YakYak

I call bullshit on the guy's basic competence. He states that "you’ll frequently die because you couldn’t pick out the pulsing assassin from the warped playfield blah blah blah" - as Fuse has pointed out, no you *won't* frequently die if you actually learn how to play the goddamn game, somthing that Mr. Epic Flail there clearly couldn't be arsed to do.

He trots out the tired old "it's only Tempest really" line, but it's obvious that he never actually invoked or understood any of the new gameplay elements (the fact that he couldn't even get the Achievement on level 2 that is basically handed out for free by the instructions is testament to that). For someone who calls himself a "retrologist" he shows a complete lack of understanding of what makes Tempest the game that it is and is therefore incapable of understanding what makes SG different.

He's the kind of guy who, if he were playing Robotron for the first time, would throw up his hands in horror, go "OMFG too many robots I can't see what's going on! Too many joysticks!" and rant about how it was a shit version of Berzerk.

Basically my score challenge to him still stands. If the game is, as he claims, basically and intrinsically unplayable, then I shouldn't be able to gain any significant score or progress advantage, because I'll be dying all those unfair deaths an' all. If I do well though it'll mean that the game is unplayable EXCEPT FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY PLAY IT, and hey, you could say that about any game.

Really all that happened was this: OXM Tard doesn't like the aesthetic of SG, OXM Tard completely fails to gain even the most basic level of competence and credit-bashes his way through the early part of the game like a complete idiot, OXM Tard has a hissy fit and throws his toys vocally and publically out of the pram because hey, it's not like it matters 'cos Llamasoft are just a little outfit who don't buy any advertising at OXM anyway so fuck 'em.

That review is piss-poor, dreadful even. I would be buying the magazine to get information about how the game was, how it played, not on the personal opinion of the reviewer; it's not even slightly objective. I don't even believe such a terrible review is worth all this effort and fuss, it reflects more poorly on the reviewer than on the game; the review hasn't told me a god damn thing about the game.

I remember the time when half-life 2 came out, I brought a load of magazines to try and get an idea about the game, how it played, what is was about; most of the reviews were about kissing valves arse rather than reviewing the game. my point is that most of the reviewers had decided they liked the game, or it was going to be good even before playing the thing. I think a little bit of that has happened here, the decision about how good the game is, was made far too early.

i don't know about games but some other mags have a policy that the reviewer contacts the manufacturer to help with any problems before writing a bad review, sounds like that'd be an idea for oxm, this chaps already been publicly humiliated online over the course of this weekend by the looks, in quite a credibility-destroying way.

I reckon someone should email OXM, point them at this thread and ask for an equivalent amount of column space as a right-to-reply in the next issue.

No need to be nasty, just the chance to point people at the opinions of people who actually know what they are talking about.

I have to admit, thats a blinding idea!

yeah, i think teh 1lam4z writing them a polite email for their letters page would do the job on that front.

Pointing them at this thread will lead to the mag containing a snarky "We were assaulted by Jeff's band of internet fanboyz" comment. Which is one of the reasons I didn't think that vigilante action by us was the way forward.

I reckon the 'best' solution to this is a PR based one, involving 'proper' business people contacting the magazine and by that kind of route offering up Jeff's score challenge by reasoned argument - rather than us unwashed masses shouting "Joo sucks".

Or, alternatively, to ignore it and wait for the good reviews to come along.

or we could just send RiK in .... that would sort the prick out.... this guy needs some of RiK's personal moderation!

should I start a fund to cover his fee?

I don't think a bunch of fans writing to OXM will help in any way, to be honest. Better to wait for other, objective, reviews to appear. When that happens, shortly, I'm confident it will polarise OXM into an incompetence corner of their own making.

I've kept away from this thread until the review text has turned up and it's mostly contradictory to itself which is pretty much as I'd expected. The player is at fault, not the game, but that's enough said about that. What I will say is that I've always expected SG to receive a Marmite response; it's different to any other direction in gaming than exists at the moment. I struggle to think of a single equivalent release in the last few years if I discount any emulated arcade titles on XBLA.

Space Giraffe is different. Very different and we should expect that to scare and baffle people that are unwilling to invest the time in discovering its beauty. One thing that is a struggle with SG is that it's impossible to have a short game. You have to set aside at least an hour for a good single credit. The game balance is very generous in this favour. It coaxes the player, it gently introduces elements and style and then occasionally throbs in intensity of attack, and here's the rub: when SG attacks, it attacks all the player's senses. Feedback Monsters are a prime example of this, with behaviour so unique that they singly redefine what we thought capable in videogame weaponry.

Space Giraffe is different again, it purposefully overwhelms you. It is a new type of game and it will scare people. The bad players will die and run away crying, assaulting the game that hurt them so. The good players will learn to listen, to see, to feel, to ride the gameplay wave and they will excel at it. My nearest analogy is being in a fight. At first it all seems a bit pathetic and gentle, with lots of prancing about and a little bit of pushing. Then you get hit in the nose and all your senses start ringing, time slows, hearing filters, eyes stream unblinking and you fight back, somehow, all your senses are in tune and you disconnect into a state of mind where everything is moving in ways you can't question and ways you perceive before happening.

What Space Giraffe does is very clever, it makes the player learn. It is not a game with difficulty settings. It is a game that reminds the human race that we are weak, fleshy and futile creatures that require the combined input of many abilities to progress. If you move without seeing, you will die. If you see without listening, you will die. If you listen without feeling, you will die. Learning to see, listen & feel the game a player is rewarded with a very beautiful and special experience that we haven't experienced in videogames for a long time; the whole of Space Giraffe is more than the sum of its parts.

That... was awfully pretentious. Here's my version.



The fight analogy kinda falls down in that I doubt that many people would intentionally turn on their 360 expecting to be punched in the face... (Although that may or may not be exactly what SG does.)

I like my analogy better as it conjoures the image of Jeff riding around on his shiny new bike, and either going door-to-door and offering them free samples of his game/cake (all the while with a sly grin on his face), or throwing games at folks doors 'Paperboy' style.

I thought you hadn't played it?

I haven't.

That's the impression I've got from what I've read and heard.

Must fight different where you come from Jim

Too scared and baffled by it in case it starts punching you in the face I bet!