I really, really hate to say this, but to all the people sending "serious" emails to Atkinson, please FOR THE LOVE OF GAMES USE THE SPELL CHECKER! I beg of you, at least prove that we can speak and write coherent English before trying to look serious.
I really, really hate to say this, but to all the people sending "serious" emails to Atkinson, please FOR THE LOVE OF GAMES USE THE SPELL CHECKER! I beg of you, at least prove that we can speak and write coherent English before trying to look serious.
This is a good point. We don't need them thinking we are a group of illiterates. Because if you can't grasp a concept as simple as correct sentence structure, they most certainly won't think you're well enough equipped to play games with advanced decapitations. Also I think the only emails been sent should be serious, because if you are threatening to sneak into his back yard and eat his dog, this isn't the mind of a sound person and will only serve to strengthen his resolve and give him ammunition for his, lack of a better analogy, single player campaign against gamers.
Do you guys think that this is a good letter for Mr. Atkinson?
Fuhjem said:
Dear Mr. Atkinson,
While you may believe that gamers and game enthusiasts alike are just a small minority composed of small, helpless children; the real world is quite the contrary.
In the real world, gamers count for around 70% of the worlds population. That 70% counts for human beings of ages from 5 to 33. Thirty-Three years old is not a child, and should be treated as an adult.
A percentage, as you hopefully know, is nothing more than a fancy fraction. 49/100 would be a minority. 50/100 would be an equilibrium. 51/100 is a majority. We account for 70/100. That is MUCH, much more than what is the bare minimum for a majority.
Now I don't know much about how math works in Australia, I'm from another country, but in reality 70% is a very large Majority and you should listen to that majority.
We know of your false promises to allow games an 18+ rating after re-elections. We do not believe them.
But we are legion.
We do not forgive,
and we do not forget.
These ghosts will haunt you, Mr. Atkinson.
Now, please, enjoy the hot steaming load in your inbox.
The end of that had me laughing my ass off. I don't live in Australia myself, but I still think the man is an idiot and I think I might just e-mail him and tell him so.
I'd be amazed if he didn't have a filter or possibly someone to sort through all the hatemail. Even though he's a douche, he doesn't have unlimited time.
Fuhjem said:
Do you guys think that this is a good letter for Mr. Atkinson?
Fuhjem said:
Dear Mr. Atkinson,
While you may believe that gamers and game enthusiasts alike are just a small minority composed of small, helpless children; the real world is quite the contrary.
In the real world, gamers count for around 70% of the Australias population. That 70% counts for human beings of ages from 5 to 33. Thirty-Three years old is not a child, and should be treated as an adult.
A percentage, as you hopefully know, is nothing more than a fancy fraction. 49/100 would be a minority. 50/100 would be an equilibrium. 51/100 is a majority. We account for 70/100. That is MUCH, much more than what is the bare minimum for a majority.
Now I don't know much about how math works in Australia, I'm from another country, but in reality 70% is a very large Majority and you should listen to that majority.
We know of your false promises to allow games an 18+ rating after re-elections. We do not believe them.
But we are legion.
We do not forgive,
and we do not forget.
These ghosts will haunt you, Mr. Atkinson.
Now, please, enjoy the hot steaming load in your inbox.
Change 'worlds population' to Australias, 70% of the worlds population do not play videogames, that's an outrageous claim (the majority of the worlds population are, in fact, living in poverty). I'd probably cut the anonymus part tool, enough people have been threatening him and it's acheived nothing.
Wait so you need a unanimous vote from all six attorney generals to pass this thing? That's ridiculous, like how often does THAT happen? Why not just say "um let's see 5/6? Good enough, let's pass this thing and tell Micheal Atkinson to go fuck himself."
Wait so you need a unanimous vote from all six attorney generals to pass this thing? That's ridiculous, like how often does THAT happen? Why not just say "um let's see 5/6? Good enough, let's pass this thing and tell Micheal Atkinson to go fuck himself."
Wait so you need a unanimous vote from all six attorney generals to pass this thing? That's ridiculous, like how often does THAT happen? Why not just say "um let's see 5/6? Good enough, let's pass this thing and tell Micheal Atkinson to go fuck himself."
I'm a gamer who's absolutely used to games and I found a game like Devil May Cry to be enjoyable. It sounds kind of masochistic but the truth is I can only get off (figuratively speaking) after being spanked and thrown around a few times. A challenge isn't a bad thing, but that still doesn't change the fact that more games need to come with various difficulty settings. Hell, Persona 4 is an RPG and it had an Easy and Expert setting so there really isn't any excuse.
Honesty. It's the key to any good discussion, if more game reviews/discussions could just embrace what you have just done here, the industry would be taken a lot more seriously. While the delusion that games are better if they're "Hardcore" because you die a lot and you get really frustrated over the loss of progress, eventually leading to a greater sense of accomplishment, is fairly and disturbingly popular among fan bases I found it even more unsettling that it was so prevalent in the professional reviews of Demon's Souls. This game is fun, it has a very satisfying one on one combat system, but it's lack of a cohesive story, ineffective targeting and camera system, static level design, hopelessly stupid AI and surprising lack of variety or substance in it's much lauded online implementations and in just about every aspect of the game, can't be ignored. This game is average, it's perceived difficulty and length are artificial and hopefully this whole thing will blow over soon.
Yahtzee, I just lost even more respect for you because of this.
Your post was "Backpedaling, backpedaling, backpedaling, (insult viewers, epithets), backpedaling, (lie about checkpoint length), backpedaling, (insult game for having one standard level of difficulty and about 15 classes that completely change the game and you've only played one), (make excuses for not actually trying to beat game based on review length, when Kotaku specifically delayed their review until their reviewer beat the game in order to provide a more accurate review), backpedaling, end."
You want something you could actually complain about, checkpoint-wise, Yahtzee?
Play BAROQUE.
The game is not as unkind as you continue to insist it is; I posted a point-by-point rebuttal to your claims which you fail to recognize (other than backpedaling on the points which were obvious). But the Shortcut system in the game is exactly like a checkpoint, other than that it cannnot be quick-save abused, so it actually forces you to play the goddamn game.
Also, I don't think the complaints of casual gamers should weigh in on a game like this, because it's obviously not targeting them. that part of your post was just fluff to justify more backpedaling.
Edit:
If you happen to want an accurate review, rather than a comedy routine with smarminess, click here:
I really dig how everybody who is giving Yahtzee shit about not wanting to stomach mindless repetition perfectly bites his criticism of just wanting to prove their gaming superiority.
"THE CHECKPOINTS WEREN'T THAT FAR APART, CHRIST YOU'RE A FUCKING TOSSER, L2P!"
How this is an issue baffles me; "learning the pattern" does not provide ontological satisfaction, finding meaning in a relatable artistic medium does.
On a side note, Kotaku labeling this game as a "new breed of survival horror" because of the fact that you could die at any point is backwards and pretentious. This is precisely what Yahtzee was talking about - the fear of having to waste your time redoing a half hour of game play is the exact opposite of the kind of horror that Silent Hill represents. If I actually died in Silent Hill as many times as I would in Demon's Souls, it wouldn't have half the gravity it does. Not having to play temporarily is a relief for me in Silent Hill - doing so in DS is fucking obnoxious.
So I guess Yahtzee doesn't like the checkpoint system.
The game is still awesome.
The truth is what the game really tests is a persons patience, and not in the bad way. I know there are a lot of players that want nothing to do but quickly beat a level and move onto the next one.
As for me I don't mind playing a level a dozen times for the sake of mastering it.
And it doesn't require me to be beating my head up against a wall to do so, I'd only feel that way if I was one of those that wanted simply to rush through the game.
I want a game that has replay value, and the harder a game tends to be, the more replay value it tends to have.
Still I can understand Yahtzee's critic and the simple fact DS just isn't a game for him....and no I don't think the problem is he's just a pussy....=P
rofl. Ah, egocentrism. when you mix two (or more) different kinds, the explosion rivals what I imagine matter/antimatter interaction must be like.
FWIW, I've noticed that my level of tolerance is about 10-15 minutes between save points. Any more than that and a failure results in a substantial impact on the time I can allot to my personal recreation on any given day... and that time is very precious to me.
While I don't necessarily prefer the 'no-punishment-for-dying' game mechanic (BioShock, for example), I find it far more tolerable than the overly harsh punishment variety. Why? Because I'll still try to not die-- but maybe that's just me. Never even once did I do a berzerker charge on a Big Daddy in BioShock over and over next to a VitaChamber because, while I knew I could've, I wouldn't have felt like I really succeeded in beating the game if I had used that sleazy tactic.
That is called self-control, and I much prefer it over games that take the choice away from you and inflict a substantial time penalty-- particularly those that have 'unavoidable insta-kill' mechanics in them... it's very simple: out of my day, I get about 2 hours to have fun. 30 minutes between checkpoints means that if I screw up 3 times, I have spent 2 hours being frustrated, and no time left for relaxation or entertainment.
I'm sorry; that's just not recreation to me, and it's not the sort of gamble I like to engage in.
All that being said, I'll probably take a spin at DS over at my friend's house. He really enjoys it, and he usually isn't quite as good a gamer as I am, so maybe Yahtzee is being a bit hyperbolic... (but that doesn't mean his point completely lacks validity however.)
As I said, 30 minutes is an exaggeration. He seems to think that only nexus teleport points count as checkpoints, when there is a shortcut (if you explore the goddamn level instead of just trying to Rambo through to the end within 10 minutes of starting that prevents you from needing to repeat the first area, followed by a second that takes you almost directly to the area which opens the boss door.
Just about every level has those, you just have to find them and use them.
The shortcut system is just a way to prevent people from abusing quick-saves. That's it. That's all.
I don't think Yahtzee has played Ratchet: Deadlocked. That one had the player choose a difficulty level right off the bat and started out with four difficulty levels, opening the fifth level after beating the game once through. Unfortunately, the highest difficulty level wasn't so hard, since you kept all health, weapons and money from the first iteration. Still, they did do exactly what he asked for.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
