Space Station 13

by Exadv1
[Website] [Share]
The Space Station 13 Wiki will be created soon, allowing those with little or no game knowledge to learn to play. =)
A review should be about an entire game, not just how a new person starts. The fact that you hardly know the mechanics of the game proves that you shouldnt be writing a review for the game at all.
Strawgate wrote:
A review should be about an entire game, not just how a new person starts. The fact that you hardly know the mechanics of the game proves that you shouldnt be writing a review for the game at all.

It is about the whole game. Its just not that great of a whole game. Im entitled to my opinion. So shh. You speak as if the game has some huge mechanics that i was yet to see, do elaborate.
Masterdan wrote:
It is about the whole game. Its just not that great of a whole game. Im entitled to my opinion. So shh. You speak as if the game has some huge mechanics that i was yet to see, do elaborate.

The only thing you seem to have reviewed was your opinion about the clicking system, and that you walked around. Did you play an actual round, or try to learn any of those science experiments everyone was doing?

Did you try building anything, or running the engine? Experimenting with DNA? Catching bad guys as security? Saving someones life as a doctor? Playing traitor and coming up with an elaborate scheme to accomplish your mission?
I tried, when i played with the dna i got trench coated, when i was security i was welded into a locker. I never understood what i was doing as a doctor.

See these shortcommings in the game are of it itself, you cant blame the players that the game has such poor structure.

edit: DNA was also not exactly done in a friendly way, i basically just made myself blind by messing around with it.
How does one write a hugely in-depth review of a game that requires you to be very lucky and griefer-free to experience any depth? This review was done from a standpoint of "How easy is it to get started and what can a new player expect?"--which is fitting because that's what a review is for.

Plus with a game plagued by all these problems, what good are any of those other features?
yeah, exactly. The problems of the game act like enjoyment bottlenecks. Pretty much any game is only as good as its weakest link, not the sum of all its parts.
But then the review should state that it was written from the viewpoint of a starting player who didn't get very far, and that if someone gets someone to teach them, the game play vastly changes. It shouldn't imply that the whole game is going to be the same as what he has experienced.

Lummox JR wrote:
How does one write a hugely in-depth review of a game that requires you to be very lucky and griefer-free to experience any depth? This review was done from a standpoint of "How easy is it to get started and what can a new player expect?"--which is fitting because that's what a review is for.

Plus with a game plagued by all these problems, what good are any of those other features?

why dont you split hairs more instead of making your own different perspective review, SHEESH
You should be satisfied that he bothered to look around for longer than 10 minutes, Ryokashi.

The first 3 times I played I didn't even get in 10 minutes, because I was constantly being killed by every single person I met. (as seen below)

The review is fine.
It's correct.
Wether he played 4 times or 40 times.

SS13 is not newbie friendly.
If you want to be to learn how to play it, you need to find a few people (preferably friends) and host a game with them, then mess around.

I still don't even understand what you're supposed to do.
The few times I played it, the only conversations that went on are "ROLL CALL", and everyone said their job.

Nobody said anything after that.

So I just roamed around setting all of the little air things to release carbon monoxide I think it was, since I didn't understand what the hell else I was supposed to do.
Ryo, Sg, you're being ridiculous here. The point is, this game is hard for newbies to get into, it's plagued by griefers, it has a terrible interface, and its graphics are well below average. Those facts don't change for spending a lot more time in the game. It may be more rewarding to long-term players, but the question is, is it really worth the hassle?

Masterdan has ample play experience to back up every one of his points, regardless of whatever depth you may manage to find if you play religiously and just happen to play the occasional game without a troll. That isn't to say you're somehow wrong to enjoy the game yourselves, but the review is entirely fair.
I remember playing this game, and what people are saying about it couldn't be anymore true.
It is without a doubt the most user unfriendly game ever, especially to new people. I remember reading a "manual" on the website because I was a Toxic Researcher and didn't know what to do. No joke, the manual said "Toxic Researcher: They research toxins" (or something to that effect). So I tried playing around, and nothing did anything at all. Except for one little thing, which when I used ended up setting half the base on fire and killed me.
Next game I played as a Forensic guy... Again, I had no idea what to do. I had about 10 useless items and the only item I did have to use basically made a piece of paper with random letters and numbers on it. The "manual" again wasn't exactly helpful.
In the next game I was some sort of technician, but like that was any good. The entire game consisted or clicking on some green thing that continually got bigger and bigger.
The next few games were pretty similar. If there was actually anything to do in the game it was so obscure that I'm surprised anyone found it.

