If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to
register or
login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| 9 NOV 2004 at 10:37am |
| Deleted User | I'll weigh in here again. I'm an adventure game reviewer myself (...shrouded in mystery... ) and play a lot of other different games for all sorts of genres. I'm an AG fan from the old-skool graphic adventure market, but I feel my reviews are impartial and try to look on whether what I'm playing is a good experience above all.
I try to use my knowledge of other genres after I've played it to weigh up if it's a good game or not, but to me, AG's - because of the concentration on just two aspects of gameplay in the main, puzzles and exploration - really are more about the experience than anything else. If an AG game can take me away into its world, and it's puzzles are well integrated into its story or vice versa, then it's worthy of a good review.
However, even though I feel the UK PC Zone reviews are unfairly harsh (PCG_Chuck, for unprofessionalism click here) I do feel a lot of recent AG's fail on some major points AS games - from shoddy workmanship to poor integration. Given the more general nature of a lot of print magazines, if they point out the games failiures in a fair way whilst listing it''s undeniable good points, then that's great. If it's simply slagging off the genre like the link provided, then that's unprofessional.
Part of the problem for me is the marking system. Personally, I don't like it and makes me look at the mark and bullet points first when the bulk of the review contains more information (or should). It's a rather lazy and innaccurate portrayal of the games merits and minuses compared to reading the text which often reveals sections which you'll love.
I think a good case in point ATM is the Halo 2 reviews I've been reading. All are singing it's high praises at the end of the review, yet further study of the text reveals some major faults - repetition, bad level design, dodgy AI, graphical issues... etc. etc. - which makes me think twice about it. If I went straight on the marks given at the end, I get the feeling I'd be disappointed with it.
So, to sum up - in a review I'm looking for fairness. Fairness considering it's genre and content. Impartiality on the behalf of the reviewer. A good weighing up of the positives and negatives. If they just shoot it down in flames for no reason, that's not a review. If we're talking about print mags, I'm more understanding of the fact they look at games more generally... but the Aura review I've linked to is unforgivable.
Hope I've made some points.
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 1:23pm |
| Deleted User | Fairness is important, even though fairness is not common... so a little bird once said, anyway
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 1:30pm |
AnneGuild Master
Posts : 4800
Joined: 8 MAR 2003
Status : Online | Not a Parrot?
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 7:57pm |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (9 NOV 2004 9:10am)
.
The longer that the total fan base for all games continues to be so heavily tilted in favor of action titles, the smaller the pool of good, potential PC adventure game reviewers will be.
This is a very minor point, but one that I've noticed there's a huge misconception about. Strategy games are actually the best-selling genre on the PC [Source: The NPD Group; 2003 data], outselling shooters by double.
I only bring this up because sometimes the implication is that the majority of gamers are such brain-addled action fans that they can't possibly understand the complexities of an adventure game.
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 8:02pm |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By SquarejawHero (9 NOV 2004 10:37am)
However, even though I feel the UK PC Zone reviews are unfairly harsh (PCG_Chuck, for unprofessionalism click here)
Haha...that's an editorial, not a review. But it's also the kind of poor analysis that would be out of place in any game review. Imagine if they wrote: "How do you open a door in a first-person shooter? Why, you run up to somebody, blow off their head with a shotgun, and then steal their keycard! What a mindless waste of time that is."
|
| 9 NOV 2004 at 8:16pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Originally Posted By PCG_Chuck (9 NOV 2004 7:56pm)
This is a very minor point, but one that I've noticed there's a huge misconception about. Strategy games are actually the best-selling genre on the PC [Source: The NPD Group; 2003 data], outselling shooters by double.
I only bring this up because sometimes the implication is that the majority of gamers are such brain-addled action fans that they can't possibly understand the complexities of an adventure game.
It is neither a mistake nor a misconception Chuck.
The bulk of all strategy games sold today are indeed based on real time action. Many top selling RPGs are too and of course there are many very popular action-adventures on all systems.
I was talking about all of them as well as shooters to collectively describe a strong combat / action trend in virtually every genre. It is also why I was careful to qualify the exact type of adventure game that does not include this element as a rare bird that IMO requires a special kind of person to fully appreciate.
This however is not to imply there are no people who can play, enjoy and properly review a very wide range of games. But they too (especially the experienced, unbiased, talented ones) are rare.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 10 NOV 2004 at 2:00am |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By PCG_Chuck (9 NOV 2004 8:02pm)
Haha...that's an editorial, not a review.
Maybe, but it sure looks like it's passing itself off as a review.
|
| 10 NOV 2004 at 2:05am |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (9 NOV 2004 8:16pm)
.
This however is not to imply there are no people who can play, enjoy and properly review a very wide range of games. But they too (especially the experienced, unbiased, talented ones) are rare.
The Adrenaline Vault reviewers seem to do a good job.
Unfortunately they are an exception.
|
| 10 NOV 2004 at 2:21am |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Originally Posted By Jenny100 (10 NOV 2004 2:04am)
The Adrenaline Vault reviewers seem to do a good job.
Unfortunately they are an exception.
Yes they do but the AVault is still a small, privately run web site with a handpicked staff of volunteer writers who only cover a handful of games each month. They also do an equally good job with limited hardware reviews and have recently expanded to include a few movies. But what are able to cover is generally very well done, always unbiased and quite in-depth.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 10 NOV 2004 at 7:59am |
MikekellyPrivate Detective
Posts : 612
Joined: 25 JUN 2004
Status : Offline |
Chuck -
If I'm "iffy" about buying a game -- like "Return to Mysterious Island" - I'll read about 10 reviews to decide if I'm going to buy it or not.
If two or so of the reviews are "off the wall" I. e. - overly negative and the rest are very positive, I'm buying the game.
That being said, I'm sure I've thrown away many of your reviews as "off the wall" and useless.
If you want your reviews to count, write them so that they do.
I review movies for one magazine, I make sure that what I write is useful and informative.
|
| 10 NOV 2004 at 9:44am |
| Deleted User | @Chuck - not sure if I'm misjudging your tone there, but that's a review. They pretty much did the same with Sherlock.
|
| 10 NOV 2004 at 11:00pm |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By SquarejawHero (10 NOV 2004 9:43am)
@Chuck - not sure if I'm misjudging your tone there, but that's a review. They pretty much did the same with Sherlock.
Sorry, it was bad phrasing on my part -- I meant that their review reads more like an editorial against adventure games in general than a review of a specific game.
|
| 11 NOV 2004 at 10:21am |
The UnderminerIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 73
Joined: 28 JUN 2004
Status : Online | Originally Posted By PCG_Chuck (9 NOV 2004 7:47am)
I can't speak for every reviewer, but we are expected to finish a game before reviewing it (if it's a game that can be finished.) I'll go for a hint if I'm hopelessly stumped, but I won't sit there with a walkthrough and just follow the directions.
Thanks for the confirmation; I don't see how anyone could be a credible game reviewer otherwise. Frankly, though, I must admit that if I was frequently forced to play something dreary like Aura all the way through, I would become a confirmed misanthrope, or if I may borrow a phrase from one of the pretty Newnham graduates, confirmed womanthrope for the rest of my life.
I've got a plan and it's as hot as my pants!
|
| 13 NOV 2004 at 4:48am |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | I remember reading plenty of reviews of Black and White where it was painfully obvious the reviewers hadn't played through the whole game. Obviously not all reviewers finish their games before turning in reviews, whether they're supposed to or not.
|
| 13 NOV 2004 at 6:25am |
The UnderminerIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 73
Joined: 28 JUN 2004
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Jenny100 (13 NOV 2004 4:47am)
Obviously not all reviewers finish their games before turning in reviews, whether they're supposed to or not.
Sorry if I'm being a smartarse, but now you know why I used the qualifier "credible".
I've got a plan and it's as hot as my pants!
|
| 13 NOV 2004 at 1:32pm |
| Deleted User | It seems the same happens at the moment with Half Life 2, many US and UK magazines have reviews that are based on a short test where they had sent an editor to the game publisher to play the game there.. the results are illusionary grades around 96 and 98 percent....
|
| 14 NOV 2004 at 7:39am |
MikekellyPrivate Detective
Posts : 612
Joined: 25 JUN 2004
Status : Offline |
"they have reviews that are based on a short test where they had sent an editor to the game publisher to play the game there."
Ohhh................sounds like a preview to me.
A review takes much longer in my book.
|
| 16 NOV 2004 at 8:20pm |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Ogre (13 NOV 2004 1:31pm)
It seems the same happens at the moment with Half Life 2, many US and UK magazines have reviews that are based on a short test where they had sent an editor to the game publisher to play the game there.. the results are illusionary grades around 96 and 98 percent....
Ogre, it's true that I visited Valve to review Half-Life 2 for PC Gamer, but it wasn't a short playtest. I finished the entire game. And I stand by my 98% completely. It's just a fantastic game.
|
| 16 NOV 2004 at 8:23pm |
SirDaveGuild Master
Posts : 4941
Joined: 17 OCT 2002
Location: US
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By PCG_Chuck (16 NOV 2004 8:19pm)
Ogre, it's true that I visited Valve to review Half-Life 2 for PC Gamer, but it wasn't a short playtest. I finished the entire game. And I stand by my 98% completely. It's just a fantastic game.
Ordinarily I would take your word for it, but in this case, please send me your copy immediately for my confirmation!
The future ain't what it used to be!
|
| 16 NOV 2004 at 9:32pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By PCG_Chuck (16 NOV 2004 8:19pm)
Ogre, it's true that I visited Valve to review Half-Life 2 for PC Gamer, but it wasn't a short playtest. I finished the entire game. And I stand by my 98% completely. It's just a fantastic game.
I guess one of the reasons for the inhouse reviewing is that to be able to play HL2 you need a broadband internet connection and activate HL at Steam (modem activation lasts easily up to 50 minutes...) and that is only possible since today... btw this is the only reason I won't buy the game, to play you need to be connected because every time you start the game it wants to check online and that is an offline game... so what happens when Valve shuts down steam one day? You just can't play HL2 anymore and that is inaccaptable especially for collectors. I'm just waiting for a court trial and I'm pretty curious if Vivendi and Valve have to remove this internet registration thing here in Germany. Other companies had to do that, too and only M$ so far got away because its anonymous and you can also do via phone.
I didn't know that it was you who gave the 98 % I just read it in a German magazine and they gave a good explanation why they didn't (most German magazines rejected the inhouse reviewing) because if you play a game for one or two days and even make it through there is always someone looking over your shoulder brushing away negative points and well, give subtle influence in any way and so on, the situation is just different as when you play at your own PC. You start with installing the game, you know how fast other games run on your system and can compare.
Also was there a proof that it was the "boxed" version that you played or some gold master?
Sorry I don't know your review for obvious reasons so don't be angry when I asked something you wrote there.
98 percent... was there ever a game that got such a high mark? (not in German magazines...) that leaves the question is HL2 in fact the best game ever made? Sure it has cool graphics but is the gameplay so inventive?
|
| 17 NOV 2004 at 4:51am |
PCG_ChuckIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 37
Joined: 19 OCT 2002
Status : Online | No one was looking over my shoulder. I was alone in an office the entire time. It was pretty much exactly the same experience I would've had at home except that I had to borrow someone's keycard to go to the restroom.
The version I played was the one that Valve was sending off to Vivendi for duplication. (So, the same one that's out now.)
Half-Life 2 ties with Alpha Centauri for the highest score ever of 98% at PC Gamer US.
|
| 17 NOV 2004 at 10:00am |
| Deleted User | Wow... Alpha Centauri - that rating certainly wasn't because of the graphics....
My point just stays that the question is, is HL2, a FPS after all, so inventive and special for the genre or for computer games in general that a 98 percent is justified? Honestly I still doubt that! I've seen tons of preview videos and agree the game is very good gameplay and graphics wise but still is it the best game ever? Better as Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Civilization, Pirates, Zelda series and many more? I mean even if you can do cool things in HL2, even if it has cool features, even with a good story and best graphics ever and perfectly balanced gameplay, does it have so many things that have never been done before?
Hmm my Alpha Centauri rating at that time would have been 80 percent btw... mostly because of the shitty graphics that spoiled the experience quite a lot for me back then, I even preferred Master of Orion 2.
Don't worry sometimes I have a different taste, I have a heart for outsiders, often I like a game from an unknown publisher lots more but game magazines tend to give high ratings to games that are hyped or whose first part was very successful. For example I liked Record of Lodoss War (DC) lots more than Diablo 2, in my opinion it had way better story, graphics and gameplay, while I became bored in Diablo 2 after only two hours (I played the 1st only about halfway and was bored to death in the end) RoLW had everything I missed in the Diablo series. Same counts for strategy sims like The Settlers or the Anno (1604 / 1503) series. Big names big companies (at least here) but I thought bad gameplay and graphics compared to a nice little game called Knights and Merchants from an unknown developer who got no publicity so the game was rated only something about 60-70 percent - in that case it really pissed me off because gameplay, features building and battle system were way better compared to Settlers 3 and Anno 1604. I think same happens to many games. Sometimes the first part of a series gets low rates and after becoming a surprsing success the 2nd part who is actually exactly the same just with better graphics gets very high marks suddenly. Also vice versa some games get high marks they earned but are total flops (No one lives forever, Beyond Good and Evil) sometimes games get high marks because they are hyped, Diablo 2 in my opinion and HL 2 might fall also into that category... certainly good games but a little overrated and sometimes very poor games become a success despite very low ratings (Deer Hunter, (German) Hugo series). What I mean is that reviewers should be cautious when giving a overhyped game like HL2 a too high rating it didn't earn because of the name. Same happened to Doom 3 I think, cool graphics but else very ba
|
| 22 MAR 2008 at 11:50am |
Agent BreaPrivate Detective
Posts : 705
Joined: 17 OCT 2006
Location: 0
Status : Online | sorry, but this thread got corrupted, and all posts after ogre's post above were lost
Your last waking moments are marked by wretched pain as you provide dinner for a group of ill-mannered dinner guests that just wouldn't leave.
|
| 11 APR 2008 at 12:23pm |
JehaneSpace Cadet
Posts : 128
Joined: 15 MAY 2007
Status : Online | Old thread, but I had to dig it up I just wanted to add that gaming magazins might have a grudge against adventures, that they might bash them or give them bad ratings - that's the main reason why I ususally don't by these magazines. The German magazines are full of WoW, the latest FPS, strategy and stuff; adventures usually get only very little attention and are not well received most of the time. But there are exceptions to the rule, and one exception has just been published over here. It's a special edition of a magazine called "PC Games" dedicated to adventure games - and adventure games alone. It features a synopsis of ag's history, including numerous examples of successful and loved games. There are tests for more recent games (i.e. games that have been released over the past 2 years), previews on games to come this and next year, a dvd packed with games (Black Mirror, Beneath a Steel Sky, Lure of the Temptress, Fate by Numbers, Flight of the Amazon Queen and lots of indy games) and demos, walkthroughs for recent games and a poster featuring Mona from Vampyre Story on one side, Sunny Blonde (So Blonde) on the other side.
I'm pretty happy with this issue even though I cannot agree on most of their ratings for modern games. For example, games that have received average to bad markings include: Secrets of Da Vinci, Scratches (because the puzzles aren't good enough), Broken Sword 4, The Awakened (because the writer thinks the graphics aren't good), Agon (difficult to rate a game when it's not yet completed - Agon is supposed to have 14 episodes in the end), Culpa Innata (obviously, the writer hated the game). On the other hand, a mediocre game like Lost receives a good grade simply because it features some action; it's gotten the same grade (B) as Overclocked although, in my opinion, both games are worlds apart. The writers however love the Ankh series (A throughout) and, of course, Sam & Max, Penumbra (because of the action again), Tunguska and fantasy games like Everlight and Simon 4. I don't fully understand how they grade the games; in most cases I simply don't agree with them. It's also quite obvious that the writers don't like first-person-games; they always refer to them as "Myst-like" even though The Awakened has nothing in common with Myst other than that it's first person. The PC Games guys state that first person is outdated in adventure games - well, they just don't like it and I can to a certain degree relate to that because my first games using first person were pretty hard for me to play because I kept going in the wrong direction or missing items that I needed to pick up.
Still, I think it's good to have a special issue featuring adventure games alone. I especially liked an article about the top ten sins committed in adventure game design, including weird camera angles, stealth sequences, boring story, tons of dialogue and puzzles that make no sense. That was fun to read and I agree on most points; I just wouldn't have put them in a top ten order
|
| 26 JUN 2008 at 5:13am |
An_InklingSpace Cadet
Posts : 171
Joined: 20 JUN 2008
Status : Online | It's largely the other way around, Adventure gamers overrate games in the genre. Just looking at raw score, I'd probably agree more with the ratings on mainstream sites than those on JA. Though, I do agree that the scores for most other games on these sites or magazines, are too high.
The fact is, that as games, many Adventure titles are just not that good. The game part of a video game is the gameplay, what the player gets to do. In many Adventures, particularly modern ones (eg. Culpa Innata), the player does not get to do a hell of a lot. The story is entirely on rails, there are not a lot of puzzles and there is virtually no exploration, for most of the game you are listening to dialogue or watching cut-scenes, such passive reception is not gameplay.
Even the aspects that are meant to be a focus for AGs, the story, dialogue and puzzles are rarely well executed in modern games. Other genres often have better stories and dialogue. The final aspect that does not overly concern me, but is a reason for their low scores, is poor production values, most Adventure games are technically inferior to those of other genres, in terms of looks, controls, sound, music, pretty much any level.
This does not mean that game-weak games can not be enjoyable as an overall experience, but I agree with other sites or magazines reviewing the game poorly due to this weakness, especially as they are catering more for general gamers than Adventure game enthusiasts.
The good action-adventures are reviewed positively: Thief (much more Adventure than FPS), Beyond Good and Evil, Prince of Persia (many more on consoles that I only have a passing knowledge of). As are even the good Adventures, like the new Sam and Max.
I disagree with almost all mainstream reviews, but in the case of Adventure games, most are just not worthy of high scores.
One reason why even crappy games in other genres do get high scores, is that the reviewers themselves are mainstream gamers or review with that mindset. This is why rubbish like Oblivion is hailed as the best RPG ever, when it barely qualifies as part of the genre, or the dumbed down rehash of System Shock 2, Bioshock is the best FPS ever.
Who is this great burdensome slavering dog-thing that mediocres my every thought? ([i]Nick Cave - We Call Upon the Author[/i])
|
