RPGWatch Feature: Dark Messiah Review

[Dhruin]

The Leipzig Games Convention starts next week and we'll have heaps of news on upcoming games - so we have just enough time to catch up on some articles we fell behind on. Our original Dark Messiah review didn't pan out, but Mike Anderson decided to go back take a look at how Arkane's action romp stands the test of time:

My basic description of Dark Messiah Might and Magic is "Half Life 2 meets Arx Fatalis meets Blade of Darkness." The game is powered by the Half-Life 2 Engine, developed by the same folks who brought us Arx Fatalis and based in the storied Might & Magic universe, and features a visceral melee combat style reminiscent of the brutal action game Blade of Darkness (Severence to some). The game has already angered fans of both role-playing games, because this effort took Arkane studios away from making Arx Fatalis 2 and also because this game has very little to do with the Might & Magic franchise, other than using the name.
Unfortunately that is only the tip of the iceberg of what is wrong. Let me get one thing out of the way for those who have played the demo or some of the game and are outraged at the score - this game can be loads of fun. I finished it, went back and played more using a different skill-tree approach and keep loading old saves just to play through some of the areas. It is fun - but that doesn't mean it's very good. Look at it this way - when my kids were toddlers they would often like the box more than the toy that came in the box; but that doesn't make the box a great toy.
Read it here. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/../show/article?articleid=47&ref=0&id=15)
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=6051)

[coyote]

The article is well written and brings up several good points, but I fail to understand the score.

According to the review, playing the game was great fun, and the gameplay was still interesting when starting over with a different character build. This can not be claimed for many games, and although it is a while since I played Dark Messiah myself, I agree with the reviewer on this point.

The main purpose of a game is to be fun being played. This purpose is achieved and the game excels in it, and the comparison with the great looking toy box does not fit at all, since the main purpose of a toy is not to look at its wrapping!

The reviewer is probably of the opinion that an action movie deserves a score of 2/5 if it was not completely realistic and does not compare well to an epic drama storywise. The complains in level design are not being about them being uninspired and boring, but in being unrealistic; these are points worth mentioning, but is level design and storyline bad enough to not want to play the game anymore? Apparently not. And remembering my own experience, I still fondly remember the necromancer castle, including the pieces of paper and books lying around just for atmosphere. I wanted to complete the game to see the end. True, Leanna had an uncanny ability to appear in unlikely places, but the story kept me playing and the lack of realism did not destroy the atmosphere.

For an RPG, the rating might be justified, since they are supposed to transport you into an imagined, believable, world, and a lack of realism quickly hurls you out of it. But here? I found myself too distracted by the action to be bothered. Well, maybe I did not get the point, but for me, this is an action game first and foremost, it is addictive enough to keep you playing and you enjoy the experience. Therefore, the score should be high.

[KasperFauerby]

Well, I dont agree at all and I think giving it 2/5 is very unfair (look at other titles that score 40% in reviews). It might be a linear action game, but it never pretended to be more than that. The combat is fun, the levels are nice (IMO), it looks good and runs well on my system. The story is very cliche, but this certainly goes for many other games. I would give it 75% at least... in this scoring system, 4/5.

- Kasper

[Asbjoern]

@Kasper, you can't compare those two scoring systems. Hardly any games are scored 40% and those games that are scored 75% actually equals a somewhat low score or at least a mediocre score. I like the rating system that RPGWatch utilizes. I think I would've given Dark Messiah a 2.5/5 but I suppose that is a minor difference.

[coyote]

@Asbjoern: Mike Anderson himself basically says the score is low...

[Asbjoern]

@Asbjoern: Mike Anderson himself basically says the score is low...

Well, I haven't said the score is high, so I don't quite understand what you mean. 2/5 is a low score, yes. I would've given Dark Messiah 0.5 more but that isn't an impressive score either.

Am I missing out on something?

[Dhruin]

Please read the scoring system linked at the bottom of the review. It's not = 40% (and 75% does not necessarily equate to 4/5)! By all means disagree - go for it, discuss, tell us we suck - but understand the scoring.

[Hindukönig]

I give the review a 3/5.

[coyote]

Score 2 (of 5): A game that has significant flaws or stale gameplay but may still offer some enjoyment to fans of the genre or subject.

Understanding the score... success.

Alright, it still seems to be an unfair score for Dark Messiah in my opinion, and the review article does not explain why the score should be as low as it is. I understand that it is quite easy to bash any game by repeatedly brandishing one detail or another, and weighing these details more than anything else, and this is exactly what you have done here.

You do not suck - infact I admire your work for this news site, which is the only gaming site whose RSS feed is on my Google home page, but the article as sure as hell is biased and gives a logic fallacy as reason for the low score.

As far as I care, go ahead an bash games, but if you want your reviews to be taken seriously, then give plausible reasons for the score, try to remain fair, and learn from your readers instead of stubbornly standing on some high "the highest reasoning is my own opinion" pedestal.

[1111]

"It is fun - but that doesn't mean it's very good. Look at it this way - when my kids were toddlers they would often like the box more than the toy that came in the box; but that doesn't make the box a great toy."


I've never played the game, but after actually reading the review, and reading what the score means, it all adds up and makes sense. This is a very comprehensive review. If anyone disagrees with the score, I'd like to see them articulate how. Maybe people are just too used to a broken scoring system that if a system that tries to actually work is used they get all whinny.

[coyote]

@1111: my first reply was not articulate enough for you? Please give some articulate reason yourself instead of just stating your affirmation of the article! I have yet to see any reply to that. But of course you might prefer to just accuse those who disagree with the article of whining. Go ahead, kiddo.

[1111]

I read yours first, and by the time I finished the thread, it was a distant memory. But articulate you did.


"For an RPG, the rating might be justified, since they are supposed to transport you into an imagined, believable, world, and a lack of realism quickly hurls you out of it. But here? I found myself too distracted by the action to be bothered. Well, maybe I did not get the point, but for me, this is an action game first and foremost, it is addictive enough to keep you playing and you enjoy the experience. Therefore, the score should be high."

Is this an action game site or an rpg site? What should be the sites narritive when reviewing a game? A game could be a fantatsic action game and a shit rpg, and on what side should a site called rpg watch fall? Action or rpg? And a game can be fun and still not be that good. How long can it keep your interest? Etc, etc. When does that action become to repetetive and then become a hastle and a grind? We could go on all day, talking in abstract, making sunjective opinions and points, but that doesn't change the fact that the text of the review, the narrative of the review, and the score (when considering the scoring system) add up and fit and make sense.

If you say, "therefore, the score should be high," because of an opinion, that doesn't make the reviewer's opinion wrong. Opinions can't be wrong. Did the revioeiwer say anything that was factually wrong? And what part of the text do you disagree with? And exactly where does the text and the scoring system diverge?

[Sir Markus]

As a standalone action game, I thought it was better than 2 stars. I like a ten star rating system, and I'd give it a 7/10. However it's frustrating to me that the Might and Magic franchise seems to be going in every direction other than RPG's, so in that sense it's disappointing, because this is pretty far away from being a CRPG and MILES away from, say, Might and Magic VII.

[Dhruin]

And I thought this one would be hard pressed to attract any comments. ;)

We chose a 5-star rating with the particular descriptions because it's simple, uses the whole scoring range (not just 7-9)...and no half marks - editors ultimately have to commit one way or the other.

[coyote]

@1111: thanks for the answer.

You say that as an RPG site, each game should be reviewed as an RPG. If Dark Messiah of Might and Magic is reviewed not on the basis of it being a good game, but on the basis of it being a good RPG, my score might be even lower than 2. However, this should be mentioned in the article: "be aware, we are not rating this based on how much fun it is, but we are rating how the game fares as an RPG". This is not done.

Regarding "fun but still no good": both Mike and me agree on the point that the game is fun and even has some replay viability. It kept our interests and playing it did not become a hastle. Sure, the combat gets repetitive at some point, but less so than in most other games. Infact, I would be hard pressed to name any other RPG or action game where the combat stays interesting as long as it does in Dark Messiah, and I got the feeling that the reviewer thinks similarly on this point. For me, a fun game is a game that stays fun till the end, which already includes being addictive enough to keep me playing. There is surprisingly little room for subjectivity in this definition.

I understand that it was frustrating that Dark Messiah did not become the CRPG we all wanted it to be, but when we bought the game, it was crystal clear that we would not buy an RPG, but a first person shooter in a fantasy world with RPG light character development. This game was not advertised as a full blown RPG, so it should not be scored as one, unless this is explicitly stated in the review article.

[woges]

Not a great game - but the combat is fun. Source engine still is atmospheric as well.
Hmmm a 3/5 from me.

[1111]

My defense isn't about the rpgness of the game, I was just replying to your point. My whole argument is based around three things:

1) Text of the review

2) The rating system

3) The text and final score matching, and making sense within the site's rating system.

Some times you read a review and the score just does not match. An example would be Corwin's Bard's Tale review on rpgdot. It was a good review, but I personally don't think what was said and what the score was matched. No biggy, just read the text and make your own score up from what you read and the weight you place in the pros and cons.

Some reviewers just don't have an idea what they are talking about, that makes a review invalid in my opinion. If the reviewer can't get facts right, or says stupid shit in genral, why would anyone put any weight at all in the review boogles my mind.

I never played this game so I have no idea how I'd frade it. Maybe I'd give it a 10/10 or a 1/1. I have no idea until I actually play it. I'm saying that the review (text) and the score fit together within rpgwatch's scoring system. This was a good review. It was very informative and gives you a good idea of if you might be interested ijn buying the game, or if this game is something you might enjoy. Of course, if people just look at the score, which it seems a lot of people are doing before posting (not including you coyote) and are seeing a 2/5 without reading what a 2/5 means for a game they might have enjoyed, of course the comments posted are natural and expected.

But I ask you, does the text match up with the score and make sense within rpgwatch's scoring system? Yes or no?

[1111]

"Some reviewers just don't have an idea what they are talking about, that makes a review invalid in my opinion. If the reviewer can't get facts right, or says stupid shit in genral, why would anyone put any weight at all in the review boogles my mind."

Reading through what I wrote, this part might seem like it linked to Corwin's review of BT. It isn't. Corwin's review was good, I just don't think the text and score matched. This part was more about just shit reviews, like some reviews of UFO:ET, that one about NWN2 that was more of a rant about numbers, a lot of Oblivion reviews, Gothic 3 reviews, etc, etc. We've all seen and read them. Someone retarded had to review a game, looked at some screenshots, played for a couple minutes, and then wrote some gibber jabber that had nothing to do with anything, good or bad.

[Sir Markus]

I thought Dark Messiah was a pretty good game. But trying to see the big picture, it bugs me that the Might and Magic license is heading in this direction. Is anyone ever going to get around to making a Might and Magic CRPG again?

[1111]

No. RPGS don't sell well or make money. Its better to make a FPS with a couple numbers so you can market it to various crowds under different genres.

[KasperFauerby]

Please read the scoring system linked at the bottom of the review. It's not = 40% (and 75% does not necessarily equate to 4/5)! By all means disagree - go for it, discuss, tell us we suck - but understand the scoring.

Well, maybe it's not possible to equate 2/5 with 40% - but you have a scoring system where 1 is worst game ever and 5 is a gaming gem, so put it down in words anyway you like but 2/5 is still a very very low score.

"A game that has significant flaws or stale gameplay but may still offer some enjoyment to fans of the genre or subject."

This simply does not sound like DM to me! What *significant* flaws does it have when you consider it as an action game and consider what they wanted to achieve with the game? If you had severe technical problems on your machine then I guess the score could have been 3/5 ("A score of 3/5 indicates a good game held back by obvious technical or design issues that limit the appeal.") but since it ran like dream on my machine with high frame rates in 1600x1200 and no crashes during the whole game, and since I enjoyed the action and level design quite a lot, then I guess my score would be 4/5 as I mentioned earlier.

Review scores are of course always a matter of opinion, so I understand why some might not rate it as high as me. I would have accepted 3/5 without comment but 2/5 just seems so completely unfair and overly harsh for the good people at Arkane, so I had to comment it :)

[JonNik]

I'll have to disagree at least with one point too. Realism (or the probability
or logic of the setting) while nice to have, are not exactly the rule of thumb
for a fantasy setting. Especially for a flashy action romp.

Are the improbable worlds of Miyazaki or Moebius (to name a few) twisted
vision trite because of their defiance of the laws of physics ?

Its not bad that the artist be allowed a bit of freedom if he wants to create
a more dramatic spectacular background I think.

I do have to admit though that when it comes to RPGs I prefer worlds that
make sence and have a sense of continuity but even then I dont think that,
with a few touches of normalcy and a bit of background story, anything in Dark Messiah would be more more difficult to swallow than your average Fantasy
cRPG setup.

And yes I too I would prefer that they stopped doodling with Hack em Ups and
did Arx2 But I am afraid that now that they got a taste of money and saw where
it comes from...

[ken007]

I enjoyed this game and if it was me reviewing it, I would have awarded it 4/5. I thought it was loads of fun. :)

[NFLed]

Having a scoring system based upon a standard 5 stars but then having a very non-standard explanation for each rating just confuses people. If there is a numeric scoring system it should be understandable compared to other standard scoring systems so that when people are looking at scores of a game from many sites they can compare apples to oranges. If 2/5 represents a game which is very fun then that's a problem with the scoring system and is very misleading.

I agree with most every part of the review although I didn't do much kick spamming at all because my coordination skills with that weren't good. Based upon a standard and understandable scoring system I'd give it a 3/5.

[Guhndahb]

I agreed with almost all of the review. Even with the rationalization, I too felt the scoring was off and felt it strongly reflected a 3/5, but I think numerical scoring systems are pointless anyways. I believe, as likely you all do, that anyone who judges a game based on a score instead of reading a review is being foolish, unless that person knows the reviewer very well and can trust that the reviewer has nearly identical tastes, and that's rare even in action gaming, much less RPGing. So I'll drop that issue for being pretty irrelevant to the main body of work done by the reviewer.

Reading the review I was reminded of the story of Dark Messiah. Oh my, it was painful. The best term I can use is plucked right from the review, "juvenile". The voice acting wasn't necessarily so bad because the voice actors couldn't act. I don't think they were given a chance by the awful writing. I wanted the same checkbox as the reviewer simply so I wouldn't have to cringe at the dialogue. And I even enjoy fan-play in games, but I too had to roll my eyes at the female character designs.

I'm ambivalent about the level design. On the one hand I didn't feel it was significantly worse than any other action game and largely promoted fun. On the other hand, I'm one of those who believe realism should be a primary goal in game development, even with the consequences. So I'd rate the level design average.

My only real disagreement in the body of the review, and it's a minor point, was regarding "kick-spamming". Just don't do it. I didn't. If you find something that makes a game too easy or repetitive, just don't do it. Exercise some self control. (Yes this sounds just like my argument about mastering every skill in Oblivion.) When I saw someone just begging for a kick I did it...and I enjoyed it! But otherwise I focused on what my character was good at, whether it be stealth kills, arrows across a chasm, or slicing and dicing with a sword. I generally found the "environmental kills" to be unsatisfying because the aforementioned level design just made them too obvious. So I spaced them out and kept them fun.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed the review, commend the reviewer, and think it's a good one for anyone with an interest in Dark Messiah to read.

You know... 2/5 suddenly seems justified when I remember my righteous fury at Arx Fatalis 2 getting bumped for a pure action game! ARGH! :D

[coyote]

Considering the review alone, the comparison used to demonstrate why a game could deserve a low score despite being fun is not conclusive. A toy less fun to play with than you have looking at its box fails its purpose, which is obviously not to create high expectations by featuring a nice box, but a game you have fun playing till the very end does exactly what a good game should do. While I agree with the critisism of the game in the article, I still do not get why someone would give a low rating to a game he thoroughly enjoyed and even intends to keep on his hard disk for continued playing.

Considering also my own experience with the game, the review stresses the fact that the level layout was not always plausible to the point where it sounds like a major fault, despite my own impression that many levels were very atmospheric and carefully laid out. The story was clichéd, true, but for an action game it seemed above average still. Thus, first I feel that readers who have not played the game yet might be misled by the low score, although if they follow the suggestion to play the demo they should be able to form their own opinion, and second, since rpgwatch is my favorite gaming news site, I suppose that bringing up some constructive criticism is only going to help in the long run.

[yonsito]

After reading this I would like to see you give four or five stars to a game that is no fun. You know, in the sense that even though your children would rather play with the packaging, the toy itself is really great (somehow).

[txa1265]

Hey all - thanks for all the comments! I have a couple of thoughts:
- My original reviews at other sites were 5/10 and 2.5 out of 5.
- Coming to a no-half star system I played the entire game through again to decide whether it was a 2 star or 3 star. The more I play the game, the more I feel comfortable with the score.
- That said, I understand people who would score it higher.
- Also, this is a sort of game that makes me hate score systems - I would rather we spend time discussing whether or not the horrific level design impacted your immersion than whether the game should be a 2/3/4-star game.

[coyote]

@yonsito: did you reply to my post? If read out of the context of the article the toy story might be a bit confusing, since I spend only a few words on it.

[txa1265]

@yonsito: did you reply to my post? If read out of the context of the article the toy story might be a bit confusing, since I spend only a few words on it.

I agree.

Thing is I used that analogy rather than drumming up loads of crappy games I have enjoyed through the years - fun doesn't make it good. The problem is that there is a small fun element that is part of the combat system that gets quickly over-played yet remains exploit #1 throughout the game ... and while I could simply ignore it, the bottom line is that *every* area in the game is designed around kicking enemies.

[Moriendor]

I would rather we spend time discussing whether or not the horrific level design impacted your immersion than whether the game should be a 2/3/4-star game.

OK. It didn't at all :) . In fact this is the major point where I completely disagree with your review. I thought that the level design was great, not horrific. I hate games where there is only one way to get to the next part of the level. Dark Messiah did a great job of leading the player through the levels in my opinion. It was very linear, of course, but that is to be expected from a first person fantasy "shooter" on rails. I liked it that you rarely ever had to backtrack and that there were basically no dead-ends. The most annoying level IMHO was the one with the spider where you had to collect those gems or crystals to insert into the spider statue (the only level where you had to do some serious backtracking) but other than that I can't think of a single annoying passage.

