surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
@Astalano: If I got a 6/10 on a paper in class, it would probably mean that I had come up with some good ideas in the paper, but failed in some significant way to present them well. That would be very much in line with the text of that review, and fits what I would consider a 6/10 game. Flawed, but some could still enjoy the intent behind the flaws, just like someone could still read my paper and get a lot out of the ideas, despite their poor presentation. And 7/10 isn't perfect or even nearly perfect. In fact, for a flagship title that, in its heyday, was about as perfect as RPGs get, 7/10 is a pretty big dip and is a score that I would consider disappointing. Note: disappointing doesn't mean terrible, it simply means that it didn't meet expectations (which were higher than 7/10).
Your MW2 complaints are merely conflicting opinions with the reviews. You can't judge a review based on your own opinions and tastes, because the reviewer likely doesn't share them. I'm not saying that your cause is bad or anything, because I do agree that sometimes the score and review doesn't seem to match. I just don't think you picked good examples here. Those reviews actually explained why the games got the scores they did, despite complaints (kind of like Jim's Two Worlds II review, in fact).
Your MW2 complaints are merely conflicting opinions with the reviews. You can't judge a review based on your own opinions and tastes, because the reviewer likely doesn't share them. I'm not saying that your cause is bad or anything, because I do agree that sometimes the score and review doesn't seem to match. I just don't think you picked good examples here. Those reviews actually explained why the games got the scores they did, despite complaints (kind of like Jim's Two Worlds II review, in fact).
hmmm... I should note I confused the two companies in a previous comment and it was Southpeak that delayed Topware's game for marketing reasons. Regardless, it just seems that the game is a solid game - but for some reason, most everyone involved seems intent on screwing it up. First there were the delays (and no valid reason for them), then all this activity that just makes everyone involved look bad.
To be honest, I've had a bad impression of the people involved ever since waiting in line to play this game at PAX, only to be rudely interrupted after my first couple of minutes of game play and told that I would have to give up my controller to someone from the press... then I was thanked for my time and sent on my way. I was a little pissed at the time - but moreso at the person with the press pass who I thought butted in line. (though now I rather wonder if they yanked the person out of line)
:(
Still... it's a good game and I am enjoying it!
To be honest, I've had a bad impression of the people involved ever since waiting in line to play this game at PAX, only to be rudely interrupted after my first couple of minutes of game play and told that I would have to give up my controller to someone from the press... then I was thanked for my time and sent on my way. I was a little pissed at the time - but moreso at the person with the press pass who I thought butted in line. (though now I rather wonder if they yanked the person out of line)
:(
Still... it's a good game and I am enjoying it!
@Tristrix: Why conspiracy theories? It's really a no-brainer: companies, whether big or small will try to optimize their revenue streams. This is one way of doing it. What is more puzzling is that giants don't get caught out, but Topware -- a small company with no real AAA titles under its belt to date -- does. If you look at all of this objectively, you'll see two things:
1) Companies with less clout can not bully, pay, or cover-up any snafoos, failed bribe attempts or set-ups.
2) As Jim hinted in the article, this is not the first and not the only time someone's got caught red-handed.
Logics dictate that if those two above are true, then every single gaming company out there is competing in every way possible, and those that for some reason cannot provide the biggest bribe/most competent lawyers/network of connections to hush-up someone, are get caught improving an overall image of the industry, thus helping create an image of objectivity. It's a scape goat practice if anything. Some naive or reasonably unexperienced company is singled out every year or so to maintain the status quo of the hard-hitting sites out there, thus appeasing the conspiracy theorists....
Or it may simply be, that all of the gaming industry is made on honest hardworking folk who try their best to survive in a less-than-perfect marektplace and are angry/envious of those that break the pattern and try to oil the cogs of the machine.
Or it may be that indeed Topware is an evil company run by devils and operated by DEMONS(tm), and Dtoid is here to save the day and shine the bright light onto the shady practices, burning away the sin, uncovering that rampant Machiavellian web of intrigue so that we can sleep better at night (instead of playing good and great games, TW2 among them) :P
1) Companies with less clout can not bully, pay, or cover-up any snafoos, failed bribe attempts or set-ups.
2) As Jim hinted in the article, this is not the first and not the only time someone's got caught red-handed.
Logics dictate that if those two above are true, then every single gaming company out there is competing in every way possible, and those that for some reason cannot provide the biggest bribe/most competent lawyers/network of connections to hush-up someone, are get caught improving an overall image of the industry, thus helping create an image of objectivity. It's a scape goat practice if anything. Some naive or reasonably unexperienced company is singled out every year or so to maintain the status quo of the hard-hitting sites out there, thus appeasing the conspiracy theorists....
