No problem :). I look forward to writing a lot more of them for you guys.

Good work on the review. Sure the game wasn't as bad for me as for you in some respects but i respect your opinion. Because there are other people who would agree with your opinion and would appreciate the review.

BTW the people who say the game isnt that bad, use metacritic, it exists for a reason.

Hey, I doubt any of you can even remember the first review I wrote over at the Dot, but I do!! :( I think over the years I have learned a great deal about writing reviews and I have improved as a reviewer. That's how you learn and how you improve, you write, listen to criticism, and then move on to your next review and attempt to use that criticism constructively. I'm sure that's what Fluent will do.

It's Fluent's first review here and although it apparently does not carry the meaningless Codex Seal of Approval, it is certainly not as bad as some make it out to be. He did put in the effort to find the good points of the game but none of them were outstanding or outweighed the bad parts, which resulted in the overall negative advice.

I'm sure he will improve his skills even further, but like I said before if you can write a better review go ahead.

To address the style of the review, I very much prefer listing positives first rather than later. Doing so otherwise, as was done in this review, makes the article feel weighed down from the very beginning and does not encourage further reading or, associatively, a balanced evaluation of the game by the reader.

My god people, give him a break. If the game is poor he should tell us the game is poor. It is not his job to give encouragement to the devs or cater to some of your weird suggestions. All reviews are opinion pieces so to call someone out on giving opinions is meaningless.

I get the feeling that some of you think he should have been easier on them because they had a limited budget or whatever bizarre reason.

Hah, oh man.

Fluent can love or hate whatever he wants, who gives a fuck? A reminder:

The problem is that reviewing is about adequately describing the why and the how of it - informing the reader what is being reviewed, tell the reader what you think of it, and finally the most important part: why you think this and what's important and not.

This is hardly even a review, it's just a collection of random thoughts better suited for a forum post. The review contradicts itself, it fails to paints a complete picture of its subject matter, and most importantly it fails informing the user of its own reasoning.

This isn't about whether the game is good or not - as I said it could be shit for all I know - it's about a site claiming to be about "substance" (in contrast to the 'dex apparantly) that will still host someone's hardly organized scribbles as an official Game Review.

Tsk tsk.

Well, from the Sig, we know who is behind this post!!

There infiltrating the watch Lieutenant Corwin. Man the tower and defenses. There everywhere even in the forums. Report to Commander Myrthos.:lol:

You're funny. I always thought people at the Codex felt they were about substance and better than everybody else just because they happened to be registered at the Codex. It does explain why you get yourself all excited about a review on the Watch and come here to show how much better the Codex is by sharing their 'deep' thoughts on the matter.
Does it really make a difference what an article on RPGWatch is like if you are from The Codex?

Interesting.

You're going out of your way to bitch about a review without substance on a site you have nothing but disdain for.

Human nature dictates that you care about this to a degree which doesn't fit the profile of someone with actual substance - as you like to imagine substance. That kind of person would likely never bother coming here and comment on it in the first place. That kind of person certainly wouldn't go on about it like you're doing. That kind of person would be content with his own superiority and would consider debating the quality of this review a waste of his valuable time.

As in, your agenda is obvious - and your position weak.

It's really simple. If you don't like what the site has to offer - then you don't have to visit. I think it's a safe bet that RPGWatch will never come to resemble the Codex - and most of the members here are not a good match for providing what you seek.

I appreciate the fact that different people are given the opportunity to review games in their own way. Then again, I don't use reviews as some kind of truth that has to reflect my own perception of objective information.

I use them as an opinion piece - and though I prefer that people strive for objectivity - I realise how futile it would be to actually expect it.

There are many good & intelligent posters on the Codex. (Felipepepe, Jaesun, Elwro, LundB, Strife79 … many more)
Unfortunately they have some people that troll for sport. And they expect you to troll back, if not you are "weak". Even normal answers will be interpreted as passive trolling. So many discussions are ending in personal attacks, if you don't react they get even angrier…
But most of the Codexians care for crpgs and that's good.

I fully agree with Grunker here …and no, I am not a Codexer.

Ideally speaking, a site like the Watch with the reputation of being one of the leading sites for PC/Western RPG's should have "official" reviews that are beyond mere opinion pieces and should IMO be informative and sufficiently indepth in order for a reader to form a good picture of what game to expect. After all, the RPG genre is very broad covering many different types of RPGs and players have vastly different priorities and opposing tastes, particularly in this genre. When I read a review, I want to know whether the developers have emphasised those areas that I consider important in an RPG.

Sure, it is Fluent's first review and judging by his posts he certainly doesn't lack any enthusiasm and I do respect his willingness and effort of writing a review, but frankly, that alone should not be enough IMO for a representative of the Watch. After all this criticism and feedback, I do hope and expect him to put more emphasis on the informative nature in his next review.

So far no master has fallen from the sky!

One of the leading sites?

Is this a competition and no one told me?

Could someone point out where it says that the Watch is supposed to be in the lead of some race?

As far as I'm concerned, this is a site for RPG enthusiasts - and that's pretty much it. What I really like about the Watch - and the reason it's my favorite place to talk about games - is primarily the laid back and accepting nature of the members here. I consider most of the members mature and informed - and I really like the diversity of opinions.

I'd much rather we focus on that - instead of trying to pass judgment on each other - and trying to uphold some kind of elusive standard - the nature of which no one can articulate anyway.

However, if I'm wrong about this - and the Watch is indeed trying to "lead" somehow - I'd appreciate being informed. It would likely have a significant effect on my desire to participate.

Once again, if you have a problem with Fluent's review - then write one yourself and demonstrate how it's done. It's not like we can't write - so it's clearly an option for all of us.

Rest asssured, I'll be right here ready to comment on such a review. So - what are you waiting for?

That was simply my impression. But feel free to disagree.

Agreed

I don't think there is anything wrong with providing feedback, even if it is negative, provided it is contructive, and I certainly don't think you are doing Fluent a favour by dismissing all negative feedback and attacking those who do.

If I must adopt the role of bad cop, so be it.
My main criticism is that his review could and IMO should be more informative. In my post I do not discourage him and I do imply that he should learn and grow from this experience and improve in future reviews.

As for for me writing a review. (I actually expected such a predictable response).
I make a distinction between a forum post review and a formal RPGWatch review. For the latter, I expect a minimum standard and I do not think that I have the necessary writing skills for a proper article plus I lack the experience in writing articles. (My writing experience is limited to technical documents and papers but they are not exactly helpful in this case, are they :)).

But as I said in my post, I do respect the fact that he took the time to write a review.
You would love that would you? I can literally hear you sharpening your knives ;).


Btw, why such aggressiveness in your post?

I simply wasn't aware of it being a "lead site" - and it's not the kind of thing that I'm all that interested in. I don't think it makes sense to compete in such a way.

Why do you have to invent attacks to support your position?

I haven't attacked anyone here. Though I did respond somewhat in kind to that Grunker guy - but that's not an attack. I tend to avoid attacking people if I can.

Certainly haven't attacked you at all - or maybe you can point out where?

I'm not dismissing the negative feedback - I'm saying I don't think it's reasonable to prevent Fluent from reviewing games because you don't like the way he does it.

I'm not talking about you - as I did note that you weren't trying to prevent him outright.

That's fine and I have no problem with that. I was questioning the whole "leading site" standpoint, simply because I don't think it's a good way to look at things. But that's me.

What a cop-out. Obviously, you're more than capable of articulating yourself.

You don't WANT to write a review, end of story - and that's fine. But that's also why I think being a bit more measured when going down that "we should set an example" route is worth considering. You get me?

I wouldn't mind :)

Then again, I find that commenting on most things comes very naturally to me. It's like a compulsion.

There's no aggression in my post.

However, I can't determine why you perceive aggression.

Maybe I come off as aggressive - but I'm uncommonly neutral in most ways. I just have an opinion and I like to speak it openly and without manipulation.

I'm sorry if that's "aggressive" to you. It isn't to me.

The real heart of all this is that a few RPG "experts" here generally don't like Fluents thoughts on RPG's in general and this gave them a forum to attack him.

Fluent, keep doing the reviews, not one of these guys have stepped up to do any. I've done a couple of interviews here myself and I applaud that you took your own time to do this.

That is a bit of understatement considering the hard work and effort that Myrthos and the rpgwatch team made to put this website on the map and make it professional and indeed leading, and I don't think that they want it otherwise. Leading not necessarily mean competition as individuals and groups could be leading in a field with courteous relationship just like the watch has with Gamebanshee for example. If 'leading' is a problem for you, you can use 'authoritative' surely as implied by the name of this web site, and hence its responsibilities.

Again, the concept of being a leader makes very little sense to me in this context.

I don't have a problem with the word, though, I just don't see things in that way.

I'm generally less obsessed with winners and losers - and I think it's quite enough to do things the way you want to, in the best way you can. There will always be supporters and detractors - and being a "leader" in such a tiny group of established RPG sites is not something I would personally concern myself with.

However, as I said - if that's indeed the goal of the people running the site, then I won't stand in their way.

I'll be quite happy not knowing who's an authority and who isn't - because it won't have any effect on my own personal opinions or my thought process.

I consider RPGWatch to be the most balanced site I know of that happens to deal with a subject very close to my heart. I generally like the members and I respect the level of information shared between us quite a bit.

That's much more than enough for me, and the work behind it is greatly appreciated. I hope it's ok that I don't think of it as a leader or an authority. No one leads or governs what amounts to the spreading of news and the exchange of opinions - as far as I'm concerned.