Crappy videogame writing

Quote:

---

While no significant class bugs were fixed, some of the smaller Hunter annoyances finally got attention. Pet speeds have been increased when a Hunter is out of combat, meaning that pets won't disappear anymore when the player is riding on a mount. Spirit Guides will now also resurrect a pet when players die in Battlegrounds. By far, though, the biggest cause for Hunter celebration was that a nasty bug where weapon speeds were being added to Hunter special shot cooldown timers was finally found and fixed. A huge tumult was raised on the message boards just before the patch went live when it was believed that Blizzard would allow the bug to go through. The fix, while not exactly a buff, should help improve hunter DPS to the point where it was a patch or two ago.

---

Blizzard didnt fix any significant bugs. By the way, here's a significant bug they fixed.

Who writes this stuff? I guess GameSpy figures that nobody reads their work.

Post more examples of really bad, obvious videogame writing here.

Here ya go

omg recursive!

I was hoping you wouldve went for the kill and posted a link to Jeremy's Shenmue 2 review, but that wasnt bad.

What is a "class bug"? I don't know enough about Hunter to know if it means class as in RPG classes. I don't think the bug relating to weapon speeds and the cooldown timer would be a "class bug," so the writer is correct.

Maybe you interpreted it as "no bugs that I would classify as significant were fixed." I'm not sure that's the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

What is a "class bug"? I don't know enough about Hunter to know if it means class as in RPG classes. I don't think the bug relating to weapon speeds and the cooldown timer would be a "class bug," so the writer is correct.

---

Weapon speeds and cooldown timers certainly are universal, but a Hunter special shot cooldown is definitely referring to the Hunter class solely. It was significant, apparently, because the whiners on the forums were crying when they thought Blizzard would let it go. Blizzard fixed it. A significant class bug was fixed.

GameSpy is retarded.

a'ight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

What is a "class bug"? I don't know enough about Hunter to know if it means class as in RPG classes. I don't think the bug relating to weapon speeds and the cooldown timer would be a "class bug," so the writer is correct.

Maybe you interpreted it as "no bugs that I would classify as significant were fixed." I'm not sure that's the case.

---

The Hunter is one of the playable classes in World of Warcraft. So a class bug is one that only affects Hunters.

My biggest beefs are with inaccuracies like this one that I took grief for posting or the Castlevania flub up in the first issue of HGM. HGM has an excuse at least. They had Jeremy Karma working against them.

Oh man, Chao and I were playing Castle Shikagami 2 for the PS2 the other night, and the written segments and voiced dialog was just retardedly stupid.
Broken sentences, literal Japanese translations and more super nippon nonsense than you can shake a stick at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

omg recursive!

I was hoping you wouldve went for the kill and posted a link to Jeremy's Shenmue 2 review, but that wasnt bad.

---

I don't read much of TNL so I wouldn't even know where to look for that.

<3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

What is a "class bug"? I don't know enough about Hunter to know if it means class as in RPG classes. I don't think the bug relating to weapon speeds and the cooldown timer would be a "class bug," so the writer is correct.

Maybe you interpreted it as "no bugs that I would classify as significant were fixed." I'm not sure that's the case.

---

A little bug in the Warlock class, for example (in WOW) is that your pets fall behind a lot. When you're running through hostile, high level terrain you don't want to have to stop and wait for your pet.

Quote:

---

It wouldn't be a Kirby game if the little pink puffball couldn't harness certain enemies' powers for his own use. Since this is a Kirby game, luckily he can.

---

That second sentence is pretty damn useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Post more examples of really bad, obvious videogame writing here.

---

www.gamefaqs.com

from blood-sports.net:
"Sega have recently confirmed that their once Sony-console exclusive series Virtua Fighter is making it's way onto the Xbox 360."

This review is pretty terrible too.

Also: THE WORST TUTORIAL EVER

My thoughts on the person who needs this tutorial is that they are an absolute moron.

PSM's Metal Gear article on their latest issue was pretty bad too (considering that the magazine is handled by the same staff as IGN, it's no surprise), filled with way too many inaccuracies. I'll cite some examples later.

99% of all videogame and videogame-related writing isn't good. It isn't awful, and is often passable, but it isn't good.

