[Jackal]

Doing a little site cross-pollination here, there's a debate that's been raised in our latest review that deals with AG's review practices (if not outright policy) that suits the forums rather than the article. It's interesting feedback, so I don't want to see it silenced entirely, just moved where it belongs.

Not to put the original poster on the spot, but here's how it began:

I wonder if there's ANY current review on this website that simply says the game is good, it has a few flaws (like every game, movie or book). Each one of the recent reviews have been overly critical and too demanding for a genre that is slowly dying, a genre which publishers have to settle for mid-core graphics and functions.

One thing is definitely true in this: we are demanding, with no apologies. But we'll never show any kind of favouritism towards adventure games just to prop up the genre, and we think we're (only) as critical and demanding as the games -- and gamers -- deserve.

We're interested in hearing what others think, though. This isn't a "tell us how great we are" thread. (People are usually more willing to tell us we're dead wrong, anyway. ) We're just curious if the posted opinion is commonly shared, overwhelmingly opposed, or something down the middle.

So, the question is, is Adventure Gamers too demanding?

[Ascovel]

I think most people want websites, critics etc. to be demanding. To me not being demanding just seems lazy and pointless. In the long run doesn't even benefit the games that get the praises for just being decent.

[colpet]

As with any reviews, I take away more if I know the reviewer and their preferences. AG is well know for it's skew towards 3rd person games. Therefore when I read a review here about a 1st person game, I always take it with a grain of salt. Personally, I don't care that much if a reviewer likes a game or not. As long as they report about the nuts and bolts - gameplay, puzzle types, menu screens, requirements - that's all I need to know. Rhem 2, a 2 star game here at AG was one of the best gaming fun I'd had in years, whereas Sam and max Hit the Road (4 1/2 stars) temps me not.
As for reviews in general, my favorite are the GB ones.

[Fantasysci5]

I think critics should be as brutal as nessecary. Most people like to hear reviews that are honest opinions, saying the games faults just as much as ahcievements. Players can save money if they hear about a lot of the problems beforehand, and gamers can weigh the pros against the cons.

[Harald B]

I suppose I do feel AG tends to be on the harsh side, but so long as these positions are supported by good arguments I don't really have a problem with that. It's a style thing as far as I'm concerned.
And I have to disagree with the latter part of that original post on two counts. If circumstances are forcing modern adventures to be suboptimal, then so be it. Sugarcoating that would be doing everyone a big disfavor. Besides, there are plenty of gorgeous games around and as far as I can tell AG is giving them due credit, so I don't see where the complaint about the graphics is coming from.

[Lucien21]

There certainly should be no place for over inflating scores of adventure games just because of some perceived drop in the market.

However i'm certainly in favour of a balanced review highlighting positives as well as criticising the negatives (as long as there are positives).

Unfortunatly, I do find that some of the reviews dwell predominatly on the negative aspects of the games, but still came out with a middling scores.

Certainly 1st person games tend to get short shift on AG.

[Jackal]

Interesting that there's the perception of third-person bias. I think it's true that more staff members here like story and character-driven games (which tend to be third-person), but the few first-person games in recent years have generally gone to the people who like them (in principle), so that really shouldn't be an issue.

Not dwelling (too much) on negatives is always a challenge in middling games. It's easy to talk about things a game does well, and easy to talk about things a game does poorly. But when a game does a lot of things only so-so, there really isn't much to say other than to point out why it isn't as good as it should have been. So yeah, it's as issue for writers, and I can see why reviews can give that impression.

[Erwin_Br]

AG demanding? - No. Most definitely not.

[dekaneas297]

I think there is a critical point here. Are the reviews based on the 'ideal' adventure game the reviewer has in mind which isn't created yet (and maybe ever)? Or are the reviews based on the average (norm) of the games created until now? In the first case, all or most games will get bad or mediocre reviews. Whereas in the second case, many games will get fairly good reviews.
So I think that the problem lies here. Many reviewers tend to 'judge' games based on the 'outopic' game they dream on. Then it gets too demanding.

[Ariel Type]

I think AG is one of the most objective gaming sites, adventure- or non-related. You are great (sorry). And A++++ sites don't make the genre any good. People who really care about smth they love should critisize it as much as they can, so that publishers will try their best to satisfy them. You are not too demanding, even though I personally disagree with some of the reviews. It's just a matter of taste.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

I wonder if there's ANY current review on this website that simply says the game is good, it has a few flaws (like every game, movie or book). Each one of the recent reviews have been overly critical and too demanding for a genre that is slowly dying, a genre which publishers have to settle for mid-core graphics and functions.

(My emphasis)

I have to admit I completely fail to see the point of this complaint. Isn't that exactly what positive reviews on the site say? Like the Wallace & Gromit review:

My only real complaint with Fright of the Bumblebees is how slight it all feels. [...] Still, it’s a mixed blessing to be left wanting more, and brevity notwithstanding, the game looks great, sounds great, plays great, and stays as true to the Wallace & Gromit property as anyone could wish. If the next three episodes are as cracking this one, these will be some Grand Adventures indeed.

Or the review of Ceville:

Despite a few awkward moments and the scarcity of thigh-slapping comedy, Ceville is nevertheless one of the better recent comic adventures, with excellent cartoony graphics and delightful music combining with the irreverent humor to add much to the whimsical nature of the game. [...] If Ceville were a food, it could be described as a new kind of comfort food, perhaps best summed up by the despot himself: “disgustingly good”.

Or (not to belabor a point) the review for The Watcher:

Overall, the Casebook series is very clear in its purpose: it wants to be part game and part film, an interactive movie where the natural flow of the story isn’t interrupted by arbitrary puzzles and obstacles. In that regard the second episode succeeds masterfully, and it is so gripping that I really found myself incapable of stopping. [...] It’s true that the light gameplay may disappoint the more hardcore puzzle fans, but anyone who appreciates interactive movies, story-driven adventures and mystery/noir games will certainly be satisfied. There’s plenty to enjoy in this growing, tantalizing series, so take your magnifying glass – oops, hi-tech digital camera, and remember: as detective Burton likes to say, “There’s no such thing as too much evidence”!

I can't see how anyone could read these reviews as anything other than endorsements: "It's a good game! With a few flaws."

The main body of the review is then devoted to describing in detail each aspect of the game, pointing out the flaws as well as the successful elements, thereby letting readers judge for themselves.

For example, in the review of Hunt for the Puppeteer, I quickly concluded that the cliché plot wasn't a deal-breaker for me, and that I probably wouldn't mind the poor French accents too much. On the other hand, the description of the gameplay sounded like exactly the kind of torturous adventure game logic I hate (at least in serious games), with its utter disregard for practical solutions and realistic behaviors. So my reactions to each element may not be the same as the reviewer's, but the review has still helped me judge whether I would like the game. As a consumer, that's all I can really ask for.

[orient]

I think Adventure Gamers do a good job. You’re not too demanding, at all. In fact, I feel there's an inherent problem with most, if not all adventure-dedicated sites being too forgiving of certain elements that have become staples of the traditional adventure. Granted, Adventure Gamers are the most level-headed site in this regard, at least that I’ve come across. I won’t name any names, but I can think of a few sites that you could spend hours searching for a review under 3 stars.

[tobacos]

have to say out that adventuregamers are the best reference for any adventureree out there,but as we say in egypt "the very good thing never complete" ! and to be just little objective ,for example when i look at AG rating i find it confusing like vampyre story takes 3.5 when it a least!! should be 4,and then 3.5 for chronicles of mystery!!!anyways still without AG i think i would be completley lost

[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. That doesn't mean you need to leave out the bad stuff. No sugarcoating needed but you have to consider the reality, like I said. 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? No. The developers do what they can with their very limited budgets and it's very rare that we get a professionally done game. These things should affect.

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.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

I think there is a critical point here. Are the reviews based on the 'ideal' adventure game the reviewer has in mind which isn't created yet (and maybe ever)? Or are the reviews based on the average (norm) of the games created until now? In the first case, all or most games will get bad or mediocre reviews. Whereas in the second case, many games will get fairly good reviews.
So I think that the problem lies here. Many reviewers tend to 'judge' games based on the 'outopic' game they dream on. Then it gets too demanding.

Very close to what I tried to say. Thanks!

[tsa]

I usually read reviews of games I'm interested in on other websites also, and compared to most of them I think AG is critical but fair. They usually do take into account the fact that adventure game developers work on a tight budget, and the fact that adventure games revolve around a story more than any other genre. Of course there is the odd review here which could have been better IMO, but doesn't every website have them?

Maybe we should take this discussion a bit further and compare AG to other adventure-related websites. How does AG fair compared to them, in your opinion? Which sites are better? Which are worse?

[AndreaDraco83]

Originally Posted by colpet

As with any reviews, I take away more if I know the reviewer and their preferences.

Obviously, this is true. Each and every one of us has a particular preference toward a certain sub-genre, theme and so on. This doesn't mean, though, that every review is merely subjective, as we always try to be objective in highlighting the game's values and faults. Moreover, as Jack said:

Originally Posted by Jackal

I think it's true that more staff members here like story and character-driven games (which tend to be third-person), but the few first-person games in recent years have generally gone to the people who like them (in principle), so that really shouldn't be an issue.

This is true even for sub-genres, motifs, moods and so on. For example, given that I'm particularly fond of serious adventure, and even more particularly of mystery-themed ones, I tend to concentrate on those titles, since they are the one that (theoretically) I can review more thoroughly.

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

Are the reviews based on the 'ideal' adventure game the reviewer has in mind which isn't created yet (and maybe ever)? Or are the reviews based on the average (norm) of the games created until now?

I think it's more fair to say that reviews are based on the game at hand in its own right, point. It's also true, though, that, when reviewing, for example, a thriller/crime adventure, it can be useful to have in mind different games of the same sub-genre. It's a common process: when reviewing, for example, a noir film, it's obvious and correct that the reviewer has in mind other noir movies, from the past and the more near present, and these comparisons serve to highlight the current film's merits, originality, faults and so on.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by ILoveYou

Hehehe, oh the drama.

It's just discussion, not drama. And though I'll deal with your points at length, I really was (and still am) interested in hearing other people's opinions on the topic, rather than turning the whole thread into an argument about yours.

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.

Speaking only for myself, I didn't misunderstand you, I simply disagree with both your premise and your conclusion. First, just because we deal exclusively with adventures doesn't mean they exist in a vacuum. People play other games besides adventures, so adventures are competing on that wider stage whether we cover other genres or not. If every critique carries an implied "...for an adventure game" caveat, as if that was somehow a handicap that deserved sympathy, that would make it meaningless to everyone except the few people who only play adventure games.

Secondly, of course we take mitigating development challenges into consideration. Reviews frequently make mention of that very thing, especially with indies. You keep making these wide-sweeping claims as if they were fact, but never support it with a single example. You can't just generalize like that. By all means, please point out any recent example of criticism that clearly couldn't have been avoided because of genre hardships. I'd be happy to discuss them. I doubt you'll find any, though. What you'll find are criticisms of things that could have and should have been fixed or improved. And we KNOW they can, because other games have already done better.

My honest opinion is that you should tone down the demands and add a bit of realism to it. That doesn't mean you need to leave out the bad stuff. No sugarcoating needed but you have to consider the reality, like I said. 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? No. The developers do what they can with their very limited budgets and it's very rare that we get a professionally done game. These things should affect.

As I said, feel free to offer even one unfair demand or any sign of unreality if you can. We never insist on lavish cinematics, responsive character AI, massive scale, voice acting by Samuel L. Jackson... We criticize fixable flaws, not the lack of big-budget extras. And we know they're fixable, because the better adventures don't have them.

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.

Well, "fan site" just means run by fans (of the genre, which we all are), and there's been no change in approach towards reviews in the 5 or so years I've been around, so if there's any noticeable change, it's not because of editorial policy.

Originally Posted by dekaneas

I think there is a critical point here. Are the reviews based on the 'ideal' adventure game the reviewer has in mind which isn't created yet (and maybe ever)? Or are the reviews based on the average (norm) of the games created until now? In the first case, all or most games will get bad or mediocre reviews. Whereas in the second case, many games will get fairly good reviews.
So I think that the problem lies here. Many reviewers tend to 'judge' games based on the 'outopic' game they dream on. Then it gets too demanding.

A game doesn't need to be held to an unreachable ideal to fall woefully short of the best games already made. We've reviewed 4.5 and 5-star games, and they're classics. It's just rare. But the standard has already been reached.

But, as Andrea said, most games are simply judged on their own merits alone. You don't even need comparisons to find most problems in most games. They tend to make their presence all-too-known without any external help required.

Originally Posted by tsa

Maybe we should take this discussion a bit further and compare AG to other adventure-related websites. How does AG fair compared to them, in your opinion? Which sites are better? Which are worse?

I know you mean well in suggesting this, but I'd actually prefer we not go down this road. (Unless in general terms.) It's too easy to devolve into mud-slinging, which everyone can do without.

[Jackal]

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

i know these are difficult times for adventures, but rating everything as great isnt going to help. total waste of money here for me, seems ive gotta be more careful next time.

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.

[ILoveYou]

Originally Posted by Jackal

It's just discussion, not drama. And though I'll deal with your points at length, I really was (and still am) interested in hearing other people's opinions on the topic, rather than turning the whole thread into an argument about yours.

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, it's not like I've filled this thread with my arguments and tried to make it about only me.. And yes, I think this is a little dramatic, since your responses are so sure and confident. If all the below was 100% sure and think I have no case, then why ask? Three people have somewhat agreed with me in this thread.

Originally Posted by Jackal

Speaking only for myself, I didn't misunderstand you, I simply disagree with both your premise and your conclusion. First, just because we deal exclusively with adventures doesn't mean they exist in a vacuum. People play other games besides adventures, so adventures are competing on that wider stage whether we cover other genres or not. If every critique carries an implied "...for an adventure game" caveat, as if that was somehow a handicap that deserved sympathy, that would make it meaningless to everyone except the few people who only play adventure games.

I think you did misunderstand because you did say that you don't think rating a game well simply because it's an AG is realistic or something in that nature and I never said that, nor mean that. Yes, I realise that people (like myself) play other games than adventures but the fact is that you really can't compare and FPS made with a huge budget to an adventure game, and therefor I think it's stupid to review these games in a same way. That's why I still stand behind what I said. I already mentioned this argument you use about sympathy and again, this is not what I said. Whether you play only adventures or not, has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Jackal

Secondly, of course we take mitigating development challenges into consideration. Reviews frequently make mention of that very thing, especially with indies. You keep making these wide-sweeping claims as if they were fact, but never support it with a single example. You can't just generalize like that. By all means, please point out any recent example of criticism that clearly couldn't have been avoided because of genre hardships. I'd be happy to discuss them. I doubt you'll find any, though. What you'll find are criticisms of things that could have and should have been fixed or improved. And we KNOW they can, because other games have already done better.

Are you actually reading what I have wrote or not? Because this is a third time you say claim I've said something that I CLEARLY haven't. IT SEEMS TO ME does NOT suggest I'm stating something AS A FACT, quite the opposite. I didn't know you wanted me to start browsing the reviews and pick up examples but surely I can do that. Then again, why would I make an argument about the way they've been written if I hadn't read any of them? Again, those flaws are usually budget-related.

Originally Posted by Jackal

As I said, feel free to offer even one unfair demand or any sign of unreality if you can. We never insist on lavish cinematics, responsive character AI, massive scale, voice acting by Samuel L. Jackson... We criticize fixable flaws, not the lack of big-budget extras. And we know they're fixable, because the better adventures don't have them.

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

Originally Posted by Jackal

Well, "fan site" just means run by fans (of the genre, which we all are), and there's been no change in approach towards reviews in the 5 or so years I've been around, so if there's any noticeable change, it's not because of editorial policy.

Maybe the reviewers have changed, or the business aspect of the site has taken over? I don't know. Not an employee. I've voiced my opinion, or rather, my concern and so have many others in the comment sections of reviews. If I'm wrong, by all means correct me and I shall change my view of the situation. But so far, all you've done is used old arguments that don't concern my posts or (possibly on purpose) misunderstood me completely.