Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Review RPG Codex Review: Might & Magic X: Legacy

Self-Ejected

Excidium

P. banal
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
13,696
Location
Third World
And you know what, believe it or not, the fact that he's not saying the game is "P. SHIT, FUCK YOU UBISOFT FOR RAPING MY CHILDHOOD" means that his criticisms are more likely to be listened to. Have I mentioned that this review has been sent directly to the game's developers?
Yes, we know you folks have been desperately trying to foster good relations with Ubisoft, the review made that evident. But how about you write content for us and not Ubisoft? I want the brutally honext codex content, not this big carefully worded feedback document.
Sceptic's review says that MMXL fails to recreate one of the most important (if not the most important) elements of the Might & Magic series in his opinion - the fully open overworld. If you guys weren't so fixated on the ZOMG LINEAR DUNGEON MAPS you might have noticed that. Together with his criticism of the combat system he really gave the game a beating.
It's hardly criticism by codex standards. Everytime he dares say something negative in this review a positive aspect to compensate follows right after, and the overworld is no different. We have an idiom that perfectly defines the approach to this review here it's called "bater e assoprar"
 

Abelian

Somebody's Alt
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
2,289
He addressed all the game's shortcomings in the review, so anybody who reads it can form a good idea if it's something they'd like to play or not.

give me a fucking break.

Kit-Kat-Wrapper-Small.jpg
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,236
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Sceptic's review says that MMXL fails to recreate one of the most important (if not the most important) elements of the Might & Magic series in his opinion - the fully open overworld. If you guys weren't so fixated on the ZOMG LINEAR DUNGEON MAPS you might have noticed that. Together with his criticism of the combat system he really gave the game a beating.

I noticed it, and quoted it as well.

Yet the overall tone of the review, and even the overall assessment ("excellent") of the game reek of positive spin. It reminds me of those IGN or Kotaku reviews occasionally cross-posted to the Brodex where they shit on the game for the entire review, but do so in a somehow cheerful fashion and then give it a 9/10.

There is no doubt about it: MMXL is an excellent game and the best turn-based blobber for the PC since forever

It's a fucking ringing endorsement in the introductory paragraph, give me a fucking break.

Yeah, and...?

Sorry, but I find it hard to feel bad about that. Personally, speaking from a purely strategic point of view, I do think that the Codex should "endorse" any sincere attempt by a megapublisher to produce an oldschool RPG.

Yes, we know you folks have been desperately trying to foster good relations with Ubisoft, the review made that evident. But how about you write content for us and not Ubisoft? I want the brutally honext codex content, not this big carefully worded feedback document.

Go ahead and write some yourself, then. But keep in mind that even VD's legendary Oblivion review said:

Oblivion is not a bad *game*

Barring our well-publicized squabbles with the AAAs and demolishing of shovelware easy targets, I'm not sure we've ever been quite as brutal as you think we are.
 
Last edited:

Sceptic

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
10,871
Divinity: Original Sin
I want the brutally honext codex content, not this big carefully worded feedback document.
If I add a few "shit" and "fuck" in there will that be alright?

It's hardly criticism by codex standards. Everytime he dares say something negative in this review a positive aspect to compensate follows right after
Ever heard of "this aspect is good but that one's bad"?

You don't want me to write a brutally honest review. You want me to write a skyway review. As skyway for that, I'm not him.

Barring our well-publicized squabbles with the AAAs, I'm not sure we've ever been quite as brutal as you think we are.
We are. Being brutally honest means writing thousands of words of criticism even if it's about a game you really like. It doesn't mean focusing on nothing but the negatives. And if I do like the game as much as I did I see no reason to quietly delete all the text about why I like it just so we can appear more edgy.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Any of our reviews is as brutal as the reviewer thinks it should be. The management (tm) never interferes with the content in any way.

If it's positive, that means the reviewer(s) enjoyed the game despite its flaws; and vice versa. You may as well complain that Roxor and felipepepe's Blackguards review wasn't "brutal" enough.
 
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,875,975
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
ironyuri ragequitted forever when Roxor said his Expeditions:Conquistadors review wasn't harsh enough, so maybe that's not a good idea either. :M

Sceptic's review says that MMXL fails to recreate one of the most important (if not the most important) elements of the Might & Magic series in his opinion - the fully open overworld. If you guys weren't so fixated on the ZOMG LINEAR DUNGEON MAPS you might have noticed that. Together with his criticism of the combat system he really gave the game a beating.
It's hardly criticism by codex standards. Everytime he dares say something negative in this review a positive aspect to compensate follows right after, and the overworld is no different. We have an idiom that perfectly defines the approach to this review here it's called "bater e assoprar"

I interpreted it as Sceptic liking the game despite the flaws (he pretty much says this at the end), so he would keep mentioning positive things along with the bad ones to make that known. If the review was supposed to be a literary blowjob to Ubisoft he could gloss over negative points, or not even mention them at all.
 
Last edited:

Mortmal

Arcane
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
9,158
The review is so incredibly positive so full of superlatives its frankly suspicious, it sounds more like an advertisement, "must buy and must play" thats the kind of thing you keep for the top 10 classics level of quality .
You've only ever bought and played 10 games in the last ~40 years? What will you do if an 11th good game comes out now, try to get a refund on whichever one has just been pushed out of your top 10?

Is it the best and honest attempt in the decade ? Not in the level design department where nintendo DS
Stop reading right there. I specifically kept saying "CRPG" instead of plain "RPG" because I knew this would come up. I don't have a console, the last one I had was an Atari 2600 and since then I know next to nothing about them or what gets released on them. All I know is that there HAVE been some great games on them, because some people whose opinion I trust very much have said so. However I can only talk about what I know first-hand, which is the PC, and since I made it pretty obvious that I am only talking about PC-only releases

Yes men are nefarious to my hobby . Its a good thing to complain about it, we complained a lot about shadowrun shallow and rushed main campaign and now look at dragonfall DLC, its so much better.
Did you actually read the review? Or did you just read the last 2 paragraphs and called it a day?
(I guess the review really is too long if self-proclaimed grognards can't be bothered reading more than 5% of it...)
I complained about a lot of things and pointed out specific ways in which they could be improved.... so that whatever comes out next turns out much better.
The comparisons to SRR are always entertaining TBH. Roxor and I completely disagree on MMXL, but his review of SSR and my review of MMXL are actually pretty similar in terms of conclusion (if not in verbosity or adverbity)


Of course ive read your review, i even read your first impressions in the MMXI thread, you went from "i cant possibly play past act 1 this is too bad and i am forcing myself to play" to "must have, must buy " . I am not kidding that was your words .

Fair enough you dont own a console, you cant compare it handheld rpgs. According what i read from the ubisoft warrior squad its not fair to compare it to other blobbers as Might and magic are their own subgenre. Yeah really so you cant compare it to anything... how convenient it is as it cant stand the comparison to japansese blobbers and classics...

There's far too many superlative, calling genius the fact you can get a randomized pary, thats too much . That was implemented in roguelike ages ago. Seeing how horrible the class balance in the game , especially ranged, is its probably not much fun.
One problem with MMXI ? In fact its not a problem!
The game stutters ? its unity fault .
Many assets are lifted straight out of HOMM6 and other Ashan games ? "I don't see the problem with recycling graphical assets if this means more resources can be spent on making quality content" .
Ah quality content , some things are good like air puzzle , but I dont see mentions that some of them are so simple that you can solve by mistake just by stepping on plates. Some dungeons levels are just one big corridor.



This is a love letter to your limbic's friend , not a typical codex review.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,662
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Edit: Funny, you quoted that endorsement from the opening, and then failed to notice the EXACT NEXT sentence.... which IS setting up the entire review's focus on comparing to the old games.

As I've previously mentioned, it's natural to compare a game to older games within the same series while simultaneously judging it on its own merits and as a member of its subgenre. None of those approaches are mutually exclusive. I didn't realize that your focus on the in-series angle was laser-tight to the extent that none of the rest of subgenre is even considered at any juncture, which I'd reckon has been the primary cause of this entire kerfluffle. When you make generalized statements such as "There is no doubt about it: MMXL is an excellent game," I presume you're judging it as a game, not simply as a Might and Magic game.

I conceded that point to you long ago when you first posted (though some people see it as furious backpedaling... whatever), albeit only partially. I continue to suspect it may simply be an excuse for the positive spin you've placed on what I consider to be a mediocre game, and here's why: Even as a Might and Magic game only, I'd hardly call MMXL "excellent." I can see calling it "good" as a modern attempt, a good try; otherwise, I'd call it mediocre (and I do call it mediocre). Several of the older MM games surpass it resoundingly. Mixing the shittier MM games in with the good ones to soften the comparison is not particularly a sound method.

