$40 later...

[DuDe]

I never once mentioned and fail to see what this had to do with your intelligence, and exactly what games are you referring to by games that I like?
...
I don't have a problem with people who like IGN. Each to their own. I personally dislike IGN for these kind of reasons, and so do others. That was all I said.

Oh really? What's that then :

There should be a safety notice. "WARNING: This product contains a quote from IGN. May not be suitable for discerning gamers, or people with an IQ over 6.

As for games that you like that IGN shits on, just re-read your own post :

IGN reviews are often inaccurate. That's the issue not just myself, but many people have with them. (To quote a penny-arcade cartoon) "*IGN score based on incomplete and largely imaginary code."
The fact IGN discussed, for a random example, a new Hoth scene in Empire Strikes Back in their boxset review that it turned out doesn't even exist at all, means I stand by this idea. They often criticise a game, regardless of playability, simply because it doesn't sit at an unnecessary 60fps, which is absurd. IIRC Rogue Leader (Oh crap... another SW related example...) was turned on for that reason, or for a one-in-a-million bug on the training level when many games get away with far worse.

Of course, people always like it when they're agreed with all the time. :whistling

What in the freaking hell are you talking about? It's a god damn gaming site, not a debate, there's no agreement or disagreement here. I read IGN because I look for recommendations that I might get, why the fuck should I be looking for recommendations from people that don't share my taste in games?

 

[Stalkid64]

That first part is called a `joke`. It contains this new ingredient called "Sarcasm" and is a form of commentary on something many people do agree on. I may well have to start including special warnings in future, and rest assured I'll look into doing so to prevent people taking offense at things that aren't offensive. :yawn:

Also while I could point out that I reviewed Rogue Leader for here, and scored it only slightly above average but didn't like it overall... well that just seems redundant. That kind of blows that theory re: games I like away, which is why I pre-picked that example. I pointed out *why* I dislike their review style, which you haven't argued about at all. That I find interesting as usual.

While I'm on that, well, I took recommendations regarding Pro Evolution despite my extreme dislike of football or football games generally from other people who didn't share my views, and found something cool that I never would've otherwise. I listen to all opinions, but I don't necessarily agree with them. If I like something I like it. If I don't like it, I don't like it. I have no real interest in what any site has to say on my personal playing choices.

 

[Allnatural]

That first part is called a `joke`. It contains this new ingredient called "Sarcasm" and is a form of commentary on something many people do agree on.

I don't, so the sarcasm was lost on me. Not that I took offense mind you, as I'm well aware of the attitude many have towards IGN. You've failed to convince me that their style or content is inferior to any other site, so you come off as a reverse-fanboy (best term I could come up with) that feels it's "cool" to dis "insert name of site everyone currently seems to hate" at every opportunity. Please continue to express your opinions as you see fit; I'll write them off as necessary.

 

[Stalkid64]

Well at least you `got` the actual intention behind it, which was the main thing.
I do find it a little downheartening that you don't consider the (c'mon, admittedly large sometimes you must surely notice..?) inaccuracies and such as marking it as inferior content. My thoughts are that these things do mark it down somewhat.
After all, spending X amount on a game isn't something done lightly except by the super-rich, so I find it important that any reporting or reviewing should be kept as accurate as possible; to paint the most honest picture of the game in question, you really do need to get the details right. I hope you'll at least see that as a valid statement on the topic and understand why I think that should be the case.

I've also stated that I consider this my own opinion, as I have no interest in following popular trends in site bashing etc.That particular opinion isn't one I'm alone on, and the joke was directed at the people who share it. I hate it when people take offense at something simply because they don't agree on it, rather than trying to see the other person's point of view. I also believe people's opinions should be respected no matter who is sharing them, and should be treated as such. As I said, you don't have to automatically agree with someone to respect their point of view.

 

[Allnatural]

Well at least you `got` the actual intention behind it, which was the main thing.
I do find it a little downheartening that you don't consider the (c'mon, admittedly large sometimes you must surely notice..?) inaccuracies and such as marking it as inferior content.