Also, I didn't feel like the levels were too artificial. The rooms with the spikes were obviously used as torture chambers by the goblins or the orcs (or whoever was the enemy in the level). There was blood on the floor and old rotten corpses hanging from the spikes. And the rooms with the barrels were often designed as storage rooms so that seemed OK, too. I don't really remember any "Huh? How did that get there?" moments. Not at all. It definitely seemed "natural" enough for a game.

That's why this point of criticism seems a little bit overly critical to me. We could pretty much pick any level in any (fantasy/SciFi... not based on real-world locations/furniture etc.) game apart and find flaws where the setting/scene would seem like a setup just made for the player.

I'm curious to see how you will rate the level design in Bioshock where it seems like the levels are basically set up as one giant playground for the player. Or the whole setting itself. The "credibility" of (or very heavy lack of) a retro-style underworld Utopia is going to have to be explained pretty damned well if we apply such high standards as you do. Don't get me wrong. I don't mind that at all since it's just a game to me and I can live with some fictional design liberties and even some limited silliness but I'll be very curious to see if you, Mike, are going to apply the same high standards then.

That said, I agree with a lot that Coyote has already pointed out. I also think that 2/5 is a bit too harsh. 3/5 or if there were half points 3.5/5 would seem like a more comfy score to me but as a very passionate UbiSoft hater I can very well live with 2/5 just out of spite :biggrin: .

[coyote]

@txa1265: you actually enjoyed playing loads of crappy games? Or is it just that you do not want others to enjoy them, too, so you give them crappy scores? :beam:

I agree with the kicking, though. Especially kicking the cyclopes to their untimely demise was a major let down :p

Ok, just to be serious once more: I can not say it any better than Moriendor; which game does not feel like a playground for the player? Did the houses in NWN ever feel to be the right size when you walked outside? When did you last see a lavatory in Morrowind? The list goes on, yet you hear little complaints about a lack of realism in these games. Consequently, it did not bother me in Dark Messiah, either.

Regarding the kicking, there were plenty of fights without a convenient ledge available - not only those with the cyclopes. On the other hand, it was a convinient way to just get on with the storyline, after you had already beaten the 100th orc the hard way. Possibly, the temptation to kick enemies around is greater on the second playthrough, though, since the familiarity with the level layout makes the opportunities for it more apparent.

[Myrthos]

Having a scoring system based upon a standard 5 stars but then having a very non-standard explanation for each rating just confuses people. If there is a numeric scoring system it should be understandable compared to other standard scoring systems so that when people are looking at scores of a game from many sites they can compare apples to oranges. If 2/5 represents a game which is very fun then that's a problem with the scoring system and is very misleading.
What is a standard 5 star system?
On a 1-10 scale almost no game scores below a 6. Comparing our 1-5 star system to a 1-10 numerical score is useless. As it would result in 3 stars (a 6) being the lowest a game normally scores. We wanted to move away from numerical scores and just introduce 5 levels that had no relation to a 1-10 scale or even a 1-5 scale. It can't be compared to a numerical system, that would be like comparing apples with oranges.
And a 2 star score doesn't represent a very fun game, at least not in our system.

[NFLed]

What is a standard 5 star system?
On a 1-10 scale almost no game scores below a 6. Comparing our 1-5 star system to a 1-10 numerical score is useless. As it would result in 3 stars (a 6) being the lowest a game normally scores. We wanted to move away from numerical scores and just introduce 5 levels that had no relation to a 1-10 scale or even a 1-5 scale. It can't be compared to a numerical system, that would be like comparing apples with oranges.
And a 2 star score doesn't represent a very fun game, at least not in our system.

I think if you tell the majority of people who play PC games that there is a 1-5 star scale and the game received a 2 then it's a fairly poor game overall (though not horrible) while a 3 is average. That is what I mean by standard, it's understood by most people.

If a reviewer feels a game is fairly poor overall and not just average overall then it deserves a 2 from that reviewer, no problem. But from reading the review I gathered that the reviewer did enjoy the game -- enough to play it twice which is more than I did even though I would rate the game a 3 -- despite its many flaws so that is why the score is confusing to me after reading the review.

However, the score is not ultra-off-base from the written portion of the review, it's just somewhat confusing to me.

[Corwin]

Sorry if we make you think here!! It's only confusing to people who dislike putting their brains into gear. The REVIEW is what's important, NOT the score!!

[woges]

The score isn't off-base from the review. The review doesn't say classic to me and you can see the low score coming from the start. Remember reviews are one persons opinion and your own should/will differ from everyone elses.

[curiously undead]

it wasn't a great game to me and most of what mike said i agree with except in level design. yes there were lots of spikes and other opportunities to kick or impale enemies that you could look at if from the perspective that the designers really wanted that feature to resonate with gamers. if it had been more sporadic people might not have tried it, but with it nearly everywhere most likely everyone tried it out and now their brains will remember the game. that could be bad or good depending on the level of their enjoyment i suppose. and surely the level design was contrived at times and not the best ever, but the massiveness and height of some of the levels was a joy to behold and surely was immersive in making me feel the oppresion of the massive network of caverns and cliffs. i really liked the level with all the hill huts that was immensly fun...and come on people don't you have and love for the rope arrow:)

[Acleacius]

I like the review and I agree the score is too low and seems to me the reason it's to low is because txa1265 is using a unfair curve. :)

The problem afai can tell, txa1265 gets more frustrated each time he plays it due to what he expected and the potential the game had, verses the game released.

The weaknesses of the game are pretty apparent but look at the comments;
# Lousy & obvious story
# One dimensional combat
# Led-by-the-nose linearity
# Ridiculous level design
# Annoying character you just can't shake

1. Lousy?
How about weak and flawed?
2. One dimensional combat?
Say what ? By every account this game has the most visceral combat ever released in a game.
3. Led-by-the-nose linearity?
How about linear story and gameplay?
4. Ridiculous?
How about average?
5. Annoying character.
She's playing a Succubus in the MM world, iirc.
I have reinstalled and currently playing to re-read the books in the game that I recall even detailing her behavior, to verify and will update.
We had this long discussion at initial release here at RPGWatch, of course she’s annoying and cliché that's the character.

Clearly you are just over reacting to feeling, like you had to force yourself to play the single player game 4 times in a row.
Who wouldn't be sick of the Averageness of the story, level design and characters especially one whom is spose to be manipulative, seductive and annoying to someone whom knows better, but Sareth didn't know better. :)

I share many of your opinions but my suggestion, in the future is to either Not put yourself in this sort of position, but if you must, possibly try put down the bulk if your review after the first play through or you could add the variable of, Reviewer's Curve as some reviewers often do to help keep a fair balance. :)

Imagine if you had done this with oblivion when your replayed vanilla at the release of KotN and had played it 4 times in a row. :)

As I mentioned in the original thread here, my suggestion to anyone playing was to give yourself at least Double the points to get multiple Trees, which I wouldn't normally do for people playing a game for the first time, But this game was a special exception in that it really wasn't a game many would ever play more than Once.
So to get the best effect and most fun out of the game you needed to increase your variety of choices, Not so you can be super uber but because it give you some variety of play and you won't feel locked down.

[zakhal]

As a RPG its propably 2/5 but as a game its 4/5 IMO. In the same sense somone might give diablo great score as a game but as a RPG its propably 1/5.

[Dez]

I completly agree what the reviewer said about storyline and characters. Its fantasy full of cliches and stereotypes. Only missing elements were dwarves and elves :-)

However I can't understand how could have Mike found level design weak, uncreative and unrealistic. I have played many fps games over the years and level design is maybe the only area where Dark messiah truly shines. Those varied locations look and feel amaizing. Not only for the sake of visuals, but level design carves out the frames for great gameplay. Maybe few of levels aren't very plausable, but mostly they are there for a reason.

Secondly I have to disagree a bit what Mike wrote about combat. The melee combat was fun like he said. I felt constantly like a was holding a real sword and it cut enemies like a sword should, Only downside is the notorious kick move which makes combat a bit too easy at times. But then I have to ask myself: why would I wish to use just one move? It ain't fun in the long run. When i played DM first time I made a pure fighter, which meant no spells or stealth. I cut through enemies like a knife through butter. I hardly needed to knock enemies on spikes.

The mage's career was quite fun too, because some of the spells were actually creative and forced me to choose totally different playing style. I couldn't just blast my way through. When playing a mage I had to use more enviroment for my advantage and that meant kicking lots of frozen orcs over the cliffs :biggrin:

Stealth and archery however are clearly the weakest link of three. Maybe I wasn't just doing it right, but usually monsters spotted me before I could do stealth kills or get my bow ready.

Dark messiah is at best a medicore game but by reading the review I got this image of much worse game than I played. Its not a half-life or Blade of darkness, but certainly it ain't dungeon lords or blood 2 either! There are not many good fantasy action games on pc. So its a shame if other fans of the genre wouldn't dare to try this. The review itself was good reading and it shows how much you have played it (probably more than most of us), but I think DM should deserved a bit more, but at the end reviews are subjective :)

[txa1265]

Sorry if we make you think here!! It's only confusing to people who dislike putting their brains into gear. The REVIEW is what's important, NOT the score!!

Hey Corwin - look at some of the posts ... people are definitely thinking here, and I love reading it!

[coyote]

Sorry for my last comment; I was dead tired at the point of writing it. For me, the level of fun I have in a game and its ability to keep me playing determine how well I think of it. If there were any educational games for adults, I would probably add a bonus on how well you can learn something from it, but there are none that I am aware of. This is subjective, of course, and the reviewers job is to explain in detail why the game is fun or not, to point out strengths and weaknesses so people can decide based on how important these details are for them. In this regard, I believe it is a fine article.

However, people will look at the score as a guideline which determines whether they buy a game or not. And even if they know your rating system, a score of 2 tells them not to buy it unless they are a fan of the subject or genre. Personally, although I am not a FPS aficionado, and prefer a good RPG or strategy game, I would regret my decision in hindsight, had I not bought the game because of this article.

Edit: regarding the storyline: it was definitely clichéd and had one-dimensional characters, but Heroes of Might and Magic IV was even worse in this regard. It seems to be a feature for current games to have obvious storylines, unfortunately, but the story of Dark Messiah at least was somewhat darker, with levels supporting its oppressive atmosphere, and it kept me playing.

[cutterjohn]

The review pretty well summed up my opinion of rape of Might & Magic that is Dark Messiah, although I would've given it a 1/5. It's not a very good first person melee, and even worse, it's just not good at anything.

I'm just glad that I got my opy at a clearance price of $8.

EDIT:
In my case, it also lost massive amounts of points for it's entirely crappy MP, which IMO must be at LEAST decent for this type of game to get an average - great score. Also, I felt that they made very poor use of the source engine, and had some pretty poor art direction.

[Fenris]

It's a bad RPG... so why whine about a bad score ? I would have rated it 1/5 and don't whine about the second Star :)

[Moriendor]

Sorry if we make you think here!! It's only confusing to people who dislike putting their brains into gear.

Ahhh OK. I get it now. So the point of the scoring system is not to rate a game fairly and in a way that the score reflects the quality of the game but the scoring system's sole purpose is to display the extremely high level of intelligence that went into designing it, right? Ohhhhkay. Silly me. And I thought that the game should be the central point of focus instead of admiring the mad leet brainz that came up with the rating system. Thanks for the clarification, I guess :) :rolleyes: .

[txa1265]

Ahhh OK. I get it now. So the point of the scoring system is not to rate a game fairly
Are you saying that my review text and the score given are not at least more or less in line? I think you could argue that my text could be interpreted as a 3-star review rather that a 2-star. But regardless, the text reflects a flawed game that has some fun elements.

[Moriendor]

Are you saying that my review text and the score given are not at least more or less in line? I think you could argue that my text could be interpreted as a 3-star review rather that a 2-star. But regardless, the text reflects a flawed game that has some fun elements.

No. Not at all. What I was trying to say is that I find it highly silly of Corwin to insult the readership (including myself) of this site when people are making valid remarks about the scoring system. I doubt that most people will do the exact math and realize instantly that 2/5 = 40% but any random reader will instinctively realize that 2/5 is less than half of 5/5 and that it is a low score that translates to "this game sucks".
To basically call someone an idiot (as Corwin essentially did) who does not bother to do a background check on the rating standards of this site and who does not realize that 2/5 does in reality not mean 2/5 and that it does not translate to a 40% score is pretty ridiculuos in my opinion.
It should not be the purpose of the scoring system to make a reader "think" or "use their brains" but the purpose of the scoring system should be to give a quick, at-a-glance reference. Checking out what the scoring system is about and how the score comes together should be a "voluntary" sort of thing that should not be required to understand the site's scoring system. Instead, it should only be offering background info if a reader really wants to dig deeper to find out about the site's review standards or scoring rules.

[txa1265]

No. Not at all. What I was trying to say is that I find it highly silly of Corwin to insult the readership (including myself) of this site when people are making valid remarks about the scoring system.
Ah - I see. I'll let Corwin speak for himself on that one ... ;)

[Corwin]

Why should I dignify Mo's tirade with a comment. I was responding to a particular comment by someone who found our rating system confusing. This system was the result of much internal debate and is not simply a 2/5 means the game sucks!! The important point I was trying to make, was that the REVIEW itself, not the score was the important consideration!!

[coyote]

Hey, I understand how you feel. You worked hard to get this site running for free, realise your ideas, improve upon the mostly shitty review systems out there and Mike even replays the game for the review. Like casting pearls before swine, people look at this, and instead of reading they whine about a number, because it does not follow the broken system others use.

Some people just do not get it. I guess you are right, you should tell them to put their brains into gear and complain elsewhere. Why would you need readers, anyway? :devil:

[woges]

Have you guys reviewed Oblivion yet? I just want to see the comments after that one. Imagine if this is what you can achieve from DM what can really be achived with TES:4.

Bring on Fallout 3!

Quick quote "2/5 means the game sucks!!" - Corwin.

[txa1265]

Quick quote "2/5 means the game sucks!!" - Corwin.
You have a future culling quotes from reviews for movie commercials and boxes!

[woges]

You have a future culling quotes from reviews for movie commercials and boxes!

Couldn't resist that one, sorry.

[wahwah]

It's a bad RPG... so why whine about a bad score ? I would have rated it 1/5 and don't whine about the second Star :)

Of course it's a bad RPG, just like Half-Life is a bad RPG.. and Starcraft.. and all those other games that are no RPGs.. ;)
I don't really have a connection to the M&M universe, the only games I enjoyed in the series were Heroes II+III, and I never expected this to be a RPG of any kind, so I appreciate it for what it is, a nice action title.

Don't really care about the scoring, I might give it 3/5 *now* but I'm not very far into the game and can't really judge it yet.

The REVIEW is what's important, NOT the score!!

So if you say the score is not important why do you even bother with it, why not get rid of a scoring system, try something different.. don't know, be creative! :P

[cutterjohn]

Some people may have thought that it was an RPG somehow, but I was quickly disabused of any notion that it might even be dimly related to RPGs by the very first info releases. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that it was not an RPG at all.

[Corwin]

We debated getting rid of any score, but too many people complain when you do that, so we settled on the 'star' method!! I'd have no issue with dropping scoring, but I'm sure we'd get plenty of complaints.

[coyote]

What is the problem with using an intuitively understandable score?

Mind you, my original problem was the low score for Dark Messiah, which I believe is not justified, but having "half stars" and a scale e.g. as used by Amazon might improve readability.

No scores at all is probably not bad, either, since this one number is usually some kind of weighted average for several factors (gameplay, story, stability etc.) anyway, and how you weight each of them is subjective. And of course you could always display multiple scores...

[txa1265]

my original problem was the low score for Dark Messiah, which I believe is not justified,

This is the inherent flaw with scoring systems - they aren't about consumer advisories most of the time, they are about reading and checking the score and seeing if it lines up with your own personal judgement. Not meaning to single you out, but that has been the crux of every discussion of scoring I've ever had ... but nobody can kick the habit ...

[Dhruin]

First, thanks all for the comments - good, bad or indifferent. Leaving aside this particular review, I don't agree our system is unintuitive. 5-star systems have never mapped directly to a percentage, in my experience. We all know 5-star systems quite well from movie reviews, where it is the prevailing system.

Compare GameSpy's system to ours:

2 to 3 Stars: Fair. There are things to like about this game, and it's definitely playable, but it's lacking in key areas and/or has some near-fatal flaws that will ruin the experience for most gamers. Fans of the license or the series might still get some entertainment out of this, but there's not much to recommend.

So, fair - some things even likeable - but lacking. Fans might enjoy it.

Our system:

2 – A game that has significant flaws or stale gameplay but may still offer some enjoyment to fans of the genre or subject.

Significant flaws. Fans may still enjoy it.

Seems substantially similar to me. That someone might disagree with the score is a different matter. I'm not sure I agree myself - but I didn't write it. I could have rejected the review or changed the score (I remember GameSpy coping a huge amount of flack over this) but I thought the text was great and don't substantially disagree with Mike that the game has significant flaws.

I argued for (and got) a simple scoring system - 1-5, no half scores. I think it makes our reviewers have to think if a game is really a 3 or a 4 - instead of just safely straddling the fence with 3.5 much of the time.

An option would be no score but I feel that would be intellectually dishonest for myself at least. I'm not a big fan of aggregate sites but I do occasionally check Gamerankings when considering a purchase and I often say to my friends or family, "So, what would you give that movie? 7/10"? So, I like scores. I often see someone arguing scores are useless but then recommending Gamerankings or Metacritic - and that's just absurd.

[coyote]

I understand your point, Mike. When people judge a game, it is practically always a more or less wide distributions around an average value, and there are bound to be people who are disappointed with any score you give. That is why me and others pointed out where we think the score was biased (changed perception of the story and level layout when replaying, arguments possibly more valid for RPGs than for action games, etc.). I did not write these comments as much because I care about Dark Messiah than because I care about your site - but I already got the impression that you generally welcome some discussion.

