Forums > Contributor Zone > TT: WEEK 3 - RESULTS! - Blame Sportsman

rand: there's a line somewhere between reviews being flowery but still getting across what they want to about the game, and reviews being flowery to the detriment of game analysis. it's not either/or, a unique approach or properly discussing the game.

with pickhut's MGS2:Susbtance review, which I loved, you could probably accuse him of letting his gimmick get in the way of talking about an important part of the game. but from a writing standpoint it was a great idea, and I still come away from the review knowing what his opinion on the game is and all that shit you come to expect from a review. so in my head, it worked great. the same goes for Zig's Annet Again review. it's not even close to an IGN rundown, but I'd say it does an even better job of explaining what's up than any "normal" review could. whereas if you take a terrible review like my Devil May Cry 1, I feel as if I missed a lot of things worth saying entirely because I was too caught up in the "flowery bullshit" fad that once swept o'er the land. it's not the best example, but I'm not going to call anyone out haha.

(anyone else miss lilica? if anything she gave us an excuse to say flowery a lot)

Oh no, it's a Goomba!

Thanks judges for the verdicts and taking the effort to GIVE ME A WIN. This is the start of Team Freeze's turnaround. That is all I will say on that, with one exception being that I think Randxian wrote the better review but Vorty simply managed to write the more efficient review. It's tough how these things go. Goes to show that there are many different aspects behind determing how these three looney judges assign their verdicts. It wouldn't be any fun if surprises weren't involved, right?

Good match WQ. You'll do better the second you start doing better.

I don't have to boost my review resume because I have a real resume.

all according to plan! ...except the part where we lost. also, i'm actually quite surprised. (i did proofread it right before, though)

it is comeback time for creepy oldies! hopefully, i will have something new.

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

And it's actually quite rare that all three of us agree on something.

Really? News to me.

On a more serious note, thanks to the judges for another round of excellent feedback. And contrary to my joke in the Week 3 thread, I honestly don't care how long you guys take to get your results in as long as they're this consistently detailed and informative. Kudos to Zipp as well -- I do think you over-dramatized the hype surrounding our matchup (because who cares, really?) but you put up a good fight and that's all that counts. I think that goes for Will's team in general, I'll add.

To echo what my teammate Schultz said, I'm really enjoying the planning stages of this tournament. Randxian, I think something you need to consider is that you're specifically catering to three unique individuals in TT, and part of winning is carefully considering what they have to say and maneuvering to fit their standards. It's tough, and it can be a frustrating process, but that's how you succeed. And really, I have little doubt that you'll find self-redemption before this tournament is over, and reconsider your decision to quit reviewing.

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

Because of my over dramatization, I was able to sell tickets to our match and make enough to cut my losses on the field of ego (as in the Freudian thing... not the waffle).

The Suskie match was, for me, a much anticipated match up. I felt I owed it a bit of drama. I honestly thought I had you there. I still consider Way of the Samurai one of my best reviews, though it doesn't quite live up, it seems, to my more refined style of modern-times. It seems that I lost by matter of sentences or a few key word choices, so at least I can take comfort in the fact that it was a close blow-out, if still a blow-out. I would've liked to have been the one to give you your first loss. Instead, you gave me my first loss, and in quite a major way!

I'm very eager to prove myself here on Honest Gamers and live up to the honor I feel I've been given by being made a part of the freelancer team. I've never respected a community of writers as much as I do this one and I hope I'm here when HG makes its inevitable way onto the scene as a big gaming name.

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

Thanks.

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

Random thought here...Felix's comment is interesting because it calls into a conflict I have--I write primarily for myself, and I am happy with getting across the information in the game. The excitement, I tend to worry about in a 2nd draft, if it is there.

Other people seem to be able to do it the other way, and successfully I might add. I'd like to take that risk in my first draft, and the tournament gives me a good excuse to be a bit more motivated to try something new, even if it is just organization that opens up time to take a few shots down the field and try something more emotional etc.

