Jump to content
Sensuki

RPGCodex Review #1 - Hŵrpa Dwrp

Recommended Posts

I really don't understand why the people who absolutely hate this game insist on continuing to come back and hate on it. The foundation is set the way that it is, thankfully. There's really not a point in complaining. 

 

I really don't understand people complaining about other people who don't like the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit more insight into my point of view:

 

I think that the root of most of the problems with the gameplay lie in the system design - pretty much every gameplay problem can be related to the specific design of a system or how specific systems interact with one another (and I mean the design, not the implementation).

 

Encounters wouldn't feel as bland/repetitive if the system design was better or different, it's not the area designers' fault that two different encounters can be beaten with exactly the same strategy where you just follow the same routine every time and aren't required to adjust based on what the enemies do. Most of that is to do with system and creature design.

 

However, encounter design IS very copy-paste and there is a lack of unique/named enemies that are 'special' in some way. Seems like everyone either forgot the good things about the IE encounters or they weren't allowed to do it? Dunno.

 

The amount of fetch quests probably lies in being restricted by their regimented production process - they labelled quests with certain complexities and then I believe producers / leads could downgrade / upgrade quests based on the needs of production - so what you have is a lot of not really that complex quests all designed in a fairly regimented manner. Not really much quest intermingling. Not really many steps. Pretty cookie cutter formatting, always with choice and maybe a bit of reactivity to the player but not necessarily consequence or reactions to the quest result from the game world.

 

Then again, maybe they didn't like / don't remember The Cult of the Unseeing Eye or Mae'Var's Guildhall and have never played The Witcher games all the way through (which have some really good investigative quest design).

 

Raedric's Hold is one area that was just added in for the hell of it, and seems to have been designed much more naturally than any of the other areas in the game. Wasn't even a planned area AFAIK. Give people a bit more freedom yo, and look at the difference.

 

I would arguably say that this is an 'overproduced' game.

 

Then there's the narrative, which I think is a mess. The collaborative design process for the story doesn't seem to have done them any favors as opposed to the single person approach, and it seems to suffer from perhaps too many cooks, and perhaps trying to incorporate too many themes, too many layers and too many ideas. Other than the structural issues, not fully realized topics/themes and poorly handled bits (all of Act 2), I just found the antagonist, the Dyrwood (nothing about it is really likeable as a nation in the game, lore is fine though) and most of the support cast completely unintersting, and I couldn't give a rats arse about all the stuff thrown at me in Act 3. Couldn't have gone in a more uninteresting direction unfortunately.

 

I'm pretty sure that for some reason I want to turn off some soul machines to stop the Hollowborn problem (the most interesting part of the story, which unfortunately was a B-plotline at best), and I really don't care that maybe I can't be assured of anything ... and I'm pretty sure that that quote has nothing to do with the game lol.

 

Lots of people on the team did a good job - Art team in particular (other than some technical issues), but system design and narrative - the game rides on the shoulders of these things, and this is where it falls down IMO.

Still, this is your opinion, critique, review. It is subjective, speaks true for you and a bunch of like-minded people.

 

As I know I am being subjective when I say I don't like ES titles, DA:I or D:OS (for reasons I guess none here care to know, but of course I can elaborate if asked to).

 

How a game is designed may not be our kind of poison. The 'review' you shared with us in the OP has no right to be called such, as is a collection of angry, often misplaced runts. A reviewer needs be objective above all, or not review at all.

 

Not that is a surprise to me though, as in my many years of rpg gaming i've never held the rpg codex any respect or credibility to their opinions.

  • Like 3

Matilda is a Natlan woman born and raised in Old Vailia. She managed to earn status as a mercenary for being a professional who gets the job done, more so when the job involves putting her excellent fighting abilities to good use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I really don't understand why the people who absolutely hate this game insist on continuing to come back and hate on it. The foundation is set the way that it is, thankfully. There's really not a point in complaining. 

 

I really don't understand people complaining about other people who don't like the game.

 

I really don't understand people complaining about other people who complain about people who don't like this game...


troll.gifseatroll.gificetroll.giftroll.gif

An ex-biophysicist but currently Studying Schwarzschild singularities' black holes' Hawking radiation using LAZORS and hypersonic sound wave models.

