Review Of Monsters, Men and BROche

[Clockwork Knight]

See, you haven't forgotten how to write a review after all. It's quite short but, oh well, at least it's informative.

Not really. "Combat: shit" doesn't really tell me anything unless I know what VD considers shit combat. The original review was brimming with snark but it tells me why the combat is shit.

 

[commie]

@ commie:

First of all, I wouldn't care. I don't expect everyone to like it and I've read so much "what the fuck is this shit?" criticism over the years, that reading more won't make a difference. I honestly can't even imagine why someone would take such criticism personally. Did they expect for their entire world to fall in love with it? I sure as fuck don't.

Second, you assume that TW2 is loaded with merits, but we've just focused on the negatives and overlooked the awesomeness.

Character system - poorly designed, disconnected from the combat system, can play the game without it
Combat - poor man's action game
Quests - probably the weakest aspect of the game, very poor design
Alchemy & Crafting - mediocre
Items distribution - godawful
Dialogue skills - max at 3, completely optional, don't affect anything
Effect of skills (what skills?) on gameplay - zero
Choices & consequences - linear, most choices are meaningless, very few choices have affect on gameplay, very DA2, never in control, zero freedom.
Setting & characters - very good to excellent
Graphics - superb

I tried to like it. I really did. I wanted to like it, but it just wasn't interesting enough and the lack of skills and poor quest design killed it for me as a "proper" RPG, while the poor character system killed and the lack of challenge killed it for me as an action RPG.

Better, this is how it should have been as a review even if I don't agree with many of your criticisms particularly your standard misunderstanding of what is C&C(most codexers don't know what C&C is so it's not just you). Choices are not meaningless. Maybe you expect a completely different experience with every single choice you make in the game but expecting a developer to be able to build such a game would need to see the developer working for 20 years and spending a billion dollars. Besides, up until a few years ago, you barely got any sort of C&C in RPG's at all, and TW2 does it better than most(limited of course, but compared to what others have done apart from AP, it's a massive step up). The C&C changes the narrative, creates a different story to experience even if the actual world changes (with a few major exceptions) are minor or cosmetic. Just because the game takes place in the same locations and follows mostly the same linear path does not mean there is no meaningful C&C, it's just not the kind of C&C you seem to expect. TW2 is a linear story driven game, so whining that C&C is linear is pretty ridiculous. There is no 'freedom' because it's mostly a linear game(with one major branch)! Why is that so hard to understand? It's not even a fair criticism as you are expecting something from the game that it, by virtue of it's design, can never offer. That's like whining that Dungeon Master sucks because you can't explore a forest.

Sorry for you that you didn't like it but hell, not everyone has to like the same things. I did and even if the whole world thought it sucked arse it wouldn't change the fact that I enjoyed the game immensely. That's the reason I play one game and not another, for my own enjoyment. Unlike many here I don't need to overcome any personal insecurities about feeling left out or being ridiculed just because I choose to like something other people don't. Had I just taken reviews and Codexer hivepinions to heart I wouldn't have enjoyed other games that got a lot worse press like the Two Worlds' games for example.

 

[Mrowak]

@Vault Dweller

It seems that I am fairly late in replying to this since most of the point of discontention have been covered by others. Still, let me comment on some of your questions.

The main thing that renders this "review" biased is the tone you guys employed. You can write a fun review. You can write a lulzy review. But you cannot write a sarcastic review and expect anyone to treat it seriously (as in "serious source of unbiased assessment") because this mode is not and should not be used for evaluating things.

Why not? Yes, the tone is mocking, but the review covers pretty much every aspect of the game, does it not? If you disagree with the tone, but not with the assessment, well...

You are basically stating - our way is the only right way of doing shit so STFU.

I don't see it this way. Care to elaborate?

Yes, the review covered all the major aspects of the game but the tone of the assessment undermind its credibility. With the sarcastic approach you distance yourself from the subject you are discussing. As I explained you assume the role of an authority of some kind who is basically stating - "this is how it should be done, and that how it should not." That's very convenient position for you but also very short-sighted - it implies that you may be biased in your judgement. So although you reasoning may be sound (and I concede that it IS sound), it will be turned upside down by the overabundance of irony in your statement. Suddenly you lose you authority and become a nagging grandpa complaining how kids these days are spoiled etc. etc. And that does happen - at least from a perspective of an outsider.

That would be quite OK if the game was complete rubbish in your opinion, but in the end you stated that you liked it, no matter it is not RPG. So where are the positive bits? What device did you use to create the contrast in the text? So much for consistency.

