The Rybicki Maneuver

[JohnnyHighGround]

The flaws named here aren't really a matter of personal preference, are they? I've heard very few people who thought the bad voice-over work or stupid level-scaling fit their personal taste perfectly. Yet so, so few reviews name it as a flaw.

See, pointing out flaws isn't a matter of personal preference. Think it's only a small flaw? Then say so, but it's your job as a journalist to still note the flaw is there. Omitting to even mention the flaw can't really be explained by personal preference.

That's just not true. It is not a reviewer's job to note every single flaw in a product. And I'm not just talking about games here. But consider Oblivion: Considering the scope and scale of the product, pointing out something like the occasionally mediocre voice work would be like, I dunno, pointing out where John Entwhistle flubbed a transition on Quadrophenia. Like pointing out the mediocre performance of a bit player in Citizen Kane. Is it a flaw? Yes. Does it matter enough to mention? God, no.

A professional reviewer, in and of any media, has a limited amount of space to work with. (Yes, even online.) To attempt to devote that space to cataloging each and every perceived (note that word, because it ties back to the perception of the individual reviewer) flaw in any product would be ludicrous.

I like it fine, it's just not my genre. But it's a very pretty, somewhat fun game, from the little I played it. Not my genre, but I liked it fine. I've just been trying to figure out how the experience I had playing it was so completely unlike how the game was reviewed. A little different, fine, I'm used to that, different interpretations, but it's like everything on the screen was the opposite of what I had read.

Oh, I totally feel you there -- I've been experiencing the same thing with the latest Zelda on the Wii. But that's what happens when people with different opinions look at the same product.

A game regarded as that good isn't going to have flaws big enough for everyone to mention.

No, it'd be more accurate to say "it's not going to have flaws big enough to mention in reviews, only to mention one year later."

You're not explaining that, Mr Rybicki, and I feel you kind of missed the point of this particular criticism. There's a lot wrong with the gaming media, and I've read about it high and low since you guys enjoy criticizing yourself so much, but while your post here addresses several of these critiques, it doesn't address this one. Why does it take you a year to find flaws most people could in fact see on the first play-through, that many of you are now stating as obvious?

My point was, these flaws were observed -- but they don't hurt the game in any appreciable way to any but the most nitpicky player, so they weren't relevant to the review. But in talking about how the Fallout engine improves upon the Oblivion engine, they are absolutely relevant. Does that make it clearer?

[A]s we Dutch say it, "if one wishes to beat a dog one can easily find a stick." We Dutch have crappy proverbs.

That is a great proverb! And I intend to use it at my earliest convenience.

That said, I didn't really have to look for it. It's so in your face, this sudden flip-about, the universally praised Oblivion suddenly becoming a springboard to Fallout 3 as Morrowind was suddenly demoted to springboard for Oblivion before it. Maybe I could understand it if we were just talking about fans or inexperienced volunteers, but you're (supposed to be) professionals. Such short-term and frivolous problems shouldn't block your view, because you've been here before. You're supposed to be the ones to look beyond the more short-term matters and hype and present the cold, hard truth. Y'know, 'cause it's your job.

As I said above, it's a question of relevance. These issues weren't relevant to the review, and I don't think anyone in the press is saying that Oblivion is suddenly not deserving of all its accolades. But in talking about how Fallout is improving upon it -- well, you have to give examples, don't you?

Take care,
-joe

 

[Brother None]

I do mention that option, tho'

What are we supposed to conclude from this? Nobody can look inside the heads of those reviewers, but why suddenly identify flaws in Oblivion now rather than a year ago, when it would still have mattered for opinion forming? Did they need a year to find these flaws? Do they not dare to criticize the game that early? Or can they only see flaws when they have something superior to compare it to?

Replace see with identify, I guess.

But that doesn't make any sense to me. Not when talking about bad voice acting, or level scaling. There are lots of elements you can shove away as personal opinion or irrelevant, but every single person I've ever heard on Oblivion was annoyed to some degree by those two elements.

That could just be a difference of opinion between you and me, but somehow while I can see your point, I can't apply it here. The difference between "flawless game!" and "this horrific flaw is getting fixed" is a bit too big to understand. If we were talking purely about minor flaws here, or if the original reviews had a tendency to name any flaws...hell, the reason I juxtaposed quotes here is to show not only that the site originally didn't recognise the flaw, but they sometimes directly contradict themselves.

Well, open question: how would this explain CVG's step from "Morrowind did the groundwork for Oblivion" to "Oblivion is less good than Morrowind based on cheapening for action." Some of these contradictions are a bit blatant.

 

[JohnnyHighGround]

Well, don't make the mistake of thinking that a highly rated game -- even a game rated with the highest score an outlet can offer -- is considered by anyone (least of all the reviewer) as "flawless." There's no such thing. (And I will happily go on record as saying that if anyone legitimately called Oblivion "flawless," that person ought not to be reviewing videogames, because they obviously lack certain skills of critical evaluation, communication, or both.)

EDIT: I would like to clarify here that, had I been the reviewer on Oblivion anytime before the PS3 version, I would have unhesitatingly given it a 10 out of 10. In my opinion, what is the top of the scale for, if not for games just like Oblivion? I do very much love the game. It certainly has flaws, quite a lot of them, actually. But they are so completely overwhelmed by all the things Oblivion does right that they're barely worth mentioning, much less docking the score for (I would have made every effort to explain this in my review, of course). But that's my opinion -- and if the occasional repeated line or mediocre voice acting particularly bothers you, well, you'd score it differently. And that's OK. /EDIT

Your question about CVG, are you referring to the quotes from PC Zone included in your article? (I skimmed the article again but didn't notice or remember any CVG references.) Anyway, if so, I think the first quote explains the situation adequately: The review was one person's opinion -- the "101 best games ever" list (or whatever) was arrived at by a (bitterly contested) vote of, I presume, the entire staff of the magazine.

I do applaud the research that went into this piece, but I think you're basing your assumptions on a basic misunderstanding of how the games media works. With very few exceptions, a review is a single person's subjective experience. Comparing reviews to previews, especially previews and reviews written by different people, doesn't really get us anywhere. They're saying different things? Well, yeah. They're serving different purposes, and probably written by different people.

The fact that one previewer notes flaws in Oblivion when writing about Fallout tells us absolutely nothing about the validity of a review, written by a separate person, 16 months ago.

Take care,
-joe

 

[analord]

Honestly going into to a review one shouldn't be pulling any punches. You should be disecting the game limb from limb and you should brutal, then arrive at your final score. If the game gets a good rating besides your over analyzation and cherry picking then you know, truly, it's a good game. Perhaps you could reevaluate it again, or get a second opinion. I assume reviewers think critically about the game in relativity to the game's depth. Therefor something like Halo can get an 8 out of 10 smacked on it without a second thought but something like Oblivion (a big game) should be thought about a lot before achieving any conclusion.