And come on, we can't all be boring.
It's more a matter of fanboy tribalism being extremely irritating and distasteful.
And of course I'm aware that Bioware has its share of irritating and obsequious supporters, but witcher fans have historically had an annoying tendency toward cherio pissing on the BSN. Going back to Witcher 2 versus DA2. The Witcher 2 fights were worse, I think. Witcher 3 is a better game, for starters.
It's more a matter of fanboy tribalism being extremely irritating and distasteful.
And of course I'm aware that Bioware has its share of irritating and obsequious fan boys, but witcher fans have historically had a tendency toward cherio pissing on the BSN. Going back to Witcher 2 versus DA2. The Witcher 2 fights were worse, I think. Witcher 3 is a better game, for starters.
I don't recall... I'm literally going to go get one of those magazines and get a passage because I'd hardly say they were any less tribalistic, in fact, infinitely more.
I don't recall... I'm literally going to go get one of those magazines and get a passage because I'd hardly say they were any less tribalistic, in fact, infinitely more.
That was a response to Robotic's post, not yours. I'll edit for clarity.
salty (adj.) mid-15c., "tasting of salt, impregnated with salt," from salt (n.) + -y (2). Meaning "racy" is from 1866, from salt in the sense of "that which gives life or pungency" (1570s, originally of words or wit). Meaning "racy, sexy" is from 1866. U.S. slang sense of "angry, irritated" is first attested 1938 (probably from similar use with regard to sailors, "tough, aggressive," attested by 1920), especially in phrase jump salty "to unexpectedly become enraged."
It's more a matter of fanboy tribalism being extremely irritating and distasteful.
And of course I'm aware that Bioware has its share of irritating and obsequious supporters, but witcher fans have historically had an annoying tendency toward cherio pissing on the BSN. Going back to Witcher 2 versus DA2. The Witcher 2 fights were worse, I think. Witcher 3 is a better game, for starters.
This is something I could really do without in the gaming community.
Anytime there is two or more things in direct competition it always becomes a ** waving contest.
Well I went ahead and found some stuff anyway, Aug 98 issue of Nintendo power and I quote the fan mail
"I saw screen shots of SMRPG2 and could not believe them! The graphics are as good as South Park!
Next response
"You're kidding, right? You called the graphics in SMRPG2 a "2-D look in a 3-D world." I don't want Super-NES style games on the N64!
Next response
What are you thinking??? (yes literally 3 question marks) A 2-D painting? It looks like you ruined the graphics of Super Mario RPG 2 just for the sake of variety.
Or this preview of Turok 2
"At E3, we were among a select few journalists and industry insiders who were allowed a sneak peek at an early version of Turok 2. What we saw in Iguana Entertainment's heavily guarded suite blew us away. Imagine our delight, then, when we were invited to Iguana's headquarters for an exclusive, in-depth preview of the game-in-progress-"
And guess what, the coverage is uniformly positive, just like it was for every game previewed, like, ever.
Well I went ahead and found some stuff anyway, Aug 98 issue of Nintendo power and I quote the fan mail
"I saw screen shots of SMRPG2 and could not believe them! The graphics are as good as South Park!
Next response
"You're kidding, right? You called the graphics in SMRPG2 a "2-D look in a 3-D world." I don't want Super-NES style games on the N64!
Next response
What are you thinking??? (yes literally 3 question marks) A 2-D painting? It looks like you ruined the graphics of Super Mario RPG 2 just for the sake of variety.
Or this preview of Turok 2
"At E3, we were among a select few journalists and industry insiders who were allowed a sneak peek at an early version of Turok 2. What we saw in Iguana Entertainment's heavily guarded suite blew us away. Imagine our delight, then, when we were invited to Iguana's headquarters for an exclusive, in-depth preview of the game-in-progress-"
And guess what, the coverage is uniformly positive, just like it was for every game previewed, like, ever.
And you can extend this to any other press corps catering to a specific industry. Film, lit, cigars, basketball, whatever.
