Ragnarok Odyssey Review | IGN

Colin Moriarty writes: "I can’t begin to tell you how much I wanted to like Ragnarok Odyssey. It was one of the PlayStation Vita games I was most looking forward to. But when all of its deficits stack up on one another, Ragnarok Odyssey comes precariously close to being a bad game. It starts out fun, quickly falls into an endless loop, and never goes anywhere. That’s a huge problem.

Vita owners deserve more than a half-baked RPG with no style and very little substance. RPG fans want customization, not just a nod at it. They want stats, experience points and character building. They want menus that make sense. They want a story. They want to feel engaged because the game makes them want to play, not because there’s some vague hope that it may get better later.

Ragnarok Odyssey doesn’t deliver, and your money is better spent elsewhere."

The story is too old to be commented.
Xof1455d ago

Ooh, yet another perfect example from IGN on how not to write a review.

See, reviews need to be objective. A lot of people get hung up on this, they say it's impossible because reviews are opinion pieces, and opinions are subjective. But that's not what it means to judge a game objectively. An objective review means, simply put, to judge a thing based solely on its own merits.

In the context of gaming, this means that you cannot, for example, criticize a One Piece game simply for being a One Piece game. It doesn't matter if you don't like one piece, or if other people may not like one piece--it has no relevance to the quality of the game.

You'll notice most IGN reviews for Japanese games anchor their primary criticisms to illegitimate points.

This review is no different. You cannot criticize Ragnarok Odyssey for not being Diablo, because RO is not Diablo. You can't point to elements that are not present, intended or necessary to the game and claim their omission "breaks" the game. This is not reviewing objectively, this is a hatchet job.