fleinn's Rise of the Argonauts review

I have to say, this isn't a very solid review. To be more precise (and helpful) I would say that your ideas and content are good, but your presentation is lacking. A good writer on this site once told me never to use lists in my reviews. I was younger in those days, and more arrogant (a whole three months ago). I scoffed at the advice in public... but behind the scenes I took a look at what he was talking about and realized he was right, by George!

In any case, never use lists. As Yahtzee once said of a menstruating woman falling off a tall building, it breaks flow.

Also, your introduction, while a solid idea, just doesn't read well. You break up your sentences at weird spots and use grammar that almost works... but doesn't really.

When all is said and done, I want to like this review, because you know what you're talking about, but I can't get past the basic issues with structure and flow.

That said, don't give up. You demonstrate some analytical abilities here that some people never get, so work on the presentation and you'll be a fine reviewer someday soon.

"A good writer on this site once told me never to use lists in my reviews."

*waves*

I say use lists all you want... if they're at the end of the review, and it seems here they are. If that's what is being talked about? I assume Zipp meant those little category summaries?

To me, this is not important compared to just the general roundaboutness of the structure.

Subcategories (which is what I assume Zipp is referring to) can work, but only when they're thickly disguised and serve a purpose. Splitting it into subcategories ruins the flow, and moreover, suggests you're not really engaging with what makes the game tick. Instead, you're just going through the technical motions of the game development process.

Here, the fact that the reviewer feels it necessary only to talk about the cinematic direction and the combat suggests he does know what's going on at the heart of the game. But it feels a bit clunky to put it under subheadings like this. Try removing them. It reads far better, without losing anything.

It's nowhere near as bad as putting "GRAFFIX, SOUND, GAYMPLAY!" and so on, clearly, because that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how videogames affect us as players. But it still reads awkwardly.

Maybe we're all talking about different things. Zipp said 'lists' - I thought he meant the little subcategories at the end of the review, and that was already a stretch from what I was thinking of, which was more like a list of pros and cons. And you're talking about the broader headings throughout the review. I almost didn't notice those here because the review is long. But I think all in all we all kinda get what each other is talking about by now.

Also, I can't believe you are slandering the invaluable 'GAYMPLAY' category ;)

I don't think using such categories displays a 'complete' lack of understanding. It's just not possible to formulate certain ideas in writing when using them, so ultimately most good writers will find they dispense with them as necessary. But there are still plenty of decent, and some excellent, reviews around which use categories.

Lewis actually wasn't the one I was referring to, because I didn't reply snarkily to him (if you'll remember). But Lewis gave me similar advice, yes.

It was Suskie who originally gave me the advice, back on my Dead Space review.

Really appreciate the feedback. I wrote about it a bit on the blog.. I had two versions. This is the first one, that was supposed be two pages. And then I added some headlines and spacing - which.. *cough*. Looked better in the text- editor. But I agree that's not the biggest problem with the review.

*sigh* this wasn't as easy as I thought :)

edit: I updated it a bit.. couldn't get rid of the lists, though :D. But I see the point - if it was a bit shorter, and I had smuggled in those points in the rest of the review, that would've been better. To me it was more of a summary, since I had already written about twice as long as I was supposed to. But it reads more as if I'm just piling on what I couldn't put into actual words, no?

It reads like a solid attempt at a review with some common mistakes made by a lot of people who are just starting out. I know... I was there not so long ago.

And it actually looked much better in my head, before I wrote it down, you know? :p Irritating thing.