You don't have to be new to reviews to know that goes without saying. Everything he's written is "as he experienced it".
Yeah, the one thing I've pretty much ignored so far is trying to prevent the AI from getting certain cards. I think largely because it's hard to figure out what it's going to want. Maybe if I learned how the cards work together more, I'd have a better idea as to what the AI's strategy is. So are 3-4 player games much different than a 2 player game?
Not everyone knows that. You would know from the people I've seen in my line of volunteering as tech support in many places. They may be unreasonable people, but they are also customers.
That's hardly the reviewer's fault. The very point of almost any review is that you're reading the opinion of one person based on what they've experienced and what they know. There are people who don't know which hole to insert peanuts into, but you can't just blame the manufacturers for not providing explicit instructions.
I basically said that after calming myself down. It's mostly those unreasonable people's faults. But to know that those unreasonable people are also customers, is to help out with the sales of an app even more. As a reviewer, you can utilize that. I'm only trying to maximize sales, technical as it may be. And if you think I'm crazy, I'm only bored. I almost never do this when I actually have things to do.
I'm not sure why you two are so incredibly butt hurt over me having some issues with this game. If you read the review, you'll see that there's a lot that I do like about it and it ended with me recommending people give it a try. I mentioned my experience with card games because I've played a ton of card games over the years, it's not hyperbole, it's relevant. And sorry, but the art is terrible.
The Mac-Windows analogy would be a factual mistake. Eli's appreciation of the relative amount of chance in Ascension might be such a mistake, but without a considerable amount of testing, comparison and statistics, it is hard to say. I believe he is right. However, your comparison is most probably not applicable, as a game running on Windows when it is said not to is a clear-cut and very obvious factual mistake, unlike the amount of chance inherent in a game's mechanics, something that is hard to test thoroughly. I doubt you have enough empirical evidence to call Eli out on a similarly apparent factual mistake where the amount of chance in Ascension's mechanics are concerned. Most card games has chance/luck that can be fought, as you put it (in fact, it is a staple of many CCGs), so that is is no way exclusive to Ascension, and it does seem to me that Ascension's mechanics are influenced by luck to an extent at least on a par with many CCGs. Compared to my experience of board games, Ascension might actually be more chance-based than the bulk. As I wrote on the previous page, and as Hodapp and MidianGTX point out, it is the basis for any work of journalism that aims to review a work of art or an entertainment product. Not everyone might know it, but it IS common knowledge to most. Thus, the words "but as I experienced it" are generally superflous, and would amount to little beyond cluttering up reviews. Including that phrase before *every* opinion expressed in a review is not viable. Assume that ANY expressed sentiment is a subjective opinion, unless it is backed up by statistics, empirical evidence, or inherent/inclusive logic.
Also, amusingly enough, most of the reviews of the physical version of Ascension harp on the sheer randomness of the game. It's not like this is some brand new phenomenon that I just discovered.
It was a metaphor, not to be taken literally. I'm only trying to relate what was happening here, although it is high on the scale of stupidity to make that kind of mistake in which I have explained. It's easy to misunderstand the point at which I'm trying to explain there. No blame to anyone but myself. This was well put. Still, to the measure at which I have played a lot of card games, board games, and this game, I still believe Ascension still has less luck involved more than anything I've played. This COULD be a subjective matter, but there is a foundation of any game's logic that can be interpreted differently, but then sought the same by many people once it is finally explained. It's a very hard concept to explain, but finding the very core logic of a game is a mastery of it, and I claim to have struck the core after being quite addicted to it. I could try to make an example, but I'm afraid I'm bad at analogies. I already know the basis. I'm just attempting to correct wording for the reviewer to those unreasonable who don't know the basis, so that the app can maximize sales through utilizing advertisement as the reviewer. Sheer randomness? What made them think of that?
I am not butt hurt I said you did a good review and that I agreed with some of it, and didn't agree with other points. as far as your opinion on art there is really only 3 other review so far that i could find googling and as you can see beauty is in the eye of the beholder... boardgamegeek review: "The graphic design in Ascension is beautiful. From the splash screen to the game end victory screen, everything is done with style. Luckily for us iOS users they have used and maintained the interesting art from the original game and have even found creative ways to use it (such as having certain characters selectable as in game avatars)" gamezebo review: "One of the things I really liked about Ascension is the hand drawn look to the artwork on all the cards, and how the different in game factions have their own style. There's no mistaking a Void card for a Lifebloom one, but look great side by side on the table. I was happy to see all this great art carried over and appear in the game" no high scores review: "I liked its simple rules, cool art, and ease of play" anyway keep up the good reviews and don't get so "butt hurt" when you get a little bit of criticism. imo at least the cards don't look like they came out of a generic tolkien generator, a dio album, or some chevy van from 1972 ala magic the gathering.
I'm confused are you saying I should use other people's reviews for the basis of my opinion on a game when publishing a review on TouchArcade as part of some kind of crowdsourced review process?
Of course it isn't. That's where my random anger came from. Like I said quite a few times already, I was bored, so I ranted. My fault there. Still, you will have inevitable and endless complaints as a reviewer, and being subjective is part of your job. I just thought it would be nice if a reviewer was dead-on accurate for once, while still being subjective. It'd be nice rep while you are giving out correct information for everyone, while maximizing sales. But that's obviously entirely optional. I already said it was my fault, I ended up producing arguments rather than some insight.
Ok, THAT's hyperbole. C'mon, it's not terrible. There aren't really bad lines or grossly incorrect proportions, etc. It's very stylized - certainly not for everyone. Is it comparable to Magic and other high end card art? No, but it's not awful. I'm an artist myself, and I've seen a lot of bad art - heck, just go visit deviantart.org to see some.
Nothing in my review is inaccurate on any level per my two weeks of playing the iOS version of the game and playing the physical game with friends on random game nights over the course of the last year since it came out.
Along with my luck factor that I have tried to thoroughly explain in another post. The inaccuracy is that it's actually very easy to get into an online game for a lot of people, making it look like you were inaccurate to those on the comments that think otherwise, but probably because it was without experiencing it enough to see that point. It could end up being on and off depending on the time zones. In a way, it's inaccuracy because you didn't mention that it's probably on and off with the popularity, but it's only optional to bring that accuracy as I said. You just need to list your experience really. It's all optional to be as accurate as possible. Plus, to experience that the popularity would be on and off (or just growing) would be tiresome. So it would tedious to find that. So in a way I would be asking too much there.
My experience with online play has been very hit or miss, with some games going fine, other games not getting off the ground, and multiplayer games rarely being played to completion. So in your eyes, my review should disregard my difficulty with matchmaking and instead cite the experiences of others? Do you understand what a review is? Honestly I'm beginning to think I'm just being trolled here by you being intentionally obtuse to quell your admitted boredom.
I would explain further, but I might as well stop trying to get down to a point as you find this troublesome. I'm trying not to troll, honestly. I'm now and have always been just expressing what I think would be nice to see, but it's really hard sharing that viewpoint as it looks like. There is NO need at all for you to continue this conversation, and there has never been. Although I do appreciate your time a whole lot as to discuss this. My intention, was to perhaps maybe find an improvement in a certain logic, but right now, I've grown rather tired explaining what I think. It was merely a bill to the government that did not pass for now because maybe I haven't thought it through enough. But I still thank you for your time.
Really, that's how you reply? Obviously I don't want you to do that, and you know I don't. nice. Anyway, what I have been saying is, calling something "laughably terrible" is a pretty vitriolic something to say for a reviewer. Especially when your talking about something subjective and even more so when it doesn't jibe with almost other reviews.
