IGN reviewer can't play or pronounce Ikaruga

[icycalm]

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).

The reason you are saying this is because you do not understand everything that Wittgenstein says in the Tractatus. You understand some things, but not everything.

A nonsensical statement can never be wrong. This is because "right" and "wrong", "true" and "false", are concepts which we have defined only for statements that make sense.

[Ed Oscuro]

I understand everything he says. I believe that Wittgenstein wrote that in a fit of pessimism about the potential of science, appropriate to the period of time in which he wrote. Until recently I believed much the same - that mystical things should be afforded a special position by virtue of their untestable nature.

I agree with the letter of what you say - nonsense cannot always be comprehensively disproven in a logical sense - but that does not mean nonsense stands invincible against reasoning and science. For me, and the reality of existence, that which cannot be tested does not exist (with some potential exceptions, as I noted before, but those exceptions need not remain roadblocks forever). Because an argument can be constructed doesn't mean that it cannot be nullfied on scientific grounds - science stands alightly apart from classical logic; we don't attempt to understand the universe through pure reasoning (even the Greeks understood this).

Anyhow, this argument between those who believe in the possibilities of mysticism versus those who believe that everything can be tested ping-pongs back and forth. In the sixties, it was popular to believe that "what cannot be measured does not exist;" the scientific view has advanced since then, but it still excludes the likelihood of mystical possibilities.

It really isn't an exceptionally fruitful argument to have; what really is making the difference in progress is the slow but sure expansion of the envelope of ideas and theories that may be tested.

[icycalm]

I agree with the letter of what you say - nonsense cannot always be comprehensively disproven in a logical sense

It is very obvious that there are a lot of things about the Tractatus you don't understand. If you understood everything you would not be using such ridiculous phrasings as "comprehensively disproven" or "in a logical sense".

A proof is ALWAYS comprehensive. Sense is ALWAYS logical. These are some of the basics concepts one takes away from the Tractatus. You do not understand the book. Moreover, you do not understand what Wittgenstein means by 'nonsense'. Nonsense can never be proven or disproven -- by definition. It's back to the books for you (if indeed you ever read the book, because your understanding of it smacks of Wikipedia to me).

[Ed Oscuro]

You sure know how to kill a conversation, Icy/calm.

These are some of the basics concepts one takes away from the Tractatus.

I take away that you put too much faith in mid-20th century attempts to substitute for science, although I doubt they come from Wittgenstein. For instance, he writes:

And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all.

This is exactly what I have said in my previous post, stated succinctly.

A proof is ALWAYS comprehensive. Sense is ALWAYS logical.

Yet your analogies are ALWAYS hackneyed and barely topical.

"Sense is always logical" - this must be your way of saying "Seeing is believing."

Anyhow, Wittgenstein was not the most direct source you could have used in promoting a single standard of taste - take David Hume, for instance.

[henry dark]

I like icycalm- I've never read such idiocy written with such vim.

Anyway, aren't we supposed to be talking about shooting games or something?

[Ed Oscuro]

Yes, absolutely. It's pretty evident my discussion with Icy has passed its zenith.

[icycalm]

You sure know how to kill a conversation, Icy/calm.

On the subject of Wittgenstein's writings there was never any conversation. We were just establishing that you do not understand what he wrote. Wikipedia indeed.

[Acid King]

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.

...and it's preposterous to take this stance toward something that's not targeted towards elites. It may be a bad review, but us complaining about it makes as much sense as a person with a doctorate in literature criticizing the short stories in Highlights for Children for not being substantial enough.

[GaijinPunch]

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

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.

I will not argue that my reading comprehensions sucks, but I understand crystal clear what you're getting at. I just think your wrong... or don't necessarily practice what you preach to a T. Anyone that says Galuda 2 is easy b/c of the Kakusei mode has clearly not made it to stage 5 on a credit. (There are still only 4 people here that have ALL'ed the game, and well over 30 posted in the HS thread).

Some people would consider such a review far too critical for not enough time put in. My point is, how much time should be spent and what a review should say exactly is subjective.

[D]

Layden Fighters

[henry dark]

Graddyu...


oh wait I did that one

[icycalm]

Anyone that says Galuda 2 is easy b/c of the Kakusei mode

No one said this. You are just being dense.

I understand crystal clear what you're getting at.

Sorry, but you have no idea what I am getting at. And neither does EOJ. You both read the same passage and failed to understand its meaning. And don't worry -- if there was a mistake there I'd have fixed it. I always do. For example, when the Pink Sweets review went up EOJ noted a mistake (I was saying that the shield recharges faster the more bullets it absorbs, which was wrong) and I fixed it immediately.

If you still think that there are factual errors in my Cave reviews (or in any of the rest of my reviews for that matter) what you should do is go to my forums and post in the appropriate threads. If I see that you are correct I will fix the error immediately, and if I see that you are wrong I will explain to you where you went wrong. Calling me out for fictitious mistakes on an unrelated thread in an unrelated forum is not the way to go about doing this.

[GaijinPunch]

Anyone that says Galuda 2 is easy b/c of the Kakusei mode

No one said this. You are just being dense.

I have said it multiple times, including now. Dense is as dense does.

I understand crystal clear what you're getting at.

Sorry, but you have no idea what I am getting at

Reread my post. I clearly do. You're misunderstanding me misunderstanding you. Besides, I said in plain English in my first post in this thread that I don't care about factual errors. They come w/ the territory. Who's not getting it now?

[icycalm]

Reread my post. I clearly do.

I reread it. You clearly do not. So clearly it's not even funny.

Besides, I said in plain English in my first post in this thread that I don't care about factual errors.

Well I do. And that's why there are no such errors in my Galuda II review.

Who's not getting it now?

You. It's always you.

[Macaw]

someone sticky this thread plz

[PROMETHEUS]

Who's not getting it now?

You. It's always you.

Only in your fantasies.

You're the guy here who acts the most like he knows everything and is more knowledgeable than most people and talks down on them, while spitting wrong statements and showing you clearly don't understand the things you are talking about.

And you keep thinking it's because people don't get it, but they do. Oddly enough you always ignore my posts or EOJ's posts or anyone's posts that clearly demonstrate or point out what doesn't add up in your arguments or opinions. We got it now dude, you think arcade games own every other games and don't understand a thing about what "gameplay" is or "skill" is or how "art" can be valuable in a video game. You think memorizers take a lot of skill. You write pathetic reviews displaying non-argued opinion, or at best based on plain wrong statements, and then tell people how professional reviewers suck at their job. You're hilarious and nothing else.

[RHE]

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

Beating a game already means to me, understanding it's rules so you don't get beaten by the game. This has nothing to do with completing, finishing or winning a game.

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.

It's not about mastering a game, it's just about getting to know how it works so you eventually can master it. Since many player take review to decide if the play a game or not, it's pretty important to give them a proper view of the game. To do this you have to be qualified. If you don't have that qualification you still can have your opinion on a gaming board or your own blog.

I feel that you should be able to tell if a game is good, even if you suck at it early on.

What's the benefit of that? When someone has no clue about a game and reads someones review who doesn't have any clue about the game either, you won't get anything from that. I mean, when someone wants to write a review about Ikaruga then that person should now about the polarity system because it's the one of the games main features. Without mentioning the feature, the review would be misleading.

However, many people here seem to dislike everything what IGN says, even if it's positive. I don't think IGN deserves that attention. Especially since there're a lot of reviews like that at shmups.com, and even more in the review section of this board.

[moozooh]

You're the guy here who acts the most like he knows everything and is more knowledgeable than most people and talks down on them, while spitting wrong statements and showing you clearly don't understand the things you are talking about.

Well, in his defense, icycalm genuinely believes he's the most knowledgeable on the subject, definitely more than most people, which may even be true. He also acts as a royal douche with severe ego problems, but that's beside the issue.

Beating a game already means to me, understanding it's rules so you don't get beaten by the game. This has nothing to do with completing, finishing or winning a game.

Does that take complete understanding of the scoring systems and such into account? I'd guess it should.

[ktownhero]

[shoe-sama]

lol icycalm has to insult the opposition every time there's a "debate"

[GaijinPunch]

Besides, I said in plain English in my first post in this thread that I don't care about factual errors.

Well I do. And that's why there are no such errors in my Galuda II review.

Go back to my original statement.\

[icycalm]

Me and GP are not arguing. He is just exercising his new hobby of putting words into people's mouths, and I am giving him lessons in reading comprehension. We are still best buddies.

[icycalm]

Go back to my original statement.

You original statement is stupid. No one said Galuda II is easy. You just have to learn to read in context. kthxbye

[spadgy]

It's clear all our minds are too advanced for this to ever end. How about we just all meet up and settle this with a good old fashioned punch up? Everyone who agrees with Icycalm on one side, everyone else on the other...

We can even start by slapping each other with a single white silk glove to keep it suitably intellectual so as to keep to Icy happy...

EDIT: Spelling

[shoe-sama]

yeah lets play bomberman lol
PVPVPVPVP

[icycalm]

I am up for that. So who's on my side?

And don't you bitches think I NEED anyone. I am packing my shotgun.

[spadgy]

I am up for that. So who's on my side?

And don't you bitches think I NEED anyone. I am packing my shotgun.

He had that badboy out when I threatened Icy with a rapier, but it was more like a blunderbuss than a shotgun...

[GaijinPunch]

You original statement is stupid.

My original statement (which was in interrogative form) was how well do you know the games you review when you review them? You wrote something about difficulty elsewhere (you were comparing other games) and it sounded off.

That set aside, I can pick apart some pieces in your Galuda II review which (even though a good review) shows that maybe you're not as in tune w/ the system as one should be to review a game: the exact bash you're giving the IGN reviewer. Clearly no review or reviewer is going to be perfect... I just don't see what gives you the right to pick it. I personally like short and sweet reviews. I generally don't give a fuck what anyone thinks about anything, especially a game. If they can describe the game play in a few paragraphs and tell me it's not a waste of my money, I'm quite happy.

[Twiddle]

wow this is from 2001

[ktownhero]

wow this is from 2001

Yet it still best conveys the notion perfectly. Don't fix what ain't broken.