Submit |
Contests |
Top Rated |
Reviews |
Previews |
Guides |
Cheats |
Screens |
Scores |
Videos |
News |
Forums |
Blogs |
Register |
Login |
Users |
Staff |
Links |
Meta
Arcade ::
Dreamcast ::
DS ::
GameCube ::
iPhone/iPod ::
Macintosh ::
PC ::
PlayStation 2 ::
PlayStation 3 ::
PSP ::
Wii ::
Xbox ::
Xbox 360 ::
Retro & Import
Earn prizes and eliminate ads just by contributing content on your FREE user account. Click for details or register today!
|
Nancy Drew: Warnings at Waverly Academy Twitter giveaway Just by participating regularly on the site, you can become eligible to receive free stuff like games, systems, gift certificates and more! HonestGamers, where intelligent gamers are wanted... and rewarded! |
 |
Looking for a good read? Check out a selection from our database of more than 6000 video game reviews! psychopenguin has written a Baseball review and figures that the game deserves a rating of 2 out of 10. What do you think? Check it out, then be sure to leave feedback or chime in with one of your own! |
Forums > Recent Posts
Below, you can see the 50 most recent posts in the forums, starting with the most recent post first and working backwards. Signatures, avatars and other related information have been stripped so that the page will load quickly. Each post contains a link to the thread where it was posted so you can click to see it in its original context.
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 20, 2009 at 08:23 PM:
I've given in. Despite my loathing for Twitter, part of me has been interested in this one even though I don't even know that my computer will even be able to play it.
I'm here. I have no idea how this site works so I'm not linking it the way I see others do. (And yes, someone stole my preferred user name.)
I've given in. Despite my loathing for Twitter, part of me has been interested in this one even though I don't even know that my computer will even be able to play it.
I'm here. I have no idea how this site works so I'm not linking it the way I see others do. (And yes, someone stole my preferred user name.)
Posted by randxian on November 20, 2009 at 06:59 PM:
It takes itself seriously, though no logical person can do the same for its plot, which essentially boils down to a fringe terrorist cell’s plans for a new world order, snowmobile races, airport shoot-outs, illogical trans-oceanic invasions, slumdog millionaires, star wars, nail-biter escapes, bombastic explosions, inexplicable betrayal, heartfelt redemption, ubiquitous pandemonium, and coherency conundrums
I think this drags on a bit too much. I've never played this game, so I'm not sure which of these are the most relevant, but I would personally like to see the more non-relevant items removed.
However, I did like the barbs about "Call of Duty: Medieval Warfare" and the "elevator plunge to Hell." Good stuff. Good entertaining review with plenty of vivid descriptions.
It takes itself seriously, though no logical person can do the same for its plot, which essentially boils down to a fringe terrorist cell’s plans for a new world order, snowmobile races, airport shoot-outs, illogical trans-oceanic invasions, slumdog millionaires, star wars, nail-biter escapes, bombastic explosions, inexplicable betrayal, heartfelt redemption, ubiquitous pandemonium, and coherency conundrums
I think this drags on a bit too much. I've never played this game, so I'm not sure which of these are the most relevant, but I would personally like to see the more non-relevant items removed.
However, I did like the barbs about "Call of Duty: Medieval Warfare" and the "elevator plunge to Hell." Good stuff. Good entertaining review with plenty of vivid descriptions.
Submission Feedback > Re: Lewis's Tales of Monkey Island: Chapter 4 - The Trial and Execution of Guybrush Threepwood revie
Posted by zigfried on November 20, 2009 at 03:35 PM:
Lewis: HGmail me with the specific changes/wording you want and I'll make the edit.
//Zig
Lewis: HGmail me with the specific changes/wording you want and I'll make the edit.
//Zig
Posted by CoarseDragon on November 20, 2009 at 03:00 PM:
"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question: Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God. No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone. I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture. A city where the artist would not fear the censor. Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality. Where the great would not be constrained by the small. And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well.
Sounds capitalist to me."
Sounds like an optimist to me.
"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question: Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God. No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone. I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture. A city where the artist would not fear the censor. Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality. Where the great would not be constrained by the small. And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well.
Sounds capitalist to me."
Sounds like an optimist to me.
Submission Feedback > Re: Lewis's Tales of Monkey Island: Chapter 4 - The Trial and Execution of Guybrush Threepwood revie
Posted by jerec on November 20, 2009 at 12:39 PM:
Reminds me of an amusing thread on the Telltale message boards, someone pointing out that Stan's coat was glitched (the blue lines are fixed!) Obviously not someone who has played Monkey Island in the past.
Reminds me of an amusing thread on the Telltale message boards, someone pointing out that Stan's coat was glitched (the blue lines are fixed!) Obviously not someone who has played Monkey Island in the past.
Submission Feedback > Re: Lewis's Tales of Monkey Island: Chapter 4 - The Trial and Execution of Guybrush Threepwood revie
Posted by Lewis on November 20, 2009 at 03:15 AM:
May have been isolated to review code, then. Does someone on-staff wanna clarify this in the text?
May have been isolated to review code, then. Does someone on-staff wanna clarify this in the text?
Submission Feedback > Re: Lewis's Tales of Monkey Island: Chapter 4 - The Trial and Execution of Guybrush Threepwood revie
Posted by sashanan on November 20, 2009 at 02:51 AM:
Loved it from a story perspective. Some puzzles felt a bit more convoluted than the ones I've had so far, but that's always a YMMV thing - sometimes one puzzle clicks with a person and another does not. In this case, much of the Feast for the Senses thing did not, for me.
This, btw: "It also has a perplexing graphical glitch that renders a character’s shirt with big purple splodges all over it" I don't recall having seen at all...
Loved it from a story perspective. Some puzzles felt a bit more convoluted than the ones I've had so far, but that's always a YMMV thing - sometimes one puzzle clicks with a person and another does not. In this case, much of the Feast for the Senses thing did not, for me.
This, btw: "It also has a perplexing graphical glitch that renders a character’s shirt with big purple splodges all over it" I don't recall having seen at all...
Posted by sportsman on November 19, 2009 at 06:49 PM:
Rand's capitalist beliefs were the result of her objectivist philosophy. Agree or disagree with her, some of her non-fiction work is worth reading, but as Spaceworlder said a lot of it is unbearable and she is one of the most cynical and selfish people to ever live.
Rand's capitalist beliefs were the result of her objectivist philosophy. Agree or disagree with her, some of her non-fiction work is worth reading, but as Spaceworlder said a lot of it is unbearable and she is one of the most cynical and selfish people to ever live.
Posted by zigfried on November 19, 2009 at 06:25 PM:
Thanks for reviewing this. The conclusion makes an interesting point that should be obvious, but is often overlooked: creative/maximized innovations are remembered, and foolish/wasted innovations are forgotten.
