Score: 5

"Not Bad"

submission: Slash Returns: ramagi

date: April 17, 2007

A tongue-in-cheek music video, this could be done better but at least it doesn't suck.

Graphics: 3. Mostly ripped images and poor drawings. At least attempts were made.

Syle: 4. Not the most aesthetic things in the world.

Sound: 6. Perhaps the best strength is the choice of soundtrack.

Violence: 2. A little bit here and there.

Interactivity: 0 (just a replay button).

Humor: 7. Though I wonder if she'd find it funny....

Overall: 5. At least it's better than your previous submissions.

Score: 10

"Hey, this works!"

submission: you can't kill me

date: April 17, 2007

You spent a day on that? It was a one-take wonder. Pat yourself on the back; some people agonize across months and deliver inferior quality.

Graphics get a 7 because everything flows smoothly and the lip synchronizations are near-flawless. It does look rather simple, though.

Style got a 6 because it is a simple cartoon and also a topical one. The "What?" section was a necessary thing.

Sound gets an 8. You went past the register on your microphone, but you actually performed incredibly well. Also, it isn't so low as to be totally imperceptible.

Violence gets a 0 even if there's a twang of discontent.

Interactivity gets a 2. I replayed twice.

Humor gets a 10. You gave the avatar an excellent edge about him.

Overall: 10. What can I say? In a day, you jabbed their biased little throats shut. See you at DeviantArt.

Score: 7

"Lovely"

submission: Something About Us

date: April 13, 2007

This is one of the Flashes on the site that get outsiders to come and check the scene out, and then they run into jerks like the Star Syndicate and the rest of those pigs running this place into a sty. I'm very glad you transcend that lot.

Graphics: 4. You messed up a variety of effects that could have looked nicer, like manipulating with gradients and dodging the morphing effects that just look bad. Text also clipped along the far edges; they didn't fully fit the camera shot.

Style: 8. The artwork, on the other hand, is where the Flash shines. It's a combination of sweet and psychedelic circa late 60s early 70s. It also has a sweet groove and very romantic. This is something you watch with your lover (and not be embarrassed about).

Sound: 7. A crisp mastering of the music complements the presentation well.

Interactivity, Violence, and Humor each get a zero because A: there wasn't a reply button; B: there isn't any violence, and C: there isn't any real humor. Sure, it's positive, but the end is sort of a bittersweet closing note to the tale.

Overall: 7. There are places where this could be improved, mostly in the technical details mentioned. The expression and style, however, cannot be dulled.

Score: 10

"Oh Thank God, something that isn't garbage...."

submission: Dark Era: Chapter 1

date: April 12, 2007

No seriously; when you're Dark-aligned and see the pranks that flash groups pull, you tend to get cynical. This is a very cool horror/drama that retains its sense of humor. Few can do that.

Graphics: 8. Everything is well drawn and blur effects are nice.
Style: 8. You got a good cartoon style, and you even change it up. A few things shouldn't be tweened, but the existence of frames done so well is worth checking out.
Sound: 5. I'm vexed. The music comes in clear, but it's borrowed and the voice-over is too soft.
Violence: 6. Nothing exceedingly nasty, but classic tension and surprise at zombie mobility make up for any alleged lack of violence.
Interactivity: 2. There's even a scene selection! Maybe it's best that it appears at the end.
Humor: 7. The sequence inside the fast food hut is worth the price of admission.

Overall: 10.

Score: 0

"It sucked"

submission: Carl

date: April 12, 2007

And I can't say why you insist on submitting it, other than messing with the works.

It all gets a bunch of zero ratings because this stuff gets churned out daily, perhaps simply under different titles, perhaps with no improvements whatsoever, without the intention to improve. If your intent is to make life a little more miserable for everyone else, you and your clique of reviewers have succeeded.

Score: 0

"Grotesque"

submission: SlashClassic3:FAP FAP FAP

date: April 11, 2007

Seriously, it was never meant to be this way.

Graphics: Zero. (Poorly drawn)
Style: Zero (poor taste)
Sound: Zero (what, no sound effects?)
Violence: Zero (who gives?)
Interactivity: Zero (can we keep this out?)
Humor: Zero (boring, really)

Overall: Zero

Score: 0

"Junk"

submission: SlashClassic2: Confession

date: April 11, 2007

If you're going to make garbage, at least make garbage silly. You would think fish in a barrel would be easier to shoot.

Graphics: Zero (poor picture quality, no effort)
Style: Zero (what is this?)
Sound: Zero (it came in clear, but what for?)
Violence: Zero (actually I don't care)
Interactivity: Zero (it's otherwise littered with bugs)
Humor: Zero (and I was in a good mood, too)

Overall: Zero

Score: 8

"Didn't suck"

submission: Silent Film: Rainy Day

date: April 10, 2007

This is one of those niche or underground submissions. This isn't meant to be blammed.

Graphics got a six because you were pretty simple, but the effects that counted (like the blotches on the reel) were among those effects that worked well to drive the authenticity home.

Style got a five because of the simplicity of the work. Given your limitations, I don't doubt it.

Sound has a seven because it might be old music, faint and in the background, but that fit the style and made it even more authentic.

Violence got a three. It came to blows.

Interactivity gets nothing because there was no replay button (a replay button would probably detract from the authenticity anyway).

Humor gets nothing because it was relatively somber.

Overall is an eight. People will blam only if they're a bunch of heartless bastards. This one is okay for what it's worth.

Score: 0

"Not an example of Flash at its greatest..."

submission: Welcome to PalTalk

date: March 29, 2007

Okay, this is a scathing look at PalTalk. Remind me not to go there. No, he's not an emo. I hate that word, for one. And another, I've no way of knowing because there's only one guy talking. I have no frame of reference about the conversation's context, so I can't judge. But he sure sounded irritated...

Graphics get a zero. That poster is graffiti, and poor even by graffiti standards.

Style is zero. Someone put this on Front Page solely because it pertains to NG somehow and someone is screaming at the top of his lungs over a microphone.

Sound gets a ten. I don't know why... maybe because it captures the moment perfectly?

Violence gets a three. The only thing keeping this guy from swatting people upside their snide little heads was the fact that this is the Internet... rife with borderline retarded people, true, but that is not an excuse. That is a felony.

Interactivity gets a zero. I couldn't tell this guy to shut up, either.

Humor gets a five. One part of me says "Yeah it's a ten because there's screaming and a guy being picked on because he's an emo moron," and the other part of me says: "What are you, kidding me? That could be just about anybody, even you, going haywire like that in PalTalk. He certainly doesn't deserve anymore exposure to the world through someone's crappy flash showcasing his audio bits."

Overall, this flash gets a zero. It doesn't really boost anyone's confidence in PalTalk... and it certainly doesn't entertain the outsiders of the site, either.

Score: 6

"Flawed delivery of classic love story"

submission: SSAM #5

date: March 26, 2007

I hate to be strict with someone's labor of love--one landing on the front page, in fact--but there were a few knots in my stomach as well as my heart. While I won't go into whether or not it's a cliche, I will say that there are quirks that make this tear-jerker hard to swallow.

Graphics are Seven (review representative of series overall). Instances depicting violence could not be perfectly rendered through the classic South Park-inspired artwork. It was a simple approach, but decently made with effects to boot.

Style receives a four because the South Park style does not make a good tear-jerker plot. Since we associate the paper cut style to a topical yet juvenile cartoon show, it is hard to associate a love story through it. I remember the graphic adventure of Ray--rendered in the South Park style--and I imagined how better it could be had the author upped the presentation with a more realistic style. Same thing here... only for your sake, the series has at least one strong point: barring few instances of voice-overs (which were actually quite bland), it was silent film style... for the most part. If the South Park style could better display diverse emotion, then you could ideally ride upon this style.

Sound gets a 6 for one good reason: the choice of soundtrack. This turns out effective (two songs per film, not always by Hans Zimmer); most cases, authors flub on this decision. It might not be from the audio portal, but it works. Sound is also where I judge voice acting. Sadly, even with Rika-Chan backing you up, voice-overs sound stiff overall. You did okay trying for the harshness of the bully in Episode III, but never hush your voice regardless of your domestic setting; always throw your voice at every chance you got. I cannot vouch for the rest of it. Give better attention towards rehearsing and coaching--even a few lines, since those few lines are typically pivotal.

Violence gets a four (blood, violent acts, etc.)

Interactivity gets a 2 (play and replay).

Humor is a zero. It's not a contextually humorous tale.

Now in terms of writing...

Now, while characters evolve (his former tormentor gives him a break in the third episode), not everything is explained. A viewer barely notices what happens at the first episode that could possibly explain what happens in the fifth. Furthermore, the abrupt end through a random shooting never ceases to amaze me. The redhead appears like a Deus Ex Machina to solve his dilemma and, even then, the tale ends with an abrupt death. Did it honestly need that to happen?

...Frankly, most people will just consider that painfully bad writing.

Unless I missed something--as if the shooter was someone they knew personally who fired in jealous rage--I have got to say that random act of violence was where I vomited. I let myself go along with the dire ups and downs of a classic romance, sparse in its detail or reason, and then saw that.

Ironically, the part where I'm most critical at does not allow me to say this story is poor and undeserving of front page status. You got a six overall because your story at least sounds plausible, like even a shot in the dark at that crucial moment could happen. And you end up wondering if things could possibly be different, like if he ever did realize the redhead smiled his way too, could his rough plight across six years be averted?

Anyway, you managed to hold my attention and captivate my imagination enough to write a lengthy review (possibly one of my longest ones!). It might be hard, but it's as fair as I can muster. You demonstrate a good showing, especially since the story is still grounded, regardless of flaws. Good job... and I hope you'll do better with your next flash.