Just my opinion, but for what it’s worth:
When it comes to reviewing a game - despite what many reviewers would have you believe - there is very little difference between reviewing a game and reviewing a movie – ultimately it comes down to a subjective judgment. In short, it’s what the reviewer brings to the process that ultimately will decide if a game gets a good score or not.
Now why do I bring this up?
Because I have been noticing an interesting trend with M&B. Small to medium gaming sites have been praising M&B. However, large gaming sites have had the most critical reviews of M&B. What accounts for such a big disparity? After all, it is the same game being reviewed.
The answer: expectations. I have always found that small to medium game sites have a much more accepting attitude towards the budgetary limitations that smaller, indie game companies have to face when producing a game. In short, the reviewers of these mid-range sites aren’t predisposed to expect every game to dazzle the reviewer with cutting-edge graphics or million dollar production values. For them, the quality of a game is more about the fun factor than any technical prowess or the prestige of being associated with a major design house.
Larger game sites, on the other hand, have become quite accustomed to spending a great deal of time with the uber-titles being released by the biggest gaming companies that pour millions into a single title. As such, when a game lacks Hollywood design values, the review becomes far more critical. Where’s the wiz-bang? Where’s the voice acting (preferably from actual Hollywood actors these days)? Where is the media blitz from the publisher? If a game doesn’t have it, they quickly lose interest. If a game does have the right pedigree, on the other hand, it automatically gets a bump in the ratings.
Case in point: GameSpot’s review of M&B. Score: 6.0 (fair). GameSpot’s review of Age of Conan: 8.5 (great).
Think about that for a second.
In GameSpot’s review of Age of Conan, the review admits that AoC is “a flawed paradise. Funcom has been quick to handle the most egregious blemishes since the launch of its massively multiplayer online game, but a number of frustrating bugs remain. The most minor ones have little to no impact on the game proper....Others are more significant, such as broken quests and memory leaks that lead to the occasional crash. Launch imperfections are common enough in the genre, but while Age of Conan's release was hardly disastrous, it has been less stable than we should expect. Many bugs have already been fixed, but the game's edges are still somewhat jagged, and the software can buckle under the sheer weight of its own ambition.”
Hmm…has anyone seen a similar mention about a large number of bugs with M&B? But the review offers the advice that “You'd do well to look past these imperfections, though, because Age of Conan is the most brutal and immediately satisfying MMOG on the market, thanks to its unique slant on combat, resonant quest writing, and uncompromising maturity.”
Why hasn’t M&B received similar consideration? To be fair, yes, AoC did bring some much needed innovation to the combat scheme found in most RPGs, but is it innovation on the scale of M&B? Not even close. Taleworld’s has accomplished something much more daring, much more visceral than anything AoC accomplished. Yet, strangely, this “brutality” does nothing to boost a score for a game that is not “buckling” under the weight of its ambition.
Now, mind you, I am not saying that M&B deserves to tie AoC, but 6.0? 6.0 for a game that has far less flaws and far more innovation than AoC?
It is interesting to note that with hindsight, AoC’s review did not reflect reality at all. Just last week, Funcom’s co-founder, Gaute Godager, had to step down “as a ‘consequence’ of failures in Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures,” according to GamesIndustry.biz. Again: this is an 8.5 game (to be fair, at least GameSpot did not drink the Kool-Aid by giving it an Editor’s Choice as many other major sites did)? This is a “great” game? It is also interesting to note that reviews of AoC by gamers were far more critical of AoC while, based upon the two I’ve seen to date, the gamers review of M&B has been far more generous….
I’m not here to pick on GameSpot, a site that does a good job for the most part. But I do find it interesting how many of these reviewers who are used to being dazzled by every title have been far harsher on M&B than they have been with other titles that seem to have more problems than M&B. It really is a fascinating study in contrast….