Out side of some Clipping errors, I founf FOT to be a pretty genre title. I do have question about AI. Mark said it was lousy. I found it to be on par with any game of the genre. What squad based game has "good AI"?

Shadow Watch leaps to mind.

-Tom

Oops, I took so long to post elsewhere that the thread started without me.

Shadow Watch did have excellent AI. JA2's wasn't bad -- at least enemies would respond to audio cues and warn each other. Even Squad Leader and that WH40K game had enemies that would come at you in force. FOT's AI is simply wretched. For really good AI, look to tactical console games like Vandal Hearts or Final Fantasy Tactics; units in those games often execute exactly the moves you would as a human player.

But barring good AI, there are two ways around the lack of it: decent scripting or dynamic/random play environments. The scripting system for Random Games' squad-level offerings was excellent, even if the rules were broken, and the first X-Com is a shining example of how a modular, destructible battlefield can make even simple AI challenging and fun.

More important than either of those crutches, though, is a rules system that is simple and elegant, designed with AI in mind. That's part of what helps Shadow Watch stand above the rest.

I feel like the folks making these games need a remedial course in the history of tactical boardgame design, going back to Melee and Wizard. Fallout was intially designed using the GURPS system, but apparently those folks and their successors failed to grasp what makes GURPS great: logic, coherence, consistency.

It's actually the same reason I find all the AD&D RPGs to be such a drag in the long run, too.

JA2 had very basic AI as well. Any attack = go hide and stay there for the rest of the map. From time to time, step out, take a shot and go head in the same spot. It went from Easy ti impossible once super soldiers entered into the mix the near jedi abilities. Final Fantasy Tactics had two ai modes, charge straight for character, or attack from distance with the odd heal self thrown in.
Xcom was cool and wish a really update could be brought to market. Never played Shadow Watch.

Rob, I think FOT is a decent game, but a large part of the appeal is simply that we don't get many of these games. It works, but it could have been much better.

Jason, good points. X-COM was an amazing game in that the aliens actually seemed smart at times. I know the AI wasn't really doing much, but I'll be damned if those aliens didn't seem like they were playing cat and mouse with me. I'd see them, think they were there, and then when I'd be circling around they'd appear in my path as if they were waiting for me. I don't know how Mythos did that.

---

Quote:

Fallout was intially designed using the GURPS system, but apparently those folks and their successors failed to grasp what makes GURPS great: logic, coherence, consistency.

---

Yeah, something was going on in X-Com, that's for sure. I remember some aliens hiding and others moving about... the suspenseful atmosphere helped engage the player's imagination, I think, and we attribute all sorts of things to the game that weren't hardcoded into it...

To its advantage, X-Com worked with the notion that your enemy was not like you, and hence didn't have to play by the rules you might expect human enemies (a la FOT or JA2) to employ. I'd guess those giant flying aspirin things were pretty mindless as far as AI goes, but they were scary as hell, and I sure attributed a lot of malice and ill intention to them.

Also, X-Com had that great morale system! Nothing like panicking, berserking, and fleeing units to make a fight more interesting... and lessen the attention paid to how "smart" the enemy behaves.

A similar thing was at work in Chaos Gate, in that a futuristic setting allowed for more leeway in terms of believability. When they took that same engine and gave it a WWII makeover for Squad Leader, you could see all the flaws because you had more of sense of what is "real" in a WWII context.

That's what's ultimately annoying about FOT; I can accept that it's nigh impossible to program a genuinely good AI, but the FOT guys didn't even make the creative effort to disguise the lack. There's nothing (like morale rules or good scripting) to distract you from the fact that the enemies are brain-dead!

I guess they tried to make it real purty lookin', but it didn't work for me...

Shadow Watch may have had good AI, but the game setting and mechanics and everything else was boring IMO, so there :-).

As for Fallout Tactics, the real problem again IMO is that the game is really an attempt to be a strategy RPG, and it fails in many ways at being either. I enjoyed it, but mostly because I absolutely love the Fallout setting and general game system, and I love this genre of game. For gamers not steeped in Wasteland lore, this game has a lot less to offer.

The postmortem on Gamasutra has some interesting stuff on how the game system evolved--haphazardly, it seems.

Jason,

GURPS has its genesis in tactical boardgaming, gradually becoming a RPS as the ruleset was expanded, tested, and improved upon.

The thing about it that I think relevant is that it's a tried-and-true, elegant, scalebale rules system; a system which would lend itself more readily to the application of AI.

In designing Shadow Watch, Kevin Perry wrote up the rules and made a boardgame prototype of it, which he and other employees at Red Storm playtested extensively. Only after he decided that it was fun and playable as a boardgame did he begin to code the thing. The result is perhaps the best computer opponent yet programemd for a turn-based, squad-level game.

SPECIAL was "inspired" by GURPS, but its designers failed to recognize or incoporate GURPS' notion of a wholistic system designed from the inside out, instead beginning cosmetically and attempting to find their way "in." Nothing more might be expected of them, since GURPS had taken years to perfect, and Interplay had to put out an RPG in a short period of time. I don't think the SPECIAL system is bad, but I didn't think it was much fun from a tactical perspective.

In any case, my main and elementary point is that you need a logical and coherent set of rules in order to integrate decent AI, one ideally designed from the get-go with AI in mind.

---

Quote:

In any case, my main and elementary point is that you need a logical and coherent
set of rules in order to integrate decent AI, one ideally designed from the get-go with AI in mind.

---

"BTW, didn't D&D also start out as a tactical combat rules system and evolve into a role-playing system?"

Yeah, the Wisconsin guys were playing medieval miniatures games and started codifying some rules, which became Chainmail. Then they threw in some fantasy elements and that aspect of the game took off so they were inspired to do D&D.

At least that's how I remember the genesis. I have an original copy of both D&D and Chainmail somewhere.

---

Quote:

The demo was enough to disuade me from buying FOT.

---

---

Quote:

BTW, didn't D&D also start out as a tactical combat rules system and evolve into a role-playing system?

---

Shhh, don't let Ben Sones know you're asking about D&D. He's a D&D fanatic, and when he took the assignment for the cover story of our June issue his eyes developed this Satanic glow and he locked himself in a room for seven days and seven nights, emerging only when he had penned--on human flesh, in virgin's blood--about four bazillion words on the history of D&D.

And as for the question of AI (again), I'm a bit baffled at the worship of Shadow Watch here. I realize Tom loves the game, which is fine, but I just went back and re-read my own review of the title, and came across a passage that aptly summarizes my feelings about the AI in Red Storm's admirable but IMO unsuccessful attempt at the genre:

"Your enemies are fairly stupid, preferring to walk one after another into your sniper�s covering fire, and completely oblivious to what�s going on behind them. Apparently, they don�t react to any sound short of a gunshot or an explosion either�they have to see you to take notice, and they never turn around until activated."


I'm sure others will disagree, and I'm fine with that--this isn't gospel here, just games--but I have to say that as bad as Fallout Tactics' AI might be, I didn't find it any worse than Shadow Watch's.

---

Quote:

Shhh, don't let Ben Sones know you're asking about D&D. He's a D&D fanatic, and when he took the assignment for the cover story of our June issue his eyes developed this Satanic glow and he locked himself in a room for seven days and
seven nights, emerging only when he had penned--on human flesh, in virgin's blood--about four bazillion words on the history of D&D.

---

Robert wrote:

"And as for the question of AI (again), I'm a bit baffled at the worship of Shadow Watch here. I realize Tom loves the game, which is fine, but I just went back and re-read my own review of the title, and came across a passage that aptly summarizes my feelings about the AI in Red Storm's admirable but IMO unsuccessful attempt at the genre:

'Your enemies are fairly stupid, preferring to walk one after another into your sniper�s covering fire, and completely oblivious to what�s going on behind them. Apparently, they don�t react to any sound short of a gunshot or an explosion either�they have to see you to take notice, and they never turn around until activated.'

"I'm sure others will disagree, and I'm fine with that--this isn't gospel here, just games--but I have to say that as bad as Fallout Tactics' AI might be, I didn't find it any worse than Shadow Watch's."


It is just games, of course, but I'll have to disagree.

The first misfortune of Shadow Watch is that it fits into a pre-existing genre that brings with it certain expectations. There is no "Sneak" skill, because all of your team members are trained stealth operatives who move silently by default (unless they run, in which case there is a 15% chance of an enemy in earshot moving to investigate). This leads to situations where you can sneak up on a stationary bad guy facing the other way. But some enemies go on patrol, and they are the biggest challenge when trying to tackle a mission stealthily.

The second misfortune of Shadow Watch is that it isn't readily apparent how good the AI is; most of the smart behavior occurs "behind the scenes." Enemies do in fact respond to sound -- be it gunfire or the kicking in of doors (but not movement or hand-to-hand, which is considered silent) -- in force. Many a mission I played was nearly botched by a premature shot fired or sighting by the enemy, which results in an alarm being sounded.

Alarms cause enemy units *on the whole map* to assemble at key strategic points, where some set up to cover doorways and others move to investigate the sound. Enemy units also do different things depending on their rank and type: grunts will take the point or blunder into your fire, snipers will remain at a distance, hand-to-hand fighters will move in close, captains and commanders will hang back in relative safety.

Unfortunately all of this and other AI behaviors go largely unnoticed, much to the frustration of the game's designer and AI programmer (as well as a few vocal proponents of the game :))

I would suggest -- and I mean no disrespect, Robert -- that you try the game on a higher difficulty level and/or don't allow yorself to save during a mission. It ups the tension level and accentuates a little better the quality of the AI, which I have to continue insisting is much, much more sophisticated than that in FOT!

Thanks, Jason, for the comments. I won't be firing up Shadow Watch to try again, though--it bored me enough the first time. I don't doubt the veracity of your comments about the AI--not at all-- but I do have to say that, if in playing the game for as long as I did for the review (and I played it a lot), the AI's strengths weren't apparent, then I suggest the designers missed the boat somewhere. It makes little difference if you design a game that is great behind the scenes, if the player never gets the benefit of all that work.

The upshot of it was that I found the game mind-numbingly boring, for a lot of reasons. That's not saying others won't find it fun. The maps were small and uninteresting in my opinion, the settings drab and pedestrian, and the lack of any sort of RPG-esque elements (looting, equipping, nothing beyond a fairly rudimentary skill system) pretty much made the whole thing an exercise in going through the motions for me.

OTOH, it was obvious that the designers were trying some cool things, and had a very sincere appreciation for the genre, and love for it. I was disappointed I didn't enjoy the game more--perhaps it was too much an abstract "pure" tactical game for my tastes.

Thanks for your ameliorated comments, Herr Mayer. No need to back off your opinions, though. You didn't like it, and that's fine by me.

The biggest lesson I learned as a designer from SW is to make sure that all the effort shows. It doesn't matter if the AI is perfect if the player never sees it in proper action. It might as well not be there at all.

Were I to do it again, I would include a clean and simple kitting system, because most people really seemed to miss that. But I am no fan of the looting elements in games like this. It's vaguely appropriate in a setting like FOT, but not at all in others, including SW. Inventory management is a massive pain. The greatest annoyances in X-COM revolved around the inventory system. I'd usually have several squaddies with laser rifles even up to the lest mission, just to avoid dealing with ammo. It just gets worse the more team members that you add. If I were to do a game filled with stuff, I'd make sure that the team AI could allocate it properly and simply (with player OKs, of course.)

I think it's interesting that you bring up equipping and looting as elements of an RPG, as opposed to the skill and attribute based gains that I always see as the most important part. Perhaps that's the overweening influence of Diablo and its kind, where stats are basically just qualifiers to carry the cool stuff.

KP

Thanks, Kevin. I'm glad designers realize that when we criticize games we're not slamming them, personally--just as I rather doubt James Cameron hates me for loathing Titanic :-).

I agree that looting per se would have been a bit hard to integrate into SW's fiction, and I also agree that in most games inventory management is a pain. I still find, however, that I love that sort of stuff--though I am puzzling over how I'd integrate that into a game focusing on a team like the Shadow Watch agents. Perhaps simply having a basic kitting system would have helped, as you note.

As for skill and attribute based gains being the core of an RPG, I'd not want to slight those either. Ultimately, looting fits into the same paradigm--increasing your character's ability to affect the gameworld. In pen and paper RPGs, there are myriad ways to do this, from status to prestige to reputation to magic swords et al. In a computer game, you're pretty much reduced to numbers, and items that represent or reproduce the effects of numbers. It's not just Diablo (which I like), it's all the Infinity Engine games, or Fallout, or Might & Magic, etc. All CRPGs essentially quanitify everything, and nothing is of value unless it has an in-game mechanical function--which invariably winds up being an enhancement to your ability to kill things or keep from being killed, directly or indirectly.

Anyhow, that's rather far afield :-). If you ever do a Shadow Watch 2 I'll be eager to play it.

Robert wrote: "It makes little difference if you design a game that is great behind the scenes, if the player never gets the benefit of all that work."

I completely agree, and understand how this detracted from many players' enjoyment of the game.

I personally never missed the lack of looting, since I found the experience/skill system to satisfy my desire for character advancement.

Kevin, if you're still reading: Can you tell us what you're workng on these days? I read somewhere it has something to do with the "Power Play" series from Red Storm, but I don't know what that is. I'm looking forward very much to whatever you do next.

"nothing beyond a fairly rudimentary skill system"

This is one criticism of Shadow Watch that truly baffles me. Bruce said something similar in his rant.

The skill system in SW is superlative. It has a significant impact on how the game plays. As you progress through missions, your playing pieces dramatically *change*. And it's not just a matter of being able to better kill things. Because of the skills, your playing pieces interact with the game world in new and different ways. You unlock new solutions to each mission. And you have to make some hard choices about what path to take and who to upgrade.

In fact, I'd argue the skill system is the core of what makes SW so compelling.

(Speaking of SW2, what *is* KP working on these days...?)

-Tom

KP is working on getting that Diplomacy game set up for us to play. I just created a folder on our server and gave him access. He's going to upload some Diplomacy stuff, and maybe some porn. He's l33t!

Well, sorry to disappoint.

I'm the Director of Game Design over here now, which means I run the design department rather than actually doing any work^H^H^H^H designs myself.

So while I do have an impact on all RSE games, there won't be a 'designed by me' game anytime soon. At least not a computer one.

Consider me humbled by the attention.

And Herr Mayer, I appreciate your appreciation of my comments. I would warn you, however, that such equanimity is very difficult. Putting out a game involves months of incredibly hard work that leads to an intense bunker mentality, so the team finds it impossible to be objective later.

Take Politika, for example, the first game RSE released. It was a hell schedule, and we went blind trying to get it out, and barely succeeded. The reviews were quite poor, which devastated the team even further. Note, though, that we knew that the game wasn't that good; we complained about it all the time internally. It just hurts a lot more when a stranger points it out.

I guess I'm not so much objective as scarred :)

KP

KP

"Putting out a game involves months of incredibly hard work that leads to an intense bunker mentality, so the team finds it impossible to be objective later."

I don't doubt this. I'm rather surprised, really, that game developers don't lash out more at reviewers who do slipshod work.

Try coming to a GDC and flashing a press badge around.

Just don't do it in a dark alley. . .

The reason you don't see it more is that the media, by definition, control the public communication channels.

Also, most working team members are too busy for this nonsense. Luckily, I'm management now.

KP

Kevin: Um, why the "Herr Mayer" bit? Is my trench coat showing? :-)

Tom: When I was plahing SW, I found the skill system didn't really make that much of a difference in how I approached the game. I admit I probably just focused on one way through, but that worked for me. I suspect the chess-like aspect of the game is one of the things that appeals to you; it didn't much, to me. I never approached the game as a chess match, but more like I would Jagged Alliance. Different strokes.

Kevin (again): I understand how developers might grow to hate the press, when reviews come in that consign one's hard work to the dustbin of gaming history. But doesn't that go with the territory? As long as the reviewer isn't malicious, and is fair, you are in the same boat as a movie director. The game is your product, and you get the praise if it's good and the criticism if it's bad.

I do think though that some gamers don't understand that no developer ever sets out to do a bad game. They all set out to do good games. Some succeed, some fail, for as many reasons as there are games.

Kevin: "Take Politika, for example, the first game RSE released."

Hey, I liked Politika, even though it was squeezed into a pretty cramped screen. IIRC, there was some icky Java stuff jammed in there, too. I do remember thinking it would be a really nice board game!

Robert RE: Shadow Watch: "I never approached the game as a chess match, but more like I would Jagged Alliance."

Which is, IMO, what accounts for a lot of its negative reviews. I don't think it's fair to approach SW as if it were Jagged Alliance. Your chess analogy is apt, but I prefer to think of it as simply using board gaming abstractions.

Robert: "As long as the reviewer isn't malicious, and is fair..."

/rant

This is giving too much credit to most game reviewers. I'm still reeling that Barry Brenesal can pan Corporate Machine in PC Gamer with a 62% because of the friggin' music! Why don't editors/readers take pubs to task for crap like that? And then other games like B&W, FOT, and TRIBES2 are lauded with glowing reviews by writers who are all but blind to very obvious faults.

Among the many reasons I'd never want to design a game is the fact that I'd be loathe to be reviewed by the kinds of idiots who so often review games. You can quote me on that. And present company excepted, of course.

/rant off

-Tom

Herr Mayer, because I can't remember if you want to be called Bob or Robert or Spanky and Robert Mayer is a bit much to type. Herr Mayer sounds like some sort of olive loaf, though.

Yes, it does go with the territory. That doesn't mean that people can cope with it well. It's very difficult.

The most cogent point in this entire thread is your next one. No game company sets out to make a bad game. Making games is *hard*, and doing it under the conditions that some companies do is little short of heroic. Frankly, it's a wonder that anything of quality is ever produced, especially on the PC.

Tom: Yep, Politika was Java. So was ruthless.com, and Shadow Watch.

Your other point goes back to the review vs. criticism comments that were brought up by Geryk's original analysis. We are in dire need of criticism of games, not reviews. Hey, I've been guilty of simply reviewing games in my past. But these days I try for a more critical stance.

KP

"We are in dire need of criticism of games, not reviews."

That's what I'd like to continue doing with the "Geryk Analysis" column (or whatever it is called), on an "as I have time" basis. I don't pretend to have all the answers as to what makes a game good or bad, but I have at least a few ideas, and would eventually like to get some designers to add their thoughts to a discussion format about their games. I believe I have Gregor Whiley signed on to discuss Reach For The Stars at some point (read: when I send him my questions). Of course, when you discuss something with the person who designed it, you can't really rant about it. And I have to confess that I like to rant. So there's always that, too. As well.

"This is giving too much credit to most game reviewers. I'm still reeling that Barry Brenesal can pan Corporate Machine in PC Gamer with a 62% because of the friggin' music! Why don't editors/readers take pubs to task for crap like that? And then other games like B&W, FOT, and TRIBES2 are lauded with glowing reviews by writers who are all but blind to very obvious faults."

But didn't you pan Deus Ex almost purely on the basis that it didn't fit your own personal definition of "believability"?

All reviewers have bias issues. One of my problems with Shadow Watch was it's lack of "believability", that and as Mayer put it "boredom".

You obviously very much enjoy Shadow Watch's boardgame conventions but would your audience? Even if I were a Shadow Watch fan I'd have trouble recommending it to most people. Deus Ex on the other hand, I didn't like it, but most people I think would like it.

-Andrew

"OTOH, it was obvious that the designers were trying some cool things, and had a very sincere appreciation for the genre, and love for it. I was disappointed I didn't enjoy the game more--perhaps it was too much an abstract "pure" tactical game for my tastes."

A fairly accurate statement. This may come as a crushing blow to the Game Designers here, but sometimes the _interface_ is the game. Exhibit A: Blizzard. The gameplay in Diablo II is rather rudimentary. If you stripped it of all its elaborate (and flawlessly executed) interface, artwork, sound, and networking, there isn't much left.

In other words, Diablo II the boardgame would probably suck. That doesn't make it any less fun, of course, but that's the way it is.

Which reminds me a lot of Marshall McLuhan's "The Medium is The Message."

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. Had I been a tester for Shadow Watch, I would have complained at length about the shortcomings of the interface. For example, I can't just click where I want people to go, which is totally counterintuitive. Additionally, I would have preached to anyone in earshot that a TB/RT toggle be added, so you can speed through the tedious end of round and setup phases.

"But didn't you pan Deus Ex almost purely on the basis that it didn't fit your own personal definition of "believability"?"

Huh? What are you talking about, Bub? Rather than speculate wildly about my review of Deus Ex, you might try reading it. I'd be happy to provide a link if you're interested.

But in brief, no, I did not pan Deus Ex almost purely on the basis that it didn't fit my personal definition of 'believability'.

-Tom

wumpus: "p.s. Had I been a tester for Shadow Watch"

Which is probably why you're not a tester. Testers are hired to test, not rethink the designers' decisions.

Yeah, okay, a friendlier mouse interface wouldn't have hurt, but SW was a turn-based game. I'm sure that's all Red Storm needs: wumpus screaming about adding real-time gameplay. And we all know that went over aces in Fallout Tactics...

-Tom

"And we all know that went over aces in Fallout Tactics..."

Actually, the real time mode in FT does work remarkably well from a pure mechanics standpoint -- have you played it? I actually started in TB (because I was used to Fallout) and switched in mid-game, so I wasn't exactly a believer. It's the rest of the game that has problems. Still fun IMO, but heavily flawed, no doubt about it.

Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying the whole game should be redesigned.. what I specifically said was "so you can speed through the tedious end of round and setup phases". Removing tedium is the name of the game here, and I think walking your guys to the exit after a successful mission is about as close as you can get to a dictionary definition of "tedium". There are a couple different ways to solve that problem...

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Yeah, okay, a friendlier mouse interface wouldn't have hurt, but SW was a turn-based game."

The interface bugged the crap out of me too, but after a couple of hours I knew it and it was fine. Once you learn it, it works well. It just doesn't meet initial expectations.

"I'm sure that's all Red Storm needs: wumpus screaming about adding real-time gameplay. And we all know that went over aces in Fallout Tactics..."

Not to get in the habit of defending Wumpus, but the real-time mode works better than the turn-based, IMO. The game is paced for real-time, for one, and as long as you set your characters to aggressive mode, they do just as well as if you were controlling them...for the most part.

Agree with regards to FO:T-- but that's my whole problem with the game and its 'tactics'.

There was no difference in tactics whether playing the game RT or TB. It was a tank rush either way, with no real tactics involved.

The whole point to TB is to make slower, better decisions. To make better decisions, you need better info. FO:T has this. However, to make better decisions worthwhile, you need those decisions to make a difference. FO:T does not have this, IMHO.

Bruce: Please do continue the Geryk Analysis column.

However, if you want to include designer commentary, you cannot do GA in its current form, because you will be tempted to temper your remarks. I suggest what evolved out of your first column--write the column normally, including rants, and then send a copy to both design teams, letting them know that you expect a reply from both. Then publish those responses.

That'll drive more traffic for Mark anyway.

Tom said:
"But in brief, no, I did not pan Deus Ex almost purely on the basis that it didn't fit my personal definition of 'believability'."

Sure you did (examples below),
boil your review down and every single (justifiable) complaint you have about the game centers around what you find believable. The way the AI reacts or doesn't react, the weapons in crates cliche, the storyline, etc.,

These are all things most gamers forgive immediately. These are all problems with most games in fact, but you wanted more from Deus Ex. It has a "realistic setting" therefore Tom Chick demands it be entirely realistic. That's almost the thesis of this review... the problem is, I think you are the only one who expected it to not follow FPS/RPG convention.

"This wouldn't be so bad if Deus Ex weren't trying to portray a realistic setting. For a game to be immersive, it has to present an internally consistent image of its world. That image has to coincide somehow with our expectations. For instance, when I play Final Fantasy, I expect that I'll be able to go upstairs and raid someone's bedroom because that's The Way Fantasy RPGs Work."

The problem here is: I don't think your audience or the game's audience agrees that Deus Ex should transcend the limits of it's genre meldings. The developers certainly didn't.... But YOU did expect it to. Basically, aren't you therefore reviewing the game you wanted it to be? Like you accuse me of with Shadow Watch?

Tom, I'm not saying your review was "wrong", it's well written, logical... but almost totally out of touch with the audience's taste. Gamers expect AI lapses in their Sci-Fi games, they expect game engine limitations and they expect, right or wrong, they expect to find weapons in crates (yeah, I hated that about the game too).

Worse, you don't acknowledge the skill system, the upgrades and the fact that you can play the game in different ways. You note that YOU couldn't but I played the game and I found I could avoid combat a lot of the time by carefully selecting stealth upgrades.

Now, you wanted examples? Here:
All of your complaints center around believability in this review Tom. Whether you're complaining about the AI, the story, the setting, etc.,

Exhibit

A: "Are you willing to go beyond the mere suspension of disbelief? Are you wiling to hang it from the neck until dead?"

B: "Thief II. System Shock 2. Metal Gear Solid or Tenchu on the Playstation. Even Omikron, Outcast, or post-patch Sin. These are all games that have a better sense of internal logic, games that present a more consistently believable world."

C: "Imagine reading a book where every other sentence is a disclaimer in capital letters: "It was the best of times, THIS IS ONLY A BOOK, it was the worst of times, THIS IS ONLY A BOOK..." Deus Ex consistently screams THIS IS ONLY A GAME. And not a very good one at that."

D: "the most consistent problem with Deus Ex is the way it's steeped in Bad RPG Logic. You can't swing a dead rat without hitting a Tired RPG Cliche. Loot bodies for equipment. Break crates open for equipment. Snatch equipment from people's bedrooms and offices -- they won't mind. Take the pistol from the top drawer of your boss' desk while he's actually sitting there or pinch the shotgun and the money from behind the bar while the bartender looks on. Gather up all the equipment just lying around in the world, strewn like Easter eggs left out for preschoolers: lockpicks in the street, multitools placed on the shelves of tenement buildings, nanokeys in sewer pipes, and perfectly good medkits behind the trash cans in public restrooms."

Don't get me wrong, I admire this review tremendously but I think it ultimately fails. It's too biased, too personal and too out of touch with what most people want from a game. It fails to acknowledge that Deus Ex gave people something they very much wanted. A System Shock meets X-Files experience. Really, that problem could have been solved with a line or two about the positives the game offers.

-Andrew

"Actually, the real time mode in FT does work remarkably well from a pure mechanics standpoint -- have you played it?"

I'm talking about how the design team was pushed into accomodating both TB and RT. According to the accounts I've read (here?), this is partly accountable for some of FOT's problems.

"Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying the whole game should be redesigned.. what I specifically said was "so you can speed through the tedious end of round and setup phases". Removing tedium is the name of the game here, and I think walking your guys to the exit after a successful mission is about as close as you can get to a dictionary definition of "tedium"."

You obviously missed the point of having to walk your guys out after accomplishing the objectives. Don't feel bad, though, as reviewers like Bub also missed that point even though they say they played the game through three whole times...

You have to walk off the maps because BAD GUYS CAN STILL APPEAR! The game wasn't magically over when you grabbed the briefcase, or whatever your particular objective was. You have to egress.

It's similar to having to land your plane in a flight sim. It always bugged me to no end how a perfectly good flight sim like Jane's F-15 lets you just hit "end mission" after bombing the Iraqi chemeical factory. And even if you've got a swarm of incoming interceptors and a battery of SAMs heading at your belly, the game is suddenly over and you're relaxing back at base. YOU SHOULD HAVE TO GET THE FRIGGIN' PLANE HOME!

So it is with Shadow Watch. There's a reason you have to leave the map. 1) Get in. 2) Accomplish your objective. 3) Get out. Kudos to KP and Red Storm for not forgetting #3. Raspberries to guys like you and Bub who thought it was tedium.

-Tom

"You have to walk off the maps because BAD GUYS CAN STILL APPEAR! The game wasn't magically over when you grabbed the briefcase, or whatever your particular objective was. You have to egress."

Well, that never happened in the 5-6 missions I played. It sure would have been nice to have the real time option until I actually encountered these mythical baddies of which you speak, then it could have automatically popped into turn based mode.

Of course I didn't play the game 2,948 times like you and Bub, evidently.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Bub:

"Don't get me wrong, I admire this review tremendously but I think it ultimately fails. It's too biased, too personal and too out of touch with what most people want from a game. It fails to acknowledge that Deus Ex gave people something they very much wanted. A System Shock meets X-Files experience. Really, that problem could have been solved with a line or two about the positives the game offers."


I just have to say I heartily applaud Tom for his review of Deus Ex, and that he is not alone in his opinion; I completely agree with all of his criticisms. Deus Ex was technologically impressive but kind of dumb, really. It felt like an RPG made by a bunch of junior high kids. I want more from computer games than that. Just because an enormous number of junior high kids buy computer games doesn't mean Tom is obligated to tailor his review to suit them.

"Too biased?" "Too personal?" Give me a freaking break. Game journalism is generally so shoddy, undisciplined, ill-defined, and consumer-driven, that I find it refreshing and heartening to come across an astute, overtly subjective, and -- God help us all -- *brave* piece of critical analysis in the form of a review. I'm so sick of "reviews" in this industry, and the shallow, incompetent tripe dished out by their writers! Mix it up a little! If the readers can't take it, there're a hundred other interchangeably glowing hype jobs in place to reinforce the wasting of their money!

Game design has two agents of advancement: inspired game designers (who can be counted on one hand) and critical observers (who can be counted on the other hand). The former are ten times more important than the latter, but both are capable of provoking innovation and change. Not the guys in black leather trenchcoats at Ion Storm, not the slicksters at Blizzard, and certainly not the majority of game "reviewers."

Tom took an overhyped game to task, and for lots of good reasons. It may have been highly personal, but so what? It was his honest opinion, and that's what I want to hear!

[ahem]

Tom is a great reviewer, but I think FPS games are not his forte.

I've read all of Tom's FPS game reviews, and while I agree with a *few* of them, I don't think he's an ideal choice to review these types of games. I know he likes to think of himself a "mastarr of FPS gamieng" fancy lad but I beg to differ.

And no, I'm not just saying this because I disagree with his Deus Ex review. In fact I agree with many of the criticisms. But as Bub said above, there's a fatal flaw: Tom simply couldn't comprehend why _anyone_ would enjoy the game, which was both wildly popular with gamers, and also with critics. That puts him squarely in the "out of touch with FPS gamers" camp. His recent reviews of Undying, Serious Sam, etc are just icing on the cake at this point. I just mumbled "okey doke" as I read each one. All 3 sentences of 'em, anyway.

This isn't meant to be negative; I couldn't review games like Europa Universalis or Shadow Watch properly, either. It's just not my cup of tea. I doubt my review of Shadow Watch would have been much more helpful to fans of turn/tile games than Tom's review of Deus Ex was to fans of FPS games.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

I can't add much to what Jason wrote, other than thanks for the comments. Believe it or not, about a third of the email I got from the Deus Ex review was similar to what Jason said. Another third basically said "you have a lot of good points, but I still like the game", and another third was "you're a fucking moron" stuff.

RE: the Deus Ex review, Bub wrote: "Every single (justifiable) complaint you have about the game centers around what you find believable"

I don't see how poor use of a game engine, incompetent AI, dopey storyline, and nearly every gaming cliche in the business have anything to do with "believability". You've apparently stumbled onto a word and you're desperate to hang your hat on it, but it doesn't work. Your hat is going to get dirty.

Bub wrote:
"It's too biased, too personal and too out of touch with what most people want from a game."

This statement really says a lot about the two competing philosophies in the business of writing about games. Sadly, Bub's comment is indicative of the way most of the industry writes: milquetoast, middling, non-confrontational, kowtowing to the lowest common denominator. I freely grant that's not what I did with Deus Ex.

-Tom

"That puts him squarely in the "out of touch with FPS gamers" camp."

I was going to file this with nearly everything else wumpus posts (i.e. not worth responding to), but the above comment brings up an interesting point.

I probably spend more than half of my recreational gaming time with first person shooters. I don't think there's a first/third person shooter/sneaker I haven't played (actually, I haven't played Rune and I'm probably forgetting some others). "Out of touch"? Whatever.

I like to think I have high standards. If that makes me "out of touch", so be it.

-Tom

"I probably spend more than half of my recreational gaming time with first person shooters. I don't think there's a first/third person shooter/sneaker I haven't played (actually, I haven't played Rune and I'm probably forgetting some others). "Out of touch"? Whatever."

See, I told you Tom thinks of himself a "mastarr of FPS gamieng" fancy lad. ;)

This sentence also includes another Tom hallmark-- putting forth a statement, then immediately refuting it. That way you cover both angles of attack and beat your critics to the punch.

Bravo, Tom! Encore! Encore!

Hey, didn't you mention recently that you had to go back and play NOLF months after its initial release date? Odd, for such a self-professed fan of the FPS genre, wouldn't you say? Especially for a title that was generating such critical buzz.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Tom simply couldn't comprehend why _anyone_ would enjoy the game, which was both wildly popular with gamers, and also with critics. That puts him squarely in the "out of touch with FPS gamers" camp."

Reviews shouldn't be written with an eye to gauge how others feel about the game and then tailor the review to encompass that reaction. What you want in a review is a strong opinion that is well-argued. You seem to want reviews to be indicators of a game's popularity or sales success. That's not the way it works.

"Reviews shouldn't be written with an eye to gauge how others feel about the game and then tailor the review to encompass that reaction."

That wasn't what I meant, though I see how it could be interpreted that way.

Tom's review paints Deus Ex as such utter crap that only idiots would enjoy it. This kind of critical vitriol should be reserved for games that are utter dreck. I mean, come on. DE has problems, yes, but so do a lot of other titles.

Tom focuses on his pet peeves (some justified, some not), and misses all the interesting things the game did, or attempted to do, that made it so popular and such a darling of critics.

Hell, I didn't really care for DE, but it held my interest long enough for me to make it 3/4 of the way through the game. I can definitely see why it was popular.

So basically, it's a poor review not because it's negative, but because it's too much about Tom's preferences.. there's no real attempt to be objective about what the game did right and wrong.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Bub wrote:
"It's too biased, too personal and too out of touch with what most people want from a game."

Tom wrote:
"This statement really says a lot about the two competing philosophies in the business of writing about games. Sadly, Bub's comment is indicative of the way most of the industry writes: milquetoast, middling, non-confrontational, kowtowing to the lowest common denominator. I freely grant that's not what I did with Deus Ex."

No Tom, the above statement says only what it says. You can't refute a charge by changing it's meaning to something more convenient for you to shoot down. You do have a responsibility to be fair to the game and genre. And giving a mediocre game a poor score based on your own hangups is not being fair to the game, development team and audience.

There are actually quite a few examples of reviewers who observed all the flaws you noted re: Deus Ex, but they also saw the stuff that worked. The stuff that you failed to mention in your review. The upgrade system, the fact that you really CAN play in a non-violent way. You missed what was good about the game. You criticized it for not being the game you wanted it to be.. or maybe I should just say you failed to fully understand it.
;-)


-Andrew (brushes off hat)
PS: I can't believe you just used reader mail to back up your review Tom. Tsk, tsk....
PSS: I would like to point out that I didn't like Deus Ex. I just think a 3 of 10 score and a statement like "90% bad" are ludicrous no matter how well argued.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Bub. Had I read only Tom's review of Deus Ex I never would have bought it. Luckily I didn't read his review until well after I finished the game. I see his points but the game provided a lot of entertainment for me.

From being around QT3 a while I see a lot of what I would call game snobbishness from some of the writers. It is like being a beer snob and turning your nose up at someone who drinks Miller Lite because it isn't a Guiness or Sam Adams. Well I like Miller Lite, it tastes pretty good to me. (I honestly don't like "great" beer but that is another discussion for another thread.)

The point I am trying to make is that I see people overanalyzing games at every turn rather than than asking "Is this fun to play?" I just think some reviewers are too close to the "art" to make points that are relevant to a lot of gamers.

I am not trolling, just observing so please don't take what I said the wrong way. It is just something I have overanalyzed in my own way. ;)

"You can't refute a charge by changing it's meaning to something more convenient for you to shoot down."

Okay, Bub, let's take a look at the "charges".

* that I only addressed Deus Ex's "believability",

We shot that one down.

* that Deus Ex can be played in a non-violent way

Deus Ex is primarily an action game with lots of combat. It shunts the player through a number of boss fight situations. Perhaps if you play it, you might realize that.

* that my criticisms are based on my own "hang-ups"

Umm, okay, doctor. What are my hang-ups? Good AI? Efficient coding? Internally consistent game worlds? Ennui with cliches like crates, key hunts, spiders, and Blade Runner's production design?

* that I'm unfair to the genre

This one is even more puzzling. I could list several things you've written that I consider unfair to the genre, but that's a pissing match you'd lose so I'll spare you.

If being "fair to the genre" means subverting my own opinion to agree with the preferences of gamers at large, then count me guilty as charged. That sort of thinking is indicative of a lot that's wrong with this business.

Bottom line: I didn't like Deus Ex, but a lot of people did because the things that bothered me aren't important to them. Should I therefore temper my reaction? Should I devote a paragraph or two to a "but you might like it" disclaimer? Should I call it "a mixed bag"?

My reviews are subjective and personal. If I don't like a game, I'll say so, along with why I didn't like it. In the meantime, you feel free to keep bias and personality out of your own reviews while tailoring them to match public opinion.

-Tom

"The point I am trying to make is that I see people overanalyzing games at every turn rather than than asking "Is this fun to play?""