 

My main objective is to use my results to take over the world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

From the review: "As for pulp philosophical themes, the only thing I can say here is that PoE’s lack of Chris Avellone’s major contribution (credited only as “additional writing”) shows, and it shows a lot. Avellone is a talented writer, and while obviously he’s not a second Hegel, he does have the penchant for creating compelling setups and questions. Meanwhile, each time PoE tries to go into ‘Tormenty’ territory, it falls flat on its face. Plato for Dummies is one example, but another good one is a question that is asked in the last 15 minutes of the game, which is probably supposed to be this game’s ‘what can change the nature of a man?’. It’s, ‘what if we can be assured of nothing?’ + 7 responses. Now, the writer must have thought that this was a doubleplusdeep philosophical dilemma, but was obviously unaware that this **** has already been answered 400 years ago by Rene Goddamn Descartes, making the question null and void. And you aren’t even given Descartes’ answer, either."

 

That happens when hubris meets lack of understanding. Descartes does not answer the question raised in PoE, because the question is related to the "no gods" plot, and not directly to the theory of cognition. So who is unaware here?

 

And even if he would be right - Descartes' answers are flawed as hell, as he should know.

 

I assume the reviewer is quite young - and a wannabe intellectual.

 

Also, there is no philosophical issue in any game, book music or peice of art, that hasn't been examined thoroughly in academic philosophy. And expecting a game to deliver something which challenges such issues in a relevant way is beyond ridiculous.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I really don't understand why the people who absolutely hate this game insist on continuing to come back and hate on it. The foundation is set the way that it is, thankfully. There's really not a point in complaining. 

 

I really don't understand people complaining about other people who don't like the game.

 

I really don't understand people complaining about other people who complain about people who don't like this game...

 

 

Really, I don't understand why people are complaining about people who were making an observation about other people about other people who don't like the game.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just doesn't make any bit of sense to me. Noone can give me a clear answer. The only thing I can come up with is the person(s) has a deep character flaw or they just enjoy being annoying. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "review" reminds me of my mate. Basically like I forgot to wipe the toothpaste off the inside of the sink and since my woman's an ocd clean freak, she will explode and tell me that because a smidgen of toothpaste is inside the sink that the whole damn bathroom is an absolutely ****in mess. She has a point that toothpaste is inside the sink but that point is lost because of the overreacting and vile and blowing it up outta portion. That's my impression I get when I read this "review", points to made but lost because of the overreacting, blown outta portion, and unnecessary vile that's spewed my way that my gut instinct is exactly what I tell my mate.

**** the **** up and calm the **** down and talk like an adult.

If it was for the vile, the name calling, the over exaggerations, then this "review" may have been taken serious. But it's really hard to take something serious when someone's having a meltdown because they are blowing things outta proportion. Don't like the game? That's fine, it's not for everybody. Meant to be taken serious, then do a "review" without the blowing up tantrum because it really feels like the person just seeking attention.

 

That said, I ****ing love, LOVE pillars of eternity and I hope they make many more games of it. No it's not perfect, but I want them to continue on and improve because their beginning is pretty damn good imho and I'm having so much fun to play it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, this is your opinion, critique, review. It is subjective, speaks true for you and a bunch of like-minded people.

 

As I know I am being subjective when I say I don't like ES titles, DA:I or D:OS (for reasons I guess none here care to know, but of course I can elaborate if asked to).

 

How a game is designed may not be our kind of poison. The 'review' you shared with us in the OP has no right to be called such, as is a collection of angry, often misplaced runts. A reviewer needs be objective above all, or not review at all.

 

Not that is a surprise to me though, as in my many years of rpg gaming i've never held the rpg codex any respect or credibility to their opinions.

You say "this is your opinion". God damn right it is.

 

Do you think I give a damn if you require a review to be objective? The RPG Codex does not, and thus - reviews are not boring.

 

I honestly couldn't give a rats about the 'quality' of the review. I agree with the reviewers opinions, even if he got to them a completely different way than I did (which is quite telling, actually!)

Edited by Sensuki
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I really don't understand why the people who absolutely hate this game insist on continuing to come back and hate on it. The foundation is set the way that it is, thankfully. There's really not a point in complaining. 

 

I really don't understand people complaining about other people who don't like the game.

 

I really don't understand people complaining about other people who complain about people who don't like this game...

 

 

 

 I can understand why people who come here to complain about people who complain about people who complain about the game complain about people who complain about people who complain about people who complain about the game - that makes perfect sense.

 

What I don't understand is why people who come here to complain about people who complain about people who complain about people who complain about the game don't complain about people who come here to complain about people who complain about people who complain about people who complain about the game who don't complain about people who complain about people who come here to complain about the game.

 

 Can someone explain that to me please???

