Pimpin Reviews: Dragon Age Origins vs Rise of the Argonauts

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

It is insulting to see Dragon Age: Origins compared to somthing as mediocore as Rise of the Argonauts.

Very well balanced and well written Vs review. I bow to your superior skills.

I also think the lack of a 'tits or GTFO' option is inexcusable.

Heart of Darkness:
All right, I'm going to leave some comments here. Not in the "Oh, this review is good, bravo!" category, but rather in an area that is more beneficial to you as a reviewer: criticism.

And now to dive into some criticism.

Now I'm not trying to excuse myself here, but I try to get out my reviews on a weekly basis. So yes, polish doesn't get the attention it deserves. I do try and go over my review enough times even after it is out to clear some things up. Editing isn't one of my strongest suits, but I'm trying.

Heh, this is a critism that I've heard before from people like joethekeller. What I like to think is that I try to merge the sections of casual readers and other reviewer readers into my reviews. I try to break up my reviews in a way that leaves my casual reader less daunted. For a site like Game Critics which focuses heavily on the review aspect rather than entertainment value, I leave them out completely.

That's a problem I really have with the VS reviews. The Vs review is much more structured. Usually, I despise breaking up reviews into segments. In my single game reviews, I would never do this. However, the VS reviews have not been perfected. I'm working on a style and method of doing them that doesn't involve breaking them. But for now, this works easiest and is most pleasing to the reader. I'm working on it though.

Hmmm... To be truthful, I didn't italicize them because they had to come up so often. But I will. As for the captions part, I think I will do that from now on.

This is something I new would come up, this section was originally longer, but I snipped it due to the story part being twice the length of the other parts. The thing is that the developers keep the main picture of Greek Mythology, but fuck up the details. The most obvious case is with the character Atalanta. In Greek mythology, she was cast into the wild by her father who wanted a son and grew up there. Then she held races to find her suitor and some guy used the golden apples to make her stop while running to pick them up then Zues turned them into lions for being to prideful. (Yea I'm paraphrasing). But in the game her parents died on an island and she is raised my centaurs. And while this case seems trivial, its little things like this that obscure the entire picture.

Heart of Darkness:
That's my criticism. It's not a bad review by any stretch; it's certainly better than some of the stuff I've seen on here. But there is still plenty of room for improvement.

Again, thanks for taking the time.

And now for the rebuttal!

Pimppeter2:

Heart of Darkness:
All right, I'm going to leave some comments here. Not in the "Oh, this review is good, bravo!" category, but rather in an area that is more beneficial to you as a reviewer: criticism.

And now to dive into some criticism.

Now I'm not trying to excuse myself here, but I try to get out my reviews on a weekly basis. So yes, polish doesn't get the attention it deserves. I do try and go over my review enough times even after it is out to clear some things up. Editing isn't one of my strongest suits, but I'm trying.

As I said, typing these up in a word processor, or at least running them through one before you post, will help to eliminate a lot of those errors. A few mistakes aren't bad, but when you miss tiny details like commas and apostrophes frequently, it adds up, and these omissions detract from the quality as a whole.

Heh, this is a critism that I've heard before from people like joethekeller. What I like to think is that I try to merge the sections of casual readers and other reviewer readers into my reviews. I try to break up my reviews in a way that leaves my casual reader less daunted. For a site like Game Critics which focuses heavily on the review aspect rather than entertainment value, I leave them out completely.

Er, I think you might have missed my point, or see it from a different angle. I mean, it's great you use the pictures to break it up, but you'll get more use out of the pictures if they at least somewhat relate to the text around them. Comedy is a good thing as well, but using pictures solely for entertainment value, again, detracts from the review as a whole. If you can, make the humor relative to the text or game, as well--using phrases like "tits or GTFO" detract from your credibility.

Also, don't refer to people as "casual" readers. Chances are, people will read your reviews in order to get information on the game, whether they've played it or not. Using pictures and captions smartly will also allow you to offer more to your readers, regardless of their reasons for reading.

