South Park: The Stick of Truth

Grumpypants

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Any decent review would and should combine a fair and balanced critique with the writer's own personal response. A review that just blandly lists pluses and negatives is not something I have any interest in reading, frankly.

A review should be a review of the game it should tell you about the game, an opinion piece should be his opinion on the game and how it made him feel.

When I read a review I want to know about the game and if it works in that context: the engine, the game mechanics, graphics, controls, story, voice work, rendering, artwork etc etc. The important stuff.

Him telling me he is offended by a flag is utterly pointless. I have no reference point for that. How does the personal opinion of someone you don't know matter, you don't understand their sense of humor, you don't understand what bores or excites them, you have no incite into what kind of person they are or what kind of mood they were in when they played the game, or how jaded they are with that genre.

This is all pointless fluff.

I want to know if a game works and I will make up my own opinion after I play it.

Grimebox

Two completely different idea of what a review should be in the space on a minute!

snausages

Grumpypants wrote: »

A review should be a review of the game it should tell you about the game, an opinion piece should be his opinion on the game and how it made him feel.

When I read a review I want to know about the game, the studio, the engine, the game mechanics, graphics, controls, story, voice work, rendering, artwork etc etc. The important stuff.

Him telling me he is offended by a flag is utterly pointless.

All of that would be completely useless. You know what the game looks like, what it sounds like and who made it.

But funnily enough there is a site called objective reviews which does just what you ask for. Here's their review of Far Cry 3

http://www.objectivegamereviews.com/far-cry-3-review/

Far Cry 3 is a first person shooter in which the player takes control of Jason Brody, a bro who is on vacation with his brother and his friends. Brody and his friends visit the Rook Islands and are captured by pirates. The player then escapes and attempts to rescue Brody’s friends by killing pirates and assisting the native inhabitants of the island in their fight against the pirates. The player can also hunt, punch, and skin animals, craft various pieces of equipment, pick plants, climb up to the top of radio towers, use zip lines, torture someone, fly through the air with a wingsuit, execute two enemies simultaneously with a melee kill, find and read letters written by Japanese soldiers, and swim.


Far Cry 3 has twenty nine weapons, fifty four skills, thirty nine story missions, five types of side missions, seven kinds of weapon attachments, twelve usable vehicles, thirty eight craftable equipment items, thirteen craftable syringes, one hundred twenty collectible stone relics, five categories of plant, thirty three outposts the player can attack and capture, five kinds of explosives, and nine unique animals that must be killed to complete the hunting side quests, including a rare golden tiger and an albino crocodile.

In Far Cry 3 the player is sometimes able to move freely around the game world. They can climb radio towers to reveal parts of the map and unlock free weapons at safe houses located in outposts. Outposts are guarded by enemies and the player can kill all enemies at an outpost to liberate it, which returns the outpost to control of the natives of the islands. During missions, the player is often unable to move freely around the game world without failing the mission. The game’s UI directs the player to their mission objective or the next mission, and it also highlights enemies, plants, and other things the player can interact with by placing various icons over them on the screen and on the minimap.

The graphics in Far Cry 3 are in a realistic style. They feature jungles, the water around the islands, sand on beaches, ruins, caves, outposts, docks, villages, pop-up objective notifications, explosions, bright red vests worn by enemies, and a series of nested menus through which the player accesses their inventory and other screens. The sounds in Far Cry 3 include conversations between the Jason and his friends, family, and enemies, and explosions. The music in Far Cry 3 is atmospheric, orchestral, and electronic in style. The game also features a song by M.I.A. and a song by Skrillex and Damian Marley and music on the radio when the player enters a vehicle.

The player earns experience in Far Cry 3 for finishing missions, killing enemies in certain ways, eliminating enemies at outposts, and undertaking other objectives. Eliminating enemies at outposts without being seen grants more experience. Experience can be used to level up a tribal tattoo on the player’s arm, which grants additional abilities. The player can attack enemies stealthily by using quiet weapons or using instant melee kills. The player can find money on dead enemies and in the environment and spend this money on weapons, items, and colorful paint jobs for weapons. After beating the game, the player can continue to explore the islands.

snausages

Imagine if literary criticism just reviewed the story and prose, or film criticism focused on special effects and acting. It would be so banal.

snausages

Also, I'd like to point out that in spite of my earlier reservations I'm super f**king pumped for this, it looks better than I expected it to be.

