Gaming Rise of the Triad Review

Rise of The Triad brings back the best bits of the classic FPS, but also all the worst bits and a whole host of its own problems.
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2013/08/06/rise-of-the-triad-review/1

 

Bit-tech, why do you no longer put the reviewer's byline on their articles? Not all apples are alike and a review score isn't just a review score.

Game reviewers come in all flavours and the subjective score has to be judged against the reviewer's history of opinions, and we can only judge it by developing a relationship with the author. For example, Joe didn't like racing games so I would have judged a negative racing sim review accordingly.
By removing the byline you are removing our ability to A) develop a relationship with the author, and B) make our own internal judgement on the merits of the review/reviewer.

Of course I suspect that the truth is that Bit-tech doesn't want us to develop an ongoing relationship with the author because the author (or likely authors) are actually freelancers submitting articles on spec. We don't get to know the author/s, and you don't have to pay for an ongoing employee.
With a revolving door of authors how can we have consistent review scores? And if the "bit-tech Staff" reviewer is a single person, how can be develop confidence in them with no byline?

Just tell us who the author is.

 

Rick Lane wrote the review

 

It's not always a conspiracy you know....

I'm currently unable to add Rick as an author because of technical issues that I'm still waiting on IT to fix.

 

Have you tried switching it off and back on again? [sorry, just been watching the IT crowd and I couldn't resist]

 

i think the reviewer is a little harsh on a game thats just a little above 10pounds. might be rusty and less polished. but they not charging an arm and a leg for what they know is not AAA.

just my 2cents

 

A very harsh review IMO.

The game is a bit rough around the edges for sure with jittery performance, even on my i7-4770K/GTX 780 setup, and the removable of manual and quick saves for a console-esque auto-checkpointing system is not only lazy but often frustrating (as pointed out in the review). However, those issues aside the game is a ton of fun for the price and, having not played the original, I'm finding the game to be a breath of fresh air compared with other modern FPSs. I especially like the level design with their hidden secrets and the sheer pace of the gameplay. So what if the AI isn't great, I'm finding the game hard enough as it is without having super-intelligent enemies chasing me down! The graphics are a bit ropey but combined with the O.T.T. gore and cheesy humour, it all adds to the charm.

I'd give the game 7 out of 10 (70%) personally. The developers have promised to fix the checkpointing and performance issues so that will only improve what is already an entertaining game for me. Definitely worth buying in my view but I'd perhaps wait until the issues are patched before doing so if you're the sort of person that gets easily frustrated by games.

 

Couldn't someone just edit the actual article text with his name. Its not rocketry science.

 

I still have my original copy of ROTT from 1994. It was a big deal back then, because it was the first shooter that I recall to feature biaxial targeting and multiple planes as walking surfaces throughout the game. Up until then, movement occurred on a single plane and aiming was down the horizontal axis only. The best part was definitely the gibs. Not just blood, but eyeballs and organs and brain pieces splattering about. Yes!

Too bad they haven't done better with the reboot, but Wolfenstein isn't very good, either. But hey, how often do we get a reboot of a classic that's as good as Doom 3? Once a decade, I suppose. I hoped for something as exciting as the original was in its time. Then again, I once thought Pac-Man on the Atari was the greatest thing ever, so who am I to judge.

 

On the other hand, isn't the entire point of a remake to have really nice graphics?

 

The flip side of that is that they have to review the game they're playing, not the one that it could become someday. Maybe it will improve, or maybe the devs will forget about it and move on. Either way, it sounds like a fair review of what you can actually buy.