I believe the reason that people bash it so much is that MOO3 is something that we really care about and are very excited about. And its painful to see a reveiw that we believe will turn people off from it, simply by the way in which the reveiwer goes about describing the game. If I had never played a MOO game before, and this was the only thing I read aout it, I would probably come away thinking that the game was very dry. Th reveiw is very long-winded, but it is not exciting. It gives facts (which is why I read them), but it does nothing to convey WHY the game is FUN.
The reveiw is nothing but a description of the various interface screens, and various details about them. And then screenshots of those screens he just eplained.
The joy of a game does not come in interacting with the interface screens....
The After Action reports from the Beta testers have explained to us the feel of the game, the joy of it, the excitement and challenge.
It is possible to be factual while still expressing to your audience the feel of the game, what it felt like to play it. This is what a good reveiw does. it says how the game felt, while giving some facts about it....whether bad or good. Not just describe details of some interface screens, in a longwinded and unexciting manner.
The reveiw is nothing but a description of the various interface screens, and various details about them. And then screenshots of those screens he just eplained.
The joy of a game does not come in interacting with the interface screens....
The After Action reports from the Beta testers have explained to us the feel of the game, the joy of it, the excitement and challenge.
It is possible to be factual while still expressing to your audience the feel of the game, what it felt like to play it. This is what a good reveiw does. it says how the game felt, while giving some facts about it....whether bad or good. Not just describe details of some interface screens, in a longwinded and unexciting manner.
Comment