Introduction, and an Explanation of the 4 Star Review Scale

 

 

Call me "Mister X"

As this blog progresses I might consider using my real name (or at least a less cliche' moniker), but for a start, "Mister X" will do. A tip of the hat to Speed Racer.

What you will be getting with this review blog is a personal perspective. I am not attempting objectivity. You, the reader, should figure out whether you like my tastes and whether they align with yours, based on what I choose to review and what I have to say. If you think you like what I like, and dislike what I dislike, you might get something out of this blog. Just don't look to me for objectivity or to give you your opinions. With everything I review, it is strongly recommended that you experience the subject of a review for yourself, to form your own opinion on it, before reading.
    And just know that you're getting "Me" with this blog: not review scores based on the ideas of objective quality or appeal to mass tastes. Enjoy.

As far as style influences, I see myself as following in the footsteps of early internet video critic pioneer Noah Antwiler and his "The Spoony Experiment". His being one of the first self-published web shows, hosted on his own website (now defunct), following the advent of internet speeds capable of handling video in the distant year of 2008 ... 

Now, don't go getting the wrong idea when I say I'm taking influence from Spoony. Unfortunately some of Spoony's most popular reviews are his negative/critical ones, such as his reviews for Final Fantasy games, or Ultima 9: surely popular for their "memey" qualities, like his justifiably shocked reaction to the line "What's a Paladin?" from Ultima 9, constant lampooning the character Tidus in Final Fantasy X, or bafflement at Final Fantasy XIII's en media res plot antics (an argument can be made that he is quite tsundere for the Final Fantasy games he reviews). Even as far as these examples go, I think it's clear he generally likes what he's reviewing. There are nine reviews preceding his infamous Ultima 9 review, adoration filled reviews of games 0 through 8, and despite his comedically exaggerated complaints about the Final Fantasy games, he has a clear love for the series and gives Final Fantasy X-2 of all things an essentially glowing review. His assessment of that game is especially honest and compelling, and I think telling as to how he really feels about the series.

Personally, when I think of Spoony, I think of his lighthearted reviews of the dozen or so Reb Brown movies, like his review of Yor: Hunter from the Future posted above, his pioneering comedy Let's Play's of S.W.A.T. 4 and Phantasmagoria 2: A Puzzle of Flesh (games he clearly enjoys), his riffs and reviews on 90's FMV games like Ripper or the Star Trek VHS games, his reviews of lovable trash movies like Howling 2: Stirba Werewolf Bitch, Mazes and Monsters, Lords of Magick, his alternate channel Counter Monkey where he recounted funny and interesting stories of his tabletop RPG adventures, and so on.

What I am trying to get at is that Spoony was clearly having fun with what he was doing when he was active. And that's the thing I mean to take a cue from.
On top of this, he just had the balls to do what he did. Spoony was like an archetype of an average nerdy guy from his generation, and he put himself out there, and he got a worldwide following. I respect that quality of Spoony's work. He's unpretentious, funny, and I'd say creatively gutsy; working within his middle class American limitations to create a project that's become iconic.

I'm not looking for a worldwide following and I won't be making an effort at comedy (laugh while you can), but Spoony's heartfelt earnestness and passionate honesty are an inspiration.

Besides Spoony, I am somewhat of a fan of self the styled film analyst Rob Ager, who posted his first review in 2007, continues to run a Youtube channel, and maintains his own website called Collative Learning. In addition to film analysis, he has an interest in psychology, particularly depth psychology, Carl Jung, and (I would argue, although he would probably never personally claim), occult or parapsychology adjacent topics like hypnosis (especially as relevant to filmmaking). Rob Ager is a fascinating character, who seems to have been something of a political idealist, maybe even a rabble rouser in his early days, which ran him afoul of Britan's tradition of politically motivated Tabloid smear campaigns. He's successfully taken several companies to court for defamation and won every case. On top of this, I think the high quality of his film analysis studies speaks for itself. He's both pleased and frustrated many professional academics by putting out technical content which puts film professors to shame, and he's made a living for himself by selling his highest quality analysis videos on Gumroad. Rob has something of a quality of a folk hero and is doing quite well for himself now, and while his content has slowed, he seems to be living happily raising a daughter with his girlfriend.

