| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (76)

Posted: Nov 4th 2006 10:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
oh, it's much more interesting over here, guys:

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=30526

m3mnoch.

Posted: Nov 4th 2006 10:51AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Although the review was poorly written, it still made valid points. I think everyone is also conveniently ignoring the beginning of the last paragraph of the review:

"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 probably closer an eight or nine."

Posted: Nov 4th 2006 10:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
First off, Zero - nobody has gotten stars in a while. At least, none of the top folks have. I know Joystiq has been looking for a while to overhaul the star system - they might be in the process of doing so now. And besides, if you're judging the worth of someone based on their stars, you're missing thepoint of them.

Now, because I feel the desperate need to back up Jeff....

Seriously, people, I honestly think that you have no idea what half the words you're using actually mean. "Editorial" in context of journalism means that you are subjective and are giving opinions about the topic in question. Anyone who spends their time looking for objectivity in an editorial would have just as much luck hunting for leprechauns for their pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Therefore, surprise of surprises, reviews (which are always editorial in nature) are supposed to be giving the biases and opinions of the writer in question. However, I've found that people whine about how biases reviews are simply when they don't share the reviewer's opinion. I've gone on about this before:

http://www.netjak.com/review.php/1035

Now, I'll admit that the review is poorly written. But the solution isn't to pull the review and replace it, but to keep it up and update it with a tag stating it's been updated once the update goes live (similar to what Joystiq does with post updates).

Sigh... at least I now know that I can scratch 1-Up off my "sites to trust" list.

Posted: Nov 4th 2006 10:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've seen worse reviews but that was still pretty bad.

Posted: Nov 4th 2006 12:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Is anyone else sick of every single gaming site not using the 1-10 scale properly? A 5 is average, it is in the middle of the scale, so it is average, not more, not less. Insetad, average games get a 7.3 to 7.9 - that's bullshit.

Why many sites like IGN or Gamespot insist on starting their scale at 6.8-7.0 is beyond me (not counting sponsor-ad thinking). "Everything lower than a 7 is shit" seems to be the mantra of those "journalists".

I'd say reset. Reset all those scores you gave in the past to more accurately make use of the 1-10 scale. what was before an "average 7" becomes a 5. Games over 8 are really great, and games getting more than a 9 are timeless classics.

It would leave much more space to differentiate between better games, and damnit, it would use that 1-10 scale more effectively and properly.

Posted: Nov 4th 2006 6:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, this is one subject that (in my opinion at least) has way too much grey area to really choose a side on. On one hand, I don't think the review really offered too much in the way of information, and it did come across as more of an anit-D&D rant than anything else. On the other hand, I think the author should have been given an opportunity to do a rewrite or such before it was posted. Hell, we have editors for a reason.

I have had situations come up in my own career where I've had reviews not get posted, and even had one get pulled completely after being published. In my case, the review got pulled because I gave a lower score (2.5/5) to Mist IV on the Xbox, only to provoke the ire of the president of a completely different developer. After causing a big stir in the offices with the higher ups, my editor came to me and asked my thoughts on the matter. In my case, we both came to the decision that it was better to pull the review completely (there was no new review posted by someone else), rather than have to deal with the fiasco being caused by this one person getting the higher ups all riled up.

I've also had a review not published because of pressure being put on the editors by the publishers of the game. They didn't seem to care to much for it when I gave the previous year's game a much higher score than I was willing to give this one. It was my opinion that the quality of the series had dropped considerably. Still, the editor came to me and discussed the situation he was in, so we agreed to not publish my review. In this case, the game WAS given to another person, who did write up a more favorable review.

Do I hold any animocity for that? Not to the editors or to the writer who followed after me. After all, despite what was said earlier, as a critic, it actually IS my job to present my own opinion of a game, movie, book, etc. And it is just my opinion ... I don't expect everyone to agree with me. However, there is also a responsibility to explain why I hold the opinion that I do. I can't just say "This game sucked" or "This game rocked" without explaining the why's and wherefore's.

I do harbor some animocity, though, to those who feel that just because an opinion doesn't mesh with what they believe (or their marketing plan), that it is completely without merit. When I write a review, I judge a product based on its merits and its flaws. You may not agree with everything I say and you may have a totally different view than me. But I'll be damned if you don't at least understand where I'm coming from nine times out of ten.

So, with regards to the 1up piece, I think that the writer dropped the ball in his presentation, but that the 1up editors dropped the ball as well for their handling of the situation.

Of course, as Dennis Miller says, "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

Posted: Nov 4th 2006 1:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
He sure wins the title of (Most "overuse" of (quotes) and "brackets" in a single (Review))

Posted: Nov 6th 2006 4:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They didn't need to pull the review I guess. Though, it would have helped to give a second opinion by someone who didn't have completely obvious disdain for everything that is D&D.

All the review really tells gamers is "if you prefer pretty story and character driven RPGs to rule-driven D&D style, don't play this game" and I am hoping most gamers already knew that this game is hardcore D&D based. Even so, not every game needs to redefine the genre to be great. A game based off of traditional D&D rules can be good.

This reminds me of PA's reactions to Enchanted Arms reviews.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/09/05
Replace "Enchanted arms" with "Neverwint nights 2" and "random, turn-based" with "D&D rule-based" and you'll get the basic idea.

The review seems to operate under the thought that
a)This game isn't Oblivion (-2)
b)This game isn't a new type of RPG (-2)
c)Just to insult D&D players (-1)
and there you have it, 5/10.

I guess those thoughts are fine, but if you are going to be hideously biased, at least be more subtle about it. Maybe then the whole review wouldnt have sounded like a whiny bitch session.

But like I said, they didn't need to pull the review. Pulling the review altogether is kind of a cop-out. They should have just put in a second opinion by someone who loves D&D and is horrible biased in the other direction....yknow, to balance it out.

Posted: Nov 4th 2006 3:52PM zomd said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd like to hear the reviewer's opinion. Even though the pull may have been warranted, it'd still be nice to hear (or read). heh

Posted: Nov 5th 2006 1:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
looking past the whole "he is a terrible writer" thing, i honestly don't know how a person can truly make everyone happy when he or she critics a game. i mean, i hate RPGs, absolutely loathe them, but if i was to read that Final fantasy n gets a 9 out of 10, does that mean i should buy it. hell no. of course, i have a vague idea of what the game is about, and my tastes in games, so i know to avoid it.

but now were at a point in gaming history, where graphics are near photo realistic, but gameplay and design could be 2 or 3 generations behind. how does a reviewer/critic, decide whether to give a lower grade for a game if its using "outdated" play mechanics? how do you tell the difference between a developer being lazy and not innovating, or a deliberate decision to stick to tried and true method with an established base of people that like the old system?

in the end, i think that a critic needs to be true to himself and rate a game on how much he enjoyed it, and his opinions need to be backed up clearly so that readers can make up their own mind.

Posted: Nov 5th 2006 4:48AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It was a particularly poor review, but it's 1Up's fault, not the author's. I don't blame the reviewer for not likely the game, he's entitled to his opinions. I do however blame 1Up for letting someone who is so obviously displeased with role playing games review a role playing game.

Posted: Nov 5th 2006 7:53AM Asgeras said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree that the review might have bought up some valid points, butI can see why they pulled the article. This reminds me of a strip Penny-Arcade did, titled "Arms Aren't Even That Cool", which had a man ridiculing a dog for never meowing, and a cupcake for being small and covered in frosting.

NWN2 is a RPG. Roleplaying games have many things that other games don't, like...level drilling and such, as well as npcs with pointless and rote conversation. I have yet to see a game that has every npc given lively and pertinent information. It's something to strive for, I guess, but would that be all that true to life?

I digress...

I don't claim any expertise, and I don't even own the game yet, but the reviewer seems to be punishing the game, at least partially, because it's a RPG. In that regard, I won't hold a grudge against 1up for removing the article and apologizing.

If you don't like a certain type of game, don't play it...

Posted: Nov 5th 2006 10:14AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't care about grammar or style but I do care about freedom of speech and independent journalism. There seems to be some new rule in videogaming journalism that forbids to give bad reviews for certain hyped games.

And I share the core point in this review. I too feel that recent RPGs are boring and repetitive and I am an oldschool pen & paper RPG player that you can hardly fool with fancy graphics.

Sorry for my bad english. I'm not native english speaking.

Posted: Nov 5th 2006 10:58AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's fine, but I do care about bad grammar and writing. If I post on Joystiq, I don't mind if I make a mistake or two. In fact, I did in my previous posts on this topic. And I don't mind if I write a bit drunk. Again, I'm doing it right now. They aren't paying me. And I should say that there's nothing wrong with writing a review that falls out of the curve. All reviews should reflect the opinions of the author. BUT!

BUT BUT BUT! The NWN2 piece was badly written! Aside from any other complaints, it's clear the piece doesn't deserve to see print. That, to me, calls up some more worrying questions. What is the Ziff Davis publishing policy? Is it based on word limit or somethinhg? Do writers self-publish on 1up as a testing ground and the world is used as an editor before the same material (if it escapes complaint) ends out in print?

Posted: Nov 5th 2006 8:48PM Lamppost said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the review should have been edited for grammar and re-posted. So he's not a fan of D&D. So the hell what??? Only getting fans of a particular genre of games to review a certain game would be like a newspaper hiring one person to review horror movies, another to review sci-fi films, another to review chick flicks, and so on and so on. It's absurd.

Posted: Nov 5th 2006 3:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dazz
As a owner of the game as well, NWN2 is a huge improvement over the original.The original wasn't a masterpiece or an amazing RPG. The game was saved by its community. NWN2 is a improvement in every way. The OC is much better, the toolset is better, and of course the graphics. The 1up review was horrible as the guy seemed liked a D&D Community hater rather than a unbiased editor. After all, he was making comparisions to Oblivion which is a totally different type of RPG.For KOTOR II, Obsidian did a better job in 13 months (KOTOR II's Development Cycle) than Bioware did in 5 years that it took to make KOTOR I. They created a sequel which was nearly as good as the original if not better because of the ending (Blame Lucas Arts for that).

Posted: Nov 5th 2006 5:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I remember when 1UP used to be a good site. Anybody else remember that? Yeah, it's been a while.

They've always had extremely harsh reviews, and Gamerankings.com can attest to that. If 1UP gives something a 7/10, I can expect every other major gaming site to give it a 8/10.

Posted: Nov 5th 2006 6:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i've got a final, long-winded comment on the matter over here:
http://m3mnoch.wordpress.com/2006/11/05/my-official-opinion-on-the-nw2-review-fiasco/

bottom-lined? the review was filled with too much icing and not enough cake.

m3mnoch.

Posted: Nov 6th 2006 12:20AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I sure miss Old Man Murray about now...

Posted: Nov 6th 2006 9:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the problem with this review is that it spent a very short time discussing the actual game, and then the author started complaining about RPG's in general. I'm sure he had problems with the game, but he never really got specific.

Posted: Nov 6th 2006 9:44AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Poorly written, but the review itself is fine. I like RPG, but I hate number-crunching. He even states that people who like AD&D will probably really like the game, so I don't really see the problem - Non-hardcore RPG gamers (like myself) will probably all agree with his review. Too bad they had to pull it because of the vocal AD&D fans.

Posted: Nov 6th 2006 11:33AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I only like reading negative reviews (except for the ones written by trolls). This guy wrote what he really thought about the game. His tastes are different than mine. I'll still buy the game.

Posted: Nov 6th 2006 11:59AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The main problem with the review, from the editor's point of view, was not a lack of quality in the writing. He disliked the review because the 'valid points' some people mention are not an analysis of the game in question, they're an analysis of the entire genre. The author seems to have a great hatred for the genre; a hatred which he was unable to get past in his review of the game. 1up's job is to review the game, not the genre, which makes the review totally worthless.

Posted: Nov 6th 2006 4:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

After reading the review I was quite disappointed. I thought it would be much worse from what I heard and it being pulled and all. To me it didn't seem much worse or better than other reviews, at least this one brought up some interesting points which is surprising. Most reviews are just disguised sales pitches anyhow since that's how they make their living. What probably happened now was that 1up got a call from Obsidian/Wizards of the Coast/Bioware/Hasbro saying that if they don't put up a more favorable review they wont be getting any more "freebies" from them. At least that's how most of all other journalism is conducted; if you don't write favorable stuff you and your friends wont get invited to the next convention with free booze, hotel and food.

Posted: Nov 7th 2006 4:13PM MysticMaven said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Pretty sad they pulled a review because a bunch of loudmouth fascists didn't agree with his score. So much for these reviews meaning a damn thing. Now all the writers will give inflated postive scores for fear of being fired.

Posted: Nov 8th 2006 2:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Kind of held of posting since it's hard to comment on the validity of what the journo was saying, as opposed to the way he was saying it, without first playing.

I like RPGs. I bought NWN2 because I thought it would give me long lasting, community enhanced game, that didn't require £10p/m subscriptions. I don't necessarily have the time to devote to a game to make it worth £10p/m for a MMORPG. I'm not ashamed to say I like single player RPGs and with the option of a bit of dungeon crawling with friends online this seemed like a really good option.

I never got into NWN 1 til very late on and I only played it briefly, but from what I remember was it was quite good. Playing NWN 2 I got a very strong sense of deja vu, it seems very much like the same game. Not just the same NWN but same as every other rpg...ever.

The comments about it not being Oblivion are half justified. I wasted 200+ hours on Oblivion without getting bored, well too bored, but I'm not even level 6 yet in NWN 2 and it's the dullest thing in the world.

The "tick the box" approach to the single player game is insulting, as if they've made these tools (or rehashed the tools) and then made the most generic game they could with it. If this is an example of what we can expect from future modules then I am very disappointed.

If user created modules are better than this then I'm still disappointed because this time round the single player was supposed to take priority and it's again an insult that they've not bothered.

Overall, the writers hatred for the genre and somewhat childish comments detract from his base score, but I find myself agreeing with the 5 given. Summary; rehashed, unimaginative but has potential with the community base that it will generate. 5/10.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW