Aborted freelance review and a question for you all

[TheKeck]

Originally Posted by Joshkdmw

I think the Facebook casual crowd is its own demographic at this point. People play Farmville who don't play anything else. Realm of the Mad God, for instance, has more appeal to the core crowd than the casual. Just because two pieces of art share a medium doesn't make them comparable.

Yeah, but what about MapleStory?

[Joshkdmw]

Originally Posted by TheKeck

Yeah, but what about MapleStory?

What about it? Elaborate.

[TheKeck]

Originally Posted by Joshkdmw

What about it? Elaborate.

From the end of Bandango's review:

For example, Nexon has under its umbrella two excellent free to play action RPGs, MapleStory and Dungeon Fighter, both of which are kid (and grown up) friendly -- especially MapleStory. These games have 10 times the character, depth, and fun that Cloudstone has. And if you want something a little more grim -- something a bit more Diablo 3 -- try Drakensang, another free to play browser based action RPG. And let’s not forget about the endless supply of free indie titles out there like Dungeons of Fayte, Wayfarer, and the truly excellent browser based action MMO Realm of the Mad God (http://www.gamezebo.com/games/realm-mad-god/review).

Realm of the Mad God is hardly the only comparison he used.

[Joshkdmw]

True, but those titles attract more of a core audience than I would suspect this game was trying to. My reasoning still stands, it just has more converse examples.

Lots of people paint with oil on canvass. They don't all appeal to the same audience.

[TheKeck]

Originally Posted by Joshkdmw

True, but those titles attract more of a core audience than I would suspect this game was trying to. My reasoning still stands, it just has more converse examples.

Lots of people paint with oil on canvass. They don't all appeal to the same audience.

But it sounds to me that MapleStory very much IS targeting the same audience and is worlds better. And for some reason it shouldn't come into the discussion solely because it's not specifically on the Facebook website.

I mean, if anybody is seriously reading this video game review, I feel it would be doing them a huge disservice to not bring up games outside of Facebook. If Facebook games really suck that bad, this is a relevant information to the reader!

[Joshkdmw]

That IS a fair point, I suppose.

[TheKeck]

Originally Posted by Joshkdmw

That IS a fair point, I suppose.

Now I feel compelled to capitulate to you.

[Spectre-7]

A tangential question: does anyone read reviews of Facebook games? I didn't really think that audience would be too interested in reviews.

[Joshkdmw]

Originally Posted by TheKeck

Now I feel compelled to capitulate to you.

Can't tell if sarcastic...

[TheKeck]

Originally Posted by Joshkdmw

Can't tell if sarcastic...

Not at all. You were just good natured in conceding that I made a fair point. That happens far too rarely.

[Joshkdmw]

Originally Posted by TheKeck

Not at all. You were just good natured in conceding that I made a fair point. That happens far too rarely.

It's something I do when I discuss with friends. I avoid arguments. Discussions are the bomb.

[TheKeck]

Originally Posted by Spectre-7

A tangential question: does anyone read reviews of Facebook games? I didn't really think that audience would be too interested in reviews.

Yeah, that's a bit of what I was trying to get at in my last post. If you're actually a person reading a video game review, you're probably willing to branch out at least a little bit. If you're some person who will only play Facebook games period, you probably aren't checking out reviews.

[Stmfuller]

a game is a game. The context of where it's played shouldn't really matter. If a game is good, it is a good game no matter what platform it runs on.
for example, I enjoy words with friends (even though I don't have a facebook account). I like the idea of a play by email scrabble game. The game transcends the platform and makes for an entertaining ride.
My wife played farmville and such for a long time on facebook. I understand the enjoyment as it looks like a sim city-type of game. Graphics are fine and the gameplay is addictive. It would be a good game on the PC, a phone, or a console downloadable game.

I don't think you're wrong in reviewing a facebook game like a real game. in fact, if your editor believes that you should judge facebook games differently, I would argue that he's obviously pandering to the shovelware facebook crowd in order to get a foot in the door for later releases.

[bean]

A game is either fun or it isn't. A good review tells us why it is fun or why it is not. A really good review realizes this is subjective and offers some insight on which type of games will like it and who will not. If a reviewer is trying to rank a game versus other games on that platform, then they are focusing on the wrong thing.

Also, the important part of visuals is whether or not they are effective. A handheld game that tries to have beautiful 3D simulation and comes off looking like shit should be scorned, but a game that realizes the technical limitations and makes a gorgeous sprite game could be applauded for visuals. You don't have to have Mass Effect 3's budget (both financial and platform resources) to make a visually impressive game.

Finally, sound should be good on everything. It's one of the strongest elements in games now that determine their relative quality and also one of the cheapest. Even independent games should have strong soundtracks and voice-acting.