What I aim to borrow from Rob Ager's style is something at least somewhat resembling the kind of depth approach he takes, and my reviews will (probably) be more sober minded than comedy oriented. I'm not going to pretend I'll have any piercing insights or assessments of technical aspects of media approaching the rigor of Rob's style, but I'll approach my reviews with a similar eye to depth and seriousness. I think Rob's best work of analysis might be his videos on Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, the movie he describes as his personal favorite.

And perhaps the biggest stylistic influence on this blog will be "Matthewmatosis"; the moniker of an in-depth game review Youtube channel started in 2012, and of its host. Matthew is a private person who shares few details about himself online. He's also made his quiet and understated review style into something of an art form. Particularly his "Mega Microvideos" series of videos (the "Mega Microvideos" video, followed by "Mega Microvideos 2", and "Meta Microvideos"). They are fascinating works of style and multi-concept synthesis. He manages to make his talking about videogames come across as a kind of memetic alchemy, pregnant with meaning and verve.

Mega Microvideos is not representative of his usual type of review, it's a stylistic outlier. His typical reviews focus on one game or one idea, but are no less insightful. I'm not going to suggest I'll be anywhere near as interesting as Matthewmatosis, but, while the title of this blog is a riff on the title of The Spoony Experiment, the way I approach my reviews will be more dry and straightforward: taking this cue from Matthewmatosis.

And finally, Grim Beard of The Grim Beard Diaries.
Grim Beard started his Youtube channel in 2014 and the comedy premise of his videogame review channel was to frame the reviews as a self help diary for his disturbed mind.
My own blog will not be oriented towards that style of comedy, and I don't think of myself as as entertainingly disturbed in the way Grim Beard presented himself in his early videos; but this project is going to be a kind of diary.

Who I Am and What You're Getting

With this assertion of my review style influences out of the way, I'll now briefly describe myself and my own interests. I am a fairly average white guy. Apparently some kind of Scottish/Anglo-Saxon mutt, with a little bit of Native thrown in. Made in America, for better and worse. At least I am what I understood an "average white guy" to be before the world went crazy and the weird turned pro. Things have become very polarized, haven't they? Politically you could call me a fence sitter. I don't particularly care to discuss politics, and if the fact of my refusal to discuss politics offends you, then get out. I am primarily interested in art and am artistically inclined. If you'd like to try to tell me "all art is political" I must tell you I find that view uninteresting and denigrating to art and what it means. Art can elevate and enlighten us. It can bring us out of the realm of petty conflict, speak to truths universal to the human experience, and cross political divides. If you disagree, these reviews are not for you. Garbage puts it best.

My favorite museum is the Musee D'Orsay in Paris. When it comes to art my interests lean towards classical technique and surrealism. I'm a big fan of Giger, something of a fan of Dali, and have had a longtime fascination with the unsung Symbolist movement. I grew up listening to classical music.
With all this said, I don't consider myself particularly pretentious. I wouldn't consider myself well read. My primary genre of interest is sci-fi, and I grew up reading Issac Asimov, H.G. Wells, Douglas Adams: that sort of thing. Also, for better and for worse, Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, and some theology. The impracticality of religion as a primary interest drove me towards attempting worldliness as an adult. I can't claim I've been successful at either worldiness or the experiment of adulthood, but hey, after all, this is the Aeon of Horus: the Hawk-headed child god of war. Does anyone born after the 80's really feel like they're an adult these days? The world has been progressing towards a horrible neoteny, and the state of "adulthood" seems woefully out of reach for many. It's also been said by men (un)wiser than I that you should never trust anyone over 30, and having reached the ripe old age of 32, I would tell you emphatically that this is true (this is my effort at a joke, so you can laugh now).

