 |
| |
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:15
|
|
This is from Shrapnel Games at: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/Sarge/index.asp They do many games, but I heard about them lately for Space Empires 4. Anyway, as you read this, consider if Firaxis isn't in the same position ... and keep these comments in mind as you read upcoming reviews.
Yes, I want FAIR reviews of Civ3, not the kind of garbage described below.
"Reviews: This Means War!"
So how many of you read game reviews. Go ahead raise your hands, don't be afraid. Well, that looks like most of you. Now, how many pay attention to game reviews? On second thought don't answer that. It would just piss me off.
As you can probably tell, this is going to be a diatribe on what is wrong with game reviews. We at Shrapnel Games, and I mean all of us at Shrapnel, have about had it with some game reviewers. These are mainly the new guys (although you can throw in a few of the old ones). They don't seem to get it.
For instance, a recent review of Air Command 3.0 received a less than stellar review from one gaming site. The reason: It wasn't a hardcore simulation of Air Traffic Control. Never mind that we never marketed it as a hardcore simulation of Air Traffic Control. Is it just me or is that sort of like reviewing the game of chess, and giving it a bad review, because it doesn't make a very good card game? Aaaarrrgghh!!?!! Luckily for all, this site seems to have closed down.
Another one, this for Desert Rats, the only bad review this wonderful old school wargame has received, was given its poor rating because, get this, it's an old school wargame! NO! REALLY! So how was it as an old school wargame? The reviewer thought it was solid (I gleamed this, my word not his). It's just that he didn't want it to be an old school wargame. Sort of like the chess/card game crap again. Only different.
Oh, and while I'm ranting: What is it with reviewers and graphics? A recent poll on our website (September's Monthly Poll) showed that only 4% of strategy game players thought graphics was the most important feature of a strategy game. Now, go to almost any review of a strategy or wargame and count how many paragraphs are used to discuss graphics. We found that it was usually anywhere from 20-40% of the article! And we have been marked down sometimes as much as 30% for our games' lack of great graphics! Thirty percent of the total package?
Psst. Reviewers, come close. Let me let you in on a secret. We can't compete with Ghost Recon on graphics. We don't have three dozen artists working on one product, and we don't spend $8,000,000 (yes, that's eight million dollars) on production. It won't ever happen. So, why don't you stop comparing our games to those high budget products and just review the game in the correct context. It's a game put out by independents. For the True Gamers. Those who value gameplay, strategy, tactics, and fun over a piece art. As Tim Brooks, our esteemed President, said to me yesterday, "After a certain level or art work, it just becomes unimportant. If I want to see art, I'll go to a museum."
So guys listen up. We are declaring war. I have been put in charge of the review copies of our games. Our review list, those that receive our games for review, has been whittled down. We will only support those magazines and gaming sites that dare to be different. Those that review a game for what it is, not what they want it to be, and those who don't believe for a game to be an enjoyable experience that it requires 36 artists working on it for three years.
Lock and load
Last edited by yin26 on 26-10-2001 at 19:42
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:15
|
|
For the record, lest people put words in my mouth AGAIN: I am *not* a graphics just for graphic's sake kind of guy. In fact, my thread just before this one was looking for help from Firaxis to DECREASE the amount of graphics on the map toward the late game especially. I like graphics that enhnace gameplay by making things readibly distinguishable and uncluttered. I hope the reviewers don't slam Firaxis on graphics *unless* they are talking about graphics that inhibit good gameplay. Same for the interface.
What I truly hope the reviewers will focus on are:
- AI: I want to really, really know what's ticking with the AI at different difficulty ratings.
- Diplomacy: Part of AI, but if this isn't handled well in particular, then a major part of the 'upgrade' over Civ2 will be in trouble. One good note already Sid made in the Finnish interview: The AI won't start wars unless it has a good reason ... like you refuse to trade a valuable resource. If that holds up across the board, I think I'll be very happy.
- Pacing: Well all know that in virtually every strategy game ever made that once you successfully reach mid-game, you're pretty much left with just mopping things up. And many times, the early game is just rather dull and too darn slow ... leaving a relatively short 'sweet spot' where the pacing is good and the challenge is definitely there. I hope Civ3 expands that sweet spot.
