A Witch's Tale review

Discussion in 'Support' started by Emerald_Rocker, Feb 7, 2010.

  1. Emerald_Rocker

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    In a magazine, something written purely for laughs might work because the writers have the attention of a captive audience; people are reading for entertainment and not so much for information. They're reading every page because they have nothing better to do.

    This is not a magazine; people won't read everything, and if someone actually wants information about NIS America's latest releases, thorough analysis is just a click away. More importantly, even if I were reading purely for pleasure, this review is not funny. I signed up for the sole purpose of pointing out this review's offensiveness. It's not offensive to my gaming tastes, as I neither played nor participated in developing the game, but it's offensive to anyone who cares about quality writing or has aspirations of their own. This review tells me nothing of importance about the game, and the attempts at humor are far too forced. Truly engaging people don't need to try so hard. Talented people are also perfectly capable of entertaining while they inform.

    After reading something at this low level, I would normally dismiss the site. Fortunately, since I was already familiar with GR, I assumed they had some good reason for hiring this Ben_Card fellow. His other reviews are actually not bad (I read Magna Carta 2 and Soul Calibur: Broken Destiny). Taken on its own, this review leads me to believe that Ben_Card hates RPGs and isn't willing to give games a fair shake. Based on his other reviews, those assumptions are obviously not true. That's why this review is a failure.

    For the record, some of Herman Melville's other books are actually better than Moby Dick.
     
    #1
  2. GRColin

    GRColin Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2001
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well seeing as how GR is an online zine I fail to see how something written purely for laughs doesn't work here. If an individual reads say an Assassin's Creed II review in PC Gamer, they're doing it for entertainment by your logic. So they are in fact doing it for the same reason here. Also the reading every page because they have nothing better to do is a kind of lame statement. I picked up last month's issue of "Men's Health" and I read it for knowledge and entertainment, skipping over some of the less appealing articles.

    As I said previously, GR is an online magazine and just like a real magazine they may skip over some areas but I fail to see what that has to do with your point - Yes, a thorough analysis is a click away but Ben's review provides just enough information on the plot and anyone capable of reading comprehension can see why Ben did not like this game.

    Here's the thing - It's a release no one really cared about, it didn't make any big waves and I'm sure there already isn't much of a fan base for it. While the review is not very professional I think that's a direct reflection of Ben's respect for the title. If the developers aren't going to try very hard, why should he?

    PS. Welcome to GR NIC plant?

    Edit: I should note that I do agree this isn't Card's best review but I imagine, like a lot of reviewers he is always improving or at least trying to. Heaven forbid he took a different approach that didn't live up to your expectations.
     
    #2
  3. De-Ting

    De-Ting Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    9,058
    Likes Received:
    0
    I got out of the review that the game sucks. I am happy with that.

    However, it does, in fact, touch on aspects of the game. It tells how terrible the combat is, for example. Thus, your argument is faulty.

    Reviewing games can be tough business. If you think that you'll be able to crank out a piece of literature worthy of a nobel prize for every horrible game you'd have to review, I invite you to.
     
    #3
  4. KoalaRainbowPoop

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    strange, i read the reviews on here for information and entertainment, same as i would do with a regular magazine. your argument makes no sense in that regard.

    he got his point across in the review, the game sucked. so what if he didn't explain everything about the plot? that would in turn make it less of review and more of a spoiler.

    his job as a reviewer is to tell you if the game is good or not. and he did that.
     
    #4
  5. dUKE

    dUKE Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 1996
    Messages:
    601
    Likes Received:
    0
    you can't please everybody every time. different reviewers have different styles. ben card is a little more crazed and angry (think of him like lewis black), as opposed to say nick tan, who is a lot more thorough and sedate, say like roger ebert.

    i'm sorry you didn't like that particular review, but i do hope you'll come back for others, and hopefully enjoy them.
     
    #5
  6. Bretimus_v2

    Bretimus_v2 Hey kiddo!

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    10,979
    Likes Received:
    14
    Lethean, you have to give Nick Tan the moniker "GR's Roger Ebert" now.
     
    #6
  7. LinksOcarina

    LinksOcarina Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then who is Gene Siskel?
     
    #7

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice