Harsh Fatman Review?

[Privateer Puddin']

http://www.adventuregamers.com/display.php?id=297

I tend to agree with adventure gamers a lot on their reviews, but i have to disagree with this one. Yes, i may be biased as an AGSer but Fatman was the best commercial adventure game for a while IMO, and my little cousin (4) didnt know the difference between it and a 'proper' commercial game so

[SSH]

Obviously the bit where they say "One of the things that I absolutely loved was the full MIDI soundtrack by Mark Lovegrove." is the the bit where most people would disagree the most...
 

j/k!

[remixor]

I'm a dedicated Adventure Gamers visitor, and a regular poster on their forums, but I actually disagree with a LOT of their reviews.  I think the main reason for this is that their staff has such a revolving-door manner of operation (not that this is deliberate), and their reviewers run the gamut from classic adventur gamers (like most of us here at AGS), to MYST-fanatics, to "new-age" adventure gamers (ones into all the stuff by The Adventure Company and so forth) who have never even played the classics.  As a result, their reviews can be VERY inconsistent, especially if you look at their star ratings, but even if you read the reviews objectively.  They can have some pretty questionable reviews.

Anyway, their Fatman review was another I don't particularly agree with, and even though the review wasn't that positive, I still think two stars was too low even for that particular review.  This reviewer also gave Beavis and Butthead four stars, and I'm sure that isn't a bad game, but it strikes me as a bit odd to be giving it four if you're giving Fatman 2...

[Andail]

We must also realise that this is the price for going professional; reviews that aren't as pleasant as the ones we write for eachother here on the forum.

If you look at any magazine, or site, thousands of costly and professional games will recieve both good and bad reviews. Our games shouldn't be spared sharp criticism just because we're hobbyists and decent, hardworking fellows.

This is reality.

[remixor]

I totally agree Andail, but I still think that parts of the review were unfair.  I'm not saying AG should have given it a perfect or near-perfect score, but I really don't think the reviewer properly justified his review.

[m0ds]

Is it me or does is "I wanted to like this game—I really did." just a game reviewers cliche? I hear it all the time.

I think it was a little unfair. Ten years ago and I bet Fatman would have gone down a treat.

m0ds

[Nellie]

I wonder how much his distaste for the voice acting dragged down the final score?  I've seen varied reactions to the voice acting on adventure game forums (from people who hated it, to people who thought it was the best part of the game), but that is the most negative reaction to it I've ever come across.  I think to state that 'I turned off the voice support, and I think that most gamers will do the same' was a bit extreme (and out of touch).

Also, I think his criticism of the humour was a bit off.  If he's going to complain about low-brow humour, he should give the readers more examples of it than a single 'solve the puzzle by farting' joke.


But hey, I think Fatman coming from AGS has created a reviewing precedent:  the critic assesses the game, and then the community assesses the critic. :p

[Dave Gilbert]

I don't mind the review, however harsh it may be.  The only part I had a problem with was when he wrote that  "the characters are reminiscent of the Reality on the Norm series."  Is that meant to be insulting?  The reviewer repeats often that Fatman is trying to be a commercial release, so why does he insist on comparing it to amateur adventures?

[Eggie]

Well...I only played the demo (Shut up! I'm poor!) but I didn't particuarly like the voice acting, it could have been a little more melodramtic to match the cheesy, cartoon style of the game.

But that's still no reason to give the game such a low score, to give it less than three sort of gives a negative impression while I'm certain that Fatman is not a 'bad' game.

I really should buy it..

* Eggie Starts saving

[Wattshout]

Well part of a reviews is personnal taste, we have to live with it.  We also have to point out that reviews that we're used to on the AGS site are sometimes more positive than normal. I've only downloaded games here that were rated 8/10 and up, and to my opinion, some of them don't deserve that high.

I assume that people are a little bit like me and feel that reviewing something they liked is more worthy of their time than criticizing a game that they were too bored or frustrated to see througth.

[m0ds]

LOL Vel, stop using a different ID.

[foz]

Mods beat me to it............LOL

[Las Naranjas]

It's bemusing that he describes it as trying to be "supercommercial".

The exorbidant pricetags surely indicates he's doing more than something in a old shareware style spirit (without the sharing, but I hope you understand).

[MrColossal]

i can agree with a lot of the review but i can also disagree with a lot

again, mostly in the fact that he didn't explain himself, like Dave Gilbert said, is that supposed to be insulting that the art looks like a RON game, or is he drawing a parellel that the characters look like edited versions of each other and are usually standing straight and awkwardly in a room? or is he saying that RON art is ugly and so is Fatman art?

and mods, i don't understand why ten years ago should apply to today

[SSH]

Well part of a reviews is personnal taste, we have to live with it.  We also have to point out that reviews that we're used to on the AGS site are sometimes more positive than normal. I've only downloaded games here that were rated 8/10 and up, and to my opinion, some of them don't deserve that high.

I don't know what you can mean?

http://www.agsforums.com/games.php?action=detail&id=267

(no doubt the 10/10 mark will change soon  :'( )

[Helm]

and mods, i don't understand why ten years ago should apply to today

Because a good idea 10 years ago is a good idea today? Not strictly my oppinion but such a view could be argued for. Sure the technical aspects of the game seem aged (compared to the recent Doom3 toilet publicity screenshots! ZING!) but the storytelling concept of an adventure game hasn't advanced so much in the last 10 years that an idea as old wouldn't work in a game made today. Think longest journey, what did it do that couldn't be done or wouldn't be considered just as good 10 years ago, and vice versa what did Gabriel Knight do (again, in terms of storyline and gameplay devices) that would be considered unplayably dated today?

I'm not saying the rules of modern industry don't (or shouldn't) nec. apply to Fatman, I'm just saying that as a storytelling medium, ten-years-ago point and clickers don't differ from today's so much.

[m0ds]

My point is that ten years ago Fatman's graphics would have been the height of adventure game graphics (or certainly among them!) - in no way am I saying that now they're not, because they are great graphics for an adventure game - if not my favourite kind of graphics (long live 320x200) - what I mostly meant was, 10 years (ish) ago 3D wasn't revolutionised, and first person adventure games with pre-rendered 3D backgrounds were still in their mother's wombs.

m0ds

[magintz]

We, AGSers, will always rate people's games as amateur, as that is what they are. I think what they may have done is tried to compare it far too much to a commercial game, despite it being amateur.

All I can say is that our opinions are different to most people's as we have the added 1337 value

Ionias, ignore those people, it's our opinions that matter, right?

[Kweepa]

I haven't played Fatman Adventures, and I don't know if anyone here was involved with it, apart from m0ds, but...

1. It's $14.95. That makes it commercial, so commercial standards apply.
2. Calling a game Fatman seems very uninspired.
3. The artwork is blatantly MUCH WORSE than commercial Lucasarts and Sierra games from ten years ago. Just look at
http://www.socko-entertainment.com/screenshots.htm
Sorry if I offended anyone here - but that's the harsh reality of it.

If it was free, I'd play it for sure. But if I'm going to pay for a game, it needs to have the whole package - good plot, good script, good editing, good sound, good art.

Steve

[magintz]

But the thing is - it has all of those things, and the fact that by spending that money you get free delivery. For that price you'd be paying double, if not triple, for an off the shelf game.

I think that it is well worth the money, and am glad I helped support amateur adventure games like Mike.