Review Wars V- Scores Now Live! Reviewer Champion Declared!

[Pimppeter2]

Sho, getting this up for any last-minute, hastily written pieces to be sent in. Also for any news on what happens now.

Yeah, not too many submissions this time. But oh well. Judges will get the reviews later tonight or tomorrow morning.

 

[Lost In The Void]

Sho, getting this up for any last-minute, hastily written pieces to be sent in. Also for any news on what happens now.

Yeah, not too many submissions this time. But oh well. Judges will get the reviews later tonight or tomorrow morning.

So how's the judging making out?

 

[Pimppeter2]

Sho, getting this up for any last-minute, hastily written pieces to be sent in. Also for any news on what happens now.

Yeah, not too many submissions this time. But oh well. Judges will get the reviews later tonight or tomorrow morning.

So how's the judging making out?

Judges have recently got the reviews, and due to a limited review pool, they should be done sooner than expected. But we'll see.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Oh, that's good news.

Both items, the suggestion that they might be done sooner (gives me something to anticipate every day, instead of just the one), and that reviews were limited. That last might be kinda selfish of me, but...I don't think this was my best work. >_>

 

[Pimppeter2]

Spoiler: RV:AB - Angry Birds - Sassafrass

Spoiler: Heart of Darkness

Review 1RV-AB: "Angry Brids"

Presentation: 4 - It's a standard presentation format, but it does it's job nicely and then gets out of the way.
Readability: 4 - Content flows coherently from one point to the next, but several transitions slightly break the pacing.
Content: 3 - Slightly harder to do with a casual game, but touches upon the basics needed. Could have used some examples to strengthen arguments as to the "challenging" nature of the game, or expounded on more of the gameplay mechanics.
Tilt: 3

Comments: It's a well put-together review, but could use some polish. Several points feel redundant, such as comments referencing the game's simplicity and challenging nature, as well as some of the more personal aspects of the reviewer's life (e.g., the hoodie didn't really need a mention).

Score: 14/20

Spoiler: Maet

RV:AB
"I have no idea how Rovio made it as addicting as it is either..." Rather than admit you don't know, you should really attempt to take a stab at understanding. A review is meant to do just that. Pictures and captions, but not exactly what I'd call dynamic. Smaller inlined images with captions would certainly display the review better, I feel. Aside from that, the review really needs some editing attention. The first paragraph in particular set off my copy editing impulses, and little errors constantly kept creeping in from there ("... such as birds who split into three to hit more of the base and birds that simple simply explode when prompted...", for example). Content wise, all that's necessary is present, however I didn't feel that your ideas were argued as well as they could have been.
Presentation: 3/5
Readability: 3/5
Content: 3/5
Tilt: 2/5
Total: 11/20

Spoiler: Pigeon of Doom

Angry Birds
Presentation: 4 - Functions perfectly in its role of breaking the text up, although the images lack variety regarding their placement.
Readability : 3 - Unfortunately, the writing can be fairly sloppy at times, leading to an occasionally rough reading experience which detracts from its overall clarity. It would have been significantly improved by proofreading and some editing to remove irregularities and sharpen the way points are expressed. Some parts seem that they could have been made more concise too.
Content: 3 - This review definitely gets across an adequate idea of the game, but when writing at this length you need to analyse it more than you seem to feel necessary here. Just admitting you don't know how the game's design makes it so addictive probably means you need to consider your own play experience in some more depth. Again with the description of the art design and sound effects, you share your personal reaction, but not much on how that is provoked. It can be difficult to discern the effect or discuss the results, especially if you're not used to it, but it makes for a better review if you can find the source these reactions and convey them interestingly.
Tilt : 2 - The style didn't really work much for me. Some of this is as a result of the aforementioned sloppiness. But, also, things like the jokes referring to the writer didn't work for me either, possibly because the personality coming across in the review wasn't set up as well as it could have been, so references to it didn't have an impact.
Total:12 points

Spoiler: Blue Ink Alchemist

Angry Birds
Presentation: 3/5
Very clean, good formatting & use of photos. No major complaints.
Readability: 3/5
Decent writing without glaring errors, but somewhat dry save for the anecdotes.
Content: 3/5
A solid overview of the game that's informative on the subject, but...
Tilt: 3/5
A full review of Angry Birds leaves you with little to talk about due to how simplistic it is!
Final: 12/20
An above average review, given the lack of errors; reads like a first serious effort.

Spoiler: New Classic

In order of Presentation, Readability, Content, Tilt, then Total.
RV1-AB
4 - 2 - 3 - 2 | 11

Score: 60

Spoiler: RV:RT - Ristar - NeutralDrow

Spoiler: Heart of Darkness

Review: 1RV-RT: "Ristar"

Presentation: 4 - Superb presentation; my only qualms with it are the pictures. Using the img_inline tags or even centering the images would've helped the presentation tremendously.
Readability: 5 - Grammar and mechanics issues are pretty much nonexistant. The review flows seamlessly from one topic to the next.
Content: 5 - Game mechanics are well explained, and discussion of the game's component parts feels wholistic, rather than being broken up by a checklist.
Tilt: 4

Comments: A highly enjoyable read. The content is clearly discussed, the flow between topics feels natural, and the author's voice is noticeable, but doesn't bog down the review with its presence.

Score: 18/20

Spoiler: Maet

RV:RT
The paragraphs vary in chunkiness and the images (barring the first one) don't take advantage of the opportunities of inline code. It's not streamlined and definitely rough around the edges. The review was effortless enough to read, so high marks for that. Content was also a broad overview without a terribly detailed look, but I'll give you an above average mark for touching on sound design. I must say, however, that I'm not crazy about the tone in the review. It strikes me as being too pedestrian and informal for my liking.
Presentation: 2/5
Readability: 4/5
Content: 4/5
Tilt: 3/5
Total: 13/20

Spoiler: Pigeon of Doom

Ristar
Presentation: 2 - It's far too spread out without making meaningful use of the space it leaves available, while the picture placement is too regular, and perhaps the number of them is excessive.
Readability: 3 - Readable, if mostly a bit pedestrian to read. Only a couple of irritating errors. Moments where the writing voice is more engagingly enthused are unfortunately rare.
Content: 5 - I can't particularly fault the coverage of game elements. It describes and explains what it needs to, although at times it seems to possibly get bogged down in sharing the exact features of the game with the reader.
Tilt: 2 - The structure seemed quite formulaic, and that, combined with the other aforementioned issues, mostly contributed towards this score. The major issues being the presentation and the style of writing which didn't do much to make a lot of the material interesting, to me.
Total: 12

Spoiler: Blue Ink Alchemist

Ristar
Presentation: 5/5
Put together extremely well. Nicely spaced, great use of pictures, and even alt-tags!
Readability: 4/5
Easy to read without being boring, involving without being overly tangential or aping other styles.
Content: 4/5
The author makes a valiant effort to do away with bias.
Tilt: 4/5
Shining light on an unknown or underappreciated work can be really hard. I respect that. Also +1 bonus for Calvin & Hobbes.
Final: 17/20
A great review of an unknown game is better than a mediocre review of a brand new one.

Spoiler: New Classic

In order of Presentation, Readability, Content, Tilt, then Total.
2 - 4 - 3 - 5 | 14

Score: 74

 

[Pimppeter2]

Spoiler: RV:DAH - Destory All Humans - VaudevillianVeteran

Spoiler: Heart of Darkness

Review 1RV-DAH: "Destroy All Humans"

Presentation: 4 - Standard presentation format, but could use whitespace better to make the review more readable.
Readability: 3 - Grammar errors are prevalent, and awkwardly-phrased sentences often cause the review to trip over itself and impede flow.
Content: 3 - Clearly follows a checklist pattern, ticking off boxes as individual components of the game are mentioned. Beginning of the review feels like an over-extended plot-synopsis, with no real effort made to review the plot.
Tilt: 3

Comments: While nothing stands out in this review as being majorly wrong, nothing really sets it above and beyond the typical fare. A second read-through for grammar and mechanics issues would have greatly helped this review, as would a more concerted effort to tie sections together.

Score: 13/20

Spoiler: Maet

RVAH
I definitely appreciate the attempt at an intelligently designed and presented review, but some aspects of it don't work for me. The first paragraph uses a different font size and line spacing from the paragraphs that follow it, the paragraphs themselves are a bit too chunky for my liking, and I don't understand why the you used a different font for the comment underneath the final rating. That said, the banner above the review, the included credits and details (especially the red (15) rating image), and the tiny star images at the end are all nice touches.
The review begins with an anecdote, but the content that follows it is rather generic. Had the anecdote been taken up again somewhere down the line or included more meaningfully, I would be more generous. Ultimately, I feel that it's misleading. The way the content is presented feels very much like ticking boxes, and the use of idiomatic ticks ("all in all," for example) is something I found a bit annoying. There are simple errors here and there that would have been fairly easy to catch, and paragraph/sentence structure isn't meaningfully arranged. There's potential, but no polish.
Presentation: 4/5
Readability: 3/5
Content: 3/5
Tilt: 2/5
Total: 12/20

Spoiler: Pigeon of Doom

Destroy All Humans!
Presentation: 5 - Well structured, with a good variety of visual variations in the use of different fonts and picture layout and captions.
Readability: 4 - This review is very strong in terms of comprehensibility and managing to discuss aspects of the game while remaining engaging to read. Unfortunately, there are enough errors, particularly with punctuation, but also with syntax, to disrupt what would otherwise be a smooth piece to read.
Content: 4 - I want to say that I don't feel the review quite engages with why the game is fun, but a picture of a cow being dangled by its hind legs by telekenisis certainly compensates for that to a point. Still, the balance between listing the structural and mechanical form of the game, and a subsequent assessment of these mechanics, isn't quite found, to me.
Tilt: 3 - The tone can seem inconsistent at times. The personal history with the game and the introduction of the game itself didn't gel, and peculiarities like the discussion of the levels as cities, when all exterior pictures show countryside locations, knocked down this score.
Total: 16

Spoiler: Blue Ink Alchemist

DESTROY ALL HUMANS!! (all caps just for fun)
Presentation: 3/5
Decent formatting and use of pictures.
Readability: 4/5
Conversational and error-free.
Content: 3/5
Decent presentation of the pros and cons of the game, without a great amount of bias.
Tilt: 2/5
This could use more personality, and why did you have to sum it up so many times in the last paragraph? Save "all in all" for the last sentence.

Final: 12/20
Work on polishing your conclusions and add a few anecdotes of game highlights, and you'll see a much higher score next time.

Spoiler: New Classic

In order of Presentation, Readability, Content, Tilt, then Total.
3 - 2 - 4 - 2 | 11

Score: 64

Spoiler: RV:VBL- Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines

Spoiler: Heart of Darkness

Review: 1RV-VBL: Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines

Presentation: 4 - The layout is good, and better than average. The quotes from the game are noticeable, but these do more to break up the pace than supplement it.
Readability: 3 - While the review is formatted nicely, similar topics are split into multiple, short paragraphs, which fractures the flow of the piece and weakens the arguments presented. Grammar and mechanics issues are also present through the review, Ye Olde English excluded.
Content: 3 - Hard to call here. While the game mechanics are introduced, they're not really discussed in depth; rather, they feel like they were taken straight out of the game manual. However, the discussion of some of the game's themes does save this section.
Tilt: 3

Comments: Quite a strange review. While it certainly looks nice, the content itself feels fractured and unfocused at times. While not exactly difficult to read or review, the pace seems to fall short of keeping a reader's attention. Maybe it's all part of the masquerade, but another splash of red ink would've helped this piece greatly.

Score: 13/20

Spoiler: Maet

RV:VBL
Inlined images with captions, a nice blue colour for the headline and smartly applied pull quotes, uniform and well spaced paragraphs. This is definitely the best looking review of the bunch. Content wise, the review offers a good overview but doesn't go too far deep into any single element. It's good that you cover all the bases, but I'd much rather you focus on a few key elements to dwell on and assess. Reading it was an occasionally clunky experience, and the review could have certainly benefited from a couple more thorough once-overs. Though I felt the last paragraph was quite excellently done, and therefore I'm largely impressed. If the writing was more polished and if the coding had worked, I'd certainly toss a few more points your way.
Presentation: 5/5
Readability: 3/5
Content: 3/5
Tilt: 4/5
Total: 15/20

Spoiler: Pidgeon of Doom

Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines
Presentation: 4 - Regular, but with the pictures and the quotes (which was a touch I liked, especially for a game in a genre very dependant on its dialogue) it remained engaging to look at. This scheme works very well, but it's not especially impressive. Getting the title slightly wrong with the attention grabbing formatting led with a bad first impression too.
Readability: 3 - Phrasing could have been much sharper in places, and recurrent issues with punctuation are present such as where rhetorical questions are asked, but the sentence ends with a period instead of a question mark. Also, it would be worth looking up the use of parenthetical commas, as this review often tends to order the importance of the information expressed in a sentence poorly.
Content: 3 - Exhaustively lists aspects of the game, but it needed more personal evaluation of the aspects detailed. Of course, the length of the listed traits of the game world does suggest its richness etc, but these need to be more explicitly discussed.
Tilt: 2 - I did think parts of this demonstrated promising writing, but it needed further attention and seemed structurally misconcieved.
Total: 12

Spoiler: Blue Ink Alchemist

Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines
Presentation: 3/5
Good use of images, and I appreciate the quote call-outs. Another clever way to break up the text.
Readability: 2/5
There are repeated lines, grammatical errors, omitted punctuation - A couple of edits could really have tightened this up.
Content: 4/5
A good examination of both the game and some subtleties of vampire fiction.
Tilt: 4/5
I adore this game, and am glad people are still playing it. I may need to try it with more mods!
Final: 13/20
Lots of potential let down by a lack of editing - what a shame! Be more careful in the future and you'll do very well.

Spoiler: New Classic

In order of Presentation, Readability, Content, Tilt, then Total.
4 - 3 - 3 - 2 | 12

Score: 65

Spoiler: RV:P2 - Portal 2 - Snuggle

Spoiler: Heart of Darkness

Review: 1RV-P2: "Portal 2"

Presentation: 2 - Immediately off the bat, wall of text. Use more whitespace.
Readability: 3 - Again, wall of text. Grammar and mechanics errors were thankfully mostly absent until the end.
Content: 3 - While the focus was primarily on the "player" aspect of the multiplayer, more discussion of the game's mechanics would have been appreciated.
Tilt: 4

Comments: While it does have its fair share of problems, this review was enjoyable to read. The author's voice is clear, but not overpowering, allowing the review to take on a life as both a narrative and an exposition. That being said, another proofread would have greatly benefitted this review; after all, one can hardly call a desert "delicious and benign."

Score: 12/20

Spoiler: Maet

The review was well written, but lacks any real panache or style. While there are two pictures to break up the text, there's only a line break and not a full space between paragraphs, so wall of text syndrome isn't exactly remedied. Content wise, I do enjoy how the reviewer gives a detailed impression of the game without orderly checking off the boxes of "it looks nice" and "it sounds nice." That they actually take a fairly novel approach and focus on the experience/philosophy of co-opting earns it full marks. Overall, I do quite like the review, but it's not without the occasional problem. Definitely my favourite so far, and the score will reflect that.
Presentation: 2/5
Readability: 4/5
Content: 5/5
Tilt: 4/5
Total: 15/20

Spoiler: Pigeon of Doom

Portal 2 Co-op
Presentation: 3 - Rudimentary. If you're going to use a title, it's worth using a font to distinguish it, the spoiler warning shouldn't visually dominate it. Large pictures immediately after the first paragraph never seems workable to me either, and here it didn't even seem to communicate anything valuable about the game.
Readability: 5 - Very readable, with no major issues that obstructed the reading process.
Content: 2 - I found this review quite odd in terms of the ground it covers. It discusses a component of the game which refers back to the single player but completely presupposes knowledge of Portal 2's mechanics. While that's a reasonable assumption within a gaming community, it's good practise to at least mention its core mechanic.Also, this take on the human incompatibilities inherent in co-op games is appreciable, but the focus seems excessive, and to the detriment of the game design itself. Only the tools used within the chambers are discussed. There is a lot to say on how the game brilliantly forces mutual dependence between players and how the puzzles create that while being enjoyable, but that isn't covered at all. What you discuss, you discuss well (I especially liked the section on the characters), but while omitting some fundamental topics.
Tilt: 3 - While the consistently vivid language made me warm to this review, I had a mixed response to the title (I don't understand the point of "Qwoperate" at all), and the introductory paragraph, especially the number of rhetorical questions, which typically seem to work best in moderation to me.
Total: 13

Spoiler: Blue Ink Alchemist

Portal 2 Co-Op
Presentation: 2/5
Be sure to scale your first pic properly for your medium! It may not fit all monitors & browser sizes. Could stand to break up the paragraphs a bit more, as well.
Readability: 3/5
Conversational, error-free and anecdotal.
Content: 4/5
Covers the highs and lows of a game experience very well.
Tilt: 4/5
Nice to see someone who appreciates Portal 2's single-player as much as I did!
Final: 13/15
A few presentation hiccups blemish an otherwise fine review.