That's a problem I really have with the VS reviews. The Vs review is much more structured. Usually, I despise breaking up reviews into segments. In my single game reviews, I would never do this. However, the VS reviews have not been perfected. I'm working on a style and method of doing them that doesn't involve breaking them. But for now, this works easiest and is most pleasing to the reader. I'm working on it though.

Okay, then I can see why this happens. I do have a suggestion, though: just write your versus reviews in the same style as your single reviews, just with slight differences in paragraph structure. For instance, you could try doing this:

"P1: Intro
P2: Game 1's battle system
P3: Game 2's battle system as it compares to Game 1"

...or even just add it on to the end of the paragraph, comparing each aspect of each game to the other game's equivalent counterpart. Unique elements can still be talked about separately, and it still allows you to use more fluid transitions without resorting to the artificial segment headings. Just a thought, though.

Hmmm... To be truthful, I didn't italicize them because they had to come up so often. But I will. As for the captions part, I think I will do that from now on.

Italicizing them helps your review to achieve higher levels of professionalism, so it's always a smart thing to do. Same with the captions; the more distracting they are, the less professional (unless, of course, that's your intention).

This is something I new would come up, this section was originally longer, but I snipped it due to the story part being twice the length of the other parts. The thing is that the developers keep the main picture of Greek Mythology, but fuck up the details. The most obvious case is with the character Atalanta. In Greek mythology, she was cast into the wild by her father who wanted a son and grew up there. Then she held races to find her suitor and some guy used the golden apples to make her stop while running to pick them up then Zues turned them into lions for being to prideful. (Yea I'm paraphrasing). But in the game her parents died on an island and she is raised my centaurs. And while this case seems trivial, its little things like this that obscure the entire picture.

Alright, then. I can see why this would be a bad thing to someone not familiar with Greek mythology, but to those who are familiar with it should still be able to see what the developers took poetic license with. In any case, though, I think that paragraph in the actual review could still use some clarification.

Heart of Darkness:
That's my criticism. It's not a bad review by any stretch; it's certainly better than some of the stuff I've seen on here. But there is still plenty of room for improvement.

Again, thanks for taking the time.

No problem.

I too divide RPGs into similar segments.

I wouldn't consider Mass Effect 2i to be an RPG in the vein of the genre, as say Dragon Age whichis a pretty much the definition of an RPG. I lump things like JRPGS, Mass Effect 2, and even games like Infamous and The Legend of Zelda into a category that is semi-separate from RPG territory. I think the main problem is that they're lumping these genre breaking games into places they don't fit.Mass Effect 2 was indeed a great game (IMO), but it was not the RPG experience of the year, and I think that effected some peoples opinion of the game.

There's nothing wrong with a static character to roleplay as. But my problem with Rise of the Argonauts is that Jason is neither of these things. He's not a blank slate, because the game doesn't offer any options to mold him into either side. I think that the game would have been the type to benefit from a morality bar. Jason also isn't a set character because the game simply doesn't devolve into character development enough. There's this part were you venture into the homeland of your wife, which really shows some of Jason's emotions and motivation, however the other parts of the game (85% of it) don't share the same theme. Simply, the game offered choices but they neither effected Jason nor did they make sense with the character they tried to make Jason to be. If he had been a fully fleshed out character, it would have been much easier to sympathize with him.

I see where you're coming from, but what bothered me with Rise of the Argonauts is that it was dead set with trying to label itself under the same title as games like Dragon Age pre and post release.

Had it been like say Bioshock, it would have changed my opinion on the game completely. (Mind, it wouldn't have made it much better, but still). The game sold itself like the RPG that was "hip" and it suffered from that.

There's nothing wrong with an Action Adventure with upgradeable elements and dialogue choices, but once it tries selling itself as the RPG experience then it pits itself against games like DA:O and Oblivion.

Pimppeter2:
I too divide RPGs into similar segments.

