Wargamer.com any creditability left? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

pad152 -> Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 3:06:05 AM)

Wargamer.com any creditability left?

The Wargamer.com has bestowed its 5 Star Wargamer Excellence Award to Distant Guns: The Russo-Japanese War at Sea!

If this game gets five stars, I would hate to play a 3 or 4 star game.[8|] This game is clearly several cans short of a six-pack! [:-]

Huh, no mention of any problems or issues with the game in the
reveiw?

wargamer review


What are we going to see in the wargamer next, ads for great vaction spots in Iraq! [;)]

Remember 10,000 flys can't be wrong, sh*t must be great!




hermanhum -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 3:35:49 AM)

An interesting point.  A review for Harpoon3: ANW just appeared, too.  No mention of the multitude of game-killing bugs, at all.

To be fair, I think that the review was accurate in what it did present, though.  The writer did hit all the high points, but the failure to even mention the lower points makes me a bit sceptical.



KG Erwin -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 4:17:21 AM)

I've long thought that the strongpoint of the Wargamer site was in the articles they presented. I've contributed a couple.

The reviews are good, but they don't focus upon negatives. That's fine with me. The gamers are notorious for their nitpicks, so I see nothing wrong with a review that accents the positive. The forum input will undoubtedly point out the nitpicks and complaints.

You think about this -- that site exists to promote wargaming, so keep that in mind.



Tankerace -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 5:53:03 AM)

A review has to go on what he/she experiences. Though I don't think it is likely, if the reviewer (in this case Jim Cobb) didn't experience the multitude of bugs, or the ones he did experience didn't affect him as bad as they did some players, or if because of Norm Koger's track record he is sure they will be fixed, then why should he dwell on them? Not saying I don't disagree/agree with the review. Personally, I don't really trust any review, because game's I've loved are often trashed by review sites, and game's I can't stand can receive unending praise.

Having skimmed the review, he doesn't mention the multitude of bugs. He does mention the problems with the campaign, but seems to take the attitude that since, under the pricing plan, those that have it technically didn't pay for it, he isn't going to rip the game too badly for it. He also acknowledges the fact that several patches have been put out to fix it, and that most users couldn't even play the campaign for several patches. For those worried about bugs, that right there should be enough to send up warning flags without making the game seem a pile of crap, which he doesn't seem to think it is.

How does a review site not sharing the same opinion as you mean it has no credibility?

I for one am really tired of game reviews focusing on bugs and such. Almost every game these days releases with bugs. It is now almost a rule, rather than the exception. When I read reveiws about "tons of game bugs," "released to early," "needs more beta testers," or the like, I almost want to say "No s***, this is new how?" A few positive reviews are a good thing. That doesn't mean point out game killers, or if the game is unplayable, but DG (again, from my 15 hours or so experience) is not that. I do think the review could mention a few more negatives to be a bit balanced, but I myself have no problem with the review. So far everything he describes jives with my play experience (A crappy campaign, a very fun and exciting tactical game, and despite what other users report relatively few actual bugs). If the reviewer did not experience any bugs, why should he be arbitrarely forced to make a negative review? You wouldn't expect a reviewer that had problems with what for most is a bug free game to give a praising review, would you?

You have had problems with DG, or in your case actually the DG demo. I have not had any problems outside of the campaign game in DG in about 12-15 hours of playing. How is my positive experience any less "credible" than your negative experience? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, be they players or reviewers. From what I have read (and I don't frequent the SZO forums, but I did peek in there a couple of times), a fair number of people are having problems with the game. A fair number also enjoy it. It is a hit or miss game apparently. Individuel players are just going to have to make up their own minds. Without interference of players having bugs (especially if a completely different system) or game reviews that are more like sales pitches. War in the Pacific has a huge fanbase. It also has a following of people who think it is the worse pile of code ever created. Which one of the two is less "credible"? I don't agree with the latter, but they have the right to how they feel, just as much as those who love the game.

Of course, this is why I rarely use game reviews. They rarely help in purchasing decisions, and I usually find (at least on non wargames) they are completely different of my experience with the game. Reviews can help tip the balance, but in truth you can find reviews on almost any game ranging from very good to very poor (I am thinking WPO. Some review sites have called it a great game, almost a masterpiece, while others have ripped it so much it almost makes me say "ouch"). I agree the review should be more balanced, it is far too positive. There again, it shouldn't be completely negative either.



ravinhood -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 6:01:35 AM)

Well I read every review as an "individuals" biased opinion more or less. I take fansite reviews with a grain of salt anymore. What I tend to do is watch the forum hits to a game. Games that are usually popular and good get 1000's of hits. No names or lack lustre don't get many at all. Some of these aren't always bad though.
I shuffle thru the "fanboish" posts and look for the more meaningful posts by other gamers that give indepth game qualities and negatives. If they don't have any negatives I bypass them. No game is perfect and every review should tell the negatives in a game as well as the fanboish remarks like "best game I ever played", well, that doesn't tell anyone squat except a persons biased feelings.

What we need is a magazine/website that is about the negative side of PCgaming and also reviewing the reviewers/publishers. heh I wonder how they'd like some negative reviews posted for the world to see. ;) Take for instance Bismarck....long winded reviews with a lot of what's already in the manual or tutorial, uninteresting reads that become boring half way thru them. I stopped reading his winded drivel a long time ago and just jump to the last page and see what scores he gave the game.

Gamerankings has always been a decent spot to get a fair "average" on the game as a whole, by reviewers and by gamers. Though a lot of the voting is just to shoot a game up or down, no reviews. I wish they would impose a feature if you're going to vote you have to write a 100 word review of why you gave it the score you did. It's just too easy to click a 10 or a 1.



Sarge -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 6:08:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

{SNIP}Personally, I don't really trust any review, {SNIP}



Isn’t that the same thing as pad152 is questioning ,WG creditability [&:]





SemperAugustus -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 6:22:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
What we need is a magazine/website that is about the negative side of PCgaming and also reviewing the reviewers/publishers. heh I wonder how they'd like some negative reviews posted for the world to see. ;)


You might as well start a blog on it...



Sarge -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 6:36:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I've long thought that the strongpoint of the Wargamer site was in the articles they presented. I've contributed a couple.

The reviews are good, but they don't focus upon negatives. That's fine with me. The gamers are notorious for their nitpicks, so I see nothing wrong with a review that accents the positive. The forum input will undoubtedly point out the nitpicks and complaints.

You think about this -- that site exists to promote wargaming, so keep that in mind.



Well I disagree, if your going to do a review for a customer base that is known as notorious “nitpicks“, I think to hold creditability you need to at least be honest.

Leaving potential bugs out of the review is just as pad152 stated, a creditability issue. There is no way in h%ll the author was not aware of the bug reports flooding SZO or the rest of the war gamming community for that matter. I will give the author the benefit of the doubt, and assume he did not run across any of the show stoppers as being reported across the board from MANY of the gamers out there.


Lets face it,

Wargamer does not do reviews, they show case new releases.


PS:
quote:

that site exists to promote wargaming, so keep that in mind


[8|] lol



Tankerace -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 7:01:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

{SNIP}Personally, I don't really trust any review, {SNIP}



Isn’t that the same thing as pad152 is questioning ,WG creditability [&:]





Not exactly. I don't question credibility (unless it's Joe Blow Jim Bob's Fly by night review stand). I just don't trust any reviews because my player experience is not guaranteed to be the same as the reviewers. Many game reviewers said Pacific Fighters was crappy, I loved it. Mig Alley was hailed as the Flight Sim game of the year, I found it bland. Borthers in Arms was supposed to be the best squad based shooter, and I found it severely lacking, though still enjoyable (if not replayable). I don't trust reviews, or rather to phrase it differently I don't put much faith in them, because each player's experience is going to be different and in the end a review is no more helpful than a sales clerk reccomendation.

I will grant that WG is not nearly is critical as what it should be. But as far as credibility goes I don't see how they are any different than Gamespot, PC Gamer, SimHQ, or any other review source. Each has their own opinions, each reviews games differently, and one game will have different "scores" at each place. In all cases, each reviewer will have a different experience and in the end that can't tell whether I will enjoy the game or not. I do know that if the review is glowingly negative I will pass up on the game (usually) rather than risk my money. Then two years later when I finally pick it up I wish I had bought it new because the game is awsome. Or based on positive reviews I have bought brand new games, only to be severely disappointed.

The only difference I see between the Wargamer and other review sites like Gamespot is that WG tends to focus on the positive and hide the negative, whereas others point out every flaw and insert positive in such a way as to make you skeptical on buying. I personally disagree with both approaches, but that doesn't make either any less credible. At least not in my mind.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Leaving potential bugs out of the review is just as pad152 stated, a creditability issue. There is no way in h%ll the author was not aware of the bug reports flooding SZO or the rest of the war gamming community for that matter. I will give the author the benefit of the doubt, and assume he did not run across any of the show stoppers as being reported across the board from MANY of the gamers out there.



Is it really? Is his job to play the game and review it based on playing it, or is his job to scan forums and provide everyone else's opinions? I'll agree he should have probably put a note in their about it, but if he is the reviewer, his job is to review the game based on his experiences. It makes no sense to give reviewers copies of the game to play if his articles are to be based off player's comments in various internet forums. I don't think that is a credibility issue, but rather a review style.

Moreover, if you look at the Wargamer's DG forum, there are (in comparison to positive posts) few bug reports. Should WG be responsible for checking SZO forums to get opinions for the review? I can understand WG visiting their own forum to see if there are vast issues, but I don't see why they should be responsible for checking every forum on the net for issues.

Perhaps if more DG players posted their issues on the Wargamer's forum the review might have been different. or, since all the problems seem to be at SZO's, they will react accordingly in their review.



dinsdale -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 7:09:34 AM)

I think it went out the window with the preview, then review of Diplomacy.

Too many reviews written in the style of gushing 14 year olds with a crush.



Tankerace -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 7:21:50 AM)

I do agree on that, most reviews are not helpful on any site, but WGs seem to be less so. My main point is I don't think it is a crediblity issue, but rather they tend to focus more on promotional reviews than balanced reviews. Which isn't helpful, but neither is ripping games without trying to mention anything good about them. Hence my skepticism on any review.



dinsdale -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 7:55:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I do agree on that, most reviews are not helpful on any site, but WGs seem to be less so. My main point is I don't think it is a crediblity issue, but rather they tend to focus more on promotional reviews than balanced reviews. Which isn't helpful, but neither is ripping games without trying to mention anything good about them. Hence my skepticism on any review.


Well I used to see Jim Cobb and the guy from SZO (whose name escapes me) on the Paradox forums asking questions, commenting on the game/strategy etc, and their reviews reflected the enormous amount of work they put into them, with both positive and negative comments.

I haven't read the DG review, but I would be shocked if someone as thorough as Jim wasn't fully aware of alledged problems with the game (I don't own it so can't really comment.) Deliberately avoiding the mentioning of problems which seemed to abound on release isn't avoiding ripping games, it's avoiding giving an honest review IMHO.

I can understand not being familiar with the multitude of problems which might only affect a minority of users, or with obscure bugs which might not be noticed in a few days or weeks play, but I've noticed reviews which sidestep the issue altogether, or euphemistically glossing over "teething problems" or "minor issues."

It's so difficult to find balanced reviews that I tend to look for customer reviews on Amazon or Gamespot. Although they tend to be a bit extreme, they and forum posts seem to be the most honest assessment of games these days.

I also noticed a review recently (again, can't remember where) which was updated after a patch was released. This is something I strongly disagree with. If a company has the confidence to release a game for retail, then that's the version which should be reviewed, not updated after a period of time when the company can get around to ironing out a few of the bugs it considered ok to sell to people.

For me, the Wargamer coverage of Diplomacy as I said, was breaking point. I would no longer consider a review there to carry any more weight than a customer review on Amazon.



pad152 -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 8:02:31 AM)

I would just like to know, what they use for rating a 5 Star Wargamer Excellence Award, a pair of fuzzy dice? [8|]






Tankerace -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 8:05:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I would just like to know, what they use for rating a 5 Star Wargamer Excellence Award, a pair of fuzzy dice? [8|]



I wish I'd known, I'd have put a fuzzy dice screen in WPO [:D]

That part I do agree with, out of the box anyway it really didn't deserve that. The review in my book isn't bad (nor great), but I don't think it should have got the 5 star thing. Then again, that could be as a result of the myriad of patches, and not the 1.000 version. (Which makes sense, since it automatically updates when you run the game).



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 8:22:52 AM)

Myself, I think I might have read 4 reviews in my life actually.

I don't find reviews really all that riveting. Actually I find them intensely dry.

I was very much grabbed by the video that was offered by Joel recently, very handy just listening to a guy talk about a game. For all its lousy video quality, it did so much more than a dry article.

Concerning DG, I have seen nothing but an endless stream of issues being talked about on various forums. It's clear the game has some glitches.

It's several years later, and I think it is just as well I passed on the large price tag for WitP, because in spite of the fanbase, the game still has some pot holes that count. If the game is 98% done it's not enough, not for that game, not when you spend 3 months playing it, and poof your game goes up in flames over some weird goofy game killing effect.

So DG may just need a few months with a hot iron, or 3 years from now, people might still be complaining. I'm not psychic though, so how can I know which it will be.

I would not be saying Wargamer has lost my interest based on credibility though. But Wargamer is just one of 4 places I use to crossreference my need to assess a game.

Wargamer does what it does, it does an ok job of what it does too.
Jim writes reviews, but so what, I find it easier to get input from him directly on the forums. Same with any other individual responsible for wargaming software, forums are much better than reviews.
It seems in most cases, reviews are more about editting out typos, quality writing skills and some graphics insertion. I don't see them normally as being a definitive statement.



pad152 -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 8:57:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I wish I'd known, I'd have put a fuzzy dice screen in WPO [:D]



Sorry, you have got a bad roll! [:D]



LongBlade -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 10:15:34 PM)

Hi guys.  Thanks for the feedback.  BTW, you can freely post these kinds of criticisms on The Wargamer, too.

Reviews are, as already noted above, an opinion of a reviewer.  Some folks may like a game, others won't.  Frequent readers will realize that some reviewers' opinions match theirs and others do not.  In the end, all a reviewer can do is write about his personal experience and preferences.

I'd also like to clarify what an Award for Excellence means.  Although there are five stars on the Award it that does not imply a five out of five score for a game.  The Award is instead, as the name implies, a recognition for excellence.  A game receiving an Award does not need to be perfect - it needs only to have some aspect that is signifcant.  Read the text of the Award - it will indicate why what aspect is being recognized:

quote:


The Wargamer is pleased to present Norm Koger and Storm Eagle Studios with an Award for Excellence for its combination of innovation and detailed accuracy. Play is absolutely entrancing and thrilling.


Our reviewer did point out that some gamers had experienced problems:

quote:

The campaign game got off to a rockier start. This component was originally to be released sometime after the tactical product but, around March 2006, a decision was made to release both. Apparently, less time was spent polishing the campaign game because numerous crashes were reported with the first six versions. Updates of drivers, DirectX and BIOS helped some players but only a patch at version 1.007 allowed most owners to play campaigns. When this happened, more glitches were discovered. Many have been fixed since version 1.012 was released, though some players still report minor problems.


I believe the bugs in the game were addressed. 

If our reviewer didn't reflrect some of the issues that some readers wanted emphasized all I can say is that that's why we have a number of writers. 

The Wargamer's mission is to inform the community as to what's going on and give insight into the games we like to play. 



Terminus -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 10:27:20 PM)

I'd give it 2 stars out of the box (tactical game OK, but somewhat buggy, and campaign game non-functional). Now, as of 1.015, I'd give it 3½ stars.



TOCarroll -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/26/2006 11:03:15 PM)

Boy thats a tough one. Personally it did not matter to me as I have not interest in that war or Naval Combat. Still.....

Looking back on a product that I own, I recall the Hearts of Iron 1 was released. It got reviews all over the spectrum, but The Wargamer liked it. So do I. Funny thing is, six updates later there were still plenty of glitches in it. But fans kept playing (the problems were not crashes, but more AI failure, inequalities in the system, and 1 infantryman defeating an armoured division.) The point is, when HOI2 came out, everyone raved about how it made the "unplayable" HOI1 playable. I think HOI2 deserves the kudos it gets, but before it was released, people were fairly happy with HOI1, flaws & all. A couple of weeks later, HOI1 was "the game from hell". 

BTW I read reviews, customer feedback, as well as postings before buying a game. There are so many different tastes out there, its hard to tell if I'll like it. Usually I do OK. With the Wargamer, I dont have a credability issue, I just expect them to stress the games high points.

Tom OC



Hertston -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/27/2006 12:05:29 AM)

I don't have the game (the theatre doesn't interest me much) but I like the approach LongBlade sets out, as long as it is made clear to readers.

There are plenty of games that I consider "excellent" in terms of innovation and play-value that have, or had, "issues" and would score mid-range rated conventionally. There are also plenty of 90%+ games, with no such issues, that are unoriginal, uncreative and bored me to tears.



ravinhood -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/27/2006 1:33:39 AM)

What I will give an "Award of Excellence" to Matrixgames and The Wargamer.com for is allowing people to voice their opinions without having moderators play gestapo/police. Both of these sites are the most open ones I have found of the many that I visit. As long as people don't get into verbal abuse of one another both of these sites allow for some pretty good and great discussions without interference. [:-][:D]



TOCarroll -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/27/2006 2:00:36 AM)

Point well takes, as usualhood, Ravenhood. It's nice to have a company or site back-up their followers. Matrix, in particular, is well respected for follow-through on their products.

Tom OC



Capitaine -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/27/2006 6:57:48 PM)

I have no respect for a so-called "review" which consciously or not is designed merely to promote a product, or a genre of products. Imagine if a restaurant critic overlooked everything generally considered pertinent to a meal, and merely focused on positives detected. What credibility would such a "reviewer" have? As long as the wargame genre perceives itself as so nitch that any discouraging word will kill it, it will remain nitch and mired in mediocrity. The lack of intellectual honesty in an actual game review reduces such a review to irrelevance.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/27/2006 9:44:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I have no respect for a so-called "review" which consciously or not is designed merely to promote a product, or a genre of products. Imagine if a restaurant critic overlooked everything generally considered pertinent to a meal, and merely focused on positives detected. What credibility would such a "reviewer" have? As long as the wargame genre perceives itself as so nitch that any discouraging word will kill it, it will remain nitch and mired in mediocrity. The lack of intellectual honesty in an actual game review reduces such a review to irrelevance.


Your comment is understandable. But, the point of advertising is to promote. Reviews are as much advertising as they are opinion.
If I want a brutal negative read, I can always get a newspaper.



BAL -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/27/2006 10:19:04 PM)

I have read enough of Jim Cobb's reviews & have bought games based, in part, upon those reviews that if he says it's a good game then chances are it is.  But, I won't buy DG because the topic doesn't interest me.

In contrast, the review Bill Trotter did on CotA was garbage.  He sounded like a high school freshman trying to impress his English teacher with his knowledge of vocabulary.  A lot of words saying not very much.  If I was someone who had little or no previous knowledge about CotA one wouldn't get much info from that review.  I'm glad CotA got a good rating from him - I own & enjoy the game myself - but it deserved a better wrtitten review.

My advice to Wargamer - more reviews by Jim Cobb & no more from Bill Trotter.



rolfyd -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/27/2006 10:30:25 PM)

Good afternoon gentleman. This is the first time I have EVER posted in a forum so please bear with me if I make any mistakes and please feel free to correct me if I faulter.(which i know you will because i have spent the last 4 weekends reading almost every post on the Matrix forums [;)]).Subject game reviews......
that's a tough one ! As i see it reviews are just one persons opinion of a game, but opinions are like
a-holes, everyone has one , it's just whether or not you agree with it or not. personally i tend to look at one reviewer who has the same tastes as i do (see below) and find forums on the game in question to get
accurate player feedback.you guys are the best advertising for a game a company like Matrix could ever get!![&o]

review of Uncommon Valor
quote
I can give no higher praise than this: If the campaign I witnessed had been a real World War II event, historians would still be writing books about it. In my 12 years of reviewing wargames, I’ve never enjoyed a deeper, richer, more historically plausible simulation. It’s a WWII buff’s desktop dream come true.
— William R. Trotter [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o][&o] this man has never let me down yet !!!!!




 FINAL VERDICT




HIGHS: Historical accuracy; fine use of logistics; mega-campaign has an epic scope.


LOWS: Incomplete PDF manual; arcane tutorial; some eccentric design choices.


BOTTOM LINE: A masterpiece from a master craftsman of military simulations.




[image]http://www.pcgamer.com/images/pcg-logo-finalverdict.jpg[/image]
89%

unquote
this review and the forums for Uncommon Valor actually have me thinking about opening the vault and buying this game!!!!!!![&o][:D].for those who play this game , would you say this is an accurate review ?????

I tend to agree with pad152 about the wargamer site in general.not impressed [:(]. read the review for Distant Guns ,went to the official site to have a look, free demo download,perfect,wouldn't download[:@]
my expectations went very high to zero in half an hour! if the site is buggy what does that say for the game?
game bugs [&:] i believe are here to stay.i believe a reviewer should state if a game is playable out of the box or it's so bug wridden (new word) that it's unplayable. you don't have to worry because the game companies (no offense to Matrix) will eventually fix the minor bugs because you as players won't let them sleep until it's fixed [:)].
in response to Capitaine i believe wargaming is a nitch market but not mired in mediocrity , at least not with new games i seen coming out ,especially the ones i have seen coming from Matrix.I don't like linear games, i like "What if ". give me a game that's says here are all your assets for the pacific go for it !
but i digress , a review written by an independant reviewer to promote a product (good or bad) is bad for the unwary consumer because they end up spending their hard earned dollars and get something they didn't want.Reviewers should't hold anything back good or bad.

Well that's my first post and my 2 cents (3 cents Canadian), looking forward to more discussions , gentleman keep up the good work keeping the game companies on their toes [&o]

one more question , what are ie " Matrix recriut etc" and the stars under your logins mean ????[&:]



ravinhood -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/27/2006 11:26:23 PM)

}}My advice to Wargamer - more reviews by Jim Cobb & no more from Bill Trotter. {{

My advice to Wargamer - more reviews by Bill Trotter and NO reviews by Jim Cobb. ;)

{{one more question , what are ie " Matrix recriut etc" and the stars under your logins mean ???? }}

It means we are the supreme posters, the elite, the grogs of grogs and have no lives. hahah You will notice a lot of the same names in a lot of the threads. Hard hogs griping and complaining and baggering anyone that doesn't agree with them (except me of course since I know I'm always right I have no need to debate the subject). ;)



JSS -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/27/2006 11:46:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

...My advice to Wargamer - more reviews by Bill Trotter and NO reviews by Jim Cobb. ;)...



Ohhhh, I wouldn't go that far. [;)]

I look forward to the reviews that Jim does[:)]... both for what he writes and how it always seems to light up the newsgroups afterward[:D]



Terminus -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/27/2006 11:48:31 PM)

No more reviews of reviewers by trolls...



Sarge -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/28/2006 12:47:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

{snip} As long as the wargame genre perceives itself as so nitch that any discouraging word will kill it, it will remain nitch and mired in mediocrity. The lack of intellectual honesty in an actual game review reduces such a review to irrelevance.{snip}



Bullseye[sm=sterb011.gif]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625