LOL. I don't think you have anything to worry about there. Plus now I can't wait to see your review of Three Musketeers. It looks fantastic! Here's hoping it plays as good as it looks.
That was a nicely written review Chicken, but I have to admit I was surprised when I saw the score. It seemed like you enjoyed the game quite a bit but were overly critical of it because it misrepresented itself as a poker game when it's really more of a puzzle game. You may be right that people expecting it to be a pure poker game might come away disappointed, but I've always felt that you should review games based only on how YOU feel about them, not on how you think other people might feel about them. (Remember the Game Informer Paper Mario 2 fiasco?)
He's just warning people. Those expecting something out of the game may be disappointed or may even be surprised. He's just letting you know what you're getting into so you're not caught off guard.
Thankfully, I observed from the very beginning that the gameplay wasn't that of a "traditional" poker game and that's what caught my interest in the game. Also, the game never claimed to be a standard poker game so in that way, it can't be misrepresented unless some make the mistake of assuming -- and that's exactly what CB was trying to get across. I think he handled that really well.
That was a nicely written review Chicken, but I have to admit I was surprised when I saw the score. It seemed like you enjoyed the game quite a bit but were overly critical of it because it misrepresented itself as a poker game when it's really more of a puzzle game. You may be right that people expecting it to be a pure poker game might come away disappointed, but I've always felt that you should review games based only on how YOU feel about them, not on how you think other people might feel about them. (Remember the Game Informer Paper Mario 2 fiasco?)
Thanks for the comments; I really do appreciate the constructive criticism.
Grading this game was difficult, because while it's not a bad game, there's no way I could recommend it to everybody. It's only going to appeal to a certain type of gamer, and I tried my best (throughout the review and in the conclusion) to mention that, so that anyone reading it can decide for themselves whether or not they ARE that type of gamer. Basically I wanted people to read the review, and base their decision not around my ultimate rating, but around how much the concept of the game appealed to them.
And don't worry, the 5 rating DOES indeed reflect my own opinion. I did enjoy the game, but I only enjoyed one (out of five!) game modes enough to go back to it. So taking into consideration that 4/5 of the game doesn't interest me at all, I think the rating more than fair.
I do appreciate your concern, but I tried my best to justify my conclusion within the review, and to provide enough information for anyone out there to decide whether or not they are interested in it.
Hey, CB. Point of interest: Did you know that the game was originaly supposed to be priced at 1,000 Points? It would've been difficult to recommend the game at that price, wouldn't you say?
Hey, CB. Point of interest: Did you know that the game was originaly supposed to be priced at 1,000 Points? It would've been difficult to recommend the game at that price, wouldn't you say?
Ha, yes, absolutely. 1,000 points would have knocked the rating down to a 4, easily. Again, not a bad game, but compared to everything else you can get for 1,000 points, this would be a pretty bad investment.
Indeed. I completely agree. There just wouldn't have been enough substance for 1,000 Points. Even just comparing this to the likes of Jungle Speed, if they were the same price, I'd recommend Jungle Speed over this for sure even if the game is enjoyable.
Fair enough CB. I think maybe as I read the review I was thinking to myself "hey, this game is a lot more interesting than I thought it would be!" and my expectations for it shot way up. After rereading parts of your review, I can see that your score may be justified since you didn't enjoy the last four modes as much, but it still seems like you were too hung up on the fact that it isn't a traditional poker game. This is best exemplified in your summary of shuffle mode:
Chicken+Brutus wrote:
Its[sic] fun, it's challenging, and it's certainly addictive, but it's emphatically not poker. The score you receive is determined by the value of the hands you create (from single pairs all the way up to a royal flush), but that's really it. There's certainly strategy involved, but it's not at all the same type of strategy that would benefit you in actual poker.
It's not so much me being hung up on the differences, as me wanting to really reinforce them. I definitely thought it was important to reiterate--for the sake of a potential purchaser--that, for a game with Poker in the title, it wasn't actually a poker game. The same way a review about something called Awesome Basketball! would probably harp similarly if the game turned out to be a board game, or a dot-to-dot puzzle or something.
I'm glad to hear that the review managed to interest you in the game though. I was hoping for that exactly to happen!
Forums
Topic: Battle Poker - Impressions
Posts 21 to 32 of 32
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.