PDA

View Full Version : American Conqest: Fightback review by fp


Nav
28-08-2003, 09:34:44
[American Conquest: Fightback] (http://www.counterglow.com/article.php?id=americanconquest_fb)

Thanks fp!

King_Ghidra
28-08-2003, 09:41:36
Nice job fp, but i have one criticism. If a game is mediocre does it deserve 7/10? Surely mediocre is 5/10?
I'm against review scores per se, for precisely the reason that all the kiddy games magazines have a scoring system whereby 75% means shit. Get 75% at uni and you get a 1st...

maroule
28-08-2003, 09:48:17
great first paragraph!
I would agree with the sodomite, 7/10 is much too kind a reward for decent mediocrity, it really shows you were GIVEN this game and want to suck up to CDV

now, if CDV want me to review CMAK, I'll suck up, baby, me very horny, me suck you loong time

Funkodrom
28-08-2003, 09:58:27
Good review. On the score I think the entire review seemed to justify a 7/10 it was just his summary that didn't.

fp
28-08-2003, 10:43:29
I knew I shouldn't have bothered with a rating. :rolleyes:

maroule
28-08-2003, 10:59:25
yes, you suck

Venom
28-08-2003, 12:20:54
Do we have a nature forum? I feel like talking about codependance in ecosystems.

King_Ghidra
28-08-2003, 12:30:14
try the tech forum, someone might give a shit in there

Venom
28-08-2003, 12:48:51
Only if I throw out something like "The animals were caching their RAM, but then some virus program called Man came in and corrupted the RAM cache with DDT.

Venom
28-08-2003, 12:51:42
Well, I finally finished having someone read me the review. It's well written. Good grammar, so I must damn you.

fp
28-08-2003, 14:25:06
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
Nice job fp, but i have one criticism. If a game is mediocre does it deserve 7/10? Surely mediocre is 5/10?
I'm against review scores per se, for precisely the reason that all the kiddy games magazines have a scoring system whereby 75% means shit. Get 75% at uni and you get a 1st...

I'm not sure that the university system is exactly an ideal example of how to give ratings. Most of the university grading is reserved for either "fantastic" or "fail", with all the intermediary grades jammed into the 40%-69% area.

The way I give game review scores:
1-4 = A Bad Game.
5-7 = An Average Game.
8-10 = A Good Game.

Thus I said that although AC:FB was a game of respectable quality, it was still very much average and nothing special (IMHO of course).

That system makes perfect sense to me and feels very logical to my mind. You'll get no complaints from me when you follow your own system when you review games.

Sean
28-08-2003, 14:41:56
Presumably you also buy your own games, therefore you play games that are of a higher standard, and so while you find it mediocre it’s still a decent game?

Darkstar
29-08-2003, 06:47:12
Nice review FP. So... you are one of those 7 out of 5 star guys then? It was only passible if you like that sort of thing... Rating: 180%

From your conclusion, you didn't like the game. But all the rest of the article where you bother to talk about it seems to imply you like it, but was irritated with all of its warts. Which was it?

Nav
29-08-2003, 09:28:59
guys write lots of reviews yourself, then complain about the scoring method. ;)

King_Ghidra
29-08-2003, 09:38:52
I have :cute:

Nav
29-08-2003, 09:43:19
KG excluded of course. :heart:

King_Ghidra
29-08-2003, 09:45:58
:o

maroule
29-08-2003, 09:51:40
I have too...

King_Ghidra
29-08-2003, 09:54:03
yeah but not as many so sod off

maroule
29-08-2003, 10:34:12
:cry:

Venom
29-08-2003, 12:10:59
I've written a bunch too.

Bob
29-08-2003, 12:35:38
we should create a CG rating scale (I'd say from 2-11 but no 7)

2 - It's so bad I wish there was a 1
3 - At least I managed to install the crap
4 - yawn, amusing for the bots only
5 - would have been nice in 1984
6 - aaaah, kinda OK I guess
8 - I won't uninstall right now, maybe in a few weeks
9 - Good! I would buy it if I had the money
10 - Need more sleep!
11 - Got no time to write a fucking review. Gotta play the game.

maroule
29-08-2003, 12:40:10
nice ! I like that!

maybe 7 would be
- competently done, I suspect, but I don't like this type of game

Funkodrom
29-08-2003, 12:56:36
I like there being no 7.

maroule
29-08-2003, 13:07:50
let's call it 6 bis then
but there should be an option for a good game in a genre you don't like you don't like (I would use it to grade Rise of Nations, for example)

Funkodrom
29-08-2003, 13:36:53
If it's good then mark it as good, doesn't matter if you don't like the genre.

maroule
29-08-2003, 13:45:26
it does
it means you're objective about the quality of the game without judging it on the emotionnal side

I can recognised (for example) that Warcraft III is the best RTS around, best production, balance of unitsd, etc. yet I'll give it a 6 at most because RTS break my balls. However, my 6 would be almost identical of the 11 a RTS fan would give, as we would be in complete agreement on the technical/objective judgement of the game. My point is that all reviewers should separate the objective judgement ('Matrix has horrible camera control problems') and the subjective ('heck I don't care I'm enthralled by this universe').

a more pointed remark would be : why bother reviewing a game belonging to a genre you don't like in the first place...

King_Ghidra
29-08-2003, 13:57:08
if you think warcraft iii is the best game in it's genre then it's a good game, and whether you like the genre or not is irrelevant to the review (and thus the score), because you've already established that you have the ability to abstract your opinion of the genre from your opinion of the game. If you want to do a seperate article about why you hate the RTS genre, fine, but it needn't taint your review.

similarly, if matrix has horrible camera control problems, the fact that it enthralls or doesn't enthrall you is irrelevant to the fact that camera control problems are a bad thing. Any good review will never merely be a fan boy account of why they love the particular game world, but a critique of the game itself.

So there's no reason if you think warcraft iii is the best rts game why you shouldn't give it 10 out 10, whether you would choose to play it or not, if you can justify that score on the game's quality. To say it's a 6 just because you don't like RTS is ridiculous. In that case you are not reviewing the game you are reviwing the genre, which isn't the target of the review.

Funkodrom
29-08-2003, 13:57:46
Yeah, that's another point. But still if you think a game is the current best in the genre you should give it a mark that reflects that, or, as you say, not review the damn game.

Venom
29-08-2003, 14:00:35
If you don't like the genre. Don't review the damn game. Idiot.

Sean
29-08-2003, 14:04:18
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
similarly, if matrix has horrible camera control problems, the fact that it enthralls or doesn't enthrall you is irrelevant to the fact that camera control problems are a bad thing. Any good review will never merely be a fan boy account of why they love the particular game world, but a critique of the game itself.
Matrix was a bad example. What about Outcast (which un-coincidentally I have just started playing)? ISTR the reviews then, even by your beloved Edge, talking about the sense of immersion within the ambitiously constructed world as much as the actual game mechanics.

maroule
29-08-2003, 14:13:06
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
if you think warcraft iii is the best game in it's genre then it's a good game, and whether you like the genre or not is irrelevant to the review (and thus the score), because you've already established that you have the ability to abstract your opinion of the genre from your opinion of the game.



that's where we differ

I don't think it's possible to do (abstract yourself) so it's better to acknowledge your natural biais for or against a genre than pretend it doesn't exist

otherwise it would come back under a different form

example
say I review Rise of Nation, I would say : despite its best efforts to inject tactical considerations in combat (role of general, higher damages when attack from flank or back, etc.) the game does a very poor job in emulating interesting tactical combats. Fighting is about mobbing your adversary with the best combination of troops available, the concept of manoeuvre being limited to 'rush your troops there'.

This is true. Yet it's also unfair because this point can be made about all RTS, and by saying that I just betray my biais against the genre. Here it's pretty obvious, but it can translated itself a lot more subtly. Hence I believe my position to be more honest.

Oh, and Venom, you suck (in general, and at reading my posts).

Funkodrom
29-08-2003, 14:15:01
Nah, Venom's made the best post in this thread so far.

maroule
29-08-2003, 14:17:06
Originally posted by Sean
Matrix was a bad example. What about Outcast (which un-coincidentally I have just started playing)? ISTR the reviews then, even by your beloved Edge, talking about the sense of immersion within the ambitiously constructed world as much as the actual game mechanics.


I loved Outcast, despite its problems

typical game where you need to separate between the objective technical realisation (so so at times), and the original concept and its ability to immerse the player (absolutely brilliant)

maroule
29-08-2003, 14:18:09
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Nah, Venom's made the best post in this thread so far.

by repeating what I'd just said :rolleyes:

Venom
29-08-2003, 14:19:09
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Nah, Venom's made the best post in this thread so far.

Personally I liked the idiot part.

Venom
29-08-2003, 14:19:51
Originally posted by maroule
by repeating what I'd just said :rolleyes:

Part of the joke, dumbfuck. Funko had just said it too. God you're an idiot. And besides, I said it without running my mouth off for 10 minutes trying to make an inane point about mis-scoring games.

Funkodrom
29-08-2003, 14:20:26
Yeah, exactly. If maroule had called himself an idiot he could have won the best post in the thread. ;)

King_Ghidra
29-08-2003, 14:25:25
Originally posted by maroule
that's where we differ

I don't think it's possible to do (abstract yourself) so it's better to acknowledge your natural biais for or against a genre than pretend it doesn't exist


how can you say that when you already admitted that you thought warcraft iii was technically brilliant? clearly you can abstract your feeling about rts


Sean, if Edge just gushed about immersion in the outcast review then it was shit review, any good review should acknowledge all apsects, good and bad of a game. Colour reviews are the ones i hate the most. If i want to live in a world of imagination i'll read a book, if i want to find out whether or not to buy a game i'll read a review.

And edge may well be my beloved but love doesn't make me blind.

Sean
29-08-2003, 14:32:02
Sean, if Edge just gushed about immersion in the outcast review then it was shit review, any good review should acknowledge all apsects, good and bad of a game.
I didn’t say it just did that, I’m saying it devoted a significant amount of time to it because that is what people would buy the game for.

Colour reviews are the ones i hate the most. If i want to live in a world of imagination i'll read a book, if i want to find out whether or not to buy a game i'll read a review.
And an important part of buying Outcast would be the gameworld. Just because it’s not for you doesn’t mean that no-one can enjoy it.

maroule
29-08-2003, 14:34:19
Originally posted by Venom
Part of the joke, dumbfuck. Funko had just said it too.


my mistake
I just cannot bring myself to remember you're able to do 2nd degree jokes

Funkodrom
29-08-2003, 14:35:47
He can do third degree burns as well.

maroule
29-08-2003, 14:37:25
by farting incandescent poisonous gas, I'm sure

Venom
29-08-2003, 14:39:07
Or by using my flamethrower.

King_Ghidra
29-08-2003, 14:41:02
Originally posted by Sean
And an important part of buying Outcast would be the gameworld. Just because it’s not for you doesn’t mean that no-one can enjoy it.

The gameworld is an important part of any game isn't it, but it's totally irrelevent if the game is shit. Why should i care if the designers have come up with a history of the world dating back 3000 years, if i can't get past the first boss? Why should i care if the clouds move realistically if the camera won't let me look at them properly? Playability is far more important than some bullshit gameworld.

Some prick who just wants to play in a gameworld because the world is cool doesn't need a review, because he's going to play it anyway.

Sean
29-08-2003, 14:47:17
Of course it’s irrelevant if the game is shit, but if the game is anything but it can add a significant layer of enjoyment. I mean, what’s the point of using a shit games an an example? Who cares about that case?

maroule
29-08-2003, 14:49:43
I don't agree with that, K_G
today it takes more talent to build a solid world/story line than to have solid technical platform (heck, for a FPS or RTS, just copy the engine everybody use)

the success of a game like Syberia was based on 99% of its storyline

what generally drags me to a 'fantasy' movie, or a game, is its ability to blend both the technical aspect and the storyline into a solid piece of work, so both are equally meaningful and should be rated accordingly

King_Ghidra
29-08-2003, 14:50:30
i'm not talking about technical quality i'm talking about play quality. i am saying a review should cover all aspects of the game and not focus heavily on one area such as the gameworld which is not as important to overall quality as gameplay - in other words a shit game with a great gamweorld has no value, a great game with a shit gameworld has far more value

Funkodrom
29-08-2003, 14:52:50
Agreed, just as a low budget film with crap effects but a great director, cast and script is much better than some no-story blockbuster with loads of great effects.

maroule
29-08-2003, 15:10:07
??
then you're not agreeing, funko

Funkodrom
29-08-2003, 15:12:24
I just agreed with K_G didn't I unless I'm totally tripping.

maroule
29-08-2003, 15:19:15
I take it that in your comparison, the script is the equivalent of the gameworld

then

he says "a great game with a shit gameworld " is good (=even if script is shit)

you say a "no-story blockbuster with loads of great effects" is bad (better to have a great gameworld)


I'd better be doing something else, actually

Darkstar
30-08-2003, 05:11:19
Originally posted by Nav
guys write lots of reviews yourself, then complain about the scoring method. ;)

I have. Just not as ARTICLES.

I was just confused by what I saw as fundamentally different attitudes between the body of the article and the conclusion. And teasing him that a 7/10 is just average. That SOUNDS like it should be a 5 ( 5.5 for the mathematically inclinded ). That's all.

I liked FP's review. I just trying to have a little fun while giving some hopefully postive criticism.

Darkstar
30-08-2003, 05:18:18
:lol: Bob, I liked your scoring system! Nice one. Now for variety, let's translate it to % scale. :) Start it at 92% (A total piece of shit that I'm sorry I bothered trying to get to install on my machine) and go to 120% (The perfect game that cannot exist)?

Darkstar
30-08-2003, 05:21:47
Originally posted by maroule
my mistake
I just cannot bring myself to remember you're able to do 2nd degree jokes

Don't feel too bad, Maroule. Most of us forget Venom can do 1st degree jokes...

Darkstar
30-08-2003, 05:27:59
Funko is saying the script is the plot... you know, the GAME PLAY. The backstory and effects are the gameword, Maroule. How'd you see it as the other way around?

Sir Penguin
30-08-2003, 07:02:27
The Haida! The islands where I grew up were the traditional home of a bunch of Haida. They were a warlike, aggresive native band from all over the west coast of N. America, from the northern States to Alaska. I'm actually a Haida by adoption--my mom was adopted as the sister of a Haida woman. I'm in the Eagle clan (they're matrilineal). :)

SP

Funkodrom
30-08-2003, 10:14:05
Originally posted by maroule
I take it that in your comparison, the script is the equivalent of the gameworld

Ah, then that's why you thought I was disagreeing.

Nav
30-08-2003, 11:38:30
Originally posted by Darkstar
I have. Just not as ARTICLES. Why not? :(

Venom
30-08-2003, 13:02:12
Why not just post once Darkstar? Think you're throwing us off your longpost trail by splitting into 4?

Darkstar
30-08-2003, 19:29:14
I was replying to different things, Venom. And aren't you the guy that posted 8 seperate times in a row, replying to various spittle in a thread?

SP, way cool!

Nav, just haven't.

fp
31-08-2003, 09:54:16
Originally posted by Sir Penguin
The Haida! The islands where I grew up were the traditional home of a bunch of Haida. They were a warlike, aggresive native band from all over the west coast of N. America, from the northern States to Alaska. I'm actually a Haida by adoption--my mom was adopted as the sister of a Haida woman. I'm in the Eagle clan (they're matrilineal). :)

SP

Thanks! :smoke:

Venom
02-09-2003, 12:54:24
Originally posted by Darkstar
I was replying to different things, Venom. And aren't you the guy that posted 8 seperate times in a row, replying to various spittle in a thread?


You're supposed to be a long winded hack. Act like it.

Darkstar
02-09-2003, 22:21:33
:rolleyes:

You are supposed to be an illerate, angry fuck that only posts here in between wanking spats. Why don't you go off and jerk some more instead of wasting time here?

Venom
03-09-2003, 00:36:39
I'm wanking right now.

BigGameHunter
03-09-2003, 23:28:05
Never have I seen so much uselessly deep philosophy followed by such visceral hatred.
Good show!