@CornBREDX said:

I really liked Double Dragon also, in the day, and the arcade versions were the best imo (I played it at a round table pizza from time to time). I feel the new game just doesn't do anything for me from what I've seen of it. The combat is very slow paced and they didnt do much to make it interesting or modern imo. The oddity of them broing out and what not doesn't bother me and I enjoy the games goofy style, but the game play itself disinterests me. Just so you know, anime was around in the 80s. It also existed in the 70s =P

The combat isn't as slow paced as it looks, and I think tha'ts part of what fires me up about people being dismissive about it. It's a lot like earthworm jim, really, insomuch as if you play it like one would play Mario Brohters, it looks clunky and like it doesn't run properly. That's just becuase that's not how the game is designed to work. Playing Gears of War like Quake is another modern example.

The game is way more deliberate than other "beat-em-up" games, and as such, if you just button mash, it doesn't look like it plays right. The reason why is because it's supposed to be played way more like a fighting game. There's a dedidacted "evade" button that you can use at any time to roll out of the way of an oncoming attack and pop up on the ohter side of an enemy. THis means that you can basically, with the right timing and reflexes, beat the entire game without taking damage. This is HUGE for a beat-em-up game. That kind of deliberate gameplay is why the game looks so janky when you just walk around mashing the attack buttons.

Dirty commies

I like the effort you put into this, we need more people like that instead of just yelling THIS GAME ROCKS. So kudos.

@JasonR86 said:

A person's opinion can't be right or wrong. It simply is.

You can have an opinion, and you can also be factually incorrect. The topic creator is pointing out how Jeff's "opinion" is flawed because he uses factually incorrect statements in his argument. Something that has been a recurring theme in the GB crew for some time now.

@neoepoch said:

@JasonR86 said:

A person's opinion can't be right or wrong. It simply is.

You can have an opinion, and you can also be factually incorrect. The topic creator is pointing out how Jeff's "opinion" is flawed because he uses factually incorrect statements in his argument. Something that has been a recurring theme in the GB crew for some time now.

@JazGalaxy said:

@JasonR86 said:

A person's opinion can't be right or wrong. It simply is.

I disagree. There are valid opinions and invalid opinions.

Jeff likes Gears of War, he says.

If I say I don't like mustard because I don't like tomatos, that's an invalid opinion. It's FINE if I don't like mustard, but if my opinion is based on the idea that somehow believing that mustard comes from tomatos, my opinion is invalid because I just don't know what I'm talking about.

He was explaining his experience as he played the game. I can't speak for Jeff but I was getting that his perception of Double Dragon was coated in nostalgia and he relied on that nostalgia to make an opinion. So, yeah, it may not have been factually accurate. But it was his perception. He put his experience in the words that he could find that would adequately explain that experience to others. Thus, it is impossible for his opinion in this matter to be wrong. How he came to that opinion is up to him to decide. Just as it is up to us to decide whether we agree. But feeling upset about it is silly.

@AuthenticM said:

@Lukeweizer said:

It's true, I'm not well versed in the topic of Politics or Governments. Should I have said Dictatorship?

Yes you should have. Communism is an economic doctrine. Nothing more, nothing less. Fascism is a political doctrine in which the government tells the people what to do and what to think. See Hitler, Stalin and Pinochet. Fascists are usually dictators.

On topic, I have played the game, and I can say that I do not like it one bit. Movement and combat feel awkward and contrived. I have never played Double Dragon before.

Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and Fidel Castro were all communists and dictators. Communism is an economic model which outlaws private ownership of land and intellectual property while relying on a concentrated group of bureaucrats to distribute and allocate resources for the people. This is known as central planning and seeking to confiscate and redistribute wealth the way the central planners wish to would never last under any political system with free elections. Communism may not mean dictatorship, but all communist leaders have been dictators, so I can understand why he would associate the suppression of differing opinions with Communism. Both Hitler and Mussolini, two Fascists, we're also Socialists who centralized private resources in a similar way to Communism.

