Submit |
Contests |
Top Rated |
Reviews |
Previews |
Guides |
Cheats |
Screens |
Scores |
Videos |
News |
Forums |
Blogs |
Register |
Login |
Users |
Staff |
Links |
Meta
Arcade ::
Dreamcast ::
DS ::
GameCube ::
iPhone/iPod ::
Macintosh ::
PC ::
PlayStation 2 ::
PlayStation 3 ::
PSP ::
Wii ::
Xbox ::
Xbox 360 ::
Retro & Import
Earn prizes and eliminate ads just by contributing content on your FREE user account. Click for details or register today!
|
Nancy Drew: Warnings at Waverly Academy Twitter giveaway Just by participating regularly on the site, you can become eligible to receive free stuff like games, systems, gift certificates and more! HonestGamers, where intelligent gamers are wanted... and rewarded! |
 |
Looking for a good read? Check out a selection from our database of more than 6000 video game reviews! Masters has written a Tetris review and figures that the game deserves a rating of 10 out of 10. What do you think? Check it out, then be sure to leave feedback or chime in with one of your own! |
Forums > Recent Posts
Below, you can see the 50 most recent posts in the forums, starting with the most recent post first and working backwards. Signatures, avatars and other related information have been stripped so that the page will load quickly. Each post contains a link to the thread where it was posted so you can click to see it in its original context.
Posted by zippdementia on November 07, 2009 at 02:09 AM:
SE is very protective of their material. In case they ever get around to making another Chrono game (yeah right) they don't want the potential market to have been pre-saturated.
SE is very protective of their material. In case they ever get around to making another Chrono game (yeah right) they don't want the potential market to have been pre-saturated.
Posted by randxian on November 06, 2009 at 10:53 PM:
I chuckled a bit about how you missed certain bonuses because you cheated and made every day a Sunday on your PSP.
I like the approach used here. It's refreshing to hear from another old school Final Fantasy fan instead of some FF7 drone.
I really don't understand this whole hootinany about Square suing some fans trying to create an unofficial sequel to CT. If they were planning to make the game free for download, like most ROM hacks, then why should Square give a damn? How are they "bloodsucking" if they aren't making any money doing it?
I chuckled a bit about how you missed certain bonuses because you cheated and made every day a Sunday on your PSP.
I like the approach used here. It's refreshing to hear from another old school Final Fantasy fan instead of some FF7 drone.
I really don't understand this whole hootinany about Square suing some fans trying to create an unofficial sequel to CT. If they were planning to make the game free for download, like most ROM hacks, then why should Square give a damn? How are they "bloodsucking" if they aren't making any money doing it?
Posted by randxian on November 06, 2009 at 10:40 PM:
Fantastic! I particularly enjoyed reading about the nods to classic bits from older NES and SNES games. The review as a whole is very descriptive and insightful.
The only thing I would work on is perhaps the intro. Tell me a bit more about these invaders. Who exactly is King Koopa fighting?
Fantastic! I particularly enjoyed reading about the nods to classic bits from older NES and SNES games. The review as a whole is very descriptive and insightful.
The only thing I would work on is perhaps the intro. Tell me a bit more about these invaders. Who exactly is King Koopa fighting?
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 06, 2009 at 11:36 AM:
You disappoint me. I go to the trouble of pointing out typos on AIM and still no fixes. =P That's OK; I'll just assume you crashed... Though I probably pointed them out when you first wrote this, too; oh well.
Anyway, this is probably one of my favorite X-Com reviews from you, if not the favorite. Of course, to compare appropriately, I'd have to go back and read all of them as I've not read some in years, but still.
Anyway, what I like so much here is how awesome you make the game sound. You don't necessarily focus on the strategy aspect of the game, and that's fine, because you focus instead on the sense of urgency involved, which, in its own way, implies strategy. The way you describe the different invading aliens and their abilities sounds really cool, and I get a real sense of what they do and what they look like. Like, the way you describe the tentaculat's ability to infect people is just badass, though it did leave me wondering... Do the infected people turn into a completely different unit, of sorts, then? Because it sounds like they're a lot stronger than any typical unit that's being turned in the first place. So it just sounds like they mutate and become something else instead of just keeping whatever strengths / weaknesses they had and just turning against your own guys. haha.
Either way, it's really badass and probably makes me want to play this game more than any of the other X-Com titles out there.
Sonic cannons that melt steel... haha. That's just awesome.
You disappoint me. I go to the trouble of pointing out typos on AIM and still no fixes. =P That's OK; I'll just assume you crashed... Though I probably pointed them out when you first wrote this, too; oh well.
Anyway, this is probably one of my favorite X-Com reviews from you, if not the favorite. Of course, to compare appropriately, I'd have to go back and read all of them as I've not read some in years, but still.
Anyway, what I like so much here is how awesome you make the game sound. You don't necessarily focus on the strategy aspect of the game, and that's fine, because you focus instead on the sense of urgency involved, which, in its own way, implies strategy. The way you describe the different invading aliens and their abilities sounds really cool, and I get a real sense of what they do and what they look like. Like, the way you describe the tentaculat's ability to infect people is just badass, though it did leave me wondering... Do the infected people turn into a completely different unit, of sorts, then? Because it sounds like they're a lot stronger than any typical unit that's being turned in the first place. So it just sounds like they mutate and become something else instead of just keeping whatever strengths / weaknesses they had and just turning against your own guys. haha.
Either way, it's really badass and probably makes me want to play this game more than any of the other X-Com titles out there.
Sonic cannons that melt steel... haha. That's just awesome.
Posted by zigfried on November 06, 2009 at 09:58 AM:
Woodybeaver, whether or not you pursue professional writing doesn't matter to me. I was "teaching" you as a polite way to make a point. I will make the point more explicitly:
HG has a high quality bar for user reviews, and over 6000 reviews successfully meet that high standard. If you submit more reviews like this, they will almost certainly be rejected.
If you want people to see your thoughts, then you will need to improve your writing or post your reviews on sites like Amazon with lower standards. That's fine. You don't have to improve your writing, but you have to improve if you want your reviews posted here.
EDIT: removed the rude paragraph because I'm not irritated anymore, but if you think my complaints are about "writing style" then this really isn't the right site for your reviews. Feel free to use the "rate a game" feature or post thoughts in your blog, though. That way you're not subject to the same content standards as a full-blown review, and people are more likely to talk about the game instead of your writing.
//Zig
Woodybeaver, whether or not you pursue professional writing doesn't matter to me. I was "teaching" you as a polite way to make a point. I will make the point more explicitly:
HG has a high quality bar for user reviews, and over 6000 reviews successfully meet that high standard. If you submit more reviews like this, they will almost certainly be rejected.
If you want people to see your thoughts, then you will need to improve your writing or post your reviews on sites like Amazon with lower standards. That's fine. You don't have to improve your writing, but you have to improve if you want your reviews posted here.
EDIT: removed the rude paragraph because I'm not irritated anymore, but if you think my complaints are about "writing style" then this really isn't the right site for your reviews. Feel free to use the "rate a game" feature or post thoughts in your blog, though. That way you're not subject to the same content standards as a full-blown review, and people are more likely to talk about the game instead of your writing.
//Zig
Posted by Woodybeaver on November 06, 2009 at 07:17 AM:
I never considered writing professional reviews. I just wanted to share my thoughts about the new great game I played. Is this forbidden in case my user review is disliked by Zig? I don't think so. My review represents my opinion on a game, I didn't have an intention to create a standard professional review.
I never considered writing professional reviews. I just wanted to share my thoughts about the new great game I played. Is this forbidden in case my user review is disliked by Zig? I don't think so. My review represents my opinion on a game, I didn't have an intention to create a standard professional review.
Posted by willthegreat on November 06, 2009 at 06:23 AM:
There is no trashing going on here. What there is is Zig offering a critique, and you flailing about because somebody disagrees with you on the internet. If you are so unable to take criticism then perhaps you should reconsider writing reviews.
There is no trashing going on here. What there is is Zig offering a critique, and you flailing about because somebody disagrees with you on the internet. If you are so unable to take criticism then perhaps you should reconsider writing reviews.
Posted by Woodybeaver on November 06, 2009 at 05:49 AM:
Oh yeah, I got it. You're here to trash the reviews of others. Alright then, we will not see eye to eye on this if so.
Oh yeah, I got it. You're here to trash the reviews of others. Alright then, we will not see eye to eye on this if so.
Posted by willthegreat on November 06, 2009 at 05:12 AM:
This is a feedback thread for a review submission. Discussing the game would be off-topic, there's a forum for that.
This is a feedback thread for a review submission. Discussing the game would be off-topic, there's a forum for that.
Posted by Woodybeaver on November 06, 2009 at 03:23 AM:
blah blah blah. Why are you so boring? This website is about games, right? People come here to discuss games or maybe I'm wrong? I'm really pleased with all this attention to my modest personality and my writing style, but I would prefer to discuss the game itself. Not me. I think it is reasonable if regarding this certain website and this certain thread.
There's common sense. So I invite you to use it.
blah blah blah. Why are you so boring? This website is about games, right? People come here to discuss games or maybe I'm wrong? I'm really pleased with all this attention to my modest personality and my writing style, but I would prefer to discuss the game itself. Not me. I think it is reasonable if regarding this certain website and this certain thread.
There's common sense. So I invite you to use it.
Posted by willthegreat on November 06, 2009 at 02:44 AM:
How you express your opinions is just as important as those opinions themselves.
Also, there's an Edit Post button. I invite you to use it.
How you express your opinions is just as important as those opinions themselves.
Also, there's an Edit Post button. I invite you to use it.
Posted by Woodybeaver on November 06, 2009 at 01:58 AM:
Talking about management I meant that there’s no building, recharging, repairing production and so on. You command your huge forces without bothering about any kind of management or maintenance or technical support and other stuff like this. You got the idea? Did you get the idea, sensei? Now to cinematic camera… This is a very cool feature (do you like the word “cool”, by the way?). During any moment of the battle, you can switch this function and observe the battle through the eyes of a camera man from different angles. This looks very impressive. I’m completely open to conversation and always ready to answer to your questions ;).
Talking about management I meant that there’s no building, recharging, repairing production and so on. You command your huge forces without bothering about any kind of management or maintenance or technical support and other stuff like this. You got the idea? Did you get the idea, sensei? Now to cinematic camera… This is a very cool feature (do you like the word “cool”, by the way?). During any moment of the battle, you can switch this function and observe the battle through the eyes of a camera man from different angles. This looks very impressive. I’m completely open to conversation and always ready to answer to your questions ;).
Posted by Woodybeaver on November 06, 2009 at 01:36 AM:
Thank you, my sensei)). But I don't really understand what you want from me. Probably, you want everything you read to be flawless and irreproachable. But this is not my problem! I played the game, I liked it and I wanted to share my views on it. I couldn't even imagine that someone like you would start teaching me! If you think my USER review (my thoughts, my emotions just after finishing it) is trash, give a try to this cool game and write your own! This is not a literature-lovers club or is it? If you want to discuss the game, let's discuss the game but not my writing style!
Thank you, my sensei)). But I don't really understand what you want from me. Probably, you want everything you read to be flawless and irreproachable. But this is not my problem! I played the game, I liked it and I wanted to share my views on it. I couldn't even imagine that someone like you would start teaching me! If you think my USER review (my thoughts, my emotions just after finishing it) is trash, give a try to this cool game and write your own! This is not a literature-lovers club or is it? If you want to discuss the game, let's discuss the game but not my writing style!
Posted by zippdementia on November 06, 2009 at 12:13 AM:
Alright.... 18... for the... third time... update... me... now...
I don't know how much further I'll get. What with school and everything, I'd be happy to hit 20. Anyways, god knows what I was going to play for Q. And I'll be damned if I have to touch Xenogears again.
EDIT: Oh... wait... I already got X...
Alright.... 18... for the... third time... update... me... now...
I don't know how much further I'll get. What with school and everything, I'd be happy to hit 20. Anyways, god knows what I was going to play for Q. And I'll be damned if I have to touch Xenogears again.
EDIT: Oh... wait... I already got X...
Posted by jerec on November 05, 2009 at 10:17 PM:
I'm up to 5, EmP, if you'd like to edit the list (and get rid of the patronising !!!)
I'm up to 5, EmP, if you'd like to edit the list (and get rid of the patronising !!!)
Posted by honestgamer on November 05, 2009 at 03:57 PM:
No bonus points, will. Besides, we're tied in that regard. I have reviewed seven games starting with the letter 'S,' as well, and I think I've come close on a few other letters. :-)
No bonus points, will. Besides, we're tied in that regard. I have reviewed seven games starting with the letter 'S,' as well, and I think I've come close on a few other letters. :-)
Posted by willthegreat on November 05, 2009 at 01:19 PM:
Entry updated now that I have some letters that aren't S.
H is for Hearts of Iron III
K is for King's Bounty
R is for Restaurant Empire 2
S is for Space Quest 1, Supreme Ruler 2020, Supreme Ruler 2020: Global Crisis, Sword of the Stars, and Sins of a Solar Empire: Entrenchment, Star Trek: 25th Anniversary, and Space War Commander (phew).
Do I get bonus points for having the most titles for a single letter?
Entry updated now that I have some letters that aren't S.
H is for Hearts of Iron III
K is for King's Bounty
R is for Restaurant Empire 2
S is for Space Quest 1, Supreme Ruler 2020, Supreme Ruler 2020: Global Crisis, Sword of the Stars, and Sins of a Solar Empire: Entrenchment, Star Trek: 25th Anniversary, and Space War Commander (phew).
Do I get bonus points for having the most titles for a single letter?
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 05, 2009 at 12:53 PM:
Fair enough; though I do remember at least one occasion where I updated that I was at six specifically as you prefer we do, and the list still wasn't updated. Likewise, I'm sure others have posted ina similar fashion before, though none recently, so that's kind of a bad example. =p
Still, sometimes you miss. It's like I said when you made this topic:
"I think you should add another sentence in that rule about updating: 'And even if you do post your tally regularly, I may not update it without continuous nagging.'" =P hahaha.
Fair enough; though I do remember at least one occasion where I updated that I was at six specifically as you prefer we do, and the list still wasn't updated. Likewise, I'm sure others have posted ina similar fashion before, though none recently, so that's kind of a bad example. =p
Still, sometimes you miss. It's like I said when you made this topic:
"I think you should add another sentence in that rule about updating: 'And even if you do post your tally regularly, I may not update it without continuous nagging.'" =P hahaha.
Posted by EmP on November 05, 2009 at 12:44 PM:
Given up? No. As I said, I'm not updating things until people post their progress. I'm not about to randomly trawl through the topic continiously in the off chance someone's updated their table on page 2 or whatnot.
And Suskie's going for a stealth win. Shh -- don't let on you know!
Given up? No. As I said, I'm not updating things until people post their progress. I'm not about to randomly trawl through the topic continiously in the off chance someone's updated their table on page 2 or whatnot.
And Suskie's going for a stealth win. Shh -- don't let on you know!
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 05, 2009 at 12:40 PM:
...so.... have you given up on this, too, then?
You haven't even updated yourself in a while. And even when you were, I'd updated myself to no avail. Can't really speak for the others, but it really doesn't look like things haven't moved much even though I know more letters have been filled (i.e. I think Suskie's winning again).
I'm at 7 anyway.
...so.... have you given up on this, too, then?
You haven't even updated yourself in a while. And even when you were, I'd updated myself to no avail. Can't really speak for the others, but it really doesn't look like things haven't moved much even though I know more letters have been filled (i.e. I think Suskie's winning again).
I'm at 7 anyway.
Posted by willthegreat on November 05, 2009 at 12:36 PM:
I just want to say jiggs, you have the right attitude. Too many newcomers might take a critique, even from our dear Wolfqueen, the wrong way.
I think you'll do fine here. Welcome aboard.
I just want to say jiggs, you have the right attitude. Too many newcomers might take a critique, even from our dear Wolfqueen, the wrong way.
I think you'll do fine here. Welcome aboard.
Posted by overdrive on November 05, 2009 at 12:24 PM:
With me and time, I tend to find worth mentioning under these stipulations.
1. It has a longer/shorter duration than one would expect. Like a retail survival horror game that can be completed in 3 hours right off the bat, as opposed to the 10+ they're usually retailed as.
2. The duration can rapidly fluctuate. Such as the RPGs of today where it might be 40 hours for the main quest, but if you do a bunch of optional dungeons and stuff, you could be at 100 hours when you're done. Sort of a "the more you put into it, the more you'll get" sort of thing.
But I probably personally rarely use time in my reviews just because my final hour-count likely is going to be far different than most people. I tend to be methodical, have the TV on when I'm playing (so I'm distracted by that) and have a habit to taking a break to surf the net or talk on the phone from time to time, while leaving the game on. Which leads to 40 hours turning to 60 for me.
With me and time, I tend to find worth mentioning under these stipulations.
1. It has a longer/shorter duration than one would expect. Like a retail survival horror game that can be completed in 3 hours right off the bat, as opposed to the 10+ they're usually retailed as.
2. The duration can rapidly fluctuate. Such as the RPGs of today where it might be 40 hours for the main quest, but if you do a bunch of optional dungeons and stuff, you could be at 100 hours when you're done. Sort of a "the more you put into it, the more you'll get" sort of thing.
But I probably personally rarely use time in my reviews just because my final hour-count likely is going to be far different than most people. I tend to be methodical, have the TV on when I'm playing (so I'm distracted by that) and have a habit to taking a break to surf the net or talk on the phone from time to time, while leaving the game on. Which leads to 40 hours turning to 60 for me.
Posted by jiggs on November 05, 2009 at 11:52 AM:
i was just gonna put this on the HG Blog, but feel it might get greater discussion here.
how important is it to mention a game's length in a review? i had the idea of nudging it in somewhere in my Demon's Souls review. i had something like this in my mind:
it will be possible for ordinary mortals to conquer demon's souls in 40 to 50 hours, the greater mortal a little bit less and as for the rest? well good luck to you bottom-feeders. to those who finish their quest, an even more difficult new game+ mode awaits.
i'm sure there are some people who look for this in a review to determine whether they want to spend time with the game or not. i do this too sometimes. if there was a game i was hyped up about...say a "beat-em-up" but found out it takes more than 100 hours to complete on a basic playthrough,i would lose interest fast. i also would be disappointed with the review(s) that didn't mention this.
the question is how many people are there? and even if it was only in the minority, is including that detail still important?
overall i feel satisfied with my first review. i doon't think i can rewrite or condense anything more that ive already said. even if my writing is a bit off-kiltered or a jumbled mess. it's just that, my writing style and i can certainly improve. if people request that i throw a game's length in there i'd put it up. just wanted to know what you all think.
i was just gonna put this on the HG Blog, but feel it might get greater discussion here.
how important is it to mention a game's length in a review? i had the idea of nudging it in somewhere in my Demon's Souls review. i had something like this in my mind:
it will be possible for ordinary mortals to conquer demon's souls in 40 to 50 hours, the greater mortal a little bit less and as for the rest? well good luck to you bottom-feeders. to those who finish their quest, an even more difficult new game+ mode awaits.
i'm sure there are some people who look for this in a review to determine whether they want to spend time with the game or not. i do this too sometimes. if there was a game i was hyped up about...say a "beat-em-up" but found out it takes more than 100 hours to complete on a basic playthrough,i would lose interest fast. i also would be disappointed with the review(s) that didn't mention this.
the question is how many people are there? and even if it was only in the minority, is including that detail still important?
overall i feel satisfied with my first review. i doon't think i can rewrite or condense anything more that ive already said. even if my writing is a bit off-kiltered or a jumbled mess. it's just that, my writing style and i can certainly improve. if people request that i throw a game's length in there i'd put it up. just wanted to know what you all think.
Posted by zigfried on November 05, 2009 at 03:37 AM:
It's not about "professional" versus "user" review, it's about writing well. When I read any review on the site, including user reviews, I expect a certain level of competence.
- it is much more massive in scales than others
Your review does not say it's more massive in scale than others. What you do say is that it has "scale" because it looks "not bad" and you can control hundred or thousands of troops (which is a good point), even though the lack of fog of war is "sad" and the developers omitted "management and production". But then after saying management was omitted, you say that you command hundreds or thousands of units! How can you command units if it's impossible to manage them? What do you really mean here?
- it has no micromanagement so the player may focus completely on warfare
- this is the first WWII RTS that used cinematic camera feature
- this game allows playing as Germans
Your review does not say any of these things. They would be good things to write about (and the first point would help explain my question about "managing units"). You do say the cinematic camera is the game's one-of-a-kind feature, but that could simply mean that the camera is somehow different from other cinematic cameras. I've played non-RTS WWII strategy games with cinematic cameras, so what you've written in the review does not make me think "this is the only WWII RTS with a cinematic camera". There are also a lot of definitions of what makes a camera "cinematic". Explaining more about it would be useful... and since it sounds like one of the game's strong points, it would help justify the final score. As for the Germans bit, you never say that in the review.
- it offers much space for tactics, there's no only one correct solution to win
This is true of every RTS I've ever played. It's true of every strategy or tactical game in general that I've played. I don't know why you're saying this is special. I suspect that what you mean and what you've written are two different things, or perhaps you just need to explain this point better. Are there multiple goals that can end a mission? Are there multiple worthwhile tactics, as opposed to just one worthwhile tactic? Again, how is this really different from other RTS games?
As for grammar "nuances", here are some of the significant grammar errors you made:
I consider myself an ordinary gamer with interest in shooters
Still however, developers’ simplistic approach doesn’t hurt
Graphics is not bad
Movies between the missions are extremely beautiful, top notch ones
Still some scenes captured are senseless
This is simply unforgettable feeling
The game offers much space for tactics, there’s no.....
OOW is historically correct game
I believe it deserves it, very decent thing
In a review this short, that's a lot of mistakes. And they're more than "nuances".
All reviews posted on the site are open to feedback, whether it's a staff or user review. You're free to say that you "don't bother that my review is too short for you or has grammar nuances", and I'm free to call you out for writing a bad review.
I can understand being defensive when your points are questioned. But to actually say that you don't care if the review was too short and that you don't care about grammar "nuances"? This isn't like you wrote a decent review that I happen to disagree with. You wrote a bad review. You NEED to improve -- dramatically -- if you hope to get anything else posted in the future.
If you really don't care whether people understand or believe your opinions, then you should reconsider whether you're prepared to express those opinions. Not just here, but anywhere in life -- the opinions that matter are the opinions that are explained clearly.
//Zig
It's not about "professional" versus "user" review, it's about writing well. When I read any review on the site, including user reviews, I expect a certain level of competence.
- it is much more massive in scales than others
Your review does not say it's more massive in scale than others. What you do say is that it has "scale" because it looks "not bad" and you can control hundred or thousands of troops (which is a good point), even though the lack of fog of war is "sad" and the developers omitted "management and production". But then after saying management was omitted, you say that you command hundreds or thousands of units! How can you command units if it's impossible to manage them? What do you really mean here?
- it has no micromanagement so the player may focus completely on warfare
- this is the first WWII RTS that used cinematic camera feature
- this game allows playing as Germans
Your review does not say any of these things. They would be good things to write about (and the first point would help explain my question about "managing units"). You do say the cinematic camera is the game's one-of-a-kind feature, but that could simply mean that the camera is somehow different from other cinematic cameras. I've played non-RTS WWII strategy games with cinematic cameras, so what you've written in the review does not make me think "this is the only WWII RTS with a cinematic camera". There are also a lot of definitions of what makes a camera "cinematic". Explaining more about it would be useful... and since it sounds like one of the game's strong points, it would help justify the final score. As for the Germans bit, you never say that in the review.
- it offers much space for tactics, there's no only one correct solution to win
This is true of every RTS I've ever played. It's true of every strategy or tactical game in general that I've played. I don't know why you're saying this is special. I suspect that what you mean and what you've written are two different things, or perhaps you just need to explain this point better. Are there multiple goals that can end a mission? Are there multiple worthwhile tactics, as opposed to just one worthwhile tactic? Again, how is this really different from other RTS games?
As for grammar "nuances", here are some of the significant grammar errors you made:
I consider myself an ordinary gamer with interest in shooters
Still however, developers’ simplistic approach doesn’t hurt
Graphics is not bad
Movies between the missions are extremely beautiful, top notch ones
Still some scenes captured are senseless
This is simply unforgettable feeling
The game offers much space for tactics, there’s no.....
OOW is historically correct game
I believe it deserves it, very decent thing
In a review this short, that's a lot of mistakes. And they're more than "nuances".
All reviews posted on the site are open to feedback, whether it's a staff or user review. You're free to say that you "don't bother that my review is too short for you or has grammar nuances", and I'm free to call you out for writing a bad review.
I can understand being defensive when your points are questioned. But to actually say that you don't care if the review was too short and that you don't care about grammar "nuances"? This isn't like you wrote a decent review that I happen to disagree with. You wrote a bad review. You NEED to improve -- dramatically -- if you hope to get anything else posted in the future.
If you really don't care whether people understand or believe your opinions, then you should reconsider whether you're prepared to express those opinions. Not just here, but anywhere in life -- the opinions that matter are the opinions that are explained clearly.
//Zig
Posted by Woodybeaver on November 05, 2009 at 01:06 AM:
I understand that you think that you are a professional reviewer, but I'm not - I'm a gamer. I don't bother that my review is too short for you or has grammar nuances. This is a USER review, I'm simply sharing with you my thoughts about the game that I've played recently. You didn't understand why this game is different from others? Let me say it again for you:
- it is much more massive in scales than others
- it has no micromanagement so the player may focus completely on warfare
- this is the first WWII RTS that used cinematic camera feature
- this game allows playing as Germans
- it offers much space for tactics, there's no only one correct solution to win
- and so on and so forth
Everything is clear now?
I understand that you think that you are a professional reviewer, but I'm not - I'm a gamer. I don't bother that my review is too short for you or has grammar nuances. This is a USER review, I'm simply sharing with you my thoughts about the game that I've played recently. You didn't understand why this game is different from others? Let me say it again for you:
- it is much more massive in scales than others
- it has no micromanagement so the player may focus completely on warfare
- this is the first WWII RTS that used cinematic camera feature
- this game allows playing as Germans
- it offers much space for tactics, there's no only one correct solution to win
- and so on and so forth
Everything is clear now?
Posted by zigfried on November 04, 2009 at 08:44 PM:
I didn't like this review. It has a lot of grammar mistakes and doesn't tell me how this game is similar to or different from other RTS games. Sometimes I didn't understand what you were saying. It's also really short. You need to spend more time on your writing. Based on this, I'm not at all convinced that it deserves a 9.
//Zig
I didn't like this review. It has a lot of grammar mistakes and doesn't tell me how this game is similar to or different from other RTS games. Sometimes I didn't understand what you were saying. It's also really short. You need to spend more time on your writing. Based on this, I'm not at all convinced that it deserves a 9.
//Zig
Posted by Suskie on November 03, 2009 at 10:47 PM:
I would have said that shallowness is simplicity with a negative connotation (since simplicity isn't always a bad thing) but Zig's explanation works. I certainly hope this isn't another instance where I "missed the point" and failed to congratulate the developers for intentionally doing something wrong.
I pretty much agree with what Genj said and will add that the game's pacing was absolutely terrible. It felt like a weird mishmash of genres and mini-games that didn't really flow from one idea to the next, and forcing players to hunt down pearls and buy hovercraft parts in order to advance the story was ridiculous. "Mandatory side quests" seems like an oxymoron to me, but here we are.
Edit: I'm disappointed you didn't go with the new black licorice-flavored taco, Genj.
I would have said that shallowness is simplicity with a negative connotation (since simplicity isn't always a bad thing) but Zig's explanation works. I certainly hope this isn't another instance where I "missed the point" and failed to congratulate the developers for intentionally doing something wrong.
I pretty much agree with what Genj said and will add that the game's pacing was absolutely terrible. It felt like a weird mishmash of genres and mini-games that didn't really flow from one idea to the next, and forcing players to hunt down pearls and buy hovercraft parts in order to advance the story was ridiculous. "Mandatory side quests" seems like an oxymoron to me, but here we are.
Edit: I'm disappointed you didn't go with the new black licorice-flavored taco, Genj.
Posted by genj on November 03, 2009 at 10:09 PM:
Beyond Good & Evil, a game virtually ignored upon released, somehow became championed by the Internet despite not really playing very well. The characters and execution of the game world are fantastic and that's about it. Combat looks pretty but boils down to mindless button mashing devoid of any challenge. The dungeons' puzzles usual require zero thought process. Usually you walk up to some object or platform and get prompted to hit a button to make your partner do all the work. The toughest part of the game is a mirror puzzle ripped straight from Ocarina of Time. Throw in a few easy rail shooting segments, time trial-style platforming, and picture taking and you have a good idea of all that BG&E entails. It's just 6 hours of watered down 3D Zelda.
Beyond Good & Evil, a game virtually ignored upon released, somehow became championed by the Internet despite not really playing very well. The characters and execution of the game world are fantastic and that's about it. Combat looks pretty but boils down to mindless button mashing devoid of any challenge. The dungeons' puzzles usual require zero thought process. Usually you walk up to some object or platform and get prompted to hit a button to make your partner do all the work. The toughest part of the game is a mirror puzzle ripped straight from Ocarina of Time. Throw in a few easy rail shooting segments, time trial-style platforming, and picture taking and you have a good idea of all that BG&E entails. It's just 6 hours of watered down 3D Zelda.
Posted by zigfried on November 03, 2009 at 06:16 PM:
Shallow gameplay doesn't challenge the mind. Deep gameplay can be based around simplistic controls; on the other hand, an RPG could have complex mechanics but be shallow if the game never requires you to use any of them.
If playing a game feels challenging or stimulating, then "shallow" probably isn't exactly the right word.
//Zig
Shallow gameplay doesn't challenge the mind. Deep gameplay can be based around simplistic controls; on the other hand, an RPG could have complex mechanics but be shallow if the game never requires you to use any of them.
If playing a game feels challenging or stimulating, then "shallow" probably isn't exactly the right word.
//Zig
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 03, 2009 at 07:06 AM:
It does beg the question... what exactly is "shallow" gameplay?
That's actually a really good question. I think it depends on the game in question, to be honest. But I suppose if one were to define "shallow" game play, my impression would be that it's when the play elements themselves don't really lend a whole lot to the experience as a whole or don't really fit in with the theme of the game.
On that note, I would say that BG&E's game play is more simplistic than shallow. But I also think that that's part of the game's charm. Since everything is so fluid and straightforward play wise - everything from combat to stealth to picture taking - it doesn't distract from the overarching theme and tone of the game. Instead of getting bogged down with overly complex controls and things that might make a person just focus on one section alone just to get through it, this fluidity allows people to see the game in its entirety and experience it as one huge picture, which is where the game shines, I think, just because its unique characteristics are so... different from most games of the genre. Or at least as far as my eperience goes.
But maybe Suskie also referred to level design itself with that statement, though I would consider level design to be separate from game play. I'm not entirely sure. But this is an interesting point for discussion.
It does beg the question... what exactly is "shallow" gameplay?
That's actually a really good question. I think it depends on the game in question, to be honest. But I suppose if one were to define "shallow" game play, my impression would be that it's when the play elements themselves don't really lend a whole lot to the experience as a whole or don't really fit in with the theme of the game.
On that note, I would say that BG&E's game play is more simplistic than shallow. But I also think that that's part of the game's charm. Since everything is so fluid and straightforward play wise - everything from combat to stealth to picture taking - it doesn't distract from the overarching theme and tone of the game. Instead of getting bogged down with overly complex controls and things that might make a person just focus on one section alone just to get through it, this fluidity allows people to see the game in its entirety and experience it as one huge picture, which is where the game shines, I think, just because its unique characteristics are so... different from most games of the genre. Or at least as far as my eperience goes.
But maybe Suskie also referred to level design itself with that statement, though I would consider level design to be separate from game play. I'm not entirely sure. But this is an interesting point for discussion.
Posted by sportsman on November 03, 2009 at 05:44 AM:
I'm aware it's short and all. Getting myself to start it is the problem, not finding time to devote to it. Something else is always butting in front of it in my game queue.
I'm aware it's short and all. Getting myself to start it is the problem, not finding time to devote to it. Something else is always butting in front of it in my game queue.
Posted by zippdementia on November 02, 2009 at 11:31 PM:
Hm. I'm drawing on memory here, but isn't it more simplistic than shallow? Or is that arguing semantics?
It does beg the question... what exactly is "shallow" gameplay? I'd try my hand at a working definition but I've been defining Generational gaps between educators and students all evening so my brain is a little south...
Hm. I'm drawing on memory here, but isn't it more simplistic than shallow? Or is that arguing semantics?
It does beg the question... what exactly is "shallow" gameplay? I'd try my hand at a working definition but I've been defining Generational gaps between educators and students all evening so my brain is a little south...
Posted by Suskie on November 02, 2009 at 10:58 PM:
I've always thought everything about BG&E was done beautifully except for the gameplay itself, which I found shallow and inconsistent. I still like the description I used in my GameFAQs review: "A great game for the wrong reasons."
I've always thought everything about BG&E was done beautifully except for the gameplay itself, which I found shallow and inconsistent. I still like the description I used in my GameFAQs review: "A great game for the wrong reasons."
Posted by zippdementia on November 02, 2009 at 10:28 PM:
Yeah, Suskie, I was gonna say 8, but I couldn't believe that it was really that short. It was though, huh?
The ending... the whole credit thing immediately following the boss just kinda put me off. I guess there wasn't much else to say, though. And at least the music during the credits was incredible. A really amazing soundtrack to that game.
Yeah, Suskie, I was gonna say 8, but I couldn't believe that it was really that short. It was though, huh?
The ending... the whole credit thing immediately following the boss just kinda put me off. I guess there wasn't much else to say, though. And at least the music during the credits was incredible. A really amazing soundtrack to that game.
Posted by zippdementia on November 02, 2009 at 04:54 PM:
Wait wait wait wait... do you get to fuck in this one?
Wait wait wait wait... do you get to fuck in this one?
Posted by zippdementia on November 02, 2009 at 04:46 PM:
Myst
Platform: PSP
Genre: point and click Adventure
Developer: Hoplite Research
Release Date: July 16, 2009
The fact that we don't have a positive review for this game seems to me to be a fucking travesty. Maybe one that I'll feel obliged to correct if the game has held up.
Added.
Myst
Platform: PSP
Genre: point and click Adventure
Developer: Hoplite Research
Release Date: July 16, 2009
The fact that we don't have a positive review for this game seems to me to be a fucking travesty. Maybe one that I'll feel obliged to correct if the game has held up.
Added.
Posted by taulya on November 02, 2009 at 01:19 PM:
Tweeted u here http://twitter.com/SweepsSpot/status/5373149410
Tweeted u here http://twitter.com/SweepsSpot/status/5373149410
Posted by zigfried on November 02, 2009 at 09:42 AM:
No.
On another note, this was definitely a nice review.
//Zig
No.
On another note, this was definitely a nice review.
//Zig
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 02, 2009 at 09:38 AM:
That's not me! I wouldn't go through so much trouble as to create a second account solely devoted to freelancing. Haha. I actually want to do freelance at some point... but I'm too busy now and don't have any modern systems, except the DS, which has been rendered inoperable due to a broken charger. =(
Besides, I have a real name. It isn't that.
but, haha, I can kind of see where you made that connection. I guess in some ways, her style is similar to mine; though I think she's a bit more technical in some areas, particularly with background gaming knowledge.
Anyway, this game sounds awesome. XD Kind of sounds like Rainbow Islands only cuter yet carniverous at the same time. That's hilarious. Nice job on the review.
One error, though, that only a staffer can fix.. because of the odd rule that owners of their own freelance reviews can't edit their own staff-appointed reviews. Such a silly rule if you ask me.
Anyway, here it is:
The way the game works is that you'll be faced with rows of colorful creatures are staring down at you from sets of vines
that should either be "that are" or omitted entirely.
That's not me! I wouldn't go through so much trouble as to create a second account solely devoted to freelancing. Haha. I actually want to do freelance at some point... but I'm too busy now and don't have any modern systems, except the DS, which has been rendered inoperable due to a broken charger. =(
Besides, I have a real name. It isn't that.
but, haha, I can kind of see where you made that connection. I guess in some ways, her style is similar to mine; though I think she's a bit more technical in some areas, particularly with background gaming knowledge.
Anyway, this game sounds awesome. XD Kind of sounds like Rainbow Islands only cuter yet carniverous at the same time. That's hilarious. Nice job on the review.
One error, though, that only a staffer can fix.. because of the odd rule that owners of their own freelance reviews can't edit their own staff-appointed reviews. Such a silly rule if you ask me.
Anyway, here it is:
The way the game works is that you'll be faced with rows of colorful creatures are staring down at you from sets of vines
that should either be "that are" or omitted entirely.
Posted by Melaisis on November 02, 2009 at 06:25 AM:
Hey! This review is relative to me, since I played the PC version last week!
And I gave up about 4 hours in.
I'm not sure why I didn't find it compelling. I loved shooting down sea beasts and taking photos of weird, translucent jellyfish in secret caves. But when I was forced into one, claustrophobic, all-too-linear industrial dungeon after another, I got bored. This game held so much potential and squandered it all by forcing me through bloody Quake 4.
More outdoor settings and I'd have been all over this like a poorly phrased simile. The review highlights everything that's good about this game, but I believe it remains unpopular for a reason.
Hey! This review is relative to me, since I played the PC version last week!
And I gave up about 4 hours in.
I'm not sure why I didn't find it compelling. I loved shooting down sea beasts and taking photos of weird, translucent jellyfish in secret caves. But when I was forced into one, claustrophobic, all-too-linear industrial dungeon after another, I got bored. This game held so much potential and squandered it all by forcing me through bloody Quake 4.
More outdoor settings and I'd have been all over this like a poorly phrased simile. The review highlights everything that's good about this game, but I believe it remains unpopular for a reason.
Posted by zippdementia on November 01, 2009 at 11:07 PM:
Was this written by Wolf Queen under a pseudonym (or, gasp! a real name?) The styles seem remarkably similar to me.
Was this written by Wolf Queen under a pseudonym (or, gasp! a real name?) The styles seem remarkably similar to me.
Posted by Suskie on November 01, 2009 at 10:55 PM:
There is no WAY it's that long, Zipp. I mean, I remember one of the biggest complaints about the game was how short it was. Eight hours, tops.
Honestly, I liked BG&E's ending. Jade's story had closure... it's just that they cut to the credits immediately after the conflict was resolved, leaving it up to the player to decide where it went from there. That put off a lot of people, but I like that approach. I guess the cliffhanger-type thing after the credits was a little uncalled for, but whatever.
There is no WAY it's that long, Zipp. I mean, I remember one of the biggest complaints about the game was how short it was. Eight hours, tops.
Honestly, I liked BG&E's ending. Jade's story had closure... it's just that they cut to the credits immediately after the conflict was resolved, leaving it up to the player to decide where it went from there. That put off a lot of people, but I like that approach. I guess the cliffhanger-type thing after the credits was a little uncalled for, but whatever.
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 01, 2009 at 10:53 PM:
No problem. =D I'm glad this helped and that you're excited to write more. It's always great to see new contributors. I hope you can make this a regular thing for yourself.
Haha. I think I'm starting to sound a little like Jason... XD
No problem. =D I'm glad this helped and that you're excited to write more. It's always great to see new contributors. I hope you can make this a regular thing for yourself.
Haha. I think I'm starting to sound a little like Jason... XD
Posted by wolfqueen001 on November 01, 2009 at 10:47 PM:
Spoilers continued (I guess):
I didn't have a problem with the ending. It seemed like it concluded things well enough, or at least through the dialogue / cutscene or whatever it seemed that way. Though I will admit it kind of does just end game play wise after beating the final boss.
If I could complain, and I wouldn't even complain about this if the sequel weren't canceled, I would say that the blurb after the credits makes you really want for a sequel. Like really bad. It's really sad and frustrating in that regard.
As an aside, I got this game for my birthday one year... and didn't play it until about two years later. Hahaha. I'm noticing a pattern!
Spoilers continued (I guess):
I didn't have a problem with the ending. It seemed like it concluded things well enough, or at least through the dialogue / cutscene or whatever it seemed that way. Though I will admit it kind of does just end game play wise after beating the final boss.
If I could complain, and I wouldn't even complain about this if the sequel weren't canceled, I would say that the blurb after the credits makes you really want for a sequel. Like really bad. It's really sad and frustrating in that regard.
As an aside, I got this game for my birthday one year... and didn't play it until about two years later. Hahaha. I'm noticing a pattern!
Posted by zippdementia on November 01, 2009 at 10:28 PM:
Sportsman, it's not actually that long of a game and it's highly engaging. I think I beat it in three days, like maybe 14 hours total or something. You shouldn't let anything stop you from giving it a shot.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
My only complaint about the game was the un-ending. It really just... stops.
Sportsman, it's not actually that long of a game and it's highly engaging. I think I beat it in three days, like maybe 14 hours total or something. You shouldn't let anything stop you from giving it a shot.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
My only complaint about the game was the un-ending. It really just... stops.
Posted by jiggs on November 01, 2009 at 09:04 PM:
michel ancel's best work. not a big fan of the western style character designs though but the gameplay was actually quite fun and charming. the scripted events were action-packed. like the rest of you picked it up cheap and didn't play it for like 2 years.
michel ancel's best work. not a big fan of the western style character designs though but the gameplay was actually quite fun and charming. the scripted events were action-packed. like the rest of you picked it up cheap and didn't play it for like 2 years.
When posting, please keep the forum guidelines in mind at all times. Disruptive posts will not be tolerated. Let's all try to have a good time and keep things civil.
| HG 2009 Fundraising Progress: $312 / $2500 (12%) |
Gaming News & Press Releases RSS twitter
• Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey announced for US
• 2K Play and Nickelodeon announce release of bunches and bunches of games for Wii, DS and PS2
• Atlantica Online celebrates 1st anniversary in the US
• Fragile: Farewell Ruins of the Moon renamed for NA
• Battlefield: Bad Company 2 beta scheduled for PS3
• Europa Universalis III: Heir to the Throne details revealed
• Video games climbing the ladder of American pastimes
• Mass Effect 2 collector's edition announced
• Atlus announces guide cover replacement program for Demon's Souls Deluxe Edition purchasers
• CBS announces eight current and upcoming casual games based on popular CBS television shows
Staff Game Reviews RSS
Restaurant Empire 2
The Elder Scrolls IV: Shivering Isles
Order of War
The Hardy Boys: Treasure on the Tracks
Critter Crunch (PSN)
Star Wars: The Clone Wars - Republic Heroes
Imadoki no Vampire: Bloody Bride
Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars
Featured User Reviews [+]
Mr. Do!
Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story
Warhawk
Katamari Forever
Exclusive User Reviews [+]
Tales of the World: Radiant Mythology
Wonder Boy in Monster World
Hearts of Iron III
Mr. Do!'s Castle
|
© 1998-2009 HonestGamers None of the material contained within this site--from reviews, guides, cheats, fiction, and editorials to message board posts--may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Games, characters, scenarios and other material are the intellectual property of their publishers and developers. This site makes no claim to any such content, express or implied. No opinions expressed in any review, guide, cheat, fanfic, or editorial necessarily represent the opinion of the staff or any site sponsors. |
|
