New Review of Al Emmo
 

Today's Review of Al Emmo by Wendy Nellius.
http://www.adventurelantern.com/

She obviously likes the game awarding it a whopping 96/100!

Is this a review of the whole game or the demo?

The whole game...

~~ Dasilver & the gnome ~~

Good question ....... and answer.

This is the second Review I've read on the Net for the FULL game of Al-Emmo before it has even been released.
AFAIK, these are usually referred to as Previews.

Last minute improvements are still being made to the game (some as a result of Forum feedback suggestions and [minor] criticisms), and it is still being tested.

I am not one of the Developers so I can only make an educated guess ... which is that that the game will be officially released before the end of July (2006 :P )!

A bit silly to call it a review if Himalaya haven't finished the game yet.

The game is complete and reviewables, I believe, have been sent to several people. The game has, to the surprise of many I'm sure, been receiving rave reviews. On the next website update this weekend at www.alemmo.com check out the press & reviews section for links to all of the latest reviews.

I think it's fairly common for magazines to get not-absolutely-final copies to review for scheduling purposes. Otherwise they'd always be hopelessly outdated. But I see no reason for websites to do so if changes are still being made. I don't see a lot of point in posting reviews weeks before a game is released, either. That's why review copies often come with embargo dates. So don't look for AG's review until after AE reaches gold status and a ship date at least imminent.

But I guess Himalaya won't be complaining if they keep getting A's and 96's. :P

I can't wait!

Mind you, that most reviewers have actually final versions and quite some time in their hands to fully appreciate a game.

I'm afraid I don't understand that statement. :confused:

The thing to remember here, though, is that Al Emmo isn't "final". It may be "complete", but that's an entirely different thing. Keepsake was complete, too, but the publisher pulled it at the last minute, revamped the voices and added new features. That may be an extreme example, but AE is also making changes, so I don't understand releasing reviews for an outdated version unless it's necessary for scheduling (magazines). Reviewers can play and even write reviews based on near-final versions, but it should still be verified with the final version before releasing.

I thought the game was gold but what do I know? I know some reviewers have reviewed the final game.

Maybe one of the designers can chime in...

It was my understanding that the version of Al Emmo reviewed over at Adventure Lantern was essentially completed. Very minor changes might be made, but hardly anything to change the grade. Of course we would not have posted the review if Himalaya had told us the build we had was not ready for that.

The core elements of the game, the storyline, the atmosphere, the puzzles, the interface are all in place. From what I gather reading the article, Wendy didn't run into stability issues either.

So if a hotspot gets enlarged by two pixels or gets moved slightly, if a few lines of text get updated the overall feeling of the game is not going to change. But if something truly significant were to change, of course the review can always be updated to reflect this.

On a side note, arguing which version of a software should be reviewed is inherently tricky. We frequently see patches that resolve very major issues. And all too often reviews are not updated to reflect these changes. One example (although it is non-adventure) that pops into my mind is Master of Orion 3. The game shipped with serious bugs and a manual that wasn't very helpful. Downloading various updates however, could significantly change the experience. Now I'll grant reviewers cannot be expected to keep up with all the patches and make each and every article as current as possible. But picking on a review just because the final product might be slightly different seems a bit extreme to me when software products are hsitorically fluid and subject to change at any time.


But Jackal is absolutely right, scheduling is an issue for print magazines or a site that works like AL. Instead of holding the article for an entire month to make sure we take every little change into account, it makes more sense to me to release it and let the readers here about the core aspects of the game that are not going to change anyway.


Regarding when the article should be released, I personally find it extremely helpful to see them early. For one thing, if the reviews is out by the time a game is at a local store, it gives me a chance to read it before I make my purchasing decision. It doesn't matter how many days early the article was. It is nice to have it already written and available when I am deciding to buy a game.

In the case of Al Emmo, having the reviews early helps in a different way since the game can be preordered right now.

Not quite yet. We've been making some changes to various things in regards to feedback etc. I'm also working on finalizing the CD installer at the moment -- but it's getting close!

96, eh? I wonder what the game would have been rated if it included the additional features that weren't in the review copy. :D

Just look at the reviews for Titan Quest!

Hey, Ugur. Nice to see you hear. :)

Well, patches can certainly improve a game, but there's no obligation to review anything beyond the retail product itself. That's what people buy, that's what gets reviewed. I don't think that's quite the same as knowingly reviewing an unfinished product. Reviewing less than people will buy is what's at issue. Certainly it's moot in the case of a game already getting 96%, but I'd still argue against it on general principle. It might be slightly different, or it might be noticeably improved. The point is, it doesn't allow for the possibility.

"By the time" it's released, yes. The only question is doing it weeks earlier. People who preorder tend not to be those who will be influenced by a review. ;) Again, it's irrelevant when this particular review is so favourable, but in general I find it makes a game's actual release fairly anti-climactic if reviews have already long since come and gone.

I completely see your point Jackal. I think we are simply at different ends of the spectrum on this one. I think on the principal we agree, a review has to reflect what you are going to buy. I feel in the case of Al Emmo the build Wendy had did just that. You are saying the small improvements could make a difference, and I respect that.

Regarding the release of a review coming too early though, don't forget the value of repetition. Not that it has any relevance from our perspective as would-be critics, scattered reviews over a month might actually keep reminding people about a game and that is one great marketing tool. The fact that a product gets focus at different sites over a period of time is also an event. I am not arguing the impact of having a bunch of articles released all at the same time. That IS certainly powerful. But that doesn't mean repetition over time and building up anticipation with early opinions is ineffective.

In any case, reviewing is just an act of stating an opinion, not a race to be the one to write about a given game first. I am looking forward to see what the AG team has to say about the game whenever the review is posted.

PS: Thanks for the welcome. It's of course not my first time to read the forum. Just not much of a poster. I already yap enough about games at AL :)

Whether a 'Review' or an 'Eleventh-hour Preview' (or maybe a 'Last-minute Preview', or whatever), Wendy certainly provides an extremely full and detailed description of the game, and a VERY strong endorsement for buying and playing it!