RPGWatch Feature: The Witcher Review

[magerette]

I could go on with a few other things, all minor ones like the things mentioned above... it's really the sum of all these small flaws and glitches that makes The Witcher seem rather old fashioned. I'm not talking about story, linearity or stuff like that... that's really a matter of taste. I'm talking about the things that you can judge objectively... and from my point of view these aspects do not justify the highest rating possible...

Wow, someone remembers me... I feel a bit honored now. Hehe, but honestly you have a really nice point there bringing Fallout. If you ask me if I like Fallout, I have to tell you that I love it... for me personally it's one of the best RPGs ever made. If you ask me if I had given it 5 stars in a test, I have to tell you that I would never ever have done that. Despite all the many great things that Fallout featured, it was also quite bug-ridden, and the graphics were not up to date (not even close to that) at the time of release...

Points taken, ISS. I'm not going to dissect your post too much because I think I understand where you're coming from, but I will ask you one question, if you wouldn't give Fallout, a game you really love, the highest score, what game would you give five stars to? No game is going to be perfect, especially at initial release and before patching. So is no game worthy of the highest score? I think that's a valid point in a way--nothing in life is without flaws, but which is more important, the ultimate experience, or the flaws? Rating a game that is the best example of what you'd like a game to be at the highest rating is simply saying it's about the game experience itself and not the graphics, the engine, the translation or the load times.

To me, that score is deserved when you are able to be deeply impressed and involved with a game, i.e., "love" it despite the flaws, to the point where they are almost unnoticable. The flaws in the game are there, (though I hear the patch has really helped with loading times and such) but honestly they meant very little to me. Not to get overly serious, IMO, it's about appreciating the whole game experience on that high a level that you will either not care about flaws because the game transcends them, or you will just love the game anyway, like you loved your first puppy.

BTW, if you want a different look at the game from the site without the extra helping of rose coloured glasses, you might check out Dhruin's hands-on previews. He played an early build, but really goes over some of the technical issues and gives the game the kind of scrutiny I think you are looking for.

 

[Arhu]

“Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.” - Confucius

 

[Dhruin]

Like magerette, I won't dissect your post line by line because most of it is your perfectly valid perception. A few comments, however.

First, almost your entire criticism is based on the engine and a perception of datedness. I'm simply much more interested in the content than the technology used to deliver it. Don't get me wrong - the engine (and related issues) - are very important to enjoying that content but it sounds like you place far more emphasis than I do on these matters. For example, I just don't see anything wrong with the movement. The "no jump" item would make my list of minor complaints somewhere around No. 157 and otherwise, it controlled nicely for me.

Now, I didn't write the review - Prime Junta did - but I edited and endorsed it.

Different reviewers have different priorities, so perhaps we just aren't the right reviewers for you.

I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that The Witcher represents a significant milestone in terms of content: a major (let's call it "AAA", even if you disagree on the level of polish) modern CRPG with a sophisticated game world and NPC interactions and an engrossing story intimately entwined through the player's choices. We can argue the specific merit but I don't know of an RPG since Fallout or PS:T that creates such a layered world with real motivations.

Finally, we had no intent for it to be a pure "buyer's guide" review. The article came out a month after release, so a zillion other reviews (and player comments) were available for the purpose of purchase consideration. With that already well covered on the internet (and arguably my own preview), Prime Junta wrote from a different perspective that I thought was fresh, and I'm pretty satisfied with that. If we'd have been able to get the article out in the first week or so, maybe I would have been more concerned with the basic game mechanics.

 

[bjon045]

The witcher is much more stable than NWN2 is on my machine and to me it feels just as polished. I think I would give it a 5/5 after a few more patches come out and I haven't even played it that much (got to the hellhound fight).

 

[Prime Junta]

@IIS -- thanks for your critique of the critique.

First off, I notice that the alpha and the omega of your critique is... the score. Yay.

When I first started writing that piece, I didn't even consider it a review -- more like an editorial comment on it. It doesn't follow the template of the game review, after all: it doesn't dissect the technology, the graphics, the gameplay elements, the bugs, the loading times, and so on.

