Huh? You really should let go of those conspiracy theories… Gamespot is reviewing for their average reader so that the average reader knows what games to buy. Gamespot correctly realized that the average reader won’t like Dom2 so it got a mediocre score. Where exactly is the problem with that?
Of course my bias response was predictable - yours is plainly visible, whether or not you admit to it.
What’s a “proper reviewer”? Please, enlighten us. Someone who’s going to enjoy Dominions 2 and give it a high score? I read Jason’s review, I don’t see any inaccurate statements within, so I fail to see why you judge him as an “inappropriate” reviewer. It doesn’t seem like he has a bias against the genre, just the production quality of the game.
So they should only review games that their readers will like, and thus all reviews on GameSpot should have good scores? Or are you suggesting that GameSpot stop reviewing turn-based games and other unpopular genres completely?
I’d like to see justifications for either statement.
Huh? You really should let go of those conspiracy theories… Gamespot is reviewing for their average reader so that the average reader knows what games to buy. Gamespot correctly realized that the average reader won’t like Dom2 so it got a mediocre score. Where exactly is the problem with that?[/quote]
You’ll have to be believe me when I say I don’t have any conspiracy theory. It was pointed out that Gamespot’s “average” readers wouldn’t be interested in Dominions 2. I was asking why. I also was answering my own question when I said it was to catch as many people as possible.
That’s not a conspiracy.
That’s it.
GameSpot’s “average” readers aren’t interested in the game because:
a). It’s not glitzy, fast-paced and full of action.
b). Lack of familiarity with the TBS genre.
c). Dominions 2 specifically is not something you can pick up quickly.
Yes, I know, those sound like bad reasons. But it’s like the SUV fad - you don’t need a logical reason to like something, or in this case, to dislike it.
Who thinks Qt3 should actually have review content again?
Oh, shit, I’m sorry, I pimped a website. Don’t ban me, guys!!!
–scharmers
It needs some new follies too.
Of course my bias response was predictable - yours is plainly visible, whether or not you admit to it.
Yeah, I don’t admit to what’s not there. Not sure where I’m being biased, unless asking questions puts me there.
What’s a “proper reviewer”? Please, enlighten us. Someone who’s going to enjoy Dominions 2 and give it a high score? I read Jason’s review, I don’t see any inaccurate statements within, so I fail to see why you judge him as an “inappropriate” reviewer. It doesn’t seem like he has a bias against the genre, just the production quality of the game.
I answered the proper reviewer question already.
So they should only review games that their readers will like, and thus all reviews on GameSpot should have good scores? Or are you suggesting that GameSpot stop reviewing turn-based games and other unpopular genres completely?
I’d like to see justifications for either statement.[/quote]
Again, I answered this earlier. The question about all games having good scores is pretty outrageous and not worth spending more time on.
You yourself said, imagine if the “average” Gamespot reader picked up Dominions 2 based on a Geryk review. Well perhaps the average Gamespot reader shouldn’t be exposed to things outside of the mainstream. (note no ? since that seems to get me in trouble)
If you’re going to be a mainstream site, doesn’t it make sense to limit your reviews to the mainstream games that your mainstream readers want to read about? Why even try and cast a big net? I believe that the reason is hits, page views, unique user accesses, etc. I believe that a site like Gamespot has to try and review everything to try get people to visit. I would phrase the last two statements as questions but look where’s that’s gotten me. :)
Edit - for spelling and missing words
Dom2 isn’t a mediocre game. Thus it doesn’t deserve a mediocre score.
I’d like to echo the “why didn’t they give it to Geryk” comment. A person saavy in the genre should be reviewing the game, not just Joe Guy. For example, if you handed me a Football game to review, I would have no idea how to score it, mainly because I don’t play sports games. I’d review it based on how much I had fun with it. Which would be a bad review.
:arrow: “But, but! Reviews are opinions! Isn’t that how you’re supposed to write a review?”
In my opinion, no. Your personal shift on the game is deserving of a forum post, not a paid review. When I take the time to look up a review on a website, I’m not scanning the list for the highest number and running to buy that title. I’ve heard of a game, and want to get a professional opinion on how the title compares to other games like it. I DON’T want to be told most people don’t like TBS, (after all, The Perfect Game, Tony Hawk 3, isn’t turn-based), and therefore have the score docked heartily because Average Consumer wants instagratification.
So yeah… I think Geryk should have reviewed Dominions. I could understand a good score (8 range) with a fat disclaimer “If you don’t like turn-based strategy games, or don’t know what a turn-based game is, this title isn’t for you!” right at the top. That’s more fair. That tells tonyhawkgamer936100, “Run along now kid. This one’s not for you/” without scaring the HOMM or Warlords fan away who’s looking for “the next step.”
Of course, what the fuck do I know. I’m BIASED. :roll:
I want Shoot Club back. :(
They shouldn’t, Vegas. If they were to be exposed to non-mainstream titles, they’d soon learn GameSpot is very, very limited in scope, and would quickly cancel their memberships (or stop clicking on GameSpot’s ads).
It’s all about the money, folks.
GameSpot’s “average” readers aren’t interested in the game because:
a). It’s not glitzy, fast-paced and full of action.
b). Lack of familiarity with the TBS genre.
c). Dominions 2 specifically is not something you can pick up quickly.
Yes, I know, those sound like bad reasons. But it’s like the SUV fad - you don’t need a logical reason to like something, or in this case, to dislike it.[/quote]
I kinda expand on this in my actual reply to you, but you are correct, Jakub. And honestly that’s all I was looking for a page or so ago. Gamespot isn’t trying to keep Dominions 2 down and Dominions 2 isn’t going to save the world or change it as we know it.
I think a couple people here already answered that question…he already reviewed it for one of the print mags.
Yes it is, and it does. Darn you, subjectivity!
I tried the demo, ran through part of Geryk’s guide to the demo, and basically wound up going “meh”.
I guess there’s lots of depth there, but good god, I’m not gonna play any game that requires 8 continuing education credits before I understand enough for it to be fun. And I’m a long-time TBS type of guy (albeit one with way less time to game than I used to).
So, based on my experience with it, it is a mediocre game. “But you didn’t give it enough of a chance!” Sure I did – my criteria are just different than yours. If the first couple chapters of a book are unintelligible, I’m not gonna read the rest of it. If the way a game introduces itself to me sucks rocks, I’m not gonna play it. 6.2 sounds about right to me.
I could play the game just fine within 20 minutes. I think I’ll always be working on strategy… but lordie, it’s not that hard to actually play, folks.
Okie, well, sorry for any miscommunication =]
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
Just like RPGs were bombing in the mid-late 90s because they were difficult, not user-friendly and lacked general sex appeal, TBS games suffered the same fate. RPGs bounced back strong when a newer, better formula was discovered by BioWare. TBS games, while better than they were 3 years ago, haven’t found the magic recipe.
We live in a free market where short attention spans, fancy graphics and sex appeal rule. If more gamers were exposed to these games they might grow to like them, but they don’t want to be exposed when there are so many other things they can play. Hype matters a great deal, people need to be excited to try something.
Finally, Dominions 2 is the antithesis of the successful turn-based games out now. Unlike Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced, it isn’t a game you can just pick up and play. Unlike Silent Storm, it doesn’t have theme appeal (ie, world war 2) or fancy graphics.
Is it a good game? Yes, I think so. But like Victoria, I just couldn’t see myself recommending it to any of my average-gamer friends, though I’d definitely pass it on to the Chicks, Todds and Geryks I know. So you can see how target audience matters.
So why review it at all? I don’t have a problem with that review, but I think this line of reasoning (“the review is tailored towards the average Gamespot reader”) is sort of silly. If the average Gamespot reader isn’t interested in that sort of game, why cover it in the first place?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that had anything to do with the review. I don’t think Jason Ocampo tried to skew the review towards any particular audience, and I don’t think he failed to adequately cover the game. Reading his review, it seems like he played it, noted its many faults, and was bothered by them a lot more than I was. He didn’t like it. So what?
Maybe on the PC. On the GBA it’s Alton Brown and Morimoto riding on unicorns.
I hear Silent Storm is good though.
Why review it? Easy - pageviews. You need a steady stream of content. Plus, the review exposes the game to a lot of players. Yes, the score may be less than Illwinter may desire, but the people reading the review could say “hey, the reviewer doesn’t sound like he likes it, but I dig that idea”. It’s how I stumbled upon Europa Universalis, I read a bad review of it but picked up the game anyway.
As for Jason tailoring to his audience, no, he likely didn’t have to consciously do it - I’m sure he’s more in touch with the average gamer than most of us here. However, I doubt that GameSpot would give the game to Bruce or Tom or anyone else who they thought would be wildly off the opinion of the readers. It’s not a guarantee - often an article that people disagree with will drive traffic - but you can’t continuously hold a different opinion from your audience and expect that audience to trust you.
Because Gamespot is supposed to be the place to go for all your game reviews! They don’t want people going “oh, these guys didn’t review Dominions, I’m going to go check out IGN for a review of it… hey, McGriddles!”