| |
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
|
|
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
Accidents?
When your favorite game gets a bad review you call it an accident?
I donīt have a favourite game.
And yes, I call this an accident which shouldnīt have happened. Everything else has been explained above.
If NWN received only only 94% then this sounds okay for me. My memory about the other thread on the same topic must have tricked me.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:24 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
Okay, can we stop comparing now. This is completely pointless. Thanks.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:49 pm |
|
|
Chekote
Wheres my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
Someones upset Gorath 
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:11 pm |
|
|
hoyp
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 501
|
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%? 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.
Ok, a reviewer should never base an entire review on how much fun he had in the game, he should base most of it on the features and the actual gameplay instead of "Oh I don't like games that require reflexes in combat so i'll rate all games that require reflexes 65% or lower".
Having your own opinion is totaly different from writing a review, especially if many people will base their opinions on yours.
For example:
In a forum, I would probably rate probably give Morrowind a score of about 67-73 but, if I were to write a FORMAL review that many people will see and read, I would give it would be in the high 70's to low 80's simply because I know that it suits other people's tastes. |
|
Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:23 pm |
|
|
Daedalus
High Emperor
Joined: 04 Jan 2002
Posts: 2516
Location: Estonia |
And by the way someone sayd here that if u attack the creatures and there are maybe 1-2-3 of them then it will only attack that one who u target . NOP NOP NOP not correct at all if u shoot with a box an arrow it can hit another creature 101% if u shoot a bolt with a crossbow it can hit another target if u cast an spell a not so powerfull spell it can hit another creature if u hit a powerfull spell it will hit everyone in that spells range but with Swords or Axes or something like those well like u allready know Physics if u hit a creature with speed it will hit the targeted creature and after it passed that creature allready the speed of ur swing allready too weak to damage that another creature also lets take an example Orcs lets say 2 Orcs if they both near u and u swing ur sword at one orc then u will do major damages only to him the weak hit will cast maybe only a scratch to the other orc what dosent take any Health away from him . |
|
Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:45 pm |
|
|
DJ Yahari
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Dec 2002
Posts: 99
Location: In your basement |
quote:
Originally posted by Iron Man
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  )
But this is your opinion. The PcGamer reviewer may have thought otherwise.
And Morrowind have tons of non-FedEx quests.
quote:
And by the way someone sayd here that if u attack the creatures and there are maybe 1-2-3 of them then it will only attack that one who u target . NOP NOP NOP not correct at all if u shoot with a box an arrow it can hit another creature 101% if u shoot a bolt with a crossbow it can hit another target if u cast an spell a not so powerfull spell it can hit another creature if u hit a powerfull spell it will hit everyone in that spells range but with Swords or Axes or something like those well like u allready know Physics if u hit a creature with speed it will hit the targeted creature and after it passed that creature allready the speed of ur swing allready too weak to damage that another creature also lets take an example Orcs lets say 2 Orcs if they both near u and u swing ur sword at one orc then u will do major damages only to him the weak hit will cast maybe only a scratch to the other orc what dosent take any Health away from him .
Yes, it's true that you can damage someone you are not targeting with magic and ranged weapons, but not melee. |
|
Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:17 pm |
|
|
DJ Yahari
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Dec 2002
Posts: 99
Location: In your basement |
quote:
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 reviewerīs personal opinion about the graphics than the description of its elements? I want to know if the graphics is up to todayīs standards, if itīs 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 canīt see where heīs coming from.
Yes! When I read a review I do so because I want to hear the opinion of a person. A review is the opinion of one person. A reviewer can't represent other peoples opinions, therefore he writes about his own experience with the game, and rates it 62% if he didn't enjoy every aspect.
quote:
Feel free to read this up in my review.
Itīs 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.
So? This doesn't neccesarily make the game good for everyone.
quote:
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. Itīs big enough.
Don't you enjoy non-linearity? I know I do. While Gothic 2 wasn't totally linear you could have wished for some more freedom in the last parts of the game, where Xardas basically just told you what to do. Why is this irrelevant if it makes the game boring for some people?
quote:
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 Iīm not aware of a single game which looks clearly better. Iīm not even aware of an RPG with slightly better graphics. (note: I didnīt play games released in the last 3 months.) Even Morrowind doesnīt necessarily have better graphics according to the 3 big German print mags (1+, 1-, 1=).
