|
|
Post by fury on Apr 23, 2012 14:50:09 GMT -5
videogamecritic.net/vecal.htm?ext=20144#I,_Cyborg Ouch!  Ok, so normally I wouldn't comment on a review of one of my games, but I received a couple of emails this morning about this one. In one email the person asked if the guy has some sort of "beef" with me. Honestly, I have no idea who he is, so I doubt it. I remember seeing his Vectrex reviews years ago, and knew that his site was not something that I would be interested in visiting often. Just checking through the scores on Vectrex games this morning, I remember clearly what annoyed me back then, and that was that he gave John's Patriots game a grade of "C" while giving a game like Blitz an "A". His reviews are all over the place, with big love for sports games regardless of the quality. To call himself "the" Video Game Critic, he'll need to learn to fairly critique games of all genres. It seems that his quality of writing is also just very poor, whether giving a good or a bad score. In the I, Cyborg review, he says "my friends would usually say" and "my friend Scott was like..." Seriously, is that a review? He admits to giving up on the game, so his review is worthless. He complains that there's no scoring system, but the game isn't based on a scoring system so how is that complaint valid? On a side note, he also gave Dark Tower a "D" rating, and I, Cyborg has been compared to Dark Tower in the past. Maybe that shows some consistency! dmrozek.websitetoolbox.com/post/2012422-Vectrex-I-Cyborg-Nebula-Commander-Tour-De-France-5809377dmrozek.websitetoolbox.com/post/Worst-Reviews-1892820?trail=30He's of course entitled to his opinions, no matter how wrong those opinions might be! ;D On a serious note, you would think that after writing reviews for so many years that his writing and style would have improved.
|
|
|
|
Post by VectorX on Apr 23, 2012 15:55:21 GMT -5
In regards to his reviews being "all over the place", yeah, just look at his review for Tunnel Runner for the Atari 2600. It's absolutely an AMAZING game considering what it's running on (uh, pardon that pun  ) (ok, so it was one of those "RAM Plus" games, but you know!). Originally he gave it a B- or something. Then he got to the later levels when he couldn't figure out where he was when it stops showing you on the map (which isn't that hard to figure out!), so he changed his review to a D. To rate T. Runner that low is total crap. He also can't figure out why there's a "use" for the spray? C'mon, it's rather mandatory! Plus he doesn't know how to input the codes...sheesh. So he's judging this game by just the first area. Granted, I'm not going to *totally* rag on Dave though--I think he's just not that good at games in general, leading to some "incorrect" opinions on them when he can't figure them out--since I've corrected several of his mistakes and sent him in some screenshots and all that he's needed, and he's been cool about it all. Matter of fact, he was the one who suggested I post about these forums on his. Anyway... He complains that there's no scoring system, but the game isn't based on a scoring system so how is that complaint valid? It can be annoying at times. Sometimes just getting through a game and/or beating it isn't enough. On a side note, he also gave Dark Tower a "D" rating, and I, Cyborg has been compared to Dark Tower in the past. Not the comparison, but that's been another mistake of his, where he said Dark Tower was random, which no, it isn't. You have to make maps to get through the game, to find the keys and all. But that might not raise is score of the game though if he did that! |
|
|
|
Post by fury on Apr 23, 2012 16:05:48 GMT -5
Yes, and I'm glad you mentioned that. It seems very much that when he struggles with a game, it gets a bad review. Look, I SUCK at Protector (I also sucked at Defender in the arcades), but that doesn't mean I won't admit that it's a great game. It is.
In regards to scoring systems, most of my games do have them. But when it's an adventure-type of game, I drop the scoring. With I, Cyborg, the goal is to complete each area to get a code.
|
|
|
|
Post by VectorX on Apr 23, 2012 16:17:08 GMT -5
Yes, and I'm glad you mentioned that. It seems very much that when he struggles with a game, it gets a bad review. Look, I SUCK at Protector (I also sucked at Defender in the arcades), but that doesn't mean I won't admit that it's a great game. It is. About the only time this would warrant a bad review (in my opinion) is when a game is so damn hard you can't even get past one of the earliest stages! I played Flight of the Falcon (or whatever it's called) on the GBA and I never could get past the second stage. And when I did a hunt for passcodes to try out a later stage I couldn't find any past it! That second stage was too damn long, it was ridiculous. Also, I went and re-read his review on Dark Tower. Actually he said the plague was random, NOT the game after all (which he either changed or my memory told me wrong on that one). Are plagues random after all? I only messed around with it on an emulator a little, never really taking it seriously as of yet, since I'd have to map it out. |
|
|
|
Post by celtroniclabs on Apr 23, 2012 16:35:55 GMT -5
He sure thought highly of Star Hawk!
"Was this a real game that people actually paid money for?"
"The first time I saw it, I had to roll my eyes, recognizing yet another game trying to duplicate the Star Wars "trench" scene. We've seen it countless other times (Colecovision's Buck Rogers and Intellivision's Star Strike come to mind), but never done this poorly."
Star Hawk was the first video game, period, to replicate the Star Wars trench scene, not "yet another one".. First time he saw it was in 2005?? Has he been living in a closet? First time I saw it (the real machine) was back in 1978 at a convenience store, while buying a pack of Star Wars trading cards. Remember the cards that came with a stick of chewing gum in the package?
No matter what one thinks of the graphics in this game, considering the original arcade game was coded entirely by hand, in machine code, on legal pads, I think Skelly did an great job with what little he had to work with. Actually it turned out to be a masterpiece compared to what I would have been able to do in the same situation.
The reviewer only seemed to like Rip-Off a little bit more as shown below..
