It's 2 in the morning so I hope this makes sense.
Every two years or so the review scene seems to change. In 2000 (from what I hear) big paragraphs was what made one great. During the "golden age" in 2002 detailed writing and longer reviews was the way to go. This changed in 2004-2005 when short and to the point was the most effective. My peak was probably 2005 and 2006 because that's my style.
Here's something I realized while reading over some of the critiques thus far:
Now creativity/originality and personality seem what the judges are looking for the most. So far in the tourney I'm getting criticized for what I've been praised for in the past; I was praised for brevity and directness and now my reviews are being called too direct and dry. The reason my Call of Duty review one in round 2 was because it's my only review with personality besides CC, which was something that was great at the time because of the CC praise/bash that was going on and died shortly after. So my point is that times change, and I won't be able to pull the same shit for any longer.
What I'm getting from this is I need to write something new or else I'll lose next week, since my reviews are anything but creative and personal. Which means I need to start a review tomorrow and not the day before because it will never get done.
| Most recent blog posts from ... | |
| Feedback | |
 |
Suskie - August 18, 2007 (11:11 PM) Not always true. I tried to do something new this week and failed miserably. In contrast, I previously won four straight rounds by being boring and generic. No more risktaking for me. |
 |
Halon - August 19, 2007 (07:25 AM) I didn't necessarily mean something "new" or an experiment. Reviews with personality seem to be doing great so far opposed to stale, unpersonal reviews. Risk taking also seems to be paying off sometimes (as it always has), as you said. |
 |
espiga - August 19, 2007 (06:07 PM) I'm always trying to do something different in my reviews, and constantly trying out new styles and techniques. And like sportsman said, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Here I thought I was being original with my Ys Eternal review in defining the word "magic" by quoting a dictionary, and when the results came in I was bashed for it being overdone. Yet on the flip side, the journalistic style of my GalCivII (which I was worried would have been overdone) went over quite well. Luck of the draw, I guess. As for personality, I think that writing from your heart is always going to be more effective than writing with your mind. Call me weird, but if I'm really passionate about the game I'm reviewing, the words just kind of "flow" and the review pratically writes itself for me. |
|
© 1998-2024 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors. |