- Fluid play: Kind of a pacing issue, but I'm talking about the CPU and the game mechanics on this one. I'm already hearing that the game seems to drag on some comps, perhaps because of the animations and so forth. Scrolling across the map needs to be flawless and fast. And little to no time should be lost with clunky 'goto' commands and so forth that make you waste time and distract you from thinking about strategy.
- Customizing: Finally, I leave it on this one: How much and in what ways can we customize Civ3? We all know that SP won't keep all of us happy forever. And with MP up in the air, we'll need lots of good tools for those Mod-Gods among us to save the day.
THOSE are the kinds of things I hope get reviewed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stuie
|
 |
Have a beer!
Sep 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
First, I completely agree with his comments regarding reviewing a game based on how it's marketed. No problem there.
I disagree with this, however:
quote:
So, why don't you stop comparing our games to those high budget products
|
Hey, that's you competition whether you like it or not. My dollars can go to Shrapnel, or Big Time Software, or Infogrames. If your game doesn't stack up against Infogrames release, then you lose. Big Time Software didn't spend $8M on Combat Mission, and they not only held their own against the competition, the redefined the way "traditional" wargames can/should work.
As for graphics, if you want to appeal to a wider audience, you need to include some eye-candy. If my magazine readership includes people other than grognards, I'm going to take off points for lack of eye-candy because (like it or not) that's what the masses crave.
The only unfair comments Civ3 will receive will be that it does not include Multiplayer. Guess what: it is not (currently) being marketed as Multiplayer, nor does the box make any mention of multiplayer, so taking ANY points off for lack thereof is tacitly unfair.
My two cents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26
This if from Shrapnel Games at: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/Sarge/index.asp They do many games, but I heard about them lately for Space Empires 4. Anyway, as you read this, consider if Firaxis isn't in the same position ... and keep these comments in mind as you read upcoming reviews.
|
Is Firaxis on the same position? I mean, apart for not having sent a preview copy of the game to Apolyton (IIRC)? 
Commenting on topic of given abstract:
quote:
Another one, this for Desert Rats, the only bad review this wonderful old school wargame has received, was given its poor rating because, get this, it's an old school wargame! NO! REALLY!
<snip >
It's just that he didn't want it to be an old school wargame. Sort of like the chess/card game crap again. Only different.
|
Someone is a bit confused: he's mixing "old school" with "classic that passed the test of time" as Chess.
quote:
Oh, and while I'm ranting: What is it with reviewers and graphics? A recent poll on our website (September's Monthly Poll) showed that only 4% of strategy game players thought graphics was the most important feature of a strategy game.
|
Oh, yeah. A poll on their site. That remember me of that company that a few years ago tried to explain its commitment to make a web site tested for compatibility only with a well know Browser. They tried to explain they made that choice because during an early pre-release of the site their statistics showed only users with that Browser accessed and visited the site, interacting with forms, etc.
Of course they missed the fact that the pre-release doesn't loaded properly the pages with others browser... 
quote:
Psst. Reviewers, come close. Let me let you in on a secret. We can't compete with Ghost Recon on graphics. We don't have three dozen artists working on one product, and we don't spend $8,000,000 (yes, that's eight million dollars) on production. It won't ever happen. So, why don't you stop comparing our games to those high budget products and just review the game in the correct context.
|
I have a crappy factory and not enough money to make a properly working car, and you are comparing my valuable effort to that Tycoon at General Motors, Renault, Fiat... 
Come on, go for shareware market, build a name and come back again. Nice try. Now time is over, ask my secretary for next appointment. We should work very hard with your paranoid and frustration, but we have hopes. Next! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Steve Clark
|
 |
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
I have looked at reviews for years and come to the conclusion that nearly all of them should be taken with a grain of salt, at most (to the point that I have stopped reading them). It seems like the reviewers are either 1) biased or 2) writing to an audience far younger than me (except for good ones like William J. Trotter). I have always hated when they knock a score down because game X is not like game Y, even though game X can stand alone in its own right. For example, my favorite FPS is Outlaws. When the reviews first started coming out, it got a lower rating because it wasn't Doom. So what? In my book, because it wasn't Doom, the rating should have gone up not down.
