588 réponses à ce sujet

[imbs]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...

See? You actually can criticise something without being an ignorant jerk.

I knew we would agree some day! 

Oh my sides, such wit! Have you thought about writing for the stage?

Let me see if I can match that. Um... okay, how's this? 'Yes, we agree that you are an ignorant jerk!'

Eh? Can I get a badummm-tishhh? No? Anyone? Awww...

I tried putting in a laughing smiley like yours, but it kept turning into a booing smiley and I had to throw him out. What's your secret?

You should try it sometime. Will definitely improve your blood pressure, if not your debate skills. 

I coulda sworn earlier you were going off at me for troll/condescending posts.

[Renmiri1]

I was, you were having a bad day.

Yah, my post is a bit condescending, can't deny it. I opted for that instead of exchanging insults.

[AmstradHero]

Dorrieb wrote...
In the spirit of showing willing, I'll criticise the article myself:

... Richard assumes that the reader knows and recognises the problems that he (and others) covered in a previous article, which is assuming far too much. ...

... someone who has not read his reviews of The Witcher 1 and 2 ...

... is really only a compressed summary of what Rich himself wrote in a previous article ...

The rest of the article follows suit. It is full of perceptive insights, in my opinion at least, but too full of them. The wheat gets lost amidst the chaff and everything is dealt with in so few words that clarity and some meaning is lost. I blame Twitter.

That being said, it is still a good article full of interesting insights, if not quite up to Richard's usual standards and requiring more than the usual effort from the reader.

I know I said I was done with this thread, but seriously, I cannot fathom the leap of logic you're taking here.

So you're saying it's a good article because it's not standalone, and requires the reader to have read a bunch of his other articles, which he doesn't link to at all?  I also love how your criticism includes the wonderful "if anything, it's too awesome" statement much like he writes himself. Are you sure you aren't actually Richard or his publicist?

You even say yourself it "is assuming far too much". As a reader, I damn well expect a good writer to link to previous articles if they're using them as background information on which to base their point. They should not expect me to search for evidence to support their case - they should be providing it.

To say that it's a well written article despite this (on top of the aforementioned flaws) is something I simply can't understand.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 février 2013 - 06:03 .

[Dorrieb]

AmstradHero wrote...

So you're saying it's a good article because it's not standalone, and requires the reader to have read a bunch of his other articles, which he doesn't link to at all? ...   ...To say that it's a well written article despite this (on top of the aforementioned flaws) is something I simply can't understand.

No, I believe it is a good article as articles go, in spite of certain glaring flaws, but you made a valid point previously when you wrote:

AmstradHero wrote...
It seems, however, that your unwilling to concede a single point against him or any aspect of his writing,
which pretty much renders any attempt at discussion of the article moot.

It isn't difficult to see how I would have given that impression, so I meant to show that this is not the case. I am quite capable of laying some blame on Richard's lack of clarity rather than on the reader's inability to guess at his meaning. Richard's article does assume too much familiarity from the reader, which is most admittedly a flaw. Whether it's a fatal flaw that pushes off the article into the 'bad' pile is up to you. I certainly don't think so, but then I'm a massive fan.

You see? I can listen and concede a reasonable point made in good faith. It's willful misunderstanding that gets my back up.

Remember also that I had already apologised for making a scene, shook hands and promised to play nice, and I did. But then someone couldn't be satisfied with leaving it at that, could they? Someone just had to give it one more vindictive kick, one more twist of the knife, because things were getting too fair-minded for someone's tastes, weren't they? I'm not pointing any fingers or singling anyone out, but it was Renmiri1.

Such treacherous perfidy can not stand. I apologise to you and everyone else who got caught up in it, but in the words of a funny-looking man from the 80's, I ain't gonna take it. If the intention was to provoke me, consider me well and thoroughly provoked.

Modifié par Dorrieb, 28 février 2013 - 07:46 .

[AmstradHero]

No offense, but you're taking this all too personally. Imrahil_ launched a fairly hateful tirade against MY work that was ridiculously inaccurate and biased, and I didn't react the same way you're doing here to criticism that isn't even about your work.