Edited by Yonjuro
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sensuki do you give a chance to the fact  they could\will improve the game after expansions or patches with  tweaks\encounters balance and other stuff?

 

Or are you guessing they will give us the same formula even with poe2?

Edited by Mazisky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Codex is always right.

The Codex is mother. The Codex is father. Trust the Codex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sensuki do you give a chance to the fact  they could\will improve the game after expansions or patches with  tweaks\encounters balance and other stuff?

 

Or are you guessing they will give us the same formula even with poe2?

My two main issues are the system design for combat and the narrative issues. Both are IMO, unfixable. Lots of people think the combat is fine as is, so they'll probably just tweak and adjust for their preferences.

 

I don't know what they'll do for PE2. We'll cross that bridge when it comes, but I likely wouldn't back the Kickstarter. If I did, it would be for the bare minimum.

Edited by Sensuki
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you think I give a damn if you require a review to be objective? The RPG Codex does not, and thus - reviews are not boring.

 

You misspelled accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand why the people who absolutely hate this game insist on continuing to come back and hate on it.

New to the internet, are we? Ok, you'll soon learn that the alternatives (Echo chambers) are very, very rare in cyberspace. They practically don't exist. If I had to pinpoint the cause of this "multiple viewpoints" phenomenon, I'd say that the vocal expression of one opinion typically invites its polar opposite to surface. I'd even go so far as to say that there's an element of provocation going on here. A clearly observable cause and effect.

 

 

Not that misunderstanding this specific phenomenon constitutes an ignorance of human nature or the internet, or whatever. It doesn't. At all. I mean really. Here's this entire thread in a nutshell:

 

"this is a terrible game!"

"You're a retard! this is a great game!

"It sucks!"

"Bullsh*t! it's awesome!"

"No!"

"Yes!"

 

...For about 36 pages. So yes. "WHY?" is indeed a good question to ask.... to both sides.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still, this is your opinion, critique, review. It is subjective, speaks true for you and a bunch of like-minded people.

 

As I know I am being subjective when I say I don't like ES titles, DA:I or D:OS (for reasons I guess none here care to know, but of course I can elaborate if asked to).

 

How a game is designed may not be our kind of poison. The 'review' you shared with us in the OP has no right to be called such, as is a collection of angry, often misplaced runts. A reviewer needs be objective above all, or not review at all.

 

Not that is a surprise to me though, as in my many years of rpg gaming i've never held the rpg codex any respect or credibility to their opinions.

You say "this is your opinion". God damn right it is.

 

Do you think I give a damn if you require a review to be objective? The RPG Codex does not, and thus - reviews are not boring.

 

I honestly couldn't give a rats about the 'quality' of the review. I agree with the reviewers opinions, even if he got to them a completely different way than I did (which is quite telling, actually!)

 

 

While I reject the notion that a review should be 100% objective (since it's really just an hopefully elaborate opinion piece), I do think the Codex's is a bad review because the writer obviously has preconceptions about the game. It oozes from every single sentence, really. He's not trying to inform people about his opinion on the game, which is what a good review does IMO, but attempts to grab the reader by the throat and shove how terrible the game is in their face. 

 

Add to that some very weird, if not borderline falacious opinions (Spiritshifting is good? really? Obsidian's worst game when DS3 exists?), some quite unfunny and/or immature humor, self-reference up the whazoo and a generally antagonistic tone for little reason, and there's very little value in the review, I find. It's tedious to read, barely goes into any depth save for a handful of pragraphs, and amplifies the writer's bias to make it all-encompassing so that you can't help but picture him frothing at the mouth like a crazy manchild when he writes it.

 

As a comparison, I'd showcase this review of Fallout 3, by No Mutants Allowed, a famously militant fansite for Fallout. And while it's obvious the author isn't a big fan of the game at all, he also recognizes what strenghts it had and the overall tone is a calm yet opinionated one. That's far more valuable, and make for much better feedback if you ask me. 

 

And, if I want to be entertained by a review, I'll go watch Angry Joe. With all the posturing on the Codex, you'd think they would be above that, but apparently not.

Edited by Jasta11
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think the Codex's is a bad review because the writer obviously has preconceptions about the game.

 

You know, I'll bet quite a lot of reviewers have preconceptions about what they're reviewing. Particularly if they've been already paid to do a glowing review emo-emot-smug.gif. Personally I find this review refreshing - Roxor might get a bit colorful and take a few liberties here and there but he's made it plainly clear that he didn't think it would be a good game to begin with and it turns out he didn't like what he played.

 

Now it seems to you and others a 'good review' is where the writer tries to take himself out of as much of the writing as possible, leaving his opinions but trying to cover any trace of bias or preconception so that you don't see it, even though it's probably there in spades. Personally though I'm really sick of reading reviews like that. It's boring, and a bit dishonest, if anything.

 

In comparison, this review is a breath of fresh air - nice and raw, the writer explains his 'bias' at the beginning. I had a completely different opinion of the game before it came out, and couldn't have been in a more polar opposite position to Roxor, and yet we wound up with very similar conclusions about different parts of the game, via completely different paths. Personally I found that very interesting. 

 

Now, as for that review you cited. Do you know who Brother None is? He is an inXile employee, was a Line Producer on Wasteland 2 and is now doing some writing and producing for Torment. He's also been a webmaster for the inXile forums and was he an NMA moderator before that? Regardless - he's always been a person with responsibilities and while he may never have been interested to write a seething review of Fallout 3, it certainly would have never served in his best interest to do so either ;)

 

Personally I don't mind those style of reviews either, but I also see merit in Roxor's style of review as well, as raw as it may be.

Edited by Sensuki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I too often find that people discussing their subjective opinions are more honest than people discussing objective facts. Objective facts tend to color the reviews with reality; subjective opinions don't have that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No it does. the Witcher is the worst RPG I've ever played, and it's all due to the writting.

ROFL? I'd like to hear about this

I'll PM you. No need getting this thread even more off track...

Could you put me in the cc please? Not to start an argument, would just like to hear your opinion :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do think the Codex's is a bad review because the writer obviously has preconceptions about the game.

 

You know, I'll bet quite a lot of reviewers have preconceptions about what they're reviewing. Particularly if they've been already paid to do a glowing review emo-emot-smug.gif. Personally I find this review refreshing - Roxor might get a bit colorful and take a few liberties here and there but he's made it plainly clear that he didn't think it would be a good game to begin with and it turns out he didn't like what he played.

 

Now it seems to you and others a 'good review' is where the writer tries to take himself out of as much of the writing as possible, leaving his opinions but trying to cover any trace of bias or preconception so that you don't see it, even though it's probably there in spades. Personally though I'm really sick of reading reviews like that. It's boring, and a bit dishonest, if anything.

 

In comparison, this review is a breath of fresh air - nice and raw, the writer explains his 'bias' at the beginning. I had a completely different opinion of the game before it came out, and couldn't have been in a more polar opposite position to Roxor, and yet we wound up with very similar conclusions about different parts of the game, via completely different paths. Personally I found that very interesting. 

 

Now, as for that review you cited. Do you know who Brother None is? He is an inXile employee, was a Line Producer on Wasteland 2 and is now doing some writing and producing for Torment. He's also been a webmaster for the inXile forums and was he an NMA moderator before that? Regardless - he's always been a person with responsibilities and while he may never have been interested to write a seething review of Fallout 3, it certainly would have never served in his best interest to do so either ;)

 

Personally I don't mind those style of reviews either, but I also see merit in Roxor's style of review as well, as raw as it may be.

 

 

Eh, starting a trial of intention towards the reviewer is not what I want to do, and I could easily do it with Roxor if I wanted to I'd wager. If you think Brother None wanted to appease Bethesda, despite being vocally against the game and Bethesda probably not caring in the slightest what some dude on a website that sees 1/1000th of the traffic of their own boads thinks, be my guest but it kinda looks like you want to discredit him for something other than what he actually writes. Which strikes me as a bit dishonest.

 

I already said I don't want nor expect 100% total, dry objectivity in reviews- even if only because a review with no opinion is impossible if you go into details. But there is a vast difference between this and the nerdrage-y drivel that was the Codex review. If you like it, more power to you, I have no interest in that sort of writing myself. I'd gladly take someone like Brother None, or to take a more popular example Totalbiscuit, who share their opinion, sometimes with passion, but don't back them up with falalcious arguments and gross hyperbole in the name of ''fun''. Lord knows we have more than enough of those sort of reviews on sites like Metacritic (to say nothing of forums), and being overly critical is in my mind just as bad as being an IGN writer who can't give AAA games a bad score for fear of losing his privileged access and marketing money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roxor's review is obviously biased. Obviously. Like he's Stephen Colbert and he's reviewing Bears: the Game.

 

This doesn't mean he's completely lost his mind. A lot of his points resonate. He's unfair at time but fair more often. It spices his review rather than consumes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...