[Mikko]

Hank, on 13 June 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

Well, their bank accounts, each, are a little bigger than all those three critics combined, methinks. Sorry to disappoint intellectually, but I really don't give a shit about critics. They never created anything except an endless supply of toilet paper and waste of bandwidth. The only time I take a critic serious when they created art for themselves (You and Forge for example), because then there is a good chance they know what they are talking about. Say, if John Riccitiello says, DNF sucks, sure,I'll listen. He may have a point after all.

Who cares about the size of their bank accounts?

I do give a shit about critics. A part of the fun of playing games and watching movies comes from reading reviews, especially afterwards. Besides, writing is creative work in itself.

I also disagree that reviewers should be able create what they're reviewing. In fact, the opposite is true. As outsiders their opinions are more likely to be objective even if they may not be as qualified to discuss technical details (which are pretty irrelevant anyway as far as the reviewers' primary audience goes).

[Hank]

Mikko_Sandt, on 13 June 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

Who cares about the size of their bank accounts?

I do give a shit about critics. A part of the fun of playing games and watching movies comes from reading reviews, especially afterwards. Besides, writing is creative work in itself.

I also disagree that reviewers should be able create what they're reviewing. In fact, the opposite is true. As outsiders their opinions are more likely to be objective even if they may not be as qualified to discuss technical details (which are pretty irrelevant anyway as far as the reviewers' primary audience goes).

to the bold

Charles wrote
Duke still has the maturity of a twelve year old boy, objectifying women whenever possible, and barking out movie quotes with voice actor Jon St. John's bassy cadence. He's unapologetically vulgar, which is good for a few nostalgic laughs as he again kills aliens to save the world.
Dan wrote
For all his muscle and bravado, Duke Nukem is actually a fragile creature. His legacy is based on a specific combination of time and technology and a mercurial element of fun that simply doesn't lend itself to repetition, especially after so long in limbo.
Jim wrote
Weapons feel fairly ineffectual, and the melee attack only occasionally connects with enemies. Duke himself is an incapable fighter. I'd go as far as to call him a pussy.

That is the art of writing? I think this is trolling. This written is to get attention to yourself. Their chance to get into the limelight for a fraction of second, riding on the most anticipated game to date. As I isinuated before, you either have to have brains, talent or cash before I take you serious. The three peeps above, have neither, like a fly on the wall, dead with a simple hand slap or at the end of the day.

The other points - so noted. We are two individuals with different outlooks

[Kathy]

Hank, on 13 June 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

I doubt it. Who takes those idiots serious? I get games on what I think is fun to play not what irrelevant insects buzz around.Anyway, the game six started.

And what if you thought wrong? You could know this only after playing but some people don't want to take that chance.

Mikko_Sandt, on 13 June 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

Prior to playing the game, I never expected the game to be subjected to almost Daikatana-like backlash.

I thought DNF would recieve around 70-80 just for not being "fantastic" after its development cycle. I haven't even thought it would get the beating for its gameplay. Truth is, DNF simply has an awful critic reception. I think it was less of a joke when it wasn't released. At least you could have always said that it wasn't out cause it wasn't good enough. And it was.

[themaniacboy]

I have seen a few 8 ratings.
I personally think this game should receive a 8.5 out of 10, i enjoyed every bit of it and i can't wait for the dlc.

[Hank]

Helel, on 13 June 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:

And what if you thought wrong? You could know this only after playing but some people don't want to take that chance.

Then I say it. In this case I was fucking wrong.
http://www.marketwat...nk=MW_news_stmp via WSJ fuck those fucking critics, they won trolling. Man I'm pissed.

[Mikko]

Hank, on 13 June 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

to the bold

Charles wrote
Duke still has the maturity of a twelve year old boy, objectifying women whenever possible, and barking out movie quotes with voice actor Jon St. John's bassy cadence. He's unapologetically vulgar, which is good for a few nostalgic laughs as he again kills aliens to save the world.
Dan wrote
For all his muscle and bravado, Duke Nukem is actually a fragile creature. His legacy is based on a specific combination of time and technology and a mercurial element of fun that simply doesn't lend itself to repetition, especially after so long in limbo.
Jim wrote
Weapons feel fairly ineffectual, and the melee attack only occasionally connects with enemies. Duke himself is an incapable fighter. I'd go as far as to call him a pussy.

That is the art of writing? I think this is trolling.

It's a typical and justified counterreaction. Ion Storm never stopped telling how amazing the AI sidekicks in Daikatana were. When the sidekicks basically destroyed the game's flow the response was to be expected. Similarly Randy basically argued along the lines that people should buy the game because Duke is such a cool guy. But if Duke's behavior is merely an embarrassment (I don't think it is but that's irrelevant) then of course the critics are going to react they way they have been reacting so far.

Hank, on 14 June 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

fuck those fucking critics, they won trolling. Man I'm pissed.

Why? They saved millions of people money. Note that user scores have been only a tad more positive than critic scores. Hell, even here, at the heart of DNF fanboyism, many have voiced their disappointment at the game. And yet you still seem to be convinced that it's all just some conspiracy, that the critics are not at all representative of the "masses". Of course, if this were true, the critics would soon be replaced. The same market rules apply to critics as to game developers.

[Mad Max RW]

Mikko_Sandt, on 14 June 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

Why? They saved millions of people money. Note that user scores have been only a tad more positive than critic scores. Hell, even here, at the heart of DNF fanboyism, many have voiced their disappointment at the game. And yet you still seem to be convinced that it's all just some conspiracy, that the critics are not at all representative of the "masses". Of course, if this were true, the critics would soon be replaced. The same market rules apply to critics as to game developers.

Give it up. Some fanboys simply refuse to think logically. Let them learn the hard way the world isn't flat.

And the news of stocks taking a dive is pretty funny.

[Hank]

Mikko_Sandt, on 14 June 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

Why? They saved millions of people money. Note that user scores have been only a tad more positive than critic scores. Hell, even here, at the heart of DNF fanboyism, many have voiced their disappointment at the game. And yet you still seem to be convinced that it's all just some conspiracy, that the critics are not at all representative of the "masses". Of course, if this were true, the critics would soon be replaced. The same market rules apply to critics as to game developers.

Where did I say anything about a conspiracy? I just wrote I was wrong.

@ Mad Max RW - I ain't laughing. Also, even so you addressed it indirectly, jumping to conclusion lacks also a certain element of higher brain function.

[Mad Max RW]

I'm not singling you out. In fact, you seem to be one of the more level headed thinkers here.

[ReaperMan]

Mikko_Sandt, on 13 June 2011 - 06:15 PM, said:

Who cares about the size of their bank accounts?

Bank robbers?

Anyway, never really like IGN's reviews, they always seemed very one sided to me.

[Hank]

@ Mikko
Back to the critics, now that I had my Jack Daniels
http://n4g.com/chann...erreview/515199

when you have a moment explain the huge discrepancy. I'm not a critic myself. I go by cash. My nose tell me the extreme negative reports are troll style reports, and are simply written for self self-indulgence without a valid critic/ point. NOT a conspiracy!!! And ehmm, the ball is rolling the wrong way. Even Washington Reports follows the negative trend. Negativity sells, just look at CNN.

@ Mad Max RW - cool, I'm now back to almost normal

[Mikko]

Hank, on 14 June 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

@ Mikko
Back to the critics, now that I had my Jack Daniels
http://n4g.com/chann...erreview/515199

when you have a moment explain the huge discrepancy.

Eh, I'm puzzled; do you not see what is wrong with this?