[tsa]

I don't think ariens323 is contradicting himself. He basically says he wants an objective, descriptive review. As for 'most people that play adventure games play only these sort of games;' I'd like to see some accurate data on that. Be we digress.

[Jackal]

An "objective description" can do nothing more than give details about what actually happens in a game or explain how it functions. It's a fact sheet. That's all. Anything more than that (which is everything that actually makes it a review) involves subjective opinion. There's absolutely no such thing as an "objective" way to judge "how the game is to play" or any of the other things aries asked to know.

Ironically, reporting things like geographical errors is one the of few things that can be offered with total objectivity.

[Gonzosports]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

Hehehe, oh the drama. Yes, I think you are too demanding and even cynical at times. Many of you misunderstood though, I wasn't saying an AG should get a good review simply because it's an AG but I do think that since this is an AG website you should take all factors surrounding the genre in consideration before making a review. 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.

My honest opinion is that you should tone down the demands and add a bit of realism to it. ...
To me it just seems like, what started as a fansite has turned into business and at least I feel like it shows in the reviews. That's what I was going after with my "gamespot"-comment. 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.

Totally, 100% disagree.

Games aren't as good as they used to be. /grumpyoldman. We shouldn't let slip what we expect out of good game design, writing, characterization just because the genre is hurting. BS.

I think it should allow us to be more critical. We're the fans of a genre that continually pushes the envelope in creativity and imagination. The worst the major genre gets, the more it pushes indie developers to make sure that quality is first and foremost.

Would you rather have 100 mediocre games or 4-5 great games a year?

[Gonzosports]

That being said...I love the writers on here, and think for a niche little community, they do a great job in general. Like the Ag community in general, I find some reviews tend toward the crunchy and I would actually prefer higher standards for some of the reviews.

And yes, when Evan wrote his Top 20 Adventure Games List, without including Myst or Riven, it pretty much indicates the staff may have a bit of a third person prejudice. I don't mind it...well, maybe I do, I think that viewpoint (re: mine) should be represented, too.

(earlier in this thread, someone said it's because AG staff favor characterization, so that's why they like 3rd person, which I find absolutely mystifying. Just because the "player" (or user, if you prefer, Mr. Flynn) is the protagonist, doesn't mean there's no characterization or plot - it just means more of the plot may be external to the protagonist.)

[Jackal]

Well, Evan's list doesn't indicate anything more than Evan's own experience, since he was the only one involved. That's the problem with any one-person list.

Our next one (one of these days!) will include full staff input, and I'd be shocked if the Myst series wasn't represented.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by Gonzosports

Totally, 100% disagree.

Games aren't as good as they used to be. /grumpyoldman. We shouldn't let slip what we expect out of good game design, writing, characterization just because the genre is hurting. BS.

I think it should allow us to be more critical. We're the fans of a genre that continually pushes the envelope in creativity and imagination. The worst the major genre gets, the more it pushes indie developers to make sure that quality is first and foremost.

Would you rather have 100 mediocre games or 4-5 great games a year?

Actually your question is the way it is now. We get tons of medicore titles and a few great ones a year. I disagree with your statement about games being not as good as before. The gaming genre is still very young. Titles like Still Life, Secret Files Tunguska and Vampyre Story have all been very good and in the same level as any old school classic. The problem with this is that AG's aren't really moving forward, the graphics aren't getting better and the genre just stays where it is. US, the fans though do move on and what we would've considered as an instant classic back in the 90's is now a disappointment. Had any of the games I mentioned been released in the 90's everyone would name each of them as their favorites. I personally blame action-adventure titles that rely on great graphics and cool effects, rather than a story, which makes us even more greedy, forgetting that this is not what the genre is about.

I agree though that giving a badly written or seriously buggy game a great score because the genre is what it is, would be wrong. But as anyone could see, the AG reviews aren't based on this. Just have a look at A Vampyre Story review. Now, THAT is a bad review, if anything. Several reviews lately haven't been based on the story, the controls, the interface but just the reviewers current state of mind. There is no balance in how the reviews are written. One game gets a bad score because someone didn't like the voice-acting but has no mention about the absolutely stunning interface and new-to-genre controls, another game gets a great score because it has the latter but otherwise sucks in every possible way, from story to graphics. It's just seems really lazy, like they can't be f-ed.

Unfortunately we will most likely never get a great game that will please the genre's fans because we've become too bitter and demanding. This is how several non-die hard fans have described us, among with game publishers who get bashed because their latest effort isn't the best game ever, and I'm beginning to realize what they're talking about. Open your mind a little, you might be surprised.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

Several reviews lately haven't been based on the story, the controls, the interface but just the reviewers current state of mind. There is no balance in how the reviews are written. One game gets a bad score because someone didn't like the voice-acting but has no mention about the absolutely stunning interface and new-to-genre controls, another game gets a great score because it has the latter but otherwise sucks in every possible way, from story to graphics. It's just seems really lazy, like they can't be f-ed.

Riiiiiight. So, instead of any examples of your original complaint, which weren't ever there to find, now you're inventing new ones that are even more absurd? None of what you claim is even remotely true, so I won't even bother asking for support this time. But hey, if you can find a single review in years that hasn't carefully weighed all a game's various elements, feel free.

It seemed pretty clear that you were really just hiding behind a claim of "unfairness" as a way of complaining about reviews you strongly disagree with from the beginning, but now any benefit of the doubt is completely gone.

Incidentally, funny you keep harping on AVS, since both its developer and publisher took no exception whatsoever to AG's review. Lucky for us that some people know better.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Riiiiiight. So, instead of any examples of your original complaint, which weren't ever there to find, now you're inventing new ones that are even more absurd? None of what you claim is even remotely true, so I won't even bother asking for support this time. But hey, if you can find a single review in years that hasn't carefully weighed all a game's various elements, feel free.

It seemed pretty clear that you were really just hiding behind a claim of "unfairness" as a way of complaining about reviews you strongly disagree with from the beginning, but now any benefit of the doubt is completely gone.

Incidentally, funny you keep harping on AVS, since both its developer and publisher took no exception whatsoever to AG's review. Lucky for us that some people know better.

If you have a look at the comments I've made in reviews, you'll see I've pointed out a few reviews for your pleasure before. And clearly you have already looked at my examples as you almost every time respond to whatever I've written. Your arguments in that section however have been rather childish and had very little to do with the actual points people made (ie. price-discussion of Secret Files 2; "download the demo, it's free".. okay, but.. what does that have to do with the price discussion? absolutely nothing).

Other than that, you're just stating your personal opinions, which I'm very well aware of. None of the developers would be STUPID enough to attack a specific adventure gaming site, as they'd know that'd be bad promotion for their release. However, several of them (among with their game's fans) have voice up a more general opinion about what the adventure gaming community is all about. That means this site as well as others. Hint: Look up Mystery of the Druids, Dreamfall and Vampyre Story and you might find what I'm talking about.

Don't try to push my perfectly valid point about the non-balanced reviews aside, just because you don't share my opinions about everything.

I will give you two examples right now: Gabriel Knight 3 and A Vampyre Story reviews. Another GREAT example is the thread I made about Still Life 2. That shows just how bitter and demanding we have become. Everyone was bashing it, hating it even though none of them had even tried it. Then, when the demo got released in English, the wind changed and now it's on your most anticipated list. Typical of us.

[Jackal]

So no examples? Thought not. Wake me up if you ever do. Otherwise, this is just more useless nonsense.

And no, it is not my "opinion" that AG reviews weigh all a game's various elements. I could give you an example, but that would be a waste of time, since they're ALL fully-detailed examples.

Your review comments (whatever they were) may or may not have anything to do with the claims you're making here. I'm having this conversation, not some other one.

Secret Files? Good Lord. My remark was in relation to a request for pirate links. Totally relevant to the situation, totally irrelevant to anything in this thread. Give it up.

And yes, game companies will and do complain if they think they've been treated unfairly. That is also a fact, because it's happened. But again, apparently you know better.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by Jackal

So no examples? Thought not. Wake me up if you ever do. Otherwise, this is just more useless nonsense.

And no, it is not my "opinion" that AG reviews weigh all a game's various elements. I could give you an example, but that would be a waste of time, since they're ALL fully-detailed examples.

Your review comments (whatever they were) may or may not have anything to do with the claims you're making here. I'm having this conversation, not some other one.

Secret Files? Good Lord. My remark was in relation to a request for pirate links. Totally relevant to the situation, totally irrelevant to anything in this thread. Give it up.

And yes, game companies will and do complain if they think they've been treated unfairly. That is also a fact, because it's happened. But again, apparently you know better.

Edited my message, you've got 2 review examples and one general about the attitude of the gamers. Full details are in both of the reviews comments-section where I've written. And no, your comment was after my message which stated that nobody should pay 40 euros for a download-only game, when you can get the special edition of it for less in the local gaming store, to which you responded "the demo is free", which, again had nothing to do with the full games pricing policy. The funny thing is, if you ask for 40 euros for your game, you really should not be whining about piracy. Of course people are going to download it for free, if you're going to be greedy.

What I actually meant was that gaming companies will not make a public statement (unless they're doing really well with the game and don't really need the promo anyway) against any website. It's different if they contact you directly and I'm very glad if they have.

Unfortunately they're all just opinions, yours and mine.

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

I will give you two examples right now: Gabriel Knight 3 and A Vampyre Story reviews.

You know I agree with you, ILY, about Gabriel Knight 3, while - on the other hand - I disagree with the author of the review, but, as I stated in the comment above yours, we really can't say that Dan didn't weighed all the pros and cons of the game with a fair balance. Of course, it is his point of view - as always in a review - but he motivated well enough his opinions. We may disagree, but I don't think that this is a bad example of review: perhaps a little brief, but the review is also quite old (five years ago).

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

You know I agree with you, ILY, about Gabriel Knight 3, while - on the other hand - I disagree with the author of the review, but, as I stated in the comment above yours, we really can't say that Dan didn't weighed all the pros and cons of the game with a fair balance. Of course, it is his point of view - as always in a review - but he motivated well enough his opinions. We may disagree, but I don't think that this is a bad example of review: perhaps a little brief, but the review is also quite old (five years ago).

Well, to me it was a bad review just because of that and I also didn't understand most of his points, that seemed to be just looking for SOMETHING to whine about, and misunderstanding things on purpose to achieve this.

[Jackal]

Some of your claims are "just opinions", some are actually measurable points. Saying:

Several reviews lately haven't been based on the story, the controls, the interface but just the reviewers current state of mind.

is simply wrong. A complete fabrication. I can point to every single review and highlight the very things you mentioned. Disagree with the assessment all you want, but don't make up ridiculous accusations just because you disagree with them. And that's what you're doing.

AVS and GK3 are supposed to be examples of what, exactly? Never mind that GK3 isn't even remotely recent, which was part of your original complaint, but what about them? Just being examples of reviews you disagree with means nothing. People disagree with reviews all the time. That doesn't mean they're guilty of anything you're claiming they are. Doesn't seem you're able to accept simple differences of opinion as being perfectly fair, balanced, and reasonable in their own right, and created this whole "unfairness" argument out of thin air.

And no, your comment was after my message which stated that nobody should pay 40 euros for a download-only game, when you can get the special edition of it for less in the local gaming store, to which you responded "the demo is free", which, again had nothing to do with the full games pricing policy.

This is the last time I waste any energy on the Secret Files point, but what I posted was:

Seems some comments have been deleted after the fact, leaving others rather out of context. So just to reiterate, AG doesn't promote or support piracy in any way. If a game is worth playing, it's worth buying.

But hey, there's a demo out, and that's free!

As I said, someone had asked for pirate links, and all subsequent comments were based on that. Your comment had nothing to do with anything. Ironically, it seems this point has identified your insistence on seeing only what you want to see.

[ILoveYou]

I get what you mean by saying a waste of energy... Ok. I officially give up. I've tried to point out what I mean and demonstrate this as well as I can but clearly it's not good enough. I can assure you though that I'm more than happy with opinions, in fact I love it when a review bashes my favorite game; that only makes me love the game more. However, I've not talked about disagreeing with the reviewers opinion, nor yours. I've talked about the balance between reviews, that is non-existent. What are the guide-lines you get for making a review? To me it looks like you get none, or you just get a general one that really guides you nowhere. Why? Because some of the reviews really score games differently, based on different things. While another one disses a game for not having any replay value, or having a poor voice actors, another one fails to mention these things in a game that has both, but still gets a bad score.

[Jackal]

I know what you've claimed, you just haven't pointed out a single example to support them. I mean something tangible in a review that supports the kind of blanket accusations you're tossing around. We were apparently being too critical of the little guy, you said, but now you use a big-budget Sierra game as your proof. You say reviews are based on the reviewer's state of mind, when the AVS review clearly details a wide range of elements within the game. See, there's really nothing to be drawn from mere name-dropping.

Why? Because some of the reviews really score games differently, based on different things. While another one disses a game for not having any replay value, or having a poor voice actors, another one fails to mention these things in a game that has both, but still gets a bad score.

Since no two games are alike, they get evaluated accordingly. Is story equally prevalent in all games? Is voice acting as crucial in a Myst game as Sam & Max? Is replay value (a strange example, as it's rarely even mentioned) a goal of a game? Different questions are asked because games themselves are different.

You seem to think there's some kind of scientific formula through which all games, no matter how different they are from each other, can be rated. There isn't. You also seem to assume that just because a point is mentioned means it's an equal factor in a game's rating. It's not. Sometimes it's simply information. Surely you've noticed that people like and dislike different things, so we mention anything that might be relevant. That doesn't mean that every last detail is affecting the score or even the overall assessment.

Reviewer differences (even "state of mind") is a factor, sure. It's a factor for all reviews of all things everywhere. The only question ever is: does a reviewer support his/her own claims. If they do, they've done their job. People will disagree, but people will always disagree, and both writer and reader need to understand that.

[ILoveYou]

WTF? I did also mention A Vampyre story, did I not? Do you want me to go through your whole data base and point out each one of the games that I think have poorly reviewed? I'm sorry but 90% of the games that come out these days are indies that I don't even play, so I can only talk about those that I'm even semi-interested in: properly produced and released professional releases, of which we get like 2 per a year. It's not like there's a huge selection of reviews I can choose from.

Are you incapable of seeing it yourself? Funny how others have not been.

You're focusing on telling me what I'm doing and what I'm trying to achieve way too much to actually see the point. End of discussion from my part, really. It's not like I haven't made valid points or just did what you're saying; name-dropping...

And yes, there needs to be a structure in writing reviews. While you're right about some things that simply cannot be reviewed in every game, there still needs to be a pattern to which the reviewers have to write their reviews based on, or otherwise they're all in chaos like now.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

WTF? I did also mention A Vampyre story, did I not?

You did. Which is probably why I mentioned it right at the start of my last post. There's that selective reading again.

Funny how others have not been.

No one has supported any of your points that I'm debating, so that road takes you nowhere.

You're focusing on telling me what I'm doing and what I'm trying to achieve way too much to actually see the point. End of discussion from my part, really. It's not like I haven't made valid points or just did what you're saying; name-dropping...

Actually, it is precisely that you haven't made any valid points, I'm afraid. You've repeated yourself a lot, though. So end of discussion? Good. Long overdue. Unless you have legitimate examples one of these days.

[ILoveYou]

Sorry, you shortened the name to AVS, which I was not familiar with. Wrong, read thru the pages, people have agreed publicly as well. You can't seriously claim that I've not made any valid points in this thread and if you do

[Jackal]

Apologies to anyone who saw the offensive last now-deleted post from ILoveYou. That will indeed be the end of that discussion.

So, anyone else? The topic is still an honest question for anyone with productive contributions.

[Merricat]

My word, I pop in for just a second and look what I find. Y'all know I can't keep out of a fiery discussion, so here is what I have to say (and have said in the past, I believe, but it bears repeating just for my own satisfaction).

Any reviewer, whether he or she realizes it or not, is tougher on the work being reviewed than he might be if he weren't reviewing it for the public. Essentially, reviews bear a responsibility to the public, and a good reviewer takes that very seriously, particularly as the public shells out money for the product. If there are problems in a game, I want to know about them.
However, I also have a mind of my own, so when I read a review, I weigh the pros and cons and if I think I can live with whatever problem(s) exists, I'll buy the game. For example, I was totally annoyed by the female voice in Secret Files (just my opinion), BUT I put up with it because I enjoyed other aspects of the game.
I think most people who play adventure games are independent enough to make their own decisions. I don't buy a game if it is completely trashed by the reviewer, but that happens so rarely. The reviews I've seen here make a pretty consistent effort to be well-rounded--that is, they always try to say something positive, even if the reviewer doesn't like the game.
Whew! That's my three cents. See you, folks--