Põdi Posted July 24, 2001 Report Posted July 24, 2001 I picked up a copy of a German PC gaming mag last week, inside was a little booklet listing their favourite games, hardware, compilations etc from the past few years. In the Space sim section, their No.1 was......Starlancer!Now, I played it through, twice. OK, I enjoyed it (because it was easy) and it looked pretty, but the AI was crap and the story and stereotypes a little outdated (evil Communist baddies etc). How can they possible put it ahead of Freespace 2 (which was 2nd) or XWA (4th), both of which I found far more challenging and immersive and graphically much of a muchness. I sometimes wonder what reviewers in the gaming industry base their opinions on; pretty graphics? compelling storyline? challenging gameplay? Or because it's a Chris Roberts game? I am at a loss.
Menchise Posted July 24, 2001 Report Posted July 24, 2001 Starlancer was not a Chris Roberts game, it was an Erin Roberts game.I haven't played it, but as far as I know, it got 'good but not great' reviews from the mags (75% from PC Gamer, 7.7/10 from GameSpot, 3.5/5 from Avault).
Põdi Posted July 24, 2001 Author Report Posted July 24, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: Starlancer was not a Chris Roberts game, it was an Erin Roberts game. Yes, you're right of course. Couldn't remember which, I don't own it any more.
Real_Lucas Posted July 24, 2001 Report Posted July 24, 2001 one thing I noticed over the years were that some magazines seem to be influenced by the advertizing that they have in the mags.. for example if a publishing company has spent several thousand dollars on an add campaign in a mag, then it was understood that the review would be 'better'. I don't know if this has really changed, but I did notice that usually (and this is an opinion) the magazines that seemed to do this the most...at least give seemingly inflated reviews for a game that I found disappointing, or where others gave less favourable reviews, usually had an 'advertiser's index' showing where all the ads can be found. BTW I haven't baught a gaming mag in ages.
Soback Posted July 24, 2001 Report Posted July 24, 2001 Don't you all know that it all revolves around $$$$$. You want a good review, you buy it. That's all there is to it. Even if your game is crap you will still get the most gentle and uplifting review if you pay.
Menchise Posted July 24, 2001 Report Posted July 24, 2001 Hehe. Makes me wonder why GameSpot gave 7.6/10 to Anarchy Online, spewing euphemisms about the bugs and the generally broken state of the game.It's becoming a bad habit among game review mags and sites to 'cushion' the ratings they give to games in anticipation of upcoming patches (that's one of the reasons why GameSpot's AO review gave a "Good" rating).IMO, these people need to make up their minds; they should either write a brutally honest review about the state of the game out of the box or they wait till the patches are released and review the game then.
Real_Lucas Posted July 25, 2001 Report Posted July 25, 2001 frankly, I think the only time you are going to get a brutally honest review about anything is if there is no financial motivation for the reviewer to write it....but then, what the hell would be the point?
Real_Lucas Posted July 25, 2001 Report Posted July 25, 2001 ...oh and who in their right mind considers a single person's opinion over another person's work to be more valid than your own...if that were the case, there would be what....18 people here? instead of over 2300 registered members?
Menchise Posted July 25, 2001 Report Posted July 25, 2001 Luc, the whole point of reviews is to inform people who haven't played the game if it's worth getting.For example, I haven't played Starlancer, but one of the writers at Adrenaline Vault has played it. Therefore, the opinions in Avault's review are more valid than my own, since any opinions I may have on the quality of the game would be based on fiction.
Real_Lucas Posted July 25, 2001 Report Posted July 25, 2001 I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear in my intent.What I meant to say in the vein of the comment made earlier was that it would be generally foolish to consider the purchase (or not) of a product based on ONE person's personal view of that product, whether he used it, looked at it on his way to the bathroom to find some drano to ingest or had heard other people complain about how shiny it was and that it made their sphincters implode.Basically, I am one of the few people I know that takes 'opinion' to mean personal preference and that I have my own and they, theirs. Therefore it is relatively unwise to consider anything on only one opinion. Conversely, if you see many opinions that gravitate towards the same general conclusion, then wisdom should dictate (provided each of the opinions expressed are not from the same person) your probable course of action...or inaction. sorry for the sarcasm, I have been drinking way too much coffee...I mean nothing personal by it.
Kush Posted July 25, 2001 Report Posted July 25, 2001 I'm with Luc on this one. Just because a reviewer has played the game and you haven't means that he has an opinion. Not necessarily a VALID opinion. Just an opinion. You can't depend on just a review to know whether or not you want to play the game. You could miss out on alot of fun.You depend on your friends first and formost. Then you depend on news and reports about the game from game sights. Then you rely on your own opinion as to whether or not the gameplay is something you might be interested in. Then finally you look at the review, you make an assesment as to whether or not you feel the reviewer has a valid opinion, then you get teh game.Or in my case, you wait until your wife says it's okay to buy the game.
Põdi Posted July 25, 2001 Author Report Posted July 25, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Kush: Or in my case, you wait until your wife says it's okay to buy the game. LOL! I know exactly what you're talikng about.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now