Forums > Contributor Zone > BRACKET: ROUND ONE, STAGE THREE

Dave, we're all sorted out now, right?

I don't have to prove I'm refined - that's what makes me refined!

It's all crystal clear to me now, Marc.

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

Incidentally, what the hell is it with the cliche police around here? Everyone uses cliches. We try not to (really we do), but it seems as if some of us are reading reviews as cliche Easter Egg hunts. Finding one doesn't devalue the entire rest of the work.

Thank you, Masters. It's nice to see somebody on HG shares my viewpoint.

"Either, sir, you're an ass or masquerading as one."
- Nero Wolfe

And by tonight or tomorrow, I mean my verdicts will be up tomorrow. Not tonight. Too burnt out. Just going to go home in a bit, pour a nice strong drink and level grind in FF XII or something that takes an equally few number of brain cells to do (like.....sleeping).

I'm not afraid to die because I am invincible
Viva la muerte, that's my goddamn principle

The main reason I hate the use of the phrase "onto the review" isn't because it's overused and is most often utilized by GameFAQs amateurs who have a lot of other problems with their reviews, though that's certainly part of it. What I hate about that phrase is what it implies. I thought I was already reading the review? So what have I been reading the last few paragraphs if the review hasn't begun yet? And it applies as such to Will's: His opening paragraph was more of a personal entrance than a legimate introduction. So not only does that phrase make me cringe, but it usually means something is wrong with your review.

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

While true, that means that one should be criticising the thing that is wrong, rather than the phrase that tends to imply something is amiss. To instead harp on about that string of words is like trying to cure leprosy with stitches.

"Either, sir, you're an ass or masquerading as one."
- Nero Wolfe

The phrase "onto the review" wouldn't be there if you actually had been reviewing the game beforehand. Yours in no exception.

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

While true, that means that one should be criticising the thing that is wrong, rather than the phrase that tends to imply something is amiss. To instead harp on about that string of words is like trying to cure leprosy with stitches.

I GUESS THAT'S WHY EVERYONE WROTE A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF IN THEIR CRITIQUES, BOSS. People overreact to them (though really it's best to avoid cliches), but no one is handling them as an instant loss either. I don't see why this warrants so much discussion.

Onto the critiques.

_

That's because you're too busy trying to troll. You're terrible at it, by the way, which is odd because I never see you do anything else.

But no, you're absolutely right. Heaven forbid we discuss anything on a discussion forum. That's lunacy!

"Either, sir, you're an ass or masquerading as one."
- Nero Wolfe

I think you need to calm down, Will. I know your review isn't being received well, but there's no reason to take it out on Genj. He's only trying to justify what many of us have been saying about your review. Don't enter a competition if you can't take criticism.

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

Criticism, which is what has chiefely populated this thread, is fine. Mockery, i.e. people taking phrases they despise out of my review and throwing them back at me, among other things, I will not tolerate.

"Either, sir, you're an ass or masquerading as one."
- Nero Wolfe

Mockery, i.e. people taking phrases they despise out of my review and throwing them back at me, among other things, I will not tolerate.

If this is directed to me, then you better re-read my critique, chief!

_

It's not directed solely at you, no, but there's a fair bit of mock-esque being thrown in my direction.

"Either, sir, you're an ass or masquerading as one."
- Nero Wolfe

Don't take Internet mockery seriously because you're likely interpreting far more malice than was intended. Sorry, I think it's funny that we're having a discussion on a tiny, minor part of a review that had bigger problems. This isn't really the kind of thing you can argue to people to think your way. It's just opinion. You have to take what you want from critiques because you're likely not going to agree with everything. Drella for example wasn't too keen on my FUCK SHIT SHIT BITCH CUNT sailor talk in my Bouncer review, but some (sick) individuals seem to think this Trademark Humor™ is funny. It'd be a little different if for example people were saying your review was otherwise fine but instant crap due to one sentence. That would be stupid.

I'm sorry I upset you, bro. I'd buy you a beer but I'm a cheap asshole.

EDIT: VVVVVV this man seems to have more than enough beer for you!

_

Okay, I haven't read any of the reviews yet, as I'm not doing my judging until tomorrow, but with the ongoing hostility over things at the time, I have to say a couple things.

TO WILL: I was in your place last year at the Summer Team Tournament. Pissed at the judges for why I got voted against. In a match I was confident I'd win, I lost 2-1. The reason: I reviewed Hydlide -- a horrible NES game that had been bashed to hell and back before I started reviewing. To me, it was a fun, witty bash review.....to two judges it was a "been there/done that....NEXT!" review. And I didn't exactly handle that reasoning well, either. But that's the thing....we all have our prejudices. I'm not overly fond of puzzle games, so if I'm judging something and you hit up Adventures of Lolo or something.....you're not going to score well with me unless you absolutely kick ass with your review to the degree I forget what your subject matter was.

TO NON-WILLs: Most of us have been there, where something we wrote we liked got derided by others. Suskie took down a Riddick review (or said he would) because it was judged as "not a review", but just a promo of the intro. I had my STT 2007 incident over Hydlide. Others have had their issues with a score they've received. Probably the reason non-HGers occasionally bring up the "elitist" tag....a lot of us are very demanding when it comes to judging things and minor stuff one person might think is okay or cool will get blasted by others.

Overall, it's no huge thing, nor should it be. Write how you want. As long as it's quality, it'll be accepted. I have my share of more gimmicky reviews....some I've used in contests; others I haven't....overall, each review you write, whether they get received well or not, is just another brick in the wall.

Okay, the alcohol is disrupting my coherency as far as making points. I'm ending this now and going to bed....

I'm not afraid to die because I am invincible
Viva la muerte, that's my goddamn principle

a lot of us are very demanding when it comes to judging things and minor stuff one person might think is okay or cool will get blasted by others.

A lot of it comes from doing the 1 on 1 match-ups. Normally minor things aren't going to affect your numeric score much, but when you're just trying to choose one review over another, every little point matters (especially when it's a close match like Venter v. Cairo).

_

thread summary: WHARRGARBL

I'm in OD's boat on voting, give me till tomorrow evening. I'd do it at work but I can't.

Oh no, it's a Goomba!

Good summary.

_

I'm surprised you remember the details of that Riddick thing, OD. For what it's worth, I did take it down.

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

I think "on with the review" is kind of a lazy segue, but it's not that big a deal.

It's no "Gameplay is the real meat of the game", anyway.

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.

Felix over darketernal. The Basted review was well written if not entirely convincing, as most everyone else has stated. I thought it was more enjoyable to read than darketernal's, though, because his did feel a little rough in spots and I'm pretty sure I've read it before where as I haven't read Felix's review until now.

EmP over willthegreat. EmP's review was very thick in the way it was written. Thankfully, I'm a brilliant man, so I could understand what he was saying. Will's review made me feel like a naive fool. I didn't understand a lot of the RTS terms he was using. I don't think I was the intended audience for that review.

honestgamer over johnny_cairo. I probably would have given Cairo the vote if not for having read Suskie's equally entertaining bash review for Assassin's Creed not too long ago (Developer's Creed, hilarious). I'm not sure whose review came out first. It may have been Cairo's since I'm too lazy to check, but sometimes that's how these things go. It was a close match otherwise. Honestgamer's review was very clean and convincing given its subject matter. I walked away feeling confident in knowing that his review had just taught me something new.

It's like jazz music born from the souls of men!

FELIX vs. DE

I have some problems with both reviews. Felix harps on for a while about how a console I have proven does not exist beats out the 16bit generation, and that’s fine so long as you’re delusional. Also, here’s a typo:

It’s s simple us against them theme with a silly love story thrown in for good measure. It’s nothing epic, but it sure if heartfelt.

I don’t think that the lack of story is as killer here as people are saying. Seeing as the game can only last a few hours, I wonder what plot analysts you can offer without straying into mid-game spoilers. But it does mean like the review is missing a chunk of information that I’d expect to see. The intro was overcooked, hazy and needed a stronger focus point.

DE could and should have picked something more recent. This review is good, but it has all the structure of a DE review before he really hit his stride and the fact that so much of this review is my editing hangs heavy in my mind. I get the blush joke at the end (Janus’ assumption is correct) but I also don’t know why I didn’t push you for more solid examples back in the day. There’s a lot of tell, but don’t show.

Felix is the more adventurous, DE’s is the more solid. But, in the end, DE’s review convinced me of more while Felix seems to have made the whole Golden Age intro gave him a lot to build towards and I don’t think he effectively hit’s the bar he set for himself. You both have better reviews to call on.

WINNER: DE

VENTER vs. CARIO

I had something here, but it looks like I only copy & pasted the above thoughts from my wordpad, and then closed the app and lost all the pretty wrods.

So you all get a RECAP version. I think Jason's review is great, the guy's been on a run of solid reviews which has helped mask the fact I've been on a review hiatus and this is no different. Cario, though, writes a savage review that may clearly exagerrate flaws to help slide the game into the 3/10 score he' decidedc it deserves. I'll shock Mike and agree with him on something; it was a case of a majestic review beating a brilliant one, forcing me to give the nod to Cario. Venter goes out on a shield.

WINNER: CARIO

For us. For them. For you.

Dear me. Don't close this yet! I wanted to get feedback for you, but I can't now because I'm too busy with getting ready for school... If you want to hear from me, you'll have to wait till Sunday/Monday or later when I'm settled in again... and have decent time to put proper thought into this.

