The truth behind the words in constantine's "The 'Truth' behind words in RPG Codex's #1 Review for PoE "

[Sensuki]

Stage 2 of loss and grief: Anger - manifested by posting on forums about one's disappointment instead of punching things

 

Next up is Bargaining, where I'll be "FFS IF ONLY I SPOKE OUT IN THE WHAT MOULDS SHOULD BE BROKEN THREAD"

Then I'll go into depression where I don't even feel like playing games, because everything sucks (Actually that's where I feel like right now, maybe I'm in stage 4)

and then will come Acceptance. Someday, I might get there.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Sensuki

[Gorbag]

Self references and lulz. Goody!

[Katarack21]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-enjoys-thing-informed-he-is-wrong,7057/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus

[Jean-Luc]

I'm triggered disappointed that Sen would engage in this kind of petty drama regardless of opinions about the game. The other thread is bs as well. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by Jean-Luc

[Sensuki]

I am disappointed in myself too 

 

[View619]

I'll be surprised if the devs ever look at the General Discussion threads again, this is truly sad. Also, funny that the thread this was made in response to will probably be ignored, resulting in that creator being forced to post as a part of an on-going discussion anyway.

 

I hope somebody learned an important lesson from this.

 

@Sensuki

 

Out of curiosity, what are you thoughts on Serpent in the Staglands so far? 

Edited April 27, 2015 by View619

[Amentep]

 

The aforementioned Pillars of Eternity review by Darth Roxor is essentially "I hated it, here's why" - that's a review, whether you like it or not.

No, god damn no. That's the opposite of a review. That's a simple rationalization of the persons own gut reaction and biases. A review is the opposite, namely a careful and honest analysis of the individual elements of the game, which then grounds a fair conclusion based on this, despite of what oppinion the person had prior to writing it. If done well, the conclusion is often supprising to the reviewer him/her-self.

 

 

Ultimately all a review is a report of an evaluation or inspection of something.  The criteria of the evaluation is just as valid if it is "did I like it" or "is this a good representation of its type" or even "how does this compare to genre leader".

 

And frankly (and IMO) it'd be impossible for a reviewer to be surprised by their own conclusions, only surprised by the thing they reviewed.  What you're arguing for would be the fiction writing equivalent of Agatha Christie getting to the end a novel and thinking "The sister is the killer?  That Poirot - what a surprising little man, I totally thought the butler did it..."

Edited April 27, 2015 by Amentep

[Katarack21]

 

 

The aforementioned Pillars of Eternity review by Darth Roxor is essentially "I hated it, here's why" - that's a review, whether you like it or not.

No, god damn no. That's the opposite of a review. That's a simple rationalization of the persons own gut reaction and biases. A review is the opposite, namely a careful and honest analysis of the individual elements of the game, which then grounds a fair conclusion based on this, despite of what oppinion the person had prior to writing it. If done well, the conclusion is often supprising to the reviewer him/her-self.

 

 

Ultimately all a review is a report of an evaluation or inspection of something.  The criteria of the evaluation is just as valid if it is "did I like it" or "is this a good representation of its type" or even "how does this compare to genre leader".

 

And frankly (and IMO) it'd be impossible for a reviewer to be surprised by their own conclusions, only surprised by the thing they reviewed.  What you're arguing for would be the fictional equivalent of Agatha Christie getting to the end a novel and thinking "The sister is the killer?  That Poirot - what a surprising little man, I totally thought the butler did it..."

 

Um...that happens among authors on occasion.

[Sensuki]

Are reviews fiction?

[Katarack21]

Are reviews fiction?

Clearly some are.

[Amentep]

Um...that happens among authors on occasion.

 

 

People change the end of stories because they realize that the story works better with change.  This really isn't the same thing but I knew a fictional example was dicey...

 

My point is that a review will ultimately be your judgement.  If you get to the end of an article that is based solely on your judgement and are surprised at the results, there's something uncannily self-unaware in yourself to not realize what your own judgement is.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Amentep

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Clearly some are.

 

Only the ones we don't agree with.

[Gorbag]

 

Are reviews fiction?

Clearly some are.

 

[Sensuki]

@Sensuki

 

Out of curiosity, what are you thoughts on Serpent in the Staglands so far?

Awesome pixel art. Atmosphere 10/10. Exploration is rewarding. Haven't played enough of the combat to comment on it. Amazing work from a team of two people over the time period they've had.

[lordkim]

 

What I don't get though, is that why the people who don't like POE hang around in the forums? That's a bit odd. If I don't like a game I move on - it's been a long time since I posted on Biowares forums for example.

I don't play GTA V or Bloodborne so there's not really any other new games to talk about at the moment. The next upcoming RPG is Serpent in the Staglands, in about a month's time. Which reminds me, I should probably go report some bugs for them.

 

Do that, because you aint gonna get a job at Obsidian..............Guess thats why your so pissed at this moment.......

 

But you have what i takes though...

Edited April 27, 2015 by lordkim

[gkathellar]

Dear Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion,

 

YHBT.

[View619]

Dear Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion,

 

YHBT.

 

More like Spirit Trolled, am I right?

[gkathellar]

 

Dear Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion,

 

YHBT.

 

More like Spirit Trolled, am I right?

 

 

flame trolls all day bro

[Maviarab]

Give it up Sensuki...you're far less than you like to think you are.  Just move on dude, becoming sad.

[Amentep]

Question for reals -

 

Why has Sensuki not liking a game suddenly become open season to ascribe a motive to him for not liking the game (beyond that...he doesn't like the game) and then argue against that motive?

 

I mean really, why the hell does anyone care (beyond normal posting on a message board kind of care) that Sensuki doesn't like the game?  Or that Darth Roxxor doesn't like the game?  And why constantly try to diminish their dislike of the game by ascribing these motives to them.  Does it allow you to disregard their opinions by declaring them "sour grapes" (whether they are or not)?  Does it make you're liking the game somehow more "legitimate" if you can dispel the notion that someone might honestly dislike the game?

[Prime-Mover]

 

 

The aforementioned Pillars of Eternity review by Darth Roxor is essentially "I hated it, here's why" - that's a review, whether you like it or not.

No, god damn no. That's the opposite of a review. That's a simple rationalization of the persons own gut reaction and biases. A review is the opposite, namely a careful and honest analysis of the individual elements of the game, which then grounds a fair conclusion based on this, despite of what oppinion the person had prior to writing it. If done well, the conclusion is often surprising to the reviewer him/her-self.

 

 

Ultimately all a review is a report of an evaluation or inspection of something.  The criteria of the evaluation is just as valid if it is "did I like it" or "is this a good representation of its type" or even "how does this compare to genre leader".

 

And frankly (and IMO) it'd be impossible for a reviewer to be surprised by their own conclusions, only surprised by the thing they reviewed.  What you're arguing for would be the fiction writing equivalent of Agatha Christie getting to the end a novel and thinking "The sister is the killer?  That Poirot - what a surprising little man, I totally thought the butler did it..."

 

I think you're overinterpreting what I meant by being surprised by the conclusion. No, it's not just like a "WTF, I thought it was a 4 but it turned out to be a 10". It's more like "the story didn't really get to me, perhaps because I hate science fiction. However, looking closer at all the story elements, the writing style, the plot, the vivid descriptions, I acknowledge - despite my impressions - that it was a good story, even though it didn't get to me personally". Or "My first impressions indicated that the art-style was awesome, perhaps because it reminds me of WOW. However, looking closer, it lacked cohesion, the color palette was inconsistent and it was difficult to distinguish between scene elements". In that sense, the [honest] reviewer can be surprised by the conclusion because it goes against his overall impression of the thing. Clearly when he/she's writing the review, her oppinion is to some extent going to be enlightened by the review process itself, so it's not like the conclusion is going to be that big a surprise. But putting something under rigorous scrutiny certainly can lead to surprises which diverge from the original impression, as any scientist or philosopher will tell you.

 

Oh, and if you want to include uninlightened oppinion as a legitimate kind of review (I certainly wouldn't), we can still make the distinction between a good and a bad reivew, that one being the latter. Because, who gives a crap how someone feels about a thing, if this isn't motivated by reason.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Prime-Mover

[Ink Blot]

I'm thinking this:

Does it allow you to disregard their opinions by declaring them "sour grapes" (whether they are or not)?

is the bulk of it. Just look at how many people dismiss Darth Roxxor's review out of hand just because of the tone of it. Many even stated they didn't bother reading all of it. I can only surmise it's because they don't like the criticism of the game, despite the fact that many of those criticisms are valid.

[Amentep]

I think you're overinterpreting what I meant by being surprised by the conclusion. No, it's not just like a "WTF, I thought it was a 4 but it turned out to be a 10". It's more like "the story didn't really get to me, perhaps because I hate science fiction. However, looking closer at all the story elements, the writing style, the plot, the vivid descriptions, I acknowledge - despite my impressions - that it was a good story, even though it didn't get to me personally". Or "My first impressions indicated that the art-style was awesome, perhaps because it reminds me of WOW. However, looking closer, it lacked cohesion, the color palette was inconsistent and it was difficult to distinguish between scene elements". In that sense, the [honest] reviewer can be surprised by the conclusion because it goes against his overall impression of the thing. Clearly when he/she's writing the review, her oppinion is to some extent going to be enlightened by the review process itself, so it's not like the conclusion is going to be that big a surprise. But putting something under rigorous scrutiny certainly can lead to surprises which diverge from the original impression, as any scientist or philosopher will tell you.

 

If you hate science fiction, it'll be readily apparent in your reviews.  The need to clarify that (beyond, perhaps, the most introductory) would ultimately be unnecessary.  Roger Moore (not the actor) is a film critic who I disagree with almost completely on film.  But he's rather consistent and its relatively easy for me to see from his reviews whether I'd like something or not.  In that instance, his job in personally reviewing a movie works as I can still use his opinion to make informed choices on what I might like to see.

