Big rant about game reviews!!

This is not a rant about scores themselves, or even the fact that often a reviewer barely even plays the game for more than half an hour before sitting down to write their 'review' of it. It's something a little different, and it's about how not all games are created from an equal footing.

My gripe is about the way reviewers treat smaller games and game developers. Both professional reviewers, and user reviews, I feel that they are missing the point when it comes to this, and it's such a shame, because these people have such a huge amount of 'power' when it comes to steering people away from and towards certain games. These reviews can have a huge impact on the success or failure of a game. So it's a major issue when one or more of these reviewers give a review with a negative spin. They have great responsibility, but in some cases, are not using it responsibly.

So what I'm getting at is that these reviewers are completely missing the point and are being completely unfair when judging/reviewing games made by small development teams. It's one thing to be a harsh judge of a big budget game like Crysis for example, but it's another thing to do that to a small game. The kind of games I'm talking about are things like Age of Wonders, Darkfall Online, Sins of a Solar Empire, Mount & Blade, Gods: Lands of Infinity, Minions of Mirth, Space Rangers, etc. Even to some extent, games like Call of Juarez too. There are quite a lot of these games which are made by smaller companies. Sometimes it's thirty or so people, but sometimes it's 3 people... This is in relation to the big development companies who massive budgets which afford them all the latest technologies and tools, an almost endless amount of time to develop and then polish their game, and enormous teams of the best staff they can get.

Now I'm not suggesting that anyone gives a biased review, what I'm suggesting is that these people at least use their brain a bit before they blurt out their review. The "user reviews" show a real lack of any kind of sense. Most of them show the typical child like response to something. This game rulez or this game suckz. There is not much in between and there is absolutely no thought behind their opinions. With professional reviewers, many of them are so up their own bums with self admiration at their own writing skills, wit, and impressive vocabularies, that they forget that they have an important job to do.

So time for examples, lets start with Minions of Mirth (or MoM for short). It is a MMORPG that you can also play offline, and it has some very unique features that are a real breath of fresh air compared to the other 99% of MMORPG's on the market. I've played almost every MMORPG on the market, big and small, korean/jap or western, and everything in between. Minions of Mirth is in my top three for providing me with the most fun, even compared to games like World of Warcraft.

The thing is though, this game was made by THREE people. Not 300, not 30, not even 13, but 3 people in total... A husband and wife partnership and their friend. Their budget was around $20,000 US dollars. This is in relation to big MMORPG's which have a budget in excess of $40 MILLION dollars. That's two thousand times more money....

So when I read reviews of these games and they talk about "dated graphics" and "lack of polish" it really annoys me. It's not a fair comparison, and it's stupid to judge the games against each other. It's the equivalent of a PE teacher, telling a 13 year old kid with really promising football skills, "You suck mate, Ronaldo would run rings around you".

Admittedly it's hard to review them because everything is relative and you have to describe the game and it's bound to come up somehow that it's a cheap little RPG and not in the same league as something like Oblivion for example. But there should be a way of doing this objectively and not making it seem so negative. Sure if it's got some really crappy design decisions or just isn't fun at all, then call it out, but that just isn't true of most of these games. I've seen people complain about some of these games having primitive animations, not enough music, and limited facial customisation for example, and I have to question people's intelligence when they start doing that. They make out like the developers made an oversight, or they are not talented enough to make it or something. It's missing the point.

The point I'm really trying to make here, is this. Most of these big uber games today, the likes of Oblivion, Neverwinter Nights etc, they all have massive budgets and it's because they started long ago when a game could be made relatively cheaply and it would still be a triple A title. They made good money and had more to spend on their next title, which afforded it to be bigger and better looking so made even more money, and it escalates to the point where today we have incredible games like Fallout3 etc, with cutting edge graphics and masses of content and polish thanks to the massive teams working on the games. These small companies that start up today, with just a few people and humble budgets, if they keep getting shot down by narrow minded reviewers AND gamers, they will never succeed and they will never get to show you what they can really do! So us gamers are getting screwed out of some great games.

Many of these games have far more promise to me at least, than the big games. Yes Oblivion was pretty cool, but it's combat system is pure arcade action and barely has any depth or strategy to it at all. Compare that to some of the ones I mentioned above which have full on AD&D or Final Fantasy style combat systems, I find them far more enjoyable to play. I would MUCH rather play games like that, and so would many other people. We are screwed though, because these low budget games have a hard enough time... and then shallow reviewers and gamers come along and judge the graphics and lack of polish on these games, and spread it all over the internet for the entire world to see. Half their potential sales get pirated, and the other half gets shattered by these damning reviews. As a result, some of the great games I mentioned above, will never have a sequel. The few that will, will have less of a sequel that they could have had otherwise. Just the other day I was reading a preview of the new Call of Juarez game. I loved the first game and thought it was a real breath of fresh air compared to the usual mass produced FPS's. But the previewer went on and on about how the first game was unpolished and had some features that weren't too great and so on. Yeah smart ass, if you gave the tiny Polish developer the same budget of FarCry 2 for example, they would have been able to afford another 6 months of development time to polish all these rough edges to a high sheen, and it would have been a far better game. But because of reviews like that, it probably scared away countless potential customers who would have all been paying for it and allow their next game to be bigger and better and more polished. I suspect Call of Juarez 2 will be another good game, and like the first one, I'll probably find it far more interesting and memorable than the likes of Crysis... but I also suspect it will have yet more rough edges because they are simply pushing the envelope of what is possible on their kind of budget. At least they are surviving and progressing though, they are lucky. Many of these smaller games are shot down early and were never given a fair chance.

Ok, I actually read all of that! :eek:

IMO, most game reviews are more or less correct, depending on your sources, however I do understand some developers run on minuscule budgets, but the same rules still apply to them.

In this very big world we are overwhelmed with too much choice, and busy consumers with little time on their hands want to play the best games available. The same principle applies to pretty much everything, why would a consumer pay £20 for a table made by a local shop when they could pay £40 for a better designed, more aesthetically pleasing table from a large reputable well known company?

I honestly think these small developers would be better off putting their ideas forward to large organisations.

