Adventure Gamers - Forums

ozzie - 15 May 2014 02:54 PM

Ouch.

There doesn’t seem to be any evidence there that the reviewer played beyond Chapter 5 but I’m sure he did - yes?

I’ve so far loved the game up until Chapter 9 which is now like having a bucket of cold water thrown over the whole experience! I’m fed-up of constantly getting the death screen which spoils the exploratory aspect & immersion, I’m fed-up with back & forthing between levels looking for stuff in such large environments because I’m missing stuff I need to progress with & not sure what - I HATE this Day!

chrissie - 16 May 2014 10:28 AM

I’m fed-up with back & forthing between levels looking for stuff in such large environments

Keep in mind you can use the right-click map to jump around areas of the facility you’ve already visited.

Doom - 16 May 2014 02:13 PM

Btw, it’s a good moment to praise Adventure Gamers It never felt the need to step into gonzo journalism. Yet, unlike JA+ and many other adventure- and non-adventure-related sites, the reviews here always had this nice, easy flow. They are informative, yet never boring. That’s how I like my game journalism.

Hear hear. I have been consistently impressed with AGs content and its staff for a very long time. Keep up the good work AG!

Meanwhile Mr Cobbett appears to be continuing his rant about the game on Twitter, constantly engaging parties who appear to agree, and almost bullying them into sharing his opinion if they are on the fence (often using foul language to describe the game in a manner that comes across as overly aggressive). Whilst at the same time he is continuing to belittle anybody who is attempting to provide any feedback with regards to what they thought were positive aspects of the game. I won’t even begin to get into how he is choosing to respond to some who (not to my liking either) chose to hit back. Witness his conversation with user @FredrikOlsen who initially stated that despite Cobbett’s initial assessment, the game may have had a redeeming quality in one of the endings, until Cobbett intervened with his crusade to exemplify all the bad points (already exemplified in his review, ad finem).

I’m sorry, Ozzie… I was able to respect (and even share your opinion) that Cobbett was a fine reviewer up until this point… but now, I can safely say that I no longer have a single iota of respect for the man. Such a shame, because the industry needs good reviewers!

Disclaimer: Once again, I don’t say this because I necessarily disagree with his review… It’s more so a matter of how he has chosen to handle the review, and the aftermath.

Snatcher42 - 16 May 2014 12:06 PM

chrissie - 16 May 2014 10:28 AM

I’m fed-up with back & forthing between levels looking for stuff in such large environments

Keep in mind you can use the right-click map to jump around areas of the facility you’ve already visited.

Thanks Snatcher42 - that did help & I can’t think why I never thought to use the map as I’ve been using it all the time in The Pandora Directive which I’m also playing. Oh well, I did only end up as a canary in the Spade and Marlowe Scale of Private eye Intelligence!

Monolith - 16 May 2014 01:50 PM

chrissie - 16 May 2014 10:28 AM

I’ve so far loved the game up until Chapter 9 which is now like having a bucket of cold water thrown over the whole experience! I’m fed-up of constantly getting the death screen which spoils the exploratory aspect & immersion, I’m fed-up with back & forthing between levels looking for stuff in such large environments because I’m missing stuff I need to progress with & not sure what - I HATE this Day!

At no point did any of that change from the previous games.

Apart from The Pandora Directive which I’ve only just finished I haven’t played any of the previous games up until now. The maze was pretty boring in TPD but at least you don’t keep getting the death screen in it! As for the Roswell entity - once you’ve contained it you can explore at leisure unlike TE where there’s no let-up!

I’ve finished the gsme now & just loved it ......except for Day 9! All I needed to enjoy that chapter so much better was to be able to pick up & use a big buzzy thing zapper at the start - mines & blue bolts no problem!

Iv only played it for a few hours, but i really do love this.. and cant help but feel like this is exactly the ideal kind of revival we hoped to get from kickstarted games. It may not be a perfect game, it may not have the best graphics, or the best puzzle design ever, but it sure is a tex murphy game, and a good one at that.

For anyone unfamiliar with Richard Cobbett, it may help to know what his voice and demeanor are like, so that his sense of humor can be taken in that context. (No matter how good a writer you are, tone of voice carries more nuance.) Here is a video he did about Heroine’s Quest. I do not know the man, but as far as I can tell he is a harmless teddy bear.