"What saves it from total mediocrity is the ramping challenge and a nice two-player mode. Otherwise it's just another forgettable shooter."
Yet despite these comments, he seems to like Star Castle and Solar Quest ok..
|
|
|
|
Post by VectorX on Apr 23, 2012 16:51:43 GMT -5
"The first time I saw it, I had to roll my eyes, recognizing yet another game trying to duplicate the Star Wars "trench" scene. That was another change he made (although only minor) when he originally said it was "lame" -- the trench -- which I told him it looked almost exactly like the original arcade game. Looks like he later added this though: We've seen it countless other times (Colecovision's Buck Rogers and Intellivision's Star Strike come to mind), but never done this poorly." If I remember correctly (which I'll admit I might not), I don't think that was on there originally, as he changes his reviews from time to time (sometimes for the better, sometimes not). That is something he needs to leave out, as you're right, the later games don't "count". First time he saw it was in 2005?? Has he been living in a closet? You can't see everything the first time around. I saw (and played) it many times myself, but I live in Houston, the fourth largest city in the entire country, which had tons of arcades back in the day. Albert of Atari Age had never seen the cockpit version of Star Fire until he came to an expo here in Houston in 2004 or something either, for example. First time I saw it (the real machine) was back in 1978 at a convenience store, while buying a pack of Star Wars trading cards. Remember the cards that came with a stick of chewing gum in the package?
Hee hee, me! Still have a bunch of those cards too! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by fury on Apr 23, 2012 19:30:23 GMT -5
I just read the Star Hawk review. Completely off-base!
Protector gets an "A" (as it should), but Star Hawk gets a very undeserved "F", and Blitz gets a very undeserved "A", and so on. It's annoying because you can't trust his judgment, and that's the one thing you need at a review site.
I'm not saying he should have given me an "A" for I, Cyborg. Had he given me a "C" I wouldn't have agreed but I wouldn't have posted here today. The "D" grade seems almost angry, as one emailer has expressed to me. In eight years, I think the lowest score that I, Cyborg has received (prior to this review) is 8/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by fury on Apr 23, 2012 20:05:18 GMT -5
And this closing statement...
"I, Cyborg has the building blocks of a great game, but it lacks the fine tuning. Perhaps that's why a sequel is planned for the near future."
...is about as asinine as you can get.
For the record, I'm making a sequel to I, Cyborg because people loved the original game. Not because I feel that the original lacked fine tuning. I, Cyborg is one of my earlier efforts, but it is extremely polished.
I think reviewers need to be more careful, and not throw out little snarky reviews without giving games a fair shake. I think "the critic" needs to come to the realization that he can't base his scores on how well he does in a game.
I, Cyborg is sold out (300 copies), but what if he decided to flippantly post a review of a homebrew game that was just released? What if an undeserved D or F rating destroyed sales for a game author?
|
|
|
|
Post by VectorX on Apr 23, 2012 20:29:07 GMT -5
In eight years, I think the lowest score that I, Cyborg has received (prior to this review) is 8/10. Actually I had given it a 7, but that's still pretty high though. "I, Cyborg has the building blocks of a great game, but it lacks the fine tuning. Why, because the cyborg moves slow (as he said)? In some games, that's the way it is. I don't think it matters, personally (or it doesn't bug ME, let's put it that way). There's barely any slowdown in the game at all, no graphical glitches or other kinds of bugs, etc. Vectrace is in need of "tuning", which he gave an F. The game at very best is a C, F at worst. For the record, I'm making a sequel to I, Cyborg because people loved the original game. Not because I feel that the original lacked fine tuning. I, Cyborg is one of my earlier efforts, but it is extremely polished. Indeed. I've yet to see a glitchy, unpolished 32K game or higher for the Vectrex. Granted, there's several glitches in Vecmania, but that was a 64K cartridge, rather than game (to be splitting hairs here). And most of the glitches were fairly minor. Everything's still very playable. |
|
|
|
Post by fury on Apr 23, 2012 20:38:32 GMT -5
Sorry I left you out  Mainly talking about published reviews over the years. Magazines and the like. |
|
|
|
Post by VectorX on Apr 23, 2012 20:47:00 GMT -5
Sorry I left you out No, I wasn't pointing that *out*, just giving the review. Still doesn't deserve a D either way. (Here's hoping to Dave making it to the second area and then he'll make a correction in regards to why you have to aim your spray in three directions! And btw, is the Flying Filth being dumped by an airplane flying overhead or something, or maybe by the Warbirds?) |
|
|
|
Post by fury on Apr 23, 2012 20:55:12 GMT -5
Honestly, I can't remember anymore. I programmed it between '03 and '04. Some aspects were really well thought out - but maybe not the flying filth |
|
|
|
Post by VectorX on Apr 23, 2012 20:58:25 GMT -5
Last thing I'll ask (I've meant to for a while, and I'm with Dave in how I've never figured this out), are the Shockers' attack patterns random or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by fury on Apr 23, 2012 21:06:47 GMT -5
I think they're random. This is the only "luck" thing in the game as I remember it.
|
|
|
|
Post by VectorGamer on Apr 23, 2012 22:08:19 GMT -5
Is it just one person writing reviews for VGC?
Anyways, I enjoy reading the reviews on that site - they're concise, humorous and at times totally wrong.
|
|
) (ok, so it was one of those "RAM Plus" games, but you know!). Originally he gave it a B- or something. Then he got to the later levels when he couldn't figure out where he was when it stops showing you on the map (which isn't that hard to figure out!), so he changed his review to a D. To rate T. Runner that low is total crap.
