Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Why Are Some Great Games Panned and Some Inferior Games Praised? (soldnersecretwars.de)
dryriver writes: A few years ago I bought a multiplayer war game called Soldner: Secret Wars that I had never heard of before. (The game is entirely community maintained now and free to download and play at www.soldnersecretwars.de.) The professional reviews completely and utterly destroyed Soldner -- buggy, bad gameplay, no single-player mode, disappointing graphics, server problems and so on. For me and many other players who did give it a chance beyond the first 30 minutes, Soldner turned out to be the most fun, addictive, varied, satisfying and multi-featured multiplayer war game ever. It had innovative features that AAA titles like Battlefield and COD did not have at all at the time -- fully destructible terrain, walls and buildings, cool physics on everything from jeeps flying off mountaintops to Apache helicopters crashing into Hercules transport aircraft, to dozens of trees being blown down by explosions and then blocking an incoming tank's way. Soldner took a patch or three to become fully stable, but then was just fun, fun, fun to play. So much freedom, so much cool stuff you can do in-game, so many options and gadgets you can play with. By contrast, the far, far simpler -- but better looking -- Battlefield, COD, Medal Of Honor, CounterStrike war games got all the critical praise, made the tens of millions in profit per release, became longstanding franchises and are, to this day, not half the fun to play that Soldner is. How does this happen? How does a title like Soldner, that tried to do more new stuff than the other war games combined, get trashed by every reviewer, and then far less innovative and fun to play war games like BF, COD, CS sell tens of millions of copies per release and get rave reviews all around?
Fly in to see and test the game. Free swag. Pictures with the hot ladies. Advertising money for your website.....
This happens with everything. Movies, books, music... With a large enough population of players there are bound to be some who enjoy games that most of the world didn't enjoy, add then you have some that are just overlooked.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3 Major Gaming Scandals That Were Buried | Fact Hunt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Beware its a monetized youtube vid so expect an ad roll.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
You can put all features together and every one of them buggy, or you can polish and release one FINISHED feature at a time.
People are going for the latter.
Reviewers will spend a very limited amount of time on any given game. If it is buggy when it is first released they aren't going to wait around for it to get patched. The exception might be AAA titles from large studios where the reviewer might hedge their review if they think it might affect their getting pre-release copies in the future.
Not everyone values the same features in the same way, and it's really really easy to make assumptions. Complexity vs simplicity, replay value vs. seeing everything the first time through, etc. Variety doesn't give an inherently better experience compared to something well polished. Really tiny changes to things like matchmaking can vastly change the experience, and really small UI stumbling blocks, can actually be a massive frustration; not because some users are dumb, but because they want something with literally zero frustrations in the limited time they can play. There's not even anything inherently wrong with players who really like shiny graphics. If that's what they enjoy, then good on them.
Even assuming that more accurate physics makes a more playable game seems pretty disingenuous.
Food critics will pan KFC, but if it is exactly what you are aching for RIGHT now it will be hard to believe people wouldn't eat it everyday. It doesn't make the critics wrong, but rather that tastes vary.
How much fun you have playing a game is all about entirely subjective things. Theres no objective way to measure how fun a game is. Different people enjoy different things about games and will change how they feel at different times in their lives, based on their experiences. Going back in middle age and playing a game you loved as a teen you will likely have a very different experience. You might like games that I hate. I might like games you hate. People are different and people change.
Reviews can't really be trusted. Other peoples impressions can't be trusted. Just try the game and see if you like it. Same with lots of things.
Thats all. This isn't even a 'story'.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
See title.
The last, oh 20 years, has been about graphics over gameplay.
>making it through the first thirty minutes
Time is money, people. If it's not reviewable in 15 minutes, it's going to get a bad review.
--
BMO
Why would games be different than any form of artistic expression, like books, movies, music, paintings, sculpture, architecture? Different people value different things, and sometimes even when there's some critical consensus, you might radically disagree with the critics. Check out Rotten Tomatoes sometime to see if there's any 95% fresh movies you hate or 37% fresh movies you love. I'm sure you'll find that there are indeed some.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
My theory is that soldner was buggy, had bad gameplay, had no single-player mode, had disappointing graphics, and server problems.
While you point out that soldner was innovative, you don't refute any of the criticisms made of the game. So it seems like you already know the answer. Perhaps, to you, those things could be overlooked because it was so innovative. That might work for geeks and indie fans, but the general public needs things to work the first time. The game is a decade old. Even if the bugs are fixed now, it is too late to change history.
The metacritic reviews for soldner seem to confirm the criticisms. Even the positive reviews complain it is buggy.
Here's the top user reviews:
...if people will try using the online patches then they will think "hey look Söldner isn't buggy", instead of thinking "buggy piece of s**
It's a shame there's so many negative reviews, but what you have to realize is these reviews were written over ten years ago, the game is still going
I think your observations could be generalized to apply to music/fashion/art, etc. I think it boils down to style over substance.
I think you posses the rare trait of recognizing substance over "style".
Popular things that attract the largest audience, generally value "style" over substance, Hollywood blockbusters, shows like the Kardashians, Pop Music, etc are slick and make tons of money but are mostly disposable, there is not much style behind them but they are hyped up and packaged and legitimized, so consumers eat them up.
People have a very drastic view on what is great. Some people want a game with polished graphics and complex story. While others want a game with simple graphics and something you can play for a few minutes and put down. Then you got all the people in the middle. So you compromise and make something that while may not be great will not be considered a disaster as well. So you get an optimal number of people using it.
This is the same reason say the News doesn't cover the topics in details that they deserve. Too much detail will bore people who may not be interested in the topic, while too little info insults the people who want to get some additional info.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"How does a title like Soldner, that tried to do more new stuff than the other war games combined, get trashed by every reviewer, and then far less innovative and fun to play war games like BF, COD, CS sell tens of millions of copies per release and get rave reviews all around?"
Simple. Because Soldner isn't, in a roundabout way, paying the reviewers' salaries. There's no way the reviewers can make money off it, and it's competition to games made by companies that give them money, freebies and other nice stuff.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
1) First impressions can determine how much effort people will make to learn a new game interface and take the time to get familiar with game modes and strategies. A basic tutorial mode or introductory single player mode is usually the thing that draws me in and carries me thru to trying the multiplayer modes.
2) After that there needs to be ready access to servers with people on them. This is always difficult before a game has gained popularity.
3) Community feeling and friendliness towards new players is probably the most crucial aspect in determining if first-time triers are going to come back, and whether the game community will survive. I have enjoyed quite a few multiplayer games which for a time had huge numbers of followers, but when "elite" players started to feel that newly joined people should be treated like useless wankers, instead of being encouraged and guided, those communities dried up pretty damned fast.
Still, before any of that matters, marketing and exposure have to get the product into people's awareness, and as you say, the reviews can ruin a good product release.
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
Why Are Some Great Movies Panned and Some Inferior Movies Praised?
Why Are Some Great Books Panned and Some Inferior Books Praised?
Because people have different tastes?
Because there are times when critics are completely out of touch with the intended audience?
Because they are shilling for the big publishers to get free playstations?
Take your pick.
Everybody loves payday!
Most commenters will rail on about the 'gaming press' and some of them might be old enough to recall that many (if not most) of the game press were nothing more than a blog in decades past. Also game reviews are opinions. Something that gets lost to many nerds. There is no way to review games in a scientific and concrete form, it's all down to the reviewers opinion. This is why you need to find a reviewer you trust/agree with/relate to and ignore most of the rest. As to your fun game, enjoy it. It has acceptable but not particularly great graphics and that alone will get it killed in the major review cycle. Many game reviews are driven by clicks (just like when they were blogs) and the most clicks win. So they review the modern pieces, not an ARMA retread, even a good ARMA retread. Also it appears to be yet another MMO FPS PVP where griefing is the major point of the game (correct me if I'm wrong). Have fun.
Ask Slashdot: Why Are Some Great Games Panned and Some Inferior Games Praised?
Ask Slashdot: why does this guy think his opinion is the objective truth, so everyone else's must be wrong?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It's not properly balanced at all. There are weapons and Plasmids/Gene Tonics that do the same thing (you have chemical thrower that does fire, ice, and lightning; making the equivalent tonics unneeded). You can craft an unlimited amount of rockets to destroy Big Daddies. Only a handful of enemy types. No inventory system.
Deus Ex had better enemy/vulnerability balancing. In the System Shock games, there was at least the threat of running out of ammunition (especially in SS2).
Since about 2000 I've relied mostly on the opinions of friends and people on forums, rather than reviews. So I don't buy games the day they're released (need a few weeks or months for online communities to build up a consensus), and I never pre-order anymore. I'll still read reviews for things like features in the game (though gameplay videos on YouTube have mostly replaced that). But I usually ignore the reviewer's opinion about a game, unless the opinion is negative.
How does a title like Soldner, that tried to do more new stuff than the other war games combined, get trashed by every reviewer, and then far less innovative and fun to play war games like BF, COD, CS sell tens of millions of copies per release and get rave reviews all around?
Soldner took a patch or three to become fully stable,
It sounds like you have already answered your own question.
Maybe people don't like your crap game?
God this is written like a PR piece posed as a question.
It's rampant.
This is pretty much the posterboy article for "ethics in games journalism". But there seems to be little ethics, and more importantly, not really any games journalism.
In the past, when there was sort of a thing as games journalism, it was because there were very few media outlets for discussing games. You had some magazines with nationwide distribution, and that was about it. Since many gamers took their queues from these magazines, the magazines had a motivation to provide a fair environment (their subscription fee or face value of magazine), games companies had plenty of motivation to give them early review copies (they would have their game covered before it came out, building hype), and they had every motivation to buy advertisements (perfectly targeted ad).
Once everything went online, this broke. First, there's too damned many "game journalists" now. Because it's interesting and fun, there's no shortage of willing games journalists and bloggers. Since some people just come for the hype, a reviewer who just sucks every cock poked at him will do just fine in the marketplace, and someone who just generally is genuinely entertaining can do even better. This means that there's no reason for a game company to treat any given magazine, fanzine, blogger, or website even remotely fairly. Second, no one is paying subscriptions any more. Not only are some people willing to do it for effectively free ("brand building"!), plenty of places are entirely ad driven. That means that their readers are no longer part customer, part product- they are now entirely product. Third, the direct interface of the web has dramatically hurt the entire idea. Not only can I got directly to the developer's website and read their promo or ad copy to my heart's content, I can also find people on the very first day discussing it in forums.
Games are a product, not a natural phenomena, not a political opinion, and sometimes not even art. How can you call covering a product "journalism"? It is quite fair to call it advertising, even if the writer wasn't directly paid to shill the product, even if he didn't get it early, or for free, etc.
"Games journalism", if it existed, would look like Consumer Reports. It would be subscription only. The testing would be done blind. The reviews would make some attempt at being scientific, with space for editorialization (especially needed for the artistry that games often have, and dishwashers normally do not).
But that doesn't exist, or I've never heard of it.
So some shitty games get massive press because they pay for it, one way or another. These companies don't keep around their marketing departments for no fucking reason, after all. They don't drop dollars on ads for no reason either. A lot of this also makes an errant assumption regarding gamers and their reasons to game: while some are probably seeking The Best Experience, others just want to have fun with their friends, or with a broader group of acquaintances- for them, finding a popular game will be more rewarding than finding a masterful one.
If you, personally, want to find a game to play, you have more tools than ever. You can look at the now decayed husk of the games journalists of the past, you can read the ad copy, you can find promo videos on youtube, you can confine your google search to reddit or voat or whatever, you can follow a youtube personality who has similar tastes to you, and some games even offer a trial period where you can determine whether you like it or not. It is frustrating if you try to fit the square peg of last century's comprehensive and mostly neutral point of view advance reviews into the round hole of a constantly updated online product that markets other products to you from inside itself, but it can be more reasonable if you widen the net you cast, which is vastly easier than it used to be.
The video game industry has long been most concerned with the superficial aspects of a game: primarily graphics and sound, and more recently online/MM aspects. These are the simplistic aspects that are easy to quantify and turn into sales drivers. The actual game play experience, which is more than just its appearance, is always somehow relegated to secondary importance because many elements are subjective. Classic cases of style over substance, and form over function.
Games in the past could do everything they wanted because they were custom-coded. Nowadays you're lucky if you get a unique game engine once per console generation (five years).
I don't know games, but I know movies.
Anyone that knows movies well knows that some of the best movies ever made were initially panned by critics. "The Producers" is a classic, but it was almost not released, and only given a full release after Peter Sellers saw it, and took out a full page add for a full release. Even then it got mixed reviews. Bladerunner was also panned by critics, and only became a cult classic on videotape years later. It's a Wonderful Life? Same story.
The truth is, reviewers aren't perfect, and often times don't see things with fresh eyes, but with jaundiced ones. Sometimes things are just released at a bad time, before people are ready for them. All media is consumed in a context. Some things age better than others. T
he popular answers here are simply ones of money, bias, etc. That's probably true.. but I'd still say the bigger factor is simply just reviewers aren't as good as we think they are.
Maybe Soldner sucks less now, with twelve years of fan patches, but when it came out it was utter ass.
If you could keep it from crashing, and then if you could manage to get it to see the internet, when you found a server and connected then the server would crash.
I wouldn't call it ENTIRELY unplayable, but close to it.
And that umlaut didn't help either.
Not really true, good reviewers will try to complete the game. Though this will lead them to shit on time wasting mechanics like collection quests.
Because taste is subjective, you dumb fuck.
Remember when the Wii came out? It had inferior graphics, relying on a generation-old graphics processor. But people absolutely loved it. They didn't care about the cartoon-quality graphics. It was simply fun to play.
I think a lot of game enthusiasts get so caught up in technical accuracy that they forget about playability and fun.
...that once a game is released, it's on the short track to OLD NEWS.
Sure, some MMOs remain in the news, but this is more like the exception that proves the rule.
Today, with the (stupid) pre-Alpha, open Beta, soft-launch crap, the marketing engines are desperately front-loading their coverage. NOBODY promotes games that are out and released, there's little milk available in that cow (at least according to conventional wisdom).
If a game takes 6 months of patches for it to become "not suck" then it's too late, the only ones still giving it a go are the die-hards that will not stop beating a dead horse anyway.
And, let's be honest: there are so many games out there with new cutting edge stuff being released, I can hardly fault the gaming public for not giving a hoot about some game from a couple of years ago that doesn't stink now.
There are TONS of games that fall into this category: single player games like Vampire the Masquerade, or MMOs like WW2OL. Games that released just a bit too underdone to be worth sticking with, but that eventually became terrific...too late for anyone to care.
Life's not fair.
-Styopa
One word answer is in the subject line.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
This and many of the other reviews make it sound like at the time it was released it was a buggy mess. Reviewers said that the single player was worthless (you don't say), and that the multiplayer net code was so bad that players and vehicles would warp all the time. Maybe this has improved with patches over the last ten years.
At the time there was a backlash against publishers that would ship games early that were full of bugs. Many reviewers would only review based on the initial release version in response, to get the publishers to stop releasing games early and treating paying customers like beta testers. It sounds like if the game is so much fun to play, it may have fallen victim to the publisher's decision to release it before it was ready.
Something about art being subjective, and everyone's tastes being different.
Maybe you like things that are simply not commercially popular?
Well not I've triggered your attention I hate to say it but this kind of really is exactly what Gamer Gate was, at least, supposed to be about. There really do seem to be real inconstancy between the over all quality of the players gaming experience compared to what people expect when they read first reviews of the latest games. And we can only dodge that fact for so long. It's a few years past that idiotic pissing patch that GG turned into and the situation just hasn't really gotten any better.
And in the end, you probably can't even trust any of them. Everyone's going to have a bias on way or the other, so pick a few places with decent honest coverage and do your own aggregation.
Advertising, word of mouth, what your clan decides on
On the subject of word of mouth this game is a great example, you had me sold. I really
enjoy BF3, my shooting is really bad yet my points come from taking flags, if being sold
as being better than BF3 I went looking.
(Sorry about this post it wasn't meant to turn out this way).
My site for gaming info is Gamesfaq.com, Checking out Soldner for it's enjoyment level
(forums) and for it's platform (Linux, oh pls, oh pls).
You built it up to the point I was going to give it a try, it was my type of game.
Going to the site to see what it was all about, I'm afraid only two cheats (not really
cheats but tricks and easter eggs) and one review was given, titled "Soldner lowers
standards for games everywhere"" 04/11/05 Temp89 and one star.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/561...
I've been going to this site for a long time for walkthroughs, a deader area I've never
encountered.
I believe you in it being better than BF3 and I really wanted to give it a try, yet with
really nothing written on it and zero forum questions, that type of activity over 11
years tells me that finding on-line players on a server would a rarity, or be only
one or two servers seeing any real active.
That game has been on gamesfaq.com for 11 years and never seen any real activity.
I didn't read the review I really didn't' want to know.
To answer your question, it was visiting this site that put the brakes on for me, as from
what I saw nobody not only didn't like it, nobody even cared enough to publish an FAQ.
Normally a race to be the first.
I participated in the beta of this game.
80.000 square kilometers of map terrain (playable maps would be taken from this terrain and edited for game use (objects and objectives would be added to limited part of the terrain, everything out of the playingfield was without details/objects/objectives)
Every branch of the militairy was availlable (Army, Navy, Airforce) From motorbikes to jetski's, armoured transports (amphibious even) and battle tanks, helicopters and jets. Even a selection of Anti-Air weapons etc. Even scuba gear was availlable (Before EA's BF series had them)
Yes, the potential was huge.
The distributers/producers (JoWood) didn't want to invest anymore at a certain point in time and dropped the game.
Some people of the community kept on developing the game for themselves. It was never finished.
Not going into the bad parts of the game since there are.
The disc is a nice coaster though.
A shame really.
Honest amusing video reviews
He speaketh the truth.
One word rebuttal is in the subject line.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I hate to say it but this kind of really is exactly what Gamer Gate was, at least, supposed to be about.
So what you're telling me is that under all the sexism and trolling that what GamerGate was really about was objecting to reviewers giving low ratings to a game that took years of patches to become not incredibly buggy.
Dude, you're not selling it very well.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
As others have said, it's partly because of the money involved. AAA games get better reviews.
But I also think a large part of it is just that most reviewers have shit taste and don't appreciate good games.
This might be due to being brainwashed by the games they usually play, or that their socio-economic background does not enable them to understand more sophisticated works.
Most reviewers has played the game for a couple of hours. They have not really learned to play the game and get good at it. They do not know, if its has a lasting playability, or if its contains many hidden bugs thats not visible from just trying out the game. The less they play the game, the faster they can send out a review to their subscribers. Cause in this world, it's all about being first to get the views.
So most reviews is about the first few parts of the game. The initial visual effects and how you are introduced to the game. Maybe as long as the first 3rd of the game.
The goal of the publisher/developers of the game is to create hype. So that so many as possible buy the game from start. So they can get back the investments into the game asap. For that, they need good game reviews. Alot of hype to build up press coverage. The game nees to bee mentioned in the press so more people hear about the game.
Many follow the hype. Wants to be the first among their friends who has the new cool game. So they buy into the game and are the first to play it. This does not have to be AAA games from AAA developers, it can also be indie games like "No Mans Sky". Who might be a good and innovative game, but in the end is not maybe all what it was said it should be. That is also true for alot of AAA games. But they sell more since its a big publisher behind it.
Those wanting to be first to review the game or play the game is actually like the people posting "First post" on message forums. They seek to be notorious but noone really likes them for it. What people really want is good review who give a good understanding of the game and its underlaying mechanics. At least if you are a serious gamer who is in it for playing the game and not someone who does it to be in the incrowd and be cool among your friends.
Well, the game makers who take their money for it, love them. Then they go back to the drawin board to make the next AAA title. Actually most developers of games does it for the love of games. For the fun of playing games and making them. It's just so they need the money to pay the bills for the next big game.
Many game don't stand the test of time. Other do. Its hard to know which ones who will unless you play the game for a longer period of time.
Just saying it like it are.
And a reliable marketing budget that allows the dev to "convince" the reviewers to play through the bugs.
I just don't get... eh, ugh... never mind. This post wasn't worth the research I put into it.
Onced worked with Activision UK (before the last bancrupcy) and the head honcho BOASTED how he personally wrote the 'reviews' for Activision games in the leading UK gaming mags of the time. It was his 'right' he said for the ads and gifts/free trips the PRETEND journos of the magazine received from Activision.
Now this was back in the days of the NES, Atari ST and Amiga. But today, a smaller game title that makes COD or Battlefield look BAD because it innovates whereas they never do will be TRASHED as Activision and EA spend big money paying the media outlets to protect their dull-witted franchises.
Doesn't always happen, though. CDPR, with Witcher, took a small indy open-world game to mega success because the main competition (Bethesda) doesn't play that kind of dirty PR pool. OTOH Fallout 4 (mediocre as all hell) made far more than twice what Witcher 3 made- cos actually good open-world games don't compete with each other, but help build a general demand.
Sorry you were #triggered, cuck.
but better looking -- Battlefield, COD, Medal Of Honor, CounterStrike war games got all the critical praise
There was a period shortly after the release of Counter-Strike: Source when you could consider it "better looking" than the competition. That period lasted about a year. Every other version of CS has been behind the times in graphics because they were released so long after the original engine was written.
And besides, the series features gameplay on a much smaller, tighter, more tactical scale than the other four games he is comparing it to.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I had Soldner. It did, in fact, suck. It sucked hard.
is, as gamergate proved, as reliable as regular media
as simple as that
now hide, before the russians hack you
It might cost a few thousand US$ or much more but for that sites play the game and include your own art work as supplied.
Its all in who that first trusted email or link for the game press.
Step 1. Make a good game with graphics, sound, art, plot.
Step 2. Write you life story, games concept, issues the developers faced and worked out, the completed result.
Step 3. Hire a consultant, team or company to create you press release for review sites to use.
The length and structure of the paragraphs will read well, the many images are ready, videos will be ready for a web site, magazine, blog. Contact details for a radio interview or other emerging or other media.
Color separation, dpi, resolution, web ready, video, developer photos and their stories. Does it still matter? Your press pack has it all ready for publication. Its all ready for the press, blogs, internet.
All contact information for later interviews will be correct and cover everything from phone, fax, social media, email.
Old media is new again, social media is 24/7. Bloggers and online reviewers may have huge audiences. Even political, historical or social aspects can get coverage from talk back radio or very different blogs or sites. Be ready and open to respond to anyone and everyone wanting an interview at any time.
Make sure such emails, calls and other contact information is been tracked and can be respond to 24/7 after the release. Don't expect the media to fit in with your time zone. Different media in different time zones have to be considered.
All images, art will have the correct legal wording to allow for instant publication.
Step 4. Read your review reworded with play testing and see your included great art over a lot of trusted review sites.
Some effort is needed to be print or web ready. Be ready to talk, chat or for a more formal interview.
Been interview ready to fit in with any time and different formats (voice only, video) also helps.
Translation services with some local aspect to the game can help spread packaged coverage globally.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Or it's likely that what the OP enjoys isn't the same as everyone else.
Marketing and Exposure.
It's not about how games are great or inferior being praised or not, it is about marketing and exposure.
Only the top 10% of the bell curve of players try and look for better or greater games themselves, the other 40% of the bell curves do it only with advertisement, recommendation and other forms of marketing / Exposure. The last 50% of the bell curves do it after the marketing trend effect.
It is not directly related to the question, but you are also now one of the top 10% who has the power to recommend the other 40% to try this game.