Part 2 of the Skyrim saga
Venture Beat: “…the most rich and compelling single-player experience in video gaming history.”
Eurogamer: “…the discoveries and side quests that pepper the map become compelling explorations…”
G4TV: “The main quests, as compelling as it is, is only a modest portion of the quests to be found in the game.”
CVG: “But, more than any of those things, it’s an adventure; an escape into a compelling world of myth and magic.”
Forbes: This is the biggest, most detailed, fully-formed fantasy RPG ever made, constantly surprising and utterly compelling.
GameSpot: “Lots of compelling, self-contained stories to experience in addition to the main one.”
GameSpot: “You could follow the story, of course, which weaves a compelling tale that casts you as a dragonborn…”
The Adrenaline Vault: “…it was Oblivion that took large steps in implementing a compelling core plot without disrupting the persistent world around it.”
Dallas News: “…it paves the way for changes that I think are compelling…”
stuff.co.nz: “The Nordic world of Skyrim offers a staggering cache of content, remarkable storytelling and wholly compelling encounters.”
The Maneater: “The faction quests are also compelling and rather high-stakes.”
BradNicholson.net: “The witches in this game are by far the most compelling enemies in the game.”
Relevant lines from: http://shawnelliott.blogspot.com/2008/12/symposium-part-one-review-scores.html
I won’t argue that cliché is the one and only reason to reconsider our habits, however, I count it among the many. The paragraphs on a game’s graphics, sound, and so on in previews and reviews produce recognizably generic writing devoid of the discovery and perception that might make them worth reading. They are lazy in that they eliminate both the need to transition thoughts and to interpret a game as the complex product of interconnected components (instead of simply summarizing these parts).
Even worse is when the paragraphs that constitute a template are themselves composed of yet more methods of avoiding actual analysis. I mock the overuse of words such as compelling not because there is anything wrong with the words themselves but rather with the way that they’re used to replace real explanation. We know that any guy in the game store can say he likes or doesn’t like a game’s graphics or story. We recognize that it’s our responsibility as paid writers to say something more than “I like it” or “it’s good.” Replacing “like” and “good” with “compelling” isn’t even trying.
“This time travel mechanic could be just the thing to make Final Fantasy XIII-2 more compelling than the first” – Jason Schreier
John, I think you are missing the point. My problem is not with the usage of words like “compelling” and “visceral,” it is with the proliferation of buzzwords as a substitute for critical thought. As Shawn eloquently described in the previous comment, saying a game’s story is “compelling” is just as generic and meaningless as calling it “good.” And when so many reviewers are using the same word to describe the same game, something must be off.
I am not arguing that you should not use these words – I am arguing that you should not use them when there are better ways to describe how you feel about an experience.
The first thing I learned in college as an artist is how to critique. My instructors banned the use of “I like” statements because they didn’t express *why* we liked something. The preferred way to express this was “I appreciate this because.”
It’s the same reason why I loathe the words “whimsical” and “cartoonish.” They mean anything and everything and nothing all at once.