Sign in to follow this  
Moosferatu

The Bard's Tale 6.7 at Gamespot

Recommended Posts

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/rpg/thebardstale/review.html

hmmm... can you talk yet Treesus? Is that an accurate review? I was a bit surprised when I read it. The reviewer didn't even seem to like the humor. Has anyone here played either of the Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance games? I haven't, but they seem like mindless hacks with no personality yet they both recieved excellent scores on Gamespot (much better than The Bard's Tale). Of course, I haven't played any of the three games, so it is possible that Gamespot is dead on. Anyone have any thoughts who is more qualified to make them (i.e. actually played the games)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, on a similar note to the post I made on the IGN review of GTA: San Andreas, Gamespot's review rating system is flawed as well. The "reviewer tilt" as they call it, which is what is used to justify the knocking up or down of the overall game rating score based on the experience of the reviewer - they say, to represent the appropriate rating based on their feelings towards the aspects of the game which go beyond it's 'production values' (ie. the things you can't cram into neat little boring categories). It's another example of inconsistancy, akin to IGN's rating system, in that the scores of those production values are clearly defined, the "tilt" in the case of "A Bard's Tale" can also work against the game - in this case, it's a mere 1/10th of a point. But one wonders, "For that much, why is the deception even worth a freaking 1/10th of a point!?"

Why not have in the ratings a little field you can check off for something like "Reviewer recommends this title" (or doesn't). It's a simple 'Yes' or 'No' that is more easy for the viewers to ingest, and perhaps if it's more complicated you can have a 'Maybe', which is further explained in the text of the review. As it is now, a viewer such as myself has to read between the lines of the scores, and wonder at why the reviewers are too lazy to properly open the Calculator application and do some simple math to find an average. It's my opinion that personal feelings for a game should be separated from the formal/professional review, and that is why I said IGN's system too is inconsistant. But of course, that does too depend on the manner of the review.

As far as who to trust, you should never go on just one review. That almost always leads to disappointment. I do prefer, in any case, agenda-free reviews. Having worked in online journalism myself, sometimes a critic (be that a fan site, news network, review site, whatever) is asked to give a good review, sometimes ad revenue is a factor (it's not generally good to give a game that's paying you a bad review, unless it would be worse to give it a good review, if the game so calls for that). That's not necessarily the case here or there, but it's possible and has happened. This point though, is more of a shameless plug for the Thumb. There are no agendas behind it, nothing but educated and honest diatribe, albeit harsh and (yet) deserved at times. ;)

As far as hackery, this is a review I would shake a stick at. It harps on the humor (or apparent lack of it), for which this hack has no taste for, yet from what I gather it isn't so different from the humor you might find in World of Warcraft, which is not something Gamespot would put a 6.7 on. My avatar is of The Neverhood's hero - that is a game which was in many ways brilliant, and is one of my all time favorites. No game is without flaws, but I generally take with a grain of salt reviews on big networks - and the reason why is the rating Gamespot gave The Neverhood (4.9). Not only does it show how inept Joe Hutsko is at recognizing the greatness of certain titles that aren't mainstream, but it shows how out of touch a lot of reviewers are. Consider that the Overall score of the Community Reviews was nigh twice the score Gamespot gave it - an 8.8 - with about 43% declaring the game "Superb", and about 23% saying "Perfect"... overall, only 10% of their viewers said anything below a 7.0, let alone a 4.9. This isn't the norm of course, but at Gamespot it's one review per game. When Warcry first reviewed Doom 3, the retarded author gave it a 10! A freaking 10! It may have been good, and I would never have been so generous, but we did realized that since Warcry.com's reviews are heavily marinated in personal opinion, and steamed with yet another imperfect scoring system, the game was reviewed a second time and given an 8.5 - which I find much more fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but if you read the review its not scathing. I think this reviewer was operating on a 5.0 is average scale, of course adding relevance to your previous argument.

I'd never heard of this game, thanks for bringing it up.