As for Double Dragon Neon, it's a great game and in many ways the game I have been waiting for. It has its flaws and I have my gripes, we should always be careful in what we wish for, but after devoting nearly a day in play time to this game I have to say that it nails the genre, the era and the franchise as best as I could have hoped. I would prefer the Neon series remain a spin off of sorts while a more gritty and deep reboot of the series is delivered, but for now Neon is a very fun trip down memory lane with Billy, Jimmy, and Skeletor. This may not be where the series was headed after Super Double Dragon and Double Dragon Advance, but as an homage to the franchise, genre, and era this is one hell of a ride. The people at Wayforward clearly had some fond childhood memories playing these games back in the day while watching old school 80s cartoons.

With Contra 4, Bloodrayne Betrayal and now DDN, I consider myself a fan of Wayforward as a studio. Now if only they could make that breakout hit to put them in the same tier as Twisted Pixel, The Behemoth, or Klei (Mark of the Ninja should make them a major player now).

@JasonR86 said:

@neoepoch said:

@JasonR86 said:

A person's opinion can't be right or wrong. It simply is.

You can have an opinion, and you can also be factually incorrect. The topic creator is pointing out how Jeff's "opinion" is flawed because he uses factually incorrect statements in his argument. Something that has been a recurring theme in the GB crew for some time now.

@JazGalaxy said:

@JasonR86 said:

A person's opinion can't be right or wrong. It simply is.

I disagree. There are valid opinions and invalid opinions.

Jeff likes Gears of War, he says.

If I say I don't like mustard because I don't like tomatos, that's an invalid opinion. It's FINE if I don't like mustard, but if my opinion is based on the idea that somehow believing that mustard comes from tomatos, my opinion is invalid because I just don't know what I'm talking about.

He was explaining his experience as he played the game. I can't speak for Jeff but I was getting that his perception of Double Dragon was coated in nostalgia and he relied on that nostalgia to make an opinion. So, yeah, it may not have been factually accurate. But it was his perception. He put his experience in the words that he could find that would adequately explain that experience to others. Thus, it is impossible for his opinion in this matter to be wrong. How he came to that opinion is up to him to decide. Just as it is up to us to decide whether we agree. But feeling upset about it is silly.

That doesn't negate the fact that his opinion of the game is based on factual inaccuracies. Perceptions based on incorrect information lead to an opinion that can be invalidated. All it takes is showing Jeff that, no, this is how Double Dragon used to be, or showing someone that thinks mustard comes from tomatoes the actual source. Not everything is cut and dry, of course, and people have their own tastes and desires, but if an opinion is based on a factual inaccuracy (mustard comes from tomatoes), then that opinion is flawed and can be challenged.

@Hailinel said:

@JasonR86 said:

@neoepoch said:

@JasonR86 said:

A person's opinion can't be right or wrong. It simply is.

You can have an opinion, and you can also be factually incorrect. The topic creator is pointing out how Jeff's "opinion" is flawed because he uses factually incorrect statements in his argument. Something that has been a recurring theme in the GB crew for some time now.

@JazGalaxy said:

@JasonR86 said:

A person's opinion can't be right or wrong. It simply is.

I disagree. There are valid opinions and invalid opinions.

Jeff likes Gears of War, he says.

If I say I don't like mustard because I don't like tomatos, that's an invalid opinion. It's FINE if I don't like mustard, but if my opinion is based on the idea that somehow believing that mustard comes from tomatos, my opinion is invalid because I just don't know what I'm talking about.

He was explaining his experience as he played the game. I can't speak for Jeff but I was getting that his perception of Double Dragon was coated in nostalgia and he relied on that nostalgia to make an opinion. So, yeah, it may not have been factually accurate. But it was his perception. He put his experience in the words that he could find that would adequately explain that experience to others. Thus, it is impossible for his opinion in this matter to be wrong. How he came to that opinion is up to him to decide. Just as it is up to us to decide whether we agree. But feeling upset about it is silly.

