Who likes reading reviews...

[mirth]

Michael, I realize that few can match your high standards for forum netiquette (as you love to point out at nearly every forum you post on). However you do understand there is a difference between content posted on the "front" of the website and what goes on in the user forums?

[Toonces]

He's complaining about the content of an article on RPS...not the site in general.  Unless I missed something, nobody has suggested this is a Grogheads vs. RPS pissing match.

If you want to throw darts at a Grogheads review, then that's another matter. 

[mirth]

If you want to throw darts at a Grogheads review, then that's another matter. 

Give him time.  He's just warming up 

[bbmike]

Michael, I realize that few can match your high standards for forum netiquette (as you love to point out at nearly every forum you post on). However you do understand there is a difference between content posted on the "front" of the website and what goes on in the user forums?

This x100.

[Toonces]

Well, I just went to the home page to check out some Grogheads reviews.  While I was there I started reading Longblade's Origin articles and then I saw the Origins Grogheads group shot.  Hey, Brant, you need to caption that with the forum names of the dudes (and dudette) in the picture!  I can pick you out, but everyone else is a mystery to me.   

[bayonetbrant]

I can pick you out, but everyone else is a mystery to me.   

Success!   O0

[Jarhead0331]

Yes. For me, I guess, having to pick through the humor is more tedium than entertainment.

You realize you just described a not uncommon reaction to grogheads.com as well, yes?

Your mission statement reads:

At GrogHeads, we're going to try to help everybody in the gaming community understand why games are great, and if they aren't why they aren't. We're going to look deeper. Because we have games on the brain.

Anyone who reads that then comes onto the forum to see the usual cutesy user names, avatars that advertise for mental health care week donations, deep signature lines like ""If I'm having fun with my friend I don't care if we're rolling tanks across Gus's ass crack" and a mix of - 90% banter and 10% game discussion?

Not suggesting anything is wrong with the model (it's not like you're hurting for membership), but my point is that it does seem ironic for you to complain about that site, when you are an administrator of a site that does business in pretty much the same way.

You're confusing our forums with our main page and published articles.

[pobjoy]

It is trash. Objectively, from any perspective, other than one that is biased and disingenuous, it is trash. Your belief that the above cited review is "better-than-averge" defies credulity. It is not silly. It is not funny. It is of no utility. It is, quite simply, as previously stated, utterly useless to the point of causing agitation.

Gosh. Not just trash, but objectively trash!

One of the wonderful things about writing for RPS is that we have the freedom to experiment. On this occasion, I thought it would be fun/refreshing to offer a critical smorgasbord rather than a traditional four-course repast. My thoughts on things like AI, difficulty, graphics, interface, originality etc. are all there, they're just not clustered together in themed paragraphs.

All the best from a regular Grogheads reader,
Tim Stone

[Jarhead0331]

It is trash. Objectively, from any perspective, other than one that is biased and disingenuous, it is trash. Your belief that the above cited review is "better-than-averge" defies credulity. It is not silly. It is not funny. It is of no utility. It is, quite simply, as previously stated, utterly useless to the point of causing agitation.

Gosh. Not just trash, but objectively trash!

One of the wonderful things about writing for RPS is that we have the freedom to experiment. On this occasion, I thought it would be fun/refreshing to offer a critical smorgasbord rather than a traditional four-course repast. My thoughts on things like AI, difficulty, graphics, interface, originality etc. are all there, they're just not clustered together in themed paragraphs.

All the best from a regular Grogheads reader,
Tim Stone

Welcome Tim! Finally, my evil plan to get you to post something was successful!  Muahahahahhahaha!

[mirth]

It is trash. Objectively, from any perspective, other than one that is biased and disingenuous, it is trash. Your belief that the above cited review is "better-than-averge" defies credulity. It is not silly. It is not funny. It is of no utility. It is, quite simply, as previously stated, utterly useless to the point of causing agitation.

Gosh. Not just trash, but objectively trash!

One of the wonderful things about writing for RPS is that we have the freedom to experiment. On this occasion, I thought it would be fun/refreshing to offer a critical smorgasbord rather than a traditional four-course repast. My thoughts on things like AI, difficulty, graphics, interface, originality etc. are all there, they're just not clustered together in themed paragraphs.

All the best from a regular Grogheads reader,
Tim Stone

Welcome Tim! Finally, my evil plan to get you to post something was successful!  Muahahahahhahaha!

Brilliant! I have a short list of other writers whose work can you attack :P

[bbmike]

It is trash. Objectively, from any perspective, other than one that is biased and disingenuous, it is trash. Your belief that the above cited review is "better-than-averge" defies credulity. It is not silly. It is not funny. It is of no utility. It is, quite simply, as previously stated, utterly useless to the point of causing agitation.

Gosh. Not just trash, but objectively trash!

One of the wonderful things about writing for RPS is that we have the freedom to experiment. On this occasion, I thought it would be fun/refreshing to offer a critical smorgasbord rather than a traditional four-course repast. My thoughts on things like AI, difficulty, graphics, interface, originality etc. are all there, they're just not clustered together in themed paragraphs.

All the best from a regular Grogheads reader,
Tim Stone

Experimenting is good, so would you ever choose that style again?

[pobjoy]

I wouldn't rule it out. The piece seemed to entertain and inform as many readers as it infuriated. RPS regulars are used to a bit of whimsy. A rather fine example:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/30/wot-i-think-distant-worlds-universe/#more-210201

[Jarhead0331]

I wouldn't rule it out. The piece seemed to entertain and inform as many readers as it infuriated. RPS regulars are used to a bit of whimsy. A rather fine example:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/30/wot-i-think-distant-worlds-universe/#more-210201

That one didn't make me angry...only a little bit nauseous.

[Nefaro]

I wouldn't rule it out. The piece seemed to entertain and inform as many readers as it infuriated. RPS regulars are used to a bit of whimsy. A rather fine example:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/30/wot-i-think-distant-worlds-universe/#more-210201

That's a prime example of a torturous read.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Yes. For me, I guess, having to pick through the humor is more tedium than entertainment.

You realize you just described a not uncommon reaction to grogheads.com as well, yes?

Your mission statement reads:

At GrogHeads, we're going to try to help everybody in the gaming community understand why games are great, and if they aren't why they aren't. We're going to look deeper. Because we have games on the brain.

Anyone who reads that then comes onto the forum to see the usual cutesy user names, avatars that advertise for mental health care week donations, deep signature lines like ""If I'm having fun with my friend I don't care if we're rolling tanks across Gus's ass crack" and a mix of - 90% banter and 10% game discussion?

Not suggesting anything is wrong with the model (it's not like you're hurting for membership), but my point is that it does seem ironic for you to complain about that site, when you are an administrator of a site that does business in pretty much the same way.

You're confusing our forums with our main page and published articles.

That hits the mark IMO. Both "articles" read like forum banter, maybe organized a little. Maybe the point is to let the reader feel like he is one of the boys at the poker table. I don't find it annoying, I just would not read it if I was needing a game review.

Returning to the thread title - the review - I would say the most useful format is lead with condensed information. Rating out of 10 or 100%. Key highlights. Key weaknesses. Both as specs relative to similar games. What makes it enjoyable or fail that led to the rating. Details about mechanics. How it felt climbing the learning curve. Does it hold your attention? Do you get bored? Do you look forward to firing it up again? What is the long term playability? Then anecdotes. If the reviewer is afraid of offending someone with that, so they want to make it all anecdotes to let the reader make up their own mind, they should record a gameplay video.

There is nothing wrong with a gameplay video. Make it clear what purpose the content fulfills.