I think what he's trying to say is that some people may read your review and see it as the final word. When I read it, I certainly didn't think that, but it was of course one viewpoint. I came in here to find out if others had the same experience. Others who read that though may not try to get 2nd opinions. I'm not sure there's much you can do about that though except to maybe just make it clear in the review that it's your opinion and yours alone. That of course should be obvious to people, but I don't think everyone sees it that way. It could be something TA does for all articles, but again, it really depends on whether you're concerned about it. I myself don't really think it's that big of a deal. It's ultimately up to the users to form their own opinions, and if they only base those opinions on one source, it's their loss. It's up to the developer, not the media, to ensure information about their game gets out to as many people as possible.
Ha, you get it. I'm merely explaining maybe a courteous way of helping out a developer. It's not mandatory, but it shows you care. We're all not perfect (cliche as it is). People won't always be able to completely get out all information. Helping out one to sell their product better really takes the cake.
Although I agree that the artwork isn't "terrible". In this case it is stylized and it is opinion wether or not someone likes it. On the other hand, there are many games out there were the artwork looks like it was created by a 3 year old - that is considered terrible artwork. So there are better ways to review the artwork. For example: "It has a style that isn't for me." It isn't the reviewers job to help the developer sell games though. I have no idea why you would want a game review to be generous to the game developers. If a game was terrible, would you want him to say good things about it just so he could help the developer? A review is supposed to go over the entire game and give an opinion of it. It doesn't matter if you agree with the opinion or not. If you think the game is for you based on the description, then buy it. Why do you have to waste your time saying the reviewers opinion is wrong? Where does that get you...?
You can still express your opinion, and if it's a positive review you've given and you like it enough, there's always that extra step you can take by playing it a bit more to see if there's anything else you can change or add. If you're a reviewer, you CAN advertise it the way you want. It's all optional yet again though. If you don't like it, well, I guess you can only gently put it down if you don't want to get people TOO angry, although it is inevitable. Might as well soften the blow, or be like most reviewers and not care at all if you want to exaggerate it the other way.
So basically, every review should read: "This game may or may not be good, depending on your own personal taste. Some people will have fun with it, and some will not. You may buy it and be happy that you spent the money, while other people will feel like they wasted it. It will be played for a long time by certain people, while other people will only play it for a short while before growing tired of it...." Etc, etc. The thing is, a review is the opinion of the person who is doing the reviewing. There is no right or wrong, no one review that will speak to absolutely every person. The reason you read reviews is to understand what that one person thought about the thing being reviewed. Otherwise you would just read the product description, no? Factual innacuracies are one thing, but there's no point telling someone that their own opinion is wrong. Because that just makes YOU wrong. As far as I can tell there are no factually wrong parts with the review, and Eli just reported on his own personal experience with the game. YOU might think the online matching is fine, as do other people, but it obviously WASN'T fine during Eli's time with the game. So, perhaps there is a location problem that messes with the online matching in certain areas or something, and in fact a very real portion of the population will have a really hard time finding matches in this game. If Eli just blindly accepts the experience of a few commenters as truth, and writes that in the review, those people who DO have a problem with online matching will be saying the exact same thing that you are now. What I am taking way too long to explain is: just because YOUR opinion of the game differs from Eli's, doesn't make the review wrong. Nor will it ever. That's really the most fundamental definition of a review, one person's opinion which is incapable of either being right or wrong for every person ever. One of the first rules of writing is that you should never refer to yourself in those ways when writing editorial or subjective review-type things. Because it's redundant. YOU wrote the thing that the people are reading, so obviously it's YOUR opinion. Saying things like "in my opinion" in a review is actually considered poor writing. But what if it IS terrible? Who are you to say if his opinion is right or wrong? If I said that Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" was a TERRIBLE song, there's no way you could convince me otherwise. Even though it is one of the most listened to, played, and beloved songs of all time. That doesn't mean I don't think it sucks! (To clarify I absolutely love Led Zeppelin, it was just the example that came to mind)
For one thing, the post of mine you quoted I wouldn't recommend ranting on. Just read my last post. That quote was during me and my rage.. So I corrected myself.
It's too bad some people always want to look for flaws to prove what could be a new way of doing things, false. It's as if it's all a game, and they just want to win something in life. But I do realize there are some people out there that only want to understand it.
It is harder to lead, cause there are more variables during the course of game and simply things change faster and certain effects are magnified : e.g. one monster draws one random card from each opponent's hand when defeated, so if in 2-player game, one gets an extra card, 4-player: 3, so imagine what the effect would be... As for the art thing, I think it is a matter of taste, I think Ascension is alright but I think the art of Kard Combat cards is not pretty much my cup of tea/coffee.
Ok, but why do you think it sucks? If you were a reviewer of music, you would have to know music and what makes a good song.... You would have to dissect what it is about the song that you don't like about it. Saying the artwork is just flat out terrible doesn't make sense. I know a ton of people who would think the artwork for the cards are masterpieces. The line work is great, it is a unique and interesting style, and it is consistent and unified all around. I mean look at old games like "Bounce On" that you guys claimed had great artwork. Now compare the care and detail of the art work that went into each one of these cards to the simple ball and backgrounds in that POS game.
Well, this is directly from the review: First off, the card art is laughably terrible. It seems like placeholder art that just never got refined, and some of the card art flat out looks unfinished. I'm not sure if this is intentional or not, but there is an incredibly odd contrast between how great Ascension is as an iOS game from a technical perspective and how poor the art is. It's easy enough to overlook, but the art totally jumps out in your first moments with the game which leads to some incredibly mediocre initial impressions. He goes on to explain why he thinks it's laughably terrible. You don't have to agree with it, but obviously he feels that the artwork quality is inconsistent to what he would expect based on the quality of the rest of the game. As for Bounce On, you just proved my point. YOU think that artwork sucks, and I don't. People have differing opinions on things and the world keeps spinning 'round.
The problem is that "terrible" is a very strong word and one that can be used in both subjective and objective descriptions (and thus possible to misinterpret). That said, Eli did provide his reasoning for his use of the word. My response was of course my opinion, but having an education and experience in art, my statement is more than just instinctual/reactionary. I think Eli was comparing the art with other TCG art whereas I'm comparing it to other art as well. Hmm...it's hard to say this without coming off sounding arrogant. I think it comes down to if this art is "terrible" then what would he consider the art from a game like Enviro-bear to be? You can't get much lower than "terrible", and there is a LOT of art that's worse than Ascension's.
While I disagree with some of Eli's opinions, I don't have a problem with the review. In fact, I think it shows a great deal of professionalism. Allow me to explain. These days, it is far too common for a reviewer to pick up on an aspect of a game they dislike and spend the bulk of the review savaging that aspect. At the end of the review, I've learned nothing except that the reviewer should be muzzled. For recent examples, have a look at IGNs review of Dynasty Warriors: Gundam 3 for starters. In Eli's case, I might disagree with his assessment of various things, however, in the process of discussing the game he tells readers what they need to know to make a purchasing decision. For instance, he laments that the game is too tactical and not strategic enough. As a MtG player, that might be a negative for him, but it is a big positive for someone like me. As a reader, we have to filter the reviewer's opinions through the lens of our own likes and dislikes. His review gives enough information with which to do that. Personally, I can't stop playing the damned game!
Art is subjective. Always has been, always will be. It's as big of a given as gravity. But a reviewer who refers to a game's art as "laughably terrible" is not only engaging in hyperbole of the lowest sort, he is also setting himself up for criticism and major differences of opinion. Which is fine, if the reviewer can, in fact, take the criticism, which is clearly not the case here. Instead, we're treated to non-stop snarky responses and gems such as, "And sorry, but the art is terrible." This is either the reviewer confusing his opinion with fact, or else simply designed to provoke. Perhaps a mixture of both. "Laughably terrible" is not "the artwork is poor" or "I didn't like the art." It's "Look at me! I'm teh aw3someZ reviewer!" It serves only to undermine both the review and the credibility of the reviewer.
I haven't played online, but definitely think it is worth the upgrade to be able to play with more opponents. It is much harder to win against two medium AI than just one.
Oh good gravy. You know what the best part about this is- If we were talking terrible 3D graphics no one would have any problem with writing them off as such. But since we're talking card art it has brought about this incredibly wacky debate on the merits of art critique.
You should probably go contact him then about it. He may not be reading this thread anymore. Whether I was intentionally trolling or not, his remarks did in fact provoke people to hiss at him fast. But as nice as a reviewer he is, I don't think he can take losing an argument on the interwebz. I respect him, I just wished he didn't try to fight at the little flaws in my argument, and instead focused on the bigger picture that I was getting at, whether I was right or wrong. Edit: Oh look he's back.
No, that's just how you choose to interpret it. Eli seems to have been taken aback by just how bad he thought the art style and quality is, and used colorful wording to express that. There's nothing wrong with that. Go back and re-read how thoughtful the entire review is as a whole. It's not like he was just bashing the art to be a big shot or something, he genuinely didn't like it to a high degree. Other people don't agree, but so what? That doesn't change Eli's own opinion.
lol yeah, but that would indicate that Envirobear's art and Ascension's art are on the same level. They're not, which means "terrible" isn't really the best choice of word. I realize we're getting a bit nitpicky about word choice now, but that's the responsibility of a reviewer - to try to provide a fair and honest review. Once you start introducing exaggeration, etc., it becomes a blog, not a review. That said, I don't really have a problem with Eli's review. I'm not sure I agree with everything, but I do think he was fairly thorough and direct. I think a lot of this entire discussion came about from emotions blaring in reaction to disagreement in the forums rather than a poor review.