Regarding the scoring system, you make some good points, Dhruin, and in truth, most people here probably were not really confused about the number, as implicated by Corwin, but just unhappy with it.

[Acleacius]

Yes.
----------
I just replayed this game to check a few things and played version 1.2 for the first time.
Firstly Xanna actually speaks less now than version 1.0 and 1.1, she also no longer speaks after points she should not, these are all VERY good things. :)

Next Leanna, to me the worst about her character skin, she actually does a reasonable job of voice acting as well with the role she has.
Problem is Arkaine made her look so blatantly over endowed, that it takes away from the little believability in the story and acting.
In regards to her popping up, I would only guess that it's intended that she is much stronger of a mage than she know or lets on, specifically once you restore the temple power.

To me this story was given to Arkaine, by UbiSoft, of course the story is very full of holes, nothing really makes any sense when you try to follow up any single path of storyline, clearly this story was thrown together for the real stars the combat and graphics, this really is HL2 with Swords and Magic. :)

Sure, I wanted an great RPG that Arkaine is capable of but as they said in an interview when they moved here to Austin (iirc);
"To make the game we want to make we need to work for other companies building up our resume." or something close.

In final regards to the score I still feel the system here is currently flawed, if the base RPGWatch members have problems with it or the scoring methods of this game, seems resonable it should be looked at more closely or overhauled.

Personally I had a lot of fun with this game even though it had many problems but clearly I was able to get value out of this, as I accepted it as a scripted First Person Melee and Magic game.
I could easily give this game a 80% score, the things that did work or almost work are very high quality, which in the end made the game fun for what it is a Medieval Scripted Action game. :)

[txa1265]

In final regards to the score I still feel the system here is currently flawed, if the base RPGWatch members have problems with it or the scoring methods of this game, seems resonable it should be looked at more closely or overhauled.

The question I have for those who think that the scoring system is flawed - how much of that is because you disagree with my score? When I reviewed other stuff I have not heard a peep about the system. It seems like the fact that I eviscerated this one (in the eyes of some) has raised the issue.

[woges]

Never listen to others about such things. If that's your view stick to it. So lame when people take down a review because the "community" is upset about it (NWN2).

I mean if people change reviews (opininons) because others don't like that opinion why have a review in the first place? Or stick up a community rating system then you'll know what everyone thinks of a game.

[txa1265]

Never listen to others about such things. If that's your view stick to it. So lame when people take down a review because the "community" is upset about it (NWN2).
Oh, I've been around enough to form my opinion and stick with my reviews. I knew this review, and particularly the score, would be unpopular. There was some discussion elsewhere when i gave the game 2.5 / 5 at GamerDad when it came out. I stick by that - and knew when I chose 2 rather than 3 stars that it would be even more controversial. My question was back to those criticizing the review system itself.

[Acleacius]

txa1265 I have agreed with you about +90% of the reviews you written and I even agree with a lot of this one, but not the final summation leading to and including the score, those were the problem for me.

What I meant earlier by saying you played it too many times in a row, is the same thing I told you when you replayed oblivion vanilla for the KotN, you have way more constitution than, I. :)
Had I played DM 4 times in a row, I would be sick of it, as you seemed to be in the conclusion, that's just the way it feels to me.

I honestly don't know much about the rating system or even when it was implemented, maybe I should look at it but I don't think that would help me.

All I know is if for example if your review is added to the Gameranking or any other similar site, using RPGWatch's rating system, if that's what it's based on, how do you think it will be received in the average the system is based on to give gamers an over all average?

You will be tanking a game you might not intend to tank with a 40% regardless of your intentions or RPGWatch's.
That seems wrong to me, even if you and RPGWatch have the best intentions, which I bet you do. :)

[coyote]

Matt Peckham's review of NWN2 does not really compare to this one. Mike obviously made an honest effort to look at and point out the weaknesses of the game, while Matt Peckham wrote a shallow rant bashing NWN2 for being a tabletop conversion role-playing-game.

There is little point in repeating what has gone wrong in Mike's review, but many of the comments here are NOT saying "we are unhappy with your score because we like the game better" and are NOT akin to a community rating. They are detailed criticisms, and in an ideal world, the editorial staff would reply to the comments about the article itself instead of writing solely about the relatively trivial issue of the scoring system (or ironically enough complaining about readers writing solely about the relatively trivial issue of the score alone).

In an ideal world, the comments would be evaluated and depending on their validity the review score would be changed. In a less than ideal world, the comments will be taken into account for the next review. If even this second possibility is not realized, what is the point of writing here at all?

P.S.: Sure, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to stick to your opinion. Guess we should have stuck to the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe, too, like the catholic church wanted us to.

[txa1265]

I personally do take well reasoned discussions into account, as I consider the main strength here the community and how much I get from it ... so I do appreciate the feedback.

[Asbjoern]

All I know is if for example if your review is added to the Gameranking or any other similar site, using RPGWatch's rating system, if that's what it's based on, how do you think it will be received in the average the system is based on to give gamers an over all average?

You will be tanking a game you might not intend to tank with a 40% regardless of your intentions or RPGWatch's.
That seems wrong to me, even if you and RPGWatch have the best intentions, which I bet you do. :)

That is the error of Gameranking or Metacritic. Not RPGWatch. You can't expect those that use a rational scoring system to change it just because the rest of the media uses an irrational.

There is little point in repeating what has gone wrong in Mike's review, but many of the comments here are NOT saying "we are unhappy with your score because we like the game better" and are NOT akin to a community rating. They are detailed criticisms, and in an ideal world, the editorial staff would reply to the comments about the article itself instead of writing solely about the relatively trivial issue of the scoring system (or ironically enough complaining about readers writing solely about the relatively trivial issue of the score alone).

In an ideal world, the comments would be evaluated and depending on their validity the review score would be changed. In a less than ideal world, the comments will be taken into account for the next review. If even this second possibility is not realized, what is the point of writing here at all?

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that the score isn't your main point of criticism but the actual review is, and afterwards you write that the score should be changed.

There is little point in repeating what has gone wrong in Mike's review

How can you state that as a fact?

Coyote. You've been having a crusade against this review/score in the last couple of days. Just because you have experinced Dark Messiah differently doesn't necessarily make it the right conclusion.

I like the scoring system that RPGWatch utilizes though I think it's a shame that half stars aren't allowed.

[woges]

"If even this second possibility is not realized, what is the point of writing here at all?"

Well because you can say that review was shite and I disagree. That's what discussion is about. Now, if i may call txa1265 Mike (as I'm guessing that's his name) why should he change his opinion on the quality of a game because you or I decide otherwise? It's more interesting to get somebodies honest view then a community filtered one.

[txa1265]

Dhruin points to the scoring system compared to others. Since I review for multiple sites I need to be cognizant of each system. Since, as I said, my initial reviews were 2.5 / 5 and/or 5 / 10, I knew I was 'in between stars'. Here is the text for the two:
3 – A score of 3/5 indicates a good game held back by obvious technical or design issues that limit the appeal. Games that score 3/5 will often split opinion, depending on how strongly the player perceives the flaws.

2 – A game that has significant flaws or stale gameplay but may still offer some enjoyment to fans of the genre or subject.
I think that one could find supporting elements in my review for either score.

[coyote]

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that the score isn't your main point of criticism but the actual review is, and afterwards you write that the score should be changed.

I wrote "score alone" for a reason. Obviously the score is tied to the article, and a fault in the article is likely to reflect in the score.

How can you state that as a fact?

Because it is my honest belief. You say that I have been waging a crusade against this review, and indeed I got carried away in this discussion, probably because most of the feedback did not really respond to the issues which were important to me. Crusade is probably too much: regardless of this article, I still hold Mike and the RPGWatch staff in high regard.

Just because you have experinced Dark Messiah differently doesn't necessarily make it the right conclusion.

If the game is judged as an RPG more than an action game and repeated replay is not taking into account as much as it should, the article is biased regardless of my experience with the game.

Now, if i may call txa1265 Mike [...] why should he change his opinion on the quality of a game because you or I decide otherwise? It's more interesting to get somebodies honest view then a community filtered one.

Sometimes looking at a subject from a different angle will change your opinion. However, if Mike takes into account all our comments and still thinks that his review is balanced and expresses his honest opinion, then by all means he should stick to it. I certainly would, too.

[Gorath]

Maybe we should add at 2.5/5 score for games which are either completely average or have a fine balance between strengths and weaknesses.

[JDR13]

Would the 1.2 version have gotten that low of a rating?

I could understand the initial release scoring that low because it was a mess, but the patched version should definitely be a little higher.

[Moriendor]

The question I have for those who think that the scoring system is flawed - how much of that is because you disagree with my score? When I reviewed other stuff I have not heard a peep about the system. It seems like the fact that I eviscerated this one (in the eyes of some) has raised the issue.

Well, this is the first time that the scoring system was explained to us by various staff members. There was no discussion about it before. Your review and the "low" score just sparked an interest in people to find out how a score is calculated. So your "low" score was just a trigger but it wasn't really the reason per se why the scoring system was suddenly questioned.
Personally, I just found the explanations a bit confusing that a 2/5 is not really a 2/5 and also not equal to a 40% score because a 2/5 is really just a 2/5 and it doesn't necessarily have to mean that the game is bad because it's 2/5 but that a 2/5 is just that. A 2/5. And then when someone said that they found it confusing they got their intelligence questioned. It was just a li'l strange... ;)

[Corwin]

I'm SO pleased you finally understand it all Mo!! :)

[Acleacius]

Asbjoern
"That is the error of Gameranking or Metacritic. Not RPGWatch. You can't expect those that use a rational scoring system to change it just because the rest of the media uses an irrational."

Ok, let me get this strait, your saying the international ranking systems is flawed.
You then create your own ranking system out of protest and it's turns out to be so blatantly out of sync with the flawed International standard, that you are causing average games (in this case an upcoming Dev, we all have high hopes for) to get a shit rating just because you disagree with the system?

Your so sure your right, I won't forget to remind you, when all small and independents are crushed beneath your holy crusade and you start to complain where have all the good games gone?

Well Asbjoern they have all gone bye bye, because you crushed them with your mighty, righteousness. :)

[Moriendor]

I'm SO pleased you finally understand it all Mo!! :)

i r teh smart cooookkkkkiiiiiieeeeeee!!!!1111 :biggrin:

[txa1265]

Ok, let me get this strait, your saying the international ranking systems is flawed.
You then create your own ranking system out of protest and it's turns out to be so blatantly out of sync with the flawed International standard, that you are causing average games (in this case an upcoming Dev, we all have high hopes for) to get a shit rating just because you disagree with the system?
That was the other half of the issue with Matt Peckham's NWN2 review - he was exercising 1Up's stated new policy of using the 1-10 scale. And I think that it *has* happened to an extent. Some reviews / editors / sites, tired of the 7-9 scale, have been doing things on the 1-10 scale. However, you only need to take a quick look at CGM o other mags to see it is poorly defined and not uniformly followed, so that games end up with a broader scale of scores than they otherwise would.

At one site I have written reviews, they have that stated policy and I have held them to it. I have had a couple of discussions with the editor over 5/10 meaning average reviews.

[Asbjoern]

Asbjoern
"That is the error of Gameranking or Metacritic. Not RPGWatch. You can't expect those that use a rational scoring system to change it just because the rest of the media uses an irrational."

Ok, let me get this strait, your saying the international ranking systems is flawed.
You then create your own ranking system out of protest and it's turns out to be so blatantly out of sync with the flawed International standard, that you are causing average games (in this case an upcoming Dev, we all have high hopes for) to get a shit rating just because you disagree with the system?

Your so sure your right, I won't forget to remind you, when all small and independents are crushed beneath your holy crusade and you start to complain where have all the good games gone?

Well Asbjoern they have all gone bye bye, because you crushed them with your mighty, righteousness. :)

Ah, come one. You can do better than trying to victimize independent developers.

Why would I create a scoring system out of protest just because I think the average gaming scoring system is flawed? Should I then choose to rate good games 1 and poor games 10? Metacritic has this to say to it:

For each review found, we will take the score given by the critic and convert it to a 0-100 point scale.

Which means Metacritic would convert 1 to 100 and 10 to 0. Metacritic interprets the score. It doesn't just add scores subconciously. So I can't see the problem.

No gaming media has an obligation towards websites that gather scores and calculate an average. It is these websites own responsiblity and if they think a website has an out-of-sync scoring system then it is their responsibility to exclude that website from their calculations or convert the scores appropriately to the given website's own calculation system.

You are speaking in a completely hypothetical way. But if I were to continue that approach then RPGWatch or any other single website can't influence the score in any earth shattering way.
And independent developers aren't an unquestionable ideal. They are judged by the quality of their games not by the single fact that they are independent. So if RPGWatch gives a low score to a game from an independent developer then it is likely that it was deserved and that game shouldn't have a high rating in Metacritic or Gamerankings anyway so I can't see the problem.

[coyote]

The problem is that Metacritic scores including RPGWatch reviews will generally be worse than those not including them.

Metacritic takes the typically high scores for games into account by assigning an "average" to games rating 50-74, whereas "average" movies, books or music are rating 40-60. Atypical scoring systems are not taken into account; while far less than ideal, this is how things work at the moment.

However, I am sure it is possible to talk to the people working at Metacritic and Gamerankings and to make them aware of atypical scoring systems.

Right now, RPGWatch is not taken into account at all for Metacritic, so I guess the scoring system does not matter in this regard unless you try to be included in the future.

P.S.: It is indeed sad that an independent developer like Arkane Studios is the one getting the "unfair" (at least according to the "community vote") score, while other games seem to be rated normally. Shame on you! :thumbsdown:

[txa1265]

P.S.: It is indeed sad that an independent developer like Arkane Studios is the one getting the "unfair" (at least according to the "community vote") score, while other games seem to be rated normally. Shame on you! :thumbsdown:
I'm not sure what this means?

Look at the three biggest 'meta-score' sites coverage of Dark Messiah:
- GameRankings: 49 reviews, Average 7.4, Range 4 - 10 / 10. (1Up is low score)
- MetaCritics: 44 reviews, Average 7.2, Range 4 - 9.3 / 10. (1Up is low score)
- GameStats: 26 reviews, Average 7.5, Range 5 - 10 / 10. (I am the low score there)

That is a *huge* range of scores. Compare that to Half Life 2, with 95 scores between 80 - 100%, 93 of them 90% or higher. Similar things for BG2 and other highly ranked games. It is this whole question of "is this a good game that is flawed or a lousy game with some good moments" that tends to really broaden the spectrum of scores.

[coyote]

@Mike: I am sorry for the misunderstanding - my post scriptum was not really serious. Sure it is kind of sad when promising young developers get a score which barely tipped over to 'bad' in the eyes of a reviewer when the game has both good and bad sides, but it is also not the job of the reviewer to try to control the market. I do not see anything wrong with the score in this regard.

[JDR13]

I'm not sure what this means?

Look at the three biggest 'meta-score' sites coverage of Dark Messiah:
- GameRankings: 49 reviews, Average 7.4, Range 4 - 10 / 10. (1Up is low score)
- MetaCritics: 44 reviews, Average 7.2, Range 4 - 9.3 / 10. (1Up is low score)
- GameStats: 26 reviews, Average 7.5, Range 5 - 10 / 10. (I am the low score there)

That is a *huge* range of scores. Compare that to Half Life 2, with 95 scores between 80 - 100%, 93 of them 90% or higher. Similar things for BG2 and other highly ranked games. It is this whole question of "is this a good game that is flawed or a lousy game with some good moments" that tends to really broaden the spectrum of scores.

All those scores were given to the original pre-patched game. While they might have been fair then, I wouldn't recommend them to people trying to decide if they want to play the game now.

[txa1265]

All those scores were given to the original pre-patched game. While they might have been fair then, I wouldn't recommend them to people trying to decide if they want to play the game now.

Only based on the amount of bugs ... the rest is the same. So that might clear a couple of the lows. But anyone rating the game >90% within the first few days when there were massive bugs is every bit as much of an outlier.

[JDR13]

I agree, I don't think I ever saw the game getting that high of a review though. I must admit however that I don't really pay that much attention to reviews, I prefer to hear about a game from a friend I trust, or play a demo if one is available.

[unregisrex]

i just fond this site and i have to say the dark messia review is interesting.

first i have to say i don't care about the score, i can read what the reviewer has to say. who needs numbers really?

so first: i just played through the game, basicly as a fighter, because that is how the game just feels right. (environment, being close to enemies, etc) sometimes i tried to be an archer, spended experiencepoints on archery and got it up to level 3 but it was no fun. for example i tried to shoot down mages in the epilog from up on some ledge: i could not reach this guy at all, though the distance was not that big.
same with most magical attacks: there just was no place to run backwards while activating spells.
the whole game screams "melee" to me so hat is how i played it.
that is the biggest flaw in this game to me:
i thought to be able to play with different styles (system shock 2).

as a mage, an archer, etc. but ithe game never gave me signals or clear opitions.
for exapmle you can't kill the cyclop as an archer, you have to kill it wit the sword. You cannot really sneak by some guards because levels are linear.

that makes the skilltree pretty useless to me. It is all about getting points to enhance in the skilltree to be allowed to use better weapons. what is the difference to the standard shooter where you get a new weapon at a specific point? does a new skill really make you better? does it directly change he way you fight? absolutley not, in my opinion: the longer you play, the better your weapons get: standard.

recently i played through jade empire. i call it an acton-rpg. what i liked about it, that you spend your points on diferent fighting styles (weapons...), so: nothing new ode better here, but you also used gems to enhance strength, chi and focus: this realy gave you an option, because you need chi for magic and you need focus to fight with weapons or to be more efficient in fighting. this really made a difference.
the whle sklltree in darkmessiah felt like a pretty simple diagramm with (at least) a few options when to get allowed to use which weapon. initialy i liked it, but in the end i thought his could have been so much better, if it really changed the way you play he game. but most of the time you are only asked to kick and slash.