People that gush over the paper-thin storylines and character development make me believe they have never seen a movie, read a book or actually gotten to know an actual person before.

These are the people that cry at videogames, because they didn't notice there was no character development, but decided to become attached to the character anyway...

(Flame away, I'm no writer either)

It is unfair to single out the videogame industry, as all tech industry people seem to suck at writing. Even small memos and emails are too much for some techies.

I dont care if a network engineer cant write as long as he is a good at engineering networks. I do care if a writer cant write. This goes for in-game writing, videogame "journalism", Vanity Fair, GQ, Us Weekly, anything. If youre getting paid to write you should know how to write. We definitely can call people out on these things.

Dont claim Blizzard didnt fix any significant class bugs and then mention a significant class bug they fixed 2 sentences later. I mean... thats just retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mzo

That second sentence is pretty damn useless.

---

He needs a stick a "But" in front of Since. It would sound better.

I'm assuming that by "class bug" they were referring to bugs that were on live realms. The shot cooldown bug was only found on the test realms, so people that didn't play on the test realms wouldn't notice any difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

99% of all videogame and videogame-related writing isn't good. It isn't awful, and is often passable, but it isn't good.

People that gush over the paper-thin storylines and character development make me believe they have never seen a movie, read a book or actually gotten to know an actual person before.

These are the people that cry at videogames, because they didn't notice there was no character development, but decided to become attached to the character anyway...

(Flame away, I'm no writer either)

It is unfair to single out the videogame industry, as all tech industry people seem to suck at writing. Even small memos and emails are too much for some techies.

---

Well, well, you're like stupid and stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Undaunted

considering that the magazine is handled by the same staff as IGN

---

It is? News to me.

Yea, different staffs run IGN and PSM and everything else IGN shits all over. But its clear the staffs of both IGN and PSM are culled from the same cesspool.

I'll probably regret this, but I'm curious to see if you all on here think my writing is crap or not.

If you aren't familiar with my stuff, here are a few examples. There are perfect examples of how the limitless space of the internet gives a person far too much room to write a review in. I don't have much of my stuff online right now, though, so they are the best I can do.

Phantast Star
Clock Tower 3

The second review is too damn wordy, there's not a videogame on Earth that needs 3000 words to be written about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

The second review is too damn wordy, there's not a videogame on Earth that needs 3000 words to be written about it.

---

I thought you were exaggerating until I put it into Word--it really is 3,100+ words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shidoshi

I'll probably regret this, but I'm curious to see if you all on here think my writing is crap or not.

If you aren't familiar with my stuff, here are a few examples. There are perfect examples of how the limitless space of the internet gives a person far too much room to write a review in. I don't have much of my stuff online right now, though, so they are the best I can do.

Phantast Star
Clock Tower 3

---

I like it. I agree the second is too wordy, though.

I think one part of what I like about a review is getting that nostalgic feeling. When I feel the reviewer actually loving games, and the game he is reviewing, the way I used to love games, it takes me back to those days.

I think that's part of the old GF vibe. I felt like it was the teenage version of me playing those new games and going crazy over them the way I did with those classic NES and SMS games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shidoshi

Phantast Star

---

And we're already off to a bad start :) (kidding)

I'm reading them now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

omg recursive!

---

comedy! (in very nerdy way, but still funny nonetheless)

Lesson.

Put down Halo

Pick up a book

Bitches

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by avatar

Lesson.

Put down Halo

Pick up a book

Bitches

---

Or play Broken Sword...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shidoshi

I'll probably regret this, but I'm curious to see if you all on here think my writing is crap or not.

If you aren't familiar with my stuff, here are a few examples. There are perfect examples of how the limitless space of the internet gives a person far too much room to write a review in. I don't have much of my stuff online right now, though, so they are the best I can do.

Phantast Star

---

Nice review, but I believe that Phantasy Star has been out for 17 years.

Shidoshi reviewed it in 2003.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

Shidoshi reviewed it in 2003.

---

Whoops!

I read the top date, but still, he said 13 years later in the review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rezo

Shidoshi reviewed it in 2003.

---

And he did it in 2001 for GameGO!. ;)

I like the retro review although there are a few spelling mistakes. "Beserk" should be "Berzerk" assuming he's talking about the old Stern game and "pallet" should be "palette".

