A Bad Review

Kevinugly · Post by **Kevinugly** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 2:33 am

Just picked up my copy of 'PC Zone' here in the UK and found a review of KP in which it received an appalling 20%. I'll quote one paragraph:-

"For starters, the icons are appalling, requiring an encyclopaedic knowledge of the NATO icon system to decipher, which is baffling considering Korsun Pocket is set at the end of WWII. Of course you can click every bloody tile to find out what's what - assuming you can make out the badly pixellated images. There's no point-sensitive help menus or an easy-to-understand interface - the entire game looks like it was designed by a monkey on amphetamines. Even the combat system features dice. This is 2003 not 1990!"

Sad isn't it.

Ozie · Post by **Ozie** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 2:56 am

LoL!

Thats quite hilarious compared to other (good) reviews.

Adam Parker · Post by **Adam Parker** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 3:44 am

Look - the reviewer is right about the lack of mouse sensitive menu help pop-ups. This is a sorely needed feature and should be an inclusion with the next title though I'd wager it will require a deal of programming. I've even wished for this many times myself as I've played.

He's wrong about the NATO symbology of course - as anyone will know, the 1940's icons used by OKW were massively more complex - a play at Avalon Hill's Longest Day or a look though some period TO&E's and Situational maps might set the reviewer straight in that regard.

He's right however, when in comes to understanding NATO symbology on the part of newbies - as pointed right here when KP was released. With a lack of war game experience making sense of military symbology can be baffling.

The simple solution of course, would be the inclusion of an explanatory chart in the rulebook or better yet, the inclusion of a cardboard fact sheet possibly also highlighting all elements of the interface along the lines of that suppied with Uncommon Valor.

Personally, if it came to production cost/benefits I'd forego the very nice concept of the printed tutorial manual (something deserving of praise though not typo free) and replace it with an interface/symbol chart following UV's lead.

Thanks for the heads up on this issue.
Adam.

DPoM · Post by **DPoM** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 6:50 am

Kevinugly wrote:assuming you can make out the badly pixellated images.

Someone has been playing too much FPS lately and expecting every game to match up :sleep:

Mac_MatrixForum · Post by **Mac_MatrixForum** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 9:31 am

Adam Parker wrote:Look - the reviewer is right about the lack of mouse sensitive menu help pop-ups. This is a sorely needed feature and should be an inclusion with the next title though I'd wager it will require a deal of programming. I've even wished for this many times myself as I've played.

Uh, what do I get when I click almost everything with the right mouse button? And I don't need to wait half a second for it unlike most tooltip based systems. Perhaps the help text could be longer in some cases but certainly I can usually understand what a button does from it. What I'd like is to have the context sensitive menu and the data that you get when right clicking a unit on the map to be shown when I right click the unit in the unit info panel on the right. Now, from the right panel I can only get info on the OPs.

About the NATO symbols. <sarcasm>Well, I guess the reviewer was after a system where there are exactly two types of units: infantry and armour. Because, if the actual type of armour is accurately portrayed in the icon, it will require encyclopedic knowledge of the TOEs of the armies of the period.</sarcasm>

And the word pixellated does not even refer to anything sensible in this context because the graphics are far from pixellated.

Btw. KP is a great game that does not deserve reviews like that (well no game does). I can understand matters of taste but not the quoted kinds of <censored>.

Adam Parker · Post by **Adam Parker** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:27 am

Uh Mac, the point about tool tips is they obviate the need for clicking, mate (and not everything has a right click explanation in KP).

Agreed on the pixelation, yet this has been a common remark and it makes me wonder what-the-hell system the reviewer was using? Like you, I have no such pixelation either on a 15" laptop or 19" CRT.

As for the NATO symbols, like I said the guy is right and wrong. We war gamers once required a first exposure to these things too and for me it came on a page of an Avalon Hill/Jedko Games rulebook of Fortress Europa in 1978. No that's wrong! 1976.

Mac_MatrixForum · Post by **Mac_MatrixForum** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 11:24 am

Well, if you read my post carefully you'll see that I said I like the clickable context help (much) more than tooltips

. Clicking is good because that means I don't have to wait a second each time I want to see the help. There are other ways around this but changing the current system to tooltip-like isn't an improvement without a lot of restructuring which is rather pointless since IMO the current system works well.

About the Icons I'll submit this thought. Any wargame that has comparative complexity (as in it has as many relevant details, not deliberate obfuscation) will require a comparable time to learn the symbology used. Regardless of what icons are used to represent units in a wargame, somebody has to learn them. Since NATO symbols may very well be the most popular set in wargames, besides they may be familiar from other circles too, it makes sense to use them, because it reduces the time to learn the symbology, for most of us. It's a win-win in my eyes and there is no need to apologise for their use.

Just trying to be precise, no offense meant.

Pawlock · Post by **Pawlock** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 12:29 pm

Kevinugly wrote:Just picked up my copy of 'PC Zone' here in the UK and found a review of KP in which it received an appalling 20%. I'll quote one paragraph:-

"For starters, the icons are appalling, requiring an encyclopaedic knowledge of the NATO icon system to decipher, which is baffling considering Korsun Pocket is set at the end of WWII. Of course you can click every bloody tile to find out what's what - assuming you can make out the badly pixellated images. There's no point-sensitive help menus or an easy-to-understand interface - the entire game looks like it was designed by a monkey on amphetamines. Even the combat system features dice. This is 2003 not 1990!"

Sad isn't it.

It is quite obvious that the reviewer is not a wargamer as we know it from the getgo.
He should stick to reviewing FPS or realtime strategy before attemting to cast an objective view on something he is clueless about.
The graphics are great, apart from thier smallness sometimes(which has now been addressed in patch) the interface is the best I have seen for a wargame, full stop.

achh,, I cant be bothered, this guy is a moron.

BrubakerII · Post by **BrubakerII** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:58 pm

I find the comment "the entire game looks like it was designed by a monkey on amphetamines" the most interesting as it explains perfectly to me the type of person this reviewer is and the age and maturity of the market he writes for. Pants! (Brit joke)

I just remembered why I don't buy Brit PC magazines. Cheers.

Kevinugly · Post by **Kevinugly** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 6:03 pm

PC Zone in the UK is probably the worst for reviewing 'hardcore' wargames. As other posters have concurred KP has its faults (hopefully being resolved in the upcoming patch) but I think its the comments about using dice that really reflects the reviewers ignorance. If the manual had talked about 'a series of randomly generated numbers on the scale of 1-to-6' would he have commented? I think not.

Anyway, regards Brubaker's comment on UK gaming mags, I found a friendlier review in this month's 'PC Gamer'. It awarded the game 66% and in conclusion said "A fascinating fossil. Smarter and more sociable than most of its kind."
Given that the magazine is a very mainstream publication the review itself was much more balanced.

Capitaine · Post by **Capitaine** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 6:22 pm

The pixellated icons, I've noticed, come from the exceedingly small size of the unit counters (b/c they're so small, the diagonal lines on, say, the infantry symbols are individual pixels) and look much more pixellated than the original TAO. That has been my own biggest gripe. The map is hard to tell because it, too, has been so compressed that the interesting geography displayed in TAO now just looks muddy and confusing. I would really love to hear an explanation on who or what convinced Roger and SSG to miniaturize the tactical map. Why screw with one of the best things about the game? What difference do the cool badges have when the pieces are so small you can't appreciate them?

NATO symbols, well, you guys are on top of that. That's standard wargame practice and there's really no legitimate substitute save for the more complicated symbols referenced above. Dunno if the virtual manual explains these, but I suppose the reference card thing would've been worth more than a printed tutorial manual.

Tool tips? Well, one man's wine, ya know? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't base a decision on this aspect until I saw how it worked in practice. Might not work well w/ KP. Also tough to tell how well it would work given the miniaturization of the tactical units/map too. Probably too small for tool tips to be effective.

Sonny · Post by **Sonny** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:49 pm

Tooltips: I don't want something popping up just because I happen to hold the cursor in one position while looking at something. IMHO the right-click thing is fine (mostly).

The reviewer probably wants to see tanks rolling around the map because he probably has never seen NATO symbols because they don't have them in FPS games.

Hopefully serious gamers won't be fooled by this kind of crap. It sure is in injustice to a nice game though.

Rob Gjessing · Post by **Rob Gjessing** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 1:55 am

When a magazine publishes a poor review like this one has, it sends alarm bells to me about the magazine - I think the reviewer is a wally - but also it casts doubt over the whole magazine now.

If I was the editor of the mag I would want to know why one of my reviewers was rating a game so low given that it had received high reviews from other sources. Otherwise, like I said, I think it causes the public to lose faith in the integrity of the mag.

So I say Boo to not only the reviewer in this case, but also the editor and the whole Mag, for letting such a poor review get through.

Why review a historical turn based war game for your mag if you do not have a reviewer familair with the genre! We all know now know what market that Mag caters for and that we cant trust any of their reviews if it slighly departs from QUAKE17 ("The Binary Strikes Back") or Red Alert15 ("Mass Tank Assault Wins Again")

Lionfish · Post by **Lionfish** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 2:03 am

Kevinugly wrote:Just picked up my copy of 'PC Zone' here in the UK and found a review of KP in which it received an appalling 20%. I'll quote one paragraph:-

"For starters, the icons are appalling, requiring an encyclopaedic knowledge of the NATO icon system to decipher, which is baffling considering Korsun Pocket is set at the end of WWII. Of course you can click every bloody tile to find out what's what - assuming you can make out the badly pixellated images. There's no point-sensitive help menus or an easy-to-understand interface - the entire game looks like it was designed by a monkey on amphetamines. Even the combat system features dice. This is 2003 not 1990!"

Sad isn't it.

Where can I subscribe? haa haa haa...

Are you sure PC Zone is a computer games mag. The reviewer probably thought that Korsun Pocket was some new Hot Pocket flavor and through it in the mircowave.

The tagline for PC Zone is:

A mag for horney, pimply faced teenagers that are exploring their sexuality through Lara Croft.

If you read the fine print in the index of PC Zone it states the following:

Reviews are based on eye candy, cut scenes, 3D graphics, and sound. Bonus are given to games that require a negative learning curve, the ability to use a joystick or gamepad, and weak AIs. Games with nude women or big boobs automatically receive 100%.

Kevinugly · Post by **Kevinugly** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 3:15 am

Do you know what makes it worse (for me anyhow) is that I subscribe and I generally like the quality of their reviews .... apart from wargames .... which they always slaughter for some reason. I bought KP weeks before reading the review and would not have been deterred if I had read it before.

Rob Gjessing · Post by **Rob Gjessing** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 10:29 am

The point being, is they are not expert reviewers for wargames then they shouldnt be reviewing them... if their reviewers and audience generally dont like them then I dont know why they bother to write it up.. its clear the review has been rated so low because they dont think its part of their target audience.. which begs my first question.. why did they waste the ink on it if they couldnt do it justice..

Hertston · Post by **Hertston** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 11:04 am

Sonny wrote:Hopefully serious gamers won't be fooled by this kind of crap. It sure is in injustice to a nice game though.

KP isn't the only victim.. I recall my fury when Steel Beasts got a whopping 17% because it was supposed to be "unrealistic" !

It's a kiddie comic, and should be read as such. In fairness to the reviewer, he was catering to his audience (young and generally stupid).

Marc von Martial · Post by **Marc von Martial** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 12:27 pm

apart from wargames .... which they always slaughter for some reason.

Ever sent them a readers letter and asked why?

Kevinugly · Post by **Kevinugly** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:07 pm

Marc Schwanebeck wrote:Ever sent them a readers letter and asked why?

It's on its way.

BrubakerII · Post by **BrubakerII** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:39 pm

Marc Schwanebeck wrote:Ever sent them a readers letter and asked why?

Seven times Marc but they just don't seem to print em

Don't feel bad about the mag Kevin, I too subscribe to a couple of mags here in Aud because for different reasons they appeal.