A table isn't a good analogy because there is far more complexity to a game than a table. My point is that these bigger budget games, are not necessarily better. More "aesthetically pleasing" yes, but is that your most important criteria in gaming? Personally I would much prefer a game that doesn't look as pretty but is far more fun, creative, and involving than the big, pretty, but ultimately shallow game.

As for selling ideas, that doesn't really work. Most of these big companies already have very smart people who could potentially come up with far more interesting games. They don't though because they are fairly stuck in the mainstream. They have huge budgets, but huge costs, which is only balanced by the huge money making potential. They are however very restricted in what they can make though if they are to cover these costs. Smaller companies don't have as many restrictions, and are in a better position to experiment and make more interesting games for different niches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

A table isn't a good analogy because there is far more complexity to a game than a table. My point is that these bigger budget games, are not necessarily better. More "aesthetically pleasing" yes, but is that your most important criteria in gaming? Personally I would much prefer a game that doesn't look as pretty but is far more fun, creative, and involving than the big, pretty, but ultimately shallow game.

As for selling ideas, that doesn't really work. Most of these big companies already have very smart people who could potentially come up with far more interesting games. They don't though because they are fairly stuck in the mainstream. They have huge budgets, but huge costs, which is only balanced by the huge money making potential. They are however very restricted in what they can make though if they are to cover these costs. Smaller companies don't have as many restrictions, and are in a better position to experiment and make more interesting games for different niches.

---

The table was a simple analogy, is the table strong? Will it last long? Is it wobbly/buggy?

Let’s be frank, most high budget games are fantastic, there are very few which are awful, so immediately your argument that high budget games are just aesthetically pleasing but are ultimately shallow is pretty crap, of course this will always boil down to a matter of personal taste, even when the majority of people will like it.

There are a few games which I personally think are a lot of fun and most people disagree, along with the vast majority of review magazines/sites, but it never stopped me playing. I used to play an online game which has closed down as they could no longer financially sustain it. At the time it was great fun, but looking back at it now, it was an awful game, it was only fun because the small community who played the game were all very friendly and had lots of laughs.

Anyway, back on topic, game reviewers are not going to rate a game with a different set of rules just for a niche market that may enjoy the game, they try and cover for the majority of gamers.

Maybe instead of ranting you should write your own review website for a niche market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

So when I read reviews of these games and they talk about "dated graphics" and "lack of polish" it really annoys me. It's not a fair comparison, and it's stupid to judge the games against each other.

---

Isn't that the whole point of reviews though? Presumably small budget games can compete on price or innovation/risk. But how they get there is irrelevant - the end result it what counts and all a game should be judged on.

i disagree with deludedguy and that most big budget games are good thats just not true a good amount of big budget games have sucked

anyone for DEUS EX INVISIBLE WAR (first that springs to mind) that was a big budget game also could argue for crysis that frankly it was a bit poo.

however i do agree that reviews are about right

The only gripe i have is about games that get 10/10 or 100% as surely some games are good but perfect no way i remember halo being one fo these and gran turismo prologue got 100% in a review i read WTF!! its a large demo that costs money.Although most of the max ratings seem to be from gaming magazines for the ps3 and xbox.

and not all low budget games get a rough haul beyond good and evil for example

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danroyle

i disagree with deludedguy and that most big budget games are good thats just not true a good amount of big budget games have sucked

---

Name some, and then I can name you all the big budget games that havent sucked so that you can actually realise its a small amount that suck.

Game reviews. Or reviewers?

Take PC Gamer. They have indie sections or reviews. They play nearly every game that comes out. The point of the review is to help us make the best possible decision on where we spend our hard earned cash and to get the best for our money. With a team of 5 people. They usually release their title as a budget game. It would be a bit foolish to compete with companies with a higher budget and ask the same price for their game.

Dated graphics and polish are all part of the review. It plays a big part in immerssion and contributes to the overall score that the reviewer awards that game. This score is used by us to compare to other titles in the genre and helps us get the best for our money.

But a good reviewer will always tell us if the gameplay sets it miles ahead of more polished and prettier titles.
People have a mind of their own on this. Maybe people with old PCs won't care or prefer the budget title. But someone who has spent money on beast of a PC will find graphic a big deal.

But anyway, I have not bought PC Gamer since their review of GTA IV gave it top marks for gameplay but failed to warn about all the bugs and performance issues. Which I found out about on Hexus :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danroyle

DEUS EX INVISIBLE WAR (first that springs to mind)

---

First that springs to my mind too while I was reading the OP's post.

-----------------------------------

Having said that, as others have said, I don't think it is appropriate for any reviewer to rate games by another standard. I want to play the best game for my money and very limited time, and if a game genuinely lack polish, then it is quite irrelevant for me if the game was made by a team of 3 or 300. I do not see that as 'narrow minded-ness', but simply a case of being practical. However, I tend to not limit myself to one review, and I have no doubt that if the game do have some genuine redeeming features, that it would be mentioned in at least one reviews. After all, game reviews are still quite subjective, I for one am fine with SNES days graphics, lots of people are playing and enjoying online flash games and games on their mobile devices as long as they are 'fun'. And I am sure sure that at least some reviewers share those values.

And perhaps that is what smaller developers should focus on. Because at the end of the day, I'll re-iterate, what matters to many gamers is whether a game is fun and good value for the time and money invested. If a game from a small developer has one or two good original idea compared to bigger titles, then but loses on eight other points, then I am afraid that it does not deserve a better review. Unless of course, the point where score better is an universal agreement that it is more fun overall. But that has to be a near universal agreement. It's not good enough to say that you find it more fun and a cult following find it more fun. I am sure it has happened to all of us, finding that a game ended up being less successful than we feel it deserve (there is at least one 'Most under-rated game' thread in this forum), but it doesn't necessarily come down to people's 'narrow-mindedness'. I personally hold SiN in much higher regard than Half-Life 1 (minus mods), but I guess I am the outliner in this case.

I think all reviewers should automatically give anything made by AMD a better review and ignore the bad points of their products because they are smaller than intel.
How is whether a game is made by 3 poeple or 300 people relevant to a buyer? Its if the game is good or not.

Lets be honest... an MMO made by 3 people just isn't going to be all that good.

