• 23Dec 09

  Review Writing Phrases that Get My Goat! (Part 2)

  See Part 1 here

  As a fervent reader (and writer) of video-game reviews, I can't help but see certain patterns emerging in this (admittedly) developing art. Professional journalists are not immune to criticism (as anyone who's ever visited an author's blog might attest), so I've added them into the mix and you'll see that in one case, they are the worst offenders of all!

  Sites that do not allow reader review submissions seem incomplete to me, as if they encourage a seperation of opinion between industry and consumer. This is a micro cla$$ system that I feel is bad for all interested in games and game-reporting. I hope to read and write about games decades into the future - even when cybernetic simulants play and opinionate onour behalf.

  So, never take these three items as discouragement (I know you've all got thicker skins than that anyhow), but more as a (hopefully) humorous poke at one of my favourite areas in game reporting. Here are three more phrases that cheese me off:

  ---

  "And now, on to the review"

  What does it mean? That we, the readers, are going to see a review.

  Where do I see it? Again, reader reviews are the main culprit here. In the same category as the "Click to read on…" remarks, this statement is a revelation to those who need to know precisely when the review will start. Here, the authors are doing a thankless and redundant service – introducing the content already requested by the reader, and already clearly categorised and sorted by webmasters.

  

  And now, on to the next item…

  ---

  
  

  0.0/10.0

  What does it mean? A numerical score representing the worth of a game, also 0%, 0/100

  Where do I see it? Alarmingly, we apparently flooded with games that have zero artistic-merit. It is hard to imagine any piece of art (or craft as the detractors might say of video games) that does not even have a single, solitary pixel of worthiness. A game that has no score at all is not a game at all: it is akin to a black hole. Placing the disc into your console or PC gives zero pleasure; it is like putting nothing in – a blank DVD holds as much entertainment value. I understand that paying money for a game that is devastatingly disappointing causes anger and frustration, but an exaggeration of any score causes distortion in the games' final standings around the network. Why, even the notorious 'worst game ever created' has a meta-score infinitely higher than 0.

  

  Your missing game play, replay ability, sound and more importantly time are inside here

  ---

  "Flaws"

  What does it mean? Flaws, fault, defect, failing, blemish, imperfection, shortcoming, deficiency, inadequacy, weakness, limitation…

  Where do I see it? Nine-out-of-ten reviews that I read use this term. In its own right, it is a valid word to describe something just shy of perfect (a flawed diamond, for example), but to apply it to gaping shortcomings is like calling the Hindenburgs final approach "tricky".

  Another web search including the term "flaws" at the sister-site GameFAQs reveals 6410 results, while searching with the equally valid word "faults" at the same site yields a mere 894 results. This means that the term "flaw" is used 700% more than "faults". Does this term have the making of a buzz word? Just as the (insult?) "Fanboy" has become?

  

  A flaw in the airship design

  See Part 1 here

  • Posted Dec 23, 2009 4:25 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 18 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 22Dec 09

  Review Writing Phrases that Get My Goat! (Part1)

  As a fervent reader (and writer) of video-game reviews, I can't help but see certain patterns emerging in this (admittedly) developing art. Professional journalists are not immune to criticism (as anyone who's ever visited an author's blog might attest), so I've added them into the mix and you'll see that in one case, they are the worst offenders of all!

  Sites that do not allow reader review submissions seem incomplete to me, as if they encourage a seperation of opinion between industry and consumer. This is a micro class-system that I feel is bad for all interested in games and game-reporting. I hope to read and write about games decades into the future - even when cybernetic simulants play and opinionate onour behalf.

  So, never take these three items as discouragement (I know you've all got thicker skins than that anyhow), but more as a (hopefully) humorous poke at one of my favourite areas in game reporting. Here are three phrases that cheese me off:

  ---

  "Titular"

  What does it mean? Supposed, so-called, in name only

  What doesn't it mean? Actual, literal. Definitely nothing to do with mammary glands.

  Where do I see it? A staggering amount of professional reviews I come across sneak this into the first or second paragraph. Take this for example – a quick, lazy search yields many results at a competitor's entertainment site. I'm all for expanding ones vocabulary, but make sure you keep the expansion going! Besides, the phrase "-of the title" seems less stuffy and equally descriptive to this reader.

  

  Friday the 13th is set on the titular Friday.

  ---

  "IMO" or "IMHO"

  What does it mean? Not all that much

  Where do I see it? Mainly in reader reviews. This contracted and redundant acronym has snuck into common use across the forums and 'boards everywhere. But, this is where it should stay, for not only is it a tautology but it reeks of laziness and what I suspect to be an expression borne of obligation. When posting a message, dropping IMO in somewhere is a pre-emptory diffusion of potential lash back from fellow users. How many times have you yourself read something akin to: "…But this is your opinion, not FACT". Well of course it is – we're not authoring an encyclopaedia here…

  

  Warning: Weak opinions for next 5 Miles.

  ---

  "Click to find out!" | "Keep Reading to See!"

  What does it mean? Possible insecurity by the author

  Where do I see it? Only in reader reviews. A leading sentence is a great tool for generating interest in the reader. However, these kinds of phrases work better as question, not statements. The problem with "Keep Reading to See!"-statements is that they give no new information, they state the obvious, and they have an quasi advertisement-like subtext to them. Has anyone ever approached a review, wanted to read more of it, and never figured out how to access the rest of the text? If so, they would surely be in the minority, and a small, instructional phrase may be the least of help they need…

  

  Read my review and I'll post you one!

  ---

  Items 4, 5 & 6 to follow soon...

  • Posted Dec 22, 2009 9:31 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 50 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 10Sep 09

  MMOs and Soap-operas.

  MMOs are the soap-operas of video gaming.

  ---

  They have:

  • Millions of viewers (users)

  2.8 million viewers regularly tune in to Days of Our Lives [source], while World of Warcraft boasts an unreal count of over 10 million registered users! [source]

  • Weak story-writing

  Excerpt from Days of Our Lives:
  Sami: Brandon loves me!
  Lucas: He's in love with your cleavage.

  Excerpt from World of Warcraft:

  (Coming soon...)
  

  • An endless, drawn-out plot
  • A heavy reliance on in-game advertising
  • Broad character claśśes/characteriations
  • Loyal, (fanatic?) audiences
  • No end
  • Posted Sep 10, 2009 10:48 pm PT
  • 3 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »