Forums > Contributor Zone > Week six - resluts

~~~ Team Battle: Overdrive v Leroux ~~~

Overdrive?? versus Leroux??
Overdrive: Summoner
Leroux: Vigilante

ASchultz:
Overdrive: I'm not quite sure why you needed to shut Summoner off. Was the tutorial that tedious? Was one of your first two hours pure unadulterated load time? Also, I think you missed a big chance for something that would fit well & probably drop the right sort of joke--how bout "It doesn't matter that Joseph doesn't want his power and can't even summon anything that ultimately helpful."

Other than that I think this review does the job. Perhaps too many all caps words--maybe there's an easy way to say you're glad there's no cut scene with lots of load time and evil laughter? "FEELS like" seems telegraphed. Perhaps a lot of what I want to correct is my silly internal editor saying "I'D do it this way!" Then stuff like vast/tons/a couple--and mentioning the dumb enemies a bit late. Nevertheless, I got an idea of the game, and the reviewer's disappointment at what could have been. It can happen in so many ways.

Leroux: Despite some good shots, this review actively annoyed me. Yes, we are all in disbelief over the plot. Yes, many losers had Madonna fantasies in the 80s. Does it need saying four times in a row? That's a Seanbaby trick. You're better and more versatile and don't rely on a personality cult. I think you do need some reading-time buffer describing the hero's there-and-back-again journey, but when it becomes reminding us skinheads have hair--well, I'd appreciate a little subtlety. Some of your insults towards the game rub off on the reader a bit.

But perhaps the biggest mistake is that the first sentence says this "has often been imitated." Then you claim it was influential. The implication here is that this game's lack of quality influenced others. I say a bunch of garage-band companies do lousy on their own by glomming random ideas together and abusing the English language. And it's easy to look and see causation that isn't there if you've got very little to do.

You've used the formula before of quoting a brawler's level-start text and describing the frailties. I get the sense you're trying to conjure something from thin air.

Yes, yes, okay, it's probably an over the top joke. But even critiques of the repetitively annoying can be...repetitively annoying. Paragraph 3 is what this could've been.

In the archives, I noticed you criticized Zigfried for a good writer writing one too many hentai game reviews for a competition. I think you were right to. You have had a lot of other brawler reviews that worked better than this does so it's a mystifying choice, so I hope you see where I am coming from.

WINNER: OVERDRIVE

-----

CoarseDragon:
Overdrive - Summoner: If I recall correctly Summoner was one of the first games for the then new PS2. While it was looked on with favor the load times were a major problem. We get a good introduction to Joseph and the other characters in his party and through those introductions we get solid fundamentals on game play both good and bad.

Leroux - Vigilante: I think this review told me more about the game than I wanted to know but props for the humor - skinheads with hair. I think I want to get this game just to laugh at it.

Overdrive vs. Leroux: This one is tough. Both of these reviews are really good and very informative. Overdrive does a fine job in the review but I just have to give a slight edge to Leroux for the unique way the game was handled. Leroux is the winner.

-----

Zigfried:
Overdrive wrote a nicely balanced Summoner review. I never made it past those first couple of hours myself. There were a few times in the review where you used a "dial-a-word" -- for example, the spot where you said combat was sometimes exhilarating and then described something that sounded merely good. I doubt I'll ever go back to the game myself, but I believe that it's probably not as terrible as I originally thought.

Leroux's review of Vigilante is just outright fun. There's a lot of silly stuff to poke at in this game, and you do so effectively. It's not just the examples used, but also the writing style that enhances the effect of your words. Radicaldreamer once blogged about a girl having an interesting way of speaking; well, you have an interesting way of writing. Too bad you're not a hot girl. Madonna will have to do.

My pick: Leroux

Ultimate Victor: Leroux (2-1)

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

True?? versus Jerec??
True: Worms
Jerec: Wii Fit

ASchultz:
True: big points off for "don’t get me wrong but there’s noting really solid in the game play department." -- typo (nothing) and overused phrases: don't get me wrong, gameplay. What you're describing also seems just turn-based, so there's nothing exotically slow about that. It sounds corny, but like a speech, it may be best to start off with a few jokes--what you liked about Worms and why it didn't last, or how the timing felt all wrong

The two paragraphs before "Classic." seem worth moving to near the top, if only to say that you can see the superficial resemblances. I'm suspecting you saw the humor pretty quickly, but I think your real problem with the game, which gets lost in obligatory description, is that the comic timing for joke bazookas and such doesn't work.

I really enjoyed reading your Hogs of War review. Perhaps you were reluctant to take too many ideas from that. Because after five years, you want to move on and do better. You have, overall. But I'm confused about basics like--what constitutes a turn? Do you get a minute to move, then the computer takes a minute? That'd seem to be pretty bad. I also disagree that a game with so many weapons can be laid-back. If it's at an inappropriate pace, or if someone wants to see the game abstractly and you don't, that's one thing. But I think there may be mismanaged expectations here. Hogs of War, from your review, feels like more than a board game. Worms does not. You throw out some good examples, but they're just there.

Jerec: This is a tricky review to work but I think you did very well. In a way, we should expect this first attempt at an exercise game about more than stepping on four arrows to be a disaster. But the review never feels obvious. I've been impressed with your introductions and I like the new spin on "I bought a game and it sucked." And while I think you pointed out why it was too easy to cheat, or why it wound up being worse than the real thing, the problem with asking for a computer that can detect too much cheating--one that even helps us not-cheat--is that we may get more than we bargained for.

What would I add? I'd like to hear more about improvement tracking. I'm genuinely surprised they don't give enough sample points for the balancing exercises or provide more than a most recent score, or if they did, it wasn't mentioned--elsewhere you say results are stored. It seems performances can go up and down and either 1) the testing should be more robust or 2) it should keep track of things. Also, yoga is seen as a flexibility/warm-up sort of exercise--well, certain types. So maybe more detail there. These are minor concerns, though. You did well showing why Wii Fit would get its butt kicked by an old fashioned treadmill.

WINNER: JEREC

-----

CoarseDragon:
True - Worms: There was no story, the game was slow and not as good as Hogs. Was multiplayer good? Online play - what was that like? I just wonder if those might not have improved the game play and made it more fun than what it sounded like in this review. There was good information here but not quite enough.

Jerec - Wii Fit: As pointed out in this review the problem with Wii Fit is that you are not properly guided in your exercises. This review rightfully pointed out the flaws in a console exercise “game”. I agree with the reviewer sell it and buy a real game.

True vs. Jerec: Jerec is the winner.

-----

Zigfried:
True's Worms review begins oddly. Look at your pronoun use in sentence six -- you said you bought Hogs of War. The next paragraph begins oddly, too. There's a typo ("noting") and it's just a wishy-washy sentence that doesn't actually add anything (it could be eliminated entirely and still flow fine, since you don't talk about the game's style and heart until a bit later). I noticed you had an asterisked comment in there, which required scrolling to the bottom -- I didn't care for that one, as the "blowing up into little pink bits" was a believable image that I had trouble shaking... plus, since I had to scroll all the way to the bottom, I was tempted not to scroll back up. I've learned over time that such asterisked comments work better when the explanation shortly follows the marked sentence. Anyways -- yeah, I learned about Worms, but the review felt rough.

Jerec has reviewed a playable video program that I cannot care about. He does not seem to care about it either, so I won't hold it against him. This is a review that flows freely and easily, talking about this and that in an affable and unpretentious way. I like it. I was amused that you kept finding ways to cheat, but it's so true: if they're there, people will take them. I'm playing a rhythm game right now that has some tricks (only a few) but I'm desperately trying not to abuse them, and it's hard. Sometimes I just have to. This is one of those reviews that reads so naturally, like a normal person talking to normal people. That's a very, very good thing.

My pick: Jerec

Ultimate Victor: Jerec (3-0)

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

Zippdementia?? versus Honestgamer??
Zippdementia: Illusion of Gaia
Honestgamer: Castlevania - Harmony of Dissonance

ASchultz:
Zipp's review is very interesting storytelling for a review. But it has so much in there--how Illusion of Gaia gets rid of the cliches and melodrama of your average game--that I overlooked that I didn't know anything about the game's mechanics til I reread it. Now, I didn't really want to hear about them. If I were talking about favorite games, I'd want to hear the best bits. But at the same time, having something in there about the mechanics and how the game helps you ignore them would be helpful. Also--about how much of a drag the quests were or weren't, that the game was a dungeon crawler. Other reviews say this. Perhaps it's pedantic. But it's necessary. Zipp has the talent to integrate that basic information into a story. Since this is a reviewing tourney and not a pure writing tourney, I tick a few points for that. Perhaps saying you want to remember enjoying the game and not the usual pitfalls that might annoy/exhaust you today--like too much back and forth questing--might give the last bit of perspective needed.

Jason's review approaches things from a different angle. I think we've all heard about St Augustine's quote "God, make me good, but not yet." Castlevania gives something new and good--but it was hard to take, all at once. The review gives credit to the easier Castlevanias for what they are. I might not want to hear about the lack of the level-up system the first thing--or for a full paragraph--though it clearly needs to be said. That's relatively minor compared to the interesting bits about 6-player play. It's easy to imagine ripping off other people's strategies or being able to handicap yourself with a weaker player. I like how it feels like there are ways to get revenge after the game's been tough on you--more than just beating it again and again. This does feel more like a complete review than Zipp's and it has a story in its own way and is convincing in that the game clearly feels worth playing even after you've succeeded at it.

One other thing: imagine the tedium? 1) this review gave enough GOOD stuff to imagine. 2) I imagine in order to avoid tedium. Just saying. The review seems to make clear that the only repetition needed is for the player to work at getting better.

The suggestions I have for these reviews don't make them any less fun, and if they seem nitpicky it's because I had to look to that for differentiation to pick a winner, which was ultimately less fun than reading the reviews. Still, Jason's I think left fewer questions unanswered.

WINNER: VENTER

-----

CoarseDragon:
Zipp - Illusion of Gaia: An interesting take on the game but perhaps a bit dramatic. I do recall playing this game but do not remember it being quite that deep, but then again I was not nine when I played it. We are given a different insight into Will not as the hero but as a youth searching for answers to questions there are no answers for. That addition was a good idea and added a lot to the review.

Jason – Castlevania: Harmony of Despair: The game is not quite as difficult as we were first led to believe. Though I do understand not being able to level up to tackle tough bosses not losing gold or items when you die is probably just as exploitable. I also like we were given some explanation of the multiplayer aspect in the game.

Zipp vs. Jason: Jason is the winner

-----

Zigfried:
Any time a review for something other than Uncharted 3 starts with a pretentious story about Le Plongeon, I just want to slap the writer. That's how Zipp's review for Illusion of Gaia starts, and he forgot to mention that Le Plongeon was insane (look up his essays on Mayan pornography). Zipp will be forgiven, though, because Quintet themselves were overbearingly pretentious. The review is effective, although the revelation about the villain -- aside from being a spoiler -- was a bit overdone (the concept isn't surprising to people who've played the Phantasy Star series). My recommendation there would be to remove the second sentence about "sinking in". This is the part of the judgement where I realize I'm nit-picking a very nice review. It's written with appropriate grandeur for a retrospective 10/10. Try proofreading this type of review with an outsider's glasses to catch things that may sound just a bit too starry-eyed. As Illusion of Gaia itself demonstrates: infer, don't shove.

Venter's Castlevania: Harmony of Despair review opens effectively, and up to a point, I was really digging this. Then I got pissed in the next-to-last paragraph. Here I'm thinking this is a great return to Castlevania form, and then I find out that it's meant to be a multiplayer game. The conclusion salvages that by making it clear that the bulk of the review really was talking about the single-player experience, so my happy feelings returned... but you don't adequately explain why it's meant to be played multiplayer. That's something entirely new to Castlevania and I think such a bold statement warrants further explanation. Otherwise, this game sounds like a cool Castlevania III reviso.

My pick: Zipp

Ultimate Victor: Honestgamer (2-1)

THE FINAL SUMMATION:
Leroux's team wins. ASchultz will be doing the fancy number work.

//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.

~~~ Team Battle: Wolfqueen vs Janus ~~~

Suskie?? versus Janus??
Suskie: Modern Warfare 2
Janus: A Fading Melody

ASchultz:
Suskie's review is emotionally powerful and does a very good job of getting me interested in a genre I can't stand. I like the starting-repetition of the sentences "I want to" because each goes in a different direction. "If you're looking for them, you're probably not doing..." was very funny, I found--you half feel like it's an army sergeant giving you the orders to quit fooling around. A review like this may risk too many superlatives while it tries not to spoil anything--as it mentions in the first paragraph. It spoils nothing and reminds me of pulp detective writing but applied to army stories. No, I haven't read enough actual war stories.

Janus's review may be about the sort of game I'm attached to and it does a lot right. It's necessarily a bit more abstract as it's discussing a more abstract game.

It's weird--I guess a review about guns and blowing stuff up and tension can get away more with fast and loose grammar than one about intensely emotional stuff. So some things just don't work for me.
"I know what you're thinking: what's strange about that?!"

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.

CD: there are missiles, as mentioned in the review. also, some games have collectible items that I would call HP extensions - they extend your HP. GunValkyrie is one of these.

some games also rank your performace, from (think like in school) F to A; this is obscure knowledge, but some even give you an S rank if you do really well. GunValkyrie is one of these. good ranks are earned for good performances. hope this helps!

thanks for a good TT everybody.

Oh no, it's a Goomba!

I suppose that's it for us. Well, it was fun. Thank everyone for all the hard work they put in, mainly Leroux, Suskie, Zig, A-Man, CD and my teammates Zip and O.D. Know that you guys are appreciated.

If I Offended You, You Needed It.

Thanks to the judges and props to Janus for a stellar match.

And hey, we're in the finals. Kudos to WQ and Genj for doing so well this year. For their sake, I hope we win.

Edit: Oh, and I wanted to briefly thank everybody for the absolutely spectacular amount of new content submitted this year. Seriously. I'm starting to feel bad that I've written so little over the past few months.

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

Ah shit...at least I feel I gave a good effort in losing and at least I don't feel I let down the team, as we all lost this week. Good job, guys, even if we didn't win it all. Four brand new reviews and one one-week old one over six weeks shows this thing motivated me to bust ass writing this year, so I'm happy with that. And the week I used the week-old review, I wrote one that I didn't use. So, I've been pretty productive these last few weeks.

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

Resluts? Is that when your girlfriend cheats on you a second time?

"Deep in the earth I faced a fight that I could never win. The blameless and the base destroyed, and all that might have been. -- GK"

it was good to use this review. I wasn't sure how it would go, because it's not much of a game. thanks judges!

I can avoid death by not having a life.

Well, I'm not too surprised with how the judges took my review, so I'm not going to sweat it. I will briefly say that, due to its nature, I tried to be as thorough as possible with this one which is why it dragged on so long (longer than I would've liked, frankly). But I did make a serious effort to cut it down before submitting it, and it's at least a hundred words shorter for doing so, so just be grateful you're not reading the original draft. >_>

Anyway, I'm very glad the rest of my team pulled through in this match. If they hadn't, we might not have made it to the finals. Good job guys. Hopefully I can write something a bit more inspiring this week, since, I do admit that what I wrote last week likely wasn't appropriate for something like TT, but I genuinely felt it would be better to use something new than rely on something old. I'm just glad things worked out in our favor.

I would also like to congratulate and thank everyone who participated in TT this year. I, too, appreciated the wealth of new content; in some ways, it inspired me to continue writing new stuff of my own.

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

Ah, damn. Well, this was a rough tournament for me. But I was part of a good team and I feel like I added something to the team, so I'm satisfied. Or maybe satisfied isn't quite what I am. I'm somewhere between satisfied and FILLED WITH RAGE.

Not really. But it's a nice mental image.

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

Thanks to the judges. Let's keep up that winning streak.

_

Judges -- a hearty thanks for your continued effort over the past six weeks. It's much appreciated. I hope it hasn't been too much of a burden on your regular schedules.

Team -- Keep up the great selections. I'll have something new for the finals. It'll be interesting to see how the line-up is set -- don't be afraid to take chances and go down swinging.

This has been a grand experience. You have given the chance to read about games I never would have thought twice about. Everyone did a stellar job in the tournament. Most of the reviews were excellent. Win or lose you should all be very proud of what you have done.

Age is a condition not a state of mind.

Thanks, judges. It's been nice to have some critical eyes examine my reviews with writing suggestions, as opposed to the simple grammatical work that we do on Thunderbolt. It was a great competition and I had a lot of fun. I think I did pretty well too considering I was picked last! I'd like to give a special nod to True for sending an invite to the tourney my way. And thanks to Leroux for putting this together. Wasn't sure what all that nonsense was in the middle of the show, but I had a good time and am glad I participated. I'll definitely stick around for a while. Thanks again for taking the time to read what I had to say and offering loads of helpful comments, judges.

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.