Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Editor of Australias biggest PC gaming rag talks AoD

ElPresidente

Novice
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
47
Top Hat said:
thesheeep said:
What the... o.O

Exactly. Particularly after they spent a fair amount of time heaping praise on Dwarf Fortress.

I'm sure they gave vaguely reasonable reviews to The Witcher and MOTB - but it definitely wasn't the editor who wrote those. The magazine seems to have this multiple-personality thing going on.

Thanks. That was me. :)

9 and 8 out of 10 respectively from memory

Yes the magazine does have a multiple personality thing going on. It is an unavoidable result of what happens when different people write their opinions down on paper for publication. PC Powerplay is not a democracy nor is any other gaming publication; online or not. The best we can do is present the reasons why we feel a game is good or bad and then let the educated reader make any potential purchase decisions based off that.

One of the benefits of being a long time reader of any publication is that you get to learn the critic's style and use that to help as well. It is similar to how we all have our favourite film critics, etc. It is this element of 'personality' that enables publications to maintain readership over extended time periods.

We all have similar tastes but they are not exactly the same. While I've had no cause to write about it in the magazine; I do not like Oblivion but the most of the team loves it. I don't think the reader would want me toeing the editorial line if time ever came for me to discuss my opinions on the game (assuming they give a damn about anything I write in the first place ;)) and on top of that I have this whole personal integrity thing going on.

Yes it would be possible to pull together a magazine which presented a unified front but to do so would mean dishonesty from the writers. You'll never find a team of people with the exact same tastes so people will have to present their views falsely and even if people are happy with that I think the result would be a very dry and dull publication that reads more like a sales brochure than something intended to entertain.


Top Hat said:
But I guess I shouldn't be too surprised: isn't this also the same guy who essentially said, "People have been complaining about Bioshock. But they are wrong, since it's still my favorite game, so those people are clearly just whiny losers. Now shut up losers while I go back to using the Biocock Autofellatio Assistance Device I received from 2K Games."?

Except the only complaint about community response to the game had to do with the Widescreen issue not whether or not they enjoyed it. Most of us on the mag do think the community went overboard on this issue and have said as such in opinion sections of the magazine. But... you know... opinions and all that. :)

Personally I loved Bioshock while it lasted but it is not a patch on System Shock 2

Sorry for the thread resurrect but I spotted this and just wanted to respond to those comments. I should point out I’m just a freelancer for the magazine (3 years or so) so these are obviously simply my thoughts and only intended to be taken as such.

Hope you enjoyed The Witcher and MotB reviews.
 

Mr Happy

Scholar
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
574
ElPresidente said:
Yes it would be possible to pull together a magazine which presented a unified front but to do so would mean dishonesty from the writers. You'll never find a team of people with the exact same tastes so people will have to present their views falsely and even if people are happy with that I think the result would be a very dry and dull publication that reads more like a sales brochure than something intended to entertain.

What bugged me about the article was not the criticism/difference of taste from me - obviously some people are going to be turned off by an indie/niche game like AoD, I comepletely understand that. But even when I try to look at it objectively, the article blows. Poorly researched - "block characters...old engine," yeah bud it was made by like a 4 man team with a budget in the thousands, sorry it won't validate your $500 video card purchase; dumb criticism - "too lazy to research [historical setting]," like pretty much every other rpg ever made; I mean jeez, that's just bad journalism, especially comming from "Australias biggest PC gaming Mag" or whatever. I just don't see the purpose in going after an almost unknown and obviously niche game of this size, giving almost no information on it, providing vacuous criticism, and showing a general lack of research and journalistic integrity.
 

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,615
"Quite how scrabbling around in the remains of a technologically and culturally superior empire is "decadent", I'm not sure."

The article is shit, but I don't understand this about AoD either. A post-apocalyptic world being decadent?
 

pantheon

Novice
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
63
Location
Putting Old Gods to Bed
@ ElPresidente

I used to buy PC Powerplay until you rated Oblivion the greatest game of all time or 2nd or something equally stupid - that game has so many flaws it is insane. How you can rate a consolised RPG this high is beyond me.

In your latest issue - which I browsed in-store to assess current levels of stupidity - you take a slap at Mass Effect asking whether it is too dumbed down for PC gamers - where is the consistency?? At least Mass Effect (never played it) has always been a console game not like Oblivion and Bioware is still creating games specifically for PC Gamers (ie Dragon Age).

Go read PC user reviews at Metacritic - Oblivion = 7.7, The Witcher = 9.4 - you guys (and the gaming media in general) have lost touch with your market - you obviously have a bunch of FPS fanboys doing your RPG reviews.
 

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,615
Ah, ok. But would you say that 1. is the primary meaning? What would be a sample sentence where "decadence" denotes 1. but not 2. and 3.? I'm not sure I've come across that meaning anywhere (not saying my experience counts for much, though).

But even if decadence means a "process of falling into an inferior condition or state", isn't that process already over when the game starts, the game being POST-apocalyptic? I see "decadence" being used to denote the period where the roman empire falls apart (mostly due to "moral degeneration or decay; turpitude, and unrestrained or excessive self-indulgence"), but would the period AFTER the fall of the Roman empire be called decadent?
Intuitively, I would say no, at least in the primary sense of the word. After all, the process is over. In a sense, civilization is being rebuilt, even if it's only a shadow of the former empire's glory. But the "process" going on is no longer one of decline, the decline has already reached and passed it's peak. To give another analogy, would you call the world depicted in the Mad Max movies "decadent"? I would not.

Mind you, I'm not trying to nitpick or even make an argument here; I just find the title of the game a bit unclear: with "decadence" in the title, I'd expect a still powerful empire in decline due to treachery and *moral* decadence. Finding out that the game is actually set in a post-apocalyptic world was surprising. If my expectation was wrong, I'll be happy to learn a bit about the English language.
 

ElPresidente

Novice
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
47
pantheon said:
@ ElPresidente

I used to buy PC Powerplay until you rated Oblivion the greatest game of all time or 2nd or something equally stupid - that game has so many flaws it is insane. How you can rate a consolised RPG this high is beyond me.

