Who likes reading reviews...

[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.

  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...

[bayonetbrant]

Personally, 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

[skeptical.platypus]

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.

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. 

[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.

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.

[skeptical.platypus]

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.

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.

[sandman2575]

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***]

[Michael Dorosh]

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.

[Toonces]

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? 

[jomni]

I used to think "WOT I think" is about World of Tanks. Never read a single article.

[Nefaro]

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.

[Toonces]

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.

[son_of_montfort]

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.

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).

[Jarhead0331]

^Good to see you posting again...

[Michael Dorosh]

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."

[airboy]

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).