CYBER CHICKEN REVIEW

[MacDeath]

Cyber Huns : the Ach!noldator...





Cyber Franzousichuns : the chickenator

[Bryce]

The reviews in CPC Games Review are IMHO not an review, at least not in the sense I understand that word as a scientist. In a review (in science) you need to give a citation (or data) for any statement you provide.
I guess I may do a "Serious Review of CPC Games" site in which games are judged by clear criteria and facts. So the contrast to CPC Reviews, which are mainly based on personal likes or emotions.
On the other hand I have no time to waste for review, I prefer to do original work.

You can't scientifically review games. A game could fail miserably in all technical merits and still be a fantastic game. Look at Flappy Bird!! A beginner could write it in an afternoon, but it was amazingly popular. What scientific / technical review can reflect popularity?

Bryce.

[TFM]

@Gerald and Bryce: Your citation comes from an different threat and is out of context.

[gerald]

You can't scientifically review games. A game could fail miserably in all technical merits and still be a fantastic game. Look at Flappy Bird!! A beginner could write it in an afternoon, but it was amazingly popular.

I totally agreed. And the opposite is true as well. But I cannot comment on Flappy Bird as I did not buy it.

What scientific / technical review can reflect popularity?

Popularity can be scientifically measured. However, results could be discussed endlessly if some interested people does not agree with that result.

[Gryzor]

Obviously you got no idea about game making, and how much new sophisticated new technology is in this game. This game provides several features never seen before at the CPC.

Like I give a sh!t. Last time I  was impressed by the technical aspect alone of a game was Shadow of the Beast, and even that was much better as a game. OTOH, Harrier Attach and Oh Mummy, 30 years on and as simplistic as they can be, still provide fun every time. CC/CH is fun for a while, but not much more. Maybe I got no idea about game making, but I surely know about game playing, and that's where games are scored.

9 is absolutely correct. There are games with a 10 and they are of more or less equal level. So everything is fine.

A dev rating his own game. Hilarity ensues

And Gryzor: You can NOT talk about Cyber Chicken, since you did NOT order one. Or do you have a pirate copy?

Yup,got a copy. Feel free to call the pirate line.


........




Back-tracking a bit, and on my initial point: you have to keep a perspective when reviewing games. Sure, a title may seem like a 9, but can you really support this 9 when you got others, much better ones too, receiving lower scores? And, I mean, a 9 FFS? This would mean that one is blown away by what he sees and just can't put it down for days or weeks on end. You play a 9 game till your fingers bleed and your stare is empty. Until your girlfriend threatens to leave you and you simply don't hear her talking. Until you forget to take a shower or eat. That's a 9. Not a "oh, this is fun, and has some nice technical skills in it,too".

[gerald]

@Gerald and Bryce: Please stop trolling, this citation is out of context. It comes from an different threat. Or are you both unable to distinguish CH and CC? In the latter case I would have overestimated you by far. 

I am not trolling, and this citation is not out of context.
  - this is the full text of one of your post CPC Games Reviews.... Thumbs down
  - this post is talking in general terms about reviewS. Not one review.
I just noticed how you can change your mind on a scoring method when the score please you, up to the point of defending it. Analytic mind ?

I am not judging your programming achievement nor your investment in the scene. Every new game/demo/event is good to keep the CPC scene alive.
But I am really disappointed that you always jump aggressively on anyone that emit a 'negative' view of your work.

CC is a game, and as such, gameplay is what is the most important. You are again considering that a game that use "sophisticated new technology" deserve the best score.

Game is not a science, game is art. And as such it is subject to critic, good and bad.

Artist have to learn to accept critics.

[Token]

I wanna see a review made of pure science of Oh mummy 

[Gryzor]

TFM's last post was deleted because it was just abusive.

[Gryzor]

I wanna see a review made of pure science of Oh mummy 

I suggest we apply for a grant to study it

[redbox]

Yup,got a copy. Feel free to call the pirate line.

[EgoTrip]

Wait, I just saw/realised that CC got a... 9? You must be kidding me. No offense, it's a lovely game, but rating as much as the most legendary games to have graced the platform (and quite higher than many of them, too) is just ridiculous. I understand that rating games is a tough job but you must keep a consistency...

I think the reviewer was pandering a bit here, he didn't want to get hit by the toys being thrown out of the pram again. Personally I'd give the game a 7. Its good, well made, but nothing special.

[Puresox]

That was bloody horrible!!

[Gryzor]

Actually, I thought about that vid myself but thought it was too far in the future. Couldn't remember the era's agency name, so I googled it (in spoiler tags so that it doesn't lengthen the page):

Spoiler: ShowHide

[attachimg=1]   [attachimg=2]


[attachimg=3]   [attachimg=4]


[attachimg=5]   [attachimg=6]


[attachimg=7]

[MacDeath]

ain't really got better...





really.






This said I think cyber chicken obviously deserve a hight mark based on scientific measurment...


it has a fair use of the Push mnemonic, which is a good way to estimate a game.

[EgoTrip]

Back-tracking a bit, and on my initial point: you have to keep a perspective when reviewing games. Sure, a title may seem like a 9, but can you really support this 9 when you got others, much better ones too, receiving lower scores? And, I mean, a 9 FFS? This would mean that one is blown away by what he sees and just can't put it down for days or weeks on end. You play a 9 game till your fingers bleed and your stare is empty. Until your girlfriend threatens to leave you and you simply don't hear her talking. Until you forget to take a shower or eat. That's a 9. Not a "oh, this is fun, and has some nice technical skills in it,too".

CH/CC are just mindless shooters, with little variety in the gameplay. Types of games the CPC is saturated with. If TFM created a game with substance and real strategy, with more than one dimension (and i'm not talking graphics here), maybe it would be more worthy. But he did not. CH bored me. CC is slightly better, but certainly not worth the asking price especially this day in age when you can buy much better games for up to a fraction of the price on current gen consoles. Hell, I got more excitement from The Galactic Plague than I did from CH (GP is underrated really, I don't think its as bad as people claim, just difficult)

Trouble is, the guy has an ego bigger than Zaphod Beeblebrox and unless you pander to it, there is always going to be drama as these reviews, and reactions prove.

[ivarf]

Reading this thread I get an odd feeling

Malc Jennings where are you?


Deja Vu

[Gryzor]

At least good ol' Zaph was funny...


I agree with your critique. Hell, I don't have an issue with mindless shooters, they can be pretty entertaining really, but in this case the game has missed the mark. Maybe it's got some nice technical stuff in it, but it doesn't translate into fun. Maybe TFM should have partnered with a game dev to design a better game.


As for the price...  yeah, especially since, as described in another thread, the disks can be old, too. A few weeks ago I got:


-Phantomas' Saga Infinity
-Columns
-Aqua
-Betiled!
-Mariano the dragon in Capers in Cityland
-Small Games for Smart Minds
-Gates to Hell


...all for 20-odd euros. And I'm enjoying all of them, instead of paying 15 euros for something that doesn't really cut it. So instead of bitching about people not buying new releases (which could be a valid complaint, but not for this release) one maybe could put more attention to their project. *Especially* when that someone is constantly criticising others' projects.

[Gryzor]

Reading this thread I get an odd feeling

Malc Jennings where are you?


Deja Vu

What, is Michael back from the dead?

[Devilmarkus]

[trollmode]BTW.: Did someone already write a review for Cyber Chicken?[/trollmode]

I am really disappointed, how far a simple thread goes here.

Maybe TFM is very sensible when we are talking about his softwares / games, whatever...

But:

Aren't we all grown enough to know this?

I really can't understand both sides...

Why do you all always stray new salt into open wounds?

And TFM: Why do you take all this stuff soooo serious?

[ivarf]

At least good ol' Zaph was funny...

But be careful,
scratch my back well
or else



Michael Jackson is king

[Gryzor]

[trollmode]BTW.: Did someone already write a review for Cyber Chicken?[/trollmode]

I am really disappointed, how far a simple thread goes here.

Maybe TFM is very sensible when we are talking about his softwares / games, whatever...

But:

Aren't we all grown enough to know this?

I really can't understand both sides...

Why do you all always stray new salt into open wounds?

And TFM: Why do you take all this stuff soooo serious?

Not sure what you mean by all this?


I think the reason things get out of hand in every similar case is because TFM just can't handle criticism well and always responds with arrogant comments. It doesn't take long to reply in kind.

[Devilmarkus]

TFM just can't handle criticism well and always responds with arrogant comments.

Exactly. That's it...

But he replies with arrogant comments, because or he doesn't understand some sarcasm / jokes, or because he is very sensible.

I read the whole thread here, and found much salt

[Gryzor]

I guess you mean not sensible but sensitive


But, to be honest, I don't see much sarcasm or jokes, just honest criticism...

[Phi2x]

.

[EgoTrip]

Piracy is bad form yeah, regardless of how good the game is, he's put his time and effort into producing it, and just taking it when its not offered freely is wrong.

However on the other side of the coin, its a game created for a retro machine. Fair enough, physical copies cost money to produce, and I have no issues paying for those If I choose to buy them, but why can't he offer free, or at the very least, very cheap downloads too? That is the way the retro model should work IMO, and does for most releases. If he is more bothered about making money than people enjoying his game, then he is doing it for the wrong reasons and writing for the wrong platform. Any projects I work on, providing I have agreement from any team members, will always be freely available to download.