Forum - View topic

GAME: Robotics;Notes: ELITE & DaSH (Double Pack)

It's kind of like how there's also nobody who's sufficiently into mobage to write about them beyond launch/shutdown announcements, even though F/GO is one of the site's more reliable advertisers, and so many readers play it. And heaven help the site if they ever lose Theron, because he seems to be the most prodigious LN reader (particularly for some popular series like DanMachi), and the only writer on the site who'd engage with something like Interspecies Reviewers.

You're misunderstanding the complaint. The problem isn't that the reviewer didn't like this specific game, it's that they don't like visual novels in general. The target audience for this game is people who like visual novels. Getting a review from somebody who doesn't like the genre in the first place isn't helpful to anybody.

But why is it necessary to like a genre before you can write a critical review of something? Does a reviewer have to have this undying love of platformers before they can write a review about the latest Mario game? Or does this criteria only apply to more niche games like visual novels?

If you want a good example of what's being brought up, there was an old review IGN put up for a shoot-em-up (I sadly don't remember which one right now) in which the person who reviewed it obviously wasn't a fan of the genre, even saying that since continuing gives you a single point towards your score, you can get a high score simply by purposefully dying over & over, completely failing to even understand how to actually play the game. To no surprise, it got a low score, even though fans of the genre generally regarded it well. Yes, this is an extreme example, but we all know people are going to remember the worst examples, rather than the more minor ones. This review, for example, is a minor example, as Myles did try to be more impartial than that IGN reviewer was.

However, the common argument & defense is often around "liking" something, as if someone who's a fan of a genre can't be critical of it. That's a logical fallacy, because it assumes that the only people who can be critical of something are those who aren't already fans of it, when there's just as much of an argument that those who already are fans of a genre can be all the more critical, since they'll be familiar with subtleties & similarities to other works that "outsiders" (for lack of a better word) may not notice.

This seems less like an issue with being a fan and more of the reviewer not properly researching the game they were reviewing before hand. As long as the reviewer is professional and is well researched, I don't see the issue of someone who's normally not a fan of it doing a review of it. In the case of this review, I'm not aware the reviewer got any of their facts about the game wrong.

The most significant connection to Steins;Gate is one of the supporting characters is a grown up Nae Tennouji

If you want a good example of what's being brought up, there was an old review IGN put up for a shoot-em-up (I sadly don't remember which one right now) in which the person who reviewed it obviously wasn't a fan of the genre, even saying that since continuing gives you a single point towards your score, you can get a high score simply by purposefully dying over & over, completely failing to even understand how to actually play the game. To no surprise, it got a low score, even though fans of the genre generally regarded it well. Yes, this is an extreme example, but we all know people are going to remember the worst examples, rather than the more minor ones. This review, for example, is a minor example, as Myles did try to be more impartial than that IGN reviewer was.

I'm of mind that it's important to differentiate between a game being bad because you don't like the genre and a game being bad because it's a bad entry into said genre. To criticize a game for being part of a genre is not much of a critique, it's just an admission of not being a fan of said genre. So I agree criticizng a visual novel for being all reading with little other gameplay is an odd one It always brings to mind a comic from Penny Arcade where they ribbed on people who would complain about RPGs by citing things fans like about RPGs.

The only other instance of any real gameplay is a search-and-find where the player is tasked with heading to different in-game locations to look for the veiled outline of a power sign through an AR filter. These tasks specifically struck me as a huge annoyance, since my objectives were so unclear and unfairly hidden that they felt like nothing but a waste of my time that is meant to pad out the game. These are the only gameplay elements you'll find in Robotics;Notes, since there are no optional dialogue choices or branching narrative routes. You are guided by hand from one end of a slow and uncompelling story beat to the other, and that might be Robotics;Notes biggest failing.

I'm not seeing where in the review they criticize the game for being all reading and having little gameplay though?

− A lack of gameplay, forced fanservice, poor animation, and sluggish pace bog this title down and takes away from every enjoyable moment that it offers.

I get criticizing it for bad gameplay, because the minigames described in the review sound awful, but criticizing it for not having gameplay when that's just the genre (people often cite Zero Escape and sometimes even Dangan Ronpa or Phoenix Wright, but those all strike me as closer to adventure games and not really the same genre experience as the pure VNs I've played) strikes me as odd and un-earned. The review also says there are "no branching narrative routes" despite referring to multiple endings earlier, which leaves me very confused. Some of the comments here make it sound like it has a similar phone system to Steins;Gate. If so, saying it has no choices would be disingenuous.

Quote:

I get criticizing it for bad gameplay, because the minigames described in the review sound awful, but criticizing it for not having gameplay when that's just the genre (people often cite Zero Escape and sometimes even Dangan Ronpa or Phoenix Wright, but those all strike me as closer to adventure games and not really the same genre experience as the pure VNs I've played) strikes me as odd and un-earned. The review also says there are "no branching narrative routes" despite referring to multiple endings earlier, which leaves me very confused. Some of the comments here make it sound like it has a similar phone system to Steins;Gate. If so, saying it has no choices would be disingenuous.

This just seems like the "too much water" meme where it looks kind of silly in the score notes but if you read the actual full review it's more understandable what they're getting at. But it's always been my philosophy to assume the most charitable interpretation of what you're reading.

Why would you go into a visual novel expecting gameplay? The name is just what you're gonna get: a visual novel.
No matter how you look at it, Robotics;Notes is on the top caliber of VNs. It's not often you get animation, hell, even full voicing in the first place, and the artwork that's used hasn't aged at all either. It has much more "gameplay" than the usual VN has. By the way, Danganronpa doesn't count, it's only half-VN, unlike these big boy full-VNs.

Oh, and talking about everything except the localization, one of the most important parts they got wrong... Kinda cringe.

How about it's connections with Steins:Gate? How about how it compares to the existing anime?

I'll echo what others have said, ANN needs to retask itself with using reviewers that either are neutral or at least aware/accepting of the content before of reviewing it. The vast majority of this review can be summed up as "not a good entry point to VNs" and "I was bored because it wasn't action anime" is how it comes off. The seasonal anime list falls prey to the same problem, let's have someone that hates moeblob review the new moeblob. Yes you get a "critical review" as some perspective I suppose, but it often ends up more damming than having any educational value.

Otherwise perhaps there needs to be some profiling system where the good, bad, and ugly, of a reviewer's tastes are listed and the general populace can look at that as surmise if they are more or less similar to their own. That way they can follow along someone with similar likes and dislikes. If you hate everything I like, I'm probably going to discount your review in the first place as not applicable to me.

And before you ask if that applies here, R;N would be a solid "couple neat ideas but it was just ok anime with a poorly executed finale" and I've played part of the S:G VNs and watched all that anime and sub content. So I'm not a R;N pulpit thumper.

Cardcaptor Takato wrote:

I'm not sure I understand why it's needed for someone to like something to review it. If you're only getting reviews from people who like everything they review, you're just creating an echo chamber and not an accurate view of how people who are not normally into these games should play them or not

You're misunderstanding the complaint. The problem isn't that the reviewer didn't like this specific game, it's that they don't like visual novels in general. The target audience for this game is people who like visual novels. Getting a review from somebody who doesn't like the genre in the first place isn't helpful to anybody.

This is almost as disappointing as the time I read a review of Utawarerumono: Mask of Truth that was by somebody who both didn't like VNs and hadn't played the first two games in the series.