RPGWatch Feature: Dark Messiah Review

Yes.
----------
I just replayed this game to check a few things and played version 1.2 for the first time.
Firstly Xanna actually speaks less now than version 1.0 and 1.1, she also no longer speaks after points she should not, these are all VERY good things.

Next Leanna, to me the worst about her character skin, she actually does a reasonable job of voice acting as well with the role she has.
Problem is Arkaine made her look so blatantly over endowed, that it takes away from the little believability in the story and acting.
In regards to her popping up, I would only guess that it's intended that she is much stronger of a mage than she know or lets on, specifically once you restore the temple power.

To me this story was given to Arkaine, by UbiSoft, of course the story is very full of holes, nothing really makes any sense when you try to follow up any single path of storyline, clearly this story was thrown together for the real stars the combat and graphics, this really is HL2 with Swords and Magic.

Sure, I wanted an great RPG that Arkaine is capable of but as they said in an interview when they moved here to Austin (iirc);
"To make the game we want to make we need to work for other companies building up our resume." or something close.

In final regards to the score I still feel the system here is currently flawed, if the base RPGWatch members have problems with it or the scoring methods of this game, seems resonable it should be looked at more closely or overhauled.

Personally I had a lot of fun with this game even though it had many problems but clearly I was able to get value out of this, as I accepted it as a scripted First Person Melee and Magic game.
I could easily give this game a 80% score, the things that did work or almost work are very high quality, which in the end made the game fun for what it is a Medieval Scripted Action game.

Acleacius said:

In final regards to the score I still feel the system here is currently flawed, if the base RPGWatch members have problems with it or the scoring methods of this game, seems resonable it should be looked at more closely or overhauled.

Click to expand...

The question I have for those who think that the scoring system is flawed - how much of that is because you disagree with my score? When I reviewed other stuff I have not heard a peep about the system. It seems like the fact that I eviscerated this one (in the eyes of some) has raised the issue.

Never listen to others about such things. If that's your view stick to it. So lame when people take down a review because the "community" is upset about it (NWN2).

I mean if people change reviews (opininons) because others don't like that opinion why have a review in the first place? Or stick up a community rating system then you'll know what everyone thinks of a game.

woges said:

Never listen to others about such things. If that's your view stick to it. So lame when people take down a review because the "community" is upset about it (NWN2).

Click to expand...

Oh, I've been around enough to form my opinion and stick with my reviews. I knew this review, and particularly the score, would be unpopular. There was some discussion elsewhere when i gave the game 2.5 / 5 at GamerDad when it came out. I stick by that - and knew when I chose 2 rather than 3 stars that it would be even more controversial. My question was back to those criticizing the review system itself.

txa1265 I have agreed with you about +90% of the reviews you written and I even agree with a lot of this one, but not the final summation leading to and including the score, those were the problem for me.

What I meant earlier by saying you played it too many times in a row, is the same thing I told you when you replayed oblivion vanilla for the KotN, you have way more constitution than, I.
Had I played DM 4 times in a row, I would be sick of it, as you seemed to be in the conclusion, that's just the way it feels to me.

I honestly don't know much about the rating system or even when it was implemented, maybe I should look at it but I don't think that would help me.

All I know is if for example if your review is added to the Gameranking or any other similar site, using RPGWatch's rating system, if that's what it's based on, how do you think it will be received in the average the system is based on to give gamers an over all average?

You will be tanking a game you might not intend to tank with a 40% regardless of your intentions or RPGWatch's.
That seems wrong to me, even if you and RPGWatch have the best intentions, which I bet you do.

Matt Peckham's review of NWN2 does not really compare to this one. Mike obviously made an honest effort to look at and point out the weaknesses of the game, while Matt Peckham wrote a shallow rant bashing NWN2 for being a tabletop conversion role-playing-game.

There is little point in repeating what has gone wrong in Mike's review, but many of the comments here are NOT saying "we are unhappy with your score because we like the game better" and are NOT akin to a community rating. They are detailed criticisms, and in an ideal world, the editorial staff would reply to the comments about the article itself instead of writing solely about the relatively trivial issue of the scoring system (or ironically enough complaining about readers writing solely about the relatively trivial issue of the score alone).

In an ideal world, the comments would be evaluated and depending on their validity the review score would be changed. In a less than ideal world, the comments will be taken into account for the next review. If even this second possibility is not realized, what is the point of writing here at all?

P.S.: Sure, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to stick to your opinion. Guess we should have stuck to the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe, too, like the catholic church wanted us to.

I personally do take well reasoned discussions into account, as I consider the main strength here the community and how much I get from it ... so I do appreciate the feedback.

Acleacius said:

All I know is if for example if your review is added to the Gameranking or any other similar site, using RPGWatch's rating system, if that's what it's based on, how do you think it will be received in the average the system is based on to give gamers an over all average?

You will be tanking a game you might not intend to tank with a 40% regardless of your intentions or RPGWatch's.
That seems wrong to me, even if you and RPGWatch have the best intentions, which I bet you do.

Click to expand...

That is the error of Gameranking or Metacritic. Not RPGWatch. You can't expect those that use a rational scoring system to change it just because the rest of the media uses an irrational.

coyote said:

There is little point in repeating what has gone wrong in Mike's review, but many of the comments here are NOT saying "we are unhappy with your score because we like the game better" and are NOT akin to a community rating. They are detailed criticisms, and in an ideal world, the editorial staff would reply to the comments about the article itself instead of writing solely about the relatively trivial issue of the scoring system (or ironically enough complaining about readers writing solely about the relatively trivial issue of the score alone).

In an ideal world, the comments would be evaluated and depending on their validity the review score would be changed. In a less than ideal world, the comments will be taken into account for the next review. If even this second possibility is not realized, what is the point of writing here at all?

Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that the score isn't your main point of criticism but the actual review is, and afterwards you write that the score should be changed.

There is little point in repeating what has gone wrong in Mike's review

Click to expand...

How can you state that as a fact?

Coyote. You've been having a crusade against this review/score in the last couple of days. Just because you have experinced Dark Messiah differently doesn't necessarily make it the right conclusion.

I like the scoring system that RPGWatch utilizes though I think it's a shame that half stars aren't allowed.

"If even this second possibility is not realized, what is the point of writing here at all?"

Well because you can say that review was shite and I disagree. That's what discussion is about. Now, if i may call txa1265 Mike (as I'm guessing that's his name) why should he change his opinion on the quality of a game because you or I decide otherwise? It's more interesting to get somebodies honest view then a community filtered one.

Dhruin points to the scoring system compared to others. Since I review for multiple sites I need to be cognizant of each system. Since, as I said, my initial reviews were 2.5 / 5 and/or 5 / 10, I knew I was 'in between stars'. Here is the text for the two:

3 – A score of 3/5 indicates a good game held back by obvious technical or design issues that limit the appeal. Games that score 3/5 will often split opinion, depending on how strongly the player perceives the flaws.

2 – A game that has significant flaws or stale gameplay but may still offer some enjoyment to fans of the genre or subject.

Click to expand...

I think that one could find supporting elements in my review for either score.

Asbjoern said:

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that the score isn't your main point of criticism but the actual review is, and afterwards you write that the score should be changed.

Click to expand...

I wrote "score alone" for a reason. Obviously the score is tied to the article, and a fault in the article is likely to reflect in the score.

Asbjoern said:

How can you state that as a fact?

Click to expand...

Because it is my honest belief. You say that I have been waging a crusade against this review, and indeed I got carried away in this discussion, probably because most of the feedback did not really respond to the issues which were important to me. Crusade is probably too much: regardless of this article, I still hold Mike and the RPGWatch staff in high regard.

Asbjoern said:

Just because you have experinced Dark Messiah differently doesn't necessarily make it the right conclusion.

Click to expand...

If the game is judged as an RPG more than an action game and repeated replay is not taking into account as much as it should, the article is biased regardless of my experience with the game.

woges said:

Now, if i may call txa1265 Mike [...] why should he change his opinion on the quality of a game because you or I decide otherwise? It's more interesting to get somebodies honest view then a community filtered one.

Click to expand...

Sometimes looking at a subject from a different angle will change your opinion. However, if Mike takes into account all our comments and still thinks that his review is balanced and expresses his honest opinion, then by all means he should stick to it. I certainly would, too.

Maybe we should add at 2.5/5 score for games which are either completely average or have a fine balance between strengths and weaknesses.

Would the 1.2 version have gotten that low of a rating?

I could understand the initial release scoring that low because it was a mess, but the patched version should definitely be a little higher.

txa1265 said:

The question I have for those who think that the scoring system is flawed - how much of that is because you disagree with my score? When I reviewed other stuff I have not heard a peep about the system. It seems like the fact that I eviscerated this one (in the eyes of some) has raised the issue.

Click to expand...

Well, this is the first time that the scoring system was explained to us by various staff members. There was no discussion about it before. Your review and the "low" score just sparked an interest in people to find out how a score is calculated. So your "low" score was just a trigger but it wasn't really the reason per se why the scoring system was suddenly questioned.
Personally, I just found the explanations a bit confusing that a 2/5 is not really a 2/5 and also not equal to a 40% score because a 2/5 is really just a 2/5 and it doesn't necessarily have to mean that the game is bad because it's 2/5 but that a 2/5 is just that. A 2/5. And then when someone said that they found it confusing they got their intelligence questioned. It was just a li'l strange...

I'm SO pleased you finally understand it all Mo!!

Asbjoern
"That is the error of Gameranking or Metacritic. Not RPGWatch. You can't expect those that use a rational scoring system to change it just because the rest of the media uses an irrational."

Ok, let me get this strait, your saying the international ranking systems is flawed.
You then create your own ranking system out of protest and it's turns out to be so blatantly out of sync with the flawed International standard, that you are causing average games (in this case an upcoming Dev, we all have high hopes for) to get a shit rating just because you disagree with the system?

Your so sure your right, I won't forget to remind you, when all small and independents are crushed beneath your holy crusade and you start to complain where have all the good games gone?

Well Asbjoern they have all gone bye bye, because you crushed them with your mighty, righteousness.

Corwin said:

I'm SO pleased you finally understand it all Mo!!

Click to expand...

i r teh smart cooookkkkkiiiiiieeeeeee!!!!1111

Acleacius said:

Ok, let me get this strait, your saying the international ranking systems is flawed.
You then create your own ranking system out of protest and it's turns out to be so blatantly out of sync with the flawed International standard, that you are causing average games (in this case an upcoming Dev, we all have high hopes for) to get a shit rating just because you disagree with the system?

Click to expand...

That was the other half of the issue with Matt Peckham's NWN2 review - he was exercising 1Up's stated new policy of using the 1-10 scale. And I think that it *has* happened to an extent. Some reviews / editors / sites, tired of the 7-9 scale, have been doing things on the 1-10 scale. However, you only need to take a quick look at CGM o other mags to see it is poorly defined and not uniformly followed, so that games end up with a broader scale of scores than they otherwise would.

At one site I have written reviews, they have that stated policy and I have held them to it. I have had a couple of discussions with the editor over 5/10 meaning average reviews.

Acleacius said:

Asbjoern
"That is the error of Gameranking or Metacritic. Not RPGWatch. You can't expect those that use a rational scoring system to change it just because the rest of the media uses an irrational."

Ok, let me get this strait, your saying the international ranking systems is flawed.
You then create your own ranking system out of protest and it's turns out to be so blatantly out of sync with the flawed International standard, that you are causing average games (in this case an upcoming Dev, we all have high hopes for) to get a shit rating just because you disagree with the system?

Your so sure your right, I won't forget to remind you, when all small and independents are crushed beneath your holy crusade and you start to complain where have all the good games gone?

Well Asbjoern they have all gone bye bye, because you crushed them with your mighty, righteousness.

Click to expand...

Ah, come one. You can do better than trying to victimize independent developers.

Why would I create a scoring system out of protest just because I think the average gaming scoring system is flawed? Should I then choose to rate good games 1 and poor games 10? Metacritic has this to say to it:

For each review found, we will take the score given by the critic and convert it to a 0-100 point scale.

Click to expand...

Which means Metacritic would convert 1 to 100 and 10 to 0. Metacritic interprets the score. It doesn't just add scores subconciously. So I can't see the problem.

No gaming media has an obligation towards websites that gather scores and calculate an average. It is these websites own responsiblity and if they think a website has an out-of-sync scoring system then it is their responsibility to exclude that website from their calculations or convert the scores appropriately to the given website's own calculation system.

You are speaking in a completely hypothetical way. But if I were to continue that approach then RPGWatch or any other single website can't influence the score in any earth shattering way.
And independent developers aren't an unquestionable ideal. They are judged by the quality of their games not by the single fact that they are independent. So if RPGWatch gives a low score to a game from an independent developer then it is likely that it was deserved and that game shouldn't have a high rating in Metacritic or Gamerankings anyway so I can't see the problem.

The problem is that Metacritic scores including RPGWatch reviews will generally be worse than those not including them.

Metacritic takes the typically high scores for games into account by assigning an "average" to games rating 50-74, whereas "average" movies, books or music are rating 40-60. Atypical scoring systems are not taken into account; while far less than ideal, this is how things work at the moment.

However, I am sure it is possible to talk to the people working at Metacritic and Gamerankings and to make them aware of atypical scoring systems.

Right now, RPGWatch is not taken into account at all for Metacritic, so I guess the scoring system does not matter in this regard unless you try to be included in the future.

P.S.: It is indeed sad that an independent developer like Arkane Studios is the one getting the "unfair" (at least according to the "community vote") score, while other games seem to be rated normally. Shame on you!