One thing I've noticed in reviews that bugs me is when they waste my time at the start of the review by giving me a blow by blow synopsis of the story line. Most of the time I would prefer that they would just gloss that over and just tell me if the game sucks or not already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

It is? News to me.

---

They were founded by the same people at least. I know PSM (and GamePlayers) were both published by Imagine (which is what IGN used to be).
http://www.futurenetworkusa.com/about/management.html

IGN is totally separate from Imagine now. Has been for years.

I read the reviews. They get the job done, as do most reviews. No glaring errors, though they could use some editing. Nothing special, but certainly not bad.

A good review is tough to come by these days though. It is very hard to ride the line between writing like you are telling something to your buddy and not drawing the attention of the reader. You seem to err on the side of making sure people are "with you" a little too much, but again, most game reviews these days do this. They are written in the manner of most game reviews, which isn't good or bad, it is the status quo.

I just wish reviews (of all kinds) would make their case more than make a friend. The catch 22 is that very few can acheive this and still relate to the reader while keeping them captivated. That is my pet peeve to live with. I'm just saying you don't have to say "I have been a fan of X" and explain details to draw them in. If you paint a picture of the game well enough, and compare it to things in "X", the point will come across.

(Again, I'm no writer. My opinion really doesn't mean a heck of a lot)

Something that's tangentially related to this that really bugs me is bad ADR in games. I'm not just talking about the acting, either, I'm talking about when the director can't be bothered to do their job and you get things like "Wyvern" being pronounced as y-vern (see Ys VI), or every character pronouncing a given character's or place's name differently (see... uh, any voice-acted game ever).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regus

One thing I've noticed in reviews that bugs me is when they waste my time at the start of the review by giving me a blow by blow synopsis of the story line. Most of the time I would prefer that they would just gloss that over and just tell me if the game sucks or not already.

---

Funny, because I was bitching about reviews that don't do this.

I also dont like reviews that spend the first 2 or 3 paragraphs talking about the history of the franchise. I dont care, Im reading the review because Im interested in the game, I know about the franchise. All it needs is 2 or 3 sentences.

And no, no need to bloviate about the storyline, if I wanna know about the storyline Ill play the fucking game. Its not like storylines are that good in games anyway.

Same with individual feature sets. There's no need to tell me about each weapon in the game or each game mode. Just tell me if the game is fucking good, and worth my money. Really, a review only needs to be 1000 words MAX.

And no "try before you buy" or "try renting it first" bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And no "try before you buy" or "try renting it first" bullshit.

---

I agree with this--for me, a game needs to be worth my time, not my money. If it's worth my time tell me it's a good game--if it's not worth my time, tell me it sucks.

Of course, I never read reviews to decide whether or not to buy a game. I read reviews 'cause I'm interested in other opinions and want to see where I agree and (moreso) disagree.

Thats the thing thats make me more annoyed than anything with EGMs reviews, they review games with price in mind. The pirce of the game means nothing in terms of gameplay, and thus should not affect the score given. But they do it all the time with niche games. Or they give a game a better review than they maybe would because its a budget release. Thats not needed, just review the game for the game!

I always hated when EGM would give Neo-Geo games poor scores because the carts are expensive. That's ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clash!

Thats the thing thats make me more annoyed than anything with EGMs reviews, they review games with price in mind. The pirce of the game means nothing in terms of gameplay, and thus should not affect the score given. But they do it all the time with niche games. Or they give a game a better review than they maybe would because its a budget release. Thats not needed, just review the game for the game!

---

I disagree!

A game might be a really fun title to play, but if you can finish it in less than 2 hours; is it really worth spending $50 on?

You could also do a comparison of Madden 2005, with NFL2K5. Is Madden 2005 so much better, that it's worth the extra $30 to play it over the $20 2K5?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

I always hated when EGM would give Neo-Geo games poor scores because the carts are expensive. That's ridiculous.

---

Bang for the buck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

I disagree!

A game might be a really fun title to play, but if you can finish it in less than 2 hours; is it really worth spending $50 on?

You could also do a comparison of Madden 2005, with NFL2K5. Is Madden 2005 so much better, that it's worth the extra $30 to play it over the $20 2K5?

---

Games inevitably fall in price. If a game gets a 7 for being $50 is it automatically an 8 or 9 when it hits $10? If I download it for free is the game an instant 10?

It's fine to factor in replayability/depth for a review, but the price shouldn't have anything to do with the opinions of the game.

For me, a game is either worth my money or not worth my money - and that money can be $1 or $1000. It doesnt matter. Just tell me if its a game I should get.

As for the Madden 2005 vs. NFL2K5, if Madden is better, then its just a better game, and worth paying the extra over NFL2K5. If its not, and NFL2K5 is better, then being cheaper is just icing on the cake.

Price really shouldnt be factored into the review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Games inevitably fall in price. If a game gets a 7 for being $50 is it automatically an 8 or 9 when it hits $10? If I download it for free is the game an instant 10?

It's fine to factor in replayability/depth for a review, but the price shouldn't have anything to do with the opinions of the game.

---

Why wouldn't it?

Would you buy a movie on DVD for $20, if it was only 45 minutes long? It would seem like a poor investment, even if it told a great story in that timeframe. You pay extra for a movie like LOTR: Return on the King Special Extended Edition, because it has more content. I'd expect the same from a game as well.

Midway's Arcade Treasures is a great investment at $20, but at $50 it just isn't worth your time.

Even if you downloaded crap for free, it's still crap.

I want the review to tell me if the game is good, not if the price of the game matches its quality and content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I want the review to tell me if the game is good, not if the price of the game matches its quality and content.

---

It's all about bang for the buck. Would anyone buy a Mustang GT, if it was selling for $150,000. Hell no! But at $26,000 it's worth the price for what you're getting.

Read Car and Driver. They compare cars based on price and what you get for it. I'd think that the same applies for any product. A Sony 27" Wega at $400 seem like a great price for what you're getting, but if they were to price it at $1,000, you'd find something better within that price range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Why wouldn't it?

---

Because the price has absolutely zero to do with the game's content.

Quote:

---

Would you buy a movie on DVD for $20, if it was only 45 minutes long?

---

If it was 45 minutes of something I wanted to own, absolutely.

Quote:

---

It would seem like a poor investment, even if it told a great story in that timeframe.

---

Yes, spending money on DVDs is a poor investment. Luckily, DVDs and games are for entertainment.

Quote:

---

Midway's Arcade Treasures is a great investment at $20, but at $50 it just isn't worth your time.

---

My leisure time is worth way more than my money. When it comes to game reviews I want to know a person' opinion about game--the opinion should be timeless no matter how the game drops in price or goes up. If I got Panzer Dragoon Saga for free it'd be the same game as the PDS on eBay that goes for $200. The free game isn't a 10 while the $200 one is a 3.

Quote:

---

Even if you downloaded crap for free, it's still crap.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

It's all about bang for the buck. Would anyone buy a Mustang GT, if it was selling for $150,000. Hell no! But at $26,000 it's worth the price for what you're getting.

---

Except game quality isn't dependent on price like cars and electronics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Because the price has absolutely zero to do with the game's content.

---

Why wouldn't it? If I sold you a burger at joint A for $2 and at joint B for $5 and they were of equal quality; wouldn't you rate the $2 burger at a higher rating?

Quote:

---

If it was 45 minutes of something I wanted to own, absolutely.Yes, spending money on DVDs is a poor investment. Luckily, DVDs and games are for entertainment.

---

Okay! So, let's say you go to an amusement park. One guy gives you 3 trips on a ride( 5 minutes long)and it's a blast. Another guy lets you partake on his ride ( 5 minutes long) and charges you the same price as the guy giving you 3 rides. Both rides are equally enjoyable, but the guy offering 3 rides compared to the guy giving you one ride, would seem like the better deal. How would you rate them?

Quote:

---

My leisure time is worth way more than my money. When it comes to game reviews I want to know a person' opinion about game--the opinion should be timeless no matter how the game drops in price or goes up. If I got Panzer Dragoon Saga for free it'd be the same game as the PDS on eBay that goes for $200. The free game isn't a 10 while the $200 one is a 3.

---

See above.

Game reviews are based on the now, not on when the price drops. Sure there are exceptions, like when they suggest that the game is great for a rental, but not as an investment of $50. The latest Starfox (GC) is a great example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Whoops!

I read the top date, but still, he said 13 years later in the review.

---

I like reviewing old stuff. The way I see it, I'd rather review something that people out there might not know about, that is still worth checking out, rather than reviewing a game that isn't worth talking about anyhow. I think, that as magazine only have a certain amount of review they can put in, why waste a page talking about a mediocre or crap game when you can find something from the past to expose new gamers to?

Of course, that's probably why I don't run a game magazine. And that indeed was my GameGO PS review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

The second review is too damn wordy, there's not a videogame on Earth that needs 3000 words to be written about it.

---

I 100% agree. I prefer having to fit a review into a limited amount of space, because I then indeed can't just ramble on about every little thing. It makes you think harder about what points really need to be told to the reader, and which can probably be left unsaid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Undaunted

They were founded by the same people at least. I know PSM (and GamePlayers) were both published by Imagine (which is what IGN used to be).
http://www.futurenetworkusa.com/about/management.html

---

How and why do you people know this shit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I also dont like reviews that spend the first 2 or 3 paragraphs talking about the history of the franchise. I dont care, Im reading the review because Im interested in the game, I know about the franchise. All it needs is 2 or 3 sentences.

And no, no need to bloviate about the storyline, if I wanna know about the storyline Ill play the fucking game. Its not like storylines are that good in games anyway.

Same with individual feature sets. There's no need to tell me about each weapon in the game or each game mode. Just tell me if the game is fucking good, and worth my money. Really, a review only needs to be 1000 words MAX.

And no "try before you buy" or "try renting it first" bullshit.

---

So all you want in it is "Hey youz, buy dis here game." or " You dontz want this here game. It sucks" ?

Man, I see that mag flying off the shelf.

I'm with diffx. I want the executive summary. Screw the backstory synopsis, the bulleted lists of features, the technical descriptions of graphics. Tell me if the game is good and why. How does it compare to the genre benchmark.

TeamXbox is the worst. Check out this 8100 word beast:http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/940...rsport/p1/#top

Good lord it has a 630 word description of the HUD.

And the highlight is this insightful bit of game criticism:

"There are no big surprises when playing Forza Motorsport with a standard controller. Here’s the Forza Motorsport Controller S layout:
• Left thumbstick – steer
• Right thumbstick – look left, right back
• Left trigger – brake, reverse
• Right trigger – accelerate
• A button – E brake
• Y button – look back
• X button – reverse
• Black button – cycle camera views
• White button – cycle HUD information (damage and tire heat indicators)"


And I don't like the price to be factored into a review score. My free time is much more limited than my money so I'll gladly pay more if a game is actually great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Why wouldn't it? If I sold you a burger at joint A for $2 and at joint B for $5 and they were of equal quality; wouldn't you rate the $2 burger at a higher rating?

---

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory is a great game, its $50. Katamary Damacy is a great game, its $20. Is Katamary Damacy a better game because its $20? Should Katamary get a higher score because its cheaper?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Okay! So, let's say you go to an amusement park. One guy gives you 3 trips on a ride( 5 minutes long)and it's a blast. Another guy lets you partake on his ride ( 5 minutes long) and charges you the same price as the guy giving you 3 rides. Both rides are equally enjoyable, but the guy offering 3 rides compared to the guy giving you one ride, would seem like the better deal. How would you rate them?

---

You keep talking soly in how long the game is vs. how much it costs. We are talking GAMEPLAY. Dragon Quest 7 is a gazillion hours long, and I think it sucks. I give it a 5. It cost $50 when it came out. Should I bump it up to a 7 because I get a shipload of game for $50?

I would say, then, reviews of the PSP and its games should never reach a 9 because of price. And no console game should ever reach a 9 if it costs $50 when released. A 9 is a near perfect console game released at $10.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Honestly, I don't mind the reviewers giving a little bump to $20 console games when most are released at $50. But this curve grading should be system-specific. It's fine to give a little bump to a PSP game released for $20 if most games are released for $50, but it's not okay to trash every $50 PSP game reviewed because they cost more than new DS games.

Quote:

---

So all you want in it is "Hey youz, buy dis here game." or " You dontz want this here game. It sucks" ?

---

More or less, yea. Thats what Next Generation did, after all and it worked fine. I havent read a full IGN review in years.

Quote:

---

And the highlight is this insightful bit of game criticism:

---

LOL. Seriously, if its in the manual, it shouldnt be in the review.

The critic should be mindful of the price in the review and the amount of delight generated from the game. The final overall score and attitude in the review should not be swayed by this information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

LOL. Seriously, if its in the manual, it shouldnt be in the review.

---

Pretty much, unless it serves a purpose to prove a point the reviewer is trying to make. In fact, everything in a review should just be support for their point--if their point is, "The game is great even if the graphics suck" then everything in the review should relate to explaining why. Button configs, storyline details, sound effects analysis, gameplay mode descriptions, etc. really don't need to be in a review unless there's something worth mentioning about them (i.e. they're particularly bad or particularly good and support the main points).

You have to keep in mind that a fair share of readers could know nothing about the game. They want to read about all the features and gameplay modes before they go to the store.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rumpy

You have to keep in mind that a fair share of readers could know nothing about the game. They want to read about all the features and gameplay modes before they go to the store.

---

They should read the review to learn if the game is good or not, and then go to other sources (company's website, demos, whatever) to learn the nuts-and-bolts of a game. A review should be a critical examination of a game, not a blow-by-blow overview of the game's feature list.

For example, Im playing Half-Life 2. I plan to write a review on it later but here's what I mean:

GOOD: Examining the quality of Half-Life 2's writing, the quality of characters, if the storyline progression is good, and what not.
BAD: Telling us who the characters are, what they are doing, how the storyline unfolds, etc.

GOOD: Analyzing the quality of the singleplayer and multiplayer gameplay.
BAD: Giving a rundown on all different modes.

GOOD: Saying whether or not the weapons are good, and useful (I find the SMG and pulse gun to be a bit inaccurate, for example).
BAD: Giving a rundown on all the weapons.

See what I mean?

edit: I also think a review of a great product should get you pumped up for the product. Does anyone actually ever feel excitement for a game after reading an IGN review? The reviews are so turgid and stiff. My Complex Analysis textbook got me more pumped for residue theory than IGN's WOW or HL2 review did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rumpy

You have to keep in mind that a fair share of readers could know nothing about the game. They want to read about all the features and gameplay modes before they go to the store.

---

Yeah, it really is the readers that keep game reviews crappy. They demand some retarded shit. For example, if a review for a big game goes up on IGN and it's only two pages readers will complain. They also whine if the review doesn't describe every single play mode, etc. They really are pretty retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

They should read the review to learn if the game is good or not, and then go to other sources (company's website, demos, whatever) to learn the nuts-and-bolts of a game. A review should be a critical examination of a game, not a blow-by-blow overview of the game's feature list.

For example, Im playing Half-Life 2. I plan to write a review on it later but here's what I mean:

GOOD: Examining the quality of Half-Life 2's writing, the quality of characters, if the storyline progression is good, and what not.
BAD: Telling us who the characters are, what they are doing, how the storyline unfolds, etc.

GOOD: Analyzing the quality of the singleplayer and multiplayer gameplay.
BAD: Giving a rundown on all different modes.

GOOD: Saying whether or not the weapons are good, and useful (I find the SMG and pulse gun to be a bit inaccurate, for example).
BAD: Giving a rundown on all the weapons.

See what I mean?

edit: I also think a review of a great product should get you pumped up for the product. Does anyone actually ever feel excitement for a game after reading an IGN review? The reviews are so turgid and stiff. My Complex Analysis textbook got me more pumped for residue theory than IGN's WOW or HL2 review did.

---

I totally agree with you and Mark, I'm just saying why they do it. While reviews are mostly garbage, I think we can make TNLs Reader Reviews a great resource with the best style of reviews.

The only problem with reader reviews is that you have people who have little understanding of english put material up there (like me).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clash!

You keep talking soly in how long the game is vs. how much it costs. We are talking GAMEPLAY. Dragon Quest 7 is a gazillion hours long, and I think it sucks. I give it a 5. It cost $50 when it came out. Should I bump it up to a 7 because I get a shipload of game for $50?

---

It was mentioned earlier in this thread, about how some reviewers say: This game would be a great rental, but not worth purchasing.

That is what the discussion was about.

There are games out there, that I would enjoy playing, but I couldn't see myself playing once I've completed it. Could be a great first time experience and a short one as well. I would be better off paying $7 to rent the game for a week, than to pay $50 and be done with it in the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

The only problem with reader reviews is that you have people who have little understanding of english put material up there (like me).

---

The potential is there. Nothing is perfect. We keep Jeremy out of there and we're all right.

Seriously, move the fuck on.

This is a thread about writing. I'm expressing my opinion of you, as a writer, based on what I've seen from your work.

Fine, but the wording was still a bit much.

Jeremy's "writing" is everything wrong with videogame reviews in one smoldering heap. But we knew that already.

Thank goodness your writing represents everything good about it.

I havent written a review in years, but when I do, I openly welcome criticism. Unlike someone we all know. Ill be posting a Half-Life 2 review so stay tuend for that.

Great, I look forward to reading your work. Keep up the jabs at me, they never get old. Ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I havent written a review in years, but when I do, I openly welcome criticism. Unlike someone we all know. Ill be posting a Half-Life 2 review so stay tuend for that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Great, I look forward to reading your work.

---

Stayed tuend for the next chapter of Diffx vs. Jeremy.

--

What Diffx said about how reviews should be written is spot-on, and I wish I could read more of those reviews in that style. I look forward to see what you write for Half-Life 2, Diff.

Quote:

---

They should read the review to learn if the game is good or not, and then go to other sources (company's website, demos, whatever) to learn the nuts-and-bolts of a game. A review should be a critical examination of a game, not a blow-by-blow overview of the game's feature list.

---

I totally disagree. I believe a really good review is written in a way that allows you to play the game with your imagination and then make your own decision based on personal taste. Opinion is only NEEDED when something about the game can't be articulated by text.

Look at Jeff Gerstmann's review of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat. He bitches that the game is too short and easy, but makes ZERO mention of the combo/clapping system. For all we know, he doesn't know it exists!

Here are my problems with professional reviewers:

1. Many seem to have no idea how the game "works" and shouldn't even be reviewing it in the first place. Fighting games especially. Competition to publish content first makes this problem worse.

2. Like I first said, rather than trying to form an accurate picture of the game in the reader's mind, reviewers fall back on opinion which is often useless.

3. Most game reviews lack passion, are boring to read, and attempts at humor are often embarassing.

At least in the 90's, many fan sites took advantage of their freedom to say hat they want and not be bothered by deadlines or anything else.Now, most of them struggle to emulate professional sites. Remember UK:R, Dimension Sega, Higher Voltage, old-school Nintendojo, DaveZ's Saturn site, etc?

What sort of passion do you expect in a review that doesn't have any personal opinion?

A review without an opinion is also called a press sheet. There are millions of those here.

Quote:

---

What sort of passion do you expect in a review that doesn't have any personal opinion?

---

You're meshing and exaggerating two different things that I said into one statement. Professional game reviews have plenty of opinion, but are boring to read, primarily due to being rushed out before the reviewer understands the game enough and/or poor writing skills.

Opinion is fine, but I believe it should take a back seat to describing the game and letting the reader make up their mind. At the very least, the opinion needs to be explained more thoroughly than it often is.

Quote:

---

A review without an opinion is also called a press sheet. There are millions of those here.

---

Nothing near that. All I'm seeing are vague descriptions, new features thrown around as buzzwords, and mini-reviews from spokespeople.

Really what you want can be found by reading previews and watching videos.

This IGN Fire Emblem 2 review is interesting:

"It's only a letdown in the sense that all this game really offers is an entirely different storyline on top of the pre-existing gameplay built for the GBA Fire Emblem released in 2003. It's still a great strategy experience, but because the game has already wowed us in the original 2004 release its lost some of its luster."

http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/618/618558p1.html

That's likely due to the lack of a copy editor at IGN, although that is certainly a mistake that the writer should catch.

Wow, that was quick (already changed at IGN).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoleTroll

Wow, that was quick (already changed at IGN).

---

Someone there must read these boards.

Like you? :D

(I think Jeremy still surfs here from time to time, and probably Nix as well)

I just ditched EQ2 for this game, loving it so far!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johan2k

I just ditched EQ2 for this game, loving it so far!

---

?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brisco Bold

?????

---

*gasp* You're not playing Crappy Video Game Writing Online!?!

Playing it? I wrote it!

Technically this is crappy tabloid writing, but seeing as it's one of the first, and most linked, articles on 25 to Life I call it fair game-

Quote:

---

The latest in shoot-'em-up video game technology, "25 to Life," allows players to attack police with an arsenal of Molotov cocktails, broken bottles and baseball bats. When weapons fail, players make strategic moves using civilians as human shields.

The game even lets players choose gang colors and create personalized graffiti tags.

---

I could stand the killing of police officers, but it even lets players choose gang colors? That's it, ban it! This kind of shocking color coordination can't be allowed in our nation's gaming scene!

Full article here, if anyone wants to make fun of its overwrought hand-wringing style.

James

I've seen 25 to Life covered on a few news shows (including Nancy Grace's show) over the past few days. I was preparing a thread on it, but now don't have to. The arguments against the game are, as per the anti-gaming norm, looking at the issue from only one side. They seem to forget that you can also PLAY as the cop, and disarm the gang members that set out to kill them. On NG, they even use the almighty "murder simulator" term, which I just loved. To drive how JUST HOW HO-RIB-BLE it was, they showed photos of fallen officers alongside violent clips from the game.

I think the reasons nobody's talking about it is because the same old ground has been covered so many times before, over and over and over again. Honestly, how often am I supposed to be outraged that the media is using sensationalistic tactics to hype up a non-issue story during a slow news time of year?

It was the particular phrasing of that article that got me. Not only can you kill cops and use humans as shields, but the game goes so far as to let you wear gang colors and customize graffiti! When games allow people to spray paint walls they've just taken that one step too far.

James

I have to be careful here because I know a lot of excellent gaming writers who do not have schooling in that area, but this is my take...

The realm of gaming journalism, like many other areas is largely susceptible to that fanboy mentality, where you have gamers who love games and end up writing about them, which is fine, but these fanboys don't necessarily have the basics of writing under their belts, so we get articles that just fall short. Of course there are those who are naturally gifted writers, but for someone such as myself, I needed college to help me become a better writer, there is a lot to learn in the real world and a lot to learn in the academic world, so the best of both, I think, will help gaming journalism gain the legitimacy it deserves.

Another problem is that we haven't seen a big push for gaming journalism to evolve, perhaps because videogames as a whole don't have the intellectual substance of a great novel or an arthouse film...perhaps...I say perhaps because I think some games are worthy of serious coverage and can easily be likened to great movies, great books, etc.

I recently got into gaming journalism after years as an academic/pr writer and fiction writer, and it is hard. It's hard to care about a game that sucks and it's hard to find real inspiration when maybe 1 out of every 100 games is worthy of such inspiration. I really do respect good gaming journalists who are able to write solid reviews for games they love and games they hate...journalists who are able to take Elmo's Super Duper Adventures and review it clearly and succinctly. I mean gaming journalism has its own style and order, and to be good at it, takes a lot of time and failed attempts.

As for style, I prefer to involve myself in the review. I read Esquire each month and feel that if a gaming magazine could approach videogames with the same level of personality, quality writing, and detail as E does, then we would see the true evolution of the genre.

So far, I have only been truly happy with one review I have written, and I find myself constantly trying to get back to that level of inspiration --

http://www.got-next.com/reviews_read.php?id=103

So yes I do think there is an unseemly amount of bad writing out there, but this spans across more than gaming journalism. Read a NY Times from the turn of the 19th century and tell me that journalism hasn't devolved to a ridiculous degree. The same tenets of writing don't apply today, where we have everyone and their grandmothers becoming writers, but not taking the time to learn to do it right. I, in no way, feel that I have reached any comfortable level of writing mastery. Everyday there is more to learn and more to correct. As a writer, I think what fuels us, or what should fuel us, is that pursuit of perfection. It's amazing what power we have with words, if only we learn to use them effectively; otherwise, no one pays attention and who wants that?

ssb