|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Suspended |
Yes it was, No it wasn't, Yes it was, No it wasn't... I think we need to separate you two.
 Seriously, though, how many more posts do we need of less negative vs more positive. It's splitting hairs.... No it isn't. Yes it is. No actually, it isn't. Yes, actually it is. No, it really really is not. Yes, it really really is. Where's my gun? |
|||
|
Well, the best way to end such a deadlock would be for NeoTechni to actually post evidence of his claims; for example, the specific points he believes are positive. Having spoken to him in other topics, though, NeoTechni tends to prefer making empty denials of his opponent's points and ignore whatever arguments are used to back them up.
|
||||
|
Speaking with GBB_Doramascher in other topics, he tends to make crap up about the game that doesn't actually happen (ie: he says AI rarely fires in vehicles, when they do quite often)
Then whines when I say he's wrong. What sort of evidence does he expect me to post to disprove his outlandish claims? I don't have video capture technology. Basically his argument is that no one is allowed to like the game. And when people say they do, he gets ****y. He shouldn't be on this board at all. I made a topic saying I liked the game and he came in and complained I wasn't allowed to. Saying I wasted my money, even though as I said, I enjoyed the game. Like he can't accept people liked it. Sickening. |
||||
|
Actually it came off as quite positive. Moreso than most of his other reviews. He gave far less insults than normal, and praised it more often than normal as well. He even said he liked the game For example, he gave up playing some games (ie: Phantom Hourglass) because they were so bloody annoying. Yet he still played Haze through till the end. Right there that makes it MORE POSITIVE THAN NORMAL for him. What don't you get? Or have you not seen his other reviews? Is that proof enough for you? Give it a rest, it's more positive than normal for him |
||||
|
No, it rarely does. As I said, the Mantel buggies on the beach do not shoot at you, and the AI hardly ever manages to destroy the mines in the Quarry before you hit them, forcing you to drive slowly.
No it isn't. It's that objectively it isn't a good game; linear level design with nothing in the way of reward for exploring, dull weapons, poor AI and some truly atrocious vehicle sections mean it never rises above mediocrity. Sure, it's not on the level of Turok's terrible aiming system or the sheer tedium of Blacksite, but it's stuck at the point marked 'must try harder.'
Even people who like tha game have disagreed with you over that. If you want to set up a forum where people can only say what you want to hear, run it yourself. If you want to throw out your opinions into the void and not let anyone disagree with them, get a blog.
You made a topic saying the reviews the game is getting are undeserved. Are you saying you're allowed to dispute other people's views on the game but they're not allowed to do likewise to you? Double standard much?
His summary is the game isn't worth buying unless you like throwing money away and is thoroughly mediocre. The fact that there's not much bad to say is more that the game has so little about it that's original than because it's a good game. Less negative doesn't mean more positive. |
||||
|
|
Suspended |
The reviewer did seem to imply the game was only worth buying if you got money to throw away. That's subjective. As far as the positive/negative... Positive and negative are opposites, therefore less negative is always more positive. More positive is always less negative.
|
|||
|
Yes, I might have worded that badly. Behold, using maths: 0 ----- -5 ------> -10 Now, -5 might be less negative than -10, but it still is negative. So what I'm saying is the fact that you have fewer negative things doesn't in itself mean the result is positive. |
||||
|
Actually it does quite often. Are you going to whine for proof without providing any of your own?
Wait, are you asking for the game to play itself?
Yeah it is. I made a topic saying I liked the game and you came in and complained I wasn't allowed to And everytime you say you didn't do that, your very next sentence is again saying people aren't allowed to like the game
Saying I like the game is not a double standard.
Actually no they don't. There's other topics here saying the game didn't deserve the reviews it's getting. Complete with your complaints in them too
Actually it does, that's how math works. If something is less negative than something, than it is more positive than it. That's how relation works. |
||||
|
I've offered precise instances of it; the Mantel buggies on the beach don't fire at you, and the AI on the quarry level hardly ever manages to destroy the mines. Even when the AI does fire from a vehicle, they have severe problems hitting anything, and often stop firing with the target still there.
If you're forced to control a vehicle with no player-controlled weapons, you should expect the AI to be able to handle the weapons. What other point is there to them being there? While the quarry is appallingly designed [a fast vehicle section should have mines requiring you to speed past them, not mines that can only harm you if you drive onto them] the way it's made means the AI should be able to take out the mines, consistantly, from a moving vehicle. It can't.
When? You made a topic saying the reviews are 'undeserved.' Therefore, you said that people are wrong to not like the game, and I pointed out that there are many strong reasons cited as to why Haze deserves exactly the scores it got. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to like it, but it does mean that in objective terms it's a mediocre example of FPS design with graphics which often look last-gen.
You didn't say you liked the game, you said the reviews were all wrong. The two aren't the same at all: I like the PS2 Shinobi, but I'd certainly agree with many of the reviews regarding its shortcomings. It's a double standard to say you're allowed to decry all the reviews as false but nobody is allowed to state they're well deserved.
Go back, read what I was replying to. Your reply here has nothing to do with what I was actually saying. This is what happens when you snip out so much of a comment you forget what it actually said.
It's not how language works, as I explained above. |
||||
|
I'm pretty sure the admins told you to stop that, something along the lines of warning you will be banned
|
||||
|
What on Earth are you talking about? Nobody's ever warned me I would be banned on these forums.
|
||||
|
Yeah you have. Both in public and private. The topic of mine you ****ed all over had the admin telling you to stop, and I've been personally told by admins they warned you and you will be banned if you continue.
