Raven's Cry - Review @ GameSpot

The ghostship serves two purposes.
1. Opens up the main story as your hero realizes a certain person from his past appeared
2. Oddly some people admitted they missed this - on one corpse you find a map of an island supposed to contain a treasure (and it does, you will find it if you go there and EXPLORE)

I was surprised when people on Steam forums said they didn't take that map LOL. Ah well… They lack of RPG experience to turn every stone I guess.

Yea, I said bad exploration. It goes for colonized islands. Whatever was on those, it's cleaned up by colonists ages ago. You can still find a weapon freebie somewhere if you look carefully… No spoilers!
Unexplored islands? And there are a few of those… You'll explore them for riches. I got filthy rich after exploring just one of those. Well… Almost… I still had to play my crew weekly salaries.

The story is a mixed bag. Some parts are great, some are cheesy. Not a masterpiece, but not a childish paintbook either.

The 'weapon freebies if you look carefully' was one of my ideas, if I do say so myself. I thought that added little things like that would enhance the exploration a bit.

Acleacius said:

I didn't read the review, it was a joke on what Fluent said about Raven being a nasty/viscous guy.

@DArtagnan it must be one offensive review.

Click to expand...

Offensive? I wouldn't know as I don't get offended. But I happen to think that if someone is completely incapable of doing his job, he should be fired.

Sad thing that this game was released so early. It had tons of potential. I feel sorry for the devs. Even if the game is buggy as hell, 1/10 is just unfair. Hopefully they manage to patch it in shape before next steam sale. It could become a steam sale hit easily if serious bugs were ironed out.

In fact it sounds like the reviewer had some kind of agenda here. I personally don't get these modern reviewer types who bash video games based on the political correctness level. Seems that this guy can't get his head around the fact that these pirates would not support equality of genders or other modern values. Or that main character was a dick rather than typical hero.

I don't have the slightest idea, how historically accurate this game is, but it seems that this reviewer would like every pirate game to be like Disney's pirates of the caribean. Fantasy pirates so to speak. Raven's cry obviously took more realistic approach which should not be punished. D'artagnan is right. The reviewer is not doing his job properly.

Imagine what these reviewers will say about the upcoming kingdom of deliverance. No elves, no dragons, no bioware type romances, no female knights…

Here is his twitter feed https://twitter.com/dsaas89

Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/don.saas.9

Comes off as kind of an arrogant jackass. Kevin Van Ord too.

Quote from fb page.

People have left like 400 comments on that review I linked to yesterday, and it looks I pissed off GooberGate misogynists/MRAs who are accusing me of being some radical, Marxist bleeding heart pinko SJW. And, I mean, they're not wrong.

I guess it is probably better to receive a 1/10 compared to a 5/10 or 6/10 the 1/10 will create a lot more PR and make people curious etc.

joxer said:

Dunno what to say. Luckily there is no slave trading in the game (while historically there should be) otherwise that gamespot reviewer would probably put 0/10.

On the exploration part, no, forget it. No exploration. Bad exploration. Don't do, exploration. Don't buy the game for exploration, you'll get disappointed. It's not a part of this game. Could have been, dunno why it's scrapped. Maybe gets added by modders as there are enough resources (landmass) for that.
But I can't evaluate the game for things it doesn't contain and then slap 1/10 saying "no exploration, no multiplayer, no children, no… airplanes = It sux!".

Click to expand...

For a while you almost convinced me, but then I watched this video. Of course you can claim some of the clips in this video are edited footage instead of actual gameplay. I mean there are probably more of these on Rome II: Total War, but I personally haven't encountered that many game-breaking bugs, well if you dismiss a really long loading screen as one.

But then I've been extremely tolerant to bugs--either lucky enough or compliant to the way the dev wants you to play their games. Even in much hated Skyrim or Fallout 3 I don't recall having any of those CTD with 100+ mods loaded. With games this complex and vast nowadays loaded with open-world sandbox and user customizations like modding, one should expect the experience to be a lil...bumpy?

All in all, what score would you give to Raven's Cry? A 5 or 6? I actually like Two Worlds II quite a bit and believe it to deserve at least a 8/10. But base on the customer input on this game, I wouldn't keep my finger crossed.

DArtagnan said:

Offensive? I wouldn't know as I don't get offended. But I happen to think that if someone is completely incapable of doing his job, he should be fired.

Click to expand...

Don't get it either. Witcher series is probably as offensive as this one, but it gets away by being offensive in "a good way" perhaps? Does it all boil down to the quality of the game at the end of the day?

Essentially, it's the job of any established reviewer to give a reasonably impartial evaluation of whatever is being reviewed - and his or her personal dedication to enjoying only what can be considered politically correct in modern times - needs to be kept separate from the actual score of the product, unless it's a product that overtly attempts to include modern time political correctness as an integral part of its value.

It can be brought up and mentioned as a warning, but to use it in such an emotionally fueled way is deeply, deeply unprofessional - and belongs in a teenager's ignorant and heartfelt battle against a take on history - in an entertainment product - that he or she confuses with promoting such values in modern day life.

I think Gamespot would do well to consider if they really want such blatant incompetence on the payroll.

LordKane said:

For a while you almost convinced me, but then I watched this video.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about videos, I'm talking about a game. Games are to to be played. If you want to watch something, I suggest downloading some pr0n.

LordKane said:

long loading screen

Click to expand...

That is not Raven's Cry. It can be EA's Sims 4. In that game loading screens, even on SSD, tend to last one whole minute after a while.
In Raven's Cry gamestart loading screen lasts 3-4 seconds and quicksave/quickload screens 1-2 seconds on normal 7200 RPM HDD.

Sorry, but I won't comment the rest of your post. For all questions, contact the author of whatever video. I can only answer on questions about the game.

This review aside, there seems to be overwhelming negativity surrounding this game. Even the positive user reviews on steam point out several negatives.

2 that stand out to me are poor melee combat and exploration. Since I'm a combat first, exploration second type guy I'll be avoiding this game.

You're doing the same mistake everyone with negativity does.

The game plays around sea fights. Ship fights.
Groundcombat and landexploration is a side content in this game.
If you're not interested into ship fights - that's definelty the reason to avoid the game. Bugged groundcombat AI and lack of Risen 3 exploration model are not. I've noted also above, while there is no reason to explore colonized islands, unexplored islands with natives you should explore.

I can't understand this approach critics (and trolls) do here. They're not talking about what the game has. They're searching for something the game doesn't have and are talking about stuff that doesn't exist at all in the game like this gamespot reviewer.
What's even more odd, the game contains a certain IMO superb "Indiana Jones" quest in a temple. No combat at all. Only puzzle solver. Yea… Did you see any critics mention that one? Of course not. Why would they talk about that. Critics wanted Dark Souls and Assassins Creed clone, Raven's Cry is too different and too much for their brain to swallow.

Sure, if the game did implement better groundcombat and exploration, it'd probably have ended as a masterpiece (not really from my personal perspective as the story is not such material, but as usual, critics ignore the story if they can grind all day long and to them it'd be). But it's not. It's just a good game.

I've posted above. No need to rush, please buy the game when it's on some discount, play it and then you'll tell me why do I like the game so much when it's panned by critics.
Before playing it, all you can answer me is if you really believe this game is worse than Dungeon Keeper on phones (42/100 on metacritic compared to raven's cry's 30/100).

joxer said:

You're doing the same mistake everyone with negativity does.

The game plays around sea fights. Ship fights.
Groundcombat and landexploration is a side content in this game.
If you're not interested into ship fights - that's definelty the reason to avoid the game. Bugged groundcombat AI and lack of Risen 3 exploration model are not. I've noted also above, while there is no reason to explore colonized islands, unexplored islands with natives you should explore.

I can't understand this approach critics (and trolls) do here. They're not talking about what the game has. They're searching for something the game doesn't have and are talking about stuff that doesn't exist at all in the game like this gamespot reviewer.

Click to expand...

Maybe that's because they are marketing the game to have great melee combat and exploration and even by your admission it doesn't.

Their first 2 paragraphs under " about game" are about swordplay and exploration.

So obviously people review them on features they are advertising but not delivering on.

Maybe they have poor marketing and should advertise the game as a naval battle game and it might get better reviews but you can't advertise great swordplay and exploration and then say don't review that part the games about ship battles.

Sorry, I didn't see advertisments. Didn't care. All I saw was the Hanging Willy spot and preordered the game instantly just based on that. And Hanging Willy is in the game.

I've not played this game. I've only watched some game-play video. The problem with this studio and its games, which was especially apparent in Two Worlds, is writing. I did play the original Two Worlds and enjoyed it immensely. I would have enjoyed it much more except for the atrocious writing and dialog.
I see this weakness again in RC. I don't have a problem with the game's concept, goals, graphics, game-play, or sociological or cultural content. It's the 17th-18th century after all. There was sexism, racism, slavery, substance abuse, etc. The problem is poor writing and dialog. This can also affect game-play to an extent because it affects how the story unfolds and is expressed in a scene and in action/game-play.
I can claim a bit of experience in professional writing. I have a novel and a short story up on Amazon and Smashwords and have sold some, so I guess that technically makes me a professional. A writer has to think like a film director to an extent. What do I want this scene and this dialog to reveal, not only about the over-all story, but about the protagonist/hero? Or the antagonist/villain?
In addition, the dialog has to convey a sense of the period in which the story/game is set, but not so much as to confuse the player.
This is, in my view, the weakness of RC and a number of other studio's games. For RC to use modern terms and idiom's in dialog is jarring and breaks immersion and mood. Of course you don't want to hear corny Hollywood pirate dialog, but doing a bit of historical research and sprinkling that in would improve immersion and lend authenticity to the game. Yes, I know this is not an historical re-enactment of pirate life. Still, if you're going to set a game/story in that period, do it convincingly.
That's my approach when I write. I do research and use it judiciously to add weight to what I write.

joxer said:

The game plays around sea fights. Ship fights. …

I can't understand this approach critics (and trolls) do here. They're not talking about what the game has. They're searching for something the game doesn't have and are talking about stuff that doesn't exist at all in the game like this gamespot reviewer.

Click to expand...

I just want to honestly thank you for the information you've provided. I know I may have been difficult to you at times, but your information has made it pretty clear the GameSpot review is absurd (which was clear from the score).

I totally understand how you feel. Sites like GameSpot just pick on some games to hate on…they've done it countless times (Dead Island Riptide for example). They determine a game is "safe" to hate and just let one of their immature reviewers rip it to shreds based on personal feelings and exaggerations.

Some people just can't see through their personal bias and hate. Hence they list no positives on a game that clearly does have some good things going for it.

Anyway, at your recommendation, I'll keep watching for more patches and sale prices. I do love me a pirate game, even a very flawed one.

They should sue gamespot for libel. That site lost any credibility it had years ago.

====================
joxer Post

I can't understand this approach critics (and trolls) do here. They're not talking about what the game has. They're searching for something the game doesn't have and are talking about stuff that doesn't exist at all in the game like this gamespot reviewer.
====================

Unfortunately that approach is widely used by reviewers of submitted journal articles, whereby they refuse publication of an article (for reasons other than academic or professional) by commenting on the lack of mention or discussion of matters that are not within the context of the submitted articles (even though the context is clearly described which in this case is a pirate game and associated game mechanics).

Just terrible, but reflects the sinister and low quality approach of this site (gamespot) in this case, which I stopped looking at many years ago.

elco said:

They should sue gamespot for libel. That site lost any credibility it had years ago.

Click to expand...

To what point?
Gamespot would just say it's Gonzo journalism and I doubt any court would actually play through the whole game to determine if it was really subjective matter or the article is full of:

joxer said:

To what point?
Gamespot would just say it's Gonzo journalism and I doubt any court would actually play through the whole game to determine if it was really subjective matter or the article is full of:

Click to expand...

Heh, I'm positive that Larian would disagree, because GameSpot is the only mainstream site that bestow the Game of the Year laurel to D:OS. Now I don't know about you, but any site give the GotY to D:OS over DA:I is fine by me =D