[Kingzjester]

Oh, why, yes! From the 1000-word essay, I learn that Heidi is 'not crazy for the soundtrack!' Yay!

YAY!

Faak...

[Marek]

Although we really try hard to match up all the ratings, we don't have an office where we all play games and debate scores among the staff. We make a real effort to match the score with the tone of the review, but we can't absolutely guarantee perfect consistency accross the whole site (although we try).

We currently have 137 reviews on the site, which is not always easy to manage So please allow a little margin for debate (0.5 stars).

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

When you compare Grim Fandango to the Fate of Atlantis, one will stand out as an overall better game. And yet they got the same score. I will repeat the need for a better Grim Fandango review (five full stars) until Stinger throws me off this forum.

Fate Of Atlantis is distinctivly better then Grim Fandango. But they are both classics so who cares in the end.

[Tom_K]

I like Claire, Claire is good.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Tom_K

I like Claire, Claire is good.

Good point Tom.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by Henke

Fate Of Atlantis is distinctivly better then Grim Fandango. But they are both classics so who cares in the end.

Well, that's obviously objective. I wouldn't call it "distinct."

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by remixor

I know, but I have to admit that on the whole I don't put much stock in AG's star ratings. Looking at their reviews index always confuses me.

I'd really like you to elaborate on this.

We're always talking about how to make our review scoring system a little better. It's not easy, but I think that we do a pretty good job.

Over the years, I've tried to orient review scores for new games to "value for your money." This is, for one thing, the reason we don't give star reviews to amateur games. This has become a more important criteria as we see more quasi-amateur games released commercially. Fatman, for example, is $15, and got two stars, a very fair review. Had it been released for $40, a lower rating would have been justified.

Now, of course, value for your money is a pitifully worthless concept when reviewing Flashback Friday games. So, I ask our reviewers to try to review these games with the same mindset as if it was new, and generally I think they do a good job. I wrote our review guidelines and I think they're pretty good, but I'm opening this up for discussion and suggestions: how could our review scores be more useful to the readers? Your input is always appreciated.

- Evan

p.s. And I'm going to say this again...there will NOT be a five-star re-review of Grim Fandango. I simply won't approve it. The interface is too big a flaw. And I'm not about to engage in a silly debate about that in this topic, that's just the reality. If you want a five-star review of Grim Fandango, you'll have to start your own adventure website.

[DomStLeger]

i think the guidelines are pretty good but I think occasionaly the reviewers own preferences can push games into the wrong catagory.

For example games that got 2 stars include:
Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill, Broken Sword 2, Jazz and Faust, The Forgotten,
Frankenstein: Through the Eyes of the Monster, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, Post Mortem, Redjack, RHEM, Starship Titanic.

Thats quite a strange bunch to be honest. Some of those games don't diserve to be in the same catagory as the others, also other worse games have gotten higher scores and some better games have gotton worse scores. For example I would argue that games like CSI, BS2 and Post Mortem should all be up into the next catagory. (flawed but still enjoyable; and worth trying after a price cut as opposed to having a few good points but being a negative experience)

It just seems a little inconsistent overall. Perhaps the system needs some alterations? For example, how many people play a game? Perhaps 2 people should play the game, one for reviewing purposes and the other just for pleasure. That way you have two opinions on the score from two independant sources? Or perhaps you could introduce a simple reader rating system, where there is a second score formed by registered forum members. While it would be open for abuse it'd give people a general idea of the popular consensus from like minded adventure gamers?

I generally agree with AGs reviews but the scores themselves seem to be a little more off than they used to be.

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by DomStLeger

Or perhaps you could introduce a simple reader rating system, where there is a second score formed by registered forum members. While it would be open for abuse it'd give people a general idea of the popular consensus from like minded adventure gamers?

A reader scoring system would be KICKASS! But... only forum members should be able to vote (once) or something. To prevent abuse. It's fairly easy to connect vBulletin user accounts with your PHP database, I'm sure. We at AdventureDevelopers.com are doing a similar thing.

--Erwin

[Nellie]

Originally Posted by Marek

We currently have 137 reviews on the site

Are you sure they're not 1337 reviews?

*ba-dum ching!*


Anyway, I know why FoA didn't get that last half-star - that bloody 'spend five times as much time travelling between locations than actually doing anything interesting' top-down map near the end.

[Zygomaticus]

Originally Posted by Nellie

Anyway, I know why FoA didn't get that last half-star - that bloody 'spend five times as much time travelling between locations than actually doing anything interesting' top-down map near the end.

Yeah, there were many more places with annoyingly long walk scenes. Like Crete. I walked so much in that locations, I was literally bored

[Huz]

Originally Posted by Kode

Yeah, there were many more places with annoyingly long walk scenes. Like Crete. I walked so much in that locations, I was literally bored

You're lucky you weren't playing the Amiga version!

(Assuming you weren't, of course )

[twifkak]

Originally Posted by DomStLeger

It just seems a little inconsistent overall. Perhaps the system needs some alterations? For example, how many people play a game? Perhaps 2 people should play the game, one for reviewing purposes and the other just for pleasure. That way you have two opinions on the score from two independant sources? Or perhaps you could introduce a simple reader rating system, where there is a second score formed by registered forum members. While it would be open for abuse it'd give people a general idea of the popular consensus from like minded adventure gamers?

I generally agree with AGs reviews but the scores themselves seem to be a little more off than they used to be.

I don't think a reviewer should post a score without justification, so if you wanted to do the second opinion thing, I'd recommend just having a second review altogether, a la GameCritics. I do like the Amazon-style reader reviews/ratings-vote idea.

[Kingzjester]

Originally Posted by Stinger

p.s. And I'm going to say this again...there will NOT be a five-star re-review of Grim Fandango. I simply won't approve it. The interface is too big a flaw. And I'm not about to engage in a silly debate about that in this topic, that's just the reality. If you want a five-star review of Grim Fandango, you'll have to start your own adventure website.

Hmm... an adventure website of my own! Wow! Yes, yes, I think I see the light now!

You suffer from muscular dystrophy - in which case you are more than welcome to dislike the interface - you're überwelcome.

Oh, mister vice editor in managing Dickens, please don't approve the five star rating, please; please sir don't approve it...

I would be aghast if you did otherwise.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Tom_K

I like Claire, Claire is good.

Good point Tom.

[Zygomaticus]

Originally Posted by Claire

Good point Tom.

Catch-22

[remixor]

Originally Posted by Stinger

I'd really like you to elaborate on this.

Well, I think that your REVIEWS are generally very well-written and informative. This is, in fact, the only adventure gaming website I visit with any regularity. However, and this may be due to the benefit of hindsight (who knows), it seems like your star ratings dont' really set up a very good comparison between games. For example (and this is just off the top of my head), I think you'd find very few gamers who would consider EMI a better game than CMI, but a MI newcomer may see that and be left with a certain impression. Now, again, it's always important to read the actual review. Both reviews are well-written, but when you read them both and then look at their star ratings next to each toher, I'm not sure it really stacks up. But since you have, as Marek said, 137 reviews, it's much easier to simply look at the highest rated games and read THEIR reviews. I also totally see the merit in using a "value" system, but I don't know if this is the best idea for an adventure games site. The vast majority of games you review are already at least a couple years old when they're reviewed, and many of the games listed on your reviews page must be bought secondhand.

The more I think about it, the more I am leaning towards the conclusion that hindsight is one of the biggets problems with a system like this for an adventure game site. There are games reviewed which are pretty recent, and games reviewed which are over a decade old, and games reviewed that came out a few years ago. For older games, it is easier to give them a more accurate rating since we have seen how they stand the test of time, even if it's been a relatively short test. Now, many non-Flashback Friday games have still been out for a few years and gain this advantage (even if the reviewer has only just played it for the first time, it is clear from many reviews that they are well-aware of how the game has been received since its release), and it goes without saying that FF games clearly do.

The only two sites I read for gaming are AG and GameSpot, and though they are many GameSpot reviews with which I disagree, I think their percent ratings tend to be much more objective than AG's star ratings, which tend to be often much more influenced by personal reviewer opinion. Now, before anyone jumps on me, I know that it is impossible for a reviewer to put themself in an entirely subjective mode; this is true for AG or GS or anyone else. However, I think that, on the whole, GS (and I don't want to set this up as purely a comparison between the two, it's just that I've read more GS and AG reviews than anything else) tends to leave me more with an impression of the reviewer filtering out their own game-playing preferences (that's where their "Tilt" factor comes in) and instead concentrating on how the game as a whole stacks up against other games.

Now, please don't take any of this as some sort of negative judgment on your reviews or reviewers, because that's not how it's intended. My issues are probably more semantic than anything else, and I still see you guys as easily the most professional and well-written adventure game site around. I only say these things because I love you

[Kingzjester]

Remixor, I can't... believe... you... just... said... that!

If I were you, Stinger, I would expiate him this very instant! I would not approve this sort of thing on a public forum!

[RumRogerz]

w0w, couldent agree more.
This is definatley one of my all time favorite adventrure games ever made. Pure action, pure adventure, pure indy.

Do you guys remember the sequel of this game that was being developed by a bunch of people?
its still around and kickin might i add.

http://amberfisharts.com/

show your support! this should be an amazing game

[remixor]

Speaking of Indy fan projects, Screen 7 Entertainment is also working on a game called Indiana Jones and the Fountain of Youth. It's not a sequel to FOA but it's in the spirit of that game it looks amazing. Everyone involved in the project is a proven member of the amateur adventure community, and what they've released so far seriously looks and sounds like it came out of LEC circa 1992. To me, it's looking a little better than FOA2, but they both seem to be shaping up well. I'll see if I can find the link to FOY's teaser trailer.