Forums > Contributor Zone > WEEK 4 RESULTS - Blame Lewis Again! ...and timezones.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Felix vs. Overdrive
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OD vs Felix

JEREC: These two reviews could not be more different. Overdrive reviews a bad GBA game which is ruined by how dull and easy it is. I'm fairly familiar with the Gauntlet series, and Overdrive is right. It's a multiplayer experience. My friends and I would have good fun with Gauntlet Legends on the N64, but none of us liked the game AT ALL if we played it alone. I chuckled at the transition between paragraph's 2 and 3. Very clever. Overdrive's writing is very easy to read, even when I could tell this game isn't worth playing by seeing what system it's on, I still wanted to read the whole thing. Felix reviews Fallout 3, giving it a 10, and saying pretty much everything I would also say about the game. I'm glad this isn't one of those reviews that goes on and on, because there is a lot of stuff to talk about in this game. Felix picks a few things about the game he likes, and manages to sell the game based on that. Both are very good reviews, and it's hard to objectively say which of these is better, due to them being so different. In the end, though, my familiarity with Fallout 3 (having put 200 hours or more into it), made the review a little less interesting for me to read than Overdrive's. But it was a close one.
WINNER: OVERDRIVE

LEWIS: A strong effort from Overdrive. But I think it’s one I’ll struggle to remember. There’s nothing that really grabbed me and drew me into this piece. Reading it thoroughly, it’s clear there’s a lot of effort into the content here, which I’ll concede is obviously the most important thing. But it’s almost as important to convey that content well. It’s coherent and cohesive enough – it just doesn’t sparkle.
Felix’s Fallout 3 review is a really stunning read. It conveys such enthusiasm about the game from start to finish. It’s sort of the opposite of what OD’s could have done with. Convey your feelings through the tone of the writing, y’know? It works strikingly better than methodically explaining why something is or isn’t good. Anyway, to make stuff even better, Felix *does* explain why it’s so good. But he does it with such incredible consideration for emotional impact (particularly with his introduction) that I imagine if I didn’t understand a single bit of the content, and didn’t glance at the score, I’d still have a pretty good understanding of how wonderful the game is. Felix wins.

SPORTSMAN: OD over Felix. This is another case of the more consistent review (OD) versus the one with more highs and more lows (Felix). OD delivers a very enjoyable bash. I like it when his reviews are based on personal experiences rather than the typical by the book perspective he has been using as of late. This always seems to be the more powerful approach to me. I wouldn’t call this OD’s very best bash and it wasn’t as ruthless as it could’ve been but it was a smooth and enjoyable read that was probably my favorite OD review in the tourney thus far. There were some parts of Felix’s review that I loved and some parts that left me kind of disappointed. I’ve literally played this game for about 35 hours in the past two and a half weeks or so and can say he really nailed the atmospheric aspects and made the setting sound like something spectacular. However a lot of the other bits just sounded… good to me. It turned into more of a laundry list and became more focused on many smaller aspects instead of what makes them great. Fallout 3 didn’t reinvent the formula with its premise but rather with its execution. What I’m trying to say (it’s 4am!) is that I was left wanted to be convinced that some aspects stand out above the rest instead of being told about their presence. Ironically I was brainstorming a review of my own for this game Wednesday night and encountered a similar problem. This was a close match that could go either way but I’m picking OD because although Felix’s is probably more memorable I’m not quite sure if he completely succeeded in completing his objective.

Venter vs Zigfried

JEREC: Venter's review almost reads like a Zig review. It's very descriptive, an engaging read, and it tries something a little different with the usual review formula. This review reads like it was written specifically to face against Zig. The "one handed play style" dig at the genre made me grin. One question, why is there a paragraph after we've made the choice to stop reading? I read it anyway, but it seemed a line like that might have worked best at the very end of the review. I'm never familiar with these sorts of games, so Zig can pretty much tell me whatever he wants and I'll likely believe it. Unfortunately, we're treated to an analysis of the hentai genre, a page into the review, we're introduced to a game. Is that what Zig's here to review? No. Not at all. This is actually a review of a fan disk that seems more like an expansion. Yes, it seems interesting, and it might have been necessary to have almost 2 pages of build up (well written build up, at least), and then the rest of the review talks about some puzzle game. I honestly don't know what to make of this. I quite enjoyed reading it, but now that I think back, that whole hospital scene described early in the review probably isn't even relevant. Or is it? I have no idea. This must have been an odd title to review, because it's certainly odd to read about. You know what? I think Venter may have out-Zigged Zig.
WINNER: VENTER

LEWIS: Aha – a hentai direct contest! Venter’s strongest outing of the competition so far. Some may call it a gimmick, but it’s a very clever gimmick that works in conveying a particular message about the game. It’s also not too intrusive, which I like, and is very much an HonestGamers review – it’s clever, aspires to something slightly different from the norm, it’s well-written and thorough. It’s very nice indeed.
I think Zig could probably have done to trim the introduction a little bit. It’s a clever reveal, but it’s already taken a little time to get to the point, and I think that same point could have been made more concisely with a little more thought and care. Be your own harshest editor! This theme kind of runs all the way through: it’s a bit choppy, a little unconscious of the readership. Or maybe that readership just wasn’t supposed to be someone with as short an attention span as me. There’s some good stuff here, but I think it’s a bit clouded, so Venter wins.

SPORTSMAN: Zig over Venter. Props to Zig for writing a Hentai review that didn’t focus on the sex. Usually you get walked through some person’s (usually disturbing) sexual fantasies or encounters and are left with a dirty impression on the game but here I’m left thinking that this is actually a damn good game. Who would’ve known that there’s more than sex to these games? The problem I had with Venter’s is underneath the gimmick it was a pretty uninspired review. It seems like it was trying to cover the fact that he was completely uninterested in the review. Venter’s piece last week was full of excitement and personality but this one was dry and seemed like he really didn’t want to write it. It’s a decent look at the game for those interested and I did think the gimmick was cool for the first half of the review but Zig seemed far more into his piece and actually made the game sound interesting so he gets the win and title of the round’s token pervert. GABOOOOON!!!

BELISARIOS vs Randxian

JEREC: I remember reading a Castle Crashers review that tried to make this game sound exciting and a whole lot of fun, but it wasn't really convincing. BELI's is convincing, though. This one seems a little more organised and planned than the usual BELIRAMBLE, but it still has that fast-paced energy to the writing, and the game seems to come alive as I read about it. Randaxian's review is a very solid read, and a fairly smooth one, too. I normally find reviews of these sorts of shooters to be DULL, but that was not the case here. I was quite interested in this, whether it's due to the subject matter or Rand's rather vivid descriptions, I can't really say. Probably both! This was looking like a fairly close match, with BELI looking like the winner, until I read this line... "This seductress produces tiny demonic babies faster than a high school cheerleading squad." I laughed out loud. And I kept laughing for longer than I would have expected. I smile and smirk at jokes in reviews from time to time, but I rarely find myself laughing like this. Humour like this turned an incredibly close match in Rand's favour, here.
WINNER: RANDAXIAN

LEWIS: Belisarios needs to be careful not to fall into the trap of assuming it’s more about the writer than the product. It’s safe for now, but something to think about. The intro to this piece in particular takes the stream-of-consciousness thing and runs with it, to the point where you’re finding yourself saying “Anyway…” within just a few sentences. If you feel yourself having to snap your writing back on track, you should probably delete and re-write, as you’re essentially making an admission that you’ve gone off-target. Celebration of videogames stuff is strong. But I’d shuffle your format a little in the future to keep us on our toes.
Randaxian’s offering, he’ll be pleased to hear from the guy who keeps rating him down, is his strongest yet. By quite some way. It’s amusing, but the humour is never to the detriment of explaining the game carefully and effectively. Me? I’d edit out some stuff that seems slightly unnecessary (“dirty pervert” sounds a bit playground… can you not think of a more mature synonym that still fits the humorous style?), but really, this is getting much stronger. Strong enough for a win, anyway. Randaxian emerges triumphant.

SPORTSMAN: Rand over Beli. Two good praise reviews that made their games sound special. This is definitely Rand’s best review yet. The writing is not as good as Beli’s but his smoothest read thus far and the whole piece seems completely convincing and from the heart . This was much more accessible than last week’s and the fact that he was into it made me interested as well. Nice review from Beli as well but it the problem I have with it is I feel he overdid it. It seemed like he tried too hard to be funny or insightful and it wasn’t necessary. Beli is a naturally funny guy and great writer and he’s at his best when the reviews come natural to him. This one seems a bit overdone, and Rand gets the win because his is the more honest piece of the two.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Janus vs. Suskie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Janus vs Suskie

JEREC: I never much cared for the Call of Duty series, but the way Janus writes about this one, I find the subject matter at least interesting, and also see how it's not that fun, even if the message of war seems like something different. When Janus was describing the cutscenes and tone of the game, I was wondering if it was any fun. "Not really." It's a very convincing argument, and even though I'm not familiar with the series, I feel like I know how this one compares to the others, which is what a CoD fan really wants to know. Suskie continues to deliver awesome reviews. Eternal Darkness is a game I've owned for years, but never gotten that far with. That's going to change, because Suskie has drawn me back into the game so effectively, I want to actually get up right now and play it, rather than finish the judging. There are some 10/10 reviews out there that can do this, but they are quie rare. Suskie's love and experience with this game really becomes apparent. He knows exactly why this game is so great, how it works on levels other survival horror games don't. The writing itself is so smooth that I read from start to finish without even looking away. Janus' review was good, but Suskie's was even better!
WINNER: SUSKIE

LEWIS: Janus pens a mature and considered review that taps into World at War on a somewhat deeper level than most. The introduction is a clever play on what the game itself does: present something that’s going to grab attention and then provoke further thought. That’s a good way to take it, and something we could all probably do to pay attention to. A strong outing here.
Suskie’s is a really strong offering, as well, so it’s a tough one to judge. It segues neatly between the fourth-wall-breaking shocks, into more concrete stuff about the game, and then into enthusiastic love-lettering about various smaller aspects. It’s a really good read about a game I remember being thoroughly impressed by. There’s very little to fault with either of these, but I find myself siding slightly more with Janus, if only for the introduction. Even though Suskie’s was good too. But, man. This is one of the strongest match-ups so far. Janus wins, but only by a hair’s breadth.