I wouldn't consider Mass Effect 2i to be an RPG in the vein of the genre, as say Dragon Age whichis a pretty much the definition of an RPG. I lump things like JRPGS, Mass Effect 2, and even games like Infamous and The Legend of Zelda into a category that is semi-separate from RPG territory. I think the main problem is that they're lumping these genre breaking games into places they don't fit.Mass Effect 2 was indeed a great game (IMO), but it was not the RPG experience of the year, and I think that effected some peoples opinion of the game.

There's nothing wrong with a static character to roleplay as. But my problem with Rise of the Argonauts is that Jason is neither of these things. He's not a blank slate, because the game doesn't offer any options to mold him into either side. I think that the game would have been the type to benefit from a morality bar. Jason also isn't a set character because the game simply doesn't devolve into character development enough. There's this part were you venture into the homeland of your wife, which really shows some of Jason's emotions and motivation, however the other parts of the game (85% of it) don't share the same theme. Simply, the game offered choices but they neither effected Jason nor did they make sense with the character they tried to make Jason to be. If he had been a fully fleshed out character, it would have been much easier to sympathize with him.

First off, take nothing of this as confrontational. I'm not trying to be that, but rather trying to engage in a conversation. Admittedly not the best place for it, but eh. I've derailed threads worse in the past.

You do need to clarify what "similar" segments mean, as I only gave my categories, not my subcategories of RPGs; namely, action, turn-based, pen-and-paper, tactical, and sandbox/open-world. Mass Effect seems like something that would fall into action RPG territory (but I haven't played the games in the franchise, so I can't say for certain). It's still technically an RPG, but maybe not in the same vein as Dragon Age: Origins or something like The Elder Scrolls franchise. Doesn't mean it's not an RPG, but rather that it takes the RPG perspective from a different angle.

And while I can see why you have problems with Rise of the Argonauts in terms of the main character, it seems like you dismiss the game from the RPG category for two petty reasons: lack of loot and lack of a morality system. Lack of loot isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is instead more realistic; why can you only harvest venom from certain specimens of poisonous spiders and and not others, and why is this dire wolf dropping gold and lockpicks? And while I can see why you have issues with RotA's morality system (with an implemented base but lack of influence on either character or story), it doesn't necessarily make it any less of an RPG; sometimes, perceived growth is enough to role-play.*

There's also the fact that not every game needs a morality system, and that morality systems are simply much, much too complex to actually work in anything other than pen-and-paper RPGs (Dragon Age: Origins circumvents the problem rather than solves it from what I've played of it, so meh). And, as an aside, I wouldn't go so far at to say that Dragon Age: Origins as the singular definition, just a high example, right down to the cliches.

*Either way, your opinions on why Rise of the Argonauts isn't an RPG actually creates a retroactive contradiction with one of your previous reviews. It's not important to the overall conversation, but it'd be nice if you can clear a few things up for me.

I think my problem with Rise of the Argonauts is the hype that I mentioned in the review. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with what Action RPGs do, but rather how RotA tries to paint itself as something akin to Dragon Age

When I mentioned loot and moral choice, its becuase those are things that allow customization. The game neither lets me roleplay as my own Jason, nor as a set character. Jason lacks any depth or value as a character as to be able to role play in his shoes. At the same time the game tries to make a customizable Jason, one that reflects me. But without loot and stuff like that, I can't have my own Jason. He's talented in each weapon just as the other, there's only like 4 armors in total, and even if I go with an Ares-like Jason, it doesn't effect the way the story progresses or the way my character acts.

I think the review you're refering to is Cleril's Haven; and I see where you're coming from. Howerver Haven doesn't paint itself as a game like Dragon Age, unlike RotA. My biggest problem with the game is that it tries to please everyone. The game could have worked as an Action RPG with cutscenes, or as an RPG like Dragon Age with a fully customizable player character.

Sorry if I'm not making much sense, if in a Study hall writing this, if I'm being unclear just tell me about it and I'll rephrase.