Thing is, by the time it was published, the Web was chock-full of reviews that do exactly that. Anything I (or, I believe, anyone else here on the Watch) could write in that vein would add very little value to the information that's already out there. By the time it went up, the vast majority of its readers will have read one or more "classic" game review that addresses exactly those things anyway.

So, I got to thinking... why not? What's so sacred about the "review template" that Watch reviews have to be just like reviews at any other site, only perhaps emphasizing stuff like character development, branching storylines, and other classic "RPG" elements a bit more?

If you read the beginning and the end of the review carefully, you'll find that it's actually a critique of the way games are reviewed as much as it is of the game itself. Reviewers are so focused on the stuff that you so ably listed that they almost invariably miss what, for me, is the most interesting thing about any game -- what it's "about."

The final "sixteen out of five" sentence (of which your quotation conveniently stripped the entire point, just fixating on the numbers) is an illustration of this: what I feel is wrong about the way games are reviewed and numbers are assigned to them. I only put in the numbers because RPGWatch review guidelines require the numbers; however, I then subverted them.

Which is, in a nutshell... exactly what you expressed in your thoughtful and well-argued posting.

Now, I would ask you to do one more thing: read the review as if it's not a review, but a really long forum posting with the title "Why I think The Witcher is special."

Then consider these two topics for discussion:

(1) Do you agree or disagree with it?
(2) Should RPGWatch have published it as a review, or omitted the scores and published it as an editorial article (the way I originally envisioned it?)

In my not-so-humble opinion, RPGWatch did well to publish it as a review, since it directly challenges the way reviews are written in most places. This is far more effective than just publishing it as one more piece of pontification unconnected to anything in particular.

 

[skavenhorde]

My 2 cents worth is that I liked it as a review. It gave a clear picture to this layman what the game was about, even though I was already playing it but if I hadn't it was the most honest review out there. It had all that was good, bad and ugly about the game. Which is what I want when I read a review about the game.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Thanks for the thorough explanation ISS. If I would have to put points on the individual aspects of the game, like graphics, sound, interface, gameplay, you would probably find that we largely agree. I noticed the flaws you mention, but like for the others above, they didn't matter much, because the game in its entirety was simply so enthralling. For every failing it has, one can probably list something it does above average or even excellently. So if you'd ask me what my favourite RPG in the last two years was, it would still be the witcher, and so it would still get a very high score from me and an editors choice award on top. So in agreement with the others above: the faults of the game simply did not stand up to its achievements. That there are so few really good RPG's these days that try to have some depth may certainly have amplified the effect, but that is nothing more than natural either.

 

[Geist]

From what I've seen, Watch reviews in general don't follow any strict template and tend to focus more on content than on mechanics (unless the mechanics constitute a huge impediment to gameplay). Whether the review is late or not (which it always is), there seems to be an assumption that the target audience consists primarily of "hardcore" gamers who are already quite familiar with the gameplay mechanics and the more noticeable glitches of a particular title.
I don't mind this approach at all. One of the primary reasons we visit RPGWatch is because we share a common interest with the editors and other members of the site. The range of opinions concerning what makes a good RPG is obviously quite large on the Watch, but it is still more focussed than on most other gaming sites. Therefore, it makes sense for reviews to concentrate on the subjective elements of a game that reflect our shared interest, rather than on the objective ones which can be easily gleaned elsewhere. If it ends up sounding more like an editorial, that's perfectly fine by me.

Personally, I really liked your "review" Prime Junta, particularly the distinction between the 'dopamine scale' and the 'about scale'. It's a distinction that I've never seen made explicitly in a review, but one that I find very useful. While we're all very familiar with the 'dopamine scale', it would be interesting to explore the 'about scale' in more detail. I can intuitively agree with most of the examples and scores you've given, but I'm not quite sure of the criteria you used. Is your 'about scale' primarily influenced by the quality of the story and the depth of the choices and consequences (this is the impression I get based on your examples)? Would it be possible for you to give a game a high 'about' rating even if doesn't have a story at all?

