, but in some respect, every review is a gamble, or it should be to avoid dryness.

    One heuristic I use to ID if conversational works is picturing myself listening to it on the phone--and would I hang up? Or overhearing coworkers talking about it--would I get up and walk away? Or seeing if people would stick around to listen if talking to them physically. This isn't perfect, and you may find something that works for you. You likely already have. But I want to give some idea of how I look at things.
    board icon
    Genj posted January 25, 2010:

    I'm pretty surprised that I prevented TOTAL SUSKIE DOMINATION with Ghostbusters of all things (especially since I just kinda wrote because of insomnia and the power being out).

    Congrats to Suskie, spaceworlder and everyone else who wrote this week. Thanks for the commentary, Schultz.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 25, 2010:

    Congratulations on joining the ROTW team, Aschultz. Good first ROTW, here.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted January 26, 2010:

    well I did some work on Spirit Tracks first

    Today I ripped through Lock's Quest, getting a little bit over a quarter of the game done in a six hour period. Tomorrow I will probably finish the rest up (about a fifth).
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted January 26, 2010:

    Toss me in as a reserve judge. Lord knows I have the spare time.
    board icon
    heroofthewinds posted January 26, 2010:

    Well, how this place has changed! Maybe Jason remembers me when this site was still a little tyke in trousers. For all you guys that don't know me, my name is Zak, currently finishing up my last few months in Pittsburgh as a game design student, then it is off to where ever the wind takes me. My has this place changed!
    board icon
    randxian posted January 26, 2010:

    For some reason, I have a hankering for Cheetos.
    board icon
    EmP posted January 27, 2010:

    Once upon a time, there was an annual tournament made more famous by a hilarious typo rather than the team-based battling it promised. Its probably about time we rolled out the fifth version before behind the scenes nagging lead to premature suicide.

    Gather around and bathe in the glory that is Challange V. One more year, and Ive finally caught up with Rocky.

    THE RULES, for those not mired in legend, are simply enough: Challange is a team event, being made of teams of four who group together to produce a combine tally of their review scored. There are several things to keep in mind:

  • Each member of each separate team must write a review for a completely different genre than that of their team mates. If member A writes Final Fantasy IX, member B cannot write for Persona 3.

    Thats the rules over with.

    The four reviews will then be scored by a currently phantom judge panel, the lowest of the four removed for the final tally. With this in mind, risk-loving teams are welcome to field squads of three. They may want to avoid numbers any lower than that, however.

    Deadline is February 27th 00:00 odd HG time the end of Saturday. Youre free to make your teams as you wish, or to advertise yourself here in the hopes of being picked up by a greedy captain.

    GO!

    JUDGES:

    Will
    Ben
    True
    Masters

    TEAMS:

    TEAM EmP
    EmP: Modern Warfare 2
    DoI: Tatsunoko vs Capcom
    DE: Ninja Blade
    WQ: Plants vs Zombies

    Another Team:
    OD: Fire Emblem
    Zipp: Hello Kitty Party
    Schultz: Dark Heart of Uukrul
    Suskie: Bioshock 2

    Trio the inability to understand the basic meaning of Trio:
    Zig: Enemy Zero
    BBob: Savage 2: A Tortured Soul
    Jason: Heavy Rain
    Janus: Hook Champ
  • board icon
    randxian posted January 27, 2010:

    Would prefer to compete, but I'm willing to judge if there aren't enough judges.
    board icon
    Genj posted January 27, 2010:

    Consider me in the draft pool.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 27, 2010:

    I like this contest. I enjoy judging but it's hard to turn down the possibilities of co-op. I'll wait and see what teams are looking like, but I'll be involved one way or the other.
    board icon
    Suskie posted January 27, 2010:

    Yeah, throw my name in for this one.

    Edit: I don't have plans and I more or less don't care whose team I'm on, so if anyone's interested, give me a shout.
    board icon
    Masters posted January 28, 2010:

    I have a feeling a certain British curmudgeon is going to call me out on a favour I owe him. I guess I'm one of the judges then, Emp?
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 28, 2010:

    I'm all about the participation!
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted January 28, 2010:

    All who wish to be a part of BELISARIOS'S LITTLE CHAMPIONS say I!!!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 29, 2010:

    Me and you, OD. Let's team up.
    board icon
    darketernal posted January 29, 2010:

    Yeah, alright.
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 29, 2010:

    Me and you, OD. Let's team up.

    Works for me. Who else wants to be on the championship team?
    board icon
    randxian posted January 30, 2010:

    Zipp and OD - I'd like to join your merry band, if you don't have any objections. I'm planning on using sports for my category, freeing the rest of the team to use more common genres.
    board icon
    EmP posted January 30, 2010:

    Team EmP has been built. It will contain NO surprises.

    Masters: You can either judge or build a team of retired oldies you dig up from the cold earth yourself to try and retake the world.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted January 30, 2010:

    <---- judge? :D
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 31, 2010:

    I'm in, with my usual pile of obscure/oldie puzzlers/RPGs.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted January 31, 2010:

    Zipp, OD, Rand and... Aschultz? How's that sound?

    EDIT: I think I know which game I'll be reviewing, too, if my PS3 doesn't die on me... the fan sounded unusually loud today. I'll take FPS genre, if there are no objections from OD (Rand I know is taking sports and Aschultz, if he joins us, is in a category of his own).
    board icon
    randxian posted January 31, 2010:

    Works for me. Party on!
    board icon
    aschultz posted January 31, 2010:

    We would have the perfect team name, too, us all writing RotW. "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged" or, just "Judge Not Lest" if that is ok with y'all. "Judgernaut" and "Active-reviewist Judges" are other bad puns. I'm sure there are more.

    I don't think I've teamed with any of you before, and I think it'd be a good experience. So if there's no veto from Overdrive...it'd be a lot of fun. I have a few good ideas.
    board icon
    Suskie posted January 31, 2010:

    I might have to offer my services as a judge if no one wants me on their team. Then again... how many teams do we have? Two? Where is everyone?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted January 31, 2010:

    They all vanished into the great time portal that is Destiny never to be seen again except on rare occasions when the Rift reopens and their ethereal souls linger just long enough to make a contribution.
    board icon
    overdrive posted January 31, 2010:

    I VETO IT!!!!

    Just kidding, this team works out great for me! Rand's doing sports, Zipp's doing FPS...what are you bouncing around, Schultz? I have a good deal of flexibility with Dragon Age: Origins (RPG), Batman: Arkham Asylum (action), Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (also action), Fire Emblem (first SFam one that was a remake of the Fam one with a sequel tacked on...Turn-based strat) and could possibly work something else depending on what I feel like in Feb.
    board icon
    True posted January 31, 2010:

    Throw my name in there, Emp. I'll ultimately leave it up to you on what part I play, but I'm down for either role.
    board icon
    Masters posted February 01, 2010:

    Then again, Emp, you have yet to hold up your end of the bargain!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 01, 2010:

    Here's my team:

    THE SIGN UP BUT THEN DON'T BOTHER TO WRITE ANYTHING TEAM
    1. Janus.
    2.
    3.
    4.
    board icon
    aschultz posted February 01, 2010:

    Overdrive, check your HGMail. (VEIL OF SECRECY!) Rand and Zipp, hgmail me if you want to see a first draft. I want to write something cool, special and unusual. That's what contests are for.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 01, 2010:

    Oh shit! This is my week.

    Uh, if any substitutes could step up and do this one for me, I'd like be all grateful. I'm swamped at work today and at least part of tomorrow and also have a couple reviews I'm working on. I could get it out Wednesday or so if no one can get it done before then, so it's no emergency, but since we do have a few people interested in subbing, I figured I'd make the offer.
    board icon
    Masters posted February 01, 2010:

    Here's my team:

    Marc Golding
    Masters
    arashikage
    daremo
    board icon
    EmP posted February 01, 2010:

    That's the worst team in the history of teams ever. Aside from [your local sports team] of course.
    board icon
    aschultz posted February 01, 2010:

    You're right, EmP. Without HOVA, them's a bunch of busters.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 01, 2010:

    I suggest Will, who just posted that he has a bunch of free time.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 01, 2010:

    I agree with Zipp's sentiment.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 01, 2010:

    I concur with your agreement.

    This is going to be fun.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 02, 2010:

    Hello ladies and gents. I'm going to do this Review of the Week a bit differently than normal: instead of presenting my comments on each piece in order of placement, I'll present them in the friggin order they were written, then announce placement. Feel free to crucify me if you don't like this style.

    There were only four reviews subbed for this week, and they were all really close, so I thought I'd comment on them all. The only thing I'd like to say beforehand is, if it seems my comments are exceedingly negative, that's because these are all really good reviews. Assume stuff I don't talk about is good by virtue of omission or something, or whatever, we're all mature enough not to need ego-petting.
    __________________________________________________

    Pickhut - Bayonetta (Xbox 360)

    I'm one of those people who's on the fence regarding personal anecdotes as opening paragraphs, despite my own flirtations with them. I've seen good examples, but this is not one of them. It's a bit rambley, especially the Contra tangent, and as someone who'd never even touched a Contra title I was more than a little off-put, not to mention my lack of reference frame left me without the faintest idea of what you were saying. The review really begins with Paragraph the Second, right around where you start talking about difficulty and wacky humor. That's a good opening line, and the rest of that paragraph follows suit. That says to me the whole first paragraph is, well, junk.

    The rest of the review is fairly smooth sailing, save the couple of run-on death-by-comma sentences that are akin to hitting the curb on a bicycle. There's a lot of qualifiers strewn about(However, But, For Me At Least) that weaken your narrative voice and leave me with an underwhelmed impression. Which is fine, but doesn't mesh with the 8/10 score you've given it. An 8/10 says to me "This is a good game", whereas the tone of this review is closer to "This is an acceptable game". It just doesn't feel energetic enough, especially for an over-the-top balls-to-the-wall game like Bayonetta.
    __________________________________________________

    Randxian - NCAA Football 09 All-Play (Wii)

    This review surprised me. I've never really been interested in sports, and even less interested in sports games. Nevertheless, I somehow managed to enjoy this review. I grinned, chuckled, and on one occasion giggled, all of which indicate to me that I need to read more of your stuff. Anyway, this piece is clear and concise, and wraps itself up into a neat little package when it's all done.
    __________________________________________________

    Felix_Arabia - Assassin's Creed II (Xbox 360)

    This has the whole strong narrative voice thing goin' on, which makes the review easy to read and take something away from. Despite that, it feels a bit...well, sterile, in the same way that Pickhut's review was. It tells, rather than shows the game's vibrant energy and atmosphere, and that's an unfortunate thing to have to take at your word because Firenze, Venezia, Toscana are all so fantastically and meticulously detailed. You say it, I'm just not feeling it.

    I thought I'd be biased in favor of this piece, having played AssCreed2 myself, but I'm wondering if my own experience with the game is bias against. You've done an adequate job of reviewing this game, but I don't think you've quite done it justice.
    __________________________________________________

    Aschultz - Joshua and the Battle of Jericho (NES)

    "Wordy" comes to mind here; first time reading through this piece I had to stop and go back over sentences a few times. Then once I'd finished, I had to read over it again before I really understood you. I think this review suffers from information overload; there's a lot of info crammed in here in what I can't help but classify a haphazard manner, more akin to rattling off details about a game than describing what it's like. Of course, once I got my head around the way it's organized and started to make sense of it, I came away with a pretty clear picture of what this game's all about.
    __________________________________________________

    The Results

    Third Place: Aschultz
    Second Place: Felix_Arabia
    First Place: Randxian

    Honorable Mention: Pickhut
    board icon
    aschultz posted February 02, 2010:

    Thanks Will, for stepping in so quickly and for the recognition. I'll look into that review again, as I had a lot of fun writing it and cut it down several times.

    Congrats to randxian. It took you fewer tries than I did for your first RotW!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 02, 2010:

    Randxian, congratulations! I knew it was only a matter of time before you made the ROTW!

    Will, thanks so much for taking this on short notice. OD owes you a beer.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 02, 2010:

    I think that's Master's crack team of judges.
    board icon
    randxian posted February 02, 2010:

    Actually, this is my second. My Tales of the World: Radiant Mythology review, which was also used for Brevity or Bust, also won.

    I need to extend a big thanks to Woodhouse, who made suggestions in my blog after I posted my rough draft. It looks like running with his advice paid dividends. My initial draft was almost a completely different review.

    Edit: I just realized Will's first ROTW attempt is eerily similar to my first ROTW attempt. That is, there were only a few reviews, but they were all of exceptional quality. I gave the win to Schultz, but one could easily have made a case for Suskie's and LowerStreetBlues' pieces as well.

    Same thing here. I agree all four reviews here are pretty darn good and any could have won the top spot.

    You would think fewer reviews would mean an easier job for the ROTW judge. Unfortunately, it seems to be the opposite. How peculiar... O_O
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 02, 2010:

    That was fun. If anyone else needs a last-minute sub for their week, I'd love to do this again.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 02, 2010:

    Good job, Will. Thanks for doing that.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 02, 2010:

    Clearly we're all just too damn good at what we do.
    board icon
    Masters posted February 03, 2010:

    The return of the Felix.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 03, 2010:

    Great job, Will! That allowed me to spend last night playing the first SNES Fire Emblem with a clear conscience. Which inevitably turned into blinding rage as that game might be the most brutally harsh turn-based strategy game I've ever played, where one minor tactical mistake WILL lead to someone dying and me restarting the level (or from my last freeze state, as I like to give myself 2-3 "in-level saves" to keep my blood pressure down a bit).
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 03, 2010:

    Err...glad I could...help?
    board icon
    randxian posted February 03, 2010:

    That allowed me to spend last night playing the first SNES Fire Emblem with a clear conscience. Which inevitably turned into blinding rage as that game might be the most brutally harsh turn-based strategy game I've ever played, where one minor tactical mistake WILL lead to someone dying and me restarting the level (or from my last freeze state, as I like to give myself 2-3 "in-level saves" to keep my blood pressure down a bit).

    Yep, one mistake and someone bites the dust for good. Isn't Fire Emblem great? :D
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 03, 2010:

    Good job on the win, Rand. Thanks for doing this quickly, Will.
    board icon
    aschultz posted February 04, 2010:

    Dark Heart of Uukrul FAQ done.

    I now have two half-circles at GameFAQs to go. They're actually more like 99/100-circles. Once they're done I may throw in the towel. Also, QBert 3 got a full circle for no reason and I want to fix that.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted February 04, 2010:

    I would like to announce a new team, currently consisting of:

    Me
    Zigfried

    More to come, including a name and new members!
    board icon
    aschultz posted February 04, 2010:

    Nice to have you aboard, Will--would be glad to see you again.

    By the way, what is the word on RotW judges judging in a contest? Is there anything to watch out for? That seems like a great time to bring in a guest judge...
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 04, 2010:

    I like the name "Another Team." Shall we keep that? Or shall we add "Just Another Team" to the title?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 04, 2010:

    I don't think it's usually considered a problem.
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 04, 2010:

    To Radicaldreamer, I propose that we name our team Trio the Punch as a tribute to the greatest arcade game of all time, and also as a witty way of saying that there will be three of us. And we'll be punching.

    //Zig
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted February 04, 2010:

    I would also like to mention that the people in the draft pool can unite into yet another team!
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 05, 2010:

    I lack initiative, but that might have to change, since quietly waiting for someone to draft me hasn't worked. I may just go ahead and judge, though, if everyone's okay with that.
    board icon
    Masters posted February 05, 2010:

    Suskie, your good friend Felix suggested that the three of us make a team.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 05, 2010:

    I'd be up for that so long as we get a failsafe fourth member in case Felix decides to sabotage the team like he did last time I joined up with him for this thing.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted February 05, 2010:

    Now that it's February, might as well start taking the L4D guide seriously -- mostly been adding a sentence a day and then going to Team Fortress 2 instead, haha.
    board icon
    Masters posted February 05, 2010:

    Apparently I can't read and we need four people in any case. Is Dark Fact available? :T
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 05, 2010:

    After a suggestion from Radicaldreamer, our team name will be Trio the EXTREME DEVASTATION. This name will:

    1) Honor the legendary arcade classic Trio the Punch.
    2) Signify that our team has three members.
    3) ...and we will EXTREMELY DEVASTATE everyone.

    //Zig
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted February 05, 2010:

    So uh, who will be left to judge this thing?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 05, 2010:

    If Suskie and Masters both have teams, then we have only Will to judge so far.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted February 05, 2010:

    True also volunteered himself as either judge or participant.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 05, 2010:

    Oh yeah... That's why that first post should be updated regularly, haha
    board icon
    Masters posted February 05, 2010:

    Maybe Suskie will join Zig's team, Felix will no-show, and I'll be left to judge. =T I can see this happening.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted February 06, 2010:

    I would like to announce that the EXTREMELY DEVASTATING Janus Operative has signed on to our team.
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 06, 2010:

    Our Trio has been revealed!

    //Zig
    board icon
    randxian posted February 06, 2010:

    I like the name "Another Team." Shall we keep that? Or shall we add "Just Another Team" to the title?

    Sure, what the hell. I'm not very good at coming up with team names, so unless someone else has a more creative idea, this works for me.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted February 06, 2010:

    In other exciting news, I am the fourth member of the trio! I am teaming with Zigfried and RadicalDreamer and Janus to make the most devastating trio EVER!
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 07, 2010:

    Shit, "Another Team" is more creative than anything I could come up with...and my review will prove that!
    board icon
    True posted February 07, 2010:

    Oh yeah... That's why that first post should be updated regularly, haha

    I was thinking the same thing. I worried I would have to write it in big, bold letters with a funny little # looking thing like a tumble weed scrolling by.

    Good times there...
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted February 07, 2010:

    Mike, Marc, whoever else, the only way I can show for this comp is if I use Assassin's Creed 2. If that's not in your best interest, I'm going to have to sit this one out. It's up to you guys.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 07, 2010:

    That's fine by me, but what genre does AC2 fit under? Historical sandbox action platformer thing?
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 07, 2010:

    It concerns me that our webmaster does not understand the definition of the word trio. However, after appropriate consultations, we have decided not to kick him off of Trio the EXTREME DEVASTATION. But we will laugh at him in private.

    //Zig
    board icon
    EmP posted February 07, 2010:

    Might I suggest that Master's warring faction either nab a straggler from the draft pool or True steal the remaining two to form a trio of his own?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 07, 2010:

    I'm gonna get right on top of it this week, no fooling around. There wasn't any review this week which I felt stood head and shoulders above the rest. In fact, as I type this, I'm still not sure which review I'm going to give the win to. But part of the decision to leap right in this week involves me figuring that out as we go.

    Ready?




    Bionic Commando by Suskie

    It took me a couple reads to figure out what was bugging me about this review, because it's well written and comes off at first glance as very polished. Finally I realized that it doesn't actually say much about the game, at least nothing that I don't already know from the title "Bionic Commando." There's a line near the end where Suskie writes that he's barely scratched the surface of what the game can offer and I agree. If I were debating whether or not to pick up Bionic Commando, this review wouldn't give me anything concrete to work with. Even that wouldn't bother me if that seemed to be the point of the review. But instead the review claims that there's something here I shouldn't be missing... what is that, exactly? It wasn't clear to me from the reading.

    I feel like Suskie's at his best when he uses his analytical mind to really tackle details in a game and form a case for his arguments. It seems like there was the beginnings of that here (questionable psychics engine, free-roam lite, a combat system that allows for some creative improvisation) but they never develop.




    Sonic Unleashed by Fedule

    Quick question Fendule: did you watch Yahtzee's Sonic Unleashed review, like, immediately before writing this? I only ask because there are parts in here that are nearly word-for-word what he says in his review (especially the bit about the were-man-hog thing).

    Anyway, if Suskie's review understated itself than Fedule's review overstates the point. What I like about this review is its vehemence. You can tell this was written by a Sonic fan for Sonic fans and by the end of it I almost felt obliged to become a Sonic fan just to see what all this Sonic fuss is about. I also understood, quite clearly, that this was not the game to become a Sonic fan for. But I understood this halfway through and then the review went on for many many many more paragraphs. And really, they all just kind've said the same thing. Some of them didn't say much at all, actually. The Eggmanland paragraph was probably the best (worst?) example of this, with Fendule telling us that it hates the player and then just kind've leaving it at that. I'm not sure why that paragraph is in here.

    The emotion is great, though, and had the review gone on to criticize other aspects of the game (and not the same aspect over and over) I would've been happy to keep reading for as long as you wanted me to.




    WINNER OF THE WEEK: No More Heroes by jiggs

    Okay. I figured it out. I told you I would.

    Jiggs' review was a nice blend of the polish of Suskie's review mixed with the emotion of Fendule and went more in-depth with its title than either of them. I enjoyed the approach of taking the reader through the story of the game while stopping briefly to describe gameplay elements. By the end, I felt like I'd played a demo for No More Heroes. I've read a lot of reviews for the game and none, except Jiggs, has left me feeling that way, so congratulations on that.

    It does get a little dull at times. I appreciate the use of pictures (we have the online medium to play with so why not use it?) but I think because you know they are going to be there, you skimped a little bit on your descriptive prose. I can tell from the pics that this is a colourful game, but if you take them out of your review, this entire aspect of the game would be missing. A big part of No More Heroes is its vividness and I would expect more of that vividness to shine through in your writing.

    But still a solid review and an interesting approach make me feel completely comfortable awarding you the win this week.




    Thanks to everyone who wrote reviews this week. I'll be dropping by shortly on the feed-threads for those who didn't make the cut this week and let them know why I didn't choose those reviews. I'm not entirely sure who is up next week. Janus used to follow me, but he has departed for lands unknown and I'm too lazy (or busy, if you prefer) to check the boards to see who's next.

    So, let's say it's a mystery writer.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 07, 2010:

    (holy shit, that was fast. I go in to edit some of the commentary and BAM jiggs review is already featured)
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 07, 2010:

    Why did you keep spelling Fedule's name with an "n" in the commentary? :P

    Anyway, congrats to the winners!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 07, 2010:

    I don't know, Wolfqueen. Especially since I spelled it right the first time. I'm gonna leave that one be and maybe it will mean something in the grand scheme of things.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 07, 2010:

    Hmm... interesting (and intriguing) comments. Do you have any suggestions on how I could better develop my argument? I was almost certain I tackled everything I wanted to mention, so I'm not sure how to put your criticisms to use.

    Cognrats to the other mentions, and especially Jiggs, by the way :)
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 07, 2010:

    What're you talking about, Zipp? haha.

    Quick question Fendule: did you watch Yahtzee's Sonic Unleashed review

    There are other places like that, too.

    Anyway, after having read jigg's review, I have to say... That review is a tremendous improvement over the Demon's Souls review I read all that time ago. Indeed, if I were to complain about it at all, I'd say it actually went too long in places, like you were trying to describe every little detail about the game. But even so, I felt your descriptions were adequate (in a good way), telling me everything I need to know without getting excessive. I've got to say, jiggs, I'm quite impressed. All that work editing it paid off. If you subbed something like this in a contest, you'd do pretty good, I think.

    EDIT: Seems like No More Heroes is your fifth ever review. I think it's better than my fifth ever review. Though whether that's really saying anything much... My fifth review kind of sucks. haha
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 07, 2010:

    Oh no, I wasn't arguing with you, Queeny! I was noticing how it's odd that I spelled his name right in the title of his review, but nowhere else!

    Suskie, I came away from the review feeling that I knew the following about Bionic Commando:

    - you have a grapple arm
    - using the grapple arm is fun
    - there are some attempts made at free roaming
    - you can use the grapple arm in combat and it's cool

    Not a bad overview of the game, but it lacked that critical analysis that I've come to respect your reviews for. I think the combat section is the biggest enemy here. That section in particular called for fleshing out, especially after you end it by saying it's really versatile and there's a lot you can do. I didn't get a good sense of whether or not combat was smooth or easy to use or whether that versatility comes into play often in the game.

    Similarly, on the environment section, you don't really talk about what kinds of environments there are. Is it just one big destroyed city or are there factories and nazi airships, etc?

    Hopefully that helps you understand where I was coming from.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 07, 2010:

    haha. Oh. Sorry. Your last statement in that had confused me for some reason, so I misunderstood it.

    I think all this depressing reading I'm doing about the Rwandan genocide is making me subconsciously aggressive or something.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 07, 2010:

    That's a good point, actually, Zipp. The combat was probably the best thing about Bionic Commando and I kinda just squeezed all of it into that one paragraph near the end. Zig's review did a much better job of portraying the variety and intensity the game presents at its height.

    Anyway, thanks for the mention.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 07, 2010:

    Well, you know... it's a suskie review. Almost all of them deserve mention.

    Wolfqueen, I think I confused myself with that poorly written response. I know what I was TRYING to say, but I think your confusion has only a little bit to do with Genocide.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 07, 2010:

    WHAT DO YOU MEAN ALMOST???!!!?!???!!
    board icon
    randxian posted February 07, 2010:

    I'm not entirely sure who is up next week. Janus used to follow me, but he has departed for lands unknown and I'm too lazy (or busy, if you prefer) to check the boards to see who's next.

    Actually, it's my turn next week. By the way, I do accept bribes. Errr, I didn't really say that.

    Anywho, congrats to those who placed. Keep up the good work yall.
    board icon
    jiggs posted February 07, 2010:

    thank you everybody for the comments and Zipp for the award. there weren't many reviews last week, but all of them were pretty damn good. suskie as always keeps cranking out great stuff.. i was almost sure another suskie domination was in order. i also enjoyed fleinn's MAG review. Espiga had a good phantasy star review. i didn't think i was going to win...i don't know what else to say...No More Heroes is by far the most interesting game i've played on current generation systems so i definintely wanted to try putting out a great review for my favorite game. thanks again. applauses for everybody involved!

    board icon
    Fedule posted February 08, 2010:

    Heh.

    I do watch Zero Punctuation religiously, but I rarely rewatch 'em unless I'm showing one to somebody else. So, no, I didn't watch his Sonic Unleashed one immediately before writing mine. I actually think he underrated its better parts (and I think he played the Wii/PS2 version, too, which is a whole lot worse than the 360/PS3 version). Also, I went off on that particular tangent just as a "isn't it depressing how this happened" kinda way. I have no objection to videogame characters simply having stupid names.

    So, yeah, I will readily admit that lengthiness is my problem and that when people tell me they get bored halfway through, I consider it a challenge to try and hold their interest for that long. Then again, there was this one time I took the longest review I had on this website, straight up removed several paragraphs, and won ROTW with the result (and wonder of wonders, that was for Sonic '06. It's a conspiracy!). Happy days. I might do that for this anyway just because, even if it's too late now.

    Since this review (unleashed) has a feedback thread of its own, I'mm'a go get mah scissors and post the results there so as not to distract from the issues here, which is, of course, "good job everyone".
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 08, 2010:

    OD, check in box
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 08, 2010:

    Reply sent.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 08, 2010:

    Aschultz, also check inbox.
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 08, 2010:

    This topic will be here forever. Enjoy!

    //Zig
    board icon
    dementedhut posted February 09, 2010:

    Can a mod please delete this topic? It's hurting my eyes.
    board icon
    jerec posted February 09, 2010:

    This is a stupid topic. Zig is stupid. And this topic will be here forever as a monument to Zig's stupidity.
    board icon
    EmP posted February 09, 2010:

    I can break forever. I just don't feel like doing so right now.

    I can bitch slap all kinds of infinite stretches of time. It's important you're all aware of this.
    board icon
    aschultz posted February 09, 2010:

    Wow. 3 behind the leader and it's barely February.

    A: American Dream
    B: Blodia Land
    G: Great Deal
    H: Hottaman no Chisoko Tanken
    J: Joshua and the Battle of Jericho
    U: Ultima: Warriors of Destiny
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 10, 2010:

    How's it going, team? Anyone need a pre-game massage or anything?
    board icon
    aschultz posted February 11, 2010:

    Still trying to factor in your suggestions. They're good ones. Still replaying the game too. Teammates who want a proofread, or to trade one--let me know.

    Also, curious to see if anyone else wants to join in late to form a 4-person team. There's 3 people who'd form a good team but the more participants, the merrier, and all that sort of cliche.
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 19, 2010:

    Post your own Nerd Achievements here as you meet them.

    Current standings:
    Zigfried - 1 point (for actually creating a Nerd Leaderboard)


    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 19, 2010:

    Being Isaac on the cover of Dead Space: 1 pt

    (I'm assuming each achievement is worth a single point and not more than that?)
    board icon
    espiga posted February 19, 2010:

    Met Kumi Tanioka, the composer of most of the Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles games, and gave her a hug. Nerd Points +1
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted February 20, 2010:

    Played Sword of the Stars with the CEO of Kerberos Productions: +1 point
    board icon
    darketernal posted February 20, 2010:

    Not games related but:

    Read the entire bibliography of everything Fantastic Four, Spider-Man and Green Lantern in the last few years.
    board icon
    sashanan posted February 20, 2010:

    Taught my boss about rickrolls, then actually fell for one sent my way.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 20, 2010:

    I'm going to take the lead, here...

    Zipp: 2 pts.
    Stayed up until 5:00am last night writing an Aliens Versus Predator review. +1
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted February 21, 2010:

    Mass Effect 2's going faster than I thought, probably due to how they streamlined all the annoying aspects and cut down on lists (although I still dread doing galaxy inventories). Could probably finish by first week of March if it keeps up at this pace.

    PS: "Archangel" is awesomeeee
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 22, 2010:

    Overdrive... are you being fashionably late again? Jerec or WQ, do you have time to do a stand-in ROTW for Overdrive, otherwise?
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 22, 2010:

    Um... isn't this Schultz's week?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 22, 2010:

    Shultz indeed has seemed to have vanished in any case. I haven't seen him in a little while.

    Anyway, I really don't have time I'm afraid. Maybe I can do it if I finish this history paper before Friday, but there's no chance of me doing anything next week at all. Not with two other papers and five midterms (well, four - one's Thursday) coming up.
    board icon
    aschultz posted February 22, 2010:

    Yes. I should have it up Tuesday evening. Sorry for the delay. I got involved in a work project.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 22, 2010:

    You know you're the ICON of RotW when ANY TIME one comes in late, it's assumed that you're the one to blame!

    Kudos to me!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 22, 2010:

    Jeez, my bad! I keep thinking finals are next week. It's wigging me out (looks to WQ for moral support).
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 22, 2010:

    Name: Aliens Versus Predator
    Date: Feb 16th, 2010
    Genre: FPS
    Developer: Rebellion
    Platform: PS3

    Added
    board icon
    dementedhut posted February 22, 2010:

    I actually had to look at the source code to see if Ben typed V or W. x_X
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 22, 2010:

    I'm sure you're better prepared than I am! >_<; lol
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 23, 2010:

    So... submissions are due soon?

    Mine is Here

    Randxian has had to withdraw... so we're going to go all hardcore and just be the three of us. Unless someone wants to jump in here.

    C'mon, True... you know you want part of just another team.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 23, 2010:

    Ha. I totally forgot this was still going.

    So... is my team... still on? I can use pretty much anything I've submitted over this period. BioShock 2, Demon's Souls, whatever works for you guys.

    Edit: Hey, we still don't even have a fourth person. True? Genj? Beli? Anyone?
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted February 23, 2010:

    I hate to be that guy, but uh, can we clarify the deadline? 00:00 is kinda confusing.
    board icon
    EmP posted February 24, 2010:

    HG Time 00:00.

    I still have no idea if HG time is a fantasy time zone or not.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted February 24, 2010:

    To translate that, the deadlie is 12:00AM on the date specified, meaning that if you hit that date on the calendar, you've waited too long to post (since 12:00 AM is the stroke of midnight signalling the start of a new day). If we had until midnight on the day of the deadlie, the number would be 23:59.

    The HonestGamers database goes by PST, in case anyone hadn't figured that out by now. :-)
    board icon
    Calvin posted February 24, 2010:

    Game: Call of Duty: World at War: Zombies
    Platform(s): iPhone
    Publisher: Vivendi Universal Games Mobile
    Developer: Ideaworks3D
    Genre: Action (FPS)
    Release Date: US - 11/16/2009, EU - 11/16/2009

    Game: Match 3D Flick Puzzle
    Platform(s): iPhone
    Publisher: PlayScreen
    Developer: PlayScreen
    Genre: Puzzle (Match-3)
    Release Date: US - 07/29/2009

    Game: Gangstar: West Coast Hustle
    Platform(s): iPhone
    Publisher: Gameloft
    Developer: Gameloft
    Genre: Action (Sandbox)
    Release Date: US - 08/20/2009

    Game: NFL Quarterback Challenge
    Platform(s): iPhone
    Publisher: ProAppSports, LLC
    Developer: ProAppSports, LLC
    Genre: Sports
    Release Date: US - 11/28/09

    I have written reviews for each of these iPhone games and will try to post them if these are added.

    ALL ADDED
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 24, 2010:

    Why would the deadline be set at 12:00 AM then? It's confusing. I thought I had Saturday to work on this.

    //Zig
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 24, 2010:

    Traditionally speaking, we do get Saturday, since, whenever anyone says the deadline is "xxxdate at midnight HG time" they typically mean midnight in the sense of "the exact point at wich xxxdate turns into yyydate."

    Example, February 27 at 00:00 / 12:00a.m. HGTime really means that Saturday at midnight, as in, we get the whole day. Even if hat technically is incorrect.

    Or at least I assume as much. Because, well, if we don't get hat Saturday, there's no chance of me showing, whereas it'd just be a rather small chance otherwise. >_>
    board icon
    EmP posted February 24, 2010:

    I've written the deadline out in crayon. Complain now, whiners!
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 24, 2010:

    Yeah, fuck this. Hey Zipp & co, y'all still looking for a fourth guy?
    board icon
    Masters posted February 24, 2010:

    Okay, since Mike has abandoned my team (based on his assumption that Felix would abandon the team), put me down to judge, Emp. I am angry, and Suskie will feel my anger. In other news, I vow to be completely fair and impartial.
    board icon
    EmP posted February 24, 2010:

    Updates are made.

    TRUE -- If you're still silent from here on out, I'm putting you on a four-man judge panal.

    There's three people left in the pool not counting True -- four including. Sort yourselves out, yokels.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 24, 2010:

    It was more based on the realization that you don't write reviews, Masters :)
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 24, 2010:

    Honestly, Suskie, I don't know why we weren't in a team from the start. Welcome aboard! And I'm not just saying that.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 24, 2010:

    1. I like that for once it isn't me asking for deadline clarification. Someone else is stupid instead of me this time!

    2. I'm going to start working on my review today! If Suskie's on our team, what genre's he doing? Wouldn't want any miscommunications enraging anyone now, would we?
    board icon
    aschultz posted February 24, 2010:

    I still have the RPG. It's going to get done. I should have RotW cleared soon enough.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted February 24, 2010:

    Man, we always have so much confusion over deadlines here!
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 24, 2010:

    Since I'm coming into this thing late, OD, I'll leave it up to you, and then I can fill in the gaps one way or the other. There are a couple of games I'm looking to review right now so I'm sure one of them will fit.

    Let me know, though.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 25, 2010:

    Actually, you know something? I'd like to take a stab at reviewing Dante's Inferno if the slot for hack-and-slash action game hasn't been taken yet. If that's no good, hey, look at that, my BioShock 2 review just won RotW. We can use that.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 25, 2010:

    Works for me, Suskie. My genre definitely isn't that, so we won't be conflicting.
    board icon
    EmP posted February 26, 2010:

    EmP will be using Modern Warfare 2
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 27, 2010:

    Game: Hook Champ
    Platform(s): iPhone
    Publisher: RocketCat Games
    Developer: RocketCat Games
    Genre: Platformer

    ADDED
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 27, 2010:

    My review is done but the game hasn't been added yet.
    board icon
    Suskie posted February 27, 2010:

    I won't be around for most of tonight, so while it's possible I'll still finish my Dante's Inferno review, I'm just gonna go ahead and use BioShock 2 for the time being just to be safe.

    Edit: Yeah, this isn't working out anyway. What a difficult game to review.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 27, 2010:

    Janus, put your review in your blog until someone can get around to adding the game. That way you'll at least have an entry.

    Anyway, I've only got about an hour left and my review isn't even close to being done. (I'm going to be gone most of the night, too). Still going to try, though. Maybe I'll just post what I have in my blog and try to finish it up when I can (if that's even legal).

    Also, DoI and DE have likewise been gone all day. This'll definitely be interesting...
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 27, 2010:

    It's funny how some games are just incredibly hard to review, isn't it, Suskie>?
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 27, 2010:

    rime check

    //Zig
    board icon
    darketernal posted February 27, 2010:

    My game review is done and in EmP's editing shop, but didn't send anything. So...I can't really do much about it until I get it back which can be in 10 minutes or 10 hours.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted February 27, 2010:

    My review is for Savage 2: A Tortured Soul. Major rush job. If one of my teammates could post the link, that would be great, since I won't be around for when it's actually posted.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted February 27, 2010:

    Mine is for a little indie project called Heavy Rain: http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/8694/Heavy-Rain.html
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted February 27, 2010:

    Hook Champ. I'll link it later.
    board icon
    aschultz posted February 28, 2010:

    Crap. I think I'm a few minutes late. But mine is Dark Heart of Uukrul, if it counts. Teammates--sorry I was awol.

    Edited for link: Dark Heart of Uukrul
    board icon
    zigfried posted February 28, 2010:

    I'm right on time -- Enemy Zero

    //Zig
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 28, 2010:

    Just subbed mine, too... a half-hour late, but oh well.

    Another sort of rush job that definitely didn't go in the direction I wanted, but at least I showed up, so I guess that's something.

    Also, DE, I offered to help you with yours earlier, but maybe you didn't get that message and by the time you were around again, I was probably away anyway. =/

    EDIT: link
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 28, 2010:

    Fire Emblem: Monshou no Nazo

    It's been done a couple of days and I stated in my blog it was my contest review. I just had "real world" stuff get in my way yesterday and wasn't able to get online to link it to this thread.
    board icon
    darketernal posted February 28, 2010:

    Sent it to WQ too, but really, can't post until it's done so yeah.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted February 28, 2010:

    Okay. I suggested some monster edits to your review that you'll need to check out. It should be in your mail now. If not, let me know and I'll resend it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted February 28, 2010:

    I suggest a universal time extension on this by one day, since so many seem to need it.
    board icon
    darketernal posted February 28, 2010:

    Alright, submitted. The game is Ninja Blade. Thanks go to WQ for the edit.


    http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/8712/Ninja-Blade.html
    board icon
    EmP posted February 28, 2010:

    I'm going to go ahead and agree with Zipp. I'll compile the full list of reviews for the judges come tomorrow.
    board icon
    aschultz posted February 28, 2010:

    Thanks, EmP. I'll do my best to edit my worst blunders make sure it comes back to haunt you.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted February 28, 2010:

    Tatsunoko vs. Capcom

    Hooray for playing games for consoles I don't own enough to actually review them.
    board icon
    overdrive posted February 28, 2010:

    The extra day was nice. Not only did it dispel any controversy behind me submitting me review a few hours late due to not wanting to drive home from my non-Internet-having friend's house during a bit of sleet/snow/whatever while under the influence, but also allowed me to make a few bits read a little better. I like that.
    board icon
    EmP posted March 01, 2010:

    The first post is updated. Go judges, go.

    I've decided that Will will be compiling the results. Please send your judgings his way.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 01, 2010:

    Oh wow! Four judges this time! Awesome!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 01, 2010:

    Hm... Except that true hasn't exactly posted here about what he wants to do. Hopefully he's still around to get his results and stuff in.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted March 02, 2010:

    Normally I would protest EmP making decisions without consulting me. But really, I should have expected it by this point.

    Anyway fellow judges, send your results to me via email: the(dot)epic(dot)win(dot)guy(at)gmail(dot)com

    Also: WTF BEN OMG OUR AVATARS

    Clearly we have to have some kind of duel to the death.
    board icon
    overdrive posted March 03, 2010:

    Hark! Overdrive returns to do an RotW after skipping out on the last one for some reason or another. This one probably would have been done in a more timely fashion if I'd skipped out on it as well, as this is a VERY busy week at work with today being the only real chance I have to catch my breath. But, no, as a true hero of the people, it is my duty to give my insight to all of you.

    The usual rules are in effect. No staff reviews, only one per person allowed (not a problem this week).




    THIRD PLACE: The Misadventures of P.B. Winterbottom (XBA/XBOX 360) by Ben

    Very nice review that does a good job of not wearing out its welcome. You did a good job of explaining the fundamentals behind the cloning system and made this game sound interesting, at least. And I liked how you mentioned how this game's lack of difficulty works against it, as a puzzle game is supposed to be tough enough to give you a sense of accomplishment upon beating it. Hard to say more about this review...it was just a very solid effort without anything particularly negative about it.

    SECOND PLACE: Xenophobe (Arcade) by LowerStreetBlues

    This is one of those games that's always been in the "I'd like to play it, but there's always something I'd rather play" category for me, so it was nice to see such an extensive review of the game. I can really picture probably everything about how the game operates after reading this review. About the only complaint I have is that you really should have broken that fourth paragraph into two. I really suffered from "wall of text" syndrome there. Part of that (as it's not the longest paragraph I've ever seen) might be because you have a very factual style with little to none of the exuberant exclamations that other reviews use (look at my first place winner for just one example). With that style, I think shorter paragraphs might work out better to keep the attention of the reader. Besides that quibble, I really dug this review.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Hook Champ (IPOD) by JANUS2

    This was a very good review. There was a nice infectious vibe here. You liked that game and showed a lot of excitement in writing this review and it works out well. You also do a great job of explaining the game's fundamentals and how the touch screen works to perfection. It's hard to find much of anything to complain about here...this is just an excellent review. I don't care about iPod app games, but I'm glad I read this review of one. I think the main thing I noticed was how you did a great job of tying together the game's wink and nod to those platformers of the 8/16 bit days with how it paves its own way with such things as the touch screen.




    Also, I feel compelled to mention Guts' review, which made me laugh my ass off..but I really couldn't justify ranking it, as it spent more time ripping on people complaining about its difficulty than talking about the game. It was a good "counterpoint", at least in my eyes, though. And after a friend's unbelieving reaction to me telling him that, "No, Medal of Honor: Frontline (a game I'm playing now) DOESN'T have checkpoints," it really sunk in how the games of today (for the most part) bend over backwards to give players so many advantages that when one doesn't, you'll get "IT'S SOOOO HARD!!!" complaints. And that's that for me this week. Now, it's time to prepare for the buzzsaw that will be the next three days before my life returns to normalcy!
    board icon
    private_joyce posted March 04, 2010:

    hi
    i'm new here
    not really
    well i forgot about this thread
    so i never get a chance to introduce myself.
    so yeah, i'm joyce and i play MMO.
    =)
    board icon
    private_joyce posted March 04, 2010:

    love this topic. keep it up. and don't let the mods delete this.
    board icon
    private_joyce posted March 04, 2010:

    Bumped
    board icon
    private_joyce posted March 04, 2010:

    Tried to have fun on this site despite of the fact that i don't really know much what's going on in a certain thread.
    I'm not a fan of a game.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted March 04, 2010:

    Thanks Overdrive. I wrote this one in a hurry, so I'm glad it worked out OK!
    board icon
    private_joyce posted March 05, 2010:

    yeah.. so i'm asking why is this site so quite and no one doesn't want to help regarding some inquiries. does this site has a moderators?
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted March 05, 2010:

    I get the feeling you've got some kind of a problem with this site. You might be better served by coming out and saying it, rather than just making passive-aggressive posts all over the place.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 05, 2010:

    Honestly, I'm wary of anyone who uses the cheetos in a greasy paper tray avatar for more than a few hours.
    board icon
    private_joyce posted March 05, 2010:

    LOLz...
    i dunno how to change avatar. teach me dude
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 05, 2010:

    To change your avatar, click on your current one next to any forum post that you've made. You'll be taken to a series of pages where you can browse to find an avatar that you like. When you find the one you want, just click on it and you'll change that to your current forum avatar.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted March 06, 2010:

    I've got Ben's judging results. Still waiting on the rest of you slackers.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted March 07, 2010:

    Did Masters ever say that he would actually judge?

    EDIT: I probably should have read the topic before posting...
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 07, 2010:

    We need to get someone else on the ROTW for next week. Rand is temporarily indisposed.
    board icon
    Masters posted March 08, 2010:

    My results should be done by this afternoon.
    board icon
    zigfried posted March 08, 2010:

    True hasn't posted in this topic since Feb 7.

    Are we sure that he's judging?

    //Zig
    board icon
    EmP posted March 08, 2010:

    I have already instructed Will that if we have not heard from True before Master's gets his stuff in, we are to dismiss him.
    board icon
    aschultz posted March 10, 2010:

    Err...jus' bumpin'.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted March 10, 2010:

    Well go bump Masters, I'm still waiting for him.
    board icon
    overdrive posted March 10, 2010:

    I say we just give my team the win and name me tournament MVP. Saves a lot of time and effort for everyone.
    board icon
    Masters posted March 10, 2010:

    Fuck me. I have one more review to read and I'll send my crap... to whom again?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 10, 2010:

    To Will.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 10, 2010:

    I second Overdrive's opinion.
    board icon
    Masters posted March 11, 2010:

    Finally done kids.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted March 11, 2010:

    Did you remember to email your results to me? They are conspicuously absent from my inbox.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted March 11, 2010:

    HG mail?
    board icon
    Masters posted March 11, 2010:

    HG mail indeed.
    board icon
    Masters posted March 11, 2010:

    I thought we were all waiting on slow ass Masters? =T
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 11, 2010:

    What contest was this? I don't remember. It was so long ago, back when I was a wee lad.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 12, 2010:

    eh... Will can be pretty slow himself. Must be a Canadian thing. =p
    board icon
    Masters posted March 12, 2010:

    But I don't get what's going on, SERIOUSLY. I thought Schultz provided Will with a handy dandy spreadsheet program that would tally results and post the topic automatically. HASN'T HE?
    board icon
    Masters posted March 12, 2010:

    Ben--have you provided your results to Will? I assumed (probably correctly) that I was the straggler...
    board icon
    Masters posted March 12, 2010:

    (If it seems as if I'm posting a constant stream of nonsense--it's because I want to be a FORUM WARLOCK.)
    board icon
    Masters posted March 12, 2010:

    Show off.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted March 12, 2010:

    Wait, you sent it by HGmail? Damnit Masters, I gave you guys my email address.

    Alright, I'll have everything compiled and nicely formatted by the end of the day.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 12, 2010:

    Captain Hammer is equaling fail this week.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted March 12, 2010:

    What's that, Zipp? I couldn't hear you, too busy editing my comments on your review.
    board icon
    Masters posted March 12, 2010:

    You did? Dude, I was like, what makes this guy think I have his e-mail address -- HGMail it is.

    The bottom line is this: the Canadians are looking like fools.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 12, 2010:

    You only say things like that because you know that Will can edit results if some smartass says "What's new?" or something along those lines. I see right through you, Masters, and I refuse to comment!
    board icon
    zigfried posted March 13, 2010:

    We have the ten entrants, and below are the games they shall review!

    THE CONTESTANTS:
    Darketernal - Murder at the Abbey (PC)
    EmP - Nostalgia (DS)
    Felix Arabia - Star Parodier (Turbo CD)
    Genj - Final Fantasy XIII (Xbox 360)
    JANUS2 - Alice in Wonderland (iPhone)
    Overdrive - Project: Snowblind (PS2)
    Sho - Fallout (PC)
    Suskie - Hellboy: Asylum Seeker (PSX)
    Zigfried - Sylphia (Turbo CD)
    Zippdementia - Parasite Eve 2 (PSX)

    THE JUDGES:
    ASchultz, Ben, and Willthegreat

    DEADLINE:
    The review must be posted on or before April 10, as I will be in Boston the weekend before that.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted March 13, 2010:

    The three judges have now been announced, and I do say it's quite an eclectic trio!

    Remember that you can post early and revise... there's no need to hold the review (especially if you're hoping to get some feedback from others). I won't add links to the top post until after the deadline.

    If you requested a review from someone else, it would probably be polite to tell them what you think of it at some point.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 14, 2010:

    Zig, your avatar is simultaneously awesome and more awesome.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 14, 2010:

    So Rand, are you doing this week? Are you back in action? Or does someone (Jerec or WQ) need to pick this up?
    board icon
    randxian posted March 15, 2010:

    I read your previous installment and was under the impression we were going to have Will do another.

    Either way, I think it would be wise for someone else to go ahead and take this one.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 15, 2010:

    I put that out there hoping someone would confirm or deny it, but thus far I think a total of maybe 1 person has responded to my ROTW. So I don't know what's going on. At this point I'm assuming it's going to any one of our back up judges. It needs to get done, either way, and soon.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 15, 2010:

    There's only four for that week, so that's not too bad. Maybe I'll do it later this week (after Thursday - I have a paper due then that I need as much time as possible for. Plus being sick isn't helping) if no one else claims it before then.
    board icon
    randxian posted March 15, 2010:

    I guess I can go ahead and do it. I was just going to step aside because I thought Will was going to have at it. If any of the reserve judges or WQ, I'll step out of the way.

    Otherwise, I'm willing to do it.
    board icon
    private_joyce posted March 16, 2010:

    woot^^
    i changed it...
    u like it?
    imma pink unicorn now!
    im not a cheetos anymore!!!
    board icon
    zigfried posted March 20, 2010:

    Three weeks to go!

    //Zig
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted March 21, 2010:

    Finish by first week of March...how wrong I was! Could probably finish within a day or two though...can't wait to get this over with.
    board icon
    Cheesus posted March 22, 2010:

    I said I wouldn't call, but I'm a little drunk and I need you now.
    >
    >
    >
    I ain't selling nothing / aw made you look / you're a slave to a page in my rhyme book.
    board icon
    sashanan posted March 22, 2010:

    We're busy reviewers. What are you selling?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 22, 2010:

    I remember you! You're...

    oh wait, no I don't.
    board icon
    hmd posted March 22, 2010:



    WHAT ARE YA BUYIN'!?

    I'LL BUY IT AT A HIGH PRICE, STRANGER!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 22, 2010:

    Sorry to disapoint you OD but...


    ... I'm really enjoying Parasite Eve 2. Which is funny because I really didn't the first time through.

    I'm glad it's my second time through. I think I've got my angle for the review.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 23, 2010:

    Alright, it is Tuesday and there is no ROTW! As per my S.O.P. for anyone who isn't Overdrive, I will now put out my call asking Aschultz if he's planning on doing it this week or if we need to find another taker?
    board icon
    aschultz posted March 23, 2010:

    I've had problems with my monitor for a week. To be precise, only my monitor at work works. This created a bit of a problem reading everything posted at the end of the week.

    For the site staff, is there any official time that's generally accepted for getting these done? I generally try to have Wednesday morning as a cutoff date.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 23, 2010:

    Generally, the desired cutoff date is Monday evening. If a RotW is going to be late coming but is still coming, it's not a bad idea to post in this topic to let people know that you're working on it and that it will come. We don't want RotW positions to feel too much like a job, obviously, but we do want there to be some sense of consistency and we don't want readers to have to wonder for too long if they're going to rank.
    board icon
    hayes1516 posted March 24, 2010:

    game: The Incredible Hulk
    platform: Wii, Playstation 3, Xbox 360
    publisher: Sega
    developer: Edge Of Reality
    genre: action/adventure
    release: 2008

    Added
    board icon
    hayes1516 posted March 24, 2010:

    game: Smarty Pants
    platform: Wii
    Publisher: Electronic Arts
    developer: Planet Moon Studios
    genre: trivia
    release: 2008

    Added
    board icon
    hayes1516 posted March 24, 2010:

    game: The Price Is Right Added
    platform: Wii, DS
    publisher: Ubisoft
    developer: Ludia
    genre: minigame
    release: 2008

    game: Sonic Riders Zero Gravity Added
    platform: Wii, Playstation 2, Playstation 3
    publisher: Sega
    developer: Sonic Team
    genre: racing
    release: 2008

    game: The Incredible Hulk Added
    platform: DS
    publisher: Sega
    developer: Amaze Entertainment
    genre: action
    release: 2008

    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 26, 2010:

    Ah, what the hell. I'm not looking to finish, but I may as well get some exercise.

    A= Alien Versus Predator
    C= Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
    F= Final Fantasy XIII
    H= Heavy Rain
    M= Myst

    5 alphas.
    board icon
    jerec posted March 26, 2010:

    Please to be adding Perfect Dark and Dash of Destruction, both for XBLA.

    http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/xbox360/data/960632.html

    http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/xbox360/data/955192.html

    ADDED BOTH
    board icon
    zigfried posted March 28, 2010:

    Less than two weeks remain!

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 30, 2010:

    Alright, with Jason's permission, I'd like to initiate an agreement on the part of ROTWers. If, by Tuesday, we have not received an ROTW from that week's judge nor word from that judge on why they will be late this week, then they forfeit their position for the week and one of the reserve judges takes over, posting the review by the end of the day or Wednesday at the latest.

    Can we agree upon this or at least discuss it? And in the meantime, I know it's the loveable Overdrive's week, but we haven't heard anything... is it time for a reserve judge to step in?
    board icon
    aschultz posted March 30, 2010:

    Zipp--I know I'm ok with a write-something-by-Monday deadline. However, there were only 2 contestants this week, so the work falls to the next person...I think?!

    Edit: missed the last minute entry. Thought it was this week. Thanks wolfqueen.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 30, 2010:

    There were actually three. I made that mistake, too, but the guy who wrote the SMB3 review actually has his date set for the 27th of March, which falls within OD's jurisdiction. Besides that, there's this marter person and spaceworlder.
    board icon
    overdrive posted March 30, 2010:

    Shit! This is my week already? If there is a reserve judge who could take it, I'd be grateful. I have a big work project I have to finalize this week and a review that I've been trying to finish for about two weeks and a game I'm trying to get through for a contest.

    I could get an RotW done tomorrow, but with all the stuff I have/want to get done this week, that'd be stretching me thin (although with only three writers, even if one was quite prolific, it probably wouldn't be THAT bad).
    board icon
    randxian posted March 30, 2010:

    I agree with Zipp's proposal above. Especially if there has been no word from the judge, then I figure that week is fair game.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 30, 2010:

    As for contestants, I think even if there are only 3 contestants, that seems enough to at least order them and give one the win.

    Otherwise, I believe they get carried over to the next week...? I know we had a conversation about this once, but I can't recall the official ruling. It seems sad to lose a review to a slow week and if a week is really THAT slow it shouldn't be a problem to tag it on to the next week.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 30, 2010:

    Reviews from four or more individual authors mean that reviews should be ranked. If there are fewer than four contributors in a given week--which pretty much never happens, but isn't unheard of--then the reviews don't need to be ranked and they are not carried over to the next week. The person in charge of RotW for that week is still strongly encouraged to provide feedback.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 30, 2010:

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Who is playing pick up this week?
    board icon
    aschultz posted March 31, 2010:

    Since this topic is hot at the moment--I noticed something I wanted to tweak with a review that won RotW. So I'm wondering, what's the policy on allowing people to do that? Obviously, we want the writing to be the best it can be, but equally obviously, changes could potentially be for the worse.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted March 31, 2010:

    There's no policy, really. Unless you're making significant revisions that change the nature of the review in a fundamental manner, there's no reason to worry about it.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted March 31, 2010:

    Oh, I might do it tomorrow after classes get out if no one else wants to.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted March 31, 2010:

    I'm always down for a WQ ROTW. Go for it!
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted March 31, 2010:

    Tch, don't have anything really lined up for April -- thought Red Dead Redemption was coming out but turns out that's May. Might have to do a game script or something for the SMS project as a stopgap. =/
    board icon
    zigfried posted April 03, 2010:

    One more week!

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 03, 2010:

    My review is going out tonight.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 04, 2010:

    PE2
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted April 06, 2010:

    Thinking about doing something light again. Maybe Elements of Destruction.
    board icon
    arakim posted April 07, 2010:

    Game: Alien Dominion: The Acronian Encounter
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: Black Fire Games
    Developer: Black Fire Games
    Genre: Space Shooter
    Release Date: April 5Th 2010.
    Link to the site: http://www.blackfiregames.com

    Short description:
    Cool space shooter with really nice and modern graphics, explosive game-play and a shop to upgrade your ship with new weapons and utilities after each level!
    Can you beat the alien forces and survive to reach Earth and warn about the incoming attack?
    Check it out!
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted April 07, 2010:

    I hate forever it lasts to long.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 08, 2010:

    Alright... it's me, Genj, and Felix... going at it hardcore.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 09, 2010:

    I'm thinking there'll be people swooping in at 11:59 PM. I have faith in 'em. It's happened before.

    Still, I half forgot about this until now. Looking forward to it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 09, 2010:

    I've been excited since day one. Best idea for a contest I've seen yet on the site. I had a lot of fun reviewing Parasite Eve 2.
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 09, 2010:

    I have an open text document on my computer. That's been blank for the last two hours.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 09, 2010:

    I vote for OD.
    board icon
    darketernal posted April 10, 2010:

    Done with my review.


    http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/8773/Murder-in-the-Abbey.html
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 10, 2010:

    There are words on my text document now. Later today, they may even form something resembling legitimate thought.
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 10, 2010:

    Project: Snowblind

    And now they do! Possible editing to come later.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 10, 2010:

    I have a feeling this is going to be a very close contest! So far all the submissions have been of extremely high quality! Hopefully mine fits that bill, too. I'm too close to it to tell. But it's all very exciting. I just hope people get their reviews in so we have a solid turn out.

    I'd like to do this contest again later in the year.
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 10, 2010:

    Oh yeah, this. Well, as it happens, EmP picked the one game on my list that I actually had to go back and play in order to review, which would have worked if I'd found my copy or gotten a ROM working. Neither happened, so I'll have to respectfully back out.

    Yeah, I know the point of this contest was to provide games you definitely could review. Well, fuck you.
    board icon
    zigfried posted April 10, 2010:

    Something has come up, so I might be running just a bit late (only by an hour or two). Feel free to continue posting and editing reviews until this topic is locked. I'll link everything once I get back.

    //Zig
    board icon
    EmP posted April 10, 2010:

    EmP's Dramatic Entry
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 10, 2010:

    Probably only the most fiendish of Turbo fiends will get all the comparisons and allusions I make in this review, but I'm just happy I managed to write something.

    Star Parodier
    board icon
    Genj posted April 10, 2010:

    Hi
    board icon
    zigfried posted April 11, 2010:

    Reviews are linked. On the off chance that anyone has a last-minute entry, or notices a last-minute word spelled wrong, I'm leaving this topic open until I wake up.

    Judges, feel free to start reading! If anyone actually wants to compile results, please speak up. Otherwise, I'll gather and assemble the final results.

    //Zig
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 11, 2010:

    I can compile the results. I have ways to do so easily.
    board icon
    zigfried posted April 11, 2010:

    Well, there you have it! Judges, send your results to ASchultz.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Calvin posted April 11, 2010:

    Game: Scrap Metal
    Platform(s): Xbox Live Arcade
    Publisher: ?
    Developer: Slick Entertainment
    Genre: Racing / Car-Combat
    Release Date: 3/10/10

    ADDED
    board icon
    randxian posted April 11, 2010:

    Wow! A whole whopping 10 reviews this week! Give yourselves a hand, ladies and gentlemen, for contributing so much content to the site in such a short amount of time. Alas, there were several I liked, but I have to narrow it down to three.

    It was brought to my attention over AIM that last week's winner, Suskie, did not have his review featured. Just wondering if there is a particular reason for that or if someone simply forgot to do it. Anyway, on with this week's winners:




    Third Place: Lock's Quest by darkstarripclaw

    For the most part, you do a great job of explaining a bizarre tower defense game. What impresses me the most is how you manage to explain and provide examples of all facets of the game: enemies, player's abilities, weapons, items, etc, without sounding long winded. You provide several details, but everything is presented in an efficent manner to help elaborate your points. If I were to purchase this game and pop it into my DS, I know exactly what to expect. That's all I can ask from a review.

    Since most DS games are shoehorned into using the touch screen gimmick either by hook or by crook, I'm glad you elaborated on how it's handled in this game.















    Second Place: Ace Combat 4: Shattered Skies by pickhut

    This is perhaps the most efficient review of the bunch. You manage to compare and contrast this to other games in the series, provide an example of a mission that highlights the game, and discussing pertient mechanical aspects without droning on.

    I particularly enjoyed reading about how you avoid the enemies' weapon of mass destruction in paragraph three.

    The real icing on the cake is how you also include the post-mission grading system. As a person who plays the occassional flight sim, this is important to me. Some games have a ridiculously high standard for earning high marks, so I'm glad you describe how this game uses a fair grading system.

    Good job of writing a concise, yet convincing review of a game you seem to enjoy.















    Winner Winner Chicken Dinner: Star Parodier by Felix_Arabia

    Wow. I'm not even sure how to start gushing over this review.

    Fantastic job of taking a colorful game and helping to augment said game with vivid word choice, colorful figuritive language, and writing that is as smooth as butter.

    For some reason, I found the bit describing the PC's arsenal particularly entertaining. Maybe it's the "death by deep blue" phrase that did the trick.

    All of the above helps instill passion without being over-the-top. Also, you manage to convince the reader that this obscure game is definitely worth checking out. Good job of using colorful language to paint a picture describing a colorful, zany game.

    For bonus points, nice job mentioning it's available for download on the Wii. I was ready to kick myself for not noticing this game sooner, yet this little snipper cheered me up. Huzzah for Wii virtual console!
    board icon
    dementedhut posted April 12, 2010:

    Thanks for the comments on the review, Rand. Congrats to both darkstarripclaw and, especially, to Felix, who got RotW. Both wrote solid reviews.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 12, 2010:

    I'm not sure last week's ROTW counted, as I believe the technical rules state that there must be four writers for a win to be given. There were only three last week.

    Congrats to this week's winners!
    board icon
    Masters posted April 12, 2010:

    Kudos, Felix.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 12, 2010:

    We've had RotW's with only three writers before and no one said anything then.

    I've been told that it used to be that as long as there was at least someone who submitted a review during that week, then there'll be an RotW. I was never aware that this had changed as I don't believe this has ever been officially addressed rather than merely debated.

    Regardless of the truth of the above, the "as long as htere are three" has always been a rule. Inded, I believe even yourself have governed under that rule without any issue until now. I don't see why it should change.

    Congrats to the winners anyhow.
    board icon
    darkstarripclaw posted April 12, 2010:

    Thank you for the mention!

    I do not do reviews too often, but when I do I usually have played the game enough beforehand to be able to recall all the little things and write it out in a decent enough flow.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 12, 2010:

    Well, I've never really "governed" anything, outside of that one contest I held a ways back. On this matter, I quote Jason (in the ROTW official thread):

    "Reviews from four or more individual authors mean that reviews should be ranked. If there are fewer than four contributors in a given week--which pretty much never happens, but isn't unheard of--then the reviews don't need to be ranked and they are not carried over to the next week. The person in charge of RotW for that week is still strongly encouraged to provide feedback."
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 12, 2010:

    Ah. Alright. Fair enough, then. That's definitely a change from what it used to be, though. Sorry about that. Glad it's cleared up now anyway.

    EDIT: Though truth be told, I don't think this is enforced very well unless someone actually remembers (as you did). When I filled in for RotW that one week, there were only three reviewers then, too, and that went on as normal. =/ I guess that's why I've been so confused lately.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 12, 2010:

    Thanks everyone for the kind remarks, especially from you, Rand. It takes effort to put one of these topics together, so thank you for selecting me as the weeks winner.

    I wasnt sure if the review was going to fare well since I talk about a lot of other Turbo shooters, which, as far as I know, arent too well known outside of the likes only a handful of people on this site.

    For some extra reading, heres some literature on the game I was alluding to when I when I wrote the death by Deep Blue line:

    My Deep Blue Review
    Masters Deep Blue Review
    A positive Deep Blue Review!

    Congrats to Pickhut and Darkstar, as well!
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 12, 2010:

    Zipp: Ranking reviews and awarding RotW are two different things, though. I think what Jason is saying is that if there are only three contributors in a given week, it's more probable to honor someone who doesn't deserve. I did that, once -- there were only three contributors in one of the weeks I did, and one of them was lousy. So I awarded him third place even though I said in the topic that it wasn't all that great and that if there had been a fourth contributor that week, he probably wouldn't have placed. Kinda pointless.

    But yeah, Jason doesn't say we're ineligible for RotW in the case of only three writers per week, just that said reviews don't need to be ranked.

    Also, congrats to this week's winners.
    board icon
    randxian posted April 12, 2010:

    there were only three contributors in one of the weeks I did, and one of them was lousy. So I awarded him third place even though I said in the topic that it wasn't all that great and that if there had been a fourth contributor that week, he probably wouldn't have placed. Kinda pointless.

    Ironically, this week I felt there were about 4-5 that were pretty darn good, but I had to limit it to three.

    Truth be told, all except two (I think it's obvious which two) had admirable aspects. So the race is a lot tighter than I made it sound above. This week in particular, I noticed across the board everyone did a wonderful job of describing their respective games in great detail. I came away educated on several games I've never played, or in some cases never even heard of. Fantastic effort everyone, even if you didn't place!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 12, 2010:

    I don't have the power to add reviews to the featured list, so I've never really been fully positive of the ROTW rulings as far as numbers go. From a technical stand point, there are reasons both for and against featuring reviews in slim weeks.

    Just to be clear, as per this particular situation, I think Suskie deserved the win fully, so I had nothing personally against him getting the ROTW. I had, and still have, no power over whether he actually gets featured. You'll have to talk to Jason or EmP or Zig. I'm sure they'll come around and comment soon.
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 12, 2010:

    Or I will, being that my awesomeness demands I supplant those three as elite man-god of this place. I had a review (Pitfall 2) featured in the earlier days because it took first place...out of two reviews submitted that week. For that review of mine (that features an 0-1 record in the STT because it's a 1600+ word review of an Atari 2600 game) to be included as "featured", Suskie's should be, as well.
    board icon
    zigfried posted April 12, 2010:

    I saw that edit!

    //Zig
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 12, 2010:

    I wasn't going to bug any of the mods about it since I don't care enough, but thanks!
    board icon
    zigfried posted April 17, 2010:

    JUDGE CHECK!

    Just following up on projected results status.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 20, 2010:

    Aschultz, did you need someone to take over for you this week? I know you're busy with the tournie...
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 20, 2010:

    Hi everyone. Sorry about how late this is, especially with so few reviews. I was really out of it--so out of it that I remained unbiased throughout all the critique threads, because I didn't notice a one of 'em. The reason, as stated before, is silly. Thanks to my fellow judges who got things done quicker than I did. Thanks to Zigfried for a great tourney idea, and for those who wrote the reviews, for their work and patience. I liked them more than my final scores reflect. (ominous drums rumbling)

    I hope to follow with my own more detailed critiques when I get the chance. Stuff that didn't fit here. Like minor examples to tweak, or typos. Unfortunately, I was unable to include a feature I had planned for all future judging, tentatively called typo-osity. This would be a number between -10 and 0 describing points taken away for howlers. I have tried several ways to get around a few forgivable errors that can grip me if I'm not careful but haven't found anything fully satisfying.

    ========Darketernal - Murder at the Abbey (PC)========

    BEN:

    The best part of Darketernals review is the second half of the review, where he gives his own thoughts on the game. The flaws mentioned are clearly explained and understandable, and Im in no rush to seek out Murder at the Abbey as a result. However, the conclusion confuses me slightly. Darketernal seems to be speaking fondly of the game and even recommends it to adventure fans. Yet, when he gave his in-depth opinions on the game in the body of the review, he was rather critical. The review states that the jokes are hit-or-miss, while the puzzles are unfulfilling. I dont see many positive comments, and Id certainly like to know what aspects of the game he enjoyed. Maybe it was the story. Maybe the murder mystery was compelling and delivered a great climax. Id like to learn more about the reviewers thoughts on the case itself, since I imagine that is one of the essential parts of a game like this one.

    Another (slight) problem is that the first part of the review read a little disjointed. This is partly due to the short paragraphs at times, two paragraphs shouldve been merged together as they were discussing the same point, and the pause from the resulting paragraph break felt odd and needless. There were sentences that felt repetitive. For example, Bruno is mentioned as the sidekick in the second sentence, yet later, the review mentions that Bruno follows you aroundwhich is a given. Scattered around the review are too many numerous short comments that make fun of Bruno. The Bruno paragraph (fourth from the end) is actually great; the character is finally focused on and I receive good knowledge about him. There were also a couple of typos that crept in near the end (the fact that it all of its venues it tries to play it too safe and Even when the crap hits the fan). Despite my nitpicks, though, this was a decent review. I just wish that the conclusion matched the rest of the review. 70

    WILL:

    The tone of this review is fairly mediocre, but so it the subject matter. Murder at the Abbey clearly doesn't do much to separate itself from the crowd, and you convey that well in this piece; it's a smooth and interesting read all the way through, but I feel as though it could use a bit of humor, at least where you talk about the occupational hazards of poor Bruno's job. Anyway, this is a solid, if not overly impressive review.

    75/100

    ASCHULTZ:

    I have to say that a lot of the jokes fell sour with me. The slap at Christian Slater seems extraneous and while there's good narrative here, there's a lot of confusion early on...using investigator twice, etc. Also the LOLCow stuff on Bruno seems interesting--but why is he hated? It just seems mean. I don't know if you've ever read of Nabokov's criticism of Don Quixote as a "funny" novel--and how he thinks it isn't--but I'm missing some jokes here. Then you come around and say the game has run jokes into the ground--after a forced feeling joke about priests not touching young boys.

    Most of all though I think there were a lot of missed chances--or contradictions that don't really make you think of bigger stuff. For instance, you mention Murder at the Abbey being a pretty faithful rendition of ItNotR early on, so we can expect the rendition of a classic, and yet you also say it doesn't give a sense of surprise-where-you-could-look-back-and-see-you-missed-hints later on. So this piece feels like going through the motions, but the motions even seem off.

    60/100

    ========EmP - Nostalgia (DS)========

    BEN:

    I honestly dont have much to say about this review, which is a good thing. EmP has written another strong piece its pretty short but packs quite a bit of content. The beginning is lengthy but cleverly tells sneaks in a few nuggets of information (for example, the basics of the battle system are covered relatively well). I get the impression throughout that Nostalgia is a throwback to older RPG titles with touches of modernisation. EmP could easily have made the game sound like a boring and pointless excursion to the past, but he puts enough emphasis on what is new and what is different that the product ends up sounding interesting and intriguing. It seems refreshing that Nostalgia is not your typical fantasy-based RPG; that it takes places in a more relatable world for a change gets a thumb up in my books.

    I think there was room for EmP to go further and really hit home that Nostalgia is deserving of the 8/10 and is great on its own merits. For example, how fun are the random encounters, and how strong is the battle system itself? The easy difficulty also felt tacked on at the end near the end. (I read that Nostalgia takes place in the 19th century and not the 20th. However, I am too lazy to fact-check, so you get away with it if youre wrong!) Anyway, this was a nice and enjoyable read overall, and I dont have many other complaints. The writing is tight and entertaining (doesnt have you sitting through hours of pretentious dribble about how Villain X used to be valiant and brave until Fate stepped in and cock-slapped him being my favourite line), and the content is convincing enough that I checked on Amazon to see how much the game cost out of curiosity. Turns out, its not out in Europe yet! 83

    WILL:

    Ooooh, faux-retro!

    This piece mocks with one hand and praises with the other, and that makes it quirky and interesting to read. It deftly plucks at the strings of my nostalgic heart and leads me to seriously consider stealing borrowing a friend's DS. But I come away from the review feeling like you could have gone into a little more detail. You hit all the right points, but discussion of combat, setting, character building etc all seem rather rushed.

    83/100

    ASCHULTZ:

    This is a more than pleasant enough review that I can overlook the sort of grammar faults that always raise my blood pressure, or stylistic ones like using cliche three times in one paragraph. It seems the reason Nostalgia works is that it doesn't overtly say "this was a cliche" too often, and that's why you like it, but then you violate your own standards. This undoes the good will from the first paragraph. "I like Nostalgia" also jars me right when the review's getting really interesting. Then there's a decent argument that the game seems to hit the right stereotypes that make people happy, and that's good, but I'd be interested in an example of the plot feeling guilty as it strays, and maybe how that interacts with the wide open nonlinearity described above.

    Still, I had fun with this, and like retro that didn't know it would be stereotyped one day, it's important to just enjoy some things.

    75/100

    ========Felix Arabia - Star Parodier (Turbo CD)========

    BEN:

    The opening paragraph really confused me. Star Soldier, Paro Caesar, Vic Viper, and the bi-pedal PC Engine left me scratching my head. Then, stuff like Sapphire, Spriggan, and Steam Hearts got mentioned. It was clear that the intended audience was not people like me, and I felt I shouldnt be reading this review. At this point, I would have stopped reading if I were not a judge for this contest. I didnt learn much at all from the first few paragraphs, but it started getting readable for me from the fourth paragraph. In fact, I like it in quite a few places. The review utilises with great effect vivid phrases like volatile missiles emit from the ships blasters with unwavering fluidity and opulent fantasy realms encased in crystalline spheres. The Bombermans loins line is great, and the writing here is exceptionally strong throughout.

    One of the highlights of the review is the sixth paragraph, where Felix gets into the settings of the levels. They sound really neat however, there wasnt quite enough to convince me that they more than make for the easy challenge. I think more couldve been done to get me excited over the environments. Also, the number of shoot em ups Ive extensively played in my lifetime is pretty damn low I dont know much about these sort of games, much less about shoot em ups on the Turbografx CD. So, because I had no clue what the references were all about, it wasnt easy to imagine how Star Parodier played purely from the text. My mind started pondering questions like, Are there other weapons at your disposal other than the standard primary weapon? It would also be nice to know if the enemies themselves are varied, not just in the way they look but also the way they move and attack you. I know these arent essential questions in Felixs mind, but I wanted to learn more. If its just me shooting at one sort of enemy with my one sort of gun throughout the entire game, it would get old pretty fast. I probably wouldnt have minded as much if I believed the environments were truly special and not just nice. 70

    WILL:

    Quirky and interesting seems to be the dominating theme of this competition so far, and I'd say Star Parodier takes the cake. The review is a bit wordy and ponderous, though, and that makes it more of a bumpy read. Still, it's colourful and informative, and I feel like a cheap-ass for not being able to say much else. It's charming and I like it.

    87/100

    ASCHULTZ:

    A lot of shout outs to other turbo games here. Even I was able to recognize a lot of names or at least look for screenshots.

    Unfortunately, some parts wind up pretentious and self-indulgent to me, like the bit about Bomberman's loins, or "Of what, the jury..." Really, what jury? Maybe you could say nobody got around to -what-, because it sadly wasn't popular enough. Then there's mentioning the game is fun two sentences in a row, and I think I get the point that, well, the game being easy helps us see these fun moments more clearly. Also a pretentious grammar error: "The PC Engine, of which I am most biased towards." This made me groan. Sorry. "The greatest allure comes in the form of..."/"Sweet as a lollipop?" Hmph. Playing second fiddle to THREE games? Winston Smith will come to accept that, eventually.

    Also, I got mad at how you mentioned people talking about solving the game with a blindfold and then waited a whole paragraph to say that would kill the point. I saw that coming a mile off, and it felt like a surprise that was meant to materialize. "But ask yourself if it would bother you?" This is just stringing the reader along.

    I like straightforward games that don't try to be hard, and I like straightforward descriptions. Maybe the second would've been a bit more appropriate to this game. That might shorten the review too much as is, but more fun examples could be added.

    64/100

    ========Genj - Final Fantasy XIII (Xbox 360)========

    BEN:

    The content in this review is generally pretty good. My favourite part was when Genj produced a convincing example to support his claim that the dialogue in the game was poor. I also really liked the descriptions of how paradigms and roles work, the discussion on why he feels the story is weak, and how he explained that the restrictive level-up system actually benefits the overall game by making the battles the right difficulty. While describing the benefits of the level-up system is great, though, it did make me ponder about his criticism about the game taking too long to open up (the 20-hour mark). This is not something that heavily affects the score of Genjs review, but it is something that I want to bring up. By doing a lot of the hunting sidequests, your characters become slightly overpowered. While I understand the sentiment that open environments are much more fun to explore, this results in Square no longer having an approximation of what the party may look like; some wont bother with many missions, while others will want to do as many as they can.

    Some parts of the review perhaps arent explained as clearly as they could have been. How is the battle system fast-paced and so fast that you have to be paying attention every second? While the stagger system and the roles are explained well, there isnt much on the actual basics of the battle system (queuing up attacks, the ability to interrupt a queue, etc.) that could have backed up this point. Timing attacks is important that sentence seems out of place, as Genj moves on to talk about using the right moves for the right scenarios before explaining more about it (the Launch move). But aside from a few typos ("advantgeous", "Much of Final Fantasy XIIIs is derived, the cutscene are, and Crystalumshould be Crystarium) and a few missing commas that would have made reading a little smoother (commas shouldve been added after words like "Additionally", "Fortunately", and "Thankfully"), I didnt find much else wrong. This is a solid review that for the most part informs readers of what Final Fantasy XIII is about. (Final note: The final three paragraphs start with Final Fantasy XIII.) 75

    WILL:

    I'll leave more detailed thoughts in a feedback thread, but suffice it to say this review has a really bad case of information overload. Paragraph transitions are abrupt and jarring, and are choppy in a few places. But your argument is well-made; FF13's abysmal writing and exceedingly linear plot are overshadowed by fantastic combat, and you've given compelling reasons and examples as to why that is.

    72/100

    ASCHULTZ:

    I don't know if Genj was being sneaky or strategic when he sent this on a judge's RotW. It's more likely he was just oblivious, or maybe he just wanted to put the review out there early to get any feedback at all. I don't think it's unfair strategy for a tournament. It seems like he took a lot of my more technical suggestions to heart and built in some new things too. This is writing and improving at its best, and it deserves credit beyond just getting a score for a game. The review's pretty good, too. "Cosplay fodder" is just plain funny. Also, I think about the right amount of emphasis is put on the combat system, the main part of the game.

    Looking through this review, I still had some suggestions, but they were the sort that made me feel pedantic. For one of the two by-far longer reviews in the tourney (Zipp being the other) this really moves, and I want to read what happens next. It never quite drifts into FAQ-land but instead looks at the mechanics of why FFXIII might actually be new or worth spending time on as opposed to the previous. OK--I generally like FAQier stuff than most people. But reading this, I can picture what I might like to see when looking for my own retro games.

    The only really obnoxious part I found was talking about how normal people don't level grind. Perhaps someone on the other side thinks that normal people can't coordinate a party entirely efficiently, so they are glad for the safety valve? A bit of a straw man. That's it, though.

    85/100

    ========Overdrive - Project: Snowblind (PS2)========

    BEN:

    Out of all the entries in this contest, Overdrives was the review I had most fun reading. Overdrive doesnt try too hard theres no fancy writing and no gimmicks he just describes what makes Project Snowblind cool in a matter-of-fact kind of way and lets the game do most of the work for him. It is an approach that works really well, helped by the fact that there appears to be a lot of fun stuff to write about the game. Overdrive doesnt dwell on each individual point for too long. He makes one brief point after another, and the reviews fast pace and good flow make the game sound even more thrilling. No point overstays its welcome yet I feel I have plenty of information to get excited about. It really does sound like theres a lot of cool stuff you can do in this game (the super-soldier powers seem particularly awesome to me), and Overdrive makes me wish I played this five years ago when it came out. The penultimate paragraph, which details Project Snowblinds main flaw, is also great. The lack of replay value and extras certainly sounds like a bummer, and I feel Overdrives disappointment.

    Ive read through this review three times, and I have hardly anything meaningfully negative to say. The opening could have been a little gentler, and maybe the level descriptions could have been a little more convincing (a jailbreak sounds pretty cool to me how was the execution of it dull?). However, I was very nearly just as impressed as I was when I read Overdrives Fire Emblem review in the previous contest, leading me to come to the conclusion that I should read more reviews by him in the future. My pick of the contest, and quite comfortably, too. 92

    WILL:

    I see this game getting compared a lot to Deus Ex by other reviewers. And that's the obvious thing to compare it to, but it's a bit unfair. You wouldn't pit an Osiris against a Madcat, now would you? Of course not, they're in entirely different weight classes. The point is, I find it refreshing that you go this entire review without mentioning Deus Ex, permitting Snowblind a rare chance to stand on its own as an FPS. And stand it does, sort of. I'm not one to be charitable towards play-it-once titles, but you make that first play-through sound spectacular. Maybe it's not such a bad thing.

    90/100

    ASCHULTZ:

    I think I touched on this in the alpha olympics, but the main problem I have with this review is the humor. It's bland, uninspiring, and inappropriate to the piece. "Having that happen to you can really ruin..." My general approach is, if I can see my joke attempt on a bad sitcom, I ditch it. Stuff that works is "machine gun of the gods." More of that, please!

    That aside, the review gives a bad first impression claiming Snowblind has variety. It may BRING variety or originality, but then later you mention it has no extra modes, multiplayer, etc. Yes, it has some neat guns, but you mention variety! Variety! Variety! and...well, if it puts whatever variety where it's important, good. You've made a good case for that. Also it's interesting when you start to compare stealth and non-stealth ways through the game. But then you say you haven't played it enough. It seems you're excited about the game, but you had to put it down. The disappointment at the end also seems to loop around a bit before you put it down and end the review.

    Too many slow obvious jokes demote the writing from potentially dense and paced to "pleasant enough." For a game with lots of shooting, that doesn't work.

    68/100

    ========Zigfried - Sylphia (Turbo CD)========

    BEN:

    Besides the odd reference that I didnt get, this review was a nice read. Zigfrieds and Felixs reviews had their similarities, but I preferred Zigfrieds because there was more information about the game, and I was more satisfied when I reached the end of the page. The best part was how Zigfried conveyed how satisfying killing these enemies was. I liked the descriptions of the mythological creatures, and I especially liked how he tells how the enemies attack (crossbow-wielding Spartans, a skeleton charioteerwhips at Sylphia from afar), helping me visualise the levels in my head this while maintaining the fancy writing style. The only description that I wasnt fond of was when Shogun Warrior Gaiking was referenced, because I didnt get it.

    The approach that Zigfried took complemented Sylphia well and brought out the epic nature of the game. From the large chunks that evoked vivid imagery to the heart vs. mind matter, the review read almost like a grand story. The anecdote about selling the game for a hundred bucks and then buying it again for far more surprisingly fitted well, and helped me understand how much Zigfrieds heart adores Sylphia. But, though he convinces me that the games greatest strength lies in its setting and atmosphere, I wouldnt have minded further details on how it plays. What is the Giga Fairy Beam, and why is it overpowered? What other weapons are at the protagonists disposal, and why is it easy to gain so many extra lives? Another thing Im not entirely sure about is whether Sylphia is worth coming back to after a playthrough or two. Theres no hint of any sort of replay value, especially given that the game is remarkably easy, and Id imagine the setting would eventually lose its charm after a while. A great review otherwise. 80

    WILL:

    Brilliant start, brilliant finish. In between I was initially unsure about. There's lots of anecdotes and descriptions and cunningly-aligned images, but little about what the game is like. But, as was pointed out in the feedback topic, it's a friggin' shooter. You shoot things. That's not the point. The point, at least in Sylphia's case, is the atmosphere and the imagery and all that stuff. And I came away from this piece with a very good sense of what that is.

    94/100

    ASCHULTZ:

    The start is a good, solid gambit. It may feel slightly sugary, or maybe I just have a revulsion for the word "Homeland," as it still brings up an image of Tom Ridge with that color coded terror table. I'd dump the comment about if Compile even created the game until the end--seems to tie in perfectly with maybe being a game it's tough to admit you REALLY LIKE vs a company finding it tough to admit they wrote the game. Plus I think this would work better with the "magnificent 8" observation at the end. But why "My caveat has been...?" Pretentious. I read a few other airy sentences--"as one might smite a bird, etc."

    The next paragraph feels a bit like a laundry list, as the one two ahead works much better for description. The bit about the tiny man in the colossus is good stuff, if driven home a bit too obviously--an average of the two. I then found it amusing we had 2 Gate of Thunder references in one review tourney. The end should work but it doesn't. I mean, the game does live up to the heightened expectations, or you wouldn't have paid for it. Or it does in a way. It seems a bit slick and I don't know a way around it. Perhaps you can't ever play it through without being aware of its shortcomings, but that never lasts? And then you don't mind gearing up again?

    Throughout this piece I worried I was overreacting to expectations for one of your reviews. But I think some of the phrases and gambits don't resonate with me, and they miss the mark as to what makes a game fun if not technically advanced.

    73/100
    ========Zippdementia - Parasite Eve 2 (PSX)========

    BEN:

    I have only two pieces of criticism about Zipps review. The first is, I didnt particularly like the introduction. It tells me that Parasite Eve 2 shouldnt be taken seriously, but theres quite a large disconnect between that and the rest of the review, because after the intro, it never refers back to the initial point. I thought the intro was a little confusing, too I had no idea what Mitochondria is, which I guess was the reason why the quote didnt come across as ridiculous to me. (I actually think the review would work better if it got straight to the point and started with the Place yourself in the role paragraph.) The second flaw is that the review leaves a few details too late for my liking. For example, it was more than halfway before I learnt that Parasite Eve 2 was a survival horror. (I think its a third-person shooter?) And Mitochondrion powers arent elaborated until a fair way in, too. Its mentioned a few times, but I wouldve preferred it explained earlier. It also wouldve been nice to learn more of the powers other than Necrosis Im kind of wondering how varied these powers are.

    But, these are the only complaints I have. The rest is extremely well-written. By the end of it, I was confident I could tell someone why I personally wouldnt want to play this game. The several faults are explained convincingly, and I agreed with each point, thinking yeah, that does sound lame. At the same time, I also understand the aspects that make Parasite Eve 2 potentially compelling I really liked how Zipp talked about the variety of approaches you can take during the combat. Making me place myself in the protagonists shoes was an effective way of listing the many alternatives that I could take, while keeping me intrigued. There are more things Zipp does right. Apart from the lack of Mitochondrion powers information I mentioned earlier, Zipp gave me plenty of details to leave me knowledgeable without droning on for too long. I appreciated the fair amount of detail of why the shotgun sucks and the exact reasoning why the multiple endings are horribly executed. It is written in a way that an outsider like me can understand, and it added a lot of weight to Zipps strong opinion that you need an FAQ to get the most out of this game. 85

    WILL:

    You put "decimated" in there just to annoy me didn't you?

    This time, the Zipp Comedy Gold line comes at the very end. But that doesn't stop this review from being fun, because it's always entertaining to poke fun at a game with poor design choices. If anything, I think you're a bit too generous with them, but the review fits its 6/10 score nicely.

    77/100

    (If I were to "decimate" your score, it would instead be 70/100. SEE NOW? NOW DO YOU GET IT? NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND?)

    ASCHULTZ:

    I think I found the humor in your other reviews as flippant before, but this one hits it for me. I like how you establish the middle ground without too much being Mr. Everyday. We've all had our favorite "All your Base" moments, too, but the Mitochondria joke is well set up and well chosen. I remember what it is, but just barely.

    I have some complaint with your complaints about the tutorial--you're supposed to make mistakes, and I've had too many too-stupid tutorials that did nothing. You seem to have developed well enough to beat the game, and besides, it's survival horror--an annoying tutor is the least of your worries. In fact, a tutorial that makes you feel dumb and helpless (a bit) may prepare you for the game. However, the complaints about the game's descriptive brevity work better. I think it's valid to expect certain hidden attributes--but there are too many. Perhaps you and I have a fundamental difference in how we approach games. I like ones where you have to figure out a few rules, though they make sense once you do. And I'd argue that items you don't know can add to survival horror's sense of uncertainty and the unknown.

    However, missing a third of the game is a bit too much. It's replay value by subtraction and not addition, and you nail that well. I like the conclusion. It seems almost degenerate/trivial, and yet, I think you allow some leeway for people to form their own opinions because the examples flow well and never seem forced.

    81/100

    Psst..."my poor frail female body." I know what you mean, in context, but...it was the funniest slip in all the reviews.

    So, the results...

    Ben-Will-ASchultz-total
    Overdrive:92+90+68=250
    Zigfried:80+94+73=247
    Zipp:85+77+81=243
    EmP:83+83+75=241
    Genj:75+72+85=232
    Felix:70+87+64=221
    DE:70+75+60=205

    Congratulations to Overdrive! And thanks to everyone.

    Miscellaneous stats: Ben gave 79.3 on average, Will gave 82.6, and I gave a measly 72.3.
    StDev: Ben 8.16, Will 8.22, ASchultz 8.98. In other words, we all scaled our likes/dislikes about the same, so I'm off the hook for such low scores. Just add 10 to mine and 3 to Ben's.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 20, 2010:

    I'm rockin' out hard over this feedback! This is great! You guys have really pin-pointed for me some areas that I can improve in future reviews. I also really didn't expect to come close to Zig's review, so that's a nice surprise!

    I definitely think OD deserved this one. In a contest that ultimately ended up using a lot of gimmicks (guilty over here) his was a nice simple review that just let the game do the work. I'm pretty sure he didn't plan it that way since his was one of the first released but... well... with OD you never know ^_^

    Some issues with your table there, Aschultz. Otherwise, thanks to the judges for all their work and thanks to Zig for this great idea for a contest! I want to do it again!
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 20, 2010:

    Thanks, zipp. I got it. I'm back up to full speed.
    board icon
    darketernal posted April 20, 2010:

    Thanks for judging.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 20, 2010:

    And Will, as I said in my PE2 thread, decimating is perfectly possible on the human body, it just involves precise cutting.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 20, 2010:

    That seems about right.

    Ta to the judge team sans Will who I'm sure owes me something that I can't put my finger on. Congrats to Oddy on a long overdue podium finish.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 20, 2010:

    Congrats to ODelius for not losing and the judge staff for taking the time to do this!
    board icon
    Genj posted April 20, 2010:

    Thanks for the judges for their judging. I got really lazy when I realized how daunting writing a convincing 9 was for a game with several big flaws like FF13, so that's why you got a review with Final Fantasy XIII at the beginning of the final 3 paragraphs.

    Also I have clocked 62 hours into FF13 and I only just now learned it's not Crystalum.
    board icon
    zigfried posted April 20, 2010:

    Thanks to the judges for their time and energy! Much appreciated.

    //Zig
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 20, 2010:

    Zipp, thanks for pointing the HTML out. I thought I tested it, but that's for blog posts, not forum posts.

    Ben--amusing you shifted your grades up. I may've thought to shift them down because it might be tough to differentiate among some of the stronger reviewers.

    I hope to scatter feedback about as I pin it down. Again, I enjoyed reading these reviews more than I thought I did. For whatever reason, they helped me snap out of whatever rut I was in. They remind me that even with very good writing, there's still a lot of room to ask for a lot more. I think that's the goal of everyone here.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 20, 2010:

    So four reviews were sent in and only three could place. The other gets a feedback topic and deserves it. It seems sequels were the accidental theme of the week. Writing for sequels always interests me because there's always a grey area in what to assume and what not to rewrite from a previous review. All three of these did a good job of not looking too far behind at the past and still giving me an idea of what was going on and what was expected. But there can be only one.

    DarkstarRipclaw gets 3rd place for SBK: Snowboard Kids. While parts are a bit bumpy, there's some good discussion about disappointment over the game. The complaints about Snowboard Kids growing up being a bad thing are the sort of things that thinking gamers wrestle with all the time. The review, like the game, picks up well at the end--a strong conclusion helps it place.

    Felix_Arabia gets 2nd place for Donkey Kong 3. Some passages are the best writing of the week, but some just seem flowery, and they're flowery passages I've read before. It's one of those reviews where I suspect I will disagree strongly with the author on the "most interesting bits." But I fully agree they are there. With more stuff like the Gumby paragraph, this would be a super review. However, there's something to be said for taking chances and learning what works and what doesn't. It is good long term. But sometimes it lets a more straightforward review in for the temporary honors, which itself may've been a product of trying things out and seeing what worked...

    ...so Pickhut wins for Ace Combat 5. This review did a slightly better job of looking at the whole series and pointing out what we expect in sequels. There's maybe a bit more to work with for a sequel that improves than for one that is negative, and pickhut does a good job of capturing the sort of things that mean more than just another graphic upgrade, like how you can't do everything at once or get a perfect score, and that seems to make AC5 more exciting than AC4. Graphics, weapons, and so forth have been said before. I think if there's one thing I'd change about this review, it might be the minor profanities. They're not offensive, but they don't add anything. Save your powder for the most important passage. The review won't lose any pace. This is a significantly better review than the AC2 one I saw a while back, so good job on it and on working to improve things in general.

    Minor gripes are addressed in critique topics, hopefully with enough (deserved) praise to balance things out.
    board icon
    True posted April 20, 2010:

    I caught that earlier. I was going to make fun of you...

    Then I remembered that you: A) Totally came through for me on Darkness and B) You still have it, and could potentially release it to the world with changes that would make me look foolish, like giving three characters the same name, or randomly putting the word "poop" in.

    Don't do that.
    board icon
    randxian posted April 20, 2010:

    Congrats to this week's winners. Pickhut is certainly doing a great job selling the Ace Combat series as of late. I'm itching to try that series and may pick up the one for the PSP since I don't currently own a PS2.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted April 21, 2010:

    !

    Wow, I haven't received one of these in a long time, so this is a surprise. Thanks for the RotW and the comments on the the review, aschultz, I'll take a look at those profanities you've mentioned. And congrats and good job to everyone else who had a review that week, they also wrote solid reviews.

    Also, thanks, rand. I've never played the PSP game, but I hope it turns out to be a good game.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 21, 2010:

    Oh, you'd be able to sort out the typos.

    I think it'd be subtler to put in a few emoticons, or "then X decided to (I forget, slip this by the editors." Knock off a quotation mark here or there. I haff vays.

    Not that I would. OR WOULD I???? *steeples fingers and grins evilly*
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted April 21, 2010:

    Apologies for my relatively brief judging comments. Some days I go detail, some days I go for brevity. On the day I wrote those, I was a Concise Writer.

    Anyway, thanks to all the entrants, and judges, especially Schultz and his wacky statistics. Apparently I gave the highest average score. I'm not sure what the implications of that are, but I think I can live with it.
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 21, 2010:

    SWEET!!!!

    It has been a hell of a long time since I've won one of this things. Looks like I haven't completely lost my mojo yet! Thanks to the judges and to the cannon fodder...I mean, esteemed opponents for their participation in this tournament. There weren't a LOT of entries, but the reviews were all good.
    board icon
    aschultz posted April 21, 2010:

    Overdrive--it was good to see you win. I can truthfully say that though I remember your earlier comments, I didn't load my scores to help...though seriously, I like what the other two reviewers have to say about your review. It made me feel all closed minded.

    Will--it's actually just a matter of typing =STDEV(B2:B8) to see things. I'd always been curious if one reviewer could trump the others by varying scores too much, and it's cool to see that we are all on the same page with something that potentially subjective.

    board icon
    overdrive posted April 21, 2010:

    Schultz: Yeah, but I understand what you're saying in your critique. I tend to throw in random quips, puns and shit into my reviews because they amuse me and a lot of times, I think part of whether my reviews REALLY work for people is if those lines work. Kinda like how "machine gun of the gods" worked for you, but "can really ruin your day" didn't. That's one of those things about my reviews...I tend to toss in things for the hell of it and sometimes they fall flat in some peoples' minds.

    Which all reminds me that I really need to do another "Rob's Retro Rampage" or similarly themed over-the-top review of something in the near future. I am playing Star Ocean: Till the End of Time again (currently up to Berial/Belzeber fight) and it is loaded with comedic material galore:

    1. Annoying J-RPG stereotypes galore (particularly Peppita, the self-absorbed, precocious young girl archetype).

    2. The vast majority of anything particularly challenging in the game coming after you beat the game and unlock the bonus dungeons. To get to many of these challenges, you have to advance through a 100+ floor dungeon with repetitive floor lay-outs (aka: UNNECESSARY BATTLE OF ATTRITION).

    3. Oh yeah...this is a futuristic RPG with unlimited potential as far as setting up environments you don't get in the average medieval world swords-n-sorcery RPG. So, you spend most of it in a medieval world fighting soldiers and dragons and shit due to your spaceships always seeming to land/crash on these places.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 21, 2010:

    What'd YOU think of my PE2 review, OD? You requested it, after all!

    Sadly, my requested review did not get reviewed...
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 21, 2010:

    Congrats to pickhut for his sexy win, and thanks for the nod!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 21, 2010:

    Good win, Pickhut. Great review this week.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 22, 2010:

    Theres not a huge amount to say here: you write a review. It has to be of a horror-based game. Voluntary judges will tell you that you kinda suck as politely as they can. Then the zombie apocalypse hits and we battle the undead.

    BUT! This (and possible future) WGT tourney will feature the EmP-patented Sliding Scale Bonus Points Reward System! Review a game of real horror pedigree, and be awarded up to 5 bonus points! Review something as unhorrifying as the latest offering from Barbie, lose up to five.

    The deadline will be the 8th 15th May (Usual HG time zone shenanigans apply) . Sign-ups and judges will now be formed up in an orderly list below:

    JUDGES:
    OD
    ZIPP
    GENJ

    PLAYERS:
    EmP: Silent Hill: Homecoming
    MASTERS
    DE: Phantasmagoria
    FELIX
    SUSKIE: Left 4 Dead
    BLOOMER: BloodRayne
    WQ: Resident Evil: Code Veronica X
    NIGHTMARE: Silent Hill: Shattered Memories
    ZIGFRIED: Cotton: Fantastic Night Dreams
    DUO: Resident Evil.
    board icon
    Masters posted April 22, 2010:

    Hmm. There are a few horror games I've wanted to chat about for awhile now, and this may give me an excuse/deadline.

    But then... will I actually show?

    Double hmm...
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 22, 2010:

    I'll judge!!!! Mainly because I'm not playing any horror-based games at the time, but by the beard of Odin, I will participate in this contest! Since I won the last one, I can tell all of you how much you suck compared to me! And I'll still be the kindest judge.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted April 22, 2010:

    I'd like to judge as well. The most horrifying thing I can think of right now was my last ROTW, so it only seems appropriate that I add my comments to this mix.

    On a more serious note, I've been waiting to judge a contest for a while now. I had planned on volunteering for Zig's, but I couldn't resist the thought of being forced to review a game at someone else's dominating whim.
    board icon
    Masters posted April 22, 2010:

    Why don't we ALL judge!
    board icon
    darketernal posted April 22, 2010:

    Alright, I'm in.
    board icon
    Genj posted April 22, 2010:

    There are no horror games I plan on playing soon and my finals will be until May 7th, so I will offer to be a judge.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 22, 2010:

    This will give me an excuse to play Silent Hill 2, which I'll try to review for this.
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 22, 2010:

    There are no horror games I plan on playing soon and my finals will be until May 7th, so I will offer to... oh. Well, I guess I'll be sitting this one out, then.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 22, 2010:

    That's hilarious. My finals run through May 7th too!

    Also, there's only one game that I can play for this, and I'm not even sure I have the complete set anymore or if it's even operational.
    board icon
    bloomer posted April 23, 2010:

    Funny how there's a surfeit of judges. See, I'd like to be in a horror comp but I don't know if I can play anything new for this. I could possibly review something I've already played with just minimal refreshing. Failing that, I would have volunteered to judge, but it looks like more judges are the last thing needed.

    I'll have a think about a possible game and get back here.
    board icon
    Masters posted April 23, 2010:

    Can't have a horror game thing without Bloomer involved. Just doesn't seem... right.
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 23, 2010:

    Actually, you know what? There's a game I played recently that fits.

    I might participate. Maybe.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 23, 2010:

    Half the reason this tourney came about was to try and tempt Bloomer in.

    If there's nothing you can write for, then we'll just have to have a forth judge! It won't be the first time we've done it -- assuming you'd be up for it.

    EDIT: Master's recently claimed (via insolence) that I wasn't widley known across the internets for my horror mastery. He then suggested I stick to pony sims. I now plan to OUT HORROR REVIEW the hell out of him.
    board icon
    zigfried posted April 23, 2010:

    Is Eternal Darkness a horror game? I've had that from Gamefly for two months now, and they're probably waiting for me to actually play and return the damn thing.

    //Zig
    board icon
    bloomer posted April 23, 2010:

    Your collective combination of flattery and psychouts has successfully drawn me! I can think of two things I could potentially review, so I will commit to play now.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 24, 2010:

    Eternal Darkness is very much a horror game.
    board icon
    Blaze3 posted April 24, 2010:

    Hi there. I'm new, but you know that... I was linked here by Flying Omelette, and it seemed cool.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted April 24, 2010:

    Welcome to the site! If you're coming from Flying Omelette's site, you probably will want to check out our extensive retro coverage. Or maybe you won't and you'll like our coverage of current games more. Either way, I look forward to seeing you around!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 25, 2010:

    So uh... While I was home this weekend, I bought a game that very much fits this contest... However, I still won't be able to participate unless the deadline is extended an extra week. =x Pleeeease? =D
    board icon
    EmP posted April 25, 2010:

    I'll decide on whether you get a extension or not on this in the morning. In the meanwhile, I open the floor you, the awful public, to air your views on this pressing matter.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted April 25, 2010:

    An extra week would help.
    board icon
    Masters posted April 25, 2010:

    I am voting for an extension because Wolfqueen begged me to help her cause.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted April 25, 2010:

    "I'll decide on whether you get a extension or not on this in the morning."

    :0
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 25, 2010:

    Game: Rogue Warrior
    Platform(s): Xbox 360, PS3, PC
    Publisher: Bethesda
    Developer: Rebellion
    Genre: First-Person Shooter
    Release Date: December 1, 2009

    ADDED
    board icon
    Masters posted April 25, 2010:

    Haha! Performance incentives FTW
    board icon
    EmP posted April 26, 2010:

    Fine. +1 week.
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 26, 2010:

    Mine will be up tomorrow. I was kinda feeling blah yesterday and basically laid on the couch all day. Today's a very busy day at work. Tomorrow will be better. Far better.
    board icon
    Typodragon posted April 26, 2010:

    Game: tomb raider: legend
    Platform(s): PC
    Publisher: eidos
    Developer: crystal dynamics
    Genre: platformer/puzzle
    Release Date: 2006?

    ADDED
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted April 26, 2010:

    Yay! <333 Now you actually can add me to the contestant pool as I'm quite guaranteed to make it now (and hopefully some others as well). Thanks!
    board icon
    Masters posted April 27, 2010:

    EmP: we went from having too many judges to only two? I'll take the third spot if need be.
    board icon
    overdrive posted April 27, 2010:

    And here's my new, improved format! Due to some argument/controversy thing from a few weeks back, my RotWs will be a simple, congratulatory deal for the three placewinners. Nothing too complex...just me saying why I like your reviews. Anyone wishing for more in-depth commentary may request it and I will be more analytical. But this is more of a "simple praise" thing.

    Other than that, things are the same. No staff reviews. Only one per person eligible.



    THIRD PLACE: NCAA Football 07 (XBox) by Typodragon

    Pretty solid effort, that if nothing else, does a great job of showing pretty much anyone with a certain familiarity with this franchise, how little EA alters things from title to title. I have 06 and found myself nodding my head with just about everything you said. You might not have liked the game as much as I did, considering the lower rating, but I found your commentary to be spot on. Especially the part about the passing game. I've had many games where I've beaten the computer something like 55-10 and my QB was, say, 8-22 for 300+ yards and 6TDs. On 06, which means EA did nothing to tighten up the passing game.

    SECOND PLACE: Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War (PS2) by pickhut

    The greatest strength of this review: I've only played a few levels of AC4 and, despite the number of references you threw in about other games in the series (primarily 5), I never found myself lost. You did a good job of keeping things simplistic and gameplay-oriented, while bringing up things such as how the main tragic moment of 5 was treated like an afterthought here as a way to illustrate a certain disappointment with how this game didn't really do a good job of using the previous as a springboard. Good stuff.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Just Cause 2 (X360) by Suskie

    Great review that basically tells me everything I need to know. This sounds like a fun-as-hell piece of art...I mean game. You do such a great job explaining how the sandbox elements work with the gameplay, that when you mention how your battle capabilities could be explored a bit more, I was looking at that as just a minor trifle, which seems to be how you felt about it, as well. Great work with this one.



    And there's my week. Don't forget...if you want more in-depth and possibly insultingly critical commentary (depending on my mood and general drunkenness), just let me know!
    board icon
    dementedhut posted April 27, 2010:

    Thanks for the comments on the review, Overdrive. Glad you liked reading it.

    Good job to Typodragon for his/her's placing, and congrats to Suskie on his RotW!
    board icon
    randxian posted April 27, 2010:

    Congrats to Suskie and pickhut doing a great job, as usual. Also congrats to Typodragon for finishing third. Nice to see some new talent hanging with the vets.
    board icon
    Suskie posted April 27, 2010:

    I felt better about that review than most I've written, so I'm really glad you enjoyed it. Thanks a lot for the win and congrats to Pickhut and Typodragon -- always great seeing new faces around here.
    board icon
    blood-omen posted April 30, 2010:

    i was also invited by Jason to contribute to HG after he saw my reviews over at GameFaqs.....now im a freelancer at HG :D
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted April 30, 2010:

    Haha, spent most of April making a huge Survival Kids world map, only to cut in half and save over the only annotated copy...d'oh. And since Red Dead Redemption comes out in late May, gonna have to find another stopgap project to do -- blargh.
    board icon
    EmP posted April 30, 2010:

    Do Vandal Hearts: FoJ. Now!
    board icon
    fleinn posted April 30, 2010:

    hm.. I think I was searching for a Mirror's Edge review, and happened to click on Zipp's review here. I didn't like what the review said, and I still think it was terribly wrong on a number of levels. But it was well written, and the reasoning was really well described. So I thought - a site with reviews like that - well described view-points that were not like my own - would be a good idea to visit again.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted April 30, 2010:

    I came from GameFAQs, along with many others. I came at the time when HG was basically already up and running though, but while the GameFAQs' scene was still active. People were already crossposting their material on the two, but I didn't bother with HG for a while because I thought it was small time, like some dude's geocities site. Eventually it became clear that the GameFAQs' scene was migrating to HG, and I realized that HG was much better than I had given it credit for, so I jumped onto the bandwagon.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted April 30, 2010:

    Apparently there were some issues with staff slacking off archiving the original results topic, so at WQ's request I'll now fix their blunder repost them. Lucky I still had them saved on my computer.

    ________________________

    Team EmP
    ________________________

    EmP - Modern Warfare 2

    Ben says...

    Theres a lot to like about this review. As usual, you do a great job at vividly painting the picture. The snow level made me reminisce about the first time I played through it. More importantly, though, it provides a solid base to build on for the rest of your review. You continually expand this topic of its a video game and nothing more and your second level example, one of the America ones, goes one further and explains why its such a compelling one despite its ambitions. Its only natural that you touch on the No Russian mission, and I like how you remain consistent and critique it like you did with the other two. There are a few nitpicks, some detracting from the quality of the review more than others. Hanger should be spelt hangar, and the one-liner felt a little overdramatic given that your error in judgment in the mission shouldnt really be the focal point here.

    Im a little ambivalent on a couple of exaggerated phrasesspecifically spot me from across the base and plough AK47 bullets into my face. I get that you wanted to emphasize your point more, but its not a truly accurate representation of what happens when things go south. Finally, I can see why you chose keep the multiplayer section brief, but a few things bothered me about it. You mention deathmatches, but there is a plethora of game modes online, many of which are objective-based, which contributes to its immense popularity. Also, the infinitely customisable phrase is a bit misleading, making me wonder further if you actually touched the multiplayer for more than half an hour. I think completely omitting the online component wouldnt have been a bad choice, as your review is primarily meant to be a discussion on how well Modern Warfare 2 fares when considering Infinity Wards ambition and how well Modern Warfare 2 fares when treated like a typical video game. The discussion itself, however, was a successful one. 80

    Masters says...

    The language here is employed in typically clever and original fashion. The thesis is brilliantly set out:

    " Its a step too far; pregnant with ambition though it might be, its a merciful failure. If their darling scenario was to succeed, the sacrifices made to the overall picture would be catastrophic -- it would be a video game trying its level best not to be a video game. Shortly thereafter, the evil of man is relegated to the backburner where it belongs so you can get on with shooting people before they shoot you.... When its not trying to congratulate itself on the supposed brilliance of its subtext, Modern Warfare 2 remains one of the tightest titles on the market."

    The only drawback (besides the occasional typo and grammatical mishap) is the weight the negative thrust the thesis is given. The initial example cited makes the game sound dumb, and perhaps not enough time is given to countering that with talk of the game's excellence.

    Of course that being said, I recognize that this review was far from the first posted on HG for this game, and so much gushing had already gone on. Still, the review leans too heavily toward the negative, telling me, "MW2's unrealistic and kind of silly, but it's a pretty good shooter", which does not to my mind, a 9 make.

    Irony of all ironies: I give this review a 90.

    Will says...

    Normally I'm a big fan of your narrative style, Sir EmP (and I'm not just saying that because I fear for my life), but this piece I don't find particularly enthralling. It's smooth in some places, but heavy and difficult to follow in others. I feel like there's a lot of dead weight here, too many unnecessary words and needless clauses. Let me give you an example:

    The battlefield is awash with the burning husks of cars, the scars on the concrete left by the raining death of whats little more than a floating missile platform you can abuse to wipe out large bodies of hostiles, and the constant illumination of muzzle flashes and grenade blasts.

    Ugh. Honestly, that was my first thought when I got to this sentence. This piece is in dire need of pruning, because underneath all the excess verbiage is a clear picture of MW2 and what EmP thinks of it. Streamline it, and that picture comes into focus. But then gets smacked in the face by that last paragraph. MW2 may be one of the tightest FPS titles on the market, but when you've spent about half the review railing on its shortcomings it takes more than a few words to the effect of "nevermind all of that" to recover and score it a 9/10. The overall experience may be worthy of that 90%, but you'll have to do a little more than just say so to compensate for the negative tone up to that point.

    "Well, the single-player is the length of a sneeze, you have to rely on AI teammates to get anything done, IW is trying really hard to be pretentious twats while you're busy getting shot at, and oh yeah, there's quicktime events. But don't worry, it's still a great game."

    Doesn't really work for me.

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    + Narrative style
    + Amusing anecdotes
    - Really freakin' wordy
    - Score/tone mismatch
    + Bribery, fear for personal safety
    SCORE
    78
    ________________________

    Dragoon of Infinity - Tatsunoko vs Capcom

    Ben says...

    Good first impressionsI appreciate reviews that quickly get to the point. In this case, you describe the appeal of team fighters. The way you present the core mechanics of the game is particularly pleasing. It could be seen as an introduction to newer players who know little about this niche, and it could be seen as reassuring veterans that a lot of the stuff will be familiar to them. This generally continues for the rest of the piece. You explain a lot of the key points well, and there arent any major flaws, at least in my opinion. You successfully convince me that the giant characters arent overpowered and arent just cheap gimmicks, and you say how the game can be fun for novices and masters. This is a rather concise yet informative review, but not one without some negatives for me to make.

    My biggest disappointment is the lack of names when discussing the roster. Are Capcoms characters the same as those in MvC2? Are the fan favourites still in there? Are there are other new and interesting picks aside from Frank West? I know balance is most important in a fighter, but surely the roster itself is a major selling point for TvC? On the other hand, you freely admit that you didnt care much about the Tatsunoko characters initially, which is fair enough. I certainly dont expect much about that side of the roster, so I think what youve written about Tatsunoko is sufficient enough. Im quite surprised that you put the visuals paragraph ahead of the movelist, because the movelist is one of the key components of a fighter. Its not a huge complaint, but its one that made me pause and think about it for a few seconds. And some of the wording in a few places could have been better. For example, there is an overuse of serious at one pointthree times in two sentences. Overall, a solid review, though. 77

    Masters says...

    The lack of confidence shows itself from the onset: "always kind of been the premier name"? Really? The following sentence doesn't tell me much of anything: "There are plenty of other games, each with their own merits that make them debatably better or worse." And the third sentence to close out the paragraph seems to contradict the first: after all, isn't a 'team fighter' a type of 'fighting game'?

    Rocky opening aside, the next paragraph does a lot to showcase the writer's expertise, but for many it may come too late.

    It's smooth sailing again until this line: "The roster feels well rounded even though it's much smaller than precursor Marvel vs. Capcom 2, and the smaller roster size makes every character feel a little more unique simply because there's less to differentiate." I know what you mean, but it doesn't sound right.

    Later, "As per usual, Capcom's is a serious giant robot designed to seriously survive the seriousness that is a frigid wasteland planet..." A serious giant robot designed to seriously survive...?!

    Aside from the above, the review reads competently, if mechanically. 73

    Will says...

    I came away from this review thinking "Oh, so it's like Marvel vs Capcom but with somebody else instead of Marvel". This is problematic since you seem to be trying to convince me that it's unique and groundbreaking.

    Gonna have to disagree with you there. Tag-teaming characters? Swapping in and out for combos and specials? Shared energy meters? This stuff was new and interesting when X-Men vs Street Fighter was the hot new game in the arcade down the street. You're correct, though, in that the game's biggest strength is its roster. The reason you're correct is that this is true for any fighting game.

    Basically, this review tells me about the modern Fighting Game and little about T vs C specifically. Either that's your fault (bear with me here), for not talking enough about the game's unique points, or it's the game's fault for not being very unique - and if the latter, then this needs to be rewritten to talk less about how this game stands out from the crowd and more about how it doesn't need to. A roster assembled from different IPs and two-slot "giant" characters are not exactly revolutionary. But neither do they need to be for this to be an 8/10. The strongest paragraph here is the fourth, where you talk a bit about some of the characters and what makes them special; in a game like this, that is what you should be talking about. The mechanics of the fighting genre haven't really changed in the last fifteen years, it's the characters that make or break it. So don't spend so much time talking about mechanics.

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    + Stickin' to your guns
    + Clear, concise DoI writing
    - ...arguing the wrong point
    SCORE
    70
    ________________________

    Darketernal - Ninja Blade

    Ben says...

    You open by trying to make me relate to your thoughts. Its a nice idea, but unfortunately it backfires. Ninjas arent really my thing, and Ive never entertained the idea of being one. This makes the entire first paragraph and the one-liner (Im not entirely sure why that sentence deserved a paragraph of its own) obsolete, as youre explaining why you think ninjas are awesome as if I agree with you. I dont, Im afraid. The second sentence is also a fragment without much reason to be. I would have much preferred it if you went straight to the point and started with the third paragraph (you forgot to pluralise ninja late in the paragraph). Ninja Blade is like Ninja Gaiden or God of War! That gets my interest much faster than the whole ninjas thing.

    The rest isnt bad, though. It slowly picks up steam when you start talking about the story, but it really hits its stride when discussing how the game actually plays. You write with plenty of enthusiasm and personality that it becomes fun to read. I personally feel that quick-time events arent a bad thing if they are executed well, but you convincingly get the point across that in Ninja Blade, they are a detriment. Unfortunately, while it does seem there is an unnecessary amount of focus on QTEs in the game, I wish you could have elaborated more on the combat itself. Im sure you dont spend the whole duration of your playthrough pushing buttons in QTEs (otherwise youd be scoring it closer to a 3, surely). I played the demo a while back, and it seemed like the combat is a big enough presence to warrant going into more detail. For example, Id like to know how your character gets stronger as you progress through the game. Maybe talk more about the magic system. While it does end up being an enjoyable read, by the end I still dont feel like I know enough about Ninja Blade to decide if its really for me or not. I could have also done without the last line, but you probably already knew that once you found out I disliked the ninja intro. 60

    Masters says...

    The opening line made me laugh, but was regrettably followed up with a line that is not actually a sentence.

    After that, I liked the "low life scum" and "but mainly swords" bits most of all, but there are many funny parts to choose from.

    I especially like it when a reviewer is able to sum up his feelings so that the reader is not unsure of what is being communicated, and DE does it very succinctly, and in his trademark irreverent fashion: " If you yearn for a game with a supernatural twist to it that has cheesy, but great, action scenes in which you do little to participate, then this game is great."

    Besides the beginning and a few questionable word choices, I quite liked this one. 85

    Will says...

    Well...you've done a good job convincing me this is a pretty bad game. And I love a good bash of quicktime-heavy "games". It sounds like Devil May Cry with less restraint, and makes me want to write a blog post about the difference between good over-the-top and bad over-the-top.

    Philosophy of game design aside, I haven't a lot to say about this piece. I like it, it doesn't play around. Ninja Blade is clearly a bad game, and there's not much more needs to be said to demonstrate why. That, and I like the dry wit sprinkled about.

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    + Bash review
    + Dry wit
    SCORE
    80
    ________________________

    Wolfqueen - Plants vs Zombies

    Ben says...

    Im reading my final Team EmP review, and this is the third that uses a one-liner near the start. Like the other two, I dont think it adds much and hampers the initial flow. I like the review, though. It doesnt try anything fancy, and gives a straightforward yet effective summary and critique of the game. I found it hard to visualise what Plants vs. Zombies looked like when you were describing the basicsI had to scroll down to see a few screenshots on the same pageso theres room for improvement there, but I enjoyed reading all these varied strategies and learning that youre only scratching the surface of it all when you talk about how things get even more complicated as you progress. You make the core game sound fun yet challenging; in fact, youre starting to tempt me to actually try it for myself.

    Its also nice that theres a lot in here about the extras, and you convey the variety very well. It seems like you get plenty of value for your money. The slight problem I found with the second half, though, is that you spent too much time on these extras. They take up as much space as the main adventure mode in the review. Does that mean the extras overshadow the main part of the game? I get the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the extras are the best part. That said, by the time I got to the penultimate paragraph, I wasnt really interested in learning about the specifics of Survival Endless mode, because I felt I had a good sense of the range of extras out there already from your previous two paragraphs. Then, that spills over to the conclusion when you go into even more detail about the strategies surrounding this one single bonus mode that Im not too fussed about. It rambles on for a bit, and at this point, I lost interest. The final few lines, however, partially redeem this and deliver a strong finish. 75

    Masters says...

    WQ hits a home run with her intro paragraph. But then she delves into the game's 'basics', without telling us what kind of game we're playing -- that is to say, without painting a picture of gameplay first. I found it particularly jarring, and had to check out the screenshots before returning to the text.

    WQ's writing continues to shine insofar as her 'way with words'; however, I find that the review struggles to communicate its ideas clearly. The review felt absolutely jammed with scenarios, weapons, problems, contingencies, solutions. Despite the fact that she likely touched on much of what the game offers and what can be accomplished playing the game, I didn't get a clear sense of how the game is played, much less what makes it good.

    I'm reminded of what Zigfriend once remarked in a reviewer chat: sometimes too much information is none at all, because a reader can't process your jumbled mind's attempt to re-create a million things that go on during play. Sometimes you should pick a few strong examples of how it is to play the game and run with those. 75

    Will says...

    Bonus points right off the bat for picking a bizarre game.

    For such a quirky and interesting game, WQ, this review feels kind of dry and formulaic. It lacks the energy of some of your other pieces that I liked. The writing is clear and transitions smooth, but it just lacks soul, like you aren't really interested in it. And if you're not interested in the game, I come away from the review thinking the game isn't that interesting.

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    + Technically sound
    + Bizzare game
    - Lacking energy
    SCORE
    75
    ________________________

    Another Team
    ________________________

    Overdrive - Fire Emblem

    Ben says...

    As someone who has played both Fire Emblem and The Sacred Stones on the GameBoy Advance and enjoying both of those games, I was intrigued to know what you thought of a much older game of the series. I honestly dont have much to complain about. Your review seems to be written for people like me in mind. My assumption would be that anyone not exposed to Fire Emblem might have a tougher time reading to the end, but I very much appreciated that you often referred back to the more modern Fire Emblems. It gives me a very good idea on how Monshou on Nazo stands up to todays standards.

    Of course, the approach is nothing if what youve written is an incoherent mess. Fortunately, thats not the case. Examples you give can be easily followed and visualised, and by explaining how much dumbed down weapons and spells are and thus how similar most of the characters are, youre very convincing when you say the game is more luck-basedwhich isnt a good thing especially when the penalty is so high. That, among a few other strong points, makes it clear that the game is outdated and just not as fun. If there is one thing I have to moan about, its probably going to be how you dismiss stories in turn-based strategies as pretty irrelevant and usually little more than bridging the gap between one large-scale battle and the next. With a series like Fire Emblem, where the unique feature is that you can lose your characters permanently, a good story and dialogue can help personify the cast. When I played through the GBA titles, there were characters I cared more about than others, and I tended to be more protective of them just so I could keep using them, despite their maybe lower stats. Really, this is more of a disagreement than anything else. Other than that, super reviewmy pick of the contest. 93

    Masters says...

    OD's review is in stark contrast to WQ's in that he tackles a difficult to explain thesis, and through exceptionally clear (though NOT flowery) writing, manages to make us understand where he's coming from. Not at all easy, especially when his dusty old RPGs are going to seem boring to most gamers -- all but the intended niche market, I would think. I have zero interest in the subject matter, but I was able to connect the dots because of OD's uncanny ability to make complex analysis and flow seem natural. That said, the review isn't exciting by any means, but that's because the game isn't -- and he's giving it a middle-of-the-road score. Again: very challenging material, but ultimately lacking of the stuff necessary to make a big splash in a review contest. 88

    Will says...

    I'm undecided on these first two paragraphs; they don't say much about this game, and they come off kind of pretentious. It may be that some context is necessary to fully appreciate the game, but if that's true then I'd count it a failing.

    In fact, the overall tone of this review is geared toward an audience already familiar with Fire Emblem, and as someone who's never even touched a copy I'm immediately and intensely put off. I'm not seeing any reason here why I, someone who's never picked up a Fire Emblem title before, should want to give this game a try. That having been established, I had a hard time really caring about what you've written. And I'm sure you'll agree that when your audience isn't interested, that's bad.

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    - Rambly, superfluous introduction
    - No "hook"
    - Prerequisite knowledge off-putting
    SCORE
    65
    ________________________

    Zippdementia - Hello Kitty Party

    Ben says...

    Hm, I have mixed feelings about this one. Toddlers get amused by the smallest of things. I remember this book I saw years ago, and each page was filled with a particular colour (red, blue, green, etc.). A kid was really fascinated by this book and spent a baffling amount of time flicking through the pages again and again. My point is that I dont think its as simple as you make it out to be by saying all young girls will dislike Hello Kitty Party. The game does sound terrible for me, no doubt about it, but you dont convince me that it would be terrible for the intended target audience. I can imagine a young child happily slicing vegetables on the DS. They cant slice veg in real life, and theyve probably seen their parents cook. This mini-game, despite being really shallow which you rightly point out, could very well appeal to that young child as she pretends to be doing something they wouldnt normally do. I dont speak for everyone, but sometimes, playing games is a form of escapism. And I dont speak for all kids, but at times, some of them like to pretend to be something theyre not. I pretended to be a teacher when I was tiny, for example.

    I dont deny that children might have more fun with more complex games (I spent my first years of gaming playing Mario over and over again), but some dont want that. My parents like Wii Sports Resort because its ridiculously easy to get into. On the other hand, they didnt like New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Ugh, Im probably not making a lot of sense. Disagreement is fine, obviously, and your opinion is perfectly validIm coming across as too defensivebut the main issue I have is that you didnt put your points across well enough to make me think oh, Zipp has a point. I like the rest of the review, though. I wasnt too keen on the mentioning of your friend. It felt like a needless distraction to me, and she didnt add much to the review, but I dont have many other complaints. It was well written, and you were bold in choosing a game that was quite clearly not meant for you, for better or for worse. 70

    Masters says...

    Great lead-in, and I liked this in particular: "Unfortunately, in this case its like having your favorite childhood characters feature in a sweat shop." The experience summed up early, and in clever fashion.

    And this:

    "I didnt have her skills. The dressing game was my first destination at the party. Being color-blind, I quickly proceeded to make such grievous fashion errors as giving Hello Kitty a red flower when she was wearing a puke-orange dress. The game was only full of praise and encouragement, though, and I am proud to say that I now have stored on my DS pictures that would make the colorists at Sanrio cry out in agony. I was better at the dancing game, which is a little bit like Elite Beat Agents if Elite Beat Agents only featured one character and you had to do something on every eighth beat. I had similar success at the shopping activity, where I had to match three objects to their shadows. This might have been disastrous if not for the fortunate fact that cereal boxes, oranges, and celery are quite distinct."

    Very funny stuff.

    Zipp has done well to choose a game ripe for the bashing, and he bashes it in a way that is funny, but still level-headed -- which I respect a great deal. It's all too easy to make great departures from the task of actually reviewing and stray outside the boundaries of good taste in a self-indulgent "watch me rip this stoopid game" kind of way. Zipp shows some restraint and scores big time. 92

    Will says...

    You are a brave soul, sir. Your introduction catches my interest almost immediately, and it's easy to follow through the rest of the piece. Also, this is another pretty terrible-sounding game, and like I said before I love classy bash reviews. I wonder what that says about me...

    Psychological analysis aside, I like this review mostly for its wit - especially that line near the end about choking hazards. A 1/10 takes a fair bit of explanation, and you've clearly demonstrated why Hello Kitty Party is deserving of such an abysmal score.

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    + Taking the piss out of a terribad game
    + Choking hazard
    SCORE
    85
    ________________________

    Aschultz - Dark Heart of Uukrul

    Ben says...

    I got the impression that you rushed writing this review a little, because there were quite a few typos and small things that Im sure you would have noticed if the review was proofread a bit more. Some errors include immortailty, nasty combats, your fighter, paladin, priest and wizards attributes (should be or if youre referring to your one created character, unless youre saying that the game allows you to create one of each kind for your party, which in that case, the review should have been a little clearer about the party itself), Thi is certainly not, range enemies, figure out obvious strategy, and casts and endgame spell. There are more scattered throughout. I also didnt feel some things were explained to me clearly enough, and I sometimes struggled to visualise how the game played. The combat system is the most obvious example that comes to my mind. I hope I dont sound stupid, but I dont understand how the combat works based on your description of it. Enemies scuttle around on a top-down grid laid out like the corridor being explored, and then everyone attacks. What do you mean by laid out like the corridor being explored? When you say and then everyone attacks, are you saying your party and all enemies attack at precisely the same time? So its real-time and not turn-based combat?

    Maybe the review should have discussed more about why the combat was so brutal and more about the variety of enemies. You mention that ranged enemies can deal poison, but that point was tacked onto the end of a paragraph, slightly out of place and as an afterthought. Its not the most accessible review, either. I knew nothing about DHoU before reading your entry, so when you mentioned the stone ring and enclaves without much explanation, I got a little lost and confused. It doesnt help that the review jumps all over the place. The penultimate paragraph starts with saying the combat looks ugly, but then the next two sentences casually mention that shopkeepers get annoyed when asked to re-forge over and over again. Its a neat thing to know; its just not relevant to the current topic. The unpolished feel to the review throughout hurts it, which Im slightly bummed about because youve chosen an interesting game to talk about. It doesnt sound all that fun to me personally, but I get occasional glimpses of why some people, like yourself for instance, would really enjoy DHoU. 50

    Masters says...

    Schultz continues to show off his knowledge of dusty PC RPG's with this contest entry. Unfortunately, I'm confused from the onset:

    "He's scattered eight stone pieces of his heart through the city to gain immortailty. The good news? You only need to find six, and a hammer, to challenge and defeat him. The bad? There's a reason you're given two passes. That, plus some nasty combats, shows up Wizardry and the AD&D series as the FPRPG equivalent of Choose Your Own Adventure. DHoU fools the player, but for the better."

    I took this to mean that bad news is fighting can suck, and the game is the epitome of choose your own adventure randomness. And then: the game fools us, but it's a good thing? I am completely lost at this point, and it's so early on.

    I'm further confounded by this:

    "DHoU emphasizes brutal efficiency in finding critical fights just to survive. Early, it's worthwhile to run through twice from the latest sanctuary--a checkpoint that recharges a party on first visit and allows a backup save or teleports to earlier checkpoints. I didn't notice this with my first few tries, making DHoU's auto-saving during a fight or death seem nightmarish. That, and DHoU used a checksum on save files."

    Finding critical fights just to survive? What does that mean? The following bits seem afterthought-ish, assumptive, and fragmentary. I think this passage illustrates the issue I had throughout the work, which is that too many thoughts were introduced, and most were not given enough room to be explained because their introduction was jammed up beside another thought. All of this might be fine for the niche fan of genre, but to the uninitiated, it was a difficult read despite the obvious knowledge and writing ability of the author. A shame: 70

    Will says...

    I like the tone and pace of this piece early on, but halfway through it starts to drag. That paragraph about maps and mazes kills all the momentum you've built up to that point, and the review never really recovers. Which is a shame, because this seems like a charming title.

    Also, some bits are not as clear as they could be. I have a sort of vague, hazy notion of how combat and exploration and character generation work, but if it weren't for those screenshots in the sidebar I'd be pretty confused.

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    + Momentum :)
    - Slog :(
    - Not enough description
    SCORE
    70
    ________________________

    Suskie - Bioshock 2

    Ben says...

    Ive not played BioShock 1 or 2, apart from the demo of the first, so I never really understood the criticism towards the Vita Chambers. I thought people were being whiny for no reason. It turns out that Ive just never read a good explanation. I still dont think Id mind the Vita Chambers if I were playing myself, but your review made it abundantly clear how they could potentially ruin the experience for others. I appreciated that the review immediately gets to the point and tackles a key point instead of dancing around for a bit. The combat also sounds like a pretty important improvement, and I can see how these two combine to make a much more solid and exciting gaming experience. The exploration side, which from what I have read in the past sounded like the biggest draw of the original, does stand out as being significantly worse. The surroundings and the wonder of Rapture are the main reasons I once upon a time briefly considered buying BioShock, and now that the appeal of that is gone slightly, it seems to cancel out the story and game improvements for me personally. The deliberate stalling and excuses to prolong the title sounds really irritating. (On the other hand, the answers-stalling in the first game doesnt sound that bad to me. Then again, I watch Lost.)

    Regardless of what conclusions I draw from the review, your own conclusions are consistent and make sense. You make it clear in the opener that youd rather have a good game than a good Disneyland ride, and on those merits, BioShock 2 does seem like an overall improvement. Whats pretty cool about the review as a whole, though, is that I feel Ive got a decent understanding of how the game plays, and considering Ive never played the first BioShock aside from the opening hour or so, thats commendable. Perhaps the biggest negative that really stuck with me was that when you briefly mentioned the new protagonist, Subject Delta, you make it sound like I should be pretty excited about that (that alone makes you hungry for details), but I know almost nothing about these Big Daddies, so that was completely lost on me. What details should I be hungry about? What makes Subject Delta a compelling lead character? Now that I think about it, I kind of wish I knew a little more of the plot. Given that the wonder of Rapture is seemingly gone, I have no issue learning a few details here and there. 85

    Masters says...

    This is a great review.

    This paragraph, in its entirety (well, just about) is probably the truest thing I've read about the game:

    "But BioShock 2 still isnt a great game. It still moves at that awful, plodding pace that plagued the first game, for one. What exactly does 2K have against linear, straightforward level design, where you move from point A to point B, and then to point C, and so on? In BioShock 2, youll be led from point A to point B only to find out that youre actually at point C, and that point B is back in another direction, but as soon as you get there, youll discover that the path is blocked until you backtrack to point A.5, and so on and so forth. Your objectives are always simple, but your character is constantly being set back for the most obnoxious reasons, usually only fixable via arbitrary fetch quests."

    So true, and so well said. I think the review gets stronger as it goes along, partly because I don't necessarily agree with the emphasis put on the vita-chamber issue and the ease of play in the first game. (Personally, when I died in BioShock 1, I just reloaded my saved game and tried again -- so I didn't use the chambers and didn't even know that I could turn them off, voila!)

    Besides that, I'm sold. 94

    Will says...

    Much as I agree wholeheartedly with your introductory paragraph, I can't help but notice it has little to do with Bioshock 2. In fact much of the review is a comparison to the first game, and since that's what most of the Bioshock 2 reviews do I'm more interested in hearing how it stands on its own. But maybe it doesn't, in which case its failure to do so is something I'd like to see discussed rather than danced around.

    But regardless of my opinions about how sequels should be judged, this is a solid Suskie review, entertaining to read and very informative. It's lengthy, but without being ponderous or hard to get through. In fact, despite my distaste for the first game I find myself wanting to pick up a copy of this and try it out, so Mission Accomplished there.

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    + Reads easy
    + Thorough and detailed
    + Convincing
    SCORE
    90
    ________________________

    Trio the Inability to Understand the Basic Meaning of Trio
    ________________________

    Zigfried - Enemy Zero

    Ben says...

    I like this review quite a bit. You approach the game by dissecting it and critiquing each piece, which works extremely well when youre trying to convey all the things wrong with it. From the surroundings to the enemies, from the combat to the puzzles, from the story to the protagonist, you cover and bash every relevant and important angle for a horror title. You dont dwell on a point, you dont overstay your welcome on each paragraph, and you keep moving at a brisk pace, which makes my reading experience more enjoyable. Bringing up Resident Evil and Silent Hill and comparing Enemy Zero to its competition are also smart moves. I liked how you gave a short but vivid description of the way Silent Hlils creatures were presentedshowing how it was effective and why it was chillingonly to immediately counter that with Enemy Zero takes that idea too far. Having said that, one small question did come to my mind. I understand that invisible enemies can make the combat lame. But, arent invisible enemiesnot knowing when they will pounce because you cant see them, and not knowing where the next one is as you continue to walk through a hallwayscary in the slightest? If not, why doesnt this idea work?

    Anyway, the review even contains brief moments of humour that succeed. At first, I thought the shower scene example you brought up was rather pointless in the grand scheme of things and just a cheap gimmick, even though the inclusion of it made me smile. After reading through the review a second time, it was more relevant that I initially gave it credit for, as it is a great example to emphasize why it is hard to take Enemy Zero seriously, despite its genre. I dont have much else to say, really. Its a solid and informative yet also entertaining read. I also generally prefer shorter reviews, so the fact that this one doesnt come close to exceeding 1,000 words only helps its cause. 90

    Masters says...

    Good ol' Zig. Another obscure game, and another winner. This might be the line of the tournament:

    "It's easy to miss when the target is invisible."
    Ha! Isn't it though?

    Then there's this:
    "There's a problem. Laura doesn't speak. When Laura encounters other survivors, they speak at her while she grunts. Laura occasionally gasps upon entering blood-stained rooms. Paying Jill Cunniff to grunt and gasp was a depressingly typical marketing ploy by Saturn-era Sega.

    There's another problem. As revealed by fellow pervert staff member Gary, Enemy Zero's hard mode begins with a lurid shower scene. Some people would say that shower scenes make characters feel more human. I would say that Laura's uncanny valley is one of the creepiest things I have ever seen."

    I like the repetition, the insight, the calling out of Emp as a pervert, and the term "uncanny valley" -- all about equally.

    Zig, as always, is hard to beat. 95

    Will says...

    What is it with all these weird opening paragraphs? This is about the fifth time in the contest I've started reading a review and been instantly put off by the fact that I have no idea what it's talking about and is only tangentially related to the game in question.

    Enough about that. Once we've got the weird opening paragraph out of the way you start actually talking about the game, which I find to be an asset in a review.

    Anyway, while I admit my experience with survival horror is limited to System Shock, Half-Life, Dead Space, and Worf's opening levels from DS9: The Fallen, I don't quite follow your logic with regards to invisible enemies. The horror aspect of survival horror is not knowing when the baddies are going to eat your face, right? Banks of fog and shadowy corridors hide the hideous monstrosities from view, but you're always pretty sure they're going to jump out at you once your view is obscured - you're never quite sure when, but you know that behind one of those doors is the Satan's illegitimate offspring waiting to devour your soul.

    If the enemies are invisible, it seems to me, then that should heighten that tension, because you'd never know when they were going to attack, and as such, you'd be constantly in anticipation. If that's not the case, if never knowing when invisible monsters are going to feast on your flesh doesn't put you constantly on edge, then you need to explain why that is so I have a better understanding of why invisible enemies are a dumb design choice. Invisible adversaries worked for Alien vs Predator, so why doesn't it work here?

    'sides which, everybody who's seen a Hitchcock film knows that the monster you can't see is immeasurably scarier than the monster you can see.

    Combat discussion also needs a rethink. You've obviously played Silent Hill, so you know that turning around and fighting the menacing hordes isn't what survival horror should be about. Does Enemy Zero force you to fight, rather than run and hide? I don't know, you don't tell us, and in the absence of that information criticism of combat comes off as though you're picking nits and missing the point.

    Still, this is clearly another bad game, so you get the Bash Review Bonus Point.

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    - Either poor explanation, or missing the point
    + Bash Review Bonus
    + Sneaky dig at EmP
    SCORE
    70
    ________________________

    Radicaldreamer - Savage 2 - A Tortured Soul

    Ben says...

    Unfortunately, youre at a disadvantage with me, because the last RTS I touched was Age of Empires II. Im not keen on the genre and I dont know an awful lot about it, so reading a lengthy review that primarily focuses on the RTS mechanics was pretty boring for me. Your writing is tight and polished, but for half of the review you talk about how the RTS elements play without really stamping your own personality or voicing your own opinionor doing anything to keep me hooked. The review kind of just goes on about the differences between this game and its predecessor. It is thorough stuff and full of information, no doubt, but its not something I can easily appreciate. That said, the whole thing actually gets off to an interesting start by focusing on this hybrid genre, and I was still into it when it briefly talks about Savage: The Battle of Newerth. Its at around the seventh paragraph where I had to stop myself from skim-reading.

    Perhaps a more relevant criticism is that I didnt get a good sense on how the three sub-genre mechanics merged together. At which point does the RTS gameplay turn into first-person action? Is there any specific time where youre in first-person? Are you constantly in first-person mode, and do you all the RTS stuff in it? You mention that the game is part-role-playing in the opener, but dont touch on it again until the penultimate paragraph (and you were pretty vague about it apart from the horrible-sounding relics feature). I got the feeling that the RPG stuff was irrelevant because you delayed talking about it for so long, yet then you say its too invasive, implying it plays a reasonable part. As a result, now I dont feel like I know enough. What exactly can gain experience and levels and improve its stats? Does each individual unit have their own RPG-esque stats? How much of an edge do stats give you in battle, and is it vital to level up to win? How do you level up, by killing plenty of enemies or by other means? The review tackles each part distinctly and separately without tying everything together, which is a bit disappointing given that its a unique-sounding hybrid game that is being discussed here. 55

    Masters says...

    Let me start off by saying that Bbobb is clearly a polished writer and analytical thinker. The problem with this style he's been developing is that it smacks of uber-formality which is at odds, in my mind, with discussing a video game. I grant that greats in the past have used a similar heavy style -- Dark Fact, for instance -- but even in that example, Fact regularly used dry wit and colourful examples to give his prose some life and levity. Bbobb's review literally reads like some complex dissertation, and the weight of it is exacerbated by its length.

    This passage about sums up the experience: " Instead of mere polish and execution, it demanded conceptual reorganization and rectification of the original's functional complications of genre hybridization."

    That's a mouthful, and is, quite frankly, distracting. That being said, I'm sure there are hardcore RTS fans that may crave this sort of in-depth exploration and in this sophisticated fashion -- the risk run was that the judges would be part of that group. 70

    Will says...

    I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here. These first few paragraphs are well written and easy to read, but they aren't about Savage 2. The review should start five(!!) paragraphs down from the top. At the very least, my intimate familiarity with RTS titles means I'm not instantly off-put by references to TA and SC - though I can see how someone else might be. Also, this sounds a lot like Allegiance, so I have a pretty good sense of how this game plays.

    Having said that, I feel as though you're describing Savage 2 from the top perspective, and if I'd never heard of Allegiance I'd have a difficult time understanding how this isn't just another RTS game. Two possibilities: Either you're talking too much about the game from the Commander's perspective and need to discuss what it's like to play at the ground level, or I've completely misunderstood how the game works and you need to describe it better. Whatever the case, Savage 2 is obviously a very difficult title to describe to someone who's never played it. I never thought I'd use these words, but it's possible this game wasn't the best choice for a tourny piece. In either case, this review needs to discuss mechanics like ranged and melee weapons less, and focus more on what it's like to play at every level of the game. It's an easy trap to fall into with RTS games, but this should be a review, not a technical analysis.

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    - Difficult to get a picture of how the game plays
    - Tricky subject matter
    - Too much focus on one aspect, not enough on the other
    SCORE
    65

    Oh, one last thing. Why the hell are you called Bbobb?
    ________________________

    Jason - Heavy Rain

    Ben says...

    Im not a fan of the opening two paragraphs. For starters, its slightly too esoteric for my liking, and I didnt need a comparison between yours and everyone elses reviews, as this is only the second Heavy Rain review Ive read. The first paragraph in particular doesnt seem to add much to the review (anything relevant in there is brought up again later on). I was kind of wishing youd get straight to the point. The third paragraph, with some tweaking, would have been a better place to start, as it wouldve wasted no time in properly introducing Heavy Rain. The one-line sentence doesnt really need to be emphasized as much as it is. I dont think it is a huge surprise that the game is not perfectno game isso the share of flaws line doesnt strike me as shocking or in desperate need of my attention. I should stop being negative, though, because there were bits that I really liked. You describe a lot of the mechanics really well, from the clunky walking to the actions you have to perform using rather unconventional means for an adventure. When you gave your own view on whether the controls were good or bad, you gave extremely valid points from both sides. Ive heard a bit about people accidentally doing the wrong thing, but then again, the controls are meant to help immerse you.

    Heavy Rain must have been a difficult title to review because you obviously didnt want to spoil too much about it. This is a bit of a problem when you talk about your disappointment of parts of the plot, because its hard to see where youre coming from if you dont give one or two decent examples. The kissing scene seems like a really trivial complaint, and I dont think that really gets your point across the way you want it to. All I can do is take your word for it that some scenes feel a bit silly. Im also unsure about the review as a whole. For most of it, you focus on its flaws, and though you say you rather enjoyed it, its tough to tell. You say at the end that theres a lot of stuff here that has been done before and that you cant remember it ever feeling this good, but I cant quite piece together why. Theres not enough in here that convinces me why youre recommending this game, and why you scored it favourably. This is probably the reviews biggest flaw for me. The writing is exceptionally tight as usual, but I dont come away learning everything that I want to learn. 65

    Masters says...

    I really like Jason's intro here, and he's got quite a few winners dispersed throughout his review:

    "The general feel is that you're playing a classic Resident Evil title and your character is drunk." Love that one.

    I'm pointing this next line out neither as a criticism nor as praise:

    "Whether you're unfastening a bra or helping a baby gulp down a heated bottle of milk" Hmm.

    What I DON'T like, is this line:

    "I have a hard time deciding what to think of the controls overall." After you've unequivocally told us the control scheme is clunky, this comes off as wimpy.

    "I'm just not sure that I grasp the value in making me feel like a raging drunk when I'm simply trying to walk across a room to check the contents of a desk." I can now safely conclude that Jason was drunk while writing this review.

    I like Jason's flow quite a bit in this review. The pacing and choice of words make it as entertaining as anything Mr. Venter has written. The problem I have is his slight issue with consistency. It's as if he wrote stream-of-consciousness style, figured out his main thrust by the end of the review (which is essentially this: "...forgive such shortcomings because they're a natural side effect of innovation.") and forgot to go back and smooth out earlier statements that don't quite jive with the later-discovered epiphany.

    Still, it's a good read with a nice intro from the Honest One: 87

    Will says...

    These first two paragraphs really, really catch me off-guard. And in a very good way. In fact, two sentences in and I'm already hooked, eager to read on and find out what the hell Jason has planned. Maybe because they take a stab at the criteria I write (and judge) reviews on, and in that case I wonder if it'd be as effective on a non-reviewer. But let's not worry about that, because it's very effective on me.

    Awkward stumbles and drunken zombie survivors get an early laugh out of me. This I like. I don't see nearly enough humor in the reviews I see on the site, at least not this early on.

    But this review's biggest problem is its lack of focus, which is another thing I feel like a broken record saying. You yourself describe Heavy Rain as a story-based game, and then go on to score it 8/10. Fair enough. So why do you spend the majority of the review going on about the controls? The overall tone is negative, and slightly nit-picky.

    "Here's a story-heavy game with a deep and emotionally involving plot. But the controls are finicky and annoying, and your character moves around like you're three sheets to the wind, and the controls constantly change so you can accidentally shoot a character in the face if you aren't paying attention. But that's okay, I give it an 80%."

    If I didn't know better, I'd say you're missing the point. For a heavily plot-driven game, you hardly spend any time at all talking about the story, and as a result that 8/10 score seems to come out of left field and leaves me thinking "Huh?"

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    + Brilliantly, clearly written
    + Great hook
    + Use of humor, amusing anecdotes
    - Lack of focus
    + Fear of getting banned
    SCORE
    80
    ________________________

    Janus - Hook Champ

    Ben says...

    You make Hook Champ sound like a really fun game, and one that I should be playing if I had an iPhone. It is very easy to imagine how it plays from your clear descriptions, and I can understand the charming appeal of its retro look. I have no hesitation in believing you that the game would not work the same or as well on another platform without a touchscreen, and seeing as thats your biggest praise in the entire review, it was important that you managed to get it right. Your point about Hook Champ modernising its gameplay kind of reminds me of Shadow Complex, in that it too successfully tackled an old genre and brought it to the present day with enough fresh twists.

    Just a couple of things: I noticed an its/its typo about halfway through. Id also like to learn more about these traps and obstacles. Since this is presumably where the main challenge lies, a brief discussion about the variety of clever obstacles in your way would have been nice. If theres one thing you dont quite sell, its that Hook Champ is a stiff challenge. You use that point to close the review too, so I wish you went into more detail. If you did that, you would have crossed the 90-threshold. A great review otherwise. The fact that I dont have as much to write about compared to the other entries means I dont have much to nitpick about, and everything about the review that I didnt bring up here is fine. 86

    Masters says...

    Janus's intro is simple and it works. Right away, I think, "that's ME! He's describing ME!" And I get excited. I also like the phrase he coined, "retro-gamer charm offensive".

    Another goodie I couldn't help but highlight: "The Russian hat costs three hundred, but apparently it distils an entire country and its culture into the form of a great hat."

    Janus writes nearly a perfect review.

    My only issue is with this paragraph, which is all-important, and well-written, but...

    "I know what youre thinking: its been done before. Using a rope to swing through a level is an idea that stretches back as far as Pitfall and almost every platformer in existence has copied the premise of being chased or hurried through a level by some malevolent force. Shed the cynicism now. Although Hook Champ borrows elements from the past, this is no tired tribute to old glories. This is a fast and furious adventure that hooks you in and doesnt let you go until youve swung through every cave and stolen every treasure. The core appeal is the rush you feel when you manage to swing elegantly through a level without falling to the ground, evading all the traps and obstructions that the game throws in your path. Of course, this rush soon gives way to panic when you eventually fall to the ground or are slowed by obstacles. Take too long to regain your pace and death becomes inevitable. The ghost never slows down!"

    Because Janus is a great writer, he meets our skepticism head-on and does his best to avail our concerns. The last sentence in the paragraph does a lot more than one might think to drive his point home, which seems to be this: simple and old-school as the game may be, it's INTENSE, and the control scheme is TODAY, so it deserves your attention. I think he gets this across, but I believe this paragraph could been just a touch more sublime in achieving it. Still: 96

    Will says...

    Now that is a catchy opening line. It's short and to the point, and most importantly it has to do with the game.

    This is a very light-hearted review, in stark contrast to most of the other submissions in this contest. Reviewing doesn't have to be such Srs Bisnuss. This whole piece is a lot like that opening line: it doesn't waste any time getting its message across, and I come away feeling like I should give this a try. If I had an iPhone. Which I don't. But that's beside the point.

    I can't find much to fault this review for. Some might call it sparse, but I disagree. What it is is streamlined, it gets to the point and doesn't mess around. Much like Hook Champ, I gather. In other words, it's an accurate reflection of the game it's discussing.

    WILL'S BREAKDOWN
    + Clever hook
    + Excuse to make a bad pun
    + Gets right down to business
    SCORE
    95
    ________________________

    TEAM RESULTS
    As always, lowest score on each team is dropped to determine the team score.
    ________________________

    1st Place:
    Team Triofail: Zig, Bbobb, Jason, Janus 764/900

    1st Loser 2nd Place
    Another Team: OD, Zipp, Schultz, Suskie 762/900

    3rd Place
    Team EmP: EmP, DoI, DE, WQ 698/900
    ________________________

    INDIVIDUAL SCORES
    ________________________

    01. Janus 277 (86/96/95) avg 92.3
    02. Suskie 269 (85/94/90) avg 89.7
    03. Zig 255 (90/95/70) avg 85
    04. EmP 248 (80/90/78) avg 82.7
    05. Zip 247 (70/92/85) avg 82.3
    06. OD 246 (93/88/65) avg 82
    07. Jason 232 (65/87/80) avg 77.3
    08. DE 225 (60/85/80) avg 75
    08. WQ 225 (75/75/75) avg 75
    09. DoI 220 (77/73/70) avg 73.3
    10. Bbobb 190 (55/70/65) avg 63.3
    10. Schultz 190 (50/70/70) avg 63.3

    ________________________

    Thanks to everybody for participating, and congrats to the winners.
    ________________________


    You may recall there were some math errors last time around. I've attempted to correct them, but feel free to check my work and berate me for failing at number-crunching.
    board icon
    Halon posted April 30, 2010:

    ok, archive should be up to date now. Let me know if anything's missing.

    http://sportsman30.webs.com/hgcontests.htm

    EDIT: just noticed there's no brevity or bust 3. Whoops
    board icon
    EmP posted May 01, 2010:

    And saved.

    FOREVER.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 01, 2010:

    Rats, I'd hoped my performance had gone down the memory hole. Nice job making sure this wasn't lost!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 01, 2010:

    !@#$! it, Will... this is the unaltered broken version with the wrong final scores! How dare you deliver this half assed bullshit to us? Bend over!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 01, 2010:

    Uh... Scores look right to me. He said he'd fixed them when I asked him to post, and they look how I remember them after he fixed them the first time. I remember the error having Suskie in fourth by accident or something like that.

    Anyway, thanks again, Will, for getting this up, sportsman for archiving and EmP for saving.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted May 02, 2010:

    Good to see that Jason's Stalinist attempt to airbrush my victory out of history has been foiled!
    board icon
    jerec posted May 03, 2010:

    The last time I filled in for RotW, I only had four reviews from three authors. This time I have three reviews from three authors. This is not allowing me to flex my mighty RotW muscle... but on the plus side, it does make my job very easy. I know our Lord Venter has some rules about there not being a winner if an arbitrary number of people don't submit. I mean, looking at the winning review, it would still win on a strong week. The fact that there's not so much competition doesn't take anything away from the reviews themselves.

    It hardly needs to be said that only one review per person is eligible. And staff reviews don't count, because they aren't real reviews, and are simply illusions on the front page.

    So, let's get on with it!

    Wonder Momo - Felix Arabia

    Wow, this review is short. But given the subject matter, I'm happy about this. You come in and say what needs to be said, and there's that strong, recognisable Felix voice there that makes this bite-sized review quite entertaining. This game really does seem stupid.

    Final Fantasy XIII - eviltb

    I know we're supposed to be positive in these topics... but really the nicest thing I can say is that it is an interesting angle to take. But when you take this sort of angle, you should avoid insulting the people you're addressing this to. And the comment about playing TMNT 30 times makes no sense. You can only 1000/1000 it once on your profile. But you are absolutely right about the structure of this game, and how the achievements just don't seem worthwhile. You sum up very quickly what you don't like about the game, which lets us know where you stand... but I wouldn't call this review effective. Interesting and unique, though. If you're reading this, let me know if you want some more in-depth feedback.

    Final Fantasy XIII - Suskie

    Now this is an excellent deconstruction of Final Fantasy XIII. There's not many elements to the game to talk about - battle and story, but I do think you effectively nailed it on both counts. I've played and finished the game, and I think I feel about the same as you do... though I might be a little harsher on the game if I get around to reviewing it. You did point out something that was on the edge of my mind about this game, and that's how narrow the perspective is. This world they've created is so fascinating, and it would have been amazing to explore it a bit more. Even in a story context - but most of it takes place moving through different environments, always running, passing through... The last bit of the review hit home exactly why this game is disappointing. I know I've imagined how great this game could have been if it wasn't so limited.

    The Verdict

    Suskie wins.
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 03, 2010:

    Thanks for the comments, Jerec. I hope you manage to write a review as well, because this is a game everyone seems to have a unique opinion about.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 03, 2010:

    Thanks Dutch for liking my review for what it was. Congrats to Mike for his deserved victory. Stay tuned for my eventual FF13 review, which should be published sometime in 2012.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 04, 2010:

    The hells you will, Marc. You laid down the challenge, and now you must be destroyed!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 04, 2010:

    Genj had taken the third spot. I pointed this out to you. Twice! =P

    To prove it, here:

    From genj, 6th-7th post:

    There are no horror games I plan on playing soon and my finals will be until May 7th, so I will offer to be a judge.

    Granted, he could change his mind with the extention now in place, but he hasn't said as much in here (as far as I can recall) so I assume it's the same.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 04, 2010:

    This is almost slapstick.
    board icon
    True posted May 04, 2010:

    To be fair, it's obvious the only appealing thing about Underworld is Kate Beckinsale wearing tight leather.

    And Rhona Mitra, but I second that.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted May 05, 2010:

    Sigh...very well Zipp, I will go over the scores AGAIN to verify them.

    UPDATE:

    Well I'm not sure how I did it, but I managed to undo a correction of a mistake I'd made after these results were originally posted.

    Team scores updated FOR GOOD THIS TIME. Once again final placement is unchanged.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted May 06, 2010:

    My top 10 look something like this:

    ∙ Wizardy 8
    ∙ Persona 4
    ∙ The Witcher
    ∙ SMT: Nocturne
    ∙ The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
    ∙ Fallout 3
    ∙ Bioshock
    ∙ Portal
    ∙ Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
    ∙ Dragon Quest VIII
    board icon
    Genj posted May 06, 2010:

    I assumed I wasn't welcomed as a judge after asking EmP for those sexy pictures he keeps bragging about on AIM.
    board icon
    radicaldreamer posted May 06, 2010:

    My spirit soars to see Bloomer participating in a contest.

    But please don't hurt yourself.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 06, 2010:

    Thanks Rad. Don't worry, it'll be my first review completed entirely by dictating it to my laptop. I think of it/him/her as my secretary these days.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted May 08, 2010:

    Game: Over Top
    Platform: Arcade
    Developer: ADK
    Genre: Racing

    ADDED

    Thanks! I'll have some submissions up for it within the next 2 days.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted May 10, 2010:

    Isn't it 1200 MSP or something? I heard it was pretty bland, too. =/
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 11, 2010:

    Left 4 Dead

    I was originally planning on reviewing Dead Space since I played that a few months ago and it fit the horror theme, but it wasn't fresh enough in my mind and I didn't want to rent it again and play through it a second time just to enter this contest. So I finally got into Left 4 Dead instead. Works out for everyone.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 14, 2010:

    So, uh... Who's going to cover the 8th since Rand obviously isn't going to (unless he suddenly returns and changes his mind)? I'd do it, but I'm not really around that much since summer's here now.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 14, 2010:

    Oh, then Rand did leave?

    Man, that sucks.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 14, 2010:

    I dunno if he did or not, but he hasn't made a sign of life since that incident. It's (almost) safe to assume that, at the very least, he's not doing RotW.
    board icon
    True posted May 14, 2010:

    Did I miss something? What happened to Rand?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 14, 2010:

    Oh, we were talking about staff being included in the ROTW and EmP, supported by many others, said something along the lines that it would be nice to see (a) more than three reviews a week in the line up and (b) have reviews be of higher quality.

    Randxian took offense at the latter comment and declared his intentions to leave the site.
    board icon
    darketernal posted May 14, 2010:

    Phantasmagoria

    http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/8822/Phantasmagoria.html
    board icon
    Nightmare posted May 14, 2010:

    Rumor has it that despite my name not being on the list, I am still allowed to participate. If that's the case, then I would like to enter Silent Hill: Shattered Memories.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 14, 2010:

    I'll do this week's ROTW. I missed my week, so it makes sense.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 15, 2010:

    My entry is BloodRayne (GameCube):

    http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/8827/BloodRayne.html
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 15, 2010:

    According to the rumour, today's the last day! Get your entries in, everyone!
    board icon
    zigfried posted May 15, 2010:

    I'll submit something.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Duo posted May 15, 2010:

    I'm not sure how this works, but I did just write a Resident Evil review (if and when the site accepts it). Can I enter that into this?
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 15, 2010:

    Welcome, Duo. Should be no problem. Your review was in by the deadline. I figure one of the tournament runners will come by and say something more official-like.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 15, 2010:

    The more the merrier. Please enter, Duo!

    By the way, judges, I'll take the results and compile them, if no one else wants to do it.

    ~ Zipp, a glutton for punishment
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 16, 2010:

    I've just subbed mine. I won't be able to link to it until later, though, but you'll all know what it is.

    And yes, it's a few minuts late. I'm sure it still counts, though. ...I hope.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted May 16, 2010:

    Sorry I couldn't make it. I tried!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 16, 2010:

    Ok. I made some edits this morning so now I feel a little more satisfied with it. I'm just glad no one read it yet. =D

    board icon
    zigfried posted May 16, 2010:

    I read it.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 16, 2010:

    Zipp here with what I believe is the first ever ROTW to include staff reviews. I hold a grave responsibility... it shall be this ROTW that sets the precedent for each new ROTW to come!

    ... or not. In fact, things will probably go on much as they always have in the ROTW world. There have been some fears that including staff reviews will make for all-staff wins, but just from looking over some of the user reviews this week, I doubt it will be the case. It does mean users will have to up their game, a bit, but when has motivation been bad?

    Well, maybe if you're a serial killer. Or Dan Brown.




