User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:22 pm

Review: Mini Metro

Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:16 pm

I love maps and have a large and growing collection of maps and books about maps.

http://www.pockettactics.com/reviews/review-mini-metro/

User avatar
Js619
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:46 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Review: Mini Metro

Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:35 pm

Good review of what I consider a great game, especially well suited for mobile. I think I have to disagree with the price point factoring into the ratings system, though - I always figured the stars were based upon the game's merits and playability, with the buyer considering the price... Has the price always played a part in the ratings system?

NICKVIGDAHL
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:49 pm

Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:47 pm

Good review of what I consider a great game, especially well suited for mobile. I think I have to disagree with the price point factoring into the ratings system, though - I always figured the stars were based upon the game's merits and playability, with the buyer considering the price... Has the price always played a part in the ratings system?
It does for me but is not an official policy that I know of. The buyer should certainly make their own determinations on price, quality, and everything else based on the review and other info at hand. YMMV and all that.

User avatar
EICJoe
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: Review: Mini Metro

Tue Oct 25, 2016 4:56 pm

Good review of what I consider a great game, especially well suited for mobile. I think I have to disagree with the price point factoring into the ratings system, though - I always figured the stars were based upon the game's merits and playability, with the buyer considering the price... Has the price always played a part in the ratings system?
I let the individual writer's make their own call on this. It's not 'official' but the only thing I do say is that in most cases these are games that people spend money on. If that matters in the context of a specific review, then writers are free to mention it. Sometimes the price doesn't matter or doesn't factor in, sometimes it does - but it's always clearly stated in the latter case.

If it's not mentioned, it's not been factored in.
"Determining the appropriate level of influence in somebody else's war is never a simple matter."
- Special Circumstances

Editor-in-Chief
Wargamer.com
PocketTactics.com
StrategyGamer.com

hardco
Posts: 190
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:42 pm

Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:23 pm

I agree that it seems odd to factor in price for a game's rating. The quality of a game is the same regardless of the price. I prefer "value" to be described in the review, like when Nick indicated he would happily pay twice the price for Concrete Jungle.

User avatar
Js619
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:46 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Review: Mini Metro

Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:33 pm

Good review of what I consider a great game, especially well suited for mobile. I think I have to disagree with the price point factoring into the ratings system, though - I always figured the stars were based upon the game's merits and playability, with the buyer considering the price... Has the price always played a part in the ratings system?
I let the individual writer's make their own call on this. It's not 'official' but the only thing I do say is that in most cases these are games that people spend money on. If that matters in the context of a specific review, then writers are free to mention it. Sometimes the price doesn't matter or doesn't factor in, sometimes it does - but it's always clearly stated in the latter case.

If it's not mentioned, it's not been factored in.
Caveat emptor and all, although it's nice to hear that it's stated when price is a factor in the ratings. I'm still with Hardco, though - a quality game is a quality game.

MrTact
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:54 pm

Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:05 pm

I have to say frankly that this is an incredibly destructive point of view. You are normalizing the attitude that it's OK to reject a game over what is, essentially, pocket change.

As gamers, we love to piss and moan about the terrible F2P games clogging the app stores, and you're going to ding this excellent gem over TWO BUCKS? Two bucks *paid one time*? That's less than the average Candy Crush player spends MONTHLY. When did our standards get so radically out of whack?

Personally, I'd rather buy ten fantastic games at premium prices than waste one iota of my time on a F2P game wondering if they are going to screw me once I'm engaged with it.

There are 20,000 new games dropped into the app store every month. If you're not going to unequivocally boost the signal of great games from small publishers like this, you're doing the community a tremendous disservice.

User avatar
Js619
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:46 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re:

Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:13 pm

I have to say frankly that this is an incredibly destructive point of view. You are normalizing the attitude that it's OK to reject a game over what is, essentially, pocket change.

As gamers, we love to piss and moan about the terrible F2P games clogging the app stores, and you're going to ding this excellent gem over TWO BUCKS? Two bucks *paid one time*? That's less than the average Candy Crush player spends MONTHLY. When did our standards get so radically out of whack?

Personally, I'd rather buy ten fantastic games at premium prices than waste one iota of my time on a F2P game wondering if they are going to screw me once I'm engaged with it.

There are 20,000 new games dropped into the app store every month. If you're not going to unequivocally boost the signal of great games from small publishers like this, you're doing the community a tremendous disservice.
I think a lot of people are doing a better job at expressing my thoughts here than I did...

NICKVIGDAHL
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:49 pm

Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:23 pm

Pocket change is relative. People's gaming budgets are very different. I've been asked about price/value quite a bit since I started writing for this site. I'm happy to hear you guys all like the game and think it is worth $5, I do as well. Regardless of our opinions, many people look at $5 as a lot for a puzzle game so I wanted to acknowledge it as a factor. I will continue to do this where relevant.

Also, rest assured, I wouldn't give Candy Crush, or any freemium games for that matter, 4 stars. :)

User avatar
geigerm
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:36 am

Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:44 pm

I appreciate you being up front about the price being the reason the game is "only" 4 stars--having that stated so clearly makes it easy to understand. Having the blurb on the main site say, "Read Nick's 4 star review" hides that information, though, and might turn off someone who's unwilling to read the whole review, IMO.

Also, I think it's a bit pointless to say, "I think the game is worth $5, but others may not." That's true of any game--there are probably people out there who would gladly pay $20 for games that are given away for free, and there are other people who think charging $0.99 for any game is price gouging. If you're on a tight budget, $5 is a lot regardless of how much you might like the game. I don't think you need to tell those people that the game is "expensive" for them.

Complaints aside, I do think this is a really good review of an excellent game.

    

Return to “Pocket Tactics Front Page Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests