52 replies to this topic

[taikara]

We most definitely aren't going to ban you, ThatSino! and quite frankly, I think we all should be more concerned here about the decline of the quality of our community rather than the decline of the quality of our content.

You all need to remember that a member of this community contributed the review to the site - its an effort made by someone who cares. If you don't like it, or disagree with an opinion given, that is fine, but remember that it can be hurtful to one of your fellow members to be rude about it. There are better ways to voice your opinion or criticisms.

Unfortunately, in this case, we lost the name of the reviewer, and had no way of contacting him to see if he could work on the review, and Sino!, I apologize for that. I personally appreciate the effort that you put into getting this game on the site, and if you would like to rework it to include some more detail, or allow one of us to edit the review as a co-writer to give it more detail, please let me know.  And don't take the negative statements here to heart.

The bottom line is that this is fixable, and there's no need to insult someone who put effort into it.

[MasterGrazzt]

I think part of the problem here, and keep in mind that I never called Sino any names or anything like that, but it seems to me that you guys will just put whatever review you get first up without reading it or seeing that is fair and just.

Now I'm not "crying out against the decline of Abandonia" or any ridiculous bs like that, and I really do like the site a lot, but I think it's something you dudes should start paying more attention to.

And for the rest of you who want Sino to be digitally crucified... Shut up. It wasn't his fault, it was something he probably wrote naked before supper, he didn't think it would end up on there, and besides, it's just a review for a game on a website. It's not important. Why don't one of you jerks write a NEW AND WONDERFUL review for the game if you hate it THAT much?

[taikara]

I personally think ThatSino! should be commended for claiming the review after the comments made in this thread.

In response to MasterGrazzt, I've opened a thread addressing the recent quality concerns. Further speculation, comments, and suggestions as to the general quality of the site should be made there.

If you have something to say about Megamek the game, please continue to post here

[Potatoe]

Wow, I never tought he would show up. Now well. Umm yeah... That was good, I think?

[Wastelander]

From the first few hours of playing, I can definitely say that I would personally rate MegaMek higher than 2.4, and I will soon tell you why. But let me point out that I am staying with my opinion about ThatSino!'s review, regardless of when it was written. And considering the time at which the review dates back, leads me to the first issue I claim to be wrong in his text.

The CURRENT version of the game features a relatively simple option of adding as many bot clients to your game as you like. Just hit a button on the "Configure" tab, name your bot and assign units to it. So there really is no way of saying, the game is "Multiplayer only".

Next there is a pledora of not only Mechs to choose from, most of them known to players of the Battletech tabletop games. In addition to those Mechs, there is a large choice of infantry, tanks, helicopters and naval units that can add greatly to your strategy.

One point where I agree with ThatSino! is that there isn't anything wrong with the battles. It's a more than solid conversion of the Battletech rules and, taken aside the fact that the battlefield is divided into hexes, there is not much in common with Battle for Wesnoth.

Another aspect that I find is noticable about MegaMek is the fact that it is developed as an open-source project. This is certainly why some of the flaws mentioned in the initial review have been fixed since it was written, and also a guarantee that the game will constantly improve further.

Still there are some downsides I don't want to hide. First of all, there isn't a matchmaking tool, so finding a server is still nearly impossible, as long as you don't arrange a game with one of your friends. Second, there is no way of building your own Mechs, which was always the most fun part of any other game based on the Battletech rules. The last point would be the menues, which I found quite unclear in some parts. This however is probably due to the vast complexity of the game, but still, it could really be improved on.

Having said all this leaves me with finding a proper conclusion to my opinion. I think, no offence, that MasterGrazzt is right when he says, the Reloaded.Org staff should pay more attention if the reviews they put up are actually correct in what they claim about the respective game. Still, I like the site very much and value it for its efforts in making independent projects known to a larger audience. This, though, leaves them with the responsibility of making sure that each game is judged properly.

Furthermore, I want to make clear that I don't want this text to be published in its whole on Reloaded.Org, since I think that it is only partially useful as a help on deciding whether to play MegaMek. Instead, I'd like to encourage ThatSino! to submit a revised review that considers the improvements made on the game since the version he played.

All my regards
~Wasty

[DakaSha]

im not going to take back my claim that it is a terrible review just for the sake of being nice... im also not in any way putting sino down per se. now that i know who it is i could give constructive critiscism if it was wished.

i think the review should be rewritten by sino if he wishes and if not then by somebody else and this thread should be restarted.

[taikara]

ThatSino! has already been in contact with me, and he cannot revise the review due to technical issues with running it. If anyone is willing to co-write the review, please let me know. That is, work with what is already written to improve the content. I would like to avoid completely doing away with the review if possible.

@Daka: You don't have to be dishonest to be respectful. Being less emphatic works wonders. You also don't have to know who did something to offer constructive criticism on it

Wastelander said:

Having said all this leaves me with finding a proper conclusion to my opinion.
...
This, though, leaves them with the responsibility of making sure that each game is judged properly.

As I requested previously, please refer to the thread created to post speculations, suggestions, and/or comments on what you believe the responsibility of the AR crew is with regards to quality.

[DakaSha]

taikara, on Sep 10 2006, 02:29 PM, said:

@Daka: You don't have to be dishonest to be respectful. Being less emphatic works wonders. You also don't have to know who did something to offer constructive criticism on it

your right of course but i didnt have the moral obligation before knowing who it was

[ThatSino!]

I suggest that Wastelander take control of this review, he seems to know what he's talking about.

[Wastelander]

ThatSino!, on Sep 10 2006, 07:39 PM, said:

I suggest that Wastelander take control of this review, he seems to know what he's talking about.

Thanks for that, but I really don't have the time to write much more than I already did. But I will give my full agreement on using parts of the thread above to patch up some holes in your review which surely are due to the early version you played.

Considering MegaMekNET, which was mentioned earlier by bjbrains, it features a lot of new content, including an online campaign map, a personal hangar (you first need to MAKE those Mechs, before you can use them in battle), much clearer menues and last, but surely not least, a chatroom with a helpful community.

I will now try and play a few games there. Someone in the chat mentioned the page http://www.mekwars.org as a resource for information on MegaMek, so that might be a help for anyone who would like to help contribute to the review.

All my regards
~Wasty

[Wastelander]

Quoting a player from MegaMekNET:

[10:28] Ching Tsian [I]: oh another url you might want to add:
[10:28] Ching Tsian [I]: http://www.mekwars.org/mwtracker.html
[10:29] Ching Tsian [I]: a list of all running campaign servers. might be interesting to those who know battletech since this server here is only lvl1 technology and no clan/lvl2 technology is involved

Regards
~Wasty

[Potatoe]

To wastelander, those all seem like addons, shouldn't the review concern the orignal version WITHOUT the addons. Because the review isn't a review of the game if it is jam packed with addons and mods and you are reviewing the addon jam packed piece of game rather than the original, I say that the megameknet site thing should be put in the extras like "Some helpful files" and other so that readers are directed to the site rather than led to believe that the actual orginal game is like that.

[DeathDude]

It should indeed, ya want to go with what came with the game not any addons or anything, if the addons came already with the game that's fine but if you have to go search for the add ons then you can mention where to get it, but it shouldn't factor into the overal score of the game.

Oh and Wastelander be a bit more careful and try not to double post.

[Wastelander]

No offence, but I don't see any reviews besides those 2½ initial paragraphs. It's just my opinion about the game and information I found about it. I am just trying to be constructive.

Besides, in my opinion, mentioning add-ons that enhance the gameplay in such vast proportions like a.o. MegaMekNET should be part of a good review. But as I said, that is just my opinion.

I apologize for double posting, although I didn't notice any duplicate posts. But it can certainly have happened, since I was pretty busy doing 4 things at a time. Again, my apologies.

All my regards
~Wasty

[DeathDude]

Again that moreso depends on the reviewer mostly. Sometimes is wise to mention other sources for addsons and such depending on the game, really falls moreso towards the reviewer and is not always necessary for some games.