SPORTSMAN: Suskie over Janus. After reading Suskie’s review I can almost guarantee that I’ll hate Eternal Darkness. Regardless I really want to play it. I don’t really know what to say about these Suskie reviews anymore. This isn’t my favorite Suskie piece of the tournament and some parts might’ve seemed a little bit too melodramatic but it’s another fantastic review. I enjoyed Janus’ review as well, a lot more than last week’s. The problem is when I was done I had the “that’s it?” feeling. It felt incomplete to me, as if there was another point he was going to make or something. However I read his blog post about not mentioning Nazi Zombies and multiplayer and I’m glad he didn’t mention it because that would’ve killed the focus and flow of the review. Not a bad effort overall by Janus that probably would’ve beaten the majority of reviews this round. Suskie’s really bringing his best here and if someone wants to beat him they need to really step up their game and go over and above.

Radical Dreamer vs True

JEREC: Dreamer's review is very heavy in places, filled with all the FPS jargon that FPS players know, explaining the various moves and how they benefit the game (fine!)... and telling me the keystrokes (noooo!). But even for a review of some Half Life mod, this one is full of enthusiasm, and that line early on about our favourite games being the hardest to write about rings true with me. The final paragraph in particular was very good, and it really justifies the 10, that even long after this game has lost popularity, the fans will still return to it. True's review starts out very interesting, describing a game's story that is actually quite compelling. The review gets bogged down in moves and button presses, which become even more tiresome than the one's in Dreamer's review. I don't need to know which button to press to use which move. I'm not playing the game, and when I do, it'll all be there in the manual. Dreamer's review comes off as the stronger of the two reviews here.
WINNER: RADICAL DREAMER

LEWIS: I really like RadicalDreamer’s piece. It’s a retrospective overflowing with nostalgic admiration for something that shaped its writer as a player and lover of videogames. Illustrative, glowing and fresh, it’s exactly the sort of thing I look for in write-ups of older games. A new perspective, the benefit of hindsight, and – well – just absolute adoration for the game in question. It shines through beautifully, so you shine as well.
Amazingly, someone’s just subbed a Heavenly Sword retro to Resolution. Ha! So I’ve already done a fair bit of reading about this one today. True’s is strong too. Man, you’re all making it super-difficult for us judges this week. I like how expressive this is in painting a picture of the game you’re conveying. I think it stumbles a little around a third of the way through, though, with a convoluted “questions” paragraph, and then a slightly clunky drop into plain analysis. Which is, of course, useful – but when you’ve set that sort of precedent in your introduction you need to keep up the pace and maintain the tone. As such, though this is good, RadicalDreamer wins.

SPORTSMAN: RD over True. Awesome matchup guys, as these were probably my two favorite reviews of the round. I’ve never heard of True’s game before which made me feel kind of unfortunate that awesome games are slipping by me this generation. True’s always had the charisma and energy to write a great review but usually got bogged down with technical problems. In this tourney those technical problems don’t exist anymore. Great energy, fantastic descriptions and an all around excellent review. RD’s piece is equally as impressive. I wasn’t sure how well the best game of all time review would work out because they usually don’t match up to their claims but this one surely did. It also makes me wish I tried the game out back when it was big and I was too busy playing Science & Industry and the god-awful Counterstrike. It is not easy to write for multiplayer games since a lot of it is community based and it’s tough to convey that to writing without rambling on forever but this one nailed it. I am completely convinced that this mod is deep and enjoyable. Although both deserve to win in my book I have to pick one and am going with RD here because he made the bigger claim and delivered just as well as True.

Disco1960 vs ASchultz

JEREC: I thought this review looked familiar, but then I knew for sure when I read the line about the box (who is known as being a big liar). This is from Alpha 07, and I gave it a 70. I enjoyed it a bit more than I did that time, thanks to a few fixes I did notice. The review seems shorter than I remember it being, and is a smoother read as a result. Schultz once again goes for that over detail that the other two judges usually respond well to, but I found myself getting bored rather quickly.
WINNER: DISCO

LEWIS: Disco’s reminds me of a conversation I had at Develop with a fellow games journo, who was talking about… oh, the details aren’t important, but basically: a child saying “I got the game because the box said it would be good, but it lied!” So this kind of triggered me to think about that too. I think it’s a worthwhile approach to take, and even if it is used primarily for a humorous focal point for the review, it does work. There’s an informal style to this one, and I think that works too – it’s difficult to talk about mediocre games sometimes (a four or five is that horrible ‘meh’ mark to justify), but this is nice.
Aschultz has really nailed the flow of this piece. Everything runs smoothly from the previous area, the segues are neat and unintrusive, and nothing jumps out as a big shift in tone or content. That’s really useful when maintaining reader attention. Structurally, it’s actually pretty straightforward – description, the good, the bad, the conclusion – but you can’t really tell, because it feels like that’s the way it was intended; like that was the only logical way to present the argument. This is really good. Aschultz wins.

SPORTSMAN: Schultz over Disco. Similar to Beli’s review Disco is suffering from the case of trying too hard. I normally like Disco’s light-hearted approach but here he went too far. It seemed like he was always trying to be funny and while I appreciate the effort too many jokes and one liners fell flat. The whole conclusion didn’t make much sense to me, either. I think the problem here was the material was bland so Disco relied on jokes to make it interesting. Some of it was interesting and it was a solid read but overall it’s a huge step back from his PGR2 and Dreamfall reviews. Schultz’s review wasn’t his best and really didn’t make the game sound as good as he wanted it to but his voice is credible and it came across as the more honest piece of the two.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Boo vs. EmP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EmP vs Bluberry

JEREC: Oh please no. Please no. No no no no no no no. I declare no one the winner, and I subtract 1000 points from both of you. ...I suppose I should actually read the reviews. Okay. I tried to read EmP's, but I got bored very, very quickly. If I can get further through Boo's review before wanting to stab my eyes out with a fork, he wins. Let's see. Okay, I didn't get very far into Boo's, either. But I got further. I know I'm being a terrible judge here, but holy fuck Metal Slug is the most boring series to read about. EmP's going on about how we expect it to be a bad game and apparently lives up to those expectations - earning a 7, while Boo talks about how the game is competent, so it at least seems decent, and it gets a 4. I don't understand either review very well because reading either one is a painful experience. Fix ruined this series for everyone, guys. Fix, and the many others who wrote flowery reviews for this series to the extent that I can't even take it seriously anymore. It's about a fucking soldier who shoots stuff. Is it any good? Yes or no. The problem I have at this point is that I can't even decide which review should win here because I didn't read much of either. I guess I'll have to give both reviews another chance to redeem themselves... Fuck, I hate you both for doing this. Okay, I sorta skimmed through the rest of EmP's review. It seems to make a little more sense than Boo's, and seems to poke fun at the incredibly insane expectations fans have for the series, so he gets the win. Lesser of two evils or something. Fuck. I was even going to try and judge a whole bunch of stuff right now, but I'm gonna have to take a few hours break because I'm gonna be too damn annoyed to read the next reviews fairly.
DIDN'T LOSE AS MUCH: EMP

LEWIS: I’m totally put off by EmP’s opening sentence. Well, I’m not, because I know him, and know it’s just his sense of humour. And kind of mine too, unprofessionally. But the point is: this is a review on a games website that’s largely not going to be read by people who understand that. Sure, it’s obviously a joke, but it’s a crass one to make so early on. Others might find it courageously so, but to me… I dunno. I’d be careful with that sort of stuff. But actually, this is a strong review once that opening questionability’s out of the way. And I do like EmP’s sense of humour that runs through the entire piece (slight aside: I really like the way EmP jumps out of the main bulk of text to say something really short and snappy from time to time. Works exceptionally). So, yeah. It’s good.
Metal… wait. What the fuck? Man, there’s some careful match-ups this week. Am I missing something? Are we running to a theme? I’m not keen on Bluberry’s review, anyway. There’s nothing particularly remarkable about it. Unfortunately, the “competency” thing is kind of what springs to mind here too. It’s alright. It needs to be more thorough – and I don’t necessarily mean longer, it’s worth saying – and more striking. As it is, it’s one I probably won’t remember, even though it’s not at all a bad effort. EmP wins.

SPORTSMAN: Boo over EmP. EmP’s review read like your typical Metal Slug review would: fast-paced, level descriptions that try to convey the game’s intensity, long sentences with big words, etc. First we have the random intro, then the game’s wackiness, some level descriptions, the negative catch, and conclusion. It certainly worked and I’m glad I read it since I’m interested in the title but after all these years this formula seems kind of dated and tired. It’s almost as if the review was straight from the 2004-2005 era when everyone tried to copy that style (myself included). It just isn’t as exciting today. I think EmP knew this and hoped the matchup would be a lesser of two evils designed to piss the judges off, but unfortunately for him Boo took the far superior and fresher approach. This definitely isn’t the most polished review he’s used in this tourney but he manages to get his point across clearly without the typical Metal Slug template. I’m convinced that the title is a competent game but a bad Metal Slug game. Kudos to these two for both managing to pull off two Metal Slug reviews; when me and Boo tried to do the same with God of War two years back he wound up reviewing Doom and I came up with nothing at all.

Dark Eternal vs Woodhouse

JEREC: DE's review stumbles around the place, especially in that introduction that I can't make any sense of, even after reading it twice. There's also mass confusion every time he uses a hyphen... there's a space on either side of it, which means that the mind does not automatically connect the two words, leading to even more confusion. The writing itself was fairly bland and uninteresting, despite the interesting game. When DE told me to get my mind out of the gutter, I clicked back. I was not thinking anything of the sort, despite the implications in the text. Don't ever blame the reader for thinking dirty thoughts when you don't know for certain if they are. Woodhouse wins. Oh? I have to read Woodhouse's review first? Okay.Woodhouse's review has the usual smooth writing which allows me to see exactly what the game is about, what it's like to play, and this one does sound interesting. I almost even share Woodhouse's frustration at the game solving some things for him. I know that would annoy me.
WINNER: WOODHOUSE

LEWIS: “Let us speak of Shadowrun.” Well, yes, DarkEternal, it’s a Shadowrun review. Come on. Harshest editor. Be that editor. Chop the irrelevant or superfluous. I think this is all just a little bit clumsy and unrefined. It needs a good going over with a bit editorial stick; it needs reshuffling; it needs sections fancied up a little bit. Find a style. Present that style solidly throughout, and ensure you’ve your argument in your head before you start writing. It gets better as it goes along, which for me is a sign that you should have started over once you found your flow.
Woodhouse’s is an example of what I mean by being through without being lengthy. This is a really good piece. The intro is striking, but the review proper gets going quickly enough that there’s enough time to expand on everything sufficiently. It identifies the most important aspects of the game and discusses them, without feeling the need to go into all the peripheral stuff that no one other than the fools worries about. It’s neat, tidy and pleasant to read, so Woodhouse wins.

SPORTSMAN: DE over Woodhouse. Good review from Woodhouse and being a math nerd myself props to him for math references. However this is the fourth week and his fourth puzzle/adventure game in a row. I appreciate how he sticks to his strengths and can always be counted on to deliver something great, but it is starting to get a little stale. DE comes out with plenty of enthusiasm. He really made the game sound interesting and the writing is the best I’ve seen from him thus far. Woodhouse might be the more consistent writer of the two but DE mixing it up always makes his reviews seem fresh.

Dragoon of Infinity vs Espiga

JEREC: The way Blazblue is described by DoI, I feel that even I might enjoy the game. I never was a fan of fighting games, finding them complicated, and like DoI very succinctly says "As your aptitude increases, the game becomes about improvisation rather than memorization." It's lines like this that help to sell the game. This is a very good review because it's not too long, but says everything I'd need to know about the game. DoI manages that fine line between too much information and not enough. I have no questions in my mind because this all seems very clear to me. Espiga's review was also pretty good, giving me a rundown of why Beowulf is CARNAL, and also why it's not that great. It's a very short review, and I know this sounds odd for me to say, but it's a little too short. Most of the game is pretty much glossed over, unless that's all the game is. But it is a quick read, and convincing enough. Lines like "the graphics are also pretty nice" is a bit of a rookie move. DoI's was the better read of the two.
WINNER: DOI

LEWIS: It’s interesting how DoI poses an audience straight away. This is a review targeted at fighting game fans. I can’t decide whether this is a positive or negative thing. I’ll go with both. It has an angle, and such clear targeting is going to ensure that a particular audience trusts the review well enough. It’s going to put off anyone *not* into fighting games, but that’s fair too, as you’re transparent about who the review’s aimed at. As such, I’d say this is a successful tactic, and the quality of the writing (though nothing spectacular) does its job well enough to ensure the review as a whole is successful as well.
But Espiga produces an incredibly strong short review. Short reviews are difficult to judge: how much information do you need to convey, while still ensuring the concise nature of the piece means everyone’s going to read it and enjoy it? This is how you do it: you identify a quirk, a nuance, whatever, and you run with it. The carnal thing isn’t gimmick at all – it works perfectly, and you bounce off it to convey various opinions about the game. An exceptionally strong review, and a deserved win for Espiga.

SPORTSMAN: DoI over Espiga. Obviously DoI’s topic was kind of boring to me since I can’t stand fighting games but the review was rather interesting. It reads like a (very good) professional piece that you’ll find in a magazine. For someone who stays as far away from the genre as possible this piece was surprisingly accessible and I was able to understand everything he was saying. The bit about the combos in particular was interesting because it shows me how this game is special and is a bit different (in a good way) from the norm. Espiga’s review was entertaining but a bit too brief. Just when I was understanding how the game worked and getting into it the review ended. DoI’s was more informative and complete so he gets the nod.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will vs. Dagoss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Will vs Dagoss

JEREC: Will's review takes a while to get to the point, and he seems to be aware of this fact... but doesn't bother to hurry along. I'm actually familiar with MechWarrior, though I haven't played it since the mid 90's. I always thought they looked pretty cool (compared to the ridiculous looking Gundams). Once the review actually gets going, it's pretty good. Will goes through the campaign mode, talks about upgrading mechs, various tactics, and it all sounds fascinating. Made me a bit nostaligic, too. Dagoss, I think the word you're looking for is "principles"... though the review does stay more focussed on the game. The amount of detail does get a bit much at times - bad old RPGs rarely make for good reads. Two paragraphs in, we already know they're bad - the rest of the review is just a description of how bad things can get. Still, it's a decent read. Though Will's review took a while to get to the game, when he did get to the game, it was the more interesting read. It was a close one, though.
WINNER: WILL

