massive review for a massive game. this is one game i'm interested in playing, but it will take me a couple sittings to absorb all the information you've provided! i applaud you for writing all that.
!
fleinn's MAG: Massive Action Game review
..yeah. It turned out to be a very strange review. :/ More like a critical commentary. But I don't know if it works as a review.
I personally think it's a little long. I'm also confused that I don't see any serious addressing of the issue that always plagues co-op online games (and in fact an issue I've heard from other sources plagues MAG): the lack of player co-operation. Players just run around like it's deathmatch-derby and no-one has any concept of "team play."
Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."
To Zipp:
Lack of player cooperation is usually only an issue if cooperation is required to advance further in the game (I do not count winning a squad-on-squad battle as "advancement"), and if the game lacks appropriate incentives or regulations to inspire and enforce that necessary cooperation. Otherwise, it's a case of "the players create the community" and if you don't like the community, it's hard to blame the game, much like it's hard to blame phpbb for a particular message board being populated by lamers.
That doesn't mean such things don't belong in a review of someone's game experience, but I think it's a bit early to pass judgement one way or the other on MAG's community.
To fleinn:
I thought this was a fascinating look at MAG. I really liked the more editorial approach you took; for a game like this, I can't imagine any other approach being anywhere close to effective.
//Zig
Lack of player cooperation is usually only an issue if cooperation is required to advance further in the game (I do not count winning a squad-on-squad battle as "advancement"), and if the game lacks appropriate incentives or regulations to inspire and enforce that necessary cooperation. Otherwise, it's a case of "the players create the community" and if you don't like the community, it's hard to blame the game, much like it's hard to blame phpbb for a particular message board being populated by lamers.
That doesn't mean such things don't belong in a review of someone's game experience, but I think it's a bit early to pass judgement one way or the other on MAG's community.
To fleinn:
I thought this was a fascinating look at MAG. I really liked the more editorial approach you took; for a game like this, I can't imagine any other approach being anywhere close to effective.
//Zig
I'll mirror Zig on this; I read the entire thing and it didn't feel as long as it perhaps should. I enjoyed the approuch.
For us. For them. For you.
I have to admit this is my second time through and I still cut out near the end. That said, I find it enjoyable. This may just reflect on my being tired, but if you're interested in general "does the writing work" feedback, overall I think you've done well--speaking as someone who wouldn't play the game.
My principal said, 'Emo, Emo, Emo.'
I said 'I'm the one in the middle, you lousy drunk!'
-- Emo Phillips
I said 'I'm the one in the middle, you lousy drunk!'
-- Emo Phillips
Thanks, zigfried and Emp. But I also think it's a bit too long, lol.
I could make the comment about the future support much shorter. And tie the thing about co-operation into the other bit about the classes, and so on, maybe..
The problem I have with reviewing the game as if it's more or less successful when things work, and you win.. is that it's not really about the game. I could explain that it's easier to enjoy the game if you make use of the hud-controls, or a mic, and when you have squad-leaders that do something useful. But it's like saying: "playing football is fun if everyone plays team". Instead it's more close to mention something about how simple the rules are, and that the game can be interesting anyway.
So I thought using the structure of the maps and the squads to paint a picture of some sort, of how deliberately made all of this is. And that the reason you're disappointed if you lose, is that you tend to grasp why you lost. Not that you simply didn't get the game, or wasn't "skilled" enough..
I could make the comment about the future support much shorter. And tie the thing about co-operation into the other bit about the classes, and so on, maybe..
The problem I have with reviewing the game as if it's more or less successful when things work, and you win.. is that it's not really about the game. I could explain that it's easier to enjoy the game if you make use of the hud-controls, or a mic, and when you have squad-leaders that do something useful. But it's like saying: "playing football is fun if everyone plays team". Instead it's more close to mention something about how simple the rules are, and that the game can be interesting anyway.
So I thought using the structure of the maps and the squads to paint a picture of some sort, of how deliberately made all of this is. And that the reason you're disappointed if you lose, is that you tend to grasp why you lost. Not that you simply didn't get the game, or wasn't "skilled" enough..
Okay, I've tried giving this a read through a couple more times and I just can't make it. The writing isn't bad at all, that's not the problem. I think it's just lacking the proper hooks. MAG was considered one of the games to look out for this year. It seems like you may have been better served by opening up with a bit more pizzaz and a little less technicality. Maybe get the reader involved in an instance of combat or delve immediately into some of MAG's cooler features that blew you away so much you gotta talk about em' right now!
With a review this long, you need some sort of approach that's gonna carry the audience with you.
With a review this long, you need some sort of approach that's gonna carry the audience with you.
Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."
I can sympathize with what you were trying to do here, Fleinn (reviewing Mass Effect 2 was difficult for me, because there was far more I wanted to talk about than I had space for), but the trouble with going all-out and detailing every aspect of the game is that you lose your readers' attention. I'm glad some of the people here weren't bothered by this review's length, but like Zipp, I have yet to finish it. It's not poorly written by any means, but you need to be a truly talented and charismatic writer to hold my interest for so long.
You exist because we allow it. And you will end because we demand it.
lol. Yeah. I made a few changes, so I can at least read through it myself without having a break half-way. But if I had started writing it now, I think I would have just created a small story about the game-flow, and then not said anything else.
I've done that with other reviews - lied a bit, and created a true enough scenario that describes the game better to someone who hasn't played it - and felt guilty about it afterwards. But it's probably a good idea when reviewing this game. But it's difficult to find the right.. scope... :/ the game is expansive that way, after all.
I've done that with other reviews - lied a bit, and created a true enough scenario that describes the game better to someone who hasn't played it - and felt guilty about it afterwards. But it's probably a good idea when reviewing this game. But it's difficult to find the right.. scope... :/ the game is expansive that way, after all.
Log in to reply.