Quantcast

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: Star Odyssey

  1. #31
    Raging in the Streets SEGA.GENESIS1989's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,454
    Rep Power
    76

    Default

    A review always is based on one's opinion. Are there reviews that I disagree with? The answer is yes. However ever individual's opinion is affected by their likes and dislikes. Some with like RPGs, others will enjoy platformers, while others will enjoy FPS, etc. In this light, you cannot fault the reviewer for scoring a game higher or lower than what you would have given. And therefore Melf need not be apologetic in terms of the score he gave.

    If I may make a suggestion: In the future, if there are changes to the SEGA-16 web site there really should be an option for readers to offer their opinion and or give a user score on the main review page. In this way a reader could get a average score of a game. Akin to what we see on sites like Metacritic: they have an average score for reviewers and an average score for users.

    Cheers!

  2. #32
    The Coop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Outskirts of B.F.E.
    Posts
    4,102
    Rep Power
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    I disagree completely. I expect a game made by a big company with resources to be worth my time and money. I also try to give smaller developers a chance because I know they don't have the resources companies like EA have. Who made a game and what kind of effort was put into it does have an influence on me because it's my money I'm spending. If I pay $60 for a game that had an insane budget and a massive development team and am disappointed with it, I feel robbed (hello God of War 3!). Developers and publishers have reputations for a reason.
    Indeed developers do, but they earn those reputations through the skills they show, and the end product. Not budgets, development time and all that, the end product. I don't care if it's one man in his parent's basement, or fifty men working for Blizzard, I'll judge their games on equal footing. The graphics, graphic design/style, the music, the sound effects, the gameplay, the hit detection, controls, the story (if there is one), the animation... all of it, balancing what it seemed they were going for visually, aurally and gameplay-wise (modern? retro? 8-bit? etc.), with what the end result actually was and how good it is at what it strives to be (RPG? shmup? fighter? etc.).

    To judge games based on how big their development assets were smacks of a double standard, and I refuse to go that route. Big budget, low budget... they're both games, and they'll both be reviewed as games on the same playing field.

    For something that's similar in nature, I'll post this. It may be about indie games, but it still mirrors my thoughts when talking about big team and budget vs small team and budget in terms of reviews...





    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    But you just said it didn't matter who made the game. If you play a game by Wolf Team and it sucks, are you going to blindly go buy another game by them? I'm going to be at least more wary if I play it, especially if it's for review.
    I'm not sure just what you're trying to imply against my comment here, to be honest. It seems like you're pointing to a contradiction that just isn't there, as what you quoted went right in line with what I'd said before it. However, I'd like to ask you what you meant by the bolded part. That came across in several ways, and I don't want to jump to the wrong conclusion.
    Last edited by The Coop; 07-14-2011 at 01:24 AM.


    Currently Reviewing: Desert Strike (SMS), Galaxy Force (SMS)
    Coming Up:TF3 Side by Side
    Done: Jim Power: The Lost Dimension

  3. #33
    a.k.a. hombreimaginario Outrunner synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Málaga, Spain
    Age
    39
    Posts
    626
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    You don't need a receipt to know if a game had a decent budget or not. It shows in the game itself. A triple A game made by Capcom's best studio is most definitely going to have a bigger budget than a small team contracted by Sage's Creation. That's going to influence the amount of artists and programmers that can be hired, how much money there is for development time, and what kind of assets can developed or purchased. That's going to reflect in the final product.
    But it must NOT influence how YOU review it, because it's not your problem.
    Or else you're ok with being influenced by the fact that a game is indie or unlicensed. If the indie factor IS a factor, then unlicensed games should be reviewed as such, like in a different section or with different rating systems... or none at all. Because, apparently, they can't be compared to the rest of the games.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    How do you expect someone to know if something is good or not if they have nothing similar to compare it to? If you wanted to see Zookeeper (another example of yours) and asked me if it was good, and I replied "it's better than Brokeback Mountain." How on Earth would that help you?
    Ok, forget it. You know exactly what I mean but seem more interested in keeping the same discussion. When you go to the movies and you need to choose what ticket you buy, you do exactly that: you choose. And you do it depending on which movie you think is better, no matter the genre. You may check rottentomatoes.com for reviews and scores. If you see Casino scores 95% and Cars 2 scores 35% you know the former is a better movie. But let's leave THIS example/metaphor/whatever as it's taking nowhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    So then, if my 4-year-old daughter is painting right alongside Picasso, using the same materials, I should evaluate her painting on the same scale as his. They're using the same materials and they're both painting, right? So it's the same thing. Wouldn't it be more fair to evaluate how each one used those materials based on their particular skills and knowledge? Am I to assume that my daughter should know as much as Picasso because she's doing the same thing as him? That wouldn't be fair to either her or him because she obviously doesn't have the training or knowledge he does, and I'm ignoring his experience.
    Again, I think you understood my example perfectly, but if you prefer to keep debating this, your daughter's paintings would never appear in the same catalog / magazine / newspaper / expo / exhibit as Picasso's. Their paintings wouldn't get rated by the same critics. She would never compete with him, and her paintings wouldn't be available in the same auction (well, you never know these days :P)
    Please, let us not get too ridiculous when discussing these things.