LEWIS: Will – as I said above in a comment to Beli’s, having to apologise for getting sidetracked is pretty much an admission that what you’re writing wasn’t strong. If you can’t maintain focus, how do you expect an audience to? I think it’s probably more apparent here than in Beli’s, as it’s usually obvious that’s just his style. But with you, it isn’t so much, so it grates a little. This whole review just seems to sidetrack a lot, and I find myself struggling to follow the flow until, on a regular basis, you find time to explain where it’s going. If you have to explain it, there’s something fundamentally wrong with what you’re doing, meaning I can’t find this to be wholly successful.
Dagoss’ review isn’t the strongest I’ve ever read, but it’s sufficiently detailed and well written. There’s an odd tense-quirk in the first sentence (they *were* based on those mechanics, surely? Even though they still exist… oh, I don’t know), but it’s over quickly, and it’s all nicely explained. It’s also particularly fluid, which helps convey your argument in a way that Will’s failed to do. So there’s an obvious winner for me here: it’s Dagoss.

SPORTSMAN: Dagoss over Will. Will PLEASE NO MORE PICTURES! I think it would be wise for Will to stick to reviewing simpler games like in the first two weeks because the complexity is working against him here. Too much technicality, and once he does make a fair point I’m either bored from all of the technical descriptions or it isn’t as powerful as he wanted it to be. Maybe it’s just because I’m also a MW vet, but this review was an improvement over last week’s, despite still being too long winded for my tastes. On the other side we have a solid bash effort from Dagoss. It got kind of boring at times but overall made its point more effectively than Will’s review did since it contained far less technicality. It spoke about something I would want to know about a lot more and the more you can do that the better!

Zippdementia vs Wolfqueen001

JEREC: Zipp's game sounds like a review that writes itself, with the funny dialogue options letting the player have a different take on a familiar story. The mech stuff came out of nowhere, actually, and surprised me that this was what the game was actually about. It's a lengthy review, and I think Zipp might have found it hard to be so honest about this one, comparing it to a favoured pet that misbehaves, though I found the review started to drag a bit in the second half. The mech stuff and jobs wasn't anywhere near as interesting as the early portion of the review. Wolfqueen's review is fast paced and manly, and makes the game sound cool but irritating at the same time, hence the 6. It's a short read and it packs a lot of punch, making it the more enjoyable of the two. Slightly. I like how this review at the same time makes the game sound awesome, but also really silly at the same time. And now I know where that opening line comes from. I knew it was from some NES brawler, but wasn't sure which one.
WINNER: WOLFQUEEN

LEWIS: There’s an odd paragraph in Zipp’s review. The third one. It suddenly goes all over the place, and I had to re-read a few times in order to understand it properly. It’s all a bit of an assault on the senses, with loads of concepts suddenly coming into play. I know that’s exactly the thing you’re trying to convey about the game, but you do have to be careful when writing about it in that fashion. Despite this, I do think this is one of the stronger reviews you’ve entered so far, and did enjoy reading it a lot. Just be careful not to go a bit overboard too early in the piece.
Ah, I remember reading this WQ review last year. It’s very good, and exceptionally funny. You use a variety of methods to illustrate your points effectively, without resorting to bland info-dumping or even feeling the need to stray into too much in-depth analysis. It’s also structured beautifully, with quick chop-outs and back in again to the main flow. Very good. I’d like to learn to write like this from time to time. It’s excellent stuff indeed, and for that reason, WolfQueen wins.

SPORTSMAN: WQ over Zipp. This WQ review is leagues ahead of everything else she’s used thus far. Ironically it’s also probably the manliest review written this round. You guys better be ashamed of yourselves! She made her point clearly, it was a quick, engaging read, and super entertaining. Zipp’s review was a solid choice and I’m really starting to like the conversational tone but overall he didn’t seem as interested as in the previous three weeks. It didn’t read like something that he put his heart into but rather something he just wrote for the sake of writing. There wasn’t a whole lot of excitement in this piece (oddly enough the tentacle sex bit was the most dynamic part of the review haha) and as a result I couldn’t enjoy this one as much as WQ’s, which was the attention grabber and smoother read.

Sashanan vs Golden Vortex

JEREC: This is one old Sashanan review. I remember reading this years ago, and it was supposedly the first "non-dry" Sashanan review, probably due to the "Neptune's gorgeous (and more importantly, naked) daughters" bit. However, the writing is incredibly rough in places, and I found it a bit of a chore to read. I was also distracted by those screenshots that make the game look truly awful, so two paragraphs of graphics discussion was difficult to slog through. Vorty's review is the better read of the two, and a fair bit better than the previous reviews his teammates have chosen for him. It actually contains some detail, which is nice, and makes Splatterhouse sound like quite a fun game.
WINNER: VORTEX

LEWIS: I think Sash’s piece is okay, but a bit by-numbers. Nothing grabs me, and though there’s an excellent amount of attention to detail throughout the piece, it’s often overly wordy or clumsily strung together. For example, starting a paragraph with “Visually [comma]” is almost always a turn-off for me. You should be able to link the segments of your article cohesively, without having to so explicitly signpost where you’re going. Work on that, and you’ll get there – no questions about it.
Again, while Vorty’s piece conveys a decent amount of information, the actual writing strikes me as… well, it’s not *amateurish* by any means. Just not entirely pro. Just not entirely successful in capturing my attention throughout. I don’t like the whole rhetorical question thing which a few of this round’s entries have used. ‘“Influential?” you may ask.’ No, I didn’t, actually. But if I did, it was probably because you weren’t explaining it well enough in the first place. As with other examples I’ve cited in my judging this week, it strikes me as a slightly nervous admission that your article wasn’t going the way you intended, or that somehow you’re self-deprecating enough to want to pretend that’s the case. Both ways are ones to avoid. Sashanan wins.

SPORTSMAN: Sashanan over Vorty. I liked this Sashanan effort a lot more than those in his past few weeks. It was a lot more personal and he seemed to be interested in his topic a bit more. Knowing that the reviewer is interested in the material always helps me get into the review more, and that’s especially essential with these old games. There were some areas where he could’ve trimmed a lot of the fat; for instance we didn’t need 2 paragraphs on graphics for a C64 game (though the analysis was good) but as a whole I liked this one. Vorty’s look at Splatterhouse wasn’t as exciting. It was a quicker read with good info but wasn’t quite as personal as Sash’s. Also it didn’t contain much that I haven’t read or heard about this game before.

RESULTS

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

Team Overdrive vs. Team Felix 2-1

OD vs Felix 2-1
Venter vs Zigfried 2-1
BELISARIOS vs Randxian 0-3

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

Team Janus vs. Team Suskie 1-2

Janus vs Suskie 1-2
Radical Dreamer vs True 3-0
Disco1960 vs ASchultz 1-2

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

Team EmP vs. Team Boo 2-1

EmP vs Bluberry 2-1
Dark Eternal vs Woodhouse 1-2
Dragoon of Infinity vs Espiga 2-1

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

Team Will vs. Team Dagoss 1-2

Will vs Dagoss 1-2
Zippdementia vs Wolfqueen001 0-3
Sashanan vs Golden Vortex 2-1

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

LEADERBOARDS

I can avoid death by not having a life.

We have lost the last three matches by one vote. How annoying.

Last week my review was too long, this week it's too short. Based on this I now know that my optimum length is 900 words! Anyway, thanks for judging judges.

"fuck yeah oblivion" - Jihad

I enjoyed Jerec's commentary for EmP vs bluberry.

_

Thanks for your commentary, judges, and for giving me my first-ever win against zigfried. I was really anxious about this one because I wrote it specifically for this contest with less time available than I had hoped for. I was really pleased with how it came out, but I knew that I was definitely taking risks with the approach. Then zigfried produced a review that was really different and I had no idea how that would be received. I'm glad that two out of three judges liked my effort more. Now I can focus on how 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 on secret doors to another world2

Me too genj. I'd been waiting for that. Good to see a lot of first wins this week, too. DarkEternal's too good to go winless.

Rough match here with Team Janus, with a 2-1 and 4-5 result...I appreciate the feedback from the judges. I tried to be a bit more spontaneous but recognize where I fell a bit short. Well, wait til next week--err Wednesday midnight.

You guys are doing well despite the hassle of timezones. I never considered they were THIS far apart.

P.S. arithmetic police: GoldenVortex is missing a vote against in your always appreciated individual tables. Sorry, I'm in proofreading mode. Plus I'm a math person.

Edit: that post I made just ahead at the same time was not a duplicate post, or at least you can't prove it. Pay no attention to it.

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

Jerec goes to sleep just as Lewis wakes up, which was the problem in this case. I wonder who the most efficient person to post the verdicts would have been, assuming everyone finished at the same time in the day. Sportsman as the person furthest west or lewis as the person in the middle?

"fuck yeah oblivion" - Jihad

"P.S. arithmetic police: GoldenVortex is missing a vote against in your always appreciated individual tables. Sorry, I'm in proofreading mode. Plus I'm a math person."

You're right. I'll fix that up. Doing this first thing in the morning, heh.

I'm Australian, Lewis is in the UK (I think) and Sporty is in the US (I also think), so yeah. Lewis would have gotten his results to me just after midnight, and I was already asleep by then.

I can avoid death by not having a life.

Me, as I'm the one who is currently unemployed and has time to do this shit. Also I'm good with Excel. I usually finish judging first, though.

I can avoid death by not having a life.

