Quote Originally Posted by poieo View Post
Two things which have very little to with reviews, unless you think reviews are supposed to be pats on the back instead of, you know, reviews. Which may very well be what you expect, bringing a 10 year-old Taiwanese RPG back from the dead and doing so rather poorly. But hey, everything's like the Special Oympics, right? A for effort?

Nobody worth anything reads Play. Really, it's probably more damaging than anything; if Play, of all mags, doesn't jizz over this kind of thing, then that may just be the first time their opinion actually means anything. They usually eat this sort of thing up like it were golden honey. The only real difference here is that we got a meaningless pile of negative drivel as opposed to a meaningless pile of positive drivel.
I'm not sure how many people read Play but since you seem to know everything, maybe you could tell me. I think you are missing the point of his enthusiasm over the write up. There are a lot of people who read the magazine and saw that review. Some of them might have laughed it off. That isn't important. It is safe to assume there are at least a few people who read that and never heard of Beggar Prince or knew it was recently released. The whole point of him being excited about the review is that news of the game is reaching some of these people who might otherwise never know about it.

Regardless of what the review looks like or what people like you think of the magazine, a certain percentage of the people reading it will be interested in the game. It may be a very small percentage but some people still want to pick up a game that looks and plays like it was made in 1996. Some woman giving it a 5 isn't going to change that. Otherwise, CMA wouldn't have invested in this project. As for the comment that the game fared poorly, I think the fact it had a second production run says it all. As for your argument, better luck next thread.