Board Thread:Wiki Management/@comment-27150398-20180211135035/@comment-27518422-20190424235141

George vs Congar

Welp, I know neither combatant so no need to pretend.

George's analysis.

Firstly, I like the lengths of detail you went into to describe what you know based on no concrete back story.

My main nitpick for the analysis so far is how many people are talking all at once. Obviously, this is a matter of opinion - and it would be a pretty dick move to say something is 'bad' because it's not how you would do it - but there seems to be an over crowding of the analysis section with you, Wiz, Boomstick and the Sphere Robot. It sort of looks like (though obviously isn't) you're just showing off knowledge on how to use the underline, italics, bold etc.

However, your feats that you outline make sense, they're certainly worth picking up on - which seems like a no brainer, but some feats just go without saying on other battles. You go into enough detail to explain why the feat is significant - ie the durability feat of the 100 day rampage.

Overall, George's account feels fair - you can tell there is an understanding of what the character is and how he operates. I think the structure of paragraphs could have been worked on though as, despite me having no trouble with it, the large meaty paragraphs can be a little hard to follow without little break-up lines that help with pace of reading.

Congar's Analysis 

You covered his story very well and very quickly. Not to a point where it was rushed, but very much an efficient and concise account of "This is the character, what happened to make him what he is, etc"

When outlining his abilities, you did a good job making him out as a threat and indeed stacked him up well against George - without making it too obvious in the analysis alone who would pull out ahead - which can be a pretty hard thing to do.

Although, saying he defeated foes who are 'said to be' something does not make him as impressive as you'd think because if they are only 'said to be' then I get the impression that they actually aren't "destroyers of worlds" etc.

In addition, the Kineticlops feat is a little up in the air as it's never specified if he frequently moves at Mach 12 as opposed to a one off thing being taken as a common feature of his make up. Then again, if that is how you research, who would I be to tell you it's bad, right? I'm not that low.

Battle 

Pre fight didn't need to be long, think you did well to keep it as short as that without forcing too heavy a story just yet.

Again, nitpick, and not something I struggle with, but I think the size of the paragraphs, while indeed big, they sometimes feel a bit too meaty and congested. Meaning some people may struggle to read just wall after wall of text.

The single music cue worked well, as it carried the momentum of this slug fest very well. Although, I think it would have helped keep fresh if you did change at least once. No biggie though because as I said: it worked well.

I've got to admit, at no point in my reading of this fight did I every expect George to win - but that's because of how overwhelmingly powerful Congar was set up in the fight itself. The action was indeed good though, and it kept me reading until the end - and the finishing sequence was about as brutal as you'd expect for these two characters based on how you billed them.

Conclusion

I like that you didn't make George out to be a chump - even in defeat - and when you did a side by side, you did a good job getting the point across that George was very good indeed, but his skill was totally undone against a foe like Congar.

The blocky text in the conclusion works better than anywhere else as this is arguably where you need to be the most detailed.

Also, I like where you pick up on inconsistencies within a series or game itself as opposed to take that feat as a cheap means of an unfair advantage. The conclusion was a satisfying end to a solid battle.

Overall: 

It's harsh to punish your score based on what I would do personally - and I'm not gonna say I can do it better, because it's not so easy to make a battle in line with your own critique on others' work. If I had to rank it overall out of ten, I'd personally go 6.5?

The battle was well written, but I felt a lack of suspense despite the quality of the action - it was kinda obvious where it was going.

In addition, I wasn't a huge fan of the blocky lay out on most sections because it can be a slog sometimes getting through a wall of text where sometimes a single line break-up might help with pacing and spacing. Don't be too disheartened though; it is my opinion and you shouldn't take it to heart.

Could someone maybe look at Leone vs Mercury

Thanks