I would not have rated it so highly myself however I think the success of the title amongst the less niche market segments is justification enough for the game's rating.

The fact is that while most hardcore RPGers don't like Oblivion other gamers generally do.

pantheon said:
In your latest issue - which I browsed in-store to assess current levels of stupidity - you take a slap at Mass Effect asking whether it is too dumbed down for PC gamers - where is the consistency?? At least Mass Effect (never played it) has always been a console game not like Oblivion and Bioware is still creating games specifically for PC Gamers (ie Dragon Age).

Different writers behind each article. See my earlier post.

I have played Mass Effect and I really did enjoy it. It is more honest about what it is than Oblivion is. However there is some complexity in Oblivion's game design that is not present in Mass Effect.

pantheon said:
Go read PC user reviews at Metacritic - Oblivion = 7.7, The Witcher = 9.4 - you guys (and the gaming media in general) have lost touch with your market - you obviously have a bunch of FPS fanboys doing your RPG reviews.

No we obviously don't.

PC Powerplay score for The Witcher was a 9. MotB was an 8. Oblivion would likely be the only 'RPG' we have reviewed where the score would not be indicative of your average RPG nut's thoughts on the game.

All the traditional games best loved by the hardcore RPG set are accounted for by the magazine and rated very highly - Torment, Arcanum,Fallout. Oblivion is an exception but one justifiable on the basis it is an extremely popular title for the 'casual RPG set'.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
sqeecoo said:
Ah, ok. But would you say that 1. is the primary meaning? What would be a sample sentence where "decadence" denotes 1. but not 2. and 3.? I'm not sure I've come across that meaning anywhere (not saying my experience counts for much, though).

But even if decadence means a "process of falling into an inferior condition or state", isn't that process already over when the game starts, the game being POST-apocalyptic? I see "decadence" being used to denote the period where the roman empire falls apart (mostly due to "moral degeneration or decay; turpitude, and unrestrained or excessive self-indulgence"), but would the period AFTER the fall of the Roman empire be called decadent?
Intuitively, I would say no, at least in the primary sense of the word. After all, the process is over. In a sense, civilization is being rebuilt, even if it's only a shadow of the former empire's glory. But the "process" going on is no longer one of decline, the decline has already reached and passed it's peak. To give another analogy, would you call the world depicted in the Mad Max movies "decadent"? I would not.

Mind you, I'm not trying to nitpick or even make an argument here; I just find the title of the game a bit unclear: with "decadence" in the title, I'd expect a still powerful empire in decline due to treachery and *moral* decadence. Finding out that the game is actually set in a post-apocalyptic world was surprising. If my expectation was wrong, I'll be happy to learn a bit about the English language.


It is post-apocalyptic in terms of being set after the fall of the Roman empire. An apocalypse is any drastic break-up of civilisation - the fall of the Roman empire (and the centuries of slow degradation in science, human living standards, government etc that followed) certainly counts as an apocalypse. 'Decadence' is actually quite well-suited for describing the break-up of the Roman empire, using several of its meanings. There most certainly was a process of falling into an inferior state. Humanity in Western Europe went backwards for several centuries (the dark ages) after the fall of the empire - it wasn't a 'building of a new civilisation', but the slow and painful breakup of the surviving states and loss of the knowledge that the empire had. The recognisable political system of the middle ages, where europe was broken into sizeable countries under harsh but solid singular rule, didn't appear until hundreds of years later - 'kings' during the dark ages were often little more than tribal chieftains 'ruling' over tiny pieces of land. Much of the artistic and scientific knowledge didn't resurface until the renaissance - let's put it this way: the Romans had the technology for running water, i.e. turn a tap on and water comes out, but hadn't gotten around to mass implementation of it. They had sanitation and sewers, basic anaesthetic, some surgical knowledge, understood the need to bathe daily and provided the facilities for everyone to do so. Queue 1000 years later - one THOUSAND fucking years later - and people in the few genuinely major european cities are emptying their toilet bowls into the street, running water is undreamed of, most people never bathed and even royalty would bathe about once a month at most, not even basic anaesthetic in most of europe, surgical and medical skills are so backwards that you have a greater chance of surviving most wounds and illnesses if you DON'T see a doctor. Wind that back to, say, 70 years after the empire fell - there was no civilisation building, humanity was gradually moving backwards.

But one of the underlying causes of the Roman empire's fall was its underlying moral and socio-political decadence - it spread further than it could defend, its own social structures and moral standards were decaying, its economy was being badly handled and yet the Romans thought their empire was invincible, especially compared to their enemies, the comparatively uncivilised and uneducated tribes of Huns, Visigoths etc. So on either meaning of 'decadence' it fits the time-period. I guess you could call it a decadence (first meaning) caused by decadence (2nd/3rd meanings).
 

Claw

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
3,777
Location
The center of my world.
Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
You know, AoD doesn't play during or after the collapse of the Roman Empire. It plays in a fictional setting inspired by Ancient Rome, where the apocalypse took the form of magical warfare.

I dare say I do see hints of moral degeneration and turpitude in AoD, and I have some ideas about how the setting is "decadent" besides that, but it's VD's game, so I suppose it's for him to answer.
 

Section8

Cipher
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
4,321
Location
Wardenclyffe
ElPresidente said:
I would not have rated it so highly myself however I think the success of the title amongst the less niche market segments is justification enough for the game's rating.

The fact is that while most hardcore RPGers don't like Oblivion other gamers generally do.

Don't fall into that trap. Could you see David and Margaret dishing out the stars for popular trash like Independence Day? Even if they did, they'd be very clear to acknowledge it as a "popcorn" film.

Of course nobody can deny that Oblivion is a popular title, but let me put the argument to you that it's not popular for what it actually is, but rather popular conceptually. Like the pokies, SMS-to-win scams, and so forth, Oblivion has premise and promise in spades. It's a unique (discounting previous Elder Scrolls games) concept, and a very compelling one. A huge, virtual fantasy world at your fingertips. Who doesn't want that? It's a very saleable commodity, and let's not forget, something very close to a launch title for the 360.

