Lewis's The Path review

Awesome work. I won't be firing you this week.

Thanks, love. Though, as a freelancer, I don't think you have the power to do that anyway. AHA!

Did you get me email about the box art?

Freelancer? I thought EmP was staff.

I meant *I'm* a freelancer.

Hell, I could probably fire Venter if I wanted to. The only reason this site isn't called EmPGamers is because there's too many caps in there.

I'm jumping on my e-mails now. Busy, busy day.

EMP: go back to your spawning pit

LEWIS: good job on the review, though I would still like to see more personality in your writing. As I've said before, it tends to be very analytical and not very personalized. I would have trouble picking a Lewis review out of a line-up. But you always paint a great image of the games you review, in this case making me want to try this game so badly I'm gonna write a letter to the developers begging them to port it to PS3. You also always give a very clear idea of how the mechanics work, and where they fail to work. Continue to work on inserting some personality into your reviews, and by the time you're my age, you could be working for a major publication.

I think that if Lew tried to make his reviews more about him, he would lose that aspect that I probably enjoy the most from this. This review especially is one much more suited for for Lewis' more artistic analysis than, say, my style of mock-heavy and more personal rambling.

To each their own, but I think this review is fantastic. I'd not change a thing.

Serious games means serious business. Lightheartedness would have seemed a cop-out when discussing a game that deals with such intense subject matters.

It's very important to find the tone that matches the subject matter and/or your stance on a given game. I think that Lewis does a good job with that and it's one thing I appreciate about his writing. Not every review needs to communicate a sense of the reviewer's personality, which is something most casual visitors don't even care about. I know I talk about myself in a lot of my more recent reviews, but mostly that's to serve the purpose of establishing my own perspective on the game so that the reader can identify with me or say "Hmm, this guy doesn't look for the same things in games that I do." I'd hate to see writers trying to include personal anecdotes just because it's the popular thing to do.

Yeah. This is a really good review. To me, the analytical and personal elements blend wonderfully. The personal aspects aren't lighthearted - and for this, they really shouldn't be - but that doesn't mean they're there, and he utilizes them to emphasize his analytical points.

What's more, those analytical points, which are very strong in the review, paint a clear picture of what this game's about and what it does well/not so well. I think the only part I may have been confused with was the paragraph devoted mainly to aesthetics, but I think that's just because I don't really understand a lot of the technical aspects of it.

This game sounds fascinating - sort of reminds me of your review for Dear Esther in a way, with how it approaches the subject, only that this game includes more... generic adventuring stuff, if I can describe it like that (like with the achievements and whatnot).

Innocence, cynicism, sorrow, and whatever else - each sound like they embody a certain character... and all of them can be present in such a sordid subject. It sounds absolutely amazing. I think it's great that the industry is trying to branch out more with this sort of thing. It's like realism (the literature movement; many games already share realistic aspects...) in video games. It's exciting. If a bit... depressing, in the theme, I mean.

Maybe you miss what I mean when I say "personal touch." I'm not talking about snarkiness or bad jokes, I'm talking about a sense of personal style. I rarely get that from your reviews. They're always extremely well written. And seriously, you're one of my favourite reviewers on the site. Please, PLEASE, don't add jokes to this review, or any other serious review. I just want to see you develop your style a bit. That's all. It should come naturally, anyway, if you keep writing.

I've been reading a lot of Jim Rossignol's work lately. Perhaps he's seeping his way into my own style...

Hm, I don't understand these 'lack of personal style' comments at all. I find Lewis' reviews supremely Lewisy. Opinion as articulately conveyed as this strikes me as unavoidably, transparently personal. I mean it's not like you could even fob it off by waving a pointed stick around.

Other technically defined hallmarks of personality include recurring behaviour/concerns, tone in writing, opinionation - all much in evidence.

What are you guys talking about? That he doesn't talk about rifling through his game collection and what he had for breakfast? :) These are pros to me.

My own stance on humour is that it works best from the confluence of what grows naturally out of the subject matter and what your own sense of humour is. If you force either factor too much and simultaneously don't make the review goal 'to be explicitly hilarious', it can come across as tiresome to me, though some people dig it. And I'm sure I've forced it myself at times, but this is what I preach to the crowd.

I think my style is perhaps generally less colloquial than a lot of writers here. It's not that I think either is better, or anything. I just generally write with a bit more formality than a lot of people, I think. Hopefully my work remains interesting.

I think what you have is a developing voice, Lewis. It's strong, but it's not fully there yet. It can only get better with time. You're well on your way to being a s†and out writer.

Lewis does have his own style. I don't know what you're talking about. His analytical style is greatly different from anyone else's around here. His reviews don't read like Bloomer's or Masters' or whoever else employs the method. They're separate, different and unique. Just like those other guys' reviews are separate, different and unique.

Besides, Lewis has been doing this longer than many of us, probably, just not here. And he's been on the freelance team since he joined the site probably more than a year ago, so take that as you will.

But, well, if you don't see a distinct style, then you don't see a distinct style. But I do. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

You know what I like about Lewis? Everyone else argued with me over whether my point was valid or not. But Lewis simply looked at my advice, took it for what it was worth, and stored it away for further use/perusal/discarding at his leisure. I respect that. I respect you quite a lot, Lewis.

EDIT: By the way, I hope no-one thought I was saying this was a bad review. I think this is an excellent review. It's getting harder to give Lewis advice, and I'm trying to stay on top of the game, here.

I hope I am still developing a voice, improving my talent. The minute that stops being the case is the minute I stop writing. Never stagnate; never become complacent.

Zigfried and I were writing reviews when some of you were stumbling toddlers! And we have both changed our minds 10,000 times about everything in the decade+ since then. So in conclusion... Lewis has the right attitude to ongoing development, and Zigfried and I rock.

I am but a child, relatively. That I've been writing about games since I was fifteen is neither here nor there. Nobody's a good writer at fifteen.

I was first published at fifteen. True story.

If you count school newspapers, I was first pulished at age 7. I wrote a short story of about 300 words and my teacher liked it so much that she got it put in the school newspaper. Looking back, I wish I had taken the time to gloat. Mine was the only one selected for that esteemed honor... :-D

I never said you weren't still developing a voice - everyone's still doing that, really; though some to a lesser extent than others since it develops more slowly as you get better. But the notion that you don't have one at all - which Zipp seemed to suggest - is ridiculous.

Anyway, I doubt that was directed at me, anyway (nothing in this topic was, really, at least not from you, despite saying enough). I just wanted to clear that up.

I'm not going to discuss my commeny any further. It was meant for Lewis, and if he needs clarification on it, I'll be happy to give it to him.

As far as publication goes, I think the first time I was published was back in elementary or middle school, some of my reports and, conversely, some of my poetry. I've been published in small pieces ever since then, from stories, to scripts, to essays.

But I tell ya, the most exciting moment of my publishing career was when HG offered me the freelance position. That was the first time I started to see a path ahead of me made up of an expanding body of work, not just random blurbs here and there.

It's going well so far, I think.