I think it’s pretty obvious that Toddy’s review doesn’t mesh with the rest of the world. The fan votes are at 9.0 (I know that fan votes tend to be high, but there’s not usually that much difference. Also, other review sites (according to Gamespot) are at an average of 8.6.
One wonders what score RoL would have gotten had they not included a story campaign at all? I think significantly dinging an RTS on story is wrong. Sure W3 had a “great” story, but I could not have cared less. Stories are for RPG’s and adventure games. RTS’ers just wanna kill stuff :).
I think a comparison of sequels would be in order. In other words, is RoL as different as RoN compared to let’s say Civ 3 and Civ4? Or AoE 2 and AoE 3? Had Toddy done that, I could have understood where he was coming from better. Personally, I don’t find the two games to be very similar at all, except in basic mechanics, where they are supposed to be similar.
Very disappointing review, I’m a Gamespot subscriber and expected better.
One wonders what score RoL would have gotten had they not included a story campaign at all? I think significantly dinging an RTS on story is wrong. Sure W3 had a “great” story, but I could not have cared less. Stories are for RPG’s and adventure games. RTS’ers just wanna kill stuff :).
The Starcraft story was heavily praised in most reviews, and was, I don’t doubt, a contributing factor in many, many peoples purchasing decision.
You left out the “good game” part, which I clearly stated. Why did you do that? Would you have had anything to say otherwise? Out of context soundbites should be beyond someone like you.
Working hard alone isn’t sufficient. It’s the working hard on a “good” game. As in a designer, developer, artist, whatever the hell you want to call them, who actually produces something valuable with effort, as opposed to crap. That’s why it is insulting to give it the score that it got. It’s insulting because something good was created through effort, and the review therefore demeans the effort spent to get there.
No, it doesn’t. Of course that’s not what I said, but feel free to simply make shit up so you can have pithy responses.
That’s why I also clearly established that it is a good game. The amount of effort you put into something, only to have it wrongly scored, does count in the amount that you might be insulted by the stupidity of the review.
In simple terms for you: Game was poorly reviewed because it is good, and it received a low score by GameSpot standards. This is insulting to the hard work that people put in to make a good game. Because they put in effort and got it right, while it appears the reviewer just got it wrong (and I won’t comment on the amount of effort that seemingly went into the review).
The score is very low by GameSpot standards for the type of game that RoL is.
Using the rating alone as a basis to judge a review is kind of taking it out of context, since the text provides that context. Hello irony.
It’s insulting because something good was created, and the review therefore demeans the effort spent to get there.
So, how exactly is the press supposed to divine when something is good? Go by GameRankings? Reader reviews? SlyFrog’s opinion? Someone may have liked Mortyr too. At that point, do we have an obligation to rate it higher?
Look, everyone works hard on games. Everyone (presumably) works hard at Gamespot. Brett probably worked hard on that review. In fact, he might have played the game a lot more than anyone posting in this thread. (Or not.)
So, while everyone is free to bash the review, focusing on the rating alone doesn’t seem particularly meaningful, nor does using “they worked hard on the game” as a reason to rate it higher.
Just stop. You’re sounding painfully defensive. Here’s the answer, and it has nothing to do with irony: don’t use a fucking number. End of story. If you want to use the number, get it right, or get the hell out. Don’t babble to me about how you give a paper a D, but the context was really in the comments. Good for you, you gave it a fucking D. Much like a grade in high school isn’t going to be offset by a college review board reading your english paper to make sure they “understand the grade,” that number is not going to be offset by people reading the review and going, “Hey, it got a really shitty score, but you have to take it in context.”
All of your stuff about “how are we supposed to know it is good” is right, but also goes without saying. It’s obviously my opinion that he screwed this up badly. Did you think I was expressing some divine mandate?
Then focus on the review and point out errors in it. This has zero to do with how much effort went into the game. Whether they got it “right” or not is ultimately up to each gamer to decide - I haven’t decided yet since GoGamer hasn’t arrived at my door.
If you discern lack of effort and care in the review that would be an insult to the game developers, but it would be an insult whether it was Age of Mythology or Daikatana. The reviewer plays the game and decides if the game is good or not. The end.
If I know I am reviewing a game, I studiously avoid printed reviews on it precisely so my opinion of it is not colored by someone else’s idea of whether the game is good or not. I suspect that I am not alone in this policy.
The amount of work put into a game has nothing to do with whether or not it is good. If the world were perfect, perhaps they would get a bonus for putting in a lot of work, but it’s not. As a gamer, I don’t care if the game took 2 days or 4 years, all I care about is if it’s a good game. I also don’t care if if they put in 100 hours or 1 million. Of course, the chances of someone putting out a good game that they worked on for 2 days is very low, but lots of work doesn’t guarentee a good game or even a game (see Duke Nukem).
I disagree with the review, but I don’t agree that the review must be positive in order to validate the work they put into it.
Obviously from this thread, some people want fleshed-out storylines in their RTS games, and some don’t give a shit. These people are all supposed to give the exact same numerical score to the same game, or else they’ve botched their review? I can only assume you’re not being serious. My bad for biting on trolling, I guess.
Really? I wish I would have thought of saying that. Damn, if only I had not said that the review is wrong because they worked hard, this never would have started.
Why oh why did I ever say, “The review is wrong, because though it is a crappy game, they worked really hard at it.”
Why did I ever have to say such a thing? It’s hard for even me to believe I said that. Amazing.
From this point forward on this board, I think I am going to stop responding to what people say, and simply respond to what I assume they said. Because it’s much easier to sling my well thought out arguments against statements I assume will be made, rather than review the statement and see whether it addressed my point but said something else entirely.
I don’t get why the fact that people worked hard on a good game should give them more credit than people who worked hard on a bad game. Do you think that John Romero spent all those years trying to make a terrible game? Do you think that Derek Smart knows that he is churning out titles that most people find impenetrable?
I get that you think the review is wrong. Great. I accept that and embrace that and look forward to playing and seeing who is right - Tom, Brett or SlyFrog.
I get that you think the score is too low, especially on a site like Gamespot which you think has a reputation for high scores. Fine. We’ve had the grade inflation argument a million times before and I’m perfectly happy with sites dialing scores down in any case. You might think differently.
But if more than one person is reading you wrong or misinterpreting you, the burden of interpretation may not be on them.