    EmP and Silent Hill: Homecoming

    I'm reviewing this for the horror competition so I don't want to give too much away. I will say it's a review I very much enjoy for its subtlety. Subtlety may seem an odd word to use for a review that uses coloured lines to brightly showcase incredibly stupid developer decisions, but hear me out. EmP's review starts on a very macro-level, talking about the genre of survival horror and the Silent Hill series. He never really leaves this initial premise behind and you always feel like he's making commentary on the evolution of these things... but he slips in enough info on this particular game between the lines that you come away feeling you know exactly how Homecoming plays.




    Suskie's Wolverine review

    It's getting to be that an ROTW doesn't go by without a Suskie inclusion. I was torn between this and Zeno Clash, but ultimately I like the straightforward nature of this review. What I like about it is that it adopts a bit of Wolverine into its voice so that you're reading at a fast action-pace. And the selling point, that despite its flaws Suskie got through it in four hour stints, says a lot for the game. I like this as a conclusion because it shows Suskie knows what an action gamer is looking for. Ultimately, while concept and all that jazz is great stuff, I want to know whether this is a game that's going to keep me going for hours on pure adrenaline.




    Nightmare and Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

    Having played and reviewed this one, I can say without a doubt that Nightmare's description of SH:SM is completely accurate. It was nice to see the game reviewed in a different fashion than the two previous reviews of the title. I like how Nightmare comes at the issue very strongly as a long time SH fan and am sure the review will appeal to others who have enjoyed the series from the start.




    And the winner is...

    EmP and Silent Hill: Homecoming

    EmP's review gets the win because it feels the least like a review while totally being as much a review as the other contestants for the week. I appreciate how much work (or, in EmP's case, unbridled brilliance) it takes to make a review work at that level.

    I'm not sure who is up next week... maybe OD? If that's the case, you should all have plenty of time before the next ROTW to read the one review that sadly didn't even make it as far as this week's considerations...

    ... Mine.

    It may appear to be shameless advertising, and it is, but what can I say? I love input. And it's never bad to listen to the opinions of others.

    Well, unless they are a pedophile. Or Nicholas Cage.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 16, 2010:

    If you can cover rand's RotW (2-8) in addition to your scheduled one (the one you just put up) that'd be great. If not, I guess we'll just be missing a week, or maybe I'll somehow make the time to do it later.

    MAJOR EDIT: Haha. You did Schultz's week. The one Rand wasn't going to do was 2-8, not 9-15. That's OK, though. You did a good job with that. Maybe Schultz can do 2-8 instead.

    The only downside to including staff from a practical standpoint is the fact that, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a "more" feature for staff reviews like there are for user ones, so searching beyond what's already up there could be difficult. Sure there's a "reviews" tab at the top, but I've found that it misses a lot of reviews that were contributed. And it doesn't give the date they were contributed unless you click on the review itself anyway.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 16, 2010:

    Uh-oh. Now you have to re-read it. =P
    board icon
    Genj posted May 16, 2010:

    By the way, judges, I'll take the results and compile them, if no one else wants to do it.

    I don't want to do it.

    ~ Genj, a lazy lazy man.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 16, 2010:

    Oh dayum! Usually Rand follows me, so I assumed... oops, sorry Schultz! Well... I'm the only one that really suffers, as I couldn't consider my own staff review for the win this week! I guess it's schultz up next week...

    The more feature thing was tricky, WQ. I lucked out in that there were only a few staff reviews this week so I didn't have to go searching for others.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 16, 2010:

    OK, I get it... I was supposed to cover the week of the 8th, which still needs covering... Aschultz? Want to do it?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 16, 2010:

    I'll be ready with my results by Tuesday. Not sure of the other judges' schedules.
    board icon
    Nightmare posted May 16, 2010:

    Zipp,

    Thank you for the mention. It's an honor to even be on a list where we incorporated staff reviews as well. Congratulations to Emp, and I still have the chance to beat him in the tournament.
    board icon
    Fedule posted May 17, 2010:

    Did we skip a week?

    Anyway. What I really liked about EmP's review was how it showcased how a few monumentally dumb developer decisions can snowball into a design problem with no elegant solution - only blunt ones that really only turn one problem into another, getting more and more blatant each time. I like it when reviews do things like this; it acknowledges that a game is made by people, and takes these people to task (this can of course be done in reverse, to discuss really good games, too!) for their failures. It's always a little bit shaky to just separate a game into parts, and say "this part is good" and "this part is bad", because abstract things like gameplay mechanics are difficult to just say "good" or "bad" about. But picking these things apart and viewing them as the product of people is different - "this aspect of the game fails because it is the product of a person who does not understand [this thing]" is a much more solid statement. Good job!

    Congrats to everyone else, too!
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 17, 2010:

    My guess is Wednesday for me.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 17, 2010:

    My first RotW win since 05/05/05! It only took me (just over) five years.

    Many thanks for the win on this one; it was up against a hell of a lot of excellent reviews, so it's nice to see I'm not a burnt out husk of a writer just yet. More thanks extended to all the kind words offered -- and a quick big up to Suskie who stole my Z review this week made me go out and drop a bid on the Wolverine game.

    Fedule: Sadly, we are currently a week behind. I'm hopeful someone will step in and cover this in the near future.

    EDIT: I found someone to cover the week. Expect results at some point.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 17, 2010:

    I've covered the missed week with a MYSTERY GUEST.

    Who will be it? Wait and see!
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 17, 2010:

    So...what is the easy way to do things, to make sure we cover all the staff reviews? Is there a search or do ROTWers just need to click a little, or remember what to click?

    Oh, and...if this means I got shuffled off by zipp picking the wrong week, as someone's RotWing for 5/2-5/8, I can take over zipp's later if need be. Or I can miss mine. Whichever is ok with me.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 17, 2010:

    For now, the easy thing to do is to click on the 'Staff Game Reviews' links on the right side of the main pages on the site (game profile pages excluded). That's a list of the latest reviews, and if you start at the halfway point you can go up or down to find eligible reviews. There's no coding in place (yet) to include them when you click the 'More' button like you would formerly, but that may come soon.
    board icon
    Genj posted May 17, 2010:

    I've got 3 reviews left to write commentary for. I'll probably try to finish before tomorrow afternoon.

    Zipp I'm going to send my commentary to your HG mail unless you'd prefer email or something.
    board icon
    CompanionCube posted May 17, 2010:

    I agree with the Shadow of the Colossus guy above, and...


    Portal
    Genre: A Stanley Kubrick's idea of a puzzle solving shooter.
    Score: 9.5/10
    Why on list: Having the most well defined and characterized villian/hero relationship of any game ever, amazing dialogue, and completely genius innovation.
    board icon
    CompanionCube posted May 17, 2010:

    I google searched for a game review community for user reviews and it was the 2nd or 3rd link.
    board icon
    CompanionCube posted May 17, 2010:

    Hey all.


    Name's Jake. Ex-MLGer for the Rainbow Six and Socom series. I now work as an assistant manager for a gamestop. Big time gamer and all around Portal fanatic. Glad to be aboard.
    board icon
    zigfried posted May 17, 2010:

    Nice one.

    //Zig
    board icon
    bluberry posted May 17, 2010:

    Devil May Cry
    Score: (10 - epsilon)/10
    Why on list: the first action game that didn't suck and still one of the best.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 18, 2010:

    Welcome Jake CC to our community! Glad to have you and eager to see what reviews you may have in the works. Forgive me my lack of knowledge surrounding acronyms, but what is a MLGer?
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 18, 2010:

    I have a feeling your lack of ROTW wins has more to do with the fact that staff reviews were just now allowed into the mix, and less to do with any sort of statement on your reviewing ability. That said, I think it was well deserved this week.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 18, 2010:

    HG Mail should be fine. Esp now that it's got a nifty HUD on the main menu and I don't have to keep checking my blog to spot new mail!
    board icon
    CompanionCube posted May 18, 2010:

    Major League Gaming. It's a tournament league for FPS's. Mostly revolved around the popular shooters. I did small scale clan tournaments through www.gamebattles.com . I made it to an amatuer level playing local satellite tournaments with my Rainbow Six 3 clan, but I never got to the pro level. Here's the pros:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW6rgHkRYjw
    board icon
    Genj posted May 18, 2010:

    I have sent in my results. I am posting this so that everyone knows one judge is done and now OD & Zipp will feel the eyes of HG are upon them and thus be extremely pressured to finish.

    Have a nice day.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 18, 2010:

    I finished yesterday :P
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 19, 2010:

    I never feel pressure. You'll get my stuff when I'm good and ready to send it in. Which I guess will be tomorrow. AT LATEST...Thursday, but I'm going to do my utmost to get things done tomor...well, I guess tomorrow is today now. So today, I guess!
    board icon
    CompanionCube posted May 19, 2010:

    Game: Split/Second
    Platform(s): Xbox 360, Playstation 3, PC
    Publisher: Disney
    Developer: Black Rock
    Genre: Action Racer
    Release Date: May 18th, 2010

    Added

    I already have a review made up for this game, just need it available.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 19, 2010:

    It's okay, OD. I know you live on a time table separate from the rest of humanity. It's kind of mysterious and cool.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 19, 2010:

    The gods have smitten me for my over zealousness and erased my comments. I must now RECOMMENT on every review.

    Holy fucking shit.

    Well, the upshot of this is that now I won't be ready until Thursday or Friday. One of the reasons I got it all done early was because I have some major papers due this week that I have to focus on.

    Dammit. Maybe I'll stay up late tonight and retype everything. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 19, 2010:

    The continuing saga of the deleted commentary:

    Well, I just racked my brain and blurbed out all the major points I had made on the reviews. It's good news, because I remembered pretty much everything and now only have to fill in the details. It's kind've nice actually, because it's giving me a chance to redraft and re-examine some of the critiques. A couple scores even changed slightly in the redrafting, so I'm glad I got a chance to do it.

    I should have the redrafted results ready tonight.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 19, 2010:

    Or tomorrow after all. Due to crazy stuff going down, I've actually had to WORK at work today. That's really killing my productivity for this contest judging thing. I have about 1 hour before I have to leave on assignment, so we'll see if I can work a miracle, though.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 19, 2010:

    Okay okay, you know what's REAAAALLY crazy, OD? I'm going to end up having to work at work today, too 0_0
    board icon
    Genj posted May 19, 2010:

    I am at home doing nothing.
    board icon
    jerec posted May 19, 2010:

    This judging is a COMPLETE shamozzle.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 19, 2010:

    Shamozzle? I had to look that up.

    In any case, barring any more intervention from Hephaestus, the results will be up Friday.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 20, 2010:

    My results are Dee+1 and have been sent to Zipp. I AM WINNAR!!!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 21, 2010:

    EMP and Silent Hill: Homecoming

    Zipp says...
    My favorite thing about this review is that it manages to say more about Silent Hill: Homecoming than it plays like this and it looks like this. This is a true critique of a game, not just a look at its mechanics.

    The section of the review that I have the most trouble with is the one that discusses inversion. It comes out of the blue and, while I like the conclusion it offers on Double Helixs philosophy, it always takes me a while to acclimate to the new discussion... generally I dont get there until its over. Its not as well written as the rest of the piece; not as clear, I would say.

    Best part of the review are the little coloured sections that sarcastically highlight the ridiuclous developer throughlines. While they are (probably) not accurate, they bring up the burning question: what were they thinking?! without just coming out and asking it.

    In short, its a surprisingly subtle review, and that sits with me well.

    Structure: 4/5 (rough section in the middle takes away from review)
    Substance: 5/5 (subtle and thorough at the same time)
    Style: 5/5 (light on the sarcasm, but without losing it)
    +1% for a horror game

    94%

    Overdrive says...
    As a fan of the (early installments of the) Silent Hill series, I could really get into this review. You did a great job of explaining why the first game was great and why the second one still worked very well before things started getting bogged down. When you got to Homecoming, you really did good at subtly mixing in good things about the game (such as the good graphics based on the movie and overall creepy vibe), while keeping the glaring negatives at the forefront. Creating a RE-esque hero, healing items disappearing/reappearing, the invert disaster...all of these serve to undermine the game and all of them are detailed nicely. There are glitchy little moments like, "Siphoned in quickly comes new beasts", where some word seems wrong or out of place or you're just randomly going into odd British language quirks that go miles above my head. Regardless, you wrote what I'd consider a pretty killer review that I enjoyed reading. 93 (+2, it's horror, but with a powerful man's man hero) = 95

    Genj says...
    EmPs reviews are often great because he is consistently able to hone in on the important details to discuss while having an engaging writing voice. It is also nice when he reviews games that are interesting to read about rather than Jurassic Park strategy games. Most that read EmPs SH: Homecoming review will understand he knows what makes this series work and what doesnt. He offers sound arguments on why this one is another recent flop for the series, while also giving us intriguing descriptions of the games cosmetics. Unfortunately it is not too uncommon for EmPs humor to just not hit me. The developer conversation was an example of this, though it effectively got its point across to me that Double Helix didnt really understand what fans of the series wanted. The only other complaint I have with this review is the large paragraphs in the beginning. Whats written is beautiful, but theres just too much (especially when compared to Nightmares similar but much more succinct recap of the series). 87
    Horror Bonus: The Silent Hill series is pretty much the industry definition of a horror game now. +4
    Final Score: 91

    EMP SCORE: 280/300




    Dark Eternal and Phantasmagoria

    Zipp says...
    The Michael Bay line is great. I just wanted to point that out. I said this before, but I really think DE is finding a solid voice with his last few reviews, the last two in particular. I also like the intro to this review. Its a nice blend of history and critiquing exposition about Phantasmagorias story.

    Things get a little messy after that. The sarcasm of the opening doesnt completely meld with the assertion that the game is nicely subtle... and while youre trying to get used to that, DE says that this is a lie, too! So is this game subtle or not?

    I think the switch from this is subtle to this game is totally not subtle couldve been really powerful, had the transition between the sentiments been a bit smoother. Also, examples couldve helped. As much as I like the Michael Bay line, it doesnt do much except make me laugh. It doesnt convince me that the game is actually full of Bayness nor does telling me that zany characters exist convince me that the game isnt subtle. Going into more detail on these things wouldve helped here and given me more info about the game, besides.

    The end also seems a little unsure of itself. The last four paragraphs keep changing their stance on whether the game is quality. One says the game isnt horrendous... the next says the FMVs are alright... the next says that it depends... and the last reccommends an entirely different game to readers. All in all, it doesnt end with the same powerful direction that it opens with.

    Structure: 2/5 (the end throws me off entirely)
    Substance: 3/5 (lacking in examples and details)
    Style: 5/5 (great voice that was easy to follow)
    +2% for a unique horror game

    69%

    Overdrive says...
    Ahh...a sub-genre I'm not familiar with in the least. And from reading this, I don't think I'd want to be particularly familiar with this particular game. A crapload of CDs making a movie-game that seems content-wise to be about on a par with the average SyFy Channel original. Hopefully Uwe Boll never finds out about this one! Your writing is pretty engaging here. I don't know that I'm overly fond of all the one-sentence "paragraphs" (six, by my count, with one being long enough that it could be easily be divided into two), but the review read smoothly and had the sort of cleverly condescending tone I find myself using whenever I'm describing some horrid SyFy Channel original I sat through for some stupid reason. I'd say my main problem with this one is how, after reading the majority of this review, I really struggle to gather how you finished with a mildly favorable review. There might be alternate ways to solve some puzzles and some really good (for the time) FMV, but to me, all the other stuff mentioned seems to way outweigh those positives. I think you would have been better served to accentuate some of those positives a bit more rather than having a good time poking a bit of fun at the flaws of this game, as it made the comments of the final couple paragraphs seem a bit surprising. Still, this was a fun read. 78 (+2, much like SyFy Channel horror flicks, this doesn't sound scary, but random gory deaths does sound fun!) = 80

    Genj says...
    This is a good look into Phantasmagoria but also underwhelming. To give a graphic adventure with such pathetically easy puzzles as this one (and as youve argued) a 6, you probably should have gone into more detail about the games horror and gore aspects. Youre descriptions are too vague and general to really convince me theyre worth stomaching the game for. The paragraphs on the gameplay are fine but like I said feel a bit too negative for a 6 (multiple puzzle solutions commentary aside). And unfortunately the humor fell flat with me. Writing in all caps in bold about gore for an entire line was annoying instead of funny. The Chris Brown joke is a lame example of topical humor (a topic which is now old news). Parts could use editing as well. For example the third paragraph is one entirely too long sentence and starting sentences with phrases like you see is unnecessary. 70
    Horror Bonus: Phantasmagoria is basically Tales from the Crypt-level gore with lots of boring shit in between. It does have a few legitimately creepy parts. +3
    Final Score: 73

    DARK ETERNAL SCORE: 222/300




    Suskie and Left 4 Dead

    Zipp says...
    Picking Left 4 Dead as the game for this tournament was somewhat risky, I think. Its such a well known game that its hard to say anything more about it. For instance, Im not sure how much of Suskies introduction is necessary. The first few paragraphs cover things we already all know, like how the game handles and what the zombies are and that its a truly co-operative experience. I think starting with Beyond a doubt, Left 4 Dead is the most fulfilling representation of the zombie apocalypse to ever grace a video game, wouldve been a stronger opening. I didnt need all of that earlier stuff, no matter how well composed it is, structurally.

    The whole review is pretty well composed, actually, and the voice is full of vibrancy and energy. Like I said with his Wolverein review, Suskie knows how to fit his voice to the genre. The pacing of the sentences here is perfect, filled with terse inflection and short bursts of words that make me feel like Im playing the game. It stumbles a couple times when I think too much information is forced into a paragraph, like here: Yet what Left 4 Dead does well, it does so well that you can only wish there were more of it. Valves production values are high, as always, and the countless ways any given encounter can play out lead to just as many solutions. Mutated zombies mix things up a bit, too. Thats really three fairly separate points that are strung together in the opening of a paragraph. When I get past them, Im not sure if the paragraph is going to be about production values, zombies, or the lamentation that there isnt more Left 4 Dead.

    My biggest problem though is that a lot of the review acts to confirm what I think most people will already know about the game. At this point in Left 4 Deads well-documented history, I wouldve preferred to have heard a full on account of one of Suskies runs, or seen a review that tackles some of the issues that are less discussed about the game, such as how co-operative play functions on a psychological level. Or, if one was going to go this more standard route to reviewing the game, maybe it wouldve been nice to offer some commentary on the fact that the game has been out for years now and talk about whether it holds up and why.

    Suskies impecable voice makes this a good solid review. But Ive read dozens of good solid reviews for this game and Im ready for something a little different.

    Structure: 4/5 (a couple odd openings throw me off)
    Substance: 2/5 (I think there was room to do something new)
    Style 5/5 (the writing is full of the usual Suskie energy and vibrancy which makes reading his reviews fun)
    -1% for a game that makes me think about cursing out my teammates more than sweating bullets

    72%

    Overdrive says...
    I'm not one for Internet gaming, being more concerned with a good single-player campaign than anything else, but it's easy to see the appeal this game has from reading this review. A multiplayer game that forces the players to truly work together against a vast horde of undead. I liked the line about how this game could be used to determine how useful various friends would be in a real zombie apocalypse. It's a good way to cap a review that'd been doing a great job of illustrating the intensity of this game. Even with all the praise you give, the score seems accurate, as you do a good job of mentioning how there are only four (or is it "our"?, I say in the guise of the typo police) campaigns. I think you did good at saying that, while the AI director makes those four campaigns have a great deal of replay value, there should have been more...especially considering this game was sold at full price. I also liked the descriptions of the mutated zombies. That does a good job of backing up the replay value part, as it sounds like any of those things popping up can really change the direction of a given session. Not much to complain about here. 91 (+4, having to rely on help from others against a vast horde of powerful undead...now that freaks a man out!) = 95

    Genj says...
    Suskies review of Left 4 Dead is pretty awesome. Im not much of a fan of the game, but its a fun read. He makes the game sound pretty intense and I love his descriptions of the multiplayer aspects. I think Mike is really great at making games sound particularly awesome or really awful. Im pretty impressed that hes able to make this game sound so great because it doesnt seem like an easy game to praise, and you really need a solid understanding of the game to effectively do so. My complaints are very minor. I think Suskie has written better reviews with more clever lines, but Im not going to hold that against this entry. The other thing is the phrase zombified hoodlum was incredibly awkward. Its right in the beginning and it made me stop and laugh because of how weird it sounds. It just doesnt fit with tone hes going for at all. 93
    Horror Bonus: Left 4 Dead is barely a horror game. Ill give it one point for being based on so many zombie apocalypse films and for some of the tension the game tries to create with sound and enemy types. +1
    Final Score: 94

    SUSKIE SCORE: 261/300




    Bloomer and Bloodrayne

    Zipp says...
    I really start to enjoy this review right around this line: The soldiers' obvious terror in the face of you is like a red rag to a bull. This is where Bloomer stops talking about all the mechanics and starts talking about all the fun. Knowing that you can rip a guys arm off and then shoot his fleeing fellow in the back is disturbingly enticing to me and is around the point where I start to believe Bloomer that the game is worth my time.

    I think the opening is overlong. I dont really need to know about the tutorial level or even the plot, outside of the fact that its inane. Because once youve told us the plot is inane, I have little interest in hearing more about it. I think a few key (and awesome) lines couldve been combined here to make a smaller paragraph or two. These lines (and some of those building up to them) might be great to see in such an opening:

    The point of BloodRayne is that you are a nightmare unstoppable force whom everyone rightly fears. The question isn't, "Can I destroy the one thousand people who get in my way?" but, "How will I destroy the one thousand people who get in my way?"

    The violence is also about as detailed as can be. It figures so strongly in the game mechanics that it will end up framing most players' ultimate response to BloodRayne, one way or the other.

    Players who don't respond to BloodRayne's constant invitations to explore its crazy sadistic possibilities will probably end up doing something like this, and assess the game as being overlong and repetitive.

    You also do a good job describing bullet time, but I think it couldve been combined with some of your more vibrant descriptions of arm-ripping and back-shooting to carry the whole paragraph through.

    I really like the fact that you end by telling us theres a second game thats better. Somehow that adds legitimacy to Bloodrayne, as if its problems can be excused because the developers/programmers learned from their mistakes the next time around.

    Structure: 3/5 (the opening segments read slowly; they dont illustrate the purpose of the review)
    Substance: 4/5 (I wouldnt mind knowing a little less about some of the less relevant and interesting things, like the tutorial; other information couldve been condensed )
    Style 5/5 (some really classy lines here and a great tip of the hat to bare-tits)
    -1% for a game that is more Underworld than it is Bram Stoker

    79%


    Overdrive says...
    I'm pretty sure Uwe Boll also made a movie based on at least the Bloodrayne character, to add to her "accomplishments". This was one very interesting review, as you pretty much come right out and say this is an easy game that's pretty repetitive AND still are able to do a pretty good job of selling the reader that those things are NOT bad. The part of me who would start a Madden NFL franchise on All-Pro, build up a team of studs and routinely beat everyone by obscene scores like 84-10 for 5-6 seasons finds this appealing. This is a very intelligent review that does a great job of exhibiting how a bloodthirsty, easy vampire game can work (but probably only once, as your conclusion states). This review could potentially get me to rent this game someday, if I ever get through the big pile of games I'm working through...and don't have another big pile after that's accomplished (in other words, that probably won't happen). I'm not going to say you completely succeeded in eliminating the game's perceived weaknesses as important, as I still wince a bit thinking of how the environments are "big empty spaces in which to toss around body parts" and I don't know that I personally like the concept of spending time talking about how the game was ranked by other publications in your personal review, but you did an admirable job of making this game seem like something that'd be very fun to play. 86 (+/- 0, well, there's a vampire and all, but this is more spatterpunk camp than actual horror) = 86

    Genj says...
    This a beautifully written review, which is quite weird saying since its mostly about drinking blood and slicing off appendages. Bloomer makes BloodRayne sound fantastic, and thats surprising to me since I absolutely hate the game. He makes the games combat sound so gruesome and entertaining. I also like how he brings up legitimate concerns with the game and explains why they dont bother him. In a way it allows the reader to judge for myself whether theyd bother them, while also informing that theres more to the game. It also allows him to respond to criticism others have brought up in the past. I started losing interest near the end when I began reading about Rayne in Playboy (PC clocking etc), but fortunately there wasnt much left to read. 95
    Horror Bonus: I had a very difficult time trying to decide what to do for this and Left 4 Dead. BloodRayne may have zombies and vampires, but I dont really think of it as a horror game. Its an action game with a slutty half-vampire tough chick who hacks up Nazis. I feel like calling this a horror game would be like calling Underworld a horror movie. -1
    Final Score: 94

    BLOOMER SCORE: 259/300




    WolfQueen and Resident Evil: Code Veronica

    Zipp says...
    WolfQueen really nails what Resident Evil: CV was all about. She highlights that OCD feeling that the player gets when they use ANYTHING in that game. She doesnt leave out the Bandersnatch, either, which is one of the scariest Resident Evil monsters of all time. Code Veronica is a game where you constantly feel like you want to reload from your last save because you used one too many bullets. It was the most tense of the Resident Evils, alongside REmake and Resident Evil 0... but Resident Evil 0 had an opera-singing scientist and midget baboons, so it loses some respect points.

    In any case, I digress. What I was saying was that WQ nails what makes the game tense. My favorite section of this review comes near the end when a series of paragraphs are laid out in such a manner as to perfectly highlight the feeling one gets when playing the game. She starts with the Bandersnatch thing and then moves through a series of I tried this... it wasnt right... but I was okay so I kept moving and did this... it wasnt right... but I was okay...

    That feeling is what makes Code Veronica so great. Its exactly like WQ says at the end: If youre not afraid, you die. If youre too afraid you die. However, once you reach your goals with confidence, you can win, and thats what makes the game truly rewarding.

    The downside to this review is that it doesnt deliver these points with much conviction and a lot of tired statements, like dread is the ultimate terror here or experience the true meaning of horror. Theres a sense that, stylistically, WolfQueen is going through the motions here, with the writing feeling surprisingly bland for the cleverness with which she has constructed the overal review. It feels a little bit like reading a book report... in the sense that it feels like WQ wrote it almost out of obligation.

    Structure: 5/5 (amazing structure that takes us through the points in a very deliberate fashion)
    Substance: 5/5 (I cant think of anywhere that the feeling of Code Veronica has been better captured)
    Style: 1/5 (not a memorable style and somewhat formulaic)
    +5% for what I think is the scariest game pick of the tournament

    78%

    Overdrive says...
    This is an interesting review, as it primarily focus on the necessity of proper item/weapon use and conservation. Which, of course, is probably the most important aspect of those old-school survival horror games. A novice player would likely find themselves screwed due to inept management of goods, while a seasoned pro knows what enemies are easy to simply run past and ignore and which ones should probably be dispatched. Which is why my best friend went through a period of time where he, at will, would get the highest ranking on RE2. He learned the game, wasn't affected by the horror/dread effect and mastered it...a far cry from when we were first playing this game together, trading off every half hour or so, when panicked "WHAT THE....AAAAHHHHH!!!!!" sorts of yelling and recklessness was the main thing going on. I think you do a good job of describing that sensation of fear and impending doom you could get playing one of these games for the first time...where you can only hold so much, making your choice of weaponry all the more important. I'd say the problem here is that you start out saying Code Veronica fits in all the staples and adds its own nuances, but remain pretty vague as to that. I've never played this installment in the series, but have spent time with old-school ones like 2 and Nemesis. While some names/descriptions (ie: bandersnatch and weird amphibian lizard thing that shoots electricity) might not have been familiar to me, I could easily apply most of this review to those two previous old-school REs, leaving me unaware of what makes this game different from any other RE title. It's well written, but could have used more Code Veronica detail. 75 (+3, for effort, as you interspersed feelings of dread and horror throughout the review) = 78

    Genj says...
    I am sorry to say I was not a fan of this one. It is a technically sound review, but the approach did not work with me unfortunately. This review read like a book report (video game report?) on things that happened to wolfqueen when she played the game. I felt like a lot of the key points she praised the game for could easily be interchanged with a lot of the other Resident Evil games as well. Parts of this review are really awkward too. the Resident Evil franchise inspired fear not just through horrifying monsters and startling scenes, but also through mere existence What does this even mean? - 65
    Horror Bonus: Resident Evil master of monster jumps from window scare tactics. +3
    Final Score: 68

    WOLFQUEEN SCORE: 224/300




    Nightmare and Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

    Zipp says...
    Wow, a review without coloured text, pictures, or even italics! Theres no bells and whistles here, just a solid voice that leads us through one mans disappointing experience with a game he thought to give a chance. Nightmare captures the feeling of a rant without any of the over-exuberant silliness of a rant. One expects RAGE but what one gets is a more sympathetic treatment of the game. Despite the casual tone, this is a true critique of the game, not a bash, and it serves Nightmare well.

    The grammar suffers at time. Mistakes like remember that youre ability or bulky lines like how can a games one aspect be so flawless, so brilliant, so fascinating and then have a complete lack of effort on others? can throw the reader out of the flow of the piece.

    I also think theres some missing substance here. For instance, Nightmare doesnt cover the motion controled puzzles at all. I know things got downsized a bit from the Wii version, but some time spent discussing at least whether or not the puzzles add or detract from things seems appropriate. After all, they make up one third of the game. Theres also no concrete mention of the games major selling point, which was the changes to the game based on player responses in the psychology section. This was the big advertisement for the game. When its not even discussed, I feel a little cheated.

    Especially because Id like to hear Nightmare talk about these things in his sitting room manner. The conversational tone really carries the piece. Theres an underlying honesty to everything Nightmare says that makes bells and whistles unneccesary.

    Structure: 4/5 (sometimes the lines make it difficult to follow what Nightmare is trying to say)
    Substance: 3/5 (Some key details are missing)
    Style: 5/5 (Its refreshingly casual and conversational without trying too hard)
    +1% for a horror game

    81%

    Overdrive says...
    As a big fan of the first two SH games, I have to say that the combination of you and EmP have left me depressed and broken. Two SH game reviews and two less-than-flattering portrayals. Really bums me out. You do a great job of explaining how this game, on one hand, is inventive and intelligent with its mystery that you're attempting to solve -- while on the other hand, removes combat, but keeps the monsters...AND puts you in maze-like Nightmare World scenes where you apparently have to make like Pac-Man and find the path out before being overwhelmed. It seems like the sort of game where you're loving things...and then hating them because you got thrown in some place that seems tacked on just to add time to the game's quest. Compared to many of the other pieces involved in this competition, though, I'd say the writing here feels a bit awkward. Like the sentence: "Harry with more of a dark side, and a fragmented personality and perhaps shimmer of instability" feels sort of fragmented and definitely could be improved. Like, "Harry has more of a dark side, with a fragmented personality that shows the occasional glimpse of instability" or something like that. There are a few punctuation errors where a comma should have (or shouldn't have been) used. The foundation of a great review is here, but I think it could use a vigorous proofreading to reach that potential. 70 (+5, trying to solve a mystery while receiving hints as to the dubious nature of my sanity and having to deal with bloodthirsty monsters while unarmed...now that's scary!) = 75

    Genj says...
    I really liked this review. As I mentioned in EmPs critique, I liked how Nightmares recap on Silent Hill is much more succinct because then Im able to read more about the game thats actually being reviewed sooner. Arguments are easy to follow and the game sounds genuinely frustrating. I really dont have anything negative to say about this review, but I have to somehow transform my enjoyment of reading it into a number to compare it to my enjoyment of the other seven reviews. Unfortunately I just have to give you a lower score than a couple of the other entries for things that just made me like them better, such as Bloomers exquisite descriptions of Raynes brute force or Suskies exciting descriptions of Left 4 Dead. This is still an excellent write up on Shattered Memories, and I enjoyed your FF13 review as well. I hope you contribute more to the site. - 88
    Horror Bonus: Again Silent Hill. And in this one you arent an unstoppable killing machine! +4
    Final Score: 92

    NIGHTMARE SCORE: 248/300




    Zigfried and Cotton

    Zipp says...
    Oh, Zigfried. You nutball.

    You cant say no to a Zigfried review. Hes easily one of the most exuberant and stylistic writers on the site and his reviews are instantly recognizable for his unique voice. Im more-than-somewhat in awe of Zigfrieds ability to take any game, regardless of its substance, and write a review on it that makes it sound intriguing.

    Lately, Zigfried seems to have a thing for the shooters. Felix made a great point in his blog about the pointlessness of trying to do an in-depth review on a shooter. Shooters simply dont have that many mechanics to discuss and few differences exist between games. I still am curious about a few things, though... what the hell is Silk good for? Are power ups interesting or are they just variations on the regular shots? I think Zigfried is talented enough that he could have covered these things without losing stride.

    That said, a shooter is really more about its setting than anything else, and Zigfried has obviously caught on to that. All the same, the descriptions are a bit over the top here. This is best highlighted by the pictures. After Zigfrieds awesome depiction of the plant man, I was highly dissapointed to see the graphic that actually went along with it. It took away from the authenticity of the review. I come away not sure that the experience Zigfried just described is at all the one I would have if I played Cotton.

    I guess a picture cant live up to a thousand of Zigfrieds words.

    Structure: 5/5 (insert electronic guitar solo)
    Substance: 2/5 (accuracy feels like it suffers because of a possible misrepresentation of the game)
    Style: 5/5 (while the style is probably a bit over the top here, its still a review Ill remember and will probably come back to at some point to read again. Zigfried tells a good story.)
    -2% for a game that isnt horror, though I appreciate the effort

    78%


    Overdrive says...
    I got a few good chuckles out of this review. I'm guessing you either had a great deal of fun writing it...or you are completely and totally insane. I'm flipping a coin right now to determine which of the two it is. Oops! Thomas Jefferson's grim face said you're insane. Anyway, this is a very well-written review. And it made me thing that I could have entered this contest if I'd just had the foresight to re-review Gynoug (another shmup with a dark fantasy setting). One thing I've always liked about your writing is your ability to weave a sort of convincing web with words. Not only did you pack a good deal of information in a short review, you give a great effort to convince readers that "horror" truly is macabrely cartoonish plant monsters and cartoonishly malevolent purple rock monsters with a dragon sprouting from its head. And you put the effort into it to make me think, "By jove! He's right! Child-eating trees! Living statues that ONLY EXIST to murder little girls! Explode like blood sausages!!!! Terrifying!!!" It's hard to say much more. This is a fun little review with some over-the-top writing used to humorous effect. 87 (-3, unfortunately, due to my amazing powers of perception, I gather this is a cutesy shooter with a dark fantasy setting...I am not horrified and will not be unless you can deliver an in-game picture of a child becoming an exploding blood sausage) = 84

    Genj says...
    Zig is really good at reviewing shooters because he knows exactly whats important to talk about. Cotton is a pretty straightforward shooter but its art-direction is imaginative and worth describing. Zigs Cotton review tells you everything you need to know with some very vivid descriptions that are fun to read. Unfortunately I dont really like the horror approach this review goes for. I could be wrong, but I dont think this is the approach Zig would have taken for a game like Cotton had it not been for the contest. It feels forced, and I think that hurts the review. At least I was impressed with your knowledge of ancient legends concerning giant plant men. 85
    Horror Bonus: Ive played Cotton and I dont consider it a horror game at all. At least its not Barbie. -4
    Final Score: 81

    ZIGFRIED SCORE: 243/300




    Duo and Resident Evil

    Zipp says...
    I really like the opening line. You really do well by this argument for the entire opening of the review. You cover what made Resident Evil scary, even giving the fixed camera angles their due and explaining nicely why they worked in favor of the game. Then theres a great transition where you suddenly turn on the game and explain just why all these things dont work any more. Wonderful switch around and one that would be easy to lose people in transition. You dont lose me, and you keep on going strong until the ending, where you unexpectedly work in rotting flesh into a strong conclusion. Great final line.

    Then theres lines like this, they failed to guess that a corpse beneath their feet must spring to life and tear off their ankles so they panicked and flailed or this, I remember when I could walk past a large window without readying a firearm for the obligatory zombie mutts who were obviously going to jump through it. These kind of lines are sprinkled throughout the review and really kick me out of the experience with their bulkiness. They might read better if cut down a bit, to something like, I remember when a zombie mutt jumping through a window was original, not obligatory.

    I still think the 12 people owned a gamecube line and the subsequent argument that REmake is under-acknolwedged distracts from the point of the review as a whole. But overal, this is a great review, and Im happy that you decided to do a retrospective rather than a straight-up review. We all know Resident Evil... we dont need a description of how the game plays or a detailed description of the plot. Cheers for avoiding that trap. Maybe the historical view has been done before, but mostly with just showing how the genre has aged and how it compares to newer games... rarely has it been done with the game being compared to itself.

    Structure: 3/5 (some sentences really throw off the whole effect)
    Substance: 5/5 (you took a classic game and examined it historically in a clever way)
    Style: 5/5 (the voice is strong and sincere with a lot of variation on phrasing and implied intonations that kept it moving)
    -1% for the game choice being a little obvious, doncha think?

    86%


    Overdrive says...
    Some very effective stuff here. You did a good job of comparing/contrasting how a game like this was super-effective when it first was released, but now its flaws are more noticeable. A lot of this review is very effective in describing the atmosphere of this game as it seemed back in the day, but some things did fall a bit short, though. Like how the line about being fatal to even the most hardy of rose-tinted glasses comes shortly before you describe how the game still does survival well. The term "fatal" winds up feeling misleading, as the remainder of the review makes it seem more "damaging" than "fatal". It seems at tiimes that you're saying, "It's not what it used to be, but still is fun" and at other times, the message is that it's completely outdated. At least that's what I read into this review. It felt to me like you were trying to balance between respect for what this game once was and scorn for how outdated it is now. Like if you look at the end of the review, take the next-to-last paragraph (and preceding line). That's a very nice illustration of the ammo conservation factor in these games. If you kill everything, you'll be in BIG trouble ammo-wise as the game progresses and more powerful foes enter the fray. But if you conserve ammo, well, you do have to backtrack a lot and, so those enemies could wind up being thorns in your side later. But then, you follow that up with a conclusion that mentions how the game is marred in mistakes and hasn't aged well. Which is true, but kind of feels jarring and abrupt coming right after a complementary paragraph. Maybe a bit different organization will be of help. Like where you mention how the game still has "survival" earlier in the review, so all of your points about how poorly the game has aged are right with the conclusion, so your views flow together better. 77 (+2, as you said, while this is a horror game, through the ravages of time, much of the horror has faded into things that are expected) = 79

    Genj says...
    Looking back on Resident Evil and pointing out its flaws isnt the most original review to write for a contest, but this is a solid piece. The arguments and gameplay discussion are sound, but Im not the biggest fan of how you presented them. Its a bit weird how the first half of the review is all in the past tense account of the beginning of the game and then it quickly switches over to present tense general gameplay discussion. Its also a bit awkward how the review begins by addressing us (you ran away, you died) and then switches to the third person (They [the player] armed themselves as best they could, and moved on.). I think it would have been better to stay consistent. The typos seemed to have been fixed, but that line or possible joke about the remake is still a bit odd (and not really accurate considering the Wii userbase). This is a solid review but it could use a bit of editing. 75
    Horror Bonus: The most terrifying thing in Resident Evil is the lust in Barrys voice when he says Jill Sandwich +3
    Final Score: 78

    DUO SCORE: 243/300




    FINAL SCORES:
    EmP: 280 (7 horror points)
    Suskie: 261 (4 horror points)
    Bloomer: 259 (-2 horror points)
    Nightmare: 248 (10 horror points)
    Duo: 243 (4 horror points)
    Zigfried: 243 (-9 horror points)
    WolfQueen: 224 (11 horror points)
    Dark Eternal: 222 (7 horror points)

    There was a fair amount of variance in the scores for this one, which makes it all the more telling that all three judges gave EmPs review a score over 90. That shows a true versatility and appeal to the review, so first place is well deserved.

    WolfQueen nabbed the most horror points though, showing a great decision in her choice of game. It was an all-around clever choice. Everyone associates Resident Evil with horror, but Code Veronica is one of the least talked about games in the main series, which may have lent it a fresh feeling for the tournament.

    Thanks to everyone who participated and to my fellow judges for taking the time to write reviews/critiques. Really good reviews this time around and a fairly good turn out! On that note, thanks to EmP for suggesting the contest and garnering interest in it. It feels a bit odd to congratulate him on winning his own contest, but as we can see with the Alpha-lympics... he likes to do that.

    So, congratulations, EmP! May you live long and prosper and gloat appropriately (but not overmuch) in your victory!
    board icon
    darketernal posted May 21, 2010:

    Thanks for the fairly quick results.
    board icon
    Masters posted May 21, 2010:

    Congrats, Emp. Had Suskie not lost points for his lack of creativity, it would have been even tighter at the top.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 21, 2010:

    Thanks for the comments. I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that, stylistically, I just can't seem to muster what used to make me 'good', in the few instances where that actually applies to me. I could blame all the writing I do for college, and I will, but I won't leave that as the soul blame. I can only hope that, as I try to get back into this, I can somehow even myself out and meet my own standards once more.

    To OD, I'll say that as far as anything 'new' goes, I mainly meant to refer to some of the new monsters as well as the plot line. Some of those new monsters I did cover, but the story I wanted to leave out because I didn't want to spoil anything. I always seem to have this problem with reviews. I suppose I would've been better just leaving out any such tantalizing introductory statements so that the reader wouldn't really think too much into it. But, on the other hand, I wanted to say something that would separate the game from the rest of the genre, even if there isn't really a whole lot there. I mean, I liked it after all, and sometimes I feel that I can't justify liking something, especially if it's something so old, without trying to make it sound unique in some way. That's probably a mistake of mine that I have a hard time resolving.

    Anyway, congrats to everyone else, and especially EmP for winning. I myself really enjoyed that review, so it's always nice to see such work pay off. Though I will agree with Masters' sentiments on Suskie's review.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 21, 2010:

    I don't think Suskie's review was uncreative. Left 4 Dead is a tough game because it is so well known and everyone's got their history with it. For two of the judges, that worked in Suskie's favour. Ironically, I think it was because both Overdrive and Genj had reason to not like Left 4 Dead (OD doesn't do online much and Genj says he doesn't like Left 4 Dead) so when Suskie made it sound amazing, they were very much impressed.

    I, on the other hand, already really like Left 4 Dead and have covered this ground with friends and other reviewers dozens of times, so the review didn't create as much passion in me as it did for the others.

    But it is by no means a poorly written review. In a normal feedback thread I probably would've only negatively commented on the openings of some of the paragraphs and otherwise praised its vibrancy and voice. In the tournament-comparative setting, it just didn't do it for me like some of the other reviews did.

    I just wanted to be clear on that, lest we head towards another "Zipp is stupid and mean" style-thread.
    board icon
    Genj posted May 21, 2010:

    I am pretty surprised. I expected Suskie to win, but second with a 72 on your scorecard is pretty impressive.

    Was not expecting to see Underworld mentioned twice.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 21, 2010:

    I think Uwe Boll was also mentioned twice, which is odd because I was watching House of the Dead the night that I posted this.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 21, 2010:

    It is also nice when he reviews games that are interesting to read about rather than Jurassic Park strategy games

    You just wait until next time you're stuck with judging something..... It's going to be wall-to-wall dinosaur parks and safari rides.

    Many thanks to the judges for jumping in and getting these results done (and extra thanks for the win -- even if it probably made OD die a little more inside). But huge thanks to the people who showed up for this and contributed a fantastic slew of reviews. I especially dug Duo's, who produced a review I both agree with perfectly and disagree with completely. Manly hugs to Zig for bing so Ziggly.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 21, 2010:

    Both Uwe Boll references were by me. That was intentional.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 21, 2010:

    Hey, and Genj, there's also two lines about book reports. This time it's from me and you so, unless he's more incredibly brilliant than even I thought, not an evil plot by OD.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 21, 2010:

    I do apologize for that, Aschultz! I got confused and turned around. If you'd like to take my week for next month, that only seems fair to me. Of course, that might seem like work to you... as you'd then have to cover your own week not long after. I leave it up to you to decide what you want. I'll go along with your decision!

    I suppose we need to get someone to cover for Randxian next month (and so on and so forth?). Jerec, want to be a regular? You did an awesome ROTW a couple weeks ago.
    board icon
    Nightmare posted May 21, 2010:

    Thank you Genj, OD and Zipp for judging this. I appreciate the comments given from all three, and found them incredibly beneficial. I can't believe I made such a foolish mistake by transposing your/you're. And I agree with the "Harry" sentence as well. Once I read over it again, I winced somewhat.

    But such is life, and you learn from these contests and I'm glad that we have good judges who can help us do so. Again--thank you.

    I was also curious about Zipp's comments in regards to the psychology aspect. More than likely I missed them, because I only played the game once and saw only subtle changes--like the color of the house matching my earlier drawing, or some small character reactions. I thought it wasn't really worth mentioning, but I'm sure there were more.

    In your opinion is it worth playing again to get a better feel for it?
    board icon
    Halon posted May 21, 2010:

    I didn't know this contest existed until 5 minutes ago, but archived it on time for once!

    By the way is this going to be a multiple part contest? Or a one time thing that sounds like something different?
    board icon
    jerec posted May 21, 2010:

    What genre is next? I don't play much horror, or read or watch it so I didn't even offer to be a judge. But I might try to get involved in future chapters of this WACKY GENRE TOURNAMENT!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 21, 2010:

    I think science fiction might be a cool genre. Like horror, it transcends game-genres and we might see a nice range of game selections! Metroid, Dead Space, Xenosaga, and Gaurdian Legend are all sci-fi, for instance, and all different game styles.

    Nightmare: I don't think Silent Hill SH is worth playing twice, but the game ending and the feel of the relationship between Cheryl and her father changes dramatically based on your decisions. I don't know what ending you got, but mine was incredibly sad, while I know my friend got an ending that made him hate Harry. I kind of messed up in my own SH review by not disucssing how profound the effect is, because it took me several weeks of thinking about it before I realized what exactly the game was doing.

    But no, I agree that SH kind've sucks and isn't worth a second play. A first play... yes. But I sold my copy because I realized I'd never play it again. The maze sections are stupid, especially near the end when it's just a series of identical rooms. I could NOT figure out what I was doing and ran for over forty minutes before making it out of that section by pure luck. Even the faq I checked just said "get lucky."
    board icon
    Nightmare posted May 21, 2010:

    To avoid any spoilers, I won't mention the ending I got, but will say it didn't make me hate Harry, nor did it strike me as all that sad. More a shocking realization.

    And while it should be common knowledge for any Silent Hill fan that the endings can change--and it's even cooler that those endings are based on several varying factors you have control over--they make it really difficult to achieve that. The story I would go through three or four times, but can't stomach the thought of doing the Nightmare world ever again.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 21, 2010:

    Nightmare
    The different SH endings are a big draw. I remember watching the utterly sad and defeated expression on my friend's face when we beat SH2 together and watched the "Harry drowning in his car" ending.

    EmP
    It does hurt to give you that high ranking, but I can justify it due to the valuable service you've done me. I'd been considering buying Homecoming for some time, but after reading your review, I think I'll put my money towards something different and if I want to play that game, I'll just rent it.

    WQ
    I see what you mean. I think the flaw with that sentence then would be twofold. First, if you feel it inappropriate to give away storyline dealies, you shouldn't hint at it in such a vague way. Second, it seems that a couple of new monsters get introduced in about every RE game as a change of pace from what you expect. I've played a few RE games, but not this one, so to me, the bandersnatch was a new enemy, but I didn't readily associate it with the "adding new things" line.

    I wouldn't say you're not able to write as well now as before. I think a lot of it is more rust from doing this sort of writing style, as you haven't written much here recently. I'd call that review sort of a forced eloquence, where you had good ideas and stuff, but went a bit overboard being flowery with the speech at times. It's more a matter of getting comfortable again with a more freeflowing style of writing than what I'd guess you were doing with college papers and whatnot.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 21, 2010:

    If it's any consolation, WQ, I've had the same issue before and it's laid up my writing for months. I think my Steambots review came during that period. I was trying so damn hard to make my reviews good... I don't know if they are any better now, but I'm more comfortable with them. I just say what I think and let my voice take over.

    Nightmare: the thing with SH:SM is that the endings ARENT tough to get since they are all based on choices you are openly asked to make rather than in the old games, where the choices were either hard to notice or it was based on things like looking at things a certain amount of time or walking to rooms in a certain order.
    board icon
    Nightmare posted May 21, 2010:

    I think it was part two where you had the knife as an item, and if you looked at it and noticed the blood you automatically received the bad ending--even though it was really early in the game--and there was no way to change it.

    I preferred Shattered Memories method of doing it, as it added a lot more variety, just wish that they would address the mechanics issue, and work to fix it.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 21, 2010:

    Thanks guys.

    My first comment is about Zigfried. He reviewed a game at the very last minute that was in no way horror at all. And beat two people who did review horror games. My interpretation of his last minute choice of basically reviewing anything he wanted to, then telling you judges it was horror in the review, was that it was extremely amusing, and it helped inspire participation in a more-the-merrier way, but you seemed to accept what he told you.

    If I was running this comp, I would have dunked him to last place immediately for not being in genre at all, and at bare minimum awarded him the max possible horror penalty, which you didn't. Otherwise what's the point of even telling people to review in a genre? The person who reviewed the game you interpreted as most horror (WQ) came below Zigfried!

    On my choice of game: I started out trying to re-do my decade old RE2 review, but it wasn't working at all, so I quickly switched to a game I knew I could review entertainingly and before the deadline.

    On the comments - the only thing I have issue with is '(the opening segments read slowly; they dont illustrate the purpose of the review)'. I believe the intro is on mission, does point out what is coming, and of whatever length it needed to be.

    Congrats to Emp and Susk, and also especial congrats to the new guys on the site for jumping right into this. Cheers.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 22, 2010:

    Did you use the dictate approuch to your review in the end, Bloomer?
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 22, 2010:

    Yep. 100% spoken aloud and edited by my melodious but highly variable voice.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 22, 2010:

    I don't really care to get into an argument over justifying judge decisions, because it NEVER ends well. I will say that my comment there wasn't as clear as it could've been. For me, what happened with your opening was that you say the same thing about the game several times in a row, which is focused on how the game is centered around violence and ridiculousness, and it's unnecessary to say it so many times. I think the overstatement muddled it for me. It doesn't smoothly lead into a discussion of this violence and ridiculousness, either, but instead you start talking about the third person perspective and the tutorial level.

    You might still disagree with me about that, but those were my thoughts on how the review reflected me. Hopefully it's a bit clearer now.

    The Zigfried comment is an interesting one. I didn't give Zigfried a particularly high score myself, because I felt like he over-stylized a game in order to make it fit the tournament, but I think you're right that there should be a greater point loss for straying from the genre.

    At the same time, he put such ridiculous effort into justifying, even if it is kind've spoofy, his game choice that it's hard not to acknowledge the effort.
    board icon
    Genj posted May 22, 2010:

    Bloomer, I ultimately decided to go with how EmP wrote the rules for the contest rather than back-peddle and rewrite them myself after the deadline. Personally I felt determining the whole horror bonus was kind of stupid because I had noticed the same flaw as Zig a couple days before the deadline. I figured that if I had to rate how unscary a game like Cotton was, then it'd be one point ahead of Barbie, the -5 I was given for my scale. Likely in a more traditional contest approach Zig's review wouldn't have even been accepted and I wouldn't have been asked to judge it. Obviously revisions to the rules would be necessary for future contests, though I don't see how a bonus would work with other genres (rate how much of a science fiction game this is!).

    It's important to remember however that it's not uncommon to get these problems involving whether games should be accepted or not because occasionally you get someone who wants to review something on the fence between two genres. And that's why we've had long discussions on whether Viewtiful Joe is a beat 'em up and Deus Ex an RPG. Really the only options are to have everyone announce what they want to do and have it okay'd or just have faith people will choose something that fits.

    I assure you had Zig reviewed a fake game or an anime series, I would have given him a zero. For each entry I rated them solely of whether I thought it was a good review and then deducted or added points based on the scale I was given.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 22, 2010:

    The scoring scale is still a work in progress. It's not the first time I've busted it out in a tourney, but it seems to work much better for its original role (that being in the obscure tourney). I plan to do more WGT events during the year, so I'll have to go away and think about the best way to use the scale, oe if I shold perhaps just drop it altogether. If anyone has any thoughts on the scale -- or just thinks it's a dumb idea that should be scrapped at once -- I'd really like to hear them.
    board icon
    zigfried posted May 22, 2010:

    I was just going to thank the judges (thanks, judges!) but my review has somehow become A Big Deal! So I should comment on that, especially since the topic of future genre contests has come up.

    Basically, I don't see the problem with choosing Cotton for this contest. It's not like I reviewed Dynasty Warriors or Tekken or something -- I reviewed a game that pokes fun at things that are supposed to be scary. If this was a survival horror contest, then I apologize for misunderstanding, but I took it to mean "horror-based games". Cotton is totally a horror-based game. It makes fun of horror by having despicable demons get annihilated by a cute child witch who just wants to eat lots of candy. Remove the horror elements and you've removed the game's personality (and there's not much to Cotton beyond its personality.)

    The judges looked at this game and said "there's no way in hell this could actually scare anyone" and docked it points, which is totally fine. If anyone had reviewed Resident Evil 5 (aka Super Gun Action RE), I would expect it to be docked points too. But RE5 is still a horror-based game even though it's not scary.

    So I guess I'm saying that if this were a traditional contest, I would have still considered this a valid entry. I don't see how it wouldn't be, unless we invoke a "no parody / no genre subversion" rule.

    Genj:
    Interesting comments... I'm not sure how I would have reviewed this outside of the contest. It would have probably had a different introduction, but I could never think of a good one before (which is why I never reviewed it). I would have still presented the game as a spoof of scary things, because at heart that's what Cotton is, but I would have probably done so more overtly and spent extra time focusing on cute demons. Honestly, I think the approach I took was fine... the "forced" feeling is probably more from lack of writing/edit time (as Bloomer said, it was a last-minute entry).

    Zipp:
    I thought the giant plant man looked awesome! I'm picturing two guys sitting in front of a TV:

    Guy One: "HOLY SHIT, there's a massive plant dude swiping at me with thorny arms! And those thorns are red, I bet he's been impaling everyone who comes here! This is, like, the king of all plant men! Do you see how chubby that guy's cheeks are? I bet he's been eating lots of children."

    Guy Two: "It's a big green face."

    I'm fine with you thinking I overstylized the game and rating my review accordingly; that's pretty normal when two people disagree on the inherent coolness behind something. I figure most people will see the picture first so that they already know what he looks like when reading. Obviously, the effect I was hoping for was "yeah, this so totally looks like a vicious killer giant plant man -- 16-bit shooters always were the greatest." But if someone says "Zigfried is so full of it" that's fine, too, because at least it's an informed opinion!

    Overdrive:
    I am perfectly normal. I would say more, but I must go draw some Cotton hentai.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Genj posted May 22, 2010:

    It may be helpful to extend the range of negative scores so you can be more harshly penalized for trying to bend the rules like for example subtracting 10 or 15 points from someone who tries to review GTA4 in an obscure games contest.

    edit - and yes it definitely works better with some things than others. Some of the horror bonus scores were really different among the judges. Something like obscurity is a bit less subjective.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 22, 2010:

    I should say I was more bemused than angry about Zigfried's review, if it sounded angry.

    When you (judges) talk about this scoring system that was behind the scenes, I had no idea it was as worked-out as that. I can't really comment on it, only that using systems in general can make it hard to fit things in boxes with other things if they aren't an easy shape. Like Genj was saying, he followed the rules he was given.

    Re: 'horror', it is the same lack of definition of the term in general as per the obscure tourney which causes everyone to interpret it differently. Genj was saying here 'obscurity' is less subjective, but I don't know, as a judge on that tourney once. frankly I didn't have much answer to people who complained. Their complaints were as valid as my subjective assessments, though I saw the assessment as kind of silly to begin with and tried to give it a light touch.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 22, 2010:

    To Zig:

    >So I guess I'm saying that if this were a traditional contest,
    > I would have still considered this a valid entry. I don't see how it wouldn't be,
    > unless we invoke a "no parody / no genre subversion" rule.

    Well, neither would I. I mean if this were a enter-whatever-you-want contest, I wouldn't have blinked. Because it was horror, and you constantly told us in the review how the game was to do with horror, that signalled to me that if you hadn't done that, you'd be struggling to have the game perceived as horror. There's no such tension with anything else entered in the comp, and I think maybe WQ was the only other person whose review perhaps conspicuously spoke to the entry requirements (almost talking to the judges saying 'this is horror'). I just reviewed Bloodrayne as I would have reviewed it any other time. Are you saying you would have written the same review of Cotton if it wasn't for this competition? It would be surprised if you say yes, from the way it reads. That's not illegal obviously, but it feels cute if the purpose is to just emphasise a maybe-tenuous ability to qualify in the first place.

    In the end, I think you're right actually. If Twilight is horror in common parlance (and it is, and it will appear in horror encyclopedias), then maybe Cotton is.... Maybe! Would it ever appear in an index or encyclopedia of horror games? That's one measure I would apply.
    board icon
    bloomer posted May 22, 2010:

    To Zipp:

    Don't worry, there's no need for ongoing argument. It's just my usual behaviour that if I get a verdict and advice to make the review different in a topic, if I disagree, I always say how. Then there's verdictor's statement and verdictees both there to be read. It doesn't have to go any further unless people think I'm really off my trolley in what I said, or I think they're off their trolley. I don't think either of us are off trolley today!
    board icon
    zigfried posted May 22, 2010:

    Are you saying you would have written the same review of Cotton if it wasn't for this competition? It would be surprised if you say yes, from the way it reads

    The difference between this and later Cotton games is that personality is the only think that makes it stand out. I would have absolutely written a review with the same underlying theme ("this game is notable because it fills a cute game with normally spooky things" -- because that is why it's notable) but the delivery of that message would have likely been different. How much, who knows?

    But I can also say that if I had reviewed Silent Hill for this contest, the review would have been different from if I were to review Silent Hill just for the heck of it. Whenever possible, I like to let the circumstances of the moment influence my writing. It makes for cooler memories.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 22, 2010:

    Aw, Zig! Don't think that I didn't think your description of the plant man was cool! That was just the problem! Your description was SOOO crazy cool and full of youthful spryness (and yes, damn sexy, too!) that it just couldn't live up to the actual image.

    I guess the simplest way of saying it was the Cotton review was a little over the top when placed alongside the other entries. On it's own, it's a brilliantly hilarious and exuberant review.

    It's sort've like if Yahtzee ever turned in a review for competition here. I would praise it for being hilarious and then dock it massive points for letting the style take away from the actual "review" quality of it.

    I rarely, if ever, base actual game purchases off of a Yahtzee review.
    board icon
    Suskie posted May 23, 2010:

    Well then. I can always be counted on to finish second in these things, can't I? I'm not complaining at all -- I'm just weirdly consistent.

    Thanks to the judges for their comments, and congrats to EmP for winning. I greatly enjoyed his review and I'm not surprised to see that it won.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 25, 2010:

    So, where's that mystery judge?

    And as far as replacing rand goes, I might be able to do a few of those provided I'm not too busy. It's more likely I"ll be able to help more during teh summer, but once school starts up again, things will likely change.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted May 25, 2010:

    Now that I've written 3 reviews this year and plan on writing quite a few more this summer, I'll throw my name in. I wasn't going to bother if I didn't get at least 5, but that'll probably happen now. Probably more.

    B = Beyond Good & Evil
    D = Dragonester
    E = Eschalon: Book II
    F = Fantasy Wars
    G = God of War II
    H = .hack//Infection
    K = Kingdom Hearts II
    L = Legend of Dragoon
    M = Metal Gear Solid 2
    P = Plants vs. Zombies & Puzzle Bots
    R = Resident Evil: Code Veronica X
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 25, 2010:

    I think we're missing two weeks, now... though this last one was OD's, so he may be coming in late...

    I'm up again next week, unless I hear otherwise from Aschultz.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 25, 2010:

    More!

    W= What did I do to deserve this... yadda yadda
    P= Parasite Eve 2
    S= Sakura Wars

    3 more for a total of 8
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 25, 2010:

    The part about me would be correct. I could have completed it on Sunday, but decided to finish a review instead. And then have been crushed at work the last two days. Ought to have it done tomorrow, as that's my "calm" day this week.
    board icon
    aschultz posted May 26, 2010:

    I'm pretty busy, so Zipp, if you want to take your regular week, that would work well for me.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 26, 2010:

    Things are different now, what with staff reviews being cool and the gang. That's good for this week, as it adds competition (only three user reviews submitted). Hopefully, I've included all of them, as Zig's Cotton was the last one on the little bar on the right of the screen as of today. If not, my apologies and you can all throw stones at Jason for not coding in a function to automatically make everything I need appear in front of my eyes. Zig's was from May 16 and since it was for the contest, I'd guess that it was submitted right around the early minutes of that day, so we're just going to say he had the first. NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

    Now, we only have ONE RULE!!! With that being that only one review from any person may count. YAY FOR SIMPLICITY!!!

    FUN FACT: Due to reading two of these reviews for a contest, that saves me work, as I know how I feel about them! YAY FOR LAZINESS!!!




    THIRD PLACE: Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie (XBox 360) by EmP

    EmP earns another place in this thing! You're right, one of the weakest aspects about the game is the length of its title. Not fun to type. I liked the organization of this review, as you open with a couple of paragraphs describing what seems to be an awesome scene and then let the reader know that Kong is only a small part of the game and that, while the rest has some cool aspects to it, there also is a lot of generic action staples that muddle the whole thing. The high level of competition this week is the primary reason this is only a third-place review, as I really enjoyed this one.

    SECOND PLACE: Grand Theft Auto: Episodes From Liberty City (PS3) by asherdeus

    You did a great job of handling the sort of review that I personally find tricky: compilation-type games. I thought the main strength here was that you did a good job of accentuating the differences between the two expansions, while tying them in to GTA4, so it felt like a cohesive review instead of a "here's what you do in this game...and now here's what you do in that one" sort of thing. Of course, there is some of that mixed into the review, but, there's never really that feeling that you're reviewing two separate entities because things flow together so well.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Monster Hunter Tri (Wii) by honestgamer

    You probably won over the rest of the crowd for doing great with the "successfully pulling off a higher degree of difficulty move" writing technique. Early in this review, you mention how this game can be frustrating, with the in-depth work you need to put into hunting monsters and how much you have to study your prey and all that. To the point where you admitted that you questioned whether you were suited to this game. But by the end, you made it all seem worth your while (and by extension, worth the time of other players). You make a huge single-player campaign seem appealing because of great visuals, how monsters act/react and the way this game seems to make success actually feel like SUCCESS instead of a foregone conclusion. Which all makes your "minor irritant" paragraph work even better, as it's obvious why you'd at times feel frustrated with this game after reading that paragraph, as all of those things definitely could work to turn a tough game into a frustrating one...especially not being able to pause. A very good review that makes its points well and just, in a word, works.




    All right! Now it's time to work on my next review! And then figure out what I'll be reviewing next!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 26, 2010:

    Thanks for the topic, as always, and thanks for the win. It has literally been years since I won a RotW or even a RotD topic, what with my ineligibility, so it felt good to scrape out a win with a review that gave me a lot of trouble as I wrote it. I must have written ten versions of the introduction before scrapping them all, and I pretty much always review in a linear fashion so that means that what you're seeing is essentially my tenth effort at the review. It helped that I spent so much time with it and that I knew what was important to the game. I'm pleased with the review, pleased with the victory and excited to have won during a week with such solid competition from other great writers. It's nice to know that I've still got it!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 26, 2010:

    EmP was right... this is better now that there are more reviews to choose from.

    Jason's review totally deserves the win this week. I haven't been excited for a Wii game in ages and his review is to blame for breaking that personal streak.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted May 26, 2010:

    Understood! I'll take next week and put off on writing a review for another week.
    board icon
    EmP posted May 27, 2010:

    EmP is always right. I thought this was fact by now.

    Thanks for the mention and congrats to Jason on some props. Even if, in my ego-driven mindset, I thought the entire introduction was a indisguised jab at me.

    Admit that it was like a man!
    board icon
    dementedhut posted May 27, 2010:

    Congratulations, Jason! I didn't read your review yet.

    A lot of reviews were put up last week that I only had time to pick a select few, like EmP's King Kong and the IR2 reviews.

    But I'll probably read these sometime today.
    board icon
    asherdeus posted May 27, 2010:

    Nice to see you're still kicking, OD.

    Jason's review is one of two that I've read in recent weeks for Wii games that have suddenly made me really want the system (the other was for Super Mario Galaxy II on my site). He did a really great job with the review and had me hooked from the first sentence to the last. But where he succeeded best was in identifying and explaining how AND why Tri's less enjoyable parts don't hold back the package. Most of the reviews I've read have either skirted over the bad parts or focused entirely too much on them, leaving me feeling like they didn't give it a fair waggle. Jason did both and the review is really strong because of that.

    As for my review, I'm happy that it came out clear. It was only the third review that I've written this year and it was difficult to tackle. I actually didn't really enjoy it as much as I had hoped. I thought the introduction was a lot stronger than the conclusion and felt like toward the end I was just throwing an endless list of game features at the player without expanding on them well enough. But, from the feedback I've gotten here, it seems like everything was balanced well enough. Thanks for the feedback again!

    And as for Emp ... I'm glad you got caught up enough to find enjoyment with the game, but I have to tell you friend, King Kong is ass, dude. The game is much worse than you painted it. Your review is really convincing, of course, but I couldn't help but remember my time with it and I just felt tired. Tired of killing the same shitty enemies, tired of feeling trapped in tiny environments as Kong, tired of the repetition. I really loved your introduction, but after that, my own thoughts took over and I couldn't help but spend the rest of it arguing with you in my head. Just a couple of things I noticed when reading:

    "Showing a subtle levels of intelligence" - should be "level" or drop the "a"

    "Jacks options are forever limited; he can never fully rely on the rationed firearms dropped from the sky in aid packages to get him out of every jam, catches of steel spears" - unless it's a European thing, I think you mean '"caches" of steel spears' here.

    Thanks again, OD, for the comments.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted May 27, 2010:

    Thanks for the mention and congrats to Jason on some props. Even if, in my ego-driven mindset, I thought the entire introduction was a indisguised jab at me.

    Honestly, EmP, there are times when you come to mind as I'm writing a review and I have to decide whether or not I want to allude to you, but this really wasn't one of those times. You're hardly alone in thinking that Wii doesn't have hardcore games worth trying. I'd say most gamers feel that way. And the comments weren't intended as a snipe, either, at anyone. I've played a lot of Wii games, so it's natural that I would know about some of the hardcore ones, but most people who dismiss the system have not played a lot of games for it (let alone hardcore ones) and the games that they have played give them no reason to launch an investigation into what they're missing. I felt that Monster Hunter Tri deserved props because it's hardcore and because it's extremely effective in spite of the issues referenced within the review.
    board icon
    overdrive posted May 27, 2010:

    Jason: As I said (in some fashion) before (and has been verified by at least Ashy), the greatest strength of that review is how you wasted no time in telling us how the game is frustrating and tedious...but do a great job of erasing that negativity by convincingly selling the positives to a degree that your statement about how the game's hardcore truly legit.

    Ashy: Good to see you're still breathing, too. I was wondering if you were yet another of the dudes who were around when I was starting who got tired of it all. I can see what you're saying about your review and how you thought it petered out at the end with you talking about things briefly, but not explaining them, but I didn't see that as a problem because...

    1. I'm very familiar with San Andreas and passingly familiar with IV. The functions you felt like you were brushing over to just mention them were things I knew about.

    2. The GTA series is a very popular one. I'm guessing that a large number of readers will know what you're talking about...

    3. ...especially because this is an individually-sold collection of GTA 4 add-on material. I would think that nearly ANYONE buying this already has GTA experience and that a very tiny percentage of purchasers are counting this as their first GTA experience. This game might be the perfect storm for a situation where it's totally legit to merely mention many gameplay ingredients in passing.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted May 31, 2010:

    Game: Konami Classics Vol. 1
    Release: December 15, 2009
    Platform: Xbox 360
    Genre: Compilation

    Game: Konami Classics Vol. 2
    Release: December 15, 2009
    Platform: Xbox 360
    Genre: Compilation

    ADDED

    Thanks!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 01, 2010:

    I apologize for the lateness of this ROTW. Work really picked up in my life this past week. Between film, social work, filming for social work, and completing a Masters in Education I'm one busy guy!

    I'm happy to report it's all paying off, though. The film is in post and doing well, I've been granted interviews with survivors of a historic asylum, and I've completed my first year of Graduate school with a 4.0, which feels really good considering I graduated undergraduate with a mere 2.6.

    The only thing that HASN'T paid off yet is that I need a job this summer. But we'll make it happen. Just like I made this ROTW happen. Maybe a little late, but it's still here.

    Let's get honest.




    Suskie's Pokemon Soul Silver review

    It was only while typing the name of this review that I realized how ridiculous Pokemon game names have become. I'm touched by Suskie's devotion to this series and the manner in which he presents that devotion in this review. I didn't get a chance to read through all the responses to his review, but I personally think he's nailed the frustrations long-time fans have of the series.

    I would offer, as explanation for this situation, the fact that Nintendo doesn't often consider long-time fans but has (for years and years and years) been focused on a specific age group. They seem less interested in whether Jimmy, who got into Pokemon when he was 12, will now buy the new pokemon at age 22. They want Joey, now 10, to buy their new pokemon game. If it's a rehash, Joey has no way of knowing or caring. Nintendo doesn't have to do a lot of work and, ostensibly, everyone's happy.

    For the rest of us, we get pedometers. I'm glad you talked about the pedometers and actually reviewed its uses in a serious format. It added credence to the review as more than a nostalgic rant because it showed you were taking everything Nintendo has done to the series into consideration. Nice move.




    Nightmare's Lunar: Silver Star Harmony review

    Another ridiculously named game. It seems to be a thing with remakes. I'm sure one day when they remake Shadow of the Colossus, it will be called Giganticus Extremus or something.

    I was torn between this review and Red Dead. Ultimately, though in Red Dead you picked great moments to show what the game is about, I thought this review had more emotion to it.

    This was definitely a review written for Lunar fans. I only peripherally know the series, so I had some trouble following the details, but I think your nostalgic emotion (read: ire) carried it well so that I was able to understand what you were talking about.

    I also thought the score was well explained. I got the sense that you really wanted to like this game but couldn't because of all the issues. I particularly liked your statements about the added scene taking away from the game and about the battle system being painful to sit through. While at first I thought the review was a little short for an RPG review, on reflection, I don't need to know more than you've told me with those two main points. I'm glad you ended it where you did and let your examples speak for themselves.




    AND THE WINNER IS: Overdrive's Modern Warfare 2

    There's been a lot of talk about whether MW2's single player is any good. I've been avoiding the game until the issue gets sorted out, but I think my wait may be coming to an end. Like in his recent Snowblind review, OD seems to know exactly what it is that makes a FPS good. Maybe we just think very similarly, but I was with OD through every description of adrenaline and I felt his acute disappointment at the liberal checkpoints.

    In part, this win goes to OD because of that checkpoint section. He points out an entire generation's worth of problems with those couple of paragraphs. I agree: it's not that checkpoints suck... indeed, games like the original Ninja Gaiden are stupidly frustrating because of the forced repetition. But putting a checkpoint every five steps lets the player be stupid and that's no fun, either. It's not about putting the challenge back into games, its about putting thinking back into games. After all, it's so much more fulfilling when you come up with a plan and see it succeed.

    Check out that little rant I was just went on! That was inspired by OD's review and for that it gets the win. Cheers, mate.




    This marks the end of my school work for the summer so I shouldn't be late again. Once we get that missing week taken care of by EmP's mystery reviewer (Satan?) we should be on a regular schedule once again.

    Ironically, having said that, I have no idea who is up next week.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 01, 2010:

    By the way, shouldn't EMPs review get featured, or does staff not get that?
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 01, 2010:

    Oh hey, I never saw this. Thanks for the mention!

    And I'm pretty sure staff reviews can't be listed as Featured, which is why Jason's review hasn't been edited either. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 01, 2010:

    Suskie is right.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 01, 2010:

    That is correct. Jason reworked the original post of the 2010 RotW thread to mention that staff-level RotWs can't be featured.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 01, 2010:

    1. Rand (or...EmP's mystery reviewer) is up next week. Since neither have been seen recently*, it's a toss-up.

    2. THANKS FOR THE WIN!!!! My first RotW in years feels better than the first I won (well, that first one was me taking first of two reviews...). I'm glad you liked the review. Struggled a good bit finding a way to present my points that I was comfortable with, so it's good to see things must have worked out well.

    * Technically, EmP's mystery reviewer could have been seen prominently in recent times, but his/her RotW hasn't been seen, nor has his/her identity been revealed. This possibly shows that EmP's skills as an evil dictator are diminishing, as he is not showing his renown skills at keeping subordinates in line.
    board icon
    Nightmare posted June 01, 2010:

    Zipp,

    Thanks again for the mention. I'm glad you liked both reviews, but ultimately felt like Lunar had more personality to it.

    It is a shame, though, that you've never played them. As strange as this sounds I would still recommend the game based on that, or try to find a copy of Lunar: Silver Star Complete if you were interested. Most flaws I found were based on me being a long-time fan. I'd be curious to see what someone new to the Lunar world would have to say.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 01, 2010:

    Thanks a lot for the mention, Zipp, and a big congrats to OD!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 02, 2010:

    Isn't there some way they can be added to the list? Otherwise it's going to be full of gaps.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 02, 2010:

    Heh. I guess I suck. =p

    Anyway, congrats to everyone mentioned. I'm sure they earned it. Also congrats, Zipp, for doing so well in your first (only?) year of graduate school. I still find that quite impressive, despite what you aay about graduate school being easier than undergrad.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 02, 2010:

    That makes me feel wonderful, WQ! Thanks! Though I, similarly, will always be in awe of your amazing year at undergrad!
    board icon
    Fedule posted June 02, 2010:

    Noooooooo, etc. </moping>

    But seriously though, these are all good stuff, and congrats! I found the thoughts re: Pokmon of particular interest; it sums up pretty succinctly the problem with Pokmon these days, a problem that keeps on cropping up in games from Japan, that Tim Rogers named "the everything problem" - the perceived need to preserve a successful experience in its entirety if success is to be reattempted. It's an interesting problem!

    Good job all.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 03, 2010:

    Quick question...

    Who is filling in for Randxian? We need a permanent fixture or a rotating judge. What about one of our regulars, like Suskie or Zig or EmP? Or one of our promising up-and-comers like Fleinn or Nightmare?
    board icon
    EmP posted June 03, 2010:

    I've arranged a stand in for the missing slot three weeks previous after the last person who was going to stand in had to step down. As for a perminant slot, I fear I'm not going to be able to do it.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 03, 2010:

    So, I figure it's time for another of these "State of the Site" things that I do every once in a great while. Despite being quite lengthy, this one contains a lot of information (with specific numbers) that I find quite interesting. Pull up a chair and check it out! ;-)

    Important: Please do not share statistics referenced in this e-mail outside of this forum, including in AIM chats, on blog posts and so forth. If someone needs information contained within this post, please refer them to me.

    So anyway, our relatively dependable traffic at the moment hovers at around 2000 unique daily visitors and around 4000 daily impressions. That's around the number that we've had for a long time, but the good news is that we're weathering what is being called "Google Mayday," a recent and significant change to the Google algorithm that is causing several profitable sites to suddenly find themselves operating at a loss. The impact of this change on HonestGamers appears to be surprisingly minimal, even though sites not unlike our own were among the primary ones affected.

    Our current operating costs to keep the site online and to keep games going out to staff members and freelancers are at around $120/month, give or take. Our current incoming revenue, which is about as good as it's been in a long while (on a consistent basis, at least), is at around $120 to $180/month. In other words, we're now at a place where we fairly consistently operate at little or no loss on a monthly basis. In some occasions, we even turn a small profit. This represents an improvement from where we were a year ago. It's good news because it means that I don't have a lot of stress associated with pouring my money into a black pit, but it's bad because this site can't pay you or I to keep working on it until we bring that number up, which requires additional traffic.

    I've recently been running numbers, and I've found that an effective way to predict income in a manner that will be anything more than a complete shot in the dark is to consider CPM, which refers to the fee charged on our site for 1000 ad impressions. At this time, we're making approximately $3 CPM as the result of all affiliate links and ads, as well as banner placement on the site. High-profile sites make much more, but for a site of our size, the information that I'm finding online suggests that I'm doing a better job of securing competitive advertising arrangements than I thought. Go me.

    To put the numbers into perspective, the typical staff review written after receiving a game from a publisher will cost me approximately $3.50 thanks to the cost to mail the game out to staff or freelancers (shipping and handling, plus envelopes). My typical review posted on this site has had total earnings potential to date of... around $3.50. This is averaged out over all of my staff reviews and it assumes current revenue levels. In other words, it really only applies to reviews that we post going forward. The number varies depending on popularity of game, but I used myself as a marker because I've posted more reviews here than anyone (and across pretty much all relevant genres and platform) and that made for a larger sample. There's no additional cost to the site for user-contributed content, which basically amounts to the only area where the site presently has a chance to turn any profit at all given current traffic.

    The obvious path to profitability--and therefore to compensation for each of us--is to bring up our traffic. Any traffic that we gain from our current position will (slowly) amount to profit that can be used to improve the site and to create a potential snowball effect so that the site's growth can continue but at a more accelerated rate. A number that I have shot for in the past is 10,000 unique visitors, and my recent research tells me that this is still a useful number. 10,000 seems to represent a minimum point at which I can reasonably devote work to the site full-time and from there can start providing consistent compensation to all of you and to our freelancers. It is a number that would represent stability. The only question remaining, then, is what we can do to reach it.

    I've recently looked into paid advertising as one possible answer. The numbers aren't encouraging. We can buy our way to 10,000 unique daily visitors for the grand sum of around $12,000 per month. This is clearly not feasible, because even with that amount of traffic our likely income as a site would be less than $1800. There likely are ways to bring that expense down a bit, but I've tested with all of the obvious avenues and that number seems to be painfully accurate. I will continue to explore paid advertising. It seems to be part of what any successful site does during its expansion phase and it can ensure that we have a growing and active community. However, it's obvious to me that true growth still needs to come from the "free" methods.

    Free methods include Google and other search engines such as Yahoo! and Bing. They also include social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. We already have a growing presence on Twitter and I've set up a page on Facebook that has fans I've never even heard of, but I haven't had time to dedicate to that Facebook page just yet. That's something that I hope to do soon, in addition to our minor Twitter success. Twitter and Google in particular represent tremendous opportunity for growth. So, how do we grow in those sectors?

    Content is king, and that's the best news in this post because our content rocks. If we continue providing the right content and I continue to find more effective ways to leverage that content--something I've been having more success doing in recent times--then we can expect our growth to continue at a moderate pace that should open new doors for the site. That raises a new question, though: what content can we provide that will have the most impact on our audience?

    The answer appears to be "retro content." There are numerous users online who appreciate HonestGamers for its retro content. I've talked to people at IGN who have visited HonestGamers and the thing that they remembered most was our retro content. I've talked to people at gaming network UGO and in evaluating our site, the thing they liked most was EmP's review for Syberia on PC. Retro. When I look through search engine queries, we continue to get a lot of traffic for hentai titles, but there's also a healthy dose of retro content in there. And when I look at what sort of HonestGamers content other sites link to (something that Google notices, as well), I find a lot of links to our retro content. We've known for some time now that retro content had the possibility to perform well, and we've enjoyed covering it for years, but I consider this a wakeup call: we need to give retro coverage continued focus.

    That's not to say that our current-genration content should stop. Our news articles continue to perform well and on a good day account for as much as 20 or 30 percent of our revenue. They also ensure that we continue to receive review code and other opportunities, so we need to keep them going. Current-generation coverage also does get us inbound links from a handful of sites that Google likes a great deal, plus they tend to build up traffic quickly in the short term (before burning out within a week or two), so they're absolutely worth doing. Retro coverage may just be our golden goose, though. To that end, I hope to start producing more retro coverage myself and I would encourage each of you to produce coverage for those retro games that you care most about. Make it a personal mission, knowing that some users who think that retro and obscure content isn't all that important just aren't looking at the big picture.

    This post has gone on for long enough, so I'll conclude by saying that our future as a site and as a team of staff members is neither grim nor particularly thrilling, not unless we want to make it one of those two things. I'd like to see us move toward some real growth and I believe that we're in a place to finally--after years of effort--start moving in that positive direction. Thank you for all the work that each of you have put into getting us to this point, and let's keep working while we have fun writing and talking about the content that matters most to us. I hope that this message has proven as useful for you as the information that it contains proved for me. If you have any questions, feel free to post them here.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 04, 2010:

    SOMEONE'S got to take tomorrow's ROTW! I'm not about to let the first ROTW I've been eligible for in months slip by!
    board icon
    jerec posted June 04, 2010:

    Okay. I'm in.

    So, May 30 to June 5.

    11 regular reviews so far, plus 4 staff reviews... just for my reference. Wow, I get to read more than 4 reviews this week. :D

    Uno (XLA) (Xbox 360)
    Jewel Quest Mysteries: Curse of the Emerald Tear (DS)
    Sam & Max: The Tomb of Sammun-Mak (PC)
    Wings of Prey (PC)

    Edit: I see now that the staff reviews are on the recent reviews list. That makes things easier, so 11 reviews so far. EmP's got a bunch, Pickhut has 2, but it looks like a decent competition this week. Get your reviews in quickly if you want to be a part of this very RARE and EXCLUSIVE Jerec RotW.

    Edit edit: To answer the question above, that I must have missed about doing a regular RotW slot, I'll have to pass. I don't have the time to dedicate to this too often, plus I like the idea of stepping in at the LAST MOMENT and saving the day.
    board icon
    Duo posted June 05, 2010:

    I did not spot this for some reason. Many thanks for doing this and for the insight on my review. I agree with a lot of what the judges have to say and, thanks to a brillaint edit feature I discovered scant hours before this event's deadline, I plan to make good use of your help.

    Well done to the winner. I actually enjoyed Silent Hill Homecoming (not half as much as the originals, though) but I can certainly see why so many others will not.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 05, 2010:

    GAME: Bit Pilot
    PLATFORM: iPhone
    DEVELOPER: Zach Gage
    RELEASE DATE: 22/03/2010
    GENRE: you dodge asteroids, not sure what genre that is.

    ADDED
    board icon
    jerec posted June 05, 2010:

    And... time check. I need to see if it's the 6th yet in HG land.

    Okay. Another 4 hours. That'll be 5 PM my time. Okay. That's when I begin my reading.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 05, 2010:

    I'm excited for another Jerec ROTW!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted June 06, 2010:

    I've arranged a stand in for the missing slot three weeks previous after the last person who was going to stand in had to step down.

    That would be me. The place I've been for the last four days was supposed to have internets, but it didn't, so I didn't get to write the damn thing. On the plus side I've just got back. On the minus side there's a ton of work for me to do.

    Looks like we're going to need a stand-in for the stand-in.

    (Disclaimer: This is regarding the missing RotW from three weeks ago. Do not be confused!)
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 06, 2010:

    Ha ha ha, epic failure!

    I think it would be unseemly for me to have done THREE ROTWs in one month. I can't imagine anyone cares to hear my opinion THAT much, but I will take it on if no one steps forward.

    Damn, I would've liked to see another Will ROTW!
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 06, 2010:

    Hey Will: You can make it up to us by signing up for TT.
    board icon
    jerec posted June 07, 2010:

    Welcome to Review of the Week, hosted by the legendary judge and semi-retired reviewer, me! This is only the third time I've done such a topic on HonestGamers, and the first time that there's been enough reviews to make it work properly. There were 11 reviews for me to read, and despite four of them being written by EmP*, there were still plenty of excellent reviews to choose between. As always, only one review from each writer is considered for the rankings.

    Even without the staff reviews to bolster numbers, this was a strong week for reader submissions. Four reviews really stood out from the pack, each one excellent in its own way, each one could easily have won a match in a Team Tournament battle, but with three slots, it was a tough choice. And then I had to bloody rank them. So then I had to go back and read them again to see who deserved the win.

    If you want a more in depth critique, just say the word, and I'll go make a feedback topic for that review, or if the topic already exists, I'll go post in it. May take some time. I work full time, but I will get to it.

    THIRD PLACE
    God of War III - Zippdementia

    Zipp provides an excellent analysis of a series that has lost what made it great with a commentary on mindless video game violence without any actual substance that could probably apply to many current games of this type. Zipp knows exactly why this game isn't as good as it should be, and it makes for a fascinating read, even if you're not a fan of the series, or even a fan of the genre (which I am not). For a 7/10 review, the tone was fairly negative, though there were some great parts of the game. It seems understandable, since the first game is apparently a lot better.

    SECOND PLACE
    Alan Wake - Suskie

    Alan Wake is a game I'm interested in playing, so I'm glad that Suskie reviewed it. I like how the emphasis is on the story and style of the game, discussing things like the pacing, because for a game which is supposedly about story telling, this is good to know. This game seems like an easy one to review, with all the interesting things to talk about. I like the idea of the game not throwing constant action at you with those quiet parts. Sounds tense. Thanks, Suskie. I'll probably end up playing this when I get some free time. You get runner up for convincing me to buy a game I was already interested in, but making me feel better about it because I have seen a few less favourable reviews. But yours is better.

    REVIEW OF THE WEEK
    Legend of Dragoon - Wolfqueen

    I've played Legend of Dragoon, and I thought it was okay, but not great. I don't know if Wolfqueen has managed to sway my opinion, but this review does make me want to go back and give it a go. I got stuck somewhere early on disc 4 and just gave up, which is a shame since it took so long to get there and I wasn't able to finish it. I don't remember the story and characters being as great and emotional and stuff like Wolfqueen claims, but it is very persuasive writing. If this review's purpose was to make me want to go back and play it, even though I know what the game is like, then it's achieved it. Also, Wolfqueen, try the Shadow Hearts games for RPGs that also make you press buttons to execute attacks properly. This one gets the win for being surprisingly persuasive. Going into this review, I wasn't expecting my opinion to change. LoD has always been a solid 7/10 for me.

    --

    Venter's 3D Dot Game Heroes was also an enjoyable read, and probably only missed out due to some Ocarina of Time bashing. >_> Nah, pretty tight competition, and this order could probably change if I read all the reviews again, because they're all so close. Excellent writing all round, each writer with their own unique voice, and all doing a great job of representing the site to a casual visitor who looks at the reviews on the front page.

    * I kid, EmP. But your lack of proof reading hurts you. But your Wings of Prey review came 5th, as I felt that was the strongest of your reviews this week.

    ___________

    Also, I went to a lot of trouble to post this. For some reason on my crappy internet, honestgamers.com only works about half the time. I know it's my ISP and not a problem on HG's end, since I can still get to it on my phone's internet... and I'm currently posting this through a proxy server. It was working fine earlier this evening - but I do know about the problem which is why I saved all the reviews to my hard drive. And then, just now... just AFTER I go to the trouble to find a proxy server that works, my Internet starts loading the site properly again. fmylife.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 07, 2010:

    I already said this, but if it hasn't been covered yet by the time I get around to it (sometime this week I hope), I'll cover the missing week.

    Anyway, I think we're a bit confused as to the dates of coverage for the current RotW. Zipp's was supposed to go 22-28 and Jerec's May 29 - June 4. But as I don't think anyone posted reviews for the 29th or the 5th, I don't think it matters too much. I think the only thing of concern with that is whether we start next week's at the 6th or the 5th like it was originally meant to be. All things considered, it probably doesn't matter at this point since no one got missed as far as I know.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 07, 2010:

    Thanks, jerec! To be honest, I wasn't really expecting anything with this review, so I've been quite surprised with the feedback so far. Granted, it's only from two people now, including yourself, but nevertheless, it's encouraging to see that you actually thought it was worth something, let alone giving it the win.

    If I ever get around to trying Shadow Hearts, I probably will, though that could be a while.

    Anyway, congrats to Suskie and Zipp for their placements. I genuinely thought one of them (or someone else) would take it this week.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 07, 2010:

    Thanks a lot for handling this week, Jerec, and for the mention. Congrats to WolfQueen for her well-deserved victory!
    board icon
    honestgamer posted June 07, 2010:

    Venter snubber!

    Thanks for doing the week, though, despite the computer issues. :-D
    board icon
    dementedhut posted June 07, 2010:

    I didn't fully read any of these reviews. :( But I will now!

    I need to stop coming in RotWs saying that...

    Congrats to Wolfqueen!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 07, 2010:

    I'm glad to have placed with my first eligible review in a long time! I'm honored to have placed alongside Suskie, who is ALWAYS placing. And I'm pleased to see WQ win so decisively! That particularly warms my heart, because I know she was having trouble and wasn't feeling like her writing was any good.

    Let this be a lesson to you! Believe in yourself!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 07, 2010:

    My mistake notwithstanding, it is supposed to go Sunday to Saturday, so we should start with the 6th and go until the 12th, unless someone has been overlooked.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 11, 2010:

    Well, I've finally gotten around to doing this one after the huge confusion created in the wake of Randxian's absence, which, by the time it had been resolved, almost no one (including myself) was available to do this until now. But, as the saying goes, "better late than never", and it'd be a huge shame to just skip this week after all the contributors and effort put into it. There were 9 reviews with 8 contributors, and this, along with the quality ammongst them, made choosing the best extraordinarily difficult, as it often is.

    THIRD PLACE: Dragoon of Infinity's BlazBlue

    What made this stand out to me was the fact that the review actually made the game seem interesting and unique, especially since the game's initial appearances don't give this impression. As a review for a fighter game, I more or less expected to see what I'd typically see in a review about a fighting game, but here I was quite surprised with the (later) focus on story. A fighter with any sort of emphasis on story sounds almost oxymoronic, and since I'm not a huge fan of fighters to begin with, this bit of difference is a critical one. Of course, the review itself contributed to my intrigue as well, since its varied points and simple language clearly illustrated what made this game work.

    SECOND PLACE: spaceworlder's Street Fighter IV

    spaceworlder's simple and straightforward style doesn't always work for me, but here it really did. I don't know a whole lot about the Street Fighter series, but since this is a review for the fourth (numerical) installment in the series, I never expected a rundown of the basics. Besides, it's a fighting game and all fighting games have a general format that's easy to follow. What this review does well, then, is explain what makes this particular version different (or not so different) from the rest. Spaceworlder only explains the newer features of this title, only adding the historical elements (i.e. where the features appeared before) to back his claim that this game isn't anything terribly new. Further, the language is blunt and humorous enough to keep things flowing smoothly, and its short length means that only the bare essentials are discussed here. While this last statement could easily be a drawback in many reviews, here it works because I don't really feel like I'm reading about a completely new game; it almost feels like I'm reading for an expansion of an earlier title, which, to me, wouldn't be far from the truth when looking at sequels to popular fighting franchises.

    FIRST PLACE: EmP's Enchanted Arms

    This review genuinely appealed to me the most for several reasons. Unlike some of the other reviews, the humor doesn't feel forced, and the writing is smooth without feeling like it's trying too hard. The premise of the review works well, as the thesis seeks to debunk the harshly negative first impressions of the game's start. It's an important claim to make, for obvious reasons, especially for someone who enjoyed it, because otherwise it would be easy to overlook the game's deeper meaning, if the average gamer decided to push that far along in the first place. Of all the reviews, I personally probably found this to be the most useful, at least to me, because of my interest in the genre. I very well could have easily been duped by the game's initial cringeworthy stupidity. Now that I've been forewarned, I'll be careful not to make that mistake if/whenever I get around to purchasing this.



    Man I really hate having to choose three. I would like to emphasize again that all the reviews submitted that week were quality. Suskie's were fairly thorough in covering their subjects, and OD provided some interesting insights of his own. Kudos go to Fedule for writing as much as he did and with passion. In short, whether you were mentioned or not, you're all winners. Because I'm nice like that.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 11, 2010:

    Schultz is supposed to have this week (6-12), so OD, EmP and Zig can have their little war if they all write reviews by tomorrow. =D
    board icon
    EmP posted June 12, 2010:

    But I'm even more of a winner -- just so we're all aware.

    Thanks for jumping in andcovering this, WQ. Twice I thought I had it covered only for the person to have to have to leave their respective country (or, in Will's case, leave the house and get lost in the jungle-like woodland that covers 65% of Canada).

    Random props to Fedule who I though wrote a great long review.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 12, 2010:

    THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!

    Errrr...I mean, thanks for filling in WQ and congrats to EmP and placers! There were some good reviews that week.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 12, 2010:

    Thanks for covering this, WQ!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 14, 2010:

    .... Aschultz...?
    board icon
    dementedhut posted June 16, 2010:

    Game: Metal Slug XX (XLA)
    Genre: Shooter (Run 'n Gun)
    Developer: SNK Playmore
    Release: May 19, 2010
    Platform: Xbox 360
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 16, 2010:

    Hi everyone. It was good to see interesting reviews from staff and users alike. I saw a lot of variety, too, and while some reviews stood out from the rest, none felt like a waste of time. More importantly, none really felt like falling into a rut and if some reviews didn't quite work for me, they tried some enterprising new stuff, and it made my every-fourth-weekly RotW a fun one. It's good to people who've been writing reviews for a while mix it up, and if they aren't fully successful, you get the feeling they can tweak things for next time. And if some of my critique topic advice helps them get there, whether they have the confidence to reject it utterly or see something to incorporate, so much the better. Their risk taking helps me with my own, in my writing, and that's a Good Thing.

    But this is an award/placement topic and not a participation ribbon topic. THERE CAN BE ONLY THREE.

    THIRD PLACE: HonestGamer's Blur review. Good discussion here about the game trying to be too self consciously gritty (did I mention firejoemorgan.com makes me laugh at that word now? Have I mentioned that they're about more than just sports, or bad sports journalism? They've helped me wipe certain cliches and loaded words from my thoughts and writing, and they may do that for you, too. Not that this review overused grit. It just reminded me of how FJM made fun of sportswriters who overuse it) and leaving out fun. I really do like to see unapologetic mentions that cartoony stuff DOES have more to offer. This was in my opinion the better of HG's two reviews, maybe because it took on more interesting subject matter. Also the disappontment never felt overdone.

    SECOND PLACE: Suskie's Prince of Persia review. This review goes beyond the game nicely and has a good controlled complaint about giving fans of the series what they want, as opposed to what people in general want.

    FIRST PLACE: Ben's Super Street Fighter IV review. To anthropomorphize--this review knows what it's trying to be and never does anything too crazy. Yet it remembers to be...interesting. Perhaps I haven't played enough fighting games to see all the options and possibilities, but this left me interested, and more importantly, some questions I asked "but what about X?" were answered in short order. Some of this may be serendipity, but it happened too often to be chance.

    Congrats to the winners. See you again in four weeks.
    board icon
    aschultz posted June 16, 2010:

    Just to clarify, Zipp--earlier you say, "If, by Tuesday..."

    Does this mean before Tuesday, or on Tuesday? Because sometimes I just need to sleep on things & hope my decisions make sense. Maybe it's best if I start placing critique topics for nonwinners a bit earlier so potential replacements know they don't need to be on call.

    Don't worry too much about poking before then, though--I can let the site administrators know if there is a real emergency, and I'll do so Sunday/Monday. I definitely don't want to be part of RotW slippage, but on the other hand, I enjoy taking my time with the reviews--since the writers obviously take time themselves--and often Sunday is my day to take care of personal stuff.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 16, 2010:

    I just hadn't seen you around in a few and with all the recent confusion over whose turn it was... well, I thought it best to throw out a friendly reminder.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 16, 2010:

    Oh hey, thanks for this. Congrats to Ben for his deserved win.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 16, 2010:

    Note to others: I wrote a review for this week and I'll likely write one for next week (if not, the week after). The thing is, my probable next review is God of War, which is a massively-covered game. My review for this week is Tecmo Secret of the Stars. I'd care about getting potential feedback on that one more than God of War due to how I had fun writing it and wonder if others have had fun reading it. So if anyone wants to switch slots with me, let's do it.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted June 17, 2010:

    Pretty please? :D
    board icon
    EmP posted June 17, 2010:

    NO! No more Metal Slug!
    board icon
    dementedhut posted June 17, 2010:

    There's always room for Metal Slug! Especially with the crappy review I wrote for it!
    board icon
    EmP posted June 17, 2010:

    FINE!
    board icon
    dementedhut posted June 17, 2010:

    GO SCREW YOURSE... oh, thanks.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted June 20, 2010:

    GAME: Doctor Who - The Adventure Games: City of the Daleks (Episode 1)
    CONSOLE: PC/MAC
    DEVELOPER: Sumo Digital
    PUBLISHER: BBC
    GENRE: Adventure
    DATE: 5th june 2010

    Added, bluberry picker.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 24, 2010:

    Hm... Hey, Zipp - do you and OD want to trade places this week? That way he can get possible feedback for his review and the week in question can be put up sooner.

    Do we have a permanent replacement for Rand yet?
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 24, 2010:

    If you're down with that, Zipp, I am. I've been very swamped this week and haven't had time to get around to it. Well, I initially had time today, but ate too much Taco Bell and just want to crawl under my desk at work and sleep it off.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted June 25, 2010:

    Let's see, finished with RDR for the most part. S'pose it's time to find a new game. I friend got a bunch of Xbox games for me at a garage sale, but I dunno if they're candidates. Any good ones?

    - Blood Wake
    - Fable
    - Flat Out
    - Grand Theft Auto III (lol)

    This assumes they're even playable in such a beat-up condition.
    board icon
    hmd posted June 25, 2010:

    The first non-review writing thread seems to have vanished into the great Internet Ether. So here's attempt numero dos.

    THE DEAL: Posting works of your writing that are not video game reviews (although I would hope that would be obvious), harlequin fanfic stories about Naruto and Harry Potter fucking or any plagiarized material. Posting the above examples will get you kicked in the dick.

    ALSO, if you have some type of blog or internet-related website of some sort dealing with this topic, or know of a really awesome one that should be checked out ASAP, go ahead and plug. But don't be obnoxious about it.

    BIG LIST OF WRITING BLOGS TO CHECK OUT (will be updated continually)

    rock and roll strikes back (dot com)- My Godawful blog. Originally meant to be a collective, it managed to quickly degenerate into me posting alone.

    Large Prime Numbers- Blatant inspiration for my blog. Run by apparent internet pariah Tim Rogers, your enjoyment may vary.

    Tumblr's "Creative Writing" directory- Everyone just point and laugh.
    board icon
    hmd posted June 25, 2010:

    Written by me last night (technically one thirty in the morning):

    You've got nothing

    Its three A.M and I find myself sitting in a very uncomfortable chair. This chair is the kind of chair you would expect to see at Your Local Thrift Store, finding itself unsold, slowly degrading each time you see it. Its covered in this bumpy, ugly orange material with almost no padding between both it and the apparently fossilized wood cruelly molded into the form of this torture device. Im afraid to stand up out of it, though. It may have given me Scoliosis.

    Im sitting here listening to somebody tell a joke. Its not a very funny one, though; its one of those extremely racist jokes that begins with the classic, Im not racist, but and ends with a paraphrased form of the heavy metal catchphrase, Kill Em All! I guess it would be funny if I were like, fourteen years old and retarded. Im not. Im a grown man bending my bones like wire in this awful seat wondering about the type of company I keep. My brain and I have a conversation. I ask what we should do now. Take a drink, is the answer, and Lord, is that ever a hell of an answer.

    The bottle in my dominant hand (that would be my right one) reaches my lips and gives me a kiss sweeter than that of any woman. A mixture of finely brewed poisons breaks off into different squads infiltrating my brain and my stomach and the tips of my fingers. The small group in the room with me are laughing at the joke. One of them turns to me with a fake smile and quietly tells me a rhetorical question (the tone did not end with a question mark), Jesus Christ, was that horrible or what! Nobody knows just who the hell the comedian is, or how he got here, but since its three in the morning he wont be going anywhere so hey, lets just humor the poor bastard. Suddenly, I worry less about the company I keep.

    Time passes. The jokes about minorities have come to a thankful end. The asshole with the terrible sense of humor is passed out and given looks of scorn and some harsh words by passerbys that are unable to reach him in his deep sleep. I thought I heard somebody call the guy a faggot. I hope that was ironic.

    His slumber was a sign of things to come. Things are winding down. What had been, before all this mess, a lively gathering of friends, associates and slightly tolerable folks, has now become a parade of tired eyes and numb limbs moving about as if underwater. I dont watch much television, other than the channel that shows nothing but old movies. Sometimes you get gems like Rashomon or something with Audrey Hepburn. The rest of the time you get poorly made mysteries or alleged comedies starring complete nobodies who were only slightly less of a nobody even in their time. I always seem to notice something when I come to get-togethers like these: those movies always seem to have small parties in large homes attended by well-dressed, pretty white people tossing back martinis and calling each other darling. Time is cyclical. We are no different now than we were then. A bunch of white people downing shots of Jaegermeister and Grey Goose and cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon in expertly coordinated outfits engaged in conversations of absolute inanity. I think I may have crossed that fine line of self-parody.

    The thought, combined with the liquor in my system, causes a negative reaction in my stomach. The bathroom is occupied, so I have to dash out the back door and lean my head over the balcony three stories high. The brown (or orange, hard to tell in the darkness) sickness violently smacking the pavement below is the only sound I hear. My eyes are closed, half out of drunken shame, the other half from my bodys reaction. When its all over, I haphazardly wipe my mouth with the sleeve of my jacket and lean back against the wall. All I can think is, Jesus Christ, I dont think Ive ever felt so alone.
    board icon
    zigfried posted June 25, 2010:

    Topic has been perma-fied (as much so as is possible). I'll post something more later...

    //Zig
    board icon
    True posted June 25, 2010:

    Ugh. I can't even navigate that Tumblr site without getting nauseous. It looks like the front of someone refrigerator. It's not artsy, it's just irritating. I went there in hopes to read a story or two, but ending up reading someone's blog about how badly they miss their boyfriend.

    Maybe my comment about Free Press is a tad off...

    On a completely different note, maybe we should have a contest after the TT is over to help build activity on this new topic.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 25, 2010:

    Aw, damn! I'll have to repost and reformat my Sound of Tinkling Bells. In the meantime, I recommend my Chrono Break series. Yes, I know, it's fan fiction. But it's fan fiction technically, and not spiritually. It's really a very dark satire on the oh-so-happy stories of old school JRPGs. I've spent more time on it than I have on nearly anything else creative in my life (about three years, now). The only things that rival it are my film (also three years) and my Lone Wolf writings (8 years).

    Anyway, I do post it here as a serious piece of fiction:
    Chrono Break
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 26, 2010:

    Not a lot of reviews this week! In fact, I don't think I count a single user review. Hopefully this isn't a trend. I'd like to see the site grow as much as the next dedicated user. The blogs being posted to the forums is a nice start and shows just how much conversation really does happen around here.

    To get further, I still think we'll have to lock onto something that we do that no one else does and then advertise the hell out of it. Maybe the answer lies with retro reviews.

    Maybe the answer lies with ROTW. Probably not, but it is a nice feature, which is why it's damn frustrating when it's skipped because of a lack of reviews! Fortunately, there were three really good staff reviews, three of which closely competed for top slot. I'm not sure if this week counts, because there were only three reviews (four, but two were done by the same person), but I'm going to order them anyway and the technicalities can be worked out later.




    Toy Story 3 by Honest Gamer

    I don't applaud Jason's ability to be fair to children's games. I applaud his ability to make them sound fun to an adult. At least, I'm sucked in by his review of Toy Story 3. I pretty much know what to expect from the Story Mode, but it sounds fun along the same lines that Lion King for the SNES was amusing years ago.

    I'm baffled by Sandbox mode. A Sandbox mode in TOY STORY 3?! This is where I really start to get interested in what Jason has to say about things. He uses some great descriptors, such as allusions to toy boxes and making messes we don't have to clean up. I'm a little lost as to exactly what goes on in Sandbox mode or how it works mechanically. Are you woody riding around a giant town? A child riding around a toy world? I'm having trouble piecing together afros and malicious muffins as well, but it sounds awesome.




    Dead Space by EmP

    I'm a little biased towards this one because I've been a champion of Dead Space since before it came out. Long before. I happened to catch an interview with the makers of the game several years before it happened and was excited while most others were complacent. It's the only game on this site I've written two completely different reviews for as well, so I got history here.

    What can I say? EmP does the game amazing justice. He really captures the unique horror experience that Dead Space delivers with high production value and a whole kind of creepiness that has only a little to do with monsters jumping out of dark places and much more to do with a constant feeling of unease. This review reminds me of that early interview I read, which convinced me to love the game years before it came out. This convinces me that I still love it years after its release and reminds me I need to play it again.




    This Week's Winner: Alpha Protocol by Suskie

    I tend to be subconsciously tough on a Suskie review. I don't know if this is because we have had some personality conflicts throughout the last couple of years or if it's because I view his writing as being very good and thus beholden to a higher set of standards. Maybe a bit of both.

    This Alpha Protocol review was pretty incredible. My instant reaction to it was that I had to buy the game Suskie was describing. I've heard Alpha Protocol described before. I have not had this reaction before.

    Suskie does a great thing here in shooting down any hopes the reader may have pretty early on in the review that AP will be absolutely grand and revolutionary. Then he goes on to tell you why you should still get the game.

    This is not an easy tactic to pull off, but it works amazingly well here. By the end of the review I feel like I really know what kind of game I'll be getting myself into by purchasing Alpha Protocol. Suskie doesn't hide its faults and he really does make the benefits attractive.

    All in all, it's a great sale. Suskie, this was a tough week with some really strong reviews, but I feel that you undoubtedly earned this one.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted June 27, 2010:

    Hm... I guess OD's stuck doing 13-19 then. Maybe people will be nice enough to give him feedback on the review he posted that week.

    Congrats to the winners. I would've had something, but I've got massive writer's block.
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 28, 2010:

    Ah well, I tried (to pawn mine off). I'll get to it tomorrow or Wed at the latest to just make it a pitifully late RotW.
    board icon
    Suskie posted June 28, 2010:

    Thanks a lot for saying that about my review, Zipp. I think I've mentioned that it was a difficult one to write, so seeing that pay off by inspiring the sorts of reactions I was hoping to see (i.e. people aware of its flaws but eager to check the game out nonetheless) has been pretty rewarding. I'm really glad I got the chance to play and review it.

    Congrats to the Jason and EmP for their mentions. I agree; even though the turnout was disappointing last week, it was still a close competition.
    board icon
    dandwreviews posted June 28, 2010:

    Game: Tower Bloxx Deluxe
    Platform: Xbox 360 (XLA)
    Publisher: Digital Chocolate
    Developer: Digital Chocolate
    Genre: Puzzle
    Release Date: October 21, 2009 (US)

    Added
    board icon
    EmP posted June 29, 2010:

    I featured Suskie's review, and I'll fight anyone who disagrees with my stance to the death. It's the kind of review I want to represent the site.

    It's weeks like this when I like to sit back in the infinate glow of my smugness because I was so right about the staff in RotW issue. So very right indeed. I read all of the reviews released this week (not hard as I wrote half ot them) and they all made me want to run out and drop cash on the games I didn't already own, beat and review myself.
    board icon
    fleinn posted June 29, 2010:

    Game: Jets'n'Guns
    Platform(s): PC, Mac, Linux
    Publisher: RakeInGrass, Reflexive Entertainment and Stardock. Linux Game Publishing for linux version.
    Developer: Rake in Grass
    Genre: Side-scrolling shooter
    Release Date: November 2004



    Great, than... oh my god..
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 30, 2010:

    Okay, now I'm sure you're thinking that this is a bit late by even my standards and you'd be right. I suppose that part of the problem is all on me, as I'd made a random request for someone to switch off with me because I knew I'd have a review up for this week. And then I assumed it would be done and didn't pay attention to any real degree until more recently. If I had a soul, I'd apologize. But I don't, so that's that.

    Now, as I have important STT plants In. The. Works., let me blast through this as quickly as possible. One review per person eligible and that's that and all that.

    HONORABLE MENTION: Scatt the Dog Pill! (SNES) by overdrive

    While some pundits have gone so far as to describe this as not just the greatest review of all time, but also the greatest single piece of written literature ever crafted, unfortunately it is not eligible, as it was written by me and I can just hear the catcalls and jeers of people accusing me of favoritism even though they know, deep down inside, their puny efforts pale in comparison to this masterful review. Tremble in fear, mortals! For one day, ye shall recognize the Secret of the Stars and be consumed by its glory!




    THIRD PLACE: Dragon Age: Origins (PS3) by fleinn

    I will say that a bit of proofing might help out. A few bits were kinda awkward. The best part about this long, in-depth review was when you started getting into the narrative and dialogue. As someone playing through the game (going through the Drake Caves on the quest for the Urn), I found myself completely agreeing with what you were saying. Both in how at times, you get all these conversation choices that all lead to the exact same result (Swiftrunner being one in particular) AND how the world has a certain depth to it due to the well-written NPCs scattered throughout the land. And of course, how you have these characters who grow as the game goes on....because you shamelessly deluge them with gifts.

    SECOND PLACE: Metal Gear XX (XBLA) by pickhut

    One could say that this review might be written solely for people familiar with Metal Slug...but let's face it...if you're not very familiar with the Metal Slug series, would you be purchasing this unless you had a few million dollars just laying around? As for the review, itself, you do a great job negatively comparing it to other MS games and leaving no doubt that as this series is getting older, it ain't getting better. Short and effective; that works for me.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: LEGO Rock Band (Wii) by EmP

    As someone who's gotten the impression that you hate everything related to rock music, I might have gotten extra enjoyment from this review, as you're constantly trying to bemoan the music in the game, while admitting you're still hooked. But you do a great job of explaining why. As someone who's at least played one Lego game for a bit, I know what you mean when you're describing their light-hearted nature and how that can work to give a game an infectious nature. You did a good job of demonstrating that a person doesn't have to be a fan of the music in this game to have a blast playing it, which makes this a review well worth rewarding.




    And that's that. Time to figure out what the hell I'm doing for the tournament this week now!
    board icon
    EmP posted June 30, 2010:

    Many thanks for the win, young Oddy; if it makes you feel any better, I very much enjoyed your review for a game I always thought I'd get round to playing and am not sure if you've struck it from the list of made it a must play.

    Good stuffs from everyone else. Free Iggy t-shirts for all!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted June 30, 2010:

    Scat the dog pill!

    That's my new public "secret greeting."

    Never gets old. My friends have started to look at me funny, though. Funnier than usual, I mean.

    Hey, who is doing this week's ROTW?
    board icon
    dementedhut posted June 30, 2010:

    Ah yes, Metal Gear XX, the blacksheep of the series.

    Thanks for liking the review and your comments on it, OD, and congrats to this green thing winning RotW and Fleinn for placing in the top 3!
    board icon
    overdrive posted June 30, 2010:

    Hahaha! I knew I'd put Gear in for Slug at one point. Hope I didn't give Kojima any ideas to create a new game that's even more confusing than the previous ones.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted July 01, 2010:

    Would it be worth adding Final Fantasy IX under PSN/PS3 even though you already have it listed under Playstation?

    Game: Final Fantasy IX
    Platform(s): PSN (PSP/PS3)
    Publisher: Square-Enix
    Developer: Square
    Genre: RPG
    Release Date: June 15, 2010
    board icon
    jerec posted July 01, 2010:

    17 reviews so far this week, and there's still a couple of days to go. Who is doing it anyway? First post still says Rand.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 02, 2010:

    Dunno. We're still on that alternating thing between the reserve judges. Since botb you and I have reviews submitted this week, I vote Will does the RotW instead, if he's up to it (or even sees this message).
    board icon
    EmP posted July 02, 2010:

    Oh, he'll see it....
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 02, 2010:

    I like the ominous nature of that "oh, he'll see it..."
    board icon
    jerec posted July 02, 2010:

    Game: Crystal Defenders
    Platform(s): XBLA (I think you have the ipod version on the site already)
    Publisher: Square-Enix
    Developer: Square-Enix
    Genre: Tower Defence
    Release Date: 11 March 2009

    Added

    ---

    Also, Tales of Monkey Island is on PS3 now via PSN. It's a bundle where you pay one price for all five games, they run individually, so just copy across the PC listings or something. Release date was 15 June 2010.
    board icon
    PAJ89 posted July 04, 2010:

    Game: Puzzle Quest 2
    Platform(s): XBLA
    Publisher: D3Publisher
    Developer: Infinite Interactive
    Genre: Puzzle
    Release Date: 30 June 2010

    Added
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 05, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: Leroux v JANUS ~~~

    Pretend that all battles are announced by the Fatal Fury 2 guy.

    Leroux?? versus Bluberry??
    Leroux: Gang Wars (Arcade)
    Bluberry: Final Fight (Arcade)


    ASchultz:
    So, Leroux mentions a game Bluberry actually likes in his review. Leroux's review, while it has some good moments, misses some proofreading bits (see critique topic) and also puts pictures in the body, which I'm not crazy about. Still, I think the big reason his review comes short of Bluberry's is that Leroux points out what's wrong with your average lousy 80s brawler and throws in the silly bits the programmers hoped were original and gave personality--but they were original because nobody else wanted to bother. Bluberry points out the way around it and while it's still fun to laugh at.

    Which will trump a review like Leroux's as I see it, if competently done. And I think Bluberry's is more than competent. It's one of those "how did I miss THIS" reviews. I think we all agree that reviews should be sure to address the game. But also, a review that addresses a game with more in it--unless the other has some hidden observations that switch on some really neat stuff, or if the other organizes or focuses on certain things cleverly--gets a big jump over another game with less.

    Both games have some cool descriptions of actions I know I can learn from, but Bluberry really seems to know the game without mentioning it. The segue from $250 an hour to quarter munching to castigating whiners is really well done, and the self-reference (mentioning generic praise) goes overboard enough without going over-overboard. I read it, laughed, and reread without laughing, looking for substance. It was there. The comparison to FPSs is also succinct and clever. He gets me excited about games like this, or imagining how I could have fun becoming less dreadful at them.

    Stuff I don't like about Bluberry's review? The lying to create a later effect (re: Cody.) It seems like attitude for attitude's sake, which can blow up in your face. I don't think it quite works, but maybe I'm just jealous because if I tried to pull it off it'd fail badly. Oh, that last line, too. Inside joke I'm missing?

    Still, I was completely unsurprised to see this was a featured review when I went to the game page. It felt like Leroux's was wearing goggles, holding a clipboard and checking off violations at times. Knows what it's doing, but...a bit too true to form. (Yes. I've been there too.)

    Winner: BLUBERRY

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Bluberry - Final Fight: I dont suppose you could get anymore brighter or cheerier than this review. Salivating praise is not something you see in a review very often, if ever, but it seems to fit the description of the game. This review was fairly short but got across all the information needed to determine if the game was worth checking into.

    Leroux Gang Wars: Well what can you say? When a game is bad it is just bad. Getting that across to the reader is easy but doing it in a way that makes easy reading is another thing entirely. I liked the links added to the review to give the reader some background and comparisons. If I had not had to read this I would have stopped reading in the second paragraph. That is not to say it was not well written but I think it could have been half as long as still made its point.

    Leroux vs. bluberry: bluberry is the Winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Leroux writes an enjoyable review that pokes easy fun at an easy target. Some of the sentence structure verges on overly-academic for an arcade beat-em-up bash, but other bits ("T-Rex-reach sparring") succinctly illustrate points that many people would only describe vaguely, if at all. Those choice phrases are the review's greatest strength, and a trend I would highly recommend continuing. Every time you create a new account, I'm never 100% sure if it's really you or if it's some attention-seeking poser, but consider me convinced now. Three spelling errors. (dully, bares, it's)

    Bluberry's writing fits the flavor of a beat-em-up, and it's an entertaining read with well-chosen examples. That being said, I already know Final Fight so well by now that none of this is particularly striking or novel. Yes, the arcade is better than SNES because it has more enemies, but why is Final Fight still so revered in comparison to other beat-em-ups (which also have lots of enemies)? I'm certainly not recommending you go all New Games Journalism on us -- the review is perfectly fine -- but when matched against a review for a game I've never read about, this just didn't have enough edge to interest me.

    My pick: Leroux

    Ultimate Victor: Bluberry (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Venter?? versus JANUS??
    Venter: 3D Dot Game Heroes (PS3)
    JANUS: Sin & Punishment 2 (Wii)


    ASchultz:
    Good matchup here. I find Venter hedges about certain things when I would say "just say it!" e.g. the explanation about Miyamoto in Par2--would it be better to say Miyamoto & co could not risk things so much? I think it is tough to describe stuff you want to linger around without lingering too much in your writing, and Venter seems almost there at times. But it doesn't quite work. I think there's a lot of looking for good details--but it stretches for some obscure ones and in the process misses more immediate ones. Like the land being named Dotnia. That's a cool name & would bring a bit more color to the introduction. But it's halfway down the review & I have to say "where's that? Did I miss something?"

    It seems like there's a lot of expectation that developers will love the game and learn from their errors, and you have a nice narrative that keeps me interested. But it might be nice to read that, yes, the characters are made of blocks. Like legos or something. And they play neat graphical tricks, as evidenced by the screenshots.

    When I go in for details like this, you know the review in general is good. But there's stuff I think you're good enough to iron out and maybe say what you really mean.

    I feel that the "no game is perfect" section is a bit loaded, e.g. "some people might not like it, but tough for them." This reminds me of Bill Rancic, Donald Trump's original Apprentice, being interviewed and asking for his faults: "I work too hard." The HR lady smiled and said "come on." Like his small error, though, you can overcome stuff too. It's fun to linger with this sort of game. I bet I would, if I played the game. But for a review, you may need to pick and choose your spots a bit. You probably did in revising this. It's tough to zap something you enjoyed writing--but you should have faith you'll find something succinct you'll like even more.

    I think it's safe to say, for instance, you appreciate the unapologetic psuedo-pexillation & it makes the satire affectionate. I'm also not crazy about the end--it's confident, but it doesn't quite work. It's tough to tell what fails, but just when a review is rolling you can throw in a too-generic phrase like "However you slice it." A snappy ending can't afford that.

    Janus's review had me a bit baffled at first, with "on-rails" and "Melon Bread." But I think it's reasonable to expect a reader to perform a google or three, and seeing where they pointed--yeah, shooter fans would know about this. I mean, reviews shouldn't just be telling or doing what's already there. You need to take your risks to stand out, and this review does that well, even if the first one--"I'm not sure I could handle any more"--could go either way based on what is written so far.

    Showing how you defeat potential enemies and how to plan stuff goes well beyond "the controls are tight" and thus works well. I can see how a puzzle game uses all of its components, or tricks, or surprises me at the end. But sometimes I get a bit snooty and say shooters can't do the same and it's all about reflexes. You do a very good job of showing how these reflexes should be used and I can imagine you having moments of "I bet you can't do that" before realizing you can.

    It's interesting to see a review about stuff I like show me something new, and have it match up with a review of a genre I don't care for, and it shows me something new. Venter's is clearly a top-half review from the round. Janus mentions his game does not waste space. Neither does his review. Venter's wants to linger a bit with a few casual phrases, and Janus's doesn't. For Janus's, by the end, I was saying, "Dude. Play the sequel. You know you just need time off." With Venter, I hope he has the chance to dig up another retro-tribute game worth enjoying. It's not quite as intense, though.

    WINNER: JANUS

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Venter 3D Dot Game Heroes: Spinning memories of the past into the future is certainly a good way to give the reader insight into the making of the game and certainly if you played those games you would know exactly what to expect from this game. While the descriptions of the game were pretty good I felt they left me wanting more information and so fell just a bit short.

    Janus - Sin and Punishment 2: Janus vivid description of the aberrancy of the game is quite exciting. This is a sure sign that the reviewer truly enjoyed the game despite the apparent learning curve eluded to while describing the different tracks in the rail shooter. I felt a few things were missed that might be of interest to others thinking of purchasing the game. The fact that you can play as one of two characters and that you can have second player (though they have no on-screen avatar) join you for some co-op play. Overall a very creative review that was interesting to read.

    Venter vs. Janus: Janus is the Winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Venter's Zelda comparisons didn't do much for me, but then you go on to clearly explain why the dungeons are cool -- and you do make them sound cool, but in such a clear way that I'm confident they really will be cool. At its best, the review bleeds enthusiasm in the best way -- through ideas rather than through empty words like "awesome". By the end, it does start to feel like a checklist (phrases such as "also warrants a mention" and "No game is perfect" are reviewer-speak for I'd better talk about this, too) but that wouldn't stop me from recommending this to anyone who wants to learn about 3D Dot Heroes.

    Janus gets bonus points for knocking Treasure down a few pegs based on their successes. Anyone can point at their weak links, but it takes a brave man to tackle the original Gunstar Heroes head-on. (Although I somewhat disagree with you.) This is a very good review, and I've no doubt that the game is excellent, but this was an unfortunate match-up. Venter's review takes complex mechanics and describes them very clearly, making his game sound special within its genre. I believe you about S&P2's creativity, and you did good job of supporting your conclusion with a tight review... I just think he took your concept and went further with it.

    My pick: Venter

    Ultimate Victor: JANUS (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Jerec?? versus Asherdeus??
    Jerec: Final Fantasy XIII (PS3)
    Asherdeus: Dante's Inferno (PS3)


    ASchultz:
    Jerec vs. Asherdeus: A match between two people it's good to see back and writing. If there's something that irked me about both reviews, it's that they sometimes mentioned how boring and annoying the games were, and unfortunately that's a good way to help the judge/critiquer drift off. Not that I had to take drastic matters to fix either. And I liked comparing how you both didn't realize it wasn't fun until too far through. It's happened to me and is fun to read about.

    But going negative early on negativity early (I'd guess that the 1st round of the team tourney, you want to give em something to like, something unique to say "I'm here and I'm going to write about fun stuff") is probably hypocritical. And there was a lot more to say about these reviews than that. So, on to the highlights...

    Jerec--good stuff early on comparing the game to a lame amusement park ride. This is good bashing that hasn't been done and that's heartening to see. It's tough to write plain talking that feels new, and yours is as good as any I've seen for a while. I think the review gets tangled trying to describe how the characters aren't pushed too far. A couple more lines of dialogue may work well here--the bit about Sazh really is good. I think you also slap around the cutscenes well (the datalog works better) and at least offer suggestions of what you'd like to see. There are times you seem like you're reaching for what to say, but they generally rebound well. The paragraph on execution wobbles at the start but then hits examples very well. Framing FF13 like big brother--"gives your hands something to do in between the story"--works very well and makes up for other stuff that feels a bit plain.

    The bit at the end is good, too. How by the time you finished, the price had dropped drastically. This sort of observation lets me know the game got old quickly for others, too. It seems better than the actual concluding sentence. It tidies things up emotionally as opposed to pulling out a graph that shows Final Fantasy Installment Number versus Fun Had.

    Asherdeus--I think the big problem with your review is that you didn't research the book the game was based on. I'm not talking about in-depth research, but, "What -is- the Inferno about?" The Inferno lays out an obvious pattern for levels, and it appears the game avoids that for something with less variety. Also, the game veers so badly--Dante doesn't -rescue- Beatri(ce/x) in the book--that it could be powerful to say "the game doesn't match with a brief description of the book, or even seem like a plausible interpretation from book to game."

    The whole review feels rather plain and I think meshing Par4 with Par1--realizing it wasn't fun but realizing it got boring--would be a way to start it off right. That mirrors what hell might be like. Mordant jokes should follow naturally. Yes, your review was organized, but it wasn't organized for anything special to come out. Reading words like "gameplay" kind of counterbalances the neat exasperation about lever puzzles, but I think you get too reductionist talking about how too many games boil down to button mashing. DI never lets you feel you're doing more than that?

    This review has some neat observations--like the unholy being too like the holy for you to care, or Lust--but then it drifts back into the technical. These sorts of observations are important, but they're probably best made by the designers and project leads. They'll make a review look competent and good and understandable, but they can also feel a bit isolated. They may need some color, or observation, or comparison to what you expect to fly. Jerec has more of this, and he wins.

    WINNER: JEREC

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Jerec Final Fantasy XIII: I have read a number of FFXIII reviews, several of them right here. I felt this one had an insight that some others (not all from here though) might have missed. This was a very good job of explaining why the reviewer thought the game was bad right along with explaining what the game was about. At one point I thought there was praise for the paradigm system but it turned out to be a ruse.

    Asherdeus - Dante's Inferno: Some people know how to bash a game and others know how to bash a game with finesse and style. Unfortunately I already knew that Dantes Inferno was a bad game so I was skeptical that a review could be written without out and out badmouthing it until we would be sick of reading the review. This review I felt took a small hammer to the game rather than a nuclear bomb. I am not sure I ever enjoyed reading a review of a bad game before this one.

    Jerec vs. Asherdeus: Ahserdeus is the Winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Jerec's review wins the "holy shit" award for the round. At the end of the second paragraph, I was thinking that rollercoaster analogy was neat. Then paragraphs three through five nail some really profound concepts about character development, breaking points, and emotional progression. 1) It's annoying when an RPG deals with a character then pushes them to the side. 2) Clumsy developers make their characters over-react to small things because the writers are too scared to put their heroes through the real wringer. 3) When people surmount their obstacles, they should become more interesting, not less. These astute observations show that you really did try to "feel" the characters. Your descriptions of mechanics don't carry the same impact, although your complaints about the battle system sound legitimate. You're clearly a pro at story analysis; concentrate on mechanical analysis and you'll be unstoppable. Damn, FF13 really does seem to be the bane of RPGs. Screw Square-Enix.

    I'm glad that Asherdeus didn't try to come across as an expert on The Divine Comedy. Second, I thought you did a nice job raking through every way in which the game could conceivable be good (and explaining why it's not). The review has nice flow and fixates on believably significant flaws (I've not played the game). I did appreciate the description of the Lust level, as now I know what to look up on Youtube if I want to see the best the game has to offer. Similar to your teammates, you just had the misfortune of being up against the wrong review.

    My pick: Jerec

    Ultimate Victor: Jerec (2-1)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    JANUS's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 05, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: Overdrive vs Wolfqueen ~~~

    Overdrive?? versus Suskie??
    Overdrive: Tecmo Secret of the Stars (SNES)
    Suskie: Alpha Protocol (Xbox 360)


    ASchultz:
    Overdrive's review has the usual exasperation with amusing mistranslation. I think the jokes take a bit too long to build up (e.g. the opening paragraph: I love the last line, and the history is good, but I dunno--maybe "into a joke! And no, you can't help them commit seppuku to banish their shame." Still, something needs to be done with a game this flimsy. And while they get the chuckles, the ending joke of Bin Laden and our military left me shaking my head. Making fun of the double-names is good, but discussing the army is a live wire, regardless of political orientation. Otherwise this seems like a pretty standard bash of lazy translations. The part about controlling two parties taking more time may've been the best joke in the whole review, because, well, we can expect translation mistakes. But leaving the player clueless seems to bridge translations. Perhaps it is a more interesting puzzle to figure if the original game forgot this information, too, or if memory constraints crowded out all that English text.

    And up against an organized, engaging review like Suskie's, it has big troubles. It establishes what genres the game feeds off in paragraph 1. In the 2nd, it describes what makes it feel differently. Then it hits the paradoxes in the game--a not so stealthy stealth adventure. The story about playing on the wrong difficulty level to start works well, though there's some confusion about if the problems you mention iron themselves out later on. I really enjoy the discussion of how player tones of voice work, too. Too often cut scenes are blown off for bad acting and that's that, and it's good to see that we can expect and hope for more, even in a flawed game. This is very good stuff and if the occasional "I can honestly say that" leaves me temporarily seeing red, I forget it quickly enough and wouldn't have a writer zap something like that if working to hard to avoid that sort of thing crowded out another idea.

    WINNER: SUSKIE

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    OD Tecmo Secret of the Stars: I love RPGs I
    really do, where else can nobody rise to the level of a god and save his whole planet from some type of evil something-or-other. I am always disheartened when an RPG gets a bad review. In this case it seems it was well deserved and presented in well defined terms. It is good that we were given insight into the game even though it was a below mediocre game.

    Suskie Alpha Protocol: Reviewing a decent spy game is probably not easy especially when the game is well done. There is so much to get across to the reader it must seem like a daunting task. With this review we get to spy on the spy game and it turns out to be pretty fun.

    OD vs. Suskie: Suskie is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    I started Overdrive's review not caring about your game in the least, but I came out of it ready to give T-SOS the "Super High Kwality" award. From PLUM-PLUM to girlish Ringo Brothers to BADBAD to searching the word for a nail, this review amused me greatly. Perhaps I should have known better, but this was not what I was expecting. I laughed. Often.

    Suskie's review begins and ends with a promise of "great RPG, mediocre action". You thoroughly and believably elaborate on the mediocre action, but I never believe that it's a great RPG. Things like conversation choices and consequences aren't particularly meaningful unless they're attached to compelling and fluid narrative possibilities. You explain that Alpha Protocol fits that scheme, but I can't feel your emotion without sharing your experience; the lack of spoilers hurts. For any great RPG, there should be something tangible to discuss -- because it wouldn't even happen to every player. As an example, the spoiler of "Megaton's possible fates" convinced me that I had to play Fallout 3 and didn't hurt my experience. (FO3 wasn't a great RPG, just a convenient example.)

    My pick: Overdrive

    Ultimate Victor: Suskie (2-1)

    *****************************************

    True?? versus Wolfqueen??
    True: Split/Second (PS3)
    Wolfqueen: Beyond Good and Evil (PS2)


    ASchultz:
    True and Wolfqueen always seem to have interesting ideas and take cool risks, and regardless of technical stuff, they'd leave me with something basic that I wish I could put in my writing.

    True--this review shows some things CompanionCube's good effort didn't. It's a smooth read and throws stuff at the reader quickly enough that stuff like "not unlimited" or "that's where it inspired within me a sense of disappointment." Yes, you need to pull things back at certain points, but pulling things back != loose writing. It also seems to end a bit quickly. What's there is good, but I'd be interested in reading about enemy ai or the ability to play against friends. What can you figure out about your rivals despite the game not mentioning it? Can you make it difficult on yourself? I'm not sure if your review got cut off due to lack of stuff in the game,

    I may've told you to see about keeping it short, and maybe I am backtracking now, but I think answering a few more questions would've made this a good review. Perhaps you tried to force yourself into a word count. What is there is good.

    Wolfqueen--ooh! Contradiction time! "the two use teamwork to overcome an otherwise unstoppable enemy" + "the most important feature: the camera." Now perhaps this means the game is divided into two main parts: having Pey'J and Double H do what you need, beyond combat, so the more peaceful Jade (who I assume is relatively useless?) can take the pictures she needs.
    The problem with energetic rich writing is that it can leave itself open to something like this and it's hard to trust what's there after. And stuff like "If youre like me, youll even go to such lengths to be as artistic as possible," is attention grabbing. I think after a good introduction you go into details too quickly, and things start to read quickly like a blog entry--worth reading through, but maybe not so organized. Some clarity on how Jade's friends help Jade photograph things would go a long way.

    The storytelling seems like it could be cut down--it seems like you had a lot of fun writing this review, but you often get caught up in it. Paragraphs like "Once you penetrate..." seem condensable, and if it's not easy, it's good practice. After this storytelling, too, the second-last sentence describes stuff I might've wanted to read about earlier. You make the world seem worth saving a bit too late. Put the bit about pearls with the first mention, maybe "Bringing illegal pearls to rhinos in a black market auto shop upgrades the engine." at first. Mention you don't need them all, but it's worth visiting a volcano, etc. It's tough to describe but when a paragraph about stealth is the most sluggish, the irony needs to be worked out. (Also "stealth becomes critical," spending a paragraph and then saying it's a minor part of the game suggests you're not sure of the proper weight to give everything.

    I come away saying I wish I had as much fun as you did, and I half see the way you could, because this review had good moments. I get a feeling that this game is one that tries to be about everything and largely succeeds. The review tries for the essay equivalent of a US football spread offense, but with these efforts, it has to be good all the way through. Lots of good stuff is there, but it seems jumbled, and it can be cut down.

    True's does what it should and that's enough here, even if I feel Wolfqueen's has more potential.

    WINNER: TRUE

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    True Split/Second: Making the dodging of missiles and giant cranes sound fun is sometimes not easy but this review handled that quite well. I suppose one thing a review should not do is leave you wondering what else is there. While the mechanics of the game were well explained I was left wondering if there is a career mode. Do you go from track to track on rails or can you pick any track?

    Wolfqueen001 - Beyond Good & Evil: I have not seen picture taking in a game since Dark Cloud or Shadow Hearts so it was nice to have WQ expound upon that, apparently important, section of the game. Other than the mentioned stealth mission and photography I got no real insight into the rest of the game play, its difficulty or length. Overall the review is very well done. Since I had never played the game myself the review did peak my interest in the game and that is exactly what a review should do.

    True vs. WQ: Wolfqueen001 is the winner.

    -----

    Zigfried:
    True writes a quick and competent review. The Power Plays do sound cool, although it would have been nice to know that they were player-controlled at the beginning of the paragraph, instead of at the end. At first I thought they were just random environmental obstacles -- and honestly, I kind of wish they were. Dodging that shit sounded cool. But the concept of calling meteors down on opponents has its own appeal. Two quibbles: (1) I question whether it's really possible to be inspired with a sense of disappointment. (2) After reading your review, I think calling the lack of customization a "tragedy" is melodramatic. If there's more wrong with the game, I didn't get that from the review.

    I liked Wolfqueen's description of teamwork at the beginning of BG&E; you make it sound important and exciting, and I was surprised to learn that you can actually control your partner. A fighting photographer sounds cool -- a Polaroid Pete for the new generation -- but I totally don't get how we got from apocalyptic invasion to taking pictures of wildlife. Without explaining how the invasion subsided, I'm left thinking the photography was a gimmick shoehorned into an unevenly-paced action game. The second half of the review (stealth + using camera to gather evidence) starts strong, but then you diminish its importance by saying all of that is a small part of the game. Based on the conclusion, I would say the review worries too much about readers' reactions instead of just describing the game clearly.

    My pick: True

    Ultimate Victor: True (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Zippdementia?? versus Genj??
    Zippdementia: Starcraft (PC)
    Genj: Panzer Dragoon Saga (Saturn)


    ASchultz:
    Zipp vs Genj: "Oh, good." I said. "Just 2 more reviews to read." Probably the longest of the lot. But not a huge deal. I was on a roll, could decide which I liked better and...

    ...curses. Teamwork from the opposing competitors. Midseason form and all that sort of thing. Close match. But Team Tournament Thunderdome allows no ties.

    I like Zipp bringing his sister into it, because it's a great way to show that, yes, the game dragged him in for being GOOD. You often forget why you liked a game at first, or it seems corny now, and it's great to have that affirmation all the way through. Though I think the narrative gets tracked up in itself--I'd let the story with the sister run out immediately, how she didn't laugh, etc. Perhaps there's wiggle room to describe the 3 races too--we can assume it's Zerglings + Overmind vs the Terran humans/protoss, I think, but perhaps "The Terran protoss and humans have their own rivalries" & does this work into the game?

    "Starcraft can raise a lot of questions about whats really important in a game./Good writing, for example." does give the image of a bore with sweater vest and pipe ready to get down to deconstructionism or whatever. At least, this early in the essay. And I think in general the transitions feel a bit lazy--"She was also greatly intrigued by the individual players in the story, especially Kerrigan./Kerrigan deserves a moment." The description sounds like if one thing were out of place, your sister would jump at the irony and laugh at it. But the game does not allow her. There's also an unnecessarily apologetic tangle about campaign vs online mode.

    Still, trivia like the game being a sport in S Korea -fits- and that's not easy to do. I like, too, the options of winning quickly or slowly--I've found that turn up in Risk, for goodness sake. So Starcraft is beatable without risk but it's more fun--and worthwhile--to keep doing things quicker. I'd be curious to know if the quick successes rely some on luck, or even if campaign style players have their own records to track, so even this seemingly anti-social act is, well, social.

    Oh yes. Good use of the rating box too. It didn't change my vote, but YEAH.

    I enjoyed Genj's review a lot, but it feels a lot less--universal. I'm sorry. I tried to find another word. I really did. Zipp, perhaps with the subject matter, can jump around and discuss various aspects of StarCraft, and it feels fresh and innovative. Compared to Zipp's review, Genj's gets bogged down by the dragon. It's good stuff. I got up, sat down and reread it, without any of that comparison stuff that I agreed to, and I liked it and can't offer any improvements and would be wrong to say it's weak. It just doesn't make me think of what I want my games to be about. I'd say it doesn't quite soar, but I already pushed my luck with "universal." I think Zipp's descriptions of Kerrigan also trump the graphic descriptions here, but again that's not due to any big faults. I left agreeing with the last line of the review--I won't have time to play it, but dammit Panzer Dragoon fans need to get off (or is that on?) their butts and send emails. I expect anyone reading this review would. Or they'd feel appropriately guilty if they didn't.

    I feel vaguely guilty too picking a winner. But two men enter, and one man leaves...

    WINNER: ZIPP

    -----

    CoarseDragon:

    Zipp Starcraft: You must be careful to avoid and the biomass when reading a review of Starcraft. Starcraft is a game that has long been held as the de facto science fiction [war] strategy game. With three expansions under its belt it is indeed difficult to do justice to this game in a mere 1300 words. This review was able bring some of the excitement of the game to life in a very interesting way.

    Genji - Panzer Dragoon Saga: It would be fun to imagine riding a Dragon even if it were only for a short time. In many ways this game is reminiscent of Divinity II: Ego Draconis. If you were lucky enough to have played the previous games you could earn extra Dynes (currency) based on the play time of your saved game.

    Zipp vs. Genj: Genj is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Word error strikes Zippdementia's third sentence -- should be "piqued" instead of "peeked". This review was pretty awesome until you started sticking thoughts in my head. I forgave the first bit about multi-player... but then when you started talking about "turtling" without letting even a paragraph pass, I was actively irritated. You had me in your palm! Then you threw me aside to talk to some skeptical asshole instead! At this point, the review started to feel sloppier (possibly because I was annoyed, possibly because of spelling errors like "micro-manaaging"). The review never really recovers, mainly because the tactical battle descriptions aren't tied back to the storyline's magic; I've read those kinds of descriptions from other people across the years... whereas I had never read anything like your review's first half. The conclusion is strong, but I think the paragraphs leading into it could have been stronger as well.

    Genj's intro paragraphs were pretty cool; I didn't stop to make any comments until you started talking about "action bars". I'm fine with detailed battle system discussion when it leads towards engaging conclusions, but this falls more under "description" and doesn't really support the assertion that PDS's battle system is engrossing or unique. There are so many games and battle systems out there that the mechanics of one almost always sound like the mechanics of another... discussing outcomes might be more effective, as the concepts of berserks, basic attacks, and character movement all exist in other games (games with boring combat). The last two paragraphs pick up again -- I like the graphics paragraph in particular -- but I feel you missed your opportunity to make the 10/10 resonate.

    My pick: Zippdementia

    Ultimate Victor: Zippdementia (2-1)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Overdrive's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 05, 2010:

    As a note, I was very pleased with everyone's submissions. Congratulations to all for a good show, and thank you for giving me something good to read!

    //Zig
    board icon
    Genj posted July 05, 2010:

    Damn if I had gotten that Schultz vote, we would have won. My thanks to Zipp on giving a good first round match. My thanks again to the judges for their all their work. Zig, you're advice in my commentary is quite good. I'll be keeping what you said in mind.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 05, 2010:

    Well, that's certainly not the result I expected on my end. I'm a little surprised that no one else caught any of my clarity issues earlier, but maybe no one else saw them. In any case, I suppose I'll explain what I can here.

    Jade is plenty capable of fighting for herself, a fact that I thought I demonstrated clearly enough when describing the opening sequence (though certainly not as well as EmP does in his review... but I did that intentionally because I wrote this review with the intention of emphasizing or elaborating on other aspects of the game that he didn't.) Her partner merely distracts the boss's minions (though he is capable of killing them) while she tackles the Big Kahuna herself. As for the photography, I put a larger emphasis on the wildlife stuff because that's a large part of the game and is really fun to do. However, it's more of a "something to do on the side" thing and a means to make money than something that actually contributes to the story. It's the photographing hardcore evidence that makes up the story element of the photography, and I purposefully didn't go into too much detail on that because doing so would have meant huge spoilers (though I guess I should have anyway, since it didn't explain enough apparently). Furthermore, the invasion is never gone. After that opening sequence, there are plenty more instances of alien attack, though I guess I only touch on that briefly, so maybe that's where the confusion comes in. However, the reason you're taking photographic evidence in the first place is to discover the truth behind the constant barrage of alien attacks and abductions. I know I say that somewhere, but maybe I say it in different words so it doesn't really sound connected or something.

    Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I think after I finally got it started I began having fun writing it, but that took forever and I really just had a horrible time with the writer's block for a while. Maybe that's why it turned out the way it did. Man, I knew I should've moved some paragraphs around... but no one else really had an issue with it so I didn't think it was a problem. =/

    lol Well, True can have his damn bet now I guess. Curses! I was going to make him review Hello Kitty or something equally silly and submit it as an entry somewhere down the line. haha.

    Congrats to the winners and everyone else who participated. Congrats to my other teammates as well. We can't please everyone I guess, so as long as we're happy with each other's stuff, then that's the best way to go with this.
    board icon
    Leroux posted July 05, 2010:

    Excellent work judges!

    We'll get 'em next week, team. This loss is on me -- outdueled at my beloved genre. For shame. Now I'll have to review even more beat 'em ups to get better.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted July 05, 2010:

    Congratulations to all team members. You each did a remarkable job on your reviews. I found a couple of these match-ups to be very close and that made it very difficult to choose a winner.

    I was not quite sure how much information to put into the critic of the reviews (I wanted to keep them short) but if you feel you need more I can get verbose in my next analysis.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 05, 2010:

    Whew! That was a great match up for the entire team! I really wasn't sure who would win the Zipp-Genj match up. I took a gamble with the Starcraft review and tried a lot of things to see how they worked, one of which was assuming the reader would disagree with me on some things (Zigfried gives an excellent discussion of the negative side of this). Genj's review was really strong and passionate and I believe I just squeaked on by, there!

    Got a bit of a rush, actually, when I saw the final score.

    My other teammates did great! I think we proved we can hold our own. Even against the indomitable Suskie, we managed to pull out a 2-1 scoring (in Suskie's favor, but still). Tough line ups and we came out only slightly scathed. Look forward to next week.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 05, 2010:

    ... did he see it?
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 05, 2010:

    TEAM OVERDRIVE...and others HAS WON!!!!

    Now, the onus is on me to ensure that this will be my only individual loss, as by only winning 2-1, my dream of a perfect season is quashed and this season is already a dismal failure.

    But we'll regroup to give Team Janus a good showing! I can guarantee that!!
    board icon
    Genj posted July 05, 2010:

    2007 Patriots should have told you that a perfect season isn't very important.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 05, 2010:

    Wow, that's some awesome feedback. I think I can make this review better. I think if I didn't have all that to say about the characters, I probably wouldn't have even written the review.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 05, 2010:

    Stats--damn. Microsoft Excel's at work, and today's a holiday, what with the 4th being on a Sunday and all. So I'll have to let it ride.

    Not that there is much. All 6 matches ended 2-1, which means there's a 6 way tie for first and seventh individually, and ratings can fully be in effect next week once people get more connected. (until someone gets a vote, or loses one, the rating is undefined unless I pretend they lost/won 2.9-.1.)

    As for now, the ELO style ratings have:

    People who won, 2060
    People who lost, 1940.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 05, 2010:

    One question to Coarse Dragon. What did you mean by this statement?

    "You must be careful to avoid and the biomass when reading a review of Starcraft."
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 05, 2010:

    Good show, good show. Though I'll remind Zipp that there's a difference between defeating my team and defeating me, as I believe OD learned this week. (Please don't interpret that as a hostile challenge. I am being playfully smug.)

    Anyway. Thanks to the judges for their results, and hopefully we can pull our act together for round two. Although, damn, there's not a single weak team in this thing this year.

    Edit: Interesting how there were no shutouts. Everyone scored at least a point. Good job, everyone. This looks like it's shaping up to be a very competitive season.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted July 05, 2010:

    One question to Coarse Dragon. What did you mean by this statement?

    "You must be careful to avoid and the biomass when reading a review of Starcraft."


    I thought you might ask about that. Beleive me it was not a reflection on your review. Knowing the game I had noticed you did not mention how the Zerg (or the Protoss either) built their bases or where their resources come from (biomass is where the Zerg place their bases). I was trying to open with an inside joke there but I should have realized it might come off as a dig to your review, which is not what I intended. It was funny when I wrote it but the writen word can be misinterpreted. I won't do that again or if I do it will be much better.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 05, 2010:

    thanks judges, and congrats to the winners.

    good match, leroux. thought you had me.
    board icon
    True posted July 05, 2010:

    First off, thanks to all three judges for their comments and having the results so quickly even though it was a holiday weekend. I did want to address a couple things that were mentioned specifically though.

    A-Man: I did try and limit myself to a certain word count. I'm glad the review worked, but I as well feel there were a lot more things I could have mentioned about the game. I commend anyone who can write reviews that short each time and make them work.

    Zig: Calling something melodramatic is melodramatic. Kidding. Seriously though, looking at it now, I think that opening line was probably overboard. I just wanted a fancy way of "it works, but it doesn't work" and that can sometimes be my downfall, what with "having so many games in my past".

    As for the second, I think I wanted to put "instilled" as opposed to "inspired" but realized how odd it sounded a bit too late.

    Coarse: Thank you again for stepping into this role. I know you may be kind of new to this thing, so it's even more appreciated. The career mode is somewhat limited. You can pick different races within each season, but you aren't really able to choose any season at any time. You unfortunately have to go down the line for a long time before things open up.

    Furry Face: Thank you for the match. I am sorry that I robbed you of the opportunity to force upon me "Hello, Kitty" or something else equally ridiculous. But, if I'm to be honest, this is one of those types of situations--like it would be were I up against A-Man or Rand (if he was still around)--where I could be happy with the results either way, since I was matched with a promising up-and-comer. And I'm a good sport, and was looking to challenge myself this year so I'll still adhere to your stipulation as if you won, so long as you grant my request. I only ask that you limit your choices to my systems: PS3, PSP or Wii.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 05, 2010:

    Absolutely no offense taken, Coarse! Actually it was the grammar which threw me off (no offense to you, now!) and I thought you might be talking about the Zerg but I wasn't sure.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 05, 2010:

    Schultz: "The lying to create a later effect (re: Cody.)"

    it wasn't lying. the second time I mentioned it was sarcasm, haha. Cody sucks.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 05, 2010:

    CD: In my opinion, verbosity is a matter of how much time you have to take. You can write paragraphs critiquing a review or sentences and as long as you make your point clear, it's all good. My personal opinion is that I'd prefer in-depth critiques (not saying three paragraphs, but more of a "I liked this review more because..." deal).

    Like, after reading the critiques, I know exactly why Zig picked me. I know exactly why Schultz picked Suskie. I know you seemed to like both reviews, seemed to praise Suskie's a bit more (but in a vague way) and picked Suskie.

    So I'd say a thing to do is (regardless of how many words it takes) let the reviewers know why they won/lost. Personally, I'd love to know what you felt caused you to like Suskie's review more than mine. With any review, my goal is for it to be the best I can write, so any insight on how mine might have been lacking is very welcome. I have very thick skin (I can imagine Leroux and Jerec gagging if they read that line after the TT of a few years back and my Hydlide "pissed off loser mode" debacle...) and would prefer to know what my opponent did better than me.
    board icon
    hmd posted July 06, 2010:

    I finished another article/review of a concert I was at a few weeks back. It clocks in at about four pages, so I'll just link to it and post a short excerpt here (cut content can be found on my blog here):

    "If Theodore Black could be described as, 'swimming the 100 meter meet through a body of cotton candy,' then Its True could be described as, 'space walking through a saline solution and at the end, you meet all of your dead pets and find that theyre happy and healthy in this new existence.' Theodore Black had a sound that hit you physically and broke your body. Its True has a sound that hits you mentally and breaks your spirit. The friction of Theodore Blacks dirty off-shoot of blues contrasted with Its Trues silky smooth, seamless melody of experimental sound."
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted July 06, 2010:

    In my defense (sort of) OD the fourth of July weekend was really busy for me I understand what you are saying and will get better as the competition wears on and as we have more time to write our critics. Starting on a holiday weekend was probably not the best idea. I did the best I could in two days.

    I'll tell you this the choice between you and Suskie was the most difficult one for me. To be more specific you did not mention Ray, Tina, Cody or Leona. You also did not tell me what an Aqutallion is. A better approach might have been to play up the fact that Ray's father was murdered and Ray was following in his father's footsteps instead of playing him off as just some kid. Suskie was my winner because I felt that review gave me more information about the game itself.

    Note this so you all get a better understanding of me/my decisions. I tried to look at each review as if it were the only source of information I was every going to get about that game. I picked as the winners the reviews that I thought did the better job of telling me about the game, the content of the game, the mechanics of the game and why I either should get it or pass it by. I will also try give each of you better notes on why I picked winners.

    In this second week I think we have four days to judge so that will be a bit better for me. I think the reviews are due on Thursday and we submit judgements by Monday?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 07, 2010:

    Doesn't seem like it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 07, 2010:

    One of the first ROTWs I've been eligible for in a long time and it's going to go missed?! I can't allow this to happen.

    Maybe we should get some new blood in here to take over as a permanent replacement for Randxian (still not quite sure why he just left...)? Is anyone up for doing an ROTW for last week?
    board icon
    jerec posted July 07, 2010:

    I would, but I also have a review in there. >_<

    Also, whoever does it, there's 20+ reviews. Bloody huge week.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 07, 2010:

    The problem is that most regulars have a review eligible for that week.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 07, 2010:

    What if Ben does it? I don't think he submitted something.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 07, 2010:

    Hey, yeah, Ben would do a great job!
    board icon
    hmd posted July 07, 2010:

    I'd volunteer to do it, but let's face it: that would end in heartbreak and disaster and a hefty amount of metaphors.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 07, 2010:

    Or not! Go for it hmd.

    Or did you just come by to tease us?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 08, 2010:

    Well, he better make up his mind then because I'm HGmailing Ben right now.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 08, 2010:

    You are correct.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 08, 2010:

    Yeah, sorry about that. I just mailed you the correct dates, but you already caught my mistake thankfully. Thanks again for agreeing to do this. We all really appreciate it.
    board icon
    scrapbuks posted July 08, 2010:

    a friend of mine told me that I should check this site. (now I'm grateful^^)
    board icon
    scrapbuks posted July 08, 2010:

    I'm thankful that I found this site. ^^ the reviews are very useful.
    board icon
    scrapbuks posted July 08, 2010:

    Quit my job then played an MMO for almost 2 years.^^
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 09, 2010:

    The real question is, did you quit your job in order to have more time to play MMOs?
    board icon
    S-Cynic posted July 09, 2010:

    I'm S-Cynic and I'm a morbidly self-centered elitist.

    I've either disliked or despised most of the games I've had the opportunity to play. Yes, I'm serious.

    I'm painfully aware of the fact that I can't write; that's why I never submit reviews and rarely bother posting in the forums.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 09, 2010:

    GAME: Doctor Who - The Adventure Games: Blood of the Cybermen (Episode 2)
    CONSOLE: PC/MAC
    DEVELOPER: Sumo Digital
    PUBLISHER: BBC
    GENRE: Adventure
    DATE: 30th june 2010

    Done
    board icon
    asherdeus posted July 09, 2010:

    ASchultz, I agree with you that it would have made the review more complete had I been familiar with the Divine Comedy. That said, I don't think the average player interested in the game will know a lot about the poem nor will they bother to read it. I don't really see how "From what I understand, the similarities stop after character names and the setting" is really all that different than "the game doesn't match with a brief description of the book, or even seem like a plausible interpretation from book to game" that you suggested I add. I understand that their are many people who have read The Divine Comedy and might be interested in how they compare, but I think my summation of the game's plot and the line mentioned above get the point across that Dante's Inferno is a very loose interpretation, even without having read the poem myself.

    Point taken on meshing paragraphs 1 and 4 together. I think you're on to something there. They are similar in what they say.

    I know you're probably really busy, and you already did put a lot of time into my review, but can you care to elaborate what you meant by observations that are only fitting for designers and project leads? The most technical aspects that I mention are framerate and the camera, which I feel are important to talk about in a game that I already stated was full of a lot of flashy combat. If you have the time, could you please elaborate?

    All that said, thanks to all of the judges for their hardwork. This tournament is going to be a blast!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 10, 2010:

    bbbbbump
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 10, 2010:

    This is bad ass, Ben. I was just coming in here to say, with a sigh, that I would do it again for the sake of everyone who worked hard to get a review in that week. This was rather a nice surprise, I must say.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted July 10, 2010:

    This is bad ass, Ben.

    Ugh. Don't make me find and link to that picture of tub girl. Remember: bad ass is ass that you don't want to look at. Badass is awesome.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 11, 2010:

    Please don't... I'm all out of brain bleach at the moment.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 11, 2010:

    Thank you, although you might want to swap the dash and the colon to be consistent with Episode 1 (which in the database as "Doctor Who: The Adventure Games - City of the Daleks (Episode 1)")

    GAME: Beneath a Steel Sky
    CONSOLE: iPhone
    DEVELOPER: Revolution
    PUBLISHER: Revolution
    GENRE: Adventure
    DATE: February 2010

    Also done
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 11, 2010:

    Maybe I was actually pissed off at Ben for doing this and I meant that in a bad way...

    ... or maybe I just want to see you post that picture again.
    board icon
    scrapbuks posted July 11, 2010:

    there's no harm in trying.^^
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 11, 2010:

    Hey, Scrap and Cynic! Welcome to the site! Give some reviews a shot, it's well worth the time! Really teaches you a lot about the way you think.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted July 12, 2010:

    Anyone care for some Bad Ass Coffee?
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted July 12, 2010:

    Welcome to our two new friends.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted July 12, 2010:

    S-Cynic's been here for awhile, guys. Though, yeah, it does come off as a shock that he posted. >_>

    He's more of a rater than a reviewer, if you wanna check them out on his page.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 12, 2010:

    Good news for you, Ben! Starcraft will run on ANYTHING. Seriously. I first played the game on an old PC back in 1998. I recently installed it on an even older PC (1995) and, to my great surprise, it worked. I'm now running it on a 7 year old MAC.
    board icon
    Genj posted July 12, 2010:

    Thanks for undertaking this massive ROTW, Ben. Congrats to all who were mentioned.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 12, 2010:

    Wow. Guess I'm next. Nice work. It's interesting to hear a sort of 4th judge's take on some TT reviews.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 12, 2010:

    Anyone mind if I wait til, say, Wednesday morning to post something?

    I can get things done. I just arranged my time badly and then I kind of ducked responsibility for a bit when I realized I had RotW -and- team tourney judging.

    Hopefully my comments will tide the TT playaz over for a bit in any case.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 12, 2010:

    You had a huge workload this week, Ben, so thanks a lot for stepping up and for giving me the win! I'm pretty flattered to have won during such a competitive week. As you said, we had an unexpectedly large influx of reviews and there were no weak entries among them. I kind of wrote that review as per True's request, but I sort of had this attitude like, "There is no way I'm not submitting anything this week!"

    Congrats to everyone else who subbed. Again, really exceptional turnout.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 12, 2010:

    Hey Suskie, I noticed your win from me isn't featured. Was it decided it wasn't a valid week?
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 12, 2010:

    you must have liked The Chasm.

    'grats Suskie.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 12, 2010:

    Are you talking about Alpha Protocol, Zipp? It's featured -- it just doesn't show up in the sidebar because it was a freelance review. Click on the plus sign next to Feature User Reviews and you'll see it.
    board icon
    S-Cynic posted July 12, 2010:

    Game: La-Mulana
    Platform(s): PC, Wii
    Developer: GR3 Project
    Genre: Action (Platformer)
    Release Date: 2005, 2010 (Wiiware)

    ADDED
    board icon
    scrapbuks posted July 12, 2010:

    thanks guys. yea i'm thinking of doing one.
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 12, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: Wolfqueen v Leroux ~~~

    Fatal Fury 2 announcer-man returns for another round.

    Suskie?? versus Leroux??
    Suskie: Super Mario Galaxy (Wii)
    Leroux: Diddy Kong Racing (N64)


    ASchultz:
    Both of these were tough reads but not because they weren't good writing. I enjoyed the looks at two different genres--both discussing gravity, physics, etc., without seeming dry, and also describing when even potential unfairness can add the right sort of challenge--and this sort of thing really comes down to technical pluses and minuses. For that part, Leroux could afford to break up a few sentences, with perhaps a little too much description for description's sake and the bit between the first and second paragraphs seems a bit muddled. I'd like to give more advice but I think both contestants did very well here. It's nice to have two reviews that touch off things I sort of want to do. However, I can only pick one, and while Leroux's description is good, Suskie's does better--I really do like when someone lists a conclusion that isn't obvious, and manages to make it flow.

    WINNER: SUSKIE

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Suskie - Super Mario Galaxy: I can understand a topsy-turvy gravity defying world like Mario Galaxy being quite difficult to put into words there are just so many upside-down puzzles and places to describe. Being able to bring that lack of cohesion into cohesiveness is not a job to envy. While this review tried to bring that world to us in a fun way I found plethora of commas read like the game played. The information given about the game was quite satisfactory but the presentation was befuddling.

    Leroux - Diddy Kong Racing: Is this a review of Mario Kart or Diddy Kong? I suppose the comparison needed to be there but if the reader had never played Mario Kart the comparisons would be meaningless. Although there were not that many references to Mario kart I believe they were unnecessary. The review of the game could easily have held its own quite nicely without Mario Kart having ever been brought up. I am not sure the full color of the game came out in the review a bit more could have been said about the colorful graphics. Having never played this game I felt the review gave enough information that I could make an informed decision.