Cubase - 16 May 2014 02:42 PM

Witness his conversation with user @FredrikOlsen who initially stated that despite Cobbett’s initial assessment, the game may have had a redeeming quality in one of the endings, until Cobbett intervened with his crusade to exemplify all the bad points (already exemplified in his review, ad finem).

I checked out the full conversation between Richard Cobbett and Frederik Olsen, and it actually seems pretty cordial to me. Just a chat between two fans with mixed feelings about the Tesla Effect, one (Frederik) leaning more positive, one (Richard) leaning more negative, but each one demonstrating understanding of where the other is coming from, and each one saying they would love another Tex game despite any issues they had with this one. They both seem to be genuinely enjoying talking about the game, even if this includes criticizing aspects of the experience they had, as fans often do.

I will grant that Richard Cobbett’s been a tad snarky about some of the comments left on the PC Gamer review, as for example in the tweet that you mentioned (

). Poor form, yes, I can agree to that, but I don’t really think there’s any genuine venom intended there.

That doesn’t mean people have to like Richard Cobbett’s writing, consider him a good journalist, or agree with his Tesla Effect review, of course.

Hey folks. Because I just can’t resist jumping into anthills sometime :-)

“Meanwhile Mr Cobbett appears to be continuing his rant about the game on Twitter, constantly engaging parties who appear to agree, and almost bullying them into sharing his opinion”

I really don’t think that’s fair, unless by “engaging” you mean “replying to messages to him”. I haven’t tried to browbeat anyone into anything, and the conversation with Frederik - someone I’ve talked to plenty of times before - was civil and friendly to the point that Adrian Carr joined in at the end of it and we were all joking around about the next game having a Rook bromance path. Mostly it was discussing our different experiences, notably that he ended his first playthrough with the Chelsee ending (which as I’ve said elsewhere, I think would have made a *big* difference to my mood on finishing), while I got the Petrified Forest, and then chatting specifics.

“A small jab but none the less poor form.”

Sorry, but I do get rather bored of being insulted after most reviews and things being intentionally misrepresented, like the comment about death sequences that I specifically said wasn’t worth caring about being held up as a reason I’m an idiot. I work alone in an empty house and occasionally being snarky on Twitter is more satisfying than punching a pillow.

“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”

Well, at least my cats love me.

“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)...”

That doesn’t attempt to speak for anyone else. It’s my personal opinion that the second half drops the ball hard and that both Tex and fans deserved a game that was as good as the first half all the way through. That’s all it says. I actively don’t read other peoples’ reviews before writing, and had only been into the forum briefly to get a couple of hints on the bee puzzle because I thought it was a death field killing me in the hive rather than a minefield.

If other Tex fans didn’t mind, honestly, I think that’s great and I’m really glad for them. The great thing about internet reviews is that they can cover a spectrum of opinions, good and bad.

“I know Richard is a long-time adventure fan, but I have trouble understanding why he trashes Kickstarter games that try to stay as true to their roots as possible to satisfy their fans (Broken Sword 5, Tesla Effect), and yet praises the new-age Broken Age, easily forgiving its simplified game mechanics.”

I haven’t criticised a single Kickstarter game for staying true to its roots. I criticised Broken Sword and Tesla Effect for specific failings (as I saw them) within their respective frameworks, which in Broken Sword’s case were primarily narrative based things, which I went into a fair amount of detail on my reasoning for - the split between magic and mundane, the lack of drama, the bitty writing, and so on. None of them were tied to Broken Sword’s roots, they were just poorly executed in this specific instalment.

As for Tesla Effect, as I said, I had *no* serious problems with Tesla Effect’s first half. I loved the new world, the engine, FMV, the writing, all of it. My problems hit at the halfway point, when I felt it became a complete mess, for many reasons that stretched from story to mechanics. Now, sure, some are endemic to the series, but not to the point that they’re part of the experience rather than something that should be improved on. I don’t think expecting *some* learning from the past is too much to ask, even on Kickstarter.

For Broken Age, yes, it’s a mechanically simple game. But I also felt it was successful at what it was trying to do. For similar reasons, I don’t care too much if the puzzles are simple in a Walking Dead episode as long as the emotion and events carry the story, didn’t criticise The Blackwell Epiphany for not responding to decisions. I try to take a game on their own terms, and that includes going for an old-school vibe. I don’t however think this is an automatic defence.

“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.”

Word counts. I was already over my limit (it was meant to be 800, which I overshot dramatically), and they’re summed up. I could go into great detail about what I see as problems, from the pathing cutting out important plot information, to the romances making no logical sense, to the continuity errors later on, to the aforementioned Petrified Forest ending that finished my first playthrough, but it would have read like a boring list that everyone would just have declared to be Being Picky. I’d go into details, but I’ve already been accused of trying to browbeat people :-)

Really, this is one of those things that you can’t win on. When people want to disagree, they’ll ALWAYS find a reason to dismiss/discredit a review. (“Poor grammar” is a classic, as is “But Game X got…”)

And I had *no* interest in coming up with snarky putdowns. As I’ve said on Twitter, I had Tesla Effect marked down for a low-80s score until Day 5. Slamming it was done with incredible sadness.

“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? “

Uh. Yeah! That would have been nice! :-) And it was on its way to being that.

Poor form, but I don’t really think there’s any genuine venom.

There is rarely venom. There is often snark. Sometimes there are rude words because it’s off the cuff.

Well Richard,

Seeing as you have taken the time to engage in a civil manner I will discontinue my role in this discussion, and take the time to thank you for at least coming in and joining this discussion, even if I feel (and badly so) that your involvement was sparked by a need to act in self-defense. As I stated in some of my above posts, it was less a case of disagreeing with your review, and more a case of being caught off-guard with your “style” and your twitter feed which appeared to continue the negative sentiments in a sometimes aggressive manner. Bullying was probably not the right word. I would like to say it was more a case of pushing a point already exemplified ad finem in your review. That said, you have responded in a fair manner (and it appears the cited conversation had resolved into a bit of casual banter as you exemplified). You even apologized with regards to your inclination to act in self-defense at some of the more coarse assessments of your review. “Sorry, but I do get rather bored of being insulted after most reviews”... yes, it comes with the territory of being a reviewer however. The way you disagree with some of the reviews of your review (we would call them) is likened to those who chose to disagree with your review in the first place. As a seasoned reviewer and writer, this should be a pretty common experience for you (even though I hope it is not)?

I can say, however (and this is observational only) you are the first reviewer who I have seen to engage his audience (both positive and negative respondents) to this degree after a review. I saw your tweet to Fredrik too (re: bullying, the cheeky apology). If I were to offer ANY advice it would be to probably just take the good with the bad, and not get too cheeky when it comes to the aftermath (even though, I will respect it may be your style) because this can become a slippery slope after a while and I would hate to see it get too far out of hand. Adding fuel to the fire is never good, and most other reviewers probably ignore negative feedback (rather than engage it) for this reason. That said, you are your own man and choose to engage how you see fit, so I personally will respect that.

Either way, I will finish with: like you, I also hope for a new game, sorry that parts of Tesla were disappointing for you, but at the same time let’s just all go back to doing what we were doing, and that is: enjoying video games!

“The way you disagree with some of the reviews of your review (we would call them) is likened to those who chose to disagree with your review. As a seasoned reviewer and writer, this should be pretty common practice, unless I am mistaken.”

Being hit repeatedly in the forehead with a spoon would soon become normal, but put up with it for day after day and year after year after year and it’s going to get old in a hurry.

To be clear, I have *no* issue with people disagreeing with what I say. Ever. All reviews are inherently subjective. All I can do is set things out as best as I can, and hope it’s of use to people. But sometimes, especially after tough articles, it gets difficult dealing with people actively misreading things in the name of getting cross, being personally insulting, launching into dramatic conspiracy theories and so on. As a reminder, I don’t have an office of friendly people acting as a buffer or to provide any degree of support whatsoever (as a freelance writer, you usually don’t even get acknowledgement of submissions from editors). It’s just me, and a PC, trying to do the best job I can and knowing that whatever I say, someone is going to get pissed about it.

This is of course far from the worst thing in the world. But sometimes, I do have to take a moment to sigh. And Twitter is inherently a more raw conversation than other places, which is what makes it interesting.

