| Title | Move over, Diablo! There's a new name in action RPGs and it's Victor Vran. |
| Author | Tom Chick |
| Posted in | Game reviews |
| When | August 1, 2015 |
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who recognized the brilliance of Sacred 2 and those who don't like to think when they're playing an action RPG. In Sacred 2's German variation on the Diablo formula, you assembled intricate character builds..
Read the full articleAfter reading such a glowing review, I was surprised that it only seems to merit 4/5. Other than it being in a genre I dislike, what kept this game from being perfect?
Honestly, if asked why I don't like ARPGs, I'd use damned near every descriptor that you say _isn't_ in this game. So I don't even know.
What kept the game from being perfect? I'm not even sure how to answer that, much less why you would ask! I raised a couple issues in the text, but otherwise, I'm not even sure what you mean when you ask about a game being perfect. I don't think we can really have that discussion unless you define what "perfect game" means to you.
(For example, we've had this discussion on the movie podcast a few times. I have a handful of "perfect movies", but I calling them "perfect movies" also involves explaining what I mean by that phrase.)
I genuinely don't know whether to like a game more or less, when at the end of it, I want more of the same.
Levelless progression? Adjustable difficulty for better loot? Gamepad support? Bulgarian? Okay, I'm in.
Corrections:
"it would be hard to convey a [sic] much personality"
"such as a greater capacity for passive bonus[es]"
I am really embarrassed to have asked, honestly. My own feeling is that all games should get 10/10, to underscore how irrelevant the number is. The words are the important part of the review.
I asked because, after reading the review, I was surprised by the score. I didn't read anything negative. The review actually had me tempted to play an ARPG! That's quite a feat.
A perfect movie- in my mind- is one where not one scene can be added or removed without diminishing the whole. My Cousin Vinny, for instance, is a perfect movie. It's funny, but also a tale of masculinity trying to prove itself. It's about a man- but about his partner. It's about the South, but it's also about how people view the south. It is about a bunch of Italians and Jews having to deal with white people- while all the while the camera is making sidelong glances at black people- so that the viewer doesn't make the same mistake as the white people in town. Brilliant movie.
I have no idea why people say it was fluff.
I think what people need to understand is that what stars mean is as subjective as any other part of a review. For Tom, four stars means "I really liked it." Five stars means "I loved it." It doesn't mean "This game was perfect."
For IGN, 7/10 means "This is a game." That's a definition of a number that they have subjectively chosen to use. It's no more or less a "correct" way to define 7/10 than Tom's definition of 4/5. It may, however, be a less useful way to review games. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
The word "perfect" was poorly chosen on my part. I guess I should have said something like:
"When reading the review, I didn't see anything that told me why Tom 'merely' liked it, rather than loving it."
So let me be clear: this is not a question about the number. It really is a sideways question about the words.
I strongly dislike the whole star rating system myself, but I implemented it over at the Review Corner (Miniature Market's review sub-site). I gave my writers a directive- if you really like or love a game, that does not make it a five star game. A five star game is a singular, impactful design that anyone interested in the hobby games medium should at least be aware of. Five stars is not a "perfect" game, it's one that in the writer's opinion is significant beyond "flaws". It doesn't mean that it maths out to 100%.
Reading this review, it totally read like what I, speaking as an EIC, would expect from a four star review.
Stars are so dumb, but it's the done thing. But you can still use them effectively, provided you use them all from zero to five so that each tier has critical value.
As I mentioned in the text, I really wish there was more of an endgame and I hate that there's no drawback to getting killed and no way to play a hardcore mode. I also think the setting and creatures are a bit generic, but that's not a really big deal. It's just something I appreciate in a game that was missing in Victor Vran. I think the difficulty spikes as you get near the final boss can get tedious.
Those are all factors in why I would say I didn't "love it".
Reserving your highest rating for "singular impactful design[s] that anyone interested in the hobby should be aware of" paints yourself into a bit of a corner.
First, how is someone supposed to gauge the impactfulness -- ugh! -- of a design? I don't understand that choice of word at all. Impactful on what? Future designs? How would I know? On current game players? How would I know? On sales? On critical reception? On popular appeal? The word singular is also problematic. A carefully honed but familiar design is excluded?
Second, are you then saying that niche designs can't get your highest rating? What if it's a very well made game -- perhaps the design is even impactful :) -- that only a subset of gamers will appreciate? A complex wargame, say? If the reviewer loved it, if it directly targeted his or her preference, it can't get your highest rating?
Third, why should your writers make assumptions about what games your readers should be aware of? I'm not even sure I know the criteria for that. Should readers be aware of niche games? Should they be aware of games in genres they don't like? You're now making assumptions about your readers.
Sure, any ratings system is arbitrary. But unless you resign yourself to it also 100% subjective and specific to the writer, you're just chasing your tail.
I feel like kind of a jerk for even asking the question, and the text does speak for itself.
I'm not sure why I didn't really pick up on the things you'd mentioned.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I always enjoy your reviews.
Victor Vran is a great name but maybe not for a game.
Sounds a little like Dark Souls, which is (almost) always good news.
I just started this game up for the first time on my Xbox, and two seconds into the intro movie voiceover both my wife and I looked at eachother and said (something in the vicinity of), “Holy mother fuckballs, that’s Geralt of Rivia talking!”
I hope the rest of this game lives up to the voicework. It’s been in my backlog for a couple years.
That was my reaction as well. I think it immediately made me like the game more.