I've had my disagreements with IGN's reviews in the past, but chronic, gross inaccuracies? I can't recall such things. Maybe you're right, but in the end it doesn't matter to me. It's just one site, and I never claimed to accept it (or any such site) as gospel.

 

[DuDe]

That first part is called a `joke`. It contains this new ingredient called "Sarcasm" and is a form of commentary on something many people do agree on. I may well have to start including special warnings in future, and rest assured I'll look into doing so to prevent people taking offense at things that aren't offensive. :yawn:

Sarcasm my ass, you were every bit as serious as I am. I've been reading your "holier than thou" attitude flavoured threads from three years now, and when you piss people off you always get defensive and dim it all as "jokes" and "sarcasm". I'm tired of that crap.

 

[Jaz]

I fucking hate IGN.

The only source I ever use on how good a game is, is myself after I've played it.

 

[Stalkid64]

Whoa, careful there. Someone might take that the wrong way and be offended. Er... or the right way in that case. Still lets see just how much flak you get over a remark like that, huh?

Quite how that remark could be taken as anything but a joke I wasn't sure at first... Now rereading it I guess the full on and generally jokey` wording didn't do a good enough job of indicating tongue-in-cheek humour. Perhaps you thought I was being serious by suggesting the game have a written warning like that and that it really should carry one..? :happy:
Honestly how you read things is down to yourself. If you go looking to be offended, you're sure to find something. (That doesn't just apply to you.)

If I cared enough to want to seriously stand up to be `defensive` and say something about IGN, I'd do it. The remark was posted in good humour as I always try to do, and as I always end up having to repeat. Allnatural admitted to seeing that was the intention, and if your own dislike of me has you interpreting a joke as something it sounds like you've taken very personally, that still doesn't make me feel the need to defend myself.

I've stated repeatedly now that it was a joke and nothing more, explained the reasons why I said it, explained that I respect the other point of view even though I don't go along with it, explained why I have that personal view of IGN that I *am* entitled to express on a discussion board, repeatedly explained not to take everything I say seriously... what more can I do?

I wouldn't bother posting out of this `holier than thou` attitude you keep seeing somewhere. I post here for debate and fun, same as I have done since the very early days when such joking was more common. Like you said, you've been reading posts here for at least the past three years or so of that from me. If you haven't seen all that by now, you really have been reading too much beyond the surface. I'm incapable of being anything but completely honest.

 

[Jaz]

Personly I wish the old ET community spirit were restored where debate and fun were the buzz words.

 

[DuDe]

Oh, I feel you're seriously wounded, should I call the WAH-mbulance?

 

[Allnatural]

The remark was posted in good humour as I always try to do...Allnatural admitted to seeing that was the intention

I understood your remark, insomuch as I know the attitude *some* have towards IGN, an attitude I don't share. In the end, it was more like "oh great, here's another witty IGN-hater, la-dee-da."

I thought I properly conveyed that.

 

[Stalkid64]

You did. At least while you were at it, you also managed to avoid taking it as if it were intended as a serious attack on yourself or something like that.

Personly I wish the old ET community spirit were restored where debate and fun were the buzz words.

But emutalk isn't a democracy any more... so I've been told. :bye3:
I think that spirit was brutally murdered a year or two ago... Still, time to work on that.

Ahem. Subtle what now? :saint:

 

[PsyMan]

If by saying "democracy" you mean that everyone can start insulting people, flaming, triple-posting, spamming, asking for/linking to illegal matterial without being at least warned then no, ET is not a democracy. I hope that you get what I mean.

 

[Stalkid64]

Against all of the above for one thing, and why that'd be the result I'm not sure.

 

[vampireuk]

ET has never been a democracy so don't even try to claim it has been.

 

[blizz]

It's a democracy in the same way Belarus is a democracy!

 

[DuDe]

Except we don't even run fake referrendums