A while ago, when I was an up and rising reviewer, I stumbled across a review on a site I frequented. In short, I loved it. It was just so awesomely written, that I just new if I used it I would instantly gain some fame, and more people to view my reviews. And being young, and foolish, I used it. I was tired of putting work into my reviews and only getting a hand full of posts. Let's face it, the User Reviews section is heavily under posted it.

So I took it, and used it. And though some liked it, it wasn't the attention grabber I had hoped for. Months passed and it fell from mine and general memory. Then I got an completely understandable angry message from the original writer. The word ashamed is not strong enough. Hastily deleted it and pmed him back, apologizing for what I had done those months ago. I felt terrible. So to Clayton Purdom, and all my other readers and other reviewers out there, take a lesson from me. Plagiarism is the stupidest thing you can do, and when you look back at what you did, it will make you feel terrible.

So my greatest apologies to everyone here, I would never do this again if given the second chance, and given the maturity this year has beaten into me.

Bottom line: Plagiarism is stupid, don't do it.

The previous was is an apology issued from the user to the community. We appreciate it. -mod

I'm a bit confused about how you're able to split the time devoted between multiplayer and single player. As long as you're logged on, you're on line experiencing all the hints, bloodstains, and phantoms. By multiplayer, do you mean time spent either as or interacting with blue and black phantoms?

Anyway, your review is... good. I'm not sure if I've read and commented on other reviews you've written, but what's evident to me is that you reviewed Demon's Souls as if it were your once abusive mistress. From reading it, I couldn't help but pick up on a sort of "Holier Than Thou" tinge, although maybe it's just the nods to Gravity's Rainbow, Bacon, and Lynch. Stranger still is that all the criticisms you've made towards Demon's Souls still end up flattering the game. It's almost as if it's as futile to review as it is to play, which is probably why I'm delaying my review of it too.

*cough* Demon's Souls: 2, Pimppeter2: 0 */cough*

Anyway, I generally liked the review. It reads well enough and nothing you've written really stood out for me as being wrong (grammar wise). The real problem I have is how loftily you've elevated the game's difficulty.

Yes, Demon's Souls is hard, probably one of the hardest games for people who lack the steel resolve of growing up with video games through their childhood in the late eighties and nineties. But Demon's Souls is also law abiding in a "strict but fair" sort of way. Once you wrap your head around the rules by which the game plays and understand the principles in action, much of the challenge dissipates. (These points, and others, are things I'll expand on in my review if I ever sit down to write it).

Anyway, I must confess that your review is lacking in a few areas. You don't cover character creation or classes, you don't go into enough depth with your gameplay analysis, and you don't touch on how the difficulty curve takes a serious hit because it has to cater to a crappy illusion of open-endedness. For a game that is as "mechanic driven" as Demon's Souls, I feel that you overlooked quite a bit in favour of talking about difficulty and art design.

But, like I said, it's still a good review. I think you reviewed to your strengths, so perhaps it's for the best that it's a little bit curt.

(Also, you lost me on your very last paragraph just above the "That Guy" image. That analogy just fell flat for me)

Like so many English teachers have said before, write to express not to impress. This might impress some people, but I'd like to submit that it isn't very useful as a review. For example, I can guarantee that 50% (or more) of your audience will have no idea what Gravity's Rainbow is. It's alienating to the reader. Explain the game like you're trying to sell it to a friend who hasn't heard of it... or whatever. A general rule of thumb is that if you have to include a wikipedia page explaining something, it isn't worth including :) Plus, there are quite a few things that you didn't mention about the game, which Maet mentioned.

Also, if your goal is to get this published on a professional-ish site, there are lots of little details that need to be cleaned up. Like, last paragraph feels way out-of-place. Most of the piece has a pretentious sort-of tone (which is... not good to begin with), and the pictures, the last paragraph, and some other bits and pieces are so different that they take away from the article, rather than make it more enjoyable.

Leaps and leaps and bounds (and etcetera) ahead of what I've read of your other stuff. That isn't meant as an insult to your other stuff, either. I'd suggest putting down the thesaurus and asking yourself "do I really need to include this part?" -- if the answer isn't maybe not, cut it, because as is, there's too many gratuitous metaphors and whatnot. I'm being pretty harsh, but you obviously have some potential here. I'm pretty sure that this sort of piece will garner some popularity on the Escapist, despite what I've said. And if you enjoy writing this way and are happy with the piece, don't mind me. To recap: there's loads of potential in the writing, but as a review, it's not quite there.

Also...

Maet:

(you lost me on your very last paragraph just above the "That Guy" image. That analogy just fell flat for me)

Hmm...maybe I might like this game...maybe.

I did like this review though. Very much so as it was a swell read compared to the otherwise hard as hell game.