    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    Brandon might be able to give a bit more on this than I, but being a professional developer doesn't mean you instantly know how to use all aspects of a particular console. This is why games tend to look much better later on in a console's lifespan. Compare early Genesis games to the stuff being released by 1995. There's a big difference there. How long had Hot-B been making Mega Drive games when it made Blue Almanac? The console itself was only 2 years-old, so I doubt they were experts.
    But that's NOT your problem as a reviewer!! You can take the age of the game into account, yes, but not who made it and how. It's reasonable that you compare games from 1991 with other games from the same year and not from 3 years later when programmers knew the hardware better, yes. But when comparing the game with others from 1991 you shouldn't think of who made it and if they had had time to learn. If they hadn't but others had by that time, it's their problem and not yours. If it's fun, it's fun, and if it sucks, it sucks (well said!).

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    SFT didn't make any changes to the graphics, music, or the way the game actually played, did they? If not, that has to be taken into account as well. I do agree that games themselves should be weighed against other RPGs on the console.
    Sounds reasonable to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    I disagree. I think that how something is made directly influences the gaming experience and should be taken into consideration. A lot of times, the experience is influenced by the process. A game can feel lifeless and generic because it was rushed out the door to make a particular date.
    If it sucks, it sucks. As the user, you'll feel ripped off if a game you just bought is bad, no matter who made it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    Another game could feel like a labor of love because the developers treated its development with love and respect.
    If it's fun, it's fun. No matter who made it.
    I agree with you here, but it's still not your problem if the developer had to face dificulties during development. Should we rate Duke Nukem Forever higher because it's a game that took 15 years to be finished?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    How can who made the game not be something to take into account? Do you honestly expect Acclaim games to be as good as Konami's then?
    No, I just don't care if it's Konami or Gamtec as long as the game rocks, or as long as the game sucks. Whatever the case I may think "oh, so Konami screwed up" or "oh, nice, so Konami made this gem". But the author's name is not a factor that influences the product itself and it definitely shouldn't influence the rating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    I disagree completely. I expect a game made by a big company with resources to be worth my time and money. I also try to give smaller developers a chance because I know they don't have the resources companies like EA have. Who made a game and what kind of effort was put into it does have an influence on me because it's my money I'm spending. If I pay $60 for a game that had an insane budget and a massive development team and am disappointed with it, I feel robbed (hello God of War 3!). Developers and publishers have reputations for a reason.
    But who's discussing that??? That actually has nothing to do with the debate, if you ask me.
    A chance, yes, of course. Condescendance, no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    But you just said it didn't matter who made the game. If you play a game by Wolf Team and it sucks, are you going to blindly go buy another game by them? I'm going to be at least more wary if I play it, especially if it's for review.
    Maybe, but you're supposed to provide an unbiased review whatever the case. Actually, you could just as well completely ignore who made it before playing the game for the first time.
    Last edited by synapse; 07-14-2011 at 03:51 AM.

  4. #34
    Pirate King Phantar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,468
    Rep Power
    82

    Default

    Honestly, I'll have to agree with synapse on this one. As great as it is to have new games come out after all these years, I don't think it's right to grant them additional leeway when reviewing them. It's a laudable effort, sure, and it should be mentioned in the review. However, the score should reflect how much fun is in playing the game. If I may quote from the Review Manifest:

    Each game is rated on a scale from one to ten and reflect how much we enjoyed the overall experience of playing it compared to other similar titles or weighed against its own flaws.
    If you draw additional enjoyment from knowing that this is the effort of a small company, or an independent game - fair enough. If the review states that, I can accept that notion. However, this should not deter from giving a review as objective as possible. Yeah, reviewers are people too and like certain aspects more or les than others. That doesn't keep me from constantly asking myself the question: Will others feel the same way?

    I still have to play this game (my order hasn't shipped yet). From what I've seen, though, I'm not sure that this game should receive the same rating as a Beggar Prince or rank better than Phantasy Star III. Would it have gotten the same treatment if it had been reviewed back in the day? Somehow, I doubt that.

    Don't get me wrong, I highly appreciate the efforts by everyone trying to bring new games to an old console. And we should encourage others to try and produce new games as well. Praise where praise is due. But when reviewing the games, they are just that: games! A reviewer should not go easy on those releases. It may just be my personal opinion, but by lavishly overlooking a few flaws just because it's a new release by a small team, it cheapens the efforts of every other homebrew team out there: Why should they put too much work into it, if the game is going to get a good review anyway?

    I'm happy for every new release, but I'm even happier if it's a really good one that can truly compare with other titles from back in the day.
    The funny thing about an oxymoron is, even if you remove the ox, there'll always be a moron. The Question Remains: Y?

  5. #35
    a.k.a. hombreimaginario Outrunner synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Málaga, Spain
    Age
    39
    Posts
    626
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantar View Post
    Don't get me wrong, I highly appreciate the efforts by everyone trying to bring new games to an old console. And we should encourage others to try and produce new games as well. Praise where praise is due. But when reviewing the games, they are just that: games! A reviewer should not go easy on those releases. It may just be my personal opinion, but by lavishly overlooking a few flaws just because it's a new release by a small team, it cheapens the efforts of every other homebrew team out there
    EXACTLY.

  6. #36
    Blast processor Melf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cabo Rojo, PR
    Posts
    9,758
    Rep Power
    152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Coop View Post
    Indeed developers do, but they earn those reputations through the skills they show, and the end product. Not budgets, development time and all that, the end product. I don't care if it's one man in his parent's basement, or fifty men working for Blizzard, I'll judge their games on equal footing. The graphics, graphic design/style, the music, the sound effects, the gameplay, the hit detection, controls, the story (if there is one), the animation... all of it, balancing what it seemed they were going for visually, aurally and gameplay-wise (modern? retro? 8-bit? etc.), with what the end result actually was and how good it is at what it strives to be (RPG? shmup? fighter? etc.).
    Do you think all games that turn out well do so only because of the skills of the developers? Things like budget and development time allotted have EVERYTHING to do with how well a game turns out because those developers can't show their skills if they're understaffed, don't have enough money, or the publisher slices 2 months off the development cycle to make a street date. A lot of the games we call great now are so because the developers were given the staff, money, and time they needed to MAKE that great game. Look at Fantasia, everyone says it's crap because of the control. If you read our interview with Al Nielson, you'll see he explains that the game needed 2 months more in development to fix the gameplay, but Sega rushed it out the door. How can you not take that into account? If a game has bad control, don't you want to know why?

    I'll use my movie example here again. It's like you go to the movies and wonder what to see. I'm coming out of the theater and you ask me how Transformers 3 was. I answer "it sucked" and walk away. Is that enough for you to decide to see or not see the movie? I guess it might be for some people, but I'm not like that (which is all I'm saying over the past 2 pages). I need to know more. I want to know who's directing, who's starring, what it's about etc. A movie just being good or bad without explanation isn't enough for me.

    how good it is at what it strives to be (RPG? shmup? fighter? etc.)
    I agree 100% with this, which is funny, because this entire debate started with me being criticized for not doing exactly that.

    To judge games based on how big their development assets were smacks of a double standard, and I refuse to go that route. Big budget, low budget... they're both games, and they'll both be reviewed as games on the same playing field.
    Of course you're going to review them the same way; I never said you shouldn't. What I'm saying is that you can't judge the product while ignoring its development, because the things you're going to criticize or praise stem DIRECTLY from that development.

