| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
DJ Yahari
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Dec 2002
Posts: 99
Location: In your basement |
quote:
I thing a reviewer should strive for objectivity, as much as this is possible in such a subjective thing as a review. Every game has certain qualities a reviewer has to notice. Things like overall graphics quality (-->visible), amount of sound track & voice acting (-->audible), controls (-->manual, options, readme, etc.) and distinct identification of things like 3rd person view, real time combat, loading times, save system, character development, amount of quests, number of opponents, size of world, ... and so on...
It's true that a reviewer has to pay attention to these things, but what if the reviewer hate some of these features? What if he thinks the voice acting sucks? What if he doesn't like the graphics? What if he hates the fact that you only have 20 save slots? What if he thinks the game is linear?
Maybe you like these features, but what if the reviewer doesn't?
quote:
leave only room for a limited amount of personal opinion because most of these features are either implemented or not. Take Unreal 2 for example. Can there be any discussion whether or not the graphics where at least good (if not better) at the time of release?
If you, after processing a feature checklist, compare each of them to the closest competition (depending on the scope of your publication) you come up with a rough idea of the overall quality of the game, this time with some but still not much personal opinion. Given this was done thoroughly chances are low you are considerably below the average rating this game received in other publications.
The reviewer´s personal opinion comes in when he makes up his mind if all the features work as a whole. And again I expect him to have his emotions under control. There is a difference between 'it doesn´t work' and 'I don´t like it'. If something is disappointing for him I want to know why exactly, so I can make up my own mind.
After all this is done the reviewer can clearly state his opinion. I like Gamespot´s idea of a 'reviewer´s tilt' because it decouples his opinion from the actual review score.
But what, besides the AI, makes Gothic 2 so special? The game world isn't as large as Morrowind and neither is it as non-linear. The graphics are dated, and the game is filled with bugs. The combat system may be more advanced than most RPG's, but that doesn't make it good, since you are, unlike Morrowind, only able to target one enemy at a time, and so on(if you target one enemy and hit another, you wont do any damage).
Just because this game is more advanced when it comes to AI and combat, it doesn't make it better. How come that the carpenter works on the same damn closet everyday? Why does the smith walk back and forth from fire to anvil, without doing anything else?. It was so frustrating to see the NPC's repeating their actions everyday, so while the AI might be advanced, it's still not good. Also, I can imagine that it's hard to remain objective with things like these if it bugs the hell out of you
This is some of the beefs that some reviewers might have with Gothic 2, and for some people that might be enough for a 62%. |
Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:53 pm |
|
|
Bugracer
Village Dweller
Joined: 18 Jul 2003
Posts: 9
|
When I saw this topic, I KNEW this is going to be interesting discussion. Let me give me my five cents.
1. If somebody gives game 62%, so be it. Its his opinion.
2. Gorath had very good ideas on what every reviewer should notice, but again, graphics, voice acting etc. Subjective eh?
3. Yahari clearly likes Morrowind. The fact that Morrowind battle enables you to target multiple enemies makes it good? Well...subjective.
There are other points but I want to make mine. I am not fan of either Gothic, but I must admit that they have some very impressive ideas. I do not recall a game where world would seem so alive. While linearity of the game is disguised in different paths, the world freedom itself is great. I was intrigued by the game, but I could not get over the controls and the fact that sheep bite kills you in the beginning (little sarcasm  ). Also the fact that I like BG type games more makes me biased.
Does this mean BG series is better? Subjective (ie graphics suck compared to MW or Gothic) If you look at Gothic, BG or MW revies, you have both good and bad reviews. Let's just accept it. |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 6:23 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
It's true that a reviewer has to pay attention to these things, but what if the reviewer hate some of these features? What if he thinks the voice acting sucks? What if he doesn't like the graphics? What if he hates the fact that you only have 20 save slots? What if he thinks the game is linear?
Maybe you like these features, but what if the reviewer doesn't?
Then he should either swallow it or explain every single point in detail. (okay, maybe a publication could establish a priority list for each genre and concentrate on the most important features.)
Should the reader be more interested in the reviewer´s personal opinion about the graphics than the description of its elements? I want to know if the graphics is up to today´s standards, if it´s detailed, and so on. I want to see description. After the desription he can give his assessment on the respective feature. His opinion alone is worthless if I can´t see where he´s coming from.
quote:
But what, besides the AI, makes Gothic 2 so special?
Feel free to read this up in my review.
It´s basically the combination of the detailed, realistic 3D world and the relatively believable NPCs. No other RPG on the market (besides Gothic 1) offers this.
quote:
The game world isn't as large as Morrowind and neither is it as non-linear.
Irrelevant. Linearity only defines a sub genre, therefore it must not be part of the rating. Size is also not important. The world is smaller but not as sterile. It´s big enough.
quote:
The graphics are dated.
Yes and no!
Compared to what? Compared to the latest FPSs all current RPGs including G2 look like a POS. Compared to other RPGs I have to say that I´m not aware of a single game which looks clearly better. I´m not even aware of an RPG with slightly better graphics. (note: I didn´t play games released in the last 3 months.) Even Morrowind doesn´t necessarily have better graphics according to the 3 big German print mags (1+, 1-, 1=).
quote:
and the game is filled with bugs.
