Computer Corner

Optimistic Reviews and
Avoiding Disappointment

Games Editor Graham Empson

In this edition by way of a change there are no previews from me but I am going to subject you all to a short editorial on my opinions of why so many computer games get optimistic reviews.

In his review in Lone Warrior 126 Kris Constable expressed his opinion that most of the computer press offer rave reviews of most of the games unless they are particularly bad. The only way, as a consumer, of finding out is to make a purchase and hope it's as good as the reviews say. If it fails to meet your expectations it is hard luck. Kris is not alone in his opinions I have been contacted by a number of members expressing similar views, some, even more forcefully, and not fit for publication. [Editor amongst them!]

One way of avoiding disappointment, of course, is to be patient and wait a few months to see how the sales go. The world of computer gamers as a very good grapevine, and believe me bad news travels much faster than good. If the game disappears from sight it either has very limited appeal or more probably is just plain mediocre. Another way is to wait until someone, hopefully, takes the time to play it and review it in Lone Warrior. At least here you know the opinion is an honest one from a wargamer, for a wargamer. This of course relies on the simple fact that you have patience. Let's face it these days not many of us really do.

What we want are all the facts NOW.

I have to say that my own opinion is, we, the consumers, must accept some of the responsibility for the state of the computer games press. Let me explain. Public demand for information and reviews on games builds pressure on the magazines and games publishers to supply it. This then turns into the advertising hype that occupies about a third of most magazines, month on month.

At the same time of course the playable demo, or limited capability sample, appears both on the Internet and often on CD-ROMS in the very same magazines. Eventually the actual game does appear. Now obviously the fact that publishers are paid for advertising should not in any way bias the opinions of their reviewers, but, the cynic in me does, in all honesty, sometimes wonder. To produce a review of a game can take me 40 to 50 hours of playing time, often even more, and all extra hours constructing the actual review with appropriate, but not too technical or verbose. But then neither I, nor any other, Lone Warrior reviewer, is under any time pressure and we review the actual game, the one on sale and available to all.

The computer magazines obviously need a full review in the month of publication and usually receive an advance copy, or beta version, of games for this purpose, well ahead of publication date. It is of course perfectly likely that these versions are not perfect - I work for a software house and I know all about Beta versions and their pitfalls believe me. This can of course complicate the life of a reviewer if certain aspects of a game are 'being fixed and will work by publication'. It now becomes an act of faith by the reviewer in the games designer/publisher that things will be remedied as stated.

That does not preclude the introduction of new faults whilst fixing the old ones but then reviewers have no way of knowing this do they. This quite often leads to games publishers web sites containing multiple levels of fixes to games only recently published. To be fair the publishers are really only trying to be helpful to the consumer but it does rely on everyone having access to the Internet, which is not yet a reality.

Working as a reviewer for a computer games magazine you definitely have a deadline and lots of other pressures besides. It takes time to produce the magazine and publish it. The publications I received last week (11/7/99) for example were actually for August and when it gets towards Christmas I usually get the January edition in November. The reality is that reviewers receive multiple games to review, not just one, so they end up in severe time constraint. Whilst they no doubt do devote time to playing the actual games they simply cannot devote the hours needed to fully explore a games capability, discover idiosyncrasies, or evaluate the historical content and still meet the publication date. They probably rely on information from the publisher sources and any experience gained playing the demo. I do not believe that any reviewer intentionally sets out to deceive the consumer but all the pressures build up and this probably results in them erring on the side of caution and giving all but the obviously bad games the benefit of the doubt.

Let me, in summary, make a few suggestions. Do not rush out and buy a computer wargame the day it is released. Have a little patience and ask your fellow enthusiasts. Look at as many reviews as you can find, view the discussion sites on the internet if you can. Generally try to get as much detail as you can on the game that interests you. In Lone Warrior, I repeat Lone Warrior, you maybe somewhat circumspect about the reviews you read, and yes that includes mine too, since, at the end of the day, we are all expressing individual opinions coloured by our own views, preconceptions and idiosyncrasies.

Finally remember 'by the time any computer program is perfect it will be obsolete, so don't expect perfection' and most of all have fun.

More Computer Corner

Back to Table of Contents -- Lone Warrior #128
Back to Lone Warrior List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1999 by Solo Wargamers Association.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com