The "Mark Asher Article System" in action... sorta

[Aszurom]

So, inspired by the "Articles should be readable" thread that Mark started, I got to thinking about how his suggestion could be pressed into service.

Rather than dealing with the standard preview/review format for articles that involves a big hunk of text and a smattering of screenshots, this is what I came up with. It's still a work in progress - so I definitely want suggestions. The review is essentially the same as the preview, except with about twice as many rows in each table, since I'm actually looking at the finished game at that point. I didn't feel right leaving stuff like "Replayablity" speculation and other such stuff on the list since it's not a review.

Anyway, here's the bastard child of Mark's suggestions and my wasted Sunday afternoon:

http://www.coregamer.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=5

[Aszurom]

270 reads and NOBODY can offer me anything constructive? Hrm... I guess it must be the holy grail of formats then. I'm gonna copyright the layout so when Gamespot and everybody else switch to the "Asher'om" method, I can sue 'em blind.

Seriously though... any suggestions for stuff that would make a more complete preview piece, or a way to make the layout more "readable"? I'm trying to establish a standard that I'll have to live with for a while here.

Gosh, around here you usually don't have to beg for a beating.

[Machfive]

The review is essentially the same as the preview, except with about twice as many rows in each table, since I'm actually looking at the finished game at that point.

I'm not quite understanding what this preview/review system is. Are you saying that you basically wrote a fully detailed review, and then snipped out the spoilerish material and criticisms, leaving you with a preview?

Can you elaborate about what exactly you're trying to achieve here, so we don't have to go read and entire other thread?

[chet]

Most.Unreadable.Site.Ever

Serious question, are you color blind?

Chet

[Jobe]

I see the visual scheme as a ripoff of Penny Arcade. I guess that was done to attract people, but it has the opposite effect on me, so I'm not even likely to read the material, much less give constructive criticism of it. A Penny Arcade-wannabe would probably have a Penny Arcade-wannabe perspective, and the actual one is bad enough. Picture in Multiplicity when they made one too many copies, but here Michael Keaton is borderline retarded in the first place (that's a PA insult, not your site).

[Sean Tudor]

Most.Unreadable.Site.Ever

Serious question, are you color blind?

Chet

I didn't mind the color scheme although the dark blue is probably a bit too dark.

Anyone have any better choice for colors ?

[quatoria]

Oh, dear god. I couldn't bear to look at that scheme for more than five seconds. My first reaction was, literally, "Augh, christ, alt-F4."Also, I sort of blinked and then rubbed my eyes to get the afterimage of all that fucking orange out of them, when I had shut the window. Still, I'm sure I'm not exactly the maven of hip and stylish color choice, since my site is grey, darker grey, really dark grey, black, and white.

[Mark Asher]

You used too many words.

[Dave Long]

It says "PREVIEW" but it reads like a review with all sorts of criticism. That's not a preview, that's a review.

--Dave

[mouselock]

It says "PREVIEW" but it reads like a review with all sorts of criticism. That's not a preview, that's a review.

--Dave

It's a pretty concise, preview-type look if you just read the stuff on the blue backgrounds.

Not sure if that's the effect that was being shot for, however. The net effect if you try to read everything is pretty disjoint in my opinion. And while the color scheme doesn't strike me as being horrible like others, the blue/blue/blue scheme is a bit tough to read. Need higher contrast text on those blue stripe backgrounds at the very least.

[Aszurom]

Well, I have to admit that the PA color scheme was the inspiration for the colors I chose. Not because I wanted to be "like PA", because they're a rant married to a cartoon, and I'm not. I just like the blue with orange trim. However, looking at the tables in the article, yeah, I don't like the blue in there. It works for a frame for the page, but definitely not in-content though.

That being said, the site is set up so I can have user-selectable themes if you don't like the default. I don't have the others available on the site just yet, but they're about 1/2 done. I'm still stomping bugs in the first one.

(PS - if the PA comparision is furthered by my pic up in the corner - well, I drew that myself, and it's a self portrait. Wacom pads rule!)

But - point taken, it's kinda loud - and the blue tables in the article are ass.