    I'm not sure just what you're trying to imply against my comment here, to be honest. It seems like you're pointing to a contradiction that just isn't there, as what you quoted went right in line with what I'd said before it. However, I'd like to ask you what you meant by the bolded part. That came across in several ways, and I don't want to jump to the wrong conclusion.
    No contradiction. I'm just saying that if I play a game by a company and it sucks, I'm going to be a bit more careful the next time one of their titles comes my way. If the game is for review, I'm going to be even more cautious, because I have to evaluate it for the public. If it's for me, I can toss the game aside and move on, but for a review, I have to be ready to explain and justify what I say.

    Quote Originally Posted by synapse View Post
    But it must NOT influence how YOU review it, because it's not your problem.
    Or else you're ok with being influenced by the fact that a game is indie or unlicensed. If the indie factor IS a factor, then unlicensed games should be reviewed as such, like in a different section or with different rating systems... or none at all. Because, apparently, they can't be compared to the rest of the games.
    It IS my problem because I'm paying for the game or playing it to review it. I have to deal with whatever mistakes were made during development, because they don't just disappear when the game arrives in stores. People hated Iron Man: The Game because of shitty control and a poor camera, all the direct result of a rushed development. That final product you play is the final result of whatever happens during development. You can't just divorce the two.

    Ok, forget it. You know exactly what I mean but seem more interested in keeping the same discussion. When you go to the movies and you need to choose what ticket you buy, you do exactly that: you choose. And you do it depending on which movie you think is better, no matter the genre. You may check rottentomatoes.com for reviews and scores. If you see Casino scores 95% and Cars 2 scores 35% you know the former is a better movie. But let's leave THIS example/metaphor/whatever as it's taking nowhere.
    The problem is that you keeping jumping back and forth between two arguments. Here you imply that you're just going to see a movie and choose whichever one looks more interesting. That's not the same as comparing two films to tell people which is the better one and why.

    Again, I think you understood my example perfectly, but if you prefer to keep debating this, your daughter's paintings would never appear in the same catalog / magazine / newspaper / expo / exhibit as Picasso's. Their paintings wouldn't get rated by the same critics. She would never compete with him, and her paintings wouldn't be available in the same auction (well, you never know these days :P)
    Please, let us not get too ridiculous when discussing these things.
    Now you're contradicting yourself, and you just gave 3 reasons why you shouldn't directly compare 2 games from different genres, effectively making my point. My daughter and Picasso are far too different to be compared. But using your own argument, didn't you say that 2 games appearing on the same console is enough for them to be compared? If a puzzle game can be compared to a basketball game, can't an amateur painter be compared to a professional one? What if it's a painting website showing the two paintings? That never happens.

    But that's NOT your problem as a reviewer!! You can take the age of the game into account, yes, but not who made it and how. It's reasonable that you compare games from 1991 with other games from the same year and not from 3 years later when programmers knew the hardware better, yes. But when comparing the game with others from 1991 you shouldn't think of who made it and if they had had time to learn. If they hadn't but others had by that time, it's their problem and not yours. If it's fun, it's fun, and if it sucks, it sucks (well said!).
    Again, your argument contradicts itself, if you're not going to take who made a game into account when you review it, why should you do so for one made by them 3 years later when they know the hardware better? You tell me their knowledge means nothing and then say it does later on. This is obviously just a difference in criteria, and all I've been saying this whole thread is that I don't just play a game, watch a movie, read a book, etc. on a whim without checking who made it, who is in it, what's about, etc. I like to know what I'm getting into. Others don't and that's cool, I'm just saying that you shouldn't be offended that not everyone else does.

    If it sucks, it sucks. As the user, you'll feel ripped off if a game you just bought is bad, no matter who made it.
    So then from now on, all our reviews will just say "it's good" or "it sucks" and nothing else.

    I agree with you here, but it's still not your problem if the developer had to face dificulties during development. Should we rate Duke Nukem Forever higher because it's a game that took 15 years to be finished?
    You shouldn't rate it higher, and no one has. In fact, every reviewer out there has been MORE cautious in reviewing it because it had a development time around 10 times longer than most games. Have you read any DNF reviewers where they completely neglect to mention its development specifically because it "doesn't matter?' The publisher is expecting people to buy it, and I know you're not going to blindly plop down $50 without asking about it first. If you did, you wouldn't even be reading our reviews in the first place, because their whole purpose is to let people know whether a game is worth playing.

    No, I just don't care if it's Konami or Gamtec as long as the game rocks, or as long as the game sucks. Whatever the case I may think "oh, so Konami screwed up" or "oh, nice, so Konami made this gem". But the author's name is not a factor that influences the product itself and it definitely shouldn't influence the rating.
    Understandable. I just like to know why a game sucks or rocks. The developer's name DOES influence because people don't go into a Treasure or Bioware game with the same attitude and expectations they had going into an LJN or Acclaim game.

    A chance, yes, of course. Condescendance, no.
    This is the second time you've accused me of being condescending, and I'd like to know why. Where did I speak to you like that? Was it just because I don't share your opinion on how games should be rated?

    Maybe, but you're supposed to provide an unbiased review whatever the case. Actually, you could just as well completely ignore who made it before playing the game for the first time.
    "Fool me once, shame on you..."

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantar View Post
    Honestly, I'll have to agree with synapse on this one. As great as it is to have new games come out after all these years, I don't think it's right to grant them additional leeway when reviewing them. It's a laudable effort, sure, and it should be mentioned in the review. However, the score should reflect how much fun is in playing the game. If I may quote from the Review Manifest:

    If you draw additional enjoyment from knowing that this is the effort of a small company, or an independent game - fair enough. If the review states that, I can accept that notion. However, this should not deter from giving a review as objective as possible. Yeah, reviewers are people too and like certain aspects more or les than others. That doesn't keep me from constantly asking myself the question: Will others feel the same way?
    You need to quote the entire section to get what I'm saying:

    Each game is rated on a scale from one to ten and reflect how much we enjoyed the overall experience of playing it compared to other similar titles or weighed against its own flaws. The numerical ratings are meant to give our readers an overall idea of what to expect from a particular title, and they should not be considered etched in stone like a constitutional right.
    I still have to play this game (my order hasn't shipped yet). From what I've seen, though, I'm not sure that this game should receive the same rating as a Beggar Prince or rank better than Phantasy Star III. Would it have gotten the same treatment if it had been reviewed back in the day? Somehow, I doubt that.
    No it wouldn't have gotten the same treatment. In fact, I bet reviews would be all over the place, because people have different opinions. That's all I've been saying this whole thread. I've been criticized because I ranked SO higher than a game that's totally different and wasn't even reviewed by me! It makes no sense to me. I'm supposed to keep in mind what others think of a game when I'm going to write my opinion? Whose opinion am I expressing then, theirs or mine? That's not how I review things.

    Don't get me wrong, I highly appreciate the efforts by everyone trying to bring new games to an old console. And we should encourage others to try and produce new games as well. Praise where praise is due. But when reviewing the games, they are just that: games! A reviewer should not go easy on those releases. It may just be my personal opinion, but by lavishly overlooking a few flaws just because it's a new release by a small team, it cheapens the efforts of every other homebrew team out there: Why should they put too much work into it, if the game is going to get a good review anyway?
    That's the thing. The part of the Review Manifest you yourself quoted states that we should review a game based on our overall experience, but I'm being criticized for not reviewing based on someone else's. Had I experienced the problems Joe had with Beggar Prince, I would have knocked the score down considerably, but I didn't have those problems. Thus, I didn't overlook the flaws because I didn't experience them. That doesn't mean they should be completely ignored, which they weren't. I did mention the save problem in BP and the too-frequent random battles and repetitive music in SO. Those were factors in me scoring both games the way I did. I had very pleasant experiences with both. Not everyone did, and I'm aware of that. I had a blast playing Snatcher and gave it a 9, and there are people on this forum who hated it.

    I'm sure that just as there are many who disagree with the way I scored both games, there are many who agree. That's the nature of subjective reviews. I don't know why so many people are offended because I don't share their opinion. I'm not offended that they don't share mine. I enjoy this kind of discussion when it's about the merit of the review and game themselves, but when people start insulting or making veiled jabs, it does get annoying. The same thing happened with Beggar Prince, where some people had the audacity to even suggest I was being paid off by SFT, and that's just bullshit. But when I call them out on it, I'm accused of not being able to handle constructive criticism.

    The bottom line is this: I want feedback. I ENCOURAGE feedback. Were that not so, this discussion wouldn't even be happening, because the forum would not exist. The contact form wouldn't exist, there would be no reader comments allowed, and you wouldn't be able to score the game yourselves alongside the reviewer's. People in this thread mentioned constructive criticism and being open to change, but they have presented examples of neither one. Please, tell me what else can be done to show that feedback is welcome? The only thing I am against is multiple reviews for games. That's a whole other thread though...
    Last edited by Melf; 07-14-2011 at 10:18 AM.

