Printable View
Super Fighter Team returns with its third new release for the Genesis! Originally slated for publishing by Sage’s Creation in 1991, Star Odyssey disappeared for two decades. Its release marks the first Japanese Genesis game to be licensed for a modern release, so read our full review and see if it was worth the wait!
Remember: This thread is for discussion of the review ONLY. For everything else, please use the official thread in the Genesis Does! forum.
Thanks for the review.
I agree about the music of early titles. I'm drawn to the style somehow. The fact that this was an early Genny title also makes all the difference in how important it is. It's like being able to read Children of Hurin way after Tolkien's death. It's the sort of treat I'll never tire of.
For what it's worth, the graphics looked fine in stills to ME :)
The graphics are very poor.
As I mostly agree from what I've seen of Star Odissey so far, I really have to ask: WHY a score of 8/10 for Star Odyssey at Sega-16? So, according to this website, it's only 1 point less than Pier Solar (for God's sake), or what is worse, JUST AS GOOD AS ALADDIN????Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Come on, guys. Please let's try to be fair. Sega-16 has become one of my favorite websites/communities for the last couple of years but I know you can provide a more unbiased review than that.
Gotta agree with Synapse here. We don't need more Super Thunder Blades on the site. Games should be given an objective score based on their good and bad points, especially when compared to other reviews. Subjectively swayed reviews and numbers should be saved for the community section of the review.
Exactly. I don't mean to give SO a score of 4/10, don't get me wrong, but it was a 1991 game, when we got Golden Axe, Streets of Rage, Shinobi, Sonic, etc. Which means BOTH graphics and sound are quite poor even for that date. And honestly, I can't believe the gameplay, awesome as it may be, makes up for that in such a way that the game deserves the same score as Aladdin, "one of the finest platformers EVER" (quote from the review).
Also, is it as good as Legend of Wukong? Are both as good as Beggar Prince? Are these 3 RPGs as good as Aladdin, then? They all got the same score, come on...
So, you have finally decided to buy and play the game ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guntz
Dude, the review scores have always been off. Pitfall the Mayan Adventure CD is ranked two points above Shining Force CD. WTF?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guntz
So? Can't I wish for Sega-16 to keep getting better and better? I think I only provided constructive criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheaterdragon1
You sir, asked for my opinion! Here it comes!Quote:
Originally Posted by synapse
Yes, Star Odyssey is definitely as good as Legend of Wukong, and it's actually much better. Legend of Wukong has a boring story that repeats itself over and over again. The difficulty curve goes from very hard to extremely easy (it should be the other way around). Graphics and sound are subpar. The same can be said about Star Odyssey's audiovisuals, but the story is soooo much better and the difficulty curve is not broken. It also has some nice sci-fi atmosphere, Wukong has no atmosphere at all.
Beggar Prince is slightly better than Star Odyssey. The graphics and sound are more varied and better, the gameplay is funnier and also more varied, and the battle system more original and the random encounters don't drive you insane. What brings Beggar Prince down are the bugs, but not as much as the random encounters or repetitive audiovisuals of Star Odyssey.
It's hard to compare a platform game to any of these three RPGs, but I'd definitely take Aladdin over Wukong any day, even though I'm not the biggest fan of that platformer.
I'd give Legend of Wukong 4/10, Star Odyssey 6/10 and Beggar Prince 7/10. Aladdin something along the latter two, I guess.
Thank you for reading up on my opinion, good sir!
Zebbe's scores seem mostly fair from what I've played of the game so far, but I'd knock Beggar Prince way down. Brandon wasn't even willing to re-flash the EPROMS with the newer, less bug-riddled version for people who bought it. That may have been technically impossible since it's probably all done in China (lowest price wins, keep it up, America), but it still hacks me off that he didn't test the game for those things before its initial release. His playtesters suck. At least he learned from this grievous error, though. It's like Apple who recently released a shitty version of Final Cut Pro that clearly is not ready for release. Apple gave refunds and let people keep the program. I should stop here or I'll go into a huge anti-Apple rant.
Oh, and thanks Quick Sci Fi. I would have never have thought to go back to the space port.
I think he knew of those. Playing through Beggar Prince without encountering a single bug is like being a lady and going through Mecca in a bikini without being stoned. I think he wrote this on Wikipedia: "While Super Fighter Team had spent over a year working out the bugs left behind by C&E, it was simply not cost efficient to fix them all. "Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Does he have any?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Two guys have written they lost their saves on Star Odyssey. I'm glad I beat the game before that happened to me. I've lost my saves on my newer copy of Beggar Prince (after I beat the game though).Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Why are you comparing a score for a platform game to an RPG? What's your basis for comparison? They're two totally different types of games.Quote:
Originally Posted by synapse
Please define "objective score" and tell me how someone is supposed to give it without injecting their opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guntz
Different types of games made by different developers... why would you assume they should all be the same, like they all rolled off the same assembly line? By that line of thinking, Phantasy Star IV came out a full 4 years after Sword of Vermilion, so why isn't its soundtrack a million times better?Quote:
Originally Posted by synapse
Again, comparing RPGs to platformers is like saying that a television's quality depends on how it compares to the blender across the store.Quote:
Also, is it as good as Legend of Wukong? Are both as good as Beggar Prince? Are these 3 RPGs as good as Aladdin, then? They all got the same score, come on...
My basis is they're both Mega Drive games, they're both reviewed on this site, and they're both scored in the same units. If reviewers don't think they can't compare, then they shouldn't use the same scoring units. A platform game should be rated in "apples" and a RPG in "gold coins".Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
It's a stupid example, but you know what I mean. When kids (and adults) read a videogame mag, and a game scores much higher than another, they know it's a better game. It's always been that way.
It's impossible to be completely unbiased, but reviewers can all use the same stablished criteria/basis/whatever. That's not so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Again, you seem to be bothered that people provide constructive criticism. I'm sorry if that's the case :(
I agree that the age of a game is something to be noted, and to be rated accordingly. But why should "different developers" be taken into account? Is it ok to rate a game higher or lower depending on who made it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
All I did was providing examples of games that were released the same year as Blue Almanac in Japan. They were all excellent games which scored 8-9. I just find it really hard to believe that Star Odyssey deserves the same score, regardless its genre.
False. It's just comparing 2 games for the same hardware. We must remember the age of the game, but other graphic/sound/playability/general quality issues must be rated equally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
I compare games from differente genres just as you can say The Departed is a better movie than Zookeeper. By all means.
However, if the whole "comparing games from different genres or developers" bothers you too much, the rest of my question remains the same. Does it deserve the same score as Beggar Prince or Legend of Wukong? I don't think so. And my first post was really honest and well-intentioned, even if you seem to take it like an attack :?
Quote:
Originally Posted by synapse
Quote:
Originally Posted by synapse
You haven't even played the game, have you ?
I have.
Can't I have a different opinion unless I haven't?
Sorry if my posts don't make perfect sense grammatically. English is not my mother language. I guess what I meant was I don't think Star Odyssey deserves the same score as those other titles.
Oh, your English is fine. Seems I overinterpreted some expressions then. Sorry.
I don't really like Aladdin all that much, so when you're saying that Star Odyssey wouldn't deserve the same score than Aladdin, it has a rather different meaning to me as it has to you.
I understood your point and, maybe, Melf took your words too much on the hard side (and I use to do that)...Quote:
Originally Posted by synapse
Anyway, I think every score based system + different reviewers (would be impossible to expect and ask Melf to write all the reviews himself, right?) will have this problem.
Each one has its own way to score the different aspects of a game, no matter how much instructions or recommendations Melf specifies for the reviewing task.
Comparing different reviews and their scores can produce very distorted "results"... So I think you should not compare scores or just compare if they're from the same reviewer (even in this case you can find some scores hard to explain).
Melf has proposed a poll about the score system. I think you should vote and express your thoughts there...
IMO the best and easy way to remove such "distortions" is to drop the score system completely. I think it would maintain the focus on games and not on this endless score comparison...
Whatever, this discussion should take place there and not here.
The Android app store and Amazon all rate items with the same units, and items rated both appear on the same site. That doesn't mean you should let the review score of a book determine if you should buy a pair of shoes. All it means is that there is a single system used so that the site doesn't have one for every type of item that appears there. Individual scores are still supposed to be weighed against similar products. Again, you don't determine if the price of eggs is too high based on the price of a can of beans, do you? You weigh the price against similar products, even though the store uses a similar pricing system for all items.Quote:
Originally Posted by synapse
The thing you're forgetting is that all review scores anywhere are going to be subjective and the opinion of the person doing the reviewing. There is no way to score a game that makes everyone happy, and I don't think we should score by committee. Let each reviewer score how they want, you can always comment and opine on it afterward.Quote:
It's a stupid example, but you know what I mean. When kids (and adults) read a videogame mag, and a game scores much higher than another, they know it's a better game. It's always been that way.
We do use the same criteria, for games that are similar. Our Review Manifest gives a very clear definition of how we review. I'm just saying that games should be compared to others in their respective genres. That's how most people score a game, I think. I don't think anyone thinks that SO should get a 5, for example, because Madden '96 has better graphics and sound. It's apples and oranges.Quote:
It's impossible to be completely unbiased, but reviewers can all use the same stablished criteria/basis/whatever. That's not so hard.
Every so often someone pulls this card, and it's completely unfounded. I don't even know how anyone could think this. If criticism bothered me, I wouldn't give people so many ways to express it. ;) You can score each game how you like, comment on every article, and discuss them on the forum in their individual threads. What else can I do? Every time I disagree with someone's opinion, it's because I'm not open to criticism, but they are free to disagree with mine as much as they want? I never accuse anyone of anything when they don't agree with me, because I know that people have different opinions. I WANT to hear those opinions. If I didn't, this forum wouldn't exist, and you would only be able to read the reviews.Quote:
Again, you seem to be bothered that people provide constructive criticism. I'm sorry if that's the case :(
Everyone is free to disagree with a reviewer's opinion, but it is also the right of EVERY reviewer to have his or her own opinion. Discussing the differences gives people a better understanding of the game overall than just saying "this is the score because I said so."
Absolutely, because not all developers use the hardware the same way. If we didn't, then everyone whose games didn't have music like Sword of Vermilion, graphics like Rocket Knight Adventures, or special effects like Gunstar Heroes would be considered failures. You need to take into account who made the game, budget, when it was made, where it was made, etc. All those things are factors that contribute to how a game will end up.Quote:
I agree that the age of a game is something to be noted, and to be rated accordingly. But why should "different developers" be taken into account? Is it ok to rate a game higher or lower depending on who made it?
And here is the heart of the argument. You're wondering why my opinion isn't the same as yours. That's what makes opinions what they are, and it's what makes the discussion so much fun. I could wonder why you're opinion isn't the same as mine, but I don't because I understand that you have your tastes and criteria, and they're not necessarily the same as mine. It's no big deal.Quote:
All I did was providing examples of games that were released the same year as Blue Almanac in Japan. They were all excellent games which scored 8-9. I just find it really hard to believe that Star Odyssey deserves the same score, regardless its genre.
I can't do this. I can compare the Departed to Donnie Brasco and Zookeeper to Dr. Doolittle, but not one to the other, unless they were done by the same director or both had the same star, and I was evaluating their quality of work over both. The main criteria for a comparison is that the items in question have enough in common to be compared, and to me a comedy and a drama don't. You could definitely contrast the two though.Quote:
I compare games from differente genres just as you can say The Departed is a better movie than Zookeeper. By all means.
This doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong or vise versa. I just means we have different opinions and ways of seeing things. That's perfectly normal.
I never took your post as an attack, and I apologize if my reply came off as such. I scored all three games the same because they all fell into the same category of our Review Manifest to me - "Very well polished and a blast to play but with a few minor flaws." If they hadn't, I would have scored them differently. The fact is that I weighed them not only against other RPGs, but also against each other, as a comparison of SFT's efforts and the games overall. I felt that though the visuals and random encounter rate in SO were worse than the BP and LOW, the great story and handling of when your party dies made up for it.Quote:
However, if the whole "comparing games from different genres or developers" bothers you too much, the rest of my question remains the same. Does it deserve the same score as Beggar Prince or Legend of Wukong? I don't think so. And my first post was really honest and well-intentioned, even if you seem to take it like an attack :?
I also understand that while SO is from the same year as Sonic and after Golden Axe and Shinobi, it was also a third party game (the examples you listed were all Sega titles), and companies at the time had very little experience with the hardware because most weren't making games for the Mega Drive since launch due to licensing issues with Nintendo. This is true on any console. Go compare the first 3rd party SNES games to Nintendo's launch titles or Sega's Saturn launch games to other companies. Console makers always know their hardware better than anyone else, for obvious reasons, and their games are going to look better. As time went on and companies learned the hardware, the games looked much better.
Of course not. You don't have to be the absolute best to not be a failure. And at the end of the day, what counts most is the gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
How the heck can you take budget into account when reviewing a game? Do you even know what budgets most games which you are reviewing had? I can accept taking the time it was made into account, but where, by who and by what budget will just give bias towards games which are simply worse than more stellar efforts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Dude... seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
We're talking about two MD games. Your Amazon example would only be valid if you were talking about two books, or two pairs of shoes or, hey, two games.
In Amazon I can see user ratings for Alpha Protocol and, say, Super Street Fighter IV, and decide accordingly which I think it's a better game. Your whole "you can't compare them because they're different genres" implies I should have at least one game of each or something, because I can't really choose between 2 games if they're different genres (besides, you're not even comparing games but entirely different products with nothing to do with each other, which is not the case).
But, again, if it makes my point clearer for you, let's just compare it to Sword of Vermillion, or Phantasy Star 2... or Wukong or Beggar Prince.
Ok, this is reasonable. You're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
I don't think graphics and sound should mean the game must be rated lower... unless they get in the way of enjoying the game. If the graphics are so repetitive they actually make it hard to remember if you've already visited a room/dungeon/etc, they're getting in the way. If the music is anticlimatic from time to time, or just doesn't make me excited when I'm supposed to get excited, it's also getting in the way. It's deteriorating my experience with that game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Fair enough. You can't blame me for thinking you took my post as an attack, though, as your reply sounded a bit harsh. But no bad blood at all ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Why??? I strongly disagree. When reviewing/rating a game those are not aspects to be taken into account. What a gamer cares for is the final result. What you're saying basically means you have to keep in mind the time it took Picasso to finish a painting, because he was so damn fast doing it or had better materials? His art doesn't deserve the highest scores because it was easy for him? I'm sorry but, just like when you watch a movie, what counts is what you experience or feel when making use of a product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
And there's that, too. I wholeheartedly agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebbe
Ok, you can't. But you definitely know what I mean. And you still know it's definitely a better movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
As I said, no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
I guess the "minor" is where I disagree most, then. I find Wukong to be a bit overrated (repetitive, gets easier and easier towards the end, etc) and Beggar Prince a bit too glitchy to deserve that score. And in the case of Star Odyssey, in my humble opinion, graphics and music do get in the way of a better gaming experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
So you're being condescendant? Again, why should a game be rated differently depending on who made it? Hot-B were professional developers back then. In order to be perfectly fair, SFT efforts should be wieighed against any other RPGs available for the console, no matter who made them. Or else, games score higher or lower depending on their authors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Again, what matters is the final result and the gaming experience, not who made it and how. It was an official release in Japan back then, and it's a quality (unlicensed) product today. It should be reviewed and rated without letting the "who made it and how" interfere judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
And that's why I said AGE is something to be taken into account, of course. Not who made it, not how, but when. That is a valid argument, but not if it was a 3rd party or if they knew how to make a game or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Sorry for such a long reply, for going on with the debate if this is not the right place to do so, and once again for my english.
Oh and by the way, I do like the 3 games actually. I just think the scores are a bit too benevolent and I honestly believe that doesn't make SFT any good.
Have a nice day :)
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on a few points, Melf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Who made it, where it was made, how long it was in development, and its budget hold no sway when it comes to reviewing/scoring for me. Yes, they factor into the process of making the game, and may be worth a mention in the review, but they're not going to change my score. For me, taking those things into consideration feels like considering giving the losers a trophy because they tried, or holding Indie games to a different standard than big budget games, and I don't do that. If it's fun, it's fun. If it sucks, it sucks. Doesn't matter who made it and how deep their pockets were.
I do agree that when it was made does factor in, as obviously the programmers learned more about the Genesis' hardware capabilities as its life cycle went on. But beyond that, it's a level playing field in my mind. Virgin, Tecno Soft, Renovation/Telenet, Sega, EA, Capcom, Konami... they're all on the same tier in the beginning. Whether they go up, down, or stay in place all comes down to the talents of the people behind the game.
Of course, that's just how I go into reviews, so take that as you will.
My point exactly :)
Rep given!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Coop
Melf, I've been here for a while before finally made my registration and I remember that you said many times during these years that one of the main reasons for making reviews was to provide some kind of guidance or reliable opinions for those collecting/buying Genesis/Mega Drives games, right?
So I go there and read a review telling me that Beggar Prince is scored with an 8 what means: "Very well polished and a blast to play but with a few minor flaws."
Do you really think that is reasonable to say that a game with so many bugs was very well polished? What do you mean by polished so? Do you consider a buggy saving mechanism a minor flaw in a RPG?
To be considered a polished game it should have been, at least, very well tested and debugged IMO.
By Mr. Joe Redifer about Beggar Prince:
"The game always doesn't spell out for you what you need to do and ther are a lot of bugs in the game since it was programmed in Taiwan (who care more about getting a product out to make $$$ than releasing something of high quality). There are places you can get stuck eternally if you don't have a certain item, and there is nothing you can do but start over from the beginning unless you have a save from earlier on... if your game actually retains the save files, that is (more on this in a bit)."
"And in fights your character misses A LOT! He seems to miss more and more as he powers up. What the hell? I've seen him miss up to 5 times in a row despite the graphics clearly showing a hit."
"First is that there are many bugs in this game. I have had the game freeze on me for no reason three times randomly. I have seen the selection menu get screwed up. The game will not allow you to save or load if you have a 32X. Same with a CDX. The game seems to erase save files randomly. This happened to me at the beginning of the game, I opened the cartridge and the battery was slightly out of place. I re-centered it and all was fine until I played for many more hours over the course of two or three days. Then the next day I turned on my Genesis and could no longer select continue because the game erased my saves again for no reason, even though the battery was still secure. This is unacceptable. I am not going to play through all of that again just to have my save file erased, which WILL happen again. I must knock the overall score down one point due to these caveats."
^It's very hard to believe that someone can consider such bugs just "minor flaws". And there are many other Beggar Prince owners saying things like that.
I think "fun factor" can be measured across genres. For example, I have more fun playing Castle of Illusion than I do the very best John Madden Football. So while I might give JMF a 7.5, I'd give Castle of Illusion a 10. But yes, these are subject to the individual reviewer's interpretation of the game's fun. But even compared with other RPGs, so far I'd give Star Odyssey a much lower score than those already released on the system at that time, Phantasy Star 2 and Sword of Vermillion. Hell even Phantasy Star 3 was out by then and still more polished than this. I could see rating it higher than part 3 if you like the story or music better or feel that PS3 was just a bad package overall, but I can't see it ranking as high as an 8. Maybe a 6. It could be a 7, but I haven't played the game long enough yet to find out.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebbe
You said:Quote:
Originally Posted by synapse
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?Quote:
When kids (and adults) read a videogame mag, and a game scores much higher than another, they know it's a better game.
I mentioned both the graphics and the music in the review. The only one that I had a problem with was the music, and I explained why.Quote:
I don't think graphics and sound should mean the game must be rated lower... unless they get in the way of enjoying the game. If the graphics are so repetitive they actually make it hard to remember if you've already visited a room/dungeon/etc, they're getting in the way. If the music is anticlimatic from time to time, or just doesn't make me excited when I'm supposed to get excited, it's also getting in the way. It's deteriorating my experience with that game.
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.Quote:
Why??? I strongly disagree. When reviewing/rating a game those are not aspects to be taken into account. What a gamer cares for is the final result. What you're saying basically means you have to keep in mind the time it took Picasso to finish a painting, because he was so damn fast doing it or had better materials? His art doesn't deserve the highest scores because it was easy for him? I'm sorry but, just like when you watch a movie, what counts is what you experience or feel when making use of a product.
This is the whole thing right here. It's like you don't understand why I don't think the same way about the game as you do. Not everyone will. Heck, in this discussion alone the opinions are all over the place. Personally, I don't think the graphics really affect the gameplay, but I can understand why you would think so.Quote:
I guess the "minor" is where I disagree most, then. I find Wukong to be a bit overrated (repetitive, gets easier and easier towards the end, etc) and Beggar Prince a bit too glitchy to deserve that score. And in the case of Star Odyssey, in my humble opinion, graphics and music do get in the way of a better gaming experience.
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.Quote:
So you're being condescendant? Again, why should a game be rated differently depending on who made it? Hot-B were professional developers back then. In order to be perfectly fair, SFT efforts should be wieighed against any other RPGs available for the console, no matter who made them. Or else, games score higher or lower depending on their authors.
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.
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. Another game could feel like a labor of love because the developers treated its development with love and respect. Games come off an assembly line at the factory when they go into production; they shouldn't be like that in development. If that were true, everyone would LOVE the Wii's library more than any other. :pQuote:
Again, what matters is the final result and the gaming experience, not who made it and how. It was an official release in Japan back then, and it's a quality (unlicensed) product today. It should be reviewed and rated without letting the "who made it and how" interfere judgement.
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?Quote:
And that's why I said AGE is something to be taken into account, of course. Not who made it, not how, but when. That is a valid argument, but not if it was a 3rd party or if they knew how to make a game or not.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Coop
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.Quote:
I do agree that when it was made does factor in, as obviously the programmers learned more about the Genesis' hardware capabilities as its life cycle went on. But beyond that, it's a level playing field in my mind. Virgin, Tecno Soft, Renovation/Telenet, Sega, EA, Capcom, Konami... they're all on the same tier in the beginning. Whether they go up, down, or stay in place all comes down to the talents of the people behind the game.
Do all of them say that? If not, what then? I didn't have the save problem Joe had, it never froze on me, and I didn't get hopelessly stuck. My experience wasn't the same as his. He based his review on his own experience, as he should, and I did the same. I don't understand this argument that "you're wrong because you didn't score the game like ______."Quote:
Originally Posted by agostinhobaroners
The game run needs to have 100% of bad copies to make you worry about? Really? Good to know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
How many days and times did you play that game before doing your review?
Also, you really took me wrong about quoting Mr. Joe Redifer. I was just showing an example of a bad experience... There are many others, like Zebbe's, but maybe you would say that his opinion doesn't count 'cause he is a WM member...
I will keep in mind that you do your reviews 100% only based on your lonely gaming, just like a blind-deaf-mute when it comes to anything or anyone else that is not you, your Genesis and your possibly lucky-only well made copy a game.
Well, it's your way to do your reviews on your site, so you really don't need to care about me, but your words (to me and to the other guys in this discussion) sound pretty strange for one who always says that wants to listen to the community.
Please, do open your mind for other visions and opinions, and possibly for changes on your own thoughts. It would be a great plus for the whole Sega-16 community IMO, with all my respect Mr. Melf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
You mentioned "many other" players saying those things as if their anecodotal experience should be considered universal fact, but then completely discount my own anecdotal evidence, which I'm using to express only my own opinion, as wrong? Good to know then.Quote:
Originally Posted by agostinhobaroners
And I played the game almost to the end. How many times was I supposed to play through it? Did all those people you mentioned play through the game multiple times as well?
Why would I say that? If he played it, he has every right to express his opinion. In fact, the only opinion being questioned here is mine. Everyone seems to have this belief that I have to feel the same way about every game as they do, and whenever I explain that this is not the case, I'm accused of not having an open mind or not accepting criticism. Yet the same people accusing me of those things are often closed minded to and intolerant of my opinion.Quote:
Also, you really took me wrong about quoting Mr. Joe Redifer. I was just showing an example of a bad experience... There are many others, like Zebbe's, but maybe you would say that his opinion doesn't count 'cause he is a WM member...
I don't know how many times I have to say it or cite our Review Manifest which clearly states how games are supposed to be reviewed here. Opinions are subjective, and often people don't agree. That's all there is too it. Why is this so hard to accept?
See, getting snarky like this doesn't just hurt your credibility; it also makes my point. Just because my experience wasn't the same as Joe's doesn't make it wrong, and I don't see why I should give a game a score based on what others experienced. Do you decide if you like a restaurant based on what other people tell you about it or by eating there? Have you never had an experience that was different than that of others?Quote:
I will keep in mind that you do your reviews 100% only based on your lonely gaming, just like a blind-deaf-mute when it comes to anything or anyone else that is not you, your Genesis and your possibly lucky-only well made copy a game.
Moreover, what do you do when you want to decide if a game is good or not, consult a committee? Take a poll? Whose council do you keep when you make decisions about whether or not you like something? I'm able to decide for myself. If that makes me a blind-deaf-mute, I'd hate to see how you choose something when no one else is around.
And what am I supposed to be listening to here? That I should change my review and score because other people don't feel the same? If the community wants to rebut my article, they have the reader score, comments, and forums to do so. How many times do I have to say this?Quote:
Well, it's your way to do your reviews on your site, so you really don't need to care about me, but your words (to me and to the other guys in this discussion) sound pretty strange for one who always says that wants to listen to the community.
What changes do you have in mind? So far, all I've heard is that my opinion is wrong because it's not the same as a half dozen other people's (who don't agree amongst themselves either) and that I'm close-minded and not accepting of criticism because I explain my opinion and stand by it.Quote:
Please, do open your mind for other visions and opinions, and possibly for changes on your own thoughts. It would be a great plus for the whole Sega-16 community IMO, with all my respect Mr. Melf.
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!
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.).Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
But it must NOT influence how YOU review it, because it's not your problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
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.
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
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
Please, let us not get too ridiculous when discussing these things.
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
Sounds reasonable to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
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
If it's fun, it's fun. No matter who made it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
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?
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
But who's discussing that??? That actually has nothing to do with the debate, if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
A chance, yes, of course. Condescendance, no.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
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?Quote:
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.
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.
EXACTLY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantar
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Coop
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 agree 100% with this, which is funny, because this entire debate started with me being criticized for not doing exactly that.Quote:
how good it is at what it strives to be (RPG? shmup? fighter? etc.)
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.Quote:
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.
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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by synapse
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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!).
So then from now on, all our reviews will just say "it's good" or "it sucks" and nothing else. :pQuote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
A chance, yes, of course. Condescendance, no.
"Fool me once, shame on you..."Quote:
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.
You need to quote the entire section to get what I'm saying:Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantar
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 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...
Hmmm nah, that's what the whole review is for, actually. But I expect an objective review anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
(Btw I'm not even sure if I'm expressing myself correctly, which is frustrating)
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
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.
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
I never said or meant that and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
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
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
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
...
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by synapse
"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.
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.Quote:
Iron Man was a shitty game and that's what matters to the player, not WHY it was.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Because everyone's had the same time to learn it. IF you didn't, don't publish the damn game!
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Ah, ok. Sorry if I misunderstood. No harm done. :)Quote:
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).
Yeah, perhaps we should just agree to disagree. It was a fun debate though!Quote:
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
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!Quote:
Hope there's no bad blood between us anyway. Un abrazo!
Hmmm...
All right, man. Whatever ;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
As I said, I prefer to focus on the end product, with the life cycle being more of a curiosity to 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
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 :lol: