Review Dungeon Odyssey review at RPG Radar

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: Dungeon Odyssey

<A href="http://www.rpgradar.com/">RPGRadar</a> has posted up a <A href="http://www.rpgradar.com/reviews/pc/ahdo.html">review</a> of <b>Aaron Hall</b>'s <A href="http://www.malfador.com/do.html">Dungeon Odyssey</a>, giving it a <b>8.6/10</b>, which proves <a href="http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/ritalin.html">ritalin</a> can make you like anything.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Overall, Dungeon Odyssey is a well designed RPG. But it has one down side. It's one of those games that will not be appreciated by those who have grown up on RPGs that have elaborate graphics, and rich, enthralling plots. If you're an old-school junkie however, you'll fall in love with Aaron Hall's awesome rendition of a classic RPG, Dungeon Odyssey.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
As much as I like <A href="http://www.malfador.com/">Malfador</a>, this game was just awful. Any site that gives it a review of a <b>8.6/10</b> can't be taken seriously. You can take that from an <b>actual old-school RPG player</b>, kids.
<br>
<br>
Hopefully <b>Aaron Hall</b>'s <A href="http://www.malfador.com/starfury/starfury.html">Space Empires: Starfury</a> will be a knock out, slam dunk, spooge-o-rama, though.

 

[Jarinor]

Two dodgy reviews in 24 hours. That's a good effort. And what the hell is up with "grown up on RPGs that have elaborate graphics, and rich, enthralling plots."? Sure, elaborate graphics, I don't need them. But a rich, enthralling plot? RPG's I play had better have one, otherwise I'm not buying it. What the hell does this guy smoke?

 

[Rendelius]

Hm.

I notice a tendency to bash sites that don't share your opinion lately. While one can argue over the rating of the review, I think it is unfair to ridicule a site because of that. At least he tells you why he gave such a high rating in his review. You may disagree (I do as well), but that's all I would do.

Just my 2c - and I still like RPGCodex for a lot of things

 

[chrisbeddoes]

Hm.

I notice a tendency to bash sites that don't share your opinion lately. While one can argue over the rating of the review, I think it is unfair to ridicule a site because of that. At least he tells you why he gave such a high rating in his review. You may disagree (I do as well), but that's all I would do.

Just my 2c - and I still like RPGCodex for a lot of things

Well it is Saint site and he can do anything that he likes with his site Rendelius . Oh i love your site too by the way Rendelius .

Now if Saint want to burn some bridges it is his right to do so .


Just my 2 cents .

 

[Rendelius]

Sure, never doubted that . It was just an observation.

And thanks for the flowers.

 

[Calis]

Hm.

I notice a tendency to bash sites that don't share your opinion lately. While one can argue over the rating of the review, I think it is unfair to ridicule a site because of that. At least he tells you why he gave such a high rating in his review. You may disagree (I do as well), but that's all I would do.

Just my 2c - and I still like RPGCodex for a lot of things

Actually, Rend, I think there needs to be more site-bashing all around. A *lot* of game sites (and magazines) get away with half-assed reviews. Now, these might be okay for Joe Average's personal homepage, but once you claim to be a part of the gaming press people have a right to take a critical look at what you're doing. When game sites make claims that are poorly researched, poorly thought-out or based on company press releases, they need to be SMACKED DOWN!
And I nominate Saint for the job.
Though I have to give you some props in this particular case: the rating was all he attacked here, really. That can't be said about the other news posts about other sites' reviews, though. A few cases in point:
"TechTV review of Harbinger" - all he did was attack the statement that Fantasy settings are more accesible than Sci-Fi ones, which is in all truth a fairly ridiculous statement.
"Dungeon Siege review at RPGRadar" - I'm not gonna touch this one, the "gaemplay" thing was a cheap shot but this review does show an amazing lack of insight into the "great gaemplay" so it deserves to be smacked down.

Then there's a bunch of news posts without any real site bashing. Apart from the "fat, bald chick" thing, but that was just funny. I doubt any of the people at that site are going to take offense at something like that.

Then there's "Prince of Qin reviewed at PC Game World" which has Saint tacking on a remark about hack & slash gameplay. All he attacked there was a point made in the review. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

IT iz all aboot teh gaemplay, dood!

Actually, dig through RPGRadar sometime and play Spot the Critical Review. There are only three negative reviews on there, and most reviews are in the 8.5-9 range. Pretty much every review on there is 7-9 paragraphs as well, so it's hard to argue there's much content in them, as well.

 

[Rendelius]

Heh, calm down. ALL

I think we have just differences on how we do our job. Granted, about every second review I report about is flawed in some respect (and every second I write *g*), but it is my opinion that I let the reader decide. You will hardly find any bashing of sites at RPGDot for that reason (sometimes, I can't help myself).

When I am reporting, I am reporting. When I am writing editorials or reviews, I give opinion. This may be because I started out in print journalism 20 years ago, and what they taught me at university was to never mix up news and opinion. This might be an antique point of view, perhaps, but I think it's the way I want to go. I fully understand that others do things in other ways, and I believe both ways are possible and fine on the net.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Heh, calm down. ALL

I think we have just differences on how we do our job. Granted, about every second review I report about is flawed in some respect (and every second I write *g*), but it is my opinion that I let the reader decide. You will hardly find any bashing of sites at RPGDot for that reason (sometimes, I can't help myself).

Yeah, I've noticed that. Then again, I started out on a Fallout fan site. As such, people tend to expect a little vitriol from me.

There was a lovely flame war I had with some website on Vault13.net's news comments after I basically called them idiots for thinking that Fallout Tactics used the same engine and graphics Fallout did. I can't even remember what site it was, but that was a great thread.

Basically, I was asked to work here at RPG Codex for one reason, to write editorials. To date, I haven't written a single editorial unless you count the news page!

I also agreed to post news once the site went live. Since then, I've basically been doing the majority of news and content.

When I am reporting, I am reporting. When I am writing editorials or reviews, I give opinion. This may be because I started out in print journalism 20 years ago, and what they taught me at university was to never mix up news and opinion. This might be an antique point of view, perhaps, but I think it's the way I want to go. I fully understand that others do things in other ways, and I believe both ways are possible and fine on the net.

Anyone that claims news isn't biased is deluding themselves though. I freely admit that I post with a slant. It's be boring to just post news straight up, after all. News and commentary, the best of both worlds in one tight package!

Admit it though, reading the news here is like watching a trainwreck. Sometimes, you know it's just wrong, but you can't help yourself!

 

[Spazmo]

If Saint were to cut the editorial slant from his newsposts, RPGCodex just wouldn't be nearly as much fun anymore. And besides, there is a clear separation between reporting and comments in his news posts: there's the subject and first couple sentences, which tell you who, what, where, when, why, how, then a snippet (there's always a snippet), and then you get the comedy gold we all love Saint for.