Page 2 of 3
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:10 pm
by LarryP
ORIGINAL: ceyan
ORIGINAL: LarryP
ORIGINAL: sfbaytf
Not that I really give a rat's you know what about what the reviewers think, I was pretty surprised to see HOIT3 get such high ratings from the online game sites.
GameSpot gave HOI3 an 8.5. Clearly the reviewer knows nothing about history of that time period. They also did not play the entire game or for very long, else they would have rated it much lower.
Past reviews have shown that the regular gaming sites do not have the right people to review war games that are not pure action, like Call Of Duty and Supreme Commander types. They would NEVER do AE justice, and they would just belittle the game with their ignorance.
I hope they don't review AE. 'They' meaning GameSpot and similar, including PCGamer magazine.
Unless its an FPS, I trust most reviewers about as well as I trust a crook, so I agree with you on that respect. Actually, from a in-depth game perspective, I really only look at Wargamer.com and Outofeight.info who have proven to be a pretty reasonable and straight-forward with their reviews.
But, on the other hand, I think you're missing the point of a game review based on your comments. For example, you imply that Hearts of Iron 3 is deserving of a bad review, but why? It has some bugs, sure, but now-a-days you can't rate a game on its bugs because I can count the number of games that have been released in a reasonably playable/stable state over the past several years on one hand. With that in mind, I'm assuming you're talking about the nature of its historical representation, or lack there of currently.
The problem with that idea is that you may care about that in your game, but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone does. As with Hearts of Iron 3, you obviously would rate it low, but there are people (who have posted on the Paradox Forums at least) that absolutely love the game and would probably rate it higher than what Gamespot has. For all its current faults (in my opinion) I think Hearts of Iron 3 offers an insane amount of improvement for the gamer who isn't interested in micromanagement (local AI control of your units, better air mission coverage and less air/naval mission micromanagement), which is something your average Gamespot subscriber probably cares about.
I don't hate/distrust Gamespot's reviews because I feel their reviewers are incompetent (although I will admit I've thought that a few times on specific cases), but because they cater to a point of view drastically different than mine. That doesn't necessarily make them bad or wrong, and there has been times when they've crossed the line into outright ridiculousness, it just makes them different.
Long story short, you shouldn't outright dismiss game reviewers just because you feel they're dropping the ball or missing something critical. Challenge the review if you feel its out of place, but recognize that sometimes the reviewer is looking at factors you don't consider important anymore, because you've gone past that or just don't care about those details anymore. I would hope that an honest review of WitP:AE would generate a good score with a well written write-up, but even if it doesn't you shouldn't hold the opinion that "regular gaming sites do not have the right people to review war games that are not pure action." They do have that right, because otherwise how would the gaming world grow? If Gamespot (or the others) gives it a good review, it generates more attention for the game from people who normally wouldn't have even know about it. If they give it a bad review, then the game still gets exposure and may attract attention from people who are interested in the game despite the bad review. What is more likely, that a bad review on a "regular gaming site" would cause someone who was interested in the game to be put off by it or that a bad review on a "regular gaming site" would cause people who never even heard of the game to have some exposure to it and be a potential buyer in the future? (After all, even some of the worst games ever made still have some sales)
I have been a member of Gamespot for many years and I use their reviews constantly as a guideline for some games. I have watched how they review certain genres of games compared to the others. I also have subscribed to PCGamer since the mid 90's and I usually ONLY read the review section, every month. I am not ignorant to game reviews.
Thank you for your kind words. [&o]
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:26 pm
by SuluSea
If someone tells me my southern comfort and coke sucks it's not going to stop me from enjoying it. [:D]
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:37 pm
by stuman
ORIGINAL: pad152
99.999% of gamer reviews wouldn't get past the first turn in AE.
I actually had some fun with both HOI 1 and 2. And have fooled around with the Demo of HOI3. I like those games just fine. But I agree that AE is in a different league. And I also agree that most reviewers in the industry would not do this game justice.
