GameBanshee Forums

Basically, what sear is saying. I get to hear this "you should be more objective" criticism every now and again (usually on RPGWatch, for some reason), and what people tend to mean by it is "I don't agree with you!" Because for most people objective = my opinion.

My logic in reviews has been the same for years. I describe what the game is and is not as expansively as I can, and that part of it is largely objective. I then draw conclusions, which a reader should be able to agree/disagree on based on not just having played the game, but simply because he can follow my reasoning from point A to point B and see if it applies to him. That is all the objectivity a reviewer should want to offer. Avoiding subjective language and opinions is impossible, and just forces you to phrase things that are opinions and presenting them as facts, which is inherently wrong.

Lady Dragonfly, you also keep bringing the point of "don't compare it to..." because the rest is pathetic too. That doesn't make any sense. What else should I compare a game or our quality of reviews to, except to our peers? Some lofty, non-existent standard? What's the point of that. That would not just be purely theoretical, it would also be arbitrary. Readers would not be able to make sense of my logic because it is based on my personal, arbitrary expectations rather than any kind of reality we all share. Comparisons are absolutely key for reviewing games because they help explain points and quality in more general ways. Sure I could say TW2 isn't well-written by some absolute standard. Neither is Planescape: Torment, compared to the world's great novels. What would be the point of pointing that out? High standards are fine to an extent, yes, lack of realism simply is not.

I pretty explicitly stated in the conclusion of the TW2 review that it is an "evolved" RPG rather than what I consider a classic, core RPG, but it is unquestionably good at that. It is “a great step in the right direction” of a genre of cinematic action-RPGs where Dragon Age (II, not expecting BioWare to go back to the Origins format) and Mass Effect are setting the standard. The conclusion repeats numerous criticisms and "what I would have liked to see" in more complexity and I complain again about the QTEs, exactly what you're claiming we don't complain about. And of course I called it a frontrunner for RPGotY, because it factually was. RPGotY is a comparative standard and there were no other RPGs released or upcoming that looked like they could beat TW2. It's the reader's mistake if they take RPGotY as a non-comparative bit of praise.

Now...one could apply the standards that I have for what I consider core, pen-and-paper RPG experiences to every RPG I review, even when they are clearly not intended to execute these principles. I couldn't work that way even if I wanted to.

Curry wrote:I think the forum updates did their part in killing the forums...

And those awful advertisements.

Apologies about the advertisements, but as we've stated clearly before, it was largely necessary to keep the site up and running. Advertisers dictate the standards for ad packages; all sites can usually do (unless they're huge and have lots of clout, i.e. IGN) is accept a package that works best for them. That's just the way things are, unfortunately.

By forum updates I assume you mean Disqus? We've already covered that, but the short of it is that we have actually seen an increase in comments since switching to it. Having to make a Disqus account (or use your Facebook/Google/etc. information) is a small stumbling block, but in the long term it's better for end users (more flexibility and features), plus better for the back-end (easier to update the rest of the site, better comment moderation).

Speaking of forum updates - Buck's actually working on overhauling the forum software right now, so you can expect some changes for the better in short order, including some very nice new features (and no, the entire database is being ported over, so your posts and account will be entirely intact). Hopefully we'll be rolling those out in short order.

Looks like my post is too long so I will probably have to make it into a trilogy or smth. Reading is completely optional, unlike mini-games in TW2.

@sear

I agree that mechanics make a genre - mostly. But, there are intangibles that we also tend to factor in when evaluating whether or not a game falls into X or Y category. There are several genre-defying games out there that can fall into plenty of different ballparks depending on who's evaluating the game in question. RPGs tend to rely more heavily on these intangible elements than other genres, muddying the waters.

Furthermore, genre is partially a matter of consensus - while I argue it's almost always set in stone by mechanics, the critical and fan community will often make a final judgement. How many people consider Deus Ex an RPG first and a shooter second, even though mechanically speaking it more forwardly resembles a shooter? Plenty, including me - it sounds like a cop-out to refer to something like "game feel" but I think that's just as important in establishing why a game is in X genre, or not. See Mass Effect 2 for an example of a game that I, personally, don't consider much of an RPG at all despite its trappings.

