Be Excellent To Each Other

I must admit to preferring the previous design. It was very smart and clean looking. This one looks like the background is waiting to load, and the pixel font doesn't really come across that well.

I do like the reviews; again, they come across as very 'clean and smart', which is refreshing.

Another vote for the old layout.

Ah man, really? The old layout was a theme made by some guy, this one I've sort of done myself. Either way, I'm hoping to get it properly designed for cash monies after Christmas.

It just needs a background to tighten up your main column. Put a really light grey in or something as a test, or the eye wanders.

I think the problem now is it looks like it's half loaded.

Right, cheers for the feedback chaps. I'm definitely getting it properly designed in the new year, but for now, it'll do I suppose! I agree it does look a bit unfinished and missing something - perhaps a light grey background as said above.

A thing I don't like is the use of the 'royal we'. It just seems a bit jarring and unnatural.

Now that I massively disagree with!

I find that allowing people to use "I" makes them talk about themselves, which isn't remotely interesting. "I did this, I did that, I'm really funny, look at me". It's supposed to be about the games and what they're like to play. As far as news and reviews go anyway. Columns are different.

Jonny, talking about target markets, you may find this Kotaku essay interesting.

Hmm, ok. I've just never seen it before in any review I've read, and it just seems impersonal. Whatever floats your boat, however.

I think that's the style jonarob is aiming for.

Fair enough, then. It just breaks the flow for me. I guess it's irritating as it sticks out in what is otherwise excellent writing (imo). If it was rubbish, I probably wouldn't care.

That is a very interesting article indeed (especially for Kotaku). But I'm not sure what you're trying to say! Are you disagreeing with what I said, agreeing or just being interesting?

I don't think that article changes how I feel about what I said - I think people who don't normally read reviews will find a review about the game and not about the writer more helpful.

But a review is a personal opinion of whether they think a game is any good or not. Removing that just seems... well, a bit odd.

That's the last I'll say on it, though. I don't want to put a downer on your site or anything.

@Myoptika - It is impersonal to an extent, but I want my readers to relate to the site rather than to individual writers. Personally I find Eurogamer reviews jarring because they're all "I did this and I did that", it all comes across as a bit egotistical to me. Not deliberately, you understand, and it's probably just me, but that's how I feel about it. Why would people want to hear MY view alone? I feel uncomfortable saying "I" I suppose... Plus, as I said, it stops you from talking about yourself and not the game. It cuts down on the temptation to talk about a hilarious incident when your girlfriend said something (yes I have a girlfriend readers!!) and then your cat jumped on your xbox and oh how I laughed!!!1

Is Shin reviewing for you now?

I'd hope that games reviewers would be professional enough not to do that anyway, but ok. We'll agree to disagree.

I agree! But, I also don't. I dunno really.

I'd be interested to hear other thoughts on this if anyone else has any.

Pff!

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Mostly being interesting, and yeah, it's a great article -- I'll be watching Leigh Alexander's blog in future.

I'm wondering... is that guy in the games shop who "doesn't read reviews" your target? Is that what you were driving at with the third person, short reviews, and promise of "no frippery" in your reviews?

It seems to me that the debate of, for want of better terminology, video game "cultists" versus people who "just play games" is much more interesting and relevant than that of "hardcore" versus "casual" gamers. The latter distinction barely exists, whereas the former definitely does. Would you ever play a bad or flawed game because it did something new? Mirror's Edge is a good, and topical, subject for discussion -- it's not perfect, but it is novel. And I want to play it because its novel, and that seems to me to be a defining characteristic of someone who is interesting in gaming as a whole and not just individual games. Similarly, I am just getting started playing Chrono Trigger via a SNES emu on my PSP, because I've been reading for years about how important it is. I'd suggest this is another hallmark of someone who is interested in gaming as a medium.

Most gaming journalism is aimed at the "cultists", and in so doing, it actively disconnects from the people who just want to have fun with games. It seems to be that you are trying to reach out to the latter people.

The use of "we" in your reviews is jarring, but that doesn't make it wrong. I suppose I would suggest looking to other professional reviews in more mature entertainment industries for inspiration. Empire, for example, I think does use "we" in reviews, and also in interview features the interviewer is normally referred to simply as "Empire".

Futhermore, it adds an unwarranted strength to the opinion. If 5 people like it, it means more than one, and that is what is implied by the use of that language. If you are talking about yourself, then use the correct language to do so.

I don't think I'm necessarily aiming it at the "just play games" types. I mean, it is aimed at those people, but the "cultists" as well. Because I think the cultists need to pull their heads out of their arses (the journos need to stop feeding them as well) and realise that video games are about having fun, not unnecessarily serious discussion and in-depth analysis about "beauty" and "art". There is a place for that, sure, but not in every bloody review on every site and in every magazine.

The main problem lies with the journos. And calling them journalists is a push. Most of them seem to be aspiring writers without any real qualification in Journalism but an English degree instead. They think that writing whimsical and flowery stuff about games will be a great springboard for their future career writing gritty screenplays and novels. If someone applied for a job with that attitude at a proper newspaper the editor would tell them to fuck off. Fuck right off.

Journalism is about hard facts (well, supposedly), reported quickly and efficiently.

edit: And that's just one of the reasons I started Snappy Gamer. There are others, such as "7/10" and stuff but I won't go into all of that.

Just checked, yes, Empire uses "we".

I just switch "we" for "I" when reading, almost subconciously.

And as for the current design, while the white background may cause some confusion it's infinitely preferable to those sites where whacking great adverts form an integral part of the design, mainly in the form of bars to the left and right of the actual content.

You lot, stop being meanies

I would say to use "I", because then when someone likes a game based on your review, they have a name they can trust.

For example, right now I can tell you that the guy who does some neat reviews is Zero Punctuation, but I couldn't for the life of me tell you the site it was from. Your reviews should also be able to transcend your site.

That was kind of my point, really. You could change all those 'we's for 'I's and it would make the article read better (imvho obv), but hasn't actually made the post appear 'blog-like', which Jonny was trying to steer away from.

Anyway, at least this debate is keeping your thread at the top of the page, eh?

Dr G: I don't read Empire, which is probably why I haven't seen it before.

I'm not trying to get away from the "blog" format, I'm not bothered about that. Just the things I've said above really. I may re-consider seeing as so many people seem to dislike "we" so much, but I don't know.

Excellent as Zero Punctuation is, can it really be classed as a series of reviews? He primarily derives comedy through being negative, and when he's not being negative it doesn't seem to work even remotely as well.

I meant "blog-like" as in "I had fish for my tea, it were reet great". Much as the same as you said.

Mr Campbell uses "World of Stuart" when referring to himself in his reviews. Where does that fit in?

Malc

I guess being negative is his schtick though.

The point is that even though i don't visit the site they are hosted on, I still know who he is, because of that consistent identifiable personality.

I like to think that he uses that when referring to himself everywhere to emphasise his importance, and that he is not a man but an entire world. Of himself.

Because that would be great.

Maybe using 'Snappy Gamer' might work, but obviously not too often as it'd get cumbersome.

"we" does tend to put me in mind of Edge magazine and perhaps has connotations of trying to come across as some kind of self-appointed authority. Also, whilst I don't much like Edge I think it at least makes sense there because the reviewer's name isn't at the bottom of the page.

But to be honest I'm not overly concerned and would enjoy the reviews whatever convention you decide upon.

I think it depends on your ultimate aim for the review. It would be difficult to get excited about a game that was reviewed as we, because you then can't say (for example), "I love this game, just buy it. It is ace."

I wish I hadn't brought it up now.

Don't worry about it! I'm not offended or anything. You guys are probably a significant portion of my readership, and I'm interested to know what you want. And it seems you want "I" as opposed to "we".

We don't mind it, personally.

Ho-ho!

Having said that, I fucking loved the use of 'we' from Mr Biffo when Digitiser was on the go.

NGamer use "we" I think. I dunno. I guess I interpret it as being "the views of Snappy Gamer" and not "the views of Jonarob" so I genuinely don't mind it. Don't suppose I'm fussed either way. I do think Snappy Gamer is aces though.

Ah well, thanks folks!

In other news, Fallout 3 review:

http://www.snappygamer.com/2008/11/25/f ... -xbox-360/

Umm:
You didn't really have VATS in previous Fallout games, as the combat was all turn-based anyway. You could optionally target specific body parts on any attack, if that's what the reviewer meant, but the core VATS mechanic from Fallout 3 of pausing time to queue attacks owes much more to KotOR than it does to previous Fallout games.

Just to weigh in, I much prefer "I" rather than "we".

I haven't used (my) Wii in ages...

another vote for "I" instead of "we". But then again, i was born reading Amiga Power (literaly!). I also like most Eurogamer reviews, so i guess its just a matter of personal preference.

Jonarob: Saying that the VATS system makes a return is inviting yourself for the main page of RPGcodex, be afraid:P

Yeah, it's not my review, but Andrew said that's not really what he meant to say and it has kinda happened because of the way I've chopped it up to make it a bit shorter. We'll sort it out now.

Bad subbing by me, there.

Fuck me look at how much those guys whine about Fallout 3.

i know. They've been whining since the day Bethesda was announced as the developer for FO3. I just go there for the lulz really. There's a recurring joke on the forum that involves Bethesda mail adress, so i wonder how many glass dildos they have in their offices. I hate Oblivion as much (well, not as much, i had fun for about 10 hours before got bored) as them, but it still baffles me how much they praise Daggerfall. And as an Oblivion hater and Fallout 1 & 2 fanboy, i think i have enough credibility to say that Fallout 3 is ace.

I tend to lean towards "I". I think the Spectrum bible stuff uses "I". Gaming Verdict is "we"...

It doesn't matter too much really, but it really should be consistent across a site/mag.

Lets take a quick example...

"Fallout 3 is all about choices. Twenty hours in, we saved our progress, quit, and started again. Why? Because the temptation became unbearable. We had to go back and try our luck as the cruellest, meanest, most callous and downright evil wasteland explorer the world has ever seen. It’s just so much fun…"

Fallout isn't a multiplayer game, "we" just doesn't work here. It's not an opinion shared by people, it's one person, playing a game, and having "we" when "I" is obviously meant. Multiple people aren't subject to that temptation, one person is. Several people didn't restart, one person did.