But then again I do not think that anyone who finds this game cares about such reviewers, I certainly do not. But probably a good review or 2 could result in more sales. And I want Matrix to do well [:)]
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:42 pm
by LarryP
ORIGINAL: SuluSea
If someone tells me my southern comfort and coke sucks it's not going to stop me from enjoying it. [:D]
That's the attitude to have! [;)]
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:08 pm
by Tazo
With respect to the sub-topic about AE on labtops, then well, I prefer play on my Samsung NC10 at home, connected to the big screen and sound of my main 4-core computer because the game is as fast and works perfectly, and far more silently - very hot days this month, the big computers need more fresh air than the small ones ! However you can not use a 10' or 11' screen apparently so to play you need an extra-screen - that I will do while visiting people next week.
Coming to the main topic, the ratings are designed to be what the average gamer toward who they are intended would himself say and feel if he were the reviever. In that sense reviewers usually do a good job, a journalist quick job, not a specialist hard work. So, as for any other products, if you are not in the average of the targeted people then think by yourself and if you're able to do that then you don't care about reviewers and ratings. Even with the 10 minus epsilon (the epsilon is for the forthcoming and never ending improvements) I would rate AE then this 10 would be lying to all the average "custumers-gamers" or "unhistoric strategy game" and would only bring back to AE a few grognards still ignoring the game and watching the reviews. And to argue about the 10 the comments will automatically raise a lot of doubts in the head of all the wrongly targeted people I think... We have so many strange points - for them - to put forward!
So a good review should first define the category of the game and use the criterium pertaining to this category. And I'm afraid that AE falls a little out of the scope of such ratings... but we'll see. I'll try to ask "PC 4 War" french magazine writting a special review and a series of analysis articles. They talked very accurately about - and gave good tactical analysis for - UV and WitP, very good articles indeed by passionate wargamers, then followed bimonthly the news about AE. I'll see and help if possible, a few of them are surviving grognards from the old times of our high level national wargaming competition - France championship of wargame in eighties-nineties, now replaced by several specialized tournaments - they lead these kind of magazines now (VaeVictis, Cyber-Stratege and so on) but to sell well, the average reader needs to be filled with special kinds of hitting-games (Cyber did some criticism and more tempered ratings, then had to desappear...). However unknown good ones are reviewed positively.
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:39 pm
by Gilbert
ORIGINAL: Tazo
I'll try to ask "PC 4 War" french magazine writting a special review and a series of analysis articles. They talked very accurately about - and gave good tactical analysis for - UV and WitP, very good articles indeed by passionate wargamers, then followed bimonthly the news about AE.
PC4War will definitely write an in-depth analysis of AE and will update it when the fortcoming patches will be available. They told me they are expecting to get AE on the first September week, therefore it is unlikely to get any article in their next PC4War issue. I am very confident to read from them a positive review of the game as, as you said, that was the case for UV and WITP in the past years. In fact, I have discovered and bought these previous games directly from them.
Regards
Gilbert
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:18 pm
by Tazo
You're right Gilbert, I'm very confident too. Indeed they already did a lot in favor of UV/WitP, the previous articles describing a player turn, AAR, and a series of strategic analysis, were really immersive by making the reader feel exactly as the player, showing the screens and telling in realistic words what was happening. I also know a couple of readers that went into the game - and discovered it - this way. And apparently a detailed review is confirmed for the issue of end october. AE would deserve a special issue but the niche is certainly too small.
Best regards,
TZ
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:53 pm
by m10bob
One must remember a "game" reviewer must be looking at games for a lot of machines and levels of complexity. They might even be playing a new Milton Bradley electric version of "Johnny Goes to The Zoo"(or something similar.)
A vast knowledge of history, ww2 history, ww2 in the Pacidfic history, need not be a consideration. They are looking directly at playability and "balanced" play.
The last is alwsays going to be a game-breaker for anybody playing a game based on historical event, and the map (for a "reviewer") need be no more complex than the one with "Battleships", so long as it is easy to entertain.
I am not slamming game reviewers, just being practical ref the genre of electronic games.
WITP et al will never attract the masses, only those grognards who would know the difference between a pistol and a puissance..
(Dad preferred the HP/GP, I preferred the M1911a1..)[;)]
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:20 pm
by jomni
AE needs more sexy (pin up) girls.
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:04 pm
by LarryP
ORIGINAL: jomni
AE needs more sexy (pin up) girls.
You should put this in a thread by itself and see how much support it gets. I'll vote yes! [;)]
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:11 pm
by jomni
ORIGINAL: LarryP
ORIGINAL: jomni
AE needs more sexy (pin up) girls.
You should put this in a thread by itself and see how much support it gets. I'll vote yes! [;)]
Jimmy's girlfriend thread has some samples.
tm.asp?m=2207089
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:25 pm
by USS Henrico
The reviews are pointless. HOI3 can't really be evaluated fairly until they've done a couple of patches, after which I expect it will be a reasonable game that I'll want to play. That's been the trend with their prior games, of which I have a bunch.
But AE is perfectly playable right now, even if some things need a little tweaking, which is a certainly a tribute to the developers/testers. You clearly did a lot of testing ahead of time. So far, it has the feel of fighting the Pacific war better than anything I've seen before.
Now you guys may have been less pressure to push an incomplete product out the door than Paradox had (board whining excepted) and you probably used the existing model of WITP to build on more than they did with HOI2. Nevertheless I haven't even started a game of HOI3 yet after getting one day delivery of the game: AE is occupying my playing time right now. That's my review.
Good job! But we do need more sexy girls and better music alternatives...
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:03 am
by morganbj
I've had to play a few more months before I responded. I give AE a solid 9.5. It's really an excellent game. The -.5 is for a few minor glitches most of which will be fixed in the patch.
It's worth the hard earned bucks I paid, and more.
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:21 pm
by Templer_12
Caution here - as I said.
A review (1.2 out of 10) from a "want to be" expert
on IGN. (Can´t never imagine I´ll use this smiley)
http://rr.pc.ign.com/rrview/pc/war_in_t ... 10/108090/
That %$&)/§?@€!
.
Something like that hurts!
My review about this "expert"
A joke by a german comedien (Otto):
Q: If you have to choose between an orange and a diamond. What will you choose?
A: Well, the diamond!
Q: Right! So why?
A: Because after I eat it. I won´t have so sticky fingers.
I miss a "f@&% you" smiley here!
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:25 pm
by sfbaytf
I'll begin by saying this-look at the requirements-it states you need the full version of WitP to play. Looks like this reviewer didn't even bother playing the game.
Then look at the reviewers comments on Japans airpower. Thats not what most who've actually been playing have experienced.
I would bet $100 this reviewer didn't play more than 1 turn, if that.
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:26 pm
by LarryP
Like I said originally, reviewers will not do this game justice. [:@]
If a jerk is going to give this game an overall bad rating, they at least should give the music a 10. [;)]
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:22 pm
by Kumppi
ORIGINAL: Templer
A review (1.2 out of 10) from a "want to be" expert
on IGN. (Can´t never imagine I´ll use this smiley)
I ALMOST signed up with them so that I could give a thumbs down for the "reviewer".
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:45 pm
by Erik Rutins
This is obviously someone with a grudge. This reader review is almost identical in wording to the one posted earlier on GameSpot, which like this one appeared just three days after release.
Note also that on both sites, this wass the only game that "reader" has reviewed. Unfortunately, games like this don't get many reader reviews at mainstream sites, so one person with an axe to grind can have an inordinate impact on the apparent "reader score".
Best thing you can do is to just give a thumbs down on their site if you disagree with this "review".
Reards,
- Erik
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:54 pm
by IndyShark
I just logged on and did just that.
RE: Game Rating for AE
Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:04 pm
by Vincenzo_Beretta
ORIGINAL: LarryP
Like I said originally, reviewers will not do this game justice. [:@]
As a reviewer, I beg to differ [;)]
My magazine's policy is that each game must be evaluated first in its own genre's context; then the reviewer can proceed to see if the qualities of the game could make it interesting to people not normally interested in that specific genre (for wargames, "Panzer General" is still the perfect example of the latter).
Of course, a review of the AE will require some time. But, from what I'm enjoying and experiencing, I really don't see how this game could get a low mark - with the caveat that the buyer must fully understand what he is getting into. [8D]
BTW, there is an Italian site,
www.netwargamingitalia.net , which I feel being among the best ones in giving fair and balanced reviews to wargames and historical strategy games. Unluckily it is only in Italian, but, still, the horizon is not so bleak, if one knows where to look.