CRPGAddict

[octavius]

He's about as ... antiRPG as someone could be.

Agreed.

What makes him "antiRPG"?
And is it serious enough that he will be investigated by the Committee on Un-RPG Activities?

 

[Grimlorn]

It's good he's the way he is. He can be completely objective instead of giving a certain title or series over inflated scores because he's a fan etc.

 

[Crooked Bee]

He does more harm than good to old CRPGs, and I'd rather he was just playing his beloved Skyrim all day long.

Also, he's the very antithesis of objective. All he does is impose his own tastes on old CRPGs and make up a few random numbers to accompany and justify that. His verdict is always heavily skewed in favour of the kind of role-playing that he enjoys, and that'd be alright since every reviewer has his tastes, but the problem is, that kind of role-playing is more often than not antithetical to what those CRPGs were even trying to achieve.

And funny you say this:

instead of giving a certain title or series over inflated scores because he's a fan etc.

Because it's pretty obvious he's a huge M&M and Ultima fan. Incidentally, the scores he gave to M&M and Ultima IV/V are almost two times higher than the scores he gave to Wizardry and The Bard's Tale. Objectivity, hell yeah.

 

[Whisper]

Also, he's the very antithesis of objective. All he does is impose his own tastes on old CRPGs and make up a few random numbers to accompany and justify that. His verdict is always heavily skewed in favour of the kind of role-playing that he enjoys, and that'd be alright since every reviewer has his tastes, but the problem is, that kind of role-playing is more often than not antithetical to what those CRPGs were even trying to achieve.

Not sure what you talk about.

What kind of role-playing he enjoys?

Can you show example?

 

[Crooked Bee]

What kind of role-playing he enjoys?

Can you show example?

The kind M&M and Ultima have in contrast to the kind Bard's Tale and Wizardry have. Which makes it perfectly understandable why he got so crazy over a game like Skyrim.

In my view, you should only read his blog if you can either pay no attention to his bullshit final reviews or you share his taste. In the latter case, you're fine.

 

[octavius]

He does more harm than good to old CRPGs,

"Anti-RPG"
"Does more harm than good to old CRPGs"


Are RPGs like a fucking religion to you?

 

[MMXI]

He does more harm than good to old CRPGs, and I'd rather he was just playing his beloved Skyrim all day long.

Also, he's the very antithesis of objective. All he does is impose his own tastes on old CRPGs and make up a few random numbers to accompany and justify that. His verdict is always heavily skewed in favour of the kind of role-playing that he enjoys, and that'd be alright since every reviewer has his tastes, but the problem is, that kind of role-playing is more often than not antithetical to what those CRPGs were even trying to achieve.

He's not a reviewer. He just blogs about the cRPGs he's playing chronologically. The ratings he gives at the end are merely a way to sum up his feelings about the games based on a number of categories he deems as important.

Because it's pretty obvious he's a huge M&M and Ultima fan.

He has enjoyed the first two Might and Magic games so far and they are absolutely nothing like Ultima. I wouldn't group those two series together.

Incidentally, the scores he gave to M&M and Ultima IV/V are almost two times higher than the scores he gave to Wizardry and The Bard's Tale. Objectivity, hell yeah.

And? The first two Might and Magic games covered most of the elements of The Bard's Tale but also a hell of a lot more. In fact, I can't think of much that The Bard's Tale did that the early Might and Magic games didn't do. And Wizardry? You mean the first one? You do know that he doesn't give scores based on release date right?

 

[Crooked Bee]

Are RPGs like a fucking religion to you?

You're talking bullshit, octavius, and making stuff up. I'm saying the guy is a heavily biased and totally subjective reviewer, his scores are arbitrary and taken out of his ass, and he's reviewing the games he isn't suited to reviewing because he can't judge them on their own merits. Ergo, he does harm to the way people perceive old CRPGs. What of that has to do with "religion"?

 

[Kersey]

He does more harm than good to old CRPGs

Not sure if I'd go as far as that, but I can't help feeling something like that every time I read things like "I wanted to play this but thanks for letting me know it's a piece of shit so I don't have to play it and form my own opinion" in his comments.

Also, he's the very antithesis of objective

Also this. Then again, I'm fairly sure he has explicitly written on multiple occasions that he in no way intends or tries to be objective, so I wouldn't hold it against him.

Anyway, I like reading about old games so I like reading his stuff most of the time. The comments section on the other hand can be scary depressing.

 

[Crooked Bee]

He does more harm than good to old CRPGs, and I'd rather he was just playing his beloved Skyrim all day long.

Also, he's the very antithesis of objective. All he does is impose his own tastes on old CRPGs and make up a few random numbers to accompany and justify that. His verdict is always heavily skewed in favour of the kind of role-playing that he enjoys, and that'd be alright since every reviewer has his tastes, but the problem is, that kind of role-playing is more often than not antithetical to what those CRPGs were even trying to achieve.

He's not a reviewer. He just blogs about the cRPGs he's playing chronologically. The ratings he gives at the end are merely a way to sum up his feelings about the games based on a number of categories he deems as important.

He is a reviewer precisely because his gives ratings. I’d be perfectly fine with his blog if, well, he just blogged without assigning numbers at random like he's a fucking IGN.

Also, it's true that he judges games according to what "he deems as important", but the people are making stuff up about him being "objective," and I was replying to that. The huge following he has doesn't help.

Because it's pretty obvious he's a huge M&M and Ultima fan.

He has enjoyed the first two Might and Magic games so far and they are absolutely nothing like Ultima. I wouldn't group those two series together.

Well, I would -- in his case. I'm not saying M&M and Ultima are one and the same. I'm saying he enjoys them together.

Incidentally, the scores he gave to M&M and Ultima IV/V are almost two times higher than the scores he gave to Wizardry and The Bard's Tale. Objectivity, hell yeah.

And? The first two Might and Magic games covered most of the elements of The Bard's Tale but also a hell of a lot more. In fact, I can't think of much that The Bard's Tale did that the early Might and Magic games didn't do. And Wizardry? You mean the first one? You do know that he doesn't give scores based on release date right?

And? What does that have to do with, say, Legacy of the Ancients (a mediocre game in every aspect) receiving a higher score than 2400 A.D. or Wizard's Crown? That's ridiculous. And if he says "I'm just stating my preferences according to what I deem important", he shouldn't be giving any ratings at all. Ratings by definition lay claim to objectivity. There's a reason the Codex or Gamebanshee don't give scores in their reviews.

 

[octavius]

Are RPGs like a fucking religion to you?

You're talking bullshit, octavius, and making stuff up. I'm saying the guy is a heavily biased and totally subjective reviewer, his scores are arbitrary and taken out of his ass, and he's reviewing the games he isn't suited to reviewing because he can't judge them on their own merits. Ergo, he does harm to the way people perceive old CRPGs. What of that has to do with "religion"?

Of course he's biased. Who isn't?
And it's not like he's a professional reviewer.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Of course he's biased. Who isn't?
And it's not like he's a professional reviewer.

I know. In fact, my only major problem with him is that he gives scores at all. He shouldn't. He should just say "not my kind of game" and move on, without trying to justify that "objectively". The end rating list just looks ridiculous.

But okay, whatever. Too much fuss over a random blog.

 

[octavius]

Of course he's biased. Who isn't?
And it's not like he's a professional reviewer.

I know. In fact, my only major problem with him is that he gives scores at all. He shouldn't. The end rating list just looks ridiculous.

But okay, whatever. Too much fuss over a random blog.

The only score I can think of that was "controversial" was giving Dungeon Master and Pool of Radiance the same score in the category Graphics, Sound and Input.
As for the overall scores not being "correct", that is always the problem when the final score is based on sub-categories. I often ran into the same problem when reviewing Age of Wonders maps. In the end the only thing that really matters is how much you enjoy it, or the subjective "playability" score. So if you try your best to give an objective score in the sub-categories the overall score may end up lower or higher than a map/game deserves.

As for the CRPG Addict not enjoying all the CRPGs he's playing, that is hardly surprising when he's decided to play them all.

 

[MMXI]

And, ignore list.

He is a reviewer precisely because his gives ratings. I’d be perfectly fine with his blog if, well, he just blogged without assigning numbers at random like he's a fucking IGN.

He's not a reviewer because he's not playing games with the intention of rating them at the end. He uses the ratings to summarise his feelings, to conclude a playthrough of a game with something more than just a video of the ending. It's funny how you attribute numerical scores with reviews though. So apparently Rock Paper Shotgun don't do game reviews because they refuse to give scores? Interesting!

The huge following he has doesn't help.

Yeah. His huge following. There's an overwhelming number of alternatives out there of course...

And? What does that have to do with, say, Legacy of the Ancients (a mediocre game in every aspect) receiving a higher score than 2400 A.D. or Wizard's Crown? That's ridiculous.

Did you read the postings? He seemed to enjoy 2400 A.D. more than Legacy of the Ancients at least. I've already bitched at length in this thread about his giving up of Wizard's Crown, but given that he did give up on it, how do you expect him to give a more deserving score? And why would the score even matter over the fact that he gave up on the game in the first place? I'd prefer if he gave Wizard's Crown 0/100 if it meant he'd play through it all. Perhaps you only read his scores or something?

 

[Whisper]

But okay, whatever. Too much fuss over a random blog.

Its ONLY such type of blog where you can extensive playthoughs for most 1980-s games, with details, witty remarks and screenshots.

No offence to LP's on other sites, because i wouldnt want to read LP about Oubliette or some Moraff's revenge but several pages about them, so i understand what this games are - this i appreciate.
I probably would never play Wizard's crown or Rings of Zifin or etc, but i was interested - and he told me - his experience about them.

 

[Whisper]

p.s. I dont read his pages about scores. Because not interested in numbers (i wouldnt play them myself probably, maybe only some of this games).

I only read his experience. Because i am curious if i miss some gems in past, but i cant play ALL games of old crpg as he do. Also even if i dont play some old crpg, at least i know experience about it.


About "random blog" i would be interested to learn about other blogs, since they are plenty of blogs on old CRPGs?
Except crpg revisited, there is none.

Which surprise me, so many fans of old games, but only one extencive blog with re-playing classic crpgs?

 

[Crooked Bee]

So apparently Rock Paper Shotgun don't do game reviews because they refuse to give scores? Interesting!

I didn't say nor imply that. I do believe that giving away scores like that makes him a reviewer, not just a blogger, but I do not believe the contrary. From A=>B, it does not follow not-A=>not-B, you know.

I can only repeat what I already: my problem is that he even gives ratings at all. Whenever you give ratings, you lay claim to objectivity. You can't just say "Wizardry is 36 and Legacy of the Ancients is 37 because I feel so". In that case, he should've prefaced his rating a disclaimer like "The way I feel: An arbitrary bullshit rating list, don't pay attention to the final score" in big bold letters.

Feel free to disagree, of course, but scores are almost always a harmful thing in my view.

Yeah. His huge following. There's an overwhelming number of alternatives out there of course...

Which doesn't have to do with anything.

Did you read the postings? He seemed to enjoy 2400 A.D. more than Legacy of the Ancients at least. I've already bitched at length in this thread about his giving up of Wizard's Crown, but given that he did give up on it, how do you expect him to give a more deserving score? And why would the score even matter over the fact that he gave up on the game in the first place? I'd prefer if he gave Wizard's Crown 0/100 if it meant he'd play through it all. Perhaps you only read his scores or something?

So he enjoys a game more yet assigns an equal score to it? That's cool and, like, totally appropriate. And he gives scores to games he didn't even finish? So appropriate again.

I get your point about giving the final score based on subcategories, octavius. But again, I strongly object to giving scores at all, and that's just one more reason not to give them.

I probably would never play Wizard's crown or Rings of Zifin or etc, but i was interested - and he told me - his experience about them.

Fair enough, if that's your thing. But I'd advise you not to trust his experience about Wizard's Crown, at least.

 

[MMXI]

I didn't say nor imply that. I do believe that giving away scores like that makes him a reviewer, not just a blogger, but I do not believe the contrary. From A=>B, it does not follow not-A=>not-B, you know.

No. Publicly expressing his opinion on games would make him a reviewer, but he does that through every post he writes, even the ones that don't encompass numerical scores. You claimed that you wouldn't have a problem with him if he removed the numbers, so you're clearly attributing numbers to reviews.

Which doesn't have to do with anything.

Then why mention his huge following?

So he enjoys a game more yet assigns an equal score to it?

No. He seemed to like it better. This may not be the actual case, however. Have you actually read his blog? He's introduced a bullshit factor that allows him to add or subtract from scores. He's well aware that his scores aren't an accurate reflection of his over all opinions.

And he gives scores to games he didn't even finish? So appropriate again.

He plays games for six hours minimum. He then summarizes his thoughts and assigns numbers to categories. His objective isn't to finish every game. You can therefore treat any time over the six hour minimum as extra time spent on a game. I think you miss the purpose of his blog.

 

[Crooked Bee]

No. ... You claimed that you wouldn't have a problem with him if he removed the numbers, so you're clearly attributing numbers to reviews.

Let me make it simple for you:

From (Scores => review), it does not follow (No scores => no review)

It's simplest formal logic, and you're embarrassing yourself.

Then why mention his huge following?

Not my, but your point -- about having no alternative -- doesn't have to do with anything. "I read his blog because there's no alternative" is like saying "I play Skyrim because there's no alternative, man".

He's well aware that his scores aren't an accurate reflection of his over all opinions. ... I think you miss the purpose of his blog.

Then he shouldn't gives scores at all.

And so we've come full circle.

 

[Whisper]

Fair enough, if that's your thing. But I'd advise you not to trust his experience about Wizard's Crown, at least.

Maybe i didnt search well enough, but i found only one extencive blog with classic old CRPG experiences written.

 

[MMXI]

Let me make it simple for you:

From (Scores => review), it does not follow (No scores => no review)

It's simplest formal logic, and you're embarrassing yourself.

I'm embarrassing myself? Don't make me laugh:

I’d be perfectly fine with his blog if, well, he just blogged without assigning numbers at random like he's a fucking IGN.

I know. In fact, my only major problem with him is that he gives scores at all. He shouldn't. He should just say "not my kind of game" and move on, without trying to justify that "objectively".

Don't you see? You're bitching about him giving his opinion on games, but then you say that you wouldn't mind his blog if he didn't give numbers. It makes no sense. You appear to want him to not review games he doesn't like at all (and go with a "not my kind of game" response instead), and you appear to want him to scrap numbers. So you effectively don't want him to review games he doesn't like. If your problem was merely scores and not reviews then why should he leave things at "not my kind of game"?

Not my, but your point -- about having no alternative -- doesn't have to do with anything. "I read his blog because there's no alternative" is like saying "I play Skyrim because there's no alternative, man".

What? That was in reply to you mentioning he has a huge following. Why does his huge following matter to you? Where do you want his readers to go to? Explain.

Anyway, going to bed.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Apparently you cannot into simple logic. Fair enough.

You're bitching about him giving his opinion on games. So you effectively don't want him to review games he doesn't like.

No. I said it'd be fine if he didn't assign scores ("without trying to justify that 'objectively'", i.e., he should relate his experience with the game, say "not for me" and not give a score; the two statements you quoted are not contradictory in any way). Also, you're shifting the terms of the debate because you failed at formal logic. You're laughing at your own blunder.

And I already explained my stance on why his huge following is bad in my view. I'm not repeating it.

 

[MMXI]

Apparently you cannot into simple logic. Fair enough.

You aren't even expressing logic so how is anyone meant to follow it? You claim he's a reviewer because he gives scores:

He is a reviewer precisely because his gives ratings.

This is bullshit because he would still be a reviewer without the numerical scores, as he gives his opinion in multiple ways, though both text and numbers. Therefore if your complaints are about his scores and not his reviews, which would be perfectly reasonable, why do you also want him to not review games he dislikes, as seen here:

and he's reviewing the games he isn't suited to reviewing because he can't judge them on their own merits.

He should just say "not my kind of game" and move on

So you obviously have a problem with his review scores and his review texts for games he specifically dislikes. I think your argument would have held up if you stopped yourself bitching about him expressing his opinion on games you happen to like more than him and focused on the scoring aspect of his reviews. Personally, I can't stand scores either so I would have even backed you up on it.

 

[Crooked Bee]

You claim he's a reviewer because he gives scores

Yes.

This is bullshit because he would still be a reviewer without the numerical scores

Yes.

Again, From (Score => review), it does not follow (No score => no review)

So you obviously have a problem with his review scores and his review texts for games he specifically dislikes.

No, you stupid. I've already described what I mean again, specially for you: he gives his opinion on the game, then he says "not my kind of game" and moves on "without trying to justify that 'objectively'," i.e., without giving scores. Mind-bogglingly difficult to grasp, I know.

 

[MMXI]

Again, From (Score => review), it does not follow (No score => no review)

Your logic is poor. The text is the review. The score is meaningless to that fact. Therefore the score does not imply a review. So do you know what the word "because" means? It means the score is the reason he is providing reviews. As this isn't the case then your statement is wrong and your logic is incorrect and whatever embarrassment you're trying to project on to me should be directed back at you.

It's funny how your opinion of someone can plummet in the space of an hour. Perhaps I should give you a review, with a score too just to piss you off.

Anyway, bed.