Printable View
this might be just personal preference, but when i'm writing an essay for school, i'm more incline to pick a topic that i can argue best, rather than a topic i'm interested in.
however, if i'm writing creatively, then i'd rather go with what i'm interested in.
In the topic for censorship I had to argue from both viewpoints and pick the one that I sided for. In the end, I approved of the ratings system but scoffed at the way games were rated/ratings were displayed.
I remember writing a research paper for the 11th grade which was REQUIRED in order to graduate, thankfully, they gave us the option of picking our own topics. I chose how game piracy affects the industry, and argued both sides of the issue, then drew my conclusion that it did more harm than good. The entire issue of writing quality is pretty broad, since what one person finds informative or funny, another person might find it boring or trashy.
Being the producer of sucky writing, I dont feel particularly qualified to say exactly. Though, I like writing that clearly descrbes what its talking about. Detailed, informative. Its a bit hard to pinpoint a specific aspect that I think makes good writing. Michio Kaku makes quantum physics clear to me, and helps me envision exactly what the formulas and equasions represent. So he, IMO produces good writing.
Z-roe
So far everyone has given good feedback on the form of good writing, but lets not forget that subject matter counts for so much more of what is bad, good, or great. Of course what could be considered interesting is far too subjective. But some of the greatest stories ever written have centered around subjects that most people can realate to, instead of a select few. For instance I could on about how video game music has evolved over the last 10 or so years, starting out as a backdrop of noise so that the game doesn't feel empty, and becoming the showcase of so many of todays games. I find this interesting, but I doubt you do.
So the only advice I have to give is to pick your subject matter carefully, as the key to good writing is to keep the reader interested.
reading continuously is good, or at least I'm beginning to pick up on that. Reminds me of another question though; if you start to feel 'static' how can you mix things up and make writing interesting again?
For example...game reviews. I can't stand doing the usually 1-2 combo of 'graphics, gameplay, music, story,' because it's been done to death and more people do it better than I ever would. It's a conflict of interests though when you want to write something one way, but the audience just wants something that delivers 'the facts.' That's where formulatic writing comes in - use the same format every time so that way everyne will get what they want.
Or is that all rubbish?
Hero, I've fallen into that pattern of stagnant writing before, and I just changed that style a bit, and it made things a bit more fresh. I went away from sectioned reviews into an essay style, and now THAT has gotten a bit old, so I'm trying to think of ways I can improve upon the style a bit to make it fresh again.
Screw the audience. If you're not happy with what you write yourself, it's bound to be rubbish. For a game review, write it as you experienced the game. Focus on the things that impressed you and maybe the things that didn't. Don't worry about hitting all the bases. Most 'professional' game reviews are dull as dirt (not to mention avoiding telling me at least what I really need to know) because they feel the need to conform to some preset pattern.
Approach it the same way as you do your art. It's really not that much different.
I try to go with an informative slant with my reviews, which has been well received by my audience (the players of a game/those interested in buying a game) judging by the e-mails I've gotten. For example, in my wrestling game reviews, I try and use the past (past in wrestling, past in wrestling game, etc.) in an effort to build up my overall take on the game and to add validity to my review of the game.