@sear
Thank you for your comments.
I can't speak for Brother None, but a lot of people equate RPGs not just with mechanics, but with the ability to inhabit a world that reacts to the decisions you make.
“A lot of people do/think/act this/that/my/his way therefore you are wrong” is a fallacious argument and you know it.
Game mechanics are not the only thing that makes a game enjoyable (or not), but they, and not anything else, make a game, well, a playable game and not a book or a movie, they make a game RPG etc. Like it or not but genres still exist. It is certainly a great plus when the game world reacts to the decisions you make. Did I say anything to the contrary?
The Witcher 2 was, in a lot of ways, an action game with some RPG-style depth, yes - but it also had one of the best stories and best-developed worlds in any mainstream RPG in a long, long time, as well as choice & consequence, the bread and butter of RPGs for many, that was far in excess of almost any other game released in years.
Let us pause and think before praising CDPR for the “best-developed world” and “one of the best stories ever” because…
a) …the world and the major characters were conceived and developed by Sapkowski long before CDPR came into existence. Would you credit, say, Electronic Arts, for Middle-earth and Aragorn? No? Then why do you credit CDPR for the similar things?
b) …TW2 story is not all that great. If your or BN point is that the story is better than in “most RPG” you are not saying much because strorytelling in “most RPG” is beyond pathetic. TW2 story might appear slightly better than your average fodder (there is no accounting for taste) but it is still mediocre and completely forgettable, in my humble opinion, even if you pay attention to all the awkward “twists” of the plot.
If by “one of the best-developed worlds” you mean lovingly crafted pixels, it might be true, although the world is small and linear and exploration is severely lacking.
That said, I agree that TW2 world is its greatest asset. However, the main charm of the predecessor, the Slavic-inspired lore and atmosphere, is mostly gone. What remains is the chainmail bikini shtick and QTE someone at CDPR is obviously fond of to the point of unhealthy obsession. Or perhaps they know their audience.
As for C&C, it's very nice to have them but they alone can’t save the day as you seemingly imply.
As I hinted in my original post, I did not actually read TW2 review up until 30 min ago. Here is the gist:
“this was not good, that was annoying, this was unfortunate, that was unnecessary, this was corny, that was superficial, this was odd, that was ridiculous… Logical Conclusion: GOTY. “
Umm… Okay.
I guess what I'm saying is that we don't just cover "pure" RPGs and we don't adhere to one strict definition. The opinions of individual reviewers can vary a lot -for instance, personally I don't think The Witcher 2 is a great RPG and I would probably be more critical of it than Brother None was (although he had plenty of negative things to say about it underneath some of the praise). Especially as the RPG market changes, we have to alter some of our expectations and criteria, because, let's face it, genres don't stay 100% static.
Why yes, of course genres don’t stay 100% static etc. etc. However, since you mentioned that some of your expectations and criteria changed, it would be beneficial to clearly state what these expectations and criteria are today and adhere to these standards consistently. I realize that an absolutely unbiased review is a myth but
“this-bad-that awful-but-I-like-<stuff>-in-my-games-so-scratch-what-I-said-before-this-game-is-the-next-best-thing-since-sliced-bread” reviews are hardly acceptable. Am I wrong?
On a side note, it’s worth mentioning another amusing phenomenon in game reviewing: some developers always receive preferential treatment. What is considered a “minor flaw” in one case becomes the unpardonable sin in another. In one case high quality graphics are highly commendable, in another – an object of mockery. In one case design simplification is called streamlining, in another – dumbing down. In one case a generic story is exciting, in another – dull. In one case a mothershipload of game-breaking, never fixed bugs is okay, in another – a few glitches is something to rage about.
I'm willing to engage a game on its own terms, not the ones that I impose upon them. If you want to talk about objective reviewing, then personally I think it's much more fair to do that then judge a game based on how much it fits a label.
All this is beyond the scope of this thread but I will comment.
I think objective reviewing has little to do with labels and strict definitions per se and I tend to agree with you that a game should be primarily judged on how well it accomplished its stated goals and not on how well it met one’s preconceived expectations.
That said, if a game claims to be RPG, it is reasonable to expect RPG and not a collection of mini-games with RPG elements. It’s also reasonable to expect a number of older, less excitable RPG fans to raise their collective eyebrows when a game with arcade-type gameplay (poorly implemented to boot), cumbersome combat, the insane amount of cutscenes, semi-comprehensible, boring “politics” for the plot and a bunch of cardboard cutouts for NPC is being hyped as RPG of the Year and “a great step in the right direction.”
And really, that's exactly what you're doing here - you're saying that a GameBanshee review was bad because you a) don't agree with it and b) because the game doesn't fit your own definition of what makes an RPG (mini-games, etc.) - sounds like you're treating the game far more subjectively than Brother None did, if you are willing to judge it not on its quality but on its feature set.
Why, RPG can have mini-games. That’s not what I meant. The problem is there are way too many mini-games (or what can safely pass for mini-games) and cutscenes. Sounds like exaggeration? Example: you wake up (long cutscene), run around the camp collecting stuff and playing mini-games, reach your King (long cutscene), aim and fire a ballista (mini-game), kill some generic mooks, aim and fire another ballista (mini-game), kill more generic mooks, watch more cutscenes, determine the fate of NPC or two (the only redeeming feature of the 2-hours long tedium), escape dragon breath twice (mini-games), follow Foltest ( long cutscene that makes you wonder how come the royal children were entrusted to the care of a suspicious evil-looking stranger met in the wilderness just recently), knock out the guards (mini-game), escape (stealth mini-game if you can be bothered), join your team (cutscene), follow Tris and Roche along a narrow corridor, “talk” to Iorveth (click-click-click), retreat (basically, mini-game), get to Flotsam (cutscene), get railroaded to the town square, watch another cutscene, save your friends (mini-game) even if you wish them dead, Dandelion especially, watch a cutscene…
That's quintessential TW2.
Talking about quality, if one of the goals was mini-games, they did not do a good job with it. If one of the goals was telling an “immersive, mature, nonlinear story,” they failed. If one of the goals was “spectacular, brutal, tactical combat” (this is an action game after all), they did not do a good job. If one of the goals was NPC interaction, they did a pretty average job. If one of the goals was having C&C in order to add replay value – mission accomplished (C&C by themselves being nothing to write home about). If one of the goals was movies, they did a good job indeed but pardon me if I refuse to evaluate RPG by the quality of its awesome cutscenes. I bet perception of “quality” is mostly coming from that corner. There are so many movies in this game that it’s hard to blame players for confusing them with gameplay.
We are plenty critical of many, many games (see the recent Game of Thrones RPG review, Krater, Diablo III, Dungeon Siege III, Skyrim, etc.). You're welcome to not read our coverage, of course, but your complaints don't really make much sense to me when (and I certainly don't mean to stroke any egos) I think GameBanshee's reviews are far more detailed, fair and hype-free than the vast majority of other sites. Just because this isn't RPG Codex-level bile-spewing all the time doesn't mean that we don't call games out for problems - but when we get excited about games we also aren't afraid to communicate that excitement.
Once again, making a comparison to something patently worthless = ain’t sayin’ much. You are basically stating that your reviews are better than reviews written by a bunch of random morons and hacks.
If you want your* reviews to appear remotely objective, it is advisable to keep the tone neutral and leave all notions of your personal taste and preference out. For example, it does not look very professional to say “I don’t like this type of games anyway.” As you said, engage the game on its own terms and be consistent. The main purpose of reviews is to help people with vastly different tastes and experiences make an informed purchasing decision. Your personal level of excitement is irrelevant.
Good luck.
*when I say “you” I mean y’all.
