[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Hee hee. I can't help but chuckle at a new comment in the Chronicles of Mystery review, claiming we overrated the game:



So we're both too demanding and we rate everything great. It's always amazing how completely differently people can see the very same thing.

I know you're a member of the writing team here but I'm ending the discussion with you right here. If you really still fail to understand what I've said, I don't see the point of repeating myself again and again when the message clearly isn't going through. I've said from the VERY BEGINNING that I do not mean games should be given good reviews simply because what the genre is going through. THAT and my opinion about most of the latest reviews being over critical (+asking for some realism) are NOT related in any way. All I've asked for was to give the genre a slack, not to give each new adventure game a five-star rating because we should be thankful we're still getting them!

To end my part of this discussion, I'll ask that you check other reviews too to see just how many people comment similar way than me to them. My whole interest on this started when I saw someone else comment on the high demands / overcritical ratings in the review of the latest Art of Murder fiasco.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

I'm sorry but if you're going to create a thread on this forum quoting MY post, you can be sure I will respond to your arguments as well.

Where did I say you shouldn't respond? You were and are more than welcome to do so. Encouraged, even. There's just no "drama" in choosing to discuss a topic that affects the site.

I didn't know you wanted me to start browsing the reviews and pick up examples but surely I can do that.

Good, that will indeed help. It really makes no difference to me if you do or don't, but it was you who claimed that all our "recent" reviews were guilty of the same behaviour, so presumably they're easy to find. Supporting your own accusation just makes sense, and it seems to me that doing so would spare us both yet another incorrect claim that I'm not understanding you. Otherwise, there's really no substance to your claim, and this is indeed a waste of time.

You fail to mention that these "better adventures" are also made by different development teams with a different budget.

They are indeed. Two by self-financed small indie developers got 4.5 stars. Actually, could be more than two. I stopped counting there.

Maybe the reviewers have changed, or the business aspect of the site has taken over? I don't know. Not an employee.

Some of the reviewers have changed, our editorial policies have not. Of course you didn't know that; that's why I told you.

I've said from the VERY BEGINNING that I do not mean games should be given good reviews simply because what the genre is going through.

I heard you the first time. And every other time. Please point out where I EVER said otherwise. You won't find an example of that, either.

To end my part of this discussion, I'll ask that you check other reviews too to see just how many people comment similar way than me to them.

Ironically, that was the entire purpose of starting this thread. I don't quite see the "agreement" you're referring to, but I'm just interested in people's opinions, whatever they are.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

All I've asked for was to give the genre a slack, not to give each new adventure game a five-star rating because we should be thankful we're still getting them!

Therein lies the problem. Once you start giving slack, how much is enough? The moment you start doing this you cease to be objective.

This is why I think content is more important than score in reviews. If someone says clearly why they dislike a game then a reader should be able to make their own judgement. If you think all the things being criticised are likely down to budget constraints then you can make a personal adjustment to the score accordingly.

I do think about other games when reviewing (and I have handed out some harsh criticism). However, a lot of the games in my mind are from the Underground scene and they are working with the severest of budget restraints, none at all. If I'd rathen be playing an underground game (which is free) when reviewing a commercial release then something's is wrong with the commercial release.

[dekaneas297]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

This is why I think content is more important than score in reviews. If someone says clearly why they dislike a game then a reader should be able to make their own judgement. If you think all the things being criticised are likely down to budget constraints then you can make a personal adjustment to the score accordingly

Exactly
Having browsed several reviews (mostly recent ones) I think the major point of disagreement by many users is the score issue. Having excluded that, reviews seem less harsh. But the numerical grades simply give a notion of trial verdict, which in the case of a low one it is expressed as a life sentence or death penalty for the game.
So for me there are two possible solutions for this. Either eliminate the score system (of course keeping everything else in the reviews as it is), or expand the grade scale. I mean this: if you grade a game 2.5/5 it means you give it pass/fail score and that's not just 'fair' for the game. But if you had the chance to grade the same game in a scale of 1 to 10 I don't think you would put a 5. You have more elasticity to put a 6 or 6.5, which tends to seem less harsh.

[Fantasysci5]

Not a big point, but I am one of the few that love the stories in 1st persons better than 3rd persons. I think you can delve deeper in the stories, usually by reading, in 1st person, while in 3rd person, you're basically just asking questions. Of course, I love 3rd person, but there's a special place in my heart for 1st person.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

I mean this: if you grade a game 2.5/5 it means you give it pass/fail score and that's not just 'fair' for the game. But if you had the chance to grade the same game in a scale of 1 to 10 I don't think you would put a 5. You have more elasticity to put a 6 or 6.5, which tends to seem less harsh.

This just highlights the essentially arbitrary nature of every single scoring system. A 6 at one site isn't necessarily a 6 at another, and 2.5 stars is neither meant to mean 50% nor a pass/fail judgement here. Our grades mean what our scoring system means them to be. By our standards, 2.5 isn't really a fail at all (it ain't great, but "fail" is overstating). The merits of any system can be debated, but the point will always remain that readers can't simply project one site's scoring criteria and apply them to any other.

I don't think the scores are ultimately a problem so long as they're never used to replace the content. Unfortunately, they often make it too easy to do exactly that.

[colpet]

This may be esoteric, but I'm in the mood.
In general, I think that scoring games is a waste of time. If someone's purchase of a game depends on a great review score, either they are going to have very few games , or a lot more games with more disappointments, depending on which reviews they listen to. The only value of a score depends on the commonality of the reviewer and the reader. That's as close as you can get.
Is AG too demanding = is AG too critical? There's nothing wrong with that. Is GB too lenient? There's nothing wrong there either. Some responsibility has to go to the reader. A consumer should be wary enough to read what's available. An adventure gamer should know that there albeit few, but different 'flavored' forums to avail themselves when looking at reviews. Most know what they liked in a game, and want something similar. For some, graphics and voice acting can make or break a game. Other's like me, want some head scratching puzzles. All of these things are usually included in any review. The reviewer's final consensus shouldn't matter.
From Emerald City Confidential Review (4 stars)

If you play adventure games because you love characters and story, you’ll almost certainly enjoy ECC; if you play them to experience a real brain-bending challenge, you might find the puzzles too simplistic

All I need to know to stay clear.
From Black Dahlia review (2 1/2 stars)

The puzzles are the thing that will sour this game for many players. With the exception of a few, most are really difficult. There is no mid-way, the puzzles are either very complicated or a snap. I found myself frustrated with a puzzle on more than one occasion and walked away from the computer too frustrated to continue. I hate to admit it, but I had to use a walkthrough for a couple of puzzles that totally stumped me. So be prepared to put your thinking cap on.

My ears perk up.

My point is that even a negative review imparts information that may positively affect a reader. So why bother with the scores.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

The current review system is not functional, mainly because you review adventure games and adventure games only, but you review them like a general gaming website.

I find this statement extremely confusing. In what way are the reviews like a "general gaming website"? The two possibilities I can think of are (1) that the reviewers expect things like fancy 3D graphics, multiplayer capability, gameplay advances, fast-paced excitement, and all the other things associated with "mainstream" (hardcore gamer) genres; and (2) that the reviewers consider each game unsentimentally and tell potential buyers about aspects that are flawed or mediocre.

The first alternative is blatantly not true, and the second is surely a good thing, right?

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

Yes, I think you are too demanding and even cynical at times.

It's possible to let a reader know the flaws and low-budget of the game but it doesn't have to be cynical and trashing. If we keep putting each reasonably good effort down, do you honestly think we'll ever get high end graphics in AG's?

With this I mean that (again, to me it SEEMS LIKE) some of the reviews are overly critical and harsh for the sakes of being critical and keeping up the image of being independent and proving you don't favor any publishers or games, and this to me seems wrong.

Ah, now this is sounding more like a complaint about the tone of the reviews, rather than their substance. As I pointed out earlier, I think the very positive reviews (4 stars and up) read very much like recommendations. And negative reviews (in reality, 2.5 stars and down, no matter what the guidelines say) tend to beat up the games under consideration, as you might expect. That seems appropriate, doesn't it?

When it comes to the mediocre-to-average-to-"enjoyable-but-not-spectacular" games (3 and 3.5 stars), I can see how people could get the impression that the reviews are a bit harsh. They criticize a lot of things, and rarely get very enthusiastic about any particular elements. The thing is (and I think someone already mentioned this), it's very difficult to write an honest and detailed review about a game that is OK-but-flawed, which only excels in some small things, if at all, without coming off this way. If the story and puzzles are alright, but not particularly original or inspired, and the voice acting (for example) sucks, how do you tell a reader that in a way that makes it sound like an overall positive?

(What you probably do is you describe the various elements fairly in the body of the review, bringing up your criticisms, and then you use the conclusion, the rating and the "Verdict" to say that when all is said and done, it's not bad, and will be enjoyable for many players. Which is exactly what most Adventure Gamers reviews in this range do.)

Originally Posted by Jackal

Hee hee. I can't help but chuckle at a new comment in the Chronicles of Mystery review, claiming we overrated the game:

So we're both too demanding and we rate everything great. It's always amazing how completely differently people can see the very same thing.

Yeah it seems like we've had this discussion from pretty much every possible direction: "You're too uncritical because you're biased in favor of adventure games!" "You're too critical because you apply the standards of other games!" ... err, I guess there's only two directions.

The assumption seems to be the same in both cases: You disagree with me, so you must be biased, and your reviews are wrong (e.g. "the current review system is not functional").

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

I'm sorry but if you're going to create a thread on this forum quoting MY post, you can be sure I will respond to your arguments as well. I really don't see your point

His point was that this is exactly what the thread is for, so please, go ahead!

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

Again, those flaws are usually budget-related.

Reviews on this site do frequently call out flaws that could be budget-related, like poor character models or animations, missing animations for specific actions, bad or mis-translations, and poor voice acting. You could also add short length (if you consider that a flaw), bugs and poor playtesting to that.

The thing is, all these factors can really detract from a game, at least for some players, and they don't apply to all adventure games. It would be positively dishonest to not point them out. Sure, when criticizing them, acknowledge that it's probably budget related, by all means! But that doesn't mean it's not fair game for criticism. (In fact, many indie and even freeware titles do a better job in these respects than developers with higher budgets, probably either because they know their limitations and work within them, or because they don't have an external deadline forcing them to cut corners.)

If these things don't bother you (personally, I can live with missing animations, but not with terrible voice acting), you are free to disregard the criticism. In fact, the pros and cons are helpfully listed at the top of the review, next to the score, so you know which factors helped determine the rating.

Still, most of what games get hit with has very little to do with budget. "Uninteresting, trivial story made worse by dull writing" "shallow characters" "illogical puzzles" "rarely funny." These are not flaws that would be fixed with an extra million dollars. It all comes down to the talent and skill of the creators.

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

I know you're a member of the writing team here but I'm ending the discussion with you right here.

"Hehehe, oh the drama."

[ILoveYou]

After: U enjoy the drama a bit too much, so not going to bother with you

Jackal: I'll give you a reply in a few days.

Every time I post on this forum it creates a huge drama. I guess I'm too critical myself lol. I always leave for a few years, then come back and wonder why I left until it hits me.

[After a brisk nap]

Do as you like, but I don't think much of people who start arguments and then find excuses to ignore inconvenient responses, like you've now done with both Jack and me. I think that says a lot about where you're coming from.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

Do as you like, but I don't think much of people who start arguments and then find excuses to ignore inconvenient responses, like you've now done with both Jack and me. I think that says a lot about where you're coming from.

You're mistaken. I don't appreciate sarcasm and therefore I decided not to give you any kind of reply. If you had used those very valid points and kept it at that I would've given each one of your argument a response. As for Jack, I will give him a response in a few days. Unfortunately my wireless connection is seriously acting up and loading this forum takes 4 minutes the minimum, and I'd like to give him some good examples instead of rushing my response and ending up looking stupid.

[Jackal]

I don't need answers; I just wondered if you actually had some examples to consider. Not much I can do if I don't even see evidence of your complaint, whether I agree with it or not. No biggie to move on. In fact, I'd rather the thread go back to hearing more people chip in with their opinions on whether AG is too demanding. I'm hearing more "no" than "yes", but it's still a pretty small sample size so far.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by Jackal

I don't need answers; I just wondered if you actually had some examples to consider. Not much I can do if I don't even see evidence of your complaint, whether I agree with it or not. No biggie to move on. In fact, I'd rather the thread go back to hearing more people chip in with their opinions on whether AG is too demanding. I'm hearing more "no" than "yes", but it's still a pretty small sample size so far.

Yes I do have examples, to mention one; the review of A Vampyre Story. I can't remember what the review exactly said so I'll research deeper to give you a proper response and post examples later, if that's ok. And everyone's free to post in between my responses, this isn't a chat between you and me, it's an open forum. But I'd rather not leave it here from my part since you asked for examples.

[darthmaul]

The more critical, the better. I have been burned way too many times from adventure sites ignoring critical problems with games just because they are so used to the problems that they neglected to mention it in their review.

There are plenty of games on this site that I disagree with, and that is as it should be. Some are better than reviewed, most are worse than reviewed.

Why should games not be reviewed with a critical eye because it is a "small" or "indie" genre? That is nonsense.

Believe it or not, more Adventure games come out than most other genres nowadays. They may not be looked at by the mainstream websites, but who cares.

Overall though, I still feel like Adventuregamers neglect to be critical enough of games, especially the bigger named and hyped games.

Too critical? I don't think so.

I can give a ton of examples of this, if you'd like.

[dantebk]

Personally, I would rather not have to give a score to a game when I review it, because I think the presence of a "score" is what causes a lot of misunderstandings and arguments among the readers, but I also realize that readers (even those who complain about them) really like scores, and that to stop having them would make a lot of people go somewhere else for their reviews.

For the record, for those wondering if Adventure Gamers is too much of a "business" these days, this is an all-volunteer writing staff. We do it because we love adventure games!

About low-budget games: If someone can't afford to have great voice-acting or really well-animated characters, I wish they wouldn't bother including terribly animated characters and awful voice acting. If a game was released with identical aesthetics to the original Secret of Monkey Island, and it was really well-written and fun to play, then I wouldn't care about the early 90s graphics or the lack of voice acting. I just want good stories, interesting characters, and fun well-balanced puzzles. Still, if you go through all the effort to add 3D models that look horrible and voice acting that detracts more from the story than it adds, I will certainly say so in my review.

[Banderwocky]

1. I don't think that the adventure genre is slowly dying. In the early 00's I would have said different, but from my perspective there is quite a renaissance starting.

2. I don't think it's ever a good idea to hold back criticism, especially if you love something. Just being kind for the sake of it doesn't really help the devs, publishers, or the gamers. I think that genre specific sites tend to be more lenient and generous. If you look there are quite a few games that score highly here, then if you go to Gamespot the games get a very low score. I don't think it would say very much for the integrity of the site for the writers to go soft, because they are worried about the genre as a whole.

When I contributed articles to this site so many years ago, I was very critical. I think that the genre looked a lot weaker then than it does now. (Ex. Article 1, Article 2). Looking back, I was pretty harsh. Though, I don't know if I would be more generous now. I like Phantas(one of the articles was about that) as a game peronally, but it is very weak. So when I was writing here, I was trying to write from a place of objectivity. Now I just write on my blog, and since I'm just presenting my personal perspective I tend to be more relaxed about my technical criticism and just talk about if I liked it or not.

So, to sum it up. No. I think that AG is pretty honest. Sometimes maybe a little generous, but I feel like I get an honest perspective here, and that's why I am reading it again.

On scoring. I like scoring. Without scores I would probably skip more reviews. When I see the score, no matter what it is, I immediately want to read the article and see why the reviewer thought that. The score is like the hook that makes me want to read. If there was no score, then I think there would have to be a summation of the opinion in the top paragraph. Otherwise, a lot of readers may not want to wade through the article.

[ILoveYou]

I have to agree with the statement that some adventure games are way too nice and give the wrong impression of games, and that's not good either. From what I've read on Just Adventure, they seem to be very positive about everything but they do mention the flaws too, just in a friendly manner. I don't play indie games at all, so I can't comment on that.

As for the genre, I do think it's dying. Every now and then we get a professional and high budget adventure but in between... Not much, well, not much that I'd want to play. It seems cartoons and games meant for kids is the new trend and that's really not what I'm interested in. If you look at the number of AG's made in one year and then review through games an adult would be interested in playing, there's not much left.

[Tol]

Originally Posted by dantebk

About low-budget games: If someone can't afford to have great voice-acting or really well-animated characters, I wish they wouldn't bother including terribly animated characters and awful voice acting.

That would be great only if developer could do this decision- problem is that without voice-overs (terrible as they often are) no distributor will be even thinking about releasing such game no matter how good it is in terms of gameplay or story.

To the topic- I think that it is generaly good when reviewers are demanding but fair. If site´s policy is consistent and 2,5 stars generaly is for mediocore game (I don´t understand why this word has such a negative perception- mediocore means nothing special bud also not a trash, I would stil buy and play such game if it appeals to me with something) then I am OK with that.

[Jorz]

I think the problem with the reviews on your website (as well as pretty much every other gaming site), is that they're too generically subjective.

I'll make an example, but this is really a general thing. Take as an example the Casebook reviews (no worse than any other review, just an example). It is fairly obvious that the reviewer enjoyed the games, maybe because he's a big fan of FMV games, and decided to give them a positive review. For example, he found the minigames to be "challenging and engaging". He gave the game 4 stars.

However, let's face it, the game is pretty bad, and had it not been an FMV game, I doubt anyone would have thought the minigames were entertaining. You can say it's subjective all you want, but they simply aren't fun. The same goes for the pixel-hunting, it sounds like it's a very nice feature in this game, but only for this one game.

The point is that in this case probably the reviewer liked the game overall, being an FMV game and all, and decided to have a positive attitude towards each and every aspect of it. And that's fair enough, maybe to that reviewer FMV is a very nice feature, that makes up for all the game's flaws. However it might be that to me, as a reader, FMV means nothing.

I don't care whether reviewer X liked game Y or not. I want to know whether I'll enjoy it or not, that's why I read reviews and expect some degree of objectiveness.

If the reviewer is a big fan of FMV, mystery games, episodic games, whatever, he should probably say so in the first paragraph of the review. That would help the reader make an informed judgement about the review.
Maybe a scoring system where each aspect of the game is rated independently would also help.

What I do now, for lack of a better system, is click on the reviewer's name, read his reviews of some games I've played, and see how he's rated them, to get a better understanding of his personal tastes, and how they may be reflected in the review of the game I'm interested in. This is obviously very time consuming, and it's only possible because I'm very patient... and no other website has got a better system in place yet

[Banderwocky]

There have been a lot of cartoon comedy-based games released in the last six months, but I think they appeal to plenty of adults. I play them, and it's been a while since I could call myself a kid. Heh.

Back in the early part of this decade, there weren't as many high quality games coming out so close together like this. Whether or not you like the games coming out doesn't really indicate if something is dying. Perhaps it is dying for you personally.