Correct. I reflected this in my review.
quote:
The combat system may be more advanced than most RPG's, but that doesn't make it good, since you are, unlike Morrowind, only able to target one enemy at a time, and so on(if you target one enemy and hit another, you wont do any damage).
But it also doesn´t make it worse. What is better, Coke or Pepsi? He should descibed it ...
quote:
Just because this game is more advanced when it comes to AI and combat, it doesn't make it better.
How´s that? It´s an advancement of the genre. Of course this makes it better.
quote:
How come that the carpenter works on the same damn closet everyday? Why does the smith walk back and forth from fire to anvil, without doing anything else?. It was so frustrating to see the NPC's repeating their actions everyday, so while the AI might be advanced, it's still not good.
At least they are doing something! Do you remember the times when NPCs guarded the same place 24 hours a day? Of course it still can be improved, but nevertheless it´s a huge step in the right direction.
quote:
Also, I can imagine that it's hard to remain objective with things like these if it bugs the hell out of you
Of course. And still he should have tried harder. In this case he should have ignored the bugs while making up the rating and then mention them in the text and impose a penalty.
quote:
This is some of the beefs that some reviewers might have with Gothic 2, and for some people that might be enough for a 62%.
I think you completely missed my point. The dude writing 20 lines in a forum or on a customer reviews site might get away with it, but editors at print mags and web sites have a responsibility because their tests have an impact on a game´s commercial success. IMO it´s vitaly important that unknown game A reviewed by editor X gets exactly the same treatment as blockbuster B reviewed by editor Y. To achieve this standardisation is necessary. This can only work if all editors ignore their personal opinion until the rating was decided. After that the reviewer can write a few lines to relieve his need and maybe slightly influence the score.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 6:48 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by Bugracer
1. If somebody gives game 62%, so be it. Its his opinion.
No. In a print mag the editors first of all represent the mag´s opinion. When talking about a review we don´t say 'XXX didn´t like it', we say 'PC Gamer UK gave it 62%'.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 6:55 pm |
|
|
DJ Yahari
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Dec 2002
Posts: 99
Location: In your basement |
It's obvious that we have different opinions on how a review should be. Being objective is not required in order to write a good review (I'm not saying that this review is good).
The fact of the matter is that this game has been rated 62%, and some people obviously has a hard time dealing with that. |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 7:10 pm |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
I agree with what you say Gorath, but you have to admit, the only way we will ever get a perfect unbiased review like that is if a machine did it.
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 7:20 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by Chekote
I agree with what you say Gorath, but you have to admit, the only way we will ever get a perfect unbiased review like that is if a machine did it.
That´s why I asked for standardisation. If all reviewers are forced to approach a review the same way you can be relatively sure a game gets a rating somewhere in the area it deserves. This hopefully avoids accidents like 62% for G2 or 100% for NWN.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 7:36 pm |
|
|
DJ Yahari
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Dec 2002
Posts: 99
Location: In your basement |
Accidents?
When your favorite game gets a bad review you call it an accident? |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 7:50 pm |
|
|
hoyp
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 501
|
What makes Gothic 2 so special?
Other than the brilliant AI there are other factors.
Have you ever seen a crpg where the people in the gameworld actually do things other than standing around and maybe doing a little walking? Well, Morrowind doesn't have them, and no other crpg does.
The combat also makes Gothic2 stand out as it is one of the very few games that actually require some skill to win (unlike in Morrowind where you win by being lucky and having better stats).
And so what if the gameworld is smaller than Morrowind's? It is still Way bigger than the gameworld in most rpgs and it is also jam-packed with interesting and unique quests and monsters.
And the graphics aren't dated, it's all just a matter of taste.
And there are very very few games that has all of it's dialogue in voice instead if text.
The only reason that people get mad when they see that the reviewer gave Gothic 2 62% is because other people will immediately say that the game sucks because someone gave it a low rating. |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 8:09 pm |
|
|
DJ Yahari
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Dec 2002
Posts: 99
Location: In your basement |
quote:
Other than the brilliant AI there are other factors.
Have you ever seen a crpg where the people in the gameworld actually do things other than standing around and maybe doing a little walking? Well, Morrowind doesn't have them, and no other crpg does.
I know. It's the AI that makes sure that the NPC's do these things.
quote:
The combat also makes Gothic2 stand out as it is one of the very few games that actually require some skill to win (unlike in Morrowind where you win by being lucky and having better stats).
The combat is frustrating for me because of two things:
1: The fact that you can only target one enemy at a time
2: I suck at it. It's simply too hard. When I buy RPG's I don't want to reload all the time because fights are too hard. I love Morrowind because combat is simple. It all comes down to stats. If your stats are higher then
your chances increase. In Gothic 2 the combat is fast, which makes the whole thing less enjoyable to me. I didn't pay for an action game. Combat may have been simple in Morrowind, at least I was able to handle it. I'm not saying that combat sucks in Gothic 2, I am simply saying that when I think roleplaying game, I don't think fast paced combat.
quote:
And so what if the gameworld is smaller than Morrowind's? It is still Way bigger than the gameworld in most rpgs and it is also jam-packed with interesting and unique quests and monsters.
True, but it's nothing new. It has been seen before. Morrowind had tons of quests, and alot of monsters |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 8:31 pm |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
Morrowind did have tonnes of quest and monsters, but it felt like a world full of unconnected parts, not a cohesive whole like Gothic.
Morrowind was way too big and unfocused. Sure you talk about nonlinear, but I dont want a game so non-linear that I just wander round bored out of my mind.
Also, the combat in Gothic is obviously very subjective. I love it because it gives you control over the battle. I cant stand games where I just sit there staring at the screen while my character continualy hacks away at something with no input from me, ala Morrowind, EQ, etc.
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Wed Aug 13, 2003 8:42 pm |
|
|
Iron Man
Dazed and Confused
Joined: 07 Dec 2002
Posts: 773
Location: Location Location |
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
btw., wasn´t this the print mag which gave NWN a 100% score ? 
For the record, it gave NWN 94% 
quote:
Originally posted by hoyp
And te only reason that I'm annoyed at this review is because if other people see it, they'll think that the game sucks and wont even think about trying it out.
I agree. I think that reviews should have a second opinion box. Because you are going by one person's point of view. If you had wo scores youwould have a better picture (unless they contradicted each other completely, then you would just be confused  )
quote:
Originally posted by Chekote
Morrowind was way too big and unfocused. Sure you talk about nonlinear, but I dont want a game so non-linear that I just wander round bored out of my mind.
Same here. I played it for a couple of days and was so bored with it I just uninstalled it.
_________________
This box secretly turns into a picture and laughs at YOU personally when you're not looking. |
|
Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:24 am |
|
|
DJ Yahari
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Dec 2002
Posts: 99
Location: In your basement |
So let's try to turn the whole thing around, then. Most people seem to be bored with Morrowind. How is that? The game got quests, a large world, lots of stats, it's open ended, it has alot of races and professions to choose from and so on. How can a game like this possibly recieve anything below 70%? Could it be because some people might be bored with the game? The people in here who say they dislike Morrowind are saying that it's boring. So saying that Morrowind is boring is enough to dislike the game, but if someone wants to say they dislike Gothic 2, they need to consider all sorts of things, like a large gameworld, AI etc. even if the game bores them to death?. How come a game that has bugs, bad voice acting, an overused plot, unbalanced classes and a dissapointing ending recieves 90%+ reviews from almost anyone? Could it be because the reviewer is willing to overlook these things?. If so, then he is not following Gorath's ''golden rules'', of how a review should be. Gorath, you seem to think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that a reviewer needs to consider the facts in a game before giving his personal opinion. But what are the facts in Gothic 2? Good graphics? Good plot? Good combat system? Who knows? It all comes down to opinion. It's not a fact that Gothic 2 has good graphics, so if someone doesn't like the graphics he should feel free to give it a low rating, even if it goes against other peoples opinions.
Also, what if the guy who gave Gothic 2 62% simply was bored? Why should he judge Gothic 2 on graphics and a large gameworld if the game bored him? Maybe the guy overlooks some of the good features because he just doesn't want to play a game he's not having fun with.
quote:
Morrowind was way too big and unfocused. Sure you talk about nonlinear, but I dont want a game so non-linear that I just wander round bored out of my mind.
But what if some people prefer Morrowind over Gothic 2? Don't they have the right to rate Gothic 2 62%, then?
quote:
Also, the combat in Gothic is obviously very subjective. I love it because it gives you control over the battle. I cant stand games where I just sit there staring at the screen while my character continualy hacks away at something with no input from me, ala Morrowind, EQ, etc.
But if you don't like the Gothic 2 combat system, even though it's well made, then you have the right to rate it low. Just because it's well made it doesn't mean it's everyones cup of tea. |
|
Thu Aug 14, 2003 3:20 pm |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
So let's try to turn the whole thing around, then. Most people seem to be bored with Morrowind. How is that? The game got quests, a large world, lots of stats, it's open ended, it has alot of races and professions to choose from and so on. How can a game like this possibly recieve anything below 70%?
This is a small quote, but my reply is to your whole post.
To put it simply:
Morrowind has Quantity, Gothic has Quality.
And yes, that is an oppinion.
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:07 pm |
|
|
Iron Man
Dazed and Confused
Joined: 07 Dec 2002
Posts: 773
Location: Location Location |
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
The game got quests,
Granted most of them are FedEx quests. They get very boring after a while.
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
a large world,
Yes, a large world wioth bugger all in it
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
lots of stats.
Personally, I don't want to pour over lots of stats in a game, I wan't to play the game. Gothic has a good amount in my opinion.
Most people talk about the poor voice acting. Its better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick. At least you ave voice acting. In my opinion, the voice acting could have been a lot worse. (They could have been speaking in Pigeon Irish )
_________________
This box secretly turns into a picture and laughs at YOU personally when you're not looking. |
|
Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:17 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
