people who do not agree with him typically have limited gaming experience and or are rather young and do not have the gaming experience to know god games so they dont have a point of reference to what he is expecting from a game.
Your trying to be funny.... right?
not really, no that is the only reason I can think of I am afraid.
a bit by chance it also matches what Worth a Buy channel as said as well as a reason
You understand that reviews are subjective right?
We are all like skittles, different flavors and all.
well 1. I feel the 'subjective' card is thrown around far more then it should as a way out. 2. if what you say is true then nobody would really pay much attention to any review because it would be subjective and 3. it doesnt change what i said
Entertainment is subjective period. What I like someone else may not, what they like I may not. neither is right or wrong, neither is better than the other.
Subjective is just a fact of life.
There is a Canadian movie reviewer that I really like. He's very honest about his likes and dislikes. He loves SciFi as do I, so I like to hear his SciFi reviews because we have similar interests. He would probably score a SciFi movie better than a reviewer with a different interest.
Angry Joe like and dislikes probably aligns with your personal interest and that's great. But to state that people who do not agree with his review are some how inexperienced or incapable is just wrong. Those kinds of statements are just juvenile and foolish.
For people that say stuff like that.. all you have to do is ask them what they're currently playing. Chances are they'll give you something obscure.
playing a game is not a requirement to get a very good understanding of what its like to play.
if what you say is true no review site or youtuber would have much success in life
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I wouldn't say that 6.4 is abysmal, however 3.0 for NMS is abysmal (as if player scores count for anything). Steam's scoring is bad because you either give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down, there's no inbetween. And you see the same on metacritic where people give 0 or a 10. It is absolutely pointless to use player scores for anything but the widest picture possible.
Edit: I see Yahtzee did his review of NMS calling it "Baby's First Elite Dangerous". The website has been down for 12 hours or more because of DDoS attacks....
I think in this video he compares Elite as a game for grown ups and NMS as a toy laptop
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No Mans Sky reception is why Star Citizen will be in a perpetual state of development. and why just about every game for the past 10 years has gotten more funding or raised more money BEFORE it released than after it was released and tried to keep selling the actual product.
Most of it is due to them being total shit product, but some is due to the grab the pitchforks attitude of people who get the game and it isnt exactly what they pictured it would be in their heads. Some of that also due to the lies developers told them.
No Mans Sky reception is why Star Citizen will be in a perpetual state of development. and why just about every game for the past 10 years has gotten more funding or raised more money BEFORE it released than after it was released and tried to keep selling the actual product.
Most of it is due to them being total shit product, but some is due to the grab the pitchforks attitude of people who get the game and it isnt exactly what they pictured it would be in their heads. Some of that also due to the lies developers told them.
NMS reception = highly negative therefore SC will be in a perpetual state of development? hmmmm
The reason I think NMS is a marketing scam from the start and SC is just a poorly mismanaged project is because NMS development side appears to have not done much from the start to finish. SC at least 'appears' to have put more work into the project then NMS has in total
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No Mans Sky reception is why Star Citizen will be in a perpetual state of development. and why just about every game for the past 10 years has gotten more funding or raised more money BEFORE it released than after it was released and tried to keep selling the actual product.
Most of it is due to them being total shit product, but some is due to the grab the pitchforks attitude of people who get the game and it isnt exactly what they pictured it would be in their heads. Some of that also due to the lies developers told them.
I can agree with some of what you're saying, but not much of it. First off, SC must release BECAUSE of pitchforks. By releasing, it automatically puts them on an island where the people with pitchforks can no longer travel.
Secondly, I'm not sure where the comment re: almost every game in the past 10 years being crap came from, but I find that hard to believe. Nostalgia is a powerful thing. SWG is a prime example. DBG all but game swgemu the license for SWG and that has had exactly zero impact on their server volume. Why? It's not really what people want, they just remember it differently than it actually was, or it may have been great at the time. Go back and play something like FF1 and tell me how awesome it is. One of my fave games, so I dropped $10 on it on iOS and played it for all of a couple hours.