All Oblivion had to do was avoid offending/frustrating players, and keep them chasing the carrot that keeps crying out "go anywhere, do anything". And it did exactly that. It avoids challenging the player and offers them very little resistance in attaining player-defined goals, while continuing to promise further content at every turn. In that respect, it's a lot like Diablo. Rather than delivering compelling gameplay, it offers no-frills gameplay that doesn't obstruct the player's pursuit of promised rewards.

As random loot and armour sets are to Diablo, and story progression is to JRPGs, quest content is to Oblivion. As long as the player can tune out and play the game without having to think, that constant promise of cool stuff just around the corner keeps players interested. Shit, I probably played about 60 hours worth of Oblivion just checking out different skills, towns, guilds, caves looking for something interesting. I never found it, so that time felt like time wasted to me, but for a player who wants their games to be time wasters, it's perfect.

Different writers behind each article. See my earlier post.

I have played Mass Effect and I really did enjoy it. It is more honest about what it is than Oblivion is. However there is some complexity in Oblivion's game design that is not present in Mass Effect.

There's always going to be differing views, but at the end of the day, there's also editorial control. And of course, paying advertisers to look after.

As for "complexity" in Oblivion, it just isn't there. Oblivion has an overwhelming quantity to it across all facets, but it's all very simple and straightforward. I can't speak for how it compares to Mass Effect, but from what I hear, neither game is particularly complex, with the main difference being Mass Effect's focus on emulating cinema/television versus Oblivion's focus on vast amounts of content.

No we obviously don't.

PC Powerplay score for The Witcher was a 9. MotB was an 8. Oblivion would likely be the only 'RPG' we have reviewed where the score would not be indicative of your average RPG nut's thoughts on the game.

Don't forget NWN, back when you were a forum poster rather than a freelance writer. Proclaimed "Best Game Ever", literally, in the annual PC Powerplay 100 Best Games of All Time list, about a week after its release. I don't think there is a human being on this planet, let alone RPG nut, that would honestly say the vanilla NWN out of the box was in any way a quality gaming experience, let alone 98% score and "best game ever" status.

All the traditional games best loved by the hardcore RPG set are accounted for by the magazine and rated very highly - Torment, Arcanum,Fallout. Oblivion is an exception but one justifiable on the basis it is an extremely popular title for the 'casual RPG set'.

Again, "extremely popular" is not basis for critical acclaim. If anything, it's your duty as a critic to determine what it is that makes a game like that so popular and evaluate those facets on their merits, as well as looking beyond them and questioning if such a game is deserving of its popularity. If you were a wine critic, would you award a hugely positive review to a shitty cask of wine just because there's four litres of it and it's hugely popular among the "casual wine drinker set"? It seems to me that a cask of wine should get the same review Oblivion should get.

"If you're looking for value for money and sheer quantity, then Berri Estate's cask of fresh dry white gives you 5 litres worth of drunkenness. If you're looking for a quality drop of white, then look elsewhere."

"If you're looking for value for money and sheer quantity, Oblivion gives you hundreds of hours worth of time-wasting. If you're looking for a quality RPG, or solid gameplay, then look elsewhere."

And really, let's face it. If the "casual" consumer of any product doesn't think you're a snobby elitist after reading your reviews, then you're not really a critic. ;)

Look at any other professional criticism. The guy who drinks goon doesn't give a fuck what a critic says, he's drinking to get pissed. The guy chowing down McDonalds or KFC every day doesn't give a fuck that anyone with "culture" looks down on his choice of food. The girl with a CD stacker full of Christina Aguilera, Beyonce and Rihanna couldn't give a rat's that Pitchfork prefers Radiohead's latest. The woman with a bookcase full of Danielle Steel books doesn't give a shit what anyone with a more informed opinion says.

What's my point? That critics are supposed to have taste or at least a more refined palate than the "philistines". And until gaming writers realise this, then you'll be regarded as nothing more than people marketing products to the "plebes". You could at least make the gaming PR monkeys work for their paycheques.
 

ElPresidente

Novice
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
47
Hello once more S8. :)

I think I was a little unclear in my Oblivion discussion. I'm not suggesting that popularity equates to quality. It doesn't.

However I'm not going to tell people they didn't enjoy the game when they tell me they did and the fact is that a lot of people feel intimidated by the kinds of games we love talking about. Yes it goes for breadth rather than depth, yes the story and the gameplay are at odds (story says the world is on the brink, gameworld doesn't seem to care) and so on...
but at the end of the day a lot of people do like it and I'm not going to call someone out and say they are categorically wrong about a game since it is such a subjective thing.

When asked for my opinion I'll give it and my opinion is that Oblivion is a bad RPG if not necessarily a bad game. I'm going to say I disagree with Tim's review but that doesn't make him 'wrong'.

But whether or not the reviewer liked a game is moot since good review text should justify the reasons behind the 'score' and then the reader should use their own knowledge of their tastes to make the purchase decision.

BTW I'm not suggesting Oblivion is a complex game but it is more complex than Mass Effect. (Mass Effect is easily the better game IMO though)
 

Brother None

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
5,673
ElPresidente said:
However I'm not going to tell people they didn't enjoy the game when they tell me they did and the fact is that a lot of people feel intimidated by the kinds of games we love talking about. Yes it goes for breadth rather than depth, yes the story and the gameplay are at odds (story says the world is on the brink, gameworld doesn't seem to care) and so on...
but at the end of the day a lot of people do like it and I'm not going to call someone out and say they are categorically wrong about a game since it is such a subjective thing.

That doesn't make much sense.

It is perhaps a reflection of the attitude that gamers need to be told they're right about loving games, and are infuriated by reviewers not agreeing with them.

But if that's so, the process is horribly mangled. Media act as a funnel for the gaming industry prior to a game's release, and then when it sells a lot they have to assure everyone they did not just buy a mediocre game because see we rated it 10/10?

