Angry Joe LOVED Pillars Of Eternity

[Namutree]

I'll be interested to see what "The Rageaholic" thinks of PoE after release as I tend to have the same tastes in video games as him.

[Diogenes]

God forbid! How could I ever expect objective journalism??

 

Reviews are by definition subjective, you are getting someone's opinion as they relate their experience.

[Sensuki]

I read the RPGCodex.

[archangel979]

 

Also he does not hate modern games, but does not love them instantly because of good graphics or similar bull**** that console kiddies buy them for today.

Ironic that you would call people who buy games for the graphics 'console kiddies' at the same time as praising the most spec-sheet-obsessed of PC Master-Race Youtubers. Totalbiscuit has never seen a wall he didn't want to lick.

 

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Care to explain it?

[Gorbag]

Subjectivity has its place, but that place is not to rule over objectivity. There's no point in measuring anything with subjectivity. Even if it's not an exact science, reviews measure the quality of games. I can't subjectively measure the length of my hand. "Meh, I think it's 58 feet long." Well, that's great, but that doesn't help anyone to know the length of my hand.

This is exactly the problem I have with some of the reviews today. They measure games and their quality. You can measure your hand in meters, feet or whatever system you are using. When you measure the quality of a game, you do it by what measure? What's the standard you are using to measure it? As the truism goes, standards are debatable. That's why reviewers who measure games most often don't give away their standards (such as "I'm actually comparing this game's graphics and world to Skyrim in my mind, but if I say this, I'll get jumped, so I better just say that the reviewed game's graphics are not that good and it could have used less linearity and a more open world. Its companions and interactions come close to Inquisition though, so it gets points there"). The natural outcome of this measurement is the review's numerical value, expressed in points, stars, thumbs or whatever. This value does not represent how good the game itself is, it represents how closely the reviewed game comes to the standards of the reviewer. Games are not the same however and evaluation is never diverse enough, so this inevitably leads to situations like "I really like Pillars of Eternity, but I gave DA:I a 5,9 out of 6 the other day, and it has a ton more of everything (as its budget allows), so unfortunately this game cannot get more than 4."

Reviews I find helpful, do the following:

1. Tell me what's in the game.

2. Tell me how the reviewer feels about what's in the game and what's not. Stuff like "I liked/did not like this because" and "The game does not have this feature, and I think that's a missed opportunity because". That's the subjective thoughts of the reviewer that I can either take to heart or disregard based on their argumentation and the way I feel about similar things. 

3. Give no score or measurement whatsoever, maybe just a subjective recommendation.

[Sordel]

 

 

Also he does not hate modern games, but does not love them instantly because of good graphics or similar bull**** that console kiddies buy them for today.

Ironic that you would call people who buy games for the graphics 'console kiddies' at the same time as praising the most spec-sheet-obsessed of PC Master-Race Youtubers. Totalbiscuit has never seen a wall he didn't want to lick.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Care to explain it?

Wall-licking is looking at textures unusually close up to find out whether they bear up. When not worrying about FoV sliders, Frames per Second etc. etc. that is one of the things that Totalbiscuit worries about. My point was that PC gamers tend to be more obsessed with graphics than console owners. In fact, if you look at the spread of consoles, someone playing a 3DS is clearly less likely to be buying a game for the graphics than someone with even a low-spec PC. So why describe someone who buys a game for its graphics a 'console kiddie'?

[BruceVC]

I expect I'll ignore everyone's opinions anyway, as I've found that I have the best opinions on things.

 

 

 

 

Of course its true that you are right on most topics...and you like Romance so that just confirms it 

[archangel979]

 

 

 

Also he does not hate modern games, but does not love them instantly because of good graphics or similar bull**** that console kiddies buy them for today.

Ironic that you would call people who buy games for the graphics 'console kiddies' at the same time as praising the most spec-sheet-obsessed of PC Master-Race Youtubers. Totalbiscuit has never seen a wall he didn't want to lick.

 

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Care to explain it?

 

Wall-licking is looking at textures unusually close up to find out whether they bear up. When not worrying about FoV sliders, Frames per Second etc. etc. that is one of the things that Totalbiscuit worries about. My point was that PC gamers tend to be more obsessed with graphics than console owners. In fact, if you look at the spread of consoles, someone playing a 3DS is clearly less likely to be buying a game for the graphics than someone with even a low-spec PC. So why describe someone who buys a game for its graphics a 'console kiddie'?

 

I also said similar things :D

But I agree that PC games would usually look to have better graphics with their games due to having more expensive devices.

Well console kiddies is more due to console games being vastly inferior to what we can play on PC (with or without good graphics). Even when some of these games find themselves there, the controller interface is crap for them (I think some RTS games could be played on consoles in past).

Edited February 25, 2015 by archangel979

[Bryy]

 

Also Annah and Nameless One kissed, too. That's as romancey as it can get.

:::shakes head:::

 

What the hell is wrong with you people? I kissed my mother last week. Doesn't mean I'm romancing her. You can't romance Annah in PS:T any more than you can Romance Dakkon.

 

You know what context is, right? 

[Lord Wafflebum]

Even good science can be subjective, it's the nature of the beast. Have you ever tried to interpret an NMR printout? It's your subjective view based on experience and prior data collection. Since you're used a given metric, everyone should come to the same (correct) conclusion.

 

I expect people who consider themselves professional reviewers have a metric-based system for fair scoring. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Lord Wafflebum]

Also, I daresay I agree with Sensuki. Normally one wouldn't think of the Codex as good to go to for any kind of information, but there's a certain amount of unfiltered purity there. Their review of DA:I was really well done, I think. I was not at all expecting them to be fair with that game.

[Lephys]

@ All replying to my last post:

 

My point was not at all that reviews should contain exactly 0% subjective words and thoughts. I was referring to the approach to the review. I thought that was pretty clear. "GREAT GAME!" doesn't tell you anything, other than that some person believed the game was great, for mysterious reasons.

 

The goal of a review is to present some measure of the game. Obviously, you cannot just say "the game is 7 goodness!". I realize we give them stars/numbers-out-of-10, but the scale typically has context.

 

Anywho, my point was that a review without objectivity is a pointless review. If you think a cell phone that lets you type numbers and place calls sometimes is a 10/10, then fantastic. But that doesn't help someone else who's trying to get the best voice quality and functionality for their dollar.

 

And, using that reference, there's nothing wrong with rating something X/10. But, the scale has to MEAN something. If you play a game with anime-style art, and you just happen to love anime-style art, and you give the game a 10/10, you're not really rating the game. You're rating your preference. You could, instead, objectively tell about the game and what it has in it, and people could still know that, if they love anime-style artwork, they're going to like this game much more than people who don't love that art style, or hate that art style.

 

I don't know how to say that any more plainly. All this "yeah but humans have subjective thoughts and feelings" stuff isn't really countering what I said. The problem with subjectivity is that there is no baseline for comparison. One person's completely-subjective statement means absolutely nothing to another person. You can think Andre the Giant was short. But, if I were to have a scale of short-tall that factors in all recorded humans' heights, he was tall. That tells you actual, factual information about his height.

 

Subjectivity and information-gathering don't really go together. The main purpose of subjectivity is for social interactions and gauging people's preferences, etc. Even then, we want subjective information. "This food is EXCELLENT!" Awesome. Why? "Because I like spicy food, and this food is spicy!" Oh, cool! Objective info. You like spicy food. I can now use that info to better decide what foods to choose for you, should I ever need to pick out a food for you.

[gogocactus]

I expect I'll ignore everyone's opinions anyway, as I've found that I have the best opinions on things.

 

 

 

If you believe reviews of any type should be objective you are a literal crazy person or possibly a robot. Media is inherently subjective and personal, you can't reduce the experience to objective facts.

God forbid! How could I ever expect objective journalism??

Post of the month for me. 5/5 stars.

[Tamerlane]

@ All replying to my last post:

 

My point was not at all that reviews should contain exactly 0% subjective words and thoughts. I was referring to the approach to the review. I thought that was pretty clear. "GREAT GAME!" doesn't tell you anything, other than that some person believed the game was great, for mysterious reasons.

 

The goal of a review is to present some measure of the game. Obviously, you cannot just say "the game is 7 goodness!". I realize we give them stars/numbers-out-of-10, but the scale typically has context.

 

Anywho, my point was that a review without objectivity is a pointless review. If you think a cell phone that lets you type numbers and place calls sometimes is a 10/10, then fantastic. But that doesn't help someone else who's trying to get the best voice quality and functionality for their dollar.

 

And, using that reference, there's nothing wrong with rating something X/10. But, the scale has to MEAN something. If you play a game with anime-style art, and you just happen to love anime-style art, and you give the game a 10/10, you're not really rating the game. You're rating your preference. You could, instead, objectively tell about the game and what it has in it, and people could still know that, if they love anime-style artwork, they're going to like this game much more than people who don't love that art style, or hate that art style.

