task 4 week 4 and pretty much task 5 week 5

The art of game writing

I was reading one of the articles in a link that Mike sent us and I thought it was like reading a script, but when I tend to read articles they normally tell the person whether its just crap or not like in a magazine called PSW a while back said that a certain game was s*** just pure utter s*** and that’s all he put. I mean I can’t stand writing like that because the person isn’t describing what’s wrong with the product, he just blabs on how rubbish something is and hasn’t put any thought to it. Later that guy got sacked, I noticed a staff change in the next issue haha.

But in some reviews people write on what’s good and what’s not good on the certain product, like in PC Gaming magazine they have a "hot or not" or in some cases a plus and minus system. for example i am reading at the moment an article on Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3 the hot/plus side that goes up says "Incredibly balanced, even with the new faction,""An imaginative selection of units.""Multiple strategies for a more diverse game" and the not/minus side says that "matchmaking needs a lot of improvement,""lag is a major issue,""graphics don’t live up to expectations which makes sense and doesn’t try to rip into the hard work that companies put into it even if may be not very good, the reviewer should always give a reason why this is bad or good and I think they should be polite about their work also. I hate morons they make real reviewers look bad.

Anyway back to the article I read, it was about saving Private Donny which really isn’t a review but reading it was interesting. The writer explains how he and his friends tried to put off Donny from joining the army and facing an injury like his brother had while fighting in the terrorism war. Even though Donny didn’t need convincing in the end because he wanted to be a vet or fireman (which made the whole "lets mass kill Donny" pointless) but the way it was written was clever and I enjoyed it.