| 2 APR 2006 at 5:23pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Ivinia (31 MAR 2006 6:25pm)
Then what would you call this:
There isn’t really a definite “use item here, dummy” icon, and this became confusing because you can look at and get a comment on almost everything in the house. There were times when I would walk around trying to use an item with everything I could click on just to figure out the purpose of having it in my inventory. The item will light up when you pass it across the item being looked at, but there is no separate action icon. The second gripe is the limit of 10 savegame slots. Why only ten? Why not 40? Because of the scary nature of the game, I played it in small doses (considering I only had time at night). This became a problem if I wanted to save after every small session and I ended up having to save over some of my earlier games.
You left out the sentence: "I found two drawbacks to Scratches, and they’re picky ones, so forgive me."
Like I said, the bias shows in the wording.
|
| 2 APR 2006 at 7:44pm |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Betje (2 APR 2006 5:22pm)
You left out the sentence: "I found two drawbacks to Scratches, and they’re picky ones, so forgive me."
Like I said, the bias shows in the wording.
I didn't leave it out. It was irrelevant to the post being responded to. The response was in regards to their being 'no' negative comments in that review.
As far as being biased is concerned, I have seen quite a number of indie games get grades that I felt were way too high - and I love indie games. Some of the reviews are here on JA, some on other sites, etc. On the same token I've seen some reviews that were ridiculously low and rough showing a bias in the negative direction. Can you concede that?
|
| 2 APR 2006 at 10:37pm |
alkis21Schattenjger
Posts : 2112
Joined: 23 OCT 2002
Location: GR
Status : Offline | I have to reply.. I promised myself I wouldn't, but then again I promised I'd quit smoking, and I didn't do that either.
It's so funny you have the audacity to call other people biased, when you post things like:
Originally Posted By Betje (2 APR 2006 5:17pm)
First of all, I don't often play amateur/fan games. For the very simple reason that, with very few exceptions, commercial adventures are superior in all departments: sound, music, dialogues, story, puzzles, humor.
said the unbiased [smiley=laughing.gif]
What do dialogues, story, puzzles and humor have to do with resources anyway? I spent a year writing the story of OW and 2 years revising it. The plot holes in Amerzone (mentioned in this thread) are big enough to fit an elephant. The ending of Black Mirror could have been predicted by a 10 year old. Did the writers bother to read their scripts twice? Or did they lack the time because of deadlines? Puzzles? Tons of recent commercial games don't even care about the puzzles. Every now and then they put a picture in a mixer and make you put the pieces together. See, they don't have to try and make them better, because people like you will always buy them anyway. Hey, they're expensive, they must be good. So a commercial game does everything better than an amateur game by default? I haven't played a commercial game in a decade that had the puzzles of "Pleurghburg Dark Ages", or the humor of "Larry Vales 2". More money and better technology makes better games? So I suppose every billion dollar movie is better than any black and white film ever released by default, too.
You think it's easy to question the reliability of Aya and Inferno. They're just two people who happened to praise a bad game, right? Would you like me to post comments from 50 random e-mails out of the hundreds and hundreds I have about OW? Will you call them biased too? No, I guess you'll just say I made them up.
Standing by for another sarcastic reply...
|
| 2 APR 2006 at 10:42pm |
AyaGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 7277
Joined: 16 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Betje (2 APR 2006 5:17pm)
Well of course it's just my opinion. The same way what you said about the "sokalization" of the genre and Myst clones is just your opinion. Even so, it's a fact that I play more different types of adventures and I enjoy variety in puzzles, perspective, linear/non-linear, lonely/dialogues more than you do. But quality will always be vitally important to me. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree: when reviewers uncritically embrace every single new commercial/amateur adventure regardless of its real merits, we will be swamped with bad or mediocre games.
see bolded, red quote: no you don't! the fact that i have a preference for a certain subgenre doesn't mean i don't play all kinds of adventures... like i said in another post, which you may not have read, i give every adventure a chance, and sometimes i get surprised by the results (aura and myst 3)... i do agree with what you're saying about reviewers, but i don't believe in working the exact opposite way, ie being overly critical and focusing just on the negatives, either... jujiga's ways is one example of that, where he has been trying to promote gamespot's bashing review of scratches as a credible one, and ja's gushing review as a non-credible one... they are both extreme reviews, so why promote the negative one?
I know what you and Alkis said about your review of Other Worlds, which I've read twice. I'm sorry Aya, but your bias in favor of it shows in the wording: taking the side of the developer instead of appraising the game as objectively as possible for your readers out there. So in one sense, I don't need to know how good or bad the game really was, to be able to recognize a biased review. Same goes for Jennifer Miller's reviews and to a even greater extent for Inferno's over-the-top reviews.
i think you're using the word "bias" in a wrong way... i loved the game... of course my review will portray that feeling... i don't write (nor do i like reading) cold reviews that are like you're reading a legal document... if i was so biased, why did i talk about the negatives of the game (bad gfx, dead-end, exit icon bugs) and why did i give it A- instead of A+? i gave space bar an A-, but i didn't see you call me biased there... is it cause space bar is among the games you like? or is it that because you know alkis and i are friends and you're grasping at every possible straw you can find in order to discredit my review of his game and prove some kind of conspiracy? (which will offer what to him, anyway?)
First of all, I don't often play amateur/fan games. For the very simple reason that, with very few exceptions, commercial adventures are superior in all departments: sound, music, dialogues, story, puzzles, humor. Lack of resources and all that. Often also lack of talent. Imo, Other Worlds is not one of those exceptions. I'm sure many people will enjoy playing it and I'm not saying it's a bad game. But that doesn't mean it's a masterpiece. I played the demo in 2004 and didn't feel the urge to download the entire game. I did so yesterday, to see if my memory was correct. I've made some progress (mansion, and that's as far as I'll go) and I haven't changed my mind about it. No, it's not just the graphics, it's everything. It's no match for any commercial game released in 2004.
see, as opposed to you, i do play amateur games, so your statement above on how much broader your adventuring experiences are is false... and i do believe that you are "biased" (hey, there's that word again!) against the game and you're not giving a fair chance, mainly cause of the bolded quote (and maybe cause the review has rubbed you the wrong way)... of course i am not trying to say that you should like the game either
and yes i do believe it was a masterpiece in the freeware arena, and i do believe that it put commercial releases of 2004 to shame... it's my opinion, just like your opinion is that riven is a great game when i consider it to be, erm, let's just simply say crap! a reviewer will write his/her opinion, and there will be ppl who agree and ppl who disagree... that's all there is
You have gotten the attention of the mysterious lady. She turns to face you. Her face is devoid of any flesh. You are frozen with horror as she begins ripping your body into a bloody mess.
|
| 2 APR 2006 at 11:06pm |
WimliGuild Master
Posts : 3259
Joined: 14 MAR 2003
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By alkis21 (2 APR 2006 10:36pm)
So I suppose every billion dollar movie is better than any black and white film ever released by default, too.
As a big movie fan, I have to react here. First things first: black-and-white does not equal low budget, and are not the equivalent of amateur adventure games. Furthermore, you can't compare it to the commercial vs amateur adventures contrast. While it's possible to make a game with only your own funds, it's virtually impossible to do so as far as movies is concerned (certainly full length movies), except when you're extremely rich. And even when you do have enough private funding to make a film on your own, the aim in the end will be to turn it into a commercial product through theatrical release anyway. Not so with free amateur adventure games.
You think it's easy to question the reliability of Aya and Inferno. They're just two people who happened to praise a bad game, right? Would you like me to post comments from 50 random e-mails out of the hundreds and hundreds I have about OW? Will you call them biased too? No, I guess you'll just say I made them up.
Again, you can't compare the two. What Aya and Inferno wrote are reviews (implying a certain level of objectivity and constructive criticism), those 50+ emails you received are completely subjective opinions (which can be just as biased as the writer of them likes them to be). Not saying that one is better than the other, just that they are different.
Btw: I totally agree on your opinion of the Scratches review on JA. It really could use some extra paragraphs discussing things like puzzles and backstory some more.
|
| 3 APR 2006 at 12:24am |
ElfstoneGuild Master
Posts : 5892
Joined: 4 NOV 2002
Status : Online | I wonder who actually took the time to read the reviews in question...