True, the boundaries between genres become increasingly blurry and while it is easy to identify Nancy Drew and Monkey Island as Adventure, Civilization and Anno XX as Strategy and Duke Nukem and Killing Floor as FPS, it becomes surprisingly difficult to identify RPG, perhaps because on one hand it borrows heavily from all the aforementioned genres and on the other hand it sheds the traditional trappings of classic RPR faster than you can say “what the …?”

If the deciding factor is something intangible and dependent upon who’s the judge, everything is RPG. Maybe Duke Nukem is RPG too because Mr. X says in his blog you role-play Duke Nukem and have a choice to blow up toilets which a chance of getting something unexpected as a consequence.

A more optimistic outlook would be that as the industry matures and attracts more and more talented professionals, it transcends the genre limitations and eventually delivers a Unique Game, a Piece of Art as the final product of their Artistic Vision (tm). Preferably ported to the next-gen consoles. Cool beans. Now all the nit-picking, bile-spewing elitists can use their remaining AP to crawl back under the filthy 480x600 rock they came from and kill themselves with radiation ASAP, or at least stop nit-picking and bile-spewing in my kitchen. Do it for the children, you dirty elitists.

Since you brought up ME2… Funnily enough, Human Reaper, gay-dating-sim and the meager array of skills aside, to me Mass Effect 2 feels more RPG than The Witcher 2, and not only because you are given the chance to create a unique doll and chose your class but mostly due to the quality of NPC, their loyalty quests and the emotional impact of you choices. Even QTEs are handled better (and they are optional). Renegade interrupts, for example, are a lot of fun while QTE in TW2 are tedious and make certain boss fights a bad joke.

You praise narrative delivery and say that “The Witcher 2 really excels in making the player feel wrapped up in it by providing characters and events that respond in believable ways to the player's own actions.”

But the player may feel quite the opposite. I, for example, don’t care a whit about NPC in TW2 (Roche being the least boring) or the choices Geralt gets to make in the political “intrigue” I don’t find intriguing. CDPR wanted to create a “mature and complex story” so they saturated it with gratuitous sex and rape and violence and “discrimination” for the maturity part and installed a dozen double-dealing clowns with fancy names to make the plot appear intricate. The unfortunate outcome is you kinda never remember who is who and who betrayed whom and why you should care. So you don’t. You simply kill the next in line without asking for a photo ID and have a beer. I admitted in the very first post that there are instances of genuinely enjoyable gameplay in TW2 but they are overshadowed by this BS of the plot, endless movies, underwhelming hit-roll-hit-roll combat and the multitude of other issues which might be the “minor flaws” to Brother None but rendered the game almost unplayable to me. I finished it just to be able to say I played TW2, that’s how bored I was with “adventuring.” Ch1 is more or less entertaining if you overlook trash mobs in the wilderness and Kairan, Ch 2 is a disaster only the most hardened apologist would defend, Ch 3 is meh and the ending is anti-climatic. That’s my impressions of your GOTY.

I think Mordin alone is worth all TWNPC combined plus Geralt himself, and Tuchanka and the choices you make there (in both ME2 and ME3) are much more interesting and entertaining (let alone make more sense) than anything TW2 can offer in the story or C&C department.

Part Deux

What do "small" and "linear" mean here? Why is exploration severely lacking? You can wander nearly as far as the eye can see in many places, Chapter 1 and 2 have large (but not huge) outdoor areas to explore, and within those environments there is a ton of detail to take in - heck, you can obsessively raid every single cupboard in every random house if you want. Sure, it's no Morrowind, but it has a world which is sized and structured to support the mechanics, game flow, and amount of content available, which is the important part.

Small and linear mean small and linear. Small = small in size. Linear = after you travel from point A to point B you can’t return to Point A, after you travel from point B to point C you can’t return to point B.
Even if the world was ten times bigger it would still be boring. You mostly fight through the hordes of the re-spawning critters. If you want to know what I mean by exploration, think G2+NotR. The world is rather small but feels large and three-dimensional, with lots of nooks and crannies to explore and secrets to uncover.
Raiding cupboards? In the presence of their owners (so much for the world reacting to your actions)? You are kidding, right?

Not really. You've described the game's introduction and tutorial sequence, and one could use the same sort of selective, reductionist argument to make any game look bad. What separates a cutscene and a dialogue sequence? What about mini-game from regular gameplay? Furthermore, why are these things bad and "not-RPG-like" even though RPGs rely heavily on cutscenes (dialogue) and mini-games (combat) as trademarks of the genre? We're practically talking semantics alone at this point.

I apparently failed to get my point across. It can be expressed in two words: TOO MANY.
When I say “cutscene” I mean a non-interactive movie, including the times when in the middle of the action the game suddenly takes control out of your hands and turns you into a passive observer. The amount of cinematic experience is above and beyond anything I have ever seen in any of RPG I played and I played quite a few for the last 25 years. Simply put, I paid 60 bucks to play an action RPG, not to watch endless movies.
Perhaps this guy can explain this idea better.
The Witcher 2 and the modern age of RPG’s on Rails « Michael’s Techbox
And yes, combat is a mini-game too but when we say mini-game we usually refer to a different type of gaming experience and the first part of TW2 greatly abuses this feature. The boss fights are mini-games literally, which is a sign of poor design in RPG because “winning” these fights does not involve any of your character’s skills – you need none. It’s all QTE garbage. And that is not “RPG-like” at all if you want to use this terminology. The long sequence where you are “someone else” and can’t use your skills is another example.
RPG is about building and role-playing a unique character. The moment RPG denies you that it loses the right to be called RPG. It still might be a good game with the good story and the cool gameplay but RPG it is not. Assassin’s Creed is not RPG, for example. Your options are already limited because Geralt is not really customizable. All you can choose is to put more points into melee or more points into magic and alchemy (which is a waste of skill points in this game). When even that little is taken from you in RPG it’s an insult that can only be washed off with the blood.

Why aren't the mini-games well done? I think they're fine for what they are - quick, easy and flashy things designed to break up the regular gameplay.

I don’t mind mini-games if they make sense in RPG (skill-related), like, for example, lockpicking or disarming traps, or fully optional. There are three “optional” mini-games in TW2, if memory serves -- arm-wrestling, dice poker and fist fight. I don’t remember if there was a drinking contest this time around. All three are fitting for the setting and were these games 100% optional I would not mind them at all. But they are not. Dice poker is pretty much the same as in TW. It’s optional unless you want to complete a certain quest, like I did. Arm-wrestling is kind of meh. It’s not hard, just not fun. Can be skipped safely but still a part of a main quest, no less (need to beat two retards or shell out a hefty amount of money to distract a guard). Fist fight is plain dumb thanks to QTE. Again, not difficult, just dumb. It’s not even a real fight like in TW and you don’t even watch it, don’t watch your opponent etc. You watch flashing letters and press WASD. What kind of fight is that? Not a good design. Fist fight is unavoidable on two occasions.

Why is the combat not spectacular, or not brutal, or not tactical? These are entirely subjective terms to judge a game on, especially without a reference point.

You tell me what makes it spectacular, brutal and tactical. It’s written on the box so it must be true.

Why is C&C not something to write home about when almost no RPG has done it better (distinguishing), it provides lots of replay value to the game (feature), and aids greatly in immersion (I'd say this is valuable because it makes players care more about the game world and characters)?

“Almost no RPG has done it better” does not prove anything but this is beside the point. For the record, I am one of those gamers who value C&C in their RPG and you are preaching to the choir if you are trying to explain that having C&C is better than not having them. The point is the mere fact they are in the game does not make this game the second coming, especially when a lot of other important (maybe not to you but to other people) things is screwed up. C&C make sense and can be appreciated only if you replay the game and make other choices to see how the story changes. Otherwise it will feel like just another linear, story-driven hack-n-slash adventure, move along. If you don’t like gameplay and are unmoved by the story you have no reason to replay (with the same non-customizable character). You might not even finish your first playthrough.

Talking about "movies" out of context is like taking the soundtrack of a film outside of the film itself - it's how it supports the larger experience that matters. Cutscenes are largely the same way (although generally speaking I agree that excessive non-interactive cutscenes can be annoying).

You don’t say.

Epilogue

Here's the thing. Reviews are not objective. They cannot be, and they shouldn't try to be. Letting hype and other biases drive opinions is a bad idea - but ultimately what's being discussed is how much a given person enjoyed a game, and why. We can justify that as much as we like (and we do usually go to pains to provide more than the usual "this game is fun because it looks good and I like shooting things" stuff, instead actually discussing mechanics, balance, and so on), but at the end of the day we're still just people playing games and explaining why we like or don't like them, and in what ways.

We already found out that our perceptions about “execution” and other intangible matters can differ dramatically, and my point was that the reviewers should keep that in mind and therefore not base their analysis on their own emotions and tastes too much (it can be misleading) and definitely not hand out silly titles and awards, especially after criticizing the game on 6 pages, ‘cause it looks, sounds and feels like hype and bias. GB does not score games any longer but enthusiasm can make a review look like 11/10!!! just the same.
GB reviews are usually detailed and well-written and things like that spoil the effect, which is sad. Just saying.

I am venting here, nothing more. I don’t expect any changes.

Brother None wrote:Basically, what sear is saying. I get to hear this "you should be more objective" criticism every now and again (usually on RPGWatch, for some reason), and what people tend to mean by it is "I don't agree with you!" Because for most people objective = my opinion.

My logic in reviews has been the same for years. I describe what the game is and is not as expansively as I can, and that part of it is largely objective. I then draw conclusions, which a reader should be able to agree/disagree on based on not just having played the game, but simply because he can follow my reasoning from point A to point B and see if it applies to him. That is all the objectivity a reviewer should want to offer. Avoiding subjective language and opinions is impossible, and just forces you to phrase things that are opinions and presenting them as facts, which is inherently wrong.

That's why the review should appear less like opinion and more like an overview of the features.
There are quite a few things a good reviewer can easily evaluate (and they usually do, including you) or at least describe to the potential consumer, and do it without emulating a sales pitch. Just off the top of my head: level of polish, learning curve, tooltips, GUI, balance issues, AI behavior, path-finding, map, art direction, audio, camera, level design, customization options or lack thereof, gfx quality etc. Describing the ruleset or combat in detail and explaining why they work well or suck is also no rocket science and does not require referencing Fallout in every other paragraph. With the sequels being a norm rather than an exception nowadays, you can compare the game to its predecessors. Chances are people reading your review played them. It gets even easier if you are reviewing an awesome RPG called Diablo Clone.

Storyline/game world. I doubt there is anyone around here who has never heard of RPG cliches so it should not be difficult for a pro to identify original vs. generic fare, linear vs. non-linear or evaluate such “intangible” aspects as internal consistency, verisimilitude , plot holes and poor localization without using loaded language.

NPC – very important topic, especially in a party-based game. There is a lot you can tell us. For example, I want to know whether I can fully control them in combat or not (if not they can go to hell, I’d rather play solo); whether they have “personality” and how much whining and babysitting I will have to endure; whether they have their personal agenda.

Side-quests. We all played two-three games, we will understand the point you are trying to make if you mention FedEx. Give an example if need be.

Writing quality is more difficult to evaluate but most of us realize that no War and Peace is to be expected so just saying that writing is okay/solid will suffice. If it’s below par, which is much more plausible, give a few examples and be done with it, simple as that. Not many people are interested in walls of text in their games anyway. Let’s face it: if I want to read a book I will read a book.

