Too bad the last few have been kinda sucky. Maybe I'm just in a slump right now...Anyway, here's a response to Venter in case no one reads the Feedback topics:
I regularly enjoy your reviews, Disco. They're very good, but I often find myself thinking that with a little bit more work, they could really be something special. That's surprising, considering the frequency with which you post new ones. Most writers would let their reviews become cookie-cutter while maintaining a pace like yours, but you don't seem to be going that direction.
Thanks, Venter. I admit that I go a little overboard when it comes to contributing stuff en masse every week. I try to at least average out a review per week, and maybe a little more or less depending on what’s going on during a particular time. For instance, that horribly long Diddy Kong Racing review came off the heels of me unintentionally taking two weeks off my reviewing schedule due to midterms and family stuff. I guess that huge word count was just me trying to make up for lost time or something. I still don’t get why people think the consistency of the quality of my reviews is surprising; at their cores, all the reviews are structured in similar fashion and read the same. I usually write when I get the urge, or if an idea just comes to mind and I have to start typing before I lose it. I don’t normally look it over objectively before I submit it, nor do I plan it; they’re just rants that run straight from start to finish in a single writing session.
I’m a stickler for conveying the all the info necessary instead of brief summaries; if I reverted back to my reviewing style circa Spring 2004 (aka incredibly brief sectioned reviews written in about ten minutes each), I’d have amassed a large enough collection of reviews to rival that of KasketDarkFyre. There’s no way I’d be satisfied with sheer quantity, though; my reviewing ethic has always been about both quality and quantity. I also feel obligated to make good reviews not only for my own sake as a writer, but for my audience as well; my regular readers (many of whom are on Gamefaqs’ LUE) have come to expect me to be a reliable source of info when they’re looking into a game to buy. I can’t let them or myself down.
That said, I think this SSX On Tour review sucked. I broke from my usual methods and wrote it over the course of three days instead of doing it at once. That’s probably why it turned out as crappy as it did. >__> Either way, I’ll make it work somehow. And I’ll take you up on that challenge, Venter. I consider submitting stuff for HG a challenge in itself; I may be popular over on Gamefaqs, but around here I’ve always thought myself to be substandard at best. To be honest, I think I flat-out suck compared to most of you guys. In any case, I’ve got a hankering to bash Altered Beast right now. Hopefully it’ll turn out better than my last few reviews.
Later,
-Disco
| Most recent blog posts from Justin Boot... | |
| Feedback | |
 |
pup - February 21, 2007 (08:26 AM) I judged the ROTW for last week, and it seems like Jason and I share the same thoughts on your review. So here is a response to a response. There’s no way I’d be satisfied with sheer quantity... Quantity is not the issue. At one review per week, you are already submitting more reviews than most of the people around here. In fact, I wonder if you are stuck in the quantity over quality trap without knowing it. You said yourself that you have a standard method of writing reviews. What I think you need to do is take a break from your method, try a new approach, and really labor over one review for a few days, or maybe even an entire week. I broke from my usual methods and wrote it over the course of three days instead of doing it at once. This is a good example of what I was talking about. Now, take an entire week and try something new. I’m a stickler for conveying the all the info necessary instead of brief summaries. A lot of us here are dedicated to working together and improving as writers. We will read your review all the way through and comment on your style, grammar, etc. Ultimately, our reviews are for gamers looking to learn about a game. You have to keep them in mind. The writer side of me respectfully reads and enjoys your review, but the gamer side just wants to quit halfway through and get to the score already. Brevity does not equal a lack of quality. You mentioned Zigfried, so I'll use an excerpt from is Ninety-Nine Nights review. Hundreds of characters, both friend and foe, populate the screen at once — and they can be seen approaching from a mile away. The backgrounds are littered with destructible towers, fragile kiosks, and crumbling archways. Every sword-clash and magical power fills the screen with blazing effects that make the once-revolutionary Soul Blade look primitive. One character, as her standard attack, conjures gouts of water that splash, ripple, and crash against the hordes before her. In the span of just four sentences he manages to describe the masses of characters, the populated landscaped, the destructible physics, the glowing effects, and the amazing attacks. It's breif, and definitely quality. I don't know exactly how the towers fall down or how detailed those enemies in the distance are, but that doesn't really seem to matter. Pick a game to review and make yourself take a week to do it. Try shaving off some of the technical details and filling it with emotional description. Make something different from your previous work. The worst thing that can happen is you create a review that you don't like. |
|
© 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. |