Review of the Week is a reader’s digest of sorts, featuring all the reviews written in a given week, and then judged by a self-important author with delusions of grandeur. That’ll be me today. Only the top three reviews shall be mentioned, in order of relevance. No reviews from the judge will be permissible (though, under a snazzy new rule we just invented, will be then eligible for the next week.), and in the event that another writer submits more than one review for the week, only the review the judge deems superior will be included. I’ve used this header for three weeks running now and no one has noticed. It’s my greatest crime.
NOTES:
There’s been two Front Mission reviews. Both for games I own but have played very little of. One really wants to make me boot it up and get stuck in. The other helps me feel better about leaving it in its dusty corner forever.
More words follow:
No Man’s Sky (PC) by Nightfire
NIghtfire’s taking a break from educating us on long forgotten abandonware to emerge, blinking into the sunlight, to tell us about the current big thing. “Eh, it’s alright, I guess” he says, then vanishes back into his cave. Who knows for how long.
Giving No Man’s Sky a hearty ‘meh’ actually makes it one of the more positive reviews I’ve read about this game thus far. Your disappointment in the game’s failing are tangible and well explained. It’s even handed which make the complaints all the more damning. I especially enjoyed the mocking of the pretentious prose the game tries to substitute for storytelling. What I didn’t feel work as well was the intro. It was pretty stuffy and seemed liked something you just put down as a placeholder to get the review started off, then just left there. Still, easily one of the better reviews I’ve read of No Man’s Sky.
Crysis [PC] by Joe
The Korean is actually English bits are funny and serve as a good icebreaker while maneuvering into the highs and lows of Crysis, a game I wrote off as rubbish without playing and find myself thinking about re-evaluating.
It’s a good review, one that wants to praise Crysis for all the right reasons but still isn’t afraid to point out its flaws or even make fun of it at times. It’s not always an easy tone to pull off, but in doing so, the piece becomes more relatable in the process.
I know I usually offer more than this, but it’s just a very good review. I’m finding little to rip apart. The only way this isn’t going to win this week is if someone else writes an excellent review.
Bound [PS4] by Philip Kendall
This is an excellent review.
I was already climbing aboard the hype train as I read the first few paragraphs. “This is just the pretentious nonsense I openly love in an attempt to justify the fact I still play video games on a daily basis”, thought I. I mean, ballet-inspired platforming as an abstract way to explore the memories of a pregnant woman? I’m surprised it’s taken this long. But, no; it turns out this game is as flawed as it is beautiful. I’ll stick to my RPG maker game about a mad poet fighting off his own insanity in a make-believe word of his own design, then. That will tide me over.
It’s not a new trick, but the idea of heaping on praise before pulling the rug out is potent when used correctly. It shows that the writer was really invested in the game, that they really wanted it to work, so when the flaws do start emerging from the woodwork, you managed to not only sound fair in their description, but suitably disappointed.
I’m kind of torn. You make the game sound like something I should play -- and maybe I still will -- but I’ll certainly go in now with lowered expectations.
NOTES:
There’s been two Front Mission reviews. Both for games I own but have played very little of. One really wants to make me boot it up and get stuck in. The other helps me feel better about leaving it in its dusty corner forever.
More words follow:
No Man’s Sky (PC) by Nightfire
NIghtfire’s taking a break from educating us on long forgotten abandonware to emerge, blinking into the sunlight, to tell us about the current big thing. “Eh, it’s alright, I guess” he says, then vanishes back into his cave. Who knows for how long.
Giving No Man’s Sky a hearty ‘meh’ actually makes it one of the more positive reviews I’ve read about this game thus far. Your disappointment in the game’s failing are tangible and well explained. It’s even handed which make the complaints all the more damning. I especially enjoyed the mocking of the pretentious prose the game tries to substitute for storytelling. What I didn’t feel work as well was the intro. It was pretty stuffy and seemed liked something you just put down as a placeholder to get the review started off, then just left there. Still, easily one of the better reviews I’ve read of No Man’s Sky.
Crysis [PC] by Joe
The Korean is actually English bits are funny and serve as a good icebreaker while maneuvering into the highs and lows of Crysis, a game I wrote off as rubbish without playing and find myself thinking about re-evaluating.
It’s a good review, one that wants to praise Crysis for all the right reasons but still isn’t afraid to point out its flaws or even make fun of it at times. It’s not always an easy tone to pull off, but in doing so, the piece becomes more relatable in the process.
I know I usually offer more than this, but it’s just a very good review. I’m finding little to rip apart. The only way this isn’t going to win this week is if someone else writes an excellent review.
Bound [PS4] by Philip Kendall
This is an excellent review.
I was already climbing aboard the hype train as I read the first few paragraphs. “This is just the pretentious nonsense I openly love in an attempt to justify the fact I still play video games on a daily basis”, thought I. I mean, ballet-inspired platforming as an abstract way to explore the memories of a pregnant woman? I’m surprised it’s taken this long. But, no; it turns out this game is as flawed as it is beautiful. I’ll stick to my RPG maker game about a mad poet fighting off his own insanity in a make-believe word of his own design, then. That will tide me over.
It’s not a new trick, but the idea of heaping on praise before pulling the rug out is potent when used correctly. It shows that the writer was really invested in the game, that they really wanted it to work, so when the flaws do start emerging from the woodwork, you managed to not only sound fair in their description, but suitably disappointed.
I’m kind of torn. You make the game sound like something I should play -- and maybe I still will -- but I’ll certainly go in now with lowered expectations.
For us. For them. For you.
