Grading, rating, and reviewing an RPG through your eyes.

[Siberys]

There are a lot of people who grade video games rather poorly because of many various details that shouldn't have been included. I used an argument on the Mage Knight Reviews that you shouldn't ever really rate a game based off another game, as well as several other things.

Pardon my french, but this is where reviews are starting to piss me off. They don't go for a game just as the game itself, they immediately assume it was copying off of another game and not it's own. In this case, Mage Knight Apocalypse was copying NOTHING from Diablo 2 or Guild wars, it's not even close to how the games work. What it did copy was the table top and it's influences, absolutely nothing more.

People keep trying to compare this game to diablo 2 and say it's not even close, well DUH! It's not trying to copy diablo 2. Being original in a game is becoming increasingly hard for the status quo on ratings. Every single rating has to compare it to some other game. Titan Quest to Diablo 2, Knights of the old republic to other star wars games, Mage Knight to World of Warcraft. Reviewers believe that all games are a copy of something else and are so full of themselves that comparing two games that have absoloutely no relation is one of the main scale points of rating a game.

How many people called Titan Quest a diablo 2 clone? The answer is thousands. Yes, it has set items, yes it has socketing, but they completely mistook what the game was about. There was no diablo at the end, no andarial, hell there weren't even some of the environments you saw in diablo two in titan quest. Titan quest is it's own game, and should be that way. There are trouble with titans, and you have a quest, grade it on THAT, Not items, Not bosses, not comparisons, on what the game in itself is about. Ever since RPG's became more and more popular, reviewers see less and less of this. With the reviews on oblivion, they went straight for the graphics. They didn't go for the game. Titan quest, they went straight for comparing it to diablo 2, not the game. Mage Knight Apocalypse, they went straight for a multitude of comparisons, not the game.

IMO, grading a game should never consist of more than graphics as a minor detail (as in, does the scenary at least make sense), Gameplay and Bugs as an intermediate detail, and finally, Storyline and Originality as a Top priority.

While legitimately using that as a basic guideline, Mage Knight would still get a low score as it's generic fantasy as well as choppy gameplay, a small story, and countless bugs. However, it would be a --legit-- rating, a rating that has absolutely no comparison to any other game other than the table top as a basis, and is given a fair score on what said game has to offer, not what said game has to offer compared to what other game your money can buy has to offer.

I have never trusted reviewers for these reasons, I've had a very strong disdain for most reviewers. There are very few, if any, that actually give a fair and intelligent review that is backed up by what the game is actually offering. If a game says it offers "Thousands of items" then yes, it is stretching the truth if many of the items graphics are being recycled, but then again, Items and Graphics shouldn't ever be something to consider as a main consensus for the rating of a game.

I'm done ranting.

Now, recently, some other people on the Mage Knight forums have been expressing there views. One of them, and I apologize to this man, was so poor of a judgement that I really don't think he even knows what an RPG is. He said, and I quote, "Titan quest was compared to diablo 2 because of the birds eye view."

I sincerely thought that was a joke till I kept reading what he said.

In any case, this got me wondering, how do you rate RPG's? I don't mean through a long essay and actual scores, but when you play an RPG, what do you look for most importantly? Graphics? Gameplay? Character customization? what is the #1 thing that makes you want to buy more and more RPG's?

[Lady Dragonfly]

Hmm... I am puzzled. What, in your opinion, would make a game labeled as a "clone"? Do games like "Sacred", "Fate" and "Dungeon Siege" qualify as Diablo2 clones? Can you name a game that would?
(Just in case, I like Titan Quest).

[Siberys]

I don't look at games as clones. That's my opinion, a game is a game, it is not a clone of something else even if rather similar. My whole point is to not judge or rate a game based off of another game, eliminating the word "clone" from gaming.

[Robnark]

well, there is the fact that it's much, much easier to say 'it's like diablo but they changed this...' in a review rather than do a synopsis of a game and its features that have very often been done in a very similar way before, if not identically. the reviewers, the players and almost certainly the developers will most often be aware of the titles in these comparisons - and, especially in the case of diablo 2, a large proportion will have played the other game being referenced.

in that respect it's a question of familiarity. the Diablos weren't conjured from thin air (I have read quite a few pedantic, not to mention vitriolic, discussions about whether D2 can be considered a true roguelike, or even a 'proper' RPG), but it doesn't take much consideration to realise that comparisons to, say, UMoria will probably leave most readers unenlightened. D2 is well-known and even today is probably the reference point for the genre.

there is also the question of just how much the developers are looking to move away from a formula that has worked so well before. I don't doubt that in many of the games already mentioned the developers were trying to make something different and better, but Fate would simply not exist without the Diablo series, and how many of the other games would have been made, even in a substantially different form, is debatable. and if they did exist without the others, all the reviews would be about twice as long without telling us all that much extra.

as to mage knight - well, some attention to the influence of the table-top game couldn't have hurt, but it's on the computer now and has to compare to the new reference points - and to the competition. if you're paying for these games (piracy is wrong, kids), a review saying game x is like game y, but with a different magic system and less fun, that does kind of convey the purpose of the review. while a list of differences would be taking the michael rather, a detailed synopsis of something that's been done before - repeatedly - is not really much of an improvement.

[Siberys]

I have absolutely no problem in pointing out the differences of a game. What I'm so worked up about is how many people try to compare it to another game as if it was supposed to be like that game.

For instance, the term Diablo Clone. Any game with that title such as Sacred, FATE, Titan Quest, etc have the term Diablo Clone attached to them. That's saying "This game is supposed to be like diablo, lets point out what it is not like and why that is wrong."

To me, there is a difference in saying this-

"Well, Titan Quest is very similar to Diablo 2, but with it's own unique storyline and character advancement system."

Versus

"Well, Titan Quest doesn't match up to Diablo 2 as TQ doesn't possess all the features Diablo 2 did."

See, there's a major problem there. The latter is trying to convey that Titan Quest's Original goal was to be like diablo 2, as if D2 was it's predecessor. That wasn't true at all. The former says that while Titan quest uses Set Items and Unique Items, The birds Eye View, and the run around hack and slash that diablo 2 has, it's still its own game.

That's my point, I despise the latter, but have no problem with the former.

[Xandax]

<snip>
For instance, the term Diablo Clone. Any game with that title such as Sacred, FATE, Titan Quest, etc have the term Diablo Clone attached to them. That's saying "This game is supposed to be like diablo, lets point out what it is not like and why that is wrong."
<snip>

Well, I think you are wrong here and overinterpreting the term.
Saying a game is a Diablo Clone is not saying the game is supposed to be like Diablo at all. A Diablo Clone is a description of a genre, like FPS games for a long time were Doom clones and Quake Clones or RTS games where C&C/Warcraft Clones. Diablo clone as a term has just had more staying power then these other "clone"-labels.

It simply means the mechanics of the game resembles the <gamename> of which it is a clone, not that it is supposed to - or trying to be - that game. And as such - it is only a descriptive term.
In regards of Diablo Clone the label tells me it is an action game where the main focus is killing (large amounts) of enemies with some RPG elements - most likely character development. It also tells me something of the technology - such as the game is most likely (95%) top down view.

It has nothing to do with the "supposed to be", but more of "what it actually is" and in that regards, I'm glad when games get labeled Diablo Clones, because then I know to stay way

So to me, saying Titan Quest is a Diablo Clone is very much similar to saying a FPS game is infact a FPS game. It is a genre label, albeit a bit "slang-ish"

[Rabain]

The problem with interpreting "Diablo clone" is that experienced gamers and net heads will understand that Diablo clone might be a generic referece to a game "in the same genre as Diablo style play" whereas a newer gamer or someone not so experienced online may see the phrase as meaning "a cheap imitation of Diablo".

I appreciate that reviewers connect more with readers if they do compare a new game to a well known older game but they also have a responsiblity as a reviewer to review the game on its merits and not pass it off as a poor imitation of another game. This is where the sign of a good reviewer can be seen, one who has researched the product, played it, read any developers articles etc and then commented.

Often reviewers will get a game or a demo, play 10 minutes of it and then write a 5 page article on how unlike Diable (or whatever game) it is. This does not make for a fair or valid review from public consumption.

[Lady Dragonfly]

I agree, the expression “Diablo clone” has a slightly scornful twang.
Why scornful?
Because the alleged clones use the same Diablo2 principle of compulsive hack-n-slashing through the endless mobs of monsters, hoarding random treasure, using some sort of “skill development tree” etc. Most of such games look much better and sleeker compare to the old Diablo2 but they are not original. They are elaborately “improved” replicas, with lush graphics and exotic "innovations". Pleasure to look at and fun to play, actually.
If you liked Diablo.

This type of gaming is extremely popular due to simplicity (left/right button click), unlimited streamline experience, mesmerizing treasure-hunting (“I found the coolest sword!” “No, mine is better!”), and abundant “customizable” combat.

As a matter of fact, for the fans of the genre the term “clone” is not derogatory at all; it is, as Xandax said, a descriptive term, a pointer, a huge “Buy me!” sign (not for Xandax ).
And I dare to presume that the bottom-line-minded game developers are not bothered by the contemptuous C-word either because Diablo clones sell well. Guaranteed.

[Siberys]

So to me, saying Titan Quest is a Diablo Clone is very much similar to saying a FPS game is infact a FPS game. It is a genre label, albeit a bit "slang-ish"

The problem is, Diablo Clone, while I agree it is a descriptor, is a lot more specific than a genre. If it is generalized in this sense, There would be many other games that would be diablo clones that are not and should not ever be D2 Clones.

If you say that a diablo clone is simply a game like diablo, then you can justify many other games that don't even come close to diablo as a diablo clone. Diablo concentrates much on running around and killing things, skill advancement, and items. Morrowind on the other hand, concentrates on many different things, yet generalizing Diablo Clone, you could justify that A. Morrowind does indeed concentrate on developing skills/spells, and B. Morrowind does make you want to hunt for that uber item, then Morrowind would then become a Diablo Clone.

This is why developers don't tend to call their game diablo clones, because they do not want their game to be like Diablo, yet -reviewers- on the other hand, use the term diablo clone as sort of an expectancy outcome. When they use the term diablo clone, it is for no other reason than to say that "This game is like diablo, here are the reasons why, and it's almost as if they tried to copy almost everything off of diablo"

Sure, reviewers don't use those direct words, but they do imply a strong feeling of what you can expect a game is supposed to be like when they say the term "Diablo Clone."

[Xandax]

The problem is, Diablo Clone, while I agree it is a descriptor, is a lot more specific than a genre. If it is generalized in this sense, There would be many other games that would be diablo clones that are not and should not ever be D2 Clones. <snip>

Yes, Diablo Clone is more descriptive then "genre" if you view genre as just the generic and rather non-descriptive term "FPS" or "RPG" or similar.
However a genre can be (much) more specific then that. Diablo Clone is a descriptive lable, more specific then "RPG"-type genre, but nevertheless it is a genre of games containing specific gameplay elements and mechanics.

If you say that a diablo clone is simply a game like diablo, then you can justify many other games that don't even come close to diablo as a diablo clone. Diablo concentrates much on running around and killing things, skill advancement, and items. Morrowind on the other hand, concentrates on many different things, yet generalizing Diablo Clone, you could justify that A. Morrowind does indeed concentrate on developing skills/spells, and B. Morrowind does make you want to hunt for that uber item, then Morrowind would then become a Diablo Clone.

Not even close, because Morrowind looks and plays nothing like Diablo did, but like for instance Dungeon Siege 2 did. I'd lable Dungon Siege 2 as a Diablo clone anyday, because it features focus on the same elements as Diablo did - just as from what I've read of Titan Quest, I'd label that such as well.
Because you can use a descriptive term such as Diablo Clone, you'll actually have a rather well defined label and thus you can't remotely state "Morrowind is a Diablo Clone", because it has perhaps a few of the common traits of Diablo. If such where the case, then most any game could be labeled almost any genre in existance, such as Quake being a Roleplaying game, because you "play" a role and you gather "equipment, or a Sports game because you can run and jump, and so on.

This is why developers don't tend to call their game diablo clones, because they do not want their game to be like Diablo, yet -reviewers- on the other hand, use the term diablo clone as sort of an expectancy outcome. When they use the term diablo clone, it is for no other reason than to say that "This game is like diablo, here are the reasons why, and it's almost as if they tried to copy almost everything off of diablo"

Of course developers don't call their games "clones" of another game. However what developers call their games is pretty much irrelevant (such as calling Diablo a RPG)
Reviewers however use the term - and players do as well - to describe the game mechanics/elements, much faster then having to list all the same elements over and over. Diablo Clone is not "This game tries to/is supposed to be Diablo", but "This game features the same gameplay mechanics as Diablo" - huge difference in my book, and hence my reaction to your first post where you indicated that it is "supposed to be".
There is nothing negative in labeling the game as such - if you like Diablo of course (I don't, so I view the label negative from my own preferences perspective) - anymore then there is labeling a game Action RPG or First Person Shooter.

Sure, reviewers don't use those direct words, but they do imply a strong feeling of what you can expect a game is supposed to be like when they say the term "Diablo Clone."

Yes, of course they do - and that is my entier point. But once more, it is not saying that this game wants to be - or is supposed to be - Diablo. It simply explains game mechanics with a (common used) label.

[Kipi]

But the problem is, that even when those who are reviewing game(s), even though they try to just explain the mechanincs by comparing it to well known game, they tend also to go a bit too far in that, and thus comparing what things are made worse in new game since those aren't done the same way as the old game...

Also, there is other problem with the whole comparing thing, which turns the whole thing upside down. Yesterday I saw a review of Medieval 2: Total War. In the end when they gave the grade for it including pros and cons, the game got more points because, as the review claimed, "It is new game of Total War -serie...", even though there were several flaws in the game, which even the reviewer admitted...

So, as well as some games suffers from the comparing to older games, some games also get better grade just because it belongs to famous series or it's very similiar to other popular game...

But how I rate games? I don't think much of the fact how much it resembles other games. If I like it, I give it good grade and if I don't, then the grade will be lower. And I don't like games which only concentrate to graphics (as most of you probably already know ), but games which have good story, good interface and so on...

[fable]

But the problem is, that even when those who are reviewing game(s), even though they try to just explain the mechanincs by comparing it to well known game, they tend also to go a bit too far in that, and thus comparing what things are made worse in new game since those aren't done the same way as the old game...

But how does that prove comparisons are innately bad? It merely shows that the tool of critical comparison can be misused. To argue from this that comparisons in themselves are poor, invites a complete divorce of any product from all others of the same kind, allowing for most methods of evaluation. It's the marketer's dream: don't look at anybody else's product. When we say ours is the best ever made in all respects, just take our word for it, and buy.

What comparisons are supposed to do is provide corrections to these kinds of claims, as well as content baselines upon which opinions of what constitute good and bad in any category can be formed. I would suggest that far from comparisons being used endlessly to drub newer games, most game reviewers simply ignore the past completely (or only look back a year or two). This might help explain why pitiful products gets very high scores, and why PR puffs about "the greatest" are literally repeated without thought.

Also, there is other problem with the whole comparing thing, which turns the whole thing upside down. Yesterday I saw a review of Medieval 2: Total War. In the end when they gave the grade for it including pros and cons, the game got more points because, as the review claimed, "It is new game of Total War -serie...", even though there were several flaws in the game, which even the reviewer admitted...

Again, that's a flaw in the reviewer's rationale. But there's no comparison involved. A isn't being compared to B. Rather, A is being praised for being from the same series as B.

I really don't see how comparisons can be avoided. They have been the foundation stone of critical thinking in Western civilization since Abelard wrote Sic et Non in the early 12th century.

[Kipi]

But how does that prove comparisons are innately bad? It merely shows that the tool of critical comparison can be misused. To argue from this that comparisons in themselves are poor, invites a complete divorce from of any product from another. It's the marketer's dream: don't look at anybody else's product. When we say ours is the best ever made in all respects, just take our word for it, and buy.

