Last edited:
Zero Punctuation Top 5s...
- Thread starter mossfoot
- Start date
Well, that all depends on what you want to get out of it, wouldn't it? If someone only talked about the multiplayer, would that be an any more accurate reflection of the game?
What a solo and open player gets out of it is highly subjective. I always play in open, but my exposure to other players is often minimal. Doesn't mean I'm not playing the game right, even though my in-game experience is going to be pretty close to that of Yahtzee's.
Fooled me. How do you figure it's only alpha?
Alpha = Long gone, you have missed the train, the bus and the taxi left since you were taking too long.
Beta = 3 weeks closed beta in December.
Early access = Yes, Horizons content is still being added, Horizons is a season of updates lasting 1 year.
Following your logic Fallout 4 is also still in Alpha because there are still DLC and updates being released.
We are very off topic so I'm stopping here.
On topic bit:
Saw this myself today but you beat me to posting about it. Yeah it's quite interesting as Yatzee is very critical of all games and does give quite a jaded view of most. I'm interested to see if he will do another video a few years on like he did for Faster Than Light, will be interesting to see the development changes. I'm also looking forward to no-mans sky and star citizen being released and reviewed. (Note I support all space/flight games since there's so few these days. With limited cash invested in Elite first as it was looking the most promising and I will be getting the others as cash and development permits)
Last edited:
The problem here is that the reviewer did not give the game a full representation, he should have talked about both the multiplayer and single player aspects of the game and their merits and flaws. My statement stands for no more and no less.
Last edited:
To be fair you don't call a sewage technician to re-paint your bathroom, and you don't look at zero punctuation to get a multiplayer representation (to paraphrase the man himself).
Yeah it's not a complete representation you are correct, but I'd argue it still covers 90%+ of the game. The only differences between player and NPC combat is the skill of your opponent so it hardly matters when reviewing. The thing he has missed is the wings system allowing for bigger challenges to be done and the increased fun of doing activities and combat as a team. Arguably for reviewing all the game concepts, mechanics and experiences can be gained in solo even if it isn't a "true" game experience.
Last edited:
To be fair you don't call a sewage technician to re-paint your bathroom, and you don't look at zero punctuation to get a multiplayer representation (to paraphrase the man himself).
Yeah it's not a complete representation you are correct, but I'd argue it still covers 90%+ of the game. The only differences between player and NPC combat is the skill of your opponent so it hardly matters when reviewing. The thing he has missed is the wings system allowing for bigger challenges to be done and the increased fun of doing activities and combat as a team. Arguably for reviewing all the game concepts, mechanics and experiences can be gained in solo even if it isn't a "true" game experience.
While I do agree that if people regularly visit the reviewer in question and agree with his opinion, said group of people are most likely anti-multiplayer in one way or another. However, that doesn't excuse the review for being incomplete.
Much of the game's flaws manifest when discussing the multi-player aspect, and as a game that advertise itself to be a MMO, it should be something that gets addressed.
Thus I do not see the issue with my claim that his review is incomplete.
Don't you find it interesting that you more or less find this very line in most topics being discussed? Makes it somewhat... meaningless.
Or you can say that it is the biggest point of controversy, which is even stranger to think that a review ignores it.
I'm not the one that advertised and tried to sell this game as a MMO, am I?
Last edited:
Like I say I agree it's incomplete but I fully disagree that he should complete it.
If I went to a Lamborghini dealership I could argue their shop is incomplete as it doesn't include a 8 seater people carrier although most people would question my sanity rather than the dealership
(and often do)Like I say I agree it's incomplete but I fully disagree that he should complete it.
If I went to a Lamborghini dealership I could argue their shop is incomplete as it doesn't include a 8 seater people carrier although most people would question my sanity rather than the dealership
Then what you're suggesting multiplayer is of less significance, which already implies heavy bias.
A review is to point out a game's merits and flaws.
Doing only the former if circle-jerking, doing only the latter is pointless bashing.
Doing both in relative balance is what constitutes a review.
Edit:
If you like the reviewer, you are perfectly entitled to promote his/her work, but be ready to face the flaw of the reviewer in comparison to the purpose of a critic of a game, instead of a promotion of a game, or hating on the game.
Last edited:
The point I am trying to makei s that it is the biggest point to you. Just today I've heared the biggest point is the BGS, balancing, missions, adding NPC life, realism, and now 'the multiplayer aspect'. If it is the biggest thing to you, and you want to discard the review for that reason, fine. But there is no 'biggest point'. There;s hundreds of thousands of people have numerous different perspectives on what ED is, and should be. Heck, plenty folks wouldn't mind the slightest if there were no multiplayer at all. I find it silly when people pretend their personal gripe is the One Big Issue.
Last edited:
Read my wording carefully:
GluttonyFang said:
You point out that the issue of MP is being discussed more or less in most topics, then say that because of its omnipresence, it is meaningless.
To which I point out that because of its omnipresence it is perhaps(read my wording "Or" ) the biggest point of controversy.
I'm perfectly aware of the diverse taste of the community and people that play Elite, I am an administrator of a Triple Elite organization that deals with other player groups and the public as my position within said syndicate, I participate in conversations with other administrators of other Triple Elite groups like the Fuel Rats, Mobius, etc along with the employees of FD. To accuse me of being conceited in my statement and overall interest is the sheerest folly.
I did not dismiss the review as being worthless, merely that it is incomplete, take that strawman and attitude somewhere else, it has no place in an intellectual discussion.
Edit:
In case you didn't read carefully, I have stated that I know the pattern of the review in question and his preference. You can probably infer that I have more or less regularly visit and tune in for his review. Why would I do that if I did not enjoy his personality/review? There is a difference between criticizing someone and bashing someone.
Last edited:
Read 'the line' I quoted again in my first post. I am not referring to your specific version, but the general line: people are posting that [whatever] is the biggest thing in most topics, not whatever you specifically believe it to be. Anyway, it was a minor point and was not supposed to a big attack on your something pointless. Probably my phrasing.
Last edited:
Read 'the line' I quoted again in my first post. I am not referring to your specific version, but the general line: people are posting that [whatever] is the biggest thing in most topics, not whatever you specifically believe it to be.
How does that change your accusation of me being conceited in my expression of criticism on the reviewer?
You first named me specifically and accused me of catering to MP as the my largest point of concern, then proceed to make a general statement about people being conceited in pretending that their personal largest point of concern is the actual "big issue" ?
Do we need an interpreter here for the language barrier?
Nope, I'm saying Yatzee puts the bias towards solo the same way Lamborghini bias towards 2 seated fast things (to keep the comparison). Personally I try to keep a more "open" mind <- yes pun intended
A review doesn't always have to be balanced, if you disagree with the way a reviewer has done a review you are welcome to go elsewhere. Indeed I do like the ZP reviews although I'd never buy/not-buy a game purely because of that. I'd use it as a personal impression and opinion of a game and then do my own research as others should too. He clearly mentions on most of his videos that he doesn't do multiplayer, often stating reasons why so it's hardly like he's deliberately misleading people. Other reviewers only look at multiplayer aspects, they are catering for their audiences (or creating their own audience niche).
You are correct it may be silly of him therefore to review an MMO game, however, as frontier are keen to say all modes are valid and indeed many players never set foot in open. If I was to stoop to a low-ball arguement I'd say 2/3 modes are not MMO but I wouldn't be that pedantic
In any case I'm a little confused why we are arguing here, you seem to be trying to turn this into a "multiplayer is the worst part of Elite" thread rather than a "Well done for getting on an often critical reviewers top 5 list" thread, if you have arguments with his reviewing style/content I'd suggest you take it up with him rather than any viewers although if you watch the credits there is the line "Be sure to let me know how bad I am at opinions" so I doubt any comments will gain much traction
In any case this is too much for me tonight since I'm tired and I'm moving house this weekend. Good luck with whatever your posts were intending to achieve here Fang, looking at other replies on this thread you do seem to be causing a fair bit of controversy although I suppose someone has to. Have a good weekend.
Last edited:
Nope, I'm saying Yatzee puts the bias towards solo the same way Lamborghini bias towards 2 seated fast things (to keep the comparison). Personally I try to keep a more "open" mind <- yes pun intended
A review doesn't always have to be balanced, if you disagree with the way a reviewer has done a review you are welcome to go elsewhere. Indeed I do like the ZP reviews although I'd never buy/not-buy a game purely because of that. I'd use it as a personal impression and opinion of a game and then do my own research as others should too.
He clearly mentions on most of his videos that he doesn't do multiplayer, often stating reasons why so it's hardly like he's deliberately misleading people. Other reviewers only look at multiplayer aspects, they are catering for their audiences (or creating their own audience niche).
You are correct it may be silly of him therefore to review an MMO game, however, as frontier are keen to say all modes are valid and indeed many players never set foot in open. If I was to stoop to a low-ball arguement I'd say 2/3 modes are not MMO but I wouldn't be that pedantic
In any case I'm a little confused why we are arguing here, you seem to be trying to turn this into a "multiplayer is the worst part of Elite" thread rather than a "Well done for getting on a critical reviewers top 5 list" thread, if you have arguments with his reviewing style/content I'd take it up with him although if you watch the credits there is the line "Be sure to let me know how bad I am at opinions" so I doubt any comments will gain much traction
I am here informing people the bias of the reviewer and provide reasoning as to potential bias of the reviewer.
True, there are a lot of reviewers out there, with various degrees of biases, but I'm certain that most people find reviews to be a relatively objective evaluation of the game that provides information for potential customers to make decisions regarding the purchase of the game in question. ED is being advertised as a MMO, so would it not be fair for reviewer to at least brush up on the MMO aspect of the game to better inform the potential customers?