Also, despite the judges giving useful advice and pointers what to try next week, I find my writing is worst when I am thinking about The Judges and trying to match up who might like sentence X or Y or Z. For those wondering What Is Expected, I look at it as, feedback from three other people who know what they're doing is a great sounding board for what can I change, what works and what doesn't. And I think I and others try to look ahead and say, if this review loses, what will the judges have to say beyond the usual? What parts will they need to evaluate, for better or worse?

Because I'm assuming they want to read something beyond the usual, I want to write something beyond my usual. As for how I do that, or how I'm trying to, that's confidential til the end of the tourney. I suspect others' efforts will be too. But I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say & how they approached it. Post-tourney of course.

My principal said, 'Emo, Emo, Emo.'
I said 'I'm the one in the middle, you lousy drunk!'
-- Emo Phillips

I want to thank everyone for their kind words. Maybe I'm just taking this whole thing too seriously. I mean it's not like this really means much outside of bragging rights. Or maybe we'll force the losing teams to play Action 52 for 24 hours straight. The winning team only has to play for 12 hours straight.

I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?

Man. Never, ever start catering to what us judges want. That's pretty much a sure-fire way to self-destruction.

Pose an audience and write confidently, competently, thoroughly and entertainingly at it, and you won't go far wrong.

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

Aigh...hope my post didn't give that impression. It's more that I'm still amused by the paradox, old as it may be, that competitors need to poke a review aggressively and say "is this interesting" while at the same time Caring About the Judges is a quick way to take things too seriously and lose focus on the game, which is presumably fun and fun to write about. I know I'm not the only person who writes reviews to get away from Caring What People Think, or that's fallen into that trap while writing anyway despite myself.

Other times, there's a lot of advice I'd like to take in hand ASAP--from other matches or my own--because the tournament is about trying new stuff, or planning new stuff for after the tourney based on pieces you liked, or even seeing that you didn't like the trick writer X pulled, but it makes you able to admit you pulled it & need to fix it. But like you said, if it's too obvious it's--err, too obvious. Maybe this 2nd thing is not so much a paradox but an interesting balancing act.

...and ironically, this post itself may be more for people who are a bit frustrated with their early performance than for the judges. I avoided early team tournaments because I worried about these issues. I'm not perfect on thinking about them but this general idea has worked to help me enjoy things so far.

My principal said, 'Emo, Emo, Emo.'
I said 'I'm the one in the middle, you lousy drunk!'
-- Emo Phillips

I wrote Mr Nutz and Dragon Knight for the judges, but they scorned my love. Now I write for Jesus. He won't let me down.

//Zig

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

Man. Never, ever start catering to what us judges want. That's pretty much a sure-fire way to self-destruction.

This doesn't make much sense to me. We... are trying to win your votes, aren't we?

Edit: I mean, yeah, it's not like we want to completely warp our own writing voices to cater to three people, but every one of the reviewers in this tourney is good enough to make adjustments based on the judges' words without altogether disrupting their own unique styles. I mean, if you're using TT as one big opportunity to get feedback, fine, but Randxian has clearly expressed disappointment in not performing as well as he could be.

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

I think I understand what Lewis really means, and his post actually makes a lot of sense.

I think there are two things to consider:

1) If you try to start catering toward a specific style, then you will more than likely write in a style in which you don't normally practice. Sure, it may be the type of review the judges prefer, but since it's not your forte, it's going to wind up a completle mess.

2) You alluded to this Suskie, when you said you have to keep making adjustments based on what the judges want. And that's the thing. If you try to guess and are completely off the mark, then your review is going to look silly. I think it is better to write for a general mass of people. Otherwise it's sort of like the first point; you'll end up forcing something that isn't really what you do best.

As disappointed as I am with this loss, I have to admit as Jerec pointed out that no, this is not my best review. I thought it would be good enough, but it wasn't good enough. So I guess the only thing I can do is write my best possible review every week and hope that does the trick.

but every one of the reviewers in this tourney is good enough to make adjustments based on the judges' words without altogether disrupting their own unique styles

Maybe, but I think this has more to do with how good we all are. If your main objective is to cater to a specific small group of people, then the review is going to turn out in a different direction than if you write naturally. I think you can subtly alter your style without really realizing it.

I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?