I agree with this:
And all that garnished with a great deal of humor, that will have you rolling on the floor laughing – that is, if you can appreciate good humor.
It comes off wrong. But that is about the only thing showing any kind of bias in Aya's review. The rest is simply his opinion, because you all know that he loves puzzles and story more than latest graphics and sounds. He does even say that in the review. Those who only read the grade will miss it, of course. But those who read the review will exactly know what's in store for them:
Are you a graphics/animation/sound/fancy stuff nut? Stay away from this game.
Do you enjoy a good story and puzzles? This might be your game. From a person who obviously loves that stuff to another - this game is worth an A. So what?
Regarding Jennifer Miller's review...I agree, there's no mention of the puzzles within the game. That's one part I felt was missing from the review.
The rest is her account, telling us what she felt while playing the game. You can see where she is coming from and why she likes the type of scares within the game...and she's clearly saying that the scares are of a subtle nature rather than blood on the wall and stuff like that. You know what to expect and if that does anything with you or not.
Finally, Inferno's review...I'd say the grade can be seen as too high, yes. But other than that everything you need to know is in that review and it's not done in sugar-coating as far as I can tell.
Add an exquisite underscore, unnerving sound effects by Cellar of Rats, hauntingly lyrical pre-rendered backdrops by Alejandro Graziani, and reasonably logical puzzles[..]
It's an honest opinion. I think sound is the strongest aspect of Scratches and I definitely like the graphics and especially the door animations.
I'd say this is the best review, despite I always look suspicious at the highest grade possible and wouldn't ever use it myself, probably.
If you like to know, I'd give Scratches an A...or maybe A- if it wasn't for the story, but that included I can only give an A. Not that it matters, because I'm not a reviewer and I'm just doing it for fun and to tell my account rather than trying to be objective.
[b]playing[/b]: Destination Treasure Island (done in two sittings, but it's nice), Syberia (ho-hum), Dracula: Last Sanctuary (on hold)&&[b]reading[/b]: even more study papers&&[b]listening to[/b]: [url=http://www.last.fm/user/Brax82/]this and that[/url], plus [url=http://www.musicovery.com/]Musicovery[/url]&&[b]TV favorites[/b]: (currently) Pushing Daisies, Chuck, Journeyman (cancelled! grrr...), Heroes&& all-time) 24, Stargate SG1, X-Files, Lost, House
|
| 3 APR 2006 at 2:19am |
CrapstormJourneyman
Posts : 829
Joined: 18 FEB 2004
Status : Online | When an A-grade review makes little to no mention of the puzzles, I usually interpret that as meaning the reviewer is someone who doesn't really care about puzzles. And therefore, I can disregard their review.
|
| 3 APR 2006 at 6:41am |
alkis21Schattenjger
Posts : 2112
Joined: 23 OCT 2002
Location: GR
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Wimli (2 APR 2006 11:06pm)
First things first: black-and-white does not equal low budget, and are not the equivalent of amateur adventure games.
Fair point, it was a bad example. But what I'm trying to say is, if the technical aspect is so important, why doesn't the quality of games increase as years go by? The technology is better, the graphics are better, the sound is better, we get voice acting instead of plain text, so how come so many people still list the classics as their favorites? Is it just nostalgia kicking in, or is there more to it?
Again, you can't compare the two. What Aya and Inferno wrote are reviews (implying a certain level of objectivity and constructive criticism), those 50+ emails you received are completely subjective opinions (which can be just as biased as the writer of them likes them to be). Not saying that one is better than the other, just that they are different..
The reason Betje calls Aya and Inferno biased is because they liked the game. That's the main reason, no matter how many phrases she struggles to isolate to "prove" they were only written because Aya and I have drank a few beers together. I'm only suggesting they are not the exception, and people who played the game to the end were not disappointed (well, expect for those who hated the ending enough to tell me they wish they hadn't played it).
The way I see it (another terrible example is about to follow), amateur adventure creators are a bit like unattractive sex partners. They know they're not beautiful, so they try their best to please you in any other way possible. At least that's what I've heard, I've never been or been with an unattractive sex partner (that was a joke, no flames please ).
|
| 3 APR 2006 at 6:03pm |
UgurIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 45
Joined: 27 JAN 2006
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By jujigatame (31 MAR 2006 6:00pm)
you call Sanitarium a cheap gore-fest while calling Scratches a classic? I'm sorry, but your credibility is gone with me after that one.
Having seen a couple of posts along the lines of what I am quoting above, with Jennifer's permission, I would like to post the following clarification:
Just like some other readers, I was confused by the sentence mentioning a number of other titles in Jennifer's Scratches review. I initially thought she was indeed dismissing these titles and proclaiming Scratches as the superior title. Having played (and reviewed) Scratches myself AND given the fact that Sanitarium is one of my all-time favorite games, I wanted to make sure I was interpreting Jennifer's words correctly (and it turns out I wasn't AT ALL). I sent her the following question:
I can't resist my curiosity. Would you say Scratches is overall a better game than Sanitarium and Still Life or were you just pointing out that Scratches is scarier?
I had never regarded Sanitarium and Still Life as games that were even trying to be scary. I thought they delivered something different. Especially Sanitarium had such strong moments (like the scene in the house where Max finds and returns the toy) that I would be suprised to hear anyone thinks a good game as it was, Scratches was superior.
Rest assured I am not asking so I can proceed to bashing your writing on the forum. I was just honestly curious and probably reading too much into your words.
She wrote back with the following response:
I think what I was trying to get at with this review was comparing the "scare factor" of Scratches versus other games I've played. When I saw Still Life at E3, it was definitely presented to me as a "scare your socks off, keep you awake at night" game, which it really wasn't. I enjoyed Still Life, as I did all the other games I mentioned, and they are permanent fixtures in my game collection. Shivers really did a number on me when I first played it, as did Morpheus, et al. I really didn't get Sanitarium, but that's a personal preference. It scared the cr*p out of my roommate, though.
Scratches was the first game that I actually had to stop playing because I was too scared to continue. And that was huge for me. Games have made me cry, laugh, want to throw my keyboard out the window, but I've never screamed during a game before. The fact that Scratches effected me so much is why I loved it. Still Life never made me scream, nor did Shivers, etc.
I suppose it's another matter of personal preference, which we've talked about before on the forums. What makes a game scary could really be all about personal preference. I think I was in the minority that was really scared by The Blair Witch Project, while others just laughed at the action and poor camera work.
As you should see from her response the comparison is entirely from a scariness point of view and Jennifer is really not dismissing any of the titles she mentioned as bad games.
I hope this helps clear things up a little and helps us better interpret what the review was getting at.
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 1:29am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Ivinia (2 APR 2006 7:43pm)
As far as being biased is concerned, I have seen quite a number of indie games get grades that I felt were way too high - and I love indie games. Some of the reviews are here on JA, some on other sites, etc. On the same token I've seen some reviews that were ridiculously low and rough showing a bias in the negative direction. Can you concede that?
Well, of course I can. Have I posted anything that made you think I wouldn't?
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 1:32am |
| Deleted User | See, they don't have to try and make them better, because people like you will always buy them anyway. Hey, they're expensive, they must be good.
[smiley=crazy.gif] In direct contradiction to everything I've posted here and in other threads.
The reason Betje calls Aya and Inferno biased is because they liked the game. That's the main reason, no matter how many phrases she struggles to isolate to "prove" they were only written because Aya and I have drank a few beers together.
[smiley=crazy.gif] In direct contradiction to everything I've posted here and in other threads.
Alkis, I don't feel it's any use talking to you. You either ignore what I say or you twist my words.
I will not waste time again on the [smiley=bullcrap.gif]stories you make up in your head about me.
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 1:46am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Aya (2 APR 2006 10:41pm)
i do agree with what you're saying about reviewers, but i don't believe in working the exact opposite way, ie being overly critical and focusing just on the negatives, either... jujiga's ways is one example of that, where he has been trying to promote gamespot's bashing review of scratches as a credible one, and ja's gushing review as a non-credible one... they are both extreme reviews, so why promote the negative one?
Right... I agree with that, and I think I already said so in a reply to Elfstone. Which brings us back full circle to the double standards.
i think you're using the word "bias" in a wrong way... i loved the game... of course my review will portray that feeling... i don't write (nor do i like reading) cold reviews that are like you're reading a legal document... if i was so biased, why did i talk about the negatives of the game (bad gfx, dead-end, exit icon bugs) and why did i give it A- instead of A+?
It was an A, not an A-. So if you noticed at least three negatives, why did you give Other Worlds an A? It's like the rating is based on the pros. The cons get mentioned but don't matter.
space bar an A-, but i didn't see you call me biased there... is it cause space bar is among the games you like?
Sure, that's part of it. I complimented you on your review because it really made me want to play Space Bar. (I've already told you I'd only played it for an hour, as I usually do with new arrivals.) But... you didn't push Steve Meretzky forward as the talented amateur developer, and you didn't praise Space Bar skyhigh as the best adventure game of the year.
because you know alkis and i are friends and you're grasping at every possible straw you can find in order to discredit my review of his game and prove some kind of conspiracy? (which will offer what to him, anyway?)
Conspiracy...? And why on earth would I want to "discredit your review" after all this time?
If I had NOT known about your friendship with Alkis and had NOT played the demo, your rave review would have convinced me to download the game immediately. And I would have been disappointed.
If you say that your review was totally unbiased and that you really regard OW as possibly the best adventure of 2004, who am I to say that's not true. You are the only one who knows what's going on inside you. But it does mean that I question your judgement.
see, as opposed to you, i do play amateur games, so your statement above on how much broader your adventuring experiences are is false...
I play 18-24 commercial adventures a year (new, old and ancient; indie games included, replays not included). Plus two or three platform or strategy or internet games, like Perplex City. One or two text adventures. Five or six casual games, like Zuma. One or two puzzle games, like Pandora's Box. Three or four amateur/fan games.
Adventurish amateur/fan games I played and loved in 2004-2006:
Peasant's Quest - Case of the Crabs - Out of Order - Tierra's KQ II remake - Maniac Mansion Deluxe - Tork - Samorost 1 and 2 - and the unique, touching, funny, creative Plush Toy Psychotherapy. I can rave about that game the way you rave about Other Worlds.
Not enough variety?
and i do believe that you are "biased" (hey, there's that word again!) against the game and you're not giving a fair chance, mainly cause of the bolded quote (and maybe cause the review has rubbed you the wrong way)... of course i am not trying to say that you should like the game either
Oh, come on, Aya! I played the demo long before your review of the full game went up!
And I refuse to listen to the "Riven-is-crap" crap again. Everybody knows how you feel about it. Enough is enough.
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 2:50am |
UgurIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 45
Joined: 27 JAN 2006
Status : Offline | I am very curious to see how many rounds of posting this argument is going to last.
In the meantime, I give you my generic FPS review and hope that my endless ranting will at least lighten the mood.
------------------------------------------------------
*Insert FPS Name Here. Pick from Quake, Unreal, Doom, Halo, etc as desired.* Review
Generic FPS once again proves that this genre is a outdated, cliched, and in general in need of being put out of its misery. The game offers absolutely nothing to renovate the genre while inexplicably presenting top-notch graphics to our general annoyance.
Our biggest complaintis that the game is utterly unrealistic. At the outset of the game, your character will start walking down an all too familiar looking corridor/open field/space station/apartment building/you choose the location it doesn't matter anyway! Before you can take 10 steps, people start shooting at you! This completely unsolicited assault is made worse by the fact that every single living creature in the area seems to possess some form of weapon. And players are expected to fire back to kill the attackers! There is absolutely no room for negotiation. Every single situation in the game has one solution: kill the guys shooting at you. Surely by now the developers would have recognized the need for alternate responses to the imminent, irresistable, and illogical desire every creature has to obliterate the main character.
The second problem is the handling of ammunition. While your character is given a limited amount of ammo for the guns he has no choice but to use, the enemies never run out of bullets! Yet somehow when they die, they each drop weapons with the exact same amount of ammunition! If these adversaries have some means of teleporting an endless stream of bullets into their guns, why doesn't our character share this talent?