Third, developers rarely lie. It's the Internet playing tricks with you. Someone provides you with a perception of the reality that fits with your agenda (that developers lie) and it simply confirms your theory. It's equally as simple for me to go out and find a hundred people confirming that developers DON'T lie. Back in "the day" we had these things called Magazines which were like books only smaller and they were released on a regular basis. They had gaming magazines, too. In these gaming magazines, you would read articles of interviews with developers who often explained their vision. That vision rarely aligned with the final product. Regardless how pissed you got about that, it really only spread among your group of friends. Fable comes to mind, for me, specifically. Either way, a lie would indicate that they were being intentionally deceitful. What is more likely is that they aren't given the slack to actually realize their vision, or the technology isn't available or is too expensive to realize their vision. Big difference.
No I dont get nostalgic I am the first one to say SWG is maybe one of the most over rated games ever. And 75% of the people who claim it was the best game ever made didnt even play it. It had a fairly small pop and it was buggy as hell and there are more forum warriors claiming to have played it than the actual population of the game. At least Pre (when it was the best).
But SC doesnt have to 'release' anything they can be in a perpetual developmental mode, and eventually 'early access'. Both of which have huge protections and defense against all the problems games have these days. I would say most people who are going to buy it have bought it, and most people who have bought ships have bought them, until the next new one comes out. so they dont need to 'release' it they just need SOMETHING people who have already spent money on it can go and experience it.
So as long as the limp along and show the least amount of progress possible their white knights will defend them. Look at that farce of a video that they put out last week. Clearly a lot of problems with it, yet no one cares or they defend it. So if by some miracle they actually do get something like that into their server that people can play, and they add a rudimentary economy and crafting and gathering system, then thats it. They can stop right there and call it good. So theyre in a 'early access' phase maybe just to change up the dialogue a little. You still have that shield of protection and can still continue to sell items and require a sub for 'insider' information. That buys them another 3-5 years. Look at Steam and the 'release' dates of games on there STILL in 'early access'
Not to mention the money they have (allegedly) gained with absolutely nothing to show but speeches and dreams. Give people even a whiff of something tangible and those people will throw more money at them.
The worst thing any game can do these days is actually release. NMS did it because its a stand alone game and early access and all that really doesnt work. They also had to releases because they cant sell DLCs and expansions until they have a core game. Something MMOs used to do but dont have to anymore.
As long as SC doesnt release people can continue to use the same defense for it they ave for the past 5 years. its 'ambitious', it will release when it releases, theyre working on it, its getting better, its early access (when/if it gets there). Basically early access is release without the actual need to make the game playable or optimized. If you thik Chris Roberts hasnt figured that one out youre pretty naive, and he sees how these games that really arent all that bad but had such high expectations that didnt come close to delivering are getting buried by everyone even guys who white knighted them for months or years. So you think he doesnt see those similarities?
Obviously some of the supporters will never say a bad thing but those wouldnt be enough to quell the outrage if he releases something on comparable to what NMS has released, and I dont think what they have now is even close to as "good" as what NMS released. When it is the backlash might be gone, but there will probably be a new game with the same problems and the process starts all over again.
No I dont get nostalgic I am the first one to say SWG is maybe one of the most over rated games ever. And 75% of the people who claim it was the best game ever made didnt even play it. It had a fairly small pop and it was buggy as hell and there are more forum warriors claiming to have played it than the actual population of the game. At least Pre (when it was the best).
But SC doesnt have to 'release' anything they can be in a perpetual developmental mode, and eventually 'early access'. Both of which have huge protections and defense against all the problems games have these days. I would say most people who are going to buy it have bought it, and most people who have bought ships have bought them, until the next new one comes out. so they dont need to 'release' it they just need SOMETHING people who have already spent money on it can go and experience it.
So as long as the limp along and show the least amount of progress possible their white knights will defend them. Look at that farce of a video that they put out last week. Clearly a lot of problems with it, yet no one cares or they defend it. So if by some miracle they actually do get something like that into their server that people can play, and they add a rudimentary economy and crafting and gathering system, then thats it. They can stop right there and call it good. So theyre in a 'early access' phase maybe just to change up the dialogue a little. You still have that shield of protection and can still continue to sell items and require a sub for 'insider' information. That buys them another 3-5 years. Look at Steam and the 'release' dates of games on there STILL in 'early access'
Not to mention the money they have (allegedly) gained with absolutely nothing to show but speeches and dreams. Give people even a whiff of something tangible and those people will throw more money at them.