Anyway, sorry to get off on a tangent. Many folks, including some reviewers, have already made up their minds about Civ3 (or game Z). They will give it a good/bad rating because they have an agenda to promote (pro/anti-TBS bias, PC/console, Civ2/Civ3, CtP/Civ3, TBS/RTS, eyecandy/AI, hardcore/general market and the list goes on). Personally, I don't care what others think (but I will listen to everyone's opinion) in the respect that if I'm the only one that likes or hates the game, it really doesn't matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frugal_Gourmet
|
|
New York City, NY, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:15
|
|
Seems to me there are literally hundreds of different game reviewers out there with differing opinons on what makes a good game. We read these reviews to give ourselves a new angle or viewpoint to mull over before we make our decisions or because we find them entertaining. Certainly, I don't think many of us swallow everything or even most of what we read in the form of reviews.
In fact, these very message boards will soon be teaming with reviews -- many of which I'm sure to find ridiculous.
Declaring war on reviewers? I can't think of a bigger waste of time. That's like declaring war on all people with an opinion.
Just a hunch, but I'll bet the people interested in their products know full well where to find reviewers out there with interests and tastes in gaming similar to their own.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frugal_Gourmet
|
|
New York City, NY, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:15
|
|
Should Firaxis give copies to only those sure to give favorable reviews? Probably not. I'm sure the bottom line is they'll do whatever they think will make them the most money. And since Civ III is a high profile, larger budget game, they almost certainly want and need space in the more commonly read gaming magazines and sites out there. This means sending out lots and lots of preview copies to reviewers.
And I'll bet Firaxis *thinks* they'll get good reviews from almost any source anyway.
As far as should MP be included in the review... I say absolutely. If it the reviewer thinks MP would make for an interesting feature and misses it, he should include this is the review. After all, reviews are nothing more than official published opinions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
|
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:15
|
|
Here's a letter one guy sent to them criticizing this 'war.'
quote:
I don't like the idea of you guys at Shrapnel selecting who gets review articles. Although I know it's not there, it stinks of cronyism, and a playground attitude of "If you don't want to play my way, than I'm taking my marbles home." I understand you reason for limiting the review list, and I agree. Some sites are dedicated to a different player market than others. Instead of selecting which sites to keep based on who gives you good reviews, why not do a user poll. Personally, I basically only check reviews off of GamesDomain, a site that often gives your games glowing reviews. Although I discovered you originally off of Malfador's site directly. I'd bet that lots of other game players limit themselves to two or three sites that also understand the different nature of the Shrapnel Games market. So why not find out who is popular with your players? |
Response:
quote:
Another intelligent letter! And a fair question. First, I'll comment on your comments:
I don't like the idea of you guys at Shrapnel selecting who gets review articles.
All I can say is "Tough!" We pay for the games that go out to each e-zine / magazine / reviewer to the tune of $20 -$25 per copy. Sometimes I think the reviewers forget this fact. I would say that if you don't like it, please feel free to buy additional products and send them to any reviewers you wish. Of course, the reviewers, be it persons or 'zines are also free to buy copies for review purposes.
And yes, our attitude is just as you stated - we are taking our marbles and going home. No harm in that, in fact, in the military you need to know when to fight and when to withdraw. You can't win every battle and when you press a bad situation, you lose.
Instead of selecting which sites to keep based on who gives you good reviews...
Hold it right there. We are not selecting sites on who give us good reviews - we are selecting sites on who gives us fair reviews.
why not do a user poll.
That would be fun, wouldn't it? However I am not in charge of user polls. I will however talk to those who are in charge and see what can be done. No promises though...
I'd bet that lots of other game players limit themselves to two or three sites that also understand the different nature of the Shrapnel Games market. So why not find out who is popular with your players?
Finally, the question. We already know which sites refer the most gamers to our site. These are statistics we get every month - intelligence is a good thing.
But, and here is the real catch. We are not after those gamers who already follow and support Shrapnel Games. These are our loyal fans and they, for the most part, don't listen to these reviews anyway. For us and our developers to prosper and stay around for a long time, bringing you games that you love to play, we need to find and bring in new gamers. And with sites reviewing our games and spending so very much of their energies on speaking to graphics rather than GAME PLAY (these are games after all and not works of art) we will have, and do have, a huge uphill battle in increasing our market share and assisting our developers in making the monies necessary to stay in business and prosper. |
That last highlighted part is particularly interesting to me. Is Firaxis NOT in that position of having to get new gamers? I certainly heard the argument many times that Civ3 'needs to attract the casual gamer' ... so, is the 'war' on?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frugal_Gourmet
|
|
New York City, NY, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:15
|
|
Wow.
So if companies start pulling their expensive advertisements from magazines and other publications that DON'T give them the best possible reviews... shouldn't we at some point begin questioning the validity and integrity of the reviews themselves? This seems dangerous to me, somehow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mahdimael
|
 |
Sandy Eigo, CA, USA
May 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
The problem with game reviews is that for a lot of aspects that they examine, there are no quantifiable values. Even for those that there are, such as graphics or sound, the reviewer can be subjective and/or objective. I've always believed that games should be reviewed based on how well they do what they're trying to do. For Civ3, for example, I wouldn't take points off due to a lack of multiplayer. It wasn't included, and while that should be noted in the review, it shouldn't cause it to lose points. If the game had multiplayer that crashed all the time, then you make marks against it. Similarly, if hills and plains look like mountains in the game, you can mark against that, but you can't deduct points because it doesn't have a fully 3d engine.
Too many reviews do compare against other games of the genre, and while in some cases (first person twitch games) this is valid because differences between games are sometimes cosmetic at best, in other genres (TBS strategy, rpg) games can vary widely. You wouldn't compare Civ3 to Starcraft, but it would be valid to compare Civ3 to Ctp2. Even so, a game must be judged on it's own merits, not how it stacks up to similar games.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandous
|
 |
Atlanta, GA
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mahdimael
The problem with game reviews is that for a lot of aspects that they examine, there are no quantifiable values. Even for those that there are, such as graphics or sound, the reviewer can be subjective and/or objective. I've always believed that games should be reviewed based on how well they do what they're trying to do. For Civ3, for example, I wouldn't take points off due to a lack of multiplayer. It wasn't included, and while that should be noted in the review, it shouldn't cause it to lose points. If the game had multiplayer that crashed all the time, then you make marks against it. Similarly, if hills and plains look like mountains in the game, you can mark against that, but you can't deduct points because it doesn't have a fully 3d engine.
Too many reviews do compare against other games of the genre, and while in some cases (first person twitch games) this is valid because differences between games are sometimes cosmetic at best, in other genres (TBS strategy, rpg) games can vary widely. You wouldn't compare Civ3 to Starcraft, but it would be valid to compare Civ3 to Ctp2. Even so, a game must be judged on it's own merits, not how it stacks up to similar games. |
Question then. If other games in that genre DO have MP and a 3-D engine then wouldn't it be fair to compare the games? If they are directly competing then YES it is valid to mark off points if a game doesn't have what the other does, all things being equal.
Does EU have MP? Is it in competition to Civ3? If so, then a reviewer would have every right to mark off the fact that Civ3 doesn't have MP when it's direct competition does have MP. Same goes for graphics. While all games will not have the budget to hire 20+ artists there is NO excuse not to make games that don't look at least as well as other games in their genre. Why? Because graphic programs are cheap and I have seen people make mod's that look better than the original game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Taliseian
|
|
Sacramento, CA
Nov 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
After reading thru this thread, I'm concerned that such actions could produce a dangerous precident. I have to agree with Frugal_Gormet, that if this starts to happen that we would need to question the value of the reviews.
If this happens, doesn't it mean that basically the value of the reviews is near worthless?
Honestly, reviews are opinions of whoever plays the game. I'll be the first to admit that there are alot of reviewers out there who probably play the game for no more than an hour or two and type up a 500+ word review on the entire game. But to only give review copies (and a chance to review before the games hit the shelves) to those who are basically nothing more than "company mouthpieces" doesn't sit well with me.
I want to hear from people what they think. The exchange of ideas (either in print, or in places such as this forum), is important in any aspect, be it a game review or other more important topics.
If the graphics aren't up to the reviewer's liking, it's their job to say so....same with MP or any other facet of the game. I say, let them print their thoughts....it's still up to me if I want to spend my money on the game or not.
For the most part, after reading several different reviews, I'm able to tell who are the ones who actually play the game for a while and put an honest and objective opinion and those who are the "letsplaythisgamequicklyandtypeupareview" type.
I hope that Firaxis lets anyone and everyone who wants to review Civ3 for a print or online mag do so.
Taliseian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
While there are some valid points made in the game company's rant, there are some things I take issue with in addition to what others have mentioned.
The examples they cited, IMO, are from very unknown game sources with little exposure to the public as compared to a site like Gamespot or Avault. They seem to be selectively taking potshots at the guys who did use silly criteria to somehow impugn all game reviewers. I do rely on game reviews for feedback before buying most products, but I never rely on just one. I check as many reviews as I can, both from professionals and consumers. If the balance is strong, I will get it. If not, I will pass it by. I initially was really looking forward to Pool of Radiance II. But the majority of reviews from critics AND players were negative, so I missed that one. Civ3 is the first game I've bought in a long time by preorder.
Second, I am very dubious of how this company will wage their "war." It looks to me like they are threatening all critics with a vague "If we don't like your reviews, we will not send you anymore games to review." Isn't this blackmail? How can we trust this company to not get upset at ANY negative review, no matter how valid it may be, and then pull this childish stunt? IMO, the are just looking for excuses to get their half-assed products on the shelves while bypassing the critics.
Cheers.
PS--I for one think Graphics are integral to computer games and should be as polished as possible, within reason. Why else play a game on the computer? Why not just use a text-based game with moving dots if it's just functional graphics you want? You don't have to spend even close to $8 mil. to have nice graphics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ludwig
|
|
I think the people who are defending the reviewers in this situation are missing the point.
While no one wants to encourage blackmail of reviewers by game developers, I think it is fairly obvious that there are types of games that in general aren't given a fair shake by most reviewers.
CTP2 was a flawed game. But I saw reviews of CTP2 that said, essentially, "TBS games suck and are boring. I want to play Command and Conquer again. I wish I was playing Command and Conquer instead of sitting here stuck writing this review of a TBS game."
If CIV III didn't have Sid Meier's name on it, I can guarantee you that reviews would appear that would say, "Ick. There's too much to keep track of here. I can't play this game with my joystick, and that stinks. Why am I being given a history lesson when I just want to shoot things?"
It really isn't just a matter of "eye candy" vs. "gameplay". A considerable portion of the reviewing community [as these developers point out, mainly the younger generation] actually actively dislike the things that make for good strategy gameplay. They moan about how they get bogged down in micromanagement, they moan about the pace of the game, they moan about "cumbersome" attempts to attain a basic measure of historical realism. Basically it seems to me that a lot of game reviewers are the guys who years ago would have spent their time playing "Sorry!" while I was playing "Squad Leader". And it just isn't right that these guys get to make or break a game.
End of rant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mahdimael
|
|
Sandy Eigo, CA, USA
May 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozymandous
Question then. If other games in that genre DO have MP and a 3-D engine then wouldn't it be fair to compare the games? If they are directly competing then YES it is valid to mark off points if a game doesn't have what the other does, all things being equal.
Does EU have MP? Is it in competition to Civ3? If so, then a reviewer would have every right to mark off the fact that Civ3 doesn't have MP when it's direct competition does have MP. Same goes for graphics. While all games will not have the budget to hire 20+ artists there is NO excuse not to make games that don't look at least as well as other games in their genre. Why? Because graphic programs are cheap and I have seen people make mod's that look better than the original game. |
Sorry, Ozy, but I disagree. The differences between EU and Civ3 are many. The games themselves play differently. Why can we compare Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament. Because at their core, they're both about running around and shooting people. The differences between the two games are skin deep.
