I've been finding that it takes me a ridiculously long time to get these things finished, usually around a week for a 2-3000 word article. It's not the writing that takes the time, but playing the damn game. I can knock out around 5000 words a day of good prose, but I can't get through all the levels and test all the aspects of a game in less than a week. Maybe if I disposed of my "life" and just reviewed games 24/7 I might be able to get more than one completed per week?

Tim
http://www.mrfixitonline.com

You can review a game in a week? That's pretty fast. I can't do it that fast. What period of time would you consider less "ridiculous?"

The time spent writing is a small fraction of the total time spent on a review. I honestly don't know how long the actual writing takes me. Also, the length of the article has almost no bearing on how long it takes me -- longer reviews often take less time to write. The determining factors are the length and complexity of the game.

Wow. Granted, this is due to my limited playing time, but I can't even usually PLAY through a game to "completion" (the definition of which tends to vary) in a week.

If I can get a review in two weeks from the night I get the game, I'm doing pretty good.

Depends on the game. Some games (shooters, for instance) I can finish in just a few days. Other games (particularly RPGs and strategy games) can take a few weeks. The writing is the smallest part of the process, in either case.

Yea, verily WRT "Depends on the game". Racing titles can often be completed in a few days. I've knocked out like three in a three week span. When you've played a zillion racing games, you can quickly pick up on what's good and what isn't. Screamer 4x4 is next, can't wait to start tonight...

RPGs are killers. They're huge. Wargames are killers too because frankly, you'll spend so much time playing and then end up getting like 300 words to review it in. There's an inordinate amount of time spent playing with little monetary return. You have to LOVE wargames to do that.

Writing usually takes me three to six hours with edits. That's the easy part and with 3000 words (!) for a review you could blather on for days and probably never edit. That's too much space to fill and probably more than anyone needs to know.

--Dave

Being a part-timer and not a professional reviewer (or gamer), I play the game for three weeks while jotting lots of notes. Assembling the notes into readable text takes about 3 hours for a 2,000 - 2,500 word review.

That's interesting stuff. I could swear that I was seeing reviews from the same guy appear within days of each other, and I thought that they were being churned out. I'm guessing that people are reviewing several games at the same time in a kind of batch job perhaps. Well it's nice to know that I'm not interminably slow :).

Tim.

Am I the only person left here who doesn't review games?

No.

- Alan

"I could swear that I was seeing reviews from the same guy appear within days of each other, and I thought that they were being churned out."

S'possible. Some are full-timers and can pull the 12 hours shifts needed to do an RPG in a week. Some are really good at what they do, or are reviewing simple games (like some racers, budget titles, and some sports games). Some are just hacks. And some are reviews that got delayed. Only -A- list stuff goes up right away, some stuff gets delayed. Case in point, I have two up at Gamespy right now: Doom GBA was written last friday, Typing of the Dead PC I finished in early October. Both premiered today. Go figure.

Look Tim, I understand you probably don't have a choice in the matter, but try and break free from the 2000+ word reviews as soon as you can. 5000+ words of prose per day is great (congrats if you can really do that), but that's storytelling. There's nothing more excruciating than a long review that's written long, just for the sake of being long. Few games actually merit more than 1000 words, imo.

-Andrew

I disagree Andrew. I would much rather read a longer review of a game IF ITS GOOD. Sure, I won't bother with a long, poorly written review, but I'll carefully read every word of a 5 page gamespot review if I'm interested. Give me a double page review in a magazine if its Empire Earth or Civ III. Hell, sometimes I re-read them. And one thing I really like is when the reviewer tells some stories from actual game play (I believe the PCGamer review of Flashpoint sold me on this point). The idea that a review has to be a concise 1000 words sounds like the Hemingway/Carver school of game reviewing.

I do enjoy a 60 second review when it has that Qt3 zing to it (although it appears the 60 second format is dead here *sniff*), but this is my hobby goshdarnit, give me some bang for my buck, don't give me pithy for the sake of pithy.

I'd agree with Rob, I enjoy reading both the long and short reviews, if they are well written. Personally I'd like to have a 60-second type review with links to longer second opinions, then if I liked the gist of the review I could examine it further. Most of my reviews, so far, have been around 1500 words, but my last one of Civ III was just over 4000, and I felt I was skimping with that many.

Nah, we don't actually disagree that much here Rob.

I'm not sure about the actual word count on one of those 5 page Gamespot reviews (which only go to games that merit length, I've noticed), but the average Gamespot review seems to run about 1000-1700 words (2 pages). Those two-pagers you like so much in magazines? 800-1200 words are about right.

Besides, high wordcount doesn't equal effective writing. A well written 500 worder can easily outdo a 1500 poorly written one in terms of detail, it depends on the writer.

"The idea that a review has to be a concise 1000 words sounds like the Hemingway/Carver school of game reviewing."

This is nonsensical. 1000 worders are almost never concise. ;)

Don't get me wrong. Often I have to write 250-400 word reviews for complicated games. I write them because it's my job and because magazines, particularly mainstream mags, lack space for game coverage. It hurts to leave things out, so you learn to write about what matters. But there are very few games that come out that can't be covered 100% in 1000 words.

The bottom line is you write what you're assigned. If Tim keeps writing 2000-5000 word opus' he's going to be in for a shock if he ever reaches a professional level. Much like it's harder for a barbarian to pretend to be civilized than the reverse (as Star Trek taught me), it's easier to learn to write more than less.

Note: This message was not concise.
-Andrew

"but my last one of Civ III was just over 4000, and I felt I was skimping with that many."

Buy a copy of Strunk & White's Elements of Style, as soon as you can my friend. I'm not judging your review Tim, I haven't read it, but I recently reviewed Civ3 at roughly 1200 words and KNOW I wasn't skimping.

-Andrew

Well, I'm an bean counter, not a word counter.:-)

The sentiment remains, but I didn't mean to criticize 2 full mag pages of reviews, or 3+ webpage reviews (other than I wish they were longer in some cases). And I'm talking about absolutes: it has to be well written. If it stinks at 20 words then it stinks at 2000 words.

So if Tim's 5000 words are interesting and worth reading, then I'm all for it. As a reader I don't consider the economic crunch the editor's feel about word counts. Give me quality and quantity or I'll go somewhere else. That's not a threat, its just the consumer talking.

Why does it take you guys so long? Geeze... You read the back of the box, boot it up and play it for 10 minutes to make sure the graphics are pretty, and then read the Usenet comments to find out what to complain about. Then you write it. Find a few fan sites to grab screens from and you're done! Of course, you'll want to read the back of the box one more time to make sure you didn't miss anything important.

Chick's gonna get you Andrew.

"And I'm talking about absolutes: it has to be well written. If it stinks at 20 words then it stinks at 2000 words."

Yeah, that's where we agree Rob. You reacted to my saying "Few games actually merit more than 1000 words, imo." but you missed the sentence just before it: "There's nothing more excruciating than a long review that's written long, just for the sake of being long."

I'd also like to point out that "Steve Green Vederman" is my favorite anonymous tag thus far.

-Andrew

A bit off-topic, but I'm not sure which is worse to "work" for:

An independent fansite for a specific game, a network fansite for a game, or a generic review site (ala gamespot).

The fansites always want to have the "exclusive" review, which means you must finish the game in less than 36 hours and have a 20 page review up before anyone else. Whether network or independent.

The generic review sites, ala Gamespot, generally take their time playing the game, getting the feel for it, etc.

So tell me, why is it that 90% of the reviews I read, whether from a biased fansite (which ALL are) or a generic review site, suck?

It's rare when I come across a Gamespot review I like. It's rare when I come across a Magazine review I like. Hell it's rare when I come across a fansite review I like. Just about the only site in which I've agreed with most (keyword: most, some, many, etc) of the reviews was Gamecenter.

So, my question after all this babbling is, why is it so hard to write a review?

There's obviously always going to be a reviewer's tilt, and there's obviously always going to be a certain style to a reviewer's writing and how they perceive the game. And I'm sure it's one of those things that you don't know how hard it is until you've done it, etc etc etc.

But I mean, when half the sites and reviewers out there go rambling on about how awesome Max Payne is because of Max's ability to walk diagonally like with a combination of the up and right keys and the way the 3d artists applied Photoshop filters to the people's faces, you wonder about the quality of the stuff you read _everywhere_.

Well, except here of course, but that's only because of Mark and Tom's legions of flying monkeys who will come and sodomize non-believers.

Ah Sodomy, now that would calm the jitters.

'So, my question after all this babbling is, why is it so hard to write a review?'

The kind of people who like to play games enough to write reviews of them, in general, aren't the kind of people who are really good at writing.

This is a great filter, now that I think about it. Wargamer fanatics spend lots of time reading military history, so they should be able to turn out boring but functional reviews. RPGers spend all their time on truly horrible licensed science fiction, so they'll produce crap. I'm not sure if RTSers can read, much less write. ;0

That's my theory, anyway.

I dunno what possessed people with Max Payne. I finally got around to trying it out and I'm thoroughly unimpressed. I hate the way Max jumps like a fairy and the baby scene is just way too far over the top. There's something wrong in the head with these guys to have included that scene.

Sure, it's cool to shoot dodge all over creation and slow the game down to watch shell casings fly, but that's really where the fun ends. The main character holds no interest and the run and gun gameplay is really just a basic blastfest but with a guy in a long coat flowing behind him. It's not a terrible game so far, but it's really not some kind of genre breaker either.

*shrug*

--Dave

I think it's one of those gameplay vs. immersion/elves vs. tax collector issues. If you really want to *pretend* you're a trenchcoat-wearing guy in a shlocky B movie, it's an incredible game. Otherwise.....

"and the baby scene is just way too far over the top. There's something wrong in the head with these guys to have included that scene."

Thank you Dave... I thought I was alone on that one. Seems to me "dead wife" is easily enough of a revenge motive for any NY cop who looks like a cross between Bruce Willis and Chandler Bing. Dead baby in crib, not shown once, but twice, is just psychotic.

But I liked Max Payne overall.

---

Quote:

It's not a terrible game so far, but it's really not some kind of genre breaker either.

---

Bullet time was definitely an interesting game mechanic, but I don't think it was _quite_ strong enough to hang an entire game on.

And you know what really sucked? The way Payne's flowing trenchcoat would block my reticle when I was trying to aim. DAMN YOU THIRD PERSON GAMING! DAMN YOU TO HELL!

I dunno, I'd give Max a positive review. 4/5 probably. Worth buying. Anything higher is a disservice to gamers though. It's not THAT good.

>Just about the only site in which I've agreed with most (keyword: most, some, many, etc) of the reviews was Gamecenter.

That comment made my day. :-)

Bub wrote:

"Dead baby in crib, not shown once, but twice, is just psychotic."

This is coming from a guy named after a George Romero zombie? LOL!

Hey! I came into the picture years before Day of the Dead pally.

It's also my real last name.
Y'know, if I wanted a nickname I'd use something silly like Lackey or Chick.

-Andrew S. Bub

.....or SiNNER 3001. You know, because the uncapitalized 'i' makes it edgier.

Glad you got the joke, Jason.

Sorry, Bub. I went to your website once (following a link posted here) and saw a photo of the "Day of the Dead" zombie prominently placed there. I assumed as a result that "Bub" was a nickname you had taken in tribute to one of your favorite movies. Didn't know it was your real name.

No problem SiNNER.
That's not my website though. That's my column at Games Domain. And, yeah, I use 'Bub the Zombie' as a logo. So, I sort of see where you got the idea.

-Andrew

---

Quote:

Seems to me "dead wife" is easily enough of a revenge motive for any NY cop who looks like a cross between Bruce Willis and Chandler Bing. Dead baby in crib, not shown once, but twice, is just psychotic.

---

"So tell me, why is it that 90% of the reviews I read, whether from a biased fansite (which ALL are) or a generic review site, suck?"

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

(Maybe he said 95%.)

I can't keep track of how long it takes me to do a review. Maybe it has something to do with the bourbon.

(P.S. It's 90% indeed. But it was crud. Not crap. Crud. Yep.)

---

Quote:

I can knock out around 5000 words a day of good prose

---

"I could swear that I was seeing reviews from the same guy appear within days of each other, and I thought that they were being churned out."

When a review appears and when it was written do not always coincide. I never review more than one game at a time, but somtimes several reviews by the same person will run in one issue of our magazine, often because one was a holdover from the previous month.

In general, I think that most of the magazine reviews are well done. I don't envy someone having to fit a game or hardware review into a quarter page. Bub has done several of those for Maximum PC if memory serves.

Keep up the good work guys.

-DavidCPA

P.S. Is is me or are more comments that used to be reserved for Anonymous posts now showing up under SiNNER 3001?