And you can extend this to any other press corps catering to a specific industry. Film, lit, cigars, basketball, whatever.
Basically, Sports Illustrated here we go with our exclusive with Michael Jordan and yeah whoa is he primed to make the biggest comeback ever these are all 90s references but yeah basically.
I think the only thing that happened was the shredding of the impartial screen, today's gamers just openly admit their biases/hatreds/whatever
I agree in principle, though there is a danger in that sort of design that it will restrict what you can do to a narrow path.
That's not necessarily the case, but it's important we acknowledge the risk.
I don't think I understand what you're proposing as the result. Could you clarify? Do you mean that changing maps/dialogue options based on our previous choices could limit the characterization of the PC? Or am I missing the point?
This is something I could really do without in the gaming community.
Anytime there is two or more things in direct competition it always becomes a ** waving contest.
**Edited: for language**
I think the only thing that happened was the shredding of the impartial screen, today's gamers just openly admit their biases/hatreds/whatever
While a small minority of them call in bomb threats over a lack of "objectivity" in criticism and reviewing, which is by its very nature and definition subjective.
Kefka, you accidentally a bunch of posts I completely agree with.
accidentally a bunch of posts I completely agree with.
Hmm who knew? 
I hate to break it to you guys but games journalism was never this "gentle impartial beast" you guys seem to think it is it was always 98% rampant fanboyism and just kind of off the cuff spritz and spratz.
If you look at a Gamepro review from 1995 or something you'll basically just see over-enthusiastic gamer rage/excitement along with fierce brand recognition and dozens of other things.
Plus I mean one of the major magazines was Nintendo Power, which was like literally owned by Nintendo, so can you guess what game tended to win Game of the year? That's right! A Nintendo game.
Also, let's keep things in perspective; when it comes to games journalism we ARE talking about people discussing video games on the internet (or in magazines previously). This is not exactly going to attract Pulitzer-worthy investigative journalists at the best of times.
Personally, in an age where many games are streamed before they are even released, or shortly after, I find reviews increasingly obsolete. Yeah, I can read this person's subjective opinion of a game (if I'm lucky and the embargo lifts before release, anyway). Or I can, you know, actually see it in action and judge for myself.
Only reviewer I still look up is Totalbiscuit, and that's more for entertainment value most of the time when he methodically rips a game to shreds.
Picard is better.
Not according to the film both were in....
The films are garbage so it's not like they count anyway.
My experience with gamers at conventions and stuff is that they are super mellow, it's most online and other things where you find a lot of the nastiness.
Something to consider is that nastiness is like omnipresent in other forms of media, something like Game of Thrones arguably promotes it....
Isn't that bizzare? A series which basically fetishizes and idolizes violence and killing and betrayal and murder escapes every censor/Fox News whatever like it's nothing, but Pac-Man or whatever is like the worst thing ever and terrorizing people everywhere.
Also, let's keep things in perspective; when it comes to games journalism we ARE talking about people discussing video games on the internet (or in magazines previously). This is not exactly going to attract Pulitzer-worthy investigative journalists at the best of times.
Personally, in an age where many games are streamed before they are even released, or shortly after, I find reviews increasingly obsolete. Yeah, I can read this person's subjective opinion of a game (if I'm lucky and the embargo lifts before release, anyway). Or I can, you know, actually see it in action and judge for myself.
Only reviewer I still look up is Totalbiscuit, and that's more for entertainment value most of the time when he methodically rips a game to shreds.
I must confess, in my heart of hearts... I truly care for almost no one's opinion on anything gaming, well, on a fundamental philosophical level at least, consequently video game reviews have been and perhaps always will be basically just a source of entertainment. I feel like taking it any more seriously than that is contrary to the spirit of gaming anyway.
I must confess, in my heart of hearts... I truly care for almost no one's opinion on anything, well, on a fundamental philosophical level at least, consequently video game reviews have been and perhaps always will be basically just a source of entertainment. I feel like taking it any more seriously than that is contrary to the spirit of gaming anyway.
The only use of a review is for you to see if the game is something you think you would enjoy in an environment that isn't completely controlled by the developer's marketing department.
So to that end I would agree with Giantdeathrobot in that reviews are becoming obsolete because gameplay streams and videos are a far superior way to gather that information.
Why bother reading some website review I know is going to be biased when I can just watch whatever YouTuber I'm subscribed to play the game and see everything for myself?
The only use of a review is for you to see if the game is something you think you would enjoy in an environment that isn't completely controlled by the developer's marketing department.
So to that end I would agree with Giantdeathrobot in that reviews are becoming obsolete because gameplay streams and videos are a far superior way to gather that information.
Why bother reading some website review I know is going to be biased when I can just watch whatever YouTuber I'm subscribed to play the game and see everything for myself?
Well I think for me it's just I've played lots of games I kind of have some idea of what I actually like and just go for it. Odds are whoever the reviewer is they've played less games than me so I'm kinda just like eh....
I mean something like League of Legends I can just so easily trace to WC3 MP and than to Blizzard generally and back to like WC2 which I played on Macintosh a lot back in the day.... like I can see where it's coming from so I'm like w/e.
Egoraptor is clearly super-versed in a large variety of games so I'm more likely to listen to him about something for ex...
But yeah most "opinions" especially in the gaming sphere are just designed to capture some sort of trend a lot of the time anyway, they rate something according to a new prevaling standard whether that's "graphics" "Multiplayer capabilities" or whatever the new flavor is at any given time. It's part of why Nintendo also just ignores all these opinions and takes/focus group whatever and just kind of goes what they think is best, it's a good strategy all things considered.
That said something like cooking an Onion I am not as knowledgeable about and so am more likely to be curious what people have to say about such a thing.
Opinions are just a dime a dozen and talk is cheap and all that, unless someone has decisively proven they have some kind of stake or interest or investment in the thing you are better off just treating it as some kind random riff/gossip conversation and as I stated just kind of ignoring it and not caring about it too substantively.
I think actually some game developers have gotten in trouble for not recognizing that fact, I'm not super inclined to take their side in these sorts of things necessarily.
My experience with gamers at conventions and stuff is that they are super mellow, it's most online and other things where you find a lot of the nastiness.
Something to consider is that nastiness is like omnipresent in other forms of media, something like Game of Thrones arguably promotes it....
Isn't that bizzare? A series which basically fetishizes and idolizes violence and killing and betrayal and murder escapes every censor/Fox News whatever like it's nothing, but Pac-Man or whatever is like the worst thing ever and terrorizing people everywhere.
You mean the one where Kirk dies and Picard doesn't?
Don't watch GoT for the issues mentioned, nor the Sopranos, Deadwood, and a list of others. And my experience with Gamers is that they tend to be more biased than either those of faith, or Fox News.
Oh yeah? Well Sopranos/Deadwood and stuff are just as bad to be honest... CSI, etc, a lot of Sports, a lot of the hallmarks of American society pretty much idolize violence.
But your point about gamers being biased makes my point, some gamers I daresay don't really think wantonly killing/murdering/insulting is really all that great. It's not like they have a state or society to enforce their wishes, but a lot of them reject the notion that just "anything goes" which is omnipresent in much American media. If that's a "bias" so be it. Gaming has often just been the scapegoat in that equation, not the cause or center-point of it.
Oh yeah? Well Sopranos/Deadwood and stuff are just as bad to be honest...
But your point about gamers being biased makes my point, some gamers I daresay don't really think wantonly killing/murdering/insulting is really all that great. It's not like they have a state or society to enforce their wishes, but a lot of them reject the notion that just "anything goes" which is omnipresent in much American media. If that's a "bias" so be it. Gaming has often just been the scapegoat in that equation, not the cause or center-point of it.
more biased than Fox News.
I'm not sure this is actually physically possible.
So apparently this comment was so offensive it had to be moderated and I given a warning point.
Haha no way!
And my experience with Gamers is that they tend to be more biased than either those of faith, or Fox News.
Retour en haut