the other point i want to discuss is the leveldesign. actually i enjoyed some levels a lot (the whole part on the island), while other parts of the game like the burning city and especially the temple of ashes seemed rushed. textures or materials did not fit to each other, it looked uninspired. the only thing i liked about the last thrid of he game were the big halls where you had to jump dow somewhere, look up to find a new spot to shoot with the ropebow and so on. but also i totally got lost in this epilog level and fear that i forgot a lot of spots.

opposing to he reviewer i do not find the houses at the coastline unlogic, i did not think about it really i had to much fun with kicking down enemies or feeling the fresh air, after "days" in the temle. the island part actualy was quite immersive.
the proble for me was the bad quality of oher levels (temple of ashes).

about linearity: i think it was okay. a few more extra 'secret areas' would have been nice, but it was okay like hat. the most linear pat in this game actualy wa the most mmersive i think: he race over the roofs in he early game.
i do not want to damn all the leveldesign, because some where super beautifull: the temple area with the worm, the caves and the big area with the cyclone and the cyclone fight at the end of the first temple before you get to the coast.

what i would like to see in upcoming games like this (dark messiah2?):
-more choices (dialogs probably)and no boring, schematic characters.
-leveldesign-quality-controll
-make the player feel the difference (skilltree), the game has to give you ptions in your play, unless archery and magic are only for support.

[Moriendor]

as a mage, an archer, etc. but ithe game never gave me signals or clear opitions. for exapmle you can't kill the cyclop as an archer, you have to kill it wit the sword.

Errr... what? I played the entire game with a pretty heavy focus on ranged combat (archer) since it is my preferred style in most fantasy games and I killed every cyclops (as far as I can remember) with the bow. You just get him stuck on something in the level (yeah the AI is that dumb unfortunately) and then shoot a bunch of arrows in his eye. Worked fine every time. Piece of cake :) .

[Dhruin]

So...you can use a bow because the game supports it through an exploit? Good stuff - I always like multiple solutions.

[Moriendor]

So...you can use a bow because the game supports it through an exploit? Good stuff - I always like multiple solutions.

I hate to repeat myself :) but... Errr... what? First of all, look at what I replied to (I even highlighted the quote to make it more clear what exactly I was replying to). The statement that you can not kill the cyclops (there are several in the game by the way... three or four?) as an archer is 100% wrong. You can. And not only by using an exploit.

Secondly, I really wish that the damn cyclops wouldn't have gotten stuck on stuff in the level but that's how it turned out in all fights. Lousy programming and pathfinding is not my fault ;) .
Besides, the alternative "legit" fight would have been to do hit and run attacks on the cyclops. Run out of cover. Shoot an arrow in his eye. Run back to cover. Or run in circles around the guy. Repeat until cyclops dies. Yawn. So all I did is when he got stuck in a rock or wall, I just stayed out of range where he couldn't hit me and killed him from there. Big deal.
The third method would have been to hit that golden moment when the cyclops does not get stuck for a change but actually manages to follow you and then to use one of the environmental traps on him at the exact right point in time (nearly impossible thanks to the retard AI).

These boss fights aside, I did use the bow (as I said it's my preferred style of play) and melee combat alternatively all the time. Used the poison bow for a looong time. Then later the bow that would freeze enemies. I used them all the time, especially against those undead critters and spiders that were best kept at a distance to avoid getting poisoned. Against orcs, goblins, humanoids etc I used the bow only for the first strike and then switched to melee or just kicked them to death.

So, yes, I would say that depending on the type of enemy that you were dealing with (including the cyclopses) you did indeed have a range of multiple solutions by either keeping them at a distance with the bow or by engaging them in melee combat (or using a combo of both). I'm really not sure what you were trying to allude to with your post(?) Only trying to accuse me of using an exploit? Which matters how in a single player game? But OK. If it is of any comfort to you, I'll admit it. I cheated, I suck and I have a small weenie ;) .

[Acleacius]

Asbjoern
"Ah, come one. You can do better than trying to victimize independent developers.
"
You clearly don't understand the way the system works, right or wrong, then.
They are the ones whom suffer in most cases, sort of stunning you didn't know that, yet you seem more than willing to make cuorsory judgements about them. :S

"Why would I create a scoring system out of protest just because I think the average gaming scoring system is flawed?"
You are the one advocating it, I am just pointing out the blantant flaws, becasue they damage the industry at it's core.

"It is these websites own responsiblity and if they think a website has an out-of-sync......."
I have no idea where you get this idea, a website responsible for gathering reviews can pick an choose which reviews it wants to inlcude or exclude?
You got to be joking, right?

" They are judged by the quality of their games not by the single fact that they are independent."
No one said they were judged by being independent, and hell no they are not being judged by there work but the product that is many times pushed out the months early, by publishers.

txa1265
"That is a *huge* range of scores.".
Not really considering the game was shipped out buggy, unbalanced and had a weak story.
Unless I am reading these wrong it's 3 or 4 reviewers tanking by rating with scores lower than 60 out 40+ reviews and no one gave it lower than 60 in the GameStats, addtionally the fans out ranked the reviews average for the most part for an average of 80%.

Clearly if any one ranked the game less than 60% there is some wierd and unfair curve/bias present.

[Asbjoern]

You clearly don't understand the way the system works, right or wrong, then.
They are the ones whom suffer in most cases, sort of stunning you didn't know that, yet you seem more than willing to make cuorsory judgements about them. :S

Yep, it's stunning how ignorant I am.

You are the one advocating it, I am just pointing out the blantant flaws, becasue they damage the industry at it's core.

So you postulate.

I have no idea where you get this idea, a website responsible for gathering reviews can pick an choose which reviews it wants to inlcude or exclude?
You got to be joking, right?

And I would like some argumentation to why you think, that a website in a liberal society can't decide what websites they choose to gather information from and which they don't?
And I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean that Metacritic can arbitrarily choose what REVIEWS to include or exclude.
I meant that Metacritic can choose which SCORING SYSTEMS to include or exclude. So they can say we choose not to include any reviews from that website no matter their quality because we can't transform their scores to something coherent to our scoring system.
That is their FREE option!

My argument and evidence to back up that Metacritic interprets the scores still stands. Especially if it's a score from a 5/5 star system. So what exactly is the problem?
And as I wrote before one low score from one company doesn't influence the Metacritic score in any significant way. And if it does then it is because all the other websites has given the game a low score too and again: What is the problem then?

No one said they were judged by being independent, and hell no they are not being judged by there work but the product that is many times pushed out the months early, by publishers.

Those big, bad publishers. And oh those innocent independent developers. Is that really the reality?

You have a very black/white view of this. Independet developers accept a contract and then it is their obligation to fulfill that contract or else they should've said from the beginning that with the current funding and time period we can't fulfill the proposed contract. Is it that hard to demand that from independent developers?
You also have to see the publishers point of view in this regard because with every game they fund they run a risk. And it is not in the publishers best intention to send a game on the market with flaws because they lose money then. But obviously the independent developers couldn't manage their funding in a rational way so the publishers had to send a flawed game on the market otherwise the publishers would lose money.
Publishers look at it from a rational and financial stance. Not a "we want to send half finished games on the market".

[unregisrex]

ok, so it actually is possible to kill cyclopes with the bow, i guess i did not try hard enought.
what i tried to point out, is that the game does not support such killing techniques really. take the fight near the end of the temple on the island, you stand in a window, far up, the cyclope travells through the room, loking up sometimes. how much is it to kill it like that? probably i should try to get through the game ith archery only to learn to use it properly, but (that's my point) the game feels like it is not intended to be played that way.
i don't want to argue against exploiting bad ki, when it gets stuck somewhere, but all the traps and obstacle one could use seemed to me like a gimmick. strafing left and right, hitting this beast in the eye every time it tried to crush me. three to four hits and it was gone. the whole leveldesign doues not lead you to another fighting style (for example there where no sniper spots or anything else to get cover for more than a few seconds. so, you can play archer, you can fight as a magican, but the does nit support that aus much as it leads you to use your sword.
that means: tthe player lost a lot of options to use the skilltree, because of lacks in leveldesign.

one more point: the skilltree: i leveled up archery, strength and all the fighting skills to max and i can aim, at least at a slow target as a cyclope or an enemy that is standing around because it did not spot me: why did i not it my victim from far up? i tried it several times and i fear there are a few bugs left..

[Moriendor]

one more point: the skilltree: i leveled up archery, strength and all the fighting skills to max and i can aim, at least at a slow target as a cyclope or an enemy that is standing around because it did not spot me: why did i not it my victim from far up? i tried it several times and i fear there are a few bugs left..

Hmmm... I still disagree about the level design + cyclops bit. Every level/area where you had to fight a cyclops had an area/niche that you could hide in for cover. That's how I did it. I ran to cover where the cyclops could not pass through, reach me or hit me and then I shot a few dozen arrows at the thing (it was sometimes hard to hit the eye from a cover position since you often needed to wait for the cyclops to bend down or you wouldn't have an angle where you could aim/shoot at the eye... so that's why it took a lot of shots at times).

