What I would love to see in a CRPG Review
 

Hello all…

I've been reading (actually just skimming) all of the reviews that have come out for Two Worlds and it has prompted me to challenge any reviewer who might catch this thread to do something…

PLEASE write a review for the game that doesn't have the words "Elder Scrolls" or "Oblivion" in it. In other words… review the game as a single entity, and on its own merits. Try to play it as if it were a game called "Two Worlds" and not a game in your mind called "hmmm is this my next Oblivion fix… well I know that it can't be, because Oblivion was perfect".

I've been watching my son play this game and it looks really quite good to me. I'm playing G3 right now… and I find myself coveting Two Worlds when my son is playing it. But I've made myself a promise to finish G3 before moving on to TW…

So, please… anyone out there who has played the game to completion… right a review about the game… ABOUT THE GAME… don't spend time telling me how great Oblivion was… I've already read those reviews over a year ago.

I personally think that's a problem with about 99% of the reviews as well… the reviewer never finished the game. With some of the reviews you get the feeling that the reviewer played just enough to get a feel for the game so that he/she could begin his/her praise of the all mighty Oblivion AGAIN.

Don't get me wrong… I enjoyed Oblivion… I even enjoyed the Shivering Isles… it was a really fun game. But I don't want to read about it in a review for another game…

And while we're at it… reviews would be so much more enjoyable to read, and informative… if the reviewer would refrain from comparison to the KEWLEST game ever in that particular genre… just review the game… it can be done you know… you can tell us about the game mechanics, story, graphics, sound, fun factor, etc, without comparing it to another game… it CAN be done…

I know… I live in a dream world…

Maybe I will write a review for TW after I finish it (like I will actually have the time… but I will try). Of course the game will have been out for a year by the time I get around to doing that ;)

Anyway… Sorry… <rant> off… :)

We'll be a bit slow getting our review out because it just hasn't been released down here (Corwin: 'bout time you just imported all your titles; it's cheaper anyway ;) ). I promise we won't mention Oblivion. But the game gets plenty wrong on its own, so I'd be surprised if the verdict was stellar.

I feel your pain narpet, only with me--since I have become pretty much desensitized to the O word--it's press releases. Bioware's are probably tops on my list with their impressive recycling of the same buzzwords and phrases in each paragraph in slightly different combinations, but almost all major companies seem to do it. It makes my teeth grind to hear how "compelling", immersive, or *shudder* "robust" each and every game element is in each and every new game.

Pardon me if you have heard this rant before--it seems to have a familiar ring…;)

I have mixed sentiments as I'm starting to write up my own review(s, two scheduled already) - on the one hand it makes sense to use Oblivion to drive mainstream context about a free-roaming RPG, but on the other I have no desire to do a blow-by-blow comparison … but then the same is true with Gothic 3 - I will mention it in terms of context but not get into comparisons.

My problem is with reviews that use Oblivion *INSTEAD OF* doing their own critical analysis.

In German magazines, you'd meet the "O-Word" too often as well … plus the "D-Word" (Blizzard).

I'll look forward to the Watch review. I don't mind reading a review that gives a game a poor score, as long as the game is reviewed on its own merits. I feel like these reviewers just can't be objective in their reviews. I know that comparison is the easiest form of review, but it is so weak… it requires very little thought. I have noticed that the reviews I've read by RPG Watch staff are generally written better than many (most) other sites. When I read a Watch review I get the feeling that the reviewer actually played the entire game.

And that is key… finish the game. It's so obvious that MANY of these (other site) reviewers never finished the game. You can even tell when the "professional" reviewers for PC Gamer or CGW (now Games For Windows Mag or something like that) didn't finish the game (not just talking about TW here… any game).

So I look forward to the RPG Watch review… and Mike (TXA), I look forward to your review as well… I've read many of them and I often find them to be right on the mark as to how I feel about the game you reviewed.

I'd like to see more boobs. There's never enough boobs in CRPG reviews nowadays.








;)

Actually… there's plenty of boobs… they're the ones writing all those reviews :)

Good comment Narpet. When I finish my review (I still haven't played the game yet) I'll also get Mike and possibly Dhruin to add some comments as I did with my review of NWN2!!

Yeah, but we don't need any more of THOSE kinds of boobs!

(emphasis mine)

We´ve had this discussion a dozen times before, so let me get straight to the point. Most professional reviews are written by freelancers. If we assume a writer gets between 300 and 500$ per review, how much time do you think he can spend on the article and how much of this on actually playing the game?!

Be happy if he plays the game for one full day.

Pros have a lot of experience and knowledge but only seldomly enough time to thoroughly play a game. Amateurs have a lot of time to get the facts straight and finish the game, but it´s unclear if they make good use of it, and they often lack experience.

Amen.


Gamespot's Two Worlds review is a textbox example of the noxious mind pox know as Oblivion syndrome. I quote (emp. mine):

Using a well known game, like Oblivion, as a point of reference is fine so long as it's relevant; using it as a yard stick is not. The first usage is relative comparison and can serve to illustrate the reviewed game's features. The second usage is an absolute and holds up the first game as a measure of purity by which the second must be weighted.