🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9/25/2016 4:20 AM, Xocyll wrote:
> Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> looked up from reading the
> entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
> say:
>
>>
>> The score of 5.7 to 2.7, of course refers to the consensus Metacritic
>> user score value for Duke Nukem Forever versus No Man's Sky. Guess
>> Duke kicked its ass, chewed its bubble gum, and groped a wall-nipple
>> on his way out of the room.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/236216-no-ones-playing-no-mans-sky-as-developer-remains-silent-and-players-flee-the-franchise
>
> You're assuming a metacritic score actually means anything.
>
> You have hordes of haters and fanbois stacking the deck on everything
> these days because there is no control, fact checking etc, anyone can
> just write in an anonymous "review" with a 0 or 10 score.
>
> I just read a bunch of them, and they all seem to have been written by
> teenagers - the most tech savvy, online all the time demographic, but
> not one known for serious thought or consideration and one prone to
> massive hyperbole, cyber bullying and swarming behavior.
>
> Not to mention the basic lack of understanding.
>
> Seriously one of those reviews actually included:
> 3) no loading screens (from deep space to planetary surface)
>
> -FALSE There are loading screens every-time you warp or enter a
> black-hole.
>
> What does warping between star systems or going into a black hole have
> to do with flying down from space to the planet without a loading screen
> you ask?
> Absolutely nothing, just a moronic kid trying to find something to
> complain about, comparing apples to oranges and obviously not
> understanding the difference between them.
>
> Of course it also had a 0 rating attached and is the one and only review
> ever made by that "reviewer".
>
> I rather like the game - it's not fantastic, it's not the high point of
> my existence, but then I never hyped myself up for it like a kid on a
> sugar high.
> I don't use metacritic, and I bet loads of other older gamers don't,
> we're too busy playing games to waste time writing and reading that mess
> of garbage.
>
>
> Older Gamer, since we started before the internet was common;
> Problem with game:  how do I fix it?
>
> Newer Gamer, always had internet, cheat codes, walkthrus, etc;
> Problem with game:  Go online and whine and bitch on every social media
> site, review site etc.   Make outrageous claims, compile lists of
> features you imagined they'd include and then claim they were promised,
> call the developers thieves, liars, etc, secure in the knowledge that as
> Anonymous_Coward_9257 you are secure from any blowback.
>
> I put off buying the game, because I am no longer buying games on
> release days since they will ALWAYS have problems, since the publishers
> will ALWAYS force developers to push it out the door before it's quite
> ready.
>
> I would have been pissed had I bought it release day, since it would not
> have been able to run on my AMD CPU system.
> Within a few days they'd redone all the relevant code so it would run on
> AMD systems, then I bought it.
>
> Even the article you linked to mentions they released a patch that
> addressed a lot of issues on the very day he wrote the article
> complaining that they're not doing anything.
> Of course they are also using steam statistics and assuming that OF
> COURSE everyone is ONLINE ALWAYS in a game that is single player and
> heavily moddable, because they cannot conceive of someone not wanting to
> be online all the time.
>
> Given a choice between a developer talking all the time and them just
> getting down to work fixing bugs and developing features I'd prefer
> silence and work, but that is most certainly NOT the choice of the
> modern teen/20 something who is expecting to be kept apprised of every
> coffee the developers drink, meal they eat and bowel movement they have
> in real time via twitter and such, with photos.
>
> Bunch of always-connected, give me a trophy for showing up, entitled
> little shits flexing their "muscles" by hyperbolic, misspelled,
> anonymous "reviews", while demanding they be kept in the loop as though
> they own the company.   Even the ones that outright admit they STOLE the
> game, act like the developers OWE THEM something.
>
> A bunch of Eric Cartman wannabes, with even less restraint and even
> bigger sense of self importance and entitlement.
>
> Xocyll
>
Xocyll, would you kindly get out of my head please?  When I'm in the 
mood to rant and rail about the always connected, must share everything 
demographic I prefer to be alone in my skull to do so.

Thank you.

:)

-- 
Running the rec.arts.TV Channels Watched Survey.
Fall 2016 survey began Sep 01; still accepting responses for Summer 2016