>> I'm afraid a review is just that- an account of a personal experience of
> using
>> a product.
>Yepp, but in this case it's like a five year old reviewing a
>microscope...
>l8er
>ronny
Z.
>> Whether you agree with Craig or not, he's entitled to his opinion.
>Not when he writes it as a review he's not - a review is not simply a
>personal opinion.
Sierra say "GPL is excellent 100%"
Microsoft say "CPR is excellent 100%"
21st century media say "Klondike Moon is excellent 100%"
M
Yeah right. you've just described a post on usenet - I expect
reviewers to show a lot more professionalism than that.
Like I said, I would never take on the job of reviewing a flight sim
since although I like arsing around in them and shooting at things
they are WAY more complex than my limited exposure to them could do
justice to. My reviewing one would be unfair on fans of the genre who
may miss out and on the company who had invested a lot of time and
money in making the product. IMO Final Fantasy VII is one of the worst
and most boring games I've ever seen - that's my opinion, it is NOT a
review or a statement of fact.
It's a lazy, incompetent and sloppy attitude to reviewing. If it's not
accesible for arcade racers then fine, say so, but a review needs to
also show the other side of the coin. To fail to do so is to not do
their job properly.
Cheers!
John
>>I'm afraid a review is just that- an account of a personal experience of using
>>a product.
>Yeah right. you've just described a post on usenet - I expect
>reviewers to show a lot more professionalism than that.
Likewise a *** sim racer, will review a product suited in this way to the
same kind of person.
A *** sim reviewer's review to a average gamer is probably about as much
value as you seem to find in this review by an average gamer. Are you
suggesting that people listen to people like themselves, or self-considered
"experts?"
What you are advocating is "elistist" reviewing, not reviewing suited to any
one kind of gamer. People need to discover a reviewer or publication, be it
print or new media, that generally follows their own particular likes or
dislikes.
Which he's done quite fairly on this piece- he's pointed out he's not a
"***" and that where the game lacks in his position of preferred ***.
On those stands alone, he is quite correct in evaluating the style of
gameplay. i.e, it's not accessable to the general gaiming public, and is
firmly in the "***" sim arena.
And given the nature of the advertising of the product (the gritty,
crash-a-thon friendly ad's i've seen in the us publications), perhaps he's got
a very valid point. :)
Z.
>Yes it is. It's the opinion of the reviewer.
Anyone who reviews games by giving them to any old Tom,*** or Harry
and asking them to write their opinion deserves all the complaints
they get.
Are you kidding? Why is Stephen Hawking's opinion on the Grand Unified
Theory more right than mine? Because I know more about auto-sims than
the reviewer and Stephen Hawking knows more about GUT than I do.
That's why I take a synopsis of opinions here on r.a.s. rather than
read the nonsense on *** sites - a lot of trolling and arguing
black is white goes on here, but there's a lot of experience and good
opinion as well. Two things noticably lacking from Avault's "opinion".
Usenet opinion is always stated in black and white hyperbole - we both
know this is not the alternative.
Cheers!
John
> I've send an Email too. We'll MAKE them correct this!
> // Johan
It is obvious that Carl doesn't like the game. That's ok, but his
arguments don't hold water. When he comes up with arguments like that
the marshall don't run, duck or splat, he shows that he doesn't know
what the purpose of the game is, and for a reviewer. that's bad.
A professional reviewer must have the ability to review a game for
what it is, and Carl for sure doesn't have this ability.
Remco
>>Given the storm of releases that will be coming out for the holiday
>>season, I'll be honest and say I don't even know when I'll get back
>>into GPL.
>Sorry to reply to my own post. There was one point here I meant to add
>involving the time involved in learning GPL, but it slipped my mind.
>I only played the demo briefly before buying the game. I don't
>download a lot of demos.
>Most of the guys here probably hotlapped the 2 track demos for over a
>month before the full release came out.
Agreed, but there is a down-side...I've had big trouble to adjust my
braking behaviour. While hotlapping, I brake much earlier as while
racing. The first week the AI was rear ending me all the time.
Remco
>>Yes it is. It's the opinion of the reviewer. Why is your opinion on the game
>>more right than his? Do you just want press releases in magazines and on
>>websites or perhaps we can get the publishers to review their own titles?
>No it isn't :-) His job is to inform the buying public about the game,
>not to express his opinion. He has the responsebility toward the
>reader, the manufacturer, and his boss. All have to be treated fair.
>It is obvious that Carl doesn't like the game. That's ok, but his
>arguments don't hold water. When he comes up with arguments like that
>the marshall don't run, duck or splat, he shows that he doesn't know
>what the purpose of the game is, and for a reviewer. that's bad.
>A professional reviewer must have the ability to review a game for
>what it is, and Carl for sure doesn't have this ability.
>Remco
We all know how we the "***" are so much better than the public in
driving, oh yes, we drive good boom-boom.
it's like me and scoring chicks, really. I get much action.
Now, a regular honey reviewing my technique will give me top marks, cause i'm
the numba one fly poontang, but when for say, a Nun reviews my technique,
she's not gonna like my good loving, cause it's not her thang,
but hey, that's o.k, cause my good lovin' is plenty to go around for all the
honeys who want it.
For those wack hoe's who prefer more ordinary and not as fly poontnag, i let
them do there own thang.
Z.
> >>Not when he writes it as a review he's not - a review is not simply a
> >>personal opinion.
> >Yes it is. It's the opinion of the reviewer.
> A review is the way the magazine recommends the game to it's audience,
> it's not an opinion (or if it is then it should be a finely tuned and
> highly developed variant - i.e., done by someone who knows whereof he
> speaks). As I mentioned before, my saying "Total Air War is boring" or
> "FF7 is rubbish" is NOT a review. It is undoubtedly my opinion and I
> will defend it, but it is unfair on consumers and unfair on the
> company making the game. I wouldn't state that as a review and it's
> worrying that any site seeking credibility would do so.
> Anyone who reviews games by giving them to any old Tom,*** or Harry
> and asking them to write their opinion deserves all the complaints
> they get.
> >Why is your opinion on the game more right than his?
> Are you kidding? Why is Stephen Hawking's opinion on the Grand Unified
> Theory more right than mine? Because I know more about auto-sims than
> the reviewer and Stephen Hawking knows more about GUT than I do.
> That's why I take a synopsis of opinions here on r.a.s. rather than
> read the nonsense on *** sites - a lot of trolling and arguing
> black is white goes on here, but there's a lot of experience and good
> opinion as well. Two things noticably lacking from Avault's "opinion".
here ya go, bozo. my review of HALLOWEEN XII:
"it sucks."
kinda sounds like an opinion to me, huh? give up the fight, johnny-boy. you
lost.
You make a valid point, and I had commented on the review as though
it were a Usenet post. Avault does indeed have a responsibility to
present its views (and reviews) in a responsible manner, since
they're looked upon as "the experts" in *** (so to speak).
It would be unprofessional of me to make any comments, negative or
positive, concerning Avault's column, however, I can take a stand
on their review policy. Avault should only allow those who are
qualified for a specific genre to review same. In other words,
they shouldn't allow one who's main gig is Rainbow-6 to review
Viper or NFS-III, nor should they allow sim racers to review the
latest Quake level.
Of course, there are always exceptions, as some who run the tracks
also run the halls of the shoot-em-ups. The point is that the
review should be kept to those who know know what's up in their
particular field of interest, and if they don't know, then to keep
their respective views to themselves.
Cheers!
Marc
> > Whether you agree with Craig or not, he's entitled to his opinion.
> Not when he writes it as a review he's not - a review is not simply a
> personal opinion.
> Cheers!
> John
* Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *
I think the bottom line is that a reviewer should be COMPETENT enough to
write a good review. They should take the time to test the game (ie: not
just 5 minutes), should do some research (newsgroups, other reviews, forums,
etc), proof-read their work (get someone else to proof-read it as well <---
must!) , and maybe even go as far as to show their review (draft copy) to
someone else who has tested/played the game), to see if they can make any
corrections, observations, or insights into the product that the reviewer
might not have thought about.
