Hey Boomers

I finished to read now a review Lost Crown of Adventure Gamers.
I cannot believe the rate 3.5 that was given to the game, it cite as "the bad" of game: Terrible voice acting; extremely repetitive dialogues; mostly empty environments; ending doesn't decides many of the plot points....For me Lost Crown is a brilliant game of begin to the end, they is very unfair with game, and i not understand, what is a good game????

I find this a terrible review, i respect the opinion of each one but cannot leave to manifest my indignation with review. I do not trust in reviews established in this site, many games that i played that i loved they won for the same site rate very bad...terrible!!!

What do you think of the review boomers???

Love Maria

Hi Phoebe...

What an unfortunate review & rating...You can't please all I guess...

I guess I am one of many that got through the "rough edges" as the reviewer stated & totally enjoyed the game..

This game to me was perfection...

There are very few games out there that didn't get a negative review. Or two. Or three. Reading lots of reviews helps balance out opinions on a game.

If you can find a few reviewers you happen to agree with (when they've reviewed previous games), then you can weigh their opinions more heavily for a game you haven't played.

I've occasionally even bought a game because it was reviewed negatively by a particular reviewer, and I knew that I usually disagreed with that reviewer.

I have yet to read many reviews on the games I have bought and there are a lot. I usually go what I read on GB. Some games I have bought that had good reviews and I didn't like the game. The Lost Crown was one of the best games I've played in a quite a while. It should have got the highest review. Thanks
Richard

What on earth makes you think this is an unfair review? They gave it 3.5 stars out of 5. What's so bad about that?! According to their ratings, a 3.5 is "A game of very high quality. Although some aspects might have been executed better, we would recommend this game to any adventure gamer without hesitation." Perhaps you should re-read the review. Yes, they said there were some bad points, which are as follows. "The Bad: Terrible voice acting; extremely repetitive dialogue; mostly empty environments; ending doesn’t resolve many of the plot points." Other than the part about "empty environments", I agree with those things. He explains those points further in the review, and quite well, I might add. I'm wondering if you even read this review completely, because I thought it was a very fair and accurate description of the game. He said much more good things than the few bad things.

Dawn

Hi Phoebe, please don't despair! - I just went to your link & skimmed through some of the other reviews written by the same person - he was very picky & critical about all the games he reviewed - I guess it's just his style.

In the forum of the mentioned side they mostly talk very positive about the game. In nearly every place I looked, everyone is enthousiastic - so why get excited about one person with a different opinion. And, as dmtomchick sayd: even in this review it is still a game of very high quality.
I'm so happy for Jonathan Boakes. After years of effort, his work is dignified by nearly everyone. A little downer won't do any harm.

Hi all

3.5 stars out of 5 stars at adventuregamers - that's not bad at all. Of course, every game can be improved. And since this game (lost crown) apparently is the work of one man, Jonathan Boakes, it is really impressing that he can make such a terrific game, I think

And yes, I do, believe that certain reviewers have different styles. I used to trust Greg Kasavin's reviews for adventure games at Gamespot, but since Greg left? Gamespot, their adventure game reviews hasn't been that good.

I hang out a lot over at rpgwatch, where some one known as brother none also hangs out. He is writing reviews for gamebanshee now. And he is vert very critical. It takes a lot to please him. But I usually read his reviews with joy, because I know what I'm going to get is a in-depth review of the game, comparing the game to other games in its genre (mostly rpg). And I find sometimes that I disagree with him, but that's just it:

A review is meant to be a reviewer's personal opinion on how the game play out and overall feeling is to this reviewer. And getting a 3.5/5 really isn't that bad a score. (it's not that poor - as we say in Denmark )

Sorry Karsten but I disagree with that. A 'professional' reviewer should be able to remove themselves from their own personal preferences, & give an unbiased objective rundown on any given game (but they should have extensive knowledge about the genre it falls into)

Well considering much of what he nitpicked was just plain wrong or extremely exaggerated:

- was the game really virtually puzzle free for the first few hours?

- did the organ puzzle really require listening to the notes being played and playing them back making it virtually impossible to solve if you are tone deaf?

- Did Nigel really make the graffiti comment at 24-36 different areas?

When the majority of your review is used to describe less than 10% of the problems with a game, then you have a problem.

If you really want a Lost Crown review that will be upsetting, here's one: http://www.game-over.com/reviews/pc/The_Lost_Crown.html

All in all 3.5 out of 5 stars is 70% and The Lost Crown is not at all close to being down in that range.

At least the vast majority of player comments on the forums are overwhelmingly positive with many calling it the best adventure game they've played in years... even on the adventure gamers forum!!

Oh well...

I can't say that I find much personal opinion on the said review. The guy seems to be doing a review/report taking out his personal opinion, in all honesty.

He mentions voice acting, and the fact that there seemed to be a lack of time in the recording studio, the "unfair" musical puzzle, he also mentions dialogues, which again can be a rather objective point, as well as the left wondering ending of the game (which I haven't played).

I really can't see anything he mentions as being non objective! And he wasn't evil or bad at all!

Rating is another issue, but since there is a review to accompany it, then you can decide if the rating is right or not!

In the end, after all he does mention that as the work of one man the game is amazing, but since it's battling your 10-20-40$ (no idea how much it costs), then it needs to be compaired with the rest of the games...

Reviews are never objective! Anyone who writes a review bases his or hers opinion on personal preferences. I loved the story of The Lost Crown but that doesn't make me blind for the shortcomings of the game. I could easily add some more. In short, the rating you give a game is always subjective.


Bernard

Bernard. A review is not "I like this, I don't like the other". There are objective ways to review something, which is rather close to providing feedback to a student.

In my PhD I've studied ways to provide feedback and it's not far off on how a "proper" review should be done.

In all different elements of a game there are things that are objective or subjective. There is a way to distinguish between them, it's not impossible.

Of course distinguishing 100% is rather impossible, I'm not saying that the reviewer should be a machine, but rather that if the reviewer is fair and careful about what he says or writes, then the review can be trusted.

I study music in an academic level (PhD in composition) and I do know that I can provide feedback to pretty much any piece of music. Of course feedback depends on what the person/student needs accompanied with options on how to better the music/track/whatever. Taking out the 'how to make better' part, you get your self a review. And I can tell you that there are things one can say safely about certain things.

I hope I'm explaining myself right, I don't know how else to express it.

For the record, I reread the review and I still can't find much fault, there. Of course I've not played the game to see if I agree or not, but both reviews linked here agree to certain aspect (poor voice acting, boring dialogues, repeated lines over and over, some unfair puzzles). Don't know if this is a coincidence, or something else and as I said I've not played the game. The fact that the game was made by 1 man is stunning, no doubt and I have nothing but respect for the man, but at $29.90 (I think, right?) it needs to be treated fairly amongs any other game at the same price.

And I know very very well that budget can get in the way of a better result, rest assured, but still it's no excuse when we're dealing to commercial, even indie, games.

Hi Guys...

Just a little two cents worth...If Lost Crown was $39.00 I still would of paid it..And after playing the game...Would feel I got my full moneys worth
I have paid $ 40.00 for stinker games that didn't come close to the satisfaction I got from lost crown

My Opinion :

Well I just beat Lost Crown a few days ago. I thought it was very good, but I wasn't blown away. I'd probably give it an extra half-star or so than this reviewer, but I agree with most of his points aside from the empty environments thing. Either way, 3.5 or 4 stars is still a worthy purchase; I'm happy.

Hey Boomers

I find that each one has your opinion about reviews and to each game.But i personally not like of reviews of the Adventure Gamers the majority of the times i do not agree to rates of the site…I think that lost crown deserved one at least rate 4.
I always read and trust in reviews of the GB and Just Adventure and in 97% of rates and reviews i agree.
But this is my opinion!

Love Maria

Here's are the results of 7 websites for lost crown:

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/930737.asp


I always go to this site which lists all the reviews made for the specific game. As you can see from the score from the 7 sites reviewing this, 4 sites gave a 65-70, one gave a 4/5 and GB and JA gave an A. So if you take the majority of the reviews you would say a 75 is the avegage score. But always read through the whole review, see what people find as bad and why they think it's important. Some reviewers may want graphics over gameplay, some may want sound/voice acting whatever. Read the bad, get more opinions rather than just one and try to check the demo out before buying. Also choose carefully where you are reading reviews from. I found 90%+ of the GB reviews here accurate for the games i play. I have many friends who play adventure games and we tend to buy different games and we exchange thus i can actually compare with a review and see if what is actually written is actually that bad or it doesn't bother me. It never happened to me that when a game in GB gets an A that i didn't like or when a game gets a C+ to love it. And those getting like Bs are fun but not the best. Another thing, check a game that you really liked other than this, then check the reviews they gave, if you still liked the game but the reviews are bad then you better find a new review site as it's obvious what you like and what the reviewer likes are different things.

Spyros

Maybe they should rename the site to www.sam&maxgamers.com They only giving good grades to this adventure only anyway

I agree with Dawn - I think that, the reviewers comments were fair and 3.5 is still quite good. I also think that his comments are meant to be constructive and not negative.

The conversation trees and Nigel's speech was annoying to me and sometimes during conversation when I clicked on Nigel's question I turned the volume down.

I am enjoying the playing but not the associated frustrations.

Will look forward to Jonathan's next game.

Reviews are meant to be different opinions. I have found that GB reviews are close to my own so I just stick with what this site has to say. Works for me!

Actually, it is. If you read a review, it's a surefire guarantee it will comprise of "this is great, but this is not so great, and such-and-such could be done better". It's the reviewer's opinion. That's why they are reviewers - because they have opinions. Whether we believe their opinions or not is quite another thing.


The music might be technically perfect, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's enjoyable to listen to.

I agree that a review should of course by as objective as possible. And having read the review, I find his review as close to this as possible. However, he also mentions some of the things he likes and some of the things he dislikes about his game. And maybe if he enjoyed the game, too. What I meant by using the term 'personal opinion' is just this. His private preferences in games, I don't need.

A film critic reviewing a movie also gives you his or opinion on how he or she likes the fiilm he was asked to review. Basically, its a service to the public: go see this movie or please play this game.

As a teacher I sometimes give my students book, film or game reviews to do. And yes, I do tell them what I expect in a review as this is a journalistic genre of its own. Hence, of course, there is a certain structure to how a review has to be done in order to be recognized as a review.

The reviewer for adventuregamers didn't like the voiceactings.
I'm sure other reviewers liked the voiceactings, but maybe did not like something else. I don't agree with Brother None's review of the rpg game Hard to a God, but I always make sure that I read it, since I know, I will get valuable information.

As we have talked about earlier, I also get horrified when gamespot etc. gives adventuregamers a low score because of the lack of action. That's a private opinion of how an adventure game should be much like Matt Peckham's private opinions on how rpgs should (defintely not D&D rpgs). Its a clear sign that these reviewers are incapable of acknowledging that for a anventure game, there are certain gerne conventions that needs to be it e.g. lack of action. (and by that I mean lack of fastpaced action elements like in shooters). I have played some demos for shooters, including Bioshock, Splinter Cell and some others. Although, shooters are not my kind of thing, I can easily appreciate the hard work that's gone into making these games. And I do believe that I can make a rather decent review of say Bioshock or a RTS-game.

I've read the review mentioned and there are some troubling things about it. The matter of voice acting is one, since he says that the acting for Nigel Danvers is a complete disaster. Now, that's subjective. I'm in the middle of the game right now and at first I thought Nigel's manner of speaking was a little odd, even for an Englishman (I expect to be attacked for that!). However, after I became accustomed to it and progressed through the game it became a non-issue. That's my opinion and the reviewer had his, but he should have put some emphasis on his statement being subjective. I recall having the same initial reaction to a voice actor when I played Sanitarium years ago, as I thought the main character had terrible voice acting skills at first. This also was something that evaporated as the game went on. Does the reviewer think that people can't adapt?

My biggest gripe against the review is that in a couple of places toward the back end of the review he says that budget problems caused a shortage of time in the recording studio and that's why there were voice acting difficulties. However, he doesn't provide a shred of factual evidence to support this, and I think the brilliant Mr. Boakes ought to be insulted. (Phoebe/Maria, in slang English we call this a "cheap shot".) I found the other voices to be all competently done, so again it's subjective, so why then make such an insinuation?

Yes, for that I will accost you with a wet dishcloth. (Please try not to enjoy it.)

Actually, I found Nigel's speech emphasis bewildering too, but I got past it.

If you check the booklet that came with the game, Nigel is actually played by the great Jonathan Boakes the game's developer. If I remember rightly, when Barrow Hill was released there were pictures on the website and Jonathan bares an uncanny resemblance to Nigel.
Incidently, I am currently about half way through and lovin it!!