Machfive - I'm saying that the preview and review are going to be similarly structured as far as page layout goes. The preview, however, will lack judgemental stuff that is expected to be in a review. For this reason, I built the review template first, then removed sections I felt weren't suitable to a preview. To me a review is 50/50 fact and opinion. A preview is much more heavily a statement of features and light on passing judgement upon them. However, if I preview something and it's an obvious bomb or gift from the heavens, I'll probably have to hint at that.

Dave & Mark - You are correct sir. And that falls in with Mark too, saying "too many words". I'm going to trim a lot. I looked at it right after I wrote it and thought - "hrm... pre-review almost" but decided to ask for layout commentary anyway since the content itself is secondary to that. However it does bring up that second point... what DO you cover in a preview? Where's the line for preview opinon? There should be some opinion involved, I'd think, but more emphasis on features. Hrm... this could be a second thread - and I might do that.

Any suggestions for alternate color schemes? Anything with a black background is right out. I'm tired of sites with light-on-dark schemes.

[ps - I'm currently fiddling with the scheme, so this may change from what people have already said if you're late to the party. The eyeball busting blue/blue tables are gone already]

[Matthew Gallant]

The orange needs to be toned way down, it's glowing.

[Doug Erickson]

I like having the specs of the author's machine in the review.

Also, Warlords 4 is a blast - played it all weekend at the 'rents. That said, my laptop is seriously glitching on the graphic effects -- is there any way to scale the effects down, as indicated in the review? My laptop is a 2.66 P4-M with a Radeon 7000 Mobility (integrated solution, it's actually the Radeon I345). I don't have ANY problem with Shadow Magic's alpha effects and I can run the game with everything on, but in W4, the alpha effects are all screwed up -- I can see the boxes that outline the effects, and they flicker in and out. It'd be nice to fix this.

[Aszurom]

Ok, I did some heavy editing of the text. Chopped 99% of the opinionary items. How's that now?

I'll retain the "author's PC specs" for actual reviews - but for preview purposes I thought it was less important, so it got dumped.

Doug - try turning off "detailed animations" in the options. I'm not sure if this is merely combat animations or also effects the on-map effects, but that should cure you.

Matt - the orange glows... but does it hum? It's has to glow AND hum or I didn't make it orange enough. Ok, point taken.

Also - the table colors are WAY toned down now. Actually readable maybe.

[Alan Au]

Presentation values aside, it really is more readable than most of the stuff available these days. I'm not remembering the original "Mark Asher Article System" thread though... Linky?

- Alan

[Aszurom]

http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6267

It kinda derailed after a while - as do all threads - but I kept re-reading the initial statement and thinking "yeah... preach it brother."

Then I decided to blind everyone with my vibrating orange color scheme. I'm fixing that at this very moment though.

Anybody got ideas for a more appealing color scheme, yet not looking like every other site out there? I'm kinda liking the colors I have in the tables now, actually... with a little color accent on the page.

[Machfive]

I think the orange is emitting gamma rays. Turn the saturation down on it 15%.

Add about 5% more green to the lighter blue background color.

And since you're going for an orange and blue color scheme, consider using desaturated orange and blue for the alternating table background colors. May I suggest #FFCC99 and #CCE5FF?

[Mark Asher]

Hey, much improved.

Why is multiplayer put ahead of single-player?

You probably don't need Presentation and Interface and Technical in a preview. It's not that the information isn't valuable, but I don't want to read about presentation and interface and technical specs unless they stand out in some way -- either good or bad. By all means, tell me about the interface if it's horrendous or stupendous, but I don't need a description otherwise. Same with the presentation, which I can judge for myself from the included screenshots. The specs might change, but if you want to keep them, move them to the end.

In fact, if you think that Presentation and Interface are important, why not take advantage of hyperlinks? Don't clutter up the main body of the preview with that information, but turn them into sidebars of sorts and link to them from the main body and let the reader choose to read them or not.

Really, I don't see many pieces of writing on the web that take advantage of hyperlinking. You can write 1200 words about a game but all I need to see is the 300 word summary. Hyperlink to the rest.

You also need some white space between some of your tables and the text that follows. And those small boxes on the sides of the article make the page look really busy.

[Jason McCullough]

Love it (except the colors, but that's fixable); if only all previews could read like that.

[Aszurom]

Yeah, about the boxes on the sides... once the theme is toned down (and man, it's WAY down... puts me to sleep now) the boxes might not be so intrusive. However, I've got the option to turn off the ones on the right side. I had 'em off before, but wanted to get the article list somewhere. Hrm...

I'm still tweaking the format, so the tech stuff may go.

Hey, speaking of screenshots... it's not readily apparent that the top screenshot goes to the index, and the rest go to the specific screenshot - and I'm looking at how to fix that asthetically - but once you were looking at the screenshots, did it make sense that you could browse a page at a time by clicking the "index" button at the top?

[quatoria]

MUCH more readable now, although, I still really hate the choice of blue and orange as a color theme. Then again, I hated it in Penny Arcade, too. In any case, the orange no longer singes my retinas. Good work!

[Jason McCullough]

Hey, speaking of screenshots... it's not readily apparent that the top screenshot goes to the index, and the rest go to the specific screenshot - and I'm looking at how to fix that asthetically - but once you were looking at the screenshots, did it make sense that you could browse a page at a time by clicking the "index" button at the top?

Nope. Try an up arrow.

[Angie Gallant]

Site still destroys my eyes. Bleeding.

[Aszurom]

Try it now... no more bleeding eyes. Might be a little flat though, so I'm still working on the colors. But, consider it "Coregamer ICE" - hey I could charge a membership fee like Gamespot to not have bleeding eyes!

Oh yeah - the original "review template" test that I started out with before trimming to "preview mode" is here:

http://www.coregamer.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=3

[quatoria]

Still too much orange.

[Aszurom]

Quatoria: Still too much orange

Orange? What orange?

So far as I can see, the only orange on the whole site now is the word "Coregamer" in the upper corner and the "vote" button on the poll block. Are you not seeing the sand and grey theme?

[quatoria]

Right, like I said, still too much orange.

[Aszurom]

Well, Q, our opinions diverge at that point then.

Anyway, I got rid of the "too busy" menus on the right side also.

[Angie Gallant]

It's readable now. I can see where you are going with that review format, but it's not something I would choose to do, or seek out to read. Breaking up your writing with lists just isn't something I can get into. Maybe lists at the end, but that's just my preference.

[Kool Moe Dee]

I think the trick is combining a clearer style (i.e. use of lists to cut out all the word padding when talking about features) with enough descriptive meat so it doesn't look like...a feature list copied from the back of the box.

Perhaps something like gameplay examples or an account of a multiplayer session might help to flesh things out?

[quatoria]

Also, less orange.

[Aszurom]

http://www.proverbdesign.com/images/orange.jpg
Eat Me

Anyway, I had more text before - Asher said trim it down to fit with his vision. Since he's the inventor and I'm just the implementor here...

[quatoria]

I like the idea of making your text more readable, but I question the wisdom of trying to make your text into another writer's idea of the optimum. Jokes about Oranges aside, are you really going to be satisfied doing this for the long haul? Or was this always intended as a one-off experiment? Maybe this is just vanity, but I always thought we were supposed to be writing creatively, to entertain, as well as inform. Distilling everything down to bullet pointed lists would make me feel like little more than a glorified marketer, I think. Then again, maybe that's all reviewing really is.

[Mark Asher]

I like the idea of making your text more readable, but I question the wisdom of trying to make your text into another writer's idea of the optimum. Jokes about Oranges aside, are you really going to be satisfied doing this for the long haul? Or was this always intended as a one-off experiment? Maybe this is just vanity, but I always thought we were supposed to be writing creatively, to entertain, as well as inform. Distilling everything down to bullet pointed lists would make me feel like little more than a glorified marketer, I think. Then again, maybe that's all reviewing really is.

Reviews are different from previews. Previews are mostly informative. When you read a preview, what's your primary motivation?

