🚀 go-pugleaf

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
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr 

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

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 23:30:39 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:

>
>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

That explains how a couple of "game reviewers" at the time gave it 4
of 5 stars, as being a game to buy.
They got money for that so it wasn't a total loss.