Good god, Xaroc, that's the last thing we need! :)

'Is it fun to play?' can mean so many things to so many people that it's an entirely meaningless barometer. Yet that doesn't stop reviewers from using the word 'fun' at every turn, using it like a 'nuff said' pronouncement. One man's fun is another man's tedium.

Instead, a review should spell out the whys and wherefores of what worked, what didn't, and what's been done better or worse elsewhere. Is that overanalyzing? On the contrary, we don't get *enough* analysis in reviews.

-Tom

Tom said:

---

Quote:

'Is it fun to play?' can mean so many things to so many people that it's an entirely meaningless barometer. Yet that doesn't stop reviewers from using the word 'fun' at every turn, using it like a 'nuff said' pronouncement. One man's fun is another man's tedium.

---

---

Quote:

Instead, a review should spell out the whys and wherefores of what worked, what didn't, and what's been done better or worse elsewhere. Is that overanalyzing? On the contrary, we don't get *enough* analysis in reviews.

---

"But when small pieces of a game get worked over in a review the game may still be a good game but since the reviewer focused on these small pieces rather than the big picture it looks really bad."

Fair enough, Xaroc. But if we consider a game as something made from "small pieces", you have to appreciate which small pieces are important and which aren't.

For instance, the PC Gamer review of Corp. Machine slams it for the music. That's even more ridiculous than your Counter-Strike example! But I would argue that the "small pieces" I have a problem with in Deus Ex are a crucial part of the game.

I suppose a more constructive discussion would be "What is the point of Deus Ex?". The cheap and easy way out would be to say "it's to have fun". Then we would argue whether it was fun or boring and no one would get anywhere (cf. wumpus on nearly any topic).

If, however, the point of Deus Ex is to immerse the player in an interesting and consistent world and give him the freedom to approach problems with a variety of different solutions, I would say it failed. It fell victim to a variety of small parts that didn't work.

Of course, this is my opinion and it's obvious people disagree with me. But it's a much more constructive way to approach the situation rather than slinging around goofy accusations like 'being unfair to the genre' or 'being out of touch with FPS gamers'...

-Tom

I'm finally playing (had the box sitting unopened for weeks), and I'm enjoying it more than I thought I would in single player. I have no deep angry thoughts to offer though. :)

"For instance, the PC Gamer review of Corp. Machine slams it for the music."

That was amazing. Kinda like slamming the Beatles because Ringo had a large nose.

-Jeff

---

Quote:

If, however, the point of Deus Ex is to immerse the player in an interesting and consistent world and give him the freedom to approach problems with a variety of different solutions, I would say it failed. It fell victim to a variety of small parts that didn't work.

---

---

Quote:

Of course, this is my opinion and it's obvious people disagree with me. But it's a much more constructive way to approach the situation rather than slinging around goofy accusations like 'being unfair to the genre' or 'being out of touch with FPS gamers'...

---

"But it's a much more constructive way to approach the situation rather than slinging around goofy accusations like 'being unfair to the genre' or 'being out of touch with FPS gamers'..."

I'm sorry, Tom, I didn't catch your answer to this the first time I asked it. How many months did it take you to get around to playing No One Lives Forever, one of the most critically acclaimed FPS titles in the last two years? Similarly, how long after the release of the widely praised Thief II until you played the game?

I'm just curious, since you're such a big fan of the FPS genre and spend so much time playing them and everything.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Wumpus, Tom and I don't always play games when they first come out. When we have an assignment to review or preview a game, that takes precedence. We get to games that we don't have assignments for when we have time.

Besides that, it doesn't matter. Why should anyone rush to play a game that others are praising? Is my opinion of a game invalidated if I wait and play it 6 months after it's released? I have just about all of Springsteen's CDs but I don't have the latest one yet and I probably won't get it anytime soon. When I do get it, does that then preclude me from having a critical opinion of it just because I didn't get it the first week it was out?

"I'm sorry, Tom, I didn't catch your answer to this the first time I asked it. How many months did it take you to get around to playing No One Lives Forever, one of the most critically acclaimed FPS titles in the last two years? Similarly, how long after the release of the widely praised Thief II until you played the game?"

I haven't finished NOLF yet.

Never finished Thief II either.

I suck at Counter-Strike.

Oh yea...

I also kinda liked Deus Ex.

And I really like Fallout Tactics.

Man, my credibility is fallin' like Babylon!

-Scoot, aka He Who Lacks Credibility

Never let the bastards get you down Thierry.
;)

"Wumpus, Tom and I don't always play games when they first come out. When we have an assignment to review or preview a game, that takes precedence. We get to games that we don't have assignments for when we have time."

This goes directly to preferences, Mark. I'm not saying Tom has to play every FPS game to completion within days of release (ditto for Thierry; it's not about finishing)-- but not even getting around to installing Thief II or NOLF for several months is downright _weird_. We're talking about two of the best-reviewed FPS games in recent memory, for God's sake, not some random b-grade FPS shooters from obscure development houses.

Compare that with the frequency of Tom's turn/tile reviews. Seems to me the minute any game in that genre is released, Tom has it and is playing it. All I'm saying is, there's considerable anecdotal evidence that FPS games really aren't that high of a priority on Tom's personal list.

Again, not that there's anything wrong with that.

But my review of Shadow Watch, a game in a genre I don't really care for, wouldn't really be worth reading-- it would go something like "this game is well made, but ultimately boring." Do people really want to read that? Better for me to just be honest with people about my preferences up front.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Tom said:

---

Quote:

"I didn't like Deus Ex, but a lot of people did because the things that bothered me aren't important to them. Should I therefore temper my reaction?

---

---

Quote:

Should I devote a paragraph or two to a "but you might like it" disclaimer? Should I call it "a mixed bag"?

---

I rather like comparison based reviews... A rating scale is a funny thing, because what does a "*****" really signify? I think that it hinges on what other titles are ranked near it, because there is no universal standard by which such things can be judged... only that it was better/worse than the feature of a similar product. How can you therefore make a comparison to some intangible standard without actually naming the product by which your standard is set?

For example... Xcom, to me, was the tiny god of turn based strategy games. I cannot review Chaos Gate without saying "This is better, that is worse than Xcom. JA2 did this better, so this game falls between it and Xcom in that feature."

Of course, the inherent problem here is that either I or the reader may be unfamiliar with a particular title by which a comparison is/should be made. That's where it has potential to break down.

I think you make an excellent point with regard to being able to compare a game to others in its genre, whether you specifically make the comparison in a review or not. One of the reasons a lot of game reviews suck these days (a topic I'm attempting to cover in a hopefully lucid article) is that you have folks reviewing games that don't have enough experience to provide perspective. How can you comment on how groundbreaking a chopper sim is if you never played Longbow 2? Can you really give OOTP 3 five stars if you've never played CM 00/01? And so on...

- Jeff

I should point out that No One Lives Forever was installed as soon as I got it. It has been regularly played at Shoot Club since it came out. In fact, you'll find coverage of multiplayer maps on this website from when they were released.

What wumpus may be referring to when he calls my credibility into question is the fact that I haven't finished the single player game. Also, I used cheat codes to jump around the various levels in Thief II, but I haven't played through it. It is no longer on my hard drive, so I suppose I'm not qualified to review first person shooters. This also puts me squarely out of touch with FPS gamers.

I hereby repent in sackcloth and ashes and disavow my Deus Ex review, as well as my low opinion of Outlaws and Undying.

But I still like Serious Sam no matter what some guy whose named spells "supmuw" backwards says. BTW, we have an expression at Shoot Club. Anyone who annoys a roomful of people by being pointlessly confrontational is called a "wumpussy". You are all free to use this term if you like.

-Tom

Tom - you didn't like Outlaws? (soundtrack of the Good, Bad, and the Ugly fades up...)

"Anyone who annoys a roomful of people by being pointlessly confrontational is called a "wumpussy"."

Eh, well, people tend to ignore you otherwise. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, if you know what I mean. Plus, what's wrong with spirited discussion? If a few inflated egos get bruised in the process, so what. It builds character. Plus, if you ever go to prison, you'll be prepared-- y'know, prison rules* and all.

All I'm saying, Tom, is that if you spent half the time dealing with FPS games that you lavish on your precious turn/tile games (at this point I exaggeratedly stifle a yawn), you might have a different perspective. Or maybe not.

"But I still like Serious Sam no matter what some guy whose named spells "supmuw" backwards says."

Hey Mr. Reviewer Man, play a song for me.. and it will go something like this: "First there was Doom. Then there was a bunch of other stuff. Then there was Serious Sam. It's Doom turned up to 11. It's Robotron 3D. It's Diablo for first person shooters. It's crowded, colorful, brainless, and ultimately boring."

I'm sorry, this is a positive review? I clearly need to brush up on my reading comprehension skills. I would swear that "ultimately boring" means you don't like the game.

"Tom - you didn't like Outlaws? (soundtrack of the Good, Bad, and the Ugly fades up...)"

What'd I tell you guys?

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

* Basketball scene, Cable Guy

>>Eh, well, people tend to ignore you otherwise. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, if you know what I mean.

People ignore you when you have nothing of value to add to the discussion. People who act confrontational to draw more attention to their point are generally called trolls.

>>What'd I tell you guys?

Do you have so little confidence in your own arguments that you look for validation wherever you can get it? Very sad...

Hey, I disagree with Tom about Outlaws, but so what? Oh, and I never played either Thief game... guess I'm not qualified to like No One Lives Forever. Or does that rule only get used when you disagree with the person and are doing whatever possible to discredit the person?

God help us all if you'd actually just realize there's no consensus about any game... there are probably people out there that don't like Civilization II, though I pray for their souls.

>"Tom - you didn't like Outlaws? (soundtrack of the Good, Bad, and the Ugly fades up...)"

>What'd I tell you guys?

Hmmm. You got me, what did you tell us guys? That related to my ribbing of Tom. Hopefully not something that helps you go after Mr. Chick. As a freelancer in this biz, I've gotta tell ya that Tom is one of the very, very few writers whose stuff I read even when I don't care about the game.

FWIW - Jeff

I think what we have learned from this discussion is pretty much if you don't agree with Tom on his Deus Ex and Outlaws reviews you probably are going to have to look at his FPS reviews with a grain of salt. I respect Tom's opinion but clearly he doesn't like what I like when it comes to FPS games (I really enjoyed Outlaws as well).

Of course this is not uncommon. Finding reviewers or sites or magazines that mirror your own likes and dislikes is part of making game buying descisions.

-- Xaroc

I wasn't crazy about Outlaws for a few reasons, mainly the level design and the engine. I also thought the motif and storyline were below par for a Lucasarts game.

As for Serious Sam, would anyone disagree that it bogs down after umpteen monster massacres? I enjoyed it for a while. It did what it did well. But it's ultimately boring to kill 10,000 monsters yet again without changing up the scenery more often. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the ride on the way there.

Since when is "ultimately boring" the kiss of death? Why can't it be as inconsequential a slam as "fun" is an inconsequential accolade?

-Tom

"Hey, I disagree with Tom about Outlaws, but so what? Oh, and I never played either Thief game... guess I'm not qualified to like No One Lives Forever."

Well, playing and being a big fan of the Thief games made me really wish NOLF had a 'lean' key - it would have added a lot to the game. But otherwise I'd say you're covered Steve.

My favorite thing about Thief, actually, was it's stunningly effective cutscenes. NOLF really needed a little brevity in that area.

-Andrew
PS: You really need to play Thief Steve. Not for credibility's sake, but because, well, I think you'd really like it.

"People ignore you when you have nothing of value to add to the discussion. People who act confrontational to draw more attention to their point are generally called trolls."

Even the best, most logically argued points are best when punctuated by a dash of confrontation. It doesn't have to be mean spirited. And, c'mon, like you guys don't do the same damn thing when it suits you. Please. ;)

"Do you have so little confidence in your own arguments that you look for validation wherever you can get it? Very sad..."

C'mon, Steve, it was tongue in cheek.

"God help us all if you'd actually just realize there's no consensus about any game... there are probably people out there that don't like Civilization II, though I pray for their souls."

When did I ever say that? I'm looking at a pattern through multiple FPS game reviews here. I don't think Tom's reviews of FPS games are particularly representative of what most fans of the FPS genre look for in a FPS game. Nothing wrong with that, of course. He's entitled to his opinion, yadda yadda yadda.

"Or does that rule only get used when you disagree with the person and are doing whatever possible to discredit the person?"

Well, are you, like Tom, positioning yourself as a "mastarr of FPS gameing"? I don't know how many FPS game reviews you've done. If Tom feels he is qualified to write withering critiques of Deus Goatse.cx outlining in excruciating detail all the things the game does wrong, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever for any potential fan of the genre.. then let's examine his track record.

Personally, I get the impression Tom is a much bigger fan of turn/tile games. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but me and my close pal Ichabod Kagass have a running bet on this.

Anyway, I never said Tom wasn't anything but a top-notch reviewer. He's very good in fact, one of the best. I'm a big fan. However, me getting all up in arms about Shadow Watch makes about as much sense as Tom getting all up in arms about Deus Ex. That's all I'm saying. I don't have a problem realizing that Shadow Watch is just not my type of game-- and I don't have a burning desire to critically pan it, either.

Bear in mind this is just one person's hypothesis. I could be wrong. I probably am, in fact.*

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

* You haven't played Thief? Sheesh man, you cheated yourself out of some very cool gameplay. I still maintain Thief is the best original FPS since Half-Life. It's a bit more flawed (I recommend Thief II for this reason), but I give it bonus points for originality.

* yes, this is a Chick debate technique at work.

"Since when is "ultimately boring" the kiss of death? Why can't it be as inconsequential a slam as "fun" is an inconsequential accolade?"

Because "ultimately boring" is "not fun".

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Also, I have a titanium skeleton. Sorry, I forgot to mention that in my last post.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>I don't think Tom's reviews of FPS games are particularly representative of what most fans of the FPS genre look for in a FPS game.

In other words, there's some sort of consensus on what makes a good FPS? Did I not get this memo?

Maybe Tom's more discriminating? Maybe you're too easily impressed by shiny objects? Maybe, just maybe, there are two games in the world where his opinion is slightly off-kilter with the rest of the world?

But what would I know? I haven't liked any Blizzard game since WarCraft II so I'm equally out of touch as well.

And I missed his "master of the FPS" comment, but I'm sure you've saved it into a text file and will quote it for us.

"However, me getting all up in arms about Shadow Watch makes about as much sense as Tom getting all up in arms about Deus Ex."

Go ahead and get up in arms. As a reader, all I ask is that you back up your criticism with good analysis and examples. Last I saw, Shadow Watch (and NOLF, Thief, and other games) didn't come with a warning saying only genre experts should play them.

It's time to move on. You've made your points about Tom's estimation of Counter-Strike and Deus Ex. I think we all enjoy spirited discussions. We just don't want to dredge up the same argument week after week after week. To continue to bring up your argument again and again smacks more of a personal vendatta than any reasonable attempt at discourse.

"Go ahead and get up in arms. As a reader, all I ask is that you back up your criticism with good analysis and examples. Last I saw, Shadow Watch (and NOLF, Thief, and other games) didn't come with a warning saying only genre experts should play them."