If reviews where based on how many people made it you would have to work out your own scale of how good a game is based on its score and number of staff on the dev team, it sort of defeates the object or scoring games really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeludedGuy

The table was a simple analogy, is the table strong? Will it last long? Is it wobbly/buggy?

Let’s be frank, most high budget games are fantastic, there are very few which are awful, so immediately your argument that high budget games are just aesthetically pleasing but are ultimately shallow is pretty crap, of course this will always boil down to a matter of personal taste, even when the majority of people will like it.

There are a few games which I personally think are a lot of fun and most people disagree, along with the vast majority of review magazines/sites, but it never stopped me playing. I used to play an online game which has closed down as they could no longer financially sustain it. At the time it was great fun, but looking back at it now, it was an awful game, it was only fun because the small community who played the game were all very friendly and had lots of laughs.

Anyway, back on topic, game reviewers are not going to rate a game with a different set of rules just for a niche market that may enjoy the game, they try and cover for the majority of gamers.

Maybe instead of ranting you should write your own review website for a niche market.

---

Whether big budget games are fantastic or not is irrelevant. I never said all big budget games are shallow, I was making an example. Although many of them are when compared to other games within their respective genres, and I can defend that all the way.

As for the different set of rules thing, I already said in my first post that I'm not suggesting they bias their reviews, I'm suggesting they treat them more objectively and with a bit more lateral thought. When reviewing budget town cars, a motoring journalist would never hold a Ford Fiesta up against the same standards of an Aston Martin Vanquish. The same should be true when reviewing games, and not doing that shows a lack of professionalism and a lack of real thought. If for some weird reason they insist on comparing everything against the standards set by big budget games, then they should at least compare the prices of the games too, and I never see that happen. It's a biased approach and they are doing far more harm than good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Isn't that the whole point of reviews though? Presumably small budget games can compete on price or innovation/risk. But how they get there is irrelevant - the end result it what counts and all a game should be judged on.

---

Exactly but that doesn't happen! A review by definition is a study of something, but the majority of these reviews are far from being a study. In most cases, no credit is given to innovation and the price of the game is almost never even mentioned! The reviewers bowl in to the review and whiz through it with only the most superficial of glances.

Look, the fact is, if you care about games, these small companies need support. It's easy to criticise them because they aren't as impressive as the big, powerful, glossy mainstream competitors, but you can destroy them by insisting on holding them up to those standards. Is that what you really want?

Using the old table example from earlier, you can go and buy a table from a big manufacturer. You get it home and set it up and realise you don't like it, and you call and get an automated message. You press 2, you press 4, and the voice tells you that you can only get your money back if the table is still packaged which it obviously isn't. Alternatively you could go to your local furniture maker. You buy a table and aren't completely happy so you call. The owner of the company answers the phone and offers to come to your house. You make him a cup of tea and he sets up the table for you. You still aren't completely happy, so he goes away and makes the exact modifications you want. In the end, you get a table that is far more to your liking than the big mass produced table, and yet it cost you less too.

My point is, not everything is black and white. It might seem more logical to go with the big corporation, but sometimes you have to go with your heart instead. You might even have to make some sacrifices... but at the end of the day, these small companies will try far harder to impress you, and they will reward you for your support. If it wasn't for real gamers who saw the value in independent companies and independent thinking, games like Mount & Blade would have gone nowhere fast. That game exists today only because people supported it through Beta. It's easy to wade in to a review and compare the graphics against Oblivion and write it off as cheap and basic looking, but it's completely missing the point. It's in our best interest to be a bit more flexible with this stuff so that we can uncover the great things that lie beneath in these kinds of games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

I want to play the best game for my money and very limited time, and if a game genuinely lack polish, then it is quite irrelevant for me if the game was made by a team of 3 or 300.

---

But the best game is not necessarily the game with the most polish is it...?

Unless of course you are the kind of gamer who goes for style over substance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

Lets be honest... an MMO made by 3 people just isn't going to be all that good.

---

That's not honest at all, that's your assumption based on absolutely no information at all. Why don't you actually PLAY it before you judge it?

People like you are your own worst enemy.

:rolleyes:

Sigh, I guess we agree to disagaree....go back to playing your low budget game and I will go and finish playing Fallout 3 and maybe later go raid something in WoW. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

That's not honest at all, that's your assumption based on absolutely no information at all. Why don't you actually PLAY it before you judge it?

People like you are your own worst enemy.

---

hmmm

Looks like we are both making assumptions here.

I think maybe this is some sort of plug disguised as a genuine post.... another assumption, I know.

To be fair it looks pretty decent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

Exactly but that doesn't happen! A review by definition is a study of something, but the majority of these reviews are far from being a study. In most cases, no credit is given to innovation and the price of the game is almost never even mentioned! The reviewers bowl in to the review and whiz through it with only the most superficial of glances.

---

Really? You must be reading quite different reviews to me then. Innovation is always looked for in reviews I read - in fact a lot of games get marked down, despite the fact they are great, simply because they fail to do much new. Likewise price is nearly always taken into account in terms of value for money.

Quote:

---

Look, the fact is, if you care about games, these small companies need support. It's easy to criticise them because they aren't as impressive as the big, powerful, glossy mainstream competitors, but you can destroy them by insisting on holding them up to those standards. Is that what you really want?

---

The standard of having a game be fun and value for money is exactly what they should be being held up to. The last thing a small company needs is being lied to and someone pretending they have talent if they don't. If they make games that suck then it's better that they find out pronto and change careers to something they are better suited to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeludedGuy

:rolleyes:

Sigh, I guess we agree to disagaree....go back to playing your low budget game and I will go and finish playing Fallout 3 and maybe later go raid something in WoW. :)

---

What do you disagree with precisely?

I don't suppose you used that name because you are in fact roleplaying a deluded guy? If so, my congratulations on the realism.

You can arrogantly look down your nose at me all you want, but don't feel too secure in your smugness. I've enjoyed Fallout 3 too, with maxed out settings and on a big widescreen monitor. I also had a level 70 Boomkin in WoW. I enjoyed them both but I enjoy other things too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

hmmm

Looks like we are both making assumptions here.

I think maybe this is some sort of plug disguised as a genuine post.... another assumption, I know.

To be fair it looks pretty decent.

