Reviewing has actually had a rather significant impact on my life.

There's tremendous value in learning to articulate well, orally or with words on paper or a computer screen. Congratulations on your accommplishments, which sound a lot like my own around that point in my life (right down to challenging a required writing class). Hopefully you stick to the whole education thing, though, rather than dropping out because you married too young and are too busy working a minimum wage job and updating your web site to worry about academics. ;-)

But did more time go into the 100+ reviews than the class would require? Probably, but in the end it is still worth it.

Well, it's not like I began reviewing with this specific goal in mind. I review first and foremost because I enjoy it. I'm just bringing up an example of how it's actually benefited me.

Yeah, I still think that's cool. I can say reviewing's helped me a lot, too, I think. I think the most benefit I got from it was that it helped me to write more critically and succinctly. And to write for an audience... I also learned the value of editing.

However, I also think my acadeic writing influences my reviewing, so... it's a fair trade. And I didn't realy start becoming "good" (if you can call me that) until after I'd taken the required college writing course.

I agree. Writing regularly always helps, even if it's in the form of video game reviews. I think the community is beneficial, too. Turning out 100 identical sub-standard gamefaqs reviews is less helpful than writing reviews for a community like HG that's focused on quality. Although gamefaqs did have that sort of community once... a long, long time ago.

Well, GameFAQs was definitely an invaluable starting point for me, I'll give it that. It was a while before I actually made an honest attempt to improve my writing, though, and that led me here. So you're right.

EmP

Before you say anything, I’m totally aware of the hypocrisy of this statement coming from the guy who wrote that Fahrenheit review, but I don’t care for the constant references to the contest in this review. You’re an excellent writer, and that’s on full display here, but I’d say you’re also occasionally too self-conscious for your own good. In the context of Brevity or Bust, it works (especially the very clever joke at the end), but what’s to stop a random passerby from reading this and wondering why, if it’s so difficult to describe in 500 words, you limited yourself? I was going to complain about the contradiction of wasting space talking about how little you can write, but the weird truth about this review is that, in my mind, you still paint a vivid picture of Big Bang Mini. It sounds like a relatively simple game (I’m thinking Geometry Wars on a touch screen), and your decision to offer only a few fleeting glimpses of the intensity and visual splendor found within the design itself, rather than spend paragraphs discussing them in great detail, seems like the right one. I guess what I’m trying to say is that you chose a game perfectly suited for Brevity or Bust, that you did a fine job reviewing it with space to spare, and that your in-jokes about having a limited number of words ironically come across as filler. I’ll be surprised if this doesn’t wind up being the most bizarre entry of the contest. 75

Jerec

Not sure if Crisis Core was a good choice for Brevity or Bust. If you don’t pick a simple game that doesn’t call for a whole lot of discussion, then you must simply limit what you say, which you seem to have trouble doing here. I’ll say that your opening sentence probably does a better job of illustrating your point than the rest of the review does – initially taking on a negative tone (and I get the feeling you were hesitant to give the game so solid a recommendation) and then snapping back and noting that the game’s shallowness is merely a byproduct of the its desire to keep the story moving along. Actually, I think the first half of this review is absolutely fine, hitting all of the major points about the story without going into more detail than is necessary, but still providing enough personal response. (I especially liked it when you said that Zack is made a likeable character, and that this makes the story all the more sad since you know where it’s going.) As soon as you go into combat, though, you’ve lost me. I still don’t really know how it works – is it real-time? Turn-based? Why does hugging walls help? Why do enemies spin you around? And what’s the deal with leveling up? It’s at this point that the review’s placement in this contest hurts it, because I get the sense you’re just trying to cram everything in without making any cuts, and as such, it’s all a blur. It’s not a bad review by any means, but it could have used some serious refinement. 65

Lewis

I don’t have much to say about this review beyond the fact that I like it. What I’m about to say will make this the third consecutive critique I’ve written now that mentions game choice in Brevity or Bust, but really, when your only real response to Stalin vs. Martians is to point at it and laugh, what more is there to be said? Honestly, that first paragraph is all you need to illustrate that this strategy-free game completely fails in its duties as a strategy game. That point is made immediately and succinctly, and I like the position you take afterwards. It makes me weirdly eager to check the game out – not to PAY for it, but to at least see how dumb it really is. I get the feeling that’s exactly the reaction I’m supposed to have: I have no desire to play it, and as such, I’m a little sad that I’ll never get to see the scene where Stalin dances. I can’t imagine writing a full-length review of this thing. Good work. 88

Sho

Thanks for the recommendation, Sho! I’ve never really been interested in Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, but I’ll take your word for it and assume it’s tailored for a guy like me. (Yes, the joke there is that I hate “atmospheric” adventure games, as you suggest.) This is another one of the thousand or so reviews on this site that takes the you-are-there storytelling approach, which has become something of an HonestGamers cliché. I mean, I’m guilty of doing this too and it’s not inherently a BAD thing, but I feel you get a little lost in the third paragraph, more concerned with making the review sparkly and dramatic than actually painting a clear picture of how The King of Chicago plays. I’m kind of wondering if the game is as exciting as you make it sound, though that’s probably more due to my natural bias against adventure games than anything else. So really, the writing here is very strong and I especially appreciate the point about how the game will play out differently for everyone, which makes it sound very ahead of its time. It’s a little over the top (which, again, is a trap that a lot of writers here often fall into), but it’s hard for me to argue when it would probably be impossible to sell this game to me otherwise. My only real complaint is that you might want to make your negative points (about the game’s brevity and simplicity) a little more prominent to further reflect your score, but nice work otherwise. 80

Overdrive

I was actually going to copy and paste some of the lines from your review into this critique, and then edit them to make it sound like I’m saying that your review is competent, and that I’m damning with faint praise, and that it’s put together well but it’s not flashy or memorable, etc. But I don’t know how familiar you are with this review and I’d be taking the risk that the joke flies right over your head. In all honesty, this is very well written, and simply works from the disadvantage that the game you’re talking about isn’t very interesting. It’s not interesting to read about and I’m betting it’s not interesting to talk about, either. Whereas Lewis picked an excellent game for this competition and wound up coming to the most unique conclusion in fewer words than anyone else, your review more or less says what I expected it to say from the get-go: generic JRPG, save the world, gather party members, fight monsters, mediocre, bleh. I really did appreciate what you said about the game appealing to YOU and people like you, while still acknowledging that Revelations isn’t very good. Your attitude about RPGs more or less mirrors mine towards shooters. I just recently played Killzone 2 and honestly enjoyed it, despite it being the most generic cookie-cutter game I’ve played all year. How do you review a game like that, one that you were entertained by for reasons others would hate it? I like your approach, I think you’re totally fair to the game, and I know to stay away now. It’s just a shame you don’t have better material to work with here. 75

Zipp

Before you start waving guns around because of the score I gave you, I want you to know that I like the direction you’ve taken with this review. I really do. Your position on FFVII being one of Square’s darkest games has actually forced me to view the game in a different light, which is a considerable given how much I hate FFVII. Your decision to ignore gameplay-related aspects altogether was also an effective one, especially since even FFVII’s biggest fans seem to have acknowledged by now that the plot is the game’s only selling point. (Ha! Thought I’d get through this critique without knocking on FFVII, did you?) Having said that, this just isn’t a compelling piece of writing. After establishing your point in a particularly strong second paragraph, you seem to have run out of places to go and just wander aimlessly until you’ve reached your word limit. There are two whole paragraphs in a row in which you simply run through one-sentence anecdotes from the story in quick succession, without giving them the footing they need to support your central thesis. Some of them don’t even make sense out of context. Like, you make it sound as if Cloud WILLINGLY hands Sephiroth the black materia. It just sounds like you’re preaching to a choir here, calling FFVII the “most enduring game of all time” for no particular reason, bringing up one genuinely good discussion topic, and then using it as an excuse to plough through as many major plot points as you can before slapping an obligatory 10 onto the end of the review. It isn’t even tailored for people who haven’t played the game and is too jumbled (and, weirdly, devoid of much actual praise) to work as a nostalgic piece. I’ll add that the writing isn’t as strong as usual, either, such as the mention of “polygon characters.” (I know what you meant, but there’s got to be a better way to put it than that.) 45

Zig

So… what’s the deal with that opening exchange? Is it from the game? Something else? Did you make it up? Well, whatever. For however disoriented this made me, you got my attention again with the “Ratt’s ass” joke. That’s clever writing right there, folks. Anyway, I really like it when reviewers find unique ways to make simple points, such as when you said that Brutal Legend feels like it was stuck in the era when simply being in 3D was thrill enough. This is a good review that I really can’t find fault with. If Brutal Legend provides a lot of potential discussion material, then you did a wonderful job of convincing me that all relevant aspects can be covered clearly and illustratively in the space of 500 words. As always, your writing is tight, creative and entertaining to read. And, uh, that’s about all there is to say. How are you? Good, thanks. 90

Masters

Wow. Way to go with a single point and run with it. I like this approach if it’s done well, and here, it absolutely is. I’ve always been in defense of videogame violence as an almost integral part of the experience (in some cases, at least), so I can totally relate to what you’re saying about excessive bloodletting being so empowering. Notice you say nothing of the game’s actual mechanics. You don’t need to. Everyone knows Ninja Gaiden is an action game, and in a way, that’s as detailed as you need to be. This feels kind of like a reflection piece, one that quickly examines what made Ninja Gaiden II work on Xbox 360 and explains how one presumably small change can make for a much less satisfying experience (without falling into the trap of outright reviewing the original NG2). That’s kind of the case I was making for MadWorld – some games are just AWESOME. Taking away NG2’s awesomeness does it a disservice. Gamers know the rush you get from games like this, and any of them should be able to instantly relate to the argument you’re making here, whether they’ll admit it or not. Simple but incredibly effective – and I hate the Ninja Gaiden games. 94

Randxian

I’m not really getting why you don’t like this game, Randxian. You spend virtually the entire review telling me about how much the characters in this game hate you, and… I don’t know, that seems like a petty complaint to me. I know nothing about the story, the battle system… I don’t even really know how the character interaction works. How do you get them to warm up to you? How do you recruit them? How do they contribute to your party, and how do the quests play out with them in tow? I leave this review with nothing. What’s worse, halfway through you make the declaration that “thus the game fails completely,” like we’re supposed to be nodding along with what you’re saying, yet I see no evidence here to support your claims. Either I’m missing something or there’s an underlying message in this review that you haven’t brought out. So the characters are mean? Don’t take it so personally, man. 50