Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Third Life

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 21:25, November 21, 2007 by Under user (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


edit Third Life

OK, I'm going to be completely honest here. Don't take this personally!

Humour: 2 I'm sorry, I didn't really find any in here. It all reads just too factually.
Concept: 2 As far as I can tell, the concept is of a Second Life sequel that tries to avoid all controversy and personality, yes? Not inherently funny, you really have to work hard to get much mileage out of that. Instead, you get bogged down in the history section, which is long and pretty well pointless.
Prose and formatting: 5 Meh, competently written and formatted, so an average mark here.
Images: 4 There are a couple, they are relevant to the article, but they don't add anything, they're not funny, and they don't make the article look more interesting, and make people want to read it.
Miscellaneous: 3.25 Average of above scores
Final Score: 16.25 This reads like a serious article. It's all very well trying to maintain an encyclopedic feel, which this has, but you have to add humour, which it doesn't have. Serious surgery is needed if this is to shape up. See comments below.
Reviewer: --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 21:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, further comments:

It's not all doom and gloom - a solid encyclopedic article is the bones on which to hang some humour. However, you are up against it - there aren't that many great game articles around here. Part of the problem with game articles is they are almost uniformly written with the assumption that readers are intimately familiar with the game, thus alienating most readers straight away. Try to write for a wider audience - explain the facets of the game you seek to lampoon. Done properly, this can be a good source of humour in itself.

Looking at the article, far too much time is spent on the history section. It's a bit dull, and could be summed up in a couple of sentences - nakedness, blah blah, court case, blah blah, controversy free game blah. Done. Get into the game itself.

Oh, and while we're about it, the last section about sales figures - too many numbers, too much about the court case again. It looks like a stats section. Sure, explain that it had no sales, as it sounds like boxed tedium, but not in such a tedious way!

Now you can start to try and mine some humour from the concept. How, apart from no personal details, and no identifiable markings, are they to completely avoid controversy? Swearing springs readily to mind. Is this the first MMORPG with a time delay to allow every player input to be scrutinised for controversial content? Would there be an elimination of all possible competitive elements? What incentives are there for playing?

Perhaps after release, it gains a cult following with the aim of trying to find ever more devious ways of sneaking controversial content in?

Basically, look for the ridiculous in the situation and amplify it. Have a good look at HTBFANJS and try to see how it could apply to this article. Don't go to the other extreme and fill it full of random silliness, keep the encyclopedic feel, just seek to find ways of making the idea of a completely controversy free game sound as ridiculous as you can.

Finally, this is only my opinion, if you don't like it, others are available. And good luck! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 21:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools