Ads are gone. We're using Patreon to raise funds so we can grow. Please pledge support today!
Google+   Facebook button  Twitter button 
3DS | DS | PS3 | PS4 | PSP | VITA | WII | WIIU | X360 | XB1 | All

Forums > Contributor Zone > TT: WEEK 3 - RESULTS! - Blame Sportsman

Additional Messages (Groups of 25)

[01] [02]

Add a new post within this thread...

board icon
Author: jerec
Posted: July 12, 2009 (11:55 PM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Hey guys. Sorry Sportsman is late.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Felix at Dagoss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wolfqueen vs Felix

JEREC: Wolfqueen writes an interesting argument for emulation, which I find myself agreeing with. It's actually a pretty good read. Like an article I might find on some game site or something. However, this isn't a review. There's some examples of things from the game, but these are rushed through as part of a list. I know this review was used for the pretentious tournament a little while back, but it doesn't work so well here. It could work, though. The writing is excellent and compelling, and most of the emulation argument could be kept, but there needs to be more about the game. It doesn't tell me anything useful. Emulation is a way to discover these old games... but I haven't really been told why I should bother with Mother. Felix reviews his game, some obscure NES game no one else has ever heard of. It's not as interesting as Wolfqueen's read, but that's because Felix sticks to the game and delivers a pretty convincing review. This also looks like a tactical choice, as both reviews are for NES games that were never released outside of Japan, though the reads could not be more different.
WINNER: FELIX

LEWIS: Well, WQ's is the piece we ended up running at Reso. The one I gave a tremendously high score to in the Pretentious Bastards contest. It's a really adept analysis, combining illustrative portions about Mother with a more overriding argument. Whether it's a review or not is immaterial to me. It's a fantastic piece of games writing, and one WolfQueen should be enormously proud of. A really strong outing from Felix, too. You tell me everything I need to know about the game through a combination of vignettes and analysis. It's a sign of a good write-up when the reader feels he/she comes away from it familiar with the game and what it's about, and I think you achieve this really well here. You almost get docked marks for "very climactic" (really? Is the "very" necessary?), but nah, I'm feeling nice. Top banana, Felix. Still, WQ wins.

SPORTSMAN: Felix over Wolfqueen. Felix really made this game sound interesting and even though itís not great and an old NES game it is something that I want to know more about. The hardest part with reviewing these old games is making them sound relevant today since 98% of the time theyíre horribly outdated and not worth checking out. Regardless of whether this game is dated or not the concept sounds novel to me. I believe Wolfqueen used her review for the donít review a game contest (or some contest since Iíve read it before, just guessing that one) and although it is perfect for that it isnít very effective in a contest like this. Iím all for reviews that bring another topic in the mix as long as they donít abandon the topic that I care about. If you want to write reviews like this it is very important to make sure that youíre writing about the game first and foremost. This review is essentially an article about emulation that happens to use Mother as an example, rather than a review of Mother that brings up emulation.

Dagoss vs Zigfried

JEREC: I'm not sure what point Dagoss is trying to make about Mega Man 9. It seems like he disagrees with this game on principle, though I'm convinced not to play it for the cheapness of the game's difficulty. Plus, I never was a Mega Man fan. To this day I haven't played a single game (excluding a couple of minutes spent with a rom that I did not enjoy). What I get from this review is that Dagoss isn't sure if he even likes the game or not, there seems to be some conflict there. A fairly interesting read, though. Zigfried's story of waiting 7 years for a sequel that turned out terrible makes for a gripping read. Something about the writing here makes me care, even though I normally wouldn't. The false score box also had me going for a moment, too. And I already knew he used a fake ending because people talked about it. "It can't end like that. It won't end like that!" Some excellent writing, and it convinced me that even though the game wasn't any good, the plot and cinematics made the experience worth it for Zig.
WINNER: ZIGFRIED

LEWIS: I'm not sure how effective or useful Dagoss' opening paragraph is. Do we really mind why he bought the game? I'm not so sure. But then I read on, and it starts to make some sort of sense. There's a really solid theme running through this piece, which is something I really like to see. There's a really clear identification with something at the heart of the game's experience, one that's followed through the whole analysis. Rather masterful stuff, and worth doing more. On to the next one, and... Ha! Very clever, Zig. It took me a while to work out what was going on here, but your dual-scoring thing (how on Earth did you do that?!) works exceptionally well. I really enjoyed reading this. There's a distinctive theme and a truckload of your personality running through this piece. Excellent stuff, and just enough to provide Zig with the win.

