Tweet
This is from Shrapnel Games at: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/Sarge/index.asp They do many games, but I heard about them lately for Space Empires 4. Anyway, as you read this, consider if Firaxis isn't in the same position ... and keep these comments in mind as you read upcoming reviews.
Yes, I want FAIR reviews of Civ3, not the kind of garbage described below.
"Reviews: This Means War!"
So how many of you read game reviews. Go ahead raise your hands, don't be afraid. Well, that looks like most of you. Now, how many pay attention to game reviews? On second thought don't answer that. It would just piss me off.
As you can probably tell, this is going to be a diatribe on what is wrong with game reviews. We at Shrapnel Games, and I mean all of us at Shrapnel, have about had it with some game reviewers. These are mainly the new guys (although you can throw in a few of the old ones). They don't seem to get it.
For instance, a recent review of Air Command 3.0 received a less than stellar review from one gaming site. The reason: It wasn't a hardcore simulation of Air Traffic Control. Never mind that we never marketed it as a hardcore simulation of Air Traffic Control. Is it just me or is that sort of like reviewing the game of chess, and giving it a bad review, because it doesn't make a very good card game? Aaaarrrgghh!!?!! Luckily for all, this site seems to have closed down.
Another one, this for Desert Rats, the only bad review this wonderful old school wargame has received, was given its poor rating because, get this, it's an old school wargame! NO! REALLY! So how was it as an old school wargame? The reviewer thought it was solid (I gleamed this, my word not his). It's just that he didn't want it to be an old school wargame. Sort of like the chess/card game crap again. Only different.
Oh, and while I'm ranting: What is it with reviewers and graphics? A recent poll on our website (September's Monthly Poll) showed that only 4% of strategy game players thought graphics was the most important feature of a strategy game. Now, go to almost any review of a strategy or wargame and count how many paragraphs are used to discuss graphics. We found that it was usually anywhere from 20-40% of the article! And we have been marked down sometimes as much as 30% for our games' lack of great graphics! Thirty percent of the total package?
Psst. Reviewers, come close. Let me let you in on a secret. We can't compete with Ghost Recon on graphics. We don't have three dozen artists working on one product, and we don't spend $8,000,000 (yes, that's eight million dollars) on production. It won't ever happen. So, why don't you stop comparing our games to those high budget products and just review the game in the correct context. It's a game put out by independents. For the True Gamers. Those who value gameplay, strategy, tactics, and fun over a piece art. As Tim Brooks, our esteemed President, said to me yesterday, "After a certain level or art work, it just becomes unimportant. If I want to see art, I'll go to a museum."
So guys listen up. We are declaring war. I have been put in charge of the review copies of our games. Our review list, those that receive our games for review, has been whittled down. We will only support those magazines and gaming sites that dare to be different. Those that review a game for what it is, not what they want it to be, and those who don't believe for a game to be an enjoyable experience that it requires 36 artists working on it for three years.
Lock and load
Yes, I want FAIR reviews of Civ3, not the kind of garbage described below.
"Reviews: This Means War!"
So how many of you read game reviews. Go ahead raise your hands, don't be afraid. Well, that looks like most of you. Now, how many pay attention to game reviews? On second thought don't answer that. It would just piss me off.
As you can probably tell, this is going to be a diatribe on what is wrong with game reviews. We at Shrapnel Games, and I mean all of us at Shrapnel, have about had it with some game reviewers. These are mainly the new guys (although you can throw in a few of the old ones). They don't seem to get it.
For instance, a recent review of Air Command 3.0 received a less than stellar review from one gaming site. The reason: It wasn't a hardcore simulation of Air Traffic Control. Never mind that we never marketed it as a hardcore simulation of Air Traffic Control. Is it just me or is that sort of like reviewing the game of chess, and giving it a bad review, because it doesn't make a very good card game? Aaaarrrgghh!!?!! Luckily for all, this site seems to have closed down.
Another one, this for Desert Rats, the only bad review this wonderful old school wargame has received, was given its poor rating because, get this, it's an old school wargame! NO! REALLY! So how was it as an old school wargame? The reviewer thought it was solid (I gleamed this, my word not his). It's just that he didn't want it to be an old school wargame. Sort of like the chess/card game crap again. Only different.
Oh, and while I'm ranting: What is it with reviewers and graphics? A recent poll on our website (September's Monthly Poll) showed that only 4% of strategy game players thought graphics was the most important feature of a strategy game. Now, go to almost any review of a strategy or wargame and count how many paragraphs are used to discuss graphics. We found that it was usually anywhere from 20-40% of the article! And we have been marked down sometimes as much as 30% for our games' lack of great graphics! Thirty percent of the total package?
Psst. Reviewers, come close. Let me let you in on a secret. We can't compete with Ghost Recon on graphics. We don't have three dozen artists working on one product, and we don't spend $8,000,000 (yes, that's eight million dollars) on production. It won't ever happen. So, why don't you stop comparing our games to those high budget products and just review the game in the correct context. It's a game put out by independents. For the True Gamers. Those who value gameplay, strategy, tactics, and fun over a piece art. As Tim Brooks, our esteemed President, said to me yesterday, "After a certain level or art work, it just becomes unimportant. If I want to see art, I'll go to a museum."
So guys listen up. We are declaring war. I have been put in charge of the review copies of our games. Our review list, those that receive our games for review, has been whittled down. We will only support those magazines and gaming sites that dare to be different. Those that review a game for what it is, not what they want it to be, and those who don't believe for a game to be an enjoyable experience that it requires 36 artists working on it for three years.
Lock and load
Of course, one way around it is to say: "MP is not a standard feature for TBS games." I'm not sure if that's true, though, since at least some form (like Hotseat or PBEM) seems to be pretty standard these days.
Comment