Greetings again! As this is my second review posting on this website, I’ll give a recap of my style. My approach is to eliminate bias by focusing on specific categories of the games I review, and then at the end add up the score. A lot of people seem to write a review and then attach a score at the end and list out a couple pros/cons of the game. I want to show you specifically why I give a game a certain score.

A few more things before I get started that demonstrate the unique quality of my reviews. First off I only review games I beat (and often don’t review until I beat all the bonus stuff too). Secondly I review games based on comparison of other games released around the same time. This means that a game released 20 years ago could still beat a game released today because it pushed the system it was on harder than the new one pushes its modern system (for example).

Lastly I want to point out, as you will see below, that story is THE MOST important aspect of a game for me. If games focus either mostly or entirely on multiplayer (Call of Duty, Mario kart, etc) then they probably won’t get a very high score. If the game is really fun despite its low score, I usually give that game an (*) symbol. A lot of people seem to disagree with this method and that’s fine (my reviews probably aren’t for you). I just know that there are some story obsessed people out there who want a story no matter what kind of game they are playing so this review is for you people!

Here is how I review games:

Review Standards for Videogames: Out of 100 points

Originality: Does this game have a unique feel, one that totally copies off of something in the past, or somewhere in between? /20

Graphics: How does this game look in proportion to the time it was released? /10

Art Style: Is the art style truly impressive and unique, or is it a game that only focused on pixels, p quality, and frame rate? /15

Story: The most important part of a game for me. /30

Game Interface: Annoying or not? /5

Controls easy and fluid or difficult and rigid? /5

Is it fun? /15

Red Alert 3 Review:

Originality: I had the pleasure of playing this game AFTER playing Command and Conquer 4 and I have to say I’m glad the series after Generals isn’t a TOTAL disaster. This game isn’t really original. It’s once again another timeline altering game. It basically eliminates a lot of technology (because of the altered timeline) and reintroduces it as different technology (sooooo original…). The third nation concept wasn’t really unique (Red Alert: Yuri’s Revenge had 3). The units, buildings, and combat style stayed pretty much unchanged. Overall, a game that doesn’t ooze originality.

11/20

Graphics: Is it me, or do the graphics in this game look better than CnC4? Regardless, I still think Generals had the best graphics of this series in proportion to the time of release. I also think in terms of graphics this game (and series for that matter) has NOTHING on the dawn of war games.

6/10

Art Style: I’m glad with the decision this game took for its art style (CnC4’s art style was horrible, as was the recently canned Command and Conquer game). I’m afraid this will be the last command and conquer game that doesn’t have a kiddy looking graphic style or one that highlights the TAR out of every unit to the point where you can’t even see anything. Also, the art style in this game (while it may not be as revolting as its fellow modern CnC games) isn’t pleasant compared to Dawn of War.

9/15

Story: These games are supposed to be filled with ridiculous storylines. I have zero issue with that! I actually laughed quite a few times during the cut scenes in this game, so for humor this was awesome! I was expecting some more significant twists though, and the story (as did the game) seemed pretty short and crammed together at points. Still though, pretty funny!

22/30

Game Interface: I could see everything of importance to me on the screen without it getting in the way of anything important! I was a happy RTS gamer!

5/5

Controls easy and fluid or difficult and rigid? My only complaint here (and this probably applies to most RTS games) is when your dragging a click box over multiple units to select them sometimes it’s hard to select the right ones easily (especially when your in an intense battle and feel rushed). Other than that, easy controls.

4/5

Is it fun? The mission’s changed pace a LOT in this game and I loved it. In the past (and the future) a lot of games seemed/seem to focus on base building and zerging alone. This game had that, but also had a lot of missions dedicated to single player espionage, naval battle focused missions, air battle focused missions, etc. It was a really fun game! One complaint; Part of what makes a game fun for me is when it is a challenge (like Tropical Freeze was) and this game was simply not difficult at all.