---

Why would I be plugging several completely unrelated companies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Really? You must be reading quite different reviews to me then. Innovation is always looked for in reviews I read - in fact a lot of games get marked down, despite the fact they are great, simply because they fail to do much new. Likewise price is nearly always taken into account in terms of value for money.

---

There's no doubt the quality of reviews varies but that doesn't make my point any less valid. You only need to use metacritic to see what I'm talking about. One of the games I enjoyed recently for example, PC Format gave it 51%, and PC Review gave it 92%, the latter being the one that also comments on it's price. Another game I played, an RPG, has a gamespot review where he tears it to pieces. It's obvious that not only does the reviewer unfairly compare the game with modern big budget standards, but he just doesn't even seem to like fantasy RPG's in the first place. I bet should he review a classic like Baldurs Gate or Ultima Online and I'm sure he would rip them to pieces as being cheap and nasty looking and having annoying fantasy characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

The standard of having a game be fun and value for money is exactly what they should be being held up to. The last thing a small company needs is being lied to and someone pretending they have talent if they don't. If they make games that suck then it's better that they find out pronto and change careers to something they are better suited to.

---

That's not really the point though is it? These games I'm talking about to not suck. They just don't have the production values of the big budget games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

There's no doubt the quality of reviews varies but that doesn't make my point any less valid. You only need to use metacritic to see what I'm talking about. One of the games I enjoyed recently for example, PC Format gave it 51%, and PC Review gave it 92%

---

Newsflash: This also happens for big budget games!

Quote:

---

It's obvious that not only does the reviewer unfairly compare the game with modern big budget standards

---

Hang on - what's unfair about doing that? It's being sold in the same shops as a competitor to big budget standards right?

Quote:

---

but he just doesn't even seem to like fantasy RPG's in the first place. I bet should he review a classic like Baldurs Gate or Ultima Online and I'm sure he would rip them to pieces as being cheap and nasty looking and having annoying fantasy characters.

---

Right - reviews vary and you should read the text rather than look at the score.. but I'm not sure what your point is - why is that any more the case with low budget games?

Quote:

---

That's not really the point though is it? These games I'm talking about to not suck. They just don't have the production values of the big budget games.

---

If production values are important to the genre then without them they will suck. And frankly production value doesn't really have much to do with budget - games like Puzzlequest, Peggle, Bookworm adventures etc. all have fantastic production values.

I understand your point, when I play double dragon, Zelda etc they are still fantastic even though they look like crap! If a game gets a bad review based on graphics only I would back what you are saying but what you are trying to say is that games are given bad reviews because they are developed on a low budget and play like a low budget game.... well if I put a reliant robin in a formula 1 race guess what? It would come last. Why? Because it’s not as well designed as the other cars, cost a fraction of the cost to build and in reality was never really supposed to take on the big competitors at all. So with that in mind should they get additional points or moved up 10 places on the grid just because thier product was inferior to all the others?

People can’t expect to spent 20K on developing a game and think its going to take on the big guns, its just not and if they thought it would they where either mislead or delusional.

I think its fantastic they have managed to get a game out to the market at all and I take my hat off to them, I really do, but if its crap, its crap and that’s all there is to it.

As a gamer my advice is this... screw the graphics. Iron out as close to all the bugs as possible, make the game new (not just a clone) make it fun to play with a decent learning curve, make sure the tutoruial / documentation is good quality and listen to the players who post on the forum! (I hope people from Valve read this part)

Here is a game I love and would give a really top review....

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_flash/towe...nce_castle.htm

I bet that cost less than any of the games you are talking about!

I’m afraid nothing can penetrate cazzies thick skull, we can’t really explain this any better can we?
It looks more and more like a plug tbh. :rolleyes:

I can't think of the latest time I read a review. I ignore them.

Occasionally read them for compat issues and scan through checking for things like the Hellgate:london server down problems, but the scores just get ignored.

My attitude is that if it's good enough to be in gamestation/game/my local games store then it's good enough to consider buying.

After that it's just a matter of having ID with me and buying the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeludedGuy

I’m afraid nothing can penetrate cazzies thick skull, we can’t really explain this any better can we?
It looks more and more like a plug tbh. :rolleyes:

---

To be fair has some good points. Some reviews do go on first impressions and don't really look deep enough into a game to review it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mediaboy

After that it's just a matter of having ID with me and buying the game.

---

awwww...bless.

Well, being the ignorant person I am. This is the way as to how I come to buy a game.

1. Hear about it:

This is in my opinion one of the most crucial factors. Marketing, frankly, this is where the low budget games cant compete against the likes of EA, etc. When a new game comes out, all the techy sites I visit will have adverts for it, there will be trailers of the game on TV and in the cinema and Game stores will have big glossy posters, cardboard cut outs, demos on show. So well done EA, I now know you game exists.

So for low budgets games the only really way is by word of mouth, e.g. like how I heard about World of Goo, My Brute, etc. So I dont know that a game exists, how would I consider buying it.

2. Reviews:

I use the google machine: "[insert game name] wiki". Read the intro at the top, scroll down to reviews, look at scores. If score is average score is >90 it will be an almost definite buy. >80 then would be considered if I like that sort of game/ like the look of it. Also see if there are any bugs mentioned etc.

3. Buying:

Price. Simple as. If a game comes out costing like 40 quid, screw that, I will wait until it drops to around 20. If it is a bargain. I will buy it straight away.

I will only ever read a review of a game if I am borderline as to whether I buy it or not. Most of the time the final score reviewers give is good enough for me and 95% they are right. Saying that though I will always have a look at what the average score from the community is. Remember a good game is good.

Example World of Goo, made by 2 people, got scores of >90 from almost every website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Newsflash: This also happens for big budget games!

---

Two wrongs don't make a right. But more importantly, big budget games have all the opportunities to compete with other big budget games. Smaller games don't, so it's doubly wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Hang on - what's unfair about doing that? It's being sold in the same shops as a competitor to big budget standards right?

---

I really have to explain this again???? When you read a review of a Ford Fiesta, they compare it with other cars in it's class. They would never criticise it for not having the performance of a Porsche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Right - reviews vary and you should read the text rather than look at the score.. but I'm not sure what your point is - why is that any more the case with low budget games?

---

see previous point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

If production values are important to the genre then without them they will suck. And frankly production value doesn't really have much to do with budget - games like Puzzlequest, Peggle, Bookworm adventures etc. all have fantastic production values.

---

It has everything to do with it. Peggle is a tiny little 2d game. When you have a limited budget and are making a massive TBS or RPG or something, you are stretching the limits of what you can do within that budget, so you have to prioritise. A sensible company bumps some things down the list, like a flashy interface or the kind of voice talent Rockstar Games has. If that's what is important to ALL gamers, then fine, but do you really think that is the case? The game experience on the whole is more important, so when that gets glossed over by a reviewer and yet they find the time to criticise these games for not having the big budget eye candy, then they deserve my criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

well if I put a reliant robin in a formula 1 race guess what? It would come last. Why? Because it’s not as well designed as the other cars, cost a fraction of the cost to build and in reality was never really supposed to take on the big competitors at all.

---

But that is exactly proving my point, these games are not intending to be in the Formula 1. They exist to serve their niche audiences which is hopefully enough to allow them to grow. So when some idiot compares them to a Formula 1 car they are putting them in a negative light with unnecessary and unfair comparisons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

People can’t expect to spent 20K on developing a game and think its going to take on the big guns, its just not and if they thought it would they where either mislead or delusional.

---

They never did expect that. Again, you are going back to your assumptions which are consistently piss poor ones I have to say. The company you are talking about were successful and have at least doubled their money. That is in spite of a few reviewers treated them unfairly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay

I think its fantastic they have managed to get a game out to the market at all and I take my hat off to them, I really do, but if its crap, its crap and that’s all there is to it.

---

It's not crap at all. They doubled their money in no time and it was all thanks to word of mouth. You don't get that if your game is crap. I don't know what kind of state it's in today but I'm sure they have made enough to think about making a sequel, which is great news for gamers.

I like how you just cut the bits out you want to talk about and ignor the rest. :D

I summarise it down to what I think the point is and I reply to it. If you think I missed something important please go ahead and point it out to me.

no, its ok mate. I'm just having a joke with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

Two wrongs don't make a right. But more importantly, big budget games have all the opportunities to compete with other big budget games. Smaller games don't, so it's doubly wrong.

I really have to explain this again???? When you read a review of a Ford Fiesta, they compare it with other cars in it's class. They would never criticise it for not having the performance of a Porsche.

see previous point

It has everything to do with it. Peggle is a tiny little 2d game. When you have a limited budget and are making a massive TBS or RPG or something, you are stretching the limits of what you can do within that budget, so you have to prioritise. A sensible company bumps some things down the list, like a flashy interface or the kind of voice talent Rockstar Games has. If that's what is important to ALL gamers, then fine, but do you really think that is the case? The game experience on the whole is more important, so when that gets glossed over by a reviewer and yet they find the time to criticise these games for not having the big budget eye candy, then they deserve my criticism.


But that is exactly proving my point, these games are not intending to be in the Formula 1. They exist to serve their niche audiences which is hopefully enough to allow them to grow. So when some idiot compares them to a Formula 1 car they are putting them in a negative light with unnecessary and unfair comparisons.

They never did expect that. Again, you are going back to your assumptions which are consistently piss poor ones I have to say. The company you are talking about were successful and have at least doubled their money. That is in spite of a few reviewers treated them unfairly.

It's not crap at all. They doubled their money in no time and it was all thanks to word of mouth. You don't get that if your game is crap. I don't know what kind of state it's in today but I'm sure they have made enough to think about making a sequel, which is great news for gamers.

---

So I guess what you are saying is that they should not be penalized for being on a lower budget and being less polished. They should just meritted on the overall game itself. That the fact that is on a lower budget should be ignored and they should be reviewed the same as all games are. But when the review points out that it is less polished than a big budget game you should take into account that it is a low budget game made only by 5 people? :p

I fail to see your argument. Games like world of goo got top marks in PC Gamer. So obviously there are reviews who are fair on budget games. Merited when a merit is due. EEEuuuuiiiieeekkkk :surprised:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

You can arrogantly look down your nose at me all you want, but don't feel too secure in your smugness.[...]

---

Actually, I think you are being arrogant and smug. Reminds me of people who enjoys independent films and complain when they perceive a lack of interest in their favourite flick. And I will unapologetically state that you do conveniently cut bits you want to talk about and ignore the rest. Take this for instance:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

But the best game is not necessarily the game with the most polish is it...?

Unless of course you are the kind of gamer who goes for style over substance.

---

Read my post again and rethink what I consider most important in a game. Because right now, you are giving me the impression that you've already decided that the world is against the little developers and anyone who disagrees with you are below you.

The car analogies are flawed. For a start, I do not think that price is the most important thing for a gamer by a long shot. Sure some of us probably would not want to pay full retail price, and would rather wait for price to tumble (*raise hands*), but there are games I would not play even if they were free. I am not saying that's the case with all games by small developers, but if you are making a PC games that is of the same genre as other PC games by major developers and placed on the same shelves as those games at game retailers, them expect to be compared. Small developers who want to avoid that fate are the ones who really need to think outside the box by coming out with an idea that is mostly original (difficult to compare) and fun. It can be done, it has been done.

Your typical retail PC game vs an iPhone game. That's a different class. Retail PC game vs Internet flash game, that's a different class. But a £20 vs a £40? Sure the difference should be taken into account, but if they are the same genre then I would sure want to see a comparison. You could say that one is half the price of the other, but I am sure many are willing to pay £20 extra if the end product is overall better. It's not just the money but the enjoyment you get out of it.

And if a product is both cheap and outstanding? Words will spread, if not through reviews (though I note that it often is), then certain via word of mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

Two wrongs don't make a right. But more importantly, big budget games have all the opportunities to compete with other big budget games. Smaller games don't, so it's doubly wrong.

---

I completely disagree. Look at the success of low budget games like Peggle and PuzzleQuest and then tell me they don't compete with big budget games.

Quote:

---

I really have to explain this again???? When you read a review of a Ford Fiesta, they compare it with other cars in it's class. They would never criticise it for not having the performance of a Porsche.

---

Yet if it falls apart after 10 miles and doesn't give a satisfactory experience then it would be rightly panned in reviews, regardless of the fact it's cheaper than a porsche.

Quote:

---

It has everything to do with it. Peggle is a tiny little 2d game. When you have a limited budget and are making a massive TBS or RPG or something, you are stretching the limits of what you can do within that budget, so you have to prioritise. A sensible company bumps some things down the list, like a flashy interface or the kind of voice talent Rockstar Games has. If that's what is important to ALL gamers, then fine, but do you really think that is the case? The game experience on the whole is more important, so when that gets glossed over by a reviewer and yet they find the time to criticise these games for not having the big budget eye candy, then they deserve my criticism.

---

I don't see that happening though. Mostly games get panned for lack of innovation and lack of polish. Polish does not equal eye candy, otherwise how would these 2d games get such good marks for both gameplay and polish? It seems that on one hand you're saying small budget games can't get good reviews because they don't have expensive eye candy, and then on the next saying that good reviews for games like Peggle don't count because they're only little 2d games. Make up your mind!

Have you played PuzzleQuest? It's anything but little - the gameplay in PQ lasts many many times longer than AAA games such as Bioshock, Crysis, C&C3 etc. So I don't buy your argument that only small games can be polished or get good reviews if they're not big budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

It has everything to do with it. Peggle is a tiny little 2d game. When you have a limited budget and are making a massive TBS or RPG or something, you are stretching the limits of what you can do within that budget, so you have to prioritise. A sensible company bumps some things down the list, like a flashy interface or the kind of voice talent Rockstar Games has. If that's what is important to ALL gamers, then fine, but do you really think that is the case? The game experience on the whole is more important, so when that gets glossed over by a reviewer and yet they find the time to criticise these games for not having the big budget eye candy, then they deserve my criticism.

---

I think of GTA IV when reading this. The dialouge and voice acting was amazing. It was like a propper movie. Some of the best one liners I have seen in a long time. And fallout 3 had an amazing atmosphere. And that was down to all the polish. And it's these things that have everything to do with the game expierience. Just imagine games Like Half life 2, Left for Dead, GTA IV or all the top games out there now.

Take away the flashy voice acting and graphics and all the polish from them. I think then you are left with a less immersive expierience in a less believeable world with hardly any atmosphere.
You are trying to say that all the little things that add atmosphere and immersion to a game have nothing to do with the overall game expierience. You are wrong.

Another thing to mention, most developers are not making huge anmmounts of money on the games they make. Some struggle to break even.

Going back to the days when dumb games like Mario was all about jumping around in limbo land and required little thought or depth. Good riddence to them.

I don't see why they should judge it on different criteria. There's no point saying "This game isn't as good as the top three contenders in its genre, but since it was made by a bloke in a shed it deserves 100%".

The only approach that makes sense is if the publishers for the game give a low price to reflect its lack of development, and then the reviewers *should* be saying in their reviews "Great game, fun to play etc - graphics and animations aren't the best, but for £15 this is well worth a punt."

Game reviewers have always had a habit of being a bit narrow-minded though, focussing in on one or two issues that they really want to drive home, and ignoring others that they determine irrelevant - when the point of the review should be to let people know the facts so they can make their own judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snootyjim

I don't see why they should judge it on different criteria. There's no point saying "This game isn't as good as the top three contenders in its genre, but since it was made by a bloke in a shed it deserves 100%".

---

Nobody is suggesting that though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snootyjim

The only approach that makes sense is if the publishers for the game give a low price to reflect its lack of development, and then the reviewers *should* be saying in their reviews "Great game, fun to play etc - graphics and animations aren't the best, but for £15 this is well worth a punt."

Game reviewers have always had a habit of being a bit narrow-minded though, focussing in on one or two issues that they really want to drive home, and ignoring others that they determine irrelevant - when the point of the review should be to let people know the facts so they can make their own judgment.

---

That's exactly my point. Nice one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaseyV9

So I guess what you are saying is that they should not be penalized for being on a lower budget and being less polished. They should just meritted on the overall game itself.

---

Yes exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaseyV9

the fact that is on a lower budget should be ignored

---

No.. The fact that it is on a lower budget is absolutely crucial - that's my whole point.

If you bully these games because they are such easy targets, they WILL die. I know most jackasses find it really difficult to resist picking on the weak, but really it's in their best interest. Just like a little brat kid who steps on a caterpillar because it's ugly and puny, they are destroying what will ultimately blossom in to a butterfly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaseyV9

But when the review points out that it is less polished than a big budget game you should take into account that it is a low budget game made only by 5 people? :p

---

If they said it was less polished than a big budget game, that's perfectly fine, because they are highlighting that it's two different things. They don't always do that though, instead they just criticise and say ugly graphics or dated graphics or terrible graphics and make it sound like the developers made a terrible mistake or are somehow incompetent. In some cases the person reading the review won't even know that it's a budget game and they'll assume it's just a 'normal' game that is getting a terrible review. That's just not the case. In reality, lower budget games can still look decent. They might not be as technically advanced as Crysis or whatever, but they can still look decent and what they lack in high tech graphics, they make up for elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaseyV9

I fail to see your argument. Games like world of goo got top marks in PC Gamer. So obviously there are reviews who are fair on budget games. Merited when a merit is due. EEEuuuuiiiieeekkkk :surprised:

---

I have already explained this exact point once before. World of Goo is a very simple 2d game, so it's far easier to make it extremely polished and refined. When you have a limited budget but are making a bigger and more complex TBS or RPG or something, you are stretching the limits of what you can do within that budget, so you have to prioritise. You bump some things down the list, like a flashy interface or the kind of voice talent Rockstar Games has. If that's what is important to ALL gamers, then fine, but do you really think that is the case? The game experience on the whole is more important, so when that gets glossed over by a reviewer and yet they find the time to criticise these games for not having the big budget eye candy, then they deserve my criticism.

You could argue that smaller developers should just make simple 2d games and not even try to push the envelope, but this pushing is what creates progress and they often manage to come up with real gems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

Actually, I think you are being arrogant and smug.

---

No I'm not, I just have a point of view, I haven't looked down my nose at anyone. You are now just trolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

And I will unapologetically state that you do conveniently cut bits you want to talk about and ignore the rest.

---

Of course I do, I'm not going to reply to every single sentence in the entire thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

Take this for instance:


Read my post again and rethink what I consider most important in a game. Because right now, you are giving me the impression that you've already decided that the world is against the little developers and anyone who disagrees with you are below you.

The car analogies are flawed. For a start, I do not think that price is the most important thing for a gamer by a long shot. Sure some of us probably would not want to pay full retail price, and would rather wait for price to tumble (*raise hands*), but there are games I would not play even if they were free. I am not saying that's the case with all games by small developers, but if you are making a PC games that is of the same genre as other PC games by major developers and placed on the same shelves as those games at game retailers, them expect to be compared.

---

That's exactly what they all do. Look at the list of games in my first post and you'll see that. They all deserve their place in the industry which is my whole point. There is no reason that just because they on the shelf with other games, that they should all achieve the exact same things. Just as if a VW Golf and a Ferrari were both in the same second hand car show room, the Golf wouldn't be ridiculed for not being able to reach 200mph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

Small developers who want to avoid that fate are the ones who really need to think outside the box by coming out with an idea that is mostly original (difficult to compare) and fun. It can be done, it has been done.

---

You keep talking about it like you know the secret and these companies don't have a clue. That's just not the case. These companies are more than capable of making great games, that is not a problem and it's not the point of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

Your typical retail PC game vs an iPhone game. That's a different class. Retail PC game vs Internet flash game, that's a different class. But a £20 vs a £40? Sure the difference should be taken into account, but if they are the same genre then I would sure want to see a comparison.

---

But the budget and price is NOT always taken in to account which is the whole point of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

You could say that one is half the price of the other, but I am sure many are willing to pay £20 extra if the end product is overall better. It's not just the money but the enjoyment you get out of it.

---

But it may only be better in terms of graphics and sound. The other game may actually be better in terms of gameplay. It may not of course... but my point is when it is, it doesn't always get a fair treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

I completely disagree. Look at the success of low budget games like Peggle and PuzzleQuest and then tell me they don't compete with big budget games.

---

They might, but I never said they don't. I said they don't always have the same opportunities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Yet if it falls apart after 10 miles and doesn't give a satisfactory experience then it would be rightly panned in reviews, regardless of the fact it's cheaper than a porsche.

---

No a lower class town car won't fall apart after 10 miles, it just won't do 200mph. Are you purposely missing my point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

I don't see that happening though. Mostly games get panned for lack of innovation and lack of polish.

---

You don't see it happening so it doesn't exist? Have you seen every review of every game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Polish does not equal eye candy, otherwise how would these 2d games get such good marks for both gameplay and polish?

---

Why are you ignoring my replies? I already explained why it's easier to polish and refine a simple 2d game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

It seems that on one hand you're saying small budget games can't get good reviews because they don't have expensive eye candy,

---

I have never said that. I have already shown you where one of them got 92%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

Have you played PuzzleQuest? It's anything but little - the gameplay in PQ lasts many many times longer than AAA games such as Bioshock, Crysis, C&C3 etc. So I don't buy your argument that only small games can be polished or get good reviews if they're not big budget.

---

You don't need to tell me how good games like PuzzleQuest can be, that's the entire point of my topic. I've already said they can get good reviews. The only thing you seem to disagree with is my argument that it's harder to polish a bigger game, which I think is absolutely valid. There are countless examples of this, even in big budget games, where they do so much, they had to cut back in some places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaseyV9

I think of GTA IV when reading this. The dialouge and voice acting was amazing. It was like a propper movie. Some of the best one liners I have seen in a long time. And fallout 3 had an amazing atmosphere. And that was down to all the polish. And it's these things that have everything to do with the game expierience. Just imagine games Like Half life 2, Left for Dead, GTA IV or all the top games out there now.

Take away the flashy voice acting and graphics and all the polish from them. I think then you are left with a less immersive expierience in a less believeable world with hardly any atmosphere.
You are trying to say that all the little things that add atmosphere and immersion to a game have nothing to do with the overall game expierience. You are wrong.

---

Immersion is very important in some games, but there is far more to a game than immersion. If the only important thing in gaming was killer graphics and voice acting and high immersion, then gaming wouldn't even exist today. The games industry exists because of games like Pacman, Space Invaders, and Tetris, and they have no immersion at all. Some people are only interested in the kind of immersion you talk about, but some people are more interested in the gameplay itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaseyV9

Going back to the days when dumb games like Mario was all about jumping around in limbo land and required little thought or depth. Good riddence to them.

---

That's an unbelievable comment.

I really can't be asked to read the whole thread, but my 2 cents.

Low budget games are compared with larger budget ones simply as they are competing for the same market, it's nothing like comparing a Fiesta with a Porsche.
Example of corse would be to compare the likes of the History channels Battle for the Pacific with CoD World at war. One low budget and one high budget. They are both however going for exactly the same market, but you still have to say that Battle for the Pacific was a terrible game as the production values wern't there.
There are low budget games that are good though but the budget shouldn't be taken into account when reviewing a game, it's all about gameplay, re-play value, graphics and sound.
When games are released the lower budget games are nearly always the same price to pay for the end user so why should they be given more leeway?

My second point however is the simple fact that every body is different and if there's a game that's released that suits you but may not suit everybody you shouldn't take it as a personal insult that the game you like so much got a bad score. What you must instead to is concentrate of the text of the reviews to find out if YOU will like that game and not worry about the reviewers personal opinion as they will have there own tastes on the games the like.

Err...World of Goo. That's three people of noted and agree with the 2-man development team and good reviews. Cassie, what buck the trend here with this one? Good fun, that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlight

Err...World of Goo. That's three people of noted and agree with the 2-man development team and good reviews. Cassie, what buck the trend here with this one? Good fun, that.

---

Shame about the 95% piracy rate...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex98uk

Shame about the 95% piracy rate...

---

Somewhere in between the 99% and 90% that's experienced by other titles then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

That's an unbelievable comment.

---

Not really. If I want that that kind of game then maybe XBox 360 arcade or an old console like a SNES would be better.
It comes down to opinion I guess. But PC and next Gen consioles are capable of doing so much more.

The thing that bugs me is you have broken down my comments and seperated them so you can answer them. I think that is out of context as put together it is gives the full message.

If a reviewer is dissmissing a game and ignoring the greatness of the gameplay based on it's inferiour appearance and polish then that is a bad reviewer. And there are a lot of good reviewers you are slagging off.

But you have to understand that games in the same genre are always going to be compared to the others. Nothing you can do about that.

I have to ask, are you a developer of some budget game that got a bad review? :p
I'm forgetting the arguement here. Could you some up what you are angry about short? For example:

I am angry games are dissmissed or given poor reviews for being made on a small budget by 3 people when they are often better or as good as a highly polished game once you get passed their less polished appearence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaseyV9

If a reviewer is dissmissing a game and ignoring the greatness of the gameplay based on it's inferiour appearance and polish then that is a bad reviewer. And there are a lot of good reviewers you are slagging off.

But you have to understand that games in the same genre are always going to be compared to the others. Nothing you can do about that.

---

This.

If you think that smart, original indy games are overlooked by most reviewers, then you need to find a new games magazine/website. The likes of Edge and Eurogamer.net generally give fair reviews, i feel.

Good reviewers will always spot games that are good, regardless of how much they cost to make. Recent successful indy games (that I can think of) like World of Goo, Braid, PuzzleQuest are doing very well and were critically acclaimed by a lot of reviewers. PopCap, the makers of Peggle and other "tiny 2d games" as the OP put it are raking in a HUUUUGE profit. In general it's a good time for indy games, with things like Steam and Live Arcade :)

What makes a good indy game is a unique idea.

If you're going to make a generic JRPG on a low budget with 3 people, it's not going to be as good as Final Fantasy 13. Ditto for a first person shooter. The OP says that reviewers should "concentrate on the overall game experience", but so much of the game experience IS DEPENDANT on things like graphics polish, voice acting and sound effects, especially in these sorts of games. Even Peggle has an astounding amount of polish: the sound effects are very clever indeed in that game :)

At the end of the day, the reviewer is telling you whether or not to exchange your hard earned cash for a certain game. And I bet that a lot of people would rather buy something like Fallout 3, or StarCraft 2 over a something like Wesnoth or anything else made by 3 people in a bedroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazzie

Both professional reviewers, and user reviews, I feel that they are missing the point when it comes to this, and it's such a shame, because these people have such a huge amount of 'power' when it comes to steering people away from and towards certain games. These reviews can have a huge impact on the success or failure of a game. So it's a major issue when one or more of these reviewers give a review with a negative spin. They have great responsibility, but in some cases, are not using it responsibly.

---

Rewind. Does anyone buy that argument? I don't, though I doubt it can be proved either way. Surely most gamers would have realised by now that gaming experience is in a large part subjective, and to use a large sample of reviews if they want to make any sort of purchasing decisions based on it.

I don't remember the last time I've heard anyone say 'I won't buy X because Y magazine said it's crap'. Usually, I tend to hear 'I might/might not check it out since reviews are generally positive/negative'.

I am also sceptical that there are (m)any reviewers are out there intentionally bullying/putting a negative spin on titles from smaller developers just for kicks. So with that in mind, if most reviews suggest that a game is poor, then at the very least it would suggest that it's an acquired taste. 'Gameplay' is about as subjective as you get - but if stating that a game lacks polish will put off a gamer, then chances are, this gamer do consider 'polish' as an important aspect of gaming and should not be looking at this title if it lacks it. Saying that the game looks dated, then it will rightfully put off gamers who consider graphics important. And so on. Better this than the gamer buying the game expecting it to be something else.

As I have already said, we probably all have a personal list of 'most underrated games'. Some of those games were probably by small developers, games we'd love to see a sequel but probably never will. I'll name Scepterra Core as one of them. Charming as I found it, with some original ideas, I won't blame others else for not buying the game.. nor do I expect them to find the same enjoyment I did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TooNice

Rewind. Does anyone buy that argument? I don't, though I doubt it can be proved either way. Surely most gamers would have realised by now that gaming experience is in a large part subjective, and to use a large sample of reviews if they want to make any sort of purchasing decisions based on it.

I don't remember the last time I've heard anyone say 'I won't buy X because Y magazine said it's crap'. Usually, I tend to hear 'I might/might not check it out since reviews are generally positive/negative'.

I am also sceptical that there are (m)any reviewers are out there intentionally bullying/putting a negative spin on titles from smaller developers just for kicks. So with that in mind, if most reviews suggest that a game is poor, then at the very least it would suggest that it's an acquired taste. 'Gameplay' is about as subjective as you get - but if stating that a game lacks polish will put off a gamer, then chances are, this gamer do consider 'polish' as an important aspect of gaming and should not be looking at this title if it lacks it. Saying that the game looks dated, then it will rightfully put off gamers who consider graphics important. And so on. Better this than the gamer buying the game expecting it to be something else.

As I have already said, we probably all have a personal list of 'most underrated games'. Some of those games were probably by small developers, games we'd love to see a sequel but probably never will. I'll name Scepterra Core as one of them. Charming as I found it, with some original ideas, I won't blame others else for not buying the game.. nor do I expect them to find the same enjoyment I did.

---

I do not understand the argument. EEEuuuuiiiieeekkkk :surprised:

As these forum show with threads asking recommendations for games, If a game is good, gamers will hear about it from fellow gamers. Games reviewers do not have the power to send a good game to it's demise simply by giving it a bad review as reviews are only a rough guide anyway.
And as a few people have aready said, Indie and budget games do get good reviews.

But then this has already been said several times already in this in this thread. EEEuuuuiiiieeekkkk :surprised:

The size of the developement team should be completely irrelvent when reviewing a game unless the price is significantly different.

If your selling your game for £30-35 then it should be judged along side the big guns. If you are selling at £10 or 15 then you have a right to have the game judged differently.

Darkfall is just as expensive as the big mmo's and so should be judged in exactly the same way.

In fact having thought about it for a few more mins, you can buy a year or two old games with a massive budget for £10-15 so really you need to be chargeing a fiver or so if you've made the game with just a few people and don't want your game to be compared against the big titles.

Bioshock for instance is £9.99

I've stopped buying the magazines since PC Zone bit the dust.