To make things worse, throughout the monotonous levels that involve nothing further than wanton destruction of the environment and general killing of all the creatures that dwell in it, your character finds and manages to carry an inordinate amount of weapons. How can a single human being carry a machine gun, a shotgun, a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, a plasma rifle, a sniper rifle, and a monkey wrench at the same time? On top of this, he can also carry a hefty amount of ammunition for each weapon. The total weight of all the ammo and the weapons hauled around by the main character could easily approach a metric ton! When you change weapons, they seem to somehow disappear into a void where the stomach area of your character should be. Is the main character a walking black hole? Is there a mule strategically positioned behind the main character to hold the excess weapons? Does this mule quickly sidestep and always stay behind your character so the players can never see it? It would be easier to put a ladder in my pocket than to carry all those weapons around!
And why can't I see the main character's feet when I look down? Or even his stomach or any part of his legs? It is as though I am not playing through the eyes of a human being but through some camera hovering in a 3D environment. Developers need to understand that seeing two hands holding onto a gun does NOT make the view "first-person".
Why does my gun fire weapons when I pull on the trigger? Why do the grenades explode? Why do people die in this game when they are hit by bullets? All of this is too unoriginal and makes far too much sense! It is time to explore new options and evolve the genre.
Most importantly, why do the enemies conveniently attack the main chacracter in small groups? Would it not be more efficient to swarm him all at once and finish the job? It is as though the game is DESIGNED to make it possible to fight an army of enemeies single-handedly. Clearly, this kind of illogical design is unacceptable and only results in the general dying of the FPS genre!
With its blatant disregard for diplomatic solutions to everyday gun violence problems, unabashedly nice graphics, highly unnecessary diversity in weapons, and non-player characters who lack any kind of character depth, the Generic FPS is a testament to the fact that the FPS genre is indeed dead.
Now we are consulting our random grade generator to settle on the final score for Generic FPS. And who would have guessed? The score is a 3.9 out of 10!
Positives: Um... The game comes on a CD.
Negatives: Please refer to the entire review!
-------------------------------------------------------
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 5:21am |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | LOL, Ugur! I was working on one for WWII FPS games:
Call of Duty X
The latest Call of Duty game is yet another perfect example of why FPS games are a dead genre. Talk about being stuck in time. Other than changes in eye-candy, it uses to the same tired interface that was used in Wolfenstein 3D.
Once again we find ourselves running around and shooting things. CODx presents the same old tired variety of inventory items that you can find in any FPS – pistols, shotguns, sniper rifles, etc. When will these people ever advance and come up with new creative items? You never find so much as a key, cog wheel, or a mysterious message. Weapons. That’s all.
Once again you will find yourself killing Germans with guns. Sure it’s WWII in Western Europe, but why do they insist on using the same opponents every time? Not only that, but they are all wearing the same clothes and look nearly identical to each other! Day in and day out, they never change their outfits. Lack of creativity and an unwillingness to change is my guess.
…and why do we always get shot at? Is it that hard to come up with a conversation option?
Inventory items are all over the place too. Never mind having to find weapons or ammo, they are all over the battlefield. Just sitting there out in the open presenting absolutely no mental challenge what-so-ever.
The storylines are equally uninspired. Find the enemy plans, take out snipers, destroy tanks, clear a town, defend an area. C’mon, this is a war! Surely there are more things to do besides fight all the time. Why can't we repair a vehicle? Build a radio? Decipher the enemy's code?
Linear game play. Can you believe in this day and age that there are still developers out there doing this? In order to advance, you have to complete tasks in a pre-prescribed order. I’m not kidding! To get to C, you have to complete A and B first. For example, to go to a bunker on top of a cliff, you first have to battle your way across a beach, kill Germans on top of cliff, and climb a rope. To go from one end of the city to another, you have to follow a certain path to get there. Alleys and roads will be blocked off making any other route impossible. Sheesh! Where’s the fun in that?
Wow, I almost forgot to mention dieing. This will happen to you a lot playing this game. You can be standing somewhere minding your own business and some sniper will put a bullet in your helmet resulting in instant death. You call that realistic?!?
The game is incredibly short and not worth the $50 price. It took me one evening to complete. (Utilizing cheat codes and playing in God mode.)
Call of Duty once again proves why the FPS genre needs to move on. 3.9 out of 10.
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 6:06am |
UgurIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 45
Joined: 27 JAN 2006
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Ivinia (4 APR 2006 5:21am)
The game is incredibly short and not worth the $50 price. It took me one evening to complete. (Utilizing cheat codes and playing in God mode.)
That one really had me laughing.
I am SO tempted to buy a domain called www.3.9spot.com so we can post these...
...You know, in all fairness I should point out that I don't really have anything against GameSpot at all. I just try to be selective about what articles I read there and usually try to stick to their news content rather than reviews. My qualm is only with attempts to continually put down our genre.
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 6:13am |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Betje (4 APR 2006 1:28am)
Well, of course I can. Have I posted anything that made you think I wouldn't?
LOL, to be honest with you most of the posts I've seen seems like you haven't. Unfortunately, I wasn't around for some of the heated debates JA used to have over things like Myst vs. the Longest Journey or Sierra vs. Lucas Arts so I haven't been exposed to your other potential side.
I do get the impression you prefer the older games over the new stuff, but then I don't read ALL the posts here so I could be wrong.
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 2:03pm |
AyaGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 7277
Joined: 16 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Betje (4 APR 2006 1:46am)
It was an A, not an A-. So if you noticed at least three negatives, why did you give Other Worlds an A? It's like the rating is based on the pros. The cons get mentioned but don't matter.
the grade has to do with overall enjoyment of the game... it doesn't come from a math formula! the three negatives i noticed did not take away from the overall enjoyment of the game, and i do not believe they would take away from anyone's enjoyment (from those that like it in the first place that is)... in general i hate grades, because they cause what we're witnessing here! if there was no grade and ppl went only by reading the review no one would have a problem!
Sure, that's part of it. I complimented you on your review because it really made me want to play Space Bar. (I've already told you I'd only played it for an hour, as I usually do with new arrivals.) But... you didn't push Steve Meretzky forward as the talented amateur developer, and you didn't praise Space Bar skyhigh as the best adventure game of the year.
erm... yes, i do think that steve meretzky needed some pushing from me as talented amateur developer cause he's just appearing on the scene and ppl need to know about him.... : you have to be kidding me, right? right! as for the best adventure of the year, i was playing a 199x game in 2005... no one cares if it's the best game of that year, and i don't even remember the games of that year... there's a huge difference of approach between reviewing an old and a new game
Conspiracy...? And why on earth would I want to "discredit your review" after all this time?
If I had NOT known about your friendship with Alkis and had NOT played the demo, your rave review would have convinced me to download the game immediately. And I would have been disappointed.
you would have been disappointed... others wouldn't... no review can cover all tastes... now i know you said you don't want riven mentioned (!) but it has to be... cause your example is exactly the same as me (and a few thousand others) reading the raving reviews of riven, going to buy it immediately and then ending up with that... wouldn't that be a disappointment? so, according to your logic, every raving review of a game that ends up being a disappointment for someone is a bad, biased review...
If you say that your review was totally unbiased and that you really regard OW as possibly the best adventure of 2004, who am I to say that's not true. You are the only one who knows what's going on inside you. But it does mean that I question your judgement.
of course you can question my judgement... i question the judgement of over 50% of the reviews i read all the time (and i mean adventure-oriented reviews, not gamespot's garbage)... you are one person who questions my judgement, but then there's some other person who trusts my judgement... like mentioned above, not everyone can be pleased... if i had bashed other worlds, you would be trusting my judgement, but somebody else would be questioning it... it's just how it works!
I play 18-24 commercial adventures a year (new, old and ancient; indie games included, replays not included). Plus two or three platform or strategy or internet games, like Perplex City. One or two text adventures. Five or six casual games, like Zuma. One or two puzzle games, like Pandora's Box. Three or four amateur/fan games.
Adventurish amateur/fan games I played and loved in 2004-2006:
Peasant's Quest - Case of the Crabs - Out of Order - Tierra's KQ II remake - Maniac Mansion Deluxe - Tork - Samorost 1 and 2 - and the unique, touching, funny, creative Plush Toy Psychotherapy. I can rave about that game the way you rave about Other Worlds.
Not enough variety?
the only reason i mentioned variety was because you were trying to tell me i only play one particular thing, which is not true... you mentioned yourself that you consider amateur games as worse than commercial releases by default, which is a false statement (except may in the gfx area) and puts you in the biased group of ppl... if you start an amateur game with that prejudice, then you cannot judge it right
And I refuse to listen to the "Riven-is-crap" crap again. Everybody knows how you feel about it. Enough is enough.
at least i didn't say that in this post!
You have gotten the attention of the mysterious lady. She turns to face you. Her face is devoid of any flesh. You are frozen with horror as she begins ripping your body into a bloody mess.
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 2:09pm |
kuddlesPrivate Detective
Posts : 702
Joined: 22 OCT 2004
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Ivinia (4 APR 2006 5:21am)
Call of Duty once again proves why the FPS genre needs to move on. 3.9 out of 10.
You forgot to mention that it uses the same tired old interface that has been in place since Wolfenstien 3D.
[size=10][b]Games:[/b] Europa Universalis III&&[b]Music:[/b] [i]Awoo[/i] - Hidden Cameras&&[b]Series:[/b] Dexter (S1)&&[b]Movies:[/b] The Prestige (8/10) Little Miss Sunshine (5/10)&&[/size]
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 3:28pm |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By kuddles (4 APR 2006 2:08pm)
Originally Posted By Ivinia (4 APR 2006 5:21am)
Call of Duty once again proves why the FPS genre needs to move on. 3.9 out of 10.
You forgot to mention that it uses the same tired old interface that has been in place since Wolfenstien 3D.
Curses! You are correct...I'll have to update that!
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 9:38pm |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | Sorry to burst your bubble, but most modern FPS interfaces aren't anything like Wolfenstein.
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 9:53pm |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | Weapons on 1,2,3,etc...
Point with the mouse and go in that direction when moving forward or moving backwards on the keyboard while exploring a 3d world. Same old Point and Shoot interface.
So how are modern FPS games nothing like that?
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 10:09pm |
UgurIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 45
Joined: 27 JAN 2006
Status : Offline | Well, we DO use WASD instead of the arrows keys these days
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 10:24pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Taken only on the most fundamental terms, today's FPS games are very much like the earliest titles in the genre. After all, they are still presented in a default first person perspective (although many do now have optional third person camera views) and the primary action is still shooting enemies in real time.
However, today's full 3D FPS games have many new components, as well as major refinements to all the original elements that they still share with their forerunners. They have far superior, more flexible and sophisticated control schemes that include options to look all around while running, jumping, ducking / sneaking, swimming, climbing, swinging and doing all sorts of other things you simply couldn't do at all in Wolfenstein 3D or Doom.
Various types of vehicles and some actual puzzles, along with in-game interactive dialog and real-time cutscenes have also been added, as have a full array of highly immersive new audio and video effects never possible before. AI and physics have come a long ways too.
The latest FPS titles also boast some extremely advanced editing tools and MP modes that barely existed back in the early 1990's. These things have further changed the genre in very dynamic new ways over the past decade. Plus a variety of imaginative new hybrids have now been created that combine the best aspects of action games with strategies, RPGs and yes even AGs in some cases.
So while the FPS genre is still the same in the most basic areas, all the rest has advanced miles ahead with each new generation and whole new areas of gameplay have been added, tested multiple times and fine tuned.
My personal favorite gameplay innovations have been the addition of a genuine in-game story along with stealth and other important components borrowed from other genres in the form of seamless hybrids that really have expanded the defintion of what a shooter can be. In that way, today's action titles barely resemble the first FPS games.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 4 APR 2006 at 10:43pm |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Ugur (4 APR 2006 10:09pm)
Well, we DO use WASD instead of the arrows keys these days
Doom used WASD.
|
