Castle Paradox

[RedMaverickZero]

I don't know if Setu and I are safe yet... But although, as CN said, if it were anyone else he would have done the same. Which I guess makes me feel a little bit better than the previous day. Anyways, it seemed like CN and a portion of the CP Community had attacked Setu and I. And I don't know about him, but I would like a heart felt apology! Because I am trying to fix the problem in my expansion!
_________________
---------------Projects----
Mr.Triangle's Maze: 70%
Takoyaki Surprise: 70%

[Setu_Firestorm]

Actually, I was talking to IM about this whole thing last night.
If I were you, Red, I wouldn't expect CN to apologize to either one of us.
He stated a good point about my review, yet delivered the correction in an unnecessary asinine manner.

Right about now, I'd like to just leave this behind us. I probably just won't review anymore games, if I cause that much trouble. Reviewing's not really a very important thing to me anyway.
_________________


Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/georgerpowell
Newgrounds: http://setu-firestorm.newgrounds.com

[RedMaverickZero]

That's sad Setu... It's so sad to see one person *cough cough CN* spoil something good for someone else. But I guess I repsect your decision. Because if we just don't even do what makes things bad, then we won't have to put up with this royal waste of time nonsense. Anyways, I kinda went into this knowing no apologies would be given. But I guess if we can be the mature ones here and let this all fall behind us then we can try and forget this crap.
_________________
---------------Projects----
Mr.Triangle's Maze: 70%
Takoyaki Surprise: 70%

[Pepsi Ranger]

Okay, folks, break out the frosty mugs. Pepsi's about to pour out some opinions on the matter.

First of all, this topic is pretty much dead now. Unfortunately I find these threads of interest a few days too late to really make my point stick, but I'm entitled to write what I think about all of this anyway, so here it goes:

Setu is very much entitled to give the game an A- rating if that's what he felt that it deserved. I'll break this down a little further in the next few paragraphs, but Inferior Minion more or less summed up my thoughts in his Super Mario Bros. post in that even a game that can't be beaten, or in this case the reviewer couldn't beat, can still be fun, meaning that he's within his rights (and preferences) to thoroughly enjoy the game. And that's what I've gotten from Setu's review--he thoroughly enjoyed the game, which is quite an accomplishment for RMZ considering that Setu didn't particularly enjoy the previous Mr. Triangle games. Setu is not required to finish the game to enjoy the experience of playing it.

Which brings us to the subject of why we review. Bare with me, it's an extensive two-parter.

1.) We review a game to express to others how we felt about the experience, the story, etc. to others. Even though I'll be the first to say that this review wasn't particularly interesting to read, Setu more or less gave his reasons as to why he enjoyed it. And that's the important thing to this step. If he had just given it an A- with NOTHING to back it up, then the review itself would be pretty meaningless to everybody. But he's still entitled to rate the game with such a grade anyway because it's his opinion. The review (in the context of this step) is meant merely to back up that opinion. It may have been deficient, but he made his point.

Does this mean it was in his right not to include a disclaimer that he couldn't finish it. Yes, it was in his right, even if it did his review a great injustice to RMZ (which I'll elaborate on more in part two).

I think in that this case the issue here should not be with the grade, but with the content of the review itself. It seems to me that CN is upset with both the review and the grade, but the quarrel should be over the content only. Not the grade.

Think about movie reviews. If I were to rate the new Matrix movie based on my own opinions, I probably would've given it three stars because I liked it a lot. The professional reviewers (like Hollywood.com for example) did not share my opinions because they felt there was no plot. My argument to that statement is that of course there was a plot!!! It was a continuation of the series. What did they think the first two movies were there for? Better yet, what did they think the third movie of a trilogy is supposed to do, develop characters? Of course not--the characters have already been developed. It's time to end this thing, and I thought the movie ended the trilogy well.

But that's just my opinion. If I had posted a full review of the Matrix Revolutions on any professional site and given it three stars, anyone and their mother can disagree with me. Anybody can go see the movie, say it sucks, and write their own review and base the rating on their own thoughts. That's why even if I disagree with professional reviewers' opinions on movies such as the Matrix 3, I still agree that they're allowed to express those said opinions, and that's also why I don't expect their ratings to hold a lot of water. I mean look at Kill Bill. That movie got high ratings across the board. But where was the plot? Did they not realize it was only half a movie? Why give that movie three and a half stars, while another movie with the same caliber only gets one and a half? Do I think half or even a third of a movie deserves high ratings? You know, sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't. I loved the first two Lord of the Rings movies, but there are believe it or not, some people out there who were upset with the ending of the first movie. Why? Because they had no idea that there would be more installments. Their thoughts at the closing credits were "What? Is that it? What the freak?" Would they have given that movie a high rating? Probably not. What if they had known there would be more? Who knows? Nothing changed the fact that they initially didn't know there would be more. But then the second movie came out and all of a sudden the first movie was awesome to them. And for those who are new to the land of the living, here's a little secret for you: the second movie doesn't really end either. There's still another part to be released. It doesn't mean the people shouldn't have enjoyed it for what it was. It also doesn't mean that they shouldn't have enjoyed it because they don't yet know how it's all going to end. They just enjoyed the movie because it had elements that they loved, where maybe the first one didn't quite reach. It doesn't really matter why because they still enjoyed it. Likewise, some people really enjoyed Kill Bill, even if it was only half a movie, and if even though I thought it was at best a rental. And the list goes on and on.

Giving Mr. Triangle 5 a rating of an A- is NOT the issue here and I think it's dreadfully wrong to make it one.

2.) We write a review to help the author make a better game. And this is where I think the issue needs to be taken exclusively. The review as a whole was lacking a lot of detail, including the bit about how he never actually finished the game. I am in complete agreement with everybody who expressed the opinion that he needed to mention this fact in the review, but I think I lean in a slightly different direction as to who the target audience for this disclaimer needed to be aimed at. The fact that Setu neglected to mention that he never beat the final boss shouldn't have been wrong in CN's eyes (as the player). It should've been wrong in RMZ's eyes (as the creator). And let me also express that if he had in fact said something about not being able to finish the game, he should've also explained how that affected his overall opinion of the gaming experience (which judging by the grade he gave it probably didn't affect it that much).

I'm not trying to discredit the players of Mr. Triangle 5 (which I assume after this thread there will be slightly fewer than before) that your decision to play a game should or should not be hinged on a review. CN has every right to be upset about spending five hours leveling up for a boss that he can't beat. But it was his decision to do that. I know I personally wouldn't have spent that much time leveling up in order to beat a boss (unless I planned on reviewing the game--which CN may or may not have planned on doing). If I had to spend more than ten or fifteen minutes in a given sitting outside of the normal adventure, gaining experience in order to win any fight, then it would be at that point that I'd quit the game (unless I paid $50 for it). I wouldn't need a review to convince me to keep going or to stop. If I'm playing for fun, then I'll keep playing until I stop having fun. It's as simple as that. If I stop having fun, then the creator needs to know that, not the other players. Likewise, if I keep having fun until the very end, then that's also for the creator's interest, not for those who also downloaded the game. They can form their own opinions about the game. Look at FFH for example. Some reviewers raved over it. Others thought it sucked. It'll be up to the player to decide if it's an experience worth having.

The only time this factor of a review should matter to other gamers is if they're going to learn something about game design from it. Since CN is pretty well versed in game design, and has the sense to make a boss beatable before release, I don't think this review could've helped him become a better game designer even if it had mentioned the disclaimer. Hence, the only person truly robbed from this review is RMZ himself, and it seems RMZ already knows how this unbeatable feature has affected his game, so that's that.

And this may all sound pretty frivolous coming from a guy who built his reputation in this community off his reviews, but let me let you guys in on a little secret. There are quite a few people around here who haven't read the entire content of my reviews. Those with short attention spans quit after the first two paragraphs. My reviews averaged between five and seven pages of text. That accounted for many, many paragraphs. Do you think that affected their decision to play the games I reviewed? I mean, they had no idea what all I've said, even if it was all there for them to read, so I'm guessing probably not. They downloaded the games, played them, and decided if it was worth their time when they either saw the "game over" screen, or the "quit" screen. My reviews didn't affect them much. They affected the people who made the targeted games. To this day the only real review feedback that I've gotten out of the blue was from the creator of Planetoid Penguins who wanted to know why I bashed his game so badly (which I didn't really feel was bashing, just not praising). No other person had ever sent me an email about my Planetoid Penguins review. I would be surprised if anyone even remembered that I wrote a review for that game. Most of you probably don't even know what in the world I'm talking about. Check out Operation: OHR if you're curious.

One last thing. In the three years that I've been a part of this community, there was only one review I ever truly disagreed with. And it was a review written by Psyco2000, who was one of the original three reviewers of O:OHR (including myself). Can anyone guess which of his game reviews I disagreed with?

That's right. Powerstick Man.

Anybody want to know why I disagreed with it? Take a wild guess.

Was it because he bashed it? No, not entirely. I'll admit that I wasn't pleased with the bashing, but my disappointment wasn't due to the fact that he didn't enjoy it. My disappointment was due to the fact that he only played it for an hour, quit, and then wrote the review.

For three years I waited for a review like Shadowiii's, not because it praised the game, but because it was based on a complete playthrough. Do I care what other players will think about the poor review on O:OHR or the great review on CP? Not particularly. Do I care what they'll think about my game? Absolutely.

And one last question. Why have I been waiting so long for a review like Shadowiii's? I mean, Rinku made it one of the two Games of the Month in OHR Monthly #4 alongside of Walthros. It's not like I needed the good grade. I needed to know how each element of the game (from beginning to end) was perceived. Even Rinku didn't finish my game. He reviewed it anyway, but he didn't finish it. Shadowiii was the first reviewer to finish it and to comment on it based on the completion, and is therefore the first and only review that really matters to me. The other two mentioned a few good and bad points to give other players an idea what they're in for should they decide to give it a try, but the reviews were not complete. And incomplete reviews or not, people played the game anyway, and some actually enjoyed it.

And here's one more little secret to share with you guys: neither Psyco nor Rinku ever mentioned in their texts that they based their reviews on what they played rather than on the game as a whole. One slammed it, while the other praised it, but neither based their reviews on the entire experience, just on what they experienced. For me it was greatly disappointing. For other game players, it was just a sample of what they may or may not enjoy should they play it.

And even Shadowiii's grade of A+ won't be seen eye to eye to eye by everyone. I mean, Psyco quit after the first hour. The game certainly wasn't for him. However, I would've rather that he didn't post the review for my own sake, not for the sake of other readers and game players in the community.

So, I hope this all sheds some light on the topic. Setu was wrong in omitting the final boss factoid, but his offense was toward RMZ, not to those who are already aware that all enemies need to be beatable. In truth, the grade of A- is entirely irrelevant to pretty much all of us since only a handful will agree with Setu, and those of us who do won't care one way or another what grade it got since we have our own opinions on what the game deserves. RMZ is the only person in this community who should care about that A-.

So my opinion on the matter is to let it go, keep the review where it is, and convince all reviewers and potential reviewers to actually spend some time writing for once, rather than just throwing out a couple inane vague and forgettable details in order to garner at least a little bit of substance in the review. Give the game designers some meat, be honest about what you think, and for Pete's sake please try to make these things more interesting to read for those of us who like reading reviews. I don't need the review to convince me to play a game. The game's description should do that. The review should give me some pointers on what to do with my own games (or at least give me some free reading material).

Okay, the bottle is empty. Your frosty mugs should now be cracking.
_________________
Progress Report:

The Adventures of Powerstick Man: Extended Edition

Currently Updating: General sweep of the game world and dialogue boxes. Adding extended maps.

Tightfloss Maiden

Currently Updating: Chapter 2

[Rinku]

i actually don't remember reviewing powerstick man without finishing it. it's possible though, since the review (which i just went back and read and wow, i can't believe i wrote so poorly back) was written so long ago (~3 years).

i'm not sure which version of powerstick man the review in question was about. if i remember, there were several versions of powerstick man released, and it's possible that review may have been of its first release. but i think even the first release had demo man in it, which i'm not sure if i got to before writing that review. it's also possible i thought i finished it but did not -- such as if i reached a part in the game i couldn't figure out how to get passed. it's also possible i just rushed and wanted to get the review written before the issue was out (so it could be co-game of the month).

so if i did review it without finishing it due to rushedness i definitely should have mentioned that in the review. it might seem like a poor excuse to say that 'not finishing a demo and reviewing it' is any better than 'not finishing a full game and reviewing it', but one major difference is that in a demo you have no idea where the game ends unless the author of the game puts it in a readme file (which powerstick man, unlike 99% of all ohrrpgce game demos, did -- and even included a "reference for finding everything"), in full games you know you didn't finish it until you see the credits. that the review didn't mention that i didn't get up to demo man (if i didn't -- i'll assume i didn't because i don't remember and pepsiranger probably remembers better than i do since we were communicating on icq at the time and i would have mentioned how far i got in the game to him) was terrible and irresponsible of me and the review has even more irresponsible flaws, such as being boring and using weak cliche phrases like "you name it, this game has a lot of it". worst of all, the review doesn't mention the gameplay at all, which is what games are all about, that kind of defeats the point of a review; it's just as bad as if the matrix were reviewed and then its plot not mentioned at all, but instead the review talked about the special effects and other side issues only. so i apologize not only for not mentioning that i didn't finish the demo but also in that it wasn't really a game review. to make up for it i can only offer to review the finished game, after it's finished (i'm assuming it's still being worked on?) to the best of my ability.

*

actually after reading pepsi's post i think we should have two major types of reviews; reviews of full games and reviews of demos are two very different things.

when reviewing a full game, the review would work best by addressing mainly the players, and talking about the game experience, the content of the game, and whether it's worth playing and learning from.

when reviewing a demo, though, you also have an obligation to the creator of the game, they released the demo so that they could get input on how best to improve the game; so a review of a demo would work best if it took that into account, and focused on where the game needs work and how that work could be accomplished.

in retrospect i think much better at reviewing finished games. of the reviews i've written, i like the ones that are on finished games best, and the ones that are about demos least. this is probably because i was using full game reviewing methods on demos.

*

a semi-related and semi off topic concern: what if someone posts a demo of their game, then that demo is reviewed, and then they post the full version of that game? would the game be graded based on the old review? would the review be removed since it's outdated? has this problem even arisen on the game list yet?
_________________
Tower Defense Game

[Inferior Minion]

[Rinku]

that's definately good, but still, that doesn't cover people who write reviews of demos and then leave the community or just don't care to edit it when the game is finished. it's probably not that big of a problem because the author could just upload the game as a new entry in the game list, starting from a clean slate for the final version.
_________________
Tower Defense Game

[Inferior Minion]

Damnit, I knew you were gonna say that...

As of right now, every game on the gamelist has a "Version Number" which is simply the current upload count. Every review keeps track of what upload it was written during. The Game Listing (where the description and list of reviews for said game is displayed) will break the reviews into versions. I might also include the current version below the description. The reviews for the previous versions should probably still count. Haven't decided that yet. It was this indecision that kept this part of the reviews out of my last post

I also haven't decided if it will be

Version X
reviews

Version X-1
reviews

or if it will be listed as

Current Version
reviews

Previous Versions
reviews

without the previous numbers or current number. The reasoning of course being that Version 12 only means it's the 12th time the game was uploaded. No one, author included, will probably know what "version" of the game my upload counter is refering to.

I was considering allowing the creators to name the versions.....but that could get extremely messy if someone names every version the same and pointless if no reviews are written during that version.
_________________

[Flamer]

i'd go with the latter, but stick a date to the reviews, so that the reader will have some idea on how long ago the review was written/updated.

plus, putting version numbers on games, may get very messy...especially if someone uploads 5 times in 10 mins, because he kept remembering things that he forgot to do (like putting a password into the game, not that that matters anymore)
i mean in that kind of situation, what would happen..? would the version number go up by .5 or will it stay at .1 or whatever it was supposed to be on the first posting for the game/demo.
_________________
If we were a pack of dogs, IM would be a grand Hound, CN would be a very ficious little pitball, and Giz...well, it doesn't matter breed he is, he'd still be a bitch
(no offense to anyone that was mentioned)

[Pepsi Ranger]

Rinku--

There has only been one official release of Powerstick Man, which would be the one that you reviewed for OHR Monthly #4. From our chats on ICQ, I was under the impression that you missed out on some of the game, seeing as how some of the things that I asked you about you haven't actually seen yet (as of that time). Of course there was that blatant question I once asked if you had finished it, and I seem to recall you saying that you didn't.

But given the fact that you're talking about having reached Demo Man tells me that you did finish it, or at least got to the furthest story progression point, so if that was before the review, then the review is accurate. If it was after the review, then maybe not so much. Even still though, the demo has a definite ending. If you haven't gone through the Awards Ceremony and seen the "The End" screen with a score at the bottom, then you haven't finished it. Demo Man is just the character I used to signal that you're ready to end the game.

As far as multiple releases go, as I've said before, there was only one official release of the game. I remember sending at least one update to O:OHR to fix a couple bugs that I missed upon initial release, but that would've been within a week or two of the first release. The only other version floating around right now is a V1.1 that adds a few items to make the gameplay a little easier, and complete access to the five maps that I originally closed off until the next big update, but I only gave that one out to a handful of people (you may have been one of them, but I don't remember--wouldn't surprise me if you were).

I won't have the game finished anytime soon. Figure there will be another major "demo" release sometime down the road, and that release will only cover about 50% or 60% of the game (if that). The version you'll want to review is V3, since that will be the complete how-in-the-world-did-I-ever-manage-to-finish-this-game release. That's assuming you'll be up to reviewing it.

And yes, it's still being worked on, just sloooooowly.

About my opinions of two types of reviews:

That's actually in many ways how I think about the review process. Which brings me to clarify my position as a reviewer (or so you all call me).

I think the reason why my reviews are so effective is because they're not actually reviews, but critiques. Critiquing is something you do to help the author improve his or her work. Sometimes it means pointing out the good things. Sometimes it means pointing out the bad. Typically it'll point out both. Obviously, critiquing is very important to the development process, which is why it's so important for demos. That's also why my reviews tend to be so long. In the real world, those reviews of mine would never make it to publication because they're about three times the length of a normal professional review. But that's because they're not reviews. Demos need critiques.

Finished games don't really need to be critiqued because they're finished. That's the point when it's time to review them as a review. If you go back and read my last post, you'll see that the nature of the review as a review applies mostly to step one, which is commenting on whether or not the game does what it's meant to do. Only a completed game truly deserves a review. Unless the author plans on rebuilding the game after it's finished, it doesn't need a critique. Only demos truly need critiques, and that's the point of step two. Demos don't need reviews. They need help.

So that's one thing that I wanted to clarify. Granted even my reviews of finished games run a little long, but they don't really need to. That's just how I write--probably because there are so many games that aren't finished that I just get stuck in a mode.

Inferior Minion--

Having said my peace about the differences between reviewing and critiquing, I've been a bit concerned about the outdating of reviews myself. But there is one more thing to consider (something that you may or may not be able to filter). Sometimes a person will download a game, let it sit in their download box for months, and then decide to open the zip file and play it. There's a chance that in that interim period between downloading and playing, the author of the game could upload a new version. Should the player decide to review the game, he or she will essentially make the review obsolete before it's even posted.

So maybe dating the files wouldn't be such a bad idea. It would be nice to have a release date field in the game description anyway.

And I vote for the "Current Version," "Previous Versions" system.
_________________
Progress Report:

The Adventures of Powerstick Man: Extended Edition

Currently Updating: General sweep of the game world and dialogue boxes. Adding extended maps.

Tightfloss Maiden

Currently Updating: Chapter 2