Why isn't my game on the review agenda? :(

Just kidding...you don't have to write a review of it if you don't want to. But then I'd have to tell you how your sister is a screamer.

Brillaint review, man. Absolutly brilliant. Way to capture the spirit of this game. The only real fault the game has is the lock-on mode. If you use a lot of directed magic or projectiles, locking on can be quite a pain.

I'm still trying to defeat Maneater. I'll get that son of a bitch one day.

Cleril:
Hmm...maybe I might like this game...maybe.

I did like this review though. Very much so as it was a swell read compared to the otherwise hard as hell game.

Why isn't my game on the review agenda? :(

Just kidding...you don't have to write a review of it if you don't want to. But then I'd have to tell you how your sister is a screamer.

That's a good idea actually. I'll add it to my board

Maet:

(Also, you lost me on your very last paragraph just above the "That Guy" image. That analogy just fell flat for me)

It means that the game is a badass that you should not like, but dammit you wish you were like him.

He's THAT kinda GUY. :P

The very first image is broken, might wanna check the url for it :) Loved the review, you're one reviewer that knows where and when to place pictures.

Why is it that so many people believe that a review can only be good if its conducted My First Dollhouse style?

What differentiates Roger Ebert from the litany of other critics is that he doesn't just list out the features of the game like a developer press release; he writes on the experience, not the film.

This was the exact same experience I got from reading this review. I may not be able to write a 1000-word critical essay on Demon's Souls now, but at least I now understand the experience of playing the game, and this is far more useful than a check list of features.

Christ knows, at least it is far more entertaining than the myriad of identi-kit "The graphics are good, the combat is good, the story is good" reviews which litter the Internet like so much banal toxic waste.

pimppeter2:

Cleril:
Hmm...maybe I might like this game...maybe.

I did like this review though. Very much so as it was a swell read compared to the otherwise hard as hell game.

Why isn't my game on the review agenda? :(

Just kidding...you don't have to write a review of it if you don't want to. But then I'd have to tell you how your sister is a screamer.

That's a good idea actually. I'll add it to my board

Oh, it will count as your FF. Since you told me you had trouble with it.

RyVal:
Why is it that so many people believe that a review can only be good if its conducted My First Dollhouse style?

What differentiates Roger Ebert from the litany of other critics is that he doesn't just list out the features of the game like a developer press release; he writes on the experience, not the film.

This was the exact same experience I got from reading this review. I may not be able to write a 1000-word critical essay on Demon's Souls now, but at least I now understand the experience of playing the game, and this is far more useful than a check list of features.

Christ knows, at least it is far more entertaining than the myriad of identi-kit "The graphics are good, the combat is good, the story is good" reviews which litter the Internet like so much banal toxic waste.

Nobody has said that, and I don't think many people believe that, either. I'm all for that sort-of thing, when done correctly. It's interesting you should bring up Ebert, because I thought about mentioning him in my initial post. I was going to say something about how Ebert uses no useless phrases and speaks unpretentiously throughout, as opposed to pimppeter2's thing. This review, in my opinion, has an uninteresting voice, and the attempted jokes do nothing to help that. My advice wasn't to change the style (Ebert-esque, whatever it is), it was to change his written voice and to stop trying so hard to sound academic. If other people liked it, obviously he should continue doing what he's doing. I actually thought it was good, too, despite what I've said (well, better than the norm these days). However, there are quite a few things to improve on, I think. Just my 2 cents.

Well, nice of you to stick images into your review, pity they don't contribute much. I'd invite you to look at (older) issues of game magazines like EGM or Gamepro (god forbid you read Gamepro). There were funny captions under the images, but for the most part, the screen shots were used to showcase aspects of the game under scrutiny, and the short blurbs beneath them either explained the action or emphasized a point. Occasionally they made pity jokes as well, but the GOAL of a review is to INFORM and CONVINCE--if you can do both without a single picture, than your review is strong. Alternatively, you can have lots of flashy pictures and silly captions that do nothing to get your point across, and you have a weak review. Trying for comedy can stem this wound, but at the end of the day, your audience should know whether the product under scrutiny is good, bad, mediocre, or inconsequential, and also WHY. If your language is too flowery, nobody will understand. If your images too distracting, nobody will care.

RentCavalier:
Well, nice of you to stick images into your review, pity they don't contribute much. I'd invite you to look at (older) issues of game magazines like EGM or Gamepro (god forbid you read Gamepro). There were funny captions under the images, but for the most part, the screen shots were used to showcase aspects of the game under scrutiny, and the short blurbs beneath them either explained the action or emphasized a point. Occasionally they made pity jokes as well, but the GOAL of a review is to INFORM and CONVINCE--if you can do both without a single picture, than your review is strong. Alternatively, you can have lots of flashy pictures and silly captions that do nothing to get your point across, and you have a weak review. Trying for comedy can stem this wound, but at the end of the day, your audience should know whether the product under scrutiny is good, bad, mediocre, or inconsequential, and also WHY. If your language is too flowery, nobody will understand. If your images too distracting, nobody will care.

