|
|
 |
| [Jun 22, 2011, 09:54 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
GameFront - Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal.
The really contentious part of Redner’s argument, however, is the fact that developers should be let off the hook because they “poured thousands of irreplaceable hours” into a game. This is an argument that I’ve seen many times before, that a reviewer needs to consider the feelings of the people who made it. I’d say that’s the last thing a reviewer needs to think about when assessing a game. Like it or not, a reviewer isn’t there to protect developers from feeling sad. This is not pre-school, where everybody gets a star and no child is left behind. This is the realm of business conducted by adults, and if you’re going to turn on the waterworks when your game is trashed, you should not be in an industry where art is produced for public consumption. It’s simply not the place for little princesses made of eggshells.
Joystick Division - Marketing Campaigns Are Doomsday Machines. Thanks Digg.
Duke Nukem Forever is the brightest, recent example of this horribly hilarious phenomenon, but it was preceded by two other first person shooters which enticed us to waste our money this year: Homefront and Brink. Together they form a Trifecta of Terrible. Behold the power of the marketing machine, and tremble.
 |
| 20. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jun 22, 2011, 13:30 |
Tumbler |
|
|
Bullshit. He was saying the reviewer made personal attacks. Commentary on the developers has no place in a game review. Can someone list examples or link to articles that show the evidence to this? I'm not going to go around reading reviews in the first place so I still don't know what exactly the complaint is against reviewers. The way it looks to me is that the PR folks know that a "50" is a slap in the face and they are calling that an attack. The game sucks. It was reviewed by a lot of different site, 32 so far according to metacritic. If one site spews venom that doesn't make your score a 50. It's universally agreed that it's a giant POS and 50 is the average out of 32 reviews. (well not exactly...metacritic doesn't do an exact average, I'm not clear exactly how they arrive at the number they have but I rarely find that to be off the mark) |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
VGfive.com - Game Trading site (Steam codes too!) Kickstarter "Game Developer"! |
|
|
 |
|
| |
| |
|
Date |
Subject |
Author |
| |
1. |
Jun 22, 10:00 |
Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Prez |
| |
2. |
Jun 22, 11:00 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Ratty |
| |
5. |
Jun 22, 11:04 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
nin |
| |
10. |
Jun 22, 11:57 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Prez |
| |
3. |
Jun 22, 11:02 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
space captain |
| |
7. |
Jun 22, 11:42 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Beamer |
| |
8. |
Jun 22, 11:53 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
space captain |
| |
11. |
Jun 22, 11:58 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Beamer |
| |
12. |
Jun 22, 12:07 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
space captain |
| |
13. |
Jun 22, 12:13 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Prez |
| |
27. |
Jun 22, 14:46 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
maleitch |
| |
28. |
Jun 22, 14:59 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
space captain |
| |
29. |
Jun 22, 15:12 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
30. |
Jun 22, 15:22 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Cutter |
| |
32. |
Jun 22, 15:33 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Tumbler |
| |
34. |
Jun 22, 15:38 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
nin |
| |
35. |
Jun 22, 16:09 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Beamer |
| |
36. |
Jun 22, 16:21 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Tumbler |
| |
37. |
Jun 22, 16:39 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Beamer |
| |
4. |
Jun 22, 11:04 |
Re: Duke Nukem Forever and Jim Redner’s Balls of Squeal. |
Shataan |
| |
6. |
Jun 22, 11:20 |
Re: Op Ed |
Domgrief |
| |
9. |
Jun 22, 11:55 |
Re: Op Ed |
spindoctor |
| |
14. |
Jun 22, 12:17 |
Re: Op Ed |
Creston |
| |
15. |
Jun 22, 12:33 |
Re: Op Ed |
Verno |
| |
16. |
Jun 22, 12:37 |
Re: Op Ed |
Creston |
| |
25. |
Jun 22, 14:23 |
Re: Op Ed |
jacobvandy |
| |
26. |
Jun 22, 14:29 |
Re: Op Ed |
DNForever |
| |
17. |
Jun 22, 12:46 |
Re: Op Ed |
Tumbler |
| |
18. |
Jun 22, 13:01 |
Duke Nukem is a No-Win Scenario |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
19. |
Jun 22, 13:21 |
Re: Op Ed |
Ruffiana |
| >> |
20. |
Jun 22, 13:30 |
Re: Op Ed |
Tumbler |
| |
21. |
Jun 22, 13:42 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
22. |
Jun 22, 13:56 |
Re: Op Ed |
Bhruic |
| |
23. |
Jun 22, 13:59 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
24. |
Jun 22, 14:22 |
Re: Op Ed |
Tumbler |
| |
31. |
Jun 22, 15:27 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
33. |
Jun 22, 15:34 |
Re: Op Ed |
Verno |
| |
38. |
Jun 22, 16:43 |
Re: Op Ed |
Acleacius |
| |
39. |
Jun 22, 16:47 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
40. |
Jun 22, 17:04 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
41. |
Jun 22, 17:13 |
Re: Op Ed |
Creston |
| |
42. |
Jun 22, 17:15 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
43. |
Jun 22, 17:26 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
44. |
Jun 22, 17:42 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
51. |
Jun 22, 18:54 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
53. |
Jun 22, 19:08 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
58. |
Jun 22, 21:00 |
Re: Op Ed |
Jerykk |
| |
60. |
Jun 22, 21:59 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
62. |
Jun 22, 22:44 |
Re: Op Ed |
Jerykk |
| |
64. |
Jun 22, 23:34 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
54. |
Jun 22, 19:19 |
Re: Op Ed |
space captain |
| |
55. |
Jun 22, 19:33 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
56. |
Jun 22, 20:19 |
Re: Op Ed |
space captain |
| |
57. |
Jun 22, 20:41 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
59. |
Jun 22, 21:09 |
Re: Op Ed |
space captain |
| |
61. |
Jun 22, 22:21 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
63. |
Jun 22, 22:58 |
Re: Op Ed |
space captain |
| |
45. |
Jun 22, 17:50 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
47. |
Jun 22, 17:58 |
Re: Op Ed |
CJ_Parker |
| |
48. |
Jun 22, 18:02 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
52. |
Jun 22, 19:07 |
Re: Op Ed |
Beamer |
| |
46. |
Jun 22, 17:57 |
Re: Op Ed |
Tumbler |
| |
49. |
Jun 22, 18:07 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
| |
50. |
Jun 22, 18:26 |
Re: Op Ed |
Cutter |
| |
65. |
Jun 23, 06:04 |
Re: Op Ed |
jacobvandy |
| |
66. |
Jun 23, 08:54 |
Re: Op Ed |
Prez |
| |
67. |
Jun 23, 12:00 |
Re: Op Ed |
^Drag0n^ |
|
|
|