Something's not right there.

It's not any reviewer's job to worry about the popular opinion, or about hurting anyone's feeling by failing to give high ratings to what they like. That's putting it all upside-down-topsy-turvy. There is a reason we consider critical acclaim and widely sold as separate measures for success for films and music, yet we don't for games. Kinda weird, huh?

The whole raison d'etre of reviewers has always been that they are experts who have studied their relative fields, and in their reviews can point out things you missed, and simple describe what they liked and disliked in a way that the consumer can use this information in a meaningful way.

Reviewing has never been about that moment of realization when you go "oh shit this game sold millions of copies I'D BETTER GIVE IT A 10/10".

(of course, a lot of reviews come out before the game's even out, but for some games you just know they'll sell)

ElPresidente said:
But whether or not the reviewer liked a game is moot since good review text should justify the reasons behind the 'score' and then the reader should use their own knowledge of their tastes to make the purchase decision.

Again, this is like friggin' bizarro world here. A good review should highlight any and all relevant information about the game (as much as it can, depending on its limits in size), and the score should come in at the end and serve as a summary of the review text.

Everything is just assbackwards about the above attitude. If I give Big Rigs Over the Road Racing a 10/10 I bet I could write review text to back it up, that wouldn't make it good review text.
 

ElPresidente

Novice
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
47
Brother None said:
The whole raison d'etre of reviewers has always been that they are experts who have studied their relative fields, and in their reviews can point out things you missed, and simple describe what they liked and disliked in a way that the consumer can use this information in a meaningful way.

Reviewing has never been about that moment of realization when you go "oh shit this game sold millions of copies I'D BETTER GIVE IT A 10/10".

You're reading a lot in to my post that isn't there. :)

I'm not saying you justify your review in advance by sales figures.

I'm simply saying that in light of this discussion that despite my dislike of the game there is enough evidence to suggest that a lot of people did like the game. That is ALL I'm saying. I'm not saying reviews should have any regard to sales but we're having a discussion here about a game and a review of a game that has been out for ages and I'm just saying that it is possible to justify ones position by saying "I'm not the only person who loved the game."

I'm just raising it here in this discussion; this is not an indication of the review procedure. Just a response to the theory that positive Oblivion reviews are 'wrong'.

Brother None said:
ElPresidente said:
But whether or not the reviewer liked a game is moot since good review text should justify the reasons behind the 'score' and then the reader should use their own knowledge of their tastes to make the purchase decision.

Again, this is like friggin' bizarro world here. A good review should highlight any and all relevant information about the game (as much as it can, depending on its limits in size), and the score should come in at the end and serve as a summary of the review text.

Everything is just assbackwards about the above attitude. If I give Big Rigs Over the Road Racing a 10/10 I bet I could write review text to back it up, that wouldn't make it good review text.

Sounds like you are wanting to see Bizarro World in my statements.

I did not say you write the score and then justify the score with the review. I was only saying that as a reader you will find the reasons a game was given a certain score in the review text. The score isn't important, it is the reasons behind it because as you said the score is nothing more than a summary, a review short hand.

I'm saying the value of a review to a reader is not found in the score at the end but in the actual content.

All my post said was "A good review should highlight any and all relevant information about the game (as much as it can, depending on its limits in size), and the score should come in at the end and serve as a summary of the review text" but using different words.

I was simply suggesting that the reviewer write their review in such a way that the reader will be able to see how the reviewer's personal tastes influenced the final score.

For a VERY basic example many reviews of God Hand slammed the difficulty of the game. I personally love difficult games... therefore I'll up the score in my mind accordingly because I could see what the reviewer saw as a negative, I saw as a positive.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
sqeecoo said:
Ah, ok. But would you say that 1. is the primary meaning?
Yes.

What would be a sample sentence where "decadence" denotes 1. but not 2. and 3.? I'm not sure I've come across that meaning anywhere (not saying my experience counts for much, though).
Some matches from google:

The decadence of capitalism is the product of the development of the internal contradictions inherent in the relations of capitalist production which can be summarised in the following way.
...
With the natural destruction of the port, business turned unviable resulting in a quick economic decadence of the region.
...
This zone was developed at the beginning of the 8th century A.D., when the lowland cities of the Maya were in decadence or already abandoned.

But even if decadence means a "process of falling into an inferior condition or state", isn't that process already over when the game starts, the game being POST-apocalyptic?
Azrael explained this point very well. Decline takes time. The higher the state of civilization is, the longer it takes to reach the bottom (unless we are talking about massive, world-ending destruction). It's a centuries long process.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
ElPresidente said:
However I'm not going to tell people they didn't enjoy the game when they tell me they did ...
And you don't have to. All you have to do is to analyze a game without worrying too much about how popular and well-liked it is. Section8 gave you a superb wine analogy. Do consider it.

And in conclusion:

Holy shit: Super harsh Oblivion review at RPG Codex (http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=129)

It's like watching your baby be dropped out a window, the realizing you didn't like the little fucker at all.
 

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,615
Vault Dweller said:
The decadence of capitalism is the product of the development of the internal contradictions inherent in the relations of capitalist production which can be summarised in the following way.
...
With the natural destruction of the port, business turned unviable resulting in a quick economic decadence of the region.
...
This zone was developed at the beginning of the 8th century A.D., when the lowland cities of the Maya were in decadence or already abandoned.

Azrael explained this point very well. Decline takes time. The higher the state of civilization is, the longer it takes to reach the bottom (unless we are talking about massive, world-ending destruction). It's a centuries long process.

Ok, thanks!
Although I would still say that if there was an apocalypse the word "decadence" is a bit off if applied to the period following it. But nothing unacceptable ;)
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
Of course nobody can deny that Oblivion is a popular title, but let me put the argument to you that it's not popular for what it actually is, but rather popular conceptually.

I don't know how you can claim that, but it is false. Simply put, telling people they only thought they liked something but they actually didn't is just really arrogant.

