Post by linksocarina on Jun 11, 2018 15:17:54 GMT
So in re-reading one of the previous threats on here, I was reminded about a month ago I did a long-form post regarding the work that is often put into writing professional reviews.
It kind of got buried in the thread it was in, but I feel like it might be a good way to explain the thought process of how a review goes through from creation to final posting. This is mostly coming from personal experience and perspective, on a game I was given a review code for, and basically paid to write on time for release. The reason for reposting this (and adding new insight) is mostly to show the sausage making, at least from the perspective of a part-time critic. It goes from draft to final product, along with some of the personal editing process.
I can only use an example of my own work, but I had an instance where a game review I wrote was drastically changed from it's final incarnation, including justifications for the final score. It was a review of Dragon's Crown Pro, which we got early, and my first pass at it was not well liked because of several elements that the editorial staff disagreed with.
Now first up, the full review is here. I need to note a couple of things on being assigned these reviews. We normally put our names in for games on a first-come-first serve basis, which actually limits the amount of games we cover as we have hundreds of codes that go unchecked. Part of that is simply lack of time, another part is lack of interest. Most of the games that are reviewed were requests, sometimes we are also handed reviews because a previous author can't finish it or some unforeseen circumstance crops up. This happened to me for Kingdom Come: Deliverance actually.
The parts I wish to highlight are several main changes to the review. The two biggest ones that affected the review are the order of paragraphs and the content of said paragraphs. Sometimes they intertwine as well. Late in the review I discuss the graphical style of George Kamitami's game, starting with the "patented Vanillaware style" paragraph. Most of that information was a refresher for me as I haven't read up on Kamitami in a while, so during the draft phase I tend to do extra research to get my facts straight. Sometimes it works sometimes I miss a spot. Originally, his art style was one of the first things mentioned in the review, and the section was much longer, delving into the past history and criticism Dragon's Crown had regarding it's visuals.
I still have an early draft copy, but it was to the effect of something like this. Remember this still needs editing.
Both of the reviews editors we had checked this out and found the section problematic because it was taking away from the review. Now this is unusal in this case because typically it's a one-to-one situation, where you work with a single editor on hammering out the details. The review editors are also much different from the editorial staff head; editorials and long-form pieces that are not reviews go through a self-editing process more than a peer review process, partially because its more opinion based. Reviews are mandated for a second set of eyes to clean up inconsistencies and grammar, as they are expected to draw more attention. Well get into that in a bit.
Its position and content, in their notes back, argued it was out of place and that the section discussion Vanillaware should be lower in the review due to it not being the meat of the details. They also felt that discussing the past history was not necessary for this review. My justification for adding it was to delve into the history of the title, since this was a re-master and most of what can be said about it visually has already been done so five years ago. Ultimately it was overruled. The final copy, fully edited, is as such.
Overruling does happen sometimes with critiques and reviews, mostly because the goal in the end is based on a specific mandate of covering all bases for the reading audience. This leads into a second section, which was discussion of gameplay. The original pass they felt was overly negative in my discussion on the games grinding, and that it didn't justify me giving it a higher score of 8 because of the elements I speak about in gameplay.
Part of why this was broached is actually a simple reason of people tending to look at scores first, not content of what is said. IF they feel the scores are not justified by the writing, then it would give folks on the internet ammunition to criticize the review as being "dishonest."
To quote one section of it in the first draft that was highlighted.
Because of the placement being later in the review, it was seen by the editors as being lower in importance of content as well. The view of the editors is very specific, they follow a sort of guideline that I only in barest of form adhere to, not because the guidelines are in the way, but because it runs the risk of being "one size fit's all" when it comes to written reviews, including concerns of syntax and SEO considerations as well. A lot of this can lead to "boilerplate" reviews, the type of stuff you see that seems to be cut from a template. Part of the goal of any critic is to mask that, be illusionary and show you are not "on script" as it were when writing.
It's why a lot of sentences have been shortened or we get the more "cut" style of paragraph use in the final product vs the first drafts. A lot of that is SEO consideration, I.E, get more people to read through the review and make it easier to find on Google Search Engines. Editorials and features sometimes get this, but often they are left to their own devices. Another consideration is consistent with the websites mandates. Each reviewer is expected to follow the script to some degree. I have been critical about this many times before out there, how a lot of reviews lack rigor or any form of nuance in the writing. The sort of boilerplate book report reviews that I don't want to fall into however are what tends to be searched for, so the editorial team forces some of that when need be though. Critics tend to do the compromise in a way that does not, hopefully, invalidate their own words while catering to the needs asked of me.
In the final review it reads as follows:
Notice how it is simply re-wording a few sections while gutting out extra bits. What words you use do matter in this context, because they can be powerful indicators of a critics opinions. My first pass I thought it was clear, but the editors didn't feel that way. That should be a clue, as a writer, that you are not being clear. The edit was approved because, per my editor, it made sense and justified the whole last paragraph as why "grinding can be fun sometimes".
Keep in mind, I did all the changes myself. The editorial team does have the right to go in and make minor corrections as they see fit. I've seen that several times for news stories and reviews I have done before. For the most part, a lot of the re-writes to the final review are all my own choices in trying to maintain the same point of what was originally written, while catering to what was asked of me.
Sometimes it is a minor change, such as shortening sentences and adding a phrase to be more clear or concrete of the motivation of the subject. Sometimes it's a full blown re-write or re-arranging of the structure of your review to make it work better, like in this case. Again, we had some extra time for Dragon's Crown Pro because we did get it early, it's even more of a crunch when we don't get press copies. I did the same thing with Vampyr recently, although that review on the whole didn't need massive re-writes from draft to print in comparison to Dragon's Crown Pro. This is, of course, if we get the game early. Since it's a small site, we often don't get big releases from some companies, while others we have staff members buy it with our own money. Detroit: Become Human for example we didn't get a review copy, but no one on staff has the money, time, console or interest to pick up the game so it gets left behind. That's a sad reality for being a smaller company. To compensate we do more indie game reviews or an occasional rewind review (reviewing NES or PlayStation 2 games, something retro) to keep traffic coming to the site and beefing up our review credentials. We have 920 games reviewed as of today, and perhaps the majority of it is AA to indie releases over AAA due to these limitations.
Now while I can't say for other publications, my interactions with other journalists is more or less a similar experience. This is the norm for writing, and standards that a lot of journalists have to go through when it comes to their own work, freelance or salary it seems.
I hope this was interesting to read, at the very least. Showing the thought process and editing process before release does give a glimpse as to what we need to consider while maintaining coherency and character with our reviews.
It kind of got buried in the thread it was in, but I feel like it might be a good way to explain the thought process of how a review goes through from creation to final posting. This is mostly coming from personal experience and perspective, on a game I was given a review code for, and basically paid to write on time for release. The reason for reposting this (and adding new insight) is mostly to show the sausage making, at least from the perspective of a part-time critic. It goes from draft to final product, along with some of the personal editing process.
I can only use an example of my own work, but I had an instance where a game review I wrote was drastically changed from it's final incarnation, including justifications for the final score. It was a review of Dragon's Crown Pro, which we got early, and my first pass at it was not well liked because of several elements that the editorial staff disagreed with.
Now first up, the full review is here. I need to note a couple of things on being assigned these reviews. We normally put our names in for games on a first-come-first serve basis, which actually limits the amount of games we cover as we have hundreds of codes that go unchecked. Part of that is simply lack of time, another part is lack of interest. Most of the games that are reviewed were requests, sometimes we are also handed reviews because a previous author can't finish it or some unforeseen circumstance crops up. This happened to me for Kingdom Come: Deliverance actually.
The parts I wish to highlight are several main changes to the review. The two biggest ones that affected the review are the order of paragraphs and the content of said paragraphs. Sometimes they intertwine as well. Late in the review I discuss the graphical style of George Kamitami's game, starting with the "patented Vanillaware style" paragraph. Most of that information was a refresher for me as I haven't read up on Kamitami in a while, so during the draft phase I tend to do extra research to get my facts straight. Sometimes it works sometimes I miss a spot. Originally, his art style was one of the first things mentioned in the review, and the section was much longer, delving into the past history and criticism Dragon's Crown had regarding it's visuals.
I still have an early draft copy, but it was to the effect of something like this. Remember this still needs editing.
