178 réponses à ce sujet

[Father_Jerusalem]

Cruders wrote...

Bunch of random drivel trying to say the BBB isn't completely and utterly corrupt, even though they gave an A rating to a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

Yeah, no, the BBB is full of lies, misinformation, and is completely and utterly pay for play. If you honestly think that BioWare deserves an F for having 70 complaints and 3 unresolved complaints, please look at any other business and see how their complaint ratio relates to their grade.

[Amioran]

TheProfessor234 wrote...

I'll put more weight into Totalbuiscit, Yatchzee, AngryJoe, and any fricken YouTube reveiwer over Ebert any day of the week, why? Because they play video games, they know video games, and they care about them. If there was an Ebert for video games and he dissed a movie the real Ebert liked, do you think he would care? No.

Probably because of the context (being the narrative in this case)?

Ebert, being a movie critic, probably (i.e. surely) knows much more (as an euphemism) about literature than those you mentioned (AngryJoe, seriously?), because, you know, to judge a movie you usually need to know it for various motives (along many other things useful for the same, as philosophy). For video games yet it isn't so (and in fact many "reviewers" don't, at all), probably because games are considered at present less "profound" for what it concerns narrative. Things can change in the future but for now it is so.

Since TB is judging the narrative of ME, then Ebert would have much more say than him in the matter (the comparision isn't even funny) you can bet how much you want about it.

You cannot make the same distinction in the other case.

Modifié par Amioran, 04 mai 2012 - 06:06 .

[TheProfessor234]

That being said, has he gone through the whole story? To my knowledge the only opinion that Ebert has right now is that he hates people for wanting to change the ending outside of actually knowing anything about it. Not saying that would change his mind but I would, in really weird way of putting it, get a better feel from his own opinion then.

What I'm getting at is, I respect the opinion of people who have played the game and liked the ending more than Ebert on the sole knowledge that they have actually gone through the game. Again, all I know about Ebert is that he has a sole opinion on hearing that people want the ending to change.

[Amioran]

TheProfessor234 wrote...

That being said, has he gone through the whole story? To my knowledge the only opinion that Ebert has right now is that he hates people for wanting to change the ending outside of actually knowing anything about it. Not saying that would change his mind but I would, in really weird way of putting it, get a better feel from his own opinion then.

And he does well, given that he knows perfectly of what he talks about (differently from many here).

People cannot pretend a change in a narrative because they don't own the property of the same, nor they have any say on it. The only thing they can do is to give feedback etc. that's a total different thing.

[AkiKishi]

Amioran wrote...
People cannot pretend a change in a narrative because they don't own the property of the same, nor they have any say on it. The only thing they can do is to give feedback etc. that's a total different thing.

The EC will change the ending. Comsumerism beats artistic intgegrity.

[TheProfessor234]

The Extended Cut will add on the current ending. I sear, I don't know why people keep misreading that.

Look up what the word "extend," means please.

[incinerator950]

Adanu wrote...

SetecAstronomy wrote...

I am participating in a boycott of TotalBiscuit's youtube videos.

I am currently reading a transcription of his youtube videos and will be offering my views on them shortly.

<3

You, Sir, are awesome.

This **** is about as 'valid' as a used car salesmans opinion.

In the words of Moldavi:

There is no rust on this fine automobile!

[Cruders]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Cruders wrote...

Bunch of random drivel trying to say the BBB isn't completely and utterly corrupt, even though they gave an A rating to a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

Yeah, no, the BBB is full of lies, misinformation, and is completely and utterly pay for play. If you honestly think that BioWare deserves an F for having 70 complaints and 3 unresolved complaints, please look at any other business and see how their complaint ratio relates to their grade.

Ah the old "I'm going to quote you but change what you actually wrote... teehee" thing.
That alone just lost whatever credibility you had.
If you have a point to make, then make it. Intentionally misquoting someone isn't the way to do it.

As for the HAMAS incident. Claiming that the BBB accredited the terrorist group is a flat out lie. It accredited a fake company with the same name. Granted that's still bad and does cause problems with it's credibility, it doesn not change the fact that the statement "BBB accredited and welcomed the terrorist group HAMAS as a member" is false.
Touche, however... En garde.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Cruders wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Cruders wrote...

Bunch of random drivel trying to say the BBB isn't completely and utterly corrupt, even though they gave an A rating to a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

Yeah, no, the BBB is full of lies, misinformation, and is completely and utterly pay for play. If you honestly think that BioWare deserves an F for having 70 complaints and 3 unresolved complaints, please look at any other business and see how their complaint ratio relates to their grade.

