Forums > Contributor Zone > TT SEMI FINALS - RESULTS!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OD @ Suskie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Overdrive vs. Suskie

JEREC: Overdrive's review has an interesting structure to it. We start off with a level that should be decent, but he's just not feeling it. Then we get the story of what happened to lead up to that point, how the game is terrible and boring and not what he expected from the genre. And we all know what it's like to get to a point in the game and simply not care anymore. There's a few small errors in the review, like the glaring "it's" in the second paragraph, but it was enjoyable otherwise. Suskie's review effectively summed up why I could never get into Zelda II. It's a very fair deconstruction of the game, taking the various elements and explaining why they don't work. It made me feel better that I never really got anywhere with this game, and I figured it was because I just wasn't good enough. Both these reviews are thematically similar, and both are very convincing. Suskie wins because I didn't spot any of those small proof-reading errors in his review.
WINNER: SUSKIE

LEWIS: Overdrive, I kind of like what you're trying to do here. The idea of structuring the piece as a "here's this bit, but look at all this I had to do to get there" could have been really effective. The problem is it's not quite engaging enough, and never feels like it's analysing the game on a critical enough level. Instead, you're saying "here's what happened, which I didn't like." You could have done to go into a little more depth. Furthermore, you could have done to ensure your writing was entertaining enough to make it all stick. As it is, I found myself glossing a little, meaning the information that is there ended up flying past my eyes without really going in. Maybe that's my poor attention span -- but I'd guess most gamers are a little lacking in that area. So unfortunately, I'm not sure this is so great.

Suskie's review suffers from a similar problem, I feel. But it's caused by something different. By focusing entirely on the combat, I come away from this review feeling that there are plenty of things you could have talked about but didn't; that there are plenty of things about Zelda 2 you could have liked, but didn't give the chance. I understand it's primarily a combat-oriented game, but this review still feels like it's bypassing certain elements. It's fine to focus on the elements you feel are most important, but important to contextualise that choice somehow. I'm not sure this really does.

So I'm not particularly enamoured with either of these reviews, and in all honesty was hoping for better from these two excellent semi-finalists. As Suskie's review is more entertainingly written, he gets the win -- but whoever finds themselves in the final will have to pick up their game.

SPORTSMAN: This was actually a very close matchup, though I wouldn’t call it the best work from both reviewers. Overdrive’s review read extremely smoothly and had great organization. His voice was strong throughout and the credibility is there like always. The only problem is his argument wasn’t the most interesting one. I’m convinced that this game blows, but I was hoping he would destroy this game and that never really happen. Perhaps this isn’t the most interesting subject matter since this is one of those bad but not god-awful games. Suskie’s is a lot more ruthless and made the game sound more in the god-awful range than OD’s did. I mean I liked the game and disagree with most of his points and it had me rethinking some of my opinions. My problem is it tried to do a little too much and seemed a bit too tangentical (if this is not a real word it is now haha). Plus it seemed to end fairly abruptly which caught me off guard.
Despite being a “soft bash”, I think I’m gonna go with Overdrive. Suskie’s hit harder, but this one’s organization and flow won me over. Although Suskie’s was the better “bash”, in the end both came up with a convincing argument to why their game sucks. OD’s powerful voice and credibility won me over here.
(Also this is the last comments I did so I apologize if they’re not as long as the others. Just wanted to get them out!)
WINNER: OVERDRIVE

Venter vs. True

JEREC: I kind of missed the whole G.I. Joe craze as a kid, so I had a little trouble getting into Venter's review. Well, just that first chuck where the story and premise are described. After that, there's some pretty cool descriptions that made this game sound cool, actually leaving me quite surprised by the 6/10. There were problems with the game, but they never really made the game sound that bad. And Venter admits that much of this game's target audience will find what they want... and finishes the review with a real wtf line about other gamers wanting to read a book. True's review of Red Faction makes me want to play the game, even though I don't even like first person shooters. That, and I can identify with his gaming mindset - sometimes I just want to play a mindless game. I actually want to play something mindless right now, but not all the time, you know? But anyway, back to the review. I loved the descriptions of destruction, and reading about the variety of side quests you can do. I did notice a couple of small errors, but the review was overall much stronger than Venter's, so it didn't cost him the win.
WINNER: TRUE

LEWIS: Venter's reviews are always solid. I don't think I can really recall a single one of your pieces that hasn't at least been competent, and you're always thorough and analytical enough, and a good enough writer, to come across as a convincing videogame critic. This review is no exception, though I'm slightly confused by why you chose to include that little bit at the start. You're illustrating a section of the game, but its only purpose seems to be to introduce the plot. As such, it feels unnecessary -- you don't seem to be making any real point through its inclusion, so why include it at all?

Though it's clearly a very good review, I wonder if it doesn't quite go far enough to be considered truly special. We're in the semi-finals now, where there are no second chances. Jason, I think I'd like to see you pull something really special out of the bag should you reach the finals. I'm not sure something like this would cut it, as I'm sure we're all looking for something genuinely impressive in the last round of the competition.

True, I find your writing to be occasionally odd here. There's a whole lot of first-personing, which of course is fine, but it's something that's stood out for a few writers during this tournament. It's probably a whole load of personal preferencing on my part, but I think I tend to stray towards good, convincing, assertive analysis and criticism. Here, you're talking about what you thought as you went through the game -- which can be a great method, it really can, but I don't think your writing is quite convincing enough here to pull it off. You like a character, you're excited, you're worried, this was your favourite bit etc... it's all just a little... naive, perhaps? I'm not sure, but there's something not quite right about it. Not quite professional.

There are plenty of things I like about this review. The introduction's good, and pulls me right in. The ending rounds it off nicely. And you identify with a lot of things I thought about the game too. Ultimately, though, this isn't quite polished enough to truly shine, so JV wins.

SPORTSMAN: Wasn’t so sure how Venter’s review would fare since the intro style is entirely hit or miss. Fortunately this one worked pretty well. I’ve never been a huge G.I. Joe fan though I know enough about it to be engaged in the subject matter. Overall this piece was very good, and although it has the figure it out for yourself approach I’m a huge run n gun fan so I was able to draw my conclusions pretty quickly. Although the descriptions were fast-paced and the balance of strengths and flaws were well done, nothing jumped out at me as new and fresh or spectacular. The game still sounded like a generic run n gun to me. Maybe this is what Venter was intending, but it didn’t make the subject matter as interesting as it could’ve been.

True’s review really didn’t start off too great. It seems like he used these intros many times in the past and it really didn’t tie into the rest of the review well. The good part is by the time I finished the review I completely forgot about the intro. It had a tendency to repeat itself and might’ve been slightly too fast-paced in places, but the content is excellent. I just made a post in another thread about how games are getting generic this gen and this review really made this seem like something unique and special. The descriptions were fantastic and threw me right into the scenarios. I liked how they really emphasized the guerilla-style warfare since that is the selling point of the game that made it (supposedly) as good as it is.

So we have one review that starts off super strong and gets kind of… generic halfway in and another one that starts off generic and finishes with a bang. Both approaches really worked but True’s review hit where it counted most. RFG really sounded like a unique and cool game, especially after I recently played Far Cry 2, which has a similar concept but completely misses the point. Venter’s review really doesn’t distinguish G.I. Joe from other run n guns (and judging by the score maybe it isn’t). I wouldn’t mind giving it a try since I’m a sucker for these games but not quite sure why I should consider this one (apart from the not so great bits that were brought up). As I mentioned earlier this might’ve been what he was going for, but regardless the more interesting and engaging topic wins.
WINNER: TRUE

Beli vs. ASchultz

JEREC: Okay, the tourney references didn't work in Beli's review. I wasn't fond of the marquee red MEGAS sliding across the screen. But the rest of the review was hilarious and entertaining enough for me to read. I liked the running gag about intelligent gamers. Yeah, a straight up review of this game might have been a dull read, especially since it would be plainly obvious from the first paragraph that this game is awful. Beli's sense of humour and occasionally observant insights make this one worth reading. And was that a shot at me not completely reading some reviews this tournament? I look at the screenshots that go with ASchultz's Robotron review, and then I look at the text, and I think "You got all that from this?" Wow. I remember reviewing a few old, simple games, and I could never get much more than 400 words. The problem I have with this review is that there is too much. I didn't get until near the end that the stages were randomised, and there's a lot of tactical stuff which I'd probably be more interested in reading after I've given the game a go. Right now it's not entirely relevant to me. But it's not all bad, I did actually enjoy most of the review because it somehow made this old game sound fun. Still, Beli's was the easier read of the two, but a lot of the silly stuff held it back. I enjoyed Beli's review more, but I'm having trouble giving it the win against Schultz, who did a good job making an old arcade game sound worth playing. Sometimes it's just too easy to bash those games no one cares about. And a few weeks from now, those in-jokes will be completely worthless.
WINNER: ASCHULTZ

LEWIS: This is a brave, quirky review by Belisarios, with plenty of knowingly silly in-joking and referencing. It's going to be a very tricky one to judge, because that does of course work very well in the context of this tournament. Are we going on that alone, or do we have to consider wider appeal? When else is your reviewing audience going to be a panel of judges? What use is that, in day-to-day games reporting?

So I could go either way with this. As the in-joke, it's often quite funny. As an actual review, it's bloody terrible, and doesn't work at all. It'd alienate almost your entire audience, it feels like you're just in the business for being silly for the sake of it, and as such one gets the impression you're not giving the game a fair deal. But I've said for a while you needed to shake up your formula. You've done that spectacularly here, albeit in the exact opposite direction to the one I'd hoped. It's certainly memorable, either way.

Aschultz's piece, by contrast, is remarkably traditional. But it's also probably my favourite Aschultz piece of the whole contest. It's concise, which means within your imaginary word count you can go into an intricate level of detail. I think you do the game a lot of justice here, and the review's entertaining enough throughout to maintain my attention. A very, very good show by Aschultz, which means that while Beli's review is certainly entertaining, it'd be madness to award the win to anyone other than Aschultz.

SPORTSMAN: Beli’s review was interesting in the sense that it ranged from fantastic to “what the hell was he thinking”. It began rough, and the picking on the tournament was rather cliché and unnecessary. The big red text didn’t do much for me and seemed like an attempt to capture the spirit of the html abuse age. The colored text that followed is also cliché but actually worked here. The meat of the review is fantastic and some of the most entertaining bit of writing I’ve read in this tourney thus far. Then comes the conclusion which features a rant and says how blah the game is. The problem here is I was really enjoying this one up to then and although the game sounded like crap the premise was pretty interesting! You didn’t need to say that you were putting on a show to make a dull title sound interesting when I was actually somewhat interested in the premise.

Schultz never reaches the level of humor or creativity that Beli demonstrated in his piece, but he didn’t really have to. This is one well thought out and organized review. It doesn’t stray far away from what Schultz has been doing thus far in this tourney, but out of everything he’s written thus far this is probably my favorite one yet. Schultz really comes across as credible when reviewing these games. This is in many ways the Starcraft of reviews; there are some that are more dynamic, more descriptive, and hit harder, but you will rarely find one as all around good as this.

Ultimately I prefer Schultz’s consistency over Beli’s wildcard effort. Beli’s was too unfocused and I wasn’t entirely sure what he was going for. The approach seemed a bit tired and after immensely enjoying the review the ending was a huge e-boner kill. As I said some parts were fantastic, but here the more consistent review is the winner.
WINNER: ASCHULTZ

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EmP @ Boo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Boo vs. EmP

JEREC: Challange, Boo? Do you not know how to spell the word or is this some sort of in joke? Other than that, this is a fantastic review. It makes the game sound worthwhile, and it gives me all I need to know to make up my own mind. This game isn't for me. But then, I've never really liked the Castlevania series. I find the whole idea boring, almost as boring as Metal Slug. And I rarely enjoy reading about this series (people like to use it as an excuse to get flowery). Thankfully Boo steers clear of that, keeping the writing fast paced, informative and enjoyable. EmP's review needs some proof reading, but they were very minor, and didn't distract me too much. Assassin's Creed is one of those polarising games, as I read before. EmP is of the opinion that the game sucks, and he's convinced me that it sucks - after earlier this tournament, someone whose name I forget right now, convinced me that it's actually not too bad. I thought the stuff with the various guards' POV was a unique and amusing way of pointing out the game's stupidity. This is the sort of epic Boo vs EmP match that I was robbed of some weeks ago when they both decided to pull out Metal Slug reviews. This time I like both reviews a lot, and I'm having trouble deciding who to go with. Boo made me interested in game I don't care about, EmP convinced me that he's right. I think EmP edges into the win solely on that awesome first half of his review.
WINNER: EMP

LEWIS: Boo's review makes a really odd, tremendously straightforward mistake. Imagine I don't know anything about this series, Boo. Try to put yourself in the shoes of this hypothetical me. Absolutely nothing in the piece explains anything to me, and I'm completely left guessing about a number of elements. Was Symphony of the Night the previous game, or one released way back? What context was that released in? What bloody genre even are these games? This is really basic stuff that you should be able to embed into the review really neatly, but unless I'm not looking hard enough, it's just not here.

Elsewhere, the writing's solid but not overly impressive, and the content's nothing particularly riveting. The in-joke with another
writer feels shoehorned in, and isn't funny for anyone else. It's also a gay joke, so probably not funny for anyone at all.

You know, EmP, I'm reading and writing on a coach on the M1, with all the reviews copied and pasted into Notepad, so I've no game name headers here. So the original context is rather lost, but it still seems strange that I hadn't the faintest idea which game, or even what *type* of game, you were talking about until half way through. You start with an extended narrative segment that's trying to illustrate some sort of point, but instead ends up fanfic jabbering for a couple of paragraphs before detailing some moment of hilarious stupidity you could have told us about in approximately half a sentence.

This doesn't work. The second half of the review reads like an angry user's Amazon review or something, with you attempting to qualify in every way possible why Assassin's Creed is so dumb dumb dumby dumb dumbtastic. Despite having a copy sitting in my living room back home, I'm still to play Assassin's Creed, yet I can still tell this review is terribly unbalanced and completely ignores some key features of the game. Slam Creed if you want, explain cleverly why you didn't like it -- but when it's a straight review, you need some element of balance to your subjective viewpoint, or it loses its weight altogether. This, unfortunately, is a pretty disastrous effort, so even though neither of these pieces are of anywhere near the quality I'd have expected at this stage, Boo wins.

SPORTSMAN: I enjoyed Emp’s review quite a bit but I’m not sure if I would’ve enjoyed it if I never played the game. Even though I don’t think the game is as bad as Emp made it sound (maybe a 5 or so) I was nodding in agreement a lot and some of the observations were pretty amusing. The parts about the American accent and pickpocketing/eavesdropping were spot on. Emp really made it sound laughably bad. With that being said, if I hadn’t played through two thirds of the game and agreed with his points I probably wouldn’t have liked this one as much. A lot of it seems too cheesy and over exaggerated, and I’m not sure if I would believe everything that he says in this one.

Bluberry’s wasn’t as dynamic but the far more honest piece. I’m not a fan of Castlevania and lost interest in this game after a half hour or so when he told to give it a try over AIM a few years back and this is an interesting argument that makes me think maybe I missed the point of the game. I loved the approach from the get-go. So many of these Castlevania reviews jizz themselves over how magnificent the series is, do lots of comparisons, and all this other crap that someone who never really cared for the series outside of SotN like myself won’t care about. It is so easy for a Castlevania game to get clumped in with the rest of the series, but this one really made it sound unique and therefore interesting. Bluberry’s is the more honest piece of the two so it gets the win.
WINNER: BLUBERRY

Espiga vs DE

JEREC: I really enjoyed reading this Espiga review two years ago, and I still enjoy it now. The journal/captain's log entries really work for this sort of game. They made me care enough about what happened to Espiga's bunny race that I was fully hooked into the game. I think this review was so awesome before that I didn't notice one problem with the review - apart from ship design, I don't really know how this game plays at all, and yet I still want to give it a go. But I'm going to need some more information. DE's review has some pretty clever moments, but it's a bash review, and a particularly vulgar one at that. I could do without the unrelated vomit scene at the start of the review. It's so offputting that if I didn't have to read this review, I wouldn't have gotten any further than that (and I actually felt quite queasy this morning, which certainly didn't help). This review is at its best when it picks apart the game, telling me why it's crap. But the vomit stuff, the rape reference, and several other "witty" asides made DE seem more juvenile, and it hurt his credibility. It's a shame, too, since it's a new review, and overall his writing is much better than what I've been reading from him throughout this tournament. Gonna go with Espiga on this one.
WINNER: ESPIGA

LEWIS: From first glances, I thought I was going to really like your piece, Espiga. I thought I might enjoy your playing with format. But instead, it reads like another fanfic piece. I think people need to learn to separate their literary ambitions (or probably just give up on them) from their reviewing ones, because nine times out of ten, unless you're *really* good, it fails enormously.

I'd like to invite you to explain what your piece tells the reader. I read it, twice, and only found any assessment of quality in the final paragraph. Even then, it wasn't the whole of it. It's a story about something that happened to you in a game -- which can work, but the writing's not strong enough to carry it, the fiction's not solid enough out of context, and there's no point that's being made through the delivery. So it's simply not up to scratch on any level. Enormously disappointing.

Darketernal writes a largely solid review, and while I'm not keen on the introduction (and if you're not going to make that dodgy transition, then why even bother, as that's basically all you do...) it soon picks up and develops into an incredibly thorough review. It's also one that follows a clearly identifiable theme (the game's slow pace), so each transition after that feels fluid and natural in terms of where you take the argument next.

It could have done with a proof-read, but that's hardly important. This is good reviewing, so Darketernal wins.

SPORTSMAN: Personally I wasn’t too thrilled about either of these reviews. DE’s had some good moments and did convince me that the game is awful. Not only is it a JRPG but it’s a bad one! Still the review went on for too long and I began to lose interest about halfway through. What I like about DE reviews is his credibility and interest in the topic. The credibility was there like always but not so much interest in this one. It got pretty technical later on and although I was able to follow it I really didn’t want to. Overall a pretty decent review that definitely gets the job done, though it isn’t the most interesting effort and kind of bored me.

Espiga’s was much shorter and held my interest all the way through. It had its problem, though, and that was its cheesiness. The internet meme references were cute at first but really got annoying quickly. Although it was a gimmicky review there was plenty of analysis present to the point where I was able to understand what the game is all about. With that being said, none of it was very deep and I’m not sure if I’m entirely convinced that this game was good as much as I’m convinced that Espiga is fairly knowledgeable about internet memes. I know what the game is about and a few things about it, but what makes this one in particular special?

So both reviews here had their strengths as well as something that bothered me. DE’s got boring and Espiga’s had the corniness. But when it comes down to actual analysis and information present, DE’s is superior and has by far the better argument. He gets the win here.
WINNER: DARKETERNAL

Woodhouse vs DOI

JEREC: It's nice to see Woodhouse reviewing something different. His X-Blades review is a pretty good read, though I was surprised at the 5/10 score, as he made it sound a lot worse than that. But perhaps there is some fun to be had in playing as Ms. Fanservice in a hack and slash. Still, I learned a lot about this game, and now I know exactly why it's probably not worth playing. Though I doubt I would have played this game anyway. As I started reading DoI's review, I thought to myself "a standard RPG battle system, an old RPG, why should I care?" And DoI told me exactly why I should care. He dismisses the battle system and other aspects of the gameplay as familiar, old, etc, and spends the rest of the review focusing on the characters and the plot. This can sometimes be tedious, but it worked well here. A lot of RPGs feel interchangable with others, so reading about them can be annoying - but this is a cast of characters that is different. I tried to think of another RPG where the main character's parents were both alive, and, well, I did think of one, but it's not really a good game (Star Ocean 3). This one sounds a lot better. Wish I could play it, though I reckon tracking down a copy of this would be near impossible at a reasonable price in this day and age. Both of these reviews were awesome, which is what I like to see in the playoffs. I think DoI really understands how to review an RPG, and it looks like a review I could learn from myself, so I'll give him the nod.
WINNER: DOI

LEWIS: The best review I've read this round, Woodhouse, by quite a significant way. Aside from one use of the word 'ass' early on, which might grate just because I'm English so that's a type of donkey, this is certainly professional level stuff. If I saw this in a good quality games magazine, I wouldn't be at all surprised. It sticks relatively close to the established, traditional reviewing formula, but there's a reason that formula remains intact for so many publications. It works, delivering all the relevant information in an entertaining, flowing and easily identifiable manner. This round has been generally disappointing, but here, Woodhouse demonstrates that he could be the one to beat.

DoI's review is a solid one, and it's a shame he's found himself stacked up against Woodhouse, as there were plenty of entries here that remain far, far worse than this. It's an enthusiastic, thorough and relevant take on why this game is important and should be held so dearly, again sticking to a traditional formula but really engaging with what makes the game work.

My only problem with it is that it occasionally feels naively written. There are sections that I'd have reworded, or otherwise reworked. There are bits I'd have left out, or emphasised. Bits I'd have restructured. A lot of it's very good, but rarely does it break through into the outer stratosphere in the way Woodhouse's does regularly, if not constantly. There's a little polish missing where Woodhouse applied it liberally, so although this is good, Woodhouse wins by some way. Everyone else needs to watch out.

SPORTSMAN: Great review here from Woodhouse. I’m not the type that plays games solely for girls in bikinis but the intro really caught my attention. After that this was a fast-paced and entertaining review from beginning to end that never slowed down or had me PC clocking. Props to Woodhouse for making a review for such a repetitive game (according to him) sound so interesting. The conclusion actually came as a shocker to me because the review was so damn entertaining.

DoI had the more ambitious project. It’s tough to convince someone that a game is a classic solely based on its characters. Overall I think it sort of succeeded. I know this game is something truly special to him and probably something that every fan of the genre must experience. However I’m not so sure if it is a perfect argument. I can tell that the characters are quirky and entertaining, but do they really rival conversations with your friends? Basically I’m convinced that DoI thought this is something truly magnificent, but don’t think it’s something that I would find special. Maybe the rest of the game was spoken about too negatively, dunno. This is not an easy approach to take and it wasn’t entirely pulled off.

This critique might sound a bit negative, so let me say that I applaud DoI for his effort and enjoyed the review. It just wasn’t done as effectively as Woodhouse’s.
WINNER: WOODHOUSE

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

Team Overdrive vs Team Suskie 0-3

Overdrive vs. Suskie 1-2
Venter vs. True 1-2
Beli vs. ASchultz 0-3

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

Team Boo vs Team EmP 2-1

Boo vs. EmP 2-1
Espiga vs DE 1-2
Woodhouse vs DOI 2-1

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

None of the fancy leaderboards now, we don't really need them. We know that next week, Team Suskie will face Bluberry's team.

I can avoid death by not having a life.

rawr

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

Thanks for the commentary, judges! I had hoped to win this, but I knew going into the round that my team didn't have anything as strong as it did in previous weeks so I can't say I'm incredibly surprised that we were eliminated so close to the final match.

"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

when do I, woodhouse, Espiga, or an honorary delegate have to post a lineup for the FINALS by? I'll be out of town the next couple days listening to a 47 year old man jump around and scream about how he wants to come all over you and fuck you like an animal and how he won't let you fall apart etc

good match EmP. sorry to see you go, OD!

Oh no, it's a Goomba!

I usually don't have an opportunity to read reviews friday so if you want to make the deadline as late as midnight Saturday morning that's cool with me.

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

Man, 3-5 this year. I think my own exuberance might have brought me down this year. 6/8 reviews were ones I'd written since the contest started. That's the highest percentage since my 1-6 year in my first TT when 6/7 were ones I'd written since the contest started and the seventh wasn't written long before.

I just don't have the consistency to write blockbusters time-in and time-out. I come up with them here and there, but not to the point where I can pick random games that seem interesting to review and crank out top-level work. Timing might be a bit of an issue, too. After winning three straight, I lost my last two and have to give a portion of the blame to my job, as in mid-late August, I wind up having to shoulder a couple of big projects and, therefore, wasn't able to give reviewing the time I'd have liked to, especially for this match.....I really rushed this, which helped contribute to those grammar goofs, Jerec. Crap, in a way, it's a blessing I'm not in the finals, as the second of those project's deadline is this week.......so I don't know if I could have done a review of even modest quality.

Ah well, I can't complain. I've written more during the duration of this contest's run than any other 9-week period in recent memory and had fun doing it.

This might sound like a weird request, but just out of bizarre second-guessing curiosity, I was wondering if any of the new ones I'd written now would have fared better than ones I'd used. You know.....where one of you would be thinking, "Why'd he use this instead of that???". The reviews in question are Robodemons, Operation Secret Storm, Vagrant Story and Splosion Man. I'm not asking for critiques on them, but if any of you would be willing to skim them and just say whether any of them would have really impressed you compared to what I was using......

I'm sort of taking notes and trying to figure out what kind of general writing style connects most with people, so if any of those are better at connecting with you guys, that'd be nice for me to know.

If you don't want to after judging so many reviews, that's cool. Just figured I'd ask.

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

I think considering the fact that it's impossible to even know if you're still in until Monday night, Saturday night is a sane time to have the deadline by. possibly even Sunday, it's not like the judges have to crank shit out quickly for the next week after this.

but that's not my call.

p.s. we made it rain on them hos.

Oh no, it's a Goomba!

Wow, Team Suskie got a win against the same tough Team Overdrive that dented our perfect record. Congrats to my teammates for their wins against 2 strong reviewers. Both teams that lost this week threw in some great reviews along the way. I've found it's tiring to keep trying for new reviews.