"Dragon’s Crown never met those same lofty heights when it came to praise over its art-style. In fact, the response to the original release in 2013 was more controversial; some grumbling at the hyper-sexualization of the games characters, particularly the Amazon and Sorceress archetypes. Kamitami also served as art director, and his style is unique amongst most games by being so outlandish in the first place. Whatever one may think about the sexualized nature of Dragons Crown it is inescapable how the use of sexualized characters enhanced the experience. From rarely talked about aspects, such as the Escher-posed knight avatar, to the luscious artwork that can be collected depicting fantasy clichés this side of Conan the Destroyer, it was a stylistic choice that is consistent and often endearing in its sort of adolescent glee of what fantasy could be.
Dragons Crown Pro takes that aesthetic and transfers it to 4k resolution and the results are a living diorama with such intricate details. In its full detail, the game is one of the most gorgeous titles on the PlayStation 4 in a way that is opposite of the visual presentations of recent titles such as Far Cry 5 or God of War. It is a loud game; one full of color and character from the get go that makes it stand out. This striking contrast also shows that as fancy and realistic graphics can be, sometimes the simpler, stylized aesthetic is the perfect foil when it comes to visual presentation. "
Dragons Crown Pro takes that aesthetic and transfers it to 4k resolution and the results are a living diorama with such intricate details. In its full detail, the game is one of the most gorgeous titles on the PlayStation 4 in a way that is opposite of the visual presentations of recent titles such as Far Cry 5 or God of War. It is a loud game; one full of color and character from the get go that makes it stand out. This striking contrast also shows that as fancy and realistic graphics can be, sometimes the simpler, stylized aesthetic is the perfect foil when it comes to visual presentation. "
Both of the reviews editors we had checked this out and found the section problematic because it was taking away from the review. Now this is unusal in this case because typically it's a one-to-one situation, where you work with a single editor on hammering out the details. The review editors are also much different from the editorial staff head; editorials and long-form pieces that are not reviews go through a self-editing process more than a peer review process, partially because its more opinion based. Reviews are mandated for a second set of eyes to clean up inconsistencies and grammar, as they are expected to draw more attention. Well get into that in a bit.
Its position and content, in their notes back, argued it was out of place and that the section discussion Vanillaware should be lower in the review due to it not being the meat of the details. They also felt that discussing the past history was not necessary for this review. My justification for adding it was to delve into the history of the title, since this was a re-master and most of what can be said about it visually has already been done so five years ago. Ultimately it was overruled. The final copy, fully edited, is as such.
"Dragon’s Crown never met those same lofty heights. Kamitani also served as art director on both games, yet the Japanese-styled aesthetic was much more consistent when compared to the western fantasy style found here. While it is eye-catching, it also gives the game an identity at a glance. Dragon’s Crown Pro is loud, full of color and character that makes it stand out. The game is simply endearing visually, paying homage to an ’80s-esque adolescent glee over what fantasy can be.
Dragon’s Crown Pro takes this aesthetic and transfers it to a 4K resolution. The results are an intricately detailed living diorama. The game is one of the most gorgeous titles on the PlayStation 4, but in a way that is opposite of the visual presentation of recent hits such as Far Cry 5 and God of War. In a sea of realistic graphical fidelity, sometimes the simpler, stylized aesthetic is the perfect foil when it comes to visual presentation."
Dragon’s Crown Pro takes this aesthetic and transfers it to a 4K resolution. The results are an intricately detailed living diorama. The game is one of the most gorgeous titles on the PlayStation 4, but in a way that is opposite of the visual presentation of recent hits such as Far Cry 5 and God of War. In a sea of realistic graphical fidelity, sometimes the simpler, stylized aesthetic is the perfect foil when it comes to visual presentation."
Part of why this was broached is actually a simple reason of people tending to look at scores first, not content of what is said. IF they feel the scores are not justified by the writing, then it would give folks on the internet ammunition to criticize the review as being "dishonest."
To quote one section of it in the first draft that was highlighted.
"There are nine levels in Dragon’s Crown Pro, each with two pathways to take towards a final boss fight that provide a fair amount of challenge to the player. Each pathway has a few sections where you can diverge once or twice to find treasure or hidden items, but for the most part, a pathway is a linear, beat-em up experience. One of the issues with this is the variation is really only in the levels of the enemies and their placement in the game world. After a while, a skilled player would easily memorize what monsters they would fight on which given path, where each hidden door or locked gate is, how to solve each puzzle you encounter, and so on. The challenge and discovery that fuels the first impression of the game is replaced with a need to grind for loot and points to keep leveling up your avatar.
Everything else is essentially window-dressing to that grind. The story follows a whimsical narrative style fetch quest which ends within the first 10 hours, and barely given much thought in the grand scheme of the game. Vanillaware does try to diversify the grind by providing 50 quests to follow that does add variety to subsequent dungeon crawls. These quests are also fairly rewarding, giving the player high-quality artwork and in-character ability points. Once depleted though, all that is left is the grind.
The grind can be fun though. One of the best features in the game is the ability to continuously play all the levels in a near infinite loop. Hopping from level to level, collecting tons of treasure and experience points, participating in a cooking mini-game in between some sections, the heart of the game is this infinite loop. Players with a full party can set up different bags and builds for their character stacking all the equipment they can carry. Since weapons and armor degrades over time, multiple sets are needed to keep the loop going.
Despite its repetitiveness, the game is sometimes rewarding in a more organic sense than a mechanical one. For example, if our wizard is down to his last spellbook, should we push forward anyway for one more treasure run? Or, if the part has no more life points (essentially free continues, before you pay your hard-earned gold to keep playing) do we risk a chance to fight a tough boss down the second path? These moments seem small, but are dilemmas that naturally arise when weighing the options of maximum point gain versus sake of ease in your adventure."
Everything else is essentially window-dressing to that grind. The story follows a whimsical narrative style fetch quest which ends within the first 10 hours, and barely given much thought in the grand scheme of the game. Vanillaware does try to diversify the grind by providing 50 quests to follow that does add variety to subsequent dungeon crawls. These quests are also fairly rewarding, giving the player high-quality artwork and in-character ability points. Once depleted though, all that is left is the grind.
The grind can be fun though. One of the best features in the game is the ability to continuously play all the levels in a near infinite loop. Hopping from level to level, collecting tons of treasure and experience points, participating in a cooking mini-game in between some sections, the heart of the game is this infinite loop. Players with a full party can set up different bags and builds for their character stacking all the equipment they can carry. Since weapons and armor degrades over time, multiple sets are needed to keep the loop going.
Despite its repetitiveness, the game is sometimes rewarding in a more organic sense than a mechanical one. For example, if our wizard is down to his last spellbook, should we push forward anyway for one more treasure run? Or, if the part has no more life points (essentially free continues, before you pay your hard-earned gold to keep playing) do we risk a chance to fight a tough boss down the second path? These moments seem small, but are dilemmas that naturally arise when weighing the options of maximum point gain versus sake of ease in your adventure."
Because of the placement being later in the review, it was seen by the editors as being lower in importance of content as well. The view of the editors is very specific, they follow a sort of guideline that I only in barest of form adhere to, not because the guidelines are in the way, but because it runs the risk of being "one size fit's all" when it comes to written reviews, including concerns of syntax and SEO considerations as well. A lot of this can lead to "boilerplate" reviews, the type of stuff you see that seems to be cut from a template. Part of the goal of any critic is to mask that, be illusionary and show you are not "on script" as it were when writing.
It's why a lot of sentences have been shortened or we get the more "cut" style of paragraph use in the final product vs the first drafts. A lot of that is SEO consideration, I.E, get more people to read through the review and make it easier to find on Google Search Engines. Editorials and features sometimes get this, but often they are left to their own devices. Another consideration is consistent with the websites mandates. Each reviewer is expected to follow the script to some degree. I have been critical about this many times before out there, how a lot of reviews lack rigor or any form of nuance in the writing. The sort of boilerplate book report reviews that I don't want to fall into however are what tends to be searched for, so the editorial team forces some of that when need be though. Critics tend to do the compromise in a way that does not, hopefully, invalidate their own words while catering to the needs asked of me.
In the final review it reads as follows:
"There are nine levels in Dragon’s Crown Pro, each divided on two divergent paths towards a final boss. You also have some sections on each level to locate hidden items or secret rooms. For the most part, your path is a linear, beat-em up experience. One of the issues to arise is that variation is really only in the strength of the enemies. After a while, a skilled player will easily memorize what monsters they’ll fight on any given path. They can recall how to access each hidden door or locked gate, where each puzzle is encountered and so on. The challenge and discovery that fuels the first impression of the game is essentially replaced. All that is left is a need to grind for loot and points to keep leveling up your avatar.
Everything else is essentially window dressing to that core mechanic. The story follows a whimsical, narrative style fetch quest which ends within the first 10 hours and barely given much thought in the grand scheme of the game. Vanillaware does try to diversify the experience by providing sidequests to follow in the subsequent dungeon crawls. These quests are fairly rewarding, giving the player high-quality artwork and in-character ability points for special abilities to use in the dungeons. Once these quests are finished though, all that is left is the grind.
Despite all of this, the game is still fun. One of the best features in Dragon’s Crown Pro is the ability to play all the levels in an infinite loop. Hopping from level to level, collecting tons of treasure and experience points, participating in a cooking mini-game in between some sections, this is where the meat of the gameplay really is. Players with a full party can set up different bags and builds for their character stacking all the equipment they can carry. Weapons and armor also degrade over time, so multiple sets are required to keep the loop going.
It may not seem like fun, yet despite its repetitiveness, the continuous adventure is often rewarding in an organic way over a mechanical one. For example, if your wizard is down to his last spellbook, should the party push forward anyway for one more treasure run? Or, if the player has no more life points (essentially free continues, before you pay your hard-earned gold to keep playing) do they gamble on their skill in fighting a tough boss? These moments seem small but are dilemmas that naturally arise when weighing the options of maximum point gain versus the grind of your adventures, keeping the challenges fresh for players without thinking about the grind."
Everything else is essentially window dressing to that core mechanic. The story follows a whimsical, narrative style fetch quest which ends within the first 10 hours and barely given much thought in the grand scheme of the game. Vanillaware does try to diversify the experience by providing sidequests to follow in the subsequent dungeon crawls. These quests are fairly rewarding, giving the player high-quality artwork and in-character ability points for special abilities to use in the dungeons. Once these quests are finished though, all that is left is the grind.
Despite all of this, the game is still fun. One of the best features in Dragon’s Crown Pro is the ability to play all the levels in an infinite loop. Hopping from level to level, collecting tons of treasure and experience points, participating in a cooking mini-game in between some sections, this is where the meat of the gameplay really is. Players with a full party can set up different bags and builds for their character stacking all the equipment they can carry. Weapons and armor also degrade over time, so multiple sets are required to keep the loop going.
It may not seem like fun, yet despite its repetitiveness, the continuous adventure is often rewarding in an organic way over a mechanical one. For example, if your wizard is down to his last spellbook, should the party push forward anyway for one more treasure run? Or, if the player has no more life points (essentially free continues, before you pay your hard-earned gold to keep playing) do they gamble on their skill in fighting a tough boss? These moments seem small but are dilemmas that naturally arise when weighing the options of maximum point gain versus the grind of your adventures, keeping the challenges fresh for players without thinking about the grind."
Keep in mind, I did all the changes myself. The editorial team does have the right to go in and make minor corrections as they see fit. I've seen that several times for news stories and reviews I have done before. For the most part, a lot of the re-writes to the final review are all my own choices in trying to maintain the same point of what was originally written, while catering to what was asked of me.
Sometimes it is a minor change, such as shortening sentences and adding a phrase to be more clear or concrete of the motivation of the subject. Sometimes it's a full blown re-write or re-arranging of the structure of your review to make it work better, like in this case. Again, we had some extra time for Dragon's Crown Pro because we did get it early, it's even more of a crunch when we don't get press copies. I did the same thing with Vampyr recently, although that review on the whole didn't need massive re-writes from draft to print in comparison to Dragon's Crown Pro. This is, of course, if we get the game early. Since it's a small site, we often don't get big releases from some companies, while others we have staff members buy it with our own money. Detroit: Become Human for example we didn't get a review copy, but no one on staff has the money, time, console or interest to pick up the game so it gets left behind. That's a sad reality for being a smaller company. To compensate we do more indie game reviews or an occasional rewind review (reviewing NES or PlayStation 2 games, something retro) to keep traffic coming to the site and beefing up our review credentials. We have 920 games reviewed as of today, and perhaps the majority of it is AA to indie releases over AAA due to these limitations.
Now while I can't say for other publications, my interactions with other journalists is more or less a similar experience. This is the norm for writing, and standards that a lot of journalists have to go through when it comes to their own work, freelance or salary it seems.
I hope this was interesting to read, at the very least. Showing the thought process and editing process before release does give a glimpse as to what we need to consider while maintaining coherency and character with our reviews.