Also, it's a double standard to complain my topic is a double standard. And moronic, reviews aren't the absolute fact. Just cause a bunch of reviewers don't like a game (even though others do) don't mean no one is allowed to like the game. Nor does it mean you get to complain to everyone who does. I didn't say they were wrong to not like the game, I said the review scores were undeserved, and that it's a better game than it's given credit for. Quit saying you're not saying no one is allowed to like the game and in the VERY SAME SENTANCE saying the opposite. As for your examples, that's no more proof than me saying the vice versa. You're not forced to control a vehicle with no player-controlled weapons. Get out and take the turret. You must suck at the game, I never had an issue with the mines, drive around them. And as for something being less negative = more positive, that IS how both math and language works. Look up the word "relative". Now you're arguing with the dictionary. |
||||
|
Rubbish. The admin reminded all participants of this board's somewhat bizarre rule that threads shouldn't become 'personal arguments between two people' but didn't specifically issue a warning of any kind. I've recieved no private communications from site administration in my entire time here. I think you're confusing your own repeated statements I ought to be banned with the site moderation staff actually saying it. They haven't.
Your statement that reviews are flawed and then complaining about being told your objections are flawed is the very definition of a double standard.
I said that specifically. However, just because you personally like a game, it doesn't mean it's objectively a perfect one. Like I said, I like plenty of games that I can see the imperfections in [Gungrave, Shinobi and Dark Sector, to name but a few] and some I wouldn't even rate any higher than Haze. Liking a game doesn't invoke a requirement to believe it's beyond criticism or to ignore any and all faults in it.
Which is saying that people are wrong for disliking the game. You are saying the reviews are false and their scores do not reflect the facts; they do. You've gone so far as to state that all criticism of the game is 'made up;' in other words, you're stating that dozens of reviews are all actively lying about there being anything wrong with the game.
I didn't do that. You're just convinced that if you like a game that automatically means it must, in all objective terms, be a good one. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. Haze is in all ways a poor quality game that richly deserves 5-6 range reviews, but that doesn't mean some people won't find entertainment in it regardless of serious flaws.
As I pointed out in my review, the AI is too stupid to drive, so you can't get out and use the turret if you want to go anywhere. Since the mount / dismount animations are incredibly long, if you take the time to jump out of the vehicle and climb into another position every single time, you'll soon have a dead vehicle. It's obvious the player is intended to be driving in that sequence, which means the AI should be up to the job of using the gun. You've essentially admitted in that section they're completely useless and their inability to hit anything consistantly forces you to constantly stop, change positions and do their job for them rather than concentrating on driving. Doing so is also absolutely pointless, since the basic Mantel assault rifle seems to do about the same damage as the mounted gun, is massively more accurate and never runs out of ammo for any significant amount of time.
Half the time they're positioned so you have to come into contact with them [either side of a bottleneck, several times, for instance]. It's much easier to just drive slowly, or not bother to use the vehicle at all which makes you entirely immune to damage from them. This is also avoiding the issue: the AI gunners can't do their job adequately and take out the mines before you're on top of them, despite that, according to the developers, you're supposed to shoot the mines [they commented that players in co-op weren't shooting them because they had too much health]. This is part and parcel of the larger problem of the AI of everything but sentry turrets being terrible at aiming.
If I say 'the people who made this game should be ashamed' and someone else says 'the people who made this game should be burned at the stake' one statement is less negative but neither statement is in any way positive. This message has been edited. Last edited by: GBB_Doramascher, |
||||
|
You misunderstood. I said it deserved higher ratings than it got. I'm not claiming it deserved high 90s or perfect scores. And no, that's not a double standard. |
||||
|
It's the same thing. You're saying that the reviewers are wrong to have rated it poorly, then crying foul when someone says your justification for saying so is flawed. |
||||
|
Which is ironically exactly what you're doing in complaining about it. |
||||
|
Um, no. I'm arguing your criticisms of mainstream reviews are flawed and your defence [that I shouldn't be allowed to criticise you since this amounts to saying you're not allowed to like the game, even though you are criticising others which presumably means you're saying they're not allowed to dislike it] is hypocrisy. My argument is that people should be free to question each other's postings, and that whether you like a game or not isn't based solely on it's objective quality, if it is at all; in other words, that it's possible to enjoy a bad game in spite of any number of flaws but dishonest to pretend those flaws do not exist. Nothing ironic there. |
||||
|
Yup. You're saying no one is allowed to like the game. When ever I say I like the game, you insulted it and said things like I wasted my money, like there is no chance it's an enjoyable game. And you are also ignoring the good reviews it got. Famitsu gave it 34 out of 40. Which means you are doing the exact same thing you're acusing me of. Hypocrisy.
So you're arguing reviews are fact and if a game is reviewed poorly by some outlets (but not all) you're not allowed ot like a game? Me saying it deserved higher scores is not hypocrisy.
Except when that person likes the game, then you whine they aren't allowed
It's also possible that a good game receive low marks. Reviews aren't the end all be all judgement of quality. It's dishonest to claim otherwise. |
||||
|
NeoTechni, you just replied to a post while completely ignoring everything it actually said. Go back, read it, and reply to what I'm actually saying. It's pointless replying to you if you just repeat the same incorrect claims again.
No, because I'm not arguing I shouldn't be doing it; you're the only one here claiming criticism is bad [except when you're the one doing it]. Famitsu aren't exactly reliable when it comes to such things, to the extent that Metacritic doesn't even list their review.
So no, then.
Look one sentence later and you find I specifically addressed that claim. |
||||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
