Pimpin Reviews: Dragon Age Origins vs Rise of the Argonauts

Asturiel

the God of Pants
Nov 24, 2009
3,940
0
0
Neonbob said:
...what, did you think he only had hoes?
He obviously expanded to print media too!
Fucking entrepreneurial!
True, ill give him Asturiel Tokens, useful when I take over with my pants army.
 

Neonbob

The Noble Nuker
Dec 22, 2008
25,564
0
0
Pimppeter2 said:
*Laughs his ass off at Neon and Asturiel*

I love you guys.
I love you too, Pimp.
:-D
*hands ass back*
You'll need this, though.
Asturiel said:
Neonbob said:
...what, did you think he only had hoes?
He obviously expanded to print media too!
Fucking entrepreneurial!
True, ill give him Asturiel Tokens, useful when I take over with my pants army.
Pants...Army?
NEVER! I will oppose you with flamethrowers and many nuclear grenades!
*bloodthirsty roar*

...I think I need to lie down.
X-D
 

Asturiel

the God of Pants
Nov 24, 2009
3,940
0
0
Pimppeter2 said:
*Laughs his ass off at Neon and Asturiel*

I love you guys.
No homo? Or homo? I just need to clarify.

Awww what the hell, love you too pimp!
*Hugs*
*Takes hat* HAH LOWERED YOUR GUARD
*RUNS AWAY*
Neonbob said:
Pants...Army?
NEVER! I will oppose you with flamethrowers and many nuclear grenades!
*bloodthirsty roar*

...I think I need to lie down.
X-D
I think you do, just be quiet and let the pants strangle you peacefully!
 

Neonbob

The Noble Nuker
Dec 22, 2008
25,564
0
0
Asturiel said:
Neonbob said:
Pants...Army?
NEVER! I will oppose you with flamethrowers and many nuclear grenades!
*bloodthirsty roar*

...I think I need to lie down.
X-D
I think you do, just be quiet and let the pants strangle you peacefully!
I cannot be strangled! I am protected by bits of razor wire!
hahaaa!
I dare you to try it.
 

LewsTherin

New member
Jun 22, 2008
2,443
0
0
Another brilliant review, old bean. You have been hereby bequeathed with an honorary Holy Avenger +16
 

Asturiel

the God of Pants
Nov 24, 2009
3,940
0
0
Neonbob said:
I cannot be strangled! I am protected by bits of razor wire!
hahaaa!
I dare you to try it.
Oh I dare, I dare like the daredevil who never dared to tempt a dares wifes dreams!
 

Sassafrass

This is a placeholder
Legacy
Aug 24, 2009
51,250
1
3
Country
United Kingdom
Pimppeter2 said:
Also, I saw in another thread that you showed interest in reviewing. I've helped SAS, Onyx, Nuclear Penguin, and others start reviewing. If you Ever want to get a review going, I would be happy to help.
I wondered why my ears were burning a while ago...

Anyways, good review, Pimp. Enjoyable read and no mistakes from what I can see anywhere. Course, that maybe because I'm tired and can't find any but I'm pretty sure it's just that you didn't make any typos.

Looking forward to the Oblivion Vs Dragon Age review more then anything, though.
 

Neonbob

The Noble Nuker
Dec 22, 2008
25,564
0
0
Asturiel said:
Neonbob said:
I cannot be strangled! I am protected by bits of razor wire!
hahaaa!
I dare you to try it.
Oh I dare, I dare like the daredevil who never dared to tempt a dares wifes dreams!
OhhO!
You have some BALLS!
I shall have to remove them with bladed melon ballers!
>:-D
 

Asturiel

the God of Pants
Nov 24, 2009
3,940
0
0
Neonbob said:
OhhO!
You have some BALLS!
I shall have to remove them with bladed melon ballers!
>:-D
You dont have the gallstones!
Sassafrass said:
I wondered why my ears were burning a while ago...
That may have been me, sorry. I got a new flamethrower and you were right there!
 

Heart of Darkness

The final days of His Trolliness
Jul 1, 2009
9,745
0
0
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.

1. Grammar and mechanics: You need to proofread your reviews. You don't make a lot of big mistakes, but rather a lot of little ones, most notably your confusion of "its" and "it's" and just a general use of the apostrophe. There are also run-on sentences scattered throughout (comma usage), several spelling errors, and the ilk. You should probably run your reviews through a word processor first to get rid of some of the more obvious errors, and then proofread once again, post it, proofread again, and edit out any mistakes that slipped past the radar.