VinLieger

All of these arguments simply prove how outmoded reviews have become, lets plays and quicklooks are the only way i judge whether a game is worth buying these days

johnny_ultimate

Grumpypants wrote: »

A review should be a review of the game it should tell you about the game, an opinion piece should be his opinion on the game and how it made him feel.

When I read a review I want to know about the game, the studio, the engine, the game mechanics, graphics, controls, story, voice work, rendering, artwork etc etc. The important stuff.

Him telling me he is offended by a flag is utterly pointless.

I can get most of that stuff from a wikipedia page. Critiquing a game is by its very nature a subjective experience, and the best reviewers are able to state their honest opinion in a clear manner while referencing all of the above. Box ticking graphics, controls, story, music etc... is not, IMO, strong or interesting criticism. And all those things are subjective anyway - my definition of a great story or art style may well be completely different to yours, and neither response is more or less valid. I love reading many different responses after playing a game or watching a film - I find it helps enhance my own understanding and response to a game, and I always enjoy a well articulated argument about any given work even if its in complete opposition to my own point of view. What I look for in a review is not the answer to 'do I play this?' (that's only a small part of why I read them) but above all a well argued opinion on why a game does or does not work.

On a different topic, I agree with snausages point - I'm always baffled when there are claims only fans should review a particular game or genre. If there's one thing the gaming community is not friendly towards is promoting a wide range of opinions. A variety of responses is always welcome, and no-one should have to have watched or liked all or even any episodes of South Park to form an honest response to this game. As someone who enjoys but has reservations about South Park, I sure as hell wouldn't want all reviews coming from superfans of the series! That RPS article IMO provided me with a genuine insight for that reason.

And yes, like snausages (albeit slightly less pumped), I am looking forward to playing this at some point

snausages

VinLieger wrote: »

All of these arguments simply prove how outmoded reviews have become, lets plays and quicklooks are the only way i judge whether a game is worth buying these days

Jeff is so jaded these days though he'd nearly put you off a game you'd otherwise enjoy.

3wayswitch

Grimebox wrote: »

Which region is it released in? Are you playing through steam?

It's been released in America and yes I'm playing it through Steam.

VinLieger

snausages wrote: »

Jeff is so jaded these days though he'd nearly put you off a game you'd otherwise enjoy.

True, it really depends on what mood you get him in whens hes recording, they still can output some great stuff though but the whole operation will never not be missing something unfortunately

Grimebox

3wayswitch wrote: »

It's been released in America and yes I'm playing it through Steam.

Sweet. I'll figure it out when I get home

snausages

Grumpypants wrote: »

Him telling me he is offended by a flag is utterly pointless. I have no reference point for that. How does the personal opinion of someone you don't know matter, you don't understand their sense of humor, you don't understand what bores or excites them, you have no incite into what kind of person they are or what kind of mood they were in when they played the game, or how jaded they are with that genre.

Conversely, how the hell does someone objectively evaluate things like Nazi imagery or anal abortions or the like? It's not possible. My tolerance level for shocking things is probably fairly high, so I already know I won't be annoyed at aborting things from people's bums. But I don't see why that invalidates other people's reactions. Especially if it is, as the reviewer says, imagery that's just absolutely empty with no real purpose to it (again, I don't really care about that but some people aren't into it)

inb4 someone posts that over-posted Stephen Fry quote about being offended by things you don't like.

VinLieger

snausages wrote: »

Conversely, how the hell does someone objectively evaluate things like Nazi imagery or anal abortions or the like? It's not possible. My tolerance level for shocking things is probably fairly high, so I already know I won't be annoyed at aborting things from people's bums. But I don't see why that invalidates other people's reactions. Especially if it is, as the reviewer says, imagery that's just absolutely empty with no real purpose to it (again, I don't really care about that but some people aren't into it)

inb4 someone posts that over-posted Stephen Fry quote about being offended by things you don't like.

Im not gonna post the Stephen Fry quote but come on if you know you are easily or even partially offended by anything you don't go near anything South Park.

