Brother None
SasqWatch
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,558
Uhm, well, as txa pointed out, this article wasn't about Oblivion, it just used Oblivion as a test case.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,558
If it was not clear to you, I didn't mean they are an interpretation but your conclusion drawn from them. Also, graphics can wane quite quickly nowadays. Naturally, I cannot but wonder why you picked up graphic issues to point out "contradictions" of the older and newer reviews since comparing technology with newer games with older ones produces rather obvious result. Really, didn't anybody notice this? I'd rather pick them as how the larger media companies praise plastic aspects of games continuously.I'm a bit puzzled by what is an interpretation here. I indicate the timing of the criticism, the early lack of it, and provide quotes for it. Interpretation would be giving a motivation for it, but I don't. The existence of this phenomenon and its timing are objective facts, not interpretation.
Of course, above is just my humble interpretations, though.As teams have grown larger, schedules longer, and production budgets titanic, computer games have become almost as slick and polished as television and cinema -- and often as dull and formulaic. I preferred working in small teams with short schedules and smaller budgets, and I don't prefer the slick, polished products of today to the rougher, simpler products of a decade ago. Clearly the mass market prefers the slicker games, but I prefer, for example, the original Pirates and Civilization to the various later editions.
If it was not clear to you, I didn't mean they are an interpretation but your conclusion drawn from them.
Naturally, I cannot but wonder why you picked up graphic issues to point out "contradictions".
What conclusion? Quote please.
One thing is for sure, the gaming media is better at praising than they are at criticizing, since it takes them a one-hour demo to praise a game to high heavens, but a year to find flaws in a game once released.
I meant all the technology issues especially graphics. However, if you say "only" two of them are ignorable, then, I have my doubts in what you write.Out of the 12 contradictions I cite, only 2 or 3 are about graphics.
Uhm, well, as txa pointed out, this article wasn't about Oblivion, it just used Oblivion as a test case.
The massive monopolizing greed machines
I wrote a very polite letter to the Editor, saying that to me, at least G3, was as good a game as Oblivion was. And that Oblivion also did have bugs in it, also quest-breaking bugs. And while the reviewer for Oblivion let that slide by easily, the G3's reviewer didn't. This simply isn't a fair way of doing reviews, imo.
There is a matter of degree and frequency involved here. Gothic 3 had at least as much potential as Oblivion, if not a whole lot more, but it was rendered at times unplayable by bugs. Bugs in the scripting, bugs in the engine, bugs in the basic gameplay, bugs, bugs, bugs. I played all the way through the original Oblivion release, no patches, over the course of a month or so and never hit a single bug. I ran into bugs in Gothic 3 in the first minutes I played and then almost continuously afterward. I was willing to put up with them, to a point, because I could see the shiny gem of a game buried in there. But I eventually gave up on Gothic 3 after a few weeks hoping that some day it would be fixed up. And my experience with both games is not unusual.