Really the Bard's Tale review was kind of wierd in a partisan way too. It seems this guy doesn't buy the humor of the game--even at one point suggesting "the game might've even been better if it had played it straight all the way through."

I thought the whole point of this game was its humor?

And since we're railing against gamespot I also had similar issue with their "Armed and Dangerous" review. Sometimes these reviews make you feel like the guy on the other end just doesn't get it, but instead of just stating that, he's also persuading thousands of people that the game isn't worth their time or money.

I have friends (...the stupid ones, I suppose) who, if deciding to read a review at all would look at the score and nothing more. If people actually read reviews I think it would be better for the reviewers (who invest time making them) and the gamers making a purchasing decision. Plus, since the whole reviewing industry is probably damn afraid to deviate too much from one another, cyclical trends form that, in this case, hurt the developers who spent years making a great game.

I also think the thumb has this absolutely right, no score is great. But frankly Thumb reviews will never be mainstream because they lack the bizarre instant gratification people get from scores. I think not alot of people read the actual reviews. I don't know if its the poor journalism dished out by alot of other sites or...really I have no explanation other than people's adversity to the written word. Which is a whole other thing that perplexes me.

I'm not even sure this rant makes sense, so I'm stopping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, your rant makes quite a bit of sense. There have been a very select few people, let alone websites dedicated to revealing the 'absurdity of the system' in this industry. Idlethumbs is one. Lum the Mad was another (which is archived and gone). Outside of the industry, the Daily Show is another.

Jon Stewart and his posse have remained utterly steadfast in that vision, although they are becoming more 'mainstream' and popular. I disagree that IdleThumbs can not share a similar fate, and become quite popular while having the sorts of reviews they do. The site's still fairly new, though.

I spoke of some of my 'intents' in my quest to get into the game industry in my introduction - I also share the wish to become 'deviant', and God willing, put something valuable out on the shelves. I'm very humble though, and well aware of the obstacles I will face, and the length of time that will fly by before I achieve what I am really striving for. This is why "I kill you." is one of my favorite articles.

And yes, The Neverhood will run on XP. it's about a 10mb install, plus the CD to run it. If you have problems with it, try right-clicking the .exe, go to Properties, to the Compatability tab, and set the operating system intended (probably Win98). I've not had problems with it on XP though ever, and I've beaten it two or three times since I've had XP on my computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also think the thumb has this absolutely right, no score is great. But frankly Thumb reviews will never be mainstream because they lack the bizarre instant gratification people get from scores. I think not alot of people read the actual reviews. I don't know if its the poor journalism dished out by alot of other sites or...really I have no explanation other than people's adversity to the written word. Which is a whole other thing that perplexes me.

I don't think this is true. I think the reason people read scores is simply because they're there to be read. If you took them away, I'm sure more people would read the review and make their own assessment. People wouldn't stop reading game reviews. What that means for the Thumb, to me, is that if by some weird miracle we do end up with a larger readership, people would expect the reviews on this site to be unscored, and would read them as articles/stories/writeups/etc - AKA what they're actually meant to be - instead of just dressing on a numerical score. That doesn't entirely make sense I guess, but I think it's true.

I don't think people in "the mainstream" are averse to reading reviews (they seem to read the hell out of previews, etc, for instance), but they're just not going to complain if you give them a 2 digit number instead, making the review itself optional in their eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's my opinion that personal feelings for a game should be separated from the formal/professional review.
Whose opinions should the reviewer use then? His/her grandmother's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whose opinions should the reviewer use then? His/her grandmother's?

I meant that the scores don't necessarily have to reflect personal tastes. I would much rather read a review where the 'production values' are rated at face value, rather than based on some schmoe's personal tastes. I find my own tastes to be rather unique (clearly), thus when my friend tells me he would give Doom 3 a 10 and it clearly isn't worth that when you weigh every facet of the game as one should... I would rather put my money on an honest editorial. That doesn't mean 'no personal feelings' - it's in fact quite hard to do that, as per the reviews at the Thumb, many tell of personal experiences with titles alike to the one in question, for instance. However, if a site such as IGN is going to lay out very distinct categories such as the following, there should be distinctions between what is opinion and what is more factual.

