Got some useful feedback on reviews that never really got any back on GF. There seems to be a largely general line through the three Moraffware reviews - not surprising as they're similar and two of them were written closely together. Some of it is "the usual" of being too technical which is no news to me and an everpresent caution light in my brain, but I was struck especially by a comment on Moraff's World where my writeup suggests a poorer game than I myself rate it in the end.
This is interesting because it even gave myself pause when I reread it. Why did I give it an 8? Because I love the game. Why do I love the game when, upon reviewing it, I mostly throw out what's wrong with it? Now there's a question worth pondering on further. Two possible answers seem to pop up: either I have focused more on the negative and less on the positive in my review than I do in my mind, or I didn't closely inspect my own final opinion on the game prior to writing the review.
Oddly - maybe hilariously - I now find myself wondering, based on my own review, if I actually like this game as much as I thought I do. Is this that famous reviewer cynicism that sets in when you've stuck with one form of media for too long? At any rate, in writing terms it's a back to basics thing. The review is a writeup of my opinion on the game. It may be worth it to doublecheck what said opinion IS, and why, prior to trying to write it down.
Fact is that over the past few years I've played a lot of games that honestly weren't all that good. There's no shame in enjoying them nonetheless, in fact that can only be a useful thing, but it raises interesting questions as to what, exactly, I look for in a game.
aschultz Jun 29, 2009
I think to a certain extent it's important to push the basic formula for creating a review, and to be able to say in a first draft "I know this is wrong but I have confidence I can fix it."
There's a lot of other stuff I've changed up. I think I asked some good questions about your review in MoTo that I never thought to ask about mine, maybe because I thought I couldn't come up with an objective answer. But I could have come up with a start. I was able to do so after the judging, which was slightly frustrating!
I'd rather wait til after the team tourney to give the full rundown of small stuff I've done, but I'm able to make a lot of changes based on repeated criticism and maybe even catching myself saying "I can't write like X" when really I just want to borrow a common trick he took from general common knowledge for a sentence or two.
I also think we both are better as "defending teams" than "attacking teams." We cut down obvious mistakes first, and we place strong values on sensibleness. Perhaps we settle for it too quickly. It's led to frustration when I read someone else's review about a game I'd reviewed, where I threw away a similar sentence/observation to what they took. Which is a good segue to my final thought: proofreading shouldn't just about cutting down but about possibilities, about seeing if the idea that can't fit can be linked in now that we've trimmed the fat elsewhere. If we cut down something redundant, it opens the possibility to focus the reader's interest elsewhere. Of course, we have to make it count.
EmP Staff Jun 29, 2009
sashanan Blogger Jun 29, 2009
EmP Staff Jun 29, 2009
I try not to talk. I tend to ruin anything of notice when I talk.
But this isn't getting Shining in the Darkness rewritten!
sashanan Blogger Jun 29, 2009
zippdementia Jun 29, 2009
A line at the start somewhat like "this isn't a bad game, but..." would've been really good.
honestgamer Staff Jun 30, 2009
EmP Staff Jun 30, 2009
sashanan Blogger Jun 30, 2009
angeloatlunch09 Jul 2, 2009