Shamus Young talks nonsense!

[Dr Red]

I'm sorry if you feel I've wronged you. I'm going to leave it here, and I'll say thanks again for your contribution.

 

[Frozengale]

I'm sorry if you feel I've wronged you. I'm going to leave it here, and I'll say thanks again for your contribution.

Okay now your just pulling made up quotes out of thin air. Never said you wronged me. Can someone please explain the Internet and Debate to this kid?

 

[Mikodite]

I'm a long-time lurker who has finally surfaced to voice my annoyance at Shamus Young's recent article about Mass Effect. Prepare for nerd rage; Escapist mods, as I have observed you really seem to dislike it when someone gets the least bit rowdy so I will try to maintain my calm.

His entire article quickly glosses over the plot and chooses to not mention the well-written dialogue or interesting characters, which I feel were developed well. The roster of team members you rack up by end-game is diverse, with many different personalities present - sure, I hated some of them (Jacob, 2-D jarhead) but others I couldn't wait until I could advance their storyline and learn more about them (Thane, the awesome spiritual assassin dealing with his own mortality). He instead chooses to moan about how ridiculous it is that Shepard manages to kill so many Collectors on their own vessel, and how the Collectors could have easily done X, Y and Z to stop him. This is a pointless argument. Any form of entertainment set in a sci-fi universe must be taken with a pinch of salt. No one argues against any Star Wars story line when something utterly unreasonable happens and is attributed to the Force. Nobody churns out a 3-page article of half-considered ranting about the sonic screwdriver that the Doctor wields which functions only when it is in the plot's best interest to do so.

These kind of inexplicable things are often the only way writers can make a riveting story. Would it be that interesting to sit back and press 'A' to just blast the Collector ship out of space? Or would you rather charge in there, discover the tragic fate of the Protheans and kick the Collectors in the face?


N.B I enjoy the majority of Shamus Young's articles, but I feel he was really off the ball on this one. I'm aware that Bioware is an icon of evil for a lot of people right now after the travesty that was Dragon Age 2, but I think they did a good job on Mass Effect 2.

The bolded bit got me going, cux people actually go on for paragraphs stating how stupid it is. In my humble opinion if it doesn't break the suspension of disbelief it doesn't matter.

I'm not going to comment on the incriminating article as I've never played any of the Mass Effect games, all I have to say is that he is entitled to his opinion, and, the 'hate' on the Escapist I have to blame on the fact that contributors to the site content like Yahtzee and Moviebob believe that for things to improve they have to be hard on them, even if the target of there 'rage' isn't that bad: figuring that the creators of these things will take their advise and improve the things. The flip side to this is the obscure things such people bring up that are 'good' are to help give them fame so we can enjoy them too. Yes, there is a degree of nerd rage going on, under the philosophy that just because something is popular doesn't make it good, but remember it is still their humble opinion at the end of the day.

 

[Trolldor]

You fail to give reason to WHY it's such a bad thing that Shamus critiques the game

I think it is good that he critiques the game. I applaud him for trying to find flaws in an almost universally praised game (I know some people don't like it, but it's ratings from most sites tend to be >90%). He does mention some reasonable points about the idiocy of charging on to the Collector ship, but I thought this was an unreasonable argument. If you were to argue against writing like that, no Doctor Who episode review would be without "and then for some inexplicable reason X occured but the Doctor explained it away with nonsensical future science talk, so we were ok with it."

My point is that I find it an odd angle to take with the game. I'll admit my original post was obtuse in some respects, and I'm trying now to see what Shamus was attempting to do in that article. I can see it but it remains very odd, in my mind at least. This relates to my original point that it is a poor article in comparison to his others - this article was contrived, I thought, which made for unpleasant reading compared to his normally fantastic articles.

I never CALLED you a jaded fanboy, I said you were acting like one.

If you say someone acts like a (for example, as I don't want to swear) dog, is it not essentially calling them a dog?

Don't fling your opinion around and ignore other people when they challenge you on it.

Am I ignoring you?

I lol'd. "Universally praised".

Ah man, no really, that was a cracker. Got any other good ones?

 

[Inkidu]

The willful suspension of disbelief is very important here, and critics often have a hard time remember that. Sure DNA takes days or even weeks to actually run and get a match to a specific person, but CSI would be lame then. No doctor gets back their tests first, but House sure would be boring then.

I cut all critics a modicum of slack. They do so much analysis that they often lose touch with some of the more airy sides of media and entertainment.

 

[JDKJ]

I see absolutely no reason why this conversation couldn't have been posted where it was appropriate - namely, in the thread for the article in question.

In future, if you have something to say about a specific piece of work on The Escapist, put your discussion with the thread that goes with that piece of work. Makes it easier on everyone trying to follow your line of thinking, and improves the overall discussion.

It's practically impossible for anyone to say much of anything -- other than sycophantic fawning -- about a specific piece of work on The Escapist without running the risk of incurring moderator wrath because your posting rules effectively limit what anyone can say to constructive criticism:

"We put a lot of work into the content on the site, and if you've just shown up to trample on that hard work, we will remove your comments and ask you to leave. Constructive criticism is welcomed; negativity for its own sake is not."

How can anyone ever voice a dissenting opinion about the Escapist's content if that opinion has to include "constructive criticism?" "Mr. Young, your opinion about "X" sucks" would run afoul of your posting rules. What's the alternative? "Mr. Young, your opinion about "X" sucks and I suggest that in the future you try to form an opinion that doesn't suck." Does that do the trick?

Instead of encouraging the OP to work his way towards a ban by telling him to post his dissenting opinion in the thread that goes with the work, perhaps you should tell him the rationale and intent which apparently underlies the "constructive criticism only" rule: the Escapist doesn't want to see any negative criticism of its content and will discourage that sort of commentary by penalizing those who attempt to do so." Might as well call the spade a spade.

 

[Dr Red]

I lol'd. "Universally praised".

Ah man, no really, that was a cracker. Got any other good ones?

No, just some cold, hard facts: http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/mass-effect-2

I don't agree with the idea of the Metacritic system, but it saves me copy/pasting a bunch of reviews.

In my humble opinion if it doesn't break the suspension of disbelief it doesn't matter.

I agree with you, and whilst playing through ME 2 I didn't question Shepard's motives for rushing on to the Collector ship. I only began to think how stupid it actually was when Shamus mentioned it.

 

[Dr Red]

I see absolutely no reason why this conversation couldn't have been posted where it was appropriate - namely, in the thread for the article in question.

In future, if you have something to say about a specific piece of work on The Escapist, put your discussion with the thread that goes with that piece of work. Makes it easier on everyone trying to follow your line of thinking, and improves the overall discussion.

"We put a lot of work into the content on the site, and if you've just shown up to trample on that hard work, we will remove your comments and ask you to leave. Constructive criticism is welcomed; negativity for its own sake is not."



Instead of encouraging the OP to work his way towards a ban by telling him to post his dissenting opinion in the thread that goes with the work, perhaps you should tell him the rationale and intent which apparently underlies the "constructive criticism only" rule: the Escapist doesn't want to see any negative criticism of its content and will discourage that sort of commentary by penalizing those who attempt to do so." Might as well call the spade a spade.

What you say rings true, though I think what the Escapist is attempting to do is to rid themselves of people merely stating their negative opinion without justification. Stating you think something is bad without saying why or suggesting an alternative - the part where Susan stresses constructive criticism is aimed at people who will just whine about an issue without offering a better idea, something which annoys me and many other people immensely.

Sorry for the double post.

 

[Susan Arendt]

I see absolutely no reason why this conversation couldn't have been posted where it was appropriate - namely, in the thread for the article in question.

In future, if you have something to say about a specific piece of work on The Escapist, put your discussion with the thread that goes with that piece of work. Makes it easier on everyone trying to follow your line of thinking, and improves the overall discussion.

It's practically impossible for anyone to say much of anything -- other than sycophantic fawning -- about a specific piece of work on The Escapist without running the risk of incurring moderator wrath because your posting rules effectively limit what anyone can say to constructive criticism:

"We put a lot of work into the content on the site, and if you've just shown up to trample on that hard work, we will remove your comments and ask you to leave. Constructive criticism is welcomed; negativity for its own sake is not."

How can anyone ever voice a dissenting opinion about the Escapist's content if that opinion has to include "constructive criticism?" "Mr. Young, your opinion about "X" sucks" would run afoul of your posting rules. What's the alternative? "Mr. Young, your opinion about "X" sucks and I suggest that in the future you try to form an opinion that doesn't suck." Does that do the trick?

Instead of encouraging the OP to work his way towards a ban by telling him to post his dissenting opinion in the thread that goes with the work, perhaps you should tell him the rationale and intent which apparently underlies the "constructive criticism only" rule: the Escapist doesn't want to see any negative criticism of its content and will discourage that sort of commentary by penalizing those who attempt to do so." Might as well call the spade a spade.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The type of post you're referring to would be just as bannable in this thread as it would in a thread for Shamus' column. The location is irrelevant, it's the content of the post that matters.

Also, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about this post, whether I (or Shamus) agree with it or not. It's presenting an opposing opinion without resorting to name calling or other derisive remarks. Which, again, is the kind of post you're referring to.

We have absolutely no problem with people who don't like or agree with a particular piece of content. We simply ask that you disagree agreeably.

 

[JDKJ]

I see absolutely no reason why this conversation couldn't have been posted where it was appropriate - namely, in the thread for the article in question.

In future, if you have something to say about a specific piece of work on The Escapist, put your discussion with the thread that goes with that piece of work. Makes it easier on everyone trying to follow your line of thinking, and improves the overall discussion.

It's practically impossible for anyone to say much of anything -- other than sycophantic fawning -- about a specific piece of work on The Escapist without running the risk of incurring moderator wrath because your posting rules effectively limit what anyone can say to constructive criticism:

"We put a lot of work into the content on the site, and if you've just shown up to trample on that hard work, we will remove your comments and ask you to leave. Constructive criticism is welcomed; negativity for its own sake is not."

How can anyone ever voice a dissenting opinion about the Escapist's content if that opinion has to include "constructive criticism?" "Mr. Young, your opinion about "X" sucks" would run afoul of your posting rules. What's the alternative? "Mr. Young, your opinion about "X" sucks and I suggest that in the future you try to form an opinion that doesn't suck." Does that do the trick?

Instead of encouraging the OP to work his way towards a ban by telling him to post his dissenting opinion in the thread that goes with the work, perhaps you should tell him the rationale and intent which apparently underlies the "constructive criticism only" rule: the Escapist doesn't want to see any negative criticism of its content and will discourage that sort of commentary by penalizing those who attempt to do so." Might as well call the spade a spade.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The type of post you're referring to would be just as bannable in this thread as it would in a thread for Shamus' column. The location is irrelevant, it's the content of the post that matters.

Also, I see absolutely nothing objectionable about this post, whether I (or Shamus) agree with it or not. It's presenting an opposing opinion without resorting to name calling or other derisive remarks. Which, again, is the kind of post you're referring to.

We have absolutely no problem with people who don't like or agree with a particular piece of content. We simply ask that you disagree agreeably.

That was my initial point: if the post is offensive, then suggesting it be posted elsewhere doesn't make it any less offensive. Your clarifying the fact that it isn't offensive in your opinion now moots my point.

But if the post, as you have now stated, isn't offensive, then perhaps a revision of the "constructive criticism only'" rule is in order. The rule as currently presented makes no mention of "name calling" or "derisive remarks." Seemingly, by its language, it appears to prohibit posts that negatively criticize your content without offering a basis for the criticism and/or some way in which the content can be improved. Moreover, if, as you state, the determinative factor is "name calling" or "derisive remarks," then the rule is seemingly a redundant rule. Aren't name calling and derisive remarks already addressed in the "don't be a jerk" rule (which prohibits calling people names) and the "have respect for others" rule (which prohibits combative, aggressive, or demeaning language)?

And revision so as to make more clear the substance and intent of the rule would also, I think, benefit the moderators, one of whom issued a suspension for the following post critical of Lisa Foiles' Top 5:

"'Kay. That's it. Done. I thought this would get better. In fact, I hoped it would. I like Top Whatever lists, but only when they're done right, and when they're interesting. Top 5 Creepy Spiders? Top 5 Best Dressed Guys? That's just pathetic. The whole thing is stupid, pandering nonsense and all the obvious bits of fanservice (HURRHURR TRADE BLACK OPS IN 'CAUSE WE KNOW YOU HATE IT) borders on sickening. The jokes aren't funny, the lists aren't interesting; the entire thing is just a pandering calamity. Throw an aesthetically attractive chick in to spout what the community wants to hear and you've got gold, right? Any good a show like Extra Credits does to make gaming more intriguing, to make us think about ore than just pushing the buttons on a controller, is completely undermined by this waste of webspace."

That post doesn't strike me as involving either "name calling" or "derisive remarks" (not unless any negative criticism automatically qualifies itself as a "derisive remark").