Wargamer.com any creditability left?

[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]

[TOCarroll]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 !!!!!




[font=arial] FINAL VERDICT[/font]




[font=arial]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.
[/size][/color][/font]




[font=arial]89[/font][font=arial]%[/font]
 
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]

}}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]

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]

[DuckofTindalos]

No more reviews of reviewers by trolls...

[Sarge]

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

[sterckxe]

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]

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Joram

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]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

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

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]

'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]

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]

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]

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.