The worst thing any game can do these days is actually release. NMS did it because its a stand alone game and early access and all that really doesnt work. They also had to releases because they cant sell DLCs and expansions until they have a core game. Something MMOs used to do but dont have to anymore.
As long as SC doesnt release people can continue to use the same defense for it they ave for the past 5 years. its 'ambitious', it will release when it releases, theyre working on it, its getting better, its early access (when/if it gets there). Basically early access is release without the actual need to make the game playable or optimized. If you thik Chris Roberts hasnt figured that one out youre pretty naive, and he sees how these games that really arent all that bad but had such high expectations that didnt come close to delivering are getting buried by everyone even guys who white knighted them for months or years. So you think he doesnt see those similarities?
Obviously some of the supporters will never say a bad thing but those wouldnt be enough to quell the outrage if he releases something on comparable to what NMS has released, and I dont think what they have now is even close to as "good" as what NMS released. When it is the backlash might be gone, but there will probably be a new game with the same problems and the process starts all over again.
Listen, I think I already said before, but I'll say it again. The Los Angeles DCBA has already confirmed they have received complaints with regards to CIG. Currently there are no formal investigations underway. However, if you put yourself on that "radar" then it becomes a "shit or get off the pot" situation because it can escalate quite quickly into a case that the attorney general will begin investigating more thoroughly, and which point full forensic accounting will be performed.
So while TECHNICALLY correct, they don't HAVE to release anything, there is a shit-storm swirling around them and it's not going away until it's released. Since CIG hasn't been as forthcoming as some of the community would like, as far as financial transparency, something tells me that they'd rather NOT have their financials become part of public record.
As far as dragging things out, what am I looking at on steam? If you'd like I would be more than happy to go onto steam and pull out a list of Kickstarter games that released within a year of their EA. Also, you're completely wrong about releasing a game. EA actually deters most people. Go ahead and take a look at the difference between backers and steam owners for ANY Kickstarter game that's released on steam. It's like a minimum 10x sales. Look at ED, Divinity OS, Wateland, Pillars of Eternity. They are literally showing 20, 30, 50 times the number of sales versus the number of backers. I would go as far as to say that there are ZERO games on steam which have realized less than 5 times sales versus their KS campaign backer numbers. Feel free to search out a handful, though. I'd be surprised if you found 1. There are like 300 crowdfunded games on steam, I'm sure you can find one.
I'm sorry, but just saying shit doesn't make it real. Unfortunately for you, I've probably spend hundreds of hours on crowdfunding research, mostly because I'm a data nerd and I have nothing better to do with my time (so unlucky for me too). Either way, you're just talking about shit you have no clue about. Go make some fucking graphs that go up and that would effectively be more relevant than what you're saying here.
Oh, and just for the record, SC will likely be shittier than people believe it will be, the same way that NMS was shitter than people thought it was going to be. This isn't a matter of a game being shitty, it's a product of people hyping a game beyond what is reasonable and beyond what the developer has said. NMS is a perfect example of that.
I see more people in this thread attacking Angry Joe personally, rather than challenging what he said with actual conflicting information.
That only lends to his credibility IMO.
If it was possible to challenge what he was saying then i don't doubt that people would be doing so.
I challenge your opinion to like this subjective thing and to be ridiculously angry and shouting about it.
to be honest if all of this was even remotely as 'subjective' as people pretend this entire conversation about a video game review would not even be happening.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I see more people in this thread attacking Angry Joe personally, rather than challenging what he said with actual conflicting information.
That only lends to his credibility IMO.
If it was possible to challenge what he was saying then i don't doubt that people would be doing so.
I challenge your opinion to like this subjective thing and to be ridiculously angry and shouting about it.
to be honest if all of this was even remotely as 'subjective' as people pretend this entire conversation about a video game review would not even be happening.
Watch his review. Everything he states is coherent documented and well established.
Where exactly is he wrong about NMS ?
Not sure tbh, because he actually plays the games and uses footage of him playing the game showing the problems to back up his points. Even if he dislikes a game, he will find positives to speak about, as he does with No Mans Sky, more than you can say for people on here or other Youtubers. Yeah he does entertain, but it doesn't detract from the solid points he makes both positive and negative. Can anyone say he's lying?
I have a feeling if he liked the game these people would be praising him.
I see more people in this thread attacking Angry Joe personally, rather than challenging what he said with actual conflicting information.
That only lends to his credibility IMO.
I would have happily done so on this review if I had played NMS. Very few people in this thread talking about the review etc. have played NMS.. with the exception of maybe.. 3 or 4 people with 1 off comments, not going into the details either.
I've gone into where he was incorrect on other reviews in other threads - even where he conflicted with other reviewers.
I wouldn't say that 6.4 is abysmal, however 3.0 for NMS is abysmal (as if player scores count for anything). Steam's scoring is bad because you either give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down, there's no inbetween. And you see the same on metacritic where people give 0 or a 10. It is absolutely pointless to use player scores for anything but the widest picture possible.
Edit: I see Yahtzee did his review of NMS calling it "Baby's First Elite Dangerous". The website has been down for 12 hours or more because of DDoS attacks....
You also have to take into consideration that many many more people have bought NMS than elite dangerous. For example.. over 200K players were playing at the same time on steam alone -- slated as one of the best selling games launched on steam ever... Elite Dangerous... was.. nowhere near that.
I mean you can compare the two like you can compare Lego Batman to Batmans Arkham franchise. Both good games for what they are but if you're buying Lego Batman expecting Batman Arkham Asylum you're sure to be very disappointed.
Either way I haven't spent time with NMS so I can't comment on what it is, or what it isn't. The Angry Joe review might be 100% right for all I know, in this ONE instance, which would not be the norm from what I've seen.
I see more people in this thread attacking Angry Joe personally, rather than challenging what he said with actual conflicting information.
That only lends to his credibility IMO.
I would have happily done so on this review if I had played NMS. Very few people in this thread talking about the review etc. have played NMS..
its not possible to talk about the creditably of a review if reviews are 100% subjective.
what a waste of time
Nobody said reviews are 100% subjective. Things like bugs are not subjective. Things like whether a game is actually any fun or whether the Art style is pleasing. Those types of things are subjective.
Now I actually believe that your intelligent enough to understand things like that.
I see more people in this thread attacking Angry Joe personally, rather than challenging what he said with actual conflicting information.
That only lends to his credibility IMO.
I would have happily done so on this review if I had played NMS. Very few people in this thread talking about the review etc. have played NMS..
its not possible to talk about the creditably of a review if reviews are 100% subjective.
what a waste of time
Nobody said reviews are 100% subjective. Things like bugs are not subjective. Things like whether a game is actually any fun or whether the Art style is pleasing. Those types of things are subjective.
Now I actually believe that your intelligent enough to understand things like that.
no they only say things are subjective when they want to whesel out of a debate and then later want to talk about the very same things but objectively.
its funny to watch, the 'subjective' card on these boards is way over used and abused
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Hopefully I'm not the only poor soul to have played to level 999 in Galaga.
You start over at level 1.
Both of these games seem to believe in the theory that the mass of the universe produces enough gravity to make space curve. With that, it's plausible to end up back where you started - true space sim.....
I see more people in this thread attacking Angry Joe personally, rather than challenging what he said with actual conflicting information.
That only lends to his credibility IMO.
I would have happily done so on this review if I had played NMS. Very few people in this thread talking about the review etc. have played NMS..
its not possible to talk about the creditably of a review if reviews are 100% subjective.
what a waste of time
Nobody said reviews are 100% subjective. Things like bugs are not subjective. Things like whether a game is actually any fun or whether the Art style is pleasing. Those types of things are subjective.
Now I actually believe that your intelligent enough to understand things like that.
Bugs are not subjective, but they can be localized to just that one person, or a handful. Thats the major issue with PC gaming in general, what runs well and without an issue on one PC can run terribly or look horrible on another.
I see more people in this thread attacking Angry Joe personally, rather than challenging what he said with actual conflicting information.
That only lends to his credibility IMO.
I would have happily done so on this review if I had played NMS. Very few people in this thread talking about the review etc. have played NMS..
its not possible to talk about the creditably of a review if reviews are 100% subjective.
what a waste of time
Nobody said reviews are 100% subjective. Things like bugs are not subjective. Things like whether a game is actually any fun or whether the Art style is pleasing. Those types of things are subjective.
Now I actually believe that your intelligent enough to understand things like that.
I see more people in this thread attacking Angry Joe personally, rather than challenging what he said with actual conflicting information.
That only lends to his credibility IMO.
I would have happily done so on this review if I had played NMS. Very few people in this thread talking about the review etc. have played NMS..
its not possible to talk about the creditably of a review if reviews are 100% subjective.
what a waste of time
Nobody said reviews are 100% subjective. Things like bugs are not subjective. Things like whether a game is actually any fun or whether the Art style is pleasing. Those types of things are subjective.
Now I actually believe that your intelligent enough to understand things like that.
Intelligence is subjective...
so all those tests they run to measure and quantify intelligence is just horse poop right?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
After reading the article, i have to side with the developers on this one. The media and players hyped themselves up for this.
I prepurchased NMS based on:
a) developer statements both in text and ON camera about certain features NMS would have.
b) in game footage from various builds months before release.
A great deal of said features is missing from the final product.
As a costumer who paid 60 euros i believe that i have the right to a honest answer about what happened and the version i purchased is not the one shown / advertised to me.
This has nothing to do with hype.
I'm talking about the specific hype surrounding the "center of the universe" mystery. The developers didn't hype anything about it. Everyone else did though.
If you have transgressions about anything else, that is understandable, but i wasn't arguing for those.
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I think in this video he compares Elite as a game for grown ups and NMS as a toy laptop
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Most of it is due to them being total shit product, but some is due to the grab the pitchforks attitude of people who get the game and it isnt exactly what they pictured it would be in their heads. Some of that also due to the lies developers told them.
The reason I think NMS is a marketing scam from the start and SC is just a poorly mismanaged project is because NMS development side appears to have not done much from the start to finish. SC at least 'appears' to have put more work into the project then NMS has in total
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I can agree with some of what you're saying, but not much of it. First off, SC must release BECAUSE of pitchforks. By releasing, it automatically puts them on an island where the people with pitchforks can no longer travel.
Secondly, I'm not sure where the comment re: almost every game in the past 10 years being crap came from, but I find that hard to believe. Nostalgia is a powerful thing. SWG is a prime example. DBG all but game swgemu the license for SWG and that has had exactly zero impact on their server volume. Why? It's not really what people want, they just remember it differently than it actually was, or it may have been great at the time. Go back and play something like FF1 and tell me how awesome it is. One of my fave games, so I dropped $10 on it on iOS and played it for all of a couple hours.
Third, developers rarely lie. It's the Internet playing tricks with you. Someone provides you with a perception of the reality that fits with your agenda (that developers lie) and it simply confirms your theory. It's equally as simple for me to go out and find a hundred people confirming that developers DON'T lie. Back in "the day" we had these things called Magazines which were like books only smaller and they were released on a regular basis. They had gaming magazines, too. In these gaming magazines, you would read articles of interviews with developers who often explained their vision. That vision rarely aligned with the final product. Regardless how pissed you got about that, it really only spread among your group of friends. Fable comes to mind, for me, specifically. Either way, a lie would indicate that they were being intentionally deceitful. What is more likely is that they aren't given the slack to actually realize their vision, or the technology isn't available or is too expensive to realize their vision. Big difference.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
But SC doesnt have to 'release' anything they can be in a perpetual developmental mode, and eventually 'early access'. Both of which have huge protections and defense against all the problems games have these days. I would say most people who are going to buy it have bought it, and most people who have bought ships have bought them, until the next new one comes out. so they dont need to 'release' it they just need SOMETHING people who have already spent money on it can go and experience it.
So as long as the limp along and show the least amount of progress possible their white knights will defend them. Look at that farce of a video that they put out last week. Clearly a lot of problems with it, yet no one cares or they defend it. So if by some miracle they actually do get something like that into their server that people can play, and they add a rudimentary economy and crafting and gathering system, then thats it. They can stop right there and call it good. So theyre in a 'early access' phase maybe just to change up the dialogue a little. You still have that shield of protection and can still continue to sell items and require a sub for 'insider' information. That buys them another 3-5 years. Look at Steam and the 'release' dates of games on there STILL in 'early access'
Not to mention the money they have (allegedly) gained with absolutely nothing to show but speeches and dreams. Give people even a whiff of something tangible and those people will throw more money at them.
