Hello everyone. I'm rather new to this forum as my display indicates, however I must say that after reading some topics and responses I rather enjoy this forum over others. For the most part you are very civilized towards each other, and when there are disagreements with someone you offer rather constructive comments instead of blazing insults. This cannot be said about several other forums I've been a part of. So I do applaud you all for not taking this too seriously and just enjoying people with similar interests.

So enough kissing ass. I am currently enrolled at the University of Illinois (I'm a Brit but I live in the U.S., let's get that clear right now) as an English major. In one of my classes, I need to write 10 reviews on whatever I choose. The catch is, I need have have each review peer edited and so on and so forth. So I figured I could do some game reviews and have you all take a look at them and offer some tips on improvement. I will greatly appreciate any feedback I can get, and hopefully we can keep the insults to a minimum.

So on to the review of the game I got for Christmas: Super Paper Mario!

Being a Mario fan since the days of the arcade, I was deeply disappointed to watch Nintendo turn Mario into a cashwhore over the past decade or so. It seemed like every time I walked into a store, there was a new Mario game out and it looked worse than the last one. Sure, Mario Kart was fun, and still is after a few drinks. But do we really need Mario Party 8? Or Smash Bros...whatever number it's on? I think what really bothered me about the character is the focus shifted from platforming and offering a challenge to milking out title after title just to make a quick buck. So I must say I was skeptical when I opened the wrapping paper to find Super Paper Mario and Mario Galaxy in my hands.

Now I have never played any of the prior Paper Mario games because 1. I know the second one has turn based combat and I'd rather sit naked on a railroad spike outside in a blizzard with a hungry polar bear than use turn based combat, and 2. becase of what I have already said about the Mario Franchise. I wasn't sure what to expect as I began playing.

As I made my way through the first chapter of the game, I found myself enjoying it more and more. The platforming was interesting and being able to flip between 2D and 3D only added to the experience. By the end of the third chapter or so, I was actually having quite a bit of fun with this silly game. This is odd for me, as it seems that games aimed at younger players tend to lean on the 'borderline idiocracy' standard when it comes to dialouge. But this game offered some rather funny quips and many inside Mario jokes as well (there's an optional challenge to defeat 100 enemies, all of whom have Mario related names like Bottomless Chasm or Turtle Stomper or something along those lines). The game reminded me of a Pixar film, because they usually manage to add content that amuses the older audience as well as the target younger audience. The farting, ugly Scottish character and toliet humour will please the kids whilst the little side stories will please the older crowd (i.e. Bowser and Peach get 'married', Lugi believing he is a legendary hero, etc.).

What really turned my head though was the use of various tools called Pixls. For those who haven't played the game, a Pixl gives Mario different abilites depending on which one he has selected (i.e. shrinking, ground pound, turning paper thin, etc.). Personally, I was quite keen on being able to carry a hammer Pixl with me. But as cool as this concept is it also is the games first flaw. By then end of the game you can have 12 Pixls helping you. But several of these are only used when you first find them and then maybe one or two other spots in the game. I personally could not find a good use for the Shrinking Pixl other than the few times it is needed. And then there's this silly Piccolo Pixl that helps in one part of the game, and the rest of the time plays terrible MIDI tunes that a cheap keyboard wouldn't admit to having been involved with. The 12 Pixls also pose another dillema: When you get stuck somewhere, only one of those Pixls is the right one to use. And it's not super obvious which one to use in each case. And when you do figure it out, you almost feel like the game is laughing at you for being thick and not 'getting it' the instant you walked into the bloody brick wall. But I can ignore the smirk on the games face because it does give me a hammer to smash things with whenever I want.

One thing I found particularly annoying was the endless maze of some of the worlds. It's fine at first, but after you've opened the 15th door and still haven't found the right one yet you start to get on the postal side. And the endless feeling of being Moses and crossing the desert to get a key to a door you need to get through (especially in the cloud section) sets you on par with the lunatics who actually thought Michael Jackson's Moonwalker was a great videogame (Yes, I'm old enough to remember when that came out).

The level designs were rather tight through the first few worlds, but towards the end it seems as if the game was rushed a bit to meet the production deadline. For example, the music in all of the worlds was rather enjoyable and polished for being a Mario game, but by the last world it sounded like they had the Piccolo Pixl write it on his cheap MIDI keyboard the night before the game was due. And I understand that the whole last world is supposed to be dark and depressing, but the entire thing is a black castle with white lines! Hell, the final castle in Super Mario for SNES was far more interesting and detailed than the final one here. Let's also not forget the fact that almost every world we visit in this game is found in every other Mario game as well. It's not a Mario game unless he goes to the desert, underwater, underground, into the clouds, into a forest and of course, into many castles and temples. The only thing missing here is an ice world, which is fine by me because whomever made the ice world in Super Mario 3 needs to be kicked in the bollocks really really hard and then bit by a doberman. But we do get a rather neat world called The Underwhere (haha, it's a play on words...real clever, jackass) which is where one can 'have their game end'. If you talk to some of the residents, they'll tell you they got there by fireballs, falling into pits and other various ways Mario has died throughout his years.

I am by no means a graphics whore in that I need my games to be pushing the system to the limit. I prefer to look at the gameplay and the overall challenge of the game instead of knocking off points because it didn't look real enough or clear enough. But I will say that the graphics are not bad for this game. Not that anyone was really expecting Paper Mario to push the Wii to its boundaries anyway. It was a clear, crisp and I think rather clever game in the graphics department, but as I said I don't particularly care.

What I enjoyed most about this game was the storytelling. After playing through games such as BioShock and Assassins Creed, I enjoyed a simple sotryline that had no hidden secrets (sure, there kind of is one, but if you can't figure it out you're either five or are the kind of person that thinks drinking antifreeze is a good idea). This was easy to follw, funny at times and remarkably tight. And once you've beaten the game, there is still a whole new set of challenges that you can attempt. There are two sets of trials, each one being 100 levels apiece, and then the aforementioned battle against 100 enemies as well. Plus, if you want to play Pokemon you can use catch cards and capture every enemy you face in the game.

Overall, I found the game enjoyable and fun to play. It was not terribly difficult, and at times I found myself glancing out the window because traffic was more interesting, but I can forgive that because it gave me a hammer. And I can play as Bowser. And I also didn't have to pay for the game.

7.5/10

These reviews are supposed to be very casual and written like you are having a conversation, so I am fully aware that there are some syntax errors and passive errors. But jog on, I don't care. Also, I might be an English major, but spelling is not my strong point (ironic, isn't it?). Please forgive those errors, but any other errors you may have at. Again, I appreciate any feedback I get, and I throw myself at your mercy!

I am by no means a great editor, but I will send some feedback your way in hopes that I will randomly blurt out something that will help you editing this and future articles.

Evil Lawyer:
Being a Mario fan since the days of the arcade, I was deeply disappointed to watch Nintendo turn Mario into a cashwhore over the past decade or so. It seemed like every time I walked into a store, there was a new Mario game out and it looked worse than the last one. Sure, Mario Kart was fun, and still is after a few drinks. But do we really need Mario Party 8? Or Smash Bros...whatever number it's on? I think what really bothered me about the character is the focus shifted from platforming and offering a challenge to milking out title after title just to make a quick buck. So I must say I was skeptical when I opened the wrapping paper to find Super Paper Mario and Mario Galaxy in my hands.

You could certainly expand on why you feel the capitalization of the Mario IP has hurt Nintendo. You could probably write an entire thesis on that subject itself. This is in many ways the strongest point in your article. Still it lacks some explanation.

Evil Lawyer:
Now I have never played any of the prior Paper Mario games because 1. I know the second one has turn based combat and I'd rather sit naked on a railroad spike outside in a blizzard with a hungry polar bear than use turn based combat, and 2. becase of what I have already said about the Mario Franchise. I wasn't sure what to expect as I began playing.

Although the imagery of someone hating a game mechanic so much that he'd inflict pain on himself is fun, it's not necessarily funny. Try to rework the humor so it has broader appeal or in contrast is even more ridiculous. Remember that humor is in the details. If you can somehow tie the humor in with the theme of your article you will be golden.
I am unsure about your use of numbering. It seems out of place in writing, even though it makes perfect sense when I say it out loud. At least replace the numerals with written words one, and two.

Evil Lawyer:
The game reminded me of a Pixar film, because they usually manage to add content that amuses the older audience as well as the target younger audience.

This could be clarified. What content do you mean? The humor right? Try to stay away from ambiguous words like content, stuff, things and a host of other words that make sense in spoken language, but confuse people when they are read.

Evil Lawyer:
And the endless feeling of being Moses and crossing the desert to get a key to a door you need to get through (especially in the cloud section) sets you on par with the lunatics who actually thought Michael Jackson's Moonwalker was a great videogame (Yes, I'm old enough to remember when that came out).

This sentence is a paragraph unto itself. I am not even sure what it means. Moses crossing desert? Are you Jewish? Where did the biblical reference come from? Did we establish somewhere along the way that Mario was leading his people to Israel? Sorry, not trying to be mean, I think you just need to clairify this statement. In this sentence I felt like you were trying to convey something about your experience with video games. What came out was that people who liked Moonwalker are dumb. The fact that you worded it "Yes, I'm old enough to remember when that game came out." Sounds demeaning to people who aren't that old.

Evil Lawyer:
I am by no means a graphics whore in that I need my games to be pushing the system to the limit. I prefer to look at the gameplay and the overall challenge of the game instead of knocking off points because it didn't look real enough or clear enough. But I will say that the graphics are not bad for this game. Not that anyone was really expecting Paper Mario to push the Wii to its boundaries anyway. It was a clear, crisp and I think rather clever game in the graphics department, but as I said I don't particularly care.

I think it's good because you established that you don't really care what your games look like. However I feel like anything positive you might have said about the graphics after that point wasn't strong enough for me to overcome the feeling that you (the author) wasn't knowledgeable about graphics in general.

Evil Lawyer:
Overall, I found the game enjoyable and fun to play. It was not terribly difficult, and at times I found myself glancing out the window because traffic was more interesting, but I can forgive that because it gave me a hammer. And I can play as Bowser. And I also didn't have to pay for the game.

Very weak closing statement. Summaries should resolve the conflicts you wrote in your article. This paints a very bleak picture of the game for me since the phrase "enjoyable and fun" isn't really either. The statement directly after was a much stronger picture in my mind. A bored gamer staring out the window like zombie while the Wii hums in the background.

Evil Lawyer:
These reviews are supposed to be very casual and written like you are having a conversation, so I am fully aware that there are some syntax errors and passive errors. But jog on, I don't care. Also, I might be an English major, but spelling is not my strong point (ironic, isn't it?). Please forgive those errors, but any other errors you may have at.

Never, ever apologize. End on something funny or light. Remember people only really remember the first and last paragraphs anyway. Make em' count.

P.S. By the way, MJ's Moonwalker, is the best game ever.

P.P.S.

writing911.com:
Starting a sentence with a conjunction can help transition from one idea to another or add a dramatic tone to a passage. If you start sentences this way too often, your paragraphs will sound like one long run-on sentence. Use conjunctions at the start of sentences judiciously.

Like wilsonscrazybed said, I'm no great editor myself either. I am, however, also an English Literature student, and if there's one thing that feels like being a God given right to me it's offering constructive criticism on essays. So let's do this thing...

Wilsoncrazybed suggested 'You could certainly expand on why you feel the capitalization of the Mario IP has hurt Nintendo', but I think that should be qualified slightly: 'You could certainly expand on this...if you think can demonstrate a correlation between the glut of Mario games making the shelves creak, the quality of those games and the quality of this game.' I think that's getting a bit ambitious for something to demonstrate in one game review. Like he said, there's a dissertation in there, but as a throwaway comment it's just asking for trouble. Personally I'd stay away from it because you're going to get a lot of people reading it and thinking 'How dare he bash Super Smash Bros? Doesn't he know how innovative the new one is? Doesn't he realise...' and so on. These people may be cretins, but riling them up without going anywhere does no one any good.

Wilsonscrazybed also picked up one your 'I'd rather x than do y' pieces imagery (I like to call it a Charlie Brooker-ism). I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think that sort of thing only really works when you go for a blunt understatement ('I'd rather cut my face off with a particularly dull 2p coin') or wild, absurd overstatement ('I'd rather be stuck in a lifeboat, adrift at sea for the rest of eternity, playing endless games of Snap! with Hitler and a pre-Menstrual polar bear. Like Life of Pi with Nazis'). Actually, if you had the choice I'd avoid going with a Nazi image, because that's what every moron does- handsome morons, anyway. The point of all this being, nobody takes what you're saying seriously when you claim you'd 'rather x than y', it's just suspension of disbelief. Would you rather sit on a railroad spike? Of course not, we know that, and you know that. If you're going to ask someone to suspend their disbelief for you (although that's enough to get you funny looks where I live) then make it worthwhile. Go OTT for just a few seconds, and then reel it back in and carry on.

Also, the Moonwalker reference could alienate the young players ('Moonwalker? What the ruddy hell is this old fart on about? I'm off for some happy slapping and alcopops') but also the players who are older than yourself, who may not appreciate feeling like relics of a bygone age ('What the devil? Jeffington, fetch my top hat and cane, and ready the carriage. We're going to teach this young upstart a lesson or two...Queensbury style!') Keep in mind people are very easy to offend, so if you're going to do it, really mean it, and make a point with it.

On the slightly more abstract advice side, your review in general reads...well, it reads like a game review. It kind of hops between the lily pads of 'Now I'll mention level design, now graphics, a quick dig at the Pixl things...', but it lacks a nice sense of flow. I know, it's terrible when people say things like 'flow' and offer no explication. Parts of your review feel too discrete from the other parts: personally I like a bit of continuity. If you can link between one paragraph and the next it really helps the reader (and their brain) follow your argument, and keep in mind these are all facets of the same game. Even if you only link paragraphs by continuing a joke or keeping a certain mood, it will stop the reader seeing a wall of text and realising that each paragraph is a world unto itself with it's own laws and dress-codes.

Plus I quite liked the 'Underwhere' pun. Sure as hell's better than 'Crysis'. Each to their own, though...

In conclusion...I'd say never end the review with a sentence saying 'overall' or 'in conclusion...' People will know when they read the last sentence whether it's a conclusion or not, and your say-so will not affect this. You don't start a paragraph saying 'In a spirit of irreverent humour' or 'I've reached the middle point of my review now, and will be pausing for a cup of tea and a choccy digestive.' It's only a little gripe, but the number of reviews of all sorts of things I've read, even from English professors who ought to know better, who seem under the impression they are legally obliged to end 'Ergo, therefore, in conclusion, yadda-yadda...'

BUT BUT BUT! These are small and largely easily resolved issues. The biggest thing to aim for is to create a bit more unity in the feel of the essay. Don't feel compelled to tick all the 'game review' boxes because it seems the decent thing to do. Be a bit indecent. Just a bit.

Gigantor:
Also, the Moonwalker reference could alienate the young players ('Moonwalker? What the ruddy hell is this old fart on about? I'm off for some happy slapping and alcopops') but also the players who are older than yourself, who may not appreciate feeling like relics of a bygone age ('What the devil? Jeffington, fetch my top hat and cane, and ready the carriage. We're going to teach this young upstart a lesson or two...Queensbury style!') Keep in mind people are very easy to offend, so if you're going to do it, really mean it, and make a point with it.

I rather liked this bit. Thank you for conjuring a rather amusing image in my head.

Anyway, I'd like to thank both Gigantor and Wilsonscrazybed for your detailed feedback. I will admit that I only ran through it once looking for grammatical errors and not textual errors, but that's what you guys are here for, right? After a bout of editing, I can check this one off the 'Done' list.

Gigantor:
In conclusion...I'd say never end the review with a sentence saying 'overall' or 'in conclusion...

Haha. Ironically, I hate this as well, and I didn't even realize I did it until I just reread the thing. [note to self, don't write reviews at 2am unless coffee and doughnuts are provided.]

This was by no means a bad review. You make a very valid point about Pixls. Now for criticizing.

You spend a lot of the review not reviewing the game. The first two paragraphs don't really introduce anything about the game or the Mario franchise other than there are a lot of games, most of which you know nothing about. Why would I read a review by someone who's unfamiliar with a product line but still has an opinion about it and ties it into their review? The third paragraph starts you off already in the game.

"Super Paper Mario is the third game of the Paper Mario franchise which is at least the 50th or so game to feature Nintendo's flagship mascot, Mario. Whatever reputation the little red plumber had as a beacon for excellent platform gaming has been squandered by Nintendo by putting him in many non-excellent games. Mario was the mascot for Kart racing whose success has spawned a genre and sub-franchise of it's own. Being the victim of its own success, Mario was then put in every other genre Nintendo saw fit, regardless of quality. Typing, geographical education, golf, soccer, Kart racing, tennis, party games, basketball, puzzle, and RPG quests became part of Mario's repertoire-- often with mediocre results. Given his track record, there was no expectation of getting a good game out of Super Paper Mario."