//Zig
Thanks for reviewing this. The conclusion makes an interesting point that should be obvious, but is often overlooked: creative/maximized innovations are remembered, and foolish/wasted innovations are forgotten.
//Zig
Posted by LowerStreetBlues on November 19, 2009 at 03:28 PM:
Aren't the winners normally listed under featured reviews?
Aren't the winners normally listed under featured reviews?
Posted by Suskie on November 19, 2009 at 07:06 AM:
Well, if Wikipedia is to be trusted (and of course it is) then you're right, Genj. And I didn't know Rand herself developed the idea. This has been an educational experience for me.
Well, if Wikipedia is to be trusted (and of course it is) then you're right, Genj. And I didn't know Rand herself developed the idea. This has been an educational experience for me.
Posted by spaceworlder on November 18, 2009 at 11:13 PM:
I've only read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." The prior is a pretty unbearable read at times, but the latter was actually decent. At the very least, I recommend perusing some of her quotes and musings.
I've only read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." The prior is a pretty unbearable read at times, but the latter was actually decent. At the very least, I recommend perusing some of her quotes and musings.
Posted by genj on November 18, 2009 at 09:35 PM:
I would not call objectivism a form of capitalism at all. Objectivism is a philosophy. Its political and economic implications are derived from its ethics. But you're partially right in that capitalism is the only social system congruent with objectivist beliefs.
edit - I wouldn't recommend for anyone to try and understand Rand at all. Her work and ideas are terrible.
I would not call objectivism a form of capitalism at all. Objectivism is a philosophy. Its political and economic implications are derived from its ethics. But you're partially right in that capitalism is the only social system congruent with objectivist beliefs.
edit - I wouldn't recommend for anyone to try and understand Rand at all. Her work and ideas are terrible.
Posted by Suskie on November 18, 2009 at 08:53 PM:
...Which is a form of capitalism.
Unless I'm politically retarded, which I fully acknowledge may be the case.
...Which is a form of capitalism.
Unless I'm politically retarded, which I fully acknowledge may be the case.
Posted by Suskie on November 18, 2009 at 08:45 PM:
Thanks to whoever did it. And WQ, I invite you to read this quote:
I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question: Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God. No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone. I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture. A city where the artist would not fear the censor. Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality. Where the great would not be constrained by the small. And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well.
Sounds capitalist to me.
Thanks to whoever did it. And WQ, I invite you to read this quote:
I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question: Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God. No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone. I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture. A city where the artist would not fear the censor. Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality. Where the great would not be constrained by the small. And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well.
Sounds capitalist to me.
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 18, 2009 at 08:20 PM:
To be honest, Suskie, neither socialist nor capitalist sounds right. Would utopian have been better? =/ It's your review, anyway; I just read the context in which you specified.
To be honest, Suskie, neither socialist nor capitalist sounds right. Would utopian have been better? =/ It's your review, anyway; I just read the context in which you specified.
Posted by Suskie on November 18, 2009 at 07:56 PM:
Would some delightful staff member mind changing "socialist" to "capitalist"? I don't know how in the fuck I got that mixed up but it's been bothering me for a while now.
Done
Would some delightful staff member mind changing "socialist" to "capitalist"? I don't know how in the fuck I got that mixed up but it's been bothering me for a while now.
Done
Submission Feedback > Lewis's Tales of Monkey Island: Chapter 4 - The Trial and Execution of Guybrush Threepwood review
Posted by jerec on November 17, 2009 at 05:05 PM:
Wow, I disagreed with pretty much everything you said in this review. The story is getting better and better, the puzzles were a little more challenging. It was the best episode so far.
But I suppose we're expecting different things from these games.
Wow, I disagreed with pretty much everything you said in this review. The story is getting better and better, the puzzles were a little more challenging. It was the best episode so far.
But I suppose we're expecting different things from these games.
Posted by willthegreat on November 17, 2009 at 02:21 PM:
I didn't like this review. First thing I noticed were some spelling and punctuation errors. I'd suggest running this through a spellcheck (I think Firefox has one built-in if you use it), for starters. On a similar note, if a number is less than three digits just type it out, i.e. three instead of 3, only use numerals if the number is 100 or greater. These might seem like nitpicks, even minor stylistic pointers like these go a long way to making your review look polished.
The biggest problem I have is the Section style. While that might look snazzy at Amazon or GameFAQs, most of us at HG feel that breaking a review down into cookie-cutter sections like that detracts overall from the review, because a game is often more, or less, than the sum of its parts. For example, take Oblivion - fantastic graphics, wide-open world, responsive controls and a wide array of dungeons and areas to explore...but the overall experience is somewhat lacking when compared with, say, Morrowind, a game that is technically inferior yet somehow much more compelling and immersive.
At the same time, the section style breaks up the flow of the review. Instead of a smooth, effortless transition from point to point, it's like driving your grandfather's clunky old car down an unpaved dirt road in the middle of a rainstorm.
But don't be discouraged, or offended, or put off, or outraged. So, let me finish with a whole-hearted welcome to HonestGamers, and a nod of the head to your taste in games (Borderlands is seriously awesome). Take a look at some of the winners for past Review of the Week competitions, you might find you learn a lot about how to craft a better review. And I'm sure anybody here would be more than willing to share tips and advice.
I didn't like this review. First thing I noticed were some spelling and punctuation errors. I'd suggest running this through a spellcheck (I think Firefox has one built-in if you use it), for starters. On a similar note, if a number is less than three digits just type it out, i.e. three instead of 3, only use numerals if the number is 100 or greater. These might seem like nitpicks, even minor stylistic pointers like these go a long way to making your review look polished.
The biggest problem I have is the Section style. While that might look snazzy at Amazon or GameFAQs, most of us at HG feel that breaking a review down into cookie-cutter sections like that detracts overall from the review, because a game is often more, or less, than the sum of its parts. For example, take Oblivion - fantastic graphics, wide-open world, responsive controls and a wide array of dungeons and areas to explore...but the overall experience is somewhat lacking when compared with, say, Morrowind, a game that is technically inferior yet somehow much more compelling and immersive.
At the same time, the section style breaks up the flow of the review. Instead of a smooth, effortless transition from point to point, it's like driving your grandfather's clunky old car down an unpaved dirt road in the middle of a rainstorm.
But don't be discouraged, or offended, or put off, or outraged. So, let me finish with a whole-hearted welcome to HonestGamers, and a nod of the head to your taste in games (Borderlands is seriously awesome). Take a look at some of the winners for past Review of the Week competitions, you might find you learn a lot about how to craft a better review. And I'm sure anybody here would be more than willing to share tips and advice.