Overdrive, I really enjoyed your Splosion Man review the best of all of the ones you mentioned, to throw in my non-official-judge vote. It's tough to tell if that's the subject matter or which. I generally prefer your non-NES reviews to your NES ones because I think you do find new ground with the non-NES ones, because as reliably funny as your NES bashes are, I can often say--yeah, I've seen that sort of thing before. I think that's generally the case, though.

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

I don't particularly care when I need to judge the finals. It's 3 matches and I can probably do it in one sitting.

Overdrive, I have generally enjoyed your reviews this tournament, and I voted for you more than the other two judges. But yeah, there were plenty of sloppy grammar moments, but they really only matter when the reviews are really evenly matched, and I need to nitpick to decide on a winner. I haven't read any reviews in the last 9 weeks that weren't part of the tournament. But when I find time I'll have a look at those reviews you mentioned, and I'll let you know what I think.

I can avoid death by not having a life.

Congrats to Zigfried for predicting the exact results.

"fuck yeah oblivion" - Jihad

OD" I skimmed the Splosion man review and also liked it a lot (thought you were gonna use it this round). I liked it better than the one that was used but I voted for you anyways so not like it would've mattered haha.

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

I'm definitely with OD on not being able to write a knockout on a weekly basis, which probably makes me look like a dick since I just beat him, but oh well. I think I set too high a standard for myself by using MadWorld the first round, because this is like the fourth or fifth week now where Sportsman said that he liked my review but it wasn't my best of the tournament.

Anyway, thanks to the judges on that one and well done to my teammates. And if it makes you feel better Lewis, most of the people who love Zelda II cite the combat as one of the biggest draws. Still, fair observation.

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

I'd like to make a request. I've been trying to follow this tournament results, and it would be much easier if the name of the game being reviewed was shown on the results thread. I wanted to read the review before reading the critiques and I know they are listed somewhere on the other topic, but it's not that obvious.

Don't panic!

Well I can do that for the finals, but I won't be going back and doing it retroactively for the previous results.

I can avoid death by not having a life.

The finals would be good. Thanks. :)

Don't panic!

You could always just view the source and copy emp's hyperlinks, or get a mod to do it.

"fuck yeah oblivion" - Jihad

Thanks for judging.

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.

Interesting that people are saying Splosion Man. Maybe I was too hard on that one, myself, because I didn't think I'd quite captured things the way I wanted to. That was an assigned game to review that I'd put together after my Icarus review for Week 7. I typed it on Thursday, but couldn't post it because a Time Warner cable was down in my yard, so I had no internet. I was then away from home the next three days and posted it Sunday night when I finally got back.

I guess to me, it felt a bit rushed just because all the running around I was doing around when I was typing it. Maybe it wasn't.

Oh well, I'll put that on my short list of reviews to possibly use for next year. I don't think I want to go on the same sort of writing binge that I did this year. It was fun, but I think my overall quality suffered a bit, both in proofing and in simply coming up with great reviewing ideas and then pulling them off. Like, I was worried a bit about this review because I loved my theme of using one specific part of the game to illustrate its flaws, but I thought I wound up talking too much while illustrating the flaws, so it kinda felt like, "Okay.......after all the talk about combat, I guess he's back to the Underground Temple now......that took awhile...."

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

Obviously I am pleased with these results. Here's another thanks to the judges. You guys are the stars of the tournament. You have the most work, can't slough off a week, and even though this is a writing competition, I'm sure your words attract the most eyeballs. So job well done.

Buy -> Opium!

It's tangential.

Also, "challange" is like one of the longest running HG in-jokes. It originated from the first "Challange Team Emp" when he actually didn't know how to spell it.

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.

How is it that I got that joke and Jerec didn't?

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

Thank you Judges for your extended and quick critiques this week. I appreciate all the time and effort you've put into the tournament this year, and it hasn't gone unnoticed by me.

If I Offended You, You Needed It.

What True said. Let's see if both remaining teams can give you something really worth reading. This has been exhausting but rewarding for me as a competitor and I suspect for the judges too. Some weeks I can barely keep up with the what's-new.

And in that vein, I echo sportsman's sentiments that an extra day or even two would probably make for the best matchups, as Friday night would be more valuable to the reviewers than the judges--who finally have a bit less of a workload than previous weeks. What do the commissioners/other contestants say?

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

Friday shall be the new deadline!

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