So? 3 german mags thought that Gothic 2 was visually better than Morrowind? Does this make Gothic 2 better? It all comes down to opinion....
quote:
Also it doesnīt make it worse. What is better, Coke or Pepsi? He should descibed it ...
Again, it's a matter of opinion. If someone doesn't like the combat system, then he probably will give Gothic 2 a lower score. There's nothing wrong or ''not worth discussing'' about that.
quote:
Howīs that? Itīs an advancement of the genre. Of course this makes it better.
An advancement of the genre doesn't make it less frustrating.
quote:
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 itīs a huge step in the right direction.
Yes, but sometimes I woulda wished for the NPC's to do more than that. It's just not fun to see the world repeat itself again and again.
quote:
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.
Why? Would you? If a game bored you to death, would you play on? Not likely
quote:
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 gameīs commercial success. IMO itīs 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.
When I read a review I think of it as one persons opinion, and nothing more than that. It's like asking a friend if he likes the game. While you should remain objective about some things, your own opinion should have a larger impact on the review.
I still think that saying that the review is ''out of this world and not worth discussing'' shows that you're angry because Gothic 2 didn't get a higher score. Please keep in mind that your opinion isn't worth more than his. Some people think that Gothic 2 is a piece of crap, while others think it's a masterpiece. It all comes down to personal opinion, and no matter how much you'd like it, everyone isn't going to agree with you. Gothic 2 got a low score... No, wait, it got an above average score in a PC mag. Though shit. Deal with it and move on.
Last edited by DJ Yahari on Fri Aug 15, 2003 8:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Fri Aug 15, 2003 8:37 pm |
|
|
Chekote
Wheres my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
Damn, you dont give up do you.
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Fri Aug 15, 2003 8:44 pm |
|
|
DJ Yahari
Village Leader
Joined: 15 Dec 2002
Posts: 99
Location: In your basement |
No |
|
Fri Aug 15, 2003 8:49 pm |
|
|
Iron Man
Dazed and Confused
Joined: 07 Dec 2002
Posts: 773
Location: Location Location |
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
Yes, but sometimes I woulda wished for the NPC's to do more than that. It's just not fun to see the world repeat itself again and again.
Its a daily routine. In real life you would get up, wash, go to work, bring home your hard earned pay ( ), watch tv/ go on the internet/ go to the pub/etc and go to bed. That is the average day. That is what's happening in the game.
EDIT- And Gorath, if you REALY want to know, they gave Sgadows of Underntide 80% 
_________________
This box secretly turns into a picture and laughs at YOU personally when you're not looking. |
|
Fri Aug 15, 2003 8:54 pm |
|
|
hoyp
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 501
|
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
quote:
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 reviewerīs personal opinion about the graphics than the description of its elements? I want to know if the graphics is up to todayīs standards, if itīs 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 canīt see where heīs coming from.
Yes! When I read a review I do so because I want to hear the opinion of a person. A review is the opinion of one person. A reviewer can't represent other peoples opinions, therefore he writes about his own experience with the game, and rates it 62% if he didn't enjoy every aspect.
A review should never be just an opinion of one person.
A review is an artilcle that tells the reader the features of a game and tells the reader which type of person the game will appeal to.
So if you rate a game 62%, you're basically telling everyone who reads the review that only the most hardcore fans of the series will enjoy the game and that fans of the genre and all other gamers should stay away, so 62% is totally irrelevant. |
|
Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:06 am |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Yahari
Yes! When I read a review I do so because I want to hear the opinion of a person. A review is the opinion of one person. A reviewer can't represent other peoples opinions, therefore he writes about his own experience with the game, and rates it 62% if he didn't enjoy every aspect.
You are clearly wrong here when talking about professional reviewers. As every other employee a reviewer has to comply to company policy. Most simple example is that he has to adopt a certain writing style to address the desired target audience (lets say teenagers or gamers above 25). His own opinion is only of secondary relevance, he is representing a company. I already explained this in my last post.
The message is not 'reviewer A didnīt like the game' but 'mag or site XXX says the game is only interesting for hardcore fans of the franchise'. The reviewers name is replacable, it will be forgotten soon.
quote:
So? This doesn't neccesarily make the game good for everyone.
Itīs a unique feature.
quote:
Don't you enjoy non-linearity? I know I do. While Gothic 2 wasn't totally linear you could have wished for some more freedom in the last parts of the game, where Xardas basically just told you what to do. Why is this irrelevant if it makes the game boring for some people?
Because itīs personal taste, nothing else. Whatīs more fun to watch, football or American football? I would say youīll receive a different answer depending on the continent.
De gustibus non est disputandum! Period.
btw., I prefer story driven games. Nonlinearity for nonlinearityīs sake isnīt my kind of thing. Of course G2 could have used a bit more of it sometimes.
quote:
So? 3 german mags thought that Gothic 2 was visually better than Morrowind? Does this make Gothic 2 better? It all comes down to opinion....
Donīt jump around! You wanted to explain how the graphics look outdated and I gave you some possible categories to classify it. I also suggest you read this part of my last post again. Slowly. You obviously didnīt understand it.
quote:
Again, it's a matter of opinion. If someone doesn't like the combat system, then he probably will give Gothic 2 a lower score. There's nothing wrong or ''not worth discussing'' about that.
Your position gets weaker and weaker. Without detailed description and argumentation why he does not like a certain feature he could write whatever he wants. He could write nonsense like 'Unreal 2 looks worse than Daikatana 3(?) years ago!' and it would be alright because itīs his opinion.
A single opinion without the facts itīs based upon is as worthless as news without a source. The details are necessary for the reader to decide whether or not he wants to make the reviewerīs opinion his own.
Again, we are talking about responsibility. Low review scores --> lower sales --> less money for dev/publ. --> possible unemployment!
A reviewer should of course give the game the score he thinks it deserves, but he should make sure it receives a fair treatment. See my other post.
quote:
An advancement of the genre doesn't make it less frustrating.
Advancement of the genre is fact. Frustration is relative.
quote:
Yes, but sometimes I woulda wished for the NPC's to do more than that. It's just not fun to see the world repeat itself again and again.
Of course I would like to see this feature vastly enhanced. Nevertheless you have to accept whatīs there. Arenīt the G & G2 NPCs a lot more 'alive' and 'realistic' than in most -if not all- other RPGs?
quote:
(bugs) Why? Would you? If a game bored you to death, would you play on? Not likely
1. I did impose a penalty on the UK version. Compare the scores.
2. Not only this. A reviewer must finish the game before he starts writing the review! How else can he talk about story development and stuff?
quote:
When I read a review I think of it as one persons opinion, and nothing more than that. It's like asking a friend if he likes the game. While you should remain objective about some things, your own opinion should have a larger impact on the review.
We already had this.Letīs turn the perspective around. You worked for 2 years 60 hours a week on a project. This is realistic for a computer game. Now the review in your countryīs biggest mag spends 1/4th of a page on your game, including a screenshot and the box with the formalities, and tells itīs audience something like '65%, this game is completely superfluous. Replay Jagged Alliance 2 instead.'. (This happened to Paradise Cracked.)
Do you think this is fair? Do you want to be treated like this? Especially if your job depends on the gamesī commercial success?
More than 300k people saw this negative review.
quote:
I still think that saying that the review is ''out of this world and not worth discussing'' shows that you're angry because Gothic 2 didn't get a higher score.
Laughable. As I explained above I think when a reviewer gets his facts sorted there is only a certain corridor of possible ratings for a game. There are facts (--> NO opinion possible) and things which can be assessed.
This corridor is 80% (if all discussable things are interpreted negatively) to 95% (the opposite) for Gothic 2. The 80% review a few days ago was absolutely okay for me. I see how they came to the 80%, so itīs fine.
Letīs talk about movies. If a reviewer publishes a review saying 'F! Schindlerīs List sucks because b&w movies died 40 years ago!' this tells us only two things.
1. The reviewer is an incompetent idiot who should get fired immediately.
2. His editor-in-chief is an even more incompetent idiot. He should be fired before him.
Instead he should have wrote a detailed text admitting the overall quality of the movie and use this forum to explain his problems with it.
quote:
Please keep in mind that your opinion isn't worth more than his.
He can have his own opinion. Either outside the mag or in the review clearly identified and with detailed arguments. Opinion alone is misplaced in a commercial publication with a journalistic attitude. Exception are comments and editorials.
If you want single opinions to make up your mind ask your friends, browse forums and visit sites specifically dedicated to this.
