Forums > Contributor Zone > Zipp's Reviewing Results

All rise and pay homage to the presiding judges Zipp, Suskie, and Wolf Queen! Alright, sit your asses down. We're ready to begin.

First of all, a big thanks to the people who participated in this, including the judges who volunteered their time to help out. This is my first time providing feedback in an official capacity to people on their reviews, and I hope my efforts are helpful to the writers. I understand it's also WQ's first time doing it, so an even bigger thanks to her for putting herself out there for the tourney.

Some interesting scoring happened in this tournament. There were a couple definite disparities in judge's opinions, but personally I think that makes things more interesting. Anyway, far more important than the scores given is the feedback given, and I think all the feedback was excellent. This trio of judges made for a good match up. We should do this more often.

Sportsman, if you could archive the winner of this. I think the Challenge IV winner also needs archiving.

Lewis' Red Faction Review

Zipp: I’m impressed by your intro, Lewis. You manage to pretty much sum up the whole game within a single anecdote while moving steadily on with another point. It’s a nice break from the “here’s what the game’s about” that we all have to deal with at some point.

There’s a line in here that deserves a shout out for its clever word play and striking imagery: “and the chance to rise from everyman to every man's hero...”

There’s also some strange word choices, a number of comma splices, and a few spelling errors that don’t show your usual attention to detail. Also, much of the review seems to repeat itself, as you continually go back to the same point: “it’s a boring game, but I beat it anyway... why is that?” I think you end up answering it admirably at the end, but you ask it (and propose answers) at least twice before this. This took away a lot of the power of your dramatic ending note. Had much of the middle of this review been cut and you gotten to your real answer earlier, I think it would’ve read better. 73

Suskie “So here’s the thing”? So you’re stealing my lines now?! But anyway. This review is an ambitious undertaking that kind of rubbed me the wrong way. You’ve got this wonderful introduction that paints an explicit picture of what appears to be one of the most memorable moments for you in any game, and then you toss it aside and say, “Well, forget about that. Here’s what the game is REALLY like.” Having read the full review, it’s apparent to me now that this is the dominant theme of your review: You like Red Faction more than you believe it deserves, and you’re trying to figure out why. But I’m not sure that you pulled it off. It just conveys a jarringly inconsistent tone to write such a glowing introduction (which sounds like something you’d say about a Half-Life game) only to later label certain levels “abominable.” You cite escapism as a possible cause for enjoying the game more than you should have, and I know that’s a major factor for you so the argument makes sense, but I don’t know that it’s presented in such a way that someone who’s unfamiliar with your work would understand. The game still sounds pretty cruddy, and I still have no desire to play it. Which may have been your goal; who knows? The writing is terrific, as usual, and I get the sense that you could simply remove that intro altogether (with a few accompanying edits within the rest of the review) and this would have worked much better. It’s an excellent introduction, but I kept thinking that it belongs in a review for a game that actually deserves it. 70

Wolf Queen Lewis needs to stop doubting his experiments so much because sometimes they work really well. Like in this case. What you’re doing here is extremely difficult to pull off – explaining how a mediocre game managed to affect you in such an emotional way. Most people wouldn’t associate mediocrity with emotional reaction – it’s just not natural – but you manage to explain yourself intelligibly and strongly that your argument is believable. That said, some of the things you mention seem superfluous. I have no idea what the premise behind the neo-journalism thing is, really, so that link is meaningless to me. Also, there’s really no need for you to explain that you gave Belief & Betrayal a 4/10 on this site – you’d be better off just hyperlinking to your review if you wanted to point that out, since I can see a point to you mentioning the score (it suggests that the games you beat in a day are all average), but writing it out like that just feels… excessive. Also, you throw some references around that I don’t understand (I’ve never seen Total Recall), but at least with that case, you explain yourself enough to where my ignorance of the subject(s) doesn’t really matter. Anyway, another thing I really liked about this review – besides its utter convincingness – is its style. The almost story-like in-game personal examples give the review a great personal touch that really add to the atmosphere of the piece, and make your argument all the more convincing. Combined with the fantastic analysis characteristic of your reviews, that just makes the thing all the more powerful. I’d say this definitely deserved RotW, and I’m glad you entered it for this contest.

I do have one question: did you review this from memory? The eight-year remark in one sentence almost suggests this, but I thought you were just referring to something in-game, too. I’d imagine you played it again specifically for this contest. But if you didn’t, that’s amazing that you managed to write such an interesting and informative piece just from memory. 93

Janus2's Dragon Blaze Review

Zipp Another one of those themes of “why do I keep coming back to this?” You handle that question well. What this review lacks for me is a clear sense of why I would want to pick this game up in the first place. You do a good job of describing game mechanics, but you don’t really describe the game’s style. Late in the review you mention that this game is different. You mention dark fantasy. But you never really describe what that dark fantasy is. You give us a set of rules, but none of the setting in which these rules apply. So the whole things come off as a little stiff, especially for a 10/10. An overview of the game’s style could help ground this more. 75

Suskie This review’s opening words seem calculated specifically to win me over given my uncompromising love for Space Megaforce (and the heat I received to giving that game a perfect score). Acknowledging that you’re no shmup expert really should feel like a shortcut to excuse you from living up to any considerable standards within the review itself… but it’s a fair argument, and you get the feeling early on that this review is tailored towards people like me, who don’t know the genre inside out but still enjoy it, and who, by the looks of it, would enjoy Dragon Blaze as well. That said, the rest of the review beyond your intro is surprisingly matter-of-fact in contrast. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and it’s blended together seamlessly (you build your thesis and move forward from there), but after the intro was over, the review felt like it lost that certain energy that really made me believe you’d justify the 10/10 in the first place. And you spend a number of paragraphs explaining the game’s mechanics, but rarely pull any actual examples from the game itself, so I guess the review lacks a certain flair? I guess I don’t have much to say beyond that. It’s still a very solid and informative review, and I want to play this now, for what that’s worth. I do think it could have been better, though. 82

Wolf Queen This is a very well-written review. It’s informative and focused – probably the best thing you could have done was focus on the scoring system the way you did since it makes the game (and the review) stand out among any others in the genre, as opposed to just being “this is a shooter. This is the basic, general information for it” that you can probably see anywhere. However, I will admit that your explanation of the Dragon Shot confused me a little (as most descriptions of this sort of thing in shooter reviews usually do). You made it sound like you actually lose the beast you’re riding, but somehow that doesn’t make sense for this game. Rather I sort of pictured it like a power-up gauge or something, and that’s what the screens seem to suggest. Anyway, my initial confusion there didn’t really affect the rest of my perception of the review as it was the results of that attack, and how effectively the attack killed that mattered here. And these came off quite well. I’m not a huge shooter fan – I like them, but I find them overly difficult sometimes, so they’re not something I actively seek. You make me want to try this one out. Anyway, the only other real complaint I can levy against this is that I didn’t get much of a sense of your emotion behind the game – sure I can tell you enjoyed it quite a bit, but… I agree with EmP that it’s not your most passionate piece. However, that you described everything so beautifully makes the review extremely effective otherwise, so the need for that passion isn’t as necessary.

P.S.: EmP didn’t point out all the typos. The word “concentrate” next to “Psykio Pattern Memorisation” should be “concentration” and you have the word “florescent” in there, but I can’t tell if that should be “fluorescent” or if it’s fine as is. 88

Overdrive's CastleQuest review

Zipp An example of story-reviewing at its best. This review made me feel like I was in the room with you while you played, hearing you deliver snappy comentary punctuated by frequent swearing while I watched to make sure I was ready to catch any tossed controllers. Not only that, but you manage to provide a clear analysis of the game’s controls, structure, and purpose. Well done, sir. I tried to find something wrong here, I really did. But even the lists work. I'm sorry... I have to give you 100

Suskie Ha. I like the hero’s creed and the accompanying disclaimer, even if it does seem a little out of the blue. You know, you’re gradually becoming one of my favorite writers here, mainly because I don’t think I’ve ever read a review of yours that I didn’t like. You’re consistent, and that’s important. Your Castlequest here displays the same kind of writing flair that I see Boo’s and Cairo’s reviews all the time: Not a single sentence is wasted. Castlequest does admittedly seem like a pretty easy target, and I get the sense that pretty much anyone could convince me that the game sucks… but not everyone could go into such scrutinizing detail and make me laugh so consistently. I guess the bullet points underlining different scenarios you found reprehensible was a little lazy, but then again, this review really wasn’t meant to be anything more than a series of Castlequest-related outtakes anyway, right? Now that I think about it, the reason this review is so effective for me is that it reminds me of Dark Castle. I guess that’s a good thing, because Dark Castle is one of the worst games ever made. It would be a lot more difficult to convince me that a game is awesome, but hey, whatever works.93

Wolf Queen OD does a great job making this game sound awful. His describes everything well enough that we get the message without terrible overkill while at the same time sounding clever in places. For example, I really liked the list of deaths and found myself particularly amused by this line, even if it’s not an in-game death specifically: “I died emotionally due to having to endure the game's short, annoying, constantly looping attempt at music while controlling some little puke as he seemed determined to prove that 50 lives only equals 30 minutes of gameplay.” However, it seemed to me that this same list of deaths would have been a lot more effective had you managed to keep each point short. The elevator, drowning, and crate deaths were great for that, but the others could have been shortened up to one or two sentences without losing much. Though I did appreciate the detail on the jumping section as it seemed kind of important to note. That being said, I did feel I learned everything I needed to know about this game and just how bad it is. It almost makes me want to try it just to see the utter horrendousness of it. I mean, from the sound of this review, it almost sounds like they purposely gave you 50 lives because they knew how easy it was for you to die, as if that’s a good thing. I also commend you for sounding like you actually own this game. Haha. And if you do, I pity your soul, you poor man. 83

EMP's Blacksite Review

ZippCutting out the first part of your intro and beginning with “I can end the review now for readers in a hurry...” would’ve been more effective. Similarly, a lot of this review reads like it didn’t get a chance at the editing table. One thing in particular that bothered me was the word “but” being repeated too often, sometimes more than once within a single sentence.

Furthemore, the review is laid out very blandly, with a standard template, yet at the same time, it manages to flop around uncomfortably. Like it jumps into talking about the team members before introducing them or the team mechanics enough to give me a sense how the whole thing works. It seems like what happened here is that you started out strong with your usual commentary on ridiculous things like the setting and the game's approach, and then felt that you had to get some gameplay stuff in, so you started down that road... but before finishing, ended up in more commentary.

Your commentary is great,l but it's not grounded in anything. You explain from the start that this is just an average shooter, but I would like to know what was holding it back. You give me a decent idea of the setting, but I'm not convinced by the end that the game isn't for me, I'm left feeling somewhat unfulfilled, as if I really HAD skipped the entire review when you told me to.

The end of your review is your strongest point. I really like how you had one whole paragraph devoted to describing amazing moments in the game, and then how you follow that paragraph with “Then it’s right back to basics...” It cuts off the reader in the same way the game cuts off the player, and it’s my favourite part of this review, one that demonstrates your usual knowledge of where your reader is at, and your ability to lead them along. If only the rest of the review lived up to your abilities. 62

Suskie I guess it’s worth mentioning right up front that I’d probably place you within the top three best reviewers on HG – I know! I can’t believe I’m saying that, either! As a result, this review is probably as good as it could be. Frankly, it seems like you’ve put more energy into this review than the game deserves. The problem is that mediocre, insignificant, insubstantial games like this rarely inspire any sort of interesting commentary, and it seemed to me while I was reading this that you were struggling to stay interested long enough to write the review in the first place. Your opening paragraph, from what I can tell, is all that the reviews needs: You underline your thesis, and in fact make it pretty clear that in short, BlackSite is just another shooter, and it’s boring and bland and pointless without actually being BAD. It even sounds like you’re acknowledging that most people don’t need to read any further, and the rest of the review comes across as padding as a result. You point out the cheesy plot; okay. But as colorful as your writing is, the problem, again, appears to be that there just isn’t much to say about BlackSite in the first place. It’s a generic shooter and that’s all there is to it. Like I said, this is probably as good a review as could be written for this game given your thesis, but it seems like a weird choice for a contest. Having interesting material to work with certainly helps. 75

Wolf Queen This is the third time I’ve read this review now, and I still like it. I stand by everything I said in that feedback topic and on AIM. You describe everything very well without ever really wasting a word. The bad points in the game are often satirical while the good ones described in such a manner as to make it exciting. The transitions between good and bad points are effortless; I don’t feel like I’m reading two reviews with this, which is often hard to pull off when reviewing an average game. I suppose if I wanted, I could complain about recycling that one sentence you used in the intro, but really, the way you presented this, and with the déjà vu reference near the end, it works well, so I can’t.

Nitpick: I missed a typo. Again. “Five-stories tall monstrosity” should be five-story (or storey if that’s the one you prefer). Haha. 92

True's Code Veronica Review

Zipp Anyone who has played CV will understand the annoyance of the Steve/Claire relationship. You do an admirable job of bashing it, and I thank you for that. Same goes for the boss fight in the middle. Classic bitching moments that deserve all the hatred they get.

I have to completely disagree with your end point, though. You should’ve done a bit more research into the history of the RE series: they made three more games between this and RE4, not to mention rereleasing the entire series (minus RE2) on the gamecube. Just claiming that this is the one that created RE4 is a large (and in your review's case, unsubstantiated) statement that I think is blatantly false based on other evidence.

Also, while I appreciate your bash, it won’t help anyone who hasn’t actually played Code Veronica. While entertaining, it definitely appeals to the “in-crowd.” Going into a bit more depth as to the setting, the plot, and the handling of the controls would’ve helped this. As it is, it comes off as more of an article or blog post than a review, and while i enjoyed it, I have to take points off for that. 64

Suskie So, wait. You’re a diehard Resident Evil fanboy, but now you’re dissing Code Veronica for sticking with series conventions, and giving it a 2/10 as a result? If that’s the effect of post-RE4 syndrome (and it seems like you only just played this recently) then I can’t blame you, but I don’t know which of your multiple personalities to believe. In all honesty, I’m surprised I didn’t like this review more. You’re usually a very good writer (if a somewhat humorless one), but this piece fell flat on what appeared to be too many attempts to give the writing a sort of witty flair. Your overplayed emphasis on the failings of the plot lost its luster the moment you labeled the love story “emo,” and your depiction of the zombie-from-fifteen-feet-away is a good example of over-dramatization where it isn’t needed. (Isn’t there a way to incorporate this more smoothly into the review than by saying, “Let me describe what was going through my mind”?) Frankly, the review is awkward in spots, and I can safely say that the “if it’s going to screw you” line is one of the worst transitions I’ve ever seen. All of this, and by the end of the review I’m wondering if your comment about having played Code Veronica before was actually true, or if it was just the setup for your line about blacking out, which, by the way, didn’t offer anywhere near the payoff you were obviously hoping for. I suppose this review gets the job done, but it’s a very disappointing effort. Sorry. 60

Wolf Queen The first thing I will say about this is that I loved the sarcasm in here. You make the game sound as bad as I’m guessing you think it is (I’ve never played it), which is good because this game in particular seems to warrant a lot of praise – or at least the individual ratings do. However, there are some parts that feel like they might need elaboration – the two monsters you mention, for one, but I can see your dismissal of them as suggesting they’re quite meaningless, much like the game is. Also, while MGS is a popular game and I’m sure many people have played it, there might be a few who haven’t (I hadn’t until a year ago), so they might not get the Otacon reference. Still, these things aside, I did enjoy the way you tore this game up. I like personal examples – I think they add to the review, both in atmosphere and argument. I especially liked how you attacked the story, the way the game can screw you up, and how lame the zombies are (and I guess other monsters, too…but you don’t talk about those much save that one boss). However, some of your tactics start feeling overused after a while. The quoted sections, while amusing sometimes, get a bit gimmicky or excessive in other places (like the section in that fight on the plane). Still, I think this is an effective review that thrashes an awful-sounding game.

I also really liked the “island seething with undead that’ll probably blow up” bit. Reminds me of RE4. (Though I’m not really sure you can claim this game inspired that one… but that struck me more as a matter of opinion thing versus an actual argumentative point, especially since it came near the end of the review). 85


Alright, that's the feedback. Now for the final scores, in order from lowest to highest:

True: Wolf Queen and Zipp liked True's approach, but both Zipp and Suskie had trouble with his conclusions. Suskie also found error with his "attempt at flair" that he thought fell short. Final score: 209/300

EMP: Opinions differed wildly on EMP's review. Zipp thought it was confusing and unconvincing. Suskie thought it was a poor choice for the reviewer but a solid review nonetheless. Wolf Queen found it to be entertaining and well-crafted. Final score: 224/300

Lewis: Judges agreed that Lewis had style and that his analysis was top-notch, but a couple of us wanted to see more focus with that style. Final score: 236/300

Janus 2: Janus drew compliment for his choice of game and the layout of his review, but drew criticism for not having enough flair and for some confusion in what the game was actually about. Final score: 245/300

Overdrive: Some thought the review was a little lazy and not as well-edited as it could've been, but no-one denied it was a fun (and funny) read that got all the points across in an entertaining and precise fashion. Final score: 276/300

Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."

The Castlequest review was absolutely fantastic - a deserving winner.

Very interesting comments regarding my piece, as I'd hoped. I'm obviously not going to argue on the judges' opinions, though I would mention that the oddly contrasting tone that grated with Suskie was very intentional: an attempt to replicate the shift between escapist poignancy and mediocre game design that I was describing. In other words - prosaic, emergent writing for the bits I loved; generic, analytical stuff for the bits I didn't. Whether I pulled it off, of course, is an entirely different matter.

NGJ link was obviously stupid. I'd meant to remove that, but totally forgot.

Thanks to Zipp and the others for running this compo! I have my competition idea still do realise... when would be a good time to run one, dya think? Spoilers: it shouldn't clash too much with other review competitions.

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

WQ: You actually do lose your dragon. This is why it's so unique. Also, thanks for spotting those typos. I've read this review several times but I've never noticed them. Weird.

Thanks to all the judges for their in-depth comments. This review probably wasn't ideal for a contest like this. Although I say I'm no shooter expert, the review is geared towards people who play these games for score and are familiar with the Psykio style (why else would you pick up an obscure arcade shmup?). This is why I concentrated on the mechanics and rules at the expense of the setting,etc. I think the danger with shooters is that people might appreciate the setting and style but credit feed through the game and miss the intricacies of the scoring system because it's too complicated or whatever. With this review I almost wanted to say THIS GAME HAS A GREAT SCORING SYSTEM! PLAY IT LIKE THIS AND YOU'LL GET THE MOST OUT OF IT!!

Anyway, congrats to Overdrive and the others. There may not have been many entries but this was an interesting contest.

"fuck yeah oblivion" - Jihad

About your above comment, Lewis, consider this: You're obviously not very fond of the game, so don't repeat its mistakes.

You exist because we allow it. And you will end because we demand it.

Perhaps very good advice. I doubt 'Faction did it intentionally to make a point, however ;)

EDIT: Further self-critical post-mortem -- I think the main issue with my piece is that it suffers from having had to be put on a 'reviews' site. If I had a different outlet for it (I could have put it on Resolution, I guess, but I like the idea of having stuff instantly accessible on here), it'd have probably been less 'reviewy', and I could have got rid of the analytical detail that, as Suskie fairly points out, contrasts a bit too heavily with the "glowing" sections of the piece.

In other words: it's an article I've wanted to write for ages, toned down to meet the specifications of "writing a review."

It's also an example of me writing in a train-of-thought manner, e-scribbling a thousand thoughts down without much idea of where it's going, just seeing where my gut instinct led me. That's the point of my Not A Reviews on my blog; maybe this would have been better suited for that.

Thoroughly interesting and infinitely valuable feedback, once again, from three writers I really respect on here. Thanks all!

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

Thanks to the judges for their critiques and the really, really high scores I received!

I'd decided to try putting a bit more personality into my writing, as I felt a lot of my stuff could get a bit dry or "by-the-book", especially when playing a game that doesn't overly motivate me to write something "epic". While I do admit that CastleQuest is an easy target for a personable bash review, I wanted to start with easier targets for this idea just to get into the groove of typing more engaging reviews. And from the scores and comments I received, I have say I feel pretty good about that right now. Next contest might see me get universally panned, but at least for one day, I feel good!

I'm not afraid to die because I am invincible
Viva la muerte, that's my goddamn principle

See, OD? I tell you to write about Castlequest and it nets you the golden trophy. Listen to Felix if you want to win at life.

I don't have to boost my review resume because I have a real resume.

Well, you were second place, Janus, so I wouldn't say it wasn't an ideal choice! The truth is, no matter what audience you were appealing to, a review has to assume a more general audience, I think. Lewis makes a good point about reviews being a somewhat limiting medium. There are certain things you have to do. The trick is doing them in an interesting manner. You rarely have trouble with this. In this review, I just wanted a bit more of the sense of how the game worked. Not so much the basic shooter mechanics, but maybe just a phrase or two to ground me, like "Asteroids where the asteroids are demons and your ship is a little guy on a dragon," or something similar.

Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."

While I agree that staff reviews need to assume a general audience, I think it's OK to target a specific audience with a user review because you're only an individual voice. If the reader can't identify with that voice then he can go read another user review. Saying that, by entering the review in this contest I should really have tailored my writing for a more general audience (who aren't familiar with Psykio). So in other words, I agree!

That's what I meant by it not being ideal for this competition. I didn't mean to sound ungrateful. I'm happy with second given the writers that participated.

"fuck yeah oblivion" - Jihad

Thanks to all three judges for the time taken to read and comment on my review, and congrats to OD for actually beating me at something.

For us. For them. For you.

and congrats to OD for actually beating me at something.

Alphabetolympics AND Challange (individually), making this the third time in a four-contest span where I've outranked you.

THREE TIMES IN FOUR CONTESTS!!!!!! Now that's a factoid everyone should ponder for some time.

I'm not afraid to die because I am invincible
Viva la muerte, that's my goddamn principle

Even if that's true, it still puts you at something like 4/116.

For us. For them. For you.

Overdrives castlequest review is pretty hilarious! Because of these i would still give the game a try just to see how hard this game is...

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

First off, Congratulations to O.D. for winning.

To Zipp and Wolf, I appreciate the time you've taken to judge and your criticism towards my review. It's because of the judges that we have contests every month, and there's always an enjoyable experience.

As for Suskie, I appreciate you taking time out as well.

That being said, you can take this however you choose. And it quite possibly could be Drac's earlier comment that made this complaint surface, but you've basically made the same statement he did using different words.

So, wait. You’re a diehard Resident Evil fanboy, but now you’re dissing Code Veronica for sticking with series conventions, and giving it a 2/10 as a result?

No. Actually I'm not. I can point out three or four examples of where I demonstrated how Veronica went the opposite direction in a negative way, and that was my major problem with the game. That is why I went with the 2/10 score.

Again, I appreciate you judging. And you may question my integrity when it comes to having played the game before. (Which, by the way is kind of silly. I'm known for a lot of things on here, filling my reviews with lies simply to place a line is not one of them.) In all honesty--and no offense--when you complain about something that is so blaringly non-existant I have to question your integrity as a judge.

If I Offended You, You Needed It.

Hey True, glad you made your way in here. We should have a chat about RE sometime, or at least a bitch session about it's various mishaps (the Steve and Claire pairing being one of the big ones). Are you a member over at Devil's Lair? There's a big contingency of RE fans there. You'd fit right in.

Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."

I can point out three or four examples of where I demonstrated how Veronica went the opposite direction in a negative way, and that was my major problem with the game.

Please do so, then. From what I can tell, you literally say that Code Veronica is "so far down the line series wise that the formula — by now — is tired," then you go on to say this:

For the most part, you’ll deal with Zombies, and allow me to play out a typical scene for you on those: “Oh my God. That undead prison guard is only fifteen feet away and I need to reload! Okay. Open my menu, reload, get my feet planted, turn a bit, aim, calibrate my sight, organize my inventory, re-aim, breath…Oh my god. He’s fourteen feet away now!”

How does that not apply to every single Resident Evil game ever made? (Excluding RE4, as always.) It's a perfectly valid complaint, of course, but it's the kind of line I'd expect to see written by someone who despises the series. You claim to be a huge RE fan, and I'm reading over that and thinking, "Well, yeah. What did you expect?"

Looking over the remainder of your review, I see several other valid points about item limitations, backtracking, and having to retrace your steps, but again, those are series conventions as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, okay, I can follow that CV takes them to new extremes, where they're nuisances, but nothing to indicate that the game "went in the opposite direction" as you put it. If anything, CV seems like a culmination of everything the naysayers hate about RE games. The one exception is the plot, which you obviously feel was handled wrong, but is it really reasonable to expect anything worthwhile out of a RE game's story?

I haven't read the feedback, but you should understand that my comments were based on what I picked up from this review after a single read. And I read reviews carefully. If more than one person has misinterpreted the contrasting tones of your writing here, who's at fault, really?

As for your last comment, well, you're right: I probably shouldn't judge again, because it seems like somebody (usually the lowest scorer) "questions my integrity" every time I do so. You blacked it out? You blacked it out? How would you even remember that if you blacked it out? I'm not saying it's a lie. I'm saying it's intended wit, and not very effective at that. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's still a bad line. Christ.

You exist because we allow it. And you will end because we demand it.

It's trivial. As Blue would say, "It's a contest. What are you going to do? Put it on your resume?"

I'm not looking to start some silly little spam war over it, or make a big deal. If you didn't like the line, you didn't like the line. To me, it came across as "Oh, he made that up just to try and be funny", which, yeah, I'm going to call you on. I make a lot of attempts to be amusing, most of which fail, but I don't lie in order to get there.

If I Offended You, You Needed It.

I don't think there's an issue with the "I blacked it out" line. It's clearly just used for effect. Would we criticise stand-up comedians for fabricating events in the name of humour?

Whether it's a successful use would be a more pertinent question.

I think the more pressing issue with this particular review is that it seems a little confused in what point it's trying to make.

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

Relax, Suskie. Not everyone's going to agree with the judge's opinion, especially people who received low scores. That's just how things are. I don't always agree with the judges opinions on my reviews, for example, but I use that to try and get clarification on their points so I can hopefully learn from them. I don't see true's rebuttals as anything more than trying to get clarification on what you thought and counter any perceived misinterpretations about his character. To me, this whole credibility issue strikes me as one huge misunderstanding. Did he perhaps go a little too far? Maybe, but... well, these things happen. =/ The important thing is, I seriously doubt any of this will affect anyone's perceptions on your ability at all. Just for the record, I think you're a fine judge whose critiques are fair and unbiased. You shouldn't give it up just because of a little disagreement.

Beseides, I'm sure you're not the first judge to elicit disagreement from, and you certainly won't be the last. No one's really targeting you specifically, really. It's a contest - disagreements should be expected.

[Eating EmP's brain] probably isn't a good idea. I mean... He's British, which means his brain's wired for PAL and your eyes are NTSC. - Will

You know, you’re gradually becoming one of my favorite writers here, mainly because I don’t think I’ve ever read a review of yours that I didn’t like.

Anyone who says something like that concerning me is correct about EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYONE!!!!!

So sayeth I.

I'm not afraid to die because I am invincible
Viva la muerte, that's my goddamn principle

WQ, could you please stop assuming that I'm paranoid about everything? I've judged three different contests now, and each time I've run into some problem or another with somebody who wasn't happy with the score/comments I gave them. You can see why I'm starting to get a little sick of this.

Lewis kind of said what I was getting at, which is that "lying" is a pretty strong word, and it doesn't apply here. Taking poetic license is more appropriate. Like you said, it's trivial, and I'm glad you're not willing to start a big thing over this (as you can imagine, I'm starting to get tired of that), but if you don't want my opinion on your review, then don't submit it for a contest I'm judging.

You exist because we allow it. And you will end because we demand it.

Sorry. =/ I just don't want to see any unnecessary conflicts is all. But I suppose you can say I'm getting a little carried away now. Sorry for that. Still, to be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a contest judged by anyone where some sort of disagreement didn't happen. =/ Ah, well; I'll just leave it alone for now, then.

[Eating EmP's brain] probably isn't a good idea. I mean... He's British, which means his brain's wired for PAL and your eyes are NTSC. - Will

Yeah, hopefully this kind of thing just comes with the territory, and not with my knack for attracting unnecessary conflicts.

You exist because we allow it. And you will end because we demand it.

Re: true's review.

True, I feel you overcomplicate the issue in defending your review at length.

If you look at the unmediated response to your review (EG my first comment in the feedback thread, then Drac's revenge comments - then the more mediated response in this comp thread as well) it is clear that several people get mixed messages from your review, or find parts of it don't make sense to them. The very first people who read it and responded to it in print felt that way and said so.

Then you get to this comp thread and more people have said similar stuff at length. In such a case there isn't anything to be gained for the review from saying, 'Well, this is what I actually meant.' There is only what people get when they read the piece of writing. I don't think enough people are getting what you thought you put across, in which case it needs to be put across more precisely.

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

I don't have anything to add to this except to once again thank all the judges and writers for their effort and time to make this contest happen. None of the reviews submitted were amateur reviews. That's why I (and I imagine the other judges) felt no qualms in really digging into them where we felt it was appropriate. Similarly, all the judge feedback I read was solid advice, more interesting in this case because it came from three people with pretty different opinions, so everyone got hit from a different angle. As long as the reviewers came away from this feeling like they'd learned something about their writing style, I'm happy.

Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."