I would have no problem with someone that likes Micro-Machines(!!) to review
GPL. Sure, they might find it is not their "cup-of-tea", but they SHOULD be
able to point out what is good about the product, and if they had done their
research, would be able to say what new features the product offered and
where the game might shine and where it might need some work.
After all, if someone who is still playing "Pole Position" is "introduced"
to GPL, they might fall in love with the product, or they might not, and
have some concerns about the game's difficulty for example. They should
still be able to see the merits of the product, but realize that it is not
for them. I don't play flight simulators, but would probably be blown away
by the first one I looked at (providing it was half-decent), and thus would
perhaps give an overly-generous score to the product because I didn't
realize that it might have been lacking features that others had. But I
wouldn't give it two-and-a-half stars because it was "too hard" or because I
was expected to "read the manual" in order to get the plane off the ground.
However, as you point out, a review by a TRUE sim-racing lover would give a
more accurate portrayal of the product to the Sim-racing crowd. They would
know exactly how it compared to similar products, and would thus be
qualified to make KNOWLEDGEABLE comments, instead of something they believed
because they were either misinformed or were simply making a mistaken
assumption. However, they would probably not take into full consideration
the view of an "arcade" racing crowd, as their likes are on different ends
of the spectrum.
I suggested in my email to the AVAULT that they consider publishing a
comparison review by a true sim-racer alongside (an edited) Craig Miller's
review.
Bottom line: You can't please everyone all of the time. A well-written
review should please most of the people, however. Craig Miller's review was
obviously NOT well-written, and so doesn't please ANYONE (who's going to buy
GPL after reading that it's worthy of only 2 1/2 stars?)
So I'm not sure what the best solution is.. the only thing I can suggest is
that reviews should only be published by people that 1) know what they are
talking about 2) do some background research 3) look at both sides of the
coin 4) are able to provide an unbiased account 5) follow the guidelines
that are set out by the publisher.
doktorB
http://webhome.idirect.com/~drbryan
John and I have always shared our thoughts when reviewing a title. Not
only does it follow the advice you indicate, but also allows the unbiased
reader to point out possible snags in structure, etc., long before placing
on the 'net.
SRN's approach will be evident in our upcoming review section on SRO,
and uses a format similar to that used in Car & Driver during the '60's.
Weeeeeeeee're Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!
Cheers!
Marc
* Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *
There is no doubt, from what I read, that this game has a steep learning
curve. There is also no doubt that Papy could have handled this curve
better. I have seen several suggestions, from letting people race the
trainers to adding steering assistance/braking assistance, etc, to being
able to set the AI's speed. In my opinion, Papy made a huge miscalculation
not doing this. Sure the hard core simmer will work through this hurdle but
the average racing fan will not. This narrows the market for the product
and lowers sales. Less sales mean less income for development of future
products and addons. Papy's "let the casual racer be damned" attitude may
send this fine simulation straight to the bargain shelves. A pity really.
Sure it will continue to be hallowed by the hard core simmers but,
unfortunately, there are not enough of 'em out there to support the huge
software development costs a product like this has. Papy needs to appeal to
the whole racing set (like they did with the Nascar series) in order to stay
in business.
A reviewer's job is to *review* the game not just pass an opinion. The www
has encouraged every Tom,*** and Harry to believe they can review
software, and with so many amateur sites thinly disguised by a few good
graphics it'll only get worse.
Reviewing, like any other kind of "professional" writing, is a skill. Some
sites realise this, some sites don't. Many don't even care as long as they
get hits. Of course you usually only get what you pay for, and web
reviewers seem to work for love, free software, or "fame". None of these
have anything to do with ability... though I'm not saying there aren't any
capable people working under these conditions.
John Wallace said he wouldn't put himself forward to review flight sims
because they don't interest him at all. But that doesn't necessarily mean
he wouldn't do a good job of reviewing them if he *had* to do so. It's as
much to do with attitude and approach as personal experience.
Andrew McP... who has a very limited set of *** site favourites in his
browser.
