I might start reviewing games

[Daniel]

I already do game reviews on another forum... So... I might post one here... this one was for Shadow the Hedgehog for the *shivers* PS2...

STORY:

Taking place after Sonic Heroes, Shadow the Hedgehog has lost his memory, thus causing him to get this bad flashbacks that he still has in the back of his mind. Then out of nowhere (or hammerspace) the sky is filled with darkness, and a hurricane comes, spouting "black" aliens out. Then out comes Doom. (Or Black doom). Doom assures that he KNOWS Shadow's memory, thus causing Shadow to believe him, so he is off to find his memory.

Telling by the story, SEGA tried to make this game appeal to goth kids, but failing at the same time. The game is meant for a "bigger" kid audience due to it's mild language. But the story is just overall fail.

GAMEPLAY:

Now here is my biggest gripe of the game. It's gameplay. I did NOT like the fact that SEGA gave Shadow guns when he is "the ultimate life form". When he is so powerful, why give him guns, vehicles, and mechs?! Why SEGA?! Besides the guns and everything, the game plays like a normal Sonic game, you know, rings, loop-de-loops, and bashing baddies. Although you can get more endings by following the good side, your neutral side, or coming to the dark side. The gun play was the biggest gripe for me, thus, losing my hope for the game.

GRAPHICS:

Alright, I am going to have to be biased for this because I only played the PS2 version. The graphics are mediocre, like Sonic Heroes esk... and the bad news is, the framerate is unsettled. Mostly jumping from 60 to mostly 30. So the graphics I do not trust.

SOUND:

The music was bad. It just felt.... bad... I dunno, but I wanna put it on MUTE sometimes. This game was the first game to use voice acting from what we all know and hate... 4Kids. Anyways, the voice acting tries to make Shadow sound like a total Badass when he is not. Saying "DAMN" for 45,000 times does NOT make you a badass. Some people compare his voice to Solid Snake's from the Metal Gear Solid series. Their voices are NOTHING ALIKE. Soun.d effects I will not judge since their the standard ring, blah blah blah

OVERALL:

I really did not like this game. It was just not so appealing to me. I "jizzed" my pants when I got it for X-Mas, but this wasnt such a good game from beginning to end, and plus, this game was when SEGA just started to make Sonic games for profit... not quality.

I give Shadow the Hedgehog, a 4 out of 10.

and I swear my opinions are honest to god.

[twodee]

I'm really glad you enjoy doing reviews. However, do you really think it's necessary to post a review of a game that came out years ago?

[Daniel]

I'm really glad you enjoy doing reviews. However, do you really think it's necessary to post a review of a game that came out years ago?

Matter of fact...

No.

[Cyber Rat]

If you're already using the Internet, don't limit yourself to so few characters. I know how frustrating it can be when you're limited to, say, 1500 characters (spaces included), so don't throw this kind of advantage away.

As for the review itself, you're giving more of an opinion, than an actual review. It felt more like a quick rant, than the comparison of pros and cons. I mean, you gave the game a 4/10, which means it's just below avarage, yet reading all the 'criticism' you gave, I expected a 1/10 because nothing was done properly.

I'm not sure whether English is your native language. If it isn't, then I'm sure you're aware that you make mistakes, but if English is your native tongue, I suggest you polish it, because you made quite a few mistakes.

[ila]

Honestly, I think numerical end scores are slowly starting to lose their effectiveness. Now you may be saying at home "But gee ila, you genius inspiration to the world, how does a score lose its effectiveness?" I answer with. I'm not bloody sure, but I think its better to tell your opinion through tone and wording rather than a final end all number. I feel one limits the other.

Or rather, I think Kotaku, The Escapist, and Zero Punctuation (to a minor extent) have upped the way reviews should be written. A good explanation of mechanics, followed by a conclusion, and in the case of Kotaku and The Escapist, bullet lists for pros and cons. Cut the score, its only use is fodder for meta critic and to see who gets the gold "EDITOR'S CHOICE YO" award.

[Cyber Rat]

I honestly agree with you, but with sites like Metacritic being cited throughout the Internet and other numerical values being slapped on boxes, it doesn't seem like they'll die out any time soon...

[Ristar]

I think you should give the review a title, and then a gimmick reviewing system. For example, Channel 5's "The Gadget Show" uses a system of "G's" for rating, and I'm not talking abough Dre, Snoop, DOC and Ice Cube giving their opinion; it's more like "I'll give the new Nokie N97 4 out of 5 G's, it's great, but it's just lacking some features that the iPhone 3GS has".

It's fun to review stuff, but you do need to add pro's and cons if you're adding a rating system.

You should check out Ben Croshaw and Charlie Brooker for inspiration and reference.

[flame6753]

you're shadow the hedgehog review is a little biased. I'm sure in your heart you meant to give it a 3/10

[DimensionWarped]

Any review that dedicates only a paragraph to how the game actually plays isn't worth its weight in salt. And since last I checked, digital text doesn't weigh anything (well, arguably it might weigh a nanogram or so if you are attributing it the weight of it's place on silicon or a ferromagnetic platter), it's basically completely worthless.

[Password]

That was pretty short.

Now do Sonic 2k6.

[Daniel]

That was pretty short.

Now do Sonic 2k6.

Oh god... and it came to this... I mean... I played some bad games, but this... oi...

STORY:

The story begins at the Soleanna festival. Out of nowhere while Princess Elise was setting the flame, Dr. Eggman (Who apparently is on Slim Quick) takes Elise, and demands the chaos emerald that she has. But at the nick of time, Sonic appears (and taller than ever). Sonic destroys the robots Eggman unleashed, and Sonic took Elise away to safety. But from a distance, Silver The Hedgehog thinks Sonic is the "Iblis Trigger", thus starting the game.

The story is a rip-off of Mario, but let me explain more.

Sonic = Mario

Elise = Peach.

There... Now you know...

GAMEPLAY:

Oi... THIS. The gameplay is BUGGY beyond belief. I mean... What HAPPENED? Sonic is FRICKING slow (and don't tell me to buy gems) and his animations are fugly. Shadow's gameplay is even WORSE than Shadow the Hedgehog. While it's a step forward by removing the guns, it's two steps back by putting in vehicles WITH guns. Also, the gameplay for Shadow is also buggy, and stupid. Finally, we get to the cream of the crop. Silver. Silver's gameplay, while unique, is boring and stupid, and one of his stages is home to one of the most repetive stages in a video game I have ever played. I mean, WHAT HAPPENED SEGA? Also, the loading times? Don't get me started!

GRAPHICS:

For a buggy piece of sh*t, the graphics are quite nice. Even though the animations are bad beyond belief, the character models are ok-ish and the lands are detailed. But, SEGA meant for this game to have that selling point. The graphics. They focused more on graphics and less on gameplay.

SOUND:

The voice acting is horrible, even worse than ShTH. Tails sounds like a girl on heroine, Sonic is a squealing monster, Silver sounds like he DEMANDS something, Shadow TRIES AGAIN to be such a badass, while failing. The music is good though, as the orchestrated soundtrack let me listened for a while. Heck, they're is a remixed version of the Sonic 2 ending music I found there... ^^ Sound effects are standard for a Sonic game.

OVERALL:

Sonic the Hedgehog was NOT a good experience. Long and frequent loading times, Buggy and Glitchy and overall rushed, the characters made my ears bleed and I turned my 360 off, and few months later, I was welcome to find ALOT more improvments in a game called "SONIC UNLEASHED". Sonic 06 was mostly made for profit... and people just hated it.

I give Sonic 06.... Nothing. Why? You already know who sh*t the game is... Do I need to supply a score?!

Also... Cyber Rat is right... but aren't reviews your opinions? *scratches head*

[Cyber Rat]

Also... Cyber Rat is right... but aren't reviews your opinions? *scratches head*

Depends on your personal beliefs. I personally try to be as objective as possible when reviewing any game. Of course, you need to add a touch of personality to stop it from being a 'report', but that doesn't mean you can write a review without any good arguments.

Then again, you could try and be as subjective as possible, but you need a lot of credibility behind you for people to actually take your opinions seriously. And even then, some people will disregard you because as just another ranter.

You should check out Ben Croshaw and Charlie Brooker for inspiration and reference.

If he does check Ben out, I'm afraid that he'll just try and mimic the 'insult' part of his reviews, without noticing how he usually makes valid arguments.

[Shonumi]

Although I've never played Sonic2K6, I think that your review of it is a more of a slam against the game, even if it is your true opinion. You didn't even give it a score. From all my years of reading EGM (RIP guys), Game Informer, Computer Gaming World, most reviews of games tend to establish a neutral tone at the start of a review. Doing otherwise seems to lead to a bias of some kind. Some people do this right in the title of the review, which I find is a bit of bad taste as a writer myself.

I believe one really shouldn't jump right out and say whether a game is good, bad, or so-so. A good review first creates the reasons behind the author's opinion of the game, elaborates upon bespoke opinion and delivers this to the reader for the reader to decide for themselves. Speaking about the quality of the game before giving the reasons as to why one thinks it is of such quality misleads the reader.

One is not being fair to the reader by asserting their views before their reasons to them. A reader should be able to hear the problem or flaw in the game, such as a broken camera for example, and then they should hear how it affects the game. If one starts bashing a game first, and then get to the fact that it has a broken camera, that might turn away earnest people, either from the review or the game itself. Compare this talking about the game first and then describing the problem of the camera; the reader doesn't have the general impression that the game is bad, and they can decide for themselves based on the review if a broken camera is enough to make or break the game.

I do believe that reviews are really meant as helpful opinions, that they help others to recognize good games from the bad games, the fantastic from the failures. Saying that as well, your reviews could stand to have more depth, adding more reason as to "why" game play is buggy, slow, or stupid. A good review has elaboration rather than quick dismissive thoughts for or against something. Explore the game a bit, find out precisely what is wrong with a game or what precisely makes it work. Don't be afraid to get inside the game with all the details. As you can see, being long-winded myself, I love details. The more/longer the better.

That all being said, most of what I posted here isn't criticism (except for the last part) but rather a forewarning to pitfalls. Anyways, I think it'd be cool if you wrote more reviews, perhaps even exotic/old Sonic games, as that's always interesting.

[ila]

A review is never unbiased. There is always some experience or expectation behind it. Even the most neutral of neutral person in the world's personal expectations would have some type of influence on his or her opinion. Telling someone to review without bias is like telling an infant to run a triathlon.

[DimensionWarped]

Here is a better analogy. It's like telling someone to run without starting on either foot. An infant can run a triathlon, an unbiased review is absolutely impossible.

[Shonumi]

On a note of clarification, I never encouraged DNL to make a review absent of any bias whatsoever, I just think it's bad form in any review to come out from the get-go as bias. The good reviews I've read don't really form their views about a game without first investigating it's merits/faults and then giving explanation as to how this affects the game and the writer's opinion of it. They almost never never immediately come out as biased towards the game in any way (for/against/ho-hum). Instead they work their way towards that. That's one thing I was trying to hope to convey to DNL.

Reviews that jump out proclaiming the game is great or sucks within the first couple of lines tend to either be bash-fests or praise-fests depending on the leaning of the article, or could very easily lead the reader to consider the article as such. Of course a review is going to have a certain tendency in its opinion, else it would be more of an "analysis" than anything else. Without bias of some sort, you very well wouldn't have any form of popular literature at all. All I'm saying is that one should start off with a blank slate first, build their reasons and evidence, and then present the opinion.

I guess if I had to put it in a better perspective, I believe it's very akin to a thesis statement. You can make it say precisely what you want in plain old words - "This noun is adjective" and you can put it at the very beginning. But if you ever want a decent grade in a class involving writing, you'd almost never do that. Consequently, the thesis statement is often preceded by several statements - which are predominantly unformed in argument - building up the to it, often occurring at the end of the introduction paragraph. Personally, I think reviews are best written in such a manner (though more compact!).

[DimensionWarped]

Thesis statement? Get out of town. Writing a review is significantly different from writing a term paper.

A good review is one that simply says what a game does right, what it does wrong, and cites specifics to validate its points. The attitude and the style are simply icing on the cake.

[Andrew]

A review is never unbiased. There is always some experience or expectation behind it. Even the most neutral of neutral person in the world's personal expectations would have some type of influence on his or her opinion. Telling someone to review without bias is like telling an infant to run a triathlon.

Run a triathlon.

http://instantrimshot.com/

[Shonumi]

@DW - That's a good review in your eyes, and I'm not trying to detract from that. I still don't think you're seeing the picture I'm describing. It's perfectly acceptable for a review to get in their with the good points, bad points, elaborate, and sum it up; I too believe that makes a good review, but I'm going into further details than that (the icing if you will). What I'm talking about is how the author starts it up. It's just bad to start off within the first few sentences strongly for, against, or any other case felt towards the game. That should be left to the later parts of the review, usually a few statements into it.

I will contend to the thesis example still, only for the similarity in how it's applied. A thesis is the main argument, the basis of what all else comes thereafter. Putting it out there as the first thing a reader sees is quite simply bad writing in most cases, reviews included. The main opinion or persuasion of the author should hardly ever be the first thing the reader gets from whatever was written. It might have been alright when everyone was in 3rd grade, and a paragraph consisted of any two sentences that shared a similar idea, but for anything above that you'd have to do better, regardless of whatever it is you're creating.

I'm not saying they have to build up to some dramatic conclusion, but coming out of the gate like that isn't good journalism. The only otherwise case I can think of where this is appropriate, if not almost standard, would be editorials, or in this day and age, blogs. Those are like soapboxes. Reviews on the other hand shouldn't really be.

[DimensionWarped]

No, it's not that I don't see your "picture", it's that I think you are trying to trump up the lowest form of writing as something that requires a special mentality. Remember the big speech from the critic at the end of Ratatouille? Yeah. Thats the way it is. All it takes to succeed at reviewing is a cheap wit and a very simple, objective process. It certainly isn't a stretch to say that the worst piece of shovel-ware is better and more valuable than the absolute most amazing review.

[Cyber Rat]

Reviewing is hardly the lowest form of writing. That's like if I were to say that horror movies are the lowest form of motion picture because 90% of the people that make them can't pull them off properly.

[DimensionWarped]

Oh really? I suppose you know of a lower form of writing?

[Shonumi]

Remember the big speech from the critic at the end of Ratatouille? Yeah. Thats the way it is.

Off Topic - Eh, sorry, by the time Pixar made that movie, it seemed like every other third movie just had to be goofy 3D kids movie, so I passed. Digressing, I still get your point, by way of inference of course.

I'm not at all trying to either trump up or glorify what it takes to write a review. Yes, I am very verbose, but that's only for the matter that I believed that no one initially understood what I was trying to convey. I'm only trying to drive home the fact that any halfwise decent review doesn't come out with the end opinion as the first point to make. Hardly any piece of written work ever does (excluding the aforementioned editorials and blogs) and that's all I've really been trying to express for the past three posts. It's a simple and modest rule of thumb.

I've seen far too many reviews on sites like GameFAQs that do this, submitted by users. Granted I'd never expect anything there that would be published in a magazine, and for the most part they're sound reviews; yet the ones that break the rule more often than not are what reviews shouldn't be, and that's uninformative. I mean, it's such an easy principle to follow. If one really can't adhere to this, then I know a lot of people who would question the writing of the review in the first place. It's not at all something that requires refinement or a higher intellect, just a bit of good, common thinking.

Oh really? I suppose you know of a lower form of writing?

I believe that actually goes to commercial scripting; really, ads these days are terrible. Seen a beer, car or insurance commercial lately? Rubbish through and through.

[Cyber Rat]

Oh really? I suppose you know of a lower form of writing?

Most beverage commercials, most sitcoms, porn scripts, cheap fanfiction, tweeting... The list goes on...

There's a difference between general user reviews, which are mostly retarded, bribed commercial reviews, which are, well, 'influenced by sponsors', and honest professional reviews.

[Pheonix Gamma]

Oh really? I suppose you know of a lower form of writing?

My form of writing.

Also, there are too many reviews on the internet. You need some kind of hook now if you want people to care about yours when you're in an endless sea of people posting opinions of their own.

However, if you want the ultimate review of ShamWow, totally unbiased and totally professional, Phoenix Gamma's ShamWow photo review is the place to go and read up on both chamois and wows.