Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Online print archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Gamepad.svg WikiProject
Video games
Main page talk
  Talk page archive talk
Manual of style
Article guidelines talk
Templates talk
Sources talk
Departments
Assessment talk
  Requests talk
Reference library talk
  Print archive talk
Newsletter talk
  Current issue Draft
Articles
Article alerts talk
Pages for deletion talk
New pages talk
Article requests talk
Essential articles talk
Most popular articles talk
Featured content talk
Good content talk
Recognized content talk

viewtalkeditchanges

Next Generation Magazine review differences[edit]

  • There are differences between the online and print versions of Next Generation Magazine reviews. In fact, it looks like the online versions may be the unedited original drafts; the print versions often lack redundancies and details from the online ones. With Thief: The Dark Project, the structure, content and phrasing are slightly altered. For example, the online review reads: "Gameplay emphasizes stealth and intellect over the BFG weaponry or brute strength most first person games like Quake encourage". The print: "Gameplay emphasizes stealth and intellect over blazing guns, as most Quake clones do". Also, an untrue statement in the print—"Once players reach the final objective, the mission simply ends, rather than having the thief sneak back out again past the still-unconscious guards"—was removed. Occasionally, sentences are nearly identical between both versions; "From level design to sound design and weaponry, everything in Thief requires the player to be sneaky" appears in both, but the online version ends, "if he wants to survive the mission". Return to Krondor's review underwent a similar treatment; read below to see a comparison of the two full reviews.

Online review:

"The wait for another Krondor game has been years long. Based on the Midkemia novels written by Raymond E. Feist, Sierra originally let the license go after the initial poor sales of Betrayal. However, after a story too long to tell here, Sierra got the license back, and the result is that gamers finally got a sequel to one of the best loved roleplaying games of the past several years. But not all those fans are going to be terribly pleased with what they got.

Return to Krondor does a lot of things right -- the story is excellent, the graphics are superb, and the combat is exciting. The pre-rendered backgrounds are explored from a third-person perspective as the player controls his fully 3D party around the city of Krondor (for the first several chapters) and then into the Kingdom wilderness. Fighting is turn based, which lets players introduce a lot of strategy when it comes to deploying ranged weapons versus spells versus heading into the thick of things swords a-swinging.. In most cases, the camera can cycle through several different positions to let players get the best view of the action, but unfortunately you can't always do this during normal exploration. The computer controlled camera angles therefore make some navigation confusing, as you're not always immediately sure of your new view as compared to what you were just looking at.

Hardcore RPG fans will also be rather disappointed with the linear story line. Most of the game involves the classic errand-boy type excursions, although there's the occasional acts of heroism you can perform, like saving orphans from a burning building. These side-quests take place one after another, and you can't progress to the next part of the game until you've accomplished your assigned tasks. Ultimately, however, the biggest complaint most players will have with the game is its length. Average gamers will finish the title inside a week of regular play, while hardcore gamers will be done with it in a matter of days. Considering the rigid linearity of the game, there is little to no replay value, which means small bang for your buck. The game is well-made, and the Feist-inspired plot will keep gamers on the edge of their seats, it's just too bad they won't stay there very long.

The Bottom Line: What is, in essence, a great game is marred by a far too short (if involved and exciting) story line. If it had been longer and allowed for more exploration, this RPG could have been an instant classic."

Print review:

"Fans of Betrayal at Krondor have been waiting for another Krondor game for years. Based on the Midkemia novels written by Raymond E. Feist, the license was let go after the initial poor sales of Betrayal. However, Sierra got the license back, and the result is finally a sequel to one of the best-loved role-playing games of the past several years. But not all those fans are going to be terribly pleased with what they got.

Return to Krondor does a lot of things right — the story is excellent, the graphics are superb, and the combat is exciting. The backgrounds are prerendered, but your party is fully in 3D as you wander around the city of Krondor and then into the Kingdom's wilderness. Fighting is turn-based, and there are enough options to afford a number of different strategies. In most cases, the camera can cycle through several different positions to let you get the best view, but unfortunately, you can't always do this during normal exploration, and the computer-controlled camera angles make some navigation confusing.

But RPG fans will also be disappointed with the linear storyline. Most of the game involves the classic errand-boy type quests, although there are the occasional acts of heroism, such as saving orphans from a burning building. These side quests take place one after another, and you can't progress to the next part of the game until you've accomplished your assigned tasks. Ultimately, however, the biggest problem is length. Average gamers will finish inside a week, while hardcore gamers will be done in a matter of days. Considering the rigid linearity of the game, there is little to no replay value, which means small bang for your buck. The game is well-made, and the plot will keep gamers on the edge of their seats. It's just too bad they won't stay there very long."

  • In addition, the online reviews lack the scoring system of the print ones; instead, there are "Bottom line" sections. Basically, I think it's safe to assume that the content of reviews will not wildly differ, but using {{cite web}} will be the way to go. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)