RPGWatch Feature - Alpha Protocol Impressions

Very interesting read. I mentioned this earlier - I still think approach is the key here: Approach it as an RPG with shooter mechanics, and it's a great game. Approach it as a shooter with RPG elements, and it's not.

I've also seen another trend - people preferring ME1 over ME2 enjoy it, while those preferring ME2 over ME1 do not. I'm definetly among the former.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,578
Location
Bergen
Indeed very interesting read. Should imho appear on the front page.

I wondered, however, if there are 2 distinct "gaming cultures" - and whether this is a hindrance for developers for developing for the *international* market …

Also an interesting note :

On the other hand I’ve noticed for a long time that many magazines/review sites tend to overlook some pretty noticeable problems that certain games coming from big-ass publishers and developers have, while the “not so hyped” games tend to be hammered for the same issues.

I assume that money or special special special editions (like the one of Dragon Age with the editor's personal name on it) just makes the editors/reviewers look over these flaws in games from rather *big* publishers.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
Do you say this of herds as well ?
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
Aren't you contradicting yourself somewhat here?

I can see why you'd think so ;)

It was my attempt at humor, but I guess it failed :(

In any case, even when you're part of a herd - you will have an individual opinion. The fact that you don't share it or express it, doesn't mean it's not there.

So you might enjoy something without sharing that fact ;)
 
In any case, even when you're part of a herd - you will have an individual opinion. The fact that you don't share it or express it, doesn't mean it's not there.

So you might enjoy something without sharing that fact ;)
Fair enough…


I can see why you'd think so ;)

It was my attempt at humor, but I guess it failed :(
Actually I sort of got it - I just figured I might have missed something (language issues).
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
693
In any case, even when you're part of a herd - you will have an individual opinion. The fact that you don't share it or express it, doesn't mean it's not there.

Technically, you are right. Even Bees, Ants and Cattle have their own opinions.

What I was rather thinking of were "meta-beings". You know, hives as such.

And within any hive or swarm, an own opinion doesn't really matter.

And if you consider "cultures" as being so-called "meta-beings", then within them individual opinions don't really matter much.
You just need to step *several* steps back to see them. The "meta-beings", I mean.

I recently found that I'm not too far with my concept of what I call "meta-beings" : Last month or the month before that I saw in an advertisement the cover of the German-language edition of MIT's "Technology Review". On the title cover there was actually an article about what I call "meta-beings" advertised. However, I cannot find anything anymore within the web site of the magazine.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
I assume that money or special special special editions (like the one of Dragon Age with the editor's personal name on it) just makes the editors/reviewers look over these flaws in games from rather *big* publishers.

I think it's more likely to be a sense of "peer pressure", rather than money. I know everyone thinks the reviewers at IGN and GameSpot etc are corrupt but I seriously doubt this is really the case (be careful to separate the management from the editorial staff). I suspect what really happen is a basic expectation for a game forms over time, based on the marketing efforts prior to release.

Everyone "knows" Blizzard makes polished games. You can expect Starcraft 2 to get astronomical scores (not suggesting it won't deserve it but this is already established well before release). Anyone wanting to go against this will face angry fanboys and ridicule from their peers. It's similar with BioWare and so on.

Small games have no such pressure - possibly even the reverse; the expectation for a European game is a lower level of polish, poor translation etc, so the reviewers are free to explore those aspects.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
Noone can deny the fact that big behemoth games tend to get better scores than smaller ones, despite not always earning it. While it might be possible that bribing is involved, I honestly think Dhruin is right here - it's probably pressure more than money. Why? Because even small gaming sites in Norway give those games superb scores, and they're hardly big enough to get anything special from a publisher.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,578
Location
Bergen
While I'm sure outright bribes are rare, I have absolutely no doubt that there's a level of "expectation" that no one really talks about. The sort of thing that goes on at any workplace where under the table "deals" take place (everywhere, basically), but without rules set down anywhere.

Those sites depend on their sponsors and industry support, and even if no direct tie can be seen from the outside, you'd have to be downright naive if you think the sites don't let themselves get influenced HEAVILY.

But it's a psychological game of denial, and just like any workplace where the "VIPs" rule silenty without really pointing a finger at the unspoken rules, people will have to conform anyway. I'm sure the reviewers are telling themselves that 10/10 games really ARE 10/10, because it wouldn't be pleasant to admit to yourself that you're basically selling out.
 
Ultimately I think people give those 'critics' too much credit really. I'm guessing so feel free to correct me - but I'd assume that they don't have any qualifications that would make their opinion weight more than that of anyone who has played a few games.

I would not, for example, accept the opinion of an art critic that didn't have a solid enough knowledge of the subject, which would include more than 'having seen plenty of paintings' - like studies of art theory, history etc. (If game critics do have something like that however it certainly doesn't show in any mainstream reviews I have read)
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
693
Ultimately I think people give those 'critics' too much credit really. I'm guessing so feel free to correct me - but I'd assume that they don't have any qualifications that would make their opinion weight more than that of anyone who has played a few games.

I would not, for example, accept the opinion of an art critic that didn't have a solid enough knowledge of the subject, which would include more than 'having seen plenty of paintings' - like studies of art theory, history etc. (If game critics do have something like that however it certainly doesn't show in any mainstream reviews I have read)

Doesn't really matter what background they have, because they have the ears of the mainstream.

You can't expect the average mainstream gamer to put much effort into researching reviewer backgrounds, which is precisely why the big boys use them like they do.

The enthusiast gamers won't make a big difference there.

Even so, I don't use the opinions of other people when I'm interested in a game for real. I use them if I'm on the fence, but not really for their opinion, but more for the kind of things they can tell me about the game, so I can form my own opinion.

I find it strange and irrational to rely on the opinions of other people, because that suggests they have identical tastes to mine. So, I just fish out what I can use - and ignore what they actually THINK about the game.

For instance, with movies, I know Ebert is very popular - but I think he's unreliable and incompetent. That doesn't mean I can't use his reviews though, because I'm aware of what he responds to, and even if I might see the movie regardless - I find the opinions of other people fascinating for entirely different reasons :)
 
Noone can deny the fact that big behemoth games tend to get better scores than smaller ones, despite not always earning it. While it might be possible that bribing is involved, I honestly think Dhruin is right here - it's probably pressure more than money. Why? Because even small gaming sites in Norway give those games superb scores, and they're hardly big enough to get anything special from a publisher.

Pressure and expectations add up to populism:)

I see a lot of similarities with coverage of football teams in our national tabloid newspapers. If a capital club does something it is hailed as groundbreaking, while the "country cousins" are ignored or not expected to do much. If the former clubs are doing crap then that is taken as a sign that the entire league is going down the crapper.

Put in Bethsoft, a random Euro developer, and the RPG genre instead and the pattern is pretty darn similar:p The disparity in coverage and reception is greater than warranted by the difference in resources and actual quality...
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
2,013
You can't expect the average mainstream gamer to put much effort into researching reviewer backgrounds, which is precisely why the big boys use them like they do.
Which I guess is true but very unfortunate.

I admittedly have much less faith in my taste that most people do (or claim to have on the web)

Whatever good taste, education and culture I've developed in my life I consider it a result of trusting that someone who has invested in the study of a subject, and therefore knows it better that I do, can instruct me in ways that would ultimately benefit me by expanding my taste or my perception ultimately making me 'better' or at least less prone on being fooled.

A critic that will simply give me what I want by simply assuring me that my own taste is the ultimate measure by which the world should be judged, while ignoring what will benefit me, is therefore a critic that I don't want.

The way I see it "herds" consist of people who are simply assured that their individual lack of knowledge, common to all, has the same weight as any knowledgeable person's opinion. As such, what 'having the ears of the mainstream' means to me is nothing more than assuring a crowd that appealing to their untrained eye should be the ultimate goal of any work.

(Also, I have no idea who Ebert is)
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
693
Which I guess is true but very unfortunate.

I admittedly have much less faith in my taste that most people do (or claim to have on the web)

Whatever good taste, education and culture I've developed in my life I consider it a result of trusting that someone who has invested in the study of a subject, and therefore knows it better that I do, can instruct me in ways that would ultimately benefit me by expanding my taste or my perception ultimately making me 'better' or at least less prone on being fooled.

A critic that will simply give me what I want by simply assuring me that my own taste is the ultimate measure by which the world should be judged, while ignoring what will benefit me, is therefore a critic that I don't want.

The way I see it "herds" consist of people who are simply assured that their individual lack of knowledge, common to all, has the same weight as any knowledgeable person's opinion. As such, what 'having the ears of the mainstream' means to me is nothing more than assuring a crowd that appealing to their untrained eye should be the ultimate goal of any work.

(Also, I have no idea who Ebert is)

I'm not really sure what any of that meant ;)

In any case, I don't think of taste as good or bad. I see my own personal taste as a result of my own development and whatever features/implementations that I've come to appreciate, given my personality.

What other people prefer or like is largely completely irrelevant to me, when I'm considering the investment of time that a game requires.

So, the ideal review - to me - would be one that, in detail, lists features and implementations of those features, as well as giving as objective a view as possible, regarding who might enjoy the game.

Some random reviewer's personal opinion is interesting from a psychological point of view, because I'm deeply invested in understanding the human mind - but it's nearly 100% irrelevant to whether or not I will personally enjoy the game.

That said, if I come to respect the competence of a reviewer, as in the understanding of genre traditions and the history of the gaming industry, I will naturally rely more firmly on their words. That's why I prefer to discuss games on sites like this one, where people are very well versed in the RPG genre, which is my own personal favorite genre. Beyond that, we're not connected with the industry in a business-like fashion, which means I can mostly trust the neutrality of opinions here.

But I consider the vast majority of "popular" gaming journalists to be extremely incompetent in this specific area. People like Tom Chick on QT3, seems to have little to no understanding of what enthusiast "old-school" gamers enjoy, and he has but his own mainstream angle from which to speak. Now, I realise that the QT3 crowd is diverse, but in my view they're way too entangled in the industry, and with industry people - to be able to objectively state their opinion in a way that I can trust.

They're part of the problem I have with the industry, but I realise that it's MY personal problem. I can't possibly expect the players of the industry to give two shits about my point of view, so I will never fault them for going the mainstream "popular" route. That's their business.

Roger Ebert is (or was??) one of the most famous american movie critics.
 
I'm not really sure what any of that meant ;)
It means mainstream reviewers have no idea what they are talking about so they can only praise what they think they are expected to praise and people who listen to them play idiotic games therefore learning to believe that idiocy = high quality.


It also means that I don't expect reviewers to "objectively state their opinion" - when I want that I check the forums. I want a reviewer to form an as subjective as possible opinion based on whatever knowledge he might have on the subject.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
693
Back
Top Bottom