(The *real* venting, you pretty much never get to see…)

I can say, however (and this is observational only) you are the first reviewer who I have seen to engage his audience (both positive and negative respondents) to this degree after a review. I saw your tweet to Fredrik too (re: bullying, the cheeky apology). If I were to offer ANY advice it would be to probably just take the good with the bad, and not get too cheeky when it comes to the aftermath

I engage as much as I can, not because I feel I have to, but because I think it’s usually worth actually having the conversation rather than just the echoing. Depends on the situation, of course. Some forums, some sites, it’s a waste of everyone’s time, but I’ve always liked AG as a site and generally find it pretty level-headed in discussions. Generally I stick to commenting on the articles’ sites themselves though. I just saw this one through my stats logs and had a few minutes and an account I remembered the password to. Since there were interesting things being raised, it seemed worthwhile trying to address at least a few of them.

But being snarky on the side? That’s me, that’s what I do. I’m freelance, my boss says it’s okay

Doom - 16 May 2014 02:13 PM

True, the style is very popular, and it is often a better read than “graphics this… sound that…” kind of analytics - that’s it, if it’s done properly. The problem for me is that it became a standard and even a new form of entertainment. Whole magazines and websites are dedicated to those sarcastic opinions that tell you everything and nothing. Lots of readers don’t really care about games they describe anymore, they want to laugh or to discuss unrelated topics like sexism and art.

You’re surely right that reviews often serve as entertainment or to discuss other (I wouldn’t say unrelated) topics. Personally I don’t see that as a bad thing.

There are many more reviews for many more games than most people can play, and I bet a lot of people reading reviews aren’t really trying to decide whether to buy the game being covered. So the review itself better offer some other reason for why they should read it.

This doesn’t necessarily mean it leaves out information about the game, although in this case I did feel Richard was too vague about what the problems in the second half were that caused him to drop his score from somewhere in the 80s to somewhere in the 50s.

Also, this is not to say that there aren’t terrible examples of game reviews in this style. But I’m inclined to blame that on bad reviewers, not conclude that there’s anything inherently wrong with the style. And I find it tiresome when fans latch onto things like jokes in a review in an attempt to “prove” the reviewer unfair. YMMV.

This doesn’t necessarily mean it leaves out information about the game, although in this case I did feel Richard was too vague about what the problems in the second half were that caused him to drop his score from somewhere in the 80s to somewhere in the 50s.

Mid-game problems are the hardest to cover, because reviews don’t typically have the time or space to dig too deeply into the necessary context. (And people don’t tend to read examples as examples anyway, but seize on them as vulnerable points to chip away at - as seen in the comments, where one guy says “I just skipped them!” and ignores the wider context, and another demands “You recommended Overseer when it had the same puzzle?!” despite my thinking being more about the other bits, like the story, the Slade fights and Gideon’s wonderful death than whether or not the logic puzzles specifically were interesting. Not picking on those guys, that’s just what pretty much always happens in these situations, or for games people haven’t played yet, stock variants like “So why did Dark Souls 2 get away with it then?”)

At some point you either have to analyse the entire game in depth and really dig into why things don’t work - which I’m actually all in favour of people doing more often, but isn’t a review as such - or resort to some handwaving in the interests of brevity. When it’s specific things, there’s more space to explain, like if say, simply the stealth sequences had been wretched, or if it was just Sesen or Tesla Legacy that had let the side down a bit. When everything just deflates at once though, as I unfortunately felt Tesla Effect did, even a pliable word count only goes so far. You’re never going to convince someone who disagrees anyway, and in trying to explain things, you’re likely to head too far into spoiler country for people who are going to buy the game.

(And I didn’t want to carve away all the positive stuff that I said earlier on, because that’s a key part of the game as well. I wouldn’t have been so disappointed by the second half if it hadn’t started out so strong.)

As for the style, UK gaming mags primarily evolved out of zines and music journalism back in the day, and so snark, silly metaphors, jokes, funny captions are so on are both expected and baked into how we do it. US style tends to be a bit more formal. We aim for more of a feel that we’re talking to you directly, with many mags going for a vibe that you’re hanging out with the team rather than being Educated About Games. As such, reviews are meant to be entertaining reads whether or not you specifically care about the game, not least because in their print form, you’re paying quite a lot of money for a magazine and every page has to contribute to making it worthwhile. That they can be silly though doesn’t mean they’re not taken seriously.

That Slade fight in Overseer was the worst thing in the (post-UAKM) series. It was the one part where they actually resorted to the sort of “FMV-game” tropes that gave the genre a bad name in the first place.

I still think you’re nuts if you call Overseer a better game than Tesla Effect. Or at least a nostalgic in need of a refresher.