GameFAQs Summer Reviewer Tournament (2004)

The summer tournament of 2004 was instituted by Denouement and 
SnowDragon, and judged (initially) by Fix, Masters and RuninRuder, all 
legendary reviewers on the GameFAQs scene.  It was agreed that there 
would be eight teams, each with three members, and that victors would 
be declared by decree of the panel of judges.  The pre-finals 'season' 
would consist of 7 rounds, after which the top 4 teams would continue 
to the finals.

Each captain was granted several 'home' games, during which he would be 
able to choose who faced who in that particular match-up.  On neutral 
ground, commissioners would determine match-ups at random.  Team 
members could only use a given review once, and had to post it by the 
deadline stated for a given round, or else a review would randomly be 
selected for them by a commissioner.  Captains of a given team could 
overrule the choices of their team members at will (something that 
caused some friction even early in the tournament).

During drafting, there were over 40 interested parties.  People were to 
post in the appropriate thread, and those making the drafting choices 
were then able to pick a 'second' and 'third' member for their teams.  
The eight captains were: Honestgamer, Jerec, Denouement, SnowDragon, 
Mariner, Retro, Leroux and Zigfried.  Though Zigfried actually ended up 
picking the eighth and ninth draftees, it was because he traded 
position with Denouement in a risky attempt to secure Guts and 
Overdrive as his second and third team members.  Even when the last 
person was chosen for this tournament, there were many good reviewers 
who could not participate.  They formed an alternate tournament (called 
the 'Summer Fever' tournament) under FFM, which was later operated with 
Bobotheclown as a commissioner and Bloomer as a judge.  Masters, a 
judge of the Summer Reviewer Tournament, also participated in the 
Summer Fever tournament.

The information copied below was taken from the GameFAQs message 
boards.  I am only including text from the 'Summer Tournament' topics 
where wins were detailed (with justification by the judges), as the 
other topics primarily existed only to sort out team match-ups and such 
(most information determined in those threads is readily evident from 
the content of these posts included below).  Responses from those 
involved in the tournament have been removed in favor of summarization 
by myself, in order to keep this file from growing too large.  Though 
posts have been merged for the same reason (and timestamps and 
signatures have been removed), and though other formatting has been 
changed, I have not added content to the messages themselves.  Also, 
though there were interview topics early in the tournament, I am not 
including the text of those here.

The results you see below (except commentary between rounds) was in 
general written by the judges and sent to Denouement, who created 
message board threads compiling the judges' comments.  Denouement also 
compiled statistics, and those are lifted shamelessly for the sake of 
archival.  Errors remaining below are the responsibility of the people 
who wrote the original text, not myself.

--Jason Venter

=======================================================================

Round One:

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

King Broccoli 2 - Denouement 1 

Ruder: Broccoli over Denouement. It's hard to vote against Chris 
because 85% of his piece features the type of brilliant writing that 
makes him one of the site's elite talents. Sadly, the review stumbles 
as it begins: the "two steps" lesson that Chris administers seems so 
mundane and bare-bones compared to what follows. This author is capable 
of expressing the same point in more creative and compelling terms; 
but, for whatever reason, Chris seems to leave his ability behind when 
presenting the themes for his reviews. It's not usually an enormous 
problem, but it's a killer against Broccoli who, in contrast, delivers 
an awesome introduction before proceeding with his convincing, 
brilliantly written criticisms. Broc also remembers to mention the 
game's tragic bright spots and adds touches of effective humor here and 
there, making his piece virtually perfect and a deserving victor. 

Fix: WINNER: King Broccoli. Both of these reviews were excellent, but 
Broc has the edge; his focused, relentless essay on SF3's numerous 
problems hits the reader, and hard, from start to finish. It's just an 
extremely complete piece of writing. Chris's is very good, but his 
doesn't hit stride until we're past the opening paragraphs (the "there 
are two steps to creating a good video game..." was kinda goofy) and 
into the vivid descriptions. It's Broc's Birdstone by a neck past 
Chris's Smarty Jones. 

Masters: This was the toughest matchup, easily. Both reviews were 
excellent, certainly two of the best of this round. I chose Chris's 
based on his superior intro and his superb atmosphere-setting. Broc's 
primary weapon is his humour, and it seemed that with this review he 
opted for a more 'serious' approach. It worked fine, but in making my 
decision, I found myself reaching for that trademark humour to match 
Chris's atmosphere, and it was not to be found in the dosage required 
to give him the push. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Jerec 2 - Cyper 1
 
Ruder: Dutch over Cyper. Dutch's personality really shined through as 
he convinced me that a game was trash and kept me completely 
entertained as he went about it. I pictured a baffled and frustrated 
Dutch staring at a computer screen with a tome of an instruction manual 
in one hand, wondering when the heck he was going to participate in the 
ugliness that was evolving on his screen. Cyper's review is certainly 
solid and should do its job for the potential Lighthouse buyer, but 
nothing about it really stands out as being special. His piece is 
longer and less enjoyable than his competitor's, a combination which 
forms the kiss of death in contests. Dutch's charismatic gold wins. 

Fix: WINNER: Jerec. There's no denying that cyper's review is written 
well enough (actually asking "where should I start in this review?" 
within the text was a bit off-putting), and it will certainly appeal to 
anyone interested in learning about Lighthouse, but Jerec's, at some 
700 words lighter, is simply more accessible. It's down-to-earth and 
aggressive in its complaints of SimEarth, and there's nothing missing. 
It's simply extremely decisive in its direction. 

Masters: Jerec's review is excellent. I critiqued it awhile back for 
Honestgamers. It's honest, direct, and has an effortless humour about 
it. That much said, Cyper's review is absolutely compelling -- probably 
his best. The sections aren't wholly necessary, but they don't detract. 
Cyper wins by virtue of doing that most difficult thing: making me want 
to play the game, which is a bit more difficult than Jerec's task of 
making me NOT want to play his.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sapharos 3 - Kane 0 

Ruder: Sapharos over Kane. The fools who were doing ROTD wouldn't 
listen to me, so I'm glad I have this venue to proclaim Sapharos' 
Shadowgate 64 an excellent review. I loved the section on the decline 
of the adventure genre near the beginning of the piece, and I'm 
impressed that his points actually made me ponder some elements of a 
game I've owned for years (specifically, his defense of the no-monsters 
approach). On the other hand, I was disappointed with Kane's entry. Not 
that it was bad, but I've read so many superior Kane reviews. The 
writing doesn't measure up to what I've seen in his mightiest works and 
the "what's going on dude" approach doesn't sit well with me. That 
Little Johnny stuff just isn't the Kane I know. 

Fix: WINNER: Sapharos. He certainly has them in his collection, but 
this is not the type of Kane review that'll set off fireworks. His 
second paragraph just doesn't click (little Johnny got on my nerves), 
and some passages (see paragraphs 2-5) are constructed so amateurishly 
that I have to double-check to make sure this is a Kane effort. It just 
isn't the refined eloquence that his most renowned reviews are. 
Meanwhile, Saph delivers an extremely well-informed, witty, persuasive 
piece that would have scrapped and clawed a fight out of any match. He 
makes a ton of good points; I especially like how he discusses the 
falling off of the genre's popularity, and notes Shadowgate's "folly" 
as obscurity through lack of distribution. The fact that I want to play 
Shadowgate now is telling of how good the review is. 

Masters: This is curious. Kane has lots of gems, but this didn't seem 
like one of them. The review read awkwardly when compared to the 
smooth, clear prose employed by Sapharos. Even when the idiosyncratic 
reviewing approach taken by Saph is considered, his is still the more 
enjoyable read. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Zigfried 2 - Deathspork 1 

Ruder: Spork over Zig. It was so difficult to choose a winner in this 
match. With all the botched attempts at "establishing themes" that I've 
seen in reviews lately, Zig comes out and scribes pure brilliance with 
his "one moment" opening. Like the game's story, there was risk of 
getting "too cheesy" with this sort writing, but Zig takes the risk and 
it pays off. Yet, the most powerful part arrives later when Zig 
describes how desperately he wishes to help one of the characters. But 
Spork had me even more amazed with his descriptions of all the crazy 
stuff that goes on in RKA. The "haymaker" paragraph is one of the most 
powerful instances of descriptive writing I've ever seen. While my 
reaction to Zig's review was one of amazement at the beauty of it all, 
my reaction to Spork's was more like, "MAN, I've gotta try this!" In 
the end... Zig's review is truly a stirring account of that one moment 
he shared with the adventurers of EVE, but Spork's is more inviting to 
the reader who wishes to join in all the fun. 

Fix: WINNER: Zigfried. Super tough match here. I really enjoyed 
Spork's, there's no doubting its quality. But Zig's EBE is absolutely 
entrancing. His light passages, combined with the mysteries of the game 
he brings up but leaves unexplained, made me wish I either had access 
to EBE, or that the review was longer and more revealing. Its appeal is 
uncanny. These are two vastly different pieces, but one had to be 
chosen. 

Masters: Spork had some specific passages that I wasn't too enamoured 
of. Beyond that, his review was very tight and very entertaining. But 
Zig's review I would call best of round. It's that good. This is Zig at 
his best: very convincing. I don't even like the genre he's dealing 
with, and yet I'm somehow interested. That's the highest sort of 
praise.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Leroux 2 - GUTS 1 

Ruder: Leroux over GUTS. GUTS' GA3 review features his usual method of 
ditching any type of organization and riding on enthusiasm and 
attitude. That approach works well in a review like Blood Gear that 
basically just kicks your ass and gets you to buy the game, but in a 
longer effort like this, it wears thin and makes reading difficult by 
the end. Leroux's piece not only features high quality writing and 
sensible organization, but even becomes quite entertaining when he 
discusses the game's many ridiculous glitches. Ninja Gaiden is the more 
thorough and enjoyable review here. 

Fix: WINNER: Leroux. Leroux takes this one without too much struggle, 
thanks to a hilariously unrelenting attack on the laughable Genesis 
edition of Ninja Gaiden. The intro was particularly good, as he uses 
Joe Musashi to compare to the currently inept Hayabusa. GUTS's review, 
of course, is thorough and to-the-point, but he lacks the charisma, 
eloquence and humor that Leroux has working here. 

Masters: This is a classic matchup of the 'talky' writer versus the 
'literary' writer. Leroux's piece is stylish almost to a fault. GUTS's 
piece is like a documented conversation with a friend. In this 
particular case, the latter works better, because I feel I know more 
about the game GUTS is talking to me about than the one Leroux is 
waxing somewhat lyrical about. 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jihad 3 - Overdrive 0 

Ruder: Jihad over Overdrive. I was really worried when I first took a 
look at Overdrive's review and saw that it was a lengthy 2600 review. 
"Long" and "Atari" is usually a reviewing recipe for disaster. But his 
intro was extraordinarily clever and, for a while there, I found the 
piece quite interesting and entertaining. Unfortunately, I did 
eventually lose interest in the review's latter stages. Jihad's 
sophisticated writing kept my attention all the way through and the 
length seemed appropriate given the advanced (relative to 2600 games) 
subject matter. 

Fix: WINNER: Jihad. While Overdrive's work is technically very sound, 
it began to drag for me. It's not a good sign when a review feels drawn 
out, and the subject is a simple Atari game. It couldn't quite stand up 
to Jihad's articulate dissection of the poor Red Dead, which, 
amazingly, was dispatched in a swift 1000 words. 

Masters: Jihad's review is dead tight. His voice is an authoritative 
one, but never does it become condescending. I feel there are some 
throwaway bits in there, but not so many as in Overdrive's overly long 
work on a 2600 game. Overdrive's flow is smooth as butter, and probably 
that fact more than anything else has attributed to his rise to fame. 
But this review seems to dillydally too long on the irrelevant giving 
me quite a bit more than would seem necessary to both inform and 
entertain me adequately on a game this archaic.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NT220 2 - Snow Dragon 1 

Ruder: NT over SD. The writing in both reviews is excellent, but NT had 
more to say--and said it in wittier fashion. SD overcompensates for his 
scant source material with sections of exaggeration (like the 
introduction). I like the imagination and all, but it seems like too 
much for such a crude old game. I was more entertained by NT's rips on 
Gaia's text. 

Fix: WINNER: NT220. NT's review is probably the most balanced I've read 
so far, noting IoG's shortcomings with smart prose, but then hinting at 
the fun, atmospheric adventure that lies beneath the crappy dialogue 
and plodding story with enthusiasm. SD's isn't as smooth a ride -- the 
first paragraph (and other choice spots) border on the ridiculous. He 
does calm down later on, and there are some really great descriptions, 
but the lingering feeling I have is that SD's overdoing it. It's fun to 
read, but at the same time, overblown. I have to take NT's even piece 
over the ups and downs of SD's ambitious work. 

Masters: I considered that bias might be a problem when reading NT's 
piece; not only have I played his game (and not SD's), but I share his 
opinion. However, this did not prove to be the case. I found NT's 
review to be solid, but only that, while SD managed a review with the 
delicious richness of prose that he normally provides, without the 
considerable overindulgence that normally follows. SD got it exactly 
right here. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Janus 3 - Tachibana Ukyo 0 

Ruder: Janus over Tachi. The writing ability and the ideas are all 
there in Tachi's work, but things went wrong in the execution. The 
sentences get so long and dense and complicated that I got lost many 
times along the way. I don't have much to say about Janus' work, mainly 
because there isn't much to criticize about it. This was one of the 
very few XBox games that I had slight interest in, and when I was done 
reading, I really felt compelled to play it. This praise review did its 
job. 

Fix: WINNER: Janus Operative. Janus wins handily, with an interesting, 
readable epic that begins just as any Star Wars film would, and ends 
only after a thorough and excited analysis has taken place. The 
enthusiasm really carries this one. Meanwhile, Ukyo (IS THAT YOU 
ZIGFRIED?!) has a command of the language that not many have, but he 
doesn't seem to know quite how to wield it. His piece is far too dense, 
as some sentences and descriptions last for lines and lines, making 
things extremely hard to follow. There's such a thing as too much, and 
this is it, as was evident from the first paragraph, which itself was 
just one sentence. A variety in content and sentence structure and 
length would have helped this one immensely. 

Masters: While Janus's review felt like it went on too long, I still 
believe it's one of his very best reviews. Ukyo on the other hand, 
gives us a piece that takes his usual heavy clause and dense paragraph 
style to the extreme, resulting in an over-the-top review that proved 
too difficult to digest for its own good. 

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

Skinny Puppy 2 - Retro 1 

Ruder: Retro over Puppy. Granted, Retro goes a little too far with his 
tangents, especially the basketball one, but there's a heck of a lot to 
like when this guy delves into an old game. From his descriptions of 
the comic-book-style craziness to his bemoaning of the eventual 
frustrating parts, Retro remains a likable and convincing narrator. And 
heck, how can you dislike a review with a freakin' poem at the end. 
Nick Evil Jr.'s piece features great writing but there's nothing there 
about Rival Turf that hasn't already been noted by a million other 
people in pretty much the same fashion... unless we're talking about 
the humorous bits like the overdone fat elf stuff, which weren't really 
effective. 

Fix: WINNER: Skinny Puppy. Retro starts with his usual goofy-but-
innocent anecdotes of green beans and backstabbing redneck family 
members. But by the time he's made the bizarre connection to how he 
feels about Battletoads (and has incorporated a disturbing, nonsensical 
connection between 'starting strong' and basketball), Puppy's already 
off and running with his kick-ass thrashing of Rival Turf. And Retro -- 
"hard as calculus?" Haha, okay, that one felt distinctly southern and 
actually made me laugh. And the poem? Yeeeah. You do have lots of 
descriptions that illustrate your knowledge of the game and its ups and 
downs. SP takes this one, though. 

Masters: I didn't like either of this reviews, yet these are two of my 
favourite reviewers. I found SP's review to be entirely TOO irreverent 
and flippant, while I found Retro's a bit too cute for my liking. In 
the end, SP was a bit more direct and edged out Retro's work, which was 
far more roundabout in its communication of simple ideas.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Mariner 2 - NickEvil 1
 
Ruder: Mariner over Nick. Mariner's review is not only unique but also 
extremely relevant and significant--pretty impressive when you consider 
how many Zelda III analyses have been written over the years. You've 
always had the folks who praised this game endlessly, and you've 
occasionally found the folks who rip it apart, but here is someone 
who's a fan of the game yet can still identify its many flaws and 
disappointing aspects. I really can't think of a more thorough GameFAQs 
effort. He compares the game to both ancient Zelda I and heavenly 
Ocarina across all imaginable areas--dungeon design, monster design, 
overworld design, menu design... you name it. And he does it in such 
great detail--I was overjoyed to finally see someone mention the great 
Gleeok when discussing the shortcomings of Zelda III's bosses. The 
piece seemed so complete to me back in the day that I simply decided it 
wasn't worth my time to ever write a Zelda III review, because someone 
already covered that ground just fine. That's the only time I can 
remember doing that. Nick's review is excellent; I honestly have 
nothing to complain about there. But it doesn't leap off the screen as 
an all-time favorite for me as Mariner's does. 

Fix: WINNER: Mariner. I pondered this one for a while, even moving on 
to other matches before making a final choice. Mariner's review stands 
as a 'relative to the other Zelda games' text. The arguments he makes 
against LttP in comparison to other successes of the series are 
extremely fascinating and well-grounded. The essay serves as sort of a 
satellite analysis to the other 18 million Link to the Past reviews out 
there -- it doesn't hold your hand through the basics, but jumps right 
to stacking the game up against its relatives with the assumption you 
come in with the background info. I like it. I really enjoyed Nick's 
review, ever marveling at what could have been for a game crippled by a 
backbreaking difficulty, but it didn't quite hit me like Mariner's 
unique effort. 

Masters: Mariner's review is a brilliant look at how Zelda III compares 
to other games in the series: specifically, Zelda I and OoT. It's a 
strong comparative essay with good points, but as a review it doesn't 
want to make me play Zelda III, which is really what it should be 
trying to do in accordance with the score given to the game. Nick's 
piece was a welcome sight, reminding me of the days when he wrote solid 
reviews devoid of fanboy bashings. It's tight and the flow is perfect. 
A more 'normal' Mariner review would be in tough, regardless. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Hangedman 2 - Honestgamer 1 

Ruder: Hanged over Venter. Usually, people go way overboard when 
reviewing their favorite games, but Venter does the opposite in his 
Mario Kart review. Where's the passion and the enthusiasm, man? This is 
so straightforward and unimaginative. I ended up wanting to hear about 
the stuff he said I didn't need to hear about in his conclusion. 
Hangedman's review is livelier and made me chuckle, so I'm voting for 
him. 

Fix: WINNER: Hangedman. Battle of the Good But Unspectaculars, here. Of 
Venter's, I especially liked the modest conclusion, and both had the 
analysis in place, but Hangedman's gets the nod thanks to his typical 
great humor. Venter, for your favorite game ever, you're not too lively 
about it. 

Masters: Hangedman is a funny guy, given to self indulgence, like most 
great, funny writers. With this review, I didn't feel like he pulled it 
off that well. The excessive HTML mark ups and derision made the thing 
come off somewhat gimmicky, while Venter was able to give us the 
straight goods with one of his very best reviews. His featured clean 
writing and there was none of the forced humour that seems prevalent in 
some of his newer works.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Woodhouse 3 - Tom Clark 0 

Ruder: Woodhouse over Clark. I appreciate the time and effort that 
Clark obviously put into his review, but I don't like how it turned 
out. It's way too long, and a lot of it deals with basic instruction 
manual type stuff, and when he finally gets to parts that should allow 
for cool specific descriptions (like the boss paragraph), he skimps on 
detail. Woodhouse kept me reasonably interested and his writing was 
good, so he wins. 

Fix: WINNER: Woodhouse. Clark's piece was long and heavy on the 
hyperbole -- it was enthusiastic, but wasn't particularly economical. 
Woodhouse's was well-written and effective without being overblown. 

Masters: Woodhouse writes with a sophisticated ease; he managed to take 
a dodgy game and interest us in its objectionable subject matter. I was 
impressed with his poise and professional voice. Tom Clark writes with 
a good mix of facts and humour, but this review featured some unwieldy 
paragraphs and overexplained sections -- it just seemed unnecessarily 
bloated. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
SUMMARY 
 
Jerks 3 - Mongol Horde 0 
Detective Work 2 - Chaos Legion 1 
World Heroes 2 - Sinister Ministers 1 
Mariner's Team 2 - Magnificent Bastards 1 
 
Record|Wins|Team 
1-0   |03  |Jerks 
1-0   |02  |Mariner's Team 
1-0   |02  |World Heroes 
1-0   |02  |Detective Work 
0-1   |01  |Chaos Legion 
0-1   |01  |Sinister Ministers 
0-1   |01  |Magnificent Bastards 
0-1   |00  |Mongol Horde 

=======================================================================
 
During the first round, there were some great matches that showed how 
anxious people were to jump into the game and start performing.  
Following the results post, the main activity occurred when SilEighty 
(Guts) called for the dismissal of Zigfried as captain of the team 
Chaos Legion.  He suggested he himself would make a better captain.  
Overdrive's silence was initially interpreted as acquiescence, but 
Overdrive later revealed he just wasn't responding.  This event set the 
stage for comments associated with the second round of the tournament.

=======================================================================
 
Round Two:

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

Denouement 3 - GUTS 0 

Ruder: Chris over GUTS. I don't have much to say about Chris' review 
that I didn't say for the Super C competition, except that this time I 
noticed he mentions samurai's honor. What an ironic twist! GUTS is 
usually the one who makes good use of samurai honor in his reviews. 
Chris beats him at his own game. I'd comment on GUTS' review, but Zig 
was rude to me in IMs when I asked him about it. Someone really needs 
to overthrow that guy... 

Fix: WINNER: Denouement. I like Chris's review when I first read it for 
the Fact/Fix Invitational II, and I still liked it here. It's not mind-
blowing, but it is generally well-written and generally well focused. 
I'll take this piece over GUTS' Kaze Kiri piece, which is ridden with 
shoddiness. 

Masters: WINNER: DENOUEMENT This was an... interesting matchup. Guts's 
review was hella funny, ridiculous even (a 0 score??), but clearly not 
a 'serious' competition review. Probably anything decent from Chris 
would be enough to take this easily. Still, I wasn't particularly 
pleased with Chris's effort. It seemed overwritten, advancing the same 
somewhat problematic thesis with alarming redundance (Super C is hard 
but not necessarily fun). As always, his writing was very atmospheric, 
very sophisticated, very hyperbole-laden. While I felt it was almost 
TOO MUCH with his last review choice, Aladdin, he certainly crossed the 
threshold with this piece. That being said, it's competently written 
with a great intro and conclusion and some memorable lines and more 
humour than I've come to expect from young Chris. Those positives are 
more than enough to topple what is almost a joke review from ever-
informal Guts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Overdrive 2 - Kane 1
 
Ruder: Overdrive over Kane. Perhaps the biggest problem with OD's 
review is that it ends so abruptly. Otherwise, he makes the vital 
connection to Zelda 3 and proceeds to describe the key elements that 
raise Alundra to another level--the freshness and unpredictability of 
the dream/dungeon progression, the complexity of the puzzles, and the 
remarkable story. The best bit comes when gives us a slight glimpse of 
the character cast: this is accurate, affecting stuff that can really 
make me interested in an adventure game. His opponent, however, 
outshines him when it comes to pure writing; Kane's prose is nothing 
short of brilliant. And I admire Kane for confessing at the outset that 
he wasn't sure how to handle Xenogears. But in cases like this, it's 
essential that the reader come away with the feeling that the few good 
aspects outweigh the many flaws. That's not the feeling I got from this 
review. Kane rips the game apart in so many ways, but the positive tilt 
basically comes in the form of, "trust me, the story is good." Granted, 
he conveys the message much more eloquently than that, but I remain 
unconvinced... while OD convinced me that there's lots to love about 
Alundra. For a point of reference, I was much more touched by 
Overdrive's bit on characters than Kane's. 

Fix: WINNER: Overdrive. Both of these were a pleasure to read. Kane's 
epic Xenogears holds at the attention of the reviewer through its 
winding analysis (which bounces around a bit, at once saying Tolkien 
wouldn't disapprove of Xeno's story, and calling some of the writing 
Jamesian, but that the delivery is seriously flawed in terms the ideal 
amount of story presented). Overdrive's Alundra feels more focused -- 
he knows what he's going for, and he does it with a light elegance. 
Unfortunately, there's the lingering feeling that Kane's emotional 
essay is without a source for that emotion -- for a game that should be 
loved, he pays ample attention to the game's apparently abundant 
shortcomings, and plays it light on the praise. I wish Kane had shown 
me what there was to love; as it is, his focus feels too off-center for 
this to be truly effective, despite the incredible writing. 

Masters: WINNER: KANE Too much hyperbole is a turn off, but on the 
whole, Kane's artful writing seems in keeping with his subject matter. 
While the review is not without flaws (some word choices and phrasings 
are strange -- awkward even), the review is incredibly ambitious given 
the writer's somewhat complex feelings of ambivalence toward it. 
Overdrive's review does nothing wrong, and it even ends exceptionally 
after a somewhat slow start. It just seems outgunned here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Zigfried 3 - Cyper 0 

Ruder: Zig over Cyper. Zig dishes up a sweet hook and then delivers a 
very readable account of why Steam Hearts is a nice shooter with or 
without the sexual stuff. The keys here are the extra-cool moments that 
Zig points out: the parts on the meteor-to-warship transition and the 
black hole boss get the point across that there's stuff here besides 
sex cinemas that you don't just come across in any shooter. I must say 
that, personally, I miss the sarcastic concluding bit from Zig's 
original GameFAQs rendition. He seems to let Steam Hearts off the hook 
a little easier this time, but that doesn't really matter here. As for 
Cyper, his review is okay but it really seems archaic considering how 
far review writing has come. He's just so methodical about everything. 

Fix: WINNER: Zigfried. This one proves to be another Chris-GUTS-like 
mismatch. Cyper's review is certainly thorough, but tedious and vanilla 
to read. Zig's lively essay on Steam Hearts has been one of my favorite 
reviews of his for a long time, and doesn't have much trouble here. It 
was both more energetically and more concisely written. 

Masters: WINNER: ZIGFRIED Cyper's review is serviceable. It's nowhere 
as engaging as his last entry, which seemed to be bursting from the 
constraints of the sections he tied it down with. The quiet prose of 
Hunter Hunted stays gamely within its section headers and doesn't do 
much to stand out. Zig's Steam Hearts is just the opposite. It was slow 
in parts, where Zig was describing gameplay, but the intro was 
insightful and catchy enough, and as the 'point of the game' was 
revealed, it got more and more enjoyable to read. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Mariner 2 - Retro 1
 
Ruder: Mariner over Retro. I wasn't too thrilled to see reviews for two 
old sports games on the docket, especially since I know that both of 
these guys have more compelling stuff to go to battle with. To be fair, 
Mariner writes a pretty interesting TB review, as he doesn't settle for 
mentioning the funny old absurdities that every TB review covers. We 
all know that you never throw incompletions in TB, but Mariner also 
tells us about the computer's preset actions relative to field position 
and specifically notes the cheapness of particular plays/players. I 
also had to smile when he compared TB's star-studded cast to the fat-
skinny guys in Ice Hockey. Retro's structure isn't nearly as tight as 
Mariner's, his writing here isn't as good, and his review is a little 
too long. I don't see the need to mention instruction manual type stuff 
like what each button does, especially since he notes that button 
functions can be altered anyway. 

Fix: WINNER: Mariner. While Retro's NBA Jam is enthusiastic, it 
features the trademark Retro goofiness ("...more mad than an erupting 
volcano"), and some totally useless information to boot. He takes the 
time to describe inconsequential stuff like the two-second long dunk 
video at half-time of each game, and actually brings up what each 
button on the controller does, only to then say that the button 
assignments can all be changed anyway. I'll take Mariner's more 
polished Tecmo Bowl, which focuses on the nostalgic appeal of the 
ancient football game, but then smartly dissects it by analyzing all of 
the flaws and technical shortcomings. 

Masters: WINNER: RETRO Retro's review was enthusiastic and made me want 
to play the game. Detracting from its worth were some forced 
metaphors/imagery and unnecessary control explanations. Mariner's 
review seemed to talk down to me, seemed to be adamant about 
demystifying a legendary game -- and while the latter is fine, in the 
demystifying, Mariner's tone is overly negative given that the score 
furnished was just above a 6. I almost wanted to give him the win on 
his conclusion alone though, as it is absolutely brilliant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Janus 2 - Hangedman 1 

Ruder: Janus over Hangedman. My apologies to Janus. For the second week 
in a row, I have nothing but generic commentary to offer him: this 
Otogi is just flat out brilliant. He makes everything seem alluring and 
exciting, from environments to combat moves to weapon choices. And if 
he keeps this trend up, I may just have to buy an XBox. Hanged's piece 
is compelling in its own right after a rough opening, but the writing 
isn't up to Janus' level. 

Fix: WINNER: Janus Operative. This Otogi review by Janus is awesome -- 
it paints a beautiful picture with great eloquence, and transitions to 
other topics just as well. At the same time, it isn't so overboard that 
reading it gets goofy. I liked just about everything about this review, 
from the discussions on the beautiful environments, to the intense 
action and hybrid RPG elements, and the "how ****ing awesome slicing up 
monsters in the skies is" part. I want to play this game. Hangedman's 
Manhunt is also atmospheric and effective, and in some parts 
frighteningly so (this game sounds disturbingly dark), but not to the 
degree of Operative's; I also wasn't quite so crazy about his opening. 
Still, this one was close. 

Masters: WINNER: HANGEDMAN Janus's piece is an atmospheric tour de 
force. He paints a remarkably vivid picture of the dark world of Otogi, 
but unfortunately I don't get a good enough idea of what the enemy 
encounters are like, indeed, how the challenge of playing the game 
FEELS. Hangedman's review is perfect, from start to finish. The review 
of the tourney thus far for me. It's a brilliant analysis of a game 
with subject matter that is already compelling -- no try-hard stuff 
here. This is really what a review should be. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
NT220 3 - Tom Clark 0 

Ruder: NT over Clark. I know that this has been common knowledge for a 
long time now, but I may as well restate it: NT is one of the best RPG 
reviewers around. I love his no-nonsense approach here, jumping right 
into Lufia's fantastic plot and hooking the reader in from the very 
first word. His great foundation is so important, because it makes the 
shortcomings of the game's mechanics seem all the more tragic and 
frustrating. Rips on the insane dungeons and ridiculous battle system 
are also articulated well ("utter chaos" is right!). Clark's review is 
also brilliant at times--the passages on conscience and AI show me that 
Tom put some real thought into this work. It's just that many other 
sections are dull, clunky, or unimaginative. Clark's inconsistency 
brings him down. 

Fix: WINNER: NT220. Clark's Halo really is good in spots, especially 
his paragraph that emphasizes the game's greatness in terms of the 
realistic AI. Other sections aren't quite so hard-hitting -- the 
introduction was somewhat weak ("Sorry to ruin any suspense that could 
have been built up by giving away the ending of the review..."), and 
are otherwise simply not as tightly written. NT's is extremely sharp 
and economical, he pulls no punches, and he has the consistency that 
Clark lacks. 

Masters: WINNER: NT220 Clark's problem is the same as it was in the 
last matchup he was in. This review is too wordy for what it 
communicates. I've read long Bloomer pieces, but they communicated 
complex thoughts that seemed crucial somehow. Here the sheer size comes 
off as unnecessary, the reviewer coming off as long-winded, and the 
same massive blocks of text exacerbate the problem. NT was clear and 
concise, building up Lufia's potential appropriately, before 
systematically ripping the game's execution in a pretty entertaining 
fashion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Snow Dragon 2 - Honestgamer 1 

Ruder: Venter over SD. I don't know what the heck is going on in 
Venter's introduction, his "plot kicking butt" paragraph is useless, 
and his writing here is generally inferior to Jessie's (though both 
have their clunky moments). Still, Venter settles down before long and 
really does provide everything I could ask for information-wise. It's 
interesting and detailed (but not to the point of being superfluous), 
and I don't imagine that a potential buyer would need to refer to other 
Ocarina reviews after this. It does its job--whereas Jessie's review 
does not. I was disappointed that, after the panic attack opening 
paragraph, Jessie didn't really give us an idea of what makes the game 
so terrifying until about the seventh paragraph. Instead, he opts for 
overlong diatribes regarding the game's detractors, mixed in with tales 
of Copernicus. The ideas here are good and need to be addressed, but 
not at the expense of the all-important theme. And while Jessie has his 
moments of writing genius, he also stumbles and seems to contradict 
himself occasionally: one moment I'm given a situation where charging 
full speed ahead is presented as the brave thing to do, the next moment 
I'm told I'll have no chance if I utilize such tactics. 

Fix: WINNER: Snow Dragon. Venter's review is at times overwritten, at 
others vivid, and at still others, awkward in its transitions. There's 
just something distracting about moving from some artsy-fartsy 
descriptions, straight to telling what the 'C' buttons on the N64 
controllers do -- the reading just is not as smooth as it could be. 
Also, intentional or not, certain things just break the mood in a piece 
of writing, and "something he blows" does it here. There is also a lack 
of justification in some areas -- "it kicks butt" about the story; 
"it's just one of those games" in the closing. This doesn't mean the 
review is terrible by any means -- you just have to get a lot more 
picky when all the writing is at a high level. Venter, I definitely 
liked this more in some ways than your SMK from last week -- it is so 
much livelier. Snow Dragon's Metroid II, which, despite a couple silly 
areas of its own ("...as if they were balloons slowly running out of 
helium"), was an enjoyable read which often captured the gloomy 
environments that Metroid is known for. Perhaps his bit on insisting to 
others that M2 represents the beginning of survival horror went long, 
but I'll take it over Venter's up-and-down effort. 

Masters: WINNER: SNOW DRAGON I've played and enjoyed both of these 
games, and Jess's description seems to more accurately capture the 
essence of his game. That is important enough on its own to net him the 
win. To delve deeper though, I found Venter's review to be an uneven 
read, bouncing back and forth between over-the-top artsy (see the 
intro), to "this game kicks butt" informal, to boring control 
explanations. Very distracting. Jess went too far with his ranting 
about Metroid II kicking off the survival horror genre, but on the 
whole he was more consistent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Nick Evil 3 - Skinny Puppy 0 

Ruder: Nick over Puppy. I don't like Puppy's intro at all; it seems 
like it's right from Janus' Gunstar Heroes opening, and I wasn't 
thrilled with it there to begin with. What follows is very good, but 
not enough to defeat the entertaining and expertly written Evil piece. 
From his ketchup sandwich comparisons to his dubbing of EDF a 
"blacklisted classic" to his hatred of the "disgusting, vomitous rough" 
that is the SNES library, Nick constantly amuses and amazes me with his 
clever methods of expression and portrayal. When Puppy counters with 
his usual "humor with an attitude" lines, focusing on matters 
concerning homosexual samurais and women's racks, they just don't prove 
as witty or effective. If I had to complain about Nick's review, I'd 
say that the weapons system is really the only thing that he paints as 
special about this "greatest sidescrolling shooter," but those of us 
who have played EDF know why the man may have been at a loss when 
listing positives. 
Fix: WINNER: Nick Evil. I liked both reviews yet again here, and I've 
never played either of these games. With that noted, I'll take Nick's -
- somehow, he's always convincing, and he doesn't fail to be here. 
Puppy's piece was cool, but with its numerous stressed complaints, just 
didn't make me feel like I was missing a game as awesome as his score 
said it was, while Nick's, ever harsh on the SNES crowd, made me really 
feel like I really was missing out. 

Masters: WINNER: NICK EVIL Both reviews had great pacing and flow, and 
easily digestable language. Both had great insights that were not over-
explained -- avoiding the tendency of shooter fans/reviewers to get too 
'shooter technical'. But SP's intro was off-putting while Nick's was a 
sweetly laid welcome mat to the rest of the review. He also managed not 
to let his anti-SNES bias RUIN things. For the difference in quality 
between intros alone, Nick gets the win. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Woodhouse 3 - Tachibana Ukyo 0 

Ruder: Woodhouse over Tachibana. I'm not really interested in the 
subjects of Woodhouse's reviews, but I'll give him some credit: 
considering how much room there is for goofy antics when discussing 
this sort of stuff, he handles the subject matter here very well, and I 
appreciated his concise approach. Every time I started to get into 
Tachibana's review, I'd run into another needless sex joke. This had me 
frowning and looking at my PC clock. 

Fix: WINNER: Woodhouse. Woodhouse's encyclopedic knowledge of 
hentai/'anime dating sim' genre titles once again rears its head, in a 
serviceable if not unspectacular Sentimental Shooting review. It does 
its job -- it's short and smart, making its case with eloquence and a 
knowledge of the genre. Ukyo's problems continue, not in the form of 
unreadable descriptions, but this time, repeated lame sex jokes. I 
could have tolerated one or two in a really great, absorbing review, 
but there were a ton here, and they were so distracting and lame, it 
made reading extremely tiresome. 

Masters: WINNER: WOODHOUSE Both reviewers in this matchup chose 'weird 
games', but Woodhouse makes his (admittedly LESS weird) game seem 
interesting and appealing, Ukyo's take on his game does little to make 
the odd subject matter palatable to the more mainstream gaming 
audience. Not that he has to, but this isn't what I would have chosen 
as a 'competition' piece.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sapharos 3 - Deathspork 0 

Ruder: Sapharos over Spork. Sapharos' review is powerful not only 
because of high-quality writing and effective descriptions, but because 
of structure. His introduction appeals to us right off the bat simply 
because it's so frank. Then he delivers a concise but convincing theory 
on the appeal of the series as a whole before expanding into an 
interesting study of the role played by audio/visual elements in regard 
to the games' all-important atmosphere. Only when he's captured our 
attention with all this good stuff does he launch into descriptions of 
the current episode's fundamentals, a stretch which culminates with a 
well-thought-out analysis of the game's flaws. Spork's review is also 
great but not quite as impeccable as Saph's. It seems like Spork 
pondered certain lines and descriptive passages to the point where, 
instead of sounding grand and interesting, they sound overdone and 
clunky ("archaic pointed weapons" comes to mind). Attempts to switch 
gears back to a more blunt and casual approach ("centaur henchmen 
practicing archery on your face") just seem awkward because they don't 
blend in well within the ambitious context. 

Fix: WINNER: Sapharos. Man, this Sapharos review, to me at least, was a 
knockout. I like how he starts right off in describing how Silent Hill 
achieves what it does in terms of scariness -- the breakdown is 
impeccable. The restraint demonstrated in comparison to the usual 
horror B-movie gorefest; the utterly eerie sounds of the static radio 
that hums louder as danger staggers forth, and the clangs of metal, and 
the guitar riffs; and describing the hopelessness of James' situation 
in a simple, straightforward style, making it all the more chilling. It 
was great how the scope of the analysis then widens, as Saph describes 
how the story of Silent Hill goes beyond the protagonist and his 
singular quest. But he keeps things down-to-earth, not failing to 
forget the annoying, ever-present locked/stuck/bolted doors that 
populate all of the SH locales. A lot of reviews attempt it these days, 
but this is one of the best examples of combination atmosphere 
breakdown/actual gameplay analysis I've read in a while. His systematic 
essay is a bit too much for Deathspork -- his Elemental Master is 
ambitious, but is another example of a piece needlessly overwritten. 
The introduction feels forced, overly meticulous and at points just 
goofy (cirrus structures?). That's not to say the review is bad -- the 
attention to detail is worth noting, especially when Spork takes the 
time to point out the 'little touches' that punctuate the otherwise 
dull presentation. It's just not written as compactly as Saph's. The 
wordy-atmospheric approach is a precarious balancing act, and this one 
has a couple missteps. 

Masters: WINNER: SAPHAROS I had expected to see Spork use his SF2010 -- 
perhaps he's saving it. But where that review had genius analysis, this 
one relies heavily on thick descriptions that while written well, 
teeter into the realm of over-the-top on too many occasions. This, up 
against the best I have ever read from Sapharos -- a review that got 
Silent Hill 2 just right by simply DISCUSSING it. There are no try-hard 
passages featuring attempts to recreate the Silent Hill experience. 
Saph just talks about how the game frightens, and WHY it frightens, and 
gets it exactly right. Brilliant stuff.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Leroux 2 - Jerec 1
 
Ruder: Dutch over Leroux. I can't say I wasn't a bit apprehensive when 
I discovered that Dutch went with a "story" format for his piece. Much 
to my delight, however, this review is no "courtroom" or "Crocodile 
Hunter" novelty/farce. It's an endearing tale that clicks on all 
levels. Dutch's humorous and folksy style lured me into the story while 
his depictions of business around town and encounters with the 
neighbors filled me in on everything I'd need to know about the AC 
experience. I was so interested in the transitions from timid newcomer 
to prominent town member to disillusioned outcast that I hardly 
realized Dutch was educating me on every facet of the game (and a 
subsequent look through an AC strategy guide confirmed my impression 
that there is indeed "enough about the game" in this particular story 
review). Leroux's Contra does live up to its reputation, showing much 
of its might during a vivid stage-rundown during its second half. But 
particular sections of the article's first half didn't interest me: 
making light of things like health restorers in trash cans and super-
hero leaping abilities seems unnecessary when the author has so much 
quality information to relay. A couple of slow spots doesn't rob the 
review of its excellence, but it does knock it a notch below a Dutch 
work that succeeded with a risky approach and kept my eye from glancing 
at that dreaded PC clock. 

Fix: WINNER: Leroux. I appreciated Jerec's unique approach, which was 
certainly revealing, not just of the game, but of Jerec himself (as the 
sudden turn of events that occurred when Jerec ran into a small fortune 
and his behavior shifted much for the worse as he lost all sense of 
societal responsibility). My only problem is that I feel like what I've 
learned was limited to exactly what happened to Jerec -- I don't 
necessarily learn of all that's possible, just of what happened. That's 
just one of the downfalls of this type of format; I ended up with some 
questions that might've been answered in a 'normal' review (e.g. What 
can you do to make friends in a neighborhood in AC?). Other than that, 
it really was very entertaining to read. But I'll take Leroux's, which 
fuses the typical 'bad-ass' approach to Contra with silly oddball 
cynicism in the form of observations about health bars and the 
frighteningly named and overly muscular heroes. 

Masters: WINNER: LEROUX Jerec's review uses relies on gimmick: it 
doesn't pretend to be a standard review, it is a story of Jerec's 
experience within the game, Animal Crossing. It's well written and 
funny and easy to read but goes on too long to be truly effective. 
Meanwhile, Leroux's Contra is one of the better reviews on the site 
with good insights and good humour (the bit about jumping in ball form 
and shooting at oneself comes to mind) is simply too much.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
King Broccoli 3 - Jihad 0 

Ruder: Broccoli over Jihad. This is one of the best Broc reviews I've 
ever read. I don't know how he manages to change things up so many 
times in his works and yet make it all seem so smooth and effortless. 
He baits us with an entertaining macho-man intro only to swiftly and 
suddenly inform us that accepting Ecco's challenge means that we will 
be inevitably torn to shreds. And then, following the manliness and 
blunt warnings without the slightest hiccup, we're treated to beautiful 
discourse on Ecco's visual majesty. I've had this game for years, and 
I've hated it for just as long. But Broc's awesome description of the 
shark-attack scene may have actually persuaded me to give it another 
shot. Brilliant job. As for Jihad's review, the opening section is an 
absolute mess and the writing isn't anywhere close to what this guy is 
capable of. I'm even interested in ZoE2 but couldn't find much to like 
here. Give me more Red-Dead-quality stuff. 

Fix: WINNER: King Broccoli. Broc wins this one hands-down, with an 
awesome, engrossing Ecco that closes just as strongly as it opens -- 
the consistency is unbelievable. The stylish opening, and then backing 
off and admitting how beautiful and challenging the game is -- it was 
just a cool, entertaining way to go about it. Top-to-bottom, this was 
one of the best pieces so far. I didn't care for Jihad's as much; I 
didn't much like how the introduction went, heavily relying on the 
first ZoE failure (and let's be honest, comparing it with The Bouncer 
in terms of unreached expectations can't be saying THAT much of how it 
was a letdown). Also, the "Wazzap wit dat title boyyeeeee?!!?!" line? 
That was utterly useless, distracting, and frankly, quite dumb. Overall 
it wasn't that bad, but doesn't touch Broc's. 

Masters: WINNER: KING BROC This one was VERY difficult! Jihad's review 
read just as review should really. A good mix of rich writing and 
cogent analysis -- even some light humour. But Broc's review pulled out 
all the stops. It's not a thesaurus-thumper, but instead uses lush 
language that makes you think "ah, nicely put". And it does so without 
overpowering the actual REVIEWING that demands notice. Stylish AND 
functional. Kudos. 

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

SUMMARY 
 
Chaos Legion 2 - Mongol Horde 1 
World Heroes 2 - Mariner's Team 1 
Magnificent Bastards 2 - Sinister Ministers 1 
The Jerks 2 - Detective Work 1 
 
Record|Wins|Team
2-0   |05  |Jerks 
2-0   |04  |World Heroes 
1-1   |03  |Mariner's Team 
1-1   |03  |Detective Work 
1-1   |03  |Chaos Legion 
1-1   |03  |Magnificent Bastards 
0-2   |02  |Sinister Ministers 
0-2   |01  |Mongol Horde
 
=======================================================================
 
Following the second round, original posts did not reflect what was 
soon to become a hot topic on the boards: that both event commissioners 
(Denouement and SnowDragon) had not yet won a single match as a team.  
The revised standings (those indicated above) were posted by Denouement 
shortly after the incorrect standings (which did not entirely count 
commissioner losses).
 
Talk also centered on the fact that the last two picks from the draft, 
Sapharos and Woodhouse, were the only two reviewers involved in the 
tournament with an undefeated record.  Overdrive speculated that 
SilEighty's comments against Zigfried may not have been correct.  
Participants also congratulated the judges on their excellent work and 
dedication to the tournament to this point (and rightly so).  With talk 
of the round still fresh, it was time already to advance to preparation 
for the tournament's third round.

=======================================================================
 
Round Three:

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

Jerec - Woodhouse 

Ruder: Dutch over Woodhouse. Many reviewers would be content with 
composing the basic foundation of Dutch's review and leaving matters at 
that. Essential GTA3 information is conveyed in organized, well-written 
passages. But Dutch goes a step beyond the fundamentals in certain 
segments and takes the piece to another level. The intro contains one 
of the greatest hooks to be found on GameFAQs, the "favourite past-
time" paragraph grants us an idea of GTA3's appeal outside the lines 
(and injects some humor and personality to break up the straightforward 
game descriptions), and the concluding bit on the moral dilemma and 
subsequent revelation that Dutch experienced provides not only 
thoughtful closure but also a final smidgen of incentive for us to get 
in on the action. Woodhouse's review contains his usual solid writing 
(perhaps his piece proves slightly superior to Dutch's in this regard) 
and the third paragraph on the game's characters really got me 
interested. Unfortunately, the latter half of the work degenerates into 
generic "fighting game speak." The points are necessary, to be sure, 
but I imagine that there are more interesting and imaginative ways of 
relaying them. While Dutch augments his solid foundation with clever, 
thoughtful passages, Woodhouse settles for the basics and comes up 
short in this round. 

Fix: Jerec's GTA3 is obviously strong, as he's used it on many 
occasions of competition before. It is the extremely entertaining 
introduction that hooks you from the outset -- many people (myself 
included) sometimes use examples of in-game action to introduce the 
topic in an interesting manner, and this is one of the most effective 
examples of that. The topical breakdown/order of discussion are a bit 
plain ("For the most part, the control is good"; "Visually, this game 
is very good"; "The sound is also of exceptional quality"), but 
excellent examples of just what Jerec means are always presented. It 
isn't always the most eloquent piece of writing, but does just about 
everything you could ask for in terms of content. I also found it funny 
when Jerec suddenly noticed how much he enjoyed his newfound criminal 
hobbies, nervously self-analyzed himself for any potential real-life 
bloodlust, and then immediately returned to GTA to kill more people 
once he was convinced he was still mentally stable. Woodhouse's 
freakish thoroughness of knowledge related to the adult genre of gaming 
and its predominantly Japanese roots continues to amaze. His QoH review 
may actually be written a bit better than Jerec's in spots, but as a 
reader I fail to be convinced of the points he's trying to make. He 
gives a 9 to a game that even he admits is seriously deficient in any 
notable form of innovation or originality, "stealing" fighting engines 
and movesets from other fighters. He compliments the game for being 
difficult on the higher difficulty settings, and says that the need for 
practicing in order to succeed makes it all the more worthwhile. Is 
this not true of most well-known fighters, though? Jerec's piece was, 
if anything, convincing. I'll take his. 
 
