Are RPG's simply unreviewable?

I recently played through New Vegas: Dead Money and enjoyed it for the romp and then made the mistake of reading Gamespot's review for the game. What I saw was a reviewer who played through the game one way, then complained about the choices he had made in the game and also ramble about some additional optional things he did. This made me curious so I started looking up other reviews on different games from different sources and I see a strange pattern here: RPG reviews are the worst reviews I've ever seen on games.

Its shocking the amount of factual errors, favoritism, one sided comparisons and half truths these reviewers attempt to pass off as professional journalism. That Dead Money review alone is inconsistant (The review complains of the dangers yet states the most useful companion perk is one that can kill the creatures in the game for good, the same thing a single bullet can accomplish, not the ones that make you survive longer in hazardous zones or gives you more time to disarm certain traps) Then states that all of companions REQUIRE fetch quests when they don't. Simply by talking to the characters or exploring the map you can find alternate means of helping the companions. I could go on just about this review alone but i've seen a whole bunch of odd gripes that apply to one game and not another.

I think most any review is going to have to be taken with a grain of salt. Are you the same age, using the same playing system, have the same play style. There are alot of things that will alter one persons view to another. As well as most aren't in depth very deep towards end game views, to early game.

Best thing to do, if you can find reviews agreeable towards your own, view those reviews with a bit more trust down the line.

RPG is harder to review because of the amount in one. Also no one can agree what role playing is. So say that role playing is picking what the character says and moral choices. Other says it is the sum of everything the player can do.

It might be an inevitable side effect of the fact that reviews are done against a deadline. The reviewer has to get their playing done and the writing done in a limited amount of time. An RPG that has lots of choices that affects the plot, and where you might have to play through it multiple times to get a good idea of hte gmae and gameplay, can't be fully experienced in a week. Though your example sounds a lot more as if the reviewer just isn't very good, not like it's the fault of the game. Reviews of big RPGs tend to be good, in my experience anyway, but I doubt that DLC for games that weren't selling extremely well get the best and brightest reviewers.ChiliDragon

I think some games don't explain themselves well enough, and perhaps some reviewers don't bother to understand things. I tried playing Alpha Protocol like it was Mass Effect 2 until I realized I was doing it wrong, and then I ended up loving the game. I think that reviewers occasionally don't delve deep enough into RPGs to understand the mechanics at play, which then taints their opinion of the game. I still need to check out Dead Money. It is likely that it will be my next purchase once I've played through some of my backlog and am itching for something new.rragnaar

One thing I always try to remember about reviews is that they are just opinions, after all.Allicrombie

I'm surprised; the review you mention is Kevin VanOrd's. He usually does a very good job with his reviews, but at the end of the day he's still a person, and therefore fallible. The sheer number of games that need to be reviewed within a limited timeframe is going to be challenging.

That being said, I'm not sure the public forums are the most constructive method of expressing your disappointment with that review or the review process in general. If you have identified factual errors, contact the reviewer to have them corrected. If you have suggestions for improving the review process, post in the Site Enhancements & Feedback forum.

Its shocking the amount of factual errors, favoritism, one sided comparisons and half truths these reviewers attempt to pass off as professional journalism.smerlus

RPG reviews are the worst reviews I've ever seen on gamessmerlus

I'm doubly surprised, smerlus; you usually have great comments (I miss your blogs), but this one was a bit thin. You make the couple generalizations that I've highlighted above (these reviewers and RPG reviews), but it reads that you're really just upset about the review of Dead Money specifically, even in your follow-up comments to Chili and others. I'm actually completely okay with you being upset with the review, but either modify your comment to address the RPG you took issue with or address Dead Money specifically. We cannot have a meaningful discussion of RPG reviews without multiple examples. If you believe there are significant issues with the Dead Space review, I would again recommend contacting VanOrd directly.

Also: Blog more. ;)

Boz

I expect that a professional reviewer is able to keep his/her opinions under control.

I'm surprised; the review you mention is Kevin VanOrd's. He usually does a very good job with his reviews, but at the end of the day he's still a person, and therefore fallible. The sheer number of games that need to be reviewed within a limited timeframe is going to be challenging.

That being said, I'm not sure the public forums are the most constructive method of expressing your disappointment with that review or the review process in general. If you have identified factual errors, contact the reviewer to have them corrected. If you have suggestions for improving the review process, post in the Site Enhancements & Feedback forum.

Its shocking the amount of factual errors, favoritism, one sided comparisons and half truths these reviewers attempt to pass off as professional journalism.smerlus

RPG reviews are the worst reviews I've ever seen on gamessmerlus

I'm doubly surprised, smerlus; you usually have great comments (I miss your blogs), but this one was a bit thin. You make the couple generalizations that I've highlighted above (these reviewers and RPG reviews), but it reads that you're really just upset about the review of Dead Money specifically, even in your follow-up comments to Chili and others. I'm actually completely okay with you being upset with the review, but either modify your comment to address the RPG you took issue with or address Dead Money specifically. We cannot have a meaningful discussion of RPG reviews without multiple examples. If you believe there are significant issues with the Dead Space review, I would again recommend contacting VanOrd directly.

Also: Blog more. ;)

Boz

I didn't see any professional reviewers complain that Oblivion's character leveling system is actually counter intuitive and that should be a huge issue. smerlus

[QUOTE="smerlus"]I didn't see any professional reviewers complain that Oblivion's character leveling system is actually counter intuitive and that should be a huge issue. ChiliDragon

Bias opinions,I'm going to scream if Nintendo Power names another Mario game,The Game Of The Year!

Bias opinions,I'm going to scream if Nintendo Power names another Mario game,The Game Of The Year!StarKiller77000

Nintendo Power is probably choosing Mario games because, well, they've been very, very good. Even independent sites have given both Mario Galaxy titles, Paper Mario, Mario Kart, and Smash Brothers excellent reviews throughout their lives.

That being said: Everyone is biased; we're only human!

Happy gaming,

Boz

[QUOTE="smerlus"]I didn't see any professional reviewers complain that Oblivion's character leveling system is actually counter intuitive and that should be a huge issue. ChiliDragon

There is 1 old good sentenc on latin i does not know to say it but in English it sounds like this "About taste we dont argue" Some companys have taste of money :D so about RPG you need to watch movies , download demo , read "neutral" reviews ...

>Bias opinions,I'm going to scream if Nintendo Power names another Mario game,The Game Of The Year!

StarKiller77000

I loved the reviews for Oblivion. They talked all about the main mission (something to do with gates and a missing price.) I managed to put in over a hundred hours wiothout even bothering with it. (Same goes with Fallout 3)

I just don't care for any RPG reviews period. I mean I read them and all, but it's not very often that I agree with any of them.

I think the biggest problem is "professional reviews" come with the illusion of objectivism... when in reality, they are nothing but that person's opinion.

I recently played through New Vegas: Dead Money and enjoyed it for the romp and then made the mistake of reading Gamespot's review for the game. What I saw was a reviewer who played through the game one way, then complained about the choices he had made in the game and also ramble about some additional optional things he did. This made me curious so I started looking up other reviews on different games from different sources and I see a strange pattern here: RPG reviews are the worst reviews I've ever seen on games.

Its shocking the amount of factual errors, favoritism, one sided comparisons and half truths these reviewers attempt to pass off as professional journalism. That Dead Money review alone is inconsistant (The review complains of the dangers yet states the most useful companion perk is one that can kill the creatures in the game for good, the same thing a single bullet can accomplish, not the ones that make you survive longer in hazardous zones or gives you more time to disarm certain traps) Then states that all of companions REQUIRE fetch quests when they don't. Simply by talking to the characters or exploring the map you can find alternate means of helping the companions. I could go on just about this review alone but i've seen a whole bunch of odd gripes that apply to one game and not another.

smerlus

You do realize that this is the same review site that gave out the infamous "10" to Chrono Cross, right? Gamespot has never gotten RPGs right. I once did a side by side comparison between the review of Chrono Trigger DS and Persona PSP and was astounded at the double standards being tossed around.

I think the biggest problem is "professional reviews" come with the illusion of objectivism... when in reality, they are nothing but that person's opinion.

foxhound_fox

There is that, but when "professional reviews" become factually inaccurate, the entire review is broken. Sadly that happens more often than it should at GS.

One thing I always try to remember about reviews is that they are just opinions, after all.Allicrombie

A credible opinion must still be supported by actual facts to have any standing.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="smerlus"]I didn't see any professional reviewers complain that Oblivion's character leveling system is actually counter intuitive and that should be a huge issue. StarKiller77000

Bias opinions,I'm going to scream if Nintendo Power names another Mario game,The Game Of The Year!

I expect that a professional reviewer is able to control their opinion. They can have an opinion but the review should be more. I have read a few reviews where a game is turn base and a person, who seams to hate slower pace game, will make it into a huge weakness.

I thought Kevin Van Ord wrote a terrific review on Dragon Age: Origins.

RPGs are difficult to write (as mentioned previously). Consider Witcher 2, which per the developer will take more than one playthrough to see every area of the game, and has multiple endings.

Having not read the dead money review, I can't comment, but generally speaking reviewers should never judge an RPG by one playstyle (although they can certainly complain if the game is broken for say, stealth characters). However, are RPGs unreviewable? Absolutely not.

I thought Kevin Van Ord wrote a terrific review on Dragon Age: Origins.

RPGs are difficult to write (as mentioned previously). Consider Witcher 2, which per the developer will take more than one playthrough to see every area of the game, and has multiple endings.

topsemag55