That read like this?
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425)
RPS is a great source for industry news, but I just cannot stand the majority of their "WOT I Think" reviews. The above example represents what I think is the worst of them. Trying to read through all the nonsense in order to understand the message the author is trying to convey actually makes me frustrated and angry. Maybe I don't understand the humor because I'm American? Maybe I'm missing the point? I dunno...but I find these kinds of reviews worse than useless.
Can someone tell me? Does the author like this game? If so, why? What is good about this particular game and what is bad? I mean really, I could make an educated guess as to what the answer is to those questions, but why should the reader have to put that kind of effort in to reading what should be a simple review? Stupid.
I had the same thoughts myself. I was hoping to get some insight into whether or not the game was worth picking up, not some smug bullet-point drivel that reads more like the author is squirming his thighs together in delight over his perceived cleverness. Truly worthless article.
I usually just go to youtube and the game forums to help me decide on a game, reviews aint what they used to be, depending on the source of course. You can usually get good feed back here also ;)
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on June 19, 2014, 10:20:05 AM
I had the same thoughts myself. I was hoping to get some insight into whether or not the game was worth picking up, not some smug bullet-point drivel that reads more like the author is squirming his thighs together in delight over his perceived cleverness. Truly worthless article.
It was an odd read, but I think I kind of got the point: the game is a bit silly and so is the review. I think the reviewer was at a loss about how to present his rather confused impressions. I certainly prefer reviews like this to the dry sad lost oompha band efforts that one often sees at the Wargamer wandering into the distance of vacuous objectivity. The RPs reviews are invariably entertaining, if often very annoying, but at least they have some kind of actual style of some kind (again even if very annoying).
I'm with you on this one, Jarhead. I don't know what that is but it isn't a game review.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 10:14:51 AM
That read like this?
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425)
RPS is a great source for industry news, but I just cannot stand the majority of their "WOT I Think" reviews.
Maybe the RPS reviewers have some twisted reactions to these games and they are just being as honest as they can. Even on the wargamer you can get odd stuff like the following:
Perhaps that is part of the appropriateness of the development of this game that I would give a solemn nod to: the developers at least seemed to understand the ethos of the time. The atmosphere of the game is not gregarious or uplifting, but partisan, lacking in color, and almost apocalyptic. There is a sense in the way the black and white images of the political screens look that we have entered into the twilight of a civilization: or at least one that was undergoing such massive degradation. Since this is a standalone game and doesn't dovetail into the larger European conflict, it is a peculiar specimen for a non-Spaniard to play. I cannot imagine what it might be like for others, but for myself, it felt a bit out of place. I had trouble entering into the richly constructed mystery simply because I was neither a nationalist, nor was I a republican. I could not feel as much joy from being fed funds from Hitler or Stalin in equal measure.That's from a review of Espana 1936, which was an almost unbelievably bad game from every angle -- and nothing in the Wargamer review mentioned anything about how truly bad it was.
Quote from: MengJiao on June 19, 2014, 10:55:04 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 10:14:51 AM
That read like this?
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425)
RPS is a great source for industry news, but I just cannot stand the majority of their "WOT I Think" reviews.
Maybe the RPS reviewers have some twisted reactions to these games and they are just being as honest as they can. Even on the wargamer you can get odd stuff like the following:
Perhaps that is part of the appropriateness of the development of this game that I would give a solemn nod to: the developers at least seemed to understand the ethos of the time. The atmosphere of the game is not gregarious or uplifting, but partisan, lacking in color, and almost apocalyptic. There is a sense in the way the black and white images of the political screens look that we have entered into the twilight of a civilization: or at least one that was undergoing such massive degradation. Since this is a standalone game and doesn't dovetail into the larger European conflict, it is a peculiar specimen for a non-Spaniard to play. I cannot imagine what it might be like for others, but for myself, it felt a bit out of place. I had trouble entering into the richly constructed mystery simply because I was neither a nationalist, nor was I a republican. I could not feel as much joy from being fed funds from Hitler or Stalin in equal measure.
That's from a review of Espana 1936, which was an almost unbelievably bad game from every angle -- and nothing in the Wargamer review mentioned anything about how truly bad it was.
My point isn't that bad reviews from other outlets do not exist. They certainly do. Pointing out that other sources are publishing bad or incomprehensible reviews does not excuse the kind of garbage from the RPS example cited above. I don't see how, from any perspective, the Enemy Front review can be defended. It's trash.
I read RPS every day, but sometimes they try to be too cute by a mile, especially in their reviews :P
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 11:01:18 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on June 19, 2014, 10:55:04 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 10:14:51 AM
That read like this?
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425)
RPS is a great source for industry news, but I just cannot stand the majority of their "WOT I Think" reviews.
Maybe the RPS reviewers have some twisted reactions to these games and they are just being as honest as they can. Even on the wargamer you can get odd stuff like the following:
Perhaps that is part of the appropriateness of the development of this game that I would give a solemn nod to: the developers at least seemed to understand the ethos of the time. The atmosphere of the game is not gregarious or uplifting, but partisan, lacking in color, and almost apocalyptic. There is a sense in the way the black and white images of the political screens look that we have entered into the twilight of a civilization: or at least one that was undergoing such massive degradation. Since this is a standalone game and doesn't dovetail into the larger European conflict, it is a peculiar specimen for a non-Spaniard to play. I cannot imagine what it might be like for others, but for myself, it felt a bit out of place. I had trouble entering into the richly constructed mystery simply because I was neither a nationalist, nor was I a republican. I could not feel as much joy from being fed funds from Hitler or Stalin in equal measure.