That's how I would start a review. Stay focused. You get a brief history of the Mario franchise(s) and why you're not expecting the game to be good. It gets people who know nothing up to speed and doesn't bore people that know the score. Putting humor in, if it works, doesn't really help educate, if it fails to entertain, no one will read it.

Also, be 100% accurate. Both previous Paper Mario games featured turn-based combat (where you use a hammer), so did Super Mario RPG (where you use a hammer, too). Now the previous Paper Mario games weren't exclusively turn based either, there were timing actions used to boost damage or defense; some enemies could be killed on the map without using Turn and Timing based combat as well.

I think your joke about turn based combat fails to deliver because it doesn't really say anything. TBC<Railroad-tie Polar-bear death-rape? You're comparing abstracts without defining either. The casual tone of the review doesn't mean that spoken abstracts transfer to written humor. Here's my take on TBC, not critical to the review or necessarily funny.

"I can't help thinking of every turn-based combat encounter in an RPG as the game of War (card game). Sure you can win or lose but it never feels like skill. All combat seems predetermined from the start of a match. Take a deck of cards. Give yourself a 2, 3, 4, and a 5 and make another hand of a 2 and a 3, set other cards aside. Now play war with these 2 hands. Did you win? Of course you did! You were a young but brave warrior and your opponent was a wood snake or something. Now take your two 2s and 3s, and 4 & 5 and go to the dragon's lair. Deal the dragon a 10 and a Jack. Play the hand. Did you win? Of course you didn't, you need to go questing so you can pack your side of the deck with queens, kings, and aces, young, but brave warrior! When you have quested enough better cards, will it be skill that slays the dragon? You bet, the skill of having a better hand to play against the dragon! Sure that's not TBC to a tee but it's not that far off either. If you're going to make a combat system based on deck stacking, don't make the part where you play out losing or winning hands so long and boring."

That's how I see TBC. I put in in context of something that the rest of the audience is familiar with, a children's card game. It's not a terribly funny perspective but maybe your view of it is. And if you can make it concise, all the better, you have a smart joke then. If you don't believe that TBC is worse than the Railroad Spike Polar bear death rape, don't write that. Be honest with your opinions, even if they're not that humorous.

I like that you comment on level design. You start off well too. "...Begins with tight design..." but instead of continuing with the rope or wire metaphor, but then level design becomes "rushed." Rushed how? Are the levels loose and then tangled? Were they clever in the beginning but then devolved into something basic or easy or were they harder to navigate? Does the game start to defy it's own logic? Does the platforming ever increase in challenge? Does platforming ever get boring? No ice level? Castle from SMW? Why criticize a game you're not reviewing? What made the ice level in Mario 3 so bad? You shouldn't need to add a lot of extra ideas just to put a small joke in your review. Keep focused.

I also would avoid the cliche "graphicswhore" or anything-whore. If how technically advanced the graphics are or aren't, what about the art direction? I think saying that the dark world is bland is important. Does it hurt your eyes to look at? Is it easy to get lost because of this choice? Is it ever hard to tell what's going on or what to do because of the graphics? Was it intentional or just poor design? As far as the music and sound go, you comment on the cheap Midi sound. Well just because something sounds cheap doesn't mean anything. Weird electronic music has been around for a great long time. Noise rock and lo-fi are as popular as ever. Hell, Beck did the whole 8 bit thing or whatever the hype. Is the music memorable? No? Complex, de-constructively simple? Bland and uninspired? Intentionally retro sounding? Sure, bad sound might be laziness in action or it could be a great artistic design choice you can agree or disagree with.

As far as the overall scope of the review, it seems like you're talking about a game that the reader is familiar with and that knows your personal taste. You go into specifics criticisms without ever mentioning how the game plays overall. You think the humor can be enjoyed by adults and children but criticize the "underwhere" pun. So simple humor is taken too far? The Pixar reference doesn't help much to educate about the game and seems unnecessary since what you say about the humor is stated explicitly. I know nothing of the controls, the pace, the length, the wordiness, the depth of the rpg or platforming elements, or even the overall goal of the game from your review. The art direction and music are barely mentioned.

Tell me about the game. Stay focused when doing so. At this point, the humor and additional information about other games or movies ends up hurting the review. It sounds like your using a review as a vehicle for crude humor and specific game critiques, not as an educated, overall view of a game.