Soul Calibur 2 (GameCube)

[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/co...ulcalibur2.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/co...ulcalibur2.htm

[Balloon Fight]

7.

The author didnt do any research about the story, some spelling errors (not trying to be to nit-picky but jeez...) and that he didnt seem to know Heiachis name.
Overall it was a good review and am tempted to give it an 8.

[Balloon Fight]

7.

The author didnt do any research about the story, some spelling errors (not trying to be to nit-picky but jeez...) and that he didnt seem to know Heiachis name.
Overall it was a good review and am tempted to give it an 8.

[Flack]

7.

Needs grammar checking and focus.

[Flack]

7.

Needs grammar checking and focus.

[maxlords]

Covers everything pretty well, but the grammar and syntax...OW. Just not a good review, even if it does cover a lot of info. 6 here.

[maxlords]

Covers everything pretty well, but the grammar and syntax...OW. Just not a good review, even if it does cover a lot of info. 6 here.

[hamburgler]

7.5 of 10

Had 1 or 2 lines that didn't make sense. I do give credit for the review because it metions other things in the first soul calibar game and compares itself to the second one.

[Jorpho]

It's a shame. This review has all the elements of a great one, but oh, the rambling! It makes my head hurt!

If the extraneous info was cut out and the flow improved, this review could very well be a 10. As it is...

7/10

[zmweasel]

* The second paragraph claims that Sega "went under" after the death of the Dreamcast. Someone might wanna tell Sega that it's supposed to be out of business.

* I don't mind a conversational tone, IF the conversation is interesting, which this one isn't.

* "I don't trust the internet while shopping" is both an awkward sentence and a misplaced fear; you're in just as much danger, if not more, via everyday credit-card transactions.

* The fact that the reviewer hasn't played the original SC doesn't entirely invalidate the review, but does make it impossible for him to compare and contrast, and anyone who's interested in the changes and improvements between SC1 and SC2 will have to look elsewhere.

* Why the mention of F-Zero GX and the recommendation to purchase both? This entire sentence, with its mention of the GameCube's "list of killer apps," has a Nintendo-fanboy whiff.

* The game's ultimate weapon isn't the "Sword Blade," as the reviewer states, but that inaccuracy is followed up by a claim that "since SC2 is a fighting game, there's really no need to even pay attention to a story." True, but writing a review about a game kind of REQUIRES that you pay attention and get your facts straight.

* "I'm not big on fighting games," explains the reviewer, who also adds that the new Mortal Kombat "REALLY sucked." So... why have you chosen to review SC2, given your dislike of the fighting genre? Why not choose a genre with which you have more experience?

* The bizarre diatribe about the GameCube's D-pad ("get something else to put down") is both out of place and another indication that we're in Fanboy Land.

* The paragraph about the C-stick combos is strangely hostile toward the feature ("kind of cheap," "cheat stick," "a crutch").

* The extra characters were in the Japanese release, contrary to the reviewer's claim; they just weren't playable, as they are in the U.S. version.

* "GameCube is one of the best games for the GameCube," claims the reviewer, and I couldn't agree mo... huh?!

* More Nintendo-defending and Sony-bashing at the end of the piece. Fanboy status confirmed.

* Awful grammar throughout the review.

1/10. Not quite the "Manos: Hands of Fate" of this contest, but definitely the "Red Zone Cuba."

-- Z.

[Slipdeath]

* The second paragraph claims that Sega "went under" after the death of the Dreamcast. Someone might wanna tell Sega that it's supposed to be out of business.

* I don't mind a conversational tone, IF the conversation is interesting, which this one isn't.

* "I don't trust the internet while shopping" is both an awkward sentence and a misplaced fear; you're in just as much danger, if not more, via everyday credit-card transactions.

* The fact that the reviewer hasn't played the original SC doesn't entirely invalidate the review, but does make it impossible for him to compare and contrast, and anyone who's interested in the changes and improvements between SC1 and SC2 will have to look elsewhere.

* Why the mention of F-Zero GX and the recommendation to purchase both? This entire sentence, with its mention of the GameCube's "list of killer apps," has a Nintendo-fanboy whiff.

* The game's ultimate weapon isn't the "Sword Blade," as the reviewer states, but that inaccuracy is followed up by a claim that "since SC2 is a fighting game, there's really no need to even pay attention to a story." True, but writing a review about a game kind of REQUIRES that you pay attention and get your facts straight.

* "I'm not big on fighting games," explains the reviewer, who also adds that the new Mortal Kombat "REALLY sucked." So... why have you chosen to review SC2, given your dislike of the fighting genre? Why not choose a genre with which you have more experience?

* The bizarre diatribe about the GameCube's D-pad ("get something else to put down") is both out of place and another indication that we're in Fanboy Land.

* The paragraph about the C-stick combos is strangely hostile toward the feature ("kind of cheap," "cheat stick," "a crutch").

* The extra characters were in the Japanese release, contrary to the reviewer's claim; they just weren't playable, as they are in the U.S. version.

* "GameCube is one of the best games for the GameCube," claims the reviewer, and I couldn't agree mo... huh?!

* More Nintendo-defending and Sony-bashing at the end of the piece. Fanboy status confirmed.

* Awful grammar throughout the review.

1/10. Not quite the "Manos: Hands of Fate" of this contest, but definitely the "Red Zone Cuba."

-- Z.

man i dont think its fare some of the scores your giving out, maybe just so u can win

[zmweasel]

man i dont think its fare some of the scores your giving out, maybe just so u can win

I didn't enter the contest, as I didn't think it would be fair for me to compete.

This will be my last post in this forum, as someone in the Battlezone rightly pointed out that I've been WAAAAY too serious about a harmless group of entries in an online contest. I apologize to everyone whose feelings I've hurt with my well-meaning but ill-advised comments.

-- Z.

[Flack]

man i dont think its fare some of the scores your giving out, maybe just so u can win

I didn't enter the contest, as I didn't think it would be fair for me to compete.

This will be my last post in this forum, as someone in the Battlezone rightly pointed out that I've been WAAAAY too serious about a harmless group of entries in an online contest. I apologize to everyone whose feelings I've hurt with my well-meaning but ill-advised comments.

-- Z.

Actually, it would be much more fair if you reviewed ALL of them -- at least that way your scores will average out across the board, and not just lower the average of the ones you've reviewed so far.

[zmweasel]

Actually, it would be much more fair if you reviewed ALL of them -- at least that way your scores will average out across the board, and not just lower the average of the ones you've reviewed so far.

I've already asked for my posts to be removed and/or my scores to be disregarded, so no worries there.

-- Z.

[lendelin]

man i dont think its fare some of the scores your giving out, maybe just so u can win

I didn't enter the contest, as I didn't think it would be fair for me to compete.

This will be my last post in this forum, as someone in the Battlezone rightly pointed out that I've been WAAAAY too serious about a harmless group of entries in an online contest. I apologize to everyone whose feelings I've hurt with my well-meaning but ill-advised comments.

-- Z.

C'mon, continue your critique, and don't give in to childish (!!!) accusations like the one from slipdeath.

You do it exactly right by pointing to weaknesses of the reviews which have to be improved. That's what this is all about, it's the normal and right thing to do. Like you, I don't believe that you do anyone a favor by calling a review with obvious deficits "nice" and a good job. I think I was much stricter in my comments than you were, and a childish accusation wouldn't bother me at all. Your criticism was fair, to the point, substantially justified, and not personal at all, they were overall the best critiques given.

Slipdeath, as soon as you enter the public domain you are subject to criticism, in particular in a contest like this. This goes even for the world's most known researcher in a specific field, may it be books, articles, or panel discussions.

Noone undermines the good effort and well meant criticisms of the rviewers, it's great that they took the time to contribute; and the overall quality is impressive; but there are quality differences, and they have to be pointed out. That's part of the game. The good will and effort of the critics shouldn't be also undermined, because they take the time to read through the reviews and write comments.

