(No Shit, it's Feedback!)
Click here to send me feedback!

the ultimate nd trio of reviewers: roadkill (top), gruel (bottom left), kn1gh7(bottom right)

Y'know what sucked? I had this big feedback page before about what people commented on. Like about my reviews, web page, and crap from emails, and message boards, but then this fucker who was working on my computer deleted it all! I had so much on it, but now I have to start it up again. Oh well. Enjoy what's left.

I did have a few more emails archived so I'll paste those in to make up for what Mr. roadkill deleteted!

Jeffrey Sean ( comments about my review for Mega Bomberman(Genesis): (Email dated: 7/29/2000)

I read your review of Mega Bomberman for the Genesis.  It was very informative.  Quick question.  I own the Saturn version and Battle mode can be played by a singleplayer with the computer taking the role of additional players.  This is not possible on the Turbo Grafx 16 version; it requires 2 or more players for battle mode.  What about the Genesis version?  Can you play battle mode with a single player?  If so, how many characters can the computer play in lieu of real human opponenets?  Just curious.  Thanks.

Phil Chacon ( emails me his thoughts about my DX/nWo Wrestling Page: (Email dated October 20, 2000)


PHIL CHACON emails me about my review for Timesplitters(PS2): (Email dated May 18, 2001)

OK, i read the review.  I realize the story isn't good at all and the levels
are short.  However, i was bothered by your harsh critique of the controls.  
They are completely customizable, and it is possible to edit the controls to
match G 007's setup.  If I'm not mistaken, you can assign the look and strafe
functions to the X, Square, Triangle, and O buttons. It took me a while to figure it out, but I did.  And using the left analog stick to move and turn, and the right to look and strafe is one of the easiest control configs i have ever used.
Now with the map editor, granted, it's powerful, but not powerful enough.  
I've created the complex and bunker to some extent in TimeSplitters' map editor, and they turned out very well. The single player mode, well, i don't think was meant to be an epic part of the game.  I believe Free Radical were trying to make an arcade-ish console
game, and I think they succeeded quite well. The point about no gore, well, were you wanting buckets of blood?  If you want buckets, play soldier of fortune, or half-life.  The heads popping off is quite OK with me.  It adds to the level of sick humour in the game.

Thank you.

My Response: Bulllshiiiitt! Timesplitters should've at least had blood "Stains" like Goldeneye did. And the default cntrols are still pure shitty! briefly talks about my Days of Thunder(NES) review (Email dated: June 13, 2002)

You must just suck at the game because I can finish third or second in
mostraces.  That is with out the codes!

My Response: No, the game sucks, and the pits take forever!

On the GameFAQs message boards there's a topic in the Reviewer's forum called Review of the Day (RotD for short). I sent in a review for Warcraft 3(PC) on August 11, 2002, then Dogg commented about when he did RotD for that date.....

Surprise no. 1 comes from Gruel who broke away from his dated sectioned-style of writing and gave a very good review of Warcraft 3, a game that is crippled by many of rushed and crappy reader reviews (outside of a few that include Billy Kaneís and Andyís). His review was very informative detailing whatís changed from the past games, and also as to what has been added. This review is very good, and as advice for Gruelóplease donít stop. You did a great job and it will do you much good to continue with this essay-style format. The only ďhugeĒ problem I found with this review was the use of commas in places where Iím thinking they shouldnít have had been used.

Also on the message boards on August 11, 2002, JPeep2000 commented about my review for Halo (PS2)

You did a great job of mixing information with comedy in the first paragraph, nice touch. I love how you put the reader into your shoes by talking about your thoughts during your acquisition of the game. This kind of thing, as I have mentioned before, can really help to give someone the thought that you are just like them, and that you understand what the reader wants to know about. I really dug your story description, I found it to be both informative and humorous since you make it appear that you donít take it too seriously. Kind of a tongue-in-cheek approach to it, which I like, after all, in a game about killing endless hoards of creatures, you have to find something just outright fun abut it along the way. I like your vivid descriptions of the graphics and sounds that will await those who play the game. Unlike most people who give this game a 10, you did deeper than the surface to justify your opinion of the game. I like how you gave the reader plenty of comparisons for the in-game control scheme. This is one of the most crucial aspects of any console FPSer since there have been many schemes used throughout the years. I think you could have done a better job at explaining what gives the game so much replay value. You gave some examples, but just kind of glossed over the reasoning behind them. All in all, I was very happy with this review.

On the message boards on August 19, 2002, Inigo Pipkin had this to say about my review for Medal of Honor: Frontline(PS2)

although reasonably informative its rather bitty construction and sweeping statments meant it didn't really figure in contention with the three great reviews listed above. Plus the openiung line i found to be plain dumb: World War II will probably go down as one of the most famous wars in history
I think went down as the most famous war in history about 50 years ago when it became clear that a truly global war on that scale was never going to happen again.

On the message boards for review of the day for October 12, 2002, BobotheClown explains why my review for City Crisis(PS2) got the "Use your Old Format Award"

I know other people didn't feel the same, but I preferred your longer style of writing. As it is now, I feel like details are left out in your reviews. I prefer the other style you had, which is *really* long, but I was positive that all the details were in.

Also on the message boards for October 20, 2002, my review for Hotel Giant(PC) got top honors as review of the day from Dogg, here's his justifications:

Gruel's review was very close to Daremo's review, and is also very close to being one of the kid's best (his WC3 review, to me at least, tends to be his true tour de' force). He covers all the spots of this simulation title called Hotel Giant, and he doesn't stray too far with his descriptions to end up becoming too boring or drab.

For the review of the day on October 30, 2002 on the message boards, Hangedman gives his thoughts on my Worms Blast (PC) review....

Gruel's review was solid, but fairly uninteresting. While a solid summary of Worms Blast, it didn't leave me satisfied. However, it was written in complete sentences and made its point where it needed to be made, which is better than almost everything else today.

Shortly after hangedman's thoughts on my Worms Blast review, Daremo gives me his thoughts on the review as well......

This a decent review from our friend Gruel. The problems are as follows: the opening gives a sort of history of the Worms franchise, but it's a bit boring and threatens to kill the reader's interest early on. Also, there is a lot of telling rather than showing. For instance, there is talk of how cool the things that the characters say have been in the franchise, but no examples of this.

For RotD on 11/14/2002, Janus gives his views on why my review for Ghost Recon(PC) was voted #1, well this was a sad win for me, but guess I'll take what I can get

Anyway, if I had to pick a winner it would be Gruel, with his Ghost Recon review. I prefer this detailed essay style to his older style, which often made the review seem empty and disorganised. The writing may not be terribly exciting (and I'd have like to have seen some more opinion), but this logically organised review does provide a fine, informative look at the game.

For Rotd on 11/25/2002, Jeremy Peeples gives me runner-up on my Lord of the Rings (Xbox) review and here's his explanation why....

Gruel, for his Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings review. Gruel did a fine job at concisely telling the reader what worked and didnít work with the game. Sadly, he had more to work with on the latter aspect. He kept the paragraphs short, which made it much easier to read through, and it flowed very smoothly

For Rotd on 11/25/2002, Bobo gives me the top honors as winner for my review of Shenmue II (Xbox) Here's his justifications why...

A long, through review, which is what I like to see from Gruel. He covers every aspect of gameplay. While the word selection isn't on par with a Runinruder or a Masters, it's still above the rest of the pack on this day. Your enthusiam is shown throughout, and while it may be a bit too excited, I don't get the feeling that you're rabidly biased either.

Andrew Schultz then gives his thoughts on my Shenmue II review that day also in the same topic....

Great job Bobo and Gruel! I know Gruel often gets lost in the shuffle submitting on days with several other big names but it's good to see him get top billing this time.

I get runner up for RotD on 11/30/2002 from Bobo for my review on Smackdown! Shut Your Mouth for PS2. His Thoughts.....

A superbly written review by Gruel. When you're impassioned about a game, like with this and NBA2K3, you produce much better work. Long and informative, but not bordering on tedious, it gave me the info I wanted on a game I might consider buying. One question though - How is the Royal Rumble mode? That's the only reason I buy wrestling games. Well, until someone puts the old WCW pay per view in a game, you know, Starcade, the one where 20 wrestlers fought in three rings at the same time... Now that would kick ass. But anyway...

here's andrew shultz's thoughts on my same review for smackdown....

Gruel: 5.5. I don't like wrestling reviews and find they often read like inside jokes with the name dropping(games and wrestlers) or try to be 'kick ***.' But I suppose wrestling fans will feel differently--it's what they need to know. Although I appreciated the abbreviations early on they got replaced later. The language is a bit too colloquial even for a wrestling game. But good job with inserting a relevant section for wrestling games--roster.

With more sentences such as Another slick feature is being able to get on and ride the Undertakerís motorcycle over opponents. You can also rip the padding off of turnbuckles and use it as an advantage against your opponents. this review might make me start to enjoy wrestling reviews in general. But it does not drag on for TOO long, although the references confuse me utterly.

then here's retrofreaks thoughts on the same review....

Gruel - 5 - Two things I'm not a big fan of are loooooooooong reviews and wrestling. This review had its highs and lows. I was bored for about 70% of it, but I did like the graphics section, the roster descriptions, and a few other bits and pieces. It's big on description, which is a good thing, but it needs to have more of a flair to keep the reader entertained and awake.

for 12/8/2002, Inigo Pipkin gives his feedback on why my review for Deathrow(Xbox) made recommended reading....

Gruel gives us good review of "Deathrow" although I feel he was a tad harsh on the film Rollerball. man if you though the original sucked, I think the remake (due out soon) is about ten times worse. However the comparison helped me envisage the game well, although obviously Gruel is american, any Uk gamer would have also said "Its just like Speedball 2 dude!!" (at least thats what it sounds like). Sorry off the point there. Maybe a little short, but still nicely informative.

the 2/3/2003 was a day to remember with the most big name reviewers being submitted on one day. Snow Dragon was in charge of rotd and ranked my review of DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball (X-Box) at a solid #8, these were his reasoning's....

I think a game so recently released as this could stand to have some more elaboration put on the concepts, but Gruel does good where he explains things. I think a bit too long was spent on the sound, especially considering how little he likes the music, and the ideas hop from one to another too fast. The last paragraph seems tacked on as well.

rwolfgang (aka Shinnox) did review of the day in a unique alphabetical format on 2/7/2003 and my 3000 word behemoth for Legends of Wrestling 2 (X-Box) got second place, these were his reasonings.....

G is for Gruel, who begins his review by warning me he wrote over 3000 words on a game I have absolutely no interest in. He said he wouldn't blame me for clicking the back button, but I resisted temptation and decided to read the review. To my surprise, it held my interest until about half way through until it started going off and talking about different modes, some of which I found unnecessary. In fact, I don't think this review had to be so long to prove its point, as a lot of the points get caught in the slew of roster and mode descriptions. Still, it's a good effort from Gruel and there was obviously a lot of time put into this one.

Ursil had this to say about my Activision Anthology (PS2) review from his 2/9/2003 RotD....

Though a little awkward in places, this was a good review overall that decently covered all relevant aspects. I was however disappointed that there wasnít more information about the individual games. For a cart of 45 games, you only discuss a handful of them in detail, although the summaries of the games as a collective whole are effective.

Mariner had this to say about my reviews for American Conquest (PC) and ATV Quad Power Racing 2 (PS2) that both got the runner-up spot from his RotD for 03/29/2003....

Both reviews were similar in style and quality, and I heavily considered him for RotD. Gruel cuts straight to the heart of the manner, fully analyzing all relevent information, backed by examples and comparisons to other, similar games, pointing out what makes the games stand out, and wisely staying on track without wandering into pointless topics. Granted, they may be a bit dry to read, but they were very informative. I preferred American Conquest to ATV, but they're both quite good.

On 04/08/2003 Masters made a topic on the reviewer's board about the GameFAQs reviewers stating your influences on reviewing and who have inspired them. Believe it or not I was actually mentioned a few times by these following people, and this is what they had to say about me
GRUEL's Unreal Tournament review on the ROTW page was the first review I read for the sake of getting to know how to write one. As such, I think I copied, consciously, his style and layout, and modified this slowly as time went on.

For the 04/14/2003 RotD thread Mariner had the following to say about my review for WWE Crush Hour(GCN).....

The writing is kind of dry, but it is still very informative. Gruel portrayed his pleasant surprise quite well in the review, and did a good job of conveying the "pretty good yet could have been better" attitude. The positives and negatives are all there for the reader to think what he or she wants, and everything falls into place nicely.

I later asked him to elaborate on my "dry" writing and he replied with.....

I don't know how much I can help, as I would classify my own writing as "dry" as well. In any case, it sounds like you're getting all the information out there and all the opinions and analysis necessary, but without focusing too much on making the average reader care to read through it all. I wouldn't consider this too much of a problem, since I think most people read reviews to learn more about a game rather than for fun, and they will read toward the end anyways because what you have to say is important. And, of course, it's not horrible writing like some of the new people. It's nothing bad, just nothing spectacular.

I think it's sort of a "get down to business" type of reviewing. The image I get of your reviews is someone standing up and saying "this is what the game is, this is how good/bad it works, these are the good points, this is my reccommendation, thank you and have a good day," whereas other people take a more conversational approach, as if they were trying to convince a friend or something. The second option is more interesting to read, but there one must beware of the danger of sacrificing details and analysis for being interesting.

For instance, one part of your review where you break the reserved, distant approach is "Suffice to say, I immediately went to mute the commentary volume after a few bouts." Stuff like that breaks up a review and keeps readers going.

I wouldn't focus too much on trying to change this style of writing. Personally, I myself worry that I will lose focus of the actual content of the review (which is far more important IMO) if I try too hard in keeping a review from being dry, and that what I do say will be off the wall and stupid. But then again, that's just me.

My buddy Rich, who writes reviews under the alias "kn1gh7" got the overall Review of the Day winner with his review of Wizardry8(PC) for the 04/20/2003 rotd topic. Here is what Ursil had to say.....

kn1gh7 comes out of nowhere! On another day it wouldnít have won, but I donít want this statement to take away from a fine review either.. Witty throughout, with a catchy and descriptive intro that conjures up images of D&D geeky goodness and keeps the references coming throughout the review. Itís extremely thorough and caters to both fans of the series and newbies. (Speaking as a newbie to this series myself, I was never lost in this review).

for the 4/21/2003 RotD, kn1gh7 got the runner up spot with his review for Masters of Orion 3(PC), Here's Smoking Simian/Ashy's comments.....

kn1gh7 is first up with a review of Master of Orion III. He's really shaping up to be a good reviewer, and I especially like that because I gave him Rookie of the Day some time ago, and it's nice to see one actually progress. There are a few chunks in the review that I didn't like, but most of it shines through as a rather well-done piece.

for the 04/22/2003 RotD, my review for Midnight Club 2(PS2) got review of the day winner from smoking simian/'s his comments........

Gruel's review of Midnight Club 2 surprised me. I clicked on the link with hesitation, not checking the name, because I know the game just came out. I expected some 432 word review, but instead was treated to a thorough Gruel review that got the job done. Even though you gave it just a 7, I'll buy it for the Xbox when it comes out, and I expect you to do such as well, so I can verbally violate you with the Xbox Headset.

A new thing started on the reviewer boards called "best game review" (BGR) it was where a rather prolific/famous/etc reviewer picked a random game and gave a critique to everyone who wrote a review for it. This game was for Gran Turismo (PSone) and the critiquer was matt91486, my buddy Chris Harpster (roadkill) had a review for that game and here's what matt had to say on June 10, 2003

There are some decent Roadkill reviews, and there are some bad Roadkill reviews. This falls squarely into the latter category. Instead of including a gameplay section, he includes a ?Graphics on PS2? section. Nice choice.

For review of the day on June 18, 2003 my 300th review on Gamefaqs for Speed Kings (Xbox) got mentioned by Hangedman, it didn't win unfortunately, and here's his justifications why....

I didn't really get too much out of this, honestly, during the first read-through. Reading it again gave me the idea that Speed Kings is really pretty ****ing extreme, considering that it's a motorcycle racer where you have the option of powersliding under semis and other obstacles. That sounds pretty damn cool.

For review of the day on June 20, 2003 my review for Stake (X-Box) got recommended reading from Denouement. Here's what he had to say....

Stake sounds like a game that deserves to be torn apart, and Gruel certainly provides for that. All the opinions Gruel presents, whether negative or positive, are thoroughly supported with details, and the essential aspects of the gameplay are captured excellently. The only thing holding this review back are some questionable sentence structure and weird uses of idioms, like it failed in spades. The awkwardness does make the review less enjoyable to read, but Gruel's review discusses the game as completely as any other piece of the day, excluding Mariner's.

For review of the day on June 23, 2003 my review of Red Faction 2 (X-Box) got runner-up from Mariner, and here is what he had to say about it........

It's your typical Gruel review - a no nonsense review packed with all the info you need to know if you want to buy the game. And it serves its purpose well in that respect, as probably every single question one might have about the game is answered in said review. He liberally compared aspects of it to several different more popular FPSs, a tactic that works surprisingly well in this case. Likewise, he drew a few personal touches as well that add a bit of life to the review. And it's all wrapped up in a timely and brief manner, never dragging on or seeming too long. Well done.

For review of the day on June 24, 2003 my review for Seek and Destroy (PS2) got runner-up by's his brief comments....

Gruel, noted reviewer and respectable drunkard, reviewed Seek and Destroy for the PS2, a title which I had a feeling sucked. I saw it in my store, and new from the very instant looking at the cover that it was a God-awful title, and Gruel sums up why nicely.

RotD took a big hiatus due to CJayC switching servers for site content on GameFAQs, and the what's new pages were temporarily disabled for a good 2 months, but they were brought back in the beginning of September, and so was RotD. And on September 8, 2003, my review for Madden NFL 2004 (Xbox) got me a rare overall win for RotD from Mariner. Here is what he has to say........

It was a tough choice, but this review just seemed the most consistent. There is, of course, more information than you'd ever need to know is presented here, allowing just about anyone to get a good idea if this is a worthy purchase or not. He jumps straight into his argument, going for the two biggest improvements first and then working his way through the rest. He presents his information well and gives a clear picture of just why he likes or dislikes it ("Whenever the comp or a buddy of mine ran the PA, it almost always fooled me, and I guarantee itíll catch you off guard on plenty of occasions to boot.", etc). About the only thing missing is a good summary, but oh well. Yes, it's a long sports review, but it's pretty much the best long sports review I've ever seen.

For 9/15/2003 RotD Genjuro Kibagami didn't give a winner at all for RotD, saying nothing deserved top spot, but Genjuro listed mine for GameBreaker 2004(PS2) at the top of the noteworthy list, with the following constructive criticism.

Some of you may for whatever reason enjoy Gruelís review, but not me! I felt the whole thing to be dry, long, and uninteresting. Half the time I was left in the dark on all this sport jargon and didnít have a damn clue what he was talking about. Even so that canít help that the entire descriptions werenít all that interesting. However itís nice to see how Gruel makes many comparisons to other video game based pigskin offerings from this year. I mean itís nice to read one review that will tell you how NFL Fever is better in this way, while ESPN has a cooler way of doing this. It was nice and all, but too boring. I doubt even those rabid fans who wear the body paint would be that excited about this review. I mean, thatís the problem with sports reviews: itís tough to grab the readerís attention.

For the the 09/19/2003 RotD, I got runner-up from Nt220 with my review for GameDay 2004 (PS2), here's his comments....

I don't know much about sports games. In fact, I even find it somewhat strange that companies are already releasing 2004 versions of their franchises when it's still more than three months away. As such I'm not really the best judge for this review. It strikes me as being a bit too short, but as this is a franchise game review it probably doesn't need to explain the game from top to bottom. Besides that, well-backed up opinions and decent writing, although I find the last paragraph to be phrased oddly. (Why should I give this game a chance when you yourself readily list its many flaws?) responded with the following feedback for my live RAW House Show report on 9/26/2003 with the following feedback

Hey look man that House show seemed cool but I have some advice for you> Ive been to about 9 shows and I always get autographs, the best way to do it is to go to the back outside where they all park. They always sign there....^.^..I got a Goldberg autograph after a RAW show!!!! But good luck on autographs and I love the site, keep it real!!!!!!! Peace Out, Matt Weaver

Denouement did RotD for 10/8/2003, and my near 3000 word review for ESPN NFL Football(X-Box) got a mention, here's what he had to say

While very long, Gruel's piece is extremely readable and is certainly educational. The disclaimer at the top isn't really necessary, since the review doesn't call upon some massive interest in or knowledge of football; it studiously (and wisely) ignores details like playbooks and rosters that are only of interest to fans. Its length is intimidating, of course, but even those who don't especially care about football will find it interesting.

Genjuro Kibagami did RotD for 11/10/2003, and he had this to say about my review for NBA ShootOut 2004 (PS2).......

What can I say? I donít know jack about sports games. The review seems good, but I donít know what the hell youíre talking about. It was all over my head. I canít really critique this review fairly, but I will say that Iíd probably have liked this review if I knew what the hell you were talking about.

Mariner did RotD for 11/18/2003, and I was one of four runner-ups for my review for Ultimate Beach Soccer (X-Box). I was surprised he ranked it so high considering I rushed this review, here's his comments.....

Wow, a short sports review by Gruel - that's quite a surprise. I think I like it - it doesn't depend on prior knowledge, it isn't forced to compare to previous versions or rival games, it doesn't have to go into an in-depth commentary on every little thing. Instead, the review just focuses solely on how well it works and how Gruel reacted to it - a luxury perhaps not available with EA and Sega's offerings. He balances a select few descriptions with very nice analysis of how well it worked and how he wished things were different. Well done.

Genjuro Kibagami did RotD for 12/9/2003, and I got recommended reading for my review for Counter-Strike (X-Box), and by golly, his thoughts for my review were the most semi-positive I ever got out of him., here they are.....

Now by all means this is a top-notch review, but I just felt it wasnít up there with midwinterís more interesting piece. Granted this is a wonderfully concise composition, but it read very factual with little emotion. Had this been as long as midwinterís review, this could have been a real snooze-fest. Thankfully it was not. Not bad.

Mariner did RotD for 12/15/2003, and he actually had some good things to say about my review for NCAA Final Four 2004 (PS2), and awarded it runner-up. Here's his comments.......

There was a lot here to like - it was fairly concise while still providing all the relevent information, paragraphs flowed quite well with plenty of easygoing, conversational writing, and clearly laid out his position. Despite not caring one wit about sports games, I had know trouble reading through it and coming away satisfied, which is definitely a plus. In fact, this could have been a contender for RotD save for a few minor issues. The opening paragraph was a bit confusing (you were disappointed with the first game, so then expecting the same for this one, but was surprised to see it was different, but still dissapointed? Something seems off.) Also, the paragraphs were a wee bit disjointed. But other than those minor issues, I think this is one of the best Gruel reviews I've read, and certainly the best sports one I've read.