But since it's so easily and widely misused, doesn't it make it bad? And of course there are things that must be compared to past, especially when thinking the possibilities of what is possible. Ie. if it's possible to create good AI based on what older games have achieved, then it's understandable that if new games doesn't get even close to it it gets lower score... But in those cases the whole game should be taken account, and especially what was the intentions of the game? What if the game wasn't meant to have so good AI, and reviewers still give it lower scores becuase "older games have done it, and should have this game too..."? This is the point where the comparing is misused, as the comparion doesn't take account what was meant.

What comparisons are supposed to do is provide corrections to these kinds of claims, as well as content baselines upon which opinions of what constitute good and bad in any category can be formed. I would suggest that far from comparisons being used endlessly to drub newer games, most game reviewers simply ignore the past completely (or only look back a year or two). This might help explain why pitiful products gets very high scores, and why PR puffs about "the greatest" are literally repeated without thought.

Do you really believe that the comparion does affect the fact that every game, nevertheless are it good or not, are praised as "the greates" by developers?
It's law today taht everything new is far better than anything else made, or so developers believe...

Again, that's a flaw in the reviewer's rationale. But there's no comparison involved. A isn't being compared to B. Rather, A is being praised for being from the same series as B.

You are right when discussing about the game from same serie, but it also goes with games similiar to other games which were very popular and widely liked. And there comes the comparison.

I really don't see how comparisons can be avoided. They have been the foundation stone of critical thinking in Western civilization since Abelard wrote Sic et Non in the early 12th century.

Yes, that's true, but there are much to correct in the system, since it can be so well misused.

[fable]

But since it's so easily and widely misused, doesn't it make it bad? And of course there are things that must be compared to past, especially when thinking the possibilities of what is possible. Ie. if it's possible to create good AI based on what older games have achieved, then it's understandable that if new games doesn't get even close to it it gets lower score... But in those cases the whole game should be taken account, and especially what was the intentions of the game? What if the game wasn't meant to have so good AI, and reviewers still give it lower scores becuase "older games have done it, and should have this game too..."? This is the point where the comparing is misused, as the comparion doesn't take account what was meant.

Again, the problems you describe are a result of faulty application of the critical method, which does involve comparisons. For example, if you make a turn-based strategy game, and I write a review critiquing it for not having any realtime action--naming several realtime series--the fault would be mine. I could have found proper comparisons with other turn-based strategy games, but I began my review with a false preconception of "truth" ("All turn-based strategy games are simply flawed realtime ones"). I should have analyzed the qualities within your game and compared those qualities to their implementation in other products.

Concerning "bad AI," I'm not sure what you mean. I can't think of any game where a developer deliberately intends the opponents to have bad AI. So I'm not sure what you mean, there.

Do you really believe that the comparion does affect the fact that every game, nevertheless are it good or not, are praised as "the greates" by developers?

I'm afraid I don't understand this. Sorry.

It's law today taht everything new is far better than anything else made, or so developers believe...

Exactly so, and you can expand this into the universal comercial culture, which is supported with billions of dollars of advertising research to determine our secret "buttons" each year. Tha'ts why it's more important than ever to think critically, and apply correct comparisons.

You are right when discussing about the game from same serie, but it also goes with games similiar to other games which were very popular and widely liked. And there comes the comparison.

I think it's certainly possible to examine a feature in two widely disparate games and compare them, provided one draws an appropriate response, and doesn't make the mistake of assuming that the relative quality of a single feature's implementation in A and B automatically determines the relative quality of the games themselves.

[Xandax]

But since it's so easily and widely misused, doesn't it make it bad? And of course there are things that must be compared to past, especially when thinking the possibilities of what is possible. Ie. if it's possible to create good AI based on what older games have achieved, then it's understandable that if new games doesn't get even close to it it gets lower score... But in those cases the whole game should be taken account, and especially what was the intentions of the game? What if the game wasn't meant to have so good AI, and reviewers still give it lower scores becuase "older games have done it, and should have this game too..."? This is the point where the comparing is misused, as the comparion doesn't take account what was meant.
<snip>

Simply because a technique is misused does not mean it is "widely misused" or it makes it bad. I have a difficult time understanding how it could be "changed" at all.

Simply saying something as - I like this game and the things it presented, so I'll give it a good score is lacking in my view - because without comparison that score will mean nothing at all. That is why most reviewers have a numerical value, a grade which is similar to grading for educations and any other aspect of life.
Withouth comparison that number will mean nothing on its own. Saying this game got 8 out of 10 on its own is irrelevant, unless you know what 8 out of 10 means to you .... hence the comparison with other products, which provides you with a larger reference toolbox.


And I have problems understanding your "isn't meant to...." reference.
"The developers did not mention they'll make good AI, so I'll give it a good score because it doesn't feature good AI" ? That is very flawed in my view, because I do not care what the developers "meant to". I care about what it means to me and my enjoyment.
If the comparison to another game in this regard wasn't used, I wouldn't know - again - if the game was interesting to me.
This game features good AI..... well - good compared to what? It is the same as with the numerical grade.

Do you really believe that the comparion does affect the fact that every game, nevertheless are it good or not, are praised as "the greates" by developers?
It's law today taht everything new is far better than anything else made, or so developers believe...

But if you "remove" comparison, or disregard it, as a technique, then you'll only have the PR fluff to lean on as a source of information. Then the PR fluff will not be dispelled by comparing to previous/other games which provided better/more implementations of what ever is involved.
So when Oblivion comes out with "This is the most immens, greatest RPG ever" from Bethesda, we can say - no it is not, because A, B, C from game X did this better. Meaning we compare.

You are right when discussing about the game from same serie, but it also goes with games similiar to other games which were very popular and widely liked. And there comes the comparison.

I see no problem comparing across "series" within the same genre. Otherwise we would not be able to compare the flaws of for instance KOTOR series, by
drawing upon references from for instance Baldurs Gate, or any other RPG.

[Kipi]

Okay, I think we all (yes, me included) are wandering a bit off from the very meaning of this topic, and even our wandering isn't going to same direction, so there are misunderstanding or no understanding at all...

What I basically meant was, like Sib stated in his opening post, that reviewers immediately think of new games as clones or that those games are trying to copy something from older games, and when it's not 100% accurate with the older game, it's done poorly. Thus they don't give any change to game to be what it is, standing alone.

Of course comparison should exists, otherwise we would accept loads of crap games as good ones... but when we start to think that "this game tries to copy this thing from game X, and didn't do it well, so the game is crap". That's not good reason to think the game as crap. If it were, then every game which doesn't have the best graphic able to be done would be crap. And I believe you don't think so too, as you like Fallouts...?

I see no problem comparing across "series" within the same genre. Otherwise we would not be able to compare the flaws of for instance KOTOR series, by
drawing upon references from for instance Baldurs Gate, or any other RPG.

Yes, but we should also remember not to think these games as "ultimately best games which may not be ever beaten". This thinking, unfortunately, exists, and thus newer games doesn't have hardly chances.

And I have problems understanding your "isn't meant to...." reference.
"The developers did not mention they'll make good AI, so I'll give it a good score because it doesn't feature good AI" ? That is very flawed in my view, because I do not care what the developers "meant to". I care about what it means to me and my enjoyment.
If the comparison to another game in this regard wasn't used, I wouldn't know - again - if the game was interesting to me.
This game features good AI..... well - good compared to what? It is the same as with the numerical grade.

I could partially agree with you on this...
Firstly, the AI is good if it fulfills in the game what it's meant to do. As you say, "I care about what it means to me and my enjoyment.", if the game is something you enjoy, doesn't it make it good game? Where do you need comparison there? Sure, for example AI in RTS games, when you have something to compare and especially what has been possible before, you can have guidelines to what should this new game also provide to you. But that still doesn't mean that if the new game doesn't provide as good AI as other games, the game would be bad one. Or does it?

Of course every score should be explained and there should be facts where it's based. The problem is that it's often based on things that should not. The score I give to games bases mostly to things like what kind of story there is, is the game buggy, how well thought and how easy the interface and menus are to use, have every spaect of the game thought well and so on. I don't give a damn how much it's like other, older game, if I like it. Of course, if the game is like ie. Diablo 2, it's easy to describe it by comparing to D2, but it's not right to say ie. "In the game there is far not so many items/monster than in D2, which is bad."

So, I just don't say "I like it" when grading a game, I will also explain why I liked or disliked it.

[Xandax]

<snip>
What I basically meant was, like Sib stated in his opening post, that reviewers immediately think of new games as clones or that those games are trying to copy something from older games, and when it's not 100% accurate with the older game, it's done poorly. Thus they don't give any change to game to be what it is, standing alone. <snip>

But they don't neasecarily. Not doubt some do, however again - the term "clone" does not automatically imply that the reviewer thinks the game is "trying to be" or "supposed to be" what game they compare to. Again - we can utilize the "Diablo clone" label. Saying a game is a "Diablo Clone" does not automatically imply the speaker things the game is trying to be Diablo and fails.
It is just as much a descriptive term of mechanics in the game.
It is not biology we are talking here where clone is an (identical) replication of the "parent", but it is describing less verbose the elements which make up the game.

Of course comparison should exists, otherwise we would accept loads of crap games as good ones... but when we start to think that "this game tries to copy this thing from game X, and didn't do it well, so the game is crap". That's not good reason to think the game as crap. If it were, then every game which doesn't have the best graphic able to be done would be crap. And I believe you don't think so too, as you like Fallouts...?

The argument you put forth have nothing to do with comparing a game to another. It has to do with some (fictive/non represented) person using some hypothetical argument which you disagree with. It has nothing to do with the mechanics of comparing games to each other, with labeling something as a Diablo Clone or so on.

Yes, but we should also remember not to think these games as "ultimately best games which may not be ever beaten". This thinking, unfortunately, exists, and thus newer games doesn't have hardly chances.

Again - I do not know where this is comming from, but I fail to see many places in this thread where that point of view is being presented.

I could partially agree with you on this...
Firstly, the AI is good if it fulfills in the game what it's meant to do. As you say, "I care about what it means to me and my enjoyment.", if the game is something you enjoy, doesn't it make it good game? Where do you need comparison there? <snip>

Because I enjoy a game does not neascearily make it good no. It simply means I enjoy it. The two are very different.
And because I enjoy something - I wouldn't always automatically know this before I try it out. Because I have limited funds to buy computer games, I would like to know before I invest if I possible would enjoy the game or not, so I would need comparisons right there.

Sure, for example AI in RTS games, when you have something to compare and especially what has been possible before, you can have guidelines to what should this new game also provide to you. But that still doesn't mean that if the new game doesn't provide as good AI as other games, the game would be bad one. Or does it?

No, but who did also say that?

Of course every score should be explained and there should be facts where it's based. The problem is that it's often based on things that should not. The score I give to games bases mostly to things like what kind of story there is, is the game buggy, how well thought and how easy the interface and menus are to use, have every spaect of the game thought well and so on. I don't give a damn how much it's like other, older game, if I like it. Of course, if the game is like ie. Diablo 2, it's easy to describe it by comparing to D2, but it's not right to say ie. "In the game there is far not so many items/monster than in D2, which is bad."

Again - that is the "flaw" of the specific (fictive) person/reviwer, not the technique and not the terms.

So, I just don't say "I like it" when grading a game, I will also explain why I liked or disliked it.

As do most, but if you have nothing to compare it up against, it'll just be "liked" but again - compared to what?
I like X, but if you do not know how X compares to Y which you like, then X is - well pointless to you. There needs to be a common ground of reference for people to convey such subjective values.
That is also one of the reasons why "Diablo Clone" has survived for so long, because Diablo and Diablo 2 have been huge successes giving many different gamers a common ground for references. So when saying Diablo Clone to these people - they already know a good deal of how the game mechanics are implemented, and that they'll likely consider it "their" genre.

But once more - it is not a derogative term, a term indicating the game tried to be Diablo (and failed) nor that any (new) game can be as good as Diablo (or another old) - lest the person using it states it, in which case - it stands for *his* personal (subjective) account.

[Rabain]

There was an articale on NWN2 that got pulled from 1up.com:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/docs/nwn2review.html

Luckily the guys at Penny Arcade got a copy of it before that and this was their response:

Penny Arcade! - Age Ain't Nothing But A Number

It just goes to show that not all reviewers agree and sometimes not even with their own editors.

PA is awesome by the way, they have some funny-ass comics there.