Sometimes we emphasize what we don't like about a review, and the positive aspects come too short. That's why I listed in my critiques weaknesses AND strenghts; but in the end, you have reviews which deserve a 2, and reviews which deserve a 9. That's just the way it is.

[Sardius]

This will be my last post in this forum, as someone in the Battlezone rightly pointed out that I've been WAAAAY too serious about a harmless group of entries in an online contest. I apologize to everyone whose feelings I've hurt with my well-meaning but ill-advised comments.

-- Z.

Aw, that totally sucks. Sure you won't reconsider? Your posts have been (in my opinion as a silent observer to this whole little contest thing) the only critiques that were worth a damn in this whole forum. Aside from being genuinely interesting and critical (shock!), you also did a great job of pointing out the few reviews that were worth reading, which I'd think would be more helpful to the contest than anything anyone else said.

Let the whiners choke on the fact that they can't write for shit - there's plenty of other unqualified critics around to boost their egos with undeserved praise.

[o2william]

Back to the SC2 review...

"Rambling" is definitely the word that characterizes this review. I liked that the reviewer included lots of more-or-less relevant information about the game, but he (I assume it's a he) did go on a bit. Some of the sentences are awkward too. The review strikes me like a decent draft, but it still needs a good deal of pruning and reworking. I did feel, however, that the writer did a good job of describing the controls.

I do wonder why the reviewer chose to write about SC2, since he has no experience with SC1. The writer apparently knows that a comparison to the first game should have been provided. It's good that he realized this, but if you lack important knowledge about a subject, it would be wise to either do more research or switch to something different.

This review isn't "Manos" or "Red Zone Cuba." It's "The Screaming Skull" -- reasonable foundation, shaky execution. There, now MY MST3K fanboy status is confirmed.

5/10

[Ed Oscuro]

Screenshots...nicely done, pretty much.

I don't understand why a reviewer would admit to having little experience with fighters, and I was about to give some ground in saying that the lack of having played the original didn't hurt the review until I read

Character design is really good and with plenty of detail, though I question what the hell Namco was thinking when they created Voldo.

Making an interesting character, that's what!

The review still does a worthy job of covering the bases, though there are lots of errors in sentence construction such as "The analog stick on the GameCube is the best out of Xbox and PS2," or the inscrutable "If not for all 3 systems, GameCube is one of the best games on the GameCube, and is the same for the Xbox." This last sentence presents a challenge for the reader's attention and proves an obstacle for allowing the review to end in a tidy fashion.

The review does an admirable job comparing this release to the XBOX release.

Overall, this one was hurried out the door, and I'm not really sure how the "destructible environments" comment was relevant. If there was an argument that destructible environments would've been possible without detracting from that frame rate then it would've been warranted. (Nevermind that I feel environment interaction in 3D fighting games suck, and have sucked since the days when I threw pots at my enemies in Mace The Dark Ages.)

7/10. This reviewer is quite intelligent but the review really needed a polish. In good conscience I cannot vote higher.

[ArnoldRimmer83]

This will be my last post in this forum, as someone in the Battlezone rightly pointed out that I've been WAAAAY too serious about a harmless group of entries in an online contest. I apologize to everyone whose feelings I've hurt with my well-meaning but ill-advised comments.

-- Z.

Aw, that totally sucks. Sure you won't reconsider? Your posts have been (in my opinion as a silent observer to this whole little contest thing) the only critiques that were worth a damn in this whole forum. Aside from being genuinely interesting and critical (shock!), you also did a great job of pointing out the few reviews that were worth reading, which I'd think would be more helpful to the contest than anything anyone else said.

Let the whiners choke on the fact that they can't write for shit - there's plenty of other unqualified critics around to boost their egos with undeserved praise.

I second that. I've been checking this contest forum just to hear your critiques. You've made some very good points, and critisism is the only way for people to get better.