jpj wrote:if you read icycalm's pink sweets review, it's actually not bad. it's pretty long, and the intro has a lot of background info that assumes you're interested in cave, raizing and yagawa history. but through it all you get a good overall impression of the game. simple stuff like the number of characters, stages, music, graphics, difficulty curve, and then quite a lot of gameplay information to boot, etc.
i'm not saying he's a master of the game, but he understands the concepts and execution, and explained it from the beginning
If I had been a master at Pink Sweets my review of it would have been similar to Simon's review of Shiki III. The fact that it wasn't is a
failing on my part, do you understand? This is what ignorant reviewers do: they yap on and on about shit like graphics and music because they have nothing else to talk about and they have to somehow fill the space.
But I had to review the game because no one else would. And I ask you, then, where are the masters when you need them? Why don't the masters sit down for an hour and write a decent review of these games, and put them up on a site so that others can read them, and help spread around the knowledge of how awesome these games are to the rest of the internet?
You are whining here that Icarus didn't talk about the gfx or some shit, instead of thanking him for writing the only review of this game on the internet. If I hadn't pressed him to write it, and if he hadn't allowed himself to be persuaded, you'd have nothing to read right now. All you would have had would be the comments of some fucktards on the internet bitching about the polygon count, or comments like
"I'm of belief that the series has gotten worse with each release, but I know I'm in the minority. It's decent. But that's about the "best" thing I can really say about the game since I didn't find it very enjoyable.", which are perfectly worthless comments because they don't bother to explain anything:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.ph ... stcount=32
When I was discussing the review with Icarus we had this PM exchange which might perhaps help clear up a thing or two for you:
Icarus wrote:Might be a little boring to read, though, since I tend to get technical in discussions nowadays. I've also skipped talking about the basics (Shot, Shikigami Attack etc), graphics, sound etc and instead opted to discuss the gameplay systems of the trilogy, since the gameplay of the trilogy is the main draw for those who may be interested in the series as a whole.
icycalm wrote:This is the way to review these games anyway. When you review number 3 you should have already reviewed number 1, in which review you should have already explained the basics, so when 3 comes along all you have to do is link the first review for those who need to catch up. This is how I want to deal with all game series on my site, though being alone it's kinda hard at times...
Ghegs wrote:jpj wrote:what's wrong with wanting to know about the aesthetics and style? is it too "basic"...
...to have the odd sentence like "there are X number players, Y numbers of stages, and a practice mode"? is the music good?
Nothing wrong with it. Port's advantages/disadvantages over the arcade original are always valuable info as well.
First off, a reviewer should never talk about the number of stages in a game except if it's absolutely vital to making a very important point. All reviews "spoil" the game for the player in some way, but the less you spoil it the better.
Second, that review is a review of the arcade game. It says "Type X" on the sidebar under the "Hardware" heading. So no talk about extra modes or whatever. Eventually, you'll be able to click on the "PC", "Xbox 360" and "Wii" on the sidebar and those will be links to one-paragraph reviews of the ports, much like the reviews of After Burner II, Alien Storm, Dai Makaimura, etc. on this page:
http://insomnia.ac/archive/games/megadrive/
Unfortunately this is work that takes time, and even more so because all the site's expenses are coming out of my pocket. If I had IGN's budget I would have flown Icarus to Tokyo on the day of Shiki 3's release, and let him review it over a period of two-three weeks, all expenses paid. But we do what we can.
I'll say one last thing because I've already said too much, and also because I realize most of what I say is falling on deaf ears.
Check out Roger Ebert's movie reviews:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/
Ebert was the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for criticism. And he hardly ever talks about things like cinematography, acting, sound, lighting, editing, etc. etc. The most important aspect of a movie is it's plot (this was explained by Aristotle two thousand years ago, if anyone wants to contest it), so all of his reviews focus on the plot. He does sometimes mention secondary aspects of the movie, but only when those aspects have a very important effect. That is to say, only when they are exceedingly great, or exceedingly bad. Usually, he doesn't even bother mentioning them.
So, jpj. We have two choices here. We can either follow the Pulitzer-prize-winning critic's example, or YOUR example.
'nough said, I think.
if you 'couldn't care less' it would be a bit of shame
(which is cool with me, actually) i actually like everything icarus wrote, and wanted it to be longer
how "ignorant" are you? which of the shooters you've reviewed have you "mastered"? none? oh dear. and i wonder how many of your reviews talk about "gfx and some shit"? you end up implying your reviews are only worth anything by de facto 
