It's an enthusiastic review, but it lacks profesionalism; you mock people who like games like Painkiller, calling them "stupid"; you tell people who don't like titles like SSII to "go back to Barbie dolls" and openly wonder why people would want to play this in singleplayer.
Newsflash: just because you don't like singleplayer games, that doesn't mean other people don't.
There's also barely any description of the environments, weapons, or enemies, and nothing about the technical aspects of the game. That sort of thing is important, even if you don't think it is.
You can still keep the 'off-the-wall' style and be informative and entertaining. The review wasn't boring to read, I'll give it that.
A few screenshots wouldn't hurt either.
But if you're comfortable with that style of review, don't let me dissuade you.
I don't agree with the assumption that technical aspects are important. I don't want to drive down that road like so many sites where they rattle off so many things about the bloom effects, anisiotropic and AA filtering, and all that rot. It makes a review sound like it's written by Data and not a person. I won't do it. Unless there's just something eye explodingly awesome in the game (for example the textures in Doom 3 are the best in any game to date due to their depth) then I won't nitpick about pixelation, v-syncs or trilinear filtering.
I *do* however go down the server administration side since I like hosting games for friends. More importantly, a game like Serious Sam 2, in my opinion, DEMANDS you play it in multiplayer co-operative. Other sites like Gamespy simply state, "Well single player is okay but multiplayer helps you ignore all the problems."
No, screw that! Skip the single player entirely. Ignore it on Serious Sam II like it doesn't exist. Single player in Serious Sam II is like the Easter Bunny being real or Bill O'Reily having a rational conversation. It just doesn't exist. Single player is Serious Sam II (and any of them) only gives you about 1/10th of the experience of co-operative play and so if someone does want to play Serious Sam II in single player they're cheating themselves out of a fantastic co-operative experience.
A game like Painkiller, though? Heck yeah play that single player mostly because there's no co-operative (unless a mod was made that I'm not aware of since it came out two years ago). Also, I never directly called people who played Painkiller stupid. I loved PK when it came out.
I used a possible argument (a silly one to be sure) as an example where if someone said they'd seen everything in a shooter (for example, a stake gun that throws enemies 50 feet backwards and drives them into the wall), well, they really need to reconsider that fact when playing Serious Sam 2.
Do I lack professionalism? Hell yeah I do. Look at that 1998 HTML code. Look at all those inactive verbs. I write a review or post some news from time to time and hopefully it might give people a chuckle or make them try a game if they hadn't already.
Details on the environments? Ok, yeah I messed that one up but I'll fix it. "Imagine the most ridiculous, yet graphically amazing game world you've ever seen. That's Serious Sam II. A Chinese carnival full of suicide clowns on unicycles, an oversized backyard where you end up using twigs as cover and are threatened by massive killer bees, or a massive Inca ruin overrun by zombie stockbrokers and an army of undead football players that make Jerome Bettis look tiny. That's Serious Sam II and if such things do not even cause a mild itch in your digital gaming subconcious then perhaps you should consider a new hobby."
Thanks for the input.This comment was edited on Jan 24, 18:20.