IGN reviewer can't play or pronounce Ikaruga

[jpj]

If a game is not worth becoming an expert at then it becomes a negative review.

i'll say it again: deadlines. i bet you a coke his editor specified the review needed to be up online before the game was out on XBLA

[JoshF]

Who plays Zelda games to become an expert in them? Aside from Zelda trivia/storyline buffs & nuts, that is.

That's a problem with narrative-based games it's not comparable to arcade games.

i'll say it again: deadlines. i bet you a coke his editor specified the review needed to be up online before the game was out on XBLA

This is supposed to change my mind how? I know exactly how the game is played that's why I said I'll never buy what they sell.

[crithit5000]

I think the review in question sucks ass. It's literally back of the box filler, with a fucking score attached and that definitely is not what I personally would consider a review. There really isn't an actual opinion attached to the review text, it's just going through the motions stating that's it's a hard, cheap port of an old game. Then you hit the breakdown and you get one sentence opinions that are total throw-aways. I watched the video yesterday, and I don't recall any astounding words being spoken there, either.

also: deadlines. a difference between professional reviews and amateur reviews

Actually also: IGN hires shitty writers who emote as well as a dead tree that's fallen over. A fucking deadline is no excuse for craptastic writing that doesn't even give a good impression as to whether or not the writer even liked the game. Seriously, there's been much better writers who've dealt with the same deadlines in the history of the holy field that is games journalism and have done a way better job than this.

For those that think this review is awesome, just read the back of the game's packaging and check the score on metacritic instead.

[JoshF]

Frothing demand.

[Rob]

There really isn't an actual opinion attached to the review text, it's just going through the motions stating that's it's a hard, cheap port of an old game.

"It's hard, you have to do good to do good. There's patterns in it. General opinion is that it's good so who am I to disagree. 9."

[JoshF]

Job offer is on the way.

[Battlesmurf]

I pronounce it like this: "E - car - roo - gah", I'm sure the "roo" is meant to be pronounced as "du" because those crazy japs have odd ways of saying things.. oh well.

?

??

???



Anyways- he gave it a 9- mentions challenge and whatnot. I was pleasantly suprised- I liked that review- tommarow can't come fast enough.

Edit: I don't use a review to justify a purchase- I'll buy what I want if I think there's a slight bit of stuff to get me interested. I'm just glad that it got a 9 for the 'masses' that buy stuff solely on those numbers- more interest in the shmup community isn't a bad thing in my eyes I don't think : )

[Ed Oscuro]

Who plays Zelda games to become an expert in them? Aside from Zelda trivia/storyline buffs & nuts, that is.

That's a problem with narrative-based games it's not comparable to arcade games.

Yeah, this is why I got burned out on narrative-based 3D games a few months ago. Felt like going through the motions.

Anyways- he gave it a 9- mentions challenge and whatnot.

See Rob's post slightly above yours.

[lgb]

Just as there are wrong reasons for condemning something, there are wrong reasons for praising something. In the end, the condemnation or praise are not important. The reasons are.

Something like that.

This review means absolutely nothing. Because if you really played these games, you'd know reviews are pointless. Heck, I always feel the reviews here at shmups.com are written simply to be informative. Now when I see an informative review in the next GI, then maybe it means something. Until then, play the games and quit debating about reviews! It just incites flamewars.

Hoo.

[henry dark]

I'll try another way of explaining this to you.

My mother never learned to drive. If you give her a car for a couple hours and ask her to review it for a car magazine, whatever text she will come up with will not be a review. It will merely be "my mother's impression of that car". She will write about the car's shape and color, about how it feels like to sit inside it, about the feel of the leather seats and the view from the windows. That's all she will write about. That's all she can write about. But that is not a review of the car. Because a car is made to be driven, and reviews of cars are about how competently the car fulfills that purpose in relation to other cars.

It's the same thing with reviews of books or movies or music. You can't have illiterate people reviewing books, because they can't read them. Or blind people reviewing movies, or deaf people reviewing music.

This thread is now officially hilarious. I'm going to assume you're just trying to troll me with those absurd analogies and just leave it at that.

[shoe-sama]

ONOZ INCOMPETENT GAMERS WRITE VIDEO GAME REVIEWS!?
HOLY SHIT MAN

[icycalm]

I would rather 100 times read a review of Ikaruga by Rob which trashes it and gives it a 0/10 because he hated its scoring system, than a 9/10 review by someone who can't even play the game.

This is what I mean by reasons. Rob would be trashing the game for the right reasons, while the IGN reviewer is praising it for the wrong ones.

And anyone who calls this stance elitist is indeed right. Elitism is the fundamental state of the intelligent person. Elitism is only an insult in the eyes of the non-elitists, i.e. the masses. The kind of people who do not want reviews, the kind of people who do not want opinions, but wikipedia articles.

The kind of people who think that it is possible for an "objective" review to exist.

The kind of people who think that objectivity exists.

The kind of people who never know anything about anything.

[icycalm]

Also, let me solve another mystery here for you.

It is not necessary for someone to "beat" a game in order to review it. The only thing that is necessary is that he can play it -- i.e. that he fully understands all its rules.

I mean -- what, I have to "beat" Chess or Basketball or Sid Meier's Civilization in order to review them? How do you even "beat" a game?

Games are forever. They never end. They can NEVER be beaten.

Good games, that is. The ones worth reviewing.

[Twiddle]

[GaijinPunch]

Icy: How many of the games you review did you fully grasp? I've seen some of your Cave reviews that have pretty noticeable errors [ESPGaluda 2 is easy b/c you can use Kakusei mode for safety, or something like that]. Errata happens. It's no biggie, and I'm not dissing you for it. But, it seems you love to review arcade games... games that are famous for taking weeks (and loads of money) to fully "grasp". We could argue until we're blue in the face that such a review before such time should be a preview, not a review.

Good games, that is. The ones worth reviewing.

If nobody reviews the bad ones, how will everyone else know they're bad?

[Ed Oscuro]

Icy, while you're here, I had a question...

For you, does Wittgenstein's line about the "mystical" (from your "Art in Games" commentary) describe something that may not easily be put into words but which is still important for the reviewer/critic to attempt to impart to the reader?

Anyway, I disagree with the elitist approach, but at least it's consistent.

[icycalm]

Icy: How many of the games you review did you fully grasp?

All of them, with the exception of about half a dozen ones I reviewed years and years ago, which I plan to review again.

I've seen some of your Cave reviews that have pretty noticeable errors

People make mistakes. That's not the issue here Paul.

[ESPGaluda 2 is easy b/c you can use Kakusei mode for safety, or something like that].

There's no mistake there. It is an issue of reading comprehension. (i.e. You need to learn to read better.)

We could argue until we're blue in the face that such a review before such time should be a preview, not a review.

Again, you have not grasped much of what I said. I understand the rules of those games, therefore I am capable of reviewing them. Whoever doesn't isn't.

If nobody reviews the bad ones, how will everyone else know they're bad?

This is a subtle issue. I will explain it on my site pretty soon, and in great depth, so wait for that.

For you, does Wittgenstein's line about the "mystical" (from your "Art in Games" commentary) describe something that may not easily be put into words but which is still important for the reviewer/critic to attempt to impart to the reader?

Either something can be put into words, or it can't. The easily/not easily angle is only for stupid people who have trouble expressing themselves.

[evil_ash_xero]

I seriously disagree with the notion that you have to be a master at a game/ and or genre to be "qualified" to review the games.

I feel that you should be able to tell if a game is good, even if you suck at it early on. Of course you can fall in or out of love with it later. So, you should at least play it for a week or so before you review it.

Most Raizing(and Ibara) games I tend to just think "eh, it was OK" at first, before really getting into it after multiple plays.

But I am by no means a master at any of them.

s/m

[henry dark]

Elitism is the fundamental state of the intelligent person. Elitism is only an insult in the eyes of the non-elitists, i.e. the masses

Just when you thought this thread couldn't get any better!

[Ed Oscuro]

For you, does Wittgenstein's line about the "mystical" (from your "Art in Games" commentary) describe something that may not easily be put into words but which is still important for the reviewer/critic to attempt to impart to the reader?

Either something can be put into words, or it can't. The easily/not easily angle is only for stupid people who have trouble expressing themselves.

I agree, but I would like to note that condemning mysticism was far from W.'s purpose. His definition works to lay out what is and what isn't mystical, but he is believed to have defended it himself. He quoted mystics and had no quarrel with their viewpoints.

An unrelated passage from Wikipedia:

Wittgenstein had unrealistic expectations of the rural children he taught, and his teaching methods were intense and exacting — he had little patience with those children who had no aptitude for mathematics. However, he achieved good results with children attuned to his interests and style of teaching, especially boys. His severe disciplinary methods (often involving corporal punishment, not unusual at the time) — as well as a general suspicion amongst the villagers that he was somewhat mad — led to a long series of bitter disagreements with some of his students' parents, and eventually culminated in April 1926 in the collapse of an eleven year old boy whom Wittgenstein had struck on the head.[18] The boy's father attempted to have Wittgenstein arrested, and despite being cleared of misconduct he resigned his position and returned to Vienna, feeling that he had failed as a school teacher.

This sounds familiar!

[icycalm]

Indeed it is. You are not that dumb after all, Ed.

I agree, but I would like to note that condemning mysticism was far from W.'s purpose.

No one is condemning criticism. You are just failing to understand the issue here.

I will repeat it one more time:

To review a thing, you have to be able to understand in what ways that thing differs from other similar things. But those ways must be ways of substance. The color of a car is not its substance -- its handling is. Those who can't drive it therefore are unable to review it.

[Ed Oscuro]

I agree, but I would like to note that condemning mysticism was far from W.'s purpose.

No one is condemning criticism.

Criticism? Mysticism is what I said.

You're working a little bit too fast, I think.

[icycalm]

Okay, let me answer then what you did say:

I agree, but I would like to note that condemning mysticism was far from W.'s purpose. His definition works to lay out what is and what isn't mystical, but he is believed to have defended it himself. He quoted mystics and had no quarrel with their viewpoints.

The reason he had no quarrel with the viewpoints of mystics is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a quarrel with viewpoints that cannot be put into words.

We can only quarrel with things that can be said, after all.

6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it.

[Ed Oscuro]

The reason he had no quarrel with the viewpoints of mystics is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a quarrel with viewpoints that cannot be put into words.

More to the point, he was influenced by Kierkegaard and Saint Augustine, and this abstract, no-evidence form of philosophy allows absurd and unrealistic conclusions.

I can have a quarrel with people who attempt to use mysticsm as evidence for the workings of reality - Christopher Hitchens has tackled this a few times in public speeches; for him the bottom line is that what cannot be proven or disproven is usually not worth discussing. The gap between logic and mysticism has the consequence of absurdity when one attempts to live by it.

[icycalm]

I can have a quarrel with people who attempt to use mysticsm as evidence for the workings of reality

Yes indeed. But that was not what I meant when I said that you cannot quarrel with mystics. What I meant was that it is impossible to question propositions such as these:

"The sky is sad."

"God is all-knowing."

Etc. etc.

Propositions such as these are the kinds of propositions that mystics put forth, and, because they are nonsensical, cannot be proven NOR disproven.

This is the heart of the matter. And of course if someone attempts to force you to live your life according to such nonsensical propositions you should quarrel with them. But your quarrel should not take the form of trying to prove them wrong -- because they are neither wrong nor correct. Your quarrel should take the form of trying to demonstrate to them that their propositions are meaningless.

6.54 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science -- i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy -- and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy -- this method would be the only strictly correct one.

[Ed Oscuro]

What I meant was that it is impossible to question propositions such as these:

"The sky is sad."

It most certainly is not, although it could become so. "The sky" could be inhabited by (and associated with) an entity that takes up residence there (for example, clouds of microscopic particles that form a hive mind). When I say "the land mourns for the assassinated President," it is clear I do not mean the tectonic plates, after all.

"God is all-knowing."

That is the usual monotheistic definition of God, but if there is no God then we needn't worry about him knowing our secrets.

"Seeing is believing."

Another nonsensical semantic construct, this time caused by a "common sense" view of reality being readily apparent. On the other hand, seeing something usually reveals the truth - photo editors from the Middle East and the people who create the cover images for tabloids are trying to change that, of course.

Just because words can be strung together in a certain way, or a question asked, does not mean that it should be simply left alone. Eds, always liars, for example.

But your quarrel should not take the form of trying to prove them wrong -- because they are neither wrong nor correct.

They are still very likely to be wrong - we just haven't the opportunity to demonstrate it conclusively yet (and, depending on what one thinks about theories of physics, we may never be able).

Waiting until a mystical view of reality begins to cause harm is letting the fire burn too long. You see the fire, and the danger to your house, and so you put it out.

[shoe-sama]

Elitism is the fundamental state of the intelligent person. Elitism is only an insult in the eyes of the non-elitists, i.e. the masses

Just when you thought this thread couldn't get any better!

I R BETTER DEN U I LIEK TTLY UES L33tZ

[kid aphex]

if you all are so smart, how come you can't realize you're remarkably off-topic?

[Ed Oscuro]

if you all are so smart, how come you can't realize you're remarkably off-topic?

Who said we didn't? It beats having needless drama. Plus, it'll get split off, most likely.

[Randorama]

if WE all are so smart, how come WE can't realize WE're remarkably off-topic?

Small fixing for great justice!