Comparing two game reviews.
The two reviews I have chosen illustrate
two very different points of view on the same game, being ‘Dead Space 2’.
The reviews themselves are quite
different presenting ideas and approaching conclusions in very different
manors.
The review by Scott Jones for A.V. Club
offers many ideas on the predictability of the monsters known as Necromorphs in
Dead Space 2, describing them as,
‘primal, savage entities whose
sudden appearance generated large amounts of palm sweat. In
Dead Space
2, it feels as if they’ve all read a manual titled How To Be Good Necromorphs.
(1. Loiter in vents. 2. Wait until Clarke is nearby. 3. Burst from vents while
hooting/screaming. 4. Run directly at Clarke while waving arms. 5. Eat him if
possible.) Their shock value is largely gone, and encounters with them
in Dead Space 2 are pedestrian and annoying.’
He backs up his idea by explaining in
depth using adjectives to give the reader a level of relatability to the
argument.
However, in contrast the user review from
‘Compgamer55’ on metacritic.com offers a much less in depth and simple
depiction of the game, primarily over using the word ‘good’ to emphasise his
point, and offers only one insight into the game further than ‘good’ by
describing the new progression system used in multiplayer to reward higher
level players.
With this he marks a step in the right
direction, but ultimately falls back to single words opting for just ‘creepy’
when describing the atmosphere.
As oppose to this, Scott Jones is not
quite as pleased with EA’s sequel, although manages to deliver his ideas with a
larger vocabulary range.
He uses sarcasm when getting his ideas
across to add an element of humour and pleasure to read the review, whereas Compgamer uses
a much more short, sweet and to the point approach, which is not a bad thing,
in most circumstances when I’m confronted by the option of a wall of text
versus a paragraph the man with the small vocabulary would win, but this could
be improved to provide a much more informative response, taking elements from
Scott Jones review such as the sarcasm and points illustrated in depth to
achieve something that gives accurate ideas that can be understood by someone
that has no prior knowledge of the game.
But, one thing that Compgamer has
where Scott jones is lacking is a feeling of emotion in his review, it’s very
cold and unloving, whereas his review is much more passionate about the game,
where he sates, ‘Also
the multiplayer is a good bit of fun!’ you can tell he has received hours of
enjoyment from the purchase.
In conclusion Compgamer55’s review offers
a very flat look at the game, only using simple words to describe the bits that
he liked that could only be understood front a point of view after playing the
game, however manages the convey a positive emotion in his short review.
Where as Scott Jones describes in depth
his ideas, using personal experience to back them up in such a way that someone
of no prior knowledge of the game could understand, while hinting at his
feelings of annoyance and disappointment towards the sequel.
References and reviews from:
No comments:
Post a Comment