TarickStonefire Comments

Page 1 of 39

  • Early Access games done right

  • TarickStonefire 28/02/2015

    @LetsGo Didn't Minecraft get a proper release? I think this is a list of games still in early access, really. Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 27/02/2015

    @xantiriad I've spent zero years in the development industry and I already knew that PA was in development for about a year or so beforehand.

    Point is, games take time. Introversion have *always* taken their sweet time. But if you've been paying attention, the 7 or so of them (often fewer, sometimes more) have been cranking out results every month.

    Who's left to buy PA? Probably thousands upon thousands of people. Early Access for PA *will* end, they've said V1.0 will be this year.

    I don't see the issue. You've not addressed anything I said, just essentially repeated that you don't like it, and not really justified why, because your points are ill founded when it comes to PA at least.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 27/02/2015

    @vladtheinhaler "One thing about Early Access i don't like is the fact that once the game is finished and released, i've already pretty much played enough of it. It's pretty much a tricky decision: If the game is good, play the unfinished (possibly buggy) version and enjoy, or hold out for the game to be finished, however long that will take."

    Yeah I've experienced this with Prison Architect. Played it each month for the first 18-24 months, then realised if I kept that up I'd be fed up of the game before release. And i was getting so frustrated with all the things that didn't quite work yet.

    So I stopped playing, haven't really fired up a game in about 8 months now, just as they've started adding and finessing all the really deep stuff. I figure once it's released, there's going to be loads that I'll be all amped up to play but won't ever have experienced before.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 27/02/2015

    @riceNpea Yeah, I guess - it's the internet tho, innit. Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 27/02/2015

    @xantiriad
    "Surely a successful Early Access game is one that graduates to a full release version. A game that spends 2+ years in Early Access is neither a success nor "done right"."
    Two things: firstly, this isn't about successful (i.e. released) games that went through early access, it's about games currently in early access that are 'doing it right'. If the game was finished, it wouldn't be early access. Secondly, two years is perfectly reasonable for a game to be in development.

    They're saying that an early access game does it "right" because of how it's spent that time in early access thus far.

    In Prison Architect's case for example, they've spent it updating monthly almost without fail for two years, with a 30 minute video hosted by the devs which is brilliant. They've regularly polled players about what they want to see, what they want the devs to focus on next (features or bugs? If features, which ones? If bugs, which ones?) and the feedback genuinely goes into the game. It grows each month, it has a clear goal, and the money is evidently going to very good productive use.

    ie, it's a game with a very healthy development process, that's doing it openly and publicly, in 'Early Access'.

    Therefore, it's Early Access done right.
    Reply +7
  • TarickStonefire 27/02/2015

    @riceNpea Round here people getting pissy about Early Access for all the wrong reasons is pretty common so the lack of smiley threw me ;) Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 27/02/2015

    @riceNpea "So it's 50/50. I don't like those odds."

    Heh, the idea isn't that you buy all of them and 50% will turn out good!

    Read up on the ones you like the look of and only buy one if you like what it's planning to do, and you like what it's currently doing, and you trust the devs to continue in this vein, and you either want to support them financially, or you absolutely must have a go at the game as it stands right now.

    That way your odds can go up to 100%, seriously ;)
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 27/02/2015

    Prison Architect is just fantastic. Easily one of the very best Early Access games to check out, they really do know how to do Early Access properly.

    I got in on day one, but in the last 8 months or so I've stopped playing it so much, only because I was finding myself frustrated by the unfinished nature of the game, which rears its head in most of the game's systems if you play longer than a few hours, and I decided I'd rather be able to enjoy the finished polished gem rather than be bored by it by then.

    But every month they crank out a new version with new features and some really annoying bugs vanquished. And a great video, easily the best ever developer videos!
    Reply 0
  • Q*Bert Rebooted review

  • TarickStonefire 24/02/2015

    @mingster No no. I didn't say you were confused. I said you were confusing two things. Different meaning!

    I said: you appear to be confusing something that you like to do, with "the point of Eurogamer".

    That is: you feel that "the point of Eurogamer" is what you described. Well, it may be to you, but it's arguably not the point of Eurogamer from their perspective. What you used to do is just some thing that passed the time and amused you a few times a week when a review went up.

    What you've done there is take what *you* like to do, and assumed that this is the single reason EG exists.

    It's not.

    So, yes, you're upset because now a teeny tiny minuscule part of your life has had to change a teeny tiny minuscule bit. Fine. But you just need to get some perspective and move on.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 24/02/2015

    @ozzzy189 "This is one of those reviews where I really just wanted to scroll down to the bottom of the page and read the score."

    Because you can't read?
    Reply -2
  • TarickStonefire 24/02/2015

    @mingster You appear to be confusing something you like to do with "the whole point of Eurogamer".

    For me the whole point of Eurogamer is reviews written in a style I can appreciate and very often trust to be similar to my own tastes. Not always, which is why you need to read the review, as is the case with all reviews everywhere.
    Reply +5
  • Troll deletes 11-year-old's Destiny characters

  • TarickStonefire 24/02/2015

    @superscooterhappy "Oh wow *another* article. Everybody cares! No solution yet? Oh, I wonder why... :("

    No idea what this is referring to, sorry.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 24/02/2015

    @superscooterhappy "Bungie don't care, why should we care? This is a cheap article."

    Bungie may not be able to do anything about it, but they cared enough to post a story about it on their *own website*, though.

    Let me guess, you only skimmed this article and missed that bit, yeah?
    Reply +5
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @shehzaanshazabdulla Actually yeah, they may not have fallen foul of it (although I see one would have, below), and secondly they would have a bit more perspective and may get over it a bit quicker.

    I'm not saying it's silly to feel bad. I'm saying with maturity comes perspective and a quicker moving on from it.

    In a roundabout way I'm saying I feel for the lad. But it's not the end of the world and we should all know that.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @freaqie "has everyone forgotten:
    PG16????

    I mean i'm sorry for the kid, but yeah..."

    Nope, hundreds have considered that relevant before you, for some reason. Just scroll.
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @MaxiSleep "Have to say that this thread has diminished my respect for the general Eurogamer readership. The lack of empathy is actually chilling."

    The folk in the comments are the tip of the iceberg of the readership here. Let it affect your judgment only of the sorts of people who post on internet comments. That'll soften the blow considerably ;)
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @dai_bonehead "@TarickStonefire And your logic? someone tricks you into allowing them to delete your game saves. You would go around and smash them up? Really?"

    Of course I wouldn't. I was employing rhetoric to make a point: DON'T GIVE STRANGERS ACCESS TO YOUR ACCOUNT AT ALL.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @dai_bonehead No I don't. So what? Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @WildFire15 "A) Why is this a big news story? B) Why did the kid's parents buy him this game? C) Troll, you're a dick head (if you were the victim of another accident you're not excused)."

    A) It's not a BIG news story, it's just a news story. And it's because Bungie splashed it on their site. They released this as news.

    B) Who cares? It's not the end of the world.

    C) Yup.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @Arsecake_Baker
    "Standard poilicy or not, "i'm only doing my job" doesn't cut it!"
    Eh? It's their standard policy, therefore the imaginary line of communication you've dreamed up in an attempt to paint a worse picture of Bungie than is actually the case is meaningless.

    Bungie clearly warns people about exactly this happening, and clearly says that the warning is because Bungie cannot reinstate anything you lose doing this.

    Kid does it. Kid loses his stuff.

    "Oh yeah, all those warnings we put in place, we didn't mean them."

    Er no.
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @dai_bonehead
    "Drives home the message that you need to chaperone your kids when they are online. As a mate of mine once said "If there's one thing I hate, it is people". "
    No it doesn't. It drives home that if you're going to let a complete stranger have complete control over your entire game account, you better know where they live and be big and hard enough to kick their head in if they do exactly what Bungie warns you about.

    Making this into a case for sitting behind your kids all day long is pathetic.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @Xs1ght "If any of you told me you didn't play a game out of your age range when you were younger, I simply wouldn't believe you."

    When I was younger I'm pretty sure there weren't age ratings on games, but your point is sound nonetheless.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @A-bob-omb "The point is, if anything goes wrong- it's on you. You can't blame the game if you shouldn't be playing it in the first place."

    But his age in comparison to the age on the box is absolutely irrelevant to what actually happened, far as I can tell. So your comment doesn't work.

    You can blame the game if it's designed poorly and didn't inform you what could happen.

    You can't blame the game if you didn't read the instructions and trusted someone you shouldn't have.

    But not being older than the age rating doesn't mean that you can't blame the game if the game is in some way to blame. It's irrelevant.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @Arsecake_Baker
    "Bungie should play the white knight and intervene.

    All this horseshit about , "can't do this", "can't do that"! Is just that, horseshit!"
    Pretty sure it's actually their standard policy.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @markmclean "Assuming your kid was skilled enough, would you let an 11 year old play competitive football in an adult league? Probably not, even if you disregard the physicality of the game, the stuff he's going to hear on the pitch, and the level of competition would be too much for a kid to handle. Why is it any different online?"

    This metaphor is rubbish.

    There's no physical intimidation, or physical superiority, in a computer game. And the level of competition is *why people play it*. Kids are perfectly capable of 'handling' a bit of competition in an online video game. Most kid players are better than most adult players, I'd wager.

    Just about all you can compare is the language being used. And frankly these kids have heard it all. They're the ones dishing it mostly. They can take it, and if they can't they shouldn't be playing a game that's not really meant for them.

    But really, bad language ain't gonna hurt them.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @Uncompetative "I never said that he should. I asked him if he included himself in that huge percentage of people he asserted are dicks. Maybe he is wrong in his assertion, but if he is to taken seriously he isn't leaving himself with much of a percentage to exclude himself from being in the huge percentage of people who are dicks."

    Wow, that's some pedantic lengths you'll go to to feel smug and superior to someone.

    Guy had a point.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @obihobson So as I understand it, if you are a self righteous dick you get to tell other people that THEY are self-righteous dicks, because only your opinion matters.

    Ironic.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @Uncompetative
    "I'm curious. Do you include yourself in that huge percentage?"
    I don't see why the user you replied to should consider himself a dick. He's absolutely right that in the long run this really, really doesn't matter all that much. It's a shame for the kid, but he *will* get over it. If he's got a decent head on him, he'll be over it the second he goes outside to kick a ball around or sits down to a nice hot dinner with his family.

    It's a game. That's all.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    It's a shame for the kid, who is too young to have what you might call a more realistic view of how much this actually matters, which is that it really doesn't matter at all. I feel sorry for him, but in the long run, meh, he'll get over it. Reply +5
  • Total War: Attila review

  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @TopKatt "It's obvious a lot of people, myself included, miss the old scoring system so why not bring it back and all the people who hate it so much just ignore it? After all, you can still read the review, it'll still be there for you."

    Yes we should always submit to whining babies. That makes sense.

    The review is still there NOW. You can still read it NOW.
    Reply -2
  • TarickStonefire 23/02/2015

    @irishgamergamer "No score.....sop to game companies and your advertisers

    Pritty shameful"

    This comment makes literally no sense. Now this is all to appease advertisers?! How!?
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 21/02/2015

    @Blammo72 "Since eurogamer dropped scores their reviews interest me no more - this is the last review I clicked on from them - there are plenty of other good gaming sites out there - so no harm done..."

    Or in other words:

    "Eurogamer has shone a light on my inability to read or process constructive criticism, therefor eI'm off to a site that panders to my inabilities, rather than addressing them like a grown up"

    :D
    Reply 0
  • The Order: 1886 review

  • TarickStonefire 21/02/2015

    @IronSoldier Actually, metacritic does indeed "think". It takes all the scores from other people's sites, and applies their own maths to them.

    It "thinks" that some sites are more important than others. It "thinks" that some scores should therefore be considered more accurate or important than others. It therefore isn't simply coldly amalgamating all the scores and producing an average, but rather it is producing it's very own score based on what it "thinks" of all the sites that have spent their own time and effort reviewing the game in depth.

    Then it takes hits and hence advertising revenue from those sites by hosting all the scores themselves. And in so doing silently encourages some sites to artificially inflate their score to try and get near the top of the meta-list of reviews so said sites can try and cream a few more hits back from metacritic.

    And it also allows publishers to withhold deserved payments from their developers purely because Metacritic's opaque, secret Metascore calculation resulted in a score that was 0.1 arbitrary point off the arbitrary limit that the publisher demanded the game receive.

    It. Fucking. Sucks.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 21/02/2015

    @riseer "This review is total bullshit,i give up on you Eurogamer if this was COD it would had got rated 10.0 so fuck you i don't care if my account is banned.The lies and bullshit politics you fuckers stand for is wrong and disingenuous,take all of your face offs and shove em deep up your asses."

    1) personal opinion, welcome to ALL REVIEWS
    2) it isn't a review of COD, and how do you actually know a COD game would have got 10, and why did you even bring COD into it? This. Isn't. COD.
    3) none of us care if you're banned either
    4) what on earth are you on about politics and lies about? It's a videogames site, calm down and get this angry about something that matters, like global warfare, or poverty, or corporate tax evasion.
    5) this isn't even a face-off, it's a review.
    6) lol
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 21/02/2015

    @Kryon "@TarickStonefire You seem to have a real issue with people holding different opinions to yourself. If you like the new review system, good for you, but there's no need to have a hissyfit if others prefer the old system. It's not illegal to disagree lil guy."

    It's not that people have an opinion I don't share. That's absolutely fine.

    It's how they express it, and their reasoning. If you liked scores, fine. But why? If you just go round posting that scores are better and waaah now i need to read a review and waaaah now i can't tell what the summary of a review is and waaaah why doesn't this have a badge and so on, well:

    1) scores were not 'better', just different. They were objectively unhelpful because you simply cannot compare all games relative to each other by boiling them down to a number. can't be done. fact.

    2) you should be reading the review anyway

    3) the summary of a review is the very short bolded sentence at the top of the review. Don't scroll for a score, read the summary.

    4) some games don't have badges; read the Editor's Blog that's linked at the top of every single new review to find out why
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 21/02/2015

    @bigtechno "@TarickStonefire
    Tarick more like prick"

    Ooooh. Burn.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 20/02/2015

    @pmj85 I can see your point, but when I have half an hour to kill at work it's amusing to shoot down a few utter idiots. Kind of like how you like to superciliously assume you know everything about someone's life from a handful of internet comments :)

    But thank you so much for your concern, I really appreciate it. Completely misplaced, and kind of smug and arrogant, but hey, you thought you were helping and that's nice.

    EDIT: Ah, I see that actually you're just upset that I wasn't so impressed with your whine about the PS4. So you resorted to making negative assumptions about me, in order to return that warm glow I must have taken from you. Bless :D
    Reply -2
  • TarickStonefire 20/02/2015

    @sir_smooch
    "so hold on a minute! what is the the so called point of the review?? are you recommending it or not??"
    Do you see RECOMMENDED? There's your answer. It is neither interesting enough to be recommended, good enough to be essential, or awful enough to be avoided. So read the review and decide if YOU like the sound of it. Y'know, like you've been doing for all other games ever. Right?

    I mean, you do make your own decisions, yes?
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 20/02/2015

    @L_A_G
    "Why is there no score? Didn't you just introduce a 3 tier "Avoid", "Recommended" and "Essential" score system? You have posted reviews giving out all 3 scores and I've yet to see one of your new style reviews not give out one of these scores."
    Just brilliant. Hoisted by his own petard/stupidity.

    (a phrase I have no doubt will thoroughly confuse the poor chap.)
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 20/02/2015

    @pmj85
    "Whelp, that'll teach me to purchase a console based on the promise of future titles. More fool me.

    The PS4 has nothing interesting to me personally; Wipeout ain't ever coming out, either. PS4, meet ebay!"
    Yes, it's true. This is literally the last game that will ever be released on the PS4.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 20/02/2015

    @chuck_bone "But why is this comments section so large already?"

    About half or more are whining about not being able to read, and the fact that now they need to if they want to know if the game is worth buying, unless it gets a RECOMMENDED or ESSENTIAL badge. Poor wee illiterate kids :(
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 20/02/2015

    @ClemFandango
    "Is there a reason most people don't own both consoles ?"
    Price and space, I'd have thought. Unless you've got money to burn and/or are extremely committed to gaming as a hobby, buying all the current gen consoles just so that you're capable of playing every game ever released no matter what platform isn't something most people do, I reckon.

    Personally I've yet to buy any new-gen consoles (mind you, does the New 3DS XL count? Got that this week...) as there simply isn't anything exciting enough to me to warrant one. Happy to keep on working through the many dozens of fantastic 360 games I've still not played.
    Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 20/02/2015

    @Kell66
    "The Order themselves, a collection of soldiers working to protect the realm and operating under the name of King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, are a collection of hoary archetypes"
    I see what you're saying, there isn't any paragraph that says: the game is about 'this'. And you do 'this'.

    But from reading it, it seems to me that you play one of a collection of soldiers working to protect the realm and operating under the name of King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, in a 19th-century London patrolled by steampunk heroes working against a history that's folded in on itself, where The Crystal Palace's fiery destruction is brought forward some 50 years, and where Saucy Jack stalks the alleyways of East London.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 20/02/2015

    @Kryon
    Way to miss the point, Sherlock. The previous scoring system allowed me to quickly decide whether or not I *wanted* to read the review. Why would I want to read two sentences when a single number would give me the information I require in making that choice, hence it is less intuitive than before.
    Firstly, I'm Tarick, not Sherlock. Typo? Anyway, the *exact* same number of clicks is required to get to the review. It probably takes about 2 seconds to read the summary at the top. Same 2 seconds it would have previously taken you to scroll to the bottom and see the score.

    Also, the number tells you nothing about WHY the game got that score. The summary (that would fit in a tweet) not only tells you if it's worth reading more, but gives you an inkling why.
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 20/02/2015

    @bigtechno
    "At least on Kotaku they had the balls to say No don't play this game"
    Why does offering their personal opinion take balls? Anyway EG offers it's personal opinion: the game isn't so bad to give it an AVOID, nor good enough to recommend.

    Why do people have such a problem with a site that won't write *exactly* what you personally want it to write?
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 20/02/2015

    @Kryon
    Gotta be honest here, this new scoring system is unhelpful in my opinion. There is no way for me to get a quick idea of how the reviewer perceives the game.
    Really?

    Really?!

    The first two lines:

    Short, shallow yet utterly sumptuous, The Order: 1886 is a narrative-driven shooter that already feels dated.
    Gotta be honest here, I don't think you can read.
    Reply +6
  • Ironfall Invasion review

  • TarickStonefire 19/02/2015

    @TPoppaPuff
    "Yeah they should remove the recommendation system if they want people to read the reviews.

    Who are they trying to fool?"
    I don't believe they're trying to fool *anyone*. They're trying to give them a good review that describes the game, and a simple recommendation for people that haven't learned to read yet, if the game deserves one.
    Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 18/02/2015

    @TPoppaPuff http://i.imgur.com/2siRPJj.jpg

    See, this just demonstrates how foolish people are.

    No, they didn't remove ratings. They removed the numbers. Because you cannot sum up a game with a number. It's ridiculous.

    Sure, you can now just focus on the badge a game gets (or doesn't get) but if you do that and don't read the review the only person missing out is you, on all the nuances of that game, and why that single reviewer considered it worthy (or not) of a recommendation, or deemed it essential.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 18/02/2015

    @mingster
    "Exactly. Don't pretend you've dropped review scores.
    All EG have done is swapped them for recommendation badges instead.
    Grow some balls and drop the badges too."
    But it's still a more appropriate and flexible system than the scores. Scores allowed fools to just boil an entire game, with all it's nuances, whatever the genre, to a number.

    A single number.

    It's just ridiculous.

    This system allows them to say what they really mean, and still give a merit to those that deserve it. Sure it's not perfect, but striving for perfecting is a mug's game. You can read, can't you? So read.
    Reply -1
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong's Kickstarter concludes at $1.2m

  • TarickStonefire 17/02/2015

    Does this mean the game will actually have stuff to do?

    Coz boy oh boy I got bored of Shadowrun about 30 minutes in. An hour later I got distracted and never went back.

    I own the 'DLC" they released that was supposedly a better game, but by then I was fucked off with them for having made such an empty game to begin with. Looked lovely but just so formulaic and limited.
    Reply -15