If you didn't notice the other thread this site has been tits up for a while now. I write the words and I send them to my editor.
Regarding the "A low tackle is used to stop a player who is hitting up the defence. An arm pin is used against someone going for the stiff arm.
A hard tackle is used against a player utilising the goosestep. I say directly after that piece quoted that it is inferred knowledge -- that is to say, it's information derived from experience and not definitely correct. I don't owe the game anything regarding the Fan Hub either, but at words it's already longer than every other review for the game.
Am I somehow obliged to list back of the box details of a game because I'm reviewing a game? I'm not. As to the realities of the market -- that's not my problem. The game releases when every other sports game releases for the same price as the others, and so it gets judged accordingly.
As I said over on the other forums, English Super League teams have smaller budgets and less talent to draw from, but they are rated on the same 5 star scale as the NRL teams. Is that fair?
Yes it is. Except all those details exist in the posts Ross deleted in an effort to hide his lies. Its your opinion.
The Game has enhanced its feature with Career Mode that has the ability to control a new star, rookie or if you create a new player.
Whats not fine is telling the wrong information about the game. I think that is pretty fair argument.
Maybe if they had pared it down and focused on just really nailing the basics.
Get the underlying gameplay rock solid and then build up from there. Why do you think games like Rocket League are so popular? People spend probably hundreds of hours playing games like that not because they're have Fanhubs and career modes and all those bells and whistles, but because the underlying gameplay is just solid and fun.
Maybe those features and those decisions were forced upon the devs by the licsense holders or by the people holding the money, it happens, I've been on the receiving end of that. I kinda get the impression they weren't though considering how defensive people involved the game are getting about criticism of it.
So instead of this juvenile "The pictures are wrong, your review is invalid" approach, maybe take a step back, take some of the criticism on board, and make Rugby League Live 4 a genuinely good game.
I mean, the market is yours to take, theres literally no competition, can you imagine how well a genuinely good rugby league game would sell in Australia? Hurry up and do it properly before someone comes in and steals your thunder.
But they don't want to hear that.
They just want someone to pat them on the back and say 'hey you did your best' while they ban anyone who says anything negative. Dollarydoos is a Simpson's reference btw.
It's pretty classic. Also, just FYI, in the video at the top of this review - the other guy talking at the end is the guy who reviewed it for IGN. My bad. But, to most peoples' points here, the screens aren't the critical analysis, the words and video are. Funnily enough, my start on AusGamers came about because of a review I did years and years ago when I was on GameArena, of an AFL Live game same studio -- it caused its own furor for being equally critical -- especially of the price of the game It couldn't be that Big Ant repeatedly makes bad games could it.
Nope, must be a conspiracy! Also Ross still hasn't worked out that you need to log in to post here. I apologise if this sounds a little mean, but I can only assume this website operates on a volunteer basis, because if this were submitted to as a communications degree assignment you'd be struggling to pass.
I honestly don't understand how people can be writing for what appear to be commercial online websites that don't appear to have a secondary education level command of the English language. However, I do agree with some of the criticisms; this game definitely lacks polish and ultimately feels unfinished.
That said, I don't think the amount of "dollarydoos" is an issue anyone with a rudimentary grasp of economics would have brought up. This is a function of supply side economics; niche products in the same space extract similar prices to popular ones by virtue of similar distribution outlays on a unit-for-unit basis, a lower market share and a lower profit expectation.
Ultimately, it's also about harmonisation of products in a particular class as well; value based on enjoyment is an entirely subjective thing and therefore it's not a reasonable scale to be basing a price on. As a final word on comparisons, I'd also query whether Joaby is a Rugby League fan, as judging by his comment we should all play Madden if we wanted a better experience, I'd guess he isn't.
This is important with regard to the value point, as it highlights precisely what I mean about subjectivity. He doesn't seem to really understand sport, and so to him all sports games are interchangeable, but to me, an Australian brought up on Rugby Union and Rugby League, a sports game representing either of those codes is infinitely more appealing to me than say a soccer game because I happen to find soccer as enjoyable as watching grass grow.
It's for this reason that I'll happily pay "dollarydoos" for a title like RLL3.
I imagine they're probably not paying you a dime Joaby, so don't take my points on language personally I used to tutor English , but if you're looking for a professional gig then I'd advise against using this in your resume.
Maybe go blog somewhere for a while and practice with subheadings as you'll find they help you develop your structure when you're just starting out. Actually lol if you read a site and learn the tone of the writing, as a professional writer you do your best to match that tone.
And as it so happens, AusGamers has a very conversational tone. It's interesting that you'd attack the structure of the review, because I thought it flowed quite well.
Still, I'd love some pointers if you can share them with me. If you could point out how I failed to ground my material, I'd very much appreciate that as well.
I know it's not your job, but I've never claimed to be perfect -- maybe examples of situations where I could have grounded the material, or those where structure might be added would help me understand your complaints. Here's a better question -- Animal Kingdom is an Australian movie with Australian actors made on a relatively tiny budget.
It was judged against films released within the same year, and it still got nominations for awards internationally. Because it was great. That's alright with you people.
Ross is crowing about Rugby League being the number 1 seller right now, as if that proves his game doesn't have problems you admit it has. That's what you're defending here, a man who believes that sales numbers equal quality.