If you go watch or play South Park knowing your gonna be offended by it whats in it who's fault is that?

snausages

VinLieger wrote: »

Im not gonna post the Stephen Fry quote but come on if you know you are easily or even partially offended by anything you don't go near anything South Park.

If you go watch or play South Park knowing your gonna be offended by whats in it who's fault is that?

Saying that just seems to be a way of deflecting any criticism from the product and absolving the series creators of all ethical responsibility, which I don't agree with at all. Why shouldn't we engage with South Park as, dare I say it, a form of art? Yeah, it's not high art or anything but Trey and Matt are really intelligent guys, I seriously don't think they just expect everyone to agree with or like what they have to say. It's not the same as saying everything should be censored so no-one's feeling are hurt, because good art can't thrive in that kind of environment either.

VinLieger

snausages wrote: »

Saying that just seems to be a way of deflecting any criticism from the product and absolving the series creators of all ethical responsibility, which I don't agree with at all. Why shouldn't we engage with South Park as, dare I say it, a form of art? Yeah, it's not high art or anything but Trey and Matt are really intelligent guys, I seriously don't think they just expect everyone to agree with or like what they have to say. It's not the same as saying everything should be censored so no-one's feeling are hurt, because good art can't thrive in that kind of environment either.

Disagreeing with their jokes because they arent well made and disagreeing with them because you are offended are two very different arguments.

One is criticising quality because of what you think is good and bad comedy the other is criticisng the content because of what you think is or isn't appropriate.

I have no problem with the former but the latter is what leads to censorship

snausages

VinLieger wrote: »

Disagreeing with their jokes because they arent well made and disagreeing with them because you are offended are two very different arguments.

One is criticising quality because of what you think is good and bad comedy the other is criticisng the content because of what you think is or isn't appropriate.

I have no problem with the former but the latter is what leads to censorship

I think it's perfectly fair to criticise something for being in bad taste. That doesn't necessarily lead you down the road to nanny-state censorship.

Not to mention that these jokes are explicitly designed to offend in a number of cases. From reading that review it doesn't seem like there's much in the way of strong narrative justification for the scene where Randy gets a vigorous anal reaming and where you're aborting whatever it is in the abortion clinic. They're there to shock. And some people are going to be upset. And it's ok to be upset by it, who are we to dictate how others feel? That's almost like reversing the problem of censorship a little bit, imposing your view of things on people who don't agree with you.

To the reviewer's credit, he did say this:

This wanton use of offensive ideas (and they are numerous) without there being a reason beyond their being offensive, is something that I found occasionally too icky. Your own personal levels of ickiness will vary. If you are at all sensitive to matters of sexual assault, racism, disablism, and so on, then yes, be advised.

Not the same as saying "this is objectionable and should be removed from shelves".

Mr Blobby

Can anyone link me to the South Park game thread?
I've taken a wrong turn and ended up here :pac:

Mickeroo

Part of the reason this kind of thing is in south park in the first place is because they know it's offensive and depicting it in such a crudely cartoonish and absurd way is pretty much the joke. Personally it's never failed to make me laugh.

snausages

Mr Blobby wrote: »

Can anyone link me to the South Park game thread?
I've taken a wrong turn and ended up here :pac:

:pac:

Well to be fair, it's not as if SP hasn't dealt with issues of censorship in the form of actual episode plots before and the whole issue of what counts as going too far. Episode 200 and 201 come to mind, the latter of which has never been aired in an uncensored state. So it's kind of relevant in a way.

johnny_ultimate

Shock humour doesn't need to just be shock for the sake of it. I really like the film Super, which explicitly bursts through taboos whenever it gets the chance with extremely violent scenes and even an intense attempted rape scene. But it's also an incredibly sharp satire of the superhero genre, that forces the audience to question the way the genre works as well as our own responses to it. When it had initially invited our laughter, later on it changes tone quite radically with a pretty powerful effect.

Sometimes I feel that way about South Park, that they push boundaries and actually say something interesting while making us laugh heartily. Sometimes I think they provoke for provocation's sake, like in the Virgin Mary episode: I'd actually be naturally inclined to agree with what they're making fun of and laugh with them, but they seemed so utterly desperate to make the viewer aware of how provocative they were being that I lost interest in its satirical intent. The Scott Tenorman episode, on the other hand, I think achieved a brilliantly demented balance that absolutely justified its pretty extreme punchline.

I'd hate to be considered overly PC - I can really never get enough of well handled dark humour - but it's absolutely reasonable that people are allowed express when they feel a line has been crossed, and whether or not they feel as if said line has been crossed for a worthy reason.

Grumpypants

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I can get most of that stuff from a wikipedia page. Critiquing a game is by its very nature a subjective experience, and the best reviewers are able to state their honest opinion in a clear manner while referencing all of the above. Box ticking graphics, controls, story, music etc... is not, IMO, strong or interesting criticism. And all those things are subjective anyway - my definition of a great story or art style may well be completely different to yours, and neither response is more or less valid. I love reading many different responses after playing a game or watching a film - I find it helps enhance my own understanding and response to a game, and I always enjoy a well articulated argument about any given work even if its in complete opposition to my own point of view. What I look for in a review is not the answer to 'do I play this?' (that's only a small part of why I read them) but above all a well argued opinion on why a game does or does not work.

On a different topic, I agree with snausages point - I'm always baffled when there are claims only fans should review a particular game or genre. If there's one thing the gaming community is not friendly towards is promoting a wide range of opinions. A variety of responses is always welcome, and no-one should have to have watched or liked all or even any episodes of South Park to form an honest response to this game. As someone who enjoys but has reservations about South Park, I sure as hell wouldn't want all reviews coming from superfans of the series! That RPS article IMO provided me with a genuine insight for that reason.

And yes, like snausages (albeit slightly less pumped), I am looking forward to playing this at some point

But it is not just box ticking or listing wiki facts, discussing the important aspects of the game is very important. How the engine works under pressure, how the controls respond, how the story unfolds etc etc. This is not stuff that is on the wiki page and far more important than what someone "didn't find funny", because I have no way to relate to that. I understand draw distances, blurring when moving, input lag. This is stuff I can relate to. What I experience playing a game is my own experience and not something anyone else can advise on.

I have played tons of apparently amazing games and thought WTF??? and then I have played games that have been slated and they really connected. I bet everyone is the same.

What kills me is when someone who is clearly jaded from a genre (lets say modern military shooters as they are the easy target at the moment) and they review a game badly because they are sick of playing MMFPS games. Now that is not helpful to someone like me who hasn't played every FPS to death and still quite enjoys a good modern shooter, but he has let his opinion get in the way of the review.

He has not given a fair reflection of the game, its quality, or it's value to the player who wants that type of game. To them his opinion is irrelevant.

Now if the game is a buggy mess, the graphics are bad, the sound cuts out, the voice acting is off. That is much more important to me than the fact he is sick and tired of shooting modern looking soldiers. If he can mix the two then great but it is very rare that they can.

Have you ever seen a high scoring review where the reviewer said "I hated this game" but the game is of such a high quality I gave it a good review?

But as I say in the RPS article it is called South Park What I think. It is an opinion piece so he is perfectly entitled to approach all the parts that he didn't think work and offer his opinion on them. These are things you wouldn't include in a review as they are personal opinions, so they go in an opinion piece which is why I respect him for writing it even if I don't agree with it.

A review should be objective and this is why it is important to separate an objective review from the opinion piece.

Dont be at yourself

John Walker is the biggest windbag in games journalism. Wouldn't put much stock into what he says at all.

snausages

Grumpypants wrote: »

What kills me is when someone who is clearly jaded from a genre (lets say modern military shooters as they are the easy target at the moment) and they review a game badly because they are sick of playing MMFPS games. Now that is not helpful to someone like me who hasn't played every FPS to death and still quite enjoys a good modern shooter, but he has let his opinion get in the way of the review.

He has not given a fair reflection of the game, its quality, or it's value to the player who wants that type of game. To them his opinion is irrelevant.

But it's not irrelevant to the people who are similarly jaded with cookie-cutter military shooters (like meself). In the opposite scenario a CoD fanboy will greatly inform those who care about the genre but won't give much indication if the game is worth the investment to people who are less sure of it.

Point being, it's impossible to satisfy everyone, so why bother? There is nothing objective about game reviewing. There's no scientific method behind it/

Try and find a purely objective review. You won't be able to. There's nothing that objectivity can be measured against in game reviews. Who's objective in the above scenario? The CoD-lover or the guy who's sick of the genre? Both parties have reasonable arguments to present, neither is invalid because one or two people don't agree with them. Anyone who reviews a game and say's they're being objective about it are having you on. Just read reviews from people whose interests seem to more conveniently converge with your own. In my case that's Chris Carter on Destructoid, who gave this an 8. So I'm reasonably sure this'll be up my alley (pun not intended).

As the old adage goes "buyer beware". The onus is on the purchaser to best inform themselves of what's worth buying, not the other way around.

Xenji

Polygon has an entire segment about issues in their review, citing other people who have played the game http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/4/5464996/south-park-the-stick-of-truth-review

Ben Kuchera, Polygon (PC): A glitch where he was unable to unequip his bow-and-arrow, disappearing character models.

Jim Sterling, The Escapist (PC): A bug with executing a buddy command that temporarily halted progress.

Adam Rosenberg, Digital Trends (PC): Two game-breaking moments where boss fights didn’t trigger properly.

Jason Schreier, Kotaku (360): Frame hitches, animation glitches and music dropouts.

Mitch Dyer, IGN (PS3): Poor framerate.

Though there were no shortage of issues, most agreed that the bugs didn’t hamper their overall experience. That said, whenever a game has such widespread and disparate problems, it’s a worrying indicator that there might be more serious issues that appear when the game is rolled out to a larger audience.

Most on NeoGaf are saying they have not came across many issues so far though, the main one seems to be bosses being glitched on the PC.

johnny_ultimate

Grumpypants wrote: »

What kills me is when someone who is clearly jaded from a genre (lets say modern military shooters as they are the easy target at the moment) and they review a game badly because they are sick of playing MMFPS games. Now that is not helpful to someone like me who hasn't played every FPS to death and still quite enjoys a good modern shooter, but he has let his opinion get in the way of the review.

He has not given a fair reflection of the game, its quality, or it's value to the player who wants that type of game. To them his opinion is irrelevant.

You're contradicting yourself here. Effectively you're saying one sort of bias - a favourable or open attitude to military shooters - is preferable to another bias - an apathy towards military shooters. Both are equally valid. (In fact, I'd say overall too many reviewers in the gaming world are too forgiving and unwilling to provide a different perspective, but that's a different subject).

Reviewers do not exist in a vacuum, just as players do not (a review will never please everyone). There is no writer who publishes a review without their own preferences and experiences sneaking in - as it should well be. A truly objective reviewer would be the sort of colourless fact sheet snausage posted earlier. I don't want to read that. I want to read someone's honest opinion of the game. Facts and details will be a part of that, but demanding complete neutrality is impossible. In fact, it's even dishonest. If you were to review South Park in a truly objective manner, all you can reasonably say is "this game contains jokes you may or may not find funny". That tells me nothing of note. After all, humour is the most subjective of all human traits.

Reviewing a game or film is not the same as reporting the news (and most news has an agenda too, alas). It's a personal response to a piece of art, entertainment etc... If a writer articulately expresses a positive or negative opinion about a game, I'll be more persuaded and interested in their POV than if they l simply provided a list of positives and negatives. Maybe we simply fundamentally differ in our expectations from a review, but I don't recognise the type of review you describe as actually existing in mainstream gaming media. And, honestly, I'm glad. There's no formula to writing about games, and each writer should approach any given title in the manner they see fit.

Grimebox

So should we spoiler anything to do with the game itself from here on out or whats the usual protocol?

Mr Blobby

Grimebox wrote: »

So should we spoiler anything to do with the game itself from here on out or whats the usual protocol?

Spoiler tags until its released here imo.

Mr Blobby

Mr Blobby wrote: »

Spoiler tags until its released here imo.

Spoiler tags should be used for the next few weeks, especially for any major plot points or jokes.

Kirby

Gameplay mechanics are fair game but plot related talk needs to be spoilered for at least a few months.

Grimebox

First proper lol at

"magical songs of enchatme..mehh...meee", B to skip