Ah the old "I'm going to quote you but change what you actually wrote... teehee" thing.
That alone just lost whatever credibility you had.
If you have a point to make, then make it. Intentionally misquoting someone isn't the way to do it.

As for the HAMAS incident. Claiming that the BBB accredited the terrorist group is a flat out lie. It accredited a fake company with the same name. Granted that's still bad and does cause problems with it's credibility, it doesn not change the fact that the statement "BBB accredited and welcomed the terrorist group HAMAS as a member" is false.
Touche, however... En garde.

More like, I didn't want to have a giant ass nested comment that would just annoy people. Not to mention... I don't give a crap about your opinion of my credibility, considering you still think the BBB is credible. Frankly, I'm GLAD you think my credibility is shot if that's the company I'd be keeping.

But by all means, keep on touting that one blogger and the fact that BioWare doesn't pay for ratings. Maybe somebody, somewhere, will care.

[0x30A88]

It's a great majority it seems -- or are we just a very, very loud minority -- that thinks the ending raises more questions than a triology's ending should: why the **** did the ship ..., and what happens next to the galaxy we saved and will it ...
(... = spoiler avoided)

Modifié par Gisle Aune, 04 mai 2012 - 06:25 .

[Avolie]

wayne

[Falkenburg]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Falkenburg wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Who is totalbiscuit and why should I care?

Who is Roger Ebert and why should I care?

Who is Michio Kaku and why should I care?

Ad infinitum.

If you don't think BioWare cares about their product being denigrated by minor internet celebrities, then you haven't realized that Mass Effect isn't primarily a game, it's a Property.

The more the property is tarnished, the less valuable it is. If Mass Effect becomes, say, internet slang for a screw up at the last possible moment, do you think the property will continue to be supported?

Put another way: what do you think BW cares more about, 100 well reasoned forum threads, or a single joke about ME on, say, the Big Bang Theory?

First off, comparing this Totalbiscuit guy to Roger Ebert is complete and utter insanity. One posts whiney videos to YouTube, one has had his reviews featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines and hosted a television show for over twenty years. If your goal was to make the most ridiculous comparison imaginable, then, I guess, congratulations? Not to mention, comparing his YouTube channel to The Big Bang Theory. Honestly.

Well, nice to see you (and a few others) completely missed my point.

The point is not about the objective qualifications of reviewers; it's about popularity.

To wit: the video in question (which, as an aside, is actually far more respectful of EA and the employee in question then has been implied, and is actually a very good listen), has as of this posting, more then 76 thousand views.

Some people talk about what opinoins deserve respect, as if deserves has something to do with it (to quote William Munny).

Whether Totalbuiscuit deserves his nearly seven-hundred-thousand subscribers or his nearly quarter billion(!) views, I dunno. I found his commentary interesting, as, apearently did more then three thousand others.

Again, it's about a product, a property. I find it endlessly amusing that Atakuma things BioWare cares more for forum posts then mass market mockery. The only way that would ever be true is if people start paying to post on the forums.

[Deathstroke123]

xsdob wrote...

Falkenburg wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Who is totalbiscuit and why should I care?

Who is Roger Ebert and why should I care?

Who is Michio Kaku and why should I care?

Ad infinitum.

If
you don't think BioWare cares about their product being denigrated by
minor internet celebrities, then you haven't realized that Mass Effect
isn't primarily a game, it's a Property.

The more the
property is tarnished, the less valuable it is. If Mass Effect becomes,
say, internet slang for a screw up at the last possible moment, do you
think the property will continue to be supported?

Put another
way: what do you think BW cares more about, 100 well reasoned forum
threads, or a single joke about ME on, say, the Big Bang Theory?

Doug walker, James Rolfe, Noah Antwiler, Lewis Lovhaug, Ed Glasser, Brad Jones, Joe Vargas and Tobuscus are more worthy of name recognition that totalbiscuit is.

Speaking of Noah Antwiler, here's his opinion on the whole ending debacle, and honestly, he's completely right about what he says about the fanbase.

http://www.twitch.tv...one/b/312765460

Skip to about 4 minutes in.

[Amioran]

Falkenburg wrote...
Well, nice to see you (and a few others) completely missed my point.

The point is not about the objective qualifications of reviewers; it's about popularity.

To wit: the video in question (which, as an aside, is actually far more respectful of EA and the employee in question then has been implied, and is actually a very good listen), has as of this posting, more then 76 thousand views.

Some people talk about what opinoins deserve respect, as if deserves has something to do with it (to quote William Munny).

Whether Totalbuiscuit deserves his nearly seven-hundred-thousand subscribers or his nearly quarter billion(!) views, I dunno. I found his commentary interesting, as, apearently did more then three thousand others.

Again, it's about a product, a property. I find it endlessly amusing that Atakuma things BioWare cares more for forum posts then mass market mockery. The only way that would ever be true is if people start paying to post on the forums.

What you say is correct, apart one single point: popularity is created much more by name than numbers.

If you can have even only one person of good calibre speaking well of your product it will matter MUCH more than 1 million unknown (or semi unknown) people bashing it.

If in one of my books I can have a single good review by someone as Ellis, for example, for sales it will have much more impact than a million unknown individuals saying the contrary, you can bet how much you want about it (and no matter how many common people will "follow" that review, because it is not common people that counts when determining the popularity of the product and if it gets liked or not).

Names matters much more than numbers for what it concerns popularity.

If Ebert speaks well of the narrative of ME what he says matters more than 100 AngryJoes togheter, at last for the people that counts, and the people that counts are those influencing real reviews, and real reviews are those that influence most the majority of gamers (no, it's not metacritics or youtube, no matter what you think).

Modifié par Amioran, 04 mai 2012 - 07:11 .

[Cruders]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Cruders wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Cruders wrote...

Bunch of random drivel trying to say the BBB isn't completely and utterly corrupt, even though they gave an A rating to a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

Yeah, no, the BBB is full of lies, misinformation, and is completely and utterly pay for play. If you honestly think that BioWare deserves an F for having 70 complaints and 3 unresolved complaints, please look at any other business and see how their complaint ratio relates to their grade.

Ah the old "I'm going to quote you but change what you actually wrote... teehee" thing.
That alone just lost whatever credibility you had.
If you have a point to make, then make it. Intentionally misquoting someone isn't the way to do it.

As for the HAMAS incident. Claiming that the BBB accredited the terrorist group is a flat out lie. It accredited a fake company with the same name. Granted that's still bad and does cause problems with it's credibility, it doesn not change the fact that the statement "BBB accredited and welcomed the terrorist group HAMAS as a member" is false.
Touche, however... En garde.

More like, I didn't want to have a giant ass nested comment that would just annoy people. Not to mention... I don't give a crap about your opinion of my credibility, considering you still think the BBB is credible. Frankly, I'm GLAD you think my credibility is shot if that's the company I'd be keeping.

But by all means, keep on touting that one blogger and the fact that BioWare doesn't pay for ratings. Maybe somebody, somewhere, will care.

If you didn't want a nested comment, then don't quote it or truncate it. It's not my opinion that it deteriorates credibility. It is a fact that deliberate misquoting reduces credibility. I dare you to turn in a thesis paper misquoting sources and expect to have the same credibility as if you were to properly quote them.

Regardless of what you feel about BBB, the ending was bad, taken at face value. Any further interpretations for the ending is merely speculation. Action is being requested from the FTC regardless of BBB involvement.

As to the OT, the video was interesting. OP made the video seem more negative than it actually was. 99.5% of the trilogy was good if not epic. last .5%... could live without. 

[Cruders]

Amioran wrote...

Falkenburg wrote...
Well, nice to see you (and a few others) completely missed my point. 

The point is not about the objective qualifications of reviewers; it's about popularity.

To wit: the video in question (which, as an aside, is actually far more respectful of EA and the employee in question then has been implied, and is actually a very good listen), has as of this posting, more then 76 thousand views.

Some people talk about what opinoins deserve respect, as if deserves has something to do with it (to quote William Munny).

Whether Totalbuiscuit deserves his nearly seven-hundred-thousand subscribers or his nearly quarter billion(!)views, I dunno. I found his commentary interesting, as, apearently did more then three thousand others.

Again, it's about a product, a property. I find it endlessly amusing that Atakuma things BioWare cares more for forum posts then mass market mockery. The only way that would ever be true is if people start paying to post on the forums.

What you say is correct, apart one single point: popularity is created much more by name than numbers.

If you can have even only one person of good calibre speaking well of your product it will matter MUCH more than 1 million unknown (or semi unknown) people bashing it.

If in one of my books I can have a single good review by someone as Ellis, for example, for sales it will have much more impact than a million unknown individuals saying the contrary, you can bet how much you want about it (and no matter how many common people will "follow" that review, because it is not common people that counts when determining the popularity of the product and if it gets liked or not).

Names matters much more than numbers for what it concerns popularity.