That's from a review of Espana 1936, which was an almost unbelievably bad game from every angle -- and nothing in the Wargamer review mentioned anything about how truly bad it was.
My point isn't that bad reviews from other outlets do not exist. They certainly do. Pointing out that other sources are publishing bad or incomprehensible reviews does not excuse the kind of garbage from the RPS example cited above. I don't see how, from any perspective, the Enemy Front review can be defended. It's trash.
It's not trash. It's a better-than-average review and a very honest and revealing one. The problem with reading it is (I think) that the game is quite silly and the review simply reflects that basic problem. There's no reason not to write silly reviews of silly games and plenty of good reasons to write silly reviews of silly games.
It reads to me as though the reviewer was lazy about gathering his thoughts and just threw bullet points together with some clever phrasing rather than attempt to string together a coherent narrative.
Honestly, one could say similar things about my review of Seasons, but I at least tried to make it amusing in the way I made it a 'conversation' between the designers.
Digging in the forums as I was yesterday after reading the piece two things come to mind
I don't think 'wot I think's are reviews..... they are literally one guys perspective on his journey through the game
Secondly after reading a lot of ranting in another thread about games scores I think it could be argued they aren't a review site at all and wouldn't thankyou for the label
I see it as it is called..... wot he thinks..... And that there is the crux of the situation.... It's only what he thinks of the game, which as the ranting in the scores thread alluded to is all a review and a score can be be - simply what the author thinks
Quote from: MengJiao on June 19, 2014, 11:06:13 AM
It's not trash. It's a better-than-average review and a very honest and revealing one. The problem with reading it is (I think) that the game is quite silly and the review simply reflects that basic problem. There's no reason not to write silly reviews of silly games and plenty of good reasons to write silly reviews of silly games.
It is trash. Objectively, from any perspective, other than one that is biased and disingenuous, it is trash. Your belief that the above cited review is "better-than-averge" defies credulity. It is not silly. It is not funny. It is of no utility. It is, quite simply, as previously stated, utterly useless to the point of causing agitation.
If it makes you feel better, I have absolutely no hesitation in stating emphatically, that RPS is an outstanding website. Their coverage of industry events is second to none, they are aggressive in their journalism, have exhibited commendable integrity, and foster a thriving internet community. They are a credit to the industry and a model to guide others.
However, the Enemy Front review is a textbook example of another RPS trash review. It sucks, period, and the only thing silly here is that you are actually trying to defend it.
If I sound angry, I apologize. It is not directed at you Meng...its just that I'm still pissed at having read that stupid article.
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 19, 2014, 11:19:23 AM
Digging in the forums as I was yesterday after reading the piece two things come to mind
I don't think 'wot I think's are reviews..... they are literally one guys perspective on his journey through the game
Secondly after reading a lot of ranting in another thread about games scores I think it could be argued they aren't a review site at all and wouldn't thankyou for the label
I see it as it is called..... wot he thinks..... And that there is the crux of the situation.... It's only what he thinks of the game, which as the ranting in the scores thread alluded to is all a review and a score can be be - simply what the author thinks
Well, this is an interesting point that I'm willing to accept as a defense to the publication of what I've described as garbage. If what you state is in fact the case, then I suppose it is unfair to grade an article that is merely one's stream of consciousness through the lens of a serious journalistic review.
Personally, I wouldn't want to publish my stream of consciousness on the front page. It would be too embarrassing.
It's not fit for purpose, but the point is, what exactly is it's purpose? To entertain? Inform? I don't think it does either so what in fact is it and what is it good for?
It's a blog given web space on a leading site. A lot of 'reviews' are just personal platforms for would-be web personalities. If this were a blog, it would be lost in a sea of other mediocre babble. The key to success is to be informative AND entertaining. This does neither.
What is it good for? Well, that's up to personal opinion. For me it did nothing to either inspire me to read further, buy the game or not buy the game.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on June 19, 2014, 11:06:13 AM
It's not trash. It's a better-than-average review and a very honest and revealing one. The problem with reading it is (I think) that the game is quite silly and the review simply reflects that basic problem. There's no reason not to write silly reviews of silly games and plenty of good reasons to write silly reviews of silly games.
It is trash. Objectively, from any perspective, other than one that is biased and disingenuous, it is trash. Your belief that the above cited review is "better-than-averge" defies credulity. It is not silly. It is not funny. It is of no utility. It is, quite simply, as previously stated, utterly useless to the point of causing agitation.
If it makes you feel better, I have absolutely no hesitation in stating emphatically, that RPS is an outstanding website. Their coverage of industry events is second to none, they are aggressive in their journalism, have exhibited commendable integrity, and foster a thriving internet community. They are a credit to the industry and a model to guide others.
However, the Enemy Front review is a textbook example of another RPS trash review. It sucks, period, and the only thing silly here is that you are actually trying to defend it.
If I sound angry, I apologize. It is not directed at you Meng...its just that I'm still pissed at having read that stupid article.
I agree RPS can be a good read. I think it is supposed to be entertaining rather than enlightening -- or at least that's how I read it.