    Suskie vs. Leroux: Leroux is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Suskie, I don't understand the second paragraph. I read it three times and still couldn't make heads or tails of the concept. Things start to make some sense with paragraph four, although the seemingly contradictory statements of "still be standing upright" versus "is frequently upside-down" are still puzzling me. I say seemingly because I suspect there's an explanation that I'm just not grasping. Your review reaches its emotional peak in paragraph six (with an blunter explanation of that peak in par. seven) but I didn't understand the game well enough to appreciate the enormity of that moment. So while I can tell the review is structured effectively towards those who "get" it, I just can't feel it. Sorry.

    Leroux's review takes a few paragraphs to get going, but it certainly does get going. The "longevity via challenges" approach was an effective way to distinguish this from Mario Kart 64. I've played neither, but you come off as a credible voice, so I found myself nodding along and thinking "this is the cart racer to remember". If we're aiming for review nirvana, then I would say the next-to-last paragraph feels like a retread over concepts addressed in paragraphs three and four, like you're just trying to squeeze in even more favorite moments... but I can't fault you for that. They sound like moments worth recalling.

    My pick: Leroux

    Ultimate Victor: Leroux (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Wolfqueen?? versus Jerec??
    Wolfqueen: Metal Gear Solid 2 (PS2)
    Jerec: The Wind Waker (GCN)


    ASchultz:
    Crap. For this match I feel like Howard Webb handing out yellow cards, but I have less of a reason to do so than he did.

    Wolfqueen's second paragraph took me by surprise. It seems that since completely >> remarkably, we would want to hear about the storytelling. Throwing superlatives around early can get messy. I'm also not crazy about starting "Regarding." It sounds a bit airy. That said, the review works best when you describe the array of stealth options etc...though there's a bit much. It also seems stuff like hiding in lockers is a bit too easy, and maybe there's a downside to staying too long? Suffocation? If it's foolproof, it's maybe not a good part of the game, as stated. And there's a wind-up paragraph "as fun and challenging" which seems to go on a bit long.

    I'd maybe liked to have read about the story a bit earlier--even if it is in the opening paragraph. Yet there's good stuff when it doesn't try to do too much: "Theres so much going on here that its difficult to keep straight. But through it all, I dont recall anything that genuinely surprised me." It seems sometimes lines you think are throwaways are, in fact, the most gripping parts: "They even go out of their way to make a plot point about why these similarities exist." That's when the review's at its best.

    Jerec's first paragraph seems like it could be even better. I don't know why. It's the second original yet straightforward opening from him. Maybe it tries too hard to explain things, but it caught me remembering a lot of stuff I'd looked forward to and been disappointed for, for the wrong reasons. I think, though, that there's still more to be made--it's easy to reject charm and I'd be interested to read why you did the first time. I like the contrast of growing up and not feeling you need to reject something like WW to feel grown up, though. Still, I feel this review leaves a lot on the table and buzzes around the points it REALLY wants to make. Observations like the game being written for children yet not talking down--it's like a really good children's book or something. Also, "history will remember The Wind Waker as the better of the two. I know I do" sounds a bit pompous. Yet the review seems to be scattered with clues that maybe you're recalling too much of WW from memory (the dungeons--you say so) & sometimes the mechanics feel a bit jumbled. This is an ambitious review but I don't know if Jerec hit things on the head.

    Both reviews manage to be about the game when they get down to business. However, Wolfqueen's plays a trick on me I just don't like. Showing a bit too much disorganized stuff in the game and "See what I mean?" Given what you're trying to prove, there's no right answer to that question.

    WINNER: JEREC

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Wolfqueen - Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty: The basic story of this Metal Gear is that the Sons of Liberty take control of the Big Shell Disposal Facility. Sounds like they would have been better off just leaving the story at that but the way some people complain about the stories in games these days perhaps the developers thought the game was better off with more storyboard. I suppose though an espionage game ought to have a convoluted story. I am not sure it was necessary to give us those "Or maybe" paragraphs in the middle of the review. I think the "Or Maybe" and the seventh paragraph could have been condensed which would have made the entirety of the review a bit easier to read. Explanation of the game play was well written with enough details that I think the reader can judge if they wish to play the game or not.

    Jerec -The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker: What a very interesting opening and the subsequent
    turn-around was a bit of a surprise. At first I expected a bash-a-thon but was pleasantly surprised to find a well thought out introduction which kept my interest. I would liked to have seen a short paragraph on the Rito and Koroks and how they use the wind instead of just a passing sentence but perhaps those races do not play a large role in the game and that was all that was needed. Good information about the game and why the reviewer (finally) liked the game.

    Wolfqueen vs. Jerec: Jerec is the winner.

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Wolfqueen seemingly praises the original game in paragraph one, then slags its combat in paragraph two. For several paragraphs, I'm left wondering why this second episode is bad until you tell me that Metal Gear is important for its plot. That statement bothered me for a couple reasons. One is that your ensuing summary makes MGS2's plot sound good. When you say that it's difficult to keep straight, your words ring false because you provided such a clear (too clear?) summary. Emphasizing the importance of plot also bothered me because you never make me understand why that would make the game suffer. Supposing the story really is lame -- so what? Lots of games have lame stories. The missing piece is that the game treats the story as the most important part. A few small tweaks would go a long way towards improving this one.

    For Jerec's review, the tech demo was a nice way to start. After some reminiscing and nice descriptions of the new Hyrule, paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 start to feel like a checklist. You pull out of that pattern before it gets too long in the tooth, but it's there. Aside from that, this was a clear, emotional review that left me with no questions as to why you liked it. On a personal note, I think the review reads better with the final sentence omitted. I had already reached that conclusion without you needing to bluntly state it... and the preceding sentence has a natural finality to it.

    My pick: Jerec

    Ultimate Victor: Jerec (3-0)

    *****************************************

    Genj?? versus Venter??
    Genj: Dead Rising (X360)
    Venter: Naughty Bear (something)


    ASchultz:
    Two reviews with a funny take on killing other--animals like you.

    GENJ: Comma issues aside (->, however,) Genj's review gets down to business and is entertaining enough it doesn't feel like business. I see a bit of overkill (what did I say about college ball?) and "Theyre absolutely psychotic, but theyre still human." The comedic timing is a minor issue, though. The grammar errors add up a bit, too, but that's fixable. Oh, and I hate the word "aforementioned." But in a review that moves so well, I was disappointed with the ending a bit--"the more you play, the better it gets" at the end seems a bit unjustified. Is perfectionism fun? Can you kill enemies enough different ways that the horrendous mandatory leveling is not so bad? There's some style over substance here but a lot of each.

    VENTER: I like the attempt at a reversal, but I pinged Jerec and Asher about this last week. "Boredom" in the first line of anything is a big risk. I might even replace boredom with Defluffification and then "But it's not as fun as it sounds." (which can do the work of two sentences later.) The next two paragraphs made me laugh, but the switch to controls is a bit quick. I guess there might be some leeway for teddy bears being difficult to control because they're teddy bears. But still, with sentences like "Consider the disastrous lack of a lock-on function," the bashing feels clumsy--not as clumsy as the controls, but unfortunately more prominent than the bit about the camera bouncing back and forth as a pendulum, or the idea that people just rushed through the product for something more lucrative. And I think phrases like "gameplay variety" will always fall a little short of clever stuff like in the opposing review. I hate saying "obviously more than competent" but then, the TT does bring out high standards of writing and the pieces that find the extra gear tend to pull things out.

    WINNER: GENJ

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Genj - Dead Rising: Simple and gruesome fun is exactly what I would expect from a zombie slaying game. Smashing a red hot frying pan into a zombie's face? On goes the colorful prose in this review. And why not, the game is about re-killing the already dead in varied and unique ways. In many games of this genre there is not a way for the protagonist to get better so it was nice to read that the game incorporates a level system with a variety of ways to get points that can be used to add to skills or increase skills.

    Venter - Naughty Bear: How could a game with cute teddy bears be boring? A simple read through of this review will fill you in on that question. With nary a picnic basket in sight it seems we must bludgeon our way through. The why and wherefore of this game seem to be an enigma but I believe this review gives a complete a picture as possible without being to terribly harsh.

    -- Before we get to a winner I have to say this was a most difficult choice. Both reviews in my opinion were very well done and each gave a good amount of information and reasons for their final score. If I could give each a half win I would but I guess there needs to be a winner. *flips coin* (Really I did not flip a coin.) I give this win to Venter because I felt that review tells us why the game did not measure up a bit better than Genj telling why the game did measure up.

    Genj vs. Venter: Venter

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Genj's review has some oddly-flowing sentences, primarily due to occasional wordiness and missing punctuation. (Open space however is often taken up, etc.) Otherwise, it's difficult to point to anything and say "this is wrong" -- but my attention waned. It's not so much that the review is long, as that it's dense. Early into the review, I caught onto the notion that Dead Rising is a simple game, and detailed writing about simple games can become tiresome for readers. You do demonstrate a good eye for choosing in-game examples; this is one case where I would offer the unusual advice of using fewer.

    Venter's was a fun review for a game that never seemed the least bit interesting. I usually feel bad that you play so many crappy games -- I still do, actually -- but you've turned your experience into something positive here. The phrase on the visual front grated a bit (especially when used as a paragraph opening) as that's a clear "and now I talk about graphics" trigger. Inverting the sentence would be one way to eliminate that phrase without losing the content. Otherwise, this was ace work.

    My pick: Venter

    Ultimate Victor: Venter (2-1)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Leroux's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 12, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: JANUS vs Overdrive ~~~

    Bluberry?? versus Overdrive??
    Bluberry: Doom (PSX)
    Overdrive: Doom (SNES)


    ASchultz:
    Well, I was always going to groan at the second review, so I red Blu's first then OD's, then OD's first then Blu's. I debated whether to read OD-then-Blu again, because of diminishing returns and all that, but I was running late. So will Overdrive have reason to file a formal complaint?

    Bluberry: if it's missing levels, how can it be robust? Did you need to capitalize FRIVOLITY again? And the splitscreen/multiplayer observation seems out of place. And the upshot at the end doesn't really wrap up what was in the review--ok, so the graphics are especially tricky. But where is this? That said, this is otherwise an efficient, entertaining review. The name-dropping is not obscure enough to throw me off, and it has about the right amount of sarcasm and attitude for a shooting game.

    Overdrive: I always seem to be rougher on you than on anyone else for rhetoric but 1) "I was actually a bit surprised...I was thinking I might just be in for a pleasant surprise" hit me right away. Small time paradox. I also think the review might be a bit slow in getting to the point. If you're upset with slowness, then it's probably best not to hit the reader up with long sentences. I get the sense you included a lot of the middle stuff because you felt you had to, and it seems like it can be hacked down. While I found them frustrating, the last two paragraphs are quite good and assume pretty well what the reader can or should know without forcing them to work too hard. Not that the rest of the review is whiny, but I felt like the last two paragraphs stopped complaining. Still I think the strong comeback falls a bit short--Bluberry's ultimately says more in less space.

    WINNER: BLUBERRY

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Bluberry- Doom: At first I was not sure where this review was headed. Was it good or was it bad? Eventually we learn that this Doom is a completely different Doom from the PC version. I am sorry to say this review gave me a rather fuzzy picture the game and I was left wondering why it got a 7 when the review was leading me to believe it would be a lower score.

    Overdrive - Doom: Reading the review makes me wonder if there was a QA department. This review gives a very good picture of where the game went horribly wrong in its implementation. The review is well written except maybe for "thing's". I did my best to see if that was a valid contraction and since I found nothing to the contrary I guess it is but it does not roll off the tongue very easily.

    Overdrive vs. Bluberry: Overdrive is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Bluberry: Nice description of the emotional impact of crying infants.

    Overdrive: This game sure sounds bad.

    I dreaded reading these reviews, but don't mistake my curtness for insolence. Both reviews effectively made their points and neither one was painful. But one was clearly more ambitious -- some may even say it was "future-proofed".

    My pick: Bluberry

    Ultimate Victor: Bluberry (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Janus?? versus Zippdementia??
    Janus: Aladdin (Genesis)
    Zippdementia: Deus Ex the Conspiracy (PS2)


    ASchultz:
    A very good matchup here. I really enjoyed Janus's review and can't think of much to say about it other than I wouldn't use exclamation points or mention exploding skeletons twice. It doesn't take any risks, but it doesn't have to, and it does a good job of discussing simplicity and faithfulness to the original product without slavish adherence.

    Zipp's opening certainly kicks butt, but then I reread the review and wondered what it was for. His work does wind up discussing Deus Ex and bringing up some interesting points, but unfortunately they're at the expense of DE:C where it's mentioned "they're missing here." I'm also confused by this" That the book was placed alongside non-fictional entries, such as The Man Who Was Thursday kept them thinking this could be happening in my world. TMWWT is fiction by GK Chesterton. Is it nonfiction in the Deus Ex world? That is worth knowing.

    There aren't a lot of cracks here and it's a good essay about how a software company got it right, albeit accidentally, and seemed to deserve to, but Janus's focuses more on the current game and still provides a link with other works (eg Aladdin the movie) and that is enough for me.

    WINNER: JANUS

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Janus - Aladdin: We all know that Disney makes good movies but not too many people know they can make a really good game. Most of the time games based on movies turn out to be flops. We learn in this review that that is not the case. Not so surprising when you think about the creativity that comes from Disney. This review tried to capture the wonder of the game and did so quite nicely.

    Zippdementia - The Conspiracy: It is often very difficult for a developer to do justice to what could be considered a great game with a follow up of the game on a different platform. We get a sense of that in this review but there must have been at least some highlights in the game. That is where I felt this review missed the mark. We are told how different it is from the original Deus Ex but I was not told what might make the game worth playing despite the fact it was touted as an inferior game.

    Janus vs. Zippdementia: Janus is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Janus's review is an often-lively walk through a seemingly-inspired adventure. Paragraph five's first sentence (Aladdin is definitely not a case of style over substance) comes across as stilted, since you pretty much proved that point in the preceding paragraph. The text that follows is anything but stilted, as it clearly demonstrates the style of free-wheeling adventure that seems so natural for for the subject matter. Really, this is an excellent review.

    Zippdementia reviewed what seems to be a poor port of an internet darling. Some would say that the concept of choice itself is an illusion. To speak of "choice" implies control over the destination, but it's the path that truly separates one man's life from another. So if a game lets me complete objectives however I see fit, I think that's pretty damn cool. The removal of limb loss? Not so cool. The deciding factor in this match was that Janus's review followed a clear path from introduction to conclusion, whereas Zippdementia's review felt somewhat disjointed, as though it were wavering between discussion on Deus Ex's legacy (for right or wrong) versus describing the port.

    My pick: Janus

    Ultimate Victor: Janus (3-0)

    *****************************************

    Asherdeus?? versus True??
    Asherdeus: Wheelman (PC)
    True: Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii)


    ASchultz:
    Asher's review is straightforward and good and the bashing is not too heavy handed. I still see some problems from last week--synonyms of boring still pile up the bore-o-meter ("tedious and time-wasting") but the big ones appear to be gone. I'm also curious if maybe you just didn't recognize the Barcelona landmarks or if things were just too unimpressive to look up. The narration is good and straightforward from there, with a small blip about air-jacking--left hanging a bit WHAT it is. Some times the tone feels lackadaisical, too--the 2nd last graphics paragraph gets the job done but little more--but the review's tied up well comparing Wheelman to Midway.

    True's review starts with "I'll be honest" (grr) and then goes on with a story of playing Mario at Wal-Mart on a day like any other day, or is it the middle of the night? These devices have been done before and if they're done wrong, they clank. "I wasted not a second thought?" Hmph. This is all a bit much to set up the interesting observation that may not playing ENOUGH Mario to keep it fresh. However, it seems to trip itself up by seeming a bit more familiar with the environment/plot than it seemed at the outset. It seems like you avoided the game at all cost. The Mario/Yoshi interactions seem interesting but sometimes it feels like writing for the sake of writing. Which is good. But I'd rather read more about the upgrades, etc., and maybe even what you thought was cheesy that made you avoid Mario that was fixed now. A bit too much padding for me. It's an unusual departure for you, True, as you're not given to sentiment, and it was worth a try but it didn't work out.

    Winner: ASHER

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Asherdeus - The Wheelman: It is a shame that an open world is so constricted by the choices the developers choose to make for the player. The problem with that, as pointed out in this review, is that the player thinks they can have fun but in reality they are feed through a funnel that detracts from what could have been a very fun game. In this review we are given all the information needed by comparison to better games, without going overboard, on why this game hit bottom.

    True - Super Mario Galaxy 2: I felt this review, while good, did not clearly give us a good picture of Super Mario Galaxy 2. I did not get a sense of the size of the game or of the colorful levels that are what makes the game good. I felt that more description of the game was needed and at least a mention of the hint system would have been really good as it would have relieved some of the less adept players anxieties about the difficulty of the game itself.

    Asherdeus vs. True: Asherdeus is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    I like that Asherdeus included little details like being able to skip the drive up to destinations. Between this and your Dante's Inferno, you have a good sense for the little details that are important to people reading the review (presumably because those things were important to you, but kudos either way). Paragraph six really hammered the annoyance of this game, which is a pity, because I was kind of interested in it. I like Vin Diesel. The introduction and conclusion were fitting, believable, and helped make this feel like a coherent piece.

    True's piece wasn't a bad review by any means, but you made me read through a story about how you bought the game. I won't say people should never include such tales, but if the game was bought at Wal-Mart, then chances are it's not interesting. Compared to a review that just gets in and goes to its business, you're already operating at a handicap. My main issue is that I never really got a feel for why this Mario game is so different -- which is important because you made it clear early on that you don't care for Mario. Even though I couldn't grasp Suskie's review, one thing he taught me very clearly was that Super Mario Galaxy is unlike anything else. I didn't feel the magic here. I think it would help if you picked and elaborated on a few examples (so that their impact could sink in), instead of fitting so many different memories into consecutive sentences.

    My pick: Asherdeus

    Ultimate Victor: Asherdeus (3-0)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Janus's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 12, 2010:

    Wow. We got our asses kicked.

    You know, between my growing lack of confidence in my teammates (no offense to either of them, as they've been working hard and in my mind turned out some excellent stuff) and the fact that I spent several days and a lot of energy making that SMG review as vivid as I felt it could be only to be told it's incomprehensible, I'm starting to think it'll be significantly less painless to just lay back and throw in backlog picks for the remainder of the tournament.

    Now, before I put a damper on this whole thing, allow me to thank the judges for their efforts and congratulate our opponents for their victory. We'll see where the coming weeks take us.

    Edit: in b4 Zipp says "OMG SUSKIE LOST!!!!! HOW DID THIS HAPEN???"
    board icon
    Genj posted July 12, 2010:

    One prediction off from that beer.

    I held off on saying this but I was actually extremely dissatisfied with my entry this week. That said I'm surprised that my match wasn't as one sided as I anticipated considering this was the second week the guy drafted 2nd to last was against a 1st round pick. Zig, I actually had similar thoughts when writing the review but decided to just go with what I had. My apologies on the awkwardness - I got pretty burnt out during proofing. Thanks to the judges for their continued hard work. Suskie, you did admirably against Leroux.

    edit - between my growing lack of confidence in my teammates

    Thanks, bro.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 12, 2010:

    congrats again to the winners!
    board icon
    True posted July 12, 2010:

    Ouch. Us too. Thanks for judging guys, and well deserved victory Ash. I'll come back with something better next week.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 12, 2010:

    Thanks, bro.

    Yeah, I was already regretting saying that. As soon as I scanned these reviews my mind was juggling between the sting of losing and the realization that winning wouldn't have done any good, anyway. I'm really not trying to discredit you or WQ, since as I said you two really seem to have put a lot of effort into TT so far this year. I just think I've been spoiled by landing on two winning teams in a row.

    I obviously haven't been living up to my end of the bargain, so you two are welcome to lose your confidence in me as well :)
    board icon
    Genj posted July 12, 2010:

    It's too late. You're already off the Christmas card list.

    Seriously though, don't worry about it. I've mellowed out a lot in the past couple of years so I really couldn't care less. I'm just going to keep focusing on writing a new good review each week regardless of the standings. Wolfqueen may kill you though.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 12, 2010:

    Yeah, probably.

    After re-reading my SMG several times, I'm genuinely dumbfounded as to how Zig didn't understand the concept of the game after reading my review, considering I mentioned gravitational physics about seventy million times. It's subjective, though, so I guess I shouldn't dwell on it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 12, 2010:

    OMG!?1! SUSKIE... oh wait.

    I'm enjoying this year's TT significantly more than last year's. This has nothing to do with my teammates, I should add, who have been wonderful in both years. More it has to do with the fact that I'm not drawing from old material this year but am making everything new and fresh.

    Thus, the feedback I'm getting is really relevant and speaks to my current writing style, giving me something concrete to work on. While I may yet dig into a couple of the older reviews if necessary, for now I'm enjoying (for better or worse) writing new material each week.
    board icon
    True posted July 12, 2010:

    One prediction off from that beer.

    I'll buy you one anyway, Genj. For no other reason than you reviewed the Home Improvement game, and it takes balls to do that.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 13, 2010:

    You're absolutely right, Schultz. >_>

    I haven't played the game in at least a year, and I was going pretty much by memory - and a half written review and a collection of dot points which I expanded upon (this also addresses Zig's comment on the checklist). I was in a mad rush on the day of the deadline to get something new submitted, and I was working that day so I didn't even have time to play the game quickly. But I didn't have time to play anything, really. I simply had to pick one of my unfinished reviews, go with the game I could remember the most vividly... and went with it.

    That last sentence, Zig, was an afterthought. Might need to remove that. I'll be saving all the judges comments, and I'll look at tidying this one up a bit when the competition is over. For now, I need to work on my next review.

    Cheers!

    And Wolfqueen, I was half expecting you to throw Legend of Dragoon at me. I'm not sure I could have beaten that one on short notice. I almost laughed when you didn't. :P
    board icon
    jerec posted July 13, 2010:

    One the one hand, I'm incredibly pleased I managed second place out of ALL THOSE REVIEWS, but on the other... Pretty much the best review I ever wrote and will never come close to topping... still couldn't beat Suskie?

    Thanks for undertaking that massive task. There were a lot of good reviews that week, I remember reading a bunch. Has Honestgamers ever had a stronger week for content?
    board icon
    Leroux posted July 13, 2010:

    Judges, thanks for all your hard work yet again.

    Jerec and Venter, excellent job this week. This is a big win before three straight weeks of being on the road and at the mercy of other captains. There's going to be some tough matches ahead but the benefit of a veteran club is you guys look poised to handle it.

    Excellent turnout from Team Wolfqueen. You've got to admire a squad where all three members go down swinging (and barely missed at that). Two straight weeks of new content from Wolfqueen and Genj should only give more confidence, not less.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 13, 2010:

    Thanks for the encouragement, Leroux. I really appreciate it, and it means a lot coming from you. But even so, I (almost) always tend to feel discouraged when the stuff I write just gets blown in my face in tournaments like these. Though, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at this point because 90% of my tournament entries end up doing poorly (or at least averagely), even if everyone else who said anything about them actuallj liked them. For that reason, I don't blame Suskie for feeling the way he does, though I really have to emphasize that such things probably can't be helped. After all, it's the judges' opinion that determines whether a review is "good", so even if we like it and everyone else likes it, it doesn't matter if they don't like it. But even so, I can't help but feel like I'm letting everyone down, too, and that's where a large part of the discouragement comes in.

    That being said, I can't advocate writing to the judges' favor, not least because I can't figure out what the hell they want. And even if I could, I can't just conform my style to it because my style is my style and can only be changed by writing how I want. What I can do is at least make sure that everything sounds clean and makes sense, but even that has its issues (which I'll explain later). Just know that I try the best I can with this.

    As for my review, I write my reviews to express my opinions on the game in question. I imagine that how effective that is depends on the effectiveness of the writing, so if there's an issue there, then I can't really complain and have only myself to blame. However, ironic as this may sound, I'm probably not the best person to determine whether the writing is effective as is because, after proofing to my satisfaction, I tend to think it sounds perfectly fine. Therefore, I often feel the need to defend my review and that I will do now. I praised (or at least meant to praise) the first MGS for its story, but readily admit it has issues with combat and other issues. In fact, I almost considered linking to my first MGS review in this one so that you all could see what I was talking about if desired, but decided against it since most people (including myself) tend to disapprove of self-advertising like that unless it actually serves a purpose. It would have here, but I can't guarantee that that purpose would have been universally seen by everyone.

    Anyway, the point of this review, then, was essentially to take the opposite approach to the first one: that is, praise the combat/stealth while lambasting the story, which I found ridiculous. Because it was the story that caught me in the first game, I considered the second to be a downgrade. As for my approach to describing the story, well... if you all thought it made sense then kudos to you, haha. I honestly tried to write it so it would be as confusing to you as it was to me, which is why I had those "Or maybe" things there in the first place - to show that any one of those things could have been the case. Like it's all some huge convoluted web of... nonsense.

    Anyway, there be more, but I really can't think now. Part of me thinks all this rambling is a waste of time anyway, so I'll just leave it at that. And regardless of my dissatisfaction with how things turned out (who wouldn't be if they were in my position, honestly), I still appreciate the feedback and your effort put into it. Judging is rarely ever fun, at least in my experience, but your job is essential and probably the most important in getting events like this off the ground. Really all I'm trying to do with these long ramblings is to try and explain myself, learn where you all stand, and as an effort to try and come to some sort of understanding about everything.

    Congrats to the winners. I'm glad Leroux feels the way he does because it's really discouraging to keep losing all the time, especially when you (in this case I) think what you've written is good and will go over well.

    But, then again, I have to remind myself that everything about what we do here is subjective and so can't really be helped by my (or anyone else's) efforts alone.

    To sum everything up, then, I fully accept what's happened here and will always be more grateful for everyone's efforts than I will be upset about how things turn out. I'll still try to write new stuff for this, though I'll admit now that I can't say whether I'll make this week or not. But I assure you my reasons for this are plenty justified. (I actually got sick a few days ago so I kind of don't feel too good.... yeah....) But then again I'm never sure I'll make it but end up doing so anyway, so we'll see! =D
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 13, 2010:

    Yeah, thanks a lot for doing this, Ben. It was a huge undertaking and I'm not sure many would have so willingly and enthusiastically done so. You did a great job here and desserve every bit of praise and credit for it.

    As for the actual picks, I'm quite happy with third, especially considering just how many reviews were posted that week. Makes me feel that I'm justified in feeling good about that review and that whatever happened in TT with it can suck it. (no offense to anyone involved reading this). I really don't know why I let that stuff work me up so much sometimes, but there you go. In some ways, though, maybe it's a good thing because I'm actually starting to have confidence in myself (though having that automatically means I have to be wary of getting arrogant.., which may have also shown itself already.)

    Congrats to Suskie, Jerec and everyone else who contributed this week.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted July 13, 2010:

    Suskie - Don't feel down. Your review was good. I just think if you had made sentences out of your sentences it your review would have read better/easier.

    To quote: "You run off the end of the platform and realize that there is no end, that the miniature planet youre standing on has its own unique gravity well that pulls Mario to its center at all times, at least until he launches himself to the next in a long succession of independent, celestial bodies."

    Better (maybe?): You run off the end of the platform and realize that there is no end. That miniature planet you were just standing on had its own unique gravity well. It will continue trying to pull Mario to the center of the planet until he launches himself to the next independent celestial body.

    WQ - Judging is very difficult. We are faced with so much talent it really comes down to a tiny nit-pick. I felt you did a very good job in your review but you lost me in the middle when you tried to tell us about how convoluted the story was. As I mentioned I felt you could have trimmed that section. Had you done so I think that may have put over the top?

    If I could tell what I look for when judging I would but that would probably not be a good thing to do. It might get you out of your comfort zone and your writing might fall off because of that. I will say I judge based on how you made me feel about the game and how you felt about the game, and how well you put together all of that into something that everyone could get something out of. I know that is a real tall order but I have seen everyone here do that to some extent.

    Congratulations to the winners and a pat on the back to the non-winners for working so hard.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 14, 2010:

    Game: Tournament of Legends
    Platform: Wii
    Genre: Fighting
    Developer: High Voltage Software
    Date: July 6th

    ADDED (by someone else)
    board icon
    Calvin posted July 16, 2010:

    Arkedo Series - 01 JUMP!
    Platform: XLI
    Genre: Platforming
    Developer: Arkedo
    Date: 10/2/2009

    Arkedo Series - 02 SWAP!
    Platform: XLI
    Genre: Puzzle & Trivia
    Developer: Arkedo
    Date: 10/23/2009

    Arkedo Series - 03 PIXEL!
    Platform: XLI
    Genre: Platforming
    Developer: Arkedo
    Date: 12/21/2009

    All added
    board icon
    asherdeus posted July 18, 2010:

    Thanks very much for the feedback, judges, and to True as always for being an excellent competitor. I quite liked this review and I'm happy it went over well. This was the second review I wrote after nearly a six month hiatus from producing anything new and was the first I was satisfied with, so getting some feedback from others that it turned out well has boosted my confidence. Thanks again to True, this time for getting me involved. I'm having a great time. Looking forward to week three's results!
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 19, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: Overdrive v Leroux ~~~

    Overdrive?? versus Jerec??
    Overdrive: Batman: Arkham Asylum
    Jerec: Tales of Vesperia


    ASchultz:
    Overdrive--I think this is clearly your best review so far. The standard joke about Batman needing to keep busy worked with me and I know I called you out about jokes before. I'll give you a mulligan for the 4th wall reference too. I feel dreadfully Victorian for saying this but I'm glad you kept this review's jokes under control. The conclusion feels right, and if you had fun with other parts, it's easy to picture why you walked away feeling disappointed. I can think of other games like that. This is not fancy stuff but it doesn't have to be fancy to be very good.

    Oh. You mention the Joker is everywhere, then you mention the big Ripper side quest. Inconsistency. I think you mean everywhere in the main game. I'd also say, psychological warfare is not guerilla warfare. And six sets of ellipses = overkill. Pedantic though.

    Jerec--I thought I'd seen this review before, then I clicked on the critique topic. It's a good read, but I still don't know if you have it under control. You have a knack for good straightforward introductions I thought I heard before but didn't. I saw some regressions to week 1--"but they don't seem cliched or"--just say "but there's no overdone amnesiac with a forgotten past." Stuff like comparing Yuri with Shadow Hearts takes too long & doesn't get the hoped for mileage. And you wind up leaving the more interesting Rita at the back.

    I'd be interested in reading how/why stuff like high-fives (admittedly cheesy) works later. Or about how you didn't expect character X to bring things together. I may revisit the critique topic to point out what other stuff is reorganizeable or what I find works/didn't. This review works well, but it doesn't flow as well as Overdrive's. That's a risk with big RPGs, that you lose a reader and even when you get him back, he may think, if you liked the game--why didn't you get your tribute to it straight? From my original critique topic comment and what I see, you made improvements. Enough that I want to write more details/suggestions where it's appropriate but not enough to take a point.

    WINNER: OVERDRIVE

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Overdrive Batman: Arkham Asylum: A lot of Batmans stock-in-trade would be the gadgets he uses to foil criminals. We get a good sense of that in this review. But how does Batman increase the power of his weapons? Is there a workshop in the Asylum or can Batman leave Arkham island? No mention of Robin so we assume he is not in the game, it would have been nice to know for sure however.

    Jerec - Tales of Vesperia: The characters in a story are very important because they tell us the story. It was nice to see this review told us some details about the characters. That is often missing in RPG reviews. Seemingly full and complete descriptions of the games combat and weapon synthesis were nice to see in a review of a game in such a difficult genre.

    Overdrive vs. Jerec: Jerec is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Overdrive (Batman: Arkham Asylum) : One thing I really appreciate in a good action game is a strong villain. Obviously, through the magic of licensing, the Joker is already such a character -- but Overdrive's first few paragraphs do a nice job of illustrating that the Joker would have been a strong villain even if had been completely new. That's what more of these licensed games need -- smart structures that don't rely on preconceptions. In the combat section, you've got an ambiguous sentence: In the comic books, Batman rarely was remotely tested by the average generic criminal. This could mean that either Batman trounced average criminals repeatedly, or that Batman was such a weakling that average criminals rarely provided a remote test (implying they provided a SUBSTANTIAL test). Your meaning is clear from context, but the sentence also sounds a bit odd when read aloud. You do make the combat fun, although I wonder how it compares in your mind to other games (Riddick, Splinter Cell, etc). More significant is this next passage: Detective Mode is useful...VERY useful (especially if you're relatively new to the game). And so, the overall excellence of the graphics were blunted greatly for me. The piece you've left out is that Detective Mode was so useful that you left it on 95% of the time. I only knew that because I've read other reviews that said the same thing. Without that knowledge, the part about the game being "blue" wouldn't have made sense. It's definitely a good review, and one that I read through quickly. As always, I appreciate your complete lack of pretension in your writing. Eleven paragraphs would be scary from some people, but not from you. I do question the final score, though -- especially after that concluding sentence.

    Jerec's review for Tales of Vesperia hits one of my RPG pet peeves early in: Yuri does some surprising things that you would not normally expect from the lead character in an RPG, but it would be unfair of me to spoil it for you. When describing a game (or in this case, a character) appeal, I want a bit of it to be spoiled. Otherwise I don't really believe it -- RPG reviewers write "this time the character is different, really he is" all the time, and they're usually wrong. The only reason I believe it here is because you're the one writing it. I do like the contrast between chaotic good and lawful good, but providing at least one example would have helped a lot. As an aside, the cast of characters you've described here totally rips off the Berserk manga -- from the chaotic good hero, to the lawful good companion, the kid who's learning, and the genius mage who learns to appreciate her companions. I only bring it up because I think you might like that story, too. There are some flow issues in this one that weren't present in your previous two reviews -- but I won't go into all of them or else it would sound like I was slagging your review, which I'm not. I liked it. The one thing that I'll point out is that the sound and graphics did seem to be crammed in at the end. If you can work those descriptions into other paragraphs and just cut those paragraphs entirely, I think it would read more naturally.

    Tough match. I'm giving Overdrive the win here.

    Ultimate Victor: Overdrive (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Zippdementia?? versus Venter??
    Zippdementia: Tournament of Legends
    Venter: The Last Remnant


    ASchultz:
    Zipp: Snark is dangerous, to me, but I think you have it about right. ToL sounds like it could've been really something, but the amusing parallels of how it's derivative (Roman names) make up for the lulls (ping me about a critique topic if you want it) and things get hit or miss after a strong start. The ending feels more like a blog post than a serious review, but you've already done a lot right with the game balance, annoying controls etc. The only problem? Too many bashes may mean that I feel I'm rereading the same stuff again. You're good at bashing and you seem in your element, but on the other hand, every writer has that weakness where if a judge sees it week after week, he may see patterns that may make him wonder what new has been said. Also, another review which takes a more nuanced view can defeat it.

    And I think that's what's happened with Venter's review. I like when a reviewer admits he is looking for something different, draws the lines out, and explains why, yes, he's right and they're wrong, without pretense. It's wonderful to see a game that might suck and realize there's a less advertised part that works, and works wonderfully, and that's what happens here. This review makes me think of games I plowed through and wondered what the fuss was about--or games I discovered more about the second time through. It's good to read about a game that offers more than just a new cut-scene for an ending and how a gamer can work to get that alternate sense of achievement. I had a list of minor stylistic stuff but at the moment I just don't want to think about that. This review takes an angle I haven't seen yet at this tournament & I can picture a good writer like Zipp maybe bashing Last Remnant fairly and well, before Venter makes a counter point that feels like a trump card.

    WINNER: VENTER

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Zippdementia Tournament of Legends: Uniqueness in a fighting game must be hard to come by these days. The review was written well and told us what was bad about the game and even went so far as to describe a strategy for us to use should we ever want to play this game. If there is such a thing as a good review of a bad game I guess this fills the bill.

    Venter - The Last Remnant: A fairly decent balance between the good and the evil of this game. I find it difficult to judge a review for a game that I am so familiar with. I think I know at least three different ways to invoke Fatal Eclipse, Whiteout and Blackout. I can tell the reviewer enjoyed the game and I get a sense of why the reviewer enjoyed the game but I felt it was not necessary to spend so much of the review explaining why people did not enjoy the game. I think that time could have been better spent explaining in more detail why the reviewer like the game or even given us more details on the game itself was the word union even mentioned in the review?

    Zippdementia vs. Venter: Zippdementia is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Zippdementia (Tournament of Legends) : I disagree with your note about the Greek fad. I can't think of many recent Greek-themed games, and I certainly can't think of any Greek-themed fighting games -- the closest is Soul Calibur, and that really isn't the same. Spartans taking on medusae in a one-on-one fighter sounds thematically awesome and original to me, so I really can't identify with your introduction at all. You also say that the inclusion of armor is uninspired, but that's not really true. The inclusion of armor is a pretty darn good idea, considering the theme, and it's an element that has rarely been used elsewhere. You do, however, explain why the implementation of armor is uninspired; changing that one word would make a big difference. It sounds like armor is just a nifty visual touch. So I think the idea to include armor was good, but they dropped the ball somewhere along the way. You do hit some significant points in the second half of the review -- such as lack of balance and unresponsive controls -- but I still can't shake the feeling that you aren't familiar with fighting games. For example, character-specific taunts are fairly common now. Perhaps this game has more of them? I'm not really sure. In the end, I believe the game is poor, but that belief is mainly based on the developer's name.

    Venter (The Last Remnant)
    I like this review. It's a case example demonstrating why the sacred wall of opinion is not impenetrable. I also like that you specified exactly which brick in that wall is the weak one. You managed to tread a careful line by revealing what others did not see, without degrading them... because honestly, if someone spends 30 hours on the game and didn't enjoy it, why would any sane person keep playing? Hell, after the first half of the review, I was wondering why you kept playing the game. But it really isn't important. What's important is you saw something other people didn't see, and you've written a review so that prospective buyers can enter the purchase informed... and possibly enjoy the game that much more because of it. Well done.

    My pick here is Venter.

    Ultimate Victor: Venter (2-1)

    *****************************************

    True?? versus Leroux??
    True: Pocket Racers
    Leroux: Asteroids


    ASchultz:
    True--Wow, some guts calling out a judge at the end. This is a lot more fun than your last review. Some errors with commas and my/your pop up. I think the switch from "this is going to be awesome" to showing why PR is a shadow of MM is effective if not too fancy and the bashing jokes make sense. The trick is to find inconsistencies without nitpicking or using what's already there and I like what you do. Well, OK, blind guy in a strip club can go. I think you may have forgotten to describe why you get a 10 second head start and if it's enough, too. I do think describing how racing's more fun when you come from behind--there are lots of ways to do this--might've made the review more fun. It's something everyone knows, but we like to see it new and different ways, you know? It's weird, but a bash that throws reasonably funny insults around is, in a way, a conservative bet. Don't be too cliched, and see if the other guy overreaches.

    Leroux--I like reviews about the history of video games, etc., and the introduction is interesting. However, I think you drop that tack--of course, you have to describe the game ITSELF--but you never wind up mentioning other later vector, or vector-ish, games. Defender, Stargate, Star Wars. Asteroids Deluxe, even. You name dropped, but given your discussion of the controls it'd be interesting to hear what you thought of, say, Tempest's knob or Defender/Stargate's ship-like controls or Star Wars's throttle. Maybe compare the game to the 2600 port where the joystick worked really well. Given that you take the history angle, I'd like to read more. Asteroids is slim enough that you need to do more than just say "thrust, rotate, fire, hyperspace."

    I'd also argue that calculating probabilities (eg statistics) was more important in Asteroids than anything like equations, like for learning to shoot the small UFO--which would just get a direct hit sometimes--or seeing how to work things to get 12k points per life with lives every 10k. Also Asteroids was the first game that let you slow things down, take a break and re-position. Do you feel this got tedious? I didn't have the patience to reset and reload for the next level. I spent a lot of time panicking and thrusting all over the place. I learned about physics that way. I remembered the lesson in high school physics.

    Also--in math--the playfield simply wraps off the screen. A toroid is a donut & while it could be topologically equivalent, it doesn't need to be. You overreached with your vocabulary & don't need to. And then, "as nice a feather for the..." Is that really necessary? More history please! Even if I've heard it, when you talk about the outer space theme--that's GOOD stuff. Or how long did it take you to get the feel for the thrusters and how they died down? Or for when to use hyperspace? That's simple basic stuff that lasts.

    And oh yes--polygons/vector thingies still get drawn. They're sometimes still effective. It's just much easier to fill them in these days.

    This essay tries to do more than review, which is commendable, but has some style and word choice and ommision errors, which is not. True's get the job done.

    WINNER: TRUE

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    True - Pocket Racers: I think this game proves you cant mix dark magic and racing successfully. I guess even worse is that Blade Interactive thought they could take Room Zoom add some sort of fantasy magic and end up with a better game. Well apparently they were very wrong.

    Leroux Asteroids: I think every gamer knows Asteroids but if they dont just do a search and see how many sites there are where you can play the game. How difficult it must be to review a game that is as simple as a shuttle spinning around in a circle and shooting at white objects? I liked the angle of the review but I think the old school charm of the game got lost in the MOS-6502 CPU.

    True vs. Leroux: True is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    True inexplicably ends his Pocket Racers review by saying that he hates one of the judges. That's kind a of a weird thing to do in a tournament. But anyway... the review kicks off mightily with a description of Satan rolling up to a random houseparty in an 18-wheeler and turning everyone into tiny cars. Your description of the obstacles is also well done; they don't make any internal sense, and there really isn't anything notable to separate one from another. The part about lives lost me, though. Why don't lives make sense in a racing game? What's wrong with giving someone 5 chances to clear a stage? I really just don't get your beef. I understand the frustration with how badly executed the game is, but you spend a couple paragraphs trashing the concept of lives. You never explain why it's a bad idea -- you just assume we'll agree. And I don't. But that first half of the review is still pretty ace.

    Leroux (Asteroids) : I went into this review with trepidation, but instead I got a lesson in graphical processing -- which was oddly coincidental, as I was reading about raster versus vector routines just last night. It's so coincidental that it almost feels unfair, but it's quite fair. You wrote something uncommonly interesting, and you deserve credit for that. I also recently watched a "history of shooters" video that went from Space Invaders to Galaga, skipping Asteroids entirely. And that's not the only time the game has been, as you pointed out, marginalized. For those of us who grew up in American arcades, this review's slant seems obvious. But presented to a world that doesn't even look in the game's direction, it's a challenge to the status quo -- and one that's appropriately focused on what matters (the graphics). Making such points appear retrospectively obvious is a sign of talent. I liked True's review, but this is an unexpected delight.

    I pick Leroux.

    Ultimate Victor: True (2-1)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Overdrive's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 19, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: JANUS vs Wolfqueen ~~~

    Bluberry?? versus Suskie??
    Bluberry: Metroid Fusion
    Suskie: Just Cause 2


    ASchultz:
    Bluberry--a very acidic review, but it doesn't waste a lot of words. I like that. There are some great lines here, about illusion of discovery and solitude, and yes, any game can have them. Some awkward transitions, like P1 to P2 or "Everything comes together..." which feels like it could be sorted easily as the writer's attention was elsewhere. Like to the next two paragraphs, which hook around nicely and sucker me into a question that's well answered. I like the description of the expected fight collapsing--and becoming something far more interesting.

    Suskie--this review works well, but perhaps some of the sentences need to catch their breath. A sandbox sort of game seems well suited to these, but in my opinion, there may be too much, even though it makes good sense to try for that sort of effect. I'm also a bit confused why you didn't read up on the game plot on the official site that said how big the game was. I can see why you might not have wanted to, caught up in the game. However, between the unnecessary italics, conversational bits and stuff like "with just a tinge of regret" it feels like there's a bit of emotinal overload that isn't needed with the descriptions. I think it can go. I also think you may've crowned another game as a king of the sandbox genre in another review, too, or maybe the ending feels a bit too frenzied. Enthusiasm is good, but it came across like hard-selling in several places and didn't seem as controlled as Bluberry's. I feel like Franz Josef in Amadeus--"Too many notes. But still, a fine, fine effort." This does not make Bluberry Salieri, but it does make him...

    WINNER: BLUBERRY

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Bluberry - Metroid Fusion: I got two different impressions of the game. At first I thought we were told the game had no exploration but then at the end of the review we are told we do have exploration. Perhaps that was only at the end but if so it was not clear enough in the review. Parts of this review needed to be cleaned up. This needed explaining "Challenging! The graphics are nice, if a bit too colorful. A-. If only." "If only" what? What was so challenging about the game if you are told what to do all the time?

    Suskie Just Cause 2: This review did a really good job of getting us into the feeling game or perhaps what the developers wanted us to fell about the game. Rarely are sandbox games put together well but here we get the sense that this game was very well thought out. I wanted to buy this game if for no other reason than to see the huge island that had been described.

    Bluberry vs. Suskie: Suskie is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Bluberry uses a review for Metroid Fusion that beat me in last year's team tourney. I had actually forgotten about that until someone brought it up in the forum -- and then I remembered Bluberry's comment that he had thrown it together in about 15 minutes. Fortunately, I know you were lying. The first half of this review is written pretty wonderfully, painting a picture of tense action greatness. The second half of the review isn't as tight, which is a shame, because you're completely right. I think some reorganization would help. For example, the Half-Life 2 example feels out of place. It's worth keeping in the review, it's just in the wrong spot. For example: the preceding paragraph talks about being "a sequence of rooms", then there's the bit about telling instead of showing, then it goes back to the point about being a sequence of rooms. The final part regarding what the game could have been was great. And nice observation that linearity alone doesn't kill a game.

    Suskie (Just Cause 2) : The descriptions of Panau were vivid and effective. After your gushing praise of the scenery and fun missions, the less impressive combat didn't seem like a big deal -- which was your point. I'd heard some good things about the game already, but I'd never bothered to look into it, so I'm glad I read this review.

    My pick: Suskie

    Ultimate Victor: Suskie (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Janus?? versus Genj??
    Janus: The Beatles: Rock Band
    Genj: Jet Grind Radio


    ASchultz:
    Janus--this review stake things out with a good joke and a good example in the first paragraph, like some stupid Toastmasters guide says but can't help you DO. I'd forgotten "Do You Want to Know a Secret" and ups to Janus and Harmonix for remembering. I leave this very much interested in a game in a genre I don't know much about or might not care to play. It leaves me feeling, yeah, I'd like this or that from a game.

    Too many exclamation points though. They seem unnecessary.

    Genj--this was a big reviewable from GameFAQs and I think we've all grown up since then. I like the comment of combining genres and showing why JGR is still unique, and I can offer no structural suggestions. I walk away wth a respect for both reviews and both games.

    It's interesting to read the battle of Something that Should Last vs Something that Lasted in the Hearts of Those that Played it. It's at times like this, though, it's good to have a cop-out, one which I may exercise by pointing out that Janus's is a bit more polished, with fewer mistakes Genj will probably bang his head for not catching. It would seem tawdry to post them here. Critique topic time...

    WINNER: JANUS

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Janus - The Beatles: Rock Band: This review is very well written and tells us exactly what the game is about. I looked at the length and at first thought it may be too long for such a simple sounding game but there were no fillers here. Each section hit on something different and exciting about the game. There was no doubt in my mind as to why the game received a 9.

    Genj - Jet Grind Radio: I really felt the intensity of the game in this review. The vivid descriptions of the things you can do in the game made the review come to life. The police helicopters, the tanks and SWAT in riot gear really let the reader know what dangers lie in wait. The descriptions of the other gangs were nicely detailed and told us a lot about the overall design.

    Janus vs. Genj: Janus is the winner by the slimmest of margins

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Janus (The Beatles: Rock Band) : I hate the Beatles, and I'm not going to buy their game. But even I have to admit this was a great review. I was a bit thrown at the beginning, when you referred to Activision as "the makers of Guitar Hero". It sounded like you didn't know Harmonix's history (although I suspect this was just a case of unfortunate phrasing). As I read the review, pretending that it was for a band that I actually care about, I found myself nodding along with the bits that you chose to highlight. The songs matching the locations. The play mechanics matching the musicians' style. The celebration of a band instead of the exploitation. This really sounds like the kind of transcendental game that people will file on their shelves to pull out in years to come, pulling it out -- instead of grabbing CDs -- whenever they want to share memories with their family.

    Genj (Jet Grind Radio) : Hell yeah, the Dreamcast was hardcore! I once wore my Dreamcast T-shirt to Cold Stone Creamery, and when I ordered a chocolate shake, they squeezed out some extra fudge in a spiral on top. So uh, anyway. The review follows a nice progression, from basic details leading up to an insane -- but awesome -- fourth paragraph. And then Onishima starts calling in the helicopters. F***. Some people would have just dropped it there and moved on to their next point, but I think it was a smart move to keep going... the part about spray-painting the copters' windshields just makes the game sound even better! Some of the lines in the first two paragraphs sound a bit stilted, but you really hit a nice stride. By the end I was hooked, and the review concludes very nicely. It's a little bit different from any JGR review I've ever read before, and in a good way.

    I really wish I could vote for both, but I pick Genj.

    Ultimate Victor: Janus (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Asherdeus?? versus Wolfqueen??
    Asherdeus: Left 4 Dead 2
    Wolfqueen: Ys


    ASchultz:
    Asher--1 1/2 paragraphs? Really? To describe the boycott of the game? There are some zingers and one-offs, which don't add much to the game or the canon of insults I like/know, so really, I'd be more interested in some contrast about how usually a game takes too long. You make a good point about maybe seeing L4D2 as an expansion pack, but it's in the conclusion. By then, the bit about fanboys is burned in my mind.

    Then there's the switch from "it is in every measure a substantial improvement over the original" vs the ending "It isn't a remarkable leap forward for the franchise." What's in the middle is a lot better, thankfully, and if it feels formulaically laid out, it's GOOD formulated. I'd be interested in hearing more about Versus mode than that it is a good combination etc. and that's where wiping the 1st paragraph would give the reader more in his tank to pay attention to when you really get down to business.

    Wolfqueen--sometimes your essays feel like they are just trying to reach a word count. I think you haven't quite separated storytelling from putting together sentences we don't mind reading but that could be cut down. I think immediately getting to the angle of lesser graphics than the Turbo version vs the same mechanics to do damage would be good. You'd figure a lot would be kept, etc., and it seemed to surprise you that it wasn't just the constant story that you really liked.

    There's other stuff where I think you meant to say something different: "its shortness allows for greater variation." Do you mean that it doesn't pad anything with adventures you saw earlier in the game but with different palettes? I mean, you seem to make the point again later, after a detour about listening to the TCD music--again, I feel this BELONGS but you haven't found the right place to put it.

    This is another one of those essays that leave me feeling like I'm watching a chess game where I desperately want to kibitz. DO contrast the sameyness of the boss music with how different they are. DO mention earlier that you could listen to TCD clips and yeah, they're better than the NES, but the game doesn't need bells and whistles. I like this sort of contrast, I imagine, because it reminds the reader of what's really important, and to me, it shows how retro games are effective--they concentrate on one thing, and you forget the rough graphical/sound details. I'd be interested if you thought playing the NES + listening to TCD clips/seeing graphics was good enough.

    This review does seem to jump around, then focus on something a bit too obvious, and up against Asher's, which has the strong middle bit, it doesn't quite hold up.

    Winner: ASHERDEUS

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Asherdeus - Left for Dead 2: The online play was very well explained with enough details to understand the play mechanics. It is a shame that online play turns out to be unbalanced. While the new zombies were well documented the actual game play was not very well laid out in the review. I would like to have had a description of realism mode.

    Wolfqueen Ys: This review was fairly short and got right to the point which made reading it easy. Tactics and game play were well explained and the tactics of some of the bosses were a very nice touch.

    Asherdeus vs. Wolfqueen: Wolfqueen is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Asherdeus (Left for Dead 2) : The opening about the boycott was very amusing. While the rest of the review was worthwhile, it felt a bit too "by the numbers" to really grab me. I think that you've written towards an audience that is already familiar with the first game -- an audience that I'm not part of. So while it's a sensible approach, the straightforward monsters/characters/weapons/modes format isn't going to make me leap out of my seat and run to Gamestop. While I know what the game is about (killing zombies) you never quite covered what it's like to play the game. But it was a credible review that will help me believe the praise if a friend recommends it in the future.

    Wolfqueen's review of Ys doesn't open as strongly as Asherdeus's review, but it gives a clear picture of what it's like to play the game. Through some well-chosen examples and apt descriptions, you've thoroughly covered this version of Ys. Even though the writing style itself is appropriately casual, the review somehow feels like it's missing your personality. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I feel that although you've done a nice job at describing the game, you could dig a little deeper into why you liked it enough to give it an 8. The score fits; I just think you sometimes moved too quickly where you could have dwelled a bit longer.

    My pick: Wolfqueen

    Ultimate Victor: Wolfqueen (2-1)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Wolfqueen's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.

    //Zig
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 19, 2010:

    good observation zig. I edited the middle bit to be a lot shorter and read better, and it doesn't flow well now as is.

    congrats to the... people tied for 1st.
    board icon
    True posted July 19, 2010:

    Wooo! Scrapped by on that one, didn't I? Good match, Leroux. And thank you again to the judges for the quick and courteous comments on all the work this week. I hope none of you (mainly Zig) took offense to my last line. I had made the challenge that I would review something a judge had already done, and I let Zig pick the game. He chose Pocket Racers and gave me the "don't say I didn't warn you" on it. And I told him it couldn't possibly be that bad, but I let him know I would give him a definitive answer on whether or not I hated him later.

    That was my response, but seemed a little too lengthy to put in the actual review.

    So no malicious intent.

    Thanks again for judging guys. Give me a good score next week too, okay?
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 19, 2010:

    Thanks to the judges, and kudos to whoever I went up against this week. Congrats to my team for their hard-earned victory. They certainly deserve it more than I do.

    Edit: Schultz, I can only think of one other review I've written that says anything like that: Infamous, which I wrote before Just Cause 2 was even released.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 19, 2010:

    My thanks to the judges for their critiques-n-stuff. You mentioned a few minor glitchy sentences that I'll get around to improve some day.

    ASchultz: RE: JOKES -- You see! I do actually pay attention to critiques and stuff from time to time. You aren't the first person who's noticed that (particularly in pure bash reviews) I can get over-the-top in trying to be funny. RE: RIDDLER -- Yeah, that was all just stuff you'd do backtracking through areas and taking tiny dead-end deviations from the main paths. Could have made it more clear.

    CD: My drug-fuzzied mind seems to think Robin had NO role in the game. I didn't even think about that, considering how while that character is very prominent in comic books and animated cartoons, he really hasn't been all that noticeable in recent movies. Good point, though. He is a major player in Batman lore, so I'll have to see if I can find a way to put the Tails to Batman's Sonic in the review. As for upgrades, you get experience for beating enemies and stuff. When you "gain a level", you can pick an upgrade. Occasionally something really convoluted like Batman summoning the Batplane (or whatever it's called) to slam into a building in order to give him a necessary item to travel to the next part of the current region he's exploring happens.

    Zig: Yeah...I could have been a bit more clear about how significant Detective Mode is. Actually, I haven't played either Riddick or ANY Splinter Cell game (that damn J-RPG addiction I have). The only reason I played this one was because my friend and I wanted a game to play together, this got very good reviews and we both have been comic book geeks off and on through our lives. Yeah, my last line was a bit harsh. I basically took the concept that I played the game, liked it, it had some flaws and since I do like writing new reviews, I likely wouldn't make it a regular part of my gaming diet...and made it sound like the game was an okay deal for a boring rainy day, but not worth playing ever again.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 19, 2010:

    Wow, this week's matches were really close! I don't think anyone won 3-0...?

    Ashcultz: prepare to see another bash next week. What can I say? I play shitty games.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 20, 2010:

    nicely done, overdrive! I wish I'd had time to write something new, though this is probably my strongest 2009 review. Some useful advice from the judges too... To be honest, i used this because schultz had already given advice which i'd taken way back then. Wasn't expecting there to be more.. But now i have a good idea how i can make this one on par with my 2 most recent. Thanks!

    Forgive grammar. Posting this from my phone. New review next week i hope
    board icon
    Genj posted July 20, 2010:

    Well it's nice that our team finally won a match, but it kind of sucks to be the only person yet to win an individual match. But hey, I've had a tough schedule so far (two 1st round picks and a captain for the guy drafted 2nd to last) and my match with Janus seemed to be pretty close, so I think I'll avoid wallowing in self-pity. Thanks to the judges for their continued hard work. All three of you have voted for me at one point, so hopefully you will all do so again but during the same match.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 20, 2010:

    Thanks, as always, for the feedback. I'm glad to finally win one, as I'm sure the rest of us are, too. I'd say it was pretty close, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'm sure you'll win a match soon, genj.

    Anyway, congrats to the winners and all who participated, especially those who could get new stuff written that week. I still wish I could have. Heheh.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted July 20, 2010:

    Congratulations to the winners and the non-winners. We had some very good reviews this week. All of you are getting better and better and it is getting tougher to pick winners.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 20, 2010:

    Young Thor
    Action/Brawler
    July 20th, 2010
    Frima Studios
    PSN Network

    ADDED the listing.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 20, 2010:

    Genj, it's hard to believe you're 0-3. Your reviews have deserved more than that. Sometimes you just get bad matchups. I really liked all 3 reviews you faced.

    P.S. no sympathy points next week.

    Jerec, I remember holding off on minor annoying stuff because it was your first review in a while and I didn't want to kneecap someone getting back into things. Plus minds change in 9 months, or maybe I wasn't able to verbalize the stuff I really would've made suggestions for. It looks like you took care of the big stuff, and given you didn't have the chance to write something new, the refurbishing was a good strategy. You just faced a strong review.

    Suskie, I'll look at things again. I'm frustrated I didn't come up with an example. That was probably one of the least specific complaints I wrote. Unfortunately, it was rather late when I wrote that. The only thing I can do to avoid that in the future is, well, get started on things earlier. It's the least everyone deserves.
    board icon
    Leroux posted July 20, 2010:

    Thanks judges. Tough week to swallow with the comments showing a lot of contempt for something I thought would be a unique entry, but I'll live.

    Apologies to Venter and Jerec -- pin this one on me too.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted July 20, 2010:

    Pong is lionized. Space Invaders is romanticized. Asteroids is marginalized. I thought this was a really good opening and I thought you were going to follow that direction but you lost me in the middle. The review was well writen but I didn't just didn't get feeling I think you were aiming to get across.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 21, 2010:

    Did Schultz do his?

    Because he's crazy late if he didn't.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 21, 2010:

    Schultz never did his, no. OD says he'll have his up next weekend, which puts us two weeks behind in the ROTW. I'm this weekend, too.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 21, 2010:

    I'm making up ground. Sorry for the delay. Tomorrow, I think.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 21, 2010:

    Let's see how this works:



    I can back-port week 2 if anyone wants, too. Sorry for the delay.

    ETA: formatting suggestions are welcome. While team losses can be figured out from wins, it probably should be in there, for instance. Also, other stats you might want to see--now that I'm back in my photobucket account, I can twiddle all this.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 21, 2010:

    Might be up earlier than the weekend. I just want to get this week's review finalized first. And progress is slow on that. Caught a summer cold and wasn't motivated to do anything game-related today other than desultorily play through a dungeon or so of Summoner.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 21, 2010:

    Note to Ashcultz and OD: reading my above post, it comes off as accusatory, but that's not what I meant. I was just pointing out the facts.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 22, 2010:

    I'd like to cover a ROTW if the opportunity comes up.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 23, 2010:

    I have 7 now.

    That's as many as I had last year. I think I'll at least beat that, haha.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted July 23, 2010:

    Your columns (under indivuduals)are:

    Wins, number of -- Matches Lost -- Votes Won (aquired) -- (and) ??

    What is the last column? Votes Lost?
    board icon
    fleinn posted July 25, 2010:

    Game: Shatter
    Platform(s): PS3, PC
    Publisher: Sidhe
    Developer: Sidhe
    Genre: Breakout
    Release Date: 15th of March, 2010

    Review coming up. :).

    ADDED

    Thanks.
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 27, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: Janus v Leroux ~~~

    Janus?? versus Jerec??
    Janus: Beneath a Steel Sky: Remastered
    Jerec: Final Fantasy XII


    ASchultz:
    Janus--"allow me," "rather rotund," ... etc. There are some flourishes here which I feel you just don't need, but other than that I think you do very well in establishing the entertaining moments that save BaSS from becoming a mishmosh of sci-fi platitudes and already-done point and clicking. It certainly has me curious as to what the puzzles are and has me googling the name of those Amiga startup roms that shouldn't be legally distributed but everyone knows how to get them anyway. I have little to say about this review because I just like it a lot.

    Jerec--this is a good review and one you felt you needed to write. I double checked the wk4 topic before posting this and wasn't surprised it was a bit rushed. If you want, I can run down some of the more pedantic stuff. But I enjoyed many observations, like that there were 2 directors--or that Balthier was eclipsed by Vaan for some crazy reason. There's some lazy phrasing, though, like hot jailbait or grizzled old soldier. Also "Penelo...only contribution is as a moral compass." That sounds like a pretty important one if you play RPGs for the story. Overall, though, I think you can chop down how the characters work together in the story, and maybe tie up their differences with a sentence or two of--well, it doesn't matter, they can all level up the same. It seems you have one or two "money" observations that get to the point with each review--many reviews are lucky to have one--that your "it's a shame" paragraph led me to say, it's a shame THIS was put so far back.

    Also--early you say Balthier was wasted on this game, but the conclusion says he just tips it into the likable category. This weakens the conclusion substantially, as does the parenthetical about XIII--it's one of those flabby phrases that people throw out with "good morning," eg could be better, could be worse.

    Winner: Janus

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Janus Beneath a Steel Sky: Remastered: It seems a shame that the game did not expound upon the vision given to us in the opening paragraph of the review. This review gives a very clear picture of the game and the examples explained some of the features and mechanics of the game.

    Jerec Final Fantasy XII: I felt the fifth paragraph would have been a better opening because the paragraphs before it took a bit too long to get into the game itself. While the political intrigue in the game is important to the story I think this missed pointing out some flaws in the game that were just barely touched upon in the review. The Gambit system was so central to the battle but only briefly touched upon in the review.

    Janus vs. Jerec: Janus is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Janus (Beneath a Steel Sky: Remastered)
    Wow. From the opening description of a dystopian world to the oddball character descriptions, this sounds like a delightfully entertaining farce that only the Brits seem to be able to come up with (see also: Death's Head). This review had me glued from beginning to end; my poor iPod Touch G-Generation Gather Beat 2.0 has been neglected for a full year, but I'll be downloading this one the next time I'm at the wireless cafe. I enjoyed your enthusiasm, your vividness, your hints, your writing. Beautiful.

    Jerec (Final Fantasy XII)
    I really like the point you make in your introduction, and as someone who has played FFXII, I completely agree. It was a beautifully realized world, and for a while, I enjoyed the game. The point when I realized FF12 had gone to crap was when I had to find all those dumb little furry things to open a gate. Sounds like you had the same experience. I had completely forgotten about Penelo; this game really dropped the ball with its characters. And its leveling system. Argh! I like this review a lot. This is a hard game to cover because there's so much wrong with it... but it's not a terrible game, really. After a thorough pounding, your conclusion does a fine job of bringing us back to that reality.

    Anyways. I pick Janus.

    Ultimate Victor: Janus (3-0)

    *****************************************

    Bluberry?? versus Venter??
    Bluberry: Castlevania: Circle of the Moon
    Venter: Young Thor


    ASchultz:
    Venter--I really like this review. It captures one of my old complaints about myths--too much to do at once--and doesn't editorialize too soon, and I like ground pounds not working versus teleporting ghosts. But oh, please, please, never use "utilize" again. That said, the review really moves along and establishes repetition without being repetitive, and I think the ending is quite funny--in the truth sort of wait, not bust a gut laughing. We all need fill in the time gap games and I can see why this is a good one.

    Bluberry, your review is, once again, unapologetic, though it does right in saying it's *not* for some people. And it's a polar opposite from Venter's, about a game that's just for fun. I think we all have this sort of game that's tough for us, and we like it that way. A few things do feel out of place, though. Mentioning numbers and thirds and halves--well, the mathematical stuff cut into the imagery and pace you established. And the off-side about Overdrive broke up a good argument. Of course, you take some risks telling people they're wimps. But you take another with an inside joke and this misfired a it.

    Venter took no such risks and made no such mistakes. This was a tough one to pick, but

    Winner: Venter

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Bluberry Castlevania: Circle of the Moon: It is made very clear that this game is very difficult. We also get the sense that the reviewer liked the game despite this but is this difficulty compared to other Castlevania games or other games in the platform genre.

    Venter Young Thor: I was happy to see that the game was a PSP mini and only cost 4.99 because the length of the game seemed to be rather short. The game was detailed very nicely and the fact it could be enjoyed by youngsters means parents should not have a problem picking it up for the young ones in the family. One thing I would liked to have known is if Thor was given the hammer to save world or did he always have the hammer and therefore was the only choice to go and save the world.

    Bluberry vs. Venter: Venter is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Bluberry (Castlevania: Circle of the Moon)

    What's the Crissaegrim? Anyways, this is a great review with a few errors (example 1: "challange", example 2: "challange's sake"). I really didn't need you to remind me that COTM isn't perfect, as I never assumed it was (and that's a pretty hackney phrase), but most of the review flows freely and uses wording that still feels fresh, even if this is a year-old review you bum. Why don't you and OD do a Castlevania showdown next time?

    Honestgamer (Young Thor)
    What kind of twisted childhood did you lead? Reading about Thor, Odin, and Loki was anything but inaccessible! What child wants to play as a gawky little kid when they could instead be the mighty Thor, wielder of the thunder hammer and wearer of the horned helm? I'm half-kidding about that, but when you started talking about the short worlds, I really started to genuinely feel like this game is insulting to children. I think we, as a collective, expect too little of childrens' games. But I'll stop editorializing now. This is a completely reasonable consumer report, which is what a review needs to be, but the subject matter isn't interesting in the least (hence why I fell into the editorializing mindset so readily). I respect your ability to put together competent, professional, and -- most importantly -- fair reviews for games like this, but it's not going to beat Bluberry's COTM.

    My pick: Bluberry.

    Ultimate Victor: Venter (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Asherdeus?? versus Leroux??
    Asherdeus: Split/Second
    Leroux: Edward Randy


    ASchultz:
    Asher--some forgivable grammar stuff here but the review overall works well. Its/it's, etc. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs work well but still this review feels hesitant a bit--mentioning diversity, variety and freshness, then bouncing to what doesn't work before getting back to it. The examples are good stuff, but watch the common misuse of aggravating. Also, I dunno--constant explosions + rock-solid framerate? "A full suite of online modes..." maybe a word or two about if they're similar to the game? Would you even get to control an attack helicopter? This would be a cool way to wrap things up.

    Leroux--though I think there's some over-finessing, I overall like the storytelling here. I mean, the introduction's cool. But "Such is how?" Or the dotted points which sound a bit like the advertisement of a penny dreadful? Perhaps too many examples here. Oh, also, you said utilize. Other people did too. I'll call them out. Stuff like fighting a tank in a Model T is good. Overall, though, I think if this review may bounce me back and forth a bit more than I like while describing the game, it's just a lot of fun and it's an eloquent statement for games that didn't quite work. Also, newfangled for the health system? It seems like it should've been done before. I also don't know if you can DO that in a "perfect" review--leaving the controls out for so long before saying, this is where it fails--I was wondering what you were doing myself--but this doesn't have to be and I'll remember this review a lot better than others this round, for better or for worse. This is the sort of review I was waiting to make a big mistake I was pretty sure it would, but then I wound up enjoying it all the way through, and it reminded me of why I liked some other games despite it all. And given Asher's bounced me around a bit, too...

    Winner: Leroux

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Asherdeus - Split/Second: The introduction to the overall story line of the game was interesting and goes on to explain the game plays out like a game show of some sort. It was a good idea to point that out early so we understand it and how that relates to progress in the game. The review flowed quite nicely and gave us plenty of information on the dynamics of the game itself.

    Leroux - Edward Randy: From start to finish the review takes us on a ride through a game that is doomed to succeed at being a failure. Yet it is that very failure that lets it sore to an unimaginable height. The examples given were right on the mark in helping us understand what was good and bad about the game. It would have been interesting to know how a second player fit into the game but that was not mentioned.

    Asherdeus vs. Leroux: difficult choice but by slight margin Leroux is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Asherdeus (Split/Second)
    I've read three reviews for this game, but this is the one that really made me understand the TV-show concept (maybe it just had to soak in through repetition). It's a cool idea, and I keep hearing good things about the game. I'm not a fan of mode discussion approach; based on your L4D2 review and this, I'm assuming you dig that style of review. I do think you touch on a good point early on, though; why have different modes if they're not terribly different? (As an FYI, I appreciate when someone explains why one mode significantly changes the game's feel -- I'm not as interested when they're just variants of the same core mechanics). This is a review that sounds educated, but it really didn't give me a strong sense of the experience. It's hard to say whether this is a "fault" of the review, or if it's just because I've read so much about this game already that it no longer feels special.

    Leroux (Edward Randy)
    Someone pays attention. This is the kind of game I'm bound to love -- after all, I loved that other spectacular failure called Earnest Evans -- and this is the kind of review for such a game that I love to read... filled with colorful screens, expressive phrases, intriguing thoughts on game design, and even an Earnest Evans reference. I've read this four or five times already and it still feels fresh; if there's a fault in this piece, I'm blind to it. NICE GUTS!

    My pick: Leroux

    Ultimate Victor: Leroux (3-0)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Leroux's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 27, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: Wolfqueen vs Overdrive ~~~

    Suskie?? versus Overdrive??
    Suskie: Alan Wake
    Overdrive: Enchanted Arms


    ASchultz:
    Suskie: It seems like a simple formula doesn't it? Describe the game, describe what it does better, add some detail, and throw in some narrative voice. Show why it makes sense that it doesn't make sense. I'm biased for reviews of games like that, but I think even without my bias, this is a strong review. Rereading the review, I can see why you thought the harvester was stupid, and why it would not be, with the other examples. This gave me one of those moments where I realized someone was reviewing a game worth looking at, showing what a game could be and at least ensuring that I was able to get to the main points of it even if I did not have the time. I suppose it's tough to describe dreams without making people groan. That goes for dreams in games, too. I neither groaned nor wanted to while reading this review. But I nodded my head a lot.

    Overdrive: I came down tough the first two weeks but this is another good review. The combat system description was engaging, and describing the characters worked decently. But I still think there's better. "Illustrating this is the way the characters were written." "always there to pick each other up and get things back on track" OK, these aren't ghastly cliches, but they don't need to be there. I think I get the point--these outward stereotypes don't take a lot of time to whine and snap their friends who do back to reality quickly. So we have combat and characters--but the shaggy dog quest you describe takes much too long. And if it describes a couple hours' action, then I think you're dwelling on the bad bits. Maybe, like the characters in the game, you should've focused on the good stuff a bit more.

    Winner: Suskie

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Suskie Alan Wake: Even in the movies it is difficult to bring true terror to the audience and we would expect that in a game it could be even more difficult. The picture of walking down a darkened street being only accompanied by the constant buzzing of a payphone does bring chills. So with that description is does seem clear that this game succeeds at bringing horror to the game without being a horrible game.

    Overdrive - Enchanted Arms: Those boring fetch quests are a part of every J/RPG that has ever been made and there is that big sigh of relief when they are finally over. This game appears to be no exception to that rule of RPG quests. While there was a lot in the review I felt some aspects of the game were glossed over and only given a cursory nod. We are not even told why or from where the game gets its name.

    Suskie vs. Overdrive: Suskie is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Suskie (Alan Wake)
    This sounds reminiscent of Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, except that this one sounds good. That other one sucked. I really liked your examples provided throughout the review; it feels like you told me a lot, but I don't feel spoiled, because your writing gives off the impression that there's so much more. This is a great example of whetting the reader's interest. It's impeccably written, too. The only grammatical error I noticed was this sentence: ...the otherwise flawless web that Remedy have spun for us. Since Remedy is a company, it takes the singular verb tense "has". One question: if I buy this game, will I see the ending? I heard somewhere that the last episodes aren't on the disc. Or are those pieces more like a sequel/sidestory?

    Overdrive (Enchanted Arms)
    I like this review, I really do, but using a review for a game that a judge already reviewed himself isn't a good idea when facing an opponent like Suskie. Even though I often found myself nodding in appreciation (I especially liked the example of "Laughing Man"), you've handicapped yourself in a battle against a review that entertainingly and vividly describes a game I've never played. I'm not trying to be mean -- strategy counts in these contests, so it's just advice for future matches. From a website perspective, I'm glad you wrote this. Enchanted Arms needs all the love it can get!

    My pick: Suskie

    Ultimate Victor: Suskie (3-0)

    *****************************************

    Wolfqueen?? versus True??
    Wolfqueen: Fantasy Wars
    True: NIER


    ASchultz:
    Wolfqueen--why contradictory? Surely you mean contrarian? Still despite some too easy transitions ("Things start out easily enough," "Tip of the iceberg," and utilizing,) I think this review works. The best part is describing the environments, and if some parts seem like the word count could be chopped down, or you detail some tricks too much e.g. showing one side than the other--this is effective narrative if not overused--I still have a good idea what the game's about and the sort of tricks challenges it expects from you, the tricks it suckers you into thinking you can get away with and the higher levels that stifle them. "If you still cant tell..." feels patronizing at the end, though. I mean, that puts all the fault on the reader, and confidence in a review is important, but...

    True--this was one of those reviews I was really rooting for but it never quite worked out for me. The first paragraph waffles a lot, and the "one single element" seems too vaguely defined. "Heart" is one of those tricky terms. Perhaps you feel Nier faces real adversity? Perhaps you enjoy the mystery of the story with him and his daughter? A lot is described later, and yeah, you have to have heart to think of it, but--it's up there with "hustle" describing a mediocre ballplayer. Describing the side quests also gets tangled. They're dull, then it's good they're only money, then the quests may play a major part from being dull, despite really opening up the story. Maybe you see it in retrospect. But just saying something is dull can leave my eyes glassing over. Let's move on! There are some other phrases that seem like they should mean more than they do, too. The conclusion has me a bit confused, too--did you need to stop playing at points, or did you want to replay the game in whole? This leaves a lot of questions--not the "and what else" but "wait, don't you need to fill in..."

    Winner: Wolfqueen

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Wolfqueen Fantasy Wars: It was nice to know that you could raise your peasant to halberdiers to knights to paladins but where did those peasants come from. Most of the fundamentals seemed to be covered but in addition to managing your army did you also need to manage resources. I would also liked to have been given a bit more information on the elf-dwarf alliance, spoiler or not.

    True NIER: The opening paragraphs told the story so well that I could almost visualize the scene. While some reviews open really well they often falter at keeping that pace throughout. While this review kept a good pace I felt some things may have been overlooked. I was not sure how the graphics turned out, what kinds of puzzles to expect and what type of combat system I would find in the game.

    Wolfqueen vs. True: True

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Wolfqueen (Fantasy Wars)
    Contra isn't oppressively difficult! You must be a girl! Oh... wait... Anyway, I get what you're saying. It's the difference between a game that's just hard, versus a game that's engaging. Nice distinction. I did laugh at this early line: I enjoy strategy because I know Im smart and so seek to prove that against anyone daring enough to try me. Moving into the description of the game -- the paragraphs about monster types really didn't do much for me, as I was still waiting to hear why the game is difficult. Knowing that trolls are weak to heroes or ballistae, and that flying goblins are weak to magic and arrows, doesn't make the game sound hard; maintaining a diverse assortment of troops is pretty standard for any (good) strategy game. The bits about limits on abilities/levels and the use of terrain aren't particularly unusual for a (good) strategy game either. To show that a game is engaging, you need to move beyond the surface elements (description of mechanics) and address the deeper pieces (scenario layout and objectives; or, to put it another way, how the game really plays). At this point you're probably thinking I hated your review, but I didn't. Even though I'm not convinced of the challenge, I do believe that the game is good. If it weren't, you wouldn't impart such importance to the mechanics. So it's effective, just not quite in the way that you appear to have intended.

    EDIT: Having completed my judging, I went back and read the feedback topic. Touching on the deeper bits might also help with your "emotion" concerns, without being too direct about it.

    True (Nier)
    Square didn't develop Nier. You may be groaning right now, but since I'm a huge Cavia fan, I couldn't help but grimace, especially when you claimed that Square is the best at telling stories (you know that's not true --you've played Lunar!) I'll now shed a memorial tear for Cavia and move on to the rest of your review. There are some parts that I really like, such as your acknowledgement of Yonah's unpretentious nature. I also liked the early bit about taking chances, as this game takes a lot of chances. I wish you had expounded on that more (from a gameplay perspective). Unfortunately, the eventual angle of "the game is good because repetitive, unnecessary sidequests build character" isn't particularly compelling. You're on the right path, but be bolder! Imagine that you were on trial for doing what you thought was right. Would you apologize for doing the wrong thing and profess good intentions, or would you fiercely defend the righteousness of your actions? You start in that direction but never quite floor the accelerator. This is a very emotional review that lacks convincing justification. It may have helped to spend less wording on the prologue, and more on later gameplay.

    My pick: Wolfqueen

    Ultimate Victor: Wolfqueen (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Genj?? versus Zippdementia??
    Genj: Onechanbara
    Zippdementia: Young Thor


    ASchultz:
    Zombies and Norse Mythology--very different, but apparently they can make for similar games.

    Genj, I dunno about the first paragraph. You see, you seem to have sought this game out purposefully. And yet, you "don't know what did it." Later you provide a brief history of the game which suggests you knew what you were getting into. Or were you not one of the "Any idiot(s who) can glance at the cover and realize Onechanbara doesnt promise a compelling narrative?" Just say you weren't looking for a unique challenge. You get a certain amount of nudge-nudge-wink-wink per review. Given this, I think you do a good enough job of discussing the actual game versus the graphics and how it has some virtues.

    Zipp, I like how this review brings up Norse Mythology without really drenching us with it. We know the basics, and we suspect there's more cool stuff. But I think that you get too involved in bashing. Yes, it's fun to look at bad games, but you cross yourself up with "that's the best thing you can say about it" and describing the Mystic Forest, which seems interesting. Also, since the game took <4 hours, why not spend the Mystic Forest time looking for all those paths? As for the bashing, it's well done enough, but the game's only so interesting. By analogy, a review of it can only be so interesting unless it discusses possibilities. You do so with the Mystic Forest, and that's when you're at your best, but there's a bit too much pedestrian bashing elsewhere. Also, given Venter's review, there seems like there could've been more to say.

    Genj's game is not so hot but he feels more interested in the game, and he describes it better. Perhaps he gave himself more to describe.

    Winner: Genj

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Genj Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad: The title of the game in no way suggests what the game is really about. There isnt even a zombie on the box cover so it is a good thing we have reviews like this to set us straight. The game is well explained and almost sounds fun until we get to the boring repetitive part. At least we know there are some combos that let you change things up once in awhile.

    Zipp Young Thor: I believe the squirrel in question is Ratatoskr the messenger who carries messages to Nidhogg. I have to wonder if the size constraints on the game limited what Firma was able to do within the game. We are given a clear picture of the game and why the reviewer thought the game was boring and therefore deserved a low score but I wonder if the fact it was a mini was overlooked.

    Genj vs. Zipp: Another very close match but Genj is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Genj (Onechanbara Bikini Samurai Squad)
    Yeah, Annna sucked. And it's spelled battoujutsu. This is a difficult game to review for the exact reason you address in the conclusion: it's not a good game, but it's a fun one. The goods news is that you treaded that line effectively all throughout. The middle grows a bit long in the tooth (a little too much description of the various attacks, especially considering it's such a simple game), but the review begins and ends well, so that's quite forgivable. Nicely done.

    Zippdementia (Young Thor)
    all of the decorations have horns.
    Most of them will charge forward to make their presence known and then halt to see what Thor does next.
    I dont understand why, out of all the vast population of giants, serpents, and monsters that permeate the Poetic Edda, Frima Studios chose a messenger squirrel to serve as one of the bosses.

    I figured I would just italicize several sentences that I thought were cool. Unless you're just a big fat liar, this was an entertaining review that definitely made the game sound lame. Some of the mechanical descriptions wore on me, which isn't surprising since it sounds like a simplistic (but dull) game.

    I liked both reviews. I'm picking Genj because I think his stance was trickier and, for pulling it off, deserves the win.

    Ultimate Victor: Genj (3-0)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Wolfqueen's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 27, 2010:

    Just a note to all that I am really enjoying seeing all this new stuff each week. Thanks for producing such great content!

    //Zig
    board icon
    Genj posted July 27, 2010:

    A much needed strong showing from our team this week. I'm pretty sure the standings are all extremely close at this point (Janus & Leroux should be tied for first, we're in third by 1 match I believe). The next two weeks will be crucial. Thanks to the judges for their continued work. I hope to see you all vote for me again soon. Good job to Zipp. I thought I'd be 0-4 this week.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 27, 2010:

    I knew it would be a tough week but... ouch! Full-on-loss for Team Overdrive! We may be going out next week, I don't know, but I'm determined to come out of this with at least one personal 3-0 and I think the team can still pull a win next week and maybe make it to the finals.

    I'm not good at math so I haven't done the particulars, but that's what I think.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 27, 2010:

    QUICK LOOK BEHIND YOU IT'S A PAYPHONE
    board icon
    jerec posted July 27, 2010:

    Well done, Janus. I'd wish for more time on that review, but it'd already taken me 4 years. >_>

    Thanks judges!
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 27, 2010:

    The only grammatical error I noticed was this sentence: ...the otherwise flawless web that Remedy have spun for us. Since Remedy is a company, it takes the singular verb tense "has".

    Ha. Couldn't resist, could you?

    To answer your question, Zig, the disc most definitely contains the full game. The ending is ambiguous (to put it mildly) but from a game design perspective, the final chapter builds to a very exciting and satisfying climax, i.e. it doesn't feel like anything was left out. There was a DLC released recently that added to the story or something, but since I only rented the game, I haven't played it.

    Anyway, good match, go team, etc. Props to Genj for pulling in a long-overdue win this week. He's really been working for it so I'm glad the judges gave him the victory.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted July 28, 2010:

    Thanks for the kind words, judges! It's good to know that my new content is still worth reading, even when I'm covering games where keeping a long-time gamer interested can prove challenging. I do still write a lot of stuff, and a lot of it maybe isn't for the "big" games, so sometimes I worry that I'm wasting everyone's time. It's always good to hear that I'm not. At least, that's how I take the feedback that I got here.

    Congrats, as usual, to the rest of the people who submitted stuff this week, and thanks go out to the other members on my team for ensuring that we're still very much in this thing. I wouldn't mind having another team tournament ring and so far that's not off the table. I like it!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted July 28, 2010:

    Thanks as always for the feedback. I'm glad all our effort is finally starting to pay off, or so it seems. Congrats especially to genj for pulling a much-deserved win.

    A note to CD: You don't play many strategy games, do you? haha It's pretty much implied that you're given a starting army consisting of basic units. Really, that's not something I want to spell out to people because, quite frankly, they're not idiots (and I'm not implying that you are with this; sorry if it looks that way =x). Besides, if I were really that thorough, the review would be 50 miles long, and it's already long enough, haha.

    Anyway, thanks again everyone. Congrats to everyone else, too.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 28, 2010:

    The team tournament has two magical effects upon RotW. First, there tends to be a lot of reviews submitted each week, making this one hell of a tough dealie to get placed in the top three. Second, as a competitor/half-ass captain sort in the tournament, I tend to spend all my time playing games and struggling to write a review which inevitably loses. Which is why this particular RotW is coming out well over a week late. Them's the breaks, kids!

    Enough o' that talk. One review per person eligible and all that!




    THIRD PLACE: Left 4 Dead 2 (PC) by asherdeus

    I don't pay attention to the antics of those crazy, obsessive fanboy types, so your intro had me amused. REALLY AMUSED when you mentioned how they did their "boycott" wrong by buying the game. I'd say the thing that got this review third place over a number of other deserving titles was how you simply did the best job of nabbing my attention with a clever intro that segued into a convincing review. You mentioned the additions and improvements from the first L4D to this one. Very effective stuff.

    SECOND PLACE: Asteroids (Arcade) by Leroux_Deux

    While reading this review, I could see why it possibly lost in the contest. It was a bit of a tough, in-depth read of an ancient game. Conversely, that is why it's placing so highly for me in this RotW. As a gamer who's been around since the olden days of Asteroids, I ate this thing up. I found it super-informative and it gave me a ton of great insight into one of those old classics from yesteryear. It might not be a review for everyone, but it was one that I loved reading, so kudos to you for that!

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Armada 2526 (PC) by EmP

    Damn...I'm giving you another win. That sucks...

    Anyway, I'm not really big into these PC strategy games. If you gave some sort of more technical description of what was going on, I'd have blankly stared at the screen for long enough to feel I'd given you your fair allotment of time, closed the window and never thought of it again. Instead, you gave a wildly entertaining description of your trip through the game. You mention things like treaties, keeping your peoples' morale high, the building of advanced weaponry and all that...but in the guise of a story. Just a fun review that kept me enthralled from beginning to end.




    Pretty much the majority of unmentioned writers can claim some sort of honorable mention recognition. This was a great week for submissions, as virtually everything was of high quality and enjoyable for me to read the sort of thing that, obviously, is good for the site. Now, it's time for Blu and I to iron out our plans for our 28th DOOM vs. DOOM match-up. This one is in honor of Zig, who loves DOOM vs. DOOM and wishes he could have it every damn week!
    board icon
    EmP posted July 28, 2010:

    There's a new RotW milestone for me!

    Thank you, old chum. This week really was awesome for the site, as it saw a huge influx of killer reviews, so getting the nod means a lot. Especailly since it's from you. It's killing you to do so, isn't it? Isn't it?

    I've already said how much I liked Leroux's review, so I shall give him no further praise. Instead I'll big up everyone else with a special nod to Ash (who I'm glad to see back). Keep it up -- or I'll whine about more poorly translated Saturn games!

    board icon
    Suskie posted July 28, 2010:

    I might point out that the week of July 4-10 still hasn't been done. I'm only concerned because I subbed a review that week, although I don't know why that matters, because I already have all of the milestones and now clearly have nothing to live for.

    Congrats to the three yahoos listed above me.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 28, 2010:

    We all talked about it and you've been banned from ROTW Suskie. We just forgot to tell you.

    This week's win is well deserved. Armada 2565 (or whatever the number is) is one of my favorite reviews on the site.
    board icon
    Suskie posted July 28, 2010:

    We all talked about it and you've been banned from ROTW Suskie.

    That's cool. I think the damage is done by now anyway.
    board icon
    True posted July 28, 2010:

    Thanks judges, congratulations Wolfqueen. We'll get them next time team.
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 28, 2010:

    With no permanent replacement for Rand and Schultz being buried by judging 12 reviews a week, keeping up has been hard. Hell, I was way late because I needed to finish Enchanted Arms and write a review last week..and then I needed time to read and critique double-digit reviews (I hate not doing any RotW judging in one sitting), which delayed me longer.

    If Schultz can't get to it or rather would not, since he is judging an extending contest on a weekly basis, I'll do the J4-10 RotW. Probably either this weekend or next Tues-Wed. So, if you read this, Schultz, let me know if you're cool with that.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 28, 2010:

    Then we just have to find someone to do Rand's week. Maybe Jason? Or Jerec?
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 29, 2010:

    If someone can post the weeks that need doing and the reviews that were submitted I can do them all by Friday.

    EDIT: I looked at the dates. All we need are Schultz's week and cover for Rand this week. I'll do this week. I can do the other one, but I'll wait for ASchultz to say whether he's doing it or not.
    board icon
    jerec posted July 29, 2010:

    Next few weeks are going to be hectic for me. Moving house and all that. Might not have Internet for a short while. So I'm not going to be reliable.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 29, 2010:

    Oh, I must have missed Janus' post. That sounds good to me!
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 29, 2010:

    Week 4 stats:



    It's really up for grabs.
    board icon
    zigfried posted July 29, 2010:

    Tight race here.

    //Zig
    board icon
    overdrive posted July 29, 2010:

    Man, Zipp, we suck...the last two on the list.

    TEAM: We need to win the final two weeks to make the playoffs. NO FUCKING QUESTIONS!!!! You fight like your lives depend on this week. And they do. The Internet is a wonderful beast. I will be able to find both of you! And you can believe that while exacting my justice in a way that would make Charlie Manson be all like "WTF? You're sick, dude!", I will ignore how my inept performance led to our failure!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 30, 2010:

    Yeah, we do. I happen to know it's because Janus bribed the judges, though. It may also have something to do with me turning down Zig in the bedroom and instead sending pictures of myself wearing nothing but a corncob pipe to Aschultz.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted July 30, 2010:

    wolfqueen - A note to CD: You don't play many strategy games, do you?
    Not really no, but I do know how to play those kinds of game. Re-reading I was not clear on what I meant. What I wanted to know is if you build a place where you recruit peasents and what does it take to build the recruitment centers. Gold, Lumber, Iron that kind of thing, because if I am going to play that kind of game I want to know those things beforehand.


    Congratulations to the winners and the non-winners alike.
    board icon
    aschultz posted July 30, 2010:

    instead sending pictures of myself wearing nothing but a corncob pipe to Aschultz.

    You were on the right track. A straw hat woulda done the trick.
    board icon
    Genj posted July 30, 2010:

    EmP, I am up to 9. Get me out of last place, you charlatan.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted July 30, 2010:

    I have five.

    B - Beneath a Steel Sky: Remastered
    C - Castlevania Puzzle: Encore of the Night
    D - Doctor Who: The Adventure Games - City of the Daleks and Blood of the Cybermen
    H - Hook Champ
    S - Sin and Punishment: Successor of the Skies
    board icon
    zippdementia posted July 30, 2010:

    Scat the dog pill! Why didn't I think of that?!
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 30, 2010:

    toroid is a donut & while it could be topologically equivalent, it doesn't need to be

    i'm sorry schultz but topological equivalence is, surprisingly enough, an equivalence relation. if X1, X2, and X3 are three topological spaces then:

    1.) reflexivity: the identity map from X1 to X1 is a homeomorphism
    2.) transitivity: if f and g are the given homeomorphisms from X1 to X2 and X2 to X3 respectively then g(f) is the desired homeomorphism
    3.) symmetry: if X1 is topologically equivalent to X2 and we have a homeomorphism f, then f^{-1}: X2 --> X1 is also a homeomorphism

    in conclusion please shut up. asteroid's playing field is a certain quotient map (gluing, if you will) of the plane, which by definition IS the torus. there is no could here.
    board icon
    Leroux posted July 31, 2010:

    Before I used the word toroid, I made sure it made sense. The first rule when using words you come across and want to use, I think. When X-mapped around to X and Y mapped around to Y, I was absolutely sure standing on the surface would be a toroid. Ideally, I guess, and I was pre-disposed to a pre-Columbus-like map of things (because the world is still often perceived as flat).

    The uniformity in the Asteroids playing field does not make sense, however, because for a true toroid perspective, everything would be uniform (and from an overhead perspective as in Asteroids, then, curved). In Asteroids the middle and top/bottom of the same screen utilize the same overhead physics, but there is almost a warp connecting X- to X+ and Y- to Y+. I took this as Schultz's issue: the topology is actually defined by the player.

    I'm not a huge fan of everything that was said, but this was a really good point I thought. From the perspective of the player, it's not a toroid, and when describing a game to the prospective player that perspective is important. This was really good feedback, I thought.
    board icon
    bluberry posted July 31, 2010:

    there is likely distortion (which if you want to nitpick the critique isn't a topological issue), but even from the player's perspective and the paths you'll want to take you're still playing on a torus. if you're in the upper left corner, what's the fastest way to the lower right? asteroids may look like the plane but it's still not simply connected.

    it's actually not as distorted as you'd think - the torus admits a plane geometry anyway.
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 01, 2010:

    I appreciate the correction. I still feel the word is overkill. The screen wraps. Isn't that more effective? Isn't it something that will take less than 10 days to sort out?

    Reasonably educated people see toroid, they think torus, then doughnut. Reviews for old games like Asteroids can make people think. They should. But that is the wrong sort of making people think. Especially when you are saying the appeal is the simplicity.
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 01, 2010:

    A sombrero with castanets would have been an acceptable alternate solution.

    I won't discuss others. Surprise me. That's what the TT is about at its best, right?
    board icon
    honestgamer posted August 02, 2010:

    Let me know what you find, at any rate. This is the sort of stuff that we do need to think about to increase traffic to the site. The giveaways don't seem to be hurting, either. Our audience on Twitter is slowly growing. It's not yet a substantial source of incoming traffic, but it could become that if we keep at it. A few thousand members following one or more twitter feeds could mean a lot more exposure for anything that we choose to highlight on those accounts.
    board icon
    fleinn posted August 05, 2010:

    Game: Hustle Kings
    Platform(s): PS3 (PSN)
    Publisher: Sony Computer Entertainment
    Developer: VooFoo Studios
    Genre: Sports (billiards)
    Release Date: 28th of January, 2010

    ..review about ready.

    ADDED

    Thank you.
    board icon
    zigfried posted August 06, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: Wolfqueen v Leroux ~~~

    Genj?? versus Leroux??
    Genj: Too Human
    Leroux: Super Mario Bros 3


    ASchultz:
    Genj's review feels serviceable but never really soars--perhaps it gets tangled in mentioning too often that the game has elements of Norse mythology and science fiction. Stuff like the last 3 sentences of paragraph 2--bounces the reader back and forth when the sentences probably could be shuffled. Every paragraph feels like it could be pared down and there are lots of phrases that could be tweaked (tons of cool weapons...it's a blast) and that sort of thing may work a couple times but the review goes to the well a bit too often. I'm also confused about the death scene--they made you invincible, so apparently you die in combat, but it's not how you die in Valhalla--reorganization would make this clear.

    I enjoyed Leroux's review. It seems to know when to shut up leaving me wanting a little more. I think it's about right to compact the later worlds into a much shorter span than the starts. It's a lot of fun, and if the next-last paragraph nags me a bit with inside-joke puns, that's okay. Perhaps I'd like to hear about a silly trick or two you used to get better. On playing this game, it is neat both to see for the first time and learn the secrets of. That's hard to capture, and if it's not done perfectly here, it's done well.

    Winner: LEROUX

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Genj - Too Human: Norse robots are about a strange as this game seemed to turn out. This review read somewhat disjointed for me. Starting paragraphs with Unfortunately it all doesnt work. and Theres another problem too: seemed wrong. There were a few holes too as alignment was mentioned but not explained and five character classes are mentioned but only three are listed.

    Leroux - Super Mario Bros 3: I have been playing games since 81 but I have not played (but am familiar with) any Super Mario Brothers game and this review does not inspire me to try. This review seems more a homage to the game than a review of the game. Even though it is well written the references show upon blind eyes, or fall upon deaf ears if you prefer.

    Genj vs. Leroux: Leroux is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Genj (Too Human)
    I guess Silicon Knights realized that cyberpunk was dead, hence the need for injecting vikings. Anyways, I don't know your own thoughts about this review, but I thought it was the strongest/tightest review you've submitted thus far for the contest. Every detail felt pertinent and you justified the 5/10 score appropriately. It was really an interesting read that looked at what the game once appeared to be, what it is, and then clearly labeled and addressed each item that would be important for such a game. It's an effective and descriptive review. The pun in the last line was pretty horrendous, though!

    Leroux (Super Mario Bros 3)
    I love to see emotional reviews like this. Unfortunately, this one doesn't connect with me. It probably doesn't help that I never played SMB3 (and to date, have never cared to do so). You make a point about segues that feels uncommon and insightful and I think that's a very smart thing to do when writing about such a popular game; it gives the writing some lasting relevance. I respect your spirit, but I'm not stirred.

    My pick: Genj

    Ultimate Victor: Leroux (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Wolfqueen?? versus Venter??
    Wolfqueen: Half-Life 2
    Venter: LEGO Harry Potter


    ASchultz:
    Wolfqueen's review grew on me. First I thought, this isn't really about the game, but on rereading it was pretty clear it was. While I can do without the "Through Gordon's Eyes" chorus, everything between it works well. I put my cynic hat on, saying, "yes, but what is this game ABOUT," and on reading the other reviews and re-reading, yeah, it's all there.

    I didn't click on this til the end and noticed it was a featured review. I wasn't surprised, looking back on it.

    Venter's introduction perhaps reads too much like HP fanboyism. "The mystery is there" + "that fact" = well, something subjective can't be fact. That sort of thing. I'd rather read: "LEGO HP 1-4 works way better than LEGO IJ2. If it has too much collection, so be it." And WRT the words in the movie vs the game--isn't it easier to say "It's only for fans?" But I think where this review falls sohort of Wolfqueen's is, it reads a bit like an instruction brochure ("For the most part" paragraph.) Then "What we don't see here, the mind can easily fill in on our behalf." contradicts "If you haven't seen the movies or read the books, most of what matters will make no sense."

    I hope I blocked out my intense dislike of all things Harry Potter to be objective with this review. It is a good one. But I think there's still enough positive in the other one that it would be hard to beat in any case. I think Wolfqueen's review does a good job describing atmosphere, while Venter's does a good job describing why Potter fans will like this, too. Both work well. One shoots higher than the other.

    Winner: WOLFQUEEN

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Wolfqueen - Half Life 2: Half Life is such an iconic shooter and this review brings that fact to life for us readers. I really like through Gordons eyes as lead-ins to the next section of the review.

    Venter - Lego Harry Potter: Years 1-4: While it is true that anyone who likes Harry Potter would probably want to play a Harry Potter game but what about the rest of the people. If you know very little to nothing about Harry Potter is the game fun to play? It is clear the game is fun if you know Hogwarts and that part is explained very nicely.

    WolfQueen vs. Venter: Wolfqueen is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Wolfqueen (Half-Life 2)
    This is a nice review that tries something different and works. It's dramatically pretentious but effective at telling a story. This is what we used to call a "promethean" review. It's nice to read one of those every now and then -- this review excels at providing meaty descriptions that make it easy to savor the game's rich atmosphere. If I looked really hard, I could probably find some sentences or words that I would change, but why would I look that hard? It's more fun to just read and enjoy.

    Honestgamer (LEGO Harry Potter)
    Class sessions? Argh! Anyways, I like the concept of focusing on Hogwarts Castle. Towards that point, however, I was left with some questions. While a lot of things certainly seem to happen inside the castle (and the example of Nick was a nice way to demonstrate non-linearity), does the castle really behave in the freakish way it did in the movies, what with staircases moving and all that jazz? I only ask because you did make a big deal of the castle itself, and there's a difference between the environment versus all the things that appear/happen within that environment. The review makes this sound like a wonderland of things to discover and collect. I'm just not sold that the castle itself is really all that special -- at least not to the extent of Symphony of the Night's castle. I'm also not a diehard Harry Potter fan, so perhaps I'm taking your words more literally than others would. This was a pretty great review, and the above is a question (as I'm now interested in the game) rather than an excuse to vote against you. You're up against something that feels particularly unique and provocative, so the below is a vote for your opponent rather than a vote against you.

    My pick: Wolfqueen

    Ultimate Victor: Wolfqueen (3-0)

    *****************************************

    Suskie?? versus Jerec??
    Suskie: Crackdown
    Jerec: Animal Crossing


    ASchultz:
    Jerec's review is an interesting blindside. It's funny how I remember how hyped Animal Crossing was, and how I've read stories of people playing too much, seeing their parents start, growing bored, or framing Tom Nook as a child labor exploiter. I think with a game like Animal Crossing you don't want to get bogged down in controls, so a story is a good option. But, despite the amusing bits about stupid animals in awe of fornitue bought with hot silverware, I think we may have heard the story before? Gaining money and then getting sick of it? But all the same, you may have ripped yourself off a bit by not talking with Animal Crossing acquaintances and trading for stuff. And the moralizing at the end is heavy-handed. I find it hard to believe you wouldn't be even sicker of the whole deal the second time through. Perhaps you could relate this to real life somehow? Obviously, there's a risk of intense cheesiness, but the end stumbles as is and I don't know what else to suggest.

    Suskie's review is very good. I know I'm anal about italics but all the same I think his effort trumps Jerec's. Jerec's is about looking for something to do--except for some unachievable goals--and losing purpose and deflation in the end. Suskie's is about more than that and about the dangers of having too much to do and not knowing how to do it. It has the circular buildup of orbs, like Jerec sees money in Animal Crossing. It offers suggestions without being a panegyric. It offers specifics of what would be better beyond "I guess I'll make better computer friends whose cheesiness I kind of exposed anyway." It makes me think about how I'd like to blow stuff up despite being a hardcore puzzler.

    Winner: SUSKIE

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Suskie - Crackdown: I like exploring large game worlds as long as I get rewarded for doing so, however a game should not let you fight the end boss before you are really ready. I could feel the pain in this review as we went from a really cool sounding open-ended world to a badly developed and presented open-ended world.

    Jerec - Animal Crossing: I enjoyed the first person story telling presentation in this review, albeit a long winded story. I am not so sure the story told me all I wanted to know about the game though. I felt some things were missing in the story. Who (character wise) is telling this story? Where did those other animals go and why did they really leave?

    Suskie vs. Jerec: Suskie is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Suskie (Crackdown)
    This is an excellent review, but I think the game choice hurt you from a "contest" perspective. It sounds like a game that follows a checklist method of design, and your analysis is thorough and believable. This review does nothing wrong, but I'm not voting for it, because I just liked Jerec's review better.

    Jerec (Animal Crossing)
    This is a refreshing one, although I suspect you knew as much. The way you describe your arrival and introduction to Jerktown feels very much like the actual process of moving into a new town. Survey the area, find a job, meet the neighbors. Your experiences in Jerktown follow an often surprising flow -- the part about becoming a social outcast was interesting, and also provided a nice segue from "people" to "activities". The ultimate descent into apathy really captures the sad realization that there's nothing more to be done, although I like how you capped the review with the value of memories. In a sense, the what you've described is a phase of life (just replace "destroy the town and kill everyone" with "move out and never call anyone ever again") but you've done it in a way that effectively serves as a review through illustration.

    My pick: Jerec

    Ultimate Victor: Suskie (2-1)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Wolfqueen's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted August 06, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: Janus vs Overdrive ~~~

    Janus?? versus True??
    Janus: Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection
    True: Silent Hill Homecoming


    ASchultz:
    I really groaned when I read a review of a compilation. In a team tournament. But it makes sense and works well. And it jibes with my experience of collections--why is this a good collection? It's pretty embarrassing, the new features, clearly--and describing everything takes too much time. I tried that once. Oh, errm, you used "quite" 3 times quite near each other. Ahem.

    True, this is largely well done but I think the repetition piles up too quickly too early. When you mention "it becomes subtle and psychological," well, it's a bit too obvious. And it jars with switching between I/you/Alex. And I think stuff like the 2nd last paragraph where you pile up a lot of adjectives might work better as: "Alex's army vet experience isn't just background thrown in. You see it in the combos he can use. Some are critical to defeat a powerful boss with just a knife. But they don't feel like cheating because..." versus "I found it quite useful. Certainly not a complaint."

    This is another review where I think I see where it's going, but it's not there yet. And it's more ambitious than Janus's, but Janus's is more organized and makes the sort of good point I never bothered to make myself. The moments of wanting to clean the review up hurt things in True's review, so:

    WINNER: JANUS

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Janus - Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection: This review points out that you cant please all the people all the time but you can please some of the people some of the time. It also points out the historical significance of such compilations. Since it is obvious that you cannot review every game in such a case you need to be concise and tackle just a couple. We did get s short list of games in the compilation and I felt that was adequate.

    True - Silent Hill: Homecoming: Writing a review about a horror game can be tough because so much involved in scaring us is visual. Translating that to the written word can be very difficult. This review did a fine job of drawing us into the game world. Although I have no idea how the game plays I do know that if I do play I will probably be scared to death by it.

    Janus vs. True: True is the winner by a very slight margin

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Janus (Sonic's Ultimate Genesis Collection)
    This is an interesting review that touches on several paths -- console inadequacy, emulation morality, game inclusion, and even a bit of storytelling -- but didn't go deep enough into any of those to truly satisfy me. I wouldn't recommend delving into ALL of them, but perhaps a bit more on one of them -- ie, the Alien Storm example is great, but I don't think it's quite enough to get at the sense of undiscovered/rediscovered treasure that you set up at the review's end. It's still a worthwhile review that concludes on a good note.

    True (Silent Hill: Homecoming)
    This review began on an overly melodramatic note -- if the original truly left you destroyed and distraught, then that's kind of scary. I certainly wouldn't play games with you, that's for sure. I suspect you were waxing poetic, but still. There are also some odd grammatical bits, such as the incomplete sentence in the second paragraph. After that, your writing focused and felt more grounded, even while describing outlandish scenarios. You talked about concrete events and feelings that seemed genuine. You made me want to see what you had seen -- while still leaving me with a sense of trepidation. This is a strong review and I'm a little surprised that the game actually turned out so well.

    My pick: True

    Ultimate Victor: True (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Bluberry?? versus Overdrive??
    Bluberry: Star Wars Dark Forces
    Overdrive: Star Wars Dark Forces


    ASchultz:
    Bluberry vs Overdrive: You can take the Doom out of the team tournament but you can't take the Doom out of the team tournament competitors, eh?

    Bluberry's review--well, from Doom Clone to Kell Dragon is good stuff, except for the math jokes. And I think I see what you did there with "rather rotund." I may or may not have seen what you did elsewhere, too. I'll let you be the judge of that. I will pretend you did stuff that you may or may not have wanted judges to catch elsewhere, too, just so I can say I'm observant and reading into things like a good little judge. Overall, though, it seemed like you had a lot of fun writing your review, and that's what you'll ultimately remember more than a team tourney vote years...er, weeks...down the road.

    Overdrive's review is good stuff. Really, I hated being dragged to the front of the class as a Good Example, but I'm doing that here. The nightmares are born good/bad and not too much looking back to youth...and of course the bits about stuff taken from Star Wars that's fun to imagine even for people who suck at shooting stuff sorts of games. What to fix? Zap the last two sentences, maybe.

    Winner: OVERDRIVE

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Bluberry - Star Wars Dark Forces: I dont know what Hilberts cube has to do with Dark Forces nor was I able to figure out what Dark Troopers are. Why only at the end of the review did we really get told anything about the game.

    Overdrive - Star Wars Dark Forces: I was a shame to hear that the Force was not with us in this game. Star Wars and the Force are like peanut butter and jelly. Fortunately we did get to learn quite a bit about the game and in a very exciting way.

    Bluberry vs. Overdrive: Overdrive is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Bluberry (Star Wars: Dark Forces)
    This is beautiful. "I really only cared about Star Wars: Dark Forces and not Dark Forces itself." .... referring to Doom's environment as a sphere .... subspaces of the Hilbert cube .... I don't know what any of these things mean but it's like an unintelligible song sung by hot Korean girls: I can't help but masturbate. Lines like "spent as much time in development as a crack baby" are funny but make too much sense, and would be better used in other lesser reviews. Although my level of education isn't high enough to follow all of your equations, I admire your gutsy stylistic choices of style. I appreciated how after your highbrow preamble, you conclude by telling us about the game with a down-to-earth paragraph about Robin and payphones. So even though I spent most of the review delightfully puzzled, I still feel like I learned something about the game at the end. By the way, you lose.

    Overdrive (Star Wars: Dark Forces)
    Hm. Comparing these two reviews, it sounds like the Macintosh version is a bit different from the PC one. I too remember the days when crouching was cool. I vaguely recall when this game was a big deal, although I never played it. It's cool how you describe the game in such a flowing, easy-to-follow way (with a notable lack of mathematical formulas) -- with your heartfelt style, you make it look so easy to play through a game and just write about it. It's also interesting how you started with a story about a hero with a distinct name, and end with the realization that he's just another FPS grunt. I'm glad that I learned about the game, even if I did have to read two reviews to get there.

    My pick: Overdrive

    Ultimate Victor: Overdrive (3-0)

    *****************************************

    Asherdeus?? versus Zippdementia??
    Asherdeus: Jurassic The Hunted
    Zippdementia: God of War III


    ASchultz:
    Asherdeus vs Zipp: 2 really good sentences to start the reviews--I like Asher's better because it isn't self-referential.

    And Asher's review certainly kicks a bad game well. But perhaps it is a bit too easy a target. An analogy here is to gymnastics or ice skating. I am sure Asher is too manly for either of these pursuits. I am too manly to judge them. But the judges can only give so many points for a perfect execution of a minor move. That's what happened here.

    And Zipp's review, while I see some stuff I'd change beyond the usual "Here's what my style's like," is very good. It argues less is more--argues character vs characters, points out gods are now just bosses, and the fourth paragraph may be overselling things. But Kratos vs Zeus and the son/mirroring attacks thing is good. It's not too cynical and not too obvious, and we haven't heard it too often before. Or I haven't. It'd be easy to phrase this as some wimpy "violence is not the answer" but you never do.

    Winner: ZIPP

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Asherdeus - Jurassic: The Hunted: Tyrannosaurus rex king of the dinosaurs barely makes an appearance? Are you kidding me? I guess the big selling point of this game was lots of dinosaur and the Adrenaline Burst feature (a shame that was not mentioned). Shooting dinosaurs should be fun to bad that did not happen in this game.

    Zipp God of War III: We get a brilliant explanation of the evolution of Kratos and consequently an explanation of why the game mostly fails at the characterization of Kratos himself. It is truly a shame when developers use a great franchise in such a lame way.

    Asherdeus vs. Zipp: Zipp is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Asherdeus (Jurassic: The Hunted)
    Hahaha, this game sounds like a pile. The part about mowing down tiny dinosaurs was particularly telling. This is a quick, fast-paced, punchy review that never falters. I like it. From a contest perspective, the only issue is that the game appeared to be such an easy target that I can't say I'm surprised. I enjoyed this review, but I enjoy more ambitious or insightful stuff even more. No reason to change anything here -- just sayin'.

    Zippdementia (God of War III)
    In the grand scheme of the world, this one is more ambitious. It's a grounded look at a game that (briefly) left many people blubbering like twitterpated cartoon animals. In the grand scheme of this particular contest, this was a "safe" choice because you already knew I was going to agree with your take on the game. But I'm still going to give you the win because it's a thorough (but not overly long) look at a game that contains a lot of noteworthy content. I particularly appreciated your look at Kratos and the comparison to a machine -- at this point, that's what he is, a robot behaving the way Sony has programmed him to behave. I liked this review when I first read it a couple months ago, and I still like it now. Don't really have much to recommend.

    My pick: Zippdementia

    Ultimate Victor: Zippdementia (3-0)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Overdrive's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.

    //Zig
    board icon
    True posted August 06, 2010:

    Thank you, again, Judges for your fine critiques. They were definitely worth waiting for. As well, Janus for a very tough battle. I was sure you had this one in the bag, so to speak.

    If you'll excuse me, I'm now going to go write a blog bragging about how I, alone, lowly True Baby beat someone seemingly unbeatable. The Goliath of the 2010 Team Tournament, Master Of The Metaphor, Earl Of Eloquence, Duke of Description, King Of Reviewing...Janus.

    And yes, it does make it that much better because I know he's not my biggest fan.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 06, 2010:

    The first thing I did when I opened this thread was look for Zig's comments on Bluberry's review. I was not disappointed.

    And hey, we're still going strong. Go us.

    Thanks to people.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 06, 2010:

    I'll admit I went with a safe review this time, but I'm still glad for the comments because I don't recall it getting that much feedback on its initial post. It was a little late after release to expect much feedback then and it's a little late in the season now to be taking risks. I wanted to make sure we won this week.

    At the very least, it's good to know I'm not lauding a review for being good when in fact it sucks. It helps to know that I'm not totally off the work in thinking this was a good review.

    This coming week's choice is a more "out there" pick and I think one I've owed to the judges for reading more formulaic work of mine all tourney.
    board icon
    True posted August 06, 2010:

    I don't know what any of these things mean but it's like an unintelligible song sung by hot Korean girls: I can't help but masturbate.

    You're only human, Zig. We are all powerless against them.
    board icon
    asherdeus posted August 06, 2010:

    While an easy target, the game actually only has a handful of reviews across the Internet and of the four professional reviews I found, one is awful and another you can't read online. I base most of the reviews that I write on games that no one else on Thunderbolt has reviewed that I can get for cheap. Thanks for the comments.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 06, 2010:

    Sorry I couldn't beat Leroux, guys. I have dragged us down to first place.

    Thanks to the judges, etc.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 06, 2010:

    I was so saddened by your negativity that unfortunately it all didn't work.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 06, 2010:

    I will pretend you did stuff that you may or may not have wanted judges to catch elsewhere

    you have no idea.

    Why only at the end of the review did we really get told anything about the game.

    you mean the stuff I copied from the back of the box? you truly have no idea.
    board icon
    True posted August 07, 2010:

    Are you serious? I read Suskie's post earlier and I'm curious just exactly what the fuck he said to warrant someone deleting it.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 07, 2010:

    And yes, it does make it that much better because I know he's not my biggest fan.

    I can understand why my comments in various feedback threads and ROTWs would lead you to this impression. But we're not sports teams. This is a community of writers. In my opinion, you've written some really excellent reviews (one off the top of my head: Prototype) that are rightly praised because the writing is emotional and powerful and sells the experience of playing whatever game it is that you're covering. However, it feels like you are striving for this "epic" tone with every review you write. This leads to some rather overblown efforts where the attempt at style ("I have many games from my past") gets in the way of any substance (your Super Mario Galaxy 2 review didn't really say much about the actual game). I just think that maybe you could tone down the melodrama, rely on your natural enthusiasm for gaming and writing, and tell me something interesting about the games you review.

    I'm not trying to troll you or incite a feud or anything. I'm just making my opinion clear, because obviously you have this vague notion that I'm not a fan. No one has to like everything you write, just as no one likes everything I, or anybody else, writes. I think what's important is that people say why they didn't like something so that a reviewer can understand how people view their writing, whether they act on the comments or not.

    Anyway, your Silent Hill Homecoming is a very vivid and effective review. Well done.


    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 07, 2010:

    Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'm glad everyone liked the review. Even though we won, I'm kind of sorry that, at least on my end, I couldn't have done so with a new review, but that's alright. Congrats to the rest of my team as well as everone else in the tournament.

    I can't believe how close this all has suddenly become.

    Zig: Interestingly, I didn't know (or didn't remember) that the style was promethean, so that's pretty cool. Also, no one has called any of my reviews pretentious before (except for the Mother one, but that was deliberate). ;) I'm both honored and flattered. =D
    board icon
    bloomer posted August 07, 2010:

    Interesting, I was just thinking of Jerec's Animal Crossing review this morning. Not because I knew it was in this comp or anything.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 07, 2010:

    True, it was deleted for sexual tension.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 07, 2010:

    Are you serious? I read Suskie's post earlier and I'm curious just exactly what the fuck he said to warrant someone deleting it.

    I said something like, "I'm pretty sure it was my negativity that did that." Amazing how RunningFree's shit stays intact while I get modded for making a fucking joke. Quite a staff team we've got here at HonestGamers.
    board icon
    hmd posted August 07, 2010:

    board icon
    Suskie posted August 07, 2010:

    Let me repeat something that I just said privately to a couple of people: The angrier you make me, the longer this is going to drag on. The sooner y'all learn to just man up and take a joke, the happier we'll be.

    Yes, I'm making jokes. But grown men who act like babies deserve far more than what I'm doing right now.

    Now, I'd better save this post in case it gets deleted.
    board icon
    True posted August 07, 2010:

    Janus,

    My comment was at least slightly uncalled for and I hope you didn't take it too seriously. I was just making a bad joke--sort of like "Hey, look what I did", because I consider it a very big deal to beat you, and I was just being snarky. In all truth, I actually agree with what you say. I think I even wrote a blog about it, and where my commitment truly lies and why it leaks through in my reviews.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 07, 2010:

    Janus took one of your jokes too seriously? I guess you should be modded, then.
    board icon
    jerec posted August 07, 2010:

    I don't mean this in a bitchy way, but I do think there's no pleasing you, Schultz. And then I remember last tourney where I voted against you most of the time. I think that what we write, what we expect out of reviews, is just way too different.

    I think I know how you might have felt. :P

    Also, CD, your judgement absolutely baffles me. I've read it three times now and I still don't know what to make of it.
    board icon
    True posted August 07, 2010:

    Janus took one of your jokes too seriously? I guess you should be modded, then.

    No, that was kind of my fault. In my head it was funny and meant as playful banter, but in looking back on it now it seems like I pulled an Emp. You know, where I pretend to let go of things that happened a year ago, but rather I bottled them up, and--unprovoked--lash out on said person for an entirely different reason.

    $20 says that gets modded.
    board icon
    zigfried posted August 07, 2010:

    True, if you're serious, I'll take you up on that bet.

    //Zig
    board icon
    True posted August 07, 2010:

    I apologize if it's already on here, but I didn't see it:

    Worms
    PS3/PSN
    Genre:Strategy/Turn-Based
    Developer:Team 17
    Release Date: 3/26/09

    ADDED

    Thank you, stealthy staff member.
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 08, 2010:

    Jerec, you're right. And I think it sucks when I see two good reviews and I have to pick a winner, but that requires finding something wrong. I don't see any way around it. I think this week's matchup against Leroux was a good one, and it's good to see people take chances like that.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 09, 2010:

    Good job, team! We won. And if we win two more times, we'll have won me a championship (and you guys, too, by proxy of your presence on my team).

    So let's all band together as a team to win one for OVERDRIVE!!!
    board icon
    aschultz posted August 09, 2010:

    BTW bluberry, no idea? I just had no room. Or time.

    Stats, a bit late, because I couldn't remote into work, and I really should've copied the RIGHT files to my flash drive Friday:


    Edit: fixed. I clicked on the wrong one. Grr. Thanks for pointing that out, Overdrive.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 09, 2010:

    Either I'm reading them completely wrong or those stats aren't correct for the current time, are they Schultz? Like one week behind week 5, as I know my team has three wins and I have two individual wins, as opposed to the 2 and 1 in that stat box.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted August 09, 2010:

    jerec,

    I liked your review but seeing those screen shots that you had with it made me very curious about who or what that barber pole looking thing was. I wanted to know more about the creature telling the story.

    I also felt, that for me anyway, your story went a bit to long. I did like the transition of your and turning Jerktown into a wasteland but you could have snipped a bit and still made your point.

    That last sentence Cobb, Olivia, Twiggy theyre still out there somewhere, in another town. I may find them again. left me feeling a bit puzzled. Was there another town? Did the game actually tell you anything about that? You mentioned them as friends but then seemed to just cast them off. Not a major drawback but something that could have been mentioned.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 09, 2010:

    Cool stats stuff. I hope we do well this week. :)
    board icon
    zigfried posted August 14, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: Overdrive v Leroux ~~~

    Overdrive?? versus Leroux??
    Overdrive: Summoner
    Leroux: Vigilante


    ASchultz:
    Overdrive: I'm not quite sure why you needed to shut Summoner off. Was the tutorial that tedious? Was one of your first two hours pure unadulterated load time? Also, I think you missed a big chance for something that would fit well & probably drop the right sort of joke--how bout "It doesn't matter that Joseph doesn't want his power and can't even summon anything that ultimately helpful."

    Other than that I think this review does the job. Perhaps too many all caps words--maybe there's an easy way to say you're glad there's no cut scene with lots of load time and evil laughter? "FEELS like" seems telegraphed. Perhaps a lot of what I want to correct is my silly internal editor saying "I'D do it this way!" Then stuff like vast/tons/a couple--and mentioning the dumb enemies a bit late. Nevertheless, I got an idea of the game, and the reviewer's disappointment at what could have been. It can happen in so many ways.

    Leroux: Despite some good shots, this review actively annoyed me. Yes, we are all in disbelief over the plot. Yes, many losers had Madonna fantasies in the 80s. Does it need saying four times in a row? That's a Seanbaby trick. You're better and more versatile and don't rely on a personality cult. I think you do need some reading-time buffer describing the hero's there-and-back-again journey, but when it becomes reminding us skinheads have hair--well, I'd appreciate a little subtlety. Some of your insults towards the game rub off on the reader a bit.

    But perhaps the biggest mistake is that the first sentence says this "has often been imitated." Then you claim it was influential. The implication here is that this game's lack of quality influenced others. I say a bunch of garage-band companies do lousy on their own by glomming random ideas together and abusing the English language. And it's easy to look and see causation that isn't there if you've got very little to do.

    You've used the formula before of quoting a brawler's level-start text and describing the frailties. I get the sense you're trying to conjure something from thin air.

    Yes, yes, okay, it's probably an over the top joke. But even critiques of the repetitively annoying can be...repetitively annoying. Paragraph 3 is what this could've been.

    In the archives, I noticed you criticized Zigfried for a good writer writing one too many hentai game reviews for a competition. I think you were right to. You have had a lot of other brawler reviews that worked better than this does so it's a mystifying choice, so I hope you see where I am coming from.

    WINNER: OVERDRIVE

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Overdrive - Summoner: If I recall correctly Summoner was one of the first games for the then new PS2. While it was looked on with favor the load times were a major problem. We get a good introduction to Joseph and the other characters in his party and through those introductions we get solid fundamentals on game play both good and bad.

    Leroux - Vigilante: I think this review told me more about the game than I wanted to know but props for the humor - skinheads with hair. I think I want to get this game just to laugh at it.

    Overdrive vs. Leroux: This one is tough. Both of these reviews are really good and very informative. Overdrive does a fine job in the review but I just have to give a slight edge to Leroux for the unique way the game was handled. Leroux is the winner.

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Overdrive wrote a nicely balanced Summoner review. I never made it past those first couple of hours myself. There were a few times in the review where you used a "dial-a-word" -- for example, the spot where you said combat was sometimes exhilarating and then described something that sounded merely good. I doubt I'll ever go back to the game myself, but I believe that it's probably not as terrible as I originally thought.

    Leroux's review of Vigilante is just outright fun. There's a lot of silly stuff to poke at in this game, and you do so effectively. It's not just the examples used, but also the writing style that enhances the effect of your words. Radicaldreamer once blogged about a girl having an interesting way of speaking; well, you have an interesting way of writing. Too bad you're not a hot girl. Madonna will have to do.

    My pick: Leroux

    Ultimate Victor: Leroux (2-1)

    *****************************************

    True?? versus Jerec??
    True: Worms
    Jerec: Wii Fit


    ASchultz:
    True: big points off for "dont get me wrong but theres noting really solid in the game play department." -- typo (nothing) and overused phrases: don't get me wrong, gameplay. What you're describing also seems just turn-based, so there's nothing exotically slow about that. It sounds corny, but like a speech, it may be best to start off with a few jokes--what you liked about Worms and why it didn't last, or how the timing felt all wrong

    The two paragraphs before "Classic." seem worth moving to near the top, if only to say that you can see the superficial resemblances. I'm suspecting you saw the humor pretty quickly, but I think your real problem with the game, which gets lost in obligatory description, is that the comic timing for joke bazookas and such doesn't work.

    I really enjoyed reading your Hogs of War review. Perhaps you were reluctant to take too many ideas from that. Because after five years, you want to move on and do better. You have, overall. But I'm confused about basics like--what constitutes a turn? Do you get a minute to move, then the computer takes a minute? That'd seem to be pretty bad. I also disagree that a game with so many weapons can be laid-back. If it's at an inappropriate pace, or if someone wants to see the game abstractly and you don't, that's one thing. But I think there may be mismanaged expectations here. Hogs of War, from your review, feels like more than a board game. Worms does not. You throw out some good examples, but they're just there.

    Jerec: This is a tricky review to work but I think you did very well. In a way, we should expect this first attempt at an exercise game about more than stepping on four arrows to be a disaster. But the review never feels obvious. I've been impressed with your introductions and I like the new spin on "I bought a game and it sucked." And while I think you pointed out why it was too easy to cheat, or why it wound up being worse than the real thing, the problem with asking for a computer that can detect too much cheating--one that even helps us not-cheat--is that we may get more than we bargained for.

    What would I add? I'd like to hear more about improvement tracking. I'm genuinely surprised they don't give enough sample points for the balancing exercises or provide more than a most recent score, or if they did, it wasn't mentioned--elsewhere you say results are stored. It seems performances can go up and down and either 1) the testing should be more robust or 2) it should keep track of things. Also, yoga is seen as a flexibility/warm-up sort of exercise--well, certain types. So maybe more detail there. These are minor concerns, though. You did well showing why Wii Fit would get its butt kicked by an old fashioned treadmill.

    WINNER: JEREC

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    True - Worms: There was no story, the game was slow and not as good as Hogs. Was multiplayer good? Online play - what was that like? I just wonder if those might not have improved the game play and made it more fun than what it sounded like in this review. There was good information here but not quite enough.

    Jerec - Wii Fit: As pointed out in this review the problem with Wii Fit is that you are not properly guided in your exercises. This review rightfully pointed out the flaws in a console exercise game. I agree with the reviewer sell it and buy a real game.

    True vs. Jerec: Jerec is the winner.

    -----

    Zigfried:
    True's Worms review begins oddly. Look at your pronoun use in sentence six -- you said you bought Hogs of War. The next paragraph begins oddly, too. There's a typo ("noting") and it's just a wishy-washy sentence that doesn't actually add anything (it could be eliminated entirely and still flow fine, since you don't talk about the game's style and heart until a bit later). I noticed you had an asterisked comment in there, which required scrolling to the bottom -- I didn't care for that one, as the "blowing up into little pink bits" was a believable image that I had trouble shaking... plus, since I had to scroll all the way to the bottom, I was tempted not to scroll back up. I've learned over time that such asterisked comments work better when the explanation shortly follows the marked sentence. Anyways -- yeah, I learned about Worms, but the review felt rough.

    Jerec has reviewed a playable video program that I cannot care about. He does not seem to care about it either, so I won't hold it against him. This is a review that flows freely and easily, talking about this and that in an affable and unpretentious way. I like it. I was amused that you kept finding ways to cheat, but it's so true: if they're there, people will take them. I'm playing a rhythm game right now that has some tricks (only a few) but I'm desperately trying not to abuse them, and it's hard. Sometimes I just have to. This is one of those reviews that reads so naturally, like a normal person talking to normal people. That's a very, very good thing.

    My pick: Jerec

    Ultimate Victor: Jerec (3-0)

    *****************************************

    Zippdementia?? versus Honestgamer??
    Zippdementia: Illusion of Gaia
    Honestgamer: Castlevania - Harmony of Dissonance


    ASchultz:
    Zipp's review is very interesting storytelling for a review. But it has so much in there--how Illusion of Gaia gets rid of the cliches and melodrama of your average game--that I overlooked that I didn't know anything about the game's mechanics til I reread it. Now, I didn't really want to hear about them. If I were talking about favorite games, I'd want to hear the best bits. But at the same time, having something in there about the mechanics and how the game helps you ignore them would be helpful. Also--about how much of a drag the quests were or weren't, that the game was a dungeon crawler. Other reviews say this. Perhaps it's pedantic. But it's necessary. Zipp has the talent to integrate that basic information into a story. Since this is a reviewing tourney and not a pure writing tourney, I tick a few points for that. Perhaps saying you want to remember enjoying the game and not the usual pitfalls that might annoy/exhaust you today--like too much back and forth questing--might give the last bit of perspective needed.

    Jason's review approaches things from a different angle. I think we've all heard about St Augustine's quote "God, make me good, but not yet." Castlevania gives something new and good--but it was hard to take, all at once. The review gives credit to the easier Castlevanias for what they are. I might not want to hear about the lack of the level-up system the first thing--or for a full paragraph--though it clearly needs to be said. That's relatively minor compared to the interesting bits about 6-player play. It's easy to imagine ripping off other people's strategies or being able to handicap yourself with a weaker player. I like how it feels like there are ways to get revenge after the game's been tough on you--more than just beating it again and again. This does feel more like a complete review than Zipp's and it has a story in its own way and is convincing in that the game clearly feels worth playing even after you've succeeded at it.

    One other thing: imagine the tedium? 1) this review gave enough GOOD stuff to imagine. 2) I imagine in order to avoid tedium. Just saying. The review seems to make clear that the only repetition needed is for the player to work at getting better.

    The suggestions I have for these reviews don't make them any less fun, and if they seem nitpicky it's because I had to look to that for differentiation to pick a winner, which was ultimately less fun than reading the reviews. Still, Jason's I think left fewer questions unanswered.

    WINNER: VENTER

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Zipp - Illusion of Gaia: An interesting take on the game but perhaps a bit dramatic. I do recall playing this game but do not remember it being quite that deep, but then again I was not nine when I played it. We are given a different insight into Will not as the hero but as a youth searching for answers to questions there are no answers for. That addition was a good idea and added a lot to the review.

    Jason Castlevania: Harmony of Despair: The game is not quite as difficult as we were first led to believe. Though I do understand not being able to level up to tackle tough bosses not losing gold or items when you die is probably just as exploitable. I also like we were given some explanation of the multiplayer aspect in the game.

    Zipp vs. Jason: Jason is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Any time a review for something other than Uncharted 3 starts with a pretentious story about Le Plongeon, I just want to slap the writer. That's how Zipp's review for Illusion of Gaia starts, and he forgot to mention that Le Plongeon was insane (look up his essays on Mayan pornography). Zipp will be forgiven, though, because Quintet themselves were overbearingly pretentious. The review is effective, although the revelation about the villain -- aside from being a spoiler -- was a bit overdone (the concept isn't surprising to people who've played the Phantasy Star series). My recommendation there would be to remove the second sentence about "sinking in". This is the part of the judgement where I realize I'm nit-picking a very nice review. It's written with appropriate grandeur for a retrospective 10/10. Try proofreading this type of review with an outsider's glasses to catch things that may sound just a bit too starry-eyed. As Illusion of Gaia itself demonstrates: infer, don't shove.

    Venter's Castlevania: Harmony of Despair review opens effectively, and up to a point, I was really digging this. Then I got pissed in the next-to-last paragraph. Here I'm thinking this is a great return to Castlevania form, and then I find out that it's meant to be a multiplayer game. The conclusion salvages that by making it clear that the bulk of the review really was talking about the single-player experience, so my happy feelings returned... but you don't adequately explain why it's meant to be played multiplayer. That's something entirely new to Castlevania and I think such a bold statement warrants further explanation. Otherwise, this game sounds like a cool Castlevania III reviso.

    My pick: Zipp

    Ultimate Victor: Honestgamer (2-1)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Leroux's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted August 14, 2010:

    ~~~ Team Battle: Wolfqueen vs Janus ~~~

    Suskie?? versus Janus??
    Suskie: Modern Warfare 2
    Janus: A Fading Melody


    ASchultz:
    Suskie's review is emotionally powerful and does a very good job of getting me interested in a genre I can't stand. I like the starting-repetition of the sentences "I want to" because each goes in a different direction. "If you're looking for them, you're probably not doing..." was very funny, I found--you half feel like it's an army sergeant giving you the orders to quit fooling around. A review like this may risk too many superlatives while it tries not to spoil anything--as it mentions in the first paragraph. It spoils nothing and reminds me of pulp detective writing but applied to army stories. No, I haven't read enough actual war stories.

    Janus's review may be about the sort of game I'm attached to and it does a lot right. It's necessarily a bit more abstract as it's discussing a more abstract game.

    It's weird--I guess a review about guns and blowing stuff up and tension can get away more with fast and loose grammar than one about intensely emotional stuff. So some things just don't work for me.
    "I know what you're thinking: what's strange about that?!" <-note: I played chess and ?!/!? was the worst copout an annotator could give to moves, though the real crime seems breaking the 4th wall at the wrong time.
    Then "such as the fact that..." may be better state as "Melody fears AD&D style beholders. You'll let that slide and conjure your own reason why." Also, the parentheses-ed text can go, or be chopped up. It's not much, but enough to make:

    WINNER: SUSKIE

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Suskie - Modern Warfare 2: Ive never been a fan of linear games (I was bored in the middle of FFXIII) but in a short game such as this one is that is probably not a problem. Then again 6 hours is a bit short even with multiple difficulties available. That aside we do get the excitement that the game held for the reviewer and that made for a real good read.

    Janus - A Fading Melody: This review does a good job of telling us about a game that seems to go somewhere no other platformer has gone before. We learn about Melody and her fight to recover from darkness. I would have liked to have seen a more innovative opening something befitting the theme of the game. Perhaps just opening with the screen shot and then going right into the review.

    Suskie vs. Janus: Janus is the winner.

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Suskie has reviewed Modern Warfare 2, a forgettable game that I thought was vastly over-hyped. He gave it a 10 so, for better or worse, I'm biased before even reading a word. It's a phenomenal review anyway, even if your opinion is wrong.

    Janus gave a positive score to A Fading Melody, an Xbox indie game that I actually enjoyed, so I'm biased before even reading a word. It's a fantastic review that appropriately describes both the action and the emotion. This is one of those so-called "art" games that doesn't forget it's supposed to be, you know, a good game. And I like that you made it clear early on that it's a game that tells a story, rather than a story told through a game. I read your review a year ago, then purchased the game based on the review, and felt that the difficult action platforming had been accurately described. My purchase was thankfully as expected -- a purchase that would not have been made without you. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say for most Braid reviews.

    My pick: In a battle between two giants, Suskie wins.

    Ultimate Victor: Suskie (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Genj?? versus Bluberry??
    Genj: Bullet Witch
    Bluberry: Gunvalkyrie


    ASchultz:
    These reviews show a lot of cool things about two games I would never play. Apparently there's a lot more to them than having a woman-worth-looking-at shooting and operating jetpacks/spells.

    Genj: The good addition to the level design is the occasional chance for environmental kills./"one of four forms each with their own uses."

    Bluberry: Monstrous preying mantis Nidhogg waits in an iced-over cavern with an oppressively low ceiling, and learning to stay airborne is a must since there's no good way to dodge on foot.

    I have this trash compactor I bring to reading/critiquing a review and if it takes over the fun of reading a review, I pay attention to it. With Genj's, I see a lot that could be cut down. Bluberry's--I don't see much. I didn't really want to. With Genj's I could picture a lot being crumpled, and while there's nothing structurally wrong with the review, it takes a little longer to get there. Also, Bluberry's review does a better job of focusing on what makes GunValkyrie unique--the jetpack and the difficulty--and doesn't waste words. Genj has a good review but one he could clearly afford to cut words from.

    WINNER: BLUBERRY

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Genj - Bullet Witch: I cant believe that in this age of technology there is no map of any kind. This review was quick, concise and had all the information about the game packed into a neat little package. I thought it was very nicely done.

    Bluberry - GunValkyrie: It is pretty rare that the difficulty of a game is called brilliant. The review did a good job of trying to convince us that once we get good at the game it would be fun to play. While I appreciated the brevity of the review I was left wishing to know more about the game. What kinds of guns do you get to play with? What are these HP Extensions? What about those S-ranks and how do they fit into the game?

    Genj vs. Bluberry: Genj is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Genj wrote a thorough and accurate review for Bullet Witch that captures the game's inherent coolness without going crazy overboard about it. I have no advice or criticisms -- this review says what it needs to in a clear manner and I didn't see any grammatical issues. Nicely done.

    Bluberry's review for Gunvalkyrie is old. I've read it a few times before, and I can't unread it, so it was already at a disadvantage. Another problem is the opponent: while Genj's review takes a measured look at an occasionally-vilified cult classic, Bluberry goes so far as to call his often-vilified cult classic "brilliant". Or more specifically, he calls the way that the difficulty level forces the player to legitimately improve brilliant. It's a nice observation. It's also one that held true for Golden Axe: Beast Rider. I've played Gunvalkyrie for about 10 minutes and I'm not sure I buy that it's a nine. You also forgot to mention how many levels there are.

    My pick: Genj

    Ultimate Victor: Genj (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Wolfqueen?? versus Asherdeus??
    Wolfqueen: Dragonester
    Asherdeus: Singularity


    ASchultz:
    I'm frustrated with myself for sounding this negative but I think there's more than enough in each of these reviews to go with and to hand off to teammates, and if the teammates have the time, they could help sand down the roughest bits. Obviously, the issue is far from whether or not the review is coherent. Everyone's way better than that. It's whether it clicks and builds on things. I know my inner editor works 19 to the dozen looking for things that make it see red and this destroys some of the joy of, well, just reading about a game so I don't have to pay for it. Still I can't help feeling some teamwork could've boosted each review.

    Wolfqueen: P1 seems short--just tack on half of P2--and perhaps it's easier to say "you buy and sell dragon eggs to create a big city. The more you buy, the more you must contend with robbers and intra-species spats." I think this would prime the reader better for the stuff in the future. Also, watch for degenerately true sentences like "The extra power comes in handy when tougher monsters appear." It just feels like after two good paragraphs, this loosens things up a bit. Or "Every time you complete a level, you earn a rating." But more pressingly, the 3rd-last paragraph seems like a bit of a wandering complaint. Sure, what you described sucks. You can't decide which eggs YOU want to trade in. But it goes on a bit long. Then you blow it off and say it was ok. This is the sort of thing I really feel needs to be cut down. Yes, I can do that in my mind, but I shouldn't have to.

    This review also has a tendency to say the obvious and take too long saying it: "The extra power comes in handy when tougher monsters appear." The alchemic paragraph can be cut down to say: "One skill trades two small eggs for a large one worth three small ones. Large nests double dragons' fertility, so making diamonds from one of each color egg is quicker." You mention they're worth it but it'd be more noteworthy if they weren't, or if one was particularly useless.

    I got a picture of the game but I also wish I'd gotten it quicker.

    Asherdeus, this review grew on me though I found the introduction sloppy. Perhaps "We've all thought about time travel to change things, from not telling a girlfriend she looks fat in a dress to strangling Hitler's mother. But nobody knows how that would change other things."' Customization too--"launchers. You can customize any one weapon's clip size, reload times and damage to your style."

    Another example is the end of P3. It lacks characters...but in its defense, interesting paradoxes...but notes and voice recorders...oops, let's talk Time Manipulation Device. I'm not sure if the time shift, or the research in 2010, caused it. And the impression I get is that the TMD is too powerful without some sort of checks and balances. Not zigzagging helps the reader save brain space for any big ideas you want to discuss. Also, please never use "spiffy, shiny place full of life" reviewing a game like this again.

    The review does very well at the end describing the ship that loses its vitality (even there, "it's a really cool experience") and other parts, and with the earlier review parts pared down it'd have even more effect. Your review left me thinking about how sometimes books are better for focusing on the details of time travel paradoxes, and games are about the action--without, hopefully, too many blatant paradoxes. I also disagree with you that the lack of other characters means less humanity--time travel games do well to avoid creating --too-- many paradoxes. That turns them into nonsense.

    It's good to see new content but I think both these reviews have something clear to fix. They have the imagination, which is the main part, and all I can offer is the technical. Still I think that Asherdeus's stronger ending (Wolfqueen's feels generic) left me with a sense of what he wanted and expected in a game. And I think zigzagging between good ideas is closer to what is wanted than taking a bit too long to say them.

    WINNER: ASHERDEUS

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Wolfqueen - Dragonester: I would like to raise Dragons but I gather from this review that is not what you do, rather you just collect the Dragon eggs so you can sell them. It is not easy to convince people they will have fun Micro managing a bunch of nesting Dragons but this review does a pretty fair job of giving us the nitty-gritty of the game.

    Asherdeus - Singularity: What an interesting premise for a story and even more interesting for a game. There have been games and movies that have tried to bring time shifting to the forefront but most have failed. Having read this review it seems as though this title did a more than fair job of it. I particularly liked the introduction and the flow of the review.

    Wolfqueen vs. Asherdeus: Asherdeus is the winner.

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Asherdeus's review for Singularity was a bit of a surprise. The concept sounded pretty cool (not original, but still fresh enough) and I'm actually interested in the hero, then the review comes out and says the characters aren't as memorable as Half-Life or Bioshock. After describing a world full of new mutants and commies, the use of notes and video footage sounds disappointing indeed. The sunken ship example was well-placed, leading into the ultimately positive rating. Nice review.

    Wolfqueen's review of Dragonester has an odd opening that focuses on categorizing an uncategorizable game -- it's an ineffective start that doesn't really explain anything. As the review goes on, this game sounds pretty complex. The first several paragraphs talk about a lot of game mechanics, but I'm not sure what players are supposed to be doing. I went back to the top to look for the objective, and it appears to be: "your job is to take care of the dragon farm". Is that seriously the objective? Seems pretty simple for such a complex game. Going back down to where I left off, monsters start assaulting the farm. I think it would help if the intro spoke to a few of the things that can happen, ie explain that while the primary goal is to keep the dragon farm running, increasing livestock and fending off danger isn't easy. That would give a clearer overview of "what the game is", as opposed to just dropping readers into a boiling vat of game mechanics. Anyways -- once I figured out what the game was about, your review made sense and effectively explained the details.

    My pick: Asherdeus

    Ultimate Victor: Asherdeus (3-0)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Wolfqueen's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.

    //Zig
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 14, 2010:

    CD: there are missiles, as mentioned in the review. also, some games have collectible items that I would call HP extensions - they extend your HP. GunValkyrie is one of these.

    some games also rank your performace, from (think like in school) F to A; this is obscure knowledge, but some even give you an S rank if you do really well. GunValkyrie is one of these. good ranks are earned for good performances. hope this helps!

    thanks for a good TT everybody.
    board icon
    True posted August 14, 2010:

    I suppose that's it for us. Well, it was fun. Thank everyone for all the hard work they put in, mainly Leroux, Suskie, Zig, A-Man, CD and my teammates Zip and O.D. Know that you guys are appreciated.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 14, 2010:

    Thanks to the judges and props to Janus for a stellar match.

    And hey, we're in the finals. Kudos to WQ and Genj for doing so well this year. For their sake, I hope we win.

    Edit: Oh, and I wanted to briefly thank everybody for the absolutely spectacular amount of new content submitted this year. Seriously. I'm starting to feel bad that I've written so little over the past few months.
    board icon
    zigfried posted August 14, 2010:

    Azurik: Rise of Perathia

    //Zig
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 14, 2010:

    Ah shit...at least I feel I gave a good effort in losing and at least I don't feel I let down the team, as we all lost this week. Good job, guys, even if we didn't win it all. Four brand new reviews and one one-week old one over six weeks shows this thing motivated me to bust ass writing this year, so I'm happy with that. And the week I used the week-old review, I wrote one that I didn't use. So, I've been pretty productive these last few weeks.
    board icon
    sashanan posted August 14, 2010:

    Resluts? Is that when your girlfriend cheats on you a second time?
    board icon
    jerec posted August 15, 2010:

    it was good to use this review. I wasn't sure how it would go, because it's not much of a game. thanks judges!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 15, 2010:

    Well, I'm not too surprised with how the judges took my review, so I'm not going to sweat it. I will briefly say that, due to its nature, I tried to be as thorough as possible with this one which is why it dragged on so long (longer than I would've liked, frankly). But I did make a serious effort to cut it down before submitting it, and it's at least a hundred words shorter for doing so, so just be grateful you're not reading the original draft. >_>

    Anyway, I'm very glad the rest of my team pulled through in this match. If they hadn't, we might not have made it to the finals. Good job guys. Hopefully I can write something a bit more inspiring this week, since, I do admit that what I wrote last week likely wasn't appropriate for something like TT, but I genuinely felt it would be better to use something new than rely on something old. I'm just glad things worked out in our favor.

    I would also like to congratulate and thank everyone who participated in TT this year. I, too, appreciated the wealth of new content; in some ways, it inspired me to continue writing new stuff of my own.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 15, 2010:

    Ah, damn. Well, this was a rough tournament for me. But I was part of a good team and I feel like I added something to the team, so I'm satisfied. Or maybe satisfied isn't quite what I am. I'm somewhere between satisfied and FILLED WITH RAGE.

    Not really. But it's a nice mental image.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 15, 2010:

    Thanks to the judges. Let's keep up that winning streak.
    board icon
    Leroux posted August 15, 2010:

    Judges -- a hearty thanks for your continued effort over the past six weeks. It's much appreciated. I hope it hasn't been too much of a burden on your regular schedules.

    Team -- Keep up the great selections. I'll have something new for the finals. It'll be interesting to see how the line-up is set -- don't be afraid to take chances and go down swinging.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted August 16, 2010:

    This has been a grand experience. You have given the chance to read about games I never would have thought twice about. Everyone did a stellar job in the tournament. Most of the reviews were excellent. Win or lose you should all be very proud of what you have done.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted August 16, 2010:

    I am sure El Shaddai will get praise for its unique graphic style but personally I really don't care for it that much.
    board icon
    asherdeus posted August 16, 2010:

    Thanks, judges. It's been nice to have some critical eyes examine my reviews with writing suggestions, as opposed to the simple grammatical work that we do on Thunderbolt. It was a great competition and I had a lot of fun. I think I did pretty well too considering I was picked last! I'd like to give a special nod to True for sending an invite to the tourney my way. And thanks to Leroux for putting this together. Wasn't sure what all that nonsense was in the middle of the show, but I had a good time and am glad I participated. I'll definitely stick around for a while. Thanks again for taking the time to read what I had to say and offering loads of helpful comments, judges.
    board icon
    overdrive posted August 18, 2010:

    I'm happy right now. I was under the impression I was well over a week late with this RotW, but then found out I was actually only about three days late! That's more typical of my performance with these things, so I'm right on top of my game!

    Anyway, another really strong week for submissions with a lot of interesting games covered. Only one review per person eligible. And unfortunately, no reviews by me eligible, since I'm doing this thing. Damnit...



    THIRD PLACE: Worms (PSN on PS3) by True

    FUNFACT: I've never played a Worms game and really had little knowledge of what kind of game it was or what it was about. I'd heard its name mentioned a few times here and there, but that's it. That possibly got you third place over a strong crowd (I'm strangely depressed that Pickhut used "an hero" in a review before I did) as you filled me in on what this game is about, how things work and what doesn't work in your mind. A strong effort that told me what I needed/wanted to know about a game I didn't know much about...in other words, what a review should be.

    SECOND PLACE: Wii Fit Plus (Wii) by fleinn

    This surprisingly might be the best review of yours that I've ever read. I say "surprisingly" because of the game we're talking about here. I saw that I was reading a review for Wii Fit Plus, groaned inwardly and prepared for a quick skimming and quicker dismissal. Instead, I got an entertaining review presenting in the perfect manner to describe this game. The "diary" style of simply explaining what you experienced works great for a game such as this and your descriptions of what was going on were whimsical and amusing. And you do throw in some legit "meat-n-potatoes" with your description of how the interface came off as confusing. All in all, a very fine review.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Castlevania: Harmony of Despair (XLA on XBox 360) by JANUS2

    After reading Venter's review of this game, I'd pretty much decided I wouldn't be buying this game, as it's devoted more towards cooperative online gaming and I never have really gotten into that. Your review offers an even more deep assessment of that, with how you mention that you get matched up randomly, so you can see online mode ending up being nothing but godlike near-immortals blitzing through stuff to see if they can find one more item. That's just one example of the detailed assessment of this game that you provided. Even better, it was an easy-to-read, fun review. I can't think of anything else I would need to know about this game after reading this. You just did a great job of covering all the bases without getting too long/dry/etc. And so you win.



    Back to Lost Odyssey or God of War or something now. Peace, peeps!
    board icon
    fleinn posted August 18, 2010:

    ..you know, I really had a nightmare about those smiling Miis. But this makes me feel a bit better.

    (..also, I think Lewis' "Gratuitous Space Battles" review should have a mention this RotW.)
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 18, 2010:

    I think I'm late, now. For once.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 18, 2010:

    Nevermind. I'm behind. Or... confused is a better word.

    Time is a funny thing when you spend your days locked inside a nuclear reactor.
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 20, 2010:

    Thanks Overdrive, glad you like it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 24, 2010:

    For the record.... the ROTW is coming. I'm not sure where we're at as far as missing weeks, though.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 24, 2010:

    Schultz has missed August 1st through 7th. I mailed him ages ago about it because I was concerned with him being overloaded with TT, but he said he'd have it covered. Maybe he forgot or something.

    This/Next (however you want to call it) week is a Rand week, though. Do we have anyone willing to take that? If not, I'll consider it, but I'm going to be busy with moving back to school this weekend, so I might have even less access for a few days after I get back up there (maybe... it really depends on how things go).
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 24, 2010:

    I'll do it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 24, 2010:

    Yes, please. Someone...??
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted August 25, 2010:

    Star Ruler
    PC
    Developer/Publisher: Blind Mind Studios
    Genre: Real Time Strategy
    Release date: August 21st, 2010

    ADDED
    board icon
    zigfried posted August 27, 2010:

    At least, I hope it was worth the wait. My bad.

    ~~~ Team Battle: Wolfqueen v Leroux ~~~

    Suskie?? versus Leroux??
    Suskie: Bioshock 2
    Leroux: River City Ransom


    ASchultz:
    I like a lot about Leroux's review, but the introduction is not so hot. It's clear what's trying to be done, but I used some google-fu to work out the last reference in the first paragraph. It's about a contemporary issue. And it takes aim at bad writing. But the problem is, this review, while otherwise something quite worth reading in a year, will bafflingly address the less-than-universal issue of French policemen's height requirements. I found that short arm pitching shortens a career, and a short arm cast is no fun. Swamp animals with short arms will leave you with no arms. And so on.

    However, mentioning Rock Em Sock Em Robots made me laugh--it establishes that not all retro is good--and if "my own feelings versus" seems a little tangled, the comparisons to other games are apt. "A must is to say" ... well, I think you mean RPG elements and campy dialogue don't make a GAME lovable. Dealing with cult appeal is quite good, as is the Travolta reference.

    This review does very well indeed to recover from its earlier mistakes and shout out to other NES games people really should know if they just want to read about RCR. It knows its audeince well. After the initial bit, it's clinical without overtly insulting the game.

    I noticed I'd given the thumbs up to Suskie's review before, and rereading did nothing to dislocate said thumb. My original comments about the piece still hold. I would argue "another incredibly minor change..." means one that seems minor, and if Irrational leveraged tweaks very well, praise to them. But I generally recognize when and why I'm quibbling. I think the whole getting to A-B-C ordeal is well explained and contrasts well with other reviews this round that say "it gets boring after a while." This review doesn't complain. I also don't know if I would've waited so long to talk about the pull of being a Big Daddy. But I can see that it works here.

    Leroux's review is a confident, thoughtful and entertaining piece that rips a "cult favorite" while demonstrating why it doesn't have appeal. Suskie's review left me saying "Why don't other reviews deal with the annoyance of repetition this way?" So I think Suskie wins.

    WINNER: SUSKIE

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Suskie - Bioshock 2: On a personal note once the newness of exploration is gone I have no need to play a sequel. Having said that I find Bioshock is a fascinating world that holds many secrets. But I gather from this review that is not what this game intended to do. Rather they wanted to give the player the thrill of being a Big Daddy. Now that sounds like fun but we are told in the review that the implementation just did not work out very well. Suskie has a way of finding the nitty-gritty of a game and bringing that to the forefront unfortunately the writing often becomes a series of run-on sentences that could be re-done and that would enhance reading enjoyment. For example this sentence does not need to be written in this manner. If Im low on ammo in BioShock 2, Im more likely to, say, freeze an enemy and smash him open with the butt of my rivet gun, whereas in the first one Id likely whip out my wrench, whack away until I died, then get resurrected and finish the job. While properly constructed the commas make for a difficult read because they pause us in places and in ways where a pauses are not really needed.

    Leroux - River City Ransom: I have never played this brawler so I was a bit surprised to find out you could buy a Teddy Bear. While overall well written there are spots where interjections are placed but seem to be out of place where there are. Sandwiched between the bosses being zombies and the backdrops is the line about the sauna which seems out of place and its placement broke the flow of the review for me.

    Suskie vs. Leroux: Suskie is the winner

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Suskie, you reviewed Bioshock 2!

    After reading your convincing first two paragraphs, I was intrigued enough to go back and look at your Bioshock review (because I, too, thought the first one was kind of ass. And when I say "I", what I really mean is "Bluberry", because I adopted his opinion as my own.) So I was a little surprised to see that you gave the first game an 8. I figure you've come around to see the truth, so that's a good thing, but surprising nonetheless. The Vitachamber bit is especially damning, and was one reason why Prey was ass, too. (+1 point)

    Your third paragraph begins well, but your fourth begins shakily. It's due to a difference in connotation: "slight modification" and "minor change" match in a thesaurus, but don't mean the same thing in the real world. You're discussing slight modifications that are actually major changes. I'll try not to drop into language lecture mode (too much), but "slight" is most often used as a measure of size and "minor" is most often a measure of impact. "Small change" would work better. (-15 points)

    Conceptually, both paragraphs were great. The sixth paragraph could have benefitted from a bit more specificity. I get the idea -- fetch quests ain't cool -- but is backtracking itself really so bad? You say the reasons are obnoxious, so I'd like to hear one of them. That would help me decide how I would feel about the game. (-5 points) And then I read the seventh paragraph and felt like an idiot for typing all of that. (+5 points)

    Those fetch bits didn't sound particularly obnoxious to me, but that's not the point -- the point is that you described them in enough detail that I could make an informed decision. That's good reviewing, and you never failed to provide concrete examples to back your assertions. (+2 points)

    For the rest of the review, I thought it was fun to read. You talked about being hungry for details and that made me want to eat a Twix. Those taste great.

    This review was great, too.

    Suskie Overall Score: -12 points

    Leroux, you reviewed River City Ransom!

    Trade-off. Conflict-free. Paragraph 4: that use of the verb "elevate" grammatically requires an object -- "rise above" works better. Props on adding the aigu accent to blas. "One too may" should be "One too many". (-20 points, but +3 points for the accent = -17 points)

    I like how you bold-fonted "River City Ransom" the first and last time you used the game title. (+1 point)

    Your vivid descriptions worked well, and the short arm aspect always seemed cheesy to me too. (+4 points) But I really wish you had reviewed Klax instead. When you talked about eating sushi, it reminded me of a girl that I sometimes eat sushi with. She loved the TurboGrafx, and Klax was her favorite game. Kind of cute, too. But you didn't review Klax. You instead reviewed a game that hot-blooded males might actually care about. (-2 points)

    This is a powerful review that goes against the grain but does so in a measured way -- it is a confident, technical look at a game that never receives such treatment. This is something unique and rarely seen for any "classic". With twenty years of hindsight, this is the kind of stuff I would hope to read at any retro-oriented site. For the love of God, please keep writing more like this. But you made some light-hearted comments about Christians, so I have to deduct 13 points, because religion is serious business.

    Leroux Overall Score: -27 points

    ===> My pick: Leroux <===

    Ultimate Victor: Suskie (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Genj?? versus Venter??
    Genj: Shadow Hearts
    Venter: Dragon Warrior


    ASchultz:
    Genj's SH review felt like the better of the two for finals. I was surprised it came out shorter than one for a simpler game, e.g. his opponent Venter. I find both his and Jerec's initial approaches work, and the difference of opinion about the Judgement Ring was interesting. I'm not sure whom to favor, but I think I like Genj's explanation of sanity meters etc.

    If there's one problem with this review, besides some proofreading nitpicks I may detail later, it's that I would maybe like to read how the game starts to tie things up, and if combat got in the way of it or artificially inflated the time taken with the game.

    That said I think this review rolls along well and if the end is a bit jarring--even something like "Despite these flaws..." these mostly seem like details in a solid, enjoyable review.

    There seems to have been some cross-ups for Venter's review and so maybe his best didn't get across. "Said problems..." ugh. "Before you say anything" -- manipulating the reader. "Consider the statistics" could be replaced by "He never gets strong enough to carry over eight items." I like the frustration in the repetition, and thinking back now I enjoyed the game a lot more with byte editing. Still I found myself summarizing a lot of the review and thinking "why didn't he do that?" -- maybe stating that it sucks to have to cast a return spell at L20. Perhaps a word or two about saving the game would establish if it were terrible. I also like how you drop the neologisms without judgement ("magidrake.")

    The review winds up well, but getting there, you might want to cut it down--if it's worth reviewing something so far past. I suspect you'd have had an easy time of proofreading this review. Unfortunately, team logistics gummed things up. This review avoids juvenile dissing but seems to maunder a bit. With a game like Dragon Warrior, I can't blame it, but I'm here to judge and not empathize.

    WINNER: GENJ

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Genj - Shadow Hearts: I recall being very excited when this game came out. Finally an RPG that is not cutesy and mostly happy. We get a hero plagued by Malice and having to rid himself of the said malice by visiting the Graveyard. This was a very well done review. It touched on both the high points and low points of the game without being overzealous about either point. I found here too a good an explanation of the combat system as I have seen in any other review and that is no simple feat. This review was a very easy read and flowed very well.

    Venter - Dragon Warrior: Ten spells, three shields and seven suits of armor hardly make for an exciting hero but the impact of the game was so strong it spawned a generation of games. The things we think of as nostalgic are brought out in this review and fully exposed for the atrocities they actually were. Although mostly sounding like one long complaint on the game it was an enjoyable read.

    Genj vs. Venter: This was an extremely difficult choice. Both of these were fine reviews. Overall I felt Genj did a slightly better job. Genj is the winner.

    -----

    Zigfried:
    Genj's review of Shadow Hearts begins at break-neck speed, and not in the right way... add some punctuation or break up those sentences, man! Fortunately, the content itself is well-chosen and makes the game sound pretty exciting.

    Evil Zig: I want to watch Alice hentai.

    There are some other quirks here too, such as "Atlas" when it should be "Atlus" and using the plural "PlayStation RPGs" in the conclusion (should be singular). Your description of clichs starts well enough, but then you started describing some weird-ass freaks who actually sounded pretty cool. I understand that the "motley party" concept is a clich, but I still couldn't help but think that this all sounded refreshing. When you got to the village of cannibals, I was totally not thinking "clich" any longer.

    Evil Zig: I would eat Alice.

    The first sentence of the third paragraph ("The game is a typical J-RPG with several twists...") initially felt stilted. I thought it was because you had already talked about clichs, but I was wrong. In looking at the review again, I think it felt stilted because you spend most words in that paragraph talking about how the game is different from other J-RPGs. I would suggest rewording that sentence to emphasize the difference, instead of the typicality. For example, "The game adds several twists -- some good and some bad -- to the typical J-RPG routine."

    But enough of those kinds of things.

    I liked how you provided a sense of the times near the end -- reminding people that even when new, more impressive games were just around the corner. Overall, this was a review with strong content that would be more effective with some work on the wording.

    MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH.....

    Venter went way back in time with a Dragon Warrior review from 2005. I liked the Halo reference ("Spartan" in paragraph two). More than that, I liked how this review got off to an easygoing and conversational start. It's very inviting and makes me want to pull up a chair.

    Evil Zig: I really could have done without the parts about "strips of foreskin". If I wanted to know about your periwinkle mountains, I would ask.

    Dragon Warrior really is horrible -- it was always horrible -- and I agree with so many of the things you've written. It's irritating that some people actually defend this game. It may have been influential, but if not for Dragon Warrior, some other -- most likely better -- game would have been influential instead. This is a game that never needed to exist.

    Evil Zig: Fuck Dragon Warrior. Fuck Dragon Warrior up the ass.

    This is a fun and easy read.

    ===> My pick: Venter <===

    Ultimate Victor: Genj (2-1)

    *****************************************

    Wolfqueen?? versus Jerec??
    Wolfqueen: Kingdom Hearts II
    Jerec: Shadow Hearts


    ASchultz:
    I actually forgot who wrote which review and was surprised to see it was Jerec who wrote Shadow Hearts. Here too I like the introduction but I'm afraid that there are a lot of mistakes Jerec wouldn't make now. It runs around in circles a bit, with one part re-stating "lack of polish" and mentioning bad visuals, except when there are good visuals, but there are lots of bad visual. And again, the word "boring" gets overused--use it once or, maybe, twice.

    While I know Jerec's made big progress as a writer since then, it's too bad he didn't find inspiration to write something. Or maybe he did and it wasn't a review.

    Wolfqueen's introduction really works for me, and the second paragraph also works well. On rereading, I figures Sora probably was Roxas, more or less, and I didn't need the review to ell us. This review has a lot of strong points that make me overlook the stylistic concerns elsewhere eg "I wouldn't do thngs like that." For instance, "make an appearance in a completely unique way" -> "remake themselves."

    This game is a good choice for a finals review and it's executed well. It's tough to describe stuff like combat and shortcuts and how that lets you get back to the actual game, but I think it's done well and the whole Goofy/Sora/Donald thing reall fits into the plot. Not a lot is overwritten and on the other hand this review never feels stuffy.

    WINNER: WOLFQUEEN

    -----

    CoarseDragon:
    Wolfqueen - Kingdom Hearts II: Disney does indeed have some magical worlds that lend themselves very nicely to a game. We are given some really nice vivid pictures of the different areas in the game and (although not really necessary) how they differ from the first game. We are given a lot of good information but I dont think it would have hurt any to add one more paragraph on the battle systems changes/additions. There were some places that needed to be cleaned up a bit like this sentence Its use for summoning, but more importantly serves as a medium transform Sora into something ferocious.

    Jerec - Shadow Hearts: An interesting opening even though it is slightly out of order. (Roger Bacon puts Alice to sleep after he slams Yuri backward through a few train cars.) Our reviewer seemed to dislike the Judgement Wheel and, although not mentioned, the use of the wheel in some of the puzzles did get to be annoying at times. I felt the review opened very well but that was soon forgotten as the review slide more or less into complaining about the games battle system without telling us very much about anything else in the game.

    Wolfqueen vs. Jerec: Wolfqueen is the winner.

    -----

    Zigfried:

    An ode to Wolfqueen, set to the tune of Kingdom Hearts II

    Oh Wolfqueen, your passion is like a drug to me
    A surprising abundance of Disney-inspired energy
    With descriptive stories of Kingdom Hearts both olde and newe
    'Twas missing just a bit of "but is it good?", that's true

    Improvements are cited in the grand finale,
    Improvements described only two paragraphs before;
    Difficult it was not to enjoy reading this piece,
    Difficult it was to understand this RPG's rightful place.


    The poem critic says: High on enjoyably descriptive writing, not so high on strongly supported opinions.

    An ode to Jerec, set to the tune of Shadow Hearts:

    Oh Jerec, I've read this one before
    I liked it well, that much is true,
    But my jaw will no longer hit the floor
    Why couldn't you type on Dreamcast like Blu?

    Begone, foul thoughts -- like demons in the night!
    This tells a story, a tale that sounds most delightfully odd
    While judging everything else with a harsh taskmaster's rod;
    As another once said -- Awesome opening paragraphs and a fast-paced ride through the fundamentals make this an excellent review -- that's right!


    The poem critic says: While somewhat stale to this seasoned reader's mind, the review's strength remains apparent.

    ===> My pick: Jerec <===

    Ultimate Victor: Wolfqueen (2-1)

    THE FINAL SUMMATION:
    Wolfqueen's team wins! Congratulations!

    //Zig
    board icon
    jerec posted August 27, 2010:

    Our team won! Woo!

    Well, if I pretend Zigfried is the only judge. Thanks Zig!

    I'm almost tempted to post the half dozen abandoned reviews I tried writing for the final. In what little time I had.
    board icon
    bluberry posted August 27, 2010:

    Well, if I pretend Zigfried is the only judge. Thanks Zig!

    congratulations.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 28, 2010:

    hahahaha, Zig, those poem things were awesome.

    Anyway, thanks for the feedback and all the time and effort everyone put into this. The level of competition Team Leroux put forth made this match was very close; I would have been perfectly happy if they had won instead.

    I also want to thank my own team members for putting in the effort they did, especially genj, who wrote something new every week during this contest. That's a remarkable thing to actually do in my opinion, and not something I could replicate (though not for my lack of trying). I'm glad that all that drama earlier didn't ruin the experience overall (or, at least I hope it didn't). Really, the way I see it, I think this whole contest turned out well all things considering. I'm deeply grateful to Leroux for putting it together and keeping it that way despite everything that had happened.
    board icon
    Leroux posted August 28, 2010:

    Genj and Wolfqueen earned this victory and I almost feel in their debt for their terrific turnout, week in and week out, which was a huge reason this tournament was a success. A hearty congratulations on the title and a terrific rebound from a tough start.

    It'd be hard to argue that third guy isn't terribly talented and deserving as well. NickEvil lost interest most of a season, won the damn thing, and was forgiven and praised. Suskie deserves the same.

    I want to go out of my way to thank Zigfried for his comments this round -- they are especially motivating... and I think we didn't see enough of that from our judges in general this year, inspiring and helping instead of just finding fault (a tough line to walk, I know). I'm currently without full time Internet right now, so it might be some time between reviews. But I have some more old school takes up my sleeve, and plenty of 90s brawlers go uncovered, and I'd like to cover some newer releases -- the new Splatterhouse, for instance -- before the year is out too. We'll see if that happens.

    Congrats on a great year all around and three cheers for the winners.
    board icon
    Genj posted August 28, 2010:

    I really didn't expect my team to win TT. I'm not really sure how this happened. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the contest. I hope everyone had fun. Thanks to the judges for all that work and time commitment they made. I can't imagine doing that was exactly thrilling. Thanks, Leroux, for handling the administrative end.
    board icon
    Suskie posted August 28, 2010:

    Adding to what Leroux said: I don't want to sound like I didn't appreciate the judges' efforts (I certainly did, and I'm sure everyone else did as well), but I feel Schultz has a vastly different perspective on reviews than most of us do, while CD's general newness to this whole ordeal combined with judging in such a monstrous event made it difficult for him to formulate and communicate his views, which is why people were so often asking for clarification. The competitive element makes TT for me (since I write a lot of reviews anyway), so that's why I lost interest. And hopefully the fact that I won means people can finally stop telling me I'm just being a sore loser.

    Anyway, that's all I'm going to say about that, since I don't want to put a damper on this victory (and, like I said, I appreciated the judges' efforts nonetheless). Thanks to Leroux's team for a good final match, thanks for the win, and a big congrats to my two teammates, who easily deserve this far more than I do.

    And once again, kudos to everyone for the spectacular amount of excellent content produced through this tournament. Please don't stop now!
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted August 30, 2010:

    while CD's general newness to this whole ordeal combined with judging in such a monstrous event made it difficult for him to formulate and communicate his views

    Somewhat true and while the other judges may have looked at individual pieces of a review I looked more toward the overall impression. Look at the sky in a painting. Is the sky blue? Which color blue does not matter as long as it looks like the sky or an impression of the sky. There were some places in the different reviews that simply broke the flow and I tried to point those out but at the same time each of you has a certain style and I don't think it is my place to tell you how to change your style necessarily, but rather to point out what I thought worked and did not work for me.

    In essence did the review give me the information I needed in an easy to read manner without bashing too much or over praising more than necessary.

    Congratulations to the winners and non-winners alike.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 30, 2010:

    Hey, congrats to everyone who made it all the way through the gauntlet!
    board icon
    JANUS2 posted August 31, 2010:

    Sorry, something's come up so I'm not going to be able to do last week's ROTW.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted August 31, 2010:

    Maybe it's time for an overhaul of ROTW? It doesn't seem to be getting much response these days, even from participants (ie. reviewers). I know we talked about this before and were in favor of keeping it going, but maybe it's time to revisit that conversation?

    Maybe there's some other, more simple way, of recognizing reviews? Like if the site staff see a review that they think is particularly good, they can choose to feature it. Sort've an "editor's pick" thing, like what many new sites do.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted August 31, 2010:

    There's nothing wrong with the influx of contributions regarding RotW at the moment. If it looks like it's slow, it's because of TT. The same thing happened last year. It's only been about a week or two since the tournament ended. I'm sure some people need a break.

    I'm more worried about the people who are in charge of making the topics. Schultz hasn't responded to my second nudge, and he hasn't really been active lately, so I'm guessing he's MIA at the moment. I'm strongly considering doing his week for him despite the fact I have a review that week should I find time and if no one else wants to do it instead. I'm 95% certain that review wouldn't have even placed anyway.

    (The week in question was August 1st through 7th)

    Janus said he'd cover last week (August 22 - 28, I think), but he hasn't really been around lately either. But I have faith that he'll get to it eventually.

    EDIT: There are 7 unique reviews submitted between August 22 and August 28 for Janus to look at. I don't know why you're worried about the actual number of submissions. (That's what it looks likke to me, anyway, since that was the issue last time.)

    To fix the RotW staffing problem, we should really just ask to see who'd be willing to replace the ones who are slow or non-existent (Rand especially and maybe Schultz if he doesn't show up soon to claim his spot and explain himself.)
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted August 31, 2010:

    Not sure if you all liked my judging in the TT but if you need some help on these things let me know. I can't say for sure I can do anything the way you might want it but I am on the 'net everyday except most Saturdays and Sundays) and would be happy to help out.

    Actually I am on the 'net everyday for/at work so my weekends are spent gaming off the internet.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 01, 2010:

    It's been a month since Schultz was supposed to have had this done, and while I cut him some slack for putting in all that (much appreciated) effort for TT, this has just been waiting far too long. The people who contributed this week don't deserve to wait any longer, and they shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.

    With that said, I sacrifice my own chances at placing (slim as they would have been) to finally get this done.


    Choosing the three reviews to place this week wasn't too difficult, but actually placing them in order was. All three I found to be very good and compelling reads, so the placement could've gone either way.

    THIRD PLACE: Castlevania: Harmony of Despair by honestgamer

    Not having played many Castlevania games myself (Symphony of the Night is the only one I've played through, though I did give the NES one a try before giving up), I wasn't really sure what to expect from this. The comparisons with other games in the series is appreciated (and would be especially for fans who are more familiar with the series), as they paint a picture of what this game does differently and what it does the same. From the sound of it, it seems like it did enough different to make it actually quite good as well as making it unique enough to be called more than just a rehash of the DS title.

    The writing itself is very thorough and exact; I feel like I know all I need to about the game. Though, there almost may have been a little too much detail that went into this, which may have gotten in the way of some of your broader points, but even if that's the case, it's not serious enough to really detract from anything.

    SECOND PLACE: Summoner by Overdrive

    I left you feedback (brief though it was) on this when you first wrote it, which you handily ignored (though perhaps you just didn't see it). It's only by grace and fortune that I rivisited it. =P Reading it a second time, I find I like it even better. You're entertaining while at the same time informative. I get a very clear picture of what this game could have been but wasn't. You make the flaws sound annoying and the interesting parts, well, interesting.

    But please, for the love of God, it's Elder Scrolls IV. Not Enchanted Scrolls. xP I think you left it in to spite me...

    FIRST PLACE: Ecco the Dolphin by JANUS2

    I've never played this game, though it's one I've always been curious about. I think I remember trying it ages and ages ago in some game store that was selling it and not being able to figure anything out about it. I always like these retrospective reviews because, depending on what they cover, they often look back on something they were once fond of and then tear it up. This dispelling of nostalgia and opening one's mind to reality (or at least a more open perception of it) allows for a fairer judgment of the game in question that might otherwise not be had elsewhere.

    This review is very effective in that regard. I understand exactly what drew you into the game in the first place, something that sounds like it could've been very effective on me, too, given the opportunity. And I understand exactly why you can't stand it anymore. It's like Incredible Crash Dummies was for me a few years ago. Upon returning to it again after about a decade or so, I found that the controls were absolutely useless and that I had almost no connection to what made me love it in the first place. Your case is much stronger than mine was, in my opinion, but your change in view was also considerably harsher. I also found the descriptions and examples to be quite vivid without being overly elaborate, which also made this an effective review for me.


    And now we return to our regularly scheduled RotW. Well, as close to regular as it gets. Janus, where'd you go? =/
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted September 01, 2010:

    I can fill in for either Rand or Schultz, permanently if required.
    board icon
    True posted September 01, 2010:

    Maybe there's some other, more simple way, of recognizing reviews? Like if the site staff see a review that they think is particularly good, they can choose to feature it. Sort've an "editor's pick" thing, like what many new sites do.

    I still stand by the idea of giving users their own focus window and having the ROTW featured there. Give a little extra incentive for those submitting instead of just a forum that people eventually gloss over.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 01, 2010:

    Janus left the building.

    Thanks so much for doing this, WQ. For the last year, I've tried to keep the ROTW going as smoothly as possible without coming off as too much of a dick and it hasn't been easy. When someone volunteers to solve a problem like this, I think everyone who is a regular here really appreciates it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 01, 2010:

    To clarify, WQ, I "am" worried about the judges, not the reviewers. We have more reviews than usual these days. It just seems that no one is around to consistently recognize them.

    Sorry if that wasn't clear.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 01, 2010:

    No worries. Due to all the interest lately,tomorrow I'm going to post something to finally resolve this issue once and for all. (I was originally going to wait until the end of the week, but now I think the sooner the better).
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted September 02, 2010:

    Writing a guide for Oblivion. Should take quite awhile to finish, luckily.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 04, 2010:

    Good things happen in September. This is stone cold fact and one that I plan to celebrate in atypical fashion. Like Christmas, millions of people look forward to the Month of the Obscure but, unlike Xmas, Im not bankrupt buying shoes the month isnt set to dissuade greedy corporations from making untold profit. This year, September is the new Month of the Obscure. This is great news for forgotten Gameboy carts and bargain bins everywhere.

    For MOTO, the aim is simple. You and a partner go out and discover the most forgotten and cobweb strewn game you can find, and then you review it in front of a panel of cranky judges wholl yell at you in slightly differing tones of disappointment. Not only will your efforts be judges out of 100, but the judges will have the patented sliding scale where they can award -- or deduct -- up to 10 additional points depending on the rarity of your title. FFX? -10 points. Obscure sheep hoarding game released only in Estonia? +10! Bitch slap conformity -- bitch slap it good! Its the only way itll learn.

    Questions, applications and kooky individuals volunteering for judge spots can do so below. Not doing so is a kick in the balls for the little guy. You Dont hate the little guy, do you?

    DEADLINE:
    October 3rd

    JUDGES:
    Jerec
    Zipp
    CD
    Suskie

    TEAMS:

    TEAM NOSHOW:
    Masters
    Felix


    TEAM ZIG:
    Zig
    Zig2

    Team Three:
    OD
    Genj

    TEAM FOUR:
    True
    Nightmare

    TEAM DORK
    Will
    WQ

    TEAM SIX:
    DE
    DoI

    Team: MYSTERY
    EmP
    Beli

    Team Eight
    Espiga
    Schultz
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted September 04, 2010:

    I'm in.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 04, 2010:

    I'll judge.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 04, 2010:

    I'll play
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 04, 2010:

    As the best obscure game dude in the history of obscure game dudes, it would be a travesty if I had no involvement here. I'll fill either judge or participant role, depending on what is needed.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 04, 2010:

    I would be happy to judge. I don't think I have anything too obscure around right now. Lost in Blue, maybe but I feel that's only a +2 at best.
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 05, 2010:

    Predictable, ongoing themes are a nice driver for traffic -- people make return visits when they expect to see something that they will enjoy. With that in mind, I wanted to let everyone know of a couple that I have in mind:

    Saturday -- focus the ROTW winner

    Sunday -- a feature tentatively titled "Sunday Cabaret". Each week, Leroux will contribute an in-depth arcade review (I'll be his backup for weeks that he can't make it). I'm not sure when this will start, but please don't change the focus window on Sundays. Most of these will be submitted as freelance; I've agreed to handle the proofing for him.

    It would be awesome if we had more ideas for special features -- be it a thematic week (ie Sho's Hallowe'en spooktacular), or reviewing Final Fantasy games in order of release each Tuesday, or whatever.

    //Zig
    board icon
    darketernal posted September 05, 2010:

    EmP nags (For a change). Count me in then and save me.
    board icon
    True posted September 05, 2010:

    Before I go into who won, I must apologize to the regular organizers of Review Of The Week. What you're about to read is in no way my attempt at trying to start a trend, or something that should be expected each and every week. I will definitely try and do it again when my weeks come up, but I can't promise it will be a regular thing.

    It was my small attempt at showing appreciation for you, the contributors and mainly the regular users, who make this place what it is. Your efforts should be celebrated. You know, instead of leaving you here while I wander off to another site where you're not even allowed to post.

    That being said, on to the results:

    Third Place

    Lewis The Longest Journey - The line between saying too much and not enough is incredibly thin. Its important to give the reader an idea of what makes a game playable (or not, depending on the circumstance) but not revealing so much that they walk away feeling like theyve played it. And though you did step off the line once or twice, I am incredibly intrigued by your review and wondering for myself what this game is all about. Though I would have liked one or two specific examples of the story telling or even a description of one of the harder puzzles, my request is only half-hearted as you gave a wonderful description of April at the beginning, and her awkwardness as a young adultsomething I think weve all suffered with. It was a wonderful addition, and made it far easier to relate to the rest of the game.

    Second Place

    Woodhouse Heartwork - Please dont take this the wrong way, but reading your review kind of made me sick to my stomachin the best way possible. I believeand hopethat you picked some of the most depraved, nefarious moments in Heartwork to demonstrate how truly vile this game is, and they worked. I felt ill just hearing about them and could only imagine what it would be like to play it. Now I dont have to, andstating the obvious herethats the point of a review. Though its rather short I walked away with a strong idea of Heartwork. There were a few coma issues (two, really) that I saw but those are subjective and really dont taint an incredibly strong piece.

    First Place

    Pickhut Kane And Lynch 2: Dog Days - So two Kane and Lynch reviews this week, and to be honest with you I was never quite familiar with this franchise so I went into both pieces hoping for a decent description. I found that, so I thank you. Though your opening section cracked me up (I literally could see someone walking away amidst you describing Dog Days as an expansion pack) I worried that you would only emphasize what was new. Not so, and you made several references to the original game. For someone whos not played it, but curious, that is a welcome addition. I walked away wanting to play this game, if only for the multi-player.

    In the end, it was a really close call between Woodhouse and Pickut. Both had phenomenal descriptions and excellent flow. While I commend Woodhouse for doing such with so short a review, Pickhut's was perhaps one of the most in-depth reviews I've seen in a long time, so he gets the very hard fought win.

    For those of you who didn't place:

    Fastkilr Deathspank - Purple thong underwear? I dont know if I want to play it now out of sheer, morbid curiosity or run away screaming. Regardless, that was an excellent line. At that point, I was into the review because Ive heard that DeathSpank is a really funny game and I was hoping for examples of that, which I never really saw. Dont get me wrong, its a good review but I was hoping that at some point you would break away from the description and quote the dialogue so I could see why it made the game. The rest of it flowed nicely, and I can empathize with you in regards to being burned out. A lot of adventure games have that same style, and for anyone who has been there it was a good way of describing the repetitiveness without coming right out and saying it.

    Tom Kane And Lynch 2: Dog Days - I ODed on helicopter bosses after Metal Gear Solid, so I feel your pain. This was the second review I read for the game, and worried that I may have skimmed due to duplication, but you actually went over what he didnt cover. While he made me want to play the game, you made me opt for something else. The one issue I had was with the graphics paragraph. I apologize if this is off, but I had a hard time trying to decide if you loved or hated them. Aside from that, stellar job.

    Louisutton In Your House - This game just sounds silly, and obviously trying to capitalize on the popularity of Mortal Kombat, as mentioned. Your descriptions of the blood and Warrior throwing lightning bolts or Taker hurling ghosts was a good addition, and helped emphasize that point made earlier. It flowed nicely up until the last couple of paragraphs. I think they would have come across better had you worked them into the bulk of the reviewmaybe when you describe that In Your House takes place in the wrestlers home, go over how that looks. When youre describing the actual matches, maybe introduce the commentary there. Just a suggestion though to help tighten up an already great review.

    BLAH or blah Star Ruler - Im somewhat torn on this review. While the opening two paragraphs seemed to do a little too much reiteration on one concept, the game description had me enthralled. Being able to build my own Deathstar may have very well sold me on the game, but as it was with Louis review, a part of me just sees the description for the sound as out of place and it kind of ripped me out of the vibe you built with the game description. That middle, though, damn fine work.

    Edit - Because I forgot the music, as is typical of me and just so you know the new Disturbed album Rules Ass!

    True Baby Out.



    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 05, 2010:

    Probably no one else will say this, but even if they do, I want to be the first...

    ... I think you've outdone yourself here. Not only by giving such detailed praise but also for taking the time to comment on everyone's reviews. No, not a trend any sane person wants to start, but it deserves an appreciative mention. I only wish I had written a review for this week...
    board icon
    True posted September 05, 2010:

    Thank you, Zipp. Though you may be the only one, just the fact that you appreciate it made the time worthwhile in doing this.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 06, 2010:

    Good job, litle buddy. You put a lot of work into this, and I'm sure people will appreciate it and WQ will spent at least a few minutes not gnawing at everyone's neck.

    Congrats to Pickhut.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 06, 2010:

    Haha. Oh, please. You're one to talk about nagging! Ingrate... =P

    Anyway, thanks again for doing this, true. I really do appreciate it. The extra effort is a touch that hasn't been used in RotW in a long while. Even before, when the topic creator would make "honorable mentions", they rarely included all reviews for a given week, and, in some cases, acted more as shout-outs than actual feedback. So great work.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 06, 2010:

    I've decided to make a new topic because the old one's too cluttered and, quite frankly, has gotten a bit too complicated. I'm posting it so early in the morning as opposed to waiting until a little later to as to prevent any further delays and confusion. I think I strayed a little too far over the line of 'waiting too long' with this anyway. That said, should Schultz show up and explain himself, I'll try to fit him into the schedule, as adding a fifth man has become an option that I'd wish I'd realized sooner.

    Before I post the new line-up, some general notes and things to keep in mind:

    1: All reviews submitted during a given week are eligible for RotW.

    2: An RotW will always take place provided there is at least one review submitted for that week. A writer shouldn't be punished just because no one else submitted for a given week.

    3: Neither Zig's nor Masters's reviews will be counted in RotW

    4: All judges have until Wednesday morning of the following week to post their topics. If they can't meet this deadline, then appropriate notice should be given, preferably a few days in advance if possible.

    5: RotW topic makers should post the dates of their respective week in the topic title so as to prevent confusion when someone wants to go back and re-read that topic.

    6: Winning reviews will be marked featured the next day and will (most likely) share the focus window for a few days (unless EmP steals the focus window).

    That should cover the basics. Anything I missed will be added accordingly.

    The judges:
    OD
    bloomer (replacing Rand)
    Will (replacing Schultz)
    Jerec

    Substitutes:
    Ben
    CD
    True
    WQ

    If I missed anyone in either list, let me know and I'll update accordingly.

    Thanks for all the interest everyone showed here. I really appreciate it. And I'm sorry things got so confusing near the end there.

    Schedule

    September

    Aug. 29 - Sept. 04 - Jerec
    05 - 11 - Overdrive
    12 - 19 - Zipp
    20 - 25 - bloomer

    October

    Sept. 26 - Oct. 02 - Will
    03 - 09 - Jerec
    10 - 16 - Overdrive
    17 - 23 - Zipp
    24 - 30 - bloomer

    November

    Oct. 31 - Nov. 06 - Will
    07 - 13 - Jerec
    14 - 20 - Overdrive
    21 - 27 - CoarseDragon

    December

    Nov. 28 - 04 - bloomer
    05 - 11 - Will
    12 - 18 - Jerec
    19 - 25 - Overdrive
    26 - 01 - bloomer
    board icon
    EmP posted September 06, 2010:

    I'm going to try and do an indie cover once a week, but I'm not sure what day this will be most comfortable to fall on just yet. I'll play with it for a few weeks and see what fits best.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 06, 2010:

    Aww, I didn't get the job.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 06, 2010:

    I thought you didn't want it anymore! lol I don't have a problem modifying the schedule accordingly if you want, though.
    board icon
    espiga posted September 06, 2010:

    Sign me up as a maybe.

    If I can find something obscure enough and if I manage not to break my PC once I install my sexy new video card.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 06, 2010:

    I think Zig just made my RotW topic invalid. Only 5 reviews, 1 zig, 2 emp...
    board icon
    EmP posted September 06, 2010:

    Ignore Zig

    Do what you can

    Give EmP the win!

    I should have made an alt account to say that, really....
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 06, 2010:

    Don't worry about it Jerec. Even without Zig, there's still three reviews submitted for that week that can be put in order, so go ahead and do it. I'm actually making that another point in the "general notes" thing in the first post.

    EDIT: The "new" rule is now point #2.
    board icon
    bloomer posted September 06, 2010:

    If Jerec wants in, please add him, as it reduces everyone's workload! The dreams of more than 4 people being on the permanent roster are close to being realised.

    I also have a question. Are the dates on the roster 'Your week starts here' dates or 'Your week ends here' dates?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 06, 2010:

    Jerec really needs to just come out and say 'yes, I want the job again" because I really can't tell with all this dancing around.

    And the dates are "your week ends here" dates. I actually meant to add the start dates in, too, so it was clearer but I hadn't gotten around to it yet.
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 06, 2010:

    Jerec wants in. I say it, therefore it is so.

    //Zig
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 06, 2010:

    Very well. Schedules will be amended accordingly. Please be happy...
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 06, 2010:

    Espiga, you and I partnered up for this last year and then you ditched me. I remember that, chump.
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 06, 2010:

    I's in

    //Zig
    board icon
    erickdgamer posted September 07, 2010:

    best of luck guys!
    board icon
    jerec posted September 07, 2010:

    Zig wants his reviews in. I say it, therefore it is so.

    Seriously, though, glad to see I'm on the schedule. Please no more confusion!
    board icon
    aschultz posted September 07, 2010:

    I'm frustrated that I am not sure what I want from a review, either...I have to admit it's one thing that gets in the way of my writing a review, or judging one. I don't know if I've read as many reviews as other people here, but I have a tough time balancing Wanting New Stuff and Rewarding Old Stuff. I want to be consistent...but I don't want to be pinned down enough that people can formulate reviews, and unfortunately trying to balance that too consciously leaves me playing "Don't think of a bear." I want to offer something new, or something I hadn't thought of, because that's the most valuable feedback I can get--but I don't want to be from left field, or right field, or whichever.

    Thanks everyone for your patience while I know I sent out results slower than I'd want. It's frustrating for me because while writing reviews--and reading reviews--has been --there--, it has recently felt like a dead end.

    What's frustrating is that the people do write well, and it's good to see them able to "bring it." More writing from them is a good thing, and it motivates me, even if I can't/don't say so.
    board icon
    aschultz posted September 07, 2010:

    I have an obscure game, and I can make up the numbers if there's an odd man out.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted September 07, 2010:

    !

    This is definitely a surprise, especially since it was a big week for reviews. Then again, I'm always surprised to win a RotW. Thanks to True for his comments on the review and the win, of course, and congrats to everyone that submitted that week! You all provided reviews that were entertaining to read.
    board icon
    True posted September 07, 2010:

    I have an obscure game, and I can make up the numbers if there's an odd man out.

    All the games you own are obscure, A-Man.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted September 07, 2010:

    Good luck with Oblivion that one could take a looong time. There is so much to do in that game. I had somewhere around 170 quests done (that includes the extra content) but not all of them were story quests.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 07, 2010:

    The vibe I get from your critiques is that you're listing things you would do to edit the review if it were yours. Sometimes this is good advice, sometimes it takes the review in a different direction that the author didn't intend for it. And these sorts of critiques are very helpful in the feedback topics, but in this tournament, it seemed like a game of picking which review you'd have less to nitpick on.

    I remember commenting after week 1 of the tourney that Zig would go for style, you'd go for the technical part of writing, and CD would flip a coin. :P

    Made it very hard to find reviews that would please all three judges, and over the tourney, there were very few 3-0 matches.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted September 07, 2010:

    Actually there were more 3-0 matches than I though there would be.

    and CD would flip a coin I never did flip a coin, I'm so broke I couldn't afford a coin to flip. Really though I took the contest very seriously and gave it my best effort with my limited experience at judging reviews of the calibur we had in TT.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 07, 2010:

    Depending on numbers, I may turn this back into a single man/WQ event rather than pairs.

    You'll know as soon as I decide, but feel free to start chatting up potential tag partners.
    board icon
    aschultz posted September 07, 2010:

    That's a good point, Jerec--though I think CoarseDragon did considerably more than flip a coin. However, there's something to be said for "staying in your lanes." It's where I feel most comfortable with critiquing, and if we take the Team Tourney as a way to try new stuff and see what works, then it helps to have different perspectives and judges. Of course, difference for the sake of difference sucks & I avoid that. But it seemed like I had a niche for technical suggestions.

    I think it's important to see which questions a review answers and leaves unanswered. I like being able to say, yes, this review is good, and it makes me wonder about other stuff. Not to sound all Eastern Mysticism, but there always seem to be questions to ask. How much fun I have asking them--or, more rarely, feel like something cool has been answered--generally denotes how good the stuff-I-wrote was.

    Also, isn't it a bad thing to have a straightforward way to make reviews that would please all the judges? I mean, that's sort of like a win-all cheat in a game--it could kind of ruin things. It also defeats the point of creativity, or deciding what's most important to you. If the judges have that determined in advance, then you're not really writing for yourself but for them, and it's more model airplane building than review writing. And if there's a golden road to gaining their favor, people will lean more to that than to trying something new.

    I also have to say that although initially it can be tough to hear "what about X" or "Y doesn't work" it's a great feeling to fit even 1/10 of X's and Y's into a review to make it better. YMMV.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 07, 2010:

    Well, that comment was after the first week. He got into the flow of things after that. :P
    board icon
    espiga posted September 07, 2010:

    Espiga, you and I partnered up for this last year and then you ditched me. I remember that, chump.

    I did? FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

    Sorry. ; ;

    My life likes to randomly enter and exit tumultuous times, and my activity here reflects the calmer moments. If it puts your mind at ease just a little bit, I only signed on as a MAYBE this year! (and I just posted a review)
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted September 07, 2010:

    Yes, jerec week 2. (I saved everything.) I'll note the one part for you.

    Before we get to a winner I have to say this was a most difficult choice. Both reviews in my opinion were very well done and each gave a good amount of information and reasons for their final score. If I could give each a half win I would but I guess there needs to be a winner *flips coin* (Really I did not flip a coin.) I give this win to Venter because I felt that review tells us why the game did not measure up a bit better than Genj telling why the game did measure up.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 07, 2010:

    Haha, I don't actually care. They paired me with someone else who didn't have a partner and I didn't have a good game for the competition anyway. Turns out the judges couldn't be fooled into thinking award-winning Half-Life 2 mods are obscure.
    board icon
    Masters posted September 08, 2010:

    Felix said he'd join as my partner if this is a duo thing, but if it isn't, he won't.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 08, 2010:

    Felix said he'd join as my partner if this is a duo thing, but if it isn't, he won't.

    It now is. Out of spite.
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted September 08, 2010:

    It looks like I'm in then.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 09, 2010:

    When's the deadline for this, or rather, when will I be judging?
    board icon
    EmP posted September 09, 2010:

    Deadline is in the first post.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 09, 2010:

    You just snuck that in there after I asked, didn't you? DIDN'T YOU!
    board icon
    EmP posted September 09, 2010:

    PROVE IT!
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted September 09, 2010:

    I studied the other MOTOs so if you need another judge I'd be happy to help.

    (I need the work)
    board icon
    zigfried2 posted September 09, 2010:

    I will team with Zigfried.

    //Zig2
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 09, 2010:

    Sounds good.

    //Zig
    board icon
    honestgamer posted September 09, 2010:

    I'm suspicious. There's something funny happening here!
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 09, 2010:

    I agree. I think Masters and Felix may be the same person.

    //Zig
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 09, 2010:

    So far, no one has BEGGED me to give them the greatest privilege of their life by deigning to be their teammate in this thing. Or begging me to do anything. Look! I like to feel like a bigshot. So someone start begging me to give their life meaning.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 10, 2010:

    OD: Please participate in the tournament in some fashion or another. But since you indicated you could do eiter judging or participating, it's hard to actually "beg" you to do either unless you state which one you'd prefer to do.

    Personally, I'd like to see you compete because, the way I see it, the more competitors the better the tournament will be.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 10, 2010:

    I won't compete but I suppose I can judge if need be.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 10, 2010:

    You won't fool me with your foolishness, Zig.
    board icon
    Genj posted September 11, 2010:

    Yo OD, team up with me or I'll slap you like a bitch.
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 11, 2010:

    One of my big life goals is to avoid being bitch-slapped, so I accept, Genj!
    board icon
    erickdgamer posted September 11, 2010:

    Hello......
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted September 13, 2010:

    Who doesn't have a partner yet?
    board icon
    True posted September 13, 2010:

    Count me in.
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted September 13, 2010:

    I would like to compete in this competition for a chance at the $250 first place cash prize.
    board icon
    Nightmare posted September 14, 2010:

    Need a partner, True?
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted September 15, 2010:

    I need something to do anyway, and will thustly join.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 15, 2010:

    Looking to be a big one! Now we'll see which of you slackers actually write reviews.
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 15, 2010:

    At one point, there were plans to actually have this done on time. But I was hung over on Sunday, so that was a wasted day (lay on couch, watch football, occasionally change channel). And the last two days were kind of hectic. So you get the OD-Special once again, which is a Wednesday RotW! So, YAYYYYYY for me!!!!!

    Usual rules in effect, assuming I still remember them.




    THIRD PLACE: Final Fantasy XI (PC) by espiga

    Well done nostalgic review. You both give a decent description of the game for those (like me) who aren't familiar with this one AND tie things up with a neat little eReunion story. All in all, it's a fun review to read and I really liked how you made it relevant for today by mentioning that you went back to it because an update raised the level cap. Just one nice little touch in a review full of them.

    SECOND PLACE: Dead Space (360) by fleinn

    You did some really good things in this review. I loved the "while we sit still and wait" interlude riffing on the slow start of the game and tutorial. You also explain the atmosphere and encounters and how they carry the game and mention how the story is lacking and things could have been better if there was a certain cohesion, instead of you going from one encounter to the next. Concluding with a description of one such tense situation is the sort of thing that makes me want to play this game, as you made that scene seem tense.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days (PS3) by hmd

    From my time scouring teh Intrawebz and stuff, I've gotten the idea that the average person looks at this game as mediocre, which led me to be surprised to see a 100% positive look at it. And you give a good defense for your thoughts, demonstrating why you got into both the gameplay and the plot. It's really an interesting look at the game, as you barely mentioned the actual playing other than to describe the cover-based shooter style, while focusing on the experience of following the characters (with some nice observations, like the overall lack of music...even for dramatic purposes). That's the sort of thing I can relate to, as I've played games where all I really can say about the gameplay is that it was a solid representation of its genre, but I have a TON to say about the storytelling, characters, etc. You focused on what was important to you and made it work.




    Now, it's time to write other things. Write, write, write!
    board icon
    EmP posted September 15, 2010:

    The first post is updated.

    People still running spare a week before deadline will be placed in random teams. Picked through randomness.

    That is all.
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 15, 2010:

    If you only want three judges then I don't mind sitting this one out. I more or less volunteered so no one could accuse me of just sitting on my ass.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 15, 2010:

    Sweet. I'm glad you got to this relatively on time. I really appreciate that and hope you continue to do so in the future.

    As for the results themselves, I was really, really pulling for espiga this week because I personally thought his blew everyone else's out of the water, but oh well. Congrats to him and the others for their placements.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted September 15, 2010:

    That review of Final Fantasy XI by espiga was truly a winner. Excellent choice.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 15, 2010:

    I concur. OD has excellent taste because he agrees with me.
    board icon
    fleinn posted September 15, 2010:

    *nods* that review explains why people I know who have played FF11 shuffle around and mutter to themselves when I ask what it was like. Not easy to write a review like that. :)

    And thanks for the feedback. Really happy the review came through the way I wanted. ..even if it sounds a bit too much when I read it now..

    (Oh, and I'd like to mention Pickhut's Muramasa review for this sentence: "Now, I know it took a lot of time and effort to create the detailed art and animation for the game, and that easily explains why everything was repeated so much.")
    board icon
    True posted September 15, 2010:

    I'm in, Nightmare.

    Make it so, Emp.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 16, 2010:

    DRAFT POOL:
    EmP
    Will
    WQ
    DE
    Espiga
    Schultz
    True
    Beli
    Nightmare
    DoI

    This is a list of people that need to team up before the judges start arbitrarily assigning them to teams. Regardless of whether we have that power, I insist on an EmP-WQ team.
    board icon
    EmP posted September 17, 2010:

    SUSKIE -- You had your chance. Four judges used to be common back in the day, and I feel nostalgic.

    ZIPP -- WQ was poached before the team could be made!

    BELISARIOS -- I extend to you a certain invitation to victory.
    board icon
    BELISARIOS posted September 18, 2010:

    I accept your invitation, EmP. Let our combined strength chill the hearts of fighting men!
    board icon
    EmP posted September 18, 2010:

    So be it! From here on forth we shall be known as Team: MYSTERY. For we are as secretive as we are mysteriously mysterious.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 18, 2010:

    EmP, you clever dog. I was going to take off points for you not being on WQ's team, but your gentlemanly aspiration to victory has moved me. It helps that I'm listening to an intensely dramatic Donkey Kong Country 2 mix.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 18, 2010:

    Zipp: It was ultimately decided for the benefit of the tournament and ensuring overall participation that EmP and I would not be on the same team this year.

    Also, Will technically asked first and he's my friend, too. haha
    board icon
    Suskie posted September 18, 2010:

    No, don't get me wrong. I'm cool with judging as long as you guys are.
    board icon
    bloomer posted September 19, 2010:

    Could someone please add 'The Lurking Horror' for Apple II.

    You already have some other versions of it listed. Thanks.

    ADDED!
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 20, 2010:

    My partner Zigfried2 informs me that he'll be reviewing a shooter.

    Me, I think I'll go for a strategy game of some sort.

    Just a proper heads up as to what people should expect to be beaten by.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 21, 2010:

    Home again, home again, jiggity jigg.

    For some reason, that was running through my head just now. I decided to humour myself and post it. Now back to relevancy. The "R" in ROTW stands for Relevancy. Or maybe Radioactive. I've never really known. I am sure that it doesn't stand for Reliability, but beyond that it's anyone's guess.




    Venter's Submission

    Right away Venter pegs the major difficulty of this game: it's difficult to talk about with someone who hasn't played it. Like me. It was tough for me to get into the review at first, without having that background. Yet you quickly develop a dialogue with the reader that speaks to the experiences of both veterans and newbies. In the process you got me really excited to try out this game, in the same way Zig got me excited to try Death Spire. Well done.




    EmP's submission

    Great opening, EmP. Sometimes when you can't figure out how to start a piece, you just say that out loud and get on with it. Introductions are quickly becoming my least favorite part of anything. I have trouble with them in scripts, in novels, and in reviews. I really want to say, "Look, here's the characters/game, it's cool, let's get down to business."

    Anyway, for all that, you do get down to business fast, immediately telling us what we'll need in order to enjoy this game. I like that. I appreciate that as a gamer. I like knowing where the reviewer stands on a game before reading their review. It helps inform the reading and it serves you well here.

    The rest of the review is your usual good descriptions, clever wordplay, sharp observations, critique that borders on cynicism, excitement that borders on sarcasm, and errors that no one bothers to notice because we all figure WolfQueen will fix them sometime soon.




    Wolf Queen's submission

    Speaking of which, we get a stellar review from WQ this week. I've said it before, but these kooky games are some of the hardest to write for. You might think it offers more material when the writing is witty and charming and the game interesting, but in actuality it's harder to accurately portray how GOOD a game is than it is to give examples of how BAD a game is. At least while staying interesting.

    Wolf Queen gets right on it, though. Her review is full of passion and I think it's particularly effective that she is very open about the game's flaws. Those are some pretty big flaws in my book, but she uses them to showcase the writing as being good enough to white wash them. For a game like this, I am usually only interested in the gaming mechanics but you got me interested in the script as well. Good times.




    And the winner is...

    You get the win, Venter.

    I actually passed Venter's review over the first time I read the reviews for this week but something about it drew me back to try again and I'm glad I did. It was a very tough call between the submissions, especially the three posted here, but ultimately that drawback and subsequent excitement for a genre I usually dislike pushed me towards this decision. If I had the money to spare, this is the game I would pick up.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted September 21, 2010:

    Already finished the all guild, DLC and (hopefully) optional quests. Did a few lists here and there, but won't have a chance at doing, say, equipment lists with all that leveled stuff available. Probably one of the few times where a game's sprawl is really THAT daunting -- cryin' shame. Gotta do vampirism, menu explanations (usually I'd skip that but...) controls and tips/tricks, and then it should be gravy.
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 21, 2010:

    DARK spire!

    //Zig
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 21, 2010:

    That was for you. And maybe because I forgot it again.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 21, 2010:

    Hey. Thanks for getting this up with being so busy and all (I saw your message). But, well, you may have to redo this a little depending on what you want/decide to do.

    Your week wasn't supposed to cover the 19th of September; just the 18th. I didn't make that error in the schedule, so next time, please pay attention to that. In any case, I don't know how fair it is to redraw the RotW, but I know it would be doubly unfair if Jason's review got counted twice. It's up to you whether to redraw this week's RotW (you'll only be replacing one review anyway) or to leave it. If you leave it, I'll have to update the schedule so that Venter's review isn't counted again.

    Whatever happens, congrats to the winners / participants.

    P.S. I'd also request that all RotW topic makers put the dates of their week in the topic title. I'll have to make a note of this in the official topic thing, which I'll do when I or someone else feels like bumping it again.

    EDIT: errors that no one bothers to notice because we all figure WolfQueen will fix them sometime soon

    Haha. I fixed all his errors already! ....did I miss some?

    EDIT 2: Zipp, did you read all the reviews submitted on the 19th or just Jason's? If you decide to keep the RotW the way it is, that information will be critical.
    board icon
    bloomer posted September 21, 2010:

    If Zipp included all the 19th as it appears, just shorten my week by a day as a one-off (IE I'll do 20-25). Jason's review has now already been dealt with.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 21, 2010:

    I'm a little concerned about doing that if there aren't a whole lot of reviews for this week. Depending on the amount of content, I might be inclined to give it a full 7 days so that more people have a chance to submit for this week.

    Depending on how things go here, though, we'll see.

    In any case, I guess even if Zipp has read Nightmare's review, I can just leave the week as is and tell you to just ignore Jason's review. I don't know how fair that would be, either, though.
    board icon
    bloomer posted September 21, 2010:

    Here's how I see it - that day has been done. I don't think it's fair to anyone to reassess it. It's harder to move all the weeks by 1 day than to just adjust mine down by 1 day for one week. I'm all for simple fixes.

    In terms of number of reviews, I don't see it as being about chance to submit. Whenever you submit, it falls into someone's ROTW topic. If there are few reviews this week, having one less day won't change that much. In conclusion, I remain a big fan of my solution here.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 22, 2010:

    Lord, I messed up worse than that. I looked at the October dates, 17-23rd, so read those reviews. This is why I'm pulling out of the ROTW... I'm just too bogged with other commitments to keep doing it at the level I'd like to. I'll do October, but I think that should be my last month rather than December, if someone else would like to step in. Things are only going to get more busy once school starts.

    That said, nothing changes in my line up or in the winners, if we count Jason's review as being for this week. I've gone back and read the other two reviews I missed and I still make these three my top choice.

    In this case, I think Bloomer's solution makes the most sense. Otherwise, I can easily add another comment for another review and give the award to my runner-up. Your decision.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 22, 2010:

    I... hahahaha. Wow. That really sucks. But, well, a break will probably be good for you.

    Anyway, don't worry about it then. We'll go with bloomer's idea since, fortunately for everyone, the mistake didn't lead to a worse outcome. Though, at the rate things are going now, there might not even be an RotW this week. lol
    board icon
    EmP posted September 22, 2010:

    We're on the eve of a tourney, so I would wager Bloomer will soon have enough to do.

    No doubt I would have won this gig if it were done fairly, but I will sacrifice this for the ease of my fellow man.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 22, 2010:

    Will and I have decided to call ourselves Team 1337. Because.... um... yeah. >_> Totally not dorky or anything.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 22, 2010:

    No doubt, EmP. No doubt. Though I think I've already given you, like, three wins.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted September 22, 2010:

    Yeah, and there are so many class combinations you could do a FAQ on that alone. I look forward to your FAQ they are always a good read.
    board icon
    honestgamer posted September 22, 2010:

    Once we're sure my victory stands, go ahead and upgrade my review to "Featured" status. It'll be only my third win, and that means it's still exciting for me. I have milestones to reach!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 22, 2010:

    It stands, Jason. And bloomer is now in charge of a shorter week.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted September 22, 2010:

    Well, it's done for the most part. Gimme some feedback or tell something you'd like to see, and if it's doable, I'll consider it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 22, 2010:

    You do know this was all engineered by Bloomer, right? I said I'd help him out for a few quid, but he never came through so I'm exposing him.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 22, 2010:

    Ahahahaha. Don't be silly. If it were orchestrated, I'd have to fire you. =P
    board icon
    honestgamer posted September 22, 2010:

    I like to imagine that you saying this from behind a huge, mahogany desk whilst stroking the fur of a cat with long white hair (a Persian?) using one hand and adjusting a huge Cuban cigar in an ash tray on the desk's edge with the other. That's not how it actually happened...obviously?
    board icon
    JoeTheDestroyer posted September 23, 2010:

    I'm Joe. I was out of the reviewing business for a while, but recently got back in. Upon reading my older reviews, I realized how much they stank. I decided I want to improve my review writing by gaining feedback from others, and hope to do so here.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 23, 2010:

    There is no place better for improving your video game writing. Good to have you here. Well at least for now it is... you might be a jerk in disguise. Welcome, in any case!
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted September 23, 2010:

    I really like your layout. Easy to read, follow and search through. I'm still going over it but here are a few things I noted.

    In the Birthsigns section under Thief you noted Steed has giving +10 to Speed, that should be +20 to Speed.

    I noticed you used "incumbrance" in the Menu Overview section where in any other place you used "encumbrance". A small difference but "encumbrance" is more in keeping with the games notations.


    This is a tip that worked for me and if you want you can add it or change it to fit.

    During the tutorial and in the early parts of the game, up through level 10 or so, I used non-major skills as much as possible to increase level-up stat boost points. For example my weapon of choice (Major skill) is Blade, but during the tutorial I used a Mace or Axe (Blunt Skill) so my Strength Attribute could be increased by 5 points at level up. In this way you are ensuring you get the maximum number of available stat boosting points while not leveling up to fast, because if you level to fast in Oblivion your attributes may not be sufficiently high enough to ensure long life. Remember you only level when Major skills get a 10 point increase but Minor skills can be increased freely and add to available stat boosting points when you do get to level-up.
    board icon
    JoeTheDestroyer posted September 23, 2010:

    Thank you! I assure you, I've had most of my shots.
    board icon
    shotgunnova posted September 23, 2010:

    Good finds. For the +10 speed thing, I meant the Steed gives that much when the penalty's accounted for, unlike the Thief which just breaks even. I'll put that tip in, too.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 24, 2010:

    XD Of course not. It happened more like Dr. Doom's nefarious style of delivery.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 24, 2010:

    I'm saying it from the bathroom, actually.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted September 24, 2010:

    Happy to help. I'll let you know if I happen find anything else - so far so good though.
    board icon
    JoeTheDestroyer posted September 25, 2010:

    Longish story... If it bores you, skip it.

    I also came from GameFAQs. I was one of the lower tier reviewers. I went on hiatus right before GameFAQs review contributing went down the tube because I had completed college and was at a full time job I absolutely hated. The one plus about the job was that I discovered new people to hang out with... who had a fondness for alcohol. I woke up one morning in 2007 and thought, "What the hell am I doing? I'm making peanuts at a shitty job and drinking away my twenties..." I have since gotten back on track and have been trying to rediscover the things I used to do, reviewing being one of them. I went back over my reviews and realized just how much they sucked. I wanted to learn more about good reviewing, but all the old review contributors were gone. I found this place through aschultz's contributor page and thought, "Eh, what the hell?"
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 25, 2010:

    Wow. If we don't get any new reviews today, bloomer's going to have an easy time of things. True will be winner by default, lol.

    On that note, I've amended the schedule to reflect the change due to Zipp's mistake. I've also added a new note about including the dates of your RotW in the topic title. For almost everyone, this isn't an issue, but recent events have made the note necessary. (It's note #5 now).
    board icon
    jerec posted September 25, 2010:

    EmP has stepped up to challenge True.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 25, 2010:

    Note, too, that October will be my last ROTW. Someone will have to do my November date. Sorry!
    board icon
    bloomer posted September 26, 2010:

    Review of the Week, 20-25 September, 2010

    Coincidentally, the three reviews for this week share a common thread of comparing something new or current to something older or as it used to be (though often not as long ago as all that). The standard of all three is high.

    First place

    True's Sports Champions review for PlayStation 3

    This review of both the game and the accompanying new hardware has a pleasing conversational tone. The later part of the review describing True's surprise at how well it works made me feel pretty excited about the possibilities of the hardware, beyond the expectations set by what we know from the Wii.

    The review is especially perceptive about the logic behind the choice of 'weird' sports to include in this game (archery, frolf,) and it is because of its combination of novel argument and warranted communicable excitement that I choose it as RotW.

    Second place

    EmP's Resident Evil review for PlayStation

    EmP frames his review of RE as a description of a past relic. The game content is all described in the past tense, then the review becomes an argument about times having changed. It has a strong direction and reads persuasively. It is also a tighter piece of writing than True's, with fewer plain old writing errors, yet I felt there was some subtle trouble with the logic at the heart of the argument as it is presented here. I spent a long time debating myself, but I decided that while I continued to hesitate, I couldn't vault this over True's, which had been my initial inclination. So I went to the feedback topic to chew on a pipe and muse on logic.

    Third place

    JoeTheDestroyer's Breath of Fire III review for PlayStation

    Joe's first review on the site is a rewrite, apparently. (I discovered this by own research.) It's obvious that Joe knows his stuff in this genre. There are lots of good points about the weirdness of this game's style, considering the year it was made in.

    The line about 1998 and 1993 having a child made me laugh, but then the one about being punched in the testicles was a weird surprise. I'd say the review doesn't need the odd conspicuous lurch towards wackiness.

    Interested parties for this game won't have any shortage of information about it after reading this review. They may not be sure where Joe leans overall, as this is the kind of difficult review where even numbers of pros and cons result in the dynamic of saying, 'Well A is cool but B is not cool, C is cool but D is not cool'.

    In the end, this is not even like the other two reviews, but a worthy third place.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted September 26, 2010:

    Thanks for getting this done so quickly, bloomer.

    Congrats to the winners.
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 26, 2010:

    Congratulations to the weiners.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 26, 2010:

    The deadline is only ONE WEEK AWAY. Fire up those electric pencils! Type too fast and jam your fingers! Do whatever it takes, but just submit your reviews on time.

    I'll be reviewing a strategy game called Utawarerumono for the PS2. You may have heard that name before, but the PS2 game is quite obscure and will net me a perfect 110 score.

    I don't know what my partner will be reviewing, except that he said "you shoot uh, things, in itt [sic]", so I assume it must be a shooter.

    I told him that as long as he scores at least 20 points, we should be able to best the lot of you.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Leroux posted September 26, 2010:

    Self-explanatory I think. Join the fun at your leisure. If no one takes a week one week in advance, I'll make plans to take it. Pick far enough in advance and we can probably work out some interesting double features where I can cover a lesser known related game.

    October 3rd -- Donkey Kong -- Leroux
    October 10th -- Double Dragon -- Leroux
    October 17th -- Super Basketball -- ASchultz
    October 24th -- X-Men -- Leroux
    October 31st -- deferred to Sho for Halloween week theme
    November 7th -- Super Sprint -- Zig
    November 14th --
    November 21st -- RadMobile
    November 28th --

    Suggestions for the Halloween special are welcome, since Sho's covered every idea I've had so far.
    board icon
    JoeTheDestroyer posted September 26, 2010:

    Thank you, bloomer. I always have a tough time with 6 and 7 reviews. I feel like I have to denounce part of the game, but still say it's ultimately better than average.
    board icon
    zigfried posted September 26, 2010:

    I'm going to write up a piece on Rad Mobile, but save it for an emergency. Best case scenario -- I review Hang-On, then Outrun, then Turbo Outrun, etc and build up to Rad Mobile. I'll plan out a schedule and list the dates later.

    But I just played Rad Mobile so I think now's as good a time as any to actually write the review, even if I hold off on posting.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Leroux posted September 26, 2010:

    Cool. I'm going to pencil Double Dragon in for the 10th I think then.
    board icon
    jerec posted September 27, 2010:

    U MESS WITH ZIG2 YOU GET SORRU
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 27, 2010:

    Last week the idiot went a day over his limit.
    board icon
    True posted September 27, 2010:

    Thanks, Bloomer. I appreciate both the win and you doing this so quickly. Congratulations to Joe on a wonderful review and to Emp I say:

    Ha ha ha. I beat you. I'm the greatest ever.

    But congratulations as well, and thank you for upgrading my review to staff.
    board icon
    overdrive posted September 27, 2010:

    Yeah..the deadline is a week away. Damn, I was hoping it'd be two weeks away.

    On the +/- 10 points deal, how obscure is Super Mario Brothers? Or Uncharted 2?

    Ha, ha...don't worry, kids. I have something diabolical in the plans. A game so obscure that you could swear I made it up under the influence one fine night.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted September 27, 2010:

    What's Uncharted 2?
    board icon
    Genj posted September 27, 2010:

    Update: I am not dead.
    board icon
    True posted September 27, 2010:

    A game so obscure that you could swear I made it up under the influence one fine night.

    Fuck, that was my plan.
    board icon
    aschultz posted September 28, 2010:

    3 pages of buildup. This is gonna be a good tourney.

    Oh, and my game is obscure enough, it may get an 11. I say this with the utmost humility.

    I also say with the utmost humility that my review isn't exactly complete yet.
    board icon
    JoeTheDestroyer posted September 29, 2010:

    Game: Machine Head
    Platform(s): PlayStaion, Sega Saturn
    Publisher: Core Design Ltd (Europe), Eidos Interactive (US), Virgin Interactive (Japan)
    Developer: Core Design Ltd
    Genre: First-person shooter
    Release Date: 11/30/96

    I have a review for this one I would like to touch up and bring to the website. By "touch up" I really mean "completely re-write."

    PSX ADDED
    Saturn ADDED
    board icon
    JoeTheDestroyer posted September 30, 2010:

    Game: Shootanto: Evolutionary Mayhem
    Platform(s): Wii (WW)
    Publisher: Grandprix Inc (Japan), Hudson (US; Europe)
    Developer: Grandprix Inc
    Genre: Light gun shooter
    Release Date: 10/19/09

    Would like to write a review for this game.

    ADDED
    board icon
    jerec posted September 30, 2010:

    Running out of time!
    board icon
    darketernal posted October 01, 2010:

    http://www.honestgamers.com/reviews/9069/Al-Qadim-The-Genies-Curse.html


    Here's my entry. It's so obscure that you don't even need to read it to grant full points.
    board icon
    Nightmare posted October 01, 2010:

    I wrote the review, just forgot to post it.

    Shadow Of Destiny
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 02, 2010:

    Yeah. The game I'm playing now is just too long and complicated to get a review up for this in time. So unless some miracle happens between now and Monday regarding it, I'll be using Puzzle Bots.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 02, 2010:

    I'll get my judging done by Friday.
    board icon
    aschultz posted October 02, 2010:

    My game has no cover art, just the HG pic. Other entries to the tournament actually have a legitimate graphic.

    Me 1, the field 0.

    Bring it, foolz.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 02, 2010:

    My game only has cover art because I provided it.

    My partner, Zigfried2, informs me that his game isn't even listed.

    //Zig
    board icon
    aschultz posted October 02, 2010:

    Well, you probably just beat the rush.

    As for your partner, I bet he is just sandbagging.

    Prove me wrong or admit I'm right!
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 02, 2010:

    Since I always ask this...when you say the deadline is Oct. 3, do you mean the first minute of Oct. 3 or the very last minute of it (ie: 0:01 HG time or 23:59 HG time).

    I need to know for mysterious reasons (ie: will I be getting drunker as I write or will I just be hung over)!
    board icon
    jerec posted October 02, 2010:

    Question about judging, what's the deal with teams? Do I just read each review and judge it like normal, and the team scores get added?
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 02, 2010:

    The deadline is October 3. So as long as it's still October 3, you're still on the line.

    DON'T CROSS THE LINE

    //Zig
    board icon
    Genj posted October 02, 2010:

    Crime Crackers
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 03, 2010:

    I FEEL ASLEEP!

    Just give me my overwhelming praise, accolades and team victory now, please. It will save us all a lot of time and energy.
    board icon
    espiga posted October 03, 2010:

    I've submitted my review. I will update this post with a link once it's accepted.

    Like right now. Clicking!
    board icon
    True posted October 03, 2010:

    I know I'm going to take a hit on the obscure points here, but for now I'm going with Sports Champions.

    I had another idea in mind but I don't like how the review is turning out so far but didn't want to leave my partner high and dry.
    board icon
    dragoon_of_infinity posted October 03, 2010:

    My review is Saira, a game so obscure even I don't know it exists.

    It's in the que right now, but I have to run out for a bit and may not get back in time to actually link it before midnight. BUT I announced it, so that counts, right? Right!?
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 03, 2010:

    time check

    //Zig
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 03, 2010:

    My review is now edited and finalized. Ain't that spiffy?
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 03, 2010:

    Just waiting for my entry to queue through.

    Ah, here it is. Flotilla.

    Also, if anyone using a shitty non-standards compliant browser Internet Explorer notices any problems with the formatting on that piece, do let me know.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 03, 2010:

    Here's my review: Utawarerumono (PS2)

    Now let's hope my partner shows.

    //Zig
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 03, 2010:

    I tinkered again for the final time. Ain't that spiffy?
    board icon
    zigfried2 posted October 03, 2010:

    I use Death Crimson

    //Zig2
    board icon
    EmP posted October 04, 2010:

    And that, as they say, is that.

    CLOSED!

    Can judges please HGMail me their result when they are done.

    Good turn out, people. You all get differing levels of kudos.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 04, 2010:

    Your team is screwed, EmP.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 04, 2010:

    I'm confident I can pull it off.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 04, 2010:

    How long do we have to get our judgements to you EmP? I didn't find any clear date (or I missed it).
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 04, 2010:

    Question for the other judges: what kind of scale are you using? I know we're out of 100, but what score would you equate to, say, an A effort? What about an F effort? Are we talking 10 points for an F or a more "university" 50 points scale?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 04, 2010:

    Just for clarification: apparently you're all giving the review a different obscurity score. This obscurity score is a separate calculation separate from the standard review score and should be added at the end once you have given a proper score.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 04, 2010:

    F rank = 0
    D rank = 25
    C rank = 50
    B rank = 70
    A rank = 90
    S rank = 100

    //Zig
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 04, 2010:

    omg hai guise

    I've got my week's subs queued up for when I get back from tutoring. Hoping to have a topic up tonight or tomorrow afternoon.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 04, 2010:

    1 to 100
    50% for readability
    25% for clarity of game mechanics/thought
    15% for proper grammar
    10% for feelings evoked by the writing i.e., did the writer get the emotion of the game into the review.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 04, 2010:

    Hooo boy, competition week. Thirteen reviews for twelve titles by ten authors, and all of them at my mercy. Bwahaha.

    ------------------------------

    Third place: The Lurking Horror by Bloomer

    Here we have a review with just as much sense of atmosphere as the adventure game it talks about. Bloomer captures the game's creepy atmosphere, the abandoned and disconnected feel of the empty campus, the vague claustrophobic sensation of being snowed in at night while something is moving around outside, and the hair-raising realization that something is watching from just beyond your field of vision.

    I get chills just writing about it. Well done Bloomer.

    ------------------------------

    First Loser: Halo: Reach by EmP

    Having never been too big a fan of Halo, EmP's piece nevertheless has that signature narrative style I've come to enjoy from his writing. EmP effortlessly paints a picture of Reach, and the distinct feeling of inevitable defeat that comes with it, and the knowledge that no matter how hard you fight back the Covenant juggernaut will keep on rolling.

    ------------------------------

    Your Champion: Edward Randy by Leroux_Deux

    From the very first sentence this piece amazes and astounds me. It's vibrant and explosive, full of humor and energy that put it head and shoulders above the rest of the week's submissions. It's an utter blast to read, as ridiculous and over-the-top as Edward Randy himself. This might be the most fun I've ever had reading a video game review.

    ------------------------------

    There you have it folks. Thirteen reviews entered. Only one walks away with the crown.

    Congrats to Leroux, and thanks to everybody who wrote for this week. See you next time!
    board icon
    jerec posted October 04, 2010:

    Mine's a secret. It's so secretive I don't even know how it works. Basically I throw a bunch of percentages at the review, and whatever sticks is the score it gets.

    The Obscurity Modifier works like this, however.

    If I've heard of your game, -5. If I haven't, +5. Then the other 5 points are basically how much information I can find with a quick google search. Having no wikipedia page will probably give a +5, having a stub wiki page will be a +3 for example. But other factors will come in. But I'm a mainstream sort of gamer, so I doubt I've heard of any of these games.

    I'll use this spot to report my judging progress.

    7/13
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 05, 2010:

    Good idea Jerec. I'll post progress too.

    I am now at 6/13.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 05, 2010:

    Something's screwy with the forum code. I just posted this topic seconds ago; there is no way in hell it went up at 7:30 last night.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 05, 2010:

    I'm writing this post immidiately after my second in this thread, but I'm holding off actually posting it for a while. Let's see just how screwy the forum code is. Will it mess up just the post date, or will it insert this post in between successive posts as well?

    EDIT: Looks like it just messes up the time.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 05, 2010:

    Bah -- foiled by Leroux submitting almost his entire "Best Of" backlog.

    I'll get you for this, Lerooooouuuuuuuuux!
    board icon
    Leroux posted October 05, 2010:

    Shouldn't count it, Will -- EmP wins!
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 05, 2010:

    I'm afraid my hands are tied.

    "1: All reviews submitted during a given week are eligible for RotW."
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 05, 2010:

    I'm confident I can pull it off.

    Your overconfidence is your weakness.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 05, 2010:

    Your faith in your partner is yours.
    board icon
    bloomer posted October 06, 2010:

    This was a sterling week so I'm glad I could get into it. Congrats to Leroux and/or Emp.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 06, 2010:

    It times based on when you first hit "start new topic" and not when you finished typing.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 06, 2010:

    And when you start a post. Like in the STT, it's easy to start a post and not have to worry about being a few minutes past the deadline due to being shitfaced wasted because it might be 12:05 HG time when you do hit send, but the post comes up 10:47.

    The secrets to my success...REVEALED!!!
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 06, 2010:

    EmP's Reach review got second place? So... I got second place, then?

    Ka-zang.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 06, 2010:

    Update:

    10/13 done.

    Should be finished tomorrow and have everything to EmP ~fingers crossed~
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 06, 2010:

    Maybe if you hadn't sold out to Gameroni. Counter-zing!

    Though in all seriousness, if it were subbed on the site it would have placed. Somewhere. Would it have done better than EmP's? Only the Shadow knows.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 06, 2010:

    i have an announcement, i will put it in caps so everyone notices it

    MY TEAM IS HEREBY NAMED TEAM ZIG

    //Zig
    board icon
    MC_Goatse posted October 06, 2010:

    Softball Tengoku
    Platform: NES (Famicom)
    Publisher: Tonkin House
    Developer: Tokyo Shoseki
    Genre: Sports
    Release: Oct, 27 1989

    *review to be added*

    GAME ADDED
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 07, 2010:

    No, I was making a joke about about... never mind.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 07, 2010:

    I'm having a lot of fun reading these. I don't think there's been so many consistently good reviews in a tournament in a long time. It helps that I'm not writing in this one.

    Honestly, though, I think the writers here have all matured, myself included, and this is a really good sign of that.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 07, 2010:

    I'd get extra points for ignoring multiplayer!
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 07, 2010:

    I have them all done now and will be sending them to EmP today.

    There some really good reviews.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 07, 2010:

    I've only got five left. I don't know if I can promise tomorrow, as we're shooting all weekend.

    But Monday for sure.

    NOTE: I'll still aim for Friday.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 07, 2010:

    I'll try to get mine done by whenever.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 08, 2010:

    2 left. I'll get them done in the next few hours. Right now I'mma take a break.

    Edit: Scratch that. A bottle of wine came along and I decided to get drunk instead. Finish tomorrow.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 08, 2010:

    I HGmail'd my verdicts to you, EmP. If there's a problem with the formatting, let me know and I'll send you the Word Doc I wrote it in.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 08, 2010:

    GONE FILMING. BACK MONDAY.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 09, 2010:

    I guess I have this weekend to finish, then, before I start looking sluggish.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 09, 2010:

    ._.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 11, 2010:

    bumped for easy access at work
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 11, 2010:

    Okay, I'm done. Where do I send em...?
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 11, 2010:

    Send them to EmP.
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 11, 2010:

    Every time I try to get these results done, something infinitely more important pops up. I'll do my best to have them done by tomorrow, assuming of course no one dies.

    (No one died. I'm just saying.)
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 12, 2010:

    Jerec: The deadline for your week is almost up. How are you doing?

    On that note, I'd also like to add that I would appreciate it if whoever's judging during a given week post somewhere in this topic that they know it's their turn and that they're on it because otherwise I tend to assume they forgot and so get kind of antsy. >_>

    Zipp: Your resignation at the end of the month will be accounted for in some way or another. If no one can or wants to take your place, the schedule will just have to be condensed again.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 12, 2010:

    Didn't Jerec judge MOTO? Ouch.

    //Zig
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 12, 2010:

    He did. And I'll cut him some slack for that. I just wasn't sure if he forgot.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 12, 2010:

    ah, sorry. I'll get to it soon. Moto judging took it out of me, and some other distractions in real life.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 13, 2010:

    Important question, Zig. I know you don't want to man up and enter RotW, but could you check with Zig2 to see if he wants to? Either way it doesn't matter since I already read the review anyway.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 13, 2010:

    I couldn't get ahold of Zigfried2, so do whatever you want.

    //Zig
    board icon
    jerec posted October 13, 2010:

    Do you need to feel threatened or scared for your other personality to emerge or something?
    board icon
    jerec posted October 13, 2010:

    WQ, I've finished this RotW but do you mind if I don't post it until after the MOTO results are up? Simply due to spoilers.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 13, 2010:

    Yeah. That's fine. Thanks for getting it done so quickly after starting it.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 13, 2010:

    Zig 2 only emerges if Zig 1 is doused with cold water.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 13, 2010:

    Technically I started it a while back, since quite a few were last minute submissions for MOTO. :P
    board icon
    aschultz posted October 13, 2010:

    Zig 2 only emerges if Zig 1 is doused with cold water.

    I now have this image of Zigfried or one of his avatars as a Magic Capsule Toy Instant Foam Animal.
    board icon
    JoeTheDestroyer posted October 13, 2010:

    Zig 2 only emerges if Zig 1 is doused with cold water.

    I thought that only happened when someone made him angry...
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 14, 2010:

    Holy fuck, I totally forgot I had to finish these. I'm going to sit here and do them right now and I won't get up until they're finished. I believe I only have three more left.

    I'd apologize, but then I offered to drop out anyway, so you get what you pay for, I guess?
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 14, 2010:

    Okay, results are sent in. Oh wait... no they aren't. I didn't send them yet. I guess I'll do that after I post this?

    You guys overall did a good job picking obscure games, with one hilarious exception.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 14, 2010:

    Yeah... I was shocked to see that one in the obscure tournament, too.
    board icon
    EmP posted October 15, 2010:

    Team Zig

    Zig:

    Suskie: You know, I remember the last time I judged a contest that Zig participated in, I was sort of at a loss for words, because his writing is very good, and very consistently so. I feel like I'm always saying the same thing. You're detailed and thorough. You avoid rambling by cutting out any tidbits that aren't necessary -- something I have trouble doing -- yet you nonetheless paint a full picture of the game. You're funny when you need to be (the line about the guy in the mask rescuing girls from trees, and how "evil people don't do that," made me laugh), but you don't go overboard in that regard. Your work is grammatically flawless from what I can tell. And what I like about this review in particular is that it combines two of your biggest strengths, which are (a) reviewing games you like, and (b) reviewing games with histories that you're well-versed in. I loved your recent God of War reviews, for example, because I was fairly unfamiliar with the series at the time, yet you did such a great job contrasting the old and new variations in the series' formula that I walked away not just with a clear picture of the game you were reviewing, but of the franchise as a whole. I think you do reference the Windows version of Utawarerumono a few times too many, to the point that it almost becomes the focus, and I feel you perhaps should have spent a bit more time discussing the game's mechanics rather than comparing the two versions. But that's a small complaint, and this is otherwise a colorful and entertaining review, as always.

    Obscurity: I suppose this is obscure enough, but this is one of the few games used in this contest that I've actually heard of. So you break even.

    90 + 0 = 90

    Zipp: Well, geez. Another great Zig review. Feel free to skip to the end of this obligatory critique because its obligatory. Seriously, there is simple nothing to criticize here. I think this is the reason Zig banned himself from the ROTW. Hes already an accomplished reviewer with awell established style that no longer comes out feeling at all forced, as it did in some of his earlier work.

    This piece nails the reader by starting with the back story of how this game came to be. It gives just enough information that you would know whether or not youd like to game and levaes enough unsaid that you are genuinely interested in picking it up. Which Im sure Ill do one day. This happens every time I read a Zig review.

    The only slight complaint I have is that I would have liked a slightly more serious introduction to the story. While whats there is hilarious, I really am curious to know what kind of story lies behind a game that was intiially packaged as hentai, or at least as having hentai involving furries. 93

    Obscurity points: Heres how this is going to work for all the obscurity points. Listen up, Im only explaining it once. First comes the HG check. If it hasnt been reviewed on HG, you get 2 points. Then comes my personal check. If I dont know the game well or at all, you get up to 3 points. Then comes the wiki (and general web) check to see how many other people know it. This is worth up to 2 points. Finally, the amazon check lets me know how easy it would be to purchase. Sometimes, if Amazon doesnt make sense, I do some other random search. This is worth up to 3 points. These can be taken away by the same values.

    HG: 1 point
    Personal: 3 points
    Wiki: 0 points
    Amazon: 3 points

    + 7 = 100

    Jerec: I rolled my eyes and thought to myself not another hentai title but then you subvert that expectation hard. What follows is an interesting comparison with this (I assume) less smutty version of a hentai game, with greater emphasis on turn-based strategy. My mind wandered a bit from time to time, since most of the review is a comparison to the original, which I havent heard of either. But I cant fault the writing at all. Everything is clearly communicated and I could see this game being fun if I understood Japanese. I havent heard of Flight Plan, either, and since I tend to like strategy RPGs like Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea, I really feel like I should have. I know Ill never play this game, but what I did get from the review has made me want to look up the company to see what else theyve done. 90.

    Obscure Modifier: Okay, so I haven't heard of Utawarerumono, but then, I've rarely heard of anything you review. Utawarerumono has a fairly detailed wikipedia entry, though. From what I can gather, it's also on PC and PSP. There's a manga and an anime, so it's obscure in an import sort of way. Is it obscure in Japan? I don't know. +6

    Overall: 96

    CD: Here we have an interesting comparative review of two different version of the game - two completely different versions. The PS2 version is given lots of detail and the PC version is given enough detail to make really interesting comparisons between the two games. Combat system was pretty well explained and the different characters involvement in battles and the story were well presented. I believe this review deserves an 85.

    Rarity +6: I knew about the series as I have all the DVDs but I never knew about this game. You can still go to the web site for the game but it looks like it has not been touched since for a long time. This game gets a +6 for rarity.

    Total for Zig - Utawarerumono: 91

    Zig2:

    Suskie: So, are you also Zig, or what? You know, you could have paired yourself up with EmP if you had planned on working by yourself. He's all alone! Have pity! But anyway. Yeah, remember how I said you're at your best when you're reviewing games you like? Well, your HTML assault of a Death Crimson review illustrates the importance of having something substantial to talk about, and being passionate about it. I don't blame you for trying to find ways to make a review of such a simple-sounding game more interesting, but I click on this review and I'm bombarded with images, colored fonts, hyperlinks, capital letters everywhere, the whole shebang. Predictably, there's not much meat to this review, and I can understand that, but that doesn't make it an impressive contest entry. I'm impressed by good writing, not by screenshots that you seem to hope will make fun of themselves. By the way, if you're actually someone else, I apologize.

    Obscurity: A game that's "legendarily bad" isn't a good choice for MOTO, but I admit I didn't know anything about this game, so one point for you, I guess?

    60 + 1 = 61

    Zipp: Im really torn on this one. This isnt really a review, in my opinion. Its a blog entry. Its a brief spattering of information about a bad game. Its a collection of screenshots with some text telling us to look at the screenshots. Yeah, the pictures are laughably bad. But I never like it when a review relies on its pictures to say what it wants to say.

    On the other hand, what seems to be bad about this game is the graphics. So how else are you supposed to get that across? Also, I do enjoy the gimmick in the beginning, where Melty Blood is compared via screenshots to Death Crimson.

    Still, I cant give this the same kind of score I gave your doppleganger. It goes back to the forced Zig style I dont appreciate as much and doesnt feel as legitimate an entry as the first game. Sorry.

    30

    HG: 2 points
    Personal: 3 points
    Wiki: 2 points
    Amazon: 2 points

    +9 = 39

    Jerec: I really liked this profile on a little know developer, and the worst game for the Saturn. The writing is sharp, its kind of like youve invited me over to have a look at this game, showing me first-hand how bad it looks, how bad it plays, while being all knowledgeable. And wed be having a good laugh about it. And then wed probably go play something better. Its a very casual, very entertaining review. Zig2 is better than Zig. There, I said it! 96

    Obscure Modifier: Haven't heard of Death Crimson, either. There's a wiki stub for the Dreamcast sequel, but no page for the first game, allowing me to find out very little. I'm unable to find much more about this, so you get a +10

    Overall: 106

    CD: I have seen strange monsters in games before so the orbs with lips would not necessarily make this a bad game. Other than the monsters, the wire frame introduction and the bad FMV I am not sure why the game was so bad. Six monsters coming at you all at the same time does not sound too bad but the review was written in such a way that even though I think we lack some hard evidence here the review does a good job of convincing us the game is bad. I think we all need to get the game and see just how bad it really is. I like the review and it was well written but I didnt get a lot of information on the game play so I give this an 82.

    Rarity +7: Seems pretty rare to me. Not much to find with Google searches on Death Crimson produce lots of pages on the sequel. There is one for sale at Play Asia and it is used. I think this one is a +7.

    Total for Zig2 - Death Crimson: 89


    Team Bitchslap

    OD:

    Suskie: You know, I was reading these first two paragraphs and quietly thinking, "Oh what the fuck is this." And then I kept reading and I was like, oh. Clever bastard. That's actually neat for two reasons: You fooled me into thinking you were doing the whole clichd narrative-review routine, AND you came up with a gimmick that ties into the whole dream world aspect of the game. Nicely done. I remember I judged another review of yours once where you talked about an RPG that was bland and generic, and I told you that it was well-written but that you didn't really seem to have much to say. You've found an interesting way to sidestep that problem in a review that essentially has the same thesis (it's a simple, easy 8-bit platformer) with a little creative writing. This still isn't a spectacular review or anything, but it's concise and inventive, and I admire that.

    Obscurity: I think I've heard the name before? Maybe?

    86 + 5 = 91

    Zipp: Why red?! Is it because you are an artist and it is your favorite color? Aside from the red, this is a really good review which overal leaves me little to criticize. A couple of things: though you state that this world isnt bizarre and tripped-out, I do happen to see, on the first couple of screenshots, an evil moon screaming in Japanese and a samurai attacking a turtle with spotted eggs. Thats pretty bizarre, as is your self described notion of a man with a jet plane for a body. So you didnt sell me on that assertion.

    Really, thats my only big complaint, though it ties into a general feeling that you arent telling me much about the setting or what the platforming is like. You mention underwater areas and some jumps that help if you have that jet body thing, but I dont feel that I could use this review to accurately describe to someone else what exactly this game is like.

    Still, I think youve hit most of the right areas with good descriptive critique. The only thing I can say is that I wanted a little bit more description to frame the game, more explanation of how this game isnt trippy, and a lot less RED.

    72

    HG: 2 points
    Personal: 3 points
    Wiki: 2 points
    ROM download: -2 points

    +5 = 77

    Jerec: I can identify with the zoning out while playing games. I think it was Tales of the World (ugh) on PSP, and every time Id play it, my mind would drift off and Id imagine things were more interesting than they actually were. This Cocoron game sounds like it has an interesting premise, and boring gameplay. And thats about it. Its a very short review, with a hooking intro and enough details to tell me what to expect without boring me. I dont know. I like the fact that the review is short, but it does end very suddenly. I just sort of scrolled down, expecting to see a couple more paragraphs, but there werent any. I would have liked to learn more about the levels themselves, and how they fit this dream theme. All I got was that there were six of them and they were short and easy once you assembled an optimised character. 73

    Obscure Modifier: Haven't heard of it. And there is barely any info to be found, apart from a Something Awful review, but they tend to go for that obscure stuff, too. +10

    Overall: 83

    CD: I thought the opening was pretty inventive and it held my attention until the hero construction part. I liked reading about the equipment and weapons you could use to outfit your avatar. Those items were detailed quite nicely but I would have liked to have seen more about the games levels. A few lines about the Castle level, the Fairy Forest or the Milk Sea would have been interesting. As far as the review went it was well done but I think a bit more could have been added as a result I will give this a 75.

    Rarity -3: There is a lot of information about the game but other than ROMs I cant find much else. So while it seems the game is well known and fairly easy to download the original seems to be pretty rare. I am going to go with -3 for this solely on the basis of how easy it is to download the ROM and how much information is available on the game.

    Total for OD - Cocoron: 72

    Genj:

    Suskie: Good review, Genj. Loved your take on the story that you couldn't understand. Great example of a writer spicing up his review with something that didn't need to be there. It doesn't technically add anything to the review, but the fact that you're going out of your way to make the review more entertaining is a huge plus. I'd say your recent reviews haven't been as mechanically tight as some of your past efforts, and this review showcases a few examples: missing commas, "2" instead of "two," "&" instead of "and," etc. Nothing huge, though, and while this doesn't sound like a difficult game to tear apart, you do so capably and without getting carried away. Very solid review. By the way, there is actually a mobile game called Doom RPG. Look it up -- it's excellent.

    Obscurity: Yep, never heard of this. Sounds archaic and retarded.

    82 + 10 = 92

    Zipp: This isnt supposed to happen. Were supposed to get bad reviews in our tournament so that its easy for us to criticize them and score on a bell curve. I dig this reviews jive and its one of my favorites ever from Genj. Genj has a touch of sarcasm to his writing that works really well here. The Kafka reference is something I wouldnt have thought would work, but it does. That alone is worth my vote.

    No complaints. I was tempted at first to take off points again for clarity in fleshing out what you mean by bad level design, but you actually illustrate this quite clearly with your talk of narrow corridors and stupid key quests. Well done. I suppose the only thing I could mark down on is that the review isnt very ambitious, bashing a game that is fairly easy pickings. But Im not going to be too much of an ass about it.

    95

    HG: 2 points
    Personal: 3 points
    Wiki: 2 point
    Amazon: 2 points

    +9 = 104

    Jerec: You get points for the line Have you ever been given someones key ring and you end up trying every key to open a door? Thats Crime Crackers. That is one succinct way to sum up a game, and something everyone can identify with. The rest of the review is good, but not great theres a few grammatical glitches that hold this review back. Most of the review is pretty bland to read, to be honest. Except the second paragraph where you talk about the characters and start making stuff up because you cant understand Japanese. That paragraph, and the line I quoted above were the only times I sensed you were into this review. But thats enough. Its probably hard to get excited about reviewing a game like this. 64

    Obscure Modifier: Of course I havent heard of Crime Crackers, being a Japanese only PS1 launch title. A quick google search turned up no reviews (other than this one). IGN and Gamespot have the game on their listings but theres no info to be found. +10

    Overall: 74

    CD: At first it was hard to believe Media vision could have made a game like this but I guess everyone is entitled to one mistake. We get lots of information about game play but unfortunately not much about story, but I can forgive that because my Japanese is non-existent too. Overall very well done with only a couple of minor bump: Youre only hope is to mash both shoulder buttons to initiate a defensive stance. Adding to here would help and in These bosses have far too much HP many would probably have been a better choice in this sentence. A nicely done review much deserving of a good solid 75.

    Rarity +8: There is not much about this game at all. There is only a page or two from Google searches. Play Asia shows out of stock and out of print. This game pulls down a +8.

    Total for Genj - Crime Crackers: 83



    Team Not-Obscure-at-all

    True:

    Suskie: More than any other entry in MOTO this year, your take on Sports Champions really makes me struggle to differentiate the review from the reviewer. This is a good write-up, but it also showcases a few of the True tendencies that I'm starting to grow a bit weary of. First of all, do you realize that you award a LOT of perfect scores? I can't really complain about that since it just comes down to your opinion (I guess you just really love everything), but I would suggest backing off from the forceful tone that you often employ in reviews like these. You know, the whole "BUY INTO THE HYPE! GO GET THIS GAME RIGHT NOW!" thing. You also have a habit of getting over-dramatic, as you yourself have acknowledged, and there's a bit of that here (you use line breaks a bit excessively), but much of your discussion on both the games in this package and the hardware itself is extremely thoughtful and not the least bit over-the-top. I also liked how you essentially acknowledged that you're also reviewing the Move itself, which was unavoidable and ultimately appropriate. Again, my problem is with the "buy into the hype" line at the end; especially coming directly after a Wii bash, you sound like a paid Sony exec. Basically, what I'm saying is that this review tries a bit too hard, and it didn't need to. This game sounds fun and your review effectively portrays that. You don't give your descriptive side enough credit, and you give your dramatic side too much.

    Obscurity: I love how your intro centers on this game's "obscurity," as if this isn't the flagship title for a major PS3 peripheral that's only a couple of weeks old and inspired by a gaming pop culture phenomenon. Yeah, get the fuck out of here.

    75 - 10 = 65

    Zipp: This is exactly what I wanted out of a Sports Champion review. I wanted to know about the game and I wanted to know about the Move. Mostly about the Move, actually, but the game sounds fun, too.

    I think you choose good examples to describe the Moves abilities and your comparison to the Wii is enticing because you are using a pre-existing system to show everyone what the Move can do... and then you show how the Move adds on to that system and does it better.

    You spend a lot of time on Archery, which is surprising but not necesarily bad, especially since you use the opportunity to highlight the capabilities of the move once again. The other games you kindve gloss over in this regards; even Bocce we just get rules and no real idea of how it handles. Dont get me wrong, Im glad you didnt launch into an individual critique of each game. But maybe the one sentence you did loan to them couldve touched back on controls a bit more.

    The one game I was dying to know more about (and I think most readers would agree) is the gladiator one. Sword fighting is always on everyones mind when a movement system is involved and the few examples you give didnt sate my interest. I wanted to know more about how the game controls: does it limit you to controling just attacks? Are those attacks limited to specific moves? Does moving around your living room change your characters position? These are fairly simple questions and maybe they were implied by some of what you said, but I would have liked more specifics.

    In any case, this was a very ambitious review that you handled well. I approve. On the other hand, this was not a very good choice for an obscure tournament. Youre going to get dinged hard on that.

    88

    Obscurity -8 (I still give points for games HG has not yet reviewed)

    80

    Jerec: Sports reviews usually bore me to tears. But I might need to rethink that generalisation. Stuff like FIFA bores me to tears. I did enjoy reading about this collection of sports games, such as the little known Bocce, or Archery and whatever. I have to admit I havent been following this whole PlayStation Move hype wagon as closely as others, and I didnt actually realise this was a Move game until you mentioned it very late in the review. Id spent a good portion of the review wondering how the controls work. 75

    Obscure Modifier: I think you misunderstand this obscure tournament. Bocce might be obscure, but thats just one small game in a larger package, one thats been fairly well known since Sony started hyping up their PlayStation Move. -10

    Overall: 65

    CD: Excellent review of both the games and the Move controller. I noted this was rewritten from when it was first posted and the rewrite did a world of good for this review, very nice work indeed. I only picked up one little thing: Not so, loyal Truep. I am thinking the p does not belong or something is not quite right in this sentence. Practically perfect in my view, I am giving this a 95.

    Rarity -10: Well this is a brand new game only just released. While I can agree the games are not common the game itself is common and the Move hardware is currently available with Sports Champions in a bundle. Sadly this gets a -10 for rarity.

    Total for True - Sports champions: 85

    Nightmare:

    Suskie: Dude. Are you kidding me with the line breaks? One-sentence paragraphs and the like are fine if used cautiously, but you kinda got carried away here, don't you think? It's really hard for a piece of writing to flow when you're constantly trying to make every sentence stand out. Combine that with this running theme about fate and the threads of the universe or whatever, and I feel like the Wachowski brothers wrote the opening title cards for a historical epic about the fall of the Roman Empire or something. Anyway, the review itself is... Jesus, dude, what do you have against substantial paragraphs? You actually seem to go way out of your way to incorporate so many line breaks that you effectively cut some ideas short just so you can continue them in the NEXT paragraph. This results in too many fragments as well. I like stylistic fragments, but again, only when used in moderation. Anyway. I can tell you've got a lot of potential as a writer since you obviously won't settle for just a regular old boring review, but you took it too far in the other direction, with a rambly and pretentious piece of writing that tells me a lot about the setup but very little about the game itself. Which isn't surprising considering Shadow of Destiny is an adventure game -- I'm guessing there isn't much actual gameplay to discuss -- but this review exemplifies why I hate adventure games and, more importantly, why I hate reading about them.

    Obscurity: Never heard of this, but it's also an adventure game, and that's kind of cheating.

    50 + 4 = 54

    Zipp: What is this? Team unobscure? Although in this case Im glad its not too obscure because this game sounds awesome by your description and I think Ill go pick it up once Im sure Im not going to bounce any checks.

    I passed this review up when it came time for its shot at ROTW. It stands better on its own here, but my reasons for passing it up remain. Mainly, you dont really give me a good idea of what exactly youve convinced me to buy.

    For instance, I had to go onto Amazon to find out there are some significant differences between this version and the PS2 version. I had to go to wiki to figure out exactly what kind of game this is (your intro is misleading, it lead me to believe this was an action game) You didnt even mention one of the games major selling points: the incredible amount of very different endings.

    You still managed to sell me on it, but you had sold me just with the intro alone. I believe you couldve lost some of your prose near the end and gone a little bit deeper into some of the interesting mechanics. You start to do this with describing the puzzles. I wanted you to take it further.

    72

    Obscurity -5

    67

    Jerec: This review had me hooked from the first line to the last. Fate is such an interesting topic, and it poses a lot of difficult questions about life. You make me really want to play this game, because of how interesting you make it sound. I loved the example of convincing a gardener 400 years ago not to plant a tree, and how little things like that can change everything. Shadow of Destiny sounds like a game that really explores cause and effect, and does it well. There were a few awkwardly worded sentences that sometimes broke the flow of the review, sometimes the sentence structure just seems backwards, and I cant always tell if its written like that on purpose or not, but they did get distracting. Minor issues, really. I still enjoyed this review. 80

    Obscure Modifier: Unfortunately for you, I have heard of this game. It goes by Shadow of Memories in PAL regions, and Ive seen it for sale plenty of times in the last 9 or so years. Maybe it is obscure in America, but I know it as a bargain bin PS2 title. But Ill grant you that I didnt know about the PSP port, and it probably only got a limited release by the looks of it, so... -6

    Overall: 74

    CD: I liked this review when I first read it and offered some suggestions. I am not sure if Nightmare made any changes but nevertheless this review about a pretty complex story is really well done. This one earns a score of 95.

    Rarity -4: I found a lot of information on this game but I was a bit unclear if this was for the PSP or the PS2. Either way there is still a lot of information on both versions. This one gets a -4 for rarity.

    Total for Nightmare - Shadow of Destiny: 91


    Team Dork

    Will
    :


    Suskie: It took me a second to figure out what I didn't like about this review. At first I thought it was the excessive screenshots, but nah, I'm cool with those. But by using so many, you've found a sneaky method of getting away with writing an incredibly brief review! I enjoyed this review quite a bit. It sounds like an exciting game with goofy imagery, and having good source material is a huge plus when it comes to writing a contest entry. I actually like this review so much that I wish there was more of it. You're just in and out, without really elaborating on what seems like a potential gold mine of material. If these paragraphs didn't have so many screenshots squeezing them in, they'd probably look quite small, and you're limiting your energetic tone by keeping the review so brief. I'm intrigued, and I desperately want to learn more about this game. That's the sign of great writing, for sure, but not the sign of a great review.

    Obscurity: I've seen ads for this on Steam.

    82 - 3 = 79

    Zipp: This review is like a mix of Zig 2 and Nightmares review. It does the same things right and it does many of the same things wrong.

    I do think the screen shots get put to good use here. I dont need them to understand what youre talking about (though it does make it more believable). The pictures of actual space combat are hard to follow, but I already get whats going on from your description, so its not a problem.

    But then thats it. The review ends before Ive really had a chance to get settled! The genre cue says it is a turn based strategy, but I didnt pick up on that at all from the review. Nor do I get a sense of how exactly the game is laid out. I get this image in my head of Oregon Trail, where you are moving along a map and occasionally encountering events. That may be totally wrong, but the review doesnt tell me one way or the other.

    Pretty much what youve done is describe a setting. You do a great job of it, but Id like to know more.

    69

    HG +2
    Personal +3
    Wiki 0
    Its on Steam -2

    Obscurity +3

    72

    Jerec: This was a surprise - a fun little first-person description of the game from a genuine captain. This sounds like a quirky, odd sort of game, just going by the screenshots. But there seems to be some depth to the space combat and the encounters. Maybe a little. If I had one complaint about this review, its that there are too many images, making the review look really cluttered. Cut back about half of them, or add more text... as it is, its a very crowded screen. 78

    Obscure Modifier: Hard to find any information about the game itself, once you weed out all the hits for the definition and historical use of the word flotilla. In fact, aside from this review, all I can find is the game itself. +10

    Overall: 88

    CD: Very good review told to us from a very interesting perspective and because of that it made for a very interesting read. There are just a couple of things to point out however. This is minor but it is a Rookery of Penguins not a flock of Penguins and They way you're used to it, it's the guy with the biggest gun and the thickest armor they is not the correct word here. All in all this review gets itself an 85.

    Rarity -6: The second hit on Google is the home page for this games developer. It is a unique game but does not appear to be rare. This is getting a -6.

    Total for Will - Flotilla: 79

    WQ:

    Suskie: I'm doing these in order, and I've already witnessed quite a few bizarre attempts to spice up one's writing -- some more successful than others -- so it's refreshing to read a review that's just, you know, a review. Overview, plot, gameplay, flaws, conclusion. This isn't a groundbreaking review or anything, but it's straightforward and it gets the job done, so what more can I ask for? And while I'm not a great proofreader, I couldn't spot a single error in this thing, which, again, is a relief after some of the slightly spotty grammar I've seen in a few other entries so far. My one suggestion is to maybe throw in a few more examples of the zaniness you find so appealing. I remember when Zig judged my Alpha Protocol review and suggested that I intentionally add spoilers to demonstrate how the plot changes depending on your actions, and that's when I realize: No one's going to just take your word for it. You need to back this up with solid evidence. I walked away thinking this sounded like a fun game, but not necessarily a funny one. Still, this is a strong review.

    Obscurity: Never heard of this. It's quite recent, but also sounds low-budget, like you said.

    85 + 5 = 90

    Zipp: I think that first paragraph should be your last paragraph. Your second paragraph is a much stronger opening. Other than that, theres really not too much to say here. Youve hit all the right notes. I might like a few more puzzle examples or maybe a little bit more of Wills crazed enthusiasm in describing a game that you seemed to find very fun.

    I think youve come a very long way in your review writing this year. Your only hang-up (for me) is that you tend to write like youre delivering an essay to school. Everything is a little too clean and a little too stacatto. Mess it up once in a while, let your grammar get a little drunk, and just write! Ive seen you do it before. Its awesome.

    Anyway, Im very pleased by this review.

    83

    HG +2
    Personal +3
    Wiki 0
    Facebook page, only 343 fans (less than my film, beotch): +1 points

    Obscurity +6

    89

    Jerec: Theres not much depth to Puzzle Bots by the sound of it. The game isnt that long, and the humour and wittiness of the story is supposedly the selling point, but its not really conveyed. The examples are kinda scarce, more an overall description of the characters and settings, and their personality types, rather than any specific wit. So it hasnt really sold me at all on the game. I also didnt know until quite late what type of puzzle game this was, as I was wondering if it was a Tetris type game with story interludes (like Kibrys Ghost Trap or something similar). As I said, theres not much depth to the game, and the review just sort of scratches the surface and I didnt walk away with much of an impression of the game at all. 55

    Obscure Modifier: I hadnt heard of this before, it seems to be one of those web games. I cant really tell how popular it is in terms of web games, so you get a +7

    Overall: 62

    CD: I liked the details that were put into the review about the different characters and robots in the game, but at the same time I felt it missed the mark on telling what the story is about. It was not clear to me why the robots were doing what they were doing. I am sure there were a lot of different reasons for different puzzles but a hint at the overall plot would have been nice to know. The review certainly made the game sound fun and interesting so I will award 80 for this review.

    Rarity -6: Unfortunately the very first hit in Google is the home page for this game. Sorry to say I do not think that makes the game rare. Because fun and funny puzzle games are not common I am giving this a -6.

    Total for WQ - Puzzle Bots: 74


    Team Them

    DE:

    Suskie: Ctrl + F tells me you use the word "then" six times in this review. Of those six, four should have been "than." Get on that! That's about all I have to say, really. I must not be a very good judge, because I have no trouble rambling on forever about things that I like, yet I run out of words quickly when it's time to compliment someone. This is a well-paced review of perfect length that use a lot of colorful and clever wording ("stab-hungry" made me smile) and makes a beautifully seamless transition between story and gameplay. My only issue, other than a few grammatical mishaps, is that calling the nameless hero "Bob" feels like a missed opportunity. Come on, you can do better than "Bob." Otherwise, excellent stuff.

    Obscurity: Never heard of it.

    88 + 9 = 97

    Zipp: I was really pleased to scroll to the top of this review after reading it and find that it belonged to you, DE! I think this is one of your best works for the site (I may have said that previously about one of your Final Fantasy reviews). You manage to give a strong preview of this game and touch on all the right elements to build up its Arabian influnces and feel, which I think you correctly peg as its main selling feature. Im a little confused as to whether this plays top down or first person, a confusion that a few choice words couldve cleared up, but now were getting into miniscule shit. The only other thing I could say is that Id like a little bit more of a grab in the introduction, but again... Im nitpicking.

    Good job.

    92

    HG +2
    Personal +3
    wiki -2
    instant download -2

    +1

    92

    Jerec: I didnt like this review. The writing seemed really... unpolished, and you spent 80% of the review just describing the story (which seemed pretty boring), leaving one small paragraph for what I assume is combat, levelling up and all that jazz, then another one for talking to people. The bit where you talk about finding a way past the efreet was probably the only good bit of the review. 50... HOLD IT! I also took off 10 points every time you used then when you should have used than. 20

    Obscure Modifier: I havent heard of it, it has a wiki page, though not a very detailed one. Hmm, its a +7

    Overall: 27

    CD: Hard to say if the game was titled Al-Quadim or Al-Qadim but fortunately I have the game so I can tell you for sure what the name on the box is. There is no u in the name and sorry to say the u is in the name everywhere in the review and that I feel is a major mistake. There are a couple of places where the sentences needed to be cleaned a bit, for example Take, for example, a powerful efreet, a genie-like creature made entirely out of flame who guards the path into the dungeon youre sent to find an incriminating piece of evidence from. Another to in sent to find would have been good. Overall this review only garners a 65.

    Rarity -4: Well rare then or rare now? Not so rare when it first came out and you can download this from abandonia. However finding the original box could be a problem. Still not very rare I dont think. I have to give it a -4 for rare because you can get the game on Amazon.

    Total for DE - Al Qadim: The Genie's Curse: 61

    DoI:

    Suskie: Again, the more I like a review, the less I have to say about it. Especially if it's one like this, which is well-written and remarkably straightforward. It's also brief, and I admire it when a reviewer can squeeze everything they want to say into such a small space. I have trouble doing that. Unlike Will's review, I don't get the sense that you're leaving anything out or merely providing a summary; you jump right into the heart of the game (its loneliness) and I leave this review feeling I have enough information to make an educated decision as to whether or not I want to check it out. My only issue is the second-to-last paragraph. It sounds like you're spending a lot of time basically saying that you wish there was more exploration, but you never actually say that directly and I'm left to puzzle out exactly what you mean. Whatever it was, though, you acknowledge that it's not really an issue, and the game still sounds cool to me, so you've succeeded.

    Obscurity: Seen this on Steam.

    85 - 1 = 84

    Zipp: I dont agree with this line:

    Something about a teleporter accident in a sci-fi universe that left your title character stranded and alone in the galaxy, but that one sentence is all that you need.

    Personally, I wouldve liked a little bit more than that to frame what is a very unique game.

    The writing here is not bad and the descriptions are engaging, but Im kept from really getting into the review by a giant gap of knowledge. I have no frame of reference with which to understand the game you are describing. You mention jumping and puzzles and taking pictures with a camera and an obscure setting and plot... Im glad you mention these things, because they seem to be what makes this game unqiue. Whats missing are enough details to tie them together. Even a little bit more mention of the setting wouldve helped that.

    That said, you grab my interest enough that Ive gone out and read a little more to get those details from elsewhere.

    68

    HG +2
    Personal +1
    Wiki -2
    The well-publicized answer to Night Game -1

    +0

    68

    Jerec: Saira sounds like a fascinating game. You really hooked me in on that sense of loneliness, being the only person of consequence. I prefer reading about little-known indie games which I can easily find (once I know about them) than some import that went out of production 15 years ago. Anyone who stumbles upon this review while browsing the site will want to check this game out, I know I do. Your descriptions give me a real sense of the game that I probably wouldnt get on the download site. Your familiarity with Nifflas lends credibility to the piece, youre obviously familiar with this guys work and you recommend this title. Great review

    93

    Obscure Modifier: Not easy to get information on this one. +9

    Overall: 102

    CD: This review had a really good opening. I could feel the emptiness of the game in the descriptions given in the first few paragraphs. The second to the last paragraph however took me out that mood and I see that it was a lead-in to the last paragraph but unfortunate that it sort of broke the flow of the writing. This review was very well done and I believe it deserves to get an 85.

    Rarity -2: Nicklas may not be well known but I had no problem finding his web site and the games he has been a part of. So in my mind I dont believe the game is rare rather it is not well known. I believe that gets it a -2.

    Total for Dol - Saira: 83


    Team Abandonment Issues

    EmP:

    Suskie: First of all, props for not reviewing an adventure game. I expected you to, for some reason, so thank you for saving me that hassle. Now then: "Gird-formed"? Did you mean "grid"? Because "gird" is actually a word (much like bird), but I don't see how it works in that context. Yeah, I'll go ahead and assume it's a typo. There were a few others that I spotted, but I already forget where they are so they obviously weren't huge. I guess get WQ to proofread it? Anyway, this is quite a well-written review, though I have one big problem with it: You make this game sound too cool. I can see that you wanted to love Winter Voices and that you're frustrated with how it turned out, but the thing is, your descriptive writing in the first half of the review is so strong that I still kinda want to play this. You don't really discuss any of the game's crippling flaws in great detail, and as such, it's the game's positive aspects (like how the girl is watching her father die and battling her inner demons, or whatever) that stick with me. I get the feeling you meant to convey the game's promises and then sting us with its disappointing inability to live up to its potential, but you don't quite follow through on that.

    Obscurity: Haven't heard of it, though it is a recently-released game.

    79 + 6 = 85

    Zipp: Boy, this one really makes me sad. I hate to see a cool idea ruined. Theres nothing worse than a bad tactical game, though, because then what you get is a bad game that takes FOREVER to play. I felt similarly about Myrtran Wars. Im a little confused as to how you attack or what kind of different characters you can build if youve got all these various choices for stat spending. Some more info on that would have been nice. Otherwise, this is a good read.

    82

    HG +2
    Personal +3
    Wiki +2
    Easy download 0

    +7

    89

    This is an overwhelmingly convincing review. Theres something a reader can identify with (even for a game hes never played) when the reviewer wanted to like the game, really tried to, and can appreciate the few things it does right, but not all the stuff it doesnt. And now Im disappointed its not much good, because Winter Voices sounded like an interesting idea. But the execution sounds awful. Thanks, EmP, for steering me away from a game I probably wouldnt have played anyway. Was this an assigned game that you had to review? 85

    Obscure Modifier: Youre not going to like this, EmP. But I have heard of this game, only because of this news item from last month (http://www.honestgamers.com/news/5856/article.html). I remembered the game because it was an episodic RPG and I wanted to see how it turned out. So technically, I only heard about the game because you did this news article. Outside of Honestgamers theres not much to be found. -5

    Overall: 80

    CD: The game was well explored and well explained warning us of the journey of verbosity that exists in the game. I know I sent EmP some things to look at and I was happy see those were checked however, there are a couple of things I noticed: Theres a unique atmosphere going on in the icy, forgotten village [where] you start your adventure probably should add where and your character can shrug of not only cruel jibes probably change of to off. I think review earns an 83.

    Rarity -7: The very first thing on the list in my Google search happened to be the home page for this game. In fact there were a number of places listed with information on this game. I must therefore conclude the game is not really rare and so it gets a -7.

    Total for EmP - Winter Voices: 76


    Team Team

    Espiga:

    Suskie: Oh, I see NOW you've decided to show up. You'd probably experience pangs of guilt if you left Schultz all by himself, but you certainly wouldn't mind deserting me, would you? Anyway, good perky review, a few clever lines, snazzy intro, incredibly short, doesn't sound like the game provides much to talk about, blah blah blah. I have nothing interesting to say about this review. I'm going to give it an 82 because that sounds about right, but actually I'm going to give you a 90 because your game is really obscure. I'd have to say at this point that a sliding obscurity scale that goes to 10 is a bit much. Maybe just five? Because I don't think this review deserves a 90. I could lower the default score to a 74 and then you'd come out at 82, but your review is of higher quality than the 74 implies. FML

    Obscurity: Oooh, look at the big Turbo reviewer.

    82 + 8 = 90

    Zipp: What an intro! That was the kind of intro that, like the game you describe, shifted seamlessly into a middle and a conclusion, so that the review kindve ended before I was aware what had happened. Then I went and looked at some of the screenshots and confusion hit. What is this guy with an eyeball hanging out? Whats this winged goddess? What about this swimsuit picture? I wish you had explained where such things fit into this game. I suspect its those cutscenes you briefly mention, but it still seems like there was a lot of unused material here. Still, good writing deserves a good score.

    84

    HG +2
    Personal +2
    Wiki +2
    Amazon +2

    +8

    92

    Jerec: Im really glad reviews like this are kept short. Dont get me wrong, it was an enjoyable read. Very tight writing. This is how obscure imports should be reviewed. Just a brief summary of the game, what youd expect to see, why its nothing special. That way we walk away feeling just a bit more informed, but not overwhelmed with information were never going to need. If this were some current game being reviewed, Id complain about the brevity, but for this sort of game, the length is perfect. There is one sentence that goes for half a paragraph that my mind started to wander off in, though. 83

    Obscure Modifier: Yeah, this is pretty obscure. +10

    Overall: 93

    CD: Fairly short and right to the point. Fast to read and all the information you could ask for. The review even had an opening that wrapped around to the closing. Very well thought out and presented and therefore claims a score of 90.

    Rarity +8: There was some information on the game but Amazon Japan only had 13 for sale and 12 of those were used. I felt this was a pretty rare game and so it earns a +8.

    Total for Espiga - Kaizou Chounin Shubibinman 3: Ikai no Princess: 98


    Schultz:

    Suskie: Aha! All those instances during TT in which you put us down for using too many italics or telling too many jokes or whatever and now I get the chance to tell you that your review doesn't have enough personality! JUSTICE! Seriously, you're almost mechanically flawless here (aside from the fact that you italicize some game titles but not otherwise), yet this review would be improved by either cutting it a bit shorter or making it more... I don't know... alive? It's a pretty long review, which is fine if you can hold the reader's attention, and you barely do that. It feels like kind of a sensory overload, but not an in HTML assault sense. It's just a big fucking wall of facts, you know? It's almost all description, and I can picture you reading it in a monotone and gasping for a quick breath in between paragraphs.

    Obscurity: Heard of it, but it's on the Apple II so there you go.

    70 + 4 = 74

    Zipp: I think this is the single most ambitious review of the tournament, if only because youve choosen a game that makes my eyes glaze over just from thinking about the concept. Ill admit I still have no idea what youve been talking about by the time the review is over, but then Im absolutely not a programmer. Then again, some of your descriptions are confusing. If the robots move in preset ways, how do they get through mazes? If you can reprogram them, how does that work exactly? What is all this about shoving robots inside of each other? Clarification early on would help to ground me when trying to work out the deeper aspects of the game that you get into.

    The graphics and some of the concepts remind me of think quick, but now Im being obscure.

    In any case, I think your reviews tend to come from a programming perspective. You have a very unique set of reviews to your name, both because you look at old and obscure games and because you come at them from this highly critical adult angle that seems to question their place in the greater gaming history and sometimes even in society. Its utterly bizarre and I like that.

    What I dont always like is that you sometimes write with words that, and please forgive me for saying this, are a little stale or occasionally too technical to be visually stimulating. Does that make sense? I suppose what Im asking for is a little more imagery in your reviews. Thats tough with the games you choose, but I think you can pull it off. To put it another way, when I read your reviews I often get an image of you sitting in front of your computer, playing the game. Id prefer to get an image of the game itself.

    Those are my critiques. In short, I like most of what youre doing here, but I dont think youve mastered the technique yet.

    62

    HG +2
    Personal +2
    Wiki -2
    Freeware -2

    0 extra points

    62

    Jerec: This review reads almost like a walkthrough. Heres the tools you use, heres what you do. Not having the game open in front of me while reading this, the next paragraph becomes harder to follow. Im not getting a sense of the overall game here, or how fun it is. Im getting a technical description of what to do, and my mind is just letting this info pass right through because it cant find it useful. I feel like I should download an Apple II emulator, and a rom for this game just to understand what youre talking about. Unfortunately I got so bogged down in technical info by the end of the third paragraph that I just gave up, so if theres any critical analysis of this game after that, then I missed it. Definitely not an accessible read for someone whos unfamiliar with the game. Fine if this is a FAQ, but not for a review. 30

    Obscure Modifier: I havent heard of it, but theres a wiki article which is fairly informative. These sorts of games seem to get a fair bit of coverage simply because they are old and obscure. +6

    Overall: 36


    CD: I was not sure what to make of this review. Sometimes it read like a walkthrough and sometimes like an article in Scientific American. It was quite well written and did have a lot of information about the game, at times to much however. I felt the review could have been cut by a quarter and still been effective but it was well written, and so earns a 75.

    Rarity -6: There is quite a bit of information on the game. Even in the review it was admitted that YouTube has videos on the solutions to the game. Still though it does seem to be fairly rare so I believe it earns a -6.

    Total for Schultz - Robot Odyssey: 69

    board icon
    EmP posted October 15, 2010:

    SCORES

    Zig = 377
    Zig2 = 295

    TEAM = 672

    OD = 323
    Genj = 353

    TEAM = 676

    True = 295
    Nightmare = 286

    TEAM = 581

    Will = 318
    WQ = 315

    TEAM = 633

    DE = 277
    DoI = 337

    TEAM = 614

    EmP = 330
    BelI = 0

    TEAM = 330

    Espiga = 373
    Schultz = 241

    TEAM = 614

    So, that would mean victory to Team Zig OD/Genj -- OR DOES IT? In a twisty turn of events, information on the individual known only as Zig2 recently came to light on the HG message boards:

    ZIPP: I AM ZIG2!

    Judges cant compete in tourneys. Thatd be a ludicrous stretch of the rules. Therefore Zig2 is DISQUALIFIED FOREVER

    That brings about the birth of a dramatic new team -- TEAM MAKESHIFT!

    Zig = 377
    EmP = 330

    TEAM = 707

    Congrats to TEAM MAKESHIFT for this controversial win.

    Now, to flee!

    PS:
    Masters = 0
    Felix = 0

    TEAM = FAIL
    board icon
    aschultz posted October 15, 2010:

    Thanks for these critiques. Yes, I had a feeling some of the stuff I critiqued others for in the team tourney were in my reviews. Sometimes that's the best way for me to learn, though...it's weird, being potentially hypocritical like that reminds me of doing other stuff. Or makes me realize I can worry about certain details. I think we all have phrases/"methods" we fall back on, and they're different for everyone, and I've ID'd a few of my own.

    I don't think I ever really clarified that, in the absence of other shortcomings in competing reviews that seemed equally enjoyable, I generally went in for minor stylistic stuff. Hope this is better late than never.

    I knew I was walking the walkthrough line and it's happened before & will happen again. I think I have a lot of other stuff to fix, too. So thanks for helping me work through this. It was a review I put off for a while because I worried about the stuff you all mentioned, but it's weird--once someone mentions it other than myself, I get ideas how to cut things down.

    Another irony here is that my last year's obscure review was too walkthrough-y, and I resolved to change that. Oops.

    Thanks everyone for giving me a lot to work with. I wasn't sure where to go.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 15, 2010:

    Dear Gary: What, no clever intro or anything? Just going right into the results, I see. Ahd how did you put those results together? Haha. You were lazy! Not only are they not ranked, but it actually looks like OD's team had more points than Zig's (by 4). Unless you're factoring in individual scores, too, somehow. I also would've thought you'd make a separate list for individual scores, too. I was kind of curious as to how I did amongst everyone else (and I'm too lazy and incompetent to do math / spacial reasoning like that in my head). I'm sure you'd like to see yourself there, too, seeing as you did quite well. XD And we all know your clever ploy to depose Zig2 and usurp victory for yourself is invalid. =P

    P.S. I'M VERY SORRY FOR MISSING YOUR TYPOS. Please forgive me in all of your shining wisdom (HAH!), merciful leadership, etc. But at least I caught most of them! ...I think. XD

    <3

    Hahahahaha. In all seriousness, thanks for putting this together. I know from experience (as does anyone really) that putting these things together is a pain in the butt. I think Brevity took me like 4 hours to put together... Or maybe just one hour. Either way, it was a lot. Granted, I also wanted to make it look nice, but still... I also didn't have as much to work with. =x

    STOP TALKING

    TO THE JUDGES: An equally important thanks goes to you all for doing this thing, and Suskie for finally finishing. =P As always, I appreciate the feedback, and am quite pleased that to see that I think my teammate and I did better than expected. I want to say especially to Zipp that I think your obscurity scoring system is brilliant and I wish more judges had used something like that (especially CD and Jerec, whose scales could make certain games vary wildly just for one little thing).

    As for the review itself, I was quite happy with it when initially subbing it. It had been considerably rehauled, so I no longer felt as much shame with it. And I'm glad to have spared all four of you the horrors of the first draft.

    Anyway, thanks again for everyone's effort with this. It's much appreciated. This had some really good turnout, considering everything that's been happening recently.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 15, 2010:

    I am amazed at how close some of the scores were from the different judges. We all had good suggestions and most of the reviews were really interesting.

    Congratulations to the winning team.

    Thanks to everyone for letting me help out in judging and if anyone has any questions please feel free to ask.

    Also congratulations to everyone who participated for an very interesting contest.

    to aschultz:
    You have an eye for detail and I appreciate that in your reviews. Your review was good but I really needed to watch some YouTube videos to really understand some of what you pointed out about the game. It is a complex game and you covered it well - maybe to well?


    Oh, yeah and thanks to EmP for handling MOTO - Good job.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 15, 2010:

    Actually...

    Zig = 377
    Zig2 = 295

    TEAM = 672

    OD = 323
    Genj = 353

    TEAM = 676

    So wouldn't victory go to Team OD regardless of the somewhat-secret-identity of Zig 2?
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 15, 2010:

    (especially CD and Jerec, whose scales could make certain games vary wildly just for one little thing).

    Meaning?

    Now I enjoyed reading your review but I was puzzled at the overall plot of the game. I guess it just was not clear if there was a story of just robot explorers bumping into puzzles - or were they trying to escape from the Doctor? I also thought you could have included a bit more about the children stealing the robots. I thought you kind of just tossed that out and really didn't say much more about them. If you thought that would have been a spoiler then you could have left out "that Dr. Hugos snotty little children find after stealing the robots" and gone right to the puzzle description.
    board icon
    aschultz posted October 15, 2010:

    It is a complex game and you covered it well - maybe to well?

    Don't feel you need to be -too- diplomatic. If I can't take critiques that say I missed the point, I shouldn't enter contests :).

    I think I tried to cover the wrong thing so it probably didn't matter if I covered it well. People probably want to read sooner about how you fiddle around with the insides of robots and the main fight isn't against an enemy but against your own clutter or misconceptions. How it's engaging enough, the physical impossibility of stuffing each robot inside the other doesn't matter. How it's neat to find that fourth robot, but anyone smart enough to solve the puzzles will dread probably NEEDING that robot later. That was obvious to me after reading the critiques.

    Speaking of getting off focus, this may belong more in a critique topic.

    Dang it. Did I forget to add there were a lot of other reviews I enjoyed? I did. Guess I forgot to put first things first, again.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 15, 2010:

    Yay to TEAM MAKESHIFT! Time for Emp and I to booze it up at our victory party. That Zig2 guy can just go fall in a hole somewhere.

    Thanks to the judges for the judgements. Clearly a lot of time, effort, and thought went into them, and that is appreciated.

    //Zig
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 15, 2010:

    1. The OD-Genj team finished with four more points that the Zig Duo, so we win.

    2. Team Makeshift is only an element of EmP's imagination.

    3. Thanks, Genj! You carried me to a win in this competition!

    WE WIN!!!!!


    Oh, Zipp...I suck at html. I wanted to differentiate the dream narration from the rest of the review. I picked a review where I had colored text. It was Monster Party. I used red there. I copied-n-pasted the code for colored text. Therefore, I used red here. Not a particular complicated thing. And a pretty lousy story, too. But I still won!!!
    board icon
    True posted October 15, 2010:

    Thank you all for judging this one. There were a lot of reviews for you to go through and most of you did so in a timely manner. Ha ha.

    And I am going to mention this, mainly because all four judges said basically the same thing: I hope that--because I used Sports Champions--you don't think I believe you to be of lower intelligence, or that I was trying to be sneaky. I full well knew I was going to take a massive hit on the obscurity factor, but like I stated when I posted it I had Untold Legends lined up, and Sports Champions came out a couple days later. Time constraints only permitted one, and I didn't think a whole lot of people were going to rush on here to see a review for Untold Legends. Sports Champions seemed far more relevant and much better for the site in terms of the bigger picture, but I didn't want to bail in the contest completely. I knew going into this my game wasn't even in the realm of obscure, and wasn't using the Bocce as an excuse. Hopefully, it brought traffic regardless. That's why I'm okay with placing dead last.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 15, 2010:

    CD: I didn't have any problems with your (or anyone else's) comments regarding the review itself. I merely referred to how you graded obscurity, which, if looking at all the games in question and how you rated it, sometimes didn't seem as fair or make as much sense. For example, you slam my game, EmP's game and a few others for having a home page on google. While having a home page certainly isn't a good thing to have when it comes to obscurity, google isn't necessarily the best source for determining obscurity either. That's because you can find almost anything on google when you search for it, especially if you search like I do (I put quotations around the keywords, often the title of games).

    Frankly, I kind of wish there had been some sort of guideline for how to determine obscurity, since obscurity is a little bit easier to objectify than, say, horror, but ultimately it does come down to someone's opinion and/or interpretation and experience, so it's still really complicated.

    Don't get me wrong, though. I really am grateful for and appreciate the time and effort you and the rest of the judges put into this thing. Overall, I'm quite satisfied with how things turned out (and not just with myself or my team), so I think you guys did a good job.

    To put any ambiguity to bed, I understand completely where you're coming from with regard to how I approached my review. The truth is, though, any "story" behind that game is really quite shallow and just meant to create a resaonable transition from one puzzle to the next. It's supposed to be amusing, which is why it's done that way to begin with (or at least I think so), so it's really kind of hard to elaborate on without just telling you everything that happens. Haha. Really, when it comes right down to it, the robots do what they do because they're bored, and whatever happens to happen around them, well... happens, I guess. XD If that makes any sense.

    Zipp: I did want to say something else besides complimenting you on your great idea for rating obscurity. I'm acutely aware, and have been for a while, that my writing style has shifted more towards an academic structure for reviews. It makes me really sad, to be honest. Like, I can't even remember a review I wrote recently that didn't fit this profile (though maybe my .hack and MGS2 ones do... Maybe Fantasy Wars, too, but I'm not sure (though I'm plenty happy with that one anyway, so it's fine).). In any case, varyiing my style just isn't as easy as it used to be. I'm not sure why, but I can only hope that as I finish with school, I can learn to challenge myself that way again. I'm glad you like that part of me, though, and I'll keep trying to lure it out again. But these things can't be forced.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 15, 2010:

    I wrote a thing for my obscure modifier but it was somehow left off.

    Looking at the scores with this in mind, it'll all make a sort of sense.

    "Okay, I'm a fairly mainstream gamer. I like my Final Fantasy and Zelda and I rarely venture out into the unknown. So if I haven't heard of your game, you get an automatic +5 for the Obscure Modifier (-5 if I have heard of it), and then the rest of the points are granted depending on how difficult it is for me to find more information about it."
    board icon
    jerec posted October 15, 2010:

    Welcome to this delayed telecast of Review of the Week. There were a lot of reviews this week, and Id already had to read a bunch of them. Lets get on with it. One interesting point to note, if the RotW schedule hadn't been completely fucked up a few weeks ago, causing a date shift, none of these MOTO reviews would have been in my week and I would have got this done on time.

    REVIEW OF THE WEEK - Donkey Kong (Arcade) Leroux_Deux

    I love this retrospective piece on Donkey Kong. Leroux has obviously done some research, and is incredibly familiar with the game. Even though he wasnt even alive when all this was happening, you kinda forget that due to how credible he is. This review made me remember Steve Kents The Ultimate History of Video Games and the same things that made that an enjoyable read were also present here. The balance between reviewing the game and looking at the time it came from is perfect. This is a definite feature review for the site, and is the sort of thing you want to advertise to casual visitors to the site.

    FIRST PLACE AMONG LOSERS - Comic Jumper (XLA) (X360) overdrive

    Comic Jumper is one of those games Ive been following for a while, since it looks pretty fun (like Splosion Man). I now have a good idea what to expect, I especially liked the comparisons to older games, and the challenging bosses. Ill definitely be grabbing this one when I want something new to play (or maybe I can wait for the deal of the week, since 1200 points seems a bit steep). It makes me happy to see Honestgamers.com get a good review of a new release very quickly. Overdrive, I like to see you review new releases.

    THIRD PLACE - Saira (PC) dragoon_of_infinity

    Sorry, Im going to be lazy and just c+p my MOTO critique. Saira sounds like a fascinating game. You really hooked me in on that sense of loneliness, being the only person of consequence. I prefer reading about little-known indie games which I can easily find (once I know about them) than some import that went out of production 15 years ago. Anyone who stumbles upon this review while browsing the site will want to check this game out, I know I do. Your descriptions give me a real sense of the game that I probably wouldnt get on the download site. Your familiarity with Nifflas lends credibility to the piece, youre obviously familiar with this guys work and you recommend this title. Great review

    Some other good reviews this week that didnt make the cut were Schultzs interesting review (which would have done quite well if hed used it in the MOTO) JoeTheDestroyers reviews are decent reads, though I had trouble picking a favourite from them. Lots of stuff.

    This topic probably wasnt worth the wait. See you next time.




    board icon
    aschultz posted October 15, 2010:

    As you said, it's good to see a contest bring out a lot of good reviews.

    I had a feeling my Neuromancer review might be better received but didn't know about submitting GameFAQs remakes. Besides I said "It's not obscure! It's based on a relatively well known book!"

    The critiques from the MotO have been helpful, though.

    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 15, 2010:

    Frankly, I kind of wish there had been some sort of guideline for how to determine obscurity, since obscurity is a little bit easier to objectify than, say, horror, but ultimately it does come down to someone's opinion and/or interpretation and experience, so it's still really complicated.

    I can agree with that. Even in the older MOTO there were no guidelines. The only real basis I had for obscurity was older MOTOs and the way those were judged to be rare. Some of those older ones were way out of whack which did not help. So I did not use a system I made myself I extrapolated a system based on several other MOTOs I could find (and I thought were fair).

    In your case I was familiar with the game (my friend has it, and I played a bit of it), I was able to find lots of information on it and it was on sale for $5.00 all last month on the indie site. So including all that I thought I was fair. I hope you understand where I was coming from.
    board icon
    jerec posted October 15, 2010:

    Shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 15, 2010:

    1. The OD-Genj team finished with four more points that the Zig Duo, so we win.

    I must admit I'm a little surprised that Zipp would mark himself down quite so much, but I'm glad Emp did the only sane thing in the end by declaring himself (with me!) the victor.

    //Zig
    board icon
    zigfried2 posted October 15, 2010:

    ZIPP: I AM ZIG2!

    Judges cant compete in tourneys. Thatd be a ludicrous stretch of the rules. Therefore Zig2 is DISQUALIFIED FOREVER


    This is blatant falsehood! Zippdementia is a fake account created long ago for the sole purpose of eventually impersonating me, Zigfried2 (two)!

    These results are absolutely shocking. Shocking! I expected a combined score of 440, nothing less would do (well maybe 439 would be ok), and I am so outraged that I am tearing down my review in protest. I am also ceding all intellectual rights to Zigfried (one) so that he may someday incorporate my wonderful ideas into a full review of his own.

    oh and emp u can't disqualify me forever because I AM CLOSING MY ACCOUNT FOREVER hahahahahahaha

    //Zig2
    board icon
    Genj posted October 15, 2010:

    Thanks to the judges for volunteering their free time to provide quality commentary. Congratulations to everyone who participated.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 15, 2010:

    Puzzle Dimension
    System: MAC, PC, iPhone
    Devleoper: Doctor entertainment
    Publisher: Valve
    Release Date: June 21st, 2010
    Genre: Puzzle

    I put up a review a couple days ago... I'm assuming that it's okay to post by now, since I haven't had any negative response. So I shall do so as soon as the game's listing is posted.

    ADDED, AND RESPONDED
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 15, 2010:


    This is blatant falsehood! Zippdementia is a fake account created long ago for the sole purpose of eventually impersonating me, Zigfried2 (two)!


    Pretty much, yeah.

    To OD: Well, it could have been worse. You could have picked fushcia... fuscia... fucia? How the hell do you spell fuchsia?

    To WQ: I know what you mean. I think my best reviews have been written in between classes, when I had very little time to polish them and think about them but was just forced to write. Now if only I could/ just CREATE that situation on call. I'll get back to you on that.

    PS. I'm glad you liked my obscurity scale.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 15, 2010:

    "I am an artist. My favorite color is FUCHSIA!!!"

    ....hm. It just isn't the same.

    //Zig
    board icon
    jerec posted October 15, 2010:

    I feel betrayed, Zipp.
    board icon
    espiga posted October 15, 2010:

    Thanks to the judges for taking the time out to critique all of us. Also thanks to them for giving me the second-highest individual score. I was a little worried about the review because of how short it was, but it seems to have gone over well enough! I rushed through the game in about an hour and a half or so one night and reviewed it the next morning. That's how I roll when I'm not paired up with Suskie who I enjoy ditching all the time when I put my mind to it.

    Also, thanks to Aschultz for being a Pretty Cool Guy. (tm)
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 15, 2010:

    Since WQ asked for it:

    1. Zigfried (377)
    2. Espiga (373)
    3. Genj (353)
    4. DoI (337)
    5. EmP (330)
    6. Overdrive (323)
    7. Will the Great (318)
    8. Wolfqueen (315)
    9. True (295)
    9. Zigfried2 (295)
    11. Nightmare (286)
    12. Dark_Eternal (277)
    13. ASchultz (241)
    Last. BELISARIOS (0)
    Last. Felix (0)
    Last. Masters (0)

    These above rankings are based on Emp's math skills, so they probably shouldn't be trusted at all.

    //Zig
    board icon
    EmP posted October 16, 2010:

    2 for 2 for a returning Leroux. Can anyone stop his newest wave of terror.

    (Yes. Me. Next week!)

    Futher congrats to DoI, who wrote his peice rusty and was supported only by a tidal wave of nagging. As with most tourney deadline weeks, there was a lot of fantastic reviews submitted -- thanks to everyone. Aside from Masters.
    board icon
    JoeTheDestroyer posted October 16, 2010:

    I probably shouldn't submit GameFAQs remakes/semi-revamps, but I figured what the hell. Fate and The Hunt for Red October were all new ones. Thank you for the mention! I like seeing my name in places I didn't put it. :)
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 16, 2010:

    At some point in the near-ish future, I'll be making some treks out to a big arcade center. We'll see what that turns up! I expect to get at least one review out of it.

    //Zig
    board icon
    darketernal posted October 16, 2010:

    Ahh well, I don't agree with some things that were said, but one should be grateful to people that they took their time judging, so thanks.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 16, 2010:

    Darketernal should have at least one more point... EmP didn't factor in my obscurity score if you look above...
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 18, 2010:

    *pokes OD with a stick* Don't forget! =P
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 18, 2010:

    I am sorry DE but not getting the name right is just not forgivable. I hope you know that was just about the only thing that knocked down your score from me. Overall your review was interesting and I did like the description of the story opening. This line was pretty good "A bit harsh, but that is the way they roll in Al-Quadim." If you had left out the "u" in the game name it would have changed your score by a lot.
    board icon
    darketernal posted October 18, 2010:

    I didn't even think of that when I made the post, but now that you mention it, alright, I'll bite. You are right, but it's not like I did the title for said review in the game database. I went to "Reviews", scrolled down for the PC, found the game in question's only entry, and clicked "Add review". I didn't make the actual data base for the game, I know the sodding name of the game, hell I didn't type it wrong a single time (at least not to my knowledge) in the actual review, so yeah, you can't or at least shouldn't pin on me that someone who made the game database missed the "u" in the title.

    But like I said, it's okay, it's done and over with so let's move on.
    board icon
    Leroux posted October 18, 2010:

    There is no "u" in the title. You'll have to supply evidence, because I've looked up the box cover, checked it against other sites, and we have testimonial from CoarseDragon and the database appears correct. "Al-Qadim" is the spelling in the D&D community (site) and the game is based off the D&D theme.
    board icon
    darketernal posted October 18, 2010:

    You are correct. I checked a few pages more and it seems that I was in the wrong, so apologies, could have sworn the system was Al-Quadim. Happens when you review games from the past.
    board icon
    Leroux posted October 18, 2010:

    No sweat. We make errors all the time too (see: here).
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted October 18, 2010:

    That being said, I hope DE wasn't seriously marked down for the typo.
    board icon
    Leroux posted October 18, 2010:

    I don't know. I'd have trouble putting complete faith in a guy that didn't spell the game right and on a contest level it's a legitimate repeated mistake, no typo (some judges dock for those, too...). Journalism students routinely fail assignments for getting proper names incorrect and that doesn't seem like an unreasonable standard for someone to hold when judging.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 18, 2010:

    If everyone judged the same, then we wouldn't have four of 'em. We all look at different things.

    //Zig
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 19, 2010:

    I am sorry that happened and I can understand it because "Q" is normally followed by "u". Once would have not been to bad but every time and everywhere the game name was mentioned. There were a couple of other minor things I mentioned one but if that mistake had not been there I believe I would have gone with a low eighties score. It was after all a pretty enjoyable read.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 19, 2010:

    Yeah, having four judges pretty much tells you whether or not your review speaks to people across the gambit of personalities out there.

    I liked the review, and I think Suskie did, too, but Coarse was held up by typos and so was Jerec... who also didn't like the style.

    Is it a bad review? Clearly the fact that two of four judges really liked it says that it isn't. However, did it have the mass appeal of some of the other reviews? Apparently not. I think the only review up there that everyone universally liked was Zig's review...

    ... but that doesn't count.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 19, 2010:

    Name: Blue Lacuna
    Genre: Interactive Fiction
    Release: 2010
    Platform: MAC, PC... and Linux!
    Developer: Aaron Reed
    Publisher: free online (so Aaron Reed again, I suppose)

    Added. The release date you supplied was incorrect.
    board icon
    overdrive posted October 20, 2010:

    Greetings and salutations! Enough small talk! It's time for RotW MADNESS!

    You know the rules. I make decisions. Only one review per person. Zig's not eligible. Which means nothing, as he didn't submit a review. I really hate it when a person puts in a stipulation where they don't have their reviews count...but then don't even give me the opportunity to deny their review.




    THIRD PLACE: Super Basketball (Arcade) by aschultz

    This was a good week. Seemed like just about every review had a chance to be placed, as there were no clunkers. This was a neat little review of a game I'd never heard of. A fun look at an old arcade game with a simple hook to get people to play. You do a great job of explaining how things work without out getting too wordy/FAQ-y (which I've mentioned in critiquing you before). A short, effective review that was easy to read and I learned something about a game I knew nothing about I can't complain about that!

    SECOND PLACE: Double Dragon (Arcade) by Leroux_Deux

    Your Sunday Cabaret arcade reviews constantly entertain and inform me. While this isn't as enthralling as your Donkey Kong one (which isn't a slight on this one, as that one set the sort of gold standard that I think will be tough to beat), it was a very fun read of a classic brawler. You set out to show readers how Double Dragon was the true father of the brawler and you do a great job of justifying that stance. The "bottleneck" line was genius, as it effectively shows that while it wasn't the first, it was the one that influenced those which came after. Hmmm...two of the three slots here go to your Sunday review and Schultz's (which guest-starred for you). Note to other writers: PROTIP -- Give Rob arcade reviews during his RotW weeks.

    OVERDRIVE PLACE: Enslaved: Odyssey to the West (Xbox 360) by Suskie

    There were two reviews for Enslaved this week, so I got to see two different views of the game. Overall, I liked this one more, as it felt like a more well-rounded look at the game that focuses mainly on aspects of playing the game and treats the story as just part of the ride. Which is a good slant to take after the opening paragraph and its mention as to how Heavenly Sword was a game that was boosted by its story. Acknowledge the story, but let the action speak for itself. As a guy playing another one of the Tales of... RPGs (which tend to have better-than-average JRPG stories, but repetitive button-mashing battles), I can appreciate that, as it can be tough to blast a game's flaws when you had so much fun finding out how things turn out. To me, though, games like that tend to have less replay value, as the story's not so much fun when you know what happens...which causes the flaws in the action to be more noticeable. Which probably ties into why I liked this review so much. It seemed to be very effective in focusing on analyzing the gaming experience where it's a fun game with an intriguing story...but does have annoying flaws that drag it down a bit. I don't know how much sense any of that rambling made, so in short...it was an effective review that really worked for me. The end.




    And now...I do other stuff. And man, the year's about over and I haven't reviewed Street Fighter 2010 yet. WTF's wrong with me?
    board icon
    aschultz posted October 20, 2010:

    Yeah, it was nice to see good reviews this week. Of course, they're usually there. But it's nicer and rarer to get a mention in RotW.

    Congrats to those who placed above me, too. Their reviews were more ambitious and deserved it.

    Sometimes not being FAQ-y is more a case of just having so much time to write something out or redo an old GameFAQs review. It seems tougher to do with games I haven't reviewed yet, even when I put aside time to proofread.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 20, 2010:

    Review of Street Fighter 2010
    board icon
    Suskie posted October 20, 2010:

    I totally get what you're coming form, so thanks a lot, and I'm glad the review connected with you. Props to Leroux and Schultz.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted October 21, 2010:

    Okay, this is my last week coming up. I'm all over it. How does it happen, though, that every time I finish a review, it somehow falls on my ROTW week?

    Thankfully, in this case, I have the choice of holding off. Thus, my Blue Lacuna review shall be posted on the 28th. I'll put it up on the production room today or tomorrow for Zig and EmP to look over, though. Might as well make it a staff review.

    EDIT: Dammit. Looked at Novemeber again. Why do I keep doing that? Review will be posted on the 24th.
    board icon
    zigfried posted October 23, 2010:

    This is the thread to post interesting video game news that you hear. If it's interesting enough (to me) then I will do a bit of research and post an official site news article about it.

    If it's interesting (to me) and your post is so well-written that I'm left with no choice but to use your words, then I'll make sure you're credited with writing the article. But I'm not asking for that amount of effort. A heads up is enough.

    Just an idea to keep that sidebar moving.

    //Zig
    board icon
    EmP posted October 23, 2010:

    How about that time we won that thing and threw a party?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 25, 2010:

    Alright. Since Zipp is no longer with us, I'm asking now if anyone wants to replace him. If not, I might have to condense the schedule again, or I might just take a risk and do it myself, though I worry that real life might get in the way of this.

    I'll give everyone interested about a week to declare their interest in replacing Zipp before I condense the schedule into a four-man rotation.

    On a different note, why hasn't Leroux's Donkey Kong review been added to the featured list? (This was during the week of Oct. 3 - 9) I know Leroux didn't want any of his "best of" reviews counted during that one week (though he really said something too late for that...), but I didn't think it applied to anything new. If, however, Leroux doesn't want any of his reviews to count for RotW, I ask that he officially declare this so in here so that it may be seen by all and officially added to the "list of discounts", of which only Zig is part at the moment.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted October 25, 2010:

    Alright. Since Zipp is no longer with us, I'm asking now if anyone wants to replace him.

    Can't you have one of the subs replce him for now. I am sure you will be re-working the schedule for next year so you only need to cover one week.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 25, 2010:

    I could, but I'd like to have it sorted out as soon as possible.

    Though, if one of the subs wants to take Zipp's week in November, then go for it. Maybe it would be better to wait until December or something, anyway, since people's schedules change and such and so it might be more accurate to confirm a more permanent replacement closer to next year.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted October 31, 2010:

    Ok... I've left Zipp's November spot open for whoever wants it... If no one does closer to the time, I might just do it myself...

    I think it's bloomer's week now (technically ended yeserday)... followed by Will.
    board icon
    dementedhut posted October 31, 2010:

    Since this topic is already at the top of the front page, and since Wolfqueen brought it up in a previous post about Leroux's review, can someone Feature my Contra: Hard Corps review? I just noticed now it hasn't been featured yet.

    Puuueeeeeeeezzzz? :D

    Edit: Thank you.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 01, 2010:

    I just remembered that bloomer said he'd be out due to computer/internet issues or something for a period in October around the time of his scheduled week. I don't know if this is still the case, but in case it is, do any of the substitutes (or anybody really...) want to take his week? (October 24-30).
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 01, 2010:

    No, I'm not sure yet. I'm going to give him until Wednesday, when the normal deadline passes. If he hasn't posted his RotW by then, or at least said something regarding it in here, then I'll let you do it.
    board icon
    bloomer posted November 01, 2010:

    Who ever suggested I was unavailable? If they did, they're wrong. I don't think I should have to come into this topic just to say, 'I'm working on the topic' (which I am) when I'm scheduled to do it. That's what the schedule is for.

    If you don't know what I'm like with these things, I've never missed a reviewing deadline of any kind in my whole reviewing life. If I'm having trouble with a topic, I'll tell you in advance - bar car accidents.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 01, 2010:

    Sorry, bloomer. I thought I remember you saying something a while ago about not being around for a bit in October due to something that was going to come up. In any case, as my memory was shaky on this, and I figured you'd be around to see any errors of judgment, you'd be able to correct me, which is why I didn't take any direct action yet. I also knew you'd make the deadline, so that's why I was going to leave any final decisions to Wednesday.

    Anyway, sorry for the mistake. I could've sworn you'd said something like that... though the time period may have been in reference to a week or two before now. In any case, this won't happen again. Thanks for clarifying.
    board icon
    bloomer posted November 01, 2010:

    Review of the Week, 24-30 October 2010

    This week's field was both strong and numerous. Back In the GameFAQs days of doing this topic, you might have had to look at 50 reviews for a day, but you almost never had to look at 13 at once that were as good as this week's, including multiple entries from Sho and JoeTheDestroyer.

    First Place

    Zipp's Blue Lacuna review (Mac)

    It was probably an advantage this week to be reviewing a game totally unlike all the others reviewed. Blue Lacuna is a peace, love and mung beans mongering epic of modern interactive fiction, quite unlike Splatterhouse 2, for instance, so Zipp benefited from the game's novel dissimilarity for writing purposes, and was able to build on this with a thoughtful and evocative review of a game containing none of the typical contents we are used to reviewing.

    The review did invoke a major site of attack of mine, which is rhetorical writing along the lines of 'How can I convey to you in words the splendour of X, Y or Z?' Especially when the writing then immediately conveys the splendour of X, Y or Z in the same sentence. With words being the base unit of reviewing, I think people had better get conveying or change gigs.

    Nevertheless!.. the desired information was conveyed successfully, so I'll not let my personal gripe interfere with my assessment of this review's overall quality. Zipp's review is the review of the week.

    (For anyone submitting on my day in future, now that my gripe has been stated, I no longer have to prevent it from interfering. Beware!)

    Second Place

    Sho's Splatterhouse 2 review (Genesis)

    Sho is a star of this week with his eight Halloween reviews of exceptional quality. I wouldn't expect to click on any one person's contribution page and be able to read eight reviews in a row all as good as these. Each one pulls you through in a compelling and humorous manner, weaving in gameplay and research with no apparent effort. The voice is distinct and clear as a bell.

    I admit I was close to second-guessing my choice of which Sho review should appear in this topic. I think Vampire: The Masquerade as a game offers deeper subject matter to talk about (which lends itself to this kind of competition) and Sho did talk about it, and that review's second paragraph alone is a killer example of telling as much in a paragraph as some reviews manage in a whole review. And I suspected that anyone who had already read this week's reviews would probably choose the Sho Bloodlines review as 'the one'.

    In spite of all that, I found Sho's shorter review of Splatterhouse to be, in some way, perfect. It is perfectly formed, entertaining, informative, and really enjoyable to read. I wouldn't change a word of it (not that it's mine to change).

    Third Place

    Leroux's X-Men review (arcade)

    A combination of excellent detail and research, Leroux's X-Men review is simultaneously made compelling and leavened by nostalgia. The density of writing is ambitious, occasionally to the point where the flow of rhetoric is chipped. At this level, proofreading needs become very subtle, and this is the only area in which this remarkable review was not able to climb higher this week.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 01, 2010:

    Wow. I really didn't expect to win this one. There were some incredible reviews this week and, while I was quite pleased with mine as a personal achievement (it really wasn't an easy game to review) I saw some stiff competition lined up against it.

    Thanks for the notes on this. While I think the rhetorical paragraph captured what I was looking for, I agree it's a cop-out and I promise it won't happen again.
    board icon
    aschultz posted November 02, 2010:

    This was a big strong week and my award-craving side is very glad I was too busy to contribute anything.

    Eight reviews in one week--yeah. I got crossed up by all the similar names, but I should probably sit down and straighten them out for my own good. Uh, entertainment.
    board icon
    JoeTheDestroyer posted November 04, 2010:

    While rummaging around on an old thumb drive, I found all of my old GameFAQs reviews. I'm trying to convert them (i.e. proofread and take out some of the errors) for submission here. The Berzerk FAQ is up, and I'm working on my Cel Damage FAQ.

    UPDATE:

    Cel Damage FAQ is up. Yay! Forgot to use metapad to commit word wrap. D'oh! I'm at work right now, on my break, otherwise I'd fix it this moment.
    board icon
    espiga posted November 09, 2010:

    South Korea is getting the next game in the Ghosts n' Goblins series:

    It's going to be a side-scrolling action game with online gameplay. Apparently, the series' trademark of losing clothes as you take damage will be intact.
    board icon
    WilltheGreat posted November 09, 2010:

    This RotW is almost late. Almost, but not quite! It's tardy at any rate, and I apologise.

    But you aren't here to read about why I don't get things done on time, you're here to find out who trounced who this past week. And I shan't disappoint.

    Let's start with...

    Runner Up - Pickhut, with Muscle March (WW) (Wii)

    It's no secret that I have a soft spot for reviews that dismantle terrible games with humor and wit, so that may be why Pickhut's piece appears here instead of others. It's funny without being silly, and scathing without being harsh, and I just love that shit.

    Second Place First Loser - Wolfqueen, with Eschalon Book II (PC)

    This review fascinates me. Your descriptions of the world of Eschalon, narrations of gameplay and mechanics, and exposition on the setting are all intriguing and capture my attention. But I feel like part of the reason is that you've reviewed an exceptionally detailed and captivating game. I don't feel as though a lot is done to take these elements and make them your own, to put your own spin on them. This piece would benefit a lot from a stronger narrative voice, everything else it's got down. Also, half of me wants to hear more about experiences with other character builds and how they work instead of just your ranger, but the other half thinks that leaving it out makes the reader want to attempt it themselves that much more. Take from this what you will.

    Your Champion, and Winner of the Hardest Name to Type Award - SamildanachEmrys with Pirates! (NES)

    Arr matey, any landlubber could pen an entertainin' tale aboot Sid Meier's lesser-known creation. But here, ye've spun yer experiences with this game into a narrative the likes of which Davy Jones 'iself would crawl from the murkey depths te lend an ear too. And t'ain't but the saltiest sea dog who's capable of such a thrillin' retelling.

    **AWK! Thrillin' retelling! Thrillin' retelling!**

    This piece here, t'is long, but without bein' unwieldy, and chock full o' flavour and detail that makes me old heart sing. T'is a story told well, so it's a double ration of rum fer the likes of yeh. Now get back to work!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 09, 2010:

    Samildanach will be pleased to hear that, I'm sure! I definitely thought this deserved it this week. There were so many good reviews, but this one just had an incredible amount of jive (jibe?) to it.

    I actually think I would've chosen the exact same line up, though my write up wouldn't have been as well written and I would've probably talked about someone who I thought was in this week but was actually not...

    ... because of course it's all about what I would've done!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 10, 2010:

    Thanks, Will. This was a strong week, so I can't really complain about second place. =P Congrats to Samil...unpronouceable for winning and to pickhut for placing.

    As an aside, I didn't experiment with other character builds - do you have any idea how long that would've taken me? Lol the review would never have gotten written! - so that's why it's just about my ranger.
    board icon
    SamildanachEmrys posted November 10, 2010:

    Thanks! I'm deeply gratified and a little bit afraid that I've made review of the week. It's good to know people get some enjoyment out of my procrastination (I should really be writing historical analyses rather than game reviews, but never mind eh?)

    Oh, and people generally call me Sam or Sammy or Samil, things of that nature. I know the full name is an inconvenience. :p
    board icon
    dementedhut posted November 10, 2010:

    Thanks, Will! Appreciate the mention and the comments about the review. And congrats to Sam for getting RotW. I'll admit I haven't read it yet due to being occupied, but I'll be sure to check it out now since Will has arouse my interest!
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted November 10, 2010:

    Two things of note (for me anyway).

    Disgaea 4 will let you transfer some your saved game data from Disgaea 3.

    Disgaea 4 will also have an online component where, after you build a pirate ship, you can battle other payers and possibly have them join/help you in battle.
    board icon
    JoeTheDestroyer posted November 11, 2010:

    ^Spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam.

    Anyway, congrats everyone. Great picks this week. Thank you, Samil and Wolfqueen, for piquing my interesting on Pirates! and Eschalon, respectively. And thank you for the warning on Muscle March, Pickhut.
    board icon
    Masters posted November 11, 2010:

    I take full credit for Wolfqueen's placing so high. But not for her NOT winning. That was Emp's doing.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted November 11, 2010:

    ZeniMax will probably buy them since they buy everybody else, like MachineGames and Tango Gameworks.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted November 11, 2010:

    If you have no one to cover November 21-27 I can help out.
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted November 11, 2010:

    ZeniMax owns Bethesda who just sold five million copies of Fallout: New Vegas. In 2008 Fallout 3 sold over 4 million copies in the first week, no idea how many have been sold overall so, yeah, I think they can manage a buy out.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 11, 2010:

    CD: Either you or Ben (or anyone else who wants it) can take over Zipp's former week. I guess whoever wants it the most can have it. Fight each other or something. Haha.
    board icon
    bloomer posted November 11, 2010:

    > Anyway, sorry for the mistake. I could've sworn you'd said something like
    > that... though the time period may have been in reference to a week or two
    > before now. In any case, this won't happen again. Thanks for clarifying.

    No worries. I did have a holiday, but you already took it into account and scheduled my first ROTW slot to happen after I got back :)
    board icon
    jerec posted November 11, 2010:

    Oh, I'm up next!
    board icon
    CoarseDragon posted November 12, 2010:

    CD, you can take November 21-27 if you want, since I'm going to be judging the Darkness Contest in a few days.

    Ok, so if there are no others I'll do November 21-27.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 12, 2010:

    I'll put you in the schedule, CD. If anyone else wanted it, then I guess they should've said something sooner.
    board icon
    jerec posted November 15, 2010:

    I've read all the reviews for this week and have settled on a top 5 for now. I can't really find the critical analysis part of my brain at the moment, since I'm preoccupied with a job interview coming up soon. I'll see if I can do this tomorrow night, but more likely the night after that once the interview is behind me and my mind can relax.
    board icon
    EmP posted November 15, 2010:

    Remember when I said I was going to do an Indie game a week and you bought it? Suckers.

    Instead, I'm booking up TUESDAYS for a Retro-themed slot with a clever name I've not yet thought of. But it'll be clever as hell when I do discover it -- you can bet on that.

    The Indie slot is still forthcoming. I was to establish this first, though.
    board icon
    Masters posted November 16, 2010:

    I've edited WQ's original post, point number 3.

    Thanks!
    board icon
    jerec posted November 16, 2010:

    Welcome to another Review of the Week! As always, only one review by each person is eligible, so Ill be looking for the best of your submissions if you have more than one review up in this week. People who are named Zigfried are automatically disqualified for various reasons, mostly due to being above such petty competitions and secretly afraid of losing. There were a decent amount of reviews for me to read this week, even after the various exclusions. So much for Gameroni. The Morlock invasion has not begun yet, my gentle Eloi. Not while some of the Morlocks are still lingering on the surface they havent mutated fully just yet.

    And thats enough rambling from me. Lets get on with it!

    Third Place - Ben Rock Band 3

    Ive been playing Rock Band 3 myself, and picked up a keyboard to go with it. I agree with every single thing you say in this review. Its spot on. If anyone was interested in buying this game, they would do well to read this review. It doesnt matter that you focus primarily on the keyboard thats what a lot of music game fans are going in for at the moment. You mention most of the best songs for the keyboard, and its true that there are a few duds. Some songs just have the same simple sequence of keys the entire song. You dont mention Bohemian Rhapsody though, which seems like the ultimate party song (harmonies, keyboard, guitar etc.) All in all, an excellent review for a new release title. You cant focus on everything in a game like this, and since weve probably all used a plastic 5 button guitar at some point, we all know that hasnt changed. Interested in giving the Pro Guitar a go, though.

    Second Place Sho OutRun

    Ive been digging these Arcade showcases lately. Im not sure if this is tied to what Leroux has been doing, but I have been enjoying you guys putting the spotlight on some old arcade game and telling us why it rocked. Sho, its obvious youre so familiar with this game that even if you did some research to confirm some of your points, it doesnt show. It looks like you know this all already. The writing was as fast and energetic as the game itself at times, and it makes me wish Id gone to the arcade more often in my youth.

    Review of the Week Overdrive Uncharted 2

    I really liked the comparison of Uncharted 2 being like Avatar, a huge blockbuster propelled by hype. It was a really good way to set the game up as being excellent, but not a perfect game, and that after the hype wears off its nothing too special. The complaints about there being too many checkpoints is a valid one and well-illustrated. This is an excellent review and my pick of the week because of how cleverly and clearly you conveyed your points about the game, and its true that games like this become a lot less special once the hype passes and you wonder about how much better the game could have been (or how much better the sequel will be). Weve all been there.




    All in all, a tight week. EmP, Fastkiller and Schultz all came fairly close to the top 3 and it did take some thought on how to rank you guys. JoeTheDestroyers reviews are also good reads and Im enjoying the frequency of his submissions. SamildanachEmrys is someone I havent seen before, and his stuff is pretty good, too. It was a tough week for submissions. HonestGamers is a quality review site. Keep up the fine work, guys.

    See you next month.
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 17, 2010:

    Thanks for the win! Wasn't sure how it'd be received, here or in True's contest, just due to how the world has been deluged in Uncharted 2 commentary since its release. In fact, I'm awaiting Zig's friend to tell me how if I sat down with him and let him talk me through the game, I'd have a much more favorable opinion of it.

    Funny thing is that the only reason this review was written was because of True's contest and how he listed this as one of the games he was interested in reading a review of. I don't have a PS3, but my best friend does, and we played through it at his house a number of months ago (early in the year). I wrote about 2/3 of a review and scrapped it. Seemed too much like Zig's (which I'd read when it came out and really PO'd a fanboy) and I really try not to write reviews where I'm not sure if I'm giving my opinion or essentially re-saying someone else's opinion. I decided to try it again for this contest and was pleased with the result this time, so it's good to see that someone else agrees!

    board icon
    Leroux posted November 18, 2010:

    I've been exceptionally busy lately and a bit perturbed someone signed up for last week and backed out without saying a word. Apologies, but I might not be able to continue with the Cabaret until sometime in December.

    board icon
    zigfried posted November 18, 2010:

    I had agreed to post a RadMobile review last Sunday (to follow up on the Outrun review), but then I couldn't access the site. It's an odd thing that has happened twice so far in the last two months. I've had no time to prepare anything else this week, so I'll post RadMobile on the 21st.

    //Zig
    board icon
    Leroux posted November 18, 2010:

    Cool. I was referring to Mortal Kombat being slated on the schedule at one point.

    board icon
    zigfried posted November 18, 2010:

    I know, but I'm at fault because I had agreed via HGmail to do RadMobile in place of MK. It was all just a big mix-up that would have turned out fine if I had posted my review like I was supposed to.

    Which is why I've now bookmarked the troubleshooting site and IP addresses provided by friendly forumers!

    //Zig
    board icon
    Leroux posted November 18, 2010:

    Ha. No worries. No one seems to have noticed even. Maybe it's best to drop the Sunday gimmick and just try to profile a few arcade games per month.
    board icon
    Suskie posted November 20, 2010:

    Thanks to both of the judges for their very detailed responses. Congrats to WQ and whoever else may have scored higher than me.

    Ben: I recommend you check the feedback thread for True's Enslaved review. I was basically playing the game while I was writing that stuff, and as you can see, I was totally flipping a gasket. And you know what? The camera is the key reason for that. Seriously -- it's the worst thing about Enslaved. Like, you'll be fighting a robot, and everything's going fine, and then the camera will decide to do a 180 spin for no reason whatsoever, and suddenly you can't see who you're attacking. It's ridiculous. I'd be able to put up with the combat if it wasn't for the camera, and that's the main reason that area of the game is such a drag.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 20, 2010:

    Genius! I really think WQ deserved this. After all, it was her review that ultimately convinced me to spend some money last month when I was literally having trouble affording friggin' apples at the grocery store.

    This has been a good contest. The judge's comments told me exactly what I've been wondering about my style for a while now: where does it fit in? I'm beginning to see that I'm most pleased with my writing when it doesn't fit in and while that may not nab me the highest scores or ever win me the team tournament, it does seem that it at least comes across as fresh and interesting. So thanks for that; I'm beginning to reach a place where I'm comfortable with what I write and how I write it and it's mostly due to these numerous contests and the judges who take the time.
    board icon
    EmP posted November 20, 2010:

    RAGE!
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 20, 2010:

    Hey, True.... good news: Blue Lacuna is free. I would take advantage of that, if I were you!
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 20, 2010:

    I uh... Wow. Well, thanks for the 'win' guys. I've never actually won a contest before, so this is a first for me. I guess I technically can't complain about never winning a contest anymore. I mean, I expected to do well here, but not this well. There were some great reviews (and reviewers) that I never expected to beat. So that's cool.

    However, I am wondering why you couldn't have just tied EmP and myself with first place, since he technically won. That way True wouldn't have had to spend 8mmillion dollars shipping it to England, so I'd get the book, and we'd both share in the victory (I'm totally fine with ties). But, oh well. It's done now and I'm quite content with it.

    Congrats to everyone who participated.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 20, 2010:

    I think EmP is joining the "Zig" ranks, in that he's not allowed to win anymore. When I was doing the ROTW, I had to judge him on a far harsher scale than everyone else, something I've had to do in the past with Suskie, Zigfried, and Sho in various contests.
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 20, 2010:

    Haha. That's true. And someone just pointed out to me that one of the rules stipulated that True can award any bonus for whatever reason he chose, so I guess I can't really argue with that. XD
    board icon
    True posted November 20, 2010:

    Thanks, Ben, again for judging this one and I appreciate everyone who showed up and wrote reviews. You guys did a good job and I'm glad Furry Face finally got what she deserved.

    However, I am wondering why you couldn't have just tied EmP and myself with first place, since he technically won.

    He did, unfortunately even with a tie I would have been screwed because--and I never stated this--first and second places are getting a copy. So I had to implement something that would put Emp even lower. I feel kind of bad for him ending up at the bottom, though technically he didn't lose. He scored higher than anyone. But due to an unfair deduction by a douche bag judge he lost.
    board icon
    zippdementia posted November 20, 2010:

    Isn't Overdrive overseas, too?
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 20, 2010:

    Haha. No. Unless he moved sometime recently, which I doubt. >_>
    board icon
    wolfqueen001 posted November 20, 2010:

    Heh. Hey, True: Are you on AIM anymore?
    board icon
    True posted November 20, 2010:

    Maybe there should've been a rule stating that the two highest placed Americans would win the prize.

    Hmm...maybe, but I kind of had more fun screwing Emp.

    :D
    board icon
    overdrive posted November 20, 2010:

    If Emp's going to say that he and Zig won MOTO, then I'm more than happy with how I kicked his godforsaken Brit arse around the park in True's tournament. And if I get a free book out of it, more the better for me!!!

    Ben: The best way to explain the shooting system is as this: It was a few months ago that I played this game. I didn't initially review it because I felt my thoughts came out too similarly to Zig's in his review. For this contest, I decided to try again. Honestly, I had few actual memories of the shooting system. There wasn't anything bad, but anything exceptional was a byproduct of the movie-style setpieces (for example, the Kathmandu helicopter attack part is f-ing amazing to experience...but the actual action is standard "progress until you find rockets and then rocket it to death" stuff. But it looks and feels so cool that it's easy to forget this is just a "survive until provided with weapon" sort of challenge. For the most part, the regular gun stuff was good, but nothing to go crazy over. Nothing bad about it, but due to the general easiness of the game, it came off as just ways to fill the time between the cinema. This game is the perfect rental, as it's utterly awesome that first time through...but to me, it would lose a lot after you know its tricks and stuff.
    board icon
    True posted November 20, 2010:

    Heh. Hey, True: Are you on AIM anymore?

    Rarely. I've been so friggin' busy with this calendar I'm hardly even at home.
    board icon
    True posted November 21, 2010:

    I've finished the final edits on it, I'm just waiting for the cover and I will order them. It took them about seven business days.

    No rush you two, but if you could at some point HG Mail me your address I will see that you get it soon.
    board icon
    Suskie posted November 21, 2010:

    I was wondering how I managed to fall short of my pattern of always placing second, but if the top two highest scorers win, then third place is actually second! It's all falling into place!
    board icon
    Felix_Arabia posted November 21, 2010:

    Hey True, when are you going to send me the copy of your book you promised me 16 months ago?!?!

    Congrats to the winners!!
    board icon
    asherdeus posted November 21, 2010:

    Really appreciate the comments on this, guys. Great tournament and I'm absolutely impressed with how much feedback you offered everyone. Really glad I participated and Ben, you're absolutely right - I guess there is more to the game than kill, kill, kill! I guess I should clarify that there isn't much more to do during the on-foot segments besides kill, kill, kill. Good luck with the book, True. Make sure to let us know how we can purchase it, I'd like to support you.