Pimppeter2:
(>^O^)> ==> (>^x^)>
Kirby eats your posts!

Bah, your spoiler-ing of my posts prevents the quote message from appearing in my inbox. Bah.

I can see where you're coming from with this, too. Seems like whatever morality system was used in RotA was abandoned part-way through, and it's coding was never fully removed. Or maybe the developers ran out of time for it; I dunno. But yeah, from the way you describe it, it sounds like a pretty terrible RPG in those terms. Well, maybe not completely terrible, but meh. I need to review your review, and I'm not entirely on-board with doing that before my Art History class.

And that doesn't really explain why the contradiction arose in the first place, but at least you know what I'm talking about. I just find it weird that you praised that game for the same reason why you slam RotA, especially considering I thought Haven wanted to be a non-combat RPG with a moral choice system.

As for the please everyone comment, you're talking about RotA, correct? Took me a while to figure out you moved onto a new point.

ASIDE: Also, I'm not gonna post again until I post my Mother 3 review. I thought I'd have more time for this, but apparently not. Guess I know what I'm doing in my Digital Media class tonight...

Heart of Darkness:
I laughed so hard at the Kirby thing

Bah I've intertwined like 3 topics and am confusing the hell out of myself.

Anyways, thanks for taking the time. Can't wait to read your review.

Pimppeter2:

Heart of Darkness:
I laughed so hard at the Kirby thing

Bah I've intertwined like 3 topics and am confusing the hell out of myself.

Anyways, thanks for taking the time. Can't wait to read your review.

Heh. Happens to all of us.

And again, no problem. My review's up now, so I'm no longer forcing myself to not post. Woo! Freedom!

do the DA:O DLC next plz. i want to know weather or not to spend my precious, precious money.

I have removed my words from this site.

LWS666:
do the DA:O DLC next plz. i want to know weather or not to spend my precious, precious money.

It'll be out later today. Promise.

joethekoeller:
I said that? Wait I remember. I believe I called the image use excessive. Well that was just my personal philosphy on image use shining through, I don't really believe it to be any more valid than yours. And I'm not one to complain but you misspelled my name. No hard feelings it's a nightmare to the english-speaking demographic.

I'm going to be trying a format reboot soon with a different more proffessional approach on a new type of review series. Also, in my defense I was typing on my schools minilaptops, and they make me RAGGEEE. I always read it as "keller" don't know why, I think I may have confused it with 'killer' for a while. What does "koeller" stand for anyways? A last name, or some culture refrence I'm not getting?

Also, Review Wars scores gou up tonight!

Anyway, thanks for the comments guys.

I have removed my words from this site.

That was long, very long! Unfortunately I am currently crunched for time, so I will give this review the full attention it deserves when I have more time, and at such this post will be edited with a proper opinion.

Ok now that I have had the chance to actually read this, I thought it was very well detailed.
As for how to make future reviews better, Heart of Darkness pretty much said anything I might say and I really doubt I could say it any better than he did.

It is funny but the conversation between Pimppeter and Heart of Darkness concerning the Jason's supporting caste reminded me of an off-kilter game I had long ago for my Sega Saturn, Herc's Adventures, in which you played as either Jason, Hercules, or Atlanta.
Keep on Pimpin, the Dragon approves!

I wish your reviews were on the front page, means I'd know when they came around rather than being lucky in the recently posted feed.

Enjoyed reading through the whole comparison, as per usual. I look forward to reading whatever you release next.

PS. If the NCIS in your upcoming section is the TV show with Gibbs on TV, please do that next.

Great review as always pimp. could dragon age become your new elder scrolls?

I love dragon age in every single way...except for the combat, the combat to me is almost too simple and almost reminds me of turn baised combat without the turns.

RotA seemed really interesting at first, but it got mediocre reviews so I passed it up, I think Ill try it out though.

Pimppeter2:

image
I still argue Oblivion still has the best companions

When did I miss that companion?
I just got some damn Ork who wanted to be a knight.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked