D
DArtagnan
Guest
Best thing about this is that it finally got me to play the Genesis Shadowrun game for real - and it's surprisingly entertaining
I must have done something wrong somewhere, because I need to hire a team and I'm flat broke. Probably going to have to roll back to the cemetary level and I'm not sure I have the motivation to replay 3 or 4 scenes.
An entertaining thread. I'd like to make a comment about objectivity. Of course there is no such thing as actual objectivity, and a review is not even supposed to be objective. A reviewer is expected to make a value judgement, which is inherently subjective. While a good reviewer will always give reasons, those are not visible in the score, which makes the numerical value completely useless.
Unlike DArtagnan, I like emotional reviews and find balanced reviewes boring. What I value is how the reviewer argues the case. Because while a reviewer does act as a judge, coming down with a verdict, the reviewer is also tasked with acting as prosecutor and defence, which is where it gets interesting.
Well, in this roundup alone, we have numerical values ranging from 6/10 to 5/5. What use do you have of those numbers alone? You don't know what they mean without reading the reviews, and if you have actually read the reviews, you have no use of the numbers.Numerical value isn't useless - which is why it's there in 99% of all reviews.
No, they all argue from their respective viewpoint. And the arguing is what makes any review interesting. Becasuse it's not objective.ALL reviewers will try to argue WHY a game is good or bad - and that's actually an attempt at objectivity.
Well, in this roundup alone, we have numerical values ranging from 6/10 to 5/5. What use do you have of those numbers alone? You don't know what they mean without reading the reviews, and if you have actually read the reviews, you have no use of the numbers.
No, they all argue from their respective viewpoint. And the arguing is what makes any review interesting. Becasuse it's not objective.
Do I understand it? - No. I cannot understand your "perfection" without any expectation or bias consciously or unconsciously attached to it. To my eyes, such presumption looks pretentious but I cannot see how your brains work…talking of communication. What I can say is that you and I seem to be different. Maybe, if you start with defining your concept of "perfection", however, the process should clear your bias or stand-point in this issue.Which part of "striving for" don't you understand?
Yes. I have seen something similar. Reading your comment reminded me of theologists having tried to apply the authority of "God" without defining the concept.Have you ever heard of striving for perfection? It's not something you do because you think you can ever be perfect - but because perfection, as a goal, is the logical extreme you aim for.
Do I understand it? - No. I cannot understand your "perfection" without any expectation or bias consciously or unconsciously attached to it. To my eyes, such presumption looks pretentious but I cannot see how your brains work…talking of communication. What I can say is that you and I seem to be different. Maybe, if you start with defining your concept of "perfection", however, the process should clear your bias or stand-point in this issue.
Yes. I have seen something similar. Reading your comment reminded me of theologists having tried to apply the authority of "God" without defining the concept.
Going back to my initial point. I just think some kind of "absolute" score (illusion to my eyes) won't reflect the diversity of the market. Also, I think this site will lose value to me if it begins to imitate some major sites who try to put numerical score for "the majority." In fact, even here some people find such scores can be just a part of mass-marketing scheme backed by advertising rates from bigger publishers. However, such "conspiracy theory" or political/economic presumptions aside, even at theoretical level, I think numerical rating won't reflect the growing diversity.
It's abstract concept and you need to make it clear what you think ideal or perfect to you for each concrete issue. For example, if you think RPG is not perfect without exploration, making it clear helps people who read your review or comment.If you can't understand striving towards a goal without necessarily expecting to reach it - then we most definitely seem to be different.
My definition of perfection matches the official one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection
I'm surprised you're not aware of it.
Why would I need to define something that's fully established already?
I can't exactly predict that you're not knowledgable about such common concepts.
Especially not when you're part of a debate orbiting those concepts. That would seem to be a mistake on your part.
As I wrote, as long as it's your opinion including something make sense to you, I wouldn't mind.I'm talking about what I prefer from reviews and what I think makes sense.
It's abstract concept and you need to make it clear what you think ideal or perfect to you for each concrete issue. For example, if you think RPG is not perfect without exploration, it helps people who read your review or comment.
What's with me, eh?I don't know what it is with you - but every time we have a debate, you completely overlook key points.
…I feel like I'm spending 90% of my time reading thru weak text, I'm just not that inspired to play….
...Lately I have been playing Fallout and plan to play Fallout 2 afterwards since I never played it very far before. After playing Shadowrun Returns and when I compare the combat I think that Shadowrun Returns has more complicated combat and since you can actually control each character you don't have them shooting you in the back all of the time...
The setting is wonderful, but the campaign does not grab me after several hours of play. The linear nature of it feels strange for a choice and consequence type game that theoretically could have significant different outcomes depending on skill/stat investment.
You often argue from a point of perceived objective truth, while I don't believe that such a thing as objective truth can exist. And you often argue from a point of presumed knowledge, while I don't believe in knowledge and claim none.
And to me, the idea of an objective value judgement is an oxymoron.
I used to review music for print media professionaly in the 80s and 90s, though that's entirely beside the point. And yes, I gave numerical scores too, when I was expected to, though I never took that part seriously. Sometimes, if I had been a bit harsh in the actual review, I would give a higher score to compensate and perhaps make the band feel better about it. I believe that's a rather common practice among reviewers, though few would probably admit it. It would explain why the numerical score often seems to contradict the review.
Trying to be objective is dishonest. And incredibly boring. Being upfront about your bias is the way to go.
Well Fallout isn't that bad, but yeah SRR is surprisingly dynamic and I enjoyed the numerous scripted combats making them special and dynamic. Beside maneurvering a lot the more I play the more I use special skills and quote there's many possibilities like mark a target and many stuff.Combat was probably the weakest part of the Fallout games. Just basically stand and blaze away at each other. Maneuver other than to change the range didn't really matter. In SRR I am always moving my guys around trying to get to cover or flush some bad guy out or whatever.
I think I am nearly done with SRR and I like it. The game system, combat, setting, and story are all pretty good. The two things I really didn't like were the linearity (I prefer open world games) and the "once combat starts you are stuck in turn based mode". The shortness of the game doesn't bother me; it's not THAT short. If this plays out like NWN did then we are in for some really great further content.
What's with me, eh?
Unlike you, I'm not a prolific contributor here, but when I do post, it seems that I often end up arguing with you in particular. This is probably due to some fundamental philosophical difference between us. And interestingly, I think the notion of objectivity is at the heart of the matter.
You often argue from a point of perceived objective truth, while I don't believe that such a thing as objective truth can exist. And you often argue from a point of presumed knowledge, while I don't believe in knowledge and claim none.
And to me, the idea of an objective value judgement is an oxymoron.
…