Or it may simply be, that all of the gaming industry is made on honest hardworking folk who try their best to survive in a less-than-perfect marektplace and are angry/envious of those that break the pattern and try to oil the cogs of the machine.
Or it may be that indeed Topware is an evil company run by devils and operated by DEMONS(tm), and Dtoid is here to save the day and shine the bright light onto the shady practices, burning away the sin, uncovering that rampant Machiavellian web of intrigue so that we can sleep better at night (instead of playing good and great games, TW2 among them) :P
Coming from Zuxxez Entertainment I expect nothing less. They were responsible for part of the mass accusation and legal threatening of thousands of people for, at best alleged, illegal downloads.
They're slime with the morals of the SS.
They're slime with the morals of the SS.
Like others I just feel sorry for the actual creators of the game because if this turns out to be true then they've just had years worth of work made worthless because it was too risky to let people decide how good it was themselves. This is some foul play indeed.
@Epic and Astalano
You two need to stop following each other around just to fight in threads. Especially when you both seem to be on the same side (The "this is bullshit" one)
@sofik88
@Epic and Astalano
You two need to stop following each other around just to fight in threads. Especially when you both seem to be on the same side (The "this is bullshit" one)
@sofik88
It doesn't surprise me that the smaller companies would do this kind of shit more than the EAs and Activisons of the world because they have much more to lose from poor reviews of a single game.
Smaller game developers are at the mercy of game reviewers who may or may not give a game the chance it deserves. I've read many reviews for games where it seemed glaringly obvious that the reviewer had no interest in the game and was just begrudgingly powering through as little of it as necessary so they could shit out a review and move on to something they cared about (IGNs DP review for example). As a consumer, I can just disregard reviews like that and move on with my life, but in an age where Metacritic scores can make or break an entire company, I can sympathize and definitely see how these publishers can resort to these tactics.
I just chalk this up as yet another reason that I am glad I can just kick back and enjoy video gaming as a hobby. I feel sorry for folks on the business end of game creation. Poor bastards can lose their jobs even if they do make great games.
I blame the internet.
Smaller game developers are at the mercy of game reviewers who may or may not give a game the chance it deserves. I've read many reviews for games where it seemed glaringly obvious that the reviewer had no interest in the game and was just begrudgingly powering through as little of it as necessary so they could shit out a review and move on to something they cared about (IGNs DP review for example). As a consumer, I can just disregard reviews like that and move on with my life, but in an age where Metacritic scores can make or break an entire company, I can sympathize and definitely see how these publishers can resort to these tactics.
I just chalk this up as yet another reason that I am glad I can just kick back and enjoy video gaming as a hobby. I feel sorry for folks on the business end of game creation. Poor bastards can lose their jobs even if they do make great games.
I blame the internet.
Well, their game was not all that and now I am glad I rented it. This might just be an example of fucking these guys over by pirating the shit out of that game. Asshats.
JOURNALISM!!
I'm not surprised at any of this. Some of these allegations are not news to me, one in particular I've been aware of for quite some time. As Jim says, even if these particular accusations are not true, Topware must have pulled some other serious bullshit at some point to piss off this many people from this many different sources.
I'm not surprised at any of this. Some of these allegations are not news to me, one in particular I've been aware of for quite some time. As Jim says, even if these particular accusations are not true, Topware must have pulled some other serious bullshit at some point to piss off this many people from this many different sources.
@Jim
Glad to hear the gaming media industry isn't as shady as I imagined it could be. The potential is certainly there. I wonder if you guys (as in, the gaming press) realize just how powerful you've become lately.
There was a time not very long ago when I could afford every game that sounded interesting to me, because there weren't that many games released every year. There could be months between major game releases, and I'd have time to play the shit out of them just passing the time till the next one came out.
Now, you've got a major AAA title being released practically every Tuesday. I rely on guys like you to tell me which ones to pre-order and which to just put on the Gamefly queue. Of course I understand what an imperfect system that is... for example, I loved Assassin's Creed 2 and FFXIII, and I disliked Gran Turismo 5. However, by and large, it's a system that works well for me.
Imagine if someone took it upon themselves to take advantage of the dependency that guys like me have on sites like Destructoid, IGN, 1UP, Kotaku, Joystiq, etc. There's so much potential for corruption there that, even if it doesn't exist, it makes us very vulnerable.
I've given you my heart, Jim. Be gentle.
Glad to hear the gaming media industry isn't as shady as I imagined it could be. The potential is certainly there. I wonder if you guys (as in, the gaming press) realize just how powerful you've become lately.
There was a time not very long ago when I could afford every game that sounded interesting to me, because there weren't that many games released every year. There could be months between major game releases, and I'd have time to play the shit out of them just passing the time till the next one came out.
Now, you've got a major AAA title being released practically every Tuesday. I rely on guys like you to tell me which ones to pre-order and which to just put on the Gamefly queue. Of course I understand what an imperfect system that is... for example, I loved Assassin's Creed 2 and FFXIII, and I disliked Gran Turismo 5. However, by and large, it's a system that works well for me.
Imagine if someone took it upon themselves to take advantage of the dependency that guys like me have on sites like Destructoid, IGN, 1UP, Kotaku, Joystiq, etc. There's so much potential for corruption there that, even if it doesn't exist, it makes us very vulnerable.
I've given you my heart, Jim. Be gentle.
Hearing that they sent their own people to comment and make the game sound amazing does make a bit of sense, I acknowledge many people still love the game the way it is, but after playing the game myself in depth and looking at the problems I found this explanation of the attitude behind why it's so good rather enlightening.
"If I got a 6/10 on a paper in class, it would probably mean that I had come up with some good ideas in the paper, but failed in some significant way to present them well. That would be very much in line with the text of that review, and fits what I would consider a 6/10 game."
Yes, but it would also mean it was above average. It was alright, but not good or great or excellent or truely brilliant.
"Flawed, but some could still enjoy the intent behind the flaws, just like someone could still read my paper and get a lot out of the ideas, despite their poor presentation."
Which is my point...?
"And 7/10 isn't perfect or even nearly perfect. In fact, for a flagship title that, in its heyday, was about as perfect as RPGs get, 7/10 is a pretty big dip and is a score that I would consider disappointing."
If it's disappointing then give it a 4, 5 or 6. Not a 7. A 7 is a good game. A very good/fun game with flaws that don't diminish the experience too much. A very good/fun game that might not innovate or it might have a bad story but still the fundamental gameplay concepts do a very good job of communicating the intent of the game. Not a great game, but it is a very solid buy.
An 8/10 is truely great and these almost qualify as games of the year and although they do have flaws, again, they rarely get in the way of the fun.
A 9/10 is top notch, almost guaranteed game of the year if it gets enough of these. Why? Because with a 9/10 game there are almost no flaws, it's fresh, maybe fun in the extreme (if that's the intent over say, delivering a message like Metro 2033 or Stalker) or very artistic with the gameplay and world shaped around a concept, etc, etc, but it just does not rise to the status of "one of the best games of all time". No Half-Life, but you're most likely a fool if you don't pick it up. Modern Warfare 2 does not belong in this category and neither does Modern Warfare 1 nor in fact, any of the Call of Duty games. This isn't some opinion, it's a fact, taking into consideration the gameplay, story and presentation. Modern Warfare 1 may be an 8/10 game, a must-buy fun game for the year, but it's not an example of fantastic design by a LONG SHOT.
Then you get to the industry standards. Half-Life, Starcraft, etc. These are the games other games aspire to be. The pinaccle of game design, where story is masterfully excecuted, the presentation is astounding, the gameplay is phenomenal or one aspect may compensate for another (e.g. not best graphics ever, but the way the game is designed in terms of world, story, gameplay is so amazing you can overlook it).
Modern Warfare, Halo: Reach and similar mainstream titles almost NEVER have design in mind. Go look at Frictional Games' blogs, which are a great example of what I'm talking about. When designers make a first person shooter, I guarantee you that 90% of the devs did not have the actual fucking first person view in mind and the effects of it. This is where innovation comes from. When you question your mechanics, when you base your game off an idea and not established mechanics (when I said before 10/10 games set industry standards I meant in quality, even though many games copy them, which I think is sometimes a mistake). No one does this, and thus, I cannot see 10/10's for Modern Warfare and see them as scores which had thought put into them. Because they could not have. Objectively, the game does not deserve a 10/10 because the design is often all over the place, such as the serious story being undermined by retarded "Kill millions of enemies" gameplay, to list just one example.
"Note: disappointing doesn't mean terrible, it simply means that it didn't meet expectations (which were higher than 7/10)."
That's bullshit. There's only 8, 9 and 10 after 7. The reason why we have a full 1-10 scale is so that we can use the WHOLE SCALE, not regulate mildly good games to above 7.
"Your MW2 complaints are merely conflicting opinions with the reviews. You can't judge a review based on your own opinions and tastes, because the reviewer likely doesn't share them. I'm not saying that your cause is bad or anything, because I do agree that sometimes the score and review doesn't seem to match. I just don't think you picked good examples here. Those reviews actually explained why the games got the scores they did, despite complaints (kind of like Jim's Two Worlds II review, in fact)."
Those were actually for FF13, although MW2 has very stupid summaries as well.
Yes, but it would also mean it was above average. It was alright, but not good or great or excellent or truely brilliant.
"Flawed, but some could still enjoy the intent behind the flaws, just like someone could still read my paper and get a lot out of the ideas, despite their poor presentation."
Which is my point...?
"And 7/10 isn't perfect or even nearly perfect. In fact, for a flagship title that, in its heyday, was about as perfect as RPGs get, 7/10 is a pretty big dip and is a score that I would consider disappointing."
If it's disappointing then give it a 4, 5 or 6. Not a 7. A 7 is a good game. A very good/fun game with flaws that don't diminish the experience too much. A very good/fun game that might not innovate or it might have a bad story but still the fundamental gameplay concepts do a very good job of communicating the intent of the game. Not a great game, but it is a very solid buy.
An 8/10 is truely great and these almost qualify as games of the year and although they do have flaws, again, they rarely get in the way of the fun.
A 9/10 is top notch, almost guaranteed game of the year if it gets enough of these. Why? Because with a 9/10 game there are almost no flaws, it's fresh, maybe fun in the extreme (if that's the intent over say, delivering a message like Metro 2033 or Stalker) or very artistic with the gameplay and world shaped around a concept, etc, etc, but it just does not rise to the status of "one of the best games of all time". No Half-Life, but you're most likely a fool if you don't pick it up. Modern Warfare 2 does not belong in this category and neither does Modern Warfare 1 nor in fact, any of the Call of Duty games. This isn't some opinion, it's a fact, taking into consideration the gameplay, story and presentation. Modern Warfare 1 may be an 8/10 game, a must-buy fun game for the year, but it's not an example of fantastic design by a LONG SHOT.
Then you get to the industry standards. Half-Life, Starcraft, etc. These are the games other games aspire to be. The pinaccle of game design, where story is masterfully excecuted, the presentation is astounding, the gameplay is phenomenal or one aspect may compensate for another (e.g. not best graphics ever, but the way the game is designed in terms of world, story, gameplay is so amazing you can overlook it).
Modern Warfare, Halo: Reach and similar mainstream titles almost NEVER have design in mind. Go look at Frictional Games' blogs, which are a great example of what I'm talking about. When designers make a first person shooter, I guarantee you that 90% of the devs did not have the actual fucking first person view in mind and the effects of it. This is where innovation comes from. When you question your mechanics, when you base your game off an idea and not established mechanics (when I said before 10/10 games set industry standards I meant in quality, even though many games copy them, which I think is sometimes a mistake). No one does this, and thus, I cannot see 10/10's for Modern Warfare and see them as scores which had thought put into them. Because they could not have. Objectively, the game does not deserve a 10/10 because the design is often all over the place, such as the serious story being undermined by retarded "Kill millions of enemies" gameplay, to list just one example.
"Note: disappointing doesn't mean terrible, it simply means that it didn't meet expectations (which were higher than 7/10)."
That's bullshit. There's only 8, 9 and 10 after 7. The reason why we have a full 1-10 scale is so that we can use the WHOLE SCALE, not regulate mildly good games to above 7.
"Your MW2 complaints are merely conflicting opinions with the reviews. You can't judge a review based on your own opinions and tastes, because the reviewer likely doesn't share them. I'm not saying that your cause is bad or anything, because I do agree that sometimes the score and review doesn't seem to match. I just don't think you picked good examples here. Those reviews actually explained why the games got the scores they did, despite complaints (kind of like Jim's Two Worlds II review, in fact)."
Those were actually for FF13, although MW2 has very stupid summaries as well.
Like this is new?
What's the difference between this and the big publishers flying out reviewers/previewers and putting them up in swanky hotels or showering them with free gifts. I guess TopWare doesn't have the money to keep this out of the news.
What's the difference between this and the big publishers flying out reviewers/previewers and putting them up in swanky hotels or showering them with free gifts. I guess TopWare doesn't have the money to keep this out of the news.
Well, Jim, I think that you just got caught with your pants down, perpetrating some hard-hitting journalism! Please make an effort to do more things like this. It was a fantastic read!
Seriously! Cut the shit, Topware. If Kane & Lynch 2 can sell a million fucking copies with the reviews IT got, then I think you guys are going to be okay. Sweet Jesus.
Why in the fuck is Astalano trying to tell us that his opinion of MW2 and Halo Reach is a "fact"? What does this nonsense have to do with the story?