First, the positive bits are the graphics, setting, and characters. In this order. The rest is poorly designed. Second, you've assumed that the praise at the end was somehow different from the praise throughout the review, despite everything pointing at the obvious. I blame VoD. He made me tone that paragraph down, making it more subtle. Is that guy cynical or what?

Ok, so let's have a closer look at one of three points where you actually praised the game. I underlined the sentences which contain genuine praise and coloured bits where you criticise it. I also commented on them in italics. So let's see what you can tell us about graphics:

Every review of The Witcher 2 needs a chapter on graphics, because not only it’s the best RPG since Dragon Age, it’s also the best looking game in a very long time. This is where the real depth of the game is. -> snarky as hell, nut let's say it's a praise. Surely in this paragraph you will analyse the depth of witcher's graphics - the art direction, the character design, the items etc... Right?

When the CDProjekt guys talked about having invented the best RPG engine in the world they apparently meant the best looking RPG engine.

The game is stunningly beautiful and crafted with love and affection. The amount of detail is mind boggling at times, especially if you have a rig powerful enough to play on maxed out settings. In fact, the Witcher 2’s visuals are a great reason to buy a new computer just to experience the game in all its otherworldly glory. -> A full paragraph of praise! Yupi Ka Yey Motherfucker!


While we’re on the subjects of graphics, let’s mention the interface. The Witcher had a very old school interface that was too busy and too distractive, with portraits of monsters, key NPCs, and various descriptions. Maybe, just maybe such journals were all the rage when games had wire-frame graphics, but as we’ve mentioned the game is absolutely gorgeous and there is no need to clutter the journal with crude drawings. ->Counterbalance for the positive bits I gather

Furthermore, in 2007 Mass Effect took the gaming world by storm. A big part of its success was attributed to a revolutionary and convenient list-based inventory. Many players bought the game just to see it and admire its elegant beauty, and we’d like to assure them that the Witcher 2 will not disappoint them. Scrolling through a listbox has never been so much fun. ->Fuckyeah, if can't find anything against the graphics let's take stuff from the different section of the review and put it here to create balance. Btw, the whole section about graphics - some depth mentioned but not described? Oh they are being ironic - this game must be fucking lame.

The praise and criticism overlaps because it's difficult to pinpoint irony exactly in the sentence. But anyway, it seems to me that even the aspect that gets recognised as outstanding is immediately counterbalanced by the bad bit. It actually seems there is more bashing out there than praise.

Balancing the positive parts with negative is actually quite a good idea in a review, helping you to preserve impartial voice. Pity it doesn't work well in your article because 1) You counterbalanced a positive aspect of graphics with irrelevant (in this context) commentary about atrocious design of inventories 2) In the whole review when you mention negative feature you don't balance it with a positive one 3) The sheer volume of bashing dwarfs the praise visually 4) While the negative assessment stands out thanks to very generous use of irony, the positive one has no device used that could emphasize its presence.

And at the end you state that TW 2 is a good game? Really? Where did you write that? What facts prove its worth paying my hard-earned money for? With so many few positive bits it’s apparently a miracle the publisher allowed its release. Bottom-line - the evaluation of separate pieces of the game is inconsistent with you final assessment - a good game.

No, simply stating that the game is more the game is more than the sum of its flawed parts is not enough. Especially when the "unflawed" parts are practically invisible.

If the latter, then what's exactly the point of trolling us with this?

Honestly? The review would have been much harsher if it was written in a serious tone.

From a perspective of an outsider I don’t care about it being harsher. As an ignorant individual, who hasn’t played the game I have come here for credible piece of info - whether the game is worth getting or not? Did I manage to receive that, from your review?

To sum up, your article is not a review - it cannot be because it fails at the very thing reviews are written for - to provide impartial, unbiased assessment of a piece of media. On the contrary, it is painfully apparent that the article was written with certain audience in mind to please them and to spark off a vibrant discussion. As such it is well-written feature article to have a few laughs amongst the friends, but it certainly not a review. Tell me now, please that you and VoD simply have superhuman insight and that crude ham-fisted sarcasm was simply means to achieve ingenious feat: to mirror with your article the way TW2 caters for wider audiences and sacrifices its solidity for the sake of recognition and the buzz.

“Like the game it analyses, our article is a pretty thing indeed, and quite fun to read on the top of that, but it lacks the core that could make it a ‘review’. Although entertaining, it does not fulfill the aim it was written for. Hence, just like TW2, if you expect the real thing from it, think again. Unfortunately, it just might fail to meet your expectations, in spite of being an awesome piece, in the end” - this , I wish, is your message in the text. That would have been a really subtle irony. Me like! But somehow I cannot fool myself into believing it.

 

[Mangoose]

I think the answer to all this is Mrowak has a bad grasp of English/American nuances. Which is not a negative, but just a statement of fact so that this useless argument need not continue.

e.g.

When the CDProjekt guys talked about having invented the best RPG engine in the world they apparently meant the best looking RPG engine.

criticizes the fact that the engine ONLY provides good graphics and not more gameplay meat. So, still praise for graphics.

And god forbid someone consider Interface a part of Graphics.

The only "bias" I see is that while the graphics are good, VD/VoD dislike emphasizing graphics over gameplay. Thus while graphics are praised, the fact that they are good while gameplay suffers results in equal amount of bashing on the higher level.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Here's a newsflash for all you butthurt people: There is no such thing as an objective, unbiased review.

 

[Excidium]

Don't make fun of The Witcher 2! : x

 

[Zed]

Good job you guys. It was a good read.

Not gonna touch this fucking game though.

 

[Jools]

I can't believe we're on page 7. I'll need some more popcorn here.

 

[Black_Willow]

A review of the 'review' explaining why the 'review' isn't a review.

 

[Excidium]

I can't believe we're on page 7. I'll need some more popcorn here.

Get some potato chips, it's more fitting.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Better, this is how it should have been as a review even if I don't agree with many of your criticisms particularly your standard misunderstanding of what is C&C(most codexers don't know what C&C is so it's not just you). Choices are not meaningless. Maybe you expect a completely different experience with every single choice you make in the game but expecting a developer to be able to build such a game would need to see the developer working for 20 years and spending a billion dollars.

That a fact?

Side with Malena and she takes you to the elf leader instead of the dwarf. There. Now you have a real and meaningful option and it didn't cost you a billion dollars. You have a different way to get a meeting with an important NPC, you have a reason to lie to the guards, and you show the elf leader that you're on their side and give him a reason to trust you more. Now the game is less linear, you have some control over how to proceed, and maybe even different reaction/consequences based on who will introduce you.

No? No good? Way to complex?

Besides, up until a few years ago, you barely got any sort of C&C in RPG's at all, and TW2 does it better than most...

But it doesn't. No more than DA2 does.

I don't judge games based on C&C. If character/combat systems are solid, that's good enough, but are they solid in TW2?

Just because the game takes place in the same locations and follows mostly the same linear path does not mean there is no meaningful C&C, it's just not the kind of C&C you seem to expect. TW2 is a linear story driven game, so whining that C&C is linear is pretty ridiculous.

What else is there though?

That's like whining that Dungeon Master sucks because you can't explore a forest.

One of my favourite games. How often have you heard me bitching about the lack of dialogue skills, linearity, and meaningful choices?

Sorry for you that you didn't like it but hell, not everyone has to like the same things.

Really? This is disappointing.

I did and even if the whole world thought it sucked arse it wouldn't change the fact that I enjoyed the game immensely.

Fine, fine. You have my permission to enjoy the Witcher 2. God bless you, child.

 

[Mrowak]

I think the answer to all this is Mrowak has a bad grasp of English/American nuances. Which is not a negative, but just a statement of fact so that this useless argument need not continue.

That may be the case... But I think my grasp of English still exceeds that of some other Codexers.

e.g.

When the CDProjekt guys talked about having invented the best RPG engine in the world they apparently meant the best looking RPG engine.

criticizes the fact that the engine ONLY provides good graphics and not more gameplay meat. So, still praise for graphics.

Yeah, so I marked the whole thing as both positive and negative - VD and VoD praise the graphics but bash the game for being only about the graphics at the same time. Good example of the uneven usage of irony. Your point being?

And god forbid someone consider Interface a part of Graphics.

Technically, it is not part of graphics, unless you mean how it looks like - not how it works.

The only "bias" I see is that while the graphics are good, VD/VoD dislike emphasizing graphics over gameplay. Thus while graphics are praised, the fact that they are good while gameplay suffers results in equal amount of bashing on the higher level.

The bias lies exactly in one-sided approach in analysis ironical tone demands from its user. Irony makes things stand out and it highlights criticism better than praise. My point is that overabundance of irony facilitates the bias.

Here's a newsflash for all you butthurt people: There is no such thing as an objective, unbiased review.

