Forums > MobyGames > Game descriptions
Indra was here (20755) on 2/28/2008 7:51 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Have we discussed this before? Probably, but I'm bored so here we go again.
Flashback
Since we do not have a standard guide or policy in what should or should not be in game descriptions, basically the only standard we have is based on common sense, or depending on your current alcohol level, is identified as subjective assumption, heavily affected by emotional moodswings.
So far, these are the things that I have noticed regarding game descriptions:
I. What's In
[1] Story/Plot/Background. Why is Jack chasing the dog and butt-naked doing it?
[2] Gameplay. Game mechanics, how you play the game. Usually this area is at a minimal in game descriptions, since most do not explain "how" the game is played, merely just mentioning the game objective.
[3] Relation to previous series. ie. "This is the sequel to Pink Ponies Got it Going On."
Note: Italic if no hyperlink.
[4] Uh, that's about it.
II. What's Not In
[1] All story and nothing else. We know why Jack is chasing the dog and why he's butt-naked, but we still have to know how he's doing it. (then again, I'm still stubbed on the why :p)
[2] Subjective opinion. Anything that remotely identifies personal affection for the game in a good or bad way should be ommitted. Some common examples are: "...great game...", "....difficult to master...", "....Jack is naked again...", "....so is the dog...".
[3] Marketing Blurb. If the description sounds like something you'd sell, than it's either ripped off from some ad-blurb or you've been working in the marketing division way too long.
[4] Trivia. Interesting facts about the game should be identified in the trivia section, not the game description.
[5] Publisher/developer information Somewhat obvious from the release info.Unique info regarding the publisher/developer relation to the game also goes to trivia.
[6] External links. ie. get this game at www.dontgohere.com. Links go to the external links section. (though links really should be displayed on the main rapsheet btw). Internal links however (links inside the MG database), are fine.
[7] Short descriptions. If you think approvers give you a hard time WIPing back short reviews, then it's even more so when it comes to short descriptions.
Note: All the above are subject to debate. See "Flashback" for reasoning.
III. Things to be considered
1. Pay respect to the original submitter. If you want to do major editing or replacements, it better hell be much better and not just re-writting it just to fix your own personal subjective tastes (which no one really understands either). Major editing and replacements only and only qualify if the original description lacks fundamental information regarding (and almost always) gameplay and game mechanics.
Like I said, we don't have a policy. You're opinion of "it should be like this", is not policy.
2. If you haven't played the game, don't mess with the description unless its typo's. Someone who played the game will eventually come along. Or not.
3. If you change something that seems fundamental in the description, be a dear and explain to the approver why you changed that particular piece of information, since not everyone knows (or cares) if Jack actually caught the dog or not.
4. If you've read this far down, you really do need a life. :)
IV. Technical Stuff
1. Game title should be written in italic < i >. So it's Jack and the Dog not Jack and the Dog.
2. Only need one hyperlink if the link is the same. So you don't have to add mobytags for every same word/sentence.
3. Hmm. That's it.
V. Input
*to be discussed.
That should keep you people busy for the next couple of weeks.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 2/29/2008 6:37 AM · Permalink · Report
Pay respect to the original submitter. If you want to do major editing or replacements, it better hell be much better and not just re-writting it just to fix your own personal subjective tastes (which no one really understands either).
Hell yeah. I'm still recovering from the emotional trauma someone caused to me by replacing my Final Fantasy 8 description with 123784 paragraphs about a card mini-game. I had to re-write the whole damn thing again.
Depeche Mike (17455) on 2/29/2008 7:25 AM · Permalink · Report
haha I remember that :)
MichaelPalin (1414) on 3/1/2008 1:17 PM · Permalink · Report
Is there an approver's forum!?!? Wow!, that must be like the coolest place on Earth.
Note: Saturday evening, nothing better to do.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/1/2008 1:23 PM · Permalink · Report
Is there an approver's forum!?!?
Damn it! Chirinea gave away our darkest secret! That's it, we'll never be able to conquer the world...
DJP Mom (11333) on 3/1/2008 2:16 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
More like ...merging, splitting, classifying, and somebody please fix something, with a little leavening of humor thrown in :-)
Edit: And of course whenever someone becomes an approver all the bad things said about them have to be erased! =)
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/1/2008 2:18 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
What, you mean no stuff like -Hey guys, which user you hated most this month?
We used to do that, but we stopped because you never know which one of those damn users will eventually become an approver himself ;)
Depeche Mike (17455) on 3/1/2008 9:43 PM · Permalink · Report
It's funny but you're more likely to find us saying who'd make a good approver. But it's true it is pretty dry. But of course a drought is sometimes better then a flood.
Xoleras (66141) on 3/2/2008 1:43 AM · Permalink · Report
Not really. If the consensus is that he or she is ready to become an approver, the person is being asked and there are only two possibilities: user declines or we welcome a new approver. And I don't think there can ever be enough approvers for the major platforms/categories...
Indra was here (20755) on 2/29/2008 5:41 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start JazzOleg wrote--] Hell yeah. I'm still recovering from the emotional trauma someone caused to me by replacing my Final Fantasy 8 description with 123784 paragraphs about a card mini-game. I had to re-write the whole damn thing again. [/Q --end JazzOleg wrote--]
Hey, I liked that card game. :p
Though personally I prefer FF 9, only sports game I particularly loved...only because it's 1 out of 2 sports games that resembles an RPG.
Actually I wouldn't mind 123784 paragraphs on that particular mini game...har...har...har... :p
DreinIX (10446) on 2/29/2008 5:54 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Though personally I prefer FF 9, only sports game I particularly loved...only because it's 1 out of 2 sports games that resembles an RPG. [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] So what's the second?
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Actually I wouldn't mind 123784 paragraphs on that particular mini game...har...har...har... :p [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Actually 123783 paragraphs are enough.
Steely Gaze (208) on 2/29/2008 4:37 PM · Permalink · Report
I like this and hope to try my damnedest to follow it.
My biggest dilemma is making my descriptions long enough. I seem to have trouble trying to create a description that properly does it's job without giving any of my personal feelings into it. I also have the problem of making my descriptions sound like an advert for the game. Both of these things I shall need to work on to correct.
I do like the info about the hyperlinks. This certainly helps this new contributor out!
Depeche Mike (17455) on 2/29/2008 7:03 PM · Permalink · Report
This should be on the description entering page.
Игги Друге (46653) on 2/29/2008 11:14 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Steely Gaze wrote--]My biggest dilemma is making my descriptions long enough. I seem to have trouble trying to create a description that properly does it's job without giving any of my personal feelings into it. I also have the problem of making my descriptions sound like an advert for the game. Both of these things I shall need to work on to correct.[/Q --end Steely Gaze wrote--] Just add games you don't particularly like. It's hard to write an advertisement then.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/2/2008 5:26 AM · Permalink · Report
"....difficult to master...", "....Jack is naked again...", "....so is the dog..."
These are bad examples, because none of them are necessarily subjective. It's pretty much a matter of public record, for instance, that Defender was extraordinarily unforgiving among its coin-op age-peers. If Jack being naked provides continuity to earlier games or is a hallmark of the series, then that's a relevant detail! The dog bit is irrelevant humour, but still not subjective.
The only reason anyone knows of a game called Sexy Hiking (I know, how well-known can it be if it isn't in Mobygames yet? 8) is because of its fundamentally broken, counter-intuitive and obtuse control mechanism, rendering even simple tasks difficult to achieve. Omitting these weighty (unanimous) judgments is misleading. The entire second paragraph of Big Rigs could easily be shelved for subjectivity, but it is easily the more important of the two.
chirinea (47495) on 3/2/2008 5:43 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]The entire second paragraph of Big Rigs could easily be shelved for subjectivity, but it is easily the more important of the two. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Well, that paragraph is important, of course, but it could be slightly tweaked so it could sound less subjective. "That is what the game was meant to be" is a sentence which, while surely adds style to the text, doesn't add anything else. That would fit better a review, but not a description.
I don't know, it's all about the goals of a site. One of my favorite Brazilian gaming sites have the funniest descriptions I've ever read, but that's their objective, to be funny and yet have a great database. Our goal is to be accurate without being subjective, so that's what we should try to do.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/2/2008 8:20 AM · Permalink · Report
a sentence which, while surely adds style to the text, doesn't add anything else.
No one has claimed that descriptions shouldn't be stylish! If they can't be, they become deathly boring to write! (Also, their authors need to adopt a fake deadpan style to describe patently absurd game elements without ever letting on that the elements are, indeed, objectively absurd. Makes us look as though we're not in on the joke! "I'm sorry sir, this is a game about a walking penis... why are you laughing? I'm being very serious about this! Now, the penis shoots spermatozoa at the angry llamas... again, you snicker! Please, contain yourself. Now, once the llama is entirely covered in semen... okay, that's it! I'm out of here! Come back when you want to have a serious conversation about the art of video gaming!")
Our goal is to be accurate without being subjective, so that's what we should try to do.
I'm happy to settle for not being unfairly subjective. If I wanted to shoot for Wikipedia standards, I'd be writing there. (All of my game submissions would, eventually, be toasted for non-notability.) If I have problems with a game's controls and everyone else seems to love it, chances are I won't mention the controls. If I see poor controls coming up again and again in reviews, the contentious item may well make it into the description -- I understand that the plural of anecdote isn't data, but provided I'm not intentionally stacking my references to support my skewed view, the shared nature of the lacking experience becomes less subjective the more people experience it.
That would fit better a review, but not a description.
... that said, as much flak as I give Wikipedia, I do appreciate their conception of a stub: I think that a game entry with a flawed description (to a point) is still much preferable to to no entry existing for the game. Improving an existing entry is much easier than starting from scratch, and if a description desperately needs work it's really apparent quite quickly... and someone can make necessary alterations without also having to know who the Finnish publisher was and when they released it.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/2/2008 8:23 AM · Permalink · Report
their objective, to be funny and yet have a great database.
One of my greatest personal style conclusions writing for years at everything2 was to try to make submissions both informative and entertaining, since regardless of how much valid data there is on an item, if it's presented in a dry and unengaging style, they'll grow bored before getting far enough in to take in the information! Humour in no way necessarily compromises the greatness of the database. (This is fortunate, as the premises of video games are often quite often resolutely laughable 8)
chirinea (47495) on 3/2/2008 8:31 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]their objective, to be funny and yet have a great database.
One of my greatest personal style conclusions writing for years at everything2 was to try to make submissions both informative and entertaining, since regardless of how much valid data there is on an item, if it's presented in a dry and unengaging style, they'll grow bored before getting far enough in to take in the information! Humour in no way necessarily compromises the greatness of the database. (This is fortunate, as the premises of video games are often quite often resolutely laughable 8) [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] I'm not saying I don't like your descriptions, Pseudo. In fact, I do. And I believe you just got better in fooling us with your almost-subjective descriptions. =P Seriously, I'm not against style and I don't want everything to be dry. I just don't want to start seeing "this game is teh piece of shit" in our descriptions. I know I'm exaggerating, but I hope you get my point.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/2/2008 9:26 AM · Permalink · Report
And I believe you just got better in fooling us with your almost-subjective descriptions. =P
I think people just got tired of the essays I'd fire back when they challenged me on grounds of subjectivity. "Whaddaya mean 'colourful' is subjective? Look: it's a blue man in a green car driving on a red road. While it's admittedly no rainbow, it still covers a full spread of the primary colours!"
I just don't want to start seeing "this game is teh piece of shit" in our descriptions. I know I'm exaggerating, but I hope you get my point.
I don't see that beefing up our existing guidelines will reduce the frequency of such submissions beyond where they're already at: as they are, we demand several sentences of evenhanded description of shitty games 8)
Indra was here (20755) on 3/7/2008 3:10 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] I think people just got tired of the essays I'd fire back when they challenged me on grounds of subjectivity. "Whaddaya mean 'colourful' is subjective? Look: it's a blue man in a green car driving on a red road. While it's admittedly no rainbow, it still covers a full spread of the primary colours!" [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
I understand your sentiment, but I still agree its "subjective". But only because I'm a hardcore conservative idiot.
But yes, also I agree being "too dry" is not a good thing either, since we after all need some form of entertainment (ie. reading MG material) and not be too serious (except when playing the game).
I don't know if it's a good example, but there are various interesting styles with our "game groups". Many informative, some with humor, wacky, but none subjective as there is nothing to "judge" the "game" one way or the other.
Subjective is just anything that may divert the leader to a negative or positive light, depending on the words used. Thus, in this case, "colourful" unfortunately also is used to identify a positive light in addition to the meaning of merely stating that it has many colors.
Игги Друге (46653) on 3/7/2008 9:48 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] [Q2 --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] I think people just got tired of the essays I'd fire back when they challenged me on grounds of subjectivity. "Whaddaya mean 'colourful' is subjective? Look: it's a blue man in a green car driving on a red road. While it's admittedly no rainbow, it still covers a full spread of the primary colours!" [/Q2 --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
I understand your sentiment, but I still agree its "subjective". But only because I'm a hardcore conservative idiot. [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]
You're right about the last word. Colourful is not subjective, idiot.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/16/2008 2:38 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] [Q2 --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] [Q3 --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] I think people just got tired of the essays I'd fire back when they challenged me on grounds of subjectivity. "Whaddaya mean 'colourful' is subjective? Look: it's a blue man in a green car driving on a red road. While it's admittedly no rainbow, it still covers a full spread of the primary colours!" [/Q3 --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
I understand your sentiment, but I still agree its "subjective". But only because I'm a hardcore conservative idiot. [/Q2 --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]
You're right about the last word. Colourful is not subjective, idiot. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--]
Depends on how you use it, moron.
Ask what "colorful" means to a Gothic, a Hippie and a Conservative.
Игги Друге (46653) on 3/17/2008 2:33 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Ask what "colorful" means to a Gothic, a Hippie and a Conservative. [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Bad point taken. Ask what any adjective means to each category.
chirinea (47495) on 3/2/2008 8:26 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Makes us look as though we're not in on the joke! "I'm sorry sir, this is a game about a walking penis... why are you laughing? I'm being very serious about this! Now, the penis shoots spermatozoa at the angry llamas... again, you snicker! Please, contain yourself. Now, once the llama is entirely covered in semen... okay, that's it! I'm out of here! Come back when you want to have a serious conversation about the art of video gaming!") [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] LOL, OK, there's no point arguing with you, you just cranked me up!
chirinea (47495) on 3/2/2008 8:43 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]I'm happy to settle for not being unfairly subjective. If I wanted to shoot for Wikipedia standards, I'd be writing there. (All of my game submissions would, eventually, be toasted for non-notability.) If I have problems with a game's controls and everyone else seems to love it, chances are I won't mention the controls. If I see poor controls coming up again and again in reviews, the contentious item may well make it into the description -- I understand that the plural of anecdote isn't data, but provided I'm not intentionally stacking my references to support my skewed view, the shared nature of the lacking experience becomes less subjective the more people experience it. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] I don't know if I'm comfortable in taking an inductivistic approach on that matter. In any case, if I was to add opinion (even if consensual) to a description, I would try to make it sound like "its gameplay is usually regarded as bad" or something like that.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/2/2008 9:09 AM · Permalink · Report
Gotta agree with Gui here. I do enjoy reading Pseudo's descriptions, but it would be a disaster if everyone started writing like him. He's great at what he does with all those obscure independent games, his description gives them an additional emphasis. But descriptions of "mainstream" games should be definitely kept more objective, and less stylish.
Even if "everyone" agree that a certain game has bad controls etc., it still doesn't make it objective truth, and it shouldn't be a part of a description. I also think that the second paragraph of Big Rigs description should be removed.
Sciere (930490) on 3/2/2008 9:26 AM · Permalink · Report
There is no such thing as a general truth, but in a few rare cases there is a general consensus over where a game failed. In Big Rigs that's fairly obvious, but for other games it only becomes apparent after a long time. For the very certainties in this case, we need to store this kind of knowledge for people to read it in many years. Just think of Daikatana, the marketing and all the feedback from the public. You can't tell from the game's description, but the upset and disappointment is barely mentioned, just a nod to the ad campaign in the trivia section.
Forming a solid and intellectual opinion on the history of video games is probably the hardest thing to do, balancing between objectivity and subjectivity, but I consider it equally important. Like Pseudo says, otherwise we'd be writing like drones.
chirinea (47495) on 3/2/2008 9:36 AM · Permalink · Report
I knew someone would pull Daikatana sooner or later. I agree that this kind of thing should be mentioned in the description, but as I said earlier, there's always a better way of doing such things. For me (and I may be alone in this), saying that "most people were disappointed with Daikatana" is different (and better) from saying "it wasn't as good as expected".
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/2/2008 5:36 PM · Permalink · Report
For me (and I may be alone in this), saying that "most people were disappointed with Daikatana" is different (and better) from saying "it wasn't as good as expected".
Actually, I wouldn't put either of those phrases into description. Descriptions are there to describe the game, not tell us about its relationship with the public after it was released. That's trivia, and that's where such things should go.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/2/2008 8:34 PM · Permalink · Report
Descriptions are there to describe the game, not tell us about its relationship with the public after it was released.
I've discussed earlier the many stories of any given software project: the story of its creation and the circumstances inspiring it, the plot of the game, what it's like to play the game, how the game was received upon release, and the game's legacy in terms of sequels or clones. I consider the plot and the gameplay the most important stories to tap into for a description, but I consider all the other ones also fair game and no one has really made much of an attempt to convince me otherwise beyond some appeal to their personal taste which I apparently don't share 8)
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/2/2008 5:40 PM · Permalink · Report
You can't tell from the game's description, but the upset and disappointment is barely mentioned, just a nod to the ad campaign in the trivia section.
I think that's exactly where such thing belong - to trivia. A trivia submission describing the game's reception is good. A paragraph about it in a description is not good. Not even because it's arguably subjective, but because it has nothing to do with a description. A game's fate after its release has nothing to do with a description of its story or gameplay.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/7/2008 3:18 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Sciere wrote--]There is no such thing as a general truth, but in a few rare cases there is a general consensus over where a game failed. In Big Rigs that's fairly obvious, but for other games it only becomes apparent after a long time. For the very certainties in this case, we need to store this kind of knowledge for people to read it in many years. Just think of Daikatana, the marketing and all the feedback from the public. You can't tell from the game's description, but the upset and disappointment is barely mentioned, just a nod to the ad campaign in the trivia section. [/Q --end Sciere wrote--]
No offense to the original submitter of the description. :)
Quote from Big Rigs description:
...In reality, the game has no gameplay. A lack of AI means that the opposing truck does not even move from its starting location, so there is really no "race" to begin with. Winning is virtually guaranteed....
Aw, come on. This has "review" written all over it. We can't be "officially" judging this stuff on the game screen. If you meet just one gamer who "actually" likes it and says otherwise to the above, regardless of his/her IQ level, then it would be incorrect.
Subjective is anything assuming that something is one way or the other. And assumption as we all know is never a good thing. Hey I think my right foot is sexy, everyone knows that...or I assume.
<hr />[edit] replies to Pseudo's and Oleg's arm wrestling :)
There also something we haven't mentioned here, mates. One-line summary of the review, that in itself provides some form of "subjective truths" in the main page of the game.
I only found out about Daikatana after seeing the one lined titles sensing something was amiss plus being filled in by Oleg.
But seriously, mate. If we mention something obviously bad about a game as part of a "historical fact" then does this mean that we also have to mention the good on other games? (argh, imagine the fanbois).
We're do we draw the line? If such a line exists...
mobiusclimber (235) on 3/7/2008 6:57 PM · Permalink · Report
While I agree that the first sentence there ("There is no gameplay") sounds a bit review-ish, if the other vehicles don't actually start up and race you then this is NOT a review, but a description. If the other vehicles sit at the starting line and don't move, obviously that is something that should be described as part of the "gameplay".
Indra was here (20755) on 3/16/2008 2:39 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start mobiusclimber wrote--]While I agree that the first sentence there ("There is no gameplay") sounds a bit review-ish, if the other vehicles don't actually start up and race you then this is NOT a review, but a description. If the other vehicles sit at the starting line and don't move, obviously that is something that should be described as part of the "gameplay". [/Q --end mobiusclimber wrote--]
Hmm...point taken.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/7/2008 9:10 PM · Permalink · Report
Subjective is anything assuming that something is one way or the other.
...
Subjective is just anything that may divert the leader to a negative or positive light, depending on the words used.
My problem with people rallying against things being "subjective" is often that they don't seem to have a good idea of what subjectivity is, perhaps as a result of viewing its frequent connotative use. Something that is subjective is tainted by unprovable opinion motivated by interpretation and intuition, in contrast to something that is objective, which contains demonstrable fact more in keeping with a scientific or legal framework. Many things that reflect negatively (and positively also!) on a game are nonetheless matters of public record, sometimes to the extent of being established in a court of law! Things like a game's functionality, typicality, innovation, fan popularity, critical reception, sales figures, inspiration and legacy are not necessarily pulled out of a submitter's ass; if there's a problem with these passages swaying the description's overall flow, the problem is not a lack of subjectivity but a lack of a reputable source.
