New AVWW Reviews and GGTL's Livestream Event

[cupogoodness]

Originally posted: http://arcengames.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-avww-reviews-and-ggtls-livestream.html

A few new A Valley Without Wind reviews we wanted to pass along, plus a live event taking place this weekend to mention.

In Armaan Khan' review on TruePCGaming he felt had barely scratched the surface in terms of content during the 12 hours he spent in the game. As he puts it: "a time in which I could have played out most other modern games at least twice."

Peter Parrish aptly provides his take on the game in his incgamers piece 'A Valley Without Wind Review - It doesn't blow.'

The Controller Online thought the concept was bold and interesting, though didn't believe the game was for everyone.

Tierra Gamer gave the game an 8.5/10, raving about the gameplay, soundtrack and background visuals. (Spanish)

Gamer's Guide To Life Livestream

I'll be joining a couple of the guys from GGTL for a livestream of Valley this weekend. The show will start at Noon ET today (Saturday, April 28th) and run for around an hour. We'll be talking about the game as they play, I'll be taking questions, and there's going to be a giveaway as well. Stop in if you're hanging around!

[KDR_11k]

IGN and GameSpot didn't like it.

What I find funny is when people complain about the name Environ. Yeah, because planet Earth is such a great name!

[KingIsaacLinksr]

IGN and GameSpot didn't like it.

What I find funny is when people complain about the name Environ. Yeah, because planet Earth is such a great name!

Hmph, IGN and GameSpot reviews are untrustworthy at best. 

King

[Huaojozu]

That may be true but they are still one of the (if not the) most visited sites for game reviews in general. Having a high score on those pretty much guarantees you a lot of initial sales, especially with such a low price. It's great that AVWW scores high on so many review sites but to be honest, I have never even heard of most of them - and I spend a lot of time gaming. The casual crowd will look at Gamespot/IGN couple it with the somewhat weird graphics and ignore the game altogether.

I'm just saying that if I were a game developer, I would worry about Gamespot/IGN scores from a marketing standpoint a lot. I may not care about what the big sites say, since the smaller sites have better reviews, but they definitely influence way more potential buyers than the smaller ones.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

That may be true but they are still one of the (if not the) most visited sites for game reviews in general. Having a high score on those pretty much guarantees you a lot of initial sales, especially with such a low price. It's great that AVWW scores high on so many review sites but to be honest, I have never even heard of most of them - and I spend a lot of time gaming. The casual crowd will look at Gamespot/IGN couple it with the somewhat weird graphics and ignore the game altogether.

I'm just saying that if I were a game developer, I would worry about Gamespot/IGN scores from a marketing standpoint a lot. I may not care about what the big sites say, since the smaller sites have better reviews, but they definitely influence way more potential buyers than the smaller ones.

And there is not a darn thing you can do about IGN/Gamespot's reviews. So not sure what there is to worry about. I saw IGN review an absolutely terrible game and gave it a 90+/100. While everyone else around them slammed it for being such a terrible game, I wish I could remember the name of it. Worrying about review websites will drive you nuts. I'd be more worried about making the game good.

King

[chemical_art]

IGN and Gamespot are not the best, but they influence so many other reviews, and are part of the metacrtiic review, both metaphorically and the rating site itself. And if you don't worry about them at all, well, you might as well say you don't care about marketing at all, and that a game should sell itself.

(Those of you with studies in business know what I am implying)

At least Gamespot didn't bash the graphics or the name itself, but echoed complaints that have been said repeatedly here: That there is little feeling of progress from hour 15 compared to hour 5 aside from buffed stats, and that for 95% of enemies you don't need to use your dozens of spells but rather two, and it feels grindy if the game rhythm doesn't fully draw you in.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

IGN and Gamespot are not the best, but they influence so many other reviews, and are part of the metacrtiic review, both metaphorically and the rating site itself.

Which is why I don't really listen to scored reviews or metacritic at all when deciding on my next game. Scored reviews are terrible for determining the quality of the game.

All that aside, there's not much you can do about IGN/Gamespot unless your a giant AAA company. Then your game will always get high reviews from them I've noticed. What that implies..........

King

[chemical_art]

That may be true but they are still one of the (if not the) most visited sites for game reviews in general. Having a high score on those pretty much guarantees you a lot of initial sales, especially with such a low price. It's great that AVWW scores high on so many review sites but to be honest, I have never even heard of most of them - and I spend a lot of time gaming. The casual crowd will look at Gamespot/IGN couple it with the somewhat weird graphics and ignore the game altogether.

I'm just saying that if I were a game developer, I would worry about Gamespot/IGN scores from a marketing standpoint a lot. I may not care about what the big sites say, since the smaller sites have better reviews, but they definitely influence way more potential buyers than the smaller ones.

And there is not a darn thing you can do about IGN/Gamespot's reviews. So not sure what there is to worry about. I saw IGN review an absolutely terrible game and gave it a 90+/100. While everyone else around them slammed it for being such a terrible game, I wish I could remember the name of it. Worrying about review websites will drive you nuts. I'd be more worried about making the game good.

King

Actually, your example gives an idea of rating inflation. Meaning sites give games a higher rating then they deserve. Which means that when a game gets a sub par rating, the masses if they trust the site think of the game poorly, but if they don't trust the site then they want the game even less, since the wonder what the true rating would be.

<No, the masses don't consider that only for big named games does rating inflation occur, but the masses odds are don't even notice rating inflation to begin with>

[Vinraith]

And there is not a darn thing you can do about IGN/Gamespot's reviews. So not sure what there is to worry about. I saw IGN review an absolutely terrible game and gave it a 90+/100. While everyone else around them slammed it for being such a terrible game, I wish I could remember the name of it. Worrying about review websites will drive you nuts. I'd be more worried about making the game good.

King

I recall them giving MOO3 a 92, not sure if that's the one you're thinking of. They have a long habit of praising big budget games and bashing games from smaller developers, regardless of their respective quality, so I tend not to take them seriously.

[chemical_art]

IGN and Gamespot are not the best, but they influence so many other reviews, and are part of the metacrtiic review, both metaphorically and the rating site itself.

Which is why I don't really listen to scored reviews or metacritic at all when deciding on my next game. Scored reviews are terrible for determining the quality of the game.

All that aside, there's not much you can do about IGN/Gamespot unless your a giant AAA company. Then your game will always get high reviews from them I've noticed. What that implies..........

King

You imply that every tiny game developed gets bad scores, but it isn't true.

You say you don't use metacritic, because its unfair, but the fact is that many more people do.

You may not trust one site. But if 6 sites give less favorable review, it should not be brushed off so casually.

And to give you an idea:

Meta critic current gives AVWW a 55 out of 100.
AI war gets 80 out of 100.

Or to put it another way:
The lowest AI war review score is equal to the highest AVWW review score <70>

[KingIsaacLinksr]

IGN and Gamespot are not the best, but they influence so many other reviews, and are part of the metacrtiic review, both metaphorically and the rating site itself.

Which is why I don't really listen to scored reviews or metacritic at all when deciding on my next game. Scored reviews are terrible for determining the quality of the game.

All that aside, there's not much you can do about IGN/Gamespot unless your a giant AAA company. Then your game will always get high reviews from them I've noticed. What that implies..........

King

You say you don't use metacritic, because its unfair, but the fact is that many more people do.

No, I don't use it because the site gives an incorrect impression of the quality (or lack thereof) in the game.  And sure, a lot of people use it. Not disputing that here. But really, there isn't much we can do about IGN/Gamespot giving poor reviews. Which was really what I was getting at when Huaojozu posted. So worrying about it is a waste of effort.

King

[TechSY730]

And to give you an idea:

Meta critic current gives AVWW a 55 out of 100.
AI war gets 80 out of 100.

Or to put it another way:
The lowest AI war review score is equal to the highest AVWW review score <70>

That is a startling difference, but it is a bit of an unfair comparison.
AVWW is only in its 1st major version, AI War is in its 5th.

I guess it depends on what version of AI War those reviews were written for.

[chemical_art]

And to give you an idea:

Meta critic current gives AVWW a 55 out of 100.
AI war gets 80 out of 100.

Or to put it another way:
The lowest AI war review score is equal to the highest AVWW review score <70>

That is a startling difference, but it is a bit of an unfair comparison.
AVWW is only in its 1st major version, AI War is in its 5th.

I guess it depends on what version of AI War those reviews were written for.

I don't know of the timeline for ai wars, but most of the reviews were written late 2009, so way before 5.0, and maybe even before zenith remnant?

And if you don't trust game sites reviews, but rather player reviews on metacritic,
ai wars gets a 9.0
AVWW gets 6.2

[Huaojozu]

No, I don't use it because the site gives an incorrect impression of the quality (or lack thereof) in the game.  And sure, a lot of people use it. Not disputing that here. But really, there isn't much we can do about IGN/Gamespot giving poor reviews. Which was really what I was getting at when Huaojozu posted. So worrying about it is a waste of effort.
King

While I do not work in the gaming industry and thus have zero relevant experience, I refuse to believe that there is literally nothing that could have been done to improve those scores. A lot, of course, may have been done by Arcen and just didn't work. From the top of my head, I would try to get them to re-review the game after a few weeks/months, since just the loot drops in the latest release changed the game significantly. It's not like that didn't happen before.

EDIT: The point is that all these patches could get the score bumped to say 7,5 or higher after a while. A year from now, a casual player will search for games released in the last year, see AVWW (which he already saw after release, but dismissed and thus forgot), see it's reasonable score and give it a try.

[chemical_art]

And to avoid the wrong impression:

I'm not bashing AVWW itself.

What I am saying is that no matter your views on ratings, you shouldn't discount them because they are only made for big things. My comparisons of this and AI war is meant to highlight that things are not so hunky doory.

Also, because I've seen so many people say "Screw marketing, my product will sell itself..." then later say "I'm right, they are wrong, and they will come around" that it annoys me on some level.

Not that Acren has done this, but its a dangerous path to ignore reviews...