Jeff......calm. I really wouldn't take this personally let alone making yourself ill over it. It's just not worth it. It's an Xbox live game. People are going to download it anyway, plus this is one review out of a shedload that will soon be out there. Your games aren't mainstream. Some people aren't going to 'get' them but you already know that. This guy obviously didn't 'get' it which is a shame seen as though he's a reviewer and wrote about it, but I really, really wouldn't let it get you down.
Lets wait until there are a few reviews plus see peoples reaction on downloading the demo.
If the games good, which on reading peoples reaction who've played it on here (who I've much more respect for than some anonymous reviewer) I'm sure it is you've nothing to worry about.
"In the new OXM, they give Space Giraffe a 2.0. They get frustrated because "You'll frequently die because you couldn't pick out the pulsating assassin from the warped playfield floating over the throbbing LSD nightmare that is the background, which makes this game uniquely aggravating."
And that seems to be their only complaint other than "sophomoric sound effects."
Which is bullshit anyway - if it were impossible to see what was going on on the levels then I wouldn't be able to routinely pass many levels at a time without even losing a life, would I? It *is* possible to read the levels; it isn't even that hard, and learning to do so is part of the skill of playing and part of the atmosphere of the game. To say it isn't possible and that there are arbitrary deaths is a flat out lie. It's perfectly possible, easy even when you're used to it (my party trick is to ace level 64 without loss of life). Reading the levels is just part of the game. Complaining that it takes a degree of skill is like claiming that a soduku puzzle has some numbers missing or that there are too many robots on the screen in Robotron.
As for the sound effects, many people have made a point of saying how good the sound design is in SG. They may not be to the reviewer's taste but they are at the very least well implemeted and informative as to what is actually happening in-game.
Basically it just sounds like the guy doesn't like the aesthetic and is fucking useless at the game. I wish I knew what his gamertag was so I could look up his efforts in the Partnernet leaderboards, and review his performance.
Yak wrote:I found a small quote from it on the SA forum:
"In the new OXM, they give Space Giraffe a 2.0. They get frustrated because "You'll frequently die because you couldn't pick out the pulsating assassin from the warped playfield floating over the throbbing LSD nightmare that is the background, which makes this game uniquely aggravating."
Sounds like I was on the money then - either way, nowt to get too worried about.
Yak wrote:Basically it just sounds like the guy doesn't like the aesthetic and is fucking useless at the game. I wish I knew what his gamertag was so I could look up his efforts in the Partnernet leaderboards, and review his performance.
There are fuckwits the world over and a number of them are in powerful, influential or sometimes even dangerous positions.
At times like this I'll quote "You can't please all the people, all the time" and game making is no different. Add to that fact most people couldn't find their own arse with both hands and you have reviews (and reviewers) like this. Let it pass, who the fuck reads the shitty mag anyway and remember you have many many millions of people with access to it and only an infintecimally small number will read that mag and only a couple of 1000 more will read that forum. Give me 3+ million to 30,000 odds any day and laugh as you make enough money to fund your next few games with many many 10000's of people loving your game to bits.
G
Last edited by GBH on Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:56 pm 0, edited 1 time in total.
The way I see it is they got the wrong guy to review the wrong game. I dont like Tempest or any of its incarnations as despite many attempts, I've just never really 'got it'. I know thousands here think Tempest, especially T2K is one of the best games ever. This guy obviously doesnt like this kind of game and has rated it low for that reason alone, not basing it on the content or standard of progamming.
As others have said, a quick download and people will quickly make their own mind up. Given the cheapness of it I dont believe his review will have the slightest influence over people buying it.
Relax Jeff and Giles, you both know you've put your all in and others will see that too.
I personally can't wait for it.
Last edited by mamemeister on Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:58 pm 0, edited 1 time in total.
Never judge a man until you have walked in his mocassins for 2 moons.........
Yak wrote:Basically it just sounds like the guy doesn't like the aesthetic and is fucking useless at the game.
Exactly. You'd think they could at least get reviewers with a modicum of gaming skills.
For the record, I'm the kind of player who gets easily pissed off with unavoidable deaths, and it's honestly not something that SG suffers from. 99 times out of 100 I know *exactly* what killed me and that it was my judgement or dexterity that let me down.
Everyone will download it anyway and make up their own minds.
The same bit was posted on the Team Xbox forum and I had to jump to SG's defence.
Having played the game I can honestly say I didn't find it hard to keep track of what's going on - in fact I showed one of the later videos to a mate of mine and he was clueless to what was going on - until I explained to him what was happening.
Once you've played the game through a few times it's patently obvious whats going on - it strikes me the reviewer either didn't give it a chance and has very poor vision.
Let's face it - noone is going to release an XBLA game that isn't playable and fun because the whole point is that everyone gets to try the game without stumping up cash for it. Ok, maybe that's not true in the case of Feeding Frenzy but you get the idea!!
At the end of the day it's 1 review and an unsubstantiated one at that. Let's just wait and see when it finally gets released - and keep in mind that not everyone relies on the opinions of those who are paid to write them. Personally as giles said the best thing to do is download it and try the sample for yourselves.......
Last edited by WiredWorm on Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:57 pm 0, edited 1 time in total.
GamerTag: WiredWorm
It's like another mouth - LamptonWorm
This is the sort of review I'd expect from someone that would also have reviewed Neon as 'a sort of WinAmp visualiser', Psychedelia as 'some sort of wavey graphics demo thingy', and Gridrunner as 'too fast to see what was happening, something killed me from the edge of the screen, and the sound was too bassy'.
i.e. someone whose reviews I could confidently trust, because the lower they scored something, the more likely I would be to love it.
Chill. Know that the work is done, and let it speak for itself. Lots of people won't 'get' it. Lots will. The bane of the artist is the critic, but people know what they like.
The demo is free. FREE. Buying the full version is a matter of a button-press or two. No-one has to commit anything more than a bit of bandwidth to try this out, and thus no-one with any sense will believe a review over their own eyes.
I'm not sure that I agree completely with the comment, but Xbox Live demo versions have *certainly* made Xbox review mags obsolete so far as I'm concerned. After reading lots of them to help determine original Xbox purchases, I've not bought a single one since getting the 360 - there's no point in paying the best part of a fiver to read someone else's opinion of a game, when for absolutely bugger all I can download something and reach my own conclusion.
But yes, 2/10 is a poor score for a glass of water. As Yak says, it should be reserved for something which is a tour de force of programming incompetance (reserving 1/10 for games that just crash your 360), not simply becuase you didn't get the game, or it's not your cup of tea. there are LOADS of games out there that I would rate 8 or 9/10, yet wouldn't buy in a million years because I hate them. My hating something doesn't make it automatically bad (any more than my liking something is an automatic passport to it's being good); there may be a link between hating and badness, of course, but there may not be.
I've always hoped that SG is something like Rez - a bit weird, a bit "left pf field", not for everyone but with a good niche to occupy. Will there be a SG demo version so that people can d/l it and make their own minds up by the way? Only, if there is, this appallingly bad review score just might, perversely, encourage some people to d/l just to see how "bad" it is.
Other than that, I can't think of any Live games I've seen that deserve just 2/10. In fact, the lowest rating I've ever given to a board game is 3/10, and that was to a couple of really, really bad games whose publishers ought to have known better. Even Monopoly isn't 2/10 bad.
arron wrote:The more I think about it, I'm beginning to think this is the workings of a sociopathic cunt myself...out there on the internets, trying to stir it. We don't have any review, or any actual verification of the score from an official source.
Actually didn't Rod_S do something like this here not too long ago with Excite Truck... Before he had his epiphany!