2. Use of pictures: This is more of a personal nitpick than anything, but your use of pictures in your review doesn't really jive with me. Rather than use pictures to enhance the content of the review that envelope the picture, you just use them for (perceived) humorous asides that really don't add to the review in the first place. Furthermore, your slight obsession with talking about sex/nudity just in the asides casts a shadow on your credentials as a reviewer, at least to me; are you actually playing the game for the game itself, or merely for the sex and nudity?

3. Pacing: I'm not saying it's a bad thing to divide your review into sections, but it didn't feel like it flowed to me. Some of your transitions between sections feel a tad clunky, and I found that, towards the middle, I wasn't reading, but rather skipping through. Again, this could be a personal nitpick, but it's just not holding my attention.

4. Format: Again, more personal, but italicize the game titles. It makes them easier to identify in the midst of your paragraphs. I'd also suggest to not use the strong emphasis beneath the pictorials, as they distract from the actual content; a weak emphasis will do the job quite nicely, without being too distracting from the actual review.

5. Research: Again, more personal nitpick, but it's in response to something ore specific:
Being loosely based on Greek mythology, that gives the developers of Rise of the Argonauts space to allow to create their own world in an already established setting. The problem however, is that we don't know which is the developers creation, and which was actual mythology. This isn't helped by other than the characters the game seems pretty vague, almost as if its trying to hide away inconsistencies.
I would like something cleared up here. Is this due to your lack of knowledge of Greek mythology, or do the developers actually really screw it up? Either way, it should be easy to distinguish what is myth and what is developer fabrication, even if it means taking a quick jaunt over to Wikipedia. I mean, the story about Jason and the Argonauts does exist. While I don't remember specifics, I'm pretty sure he wasn't after the Golden Fleece to revive his dead bride.

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.



dmase said:
Good review persuasive yet unbiased.
Really? I felt some bias coming from it, even if it's of the "no actual choice system doesn't constitute an RPG..."

Pimppeter2 said:
Now. you're going to have to excuse me for dancing around the subject. I don't consider JRPGs RPGS, the same way I wouldn't consider Mass Effect 2 and RPG. Now go find the socks that I just blew off. I consider JRPGs a genre of their own.
...which can be seen here. While I respect his opinion, I feel it's a tad narrow-minded, and that Rise of the Argonauts suffered a bit due to it. I can explain this in more detail if asked, but for now, I'm going to truncate this overly long post.
 

dmase

New member
Mar 12, 2009
2,117
0
0
Heart of Darkness said:
dmase said:
Good review persuasive yet unbiased.
Really? I felt some bias coming from it, even if it's of the "no actual choice system doesn't constitute an RPG..."
Possibly because i have a similar bias, i don't consider games rpg's if they don't have serious number stat crunching gaining manipulating on the side.

That specific post wasn't in the review and for the specific part where he said the moral choices weren't that prevalent, he said a similar thing about Dragon Age saying they where less cut and dry(paraphrased). I didn't sense any obvious bias and i don't bother looking any deeper because i'll end up re-reading something several times to get the tone.
 

Heart of Darkness

The final days of His Trolliness
Jul 1, 2009
9,745
0
0
dmase said:
Heart of Darkness said:
dmase said:
Good review persuasive yet unbiased.
Really? I felt some bias coming from it, even if it's of the "no actual choice system doesn't constitute an RPG..."
Possibly because i have a similar bias, i don't consider games rpg's if they don't have serious number stat crunching gaining manipulating on the side.

That specific post wasn't in the review and for the specific part where he said the moral choices weren't that prevalent, he said a similar thing about Dragon Age saying they where less cut and dry(paraphrased). I didn't sense any obvious bias and i don't bother looking any deeper because i'll end up re-reading something several times to get the tone.
The specific post wasn't in the review, yes, but not all reviewers make their bias known in their works. I tend to look at one's works as a whole, rather than as exclusive instances. Looking at the whole picture rather than the individual shapes.

And it could also come from my bias towards what I consider an RPG, which is a tad...complicated. For one, I see two different types of RPG: one that focuses on the literal semantic definition, and one that is a specific genre. If I wanted to explain this simply: Tetris is not an RPG, The Legend of Zelda is an RPG in the semantic sense (as you are playing a role), and games like Dragon Age: Origins and Final Fantasy IV are both RPGs in the genre sense. I don't divide genre RPGs into the useless WRPG and JRPG categories, but they are subcategorized in my personal definition to things that are more descriptive.

I also don't feel that stat crunching needs to be applied in overexcessive doses. A problem I have with some genre RPGs is the use of seventeen different stats, of which several are useful, and a majority of them don't really seem to have a purpose. Having things like CON and STA is nice, but it feels redundant to me and not really needed.

Furthermore (more directed toward Peter's post, not yours), I don't agree with the notion that 'JRPGs' =/= RPGs. I mean, technically, actors roleplay, and they roleplay as rather static characters. Just because protagonists in 'JRPGs' are static doesn't make it a less viable roleplay option; failure to immerse yourself in a static character may not be the fault of the game, but rather the fault of the player. That, and moral choice systems aren't always needed in RPGs.

...

I need to stop typing long posts in this section.
 

Pimppeter2

New member
Dec 31, 2008
16,479
0
0
Heart of Darkness said:
I need to stop typing long posts in this section.
Please don't!

If it wasn't so late I would make a very long post here.

But I think your misinterpreting my point with JRPGs. Which is completely my fault because like I said, I was dancing around the subject because after the review (and an article in the Games Section) I was too tired to fully explain myself. I'll get back to you tomorrow to kind of reexplain my position.

As for the criticism. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. I'll tackle on that tomorrow as well. I'm just posting this now so you know that your comments are vary valuable to me; and to thank you for taking the time.
 

Heart of Darkness

The final days of His Trolliness
Jul 1, 2009
9,745
0
0
Pimppeter2 said:
Heart of Darkness said:
I need to stop typing long posts in this section.
Please don't!

If it wasn't so late I would make a very long post here.

But I think your misinterpreting my point with JRPGs. Which is completely my fault because like I said, I was dancing around the subject because after the review (and an article in the Games Section) I was too tired to fully explain myself. I'll get back to you tomorrow to kind of reexplain my position.

As for the criticism. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. I'll tackle on that tomorrow as well. I'm just posting this now so you know that your comments are vary valuable to me; and to thank you for taking the time.
Haha, how about I stop when my long posts start diminishing in value? I have a bad habit of using too many meaningless adverbs and descriptors to describe my points, and a really bad habit of making needlessly complex sentences. So much so that I fear I'm going to lose my point amidst the text.

And I feel you (in a metaphorical sense). It's late here, too, so I might be misinterpreting what you said. Fatigue after being in classes from 7:30am to 7:30pm. And not getting enough sleep during the week...

And no problem on the criticism. I kinda suck at giving praise, because I hate just how shallow praise can sound at times (it's also the worst thing you can give to an artist or a writer, even trumping the generic "It sucks" as the most useless comment). And I shall look forward to hearing your thought about the comments.
 

pwnzerstick

New member
Mar 25, 2009
592
0
0
It is insulting to see Dragon Age: Origins compared to somthing as mediocore as Rise of the Argonauts.
 

BlueInkAlchemist

Ridiculously Awesome
Jun 4, 2008
2,231
0
0
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.
 

Pimppeter2

New member
Dec 31, 2008
16,479
0
0
Heart of Darkness said:
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.

Heart of Darkness said:
1. Grammar and mechanics: You need to proofread your reviews. You don't make a lot of big mistakes, but rather a lot of little ones, most notably your confusion of "its" and "it's" and just a general use of the apostrophe. There are also run-on sentences scattered throughout (comma usage), several spelling errors, and the ilk. You should probably run your reviews through a word processor first to get rid of some of the more obvious errors, and then proofread once again, post it, proofread again, and edit out any mistakes that slipped past the radar.

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.

Heart of Darkness said:
2. Use of pictures: This is more of a personal nitpick than anything, but your use of pictures in your review doesn't really jive with me. Rather than use pictures to enhance the content of the review that envelope the picture, you just use them for (perceived) humorous asides that really don't add to the review in the first place. Furthermore, your slight obsession with talking about sex/nudity just in the asides casts a shadow on your credentials as a reviewer, at least to me; are you actually playing the game for the game itself, or merely for the sex and nudity?

Heh, this is a critism that I've heard before from people like [user]joethekeller[/user]. 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.

Heart of Darkness said:
3. Pacing: I'm not saying it's a bad thing to divide your review into sections, but it didn't feel like it flowed to me. Some of your transitions between sections feel a tad clunky, and I found that, towards the middle, I wasn't reading, but rather skipping through. Again, this could be a personal nitpick, but it's just not holding my attention.

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.


Heart of Darkness said:
4. Format: Again, more personal, but italicize the game titles. It makes them easier to identify in the midst of your paragraphs. I'd also suggest to not use the strong emphasis beneath the pictorials, as they distract from the actual content; a weak emphasis will do the job quite nicely, without being too distracting from the actual review.

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.

Heart of Darkness said:
5. Research: Again, more personal nitpick, but it's in response to something ore specific:
Being loosely based on Greek mythology, that gives the developers of Rise of the Argonauts space to allow to create their own world in an already established setting. The problem however, is that we don't know which is the developers creation, and which was actual mythology. This isn't helped by other than the characters the game seems pretty vague, almost as if its trying to hide away inconsistencies.
I would like something cleared up here. Is this due to your lack of knowledge of Greek mythology, or do the developers actually really screw it up? Either way, it should be easy to distinguish what is myth and what is developer fabrication, even if it means taking a quick jaunt over to Wikipedia. I mean, the story about Jason and the Argonauts does exist. While I don't remember specifics, I'm pretty sure he wasn't after the Golden Fleece to revive his dead bride

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 said:
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.
 

Heart of Darkness

The final days of His Trolliness
Jul 1, 2009
9,745
0
0
And now for the rebuttal!

Pimppeter2 said:
Heart of Darkness said:
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.

Heart of Darkness said:
1. Grammar and mechanics: You need to proofread your reviews. You don't make a lot of big mistakes, but rather a lot of little ones, most notably your confusion of "its" and "it's" and just a general use of the apostrophe. There are also run-on sentences scattered throughout (comma usage), several spelling errors, and the ilk. You should probably run your reviews through a word processor first to get rid of some of the more obvious errors, and then proofread once again, post it, proofread again, and edit out any mistakes that slipped past the radar.

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.

Heart of Darkness said:
2. Use of pictures: This is more of a personal nitpick than anything, but your use of pictures in your review doesn't really jive with me. Rather than use pictures to enhance the content of the review that envelope the picture, you just use them for (perceived) humorous asides that really don't add to the review in the first place. Furthermore, your slight obsession with talking about sex/nudity just in the asides casts a shadow on your credentials as a reviewer, at least to me; are you actually playing the game for the game itself, or merely for the sex and nudity?

Heh, this is a critism that I've heard before from people like [user]joethekeller[/user]. 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.

Heart of Darkness said:
3. Pacing: I'm not saying it's a bad thing to divide your review into sections, but it didn't feel like it flowed to me. Some of your transitions between sections feel a tad clunky, and I found that, towards the middle, I wasn't reading, but rather skipping through. Again, this could be a personal nitpick, but it's just not holding my attention.

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.

Heart of Darkness said:
4. Format: Again, more personal, but italicize the game titles. It makes them easier to identify in the midst of your paragraphs. I'd also suggest to not use the strong emphasis beneath the pictorials, as they distract from the actual content; a weak emphasis will do the job quite nicely, without being too distracting from the actual review.

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).

Heart of Darkness said:
5. Research: Again, more personal nitpick, but it's in response to something ore specific:
Being loosely based on Greek mythology, that gives the developers of Rise of the Argonauts space to allow to create their own world in an already established setting. The problem however, is that we don't know which is the developers creation, and which was actual mythology. This isn't helped by other than the characters the game seems pretty vague, almost as if its trying to hide away inconsistencies.
I would like something cleared up here. Is this due to your lack of knowledge of Greek mythology, or do the developers actually really screw it up? Either way, it should be easy to distinguish what is myth and what is developer fabrication, even if it means taking a quick jaunt over to Wikipedia. I mean, the story about Jason and the Argonauts does exist. While I don't remember specifics, I'm pretty sure he wasn't after the Golden Fleece to revive his dead bride

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 said:
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.
 

Pimppeter2

New member
Dec 31, 2008
16,479
0
0
Heart of Darkness said:
dmase said:
Heart of Darkness said:
dmase said:
Good review persuasive yet unbiased.
Really? I felt some bias coming from it, even if it's of the "no actual choice system doesn't constitute an RPG..."
Possibly because i have a similar bias, i don't consider games rpg's if they don't have serious number stat crunching gaining manipulating on the side.

That specific post wasn't in the review and for the specific part where he said the moral choices weren't that prevalent, he said a similar thing about Dragon Age saying they where less cut and dry(paraphrased). I didn't sense any obvious bias and i don't bother looking any deeper because i'll end up re-reading something several times to get the tone.
The specific post wasn't in the review, yes, but not all reviewers make their bias known in their works. I tend to look at one's works as a whole, rather than as exclusive instances. Looking at the whole picture rather than the individual shapes.

And it could also come from my bias towards what I consider an RPG, which is a tad...complicated. For one, I see two different types of RPG: one that focuses on the literal semantic definition, and one that is a specific genre. If I wanted to explain this simply: Tetris is not an RPG, The Legend of Zelda is an RPG in the semantic sense (as you are playing a role), and games like Dragon Age: Origins and Final Fantasy IV are both RPGs in the genre sense. I don't divide genre RPGs into the useless WRPG and JRPG categories, but they are subcategorized in my personal definition to things that are more descriptive.

I also don't feel that stat crunching needs to be applied in overexcessive doses. A problem I have with some genre RPGs is the use of seventeen different stats, of which several are useful, and a majority of them don't really seem to have a purpose. Having things like CON and STA is nice, but it feels redundant to me and not really needed.

Furthermore (more directed toward Peter's post, not yours), I don't agree with the notion that 'JRPGs' =/= RPGs. I mean, technically, actors roleplay, and they roleplay as rather static characters. Just because protagonists in 'JRPGs' are static doesn't make it a less viable roleplay option; failure to immerse yourself in a static character may not be the fault of the game, but rather the fault of the player. That, and moral choice systems aren't always needed in RPGs.

...

I need to stop typing long posts in this section.

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.



Therumancer said:
Well, as I see things Dragon Age: Origins is actually an RPG, Rise Of The Argonauts isn't an RPG at all but claims to be one as an attempt to draw people in.

What makes an RPG is the idea that the stats are what determines the outcome of events, rather than your reflexs and actions as a player. Storyline and such have absolutly nothing to do with it. This is why say Nethack is an RPG, but Adventure games which are nothing but story are not.

It doesn't matter if you call a life bar "hit points", including upgradable weapons, or whatever else. If you hitting the buttons and fighting properly is the primarly influance then it's not an RPG. In Dragon Age, it was real RPG combat for the most part, which is unsatisfying for most people who are dedicated to action games and want that kind of a thrill. It was driven by stats, numbers, and invisible random die rolls. You had less outcome over what was going to happen than how you developed the numbers. Your "build" being more important than how fast you could click or manipulate a controller. The flashy graphics and deathblows involved were just icing on the cake when they existed.


The whole "Action RPG" label has been used as a cop out by designers who want to try and create action games with some customization options and hope they can both make action gamers feel "smarter" by saying it's an RPG, and rope in some of the RPG crowd as well.

An actual "Action RPG" is still stat based and has little to do with the abillity of the player. The "click fest" Diablo "Action RPGs" are an example because the outcome is determined by stats and numbers, you don't do much except click, however you do move in
real time. Real "action gamers" of course don't care for this because really there isn't anything they do that determines the outcome for the most part. It's all about managing resources, picking the right gear, and a good set of skills that compliment each other.

RPGS do not appeal to everyone, and less people than action games do. It's been this way for a long time (since gaming has become more mainstream).

Right now I feel that the RPG label is mis-used. Comparing Rise Of The Argonauts to say Dragon Age is sort of like trying to compare "Double Dragon" to the SSI Gold Box AD&D games back in the day. Even if someone decided to say that Double Dragon was an "RPG" due to the fact that both it and Dungeons and Dragons had the word "Dragon" in the title it would be the same as this comparison from where I'm sitting.

Sorry Pimpeteer, but I have to say I don't think this is one of your better comparisons because I at least feel that the games are differant enough to defy any real comparison.

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.