RPGWatch Feature: Mars War Logs - Review

Originally Posted by Dr. A
Yeah, well I don't think any rational human being is going to take criticism from the Codex seriously. Too much bile, not enough substance

Well, but from a purely argumentativ point of view he has a point. The core mechanics you spend most of your time on are solid but the game sucks?

We had a second guy who played the game, btw. He didn't feel misrepresented by the article.

Still, how is one determining that others should stop writing reviews simply based on the fact they don't agree with the review…and because they claim the reviewer lacks experience.

I don't know how much experience Fluent has, but how does one get more experience if they're not allowed to write? Though of course, experience also can come with harsh comments and one has to be ready for that… but simply saying they should stop writing is a bit much to me.

Come on people.

Fluent likes what he likes and he bothered to do a full review of a game we're all looking at. That's more than can be said for most of us around here.

I appreciate any review - even if I don't agree with it. As for this one - I haven't played Mars and have seen nothing to be impressed by as of yet.

Originally Posted by Galaad
Still, how is one determining that others should stop writing reviews simply based on the fact they don't agree with the review…and because they claim the reviewer lacks experience.

I don't know how much experience Fluent has, but how does one get more experience if they're not allowed to write? Though of course, experience also can come with harsh comments and one has to be ready for that… but simply saying they should stop writing is a bit much to me.

True, but this review is representitive of rpgwatch, a web site dedicated to rpgs and so should be very detailed when it comes to what cacaro mentioned (quests quality/variety/multiple outcomes/meaningful choices).

The review should also consider the budget involved in making such a game in the rpg genre and give credit where due to the developers when attempting to do well and maybe suggest improvement to encourage rpg developers in the future.

Originally Posted by Gorath
Well, but from a purely argumentativ point of view he has a point. The core mechanics you spend most of your time on are solid but the game sucks?

That is kind of what Temple of Elemental Evil is like. The implementation of the mechanics of the game were great but the story was terrible. Story is a HUGE part of an RPG, IMHO, the MOST IMPORTANT part.

Haven't had much time to game lately but plan on playing this eventually.

As for the review it does seem a bit unbalanced to me. If most of the other aspects were good and fun I probably wouldn't have given so much weight to the story but it was Fluent's review. Who am I to say how important each aspect of the game is to him.

As Dart said I don't have the time to do reviews so I'm not going to bash Fluent for taking his time to do one. Especially since he's new to it.

I guess my biggest shock is that there are actually games Fluent doesn't like.

Originally Posted by BillSeurer
That is kind of what Temple of Elemental Evil is like. The implementation of the mechanics of the game were great but the story was terrible.

Yet questwise it was much better than most people make it out to be. Multiple paths to solve most quests, choices with sometimes delayed consequences, not to mention that in the temple you could align yourself with one of four conflicting factions (or not, depending on what you chose).

So it may have been terrible storywise (though you certainly couldn't expect a story on par with PST from a RPG based on an ancient PNP module), but it's much better if you look at quests. That's exactly my main problem with this review - it mentions an allegedly terrible story, while at the same time completely neglecting core aspect of a RPG: quests.

[QUOTE=SpoonFULL;1061196111]Fluent, have you tried different paths or dialog trees to see if it leads to different consequences and different endings?[/QU

No. I was uninterested in the story, so branching dialogs and choice and consequence was of little importance to me. Sure, maybe the second ending is a bit better, but I couldn't be bothered to try it because the experience was poor.

To be honest, I don't care one bit about choices and consequences or branching storylines if the core story is done poorly. If I don't care about the story, why should I care about the choices involved in it?

I didn't mention the quests in the review because they were middle of the road, nothing to really see here. A few of them were okay, and maybe I should have talked more about them in the review, but they really didn't stand out and I can't even remember half of them, so that tells you how good they were.

The core mechanics of the game which are fun (combat, skill tree and crafting) do not carry the game through to being good. The most important part (The story) is uninteresting and meandering, so there's no real reason to continue playing. The combat does get repetitive after awhile too unless you kill your enemies. I probably should have mentioned that in the review as well, but sometimes you can't think of everything and something goes unmentioned.

I will try to do better to be more thorough in my future reviews.

[QUOTE=Fluent;1061196150]

Originally Posted by SpoonFULL
Fluent, have you tried different paths or dialog trees to see if it leads to different consequences and different endings?[/QU

No. I was uninterested in the story, so branching dialogs and choice and consequence was of little importance to me. Sure, maybe the second ending is a bit better, but I couldn't be bothered to try it because the experience was poor.

To be honest, I don't care one bit about choices and consequences or branching storylines if the core story is done poorly. If I don't care about the story, why should I care about the choices involved in it?

I didn't mention the quests in the review because they were middle of the road, nothing to really see here. A few of them were okay, and maybe I should have talked more about them in the review, but they really didn't stand out and I can't even remember half of them, so that tells you how good they were.

The core mechanics of the game which are fun (combat, skill tree and crafting) do not carry the game through to being good. The most important part (The story) is uninteresting and meandering, so there's no real reason to continue playing. The combat does get repetitive after awhile too unless you kill your enemies. I probably should have mentioned that in the review as well, but sometimes you can't think of everything and something goes unmentioned.

I will try to do better to be more thorough in my future reviews.

Many thanks for your reply. I review academic articles from time to time and keep reminding myself to review them keeping in mind the bigger picture and not on the things that I personally like or dislike.

Your review is now published elsewhere (Gamebanshee for example) which does not provide the developer with any encouragement for future improvement or work and maybe to their detriment.

Originally Posted by Fluent
No. I was uninterested in the story, so branching dialogs and choice and consequence was of little importance to me.

I think that the branching plot should have at least got a mention, regardless of how good or bad the story itself actually is.

To be honest, I don't care one bit about choices and consequences or branching storylines if the core story is done poorly. If I don't care about the story, why should I care about the choices involved in it?

Interesting choices and a weak storyline aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I can recall more than a few examples of RPGs with nonexistant/weak plots which, at the same time, offered some pretty interesting choices either during the main quest (such as the above example with TOEE and its -among others- temple faction quests) or the side quests.

I won't spoil anything, but you do get one major choice later in the game, but both sides of the story are so underdeveloped it's hard to make a meaningful decision. You just pick one to get it over with and continue the rushed story.

You're right though, I should have mentioned this stuff. There's even one single instance I recall that was pretty cool. It involved choices and had a very severe consequence for making the wrong choice. You C&C guys would have loved that.

That's about the only time I recall having some interesting consequences for my choices I made.

I see for future reviews I have to be a little more thorough and report everything in the game, even if I don't find it all that interesting or intriguing, or it's poorly executed, etc.. Like I said, I will try harder on my next one to do just that. I'm actually listening to all your guys' criticism and I guarantee the next review will be much better for you all.

Originally Posted by Fluent
I won't spoil anything, but you do get one major choice later in the game, but both sides of the story are so underdeveloped it's hard to make a meaningful decision. You just pick one to get it over with and continue the rushed story.

You're right though, I should have mentioned this stuff. There's even one single instance I recall that was pretty cool. It involved choices and had a very severe consequence for making the wrong choice. You C&C guys would have loved that.

That's about the only time I recall having some interesting consequences for my choices I made.

I see for future reviews I have to be a little more thorough and report everything in the game, even if I don't find it all that interesting or intriguing, or it's poorly executed, etc.. Like I said, I will try harder on my next one to do just that. I'm actually listening to all your guys' criticism and I guarantee the next review will be much better for you all.

Many thanks Fluent .

Maybe Fluent can, odd as it may sound, revise his review?

Flesh it out further, add more talking points, etc?

BTW, I started the game but after playing a few hours it didn't grab me so I put it aside. Maybe this weekend I'll play more.

That's a bad sign for a cRPG. Most of them I end up playing WAAAAY too long at a sitting and for far too many sittings a day.

I edited my review slightly to add a paragraph about choices and consequences, as well as a bit about combat and how it got repetitive. I think that is the extent that I want to revise this review, but I will keep all suggestions in mind for the next game I review.

Thanks for reading and commenting!

Thank you - Fluent.

Don't tell others what they want to hear, stay true to your own opinion.

Absolutely, HiddenX.

I added the bit about C&C because for one, lots of you guys like that sort of thing, and two, it was a "feature" that played a part in the game that I completely ignored in my initial review, so it was good to add a little about that in.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
Thank you - Fluent.

Don't tell others what they want to hear, stay true to your own opinion.

It is not a matter of telling people what they want to hear, it is a matter of being thorough, competent and honest in your review to include 'all' aspects/features of the game so that the readers can then make up their minds about purchasing the game or not. Similar to reviewing an article, the editors include check sheets with tick boxes that the reviewers must complete irrespective whether the article is acceptable or not.

The reviewer can also inject their own opinions but based on experience rather than personal preference to be professional.

We have a good laugh over at the Codex because of this "review". As another codexer said, the game might very well suck, but its probably not worse than this review. I suggest you Watchers introduce some minimum quality requirements for your content.

Hey, even if his review skills could use some work - I appreciate the effort Fluent took to write it. You gotta start somewhere right? Thanks Fluent for taking the time to write and adding content to the RPG community.

If other folks think they can do so much better - then go ahead and write one.