 

While recognizing bias is good, I'm not sure its necessary.  And to me, not recognizing bias doesn't render a review "dishonest", it merely makes the review subjective...which it already is.  Dishonesty in a review would only come if you're not being honest about your opinions and interpretations.

 

Oh, and if you want to include uninlightened oppinion as a legitimate kind of review (I certainly wouldn't), we can still make the distinction between a good and a bad reivew, that one being the latter. Because, who gives a crap how someone feels about a thing, if this isn't motivated by reason.

 

What would be an "uninlightened opinion"? How many years of game design and theory should I have before I can make an enlightened opinion?

 

Probably the only review that I think would be "bad" would be one in which the person didn't try to fairly engage in it at some point.

[Prime-Mover]

 

I think you're overinterpreting what I meant by being surprised by the conclusion. No, it's not just like a "WTF, I thought it was a 4 but it turned out to be a 10". It's more like "the story didn't really get to me, perhaps because I hate science fiction. However, looking closer at all the story elements, the writing style, the plot, the vivid descriptions, I acknowledge - despite my impressions - that it was a good story, even though it didn't get to me personally". Or "My first impressions indicated that the art-style was awesome, perhaps because it reminds me of WOW. However, looking closer, it lacked cohesion, the color palette was inconsistent and it was difficult to distinguish between scene elements". In that sense, the [honest] reviewer can be surprised by the conclusion because it goes against his overall impression of the thing. Clearly when he/she's writing the review, her oppinion is to some extent going to be enlightened by the review process itself, so it's not like the conclusion is going to be that big a surprise. But putting something under rigorous scrutiny certainly can lead to surprises which diverge from the original impression, as any scientist or philosopher will tell you.

 

If you hate science fiction, it'll be readily apparent in your reviews.  The need to clarify that (beyond, perhaps, the most introductory) would ultimately be unnecessary.  Roger Moore (not the actor) is a film critic who I disagree with almost completely on film.  But he's rather consistent and its relatively easy for me to see from his reviews whether I'd like something or not.  In that instance, his job in personally reviewing a movie works as I can still use his opinion to make informed choices on what I might like to see.

 

While recognizing bias is good, I'm not sure its necessary.  And to me, not recognizing bias doesn't render a review "dishonest", it merely makes the review subjective...which it already is.  Dishonesty in a review would only come if you're not being honest about your opinions and interpretations.

 

Oh, and if you want to include uninlightened oppinion as a legitimate kind of review (I certainly wouldn't), we can still make the distinction between a good and a bad reivew, that one being the latter. Because, who gives a crap how someone feels about a thing, if this isn't motivated by reason.

 

What would be an "uninlightened opinion"? How many years of game design and theory should I have before I can make an enlightened opinion?

 

Probably the only review that I think would be "bad" would be one in which the person didn't try to fairly engage in it at some point.

 

 

1) Do did you after my elaboration of what I meant by being surprised by one's own conclusion, understand and agree that this can happen?

 

2) There's subjective, and then there's subjective. Clearly the person is reviewing from his/her own experience. But, he/she is appealing to a common standard somewhere, if not an objective criterion, then a generally accepted criterion. If I as a reviewer don't like female characters because I had a dominant mother growing up, I will either actively try to disregard this bias, or highlight to the reader the fact that this probably is going to affect my review. If you think it's more linguistically appropriate to call this something else than honesty, be my guest. However, it is a benchmark of a good review that the reviewer tries to be objective (appeal to a common standard and be free of bias).

 

3) I can see how a reliably biased reviewer can be useful, in the same manner as a reliable liar can be (always trust the opposite of what he says). But that's a huge stretch to call this a quality, and in most cases, the bias isn't accross the board reliable. It's going to be there in some cases, and in others not. 

 

4) What would an uninlightened oppinion be? It would be someone who has no clue about his/her owen biases, and who has no clue about the common standard he/she is appealing to. If I were to review BG1 today, without having played any contemporary game, I might call the graphics "awesome", And if if I hated Trent Oster with a passion because of his political views, I might crap all over it calling it the worst game I've ever played. Both cases would be examples of uninlightened oppinion. And the better the review, the more enlightened the reviewer.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Prime-Mover

[Diomedes]

*sigh*

 

Threads like this one are great examples of why I don't participate much in online forums anymore, and yet it has drawn me into its vortex of despair.

 

I have a very hard time with taking seriously the opinions of people who actively enjoy participating in a forum community in which, as an example, it's considered fine to refer to the game Blackguards as "Nigguards"; or to describe people's RPG preferences as "explorationfags" or "combatfags".

 

From what I can tell, RPGCodex is the 4chan of the RPG genre, and caring about their opinions, valid or not, is a waste of time. The best thing that could happen would be to stop engaging them.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Diomedes