I know, the reviewer will want to tell us that the whole is better/worse than its parts and describe various subtle things that made his heart beat faster and that's the things what usually spark a controversy. I think if the reviewer makes it clear that his opinion on the intangible is subjective, use a neutral tone, avoid eloquent nothings and support his claims with solid examples, the review will appear more objective. Sure, he will still be stoned somewhere but that's probably life.

Lady Dragonfly, you also keep bringing the point of "don't compare it to..." because the rest is pathetic too. That doesn't make any sense. What else should I compare a game or our quality of reviews to, except to our peers? Some lofty, non-existent standard?

Why do you guys even feel the need to say that your reviews are better than the reviews written by other 1,000,000 people?
The point is you write quality reviews but sometimes your emotions get the better of you and spoil the effect. I mean no offense.

There is no need for lofty standards. GameBanshee is a relatively neutral, family-friendly, somewhat casual gamer-oriented site so a neutral tone suits it perfectly. Just clearly state the criteria you use and you should be fine.

I pretty explicitly stated in the conclusion of the TW2 review that it is an "evolved" RPG rather than what I consider a classic, core RPG, but it is unquestionably good at that. It is “a great step in the right direction” of a genre of cinematic action-RPGs where Dragon Age (II, not expecting BioWare to go back to the Origins format) and Mass Effect are setting the standard. The conclusion repeats numerous criticisms and "what I would have liked to see" in more complexity and I complain again about the QTEs, exactly what you're claiming we don't complain about. And of course I called it a frontrunner for RPGotY, because it factually was. RPGotY is a comparative standard and there were no other RPGs released or upcoming that looked like they could beat TW2. It's the reader's mistake if they take RPGotY as a non-comparative bit of praise.

That's what I am talking about. "Unquestionably," "of course I called it a frontrunner... because it factually was." Plus mentioning GOTY which is a fairly silly concept to begin with.
This kind of language makes the otherwise very good review to appear not very reliable.

Now...one could apply the standards that I have for what I consider core, pen-and-paper RPG experiences to every RPG I review, even when they are clearly not intended to execute these principles. I couldn't work that way even if I wanted to.

Of course not. But nobody asks you to go to such extremes.

endboss wrote:This place doesn't seem that active anymore. We need some gimmick to bring people in!

endboss,

This was, once, years ago, my goal. Possibly it is my fault that "spamming" has died. Please blame me. Anyway, the thing is, either you allow people to talk freely or you choke them to death.

The thing is, this is not a social network - it is a private website. Mr ol' Buck and Fablicious tried to remind us of that but at that time we were young and bold, and thus, have tried.

However,

Your task is doomed from the beggining. It will fail. Keep trying though. It is funny. To try. To watch you trying.

Howdy everyone who missed me (aka nobody).

*Lurks*

@Lady Dragonfly,

Egads, did you know multi posting is an offense? Don't do that, it is ugly.

Bloodstalker wrote:Wow, been a long time since I've been here,and yet some threads never die.

Bstalker, this kind of thread gets reborn every month or so.

Luis Antonio wrote:@Lady Dragonfly,

Egads, did you know multi posting is an offense? Don't do that, it is ugly.

Yes, that crossed my mind but when someone is wrong on the internet, no risk is too great, no bandwidth is too precious. It must be done. The lost sheep must be brought back into the fold, FTW. You of all people should know that.

In all honesty, SYM simply happened. It was organic and spontaneous, unplanned and unintended. Perhaps it ran its course...who can say for certain? It's still here, but as it was pointed out by others a few pages ago, internet forums were "the thing" back in SYM's heyday. We're all older now (and likely not any wiser), and things have moved along.

This is the first time I've logged in since I posted last in this thread. I keep in touch with some old members, and often wonder how others whom I lost contact with are doing. Mostly I'm simply too busy, which is why I eventually felt it necessary to stop moderating.

Been a month or two since I last logged in here. So, did I miss anything while I was gone?

I remember you Luis ! Good old days eh?

I spent alot of time in this forum back when i was a kid.
But then they shut down the citadel, banned alot of members, and everything strictened up. Thats my last memory of SYM.