Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

CRPGAddict

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
My premise may be incorrect -- although I stated from the beginning that it's my opinion that when you give scores you lay claim to an objective review (I even said "feel free to disagree" about my premise) -- but my logic is perfectly sound because it's formal logic. Your mistake was trying to find internal contradictions in my position, when you should've just denied my premise and you would've done fine.
 

Whisper

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
4,357
The fact he gives scores, doesnt change that is ONLY such blog, with so many old classic crpgs experience written.
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
My premise may be incorrect -- although I stated from the beginning that it's my opinion that when you give scores you lay claim to an objective review (I even said "feel free to disagree" about my premise) -- but my logic is perfectly sound because it's formal logic. Your mistake was trying to find internal contradictions in my position, when you should've just denied my premise and you would've done fine.
That's not any premise of the argument. That's a premise that you introduced straight after you confused causation with correlation and straight from a fallacy. Yes, most reviewers use scores as well, but scores aren't reviews and therefore the presence of scores does not imply a reviewer or review. The premises are the facts about the CRPG Addict as well as the meaning of scores and reviews, which unfortunately proved to be unclear to at least one participant. The facts about the CRPG Addict being all important, and they were clearly that he:

1) Writes reviews for games.
2) Attributes scores to games.

By making the immediate jump to scores being the causation of his reviewer status instead of the review texts themselves, you've opened yourself up for questioning. By mentioning that a site like Rock Paper Shotgun doesn't include review scores yet clearly write reviews, I was pointing out, though admittedly not very clearly, that the existence of the review text is the only thing that causes a review and not the numerical scores. In other words, I was merely pointing out a premise that invalidates your logical leap (assuming you agreed with the premise in the first place) and not making out that you said something you didn't say, hence why "So apparently Rock Paper Shotgun don't do game reviews because they refuse to give scores? Interesting!" is clearly a rhetorical question. Having said that, this is only valid if you shared the premise that all reviews have review texts, which seems to be something that you at least didn't agree with at the time. You're right in that if reviews didn't need to include review text then not having scores does not necessarily imply not being a review, because it could be assumed that scores themselves are a type of review and thus Skyway's list of game scores (the infamous screenshot) is a list of reviews.

The logic is simple given what I assumed should be a shared premise.

A = Review Text
B = Review Score.
C = Review.

Premise: A equals C (review text is the same thing as a review). A does not imply B (review text does not imply a score). B does not imply A (score does not imply review text).

Your fallacy: B implies C is incorrect because A equals C and thus B would imply A, which cannot hold because B is assumed to not imply C, as stated in the premise, as review text and review scores are independent (Rock Paper Shotgun's scoreless reviews and YouTube's text-less like/dislike score system (which I assumed you would agree is not a review system)).

Having said that, if your premise was as follows: A implies C and B implies C (reviews can be textual descriptions/opinions or a simple numerical score) then your logic starting on this page does hold up.

But as I picked on something you said based on what I believed was a shared premise before you picked on my picking for what you believe was a shared premise then I don't see how I can be at fault for anything other than not discussing the parameters of the discussion beforehand, which you are equally guilty of.

Furthermore, I do believe you were the first one to be turn downright rude with the whole "cannot into logic" stuff and "embarrassing yourself" stuff just because you started introducing actual logical notation before I did (conveniently after your own mistakes too, which formed a basis for your logic anyhow). That's not something you want to read at 7:00AM when you've been up all night and are desperate to go to sleep.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
By making the immediate jump to scores being the causation of his reviewer status instead of the review texts themselves, you've opened yourself up for questioning.

This is just laughable. Sorry, but you're still misinterpreting what I said and attributing random shit to me. Your introduction of random premises not related to my position to justify your own failing only makes you fail even harder. And your discussion of A, B and C the way you introduced them wouldn't hold ground in a basic logic/argumentation class.

I don't think there's any common ground for discussion here. My position was simple and clear enough, and yet you've not even once managed to grasp it. Fair enough, moving on.


Okay, I was being needlessly rude again. I apologise. But I don't think there's any point in discussing this further, as we don't seem to understand each other. At least I believe you don't understand me, and you probably feel the same.
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
Okay, I was being needlessly rude again. I apologise. But I don't think there's any point in discussing this further.
Can you at least clear up whether you would call a stand alone numerical score a review? It wouldn't be wrong as such, just a matter of interpretation. This matters because the answer to this should explain our disagreement, and differing views on this would make us both appear correct to ourselves and incorrect to each other, because we'd both be starting off from different truths.

This spawned from my comment originally, remember, where I said he was antiRPG. Which, when you hate all RPGs except two which are not RPGs in anything but name, is a fair assessment.
Pool of Radiance and Might and Magic aren't RPGs now?

Why quibble about the word reviewer so much? Sure he's just some blogger. So what? He's posting in the public domain and that means some people won't like it (ie people with good taste in RPGs). It's not like we are trolling the guy's comments sections, though there's so often dumb or incorrect things in his posts it's hard not to.
I don't particularly care much whether you think he's a reviewer or not. I do have a problem with someone not wanting him to review games because he dislikes some of the ones they happen to enjoy. Even I don't give a shit about his low scores for some of my favourites. Wizard's Crown is a great tactical cRPG and he shat on it. He didn't even complete the game yet I'd prefer to read his thoughts on the game than not.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
No no no I'm not explaining anything anymore! I don't want to because if I did I would have to do a long follow-up and explain why I believe your question is beside the point and why we're just talking past each other... and... and I... don't... want... that...

Sorry, I have lots of debating in real life. Probably too much for my own good, so I get riled up easily when not bound by RL conventions and etiquette and stuff... I'll just bow out. :) I've already said everything I wanted to say, and even more.
 

circ

Arcane
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
11,470
Location
Great Pacific Garbage Patch
Well. The low scores and disparaging remarks are because he's reviewing everything by today's standards, as he's gone ahead and mentioned several times. And I can understand the low scores for graphics and interface issues, but I have to start wondering when you score complex quests as shit and then go on to give extra oral service to Dragon Age and Skyrim.
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
I also already told you why he gave good reviews to certain games, even though by the text he really seemed to not like them, merely because he felt they were historically important. Even stupider than a guy who doesn't like RPGs reviewing them all is a guy who doesn't like RPGs saying what is and isn't significant in RPG history. How much more pretentious and clueless can you be?
So you're saying that he gives high scores because of how historically important a game is? Yet he shits on all the Wizardry games, perhaps the most historically important games he's played? Even assuming that the CRPG Addict is blissfully unaware of the importance of Wizardry, can you also explain why he largely dismisses Wizard's Crown, a game that perhaps spawned the entire tactical RPG genre, and why he rated Star Flight, a game he seemingly knew very little about before playing, so very highly? Your explanation has too many holes. And considering there is bound to be some correlation between historically important cRPGs and good cRPGs, considering good cRPGs (from back then) tended to be the ones that were copied...

And you moan at me for illogical rants?

So the real beef is fanboism or you are his alt.
Yes. Matt Barton = J_C = Vault Dweller = Brian Mitsoda = CRPG Addict = Wizardry = MMXI = Cleve. You didn't know?
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
What the fuck?

http://crpgaddict.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/sentinel-worlds-won.html

From the comments:

Amy K. said:
CRPG Addict said:
Amy K. said:
What happened to all the other people who like this game? Am I the only one of them left commenting? I can understand why people get frustrated with it, and it's perfect, but I like it, dammit. lol :)
Sorry, Amy. I enjoyed the portions of your LP that I watched far more than the game itself.

Tastes differ, which is as it should be, and I've been on your side of things before. I liked Skyrim, for instance, which I think got me banned from RPGCodex.
No big loss there. They were doing you a favor, the way I see it. Never have I seen such a huge amount of jerks in one place.
:retarded:

Did he get banned? If so, why? And who banned him?
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
1,494
I like CRPG Addict's blog, it's really interesting but I think that he's personally quite irritating, I wouldn't say that he's a moron but sometimes he's really trying too hard. Like if it was a huge feat to play video games and abandonware, for fuck's sake. Just look at the codex. I could take the weirdest C64 game like "Below the root" and I'm pretty sure that a dozen people would argue with me about its merits or failures (Blackadder certainly) and that wouldn't say shit about us. This guy seems a bit like an attention-whore.
Oh look: sometimes I go to New-Orleans, I have a wife and then I drink ALCOHOL tee-hee. And then I play "Hard Nova" ! Good for you mate.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
1,494
Fucking Prima Donnas, we should corral all of them back to the Opera. The only ones who majestically belong to the Opera are Black Cat for she finds it sexy and Lyric Suit for while being a stupid fascist, he sure knows his classical music. For the other CRPG Addicts-like it will be a punishment by fire.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
1,494
People post personal stuff on a blog? Outrageus!

Sorry mate, if I do a blog about RPGs I won't talk about my personal life and about the last movie I saw yesterday while expecting all of my "fans" to comment about this trivial shit like if I was a Spoony-like. But then to each his own. His blog is still quite interesting but he still irritates me.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
1,494
I can of course expect that from Fargo, Cain, MCA, Sawyer and other real creators for they dip their shirt in shit while trying to create stuff we play but certainly not from CRPG Addict or Spoony. I'd rather comment the crap Metal Craze spouts all day for at least he's funny.
 

Whisper

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
4,357
He is banned because he likes Skyrim? I am sure there is another reason. Skyrim at least is more RPG then games like Diablo 3 (game that even lack choices at level-ups) which have strong fan-base.
 

Quetzacoatl

Liturgist
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
1,819
Location
Aztlán
Who banned the addict? Or is this bullshit meant to paint us in a bad light for daring to criticise him?
 

mck

Cipher
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
599
He's not banned. He joined before the site got remodeled and his password probably got changed.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom