[Len Green]

........ by "Andrew MacCormack --- author of the infamous "Princess Marian" series of games.

Concerning the AG-HomePage Review of "Ben Jordan Case 5"!

The plotline itself also seemed like something of a rehash. The stories in the previous games all seem to have quite a lot of originality, but this episode's story seemed somewhat derivative of the common "Westerner thrown in amongst Japanese culture" theme, and the solution to the zombie mystery is something I've seen in a thousand X-Files episodes.

Of the previous games, I have only played Episode 4 and I enjoyed it a lot. So given the quality of that game and the reports of greatness I have heard of earlier episodes, I found Ben Jordan 5 somewhat disappointing.

What an extraordinary pair of statements/criticisms!

Apart from any other criticisms, how can "The stories in the previous games all seem to have quite a lot of originality, but this episode's story seemed somewhat derivative ......."
when the reviewer states immediately afterwards that "Of the previous games, I have only played Episode 4" ????

[Squinky]

Well, he did say that the stories in the previous games seem to have originality...

[Jackal]

So what's the problem? Certainly a game's basic story is one of the few things that CAN be known without playing it.

[Len Green]

Oh come on now ... just a modicum of logic, or just normal common sense. How can you compare Game #5 with previous ones if you haven't even taken the trouble to play them ??

[Mordalles]

i can't believe ssh hasn't played 1-3 yet. i just don't believe it. im sure he has. he probably just forgot.

[Len Green]

Perhaps the guy read through my pretty compehensive walkthrus of games 1 thro' 5 to get the "full story" ??

Sorry ... IMHO, don't write Reviews about a SERIES of games if you haven't played them.
I also happen to be one of those weirdos who thinks that it's 'bad form' to write a review about a game until you've finished it.

Being a full scale octogenerian ... maybe I'm just senile!

[Jackal]

I'll repeat again, a game's basic story is something you can easily know without playing it. Certainly enough to make a very offhand, generalized observation in passing. Not to mention, as Squinky pointed out, even that wasn't stated as a definitive fact.

Since the comment in question was quite favourable towards the previous games, then if you find this a problem, I can only suppose you're arguing that the plots of the first three games ARE, in fact, clichéd and derivative. If not, then you'll have to admit that his assessment was right, even while you're complaining that he has no right to say so.

I also happen to be one of those weirdos who thinks that it's 'bad form' to write a review about a game until you've finished it.

Well, since that very criterion is part of our stated editorial policy, I fail to see how these things are even remotely similar.

[fov]

Originally Posted by Len Green

Sorry ... IMHO, don't write Reviews about a SERIES of games if you haven't played them.
I also happen to be one of those weirdos who thinks that it's 'bad form' to write a review about a game until you've finished it.

He didn't review the series. He reviewed game #5.

Also,

Originally Posted by Adventure Gamers' editorial policies

We always finish games before publishing our final verdict.

EDIT: Yeah, what Jack said.

[Mordalles]

???

[SSH]

Some facts:

Saying that the previous games had originality is not a criticism anyway, its a compliment!

I was reviewing BJ5 only and this was a passing comment.

I have played BJ 4 and 5 all the way through and I've played a bit of episode 3. My supposition that games 1-3 seemed original is based on many things including Dave Gilbert's review of BJ1, but mainly the AGS Wiki page and the fact that BJ3 won a bunch of awards.

I will concede that perhaps what I should have said is "The premise of the previous games all seem to have quite a lot of originality, but this episode's story seemed somewhat derivative".

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Mordalles

i have to agree with lengreen here. he isn't saying anything about the plots being cliched or anything (how did you get there?), he is just saying the reviewer made comments about games he hasn't played. which is stupid.

You're welcome to agree, but "because it's stupid" isn't an argument. If your ACTUAL argument is that it's impossible to know anything about a game's plot without playing it, then you must play a lot of games you know nothing about.

And of course he isn't SAYING the plots are clichéd. You're responding to one half of a conditional statement to make a very basic point, which you obviously didn't understand. Unless he disagrees with the assessment (that the stories of the previous games are original), then he's complaining for absolutely no good reason. Saying "yeah, he's absolutely right, but he had no business saying so!" is pretty pointless.

[Mordalles]

???

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Mordalles

look, you can't make reviews by reading other people's reviews. it's stu___.

He was reviewing BJ5, and he played BJ5. He wasn't reviewing BJ1-4, so he wasn't required to play those games. An offhand comment about them is not a review.

I'm about to review Trilby's Notes, and I'm aware that it has been compared to Silent Hill. Now, I've only ever played 10 minutes of the first Silent Hill game. However, if it turns out to be appropriate, I'll still reference it in the review. I'll have to rely on reviews and articles to get the details right. This does not concern me overmuch, since Silent Hill is not what I'm reviewing.

If SSH had actually played the first three BJ games, maybe he would have made the same comment, and maybe he wouldn't. It doesn't really matter, since the point of the review is to discuss BJ5.

[Jackal]

Surreal.

Mordalles, I was simply applying a "modicum of logic" to Len's complaint (and now to yours) as he requested. You can be as offended as you want, but you haven't actually answered any of my points, and still haven't given an argument for why one game's basic plot can't be casually referenced in another game's review without playing it. And frankly, that's because there isn't one. If Game X is described as being about an archeologist who travels the globe on exciting adventures looking for priceless artifacts, then guess what? It's derivative. We all know it without having to go any further, and saying so is pretty much REQUIRED, let alone allowed. Certainly one couldn't make the leap to how that affected gameplay or difficulty or enjoyment, but Andrew didn't make that leap either. He made a very basic observation about something that's easily observable. Complaining because you think he's wrong might have some value. Complaining while agreeing that he's right is a waste of everyone's time.

[Mordalles]

look. all i said was that i agreed with leng! get it. thats it. end of discussion.
"complaining while agreeing"? what am i complaining about, and what am i agreeing about. i just said i agree with leng. thats it. dont put words in my mouth or say im "ACTUALLY" argueing this or that. im just saying i agree with leng. when i said "its stupid" i did NOT mean leng 's comment was stupid.
i dont want to answer any of your "points" because im not argueing anything with you. all im saying is i agree with leng. thats it. why cant i agree with leng?

im not going to reply here again, because it will just go on forever.
cheers. ill leave.

[SSH]

Simple question to Len and Mordalles:

Do you think the plots to BJ1-3 are original?

If so, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU ARGUING?

That's all that Jack was trying to say, I think. And I agree.

Now, by all means disagree with the review or the stated originality of any Ben Jordan game, but why can't I have an opinion on it? I haven't played Monkey Island either but surely I can say that a game uses its interface...

[Jackal]

This thread reminds me of the new PC/Mac commercial where PC keeps trying to say "touché" without actually making a point.

Mordalles, you can agree with anyone you want. That was the very first thing I said to you. But if you're not going to support your opinion with any argument whatsoever, then you may as well be arguing that the colour blue is stupid. And as site feedback, that's worthless. If it's "end of discussion" the moment it comes out of your mouth, then it's not a discussion.

And no, I most certainly did not misunderstand what you were calling stupid. You made it very obvious the multiple times you said it.

Anyway, yes, why anyone would complain unless it's wrong is one of my questions. You'd think a reviewer making a correct observation would support that he actually did know what he was talking about, and therefore was perfectly entitled to express it, particularly in such a generalized, offhand way.

So it must be an argument of principle, but I've still yet to see any case for it. All I've seen are confused rants as if we'd actually reviewed a game that wasn't played. If anyone wants to explain why a game's basic storyline can't be known without playing it, or why such a storyline can't be referenced in another game's review, then I'm listening. Otherwise, this is much ado about nothing.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Otherwise, this is much ado about nothing.

Can I be Benedick?

[Jackal]

Sorry, the play is cast. You can be the Mac in the TV commercials, though.

[RLacey]

Sounds good. Particularly if I get to wince every time the PC says "touché" .