As a reader of previews, I take a utilitarian approach. I want information above all else. You're welcome to entertain me, but don't let that get in the way of the presentation of the information. If I was after entertaining reading, game articles wouldn't be my first stop. The game is what interests me. That's why I'm reading the article in the first place.

Do a good job of telling me about the game, and if you have a lot of information to present, do so in a manner that's easy for me to read and digest.

It's probably just me, but I'm not interested in what the developers look like, talk like, what they have on their desk, what their level of enthusiasm is, etc. So-and-so has a lot of action figures in his work area, and that's going to make his game rock harder in what way? It's all a bunch of hooptedoodle. Put all that in a sidebar and label it as "Interesting stuff that doesn't really matter" and I'll know to skip it, thanks.

[quatoria]

That's a good point that I didn't consider. It's also why I don't particularly like writing previews, unless I'm incredibly enthusiastic about the title, in which case I wouldn't think I'd be a good person to write the preview.

[Aszurom]

I think the way I want to work it is basically to have the different sections and bullet-points so that a reader can look for the specifics really fast. If you want to ask my article "How many players per server?" then it's right there in plain sight.

I'm going to try to be more heavy on the multiplayer side of things - since that's the way I game 90% of the time. This format is basically in protest of two problems I see in current writing: 1. The rambling articles that bury the facts I'm looking for in a bunch of padding. 2. Multiplayer is usually mentioned in passing, if at all.

In order to serve the community of gamers who purchase a game to play with their friends and might someday play the single player if they've got nothing better to do - yes, there's a lot of us - I want to shift the focus to their (our) interests. If I fall into the same rut as every other review site, then I'm just a "me too" in a big crowd. But the plan (there's a plan? Nobody told me) is to have some reviews, have some blog, and just be a "fun" site. I'm not overly serious.

The type of website I've envisioned this turning into isn't a "corporate gaming site" like gamespot, gamespy, and whoever else. It's more like "Aszurom's personal view of things" and not try to hide my personality behind a businessy front. So imagine Computer Gaming World being renamed "Jeff Green's Gaming World" and he only brought in freelancers that he saw eye-to-eye with. You pick that up and know it's Jeff Green's gig, and not an everything to everybody sort of magazine. It would probably only sell to people who found Jeff Green and his friends entertaining - which is why they don't do that. However, I can, because I have different motivations for doing it.

I admire what the Bubster has done with Gamerdad, for sure, and his vision and mine aren't so far apart - just in entirely different target audiences. It's a service to a specific group of people, with the inclusion of whatever else I find entertaining enough to want to share. However, Gamerdad doesn't say "Andrew S. Bub's Gamerdad", and mine does. I'm taking a lot stronger ownership so I don't have to worry about how much impartiality I have to maintain - because it's gonna be zero.

I think that in all, it's a more honest approach to writing about games. No matter who I'm writing for (or who you're writing for) the reader has to realize that the product is not a guarantee that they will share the same opinion as the author. Furthermore, how can a reader judge how similar their views are to that writer when they're just a name attached to the article, and there are a dozen or so such authors on any given site. Hell, most people don't even read the by-line unless they're offended or think you're nuts.* Well, in this case, there's no mystery of who the author is and where his opinions slant - because it's sole proprietorship. So, once they establish how I write, they know what to expect from every article I post. If they find that we are in agreement in our values, then I'm a better resource than a "generic" site. If we disagree, they don't waste their time.

(* which is why everybody knows who Tom Chick is) :-)

[Angie Gallant]

This format is basically in protest of two problems I see in current writing: 1. The rambling articles that bury the facts I'm looking for in a bunch of padding. 2. Multiplayer is usually mentioned in passing, if at all.

Couldn't this be as easily served by an informative sidebar with your bullet points instead of breaking up your writing?

[Aszurom]

Well, given the format I'm looking for, the "colorful commentary" would be better served in the sidebar. It's basically "facts up front - opinion to follow".

In fact, I think I patent the review template as the "TV Dinner System" where each seperate entree is compartmentalized - thus your multiplayer peas don't get mixed in the singleplayer mashed potatoes. Normal reviews have the reader trying to pick out what's important to them and it's all mixed together. I'm trying to seperate fact from opinion, but reviews will still have an opinionated salisbury steak portion that will be seperate yet satisfying to the descriminating pallette.

*burp*

Consider previews to be the weight-watchers microwaveable that just satisfies without being overly filling. Vegetarian approved, since there's no opinionated beef.

[tromik]

Wasn't there once a site dedicated to site design? What was his name? Zeldaman or something?

It wasn't just things like "Do not make people scroll because they won't" either (which isn't true anymore either).

Anyone?

[Aszurom]

Interesting you bring that up. Personally, I HATE (!!!) multi-page articles that are obviously done to increase the number of banner impressions. Come on, we know why you're doing pages that consist of 10 pages of 2 paragraphs and a screenshot.

Thus, all articles will be ONE page, no matter how long it is.

[DaveC]

Every time I see this float to the top I read it as "Mark Asher Particle System"

[steve]

So how is a list of features different from getting the same info from the game's website?

[Mark Asher]

So how is a list of features different from getting the same info from the game's website?

Presumably the writer would remove the spin.

[Aszurom]

Well, Steve, that depends heavily on how much "impression and opinon" I allow myself in the preview. That's something I'm trying to decide on, and it's not easy to find the line. I had more than what you see now, got boo'd for it, so I trimmed it. So, apparently this is what the crowd feels is the "zone" for a preview.

Then again, if you look at a "classical" preview for the same title, it amounts to the same information I've got except expressed in sentence&paragraph structure. So really, is a classical preview format just taking the FAQ & Features section of the dev's website and making prose out of it? It would be, if the opinionated commentary isn't there, eh?


Exhibit A:

Warlords IV

Publisher: Ubi
Developer: Infinity Interactive

* 2-8 players
* TCP/IP, IPX, Ubi Matchmaking service, Hotseat
* Campaign and stand-alone scenario play
* Play the campaign in multiplayer
* 10 races
* 60 units
* 100+ spells
* 5 schools of magic
* 36 hero types

Release: Oct 2003

Exhibit B:

Recently we at GameFisters got to sit down with a pre-gold build of Infinity Interactive's latest, Warlords IV. Warlords IV is the newest title in the long running Warlords franchise. Published by Ubisoft, the game will most likely be available in October of this year.

Warlords IV supports both single and multiplayer, with options for stand-alone scenarios or a dynamic campaign for up to eight players. As an added bonus the campaign is playable in multiplayer as well, so you can crush the Orcish hordes with your friends - or crush each other for that matter. Representatives for Ubi have stated that the game will support IPX and TCP/IP LAN connections, as well as utilizing the UBI Matchmaking service. There is also an option for "hotseat" play, so two or more can play on a single computer.

Players can choose one of 10 different races, and build a variety of 60 different unit types - with some common and others being unique to each race. Additionally, the player is provided with an ample list of spells, separated into 5 distinctly different schools of magic.

By customizing your warlord, up to 36 different variations can be achieved.


Well, what's different? Exhibit B is pretty much what you'd read anywhere else, and all I did was pad out the list with a bunch of blah.

[steve]

So really, is a classical preview format just taking the FAQ & Features section of the dev's website and making prose out of it? It would be, if the opinionated commentary isn't there, eh?
It is summarizing the features, but with the spin of the writer and, hopefully, some commentary from the developer on why certain choices were made which adds something that can't easily be found elsewhere.

99% of all previews say the same basic things. The only thing you can add to distinguish yours is either some sort of evaluation, which is dodgy because it's like an "alpha" review, or in getting the developer to say something interesting.

[Raife]

I really like this layout. It clearly tells me what I want to know, and I don't have to hunt for anything. I'm definitely looking for concise in a Preview, and I'm not interested in Previews that span multiple pages. I'm primarily interested in what a game is about so I can decide whether or not it's for me.

I know you're still working on it, but I would get rid of the blue-on-blue of the review index page. Put white behind the hyperlinks. If you want to separate the entries, use black lines or something.

[Aszurom]

Steve: So, then we agree? If you don't "pre-review" it, and the developer doesn't contribute, then you're spinning the feature list from their website?

Well, technically, since the writer is supposed to have played the thing, it would be the feature list as SEEN and not read. Should be, but not always is, the same.

Anyway, for the "alpha review" stuff, or basically just projecting the opinion of how I anticipate a given game is going to turn out... well, I've got an article format specific for doing that. However, it's a guarded sekrit, so I'll show you one when it's done. It's an idea I pitched to gamespy once, they liked, but I backed out because I wasn't sure if I could do it consistently. However, I can now. I don't know if the publisher's will like it much, but yeah.


Raife: Yeah, unintentional. Needs to have a color tag in the .conf file fixed. Just haven't gotten to that yet, but thanks for pointing it out. I ignored it because I didn't realize that color showed up anywhere still.

Edit - Hey, check this out... does someone actually read my site or something? Well, what interested me beyond the fact that it exists is that they make a point of noting the format of the article. Bonus!
http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/455/455759p1.html

[steve]

Steve: So, then we agree? If you don't "pre-review" it, and the developer doesn't contribute, then you're spinning the feature list from their website?
You're just reporting the features so that the reader doesn't need to do the legwork for every game.

Well, technically, since the writer is supposed to have played the thing, it would be the feature list as SEEN and not read. Should be, but not always is, the same.
Most or many previews aren't written from anything other than feature lists and/or interviews.

A hands-on preview could take many different forms. Why not just detail what playing a scenario is like?

I don't know if the publisher's will like it much, but yeah.
If you spend too much time evaluating pre-release software, and predicting how the finals will turn out, you might as well review them because there's little to distinguish the two. Hell, readers already confuse previews and reviews, so are you really expecting them to understand that, "This game will suck because the alpha sucks, but it may get better in the final month of development?"

I think previews are better off at keeping evaluating to a minimum, except in those areas where it's obvious and superficial. Criticizing a design is fine, though I'd ask why certain choices were made in the interest of fairness, but I'd lay off something like AI or balance.

[Aszurom]

A hands-on preview could take many different forms. Why not just detail what playing a scenario is like?

Yep, and I have allowed myself space to do that, although it's not done in this current writing. Technically, it was sorta done, but I was asked to trim it by Asher to more align with his vision of how it should be. Since I'm trying to test his theory, I'm happy to allow his influence - at least this time. My actual commentary wasn't opinion though, but rather an essay on how the game mechanics worked. Well, considering that many of the screenshots are specifically the in-game help describing how it works, it was redundant and easy to whack.

But yes, I sat today reading through the latest PCG and CGW looking at previews and analyzing how I'd rewrite it in my system. The "how this works" would fit nicely, once the info that fills the tables is stripped out of it and put in its proper place.

The "evaluating pre-release software" issue will be handled something like this... Let's take Doom III for example. I can look at this and tell you some things that strike me as obvious - it's going to sell well because of the name and legacy, it won't be a terribly original game, the enemies are going to be nothing new with a possible exception here or there but still very derivative, and the engine is the real winner here because it's going to be the next big thing for licensing and mods.

Or I could take LOMAC. Personally I'm hornier than a 3-peckered goat for this game. It might disappoint me, but chances are I'll probably really enjoy it. Is it going to save the flight sim genre single-handedly? No, definitely not - and it probably won't turn any sales records either. It is, however, a step in all the right directions for the genre. The hardcore whiners are going to scream about anything that doesn't make it "modern IL2 married to Falcon4.0" and they even cry about IL2 which is the best game ever - so don't base your opinion solely on their antics. All I know is that nothing can keep my cash from hitting the counter when I see this on the shelf.

So, there's two samples of "very loosely" how that pre-review is going to work. I don't want to give away the keen format I'm looking at doing for it, but that's a general idea of the sentiment and info. It's definitely NOT a detailed excursion into my experiences with a pre-gold copy. More like "Captain Obvious looks at what we know about this game and decides if it's likely going to suck or rock based on that info."

Also, example three... Mortyr 2 is in development? Hahaha. Who wrote the check for that? I've got some ideas I want to pitch too.

Not a review, and the game is so far off ... who can tell? But Captain Obvious can see it coming.