I disagree. A review without pictures is bland and boreing.

Wall of text syndrome kills reviews, on the Escapist at least. I could do without the silly captions, but I can't help myself

sweet review man, loved it. Can't wait for more of your stuff.

yeah the above comment, no pictures in a review give me eye cancer, so pay no heed.
Images just give reviews a professional sheen, it really makes the difference between a piece of journalism and a piece of coursework.

domble:
sweet review man, loved it. Can't wait for more of your stuff.

yeah the above comment, no pictures in a review give me eye cancer, so pay no heed.
Images just give reviews a professional sheen, it really makes the difference between a piece of journalism and a piece of coursework.

That's what I always thought.

I mean, we read enough black ink on white paper as it is.

About 2-3 weeks ago, I stopped playing. The game had become too easy.

Yes, you read that right. 4 playthroughs, 6 days of Pure Bladestone farming leading into 1 Platinum trophy, and meleeing (no armour, no weapons, no shields, no magic, no miracles, only 2 Crescent Moon Grasses) the final boss to death 2 times later, I realized I had become overpowered in a game that was originally at the "I'm going to kill someone, this is so frustrating" levels of hard... for all of 1-2, 2-1, and 2-2. Grinding made it never hard again after those parts, until the second playthrough, which was legitimately hard until the Holloween event, because I didn't try to advance then, just grind for souls and farm for items.

I don't know, the game always just felt right to me. You know when you pick up the controller, and you just... get it? That was Demon's Souls for me. I figured out everything pretty much right off the bat. Hell, most of my deaths came from me throwing myself off of cliffs on purpose so that I could grind souls faster of darken the world tendency so as to get the Primevil Demon's and Named Black Phantom's too spawn in.

That's not to say it was truly "breeze through" easy until the fourth playthrough, just that rarely did I have to worry about anything killing me if I was ready for it... other than other players and fucking King Allant, and even he was not much of a problem on the fourth playthrough.

Yes, I grind a lot. Here's how (Non-spoiler below, but in case you don't want to know the trick, I put it in the box).

I always like your reviews, and this is no exception.

I liked this review, it's different. A bit more profound and, well, very "literary", if that makes any sense. I've always written mine with a bit more of a straightforward approach. Perhaps I should attempt something more along these lines?

Anyways, thanks for the review, I look forward to more.

These English teachers of yours obviously don't know how the world of reviewing works.

Get paid off by the companies with fancy hotel visits, catering, and shiny stuff so that their games are always favorably reviewed?

Your reviews are simply brilliant, really a pleasure to read!

-Joe

"pimppeter":

while i'm somewhat flattered you've chosen to entirely plagiarize a review i submitted a few months ago to gamecritics.com, i have to ask that you a) come clean about the fact that you did not write the above review, and b) remove it from this site immediately, as it's scheduled to be published by gamecritics.com under my name, SINCE I WROTE IT, FOR THEM, AND YOU'RE FUCKING TAKING CREDIT FOR IT, and they have a right to exclusively publish my writing.

which, i'll repeat, is mine. you fucking skeeze.

to everybody who responded to this review, positively or negatively: thanks!

if there's any question about my above claims, here's a link to my original posting, which "pimppeter" has slightly altered and passed off as his own, posted in november of last year: http://www.gamecritics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16810

and agreed with everybody's comments about his pictures, and particularly his puerile captions. those were not part of my original essay, obviously.

Edited

Wait, why does this have no title?

And why is it just an "a"?

What is happening?!

claytonpurdom:
"pimppeter":

while i'm somewhat flattered you've chosen to entirely plagiarize a review i submitted a few months ago to gamecritics.com, i have to ask that you a) come clean about the fact that you did not write the above review, and b) remove it from this site immediately, as it's scheduled to be published by gamecritics.com under my name, SINCE I WROTE IT, FOR THEM, AND YOU'RE FUCKING TAKING CREDIT FOR IT, and they have a right to exclusively publish my writing.

Ouch...

It wouldn't surprise me if he disappears from the escapist for a while.

Ciarang:

claytonpurdom:
"pimppeter":

while i'm somewhat flattered you've chosen to entirely plagiarize a review i submitted a few months ago to gamecritics.com, i have to ask that you a) come clean about the fact that you did not write the above review, and b) remove it from this site immediately, as it's scheduled to be published by gamecritics.com under my name, SINCE I WROTE IT, FOR THEM, AND YOU'RE FUCKING TAKING CREDIT FOR IT, and they have a right to exclusively publish my writing.

No kidding, I would be embarrassed to hell.

Ouch...

It wouldn't surprise me if he disappears from the escapist for a while.