I think Topware is filled with assholes, but Two Worlds II is a good game.
The part of this story I question is this:
- "Topware employees have been writing Amazon reviews, posting Youtube comments, and posing elsewhere as members of the public to generate positive feedback on its own products."
How does anyone know this? It sounds like shitty internet rumors I hear from bashers who what want to try to discredit the positive opinions.
The part of this story I question is this:
- "Topware employees have been writing Amazon reviews, posting Youtube comments, and posing elsewhere as members of the public to generate positive feedback on its own products."
How does anyone know this? It sounds like shitty internet rumors I hear from bashers who what want to try to discredit the positive opinions.
@ EternalDeathSlayer
I was thinking the same thing. I stopped reading the last post after he claimed it was "fact" that MW2 & MW are not 9/10 games, despite the whole "opinion" part and stuff.
I was thinking the same thing. I stopped reading the last post after he claimed it was "fact" that MW2 & MW are not 9/10 games, despite the whole "opinion" part and stuff.
Maybe (hopefully) I'm being overly cynical, but what Jim details mostly seems to fall under the categories of 'user review aggregation' and 'ad payola', both of which I thought were fairly standard (in degrees).
In the first case, while it can be shady, companies all over the spectrum will look to influence user reviews/ratings/feedback by having employees track and post in various forums. At the retail level this can be fake 'user reviews' in places like Amazon and Target, and in the B2B world by certain more subtle ways in open-bid networks that rank vendor performance. Many business will have employees post on internet forums where their service/product applies as a regular user that just happens to love 'Company X's' products. Nothing to be proud about, but many, many companies do this.
In the latter case it's more starkly unethical. However, and I don't want to come across as part of the black helicopter set here, I kinda, sorta, maybe believe more than a few video game review sites already run soft versions of 'ad money payola'. IGN very conspicuously runs lengthy, multi-day 'Features of...' articles for certain upcoming games. They obviously serve more as 'soft advertisements' than the usual one-off preview articles. Games that have big 'Features of...' article roll-outs almost always coincide with larger advertising presence on the site. Though games like these sometimes get debatable scores (RE5, Bioshock 2) and often have 'Second Opinion' columns where other reviewers walk back the most glowing comments, it's much thinner evidence to say that ad money 'buys big scores. However, it does seen true (well beyond IGN) that prominent, recurring 'Preview Feature' articles for certain games coincide with on-site advertising.
I'm not standing up for Take-Two, contra I would say their PR team appears
(from the reports)crass and heavy-handed. But with no disrespect to gals and guys who take their job in the industry very seriously, I tend to believe that ad money can influence game coverage in(especially in this economy), even if not outright review scores. Be very happy to be wrong on that.
In the first case, while it can be shady, companies all over the spectrum will look to influence user reviews/ratings/feedback by having employees track and post in various forums. At the retail level this can be fake 'user reviews' in places like Amazon and Target, and in the B2B world by certain more subtle ways in open-bid networks that rank vendor performance. Many business will have employees post on internet forums where their service/product applies as a regular user that just happens to love 'Company X's' products. Nothing to be proud about, but many, many companies do this.
In the latter case it's more starkly unethical. However, and I don't want to come across as part of the black helicopter set here, I kinda, sorta, maybe believe more than a few video game review sites already run soft versions of 'ad money payola'. IGN very conspicuously runs lengthy, multi-day 'Features of...' articles for certain upcoming games. They obviously serve more as 'soft advertisements' than the usual one-off preview articles. Games that have big 'Features of...' article roll-outs almost always coincide with larger advertising presence on the site. Though games like these sometimes get debatable scores (RE5, Bioshock 2) and often have 'Second Opinion' columns where other reviewers walk back the most glowing comments, it's much thinner evidence to say that ad money 'buys big scores. However, it does seen true (well beyond IGN) that prominent, recurring 'Preview Feature' articles for certain games coincide with on-site advertising.
I'm not standing up for Take-Two, contra I would say their PR team appears
(from the reports)crass and heavy-handed. But with no disrespect to gals and guys who take their job in the industry very seriously, I tend to believe that ad money can influence game coverage in(especially in this economy), even if not outright review scores. Be very happy to be wrong on that.
"Why in the fuck is Astalano trying to tell us that his opinion of MW2 and Halo Reach is a "fact"? What does this nonsense have to do with the story?"
Hey, never said you couldn't like the games. Just don't rate them 10/10 or 9/10 when the designs are flawed.
It has everything to do with the fact that companies like Topware freak out because reviewers don't give less than 7/10 to mainstream games (only 1 reviewer gave Black Ops less than a 7, which was the escapist). Topware is also at fault, but you can hardly blame them when reviewer's standards are low for mainstream games and they don't use the full spectrum of the scoring system.
@Occams electric toothbrush
Yay, more irrelevant garbage.
Hey, never said you couldn't like the games. Just don't rate them 10/10 or 9/10 when the designs are flawed.
It has everything to do with the fact that companies like Topware freak out because reviewers don't give less than 7/10 to mainstream games (only 1 reviewer gave Black Ops less than a 7, which was the escapist). Topware is also at fault, but you can hardly blame them when reviewer's standards are low for mainstream games and they don't use the full spectrum of the scoring system.
@Occams electric toothbrush
Yay, more irrelevant garbage.
And also, this article really surprised me Jim, way to go doing some investigative work. I hope to see more of these in the future.
@sofik88 Possibly because those allegations you listed don't have witnesses attached to them. They are merely conjecture.
I love those "my opinion = incontrovertible fact" types. Endless sources of internet entertainment. Keep it up, Astalano. I'm on your side, bro.
I really want to play this game. Have since release and even went hunting for a copy. Never found one so I backed off to wait for a price drop and restock. I'll still pick it up after this. The PR department may be scummy but they didn't code the game.
Glad to see someone in the gaming industry is willing to call out game companies on their bullshit. I've yet to see any other gaming website even call attention to this.
If only your damn sources would come out and name themselves. Ugh. I really dislike reading things about skewing reviews and boosting stats. I was actually going to give Two Worlds 2 a shot, but I'm not going to support a company that doesn't even believe in itself.
I did like this article, very journalistic. A little dry, though.
I did like this article, very journalistic. A little dry, though.
@Astalano: I'd give Black Ops a 9/10 (with the same thoughts of Jim, no online issues baring).
Best story out of the entire franchise, well paced single player, excellent multiplayer, gives off a good vibe of "Good Summer Action Movie, which is always a plus for these type of games, use of Rolling Stones.
If the multiplayer wasn't reported broken (I myself haven't had issues), yeah, I wouldn't think twice about giving a 9 to Black Ops.
Best story out of the entire franchise, well paced single player, excellent multiplayer, gives off a good vibe of "Good Summer Action Movie, which is always a plus for these type of games, use of Rolling Stones.
If the multiplayer wasn't reported broken (I myself haven't had issues), yeah, I wouldn't think twice about giving a 9 to Black Ops.
"I love those "my opinion = incontrovertible fact" types. Endless sources of internet entertainment. Keep it up, Astalano. I'm on your side, bro."
Yeah, "bro", because I definitely said ALL Call of Duty games and Halo games are just apocalyptically bad games and not fun. Some may consider them great. Good for them. Again, don't sit there giving 10's and 9's just because you find it quite fun. Those are reserved for amazingly designed games.
Otherwise, we get shit like this:
http://n4g.com/news/394102/psm3-reviews-uncharted-2-21-20
Yeah, "bro", because I definitely said ALL Call of Duty games and Halo games are just apocalyptically bad games and not fun. Some may consider them great. Good for them. Again, don't sit there giving 10's and 9's just because you find it quite fun. Those are reserved for amazingly designed games.
Otherwise, we get shit like this:
http://n4g.com/news/394102/psm3-reviews-uncharted-2-21-20
@Daxelman
I suppose Transformers is a 9/10 movie then?
You just described a 7 actually. As I said, 7's are great fun games. A nice little action game to get the blood pumping. Not an example of amazing design, but a very fun game nonetheless.
However, you cannot justify giving it a 9. What are you going to do when a truely amazing game comes out that is a thousand times better than Black Ops and you see the true potential of our medium? What happens when we get this decade's Half-Life? Are you going to give it an 11?
I suppose Transformers is a 9/10 movie then?
You just described a 7 actually. As I said, 7's are great fun games. A nice little action game to get the blood pumping. Not an example of amazing design, but a very fun game nonetheless.
However, you cannot justify giving it a 9. What are you going to do when a truely amazing game comes out that is a thousand times better than Black Ops and you see the true potential of our medium? What happens when we get this decade's Half-Life? Are you going to give it an 11?
I'm sorry Astalano. It's just so hard to take you seriously when you're being such an overbearing blowhard. Read back over your comments on this article and try to maintain objectivity, if you can. I know that's hard to do when you know your own intentions, but just try to see it from an outsider's perspective. You're very much coming off as one of those typical internet know-it-all "I'm right because I say so, everyone else stfu" types.
I don't know you, I don't know if that's really you, but it's very off-putting.
I don't know you, I don't know if that's really you, but it's very off-putting.
