Kavachi said:
But because you did that you started to contradict earlier statements you made with your other statements. For example you said how I'm defending Yahtzee's opinion by sharing my own.
Demonstrate where this occurred.
Kavachi said:
Also, about what you said in him being inacurate with false facts; you can say all you want, but the things he said are true.
There are two questions that arise from this;
1) Do you have evidence that is not anecdotal, or appeals to Croshaw's authority, that validate his claims?
2) Even if the things he states are true; do they give an accurate representation of the full game experience? You don't give a test an F because someone got the first two questions wrong. To say that the game gave a bad first impression within 30 minutes to two hours of play (a point I won't contest) is no excuse to write the entire game off as horrid. The focus on some of the activities he describes shifts greatly in favor of other activities he never experienced until writing the second page of his article. Other games do this too, but in the opposite direction; remember how Brutal Legend had a great intro before being bogged down by awkward RTS confusion?
Kavachi said:
The only thing that he just over-exxagurated way too much is the tutorial time. However a tutorial one hour or even more long (this statement has been taken from earlier posts) is still ridiculous. He was trying to prove a point.When you plead to me to stop using a specific argument using an invalid argument yourself. This is kind of hypocritical to do. Just saying.
First off, exaggerations are dangerous when written as fact. Croshaw's tone of voice can't be objectively 'read' when he writes an Extra Punctuation article, especially when he claims, in his writing, that the MHtri fan community stated this figure and not him. It's in poor form. This is doubly-true given that Extra Punctuation articles tend to be more of a serious, somber retrospect than his usual voice-recorded game rants.
Game pacing varies and there are no 'right' ways to pace games. Some want the instant gratification fast cinema experience, and some want the slow-building novel experience that carries more depth in exchange for time and attention span investment. Games as a medium have the benefit of choosing whichever path they desire for whichever audience they're intended for, and there are pros in additions to cons that can be brought up for the initial slow pacing of some games. Basically, you cannot state that 'one hour' is too long and therefore too long. A more appropriate statement might be that it's outside of one's personal taste, or doesn't satisfy mass appeal - though honestly, is mass appeal necessary for a 'good' game?
I don't know how you get the impression that I am 'pleading' you to stop doing something. I'm merely asserting that logic errors exist in your statements. You also haven't really demonstrated where mine exist with any real coherency? To me, this strikes me largely as an excuse from you for an amusing bout of internet name-calling. Just saying.
