«

[A. J. Raffles]

OK, guys, is there any point in continuing to fight about this? One of you thinks the word "masterpiece" is justified, and the other thinks it isn't. Fair enough. But having a little flame war about it certainly isn't going to change that, and it's rather unpleasant to read, so if you have to do it, could you please do it via PM?

[Blood-Pigggy]

A tip, don't fight anyone until you are certain that you can take on anyone.
Your early death will not be pleasant, as attacking nearly anyone in the beggining can kill you, find your followers, and get them with you.
Afterwards you can barter for various improvements and etc. Just follow the path and keep your eye on the road, you don't want to get lost.

@Borodin - You really seem to have problems, when did you garner this assertion against me? And why do you continue to politely flame me with nearly every chance you get, if you look at many other people's reviews, you see they are exactly the same.
I guess if you don't like it, you can suck up and try to actually write a review once in awhile.

P.S. - Shh, I see you, don't post about this matter anymore.

[Borodin]

@Borodin - You really seem to have problems, when did you garner this assertion against me? And why do you continue to politely flame me with nearly every chance you get, if you look at many other people's reviews, you see they are exactly the same.

Continue? I just stated a problem: that the review said Shogun was a masterpiece, but didn't state how. I was actually hoping you would respond with some reasons why you regard the game as a masterpiece, but instead you replied with that flame, referring to my remarks as "stupid comments."

So I responded with sarcasm, going over your review. But I never called you names, and I won't.

I guess if you don't like it, you can suck up and try to actually write a review once in awhile.

That still doesn't explain why you consider Shogun a masterpiece. If you don't want to, fine, but if we are going to talk to each other politely, I would appreciate some explanation about what makes this game one of the all-time best.

[A. J. Raffles]

Well, if you want to pick on individual words in reviews, why don't you choose "unique"? That one's amazingly overused. Especially in mind-boggling combinations like "very unique", "the most unique" or "one of the most unique". It's nearly as much fun as the classic "the game has a lot of gameplay".LOL
Anyway, this doesn't have anything to do with Shogun any more, it's turning into a private little flame war. Please stop it.

[Blood-Pigggy]

I never said the "best".
For all I meant it could have been visually a "masterpiece", atmosphericaly, sound-wise, anything.
The reason I became so hostile is that you're posting about such a insignifigant point in a single review for a game that about 10 people will actually download and play.
The review is to sum up what's inside a game, give the reviewer's opinion on it, and then finish up, I never decided to elaborate on it, as what I wrote was enough to describe it, and glorify it, than I needed to go into.
A review doesn't need to be paragraphs upon paragraphs of details, it just needs to give out the point, sum up your thoughts, then dish it out. For people online, they usually have shorter attention spans, and less of a desire to read a page long review. So I remember to keep them shorter, and just let them take my word on it. Because if they just hear me say "it's good" there's a higher chance that most people will just download it on my word, than those who get irritated, don't even read the review, and leave the game altogether.

So in theory there is no point for me to write anymore, and there wasn't a point in the first place that I needed to be more precise. In fact, that is the beauty of many other people's reviews, such as Gamebringer, I enjoy reading his small concise reviews more than anything. Although you most certainly won't expect something so short and detail deprived in say, a gaming magazine, but online it's a much wider audience, and you must remember that not all of them will stop to read. And many more of them will become annoyed by long and pointless reviews. Although some insist on elaborating their reviews online, they won't ever receive a large amount of positive and interesting remarks on their little novels, mostly because 70% of people will never read it.

You must remember the audience, I try to pack as much into my reviews without making them long, fancy, big-worded, drivel. It's better to have a review that simply states something for the common people than a fancy word-play that will have most people washed over with metaphors and history they don't even want to hear.
A writer always remembers his audience, and just because a single person like you (don't bring up, I'm not to only one, because I realize that already) wishes me to be more specific, doesn't mean I should forsake the attention and desires of others over a much smaller audience.

Not all of us are people who wish to pore over writing. This is a site for games remember, the first thing people want to do is read the review for details they need, look at the screens, then decide if they want to download it, if either of these take too long, they might lose interest or will and move on to the next games, deciding that it's better to find a few great games than one with a fantastic review.

And there you go.
Let's keep the discussion related to the game now please?

[TheGiantMidgit]

It is quite entertaining though. I ent never tried Shogun though, to get back onto the topic, and I think I might given the necessary time.

[Ratsalad]

Well, actually the discussion on how to review a game seems slightly more interesting than the game itself, so braving the risc of being off topic

‘n just setting the record straight, I’m not out to start a flame war posting this. In fact in the prior posts in this thread I haven’t seen any attempts to start one; all I’ve seen is a fellow giving some criticism on a review.

And criticism in itself is a good thing; it is like the pruning shears of a gardener, trimming away the brown leaves from the healthy plant.

So is there a problem in this review? Well yes there is. And what is the problem?

Well, this quote hits the spot quite well

"For all I meant it could have been visually a "masterpiece", atmosphericaly, sound-wise, anything"

What does the writer really mean, when he says this game is a masterpiece?
Though I think that the word “masterpiece” should be reserved for games such as Civ, UFO and TOTD the question is easily answered. It means he enjoyed playing the game. But I still need some details as to what he has found enjoyable in this game.
Overall this review is too vague to convey any sort of impression of what kind of game “Shogun” really is.

And let me point out, that what I request is specificness, not length. The only reason that reviewers spout out lengthy reviews too long for any gamer to read is that noone ever gave them a good criticism telling them that they wrote too long. You can write for pages and pages without ever addressing the important issues of a game and you can tell how a game plays and what’s it like in a short text.
Sadly, this review does neither.
But the main point of this post is that you should state your oppinion on reviews, be it positive or constructive, in these threads, because the writer will benefit from the criticism.

[A. J. Raffles]

Listen, Ratsalad, if you're such an authority on what constitutes A Good Review and what games might rightly be termed "masterpieces", why don't you write some reviews yourself instead of finding fault with reviews written by other people, so that they can "benefit from the criticism"? Even if you are being helpful in pointing out flaws in a review, has it ever occurred to you that it is a bit of an ungrateful attitude to take? Reviewers spend time (and often it's quite a lot of time) preparing and writing those reviews that you and I read and more or less take for granted. The least we should do is to show some respect for the reviewers' work. Of course that still puts us in a position to disagree with it, but it certainly does not put us in a position to lecture somebody who - unlike us - has actually made a valuable contribution to the site (as opposed to rather unproductive squabbling on our part) and to act as if we were his English teachers.
Leave the reviewer alone and start discussing the bloody game, for God's sake.

[Borodin]

That's an argument ad hominem, Raffles: the idea that instead of responding to a criticism, one attacks the one who criticizes:

"I don't like the way X is running the government, because of A, B and C."
"You don't know the first thing about running a government, therefore you can't criticize it."

Unless I missed something, there's no rule here that says you can only state your opinions about a review if you've already written one, or that your opinions aren't worth listening to unless you've done this. If the site owner wishes to create such a rule, I'll abide by it. (Or, for example, a rule that no review can be discussed--only the product being reviewed. That would be fine, if it becomes a policy, applying to everyone, all the time.) I was willing to drop this whole matter with your appeal to keep things calm earlier in this thread, but when you then jump in again to tell Ratsalad, or me, or anybody else, that our viewpoints have no validity until we write reviews then you're not being fair or accurate.

THis is again off-topic, I know--so if anyone wants to create a thread in another forum area discussing review criteria and comments about reviews, and whether we're allowed to utter criticisms of reviews, I'm game, and will place all future comments over there.

[A. J. Raffles]

Originally posted by Borodin@Nov 18 2005, 11:32 AM
That's an argument ad hominem, Raffles: the idea that instead of responding to a criticism, one attacks the one who criticizes:

Why thank you for explaining that to me. I am so grateful.