Review RPG Codex Review: Might & Magic X: Legacy

[Infinitron]

I mentioned this in the megathread: the whole "bandages bandaging bandaged bandages" thing is analogous to how instant death spells and magic resistance work in boss fights in BG2. Heck, you even mentioned the term "hard counters".

My point is, while it might be considered bad design, it's nothing we haven't seen before and even enjoyed.

 

[Fireblade]

I just happened to never see any of the rare brands on weapons like stun or relentlessness in my game, even on something like a low-tier weapon no one in the party could use. For whatever reason they made those so rare that the only way you are likely to see one is by looking in shop inventories over and over, and you have to know they exist in the first place to bother.

"Dispel magic" cures stun. The guy that could cast it got all the status immunity items so he woudn't go down, plus a few scrolls in case he was knocked out meant feeblemind/paralyze/stun-locking wasn't gonna happen. I never bothered much with the fire spell that gives stun resist because of that.

Dispel Magic also removes all positive magic effects too, so using is it not exactly "free", and can be quite dangerous and/or annoying at times. Obviously anything that's only available on your Dispel Magic guy is not going to go up again that same round. That is the reason why Burning Determination is so nice.

 

[Zeriel]

I find this whole discussion about dungeons designs absolutely fascinating.

But, but but.. I have to ask. What defines a good dungeon design in the first place ?

What criteria would you use to judge whether a dungeon design is good or bad ? Realistic layout ? Complexity ? Non-linearity ? Puzzles ? Encounters with NPCs/monsters ? Items distribution ? All of that.. and more ? Would it be possible to make small/simple dungeon maps, similar to MMX's size, but with a better design ? Or does a better design necessarily involve bigger/more complex maps ?

This is why I was loathe to wade into the discussion when it was in the MMXL thread, and why I'm so irritated it has spread here. It's a pointless debate without having some central definition of what constitutes good "dungeon design". Although lacking a central definition around which to mount a debate basically summarizes the Codex since its inception, I suppose.

 

[felipepepe]

From a Codex review, one should expect that occasionally it will be a huge grognard rant, meant to entertain fellow grognards as much as it meant to educate newbies.

And they are. This review, for example, would even educate the developers on the shortcomings of their combat system, while on the few other websites that actually reviewed this, all you get is "it has old-school turn-based combat".

 

[HiddenX]

I agree with Grunker. MM X is a big step in the right direction and Limbic Entertainment did a good job at researching the mechanics of the old Might & Magic and Wizardry series.

A salute for this great effort. I'm hoping to see more of this traditional gaming (maybe with some higher budget next time?) in the near future.

 

[Grunker]

Codex reviews aren't well-written by any standards IMO, but I agree that is not the point at all. For me, the quinteessential Codex-review is one as written by Darth Roxor:

Too long and too detailed for a "good" overview-review of the product, but with insight and information that only a dedicated player could bring to the table. Simultaneously, the style of writing should be one that, where necessary, sacrifices readability and accessibility for matter-of-factly analysis and information dumps. Thus, the review becomes annoying for most audiences but is doubly useful for those of us looking to extract all the information that we can.

Hence, RPG Codex reviews should by all accounts be a product considered too long, too detailed and too informative for most audiences.

That's my opinion, at least. No point in us trying to present the same review-product that everyone else does.

 

[Zeriel]

Codex reviews aren't well-written by any standards IMO, but I agree that is not the point at all. For me, the quinteessential Codex-review is one as written by Darth Roxor:

Too long and too detailed for a "good" overview-review of the product, but with insight and information that only a dedicated player could bring to the table. Simultaneously, the style of writing should be one that, where necessary, sacrifices readability and accessibility for matter-of-factly analysis and information dumps. Thus, the review becomes annoying for most audiences but is doubly useful for those of us looking to extract all the information that we can.

Hence, RPG Codex reviews should by all accounts be a product considered too long, too detailed and too informative for most audiences.

That's my opinion, at least. No point in us trying to present the same review-product that everyone else does.

I think the previews present a nice opportunity for us to provide the shorter-form "here's what it's about it, try it if you want" shit that passes for reviews on bigger sites. At the preview stage criticism is harder to nail down because a lot can change, and a lot of readers haven't played the game yet, so hardcore analysis isn't very necessary.

Agree on how Codex reviews are just fine as-is, if anything I'd prefer if it was the industry standard, reviews are supposed to be critical by nature.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Review is very informative, although I significantly disagree with some of its points, but much of it reassured me that attempting to reinstall the game and getting further than the point I dropped it last time is futile.

In other words, gaem is shit, review is doritos

Seems that you, like Roxor, half-way expected Wizardry (though Roxor paradoxically liked Shadowrun).

Not this shit again

 

[Shadenuat]

Well, FYI, even Roxor's reviews might be considered horribly long and monotonous outside of the Codex. For example, the RPS commenters reacted with horror to his Blackguards preview ("why does he talk about combat so much???")

Generally speaking, if you want standard reviews, there are plenty of standard review sites you can go to. I hear some of them even give out scores!

From a Codex review, one should expect that occasionally it will be a huge grognard rant, meant to entertain fellow grognards as much as it meant to educate newbies.

The problem with an article which mixes review and analysis is a format one. A purpose of a review is to convey important information to the reader, so it should be to the point, there shouldn't be any spoilers and there is no reason to go indeep explaining all the systems solution-style (Perception does that, Destiny does that...). You're not paraphrasing the whole game, just giving an opinion. I know it can be hard to not start paraphrasing whole plot when you review it, for example, but it's not a good idea to write your own novel about it.
And purpose of analysis is, well, analysis. Only thing which could stop you there being if you can keep your line of arguments or not. But then you don't need things which come with the review format. You can cut on graphics or some part of the UI, and bugs and... well whatever is not needed.

And if you're even going to mix the two, then editing should be really good, you must have an ability to stop your rant when needed.

the style of writing should be one that, where necessary, sacrifices readability

You shouldn't sacrifice readability, you should improve on making what you do more readable.

product considered too long, too detailed and too informative

Informative =/= too long or too detailed. It should be detailed enough to support your opinion on the game.

I'm not against long or detailed, but I don't see the necessity to explain the simpliest things in most painfully long ways possible.

 

[Infinitron]

Shadenuat I think we'll have to disagree here. The question is, do you like Roxor's reviews? Because they tend to do the whole "Perception does that, Destiny does that" thing too.

Sceptic writes more verbosely but structurally his review is not that different from what the Codex has always done.

 

[Grunker]

Not this shit again

Again? I seem to have missed your response.

 

[Monty]

There are plenty of 'to the point' reviews out there which don't contain much analysis and have a consistent format.

I like the fact that Codex reviews are not standard in scope and format, but vary depending on the game and who the reviewer is. I appreciate the depth of analysis and the feel of something written by a knowledgeable and enthusiastic amateur rather than someone churning out a review as a job. If a section really does get too bogged down in mechanics for your taste is it so hard to skip the paragraph? I'd rather the detail is there tbh as the vast majority of reviews out there are too brief for me.

Why seek to emulate the mainstream sites?

 

[Shadenuat]

do you like Roxor's reviews?

Well I know his texts break into smaller chunks which is what most readers are used to when reading articles, but you'll have to give me something comparibly long to judge. Last thing I remember was 2guys1blackguards, preview and a review I think, and it was a bit experimental, but it wasn't a chore to read through.

 

[Grunker]

stuff

I disagree with you entirely that we should consolidate our format more with mainstream formats, but even in addition to this, there is another part of this discussion which you seem to neglect. Fact is that the Codex is amateurs writing for amateurs on a volunteer basis. Much of what you criticize can be chalked up to lack of a proper, time-consuming editing process. Fuck no if I'm going to take every review and carry it through such a proper process for no pay. I've edited and published two books (which was both time-consuming and straining, yet without a truely proper result because we couldn't afford proper editing still), so I know both what it takes and how it's done, and it's not something I see the Codex start doing with the current structure.

I'm sorry, but it never ceases to amaze me what people expect from volunteer work, no matter where that work is done. Reality is we're lucky to simply have the 'tron and a team of steady reviewers who half-way know how to write (chief among them Darth Roxor, who seems to be tireless when it comes to reviewing Codex faves). Before him/them, pure grammatical errors made consistency in Codex reviews even worse than it is now.

If only we were lucky enough to have people like grotsnik do steady work

 

[Shadenuat]

I disagree with you entirely that we should consolidate our format more with mainstream formats

Packing more into less is not bad. Mainstream reviewers just focus on wrong things.

Much of what you criticize can be chalked up to lack of a proper, time-consuming editing process.

'kay, you're right. But what's the rush? Since Codex doesn't provide reviews on day 1 and it's quality which is of paramount importance, one might as well take his time and edit his work 2, 3 times, wait a day, or even a week, and edit again.

 

[Grunker]

But what's the rush? Since Codex doesn't provide reviews on day 1 and it's quality which is of paramount importance, one might as well take his time and edit his work 2, 3 times, wait a day, or even a week, and edit again.

Did you even read my post bro?

It's not a bout time-constraints, it's about man-power. A proper editing process with 3rd-4th iterations and correction of text, not just grammar, takes extensive work. We do not have anyone willing to do that for free at the moment.

Volunteers are always welcome of course.

 

[HiddenX]

I appreciate volunteer work from game enthusiasts over so called "professional" reviews any day.
Even if the language or format is not so perfect the amateurs often care about game mechanics and elements much better than professional reviewers.
They simply know the genre and history better.

 

[Shadenuat]

It's not a bout time-constraints, it's about man-power. A proper editing process with 3rd-4th iterations and correction of text, not just grammar, takes extensive work. We do not have anyone willing to do that for free at the moment.

When writers focus on important things painful editing is not that necessary.

Volunteers are always welcome of course.

Uh-oh. Touche.

I appreciate volunteer work from game enthusiasts over so called "professional" reviews any day.

Me too, although I find that reading through first (or last) pages of a thread about the game here can be a quicker and more effective way to know if I should try the game or not. Just count the amount of appropriate emoticons with trolls hugging hearts for the game score.

 

[Zeriel]

Did you even read my post bro?

It's not a bout time-constraints, it's about man-power. A proper editing process with 3rd-4th iterations and correction of text, not just grammar, takes extensive work. We do not have anyone willing to do that for free at the moment.

Volunteers are always welcome of course.

Editing's also fairly idiosyncratic. It's already controversial in the publishing industry where they hire people who know what they are doing and have a professional education in the field. Even there there are plenty of cases of "there were great chapters the editor hacked to pieces". And it often comes down to the clout the editor has purely based off of the publisher refusing to publish otherwise.

I pity the fool monocled gent who tries to do anything more ambitious in editing Codex articles than fixing minor grammatical errors/offering suggestions. ...Although on second thought, such drama might be just what we need to liven up the place.

I appreciate volunteer work from game enthusiasts over so called "professional" reviews any day.

Me too, although I find that reading through first (or last) pages of a thread about the game here can be a quicker and more effective way to know if I should try the game or not. Just count the amount of appropriate emoticons with trolls hugging hearts for the game score.

Dunno, this being the Devil's Advocate Codex, threads tend to go in cycles. First, the people who like the game chime in, then the people who hate it have a hatewank for a while, then the people who love it come back to get angry about that, and then... etc.

 

[Shadenuat]

and then...

Thread gets 1132 pages. Well that usually means I sure as hell should try the game

 

[felipepepe]

When writers focus on important things painful editing is not that necessary.

That's your problem right there. Just what are the important things? You're talking to a audience that played tons of RPGs; saying combat is "old-school turn based" or "is good but slow" means nothing. You have to explain why you thought so.

I.e., in our Blackguards preview/review we described the entre character creation system. Why? Because otherwise we would just write "it is complex, full of possibilities to both min-max and make shitty characters". That alone (perhaps with an example) might suffice for review outlets out there, but perhaps because we are amateurs writing/grognards reading, we don't "trust" the reviewers. They can't call something good and walk away with that, they have to explain why they wrote what they wrote. Thus, 11 paragraphs of what does what and good/bad stuff.

 

[Mrowak]

Done is better than perfect.

/thread

 

[HiddenX]

I completely agree with Mr. felipepepe - If you exactly tell your audience what your priorities are and against what criteria you are measuring/rating something you can't do much wrong.

 

[Minttunator]

Another quality Codex review!

 

[Shadenuat]

That's your problem right there. Just what are the important things?

To know that you'd have to ask yourself what purpose your article serves, what is the most important idea you want to bring to people and whom are you writing for.
Otherwise you're going to be like a bulldozer rummaging through the material, burrying your opinion under all the junk. Sceptic's opinion is interesting, but before that he's going to run me through the "important" information like the fact that I'm going to walk around the game using WASD keys.

Since Blackguards is p. much a combat encounter after combat encounter, writing about system and combat seems logical. Although I don't like when writers go all the "there are 11 skills, 5 this, 7 that" - that's something which suits the back of the cover of a game box. If you want to explain why system works or not, I don't think retelling that sort of stuff is necessary. For me it just makes for a boring article.