what are some reviewers smoking here?

[Barone]

I would say the same thing that Kollision said...

The fun that you had with OutRunners and your childhood memories don't make the game be "9. Excellent on every level, usually only flawed in a single, minor area.".

The scaling is awful, in some parts you really don't know what that track-side objects were supposed to be and some seem to be flying or something.
The sounds are very annoying during the game (those distorted screams all the time are really bad...).

In several aspects, the game is a step down compared to OutRun, that was released 3 years before.

The review text briefly mentions the forced split-screen problem and the graphics, but overhypes about the voice samples that are more annoying than anything after you start playing.
You said that the forced split-screen is the reason to detracted colors when compared to the other OutRun games. However, IMO the main problem is that it implicated in very few other cars in your way even when you're in single-player mode. And that makes everything more boring.

I also don't see enough reasons to sell the game to your readers like that: "This game, in my opinion at least is the best racer in the Genesis library. "
Maybe you could say "The funniest" based on your personal experiences but to say that it is "at least the best" implies lots of things and I really doubt that OutRunners can stand for them all.

And I can tell you that I tried this game several times with different friends... They all looked at me, after 10-15 minutes of playing, with the same "save me from this nightmare!" face.

[Phantar]

Do comments have to be approved before they show up? I've never left one before now and wanted to be certain that the server didn't just eat it.

It'll take a while to be visible - it's a measure to avoid spam. It should go up soon!

[The Coop]

agostinhobaroners + Kollision- Like it or not, "fun" is and should be a factor in determining a game's score. As I said with the Warning Forever example, looking at the game from a purely factual basis could lead you to give the game anywhere from a four to a six. The graphics are basic, the sound isn't exactly well rounded, and the gameplay really isn't doing much new. The controls are good, and the way the ships build up is pretty cool, but again, using only those areas, it's hard to give WF a good score... until you actually start playing it. That's when everything comes together, and you see the design choices put into use. Just as visual and aural design is going to affected by personal choices ("I really disliked the armor designs, as they seemed unwieldy and far too elaborate for such a game," "the music was generic rock, not really worth listening to beyond one or two decent tracks," "the characters try to be different, but instead only come out looking like rejected design ideas from better games," etc.), so too is whether the game was enjoyable, despite some of its problems or lower quality traits.

Does that mean "fun" should take a game that's getting a five, and bump it up to a nine? Or that a personal memory that's attached to a game (first one you got, given to you by a relative the day before they died, etc.) should affect the score? Of course not, as that would be bordering on criminally silly. But should "fun" be discounted entirely? No, because that would be doing a disservice to the review. You'd be leaving out a key piece of information from the reviewer, or ignoring how it would/could affect the game for other people. Writing something like, "I felt, that despite it's flaws, the game was a lot of fun. Some technical issues aside, the simple visuals begin to grow on you, and with some adjustments to the control layout in the options screen, a more intuitive way to play can be setup," only to follow it up with a numerical score of four, comes off as rather at odds with some of the review. So while "fun" shouldn't give a bad game a good score, that the reviewer enjoyed the game shouldn't be tossed out the window either. But rather, it should just be another smaller piece of the overall puzzle that gets put to together for the end after everything's been examined.

But, that's just my opinion on the matter. Take it or dismiss it as you see fit.

[Kollision]

jeeez, you guys write a lot!!!
I didn't disregard considerations on fun factor, I was just trying to emphasize how important IMO it is to be impartial in any sort of review/analysis.

[Barone]

@Coop

I don't know, but I think I never stated that the "fun factor" should be dropped and I do like/love several games that had very little to offer in the tech department (heck, I played the hell out of my father's Atari 2600 during my childhood).

However, I do think that it just should not be overpowered or used to solely justify a 9 or 10; or the lack of that a 0 or 1. 'Cause, after all, the "fun factor" in the most subjective and controversial factor in the analysis process.
We had lots of that stuff happening with those old magazines: many great games were panned for esoteric reasons and many crap ones were prized. Everybody is susceptible to make mistakes, but I'm sure that nobody here (reader, reviewers...) want that old bias anymore.

I also think that a review should consider, with some importance but not high, what is the hardware running the games. Both to "forgive" limitations and to know when it could have offered a lot more. It's completely different than use the better or the very tricky ones (like Treasure's or some later titles) as the default expectation for the technical achievement level.
It's just about put the good sense into use. IMO we can't forgive too many flaws in the tech department (like very annoying sounds or silent fighting games; graphics that fail to reproduce what they were intended to or that makes the gameplay confusing; bad programmed engines that makes the game runs at 10 fps when similar ones from near release dates run at 30 in the same console; lagged controls; heavy flickering...) using the "fun factor" without having some proportional drop in the score.

Some games and genres of games would be impossible or much less meaningful in 8-bit consoles due to the hardware limitations. And it occurs in every generation... Like fighting games for the 16-bit era or FPS games for the 32-bit (but there are several others and better examples). The "bullet hell" scrolling shooters are another example, sadly.

Like I said before, Atari 2600 had great games and I love them. NES had dozens of freakin' great games. SMS had some midblowing games...
But very few guys, and not millions, would have bought a Genesis/Mega Drive if it had failed to deliver what was expected from 16-bit graphics, music, sfx and gameplay by just receiving ports or sequels of the best games of those consoles without noticeable technical improvements.

I don't know if I made my point clear or not, but that's what I managed to write this time...

[Da_Shocker]

I'm not going to read through all of this drival but man oh man I seen this and Fifa jsut looks like ass to ISSS. I don't like liek soccer at all but ISSS makes me want to play it.

[old man]

lol. I was wondering where this thread got off too. Wasn't it in the 32x forum originally? Anyway, Melf, I'm sorry for my wording earlier. I wasn't trying to shit on all your hard work. This is my favorite site to visit, and I think you and everyone you've got helping you have done a great job. So, I'll try to keep my criticism a bit more constructive.

The feed links are at the bottom and the top of the screen on every screen. Then there's more of them under the "Share This Article" heading on the article pages as well. After looking through a few pages it just seems like I'm being bombarded with them. I think it's cool to have all that stuff out in the open and in big and bold on the main page. On the article pages, though, I think the emphasis should be on the articles themselves more than anything. On those pages maybe things in the side bar could be minimized or shrunk to give the article itself a little more 'presence'. Also I think the login stuff would go well at the bottom with the 'comments' section.

The bottom of the article pages also seem cluttered. Not in the sense that it's overwhelming, but in the sense that you've got a lot of unrelated stuff crammed together down there. Maybe the 'tags' and 'Share This Article' links could be moved to the sidebar. Also, if there is a way to put the screen shot/links in the sidebar I think that would work well too. It would be more like the old site (to me anyway). I know your working with in the limitations of wordpress templates though, and I realize some of this stuff just isn't feasible.

I guess I should have dropped this in a pm or email, but at least this way the other members can tell me to go to hell on your behalf.

@Phantar: I don't know how well you speak English, but you write it very, very well.

edit: one more thing then I'll stop my bitching. I think the 'rating' should be changed to 'user rating'.

[VinnyT]

I really enjoyed reading through this entire thread. Some great conversation, with people taking this stuff seriously, which is always a great thing.

Also, none of my stuff was bashed! (Prepares himself. Maybe)

[InternalPrimate]

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.



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.



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?



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.



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...



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.



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.



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.

Internet high-five! I've written for a number of websites, but Ken was the first person to give me a chance to write for a site with good readership. I've been back and forth with my involvement in this site over the last 4 or 5 years, but one thing has never changed: Ken is by far and away the best editor to write for. He's open to ideas, helpful, and very supportive.

I got a chance to work with Ken in a small way during the site migration to Wordpress, and he went out of way to give readers what they wanted even though it wasn't easy to implement things with the new software. To suggest that Sega 16 doesn't listen to its readers isn't just ridiculous, it's not true.