Grunker said:This game might very well be terrible, this discussion is not about that
There infiltrating the watch Lieutenant Corwin. Man the tower and defenses. There everywhere even in the forums. Report to Commander Myrthos.:lol:Well, from the Sig, we know who is behind this post!!
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.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.
Hah, oh man.
Fluent can love or hate whatever he wants, who gives a fuck? A reminder:
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.
That was simply my impression. But feel free to disagree.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?
AgreedAs 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 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.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.
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.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.
You would love that would you? I can literally hear you sharpening your knives .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.
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.
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 ).
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.
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.