So pretty much, it's "Might and Magic X: Legacy is an excellent Might and Magic game, discounting all other series in the subgenre (especially Japanese turn-based blobbers released last year), having mixed in the shittiest entries in MM with the best, and considering it's a rare modern attempt at bringing back the old classics." I concede that laser-focus of yours, yet even then I can only see calling it "good," not "excellent."
 

felipepepe

Codex's Heretic
Patron
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
17,274
Location
Terra da Garoa
This is a love letter to your limbic's friend , not a typical codex review.
You're mistaking "typical codex review" for the fact that most releases in the past decade were shit... even if I were to write a review of Wasteland 2 as it is, there are stuff that I would praise and consider great, even if the game as a whole is a disappointment.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,662
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Quibbling aside, here's my full and comprehensive review of the game. I trust this will be forwarded directly to Limbic for consideration.

funny-graphics-267c4p1z.gif
 

ben_reck

Educated
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
84
I don't have a console, the last one I had was an Atari 2600 and since then I know next to nothing about them or what gets released on them. All I know is that there HAVE been some great games on them, because some people whose opinion I trust very much have said so.

(from someone you don't know and whose opinion you probably shouldn't trust) (I'm kinda getting into black metal atm): You could do yourself a favor and grab yourself a DS and a tree or a demon. Prob start with Tree III so you get that MM underworld/overworld thing.
 

Western

Arcane
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
5,934
Location
Australia
Codex 2012 Codex 2014 Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
Quibbling aside, here's my full and comprehensive review of the game. I trust this will be forwarded directly to Limbic for consideration.

funny-graphics-267c4p1z.gif

Why don't you write a review? I'd be interested in a summarised breakdown of what you think of MMX, considering I'm thinking of buying it.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,662
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Writing a comprehensive, relatively unbiased review is a great deal of work, and Sceptic clearly put a great deal of time and energy into his, which I'm well aware is part of the reason I'm being ripped into. It's easy to sit in the peanut gallery and hurl criticisms. For what it's worth, I feel his review is well-written and comprehensive, though perhaps misses the mark on being entirely objective and unbiased (but see the third paragraph).

There's already a Codex-approved review on the site index, and you're one of at most half a dozen people who'd actually care to read one written by me, except perhaps to satisfy a "Yeah? Let's see how well YOU can do, buddy" impulse. I don't particularly like the game, I'm not a professional journalist, and I don't have an interested audience, so I'm disinclined to write a review that I'm otherwise unmotivated to write. I'm only going to be motivated to write in-depth reviews of games that are either quite bad or fairly good/excellent; MMXL is neither (in my opinion).

I doubt I'm alone in this. While I don't read every Codex review, it's fairly clear in most cases that the reviewer is either enthusiastic about the game, or wants to rip into a stinker. "Retro reviews" are a bit of an exception because there's typically an archaeological/bemonocled aspect to them.

In considering an abbreviated review, I'd guess it would nevertheless take me several hours to finalize something that does the game justice and adequately covers each aspect of the game. A short paragraph wouldn't be enough to explain my take on the game's itemization, for example; at least a couple of medium-sized paragraphs would be required, and that's just itemization.

The most I'm willing to do is to offer bullet points or answer specific questions.
 

Zeriel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
13,383
If you had invested all the time you put into writing angry posts about how the game is decline, you could have written 2 reviews elucidating exactly why it's decline.

"I don't have time" has always struck me as a funny argument coming from people writing thousands of posts on internet forums about trivial shit.
 

Sceptic

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
10,871
Divinity: Original Sin
Of course ive read your review, i even read your first impressions in the MMXI thread, you went from "i cant possibly play past act 1 this is too bad and i am forcing myself to play" to "must have, must buy " . I am not kidding that was your words
Did you also read every post in the megathread in-between? You know, the ones where I go "actually there're some good points in there after all" and "hey the game's growing on me" and "you know what Zeriel you were right, the flaws are not as bad as I thought"? That post you quoted about forcing myself to play was when I had just realised my beloved exploration was gone, and I was having to put up with those damn loading screens all the fucking time. I was angry from staring at those screens for so long and came here to vent. I find it rather telling that, when having to choose between the rants of someone pissed off because he just hit a flaw and is overreacting, and his detailed analysis on the game as a whole after completing it, after messing around with other party combinations, and after putting some thought into what he really thinks of the game, you decided to go with "angry rant to vent while waiting for loading screen".

