Who likes reading reviews...

[Jarhead0331]

That read like this?

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. 

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

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.

[-budd-]

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  ;)

[MengJiao]

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).

[bbmike]

I'm with you on this one, Jarhead. I don't know what that is but it isn't a game review.

[MengJiao]

That read like this?

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.

[Jarhead0331]

That read like this?

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.

[Steelgrave]

I read RPS every day, but sometimes they try to be too cute by a mile, especially in their reviews  :P

[MengJiao]

That read like this?

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.

[bayonetbrant]

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.

[undercovergeek]

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

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[Jarhead0331]

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.

[Ian C]

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.

[MengJiao]

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.