"The only thing that really surprises me about this announcement is the way that it was announced." Giancarlo Varanini
"I am Giancarlo! Nothing surprises me. I am a hard man. Tell me a secret, I will not flinch. Cliffy-B is a shemale? Hah, I knew it all along. How did he reveal it? In a one page fax? Now that surprises me."
My first thought is that this thread's explanation on seppaku was longer than the content fo the thread itself, and was not in 3D. But even if it was it would not have increased its length, so I must say that my first impressions are more like a first look, so my impressions of a first look are that it looks very wordy. It's not in HD so that sucks. Though if it was it wouldn't be readable, so that's a design flaw right there.
Dvader said:If we have a roundtable discussion I bet we will have some idiotic statements being said.
We discuss things on podcasts and nowhere have I heard anything like the level of ignorance, bias or stupidity read elsewhere.
Except from you. 
No seriously, I need to go link that Super Mario Galaxy 2 roundtable.
Here:
Super Mario Galaxy 2's Impact: An Editor Roundtable
WTF?
gamingeek said:We discuss things on podcasts and nowhere have I heard anything like the level of ignorance, bias or stupidity read elsewhere.
Except from you.
No seriously, I need to go link that Super Mario Galaxy 2 roundtable.
Here:
Super Mario Galaxy 2's Impact: An Editor Roundtable
WTF?
But again, Steel feels that exact same way. So if he was on a podcast will you call him ignorant, bias or stupid?
Dvader said:But again, Steel feels that exact same way. So if he was on a podcast will you call him ignorant, bias or stupid?
He probably does. 
SteelAttack said:He probably does.
And he's right when he does.
Foolz said:And he's right when he does.
Pretty much.
Still, I can't help but notice that people (not singling out anyone, I see this everywhere) give way too much weight to opinions from industry insiders, reviewers or journalists, and are quick in unleashing these kind of statements when said insiders' opinions don't match their own, without realizing that their opinion hardly holds more weight than the one of anyone with internet access.
It rings especially true when analyzing what these guys said. They never put the game's quality into question, just voiced their opinion regarding it.
Then again, this only happens with Mario, the holiest of all sacred cows in gaming, heavy with its golden tits and spewing sweet nectar from its asshole for the gaming community to enjoy.
SteelAttack said:It rings especially true when analyzing what these guys said. They never put the game's quality into question, just voiced their opinion regarding it.
Then again, this only happens with Mario, the holiest of all sacred cows in gaming, heavy with its golden tits and spewing sweet nectar from its asshole for the gaming community to enjoy.
To voice an opinion that you're disinterested in platformers is entirely different than disregarding a series for being old.
And yes, they did call the game's quality into question. One of them called it a "prettier Mario 64." Another said, paraphrasing, that it's a reiteration of the same concept from 20 years ago. That's so far off-base it borders on Pachterism.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileYodariquo said:To voice an opinion that you're disinterested in platformers is entirely different than disregarding a series for being old.
And yes, they did call the game's quality into question. One of them called it a "prettier Mario 64." Another said, paraphrasing, that it's a reiteration of the same concept from 20 years ago. That's so far off-base it borders on Pachterism.
Whether or not platformers have been raised over the foundations laid off 20 years ago without veering too far away from the beaten path is debatable. I believe titles such as Galaxy and LBP are perfect examples of thinking outside the box in order to offer fresh experiences to an eager audience. However, people can be jaded, and can voice their opinions in a poor fashion, especially within the industry.
It's also important to remember that these sites live and die by their page hits, and will be more than willing to stir things up more often than not with these "controversial" statements, in order to draw more attention (and hits) towards them. I believe this roundtable is a perfect example of that. That's why I maintain the notion that these kinds of opinions shouldn't hold this much weight at all.
SteelAttack said:Dvader said:But again, Steel feels that exact same way. So if he was on a podcast will you call him ignorant, bias or stupid?
He probably does.
"On drugs" is the term I would use.
Yodariquo said:SteelAttack said:It rings especially true when analyzing what these guys said. They never put the game's quality into question, just voiced their opinion regarding it.
Then again, this only happens with Mario, the holiest of all sacred cows in gaming, heavy with its golden tits and spewing sweet nectar from its asshole for the gaming community to enjoy.
To voice an opinion that you're disinterested in platformers is entirely different than disregarding a series for being old.
And yes, they did call the game's quality into question. One of them called it a "prettier Mario 64." Another said, paraphrasing, that it's a reiteration of the same concept from 20 years ago. That's so far off-base it borders on Pachterism.
Exactly. It's one thing to not like a genre, or not be into a series and say it's "not for me". Making up retarded false statements about it that sounds like fanboyism or trolling is BS. And these are games journalists?
Here, let me do one for Mass Effect:
"I played games like Mass Effect decades ago on my Atari. They weren't fun then and they aren't fun now. Don't get me wrong, but for the loyalist hardcore fans who will eat everything that Bioware poops out of of golden sacred cow ass, it's good for them. Me, I find Mass Effect just irrelevant to where I am as a gamer. Where is the fun? Is walking about endlessly talking to space puppets fun? Is riding a train fun? I could do without the gay moustache too. *Sigh* call me when Bioware does something other than repetitive KOTOR format, repeated endlessly.
Ryan, out."
Note: I don't even think there is a train in the game, this is the kind of BS that's inserted into these roundtables.
It's the arrogance with how it's said, the false statements, just the whole BS around it.
gamingeek said:Note: I don't even think there is a train in the game
SteelAttack said:However, people can be jaded, and can voice their opinions in a poor fashion, especially within the industry.
It's also important to remember that these sites live and die by their page hits, and will be more than willing to stir things up more often than not with these "controversial" statements
Shifting goalposts. Nobody was arguing differently. The point was they look like idiots.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileHere, let me do one for Little Big Planet 2, or how IGN would do a round table about it.
"Platformers haven't been good since the 80s when I stopped playing. I've grown up since then. Don't get me wrong, but there will always be some loyalist hardcore fans who will eat everything that's pooped out of Sony's 1st parties, it's good for them. Me, I find LBPjust irrelevant to where I am as a gamer. I couldn't help but feel like this was just a prettier version of Pitfall, only the entire game relied on user created content. Why can't I just play levels made by the games desginers?! Was it fun? Absolutely. Have I seen it before? Yes.
When it comes to Little Big Planet 2, I'm slightly more excited than I was with the original , but not by much. I know exactly what I'm going to get: a polished platformer. But for me, there still isn't the hook that I need in gaming. Maybe the Little Big Planet universe just doesn't do it for me. Sure, Sackboy is an endearing character in videogames, but I dislike his design. I sincerely believe that Sackboy's status prevents people from realizing how terrible of a character he is. And when I play a game with characters, I need good characters. Sorry Sackboy!
*Sigh* call me when they actually do something imaginative in a platformer.
Ryan, out."
Now here is a comment from the IGN section by a user:
"I could never get into galaxy. I didn't like the space theme and all the worlds felt small. I don't want to have to enter different levels in the same solar system, I want one big world to explore. Something closer in design to Mario 64.
I did enjoy the storybook and the introduction of the Rosalina character, as saving Princess Peach needed a break. But I just couldn't get into it. I'm sure 2 will be great, but I know this time I can pass on it."
This is how you express yourself like a normal person.
Oh and I read the IGN E3 roundtables on how each company could "win" E3.
On the one hand one of the writers said something like "Yawn, Nintendo can't win with one game, just by doing another tired Zelda showing" and then in the next article the same writer says something like "Microsoft have Halo Reach, how can any other company compete with that? I mean c'mon!"
Yodariquo said:Shifting goalposts. Nobody was arguing differently. The point was they look like idiots.
The point is that who cares? Why are these so-called idiots opinions' given so much weight when they have proven, time and again, that they're not more informed or discriminating than anyone with a critical mind and internet access?
Who cares how they look like? Who cares? And again, I assure you if there was some roundtable like that for ME or LBP nobody would lift an eyebrow. Nobody here would make a thread on them. Such a roundtable would go barely noticed.
Because it's not Mario.
I might be wrong with my perception, but I'm worried these reactions to misguided/misinformed/against the grain opinions or reviews or scores or whatever are because we, as gamers, are so insecure about our hobby that we constantly seek validation from within the ranks of our so-called peers.
gamingeek said:Oh and I read the IGN E3 roundtables on how each company could "win" E3.
On the one hand one of the writers said something like "Yawn,
NintendoMicrosoft can't win with one game, just by doing another tiredZeldaHalo showing" and then in the next article the same writer says something like "MicrosoftNintendo haveHalo ReachZelda, how can any other company compete with that? I mean c'mon!"
Would this elicit the same response from you? Would you stop trusting this shining beacon of critical thinking?
SteelAttack said:gamingeek said:Oh and I read the IGN E3 roundtables on how each company could "win" E3.
On the one hand one of the writers said something like "Yawn,
NintendoMicrosoft can't win with one game, just by doing another tiredZeldaHalo showing" and then in the next article the same writer says something like "MicrosoftNintendo haveHalo ReachZelda, how can any other company compete with that? I mean c'mon!"
Would this elicit the same response from you? Would you stop trusting this shining beacon of critical thinking?
Almost the same yes. The difference being that Halo Reach will be the third Halo game on Xbox 360 whilst Zelda will be the first proper outing this gen, at least 4 years in the making and we haven't seen any of it yet. Whilst we've seen quite a bit of Halo Reach.
So yeah, not quite the same thing, but the same sort of hypocrisy.
Seppuku (切腹?, "stomach-cutting") is a form of Japanese ritual suicide by disembowelment. Seppuku was originally reserved only for samurai. Part of the samurai honor code, seppuku was used voluntarily by samurai to die with honor rather than fall into the hands of their enemies, as a form of capital punishment for samurai who have committed serious offenses, or performed for other reasons that have brought shame to them. The ceremonial disembowelment, which is usually part of a more elaborate ritual and performed in front of spectators, consists of plunging a short blade, traditionally a tantō, into the abdomen and moving the blade from left to right in a slicing motion.
Roundtables. You love em' don't you? It's a quick firing, frank exchange of opinion from the games journalists we know
and trust.Recent roundtables on subjects like the 3DS announcement have frankly baffled me. The most recent read had my brain doing barrel rolls inside my own head. I can't seem to shake the feeling that roundtables are an open forum for journalists to perform virtual Seppuku - shattering their reputations as sane individuals, in one swift hammer blow.
This doesn't come across in most previews or reviews, but when you actually read the opinions by these games writers, from sites you've known for a long time. Do you find that it blows your mind? It's not until they say something really stupid, or ignorant that you realise just how F-ed up that opinion is. And that you've been relying on these peoples opinions for game buying purposes.
It's been a while since Lark Anderson and Daemon Hatfield committed virtual Seppuku in other forms. Why don't we use this thread to log all the future incidents of WTF moments from roundtables?
Let's start by re-living the:
Gamespot Gut reactions to the 3DS announcement.
Super Mario Galaxy 2's Impact: An Editor Roundtable
IGN: Alan Wake Second Opinions