... and if approvers have a problem with the slant of a description, I would appreciate their urging the contributor to be more even-handed and not less subjective.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/7/2008 9:13 PM · Permalink · Report
I envision a problematic scenario with a contributor selectively employing objective information items in order to depict an overall subjective and unfairly skewed view of a game, choosing to draw only on the facts that reflect poorly on it. All the same, I don't think this problem has really come up.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/8/2008 12:17 PM · Permalink · Report
But seriously, mate. If we mention something obviously bad about a game as part of a "historical fact" then does this mean that we also have to mention the good on other games? (argh, imagine the fanbois).
Exactly. The moment we allow such stuff into game descriptions, phrases like "Phantasy Star 3 is widely recognized as the black sheep of the series" or "Half-Life is considered by most people a revolution in FPS genre" will cause a never-ending string of revision submissions :)
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/2/2008 10:07 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
it would be a disaster if everyone started writing like him.
Please, you're too kind 8)
He's great at what he does with all those obscure independent games, his description gives them an additional emphasis.
The exciting thing about indie games is that for lack of resources, they don't bother to fight on the flashy fronts they know they can't compete on (hm, turns out that iD has already made a 3D engine better than ours!), and instead can be based more solely on the merits of their concept and its implementation: is it a good idea and how well does it work? You don't have much to grab on to in regards to the graphics and sound, so you have to get philosophical and understand, more abstractly, what kind of game it is trying to be. If you try to get philosophical without style, you may as well be writing arcane algorithms or inscrutable glyphs on a wall.
But descriptions of "mainstream" games should be definitely kept more objective, and less stylish.
Ohhh... are you saying that people shouldn't be trying to put interesting opinions into reviews of boring games? 8) (Please note: the description of a FPS is not the proper platform from which to launch into an analysis of the unjust war it was inspired by.)
Even if "everyone" agree that a certain game has bad controls etc., it still doesn't make it objective truth, and it shouldn't be a part of a description.
Are there many cases in the game industry of a universally-reviling reception in the gaming press being ignored and resulting in an enjoyable gaming experience by the masses? (This happens in film all the time: instead of saying the movie was "good", the critics are reduced to saying it was "successful".) It's wrong to adhere to the party line of the critics when a robust and vocal fanbase still gets a lot of enjoyment out of what is viewed as a failure... I think that a good description will note the controversy and be evenhanded, perhaps remarking on an abysmal rating by the authorities being overstated.
All the same, there are some eternal and constant gaming truths, regardless of whether or not you can find one outlying holy idiot to disagree: ET was the wrong blockbuster 2600 game for the 1982 Christmas season; everybody secretly hoped for the irritating Cedric the Owl in King's Quest 5 to take a permanent leave of absence; press-A-to-continue dialogues in Final Fantasy games will never scroll quickly enough; and everyone has gotten frustrated enough to try shooting at the dog in Duck Hunt once. If nods to these phenomena help to increase an individual's overall understanding of a game they may have never played, even if the opinion isn't unanimous (maybe Cedric polled well among 4-year-old girls), I think it belongs in the description. So it's less encyclopediac in tone: I believe in approaching truth as a poet aspires to -- by isolating and exposing the soul of the matter (at least, attempting to) that sets the tone for its manifestations. ET makes a lot more sense once you know about the landfill.
I also think that the second paragraph of Big Rigs description should be removed.
I would consider it a glaring omission to omit implementation failures apparent to any player within the first 30 seconds of gameplay. Consider the hypothetical "Frontman Games presents: Billiards. Now, before playing this game, it is important to understand that due to an oversight in the game's testing, none of the balls actually go down the holes. They're slightly too large to fit." What do you mean that's non-objective and needs to go? That would be the single most important thing someone needs to know about the game, something that makes it stand out (hopefully!) from all other billiards games!
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/2/2008 5:46 PM · Permalink · Report
All the same, there are some eternal and constant gaming truths, regardless of whether or not you can find one outlying holy idiot to disagree
Sure, there are such truths, and we should document them - just not in a game description! That's what our trivia section is for.
Ohhh... are you saying that people shouldn't be trying to put interesting opinions into reviews of boring games?
Reviews sure, just not descriptions.
I hope you don't misunderstand me; your descriptions are fantastic and I enjoy reading them even though I have no interest in most, if not all, of the games you submit. But they shouldn't become a standard. They are like cream on a cake, definitely the most delicious part, but if the whole cake is made out of cream, it wouldn't be a cake any more :)
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/2/2008 9:35 AM · Permalink · Report
an iductivistic approach
All right, Google was helpless; can you please use some synonym? 8)
if I was to add opinion (even if consensual)
That is consensual as in consensus rather than "with consent"? I think more standard English use would be "even if unanimous")
I would try to make it sound like "its gameplay is usually regarded as bad" or something like that.
"Many critics of this game found..." and if you're uninterested in doing that homework, you can often find disparaging remarks about aspects of the game straight from the author's mouth in interviews and documentation. "Even the programmer admitted that the controls weren't as responsive as he'd been hoping..." I figure that if even the creator of the game can't be tapped for a totally relevant opinion, then objectivity has run rampant to preposterous proportions. (More often than not I find those inside sources overly self-critical, and the remarks might go more along the lines of "Though the programmer felt the controls were too imprecise, most players should take to them quickly.")
chirinea (47495) on 3/2/2008 9:42 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]an iductivistic approach All right, Google was helpless; can you please use some synonym? 8) [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] That's because you didn't ask Wikipedia!
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] if I was to add opinion (even if consensual) That is consensual as in consensus rather than "with consent"? I think more standard English use would be "even if unanimous") [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Sorry, that's my bad habit of translating words from Portuguese "on the fly". Yeah, I mean as in consensus.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/7/2008 3:00 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] this is a game about a walking penis... why are you laughing? I'm being very serious about this! Now, the penis shoots spermatozoa at the angry llamas... again, you snicker! Please, contain yourself. Now, once the llama is entirely covered in semen... [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
Tweak this a bit and it actually looks like a game description. Now there is a grey area between "writing style" vs "subjectivity". For me subjectivity is when you judge a game in a certain like. Usually identified by certain use of adjectives here and there.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/7/2008 2:51 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]"....difficult to master...", "....Jack is naked again...", "....so is the dog..."
These are bad examples, because none of them are necessarily subjective. It's pretty much a matter of public record, for instance, that Defender was extraordinarily unforgiving among its coin-op age-peers. If Jack being naked provides continuity to earlier games or is a hallmark of the series, then that's a relevant detail! The dog bit is irrelevant humour, but still not subjective. [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
Actually, the last two were intended as a joke, but the first is not. But difficult or not, regardless of fact/common consensus is something for a review mate, not the game description. Like saying a game has a bugs, extraordinary gameplay, or even the first game who used some new technology. Save that for reviews and trivia.
Игги Друге (46653) on 3/7/2008 9:55 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] [Q2 --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]"....difficult to master...", "....Jack is naked again...", "....so is the dog..." [/Q2 --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
Actually, the last two were intended as a joke, but the first is not. But difficult or not, regardless of fact/common consensus is something for a review mate, not the game description. Like saying a game has a bugs, extraordinary gameplay, or even the first game who used some new technology. Save that for reviews and trivia. [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]
Why is "difficult" something for a review when "100 screens" or "vector graphics" is not? Of course you can't say that Game X is difficult just because you personally didn't make it onto the high score list, but you can definitely say it if it is described as difficult by several sources, with few countering that assesment.
Mind you, that doesn't mean that stating that Defender is difficult (it is!) is the way to go; rather, you should qualify that statement with something like "...for its fatally fast scrolling, action going on outside of the screen at all times and a complicated four-button manoeuvring".
Indra, you shouldn't disqualify statements about a game's complexity or colour rendition – instead, you should ask the submitter to qualify his statement.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/19/2008 7:33 PM · Permalink · Report
Oh, one more thing to add, which I rarely see in descriptions: Explanation on sub-genre's non-sport genre's, perspective's used.
For example, if you have a game that uses both 1st person and 3rd person perspectives, it's better to explain which part of the gameplay uses which perspectives, since for some games, different parts of the game may use different default non-changeable/changeable perspectives.
If a game has a "medieval/fantasy" sub-genre, the description should explain "why" it's a medieval/fantasy game, usually by identifying the background plot.