Let's say Ctp3 comes out and it does feature a beautiful 3d world and the best multiplayer options, but the gameplay is the same. In this case, I believe that it would be acceptable to compare CtP3 with Civ3. At the same time, it needs to be examined for it's own merits. The differences should be noted, but not used as a condemnation. If the AI in Ctp3 has fewer options than Civ3, it shouldn't matter. What matters is how well the AI works in the context of CtP3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jackshot
|
|
I agree with Ludwig, reviews suck for the most part, and he pretty much said why. Everything seems to come from the point of view of what's in it for the FPS player. If Shrapnel and other companies can make reviews better by these methods, more power to them.
But the game companies have to separate reviews from marketing. I'm sure Shrapnel feels the sting of not being able to independently market itself, just like it would rather have better graphics except for the little problem of $$$, but it has to realize that a reviewing industry that is seen as manipulated by game companies WILL NOT help them market themselves.
As it is, reviewers have to separate themselves MORE from being mouthpieces to increase readership and the faith of that readership they do have, and, at the same time, be in a stronger position to help companies like Shrapnel. Maybe this is a useful surgical strike for Shrapnel, but still you play the game their way, Shrapnel loses due to lack of clout. Wait until the MOO3 guys only give copies to those who badmouth SE IV, then what will they do?
So I don't get the point. My personal opinion has always been that Shrapnel's games needed better graphics anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spatzimaus
|
|
I don't think it's fair at all for the game companies to pick and choose reviewers based on whether past reviews were favorable. A reviewer shouldn't have to base his analysis on whether the company making the game will be happy with it.
If a site/magazine is so ridiculously biased that a "fair" review is impossible, the readers usually know that already. There are several game sites I go to that I know never give fair reviews of certain types of games; guess what? I don't go there for reviews of those games. Find a web site that only reviews one specific type of game, and use that for the "definitive" review.
There have been many really really lousy games released. We depend on review sites and magazines to help us avoid the worst of these, and if producers took it upon themselves to guarantee that only favorable reviews were printed, what happens?
That being said, most of the problems people have had with "unfair" reviews seem to have been when a game was reviewed by someone who either didn't like the genre or only liked one specific game in that genre. This isn't usually a problem for sites/magazines with large numbers of reviewers, since there'll always be at least one person who loves that type of game as a whole.
For example, I generally don't like first-person shooters. But, in college I played a LOT of Doom and Doom 2. I'd be a bad choice to review Unreal Tournament, since I'd continually compare it to the Doom games and complain about atmosphere, while ignoring the other advances made. It's hard to compete with nostalgia. On the other hand, I play a lot of turn-based games, so if I worked for a reviewer I could probably make a reasonably fair review.
Oh, and I do think lack of multiplayer SHOULD hurt Civ 3's reviews, somewhat. It's a feature most competitors have, after all. If the game was entirely text-based, would it be unfair to give it less points than an identical game with a nice graphical interface? Of course not. Multiplayer is considered by most reviewers to be a standard feature in just about every genre these days, and its absence is a detriment. The fact that I'm far more interested in the single-player game is irrelevant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jackshot
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spatzimaus
Oh, and I do think lack of multiplayer SHOULD hurt Civ 3's reviews, somewhat. It's a feature most competitors have, after all. If the game was entirely text-based, would it be unfair to give it less points than an identical game with a nice graphical interface? Of course not. Multiplayer is considered by most reviewers to be a standard feature in just about every genre these days, and its absence is a detriment. The fact that I'm far more interested in the single-player game is irrelevant. |
Not sure I agree with this. I like the standard of only expecting the game to do what it is designed to do.
All games have a presentation, so the issue of how well it presents (ie, graphics) applies to every game. But multiplayer is a *way* to play not a part of the gameplay itself. The capability for multiplayer should be noted as information, but the game itself should be allowed to be judged as itself. A game is not worse because it lacks multiplayer, it just isn't a multiplayer game.
Otherwise its like critising a VHS tape for not playing in your DVD player. Sure I wish the movie was on DVD, but that's not really germane as to how good a tape it is.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-10-2001 19:25
Of course, one way around it is to say: "MP is not a standard feature for TBS games." I'm not sure if that's true, though, since at least some form (like Hotseat or PBEM) seems to be pretty standard these days.
|