Rich Stanton on Future's dodgy dealings - GTA4's [10] bought

>defends 'the biz'
>people on the inside whistleblowing
>nah its all blags that, gief me more monies plz

Well if an outcome of a review is ultimately 'well you should probably play the demo' it begs the question why I've just spent 10 minutes reading it, when I could have just done that anyway. Where's the conviction? I'm reading the website for them to tell me if it's worth playing. But then it's a third party commenting on someone else's work again - what is this, a Future staple all of a sudden? - while failing to credit who actually wrote the review in the first place. Who's this mystery freelancer?

rudderless wrote:Edwin is just suggesting that those who might have issues with Kinect see how they get on with the demo first.

That's the job of the review!

KKLEIN wrote:Well if an outcome of a review is ultimately 'well you should probably play the demo' it begs the question why I've just spent 10 minutes reading it, when I could have just done that anyway. Where's the conviction? I'm reading the website for them to tell me if it's worth playing.

This.

KKLEIN wrote:Well if an outcome of a review is ultimately 'well you should probably play the demo' it begs the question why I've just spent 10 minutes reading it, when I could have just done that anyway.

A review is one person's opinion. Whether people listen to it is another matter. The demo gives you an idea of how it controls. The review can tell you more about the rest of the game. If you're not convinced by the review - and I assume the comments prompting Edwin's response weren't - then there's absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting people try the demo to see how the controls work.

But then it's a third party commenting on someone else's work again - what is this, a Future staple all of a sudden? - while failing to credit who actually wrote the review in the first place. Who's this mystery freelancer?

I imagine it's someone they haven't set up as a contributor on the website. Their name will be alongside the review in the magazine. If readers are commenting, then why shouldn't a staff writer try to address them.

I don't know. You've got people saying writers don't engage with their audience enough. Then it's "Christ, why are writers commenting on reviews for their own website?"

That's the job of the review!

The job of the review is to critique the game. That is all.

The entire review could have been discarded if the best he can suggest is 'just play it and see'.

Falsey wrote:The entire review could have been discarded if the best he can suggest is 'just play it and see'.

strawberry float's sake. He's suggesting it BECAUSE PEOPLE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE REVIEW. If people aren't satisfied by OXM's appraisal, then suggesting they try the demo is a perfectly natural thing for a normal human being to suggest. I cannot fathom how this is a bad thing.

EDIT: And he's saying it about a particular element of the game - the controls. The controls whose effectiveness can be gauged from a playable strawberry floating demo.

rudderless wrote:

Falsey wrote:The entire review could have been discarded if the best he can suggest is 'just play it and see'.

strawberry float's sake. He's suggesting it BECAUSE PEOPLE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE strawberry floating REVIEW. If people aren't satisfied by OXM's appraisal, then suggesting they try the demo is a perfectly natural thing for a normal human being to suggest. I cannot fathom how this is a bad thing.

His review obviously wasnt good enough. Anyway, I thought you were saying in the other thread that readers complaining is part of the deal?

Edwin seems to value the demo more than the reviewer's opinion. He then goes on to deflect criticism onto others who may not have scored it so highly.

Edwin Evans-Thirlwell wrote:...that there are some writers out there who are more interested in making names for themselves than offering a considered opinion, though I wasn't really talking about any single reviewer.

More wild accusations flying around without examples.

rudderless wrote:The job of the review is to critique the game. That is all.

Now I could have sworn any self respecting magazine of the last 20 years has labelled themselves as an authoritative buyers guide.

The controls either work or they don't. And this being Kinect, it's fair to say a number of people may not even be able to try the demo.

There's an argument here Edwin shouldn't even be commenting on someone else's review, especially of a game he's barely played, as the mystery man isn't even there to defend himself.

Falsey wrote:His review obviously wasnt good enough.

It's a great review. Just that some people don't want to believe Kinect controls might work.

Anyway, I thought you were saying in the other thread that readers complaining is part of the deal?

Part of the job, you mean? Sure. So what's wrong with a writer making a reasonable suggestion to said readers to play the demo to get first-hand experience on how the controls work? I swear, some people are determined to find fault with EVERYTHING.

going slightly off-topic

$ilva $hadow on Deus Ex Human revolution wrote:
The game literally consists of blatant stealth route, blatant action route, or mix and match. No emergent game play whatsoever, no feeling of consistency in terms of ingame events, and the characters are just so hollow, they'll throw quests at you when you break into their home or place of work and you're a stranger to them.

I loved the game but that is a fair assessment of it.

In one mission i'd dragged a body out of sight into an empty apartment. A later plot element had me meeting a woman in this (her) apartment. The body was still laying on the kitchen floor while we chatted away

$ilva $hadow wrote:ass tears

might use that in my sig

KKLEIN wrote:Edwin seems to value the demo more than the reviewer's opinion.

Where?

He then goes on to deflect criticism onto others who may not have scored it so highly.

Edwin Evans-Thirlwell wrote:...that there are some writers out there who are more interested in making names for themselves than offering a considered opinion, though I wasn't really talking about any single reviewer.

More wild accusations flying around without examples.

He's pointing out - quite rightly, if you ask me - that some people are down on Kinect without giving it a fair shake. Singling out individuals is going to do more harm than good.

The controls either work or they don't. And this being Kinect, it's fair to say a number of people may not even be able to try the demo.

If they don't have Kinect, they can't play the game!

The thing about Kinect controls is that some people aren't prepared to persevere with them. And some people can look past the lack of precision to see the game's other benefits. Some might not be willing to do that. Here's my take -

The problem here is not with the game’s implementation of Kinect, but with the spottiness of the technology itself. There’s a generous amount of automation that allows you to hit targets with remarkable frequency, but Lionhead’s desire to give the player a reasonable degree of control clashes with the hardware’s inherent weaknesses. It’s never a problem on the open road, where you gently pull the reins to guide Seren around corners and between obstacles, but in the heat of battle you will find occasions where spells don’t head in the right direction. Regular Kinect users accustomed to its limitations will find such frustrations easier to work around, but less practiced players will find moments where strong reserves of patience are required.

There's an argument here Edwin shouldn't even be commenting on someone else's review, especially of a game he's barely played, as the mystery man isn't even there to defend himself.

He's just offering assistance to those who've commented on the review. It's not like he criticises the review as Rob Crossley (wrongly) did with Rich Stanton which sparked this whole mess.

Chickenwings147 wrote:going slightly off-topic

$ilva $hadow on Deus Ex Human revolution wrote:
The game literally consists of blatant stealth route, blatant action route, or mix and match. No emergent game play whatsoever, no feeling of consistency in terms of ingame events, and the characters are just so hollow, they'll throw quests at you when you break into their home or place of work and you're a stranger to them.

I loved the game but that is a fair assessment of it.

In one mission i'd dragged a body out of sight into an empty apartment. A later plot element had me meeting a woman in this (her) apartment. The body was still laying on the kitchen floor while we chatted away

$ilva $hadow wrote:ass tears

might use that in my sig

strawberry float, I almost felt validated thinking it was skarjo commenting on the human rev, but I'll take a chickenwing post anyway. You've just upped your credibility by a slight my good sir.


Edit: Cantons losing his mind

Maybe you guys should split each of his posts up into numerous quotes so I know exactly what to not read.

I'm presuming Edwin has actually tried the demo, because how many times has a demo not been representative of the final product, or featured a poor level choice.

But his actual point was - ''but I think the key thing - as ever - is to try the demo'' - he wasn't just talking about Fable, he was generalising all reviews. Basically saying, 'rather than take our word for it, what you should actually be doing is judging it on the demo'.

O god that's the other thing, demos these days are generally not even representative of the game.

I've pretty much abandoned demos when they became a broken level from some alpha because the publishers think you're too much of pirate scrub to deserve even a tiny free portion of the whole game to taste.

We can't always try the demo though Edwin, sometimes we will be in a shop and we will a game that we've never seen/heard before and might will see again (or see again but not give a strawberry float the second time), when that happens we use our knowledge of reviews etc to decide to try it out, no point saying play the strawberry floating demo when people who play games find themselves in that position loads of times.

As ever with Kinect. That's clearly what he means, as his following blurb clarifies.

He's not saying 'don't take our word for it'. As he explains, Kinect is a tricky bugger at the best of times. In that case, surely having first-hand experience of potentially divisive controls if you're able is wise. No? Think of it as an augment to the review, perhaps? I don't strawberry floating know any more. I'm baffled as to how this can possibly be construed as a bad thing, but there you go.

rudderless wrote:As ever with Kinect. That's clearly what he means, as his following blurb clarifies.

He's not saying 'don't take our word for it'. As he explains, Kinect is a tricky bugger at the best of times. In that case, surely having first-hand experience of potentially divisive controls if you're able is wise. No? Think of it as an augment to the review, perhaps? I don't strawberry floating know any more. I'm baffled as to how this can possibly be construed as a bad thing, but there you go.

It was fun watching you squirm at the way everyone was misconstruing your posts and deciding to completely ignore you while still replying to you. I get that a lot, so now you know what it feels like.

Just to put an end to this, you're right, it doesn't strawberry floating matter that he's recommending the demo. I understand what a review is, I don't need it to be authoritative, I only read them to influence me to a slight degree.

You guys are strawberry floating crazy.

$ilva $hadow wrote:While Cutty was trying to be pedantic, I should clarify that I don't for a second believe not only the 10/10 reviews, but also the 9/10 reviews.

I'm just surprised you've jumped on Dishonored as being the obviously dodgy game with the inflated reviews for getting high scores across the board. Would have thought XCOM getting high scores across the board would have been the thing to get you going.

rudderless wrote:As ever with Kinect. That's clearly what he means, as his following blurb clarifies.

He's not saying 'don't take our word for it'. As he explains, Kinect is a tricky bugger at the best of times. In that case, surely having first-hand experience of potentially divisive controls if you're able is wise. No? Think of it as an augment to the review, perhaps? I don't strawberry floating know any more. I'm baffled as to how this can possibly be construed as a bad thing, but there you go.

So was EyeToy unpredictable but it didn't stop the reviews I read clarifying the game and the technology.

Being able to play it for yourself is always wise, but that's hoping that A) you actually have Kinect to play the demo in the first place & B) the demo is representative of the final product, in terms of controls and the level(s) chosen. The amount of times the 'demo not representative of final code, you can't criticise the review' has been thrown back in readers faces, & in most cases that's true enough.

Fable is one of those games that might interest your non-typical Kinect owner, therefore it's possible they won't yet own Kinect to try it out.

GTA4 was an Edge 7 at a push.