 

I don't know how to say that any more plainly. All this "yeah but humans have subjective thoughts and feelings" stuff isn't really countering what I said. The problem with subjectivity is that there is no baseline for comparison. One person's completely-subjective statement means absolutely nothing to another person. You can think Andre the Giant was short. But, if I were to have a scale of short-tall that factors in all recorded humans' heights, he was tall. That tells you actual, factual information about his height.

 

Subjectivity and information-gathering don't really go together. The main purpose of subjectivity is for social interactions and gauging people's preferences, etc. Even then, we want subjective information. "This food is EXCELLENT!" Awesome. Why? "Because I like spicy food, and this food is spicy!" Oh, cool! Objective info. You like spicy food. I can now use that info to better decide what foods to choose for you, should I ever need to pick out a food for you.

Did you know that Alpha Protocol objectively deserves a 9/10?

 

"Between missions, the player can answer emails, purchase weapons, and grow a beard."

[Lephys]

Did you know that Alpha Protocol objectively deserves a 9/10?

 

"Between missions, the player can answer emails, purchase weapons, and grow a beard."

Hahaha. That's splendid!

 

See, it's objective, so it's true. u_u

[mmcaulay]

Don't have a problem with Angry Joe myself. I even sub to his channel. Yeah he's kinda loudmouth and overall I prefer the more refined style of TotalBisuit but it's grossly unfair to say he's some console gaming AAA loving modern gamer. He just did a review of Beyond Earth for example and clearly is a fan of turn based strategy games. He even did a video on Might and Magic 10 which he seemed to enjoy. 

[Lephys]

Clearly, he ported those two games so that he, along with the masses, could play them on their consoles, u_u... and also dumbed them down in the process.

[Stun]

 

 

Also Annah and Nameless One kissed, too. That's as romancey as it can get.

:::shakes head:::

 

What the hell is wrong with you people? I kissed my mother last week. Doesn't mean I'm romancing her. You can't romance Annah in PS:T any more than you can Romance Dakkon.

 

You know what context is, right?

 

Give it a rest, Bryy. The Annah kiss isn't indicative of any romance, especially because of the context. But the promancers don't care. They cannot pass up the Opportunity to cite a KISS that occurs in a story-heavy classic like PS:T for their argument. They can't. Because their warped theory states that you can't have deep NPC's without romances and therefore PS:T, the game with the deepest NPCs ever, must have them.

 

The fact that it DOES NOT utterly nullifies their argument and everyone here knows it. But hey.... You can Kiss Annah, therefore, Romance!

 

And so my response is: OK. I kissed my Mother last week. Therefore, romance!

Edited February 26, 2015 by Stun

[Diogenes]

Annah literally tells you that she loves you if you pursue the right dialogue path through the game you clown.

[Stun]

Annah literally tells you that she loves you if you pursue the right dialogue path through the game you clown.

Oh no she doesn't. There is no dialogue path either before, or after the kiss that leads to anything other than her shooting down your advances in the most insulting way imaginable.

 

She tells TTO that you matter more to her than her life. And that's all. And considering the fact that she says that even if you never talk to her or kiss her, is an obvious theme....the same one that all your other companions have: She's drawn to you because of your plight. Because you're doomed. Not because of romantic emotions.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Stun

[Tamerlane]

...

 

Chris Avellone specifically referred to Annah and Grace as being part of a romantic triangle with the main character.

[Lephys]

...

 

Chris Avellone specifically referred to Annah and Grace as being part of a romantic triangle with the main character.

How would HE know?! GYAH! u_u...

[Stun]

Link?

[Lephys]

I'm invoking Admiral Akbar, here.

[BruceVC]

 

Give it a rest, Bryy. The Annah kiss isn't indicative of any romance, especially because of the context. But the promancers don't care. They cannot pass up the Opportunity to cite a KISS that occurs in a story-heavy classic like PS:T for their argument. They can't. Because their warped theory states that you can't have deep NPC's without romances and therefore PS:T, the game with the deepest NPCs ever, must have them.

 

The fact that it DOES NOT utterly nullifies their argument and everyone here knows it. But hey.... You can Kiss Annah, therefore, Romance!

 

And so my response is: OK. I kissed my Mother last week. Therefore, romance!

 

 

Stun I think you are misunderstanding something, Romance in a RPG doesn't have to mean sex. Its the courting process and getting to know the NPC that is important. So in Torment I do consider the dialogue with both Annah and Grace a form of Romance. As mentioned by others there is no doubt there was sexual innuendo and I was really under the impression that the relationship would develop so I had this "Romance mind-set" during my interaction with them

 

Yes Black Isle   could have developed both those types of relationships in a more physical way but that didn't happen....but you need to believe me when I say "Torment did have Romance "