Do we need the reviews we have?

Slash/Secular

Now I'm reading Void's article 'Assembly accelerated demo compo review' published in the 17th issue of Hugi. And what can I see there? The first demo is reviewed quite well. The author tells us about one effect changing another one, he tells whether he's liked the effect or not. Actually he names the effect and proceeds naming another one. Ok, I'm sure, later he will tell us the technical aspect of making a demo of such kind. It's a pity, in the end he tells us only in two lines that the demo uses some great features and the polygons are the thing, and nothing except this. However, he advises to download the demo and take a look at it ourselves. Is this a review of the demo? And again, when he writes about the second demo, he only describes the story of it, he tells us about the effects again and again changing each other. Oh! Great, after describing the contents of the 4th demo he tells that no 'technical suprises' appeared out there. We have something bringing this 'review' closer to the Review. Again, the 5th demo description was provided with the phrase 'very-low-polygon-dolphin'. And the last demo review contains another couple of technical words. Is it a review, when the author only describes scenes in demos, but no word comes about some devoleping side of any demo? I don't like this so-called review.

Let's go further. The 'Assembly raytraced graphics compo review'. Hugi #17 again. It's not a review anew. It's a story about the images, it tells only the things which appear on the screen after pressing <<enter>> to view the picture in a picture viewer. Why doesn't the author write about some kind of real raytracing problems which could appear while making each and every picture, while preparing it to the party? Is everything okay with those pics? Maybe some professional raytracer or a cram photographer could look at some picture and say, that one of the light sources was in a wrong place and that made the picture less cute. Maybe the smoke of a cigarette and the fire of a candle were not as so realistic as they might have been, a professional painter could say. Why does the author describe those pictures without any touch of compositional errors or unreal things? I don't like this review either.

Ok. The same writer wants to tell something about the Assembly animation compo. Let's see, but I can't hope the article will differ from those two. Duh. It's again the same thing for the 4th and 3rd places. But then, it's a miracle, he tells some words about the reality of the models, he tells about cameras and view angles, he even compares the 1st and 2nd place animations! I'm a little satisfied, but the author could describe those things deeper.

Assembly music reviews, the same issue of Hugi. What can I say? No one can write anything about a music composition not concerned to its quality. Oh, no, you can write your feelings and emotions, but it's again not a review. Those two articles about the music someone could hear at Assembly '99 were good. No, they're perfect. For the first, one of them was made by Makke, the man who knows the music, who grasps the music, who can dig it and find anything wrong I (for example) can't find. It's all because he is a musician himself. Is the 1st three articles' author an accel-coder, graphician and animator? I doubt that. And Makke is a composer. It's a god order for him to review music. I like his review, and I like the review by Tryhuk, right after Makke's one. Reviewing music is the right way to write a real review...

Not to be unfounded I've read all reviews from Hugi's issues 15 and 16. Let's take a glance on some of them. Three reviews are placed in the review section in Hugi 15. All of them are by mSW. Again the same situation. He writes about the effects appearing out there in the demos and intros, but he only describes them almost without telling anything about the technical side. I really like ratings placed after each explained production, but I'd need more effects explained. I want to know, whether an effect is too old and hundred times released or it's new and fresh one, whether it was hard to realize it or it's too easy that anyone can make it out. I want to know, how many polygons were used while creating the model and was it a hard work making it move around moving its parts while the world around constantly changes. I want to know all those conditions.

Again Makke's review of a music disk 'i' is quite good and Adok's diskmags reviews are the reviews as they have to be. Let's go on with Hugi #16's reviews... Great, Fatcrazer's 'Bytefall 99 demos' review is a review to become an article. I mean, he wanted to write an article and decided to write everything just like the first three reviews in this article in the beginning. Nothing, no word about the technical side of any demo. Ok, his next article is about the little intros from the Chaos Constructions 999 party. It's a real mistake. It's not a review. It's a fault of his to publish such a piece of garbage. Why? Well, is that an intro review: 'we see a strange 3d morphing thingie' or 'textmode copper with text'. Is it a proper review? Then I see Wade is a real verified artist, because he writes in his 'Remedy party graphics review' such things as 'awful proportions' and so on. I liked the review. Makke is in his good manner and mSW makes me feel his review doesn't differ from his last 'reviews'.

So, what do I want to say? Music reviews are great. Graphic reviews must be written by real proved artists and, the main thing, the demo and intro reviews are things only the real coders can do. And he could explain the effects in 2-3 words, but the result would be much better! I really hope that in the next party demo compo review I'll read all those things I missed earlier. Go on, try to make real reviews or don't make them at all. Ok?