The definitive Space Giraffe thread

[Kamineko]

Wouldn't want to be the bloke in charge of the letters there, there's going to be warped nonsense coming in from all over the axes.

[PVB]

Now then, now then. All this excitement aside, who would like a cup of tea?

Milk and three sugars, ta.

Got any McVities Digestives or Hob Nobs?

[benedictw]

XBLA stuff does seem to get stiff reviews from certain mags - having said that - when EVERYTHING on xbla has a bloody demo theres no point in even reading the sodding things. Just play the demo and make your mind up from that. Everything deserves a go.

[sponge]

[Dio]

[Dr Derek Doctors]

Perhaps the reviewer just didn't like it? Happens y'know.

Good reviewers, even if they don't personally like a game, will still give it a fair rating. They'll usually mention that "this game really isn't for me" in their review, but will judge it based on its merits and still give it a proper score.

No, bad reviewers will second-guess themselves.

While I agree that a reviewer who dislikes a genre shouldn't be given a game of that genre to review, if a reviewer genuinely finds fault with a game they should mark it accordingly.

A review is a statement of opinion, once you start thinking "What would Jesus do?" you're not doing your job properly.

If the reviewer genuinely couldn't see the enemies once he got to a certain level then that's game-breaking. Imagine playing R-Type but you could only discern 10% of the bullets and the rest only appeared when they were a few inches from your craft? 2/10 would be *generous* in that situation.

And as for all this "he obviously only took 5 minutes" stuff, perhaps you should read the review or email the chap and ask him before you all leap to that conclusion? Or is it okay for you to make snap judgements about someone's work?

[Yak]

Perhaps the reviewer just didn't like it? Happens y'know.

Good reviewers, even if they don't personally like a game, will still give it a fair rating. They'll usually mention that "this game really isn't for me" in their review, but will judge it based on its merits and still give it a proper score.

No, bad reviewers will second-guess themselves.

While I agree that a reviewer who dislikes a genre shouldn't be given a game of that genre to review, if a reviewer genuinely finds fault with a game they should mark it accordingly.

A review is a statement of opinion, once you start thinking "What would Jesus do?" you're not doing your job properly.

If the reviewer genuinely couldn't see the enemies once he got to a certain level then that's game-breaking. Imagine playing R-Type but you could only discern 10% of the bullets and the rest only appeared when they were a few inches from your craft? 2/10 would be *generous* in that situation.

And as for all this "he obviously only took 5 minutes" stuff, perhaps you should read the review or email the chap and ask him before you all leap to that conclusion? Or is it okay for you to make snap judgements about someone's work?

It's fine for me to make such judgements because I have seen a lot of people learn to play SG and nobody has ever had such an extreme reaction to it. The guy was plainly woefully fucking incompetent. As I pointed out before the enemies plainly *are* visible or everyone would be dying random, undeserved deaths and nobody would get any decent scores at all. That part of the review is either a barefaced lie or shameful incompetence.

[frak]

It won't be the first xbla title to receive a 2 from OXM
Discs of Tron, Fusion Frenzy 2 and Scramble all received the same.

For cutting edge and original titles you can't go far wrong with the following games which achieved a much deserved 6-8/10 from our OXM masters.

8 Paperboy
8 Sonic The Hedgehog

7 Boom Boom Rocket
7 Contra
7 Double Dragon
7 Golden Axe
7 Luxor 2
7 Novadrome

6 Defender
6 Missile Command
6 Root Beer Tapper

5 Totemball (they were far too kind)

Again, people will download the demo of SG and find out for themselves just how the game plays. Since the launch of the 360 I've not read a single review of an xbla title before downloading/buying and I doubt I'm alone in doing so.

[Sledge]

If the reviewer genuinely couldn't see the enemies once he got to a certain level then that's game-breaking. Imagine playing R-Type but you could only discern 10% of the bullets and the rest only appeared when they were a few inches from your craft?

Or imagine a Resident Evil outing where some of the enemies were barely visible by design because the whole point of it was to pick them out and... oh wait, we've already had that and it was a great game. Not really sure things being tricky to spot necessarily indicates brokenness.

Aw heck, maybe the guy's colour-blind and it's an accessibility issue? Awaiting the text with interest.

[Dr Derek Doctors]

It's fine for me to make such judgements because I have seen a lot of people learn to play SG and nobody has ever had such an extreme reaction to it. The guy was plainly woefully fucking incompetent. As I pointed out before the enemies plainly *are* visible or everyone would be dying random, undeserved deaths and nobody would get any decent scores at all. That part of the review is either a barefaced lie or shameful incompetence.

I'm sure you have seen lots of people get to grips with it and enjoy it, but you cannot know how everyone feels about the game, and you cannot know that everyone "gets it". You cannot deny that the visuals are pretty extreme, and perhaps that simply overwhelms some people's ability to play the game.

Obviously until I play the game I can't render a proper opinion myself, but I will state that I am openly in the camp that thought the videos looked a bit too psychadelic to be intelligable - however I'm happy to admit that might just be a side-effect of video encoding hiding the important nuance.

I guess we'll ALL find out later this month. As has been stated, XBLA stuff is - to an extent - reviewer-proof, simply because everyone can form their own opinion gratis.

[grue]

It's fine for me to make such judgements because I have seen a lot of people learn to play SG and nobody has ever had such an extreme reaction to it. The guy was plainly woefully fucking incompetent. As I pointed out before the enemies plainly *are* visible or everyone would be dying random, undeserved deaths and nobody would get any decent scores at all. That part of the review is either a barefaced lie or shameful incompetence.

I could make out the enemies in the artifact infested youtube video. The reviewer must have been either blind or autistic.

[Dr Derek Doctors]

Or imagine a Resident Evil outing where some of the enemies were barely visible by design because the whole point of it was to pick them out and... oh wait, we've already had that and it was a great game. Not really sure things being tricky to spot necessarily indicates brokenness.

Aw heck, maybe the guy's colour-blind and it's an accessibility issue? Awaiting the text with interest.

Yes, you're right. Those dozen insect enemies in Resident Evil 4 are directly analogous to every single bullet in the later levels of the hypothetical R-Type varient I posited.

[disciple]

Just to throw something most probably unrelated into the mix.

SG was tested on SD tellies wasn't it.

[gravy]

Obviously until I play the game I can't render a proper opinion myself

A little bit disingenuous that, aren't you the guy that started knocking Space Giraffe on the rllmuk forum as soon as it was announced?

Honestly, I have played the game and the criticisms that have been relayed from this piece don't stack up so far.

Just to throw something most probably unrelated into the mix.

SG was tested on SD tellies wasn't it.

I've been playing it on SD for the last week or so and am over midway through and on 110m

[sponge]

Does anybody actually listen to paid reviewers any more?
Isn't it all about what the users on message boards say these days?