The worst thing any game can do these days is actually release. NMS did it because its a stand alone game and early access and all that really doesnt work. They also had to releases because they cant sell DLCs and expansions until they have a core game. Something MMOs used to do but dont have to anymore.
As long as SC doesnt release people can continue to use the same defense for it they ave for the past 5 years. its 'ambitious', it will release when it releases, theyre working on it, its getting better, its early access (when/if it gets there). Basically early access is release without the actual need to make the game playable or optimized. If you thik Chris Roberts hasnt figured that one out youre pretty naive, and he sees how these games that really arent all that bad but had such high expectations that didnt come close to delivering are getting buried by everyone even guys who white knighted them for months or years. So you think he doesnt see those similarities?
Obviously some of the supporters will never say a bad thing but those wouldnt be enough to quell the outrage if he releases something on comparable to what NMS has released, and I dont think what they have now is even close to as "good" as what NMS released. When it is the backlash might be gone, but there will probably be a new game with the same problems and the process starts all over again.
That only lends to his credibility IMO.
Listen, I think I already said before, but I'll say it again. The Los Angeles DCBA has already confirmed they have received complaints with regards to CIG. Currently there are no formal investigations underway. However, if you put yourself on that "radar" then it becomes a "shit or get off the pot" situation because it can escalate quite quickly into a case that the attorney general will begin investigating more thoroughly, and which point full forensic accounting will be performed.
So while TECHNICALLY correct, they don't HAVE to release anything, there is a shit-storm swirling around them and it's not going away until it's released. Since CIG hasn't been as forthcoming as some of the community would like, as far as financial transparency, something tells me that they'd rather NOT have their financials become part of public record.
As far as dragging things out, what am I looking at on steam? If you'd like I would be more than happy to go onto steam and pull out a list of Kickstarter games that released within a year of their EA. Also, you're completely wrong about releasing a game. EA actually deters most people. Go ahead and take a look at the difference between backers and steam owners for ANY Kickstarter game that's released on steam. It's like a minimum 10x sales. Look at ED, Divinity OS, Wateland, Pillars of Eternity. They are literally showing 20, 30, 50 times the number of sales versus the number of backers. I would go as far as to say that there are ZERO games on steam which have realized less than 5 times sales versus their KS campaign backer numbers. Feel free to search out a handful, though. I'd be surprised if you found 1. There are like 300 crowdfunded games on steam, I'm sure you can find one.
I'm sorry, but just saying shit doesn't make it real. Unfortunately for you, I've probably spend hundreds of hours on crowdfunding research, mostly because I'm a data nerd and I have nothing better to do with my time (so unlucky for me too). Either way, you're just talking about shit you have no clue about. Go make some fucking graphs that go up and that would effectively be more relevant than what you're saying here.
Oh, and just for the record, SC will likely be shittier than people believe it will be, the same way that NMS was shitter than people thought it was going to be. This isn't a matter of a game being shitty, it's a product of people hyping a game beyond what is reasonable and beyond what the developer has said. NMS is a perfect example of that.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I've gone into where he was incorrect on other reviews in other threads - even where he conflicted with other reviewers.
You also have to take into consideration that many many more people have bought NMS than elite dangerous. For example.. over 200K players were playing at the same time on steam alone -- slated as one of the best selling games launched on steam ever... Elite Dangerous... was.. nowhere near that.
I mean you can compare the two like you can compare Lego Batman to Batmans Arkham franchise. Both good games for what they are but if you're buying Lego Batman expecting Batman Arkham Asylum you're sure to be very disappointed.
Either way I haven't spent time with NMS so I can't comment on what it is, or what it isn't. The Angry Joe review might be 100% right for all I know, in this ONE instance, which would not be the norm from what I've seen.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Now I actually believe that your intelligent enough to understand things like that.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
its funny to watch, the 'subjective' card on these boards is way over used and abused
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
How many Quarters did it cost ya?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you have transgressions about anything else, that is understandable, but i wasn't arguing for those.