Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/All Quiet on the Western Front
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
And this. ~14:51, Jun 22, 2010
- I'll try and review this page at some point in the next day or so--possibly even the next few hours spending on how some stuff pans out in my immediate future. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 14:09, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
- So I've had an extremely busy last two days, and eight hours of work later today isn't going to change that. I'll review this either this evening or tomorrow evening, promise. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 14:15, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
|Humour:||7||This is easily one of the most clever articles I've read in a while--this is a good thing. I didn't really heartily laugh out loud at anything; rather, I smirked knowingly at what you were going for and appreciated the fact that you pulled it off. I know all of that sounds incredibly vague, so I'll explain more. Specifically, in the concept section right now.|
|Concept:||10||Like I said, this is one of the most clever articles I've read in a while. The reason it's so clever is because it works on a number of levels. Those are:
1. Instead of writing about All Quiet on the Western Front as a novel, you write about it as a video game. Pretty obvious, I know.
2. By writing about All Quiet on the Western Front as a video game, you're sort of satirizing/parodying the clusterfuck of war games out right now.
3. This third level is by far the most important, and by far the hardest to explain. Basically, it comes down to you drawing attention to the obvious difference between real war and video game war by having a video game faithfully simulate real war. Instead of the object being to kill as many of the enemy as possible, the object is to build up remorse and fuck up Baumer's psyche. Instead of shooting guns, you dig trenches. Instead of bodies disappearing, they pile up. Instead of war being fun, it's fucking miserable. Etc., etc., etc. This is the angle, in my opinion, you really want to work and highlight. Really play up the differences between All Quiet on the Western Front and other war games like Call of Duty without being too obvious about it. For the most part, you do just that really well, but in some instances it's a bit too obvious, which ruins the effect. Specifically, the whole You can't win thing. You should make it apparent that you can't win without having to straight-up tell your audience that's the case, because when you tell your audience that the irony that drives your article goes from being the apparent joke to the acknowledged joke. Basically, it's the equivalent of saying "See, it's funny because it's a game you can't win, which goes against the very principle of a typical game," and that's something you don't want to do. What would be funnier would be doing something like contrasting how obviously fucking miserable the game is with very enthusiastic and positive reviews from critics about how groundbreaking/fun it is, or something. That way, you maintain the article's irony and verisimilitude and all that jazz.
Also, and this is a fairly minor point, but lose all the 'n00b' stuff and gamer colloquialisms. You're article is 98% encyclopedic, so their presence puts a damper on that.
|Prose and formatting:||7.75||Very well written, though there are a couple of minor things. I'm certainly no proofreader (as I'm sure you know), but there are a couple of inconsistencies I noticed. Firstly, in the "Home front" section, you have "Home front" as two words, and then in the very first sentence of said section you write "homefront." For consistency, use one or the other. I feel Home Front, with both words capitalized, would be best because it's an official feature of the game. Also, the "Home front" section should be "The Home Front, because I feel a "The" should be there. Secondly, in the "Special items" section you mention how NPC family photographs "instantly lower[s] both Paul’s Remorse points and Patriotism meter by 50 points each." Wouldn't that raise Paul's remorse meter? Again, it's only a minor inconsistency, but it's an inconsistency none the less.|
|Images:||8.25||Really, really good and effective use of images. The first one is perfect, in addition to being a pretty solid and discreet photoshop job. The second, third and fourth images are all great as well. The final image is weak, though--there's a watermark in the corner, and it's obviously a still from Fallout 3 (which I happen to play a lot of, so I guess that's why I know that, but even if someone didn't notice it was from Fallout 3 they would notice that the character getting his brains blown out was carrying and assault rifle, which, if nothing else, is anachronistic as they didn't exist in 1916). Basically, if you can find/produce four perfect images, you should be able to find a fifth one that fits equally as well.|
|Miscellaneous:||9||This is a really good article. You could change nothing, and it would make it to feature easily--I've spent nearly 45 minutes picking it apart, and I'd vote Strong For myself. I recommend you do make the various tweaks I suggested, though (or at least some of them), because they'd make this an even better article.|
|Final Score:||42||The film version of All Quiet on the Western Front sucks, for the record.|
|Reviewer:||—Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 22:37, June 27, 2010 (UTC)|