For those that missed all of the whoopla, PC Gamer slammed OOTPB 2006 with a 47% score, while scoring Baseball Mogul and Puresim higher. Brett Todd wrote the review comparison and I have to regretfully agree with the score. Let me explain. Many review sites/magazines only take a look at the released product. As is. OOTPB 2006 was not a playable game on many different levels – online play was confusing (broken for some), solo play had very bad AI, and many things simply didn’t work or were coded badly. These are all things that a reviewer like Mr. Todd will jump on and he has consistently over the years been highly critical of games for exactly these same reasons. I actually applaud his objectivity since I know he is a big fan of the series.
Baseball Mogul seems to work and PureSim is more refined, so yes, they deserved higher scores. Heck, even OOTP 6.5 deserved a higher score than OOTPB 2006 based on release code.
On the other hand, reviews like the 9 out of 10 at Operation Sports are nonsense. I don’t think reviews should be based on game potential, but I am not sure if the OS reviewer actually played the game enough to judge that potential anyhow.
So don’t shoot the messenger. If you release a game with the long list of problems that OOTPB 2006 had, this is what you reap from objective reviewers. They will always score bug ridden games low.
Just be happy I don’t review anymore!
A decent discussion can be had over at : http://www.ootpdevelopments…
Brett is entited to his opinion, and most of what he says is reflected in the threads in our forum post release.
That said, I’m happy that we’ve addressed his issues and are trying to work with people who still are not happy.
Missed your linkage …
Double linkage is better than no linkage…
I posted as much in the thread that Marc pointed linked, but I really think, in terms of score, Brett (or the PC Gamer editors) dropped the ball.
47%? That’s not just a bad score, that’s calling the game an abject failure with no hope of redemption and I just can’t see that.
Usually I agree with the "you have to review what’s on the shelves" credo, but I think it’s just as bad for reviewers to blindly stick to that credo as it is to pretend problems dont’ exist because they might get patched. There’s still a balance, and I think it’s even more important to keep that in mind when writing for print.
Why?
Because a print review is static and the game is not. I think that requires at least an acknowlegement of the bigger picture before you slame a game. SI and OOTP aren’t EA or VC. Brett had to know that egregious issues were likely to be patched and the score ought to at least factor it in as at least a small part of the equation.
I’m not saying it deserved a favorabl score, but 47% says the game isn’t just bad, it’s hopeless. And that’s just not the case. If he/PC Gamer had put the score in the 60’s, while I wouldn’t agree with it, I could certainly respect and understand it. I just think 47% is below the belt for what the game is, especially when you look at how OOTP’s competition scored.
You’re probably right – a score in the 60% range would have better communicated the games flawed, but good potential. I’m just not surprised it scored what it did because Brett is pretty knowledgeable about the genre.