And, I play games like Dwarf Fortress and Nethack regularly. These games have so much depth that they make S13 look even more shallow than a puddle. So it's not that this game had "massive depth" that takes time to fully explore and I am uncapable of doing so. It is just plain user unfriendly and could do with a half decent helpfile.

And. The 5 or so games I played I guess I was pretty lucky because I only encountered one griefer, and he only griefed me because I drugging myself and made myself an easy target (in other games everyone was to busy killing each other to even bother with me).
The review is perfectly fair. All reviews are opinonated, and that is what they think about the game, it's not always going to favor the game. It's to inform the player about the game, in as many ways as they think are importent. Masterdan may have played 4 times, but alteast he stayed around to make a informed decision about the game. That's all they are, are opinions. And a lot of people really bad offense to them. Wow guys. It's a game, relax.
Exactly, Boomer. Reviews exist for the sake of people who haven't yet played the game, or who may have barely touched it and want to know the rough overall merit. While I'd consider a book review from someone who never made it to the last page to be less substantial, a game is a different animal. Masterdan pointed out the kind of problems a new player can expect on a typical server. From that perspective his review is right on the money. As far as experiences further into the game, testimony from multiple sources has backed up that his overall impression was valid there too.
I kind of disagree with you there, Lummox. I don't think its fair for someone who hasn't played a game well enough to know a game's good and bad points to be posting an official review. Reviews should really be done by people who've played the game and liked it, so they can provide an honest review of the game's good and bad points, instead of posting another "I started playing and this, this and this sucked so I quit" review.

If someone hasn't played the game yet, its fair to tell them that the game is hard to get into. However, its not fair if you're not telling them about the game's good points which, apparently to some people, make the steep learning curve worthwhile.

Also, you say that read that you wouldn't trust a book review without them finishing the entire book. But saying that its okay for a game to be reviewed without experiencing the entire game. That's the equivalent of reviewing a book having only read the first half, and explaining in detail how horrible the introduction was - even if the author really shines in his endings. Maybe the game has a crappy introduction but, once you get into the meat of it, it improves. But anyone who isn't experienced enough to have "read the whole book" wouldn't know this.
Reviews should really be done by people who've played the game and liked it, so they can provide an honest review of the game's good and bad points, instead of posting another "I started playing and this, this and this sucked so I quit" review.

I agree, you SHOULD go through something entirely before writing a review on it, since a review should be from someone who has experienced everything it has to offer.

However, thinking of SS13 as book.
The first 10 pages would be in English.
The rest is in Chinese.
You can keep reading but it's most likely that the rest is in Chinese too.

If you want to play a normal game of SS13, you can walk around and wait to be killed, or you can walk around wondering what exactly it is you're supposed to do (since I haven't seen any type of in-depth tutorial on what it is exactly you are supposed to do, in your profession or otherwise).

To really experience the game, you need to host it yourself, or have someone host it for you, and find some other people to play with. (people who know how to play)

It's too much hassle if you're just looking to play a game, not dedicate a good amount of time learning how to play it.
Keeth wrote:
However, thinking of SS13 as book.
The first 10 pages would be in English.
The rest is in Chinese.
You can keep reading but it's most likely that the rest is in Chinese too.

In that case, it should be reviewed by someone who reads Chinese.
In that case, it should be reviewed by someone who reads Chinese.

Ok, replace Chinese with just "gibberish".

It was supposed to be in English.
So writing a review about the book saying "it was good but after 10 pages it was complete gibberish" would be alright.
I think the "depth of play" rule only applies to games where a learning curve is your only real enemy. I know some games really need the in-depth analysis, like a sports game with season management modes, because those sorts of things take lots of play time to judge. I don't think SS13 has nearly that level of depth, and really no reviewer is going to stick around to review the deepest features if they keep getting pummeled at the outset. If you look around for reviews of the last levels of Lair for instance, they're probably thin on the ground.

In SS13's case, the bad interface and graphics are merely gravy. The gameplay is so stilted toward enabling griefers that it's tremendously difficult to get to the point where you've seen everything, done everything.

In fact I'd argue that in anything with a huge amount of content that requires discovery, even if said content was actually reachable, having to go through it all before reviewing it would be ridiculous. In a game, you have to at some point say you've seen enough to have a solid idea what it's like. Imagine that rule applied to a Roguelike for instance, where some things may only pop up 1 in 100 times you play, and the high difficulty level means a reviewer would seldom reach the lowest levels. A book by contrast takes you on a linear journey to completion.
I understand several of Foomer's points, but I disagree on one point; review by someone who played and LIKED the game.

I agree with played, a review must be informed to serve its purpose, after all, but a person who really liked the game will be possibly biased to sing it's praises and not mention is faults. Granted, not always the case.
Page: 1 2 3 4