1UP pulls Neverwinter Nights 2 review
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Nov 3rd 2006 at 10:55PM }
In a move reserved for only the most high-ranking of screw-ups, 1UP.com has pulled their review of Neverwinter Nights 2. Stating that the review did a "disservice to fans of the RPG genre." We have what is said to be the original review after the break.It's a very difficult decision to pull a story. An editor would normally rather suffer the wrath of an angry readership than go forth with a retraction. Not only does it show a lack of respect to the writer of the piece, but it shows a collapse in the editorial chain of command at a publication. As our metareview showed this morning, 1UP gave NWN2 a 5 out of 10, which was quite the departure from the rest of the reviews. Not that publications can't have different opinions, but seriously, when was the last time you saw a decent game get below a 7?
The alleged original article written by Matt Peckham and re-posted by "Citizen_Ska" on the 1 Up forums. We sincerely hope this isn't the original review, and if it was, good move by 1UP's editors for removing it :
As everything-the-original-did -- and more -- follow-ups go, Neverwinter Nights 2 deserves a banner&something like "mission accomplished." Think the sequel to Jurassic Park, where Spielberg's all "You want more dinosaurs? I'll show you more dinosaurs..." As a contemporary CRPG, on the other hand, NWN2 leaves a lot to be desired, and that's too bad, because these are the guys who brought us Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale 2...and therefore they are the guys I'm least inclined to take issue with.
But issues exist, and defining them is really no more complex than saying, "Hello D&D superchrome, buh-bye storytelling and character development (you know, those things you're supposed to "immerse" yourself in)." The idea seems to be that we're meant to rah-rah about a superabundance of feats, spells, races, prestige (advanced) classes, and math-equation tickers full of the usual "I attack you with a +4 sword of --" booooooring. Fine, sure, dandy...but when is a "role" not a "role"? Simple: when it's a rule to a fault.
Ever loyal bites
I'm cruising for a bruising (don't I know it), but NWN2 is a splash of cold water to the face: A revelatory, polarizing experience that -- in the wake of newer, better alternatives -- makes you question the very notion of "RPG by numbers." It foists Wizards of the Coast's latest v3.5 D&D system (a molehill that's become a mountain at this point) onto your hard drive with stunning fidelity, then tacks on dozens of artificial-looking areas vaguely linked by forget-table plot points you check off like grocery to-do's.
Sure, the interface is sleeker with context-sensitive menus and a smart little bar that lets you more intuitively toggle modes like "power attack" and "stealth," but with all the added rule-shuffling, NWN2 seems like it's working twice as hard to accomplish half as much. Worse -- and blame this on games like Oblivion -- NWN2's levels feel pint-sized: Peewee zones inhabited by pull-string NPCs with no existence to speak of beyond their little playpens. Wander and you'll wonder why the forests, towns, and dungeons are like movie lots with lay-about monsters waiting patiently for you to trip their arbitrary triggers. As if the pencil and paper "module" approach were a virtue that computers -- by now demonstrably capable of simulating entire worlds with considerably more depth -- should emulate. It's like we're supposed to park half our brain in feature mania and the rest in nostalgic slush, and somehow call bingo.
The dungeons feel especially stale, so linear and inorganic they might as well be graph-paper lifts filled with room after room of pop-up bogeymen (Doom put them in closets; NWN2 just makes the closets bigger). Maybe you'd rather chat with the dumb NPCs that speak and sound like extras in a bad Saturday morning cartoon? Oh, boy -- there's the portrait "plus" sign! Time to shuffle another party member (improved to four simultaneous) through the level-up grinder, which you can click "recommend" to zip past...but then, what's the point?
Rule-playing game
In all fairness, it's not entirely developer Obsidian's fault. D&D certainly puts the "rule" in role-playing, and a madcap base of D&D aficionados is no doubt ready to string me up for suggesting that faithful is here tantamount to folly (to these people, I say: "Go for it, NWN2's all you've ever wanted and more"). Call me crazy -- I guess I'm just finally weary of being led around on a pencil-and-paper leash and batting numbers around a glorified three-dimensional spreadsheet in a computer translation that should have synthesized, not forklifted.
That five-of-10 is actually a hedge, by the way. For D&D fans who want to play an amazingly thorough PC translation of the system they're carting around in book form, it's proba-bly closer an eight or nine. But if, like me, you want less "rules for rule's sake" and more depth and beauty to your simulated game worlds, you can certainly find more exciting prospects. Part of the reason we call them "the good old days" and think fondly of games past is that it's always easier to love what we don't have to play anymore.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Insomnia Bob @ Nov 3rd 2006 11:11PM
THIS is what passes as gaming journalism? My god! Was this even EDITED? Or grammer checked?
This scentence alone: Think the sequel to Jurassic Park, where Spielberg's all "You want more dinosaurs? I'll show you more dinosaurs..."
Yikes.
uncaringbear @ Nov 3rd 2006 11:05PM
Who seriously expects the gaming press to be objective and unbiased in their editorial content? That fantasy died years ago. If that was the original review, I don't find it particularly well-crafted, but then it's not bad enough that it deserves to be censored.
Doom @ Nov 3rd 2006 11:11PM
1Up, leading the way for video games journalism because IGN sets the bar so low.
Seriously, terrible review.
FreQ @ Nov 3rd 2006 11:27PM
Well 1up DID just give Dark Messiah a 4/10. A 4 ! I'm not being a fanboy or anything but I thought the game was DECENT ( as did several other sites ), so it's interesting to see 1up's reviews so far outside the curve.
Matt Rix @ Nov 3rd 2006 11:34PM
"3. THIS is what passes as gaming journalism? My god! Was this even EDITED? Or grammer checked?
This scentence alone: "
Dude. You spelt grammar with an 'e' and sentence with two 'c's...
The quote you used doesn't actually have bad grammar either... If you know the type of "all" he's trying to use.
I actually thought the review was pretty good and brought up a lot of valid points. It's definitely not bad enough to warrant it being removed.
The H @ Nov 3rd 2006 11:30PM
was he drunk?
Ed Gore @ Nov 4th 2006 4:35PM
I haven't been paying any attention to Neverwinter Nights 2, but I was assuming that it was a sequel to the last one, which was an RPG builder, that had a crappy single player game along with it, intended more as an example than anything else.
Is Neverwinter Nights 2 supposed to be a fully fleshed out RPG this time? If so the review might apply, but if it's the same deal as the first one, then complaining about the single player game, or expecting something like Planescape, is just nuts.
Artimus @ Nov 3rd 2006 11:51PM
Seems to me the bad grammar was more an excuse to avoid wrath for a bad score. Lame. You can easily edit the review, no need to totally pull it.
Sub @ Nov 3rd 2006 11:55PM
Wth.. If this gets pulled, Dark Messiahs review needs to be pulled too. That game deserved atleast a 7.
O_o @ Nov 3rd 2006 11:58PM
at #7
What kind of journalist would write "Think the sequel to Jurassic Park"?
Sure, we might get what he is saying or what he is trying to say. But the sentence should be better phrased.
Not only was it poorly put together, the original review was so ridiculous and full of cynicism that makes you wonder if he even played the game at all.
It seems that he is not writing as a reviewer, but as a hater of the entire rpg/d&d genre.
All in all, the review was not a true reflection of the game. Sure, there has been a few criticisms on the sequel's poor npc speech and recycled background music but in no way is it worth a crippling 5 out of 10.
Pulling the review is a good move. But it is rather appalling to see these exsist in the first place.
Kestrel @ Nov 3rd 2006 11:57PM
I think the reviewer presented legitimate concerns, although I'll likely enjoy the game. Not quite fair to pull his review.. After all, he is dog tired of constant rehashing of the same tired D&D rules system, which many people probably aren't. It's a matter of opinion.
fawazr @ Nov 4th 2006 12:00AM
I actually thought that was a good review. The allusions were a little high and inaccessible at times (low brow and hackneyed at others), but it was still good and opinionated. It's the sort of review that'll keep you from making a regrettable purchase if you aren't a D&D purist. However, it is a rare and brutal censure of the D&D standard and the fans who remain loyal to it. That's why it was pulled -- it had far more bite than bark and was potentially hurtful to legions of card carrying larpers and post-adolescent misfits who rely on masturbation and snack eating to pass the time between dice throwing sessions.
Dazz @ Nov 4th 2006 12:00AM
Speaking as an owner of NWN II, he's actually right. The game is disappointment in almost every facet and is directly comparable to KOTOR II in that respect; Obsidian took what was a solid game and recycled its formula down to the ’t’, only in the process they screwed up several menial parts of it. He’s correct in all of his criticisms, too. In replicating NWN they’ve missed a lot of advancements that have taken place in RPG’s since its original release. Not only that, but the story and characters are entirely generic and uninspired. I realize there are people out there that would like nothing other than to play Neverwinter Nights over again – they’re the same people who wanted to play KOTOR over again – and couldn’t care less about the outside evolution of gameplay since its release. Unfortunately those are the same people giving Obsidian essentially a free pass on mailing it in not once, but twice now.
That said the reviewer did himself (and the gaming community) no favors with this. You can’t turn in something that is going to ruffle a fanbases feathers without making sure it’s written damn well, and this…well it wasn’t. It was poorly written and failed to properly make its point, which is almost as unfortunate as the game itself. Obsidian is going to get a free pass from its fans and the media, because what seems like the one person who was willing to call them on their missteps failed to get his point across. He’s now a part of the problem instead of the solution, which was obviously the very least of his intentions. What is even worse is that the fanbase can only reinforce its notions of the game by the fact that that one person had his review pulled under the pretense of undermining RPG fans, which is more than likely a way for them to remove it without acknowledging that the writer and his editor made a mistake in letting this thing see the light of day. It’s all very sad.
Wes Philips @ Nov 4th 2006 12:04AM
Well, it really speaks volumes about the editorial staff at 1UP. I work as an editor at a newspaper and that story is poorly written and never would have seen the light of day, regardless of the uninformed opinion.
This just seems like they posted it without reading it, which is easy to do in an online world where everything is just a cut-and-paste away.
Whether or not they are catering to a pissed-off publisher remains to be seen.
Track @ Nov 4th 2006 12:03AM
It's really sh**ty his review was pulled. If that's his opinion let him have it, brown nosing be damned. How many people base their purchase on a single review?
Dirtyboy @ Nov 4th 2006 12:05AM
I can see if they gave it a "5" and clearly listed their reasons why, but this is nothing more than a rant against RPGs. At least pretend you are a professional writer...
Brandon @ Nov 4th 2006 12:11AM
Neverwinter Nights is not my game at all, for exactly the reasons he mentioned, so this doesn't make me angry. Still, if this were my favorite game, I would say they need to leave it up. Maybe have someone else do another review that stands as the official review (for the sake of metareviews and game rankings). This is a reviewer's genuine opinion and this is how reviews should be done. I think if reviewers spoke their mind more often, we wouldn't have so many games huddling around the seven to eight out of ten marks. It should also stay up to show that writer's bias against the genre. In the future, readers will avoid his reviews of this genre and read someone else's if they want, or if they share his feelings, read his to see if the game breaks free of genre standards.
Judd @ Nov 4th 2006 12:17AM
" Not only does it show a lack of respect to the writer of the piece, but it shows a collapse in the editorial chain of command at a publication."
I love this site, but you guys have updated your articles with corrections as well. Although I'm not the kind of person who screams bias when a post mentions something negative about the PS3, you gotta admit that this site has made mistakes. Everyone does. Then again because articles in 1UP are published in magazines, they should hold themselves to higher standards.
Jecrell @ Nov 4th 2006 12:33AM
As an owner of NWN2, this guy did mention some shortcomings, but it's a bad game because it's a D&D game? What the fuck 1UP.
I love their show, but seriously, what the fuck.
Dot @ Nov 4th 2006 12:38AM
Looking at their recent reviews, it seems that 1up is simply biased against PC gaming in general.
Of course again, maybe its just me.
guises @ Nov 4th 2006 12:40AM
You can easily edit the review, no need to totally pull it.
-------------------------------
I don't know, that was pretty far gone. I had real difficulty reading that and what I did make out was mostly this guy ranting about how he didn't like math.
A reviewer has to be above that sort of idiosyncratic criticism - I don't like sports games, but that doesn't mean that they all deserve low scores. 1UP did the right thing here, I think.
Shannon @ Nov 4th 2006 12:43AM
His editor after reading that article should have taken away his "-" key, not published the article...
refinedsugar @ Nov 4th 2006 12:46AM
The chain of command definitely failed there. I remember this once happened with InsideMacGames years ago. They put up a review for a game (somewhat negative with a low score) and later it was pulled only to be replaced with another more positive review with a better score written by a different person. Of course people noticed and the editor-in-chief/owner of the site stepped up to the podium to explain himself and the whole fiasco. So between this and now the 1UP deal, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else comes along to list yet another example of this kind of media failure.
If nothing else it's an interesting reminder of the industry's complexity. This should particularly hit home with those well run established sites who have an image and a level of reputation and/or popularity that they want to maintain. You know ... editorial integrity and all that. They don't wanna lose trust in their readership, respect, advertising revenue and naturally the people involved would like to keep their jobs and pride ...
... and who keeps them in check? Us the almighty gamers ... the unreeling lot of hardcore idiots, hypemongers, casual gamers and every descriptive term and category in between. The same people who years ago would have cried wolf at review scores they felt were too high, hyped or biased - 'Yeah it got a 9. This site is sooooo paid off by such and such game company' - are now the same ones who cry when you don't give games they love and cherish to death for 15 minutes of their lives an 9.5 or 95% average. Don't think it's true? Waste some time and brain power in any of the big game site forums. For instance Gamespot just put up their GTA: Vice City Stores review for the PSP and it got an 8.4. Not bad, right? Not according to the people in the forums who think the reviewers are idiots at GS, the game should have gotten a higher score and so naturally the review was wrong in every which way.
It's a crazy world filled with people who make little to no sense and their numbers are growing. This 1UP eyesore just happens to put the limelight on where things are going drastically wrong. They pulled the review because it went against the status quo and was going to offend and they don't wanna any backlash from that.
Shogan @ Nov 4th 2006 12:50AM
Shouldn't a review be an honest opinon about a game? If this was his honest opinon about the game, then it should have stayed up. Just because everyone else gives the game a 9 or a 10 doesn't mean every single person out there is going to rank it as high.
Besides, a negative review is sometimes even helpful to fans, because it can show where the game fail in certain areas. Those elements may be very important to the reviewer, but to the player or potential buyer, they may be non-issues.
Adam @ Nov 4th 2006 12:56AM
I read this review this morning when it was still on 1UP and regardless of the author's opinion, the article makes 1UP and GFW look bad for the poor quality of writing. I really don't care if 1UP gives NWN2 a 5 out of 10, and that's not the problem. It was pulled because it's a badly written review. Yes, it's the internet, but you have to have standards; the editors never should have let it see the light of day. If it really was published in the debut issue of Games for Windows, I feel sorry for that magazine.
Dot @ Nov 4th 2006 1:04AM
@24: What happened there was not the reviewer demonstrating his "honest opinion". It was closer to a FPS-only player showing his disregard for Civilization 4 because he can't frag people with a rocket launcher in it. The 1UP article's content can be summed up to "I hate traditional CRPGs therefore, NWN2 sucks."
ThaddeusMcMonster @ Nov 4th 2006 1:12AM
"If that's his opinion let him have it, brown nosing be damned."
Believe it or not, the purpose of a review isn't to state the writers opinion of it. Everybody has an opinion on just about everything. Not everybody is a paid critic. The purpose of a review is to help the reader decide whether or not the game (or movie/book/whatever) will be enjoyable. Granted, the critics opinion will certainly factor into his review, but there's more to a review than an opinion.
Take this reivew that I just wrote up:
"The premise of NWN2 is much the same as the original, make a computer RPG with the rules of Dungeons and Dragons. While the game manages to include just about every piece of D&D, including all the feats, spells, races, classes, and items you could want, it lacks other qualities that a good RPG should have. The characters are one dimensional, and the storyline is forgetable, with one hackneyed plot point after another.
The entire game seems to suffer from too many rules. Every rule was imported from D&D, without thought to whether this rule makes the computer version better or worse. Of course, that is pretty much the premise of the game, but after being surrounded by the endless stats, equations and numbers, one has to question whether the premise is any good at all. In pencil and paper, those stats help immerse you in the world, you have to know how powerful spells and weapons are, and how feats and abilities work. With a computer game, the computer can do those things for you. Thus, a feature that helped create a sense of immersion in pencil and paper, detracts from it in the computer version.
The levels feel quite small, compared to games such as Oblivion they seem almost pint-sized. The dungeons are almost linear, and instead of interesting concepts we get monsters behind every door. The NPC's just wait around for you to interact with them, they don't go about any daily routine or have the appearance of a life of their own. Granted, this has been standard fare for RPGs for quite some time now, but things are changing, and the gameplay concept feels old.
OK, so its a bit unfair to compare this to Oblivion, Oblivion broke new ground for RPGs, and a game doesn't have to be completely innovative to be good. However, NWN2 doesn't brake any new ground, its simply NWN with more monsters items spells etc, prettier graphics and a new interface.
For those of you who simply want a Never Winter Nights with more stuff, get this game, you'll love it. For those of you who don't care about D&D rules, and simply want an interesting or immersive RPG, pass on this one.
Bottom line, 5/10. You can make an intersting, immersize RPG with D&D rules, just look at Baldur's Gate 2. NWN2, however, is neither interesting or immersize."
That is, IMHO, a much better review. It presents the point the critic was trying to make in the original review in a balanced manner, and doesn't use any annoying phrases and or stream of conciousness ramblings.
Rayek @ Nov 4th 2006 5:54AM
Umm, he doesn't know what he's talking about:
"Sure, the interface is sleeker with context-sensitive menus and a smart little bar that lets you more intuitively toggle modes like 'power attack' and 'stealth,'..."
Did he not play Neverwinter? Or was he too dumb to use this 'smart bar' when it came out? It sounds like he playedthe first three minutes of the game, which are supposed to be 'checking stuff off your list'. Obsidian explicitly stated that you have to build your reputation in the town before you are called on to save the world, unlike many other games. Me, I pre-ordered and found out that my PC was running it at 1 frame/second (time for a serious upgrade...) SO I haven't had an opportunity to play it yet, but I can definitely tell the level system has been much improved. An unfair review, to say the least. I'm sad because 1up didn't catch this before they 'published' it.
Jeff @ Nov 4th 2006 1:36AM
The review should have been pulled, not because it was in error or outside the bell curve of metareview scores, but because it obviously went through no editing process at all.
That said, unless this guy wasn't supposed to even review the game to begin with (and is therefore making up his job as he goes along), it should be re-posted once it's cleaned up.
It is one of the most poorly-written reviews I've ever seen - no doubt about that. Half of it makes no sense at all - just a random jumble of words. The editorial process definitely broke down here, and this appears to have been posted without passing through any sort of filtering, be it human or automatic. Hell, Microsoft Word alone would have helped a lot.
But I see no reason to pull a review because people disagree with the review score or overall conclusion. Pauline Kael famously ragged on Stanely Kubrick's "2001" when it was released - did she ever retract her review? No. Critics need to be thick-skinned, and their job is not to act as PR for game publishers. I've disagreed with plenty of game critics before, but that doesn't mean I don't think they're entitled to their opinions, like anyone else. It's not their job to read my mind and tell me what I already know; it's their job to give me *their* opinion.
I hope this review gets some edits and then goes back up.
Jeff @ Nov 4th 2006 1:45AM
"Everybody has an opinion on just about everything. Not everybody is a paid critic. The purpose of a review is to help the reader decide whether or not the game (or movie/book/whatever) will be enjoyable."
Wrong.
That is *not* a critic. Look up the definition of the word. A critic is - by *definition* - being paid to give *his or her opinion* and nothing else.
What the hell kind of criticism is it to say "if you enjoy RPG's, you'll enjoy this game"? That's basically your argument. By that criteria, every game deserves a 10. Every game will find *some* kind of audience. I'm sure there's one guy (or girl) out there that just loved the "Friends" trivia game - for that person, the game's a 10. Same is true for every other game on the market.
(By the way, this is the argument against having scores at all, and it's why serious film criticism doesn't. You can't boil questions of opinion down to numerical scores.)
A critic's job is to take the role of gamer and tell you what his opinion is. It's then up to *you* to fill in the blanks and decide if that opinion means anything to you or not. Critics are not getting paid to write buying guides; they're getting paid to write reviews. There is a difference.
By the way, I am saying all this as someone who used to write game reviews for a living.
Sean @ Nov 4th 2006 3:46AM
ThaddeusMcMonster, I have used documents like the original review and your revision of it in writing classes to show the differences between and unedited ranting and clear, readable writing. Bravo on showing that the review may very well have been pulled, because it did not effectively back up a controversal score.
The bottom line is that if you want to take a stand on a type of gameplay by being extra-critical of a certain game, you should make your case as clearly as possible. As Bobby Hill would say, the orignal review was "all sloppy and no Joe!" It may have some valid points hidden underneath the frustrated ranting, but it didn't have the clarity of writing necessary to back up its extreme opinions.
If you are going to go out on a limb, know that you'll likely have the spotline shined upon you. You better make sure all yours i's are dotted if you are going to give a major game release that has been highly anticiapted for years like NWN 2 a 5/10. You better be damn good at selling that score as legitimate if you want to keep your readers.
ZeroCorpse @ Nov 4th 2006 2:00AM
I agree with this being pulled. This guy clearly hates D&D and real role-playing games. NWN is about D&D rules, and it's meant for the loyal fanbase who like to simulate the pen & paper experience. The reason NWN is so popular is because the mod community has been able to tweak the rules-- and you know what most of us did? We made it HARDER and CLOSER to the D&D rules than it was out of the box!
This guy reviewing NWN2 is like me reviewing Final Fantasy. I hate anime, and I hate JRPGs, and I would ALWAYS give Final Fantasy a low score because it's just not my thing. I like the rules of the pen & paper game, and considering that there are a ton of Japanese RPGs, FPS RPGs, Action RPGs, and other turn-based RPGs on the market, I think there's plenty of room for ONE game that is focused on duplicating the rules of the pen & paper version and giving people a toolset to make their own campaigns.
The review should evaluate the value to the target audience. We *know* the FPS freaks will hate it. We *know* the JRPG otaku will despise it. We *know* the fans of side-scrolling beat-em-ups will be bored with it. What we want to know is how will someone who is *looking for this kind of game* like it? How does it measure up as a D&D rules toolset?
He missed the point of his own review. He needs to consider sticking to his genre.
ZeroCorpse @ Nov 4th 2006 2:14AM
By the way guys... Sorry to go off-topic, (and apologies to other posters- You can ignore this whole thing) but this has been bugging me:
I've been contributing to these threads a lot, and my posts are usually pretty relevant. Why have I been stuck at seven stars ever since I differed with Vlad on his hatred of Best Buy? (I worked for them. I was defending my coworkers. You'd do the same.) Is this personal? Jeff's up to 11, and I've been posting as much, and as coherently as he is. Before the dispute with Vlad, I racked up stars left and right. Afterward, I've been sitting at seven without a single move one way or the other.
I suppose I'm grateful for the seven I have, but jeez... How long can you hold a grudge?
At least, that's how it seems from my point of view.
Yeah, I hate anime. Yeah, I am sick to death of Sony's arrogance. Yeah, I'm opinionated. . . But I'm also a good poster, and I'm a loyal visitor (every day for well over a year, damn it. Shouldn't that count for something?)
It's not really important to me how many stars I have, but I just wondered why it's going down like this. For the amount of loyalty I show this site, I should think you'd at least show some appreciation for that, if not my posts.
Whatever. C'est la vie.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Kent Houseman @ Nov 4th 2006 2:23AM
You have the reviewers there to give their opinion of a game. It's magazines that want free shit and to get pampered by companies that are afraid to say "This series has gone stale", "It doesn't live up to the hype", "I don't know how this sold so many copies", etc.
They don't. They throw one out there now and then but the world is full of 7s anymore. I like Famitsu's format of 4 reviewers that can give up to 10 points apeice for x/40 but I heard even they have sold out.
If the guy doesn't like the game then he doesn't. I haven't read it but I heard the article is kind of a joke but don't pull it just because he slammed a game.
Kent Houseman @ Nov 4th 2006 2:30AM
Here is an interesting experiment for a review magazine to try. Just for their sake. take their out of 10 scores and make it out of 5 rounding down. That would be interesting. Don't tell the reviewer either.
Their 7/10 will be a 3 out of 5. Which is a little more honest to me, and them, whether they realize it or not.
---------------------------------------
We need a system where we keep track of what each reviewer rated their games and how many. What the highest score given is, lowest one is, and the average score. You can pitch me the "well they aren't going to play crappy games, let alone long enough to give them a solid rating (like they sit down and play each game long enough to give it a fair score)" and thats BS because that is their job.
gehrig @ Nov 4th 2006 2:35AM
That review was pretty atrocious, but 1up removing the one bad review that will get posted on the internet of a critically acclaimed game this year makes gaming journalism as a whole look pretty bad.
Burns11 @ Nov 4th 2006 3:24AM
While the gist of the review seems sound, and it's not simply that the guy doesn't like RPGs as all of his criticisms seem fair to me, the actual writing was atrocious.
If the author isn't simply allowed to rewrite the review, it'll be a shame on 1up's part. Reviews like this need to be written, whether fans of the game like it or not. A review like this is definitely not a "disservice" to RPG fans, if anything it's a boon to RPG fans who don't like this type of game.
As an RPG fan myself, I wish a review like this was around when the first Neverwinter Nights, then maybe I wouldn't have made that horribly dissatisfying purchase.
Adam Campbell @ Nov 4th 2006 3:45AM
Yeah, that this horrible review was run in the first place is pretty bad. The text does come off as if the writer was drunk at the time, since it doesn't all link up well. Perhaps it helps if you are drunk while you read it too.
That said, if (as has been suggested else well) this review was retracted because the opinion expressed fell out of the general bell curve then that's even more shocking.
Someone, somewhere at 1UP decided this opinion could represent the 1UP name when they published this piece. Luckily, thanks to the magic of the internet, they can flip flop on bad decisions rather than have to suffer them out as they would in print. Combined with the previous scandal where a 1UP writer copied a fan (DOA4?) guide as his own work, you have to wonder how they are running their ship, and what exactly editors there do there when they aren't playing with action figures or UNO in their offices, acting in their own TV show and jetting off to Japan.
Remember the rant from the EGM editor about journalistic integrity in games journalism just before the previous guide-copying story as well? Yeah, 1UPs previews and reviews are famously hard-hitting.
Adam Campbell @ Nov 4th 2006 4:01AM
Here's a link to GFW Editor in Chief's blog where he talks in slightly more detail about the decision to pull the review. He makes it clear in the comments section that it was pulled because of the disparaging comments about D&D rather than the sometimes baffling mess of the writing itself.
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7589456&publicUserId=5380367
Louis-Philippe Brochu @ Nov 4th 2006 5:32AM
I also just want to say that the 1up review uses the full 1-10 scale and not the 7-9 scale. 5 on that scale isn't a bad score, it's an average score. My guess is that if it was scored for a 7-9 scale it would have got a 7 and people wouldn't have complained at all. Tom Chick, in his Dark Messiah review, said that is 4 would have been a 6 in a 6 in a 7-9 scale.
Whatever the number what both reviews said is that NWN2 is an average game and Dark Messiah is a slightly below average game.
Kent Houseman @ Nov 4th 2006 12:30PM
Yea, people forget that in a 1-10 scale a 5 is an average. But on the other hand...how many scores below 5 do you see compare to above 5? What is average??
If he thought the game was average that is fair.
Alex D @ Nov 4th 2006 7:17AM
Joystiq, if you're hiring, think about ThaddeusMcMonster, he seems to be able to pull off a coherent review...
Oh, and yes, my opinion
This rant was inarticulate and poorly written, especially for people who claim to be professionals. This is the kind of rant that could be in the comments section, if anywhere at all.
I Think that a review should give a game a fair chance, and give an opinion with regards to the target market (don't review an RPG under the viewpoint of a FPS freak...), and clearly express why it is good or bad.
OK, now kill me for the unclear rant i have just written
otakucode @ Nov 4th 2006 7:27AM
Decent games should get a 5. Bargain-bin bugfests should get 1s. Epic mountains of perfection should get a 10. Skewing review numbers so that any game that doesn't actually HURT to play gets a 7 is ridiculous.
I want a bell curve when all game reviews are plotted.
WedgeTalon @ Nov 4th 2006 7:56AM
It reads like a rant on a Livejournal!
RP @ Nov 4th 2006 8:20AM
I think consistency of opinion is central to criticism,e it movies, games, or what have you.
If a consumer is able to put his likes and dislikes and accurately gauge how the game will be based on the ratings of a critic, be they good or bad, then a critic has done his job about being a single, well-constructed opinion.
Reviews are almost completely biased, as they should be. News should be objective, but unbiased reviews? Idiocy.
scott @ Nov 4th 2006 7:13PM
Maybe the reviewer actually played more than an hour of the game and decided to rescind his opinion.
logikil @ Nov 4th 2006 9:06AM
Aside from some problems i have with the way the review was written, I don't believe it should have been pulled. If the issue was that this person's opinion was going to ruffle feathers, then as an editor of the site, i think it would have been much more responsible to offer a counterpoint type review. This particular person probably falls closer to the realm of a JRPG fan where you are spoon fed story or Oblivion, where there is great depth and a "do what you want" sandbox type experience, but nowhere near the depth in character creation etc. NWN is not a game necessarily meant for these types of fans.
The joy of the Neverwinter Nights games is not so much in the story that the developers present to you, as it is truly peripheral. The joy is in having an accurate representation of a D&D pencil and paper experience on the PC. My friends and i had been looking forward to the game specifically to be able to get together online and run through a player created experience. This is the beauty of NWN, and something he makes 0 reference to.
LaughingTarget @ Nov 4th 2006 9:33AM
Reviews will always do us a disservice if they are always written by those who "like that sort of game". What if I intrinsically don't like "that sort of game"? What if the title in question actually breaks the mold "that sort of game" has built and can bring in gamers who previously didn't like the format?
Everyone who wrote a NWN2 review enjoyed the NWN style. That doesn't tell anything to those who find the JRPG enjoyable or the open-ended Oblivion style enjoyable. Great, the guy who liked D&D rule inspired games likes NWN2. That tells me nothing.
The 1UP review was far more informative to someone who doesn't find that type of game to be their cup of tea. Now those readers know, "Well, this guy liked Oblivion, I liked Oblivion. This guy doesn't normally like the restrictive D&D universe rules, and neither do I, so now I know not to get this game."
Oh well, all we can look forward to in reviews of NWN2 are the fans preaching to the choir. Reviews are meant to tell the opinions of one person so others can use it to determine if they want the game or not. Reviews are not meant to confirm the opinion of someone who already bought it and wants to feel good about their purchase.
ThaddeusMcMonster @ Nov 4th 2006 9:51AM
"Joystiq, if you're hiring, think about ThaddeusMcMonster, he seems to be able to pull off a coherent review..."
And I never even play the game!
"What the hell kind of criticism is it to say "if you enjoy RPG's, you'll enjoy this game"?"
It's obvious that you disagree with me on this, and if you want to say the paramont purpose of a review is to give the critics opinion of the game (or movie/book/etc), then go ahead. But you'll have to agree that isn't the whole purpose, that a critic should defend or at least explain his opinion. The 1up review clearly doesn't do this, the critic basically states his opinion again and again over a few paragraphs. Are you going to try and tell me that was a good review? As Roger Ebert said "Even when a critic dislikes a movie, if it's a good review, it has enough information so you can figure out whether you'd like it, anyway."
Maxathon @ Nov 4th 2006 10:06AM
@otakucode--
For a bell curve of scores from IGN and Gamespot, the two sites most notorious (at least in my mind) for using only the 7 through 9 portions of the review scale, check out metafuture.com. And check it out soon, since it hasn't been updated in a while and I wouldn't be surprised if it disappeared.