KG_Jag
KG Vice Kommandir
Hi Scott--this thread was invited (at least in part) by Don in this thread:
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?p=946885#post946885
Please be sure to read my post #21 and Don's post #36. With that background, I have some questions about your CMSF review and related matters. They are:
1. For many of us your narrative in your review was difficult to reconcile with the final rating you gave the game--7.0/"Good". It is also evident from reading your "Concluding Comments" in the review that you struggled with this issue. Specifically how (e.g. what key aspects the game in v1.04) did you arrive at the number score and rating you gave the game?
2. I noticed that your review did not address human to human play. As a veteran CM x 1 player, you know this is an important feature of not only CM (all versions), but most other war games as well. Why did you not address this in your review? If you had considered it, what impact, if any, would it have had on the point score and rating you gave to CMSF in your review?
3. For purposes of reaching the point score and rating in GS reviews, is there any mandatory process or structure that must be followed, or are these things left completely (at least in most cases) to the discretion of the individual reviewer?
4. The GS scoring system provides for 10 possible ratings of a game by a reviewer, depending on what point score is given by the reviewer. See it here:
http://www.gamesquad.com/index.php?option=com_rating&id=20
After 40 reviews over 14 + months, a full 50% of these ratings categories have remained unused. The point scores issued for these 40 reviews cover a range of just 35% of the available point range. Will you and Don revisit the current scoring/rating system and see if can be more informative/meaningful to the gamer?
Thanks in advance for your time and effort.
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?p=946885#post946885
Please be sure to read my post #21 and Don's post #36. With that background, I have some questions about your CMSF review and related matters. They are:
1. For many of us your narrative in your review was difficult to reconcile with the final rating you gave the game--7.0/"Good". It is also evident from reading your "Concluding Comments" in the review that you struggled with this issue. Specifically how (e.g. what key aspects the game in v1.04) did you arrive at the number score and rating you gave the game?
2. I noticed that your review did not address human to human play. As a veteran CM x 1 player, you know this is an important feature of not only CM (all versions), but most other war games as well. Why did you not address this in your review? If you had considered it, what impact, if any, would it have had on the point score and rating you gave to CMSF in your review?
3. For purposes of reaching the point score and rating in GS reviews, is there any mandatory process or structure that must be followed, or are these things left completely (at least in most cases) to the discretion of the individual reviewer?
4. The GS scoring system provides for 10 possible ratings of a game by a reviewer, depending on what point score is given by the reviewer. See it here:
http://www.gamesquad.com/index.php?option=com_rating&id=20
After 40 reviews over 14 + months, a full 50% of these ratings categories have remained unused. The point scores issued for these 40 reviews cover a range of just 35% of the available point range. Will you and Don revisit the current scoring/rating system and see if can be more informative/meaningful to the gamer?
Thanks in advance for your time and effort.