Yes, that's the whole point. I know I am making a fool of myself, but the recently widespread tendency to be edgy and snarky and confuse it with "journalism" or whatever... worries me, to say at least.

 

[Mrowak]

A review of the 'review' explaining why the 'review' isn't a review.

 

[Mangoose]

Yeah, so I marked the whole thing as both positive and negative - VD and VoD praise the graphics but bash the game for being only about the graphics at the same time. Good example of the uneven usage of irony. Your point being?

What? You actually think sacrificing gameplay in return for better graphics has any good points at all?

Technically, it is not part of graphics, unless you mean how it looks like - not how it works.

Technically, the reviewer can structure his review however he wants, and thus all you're doing is nitpicking an irrelevant point. If Interface weren't talked about there, there would simply be another negative section about Interface. Boo hoo.

The bias lies exactly in one-sided approach in analysis ironical tone demands from its user. Irony makes things stand out and it highlights criticism better than praise. My point is that overabundance of irony facilitates the bias.

No, it's the reader's fault for not being able to separate the irony from the pure facts and logic in the review. If you can't do it, don't blame the author - blame yourself. For other readers with better mental facilities, we get a good review with a balanced selection of observations and judgments, with a healthy dose of irony for pure entertainment's sake.

 

[Black_Willow]

stuff

You clearly fail to see the irony of VD and VoD text, which makes your posts pointless. Let me cite mrowak:

“Like the game it analyses, our article is a pretty thing indeed, and quite fun to read on the top of that, but it lacks the core that could make it a ‘review’. Although entertaining, it does not fulfill the aim it was written for. Hence, just like TW2, if you expect the real thing from it, think again. Unfortunately, it just might fail to meet your expectations, in spite of being an awesome piece, in the end”

 

[Mrowak]

Yeah, so I marked the whole thing as both positive and negative - VD and VoD praise the graphics but bash the game for being only about the graphics at the same time. Good example of the uneven usage of irony. Your point being?

What? You actually think sacrificing gameplay in return for better graphics has any good points at all?

Brother... did I say that the authors are wrong in their assessment? Did I bash them for criticizing the game? No. I simply stated that even when they praise the game the praise gets dwarfed by the tone they employed. Hence, the conclusion they reached at the end of the review that

it is a game worth playing.

has little support in the actual article. For that reason the review is "inconsistent".

The bias lies exactly in one-sided approach in analysis ironical tone demands from its user. Irony makes things stand out and it highlights criticism better than praise. My point is that overabundance of irony facilitates the bias.

No, it's the reader's fault for not being able to separate the irony from the pure facts and logic in the review. If you can't do it, don't blame the author - blame yourself. For other readers with better mental facilities, we get a good review with a balanced selection of observations and judgments, with a healthy dose of irony for pure entertainment's sake.

No. Again, brother - please do not doubt my mental capacities. We both are easily able to wade through irony here. As I said - it's of rather crude kind. But was it really just because we are so clever, or did the fact that we both played the game help us, at least a bit? Tell me, honestly - would you be tempted to try this game worth playing after reading this review?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes, the review covered all the major aspects of the game but the tone of the assessment undermind its credibility. With the sarcastic approach you distance yourself from the subject you are discussing. As I explained you assume the role of an authority of some kind who is basically stating - "this is how it should be done, and that how it should not."

So when I tear games apart and say that everything is shit in a serious tone, everyone understands that I'm just a man who's doing his job in a professional, objective manner. When I do the same in a sarcastic manner, it becomes about distance, authority and arrogance. Conclusion: sarcasm = authority.

Doesn't make a lot of sense.

That's very convenient position for you but also very short-sighted - it implies that you may be biased in your judgement. So although you reasoning may be sound (and I concede that it IS sound), it will be turned upside down by the overabundance of irony in your statement. Suddenly you lose you authority and become a nagging grandpa complaining how kids these days are spoiled etc. etc. And that does happen - at least from a perspective of an outsider.

I think that what you're actually saying is this: "when you criticize games it's impolite to look like you're having a good time; you have to be serious and respectful of developers' feelings, they are people too, you know".

Every review of The Witcher 2 needs a chapter on graphics, because not only it’s the best RPG since Dragon Age, it’s also the best looking game in a very long time. This is where the real depth of the game is. -> snarky as hell, nut let's say it's a praise. Surely in this paragraph you will analyse the depth of witcher's graphics - the art direction, the character design, the items etc... Right?

When the CDProjekt guys talked about having invented the best RPG engine in the world they apparently meant the best looking RPG engine.

The game is stunningly beautiful and crafted with love and affection. The amount of detail is mind boggling at times, especially if you have a rig powerful enough to play on maxed out settings. In fact, the Witcher 2’s visuals are a great reason to buy a new computer just to experience the game in all its otherworldly glory. -> A full paragraph of praise! Yupi Ka Yey Motherfucker!


While we’re on the subjects of graphics, let’s mention the interface. The Witcher had a very old school interface that was too busy and too distractive, with portraits of monsters, key NPCs, and various descriptions. Maybe, just maybe such journals were all the rage when games had wire-frame graphics, but as we’ve mentioned the game is absolutely gorgeous and there is no need to clutter the journal with crude drawings. ->Counterbalance for the positive bits I gather

Furthermore, in 2007 Mass Effect took the gaming world by storm. A big part of its success was attributed to a revolutionary and convenient list-based inventory. Many players bought the game just to see it and admire its elegant beauty, and we’d like to assure them that the Witcher 2 will not disappoint them. Scrolling through a listbox has never been so much fun. ->Fuckyeah, if can't find anything against the graphics let's take stuff from the different section of the review and put it here to create balance. Btw, the whole section about graphics - some depth mentioned but not described? Oh they are being ironic - this game must be fucking lame.

- The depth comment was a joke. What fucking depth? In pretty graphics?
- No, not counterbalance. We had to mention the interface so we filed it under graphics. Makes sense?
- I wasn't on a mission to bash the game (and there were two of us). We wrote some comments on different aspects, than arranged them into "chapters", that's all.

Balancing the positive parts with negative is actually quite a good idea in a review, helping you to preserve impartial voice.

We weren't trying to balance anything. We simply went through the aspects and features, item by item.

And at the end you state that TW 2 is a good game? Really? Where did you write that? What facts prove its worth paying my hard-earned money for? With so many few positive bits it’s apparently a miracle the publisher allowed its release.

Have I mentioned how awesome the game looks?

From a perspective of an outsider I don’t care about it being harsher. As an ignorant individual, who hasn’t played the game I have come here for credible piece of info - whether the game is worth getting or not? Did I manage to receive that, from your review?

Well, I think we've covered the character system, combat, alchemy & crafting, quests, and graphics. I mean, what else you need to know?

To sum up, your article is not a review - it cannot be because it fails at the very thing reviews are written for - to provide impartial, unbiased assessment of a piece of media.

A review is subjective by definition. I think that combat is shit and the difficulty is non-existent. "Yeah, well that's just, like, my opinion, man." Someone else think that combat is the best evar and the game is very challenging. As for bias, there is none. I wanted to like the game. I thought it would be an improvement over the first one, which did a lot of things right and gave us hope. The journal alone was a piece of art.

The review doesn't have any hidden agenda. It merely shares VoD's and my thoughts on the game with you guys. If someone wants to dismiss them for any reason whatsoever, be my guest. I'm not on a mission to convince people (or maximize my chance to convince them) to see things my way.

On the contrary, it is painfully apparent that the article was written with certain audience in mind to please them...

Bro, are you under the impression that I give a fuck about what the Codex wants to hear?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

No. Again, brother - please do not doubt my mental capacities. We both are easily able to wade through irony here. As I said - it's of rather crude kind. But was it really just because we are so clever, or did the fact that we both played the game help us, at least a bit? Tell me, honestly - would you be tempted to try this game worth playing after reading this review?

But a review is not supposed to convince you to try out a game.

 

[chzr]

great review with even greater location: poland butthurt

 

[Mrowak]

No. Again, brother - please do not doubt my mental capacities. We both are easily able to wade through irony here. As I said - it's of rather crude kind. But was it really just because we are so clever, or did the fact that we both played the game help us, at least a bit? Tell me, honestly - would you be tempted to try this game worth playing after reading this review?

But a review is not supposed to convince you to try out a game.

Here, brother

Brother... did I say that the authors are wrong in their assessment? Did I bash them for criticizing the game? No. I simply stated that even when they praise the game the praise gets dwarfed by the tone they employed. Hence, the conclusion they reached at the end of the review that

it is a game worth playing.

has little support in the actual article. For that reason the review is "inconsistent".

...

Tell me, honestly - would you be tempted to try this game worth playing after reading this review?

I made it more welcoming for you.

@VD

You've made a few interesting points, that I am afraid I must disagree with. Unfortunately, RL does not permit me to answer those in sufficient detail now.

I will only say for now that, while indeed, there is no such thing as 100% objective observation or assessment, a true journalist (i.e. not some struck fag from fox news or - God forbid - your avarage gamespot game reviewer) should do his utmost to report his findings accounting for all possible points of view, without compromising text too much with personal likes and dislikes. His judgement should come from his expertly grasp of the subject matter (such as you exhibited in this article... and others), not bias (which is obvious and renders this "review" worthless, despite solid foundations).

Probably I will add something to this later.

 

[dr. one]

But the tone is wrong.

Well, yeah, to some extent.
I think that the prevalence of sarcasms buries some of the finer points usually not pointed out (like the fact players have no influence on Geralt´s "identity quest" which is a very unfortunate missed opportunity to make the game more "RPG-y"), at least when it comes to potential "non-codexian" audience.

I also feel there are some unnecessary hyperboles, which results in imo somewhat unfair/misleading assessments, like when it comes to game´s difficulty in relation to skill trees - finishing the game without any skill investments on hard may be possible (though the chapter 2 ending sequence would probably be very difficult), but it´s most likely a lot more tedious than with them and that´s more-or-less the case of most action RPGs out there, even G2: NotR can be finished this way and that´s a game which relates player/character skills exceptionally well. Problem with The Witcher 2 simply is that few skills are badly balanced and from chapter 2 onwards the game is generally lacking in appropriate encounter design.
From my experience, what you rate "easy" I would rate "normal" and what you rate "normal" I would rate "hard".
Similarly, the Kayran is more of an exception rather than rule as its dedicated paragraph implies.

Few other notes:

The oils were toned down and aren’t as useful this time around. Spirit Oil, for example (useful against spirits like wraiths, etc), did bestow +100% damage vs spirits in The Witcher, but in the sequel it does merely +20% damage,

Yep, but in the alchemy tree there´s a "transmutation" skill which makes them more useful for alchemist-y builds (50%-100%, at least if TW2 wiki is to be trusted).

Thus, it’s your uninformed choice that determines where you go and whom you’d talk to.

I think the point of "The Big Choice™" and some other choices in the game is that these are made from Geralt´s "personal" standpoint. The major part of the big choice is whether you want to end up in a place where you´re likely to find Triss, or in a place where you´re likely to find Letho and the point is that such personal choices made on "micro" level then have far reaching, at the time unforeseen consequences on "macro" level.
And it´s quite similar in the case of the chapter 3 choice.
Personally I don´t think player needs to be informed about every consequence for the choice to be meaningful.

Anyway, good effort overall, there´s certainly a place for a different kind of review, especially in environment where most reviews suck and copy each other and this one seems to arouse reactions successfully so kudos for that, though I doubt the way it´s written makes it effective to get its points across for non-codex populace.
Also, even though I´m aware it´s not really reviewers´ job, I think it wouldn´t be a bad idea to be a bit more constructive in "codexian" reviews, like "this sucks, it would be better if.." and so on, but that´s probably just me.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Here, brother. I made it more welcoming for you.

That's no inconsistency. Looking at that review, God knows what VoD and VD consider enough to qualify a game as "worth playing", but if they think a steaming turd is worth playing because once in a while it doesn't smell so bad, it's their right.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You've made a few interesting points, that I am afraid I must disagree with.

Mrowak, you're are a scholar and a gentleman. I've enjoyed discussing the game with you (here and in other threads) a lot more than I've enjoyed playing it.



While I still don't see what the big deal is, the mere fact that you think that the tone was a mistake makes me think that it probably was.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

No. Again, brother - please do not doubt my mental capacities. We both are easily able to wade through irony here. As I said - it's of rather crude kind. But was it really just because we are so clever, or did the fact that we both played the game help us, at least a bit? Tell me, honestly - would you be tempted to try this game worth playing after reading this review?

But a review is not supposed to convince you to try out a game.

Here, brother

Brother... did I say that the authors are wrong in their assessment? Did I bash them for criticizing the game? No. I simply stated that even when they praise the game the praise gets dwarfed by the tone they employed. Hence, the conclusion they reached at the end of the review that

it is a game worth playing.

has little support in the actual article. For that reason the review is "inconsistent".

...

Tell me, honestly - would you be tempted to try this game worth playing after reading this review?

I made it more welcoming for you.

I would if I'd have a new rig and would live in a country with a national minimum wage of 7+$ and if I wouldn't be busy with more :monocle: stuff.

 

[latexmonkeys]

While I still don't see what the big deal is, the mere fact that you think that the tone was a mistake makes me think that it probably was.

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic here.