The definitive Space Giraffe thread

gravy · Post by **gravy** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:33 pm 0

Gnarf wrote:
Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote:There's only one point, really - if you make a game which you proudly announce for months beforehand will be an uncompromising "love it or hate it" sort of affair, it's maybe a little unwise to go flying wildly off the handle when someone, y'know, hates it.
Which isn't quite what it's about. He "didnâ€™t like it for very specific reasons." Poor visibility being the main one (the other one being the sound effects). Now, he either claims that it's impossible to play because you can't see what's going on, which is wrong, or he believes that having "seeing what's going on" part of the challenge is inherently bad game design. Which is, at the very least debatable, and not something you'd expect the critique to be based on -- that is, if it is, I think it should have been explicitly stated.

I'm 100% sure Stu understands that's the case, it's been stated here clearly more than enough times for him not to have missed it. Whatever his many failings are he's not stupid.

Rev. Stuart Campbell · Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:41 pm 0

gravy wrote:
Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote:
Sickboy wrote:That's the debate, though, innit?
It is, and it's a shame it isn't possible to have it here without being drowned in hysterical screeching.
Come on, that sounds exactly like a clumsy subject change after backing yourself into a corner again.

If you really believe that why come over and try and debate it?

Because I find that calm reasoned logic doesn't go down awfully well around here, and it's boring arguing when everyone simply ignores the points you make because they can't cope with them. (I'd still quite like to know what Jeff thinks it is that he's done to me to provoke my "prejudice" and "bias" against him that apparently "taints" my reviews. Because as far as I'm concerned all I've ever done is give good games good reviews and bad games bad reviews, which is the way things should be.)

If 6m really is OXM Dan's overall high score across both his gamertags, fine. It doesn't change the point about his review any. He played over 30 levels, which is more than enough to form a reasonable opinion. (If he didn't "get" the game by then, it's highly unlikely that playing another 70 which are even more visually chaotic would have changed that any, if anything the opposite.) I utterly disagree with his conclusions, but totally understand them and defend both his right and his reasons to honestly hate the game, even though I think it's great.

andrew_rollings · Post by **andrew_rollings** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:46 pm 0

Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote: (I'd still quite like to know what Jeff thinks it is that he's done to me to provoke my "prejudice" and "bias" against him that apparently "taints" my reviews. Because as far as I'm concerned all I've ever done is give good games good reviews and bad games bad reviews, which is the way things should be.)

I really don't want to get involved in this, because I think that both sides have issues they need to address. However, I'm not letting this comment go unchallenged.

You ask about "predujice" and "bias" that apparently "taints" your review? I assume that you think the phrase formed by the letters at the beginning of each paragraph in your review is the pinnacle of professionalism?

The internet may just be a big playground, but it's time that some people grew up.

Andrew

Rev. Stuart Campbell · Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:49 pm 0

andrew_rollings wrote:
Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote: (I'd still quite like to know what Jeff thinks it is that he's done to me to provoke my "prejudice" and "bias" against him that apparently "taints" my reviews. Because as far as I'm concerned all I've ever done is give good games good reviews and bad games bad reviews, which is the way things should be.)

I really don't want to get involved in this, because I think that both sides have issues they need to address. However, I'm not letting this comment go unchallenged.

You ask about "predujice" and "bias" that apparently "taints" your review? I assume that you think the phrase formed by the letters at the beginning of each paragraph in your review is the pinnacle of professionalism?

Certainly not. It's a childish joke. But what it certainly isn't is "prejudice" or "bias" (and it clearly hasn't tainted my opinion of the game, because I spend 4,000 words saying that the game's fucking great). If it's anything, it's apres-judice. Buy a dictionary.

Gnarf · Post by **Gnarf** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:51 pm 0

gravy wrote:
Gnarf wrote:
Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote:There's only one point, really - if you make a game which you proudly announce for months beforehand will be an uncompromising "love it or hate it" sort of affair, it's maybe a little unwise to go flying wildly off the handle when someone, y'know, hates it.
Which isn't quite what it's about. He "didnâ€™t like it for very specific reasons." Poor visibility being the main one (the other one being the sound effects). Now, he either claims that it's impossible to play because you can't see what's going on, which is wrong, or he believes that having "seeing what's going on" part of the challenge is inherently bad game design. Which is, at the very least debatable, and not something you'd expect the critique to be based on -- that is, if it is, I think it should have been explicitly stated.
I'm 100% sure Stu understands that's the case, it's been stated here clearly more than enough times for him not to have missed it. Whatever his many failings are he's not stupid.

Well. Bit I quoted says there's really only one point, which is one rather different than that. I disagree with that. To me, it seems like Rev was saying that the main issue is how Jeff reacts to this thing and how he behaved at that point etc.

And yeah, might be I read too much into that quote or sort of missed the context or some such, and if so, apologies. Was a bit annoyed at how all that defending done by OXM Dan hardly defended the actual review, just himself and the reviewing process. I think his review was rubbish, I don't believe it's just a matter of opinion whether a game is "BROKEN[...] No gamer of any stripe should bother." or not. And that Rev-quote seemed to suggest that this whole issue is really about Jeff, rather than the review. Which I don't think it is. That'd be all.

andrew_rollings · Post by **andrew_rollings** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:56 pm 0

Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote: Certainly not. It's a childish joke. But what it certainly isn't is "prejudice" or "bias" (and it clearly hasn't tainted my opinion of the game, because I spend 4,000 words saying that the game's fucking great). If it's anything, it's apres-judice. Buy a dictionary.

I have a dictionary, thank you. Prejudice is defined as an (often negative and/or irrational) action or position taken against someone or something because of personal feelings against that someone or something.
Your joke still fits that description, I'm afraid.

Oh, and I looked up apres-judice. My dictionary does not have that word. Maybe you could recommend one that does?

Andrew

gravy · Post by **gravy** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:01 pm 0

Gnarf wrote: Well. Bit I quoted says there's really only one point, which is one rather different than that. I disagree with that. To me, it seems like Rev was saying that the main issue is how Jeff reacts to this thing and how he behaved at that point etc.

Yeah sorry, I wasn't being clear. I'm 100% sure he knows the real bone of contention with the review but is wilfully mis-stating it to well, you know, be Stu like.

Rev. Stuart Campbell · Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:04 pm 0

andrew_rollings wrote:
Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote: Certainly not. It's a childish joke. But what it certainly isn't is "prejudice" or "bias" (and it clearly hasn't tainted my opinion of the game, because I spend 4,000 words saying that the game's fucking great). If it's anything, it's apres-judice. Buy a dictionary.
I have a dictionary, thank you. Prejudice is defined as an (often negative and/or irrational) action or position taken against someone or something because of personal feelings against that someone or something.
Your joke still fits that description, I'm afraid.

Oh, and I looked up apres-judice. My dictionary does not have that word. Maybe you could recommend one that does?

This being exactly the sort of idiocy I mean.

The allegation made by Jeff is that my personal dislike of him causes me to unfairly pre-judge (the clue's in the words) the worth of his games.

The facts are that whatever I think of Jeff, and even after the countless attacks he's made on me over the last year or two, I still gave SG the most glowingly positive review one could imagine. Therefore the allegation that my "prejudice" is tainting my opinions is plainly, visibly, empirically utter bollocks. The hidden joke stems directly from Jeff's behaviour - it happened after all his paranoid whining and sniping, and is therefore not "prejudice", because the "pre" in "prejudice" means judging before the evidence is apparent. If someone burns down your house and then you call them a cunt, that's not prejudice. That's just "judice".

What you're doing is arguing an entirely different thing, and constant moving of the goalposts and dodging the issue is precisely what characterises the enormous tedium of trying to have a debate around here.

andrew_rollings · Post by **andrew_rollings** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:17 pm 0

Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote: This being exactly the sort of idiocy I mean.

What you're doing is arguing an entirely different thing, and constant moving of the goalposts and dodging the issue is precisely what characterises the enormous tedium of trying to have a debate around here.

Just because you are not able to dictate the direction of the debate doesn't mean that 'the goalposts are being moved' or the 'issue is being dodged', and resorting to ad-hominem attacks when you don't like a point that is being brought up is neither big nor clever.

Fact is, you're both as bad as each other, and both need to grow up:

Jeff needs to learn to be able to take criticism better, and you need to learn to let things go without taking petty and vindictive 'revenge' actions.

Stuart: So, he got a high-score in his own game? Big deal? It's JUST A GAME. It didn't affect my enjoyment of the game. Why get your panties in a twist over it?
As to the game being hideously flawed, I don't think so personally - it's got some rough edges, as does any product, but on the whole I think it's well designed with self-consistent internal rules. Just because those rules are not evident on first examination does not indicate a flaw in the design.

Jeff: Some people criticize anything, especially on the internet. Some of them have valid points, others may just be dickwads. I would suggest that you take the advice of another poster and ask someone sensible on yakyak to be an intermediary with customers. Hell, chuck them some free SG and Llamasoft merchandise, and I'm sure someone would do it.
I think the game is good, but with some rough edges. I'm not sure I'll ever be good enough at it to get past level 30 or so - it just looks too confusing and frantic, and my reflexes aren't what they were, but from what I've seen so far it doesn't seem inherently unfair.

Andrew

gravy · Post by **gravy** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:18 pm 0

Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote:Therefore the allegation that my "prejudice" is tainting my opinions is plainly, visibly, empirically utter bollocks.

Yeah, you're misrepresenting the reaction to your SG piece, namely that your review was tainted by your own feelings of antipathy towards Jeff.

Which is visibly, empirically completely true. It's a piece of good writing tainted by 2 jibes put in solely to wind Jeff up as you've said yourself on your own forum. It's like a filet steak with a spec of shit on it, 99% fine but ruined into uselessness by something completely distasteful.

Rev. Stuart Campbell · Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:57 pm 0

gravy wrote:
Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote:Therefore the allegation that my "prejudice" is tainting my opinions is plainly, visibly, empirically utter bollocks.
Yeah, you're misrepresenting the reaction to your SG piece, namely that your review was tainted by your own feelings of antipathy towards Jeff.

Which is visibly, empirically completely true.

No it isn't. Of the two "jibes" you mention, one of them is in fact an entirely legitimate and fair criticism (whichever aspect of it you choose), and the other is a hidden joke which (a) nobody reading the review would spot unless they'd been told to look for it, and (b) is in any event a reaction, not an instigation.

And in any case, you are of course dodging the issue and shifting the goalposts again. Jeff's allegation was, and I quote:

his personal dislike of me taints his reviews

Note the plural, there. Jeff claims that ALL of my reviews of his work are biased and prejudiced, even though they date back to the early 1990s and even then I praised his work (Super Gridrunner, yay!) as much as criticised it (Photon Storm, boo!). I've already covered all this, but you choose to ignore it because it completely fucks up the allegation of prejudice and there's no way to reply to it without admitting you're wrong. Which is the point I made an hour or so ago.

I do think Jeff is a colossally-hypocritical paranoid twat. But I never have, and never would, criticise his games because of that. I think that because of his reactions to the criticism (and that of others). Don't get the cart before the horse, love.

It's like a filet steak with a spec of shit on it, 99% fine but ruined into uselessness by something completely distasteful

That's your perspective, perhaps, as someone who's already openly said that he thinks I'm a cunt. The slightly more rational analogy, though, would be a fillet steak with a pea on it. Personally I really hate peas. So I'd take the pea off, put it on the side of my plate and enjoy the steak, rather than sending it back and bitching at the chef for the next two fucking years. But then, that's because I'm not insanely, debilitatingly thin-skinned and paranoid, and surrounded by enablers.

andrew_rollings · Post by **andrew_rollings** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:08 pm 0

Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote: (Photon Storm, boo!).

I actually really liked that game. I'd be interested to read your criticisms. Are they available online?

Serious questions: What started all this? And what's stopping you trying to resolve it, instead of just feeding the flames?

Andrew

HGFB · Post by **HGFB** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:09 pm 0

Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote:But then, that's because I'm not insanely, debilitatingly thin-skinned and paranoid, and surrounded by enablers.

You're a bit obsessed really. If you really were thick skinned like you say you wouldn't keep coming back here time after time whenever anyone calls you a miserable irrelevant cunt. The enablers comment would only really work if you didn't have your own forums where just the same things go on only much, much more vile and insulting. Or would you like to argue that you've been treated as badly here as Jeff has on your forums?

Of course when anyone dares to argue with your magnificence you fall back on your normal tactic of just firing off some insults about their intelligence. Keep it up though. Every forum needs a dancing monkey to point and laugh at. You fill that vacancy very well.

HGFB · Post by **HGFB** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:10 pm 0

andrew_rollings wrote:Serious questions: What started all this? And what's stopping you trying to resolve it, instead of just feeding the flames?

If it was resolved people would stop noticing him. Stu likes to be noticed. He's an internet "personality" don't you know.

andrew_rollings · Post by **andrew_rollings** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:12 pm 0

HGFB wrote: If it was resolved people would stop noticing him. Stu likes to be noticed. He's an internet "personality" don't you know.

Meh. Being in internet personality is overrated. Personally, I get a little embarrassed when I get emails full of effusive praise

EDIT: I was still serious with my questions though.

Andrew