NunsandRoses's forum posts

  • 17 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by NunsandRoses (20 posts) -

Oh hey, I notice this immediately after I posted in the other thread. Anyway, I was the loud guy in the blue and green patterned button-up and fauxhawk. I'm also super awful with names, so this is the part where I tie what you guys looked like with your usernames. And I'll second the part about not being able to hide in the shadowy corner, it seemed like everyone was engaged and talking to others.

Glad I got to meet all of you guys!

#2 Posted by NunsandRoses (20 posts) -

The meet-up was a ton of fun! I was the loud guy in the green/blue patterned shirt and fauxhawk.

See, guys, he called it Minecrap! Get it?! I s'pose I'll have to hang around the forums more often now that I've actually met some duders.

#3 Posted by NunsandRoses (20 posts) -

I'll be at the talk and the meet up afterward, despite it being in the middle of a Tigers game.

#4 Posted by NunsandRoses (20 posts) -

Why are y'all listing so many games that have come out in the last year or so? Have some people really not experienced buyer's remorse with a game until now? If so, man, are you lucky.

#5 Edited by NunsandRoses (20 posts) -

What do you define as the "mainstream media"? Because there's a helluva lot of gaming press that cover indie games. Now, if you're going to claim that they don't cover them enough, then the issue is the market. It doesn't make any sense to have an IGN-sized site covering the most indie of indie games only because - quite simply - not enough people care. It's the same reason that ESPN doesn't show curling. Curling may be extremely important to you, but a majority of people simply don't care enough.

#6 Posted by NunsandRoses (20 posts) -

What on earth are you talking about, man?

You act like it's some giant conspiracy that "the media" doesn't cover PC games like you want them to. Here's the thing: console games are the vast, vast majority - hence why you don't see much in the way of broad PC gaming coverage. Even with that being the case, you're forgetting about a lot of coverage. Drew and Dave here at Giant Bomb often discuss and display PC games, the recently-reborn Idle Thumbs podcast discussed PC gaming a majority of the time, PC Gamer is still a thing that exists... And indie games are most definitely not being ignored. This generation has brought indie games to the spotlight over and over. Braid and Limbo are two examples that come to mind immediately.

Not only that, but you seem to pin all of this on this vast "dude bro" tag, placing a blanket judgement on a group of people that - whether you like them or not - are legitimate consumers, and shouldn't be shat upon simply because they're different. Isn't that sort of dismissal exactly what gamers hated in the first place? Shitting on those people because they dipped a toe in "your" hobby is pretty lame.

I agree with some others in this thread. You seem to be projecting some larger issue you have with the industry onto TotalBiscuit. As much as I enjoy his videos and what he does for gaming, I wouldn't crown him as some sort of hero who's doing the right thing in the face of adversity or anything.

#7 Posted by NunsandRoses (20 posts) -

@onimonkii: Issac wasn't a Team Meat game, though. It was just Edmund who worked on it, and it was done in Flash.

#8 Posted by NunsandRoses (20 posts) -

@Brendan: You should read his post again. He said that GTA IV failed as an attempt at a story-driven open-world GTA game, not that it was a critical or sales failure.

#9 Posted by NunsandRoses (20 posts) -

@MacBooey87: So because a game is a sequel, it can't be considered the best game of it's year? Uncharted 2 received more praise because it fixed what the original got wrong. What about Assassin's Creed 2, a game almost universally considered a massively better game than the first AC? Or GTA 3?

#10 Posted by NunsandRoses (20 posts) -

@lacke: The nature of Metacritic condones people ignoring the text of a review, and simply looking at the score. Not to mention, they have a totally messed up way of converting scores (letter grades converted on an idiotic scale). The fact that they attempt to convert everything to a score out of 100 is where they go wrong, not that they aggregate reviews.

Rotten Tomatoes does a good job of both using a simple scale ("like it/don't like it"), and highlighting outlets that are higher-profile than others. They give the user control over granularity in how it aggregates, rather than taking on the responsibility themselves. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop its users from changing "72% of critics like this" into "This movie got a 72/100", which is pretty lame. :\

  • 17 results
  • 1
  • 2