Presentation

This category includes everything from the quality of the manual and packaging to the menu layout and game options. We also consider the overall production, licenses, and style of the game here.

Graphics

How the game looks as well as technical issues like animation quality, texture design, and framerate.

Sound

This category rates the quality of the sound effects and voice acting as well as the music in the game.

Gameplay

In a nutshell, how fun and satisfying the game is to play. Usually considered the most important part of any title, this category encompasses the controls, design, and overall feel of the game.

Lasting Appeal

This rates how much time you're likely to spend with the game before you get tired of it. This rating also reflects the depth of the game and options such as multiplay and mini-games that keep you going after you finish the single-player experience.

For the most part, these are things that could be represented by comparisons to other titles, examples, proof, etc... one should be able to score these categories within a smaller range than something such as Gamespot's "Reviewer Tilt". Let me walk my talk by saying that the contents of this post are wrought by my own personal opinion, and not by infallible facts.

As I said, no article should make you have to read between the lines to figure out exactly why the reviewer gave it the score he/she did - the "why?" is what should be spelled out in the review itself. I believe though that if a game is going to be rated by a network that gives one review to each game, and the scoring system is based on the production values, which can easily be compared to other like titles - then the score needs to reflect what the game deserves, not necessarily what the reviewer thinks it deserves. Hell, it can do both, as long as the review reflects what the game actually deserves aside from the author's personal preferences. Ideally, the two wouldn't be so far apart, but when the review has little tangible information and a lot of prejudice, you get the huge gap I mentioned about the Neverhood - the review scoring a 4.9 and the user rating being 8.8. In Gamespot's review of Doom 3 on the other hand, both the official review and the viewer ratings were exactly the same - 8.5.

Maybe my tripe on the matter is needless, and I don't speak out against every reviewer, and about every review - some are more unique and imaginative, and more importantly, have a consistant format for reviewing, scoring, etc... I don't believe that's true for IGN though. And Gamespot I find flawed simply because the mingled ratings of things such as "Value" and "Tilt" with production values like "Graphics", "Sound", and "Gameplay".

Hell, I'm just going to stop right here. I'm starting to scare myself. I'm reviewing how people review things. It's 4:33am, so that scares me. :erm: Were I feeling more clever, I might come up with a score card and rating system for reviewing reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a reviewer should tell what things he liked or disliked about the game, why he liked or disliked those things, try to provide some facts ("the game has twenty five different weapons", etc) and possibly compare it with other similar games. That's all you can reasonably ask, because objectivity and public opinion don't exist, even with IGN's mysterious Objectivity Machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize I may be asking too much. Given that I'm new to these forums, and have aforetime lacked the proper venue to express thoughts such as these, I'm makin' this up as I go. It's raw opinion, of course, that I would enjoy discussing so that I may refine these ideas.

If you noticed by the timestamp on my posts of late, you might notice something fun. I have not slept at all. Eyes bloodshot and all. I've been reading a lot of articles and lectures by veteran designers, sucking up their advice and ideas like a sponge. Here's an interesting snippit from Ernest W. Adams' lectures, Will Computer Games Ever Be A Legitimate Art Form?. It relates to the topic, though is naturally tangential.

We Need Not Reviewers, But Critics

Awards are not enough. We also need critics to recognize artistic merit. We don't even have any critics. What we have are reviewers. And look at them! The majority of them are game-developer wannabes, gamers with a rudimentary knowledge of English barely sufficient to say something more useful than “sucks” or “rocks.” Real critics bring to their profession not just a knowledge of the medium they are discussing, but wide reading and an understanding of aesthetics and the human condition.

Now, I know some of you at this point are saying, “That's ridiculous. Game reviewers don’t need to be well-educated, they don’t need to be deep thinkers, they just need to know what's fun.” And you’re right. That’s all that game reviewers need. But interactive entertainment critics need to bring more: wisdom, maturity, judgment, understanding.

Now another objection I’ve heard to this argument is that there simply aren’t any games out there that deserve this depth of thought. That if you took the intellect of the great art critics of the world and applied it to games, it would be totally wasted. But I think that’s our own fault. I don’t believe that that’s a fundamental weakness in the medium. The fact that there aren’t any games out there that deserve in-depth analysis is because we haven’t made any, not because we cannot make any.

Now, I’ve read some academic movie criticism, and it was mostly boring and unreadable. And God knows I don’t want our industry to get bogged down in the “movements” and “schisms” and petty infighting, not to mention sheer wankery, that is the bane of the art world. Pity the poor bastard who decides, at this point, that he wants to put paint on canvas. He’s got 1000 years of history to live up to, and 10,000 critics, each with their own axe to grind, all looking over his shoulder. It’s a wonder they try to paint at all; I know it would certainly scare me off.

But I don’t think we have to worry about that yet. Right now we’re so far from being art that it’s not a problem for us. What I’m saying is that an art form requires not just reviewers, comparing one game to another, but critics who can discuss the meaning of a game in a larger context.

If you look at a movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey, it had all the reviewers flummoxed, because none of their traditional metrics applied. No romance, no action, no suspense, no drama in the traditional sense of the word. Almost no acting at all. But the critics had a field day! Because 2001 was rich with ideas, it was crammed with them from one end to the other!

2001: A Space Odyssey is a great work of art. It meets all the necessary criteria. It has content, all right: over 3 hours of it. It says something – a great many things, in fact. It makes us feel something. 2001 was boring at points. It was deliberately boring. Stanley Kubrick said, “Space travel isn’t whizzing around the universe; space travel is long and slow and boring, and I’m going to make you feel that.” And that, my friends, is the definition of artistic courage.

2001 isn’t formulaic; it did break new ground in all sorts of ways, some of them technological, although they weren’t necessarily critical to its success as a work of art. It did challenge the viewer, very greatly. It brought us new ways of seeing any number of things: space travel itself, and computers, right up to man’s place in the universe. It asked a lot of very interesting questions.

Where is our 2001: A Space Odyssey? When is one of us going to make a game that was as brilliant and innovative as 2001 was a movie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scores do serve a purpose I think. For example some time ago I suddenly got the urge to play a strategy game. I had been practically ignoring the genre for years.

I didn't know which game I would want to play so I started reading reviews of games I had heard good things about, and also looked at some scores, to sort out what games I could possibly like and then read some individual reviews. If there would have been no scores at all, it would have made it more difficult to select the games I might be interested in because I would certainly not have read reviews of all strategy games released during a certain period.

And that's why you make a really good point, Jaero. Not all of the review scores really represented what the game deserved, and I found the scores given by GameSpot's users a lot more helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also for the record, though Gamespot ranked it 6.7, Bard's Tale is averaging an acceptably higher 75% on Gamerankings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And IGN said the humor is great and perhaps even the best found in any game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me like the reviewer just didn't appreciate the sense of humour, rather than that the humour wasn't actually any good, or served a valid purpose. I've played Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance 1 & 2, and also Champions of Norrath, as I love that kind of hack 'n slash arcadey RPG. However, I do acknowledge that they end up looking like they've just reskinned the monster and level graphics to generate 75% of the levels, and have been looking forward to a similar game that offered something a little different for a while.

I also have fond memories of the 3 original Bard's Tale games from around 15 years ago on the CPC and PC. When I heard that they were remaking it for the PS2 and Xbox, I was initially disapointed from online screenshots and gameplay descriptions to see how they've based it so heavily on the other Baldur's Gate engine games. However, the multiple and varied companion summoning mechanism and sense of humour may just add the necessary bits to make it something a little more special after all, so I'll be following other reviews with interest, and hope to read some from people who played the BG games and CoN to death to see how they think it compares. Is it actually on the shelves yet? Treesus, restrain yourself if it's not... :zip:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And IGN said the humor is great and perhaps even the best found in any game.

Oh oh oh! :tup: Well, the IGN Review of A Bard's Tale does prove me wrong in many ways. The exception to my infallable rules in my recent posts on this topic, is as follows (yes, that was a joke)...

As you read more and more reviews, it is inevitable that you will find a few, several, many (whatever the sum, you will find them) that you agree with on well nigh every point. Where the author says everything you think about the game, and gives it the same score you would. The IGN review actually is one that comes pretty close for me. Reviews are rarely spot on matches, as there is always the factor that the final judgement comes from your own first hand experiences with the game - but I find the review very fair. And Hilary Goldstein (the author) might be lurking around here and reading what I say, because she gave the Overall Score the average of the other rated categories with no "reviewer tilt" - yet at the same time very clearly stated her reasons for her ratings, and her recommendation of the game, even though her score is an 8.2 rather than, god forbid, a 9.9.

Something interesting to note: Gamespot gave it a 6.7, but still it's important to remember the reviews of the customers themselves, rather than those who are bound to the job of 'reviewer' (as I said before, it is possible for agendas to influence them when dealing with big sites, but not often. this is why its best to get a second opinion, and a third, and a fouth). Often times, when one is working as a Reviewer, he/she doesn't always get to pick the titles they review. In fact, there's usually a race or fight to get a hot title first - they would get it free from the site/network, and get to play it. So there you can see both 'favoritism' and 'skepticism' enter the text of a review where they are not due. I suspect that's what happened with Gamespot's review of The Neverhood - I can't find any other reason why it was given a 4.9 and the popular rating was 8.8 - the gap should never be that great unless your reviews are spun (for example, a Christian review site - I always like looking for those and seeing what they say about Diablo). Gamespot's customer review ratings for Bard's Tale though, are at 7.6 instead of 6.7 - oddly enough with 37.5% saying "Perfect" (10), and 8.3% saying Abysmal (1.0-1.9). It seems as though since this game has features such as humor, there's a great divide between what's funny (maybe that was why their Neverhood review was so low). I wonder what the pie chart would look like if A Bard's Tale had an abundance of dirty jokes and toilet humor.

Nevertheless, I'm just thankful Gamespot is certainly not the only source of reviews, let alone the leading one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you shouldn't put much faith in user reviews. Usually they're either petulant reactionary rants towards the game or a scared restatement of the popular opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you shouldn't put much faith in user reviews. Usually they're either petulant reactionary rants towards the game or a scared restatement of the popular opinion.

Aye. However, at places such as Amazon, you can get such a wide spectrum of opinions, and it isn't about the 1/5 star rating they're given. At Gamespot, I think it's interesting to pay attention to the ratings of the fans - however, you're right, they should be taken with a big grain of salt. Most are reactionary, and often votes are cast while the fan is still high from the fumes that emerged from the box whilst they opened it. Good ol' fumes. They always make the fans vote extremes, such as a perfect 10, or in the case of the people who have no sense of humor and play A Bard's Tale, an abysmal 1.

Yeah, it's folly to put faith in them alone, but user feedback can still be taken in stride with other reviews (by that I mean to repeat and drone on about how it's good to get either a lot of opinions and reviews, or find some truely unique and honest ones, such as here). Damn, I'm boring myself - someone make a topic about something other than game reviews, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you shouldn't put much faith in user reviews. Usually they're either petulant reactionary rants towards the game or a scared restatement of the popular opinion.

Yes, but the average score of those is usually very representative. The more reviews, the better of course.

Or actually, maybe it isn't. The average user scores are sometimes too high. Maybe because people who like a game a lot are more likely to write a user review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On average people love Bush. They think he is the greatest president since God himself set sail from the Old World to create America for his chosen people, the Americans.

I don't trust people's opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think reviews need to have different stats based on who you are without having to go to a different review.

for example, Midway Arcade Treasures 2 has gotten some pretty average reviews, but considering that 75% of the games in the package are ones I love, I absolutely adored it.

I can't help but feel the weighing down of the score is going to lower sales, especially to "one-issue" (as in, of a magazine) buyers.

what I'm proposing, stated inhuman terms, is something like this:

a base rating based on the game's gameplay itself. No graphics or anything, just the game beneath it all. then add modifiers based on your personal preferences. if you're a graphics whore, -.5, if you don't care, then make no modification. If you like the bits of humor you've seen in the Bard's Tale so far, take comfort in adding 2 to the score.

this may sound needlessly complicated, but in practice, i think it'd create far better game recommendations.

personally, I've never been disappointed by a single game I've ever bought using my own personal version of using this system to read reviews.

I will admit that Gameranking's averaging usually is a pretty good guide to go by, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize I may be asking too much. Given that I'm new to these forums, and have aforetime lacked the proper venue to express thoughts such as these, I'm makin' this up as I go. It's raw opinion, of course, that I would enjoy discussing so that I may refine these ideas....

You may be interested in this. I originally posted it in the Adventure Gamers Forum:

I think this may be the right forum to post, as the staff writers and some interested forum members would be interested.

cglazare.jpgai031130.jpgwagnerjamesau-thumb.jpg

Clement Greenburg (art critic), Dorothy Parker (literary critic and author), and

James Wagner Au (cultural and video game critic).

icon_audio.gifThe Critic

Odyssey radio talk show

No mention of computer games, but the ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and commercial values discussed apply just as well to the game critic [reviewer :shifty: ]. Awesome discussion, dimensioned with a brief history of the critic and criticism and their various types: academic, public, social, highbrow, middlebrow, interpretive, etc.

I agree with Ernest W. Adams' sentiment. Game reviewers are just that. The game critic, however, is a different - and very, very necessary - breed. I strongly feel that game criticism (when it finally develops momentum) will help bring games and their creation to a more culturally relevant level, much in the same way that films and other expressive forms (whether for purposes to entertain, educate, or etc.) came to be taken seriously as such. In the end, it can truly help games achieve a resonant legitmacy as powerful social, cultural, and even political force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Jaero, just so you know all of your blatant campaigning didn't go to waste, I now have a copy of the Neverhood and am playing through it. You know, so far I've been able to play only for a brief time, but I'm already impressed by the style and music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the referal, Intrepid. But I do favor listening to myself rant, much of the time without all the proper facts, instead of listening to others' criticisms or trying to educate myself. You might say that in that way, I'm very much like a syndicated game review. You might also say that I haven't slept in two days and that I'm full of shit, but I thought that was funny for a second. I'm too tired to delete it though.

I'm glad you like it, Manny. It's really a brilliant and hysterical game. If you get to the big long hallway (which you have to walk all the way down and back - takes like ten minutes) they have a fully-realized parody of Creation itself, their own clay 'Bible' written on the wall of that hallway. I haven't read the whole thing in about 8+ years, but I remember that it was entertaining. One thing I love about the game, is that it's not a game that's really 'for the player' so much as it is meant, like A Bard's Tale, to mock games - often to tick a player off, like a bad game, but bring them back to loving the game with the in-your-face humor of it. People who lack personalities may not be fans.

I will say, it's puzzles are difficult, and given that it mocks Myst, I can't always wrap my head around them without getting a hint online. However - in the first room you start in, if you go down the ladder and check the mail, you will get hints that way as well, ingame. Nice little helpful feature.

As for the music, I think it's brilliant in the same way that it was brilliant to make a game out of 50,000 tons of clay (!!!). I've got the full two-disk soundtrack, which is actually where my avatar comes from. The reason why I maintain that The Neverhood is my favorite game is that as a future game designer, I think it's important to have games like this to keep things in context. I've seen too many cases where designers start to get so involved in designing that they lose sight of their original objective, and however that fares, the game is likely to suffer in some way or another. Of course, our favorites like DOTT or Sam & Max can serve the same purpose. I choose the Neverhood though because it's so unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this