Issue here, is you can't put a requirement that a review has to have negative's and positive's in it...that is un-realistic...
I didn't get to see the review, and trust me I know the history with Hermann and I don't doubt it was heavily leaned in one agenda...but point is, I am an adult, I can make my own determination...taking the review down was wrong based solely on the fact of because a certain person wrote it...and this has been disastrous for Matrix...there are posts all over the internet now about their actions in having a site take a review down...sorry but they blew it...should have left it and dealt with it...
Which is what I don't understand...you have a group of people that rightly have an issue with Hermann and the owners of Harpoon and did the right thing...Command is here, in so many aspects that was the adult answer to the issues...they also need to understand that Harpoon is by and large the gold standard until Command can take over and be the new gold standard...they can do it, but it will take time...
But this whole childish fight is ridiculous, and how they handled the current issue is just stupid, plain and simple...like I said above if they would have just ignored it publicly, improved on the game, and moved forward...everything would have been fine...though now how many of these threads will disappear? How many of these discussions about the situation will disappear? See the box they put themselves in?
SIM HQ Review
Moderator: MOD_Command
-
HercMighty
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:09 pm
- Location: Minnesota, USA
-
Mad Russian
- Posts: 13255
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
- Location: Texas
RE: SIM HQ Review
I've been reviewed a lot over the years, make games or scenarios and it's a part of the process. You want somebody to review your work. Hopefully they will like it. Maybe they won't. Whatever it is I always thought it was the honest opinion of the person writing the review. Good or bad it was how they felt about it.
What I always want to see, was no matter what their opinion of my work is, is for them to be objective and explain why they feel like they do. As a scenario designer/developer I would agree that I personally get more out of the negative points of the review. I already pretty much know what I've done right. In a review for a product that is informative to people's decision to buy or not to buy a product I want to see a more balanced opinion on what the reviewer thought was done well and what could have been done better. I don't always agree with their assessment of my work. But I do always pay attention to the comments.
It seems to me the Dev's here are doing the same. They are taking a look at the gamers comments and seeing how that fits with their vision of the game. What more can be asked for by a review? I will also say that the review did it's job. It certainly got people talking about the game.
Good Hunting.
MR
What I always want to see, was no matter what their opinion of my work is, is for them to be objective and explain why they feel like they do. As a scenario designer/developer I would agree that I personally get more out of the negative points of the review. I already pretty much know what I've done right. In a review for a product that is informative to people's decision to buy or not to buy a product I want to see a more balanced opinion on what the reviewer thought was done well and what could have been done better. I don't always agree with their assessment of my work. But I do always pay attention to the comments.
It seems to me the Dev's here are doing the same. They are taking a look at the gamers comments and seeing how that fits with their vision of the game. What more can be asked for by a review? I will also say that the review did it's job. It certainly got people talking about the game.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
-
HercMighty
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:09 pm
- Location: Minnesota, USA
RE: SIM HQ Review
ORIGINAL: wombat778
ORIGINAL: tevans6220
As I said before, it's not up to the reviewer to convince me to buy. That job belongs to the publisher/devs. Reviews don't have to be fair or balanced.
FWIW, I disagree completely with this. I absolutely expect published/professional reviews (as opposed to customer reviews) to be fair and balanced. I believe they need to cover the good points and the bad points of a product to give an overall fair assessment of the product based on the reviewer's experience. A quality review is one where the reader can walk away knowing the pros and cons of a product to enable them to make a purchasing decision WITHOUT reference to outside resources. If I have to go to a publisher/developer site to find more information to "counterbalance" a review that focused only on the negative, then it was a very poor and useless review indeed.
All that said, I am not sure that pulling the review was the right path. Perhaps adding a disclaimer at the front might have made more sense. Of course, I do not know all the facts (e.g., maybe the author refused to allow a disclaimer).
