For: 3
|
 SelfFor If it gets a 45 on Pee Review, it goes to VFH, whether anybody else likes it or not. --Scofield 12:32, December 28, 2010 (UTC)- For. Not a lot of video game reviews, I like it. 24.165.110.79 16:39, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
For. Yep. Well written. However, after googling the game (I didn't know it before), this hardly seems to qualify as a parody to me, because at least the fact that the games sucks appears to be true, and the review sounds pretty reasonable. But it's well written, so I'll vote for it. Schamschi - For This is by far the most amzing article I have ever read. It really brings out the full range of emotions in me. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 06:37, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Half-For Needs some work layout wise and grammar and spelling wise, but otherwise I like it. • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 Thursday, 11:45, Dec 30 2010 UTC
|
Against: 4
|
- Against. I would suggest 'ask for your money back' if this game is that bad but don't see where the humour is in here. Can't see it as a feature
 RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 20:33, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
 Against. OK, I just realised this is only meant for featuring on the front page... Before, I thought this can also mean just being featured on the UnReview page. But for the front page, I don't think this article is good enough, because there is no really original concept here, or at least it doesn't read like it, and, like Romartus, I don't really find it that funny. As an UnReview, it is quite good, but as a standalone article, it's not interesting enough to be featured. Schamschi- Against. M&M (christmas mood)
 09:22, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Prose and formatting issues aside, it's just not particularly funny.
1234 ~  02:13, 30 December 2010
|
| Comments:
|
- Comment. I once heard that fact-based humor is a perfectly legitimate type of humor. Also, please tell me how to get this featured on the UnReviews page, I'm pretty sure it'll work there. Scofield 07:43, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
 Comment. The problem is not that your humour is bad or stupid. As I said, it is well written, meaning it's not pointless rambling and would-be funny sentences that make no sense. But apart from some funny wordings ("goddamn village", the AI being a "pathetic joke", and I particularly liked the description of getting the game to run on a computer as a "Herculean task"), there really isn't much to the article except a fact-based, reasonable review. There is nothing wrong with that, and for a review, it's well written, but it's just not interesting enough for a standalone article. Schamschi
 Abstain. With a little bit more work, this'll easily become a feature. Basically just add a bit more humour etc. And maybe do something about that {{{3}}} in the quote boxes. If you want to get this featured on the UnReviews main page, try contacting Skinfan13. —Sir Socky   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:08, 29 December 2010- Comment. I've added some lines to the gameplay section. Tell me if it makes the review any more worthy Scofield 20:36, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Hm, your changes have given me an idea: How about you change the article in the following way: Make it look like the aim of the game is not to conquer some empire or somehing, but to drive you nuts. And then, describe how the game gradually succeeds in this aim. So basically, leave the whole article as it is, but just change the expectation of the reader, so that in the end, the game doesn't suck and disappoint the gamer, but excels in fulfulling the gamers expectations of driving him nuts. I don't know if that will work out, and yes, I know this idea is not quite new, but I think it's worth a try, and the article would then have at least some concept beyond an actual review. Schamschi
- Comment. I've decided to edit my article in accordance to what you said. Tell me if it's good enough for you now Scofield 08:46, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Er, I think you misunderstood me, because that's not really what I meant. I meant that the article should read as if the game was designed for the purpose of driving you nuts. The empire-stuff and gameplay and everything is just a means to achieve this goal. And the game succeeds because of its crappy graphics, controls and pathetic AI. Therefore, the game is excellent and gets 5 stars (or 4, whatever), because it has accomplished it's aim (=driving the gamer nuts). But again, that's just a suggestion, and as I said, I don't know if this will work out in the end. It's not like the old version was bad, but for a standalone article, it needs a concept, and my suggestion was just an example. Schamschi
- Comment. PuppyOnTheRadio, aren't all user votes supposed to count as one? You gave me a Half-for, I'm not sure that's a valid vote. Scofield 19:09, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
- response here • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009 Thursday, 23:15, Dec 30 2010 UTC
|
