SGTiD1NG0's Reviews

Avatar image for SGTiD1NG0
SGTiD1NG0

1727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 SGTiD1NG0
Member since 2008 • 1727 Posts

This is my first review I ever wrote at the site, so cut me some slack. The size is over-the-top and overall the written $tyle is pretty basic. Comments, critiques and scoring on how well I reviewed the game is veyr much appreciated. In fact I very much welcome strict criticism from my reviews, please I want to make them better. :)

Haze Review 6.5/10

Haze was a game which was overhyped all too much for its own good. What gave it the hype? Was it the craze that the creators were Ubisoft? Or maybe the jealousy that Playstation hadn't had any half decent first person shooters since Resistance: Fall of Man? Calling Haze mediocre or even a piece of garbage is harsh because while Haze doesn't justify the hype it received, it still offers something original and satisfying.

Haze purposely or accidentally made the missions like a Haze. Missions are very unclear, in transition from mission to mission it's pretty clear but from a game play or objective point of view, it's not very clear at all. Objectives don't give any directions or Heads up Display at any point after completing an objective and you'll often have to explore the often large environments to trigger of the next objective.

The environments are varied often and the environments you'll often trespass upon will be in the multi player, the environments are varied and to a good degree, while the graphics aren't fantastic with neither the presentation or textures showing off. It's the point that the environments don't feel all too generic and to a point, varied.

The missions are also varied, not many missions will repeat at all within the game and while the game does at times get stale, you'll certainly appreciate that the missions have had some effort put into. One mission you could be disabling mortars and using them for your own personal gain or by murdering hundreds in a chopper with a huge Gatling Gun.

Haze reminded me alot of Halo: Combat Evolved because missions dragged on for far too long. Having said that, there is an array of environment and objective variety but the missions would start to get stale and wear thin because of the often huge environments with not much reasoning or scope behind them and the combat would never actually evolve at any point. Yes, some fights were exhillarating but the combat would start to get montonuous because set-piece battles would just get recycled and repeated. In fact it was hard to find many fights actually "fun" because they didn't implement any innovation or strategic variety and even when the plot twist diverted the game play, the stale mission formula still remained intact.

Haze promised a compelling storyline on the box art, interviews and previews yet they also told the story in those interviews and previews. I don't see how you can be compelled to a novel twisting plot which has already been identified before being played through adverts, billboards and magazines.

Haze puts you in the shoes of Shane Carpenter. None of your relatives are alive and Mantel a global corporation takes you in at a young age. As you grew up, you were trained to fight as a Mantel Soldier not knowing the true colours of Mantel until slowly as you progress through the story you see the true horror of Mantel. The bloodshed and the trust you'd placed in Mantel all those years. This gives you the opportunity to play and see through the eyes of both factions which is a great introduction into what guns or perks suit you best for the multi player portion of the game.

The twist in the middle of the single player would've have been a great shocking twist if it weren't for the spoilers. On top of that, when you kill the main characters on your Mantel side that you thought to be your friends, you don't feel much sympathy for them because while they did have some personality to them, there wasn't enough depth and insight on them to make you feel sympathetic towards them.

Haze features pretty bad AI. It's atrocious and you can even sometimes even get close enough to them stand there for a few seconds and they still won't notice you. This makes the difficulty alot easier than it should be despite still providng a reasonable challenge. The AI won't hide behind any objects or try to flush you out. Meaning that the AI isn't just below basic, it's the level of unfinished work with no care.

The core game play mechanics of Haze are clearly uninspired but at the same time they still point in the right direction. The aiming reticule is good for most weapons the movement is sub-standard and pretty much all folds together to form a relatively sparse yet entertaining game play sentiment. There are some problems with the control scheme though like most other shooters, circle is used to crouch and triangle is used to change weapon. In Haze it's vice versa, furthermore the right analogue stick is used to aim instead of melee. This is fine in a tactical game, but it doesn't seem particularly suitable in a run and gun shooter which Haze seems to define. However it's not all mish-mash, the controls themselves are quite responsive which work well with some fluid controls despite the awkward button mapping.

One fantastic part about Haze is indeed the guns. The guns achieve in both categories; balanced and satisfying. Each and every gun is incredibly well tuned. The factions different assault rifles are very well balanced coming mainly down to preference. The Mantel's Assault Rifle is more powerful but contains fewer clips in a round while the Rebel's Assault Rifle is less powerful but contains more clips in a round. The Flamethrower is a pain where even if its range isn't the best, the flames will stay on the player until they shake the controller to get rid of the flames where as the Gatling Gun is one of the most powerful guns in Haze but on the other hand it takes time to start up. The reloading schematics however, are fantastic. It's weird how something so small can form a big part. As you place the magazine into your gun, it will make a nice "cha-ching" noise forming a realistic sentiment despite the crazy diverse setting compared to Earth. Chaning fuel cap's from a flamethrower also looks and feels fantastic aswell as realistic.

Haze's core game play is definitely deriative but the touches that go along with it are nice and original. Haze features perks which are balanced, fun to use and unique. The Mantel side have Nectar which provides all there fuel and resources. Nectar when used can stop the reduction in health as fast as it does but it's very subtle. Nectar can also increase the speed of your character but it depends on how much you use. Nectar additionly has thermal vision where all enemies are seen thermally and can be seen through walls at some points. Lastly all Mantel troopers when aiming down the sight get a altitude scoping sight like a mini sniper which is great for long range encounters with all guns they pick up or start with.

The Rebels however take the more gun-point route. The best and most used part of the Rebels is the ability to play dead. That's right unlike other shooters or games for that matter, you can play dead! You can flick the L2 Trigger when you're punched or shot. Then you just have to tap X and you can quickly and hopefully silently take down the surprised foe that thought to have killed you. There are also two other advantages, the Rebels have traps like Bouncing Betties or Claymores seen on Call of Duty which have a bigger exploding range. Furthermore Rebels can also convert any ammo from a weapon and convert it into their own different weapon. The Rebel side in my opinion is better but all it really comes down to is personal preference. This can be suggested as there's a balanced number of players on each faction, usually without auto balancing on the multi player component.

Haze unlike some other shooters out there, features playable vehicles. Each faction has their different vehicles, all balanced on the battlefield and to each other. They're playable at times in the campaign and on most multi player maps. The vehicles aren't used to their direct advantage on some multi player maps because of their sometimes stricted mobility because of too many obstacles. Mantel has a clear Halo Warhog rip off. The design has clearly yet elegantly mimicked it. The Rebels feature trucks with some splats of paint on. Really, there's no difference between the two at all! All it comes down to is when you see one, get in it! This is a shame as some differences would have been nice. There's also the Quad Bike which has a slower start but when it gets moving it's faster. The vehicles are well balanced online as while there easy to handle and get one or two run-over kill streaks, their damage is limited and two magazines at the most can even destroy a Rebel Truck.

Haze does well with the graphics but nothing special which could have easily broken that extra mile. The graphics are very clean, especially character models. No presentation or texture environment is remarkable because it's sparse but while that means there are no rough edges, some character models or environments lose that clean furbish to them and rather look like PS2 graphics. Plants mainly, but on the whole the graphics are cleanly presented with nothing bad to say about them but nothing great to say at the same time. The environments are varied which also helps repetition go at ease and are easy on the eyes too. However, taking everything into consideration, I still liked the presentation in spite of the games clean furbish. Maybe I'm such a sucker for that $tyle of graphics but I have to say even some of the environments had some well done textures to them.

The lighting and shadowing surprisingly did a fairly decent job despite the rather straight lining in prefernce over having glints of sun shine instead. There were also some physics which while rather faint, were still there with bullets capable of leaving marks on walls yet unable to penetrate. There were also some shoddy animations coming from the Mantel main character's as a soldier may speak with his mouth closed or in another situation, a soldier has complete lack of secondary animations or gestures when they stand still. In fact the only bit of animation I saw from a main character were eyes moving from side to side which made the doll like faces seem even more creepy. Note that the doll like faces and shoddy animations really only came apparent to the Mantel cast rather than ordinary soldiers which assist in battle.

The sound is definitely a mixed bag. The dialogue is awful where as the sound effects are just plain brilliant. The dialogue is scripted awfully, in being at one point in the game, you'll achieve an objective in finding a crashed plane with a dieing trooper inside. He then says how he used to be a boxer. So here he is at deaths daw and he starts rambling on about being a boxer? Some sayings are funny like "go and suck some bull****" in a serious yet funny tone. The voice acting takes a turn from "gruff marine" voices to some varied voice actors with charisma. I personally preferred the cheesy and staged yet emotional array of voice acting rather than "gruff marine" but I know some had opposite feelings to mine. The brilliant part, is once more the guns. They sound fantastic! The assault rifles have differences and varied sounds where as the flamers and machine guns sound heavy and realistic to what real one's should.

Haze is listed as a four player game. So all the reviews say right? But then why is that I cannot play more than two player split screen off and online. I guess I'll just take the game packaging and reviews word for it. However, despite my experience of not being able to reach a four player option, I was viable to play only up to two players. You can play two player locally in the single player (my experience, box art states four) or four player co-op online in the single player. Haze allows up to 16 players in online matches, unranked and ranked yet I was still not viable for four player split screen but again, only two players.

Haze's best part would probably be the multi player because it's so damn fun despite all the flaws surrounding it. Haze has an unranked or ranked option. Unranked enables you to insert bots in your match and give you alot more customisable options than if you were to do ranked matches. As ranked suggests, ranked games give you points on the leader boards. You'll probably want to start off in unranked matches as you'll be more likely to face beginners and will help you to get to grips with the game. Haze does pretty well in keeping track with the leader boards, only once or twice maybe will it take tens of minutes to successfully transfer your score data. Score tracking can go from bullets fired to time spent crouching. There's a whole list of ridiculous things to sit through and see, which is a small neat touch.

There's also an auto balancing feature which can be really annoying as if you love the Rebels and are used to pressing L2 to play dead, you may overdose yourself on Nectar too much if your forced to switch sides. Auto balancing isn't a possible take off/on feature but permanent which may lead to frustration. Another annoying feature with the multi player that captivated my overall playing time was the dead online community. There were two ranked games and four or five unranked games. The only reason behind a few unranked games was that you can put bots in to supply your appetite for any occassional passers that may pop in to your game.

Haze features three game modes which are just too mundane. There is the standard free for all and team death match along with an all too complex Assault Mode. Which while it's original, it's also just too complex that you'll probably stick to the first two modes. Assault has two different objectives depending on which kind of map you choose. They aren't explained very well and even after playing several games on them, I still don't know how to play them.

Haze contains six multi player maps. There isn't alot but some are very well designed apart from the fact they need to be fleshed out a little more, the maps are still raw fun though. There's also a free DLC Pack (Previously £3.49) which provides four extra maps rather than the Playstation Store stating seven not to mention an extra "Capture and Hold" mode which is only available on selected maps. There's even another DLC Pack (still £3.49) stating seven maps but like the other maps, may contain fewer maps than told.

Haze's value is rather stale, there is literally no reason to come back to Haze because of its poor production values and rather shallow feel to it. The campaign offers some replay value through a good variety of missions and off/online co-op in the single player yet the campaign has nothing fresh, innovative or surprsing that other shooters out there have. The missions will drag on despite the shooters decent length and the game play will wear thin just before the single players end. The multi player is the most redeeming feature but again, I couldn't find myself playing it for continuous weeks or months. More or so, the poor production values and shallow feel makes everything you come to see and play here, a rental.

Pros
+ Balanced and satisfying guns.
+ Co-op play locally up to four players off/online.
+ Enjoyable and fun multiplayer.
+ Faction perks are balanced, fun to use and unique.
+ Good mission variety.

Cons
- Awful dialogue.
- Controls are misplaced.
- Core gameplay can feel flaccid and unoriginal.
- Disappointing production values.
- Graphics can feel sparse.
- Hazy and unclear mission objectives.
- Poor artificial intelligence.

Haze is a highly underappreciated shooter but it's also far from perfect and doesn't justify all the hype it received either. Haze also suffers from atrocious AI and awful dialogue along with poor production values because of it's spoiled plot twists and dead online community. Despite all of these annoyances and flaws, Haze, in spite of being a lightweighted shooter is also an original and satisfying one which if you're bored of your typical shooters and want a rentable diversion, look no further!

Avatar image for waZelda
waZelda

2956

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 118

User Lists: 0

#2 waZelda
Member since 2006 • 2956 Posts

So I read a little more than half of your review, and I think you describe the game in a very good way. Half-way through I felt like I had a good idea of the quality of the game, which made me wonder what reason I had to read the rest. The amount of information might be unnecessarily big, and you don't have the small witisisms or creative writing styIe that makes the large text endurable.

First advice: Kill your darlings. Read through each little part of the review and think to yourself "is this part really necessary. There might be parts you are very happy with, but you should still cut them out because they aren't relavant enough or very interesting for the reader.

Second advice: Try to find your own styIe. There are many good reviewers on gameSpot, and you are one of them, but if you can right it with styIe, you can take the step up and join the elite instead of being one of many.

So basically my complaints are the ones you already pointed out yourself.

Avatar image for iloveflash
iloveflash

4760

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 iloveflash
Member since 2005 • 4760 Posts

So I read a little more than half of your review, and I think you describe the game in a very good way. Half-way through I felt like I had a good idea of the quality of the game, which made me wonder what reason I had to read the rest. The amount of information might be unnecessarily big, and you don't have the small witisisms or creative writing styIe that makes the large text endurable.

First advice: Kill your darlings. Read through each little part of the review and think to yourself "is this part really necessary. There might be parts you are very happy with, but you should still cut them out because they aren't relavant enough or very interesting for the reader.

Second advice: Try to find your own styIe. There are many good reviewers on gameSpot, and you are one of them, but if you can right it with styIe, you can take the step up and join the elite instead of being one of many.

So basically my complaints are the ones you already pointed out yourself.

waZelda

...Okay, can you quit stealing all my comments?

Wa Zelda said.

Avatar image for SGTiD1NG0
SGTiD1NG0

1727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 SGTiD1NG0
Member since 2008 • 1727 Posts
Thanks for the feedback WaZelda, I'm going to compress it soon and see if you think it's improved or not :)
Avatar image for honkyjoe
honkyjoe

5907

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 61

User Lists: 0

#5 honkyjoe
Member since 2005 • 5907 Posts

Wow...eyes bleed:P

Lots of information...is this a good thing overall? I would say yes and no. The point of a review is to let people know if the game is worth playing or not. A good reviewer throws key information out their and lets the reader create an opinion that is based on what you wrote.

What I'm trying to get across by this is: stick to the main flaws or achievements of the game and focus less on minor abnormalities. So, if I were you, I would shorten it to about half of its current size and really try getting the main ideas down in smooth prose. A REALLY long review with blocky language and irrelevent details is usually worse than a shorter review with good flowing language and less for the reader to muddle through.

Good job though :)

Avatar image for Foolz3h
Foolz3h

23739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#6 Foolz3h
Member since 2006 • 23739 Posts

Anyway I didn't really mind the over abundance of information. I don't like that styIe, but a lot of others do. That said, there was a bit of repetition which made it a bit uneven. You had two summaries, and two sectiomns on graphics for example. Beyond that good stuff, though. :)

[QUOTE="waZelda"]

So I read a little more than half of your review, and I think you describe the game in a very good way. Half-way through I felt like I had a good idea of the quality of the game, which made me wonder what reason I had to read the rest. The amount of information might be unnecessarily big, and you don't have the small witisisms or creative writing styIe that makes the large text endurable.

First advice: Kill your darlings. Read through each little part of the review and think to yourself "is this part really necessary. There might be parts you are very happy with, but you should still cut them out because they aren't relavant enough or very interesting for the reader.

Second advice: Try to find your own styIe. There are many good reviewers on gameSpot, and you are one of them, but if you can right it with styIe, you can take the step up and join the elite instead of being one of many.

So basically my complaints are the ones you already pointed out yourself.

iloveflash

...Okay, can you quit stealing all my comments?

Wa Zelda said.

What happened to never reading reviews without spoilers? :P

Avatar image for SGTiD1NG0
SGTiD1NG0

1727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 SGTiD1NG0
Member since 2008 • 1727 Posts

This is just an experimental review. I went for a more "journalistic" attempt. This isn't a final piece but rather, a quick draft just to see how you guys thought of this compared to my first attempt. Rate and comment. Thanks guys. :)

Haze Review

Usually, I associate the term "could've been", alongside a piece of media which held prospering potential but having said that, one with untapped potential. Haze is no exception. And so you can imagine not just my disappointment but everyone else's to see all that potential get washed away, especially under the surveillance of Free Radical.

It's an absolute shame to see Haze turn out like this for when you look at Free Radical's past projects for example. From the likes of Timesplitters 2, 3 and so forth - they were all fantastic, but it's when you look at Free Radical's final project... Haze, that you wish Free Radical would just pack their bags and get the hell outta' here. It feels like a final last-minute crisis to get one, two more final pay checks for the developers. And it's insulting for us; insulting, that we should have to be paying to play this, because we all know Free Radical were better than this.

It just gets rapped up under completely run-of-the-mill gameplay. Ok, maybe not "completely", but after the first five minutes from shooting several soldiers in another hallway, you'd think I'd be telling the truth. Wouldn't you? Because that's basically it - save for one or two (cool) gimmicks, Haze is pretty generic stuff.

At least the premise starts out strong enough. You play as Shane Carpenter, a trooper of the Mantel Corporation, who like the rest of his team is thwarted by propaganda. The main anecdote of this is Nectar, a mentally, physically enhancing drug that keeps the trooper focused and consistent, but most of all, true to Mantel. Only is it when Shane stops using Nectar does he see the true colours of Mantel – the lies and the bloodshed of the trust that he placed in Mantel for all that time.

Sound familiar? That's because it is. In fact, most of the shooting mechanics are pretty flaccid and unoriginal but they're able to carve a niche thanks to the balanced, satisfying guns present, as well as some distinct, original perks that are also available. Mantel's perk (most obviously Nectar) enhances your physical attributes where as the opposite faction - the Rebels in particular, are more distinct with the ability to play-dead for example. Oh, and you can also drive vehicles.

The environmental and objective variety is also welcomed, and while all locations are fictional, they're all believable, and are rarely moulded into your typical stereotype Afghanistan setting. A plethora of mission variety is also implemented of which is to save the combat from getting more monotonous than it already was. This ranges from driving your derived Halo Warhog to bombarding the beaches of Rebels with mortars (both parts of which are incredibly satisfying by the way.)

But that's as far as Haze's originality goes. The shooting is functional, if also tight and responsive, as is a testament to some finely placed, tuned button placements, but even they are a bit off at parts. Though, what's most grating are the missions, and how horribly they are designed. The level design is often disjointed, as in one instance a part may fail to connect to another as seamlessly as it could've done. And the lack of directional radar only furthers this often bafflement of confusion.

The combat too, honestly isn't half as be wielding as it should've been. This is no thanks to the atrocious AI already implemented. As if standing still wasn't bad enough, the enemies will half-heartedly just let you walk right past them. Having said that, the AI will genuinely try to kill off any bots that may be present, but then again, that just makes your presence feel that much more diminishing.

It does however help that the single player can be played via co-op – offline and online for up to four players. Even the multiplayer itself can be played online with friends which partly compensates for the weak online community. The multiplayer though, just doesn't fair up to as you might expect from other higher-tier multiplayer games. There are no ranks or rewards and though there are after-match allocades they aren't permanent and the only form of competitive comparisons is within the form of dull leader-boards. Ok, I admit, the multiplayer was fun but only because the AI were absolute "noobs" and you could simply rank up your leader board headshots on the leader boards.

Given Haze's domain as a Playstation exclusive, the visuals simply don't do the system justice. While sometimes, the environments can be very well detailed in spots, the overall streak feels bland and effortless in terms of production values, and the fact that the character models resemble the look and feel of Barbie dolls doesn't help either. The dialogue too is goofy and horrible and the voice acting is incredibly cheesy, if lively. The sound effects however, are just plain brilliant as they're just as fun to shoot as they do sound. This is only complemented by a fitting, if unoriginal soundtrack.

Haze is simply not the game it was billed up to be. It's a game with untapped potential, and one with many careless flaws. The premise, though capable, could've made better use of itself, and the gameplay is often unoriginally crafted as it's coupled with some atrocious AI and at that, poorly designed levels.  But that's not to say Haze is actually a bad game, because it isn't. It just doesn't deliver the sweeping hype behind it and for what Free Radical's projects were otherwise renowned for – top cla$$ shooters. It feels ripped, and at that, copy and pasted out of your ol' Timesplitter's Playstation 2 Game. That's absolutely fine, but this is on the Playstation 3, and not the other way round. And as bold as this statement may sound, Free Radical have ended their last and final project in an almost fantastic attempt at mediocrity.

Avatar image for Aberinkulas
Aberinkulas

1139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#8 Aberinkulas
Member since 2008 • 1139 Posts

Alright okay.

1) You did good cutting down the size and the sheer amount of topics the first review went over. I agreed with the others - a lot of that was a bit too much. The second one was better.

2) Yet you still feel like you have to adhere to the formula. In this case I think the formula did work in a certain level, because the review was largely negative, but you still didn't need to stick to it so closely.

Look at the structure:

Introduction (which takes forever, honestly)

Gameplay

Story

Gameplay (x 3)

Visuals + some sound

Conclusion

Now, the issue I have is not that you convered all of your bases and went over the review in question, it's just that all you ever said was a description of said topic and offered an opinion (the gameplay is lame etc etc here's why) but you never said why any of these points matter.

I hate to use myself as an example, but I will because I'm an idiot.also, because I know exactly why I did what i did in my reviews,because I wrote them.

Here's the basic structure of my topics: (this is an outline I mentally plan before every review)

Introduction (two sentences, by the way, including a very generic thesis statement that doesn't waste time)

Theisis statement: Metal Gear Solid is beyond my comprehension, and I respect and enjoy that (Gimmick to get people to read: I will not review this game)

Point one: it's dated

-It's over ten years old

-Why this matters to me as a technology geek and why I thought it was cool

-what effect the age has on the game itself - presentation, notably, and a comparison to the N64 that I grew up with

Then I tie the above points back into the original first point and explain why this matters, only because I was gone for so long.

Point two: I don't understand this game.

-why this baffles me on a level that I cannot imagine

-why I like being baffled, and why it is or isn't a good thing

Point three: I cannot describe the game's defining emotion coherently

-Use examples to define the concept of "defining emotion" (It's basically metacognition, but hell, this a game review, not a psych discussion

-how Solid makes me think when I try and solve it

-why this makes Solid worth considering

Conclusion (one sentence)

So.

Now not all good reviews have to be able to say something like this - there are certainly reviewers who can get away with this and still be entertaining or informative. However, I don't feel your review was saying anything - it was just going through the motions, and your final judgment is what? The game is not good. It was a disappointment. I'm sorry to say this, but that's not very much to say at all. You backed this point up fairly well, but I don't feel like I've imparted any useful information that your score couldn't have offered. Harsh but true.

(PS. You'll notice that I picked my points so that I'd touch on most of the topics - Gameplay, Story, Sound, Value, etc. - I thought were important, and anything else wasn't mentioned (I didn't dwell on the graphics for more than a sentence, and even then it was a secondary idea). I also rarely explicitly pointed out that I was talking about, say Gameplay, and usually talked about the game as a cohesive whole rather than picking out the ham and cheese and eating them separately.)

I'll just point this out: you just stated something on the soundtrack at the very end. You sounded like you were typing this because you had to, because every game review goes over the sound. YOU DO NOT NEED TO PUT POINTS LIKE THESE IN YOUR REVIEW. Now I'll take that one step further and say that you shouldn't put anything in your review unless you know what you're saying, why you're saying it, and where it belongs in your thesis statement. Give me reasons why I could care, because if you think of every part in your review as something that is dispute, your review will be filled with only the most important material.

3) Your informal speech was okay, but you need to stop using the words "Okay." Especially when you'd throw in something like, "Okay, I admit," which throws off the structure of your ideas so badly that I feel like taking a piece of paper, writing them down and strangling them.

Does it help your cause? No? Then get rid of it. The internet is fighting for attention and the more barriers you have between your opinion and the reader the less of a change you'll make an impact.

4) Your writing sty1e is very good. Aside from number 3, I liked the way you described many parts of the game.

 ---

Well, I hope that helps. It felt good to just splurge that onto the screen.

Avatar image for Foolz3h
Foolz3h

23739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#9 Foolz3h
Member since 2006 • 23739 Posts

Well I can't remember the first review too well, but the edited version was pretty solid. From what I remember about the first one I think I liked it more, though. Despite being more concise it did feel like you were trying to relay the same information, but couldn't get it all out successfully due to deliberately toning down the length of the review. I seem to remember your discussion of the VA and sound in the last review being very interesting, and things like that were lacking a bit in this one.

Nevertheless this is coming from a terrible memory so don't take too much not of that! It's still solid work.

Avatar image for SGTiD1NG0
SGTiD1NG0

1727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 SGTiD1NG0
Member since 2008 • 1727 Posts

Response to Aberinkulas critique -

Thanks Aber, you don't know how much of a help you really are. Really, I can take anything. You can call it crap, whatever, I really don't mind. The whole point of this was to get some feedback, whether I was to tweak it or start from the ground up again. It's to finally find a writing $tyle that suits me. I simply hate people who just call it a nice review without at least giving it some analytic feeback.

I agree I went through a motion of describing all elements that a structured review uses, too structured in fact. And I admit I just chucked the soundtrack on just for the sake of it. I'll also bear in mind to not to use "ok." I mean at first I thought it mixed in quite well with my $tyle but at least now I know it ruins the flow.

Really that was some huge help there Aber,  I'll write up a third draft sometime (don't know when) and see how that improves. 

But generally do you think the writing $tyle works or do you think I should try another?

Response to Foolz3h critique -

Thanks, like I said above, some of it does seem like it was thrown on just for just the sake of it. Something I'll definitely change next time round.

So overall (from what you remember) do you think that review was better or worse than my last review?

Avatar image for Aberinkulas
Aberinkulas

1139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#11 Aberinkulas
Member since 2008 • 1139 Posts
Like I said, the writing sty1e of the piece was conversational, which works for the tone your trying to convey. You wouldn't want to come over too condecending or fancy in this review because, at the end of the day, the point of your review is, "Don't buy this game."