Something went wrong. Try again later

kariyanine

This user has not updated recently.

302 82 24 20
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

kariyanine's forum posts

Avatar image for kariyanine
kariyanine

302

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 1

#1  Edited By kariyanine
@oldschool said:
You don't have to.  I am not saying no personal experience of the writer, just that it should be weighted appropriately.  A game should be compared against other games in the same genre and that is where the personal opinion comes into it for me.  If you review Forza 3, then it is reviewed with Forza 2, Gran Tursimo, Need For Speed and PGR3/4 in mind.  You get your baseline from that and it should be noted how it compares against what has come before it.  An actual score is more about what it does above "perfectly acceptable" or average.  What it does better than average pushes that score up.  Better still, no score at all as a number is really quite meaningless.   
 
It is probably true to say that writers write purely to entertain, but in doing so, they cheapen the worth of what they write.  It is also true that some people want to be entertained by the review.  I still it can be done without ruining the integrity of the review.  If we disagree that a review cannot be objective, then we will never agree.  I am not going to take it personally.  I have a lifetime of being analytical and critical of journalists in general.  I don't feel the need to just settle for what they dish out. "
I believe you may be right that we will not agree on this issue.  I just don't believe that people can be purely objective on the level you seem to be referring to.
Avatar image for kariyanine
kariyanine

302

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 1

#2  Edited By kariyanine
@oldschool said:
" Yes and no.  A review should have 2 very distinct components, personal opinion (whether they liked it, the story, the characters et cetera)  and relevant facts (that affect the game like camera, pop-ups, glitches et cetera).  The score should reflect the technical aspects of the game more than the personal opinions.  ........ dons flame guard ............ "
I don't necessarily agree with this.  While technical aspects are important, after all nobody wants a sloppy game, they can't (and shouldn't) hold more weight than the personal experience of the writer.  By your theory a game could be technically perfect and as such the score for that game should reflect that more than the opinion points.  However what if that game does everything right but is outright boring and just not  fun?  Does that game deserve a high score?  I think if reviewers started doing things as such 
 
I've never liked review scores that break out the aspects of the game (ala IGN or Gamespot's old formula) because by doing so you are implying that each technical aspect has more weight than if the game is actually good or not based on the reviewers opinion, which by the text of any review it obviously does not.  Could you imagine if Roger Ebert reviewed movies and broke the film down by technical aspects and let those talking points influence his ratings more than his personal opinion?  There are only  two reasons we read reviews and that is to get someone's take on something we are going to buy or for said reviewer to validate our purchase and it all comes down to whose opinions do we want to trust more.
Avatar image for kariyanine
kariyanine

302

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 1

#3  Edited By kariyanine
@TwoOneFive said:
28 Days, Signs (dude it freaked me out when i saw it in theaters), Sixth Sense, Saw, and umm oh yeah The Decent. That movie had me goin with all the claustrophobic shit.  "
I am assuming you are referring to 28 Days Later?  In anycase 28 Days Later and The Descent are both Brit horror films not American ones.  Signs is at best a sci-fi thriller and the Sixth Sense is a horror film by material (ghosts) association only.  You are not making a very good argument for American horror flicks with that statement.
 
In anycase I would argue that Saw II (along with the original Hostel) are the only two decent examples of "torture porn".  Saw (which could be said to have ushered in the "torture porn" phenomenon)  is a good psychological horror flick but it suffers from weak pacing, poor writing and some ham-fisted acting by Carey Elwes and Danny Glover.
Avatar image for kariyanine
kariyanine

302

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 1

#4  Edited By kariyanine

My problem with the game is that  the release of Shadow Complex proved that full sized games can come out on XBLA and PSN for a budget price point.  I can't justify spending $50 on this game because of that.  I'll play it (through Gamefly) but $50 is a little steep for me to pay for it at retail.

Avatar image for kariyanine
kariyanine

302

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 1

#5  Edited By kariyanine

  ...that people play a game properly.

I've been playing online games long enough that I understand there are a select group of "special" individuals who make it their life's goal to make other people's leisure time a giant pain in the ass. Be it homophobic racists in Halo, assholes who leave the map in Gears of War, or even people who take advantage of the ever present blue-line glitch in the NHL series, they are out there and all of us have to accept it.

I've recently developed a strong addiction to Battlefield 1943 and while I can't stand the asshole in the game who is standing on the aircraft carrier in Air Superiority waiting for planes to spawn so he can blow them up with a rocket launcher I've come to accept his stupidity. What I can't stand is his/her moronic counterpart. You all know the guy (or girl), the one who gets in a plane and has no idea how to fly it, treating it more like a flying bulldozer than a fighter jet.

News flash to players of Battlefield 1943, the blue team is yours so it behooves you to maybe not try and run them out of the sky as you pursue a kill because all you are going to do is get yourself and your teammate killed. I myself am not the greatest pilot and still generally get more kills in a plane by running it head on into my opponent but I do know to avoid running into my own team members for both our sakes. Oh and in the game proper when you choose the sniper class please find yourself a nice bunker or grove of tress to hang out in, you aren't meant to be front line troops and trying to back up regular infantry with your bolt action rifle generally just means you and your squad mates are going to die. Really its OK to camp if you want to be a sniper.

Avatar image for kariyanine
kariyanine

302

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 1

#6  Edited By kariyanine

I love when my plate becomes a sea of blood.

Avatar image for kariyanine
kariyanine

302

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 1

#7  Edited By kariyanine

No Colin, I think they are PSP releases.

Avatar image for kariyanine
kariyanine

302

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 1

#8  Edited By kariyanine
@Azteck said:
" It's when you realize after hundred of hours in a game that "Holy mother of god, there's a sun out there". Then you go out there and eat an ice-cream.That's how you beat a multiplayer game. "
I do love me some ice cream.
Avatar image for kariyanine
kariyanine

302

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 1

#9  Edited By kariyanine
@NickM said:
" When you realize that literally no one else is playing the multiplayer for the 360 version of Unreal Tournament III. I clearly won that game.  "
I have that game too, sad thing is there is really no one playing it on any of the three platforms it was released on.
Avatar image for kariyanine
kariyanine

302

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

20

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 1

#10  Edited By kariyanine
Growing up beating a game was a big deal. Completing Super Mario Bros., Castlevania or Metal Gear was like a badge of honor and you wanted everyone to know. Games have changed since then but somewhere in the back of my head I still keep a small running tally of what is going on. Halo, Gears, Call of Duty, Killzone 2, Resistance, etc... all have something in common, they are great multiplayer shooters that have a single player component. You can easily say I beat (or finished) Halo 3 because there is a campaign that you can play through but what about games like Shadowrun, Team Fortress 2 or the recently released Battlefield 1943?

I am currently having a blast traversing the Pacific theater, taking over strategic points, killing people with my trusty SMG and crashing into trees whenever I try to fly a plane but the game got me thinking, how does one beat a game like Battlefield 1943? Can you claim superiority over the title once you max out your rank, reach prestige, achieve some other arbitrary factor or is it something else entirely? For that matter is it even possible to claim you've beaten a multiplayer game?

With no endgame the lines of understanding are not only blurred but completely invisible. Where and when can one actually claim they beat a multiplayer game or has gaming moved past such tangible badges of honor?

And can you ever really beat WoW? (outside of quitting the addiction that is)