[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

Felix vs. DE

Both reviews had a similar tone right out of the gate. "Wasn't gaming great back in the day? ~sigh~". It's a bit of a sour note for me, but then I'm one of those crazy folk who honestly think that gaming has gotten better in recent years, on the whole. Felix's review wasn't bad. Mechanically, it flowed pretty well and whatnot, although there was some odd word choice. In the end I just don't feel like it explained its stance well enough. It's a kind-of-but-not-really-RPG with a fun combat system, but almost no combat. Eh. Further, no levels, and no equipment to manage. Meh. I do agree that a good story can make up for those things, and the story is reportedly the strength, but aside from some zany snippets, we know nothing about the story. DE's review was much safer, though it did read like an early attempt at reviewing, partially because it was so safe. It's standard fare from beginning to end. Nothing really stood out as bad, nor as excellent. However by the end I feel like it made its point better, so he gets the nod.

Winner: DE

Will vs. EmP

First of all, I feel like Will's use of "On with the review" worked fairly well in the context that it was used. It was less of the jarring filler transition you see in Gamefaqs reviews and more of a legitimate way to move from discussing system requirements (an important thing to note in a PC review) to discussing the actual game. I felt it worked. A lot of people don't. ~shrug~

That said, Will's review was almost completely impenetrable. I've played my share of RTS, I enjoy the genre, I know what turtling is. The review is just so laborious in its description of everything that it's hard to take all at once. However! That kind of dry dissection of facts is probably what people who play SupCom want. I could say that this review appeals to a very niche crowd, and it does, but it's a review for an expansion pack, so I imagine only that niche crowd is going to ever read it. I think it's a fine review at what it's for, but it's probably not the strongest tourney piece. It's a very dry read. EmP's review, on the other hand, was half over before it felt like it got out of the introduction. The point was made, however. I understand that the game is almost, but not quite, good at what it does. With random design flops that destroy the mood. It's also a shorter and easier read than Will's behemoth. Not EmP's best work, but it takes the round.

Winner: EmP

Venter vs. Cairo

These reviews were both really good. Even though I quite enjoyed Assassin's Creed, I found myself smiling at many clever observations Cairo made, and even agreeing with many. A bash for the ages, one that I somehow agree with, even if I don't agree with it. Venter's review is a bit more textbook. By no means bad, and it makes its case. Most of his examples are solid, I found myself especially glad of the paragraph on timed action sequences, as those are a major stumbling block nowadays. And it did serve well to illustrate the general polish on everything. This was easily the closest match of the round, but I have to say I enjoyed Cairo's review more. It was longer, and yet it still flew by.

Winner: Cairo

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.

FELIX vs. DE
I have a thought in my head that I might have judged Felix's review for something at some time. Or at least read it critically. I recall liking it a lot, as it was an engaging read of an RPG I'd never heard of. I still like it. But, this time, it did feel like you took a bit too long getting to the point. Three paragraphs building up to how this was one of the earliest cinema-driven RPGs might have been a bit of overkill. Still, overall, it was a good read about interesting subject matter. On the other hand, while I liked reading DE's review, after finishing it, I realized I really didn't know much more about the game than I had when I started it. With point-n-click adventures, the main focus tends to be on puzzles, but you only really gave a vague description of how some (like putting pen on paper) are easy, but others aren't. If puzzles are a focal point of the game, I would have liked a bit more of a description of them, but instead it seemed like you went into more detail about every other aspect of the game.
WINNER: FELIX

WILL vs. IMP
You know, I once played a RTS. It was the original Warcraft. I had a good time until the orcs got more aggressive on about the seventh or eighth level. There I was, methodically trying to build my community and next thing I know catapults and shit are just destroying me. So, I entered the game's god mode and blasted through it, not taking it out of god mode until I was ready to destroy the final building of the final level. Since I did that in regular mode, I considered it an honorable victory. The end. In other words, I'm not an experienced RTS player and, from my experience, I utterly suck at 'em when the computer makes it so I actually have to think fast. While I thought your review was good, it did seem to be a niche review, as it assumed a lot of familiarity with RTS games in general and the initial Supreme Commander. Which would be great if I was reading this as an aid in determining if I wanted to buy this game. Not so great when it's a contest, as a lot of stuff here kinda went over my head. It still wasn't a blowout decision though, as EmP's adventure review reminded me of the one by (maybe) DoI (or someone else) in that it started out very eloquently written, but when the flaws started to be mentioned, tailed off a bit. It was a solid review, just not one of your best. You did give a better puzzle description than DE, so you get credit for that, but I don't know that anything could convince me that a game in which you get "attacked" by a monk that never moves, giving you infinite time to figure out how to kill it by methodically searching a room is actually fun, regardless of how gothic or atmospheric it may be.
WINNER: IMP

HG vs. JC
With a random draw tournament, there is the opportunity for tragedy — in this case that when this round is over, one of these two excellent reviews will still send its writer on the long, one-way trip to LOSERVILLE: POPULATION YOU.
My verdict later. I'm tired and need a nap now. Either late tonight or over the weekend. So, yeah, EmP! You can't close this round yet! Maybe not for days! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I'm not afraid to die because I am invincible
Viva la muerte, that's my goddamn principle