Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnReviews:The Simpsons Skateboarding
UnReviews:The Simpsons Skateboarding[edit source]
My second UnReview. Check it out! --Scofield 08:54, January 25, 2011 (UTC) Scofield 08:54, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 |
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS of giving you his opinion and pretending you care. |
| Humour: | 1 | Hey, Scofield!
Let's get this out of the way up front: I think this article suffers largely from the same problem as User:Scofield/UnScripts:The CrowSader for Justice - which is to say, I'm not sure it's comedy. Really, it's a review of a product you hated. It's written with pretty much a totally straight face. It doesn't really have a concept other than "I'm going to review this now." Bad reviews can be entertaining. It can also be oddly funny to watch a clever reviewer rip a bad product to shreds. But are they comedy? I don't know about that. So once again, I'm left wondering whether you're on the right wiki with this. But let's take this section by section: Lede - You start right off by saying that the game is CRAP, and then saying that it's crappy. Then you call it a disgrace, say that it falls flat, and identify it as one of the worst games ever. Then, you take familiar gaming categories - control, music, graphics, gameplay, dialogue - and simply say they're all bad. Remember how I just said it can be oddly funny to watch a clever reviewer rip a bad product to shreds? Well, none of this strikes me as particularly clever. You're saying that a crappy game is crappy. Maybe a metaphor of some kind would be appropriate? Something even remotely unexpected? Because all I see here is someone who didn't like a game telling me that he didn't like a game. Gameplay - There are whole sentences here that simply explain things about the game to me - for example, "Initially, you'll only be able to choose between the members of the Simpson family i.e Homer, Marge, Bart and Lisa. However, as you progress in the game, more and more characters, such as Otto and Officer Wiggum, get unlocked." There's literally nothing funny about that. It doesn't even make the slightest attempt to be funny. It's part of a legitimate review. Which really makes me wonder why this is on Uncyclopedia, and not your blog. Is it funny that the game rips off Tony Hawk's, but not very well? Er, no. That's a pretty common phenomenon when some brand (like The Simpsons) just wants to get a product out on the shelves. It's sort of what we saw with "M.C. Kids" - McDonald's wanted a game, so they ripped off Super Mario Brothers 3 - poorly. Is it funny that the game has glitchy collision detection? Nope! It helps convince me not to buy the game - not that I'd buy an old PS2 game about The Simpsons skateboarding around Springfield anyway. Presentation - Here, you tell us the game takes too long to load, has too many loading screens, and the environments are poorly designed. You say the dialogue isn't funny, the music isn't interesting... all of these complaints are legitimate, but none of them are clever! You're just pointing out facets of the game and saying they aren't good. Well, okay. Conclusion - Your conclusion is pretty predictable: That The Simpsons Skateboarding is a failure. I didn't really need a concluding section to tell me that, since that's been your point all along. Scofield, did you actually intend for this to make any of us laugh? I mean, I'm really, really wondering - why did you choose Uncyclopedia as your forum for this review? My brother-in-law has a pretty mind-blowingly great recipe for jalepeno dip, and if I posted it on the Internet, people would read it, and possibly enjoy it, and possibly go out and make some of his delicious jalepeno dip. But you know why you don't see UnRecipes:Hyperbole's Brother-In-Law's Awesome Jalepeno Dip? Because the dip is delicious, not funny. This is a comedy wiki, man. It's for comedy. If I have something delicious to share with the world, I'm going to take it somewhere else. And if you've got a legitimate warning not to play a shitty game... that really belongs somewhere else. It's a vast Internet. We aren't the only website. |
| Concept: | 1 | I think I summed up the problem with the concept above. This isn't satire, it isn't silly, it isn't surprising, it isn't misdirection, it isn't slapstick, it isn't smutty, it isn't hilariously inappropriate - it's a video game review. |
| Prose and formatting: | 3 | Perhaps this could have been funny in some way if your prose was clever - if it wickedly eviscerated the game in a way that made me chuckle and think "Man, those developers are probably turning bright red with anger and shame reading this." But your criticism is just so straightforward and flat. "The Simpsons Skateboarding is one of the crappiest games ever released for the PS2." Well, okay, you didn't like it. What else am I supposed to take away from that?
The formatting is pretty much fine, although it's a little weird that there are three consecutive pictures at the bottom but quite a bit of space above them. |
| Images: | 4 | The images from the game are appropriate ways to illustrate a review, but they aren't in any way funny. I guess the caption about the "impeccable detailing" of the cars is at least sarcastic, but as sarcasm goes, it's some pretty low-hanging fruit. |
| Miscellaneous: | 1 | One. |
| Final Score: | 10 | Sorry for the harshness of this review, but you've been around here a while. You know what an Uncyclopedia article looks like. You're read HTBFANJS. Do we really need a style guide like Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Someone Who Posts Miscellaneous Content Unrelated to Uncyclopedia?
If you're going to make fun of something, you're going to have to do a little better than saying that you don't like it and then listing perfectly legitimate reasons why it isn't very good. |
| Reviewer: |  pillow talk 18:51, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
| |