RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

sterckxe -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/28/2006 2:45:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
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]


I don't often make an "I agree 100%" post, but I'll make an exception in this case

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx






watchtower -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/30/2006 4:24:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
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]


I don't often make an "I agree 100%" post, but I'll make an exception in this case

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Yep best the MATRIX site is one of the best MODERATED forum's on the web. As it's pretty well self moderated. Step well out of line and......hey who does mod general since Vic went? As I have gone off topic?






oh dear. I got the edit wrong as well!![:-]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/30/2006 5:09:22 AM)

Well, I have said most of this before but not all of it.

Usually, a game review tells you more about the reviewer than it does the game. Because,...

If the game is worth playing it should have numerous elements to it: the visual, the player interface, the capability for the player to control the visual and the player interface, sounds, music, the world that is being simulated, the details of the objects in the world, how they can be manipulated by the player, the interactions between all the objects, the map of the world, the time interval, the time line, the time duration, ... I am sure I have left a lot of the elements out. As a whole these elements should enable the player to immerse himself/herself into the game's world and become lost in the simulation.

Reviewers cover neither all the stuff that goes into a game nor all the stuff a player gets out of playing a game. Instead, a review concentrates on a very select subset of the elements, and which elements are selected depends on the preferences/bias of the reviewer.

So, reviews are pretty hit or miss. And as you can see from the previous posts in this section, a reviewer's focus can be 'Wonderful!' for some players and "I wonder what he's full of?" to other players.

Without knowing the reviewer fairly well, it is difficult to assess a game simply by reading a review.

My personal pique is movie reviewers who talk for 15 minutes about a 90 minute movie. That's almost as bad as (but not as bad as) trailers that show ever scene of any interest in a movie.



Joram -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/30/2006 5:11:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

(snipped)
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?"

(snipped)


No offense but while I generally agree with your post, I think this in particular is a horrible attitude. It's exactly what's wrong with the industry in that since it seems like it's the norm, companies are constantly pushing out programs which just shouldn't be released yet. That doesn't make it correct and we shouldn't let general malaise prevent the reviewers from pointing out and saying "Hey, this game could be good but these bugs make it unplayable". Or something like that. It's the reviewers responsibility to highlight the bad just as much as the good.

In general, I know reviewers have a thankless task and it is subject to countless opinions, but it is doing everyone a disservice if they don't point out the obvious things such as these bugs people are talking about.



Tankerace -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/30/2006 5:29:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joram


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

(snipped)
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?"

(snipped)


No offense but while I generally agree with your post, I think this in particular is a horrible attitude. It's exactly what's wrong with the industry in that since it seems like it's the norm, companies are constantly pushing out programs which just shouldn't be released yet. That doesn't make it correct and we shouldn't let general malaise prevent the reviewers from pointing out and saying "Hey, this game could be good but these bugs make it unplayable". Or something like that. It's the reviewers responsibility to highlight the bad just as much as the good.

In general, I know reviewers have a thankless task and it is subject to countless opinions, but it is doing everyone a disservice if they don't point out the obvious things such as these bugs people are talking about.


Don't get me wrong, I agree. What I should have said was I am tired of reviews ONLY focusing on bugs and such. Too many games that I personal love have been written off as buggy, unplayable, etc because while they were released far to early, they were still playable, and there was a fun to be had.

I don't think a review should be completely positive (ala the Wargamer's), but I also don't believe a review should focus strickly on the negative (such as Gamespot). I don't mind reviews that talk about bugs, but I hate a four page review where 3 pages are bugs, one half is the introduction, the other half is the conclusion. When you actually get the game, it may be frustrating, but there is a lot of fun to be had.

For me, that would be Hidden and Dangerous (the first one, and even the second one). Many review sites blasted it as trashy, buggy, released to early, stay away, etc etc. After changing the control scheme to a more normal type, I had immense fun with the game. In fact, when I get time, I'll probably play it again. Or there is the case of Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault. Reviewers loved it, players (though not me) hated it. In both cases, the reviews (one negative, one positive) were unhelpful).



ravinhood -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/31/2006 1:35:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge


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]



I'm in agreement with this as well. It's also why I tend toward the negative side of the ones I do play. There's too many sugar coated reviews as is. An apple with a worm in it is still a bad apple I don't care how glossy it is on the outside.



TOCarroll -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (8/31/2006 6:46:55 PM)

'Ya know you don't have to totally diss the game if it has a few bugs; just be honest. As evidenced in the forum on Distant Guns, a lot of people like the game, I just need to be de-bugged.

I did not but DG, so I can't comment except on appearences. Every new game will have a few bugs, usually quickly ironed out. Otherwise, the game was prematurely realeased.

Tom OC



ravinhood -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (9/1/2006 5:45:25 AM)

The problem is that it used to be every game has a FEW bugs. But, lately games are having a LOT of bugs. When you have to do 7 patches for one game from it's origional conception something is badly wrong with the delivery of the release (lack of extended beta testing and bad beta testers to boot. Too many that just want a free game and don't give 100% effort to really squashing out the bugs and flaws before the game is released). Having to wait a year and a half for the game to be what it should have been out of the box is just as rediculous.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (9/1/2006 7:58:01 AM)

Too many of todays wargames, are victims of always giving everyone what they want.

The ole you can't please everyone all of the time syndrome.

A lot of our problem wargames, likely would have been easier to make, and possibly less problematic, if the designers had stuck more with designing a "good" game, rather than trying to make a great game.

Great games are exceedingly rare, and are more about luck.

Just look at any wish list thread, and you can see why we suffer from games with bugs a plenty some times. We gamers are just never satisfied. Always wanting more, never happy with what we are given. This feature that feature, more graphics, better graphics.

The truth is, board games are still great. Computer wargames could easily be great as dull looking board games but with very solid well established software that wasn't always trying to reinvent the wheel.
But that's never seen as good enough.

Most bugs likely stem from all the bells and whistles not working properly.
We likely get what we deserve.



pad152 -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (9/1/2006 9:06:47 AM)

quote:

Ya know you don't have to totally diss the game if it has a few bugs; just be honest. As evidenced in the forum on Distant Guns, a lot of people like the game, I just need to be de-bugged.


I started this thread, I wasn't tring to diss the game, just wondering how or why a game with more than a couple of issues gets a five start rating? I remember reading sometime ago about one of the leaders in the wargaming industry wondering why, when the web sites like the wargamer get a zillion hits, yet don't seem to translate in sales for more wargames? Gee, maybe it's the fan-boy reviews! How a game that was released with an unplayable campaign gets five stars and awarded for excellence? I think it would have been better for the reviewer to point how the game started out, how far it has come, and what if any issues remain? It hurts the wargaming hobby to over rate games.

How many games have remained on your hard drive for 2 or more years that didn't support mods or have an editor? I find it hard to see any wargame shipped today getting a five start rating without an editor and support for mods, no matter how great it is.













Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (9/1/2006 5:51:44 PM)

The best review, is the review from a source that normally would not like the game or even give a damn.

David Heath asked me to give an opinion on EYSA back when they first started working with it. Put simply, David KNEW I hated 3d and real time in general, and he KNEW he was not going to get any sympathetic comments, or restraint.

I have had the chance in the past to say favourable things of some games, in modes I normally loathe. That I say Combat Mission is likely the best game in 3d is my way of saying, no one, and that includes everything available circa sept 2006, has done anything tangible to beat them. And that is the unvarnished opinion of a harsh critic. If you want 3d, you want Combat Mission. Anything else is second best.

Close Combat rules real time. It did in the beginning, it still does today. Doesn't mean squat how old it is.
But, it has been made to feel a great deal of heat from Panthers Games. Which likely has taken the lead.

I recall reading how mainstream voted Korsun Pocket as likely one of the best wargames ever. When you get occalades from OUTSIDE your hobby, you KNOW you accomplished something. And as Battles in Normandy and Battles in Italy are just better and better. it's likely a fair comment, that those three games have no current equals in the "looks like a board game" aspect of wargaming.

It's easy to get support from people that likely already liked you. Try getting support from people that have no reason to care in the first place.



Sarge -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (9/1/2006 8:32:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

{sniped}Great games are exceedingly rare, and are more about luck.{sniped}



I don’t know if luck real has anything to do with , lets say “the top ten” .

But what I do think we are seeing the end of WWII fresh idea’s which holds the market share of the hobby. Napoleonic’s ,Civil war and even the American Revolution has seen new and fresh idea’s as of late, thankfully.
But I do believe there is a rash of WWII burn out ,at times I think most of us know in a historical sense more about the politics ,strategic ,tactical part of WWII then the people that fought the war.

I can remember back in my early gamming days asking my Grandfather questions on troop movement or something along those lines, and the reply I got was

“I have no idea what the hell was going on outside of the 100 yards around me”



watchtower -> RE: Wargamer.com any creditability left? (9/1/2006 9:44:12 PM)


quote:

“I have no idea what the hell was going on outside of the 100 yards around me”


Well a FOG Fest. Small unit ultra defined - in the thick of it. Not your FPS. turn based tatical



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875