  7. #37
    a.k.a. hombreimaginario Outrunner synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Málaga, Spain
    Age
    39
    Posts
    626
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    I'll use my movie example here again. It's like you go to the movies and wonder what to see. I'm coming out of the theater and you ask me how Transformers 3 was. I answer "it sucked" and walk away. Is that enough for you to decide to see or not see the movie? I guess it might be for some people, but I'm not like that (which is all I'm saying over the past 2 pages). I need to know more. I want to know who's directing, who's starring, what it's about etc. A movie just being good or bad without explanation isn't enough for me.
    Hmmm nah, that's what the whole review is for, actually. But I expect an objective review anyway.

    "If it sucks it sucks" means I try not to be influenced by who made it and how, not that the review should be just it. And you know what I meant.



    [QUOTE=Melf;380227]It IS my problem because I'm paying for the game or playing it to review it. I have to deal with whatever mistakes were made during development, because they don't just disappear when the game arrives in stores. People hated Iron Man: The Game because of shitty control and a poor camera, all the direct result of a rushed development. That final product you play is the final result of whatever happens during development. You can't just divorce the two.

    Ok, whatever. It's really exhausting for me to explain myself properly with my english, and you seem to not want to understand what I mean. Iron Man was a shitty game and that's what matters to the player, not WHY it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    The problem is that you keeping jumping back and forth between two arguments. Here you imply that you're just going to see a movie and choose whichever one looks more interesting. That's not the same as comparing two films to tell people which is the better one and why.
    I'll choose a movie depending on different factors that I (or the critics) consider objective. Reputation of, say, Martin Scorsese is something that will make me want to see a movie, of course, but if it turns out to be a good movie it will be a good movie, and if it turns out to be bad it will be bad anyway. Who made the movie or the game must not influence my review, for better or worse.

    (Btw I'm not even sure if I'm expressing myself correctly, which is frustrating)

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    Now you're contradicting yourself, and you just gave 3 reasons why you shouldn't directly compare 2 games from different genres, effectively making my point. My daughter and Picasso are far too different to be compared. But using your own argument, didn't you say that 2 games appearing on the same console is enough for them to be compared? If a puzzle game can be compared to a basketball game, can't an amateur painter be compared to a professional one? What if it's a painting website showing the two paintings? That never happens.
    ...
    Picasso's paintings and your daughter's paintings are not the same kind of product.
    Vermillion and SO are 16-bit cart games released by professional people internationally, played by the same kind of users (today, anyway) and obviously reviewed by the same kind of people, using the same scoring system (theorically).
    Picasso's paintings were painted by an adult, a professional. I don't think I need to go on. This part of the debate is ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    Again, your argument contradicts itself, if you're not going to take who made a game into account when you review it, why should you do so for one made by them 3 years later when they know the hardware better?
    Because everyone's had the same time to learn it. IF you didn't, don't publish the damn game!

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    So then from now on, all our reviews will just say "it's good" or "it sucks" and nothing else.
    I never said or meant that and you know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    You shouldn't rate it higher, and no one has. In fact, every reviewer out there has been MORE cautious in reviewing it because it had a development time around 10 times longer than most games. Have you read any DNF reviewers where they completely neglect to mention its development specifically because it "doesn't matter?' The publisher is expecting people to buy it, and I know you're not going to blindly plop down $50 without asking about it first. If you did, you wouldn't even be reading our reviews in the first place, because their whole purpose is to let people know whether a game is worth playing.
    No, and as others have already said (several times), who made it and how is something that should be commented on the review, because it may be interesting, but not influence the final score.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    Understandable. I just like to know why a game sucks or rocks. The developer's name DOES influence because people don't go into a Treasure or Bioware game with the same attitude and expectations they had going into an LJN or Acclaim game.
    Of course. But in the end, that's just prejudice. We all should approach a game as if we knew nothing about where it came from, if we really want to remain unbiased.

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    This is the second time you've accused me of being condescending, and I'd like to know why. Where did I speak to you like that?
    I'm not accusing you. I said being benevolent or condescending doesn't help the developer / producer. I said judging the final product differently depending on how easy it was for the author to make it may be condescendance. Again, sorry if it's not the right word to use here or if it sounds worse in english than it sounds in my head (I mean, in spanish).



    ...

    Anyway. I'm leaving this debate here. I was about to reply to every single paragraph again, because I think it's still an interesting debate, but as I said it's sort of exhausting for me, knowing exactly what I want to say but not being capable of expressing it properly. So I give up here :P

    Hope there's no bad blood between us anyway. Un abrazo!

  8. #38
    Blast processor Melf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cabo Rojo, PR
    Posts
    9,758
    Rep Power
    152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by synapse View Post
    Hmmm nah, that's what the whole review is for, actually. But I expect an objective review anyway.
    Well, that's kind of the problem. Reviews aren't really objective, and while the reviewer should always try to be as fair as possible, opinion always factors in when it's time to give the game a score.

    "If it sucks it sucks" means I try not to be influenced by who made it and how, not that the review should be just it. And you know what I meant.



    Iron Man was a shitty game and that's what matters to the player, not WHY it was.
    Maybe this is where we're not understanding each other. You're responding as a player, who just wants to know if a game is good or not. That's perfect. But as a REVIEWER, I have to do more than just say if a game is shitty or not. I have to explain why. Again, if I don't all our reviews could just be "it's good" or "it sucks." Whether the player cares why a game is good or bad is entirely up to them, but I think reviewers have a duty to explain those points.

    Picasso's paintings and your daughter's paintings are not the same kind of product.
    Vermillion and SO are 16-bit cart games released by professional people internationally, played by the same kind of users (today, anyway) and obviously reviewed by the same kind of people, using the same scoring system (theorically).
    Picasso's paintings were painted by an adult, a professional. I don't think I need to go on. This part of the debate is ridiculous.
    It's not ridiculous, because you could swap out my daughter for anyone, an amateur painter - anyone, and it's still the same. If a painting website is going to evaluate my painting and a newly discovered Picasso, you're saying they shouldn't use the same criteria for review. However, if a website reviews two different types of games, they should. I don't see how you can reconcile that.

    Because everyone's had the same time to learn it. IF you didn't, don't publish the damn game!
    but you're assuming that every 3rd party started making games for the Genesis at exactly the same time, had the same time to learn the Genesis hardware, the same quality of programmers and artists, etc. Tha'ts not the case.

    No, and as others have already said (several times), who made it and how is something that should be commented on the review, because it may be interesting, but not influence the final score.
    Are you sure everyone feels the same way? This sounds like your opinion and not universal fact, which is what I've been trying to explain.

    Of course. But in the end, that's just prejudice. We all should approach a game as if we knew nothing about where it came from, if we really want to remain unbiased.
    I can see your point here; I just don't agree, that's all. As someone who does a LOT of research for work, school, and the site, I just have it in my nature to investigate something completely. I want to know the full story behind something before I pass judgement on it. To me, those things are important. However, I don't expect everyone to feel exactly the same way I do, and to feel otherwise isn't wrong.

    I'm not accusing you. I said being benevolent or condescending doesn't help the developer / producer. I said judging the final product differently depending on how easy it was for the author to make it may be condescendance. Again, sorry if it's not the right word to use here or if it sounds worse in english than it sounds in my head (I mean, in spanish).
    Ah, ok. Sorry if I misunderstood. No harm done.

    Anyway. I'm leaving this debate here. I was about to reply to every single paragraph again, because I think it's still an interesting debate, but as I said it's sort of exhausting for me, knowing exactly what I want to say but not being capable of expressing it properly. So I give up here :P
    Yeah, perhaps we should just agree to disagree. It was a fun debate though!

    Hope there's no bad blood between us anyway. Un abrazo!
    Jamás! This is just a healthy debate, and none of it should be personal. That's what I was talking about above. Discussing the merits of a review is encouraged, but we should refrain from attacks or insinuations. No one here has a hidden agenda or anything. As someone mentioned, they're just games!

  9. #39
    a.k.a. hombreimaginario Outrunner synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Málaga, Spain
    Age
    39
    Posts
    626
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Hmmm...

    All right, man. Whatever

  10. #40
    The Coop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Outskirts of B.F.E.
    Posts
    4,102
    Rep Power
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    Do you think all games that turn out well do so only because of the skills of the developers? Things like budget and development time allotted have EVERYTHING to do with how well a game turns out because those developers can't show their skills if they're understaffed, don't have enough money, or the publisher slices 2 months off the development cycle to make a street date. A lot of the games we call great now are so because the developers were given the staff, money, and time they needed to MAKE that great game. Look at Fantasia, everyone says it's crap because of the control. If you read our interview with Al Nielson, you'll see he explains that the game needed 2 months more in development to fix the gameplay, but Sega rushed it out the door. How can you not take that into account? If a game has bad control, don't you want to know why?
    Do I want to know why? Sure, but only out of curiosity, not because it's going to alter my view of the end result of their work. Why the development resulted in a horrid game honestly doesn't matter at the end of the day to me. "We needed two more months" and "our budget wasn't big enough" may be reasons for a bad game, but not something to keep in mind. I realize you feel those things have everything to do with the end result, but I simply don't care about the excuses someone can make. I care about the finished game that people are going to pay money for, hold in their hands, and plug into their systems. And letting them know what works, what doesn't work, what was good/bad to me, and all that, is my main focus... not the game's development back story.

    As I said, I prefer to focus on the end product, with the life cycle being more of a curiosity to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    I'll use my movie example here again. It's like you go to the movies and wonder what to see. I'm coming out of the theater and you ask me how Transformers 3 was. I answer "it sucked" and walk away. Is that enough for you to decide to see or not see the movie? I guess it might be for some people, but I'm not like that (which is all I'm saying over the past 2 pages). I need to know more. I want to know who's directing, who's starring, what it's about etc. A movie just being good or bad without explanation isn't enough for me.
    I'm not like that either. In fact, I don't believe I ever suggested that there shouldn't be reasons given as to why it sucked/succeeded. When I said "If it sucks, it sucks," that means budgets, development times, and all that pre-release stuff don't matter to me in the end. Who directed "The Howling VII" isn't the answer I'd be after for why it was a horrid movie (and boy was it). I'd want to know the reasons for its copious amounts of suckage as they pertain to the film's visuals, sound production, acting, plot, cinematography, editing and all that... not the names behind it.

    After all, lots of people with small budgets and big budgets have made great movies. So again, it comes down to the the makers' creativity, skill, their ability to work within their means, and the end result of their work. Not excuses. As the video I posted said, if you can't do super-realistic looking people, don't go that route. Be creative and find a new angle to use for your visuals that you can do, and run with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Melf View Post
    No contradiction. I'm just saying that if I play a game by a company and it sucks, I'm going to be a bit more careful the next time one of their titles comes my way. If the game is for review, I'm going to be even more cautious, because I have to evaluate it for the public. If it's for me, I can toss the game aside and move on, but for a review, I have to be ready to explain and justify what I say.
    The first part makes sense to me as a buyer. I mean, I'd be reading a lot of reviews of a sequel if the first game was God awful. But as a reviewer... well, I guess this is another area we differ in reviewing styles.

    When I pick up a game, I do my best to see it as detached from who made it, so as to not be potentially skewed by what came before it (be it skewed in a good or bad way). I don't want to wind up holding Final Zone against Arcus Odyssey, you know? Granted, I see no reason to not compare it to the other efforts coming out at the time, or that were released before it... compare and contrast to show growth, stagnation or regression and such (as I've done in the past). But I do my best to go in with a completely neutral attitude and let the game wow and disappoint me on its own just as a finished product. After that, then I'll see how it stacks up to its competition of the day, leaving any development drama out of the equation.




    On a side note, holy shitballs Batman! A conversation without flames. I don't know if my heart can take too much more of this after being exposed to the typical on-line "discussion" method for over 9 years


    Currently Reviewing: Desert Strike (SMS), Galaxy Force (SMS)
    Coming Up:TF3 Side by Side
    Done: Jim Power: The Lost Dimension

  11. #41
    Outrunner bigladiesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Catalunya
    Age
    38
    Posts
    692
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    A bare-bones but enjoyable JRPG: almost devoid of technical bells and whistles or an intricate and/or engaging plot, it's very easy to get a grasp on and quite fast-paced. I presume that back in the day it should have been an ideal game for beginners on the genre.

  12. #42
    Hedgehog-in-Training Hedgehog-in-TrainingNameless One Xhojn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    59
    Rep Power
    2

    Default

    Haven’t heard of this one before, is it still being sold (my quick googling didn’t show any for sale sites) or is it ‘how ever I can get it’?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •