kangarootoo Comments

Page 1 of 321

  • Infinite Crisis dev Turbine making Batman: Arkham Underworld for iOS

  • kangarootoo 03/03/2015

    "Infinite Crisis dev Turbine making Batman: Arkham Underworld for iOS"

    Holy shit, that is a headline and a half!

    It is like when you get a spam email that tries to sneak past spam filters by random inserting words at the start.
    Reply +2
  • Eurogamer readership survey 2015

  • kangarootoo 03/03/2015

    I'll add my name to the list of those calling for comment scoring to be abandoned. It promotes group think, and frankly I was never sure the point was.

    It can't be for removing offensive posts, because it doesn't remove them, and besides you have mods for that.

    If people want to say they agree or disagree with something, might I suggest wrting "I agree/disagree" as appropriate. Maybe even expand on why, and well I never, a discussion may actually develop.

    Maybe this thread is an opportunity, as you seem to be reading it @Oli, so I'll ask directly. What is the intended purpose of the +/- system?
    Reply +3
  • Unreal Engine 4 is now free. For everyone. Really

  • kangarootoo 02/03/2015

    @positiwe

    I don't think you know what $19 a month actually gets you.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 02/03/2015

    Unreal have seen how much dosh Unity are making from their asset store, and have decided to focus on being a service. Good news for everyone I think. Reply +10
  • Among Friends: How Naughty Dog Built Uncharted 2

  • kangarootoo 02/03/2015

    @HaHaHaHaHaHaHa

    I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but the reason people are negging you rather than engaging, is that you haven't said anything worth engaging with. Repeating variants on "the truth hurts" simply makes you look desperate for personal attention by any means. Maybe your approach works on youtube, but it won't here. Try saying something substantial, instead of just posting pictures like you found a new button, and you may get some responses.

    I'm giving you this advice as a little gift. There will not be a conversation.
    Reply +9
  • kangarootoo 02/03/2015

    Such a great game. The best if the Uncharted games by leagues. Reply +1
  • Riot boss regrets reaction to League of Legends SpectateFaker case

  • kangarootoo 02/03/2015

    @Mr.Gordons

    But it isn't against their will.

    They use a service, by choice, that allows others to stream their gameplay. If anyone wishes their gameplay not be streamed, they stop using the service that allows it.

    You see, the word "basic" doesn't apply here. You should investigate further what the actual setup is.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 02/03/2015

    @phixional_bear

    But the morals argument makes no sense. It is over simplifying something that is comlicated.

    I pay the amount of tax that the law requires me to pay. I rather expect that you do too. I don't pay less than I am required to pay by law, but neither do I pay more.

    Tax credits for families, are these immoral? What about tax free ISA savings accounts, are these immoral? Salary sacrifice to increase the tax free payment made into a pension, is this immoral?

    I am not saying it is morally right that some people have a lot of money when others do not. What I am saying is that for everyone, you, me, rich, poor, the law is what dictates how much tax we pay. Everybody is treated the same in that regard. If society deems that I should pay more tax, the law is changed. If society deems that you should pay more (or less for that matter) the law is changed. This happens all the time, with changes in tax rates, and exemptions for those on lower incomes or with families.

    If a "rich" person takes investment advice, and that advice guides them to use their money in a way that results in them legally paying less tax, they are acting no differently to me or you putting money in an ISA. But I bet we don't consider ourselves immoral if we do so, because "hate the rich" is a nice easy slogan that makes comlicated economics easier to understand.

    Bottom line, you legislate tax. And if somebody doesn't pay as much tax as you think they should, or takes advantage of a legal approach that allows them to pay less tax than you think they should pay, you change te law.... because that is what the law is there for in the first place.

    A government that avoids forcing tax payments in law (to keep a rich few donating), whilst jumping on the popular bandwagon (that talks about taxes as a moral issue, when it is no such thing), gets to look moral whilst washing hands of responsibility for the actual result. THAT, is immoral.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 28/02/2015

    @Madder-Max

    Are you sure it isn't because he used to be 14, and is now 16?

