Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Drakengard is so fucked its completely ok in my book, any of them, except drakengard 2, drakengard 2 is trash. Nier is top tier tho.

Yeah say what you will... about Drakengard 2... is kind of really boring.

[Loud Whispers]

Yeah but you can at LEAST assume that book critics and videogame critics would at least read or play in general... That they have a firm grounding in the topic.

It's a poor assumption to make. I have often found amongst many here, that doing something they loved professionally, killed their love for their profession's subject. Someone who enjoys reading or playing video games can often find that consuming it whether or not they wanted to and then breaking it down when they have big deadlines and a backlog of stuff to consume can over time, suck the fun and leisure out of it all and leave nothing but monotony and poor life choices. Why do you think so many critics express hatred for the medium they are professionals in? They're experiencing the medium in an extremely different environment to the medium's audience, this goes for all consumable media really

This is expecting a book critic to be someone who... doesn't read... like at all.

Also surprisingly common

Being a professional need not mean you enjoy it, indeed, many may have thought they would enjoy it only to find out they actually had no interest in the reality, stuck there because they need the job to pay their bills.

Yeah but they were meant to do an indepth analysis as part of their job (as in they got paid for it)... Which yeah you don't HAVE to play anything... but their research was extremely lacking too.

I get that it's extremely poor professionalism and they are making the world a worse place for it, but at the end of the day the best thing you can do is just give them no attention and then they can slope off and do something more productive with their lives. You also have to take into consideration that in any respects, loads of critics are obsolete, having to resort to gimmicks or politics in order to remain relevant or edgy. Most people prefer reviews from their peers in the audience, which things like dedicated review sites, amazon and google have made very consumer-friendly and consumer-driven. Video game critics especially fall afoul of this lmao, leading to some golden memes. Smaller critics using platforms like twitch or youtube have thrived however, and are capable of actually showing their audience they have played the game, and there are a few really dank ones - so it's not all bad news, with these smaller critics being a flourishing bed of innovative and insightful critique. And irony

[Flying Dice]

Really common for book and video game critics to not read the media they judge. Film critics tend to be able to watch the films they criticize owing to their shorter investment periods, I was immensely amused hearing of one literary critic who was barred from judging at one of those award things because she criticized the other judges for not having read the books they were giving prizes for lmao
It pains me reading video game reviews or book reviews from people who have clearly not read the book or played the game, or else have done so in such a brief manner that they skimmed through - the best examples would be the Nier/Drakengard games in which shit tons of critics played the first chapters of the games and then rated it lowly, not realizing they had missed 90% of the game in their haste.

In their defence, they must consume a lot of media in order to criticize it, thus they must either love the media in question with a passion, or blaze through it with dewrito mercenary attitude and lacklustre attachment to life's cultures. Being a professional need not mean you enjoy it, indeed, many may have thought they would enjoy it only to find out they actually had no interest in the reality, stuck there because they need the job to pay their bills.

10/10 ign, needs more DLC

Oh man, don't even get me started on the dumb shits who played NieR: Automata through to Ending A and then stopped trying to act like they have a critical leg to stand on. Next they'll say they're film critics, watch the first forty minutes of Alien, and say that it was shit because it was mostly talking and ended before much happened.

[Neonivek]

You mean like how in the Oscars the people rarely even watch the NOMINATED movies?

[itisnotlogical]

I would argue that you should be able to get an idea of what a game is about and whether or not you like it based on a reasonable amount of viewing time, as opposed to experiencing every little bit of it before having any opinion whatsoever. A twist should be a dramatic high point in the story, not the entire reason for watching/reading/playing the thing. The defense "No, it really gets good at hour (x)!" means that for (x) amount of hours, the story and/or gameplay has mostly failed to generate interest.

Imagine if every new game of Undertale began with an unskippable one-hour segment of Desert Bus. Saying "No really, this game's good, you just have to wait a bit!" is only so convincing if you have to wait so long for the part that everybody loves to be revealed, no matter how good that part is.

It's not like watching the first portion of Empire Strikes Back and quitting before the "I'm your father" bit. It's like watching The Room for 40 minutes, and after you leave everybody decides to turn on a good movie.

[kilakan]

Well the game Nier:automata which was mentioned is pretty great all the way through, but a lot of critics complaints is that it's Short, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered which would be your opinion if you turned the game off at ending A and then uninstalled.  It's like reading 1/3rd of a book and then burning it only to bitch that the ending answered nothing and there was loose ends.

[AzyWng]

I've never played NieR (either one) and even I know there's more to the game than just the one playthrough.

Then again I'm TvT scum so that probably explains it.

[Egan_BW]

nearatomato literally shows you a message from the developers after ending A to keep playing. If you decide to stop there, it's your own damn fault.

[Greiger]

Just poking my head in here to say that video game reviewing scores need to die in a vat of acid that is on fire, in the stomach of a sarlac that is itself being devoured by a dune sandworm.

If a 7 out of 10 is considered a terrible score there is fundamentally something wrong with the system. 

Tell me what you like about a game, and what you don't like. The game running at 30 fps might be a big deal to you sure, and I definitely appreciate a game that runs at 60, but it is not going to kill my enjoyment of a title.   A game being turn based instead of real time may cause you to bomb a game as being boring, but give me a TBS game and a RTS game and I'm going to pick the TBS every goddamn time.  A score with no more context than a handful of sentences is not a review.  It's a joke.

[George_Chickens]

I come back after a bit of a hiatus and there has been a ban for "importing off site drama".

I'm wondering where the drama was imported from and if it's as interesting as that Kingkravoka guy.

[Steelmagic]

Somehow on the way home from work I ended up in the middle of a military convoy by accident. This was not how I envisioned my ride home going.

[wierd]

Re: Import Offsite Drama
synopsis:

User makes thread about a DF themed dischord chat server, specializing in facilitating succession games.
Drama happens in the chat. It has a falling out-- some users go one way, and start another chat-- others stay behind.
Drama continues.
Same user posts excerpts from the chat into the thread, thus importing that drama.
The toad disapproves.
User gets mouthy.
User gets banned.
The end.

[Tiruin]

Err, I've seen that thread before--didn't follow it, but it was rather more somewhat of an offhand follow up than a specific like that. From what I recall, [someone I know] and someone else (because I can't spell the name right because of memory) mentioned nicely to not bring drama in again by quoting Toady. It was reiterated. Then there was a snide/rude or off-putting remark [ie the comparison of "Like [what you two {mentioned by name} are doing]"] which I forgot the first bits. Someone then asked in a diffusing/tactful manner. Then it was handwaved by looping back around to 'posting a CKII thing'.

Seemed like the off-putting remark was part of it though, under wierd's 'mouthy' bit.

[...]and if it's as interesting as[...]

Personally, I don't find interesting as the applicable word. Even if I get what the meaning behind it is.
Intriguing? Surprising? Something to mean 'noting attention'?
Although related to this thread was how much I didn't get before until my friends helped me out in learning subtext. >_<

[Jopax]

What the actual fuck, like, what the actual fucking fuck??

[wierd]

They took their prank too far.  They should have broken the act after the kid became mortified, then explained the prank. Punishing a kid for something you KNOW they DID NOT DO, is NOT funny.  Watching them freak out, then reassuring them by explaining the prank, and that they knew they had not done it, that might be mildly entertaining, depending on the kids' reactions.

Just be aware that pulling pranks like this on kids, sends them the message that pulling pranks like this is "OK", which can have disastrous consequences, especially in younger children.