 

[Prime Junta]

@Geist: I have a confession to make.

I made up the two "scales" for this review.

That means I haven't put a huge amount of work into developing a theoretical framework for the "about" scale. I think it might be worth thinking about some more, though.

However, as I saw it when writing the article, and pretty much as I still see it, "about" isn't necessarily "story" -- although "story" can certainly be one way of expressing it. Not the only way, though.

For example, take Rome: Total Realism -- a mod for Rome: Total War. That's a game with no plot, no dialog, no characters to interact with, and no story -- but I'd still maintain it's very much "about" something, namely, an attempt at recreating the political and military dynamics of the ancient world as faithfully as possible given the constraints of the game engine. (Conversely, Rome: Total War itself is much less "about" something, since in its design paradigm realism always gives way to accessibility and playability, flaming pigs and all.)

So what I'm looking for is something a bit less tangible. It's more about using a game as a medium for something else, rather than about making a game for its own sake and then perhaps inventing something else to spice it up.

So, in order to score highly on my "about" scale, a game would have to have some of these characteristics:

* It must be "about" something non-trivial. War, peace, love, hate, growth, loss, the Punic wars, death, redemption, dreams and reality... you know, all the stuff that you find in bookshelves and cinemas, theaters and art galleries. And more, too.

* There must be a genuine attempt at making the game mechanics serve whatever it's "about" rather than the other way around. So I might dock points from Bioshock in this department because the main focus of the game is eviscerating splicers, with the story written (to a large extent) to justify the gameplay, rather than the other way around.

* The game must do something about the "about" that couldn't be done just as well, or better, in a comic, movie, book, or other non-interactive medium. So, for example, Fahrenheit / The Indigo Prophecy wouldn't really score very highly because, being linear and cinematic, the same story would work at least as well, if not better, as a comic or movie.

So, to answer your specific questions, yes, the quality of the "story" -- or theme, or content, really -- is central to it; if this is trivial or boring or trite then it doesn't really matter (for the purposes of the score) how well the rest is done. The depth of choices and consequences is of instrumental rather than intrinsic value: they matter to the extent that they help express the "about" in ways that couldn't be expressed in a book, movie or comic. And yes, it would be entirely possible to get a high "about" score with little or no story; apart from Rome: Total Realism, another non-story game I can think of that would get a high "about" score would be IL-2 Shturmovik. In both cases, the "about" emerges from the depth, richness, and detail of the simulation and the intrinsic interest of the thing being simulated (power relations in the ancient world, the Eastern Front in WW2 as seen from the air.)

 

[Ionstormsucks]

I too won't dissect your answers line by line, not because I didn't like them, but because I simply don't have the time... So, exemplary I'll take Dhruin's post (I think the other posts were all pretty much going in that direction).

Finally, we had no intent for it to be a pure "buyer's guide" review. The article came out a month after release, so a zillion other reviews (and player comments) were available for the purpose of purchase consideration. With that already well covered on the internet (and arguably my own preview), Prime Junta wrote from a different perspective that I thought was fresh, and I'm pretty satisfied with that. If we'd have been able to get the article out in the first week or so, maybe I would have been more concerned with the basic game mechanics.

Fair enough... I can accept that approach, but it isn't my expection of what a "review" should be. And this is really just a suggestion, but if you're writing an article like the one about "The Witcher" which is in fact not review, why don't you just give it another name and cut out the score? I mean, ask yourself why people are reading "reviews"? If I already bought the game I don't need to read a review, because then I already made up my mind. Then I know if I like the game or not and no review will change that. I think then it's somehow more honest to call it in fact an article with the title "Why I think The Witcher is special"... the way Prime Junta originally envisioned it.

I think that also answers Magarette's question why I wouldn't give Fallout 5 out of 5 stars in a review although I love the game. I see the great things that Fallout has to offer, but I also see its negative sides. For me the positive aspects heavily outweigh the negative aspects, but for other people that might be quite different. But if someone asks me about my own opinion about Fallout I can only say: I love the game... but that's really a view through my personal rose tinted glasses.