His opinion is worth more than all of our opinions combined! His opinion is worth money! Professional reviewers are perceived as 'experts' and therefore have influence on the readerīs purchase decision. I canīt quantify how big exactly this influence is, but it is there.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:56 am |
|
|
Kiwi Boy
High Emperor
Joined: 03 Jan 2003
Posts: 1086
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorath
You are clearly wrong here when talking about professional reviewers. As every other employee a reviewer has to comply to company policy. Most simple example is that he has to adopt a certain writing style to address the desired target audience (lets say teenagers or gamers above 25). His own opinion is only of secondary relevance, he is representing a company. I already explained this in my last post.
The message is not 'reviewer A didnīt like the game' but 'mag or site XXX says the game is only interesting for hardcore fans of the franchise'. The reviewers name is replacable, it will be forgotten soon.
In his lengthy post, DJ Yahari emphasized that any review is based purely on its author's opinion. And from my understanding, you mentioned that the author is a representative of a magazine, because he is working for a company, a legal entity as an individual. Thus, one can deduce that the review represents the magazine's position. A 62% review demonstrates that not only the reviewer, but also, the magazine company ITSELF, is not in favour of the game.
Why doesn't the company like the game? Graphics? Linearity? Voice-acting? Sure. The reviewer can argue anything about the quality of the game. But, don't forget that the reviewer's freedom is limited because, as I deduced from your words, he is entitled to express the magazine's position, NOT only his opinion. The reviewer must shape all his arguments and evidence such that the magazine's bottom line is satisfied. Are you furious because of the magazine's opinion, i.e. low score? Or because of the reviewer's incapability to justify the magazine's position adequately? IMHO, low grades such as 62% create a challenge; the reviewer must provide extraordinarily strong evidence to maintain his credibility. Are his evidence and facts relevant and effective enough? Why (not)?
Don't forget, though, that the magazine's position can be varied not only by the game's quality, but also, the financial benefits of the game review. Perhaps the magazine bashes G2 so that its readers will buy G2 competiters, owned by companies that greatly support the magazine, instead of G2. As you said, "professional reviewers ... have influence on the readerīs purchase decision" and they manipulate this influence so that certain desired groups are benefited. The magazine company does this so that a constant flow of profit from its supporter companies can be maintained. IMHO, what G2 lacks severely, is not the graphics, number of quests, sound quality, or whatever..., but, the involvement required to hype the game. The lack of shoe-shining may give reviewers and magazines a first (probably false) impression that it's a nobody's game, thus deserves a nobody's mark. And unless the product is really revolutionary, it is extremely difficult to change one's stereotype of the game. The negative consequence of this lack of hype/shoe-shining is so influential that it can ultimately destine the failure of a high-quality game.
Based on your tone, you seem to ask the same question repeatedly: Is it fair and responsible? Obviously not; but, hey, is the world fair? And does people normally value his opportunity to earn profit, over morality and responsibility, as long as he's following his superior's rules? Professional? I don't know, but professionalism usually refers to business, and isn't shoe-shining normal for any business if you long for advancement?
What really surprised me is that G2 does not have any demo, 2 months after its release. Whether the review is written by a professional or an amateur writer, no review can beat the potential buyer's experience. Therefore, the ultimate solution for these unreasonable reviews is: blackmail the developer or publisher to release the demo immediately and, promote the demo to potential buyers. |
|
Sat Aug 16, 2003 6:22 am |
|
|
Daedalus
High Emperor
Joined: 04 Jan 2002
Posts: 2516
Location: Estonia |
quote:
And by the way someone sayd here that if u attack the creatures and there are maybe 1-2-3 of them then it will only attack that one who u target . NOP NOP NOP not correct at all if u shoot with a box an arrow it can hit another creature 101% if u shoot a bolt with a crossbow it can hit another target if u cast an spell a not so powerfull spell it can hit another creature if u hit a powerfull spell it will hit everyone in that spells range but with Swords or Axes or something like those well like u allready know Physics if u hit a creature with speed it will hit the targeted creature and after it passed that creature allready the speed of ur swing allready too weak to damage that another creature also lets take an example Orcs lets say 2 Orcs if they both near u and u swing ur sword at one orc then u will do major damages only to him the weak hit will cast maybe only a scratch to the other orc what dosent take any Health away from him .
Yes, it's true that you can damage someone you are not targeting with magic and ranged weapons, but not melee.[/quote]
Read it over again i explained why it dosent affect in melee combat plz |
|
Sat Aug 16, 2003 1:04 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:34 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
