13 replies to this topic

[Cruis.In]

http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=28185

I thought that was an unfair review. I wouldn't even bother to pick it down, just in case you hadn't seen this one Derek, I put it here.

[ 09-15-2005, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

[Eclipse]

Summary of review:

*gasp* I have to READ something called *GASP* a manual... (reviewer goes catatonic)

several hours later...

This is too hard, I guess simulation doesn't mean Arcade shooter. Next game please.

(ok slightly sarcastic, but thats what I got from it)

[teknocack]

Yeah. A completely unbalanced review. You know what? Mainstream reviewers should not be allowed to handle this type of game for a review. Leave that to those who actually know what this kind of game is about. *sheesh* Effing boneheads!

[UnderLord]

That does seem extreme but i mean when i first started playing BCMG i didnt pick it up off the market table at first i looked at it on several visits it looked like a crappy game with bad graphics but considering the other choices i chose it.

Bought it opened it up and played it a bit read the manual to see what i was up against ect. After a couple of hours i had only learned a few things it was slow yes. Then i just dropped it all together came back to it another day (weeks maybe months later) and got back into it.

It turned out even though the graphics where not upto par with the games of today (when i bought it) it was still a good game and then i went on to get UC and that was a good game even if the learning curve was longer then i like...

But that guy didnt even sound like he gave it a second thought.

[teknocack]

Yeah, too busy looking for a piece of candy instead of a nice thick steak to sink his teeth into. Pansy.

Man, I'm really into the name calling tonight!

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cruis.In:
http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=28185

I thought that was an unfair review. I wouldn't even bother to pick it down, just in case you hadn't seen this one Derek, I put it here.

---

I dunno why anyone would call it a review. It reads more like a preview by an adolescent, more than anything else.

The one thing I did find amusing was this

After struggling to play with only a short list of keyboard commands

Clearly, he's talking of out his a$$. A short list of keyboard commands?!?!

Never send a boy to do a man's job. I guess Rainier must be short of good reviewers. Here is their UC review.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teknocack Prime:
Yeah. A completely unbalanced review. You know what? Mainstream reviewers should not be allowed to handle this type of game for a review.

---

Mainstream? Since when was Worthplaying mainstream? I guess I must've missed that memo.

[Cruis.In]

difficult interface? What is hard about pointing and clicking, I mean once you go to command craft orders its all there already, unless they are meaning because they need a dictionary to know what TOW means.

Maybe they also have trouble navigating the start menu programs list in windows.

[Psirat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cruis.In:
difficult interface? ...

Maybe they also have trouble navigating the start menu programs list in windows.

---

For some people, if its not on the desktop, it doesn't exist.

[Grizzle]

What he is essentially saying is that in order for people to appreciate the game it needs to be dumbed down. Fat chance. 95% of games out there are already dumbed down to the point of not being entertaining at all.

Also, what's up with the "cacophony of displays"...did you add lots of bad sound effects to the menu system SC???

[sainta117]

I'm not going to defend the man, but it should be pointed out that the majority of gamers do not like games like UC or BC. The majority of gamers do not like in-depth simulations of complex and interactive environments. The majority of gamers are drooling idiots.

He is absolutely correct, in that the majority of his readers WON'T like this game, because it exceeds their attention span. That does not mean that it's a bad game, merely that it is a type of game that appeals to a specific market to which he does not belong and does not review for. The review I saw at SciFi.com was quite good, and that should be a much more important recommendation to your target demographic than the commentary of a Doom or wing commander player. If you're going to keep making the kind of deep, intricate simulations that you're known for, you're going to keep getting lousy reviews from mainstream reviewers. The kind of people who will continue to buy and enjoy your games in the future are the kind of people who don't rely on game reviews from mainstream mags anyway.

[Supreme Cmdr]

It is the responsibility of the reviewer to review games based on merit and what they are, not what they want it to be or think they should be. It is really that simple.

It is also the responsibility of the EIC to assign a competent reviewer to a game based on that reviewer's experience and exposure. You can't assign an sports game fan to review a deep, complex game. The results won't be pretty.

There are glaring holes in his review, which clearly point to someone who is used to playing a different kind of game and has no patience for it.
Giving a game a 4/10 score because you don't like it, is clearly incompentence and unfair. Especially when you consider that he's complaining about the size of the manual, tutorial etc. And telling a rather GLARING lie about the lack of keyboard commands.

I wonder what would happen if he was asked to review, say, Silent Hunter III, Falcon Allied Force or Dangerous Waters.

Of course he's getting paid to do a review, so there's no way he's just going to say he can't review it for whatever reason. So why not type up a bunch of rubbish and assign a score that is in line with a previous review. I dunno, but to be it reeks of pseudo-plagerism.

No wonder they're looking for reviewers over there.

[Spindoktor]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:
No wonder they're looking for reviewers over there.

---

Well, maybe thats why they are www.worthplaying.com rather than www.worthreading.com.

[Matchoo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

I wonder what would happen if he was asked to review, say, Silent Hunter III...

---

When the game first came up and he found himself in the control room, he'd probably take a look at the german writing on the controls, start clicking around the screen until something happened(which for this situation is putting the sub in emergency reverse) back into the dock, sink his sub, and complain that the controls were difficult and there weren't any documented keyboard commands (except that full sheet of them that he probably threw away with the box) and give the game a 3.1/10.0 rating because it didn't hold his hand the entire game......

[Sparhawk]

I've just read the article now... The guy is probably used to playing FPSs instead of deeper and more complex games.

Of course, if you're used and like to just use imput keys from 1 to 9,WASD, and maybe some function key for quick saving and loading, (without even reading all the manual) you may find UCAWA a bit too hard and complex, and, IMHO, reading what that guy wrote, I think the description fits him pretty well.

Speaking for myself, I had some trouble with BCMG, mostly because of the paper manual that wasn't very exhaustive, but we all know the situation behind this. As soon as I noticed there was a pdf version of the complete manual, I completely read it, and even the most "difficult" procedure became obvious and logical.
Ok, the manual isn't easy to be read: it's 100 pages long, instead of a couple of sheets with elementary instructions; it's filled with acronyms and "technical" words. It requires patience and time to be read, and it MUST be read at least once or twice, (which is clearly written at its very beginning) but IF you read it, it's pretty exhaustive about any aspects of the game.

Well, after all, we could see this review as a counter proof of this game's quality: a game for many people, but not for everyone.