Do you agree or disagree with it? [With Prime Junta's review]

Ufff, hard to say. Partly I'd say... I think that "The Witcher" is a good game. But (and this is my opinion now) it has some elements that I didn't like all too much. I'm not all too convinced about the combat system for once, but then again it wasn't something that kept me from playing the game. Let's say it's ok, but I've seen better... The story was okish, but it didn't really blew me away (take into account that I haven't seen all of it yet), but it certainly is different from the usual fantasy stuff, and that's a good thing really. One thing that made a rather negative impression on me is the pace of the game. Despite the fast-paced combat (and I admit that it is in fact fast-paced) the game seems slow. The loading times slow it down as well as other aspects, like the switch of perspective that happens everytime you talk to a character (this is also why I find it so annoying that cdproject was a bit sloppy when it came to the scripting of the dialogue trees). I know that some people like that switch in perspective, but I prefer if a game sticks to one perspective. Really, my main criticism of "The Witcher" is concerned with technical things rather then content... the question if you like the content of "The Witcher" or not is pretty much a personal taste thing.

I mean, all this sounds so negative - there are also a lot of things I like about "The Witcher", I don't think it's the most significant game since Fallout or PST, but I still think it's a rather nice game... especially if you compare it to other RPGs that were released lately. One of the main reasons why I don't consider "The Witcher" an extraordinary game is again its technical side. What it has in story, it lacks in game mechanics. For me freedom inside the game world and the possibility to interact with objects in the game world is crucial in terms of creating a feeling of immersion. And this is exactely where "The Witcher" falls short (as did NWN, but then again NWN was released in 2002).

Anyway, my view on your review is also just a personal taste thing... and I don't claim to be an expert on reviews or how they should be. So just consider this to be some feedback of a fan of RPGWatch who was a bit disappointed of your latest review.

 

[txa1265]

I mean, ask yourself why people are reading "reviews"? If I already bought the game I don't need to read a review, because then I already made up my mind. Then I know if I like the game or not and no review will change that.

Then how would you explain that the overwhelming majority of folks reading reviews have already bought the game in question ... and are 'checking if they got it right'?

That is why I love PJ's review ... and am proud of some non-standard stuff I've done as well. Because in my opinion it isn't all about coming up with a mathematically accurate representation of a certain game in the context of all other games in the universe in minute detail, but rather about wrapping the game in its' own context, bring enough light to that process to share with readers and ascribing some quality descriptors to it all.

In fact, I find that reviews that have to have separate scores for ~8-10 different things tend to get more weaselly - they have a composite score in mind and just fudge the details, and waste tons of words in the process.

 

[Corwin]

The other small point to remember, is that we normally buy the games on release and play them through in our spare time before writing a review. The 'Pros', get an early (free) copy, rarely seem to play ALL of it and do it as their job. We can't get our reviews out any earlier than we do, but at least you know they are based on a complete playthrough by people who like and know the genre and who have no hidden agendas being forced upon them!!

 

[Arhu]

I think that also answers Magarette's question why I wouldn't give Fallout 5 out of 5 stars in a review although I love the game. I see the great things that Fallout has to offer, but I also see its negative sides.

That's indeed the usual approach of reviews, they rate the obvious quality, a game's production value and short lived fun. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but in the end, what matters most (to me) is what I remember a game by. Nostalgia in the making, so to speak. Lots of AAA titles in retrospect are like "yeah, that was a very fun diversion, but that's about it". Whereas other games that are maybe not perfectly executed and have a couple bugs will be remembered fondly if you let yourself in to the experience. Gothic was widely dissed for it's non-standard control scheme and thus got bad reviews, pretty standard thing to do - yet it remains being one of my favorite gaming experiences. I'd give games a 90+ rating solely based on that "about" factor.

What's worth more, a couple hours of unadulterated fun or a lifetime of fond memories?

 

[Ionstormsucks]

That's indeed the usual approach of reviews, they rate the obvious quality, a game's production value and short lived fun. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but in the end, what matters most (to me) is what I remember a game by.

Sorry mate, but if that would be true I would not have to constantly rant about the shitty reviews that can be found all over the internet. It's quite the opposite... most reviews are nowadays carried by enthousiasm and maybe hype, and some scores are simply bought by publishers, but that's about it. It has nothing today with the objectivity that I favour. And with all due respect your own approach (that what matters most is what you remember a game by) has nothing to do with objectivity because it's a very personal thing. I remember Fallout as a great game which was good fun, someone else might remember it as a bug-ridden, boring game with heavy dialogues and outdated graphics. Would we both write a review, the reviews would be so far apart from eachother that they could never be guides for a potential buyer of the game. He does not know if his own taste is similar to mine or that of the other guy...

Then how would you explain that the overwhelming majority of folks reading reviews have already bought the game in question ... and are 'checking if they got it right'?

I'd guess that you're deep down in the murky waters of speculation here. Unless you prove me wrong I'll just claim that just as many people read a review to make a decision if they want to buy a game or not.

Even if not... what would it matter? A lot of people read political newspaper articels although they already have an opinion on the topic... does that mean we should abandon objective journalism?

You know, I haven't read the whole thread, but based on the bits I've read I know at least three people who bought the game based on RPGWatch's review of "The Witcher" which was released (as Dhruin said himself) one month or so after the release of the game. To claim that reviews in general don't serve as a buying decision seems to be pretty bold to me...

I don't reduce the rank of a book on my scale, if I find a typo in it.

What if a book has numerous typos, a bad translation, or is written in a style that you don't like? You know, the problem with comparisons is that in one way or another they are always wrong. We're not talking about a book here, we're talking about a video game. It's great if you can completely separate content from form (although I doubt you can), but I think it's safe to say that for most gamers that's just not the case. That's pretty much the reason why Half-Life sells a lot of copies and some indy-shooter doesn't. I admit that advertisement plays a role as well, but to claim that the technical aspects of a game don't matter nowadays is bordering on self-deception.

On the other hand Crysis gets super ratings at gaming sites for technical quality and so on. But what is its "about"? Killing North Coreans and killing Aliens. Thats it. For me its a mediocre game. Nothing in the demo gave me any reason to buy it. The scene in the intro video, where a helpless Corean soldier is strangled with bare hands was particularty disgusting for me. Glorifying murder and no other content.

As I said before - most reviews are crap. But not because they are objective, but because they are not. Would reviewers not single out one aspect of a game (usually the one that's most important for them) and judge a game more or less solely on exactly that aspect we had reviews that come closer to the truth. As you emphasize content over form these reviewers simply do the opposite.


I mean most of the stuff said above doesn't really concern the RPGWatch review of "The Witcher", because as PJ has made clear the review never was intended as a judgement of the game based on facts, but rather some kind of homage. There obviously had been a more objective review before by Dhruin which I did not know of and it's understandable that the staff of RPGWatch didn't want to write about the same stuff as before. But if we're talking about reviews in general, and especially those that want to inform the reader I'd always stick to the objectivity principle. That doesn't mean that reviews have to be completly devoid of opinion. It doesn't bother me much if a reviewer once in a while makes a personal remark, but what I find annoying is if journalists write for some kind of implied readership.

 

[Prime Junta]

@ISS: I disagree with you about "objectivity" in reviews. It's an illusion. With a critique of anything as complex as a game, you are inevitably dealing with subjectives.

However, what we *can* do, and IMO what we *should* do, is write reviews that are openly subjective, *but* that back up the subjective opinion with argument and experience.

For example, in my opinion it would be dishonest not to mention the load times in any Witcher review. They are bloody annoying (or were, before the 1.2 patch anyway). So I did mention them, both in the text and in the bullet points at the end.

However, the question of how much the load times actually detract from the experience -- what it is that you're left with, after the final confrontation and the cutscene that sees you off towards new adventures -- is a 100% subjective matter.

That, ISS, is why I think it's *unfair* to attempt "objectivity" by, say, defining "objective" criteria for sub-scores, assigning the scores, and averaging the whole to give the final score, perhaps with a "reviewer tilt" fudge factor thrown in. That's not objective -- it's fake objective; it's almost a lie.

If you're a critic, and you're really impressed by something, IMO the most honest approach you can take is to dissect your experience, and try to explain *why* you were so impressed by it -- of course without omitting stuff that reduced the experience. That's what I tried to do.

You might also notice that I dislike the word "review" -- I prefer "critique." And I believe that games should be critiqued, like theater, books, photographs, or films, not reviewed like household appliances. At least those games that are something more uplifting than a blender.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Nevertheless, PJ's review touched on a very important point that usually gets neglected, and that is NOT entirely subjective either. A game is a consumer product in one respect, and these technical aspects do deserve to be critically scrutinized. I think PJ's review somewhat glances over it (while Dhruins preview went into more depth), but certainly admits that each individual aspect is only a 4/5. But I found his "what its about" perspective highly refreshing, and it drove the point home that something important is missing from "standard" reviews. Because as entertainment products games are also a form of art. Maybe not (yet) high art, but art nonetheless. And it is this "about" this emotional aspect, the coherence of style and content, the complexity of interaction and decision, the story that usually get's summed up in nothing more than "the game has an engaging and epic story" in too many reviews. And to mee thats a real problem, because I would like to base my buying decision to at least 50% on this aspect, actually.

 

[Prime Junta]

Yay, "but is it art?" again.

I liked Neil Gaiman's definition from the end of The Kindly Ones: if you can use it to stun a burglar (at least in hardback), it's art. Good enough for me...

 

[Ionstormsucks]

@ISS: I disagree with you about "objectivity" in reviews. It's an illusion. With a critique of anything as complex as a game, you are inevitably dealing with subjectives.

I've heard that argument so often (especially in university) that I've given up to count. Especially from journalists that have long given up to try and be objective. Fact is however that objectivity in journalism is an ideal that is still very much existent (note that I'm talking about informative journalism, not special forms like for example a commentary which is very much based on opinion). I'm not saying it isn't hard work or it's easy. And true, human beings are often inclined to voice their own opinion rather than a cool and critical view on the facts, but to think that this alone justifies the abandonement of objectivity seems wrong to me.

Of course your subjectivity will sometimes get hold of you... but that's the hard part about journalism in general. You have to try and see a thing from different perspectives... not just your own. It's all about trying really... and the question is not if you're subjective or not, the question is how subjective you are.

For example, in my opinion it would be dishonest not to mention the load times in any Witcher review. They are bloody annoying (or were, before the 1.2 patch anyway). So I did mention them, both in the text and in the bullet points at the end.

However, the question of how much the load times actually detract from the experience -- what it is that you're left with, after the final confrontation and the cutscene that sees you off towards new adventures -- is a 100% subjective matter.

Indeed it is. And I'm glad you mentioned them. My problem is that you very obviously realized that there is some kind of flaw in design, but in the end decided that it isn't really important for the overall judgement of the game. Maybe the loading times didn't bother you enough to reduce the fun with the game, but they did it for me.
Now, let me bring in an example... you mentioned the combat system only one or two times in your critique. Basically you described it with the words "fast-paced" and "enjoyable" and that's it. Do you honestly want to tell me that a more objective description isn't possible?

That, ISS, is why I think it's *unfair* to attempt "objectivity" by, say, defining "objective" criteria for sub-scores, assigning the scores, and averaging the whole to give the final score, perhaps with a "reviewer tilt" fudge factor thrown in. That's not objective -- it's fake objective; it's almost a lie.

As you can imagine I don't quite agree. It's true that in the end you cannot judge a game by some kind of mathematical formular. And I don't think that's a reviewers job. In my opinion his job is to give the reader enough information about a game so he can decidede himself if he might or might not like the game.

If you're a critic, and you're really impressed by something, IMO the most honest approach you can take is to dissect your experience, and try to explain *why* you were so impressed by it -- of course without omitting stuff that reduced the experience. That's what I tried to do.

You might also notice that I dislike the word "review" -- I prefer "critique." And I believe that games should be critiqued, like theater, books, photographs, or films, not reviewed like household appliances. At least those games that are something more uplifting than a blender.

Well, you know how heatedly discussed most critques are. It's usually the first thing that happens after a theater critique is released - someone writes a critique of the critique. The problem with critiques is that most of them are in fact written for an implied audience. Once a critic has found his/her audience he/she usually begins to write for that audience. And that's really great if you're a reader who has more or less the same taste as the critic, but it's not so pleasant if you think that this critic writes utter bs.
Personally, I find most critiques pretty worthless. The times, I went to the cinema or theatre, bought a book or a dvd, and then had to realize that I don't share the critic's enthousiasm are numerous.

 

[Prime Junta]

I've heard that argument so often (especially in university) that I've given up to count. Especially from journalists that have long given up to try and be objective. Fact is however that objectivity in journalism is an ideal that is still very much existent (note that I'm talking about informative journalism, not special forms like for example a commentary which is very much based on opinion). I'm not saying it isn't hard work or it's easy. And true, human beings are often inclined to voice their own opinion rather than a cool and critical view on the facts, but to think that this alone justifies the abandonement of objectivity seems wrong to me. Of course your subjectivity will sometimes get hold of you... but that's the hard part about journalism in general. You have to try and see a thing from different perspectives... not just your own.

That's a strawman: I specifically mentioned reviews (or, rather, critiques), which are inherently about the reviewer's/critic's subjective perception of the object being reviewed/critiqued. Journalism in general is a whole different can o' worms, encompassing everything from reporting (where the striving for objectivity should be a central consideration) to columns, polemics, and punditry (which are subjective by definition). If William Kristol says something obviously asinine and subjective in his New York Times column, that's par for course; if Judith Miller says it in a supposedly neutral article about the Iraq war, that's grounds for dismissal.

Now, let me bring in an example... you mentioned the combat system only one or two times in your critique. Basically you described it with the words "fast-paced" and "enjoyable" and that's it. Do you honestly want to tell me that a more objective description isn't possible?

Of course I don't. However, the combat system had been described in exhaustive detail in many other articles. I just felt I didn't have any meaningful new information to add to what's already out there. Hell, I came out and said so right in the text: I didn't set out to do a kitchen-appliance review; I set out to write a book critique.

As you can imagine I don't quite agree. It's true that in the end you cannot judge a game by some kind of mathematical formular. And I don't think that's a reviewers job. In my opinion his job is to give the reader enough information about a game so he can decidede himself if he might or might not like the game.

And I didn't, whereas someone who meticulously went through the mechanics, graphics, bugs, and what not did? I don't think so.

Well, you know how heatedly discussed most critques are. It's usually the first thing that happens after a theater critique is released - someone writes a critique of the critique. The problem with critiques is that most of them are in fact written for an implied audience. Once a critic has found his/her audience he/she usually begins to write for that audience. And that's really great if you're a reader who has more or less the same taste as the critic, but it's not so pleasant if you think that this critic writes utter bs.
Personally, I find most critiques pretty worthless. The times, I went to the cinema or theatre, bought a book or a dvd, and then had to realize that I don't share the critic's enthousiasm are numerous.

Ah, but there you have it -- I *was* writing for a specific audience, namely, cRPG enthusiasts frequenting RPGWatch. The random casual gamer looking for a present for the BF wouldn't find her way here. My article itself was long and involved enough to demand a certain amount of effort to read; that, in itself, means that whoever reads it is almost certain to have read other reviews before, and if not, have their curiosity tweaked enough to go read some. My omissions were intentional and, more to the point, *explicit* -- I *said* exactly what I excluded, also said why, and even pointed readers in the general direction of finding that information.

Simply put, if someone was interested enough to find and read that review, they're interested enough to read a few other reviews as well. And if there is someone out there who isn't, well, tough.

 

[woges]

I think it's fairly important that a review is dogmatic to some degree. If you don't agree with PJ on this review it is simply a disagreement of opinion. Thus, PJ may have different criteria to yourself upon which he enjoys a gaming experience. You know this now and can make a judgment on sequential reviews/critiques.