Matthew Hunt's page on Moby GamesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ashen
Printable View
Matthew Hunt's page on Moby GamesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ashen
oh goody, a cat fight. ~D
choose your weapons; slings or sarissas? :duel:
A sound if short review...
I'm surprised by the outburst from that Hunter guy. You said it wasn't betatested, but even he must know that you based the conclusion on glaring oversights, meaning that you couldn't comprehend such faults went by the testers. It doesn't help him at all to come and say "Well it was tested" it only shows that he didn't do a very good job at it. To be honest he should just have kept his mouth shut and bit in the sour apple as we say in Denmark.
Geez, lighten-up, Guys. This is probably the first time the little tyke has seen his name in print. Hope none of you think he's getting paid for his efforts. But on the other hand, he DID recognize some of the negative aspects of the game that we discuss almost daily. If they are that obvious to him, they must be items that should be corrected. Since it's evident he actually spent little time with the game before reviewing it, I find it interesting that a brand-spanking-noob (how about that for coming up with a new term?) stumbled across some important issues. He is correct in intimating the game will not stand on the graphics alone. This is a campaign/strategy game. OK, he seems to eventually forget that, too, but what-the-hey, maybe CA will read it.
To be fair to Matthew Hunt, beta testers simply test the game for problems and how well the mechanics work. They don't implement the suggested changes. He and the other testers could have done an excellent job, making note of suicidal generals, etc, only to see Activision ignore their requests to make any changes beyond game-stopping bugs... a frustrating experience I'm sure.
Going through something like that and then reading "They didn't beta test the game" and " who beta tested this game? Stevie Wonder?" might have set me off too. ~D
I looked at what previous reviews the site has done. They are almost all fast paced games. RTW is not fast paced. I have a feeling RTW is not this persons cup of tea.
There are negative things about the game and he pointed out some. But it did not deserve a 60 score.
Besides, nowadays, the only reason I look at reviews is to get a feel of how long the game play is. If it is a somewhat decent game and long play (longer then 15 hours to play) I'll buy it. If it is equivalent to the Lord Himself comming down for tea but only lasts 2 hours I wont buy it.
chemchok, in that case he could have won out easily by just saying "It was tested and we found many of those things but they weren't corrected". He wins argument no matter what... If it is because he can't say that (which is odd) then he should stay away from abuse as it only implies that he feels personally insulted because certain faults have come to light.
It should be rather easy to give the reviewer the feeling that is certainly wasn't the tester's fault without saying much.
It's a pity I still dont have the emails (reformatted on the monday after halloween thanks to a friend getting 17 variations of mydoom on my pc), but yes, it did stray heavily into abuse of my review and my lack of knowledge about programming, games and beta testing.
For the record, I have a first class degree in computer science from the University of Ulster, Jordanstown campus, united kingdom. But hey, can't verify that either ;) (I dont get the actual parchment until 25th jan as I missed summer graduation ceremony)
Thanks for the heads up about his rap sheet at moby games. He did also say he'd worked on tony hawks underground 2 and said that all beta testing was internal with activision which is what led me to think he was talking poppycock.
I reviewed Rome for the PC gaming magazine I work for; I write for fun, mainly, but it’s good to get paid as well. I gave the game 94% rating; the editor has raised it to 95% on his own accord.
Yet people remain baffled when they find out just how much I criticize Rome and at that I, at the same time, still think it got the deserving score. There is simply no worthy rival out there for Rome, apart from Medieval and Shogun. LOTR? Give me a break… :rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with what he says here!Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It is NOT possible to zoom entirely down to the ground, it stops a little short so you cannot view the troops from an imaginary first person view.
It doesn't bother me really, but obviously it bothers him... to each their own.
I don't think it's a good review either, but that's how theese things work. If a reviewer doesn't like the game, for whatever reason, it won't get a good score. Not much to do about that, RTW has got plenty of stunning reviews anyway...
The GameInformer review is poor because it presents a distorted and very incomplete description of the game.
Regarding the campaign, the reviewer says “I often felt pigeonholed into doing what they (the Senate) wanted me to do rather than going about the business of conquering the world my way.”
Here he criticizes Rome because he was directed by the Senate to go in a direction he would rather not take without bothering to state (if indeed he knows) that Senate instructions are not mandatory. Nor does he add that when playing a non-Roman faction the Senate is a moot point. In fact, the review implies that a single Roman family is the only faction in the game. No other factions are ever mentioned. This is a colossal omission. No wonder he thinks replayability is only moderate. Once I recognize that a reviewer has played a game so superficially as to omit such basic features I tune them out. If I had never played the game though, how would I know?
As initially released, Rome: Total War is not perfect. Good reviews describe a game accurately and thoughly, spot imperfections and go on to weigh them against a game’s positive aspects before culminating in a judgement.
CGW did a nice job not because they gave Rome 4½ stars out of 5 but because the game they described is the game that I have played a lot, warts and all.
You did notice that he said it only went down like he wanted it to in the small cut-scenes (obviously when generals die)? Anyway, when that happens it is only down as far as we can normally go, or marginally closer, meaning he didn't zoom at all. The man apparently didn't take the time to play the Sons of Mars, even if just the first battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tocca
Btw, agree completely with Nelson. Too bad you can't make certain that the reviewers change their reviews. The one you mentioned could be quite damaging.
Cant we make a mod in which we can kill him and his followers.
~:)
It's clearly a review by a click-fest kiddie. I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
After all if I was dumb enough to think I could review UT2004 I'd probably give that less than 60% too. Reviewers are only human and can only judge things on their own personal likes and dislikes.
Anyone who watches Gamesville on TV will see the sort of rubbish that reviewers can come up with if they don't understand the genre of the game they are considering.
I mean Gamesville actually considered LOTR4 a playable game. ~:confused:
Well I read the first review, did not read all the replis in this thread.
But it clearly seems like the reviewer never played the series even, to be able to understand that this game is not an RTS (Real Time Strategy) in the sense that he was expecting it, (AOE, C&C etc etc, which in reality are RTT games, as its all about Tactics and not Strategy).
The Total War series is for me in its own Genre, its an RTS (Real Tactics & Strategy) Game. ;)
So I consider the Review Invalid in itself since the reviewer's view has no understanding of the subject.