Spoiler: New Classic

In order of Presentation, Readability, Content, Tilt, then Total.
3 - 3 - 2 - 2 | 10

Score: 64

 

[Sassafrass]

One thing I've taken away from this, edit a lot more. And stick to my current format, I knew I'd shot myself in the foot when I reverted to the old way.

Anyway, congrats to NeutralDrow and everyone else and thanks to the judges for the feed-back. Oh, and thanks to Pimp for things and stuff, I guess.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

One thing I've taken away from this, edit a lot more. And stick to my current format, I knew I'd shot myself in the foot when I reverted to the old way.

Anyway, congrats to NeutralDrow and everyone else and thanks to the judges for the feed-back. Oh, and thanks to Pimp for things and stuff, I guess.

Yeah, editing was a fairly big issue this time around, at least from what I saw. Most of these reviews still read like drafts, especially when it came to phrasing ideas and transitions. Spelling mistakes are a little more acceptable, since ideas can still be conveyed through them despite the error, but awkward phrasing of ideas is enough to completely defenestrate your point. Of course, you still want to minimize the amount of spelling errors you have as well, since they can also distract your reader, especially someone who's reading it closely.

Case in point: one of my textbooks misspelled the word "diaries" as "dairies." I got what the author was talking about, but since this was a book about game design, the phrase "development dairies" got me thinking of an office filled with milk.

So, to everyone, I am going to offer some general tips on editing. Feel free to browse at your leisure, or add your own, etc.:

Spoiler: Editing Tips

[ul][li]Have someone else read your work. Have them look for ideas that aren't clearly presented, for awkward sentence structures, gross misspellings, etc. Get more people to read it, too--if multiple people have an issue with a particular spot, fix it.[/li]
[li]Take a break from your writing. Once you finish, go do something else--eat, sleep, rot your brain with a mindless game, whatever. Once you've had time to put your review out of your mind, look over it again with fresh eyes, and fix any errors that you may find.[/li]
[li]Physically edit your work. Print out the text, and "grade" it with a colored pen (i.e., red). Circle errors, draw arrows to reorganize everything, write yourself notes on how to improve your writing. And then go back and implement your notes into your writing. This also works well if you have someone else edit it, too.[/li][/ul]

 

[NeutralDrow]

W-wait, what? I won?! O_O

Wow...thank you!

To the judges, rest assured, I'm going to be cleaning it up before actually posting it. I'm a procrastinating dork, so I was literally writing up to the last minute (having started a few hours earlier), and didn't take advantage of the weeklong extension to revise. And...I'll be the first to admit that I was trying too hard to stick to my typical "style." I'll definitely be taking the advice about the img_inline coding, certainly (I've worked with it a bit in shortform reviews...which in retrospect this really was[footnote]Fun fact: I was actually planning for this to be a double-feature review with Dynamite Headdy (also a good game, play it), before Pimpeter announced the return of Review Wars. That likely would have been longform.[/footnote]), and while I'm not really sure how much I can do about the tone, I do hope to have it at least more polished after I've read through it a few more times, myself.

...I also promise not to more-than-double its length before posting, like the last review I submitted.

Seriously, cross my heart. >_>

 

[Snuggle]

Yay! I got in fourth! Out of...five. I'm pretty satisfied, though. Like NeutralDrow, I wrote it only a short while before the deadline (the day before, I think) and didn't do nearly enough editing.
Particularly the parts about the title and mentioning some more of Portal 2's core gameplay annoy me, because they would be fairly easily fixed (I thought the title would be easier to understand than it was. Next time: refer to it in the text, mayhaps). Also, presentation was the most consistent point of criticism for my review, so that's definitely an area I need to put some more work into.
Too bad I was just a few points from coming in on second place, but ah well, compared to last year I'm at least fairly average, and that's pretty alright.
NOTE TO SELF: More polish!

Finally, congrats to NeutralDrow!