WINNER: Jerec 

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

Broccoli vs. Venter 

Ruder: Broccoli over Venter. Broc is solidifying his status as the best 
reviewer of the post-Axelay Wars era (if not of all time); he's a true 
Rodimus Prime to lead this flourishing generation of writers who are 
restoring pride to the reviewing community for the first time since the 
Horsemen's ragnarok! In his SMK piece, we finally find a "sex intro" 
that doesn't seem out of place or just plain stupid, as Broc maintains 
his slick and confident--even cocky (but likable!)--tone for the 
duration of the work (though he doesn't forget to humorously lump 
himself back in with the game nerd faction). The prose is witty and 
accurate throughout, and perhaps the most effective portion comes when 
Broc nails down the essence of the SMK experience in contrast with its 
fierce (but pretentious and convoluted) peers. Perhaps it can be said 
that the two people who haven't yet played SMK would request additional 
specifics, but this is overall excellence. Not to say that Venter 
simply rolled over and died, however; I enjoyed his review quite a bit 
once it got going. I don't know if his intro is immediately effective 
for those who haven't played the game, though, and there's a lot of fat 
that could've been trimmed. Why are we being told of save files being 
manila folders three paragraphs before we get to the TRULY cool and 
atmospheric stuff (sounds of bullets all over, glass shattering, etc.)? 
Venter is inconsistent here: sometimes he writes too much on dull 
topics (see paragraphs 2-4), other times he presents us with great 
stuff that comes a few paragraphs too late.  

Fix: Broc hits another homerun. His SMK appears to have been crafted 
more lovingly than I'll even bother describing here. The opening sexual 
metaphors are a nice touch, if at least for conveying the otherworldly 
experience that the game manages to present -- but his actual game 
analysis, delivered almost poetically, completely blew my mind. Broc's 
arguments are crystal clear, and I especially liked how he made the 
point that SMK lacks the 'bells and whistles' of other racers, instead 
focusing on the action. It's a strange feeling reading a review like 
this; it takes raw ideas that most SMK reviews (or people who've played 
the game, for that matter) could never articulate this well, and 
sculpts them into a magnificent piece of writing. A Herculean effort. 
Venter's 007 is not going to take down this powerhouse (as most reviews 
wouldn't). It just isn't written with the same zeal as Broc's, but then 
again, this is a down-to-earth review. I don't like it when a 9/10 
piece starts with an example of one of the most annoying problems with 
the game at hand, but the 'So I did' at the end was a nice touch. And 
so Venter does exactly what is expected of him -- covering the almost 
redundant 'games based on movies are bad' argument, touching on the 
importance of graphical atmosphere to replicate a true 007-ish 
experience, and explaining the celebrated multiplayer mode. He's just 
coming across Broc at a very inopportune time -- he's overpowered here. 
 
WINNER: King Broccoli 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sapharos vs. Nick Evil 

Ruder: Sapharos over Nick. Sinner attacks Afterburner III with the fury 
of a raging madman, tearing it apart in very brief, extremely harsh 
paragraphs. He does well: if I had the slightest interest in purchasing 
AB3, my interest would have dissipated by the end of the work. But I 
feel that Sapharos accomplishes a greater reviewing "feat" here, 
keeping me intrigued during a lengthy study of an old-fashioned PC 
adventure. He does take a long time to establish the game's premise, 
but I feel the information he supplied was vital and served to get me 
interested enough to keep reading about the mechanics. And he does 
cover everything I'd ask for relevant to in-game stuff: environments 
you explore, story progression (how this title's ideas of "puzzles" and 
advancing the quest differ from others), and the effectiveness of the 
text-parser. Nick's review is fine, but the work Saph put into his 
piece ultimately produced a greater impression. 

Fix: Sapharos strikes yet again, perhaps not as powerfully as he did 
with last week's Silent Hill, but with a Laura Bow piece that's 
conversational and at times funny. If there's one recurring thing that 
I appreciate about Saph's work, it's that he always seems studied-up 
coming into a review; here, he's able to communicate the advantages of 
LB in terms of its advanced (for its time) text-parser, and make 
reasonable distinctions between this game and others of the genre 
(noting how this one is less of a puzzler and more of a story). If 
anything, I suppose I'd say that his complaints seem significant enough 
to make me question the '8' -- if 'the wanderlust dissipates far too 
quickly' and the limited environments lend themselves to a sense of 
repetitiveness, well, these sound like pretty big problems for a game 
like this. But I'll take his word for it. I wonder about Nick's choice; 
instead of going with a review similar in force to last weeks Earth 
Defense Force, he chooses an AB3 piece that uses ridiculous GBA/GBC-
type comparisons to convey the game's poorness right in the 
introduction, and some of the claims seem almost hyperbolic (here I 
could be wrong -- maybe it really is that bad). The half-censored 
obscenities and choice words like 'dung' and 'droolishness' make this 
look more like a polished GUTS effort than one of those all-crushing 
Nick essays that'd be threatening in a tourney setting. Why aren't you 
wielding the mighty Bloodlines and others?! I'll take Saph. 
 
WINNER: Sapharos 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Snow Dragon vs. Leroux 

Ruder: SD over Leroux. As I read Jessie's LoM, I couldn't help but 
wonder why all of his reviews aren't this brilliant. Nowhere are the 
overlong sentences or needless phrases or unnecessary tangents that 
have tarnished some of his other pieces. The writing is fabulous (check 
out the graphics paragraph, excellent stuff), the flow is perfect, and 
Jessie's passion for SoM and his disappointment with LoM really shine 
through without anything feeling forced. It's a long review, but only 
towards the very end does it begin to have that "talking too much" 
feel. It's just an analytical masterpiece. Leroux's review is also very 
good and fairly entertaining (I liked the BOLD+CAPS attack in paragraph 
4). But with a subject like Paperboy, there obviously isn't much room 
for analysis, leaving little opportunity for a reviewer's skills to 
really shine. And unlike Jessie's review, there weren't any particular 
passages where the writing really made me think, "Wow" (again, perhaps 
a result of the skimpy subject matter). 

Fix: This is the best review SD has used so far, and incidentally, it 
is by far the oldest he's used. Take that for what you will. The flow 
here is easily superior to his past two weeks' efforts, as the 
dissection of the weak LoM is systematic and ruthless -- things start 
out nice enough as SD builds up (and shows his own) expectations for 
the RPG based on its SNES's excellent predecessor, but then begins 
hammering away with one-liners ("Unfolding the story is more akin to 
letting go of a balloon"; "...Magic and items, serve no purpose in this 
game at all"), followed by explanations that fully convey the stupidity 
of the project. There are some things that drag this one back down to 
earth, like controller function instruction manual type stuff and the 
striking plainness of transitions in the second half of the analysis -- 
the first half of the piece is delivered with such good timing and 
preciseness that getting to the "At least the graphics are fantastic," 
"The original score is fantastic," and "The control is a bit dodgy" 
parts was a little underwhelming. Still, a great read. I'm taking SD 
over Leroux's effectively negative Paperboy review. SD's more eloquent 
and hard-hitting with the delivery of his criticisms, but that may be 
because he's reviewing a PS RPG with a history to speak of, and Leroux 
is analyzing an archaic NES game. Either way, that makes SD's a bit 
more ambitious, and he has the edge here. 
 
WINNER: Snow Dragon 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Tachibana Ukyo vs. Deathspork 

Ruder: Tachibana over Spork. This one was tough, as the writing is 
excellent in both reviews (Tachi gets a few bonus points for humor). At 
first I was thinking I'd pick a winner based on who did a better job 
making his case, but Spork convinced me that SF2010 is indeed an 
underappreciated classic and Tachi convinced me that Hillsfar is 
complete trash... so that didn't work. I'm going to go with Tachi 
because Spork's review takes a little while to really get started--four 
paragraphs come and go before he truly delves into the nuts and bolts 
of the game. The descriptions are incredibly good later in the review, 
but I'm not certain that all readers will delight in the history-based 
opening segments. Tachi kept me interested and entertained at all 
times. 

Fix: This was a ridiculously competitive match. Ukyo's review is 
hilarious and relentless, right from the start. The pointlessness of 
the opening ceremonies (dice-rolling, etc.), the repetitive nature of 
the annoying fetch quests ("find my pantaloons"), the ridiculous size 
of pukey identical areas of exploration -- its all here. It's so unlike 
his past entries -- lighthearted, bizarrely funny, and most 
importantly, highly readable. One of my new favorites. Spork's 2010 
displays his knack for capturing atmosphere -- witness his "The very 
structure of the game effects an urgent mood..." paragraph for some 
great observations on the hostility that the game attacks with. It's 
hard for me to find much fault in either review, but Spork's doesn't 
have the striking momentum that Ukyo's does, which is scathing and 
effective from end to end. 
 
WINNER: Tachibana Ukyo 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Skinny Puppy vs. Jihad 

Ruder: Puppy over Jihad. This is my favorite Puppy review--there's a 
personal stamp to it that you won't find in other reviews for the game. 
For a time, he ditches the tough guy stuff and presents some of the 
most frank and touching passages you'll see around here. Read the two 
paragraphs that kick off with "Which brings me to ICO's visuals," and 
tell me that you don't want to buy the game right then and there. I was 
thinking about purchasing ICO for a while, and this review is what 
pushed me out the door and made me go do it. The descriptions are 
wonderful. He details such subtle but crucial aspects as ICO tugging on 
Yorda's arm and dishes up clever, accurate descriptions involving 
ghostly cuties and evil muppets. Jihad counters with a missile of a 
review, telling of one awesome, crazy MS3 antic after another seemingly 
without pausing for breath. The reckless tone is fitting and the 
descriptions are excellent; it all really makes me want to play the 
game (though I did have a concern while reading that he was giving away 
a tad too much--I want to be surprised by some of this stuff too, you 
know!). I'm going with Puppy's, though, as it was unique and more 
affecting. 

Fix: There's a lot to like about SP's Ico, especially the fact that he 
puts a lot of emotion into the review. Some things about it don't mix 
quite right (SP is emotionally attached to the cuteness of this game, 
but still finds ways to call the hero ugly and use terms like 'brain-
rapingly', which are more the kinds of things I expect when reading his 
reviews), but its still well written and sincere, as he doesn't fail to 
recognize Ico's shortcomings (and the fact that many people won't be 
satisfied in general). Jihad's review is way different -- its a 
veritable whirlwind, packing excited descriptions of the outrageous MS 
world into an unbelievably enthusiastic piece of writing. I'm going 
with SP here -- Jihad's review really is good, but at times it feels 
hyperbolic. It relies heavily on descriptions of 'crazy moments' to 
show how great a game it is, perhaps too much so. At the same time, 
SP's was a pleasantly touching surprise. 
 
WINNER: Skinny Puppy 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Retro vs. Overdrive 

Ruder: Retro over Overdrive. I was all set to rip Retro when I first 
saw the epic size of his review, but I must admit that it contains a 
heck of a lot of good information. I actively looked for stuff that 
could've been cut, but it all actually seemed relevant; and if I were 
someone seeking info on the game, I'd be delighted with this effort. 
Overdrive's writing is superior but his competitor's piece seems more 
thorough. And Retro's personality becomes a huge asset, as his 
enthusiastic voice ultimately makes his review more enjoyably to read 
than his opponent's. 

Fix: Two very different reviews here. Retro's is bursting with 
personality and filled with examples of situations, levels, enemies, 
and bosses. If there's one thing Retro rarely lacks, its personality, 
and there's plenty of it in this heartfelt piece. I'll take it over 
Overdrive's which has both less character and less detail that Retro's. 
Some of his complaints I didn't quite get -- his first is that Amagon 
has many pestering enemies. This is true of many platformers -- enemies 
almost always abound -- so is this really something to complain about? 
His point becomes clearer when he brings up the more absurd foes and 
the bosses, but Retro takes this one. 
 
WINNER: Retro 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Janus Operative vs. Zigfried 

Ruder: Zig over Janus. It seems like Janus was trying to beat Zig at 
his own game by using an offbeat review about a rather silly game. 
Unfortunately, all of his super-short sentences and exclamation points 
and parentheses make reading a little clunky in parts. Zig, on the 
other hand, seems perfectly at home in this territory, allowing me to 
pay more attention to his tale of exploding proteins and musclebound 
mastiffs than to his writing mechanics. Particular portions of Janus' 
review were amusing and well done (that pink suitcase bit sounds rich), 
but his descriptions never interested me to the point where I could see 
myself looking for and playing this game. Zig pulled this off. Part of 
the reason, of course, is that when writing "wacky" reviews, it helps 
to have the wackiest subject matter possible. Tossing arcade cabinets 
at people's heads sounds kinda cool and a little crazy, but not as cool 
and crazy as the legendary men's beam. 

Fix: JO's Dynamite Cop is good in that it explains the understandable 
appeal that DC holds as a next-gen throwback to the beat-em-ups of the 
past (plus a dimension added). That said, it can't stand up to Zig's 
Choaniki, which somehow manages to actually analyze the ups and downs 
of the game amid the hilarity ("And believe you me, realism is the 
key"). Janus's solid DC looks simply plain next to its opponent.  
 
WINNER: Zigfried 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
NT220 vs. GUTS 

Ruder: NT over GUTS. NT is one of the most consistent writers on the 
site, and his Ardy Lightfoot piece is proof that A-level writing can be 
found in areas of his catalog separate from his classic RPG reviews. He 
stumbles just a bit right out of the gate here ("far more easier" in 
the second sentence), but recovers immediately with an amusing jab at 
Mario. It's all great from that point on: I really like his word choice 
("a tedious potpourri of the oldest cliches known in platforming") and 
transitions ("Then the pendulum swings"). And he always manages to not 
only find the silver lining in underachieving video games (in this 
case, the underground passage level), but also make them seem as 
appealing (and tragic) as possible. His competitor puts up a valiant 
fight. I appreciate GUTS' effort to bring more eloquence and refinement 
to the table, and the result is very good, but it seems to be missing 
his trademark "fire" that we saw in bullets like Blood Gear. If he can 
find a happy medium somehow, GUTS will be mighty. 

Fix: NT strikes again with an excellent dissection of the 
disappointingly inconsistent AF; he carries the theme of inconsistency 
through the entire essay with logical examples (some stages being too 
easy, others being ridiculously complicated) to back up his points. He 
makes it so clear why this game is mostly a forgettable failure, and 
why games we remember -- like SMB3 -- are never forgotten. GUTS' 
Blazing Star is unique compared to most of his other reviews I've read, 
but just isn't written as compactly and effectively as NT's. 
 
WINNER: NT220 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Mariner vs. Denouement 

Ruder: Mariner over Denouement. There's no one in the business as good 
as Mariner when it comes to annihilating washed-up "classics." 
Reminiscent of his Zelda III masterpiece, he starts here by "giving 
credit where credit is due," and then launching an impressive, well-
thought-out assault on Metroid's numerous flaws. Mariner has no mercy--
from the ridiculous energy system to the repetitive rooms to the lame 
methods of killing bosses to those stupid "merry hoppers" that are 
almost impossible to avoid, he rips them all apart. It's an incredibly 
convincing piece; I loved this game as a kid and have no desire at all 
to play it again after reading this review. Chris made matters 
difficult though by turning in a masterpiece of his own. His KOTOR is 
awesome in almost every respect. If I were to find a slight flaw in it, 
it's that it didn't really give me a good idea of what the mechanics of 
combat are like. 

Fix: Yet another tough match between differing pieces of writing. 
Chris's KotR is great in terms of capturing the epic nature that an 
adventure with the Star Wars rights has the potential for. I also liked 
his arguments concerning the multiple-choice conversation response 
system employed -- the result really isn't a greater sense of non-
linearity, but somewhat the opposite (as it's often obvious what choice 
you need to make to achieve the desired effect with other characters). 
I never got into the NES Metroid, and Mariner's review makes me glad, 
because he makes such brutally logical and seemingly fatal complaints 
that I wonder how this game has the fame that it does. Repeating rooms 
that make traversing the game a chore; the explorative nature of the 
game, with too few rewards to truly warrant the exploring; challenges 
that are challenging not because of ingenious situations, but because 
of a lack of capabilities that'd make such tasks reasonable; and the 
unbalanced distribution of missiles and the weak wave beam -- Mariner 
brings Metroid back to harsh reality with incredible effectiveness. The 
haymaker to his case is the fact that upon continuing the game, you 
always begin with 30 energy, even if your maximum HP is in the 
hundreds. I have to go with Mariner in this one -- his arguments are 
extremely good and the essay is structured very well. 
 
WINNER: Mariner 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Hangedman vs. Kane 

Ruder: Kane over Hangedman. The writing in Kane's review has its fair 
share of pockmarks, while Hangedman's work is pretty clean. But Hanged 
fails to provide us with many specifics while slaughtering his game. We 
do get some weak and unnecessary attempts at comedy (see the 
conclusion). Sure, it does its job in that it convinces the reader to 
never bother with the sludge that is Hotdog Storm, but it's not the 
type of stuff that impresses people in a competition--which ain't good 
when it's up against a very effective and descriptive BillyKane review. 
Kane devises an outstanding introduction and does a fantastic job of 
convincing the reader that playing RE makes for an awfully scary 
experience (see the "there is one point in the game" paragraph... 
"traumatizing" indeed!). 

Fix: Hanged's Hotdog Storm is pretty good, and generally funny (as is 
usually the case with him). He rips into the game, using other, much 
better shooters from the time period to prove his point that there's no 
way HS should have been this bad. But Kane's is better -- his 
determined essay on RE is ridiculously atmospheric, from the 
frightening opening which explains how the characters end up at that 
dreaded mansion, to breaking down the ambiance created by the little 
touches that mess with your senses -- shadows of objects you can't see, 
dramatic camera angles, noises from off-screen, and the general sense 
of panic created by the urgency of the situation that taps into the 
most primal of fears. He tops Hangedman, whose 'wheelchair-bound 
asthmatic' jokes are silly, but not enough. 
 
WINNER: Kane 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Cyper vs. Tom Clark 

Ruder: Cyper over Clark. Cyper's review starts off with some strong 
writing but eventually devolves into the type of routine reviewing that 
I can hardly tolerate these days. Some of this technical stuff is 
interesting, some of it is boring, none of it is particularly 
ambitious. It's tough to read after I enjoyed Retro's fun-packed 
review. Still, Cyper gets the nod, because he kept me a little more 
interested than Clark did. Clark almost lost me completely with that 
huge second paragraph. He goes on to use a lot of words in seemingly 
dense paragraphs that don't really go far beyond surface elements. 
Sometimes even the simplicity fails (endorsing the game's characters 
and then telling me they do little aside from giving hints). His 
graphics section was excellent--I wish he wrote with such vividness 
more often. 

Fix: Not a whole lot to say about this undercard match-up. Cyper's is 
serviceable -- it's a thorough breakdown of Yoshi's Island, perhaps 
lacking the personality that Retro's version was able to muster. It 
tops Clark's Star Fox Adventures, which is thorough, but quite boring, 
and is structured like a bulky sectioned review. If Clark could trim 
his pieces up, he'd be a lot better off, I think. 
 
WINNER: Cyper 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
SUMMARY 

The Jerks 3 - Magnificent Bastards 0 
Sinister Ministers 3 - Detective Work 0 
World Heroes 2 - Chaos Legion 1 
Mongol Horde 2 - Mariner's Team 1 
 
Record|Wins|Team
3-0   |08  |Jerks 
3-0   |06  |World Heroes 
1-2   |05  |Sinister Ministers 
1-2   |04  |Chaos Legion 
1-2   |04  |Mariner's Team 
1-2   |03  |Detective Work 
1-2   |03  |Magnificent Bastards 
1-2   |03  |Mongol Horde  
 
=======================================================================
 
The topic announcing results for this round announced that Masters, one 
of the three judges, had unfortunately given up his position.  That 
left two people judging the submissions.  It was a highly-anticipated 
round, with a lot of interesting matches and also some excellent 
commentary provided by the two remaining judges.  For the next round, 
it was determined the ASchultz would fill in as the third judge.

=======================================================================
 
Round Four:

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

Denouement 3 - Snow Dragon 0
 
Ruder: Denouement over Snow Dragon. I like the concept behind Jessie's 
introduction--there's potential for a neat hook here, but awkward 
wording detracts from the effect (too many words again, like the 
redundant nows in sentence one). When it comes to the mini-games 
themselves, Jessie's review seems self-defeating in that it makes the 
games seem pretty darn dull. It doesn't help that the section on the 
best game, Noah's Ark, does a poor job of describing game play and 
level design. "You around, delivering animals who don't do much of 
anything to the door in the middle of the ark, where they then run 
submissively to their place in the built-in stable."... huh? Clearly 
missing a word after "you" and desperately needs a comma after 
"anything." The "decent" mini-game, David & Goliath, is described as 
having "four relatively boring levels" followed by a one-hit final boss 
and a "contrived ending." This doesn't make me want to give the game a 
chance! On the other hand, Chris' review does a wonderful job of making 
Wild Arms 3 seem worthwhile despite its underlying conventionality. I 
really don't have much to say about the piece, just because it's flat-
out great. This is the kind of brevity and convincing writing that I've 
always wanted to see from Chris. Only one part seemed a little awkward 
to me: the story/characters paragraph reads as if the heroes are part 
of a train robbery one minute and protecting mystical spirits the next. 
Maybe they're robbing the bad guys' train or something, but the 
transition from rogues-to-heroes still probably could've been a little 
smoother... or maybe I'm just reading it wrong. 

Fix: WINNER: Chris. Chris delivers with what seems to be an ideal Wild 
Arms piece -- it recognizes the fresh coat of paint, applied to fairly 
standard formulas in terms of RPGs, and it's content with that. The 
writing is solid throughout, with some passages sticking out in 
particular (such as the atmosphere created by the noise of the swinging 
doors that reminds us of the Wild West). Great effort. It will be 
enough to outgun Jessie, whose Bible Adventures is entertaining, but 
quite rocky in spots. The writing just isn't as clean as Chris's -- 
observe, from the 'Noah's Ark' section: "Rocks that look like 
basketballs that have had a chunk bitten out of them roll along the 
ground and the decks lining the big boat, and Noah's got to keep his 
bearings together as he jumps over them." Chris's is more clean-cut, so 
he wins. 

Andrew: Denouement's review is very smooth and certainly gives me a 
good idea of what Wild Arms 3 should be like. I enjoyed the discussion 
of how to get around combat(it still feels like a score for the little 
guys when I read of a game that does that) and three characters are 
introduced in a nice sweep to cover what the game's all about. The only 
weakness may be that it bounces back and forth between sentences, i.e. 
'One the one hand this. But on the other that. Wait, I don't want to 
discriminate against mutants so on the third hand this.' Grossly 
unfair, but I hope the exaggeration makes it clear. SD's review does 
feel a bit over-finessed, perhaps an experimental work that half-
justifies itself by not undergoing the usual proofreading, and though I 
haven't read too many BA reviews, I see 'Three games at your disposal; 
which one to play first!' and think...DEADLY HOLY TRINITY PUN TO CHANGE 
THE PACE. There's also the dovetailing enthusaism discussing Noah's 
Ark, the 'best' subgame. I think the review mentions pros and cons of 
religion, but instead of the heightened diction that doesn't quite 
measure up to King Broccoli, perhaps a few more Biblical references 
would be nice? The penultimate paragraph is also a long winded way of 
saying 'two out of three ain't bad.' So...DENOUEMENT.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Skinny Puppy 2 - Kane 1 

Ruder: Skinny Puppy over Kane. This was a very competitive match, but 
my analysis will be pretty simple. Both writers focus on shooters here, 
but take vastly different approaches: Kane examines Ikaruga's nuts and 
bolts, while Puppy--after an obnoxious introduction--concentrates on 
Lightening Force's stylistic elements. They both do extremely well, but 
Puppy's approach lends itself more to engaging reading. In other words, 
it's easier to pull in the reader and show off your skills when you're 
concentrating on awesome levels, music, mecha, and monsters than when 
you're discussing black and white chains. Puppy really gets rolling 
with a vivid description of Strite and never lets his enthusiasm waver 
after that. Beyond that, I found Kane's references to Aladdin and 
Macross to be amusing and effective, respectively; but I'm confused by 
his labeling of Ikaruga a "sidescrolling shooter" after telling me it's 
a vertical in paragraph one. 

Fix: WINNER: Puppy. It's hard to find fault with Kane's review, except 
to say that its focus on the technical side of Ikaruga makes it a 
somewhat unexciting read. It is extremely informative, but there's no 
powerful descriptions to complement the technical analysis. Puppy's has 
both. His Lightening Force, unlike Kane's review, has readily apparent 
"weaknesses." His intro doesn't exactly impress (though I like the 
argument), and some phrases ("..the graphics are sexier than your mom") 
are downright idiotic -- I felt like I was overhearing a conversation 
between seventh graders or something. But he nails the rest -- the 
technical side is delivered in tandem with some awesome 
imagery/descriptions that make me want to play (see the sixth and 
seventh paragraphs). 

Andrew: Here's an interesting battle. One review, looking at a recent 
revolutionary game that pays homage to old school stuff and yearns for 
it all too. Kakihara shows a disgust with all this in general, and the 
direct contrast with two strong writers--not to mention seeing one 
game's name in the other's review--makes for a potentially entertaining 
battle. First, Kane had the best line of the round: 'to Buddhism what 
Disney's Aladdin is to Islam' is gold. I'm confused as to who Snake, 
Free-way and Hunter are, and I can't really say that I enjoy the 
asterisks and pointless sexual references. The review is engaging 
enough as it is, and even when it refers to other games I don't know, 
the comparison has good concrete examples. But Kane's review manages to 
tell why certain parts of Ikaruga are good and bad, and why its 
innovation is not so great or lasting. It's smoother, too, without 
having to use parentheses, and Kakihara's occasional too-long sentence 
that doesn't get to the point('And while I won't spoil it with too much 
detail, the last level is truly epic, a fierce battle above and beyond 
anything leading up to it.') loses its way against Kane's more direct 
and forceful prose. KANE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Tachibana Ukyo 3 - Cyper 0 

Ruder: Tachibana over Cyper. I thoroughly enjoyed Tachibana's rip-job; 
I found the piece to be fast-paced and funny--which were probably the 
only two advantages it held over a surprisingly strong opponent that 
held its ground in most every other respect. I look at the success 
Tachi had not only in mocking the game, but also in noting its few 
impressive elements (innocently entering a cabin to switch characters 
only to see your enemy's health meter appear), and I've gotta give him 
my vote. Cyper really impressed me here, however; I have no interest in 
the game he reviewed but I was very interested in reading his thoughts 
on it, because most SSBM reviews don't go as in-depth or contain as 
many appealing descriptions. It starts feeling long at the end, when he 
spends a little too much time on the levels, but Cyper is on the right 
track.
 
Fix: WINNER: Tachibana Ukyo. Cyper delivers a pretty impressive Smash 
Brothers piece which manages to really capture the essence of the 
appeal of SB. His analysis of the fighting is great, but otherwise the 
piece seems to drag a bit, as a sizable chunk of the review is devoted 
to the stages. It really is good, and probably could have done some 
real damage, but it comes up against a powerhouse here. Ukyo's F13, 
like his Hillsfar, is hilarious from end-to-end, thrashing the poor 
logic (zombies, stupid camp layout) and execution (four inept 
counselors) of the entire project. It's full of great lines ("Generally 
speaking, if you're going to program a sprawling maze into your game, 
you should probably subsequently program a good reason for me to 
actually go there"), and the writing is excellent. Probably my favorite 
of Tachi's. 

Andrew: TU's Hillsfar bash review was something else and when I saw 
Friday the 13th, I expected more of the same. I didn't quite get *as 
much* more, at least at the start--he doesn't weave his jokes around 
the game so much as pull stock jokes out of his hat('wait, what was I 
saying?') The long paragraphs also seem to loop around, referring back 
a bit too much, which sort of captures the circular feel of the game 
but leaves me feeling like I'd drunk too much warm fluorescent Koolaid. 
Hillsfar might have spoiled me for more gems like 'undead linebacker' 
but the historical snark at the end registers well. Cyper's review 
feels like a nice, solid review that unfortunately doesn't stand out 
much among other strong reviews. Phrases like 'the kicker' and 'mind 
you' tend to bog a person down versus a slashing humor review where a 
writer can show what he's about, that he's adapted himself to the 
universe of the game and wants to guide you in it. The difference here 
is between an affable tour guide you feel very, very guilty yawning in 
front of, because you know you'll take a good deal away from it--and 
you don't yawn but once--and one who keeps you laughing and you hope 
you can still focus on the next entertaining bit. TACHIBANA UKYO.
 
Deathspork 2 - Hangedman 1 

Ruder: Deathspork over Hangedman. I like Hangedman's review a lot; I 
even referred to it when I was first thinking about purchasing 
Shattered Soldier. In a contest setting where I'm required to pick a 
"winner," I'm afraid I have to nitpick. Hangedman gives us zero 
information on the game's level designs and environments. No, these 
factors aren't as important as the aspects of the game that he DOES 
cover, but they could have supported his vague "there's great incentive 
to keep playing" statement, which is followed only by talk of the 
bosses. In contrast, his competitor is so thorough that he even 
addresses the game's out-of-place title screen, and he does it all in 
an interesting and intelligent way. Spork's review leaves me with no 
questions about its subject; Hangedman's review leaves me with a 
couple. That's why Spork gets my vote. 

Fix: WINNER: Deathspork. Short and not ridden with the ambitious, 
complex descriptions of an Elemental Master-type review, Spork's take 
on Pyramid is probably as interesting and succinct as a piece on a 
puzzle game is going to get. He's already hammering away at the 
foolishness of the game by the excellent third paragraph, and 
emphasizes the minuscule odds of a player succeeding with some funny 
comparisons. This one checks in and out quickly enough that there are 
no real big problems -- and this is good, because it's hard to estimate 
how valuable a review of an unlicensed puzzle game really is. It tops 
Hangedman's either way, which is okay for what it does -- discussing 
how bosses are tackled by the everyman in the learn-through-dying 
technique -- but he doesn't even mention any of the awesome action from 
the stages. In a game where you're clinging to missiles and jumping on 
trains and splattering flying bugs that are trying to carry you off, 
you'd think these things would warrant a mention, but Hanged never 
touches them. 

Andrew: Deathspork sent in a review on a game I've written a guide for 
and when I see one of those I'm a stickler for detail. Some of the 
information is wrong at the quibble-level but it would take more words 
to explain it away. The lamentations over not being able to form a 
single line do seem exaggerated, though. Sometimes seeing a review of a 
game, my judgement is clouded by whether or not I sympathize with the 
writer, and having gotten to level 5, 'that's just sad' for getting 20 
lines weighs even heavier than the Rosie O'Donnell crack. The rest of 
the review is too SMART to have this over-self-depreciation of puzzling 
talent. The puzzle-game test mentioned in the last paragraph is apt, 
though, and I think I started using it to gain other ideas after I 
forgot I read this review. Compare the probability of getting two lines 
to seven ****ing 3/4-diamonds in a row, for instance, and you're on 
track. Hangedman wrote one of those fun reviews where you feel like a 
real jerk noticing those grammatical errors. 'There's no spread gun; 
stop whining and get over it' is a great clincher I think would allow 
even non-Contra fans to understand. Same with the italicized list. I'm 
a bit confused as to Lucia's role, and I'm still wondering if this 
Contra has the same alien lurking at the end, or if we should suspect 
that. But it's a slick review that will substitute nicely for my never 
playing this game and, thus, finishing out a series I liked at the 
start. HANGEDMAN wins.

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

Jihad 3 - Tom Clark 0 

Ruder: Jihad over Clark. I don't like the flow of Jihad's review--
mainly because there is no flow. It reads like he addressed topics as 
they popped into his head, and little forethought went into the matter 
of organization. Still, the info the reader needs is all there and 
stated quite well. He does a nice job of describing the dark, bizarre 
premise and he certainly came to the review equipped with a laundry 
list of flaws to cover. Tom Clark raised my hopes high with a nice, 
humorous intro--and then spat out an enormous paragraph that takes a 
million different topics and smashes them into one glob of text. He 
rebounds with a very good paragraph on the game's platform sections, 
but the damage had already been done, as the casual reader probably 
wouldn't make it past that gargantuan third paragraph. I didn't like 
how he mentioned specific parts of the game for no real reason--the 
robo revolt and cyclops death he refer to don't mean anything to the 
reader. I understand why he doesn't want to ruin the surprise by 
talking about them in detail, but then they may as well have been left 
out entirely. 

Fix: WINNER: Jihad. Jihad takes this fairly stale match-up, using an 
American McGee's Alice review that's straightforward and descriptive -- 
he makes this version of Wonderland seem pretty freakin' weird. Clark's 
Cosmic Spacehead has quite a bit of relevant detail, but the writing is 
somewhat dull and repetitive ("First off..." in paragraph 4), and the 
structure is questionable in spots. In one gigantic paragraph he 
crosses topics ranging from plot to target audiences to puzzles 
(including examples) to the flaws of having the lengthy password 
system. Clark always seems to have small spots of cool writing 
("insipid platformery poison") surrounded by stuff that isn't so 
special. This is another one that needs cleaning up. 

Andrew: After a great first line, Jihad falls back on too many terms of 
a middling reviewer. Not that he is, but in this sort of competition 
these slips can be deadly('eye candy/gameplay/level design'/directly 
mentioning visuals and sound as entities.) I was interested by the 
changes in Wonderland and wondered if, perhaps, Jihad felt the 
gloomification of a world such as Wonderland really could be counted as 
original. Anyone can have angst--even game designers. I'd be curious to 
see what part logic played in the puzzles, and if standard sort of 
platforming really fit in with Carroll's vision, but there wasn't 
enough of this to tip this review to greatness. As an evaluation, it 
was tidy and wrapped up well, but it didn't point out any clever 
details in the game--or ones the game missed that made it untrue to the 
story--that a review largely needs. Tom Clark's mention of the stoned 
Cheshire cat was an amusing match-specific crossover but I feel that 
his review had faults too. He takes a bit too much time to introduce a 
silly plot, and although I agree that console point n clicks often have 
something cool with enough humor(Blazing Dragons) I really don't like 
that huge paragraph in the middle. Tom also refers to entities a bit 
too much('the presentation, the level design') which makes it hard to 
immerse yourself in a game as a reader. When the game relies on a story 
as point and clicks do, that's a further strike. I'm also curious about 
the sorts of environments Cosmic encounters: outer space fights? 
Hitchhiking on spaceships? Worlds made of crystal and/or sand? The 
killer is when, over halfway through, I'm informed there are 
platforming levels. Tom takes a bit more time to say things than Jihad 
does, so I will go with JIHAD.

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

Leroux 2 - Mariner 1 

Ruder: Leroux over Mariner. Hard match. I was really entertained by 
Leroux's jabs at the game's goofy "victims" and weak artillery, and I 
loved the "Shining" paragraph which served to show the potential 
coolness of the ZAMN concept. On the other hand, I loved Mariner's 
level/boss descriptions and his keen, enthusiastic observations on 
things like Protoman and the fluctuating level of challenge. I have no 
significant complaints about either piece; I'm choosing Leroux's simply 
because his amusing jabs made his work slightly more entertaining. 

Fix: WINNER: Leroux. It's hard to justify a choice in matches where 
both pieces accomplish what they set to, as they do here. Mariner's is 
an extremely thorough comparison of Mega Man 3 to the other MM games, 
namely the heralded MM2, and in all of the important facets -- bosses, 
stages, difficulty. Leroux's does what it intends to as well, ripping a 
hole through Zombies Ate My Neighbors, a game of mass appeal which I 
never understood (and Leroux's review is ideal for explaining why). The 
cynical humor works great here, and I like how he catches references to 
classic thriller/slasher flicks like The Shining. Since both really do 
what they set out to, I'll take Leroux's -- I thought the writing was a 
bit better, and his was just a more enjoyable read. 

Andrew: L: "Yes, water pistol, as in,"... this sort of thing is 
effective for conversation but not as effective in the context of a 
review. There's some overemphasis here on snark for snark's sake and 
the paragraph at the end seems to be a missed chance for making fun of 
the controls. The blow by blow description works when the details stand 
out by themselves(a bazooka amidst squirtguns, or letting people die so 
there are fewer to rescue next round.) But when describing the 
frustration of controls, if you can mimic the frenetic feel of not 
doing what you want, the review takes off. This review felt as though 
it glided on the game's badness, and you noticed enough that was 
ludicrous without giving more than a belly laugh. Oh, also, I'm a 
hypocrite about using recursive parentheses. "You're writing a review, 
not a math equation." M: This seems almost to be apologizing for 
enjoying MM3 and the tone doesn't fully mesh with the information he 
presents; for instance, he'll say, MM3 is great, then he'll point out a 
way or two MM2 outdoes it, thus not really making MM3 feel like the 
underdog. I like how he has pointed out the small innovations that 
occur between MM2 and MM3--but I can't help but notice the final 
paragraph mentions every game except MM4. Perhaps a brief reason why 
MM4 didn't improve on MM3? Sort of to balance the equation? Also, given 
that he's got a long review, I might put some of the stuff(i.e. 
granting that MM2 is rather good) at the start. From my Mega Man 
experiences I enjoy the super-hard turning to familiar simplicity, and 
this review touched on a lot of that, though. MARINER.

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

 
Retro 3 - Jerec 0 

Ruder: Retro over Dutch. This is one of those great nostalgic Retro 
reviews that just makes you go "aww" when you get to the teary-eyed 
conclusion. It's a fantastic effort: I even like the "list" that other 
people seem to criticize. I like the brief level descriptions (like the 
vampire-bat/screen-filling lasers line and the mention of MetalMan's 
clock-like realm), the music descriptions (see his horrorstricken 
remembrance of Wily's dirge), and the mentions of things more subtle 
(the guys who illuminate rooms with their flame-heads). Retro doesn't 
use any fancy writing to describe these things, but his unabated 
enthusiasm sees the concepts through. I really like Dutch's review, 
too: I love the atypical focus on music, the conclusion is awesome, and 
particular unexpected lines made me chuckle (Rikku's introduction and 
the crap rock lyrics line). The writing just isn't rock solid 
throughout, though, and some sections, particularly during the second 
half of the work, don't seem to maintain the passion that Dutch exudes 
during certain parts. There is definitely some incredible stuff here, 
but Retro's review is more consistent from start to finish. 

Fix: WINNER: Retro. If there's one thing you can depend on Retro for, 
it's a sincere, personalized review of a game from his childhood. It 
always seems to be the same things that carry his reviews -- a strong 
familiarity with the subject at hand, and an evident enthusiasm 
conveyed in a conversational manner that lends itself to a very 
believable, down-to-earth tone. His MM2 fits the bill here. A good game 
analysis mixes with some heartfelt comparisons to 'friends who stick 
around,' plus a great section where Retro takes a time-out to list some 
examples of uniqueness presented by the weapons system of Mega Man. 
There are some instances of awkward wording here and there, but nothing 
that really hampers the piece as a whole. Jerec's effort is much more 
of an up-and-down one. Some parts are great (I really liked the intro), 
and read more profoundly than others. It seems like a really cool idea 
to emphasize the emotional power of music, but its not always delivered 
as cleanly as Jerec's capable of. Later on in the piece, the phrase 
"mess[ing] with your emotions" is used on three different occasions in 
a span of two paragraphs, and there are other cases of repetition and 
redundancy. If Jerec could have kept up the pace throughout, this could 
have been something really special, but there seems to be a division 
here -- the first half is very poignantly written, while the second 
half is plain and straightforward. I've gotta go with Retro's 
consistency here.
 
Andrew: Gosh I hate having to judge reviews I've already enjoyed(R,) 
especially when they're up against others that are their rough 
equal(J.) Or is R's J's rough equal? Read this critique to find out! 
Retro's review starts off with a very good personal note but putting 
friends in quotes does allow for a bit more bitterness. It's a great 
review to read the first time through, and it certainly inspired me to 
think about the Good Old Days. But now I have to sit down and try to 
tear it apart. He doesn't have to tell why that person is no longer a 
friend but maybe a mention that some games have lasted longer than 
friendships. would work well. For me, I can walk past a CD/cartridge 
with an old game on it and not have to say hi and still remember a ton. 
As for the review Retro does come up with incongruities such as 'I 
wasn't jumping on top of head after head or collecting fortunes of 
coins; it was different' which is a bit too ironic. Or say 'thrills, 
chills...' a bit too colloquial for the reminiscing tone. But then he 
manages to name-drop bosses without making an outright list of names. 
He can wrap great observations(Bubble Man's music) up with the non-
obvious filler, and the emotional effect is diluted. On a first 
reading, I often overlook these things, saying, yes, there's good stuff 
here. There's a paradox: it's a game you want to waste time on, and I 
get the feel from Retro's review, which itself seems to waste a bit too 
much time. Jerec's review wastes a bit of time too, while but the big 
cop out is mentioning side quests and mini games for you to discover 
for yourself. It sort of screams that he didn't look for an example 
which would have been better placed than 'the sound is good.' And 
telling several times how the music messed with my emotions...messed 
with my emotions. I think a weakness here is that while there's nothing 
that's refutable, there's nothing really to pick up on and say, yes, I 
recognize this as an important detail. At this level too much of a 
sentence like 'The voice acting is a mixed bag; some are very good, 
while others are not so good' is a killer. There are too many of these 
that slow the review. The word quota would be better spent describing 
examples of why the sphere grid is so great. RETRO.

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

Janus 2 - King Broccoli 1 

Ruder: Janus over Broccoli. This wasn't Ecco vs. Otogi, but both 
reviews were very good, and I had a tough time reaching a verdict. 
There are very minor mechanical issues in both, but in neither case are 
they significant enough to drop one piece below the other. Both start 
off with very amusing introductions. I think the difference for me is 
that Broc just didn't talk much about his game's one big flaw (the 
ridiculous difficulty during later stages). He touches on it very 
briefly, and before we can really get a true sense of it, he's already 
jetted back to the redeeming good stuff. Janus remains focused and 
convincing, providing us with plenty of instances of his game's 
absurdity, such as the silliness of the turning system come boss-fight 
time. 

Fix: WINNER: Janus. This match-up wasn't as impressive as you'd expect 
given the reviewers involved. Both reviews have good intros, Broc with 
is usual personality, and Janus showing how Atomic Runner somehow 
manages to be cliche times three as far as storytelling goes. But 
neither is very spectacular past that. I like how Broc's changes pace a 
bit midway through, when Lion King suddenly becomes ridiculously hard. 
I'm not always fully convinced of his arguments -- the game seems too 
hard/unfair to deserve an endorsement like 8/10, and otherwise, the 
writing just isn't as killer as it's been in the new reviews used from 
the past couple weeks. I'll take Janus's, which although certainly not 
his best, either, still has some great complaints, analysis, and funny 
moments ("Yes, even when absolutely still, Chelnov still must press a 
button to turn around"). 

Andrew: For a Janus review the effort feels garden variety and as he 
tends to overuse the word 'nonsense' and gets a bit too adverbial(ie 
"in theory/actually/quite" in P6.) It crosses the line to laundry 
listing at a few points, with a bit too much repetition to show the 
game's stupidity. And the one-sentence paragraphs don't hit. I am 
supposed to be a judge, not a critic, but I can't help kibitzing here--
"A suit. It's not half the scientific marvel of Chelnov, a perpetual-
motion machine in his own right, and it doesn't let him turn around 
easily." I'm struck comparing this to Leroux's: Observation and snark, 
but no heart, the feel that everything is put out more than competently 
but it's not slashed to bit with the maniacally economical and 
glittering sentences that make a great review. That's left to KING 
BROCCOLI. His review soars so much that using 'orgasm'(hey, WOODHOUSE 
didn't use that word) fails to annoy me. I've read better elevated 
diction to introduce stuff from him(last part of 1st paragraph changes 
tone too abruptly, but it takes off after 'stinkbugs') but I hate 
whining about reviews like this. His review reads like an innovative 
sort of alcohol bender that hasn't been discovered yet. The only 
suggestion I could give is that there's a bit too much trash talking. 
And sometimes I know what he is trying to do, but I suspect he can do 
it a bit better. For bashing reviews without subtle or unique humor 
there can be a ceiling, which Janus's hits. KING BROCCOLI.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
NT220 3 - Sapharos 0 

Ruder: NT over Sapharos. Sapharos' three previous entries all captured 
my attention immediately with fascinating opening passages, but this 
review fails to do the trick. Saph talks about basic factors and MMORPG 
fees long before getting to the in-game good stuff here. I'm sure the 
info is essential and, I don't know, perhaps people who are really into 
this stuff find it fascinating, but it didn't seem like a compelling 
way to kick off a review to me, and I didn't really get into the piece 
at any point thereafter. I won't bore anyone with generic praise of 
NT's mighty work. I'll just point to the parts I thought were 
highlights: the section where he lists actual improvements on usual RPG 
traits, and the passages towards the end where he describes how the 
game fails in any and every of its intended purposes. Excellent stuff. 

Fix: WINNER: NT220. NT calls Mystic Quest on all of its shortcomings -- 
its characters arbitrarily joining and leaving the quest; the monsters, 
so irritatingly weak that they can't even put up a fight; cure spells 
solving all problems instantly; boxes with items, that refill after you 
enter and exit and area; and perhaps most ludicrously, if you actually 
manage to die, you can simply restart the battle. This is NT at the top 
of his game -- hard-hitting, economical prose where no words are 
wasted. The second half of the piece is just as swift at dispensing 
criticism (see the awesome parallel 'it fails' paragraphs that tell how 
MQ serves no purpose successfully). It's also loaded with outstanding 
individual lines (the last sentence of each of the last two 
paragraphs). This is a great example of how to write a negative review 
that isn't overly heavy on sarcasm. Saph's Diablo II is okay, a fairly 
straightforward effort, with some bits of obviousness (such as your 
character level being a factor in determining whether you're strong 
enough to win a battle or not), and some bits that feel like they're 
out of the instruction manual. This piece was heavy on factual stuff, 
but felt a bit too light on critical analysis. It's not the achievement 
that NT's is. 

Andrew: First, NT220 mentioned Wizardry without insulting it, and with 
a slightly confusing transition to start I said--haha, time to turn the 
tables on something he's pointed out in SEVERAL of my RPG reviews. It 
took me a few readings to get started, and other paragraph transitions 
may seem moded...but after that I really started to enjoy it. If 
there's one criticism the review itself doesn't have strong 
personality...but it acts as much more than a tutorial for anyone who 
would want to write thoughtfully about an RPG. I'd mention the big 
issues a bit sooner, as buildup tends to work better for praise, but I 
found myself groaning at almost every single example NT220 offered up--
reminding me of some bad Apple RPGs I once played. This review is much 
closer to touching universal points than having FFMQ's lack of 
personality. But Sapharos's 2nd-paragraph transition is even more 
baffling and sets the scene for a review that's stilted in tone. When 
dissected, Diablo II is simple, apparently, but your next paragraphs 
seem to indicate there's a lot to do. Then 'You get what you pay for' + 
'it's free' + 9/10 = contradictions, which is my personal pet peeve. 
Then there's stuff like mentioning you'll die a lot more after leveling 
up a ton(how?) after the quests(awkward wording--plus, you mention that 
they AND items are crucial.) The concluding paragraph lapses into 
pseudo-FAQish strategy, and the tone just doesn't feel right. Given 
some of Sapharos's great stuff that makes me half ashamed of some of my 
old windows review, his Diablo II review never really matches up well 
with NT220. NT220 wins.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NickEvil 3 - Zigfried 

Ruder: Nick over Zig. Well guys, I had this big huge essay all typed up 
for this mighty matchup, but then, uh, my computer froze. Sorry. 

Fix: WINNER: Nick. Nick used a real review, so great. 

Andrew: Geez. I remember this review of Zigfried's. He solicited 
contributions for trite phrases, then added an absurd story at the 
beginning which points out some faults amusingly and subtly, but I 
don't think its enough. It's stil not appropriate for a tournament, but 
it brought back some funny memories. I think it inspired my NES Toki 
review, too, which I like to throw in a nonsequitur for whenever I get 
the chance. That's not enough, though. I'm impressed with how Nick 
captures many things I enjoyed about Super C. His adjectives seem very 
well placed. Against one of Zigfried's detailed and captivating 
ramblers this would be an interesting match. But NICK wins clearly. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Honestgamer 3 - GUTS 0 

Ruder: Venter over GUTS. I really like Venter's SC2. Unlike some of his 
other abominations, it flows really well and avoids dumb humor (the 
grandma/Heihachi part pushes things a bit though). I enjoyed his in-
depth look at the atypical quest system, and the whole review rides on 
his enthusiastic voice. It's such good stuff that it convinced me to 
buy the game. BUT, GUTS' review convinced me to buy his game too! But 
then I thought back to an argument I had once with Zig, where he told 
me that Blood Gear's graphics consisted of poor pastels and bubblegum 
mechs. In that case, GUTS' praise for the visuals here is inaccurate. 
So, maybe his whole review is a lie. Thanks to Zig, I can't trust it. 
So once again, GUTS loses a match that he should have easily won, all 
thanks to his coach! 

Fix: WINNER: Honestgamer. The GUTS effort is the typical brief and 
sometimes effective stuff that will give you a (really) quick look at a 
game, but it isn't terribly specific (and let's face it, it's surely 
not super eloquent). It's out of its element here. Venter's Soul 
Calibur II is solid and informative (in spots maybe overly so -- I 
don't feel like I need to know stuff such as the options for 
customizing matches like time limit and difficulty, as many games have 
this). But I'd rather be given an overabundance of well-articulated 
info than a dearth delivered in a choppier manner. Venter's is also 
backed with lots of examples (and some sports of humor), while GUTS 
tends to ride more on pure enthusiasm. Such is the way with reviews 
this short. 

Andrew: GUTS's review is less appropriate than Zigfried's to the 
competition, and that's saying something. I like old school games too. 
I like having an idea what they're about before starting them, and 
GUTS's review didn't give me that. So despite my finding that 
Honestgamer's first-person rhetoric rings over-earnest, and there is a 
paragraph or two of initial unnecessary gushing, it's pretty clear who 
the winner is. HONESTGAMER.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Woodhouse 2 - Overdrive 1 

Ruder: Overdrive over Woodhouse. What a bizarre match. How the heck do 
I compare these two works? Well, I'll start with Woodhouse. His writing 
was simply excellent, probably the best I've seen from him yet. The 
review seemed like more of a story to me, and I was wondering when he'd 
get to the actual game play stuff... then I reached the part about the 
decisions, and I realized that's all the "game play" there is. So I'm 
fine with his approach, and his writing was great, and his honesty in 
dealing with all this stuff is admirable. But... Overdrive's review was 
something I related to, got into, and enjoyed more. Loved the relevant 
comparisons to Insector's peers and nodded knowingly during his 
description of the hell that is level 5. Pretty much everything I'd ask 
about a shooter is addressed here. There's really no way to compare 
these pieces "objectively," so I'll go with the review I had more fun 
reading. 

Fix: WINNER: Woodhouse. It was surprisingly difficult to choose a 
winner here. Both pieces cover the basics -- Overdrive systematically 
annihilates Insector X by bringing up its flaws in character size, 
stage difficulty and pointlessly easy bosses, while Woodhouse does his 
usual exploration of the hentai genre, this time with Tsuki: 
Possession. But Woodhouse's does a little more -- it discusses the tone 
that his game takes with its material, the circumstances of the plot, 
and it deliberates on the psychological justifications that may take 
place as a result of playing a game like this. So I'll go with 
Woodhouse. Reading about porn games every week really is off-putting, 
but the writing is too sharp to allow me to really hold that against it 
here. I can only imagine what Woodhouse could accomplish if he'd cover 
'normal' games with this skill. 

Andrew: Woodhouse's review deals with a disturbing manner quite well 
and also leaves you feeling that, yes, there is a way to look into such 
things without really being tainted by him. It's a serious but not 
stuffy look at things, and although bishuojo seems to restrict the 
format of a review, I felt this review brought up the most interesting 
questions of the round and never risked sounding like some awkward 
birds-and-the-bees talk. Overdrive's observation is good but the 
transitions feel clunky. "Let's just say/Just look at." And the first 
two paragraphs feel like false build up to the bolded tour de force 
third. I'd have liked to hear about the first level at the beginning as 
well, too. Perhaps it could have built the reader up for a more apt 
disappointment. Maybe a joke about Kafka would wash. This review left 
me thinking about his Toilet Kids review, which I enjoyed immensely. 
The observation is there, but the focus and organization aren't quite. 
WOODHOUSE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
SUMMARY 

Sinister Ministers 2 - Mongol Horde 1 
World Heroes 3 - Jerks 0 
Detective Work 3 - Mariner's Team 0 
Magnificent Bastards 3 - Chaos Legion 0 
 
Record|Wins|Team
4-0   |09  |World Heroes 
3-1   |08  |Jerks 
2-2   |07  |Sinister Ministers 
2-2   |06  |Detective Work 
2-2   |06  |Magnificent Bastards 
1-3   |04  |Chaos Legion 
1-3   |04  |Mariner's Team 
1-3   |04  |Mongol Horde 
 
=======================================================================

The fourth round was rather controversial.  For awhile, it looked like 
Guts may be disqualified for inflammatory comments on the GameFAQs 
message boards (he had a topic modded on a tournament board, which was 
against the rules).  However, he was allowed to participate at the last 
minute after agreement from all involved parties and commissioner 
Chris.  Additionally, the Magnificent Bastards and Chaos Legion were at 
the center of controversy involving picks from Nick and Zigfried, with 
last-minute review switches when Honestgamer overrode Nick's review 
choice, and Zigfried responded by posting a link to a new review a 
minute shy of the deadline.  Finally, judging itself was delayed by 
nearly an hour so that Andrew could turn in the last of his critiques, 
which were posted later than normal.  FFM felt the need to interrupt 
with a comment stating that he hoped Broc lost, but other than that and 
the delay the events went smoothly.  People began preparing for the 
next round. 

=======================================================================
 
Round Five:

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

Honestgamer 2 - Denouement 1 

Ruder: Venter over Chris. Chris starts off with a really nice intro and 
maintains a high level of writing throughout. The problem here is that, 
beyond his great prose, he just didn't capture my interest. Judging the 
piece "by the book," he seems to have done everything right, but the 
problem with reviewing a game like this is that even the "exciting 
parts" just don't sound very exciting without an extra touch of wit or 
special depth of analysis. I see Chris dishing up well-written 
paragraphs on machine guns and snipers and potent weapons and I just 
kinda snooze because it sounds like every other game with these things. 
Venter's review has plenty of personality, making it easy for scrubs 
and experts alike to fully understand what the DMC2 experience consists 
of. For once, a Venter piece displays great fundamental organization, 
as he maintains focus on the game's main flaw even while covering other 
positives and negatives: "Even as you groan when you walk down another 
wide-open street and know you're going to blast through it easily, 
you'll appreciate the fact that it looks so darn good." While much of 
his writing is layman's work, there are some very nice moments: "Capcom 
probably thought he'd seem even cooler if he was unperturbed by things 
like the end of the world, explosions that rock a city block, or 
whatever else he faces. But really, he just seems bored. The player may 
end up sharing that sentiment by extension." 

Fix: WINNER: Venter. Chris's Syphon Filter is probably the more 
eloquent of the two, but his intro feels like an abrupt start to things 
-- the first sentence begins "It was an afterthought of a game..." and 
the second, "So it's not surprising...," so I almost feel like I'm 
missing something at the front end. The rest is okay, but seems to lack 
the liveliness of past tourney entries like Aladdin. Perhaps the extra 
smallish paragraph driving home the 'this game is nearly identical to 
SF2' was overkill since you mentioned it about 4 other times. Other 
than that, serviceable but unspectacular. For some reason, I also sort 
of felt like you were giving the game a 7 because of a taser, which was 
Venter's DMC2, on the other hand, doesn't suffer from the 
organizational/content problems of past entries, and is loaded with 
personality, as his piece spins around the semi-central fact that he 
sucks (and therefore he can find appeal that others probably can't). 
It's bolstered by some good one-liners ("They speak their lines then 
exit stage right, relieved. You will be too"), and in general is the 
most readable Venter effort I've come across.
 
Andrew: Well, I mentioned it briefly last week...and if there's one 
thing that rankles me, it's false humility. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S 
LIKE TO REALLY SUCK, PAL! IN FACT, I DON'T EITHER, AND I'M BEING LAME 
FOR THROWING THIS JOKE OUT! Not really. But when a shtick pops up 
throughout the course of several paragraphs, and it doesn't work, it 
grates by the end. Here the whole narrative voice got to me in the 
wrong way. I myself like describing if a game is good for a klutz or 
not. I don't mind describing how things can go wrong or reading about 
things other people did. But the 'I suck' and (better, but not great) 
pseudo-snarky end sentences reek slightly of the stand up comedian 
who's tried to start up a personality cult since high school, when he 
couldn't even join one despite showering regularly his senior year, and 
the alcohol his audience needs to imbibe not to boo at him. Sentences 
such as 'I played it because of the gameplay' also serve to put a 
ceiling on how much of an emotional impact a game can have; I remember 
bloomer's comment about trade routes as the introduction for Star Wars 
I in one of his reviews. Some words just deaden things, getting a 
yes/no point across well enough, but falling woefully short of strong 
description. Others that are just dropped out there can make things 
fizz--but they're solo players. I'm looking at YOU, vasectomy. As for 
denouement's reviews, I love ones that feature a person trying to hang 
on to a game he doesn't want to go on the scrap heap. And yet, at the 
same time, he recognizes its limitations. I think one of my problems 
with writing sequel-reviews is that they wind up being "Magic Candle 2 
did this but Magic Candle 3 DDIIDDNN''TT!!" Enough here is roundabout 
with the comparisons, and the review never really whines. The 
concluding paragraph is particularly good; it's the fitting end of a 
eulogy, for a game that's a eulogy . But I'm still not sure what a 
Syphon Filter is. I suspect I should know. The biggest complaint here 
is a sentence that wavers a bit too much--'I suppose this way is 
better'--but anyone who sits down to read it a few times will see 
what's going on. DENOUEMENT. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Cyper 3 - NickEvil 0 

Ruder: Cyper over Nick. It seems like Nick was bored and took a 
careless approach to writing this review. The sections prior to the 
main criticisms are so routine they're painful, and the whole piece is 
marred by sloppy, un-Nick-like lines: "Alucard's game will 
disappointingly chug along a disappointingly often amount of time." 
Cyper showed this week that, despite a rough time in this tournament so 
far, he can compete with anyone when he's on top of his game. This was 
the second week in a row that I really enjoyed his entry. This 
particular review, relative to a lot of his other stuff, features deep 
analysis (see the passage on team and individual glory) and careful 
attention to detail ("A well-placed flashbang, or a silenced rifle 
barrel poking from a dark alcove, can be the ruin of an entire team"). 
The icing on the cake came later in the work when he convinced me that 
CS doesn't truly fall victim to the complaints others have leveled at 
it. Good work, Cyper; show us more stuff like this.
 
Fix: WINNER: Cyper. Cyper puts up a strong showing for the second week 
in a row, with a CS essay anchored by a well-developed 'intense 
teamwork action' theme that pervades the work. I don't have much to say 
about this one -- it actually held my interest from start to finish 
with good information and an appropriate usage of 'man this is 
satisfying' in-game moments. Cyper's review looks like wildfire next to 
Nick's sleepy-eyed Drac X; he certainly doesn't seem too pumped to be 
writing about it, at least. It lacks the preciseness in terms of 
wording that Nick usually possesses ("For Alucard, not the world is not 
at the fingertips;" "..disappointingly chug along a disappointingly 
often amount of time;" "..remain impressively there"). The message gets 
through, but these types of careless problems are distracting. Cyper in 
a head-scratcher. 
Andrew: Nick divides Saturn's Castlevania into separate entities 
quickly: the premise, the game as ported from the PSX and the extra 
alleged goodies. So far so good. But then--the second part of the story 
strings together several pleasant sounding but, on re-reading, too-
obvious sentences. And Lord do I dislike the sentence that started the 
downfall: 'Gone is'...with the subject matter, reminded me of Goth 
poetry, but usually Nick doesn't do that. The paragraph description of 
the port graphics then breaks down into 'mostly anything'...eegh, it 
kind of undoes the poetry built up...and an outright tangle of a 
sentence at the end. I also feel that the extras could be mentioned 
before the graphic ports. Contrast the game's depth with what the 
Saturn tried to add, and I think the reader will be able to get in tune 
with good additions vs.bad additions.more easily. Cyper's review seems 
more straightforward at first, but it really grew on me. I've mentioned 
I come down heavily on parentheses in others' reviews. Cyper's got a 
lot of these, and the flow is occasionally interrupted, with Nietsche 
seeming particularly superfluous--save the sentiment for the next 
review. But each sentence seems to be saying something even if the 
language is not terribly poetic. I've taken to games where you push 
blocks around lately and could see myself getting a rush in parts where 
I wasn't told a player got them. I think though where this review 
really shines is in discussing the team play and why it's so effective 
and how it can even balance out. It's something I really haven't seen 
from a review before, and I forgot my innate biases against shooters 
through the read and re-read. And the ending is clever too. The review 
never tries to be showy, but it is a fine accomplishment nonetheless. 
CYPER. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Woodhouse 2 - Kane 1 

Ruder: Woodhouse over Kane. Kane treats a beautiful game with some 
beautiful writing, but occasionally interrupts the brilliance with 
senseless bits on Rosie O'Donell and the like. To borrow a Bloomer 
term, I didn't particularly like the "dynamics" here. I would really 
get into a passage only for an abrupt switch in style and focus to take 
place. Woodhouse's piece is consistent, though it rarely rises above 
the "solid" level. I liked the part about the entertaining pre/post-
match bits, which basically gave the review a little jolt of 
personality. Ultimately, Woodhouse pulled off his goal of showing why 
the game is far from a successful fighter yet achieves its aim and can 
be worth acquiring if taken for what it is.
 
Fix: WINNER: Kane. BLAH. This one wasn't as impressive as you'd hope. 
Kane's SSII review (some of it, anyway) is on another plane of 
analysis, emotionally conveying the beauty that the experience 
provides. That is, in places. I still don't understand what could 
possess someone to break the mood of a piece of writing, as is done 
here when Kane follows some haunting descriptions ("Under the 
moonlight...") and a weighty next-paragraph topic sentence 
("..transcends conventional wisdom") with a similie concerning Rosie 
O'Donnell and Whoppers. That and the "true gangsta fashion" parts were 
utterly dumb lines. That's a lack of consistency in tone that really 
jars you if you're reading closely. Other than that, though, Kane tops 
Woodhouse, whose own fighting game piece is solid in terms of writing 
and content, but just isn't on the level of the competition; it's 
pretty forgettable. Maybe it's a difference in values, but I also don't 
really see the justification of how his game is a 6 when even he says 
the fighting depth is so meager that only the most inexperienced gamers 
could begin to enjoy it for anything outside of the anime source 
material. So reluctantly I make a decision: I'll take Kane's at-times-
awkward, at-times-brilliant effort over Woodhouse's steady but 
unmemorable showing. 

Andrew: Hey. Kane. Why the Rosie O'Donnell reference? I'm not a fan, 
but...why bother with her, period? That's two weeks in a row! Two 
reviews with potentially different takes on the same genre and it's not 
easy to decide. One weakness with Kane's review is that there are 
probably too many superlatives...the second? Ehh. I can't really find 
it. It's a lot of fun, and this is for someone who hates fighting 
games. Woodhouse showes that he's more than just a hentai reviewer 
here. I'm still in the kiddie pool when it comes to fighting games, but 
Kane shows that the next direction is, and should be, about a story, 
and about character development above and beyond ripping the opponent's 
spine out. Woodhouse tackles the trade-offs between popularising a game 
outside its obvious niche market and making it too darn simple. Both 
authors press a bit--the extraordinary (Kane) and the disappointing 
(Woodhouse) where you risk attention to small details vs. making the 
reader clearly tired with a bit too much--the dry style is well suited 
to hentai, but Woodhouse might benefit from trying something more 
active for fighting games. I think Kane could take some of the praise 
off and still make it a fine game--the 'How can you not enjoy this?' 
sounds a bit like an advertisement. And with this race going down to 
the wire as I see it, it's only appropriate the last line decides it: 
"without a wisp of pretense, I don't think any game ever will." It's a 
bit too much of a strong-arm, considering the sentence 'it's really the 
overall aesthetic of the entire game that renders it an unforgettable 
piece of true artistry. Simply sumptuous.' So, WOODHOUSE wins. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Jerec 2 - Tom Clark 1 

Ruder: Dutch over Clark. Dutch starts off with some GREAT opening 
paragraphs and keeps up the enthusiasm through the very last line. I 
really like Dutch's casual descriptions of the gory events that take 
place in this game (headless cops staggering around). The leisurely 
attitude is perfect and makes me chuckle, but even more importantly, 
all the brief sweet descriptions show me just how darn cool this game 
really is. Clark's review is pretty good, and isn't plagued by his 
usual monster-paragraph problems, but, well... it's a Gameboy football 
game. It's thorough if methodical, but it just can't compare with the 
fun and excitement to be found in Dutch's more ambitious work.
 
Fix: WINNER: Jerec. Jerec's Vice City is good -- the analysis is fairly 
straightforward and thorough. It doesn't captivate like his GTAIII did 
-- he used appropriate in-game examples of action in that piece to 
command the attention of the reader. Here, his 'you can do this in this 
game!' examples are torrential; there are so many of them that the 
effect feels slightly cheapened. Jerec also repeats himself in places, 
but other than that, this is another enthusiastic showing. Clark's 
Quarterback Club won't win this match -- it has its own problems, the 
main one being that this is a gameboy color sports game that supposedly 
isn't worth the 1500 words he spends on it. Composed of just four, 
minute-long mini-games, you'd think this would be a breezy, check-in-
check-out thrashing of a game no one should bother with. Clark's 
breakdown is painfully thorough, as he dissects every square inch of 
the four pointless mini-games. The writing isn't bad, but Clark needs 
to figure out what deserves such thorough attention in a critical essay 
-- nothing seemed too worth it here, and his point could have been made 
in about a thousand fewer words. 

Andrew: Two promising reviews seemed ultimately to collapse--just as I 
felt Jerec's review was about to go one way, it swerved another, and 
the conection wasn't always obvious or pleasing. I'm more comfortable 
with the descriptions of unusual mischeif that you can pull in GTAVC, 
i.e. assaulting an old man and shooting his caddy, or whatever. Some of 
the sentences seem glib, but need more explanation, as well. 'Each 
character is perfectly voiced, fitting their ethnic stereotype without 
flaw.' <- whoah. Does GTA:VC allow for fitting in these stereotypes so 
you can laugh at them? Is that part of the whole bit, along with 
killing etc.? Or are they believable enough ethnically, without seeming 
outright bigoted? There are several possibilities for why this would be 
good or bad, and the ability to perform wanton acts in GTAVC, along 
with the release you seem to get for them, brings up questions. This 
review doesn't always address them, nor does it really smoothly 
describe all the fun. Tom Clark's review of such a simple game feels a 
bit penny-ante, but it's boosted by an amusing introduction of his 
trying to come to grips with a game related to a sport he knows nothing 
about. The disasters pile up quickly and although the review seems 
over-written at times--the events don't seem to need the description, 
and things read a bit more like a thorough play-testing checklist than, 
well, a game. I'm guilty too of that at times but when Tom Clark tries 
to expand to other games in the genre, or some ideas for what to do, 
the game's a bit better. Here I must go with the unAmerican review of 
TOM CLARK though a more organized rewrite from Dutch, whom I got tired 
of calling Jerec for the moment, would probably tip things the other 
way. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
KBroccoli 2 - Hangedman 1 

Ruder: Broccoli over Hangedman. This wasn't competitive. Broccoli gives 
me a fantastic review with effective humor, superb writing, and 
excellent descriptions (see his paragraph on the first level). There's 
so much documentation on Altered Beast that yet another bashing review 
with the same old complaints doesn't seem warranted--unless the "humor" 
is supposed to carry this work, but it doesn't. Apart from the jokes, 
it's methodical stuff and not very interesting.

Fix: WINNER: Broccoli. Hanged's piece feels hollow -- he examines 
Altered Beast, dissects the significant problems with the play formula, 
and throws in a couple hit-and-miss jokes along the way. I suppose I 
could point out that he fails to detail what types of environments 
you'll be exploring, or the music, or any of that typical 'standard' 
stuff; he just talks about trudging through the levels kicking stuff in 
the shin (and the sad occasion of missing out on an orb that allows you 
to transform, which is the 'only salvation' offered). However, Broc's 
is the bigger accomplishment of the two works, as it lovingly describes 
the expansive Mario 64 landscape with humor and imagery. It's a fairly 
fast-paced review that doesn't dwell long on any certain point -- he 
covers topics like Mario's abilities and the beautiful, varying 
feature-packed environs with an effective brevity. So I'll take Broc. 

Andrew: KBroccoli's quirky introductions work well when they weave into 
the game--but Mario's peripheral professional role of plumber is too 
front-stage here. The flowery diction is of course way above "WELL I 
WENT TO KMART, STOP DISSING DUDE, I NEEDED MONEY FOR A BURGER AND FRIES 
SO I GOT A BARGAIN GAME, THEN I SPILLED THE COKE ON THE GAME, IT WOULD 
HAVE SUCKED ANYWAY..." and will always get a smile, but in the end, it 
doesn't lead into the clever comparisons and game tie-ins and yearning 
for new, different and weird which you should probably go and look in 
his Sheep review if you haven't already. And unfortunately that's what 
stands out for this review for me. King Broccoli is never in danger of 
forgetting to tell you what the game is about, and being breezy about 
it. But the stylistics take over here--sentences elongated a bit too 
long, a bit too often--and perhaps a bit more dull information 
gathering would do well here. Hangedman's introduction is much more 
convincing, and I like how he guides you along with a very effective 
narrative voice, revealing how the game is about kicking opponents in 
the shins...until the ALTERED BEAST does so with twice the force. The 
review is very well done and seems bounded only by the limits of most 
bashing reviews of simple games that don't cause personal trauma, 
although I noticed the word 'comical' got overused. HANGEDMAN. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sapharos 2 - Mariner 1 

Ruder: Sapharos over Mariner. The whole "thanks Aschultz youre a great 
guy" bit seems a little shady to me, but Saph's piece really appealed 
to the old-schooler in me. Perfect descriptions of the crudeness 
(enemies being straight lines stuck together) and frustration (emerging 
from a dungeon to find invincible monsters standing in line to pound on 
you) involved in primitive RPGs. I liked Mariner's review too, but I 
just wasn't a big fan of his format. I didn't get into the review until 
the second half when he started talking about the bosses and levels; up 
until then, I really thought it was a not-so-special action game with 
obvious flaws, and I'm not so sure the "redemption" parts really washed 
away that initial bad taste.
 
Fix: WINNER: Mariner. While Sapharos's review picks up more momentum a 
short ways through, I felt it began kinda rough. There's no buffer 
between the clueless reader and Saph suddenly diving directly into the 
mechanics of the overworld and dungeons that Ultima offers. I don't 
know where we are, or why we're there -- from the very start, we're 
just in dungeons with archaic monsters composed of lines. He says that 
'they actually look demented,' but doesn't really undertake backing 
that up. It's just one long narrative of Saph's apparently tedious 
misadventures through continents and space (again, I don't know why 
space, and we're never told; maybe it's not important), and then it 
descends into a "My, games have come far, but this is archaic!" wrap-
up. Not that there weren't good parts -- his encounter with the orcs 
(and how he tells the tale) is amusing, and he does get across a lot of 
information throughout the piece. But I'll take Mariner's Skyblazer, 
which has a much more obvious direction (proving its subject to be 
unique/special among the surplus of mediocre action/platformers). 
Though I'm not quite convinced that a "giant rotating wall" is the 
breathtaking boss confrontation I'm promised (certainly sounds SNES-
ish, though), the rest is convincing and cool (particularly the level 
design paragraph). It's just a more complete essay. 

Andrew: Sapharos's Ultima I review brings back a lot of points I 
embarrassingly forgot to address in my own, which gives it a big boost, 
and I'm impressed he got through the game seemingly without learning 
about dungeons's secret doors. It's safe to say that Ultima I is a 
memorable game without being something you want to go back to, and when 
you start exploring what seems to be a vast world...it tries to 
overwhelm you with mirrors and numbers and rotations and 380-point 
damage attacks. I like how he's narrated his frustrations, and how 
finding one semi-cheat(bouncing between signs) killed them off for a 
bit. I actually found the game a bit smoother when I took it out, but I 
had a head start...and an affection for the Ultima series. This review 
reduces the already low-resolution game further although I'd have been 
interested to see what he thought about the space sub-game, or the 
anachronisms, or the overworld icons, which I find much more appealing 
than his amusing town and line-drawing dungeon-monster descriptions. 
Also while he was ranting I hoped to hear a word or two about the 
gelatinous cubes. Now THOSE suck. Even worse than their namesakes in 
that Noah's Arcade game from Wayne's World. Mariner's first sentence 
doesn't leave much leeway for Skyblazer actually being good--which 
tangles up a thoughtful first paragraph--and the second and third 
suffer from the same ills. Other sentences are a bit ponderous: 'This 
causes one to be extra cautious for no good reason, those lowering the 
overall enjoyment of the game' and then contradictory ('controls are 
solid enough' after a good send-up of the fighting options.) The 
counter-points to the game's faults don't seem to average to an 8, and 
when the presumptive heart of the review is slipped in at the end(well, 
2nd-last paragraph) it feels like a bit of a ramble. There are a few 
more stale over-general adjectives than I'm used to in a Mariner review 
as well, which dooms it in a competition. SAPHAROS. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Zigfried 2 - Tachibana Ukyo 1 

Ruder: Zig over Tachibana. I feel bad voting against Tachibana, as I 
can't think of any way he could have improved his review. It's 
excellent--about as good as I can imagine a review for that awful game 
being. But Zig just takes a RUTHLESS, HAVE NO MERCY approach in DRIVING 
home his points and SLAUGHTERING the disgusting game he takes on. He 
made the greater impression, clearly. Zig wins.
 
Fix: WINNER: Zigfried. I'll pass on my ageless and groundless Zig-is-
Ukyo arguments for now and just say, to start, you owe it to yourself 
to read both of these reviews. Ukyo's is hilarious and sharp. So is 
Zig's, and after having to read about how some porn games are going to 
'get me off,' it's nice to be shaken back into reality by a review with 
this much attitude, humor and sense. I fail to come up with any actual 
'advice' type stuff for pieces of this caliber, but I'm going with 
Zig's based on the simple fact that it's a relief to read about a 
hentai game from this perspective. Ukyo's Double Dragon needs to be 
read, too, so don't pass it up. 

Andrew: I actually liked Tachibana Ukyo's El Viento review a bit 
better, but maybe he just wanted people to read both reviews. With 
Zigfried's review, the link to his site is really pointless, and 
although it's a bad idea to read parallels of different reviews or 
compare versions, etc.(i.e. STICK TO THE LINK THEY GAVE YOU,) I don't 
like comparing the taglines for the GameFAQs and Shadatannis reviews, 
and more overall, this hit-piece based on Woodhouse, with its mimicry 
and personal echos, however grounded in the facts and whatever 
interesting questions it unlocks. Aesthetics can be argued, but given 
that this is a competition that's supposed to be entertaining--and 
there are disqualifications/suspensions for equivalent sorts of things 
in sports--there's really no choice. TACHIBANA UKYO. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Snow Dragon 3 - Overdrive 0 

Ruder: Snow Dragon over Overdrive. This is one of those Snow Dragon 
reviews where the writing is great and you wonder what the heck is 
going on when he doesn't write this well. He takes a really interesting 
approach here, showing no shame when expressing his appreciation for 
the unlimited continues and actually making a convincing case for why 
said continues are actually a positive aspect. Of course, his 
descriptions of the action are more than convincing on their own. I 
really liked Overdrive's Rubik's Cube comparison and I think he hit the 
nail on the head very early on when saying there's rhyme and reason to 
every single element of the R-Type adventure. I'm usually not a fan of 
the walkthrough-style review, opting for select highlights instead, but 
whatever, that's just my opinion. Both reviews are great and void of 
any crippling flaws. Jessie's had the slightly better writing and it 
seemed like he explored more "uncharted terrain" with his subject, so 
I'll give him the nod. 

Fix: WINNER: Snow Dragon. SD's Guerilla War is a terrific comical 
tribute to the early NES "blow-em-ups," lively, fast and inventive. It 
manages to justify the 'unlimited continues' facet well enough, and 
packs in plenty of cool descriptions. I am again paralyzed in terms of 
finding faults worth mentioning. Overdrive's started well, enough, 
until I realized that it was a stage-by-stage breakdown of R-Type. 
Literally. "This happens in the relatively first stage, but the second 
stage...once you get to the third stage...the maddening sixth 
stage...the finale goes down like this..." It'd be nice to save 
something for actual gameplay, rather than just rundown what each level 
primarily consists of. I'll go with SD.
 
Andrew: Now, this is an interesting matchup of two games where you get 
thoroughly maimed before you finally plow through 'em. Overdrive wins 
the endgame(SD's last line doesn't work for me) and opening, with Snow 
Dragon taking the middle-game. It looks like the Rubik's Cube has a bit 
more Joe-Mentum than the politician Snow Dragon mentions, and I think 
he's a bit of a retread in reviews by now. He's gone on to blathering 
about Iraq, where they don't have shiny PS2's yet, and by the time he 
stops he will, after years of teetering, finally be too boring to have 
any real influence. Such cannot be said for either of these two 
reviewers in the best matchup of the round IMHO. But in the end, 
Overdrive's review is a good shooter review with a clever, if--I feel--
not quite fully used comparison to the Rubik's Cube, i.e. mentioning 
he'd leave R-Type solved like the Rubik's Cube makes the comparison 
perfectly lucid. But with Snow Dragon's review, I'm left thinking, HOW 
DID I MISS THIS? It's a great review that transitions well between the 
various power-ups and gives the frenetic feel of the game, well, after 
the slightly drawn-out Islandia bit. There's a good phrase to make you 
laugh or say, yes, that's what I'd like to see in a game, and with 
Overdrive, I think, gee, I understand why he likes it. Plus I have a 
weakness for games where one person beats up an entire army(Rush N 
Attack) and think that there's only so much to say about straight-up 
shooters after a while, regardless of how difficult they may be. 
Overdrive would have won the other two matchups, but here SNOW DRAGON 
takes it. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
GUTS 2 - Skinny Puppy 1 

Ruder: GUTS over Puppy. GUTS' review is a hilarious and very necessary 
response to the nonsense posted by another reviewer. All that aside, 
though, it's still the best Drakengard review I've read. That second 
paragraph really takes care of business, plain and simple. As for 
Puppy's, between the rampant fekkot-isms ("*** **** *** sucka!"), the 
entire paragraph devoted to telling us why stories aren't important in 
shooters, and the Jim Morrisson-esque conclusion, I didn't find a lot 
to like. 

Fix: WINNER: GUTS. Puppy's Silpheed is okay -- it goes through the 
motions of knocking the poor shooter on the usual fronts such as 
enemies, bosses, slow pace, etc. It's got a couple silly lines in it, 
namely the conclusion, and the part where he apparently tells me the 
story, then says, "Well maybe that's it, how the hell should I know, I 
didn't even take the time to watch the intro screens and I won't touch 
the manual." That was sorta weak. Those issues in particular don't 
really doom it though -- the whole thing just feels tepid next to GUTS' 
ridiculous Drakengard, which somehow manages to talk about his game AND 
incorporate some of the best humor I've ever seen in a review. As long 
as you know coming in the point GUTS is making (it's based on another 
idiotic piece for the same game), you'll understand the ironic humor 
(extra endings and action?! -- unforgivable!). GUTS won't knock you out 
with profound prose, but he's the only guy I can think of that could 
really pull this off effectively. 

Andrew: SP's implied profanity, which goes on a bit long for my liking, 
can't stack up to GUTS's for...well, outright tastelessness, and it 
doesn't piggyback on someone else's review. Having read lots of shooter 
reviews SP's seems a bit garden variety and I admit I see patterns of 
the bashers I wrote just to get the bad taste of a game out of my mind. 
It seems therapeutic, but the laughs came from the belly, not the head. 
Against Overdrive, he'd have lost, but here, it's an obvious choice. 
SKINNY PUPPY.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Leroux 3 - Janus Operative 0 

Ruder: Leroux over Janus. While Leroux begins his review with an 
amazing little introduction, Janus gets off to a rough start, dishing 
up a typo in the very first line and serving up a second paragraph that 
tries so hard to impress with its cool descriptions that I ended up 
unable to picture anything. After that, Janus settles in and delivers 
one heck of an exciting review, but Leroux never falters anywhere in 
his article and pulls out the victory. I've owned a Turbo for fifteen 
years and never felt particularly compelled to purchase Parasol Stars, 
but this review did the trick, and that's quite an accomplishment. 

Fix: WINNER: Leroux. Starting with a quotation that emphasizes the 
goofy nature of the 'chubby' hero of his review's topic, Parasol Stars, 
Leroux had my attention from the get-go. This was one of the coolest 
lead-ins I've come across so far in the tourney (up there with Jerec's 
GTA3). His selective dissections of the stages do well in showing just 
how cutesy of an adventure this is, an important theme that Leroux 
drives home effectively throughout the piece. Perhaps it would have 
been nicer to learn of Bubby's variety of abilities a bit earlier in 
the essay, but that is an extremely minor quibble because the structure 
here is logical in terms of demonstrating the ridiculous 
lightheartedness of the undertaking. Leroux's is just stronger from top 
to bottom than Janus's, whose is good, but not AS good -- I feel like 
I've read all this stuff before in other reviews. He just doesn't 
manage to achieve the same potent delivery that Leroux does. 

Andrew: I really didn't expect a review about this sort of subject 
matter from Leroux. He definitely pulls it off, although he also cuts 
the reader off after his description of round two. Sometimes I don't 
think Leroux has the cheery tone perfectly right, either, as it's an 
anomaly coming from him, but definitely a successful experiment. He 
does a good job dealing out weird monster details('the occasional 
magenta unicorn') and also relating the game to others in its genre or 
on the TG16. When I'm reduced to saying 'this review uses parentheses 
when it doesn't need to' I know I'm reading good stuff. I'm certainly 
left wanting more, griping that I want him to have an excuse to 
transition one more paragraph with a description of all the cool 
worlds, and my money grubbing heart is that much closer to shelling out 
$15 for the fully functional Magic Engine just to...see about games 
like these. Janus's effort is cleaner and more consistent and flowing, 
but on the other hand it feels as though it's been done before, and 
we're left to ask if it is refined enough. 'There's really no way to 
accurate convey,' typo aside, doesn't give the reader confidence. 
Telling a reader he can't imagine something or the writer can't tell 
him that--well, it docks one side or the other. When he names the 
locations, he gives a roller-coaster feel to it all, but with him I 
will also nit-pick--in the midst of a passage about craft slamming each 
other into walls, he uses passive voice('is controlled by') and the 
occasional parenthesis(which I'm allowed to, because...uh...I'm not 
trying to be creative here.) There are also a few reflux sentences that 
sound nice but don't work out...'Well that's traditional in the F-Zero 
X sense' near the end seems like the sort of thing you'd say to get a 
reaction out of someone you're talking with, and it fits well enough in 
with someone who's skimming, but the sentence can and, I feel, should 
ultimately be dropped. The echo-chamber effect is one of those small 
things that maybe give me an easy way out to decide between two reviews 
of this caliber so LEROUX it is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Deathspork 2 - NT220 1 

Ruder: Spork over NT. This is one of those matches where the more 
ambitious piece emerges victorious over its excellent competitor. I'm 
amazed at what Spork managed to accomplish with what's a very simple 
game (on the surface), and even more amazed that his dubbing of Golf an 
intense game of strategy seems perfectly accurate by the end of the 
piece (thanks to his in-depth, cogent arguments). The second half of 
this review is extremely powerful and convincing. NT almost swayed me 
over to his side with his excellent descriptions of the game's action 
scenes, but there were a few too many typos for my liking, and as 
alluded to above, Spork seemed to do more with less. 

Fix: WINNER: Deathspork. Good grief. For me, this will be one of the 
hardest decisions I'll have to make over the course of the tournament. 
Deathspork's Golf is the best sports review that I've ever read, 
because it's realistic in recognizing the modesty of the game's surface 
level, but intelligent enough to craft an argument in favor of the 
underlying strategy to be found by anyone willing to find it. I liked 
the way the piece went entirely -- it gave me a way to see the value of 
Golf, despite the extremely fine lines between success and failure in 
playing. I found myself saying along the way, 'Man, this sounds like 
real golf,' and sure enough, Spork gets around to saying the same 
thing. This review rolls. NT's Mystical Ninja does an amazing job in 
attempting to capture all the silliness going on (see the "Luckily..." 
paragraph). It was an exciting review, especially the first half, 
bounding between the intense, tough action of the sidescrolling 
portions, to the inner-town hostility and bustle, to the feudal Japan 
atmosphere. But I suppose I have to vote for one or the other, and I'm 
going with Deathspork, based on the idea he's achieved a feat here, 
seeing through the plainness of Golf to justify his love for the 
unforgiving reality of the sport to be found beneath the surface. NT 
does well, but he does it with what's there; Spork digs deep. 

Andrew: Deathsport's[sic] Golf review reminded me why I hate the real 
thing--and go crawling back to my Atari 2600 version of it. How you 
quite simply have to adjust for mistakes. Or for quantizations of how 
the ball moves. It feels a lot like his Pyramid review, only he seems 
to have mastered the game a bit better. He could probably detail 
putting, etc., a bit better than the guy who wrote the FAQ, and I'd 
enjoy reading it. Despite an incongruence how the ball goes rolling off 
the green and into the nearby sand trap. Putting is a simple the review 
shows why the NES version may be the best--for a long time--to capture 
the frustration of golf, the desire to whack a ball seven times until 
you put it in and at the same time not want to be embarrassed about 
your score in the end. The one thing I didn't see was a description of 
the holes i.e. how much of water traps we could see, and if we need 
them as nuisances--and perhaps if birdies were achievable, or how much 
your score could fluctuate between plays. Perhaps he goes to the well 
once too often with 'but it's what the game makes you feel.' And 
against a writer of NT220's caliber that is more than enough. He lets 
the humor flow from the game and to the reader, and while some reviews 
of favorite/well loved games seem to be cherry picking details, NT220 
has it all organized quite well. I'm left feeling it's my loss for 
never having checked this game out. NT220 never directly goes for the 
reader's emotion or tells him what to feel, and because of such a 
wonderfully consistent effort it's NT220 who gets the nod in this tough 
match.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Jihad 3 - Retrofreak 0 

Ruder: Jihad over Retro. Jihad just had more to work with here, and it 
really shows during successful descriptive paragraphs on combat and the 
look of the prison. While Retro does a decent job with Minesweeper, and 
the emoticons are a funny little touch, his work doesn't flaunt any 
passages that can stand up to Jihad's strongest, and Minesweeper just 
isn't all that much fun to read about in the first place. 

Fix: WINNER: Jihad. Jihad's review was surprisingly effective and 
pulling apart the paradoxes of Butcher Bay -- solid first-person hand-
to-hand, but totally lame weapon-based battles? Neat little details 
like bumps and bruises from combat, but otherwise typical hordes of 
henchmen in typical sci-fi armor in a dull prison? The piece is 
successful in recognizing the division between what works, and what 
ends up being bland and uninventive. This will top Retro's Minesweeper, 
which showcases his familiar voice, but not much else, because let's 
face it, there really isn't much to talk about. This was most obvious 
when he took the time to go over the various smiley faces that will be 
on display (and actually includes them in the review!). Jihad it is. 

Andrew: With Retrofreak's review, he takes too long to describe that he 
is bored...and that he took a while to look at the game. Perhaps 
mentioning that he had a fear of Windows help menus as well, or that 
the game seemed too forbiddingly grey and numerical, or even that he 
thought he'd put his blocky Atari 2600 days behind him...as it stands, 
the details come in a bit excruciating(the smiley face goes on a bit 
long,) and some stuff which should be descriptive seems instructional. 
He mentions 'nice wide open spaces' a bit much and also notes some very 
basic tutorial stuff--I think a key to a good Minesweeper review(I 
know, I need to revise mine too) might be to catalog the unique 
frustration felt at getting through the game. Also although the usual 
observations you demand and expect from Retro are there, there's only 
so much to say about Minesweeper...and to give this review some life 
I'd be interested about how he feels it stacks up to other computer 
solitaire games. With Jihad, I love the look inside the prison, the 
'typo' maxxximized, and I'm ready for 'lovely deathmatch arena' later. 
The technical stuff a bit after tends to slip into over-general 
phrases, mirroring the game, but so what? I will not apply his eloquent 
disappointment to his own review. JIHAD.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:
 
Magnificent Bastards 2 - Mongol Horde 1 
The Jerks 3 - Mariner's Team 0 
Chaos Legion 2 - Sinister Ministers 1 
Detective Work 3 - World Heroes0 
 
STANDINGS 
Record|Wins|Team
4-1   |11  |Jerks 
4-1   |09  |World Heroes 
3-2   |09  |Detective Work 
3-2   |08  |Magnificent Bastards 
2-3   |08  |Sinister Ministers 
2-3   |06  |Chaos Legion 
1-4   |05  |Mongol Horde 
1-4   |04  |Mariner's Team

=======================================================================

Round five marked the first time that judge Fix's choices for winners 
were not all the ones that ultimately wound up winning.  Twice, he 
picked someone as the winner of a match when the ultimate winner chosen 
by the other two judges differed.  Additionally, talk closely following 
the match focused primarily on the differing opinions of judge Andrew 
(who was often the dissenting voice) and on the topic of Rosie 
O'Donnell.  All in all, this was a match a lot of participants seemed 
to find quite rewarding.  It also served to narrow the lead between the 
tournament's top contenders.  People were understandably anxious for 
the next round, which was to be a 'neutral' match where match-ups were 
chosen at random. 

=======================================================================
 
Round Six:

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

Retro 2 - Honestgamer 1
 
Ruder: Venter over Retro. This VF4 review is where everything really 
seemed to come together for Venter: a truly humorous and clever opening 
followed by well-stated (for the most part) complaints and even a bit 
of descriptive wizardry (environments paragraph). Being more familiar 
with Venter's game-playing habits than I was back when the Alpha Games 
were going on, I'm a little suspicious of his claims: I suspect that 
passionate VF4 fans would counter this review by saying Venter's barbs 
are results of brief and inattentive playing sessions, which would make 
sense considering his "what--I can use magic in Nightshade?" antics of 
late. But since I haven't played VF4, I remain impressed by this work. 
And so Retro had his work cut out for him, and couldn't quite rise to 
the challenge. His usual conversational tone is present here but lacks 
the personality and passion that it's often accompanied by, at least 
until late in the piece. Certainly, the paragraphs he spends 
meticulously relaying the particulars of a session of Mario Golf 
contain necessary information, but the stretch is too boring for too 
long, and I'm hard-pressed to believe that a charismatic guy like Retro 
couldn't have spiced things up a little. The intro also was a little 
messy for my liking. 

Fix: WINNER: Retro. At times, I liked Venter's review. The amusing 
'hardcore' theme that spans the work gave it a little personality, and 
there were a couple other parts that struck me as funny ("Since my wife 
glares at me..."). Other parts, I wasn't so crazy about. He establishes 
a couple fighting-related complaints (the slowness; ring-
outs/boundaries), but the rest feel shaky ("Even the blocking feels 
weak"...huh?). He takes the time to mention Soul Calibur and Tekken 4, 
but doesn't get specific enough anywhere to make it clear why those 
games are superior to this one. And if you're going to make some pretty 
strong statements (like saying that this game offers absolutely nothing 
new at any level of play), you had better back it up with some form of 
play-related discussion deeper than "The kicks are delivered 
slowly"/"The dodging is just as slow as the other moves"/"There are 
ringouts I find annoying." As someone who has played VF4 and witnessed 
the depth of its combo system, I remain quite unconvinced based on the 
majority of what he's presented. Retro's MG isn't my favorite of his, 
but his thorough breakdown and completeness of analysis (taking the 
time to point out the super weak mini-golf!) contribute to another 
believable piece delivered with obvious care. Some parts (especially 
the introduction) were weak, but it's cool to see Retro admit he's 
never really fancied golf games, but then give way to this one's 
majesty. 

SNA: A tough choice, since both of these reviews are needlessly wordy 
without being particularly insightful. I'm going to go with Retro, 
because he did a good job explaining Mario Golf (although he spent too 
much time delving into minute gameplay details) and why he loved the 
game so much. Venter spends too much time whining; I got the impression 
he didn't spend a lot of time really delving into VF4's gameplay.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Nick Evil 2 - Janus 1 

Ruder: Nick over Janus. Nick has already stated that he has no interest 
in further feedback on his Bloodlines review, so I'll spare him the 
hyper-praise here. But Janus deserves accolades of his own. He 
delivered a virtually flawless review that kicks off with a great intro 
and makes especially good use of comparisons with previous entries in 
the series. I have no desire to pick a winner in this match, but since 
I must, I choose Nick. We've all seen instances where the mightiest of 
the site's writers rise to even greater heights when examining games 
that they're truly passionate about, and Nick's elaborate prose here 
shows true and convincing admiration for Bloodlines. This extra little 
boost victimizes a golden effort by Janus. 

Fix: WINNER: Nick. I really liked Janus's Sonic Advance -- the way it 
uses comparisons with the older games to demonstrate the slower-paced 
puzzle-laden poorness of this incarnation is pretty effective stuff. 
It's also good that he noted that the stages were designed for Sonic, 
emphasizing that the other characters are really just a sideshow with 
little true purpose. That said, the only real thing that his lacks that 
the opponent has is passion. Nick's Bloodlines is intense. His powerful 
intro, describing solemnly the shifting of responsibility from Belmont 
to Morris, is followed by the definitive analysis of Bloodlines -- its 
characters and the unique abilities they bring to the series, the 
varying levels that they visit across Europe, and of course, the music. 
This one has the spirit and preciseness of wording that he's capable of 
-- that his Drac X from last week lacked. 

SNA: Once again, these are both a bit too long for my tastes. The 
difference this time is that I actually like both! Each of them has a 
few grammatical snafus, but they're solid conceptually. I'm going to 
give a very slight edge to Janus, for doing such a great job explaining 
how Sonic Advance is similar to, but also vastly inferior to, previous 
Sonic outings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Woodhouse 2 - NT220 1 

Ruder: Woodhouse over NT. There were a few times where I had to check 
to make sure this Casino Kid 2 review that I was reading was really 
written by Woodhouse. Sure, the writing is excellent, as his been the 
case with him each week. From his charismatic, wonderfully worded 
intro, to his unexpected humorous bits (like about the cocktail 
waitresses), to the fact that this isn't even a game about anime girls 
being sexually abused--it all combines to create something that's 
certainly a departure from the norm for Woodhouse! He also seems to 
have a knack for describing characters, as he shows here. There was a 
risk of falloff when he delved into the technical aspects during the 
piece's second half, but the wording is so solid that I couldn't help 
but remain interested. NT's work is also excellent, particularly the 
entertaining intro and the passage on the game's sense of comedy. He 
came up with so much fantastic stuff to talk about; anyone interested 
in the game should be thrilled with this description-heavy article. But 
I felt that, in this particular match, Woodhouse's prose was at a 
slightly higher level, which is all the more impressive considering he 
definitely had the less intriguing subject to deal with. 

Fix: WINNER: Woodhouse. I read both reviews and wrote a little 
something, and then moved on. I ended up coming back and rereading 
each. It's still a tough call. As is the typical story with Woodhouse, 
there's little to complain about in terms of his writing -- it's always 
great. His message -- that CK2 is a decent 'learning tool' for the very 
basics of the three games offered -- is delivered in the most ideal 
manner, helped by the thorough breakdown of the three games and how 
they work, plus with comparisons to the abysmal CK1. NT also 
accomplishes what he sets out to with his Mario RPG. A cool intro paves 
the way for a nice essay that enthusiastically proves that this game is 
best suited for 'fans of fun games'. Some parts are particularly funny 
(see the 'With such a quirky cast...' paragraph). Overall, though, it 
wasn't the breezy, fast-paced read that, say, his Mystical Ninja or 
Mystic Quest were. Both pieces were enjoyable, but Woodhouse's 
investigations of the card games, and establishing exactly how they 
come off feeling, really hits the nail on the head. 

SNA: I can't comprehend why someone would feel compelled to write more 
than 500 words about Casino Kid 2, nevermind 1500+. Sure, it's a 
competently written review, but it's also a boring one. NT220's Super 
Mario RPG review gets the nod; although it's not significantly better, 
it has a bit more personality and is covering a game slightly more 
worthy of a lengthy review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Leroux 3- Cyper 0
 
Ruder: Leroux over Cyper. After turning his game up a notch the last 
two weeks, Cyper falls flat here with a terribly long and boring piece 
written with an antiquated ten-section template. It "just can't 
compare" with Leroux's well-written jabs at DD's botched "co-op" system 
and his observations regarding the extreme highs and lows of the game's 
track designs. 

Fix: WINNER: Leroux. Not much to say about this one. I thought Leroux's 
DD was killer. The intro, with a hint of exasperation at the fact that 
this latest installment fails to do anything new, to expressing how 
empty the supposed innovation of tag-team racing really is, to the 
sidenotes of cool locales -- he's got it all working here. It's all 
spearheaded by one of my favorite lines, 'Everything's too modern and 
charmless to truly engage the player.' Great stuff. Hard to say if this 
one could've been toppled, because it doesn't appear Cyper got his 
total rewrite he was talking of in on time. His 007 is incomparably 
thorough, but lacking any sense of compactness and committing some 
frowned upon review crimes (total control layout). I take it this is 
the three year old version still. Leroux has it. 

SNA: I barf at the sight of sectioned reviews these days. Yes, I 
bothered to read both of them anyway, but Leroux's offering is clearly 
the superior one. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Deathspork 3 - Kane 0 

Ruder: Spork over Kane. Faced with two very long reviews about games I 
don't have the slightest interest in, I decided that, all other factors 
being equal, I'd pick a winner based on who got me more interested in 
his topic. Indeed, you won't find much fundamentally wrong with either 
piece. Spork jumps right into the flaws that plague his game and hits 
very hard with his criticisms, thrashing the lazy pace of the game for 
a good long while until delivering a crucial paragraph citing 
additional flaws (such as the crippling slowdown). His direct approach 
makes his review a lot more accessible, as Kane's more methodical 
rundown left me dozing off at times. 

Fix: WINNER: Deathspork. Spork's Heavy Barrel is a fast and exciting 
read, at its best when its detailing how totally against the concept of 
the kill-all action genre the limited superweapon featured here really 
is. Kane's is extremely detailed, so much so that it was becoming a 
chore to read by the end. I can see a fan of strategy games 
appreciating this one from start to finish, but for the layman this 
isn't quite so compelling. And more trivial goofiness shows up in the 
form of mocking Hangedman! It's better than Rosie O'Donnell, but c'mon! 

SNA: Deathspork offers a relatively concise review that's also one of 
the best in the contest. It's full of personality and has a theme 
running through that ties everything together. Kane's WC3 review isn't 
terrible, but it isn't particularly engaging.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Denouement 2 - Jihad 1 

Ruder: Chris over Jihad. Talk about a contrast in styles. Chris flaunts 
some solid writing, but his piece is barebones. Jihad, on the other 
hand, vomits up a detailed babble-fest. With Chris, I'd like to see at 
least one example of the kind of impossible scenarios that GNG tosses 
you into, just to support the "IT'S TOO HARD" theme that dominates the 
entire work. There aren't really any monster descriptions either--give 
us examples of the disappointing beasts we're faced with. Jihad's 
review goes into detail--about one level at least--but his style just 
doesn't sit well with me. Enthusiastic writing crosses over into sheer 
babble here, and it's often choppy babble at that (saying the game's 
full title four times in a three-sentence opening has that effect). 

Fix: WINNER: Denouement. Chris's abilities are much better showcased on 
more complex projects than tearing archaic games a new one, but this 
one's short enough and sweet enough to work. Jihad, did you rewrite 
your Metal Slug? I remember this being a grandslam, but no more! Of 
course if this is the same review that I remember being great, I'm just 
embarrassed now. The main description that spans the middle section of 
the review is kinda long, and the wording in general is a little rocky 
compared to, say, your Butcher Bay. Chris's polished effort takes it. 

SNA: I know I've complained about long reviews a lot, but the brevity 
of Denouement's offering didn't endear me to it. It was basically one 
giant complaint about GnG's difficulty. Jihad did a superb job 
detailing the appeal of Metal Slug. [Jihad] WIN[s]! 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Hangedman 2 - Snow Dragon 1 

Ruder: Hangedman over Snow Dragon. SD's review here seems completely 
pointless, unless the point is to be funny while mocking a silly 
"game." Perhaps reading all these tournament reviews causes me to lose 
any sense of humor I have to begin with, but the jokes here don't work 
for me, and some lines simply had me scratching my head (bride and 
groom on a wedding cake...). Hangedman, as usual, serves up his fair 
share of bad comedy; but he also presents a number of valid, virtually 
inarguable criticisms against the great Castlevania (inarguable save 
for the parts on superficials, of course). Thus, there does seem to be 
a point to his review, so... 

Fix: WINNER: Hangedman. Neither of these were super pleasing, as SD's 
was well-written enough, but for what REAL purpose? -- he seriously 
rips apart a game that's aimed totally at children, probably for humor 
that never really shows up; and Hangedman attempts to debunk a classic 
a la Mariner, but since it's Castlevania I find it blasphemous. Since 
the writing in both is decent, I tend to look at the value of each, and 
I suppose Hanged's has a bit more overall value -- although some 
complaints aren't backed up very well ("I don't get why the music is so 
celebrated, I don't like it"), others are quite logical -- the stiff-
moving Belmont really is no Ninja Gaiden, and that makes stuff 
challenging. SD, give us something more than a serious squinty-eyed 
ripping of a kid's game, you've got better! 

SNA: Ahh... two reviewers I generally like! Unfortunately, their best 
efforts aren't on display in this round. If I were judging based on 
their entire output, Hanged would get the edge. But in this particular 
matchup, I prefer Snowdragon's April Fools take on Color A Dinosaur.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mariner 2 - Tachibana 1 

Ruder: Mariner over Tachibana. I remember a long time ago I was 
thinking about using my own Devil's Crush review in a tournament. I 
asked my good friend Zig to take a look at it and tell me what he 
thought. Within moments, he responded: "Look Runin, the writing is 
good, but it isn't doing much for me. I mean, it's a PINBALL GAME." I 
agreed with Zig, used other reviews, and achieved many victories. And 
so, I was prepared to say the same thing about Tachibana's piece: nice 
writing but still just pinball not much to work with blah blah. But I 
was wrong. Tachibana makes Devil's Crush seem so darn cool that I 
wanted to go back and play it again, and I imagine those who have never 
experienced it will feel compelled to do so. But then Mariner came 
along and did something even cooler. He actually really got me 
interested in his take on an SNES RPG (God help us all!). That stuff 
about the big plot twist and the character banter really made me want 
to play the game so I could see exactly what he's making such a fuss 
about. That's good reviewing! And, of course, after that, he rolls up 
his sleeves and becomes NO MORE MR. NICE GUY MARINER and rips the game 
for its irritating flaws. I was into it the review up to and through 
the heartbreaking conclusion. Good work. 

Fix: WINNER: Mariner. Ukyo actually manages to make a pinball game 
sound exciting, which I admire. The descriptions of the different areas 
of the pinball playfield are pretty haunting, but some get bogged down 
in the way that Tachi's Ninja Spirit was bogged down from start-to-
finish, with sentences so complex they began to hinder the flow. 
Mariner's is another solid effort, less concerned with fancy writing 
and more with shedding harsh light on a game with past prestige. His 
criticisms of Lufia are, again, very valid, and he delivers his point 
(that Lufia's a depressing loss, since the ideas behind it are so good 
but the actual game so tedious) with the usual decisiveness. I'll take 
Mariner's. 

SNA: Mariner's writing style is too casual and informal, while 
Tachibana's is a bit too ornate for its own good. Neither review is 
mindblowingly good, but I appreciated Tachibana's ambition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Skinny Puppy 3 - Tom Clark 0 

Ruder: Puppy over Clark. Ah, humble Clark versus arrogant Puppy. 
Puppy's writing is pretty rough for the first few paragraphs, but he 
settles down and makes a heck of a lot of good points and comparisons. 
I even chuckled a bit at his lava man reference, which usually isn't 
the case when I encounter his token "tribute to Nick" lines. Clark's 
introduction isn't written well but there's a certain charm to his tale 
that caught my attention and made me interested in the work. He also 
has some very neat lines scattered here and there (like the one about 
wishing the bosses were harder). But once again, he makes that fatal 
mistake of composing a second paragraph that's larger than some small 
countries. I hate when reviewers forsake organization and smash 
together a hodgepodge of points. With some cool descriptions here and 
cool lines there, I think Clark could've won a few more matches had he 
just updated these reviews, cleaned up the formats and spiced up the 
more technical parts. 

Fix: WINNER: Skinny Puppy. I recall (because I've down it so much) 
complaining about Clark's rambling, and here I do it again for his 
intro to Kung Fu Master. His monstrous second paragraph also seems to 
be a chronic habit of his -- this one jumps from 'this game is bad' to 
comparisons to NES Kung Fu to describing the first stage, to pointing 
out how everything is far too easy, to telling me about the apparent 
stage/boss variety. Break these ideas up! Puppy tops this effort, 
though, with a typical Puppy negative shooter review. Unlike past 
efforts, here the distracting "*******" vulgarity wasn't overused, and 
he made is points so clear that I could understand his exasperation 
perfectly ("A goddamn lifebar. It's like having a bodyguard in Silent 
Hill"), and I also liked the closing. 

SNA: Tom Clark is hopelessly out of his league here. His competent 
style might have a chance against some of the lesser entries here, but 
Skinny Puppy's review kicks its ass. A Dario Argento reference in the 
first paragraph? The phrase "full on, wild ****ing?" Making fun of 
Axelay fans? This is some ace ****.

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

Jerec 2 - Zigfried 1 

Ruder: Dutch over Zig. Before I began reading reviews for this round, 
Zig suggested that I use a certain system for judging. He said I should 
come up with a number of different categories and give each review a 
score in each category, and then compare the totals. So I came up with 
26 different categories, with ten possible points in each. Zig's SOTN 
was simply beautiful; I couldn't have done a better job myself of 
ripping this "classic." It had a perfect score going until the last 
category, "Journalistic Integrity," which was suggested by Slownerve. 
This review scored a 0/10 in this category. Dutch's review was also 
great, only losing a few points in the "Maintaining enthusiasm when 
you're talking about technical RPG stuff in the second half of your 
review" category. He maintained some enthusiasm, so I gave him a point. 
Dutch wins, 251-250. 

Fix: WINNER: Jerec. Jerec delivers a veritable pounding, here. I liked 
his commentary on the character dynamics necessary for keeping players 
interested in RPGs, and the rest of his analysis is straightforward and 
thorough! There were quite a few uses of the word "though," though. 

SNA: I wish that Zig would retire that dusty old SotN review, but it's 
still one of the best "joke reviews" ever. It certainly bests Jerec's 
overlong take on Golden Sun. Zigfriend emerges victorious... I just 
hope he uses some more recent material for next round. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
King Broccoli 3 - GUTS 0 

Ruder: Broccoli over GUTS. I used the Zig Scoring System again for this 
match. GUTS' incredible review was racking up the points until it got 
to the "Reviewer actually played the game before reviewing it" 
category, where it scored a zero. Broc's review achieved a perfect 
score. GUTS probably could have had a tie here, though, if Zig hadn't 
suggested this scoring system. Once again, Zig costs GUTS a match. 

Fix: WINNER: Broc. Man GUTS' review was entertaining! But Broc can't be 
toppled on this day. His MKII is loaded with valid criticisms of the 
awful fighting game, delivered in very stylish form! Funny stuff, here. 

SNA: Honestly, neither of these is particularly good. Both lean heavily 
on the sort of "novelty" hook that usually fails at being either 
amusing or informative. I'm not sure what the hell GUTS is talking 
about at all, so Broc wins by default.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sapharos 2 - Overdrive 1 

Ruder: Overdrive over Saph. Overdrive got me in and out of sludgy 
Blackheart quickly, using concise, to-the-point paragraphs to convince 
me of the sheer ridiculousness of the game's difficulty curve. Saph's 
is more of an up-and-down affair. There's some good stuff (the part 
about the world transforming in the first level), but I found myself 
bored when he stopped focusing on the weirdness of it all. 

Fix: WINNER: Sapharos. A really tough choice to close out the week. 
OD's review is compact and fairly effective, that, in my opinion, could 
stand at least a touch of further explication, as some parts weren't 
totally clear to me personally (referring to this game's power-ups as 
"pretty much the 'options' from Gradius"). I also didn't know anyone 
actually used the phrase "eye candy," but it's devastating. On the 
whole, though, it's another decent OD effort -- his schedule's just 
been brutal. Saph's is even more compact, frequently accentuated by 
descriptions of the grotesque and weird. I liked the idea behind his 
introduction, but the wording sort of crippled it. Otherwise, this is a 
cool review, with descriptions of "paradoxical" monstrosities and brief 
yet in-depth analysis of the game's flaws ("monster behavioral 
patterns"). I guess I'll go with Saph. 

SNA: First of all, let me just say... those are some lame usernames. 
Anyway, once again, I'm not really blown away by either of these 
reviews. They're decent, but one isn't noticeably better than the 
other. Sapharos wins, for better structure and thematic coherence. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
SUMMARY 
 
Magnificent Bastards 2 - World Heroes 1 
Detective Work 2 - Mongol Horde 1 
Mariner's Team 2 - Sinister Ministers 1 
The Jerks 3 - Chaos Legion 0 
 
STANDINGS 
Record|Wins|Team 
5-1   |14  |Jerks 
4-2   |11  |Detective Work 
4-2   |10  |World Heroes 
4-2   |10  |Magnificent Bastards 
2-4   |09  |Sinister Ministers 
2-4   |06  |Chaos Legion 
2-4   |06  |Mariner's Team 
1-5   |06  |Mongol Horde

=======================================================================

One interesting note here is that if votes had gone just a bit 
differently, there could have been six teams tied for second place.  
Frightening.  As commissioner denouement noted when he posted the 
results thread, the tournament's eventful sixth round saw the top four 
teams clinch their final position slots.  It also saw the introduction 
of a new judge, slownerveaction, who provided harsh and brief 
commentary on many of the submissions.  His powerful voice made the 
event all the more entertaining as the pre-finals moved ever closer to 
their thrilling conclusion.  As the sixth round ended, people looked 
anxiously to the seventh round. 

=======================================================================
 
Round Seven:

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

Mariner 3 - Zigfried 0
 
Ruder: Mariner over Zig. Another great Mariner review where prior 
knowledge is required (and heck, why shouldn't it be?). I like how he 
studies the run-and-jump harmony instead of giving the usual SMB "there 
are pipes and turtles" rundown. And the intro was cool. 

Fix: WINNER: Mariner. Much thanks to Mariner for an enjoyable technical 
breakdown of essential platformer mechanics, and to Zig, for saving me 
time.
 
Whelkman: Mariner (winner) struggles hard to find an identity reviewing 
a game that's been covered hundreds of times before, but the struggle 
ends when Mariner finally states what he's really getting at: Super 
Mario Bros. is a game 'on the run'. He carries this theme to the end 
and successfully brings new light to an old game. Zigfried's review was 
a bit lost with me since I have not familiar with Eve Burst Error and 
have no idea what kind of game it is. However Zigfried's writing is as 
always engaging as he effectively summarizes inter-character 
relationships without turning the review into a character outline. 

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

 
Hangedman 2 - Overdrive 1
 
Ruder: Overdrive over Hanged. Hangedman's writing here isn't up to his 
usual quality and he takes too long to get to the darned point. Tales 
of cream and sugar and shirtless warriors can only hold my interest for 
so long when there's a pretty simple flaw to be exposed. Being a PCE 
collector, I was mighty interested in reading OD's review on a shooter 
I've never played, and I wasn't disappointed. Everything from the 
alternating frustration/promise of the first level to the horrid 
forest-cave-mishmash backdrops to the disappointing bosses is covered 
in detail, with none of the unnecessary garbage that plagued 
Hangedman's review. Watch with these PCE generalizations when you're in 
a Ruder-judged contest though, man. Saying Heavy Unit undermines the 
PCE's shooter rep is like saying The Jabroni undermines the RC board's 
rep for good writers. 

Fix: WINNER: Hangedman. Both reviews have good complaints concerning 
their games. Both reviews repeat themselves. I liked hangedman's device 
for illustrating Mercs' big problems (two things combined making 
something great), but the review started kinda slow and vague (it 
sounds like about 50 other action games). Meanwhile OD's Heavy Unit is 
probably the more eloquent of the two as a whole, but the intro was 
lame and it doesn't have as much personality as Hanged's. OD also says 
that 'the entire first section of the game' is a dodge-fest played with 
a totally weak ship, but elsewhere says that the ship can be powered up 
and transformed into a mighty mech right in the first stage. Of the 
two, Hanged's was the more enjoyable read for me. 

Whelkman: Overdrive's review could benefit from some organization and 
redundancy checks; I found myself wondering why I had to read about the 
snake enemies and dodging tactics twice in the first three paragraphs. 
The rest of the review flows nicely, detailing well the emotional 
roller coaster of initial frustration, elation, and, finally, 
devastation. I'm utterly convinced this game is as Overdrive so well 
describes. However, hangedman (winner) does everything Overdrive does 
but does it better. hangedman uses his arcade experience to explain how 
and why Mercs is a mediocre experience without drowning the reader in 
technical jargon. Mercs was an arcade flop, released at the tail of the 
"Rambo blaster" fad while missing the innovations of SNK and Midway. I 
would have liked a Commando reference, however, essentially the same 
game by the same company with the same problems released five years 
prior.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Clark 3 - GUTS 0 

Ruder: Clark over GUTS. Clark's review is enormous and I was scared 
when I first saw it, but when I took my time and began digesting it, I 
found there was a lot to like. He does spend too much time dwelling on 
the basic premise and certain paragraphs (like the one on minigames) 
could've been trimmed, but some cool descriptions and improved 
organization make this one of the best Clark works I've seen. 

Fix: WINNER: Tom Clark. Typical complaints about Clark's work (lack of 
brevity mainly), but Clark's review gets the better of the picture of 
GUTS and Zigfried on their first date. 

Whelkman: I wish I could say Tom Clark's take on Super Mario Land 2 was 
Ninty fresh, but it was terribly long due largely to its meandering 
nature. Too many parentheticals disrupt the flow, often with jokes that 
didn't work for me. A whole review's worth is spent describing the plot 
of a portable platformer; I don't think this is ever a good idea. My 
eyes glossed over while reading minute details of between-stage mini-
games. All in all half this review spends its space describing aspects 
which comprise about ten percent of the gaming experience. GUTS you 
make me so hot. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Retro 3 - Cyper 0 

Ruder: Retro over Cyper. I wish we had the chance to see more of the 
good Cyper--the Cyper that beat up Nick and came so very close to 
taking town Tachi. This is more of the bad Cyper, replete with dumb 
sections and button functions and boring writing. Retro's writing was 
certainly not boring and he succeeded in making an old pinball game 
seem pretty darn cool.
 
Fix: WINNER: Retro. Retro's intros seem to be hit-and-miss, and this 
one misses, with me, at least. Once you get past that though, things 
speed up considerably as he covers the different types of tables. 
Cyper's effort is quite thorough, but the review reads archaic -- there 
are lines like "the characters look decent" and "it usually looks good" 
and "the graphics get the job done," plus the filler-ish controller 
lay-outs. I'll take Retro. 

Whelkman: Retro (winner) , sinking his pinball into the starry hole of 
Pinball Quest, effortlessly and nonchalantly describes this strange 
game. This style of game is difficult to write for and played a large 
factor in my decision process. Cyper, the perennial holdout for 
sectioned style with scores, as usual delivers a solid nuts-n-bolts 
rundown. I don't think I can offer anything further that hasn't been 
said in the past. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Janus Operative 3 - Kane 0 

Ruder: Janus over Kane. Kane's review is nicely written as usual, but 
as was the case with a few of his previous entries, a good large chunk 
of it seems aimed at folks who are fans of the MG series, which I'm 
sure suits his purposes, but doesn't do much for me, or give me much to 
work with. I got into a few paragraphs in the middle that described how 
immersive the game is, but found myself bored again by the end. Janus, 
on the other hand, totally made me want to play his obscure little 
game. 

Fix: WINNER: Janus. Kane's is another thorough job, but it's so totally 
aimed at fans and people who know the ins and outs of the first MGS 
that I was nearly lost. He alludes to stuff that I get the hint I'd 
only understand if I'd played the original -- it wasn't really 
effective use of the original to make clear points. That's enough to do 
him in against Janus's funny, breezy Umihara Kawase, which does well in 
conveying the genius and uniqueness of the game.
 
Whelkman: I remember when Janus and Kane were teammates, and I knew in 
advance this would be a tough matchup. But this is Janus at his best, 
and I must award him the victory against an opponent who could 
effortlessly clobber just about any other reviewer on the Internet.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Denouement 2 - NT220 1 

Ruder: Chris over NT. Super-hard match. NT does an amazing job 
describing SMB2's wacky world; Chris does an equally awesome job 
delving into the technical elements of SO2. Chris hits the nail on the 
head when identifying SO2's true essence (NOT complex storytelling), 
while NT matches him by describing how the ridiculousness of SMB2 makes 
it so endearing. I'll go with Chris for his slightly cleaner writing; 
NT has a few awkward parts ("We got the winning trade"). 

Fix: WINNER: Denouement. One of those no-win situations as far as 
judging goes, because both reviews were great. I thought Chris did an 
amazing job breaking down SO into clear, concise arguments so that even 
I could see where he was coming from. It was an extremely fresh change 
from the usual 3,000 word RPG epics that I've come to expect, so I'll 
give him the nod. 

Whelkman: NT220 (winner) remains one of the most impressive reviewers 
around and manages to improve upon every review. He wisely eschews the 
whole history of Doki Doki Panic and the "Lost Levels" version of SMB 
2, confining the matter to a few spare sentences in the introduction, 
just enough to let the reader know the reviewer knows what he's talking 
about. Nicely paced and energetic, this is one of the best I've read 
from NT220. This is probably the first review I've read from 
Denouement, and he's good. Describing the quick nature of the battle 
system with a brief explanation why was a short but important victory 
for the essay. Other important insights are made throughout the review. 
Keep writing. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Leroux 3 - NickEvil 0 

Ruder: Leroux over Nick. Nick's SH2 is a decent, if basic, review with 
a pretty simple message to deliver. It's essentially for the player 
familiar with the first game: Nick will tell you that enemies from the 
first title are back, but won't provide any descriptions of these foes 
for those yet to experience an SH game. The coolness of the basic 
experience is conveyed well enough, but without any real significant 
"statement" to make (as, say, Mariner did in his Zelda 3 and Metroid 
works), the review seems barebones. Leroux's review is much more 
exciting and detailed and his writing in this case is superior. 

Fix: WINNER: Leroux. Nick's review lives in a world where the only way 
to explain something is to make it relative to the first game -- he 
doesn't explain SH2 in any way except as better or inferior to the 
original. I was completely alienated. I'm sure it's gotta be useful to 
somebody, but this isn't much of a stand-alone. Leroux's SmashTV is 
great, because it nails the major points ("Far too much action for far 
too long") with humor. 

Whelkman: Leroux's review is powerful in that he gives the reader all 
he needs to know about Super Smash TV in the first sixty words. One 
could stop reading there and not miss a thing. Nick (winner) writes in 
a casual style that would bury lesser reviewers, but his rhythm is 
incredible. His intentions, feelings, and observations are crystal 
clear and written in plain language. This was a difficult decision. It 
came down to Leroux's powerful introduction versus Nick's world-class 
writing.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Deathspork 3 - Woodhouse 0 

Ruder: Spork over Woodhouse. Woodhouse just can't recreate the magic 
this week. There isn't a whole lot to complain about in his review, but 
nothing can mask the fact that it's bowling, and bowling games usually 
just aren't much fun to read about (though this was a valiant effort). 
I'm sure there's an audience out there that would love this, but I was 
much more interested in Spork's examination of an old sleeper. 

Fix: WINNER: Deathspork. Woodhouse's review is goofy. His musings on 
bowling's origins and history (and on this game's idea of continent-to-
continent culture) are sorta funny I guess, but what's left is just the 
main (significant) two complaints against the game. Spork's is good 
stuff throughout -- I especially liked the bit on the characters. 

Whelkman: Sports games, especially simpler ones like bowling, make for 
difficult writing. Woodhouse wisely avoids inflating his essay to epic 
proportions and instead says what he needs to say. However, there 
aren't many who can withstand Deathspork's overwhelming reviewing 
competency as he enthusiastically brings a forgotten NES title to the 
forefront. 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestgamer 2 - Jihad 1 

Ruder: Venter over Jihad. Venter's review is boring in some places, but 
there were enough neat descriptive touches to hold it all together. 
Jihad's review is sloppy in certain parts; and while I found myself 
mildly interested in what he was talking about, I ultimately realized 
it was more due to the intriguing premise of the game rather than 
anything special he was doing with his writing. 

Fix: WINNER: Honestgamer. Venter's review isn't amazing or anything, 
but its better than that wasteland of a SMK review -- this one has some 
personality and it's more than a drab rundown. It will top Jihad's, 
which felt kinda static in comparison; I also wasn't too crazy about 
the structure/flow, but it could have been worse. I'm going with 
Venter, though. 

Whelkman: honestgamer and Jihad present two similarly matched reviews, 
but I tip my hat to Jihad. honestgamer had the advantage of a Mario 
Kart franchise crutch while Jihad necessarily dealt with a more 
challenging topic. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
King Broccoli 3 - Snow Dragon 0 

Ruder: Broccoli over Snow Dragon. Jessie's review is pretty good 
(though too long--I got the point early on) and provides all the basic 
info a reader would ask for, but it's overmatched here. Broc's work is 
just thoroughly entertaining, and it never forgets to hit home with 
major points (like the ridiculous reliance on jump-attacks). 

Fix: WINNER: Broc. SD's Tetris Attack is okay -- extremely thorough, 
mainly. But it's too long for a gameboy puzzler, even Tetris Attack -- 
it's boring. It just can't quite stack up to a sleek Broc Rival Turf 
thrashing, which starts off with a hilarious first few lines. It's very 
fast-paced, ruthless, and funny. Broc wins. 

Whelkman: Snow Dragon presents an absolutely solid and in-depth look 
into the world of Tetris Attack with all its strategies and nuances, 
but Broccoli's cutting wit and flow won me over.

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

Jerec 3 - Ukyo 0 

Ruder: Dutch over Tachibana. Zig himself insinuated that he wouldn't 
vote for an enormous NES review. Who am I to argue with the man who 
penned the piece himself? On top of all that, Dutch's review is better 
anyway. It made me chuckle a couple of times. 

Fix: WINNER: Jerec. I really like Jerec's analysis of the mediocre 
Mystic Quest -- the writing is solid enough, and the comparisons to 
other (meaningful) RPGs are useful. This seemed like the obvious 
choice, because I'm only human. 

Whelkman: 3500 words! Yikes, Tachibana! Great, enthusiastic writing, 
but Jerec's effective Mystic Quest run-down gets my vote. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sapharos 2 - Skinny Puppy 1 

Ruder: Puppy over Sapharos. This was a surprisingly good effort from 
Puppy, featuring a cool intro and cutting down on the ***** and SNES-
joke stuff. I bet fighting-game fans would love the lengths he goes to 
with his analysis here. Saph also has a cool intro, but the conclusion 
is a bit of a mess until two very good last lines. Overall, it just 
feels like a little more thought and effort went into Puppy's. 

Fix: WINNER: Sapharos. Pup's FF was enjoyable enough, but I wasn't sure 
I really saw how this game totally 'ripped off' SFIII because it brings 
in a new cast and makes the engine more complex/strategic. That aside, 
the writing was exciting (such as the parts on some of the more 
graceful characters -- just wish maybe there were some specific 
examples of the supposedly awesome moves). But I suppose I'm going to 
go with Saph -- his analysis of how the plot is more "PG"-ish than 
adult, and how the focus is too much on making jokes about the hero, 
managed to really hold my attention. 

Whelkman: Sapharos (winner) has improved much since I've read anything 
from him, and I enjoyed this review because this is how 80s PC games 
should be covered. Apart from the necessaries, Sapharos steers clear of 
the normal technical bog that seems to plague PC reviews. Not to say 
Skinny Puppy didn't put on a great show. I strangely enjoyed the 
discussion of Mark's borrowed elements from SF III and the strategy-
heavy nature of both fighters. His is a great review because it reminds 
the reader that fighters are more than button mashing and special 
moves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
SUMMARY
 
Mariner's Team 3 - Chaos Legion 0 
World Heroes 2 - Mongol Horde 1 
Detective Work 2 - Magnificent Bastards 1 
The Jerks 3 - Sinister Ministers 0 
 
STANDINGS 
Record|Wins|Team
6-1   |17  |Jerks 
5-2   |13  |Detective Work 
5-2   |12  |World Heroes 
4-3   |11  |Magnificent Bastards 
3-4   |09  |Mariner's Team 
2-5   |09  |Sinister Ministers 
2-5   |06  |Chaos Legion 
1-6   |07  |Mongol Horde

=======================================================================

The third judge's chair found itself occupied by yet another new judge, 
this time in the form of a returning champion from past tournaments, 
Whelkman.  His comments added a new tone to the tournament, and made 
for some interesting verdicts as things settled into place for the 
final round before the pre-finals.  There weren't a lot of big 
surprises here, as everyone was busy prepping for how they would play 
in the last round.  Afterwards, it was announced that there would be a 
two-week break, which gave the tired veterans more time to prepare for 
the final two matches. 

=======================================================================
 
Round Eight (Semi-Finals):

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

Jerec vs. Honestgamer 
 
RUDER: Dutch over Venter. Considering that we're now in the playoffs, 
where the best of the best are supposed to come with their absolute 
best, I was disappointed with both of these way-too-freakin'-long 
reviews. I found so many mechanical and structural errors that Dutch 
should know better than to commit. But at least his structural problems 
mainly have to do with overall construction; Venter decides to plop 
down whatever thoughts come to mind mid-paragraph, with new sections 
kicked off arbitrarily throughout the work. Jason will likely blabber 
about how this was a "stream of consciousness epic," but I simply see 
poor construction. Dutch did deliver a little personality and made some 
crucial points, while Venter described a generic game in generic terms 
. . . and took a very long time to do it. What's with the button 
functions? What's with lines like "A lesser soundtrack would have made 
the game less enjoyable"?  
 
FIX: There's a couple things to like about Jerec's, such as its 
thoroughness and general clarity. Most other stuff bothered me. To me 
the structure/ordering felt a little strange, as he's describing 
glitches before stuff like the concept, objectives of play and mini-
games and stuff even come up. The intro brings in the issue of the 
camera, then jumps suddenly to "DK64 was released before Christmas 
'99." The camera topic is abandoned until 13 paragraphs later. It all 
felt a bit disconnected. Spots of strange wording ("You'll be requiring 
more than skill to get through this") are mixed with some great lines -
- "...leading me to the conclusion that Rare couldn't think of any more 
animals to enlarge." The last fourth of the piece descends into 
plainness, with phrases like "DK64 is a bad game" and "The music, while 
not amazing, is good..." In the end, it was somewhat disappointing -- 
all the necessary content seemed to be there, and there's a little 
humor too, but the order of presentation was a little unusual to me, 
and there were numerous shaky areas in terms of writing. 
 
Venter's TMNT intro wasn't particularly strong because it doesn't 
accomplish much besides saying that the old games were fun to play with 
friends. Before I know it, we're diving into control layout -- always a 
favorite with me. What follows is a necessary (but a notably 
unenergetic) breakdown that seems to be a compilation of Standard Beat-
Em-Up Complaints (not a wide variety of enemies, button mashing, etc.). 
Then we're back to the General Review Template, with short paragraphs 
on graphics/sound, including both the absurdly worded sentences ("The 
game's sound category is similarly successful"), and the most amazingly 
obvious observations ("A lesser soundtrack would have made the game 
less enjoyable"). Are you serious? The piece exits as meekly as it 
entered, noting the redundancy of the title (which seems to be more a 
mainstay of the genre than a specific problem with this one, just to 
note). Both reviews were lackluster, and both reviewers have better. It 
was the DK64 by Jerec I enjoyed more. 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

King Broccoli vs. NickEvil 
 
RUDER: Nick over Broc. Nick performs a Mariner-like dissection of a 
game that certainly seems to have garnered more praise than it truly 
deserves. His writing exudes effortless sophistication, straightforward 
and confident throughout; and the remarkable level of detail he 
provides makes this the greatest review of a fighting game I've ever 
read. For his part, Broc amazed me by concentrating on an element of my 
favorite game that has gone undocumented and that even I hadn't yet 
pegged: "Each resident of Spira carries the burden of knowing that 
death could come at any moment, and watching these carefully-crafted 
individuals toil manfully under the stress, or crumple in a sobbing 
heap, is an engaging experience." Also, his humorous jabs at previous 
Final Fantasy entries would make Nick himself proud. Broc's piece has a 
poignancy about it that Nick's lacks--but Nick wasn't aiming to produce 
such an effect. By the same token, Broc doesn't come close to matching 
Nick's thoroughness--but again, he was shooting to capture the essence 
of the title. So when two reviews feature vastly different approaches 
and succeed monumentally, I'm left to look at the writing--more 
specifically, word choice. And this is where I felt Nick did something 
slightly more special with his work. There is no writer who manages to 
avoid "tried-and-true" cliches more effectively than NickEvil. There's 
something unique about the way he expresses things that makes his 
writing voice special, and while Joel is well on his way there, there 
are still some spots in his FFX where cliches rear their heads or 
segments of greatness spiral down to predictable, rather mundane 
conclusions, as if he just couldn't find that special way to cap it all 
off. He will, but until then, Nick's prose stands superior.  
 
FIX: Yikes. A lot less to say about this match, a veritable clashing of 
the titans. Nick addresses Soul Calibur's very worthy qualities in its 
beauty and unique single-player experiences, but doesn't hesitate in 
tackling its significant flaws with piercing arguments. It leads off 
with one of the most potent openings you'll ever find, as Nick explains 
SC's sudden popularity, coinciding with its console DC release. When 
you've reached "But Soul Calibur's sword is indeed double-edged," the 
skies darken. What follows is a rude awakening in the form of scathing 
logic -- the lack of balance, huge weapons being wielded with 
ridiculous speed and ease, combos pulled off in manners insulting to 
those who truly practice. Broc's engrossing FFX epic lambastes the 
melodrama plaguing past entries, and commands a haunting majesty with 
its sweeping descriptions of the world of Spira, the races populating 
it, and the stories and adventures lying in wait. But it's Nick's 
amazingly eloquent review -- brutally dispelling the suffocating hype 
surrounding its game -- that gets my vote, over a piece that is itself 
so gripping that you almost forget yourself while reading.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sapharos vs. Woodhouse 
 
RUDER: Woodhouse over Sapharos. Both of these reviews were simply 
"okay," leaving me with little to complain about and even less to be 
thrilled about. Woodhouse's writing was a little more impressive, 
though I was a bit more interested in Saph's from start to finish. 
Sadly, this was solely because MM was a game I always wanted to play as 
a kid, but never got around to. If I had been into naked-girl RPGs as a 
youngster, I surely would have been into this MP review. The deciding 
factor is the sole complaint I have about either review, and 
unfortunately for The Jerks, it's aimed at Sapharos. For a fun game, I 
see almost nothing but negatives cited. The kid in me still wants to 
know more about the fun stuff.  
 
FIX: Sapharos's MM doesn't do anything horribly wrong, and doesn't seem 
to be missing anything vital. I kinda wonder what's really appealing 
enough to bring Saph back to playing after the laundry list of 
potential problems (weird controls, success based on randomness in 
obtaining items, the need to exploit 'glitches' in boss fights with 
bosses who aren't very impressive), but there are some sudden spots of 
humor ("Typical females") that stand out in a review that reads 
somewhat dully. Woodhouse's Mad Paradox, though, had my attention from 
the start. His thorough thrashing is a bit more eloquent and readable 
than Saph's review, and has some good observations (such as how the 
companion characters suddenly flatline after their in-depth 
introduction). I'll take Woodhouse.  
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Deathspork vs. Janus Operative 
 
RUDER: Janus over Spork. Anyone who witnessed the WoW write-off a few 
weeks back knows I was blown away by Janus' work. Rather than repeating 
the mega-praise here, I'll just say that Spork delivered a great review 
on a game that just didn't give him enough substance to counter the 
insane descriptions in Janus' piece. The bit at the end regarding AVE 
vs Nintendo was very cool and definitely had me fascinated, but it 
still wasn't enough to beat clouds crying blood and churning messes of 
nerves and tissue.  
 
FIX: From his admissions to fascination with unlicensed titled, all the 
way down to his analysis of the apparent symbolism at work in the story 
of MoA, Deathspork's review is convincing and well-informed. I can't 
really think of anything that would make this piece much better -- it's 
a near-ideal puzzler essay. But then, Janus's use of combination 
atmosphere/analysis for Wings of Wor manages to come out on top. Here's 
a review that paints such a picture and creates such a mood ("The 
atmosphere hangs over the adventure with an immense sense of doom") 
through descriptions that an indelible impression is created for the 
reader without even having to play. 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Leroux vs. NT220 
 
RUDER: Leroux over NT. It's phenomenal that I can still be impressed by 
a Splatterhouse review, as it's one of the few TG16 games that has been 
covered in print adequately over the years. But Leroux's wild 
descriptions didn't just impress me; they completely blew me away. "We 
charge head-on into the pitfalls of danger, confronting unsightly 
beasts and ravaged specimens in hand to hand, two-by-four to rotting 
flesh combat." "Rick's muscles bulging as we greet our adversaries with 
Ruth-ian uppercuts, the acidic vomit coughed onto our path by chained 
misfits in the background and the occasional bat making a swoop towards 
us not nearly enough to impede us from reaching the flesh-eating 
parasites that attack in tandem to form our first boss confrontation." 
This stuff is genius; how could anyone NOT want to play the game after 
reading this? And so Leroux can easily claim to have written the 
greatest Splatterhouse review of all time; while, sadly, after reading 
great Super Metroid efforts by the likes of Masters and Retro (and a 
lot of other people, for that matter), NT's review ends up leaving an 
impression of being very good but not world altering. The problem is 
that NT turns in really special segments that are spread far apart by 
standard Metroid stuff. The intro, final line, and passages on level 
designs and fascinating discoveries/achievements are all brilliant, but 
the review just isn't end-to-end no-mercy excellence like Leroux's. 
 
FIX: Leroux's Splatterhouse begins hilariously, but becomes more 
terrifying before it's over. The enthusiasm ("There's more that I want 
to tell you") and imagery (witness the first sentence of the fourth 
full paragraph, among others) combine for a formidable, entertaining, 
extremely convincing analysis. It's enough to top NT, who puts up a 
surprisingly strong effort with his Super Metroid, the difference being 
that his piece starts a bit slow, while Leroux is off and running. The 
portions where he's describing the uneasy depths of the planet are 
frightening, and I really liked the last couple lines of the final 
paragraph. But it's not quite enough. 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jihad vs. Retro 
 
RUDER: Jihad over Retro. I had some misgivings when I learned that 
Retro used an AIM conversation to kick things off in his review, but to 
my surprise, it was a reasonably effective tool that led into his 
introduction quite well. His voice is as charismatic and personable as 
ever and there's a solid flow to the work--whenever I thought to myself 
that he was at an appropriate point to address a certain issue, he 
actually went ahead and did it. Unfortunately, the review has quite a 
few rough spots: there are unnecessary Venter-like lines ("an airplane 
flies in a straight line from your current destination to that of your 
opponent's on the world map"), there are unhelpful lines ("I don't know 
how to describe it, but I just like that particular song a lot"), and 
there are lines that just had me scratching my head ("his whole body 
becomes more electrical than a downed power line"). The transition into 
the conclusion wasn't smooth: it felt more like a second introduction. 
Jihad's game sure seems odd, but I owe my interest in it to his 
enthusiastic writing this time around. I don't have anything to 
complain about mechanically and he discusses every aspect of the game 
that I'd ask a writer to. His conclusion was excellent, too. Retro's 
piece made for an enjoyable reading experience, but Jihad had the 
stronger game review. 
 
FIX: Retro's SFIIT is an up-and-down affair -- there's a lot to like 
about his typical enthusiasm and familiarity with his subject, but 
here, there are instances of vague or ineffective writing. I really 
liked how he excitedly described how every character has the potential 
to be likeable (which seems to be a unique quality to SF), and his 
early "You'll need more than quick reflexes" paragraph was great stuff. 
But the IM conversation that opens the review seems pointless, and 
there are lines that simply do not work ("For moves that drain your 
opponent's energy faster than Mike Tyson knocked out his latest 
opponent in the ring (less than a minute)...") and places that end up 
serving little purpose (the lack of even an attempt to describe 
Thailand's music, after commenting on how nice it was). Jihad takes 
advantage with his Gitaroo-Man, a frantic, fast and entertaining piece 
that captures the game's evident zaniness very well. The bottom half 
starts getting a little wacky as we jump from stage 2, to 8, to 6, but 
there's no real harm done -- Jihad picks good examples for illustrating 
the uniqueness of this experience. In the end, I've gotta go with 
Jihad. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
* As the regular rounds are over, rankings were no longer supplied in 
the tournament post; the important information now was that Detective 
Work and the Magnificent Bastards were the two teams chosen by the 
judges to advance to the finals.

=======================================================================

Though originally it had appeared Masters would be present as a third 
judge to keep tiebreakers from occurring in the important semi-finals 
round, it turned out the two mainstays (Mike and Fix) were able to 
agree in every case.  The topic was posted without comments from a 
third judge after all, though it was noted he would be returning for 
the tournament's final round.  In what many on the sidelines considered 
a surprising twist, the Magnificent Bastards moved onto the finals over 
the highly-favored Jerks, while a lot of people were patting themselves 
on the back for correctly predicting that Detective Work would make the 
final round.  As the tournament moved to its final round, tensions were 
high. 

=======================================================================
 
Round Nine (Final Round):

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

Leroux 2 vs. Honestgamer 1 
 
RUDER: Leroux over Venter. Leroux gets my vote, but I liked Venter's 
review. It didn't start off so well: the first couple of paragraphs are 
redundant and clumsy in places (look at that second sentence); and the 
ol' "people don't like this because it ain't Secret" doesn't sit well 
with me, as I've never played Secret yet still hate Legend. But Venter 
picks things up with some of the best stuff I've ever seen from him in 
his graphics and sounds paragraphs. This is beautiful, convincing 
writing that makes the reader envision a gorgeous, immersive world that 
he could spend endless hours exploring. The problem later on in the 
review is that Venter relies on his promise of immersion too heavily: 
as the flaws mount, I found my enthusiasm for this immersive 
exploration wavering. When he tries to pick things up with the game's 
redeeming features (like monster breeding), he is forced to concede 
that they aren't at all necessary to advancing in the quest. He simply 
promises that it will be "quite satisfying" to see what our monsters 
can do after hours of building them up for battles we don't even need 
them to fight. Maybe if Venter had illustrated for us something awesome 
that the beasts are capable of pulling off, his point would be more 
believable. As it stands now, I'm not fully convinced. Leroux has no 
such trouble convincing his readers that 1942's monotony can indeed 
induce insanity. I like when writers try to take an atypical approach 
to an all-out bash review, and I liked Leroux's countdown theme, 
particularly during the section where the numbers separate his 
descriptions of the horribly repetitive landscape. Honestly, Venter's 
highest points beat Leroux's in this particular match-up, but Leroux's 
writing contains far fewer errors and makes the much stronger argument. 
Good match.  
 
FIX: WINNER: Leroux This was definitely the closest match of the three. 
Venter's Legend of Mana -- surprisingly consistent from end to end with 
its 'take your time and enjoy the world' theme -- is a vast improvement 
over last week's TMNT debacle. Only a few areas of strangeness ("What 
was he smoking?" "Now let me tell you about..." type transitions) serve 
to hold this one back -- otherwise, Venter makes a generally good case 
(momentum is lost towards the end as he mentions stuff like monster 
breeding, yet he admits himself that this is more of a time-killer than 
anything) for a game I've heard a lot of negativity about. But these 
rough spots will be enough to sink it against Leroux's vicious 1942, 
which uses great descriptions and a neat, unobtrusive gimmick that 
shows how tiresome the game gets. Great effort from you both, though. 
 
MASTERS: Winner: VENTER With Leroux's short piece, I don't learn very 
much about the game. Everything is tied to the countdown gimmick, which 
Zigfriend pointed out to me might have worked better had the numbers 
not actually reached ONE.  
Venter's intro is rocky and the review is overly long and sometimes he 
raises questions and then doesn't answer them till much later. But the 
honestgamer's writing is more welcoming, and he paints a much clearer 
picture of a game he obviously likes, than does Leroux of a game he is 
obviously too disgusted with to do much justice to. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
Deathspork 0 vs. NickEvil 3 
 
RUDER: Nick over Spork. Spork really needed something special to knock 
off his legendary adversary . . . what he delivered is pretty good but 
not special. Not to say that there isn't a lot to like: the Retro-ish 
introduction and conclusion, the enemy descriptions, the analysis of 
wasted ideas and segments, and the bit on the toy-store tune. But there 
are mechanical problems with the writing here--minor issues that don't 
destroy a piece, but certainly drop it below the impeccable prose of a 
NickEvil. The cuteness paragraph, which really should have sealed the 
deal for the old-schooler looking for a nostalgic trip, was 
ineffective, leaving the whole premise hanging. On the other hand, 
Nick's tale of graphical trickery merged perfectly with 16-bit 
mechanics, resulting in innovative "layer-style" combat, was so sweet 
it darn near convinced me to buy a Saturn. His precise description of 
LS's unique approach combined with his focus on select in-game moments 
(the "cliff-clinging curmudgeon"!) perfectly convey his enthusiasm for 
this "old-school at heart" project, and make this shooter seem 
irresistible to fans of the genre. 
 
FIX: WINNER: Nick Spork's RR was nice, but wasn't at nearly the same 
level as his best work. I liked the 'bringing you back' theme used to 
convey how nostalgic the experience is, but it seems like the theme 
could have been executed better. Nick's precision writing, effortlessly 
examining the significance of Layer Section's unique scaling, won't be 
topped on this day. 
 
MASTERS: Winner: ETHEREAL This isn't the clash of the titans match it 
might have been. This isn't my favourite Spork piece; he waxes poetic 
at odd times, seemingly overwriting the thing considering the game he's 
discussing. Also, I don't feel that he's written about a "7" here at 
all. Nick's review reads perfectly, if it's sometimes heavy on 
hyperbole. His is easily the best review of the Finals. 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
Jihad 1 vs. Woodhouse 2 
 
RUDER: Woodhouse over Jihad. Jihad gets off to a bad start: I really 
don't think Treasure is much of a "sleeper" company anymore, and anyone 
who still plays Genesis knows all too well what Gunstar Heroes is. 
There are some decent bits of writing that immediately follow the 
botched intro, though his word choice is baffling at points. The second 
half is where things really do downhill. Generic, routine, standard, 
boring . . . whatever you want to call it, it's not the sort of 
business that should be used in a "championship match." For the record, 
his KOTOR wouldn't have pulled my vote either. Jihad just choked, while 
his opponent had the good fortune of focusing on an "adult game" that 
I'm actually interested in. A cool intro and some nice humorous bits 
("Men cringe at the pitiful sight of his miniature manhood, and little 
girls shriek at the horror of his uncouth appearance") take Woodhouse's 
usual solid fare a level higher. Granted, things do become a little 
dull during the piece's latter stages, but there is still some "care 
for the craft" on display here, which I didn't find a sign of during 
the Jihad Collapse. 
 
FIX: WINNER: Woodhouse Jihad's piece was unimpressive -- it would've 
been nice to see him draft a new Red Dead/Butcher Bay-type quality 
piece for the big finale. Somewhat goofy writing in the first half is 
followed by a shallow, vague second half ("Treasure really took it up a 
notch with dazzling and mind blowing effects;" "The sound effects are 
also quite standard"). Jihad kinda did himself in with this one -- not 
to take anything away from Woodhouse's (as usual) eloquent, 
entertaining essay on KoX, emphasizing the humor and witty characters 
that pervade the adventure. It's a bit on the long side, and the humor 
is emphasized so much that I feel like I'm missing out on what else 
makes this game a 10. Despite that, this piece will still down Jihad's.
 
MASTERS: Winner: JIHAD Jihad's review is well organized as usual, and 
quite convincing. His work highlights the flaws of Treasure's game 
easily, boasting fresh and practiced prose. Woodhouse seems to take too 
long to say what he's saying, and the  
review didn't to me enthusiastic enough to warrant the 10/10 score.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
* Again, no team totals were tallied.  The winning team was the 
Magnificent Bastards.  Judge Fix posted the following comments in the 
results thread:

"It appears that Coach Jason "Larry Brown" Venter has added a Team 
Tournament ring to go with his alpha-olympics championship he captured 
a few months back. Congratulations to his team, which was also much 
helped by Nick deciding on a whim he was done screwing around, 
delivering two murderous blows in the playoffs.  
 
Congrats also to Detective Work for making it to the finals before 
running out of gas, to World Heroes and The Jerks on great seasons, and 
to the rest of the teams for making this a pretty competitive 
tournament. 
 
Thanks to Ruder for sticking around all the way through, to Masters for 
participating when he could, then returning to help close it out, and 
to those random guys in between that acted as third judge (Slownerve, 
Whelkman, and almost Vegita). Also, thanks to all who participated, 
especially those who put forth big efforts week in and week out."

=======================================================================

The tournament was a lengthy one that in some ways didn't live up to 
expectations, but it was still quite the education.  Returning legends 
from past events showed that they still have what it takes to lead 
teams to victory (or in some cases, that they don't).  New material was 
also generated by some returning favorites.  Sometimes it fared well, 
others it didn't.  As the tournament concluded, one thing became 
apparent: competition among GameFAQs reviewers is tougher than ever!