I personally didn't like Oblivion much. I vastly preferred MW, although that had flaws as well. But I'm not going to go claiming that just because I thought that, anyone who thinks different is either self deluded or an idiot.

Most people here have probably heard of Rampant Coyote, I deeply respect the man's ability, insight, intelligence and passion for RPGs. From his blog :

Oblivion clocked in at about 128 hours to completion. But I took my time with that one. I didn't want it to end - I was having a great time. But after I finished it, I almost immediately tried to replay it with a new character, and just couldn't. I'd pretty much sucked all the marrow from it the first time around, even though I think I explored less than 30% of the world.

So if a man that intelligent liked Oblivion that much, how do you reconcile that fact with your views on the title? And he isn't the only one. I work with some incredibly bright people at my job, people who develop really complex software systems and do it very well. Many of them are console gamers, many loved Oblivion, and Halo, and WoW. These are not stupid people. Not by a long shot.

So saying "I don't believe the market really enjoyed Oblivion", I'm sorry, I disagree, even if I personally didn't think it great. And, for the record, these people don't go and rate the game online, most don't give a damn about joining gamespy or whoevers online community. But these people all thoroughly enjoyed the title. So while I personally found Oblivion pretty unsatisfactory in many, many aspects, I do think, for many people, it did count as a "great game". And since gaming media represents the common viewpoint, rather than the niche one, I don't think this means they are all lying douchebags, yes? :wink:

And I don't really agree with your wine analogy. Do people like Coyote and my co-workers have bad taste just because they get something different from Oblivion than I do? Are their opinions "wrong"? Certainly they are wrong for me, but claiming they are self deluded is unjustified, I reckon. Also, your high and mighty critics are losing influence in comparison to things like metacritic, why? Because people are interested in what other people like them think about Media Product X. Having some asshat sneer at Iron Man just because it isn't deep or whatever is not something I have any interest in, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and plan to buy the DVD. For what it is, it rocks. I want people who enjoy what I enjoy telling me that this product X is the type of thing I will probably enjoy. Thats why I read the Codex. I'm not going to begrudge ElPresident from enjoying the game as he did, and serving people like Coyote who have different interests from me. Especially given that he rated Witcher etc highly. I mean, I don't like the Sims either, yet many people, including one of my best friends, absolutely love it.


That being said, some journalists are asshats. Re-reviewing a game a few months later and giving it a lower score, that's bullshit. And many seem to wet their pants at every new hyped title. But ElPresidente seems cool. :)
 

ElPresidente

Novice
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
47
Vault Dweller said:
ElPresidente said:
However I'm not going to tell people they didn't enjoy the game when they tell me they did ...
And you don't have to. All you have to do is to analyze a game without worrying too much about how popular and well-liked it is. Section8 gave you a superb wine analogy. Do consider it.

Wait wait wait folks... I did not greatly enjoy Oblivion. I just want to make that clear.

I do review as mentioned above. You read a Nathan Cocks review you get MY opinions on the game, not the general public's.

Had *I* reviewed the game myself it would have probably picked up a 7 from me. An above average game but nothing to go tripping over yourself to go get.

In defending the original review I am not saying I personally would have reviewed it that way.

I try my best to give my thoughts on the game (so the score and review reflect MY opinion) but I try and give enough detail so that people whose tastes differ from mine can still feel informed.
 

Globbi

Augur
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
342
Yaay! Another TES4 discussion.
Some of you are forgetting about how much did good marketing do for Oblivion. Some people bought the game because it was advertised and well marked and they liked it, sometimes it was a bit of a placebo, sometimes the joy was as good as it would be with other games they could buy at that time.

There still were lots of people who followed the good scored in magazines and bought Oblivion but didn't like it at all. And here I am not talking about subjective things (considering someone could like this all crap of game's story and dialogues) but about flaws that shouldn't be there. The game was really unballanced, there were loads of bugs causing game crashes (not all covered by patches), level scalling made game ridiculus, buggy AI causing ridiculus situations and not being like shown on trailers at all.

How can an editor give a perfect score to such game? I tried to enjoy playing Oblivion but I couldn't. I didn't like a lot of things in the game but other things also discouraged me from following the plot, developing character etc. I understand a high score of MOtB - if you don't like the story, complexity or something like that, it just isn't a game for you. High score for Oblivion is unreasonable - you may like it's action combat and simple cliche quests but you still have to bear with all the obvious flaws. There is no reason to defend the rewiever giving 10/10 for Oblvion then, the guy must be paid, stupid or simply doesn't even bother to try giving an honest review; it's childlish, I like it - I give it 10.
 

elander_

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,015
A reviewer should pass judgment on a game based on his experience of rpgs (which should be extensive) and not on what most people think. Most people who brought Oblivion never played a crpg in their lives and don't have the slightest clue about what the Elderscrolls used to represent. If a reviewer is just another ignorant kid payed to write orgasms about a game for a living then what's the difference between the marketing dude and the game reviewer? There wasn't any excuse for anyone who was learned on game design and games history to give 10 to Oblivion. Maybe 7 or 8 because the flaws don't break the game and are passable but never a 10 score.
 

ElPresidente

Novice
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
47
10 in PCPP is not a perfect score it is just the highest score we give. We don't consider 10 a perfect game since such a thing does not exist.

It doesn't affect this discussion but for point of clarity the PCPP review was written before the out of ten system and actually got 98%.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
Naked Ninja said:
I don't know how you can claim that, but it is false. Simply put, telling people they only thought they liked something but they actually didn't is just really arrogant.

Of course it is...but that isn't what a good critic does.

But I'm not going to go claiming that just because I thought that, anyone whothinks different is either self deluded or an idiot.

I think you are either trying to be the new Codex Contrary Guy or perhaps taking things too personally. None of the side you are arguing against are claiming anything (at least to the best of my knowledge) other than the fact that people who find Oblivion to be a great RPG are ignorant when it comes to the idea of the RPG genre.