I'm a fan of Sci-Fi in all its forms, and there is a lot of sci-fi to be found in movies, TV, anime, and videogames, as well as literature. I grew up playing Halo and Mass Effect with my buddies, played the Marathon Trilogy after being introduced to it through the Xbox Arcade port of Duradnal in 2007 (great games, and if you follow what influenced their writing they'll lead you to the short stories of Jorge Luis Borges), enjoyed NieR: Automata, and I'm a fan of Ace Combat.
I will go ahead and save you the trouble and call myself "dorky", but I'm not so self depreciating that I won't pretend I'm not also very cool. Some kind of sophmoric "dorkool". Intentionally playing into the snarky label of  "Bad Vibes Manchild" as a statement of style (how's that for a band name?).
    No, seriously though I'd probably be considered a pretty normal person in the year 1984. 

Something of a fan of horror, too. It's not actually my genre of choice, but I saw Alien at a very young age, and that probably shaped my taste more than I care to admit. I adore Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula (might review it). I'm probably one of only fans in the world of Rob Ager's hypnotically terrifying independent horror movie Turn In Your Grave. I've played Silent Hill a few times, and it's gotten so progressively terrifying to me each time I've played it I couldn't get through it last Halloween. Quake is one of my favorite shooters. I like Lovecraft, Clive Barker's Hellraiser; I guess I'm pretentious enough to admit I've read The Great God Pan. Check out this infamous clip from John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness.

Love this kind of thing.

On the 4 Star Review Scale

Roger Ebert's official website uses a 4 Star review scale. Frankly, I don't particularly care why Roger Ebert used it, but I see my own reasons to.
Back when I read reviews (I used to read videogame and movie reviews from outlets like IGN and Gamespot, back in the late 00's), the problem of a 5/5 star or "Perfect 10" score was soon apparent: such a score suggests perfection, but usually the assessment of perfection is colored by the biases of the reviewer. Review sites like IGN and Gamespot made a pretense of appearing to be voices of objectivity, but the individual reviewers had the tastes of individuals (this led to comedy like IGN's infamous review of the dual release of the ocean themed Pokemon games Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire - "7.8/10 - Too Much Water"), and at other times these sorts of review outlets give high scores that seem clearly paid for or unusually biased (such as after having been given an early access copy of the game by a publisher, or after having been invited to a tour of the game studio for the game being reviewed).
So, whenever a major review outlet gives a 5/5 or 10/10 score, most people would think such a score should imply a nearly unattainable perfection, but it usually means the reviewer was either particularly personally biased, or such a review score has been given after bribery. It means as little as the Hollywood Oscars do for film, Geoff Keighly's Game Awards mean for games, or the Nobel Peace Prize means for world peace.

When I give something a score, you will know that I am biased. You will either agree or disagree with my biases, and that's alright. That's as it should be.
A 4 out of 4 Star scale avoids the implication of perfection. When I will choose to give something a 4 out of 4 Star rating, that means I think it is better than at least 3 quarters of other media (that I do know of): and that's a larger and more general proportion than implying I think whatever I'm reviewing is in the top one fifth or one tenth of its respective medium.

A 4 out of 4 star means something like "I think this is really good", a broad category which includes everything from "that which I think is nearly perfect" to "that which I think is merely really good".

In short, here's a legend:

4 out of 4 Stars = Great
3 out of 4 Stars = Good
2 out of 4 Stars = Average or "Okay"
1 out of 4 Stars = Bad
0 out of 4 Stars (a score I will rarely, if ever give) = Abysmal - And as I will be focusing on reviewing things I like or have fondness for, you will likely only see this here in this legend.

Personally, I doubt I will ever even review something I consider bad, and even if I do review something I consider a 1-Star "Bad" piece of media, it will probably be something I find endearing anyway, and I'll be calling it "Bad" with love in my heart.

Enjoy the reviews

- Mister X