I didn't really do too many reviews in 2004 thus far, and the few I did only got a brief mention in its respective RotD cause of how average I was, it wasn't until the RotD for 06/07/2004 rolled around where I got a decent critique and recommended reading mention from Golden Vortex for my review on ESPN College Hoops (X-Box). Here's what he had to say.....

A very detailed explanation/analysis here on the gameplay and it covers almost every aspect that probably exsists in the game. At first I thought ďGod, this is long and itís a review of a sports game, great!!Ē but Gruelsí review was pretty detailed in most aspects but if you arenít really interested in the basketball genre then you may not find it all too interesting but itís a good review nevertheless.

For the 6/15/2004 RotD, Janus Operative, had this short bit to say of Metal Slug 3 (Xbox) review, on why it got recommended reading......

This was a typically solid effort which was worth reading for this line: "Personally, Iím not a big fan of the monkey ally." Monkeys do make the worst sidekicks.

For the 8/8/2004 RotD Janus Operative decided to rip me a new asshole for my ESPN NBA Basketball Review (Xbox). To be honest, I was actually quite plastered while reviewing it, and was surprised I was able to actually submit a review, and frankly, I don't even remember writing half of it. So Janus was a bit harsh on me for it, and to think I thought the RotD'er would at least get a kick out of it, but after this nasty 'critique' Janus has now made my shit list!....

I put my comments through the Gruel translator and here's how they came out: "wrassling basketball combo comments suck monkeynuts when inserted into fatass revus also when fatass revus insert rambling tagnets like golitath shooting monkeys in the face with a big ole waterpistol that sucks. but at least sections are a gogo for this gurl revu although even when rambling tagnets are a main fetus it still reads like a crazy ass section review."

For the 8/29/2004 RotD my review for ESPN NFL 2K5 (Xbox) got an honorable mention by Disco1960, here's what he had to say

The piece heavily details the differences between ESPN NFL 2K5 and its predecessors, as well as its improvements over them. Itís very informative, but also quite long. Though Iím sure readers who have previous experience with the series would find it helpful, if not everyone else.

For the 9/20/2004 RotD, Mariner gave me a mention in his huge RotD, and he actually had a lot to say about my review for WWE Day of Reckoning (GCN).....

I wish I could honestly comment on this, but I've never played a single wrestling game, never watched a single wrestling match, and have no desire to do either. The second paragraph looks like it's got some neat ideas - namely in telling how the game "feels" in comparison to other wrestling games and explaining the specific moves and tactics that create that feel - so I'll give him props for that. The rest of the review seems to be a rundown and commentary for all the features people might care about, so I guess that's good too as far as I know.

For the 10/18/2004 RotD, Mariner gives me another mention in yet another huge RotD of his for my review of Test Drive: Eve of Destruction (Xbox)

I've seen so many Gruel reviews I don't know what else there is to say. He has obviously found a comfortable routine, knows what he's talking about, and has written enough to know what needs to be said and what doesn't. Yet another solid effort.

For the 10/27/2004 RotD, Saphoros didn't have anything too special to say about my review for THUG2 (Xbox), mostly because he never played a Tony Hawk game before and is one of those RPG-elitist pricks, here's his thoughts....

This is an average review. There are no writing errors that I see, but it doesn't try to be interesting either. It also starts with a lot of details on updates from what I assume was the first Tony Hawk Underground, and that confused me early on. It's good for people familiar with the series, but I'm not quite sure I picked up on it having no experience with Tony Hawk at all (aside from ignoring the game when I went to people's houses where they were playing it)

My Webpages:
DX/nWo Wrestling | Gruel's GameFAQs Reviews Page | Gruel's Starcraft Resources