Fair enough you dont own a console, you cant compare it handheld rpgs. According what i read from the ubisoft warrior squad its not fair to compare it to other blobbers as Might and magic are their own subgenre. Yeah really so you cant compare it to anything... how convenient it is as it cant stand the comparison to japansese blobbers and classics...
See it's comments like these that make me think you're a moron. The Ubisoft squad? You registered here 5 years ago. You're posting quite angrily in a thread about a Might and Magic and its comparison to other blobbers. You've actually never seen the tricycle/motorcycle image? You think this started being posted JUST because Ubisoft announced MMXL? You think this incredibly inane debate about which is better and why hasn't been around since nineteen fucking eighty seven?

Feel absolutely free to debate why any number of japanse blobbers and classics are better than MMXL (warning: I cannot participate in anything related to the japanese blobbers; Bee is a far better candidate). But if you're going to pretend that the M&M fandom sprang overnight because Ubisoft, then don't be too surprised if you get called a moron.

There's far too many superlative, calling genius the fact you can get a randomized pary, thats too much . That was implemented in roguelike ages ago.
I don't give a shit about roguelikes or what they implement in a review about Might and Magic. It's something that fits with the M&M playstyle superbly, and that has never been in M&M, until now. Roguelikes are older than M&M. JVC never thought of adding it in, even though Roguelikes were alive and well throughout the series' existence. I never thought of it. Then when I read about it during the Early Access, I slapped my forehead; how did nobody at NWC think of using this? How did I never think of this? The genius isn't in inventing random party generation (did I claim this?); it's in having it in Might and Magic, in a series where the entirety of the fun on replays comes from making gimped, oddly-themed parties and abusing the system to make them work. I've been saying this for years before MMXL was announced, and to see it implemented here was a joy. And every time I start one of the other M&Ms now I'm going to thin "gee I wish they had it in back then". I wasn't giving Limbic credit for inventing something they didn't invent, I was giving them credit for thinking of implementing it in a series where it really, really works well. If the damn creator of the series himself didn't think of it over 15 years then I sure as hell will praise them instead.

Seeing how horrible the class balance in the game , especially ranged, is its probably not much fun.
I had a loooooooooong rant about ranged and class balance before the patch came out. Remnants of it are still in there, though probably not noticeable if you hadn't read the original (which I sadly didn't make a backup of - might've been fun to post for contrast). In fact my overall impression of combat was quite a bit more (even more?) negative before the patch fixed ranged and made class balance more solid. Since I didn't finish the review until after the patch was out, there really was no point in having 3 paragraphs going on and on and on about flaws that no longer exist in the game. Incidentally, this has always been my attitude, and not just with M&M; I've repeatedly made fun of people complaining about bugs in NWN2 that were fixed 5 years ago.

One problem with MMXI ? In fact its not a problem!
The game stutters ? its unity fault .
These two are cute, but I don't see anything in the review that could be interpreted like this. Unless of course you thought "I'm willing to blame this poor performance on Unity itself rather than on Limbic" means "Limbic are my heroes and it's all Unity's fault".

Many assets are lifted straight out of HOMM6 and other Ashan games ? "I don't see the problem with recycling graphical assets if this means more resources can be spent on making quality content" .
I'm sorry, but I'm not a graphic whore. In fact this paragraph initially started with the famous Andyman Messiah quote about playing games with your dick out and a bottle of lotion, before I cut it quite late into production.

Ah quality content , some things are good like air puzzle , but I dont see mentions that some of them are so simple that you can solve by mistake just by stepping on plates. Some dungeons levels are just one big corridor.
And now I know for a fact that you haven't read the review, despite your claims to the contrary.

Another tradition that MMXL proudly maintains is spicing up combat with a healthy dose of puzzles. The most common ones are chests that require answering a riddle to open. These start off fairly straightforward and become a little less obvious later on, though they're not as clever or involved as those of say Betrayal at Krondor. The spatial logic puzzles are more interesting - most of these appear in the Mysterious Crypts, the non-combat counterpart to the Dangerous Caves. These also start pretty simple, but some are quite a bit more involved and may even require getting out that good old notepad to figure out the solution.

Although the dungeons in MMXL are generally of high quality, the endgame dungeon has some problems. The M&M series was never particularly famous for its strong endgame dungeons, with MM1 and MM3 probably featuring the best ones. The endgame usually feels like something hastily thrown together to give some sense of conclusion, the most notable offender being MM6, which offered a rather boring and forgettable final dungeon in a game notorious for its sprawling and superb dungeon design. In an attempt to do something different, MMXL features a series of long dungeon crawls, but while the Tomb of Terror is fairly well designed, it is followed by two back-to-back dungeons with no interesting features or puzzles (though thankfully they are nowhere near as horrible as Square Lake Cavern from MM2). This culminates in the end boss, which in keeping with the spirit of (most of) the series is not a simple Kill Foozle type of encounter, but instead involves playing a tedious game of hide and seek as you fight the boss's minions and gather the pieces of the Deus Ex Machina that allows you to defeat him.
Indeed, no mention whatsoever that some puzzles are simple, or that the riddles are not the best we've seen, or that some dungeons have problems, lack interesting features, and are tedious.

No seriously, what the HELL do I need to say? Do I need to colour-code criticism in red so it stands out? If I had replaced "these start pretty simple" with... what exactly? You complain that there is no mention how simple they are. THESE START PRETTY SIMPLE. If I'd said "too simple" would you have considered that negative enough? Are the words "problems", "no interesting features" and "tedious" ones you usually associated with superlative praise?

This is a love letter to your limbic's friend , not a typical codex review.
This one is cute every time it pops up, especially because you keep going on about "typical Codex review". Here's a fun one from VD's review of Oblivion.

The dungeon hack experience is one of the strongest elements of the game. Daggerfall featured huge, seemingly endless dungeons, where you could literally get lost without Mark & Recall spell. Morrowind fixed it by making the dungeons as small and linear as possible. Oblivion's dungeons are somewhere in between, and overall, superbly done. They are well designed, very atmospheric, with levers, buttons, and secret doors, and everything else you might expect from a good dungeon. After a while you may notice a repeating pattern, but it never bothered me.
Hey look, superlative praise of Oblivion dungeons. He even points out one problem and then immediately says NOT A PROBLEM!
So.... I guess VD's review is a love letter to Bethesda and not a typical Codex review?

Writing a comprehensive, relatively unbiased review is a great deal of work, and Sceptic clearly put a great deal of time and energy into his, which I'm well aware is part of the reason I'm being ripped into. It's easy to sit in the peanut gallery and hurl criticisms. For what it's worth, I feel his review is well-written and comprehensive, though perhaps misses the mark on being entirely objective and unbiased (but see the third paragraph).
I appreciate that you do recognise the effort I've put into itm and I appreciate your comment on the writing and comprehensiveness (especially since, as everyone can tell, my writing is as far from concise as can be, and I tried very hard to be comprehensive without ending up with a 100-page book). But this isn't the reason you're being ripped into, and it's not the reason I ignored your posts for a few pages. I did because you called it "deceitful" and when I pointed out the absurdity of this statement you proceeded to launch into a set of ad hominems that were completely unrelated to the review. That you went from "how dare you compare it to MM1-5" to "actually I meant only WOX" to "actually that's an accurate comparison", all the while refusing to acknowledge that maybe just maybe your initial criticism was overreaction, didn't help much. Anyway I really don't want to go on about this anymore, what's said is said and I have enough thick skin not to care much beyond interest in the actual argument.

What I am interested in is the bias thing. Define bias. Did I write positively about the game because of my positive feelings about the game? Yes. My impressions of the game are not objective. My detailed dissection of the system is what's meant to be objective; whether you think the system itself is a good thing or not is up to you. I'm of course going to state my personal bias towards what I like or don't like, because it's my review and I can. But you're free to decide "actually that's not something I want in a game" and to therefore not buy the game, despite whether the reviewer, who as a huge long-time fan of Might and Magic most definitely has a bias, thinks it's a must buy or not. Bias works both ways, by the way; if I wasn't so hung up on Might and Magic being all about exploration, that whole section in which I decry the "outworld dungeon" and in which I rip into the blessings for being a poor imitation of the outdoor skills wouldn't exist.

Now, do I have some secret bias related to Ubisoft or Limbic? I got a review copy for the game (there's a reason I stated that in the opening). From the Codex itself, from the pool of keys that were going for the contest, NOT directly from Ubisoft themselves. I never had any contact with anyone from Ubisoft, or from Limbic for that matter (the Canada Dry thing was a joke. And yes it's a failed joke because I fail at corporate headquarters). I was pretty annoyed when I wasn't invited to the VIP forums and with the timing of Gamescon as I really would've liked to be the one to go there, but now I think it was actually a good thing that others dealt with this, because it meant I approached the review and the game with no preconception whatsoever. I don't know anyone from Limbic and have no possible investment in them, other than in fact they made this game that I am looking at and playing, and that's the perfect spot to be in as a reviewer.

Now here's the heart of the matter: I like the game enough to want it to succeed, and I would like a sequel that improves on the many flaws I pointed out, and I would like people to buy this game and play it for themselves, so of course I tell people in my review that they should buy it. Now notice the opening statement: I like the game enough. Why the HELL would I review a game that I like and then tell people "hey guys I think it's a really good game and I really enjoyed playing it, but you know what? nobody else should buy it." That doesn't make any sense. Hence my concluding recommendations.

There's already a Codex-approved review on the site index, and you're one of at most half a dozen people who'd actually care to read one written by me, except perhaps to satisfy a "Yeah? Let's see how well YOU can do, buddy" impulse.
No. Don't be silly. The point would be to have a review with a completely different focus, from someone who disagrees with the first review, and that draws completely different conclusions. Reading both would be a hell of a lot more informative because now you have BOTH biases, the one that likes it and the one that doesn't (or just thinks it's mediocre - whatever). One of my favourite things about the Codex reviews is when more than one person writes them. Remember DAO? VD wrote a rather superlative review of the game - best C&C since Arcanum and all that (yes I know he said that in a post and not in the review). Then Elzair wrote a scathing review of the game. I happen to agree with Elzair. I happen to disagree with most of VD's review. I'm glad we have both.

I doubt I'm alone in this. While I don't read every Codex review, it's fairly clear in most cases that the reviewer is either enthusiastic about the game, or wants to rip into a stinker.
Well yes, but the reviews that fall outside of this dichotomy can be just as good (again see DU's Bioshock review).

I interpreted it as Sceptic liking the game despite the flaws (he pretty much says this at the end), so he would keep mentioning positive things along with the bad ones to make that known.
And this is exactly the case.
 

Blaine

Cis-Het Oppressor
Patron
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,874,662
Location
Roanoke, VA
Grab the Codex by the pussy
If you had invested all the time you put into writing angry posts about how the game is decline, you could have written 2 reviews elucidating exactly why it's decline.

My actual criticisms of the game will fit into a few sentences. All that time was mainly spent in back-and-forth bickering with people working furiously to "utterly destroy" my argument, and then working furiously to be certain I knew just how utterly I'd been destroyed. Never mind that most had either misread/failed to read the entire sequence of events, were falling all over themselves in their haste to misrepresent my opinion, or were engaging in some truly master-level conflation and muddying of the water.

Here are those sentences: The level design in MMXL is simplistic as Hell from a purely objective viewpoint. Taken as a whole, the game has a few strengths—such as party composition and relatively nuanced combat—but is mediocre in every other aspect. I wouldn't even describe MMXL as "excellent" when measured purely as a Might and Magic game; this review seems rather biased to me.

And that's it. If you're going to trample right over that to continue nitpicking the admittedly haphazard way in which I went about making some of those points, don't bother. You're quite right, it's a waste of time, and could continue into infinity.

"I don't have time" has always struck me as a funny argument coming from people writing thousands of posts on internet forums about trivial shit.

I have plenty of free time, I just don't want to waste it reviewing a game I don't give a shit about. You're putting words in my mouth. I do enjoy quibbling on the Internet some days and in some contexts, yes. Save your lectures for people with thousands of motherfucking posts in the Pillars of Eternity thread alone.

But this isn't the reason you're being ripped into, and it's not the reason I ignored your posts for a few pages. I did because you called it "deceitful" and when I pointed out the absurdity of this statement you proceeded to launch into a set of ad hominems that were completely unrelated to the review.

You really need to spend a little less time writing, and a little more time reading. I said that that was part of the reason I was being ripped into, not "the reason." That's an important distinction, and it's incredibly tiresome when one of the Ubisoft Defense Force fails to make those sorts of distinctions and launches into a blindered lecture. Similarly, I didn't outright call your assessment of the level design "deceitful," but rather indicated that I might lean in that direction if no other explanation presented itself. Even using the appellation was a mistake on my part, as I've admitted, but presenting it as though I'd said "Sceptic is a fucking liar!" and only that is absurd.

That you went from "how dare you compare it to MM1-5" to "actually I meant only WOX" to "actually that's an accurate comparison", all the while refusing to acknowledge that maybe just maybe your initial criticism was overreaction, didn't help much.

I conceded I'd overreacted and/or misunderstood, which was then immediately exploited to the max by the Ubisoft Defense Force and extrapolated into a variety of exaggerated interpretations and examples of what a horrible person I am and how I'd totally undermined my entire argument. I don't give a shit about playing the victim; the point is that instead of gracefully allowing me to concede your point, you (by which I mean several individuals) turned it into "Ha-HA! SEE? YOU SUCK!" while skating over my actual arguments (different than the argumentation used to present them), which still stand despite it all:

Here are those sentences: The level design in MMXL is simplistic as Hell from a purely objective viewpoint. Taken as a whole, the game has a few strengths—such as party composition and relatively nuanced combat—but is mediocre in every other aspect. I wouldn't even describe MMXL as "excellent" when measured purely as a Might and Magic game; this review seems rather biased to me.

And that's it. If you're going to trample right over that to continue nitpicking the admittedly haphazard way in which I went about making some of those points, don't bother.

What I am interested in is the bias thing. Define bias. Did I write positively about the game because of my positive feelings about the game? Yes. My impressions of the game are not objective. My detailed dissection of the system is what's meant to be objective; whether you think the system itself is a good thing or not is up to you. I'm of course going to state my personal bias towards what I like or don't like, because it's my review and I can. But you're free to decide "actually that's not something I want in a game" and to therefore not buy the game, despite whether the reviewer, who as a huge long-time fan of Might and Magic most definitely has a bias, thinks it's a must buy or not. Bias works both ways, by the way; if I wasn't so hung up on Might and Magic being all about exploration, that whole section in which I decry the "outworld dungeon" and in which I rip into the blessings for being a poor imitation of the outdoor skills wouldn't exist.

You clearly already know what it means and don't need me to explain it to you. As I've indicated, bias is often very understandable. It's needn't be a "bad word" or a horrible insult. You're a fan of the series and chose to exclude the rest of the genre (mostly) when making your judgments, simple as that. It's not meant to be a horribly veiled accusation that you're secretly in love with Limbic or Ubisoft, my "How much did you guys get paid?" remarks are accompanied by troll icons for a reason.
 
Last edited:

Sceptic

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
10,871
Divinity: Original Sin
You really need to spend a little less time writing, and a little more time reading.
no u
Anyway I really don't want to go on about this anymore, what's said is said and I have enough thick skin not to care much beyond interest in the actual argument.
If you're going to trample right over that to continue nitpicking the admittedly haphazard way in which I went about making some of those points, don't bother.
FFS Blaine!

You clearly already know what it means and don't need me to explain it to you. As I've indicated, bias is often very understandable. It's needn't be a "bad word" or a horrible insult. You're a fan of the series and chose to exclude the rest of the genre (mostly) when making your judgments, simple as that.
Indeed. I think I was also pretty open about this, especially in the thread. Maybe I should've made it more obvious in the review? I thought it already was, considering just how much I went on about how the old games did things whenever I brought up a new point. Some of my suggestions for fixing the combat system even amount pretty much to "just bring back that feature you needlessly removed". I didn't just "mostly" exclude the genre by the way; aside form the Wizardry comment about the combat (which was necessary to understand what Limbic wanted to do and why some of it failed), whenever I drew comparisons to other games I picked ones that were not TB blobbers (namely LoL, BaK, Dark Sun and DA2 - I'm kinda disappointed nobody noticed the last one) precisely to keep the discussion entirely within the realm of M&M, because I never particularly cared for the M&M vs Wizardry debates, and Wizardry-likes would be the prime candidates for comparison, as they indeed have always been since MM1 came out. That IS my bias.
 

Darth Roxor

Royal Dongsmith
Staff Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,878,406
Location
Djibouti
He addressed all the game's shortcomings in the review, so anybody who reads it can form a good idea if it's something they'd like to play or not.

Pretty much this, and this is what matters the most. As long as the article itself is properly informative, and true in terms of showing both the positives and the negatives so that you can draw your conclusion, the reviewer's final impression is largely irrelevant. I also find it a bit weird how the whole article basically breaks down to "ok this is shit, that's a nice throwback, this is cool" but ends in "must buy/must play" and "that none of the game's flaws are serious enough to warrant depriving oneself from the pleasure of playing it", as I wanted to throw my PC out the window during the horribly boring, gimmicky and repetitive combat, but I'll blame it on M&M drought slightly clouding Sceptic's judgement.

Well, MMXL is in fact a better game than SRR so :smug:

Says Infinitron who played neither.


Also: IF U DUN LIEK IT Y DON U RITE UR OWN REVIEW????????????

Really, Codex?
 

Zeriel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
13,383
Darth Roxor

If the starting argument is "this review is shit", "well, write a better review then" is a fair rejoinder, I'd suggest. This thread hasn't really been about the merits of MMXL, it's been complaining about a review.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,236
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
I have played and finished Shadowrun Returns FYI. Plan to start the DLC now in anticipation of your review.
 

Darth Roxor

Royal Dongsmith
Staff Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,878,406
Location
Djibouti
Darth Roxor

If the starting argument is "this review is shit", "well, write a better review then" is a fair rejoinder, I'd suggest. This thread hasn't really been about the merits of MMXL, it's been complaining about a review.

Just like "the game is shit" is well-countered by "well, make a better game then"?
 

Sceptic

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
10,871
Divinity: Original Sin
I also find it a bit weird how the whole article basically breaks down to "ok this is shit, that's a nice throwback, this is cool" but ends in "must buy/must play" and "that none of the game's flaws are serious enough to warrant depriving oneself from the pleasure of playing it", as I wanted to throw my PC out the window
This brought a smile to my face, because a good 12 years ago this is EXACTLY how I felt about Arcanum. You cannot POSSIBLY imagine how much I raged at that game. I said here that at one point I was forcing myself to play; with Arcanum I actually ragequit. Twice. And then when I finally finished it and thought about it I decided it was one of the best games I had played. My final opinion of a game is never quantified by how much is good and how much is shit, with numerical values given to each then added up to a final score that signifies "must buy" if it's above 84/100. And no matter how shit some elements are, this is not likely to change my recommendation if I like the game enough as a whole. Mass Effect 1 had no single element that annoyed me anywhere near as much as the worst of Arcanum or the worst of MMXL, yet I hold both games in much, much higher regard.
 

Zeriel

Arcane
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
13,383
Darth Roxor

If the starting argument is "this review is shit", "well, write a better review then" is a fair rejoinder, I'd suggest. This thread hasn't really been about the merits of MMXL, it's been complaining about a review.

Just like "the game is shit" is well-countered by "well, make a better game then"?

Well, writing a review is both way easier, and kind of what we do on the Codex anyway. The only difference between a review and writing impressions in a thread (which EVERYONE does) is one of scale, not kind.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,386
Location
Copenhagen
Ubisoft Squad

Get the fuck out of here :lol:

Darth roxxor review was a lot more harsh

Yeah... no.

which I'm well aware is part of the reason I'm being ripped into.

No it isn't. You sure are beating those strawmen as hard as you possibly can in this thread.

Infinitron said:
Well, MMXL is in fact a better game than SRR so :smug:

Says Infinitron who played neither.

OK, I've played both extensively, here it is:

Shadowrun Returns is a fucking wreck that attempts everything and succeeds at nothing. Its systems are insanely simple, it is linear as all fuck and most of its maps makes MMXL maps look huge and complex. It fails in almost everything it attempts except for the story which is only good for the first part of the game. MMXL is better even if simply by virtue of being both miles more complex and having a range of actual RPG systems and being a full-fledged blobber rather than half rpg/half awkward ipad game. Your outright dislike of MMXL does not fit with your praise for SRR no matter how you slice it, and your failure to reply to that point for three posts now is more telling that the rest of the arguments combined.

I think your review of SRR was fair, because exactly like Sceptic's review, you pointed out every single one of the game's problems, and then said you liked the game anyway. That's a good review. A game's qualities and flaws are not subjective, but your ultimately dislike/like of the game is.

But hailing SRR and then breaking down the door to this review and shitting all over it because MMXL is obviously crap is some hypocritical shit if I ever saw it.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom