Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
dustcropper

Broken Age getting good reviews so far

Recommended Posts

I do think John Walker, just as everyone else, has the right to not like BA, there's even some points I agree with him, like the underuse of Plague Barrier and the flash revelation of the baddies and then underusing them as well, but I also think Walker has a tendency to take things a bit too personally. Or maybe it's just his writing style or that he's trying to generate polarizing material in the hopes of clickbaiting.

I've even defended him at times in the past, but after he did that utterly poisonous Moleneux interview I lost all my respect towards him. Not that he was that wrong about PM, but I didn't like his style nor methods of tackling the issue of Godus and other unfilled dreams of PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't beaten the game yet, so I cannot and have no interest in correcting him about his opinions. My issue with him is down to his attitude, which I think is very dissapointing and quite frankly unprofessional, considering how great that site can be (I'm a paying supporter for it).

Btw, please be careful about talking about Act 2 here also, since it's so easy to spoil for us others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still in the process of replaying Act I of Broken Age, so I can't comment on Walker's new article. What really bugs me, however, is the tone of his writing, not only in these reviews, but in a lot of his articles. With Jane Jensen's Moebius, for instance, he also had a huge rant, which was even worse than this one. I haven't played that game (and it probably is not very good), but I think it's just disrespectful - both to the creator and your readership - and unprofessional to stomp on the work you're reviewing just for comedic effect or to be a polarising force.

'Dreadful mess', 'crap' and 'bah' are terms that I would never use in a review. And even if it was really that bad, you'd better come up with some very solid arguments and you'd better make sure that these words are not applicable to your own writing. Writing a review, in my mind, is a huge responsibility and not something to take lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still in the process of replaying Act I of Broken Age, so I can't comment on Walker's new article. What really bugs me, however, is the tone of his writing, not only in these reviews, but in a lot of his articles. With Jane Jensen's Moebius, for instance, he also had a huge rant, which was even worse than this one. I haven't played that game, but I think it's just disrespectful - both to the creator and your readership - and unprofessional to stomp on the work you're reviewing just for comedic effect or to be a polarising force.

'Dreadful mess', 'crap' and 'bah' are terms that I would never use in a review. And even if it was really that bad, you'd better come with some very solid arguments and you'd better make sure that these words are not applicable to your own writing. Writing a review, in my mind, is a huge responsibility and not something to take lightly.

I agree with this. If you want to use words like "dreadful mess" and "crap" and "bah" in your game reviews, then get a personal site or blog or go rant on message boards like the rest of the internet. But if you want to be taken seriously as an author of professional, useful, consumer-oriented reviews, that sort of thing just makes you sound like a college-aged amateurish chode.

He doesn't sh** gold and his opinions aren't worth any more than anyone else's. I know that he thinks that there is some checklist of criteria that a review is "supposed to" discuss or whatever, but many other critics/players have pointed out that the entire concept of a review is essentially bogus because all games can't be fairly graded with the same checklist, so that can actually be more UNHELPFUL than helpful. Like how do you grade the story of REZ or Guitar Hero? You don't! Because who gives a sh**??? How do you grade the puzzles of God of War? It does have some, and they're okay, but even if they were awful puzzles, how much would people really care? Do fans of Postal 2 really care about the fact that Postal 2, if we're being completely technical, looks like garbage? No, they don't, because it doesn't matter.

Contrary to what he apparently wants to believe, art is STILL as it has ALWAYS been in the eye of the beholder. Game reviews are not a science and he is not a tenured review scholar. He is just one more dude on the internet with an opinion, and his opinion is not special.

What makes a professional reviewer's opinion seem more valuable than an average person's? When they demonstrate they have a lot of knowledge and experience not just in games generally, but in the genre they are reviewing, that helps a little. When they can professionally, competently, and with clarity point out to me the reasons why I might be interested in purchasing this game and the reasons why I might not. That helps. When they have a track record of feeling the same way I do? That is the most important thing of all, and there is no way he or any other reviewer can account for that. There is no science.

Even if a game is a 1/10 and should be avoided completely for almost every reason, all I need a reviewer to do is compare it to other similar works and give me a simple breakdown of "here are all the red flags and gold stars I noticed that you may want to know about this game."

Maybe he just thinks he has a uniquely "edgy" voice or something, but pissing all over a game is not necessary. I can go to the comments section of youtube if I want to hear people providing dickish commentary or making sarcastic quips on a game.

I don't understand why there is a demographic in games of (frankly, let's be honest, probably mostly dudes) who think that dedicating entire websites or youtube channels to pissing and moaning is a useful and valuable way to discuss games. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent to this in music or movies or anything else. Sure, you have mocking things like Rifftrax or whatever, but the whole "angry nerd" style review/commentary is just not really common outside of games, but in games it is RAMPANT.

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Edit:

Here, just replace Ben Kuchera with John Walker. That is how he is acting about this:

http://www.somethingawful.com/video-game-article/king-ben-kuchera/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Metacritic, is it interesting to see that there those who seem to really like it, and then others very luke-warm on it. Not a whole lot in the middle range. Metacritic also doesn't have all of the reviews talked about in this topic though either.

Smiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RPS article is still at the top of the 'Recent News' area on Steam.

It's depressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The RPS article is still at the top of the 'Recent News' area on Steam.

It's depressing.

You know what else is annoying?

The fact that the game has a "very positive" average on Steam with 3,328 positives and 419 negative, which is pretty much 90% positive reviews.

But due to Steam's lame reddit-style "helpful" system, trolls have apparently upvoted all of the negative reviews so that the front page is saturated with the minority negative opinion. The one positive review that has managed to break through the troll assault has, OF COURSE, one comment on it in which the commenter says "Like I want to buy a comedy game from a guy who thinks this is funny" and posts a link to the sock puppet. That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about what's going on with that front page.

I wish I could ban people from video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a review on GOG but I guess they're moderated because it hasn't shown up yet, nor has any post-Act 2 review. Hopefully the rush of losers that abused the upvote/downvote system had died and from now on the post-Act 2 reviews that show up will present a more accurate picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The RPS article is still at the top of the 'Recent News' area on Steam.

It's depressing.

Yes this is exactly what I was about to post. You go to Steam, looking forward to firing up your new game, and what do you see, three inches below the "Play" button?

"Why Broken Age Act 2's Story is an Awful Mess"

There is something very wrong about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The RPS article is still at the top of the 'Recent News' area on Steam.

It's depressing.

Yes this is exactly what I was about to post. You go to Steam, looking forward to firing up your new game, and what do you see, three inches below the "Play" button?

"Why Broken Age Act 2's Story is an Awful Mess"

There is something very wrong about that.

Even more annoying is that the article isn't even necessary. He already published his thoughts in a previous review, but for some reason felt the need to revisit his rant like a tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The RPS article is still at the top of the 'Recent News' area on Steam.

It's depressing.

Yes this is exactly what I was about to post. You go to Steam, looking forward to firing up your new game, and what do you see, three inches below the "Play" button?

"Why Broken Age Act 2's Story is an Awful Mess"

There is something very wrong about that.

Even more annoying is that the article isn't even necessary. He already published his thoughts in a previous review, but for some reason felt the need to revisit his rant like a tool.

The weird thing is it being published on the same day as the release.

He had already been published his review, so that those who listen to him know what he thought about the game, so that they could use that as information as to whether or not buy the game. Like with any review.

But then he had to complement it with an article completely spoiling the story for those choosing to read it, the day of the release. Which begs the question; Why? For whom would that article be useful at that point? If he had posted at a point where more people would have had a chance to go through the game, then I could perhaps see some point of it. But posting it immediately? No, I don't get it.

I still haven't beaten Act 2 (I would think that I'm at least halfway through), so I haven't read the article yet, since I want to decide for myself what I think of the story, so for me, that article feels just petty. Like he actively want to persuade people from both buying and playing the game out of spite, anger or something like that.

I will read both articles in detail when I have beaten the game, but right now I feel that he's on the level of an angry games forum poster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's known as "click baiting" and generally such articles appear soon after the game comes out etc. Being controversial brings people on the article, which means that they can advertise more if a user has not blocked them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's known as "click baiting" and generally such articles appear soon after the game comes out etc. Being controversial brings people on the article, which means that they can advertise more if a user has not blocked them.

Well, this is what John Walker himself thinks about click baiting to get more advertisers, and what RPS supposedly stands for: http://botherer.org/2013/04/17/a-response-to-pars-adblockersgames-press-article/

That article talks more about AAA vs Indie, and sterotypical coverage, but you would think that it would include being extra contoversial just for the sake of it. And I think I believe him. I don't think that the article is about click baiting, and I don't think it's about helping customers. I think it's about him. I think it's just him being angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's known as "click baiting" and generally such articles appear soon after the game comes out etc. Being controversial brings people on the article, which means that they can advertise more if a user has not blocked them.

Well, this is what John Walker himself thinks about click baiting to get more advertisers, and what RPS supposedly stands for: http://botherer.org/2013/04/17/a-response-to-pars-adblockersgames-press-article/

That article talks more about AAA vs Indie, and sterotypical coverage, but you would think that it would include being extra contoversial just for the sake of it. And I think I believe him. I don't think that the article is about click baiting, and I don't think it's about helping customers. I think it's about him. I think it's just him being angry.

Haha, that article is really funny, because it's John Walker having an internet argument with Ben Kuchera circa his arrogant PAR days, which is funny, because John Walker reminds me A LOT of Ben Kuchera circa his arrogant PAR days. #iamthekingofgamesjournalism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed after finishing the game that the strange news on steam “Why Broken Age Act 2’s Story is an Awful Mess”.... I dont get it why is this news there? Can we vote against this? How is this possible?

The news has nothing to do with the game, it's just someone opinion...seems like they are paying to have their news on Steam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's super weird and annoying that with all the news articles on the game, many of them very positive, the only one that shows up on the the steam broken age news stream is THAT one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edge has reviewed it their #280. They reviewed Act 2 sepately, and gave it a nice 8/10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...