Review RPG Codex Review: Pillars of Eternity, by Decado

[Night Goat]

He knows that his review is shit and is just making excuses.

 

[Lurker King]

He did it for free. I remember seeing a tv documentary on prostitution that some russian teens were doing it for free, just to be with small celebrities. Its a bit the same the review is for free , just to be pal with obsidian.

As for the second and third choice it will be one of the indies , depends what get released. Second underail most hyped game here , third sits likely . No dead state or age of decadence cause they are a good games but the devs are not small celebrities.

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Eyestabber]

Wait, isn't 2015 the year that AoD, Underrail and Serpents are released? So how will this lead to a PoE vs Witcher 3? Dafuq...?

 

[Kz3r0]

Wait, isn't 2015 the year that AoD, Underrail and Serpents are released? So how will this lead to a PoE vs Witcher 3? Dafuq...?

This is how true decline looks.

 

[Decado]

He knows that his review is shit and is just making excuses.

Man I feel like some of you guys have a lot to learn.

 

[Lurker King]

We need to forge a Codexian pact to vote and defend no matter what a game worthy of carring the monocled banner of true rpginess, until now we have Serpent in the Staglands, if Age of Decadence is released this year we should switch to that, I dount Underrail will be released this year, in case that should become our champuion. Who is with me

No, Age of Decadence should be our champion at all costs. If we brush this aside, I'm with you.

 

[वाहन]

It is extremely tacky to argue the merits of something you have already written. Jesus guys how do you not know this.

could you elaborate, please?

 

[Decado]

Do you know what "kill the author" means?

The piece stands as written. If I start defending it beyond saying "I stand by this,", or agreeing to people's interpretation of it, it is no longer the piece I originally wrote, right? We would be talking about what I wrote, and then the subsequent discussion (content wise) of what I've added to it. The piece is what it is. And I stand behind every word of it. If I have to argue my point, then that means as a piece of writing it is incomplete.

tl;dr once you open that door there is no going back, the piece is never "done."

 

[Tigranes]

I'm fully respectful of an author who lets the text speak for itself. And you should certainly stand, silently, behind every word of it. That said, given you've already posted about your work...

There is nothing more obnoxious and effeminate than a grown man engaging in passive-aggressive snark. Ugh.

It seems obvious that the review doesn't fit the Codex, which is something I expressed concern with in the staff thread. I write for a living, and I take my ego out of my writing, so people saying it is terrible, etc, is fine -- that's the way it goes. Anyway, I don't think I'm suited to writing reviews for the Codex, because I quickly grow bored with providing reams and reams of tiny details that I'm almost certain nobody is actually reading. The Codex has a style of review, and mine doesn't fit. Lesson learned.

The 'lack of fit' I think is true, but I wouldn't put it in that way. I agree Sensuki going hurr hurr you're writing for them folks is passive aggressive, but isn't it just as bad when you summarily dismiss criticisms of superficiality as "oh you people want 80 page essays nobody reads and cares about"?''

The real lack of fit is that many Codexers (I think, anyway) want Codex reviews to be not just like Eurogamer reviews. It wants RPGs to be considered (1) by a relatively higher standard; (2) with an eye to history; (3) with relatively greater analytical depth. Why? Because we are so sick of reviews that make totally unsubstantiated claims (like newer games are better), reviews which don't analyse the mechanics and structure and instead just talk about how cool or not cool it was, etc. You don't make the same arguments that such reviews might (immershun hurr durr), but it's disappointing to see a review in the same form.

A symptomatic problem is that you equate my demand for substance with a demand for "more words", and specifically, "more pointless details nobody will read". As Sensuki points out, Durance is one of the few things where you actually did provide some detail, but even then, for example, look at your first paragraph in Story/Writing. "He is cool because he is so different." How? Because he's schizo-ish but doesn't feel schizo? Who knows? "He has the best VA evar." How so? Who knows? What was the point of positioning a minor quibble like made up spellings so prominently - and then not offering any commentary beyond "for whatever reason I wasn't bothered by it"? And so on. You don't need to write 8 paragraphs to have substance. You just need to replace vague comments with more specific ones.

 

[Decado]

I'm fully respectful of an author who lets the text speak for itself. And you should certainly stand, silently, behind every word of it. That said, given you've already posted about your work...

There is nothing more obnoxious and effeminate than a grown man engaging in passive-aggressive snark. Ugh.

It seems obvious that the review doesn't fit the Codex, which is something I expressed concern with in the staff thread. I write for a living, and I take my ego out of my writing, so people saying it is terrible, etc, is fine -- that's the way it goes. Anyway, I don't think I'm suited to writing reviews for the Codex, because I quickly grow bored with providing reams and reams of tiny details that I'm almost certain nobody is actually reading. The Codex has a style of review, and mine doesn't fit. Lesson learned.