That doesn't negate the fact that his opinion of the game is based on factual inaccuracies. Perceptions based on incorrect information lead to an opinion that can be invalidated. All it takes is showing Jeff that, no, this is how Double Dragon used to be, or showing someone that thinks mustard comes from tomatoes the actual source. Not everything is cut and dry, of course, and people have their own tastes and desires, but if an opinion is based on a factual inaccuracy (mustard comes from tomatoes), then that opinion is flawed and can be challenged.

I suppose. I just find the act of challenging an opinion to be futile. Who wins either way? Why does Jeff's opinion, or anyone else's, have to be solely defined by 'facts' (however we wish to determine what is factual and what is not)? It just seems unnecessary to me.

@JasonR86: IT'S JUST FUCKING WRONG OKAY! DOUBLE DRAGON NEON RULES!

@JasonR86 said:

@Hailinel said:

@JasonR86 said:

@neoepoch said:

@JasonR86 said:

A person's opinion can't be right or wrong. It simply is.

You can have an opinion, and you can also be factually incorrect. The topic creator is pointing out how Jeff's "opinion" is flawed because he uses factually incorrect statements in his argument. Something that has been a recurring theme in the GB crew for some time now.

@JazGalaxy said:

@JasonR86 said:

A person's opinion can't be right or wrong. It simply is.

I disagree. There are valid opinions and invalid opinions.

Jeff likes Gears of War, he says.

If I say I don't like mustard because I don't like tomatos, that's an invalid opinion. It's FINE if I don't like mustard, but if my opinion is based on the idea that somehow believing that mustard comes from tomatos, my opinion is invalid because I just don't know what I'm talking about.

He was explaining his experience as he played the game. I can't speak for Jeff but I was getting that his perception of Double Dragon was coated in nostalgia and he relied on that nostalgia to make an opinion. So, yeah, it may not have been factually accurate. But it was his perception. He put his experience in the words that he could find that would adequately explain that experience to others. Thus, it is impossible for his opinion in this matter to be wrong. How he came to that opinion is up to him to decide. Just as it is up to us to decide whether we agree. But feeling upset about it is silly.

That doesn't negate the fact that his opinion of the game is based on factual inaccuracies. Perceptions based on incorrect information lead to an opinion that can be invalidated. All it takes is showing Jeff that, no, this is how Double Dragon used to be, or showing someone that thinks mustard comes from tomatoes the actual source. Not everything is cut and dry, of course, and people have their own tastes and desires, but if an opinion is based on a factual inaccuracy (mustard comes from tomatoes), then that opinion is flawed and can be challenged.

I suppose. I just find the act of challenging an opinion to be futile. Who wins either way? Why does Jeff's opinion, or anyone else's, have to be solely defined by 'facts' (however we wish to determine what is factual and what is not)? It just seems unnecessary to me.

O_o

Because Jeff writes for a popular professional videogame review and discussions site and his opinion contributes directly to the failure or success of a game.

If *I* say I hate Resident Evil, it doesn't mean jack. I have for years. If BRAD says he hates Resident Evil it means a ton because it means hundreds or thousands of people won't play Resident Evil.

@JazGalaxy: For a small dev game bad reviews can kill it, for Resident Evil it doesn't matter what anyone says; it will sell. Of course there's no pressure on you to say a smaller game is good either. If CoD comes out and somehow gets bad reviews, maybe the worst reviews in the history of mankind, it will still sell 25 million copies, no one who buys popular fotm games gives a shit what reviewers say.

jeff with a controversial opinion? you sure you got the right jeff, bro?

Jeff can think what he wants, but after having beaten it for the first time, I can safely say that I enjoyed the hell out of it. And Skullmageddon is easily one of the best new characters of this year.

@Hailinel said:

Jeff can think what he wants, but after having beaten it for the first time, I can safely say that I enjoyed the hell out of it. And Skullmageddon is easily one of the best new characters of this year.

Nope. Jeff is not allowed to have any opinion that isn't 100% fact-based.

@JasonR86 said:

@Hailinel said:

Jeff can think what he wants, but after having beaten it for the first time, I can safely say that I enjoyed the hell out of it. And Skullmageddon is easily one of the best new characters of this year.

Nope. Jeff is not allowed to have any opinion that isn't 100% fact-based.