Man I wake up on Sunday and get a goddamn expose. It was a very informative read. Nicely done, Jim.
While I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, it would be a really, really big coincidence/conspiracy if all these industry people decided to gang up on Topware of their own accord. I believe that Topware is definitely engaged in some sleazy-ass business practices.
While I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, it would be a really, really big coincidence/conspiracy if all these industry people decided to gang up on Topware of their own accord. I believe that Topware is definitely engaged in some sleazy-ass business practices.
Man, all this JOURNALISM on a Sunday morning?
The funny thing about this is, who cares if their site gets blacklisted by Topware? What's the consequence of that, you don't have to review Two Worlds III? I'm sure people are so hurt by that.
The funny thing about this is, who cares if their site gets blacklisted by Topware? What's the consequence of that, you don't have to review Two Worlds III? I'm sure people are so hurt by that.
@ Astalano: There is no real standard in game design. This isn't a wireless fucking signal here, there's nowhere to go to find out exactly how any game from any genre is supposed to be designed.
And if I think a game is the most fun I've ever had compared to all other games, than yes, I can give it a damn 10 if I want. You're acting like we can go pick up some book and it will tell us what is good design and what is bad design.
You speak of Half-Life like it's the greatest achievement ever in gaming. Guess what? I've tried to play both Half-Life 1 and 2 and am not interested. Are they well designed? I guess, but that doesn't mean everybody will enjoy it. You're talking about this like there's some sort of standard out there for all critics to turn to.
Sorry, but that's only good when it comes to dealing with absolutes and facts, and the enjoyment of a game is neither of those.
What would you consider BioShock? Is that a 9 out of 10? If so, why? Please answer so I can rip your comment to shreds with my superior intellect and giant penis. Those are both facts, BTW.
And if I think a game is the most fun I've ever had compared to all other games, than yes, I can give it a damn 10 if I want. You're acting like we can go pick up some book and it will tell us what is good design and what is bad design.
You speak of Half-Life like it's the greatest achievement ever in gaming. Guess what? I've tried to play both Half-Life 1 and 2 and am not interested. Are they well designed? I guess, but that doesn't mean everybody will enjoy it. You're talking about this like there's some sort of standard out there for all critics to turn to.
Sorry, but that's only good when it comes to dealing with absolutes and facts, and the enjoyment of a game is neither of those.
What would you consider BioShock? Is that a 9 out of 10? If so, why? Please answer so I can rip your comment to shreds with my superior intellect and giant penis. Those are both facts, BTW.
@Astalano: You see, that's the thing, you can be "well designed" and still suck, because you're not enjoyable.
Which in turn would mean you were not well designed, otherwise, you'd be enjoyable, but hey.
If your design is good, then your game is fun. If your game is fun, then you get a high score. Ala Black Ops/Halo/Half Life 2. Fun games, high scores.
If your design is "good", but your game is not fun, then you get a bad score, regardless. You can say your design is great and all, but if I'm not having fun playing your shit, your shit sucks. End of story.
I mean, Metal Gear Solid 4 is a "well designed game", and I think it deserves a 4, because I have no fun playing it, what so ever. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory however, deserves a 9, because not only is it designed well, but it's a blast to play.
Realistically, I think games below the 5 mark do something wrong in the general basics of the game. Either their are amazingly glaring, game breaking bugs, or something in the code is fucked up, "codemonkey problems". If you get a 5, you managed to make a game that won't crash every 30 seconds, but still isn't fun regardless. 6-10 games then start adding how fun, well presentable, special gameplay quirks that bring it to that level of awesome we all want in in a video game.
That's how I see the review scale. Of course, there are games that just break that rule (Deadly Premonition, Fallout: New Vegas), but that's how the scale works for me. And it's worked out pretty well so far, I'm usually happy with all my purchases.
Which in turn would mean you were not well designed, otherwise, you'd be enjoyable, but hey.
If your design is good, then your game is fun. If your game is fun, then you get a high score. Ala Black Ops/Halo/Half Life 2. Fun games, high scores.
If your design is "good", but your game is not fun, then you get a bad score, regardless. You can say your design is great and all, but if I'm not having fun playing your shit, your shit sucks. End of story.
I mean, Metal Gear Solid 4 is a "well designed game", and I think it deserves a 4, because I have no fun playing it, what so ever. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory however, deserves a 9, because not only is it designed well, but it's a blast to play.
Realistically, I think games below the 5 mark do something wrong in the general basics of the game. Either their are amazingly glaring, game breaking bugs, or something in the code is fucked up, "codemonkey problems". If you get a 5, you managed to make a game that won't crash every 30 seconds, but still isn't fun regardless. 6-10 games then start adding how fun, well presentable, special gameplay quirks that bring it to that level of awesome we all want in in a video game.