    He turns into a moody loner as he turns into a teenager, and your first port of call is to blame a video game?
    Reply +8
  • kangarootoo 28/02/2015

    The accusations of bullying are extremely ill chosen. StarLordLucian was legitimately using a service supported by Riot. If the software they provide or support allows for behaviour they aren't keen on, they should modify it. If legitimate use of supported software can harm a player's career, the first responsibility lies with those that create/support it.

    This reminds me of the government complaining about rich people using legal tax avoidance schemes, when it is the government's own responsibility to determine tax law.
    Reply +1
  • Future Assassin's Creed games will have "more robust modern day" than Unity

  • kangarootoo 27/02/2015

    @DasManiac

    "most people care more about the modern day than the historical stuff."

    Based on what data?
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 27/02/2015

    Ah shite. I was glad to see the back of them frankly, and it actyually annoyed me each time one of those cut scenes appeared.

    Rogue didn't have a single bit of that modern day bollocking about, and this was one of its many strengths.


    "Fans were left disappointed by Unity's brief sashays into the present day, presented via a couple of quick cut-scenes."

    Ahem... what? Lets have a quick show of hands on this thread. - me if you missed the modern day stuff in Unity, or + me if its relative absence was of benefit (or of no consequence).
    Reply 0
  • University dives into the physics of Assassin's Creed's haystacks

  • kangarootoo 25/02/2015

    @Brev2034

    Research is a learning tool. It isn't always in the name of a practical solution to a pressing problem.

    Engineers learn by theorising over unusual scenarios - it makes learning more fun, which in the end makes it more effective.
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 25/02/2015

    @lone_wolf_uk

    Well actually, I was looking at it one way with my first example (the result of hitting the ground), and another way in my second example (the force exerted by a given deceleration through straw).

    But a proper solution explores the two in combination - how much does straw slow me down, and what impact is survivable once I've "run out" of straw.


    Interestingly, other games in the series have also used snow, rose petals, and other unidentified leafy things (some were yellow as I recall, and Black Flag included what looked like piles of palm leaves) - given these are Uni students (and so reasonably senior), would have been nice if they could have extended the investigation to include each of these other materials (including what happens when each "material" is compressed), maybe identifying which of those used would actually be best for the job.



    As a p.s. I wondered when playing, at what height might a trained stunt person or diver expect to be able to actually hit a cart the size of those featured (especially if falling blind due to facing upwards).
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 25/02/2015

    @lone_wolf_uk

    Not quite as simple as f=ma. When you reach terminal velocity, you are no longer accelerating, but clearly smacking into the ground at a constant speed is unhealthy.


    A more applicable formula in this case.

    E=1/2 mv2 (where E is the kinetic energy imparted by the collision).

    Edit: and that 2 means squared in case it wasn't obvious. I just can't write it correctly in superscript in this thread.

    Edit2: ah, I was considering acceleration to be gravity, but if a is in fact the deceleration applied by the straw, f=ma will tell you the force applied to the assassin's mass. I stand corrected (by me).
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 25/02/2015

    @Furnace-Inferno

    "the height of a haystack wouldn't have a huge impact on it's ability to decelerate mass making the whole thing pointless."

    Are you sure about that?
    Reply +4
  • Don't buy Darkest Dungeon from the Windows Game Store, dev warns

  • kangarootoo 24/02/2015

    "The developer says Microsoft has been receptive to the matter and is doing its best to resolve it."

    I'm confused. Has the Windows Game Store become sentient? Are MS no longer in control of their creation? Do they have to trick it by distracting it with biscuit before grabbing the illegal content?
    Reply +1
  • Pickup where you left off: Returning to Guitar Hero

  • kangarootoo 22/02/2015

    @neems

    I play Rocksmith, and have played guitar for decades, and was a big fan of GH (and quite expert at it, if I do say so).

    They simply aren't the same. One is a game, and the other is playing guitar. Fortunately nobody has to choose between them.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 22/02/2015

    "Eventually, I picked up a cheap overstocked guitar bundle of the wildly unpopular Aerosmith standalone game."

    That would be the Aerosmith game that sold 3.6m copies? The most successful of any of the band specific GH releases? The one that made more money for Aerosmith that any one of their albums?

    I didn't much like it either, but it took me about 40 seconds to research the above, and I wasn't getting paid.
    Reply +1
  • Assassin's Creed Unity patch removes need to play companion app

  • kangarootoo 19/02/2015

    After preordering this, and then trading it within hours and playing the much superior Rogue, I may actually return to this at some point. I really wanted to like it, but there were just too many barriers to fun. Perhaps there are less now. Reply 0
  • PS4 20th Anniversary Edition unit No. 00001 sold for £85K

  • kangarootoo 18/02/2015

    @SonicUk

    "Pony up" is an old term, for putting up the money you promised. It probably has its origins in cockney rhyming slang.

    It isn't really a "professional" term, but it is very much in keeping with the editorial humour that is present across most EG articles.

    Ah, a quick search tells me it is not cockney in origin, but is rather a US term. So we all learned something.
    http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/pony-up.html

    Edit: actually, the more I read about it, the more it looks like a term that was taken to the US in a raw form by English immigrants, and whilst the first recorded use was in the US, it probably DOES have some connection with the east end of London. This FASCINATING! ;)
    Reply +5
  • kangarootoo 18/02/2015

    How the f*ck did this thread turn into such a load of console war drivel?

    The story here is that somebody seemingly trolled a charity auction (what a prick), and then Sony paid up the money so the charity wouldn't lose out (hurray).

    Somehow we have got from that to people listing out games in bold, and whining about whether a games console is worth X amount of money (do those fools even understand what a charitable donation is?)


    But games and gaming, take it seriously rest of the world.
    Reply +19
  • kangarootoo 18/02/2015

    @bigbadbeasty

    Did you seriously just drop the "more money than sense" bomb on a charity auction?

    Get out.
    Reply +11
  • Paranautical Activity resurfaces on Steam after its dev threatened Gabe Newell

  • kangarootoo 18/02/2015

    @BabyBabyBabyOh

    Quite right. I bow to your greater mastery of our mother tongue.


    "I'm not sure the horse would stand for all that."

    So you see, the list of affected parties is growing at an unbridled (YES I went there) rate. Best we abandon this onboarding nonsense before any more of the animal kingdom is affected.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 18/02/2015

    @BabyBabyBabyOh

    "Part of the beauty of the English language is its flexibility"

    I can't help thinking that in these modern times, flexibility is a euphemism for allowing bullshit marketing and poor education.


    I read an article some months ago about us needing a new word for people that only eat fish (such a word already exists), because vegetarians also eat fish (no they don't). All because people misuse the word vegetarian, and haven't educated themselves about the existence of the word pescatarean.

    The same article also suggested the term flexitarian - as I understood it, a person who still eats meat sometimes, but wants the social kudos of calling themselves something that implies the same ethics as vegetarianism. I nearly did f*cking murders when I read that.


    Anyway, my personal language pedantry aside... onboard is not a verb, and reonboard is not a word. So you can take your beautiful flexibility, and reonboard it up a horses bum! ;)
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 18/02/2015

    @LucilleJEdwards

    Nice try.... but there is no Herbert here!!






    Otherwise, I'd have been all over that link.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 18/02/2015

    "reonboarded"

    Sorry, what the very fuck?!


    /cancels preorder
    /boycotts Digerati Distribution
    /slaps kitten

    What else is it you guys say when you're pissed at a publisher. Help me out here.
    Reply +2
  • Fallout owner Zenimax forces Fortress Fallout name change

  • kangarootoo 18/02/2015

    @fabio78

    Also, Team Fortress is a poor example, as Valve's trademark is not Fortress... whereas the Fallout series is called.... Fallout.

    If I made a film called Alien Insurrection, you can bet Ridley Scott's lawyers would come a knocking, and if I made a game called Uncharted Adventures, I'd probably get letters from Naughty Dog.

    I totally get that a small indie dev doesn't need this hassle, I'm not fighting for the big guy here. But at what point does common bloody sense not become part of the picture?
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 17/02/2015

    @Dalamar42

    "As much as I hate to admit it, Kangarootoo is right."

    I'll try not to take that personally ;)
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 17/02/2015

    @Raptaur

    Trademark, my apologies, you're quite right.

    However, the article is quite clear about why these cases come about. There WAS a need to press this, just as there always is each time this sort of thing comes up. The law as it stands requires it.

    Sometimes it is about the richer company winning out, but this individual case is not so straightforward. As many have suggested, putting the word Fallout in the two word name of a game, is not very sensible. This action could have been predicted, is almost required by law to be brought in fact, as I tire of saying.


    Anyway, I've said my bit. If people keep on seeing this as a David and Goliath story, and refuse to acknowledge the actual substance of the discussion, there is nothing more I can really add.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 17/02/2015

    @fabio78

    Regardless of whether it is a single word, it is the name of a long standing (and still reasonably current) game series. I'm not the only one on here to say that if they see the word Fallout associated with a game, they immediately think of exactly that series, which is exacly the claim being made.


    "no argument you can throw at me will defy this simple logic"

    With respect, that really isn't for you to decide.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 17/02/2015

    @fabio78

    It is not as simple as just defending Bethesda/Zenimax. It is about understanding the complexities of copyright law, and the options they present to both parties in a case like this.

    If you have something to add to the discussion beyond "two legs bad, four legs good", then by all means please enlighten us. Picking sides on principle is the simplistic route.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 17/02/2015

    @Raptaur

    You seem to be inventing rules here, and then disputing whether they apply to examples given. Since when did copyrighted titles have to be meaningful sentences?

    That is a trick question, as the answer is "never".


    You might well call shenanigans on Valve if they issued a cease and desist over a game called "Fortress Half-life", but it would have no legal relevance.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 17/02/2015

    "I don't believe people would see Fortress Fallout on the App Store and say, heh, it must be a sequel to the Fallout series"

    Much as I don't like large companies stepping on little developers, I'm not really 100% sure the above statement is true. Unlikely, sure. But when I see a game with Fallout in the title, the first thing I think of is the original Fallout game series.


    Regardless, this bit of the article remains true.

    "One of the reasons we see companies enforce their trademarks in cases that appear flimsy is because intellectual property law dictates that if they do not clamp down they risk losing their trademarks."

    Every time we see an article like this, the segment above remains as the explanation. We can hate on the companies all we want, but the law as it stands simply gives them no choice. Even if we don't like this truth, it is still true.
    Reply +2
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong's Kickstarter concludes at $1.2m

  • kangarootoo 17/02/2015

    Now this is the kind of Kickstarter to back (retrospectively speaking). A clear plan, from a bunch of people who have proved they know what they are up to. I trusted these peeps before with both my money, and with an old RPG franchise close to me heart, and I'd do so again (...retrospectively speaking). Looking forward to this. Reply +3
  • Stephen Russell, the original Garrett from Thief, joins Underworld Ascendant

  • kangarootoo 17/02/2015

    "Terri Brosius, who worked as a designer and voiced Shodan and Delacroix in the System Shock series, and Viktoria in the Thief series, is also working on Underworld Ascendant."

    This is also huge news. Where is the picture of Terri? Shodan remains one of the most relaxing-but-also-scary-I-don't-know-which voices in video gaming. The kind of voice that if it told you to just breath in the water so it will be over quicker, you'd believe it.
    Reply +1
  • Law & Order airs episode dedicated to harassment of women in gaming

  • kangarootoo 12/02/2015

    @Kromovaracian

    What you say kind of makes me sad. The justification in both directions has an element of "they started it" about it.

    I remember reading the "gamers are over" article (as it was called by the time I got to it), and it struck me as really not a good thing for the author to have done. It reminded me of those emails you write when angry, and then delete after having a cup of tea first.

    I also recall a friend more involved in stuff talking about "bating gaters", and I said something along the lines of if it mattered so much to him, he would move past his anger and be more solution focussed.


    Whilst being attacked can cause understandably arsey responses from, it is not necessarily an excuse. That said, the definition of being attacked needs looking at in a bit more detail.


    If someone sends rape threats to an individual, that is a personal attack. If someone says all gamers are nerds, that is NOT a personal attack.

    So maybe one of the reasons I feel differently about a lot of this stuff, is that I don't care what most human beings think. I know I have a bit of an ego, but one of the many benefits of that is that if someone disses my hobby, I don't really care.

    If someone says something nasty about gamers, nobody has to care. Only the most insecure of individuals would take that as a personal attack, and above all I feel genuinely sorry for those people.

    If someone doxes (or whatever it is called) someone, or threatens rape, the target of that attack is ALLOWED to care, because it was a genuine threat (a threat not carried out does not stop being a genuine threat), and it was aimed at an individual.


    I'm rambling a bit. I suppose what I mean is that there seems to be some talk of attacks from both sides, and yet all the examples (I have personally seen) of attacks against "anti" gamergaters are personal attacks against people, and all of the attacks that gamergaters are apparently suffering are general insults (either about gamers generally, or about games, or suggestions that all gamergaters are rapists etc).


    At one point does TURN THE OTHER F*CKING CHEEK not become reasonable advice. Cry me a river, here is the worlds smallest violin, even man up (irony).

    Sarkeesian has bomb threats directed at a place where she is going to talk, gamers see high review scores for gamers made by individuals they don't like. One of these things really really matters, and the other doesn't matter at all. Perspective.


    Rambling ends :)
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 12/02/2015

    This is the most gamergate related discussion I've ever involved myself in.



    No doubt my flat will be on fire when I get home tonight.
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 12/02/2015

    @perydwyn

    "Care to back that quantitative statement up with figures?"

    The short answer is no, because I don't have those figures, but I'm not sure what figures you think you are referring to...


    Let me put it another way. As an outsider to gamergate, I never ever read anything positive about gamergate. If gamergate is actually about doing good things, they are failing terribly at PR.

    All I ever read is attacks by members aimed at women (or men that oppose attacks against women), and achieving change through heavy handedness (leaning on Intel springs to mind).


    It doesn't matter what exists within the debates carried out by those already involved, because that is not where change is achieved.

    As a pressure group fighting for the rights of gamers (apparently what they are about), they are perhaps the least effective lobbying group in history, and in recent times have caused more damage to the word "gamer" than any amount of ethical critique.


    Ok, so if you want to continue identify with gamergate as a cause fighting for ethics in games journalism, how about you consider NOT identifying with gamergate because it is an incredibly ineffectual movement fighting for ethics in games journalism?
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 12/02/2015

    @DonDada

    You might call it cowardly, I call it productive.

    Islam as an example is disingenuous, as the word Muslim carries great value, built up over a long period of time.

    Gamergate is new, and has primarily meant only one thing to a majority of people - i.e. hate directed at women. Rightly or wrongly, that is what it has always meant to most people. Whatever movement may have existed about ethics (and honestly, I'm not convinced that was ever really the true origin).

    This is not an issue of principle, it one of solutions. Frankly, it is an issue of maturity. If all those people who believed in ethics and many other good things found a new banner to operate under, it would DO MORE GOOD to their cause.

    Stubbornly drinking out a poisoned well because "it should never have been poisoned in the first place" says that the banner more important than the cause. It says that banding together in some kind of victim movement is more important than ethics. The one thing that gamergate says it is about is ethics, and the one thing it has the worst public perception problem with is its own ethics. If ethics really really mattered to those who support gamergate but say they aren't bigots, they would drop the banner, just like that.
    Reply +5
  • kangarootoo 12/02/2015

    @ecu

    It doesn't matter what the people who associate with gamergate actually talk about (I did indeed talk loosely about its true origins, because frankly I don't know what they are, and I don't much care).

    What matters is its function as a banner. If what you say is true, then continuing to identify with gamergate as a movement is simply not doing any of your friends any good.


    As someone else so eloquently put it earlier, why don't your friends say...

    "hey listen, I don't consider myself a GamerGaters because labels are just a fad. I do have these and these and these opinions though"."
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 12/02/2015

    @Mindstorm

    "People getting death threats (see recent reports re: Brianna Wu) can do that to you."

    Followed by...

    "However it does signal a rather fickle personality."

    Does it? Someone changing their mind about something because of death threats seems fickle to you? Seems quite understandable to me.
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 12/02/2015

    @SwissEvans

    "Has no one thought that naming her game "Amazonian Warriors" is a bit cliche and a bit misogynistic"

    The name Amazonian Warriors is not the least bit misogynistic. A 5 second visit to a dictionary makes that very clear.

    It is indeed very clichéd. I'm not sure grouping misogyny and cliché together brings any value to the discussion though.
    Reply +5
  • kangarootoo 12/02/2015

    @zzkj

    ""Gamergate" from my point of view appears to be a confused banner under which sits a mess of people with different objectives and opinions."

    Which begs the question, as it has always done, if gamergate truly is this banner under which lots of different views exist, and yet which has also been hijacked by (lets say) the bigoted minority, why on earth don't the right minded masses simply find another banner?

    Seriously, why don't they find another banner? It isn't even a real banner, that had to be cut from canvas and glued to a pole. It cost nobody nothing. It could be abandoned, and replaced with a banner that serves a function.

    The people who truly aren't bigots, and yet still identify with gamer gate because of what it used to mean (or meant to mean, or whatever), are being stubborn and more importantly are NOT HELPING THEMSELVES.

    It is like going about with a swastika tattoo because it used to represent the sun in the bronze age. It is no longer fit for purpose. The logic of anyone who isn't a bigot identifying themselves with gamergate utterly baffles me.
    Reply +9
  • kangarootoo 12/02/2015

    @lancashirered

    "Nobody seems to making the distinction between everyday gamers and the extremists."

    Seriously, this is nonsense. Paranoid victim speak.

    I see distinctions made every day, between people that like to play games as their hobby, and mysoginist bigots.

    The suggestion that all modern media sees all gamers as the same extremist nut bags featured in the show, is old, and untrue. Move on.

    And if anything were giving all gamers a bad name, it is the extremist nut bags, not the lack of nuance in mainstream reporting.


    "I'd like a retraction please Tom."

    Dude, what do you think this is? You're in a chat page, on a website, and you're demanding a "retraction" of something someone said?
    Reply +10
  • kangarootoo 12/02/2015

    @lancashirered

    "Yay, now popular media is demonizing us..."

    Not "us", just the hateful idiots.
    Reply +9
  • Eurogamer has dropped review scores

  • kangarootoo 12/02/2015

    @getup2k

    "If it's entirely subjective then you could say that Superman 64 is a better game than Super Mario Galaxy"

    Yes. Yes you could. Other subjective opinions could disagree.


    "It's my belief that there are objective standards within these. I think it's correct to say that Superman 64 is an objectively bad game. Or Big Rigs Racing."

    It is not a matter of belief. You are objectively wrong :) The words at the centre of this discussion have very specific meanings, and (although language naturally evolves through use) neither you or I get to change them at whim.

    Now I realise that everyone, including me, uses empirical terms inappropriately. I myself use the word "fact" when discussing subjective things. Sometimes for comedic value, but sometimes I kind of mean it. In general chit chat, I think this is fine. I'm not that much of a pedant (not quite).

    However, in a discussion about measuring quality, I become a super pedant when it comes to the terms we use to measure quality. Quality is subjective, and so can only be measured subjectively. If anything is going to make me a pedant about objective v subjective (and I am already quite a pedant about those words, even when sleeping), this is the thread to do it.


    "which is why I said as close to objective as possible"

    Now here is where I enable super-pedant mode :) As I touched on before, consensus over a subjective opinion does not make something objective. I know exactly what you mean, and again in "normal life" I do the same thing myself, but within the realms of this discussion, I can't let it pass :) Objective and subjective are not on the same scale, a thing cannot be closer to being objective or further away, it is either objective or subjective, 100% one way or the other. Everyone on the planet could agree about a quality value, and would still remain subjective. And nobody may believe in an objective statement (the planet earth is not a flat plane), and they would all be wrong.


    "By taking away these scores, it makes me think that perhaps EG doesn't have these things in place anymore"

    I agree, that could be a risk. I would say however, that having a scoring system in place guarantees nothing. People still argue about scores, partly because of differing tastes, but partly because of what they see as review inconsistencies within a single publication.

    I've said it a few times on this thread, but the thread is getting long, the granularity provided by the 10 scale is a lie. It gives the appearance of a universal, empirical system of quality measurement, but that is simply not what it provided. The broader strokes of the new system are an acceptance of what game reviews are and can be.


    "My point is that as long as these things are in place, the score a game is given does have meaning"

    But if these things are in place, will they not be represented in the review text? Is it not the review text that generates the score anyway? It would make me sad to think that the reason some people object to losing the scores is because they don't like reading (not you personally, you obvious have no fear of words, I mean the fools that write TLDR after 3 paragraphs).


    Thanks for replying in detail btw, its been fun to throw the ideas around.
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 11/02/2015

    @getup2k

    Well, as we're digging into it :)


    "My point is that there are objective elements to making a good game."

    No, there aren't. "Good" is subjective, and always will be. There may be objective ways of achieving a certain result, but the quality of that result (and therefore whether it is desirable) will always be subjective.


    "Yes there are subjective ones too, of course not everyone likes the same thing - but most people do, and they do for a reason."

    Now THIS is the most common mistake. Consensus is NOT the same as objectivity. Everyone on the planet might agree that something is good, but good would STILL remain a subjective measurement. The thing with objective measurement, is that nobody needs to agree, it is simply fact (I measure the temperature of the toom, and tell you that it is 27 degrees C to the nearest degree - so long as my measurement is correct, that result is the objective truth, it doesn't matter who agrees and who does not).



    "If you don't notice the difference between a 10 game and an 8/9 game then you'll be unaffected, but there are plenty that do."

    I said this in a previous post, but I'll repeat it here. The granularity that you perceive between an 8 and a 9 is simply a lie. Your own personal experience will allow you to perceive the difference anecdotally, but there is simply no empirical measurement that can be universally applied. Why do you think people on message boards argue so much about scores. If scores were really as useful a system of measurement as you suggest, there would be no arguments. Nobody argues over whether 110mm is longer than 100mm, for good reason.

    As I said before, removing the scores is not losing some granularity in measurement, it is admitting that the granularity never truly existed.

    Question - have you always agreed with every review score you've ever seen? Question - if you disagreed with a review score, has it ever (I mean, ever) been by more than one point? Question - if you disagreed with a review score by a lot, did you blame the score system or the reviewer? If you can answer yes to the first two questions, you already know all you need to know about review scores.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 10/02/2015

    @Totza

    "The RDR review still makes me laugh."

    I'm sure Friday nights are just a riot in your house.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 10/02/2015

    @getup2k

    Good grief, what a large amount of writing to say very little.

    Reviews are not objective. This is not my opinion, it is not even up for debate. Reviews are not objective.

    There is not an element of subjectiveness, they are ENTIRELY subjective. Comparing one game to another simply adds context, but the comparison still remains subjective.

    Good and Bad are subjective. Fast and Slow are subjective. Hard and Easy are subjective. 12 metres is objective. "Made of H2O" is objective. 5 seconds, is objective. See the difference?


    Did I mention that reviews are subjective? Sorry to be a pedant, I realise I am being an ass, but I really dislike it when people conflate subjective and objective. They are very distinctly different, and no amount of context or consensus will ever make a subjective thing become an objective thing.


    To be specific about something you said, "It's just stripping away your tools". I believe it is making the tools more fit for the job. The reason you miss the granularity of a 10 scale is that you believe it allows you to measure the qualitative difference between two closely matched games..... but it does not. A 10 is not empirically "better" than a 9 game, a 7 is not empirically better than a 6. The 10 scale SAYS these things are true, but they are not. That is why EG have dropped the scale, not because they want less granularity in their reviews, but because they realise the granularity provided by the 10 scale is a lie.
    Reply +7