If Ebert speaks well of the narrative of ME what he says matters more than 100 AngryJoes togheter, at last for the people that counts, and the people that counts are those influencing real reviews, and real reviews are those that influence most the majority of gamers (no, it's not metacritics or youtube, no matter what you think).

I'm not sure that's entirely true. It depends on the target audience. If your target audience is gamers then I hardly think a review by Ebert will carry that much more weight than Gaming critics that vlog on youtube. However, it depends on how you're defining gamers in this manner. Are you referring to the stereotypical gamer demographic, or are you referring to the more casual gamer which the Nintendo has been targeting, especially with the Wii?

Modifié par Cruders, 04 mai 2012 - 07:34 .

[Amioran]

Cruders wrote...
I'm not sure that's entirely true. It depends on the target audience. If your target audience is gamers then I hardly think a review by Ebert will carry that much more weight than Gaming critics that vlog on youtube.

Re-read the last sentence in the previous post. It is not that it influences gamers directly, it does so indirectly.

Cruders wrote...
However, it depends on how you're defining gamers in this manner. Are you referring to the stereotypical gamer demographic, or are you referring to the more casual gamer which the Nintendo has been targeting, especially with the Wii?

I'm talking of the majority of the gamers. While "hard-nerdy fans" are many, they are not the majority of gamers. The majority of gamers still base their purchase on real reviews, not metacritic.

[Cruders]

Amioran wrote...

Cruders wrote...
I'm not sure that's entirely true. It depends on the target audience. If your target audience is gamers then I hardly think a review by Ebert will carry that much more weight than Gaming critics that vlog on youtube.

Re-read the last sentence in the previous post. It is not that it influences gamers directly, it does so indirectly.

However, you can't rule out influence of metacritics and ranting youtubers in that chain. For example, I have friends who rigorously follow metacritic/game reviewers and they tell me about it and what not. Peer reviews, some of which are influenced by metacritics and the like, (may or may not, but for the sake of this argument/discussion we'll go with may/will) affect your decision on whether or not to buy a game. That being said, we don't get a lot of Eberts making game reviews, rather we have to rely on past experiences, peer reviews, youtube, youtube vlogers, and metacritics to get a bearing on whether or not to buy a game

Amioran wrote... 

Cruders wrote...
However, it depends on how you're defining gamers in this manner. Are you referring to the stereotypical gamer demographic, or are you referring to the more casual gamer which the Nintendo has been targeting, especially with the Wii?

I'm talking of the majority of the gamers. While "hard-nerdy fans" are many, they are not the majority of gamers. The majority of gamers still base their purchase on real reviews, not metacritic.

And real reviews would be peer reviews? so as we're on the same page.

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Made me re-read that and realize that while the question aspect still lingered when I originally wrote it, the meaning actually changed.

Modifié par Cruders, 04 mai 2012 - 08:33 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

Cruders wrote...


And real reviews would be peer reviews, so as we're on the same page.

You mean, like the "peer reviews" that flood metacritic with hundreds of 0s because they don't like the ending, or because Liara's boobs are too big, or because - god forbid - there's gay characters in the game? Those are the reviews we should trust?

No thanks.

[furryrage59]

All the people furiously posting to say they don't care.

Amusing to watch.

[spirosz]

Kaelef wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

And why do we care what some unknown person thinks of the ending?

You just negated the entire point of this forum's existence. 

Haha, ouch.  

[Keltikone]

To the OP, as per his online persona, TB pretty much hates everything.

Though he ain't wrong most of the time, I suspect he adopts certain positions on topics to provoke conflicting opinions and (direct TB quote here) generate ad revenue.

[Father_Jerusalem]

slyguy200 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Cruders wrote...


And real reviews would be peer reviews, so as we're on the same page.

You mean, like the "peer reviews" that flood metacritic with hundreds of 0s because they don't like the ending, or because Liara's boobs are too big, or because - god forbid - there's gay characters in the game? Those are the reviews we should trust?

No thanks.

Dude, i would think you would know that there is a lot more wrong with ME3 than just those things. So those zeros are deserved.

Zeroes are deserved? No. A zero is for a game that is either completely unplayable or horrifically, HORRIFICALLY bad - an example of the latter would be 50 Cent: Bulletproof.

Quite simply, if you rate ME3 at anything less than a 5/10, your opinion is invalid as you're simply trolling - and even then, a 5/10 needs damn good reasoning why you rate it that low. Objectively speaking, even with the ending, ME3 is a 7.5-8 at worst, and I personally would rate it as a 9.

[sorentoft]

I wish people would stop taking whatever TB says as gospel. I mean come on, he's a great guy and I love his videos to death, but he's not a bloody apostle.