Pac-Man 2 (SNES)

[digitalpress]

Critique the critique!

Rate this review on a scale of 1-10. Please explain your score. Was the review entertaining? Informative? Well-written? All of these things should go toward your critique.

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/contest/pacman2.htm

[digitalpress]

Critique the critique!

Rate this review on a scale of 1-10. Please explain your score. Was the review entertaining? Informative? Well-written? All of these things should go toward your critique.

http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/contest/pacman2.htm

[Jorpho]

Odd. This review is admirable in its attempt to reflect the game itself: it is strange, perhaps ahead of its time, quite unlike most other reviews out there, and will likely baffle those who encounter it.

6/10

[Jorpho]

Odd. This review is admirable in its attempt to reflect the game itself: it is strange, perhaps ahead of its time, quite unlike most other reviews out there, and will likely baffle those who encounter it.

6/10

[Flack]

2.

As a feature article? 8, maybe 9. Obviously a lot of time and effort went into the whole thing. Unfortunately (one man's opinion), it's way too long and aimless to be a readable "review". I'm sure I spent more time reading that than I ever spent playing Pac-Man 2. In other words, I think it was a very well written article, but I don't think it was a good "review" per se.

[Flack]

2.

As a feature article? 8, maybe 9. Obviously a lot of time and effort went into the whole thing. Unfortunately (one man's opinion), it's way too long and aimless to be a readable "review". I'm sure I spent more time reading that than I ever spent playing Pac-Man 2. In other words, I think it was a very well written article, but I don't think it was a good "review" per se.

[sisko]

Definitely a unique style that I have never seen before.

But....where is the information? I found a few things here and there but nothing out right.

Why was the sound only a 6? Why did the graphics get an 8?

Out of 5 pages, I found only the last paragraph to be truly helpful. To much fluff, not enough substance.

Though for creativity alone, I give it points.

5/10

[sisko]

Definitely a unique style that I have never seen before.

But....where is the information? I found a few things here and there but nothing out right.

Why was the sound only a 6? Why did the graphics get an 8?

Out of 5 pages, I found only the last paragraph to be truly helpful. To much fluff, not enough substance.

Though for creativity alone, I give it points.

5/10

[Ballz]

Definitely unconventional, which is exactly the point. It's all done in the spirit of the game. I was taken aback a little with the final page at first, but then I realized all his seemingly "random" ministories about (to the Looney Tunes movie, Crank the Weasel, etc) were drawing comparison to the game itself. Pretty much if you took out the direct references to Loom or to Brendan Fraser, you can read those as talking about PacMan itself.

Consequently, that might go over a few peoples' heads, but I guess that's to be expected with an avant garde style like this. It was incredibly fun and easy to read, and yes, while I might not have much of a clue as to what Pac Man's adventures are past that first stage, I can say now I have a very clear understanding as to what the "big deal" (or the perceived lack thereof) is for this game.

But... sisko is right about not much talking about the game's sound or music (he does give good enough background for his graphics rating, I think). It's not the focus of the article, so I can only assume it simply isn't something that stood out. Sounds right for a 6 rating I guess.

My rating of the article: 8/10

[Ballz]

Definitely unconventional, which is exactly the point. It's all done in the spirit of the game. I was taken aback a little with the final page at first, but then I realized all his seemingly "random" ministories about (to the Looney Tunes movie, Crank the Weasel, etc) were drawing comparison to the game itself. Pretty much if you took out the direct references to Loom or to Brendan Fraser, you can read those as talking about PacMan itself.

Consequently, that might go over a few peoples' heads, but I guess that's to be expected with an avant garde style like this. It was incredibly fun and easy to read, and yes, while I might not have much of a clue as to what Pac Man's adventures are past that first stage, I can say now I have a very clear understanding as to what the "big deal" (or the perceived lack thereof) is for this game.

But... sisko is right about not much talking about the game's sound or music (he does give good enough background for his graphics rating, I think). It's not the focus of the article, so I can only assume it simply isn't something that stood out. Sounds right for a 6 rating I guess.

My rating of the article: 8/10

[Flack]

I would only back up my rating by saying that in writing a review, one much consider his or her audience. Again, great article, but too lofty for a videogame website IMHO.

[Flack]

I would only back up my rating by saying that in writing a review, one much consider his or her audience. Again, great article, but too lofty for a videogame website IMHO.

[ghsqb]

6/10

I really enjoyed reading that review, and I'm very interested in trying out that game.
I think its well written and an entertaining read.
I feel though that this is more of a thesis, than a game review.

As a thesis, it is terrific, but most of the effort is focuses on differentiating Pac Man 2 from every other game, and not enough time is spent giving us the goods on the game itself.

This article should be posted somewhere, I'm just not sure it should be in a review section.

[ghsqb]

6/10

I really enjoyed reading that review, and I'm very interested in trying out that game.
I think its well written and an entertaining read.
I feel though that this is more of a thesis, than a game review.

As a thesis, it is terrific, but most of the effort is focuses on differentiating Pac Man 2 from every other game, and not enough time is spent giving us the goods on the game itself.

This article should be posted somewhere, I'm just not sure it should be in a review section.

[maxlords]

5/10 This review doesn't really cover the game. It's great as an article, but it's not really a review. And it went on for FAR too long with too little info (relative to the succint sort of review we're looking for). It's a GREAT article.......but not a great review.

[maxlords]

5/10 This review doesn't really cover the game. It's great as an article, but it's not really a review. And it went on for FAR too long with too little info (relative to the succint sort of review we're looking for). It's a GREAT article.......but not a great review.

[AtariFattie]

This looks nothing like the copy of Pac Man I have. 0/10.

[AtariFattie]

This looks nothing like the copy of Pac Man I have. 0/10.

[hamburgler]

5 of 10

A very strange yet I don't get it all review.

[sisko]

This looks nothing like the copy of Pac Man I have. 0/10.

The game looks unconventional, therefore the review is bad? :hmm:

[AtariFattie]

This looks nothing like the copy of Pac Man I have. 0/10.

The game looks unconventional, therefore the review is bad? :hmm:

You're either with us, or against us.

[zmweasel]

Very well-written and illustrated. I love the concept of "reviewing" a videogame with visuals, and I vaguely recall a magazine from the early '90s (Computer Play) that experimented with screenshot/caption reviews.

It's a painfully self-indulgent article at points; the roundtable discussion and the section about doing laundry and hitting the snooze button add absolutely nothing to the piece and should've been chopped.

The lengthy digression on Crank the Weasel is interesting reading, but the attempt to relate that digression to Pac-Man 2 is unsuccessful.

Finally, I couldn't possibly disagree more with the final sentence: "And in failing to listen to what [Pac-Man 2] had to tell us, the gaming industry as a whole has failed itself, its audience, and the evolution of what I truly believe to be the future of art." I don't feel the article has come anywhere near justifying such a dramatic generalization.

8/10. Flawed but thought-provoking game criticism, much more than a simple "review."

[NoahsMyBro]

I thought this was excellent. I found only one grammar/spelling error, and I'm not even sure it's a mistake (shouldn't 'utter' really be 'udder' ?) .

The writer clearly spent a lot of time on this, and the idea to take the reader on a walkthrough of the first part of the game, rather than try to describe it from an external perspective worked well for me in this case.

There was a lot of substance not directly related to the game itself, but tied in to the review in an interesting and relevant way.

This review seemed more 'professional' than most professionally published reviews I've seen.

I give this review a 10/10, with no reservations.

-- Steve

[Flack]

I thought this was excellent. I found only one grammar/spelling error, and I'm not even sure it's a mistake (shouldn't 'utter' really be 'udder' ?)

I didn't go back and find the context, but utter is something you say, and udder is something you milk.

[Flack]

Almost forgot -- if you're in Oklahoma like me, it's also the direction you didn't go. (The "udder" way.)

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm going to go the other way and say that this review is quite far from being ahead of its time -- rather, it panders to the presuppositions many gamers have about the intent and disposition of older folks who disapprove of video games (not to mention assuming they're fine with gambling!) Setting up a straw man to attack with the counterexample of Pac-Man 2 is hardly fair when one can just as easily imagine these ladies (if you can say their "buggy" depiction leaves them looking as such) being enraged at Mortal Kombat or Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.

In that sense, this is the equivalent of Doctor Johnson kicking his rock.*

It is rather fine writing, but the combative nature of this article is insulting by nature and such a writing is hardly appropriate for a review. This would've been better suited for a stand-alone article. I'm also wondering if the names are false -- Martha Thurgood sounds suspiciously like former Supreme Court Justice Marshall Thurgood. It's unfortunate that the name choice (in the event they were, indeed, fabricated names) leaves one wondering whether or not this is a dig at other areas of society as well. If they are indeed the true names of the offenders (which information I highly doubt was available to the writer, and I'm guessing rather that this information was simply thrown out angrily and without regard for people who take issue with video games) then they should have been changed.

A couple other issues with the writing.

a.) Point totals are good. I can't say I'm ultimately worried about the lack of a dissertation on the sticky points of graphics and sound because it's obvious this was a one-off deal, that the writer knows what he's talking about, and that adding discussion about these points would accomplish much but throw the discussion further off balance. The discussion of the game's design is sorely missed however, and this ommision is reflected in my point total.

Some sentences which should've been changed:


I propose to you that
You're proposing already? How sweet.
Cut.


to borrow a worn-out old phrase

Please don't. Not only is this less than effectively phrased ("to borrow a tired cliche," throw the word "dog" in there, perhaps?) but this is ultimately not a good thing. Likewise, in trying to find a replacement for the tired forumla "ahead of [his/its/her/their] time" people have come up with other similarly tired phrases like "the world was not ready for Pac-Man 2." Still ineffective. I'd try searching out a whole different route here, and that route doubtlessly would mention the hordes who had burned the twists and turns of Pac-Man's corridors into their mind. What you are looking for is to reference this afterimage which likely turned many people off: Pac-Man just isn't the same without the same formula. Style over substance, that sort of thing. This is the lynchpin of the whole review, and it was unfortunately handled clumsily (it also gave you another chance to deride the masses, which I'm nearly but not quite shocked to see was a chance passed up on).

A gamble: banking on writing, you wrote the blasted thing at 2 AM would make me shed a single tear and lovingly disregard all the finer points of construction regardless? Wrong. I feel this review could've been polished and expanded on. It's quite good, but I feel that the condescending "all who oppose us are wrong" bandwagon appeal, along with the less-than-stellar sentence construction and lack of details as to why Pac-Man 2's gameplay was ahead of its time (ultimately needless bending of the rules) bring this one down just far enough that it should be rejected in light of reviews that actually give us an idea what the game in question is like.

9/10

Since the review decided it was okay to end on a self-serving note, I shall not restrain myself either.

* gratuitous self-award of +10 for reference to obscure illustration of a logical fallacy: Doctor Johnson, the famous novelist and social critic, kicked a rock to prove that it was truly there and thus discredit a theory in metaphysics that what we see is formed wholy in the mind and not based on reality.

I'm not going to end on a sore note, though: I almost missed the brilliance of this review the first time around. If this could be expanded on and polished--I don't care if you're not a Bill Kunkel, you can work it out and make this one of the most brilliant game reviews ever made. Unfortunately, the current formula isn't perfect. Please, PLEASE, fix it.

[SplodeBox]

The writer wrote a story. A good story but not a review. The screenshots have compelled me to try the game but I am still wondering about the gameplay experience. 7/10

[Drexel923]

I like the unique style of review, the humor, and the way the reviewer uses pictures to illustrate his/her point. However, the review at times gets a little bit lost and confusing, and there is a ton of information which doesn't really do much then just exist.

7/10

[Captain Wrong]

This isn't a review so much as a walk through. This is actually pretty entertaining, I've seen stuff like this before on websites and such. Then we get to the last page where the writer tried to make this into a review in a very obtuse manner. (What does the Looney Tunes stuff have to do with anything?) How do you score this? It's obvious that the writer put time into this and there's some good stuff here, but it misses the point of the contest entirely. Points for creativity. Points off for not being a review. Sigh, my head hurts now.

Score: 5 for entertainment value.

[Ascending Wordsmith]

I read it. I was amused, and I liked it. At times I didn't understand what I reading. Was it a review? Yes, and more. Lots of fantastic screenshots too. This is a very creative take on reviewing, but I must say that I prefer the original format.

6.5/10

[digitalpress]

Definitely one of my favorites, a 10/10.

This kind of creative writing really surpasses the expectation of a "review", and while some might argue that it's not a review at all, I can honestly say that I know more about how this game plays and whether or not I'd like it than nearly any other review in this contest. And there are bonus points aplenty for the very personal nature this piece takes on. It's talking to me.

Now I happen to own the game, hate it and completely disagree with the writer. In fact, I'd write a counter-review that states that Pac-Man 2 is nothing more than a simple point and click adventure using a slingshot instead of a big hand cursor. But I'd rather not take anything away from this truly remarkable piece. Win or not, I'm looking forward to having it as part of our collection of reviews after the contest is over.

Brilliant.

[TheRedEye]

Man, the scores here are about as schizophrenic as my review.

Thanks to all. I'm not exactly happy with this piece, but the changes I'd make wouldn't address the concerns from the low-scoring judges, so I'm sure if this came out the way I envisioned, I'd still be at around the same place.

Someday, I will revisit this. Someday.

[Captain Wrong]

For what it was, it was killer. I just didn't feel it was a review.