That's how I see the review scale. Of course, there are games that just break that rule (Deadly Premonition, Fallout: New Vegas), but that's how the scale works for me. And it's worked out pretty well so far, I'm usually happy with all my purchases.
@Tristrix
It's not my fault you've all been brainwashed by poor reviews from fanboy reviewers instead of professional reviewers who look at a game's design.
I don't mean to come off as overbearing. I just need people to understand that the reviewing system is stupid, but also that it is important that we get it right, because this is what developers look at when designing their games. They need feedback that will help to make stories more believable, characters more authentic, tones more consistent, etc.
If you see a big breasted woman in a game who is there for sex value and nothing more, you point it out. If a game is trying to have a serious story and it lets you revel in a power fantasy, you point out the tone inconsistency.
Look at the latest homefront developer diary (goliath one) and look how utterly stupid it is. It's supposed to be dramatic, with a feeling of hopelessness, but the player is gunning down tons of enemies with an assault rifle.
My intention is merely to point out that a 5, 6 or 7 isn't a bad score and that admitting that a title you loved (e.g. Black Ops) might not deserve a 9 or 10 just because it was fun.
I ain't dissing your games and saying they're shit. I'm critizing the review system that makes them out to be far better than they are and far more relevant to the industry in terms of design than they are.
I have to give to movie reviewers though. At least their reviews of movies are usually pretty accurate.
Hey, I liked the first Transformers for some cool action. I don't give two shits if it was reviewed low. But I do acknowledge that it is not a good movie and deserves its ratings.
Again, not trying to be overbearing. Just trying to point out something.
It's not my fault you've all been brainwashed by poor reviews from fanboy reviewers instead of professional reviewers who look at a game's design.
I don't mean to come off as overbearing. I just need people to understand that the reviewing system is stupid, but also that it is important that we get it right, because this is what developers look at when designing their games. They need feedback that will help to make stories more believable, characters more authentic, tones more consistent, etc.
If you see a big breasted woman in a game who is there for sex value and nothing more, you point it out. If a game is trying to have a serious story and it lets you revel in a power fantasy, you point out the tone inconsistency.
Look at the latest homefront developer diary (goliath one) and look how utterly stupid it is. It's supposed to be dramatic, with a feeling of hopelessness, but the player is gunning down tons of enemies with an assault rifle.
My intention is merely to point out that a 5, 6 or 7 isn't a bad score and that admitting that a title you loved (e.g. Black Ops) might not deserve a 9 or 10 just because it was fun.
I ain't dissing your games and saying they're shit. I'm critizing the review system that makes them out to be far better than they are and far more relevant to the industry in terms of design than they are.
I have to give to movie reviewers though. At least their reviews of movies are usually pretty accurate.
Hey, I liked the first Transformers for some cool action. I don't give two shits if it was reviewed low. But I do acknowledge that it is not a good movie and deserves its ratings.
Again, not trying to be overbearing. Just trying to point out something.
Great article. Thanks for taking the time, Jim. Kind of shines a whole new light on that regrettably unforgettable scene of you taking the Two Worlds II statue with the army helmet!
@Daxelman
I accidentally closed my window so my original comment was deleted.
However, the main point was:
Not all games have to be fun. When we see better designed games we will see that games like Amnesia don't aim to be fun because they aim to evoke certain emotions. This what people like me refer to as "art" games. Games with a message.
Fun without meaning is pointless and reaks of lazy design. It doesn't mean it's not enjoyable, it just means it's silly fun.
The industry so far has been revelling in stupid escapist fun, but that's not what we should be about.
For example, I don't like Pulp Fiction, but it's still very well designed.
To illustrate my point here are two other opinions that can hopefully back up my own argument.
http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2011/02/dead-island-trailer-and-future-of-games.html
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_291/8608-Almost-Art
I accidentally closed my window so my original comment was deleted.
However, the main point was:
Not all games have to be fun. When we see better designed games we will see that games like Amnesia don't aim to be fun because they aim to evoke certain emotions. This what people like me refer to as "art" games. Games with a message.
Fun without meaning is pointless and reaks of lazy design. It doesn't mean it's not enjoyable, it just means it's silly fun.
The industry so far has been revelling in stupid escapist fun, but that's not what we should be about.
For example, I don't like Pulp Fiction, but it's still very well designed.
To illustrate my point here are two other opinions that can hopefully back up my own argument.
http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2011/02/dead-island-trailer-and-future-of-games.html
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_291/8608-Almost-Art
follow