Disclaimer would have been the wrong way to go...here again you are falling into the childish behavior...come on people, does no body understand marketing and managing an image? Ignore it, ignore it, ignore it...fix the game or alter the game where it makes sense based on feedback and move on...let the game speak for itself and the positive reviews will come...
RE: SIM HQ Review
Review is back up at SimHQ now, so looks like this whole argument is moot. Carry on...
RE: SIM HQ Review
conflict of interest n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.
TheFreeDictionary
just saying.....emphasis mine.
TheFreeDictionary
just saying.....emphasis mine.
But By Grace Go I.......
-
strykerpsg
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:02 am
RE: SIM HQ Review
Interesting post from Fearless Frog at Simhq.com:
This is my review of the review, just to get a bit meta.
This is not really a review, it's just seems like some sort of angry diatribe from the authors overflowing list of dislikes of the game and probably the developers. It doesn't review the sim, so much as attempts to eviscerate it by sheer repeated blunt clubbing of its failings. I've read ransom notes with more compassion and objectivity.
SimHQ obviously made a mistake in allowing Mr Hum near this, and the mistake is now done. Such is life. The ways out would be to pull the review (not good, because it looks like censorship now) or write a better one. As SimHQ relies on volunteers, and sometimes good ones don't turn up, that doesn't seem to be the case either.
The whole style of the review takes the journalist principle of balance with complete contempt. For every good point raised there are one thousand slammed down on top of it, as if worried anything good might be accidently glimpsed by the poor reader. The relentless inane 'WHY THIS IS BAD PART XXIV' minutia goes on and on as if some confused pet owner is now desperately upset that their cat doesn't bark. The review reads like a warning that the author desperately wanted to write, and I find that distasteful in terms of being a SimHQ review.
A game review in the journalistic sense is a descriptive thing. It teaches on what the game does, how it does it and provides a succinct retelling of the games premise. Its job is to be critical too but not exclusively so. The critic isn't meant to be a cheap hit man with a predetermined yard-long list of weapons, but someone that helps explain the game and tell the story. I could fill a book with what I don't know about this genre, but beyond being absolutely certain that the author hated the damn thing even before he started it up, I've still no idea about so many aspects of the game. I feel dumber reading it. I would have liked to have seen discussion of the price, of value, of the new features, perhaps the kind of scenarios that are played out, perhaps even some history of the title. I guess I wanted Mr Rogers, and we got Hannibal Lector.
In summary, and to attempt to be kind, this was a pure opinion piece and not a review. I'm sure there are many failings in the game (I've certainly read enough of them now) but it's likely at the end of the day all this has done had dented SimHQ's credibility a bit and perhaps make people take a deeper look.
This is my review of the review, just to get a bit meta.
This is not really a review, it's just seems like some sort of angry diatribe from the authors overflowing list of dislikes of the game and probably the developers. It doesn't review the sim, so much as attempts to eviscerate it by sheer repeated blunt clubbing of its failings. I've read ransom notes with more compassion and objectivity.
SimHQ obviously made a mistake in allowing Mr Hum near this, and the mistake is now done. Such is life. The ways out would be to pull the review (not good, because it looks like censorship now) or write a better one. As SimHQ relies on volunteers, and sometimes good ones don't turn up, that doesn't seem to be the case either.
The whole style of the review takes the journalist principle of balance with complete contempt. For every good point raised there are one thousand slammed down on top of it, as if worried anything good might be accidently glimpsed by the poor reader. The relentless inane 'WHY THIS IS BAD PART XXIV' minutia goes on and on as if some confused pet owner is now desperately upset that their cat doesn't bark. The review reads like a warning that the author desperately wanted to write, and I find that distasteful in terms of being a SimHQ review.
A game review in the journalistic sense is a descriptive thing. It teaches on what the game does, how it does it and provides a succinct retelling of the games premise. Its job is to be critical too but not exclusively so. The critic isn't meant to be a cheap hit man with a predetermined yard-long list of weapons, but someone that helps explain the game and tell the story. I could fill a book with what I don't know about this genre, but beyond being absolutely certain that the author hated the damn thing even before he started it up, I've still no idea about so many aspects of the game. I feel dumber reading it. I would have liked to have seen discussion of the price, of value, of the new features, perhaps the kind of scenarios that are played out, perhaps even some history of the title. I guess I wanted Mr Rogers, and we got Hannibal Lector.
In summary, and to attempt to be kind, this was a pure opinion piece and not a review. I'm sure there are many failings in the game (I've certainly read enough of them now) but it's likely at the end of the day all this has done had dented SimHQ's credibility a bit and perhaps make people take a deeper look.
RE: SIM HQ Review
Having read Herman's piece now, I totally agree with Fearless Frog's comments. While Herman undoubtably raises some genuine issues, just as he did with his Harpoon bug-lists, that's about all he does, and that alone does not constitute a worthwhile 'review'. That's actually so obvious that, together with the commentary both there and here, it's probably sufficient to alert potential purchasers.
What we need now is a good, balanced, unbiased review from someone well enough qualified with both the subject matter, and gaming it, to write it. Which may be hard to come by, unfortunately.
What we need now is a good, balanced, unbiased review from someone well enough qualified with both the subject matter, and gaming it, to write it. Which may be hard to come by, unfortunately.
RE: SIM HQ Review
ORIGINAL: kaburke61
Pii
That because you are the what might be termed a fan boy of this genre (not a put own just a fact) and your opinions are just ,if not more so, as bias as Herman's. Please point out what you think wasn't true or a "hack job" in the review?
Man, what is your agenda here Pii? First you complain in pages and pages about how ridiculous the pricing scheme is and how matrix is killing the industry, then you purchase anyway (I guess), and now you are bashing the game, and any kind of opposite opinion. The hypocrisy you show towards the opposing viewpoints (for instance the Herman review) is comical.
I bought the game because I think the devs seem like a bunch of standup guys. I have no agenda other than to make the game I bought live up to its potential. I would have to ask you what is you agenda also as you have done nothing but given it blind devotion. I'm curious as to where you feel I've "bashed" it? I'm not a hardcore fan that has been drooling over the game for years so maybe I'm not as bias as you and can see that there are in fact problems and I thought the review pointed out many that I also found even in the short amount of game play time I have put into it. I have offered some criticism and suggestions that I think would improve the game, practically the UI, but that is hardly "bashing" . If you think that's comical I'm happy to make you smile but that doesn't take away the fact that there is a long list of bugs and things that could be better or needs fixing. Sorry you can't see that.
RE: SIM HQ Review
HaHA you funnyORIGINAL: ExMachina
Man, what is your agenda here Pii?
Herman? [X(]
RE: SIM HQ Review
ORIGINAL: Primarchx
I didn't write a review for SimHQ nor was I asked to and I don't need to go point by point through anything. My impression was that the review spent an inordinate amount of time criticizing the game while providing little and faint praise for what's been done right. That's my opinion.
ORIGINAL: Pii
ORIGINAL: Primarchx
When I read it the first time I didn't even notice it was written by Herman. When I finished I thought, "Man, what a hack job." It's 80% negative, if not more. Warts and all, IMHO, Command is not an 80% negative game.
BTW, I should of known it was Herman when in the ending points it mentions the lack of database editing as being a con TWICE. [:D]
That because you are the what might be termed a fan boy of this genre (not a put own just a fact) and your opinions are just ,if not more so, as bias as Herman's. Please point out what you think wasn't true or a "hack job" in the review?
So nothing he said wasn't true? OK then. Might I suggest you went there expecting to see a glowing review and when it wasn't you simple dismissed it as a hack jobs since it differed from your, equally bias, opinion?
PS I didn't' see any of you complaining about the obvious bias "meant to sell", reviews that Matrix listed on their site. They weren't even reviews or previews they were nothing more than ads for the game that Matrix presented as reviews. Those are ok with you though, right?
RE: SIM HQ Review
Pii, you are a troll. I don't think you are "Herman", though, because your awful grammar and spelling disqualify you from suspicion. If you don't like the game, fair enough, but if you must criticise it constantly in here, do so constructively so that the devs can register your issues and address them. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and ours with your tedious hostility.
RE: SIM HQ Review
SIMHQ review was to harsh but it really says truth what it comes to UI.
Command has great potential but will need polish, it's clearly uncomplete for now.
Great game but not perfect or even really good now. First beta patch is step to right direction, i hope that command makers will read that review , even that is bit shitty text but there are good points too.
Command has great potential but will need polish, it's clearly uncomplete for now.
Great game but not perfect or even really good now. First beta patch is step to right direction, i hope that command makers will read that review , even that is bit shitty text but there are good points too.
RE: SIM HQ Review
ORIGINAL: $trummer
Pii, you are a troll. I don't think you are "Herman", though, because your awful grammar and spelling disqualify you from suspicion. If you don't like the game, fair enough, but if you must criticise it constantly in here, do so constructively so that the devs can register your issues and address them. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and ours with your tedious hostility.
+1
RE: SIM HQ Review
I've just read the review.
It doesn't really read like a review, it reads like a professional QA report. It's very interesting and should probably be read very closely by the devs (not being able to set times for missions does seems like a really big omission for a game like this), but it doesn't really tell me much about how the game feels from an actual player's perspective (this is why you send review copies to decent game journalists and not other devs).
You can read a bit between the lines every time he writes "For some reason this feature is copied but not as good as H3", but then you'd expect any decent review to compare and contrast this game with the closest alternative product. So long as everything he's written is true there doesn't appear to be anything too objectionable. The conclusion appears to be a 'good game (through gritted teeth) in much need of polishing and review of some systems'.
It doesn't really read like a review, it reads like a professional QA report. It's very interesting and should probably be read very closely by the devs (not being able to set times for missions does seems like a really big omission for a game like this), but it doesn't really tell me much about how the game feels from an actual player's perspective (this is why you send review copies to decent game journalists and not other devs).
You can read a bit between the lines every time he writes "For some reason this feature is copied but not as good as H3", but then you'd expect any decent review to compare and contrast this game with the closest alternative product. So long as everything he's written is true there doesn't appear to be anything too objectionable. The conclusion appears to be a 'good game (through gritted teeth) in much need of polishing and review of some systems'.
RE: SIM HQ Review
Oh the old grammar police counter argument! (BTW you spelt Criticize wrong)ORIGINAL: $trummer
Pii, you are a troll. I don't think you are "Herman", though, because your awful grammar and spelling disqualify you from suspicion. If you don't like the game, fair enough, but if you must criticise it constantly in here, do so constructively so that the devs can register your issues and address them. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and ours with your tedious hostility.
Please post up one post from me where I have "criticized/bashed" the game and I didn't also offer a solution??? I'll be waiting here for it, Good luck.
While you are it make sure said criticism is factual I'm new so if I've made a mistake feel free to correct me.
As it is most for my suggestions have been about the UI which in my opinion, and Herman's, while functional, is at times clunky at best. In many cases it requires lots and lots of mouse clicking or leaving one window to go look up info in another window and having to do it time and time again when it simple isn't/shouldn't be necessary.
One quick example is when I go into the editor and I want to place a new unit why can't I just double click the unit and get the database info on it? (Does everyone really know what every single unit is?)
Instead I have to exit there go to the database, look it up, go back....etc etc (Let me guess you like having to do that and think it’s a feature?) And here is the suggestion for the devs so you don't call me a troll. How about making it so I can double click the unit to see the platforms (hyperlink it) in the database and when I exit that go back at the “add new unit” window? I know I know just trolling right? (matter of fact make it consistent across all the windows that have unit or weapons info!)
Here’s another one, if I am laying down Reference points. Why can I only put down one and then have to Hold ctl, right click, select reference point and then if I want another I have to do it all over again, and again, if I want more than one point? Why do I have to press f3 or go to the menu to exit that mode when a simple right click should get you out?
Now think about it.. Would you rather select “reference point” and click as many times as you need and when done right click or do the one point at a time dance? Unless you're a fanboys fanboy I can't for the life of me see why anyone would choose the "dance".
Just because I'm not a blind drooling follower fanboy doesn't make me a troll. Perhaps if you actually opened your eyes and left your heart out of it you wouldn't be so blind.
I think the game has great potential but I also think the devs should have actually played their game before hand or had a focus group play it and I'm sure they also would have seen these UI problems. For 80.00+ the game should have been polished with a slick workable UI IMO.
You calling me a troll simple because I’m not blind was expected as I know I’m posting in the lion den, so to speak, but nothing I have said is a bash and everything has had a suggestion on how to improve.
I'm starting to get more into the deeper parts of the sim so expect to see more, as you put it, trolling when I point out unit misbehaving.
RE: SIM HQ Review
-1ORIGINAL: kaburke61
ORIGINAL: $trummer
Pii, you are a troll. I don't think you are "Herman", though, because your awful grammar and spelling disqualify you from suspicion. If you don't like the game, fair enough, but if you must criticise it constantly in here, do so constructively so that the devs can register your issues and address them. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and ours with your tedious hostility.
+1
RE: SIM HQ Review
"Criticise" is spelled with an s in the UK, where I grew up, and in most of the English-speaking world outside America. Only in America is the s inexplicably converted to a z.
I'm glad I appear to have provoked you into justifying some of your hitherto meaningless raging. By going into detail regarding your complaints, you have finally contributed something worthwhile to this thread.
You've been here a week. Use some manners and show some respect.
I'm glad I appear to have provoked you into justifying some of your hitherto meaningless raging. By going into detail regarding your complaints, you have finally contributed something worthwhile to this thread.
You've been here a week. Use some manners and show some respect.
-
mattpenfold
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:57 pm
RE: SIM HQ Review
[/quote]
I think the game has great potential but I also think the devs should have actually played their game before hand or had a focus group play it and I'm sure they also would have seen these UI problems. For 80.00+ the game should have been polished with a slick workable UI IMO.
[/quote]
When you come out with stupid stuff like this, you make yourself look a fool at best. If not outright dishonest. You know full well that the game went though an extensive period of beta testing, and the claim the developers did not actually try out the game is just pathetic.
Simple ignorance cannot explain such an idiotic comment. It is either malice or stupidity.
I think the game has great potential but I also think the devs should have actually played their game before hand or had a focus group play it and I'm sure they also would have seen these UI problems. For 80.00+ the game should have been polished with a slick workable UI IMO.
[/quote]
When you come out with stupid stuff like this, you make yourself look a fool at best. If not outright dishonest. You know full well that the game went though an extensive period of beta testing, and the claim the developers did not actually try out the game is just pathetic.
Simple ignorance cannot explain such an idiotic comment. It is either malice or stupidity.
RE: SIM HQ Review
ORIGINAL: Alchenar
(not being able to set times for missions does seems like a really big omission for a game like this),
You can, via the event engine. And because it's via the EE, you can set missions to activate/de-activate based not just on time, but on any of the other EE triggers (e.g. aunit is damaged or destroyed, a unit enters an area before time X etc. etc.)
Just one of the numerous "errors" in that "review".
RE: SIM HQ Review
ORIGINAL: Pii
Here’s another one, if I am laying down Reference points. Why can I only put down one and then have to Hold ctl, right click, select reference point and then if I want another I have to do it all over again, and again, if I want more than one point?
Right-click, select "define area", and with a single mouse-drag you have a ready-made area, with 4 pre-highlighted refpoints, ready to be used for anything.
Manual, page 18.