SPORTSMAN: Zig over Dagoss. Good thing I read Drellaís topic because I originally read Zigís review and missed the bottom part. Hope the other judges arenít lazy like me. Not only was this a very creative approach but it was exactly the right one to take. Once again his passion for Wolf Team shows and although the game is incredibly flawed he managed to make it still sound relevant. One of the toughest things to do in reviewing is make an average game sound appealing and Zig succeeded in doing that. Dagossí review, on the other hand wasnít his best work. His general thesis was pretty good but the whole thing seemed a bit rushed and the attempts at humor fell flat. Hopefully Zig finally gets his much deserved first victory this round.

Vorty vs Randxian

JEREC: I don't know about this match up. I wasn't impressed with either review. Vorty's review is incredibly short, makes the cheap and overdone joke of wanting whatever drugs the programmers were on, and probably sums up the game itself in a single paragraph. Maybe that's all there is to the game? I don't know. Rand's review goes on for a fairly long time, and in some cases the writing itself could be edited to make it read faster, such as that whole description of the Freeza boss battle. There has to be a more succinct way of saying that. I'm giving the win to Rand, though. Vorty barely scratches the surface of his game, and Rand is much more convincing that his game deserves a low score. And I also realise that it would have been tactically stupid for Rand to bring one of his best reviews for this match up.
WINNER: RANDXIAN

LEWIS: GoldenVortex proves you can write a solid, thorough review of a game without having to babble for eight million words. It's concise, to the point, amusing, illustrative, and generally great. GV's developing quite a distinctive style, one I rather enjoy. I don't really have much more to say about this. It's really good. Numerous kudos to the author. Randaxian's is a solid yet mostly unremarkable review, with a couple of slightly clumsy bits thrown in for good measure. The opening paragraph seems to chop around a bit too much. Immediately afterwards, you reference two games without making it clear how they relate. You don't have to info-dump, but you do need to make sure you're not alienating readers for whom the link won't be immediately obvious. Elsewhere... it's a game review. It's alright, y'know? There's just nothing that stands out, makes it *yours*. Nothing that makes me want to recommend someone else reads it. As such, Vorty wins.

SPORTSMAN: Vorty over Randxian. Obviously at less than 500 words Vortyís review isnít as detailed or memorable as some of the others in this tourney and maybe a little bit too brief, but he goes in, gets out and leaves me with no questions. He manages to make the game sound weird but not good and it only took me a minute at most to read. Randís review wasnít as easy for me to digest. Iíve seen the show maybe once or twice in the 90ís and havenít seen/read anything DBZ since then except for the ďOVER 9000!!!Ē clip on youtube so it took me a few reads to figure out what all of the technical DBJ jargon meant.. Randís tone is probably better suited for fans of fighting games/DBZ. Iíd also try to smoothen up the writing a bit. While Vortyís review lacked detail it was the more enjoyable and easier read of the two so he gets the win.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Overdrive At EmP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EmP vs OD

JEREC: I seem to recall EmP initially giving this game a higher score, then this re-written one popped up, and it seemed much more in line with my own experience of this game. Who was it that convinced me to buy this game with a glowing praise review? I think it was Lasthero! Damn him! EmP looks at what made this game good, and what caused it to fall apart, and he's absolutely correct. This is also one of those EmP reviews where the writing is excellent enough that I didn't mind re-reading it. I can't remember if I read this one for a contest before, or I just happened upon it, but either way, it's a good one. Overdrive's review is probably the best I've read from him this tournament. Not only did the game sound very interesting, but Overdrive's problems with it, and his repeated playthrough attempts (I think we've all been there) made for a compelling read. I particularly liked the example towards the end with the fights being easy due to lame programming. Both reviews approach games that seemed good but turned bad. This was a close one, and both EmP and Overdrive should feel proud knowing that they both used excellent reviews. I'm giving this one to Overdrive, because it's more of a challenge to get me interested in a mediocre game I've never actually played than it is to convince me a game I already thought was a mess was in fact a mess. Just for that. So you could say it came down to game choice. Or just random synapse firing.
WINNER: OVERDRIVE

LEWIS: This is one of my favourite EmP reviews in quite a while. It's tremendously strong, finely illustrating the two sides to Fahrenheit (shut up, that's what it's called here, and it's a *much* better name). It's a fascinating game, and despite the middling score EmP awards it, the enthusiasm of parts of the review were still enough to make me buy Fahrenheit after I read this. That's got to be a successful write-up, eh? Also, the bit about the rooftop battle "in the bloody snow!" made me chuckle, both when I read it and when I eventually played out that ridiculous sequence. It really is ridiculous. OD... Hmm. I've mentioned in previous weeks that I'm not too fond of the little gimmicky interludes like the narrator/diary thing you do here. It strikes me as being more about you as a writer than it is about attempting to do any justice to the game. I'm also not entirely sure what purpose it serves here, over and above simply explaining what you meant concisely. It bounces up the word count for little reason, leaving me slightly bored by the end of the review. Elsewhere it's solid, but EmP still wins.

SPORTSMAN: EmP over OD. Luckily I havenít been paying attention to all of the coverage of Indigo Prophecy around here because if I was this is definitely one game that I wouldnít want to hear about. What I liked best about this review is how EmP made both sides of the game clear. The really good parts of the game sounded awesome and the really bad parts sounded terrible. A very effective argument here. I liked ODís personal approach more but despite the 6/10 score he didnít seem to convince me that this game is above average. He made some good points throughout and I enjoyed reading the review but in the end it seemed more like a broken game rather than a good game with a bunch of minor annoyances holding it back. This OD review is much closer to his old self than those in the previous two rounds, but unfortunately EmP isnít cutting him any slack this week!

DE vs Venter

JEREC: DE reviews a game that sounds pretty cool, and one I might want to look up more information about. I did have a problem with this review, though, and that was the writing. Some parts are good, such as the introduction, which hooked me into the game quite effectively. Most of the sentences in the review feel clunky, like there's an extra word in there that doesn't need to be there, or the point could be conveyed in a more concise manner. It's hard for me to pull an example of this from the review, it's more to do with the review overall. That's not to say I didn't enjoy reading the review, I just think that with a close proof read and an edit, this could be something great. Venter delivers a solid, professionally written review for Call of Juarez, and even though I'm not a fan of westerns, I actually want to give this game a go, since it sounds quite fun. Venter picks some cool examples from the game to describe, though I was a little lost during the intro. But that's okay, turns out it was supposed to be difficult to take in at first.
WINNER: VENTER

LEWIS: This strikes me as a slightly naive offering from DarkEternal; the work of a writer still finding their feet. It identifies with the game nicely, but the writing often feels a little clumsy and unrefined. As such, I can't really invest in it. The phrasing, with unnecessary "for instance"s and "allow me to"s, snaps me out of it too frequently for this to be a successful piece in my eyes. A slightly odd review from JV here. After an awkward, overly wordy introduction, it goes into some nice illustrative stuff... but then that totally disappears, and though thorough, it becomes a checklist race to see how many components we can talk about without obvious links. Or, at least, that's how it comes across. It's almost as if the review's been chopped via category subheaders which have later been removed. The middle is very strong - it's just a shame it can't keep up the rhythm. So Venter wins, but only just.

SPORTSMAN: Venter over DE. This was a very close match and I really enjoyed both reviews. I didnít like DEís intro much; it seemed like something you would see in a preview for a Disney movie. After that it was great, though. It is a very personal piece and it is much easier for me to get into reviews when they seem personal compared to random descriptions and bold claims. Venterís review had the opposite effect in the sense that the ending was kind of weak. It seemed to break down into sections and a lot of it didnít seem too relevant to me. Fortunately the rest of the review is among his best work. The ďAs a bad hombreÖĒ paragraph is particular is some of the best and most descriptive writing Iíve seen from Venter in a long time. Both pieces had areas that I think need some improvement but as a whole they both worked. Iím giving the nod to Venter because itís very rare to see such powerful writing on this site, but a great showing from DE as well. Heís been writing some great stuff this tourney so hopefully he can get a win in the near future.

DoI vs Beli

JEREC: [DoI's Star Ocean review wasn't linked - it was a bit late, but since I see no random pick in its place, that's what I'm judging.] And I remember this review! I read it recently when trying to find opinions on the game, and it was probably the only level-headed review I could find that wasn't either bashing the game or praising it. This review did an excellent job of convincing me that Star Ocean 4 had learned from the mistakes of the previous installment, and despite a few faults, it's still a good game. This review is actually the reason why I haven't been able to finish my own review yet, because everything I want to say is pretty much covered, except I actually like the story and characters a bit more than DoI did. Beli offers a pretty creative bash review, though it's a little rough around the edges and not quite as sharp as his more recent work. Still a solid, entertaining enough read. DoI has the edge here with the more interesting and more relevant review.
WINNER: DOI

LEWIS: DoI writes a confident and solid review here, one that could nestle away sweetly in a given games mag. But that's almost its problem, especially when faced with someone like Beli. By comparison, there's not enough personality here, and segments of it are overly wordy. Maybe this is me being an awful judge, but when I've 24 reviews to sift through usually in a single morning, one really needs to stand out to make me love it. Once again, a heavily stylised piece by Beli. I'd kind of like to see a different side to the writing, maybe. But, once again, it's abundantly witty and gives me a clear picture of what playing the game is like. Perhaps you don't need to mess with the formula, if it's a distinctive and largely successful one. Beli wins.

SPORTSMAN: Beli over DoI. Hilarious review from Bel, probably his most entertaining one so far in this tournament. I donít really care for reviews that use pictures but this one wasnít so bad because I could skip them. Lots of personality here. Very funny, short and to the point, and convinces me that this game sucks. I would like to see Bel attempt to go out of his comfort zone some time in this tourney but right now when heís in his element against second rounders heís pretty much unstoppable. DoIís review was solid though not spectacular. I think he tried to make it a bit too brief, and as a result didnít get out what made the great aspects so great. A lot of what he bragged about would up just soundingÖ ok to me I guess. Seemed like typical RPG stuff that hardly makes Star Ocean 4 a classic RPG. More descriptions and excitement are needed to fully believe his argument.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Janus at Boo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Janus vs boo

JEREC: Two bash reviews. Janus manages to tear his game apart without resorting to cursing, insults or any of it, he simply describes the game, how it got things wrong, and compares it to a similar iPhone game that got things right. It's a longish review, now that I look at it, but it never felt long-winded. Janus writes with an easy, accessible style that you just keep reading until you hit the end. No PC-clocking. Boo's review reminds me of various PSX vs N64 arguments I had in my youth. One of the points I remember making is that the PSX had a lot of garbage, stuff that was virtually unplayable. Boo seems to have stumbled upon one. The intro was a typical "how I bought this game" and some EmP manlove, which seems like the running in-joke on this site. Once that's done with, the review launches into swearing and ripping the game to shreds. But honestly, Boo, what were you expecting? This game sounds awful. I enjoyed this review, but I enjoyed Janus' more.
WINNER: JANUS

LEWIS: This is a highly competent and effective piece from Janus, one that I would happily see in a pro games mag. It's a fairly formal analysis, and I tend to like these a lot, particularly when they keep my attention as much as this one did. It does little wrong, though I suppose the only criticism I'd have is that there's not a whole lot about it that makes me sure it's a Janus review. Not in any way bad, though, this. Good work! Boo's, though... well, this is a spectacular, brilliant, fantastic, amusing, fantastic, spectacular piece. Or maybe I've just entered a competition that requires me to make you sound like a 10/10 guy? You'll never know. For the purposes of keeping up appearances, though, I'll say this made me laugh a lot, kept my attention throughout, and made me want to read it again. It's also overflowing with personality. Total 10/10 reviewing. Or is it all just a lie...? You'll never know, but for the sake of consistency (and because it deserves to), Boo's piece wins.

SPORTSMAN: Boo over Janus. Pretty sure I read this Boo piece before but liked it as much as I ever did. Props to him for actually sitting through this awful game, and the fact that he did made this one great. I can feel his pain going through each of the levels and canít believe that Sony actually let crap like this get published (this isnít an old NES game here). Great descriptions, great humor, great review. I couldnít get into this Janus review as much as his previous ones. I understand that the control is god-awful and nearly makes the game unplayable but to me it felt like he beat that point to death. A few paragraphs in my mind began to wander. It would be a lot more effective if it was a shorter piece that came in, made its point, and got out.

bbobb vs Esssspiga

JEREC: I'd been feeling fairly apathetic about judging this week. The reviews have been good, mostly, but it's taken a little more effort to stay interested and focused (mainly due to Tales of Monkey Island). But these two reviews... wow. This is one match where both reviewers have submitted excellent reviews. Dreamer's review is from 2005, but I can tell it's been updated recently, because the flow of sentences is near perfect, and I can almost visualise what it must be like to play the game. The reference to System Shock and Jedi Knight was a welcome one, too. His review is also shorter than the one I read last week, which makes me happy, though this review covers everything. Not a word seems to be wasted here. It's great writing. Keep it up. I've read Espiga's review before, and I know it's one of his better ones. I didn't have any trouble reading it again, because the concept is interesting, and the writing is awesome. The spiel on language in the intro walks that line between a hook opening and pretension, but at the moment I'm not sure which. These are both excellent reviews, and it's one of the harder calls I've had to make this week. I'm going to give this one to Dreamer, though. Gotta encourage this sort of improvement - though it's very close. And both reviews gave me the motivation I needed to keep going with this judging. Let's hope Disco and Woodhouse don't disappoint!
WINNER: DREAMER

LEWIS: This ends really abruptly, RD, which is a shame, as I was rather enjoying it up to that point. It's a strong review that isn't afraid to be assertive and isn't restricted by assuming the game will be the mere sum of its parts. But I can't get over that ending. It didn't feel ready to end. It's almost as if the clock ran out and you just sto Espiga's is a colourful, engaging and through piece, while still being fairly concise. It takes a lot of skill to achieve that, so good work. It's a little repetitive in its structure -- "this is good, too! And this is good, too!" -- but, in all, it's a successful piece that should serve you well here. It does for me, anyway. Esssspiga wins.

SPORTSMAN: Espiga over RD. I liked this Espiga review a lot more than his last one. Last weekís lacked passion, but in this one the passion came through. Maybe it was too short since Iím still not 100% sure of how this game works and what it is all about but I do know itís something special. The writing really pulled me in. Solid review from RD, unfortunately thatís all I can say about it. It isnít bad by any means but not an attention grabber, either. Espigaís passion alone makes his the more memorial piece of the two.

Disco vs Woodhouse

JEREC: And Disco and Woodhouse do not disappoint. Disco claims to be a street racer, and his enthusiasm for racing games, and PGR 2 in particular, is well conveyed, making this an incredibly enjoyable read for me, even though I am familiar with this game (I like it almost as much as Disco!). Great review. Makes me want to go back and give it a go, even though my mostly completed save file was lost with my original Xbox... I'd need to start over on the 360. The writing is fast paced, almost seems to match the tone of the game - something I find quite interesting with writing. Something I've been trying to emulate, myself. Woodhouse's review is another one of those DS games where you do stuff with the stylus. It's a solid review, and the game is quite interesting that it never lags. Some clever writing in there, such as "bullet-time with a scalpel". This is another close match, but Disco wins with the enthusiasm factor.
WINNER: DISCO

LEWIS: The best thing about Disco's review here is how prettily it all flows. Actually, that probably does it a disservice, since it's thorough and thoughtful too, but the flow is the most immediately striking. There were a couple of bits that broke the spell - one passive phrasing struck me as awkward, and one of the clauses in "if you're a beginner and new to the game" is redundant. But generally, it's written with the panache of the racing game described. Top work. This is a really tough match-up, though, since Woodhouse delivers an excellent account of Trauma Center. Again, it reads beautifully for the most part. But I wasn't so keen on the start of this one. Disco's introduction was fabulous, so unfortunately for his competitor, he gets the win.

SPORTSMAN: Woodhouse over Disco. Not a good matchup for Disco, as heís matched up with MVP candidate Woodhouse. There really isnít much I can say about Woodhouseís review without repeating what Iíve said in the past two weeks. He really knows his strengths and sticks to them. Mixing it up a little canít hurt but if he keeps on putting out quality reviews like these it probably isnít necessary. Another great Woodhouse review. Not a bad effort from Disco, itís a solid and enjoyable review for PGR2 and I like it better than mine, but heís mismatched here against a much more experienced reviewer who is on fire so far. Hopefully he gets a better matchup next week because he doesnít deserve to go 0-3.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suskie at Will
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zippdementia vs Suskie

JEREC: The Tale of Menji in Zipp's review is quite amusing. This sounds like an annoying game, though it was still fascinating to read about even though we're told right from the outset that this game isn't much good. I loved the comparison between what Zipp wanted his character to be, and what it really was. The final line of the review is clever, and it made me grin. Zipp did almost lose me in the intro with finding Satan's toenails at a pawn shop. That seemed completely untrue and not even vaguely amusing, but that's pretty much the only low point in an otherwise fantastic review. The Colossus himself, Suskie, reviews Shadow of the Colossus, a game I found incredibly annoying for the same reasons Suskie did. This is another great review from Suskie. I've read a few reviews for this game before, it's a favourite for reviewers trying to sound pretentious with the games are art angle, much like ICO. Suskie agrees that the game is epic, but it's just not enjoyable. Every point is nailed perfectly, convincingly and he's quite fair to the game, too. These are two excellent reviews, and it's hard to pick a winner. I like it when this happens, because it feels like a true contest when I have to actually vote for one of these reviews over the other. Well, it looks like Satan's toenail brought more damnation for Zipp, as he loses to Suskie... by a toenail.
WINNER: SUSKIE

LEWIS: Top marks for using the word "menagerie", Zipp! I don't care for the intro here, though. I'm generally not bothered about how you came to be in posession of a game. But I do like your illustrative style, broken by sections of analysis. And it's an engaging read throughout. Trimmed up, this could be really excellent, but there does seem to be a little filler from time to time. An interesting review from Suskie. It's of a game I've never played but always wanted to; one that most people I know absolutely adore. But you make it clear why you take this slightly negative stance, while still acknowledging why, it seems, you're in the minority. Shadow does seem to be a beautiful game, a triumphant epic, but you approach it from a transparently different angle, and that works well. It's also one of the better written reviews of the round, with a delightful flow and a fantastic yet modest writerly style. So Suskie wins.

SPORTSMAN: Suskie over Zipp. Good matchup, I actually had to think about which review Iím going to pick for a few minutes (I usually know what review Iím going to pick after reading both of them). Both reviews have a similar approach, which is using personal experiences in the game to illustrate a point. Zippís was the more interesting read of the two. Aside from a few bad jokes it was a fast-paced and exciting read. It was longish but my mind didnít even almost wander. Suskieís wasnít as exciting but his conversational tone is what really sold me into his argument. It was like having a conversation with him on SotC. Everything was crystal clear and Iím completely convinced due to the fantastic illustrations of how the game works. Sometimes Zipp left me guessing on what to make out of a passage. I dig this (increasingly popular!) storytelling approach both authors decided to use though it is important to make sure the actual review always remains strong. Although Zippís was the more entertaining of the two is Suskieís voice ultimately remained stronger than his opponent which is what made me pick him. Nice job both of you.

Sashanan vs Aschultz

JEREC: Battle of the old timers who like their old games! Okay, no beating around the bush with this one. Sashanan gets the win here. His game is the less interesting of the two, but the review is shorter, very nicely written, and didn't make me look at my PC clock. Schultz did, however. The review goes into perhaps too much depth with this game, and I could barely stop my mind from wandering. There's a two paragraph diversion in here, or what seems like one, on the series formula, which itself is several paragraphs into the review, and it didn't do anything to help me focus.
WINNER: SASHANAN

LEWIS: This is an okay effort from Sashanan, but probably a mostly forgettable one. The standard of this round has risen rapidly, so I find myself being overly critical perhaps - but I'd stick by that. It's a review that does its job, but not a lot more; and I find myself wanting to rework the structure and thin the hairs a little. Nothing remotely *wrong* with it, but, y'know. There's a lot of focus on the details by Aschultz, making it a difficult entry to judge. Many will enjoy the in-depth look at seemingly inconsequential aspects of the game (although 'Schultz does well to ensure we understand why they're important) but others will turn off. I sit somewhere in the middle. Either way, it's saved by a solid writing style and excellent introduction, which could only benefit from an earlier explanation of what Tarq actually is. I know by the end, but it's probably best to explain the first time you mention it. A tight one, but Schultz just sneaks in a late winner. Or something.

SPORTSMAN: Schultz over Sashanan. Aww, I was hoping for reviews for C64 and Apple 2 games. Oh well. Schultz couldíve seriously cut out a lot of the first few paragraphs as it really began to drag but once he got going it was an interesting read and better than last week. Great flow and organization plus his most interesting topic thus far. Sash seemed like he was into the review at first but halfway through ran out of steam. It started off with plenty of personality that slowly left as the review progressed. First half was great but second half read like a Gamespot review. The info was there, but not a very engaging subject compared to Schultzís

WillTheGreat vs True

JEREC: Far too many technical details, Will. I can learn this stuff if I get the game and read the manual, or start playing it for myself. The review starts out very good, though. The concept is fascinating, and Will's enthusiasm for the game shines through. I had to skim the paragraphs around the middle, because I don't care about how many maneuvers a type of ship can make, etc. True finds middle ground on the Assassin's Creed debate, and makes a very convincing argument. The good and bad parts of the game are explained in a fair manner, there's no blind fanboy hype here, and no bashing. It leans on the side of this being a game worth playing, and I feel convinced. Not convinced enough to go out and buy it, but, you know. Only because I have enough damn games to play.
WINNER: TRUE

LEWIS: I'm not sure whether Will's big bulk of text explaining in such detail about where the genre's name came from is entirely necessary. I do like your challenging the reader with... something... in the first sentence. But is it really a "test"? I don't know. After that shaky opening, though, this is tremendously thorough, and pleasant to read. My problem with it is that it lacks a certain enthusiasm I'd expect to see, given your overwhelmingly positive conclusion. It's very descriptive, but if you love the game that much, I'd have thought I'd see that coming across more in your writing and quality analysis. True delivers a rather nice piece, an elegant collection of illustrative passages that portray the game fabulously. It really offers a glimpse into what playing the game is like, and provides some lovely reasons as to why both sides of the Creed argument have a point. I've not played the game, yet I feel like I understand it a little better for having read this. The sentence structure could probably do to be jumbled up a bit more, and I'd probably like to see something a little more stylistic, but that's nitpicking. Generally excellent stuff, so True wins.

SPORTSMAN: True over Will. Willís review had some great info and really made some aspects of the game sound cool but I wasnít feeling the 10/10 score. The whole review wasnít enthusiastic and there were too many technical descriptions. It all seemed a bit bloated and I began skimming the paragraphs since the length of them and explanation of the gameplay mechanics was making me tune out. In this case itís probably better to focus on a few awesome aspects and explain why it makes the game so great rather than going through the basics of everything. Not a perfect piece by True, either. I loved ĺ of the review, but it didnít read like a 7/10 review at all. The one paragraph dealing with repetition didnít really convince me and saying that the first 5 out of 9 levels are amazing and the end is fantastic did not help his case. So what does that mean, two hours out of 10 or so arenít so great? With 8 completely awesome hours this doesnít seem like much of a negative to me. True shouldíve fleshed out this idea more with either more descriptions or examples of how the repetition ruins what wouldíve been a classic game because the ďtrust me, it gets repetitive!Ē argument really doesnít work since he made the rest of the game sound so aweeome (even though Iíve played the game and agree). Iím still going to give True the win because his review was fast-paced and more enthusiastic, which made it the easier one to get into.

RESULTS

---------------------------------

Team Dagoss vs Team Felix 1-2

Wolfqueen vs Felix 1-2
Dagoss vs Zigfried 0-3
Vorty vs Randxian 2-1

---------------------------------

Team EmP vs Team Overdrive 1-2

EmP vs OD 2-1
DE vs Venter 0-3
DoI vs Beli 1-2

---------------------------------

Team Janus vs Team Boo 1-2

Janus vs boo 1-2
bbobb vs Esssspiga 1-2
Disco vs Woodhouse 2-1

---------------------------------

Team Will vs Team Suskie 0-3

Zippdementia vs Suskie 0-3
Sashanan vs Aschultz 1-2
WillTheGreat vs True 0-3

---------------------------------

LEADERBOARDS

Team Leaderboard

Individual Leaderboard


I can avoid death by not having a life.


board icon
Author: JANUS2
Posted: July 13, 2009 (12:05 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Well done for winning disco. Sorry it counts for nothing.


"fuck yeah oblivion" - Jihad


board icon
Author: aschultz
Posted: July 13, 2009 (12:00 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Wow...I'm the low-scorer on my team again this week!

But seriously, nice job putting this together. I've tried to keep my KB count low but it looks like I have some work to do with making things flow. I was up against a tough opponent and review, too--heck, he introduced me to the game and I loved it.

I think the judges are doing very well with going beyond up/down, and if it takes an hour extra, that is worth it. Winning not being everything and such. It's fun to read all the critiques and try to plan ahead for the next opponent.

...besides, I got a bit of cleaning done waiting for this, so that was useful for me!


My principal said, 'Emo, Emo, Emo.'
I said 'I'm the one in the middle, you lousy drunk!'
-- Emo Phillips


board icon
Author: jerec
Posted: July 13, 2009 (12:07 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Disco's victory puts your team a spot above Will's team, so not quite nothing.


I can avoid death by not having a life.


board icon
Author: honestgamer (Mod)
Posted: July 13, 2009 (12:11 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Thanks for the feedback, judges... and for the win for both me and my team! Now to win next week... :-D


"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy on reality

"What if everything you see is more than what you see--the person next to you is a warrior and the space that appears empty is a secret door to another world? What if something appears that shouldn't? You either dismiss it, or you accept that there is much more to the world than you think. Perhaps it really is a doorway, and if you choose to go inside, you'll find many unexpected things." - Shigeru Miyamoto


board icon
Author: randxian
Posted: July 13, 2009 (12:47 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Wow, I should've used a better review against a some guy who isn't even participating.

Glad to see hard work and effort pays off.


I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?


board icon
Author: sashanan
Posted: July 13, 2009 (12:56 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Looking good, congrats to the winners!


''Yes, yes...but apart from all that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?''


board icon
Author: True
Posted: July 13, 2009 (12:51 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Well fought, Will. I wasn't sure where the victory would lie after reading your review, and then gambling on such a well known game. You made me nervous, so you should at least be rewarded for that.

Jerec, Lewis and Sporty...spice (ha ha ha ha): As always, you guys went above and beyond, and be it good or bad, I love to here what you have to say. I'm inspired to make my next review exciting for you, and hopefully help Jerec shake some of that grungy apathy. And Sportsman, I'm sorry if that name sticks... It just came out; a random babble induced by an overwhelming sense of euphoria for winning.


If I Offended You, You Needed It.


board icon
Author: overdrive (Mod)
Posted: July 13, 2009 (01:19 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

I'm glad I have great teammates! Currently, we're in the playoffs despite me only contributing three votes in three separate 2-1 losses. Which is great for two reasons:

1. I'm in a writing-binge mood right now and it's good to know that me blasting out AND USING new reviews in this competition isn't hurting the team. You'll get another brand new one next week.

2. With the second-round pick being 3-0, the first-round pick being 2-1 and me being 0-3....it's getting to the point where NOBODY can say anything about the way I pick my match-ups. After all, over here, this is the heart of baseball season and in that league, big-name players who don't perform get demoted and young guns rising to the occasion get promoted. I guarantee that Beli will be rising to the occasion and if I don't start performing, I'll be demoting myself.


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


board icon
Author: Halon
Posted: July 13, 2009 (01:42 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

It's almost 4 am but I can't sleep so here I am:

Rand - Vorty isn't just a random reviewer who happened to stumble across this site one day and sign up. He has hundreds of reviews to his name and has been in countless past TT's and competitions. In the matter of fact he was on the winning team in 2005. Being new to this and all I wouldn't let any loss get to you. Yes he is using older reviews and not trying to put anything new out and this might hurt him in the long run. I see the people who are putting effort into this and those who are not and believe me this does influence my decision. I don't judge this how I would judge a normal competition where I would give a score from 0-100. A writer's improvement and effort plays a key role in my decisions.

True - I don't really care haha. I hate the name Sportsman as it is. When I first came across the reviewer's forum on GameFAQs in 2002 I posted under the name sportsman30 and it kinda stuck and when arriving at HG I didn't want to change it and confuse anyone.


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


board icon
Author: WilltheGreat
Posted: July 13, 2009 (02:05 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Congratulations to Team Suskie for a well-earned victory. Win or lose, it was an honour to go up against you gentlemen. (b^_^)b


"Either, sir, you're an ass or you're masquerading as one."
- Nero Wolfe


board icon
Author: bluberry
Posted: July 13, 2009 (02:51 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

thanks again for the effort, judges. good match Team J, especially Disco.


Oh no, it's a Goomba!


board icon
Author: Lewis
Posted: July 13, 2009 (03:03 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

I'm not sure I understand, Randaxian.


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.


board icon
Author: True
Posted: July 13, 2009 (03:58 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

I hate the name Sportsman as it is.

It's better than DragonForceFan111, which is almost what I called myself, so I'd say it's cool. You're so well known on here you could probably change it like Bbobb or Felix did and get away with it. I vote for something morbid, like Nightmare, or Black Phoenix.


If I Offended You, You Needed It.


board icon
Author: zigfried (Mod)
Posted: July 13, 2009 (05:41 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Thanks (as always) to the judges for their time and effort. And I'm glad to have abandoned that "zero wins" record!

@Lewis: It was a simple copy/paste and a bit of tweaking to make the paragraphs after the fake score look right. But then I decided to start messing with images and... it kind of got more complicated.

//Zig


Unlimited Zig Works!


board icon
Author: woodhouse
Posted: July 13, 2009 (07:07 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Excellent commentary as usual, judges. Great job, disco. Congrats.


Buy -> Opium!


board icon
Author: EmP (Mod)
Posted: July 13, 2009 (11:41 AM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

I'll belittle and berate my unfortunate teammates, but I beat arch nemesis OD, so all is well.

Good job, gang. Obligitory judge kudos goes here.


For us. For them. For you.


board icon
Author: Suskie
Posted: July 13, 2009 (05:16 PM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

HEY BOO'S TEAM, STOP HOGGING ALL THE WINS TO YOURSELF


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


This message was deleted at the request of randxian, the person who originally posted it.

board icon
Author: zippdementia
Posted: July 13, 2009 (05:51 PM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

I tip my non-existent hat to Suskie for his win. Hopefully we'll see you in the finals and I'll get another shot.


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


board icon
Author: randxian
Posted: July 13, 2009 (05:54 PM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Sports and Lewis - Most of my frustration stems from the fact I'm not sure what you're looking for. I'm almost getting the impression style, tightness, and flow are the most important elements, and actual game information and analysis are just afterthoughts.

Okay, I understand you want reviews that flow well and are easy to follow, but when I see reviews that are barely reviews getting points, then I'm completely confused. I don't just mean one or two isolated incidents.

Are we supposed to submit reviews of video games, or does that not matter as long as the writing is good? I honestly have no clue anymore.


I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?


board icon
Author: zippdementia
Posted: July 13, 2009 (06:11 PM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Randxian, I would say definitely not the case! See my review, which won in style but lost based on information.

The trick is to have such a perfect blend of the two that not even the imperfect art of judging can vote otherwise. Thus Suskie's well deserved and hard won straight shot with no votes against this tournament.

And I'm not being sarcastic or ornery. It's truly my advice, and what I'll be striving for in new reviews I write.


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


board icon
Author: Halon
Posted: July 13, 2009 (06:12 PM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Rand: If there was a perfect reviewing method then there would be no reason to have a competition, since once people get it down they're perfect. It's like learning to add and subtract. Once you know how to do it you can get the problem right every time assuming there are no careless mistakes.

Your best bet is to take the judge's feedback and try to improve in those areas for next week. Also try reading some of the reviews that did well this week to get a feel for what to do and what not to do. In particular I liked the pieces by Suskie, Venter, Bluberry and EmP. Zigfried's was also brilliant but his style can be intimidating for the more inexperienced. Reading the weekly review of the week topics can't hurt, either.


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


board icon
Author: jerec
Posted: July 13, 2009 (07:08 PM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

And it's actually quite rare that all three of us agree on something.


I can avoid death by not having a life.


board icon
Author: randxian
Posted: July 13, 2009 (08:21 PM)
Actions: Register for a free user account to post on the forums...

Good point. I guess that's just the way it goes.


I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?


Additional Messages (Groups of 25)

[01] [02]


Info | Help | Privacy Policy | Contact | Links

eXTReMe Tracker
© 1998-2014 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party.Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors. Staff and freelance reviews are typically written based on time spent with a retail review copy or review key for the game that is provided by its publisher.