Review the review.

[Protocol95]

The game works by person a posting a review of the above post and then person b reviewing that post and so on.

Example: The above post is indeed clever but may seem like it tries to make itself seem better than it is. 8/10.

 

[AvsJoe]

The previous review is pretentious and esoteric. Elitism only serves to divide the world. However, the reviewer brings up a valid point.[footnote]"it tries to make itself seem better than it is"[/footnote] Many posters will intentionally "spice up" their post by adding the longest words that they can think of, which is misleading at the best of times and I in no way condone the practice.

6/10

 

[Dr.Susse]

Using more than just large words the 'review' above has gone about the process that is heavily set in traditional reviewing methods. Saying words like "However" and others including "Misleading, the and condone" The review artist has used the English language. In taking the piece for just a base sum of text you may be excused as to think of it as a sort of leaking potato, With its seminal subject matter as the leak and the potato being just a potato.

5-Stars.

 

[Protocol95]

Dr.susse, creator of the above post, believes that by lengthening his post it makes it better. However it just becomes repetitive, though is still humourous. 7.5/10

 

[Venom 3135]

The above post is accurate, but boring at the same time. I don't really like it. There's no humor involved and it doesn't have any opinions in it.
4/10

 

[RockyH]

The above post is far to critical, but very straight forward. 6/10

 

[Venom 3135]

10/10 Made me say "LUL!"

 

[BrailleOperatic]

7/10. For being a corruption of l-o-l.

 

[RockyH]

1/10 Avatar made me have a fit.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

The above review was too short to form an accurate opinion on the review previous to the previous review. Although it is succinct, it isn't very accurate, and does not take into account the subject matter.

0/10 Will not read again.

 

[Dr.Susse]

A harsh deconstruction of the prior, this review hits more nails on the head than a drunk workman in a nunnery. As a furher reason that people should be paid for this I'll give it 5-stars.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

The use of obscure references, and its large proportion of grammatical errors make the above review a slight chore to read. In addition, it does not give a point of reference, as five stars could be out of five or one-hundred more stars. However, as a show of appreciation, I will gladly add fuel to the fire of the ego stroking.

B.

 

[Dr.Susse]

Helping other reviewers pick up their game, the grammatically positive review doesn?t dance around the subject without reaching a point. Further stroking of the ego caps off the end and you may find it is a trend that continues.

On a scale of six to ten with seven being the highest.
I score it an Twelve.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

A TURE MASTERPEACE. C#.

 

[Dr.Susse]

De vergelijking aan een meesterwerk en het gemiddelde van de brief c zouden aanvallend kunnen worden gevonden maar zijn in dit geval vrij grappig. Opzettelijk plotseling is het overzicht zonder gebreken, soort. 5 - sterren

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Too Germanic; didn't read. 10xFail.

 

[Protocol95]

It seemed that when Heart of darkness read the post above him, he couldn't think of anything more professional. However it is a realistic reaction. 7/10.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Short and succinct, but not specific enough. 6/10.

 

[Sn1P3r M98]

Doesn't specify what it should specify. 4/10

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Is a hypocritical reviewer, and is probably employed by IGN. -4/10.