I disagree. There's nothing essentially wrong with Shadow Watch's gameplay, but I could easily eviscerate it based on my expectation of what an enjoyable game is in the first place.

I'll go back to an earlier analogy on this. If I think going in a circle 2,000 times is incredibly boring, does that mean I should go anywhere near a review of Nascar 4? I love Rally games or even racing games with varied courses, but that kind of turn-left-real-fast stuff bores me to tears. Would it be particularly illuminating for me to patiently explain to everyone why racing in a circle is so damn boring? It's my opinion, so it can't be wrong.. right?

"It's time to move on. You've made your points about Tom's estimation of Counter-Strike and Deus Ex. I think we all enjoy spirited discussions. We just don't want to dredge up the same argument week after week after week. To continue to bring up your argument again and again smacks more of a personal vendatta than any reasonable attempt at discourse."

Whoa there. I didn't bring up Deus Ex-- Bub did. In fact, I didn't even comment on it after several rather long-winded exchanges by Tom and Bub. Scroll back and check if you don't believe me, but 'tis true. So don't hang this one on me, por favor.

I mean, I'm more than happy to pile on after a certain point if I think I have something to contribute, but I haven't said word one about Deus Ex or Counter-Strike in months, prior to this.

In summary, I blame Bub. He is evil, and must be destroyed.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. I really do have a titanium skeleton.

"Maybe Tom's more discriminating? Maybe you're too easily impressed by shiny objects? Maybe, just maybe, there are two games in the world where his opinion is slightly off-kilter with the rest of the world?"

Are you kidding me? I played Deus Ex. I know a conspiracy when I see one. No wonder Tom panned it, eh? All part of his master plan..

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"I just think some reviewers are too close to the "art" to make points that are relevant to a lot of gamers."

Thank God, I say. I'm not most gamers, and I operate with a level of pickiness and impatience brought on by 25 years of computer and video gaming. Let me please have a few reviewers that share the same attitude.

Personally, I learned to hate Deus Ex. I ended up playing all of the way through it, expecting it to get better based on all the praise, and it never did. I guess I'm with Tom in that I cannot figure out how people forgive some of what I see as its spoiling flaws. For example, why does the whole damn world know where I am hiding if I miss a clean kill shot with my silenced sniper rifle, but I remain hidden if I make the same shot? See NOLF for much better handling of missed shots. How about some decent reasoning for why my character, the government's greatest supersoldier, must scavenge ammunition from the bodies of my kills? See SS2 for at least a plausible explanation of why ammo is short. I can put up with the crate breaking, since that is often an engine limitation, but not these.

Up front disclaimer: I have played very few of the games being disussed here. I have played very few FPSs, at all. If anyone is out-of-touch with FPS gamers, c'est moi!

Still, here's my contribution to the conversation:

Tom, more power to ya! I like it when a reviewer says, plain and simple, this game sucks because of "A," "B," "C," and "D." (Dang that's hard to type! Too much funky puctuation!) Some people here (Wumpus and Bub) might have a point that you mentioned none of its good points. If there is fault in your review, it is that.

However, there were more than enough reviews singing praises to Deus Ex for someone to hear of it's good points. Someone that was considering buying the game would likely read more than one review. Someone who just read the review because he likes Tom's work knows Tom's style, being that it is largely just to focus on what is bad about the game if he doesn't like it. Tom's review was well-written and 110% backed up and justified. This makes it a totally valid review.

It might not have killed him to mention the game's redeeming features, but it's his right not to do so. I'll not criticize anyone who writes Shoot Club! ;-)

"It might not have killed him to mention the game's redeeming features, but it's his right not to do so."

I did mention the things I liked about Deus Ex. Not surprisingly, this fact has been conveniently ignored by Bub and wumpus, as it helps makes their case that I'm "out of touch" and "unfair to the genre".

-Tom

I'm not surprised. Sorry, Tom - I didn't do my homework before posting that. I should have reread your review. I just got caught up in the line of conversation, the "heat of the moment."

Having been corrected, I feel that it is a very well-written, well thought-out, well-defended review. (And yes, I reread it before stating that.)

Again I say, more power to ya, Tom!

Supertanker wrote:

---

Quote:

Thank God, I say. I'm not most gamers, and I operate with a level of pickiness and impatience brought on by 25 years of computer and video gaming. Let me please have a few reviewers that share the same attitude.

---

---

Quote:

Personally, I learned to hate Deus Ex. I ended up playing all of the way through it, expecting it to get better based on all the praise, and it never did. I guess I'm with Tom in that I cannot figure out how people forgive some of what I see as its spoiling flaws. For example, why does the whole damn world know where I am hiding if I miss a clean kill shot with my silenced sniper rifle, but I remain hidden if I make the same shot?

---

---

Quote:

See NOLF for much better handling of missed shots. How about some decent reasoning for why my character, the government's greatest supersoldier, must scavenge ammunition from the bodies of my kills?

---

"Richochet of the bullet off of a wall versus virtually no sound of a bullet into a person who dies right away."

But it happens regardless of the backstop. It even happens if there is nothing but air behind your target & the bullet continues to the end of the Earth. If you kill a guard near another guard, nobody can hear the bullet at all, so apparently they do not respond to sound cues. If you fail to get a kill (but still get a hit) then the guards all instantly know your location (without any delay for communication). And remember, they don't just have an idea of where the shot came from, but they know precisely where you are despite any concealment or shadow. They don't carefully head your direction, searching for you, they just run full speed directly at you.

When I had saved up enough ammo, I would set myself up in a good position, purposely miss a shot, and then kill every guard in the area as they rushed in a straight line to my position. Then I was free to waltz about the area unmolested. To me, this is not just something that is a tweak of realism in favor of gameplay, it is a flaw in the attempt to model stealth and the responses of the guards.

To continue my NOLF example, the guards must individually spot you to engage you. If you duck out of sight, they must come looking for you. They do not have a hivemind that pinpoints you for them. I had lots of fun using noises, including silenced pistol shots, to lure guards into ambush or away from cameras. In big firefights, I could elude the reinforcements (despite many missed shots) and set up additional ambushes as they sought to engage me. There were no beelines for the enemy agent.

"If you could get all of the ammo you wanted all the time wouldn't that make the game too easy? You are issued a certain amount of equipment at different points in the game as per the agency guidelines. Even James Bond has to grab a weapon from an enemy from time to time. Why shouldn't you?"

I don't mind grabbing weapons & ammo from the dead, but I shouldn't leave my base needing to do so. Can you imagine Q turning down 007's request for a few extra magazines for his pistol before a mission? He would if DE rules applied. NOLF would let you select the weapons you wanted and supply a good quantity of ammo for each, but that didn't make it too easy.

I agree with you about tweaking reality to improve gameplay (and that is a good example from SS2), but I found most of the tweaks in DE were more like broken rules meant to cover a flaw. This made them into things that I found, as Tom said, to shout "THIS IS A GAME" and spoil my immersion.

Supertanker wrote:

---

Quote:

When I had saved up enough ammo, I would set myself up in a good position, purposely miss a shot, and then kill every guard in the area as they rushed in a straight line to my position. Then I was free to waltz about the area unmolested. To me, this is not just something that is a tweak of realism in favor of gameplay, it is a flaw in the attempt to model stealth and the responses of the guards.

---

---

Quote:

To continue my NOLF example, the guards must individually spot you to engage you. If you duck out of sight, they must come looking for you. They do not have a hivemind that pinpoints you for them. I had lots of fun using noises, including silenced pistol shots, to lure guards into ambush or away from cameras. In big firefights, I could elude the reinforcements (despite many missed shots) and set up additional ambushes as they sought to engage me. There were no beelines for the enemy agent.

---