So if a man that intelligent liked Oblivion that much, how do you reconcile that fact with your views on the title?

Simple, he's ignorant of good RPGs. I don't exactly consider myself or some of my comrades intellectual slouches, but we all have our areas of ignorance in the arts. For instance, I know jack shit about classical music and I'm none too fond of it either. If you are arguing that intelligence is the sole standard for ability to judge, then classical music could be considered shit because I am intelligent and I dislike it. Now this is unlikely to be what you meant exactly, but it does serve to show how little intelligence can factor into a matter of aesthetic judgment.

So saying "I don't believe the market really enjoyed Oblivion", I'm sorry, I disagree, even if I personally didn't think it great.

I think by "I don't believe the market really enjoyed Oblivion" he meant something more akin to the idea that given the general Codexer knowledge (and I emphasize knowledge, not taste) of RPGs, the general market would have been far less enthusiastic about Oblivion.

And, for the record, these people don't go and rate the game online, most don't give a damn about joining gamespy or whoevers online community. But these people all thoroughly enjoyed the title.

So wait...you say that there exists a huge silent majority who loves Oblivion and doesn't care to show it? Off of what evidence? Sure, sales numbers are nice, but you honestly can't prove anything. Between the two of us, we *know* that probably a lot of people did enjoy it, but I think my ignorance claim handles that pretty well.

So while I personally found Oblivion pretty unsatisfactory in many, many aspects, I do think, for many people, it did count as a "great game".

You mean it was good to people who are too damn ignorant about RPGs that there are far better games that have existed for almost a decade and a half?

And since gaming media represents the common viewpoint, rather than the niche one, I don't think this means they are all lying douchebags, yes?

And therein lies the problem. Critics shouldn't pander to the masses, they need to be, ya know, critical. Take for instance movie critics; they typically nail "popcorn flicks" to the wall, but may leave in a caveat that people not expecting a good movie, with lower expectations, or just not into good cinema won't give a fuck and might have fun. The fact game cocklickers don't do this is why we brand them so harshly. Simple as that.

And I don't really agree with your wine analogy. Do people like Coyote and my co-workers have bad taste just because they get something different from Oblivion than I do? Are their opinions "wrong"? Certainly they are wrong for me, but claiming they are self deluded is unjustified, I reckon.

Lulz relativism. Let's not get into this, shall we?

Also, your high and mighty critics are losing influence in comparison to things like metacritic, why?

Maybe, at least in the gaming world, because the "critics" aren't critics.

Having some asshat sneer at Iron Man just because it isn't deep or whatever is not something I have any interest in, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and plan to buy the DVD. For what it is, it rocks.

Cue my previous movie critic example and consider if the "sneering critic" didn't exist. What would you do if you wanted to see a deep movie. What if someone hyped IronMan as a triumph of modern cinema and a drama on par with Chinatown and Citizen Kane? Wouldn't that be a bit of a lie? Wouldn't that make your opion of "critics" go down sharply?

I want people who enjoy what I enjoy telling me that this product X is the type of thing I will probably enjoy. Thats why I read the Codex.

That seems a bit of an oversimplification to me. It's more like you come for an aggregate of informed opinions rather than some "Well, we like the same stuff sorta and he liked it" crapshoot.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
I have recently started to study a bit of literary theory and criticism. I bought some books, and I can't help but think that much of the essence of literary criticism should be applied to games. Some people in this thread have suggested that critics shouldn't pander to the masses, but caring for the masses has little to do with serious criticism.

When criticizing a literary piece, a critic must (or at least should) make an objective analysis of the text. He must identify the important elements in it and try to see how they work together, how do they tick. Once such analysis is done, he tries to judge how well each part comes off and relates to each other according to some set of rules (or esthetics).

Now, since I have only began to scrape literary theory and analysis, this little synopsis may seem to simplistic and may be a bit wrong, but I think that even so it shows well what game criticism is lacking: mainly objectivity and a theoretical basis. Of course I don't mean to say that we would need to develop a critical theory of games before we are allowed to judge them, but if we started to be more objective, I believe a theory (or more) would naturally emerge out of game criticism.

The Codex started to define a certain aesthetics to rpgs, like choice and consequences. But even so, we have a long way to go, and for an example, simply take a look at the thread about fallout's flaws. In it, most people simply either throw around some random flaws without much rhyme or reason, or make simple refutations of the said flaws. Brother None is one of the few who managed to get a coherent criticism across, backing it up with some analysis. However, if one was up to it, I am pretty sure that an in depth analysis could be a hundred pages long or more. Such a detailed analysis could greatly help designing games, that, to me, seems like a bit of a blind art right now.

Also, about the bit about people who enjoy oblivion being idiots, that is obviously false. I believe that the point that has been going around here is simply that oblivion is a stupid game (as in, it doesn't require you to be thinking much to solve it), not that people playing it are stupid (there is a difference). But I do think that many gamers out there restrict themselves to "stupid" games because they don't want to commit energy to, say, solve an adventure game filled with puzzles or explore a game like fallout. While these games require a bigger investment of time and effort, they also seem more rewarding than more "casual" games.
 

Section8

Cipher
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
4,321
Location
Wardenclyffe
I'm simply saying that in light of this discussion that despite my dislike of the game there is enough evidence to suggest that a lot of people did like the game. That is ALL I'm saying. I'm not saying reviews should have any regard to sales but we're having a discussion here about a game and a review of a game that has been out for ages and I'm just saying that it is possible to justify ones position by saying "I'm not the only person who loved the game."

Here's something to ponder - I'd rather watch Robocop, Starship Troopers, Total Recall or even Showgirls than Citizen Kane, 12 Angry Men, Chinatown or Schindler's List. With my (unquestionably bad) taste, should I be a paid film critic? Definitely not. Well maybe as part of a niche market that intentionally reviews bad movies for their ironic entertainment value.

By the same token, should a critic who has quite happily ignored the terrible scripts, acting and poor production quality of such films point to my opinion as justification for their own ignorance? Does "I enjoyed the movie, and I'm not the only one" constitute a meaningful criticism?

To keep it going, is it really that hard to attach qualifying statements to praise and criticism of various facets? "Oblivion has oodles of content for players who want to jump in and have adventure at their fingertips, but more seasoned players looking for depth or challenge will be left wanting, blah blah..." If nothing else, games reviews are guilty of assuming all tastes are the same.

But I digress. Just a little.

I'm just raising it here in this discussion; this is not an indication of the review procedure. Just a response to the theory that positive Oblivion reviews are 'wrong'.

Well aren't they? I'd have thought that a professional critic is paid because they have an informed opinion and an ability to cut a game to pieces and evaluate it objectively.Or at the very least, recognise and acknowledge the sub-sets of gamers likely to be interested in a game and address their primary concerns. Is that unreasonable?

Of course their should be positive reviews of Oblivion out there, because it holds a lot of appeal to a lot of people. And with the utmost respect, a good many of those people seem ignorant of historical precedent. Within my own social circles, the RPG nuts stayed well clear, and scoffed at Oblivion. The gamers took a look and were fairly divided. The guys with no gaming background and enough disposable income to have nice LCD TVs and 360s/PS3s thoroughly enjoyed it. For a while.

And I have no problem at all with critics serving all those varied tastes. But shouldn't the reviews for the casual players be written up in the entertainment/tech pages of the newspaper, while the dedicated gaming publications serve the dedicated gamer? Obviously the RPG nuts take refuge in sites such as this one, but there should at least be some sort of gradient ranging from the ebullient praise of the casual to the scathing cynicism of the fanatic. As it stands, there's a massive drop-off because the gaming publications serve the casuals.

I don't know how you can claim that, but it is false. Simply put, telling people they only thought they liked something but they actually didn't is just really arrogant.

I don't think it's false. You can't take anyone's enjoyment away from them, and in the case of any other form of criticism, there is usually a divide of snobbery between the layman and the critic. The whole "Fuck you if you didn't like Police Academy, Roger Ebert. Me and my friends thought it was fucking hilarious!" kind of thing. The whole "Sucks to be you, RPG Codex, you basement dwelling mouth-breathers - Oblivion is awesome, and by hating it you're missing out on the best game ever" thing.

I don't see a problem with critics and the layman being at sixes and sevens. And I don't see what there is to be gained by pandering to the tastes of the ignorant, or pretending their opinion is any more informed than it is.

And yes, that's arrogant to the point of sheer cuntedness. But isn't that exactly what "my opinion is so informed and highly-regarded that people will pay just to hear it" is? In any case, a critic has no duty of care toward his audience or the object of criticism besides telling the truth. I don't think "not wanting to hurt their feelings" should come into things.

Not that I quite meant that the way it came out. I'm not denying anyone's enjoyment, I'm just saying that their enjoyment is not necessarily based on the immediate gameplay, but rather the pursuit of intangible short term goals - which is grounds for criticism of both the underdeveloped immediate gameplay and also the lack of more effective short term rewards, like a better character levelling system or a random loot/quest generator.

Besides, what's a more effective review? The one that states a long list of flaws that many players will dismiss as unimportant nitpickery and enjoy the game regardless of - or one that regurgitates the PR hotpoints, features and hooks, slaps a "best game ever" label on it, and leaves more experienced players wondering if they're playing the same game that sounds so wonderful.

I personally didn't like Oblivion much. I vastly preferred MW, although that had flaws as well. But I'm not going to go claiming that just because I thought that, anyone who thinks different is either self deluded or an idiot.

It's not about calling anyone deluded or idiotic - it's about ignorance. Admittedly, many people might take that personally because everyone wants to think they're a fucking expert, but most Oblivion reviews I read failed to make comparisons to Morrowind, let alone unfavourable comparisons to Morrowind, and that's just not good enough, because it's ignorant to even the last five years of gaming.

At the very least, a critic should be able to critically evaluate a sequel with reference to its predecessor, but as far as I'm concerned, if a critic can't trace Oblivion back to its roots in Arena, then they're not qualified to offer an expert critical view on the subject.

So if a man that intelligent liked Oblivion that much, how do you reconcile that fact with your views on the title? And he isn't the only one. I work with some incredibly bright people at my job, people who develop really complex software systems and do it very well. Many of them are console gamers, many loved Oblivion, and Halo, and WoW. These are not stupid people. Not by a long shot.

I'm not calling anyone stupid. Over the christmas break, I spent a day drinking beers and playing Halo with a Doctor of Biochemistry, a fourth-year med student and a lawyer with a couple of university medals under his belt. Not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination. But ignorant of games and gaming history.

So would I trust any of them to critically evaluate Halo? To a small extent. They obviously enjoy the game and can describe high and low points, but lack the fine analytical detail and comparative perspective. For instance, in their eyes, the sniper rifle was useless, the active camoflage "cheating" and the best maps were those in tight quarters. Are any of those criticisms valid, or can we chalk them up to lack of experience?

The same applies to any critical analysis. It's not about people being stupid, it's about being uninformed or lacking understanding of the particular subject at hand.

So saying "I don't believe the market really enjoyed Oblivion", I'm sorry, I disagree, even if I personally didn't think it great.

That's not what I was trying to say. I'm questioning the reasons for their enjoyment - ie, not because of it's gameplay, but because of the higher level aspects - and even then, they're limited to a huge range of simple quests and fairly cosmetic character choices.

And, for the record, these people don't go and rate the game online, most don't give a damn about joining gamespy or whoevers online community. But these people all thoroughly enjoyed the title. So while I personally found Oblivion pretty unsatisfactory in many, many aspects, I do think, for many people, it did count as a "great game". And since gaming media represents the common viewpoint, rather than the niche one, I don't think this means they are all lying douchebags, yes?

Yeah, and I'm arguing against the gaming media opting to represent the casual viewpoint. With the exception of the 360 version, the user review average for Oblivion is about on par or below the lowest "professional" review. There's obviously a clear disparity between the internet-posting gamer and the gaming media. So who exactly are they writing for? I'd be happy enough for non-specific media outlets, such as newspapers to present an ignorant and inexperienced viewpoint, but shouldn't we expect more from specialist game media?

And I don't really agree with your wine analogy. Do people like Coyote and my co-workers have bad taste just because they get something different from Oblivion than I do? Are their opinions "wrong"?

Let's not call it bad taste. We'll go with less-refined, less-discerning, less-experienced, or in certain cases just outright different. Whatever the case, is it that hard to make a distinction, especially in the context of a professional review? I haven't seen many reviews in recent times that actually address the differing tastes of gamers. The closest we seem to get are fluff pieces about Fallout 3 trying to condemn the fan(atic)s. And without expection, they utterly fail to understand the reasoning of the Fallout "faithful" and dismiss them out of hand.

And to specifically address Coyote's point of view:

Oblivion was over 120 hours of play, and probably 20 of it was really awesome. [...] I know there's a lot of disgust at how much shorter games are getting these days, but frankly, as a working-class joe with a family and free time at a premium, I'd rather play a really awesome 15-hour game than a 45+ hour game with lots of "filler."
Oblivion - the story sucked. I mean, it really sucked. Your character was a fill-in-the-blanks person, and I didn't find most of the characters to be all that likable. But the world - wow. The world was compelling, and I don't just mean graphically. It felt explorable. There was interesting stuff to find all over the place, and the bajillion subquests were often very entertaining and had some nice twists.
the only thing minimalist about NetHack is the graphics. From an underlying gameplay standpoint, Oblivion is minimalist by comparison.

Note there's actually criticism and qualifying statements among all of that, and aside from more praise for the exploration elements, a point of view not too far from my own.

Certainly they are wrong for me, but claiming they are self deluded is unjustified, I reckon. Also, your high and mighty critics are losing influence in comparison to things like metacritic, why? Because people are interested in what other people like them think about Media Product X.

Of course. However, I can still see a place for informed criticism to coexist along with peer customer opinion. There's even a place for humourous critical excess, such as Zero Punctuation. I'm not quite so sure where the future is in publishing a review that reads like a "user reviews" comment. With the advent of the communication revolution, marketing and advertising is continually evolving. One day, the ad revenue that the gaming media relies on will be spent elsewhere, and it's game over.

Having some asshat sneer at Iron Man just because it isn't deep or whatever is not something I have any interest in, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and plan to buy the DVD. For what it is, it rocks. I want people who enjoy what I enjoy telling me that this product X is the type of thing I will probably enjoy. Thats why I read the Codex.

Even though I have a distinct preference for trashy movies and such, I can still see the value in informed criticism, and think it fills an important role within the system of consumer entertainment. If nothing else, it keeps those responsible for production of said entertainment on their toes and moving forward - if they care about criticism.

For me as a consumer, I'm like you. I generally make up my mind about movies/games based on comments from likeminded individuals. For me as a developer, I'd rather see my ideas torn apart on their merits or lack thereof. Professional critical analysis has its place.

I'm not going to begrudge ElPresident from enjoying the game as he did, and serving people like Coyote who have different interests from me. Especially given that he rated Witcher etc highly. I mean, I don't like the Sims either, yet many people, including one of my best friends, absolutely love it.

But can you see why they love it? Do you make an attempt to analyse the game beyond your own subjective lack of enjoyment?
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
But I don't believe games are art man. I believe they should be rated and scored based on how much the individual playing them enjoys the experience. Not how complex it is, not the history, the fun. The gameplay. I happen to find complexity enjoyable, but that does not make the two equivalent.

This is why I cannot agree with saying " it's about ignorance". It's not about ignorance. These people aren't ignorant of what they find fun. The reviewers aren't ignorant about what other gamers or they themselves find fun. Claiming their opinions on what is fun are uninformed is nonsensical. It's only when you try to reframe gaming into some sort of artistic endeavor that such ideas mean something. Personally I don't see any merit in reframing it in such a way. I find no value in some snob sticking his nose in the air about everything.

I'm questioning the reasons for their enjoyment - ie, not because of it's gameplay, but because of the higher level aspects

This is the problem. You're implying that people who enjoyed Oblivion aren't enjoying it for "higher level" reasons. But you're the one defining what is higher level fun and what isn't. That's rather arrogant. It pretty much says "my opinion is vastly superior to your opinion", which is nonsense. It's just different. I don't consider any critic in any field's opinion to be superior or more worthy of attention just because they are more niche or snobby. Screw that. I want critics who can indicate to me whether I will enjoy product X. If they state their reasons for enjoyment I can judge if their preferences are likely to align with my own.

Do you make an attempt to analyse the game beyond your own subjective lack of enjoyment?

No. I don't. Can you give me a reason why I should? I play games for fun. If it's not fun the rest doesn't matter. I enjoy certain things, other people enjoy other things. My girlfriend likes romantic comedies and romance dramas. This does not make her opinion ignorant, just different. I personally don't see any place for snobby critics telling me I or she like these movies because we are ignorant/common/uninformed. In fact, if anyone told me that to my face...we'd have strong words, yes? ;)

Just because snob critics exist in the world, doesn't mean I should see any value in their opinions anymore than anyone elses.

But I do think that many gamers out there restrict themselves to "stupid" games because they don't want to commit energy to, say, solve an adventure game filled with puzzles or explore a game like fallout. While these games require a bigger investment of time and effort, they also seem more rewarding than more "casual" games.

I don't believe this statement particularly valid, either. If I go off and play soccer instead of chess, is it because I don't want to commit the energy to the mental effort? Not at all. I have different tastes, different things I enjoy, and I seek to satisfy those tastes. Chess is different from soccer and although some chess players might not like soccer, considering it a brute physical sport or something, they are both great games and valid of praise. Saying someone likes soccer because they don't want to commit the mental energy to chess is just as nonsensical a statement. They are simply satisfying different tastes. Saying otherwise is snobbery.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom