Heh, actually I’m pretty sure he believes what he’s saying.[/quote]
Hmm. Well the methods are the same, so I have to believe the cure is too.
Well, I suspect that if I’m a very knowledgable gamer dealing with particular genres of games I’m going to take a review from a one-size-fits-all site like Gamespot with a big grain of salt (depending on who the reviewer is - a Chick or Geryk is alot different than some intern or unknown freelancer as I’m assuming the Dom 2 reviewer was - I’ve never heard of the guy.)
It’s incumbent on me to actually look for reviews by people I like or to find sites that specialize in the kinds of games I like to play. If you’re actually interested in ideas and possibilities in design and have built up a portfolio of personal likes, dislikes and quirks about one genre in particular you really need to find reviews that speak to you. Odds are, a guy who’s reviewing for what he sees as mainstream gamers isn’t going to dwell on details. And it’d only be your fault for getting upset about that. This isn’t the site you’re looking for, move along. And you’re certainly not the audience the site wants.
It’d be like reading People Magazine because you love cinema. Close but no cigar.
Well, that’s a completely different problem that goes beyond, “It should have gotten a higher rating.”
I don’t think the review was that bad. At least there is nothing factually wrong or any gross missunderstandings. And if you are a fan of TBS games, especially fantasy themed TBS games, it should tickle your fancy enough to make you try out the demo. I certainly think dom 2 deserves a higher score though.
I just started playing the demo. I sure would like to know what the hell I’m supposed to do.
I’m not going to wade into the minefield of “Review Theory.” That’s not my expertise. But I don’t buy the line that Game Mags whether online or print are going to penalize a game in a review because the developers are not a major or even minor advertisor. I actually got quite a nice review of one of our products by CGM. They liked the product and even gave it a spot in their print magazine. We were small time with our first product and they gave it a fair shake. Now, the opposite may be true. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if you are the editor of a game mag you are going to feel some tension about the effect of negative reviews on your relationship with advertisors. Unless I know more about the role ad revenue plays in running a game mag, I can’t approach trying to analyze just how strong the built in conflict of interest is. Industry PR guys can also build up long term relationships with game reviewers and editors that also muddies the situation. I’m sure it’s easy to call an obvious dog a dog, it’s the 80 to 90 range rating that probably causes the most grief. I’m just glad I’m not a game mag editor. The job has got to cause some heartburn.
More Important Topic:
The gamespot review of Dom2 while technically correct fails in my opinion to relate to the reader just what a gem in the rough this game is. Personally I would have given the gameplay and tilt higher marks and an overall rating of 8.5 (10 for the hardcore TBS among us). The graphics and sound ratings are fair. Does a game have to be attractive to be worthy of my attention? Depends on how much beer I’ve swilled down but in general I would say no! I guess Dom2 just didn’t click with the reviewer. You do need to spend some time with it to get to know it’s personality. Not that any of this matters. I think Matrix knows that this is a niche title and that good word of mouth will drive sales. Desppite lots of groaning about the steep price tag it is still the same and probably not moving south anytime soon. I do think that adding a brief in game tutorial to show how to build troops. research and run an economy would still be financially desirable. Such a tutorial might have swayed the gamespot reviewer.
What was your product?
The job has got to cause some heartburn.
Not at all. As much as companies could try to exert pressure, if you’re fair, they’re fair. If you throw a tantrum and label the developers and publishers crooks for releasing a bad game, you might run into trouble.
But you can call a bad game “bad” and still stay in their good graces; they get angry, they may yell at you a bit, but they want coverage and need to market their products.
Besides, if they really yank their ads and throw a tizzy, a nice answer is, “Can I quote you on that?” It would be awful PR.
It would sure go a long way towards swaying me. Note to devs: your incredibly deep and sophisticated strategy game is no fun for people who can’t figure out how to play it.
