The Devil Tesla

Darkfall NERDRAGE against Eurogamer.

Recommended Posts

So Eurogamer gave the super nichey Darkfall a 2/10. The developers claim the reviewer didn't give the game a fair shake. Then

.

Aw2-3IiOPA8

If you didn't get that, someone created a guild named EUROGAMER.NET so everyone could declare war on it.

Maybe the game isn't all that bad, and according to the Eurogamer editor's blog the Kieron Gillen will re-review the game so we'll know for sure, but if everyone in the game is like this I don't know if I want to play...

Although, it's kind of adorable when he talks about how he'd give the game 9000/100 and his voice kind of gets really, yay passion?

Also, pre-patch firekicks baby. And Ed Zitron is a carebear hater.

Edited by Spaff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a personal belief of mine that games can simply not be marked below 4 and hardly raise above 7 on a 1-10 scale...

The video is... normal, you'll find a lot of nerds on the internet, rumors has it that some of them might even cry in front of a camera for britney spears to be left alone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this who Chris modeled his squeaky nerd voice after?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha... this is pure comedy, that video is seriously pathetic

also, I didn't know eurogamer has magazines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the video says they are boycotting the eurogamer.net magazines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, that guys sounds like he has just discovered the F-word and is now using it at full force.

Maybe they should have played a little bit more than 3 hours though, if that is true, just to cover the ol' Eurogamer ass if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulling out the whole "we have your server logs/took a look at your achievements" bullshit, in response to a negative review, is pretty high up on the whiny scale. I'm not touching the "how many hours you need to play something before rating it" argument with a ten foot pole -- it's so tired -- but every time I've seen a developer do this (more frequent in these days of constant data mining), it has never changed my opinion of the reviewer and it has made me, for sure, never want to touch the game in question. I don't like playing insecure games from insecure developers. I've got enough of that in my own life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pulling out the whole "we have your server logs/took a look at your achievements" bullshit, in response to a negative review, is pretty high up on the whiny scale. I'm not touching the "how many hours you need to play something before rating it" argument with a ten foot pole -- it's so tired -- but every time I've seen a developer do this (more frequent in these days of constant data mining), it has never changed my opinion of the reviewer and it has made me, for sure, never want to touch the game in question. I don't like playing insecure games from insecure developers. I've got enough of that in my own life.

Yeah right, if you were spending every second of your working life on a game and some guy who hardly played it was to ruin the chances you had to get players from outside your niche... I bet you would hardly say the same...

It's probably more about being objective: has the game had a fair treat ? I could very well be shity but you'd have to admit one person's opinion ruining the sales for one game is hard to take when you're the developper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In conclusion to this whole post, we should switch to a five stars rating system. (ref inside)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you were spending every second of your working life on a game

well, there's your problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pulling out the whole "we have your server logs/took a look at your achievements" bullshit, in response to a negative review, is pretty high up on the whiny scale.

Why's that? I think it's completely justified. In fact I'd like access to all reviewer achievements, though they aren't usually available when playing on a debug. I think it's an excellent barometer to see much they actually invested in a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there was some uncertainty about the validity of those logs AkuMifune.

Edited by Scrobbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why's that? I think it's completely justified. In fact I'd like access to all reviewer achievements, though they aren't usually available when playing on a debug. I think it's an excellent barometer to see much they actually invested in a game.

Anyone remember when Jeff Minter used this tactic to respond to low reviews of Space Giraffe?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=181851

OK, I found him on the Partnernet leaderboards. Come to think of it I remember having seen his entries before because they were a bit unusual.

He's on as "OXM Dan" and he has NO achievements at all for Space Giraffe. It's really pretty hard to play SG for any length of time and get no achievements whatsoever; there are a few that are given out fairly easily by way of encouragement. Genius-boy here has managed to get none at all.

His score in interesting because it shows that he got 6.7 million at a maximum level of 31. To have such a small score for level 31 is pretty extraordinary. It basically means that the player must have just been scraping through one level at a time, just barely pushing the start level and accompanying start bonus over the threshold each time, and stubbornly refusing to actually play on earlier levels and actually, y'know, learn something. It's a truly horrible way to play, a combination of idiocy and brute force that is spectacularly unrewarding.

A good player should be scoring 40 or 50 million by level 30. I'm looking at the leaderboard now, Jimaroid's level 30 score is 57 mill. "JoeQA" obviously playing the game correctly got 51 mill by level 31. I have a level *17* score that is 64 million (and that's the very point of SG; learning how to score efficiently is part of the skill and the pleasure of it).

In short, the leaderboards show that OXM Dan was playing the game in about the most shit way possible, and being absolutely crap at it. The leaderboards also show a lot of other people playing the game rather well, so we know it's not the game at fault here.

Basically he was just rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think to an extent this kind of things falls to our propensity to seek patterns even when there are none.

Reviews can affect game sales, but they aren't necessarily connected. Jeff might as well have been railing against a lack of marketing, which can be an even bigger factor (*cough*Transformers*cough*). Ultimately, if noone out there is sticking up for your work, then you probably screwed up on something, like making it too obtuse.

When you ask each game developer what constitutes a fair shake, you'll probably get a different answer form each one. Nitpicking on reviews between developers and reviewers would basically become like a fractal if given the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's already been like that between publishers and reviewers in my small game journalistic experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can see how it would be easily abused. I guess I meant more in a "full disclosure" kinda way between reviewer and reader, not for use in publisher vs reviewer context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be far Eurogamer posted a double feature on Space girafe.

From the review I read there was no point to Darkfall. That Eurogamer are giving it a second review because of the angry reponses makes them better than most games sites.

Even though they gave Sonic: Unleashed 4/10 which is wrong BTW. Despite the Dhalsim Sonic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not speaking their mind. And I'm sorry, there are such things as wrong "opinions." It's my opinion that the sun isn't hot......mm-hm.

It's their opinion that Sonic: Unleashed is inferior to about 60% of all games that are currently available. ......mm-hm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sonic: Unleashed is inferior to about 60% of all games that are currently available

I realise that this is completely irrelevant to your point, and I'm a pedantic dick for bring it up, but that's not how that works.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, review scores are normally distributed then a 4/10 game would probably* be in the bottom 25-30%, depending on the mean deviation. Once you factor in that game review scores are notoriously negatively skewed then you're probably looking at bottom 5-10%.

Sorry, I'll stop being a massive nerd now.

*Actually that's a massive stab in the dark, I haven't done stats since high school and I pulled those numbers out my arse. The principle is sound though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days, when I consider review scores at all (review scores LOL) I consider them to be "the fraction of people who will love this game". So 4 out of 10 people may love the game to bits, and it will still be a 4 out of 10. You will find people who love any game, no matter how bad you think it is. That 1/10 game? 10% of players still love it.

Admittedly this doesn't work at the top end. Not everyone loves the Halo games, despite their 10/10 scores. Which just goes to show that they are overrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now