Just to clarify: the New Star Tennis review
Yesterday, we published an unfavourable review of New Star Tennis, released by New Star Games on Friday 22 January, 2010. Almost immediately, we were contacted by its developer, who expressed concerns with author Thomas Senior’s evaluation and score, particularly citing his complaints about a number of game-breaking bugs – which, the developer suggested, were not present in the final version.
Our copy of New Star Tennis was provided by the developer at the start of the week preceding its release. This is a fairly standard time-frame in which to receive an evaluation copy of an upcoming game. It is our internal review policy to assume that any game provided to us for review purposes is, if not the absolute final version, at least indicative of the version that will be available to consumers. In other words: if someone sends us something to review, we assume it’s ready to be reviewed. It seems only reasonable.
As a result of the email from New Star Games, however, along with a number of comments on the review itself, we decided to take a look at the release version. We contacted New Star Games for a copy, but did not receive a response. As such, we downloaded the demo version of the game (which is version 1.0 – the review version was 0.93). Thomas noticed considerable differences between the stability of the two builds, but no differences in terms of content, leading to our decision not to purchase a copy of the full game in order to run a re-review. For the record, if there had been differences in both stability and content, that’s what we would have done.
Instead, we have amended the score based on the improved stability of the final build. However, Thomas’ primary gripes were with the content of the game itself. He has explained his viewpoint and clarified the differences between the two builds in an addendum to the original review. You can read that here.
I remain confident that our experienced and talented staff writers, as well as our freelance contributors (of which Thomas is one), are fully capable of examining a range of computer and video games, and accurately and fairly reporting their findings. All reviews are by definition opinion-led, and I absolutely stand by Thomas’ right to express his professional and personal opinions on New Star Tennis – and, indeed, any other game that is provided to us for review. In no way do I see reason to doubt his qualifications to review the game, as has been suggested by some – as he is a fan of both tennis and previous New Star games, I consider him to have been the perfect writer to assign to the job.
However, we are always working to ensure that our reviews function as honest and informed critique of a product that is available for you to purchase. In this case, that the version we reviewed was different to the one released meant our original review was no use to anyone. I hope the amendments, and this post, go some way to explaining the changes made to that review and its associated score. By Lewis Denby, Editor.
[...] review, and associated score, have been amended since publication. Please see this page for [...]
Quite shocked at the backlash to the review although I can understand why people might be upset by a low score because of things they’ve never seen.
However, this statement clears up why those issues arose. You can only review what they send you. If a publisher sends you buggy code, then you review buggy code.
The problem is that nobody at New Star Games is actually gonna sell anything that is supposed to be testing material, because a) it’s unethical and b) it’s stupid because it ruins the company’s reputation. This so called ‘buggy’ material is actually the testing versions. I remember having read on the original NST review that this was supposed to advise or to not advise people to buy the game and well the version reviewed was a testing version that was never gonna be sold.
“Thomas noticed considerable differences between the stability of the two builds, but no differences in terms of content, leading to our decision not to purchase a copy of the full game in order to run a re-review.”
well, you obviously couldn’t have played the final for very long, as you wouldve have noticed that you didnt need to buy another copy of the game. Once you have a code, u dont need to buy another one for a new update, you use the old one. If you didnt play the newer version of the game thoroughly enough, then obviously the new review is not fair or balanced.
Maybe you were too proud to think you could have been wrong in the first review and therefore you simply didnt bother with the second one.
heres a fair and balanced review you can use as an example http://captaind-pc-gaming.blogspot.com/2010/01/pc-game-review-new-star-tennis.html
“Even ardent fans of New Star’s games are likely to be disappointed by this lacklustre effort from the indie developer.”
Well, i’m one of those ardent fans, and in my opinion, NST is one of the best releases from new star games (second only to NSS4)
If you would care to look here – http://www.newstargames.com/newstarforum/showthread.php?t=10640&page=2 – you’ll see that most ardent fans are not dissappointed by NSG’s efforts.
You write: “leading to our decision not to purchase a copy of the full game in order to run a re-review”
My question is: I bought a key during the beta process, v0.93. It still works now the game’s version is on v1.03. This implies you never bought a key in the first place, meaning the game’s reviewer never played more than ten weeks of gameplay, or you’re using the fact you’d have to “repurchase” a key as an excuse to not fully review the new game again. While it’s not impossible, I strongly doubt the game developer would rescind a key you purchased, or received as part of the reviewing process.
Any way, if either of those are true, it doesn’t speak very highly of your site.
Hi all.
I suspect that might be a case of me not knowing that about the key, so not suggesting that Thomas try it.
To hopefully completely clarify and lay the issue to rest: we were provided a copy of the game and a key at the start of release week. Thomas played the game for around six days before writing the review (as in actual days, not game-time). After the concerns raised about the original review, I contacted New Star Games asking for a copy of the final game. I did not receive a response, so I suggested Thomas download the release demo to get an idea for stability and any further changes made to the game. A day later, Thomas replied that the game was more stable, but that the content was the same. This was when we ran the amended original review and clarified with this post.
[...] Resolution Mag stand by their score. [...]
Well, the game is up to v1.04 as of today and is a lot more stable – and your key should still work – so it’s something worth looking into. It’s something I’m having a lot of fun with, which usually isn’t the case with a 2/10 game, but it’s definitely taken me some gametime to improve my player where I can beat a lot of players (but not the Federers and Nadals of the world…yet…)