Extarbags: You will probably look back on your initial confusion with a slap on the head. I know I did. I actually said forget it after downloading the demo but then after reading Bruce Geryk’s mini guide gave it another shake. http://www.illwinter.com/dom2/walkthru.html
The interface really isn’t that bad once you get used to it. (Funny how interfaces from European developers seem a little counter intuitive to Americans ala Gothic 2) I actually think it is quite good…room for improvement but like everything else about the presentation of Dom2 it gets the job done. The hardest thing conceptually to get a game started is that you have to first create a pretender (your competing god) and THEN start a game from the main menu using that pretender. You choose the map and the competing pretenders while selecting the race you want to play as “Human Player” The basic game flow is simple:
- Use your provinces to create troops and leaders
- Organize your troops into armies under leaders and invade other provinces
- Resources from captured provinces allow you to build more troops etc.
- Certain leaders let you research spells that leaders can cast.
- You can build fortresses in captured provinces. Fortress let you build units.
- The game is to the death so while your enemies may ignore you for a while they will eventually get around to you. There can be only one!
I am doing the game a big diservice with this description. Two important points. The game is deeeeeeep. I am still discovering things. Combos of spells and items. How to place units in formations. The types of units and spells and items is immense. Finally, despite the depth or maybe because of it the action unfolds intuitively. If you get a nasty surprise in a battle there is usually that small thing you overlooked that afterwords seems obvious. Finally (Three things actually) it’s the stories you tell Cruiser. The stories are just cool. The tide of battle ebbs back and forth. Hopeless battles are won. A lone warrior or magic user wins a key battle. A sneak attack is launched by flying units deep inside your line. You deck out an assassin with the best magic gear possible and he is the Slayer incarnate. You summon a succubus and it lures your opponents leaders over to your side with a kiss. This game like few I have found is worth every cent of the price I paid for it. For the sake of children everywhere give this game a chance.
Steve:
At this risk of derailing this thread and getting banned for self promotion, It is called the “Gettysburg Expedition Guide”
http://www.cdmag.com/articles/029/158/gg_review.html
I had been a lurker on their forums for a long time and dropped Bob Mayer a line about taking a look at it. He was generous enough to do so since the product is really not a game. It is however a very well selling educational product and it has won a bunch of digital media awards. We currently have a 4 disc product called “Great Battles of the Civil War Animated” that was on the shelf at Walmart for a while.
Any of the Mags putting the Dom2 Demo on their CD soon?
“All journalists are on the take” is an old Usenet standby but the fact is, the major American magazines and sites don’t do that. It’s obvious when you’ve been reading their reviews for a while.
I do think reviewers occasionally raise or lower a score because of their feelings towards the developer or publisher – say because they’re fans of previous games or want to support the “little guy” or penalize someone they see as uncreative etc. – but that’s from the wacky realm of human emotions and has nothing to do with payola.
The gamespot review of Dom2 while technically correct fails in my opinion to relate to the reader just what a gem in the rough this game is. […] The graphics and sound ratings are fair. Does a game have to be attractive to be worthy of my attention?
Well, that’s the point. I say yes, Gamespot agrees, ergo their rating is “correct” according to their own standards.
What Dom2 fans seem to want is a review site that simply ignores presentation and interface issues in their final score. That’s a valid personal opinion but Gamespot just isn’t that kind of site. Maybe someone else, like a dedicated strategy game site, would do reviews that way. You’re barking up the wrong tree if you’re asking that of Gamespot.
I can absolutely see how a reviewer playing Dom 2 for the first time, without the benefit of others telling him/her “This is really a great game - you just need to hang in there and try this and that, etc.” and without the benefit of reading Bruce’s mini-tutorial, could give this game a lukewarm rating. When Dom 2 showed up here, I installed it, tried to play it, realized this was NOT a game I could just “wing” without reading the manual, and quit. Then I picked up the manual, with the game running, and tried to plow through. It was tough going. And honestly, what made me give it another chance was Bruce telling me it was a great game, and Bruce and I tend to have similar tastes. So I made a pot of coffee and tried again, and it was like cleaning off a piece of art that is covered in dirt and mud - I’d see a sparkle here and there and say “Whoa - that looks cool!” That would inspire me enough to go a little further, then I’d see a little more, then more, then it became autocatalytic and I was hooked.
But I can absolutely understand a reviewer loading this game up and hitting the wall. And even more if they had a relatively short time in which to review it - this game takes a significant amount of time to understand and appreciate. It’s a lot like single malt scotch - at first taste you may wonder how anyone could like it, but after you develop a taste for it, the cheap stuff just doesn’t cut it anymore.
I would agree with something that was said earlier. If I’m looking for information on TBS, I’m not going to use a site like Gamespot to make a decision on a game. As a general gaming site, they are simply not equipped to provide quality indepth reviews of certain genres. They’re forced to try in order to not lose readers to other sites.
I don’t think that’s true at all.
I think, rather, they recognize their market and cater to it. If you know your readers are less excited by turn-based games in the first place, never mind confusing, poorly explained ones, then you’re going to score the game appropriately. If The Wargamer had a scoring system, I’m sure they’d score the game with their audience in mind.
I have the same problem with Victoria. Yes, even with the terrible 1.02 patch, I still manage to enjoy it. I’ve had a lot of experience with Paradox games and it didn’t take me long to figure out the game mechanics. Yet I can’t expect even the grand strategy fans at FiringSquad to pick up the interface that quickly, deal with the frustrations of 1.02, and the weird gameplay quirks.
I’ve played the Dominions 2 demo and I liked the game - though not as much as Herr Chick - but I’d score it similarly to GameSpot, perhaps a little higher, but certainly not in the 70s. A 70s score is a “competent” title, one that most people should enjoy and not be frustrated with. If I hadn’t read the online guide, my reaction would have been much worse.
OK, this puzzles me. What do you mean by Gamespot “not being equipped to provide quality reviews of certain genres?” The reviews are primarily written by freelancers, some of whom know their genres as well as anyone in the business (Bruce Geryk is one Gamespot contributor, for example - for another, Brett Todd, who has been covering sports for many years and is knowlegeable about the genre as anyone.)
OK, this puzzles me. What do you mean by Gamespot “not being equipped to provide quality reviews of certain genres?” The reviews are primarily written by freelancers, some of whom know their genres as well as anyone in the business (Bruce Geryk is one Gamespot contributor, for example - for another, Brett Todd, who has been covering sports for many years and is knowlegeable about the genre as anyone.)[/quote]
Poor allocation of resources then? Why wasn’t Geryk called upon to review Dominions 2? Another response to my post says that by improperly reviewing Dominions 2, Gamespot is just catering to their readership.
So which is it? Wouldn’t a site want their genre reviewers reviewing reviewable games or do they just review these games with anyone just to get them out of the way and listed so people will still think they offer all things to all people. It seems Gamespot’s handling of Dominions 2 puts it into the latter category.
Poor allocation of resources then? Why wasn’t Geryk called upon to review Dominions 2?
I think he reviewed it for one of the print mags.
Bruce reviewed it somewhere else. Even if he didn’t, imagine the reaction from the average GameSpot reader if they picked up the game based on his review.
And what do you consider “proper allocation of resources”? So that every reviewer is matched up to a game that he’ll like? Or should reviewers give good scores only to the games you personally like?
I’d suggest you take the mote of bias out of your eye before you harass someone about theirs.
Bruce reviewed it somewhere else. Even if he didn’t, imagine the reaction from the average GameSpot reader if they picked up the game based on his review.
And what do you consider “proper allocation of resources”? So that every reviewer is matched up to a game that he’ll like? Or should reviewers give good scores only to the games you personally like?
I’d suggest you take the mote of bias out of your eye before you harass someone about theirs.[/quote]
I knew this type of response was coming. I never used the term bias, I never said anything about me liking dominions 2 (or Unreal 2). I never said anything about reviewers giving good scores to games I like.
Outside of you attempting to disparage me, you repeated my question. Yes, imagine the “average” Gamespot reader picking up Dominions 2 based on Geryk’s review instead of the one they ended up using. Well, guess what, it’s not going to happen since it seemed like it wasn’t worth their time to allocate a proper reviewer to it. Not a yes man, not a VegasRobb man, just someone who could properly review it.
One more thing, why is Gamespot reviewing games that don’t appeal to their “average” reader? As I mentioned earlier, is it to catch as many people as possible in their net?