Adventure Gamers - Forums

While any review I can appreciate (good or bad) as they are, after all, matters of opinion, there was one thing that stood out in his review that I was unable to accept without a “wtf?”: his assumption that the game would be, and is a disappointment to Tex fans. That was a bit harsh… especially considering it is getting such good feedback (for the most part) among the loyal Tex community. I will accept any reviewer who speaks for himself, I find it hard to accept one who tries to speak for me.

Just my $0.02.

EDIT > Just noticed he even started making fun of the people who posted comments to the review on his Twitter feed. Classy…

“Not half bad. Until the half that is”

That makes no sense.

FrasierCrane - 15 May 2014 04:59 PM

ozzie - 15 May 2014 02:54 PM

Ouch.

I think he is ridiculously critical. He claims to be a big Tex Murphy fan and then says the game is shitty because of - what - 3 logic puzzles in Sesan. I mean the Tex Murphy series always featured a lot of this types of puzzles, and now in Tesla Effect they are even skippable. [...]

He not only claims, he is a big Tex Murphy fan. Deal with it.
I agree that he doesn’t make it terribly clear in his review why the second half is so much worse than the first, especially when he say that he would have forgiven Day 5. But his tweets paint a pretty solid picture. He also wrote articles about The Pandora Directive and Mean Street.

Origami - 15 May 2014 03:46 PM

As a great appreciator of logic couldn’t help but snicker reading this comment:

“If it’s not half bad, it means the portion that is bad is less than half. Logic.”

Considering how bad this guy is at the most basic logic puzzles, it’s quite fitting.

His problem with the logic puzzles wasn’t that they were too hard. If you paid attention to the review, then you might have noticed that he actually found the game to be too easy.
Like I expected, some people try to unjustly blame the reviewer rather than admit that from his point of view he might have a point. Stop making excuses, is what I’m saying. 

Cubase - 15 May 2014 05:01 PM

I will accept any reviewer who speaks for himself, I find it hard to accept one who tries to speak for me.

True, speaking for others is never a good idea, but I don’t see how that invalidates the rest of his review.

EDIT > Just noticed he even started making fun of the people who posted comments to the review on his Twitter feed. Classy…

Which tweets are you referring to? I must have trouble finding them.

By the way: Richard Cobbett actually took on the review with the intention of righting the wrongs done to both to Overseer and the Pandora Directive (which both received around 30% in PC Gamer UK back then).

Oh no. I never said his whole review was wrong or it invalidated it overall. Was just disappointed in that part where he spoke for fans who evidently (for the most part) actually do like the game (granted he did isolate this assumption to work in parallel with his gripe with the 2nd half)... His conclusion “it literally is only half of the trumphant return both we and Tex deserved for what will likely be his final adventure” is both speaking for fans AND drawing to an evidently presumptuous conclusion which contradicts the sentiments of many fans in fact. I don’t have an issue with him also claiming or actually being a Tax Fan but any Tex fan worth his salt would have researched how other Tex Fans are actually receiving the game before making the above statements (granted some do not like it as much as others but the overall reception paints a more positive picture). Can’t get twitter working for some reason but will find that tweet soon. Basically it was in response to the guy who said: “should have gotten at least an 8” in the comment section. He tweeted: “somebody does not know how percentages work”... Despite the user obviously meaning 80%. A small jab but none the less poor form.

Edit> link to tweet:

He also has a right to express his views over twitter (I have also been reading his many tweets about the game during and post review) but I also find it curious that he is actively engaging other parties to continue the conversation about (and exemplify) the bad points about the game, whilst also actively challenging comments from people who are trying to bring up the game’s good points.

ozzie - 15 May 2014 07:02 PM

Like I expected, some people try to unjustly blame the reviewer rather than admit that from his point of view he might have a point. Stop making excuses, is what I’m saying. 

Yes, I was being hyperbolic - it was just a stupid comment and comments tend to be that way - but “professional reviews” shouldn’t be that way. Oh, wait:

“It begins with a truly appalling level set in the world’s dullest temple,... (i.a.)

That is really my main problem with all this reviews: It’s not that they don’t have valid points, they do - it’s just that they go for the cheap pun, the hyperbolic overstatement or the agenda-ridden gibberish (i.e. the Deponia or Moebius review on RPS, Tesla Effect fpllowing soon). I just don’t see anything “professional” - that means, something an amateur reviewer can’t do - about this reviews. That’s really my main complaint.

And that guy Richard Corbbett, I have just read his tweets, is just bitter right now. A bitter, cynical asshole, sorry, I just can’t put it in a nicer way.

He might be bitter, but then because he desperatedly wanted Tesla Effect to be good in his estimation so he can give it deservedly a good score. I’m not sure how you can call him an asshole for that. I think his disappointment as a fan is the reason why needs to talk so much about it to everyone. It reminds me of how I reacted to Dreamfall. I had to tell everyone how bad I thought it was, too, because as a fan of The Longest Journey it disappointed me bitterly.

I never had a problem with a Richard Cobbett review. I always can tell when hyperbole is meant to be hyperbole or that a seemingly hyperbolic statement is meant to convey a subjective impression (to me Gabriel Knight’s 3 first day felt like purgatory. It wasn’t purgatory though, was it?). I find his writing entertains as much as it informs. For me Cobbett is one of the best in the business, always well informed and fair minded and avoiding writing dry reads. I don’t see any other agenda in his reviews besides the agenda of a reviewer either.

Doom - 15 May 2014 11:18 PM

I know Richard is a long-time adventure fan…yet praises the new-age Broken Age, easily forgiving its simplified game mechanics

Ah, so he’s an “adventure game” fan, not an adventure game fan.  That about sum it up? 

I expected a scathing PC Gamer review, based on some comments here, but was surprised to find it was mixed. What also surprised me was that the review wasn’t very well-written. Cobett doesn’t clearly explain what was supposedly so “heartbreaking” about the second half. I don’t read many gaming news sites besides this one, so I don’t know which reviewers are considered especially influential, but after reading that review I don’t understand why people should be especially interested in what he has to say.

This is from the review:

Yes, come Day 5 (of 12), it all goes wrong. Painfully wrong; Tesla Effect dropping all its balls like a greased up juggler having an epileptic seizure on a bouncy castle

Lame. He’s trying too hard.

I hate it when it appears like reviewers seem more interested in coming up with snarky put-downs than in clearly laying out an argument with supporting evidence. I also don’t like it when reviewers try to make themselves the stars of the reviews and throw in lots of unnecessary self-regard (something Cobett doesn’t often do here, to be fair.)

I haven’t been able to play the game much recently due to illness and work, but I look forward to resuming. Tesla Effect is one of the few recent adventure games I have felt was more than worth the asking price. It’s fun to play!

OrionO - 16 May 2014 02:17 AM

I don’t read many gaming news sites besides this one, so I don’t know which reviewers are considered especially influential, but after reading that review I don’t understand why people should be especially interested in what he has to say.

He’s only as influential as the number of high scores he’s given to games people haven’t played yet but were hoping would be good.

Conversely, he’s only as hackneyed as the number of low scores he’s given to games people haven’t played yet but were hoping would be good.

Put another (somewhat less ridiculous) way:  This is the internet; people only care about the news sites that write things that align directly with the views they already hold. 

Just finished for the first time! Loved it - more than Under a Killing Moon but less than The Pandora Directive. (Which is not really surprising, since The Pandora Directive is my second favourite adventure game of all time.)

I was kind of meh about Sesen on Day Five, but the Swamp House and the Tesla Legacy Society were much more to my taste. There were a couple of plot points that could have used more exposition (although maybe you get that in one of the other endings) but I enjoyed the story a lot.

[spoiler]And I actually hated the oscilloscope puzzle less than the final puzzle in Pandora Directive At least I knew was I was trying to achieve with this one and didn’t have to rely on pure trial and error.[/spoiler]

Most of all, I’m happy that this was a proper Tex Murphy game. I spent the best part of fifteen years thinking we’d never see any resolution to Overseer, and here we are with a proper ending. (Or eight.) Here’s to many more adventures.

Doom - 15 May 2014 11:18 PM

FrasierCrane - 15 May 2014 09:01 PM

That is really my main problem with all this reviews: It’s not that they don’t have valid points, they do - it’s just that they go for the cheap pun, the hyperbolic overstatement or the agenda-ridden gibberish (i.e. the Deponia or Moebius review on RPS, Tesla Effect fpllowing soon). I just don’t see anything “professional” - that means, something an amateur reviewer can’t do - about this reviews. That’s really my main complaint.

I also agree mostly. Modern gonzo journalism resembles blog entries written purely for self-amusement by very ironic (and yet easily offended) travel authors. You can read all kind of stuff there, except for calm and measured critique.

Actually, I remember back in the 90s, one of the big differences between the UK PC Gamer and the US magazine by the same title was that the British version was written pretty much in this style – irreverent, snarky, punny, hyperbolic – while the American was, well, rather dull in comparison.

You don’t have to like it, but this is the style that made it the biggest game magazine on the market. In other words, this is what the most successful professional games reviewing looks like. You can find more straitlaced and sedate assessments elsewhere.

The guy gave a 58 score out of 100? And he says that he is a huge fan of Tex? What was he expecting? Another Pandora Directive? Ah, come on! Give me a break. The game brings back the Tex we knew, nothing else than that. And that is what I was expecting. The least I care in a game like this is if the graphics are not the standards, the puzzles are ilogical or hard to pass, the places are dull or whatever. The thing is: Tesla shows us the Tex we waited an wanted for back! At least, I was waiting for. My backer’s money was well invested.