Do you like cricket?

"fuck yeah oblivion" - Jihad

Appreciate the feedback here. I'm glad you pointed out things that could be better even though it one. That'll help for next week.

I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?

Both teams played hard.

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

Team Suskie vs Team Janus was actually super close. Halfway through the Disco review (I read Schultz's first) I thought to myself that he was going to be the clear winner here and was almost tempted to just skim the rest. Then I got kind of annoyed by the end of it and wound up picking Schultz's. That pick determined the fate of the match, actually.

Sry janus & co :(

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

...uhh, i'm gonna get beaten up now.

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.

http://johndavies24.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/world_time_zones.png

I'm -5 and will guess that Lewis is 0 and Jerec is +8 - +10. HG time is -8. However I work until about 7pm eastern time (4PM HG) so actually mine would've been posted later than Jerec's if I did it.

Janus: It isn't the length that was a problem for me, it was perfect. It just seemed like you wanted to make another point and/or flesh out one of your arguments further and didn't. Still a very good review.

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

Tragic...

Can't win them all I suppose and I'm glad I have a great team behind me to pick up my slack, but it doesn't hurt my feelings one bit that I had a very close match with someone extremely talented like Bbobb.

A deal's a deal, sir. I will remove all my reviews and quit this site forever...

Just kidding.

Thank you, Jerec, Lewis and Sportster for judging. I know this was a tough week for you, given the Metal Slug and Hentai reviews, so you all did a stellar job. More than I would have done, I'll tell you that much.

And as far as Venter...

Now I can focus on how to win next week!

You'd be better off spending that week deciding on how you're going to cope with your loss. That's my suggestion, anyway.

:D

If I Offended You, You Needed It.

I just want to take a moment to share something I was thinking about today at work, as I anxiously awaited for the results that would end up spelling my doom.

I was thinking about gaming websites in general. They have staff reviews, and they often allow user reviews. Users gather to express their thoughts about the hobby they love. Staff members write because, well, that's what they're supposed to do. The same thing happens here at HG... BUT!

Where else can you find such competitive tournaments and cutthroat contests? Where else are people so intent on demonstrating their talent to anyone who'll read, and where else would you see staff members actually risk the site's "official" reputation by pitting themselves against users? We're all in this to show off but also to improve even a little bit, to become the best writers we possibly can.

It's a wonderful thing. Almost like street-racing, in a sense. Anyone with a car can race, anyone with passion can strive to set the best times they're personally capable of attaining. We're motivated to push ourselves through direct, head-to-head challenges that make us work harder than writing in a vacuum. In the process, we've seen talent bloom and writers put together reviews they never thought they'd see come from their own keyboard.

.....

That was all a very long-winded way of saying that I intend to crush Janus in round five. Have a nice day!

//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.

@Jerec:
Although phrased as "hypothetical examples" (so that general readers will get some meaning out of them), the situations described in the first part of the review are actually inside jokes for fans of Kimi ga Nozomu Eien and hentai in general. It would take a long time to fully explain, and long explanations tend to make jokes lose their humor, so uh... I guess what I'm saying is those examples -- like the hospital scene -- aren't as irrelevant as they may seem.

Just responding since your commentary sounds genuinely curious about that point.

//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.

good to know that it's not worth writing new reviews since the judges won't even bother to fucking read them if they assume that they'll be something they're not, huh EmP? get ready for Doom II and the rest of the hit parade! he's right though, I thought my piece in particular was very flowery and gay, lilicesque even. we're trapped in Fix's shadow even when we're writing totally different stuff, how depressing is that?

oh, this isn't HG Mail. my bad.

I guess competent but soulless games can't get below a 7, too. or maybe we're not IGN and it's actually that they deserve a 5. I don't know. sorry the number I put on my review is off by one. maybe it would have made more sense in the context of a review, but now I know to just link to a GameRankings score page and have a really good tagline instead.

Oh no, it's a Goomba!

Man. Beating Zig just isn't as magical when everybody's fucking doing it.

And so my "perfect victory" streak comes to an end! Props to Janus's team for putting up such a good fight. Frighteningly close results, those. Drella was right about this whole round being extremely well-fought from every angle. Thanks to the judges as well, even if at this point the results for the finals won't be in until Christmas.

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

Man. Beating Zig just isn't as magical when everybody's fucking doing it.

A win is a win. I would be happy if I could beat someone like Zig. If people start beating Beli, I'll still be happy about this week.

We're all good writers, so beating anybody is a huge accomplishment.

Besides, Zig is going to light on fire! GABOOOON!

I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?

Don't feel too bad, Boo. I hated both reviews.

I can avoid death by not having a life.

that's why I like you. you don't take my shit too seriously. but still, fuck you.

and technically, you hated the thought of our reviews. you didn't get any further.

Oh no, it's a Goomba!

For the record, I think "I have no interest in this series. Do you manage to win me over?" is a totally fair angle to take with judging this, even when the game in question is mediocre.

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.

me too.

Oh no, it's a Goomba!