[Erkki]

Is it ok to provide feedback on old reviews?

Originally Posted by mycroft in another thread

And frankly, except for the CoMI review, I agree with all of them.

I just read the CMI review out of curiosity of why you didn't agree with that particular review. I must say I don't agree with it either (particuarly with the grade and the last paragraph). Most of the review is saying almost nothing but good things about the game and then the last paragraph says it's not actually that good at all because of a few (arguable) downsides and brings the grade down to 3.5. The larger part of the review from the beginning to the last paragraph sounded like 4.0-4.5

I'd say the arguable downsides are

1) the length. I don't see how a game's length has anything to do with it's quality and grade (it seemed to me that the length had effect on the grade). And besides that, it didn't seem like THAT short to me. At least I have always remembered it as an average-length adventure game, though I haven't played it recently.

2) the ending is a bit sucky, but aren't most game endings? I don't think an ending should affect the grade much.

3) the depth of the game and underdeveloped characters. This I partly agree with, but in a pure comedy game I don't see it as that important to bring the grade down so much, if the game was fantastic otherwise.

Minor quibbles, to be sure, for this is a fantastic game, but it’s the little details that make the game sparkle…and quite frankly, this game does not.

Well the sparkling depends on the person I guess, so I agree that it might not sparke for some, though it did for me. But if it's indeed fantastic -- although doesn't sparkle -- as the last sentence says, is it worthy of only 3.5?

[ragnar]

I'd say 3.5* are justified for CMI. It's the least good in the MI series in my mind.

[Erkki]

I think it's as good as the previous games, though different, but I don't like EMI nearly as much.

[ragnar]

CMI is a rather uneven game, ranging from pure brilliance to rather boring. EMI is more evenly funny throughout, even if it doesn't reach as high as the peaks in CMI. MI1 and MI2 are both much superior though.

[mycroft]

Haha...
I do not wish to dig up the dead(no pun intended). It was not my intention to do so in the first place. But, since this issue has been raised, I cannot help but give my two cents.

I think most reviewers will have grown sick and tired of "Why didn't my favourite game get the uber score ?" and so on. So, I'll keep it short and sensible.

I agree with Erkki for the most part. Also note that my original quote referred to the review and not the score. I couldn't care less for the score, really.

I will invite everyone to read the review first before reading any further or or coming to premature conclusions or abandoning my post as another rant of sorts(which it's not, really).

http://www.adventuregamers.com/display.php?id=80

Here is a case where the score, somehow, does not seem to correspond to the actual review. I don't think that I'm in any position to challenge or even question the reason for Tamara's score. But Errki has very precisely stated my biggest gripe with the review.

Originally Posted by Erkki

Most of the review is saying almost nothing but good things about the game and then the last paragraph says it's not actually that good at all because of a few (arguable) downsides and brings the grade down to 3.5.

I fully appreciate Tamara's in-depth critique of the game. The last thing I'd want is for every second game getting a score of 4.5 or higher. So, no actual problems with the score. I'm not saying that the game should've got five stars or anything. But the praise(in the major part) in the review somehow does not correspond to the low score. I agree with the abrupt ending and the under-developed characters and all. After all, every game has its weak points.

My point is that the overall impression gathered from the review is a negative one. Maybe because of the score or the harsh ending. How can anyone call a game as fantastic and then put it down in the same sentence? Perhaps it could've been organised a little better or something. It gives the impression that it was meant for people who have already played the first two ones.

If you approach the game from a newbie's point of view( a guy who is not aware of/has not played the Monkey Island games at all.) then this review does not give a good impression of the game. Of course, the entire problem comes down to the subjectivity and objectivity of reviews and I'd rather not go there again.

In closing, I do not agree with the review. The review, combined with the score does not give a good impression of the game, which in fact is a personal favourite of mine(else I wouldn't be writing this right now). I consider its graphics to be timeless. Play it again, see how beautiful it still looks. I'm sure a newbie would get turned away from the game after the review.

It is rather ironic really, one of the game's weakest points is also this review's weakest points. An unsatisfying ending that is.

Originally Posted by Tamara in CoMI review

Minor quibbles, to be sure, for this is a fantastic game, but it’s the little details that make the game sparkle…and quite frankly, this game does not.

I feel that you were comparing CoMI to its predecessors, perhaps this is the reason for its low score and this harsh quote.

Bottom Line: Curse of the Monkey Island is a great game. It should be on the list of every gamer who wants to taste adventure games. The graphics are timeless. The score does not correspond the the review and gives a very negative opinion of the game. The game deserves a little better than this. Not the score, mind you, the treatment in the review. Well, maybe the score too.

Bah!

I just happen to like the game a lot, that's all. I will now insert four consecutive smilies, just to prove that there are no hard feelings.

[Erkki]

Thanx mycroft, you said it better than I did. Basically I wanted to say the same thing but I think my post came out differently.

[Tamara]

I've got to re-read the review to comment in depth, I wrote it a very, very long time ago (actually, it's one of the first I wrote).

However, 1) The score was also influenced, like rags said, by MI1 & 2 being much, much, better .. especially as far as depth goes. COMI felt shallow in comparison. 2) I wrote that, as I said, a long time ago, when I was somewhat more likely to gloss over bad points, and try to 'appease' MI fans. I wouldn't do that nowadays. I do remember trying both to state my opinion (that COMI wasn't all that) and not to get lynched (by adding 'but ...'). Like I say, I wouldn't do that now, I'd just criticise what I felt needed criticising and not eulogise over good points (bad habit I picked up from GameSpy previews at the time). 3) I do stand by the score. Not necessarily by the text, I'd have to re-read to make sure. Quite definitely it'd be different if I wrote it today, people change.

PS - Why dyou say the review is overly positive for the score given, and then say it gives a negative impression?

[Tamara]

In a departure from Monkey Island 2, where the graphics were as realistic as was possible at the time,The Curse’s graphics are cartoony, as in Sam and Max, or Day of the Tentacle. This refusal to take itself seriously adds immensely to the game’s charm.

I said that?!? I take it back!!!

Having read it through, I think it's actually way too positive .. was more afraid of the fanboys than I remember. I agree it's incongruous, but why on earth d'you think it gives a negative impression?

(It wasn't written in 2002, btw, that's the server change. My Word Doc says last edited May 2000. )

[Erkki]

The only thing I really thought was that the last paragraph was overly negative when compared to the rest of the review or vice versa. So maybe the most of your review was overly positive?

And that last sentence is kind of controversial. I mean, you literally call the game 'fantastic' and then say it doesn't sparkle and give it 3.5.

[Tamara]

Read above. I agree. I wouldn't call this review representative of my opinion today. I wouldn't use those adjectives today, either. I'd present it differently. But it was written in 2000, like I said, and IIRC it was either the 1st or 2nd review I'd ever written. You learn from your mistakes. The reviews I write today are a hell of a lot more consistent and better-argued.

[Erkki]

Not trying to claim otherwise, I was actually agreeing with your previous post, in my own twisted way.

[Zygomaticus]

When I played Monkey Island 3 many years ago I had to resort to a Walkthrough, partially due to my mental ineptitude and partly because, as I was to find later on, some of the puzzles were quite illogical. 'twas my feeling then, as a youngin'.

Wonder how it'll go now...