13/15

Total Score: 70/100

Game Reviews:

1. Batman Arkham City Armored Edition - 100
2. Zelda Skyward Sword-98
3. Zelda Minish Cap – 92
4. Zelda Oracle of Ages - 91
5. Zelda Twilight Princess - 90

T6.Guildwars 2 – 89

T6.Mario and Luigi: Dream Team - 89

T8. Pokémon X - 88

T8 Kid Icarus Uprising – 88

T8 Darksiders 2 - 88

T8 Fire Emblem Awakening - 88

12. Mario and Luigi: Bowsers Inside Story – 86

13. Animal Crossing New Leaf - 84

T14. Paper Mario Sticker Star – 83

T14. Zelda: A Link Between Worlds-83

1. Zelda: A Link to the Past – 78

T17. Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D – 74

T17. Rome: Total War-74

1. Super Mario 3d land – 72
2. Red Alert 3 - 70
3. Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze* - 68
4. New Super Mario Bros. U - 66
5. New Super Mario Bros.Wii – 57 *
6. Zelda: Four Swords Anniversary Edition – 53*
7. Kirby Squeak Squad - 43

I can understand how the review works, but I don't understand why you let one part effect the review so much. If a game has a focus on story, and has a terrible story, that's fair, but if it doesn't even focus on the story in the first place, then leave story out of the review. Overall, It's still a good review.

I do this because that one part of the game is more important to me than any other part of the game. Graphics are not NEARLY as important to me as story is. This type of review is geared towards story obsessed people lol.

you try to eliminate bias by being negatively biased against non story centric gamez?

cool story bro. it needs more dragons

Story is also something very subjective.

Case in point: I hate drama/romance stories, they put me to sleep, but I love Sci-Fi regardless how bad the story actually is.

Another problem with story's and games is that, some games literally have no storyline, yet will still have an amazing story.
Case in point: Minecraft.
There is no story telling at all. - The story is your adventure in an endless world.

Other games the story is your interaction with other players. (Like Eve.) Or as another example... Freelancer with the Discovery Freelancer mod.

I like your take on reviewing, it's just hard to judge a game heavily on it's story as it's a very subjective/personal taste kind of thing.
As for Red Alert 3 by itself... I enjoyed it for the gameplay, the Story was pretty forgettable. :P

I know, but it isn't really taking away bias in reviews like that. In the case of something like Donkey Kong or Mario, you're gonna give a low score to the story which greatly effects the overall score, but if It's like The Last of Us or something, the score will be fair. The fact that you have to put "*" if It's fun shows that.

1. If the story is executed well (no matter if it's a comedy, romance, etc) it will receive a good score from me.

2. Games like Mincraft and the Total War series I don't give harsh reviews on story because, like you said, you are apart of the changing stories. The village concept in Minecraft, and the frequent historical events in the Total War series help create a linearity to the story though.

3. Eve actually does have a real story behind it, but most players aren't hardcore enough to spend weeks/months in real life flying to all the places you would need to go to in order to discover a lot of this lol (I love Eve!).

4. The story wasn't amazing in RE3, but it was funny (which is what it was going for) so that made it decent/good to me.

I'm reviewing the quality of the game, not how fun it is to play. Splashing water colors on a sheet of paper can be a lot of fun, but painting with proper equipment on a canvas is just as fun, but with an improved quality. They COULD actually include a story in these siderscroller games, they just chose not to because they know they've conditioned people to think that it's too difficult for them to try to squeeze a story into a game like that. It's straight up mass consumer ignorance based on decades of operant conditioning by the video game industry, and that's it. These games CAN have stories and they SHOULD have stories. There are NO excuses.

Some of these games even include slight stories (like the 2-d mario ones) but they are LITERALLY 99% the same story every game. They've at least shown us that they can put a story in a game like that, they just chose to give us the same one everytime (which is ridiculous). Every game should have a good game if it want's to be considered a truly high quality game. Period.