what are some reviewers smoking here?

[shinobimusashi]

That's why I don't read the reviews

I didn't think you read much, since you hardly ever post anything over 10-15 words.

Everybody forgets that Sega-16 is a fan site, ran by 1 guy pretty much. Most of the reviews, and articles are contributed by its readers. Nobody is perfect. I don't think we have any profesional full time writers here. If the Fifa, and Super Thunder Blade reveiws are such a big deal, why don't you guys try writing something up thats proper?

[VGTM]

I didn't think you read much, since you hardly ever post anything over 10-15 words.

Well, that's because 5 to 9 there's nothing much more to say than that. 17 words ftw

[Barone]

Everybody forgets that Sega-16 is a fan site, ran by 1 guy pretty much. Most of the reviews, and articles are contributed by its readers. Nobody is perfect. I don't think we have any profesional full time writers here. If the Fifa, and Super Thunder Blade reveiws are such a big deal, why don't you guys try writing something up thats proper?

You suppose that everybody forgets... And you're wrong.

I never said that such scores make the reviewer's job less valuable or the Sega-16 less awesome.
However, I don't see why I can't just criticize this or that review without the need to write one by myself.
Sounds like any criticism is a big deal for you though...

If one says a thing about the scores, it's just a matter of opinions... If it's pointed that's not just about opinions, them there's a need to write a full review to have the point validated...
What about just accept that some of the scores can be wrong?

[shinobimusashi]

You suppose that everybody forgets... And you're wrong.

I never said that such scores make the reviewer's job less valuable or the Sega-16 less awesome.
However, I don't see why I can't just criticize this or that review without the need to write one by myself.
Sounds like any criticism is a big deal for you though...
If one says a thing about the scores, it's just a matter of opinions... If it's pointed that's not just about opinions, them there's a need to write a full review to have the point validated...
What about just accept that some of the scores can be wrong?

No big deal to me man, its all cool. I just kind of felt the need to defend the site since this thread was coming off as kind of harsh, with the "Nobody reads the reviews because they are written by a bunch of crackheads". Sega-16 has it's flaws, but I'm a pretty big fan.

Besides, that Super Thunder Blade 10/10 score is part of the classic Sega-16 lore. Like Raul Julia. Kind of an inside joke. A flaw that gives the site character. Everybody around here knows that Raul Julia is our lord, and savior, and that Super Thunder Blade is the perfect Genesis game.

[Barone]

Oh, now I understood it. Well, you may have missed, but I have said things like "Sega-16 is, by far, the best gaming site" many times...
And I'm fussy all the time. For the bad and for the good.

Sometimes too many details can sound like I hate this or that, but I'm just sick fussy myself. Just remember that I wrote that many lines to argue about 1 single point of difference in the score, hehehe!

I also don't like to spread negativism all the time, but I just gave my own examples.
There are hundreds of reviews here and I have in mind just like a dozen of ones that I strongly disagree, which is a good sign IMO.
The criticism is more toward perfection than anything else...

Firstly, I used to come to Sega-16 mainly for the reviews but today the forums are much more important for me...
I just don't like the scores at all, I think that they sometimes hurt the purpose of the review... I voted to drop the scores in the poll proposed by Melf but the vast majority prefers to have it.
IMO if we drop the scores the main attention would be given to the text and all information related to the game. There are many other threads and posts in Sega-16 regarding the disagree toward this or that score and it could have used to discuss about the games themselves... That's it.

[shinobimusashi]

I also love the Streets of Rage 1 review (6/10)

That is one score that I very strongly disagree with. The first is the best in my opinion, and at least a strong 8, maybe even a 9. I may just write up a Second Take.

[NeoVamp]

In the old site there was a way for the readers to post their own score on games.
Sadly that doesn't seem to be available anymore. It gave one sided reviews a nice balance.

aww shame that that was lost to us when the site was moved to new software,
I always found it funny to compare the reviewer score to that of the masses.

Reviewer : this game gets a lowly 6...

Everybody else : solid 8!

[ThugsRook]

i guess the reviewer failed to realize it was a SIM racer? and hated it cause it didnt play like Daytona USA?

lots of 1st person racers get chit on for not being easy enough.

[StarMist]

If the Fifa, and Super Thunder Blade reveiws are such a big deal, why don't you guys try writing something up thats proper?

>>>

As for F1, feel free to write a Second Take. http://www.sega-16.com/submissions/contribute-articles/

It doesn't work this way is why. No change to the established material is welcome. Apart even from writing articles quite a few of us posted suggestions in one of the forum feedback threads not too long ago with any number of different solutions to the logical breakdown that is the review site. What did we receive? "It's not going to happen so just forget it". That's a paraphrasis of Baloo, who's a very fair and able moderator and has been round here along with other sites for many years previous his moderatorship.

@ OP = I don't know the game in question; 16 bit racing isn't quite my thing and formula racing is very far from it; however once you're more familiar with the scoring system you may come to appreciate the rarity value of a 1. Most games score 3 to 4 points above what makes sense in accordance with the review manifest. Take the Socket review for instance, where the reviewer clearly and reasonably disliked the game yet felt compelled to give it a 6 in keeping with the site's scoring tendency. SOR's getting a 6 is a worse exm yet, as it takes into account SOR 2 and 3, which is firstly not a legitimate perspective and secondly unperceptive since the original contains elements the later games lack--not to mention SOR isn't Dynasty Warriors, there are only three of them, so one ought to be happy with anything extra beyond the more famous two.

[The Coop]

Calm down...

The abysmal Genesis port of Shadow Of The Beast II got a 7 (colors are horrid, sfx are shitty, several backgrounds lacking...)! Maybe the infite superior Sega CD version will receive a 14?

I stand by each and every score I've given.

I played the Amiga originals for SotB and SotB II, well before getting the Genesis ports. SotB was a so-so port that had people lining up to practically suck its proverbial dick after I posted my review, giving it 9s and such, and saying how great the music was. That game was given a five, after balancing out the horrid sound with the good graphics, solid gameplay, and iffy hit detection (due to the higher rate of speed at which the U.S. version ran). SotB II was a noticeably better port to the Genesis, with music that was better sounding and closer to the feel of the original tunes, more and better sounds (the Amiga game is REALLY lacking in sound effects), and solid control (with still some hit detection issues), yet with a loss in graphical "wow" factor. But then again, the Amiga original took a hit in the graphical "wow" factor over the first game as well (less interesting backgrounds, a lot less parallax, more muted colors for the foregrounds, etc.). And in fact, the Genesis sprites of your main character (and other characters) are more detailed than the Amiga originals. Yes it took a hit with the backgrounds (one for all outdoor sections, instead of three different ones), but the rest of the game fairs well against the Amiga original, and does a better job overall in bringing that game to the Genesis than the SotB port did. Hell, even the ending is at least more rewarding than what you got on the Amiga (probably to make up for the lack of an opening cinema).

With reviews that don't offer a ".5" option, SotB II came closer to a 7 than a 6 when going by the review manifest, so a 7 is what it got. The Sega CD version would be given an 8, thanks to what it received over the cart version (more color, remixed music, questionable voice acting, cinemas that range from pointless, to cool, etc.).

Don't try to compare the scores, don't even try to understand them or you'll become nuts!

The scores are easy to understand if you've read the review manifest. It's whether or not the reviewer paid attention to it, and had their numerical score reflect what they wrote. Some people didn't, but I think it's a gross over generalization to imply that all of them are that way.

[old man]

aww shame that that was lost to us when the site was moved to new software,
I always found it funny to compare the reviewer score to that of the masses.

Reviewer : this game gets a lowly 6...

Everybody else : solid 8!

lol. Exactly, that kind of reader interaction was one of the best parts of the old sites reviews. I actually think a lot of reviews were written with this in mind, or at least it was expected. So reviewers didn't feel so inclined to mince words and were more honest with their opinions.

I've found the reader score on the new site reviews, but they're kind of hidden away at the bottom, negatively highlighted, and in a small font. The old site was much easier to read and if I remember correctly had the reader average in big bold letters right next to the review score. The new site seems to put more emphasis on pushing twitter and BS RSS feeds.

[shinobimusashi]

>>>


It doesn't work this way is why. No change to the established material is welcome.

Dude, really? Anyone can write a second take for any game that doesn't already have one written for it. Ken has allowed me to change my reviews a few times, even after they have been "Established".

Also, all of this complaining about reader comments on the review page, and all you have to do is register here: http://www.sega-16.com/?user_page=us...&register_user

After that, you are free to score, and comment on each review. Aside from the fact that very few reviews have any reader comments, or scores, everything else is pretty close to the same as the old site.



I don't know, I guess I just kind of get frustrated when hard work goes unappreciated. Ken worked pretty hard to get Sega-16 back up, and running. Sure, it isn't exactly the same as the old site, and it does have its flaws, as mentioned here in this thread, but give the guy a break. The man has a family, and a full time job. I think Sega-16 is still pretty awesome. Threads like these that nitpick, and complain about everthing not being top grade, professional quality are kind of stupid. As if there is an infinite amount of money, time, and resources to work with here.

Riddle me this. Where is there a better site on the internet dedicated to the Sega Genesis? What about an equivelent site for any other gaming console? SNES? Dreamcast? Saturn? Links please(If they do exist, I really am interested).

[StarMist]

Dude, really? Anyone can write a second take for any game that doesn't already have one written for it. Ken has allowed me to change my reviews a few times, even after they have been "Established".

Yet there are how many Double Takes? 20 at most? Somehow I suspect that Super Thunderblade review has got 20 DT offers alone.
By no alteration to established material I meant, unmistakably, the replacement of nonsense scores or reviews with new that make sense. Making sense doesn't mean being uniformly popular, some reviews are simply ill conceived and ill argued; making sense of a score would entail nothing more than adjusting it to fit with the ratings manifest and the criticism it's attached to. Other reviewers such as The Coop and Zebbe seem to have got it right every try.

As if there is an infinite amount of money, time, and resources to work with here.

There has been a wealth of community offers to do these things. Even if he hasn't time to read the new contributions he may delegate it to a former writer who does, or reviews could be put up in the forums and voted upon--in all aspects from grammar to cohesion, not just broad evaluation of the game.
In short there are always solutions if one seeks them, and always none when one does not.

Riddle me this. Where is there a better site on the internet dedicated to the Sega Genesis? What about an equivelent site for any other gaming console? SNES? Dreamcast? Saturn? Links please(If they do exist, I really am interested).

Nobody's bashing the site, they're suggesting improvements. But as Baloo affirmed in that other thread I earlier alluded to members have been petitioning for changes to the reviews for years.

[Melf]

It doesn't work this way is why. No change to the established material is welcome. Apart even from writing articles quite a few of us posted suggestions in one of the forum feedback threads not too long ago with any number of different solutions to the logical breakdown that is the review site. What did we receive? "It's not going to happen so just forget it".

You forgot to mention how implementing such changes would require massive changes to the software and design of the site, something I cannot afford. That's a pretty major detail.

@ OP = I don't know the game in question; 16 bit racing isn't quite my thing and formula racing is very far from it; however once you're more familiar with the scoring system you may come to appreciate the rarity value of a 1. Most games score 3 to 4 points above what makes sense in accordance with the review manifest. Take the Socket review for instance, where the reviewer clearly and reasonably disliked the game yet felt compelled to give it a 6 in keeping with the site's scoring tendency. SOR's getting a 6 is a worse exm yet, as it takes into account SOR 2 and 3, which is firstly not a legitimate perspective and secondly unperceptive since the original contains elements the later games lack--not to mention SOR isn't Dynasty Warriors, there are only three of them, so one ought to be happy with anything extra beyond the more famous two.

Look at the bolded part. That is precisely what the Review Manifest is designed to do. On the one hand, you're complaining about the reviewer using the Manifest to score to avoid simply slapping a score on the review according to his emotions, and on the other hand, you're complaining about a reviewer doing not being allowed to score based on emotion. You can't have it both ways. The RM was implemented as A DIRECT RESULT of the negative feedback to the Super Thunderblade review, as I agreed that reviewers shouldn't just score a game on a whim. They need to consider all the elements involved and make an informed decision about scoring, not just giving it a number based on their emotional state at the time. We implement a structured review system and what do readers do? They complain about reviewers not being able to score games on a whim. I prefer to err on the side of structure, which is why the RM exists.

lol. Exactly, that kind of reader interaction was one of the best parts of the old sites reviews. I actually think a lot of reviews were written with this in mind, or at least it was expected. So reviewers didn't feel so inclined to mince words and were more honest with their opinions.

Reader interaction has not changed at all. You can still give a reader score for a game - just like before. The score still appears at the bottom of the review after the reviewer's score - just like before. You can still leave comments in a review - just like before. You still have to register to give a reader score - just like before.

What exactly, has changed?

I've found the reader score on the new site reviews, but they're kind of hidden away at the bottom, negatively highlighted, and in a small font. The old site was much easier to read and if I remember correctly had the reader average in big bold letters right next to the review score. The new site seems to put more emphasis on pushing twitter and BS RSS feeds.

Two small icons in the upper right corner of the page = emphasis? Really?

I agree that the reader review scores should be right next to the reviewer's but WordPress doesn't permit that. Still, I think the big, red stars at the bottom of the page are pretty hard to miss. If people are too ADD to scroll down after the pictures, I can't do anything about that.

Yet there are how many Double Takes? 20 at most? Somehow I suspect that Super Thunderblade review has got 20 DT offers alone.

Ironically, the STB review has received ZERO DT offers. People prefer to constantly complain about it instead, which is what happens every time one of these threads appears. People complain and ignore the steps taken to fix their complaints. I have done everything possible to appease all complaints, but you can't please everyone. Maybe if we got more DT offers and fewer complaints...

By no alteration to established material I meant, unmistakably, the replacement of nonsense scores or reviews with new that make sense. Making sense doesn't mean being uniformly popular, some reviews are simply ill conceived and ill argued; making sense of a score would entail nothing more than adjusting it to fit with the ratings manifest and the criticism it's attached to. Other reviewers such as The Coop and Zebbe seem to have got it right every try.

Replacing reviews means giving one person's opinion more validity than others. Who are you or I to say that someone else's opinion is wrong and ours are right? Who makes that call? What is a "nonsense" review to you might be completely right to someone else. Reviewers have - and have always had - the right to make any changes to their reviews they choose to, but I WILL NOT swap out a review because someone doesn't agree with it. That's what the reader scores and comments are for.

Since the RM was implemented, scores have mostly kept in line with it. Most of the reviews people have mentioned here (Columns, Super Thunderblade, Streets of Rage) about were written long before the RT.

There has been a wealth of community offers to do these things. Even if he hasn't time to read the new contributions he may delegate it to a former writer who does, or reviews could be put up in the forums and voted upon--in all aspects from grammar to cohesion, not just broad evaluation of the game.
In short there are always solutions if one seeks them, and always none when one does not.

I don't know how long you've been reading the site, but you're ignoring seven and 1/2 years of evolution completely. You're ignoring all the changes to the site design - based on reader feedback, the integration of the forum with a section devoted specifically to site content - based on reader feedback, the implementation of reader review scores and comments - based on reader feedback, - the implementation of the Double Take series -based on reader feedback.

Every single offer is taken into consideration, but not every one can be implemented. That's the difference. You'll remember I asked for donations to pay for the site restructuring and security upgrades? You see the ads? Guess who pays for this - who has been paying for it since 2004? Running a site like this is not cheap, and I have made every accomodation to fans possible.

And you know what? Most of the complaints come from the forum. I almost never get emails complaining about how the articles are structured. Instead, I mostly get actual article contributions. It seems that only some people on the forum don't see or appreciate all the changes made, no matter how many of these threads we have every few months.

Nobody's bashing the site, they're suggesting improvements. But as Baloo affirmed in that other thread I earlier alluded to members have been petitioning for changes to the reviews for years.

And they've been implemented when possible. I won't mince words here. You have no IDEA how much it pisses me off when people suggest I don't listen to feedback or criticism, when the entire site design has completley changed 4 times as a direct result of it. Feedback is the basis for this site, and like I said, we implement suggestions when we can. I just don't understand why people start these threads and completely ignore almost eight years worth of improvement and tweaking.

[Baloo]

You guys forgot one KEY thing I said in that other thread about review scores:

Reviews are an opinion of ONE particular person. ONE person is not always going to have the exact same opinion of thing as the masses do, or any other person. You have to remember that you have to take all reviews with a grain of salt, and that with a website database that has games reviews from at least 50 different people, you're not going to agree with every review.

And remember, we DO have a comments section, as well as a rate section for the game, so you can't complain that there isn't one anymore, because you just didn't look hard enough. I don't mean to sound harsh here, but if you scrolled a little past the review, you would see it. So if you don't agree with a review, you can always do one of these:

-Write a Double Take of it. I'm not sure why people are so against these, because they're not "Exactly" the same as reviews. You're writing an article about a game and putting a different spin on a game you may like or dislike that got a different opinion on the site. A review score really doesn't make a difference here, when you're trying to get a particular point across of if a game is good, bad, or meh in my opinion.

-Write a comment and rate the game on the review! They'll be noticed, because there's even a feed on every page that shows the most recent comments, and you can sort articles by the most comments.