I think your review of G3 was a great review, it almost, almost made me buy it.
I can't knock your review as it was a great, comprehesive review. A review that other reviewers should try to emulate if possible. But, a non-rpg would of got a number score of 80-85 (if I recall that was said at the end?) from an rpg site? Come on? This was a great review, but the narrative wasn't crpgs.
PS:T=Same critisism. But PS:T had far less options for the character to make. The only big decision was mage, thief, or fighter. The rest was superficial. PS:T excelled at story telling and fanbtastic dialogue. Book quality. Far superior to most games. And it brought party interaction to a new level. I would say only Bterayal at Krondor compares storywise. And Betrayal at Krondor was a great game, but no rpg. I would say PS:T is an rpg, just a week one. I would give it a 5 or 6 out of 10, due to very, very limited character creation, preset character, somehwat preset attitude, lack of choices, etc. But the real killer was the god awful IE combat that was far too easy and repetetive. Rated as a game (minus the combat, which has to lower the score of any review of it) and not a crpg, I would give it a 10 (again, not considering the combat). Once I consider the combat in the review, the score will fall back down to a 5 or 6, no matter the narrative.
The RoA series is hands down my favorite crpg series, and I would only give them an 8 out of 10, because there are some blatant areas that need to be criticized. I would give Darklands a 7 or 8, and FO 1 and 2 a 7 or 8, for agian, some much needed critism. But thats neither here nor there. I've never reviewed anything and this isn't about what I would review anything. My sole point is that it is impossible for G3 to score an 80 or 85% when reviewed with an rpg narative, even if, as almost every comment I've seen on your review, your review was the fairest and most comprehensive of the game.
From the review: "Needless to say, this and other conflicts create a great role-playing situation where you are given motivations to join different sides and play the game in different ways, which is what I believe role-playing is all about. "
In other words, I disagree with you.
I believe role-playing is about roleplaying. You can role play in oblivion. My wife can role play a french maid. I can role-play a teradactyl. But a roleplaying game is a seperate thing independant of beliefs. A lot of people belive the world was made in 7 days 4 or 5 thousand years ago, doesn't make it true. A lot of people think a tomatoe is a vegitable. Agian, this is where belief and actuality collide in a brilliant cascade of belief not mattering.
The reviewer this thread is about believes Orcs should attack him from afar. A lot of reviewers believe Oblivion is the grandmaster rpg. A lot of people even believe Zelda is an rpg. Some people believe the holocaust never happened. Some people believe adding ROOFLES at the end of posts is funny and endearing. A lot of people believe a lot things, and a lot of people ingore fact that contradict with their beliefs.
In other words, I can't disgree with your belief as that would imply there is a debate. And what happens when beliefs and actuality collide?
