Editor of Australias biggest PC gaming rag talks AoD

[Hory]

...

You're a die-hard subjectivist, we get it. Now stop rambling in all of the god-damned objectivist arguments. Jesus...

 

[Alex]

But I don't believe games are art man. I believe they should be rated and scored based on how much the individual playing them enjoys the experience. Not how complex it is, not the history, the fun. The gameplay. I happen to find complexity enjoyable, but that does not make the two equivalent.

I hope you will agree with me that games are art, at the very least, in the sense that they are an intuitive craft, a labor where experience and the subjective view of the creator is more important than its theory body. For any such craft, a good analysis of what has already been created is of great help passing knowledge along.

As someone who is creating a game, I believe you will agree with me that studying what other games did right is at least useful when making your own. Sure, that kind of criticism may not be useful for people who care not to create their own games (though I would still find it interesting), but some of it at least is important so the reader can better decide wether it is a game he would like or not.

(..snip)
I don't believe this statement particularly valid, either. If I go off and play soccer instead of chess, is it because I don't want to commit the energy to the mental effort? Not at all. I have different tastes, different things I enjoy, and I seek to satisfy those tastes. Chess is different from soccer and although some chess players might not like soccer, considering it a brute physical sport or something, they are both great games and valid of praise. Saying someone likes soccer because they don't want to commit the mental energy to chess is just as nonsensical a statement. They are simply satisfying different tastes. Saying otherwise is snobbery.(snip...)

I just realized that my argument made it seem like I thought that "soccer players" were lazy, unwilling to commit the mental energy to the game. What I really meant to say is that there is this mythical idea that you can only play "chess" if you are a nutty geek, who can put all his time into it. Also, for never having played it, they have no idea of how much fun it is.

As an example, I will use myself. I used to play only simple games, and thought the best games ever were super mario world and zelda. While I played some adventure games, I always used walkthroughs because I didn't want to waste to much time on them. Recently, I replayed Monkey Island (having thankfully forgotten most of the puzzles) without an walkthrough and I had much more fun with it than the first time around.

 

[Brother None]

But I don't believe games are art man

Here's the kicker:

That doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if it's art or not, what matters here is the function reviewers have in this old merry-go-round.

What functions do critics or newspaper reviewers have for restaurants or films? They dissect the experiences on higher levels than the average consumer would. If I read a restaurant review, I expect the critic to put some thought into the menu as offered, the atmosphere, to notice details like how sloppily the waiters are dressed or how dusty the bottle behind the bar look. Chances are I won't notice these things (well - I will, because I worked in horeca myself, but the average consumer won't), but here's the kicker, even though I won't notice these things, they will have a discernible, possibly sub-conscious impact on my enjoyment of said restaurant.

It is the critic's job to meticulously and consciously dissect every aspect of that which he is reviewing not to tell me that I'm wrong, no, but for exactly the opposite reason: so I don't have to.

The reason the critic still has to present all his thoughts is not to force me to consider them, it's because I don't know him. A newspaper review of a restaurant that just says "4/5 stars, eat here" is not something I can trust. I don't know who wrote it, I don't know what he's judging or how. If I can read the details, I can agree with them or not. I generally rate friendliness of service lower than most because I'm perfectly capable of building good atmosphere without the restaurant doing it for me. But that's me, my tastes, and I need to be able to know how this factors into the critic's review, because it's different for me than it is for the hoi polloi of the world (see what I did there? I'm so clever).

Now say I don't need a critic telling me what I like, and I'm perfectly content picking restaurants at the advice of my friends or - heck - simply by walking through town and picking one by looks. In other words, I choose to remain ignorant in making my consumer's choice. Hey presto, that's fine! I don't think Section8 ever said there's anything wrong with that, either, it's simply a consumer's choice that I make, and I'm in my full right as a consumer to do so.

But here's the nagging bit, the "why is NN completely wrong"-swing of the thing, what is the function of reviews if they only serve to affirm a decision based on ignorance? People can choose to remain ignorant and make consumer choices based on PR spin all they want, nobody is going to stop them, but what is the function of reviewing a game if all you do is forward this PR spin?

In other words, we're faced with two choices. The current media does not criticize, it forwards PR and reflects on popular, ignorant opinion. In doing so, it only affirms existing opinion and does not serve any supplementary value. The alternative is a media that analysises from an expert viewpoint and by doing so adds the option for consumers to base their consumer's choice on informed opinion if they do not possess it themselves (and with PR walls being what they are, it's pretty hard to possess informed opinion by yourself).

Even if everyone accepts that games are only there to be fun, the former doesn't actually add anything either to the game being fun or to the consumer opinion. The latter adds a choice, but doesn't force anyone to do anything, not in the way of "giving up" fun or anything else.

You tell me, which one is better?

(Also, obviously, the divide is not that black-and-white. You can see certain journalists, like Desslock and Kieron Gillen, tending towards the more informed attitude in their analysis of - say - Fallout 3. But the vast majority of reviewers never played Fallout or only looked at it once they heard about Bethesda buying the rights, which makes them just as ignorant as hoi polloi. Again, what is the function of reviewers who just affirm ignorance?)

 

[Naked Ninja]

But here's the thing, there seems to be this assumption that the reviewer is ignorant of older, better RPGs, because that's the only way they could consider a game the Codex doesn't like great? That's flawed thinking. They could just like it, for reasons that you may not experience, but they still have a right to have them without a bunch of people jumping up and down and going "you're ignorant/dumb/self-deluded/lying weasels".

Now if someone clearly doesn't have any knowledge of the Fallout franchise and claims F3 is the greatest Fallout game evar, yeah, you can point and jeer. If they make stupid claims like "turn based is outdated", yeah, jeer. But if they say "I really liked aspects of Oblivion, and those aspects made it a fantastic overall experience for me", you don't really have a right to point at them and say "You just think you liked it because you aren't thinking about it deeply enough/ haven't played any older games which I consider better".

That's a rather arrogant stance to take, it denies people even the right to form their own opinions because there is this implicit assumption that if they aren't agreeing with your view it must be from stupidity, ignorance, lack of critical analysis or simply not having played any of the games you think is better. It doesn't make a difference if you frame it as "if you were a real critic you would agree with me, stop pandering to the masses", because it still implies that the only way they could have formed their opinion is through an invalid methodology. It's the difference between disagreeing about something and saying you think the only reason someone has a difference of opinion is because their thinking or methodology is somehow inferior to your own.

I'm definitely with you if all you want to say is "I think that game is inferior to this game, for this reason". I'm not with you if you say "You are only saying game X is great because you haven't thought about this as deeply as I have.". It's not arguing the merits of the game, it's arguing the merits of the person stating an opinion about the game, because you don't agree with their opinion. Surely you must concede it possible for another professional critic to, perfectly validly, reach a different conclusion than your own about a piece of media?

 

[Brother None]

But here's the thing, there seems to be this assumption that the reviewer is ignorant of older, better RPGs, because that's the only way they could consider a game the Codex doesn't like great?

No. I'm assuming they're ignorant because they're stating things about the originals that are blatantly false, and have obviously never played them.

Check the RPGWatch thread on The Witcher review, you'll find I take exception at Prima Junta's position that reviewers are incapable of properly viewing the Witcher, arguing the reviewers are doing their job by taking the position of the consumer in reviewing.

But even when you take the position of the consumer, that does not mean you have to adopt the attitude of the consumer when it comes to user ignorance. It is perfectly possible to review something from the angle of consumer interest without being necessarily absorbed in either hype, fanboyism or consumer ignorance. The majority of current reviewers do none of that.

But if they say "I really liked aspects of Oblivion, and those aspects made it a fantastic overall experience for me", you don't really have a right to point at them and say "You just think you liked it because you aren't thinking about it deeply enough/ haven't played any older games which I consider better".

That's good, because I've never done so.

That's a rather arrogant stance to take, it denies people even the right to form their own opinions because there is this implicit assumption that if they aren't agreeing with your view it must be from stupidity, ignorance, lack of critical analysis or simply not having played any of the games you think is better.

Your are assuming too much about my opinion. I mentioned Desslock and Gillen, yes, people who disagree with me on Fallout 3 but who do so from a journalist's viewpoint that I can respect, because they take care of their opinion, carefully constructing it based on solid arguments.

Just because I'm more than willing to acknowledge that the majority of journalists out there aren't like Desslock or Gillen but are a bunch of mouth-breathing retards who couldn't find their ass in the dark doesn't mean I'm someone who dismisses anyone who disagrees with me. Anyone can think Oblivion is a great game if he can find facts to support it (note - facts, arguments. If you're just a fan on a forum, I don't care, but if you're a journalist, you'd better be capable of bringing up some real, intelligent and professional arguments for your opinion). But there's no denying that there have been reviews written about Oblivion that do not match up with the facts of the game, and that journalists have been backtracking ever since. I don't care about opinion, that's simply journalistically unsound.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Well, I may have misinterpreted you (I certainly haven't misinterprettd S8 ) but this :

But here's the nagging bit, the "why is NN completely wrong"-swing of the thing, what is the function of reviews if they only serve to affirm a decision based on ignorance?

seems not to leave any room for the possibility of someone validly believing Oblivion to be great. And then there is the whole berating of ElPresidente for simply defending his magazine's view. It really just seems like you guys (not just you BN) are saying he or they can't have those opinions and actually be "real" critics at the same time. If that's not what you meant, I apologize. That's just the vibe I'm getting.

 

[elander_]

What i said is that IF, and notice the if there, someone is a critic he should have a more informed opinion about game design and game history than the general public and should base his criticism on his knowledge of computer games. If he doesn't then yeah i don't think he is a critic but just a middle man or a marketing man. Just my opinion on what a think a game critics or any other critic should be.

 

[the_Consumer]

I would like to take this oppurtunity, to let everyone know that I greatly dislike NN. (I don't care whether you care or not)
He is just pathetic. He thinks so much, makes so much conlusions to himself, and he is so wrong. He is just irritating. Can't he just shut up? Or at least consider the possibility that he is wrong? Oh...sorry...he can't be wrong, because then the codex would be right, and that isn't possible, because they are always wrong. They must be, bacause they all say the same.
I love the intelligent arguements here. Like the ones of VD, or DU (whom i like despite the VD-incident), BN etc. But he is just pathetic. He isn't amusing. He simply kills the arguement with his stupidity. Argh! I. Hate. Him.

(Yeah! That's 10 seconds of your life!)

 

[Naked Ninja]

Lol.

Nerd Rage, does your child suffer from it? Call your doctor if he displays any of the warning signs.

 

[Astromarine]

translation: "I like smart people. I don't understand them, and I'm not like them, but I like them. Except that one over there. He doesn't like the smart people I like, so I dislike him. Oh but damn, I'm not smart enough to disagreewith him. I know, I'll just call him a poopyhead. Maybe then the smart people will like me.

Please?"

 

[the_Consumer]

translation: "I like smart people. I don't understand them, and I'm not like them, but I like them. Except that one over there. He doesn't like the smart people I like, so I dislike him. Oh but damn, I'm not smart enough to disagreewith him. I know, I'll just call him a poopyhead. Maybe then the smart people will like me.

Please?"

More like "my english sucks so i don't even try. Most of the time.".
And i didn't say he is smart. I said he thinks much. Makes wrong conlusions and supports them with the "they dissagree so i must be right" 'tactic'.

But seriusly:

Lol.

Nerd Rage, does your child suffer from it? Call your doctor if he displays any of the warning signs.

It's just bad.

If you examine his 'opinions' its ussally the oposite of what most people think. It's clear that this simple fact gives him confidence that he is right.

PS: What kind of nerd rage?! I didn't even read the damn thread! But sure. I just probably hate you because you don't like fallout.

 

[ElPresidente]

I've been on the net since the days of text based web browsers so I know this shouldn't surprise me but seriously can some folks town down their criticisms so they sound reasonable?

Hate?
Fordfuck?

C'mon kids. Lets act and speak like we have some form of critical thought and are able to make our opinions felt without resorting to saying we hate the opposition or making really weak puns with swear words.

Most people being criticised will spot stuff like that and completely ignore the rest of what you say regardless of how legitimate your argument may be.

 

[dagorkan]

They are simply satisfying different tastes. Saying otherwise is snobbery.

And so the fuck what?

Do you even know what criticism is? It's unbelievable, it seems like some of you have never been asked to write serious criticism of anything in your lives. At school I had to review, analyze and critique various kinds of texts, factual prose, fiction, verse etc every week. A thousand words or so in which my personal tastes, feelings and value judgments were completely irrelevant. Every point and paragraph had to be justified with examples, comparisons, arguments, grammar, flow, effectiveness of word/analogy choice etc.

If you tried at any point to introduce your opinion without regard to method and without research you'd be called a dumbfuck by the teacher in front of everybody, and if you repeated your mistakes certainly fail the class no matter how good your style or grammar or spelling was. An intelligent person who learned the method could easily pass even with bad grammar and style and spelling mistakes. Intellect > style, substance > show.

Music I would guess is much the same, Lyric Suite probably knows a lot about that.

Criticism is a craft, something which you have learn and get better at, not a simple statement of individual or some averaging out of a collection of feelings.

If the score of a game magazine review is simply some random dude's opinion optionally averaged out according to some arbitrary formula with 'popularity' then I seriously don't see the pointing in reading any of them or buying your stupid magazine. If I want to read uninformed opinions and judge popularity I can go to the Amazon.com page for the product and read hundreds of them with a variety of biases, and all of them for FREE!

ElPresidente, please explain if anyone can write a review what exactly are we paying for? What do you think of your job? Apart from simply being a liar you make a living off selling uninformed and ignorant lies to gullible people... many people are not going to buy Age of Decadence because of YOU. People who saved up money for a while hoping to buy a good game (or kids who just get one game a year for Christmas) bought Oblivion because they trusted your colleagues. You together with your friends are a major factor in preventing good RPGs being made.

Are you proud of yourself?

 

[dagorkan]

No. I don't. Can you give me a reason why I should? I play games for fun. If it's not fun the rest doesn't matter. I enjoy certain things, other people enjoy other things. My girlfriend likes romantic comedies and romance dramas. This does not make her opinion ignorant, just different. I personally don't see any place for snobby critics telling me I or she like these movies because we are ignorant/common/uninformed. In fact, if anyone told me that to my face...we'd have strong words, yes? Wink

You can have opinion, nobody is saying you can't. Everybody has opinions on a million different things. But not everybody can give serious criticism in more than a few fields. I think that's what you fail to understand, criticism is different than opinion because it involves skill and knowledge and therefore is more valuable. It doesn't make opinions irrelevant but averaging out a lot of opinions is not a substitute to listening or reading someone who knows something about the subject.

I also decide some things based on my uninformed opinions, what I don't do is lie and arrogantly pass off my opinions as important and sell those lies for a living.

 

[Gragt]

For most people it seems you have to think in extremes. If you like a game (or a movie or a book for that matter) then it must be excellent on pretty much any point. Likewise if you did not like it then it is bad beyond any redeeming qualities. The role of the critic, as it was said before, is to give some objectivity on the subject by giving an informed opinion. In that way you can't really argue about excellence. But excellence does not mean you have to like it. That's the subjective part. Oblivion, to take that exemple once more, is a mediocre game but it still offers a combination of elements that can make it fun for those who enjoy them.

There is nothing wrong in enjoying trash, the point is to not think that trash is excellent because you enjoy it. It's actually difficult to say that while you did not like some work you still find it excellent.

Actually I've been thinking about it a good deal in the context of video games. You can find excellence in a book or a movie that has very low entertainment value (again we're not talking about liking or disliking it) but a game by definition is there to entertain and amuse. It can have a lot of artistic values but if the gameplay holding it all together is not fun, then it fails as a game. And I'm not even entering the "is video game art?" discussion which I find moot anyway. I am simply trying to refine my line of thought about what constitute excellence in a video game. The enjoyment is a very important part of it but you have to consider where that comes from. I feel like I'm close to putting my finger on it but still need to think some more about it, or reading more about it. I'm pretty sure others figured it out already.

 

[Castanova]

It's tempting to say that the only thing that matters in a game is how fun it is but, in the end, that's a relativistic measure. If, say, Super Mario is the best game ever made and you make an exact copy except you change the PC from Mario to some other character, an uninformed/ignorant gamer may "correctly" come to the conclusion that your Mario clone is the best game ever. In fact, it's just a clone.

That's a real simple reason why valid professional criticism of games or any other medium MUST take the history of the medium into account. As previous posters have said, any reviewer that fails too compare Oblivion to Morrowind, Daggerfall, or Arena is failing to do a basic aspect of their job.

As the medium becomes more and more mature, the basic attribute of "entertainment" value becomes less and less important to the professional critic. How the game fits into the medium historically now and how the game will fit in the coming years becomes really the leading measure of how good the game is. Only a game that easily masters the mechanics of fun (and should probably cleverly play with these mechanics) while, in addition, being unique and influential should be given the honor of a top score.

It's difficult to be convinced that Oblivion is fun in the first place, let alone the rest of the criteria.

Also: dagorkan wins the internet.

 

[ElPresidente]

If the score of a game magazine review is simply some random dude's opinion optionally averaged out according to some arbitrary formula with 'popularity' then I seriously don't see the pointing in reading any of them or buying your stupid magazine. If I want to read uninformed opinions and judge popularity I can go to the Amazon.com page for the product and read hundreds of them with a variety of biases, and all of them for FREE!

Except it isn't so your point is completely and utterly moot.

ElPresidente, please explain if anyone can write a review what exactly are we paying for? What do you think of your job? Apart from simply being a liar you make a living off selling uninformed and ignorant lies to gullible people... many people are not going to buy Age of Decadence because of YOU. People who saved up money for a while hoping to buy a good game (or kids who just get one game a year for Christmas) bought Oblivion because they trusted your colleagues. You together with your friends are a major factor in preventing good RPGs being made.

Are you proud of yourself?

What on God's verdant Earth brought this on? I was surprised you didn't add kicking puppies to the list of my evils. Have you actually read anything of mine or do you think presumption is an acceptable replacement of knowledge?

Couple of things:

* I did not write the AoD piece.
* Where have I ever lied. I want you to go through my articles, everything I've written and find one place where I have EVER said anything that has been contrary to what my own thoughts are.
* I do not prevent good RPGs being made. I rate what I consider to be good RPGs very highly... The Witcher, Mask of the Betrayer are my two most recent RPG reviews and I positively gushed over both even mentioning in my MotB review that I didn't think much of the vanilla NWN2 campaign.
* Yes as a matter of fact I am proud of myself.

You sunshine need to pull your head in a bit.

What am I promising people when they read my reviews? The honest opinion of a guy with 20+ years games playing experience across a variety of platforms (I'm the quintessential cross-platform gamer though obviously the PC is my preference) with enough objective information present that any bias I may be exhibiting can be accounted for by the reader. I don't score my reviews based on anything other than WHAT I THOUGHT of the game.

That's all.

Also: dagorkan wins the internet.

Wheee presumption once again wins! :D

 

[dagorkan]

Sorry I thought you had written that article in the original topic and that was why you intervened in this thread (I now see you didn't). If you are an honest and competent journalist obviously my comments don't apply to you...

But Ninja is still a weasel.

 

[ElPresidente]

Consider my offense at your post removed. :D

 

[Brother None]

seems not to leave any room for the possibility of someone validly believing Oblivion to be great.

Methinks you're getting a bit paranoid, NN.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Methinks you're getting a bit paranoid, NN.

Am I? Do I need to quote the entirety of S8's post back to you guys? Or Edward_R_Murrow? Seriously, a lot of these posts seem to be built around the inherent assumption that IF someone rated Oblivion highly it can ONLY be because they lack intelligence/are ignorant of past games/catering to the console market. From that basic false assumption you all seem to be launching attacks and general haughty finger wavings at ElPresidente. I understand where a lot of it comes from, I too am frustrated by many trends I see in gaming journalism, but just assuming anyone who gave Oblivion 2 thumbs up is automatically an idiot/incompetent/lacking in depth of RPG knowledge is false, see RampantCoyote. My argument is not based on groundless paranoia.

Do you even know what criticism is? It's unbelievable, it seems like some of you have never been asked to write serious criticism of anything in your lives. At school I had to review, analyze and critique various kinds of texts, factual prose, fiction, verse etc every week. A thousand words or so in which my personal tastes, feelings and value judgments were completely irrelevant.

Bullcrap. I've done serious critiquing of a piece of media, all it is is using examples and analysis to support your opinion. It's essentially opinion wrapped up in a lot of fluff. Everyone who has depth of knowledge of the context of a piece doesn't automatically agree, in fact quite the opposite, if you are aware of the cat fights that go on in academic circles.

And sorry, you're mistaking academic critiquing with commercial reviewing. An academic essay evaluating the themes, context, history and structure of Hamlet isn't the same as a magazine review of the quality of a local theater's production of Hamlet. Nor is an academic essay on the Noir genre the same as a review of a specific noir novel. It does NOT require a detailed analysis of Noir as a genre being attached to the review.

No one is interested in sitting and reading a 5 page essay deconstructing every elder scrolls game from Arena onwards and their evolution in a magazine review. Or even better, as you guys seem to want, deconstructing every bloody CRPG every time you review a new one. Maybe in a special editorial article, sure. But not a magazine review. When I read a review of Iron Man I don't want an essay on every super hero movie ever made, the history and elements of each. And your average consumer doesn't want that. At best you might get a sentence or two introducing the series. And no, this is not the role that reviewers should fill, it's the role academics fill. Commercial reviewers are there to help consumers make purchasing decisions. In the case of purchasing "fun", they are there to help me decide if I am going to have "fun" with my purchase of X. This is what I am paying for.

If you tried at any point to introduce your opinion without regard to method and without research you'd be called a dumbfuck by the teacher in front of everybody

And here we go again. Translation : If you stated an opinion different from what I think is the correct one, it means you haven't done your research / your method is crap. What happens if these guys do have a knowledge of the history and have done their research yet still disagree with you dagorkan? Do you believe that possible?

As the medium becomes more and more mature, the basic attribute of "entertainment" value becomes less and less important to the professional critic. How the game fits into the medium historically now and how the game will fit in the coming years becomes really the leading measure of how good the game is.

Why? This is why the snoobish critics are really irrelevant to most media consumers. When I pay for a review that is exactly what I DON'T want. You are mistaking the purpose of critics. They aren't there to be snobby intellectuals. They are paid to perform a service for me, the consumer, to help me make informed decisions when I purchase entertainment. So the basic attribute of "entertainment" is NOT irrelevant.

I also decide some things based on my uninformed opinions, what I don't do is lie and arrogantly pass off my opinions as important and sell those lies for a living.

Translation : I didn't like that opinion. Therefore it must be uninformed/ a lie.

 

[Gragt]

It's hard to do criticism without being an intellectual of some kind. And while the snobbish critic is an anduring cliché, it's perhaps many of them are actually snobbish. A good critic shouldn't be snobbish though and yes there are some people who are actually good and honest critics. The problem with being right is that most people will find you snobbish because of it.

I still find it hard to judge a game as being great without it providing some measure of entertainment. That reminds me of Black & White, at the time most people said it was a real breakthrough and commented the sandbox aspect of the game and the creature, the good and evil choices, but I did not read any review that said if the game was fun to play or not. Later it turned out that the game wasn't that fun to play and many reviewers included the game on some "top 10 overrated games of all time" or some shit. On the opposite I saw Planescape: Torment being praised for daring to be slow-paced with a lot of text and managing to be entertaining.

Games are not the same as movies, as I said some movies can have very low entertainment value and yet still be very important pieces of art (or artsy trash for some). Maybe games still rely on that entertainment factor because they are not art?

Art or not I still find intellectual criticism important when reviewing games. You may not need to make a 5 pages essay comparing a game to older ones but having that knowledge is helpful in forming an informed opinion. That's how some people can say that, based on the info they have, Fallout 3 is not looking as good as the rest of the gaming press is saying it is.

A good reviewer should tell you if something is fun or not and what level of quality is that level of fun. You refered to Rampant Coyote and I find him a good critique as well. For exemple he said that while he played Oblivion for more than 120 hours, only 20 of those were really awesome, the rest was "make-work" and filler content. That's short but it says a lot.

 

[elander_]

Am I? Do I need to quote the entirety of S8's post back to you guys? Or Edward_R_Murrow? Seriously, a lot of these posts seem to be built around the inherent assumption that IF someone rated Oblivion highly it can ONLY be because they lack intelligence/are ignorant of past games/catering to the console market.

When someone claims that Oblivion is a weak game it's only a claim. If someone disagrees with a claim then they ask for a clarification or throw their own arguments. That's the way it works everywhere when we are debating something.

There are tons of threads on these forums discussing the subject in detail. I'm sure you have read all the reasonable arguments and made your own judgment. It doesn't make sense to repeat every single argument that was thrown since Oblivion was made whenever someone makes a claim that Oblivion isn't a very good game.

Couple of things:
* I did not write the AoD piece.

So what do you think of it?

What i remember from that review is that the guy was against AoD because the game was TB. It's like someone who doesn't like action games reviewing Halo and giving it a bad socre just because it is an action game instead of a TB game.

 

[Naked Ninja]

You're reading only what you want to read, to support your opinions, though.

He also said :

But the world - wow. The world was compelling, and I don't just mean graphically. It felt explorable. There was interesting stuff to find all over the place, and the bajillion subquests were often very entertaining and had some nice twists. And since I felt like I could go for the final end-game stuff at any time (pretty much guaranteed with the lame auto-scaling factor), it never felt like it went too long, even at over 100 hours in.

And say what you will about Oblivion's hand-holding to get you to your quests, but due to a grown-up schedule and occasional crunch-modes at work (not to mention Rampant Games stuff...), I find myself not playing for a couple of weeks. So a game that can re-engage my interest quickly and gently point me where I need to go next is welcome.

So he appreciated the quest compass as well.

Look, we can pick and paste the mans statements all day, but the simple fact is that an intelligent, respected individual with a deep knowledge of older RPGs found Oblivion thoroughly enjoyable. And he isn't the only such person I've met to have that opinion. The claims that only stupid/ignorant/un-knowledgeable reviewers could rate the game highly are simply false. It may not be your cup of tea, and it may not be mine, but that is the reality of the thing. *shrug*

*EDIT*

When someone claims that Oblivion is a weak game it's only a claim. If someone disagrees with a claim then they ask for a clarification or throw their own arguments. That's the way it works everywhere when we are debating something.

That's my point. You guys seem to want to debate the person rather than the arguments the person puts forth. You're attempting to create a situation where the only people who have valid opinions are the people whose opinions align with your own. If they don't, well they are deficient in some way. Stupid, lacking knowledge, mainstream pandering weasels, something which allows you to disqualify their opinion.

 

[elander_]

That's my point. You guys seem to want to debate the person rather than the arguments the person puts forth. You're attempting to create a situation where the only people who have valid opinions are the people whose opinions align with your own. If they don't, well they are deficient in some way. Stupid, lacking knowledge, mainstream pandering weasels, something which allows you to disqualify their opinion.

We are debating the persons work as a critic or reviewer and sometimes the quality of game critics as a whole. I don't remember anyone saying these people are stupid because their opinion is different. You are overreacting a bit on this. Lacking knowledge and pandering to the mainstream are valid criticisms to their work and not personal attacks.

Of course this is all our opinion which you can agree or disagree just like we can agree or disagree with the way someone does his work or the industry as a whole. It's not that everyone of us here spends hours per day reading reviews to make a completely accurate statistic opinions, but there is too much crap in reviews and that is what people here are claiming. Brother None already gave a few links you can check.