Forums > Submission Feedback > spaceworlder's El Viento review

El Viento is an unrealistic game. Good job -- you sure nailed that one.

First, the game does have three continues. So that's a quick point where you're factually incorrect, and a significant one since you devote a short paragraph to say that "no matter how far you make it ... it's back to the title screen".

Otherwise, this review falls prey to one of your NG review's same flaws -- that being, the complaints about lack of realism are silly. Someone who reads the bit about "enemies don't have to reload" would think you're being pretty nutty to use that as evidence towards being "the worst game you've ever played". Why is lack of reloading bad?

Then you complain about the game having no Castlevania-style bounceback (although you spin it as lack of physics) and being upset that boomerangs actually can hit the enemies that are shooting at you. Your reviews would be stronger if you took these issues and explained why they hurt the gameplay, instead of assuming such things to be self-evident. Maybe you have a point, but you need to make it clear.

People might actually forgive you for only making it to the second level if your arguments were strong. The way it's written, it sounds like you wanted to hate the game and were just looking for anything "unrealistic" to complain about.

And even though El Viento IS an unrealistic game -- hugely unrealistic -- you still fabricated stuff to support your point! That's pretty pathetic.

You've made it clear that you don't care about having a strong review. You just care about throwing your words up to sit on the internet for people to stumble upon. So why am I even giving advice... still? Especially since you'll take that advice in the worst possible way and resent it?

I guess I'm just bored at 7:30 in the morning.

About your last two paragraphs ---

There are those who would take me to task for not thinking of “something the reader might like”

I can't believe you're still hung up on the fact that some people actually thought your Ninja Gaiden could stand to be improved. Apparently you don't get the concept that when Ninja Gaiden is famous BECAUSE OF THE CUTSCENES, it might actually be worth discussing the cutscenes instead of just casually dismissing them. If you dismiss what readers want to read about, if you dismiss what a game is famous for as being "irrelevant", then they'll dismiss your review. Go ahead and call NG's cutscenes shitty and a worthless incentive for continued play, but you didn't even do that. You attacked the gameplay, which everyone knows isn't the reason NG is famous, and you attacked it weakly.

You said your point with NG was that the gameplay was so bad that the cutscenes don't matter -- if you'd actually done a great job crushing the gameplay, then I would have accepted that argument (even though I disagree with it). But you didn't do a great job slamming the gameplay. So your review felt incomplete.

"There are those who would take me to task if I didn’t talk about the human interest contained in the story"

Ninja Gaiden is globally famous for its cutscenes. Ninja Gaiden's cutscenes are often recognized as the main reason to play the game. That's a very different situation from El Viento, where only the fandom cares about the cutscenes. So I would not have taken you to task for leaving cinemas out of this one.

In summary:
1) If El Viento were only one level long, then this would be a better review than Ninja Gaiden, because you don't make any glaring omission. But the game is more than one level long, so I guess that's a glaring omission right there. And, as with NG, you don't do a good enough job crushing the gameplay to justify leaving the other stuff out.
2) It's better than your Ninja Gaiden 2, because that one was written so poorly that having a stronger argument couldn't redeem it.
3) The above two statements are a failed effort to say something nice about your horrible review. The only way to make it look good is to compare it reviews that are even worse.

You've now shown a trend of omitting information (or outright factual errors) in an effort to suit your own point of view. You were thankfully honest and up-front in this one about only playing to the second level, but what about your other reviews? Can they be trusted?

//Zig

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 think this might be the first time I've ever seen zigfried write an angry message board post!

"fuck yeah oblivion" - Jihad

He wanted a reaction, so I figured I would oblige. The thing that upsets me is him intentionally dragging out this trend of crappy writing.

I guess that's an effective way to troll... find a website where people care about writing well and improving, then flagrantly write badly and admit to not giving a damn as to whether or not the review is convincing or complete.

//Zig

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 wasn't aware that there were continues. That's not my fault, but the game's for not making it obvious. Usually, a Game Over screen will indicate that the player can continue. In "El Vientio" you get "Game Over" and you're back at the title screen. Can you blame me or anyone for thinking that there's no continue option?

Someone who reads the bit about "enemies don't have to reload" would think you're being pretty nutty to use that as evidence towards being "the worst game you've ever played". Why is lack of reloading bad? You don't explain this.

Relentless enemies + no reloads = Endless bullets which are difficult to get around, which adds to the mindless nature of gameplay. I believe that better action games develop a rhythm, which can work both for and against the player.

Then you complain about the game having no Castlevania-style bounceback (although you spin it as lack of physics) and being upset that boomerangs actually can hit the enemies that are shooting at you.

Physics states that if a big object hits me at a high speed (such as a motorbike), I go flying. There should be some sort of "bounceback". This is opposite of what I complained about in "Ninja Gaiden", where a tiny object would send the ninja flying. At least "Gaiden" had some concept of physics, though.

Your notion that I complain about boomerangs actually hitting enemies is misleading. What you're referring to is my complaint about the game's atrocious disregard for perspective in one part of the first level, where a boomerang flying in the foreground can collide with a car which is clearly in the background. If I fire a gun straight ahead of me, the bullet won't hit anyone who's standing outside its path. It's common sense, and the fact that the programmers disregarded that is insulting to the player's intelligence. Just about anyone who encounters that sequence would probably be confused by it, so it's worth pointing out as a flaw, I think.

Your reviews would be stronger if you took these issues and explained why they hurt the gameplay, instead of assuming such things to be self-evident. Maybe you have a point, but you need to make it clear.

If I tell someone that a game has awful physics and a disregard for perspective, what more do I have to say? I shouldn't even have to think about stuff like that, but here's a game so terrible that such discussion can't be avoided.

People might actually forgive you for only making it to the second level if your arguments were strong. The way it's written, it sounds like you wanted to hate the game and were just looking for anything "unrealistic" to complain about.

I wanted to like this game that's gotten lots of "ten out of tens" from people. It just turns out that when I played it, it wasn't very good, and the only interesting thing to discuss was the unrealistic stuff. If "El Viento" had competent enemy design or an intricate gameplay mechanic, I might have had the motivation to play further.

You've made it clear that you don't care about having a strong review. You just care about throwing your words up to sit on the internet for people to stumble upon. So why am I even giving advice... still? Especially since you'll take that advice in the worst possible way and resent it?

I don't resent advice. Maybe I could have made it clearer that I felt "El Viento" was lacking rhythm? That's something I will certainly consider if I review a similarly flawed game, or if I decide to re-review this one in the future. What I resent is your notion that I should consider story an integral part of a game and incorporate that into a review for a video game. Some people do this, and I respect that. I can't. My focus is primarily on describing the game-oriented stuff that left an impact on me. In an RPG like "Lunar" or "Mass Effect", NPC dialogue or cinemas that shape the game world might fall into that category. In an action game like "El Viento", story isn't worth the time of day.

Apparently you don't get the concept that when Ninja Gaiden is famous BECAUSE OF THE CUTSCENES, it might actually be worth discussing the cutscenes instead of just casually dismissing them.

I wonder who's more hung up over this, you or me? That sentence you quoted is an acknowledgement of something that was said in that feedback thread, that I should be more "balanced" and write about things I think other players would like rather than relying on my personal (tangible) experience. I'm not sure how you would take that statement as "I still resent you for the whole cutscene thing."

If you dismiss what readers want to read about, if you dismiss what a game is famous for as being "irrelevant", then they'll dismiss your review.

I think readers want to know if a game is interesting or frustrating or tough. I think (hope) that readers walk away from my "El Viento" review with the impression that the game is a mindless and unrewarding exercise. I also believe that most people who see my lonely "1/10" amidst the seas of "10/10s" will understand that it is one of many perspectives, and other perspectives might reveal things my review didn't. There's also the possibility that the last thing on a reader's mind when researching a game like "El Viento" is whether the cinemas are neat. In an age of "Halo", slide-shows with 16-bit fonts aren't too impressive anymore.

You attacked the gameplay, which everyone knows isn't the reason NG is famous, and you attacked it weakly.

Funny, but when the new "Ninja Gaiden" franchise was started on the Xbox five years ago, I don't recall commentators wondering if the new cinemas would be as neat as those old slide-shows from the NES games. A lot of the discussion was centered around whether the game would as brutal and relentless as the old-school ones. That was the quality, for better or worse, that stuck out in most people's memories when the franchise was revisited.

You've now shown a trend of omitting information (or outright factual errors) in an effort to suit your own point of view. You were thankfully honest and up-front in this one about only playing to the second level, but what about your other reviews? Can they be trusted?

All reviewers have to ommit something to maintain focus. Is it worth writing that there are little lunch trays in "El Viento" that restore your health? No, because we expect that. If there weren't any, and it seriously impacted the enjoyment of the game, then that would be worth writing about. I decided to focus on the first level because of the awful impression it left, and because my lack of knowledge about the (poorly implemented) continue system kept me from playing futher.

Even when reviewing games that I liked a lot, you'll find that I ommit things to keep the writing focused. For example, I could have mentioned how the moose chase sequence in "Mickey Mania" (9/10) had some effects that were really neat back in its day, but I chose only to allude to that part because I didn't think it would suit my essay, or that modern readers would even care about yesteryear techniques like parallax.

I guess that's an effective way to troll... find a website where people care about writing well and improving, then flagrantly write badly and admit to not giving a damn as to whether or not the review is convincing or complete.

Let the record show that the "t" word has entered the discussion. I will try very hard not to evoke "Godwin," even though internet protocol demands it.

JOSEPH VALENCIA was able to build this sig IN A CAVE…… WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!

The continue system works like many other games. You die, then you select continue at the title screen. It's even the first option -- if you just tap start twice, then you'll accidentally continue (as opposed to accidentally starting over). It's a common set-up for 8 and 16 bit games.

All you had to do was actually try to play the game a second time. You missed out on over 75% of the game because you didn't see a "continue" option on the screen. That alone means you shouldn't be reviewing the game yet.

Based on that, the rest of this response is superfluous, but I'll go through it anyway.

*************************************

There's also the possibility that the last thing on a reader's mind when researching a game like "El Viento" is whether the cinemas are neat.

That's why I wouldn't have cared if you omitted story from the EV review, but why I thought it should be in the NG review.

I wonder who's more hung up over this, you or me? That sentence you quoted is an acknowledgement of something that was said in that feedback thread, that I should be more "balanced" and write about things I think other players would like rather than relying on my personal (tangible) experience.

Per last sentence: never my point. You should absolutely rely on your own personal experience, but you should address the things that a game is liked/known/famous for. Otherwise, the review appears to miss the boat. This is what Honestgamer was talking about with his debate analogy. Acknowledge those points, whether to agree or refute. It strengthens the rest of your message.

Per first sentence: after the Ninja Gaiden feedback thread, you wrote an angry Ninja Gaiden 2 review and a snide blog entry, both addressing this same topic ("what other people think you should talk about"). Then a new review shows up, again addressing that topic.

That's what I call hung-up on something.

I don't resent advice ... What I resent is your notion that I should consider story an integral part of a game and incorporate that into a review for a video game.

In other words, you resent the advice that your Ninja Gaiden piece felt incomplete because it avoided discussing the things people usually bring up as good points (cinemas and music). Instead of guessing at what advice you will or won't resent, I'll just give whatever advice I want, thanks.

Your notion that I complain about boomerangs actually hitting enemies is misleading. What you're referring to is my complaint about the game's atrocious disregard for perspective in one part of the first level, where a boomerang flying in the foreground can collide with a car which is clearly in the background. If I fire a gun straight ahead of me, the bullet won't hit anyone who's standing outside its path. It's common sense

The car is barely in the background. It's fine to bring it up as your own confusion; I wasn't personally confused. Different experiences. It's also the only example of an "attackable background enemy" throughout the entire 8-level game -- a case where, by only reviewing the first level (and not seeing the blatant CONTINUE option), you misrepresented the game.

Singular examples are just that: singular. That one event doesn't justify your message board clarification that "the game has a disregard for perspective". That's why it's considered irresponsible to review a game based on one (and a half) levels out of eight.

As an FYI, if you really think about it, boomerangs travel in arcs (either horizontally or vertically). Furthermore, if Annet throws the boomerang while jumping, and then keeps running after landing on the ground, the boomerang's overall flight path is a curve.

But if we keep thinking, then every time the boomerang hits something it should fall to the ground. And real boomerangs don't travel in such perfect patterns anyway. Fortunately, they are magic boomerangs. I guess what I'm saying is, don't think about these things so hard in 8 and 16 bit games. That's common sense.

If I tell someone that a game has awful physics and a disregard for perspective, what more do I have to say? I shouldn't even have to think about stuff like that, but here's a game so terrible that such discussion can't be avoided.

You did avoid the discussion. If you went into such things in more depth, it might show you have something intriguing to say about 8 and 16 bit game design in general. Part of a "review" means backing up your points appropriately, instead of just putting sentences out there and letting them stand unsupported. That's another piece of what Honestgamer was getting at with his rant/review distinction. Regardless of what we call it, my point is this: establish trends, support main points, and clarify examples. Those are important elements of a review.

While on the topic of 16-bit physics, El Viento is a game in which enemies actually do shoot each other, and in which the motorcycles explode if two of them happen to collide.

//Zig

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.

Which game is worse: El Viento or Legend of Zelda?

IF YOU WANT MORE BEATS FOR YOUR BUCK THERE'S NO LUCK.

I was just going to ignore this review, because it's not one, but here's the wonderful thing that solves all of these problems.

We have better reviews of Ninja Gaiden.

We have better reviews of Ninja Gaiden 2.

We have better reviews of El Viento.

I think our readers are smart enough to tell what opinions to trust. We've offered spaceworlder advice on how to strengthen these reviews, how he can make readers not turn to something else on the site, yet he'd rather post rebuttal after rebuttal (probably spending more time on those than the reviews) as if guys like Venter and Zigfried are a bunch of know-nothings not trying to strengthen the quality of his work. He'd rather think he's completely right and without fault, even though an experienced writer knows if readers' perception of the work doesn't match the intent of the work (especially for persuasive writing), he may well have done something wrong.

By throwing out a second opinion so ridiculous, poorly defended and based on one level of the game (I didn't know we could do that now), he's really only making the other El Viento reviews look better. So continue the shenanigans -- I can't wait until Cadillacs and Dinosaurs gets a 1/10 because of a "lack of realism" and "all enemies do is charge" -- because readers will simply dismiss this unprofessional, loony crud and turn to me for help!

It's ridiculous to think playing one level gives you any credibility to review this game and give it the lowest score possible. It's especially ridiculous to think a reader won't believe one of the ten other El Viento reviews that cover, you know, more than one level, and do so with enthusiasm and illustration and passion. This is really nothing more than a lame cheap shot at a game Zigfried loves -- if you really wanted to seriously take down the admittedly overblown El Viento legacy around here, writing an opinion on one level while assuming everyone will agree with you is by far the dumbest way to do it. Instead you wrote something out of spite directed at one of the nicest, most helpful people around here... because he was trying to help you write a better review (and still is, despite the unwarranted attacks).

But it's the Internet, and we're not real people, right? You're not actually dismissing smart people who've been doing this for the past decade who are really trying to help you out. And rather than saying "no thanks," you're not actually acting like a child in front of fifty other faces right now, throwing a temper tantrum and trying to take down someone's favorite game, but doing so laughably poorly because you ignored their former advice, are you?

Maybe take a step back and think.

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'd give the edge to "Viento." "Zelda" at least created a template for a series of really good sequels.

JOSEPH VALENCIA was able to build this sig IN A CAVE…… WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!

The continue system works like many other games. You die, then you select continue at the title screen. It's even the first option -- if you just tap start twice, then you'll accidentally continue (as opposed to accidentally starting over). It's a common set-up for 8 and 16 bit games.

Not really. The only other game I can think of that does this is "Silpheed," and that game at least had the sense not to greet you with the developer's splash screen. Most games have an option that says "continue" on the Game Over screen. It kind of deters the player from shutting off the console.

All you had to do was actually try to play the game a second time. You missed out on over 75% of the game because you didn't see a "continue" option on the screen. That alone means you shouldn't be reviewing the game yet.

First impressions do matter, a lot. That being said, I took your advice and replayed the game. I made it up to stage three. It was so awful I didn't bother to even use the third continue. Maybe I'll add a post-script to the review later.

In any case, I covered the general experience of the game. You run around and shoot brainless enemies. There isn't much more to it than that.

That's why I wouldn't have cared if you omitted story from the EV review, but why I thought it should be in the NG review.

What I said about "El Viento" can also be applied to "Ninja Gaiden." I was addressing that game because it was more relevant to this topic.

You should absolutely rely on your own personal experience, but you should address the things that a game is liked/known/famous for. Otherwise, the review appears to miss the boat.

Why should I care what a game is "liked/known/famous for?" There are plenty of reviews that cover those bases. Why waste time paying lip service to them, when they can speak for themselves?

Per first sentence: after the Ninja Gaiden feedback thread, you wrote an angry Ninja Gaiden 2 review and a snide blog entry, both addressing this same topic ("what other people think you should talk about"). Then a new review shows up, again addressing that topic.

And now you've created a feedback thread to this review to continue a discussion you realize will go no where, all because of a throwaway jokey comment in said review.

In other words, you resent the advice that your Ninja Gaiden piece felt incomplete because it avoided discussing the things people usually bring up as good points (cinemas and music). Instead of guessing at what advice you will or won't resent, I'll just give whatever advice I want, thanks.

I've made it very clear that "story" is not remotely on my radar when I review action games. I think I made this clear when you first proposed it, and I lose my patience when you kept throwing it at me as if repitition would make plot in action games any more relevant. I'm not skimming over these elements with the sinister purpose of "hiding" the "good parts" from the reader. I simply don't think that story is very relevant to enjoying an action game, and therefore it isn't worth taking the time to summarize.

But I suppose I can't stop you from offering bad advice.

Singular examples are just that: singular. That one event doesn't justify your message board clarification that "the game has a disregard for perspective". That's why it's considered irresponsible to review a game based on one (and a half) levels out of eight.

But it does. That car is still there to greet the player when they begin the game. It still flaunts a laughable grasp of objects in space. The rest of the game (which I can't muster up the desire to finish, sorry) may not have other such sequences, but the fact that one sequence is there at the beginning doesn't give us much confidence to continue on. As far as I'm concerned, the low quality of the first level is indictive of the rest of the game anyways. I have never played a stage as terrible as the third level of "El Viento." It's as bad as "Home Alone 2" for the Super Nintendo.

JOSEPH VALENCIA was able to build this sig IN A CAVE…… WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!

Drella,

You're saying what I've been saying all along. That people don't have to take my word for it. That there are other reviews of these games alongside mine, which the reader may or may not identify with even more. That, as you put it, there are other opinions to "trust."

Do you think I care if someone turns to another review on this site instead of mine? I encourage it. I have no incentive to generate more hits to my reviews. I write to exercise my ability to do so, not to monopolize Honest Gamers traffic. I don't get any money or prestige with each click. I'm just a gamer who likes to take an hour out of his day to type 500 to 1000 words about his hobby.

What's amazing is that it took a review for some very specific games before anyone demonstrated outrage over my approach. When I slammed the arcade "Shadow Dancer" in very much the same manner (an installment in one of my favorite franchises, by the way) there was no angry feedback topic. No "Shinobi" fans came out of the woodwork to dismiss my rash opinion or pick apart any arguments. But scratch the untouchable "El Viento" and suddenly I need to call a lawyer to make my case.

I don't know. Do you really take it that personal when someone on the internet rejects your sage advice? Does "El Viento" really mean so much to you that you'll throw tantrums when someone dismisses it? Are you the Gods of Amateur Essay Writing, and I've upset you with my lack of reverence? Should I subject myself to the rest of the tortured exercise named "El Viento" before concluding that mindless action isn't very stimulating?

Screw it. My review is probably the most accurate summary of "El Viento" ever published, a brief but vivid account of a game with no style, grace or rhythm. You can defend your terrible "game" and attack my review, but I'm not making any revisions to it. That's that.

JOSEPH VALENCIA was able to build this sig IN A CAVE…… WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!

Regarding continues, you need to play more 8 and 16 bit games. Even if it were totally unique, all you had to do was try to start a new game because the continue option is on the title screen. You reviewed the game without even knowing that; it's senseless to continue the discussion any further.

The main reason I did keep going is because the points that Honestgamer and I made are applicable to other types of writing (such as political opinion pieces). You made it clear in the previous thread that video game reviews aren't a big deal to you. I don't know if you have any interest in pursuing other types of writing, but judging what should be acknowledged and what's unimportant is a critical and challenging task. Relying on others to fill in your gaps would be a failure in those fields, too. There's a difference between persuasive focus and misleading spin.

EDIT: I didn't see Drella's post until now. Well put. I'm done with this thread.

//Zig

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.

Regarding continues, you need to play more 8 and 16 bit games. Even if it were totally unique, all you had to do was try to start a new game because the continue option is on the title screen. You reviewed the game without even knowing that; it's senseless to continue the discussion any further.

I've played lots of 8- and 16-bit games, probably more than I ever should. 99% of them don't have the "continue" option on the title screen. In any case, the last thing I had on my mind after getting "Game Over" was starting over. That's natural when I subject myself to a game as vapid as "El Viento." None of the levels that follow make any difference anyways. It's the same mindless action from beginning to end.

JOSEPH VALENCIA was able to build this sig IN A CAVE…… WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!

Stop being defensive Spaceworlder! You can write a bit, but Zigfried is a staff reviewer and good at it. Until he criticises my work. But that review was a typical bash review with an extensive amount of bash cliches. Don't say Game X is the worst game you've ever played. We thought Ninja Gaiden was your worst game last week.

I'm yet to master the task of reviewing rubbish-games, partly becasue I I can't really be bothered playing them. Hence the lowest score is quite a cliched bash review, and that was on Guardian of Darkness. But take the constructive criticism and work on it, I can be a bit narcisstic about my own work but I am always for than willing to listen to advice!

There three types of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.

JOSEPH VALENCIA was able to build this sig IN A CAVE…… WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!

Congratulations, Spaceworlder: You're now HG's official troll.

I don't even know why you guys bother getting into these big debates with him. You're just giving him exactly what he wants.

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

In b4 one of Jason Venter's lectures. Suck it down, haytaz.

::shrugs::

JOSEPH VALENCIA was able to build this sig IN A CAVE…… WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!

Look man, I don't like El Viento either. But writing reviews for the specific purpose of provoking angry responses (and nobody here, expect maybe you, is going to deny that that's what you're doing) is exactly what a troll does.

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

wonder who's more hung up over this, you or me?

I would award that to the person who keeps bringing stuff up in future reviews.

If you're less concerned about that thread than Zig, which appears to be your contention here, then why have I seen at least two reviews that reference that topic?

But you know what? I'm sick and tired of you playing the victim here. I'm sick and tired of reading reviews where you act like a bunch of bullies trashed your Ninja Gaiden reviews. Whenever people have tried to help you improve, you make ridiculous excuses and turn everything into a personal vendetta. So post reviews trashing popular games. Call games you go out of your way to dislike "unrealistic." You showed potential by displaying some outside the box thinking with Ninja Gaiden, but now you are going about everything the wrong way, and you don't seem to care. So why should the rest of us? If you want to think you are some great, trailblazing reviewer, then have at it. I don't give a shit anymore.

I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?

Rand,

That is two reviews out of, what, six? One of them written about a direct sequel to the very game that thread was about. The word "Ninja Gaiden" doesn't even pop up in the "El Viento" review itself, and the reference to that thread is made through the loosest of allusions. I don't even express any real contempt beyond a mild annoyance at having to address these issues. My anger in that review is aimed at the game itself.

Anyway, this drama over game reviews is hilarious.

JOSEPH VALENCIA was able to build this sig IN A CAVE…… WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!

That is two reviews out of, what, six?

That's not the point. Low proportion or not, you did string out that thread in new reviews. It doesn't matter of it's 1 review out of 20. You still made an issue in two totally unrelated review. It's still online for the public to see. I've written 22 reviews so far. If I write another review in which I flame Jason and the rest of the HG staff, then they should just overlook that, since it would be just one 1 out of 23 reviews. Isn't that how that works?

And using the excuse that one of the games is a direct sequel is absurd. I suppose if a Wheel of Time sequel is ever made, then I have the right to whine about how the judges voted against the review of the first game. After all, since it's a sequel, that's okay, right?

Then you have the gall to go and accuse Zig of being the one "hung up" on that thread, when you've referenced that same thread twice in unrelated reviews. Stop playing the victim. Nobody is buying it.

I think Drella hit the nail on the head when he pointed out you spend more time on these ridiculous rebuttles than you do your actual reviews. If you were half as good as writing reviews are you are at making up dumb excuses, then you would win every single ROTW handily.

I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?

Your "Wheel of Time" analogy is flawed, because you're not talking about back-to-back reviews of sequels. I felt it was fair to reflect the reaction to my "Ninja Gaiden" review in the "Ninja Gaiden II" review I wrote shortly afterward. If they were months apart, I doubt I would have written the second review the same. My overall attitude would have been different.

You're also correct that I probably spend more time collectively on these rebuttals than on my reviews. My average time for writing a review is about an hour, usually in a spur of the moment atmosphere. I prefer that energy to working on-and-off on different drafts over the course of a day or week. And even though I rarely win RoTW, I've made runner-up a few times. Make whatever you will of that. :)

JOSEPH VALENCIA was able to build this sig IN A CAVE…… WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!

Your "Wheel of Time" analogy is flawed, because you're not talking about back-to-back reviews of sequels

Okay, so what you are doing is okay because it is "different." Nevermind the fact you are more worried about complaining about a message board thread than actually writing a video game review, you are obviously just since it's back-to-back and a sequel. That makes writing a completely unprofessional review filled with whining and playing martyr okay.

And about ROTW, I noticed the two times I saw you are runner up, the same person was judging. Hmmm...

That tells me one person likes your reviews. But I noticed several people in all these threads don't. Since you seem to think proportions are so important, here is one for you. Janus awarded you runner up in ROTW twice. Now let's see, we have me, Zig, Jason, and Drella who have a problem with your approach to reviews. That's 1 out of 5 people. Not a very high percentage there bucko.

I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?

Like I said, make of that what you will. :)

It seems this argument is going no where. You're convinced that I don't write game reviews, and I'm convinced that I do. There's no reason to continue this discussion, I think.

JOSEPH VALENCIA was able to build this sig IN A CAVE…… WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!

Randxian, didn't you say that you liked spaceworlder's MegaMan 9 review?

"fuck yeah oblivion" - Jihad

Yeah, that's one review out of this recent string of sloppy reviews that he's written. Since proportions are so critical, one review out of a bunch of crappy ones does not make one a good reviewer.

Yeah, he did a good job on the Mega Man 9 review, but that's not what this topic is about. This topic is about a string of poor reviews where he is trolling the site by trashing popular games and picking and choosing what elements he wishes to highlight and feels are "most important" just so he can slap a 1/10 score on them.

Writing one really good review doesn't magically absolve him of making fundamental mistakes.

If that were the case, then I guess people like Zig and Drella should feel free to write whatever the hell they feel like without giving a damn, since they've been pumping out quality reviews for a long time.

I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?