[Dorrieb]

AmstradHero wrote...

No offense, but you're taking this all too personally. Imrahil_ launched a fairly hateful tirade against MY work that was ridiculously inaccurate and biased, and I didn't react the same way you're doing here to criticism that isn't even about your work.

That's fair enough, I do that, and your composure does you credit.

[Everwarden]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So the issue you have isn't with the wheel itself, but rather how we use the wheel and what type of information we wish to present to the player to help inform their responses.

My problem with the wheel of not knowing what my character is about to say. It's extremely annoying to hit a dialogue option, be completely surprised when something completely unexpected comes out, and then have to reload. 

[Renmiri1]

Dorrieb wrote...

*snip*

I had already apologised for making a scene, shook hands and promised to play nice, and I did. But then someone couldn't be satisfied with leaving it at that, could they? Someone just had to give it one more vindictive kick, one more twist of the knife, because things were getting too fair-minded for someone's tastes, weren't they? I'm not pointing any fingers or singling anyone out, but it was Renmiri1.

Such treacherous perfidy can not stand. I apologise to you and everyone else who got caught up in it, but in the words of a funny-looking man from the 80's, I ain't gonna take it. If the intention was to provoke me, consider me well and thoroughly provoked.

 treacherous perfidy ? That must  be the first time someone said this to me 

Look, I care about good journalism, as you do. When I saw a - IMHO - well written article and a well done  list of things to add to DAI, I remembered this thread and wanted to post here, because we were discussing here the "do's and "dont's" of gaming journalism so I wanted to show what in my view was a well done article. I had been very dismissive of gaming journalism here and wanted to post something positive about it.

Alas, you took it as a knife in the back, which wasn't my intention. I was posting it more for the other posters on this thread that were talking about game journalism. I saw it and apologized immediately for "rattling your cage".

But that wasn't enough for you so you started with insults and I got a bit carried away too. I think I was able to stop myself from joining you in the mud wrestling pit but if I didn't I apologize. My "treacherous perfidy" wasn't aimed at you at all, it was merely me wanting to be fair to gaming journos and showing I don't hate ALL of them. Some are quite decent.

I don't know enough of Richard's work to know if he is one of the good gaming journos. This article you linked was clearly rushed to print before research and without relevant links to past articles of his that clarified his views. I am no mind reader so I didn't guess the article came with a list of reccommended reading to be understood. IMHO no article should do that without linking to the background info, and without clearly stating that a) it is an opinion piece. Richard/ author is talking for himself only, not "we" c) Article is a quick summary of previous essays that must be read 

That is a bad article IMHO. I linked another article I found good, which didn't have the same pitfalls. End of story. No treachery intended.

[Dorrieb]

Renmiri1 wrote...
 treacherous perfidy ? That must  be the first time someone said this to me 

An improbable tale! But the people are not deceived. Did you or did you not become aware that it had been many, many days since anyone had posted scornfully with regard to the article, and that in fact the discussion had come to involve the contents of the article rather than its quality or the moral character of its author? Was this not to you a source of some distress, and did you not therefore deliberately and with malicious intent take it upon yourself to introduce a discordant note with the singular purpose of altering this happy state of affairs for one more to your liking? Furthermore, did you not expect and in fact welcome the civil unrest that was likely to follow, and in fact did?

Your impudent prevarications would seek to deny it, but the pernicious deed was carried out in the sight of witnesses. Would you have us, against all reason, deny the evidence of our own senses? The evidence before the court is incontrovertible.

[Renmiri1]

Oi, I can see the fiction writer skills in you. A bit over the top but nice use of uncommon wording. Richard should be jealous! 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 28 février 2013 - 08:34 .

[Renmiri1]

I don't do mud wrestling but wouldn't be opposed to Nutella wrestling 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 01 mars 2013 - 01:43 .

[Renmiri1]

tehehe.. maybe not, I got the idea of Nutella wrestling because of this crazy German performance artist that covers herself in Nutella to do her shows. Looks like mud. I had just watched a video of her and ewwwww... It put me off Nutela for months.. or until easter!

Modifié par Renmiri1, 01 mars 2013 - 08:44 .