Quote:
Originally Posted by MercurySeven
Well, lets be hones: Neal and Subsim are quite different from any kind of game magazine. The version they tested at the magazine was an early (!!) version that was limited to the single missions (so no new campaign yet) and was (as far as I know) far from being ready to ship. There were report of missing content, crashes, bugs ... you name it.
So while a magazine (possibly bound by contract) is used to get a first glance at games in such a state and will report on what the game is shaping up to be, a subsimmer like Neal would probably start testing the thing thoroughly and report all kinds of stuff that is missing or that does not work correctly. There would be a long, long checklist of "is feature X in the game?" and for each one missing there would be outrage in the radio room.
Meanwhile, in Romania the devs are working on the game and (hopefully) fixing bugs and tweaking gameplay aspects. So while a magazine is just looking for a few screenshots and the general INTENTION of the game someone like Neal is looking for the actual GAMEPLAY which is still being finalized.
So, yeah, I understand why some magazines got an early copy some time ago and Neal didn't. And no, I do not want Neal to get THAT copy. Because that copy is unfinished crap! Once the thing has hit gold status and is going into production I would want Neal to have one copy in his mailbox, fresh from the factory, and I will certainly read his review once he had time to test the game and write about it.
All has its time.
|
Here's the thing about PREVIEWS and REVIEWS.
Previews are done well before the game is finished, well before it is polished, with many features missing or incomplete. Alpha copies have bugs, glitches, and lots of them, but that is to be expected, the game is not finished. It would be pretty lame to report on bugs and missing features when work is still underway--that's like tasting a dish before it is cooked. The preview's role is to report on the overall direction of the game and give people an update and a feel for the game (with the ever-present disclaimer that some features may or
may not make it into the final game).
When I get an alpha or beta version of a sub game to
preview, as I did with SH2, Sub Command, Dangerous Waters, Silent Hunter III, etc., I usually
do provide an extensive play test report to the developer, to give them a sense of how the game plays from someone who has not been working on it 10 hours a day, for months. But I don't publish this report, that's not my job, and it would not be fair to the developer. It doesn't help the players, either. You need someone telling you the game does this and this and this wrong when it will likely be fixed in the final version? I'm not alone in handling previews this way, most professional journalists do the same thing.
Previews are very useful in shaping a game, too. When I reported on SH3 at E3, and mentioned the campaign was branching, not dynamic, the players
respectfully but persistantly complained and beseeched Ubisoft to include a dynamic campaign... and the dev team sold the idea. It delayed the game 8 months or so, but the result was worth it, SH3 was the greatest subsim ever at the time and was critically acclaimed--I gave it a 100 score, and so did
several other top notch reviewers (100 does not mean
perfect, ok? It just means the game was damn good and maxed out the Onkel Neal-o-meter
).
.
Now, on the subject of
reviews: Reviews are based on the gold master, the game you will get in the store. When I do a review, I will cover every aspect of the game I can. I will include bugs and glitches, and I keep them in perspective. If a bug does not affect gameplay (SH3 water spray on the UZO before the patch), I don't beat the game up over it. If the bug does affect the gameplay (SH4 torpedo speed bug), then it gets a factual mention. I try to resist the impulse to be snotty about; that's a tone too common in reviews. I can tell you a game has a lot of crappy features without acting out like a 3rd grade bully.
And I have no problem admitting I have a bias--I do support sub simulations, I want there to be a viable market for them. I want the developers and publishers to profit from their sales, I want them to keep making them...and I certainly want the players to get their money's worth, I don't believe the players should be cheated or scammed. I would like to see as much realism and historical accuracy as many of you, and if the ublisher feels he needs to arcade the game up to reach a wiser market, I can live with that as long as the game is scalable and includes realism options that will make the game a simulation acceptable to us.
So, when my review of SH5 comes out, which will probably be after the game is out, I will tell you everything about the game, good and bad, and how I feel about it. If the developers assure me that they will continue working on the game with patches, that does factor into my thinking. I don't play the fanboy and I don't let people pressure me into proving that or jumping on a bandwagon of whining or hating. If someone calls me a fanboy, I will not beat a game up to prove I am not. I am an optimist and a
positive person but I will say what I think, and for those who know me well, intergrity is everything.
.
Now, if you'll excuse me,
I have work to do