Posted by Masters on November 16, 2009 at 06:49 PM:
Thanks judges. That was VERY fast. Trust WQ to be befuddled. You're always befuddled! :P
Thanks judges. That was VERY fast. Trust WQ to be befuddled. You're always befuddled! :P
Posted by aschultz on November 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM:
Aigh! Gorf! I have bad memories of that game but it's interesting to see a new perspective on it.
I never did give you that critique we discussed, and it looks like I'm starting to get back into HG (yes, I have stuff planned) just as you need to leave for a bit. Here's to your not procrastinating the important stuff.
And congrats to the winners. Good to see some new names.
Aigh! Gorf! I have bad memories of that game but it's interesting to see a new perspective on it.
I never did give you that critique we discussed, and it looks like I'm starting to get back into HG (yes, I have stuff planned) just as you need to leave for a bit. Here's to your not procrastinating the important stuff.
And congrats to the winners. Good to see some new names.
Posted by overdrive on November 16, 2009 at 10:19 AM:
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.
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.
Posted by fleinn on November 16, 2009 at 08:31 AM:
@honestgamer: no, no, I understood what you meant. ..but to me, using "qualify" in that way means either explaining technically what "involve" means, or maybe that you're going to describe an image of /how/ the game does involve you. I didn't mean at all that I couldn't see that the game engaged you. Or that the story-telling was involving. But you didn't /qualify/ what you meant with that word. You explained ways you felt the game was engaging, and what you felt when playing it.
Like someone I know says sometimes: "before I explain this, let me tell you what I mean". :p ..It's the same kind of thing. I'm sort of expecting a setup early on - a way to see how you intend to link your impressions to a particular aspect of the game. So is "no russian" what the game is all about in terms of involvement? ..I don't know, it could be I'm expecting to read somewhere about the flow between the missions, use of first person camera, and so on.
(and sorry about the "grating".. I didn't mean it actually irritated me. It was just something that didn't sound entirely right to me in an otherwise good review.)
@honestgamer: no, no, I understood what you meant. ..but to me, using "qualify" in that way means either explaining technically what "involve" means, or maybe that you're going to describe an image of /how/ the game does involve you. I didn't mean at all that I couldn't see that the game engaged you. Or that the story-telling was involving. But you didn't /qualify/ what you meant with that word. You explained ways you felt the game was engaging, and what you felt when playing it.
Like someone I know says sometimes: "before I explain this, let me tell you what I mean". :p ..It's the same kind of thing. I'm sort of expecting a setup early on - a way to see how you intend to link your impressions to a particular aspect of the game. So is "no russian" what the game is all about in terms of involvement? ..I don't know, it could be I'm expecting to read somewhere about the flow between the missions, use of first person camera, and so on.
(and sorry about the "grating".. I didn't mean it actually irritated me. It was just something that didn't sound entirely right to me in an otherwise good review.)
Posted by Lewis on November 16, 2009 at 04:15 AM:
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.
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.
Posted by Woodybeaver on November 16, 2009 at 02:42 AM:
Truely nice review. MW2 gets the highest scores from critics I've ever seen.
Truely nice review. MW2 gets the highest scores from critics I've ever seen.
Posted by Woodybeaver on November 16, 2009 at 02:31 AM:
I'm new here and started my presence on honestgamers with a user review on a WWII RTS game. Guys from the thread where my review was discussed advised to start a thread on the forum as it is more appropriate for game discussion. I like war RTSs and would like to discuss titles related to warfare like CoH, WiC, Men of War or Order of War. My choice is Order of War: I like its scale and its cinematic approach to gameplay.
I'm new here and started my presence on honestgamers with a user review on a WWII RTS game. Guys from the thread where my review was discussed advised to start a thread on the forum as it is more appropriate for game discussion. I like war RTSs and would like to discuss titles related to warfare like CoH, WiC, Men of War or Order of War. My choice is Order of War: I like its scale and its cinematic approach to gameplay.
Posted by zippdementia on November 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM:
This is... a really good review. You tie history in seamlessly with a discussion about the game mechanics. Story is the most important tool we have in teaching others. You use it well.
This is... a really good review. You tie history in seamlessly with a discussion about the game mechanics. Story is the most important tool we have in teaching others. You use it well.
Posted by jerec on November 15, 2009 at 10:40 PM:
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.
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.
Posted by zigfried on November 15, 2009 at 08:52 PM:
Thank you judges! These were very prompt and clear results, and the topic was nicely formatted too.
Congratulations to the wieners!
//Zig
Thank you judges! These were very prompt and clear results, and the topic was nicely formatted too.
Congratulations to the wieners!
//Zig
Posted by zippdementia on November 15, 2009 at 08:42 PM:
I'm glad people came through and ended up submitting enough reviews this week for me to hold the ROTW because it's the last words I'll be tossing out into the net until I'm done with my thesis. I hope to be back with everyone and accepting games again by the third week in December. Until then, consider this a farewell, for a short time!
Note: This week I decided to go ahead and write up bits for everyone, as there were only four entrants.
Contestant 1: Lower Street Blues' Gorf
While this review has little relevance to modern-day gaming, it is a surprisingly engaging read... especially when you consider that it pretty much goes through a process of description with some anecdotes tossed in at the end. It reads like it was written by someone who knows what he's doing, so I'm going to keep the comments short. My one suggestion for next time is to start working in some humour into the review. I only say this because I can tell from bits and pieces of your writing that you have a catchy and sardonic sense of humour lurking somewhere in your mind. Mixing that with the organized critique of a piece like this could really grab an audience.
Contestant 2: Xyander's Borderlands
This review feels like the effort of many a first-time reviewer (and reminds me of some of my early attempts at reviewing). A lot of reviewers that are just starting tend to go over things that can be discovered in any online search or magazine ad. I'm not here to bash your review, though. I'm here to help you write better. So let me give you some examples and some advice.
When you talk about weapon selection, you tell us that there are over 100,000 guns in the game. This was advertised heavily prior to Borderlands' release, so it doesn't give me any reason to buy the game that I didn't already know. You go into a little bit of detail about how the guns work, but again it doesn't sound like anything new to the genre. I want to know why having so many guns makes Borderlands good (or bad, if that's your inclination). More doesn't translate immediately to "better." You mention missions, but I want more details. Is the game designed so that I may have to build myself a sniper rifle to pass a mission (and does that become a quest of its own)?
It's always important to weave stories with your reviews, or give the reader enough details so that they can imagine their own story. For instance, telling me there are bosses in the game doesn't do anything for me. I mean, Yoshi's Story had bosses. But if you say that there's a giant radioactive Zebra that charges the player and dodges bullets, then I can get excited.
Contestant 3: Felix's Modern Warfare 2
Brilliant intro, Felix. You set up clearly what you want the review to discuss while simultaneously reminding us that we are all nerds. Unfortunately, you don't really go on to discuss what you've said you will. Oh sure, you talk about Modern Warfare 2, but I'm disappointed by the lack of any hard-hitting points here. It's mostly description of things that, as I told Xyander, I could find out in an instruction manual or an ad for the game. This reads like the back cover of a novel, telling me that I may find a story about warfare in a game with warfare in its title.
Contestant 4: Disco's Demon Souls
Another good intro here. It tells a story and while I've seen this device used before (and have used it before) to the point where I'm able to transcend its wiles, I still think it's an effective way to open a piece.
Once again, though, I feel that this piece falls heavily into description and losses its energy fast. I think you could've cut out much of the middle of this review and had a more accessible read on your hands. Your ending note is that Demon Souls is unlike any other game yet you haven't said anything in your review to convince me of that. Sure, it's got a different battle and experience system, but what makes it truly transcend the usual gaming experience?
I know it does, because I've heard my friends rave about it. I think you've probably done the same thing and said some pretty genius things about the game. I wanted this review to have more of that raw emotional raving and less of this cold mechanical description.
And the winner is...
... Lower Street Blues and his review of Gorf. Ultimately, this was the only review this week that really made me feel like I'd experienced the game. Thankfully, it was not a wholly positive review or I might be looking for a Gorf machine right now. It did inspire me to research more on Mrs. Gorf, though, and got me talking about the game again, to the dismay of my friends. Congratulations. Your review touched me like a dirty old man. I didn't particularly want to remember Gorf, but the review didn't give me the option.
So that's it from me for a little bit. Some of you may actually miss me. I'll miss all of you. Next week, if there's no objections, Randxian will fill in Janus' slot for his first-ever ROTW. Write something so he can write something back.
I'm glad people came through and ended up submitting enough reviews this week for me to hold the ROTW because it's the last words I'll be tossing out into the net until I'm done with my thesis. I hope to be back with everyone and accepting games again by the third week in December. Until then, consider this a farewell, for a short time!
Note: This week I decided to go ahead and write up bits for everyone, as there were only four entrants.
Contestant 1: Lower Street Blues' Gorf
While this review has little relevance to modern-day gaming, it is a surprisingly engaging read... especially when you consider that it pretty much goes through a process of description with some anecdotes tossed in at the end. It reads like it was written by someone who knows what he's doing, so I'm going to keep the comments short. My one suggestion for next time is to start working in some humour into the review. I only say this because I can tell from bits and pieces of your writing that you have a catchy and sardonic sense of humour lurking somewhere in your mind. Mixing that with the organized critique of a piece like this could really grab an audience.
Contestant 2: Xyander's Borderlands
This review feels like the effort of many a first-time reviewer (and reminds me of some of my early attempts at reviewing). A lot of reviewers that are just starting tend to go over things that can be discovered in any online search or magazine ad. I'm not here to bash your review, though. I'm here to help you write better. So let me give you some examples and some advice.
When you talk about weapon selection, you tell us that there are over 100,000 guns in the game. This was advertised heavily prior to Borderlands' release, so it doesn't give me any reason to buy the game that I didn't already know. You go into a little bit of detail about how the guns work, but again it doesn't sound like anything new to the genre. I want to know why having so many guns makes Borderlands good (or bad, if that's your inclination). More doesn't translate immediately to "better." You mention missions, but I want more details. Is the game designed so that I may have to build myself a sniper rifle to pass a mission (and does that become a quest of its own)?
It's always important to weave stories with your reviews, or give the reader enough details so that they can imagine their own story. For instance, telling me there are bosses in the game doesn't do anything for me. I mean, Yoshi's Story had bosses. But if you say that there's a giant radioactive Zebra that charges the player and dodges bullets, then I can get excited.
Contestant 3: Felix's Modern Warfare 2
Brilliant intro, Felix. You set up clearly what you want the review to discuss while simultaneously reminding us that we are all nerds. Unfortunately, you don't really go on to discuss what you've said you will. Oh sure, you talk about Modern Warfare 2, but I'm disappointed by the lack of any hard-hitting points here. It's mostly description of things that, as I told Xyander, I could find out in an instruction manual or an ad for the game. This reads like the back cover of a novel, telling me that I may find a story about warfare in a game with warfare in its title.
Contestant 4: Disco's Demon Souls
Another good intro here. It tells a story and while I've seen this device used before (and have used it before) to the point where I'm able to transcend its wiles, I still think it's an effective way to open a piece.
Once again, though, I feel that this piece falls heavily into description and losses its energy fast. I think you could've cut out much of the middle of this review and had a more accessible read on your hands. Your ending note is that Demon Souls is unlike any other game yet you haven't said anything in your review to convince me of that. Sure, it's got a different battle and experience system, but what makes it truly transcend the usual gaming experience?
I know it does, because I've heard my friends rave about it. I think you've probably done the same thing and said some pretty genius things about the game. I wanted this review to have more of that raw emotional raving and less of this cold mechanical description.
And the winner is...
... Lower Street Blues and his review of Gorf. Ultimately, this was the only review this week that really made me feel like I'd experienced the game. Thankfully, it was not a wholly positive review or I might be looking for a Gorf machine right now. It did inspire me to research more on Mrs. Gorf, though, and got me talking about the game again, to the dismay of my friends. Congratulations. Your review touched me like a dirty old man. I didn't particularly want to remember Gorf, but the review didn't give me the option.
So that's it from me for a little bit. Some of you may actually miss me. I'll miss all of you. Next week, if there's no objections, Randxian will fill in Janus' slot for his first-ever ROTW. Write something so he can write something back.
Posted by zippdementia on November 15, 2009 at 08:38 PM:
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.
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.
Posted by randxian on November 15, 2009 at 08:15 PM:
I’m not really getting why you don’t like this game, Randxian. You spend virtually the entire review telling me about how much the characters in this game hate you, and… I don’t 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.
I’m not really getting why you don’t like this game, Randxian. You spend virtually the entire review telling me about how much the characters in this game hate you, and… I don’t 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.
Posted by Felix_Arabia on November 15, 2009 at 07:54 PM:
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!
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!
Posted by Suskie on November 15, 2009 at 07:53 PM:
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.
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.
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 15, 2009 at 07:47 PM:
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 I’ve 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 I’ve read your other review of it for a different competition. I can’t 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 (couldn’t 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 won’t 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 don’t 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 hell’s the other guy? It also probably carried on a bit too much for the point you’re trying to make.
Secondly, when describing your two choices, I don’t like that you’re so vague about the things you need to dodge, but, considering your word limit and the point of that paragraph, it really isn’t 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. It’s really quite amusing throughout while still being effective; you can’t really beat that.
Score: 88
P.S.: Would you believe that Felix and I were arguing about whether you should’ve ended the last sentence with a period? I’ll have to tell you about it when you have more time. It’s freaking hilarious. XXXD
Suskie: Before you say anything, I’m totally aware of the hypocrisy of this statement coming from the guy who wrote that Fahrenheit review, but I don’t care for the constant references to the contest in this review. You’re an excellent writer, and that’s on full display here, but I’d say you’re 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 what’s to stop a random passerby from reading this and wondering why, if it’s 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 (I’m 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 I’m 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. I’ll be surprised if this doesn’t 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 isn’t 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 don’t 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: Jerec’s 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 couldn’t tell whether this was going to be a positive or negative review until the end because these kept switching. I’m 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 don’t like the idea of not having any control, and you don’t 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 that’s always a good thing. It also doesn’t feel too spoily, and I find the new characters and their supposed depth to be interesting. Still, it’s 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 isn’t 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 don’t pick a simple game that doesn’t call for a whole lot of discussion, then you must simply limit what you say, which you seem to have trouble doing here. I’ll 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 game’s 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 it’s going.) As soon as you go into combat, though, you’ve lost me. I still don’t really know how it works – is it real-time? Turn-based? Why does hugging walls help? Why do enemies spin you around? And what’s the deal with leveling up? It’s at this point that the review’s placement in this contest hurts it, because I get the sense you’re just trying to cram everything in without making any cuts, and as such, it’s all a blur. It’s 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 doesn’t 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 I’m finding myself struggling to determine whether it really is good enough. On the one hand, you’re 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 I’m 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 don’t 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 you’d give it, though, I’d guess somewhere between a 5 and 6, and if that’s right, then that shows you did a good job making the review come across the way you actually wanted.
So, this being said, I’m really uncertain how to score this properly. What you do tell me works really well… but it still feels like it could’ve 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 that’s one of the reasons why I wish we didn’t have to give scores for reviews. But, since I must for the sake of convention…
Score: 75
Suskie: I don’t have much to say about this review beyond the fact that I like it. What I’m about to say will make this the third consecutive critique I’ve 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 that’s exactly the reaction I’m supposed to have: I have no desire to play it, and as such, I’m a little sad that I’ll never get to see the scene where Stalin dances. I can’t 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 game’s foundation. Methodical readers who soak in what is written on the page will understand twice as much of the game’s 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 you’re discussing. Good stuff.
Score: 92
Suskie: Thanks for the recommendation, Sho! I’ve never really been interested in Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, but I’ll take your word for it and assume it’s 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 cliché. I mean, I’m guilty of doing this too and it’s 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. I’m kind of wondering if the game is as exciting as you make it sound, though that’s 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. It’s a little over the top (which, again, is a trap that a lot of writers here often fall into), but it’s 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 game’s 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 title’s 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 I’m 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 they’re omitted, the sentences seem to make sense for the most part anyway.
Outside of these things, the review sounds convincing enough. I know why it’s not as good as its brethren in the series, and I’m convinced it’s 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. I’m not overly impressed with it, but that’s 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 I’m saying that your review is competent, and that I’m damning with faint praise, and that it’s put together well but it’s not flashy or memorable, etc. But I don’t know how familiar you are with this review and I’d 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 you’re talking about isn’t very interesting. It’s not interesting to read about and I’m betting it’s 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 isn’t 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 I’ve 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 you’re totally fair to the game, and I know to stay away now. It’s just a shame you don’t 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 wouldn’t 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 don’t think it’s 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 aren’t so unique anymore…, but that’s 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 don’t really work for me, but it still gets the job done. However, things really start to crumble for you at the end, and it’s there that hurts you the most, I’m 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 haven’t even heard of others. So, to people like me who don’t know the complete story, this paragraph is so confusing and out of place that it doesn’t even need to be there at all. Though, in a way, I’m glad I’m more confused than anything else because I also know that these events are extremely spoily; and maybe the reason they’re so confusing is because you knew they were spoily and didn’t want to risk spoiling too much. But either way, the paragraph doesn’t do you any favors, I’m 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, it’s a review that really needs expanding. In a way, it’s kind of sad that just one paragraph and a word limit can damage such a review with such potential, but that’s the nature of the contest. Still, I really do admire your daring, and I’m absolutely fascinated by the approach. I actually wouldn’t mind if you expanded the review and fleshed out some of your points some more. I think it’s 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 you’ve taken with this review. I really do. Your position on FFVII being one of Square’s 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 FFVII’s biggest fans seem to have acknowledged by now that the plot is the game’s only selling point. (Ha! Thought I’d get through this critique without knocking on FFVII, did you?) Having said that, this just isn’t 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 you’ve 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 don’t even make sense out of context. Like, you make it sound as if Cloud WILLINGLY hands Sephiroth the black materia. It just sounds like you’re 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 isn’t even tailored for people who haven’t played the game and is too jumbled (and, weirdly, devoid of much actual praise) to work as a nostalgic piece. I’ll add that the writing isn’t as strong as usual, either, such as the mention of “polygon characters.” (I know what you meant, but there’s 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, it’s 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 Maiden’s cover art and making it a game (and maybe that of other band’s, 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 wasn’t 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 don’t 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 I’ve not seen and therefore only understand based on context and what I’ve 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. I’m proud of myself for getting most of the jokes.
Score: 88
Suskie: So… what’s 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 “Ratt’s ass” joke. That’s 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 can’t 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, that’s 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 hadn’t 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? It’s sheer madness, and I’m glad you indicate so in your review. After all, sometimes it’s 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 it’s all gone. Your review chronicles that nicely.
Score: 90
WQ: *sigh* You had to give me trouble, too, didn’t 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 I’ve 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 version’s “improvements”, and even someone like me can see that it’s 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 doesn’t always help, at least not to me who’s 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: we’d dust Ryu off, assuring ourselves that by defending prudently and patiently, awaiting openings to counterattack, our resolve would see us through.” I know what you’re trying to say, but it reads like you’re using a huge in-game metaphor to say it, and it’s 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 isn’t 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 it’s done well, and here, it absolutely is. I’ve 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 you’re saying about excessive bloodletting being so empowering. Notice you say nothing of the game’s actual mechanics. You don’t need to. Everyone knows Ninja Gaiden is an action game, and in a way, that’s 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). That’s kind of the case I was making for MadWorld – some games are just AWESOME. Taking away NG2’s 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 you’re making here, whether they’ll 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 don’t 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, you’re 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 you’re 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 isn’t 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.” I’m 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 game’s title in less words. It’d 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) doesn’t help.
Still, these things are quite minor altogether, and overall, I rather like the effort. Good job.
Score: 83
Suskie: I’m not really getting why you don’t like this game, Randxian. You spend virtually the entire review telling me about how much the characters in this game hate you, and… I don’t know, that seems like a petty complaint to me. I know nothing about the story, the battle system… I don’t 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. What’s worse, halfway through you make the declaration that “thus the game fails completely,” like we’re supposed to be nodding along with what you’re saying, yet I see no evidence here to support your claims. Either I’m missing something or there’s an underlying message in this review that you haven’t brought out. So the characters are mean? Don’t 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.
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 I’ve 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 I’ve read your other review of it for a different competition. I can’t 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 (couldn’t 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:
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 won’t 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 don’t 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 hell’s the other guy? It also probably carried on a bit too much for the point you’re trying to make.
Secondly, when describing your two choices, I don’t like that you’re so vague about the things you need to dodge, but, considering your word limit and the point of that paragraph, it really isn’t 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. It’s really quite amusing throughout while still being effective; you can’t really beat that.
Score: 88
P.S.: Would you believe that Felix and I were arguing about whether you should’ve ended the last sentence with a period? I’ll have to tell you about it when you have more time. It’s freaking hilarious. XXXD
Suskie: Before you say anything, I’m totally aware of the hypocrisy of this statement coming from the guy who wrote that Fahrenheit review, but I don’t care for the constant references to the contest in this review. You’re an excellent writer, and that’s on full display here, but I’d say you’re 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 what’s to stop a random passerby from reading this and wondering why, if it’s 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 (I’m 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 I’m 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. I’ll be surprised if this doesn’t 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 isn’t 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 don’t 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: Jerec’s 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 couldn’t tell whether this was going to be a positive or negative review until the end because these kept switching. I’m 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 don’t like the idea of not having any control, and you don’t 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 that’s always a good thing. It also doesn’t feel too spoily, and I find the new characters and their supposed depth to be interesting. Still, it’s 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 isn’t 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 don’t pick a simple game that doesn’t call for a whole lot of discussion, then you must simply limit what you say, which you seem to have trouble doing here. I’ll 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 game’s 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 it’s going.) As soon as you go into combat, though, you’ve lost me. I still don’t really know how it works – is it real-time? Turn-based? Why does hugging walls help? Why do enemies spin you around? And what’s the deal with leveling up? It’s at this point that the review’s placement in this contest hurts it, because I get the sense you’re just trying to cram everything in without making any cuts, and as such, it’s all a blur. It’s 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 doesn’t 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 I’m finding myself struggling to determine whether it really is good enough. On the one hand, you’re 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 I’m 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 don’t 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 you’d give it, though, I’d guess somewhere between a 5 and 6, and if that’s right, then that shows you did a good job making the review come across the way you actually wanted.
So, this being said, I’m really uncertain how to score this properly. What you do tell me works really well… but it still feels like it could’ve 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 that’s one of the reasons why I wish we didn’t have to give scores for reviews. But, since I must for the sake of convention…
Score: 75
Suskie: I don’t have much to say about this review beyond the fact that I like it. What I’m about to say will make this the third consecutive critique I’ve 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 that’s exactly the reaction I’m supposed to have: I have no desire to play it, and as such, I’m a little sad that I’ll never get to see the scene where Stalin dances. I can’t 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 game’s foundation. Methodical readers who soak in what is written on the page will understand twice as much of the game’s 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 you’re discussing. Good stuff.
Score: 92
Suskie: Thanks for the recommendation, Sho! I’ve never really been interested in Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, but I’ll take your word for it and assume it’s 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 cliché. I mean, I’m guilty of doing this too and it’s 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. I’m kind of wondering if the game is as exciting as you make it sound, though that’s 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. It’s a little over the top (which, again, is a trap that a lot of writers here often fall into), but it’s 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 game’s 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 title’s 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 I’m 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 they’re omitted, the sentences seem to make sense for the most part anyway.
Outside of these things, the review sounds convincing enough. I know why it’s not as good as its brethren in the series, and I’m convinced it’s 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. I’m not overly impressed with it, but that’s 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 I’m saying that your review is competent, and that I’m damning with faint praise, and that it’s put together well but it’s not flashy or memorable, etc. But I don’t know how familiar you are with this review and I’d 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 you’re talking about isn’t very interesting. It’s not interesting to read about and I’m betting it’s 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 isn’t 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 I’ve 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 you’re totally fair to the game, and I know to stay away now. It’s just a shame you don’t 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 wouldn’t 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 don’t think it’s 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 aren’t so unique anymore…, but that’s 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 don’t really work for me, but it still gets the job done. However, things really start to crumble for you at the end, and it’s there that hurts you the most, I’m 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 haven’t even heard of others. So, to people like me who don’t know the complete story, this paragraph is so confusing and out of place that it doesn’t even need to be there at all. Though, in a way, I’m glad I’m more confused than anything else because I also know that these events are extremely spoily; and maybe the reason they’re so confusing is because you knew they were spoily and didn’t want to risk spoiling too much. But either way, the paragraph doesn’t do you any favors, I’m 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, it’s a review that really needs expanding. In a way, it’s kind of sad that just one paragraph and a word limit can damage such a review with such potential, but that’s the nature of the contest. Still, I really do admire your daring, and I’m absolutely fascinated by the approach. I actually wouldn’t mind if you expanded the review and fleshed out some of your points some more. I think it’s 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 you’ve taken with this review. I really do. Your position on FFVII being one of Square’s 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 FFVII’s biggest fans seem to have acknowledged by now that the plot is the game’s only selling point. (Ha! Thought I’d get through this critique without knocking on FFVII, did you?) Having said that, this just isn’t 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 you’ve 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 don’t even make sense out of context. Like, you make it sound as if Cloud WILLINGLY hands Sephiroth the black materia. It just sounds like you’re 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 isn’t even tailored for people who haven’t played the game and is too jumbled (and, weirdly, devoid of much actual praise) to work as a nostalgic piece. I’ll add that the writing isn’t as strong as usual, either, such as the mention of “polygon characters.” (I know what you meant, but there’s 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, it’s 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 Maiden’s cover art and making it a game (and maybe that of other band’s, 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 wasn’t 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 don’t 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 I’ve not seen and therefore only understand based on context and what I’ve 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. I’m proud of myself for getting most of the jokes.
Score: 88
Suskie: So… what’s 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 “Ratt’s ass” joke. That’s 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 can’t 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, that’s 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 hadn’t 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? It’s sheer madness, and I’m glad you indicate so in your review. After all, sometimes it’s 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 it’s all gone. Your review chronicles that nicely.
Score: 90
WQ: *sigh* You had to give me trouble, too, didn’t 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 I’ve 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 version’s “improvements”, and even someone like me can see that it’s 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 doesn’t always help, at least not to me who’s 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: we’d dust Ryu off, assuring ourselves that by defending prudently and patiently, awaiting openings to counterattack, our resolve would see us through.” I know what you’re trying to say, but it reads like you’re using a huge in-game metaphor to say it, and it’s 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 isn’t 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 it’s done well, and here, it absolutely is. I’ve 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 you’re saying about excessive bloodletting being so empowering. Notice you say nothing of the game’s actual mechanics. You don’t need to. Everyone knows Ninja Gaiden is an action game, and in a way, that’s 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). That’s kind of the case I was making for MadWorld – some games are just AWESOME. Taking away NG2’s 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 you’re making here, whether they’ll 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 don’t 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, you’re 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 you’re 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 isn’t 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.” I’m 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 game’s title in less words. It’d 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) doesn’t help.
Still, these things are quite minor altogether, and overall, I rather like the effort. Good job.
Score: 83
Suskie: I’m not really getting why you don’t like this game, Randxian. You spend virtually the entire review telling me about how much the characters in this game hate you, and… I don’t know, that seems like a petty complaint to me. I know nothing about the story, the battle system… I don’t 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. What’s worse, halfway through you make the declaration that “thus the game fails completely,” like we’re supposed to be nodding along with what you’re saying, yet I see no evidence here to support your claims. Either I’m missing something or there’s an underlying message in this review that you haven’t brought out. So the characters are mean? Don’t 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.
Posted by randxian on November 15, 2009 at 06:28 PM:
I disagree with Suskie that Jason should have perhaps skipped over the "No Russian" part. Some people may not feel comfortable about that sort of thing. Also, it gives the otherwise ignorant parents a heads up about what all is included in this game. I think giving people information about something so controversial is a good thing, even if it does spoil part of the plot.
Really enjoyed the commentary about how there are scenes that occur naturally in the levels instead of stopping the action, forcing you to watch some clumsily done cutscene, and restarting the action, leaving you disoriented in the process.
Only thing I don't like is how this seems geared toward people who have played the first. I have not played a single game in the Call of Duty series. There really wasn't much, if any, discussion on actual game play mechanics, but since you gave it a 10, I'll assume there are no real issues.
I disagree with Suskie that Jason should have perhaps skipped over the "No Russian" part. Some people may not feel comfortable about that sort of thing. Also, it gives the otherwise ignorant parents a heads up about what all is included in this game. I think giving people information about something so controversial is a good thing, even if it does spoil part of the plot.
Really enjoyed the commentary about how there are scenes that occur naturally in the levels instead of stopping the action, forcing you to watch some clumsily done cutscene, and restarting the action, leaving you disoriented in the process.
Only thing I don't like is how this seems geared toward people who have played the first. I have not played a single game in the Call of Duty series. There really wasn't much, if any, discussion on actual game play mechanics, but since you gave it a 10, I'll assume there are no real issues.
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 15, 2009 at 06:00 PM:
Sweet! Nice job! I can finish putting the results page together now.
Sweet! Nice job! I can finish putting the results page together now.
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 14, 2009 at 07:53 PM:
That sucks, Suskie. Send them to me when you're done, though; I'm apparently compiling the results this time.
I've got four to go. Will be done tonight... I can only afford tonight.
EDIT: Ok, done... finally... took like 4 hours. Sheesh. Glad I don't have to judge any larger contests.
That sucks, Suskie. Send them to me when you're done, though; I'm apparently compiling the results this time.
I've got four to go. Will be done tonight... I can only afford tonight.
EDIT: Ok, done... finally... took like 4 hours. Sheesh. Glad I don't have to judge any larger contests.
Posted by Suskie on November 14, 2009 at 07:38 PM:
My laptop is down at the moment and I've had to get all of my internet-related stuff done in the tech center or on the computer in my building's lobby, so I can't guarantee how quickly I'll get the results done. Could be done tonight, could take a week. We'll see.
My laptop is down at the moment and I've had to get all of my internet-related stuff done in the tech center or on the computer in my building's lobby, so I can't guarantee how quickly I'll get the results done. Could be done tonight, could take a week. We'll see.
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 14, 2009 at 05:43 PM:
Wow. How'd you find this after Jason removed fiction?
Anyway, haha. Thanks. I actually really liked UD when I was playing it because I was playing it with EmP & Co. So we were like a team... and that was fun until everyone either got bored or got tired of being PK'd.
The stories I had intended to write for the game would revolve around the adventures we had as a team. This was one of them; the first time I died. I really think this game was great for fiction material because it really let you be creative - one of the benefits of being a browser MMO, I suppose.
Kind of a shame it didn't click with you so much. haha. But I imagine it's not for everyone. PKers are annoying, but that's why it's much more fun to play with people you know, because you can look out for each other.
Our group, for example, had in mind to become a PKK group after a lot of us started getting PK'd often. It was fun stuff. We were really involved for a while, too - or at least I was, haha - it was great.
As for the seeming incompatibility; I have no idea how that happened. IT wasn't like that when I subbed it. But I think after a certain point, perhaps after the Purge or server change, a bunch of documents (reviews, blog posts, forum posts, etc) had their characters turn like that, despite being perfectly fine before. It hasn't happened to any of my other stuff, anyway, so that's good.
Anyway, thanks for reading! I'm shocked it even got noticed, to be honest. =P
EDIT: yeah, what EmP said, more or less. Though I would disagree that the kind of tight-knit feeling we all had wouldn't exist in the game anymore. I think if you got enough people together - or if we all got together and started getting serious with it again - we'd get that same feeling. Unless they changed it enough to where that didn't work anymore, somehow. I haven't played in like a year or more, I don't think.
Wow. How'd you find this after Jason removed fiction?
Anyway, haha. Thanks. I actually really liked UD when I was playing it because I was playing it with EmP & Co. So we were like a team... and that was fun until everyone either got bored or got tired of being PK'd.
The stories I had intended to write for the game would revolve around the adventures we had as a team. This was one of them; the first time I died. I really think this game was great for fiction material because it really let you be creative - one of the benefits of being a browser MMO, I suppose.
Kind of a shame it didn't click with you so much. haha. But I imagine it's not for everyone. PKers are annoying, but that's why it's much more fun to play with people you know, because you can look out for each other.
Our group, for example, had in mind to become a PKK group after a lot of us started getting PK'd often. It was fun stuff. We were really involved for a while, too - or at least I was, haha - it was great.
As for the seeming incompatibility; I have no idea how that happened. IT wasn't like that when I subbed it. But I think after a certain point, perhaps after the Purge or server change, a bunch of documents (reviews, blog posts, forum posts, etc) had their characters turn like that, despite being perfectly fine before. It hasn't happened to any of my other stuff, anyway, so that's good.
Anyway, thanks for reading! I'm shocked it even got noticed, to be honest. =P
EDIT: yeah, what EmP said, more or less. Though I would disagree that the kind of tight-knit feeling we all had wouldn't exist in the game anymore. I think if you got enough people together - or if we all got together and started getting serious with it again - we'd get that same feeling. Unless they changed it enough to where that didn't work anymore, somehow. I haven't played in like a year or more, I don't think.
Posted by EmP on November 14, 2009 at 05:41 PM:
I had an irrational hatred of PKers that eventually lead to me quitting the game. I enjoyed tracking the bastards down and killing them in their sleep a little too much at times, but what with the zombie forces already being much more organised, the fact that they had human scummers in their ranks to PK made the effort of staying alive far too steep to enjoy. though I remember being hugely proud of not suffering my first death for months!
I loved the game for a period because, as survivors, we were in a tight organised group who actively made a difference. I don't think that kind of experience is available ingame anymore.
I had an irrational hatred of PKers that eventually lead to me quitting the game. I enjoyed tracking the bastards down and killing them in their sleep a little too much at times, but what with the zombie forces already being much more organised, the fact that they had human scummers in their ranks to PK made the effort of staying alive far too steep to enjoy. though I remember being hugely proud of not suffering my first death for months!
I loved the game for a period because, as survivors, we were in a tight organised group who actively made a difference. I don't think that kind of experience is available ingame anymore.
Posted by zigfried on November 14, 2009 at 05:24 PM:
It sounds like you certainly got more out of this game than I did. If I wrote about my experience, it would be about my treasonous irritation with humanity -- instead of taking to the streets en masse and reclaiming their world, they box themselves behind barricades and hide while the zombies gather and organize. In other words, I liked to go inside buildings and PK people who didn't expect to be PK'd. At least, not by me.
There's something weird about the encoding for punctuation (apostrophes, hypens, etc) in this story. They're displaying as gibberish to me... I noticed this in one of Overdrive's reviews, too. I suspect there's a nefarious incompatibility between Word and HGPI ("HonestGamers Proprietary Interface").
//Zig
It sounds like you certainly got more out of this game than I did. If I wrote about my experience, it would be about my treasonous irritation with humanity -- instead of taking to the streets en masse and reclaiming their world, they box themselves behind barricades and hide while the zombies gather and organize. In other words, I liked to go inside buildings and PK people who didn't expect to be PK'd. At least, not by me.
There's something weird about the encoding for punctuation (apostrophes, hypens, etc) in this story. They're displaying as gibberish to me... I noticed this in one of Overdrive's reviews, too. I suspect there's a nefarious incompatibility between Word and HGPI ("HonestGamers Proprietary Interface").
//Zig
Posted by honestgamer on November 14, 2009 at 02:22 PM:
I'm qualifying what I meant by "involving," not how I felt about the game. It's understood that the review is how I feel about the game, but "involving" can mean a lot of different things to different people in different instances, so I'm qualifying how I mean it in this particular case so that the word gains its proper significance in the review. I'm not sure why that would bother you or grate on your nerves. I've done nothing improper.
I'm qualifying what I meant by "involving," not how I felt about the game. It's understood that the review is how I feel about the game, but "involving" can mean a lot of different things to different people in different instances, so I'm qualifying how I mean it in this particular case so that the word gains its proper significance in the review. I'm not sure why that would bother you or grate on your nerves. I've done nothing improper.
Posted by fleinn on November 14, 2009 at 11:14 AM:
"I realize that "involving" isn't all that precise, so I'll qualify."
.. :/ You're describing how you feel about the game. So you're saying you're "qualifying your feelings about the game". It's like saying: this is all subjective, so I'll qualify the argument by explaining how I feel. :p
I mean, it's a good personal perspective review (even if I miss something about how the game plays.. you know, something about how the first person perspective ties into the gameplay, or something). But it would grate a bit less at my brain, at least, if you said something like.. "so I'll try to explain how I felt when playing the game", or something like that. :)
"I realize that "involving" isn't all that precise, so I'll qualify."
.. :/ You're describing how you feel about the game. So you're saying you're "qualifying your feelings about the game". It's like saying: this is all subjective, so I'll qualify the argument by explaining how I feel. :p
I mean, it's a good personal perspective review (even if I miss something about how the game plays.. you know, something about how the first person perspective ties into the gameplay, or something). But it would grate a bit less at my brain, at least, if you said something like.. "so I'll try to explain how I felt when playing the game", or something like that. :)
Posted by Felix_Arabia on November 14, 2009 at 01:08 AM:
I'm all done with my judging. It's up to the Suskie and WQ on when they finish.
I'm all done with my judging. It's up to the Suskie and WQ on when they finish.
When posting, please keep the forum guidelines in mind at all times. Disruptive posts will not be tolerated. Let's all try to have a good time and keep things civil.
| HG 2009 Fundraising Progress: $348 / $2500 (14%) |
Gaming News & Press Releases RSS twitter
• Kenka Bancho brings badassery to North American retail
• Got Game ships WorldShift in North America
• Nintendo offers WiiWare demos and more this week
• New Super Mario Bros. Wii available in stores now
• Atlus announces 3D Dot Game Heroes for North America
• Konami dates Shattered Hill: Silent Memories for Wii, with PS2 and PSP versions to follow
• Nintendo systems top October sales charts
• Record of Agarest War also coming to Xbox 360
• Square-Enix announces Final Fantasy XIII release date
• Tecmo releasing Monster Rancher DS and AGAIN for Nintendo DS platform in 2010
Staff Game Reviews RSS
Underwater Attack
Fallen Earth
Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time
Tales of Monkey Island: Chapter 4 - The Trial and Execution of Guybrush Threepwood
Majesty 2: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim
7 Wonders 2
Brutal Legend
Revelations: The Demon Slayer
Featured User Reviews [+]
Gorf
Tales of the World: Radiant Mythology
Mr. Do!
Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story
Exclusive User Reviews [+]
Modern Warfare 2
inFAMOUS
Stratovox
Antarctic Adventure
|
© 1998-2009 HonestGamers None of the material contained within this site--from reviews, guides, cheats, fiction, and editorials to message board posts--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. Games, characters, scenarios and other material are the intellectual property of their publishers and developers. This site makes no claim to any such content, express or implied. No opinions expressed in any review, guide, cheat, fanfic, or editorial necessarily represent the opinion of the staff or any site sponsors. |
|