Regarding the quoted bit above, did you take the trajectory into account? The Source engine has fairly reaslistic physics so for enemies at a distance, you need to aim above their heads to hit them. Higher the further they are away from you. If you shoot down at someone from a higher position, you have to factor that in as well and you need to adjust your aim accordingly. I will admit though that arrows could be hard to spot, i.e. you could at times not really see where the arrow landed or hit since it was a bit small. I sometimes had to put my nose two inches from the screen, too, to tell where an arrow went and then adjust my aim.

Seriously, I overall found the bow to be a very good companion in combat though. As I said it was most effective against the spiders and undead. But it was also at least a good "opener" for all of the other fights. Head shots cause more damage so I usually opened up almost every fight with an arrow to the head, then switched to the sword and slashed or kicked the enemies to death. I think it's obvious that you aren't supposed to go through the game as a full archer. You get way too many points for that. You can max archery very early on. But if you wanted to restrict yourself to archery only for some strange reason then I'm sure that it could be done. It would just mean a lot of kiting and running (backwards and in circles) and kicking.

[unregisrex]

seems like we come to a conclusion ;)
you are supposed to play as a warrior (for example look at all the different animations/moves when you use the sword, kill enemies, especially the undead when they are down).

one question concerning bossfights: the dragon just before you start the epilog was fairly easy to beat with 3 shots, it did not do any damage to me. also the last fight against the undead dragon was boring as hell, i did not see any special options, so i randomly cut around in the air with the dragonsword when it came near. this sceleton-beast lost some bload O_o, then arantir paused, i atacked him and this wa repeated several times. was there a funnier way to win the fight? if there is one, just answer yes, so i can find out by myself except it is extensive archery ;)

[txa1265]

Clearly if any one ranked the game less than 60% there is some wierd and unfair curve/bias present.
Playing devil's advocate and assuming some statistical sense of normalcy, then you would surely agree that using an IQR (inter-quartile range) approach that anyone who reviewed the game above 80-85 (depending on the source, and an aggregate of all 3 sites would say 80) has "some weird and unfair curve/bias."

[Dhruin]

So, yes, I would say that depending on the type of enemy that you were dealing with (including the cyclopses) you did indeed have a range of multiple solutions by either keeping them at a distance with the bow or by engaging them in melee combat (or using a combo of both). I'm really not sure what you were trying to allude to with your post(?) Only trying to accuse me of using an exploit? Which matters how in a single player game? But OK. If it is of any comfort to you, I'll admit it. I cheated, I suck and I have a small weenie ;) .

No, no - that wasn't it. Look, I didn't bother finishing DM (even though it is apparently quite short) and certainly didn;t replay with different builds, so I didn't know if you could use a bow or not. When you posted about them getting stuck on geometry, I thought you were literally saying "you can kill a cyclops with a bow because they get stuck" - or in other words, you wouldn't be able to kill them if the game didn't screw up.

[JDR13]

I heard that he does have a small weenie though. :lol:

[Moriendor]

I heard that he does have a small weenie though. :lol:

HAHAHA d00d!!!!111 compared to urzzz mine is still of the shock and awe size, d00d!11!!!

No, no - that wasn't it. Look, I didn't bother finishing DM (even though it is apparently quite short) and certainly didn;t replay with different builds, so I didn't know if you could use a bow or not. When you posted about them getting stuck on geometry, I thought you were literally saying "you can kill a cyclops with a bow because they get stuck" - or in other words, you wouldn't be able to kill them if the game didn't screw up.

Ah, I see :) . Well, I hope I was finally able to clear up that archery is indeed a totally viable combat style in Dark Messiah. BTW, I didn't think that the game was quite short (only gaming "machines" like Mike seem to feel that way :) ) but then I don't have the stamina for really long playing sessions anymore. The max I can do is about three (maybe four on a good day) hours in a row and then I need a break of a couple of days or so. That might be why most games seem pretty long or even too long to me ;) .

[JDR13]

Ah, I see :) . Well, I hope I was finally able to clear up that archery is indeed a totally viable combat style in Dark Messiah. BTW, I didn't think that the game was quite short (only gaming "machines" like Mike seem to feel that way :) ) but then I don't have the stamina for really long playing sessions anymore. The max I can do is about three (maybe four on a good day) hours in a row and then I need a break of a couple of days or so. That might be why most games seem pretty long or even too long to me ;) .

Glad to see I'm not the only one around here who doesn't finish 7-8 games a week.

[Acleacius]

Asbjoern
"Yep, it's stunning how ignorant I am."
I don't agree that is an accurate assessment of my comment or that many would interpret it in such a way. :)

That being said, I know am ignorant about everything till I learn about it and afaik, no one is born with knowledge which makes us all ignorant of knowledge, until we learn it.
Hell I am perpetually ignorant, now I think about it and I wouldn't want it any other way, afaik the human brain and spirit withers, when learning is ceased.

"And I would like some argumentation to why you think,............"
To the best of my knowledge GameRankings includes all reviews they don't pick an choose site or rating standards/systems and I honestly don't know much about the two listed.
I had to go to their sites, to verify what I thought was true. i.e. "90%+ reviews did NOT tank the game" which I knew GR did not.

I certainly could have misunderstood you, but to me it's the same difference and if MC & GS pick and choose there reviews and/or scoring systems, that’s fine, if true gives me a reason not to use their sites.
Sure they have a right to do it, but are the rating accurate they pick and choose, how could it possibly be?

"Those big, bad publishers. And oh those innocent independent developers. Is that really the reality?"

Personally I see it as a case by case issue, nor did I use the word innocent and in this case it's very clear Ubi pushed out the game for the holidays, are you suggesting otherwise?
If you have some publisher(s) whom you believe are innocent and you want to speak about them, list names or instances. :)

If you think I always blame the publisher about problems, then you don't know me as well as you presume/think, within the last week I blamed Illusion for game design flaws in Mafia, I have done the same for Crytek and others, so your whole basis is incorrect.

"Independet developers accept a contract........"
Of course but it's case by case, and not to mention the fact that technologies change during development cycles, which you don't seem to factor in or are excluding.
I.e. would be new/updated Dev kits from m$ or sony if it's a console game, or does the pub decide it wants to reach the same audience it did three years ago in the original contract?
Do you know how many changes just in technology occur in three years?
How about international laws regarding rating systems change?
Is 4 examples enough cause I got plenty more. :)

Give me specifics; generalities do us no good, here. :)

txa1265
"......then you would surely agree that using an IQR....."
Yes, I agree with you and logic that some high scores are bias or using some curve. :)
However that does not make me want to cast the lighting bolt of doom and it’s certainly possible this was the type of game they really enjoyed.
Especially if it's from a very small number of dev that have RPG potential, as an example, to the best of my knowledge the script/story was given to Arkine to make a game around the new licensed and vision of Ubi after they acquired M&M universe, yet Arkine is being blamed and punished for the quality of the story by some reviewers. :(

In regards to the Bow issue, once you find the first Fireball bow, most anything will fall and you certainly have it for the last undead Cyclops, iirc there are about 3 Fireball Bows with one in the tombs before you fight your way out of the temple, so really you never have to fight a Cyclops without a good bow.

[Sir Markus]

Stop the bickering, ladies. (JK) I'd just go with a percentage rating, and Dark Messiah would get an 85% in my book, but I'm not a game reviewer, and thank the gods. Dark Messiah of Might and Magic was a pretty nice action adventure almost identical in concept to Severance: Blade of Darkness, but it wasn't another Might and Magic VII either. But as an action adventure in a medieval setting, it wasn't bad at all. And in my opinion, it was just an all around fun game to play.

[Dark Savant]

No SDK for DMoM&M.:(
Last week, an Arkane Studios employee broke the news about the status of the Dark Messiah of Might and Magic SDK (software development kit, which would allow fans to mod the game easily): "Arkane Studios did it and it was ready to go. Unfortunatly, Ubisoft decided not to release it. I can't give you a real explanation about that, as I am afreid I don't even know why they decide it. I am really sorry for all of you guys out there."

http://forum.arkane-studios.com/viewtopic.php?p=140&sid=05f56351934a67108d0723c243ee939f#140

[Dez]

Speaking of DK. I'm currently replaying it third time, now as an assasin. oh boy its FUN! Combat is such a blast and the level design, well those levels just don't seem to get old. Play it on hardcore if you dare! The adrenaline is constantly pumping in my veins, because every hit can be leathal. I'm just relying on daggers and bow. And if my stealth attack fails, i'm forced to use enviroment on my advantage. quicksaving is a big no ofcourse. I'm not really sure why i'm having so much fun..The game has couple of flaws and storyline is at best silly, moreover that Xana-character is really annoying.
Maybe its because there are not many action games aside severance, rune and jk series which are focused on melee combat :)

[curiously undead]

rune...*shudders*
hack and slash even if all melee is still hack and slash and hardly worth of a game focused on melee combat. console games made soley for the pc--sounds like a winner idea;)
at least enclave had an excuse for its shallownish as it was also released on consoles. but dark messiah is superior to either of them in my view though not as good as severence.