The 'lack of fit' I think is true, but I wouldn't put it in that way. I agree Sensuki going hurr hurr you're writing for them folks is passive aggressive, but isn't it just as bad when you summarily dismiss criticisms of superficiality as "oh you people want 80 page essays nobody reads and cares about"?''

1) I haven't tried to defend anything I've written, and I won't. The comments on Durance were a question (and an honest one, not rhetorical), and a response to a potato headed idiot who called me a liar. To my recollection, I haven't delved into any of the content of the review itself, and I won't.

2) I'm not dismissing it as superficial. What I said was I grow bored writing reams of details that I think nobody is reading. For all I know, people are reading them, I just don't get that sense (and so it doesn't seem worth it). I am not disparaging the Codex's review culture, as it were. I wouldn't be here if I didn't like it. You are reading too much into that comment.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I really appreciate it that the review makes a clear distinction between "the battle-hardened CRPG nerd" and "the larger audience".

Now PoE fanboys have finally been shown where they belong.

For the rest of the review, basically it points out the same shortcomings of PoE that Roxor's review pointed out, only it decides not to elaborate on them and instead offers the reader self-conditioning that "the game is good overall".

 

[Lhynn]

Shit review
Beyond caring
Going back to witcher 3
Cucks

 

[Tigranes]

I really appreciate it that the review makes a clear distinction between "the battle-hardened CRPG nerd" and "the larger audience".

Now PoE fanboys have finally been shown where they belong.

For the rest of the review, basically it points out the same shortcomings of PoE that Roxor's review pointed out, only it decides not to elaborate on them and instead offers the reader self-conditioning that "the game is good overall".

I guess my combined 50+ playthroughs of IE games, including Insane SCS and the like, were too casual. After all, I used shitty noob spells like Haste and Web sometimes

 

[Night Goat]

Do you know what "kill the author" means?

The piece stands as written. If I start defending it beyond saying "I stand by this,", or agreeing to people's interpretation of it, it is no longer the piece I originally wrote, right? We would be talking about what I wrote, and then the subsequent discussion (content wise) of what I've added to it. The piece is what it is. And I stand behind every word of it. If I have to argue my point, then that means as a piece of writing it is incomplete.

tl;dr once you open that door there is no going back, the piece is never "done."

You're not defending it because it's fucking indefensible. PoE is indefensible, and your review just dances around the issues and then declares that it's good because you say it is. You're blindly fanboying because you don't want to accept that you emotionally invested in a game that turned out to be total shit.

 

[Decado]

Internetpsychology.jpg

 

[Decado]

Also maybe chill out homey.

 

[Bubbles]

Are you really talking about the death of the author in the context of review writing?

 

[Decado]

Roger Ebert believed in it, so do I.

 

[Night Goat]

Roger Ebert gave 4 stars to Revenge of the Sith, just sayin'

 

[Decado]

He also took a shit on Rob Schneider.

 

[Tigranes]

The death of the author applies to every piece of publicly addressed writing, Internet ghetto reviews included.

 

[Mustawd]

Do you know what "kill the author" means?

The piece stands as written. If I start defending it beyond saying "I stand by this,", or agreeing to people's interpretation of it, it is no longer the piece I originally wrote, right? We would be talking about what I wrote, and then the subsequent discussion (content wise) of what I've added to it. The piece is what it is. And I stand behind every word of it. If I have to argue my point, then that means as a piece of writing it is incomplete.

tl;dr once you open that door there is no going back, the piece is never "done."

Nope. Never heard of it. I guess I'm in an industry where anything we write can come to bite us in the ass, and we need to be prepared to defend it, clarify, or point out wrong assumptions by the reader. Ditto for lawyers that we work with. Same for actuaries. Same for Valuation specialists. I will say that it's amusing that we both share the same sentiment: Once it's written , it's out there.

I guess in my view not answering questions on mistakes or vague writing seems kind of odd to me. Regardless, I appreciate the clarification. And no. I had never heard of that term. Guess that's why "business writing" is not just called "writing"

 

[Bubbles]

The death of the author applies to every piece of publicly addressed writing, Internet ghetto reviews included.

If you found out that Decado had never actually played PoE, would it change your opinion of his review? If the Codex published an official AoD review by Vince D. Weller, would you treat it the same way as a review by John Walker?

 

[Mustawd]

The death of the author applies to every piece of publicly addressed writing, Internet ghetto reviews included.

If you found out that Decado had never actually played PoE, would it change your opinion of his review? If you read an AoD review by Vince D. Weller, would you treat it the same way as a review by John Walker?

If you read a review by Bubbles would you automatically assume it was one long troll post? Yes...Yes I would.

 

[Tigranes]

In every articulation of insanity there is something sane, and in every troll post there is a Sokratic element.

Bubbles I don't subscribe to the absolutist version of that theory, but I certainly think it can be healthy sometimes to focus on the text as its own thing. Especially when you see all the people in this thread that try to pretend they know conclusively what Decado's mental state was and how that led to an utterly invalid and fantasy world account of the game.