Quote from: MengJiao on June 19, 2014, 11:42:12 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on June 19, 2014, 11:06:13 AM
It's not trash. It's a better-than-average review and a very honest and revealing one. The problem with reading it is (I think) that the game is quite silly and the review simply reflects that basic problem. There's no reason not to write silly reviews of silly games and plenty of good reasons to write silly reviews of silly games.
It is trash. Objectively, from any perspective, other than one that is biased and disingenuous, it is trash. Your belief that the above cited review is "better-than-averge" defies credulity. It is not silly. It is not funny. It is of no utility. It is, quite simply, as previously stated, utterly useless to the point of causing agitation.
If it makes you feel better, I have absolutely no hesitation in stating emphatically, that RPS is an outstanding website. Their coverage of industry events is second to none, they are aggressive in their journalism, have exhibited commendable integrity, and foster a thriving internet community. They are a credit to the industry and a model to guide others.
However, the Enemy Front review is a textbook example of another RPS trash review. It sucks, period, and the only thing silly here is that you are actually trying to defend it.
If I sound angry, I apologize. It is not directed at you Meng...its just that I'm still pissed at having read that stupid article.
I agree RPS can be a good read. I think it is supposed to be entertaining rather than enlightening -- or at least that's how I read it.
You mean to say...
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-FFpUo771xbc%2FUaNn0M9Ap3I%2FAAAAAAAAAWU%2FCBNxgExQRfg%2Fs1600%2F51987-Are-You-Not-Entertained-1a5I.jpeg&hash=bed71aae06c809ae8e396a00cdbc57ea2c8c1b74)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 11:25:38 AMPersonally, I wouldn't want to publish my stream of consciousness on the front page. It would be too embarrassing.
That, and it might get us arrested
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 11:01:18 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on June 19, 2014, 10:55:04 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 10:14:51 AM
That read like this?
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425)
RPS is a great source for industry news, but I just cannot stand the majority of their "WOT I Think" reviews.
Maybe the RPS reviewers have some twisted reactions to these games and they are just being as honest as they can. Even on the wargamer you can get odd stuff like the following:
Perhaps that is part of the appropriateness of the development of this game that I would give a solemn nod to: the developers at least seemed to understand the ethos of the time. The atmosphere of the game is not gregarious or uplifting, but partisan, lacking in color, and almost apocalyptic. There is a sense in the way the black and white images of the political screens look that we have entered into the twilight of a civilization: or at least one that was undergoing such massive degradation. Since this is a standalone game and doesn't dovetail into the larger European conflict, it is a peculiar specimen for a non-Spaniard to play. I cannot imagine what it might be like for others, but for myself, it felt a bit out of place. I had trouble entering into the richly constructed mystery simply because I was neither a nationalist, nor was I a republican. I could not feel as much joy from being fed funds from Hitler or Stalin in equal measure.
That's from a review of Espana 1936, which was an almost unbelievably bad game from every angle -- and nothing in the Wargamer review mentioned anything about how truly bad it was.
My point isn't that bad reviews from other outlets do not exist. They certainly do. Pointing out that other sources are publishing bad or incomprehensible reviews does not excuse the kind of garbage from the RPS example cited above. I don't see how, from any perspective, the Enemy Front review can be defended. It's trash.
Seems like your point is being a bitch. You post on your own forum asking if people like a review you despise, and then attack the very opinion you claim to be interested. I think maybe you ought to reconsider what's embarrassing on your on front page.
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on June 19, 2014, 12:24:19 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 11:01:18 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on June 19, 2014, 10:55:04 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 10:14:51 AM
That read like this?
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425)
RPS is a great source for industry news, but I just cannot stand the majority of their "WOT I Think" reviews.
Maybe the RPS reviewers have some twisted reactions to these games and they are just being as honest as they can. Even on the wargamer you can get odd stuff like the following:
Perhaps that is part of the appropriateness of the development of this game that I would give a solemn nod to: the developers at least seemed to understand the ethos of the time. The atmosphere of the game is not gregarious or uplifting, but partisan, lacking in color, and almost apocalyptic. There is a sense in the way the black and white images of the political screens look that we have entered into the twilight of a civilization: or at least one that was undergoing such massive degradation. Since this is a standalone game and doesn't dovetail into the larger European conflict, it is a peculiar specimen for a non-Spaniard to play. I cannot imagine what it might be like for others, but for myself, it felt a bit out of place. I had trouble entering into the richly constructed mystery simply because I was neither a nationalist, nor was I a republican. I could not feel as much joy from being fed funds from Hitler or Stalin in equal measure.
That's from a review of Espana 1936, which was an almost unbelievably bad game from every angle -- and nothing in the Wargamer review mentioned anything about how truly bad it was.
My point isn't that bad reviews from other outlets do not exist. They certainly do. Pointing out that other sources are publishing bad or incomprehensible reviews does not excuse the kind of garbage from the RPS example cited above. I don't see how, from any perspective, the Enemy Front review can be defended. It's trash.
Seems like your point is being a bitch. You post on your own forum asking if people like a review you despise, and then attack the very opinion you claim to be interested. I think maybe you ought to reconsider what's embarrassing on your on front page.
I haven't attacked anyone personally though...You just did. Do it again, please.
In case the message isn't clear. You've just been placed on notice. Its the last and only warning you will receive.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 12:28:28 PM
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on June 19, 2014, 12:24:19 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 11:01:18 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on June 19, 2014, 10:55:04 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 10:14:51 AM
That read like this?
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425)
RPS is a great source for industry news, but I just cannot stand the majority of their "WOT I Think" reviews.
Maybe the RPS reviewers have some twisted reactions to these games and they are just being as honest as they can. Even on the wargamer you can get odd stuff like the following:
Perhaps that is part of the appropriateness of the development of this game that I would give a solemn nod to: the developers at least seemed to understand the ethos of the time. The atmosphere of the game is not gregarious or uplifting, but partisan, lacking in color, and almost apocalyptic. There is a sense in the way the black and white images of the political screens look that we have entered into the twilight of a civilization: or at least one that was undergoing such massive degradation. Since this is a standalone game and doesn't dovetail into the larger European conflict, it is a peculiar specimen for a non-Spaniard to play. I cannot imagine what it might be like for others, but for myself, it felt a bit out of place. I had trouble entering into the richly constructed mystery simply because I was neither a nationalist, nor was I a republican. I could not feel as much joy from being fed funds from Hitler or Stalin in equal measure.
That's from a review of Espana 1936, which was an almost unbelievably bad game from every angle -- and nothing in the Wargamer review mentioned anything about how truly bad it was.
My point isn't that bad reviews from other outlets do not exist. They certainly do. Pointing out that other sources are publishing bad or incomprehensible reviews does not excuse the kind of garbage from the RPS example cited above. I don't see how, from any perspective, the Enemy Front review can be defended. It's trash.
Seems like your point is being a bitch. You post on your own forum asking if people like a review you despise, and then attack the very opinion you claim to be interested. I think maybe you ought to reconsider what's embarrassing on your on front page.
I haven't attacked anyone personally though...You just did. Do it again, please.
In case the message isn't clear. You've just been placed on notice. Its the last and only warning you will receive.
Oh, the message is completely clear. You just don't get it.
Please feel free to ban me for pointing out the hypocrisy of your post. That's completely different when you personally attack somebody for opinions you do not agree with. Please feel to continue to not be embarrassed threatening sanctions to protect your self image. It's apparent your self-inflated image is too important to you than your actual conduct. Banning / warning me just makes you look more like a complete sh*t.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 19, 2014, 11:18:09 AM
It reads to me as though the reviewer was lazy about gathering his thoughts and just threw bullet points together with some clever phrasing rather than attempt to string together a coherent narrative.
So, in other words, this reviewer would be right at home as a New York Times columnist.
zing!
[***end political commentary transmission***]
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on June 19, 2014, 12:44:34 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 12:28:28 PM
I haven't attacked anyone personally though...You just did. Do it again, please.
In case the message isn't clear. You've just been placed on notice. Its the last and only warning you will receive.
Oh, the message is completely clear. You just don't get it.
Please feel free to ban me for pointing out the hypocrisy of your post. That's completely different when you personally attack somebody for opinions you do not agree with. Please feel to continue to not be embarrassed threatening sanctions to protect your self image. It's apparent your self-inflated image is too important to you than your actual conduct. Banning / warning me just makes you look more like a complete sh*t.
Is it just me, or am I alone in thinking that this bravado might be more impressive if either one of you had anything like a real name visible?
I think Meng Jiao is in the minority on this. I wouldn't call it garbage, but it is obviously not a review of the product either. It's at best an opinion piece (literally, what he thinks), but I always associate a "review" with also informing, not just stating an opinion. Or at least, "good" reviews do that. So if he wants to call it a review, he probably could, but only by admitting it is a not very useful one. As his intent doesn't seem to be to help, I doubt he would be insulted.
I think the real point of the article is to either just provide content for the website's stream or at worst to get your browser to load the advertising that is associated with that page. Just like television shows are there to get you to watch the commercials. The point of "wot I think" may have more to do with the hit counter for Road Kill T-Shirts than informing us about how good Enemy Front might be.
I like some of the Wot I Think articles, but I have to agree with JH that that particular article was a bit tough to figure out. I don't know if the guy liked the game or not.
Ok, truthfully I didn't actually read beyond the first 4 or 5 bullets the first time through, but then I couldn't really participate in the thread if I didn't give it a go, so I read most of it the second time through. I was not entertained.
I'm not sure wot the point of that article was...review? joke column? filler?
I used to think "WOT I think" is about World of Tanks. Never read a single article.
I've seen even worse from RPS recently. There were a couple notables I wouldn't even consider coherent.
Like they were trying to pull off some huge cutesy metaphor and ended up taking a dump with a keyboard and looking like a D-bag while doing it. There were even a few of the kind who thought it was pretty awesome and gushed in the comments for same.
Quote from: jomni on June 19, 2014, 07:52:32 PM
I used to think "WOT I think" is about World of Tanks. Never read a single article.
Well, then, you don't know wot you've been missing.
I do like reading the comments section there most of the time. There are some very clever people on that site.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 10:14:51 AM
That read like this?
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/06/16/enemy-front-review/#more-213425)
RPS is a great source for industry news, but I just cannot stand the majority of their "WOT I Think" reviews. The above example represents what I think is the worst of them. Trying to read through all the nonsense in order to understand the message the author is trying to convey actually makes me frustrated and angry. Maybe I don't understand the humor because I'm American? Maybe I'm missing the point? I dunno...but I find these kinds of reviews worse than useless.
Can someone tell me? Does the author like this game? If so, why? What is good about this particular game and what is bad? I mean really, I could make an educated guess as to what the answer is to those questions, but why should the reader have to put that kind of effort in to reading what should be a simple review? Stupid.
I really detest the RPS "reviews." I think their use of vulgarity and constant attempts at "humor" mixed with what seem to be oblique insider references makes their writing highly unprofessional. It doesn't help that they also consistently pan any AAA title that the other media outlets give high reviews (while gushing about often obscure and esoteric indie art games).
^Good to see you posting again...
Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 19, 2014, 10:34:23 PM
I think their use of vulgarity ... mixed with what seem to be oblique insider references makes their writing highly unprofessional.
Personally, I agree, but I think you just defined "cutting edge."
A review should describe what the game is, compare the game to similar games in the genre (if possible), give the strong and weak points of the game.
Following that, a review should provide an opinion of the "fun factor" and "enjoyment" that the reviewer found playing the game.
This is true of all reviews (book, movie, game, professional article).
Before reading this thread I actually read the offending article from start to finish and found it both mildly entertaining and genuinely informative. Stylistically and in the use of pop-culture references I suppose it was a bit cute (maybe = "British"?), but, as someone who was curious about the "first truly modern WW2 FPS", I found that the review told me what I needed to know - ie don't buy it.
To my mind the job of the reviewer is to present the game as it plays, highlighting any glaring technical issues and so on. This description should allow the reader to decide whether he or she would like to play the game, not necessarily whether it is "good" or not.
In the end, though, it's a matter of personal taste. I was able to pick through the humour to find nuggets of useful info about the game and was amused as I did so. If, however, the humor irritated, then I can see that anything else the article offered would be discounted.
I'm not looking for a row here - I really had that opinion of the review and was interested to see the responses to it recorded in this thread
Father Ted....Your comment, 'pick through the humor to find nuggets of useful info', pretty much sums up my love/hate feelings for the reviews on this site. Unfortunately, the 'humor' (most of which for me isn't really funny at all) is the majority of the review and the nuggets are few and far between. Again, to me, the humor is often obscure and written in meaningless gibberish. But yes, there are nuggets in there that can help make an informed purchasing decision.
Jarhead, you already hit the nail on the head in your first post. It's because you're American; American and British humour differs markedly. I guess it's why websites like RPS and Eurogamer even exist.
The way you feel when reading that article is precisely how I feel when I'm reading certain things on websites like Giant Bomb or Destructoid or whatever (or almost all of Reddit...). It's a culture clash, nothing more.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 19, 2014, 10:34:23 PMIt doesn't help that they also consistently pan any AAA title that the other media outlets give high reviews (while gushing about often obscure and esoteric indie art games).
You'd have a point if they actually did this consistently, but they don't. They've championed AAA games that
they feel are worth it, and they've rubbished them too. Exactly what videogame journalists should be doing.
Yes. For me, I guess, having to pick through the humor is more tedium than entertainment. I don't like wasting time when I'm just trying to get an opinion on whether a game is worth buying. I rather spend more time actually playing the game if I get it, than trying to figure out whether a reviewer thinks its worth getting in the first place.
Sometimes the humor and format of the "Wot I Think" reviews just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I came on too strong with the initial post, but I still don't think I said anything that warranted me being called a "bitch" and a "complete piece of shit." I think I've been a part of this community for long enough to have risen beyond that kind of animosity.
Quote from: Huw the Poo on June 21, 2014, 08:07:01 AM
Jarhead, you already hit the nail on the head in your first post. It's because you're American; American and British humour differs markedly. I guess it's why websites like RPS and Eurogamer even exist.
The way you feel when reading that article is precisely how I feel when I'm reading certain things on websites like Giant Bomb or Destructoid or whatever (or almost all of Reddit...). It's a culture clash, nothing more.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 19, 2014, 10:34:23 PMIt doesn't help that they also consistently pan any AAA title that the other media outlets give high reviews (while gushing about often obscure and esoteric indie art games).
You'd have a point if they actually did this consistently, but they don't. They've championed AAA games that they feel are worth it, and they've rubbished them too. Exactly what videogame journalists should be doing.
I strongly suspected this. However, I do like Monty Python. I do like Benny Hill. I do like Little Britain, etc. So its not like all British humor is lost on me entirely...
I've gone back and re-read the Wot I Think post, and if I eliminate the idea that it's a "review" and instead treat it as "first impressions" or "stream of consciousness" then I enjoy it a bit more, as it's kind of a text equivalent of the stupid Minecraft videos my son watches on YouTube. At that point, I'm not looking for information on which to make a decision.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 21, 2014, 08:20:39 AM
I've gone back and re-read the Wot I Think post, and if I eliminate the idea that it's a "review" and instead treat it as "first impressions" or "stream of consciousness" then I enjoy it a bit more, as it's kind of a text equivalent of the stupid Minecraft videos my son watches on YouTube. At that point, I'm not looking for information on which to make a decision.
Well, that is sort of the point UCG was trying to make, and its a reasonable one. However, if you look at their main front page, every time a new "WIT" article goes live, they put it up there in the news box with the caption "Judged." So to me, this means they intend WIT articles to serve as reviews.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 21, 2014, 08:26:48 AM
Quote from: bayonetbrant on June 21, 2014, 08:20:39 AM
I've gone back and re-read the Wot I Think post, and if I eliminate the idea that it's a "review" and instead treat it as "first impressions" or "stream of consciousness" then I enjoy it a bit more, as it's kind of a text equivalent of the stupid Minecraft videos my son watches on YouTube. At that point, I'm not looking for information on which to make a decision.
Well, that is sort of the point UCG was trying to make, and its a reasonable one. However, if you look at their main front page, every time a new "WIT" article goes live, they put it up there in the news box with the caption "Judged." So to me, this means they intend WIT articles to serve as reviews.
I hadn't noticed that on the front page (I'm an infrequent visitor), but I would agree that labeling it as such would lead me to believe there's review-worthy info in there and I don't see enough of it to help me make a decision.
Regardless of what one thinks of the content, the Wot I Think entries are all in the Reviews section of the site. Whatever the intent may be, the entries are being presented by the site as reviews.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 21, 2014, 08:11:11 AM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on June 21, 2014, 08:07:01 AM
Jarhead, you already hit the nail on the head in your first post. It's because you're American; American and British humour differs markedly. I guess it's why websites like RPS and Eurogamer even exist.
The way you feel when reading that article is precisely how I feel when I'm reading certain things on websites like Giant Bomb or Destructoid or whatever (or almost all of Reddit...). It's a culture clash, nothing more.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 19, 2014, 10:34:23 PMIt doesn't help that they also consistently pan any AAA title that the other media outlets give high reviews (while gushing about often obscure and esoteric indie art games).
You'd have a point if they actually did this consistently, but they don't. They've championed AAA games that they feel are worth it, and they've rubbished them too. Exactly what videogame journalists should be doing.
I strongly suspected this. However, I do like Monty Python. I do like Benny Hill. I do like Little Britain, etc. So its not like all British humor is lost on me entirely...
If I could give you a big man hug..... no one likes Benny hill here, it's embarrassing
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 21, 2014, 09:48:02 AM
If I could give you a big man hug..... no one likes Benny hill here, it's embarrassing
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aarcentral.com%2Fpics%2Fwtf-bennyhill.gif&hash=f5da50420a608a60f67bff4088b22d7c9f65d1ff)
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on June 20, 2014, 06:55:18 AM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on June 19, 2014, 10:34:23 PM
I think their use of vulgarity ... mixed with what seem to be oblique insider references makes their writing highly unprofessional.
Personally, I agree, but I think you just defined "cutting edge."
I prefer traditional dignified refinement. 8)
Brant has it right, if you go back and read them like some sort of social commentary, humor-laden, art critique, then they serve their purpose. I often scroll to the very bottom just to see if they "liked" a game or not. More often than not, I still can't tell after I have read their conclusion, since they are so negative and use far to many qualifiers ("it was great but..."). RPS is much stronger when giving development and preview news.
Agreed - rps for news, here where I know who likes what for honest opinions
At first glance, sounds like a blog humor post. I did like WOT Enemy Front review comment #1145:
Apologies Herr Panzer, I've confused you. You were expecting me to obey the on-screen prompt and Panzerfaust you from afar, not gallop up to you exposing flaws in your rudimentary AI. I promise I'll keep my distance in future.
An AI PzIII shouldn't be trying to blast you point blank with a 3.7cm gun :)
Don't think I'll pick it up - too busy still playing Europa Universalis III when I can get some free time.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 21, 2014, 08:10:01 AM
Yes. For me, I guess, having to pick through the humor is more tedium than entertainment.
You realize you just described a not uncommon reaction to grogheads.com as well, yes?
Your mission statement reads:
At GrogHeads, we're going to try to help everybody in the gaming community understand why games are great, and if they aren't why they aren't. We're going to look deeper. Because we have games on the brain.Anyone who reads that then comes onto the forum to see the usual cutesy user names, avatars that advertise for mental health care week donations, deep signature lines like ""If I'm having fun with my friend I don't care if we're rolling tanks across Gus's ass crack" and a mix of - 90% banter and 10% game discussion?
Not suggesting anything is wrong with the model (it's not like you're hurting for membership), but my point is that it does seem ironic for you to complain about
that site, when you are an administrator of a site that does business in pretty much the same way.
Michael, I realize that few can match your high standards for forum netiquette (as you love to point out at nearly every forum you post on). However you do understand there is a difference between content posted on the "front" of the website and what goes on in the user forums?
He's complaining about the content of an article on RPS...not the site in general. Unless I missed something, nobody has suggested this is a Grogheads vs. RPS pissing match.
If you want to throw darts at a Grogheads review, then that's another matter.
Quote from: Toonces on June 21, 2014, 01:42:20 PM
If you want to throw darts at a Grogheads review, then that's another matter.
Give him time. He's just warming up :crazy2:
Quote from: mirth on June 21, 2014, 01:41:22 PM
Michael, I realize that few can match your high standards for forum netiquette (as you love to point out at nearly every forum you post on). However you do understand there is a difference between content posted on the "front" of the website and what goes on in the user forums?
This x100.
Well, I just went to the home page to check out some Grogheads reviews. While I was there I started reading Longblade's Origin articles and then I saw the Origins Grogheads group shot. Hey, Brant, you need to caption that with the forum names of the dudes (and dudette) in the picture! I can pick you out, but everyone else is a mystery to me. :knuppel2:
Quote from: Toonces on June 21, 2014, 01:50:55 PMI can pick you out, but everyone else is a mystery to me. :knuppel2:
Success! O0
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on June 21, 2014, 01:31:46 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 21, 2014, 08:10:01 AM
Yes. For me, I guess, having to pick through the humor is more tedium than entertainment.
You realize you just described a not uncommon reaction to grogheads.com as well, yes?
Your mission statement reads:
At GrogHeads, we're going to try to help everybody in the gaming community understand why games are great, and if they aren't why they aren't. We're going to look deeper. Because we have games on the brain.
Anyone who reads that then comes onto the forum to see the usual cutesy user names, avatars that advertise for mental health care week donations, deep signature lines like ""If I'm having fun with my friend I don't care if we're rolling tanks across Gus's ass crack" and a mix of - 90% banter and 10% game discussion?
Not suggesting anything is wrong with the model (it's not like you're hurting for membership), but my point is that it does seem ironic for you to complain about that site, when you are an administrator of a site that does business in pretty much the same way.
You're confusing our forums with our main page and published articles.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
It is trash. Objectively, from any perspective, other than one that is biased and disingenuous, it is trash. Your belief that the above cited review is "better-than-averge" defies credulity. It is not silly. It is not funny. It is of no utility. It is, quite simply, as previously stated, utterly useless to the point of causing agitation.
Gosh. Not just trash, but
objectively trash!
One of the wonderful things about writing for RPS is that we have the freedom to experiment. On this occasion, I thought it would be fun/refreshing to offer a critical smorgasbord rather than a traditional four-course repast. My thoughts on things like AI, difficulty, graphics, interface, originality etc. are all there, they're just not clustered together in themed paragraphs.
All the best from a regular Grogheads reader,
Tim Stone
Quote from: pobjoy on June 22, 2014, 04:06:29 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
It is trash. Objectively, from any perspective, other than one that is biased and disingenuous, it is trash. Your belief that the above cited review is "better-than-averge" defies credulity. It is not silly. It is not funny. It is of no utility. It is, quite simply, as previously stated, utterly useless to the point of causing agitation.
Gosh. Not just trash, but objectively trash!
One of the wonderful things about writing for RPS is that we have the freedom to experiment. On this occasion, I thought it would be fun/refreshing to offer a critical smorgasbord rather than a traditional four-course repast. My thoughts on things like AI, difficulty, graphics, interface, originality etc. are all there, they're just not clustered together in themed paragraphs.
All the best from a regular Grogheads reader,
Tim Stone
Welcome Tim! Finally, my evil plan to get you to post something was successful! Muahahahahhahaha!
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 22, 2014, 07:13:24 AM
Quote from: pobjoy on June 22, 2014, 04:06:29 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
It is trash. Objectively, from any perspective, other than one that is biased and disingenuous, it is trash. Your belief that the above cited review is "better-than-averge" defies credulity. It is not silly. It is not funny. It is of no utility. It is, quite simply, as previously stated, utterly useless to the point of causing agitation.
Gosh. Not just trash, but objectively trash!
One of the wonderful things about writing for RPS is that we have the freedom to experiment. On this occasion, I thought it would be fun/refreshing to offer a critical smorgasbord rather than a traditional four-course repast. My thoughts on things like AI, difficulty, graphics, interface, originality etc. are all there, they're just not clustered together in themed paragraphs.
All the best from a regular Grogheads reader,
Tim Stone
Welcome Tim! Finally, my evil plan to get you to post something was successful! Muahahahahhahaha!
Brilliant! I have a short list of other writers whose work can you attack :P
Quote from: pobjoy on June 22, 2014, 04:06:29 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 19, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
It is trash. Objectively, from any perspective, other than one that is biased and disingenuous, it is trash. Your belief that the above cited review is "better-than-averge" defies credulity. It is not silly. It is not funny. It is of no utility. It is, quite simply, as previously stated, utterly useless to the point of causing agitation.
Gosh. Not just trash, but objectively trash!
One of the wonderful things about writing for RPS is that we have the freedom to experiment. On this occasion, I thought it would be fun/refreshing to offer a critical smorgasbord rather than a traditional four-course repast. My thoughts on things like AI, difficulty, graphics, interface, originality etc. are all there, they're just not clustered together in themed paragraphs.
All the best from a regular Grogheads reader,
Tim Stone
Experimenting is good, so would you ever choose that style again?
I wouldn't rule it out. The piece seemed to entertain and inform as many readers as it infuriated. RPS regulars are used to a bit of whimsy. A rather fine example:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/30/wot-i-think-distant-worlds-universe/#more-210201
Quote from: pobjoy on June 22, 2014, 11:08:54 AM
I wouldn't rule it out. The piece seemed to entertain and inform as many readers as it infuriated. RPS regulars are used to a bit of whimsy. A rather fine example:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/30/wot-i-think-distant-worlds-universe/#more-210201
That one didn't make me angry...only a little bit nauseous.
Quote from: pobjoy on June 22, 2014, 11:08:54 AM
I wouldn't rule it out. The piece seemed to entertain and inform as many readers as it infuriated. RPS regulars are used to a bit of whimsy. A rather fine example:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/30/wot-i-think-distant-worlds-universe/#more-210201
That's a prime example of a torturous read.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 21, 2014, 02:51:10 PM
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on June 21, 2014, 01:31:46 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 21, 2014, 08:10:01 AM
Yes. For me, I guess, having to pick through the humor is more tedium than entertainment.
You realize you just described a not uncommon reaction to grogheads.com as well, yes?
Your mission statement reads:
At GrogHeads, we're going to try to help everybody in the gaming community understand why games are great, and if they aren't why they aren't. We're going to look deeper. Because we have games on the brain.
Anyone who reads that then comes onto the forum to see the usual cutesy user names, avatars that advertise for mental health care week donations, deep signature lines like ""If I'm having fun with my friend I don't care if we're rolling tanks across Gus's ass crack" and a mix of - 90% banter and 10% game discussion?
Not suggesting anything is wrong with the model (it's not like you're hurting for membership), but my point is that it does seem ironic for you to complain about that site, when you are an administrator of a site that does business in pretty much the same way.
You're confusing our forums with our main page and published articles.
That hits the mark IMO. Both "articles" read like forum banter, maybe organized a little. Maybe the point is to let the reader feel like he is one of the boys at the poker table. I don't find it annoying, I just would not read it if I was needing a game review.
Returning to the thread title - the review - I would say the most useful format is lead with condensed information. Rating out of 10 or 100%. Key highlights. Key weaknesses. Both as specs relative to similar games. What makes it enjoyable or fail that led to the rating. Details about mechanics. How it felt climbing the learning curve. Does it hold your attention? Do you get bored? Do you look forward to firing it up again? What is the long term playability? Then anecdotes. If the reviewer is afraid of offending someone with that, so they want to make it all anecdotes to let the reader make up their own mind, they should record a gameplay video.
There is nothing wrong with a gameplay video. Make it clear what purpose the content fulfills.
I should add to that that a story, if you like writing stories, can be a good read. I enjoyed reading Gus's story of TW Shogun 2. That is not what I look for if I am about to make a purchase decision. If I am about to buy, given some games can be such a crapshoot (buyer beware), I need solid, to the point reviews to help me decide.
A good AAR can be as good as or better than a game review.
Quote from: bbmike on June 22, 2014, 06:48:13 PM
A good AAR can be as good as or better than a game review.
For what purpose? I am not disagreeing with the statement.
Reviews are common in our society. We look at Consumer Reports for big ticket purchases. We go to magazines for all kinds of sector specific reviews. Stereos, cameras, etc. So I am saying when someone searches for a review they expect information that caters to a well understood need. There are all kinds of other things out there that are better for other purposes.
Quote from: bbmike on June 22, 2014, 06:48:13 PM
A good AAR can be as good as or better than a game review.
Agreed. They certainly can add to and supplement a review by showing actual gameplay, the decision process, choices and their outcomes. A well done AAR is a great assist in making a purchase decision.
Let's put it this way...I can think of more than a handful of games that I have purchased right after reading a solid AAR.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 23, 2014, 06:37:29 AM
Let's put it this way...I can think of more than a handful of games that I have purchased right after reading a solid AAR.
Quote from: Rayfer on June 23, 2014, 06:33:53 AM
Quote from: bbmike on June 22, 2014, 06:48:13 PM
A good AAR can be as good as or better than a game review.
Agreed. They certainly can add to and supplement a review by showing actual gameplay, the decision process, choices and their outcomes. A well done AAR is a great assist in making a purchase decision.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 23, 2014, 06:37:29 AM
Let's put it this way...I can think of more than a handful of games that I have purchased right after reading a solid AAR.
+1 I think that a well done AAR can be a games best unintentional marketing tool.
Let's hope now one is reading the giant ball of sarcasm that I'm passing off as a Civ V AAR! O:-)
Quote from: bbmike on June 22, 2014, 06:48:13 PM
A good AAR can be as good as or better than a game review.
I agree that an AAR can be the best way to look into a game you don't have. Of course a demo is even better.
On the other hand (and thinking over the RPS article at the root of our collective misery), I would generally like to know something about a reviewer and I don't mean biographical details, I mean the tricker question that goes -- are my tastes much like his? Now how do you get an idea about that? I mean from one text and no cheating with lists of other games they like (whatever that means -- and that can be misleading I think). Basically you have to go on style. If they reviewer or WOT-I-thinker sounds like a tedious grumpy fellow who wishes he'd lived in the 19th century and made the world safe for the pet peeves of his later and even more elderly self, then I will very likely like games he hates and not be very happy with the games he loves. On the other hand, if his WOT-I think suggests a certain distaste for silly FPS games combined with a reluctant excitement in the face of pure idiocy -- well then I will very likely like what he likes etc.
Quote from: MengJiao on June 23, 2014, 09:49:19 AM
...a tedious grumpy fellow who wishes he'd lived in the 19th century and made the world safe for the pet peeves of his later and even more elderly self...
I think that guy is on this forum somewhere. :2funny:
Quote from: bbmike on June 23, 2014, 09:57:33 AM
Quote from: MengJiao on June 23, 2014, 09:49:19 AM
...a tedious grumpy fellow who wishes he'd lived in the 19th century and made the world safe for the pet peeves of his later and even more elderly self...
I think that guy is on this forum somewhere. :2funny:
He's virtually everywhere war games are played. Not so much on RPS, but very likely hiding somewhere in Armchair General's bowels (Armchair General -- gad, that really sums things up) or The Wargamer.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 23, 2014, 06:37:29 AM
Let's put it this way...I can think of more than a handful of games that I have purchased right after reading a solid AAR.
+1