Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia:The Video Game (quick)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Uncyclopedia:The Video Game

QUentinRomance 23:43, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

I'll play a quick game. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 19:49, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 3 Your Game Reviewer I like to introduce myself at the beginning of my reviews so you'll know how unqualified I am. I'm the current NotM and am nommed for RotM, so some people think I don't totally suck. I get nitpicky in my reviews because people seem to think it helps if I point out speeling errers and grammar that ain't good.

Also I put Prose and Formatting in with Humour so I don't repeat myself too much, but do score them separately.

You'll see me saying something like this again, but I think your writing definitely shows promise. However, this seems to be in an early, rough draft form, so your scores will be lower than they would be if you'd posted a later, more revised version.

It's an odd fact here that many articles have references to Oscar Wilde but very few featured articles do. In this case, as the article is about Uncyclopedia itself, I think it's fine. "...shit creation of Uncyclopedia needed a shit counterpart and so he created Tim Allen...."--Sorry, I don't find this funny. "The game centres around YOU the hopeless man...."--I would like this better if it was a little more subtle than hopeless--actually, I don't think the word "hopeless" is needed as it's implied by someone dedicating their life to this site. Also I'd make it man or woman. "You can vandalise,[1] beat vandalisers with a stick,[2] or, just be the boring old reader.[3]"--I like this part, except for "boring old", and would prefer something more subtle, like "the dedicated reader"--sarcasm.

Addition: having read the rest, I see that being a vandal and dealing with vandals were promised in the intro, but weren't dealt with. I was expecting these to be the three main sections of your article/game.

Scoring System

"...scoring system is made up of several different points...."--what scoring system doesn't use points? I didn't get this part.
"your girlfriends lost status"--I first read this as my girlfriend has lost some of her status, and had to reread it to get it. Maybe "your girlfriends lost status points". "MY STATUS IS AT 1,000 WOOHOO!!!1111"--this personal message seems out of place in this article, which seems to be about the reader, not the writer.
"...UN:TVG (comma) you gain 1 chin"--missing comma.
"These are especially useful..."--I liked the wiggling chins part, but would like something more subtle than "worthless member"--maybe "non-contributing" or "lurking member".
"Similar to the chins gained status"--I'm not sure what this phrase means. Also note that in the Chins gained section you refer to the reader as if he/she/is being talked about, but here you refer to the character. You might want to keep these consistent.


Sorry, in general I didn't find this part funny. Also there's only very short section above about pets, but this makes it sound like that's the whole focus on the game. I found the "...it left them wondering...what the fuck is Uncyclopedia?..." part somewhat amusing, but it could be very funny if the rest of this section were redone.
Concept: 5 I like the idea of Uncyclopedia as a video game, and would rate that highly. The reason this isn't higher is because it doesn't appear to me that you have a clear concept of what you want to do with this article.
Prose and formatting: 6 Most comments are under Humour, but I will say that I think this shows you have writing talent, but is in a very early stage. Frankly, I think this is really a bit too early for a Pee Review--generally when someone asks for a Pee Review, it's when the author thinks the article is finished or almost finished.
Images: 0 I have to give you a zip because it has no images. That's required by law (or at least by Pee Review guidelines).
Miscellaneous: 4.67 Average of above, not counting obligatory zero image score.
Final Score: 18.67 Again, you may have put this up for Pee Review a bit early, but maybe not. If your intent was to see if you were going in a direction that someone else thinks work, maybe it's OK. But usually with an article at this early stage I'd ask a friendly editor to glance over it before putting it up for Pee Review. I do think your writing has potential, though, and that this could be developed into a good article with a clearer concept and more work; it's just that this looks like an early rough draft.
Reviewer: WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 20:26, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools