RockyRaccoon37's forum posts

#1 Edited by RockyRaccoon37 (360 posts) -

In my experience chat has been awful, so I'm good.

#2 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (360 posts) -

Played a bunch of this on the PC but fell out of it after a little while. If I had an iPad I'd get right back into it-- pretty clear it was made to be played on mobile.

Kinda sucks that it requires an internet connection though.

#3 Edited by RockyRaccoon37 (360 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

Polygon reviewers kind of remind me of that person who can't like something unless it's extraordinary. You guys should look up the psychology term 'splitting'. Polygon reviews are the personification of splitting.

That describes Russ Frushtick to a tee. Whenever anyone (usually Justin or Griffin McElroy) would talk about liking a game, he'd jump in to talk about all the stuff he hated about it. I had to stop listening because he was so negative on everything.

To be fair, the early episodes of the Besties were all about competition and trying to tear down each other's game-- so everyone kind of did that. If you knew what you were getting into, those early episodes were a ton of fun.

They've since revamped the show (many times actually) and now it's released once a month, much longer and they dropped the competition aspect. It's actually quite good, but not as entertaining for me as the early episodes.

@russman588 said:

@jasonr86 said:

Polygon reviewers kind of remind me of that person who can't like something unless it's extraordinary. You guys should look up the psychology term 'splitting'. Polygon reviews are the personification of splitting.

Is a 6.5 an indication that a reviewer dislikes a game? Seems to me that scores of 5 and under would be the point where you could argue that a reviewer doesn't like something.

People need to get over this "you must use every number when reviewing a game" feeling that they have about review scores. If you got a 65% on a paper in school, did that generally mean that your teacher liked what you wrote?

But yes, this was an extremely negative review. I don't think he talked about a single positive aspect of the game.

In this case I think the review indicates disappointment at the fact the this game is more iterative than innovative, that many of the new features fail to deliver and that certain features from previous games have been removed, all coupled with some minor technical issues. But at it's core, the Trials gameplay itself still remains solid. Hence, a 6.5.

I think it's completely reasonable that someone who played the previous games, would look at this and hope for something that feels significantly different than the previous entries.

#4 Edited by RockyRaccoon37 (360 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

Polygon reviewers kind of remind me of that person who can't like something unless it's extraordinary. You guys should look up the psychology term 'splitting'. Polygon reviews are the personification of splitting.

The blind disdain towards Polygon is so tired and so uninformed. The review by Russ is totally fair and well articulated, even if you do end up disagreeing with his opinion of the game. And if you actually bothered to read their reviews, you`d see that many of their recent reviews scores have been 8`s and 9`s.

As an aside, can we get over this "ugh Polygon" bullshit as if they were an entity unto themselves and not made up of individuals with individual opinions and approaches to criticism?

#5 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (360 posts) -

@mrfluke: Yeah I'd be very surprised (and disappointed) if they hired a big name for the site. At this point I'm much more interested in getting some new blood onto the scene.

#6 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (360 posts) -

Games criticism has shifted significantly in recent years to become more focused on representation (gender, sexuality, violence, etc.) with large mainstream sites like IGN and Gamespot writing about these issues in editorials and reviews. In the founding of Giant Bomb the tone seemed to be to stay as far away from politics as possible (and that may have even been explicitly stated as well, I can't recall)-- obviously that has changed in recent years, but what lead that change?

#7 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (360 posts) -

With the exception of people 40+ years old, I don't think this is something commonly said.

#8 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (360 posts) -

@development said:

@epicsteve: It's far more common than you think if you think it's almost a non-issue. For one, men are pressured to think they're weak or sissies if they speak out and don't act grateful for just getting to have sex, whatever the circumstances. Think of how many women rape victims are accused of "asking for it," now multiply that by several magnitudes and you get the level of "deal with it" mentality pushed on to male rape victims. All those priests fondling little boys? That counts. My friend who I remember not taking seriously in high school when he said three chicks held him down and tried to rape him? That counts. It's not uncommon, and certainly not a non-issue.

Like I posted above, the RAINN says 1 out of 33 men are victims of sexual assault.

I speak mostly about men. Obviously with young boys there's an issue. I should've specified. But you had a male friend that was held down by three high school females and tried to have sex with all of them? Yeah, I don't see that as traumatic at all and envy him.

Gross dude.

#9 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (360 posts) -

@darji said:

@rockyraccoon37: I do not know what you are getting at? What is untrue? That activist groups are often focusing on the abuse of women or that women hit more often than men?

If you go for the later I would not do take much om wikipedia for a fact. For example Carrie Keating a professor of psychology is saying this as well. Studies will always cover opinions and most likely will support your before made opinion as well. There are two sides of this.

For example take a look at this video from 2008 which also states her quote about this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

As someone said it is not as simple as people want it to be.

Domestic abuse occurs far more frequently against women than men. No one is saying that men aren't abused or sexually assaulted both inside and outside of relationships, and no one is undermining it.

And there aren't two sides to this-- if you're against sexual assault then you're against ALL sexual assault and you don't undermine it whether the victim is a woman or a man.