dragoon_of_infinity's Stalin vs. Martians review

It's very funny, though, isn't it?

I mean, obviously rubbish, but as a joke game - what it obviously sets out to be - it's rather successful.

Problem being, you don't often get people happy to pay a tenner for a joke. It grows tiresome after 15 minutes. Definitely not worth it, in a million years.

So, basically: I quite like SvM. But 2 is absolutely the right score. Just surprised you don't mention its sense of humour more.

I would say that Josh definitely took the right angle with this review. Just because a game is a 'joke' game doesn't mean it has to be bad. In fact, a joke concept can easily be the first step in something fantastic--worth every penny of $40 or $50--if it follows that up with even solid gameplay. That the developers missed things on such a fundamental level is definitely disappointing.

Totally. Which is why I agree it's not in any way a worthwhile purchase. It seems to me, though, that the developers have worked it being a crap game into the fundamental point of the release. Even the press releases joke about it, saying Stalin has censored outside opinion and that's why they're not quoting from any reviews. It seems self-conscious and intentional in its awfulness. To what extent should that be considered when critiquing a game?

Can "being crap" be a part of the joke? Does that make it any less worthless?

In a review, as consumer advice, probably not. But it's worth thinkin' about.

There's no denying that they certainly played on the fact that their wacky game was getting slaughtered by critics, and did so brilliantly. Here's the best examples!





But do I think they made a really bad game on purpose? No. I think they saw it getting raped and tried to turn it into a plus as best they could. I applaud their efforts, and, if the game had strayed into the "So bad, it's great" zone, I expect I'd be one of the first with the advertising hook in my mouth. But it sounds more like a "So bad it's bad" title, so nothing happening!

I thought this was a great review. I'm definitely of the mind that a joke game need not be bad. Look at Zombies Ate My Neighbors! or Earthbound. A bad game isn't a joke. It's very serious.

EmP, I'm curious now. Were you saying there's been some kind of response from the game developers to all the criticism?

Those quotes I posted up were from the game's PR basically saying that Stalin screened the reviews for the game for the good of the people.

My first idea for this review was actually to sort of counterplay the humor in the game against the horrible gameplay, and say that the game is worth playing because it's amusing.

Then I kept going, and the humor really sort of burned out and all I was left with was bad game. Yeah, the humor is there, but honestly I don't think it's potent enough to override the other flaws to any noticable degree, so I didn't make a big deal about it because doing so would imply that it did.

I won't pretend that I didn't laugh a few times, though.

At this, by any chance?