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?
He's about as ... antiRPG as someone could be.
Agreed.
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.instead of giving a certain title or series over inflated scores because he's a fan etc.
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.
What kind of role-playing he enjoys?
Can you show example?
He does more harm than good to old CRPGs,
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 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.Because it's pretty obvious he's a huge M&M and Ultima fan.
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?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.
Are RPGs like a fucking religion to you?
He does more harm than good to old CRPGs
Also, he's the very antithesis of objective
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 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.Because it's pretty obvious he's a huge M&M and Ultima fan.
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?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.
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.
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.
And, ignore list.
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!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.
Yeah. His huge following. There's an overwhelming number of alternatives out there of course...The huge following he has doesn't help.
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?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.
But okay, whatever. Too much fuss over a random blog.
So apparently Rock Paper Shotgun don't do game reviews because they refuse to give scores? Interesting!
Yeah. His huge following. There's an overwhelming number of alternatives out there of course...
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?
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.
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.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.
Then why mention his huge following?Which doesn't have to do with anything.
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.So he enjoys a game more yet assigns an equal score to it?
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.And he gives scores to games he didn't even finish? So appropriate again.
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.
Then why mention his huge following?
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.
Fair enough, if that's your thing. But I'd advise you not to trust his experience about Wizard's Crown, at least.
I'm embarrassing myself? Don't make me laugh: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’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".
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.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".
MMXI said:You're bitching about him giving his opinion on games. So you effectively don't want him to review games he doesn't like.
You aren't even expressing logic so how is anyone meant to follow it? You claim he's a reviewer because he gives scores:Apparently you cannot into simple logic. Fair enough.
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:Crooked Bee said:He is a reviewer precisely because his gives ratings.
Crooked Bee said:and he's reviewing the games he isn't suited to reviewing because he can't judge them on their own merits.
Crooked Bee said:He should just say "not my kind of game" and move on
You claim he's a reviewer because he gives scores
This is bullshit because he would still be a reviewer without the numerical scores
So you obviously have a problem with his review scores and his review texts for games he specifically dislikes.
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.Again, From (Score => review), it does not follow (No score => no review)