Max Payne review at GamePen
Jonah Falcon
out of touch (sigh). Ah well, lost causes are the only causes worth fighting
for.
Or something.
http://gamepen.ugo.com/gamepen/review.asp?itemid=1106
Jonah Falcon
ToothyByte
Jonah Falcon wrote:
>
> Well, the lone negative review for Max Payne is finally live. I guess I'm
> out of touch (sigh).
No,
you are just a moron from a puny website trying to get attention and
traffic.
Works for a while so I'm not blaming you for trying.
Otherwise your opionion is worthless.
ToothyByte.
Jonah Falcon
> Otherwise your opionion is worthless.
Thought the Soviet Union was disbanded. LOL
Jonah Falcon
Jamie
ToothyByte <tooth...@nomail.mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B8047E4...@nomail.mediaone.net...
I love Max Payne, despite its shortness I thought it was an awesome
experience. His opinion however is not worthless, everyone is entitled to
their say. You dont have to agree but you dont have the right to silence
him. Anyway, whats wrong with him trying to get some traffic, whats the
point in him doing a website if he cant advertise it?
Jamie
--
www.tfhgaming.com
www.envy.nu/manicsguitar/index.htm
Devo
Jonah is quite an avid gamer and usually gives a good review, I can
tell that from being in this NG. Either way I'm glad he gave an
honest opinion and not some school girl gushing bullshit like the
other sites who's reviewers played the game for 10 minutes and then
gave it 95%.
--------------
Devo
ToothyByte
Jamie wrote:
> I love Max Payne, despite its shortness I thought it was an awesome
> experience. His opinion however is not worthless, everyone is entitled to
> their say.
too bad Jamie your reading comprehension lacks here and there.
Worthelss means useless, it does not mean he is not entitled to a
spread his useless words,
He is so utterly biased it is completely worthless reading what he
wants to say. Anybody who says MP may be the worst action game ever
is acomplete idiot. nuff said.
Wanna defend the idiot? Well be my guest, like minds think alike.
ToothyByte.
George Mealer
news:9lpgoe$i4s$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net:
> http://gamepen.ugo.com/gamepen/review.asp?itemid=1106
If you had to spend 1.5 hours on a relatively simple and scripted sequence,
I begin to see your frustration. While MP is by no means the wonderfest it
was hyped to be, I detect that part of the problem is simply that you suck.
Incidentally, you do yourself no credit by criticizing the "badly
implemented and laggy" multiplayer mode when, in fact, none exists. I
suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. Your site's reviews have always been
sloppy.
Post more Therapy sessions, assuming you still have Therapy writers.
They're about the only thing your site ever did worth a damn.
Geo
--
George Mealer
geo*AT*snarksoft*DOT*com
C is for Cthulhu, that's good enough for me
Oh, Cthulhu, Cthulhu, Cthulhu starts with C!
ToothyByte
Jonah Falcon wrote:
>
> > Otherwise your opionion is worthless.
>
> Thought the Soviet Union was disbanded. LOL
Oh trying to play the martyr, ja?
ToothyByte.
Jonah Falcon
> I love Max Payne, despite its shortness I thought it was an awesome
> experience. His opinion however is not worthless, everyone is entitled to
> their say. You dont have to agree but you dont have the right to silence
> him. Anyway, whats wrong with him trying to get some traffic, whats the
> point in him doing a website if he cant advertise it?
It's not my website - it's just one I write reviews for. I do take pride in
my work, however.
Jonah Falcon
ToothyByte
Devo wrote:
>
> honest opinion and not some school girl gushing bullshit like the
> other sites who's reviewers played the game for 10 minutes and then
> gave it 95%.
Poor little myopic Devo,
get some glasses dude, and some gray cells too
while you're at it.
he has exactly the "school girl gushing bullshit attitude"
only he turned it around for the shock value, who knows
maybe works better that way.
Simpletons like you think this is must be
some daring, honest undertaking.
Ouch.
ToothyByte.
Jonah Falcon
"George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9102AB300958...@208.201.224.154...
> "Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:9lpgoe$i4s$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> > http://gamepen.ugo.com/gamepen/review.asp?itemid=1106
>
> If you had to spend 1.5 hours on a relatively simple and scripted
sequence,
> I begin to see your frustration. While MP is by no means the wonderfest
it
> was hyped to be, I detect that part of the problem is simply that you
suck.
I suck? How so? I beat the game - but the "scripted sequence" was simply
poorly concieved.
Are you saying that anyone who isn't frustrated by the scripted sequence
sucks?
> Post more Therapy sessions, assuming you still have Therapy writers.
If you want to pay them, be our guest.
> They're about the only thing your site ever did worth a damn.
You obviously didn't read the Heroes of Might & Magic IV preview.
Jonah Falcon
ToothyByte
Jonah Falcon wrote:
> > Post more Therapy sessions, assuming you still have Therapy writers.
>
> If you want to pay them, be our guest.
Man what an arrogant attitude ...
you see the idea was that instead of paying you
the site they should pay them,
get it?
ToothyByte.
ToothyByte
George Mealer wrote:
> Incidentally, you do yourself no credit by criticizing the "badly
> implemented and laggy" multiplayer mode when, in fact, none exists. I
> suppose I shouldn't be too surprised.
I missed that, I could'n finish reading the pointless ramblings.
Bwahahaha!
Laggy multiplayer
Har-har-har,
Here is a bet, he will correct this mistake ASAP
without ever mentioning in the review that he rewrote it.
I have seen it done to many GamePen reviews.
ToothyByte.
Jonah Falcon
>
>
> Jamie wrote:
>
> > I love Max Payne, despite its shortness I thought it was an awesome
> > experience. His opinion however is not worthless, everyone is entitled
to
> > their say.
>
As are dictionaries and spelling, apparently.
>it does not mean he is not entitled to a
> spread his useless words,
Jawohle, mein Furher. Let's go burn some books.
>
> He is so utterly biased
Biased? Towards what? My friend, I cannot be biased against something
without being biased FOR something - if you're saying I'm biased against
poorly concieved games, and am biased for well-made innovative games, you're
absolutely right. :)
>it is completely worthless reading what he
> wants to say.
So... you don't want to silence me, you just want no one to read the review.
Oh, yeah. That's totally different. LOL
> Anybody who says MP may be the worst action game ever
> is acomplete idiot. nuff said.
Obviously, you are the one who can't read. I'm not surprised, but let me
refresh your memory on the last two sentences:
"In the style of PC Gamer's David Manningesque vocabulary, Max Payne is the
most forgettable action game in history. (I exaggerate, of course. It's
only the most forgettable action game of the year.) "
You obstensibly are incapable of understanding a "callback" - it was my
mocking reference to PC Gamer proclaiming it "THE MOST IMPORTANT ACTION GAME
EVER!"
Let's see, didn't you say "too bad Jamie your reading comprehension lacks
here and there." Physician, heal thyself.
> Wanna defend the idiot? Well be my guest, like minds think alike.
Hm. Mm-mm. In other words:
"Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot!"
You're a pretty entertaining guy.
Jonah Falcon
Barney Gumble
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9lpk8b$dpo$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > They're about the only thing your site ever did worth a damn.
>
> You obviously didn't read the Heroes of Might & Magic IV preview.
Jonah, you snipped out his comment about "bad and laggy multiplayer". Did you
actually write that in the review?
Jonah Falcon
>
>
> Devo wrote:
> >
> > honest opinion and not some school girl gushing bullshit like the
> > other sites who's reviewers played the game for 10 minutes and then
> > gave it 95%.
>
>
> Poor little myopic Devo,
>
> get some glasses dude, and some gray cells too
> while you're at it.
>
> he has exactly the "school girl gushing bullshit attitude"
> only he turned it around for the shock value, who knows
> maybe works better that way.
I don't do reviews for "shock value". I do it because I love games, and the
fact of the matter is, I'm not going to reward bad efforts.
The thing is this: bad reviews hurt the website. For one, it pisses off the
developer, the publisher and others in the business - and Activision once
stopped sending review copies because we had the temerity to give Vampire:
the Masquerade a negative review. The worst part was I had to buy Call to
Power II - and give IT a negative review, as well. (Thankfully, the guys at
Raven were cool enough to pass us along a copy of Star Trek Voyager: Elite
Force, which we gave a 4.5 star review for - not because Kenn Hoekstra sent
us a copy, but that it was a FUN GAME.)
If you think I give a negative review to seem "hip" or "cool", you're way
off-base.
Conversely, when people (including myself) give positive reviews, we tend to
be treated better, get favors, and money indirectly (by selling advertising
space and by being mentioned on the box.) A lot of reviewers I know
specifically give positive reviews for that very purpose - and not just in
computer games. Books, movies, music... There is a cottage industry to
giving positive reviews - I'm sure you've all heard of Bill Diehl.
Hell, if I or another GamePen reviewer give a game 4.5 or 5 stars (earning
our GamePen badge), you bet we send the developer and publisher the badge,
with the hope of having the badge seen - as it was on Steel Beasts' box. But
there's the temptation and the rub.
You may have noticed we've given quite a few games 4 stars in recent weeks -
not enough for a GamePen badge. Wouldn't it be soooo easy to just nudge the
4 star review into a 4.5 star review, thereby awarding a badge to possibly
be seen in advertisements? THAT is the danger of pandering - which no one at
GamePen will do, EVER.
We don't give bad reviews for our health. It's unhealthy to give bad reviews
economically. The more good reviews we are able to award, the better off we
are.
It's even unhealthier to award bad games good reviews, because whether we
like it or not, people do pay for games based on reviews. If I gave Max
Payne 5 stars, it devalues the other 5 star games.
I don't give 1.5 stars lightly. I couldn't stand Black & White, but there
was some enjoyment to be had, however brief it was. I recognized several
unique and stunning gameplay features, especially the Creature AI. That's
why I awarded it 3 stars. It, in the end, wasn't a good game, but it wasn't
a terrible one.
That said, Max Payne is a terrible game. I frankly don't understand the 90+
reviews for it - they all ring untrue, like Time magazines proclamation of
Black & White being the BEST GAME EVER! I refuse to believe my fellow
reviewers could seriously think that Max Payne is some step forward any more
than Unreal (the first one) was a step forward. The only other review site I
trust these days is Computer Games Magazine/CG Online. (I just hope it
doesn't turn into "Et tu, Brutus?")
Again, if I'm the lone dissenting voice in a crowd, that's fine with me. I'm
not being a martyr, nor am I trying to be a backlash reaction. My only hope
is that the developer and publisher reads (and by the way, has read) my
review and understands the points I'm trying to make, and that is this:
a) Gimmicks are not gameplay advances. They're just GIMMICKS
b) Story and performance is important if you're trying to make a cinematic
experience
Incidentally, I don't get paid by GamePen or anyone else, save getting a
free game. None of the reviews at GamePen are paid for, though we have some
professional writers on staff (including two new writers who have works for
major magazines and sites.)
Didn't know this was going to be a speech. I'll get off the soapbox now. :-D
Jonah Falcon
Jonah Falcon
So, just wondering - I haven't read the CSIPCA FAQ - is ToothyByte the
official jester of the group? Is he paid? Man, he's entertaining...
Jonah Falcon
Jonah Falcon
"Barney Gumble" <jit...@home.com> wrote in message
news:F3Zf7.55769$281.9...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Uh, yes, I wrote the review. What are you talking about?
Jonah Falcon
George Mealer
> Jonah, you snipped out his comment about "bad and laggy multiplayer".
> Did you actually write that in the review?
Heh. He's changed it now to "no multiplayer to speak of" (still
wrong...there's none period). I wish I'd c/p'd the entire original quote,
but the "bad and laggy" multiplayer was in the initial version.
Pretty funny when the reviewer is so determined to damn every aspect of the
game that he makes up parts that aren't there.
Jonah Falcon
"George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
> "Barney Gumble" <jit...@home.com> wrote in
> news:F3Zf7.55769$281.9...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com:
>
> > Jonah, you snipped out his comment about "bad and laggy multiplayer".
> > Did you actually write that in the review?
>
> Heh. He's changed it now to "no multiplayer to speak of" (still
> wrong...there's none period). I wish I'd c/p'd the entire original quote,
> but the "bad and laggy" multiplayer was in the initial version.
>
> Pretty funny when the reviewer is so determined to damn every aspect of
the
> game that he makes up parts that aren't there.
???
Jonah Falcon
Jonah Falcon
"George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
> "Barney Gumble" <jit...@home.com> wrote in
> news:F3Zf7.55769$281.9...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com:
>
> > Jonah, you snipped out his comment about "bad and laggy multiplayer".
> > Did you actually write that in the review?
>
> Heh. He's changed it now to "no multiplayer to speak of" (still
> wrong...there's none period). I wish I'd c/p'd the entire original quote,
> but the "bad and laggy" multiplayer was in the initial version.
>
> Pretty funny when the reviewer is so determined to damn every aspect of
the
> game that he makes up parts that aren't there.
>
> Geo
Well, I guess this being a newsgroup, I might as well admit it - there is no
"Jonah Falcon". It's a Trilateral-backed site determined to bring Cthulhu,
chupacabras and Greys into the world. Two Men in Black will be knocking on
your door later with a neuralyzer.
Jonah Falcon
(Sigh. I miss playing the original Illuminati card game).
George Mealer
> I suck? How so? I beat the game - but the "scripted sequence" was simply
> poorly concieved.
>
> Are you saying that anyone who isn't frustrated by the scripted sequence
> sucks?
Well, no. I found it frustrating, too, for the 15 minutes or so that it
held me. But given that it wasn't timed, and you could've quicksaved at
any point through, 1.5 hours is kind of absurd. Also, you never seemed to
figure out the camera (I had no problem peeking around corners by inching
along the wall), and since you gave no attention to the various weapon
effects, I can only assume you never learned how to use them properly.
Actually, you give little attention to the gameplay period; you were too
busy harping on the (admittedly poor, IMO) writing and acting and the lack
of pain skins.
>
>> Post more Therapy sessions, assuming you still have Therapy writers.
>
> If you want to pay them, be our guest.
>
*shrug* I have no idea how your site is structured and what your
compensation scheme was, but I assume that after the point it's part of
<fanfare> the UGO networks and at the point I'm getting bombarded by banner
ads, it's no longer a labor of love. I'm just pointing out that the
Therapy sessions brought me to your site years ago, and have been the only
thing to impress me over those years. Your reviews lag behind your
competition by months, and your choice of review titles occasionally
inexplicable. I mean, c'mon...Harvest Moon? That's been out for nearly a
year.
> You obviously didn't read the Heroes of Might & Magic IV preview.
Yeah, OK. I'll give you that. The previews are occasionally pretty
decent, and you did a good job on that one.
Your review still blows, though. It's every bit as unbalanced as any of
the major-label asskisses MP got, if not more so. The major mags, at
least, concentrated on what I feel is the most important aspect of the
game...the gameplay...and glossed over the wrap story. You managed to put
all your emphasis on what is, ultimately, the least important part of the
game.
George Mealer
> Well, I guess this being a newsgroup, I might as well admit it - there
> is no "Jonah Falcon". It's a Trilateral-backed site determined to bring
> Cthulhu, chupacabras and Greys into the world. Two Men in Black will be
> knocking on your door later with a neuralyzer.
I'm confused, Jonah. Are you actually denying that your initial version of
the review criticized the multiplayer aspect of the game? as "bad and
laggy"? I certainly read it with my own two eyes.
Barney Gumble
> > Jonah, you snipped out his comment about "bad and laggy multiplayer". Did
> you
> > actually write that in the review?
>
> Uh, yes, I wrote the review. What are you talking about?
Can't believe you found my statement so hard to follow. I asked if you actually
wrote that, regarding the multiplayer quality. I'll try it again:
Did you make such a comment about the multiplayer being "bad and laggy" in an initial
review, then changed it later? You (apparently) criticized a gaming feature of the
game when it didn't even exist. I find this hard to believe, so I'm asking you
directly instead of immediately taking the poster at his own word.
Jonah Falcon
circular arguments. (sigh)
Jonah Falcon
"George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9102B8642E19...@208.201.224.154...
Jonah Falcon
"George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
> "Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:9lpk8b$dpo$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> > I suck? How so? I beat the game - but the "scripted sequence" was simply
> > poorly concieved.
> >
> > Are you saying that anyone who isn't frustrated by the scripted sequence
> > sucks?
>
> Well, no. I found it frustrating, too, for the 15 minutes or so that it
> held me. But given that it wasn't timed, and you could've quicksaved at
> any point through, 1.5 hours is kind of absurd. Also, you never seemed to
> figure out the camera (I had no problem peeking around corners by inching
> along the wall), and since you gave no attention to the various weapon
> effects,
I'm very aware of weapon effects. But honestly, third person is not good for
first person, because you have such a smaller, inaccurate field of vision.
>I can only assume you never learned how to use them properly.
If that were true, how could I finish the game? (And no, I don't use God
mode)
> Actually, you give little attention to the gameplay period; you were too
> busy harping on the (admittedly poor, IMO) writing and acting and the lack
> of pain skins.
Or how Max limps if he's hurt, even if nothing touched his legs? I also
didn't mention the ever present problem of people passing through walls. One
fellow was levitating off the ground after I killed him - call Max the Great
Payneini, who can do those kind of magic tricks.
Jonah Falcon
George Mealer
> Is there anything in the review you would like to debate? I'm not into
> circular arguments. (sigh)
>
I would -like- you to answer the question, since my own credibility is
apparently now on the line. It's a very simple question. Did you or did
you not criticize the multiplayer portion of the game in the initial
version of the review?
-I- already know the answer to this, but I'd really like you to quit
dancing around the issue and just admit you messed up.
As for a reasoned debate, feel free to respond to my other post.
George Mealer
> I'm very aware of weapon effects. But honestly, third person is not
> good for first person, because you have such a smaller, inaccurate
> field of vision.
You garbled your sentence, but I think I understand what you're saying, and
I agree. OTOH, first person wouldn't be very good for the bullet-time
sequences. Every game makes compromises. This, of course, has been
debated to death here already.
> If that were true, how could I finish the game? (And no, I don't use
> God mode)
*shrug* Someone posted that he was working through New York Minute with
just the baseball bat, IIRC.
> Or how Max limps if he's hurt, even if nothing touched his legs? I also
> didn't mention the ever present problem of people passing through
> walls. One fellow was levitating off the ground after I killed him -
> call Max the Great Payneini, who can do those kind of magic tricks.
These are all valid points, and your review would have been much better had
you included them there.
Jonah Falcon
"George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
> "Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:9lpotd$vov$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> > Is there anything in the review you would like to debate? I'm not into
> > circular arguments. (sigh)
> >
>
> I would -like- you to answer the question, since my own credibility is
> apparently now on the line. It's a very simple question. Did you or did
> you not criticize the multiplayer portion of the game in the initial
> version of the review?
I did criticize the multiplayer - it's in the review. It's all about
replayability.
"In addition, there is no multiplayer to speak of, thus shortening its
replay value."
I know that's a vague assessment, but I couldn't find any multiplayer - and
that was a way of covering my ass in case somehow I overlooked it. :)
By the way - I'm well aware that once you finish the game, you can play
again on different difficult levels. That's not replayability - that's just
masochism. hehe Humor off, that's a poor substitute.
Jonah Falcon
Jonah Falcon
"George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
> "Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:9lpp31$vo1$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> > I'm very aware of weapon effects. But honestly, third person is not
> > good for first person, because you have such a smaller, inaccurate
> > field of vision.
>
> You garbled your sentence, but I think I understand what you're saying,
and
> I agree. OTOH, first person wouldn't be very good for the bullet-time
> sequences. Every game makes compromises. This, of course, has been
> debated to death here already.
Bull - how about first person til you activate bullet time, and the game
slips into third person DURING bullet-time? Most FPS have a "follow camera"
option, like Unreal Tournament, by the way.
>
> > If that were true, how could I finish the game? (And no, I don't use
> > God mode)
>
> *shrug* Someone posted that he was working through New York Minute with
> just the baseball bat, IIRC.
It's certainly possible, but is it fun?
> > Or how Max limps if he's hurt, even if nothing touched his legs? I also
> > didn't mention the ever present problem of people passing through
> > walls. One fellow was levitating off the ground after I killed him -
> > call Max the Great Payneini, who can do those kind of magic tricks.
>
> These are all valid points, and your review would have been much better
had
> you included them there.
That wouldn't be fair, since no game has properly handled that, from ONI on
down the list. I'm not going to fault Remedy for not solving collision
detection when no one else has.
Jonah Falcon
George Mealer
> I did criticize the multiplayer - it's in the review. It's all about
> replayability.
>
> "In addition, there is no multiplayer to speak of, thus shortening its
> replay value."
*sigh*
Fine. You're determined not to address the original comment.
I repeat my original statement, however. In the -initial- version of the
review that you posted (I read it just after you posted the URL), you
described the multiplayer as "bad and laggy". I remember that specifically
because I quoted it in my comment. I believe you also described it as
poorly implemented, but I won't swear to that part.
After making my post, the review was quietly changed to read as you
quote above.
I have no idea whether you accidentally left in text from pasting in old
HTML or what. I doubt you were actually in a "conspiracy" to give the game
a poor review, at least on a mistake so easily caught. I do resent the
fact that you've refused to own up to the mistake, whether it's in an
attempt to make me look foolish or simply to cover your own ass. It says
worlds about your sense of professionalism.
Pedro Colman-Arrellaga
<jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
>news:Xns9102BB6CC5F6...@208.201.224.154...
>> "Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>> news:9lpotd$vov$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:
>>
>> > Is there anything in the review you would like to debate? I'm not into
>> > circular arguments. (sigh)
>> >
>>
>> I would -like- you to answer the question, since my own credibility is
>> apparently now on the line. It's a very simple question. Did you or did
>> you not criticize the multiplayer portion of the game in the initial
>> version of the review?
>
>I did criticize the multiplayer - it's in the review. It's all about
>replayability.
Are you running for political office somewhere? Your answers to this
rather simple question make you sound like a politician. So far, in the
course of several posts, you've ignored the question (snipped it out of
responses), claimed you misunderstood the question, and just plain
answered other questions you weren't asked. You were accused of writing
that the game had laggy multiplayer in the initial version of the
review. An easy, honest, yes/no type answer would have ended this thread
a dozen posts ago.
P.S. MP is a mediocre game wrapped in some nice graphics, I think I'd
give it 3 stars out of 5. Your review is the polar opposite of all the
big gaming mags' glowing reviews, and almost as far off base.
P.P.S. Why is it that almost no one on usenet admits error? I recall
having done is several times. It's not that difficult, and not doing it
in when you're wrong only makes you look like a bigger fool.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Pedro Colman-Arréllaga | Believing is easier than thinking. Hence
hiss...@cris.com | so many more believers than thinkers.
hiss...@concentric.net | - Bruce Calvert
----------------------------|
| Do I contradict myself?
"The Typhoid Mary of | Very well then, I contradict myself,
the shipping business" | (I am large, I contain multitudes).
| - Walt Whitman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barney Gumble
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9lpq28$t2m$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> I did criticize the multiplayer - it's in the review. It's all about
> replayability.
>
> "In addition, there is no multiplayer to speak of, thus shortening its
> replay value."
>
> I know that's a vague assessment, but I couldn't find any multiplayer - and
> that was a way of covering my ass in case somehow I overlooked it. :)
You've pretty much answered the question for us Jonah. The question has been asked
directly, that being did you criticize the multiplayer as "bad and laggy" initially,
then change it to your statement above when you discovered there actually was no
multiplayer? You've responded with several pathetic attempts at obfuscation, when a
simple yes or no would have sufficed. That being of course, if you had the integrity
to actually admit you made such a grievous error.
You're doing nothing but giving credence to George's accusation with every post.
George Mealer
> Bull - how about first person til you activate bullet time, and the
> game slips into third person DURING bullet-time? Most FPS have a
> "follow camera" option, like Unreal Tournament, by the way.
I'm not reopening this debate. It's been done to death here. I don't have
the issues with 3PS that you do, and let's leave it at that.
> It's certainly possible, but is it fun?
Not for me. But you asked how you could finish the game without the
various weapons. There's very little you can't do with just the baseball
bat, and nothing you can't do with just the pistols, but it'll be a very
flat experience if you play it that way. Did you explore the tactical
difference between a shotgun spray and a stream of bullets from the
assault rifle? For that matter, did you explore the difference between a
sawed-off that reloads once very rapidly and then very slowly, vs. a combat
shotgun that reloads moderately slowly each time? Did you try using
explosives in rooms with occlusions like desks or tables, or actually dodge
enemies' grenades. Maybe you did, but nothing in your review leads me to
believe you played the game with an eye towards that kind of depth. That's
a shame, since I think that was the actual focus of the game.
> That wouldn't be fair, since no game has properly handled that, from
> ONI on down the list. I'm not going to fault Remedy for not solving
> collision detection when no one else has.
You're missing my point. You posted a four page review, of which two pages
criticized the backstory and the cutscenes, a quarter of a page was intro,
and nearly a page was summary. All in all, you gave about 3/4 of a page to
gameplay and technical issues combined. That's a pretty small amount of
the review, even when you account for all the space you gave to the
cutscene screenshots. Now you bring up issues which you apparently noticed
enough to remember after the fact. I can't help but think they influenced
your rating, and therefore, should have been noted.
In rereading the review for this discussion, other issues come to mind.
First, you compare it with a bunch of 4+ star games, find it lacking, and
give it 1.5 stars. Do you honestly find this game to be in the same league
as say, -Atlantis- or -Carnivores-? You also give no attention to mod-
friendliness of the MaxFX, and the community springing up around the game.
I respect the fact that you have an opinion that's fairly unique to the
rest of the game critic community. I still think your review was poor.
Jonah Falcon
> P.S. MP is a mediocre game wrapped in some nice graphics, I think I'd
> give it 3 stars out of 5. Your review is the polar opposite of all the
> big gaming mags' glowing reviews, and almost as far off base.
How? Anything incorrect in my review?
Jonah Falcon
Jonah Falcon
I don't think there was a "bad and laggy" statement in the review - I find
it hard to believe it's an HTML artifact. *shrug* Last game I said was
"laggy" was Diablo II: Lord of Destruction on 800x600, or something to that
effect.
Jonah Falcon
Jonah Falcon
"George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9102BF1F510C...@208.201.224.154...
Jonah Falcon
"George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
> "Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:9lpq4j$m5l$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> > Bull - how about first person til you activate bullet time, and the
> > game slips into third person DURING bullet-time? Most FPS have a
> > "follow camera" option, like Unreal Tournament, by the way.
>
> I'm not reopening this debate. It's been done to death here. I don't
have
> the issues with 3PS that you do, and let's leave it at that.
>
> > It's certainly possible, but is it fun?
>
> Not for me. But you asked how you could finish the game without the
> various weapons. There's very little you can't do with just the baseball
> bat, and nothing you can't do with just the pistols, but it'll be a very
> flat experience if you play it that way. Did you explore the tactical
> difference between a shotgun spray and a stream of bullets from the
> assault rifle?
> That's
> a shame, since I think that was the actual focus of the game.
The thing is - big frickin' whoop! Are you saying that weapons in Soldier of
Fortune don't have different effects?
Who cares if weapons have different effects? That's like saying, "Do you
notice when you're hit by bullet fire, your health goes DOWN?"
>
> > That wouldn't be fair, since no game has properly handled that, from
> > ONI on down the list. I'm not going to fault Remedy for not solving
> > collision detection when no one else has.
>
> You're missing my point. You posted a four page review, of which two
pages
> criticized the backstory and the cutscenes, a quarter of a page was intro,
> and nearly a page was summary. All in all, you gave about 3/4 of a page
to
> gameplay and technical issues combined.
Because there was nothing revolutionary about it. I wouldn't give 2 pages to
the Redeemer in Unreal Tournament, would I?
> That's a pretty small amount of
> the review, even when you account for all the space you gave to the
> cutscene screenshots. Now you bring up issues which you apparently
noticed
> enough to remember after the fact. I can't help but think they influenced
> your rating, and therefore, should have been noted.
>
> In rereading the review for this discussion, other issues come to mind.
> First, you compare it with a bunch of 4+ star games, find it lacking, and
> give it 1.5 stars. Do you honestly find this game to be in the same
league
> as say, -Atlantis- or -Carnivores-?
I give worse games lower reviews. In fact, I'm about to post an even worse
review (1 star) on a certain game. Ah, but I'll wait to reveal which one.
>You also give no attention to mod-
> friendliness of the MaxFX, and the community springing up around the game.
I don't give a flying fart about "mod readiness". That's the same bullshit
argument given by fans of Vampire: the Masquerade and Quake III. I don't
review mods - I review the GAME. PS. How many people are making mods for
Vampire?
I don't review what a game could be - I review a game on what it IS. Why not
have me give World War II Online 5 stars because it has a great concept and
COULD be an excellent game?
> I respect the fact that you have an opinion that's fairly unique to the
> rest of the game critic community. I still think your review was poor.
The review was good. The game was poor.
Jonah Falcon
George Mealer
> The thing is - big frickin' whoop! Are you saying that weapons in
> Soldier of Fortune don't have different effects?
I think I'd have much the same to say if you'd done a review of SoF and not
discussed location-specific damage. But yes, I do have an issue with you
reviewing a shooter and not mentioning movement and weaponry in anything
but the most casual of manners.
> Because there was nothing revolutionary about it. I wouldn't give 2
> pages to the Redeemer in Unreal Tournament, would I?
Perhaps not, but I bet you wouldn't give two pages to the opening intro,
either. In essence, you posted a thorough review of MP's cutscenes, and a
crap summary of everything else.
> I don't give a flying fart about "mod readiness". That's the same
> bullshit argument given by fans of Vampire: the Masquerade and Quake
> III. I don't review mods - I review the GAME. PS. How many people are
> making mods for Vampire?
Beats me. I never bought it. I assume not many, from the tone of your
question, but my understanding is that it's partially because the
Storyteller editor isn't very intuitive. Regardless, mods -are- being
developed for MP. Most of them are currently gameplay tweaks, but even if
more never get developed, they're not insignificant. And while I respect
the intention of most game sites to review "out of the box", as it were,
most game sites post their reviews in a timely fashion. The -only- upside
to you guys posting most every review months after everyone else is that
you have the opportunity to not only cut through the hype, but to examine
the game's community support and longevity.
> I don't review what a game could be - I review a game on what it IS.
> Why not have me give World War II Online 5 stars because it has a great
> concept and COULD be an excellent game?
If it's gone from a 1 star to a 3 star game in the time since it debuted
(and I have no idea if it has), I'd find it rather disingenuous for you to
post a 1 star review tomorrow, yes.
> The review was good. The game was poor.
I've actually made precious little comment as to what I think of the game.
As for your review, if you change the title from "Max Payne with Jonah
Falcon" to "Max Payne's Cutscenes with Jonah Falcon", the only thing I'll
have to criticize are the couple of superfluous paragraphs about the
gameplay.
George Mealer
> the review that you posted (I read it just after you posted the URL),
> you described the multiplayer as "bad and laggy". I remember that
> specifically because I quoted it in my comment. I believe you also
> described it as poorly implemented, but I won't swear to that part.
Sorry. I misquoted..."badly implemented and laggy" was what I originally
posted and saw.
At any rate, I'm not getting further into a "did/didn't" fight. I've
certainly formed an opinion of Mr. Falcon, however.
Jonah Falcon
"George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
> "Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:9lpsdp$f9q$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> > The thing is - big frickin' whoop! Are you saying that weapons in
> > Soldier of Fortune don't have different effects?
>
> I think I'd have much the same to say if you'd done a review of SoF and
not
> discussed location-specific damage. But yes, I do have an issue with you
> reviewing a shooter and not mentioning movement and weaponry in anything
> but the most casual of manners.
>
> > Because there was nothing revolutionary about it. I wouldn't give 2
> > pages to the Redeemer in Unreal Tournament, would I?
>
> Perhaps not, but I bet you wouldn't give two pages to the opening intro,
> either. In essence, you posted a thorough review of MP's cutscenes, and a
> crap summary of everything else.
Remedy touted the cinematics of Max Payne, not I. Therefore, it's fair game.
"Crap summary"? That invalidates YOUR criticism. I immediately ignore people
who say something "sucks", or "rocks", or (especially) is "crap" without any
basis for the statement.
>
> > I don't give a flying fart about "mod readiness". That's the same
> > bullshit argument given by fans of Vampire: the Masquerade and Quake
> > III. I don't review mods - I review the GAME. PS. How many people are
> > making mods for Vampire?
>
> Beats me. I never bought it. I assume not many, from the tone of your
> question, but my understanding is that it's partially because the
> Storyteller editor isn't very intuitive. Regardless, mods -are- being
> developed for MP.
Who cares? Not everyone has a modem, you know, and not everyone plays a game
with the express desire to use mods. I don't review what a game WILL be.
Most of them are currently gameplay tweaks, but even if
> more never get developed, they're not insignificant. And while I respect
> the intention of most game sites to review "out of the box", as it were,
> most game sites post their reviews in a timely fashion. The -only- upside
> to you guys posting most every review months after everyone else is that
> you have the opportunity to not only cut through the hype, but to examine
> the game's community support and longevity.
>
> > I don't review what a game could be - I review a game on what it IS.
> > Why not have me give World War II Online 5 stars because it has a great
> > concept and COULD be an excellent game?
>
> If it's gone from a 1 star to a 3 star game in the time since it debuted
> (and I have no idea if it has), I'd find it rather disingenuous for you to
> post a 1 star review tomorrow, yes.
Then you'd be wrong. It would be disingenuous for me to give a review on how
a game MIGHT be. Ask ANY reviewer worth their salt.
Jonah Falcon
PigFighter
entertaining. You also appear to have a large amount of experience actually
playing games, which is not always the case with reviewers at other sites. I
will be visiting Gamepen more frequently in the future.
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9lpmj2$as7$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Sim Pilot
troll. Ignore him or killfile him and he will whither away.
>Poor little myopic Devo,
>
>get some glasses dude, and some gray cells too
>while you're at it.
>
>he has exactly the "school girl gushing bullshit attitude"
>only he turned it around for the shock value, who knows
>maybe works better that way.
>
>Simpletons like you think this is must be
>some daring, honest undertaking.
>
>Ouch.
>
>ToothyByte.
Sim Pilot
EQ addict. Level 39 Ranger
Vigilantes of Virtue
George Mealer
> game. "Crap summary"? That invalidates YOUR criticism. I immediately
> ignore people who say something "sucks", or "rocks", or (especially) is
> "crap" without any basis for the statement.
Well, I meant "crap" in the sense of "without significant content". As for
basis, uh, you have been in this thread with me, right? You may not agree
with what I have to say, but I've justified it as I've gone along.
> Who cares? Not everyone has a modem, you know, and not everyone plays a
> game with the express desire to use mods. I don't review what a game
> WILL be.
Everyone who's reading your site has a network connection, obviously. I
feel like you think I'm saying that a mod community redeems an otherwise
crappy game. I'm not saying that; I'm saying it's one of many factors. To
ignore it completely is kind of silly. To repeatedly maintain that it's
part of your personal integrity as a reviewer is really silly. Many modern
games have two distinct parts. The engine and the game wrapped around it.
When you purchase the game, you license both. If the engine makes for an
expandable game, it certainly does add value to what you get.
> Then you'd be wrong. It would be disingenuous for me to give a review
> on how a game MIGHT be. Ask ANY reviewer worth their salt.
I would agree, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that a
good review reflects the game as it is, not as it was. However, you did
bring up an interesting point in discussiong -WW II Online-. I noticed
that many of the reviews I read for it did mention its potential as a good
game should CR/SF contine to improve it, even as the final rating for the
current version was very poor. There's a difference between rating against
unrealized potential and recognizing it. Those reviewers were worth their
salt. You, I'm not so sure about.
Jonah Falcon
Jonah Falcon
"Sim Pilot" <simp...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:2d01otc006j9r1fat...@4ax.com...
PigFighter
Go get some rest or something. Your posts aren't exactly working in your
favor, right now. I believe Sim Pilot was talking about ToothyByte, not
you.
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9lq00r$jat$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Jonah Falcon
reviews, so an edit was made on the first page. It doesn't change the
review, however, in any way. I announced this because of the previous
accusations I altered the multiplayer mention before. Didn't want to seem
inconsistant :-D
Jonah Falcon
Jonah Falcon
coming out as Christmas slooowly approaches.
Jonah Falcon
"PigFighter" <fight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Cv%f7.718$lX.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Zackman
writing a preview of Quake II now...
-Z-
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9lq30h$5is$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Devo
<jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"ToothyByte" <tooth...@nomail.mediaone.net> wrote in message
>news:3B805520...@nomail.mediaone.net...
>>
>>
>> Jonah Falcon wrote:
>>
>> > > Post more Therapy sessions, assuming you still have Therapy writers.
>> >
>> > If you want to pay them, be our guest.
>>
>> Man what an arrogant attitude ...
>>
>> you see the idea was that instead of paying you
>> the site they should pay them,
>>
>> get it?
>>
>> ToothyByte.
>
>So, just wondering - I haven't read the CSIPCA FAQ - is ToothyByte the
>official jester of the group? Is he paid? Man, he's entertaining...
>
>Jonah Falcon
>
I just came to realize he is just a troll, can't believe I responded
to him. Ah well we all make mistakes I guess.
--------------
Devo
Zackman
> Your review still blows, though. It's every bit as unbalanced as any of
> the major-label asskisses MP got, if not more so. The major mags, at
> least, concentrated on what I feel is the most important aspect of the
> game...the gameplay...and glossed over the wrap story. You managed to put
> all your emphasis on what is, ultimately, the least important part of the
> game.
My sentiments exactly. It seems at least a third of the review is dedicated
to the bad plot (which to be honest I never gave much thought), the graphic
novel character models (ditto) and the voice acting (which was just fine
IMO), three things that should rank at about the same level as manual design
and box art when you're talking about an action game. And the criticism of
the visuals is just plain out to lunch.
I guess if I was running a review weeks or months after everyone else, I'd
find some gimmick to get the review noticed as well, like slagging a game
for superficial shortcomings or ragging on its laggy multiplayer, then
removing the reference and dancing around questions about whether it was
there in the first place. I'll bet Gamepen is getting more hits on this
review than anything else in recent months.
-Z-
Devo
<tooth...@nomail.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
>Devo wrote:
>>
>> honest opinion and not some school girl gushing bullshit like the
>> other sites who's reviewers played the game for 10 minutes and then
>> gave it 95%.
>
>
>Poor little myopic Devo,
>
>get some glasses dude, and some gray cells too
>while you're at it.
>
>he has exactly the "school girl gushing bullshit attitude"
>only he turned it around for the shock value, who knows
>maybe works better that way.
>
>Simpletons like you think this is must be
>some daring, honest undertaking.
>
>Ouch.
>
>ToothyByte.
Nope, he's just more credible than you troll.
--------------
Devo
Alan
> > I love Max Payne, despite its shortness I thought it was an awesome
> > experience. His opinion however is not worthless, everyone is entitled to
> > their say. You dont have to agree but you dont have the right to silence
> > him. Anyway, whats wrong with him trying to get some traffic, whats the
> > point in him doing a website if he cant advertise it?
>
> It's not my website - it's just one I write reviews for. I do take pride in
> my work, however.
Although I agree that the storyline is a cliche and that parts of the
game suck (the fire in the restaurant was just *annoying*, and the
walking in blackness following blood trails in the dream sequences was
totally boring), I really like this game. In fact, it's my favourite
FPS-game ever (I am biased, my last one was the Quake III multiplayer
in '00).
The script is classic noir, and the feeling the game renders fits
perfectly with the action. And as I've said before, bullet-time is
such a marvellous feature that even though I've now played it for
several days and reached the end of the last chapter, I'm still not
weary of it.
- Alan
Revok
Jonah Falcon <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9lprrk$6og$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
More snipping!!!!
Your credibility is going down with every post you make.
>
> Jonah Falcon
>
>
>
>
Revok
>
> "George Mealer" <g...@snarksoft.invalid> wrote in message
> >
> > > I suck? How so? I beat the game - but the "scripted sequence" was
simply
> > > poorly concieved.
> > >
> > > Are you saying that anyone who isn't frustrated by the scripted
sequence
> > > sucks?
> >
> > Well, no. I found it frustrating, too, for the 15 minutes or so that it
> > held me. But given that it wasn't timed, and you could've quicksaved at
> > any point through, 1.5 hours is kind of absurd. Also, you never seemed
to
> > figure out the camera (I had no problem peeking around corners by
inching
> > along the wall), and since you gave no attention to the various weapon
> > effects,
>
> I'm very aware of weapon effects. But honestly, third person is not good
for
> first person, because you have such a smaller, inaccurate field of vision.
>
>
> If that were true, how could I finish the game? (And no, I don't use God
> mode)
>
> > busy harping on the (admittedly poor, IMO) writing and acting and the
lack
> > of pain skins.
>
> Or how Max limps if he's hurt, even if nothing touched his legs? I also
> didn't mention the ever present problem of people passing through walls.
One
> fellow was levitating off the ground after I killed him - call Max the
Great
> Payneini, who can do those kind of magic tricks.
Are you Eep in disguise? Talk about focussing on the trivial.
PS - I note in your review that you say that the gameplay has been done
before in Metal Gear Solid. The gameplay is nothing like Metal Gear
Solid!!!
You do actually play other games right?
>
> Jonah Falcon
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >> Post more Therapy sessions, assuming you still have Therapy writers.
> > >
> > > If you want to pay them, be our guest.
> > >
> >
> > *shrug* I have no idea how your site is structured and what your
> > compensation scheme was, but I assume that after the point it's part of
> > <fanfare> the UGO networks and at the point I'm getting bombarded by
> banner
> > ads, it's no longer a labor of love. I'm just pointing out that the
> > Therapy sessions brought me to your site years ago, and have been the
only
> > thing to impress me over those years. Your reviews lag behind your
> > competition by months, and your choice of review titles occasionally
> > inexplicable. I mean, c'mon...Harvest Moon? That's been out for nearly
a
> > year.
> >
> > > You obviously didn't read the Heroes of Might & Magic IV preview.
> >
> > Yeah, OK. I'll give you that. The previews are occasionally pretty
> > decent, and you did a good job on that one.
> >
> > Your review still blows, though. It's every bit as unbalanced as any of
> > the major-label asskisses MP got, if not more so. The major mags, at
> > least, concentrated on what I feel is the most important aspect of the
> > game...the gameplay...and glossed over the wrap story. You managed to
put
> > all your emphasis on what is, ultimately, the least important part of
the
> > game.
> >
Jonah Falcon
What the hell are you talking about? I'm one of the last reviews. (shaking
head)
By the way, read the review again. I do spend time on the technical aspect -
and essentially what I say is that IT'S NOTHING SPECIAL. How many ways can I
say it?
Incidentally, if other reviews harp on the cinematics, why am I not allowed
to comment on them?
Jonah Falcon
Jonah Falcon
"Revok" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9lqk3n$n15$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...
You're right - Metal Gear Solid has better gameplay. Much.
Jonah Falcon
Jonah Falcon
So sayeth You, huh?
Jonah Falcon
Jonah Falcon
became hostile when you learned certain things about me because you're a
right-wing Fundamental Christian, you instantly became hostile. (No, it's
that I'm gay, just other stuff I'm famous for.) It's too bad - I enjoyed
playing Kohan with you. But I find it funny you're at once immediately on my
side, then reverse position.
By the way, my Kohan review was the first released, as was my OOTP3. So am I
too fast or too slow?
Jonah Falcon
"Zackman" <zac...@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote in message
news:_u0g7.101222$sM.27...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
Sim Pilot
review, it was a fine review. It's an opinion. I couldn't care less
about multiplayer. The only mp game I play is Everquest.
Revok
But - aside from the graphical POV - how is it the same as Max Payne. Where
is the Mouse aiming etc.
Come to think of it - how is it the same as TPM?
It has more in common with Jedi Knight in 3rd person - although you can
actually target properly in Max Payne.
>
> Jonah Falcon
>
>
>
Revok
Sorry Jonah - but your review smacks of doing a deliberately negative one to
'make a name for yourself' - not helped by the fact you have started
numerous threads on pretty trivial aspects of the game. Your constant
question dodging isn't helping matters.
>
> Jonah Falcon
>
>
Zackman
side. ;)
Actually I only based that comment on this Max Payne review and the fact you
posted your Twisted Metal: Black review recently. I don't normally follow
your reviews all that closely.
And you're confusing me with someone else. We don't know each other, I'm
anything but a right-wing fundamental Christian, I've never played Kohan,
and it's Zack, NOT Zach.
-Z-
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9lr8jh$o31$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Zackman
>
> What the hell are you talking about? I'm one of the last reviews. (shaking
> head)
That's why I said "running weeks or months after everyone else." (nodding
head)
> By the way, read the review again. I do spend time on the technical
aspect -
> and essentially what I say is that IT'S NOTHING SPECIAL. How many ways can
I
> say it?
I just think your focus was in the wrong place. I was mistaken, you didn't
spend a third of the the review talking about the story and cutscenes, you
spent more than half the review talking about them. Glossing over the
technical aspect as "nothing special" is like seeing a movie, glossing over
the plot, performances and cinematography and then slagging the butter
substitute on the popcorn.
BTW I'd like to read the review again, but your site seems to be down. I'm
getting an internal server error message.
> Incidentally, if other reviews harp on the cinematics, why am I not
allowed
> to comment on them?
"Comment" on them? I've yet to read a review that dwells on them to the
extent that you do. You're entitled to your opinion and biases, I simply
think in this particular case they're misguided.
-Z-
Sim Pilot
R. Mast
>
> > I'm very aware of weapon effects. But honestly, third person is not
> > good for first person, because you have such a smaller, inaccurate
> > field of vision.
>
> I agree. OTOH, first person wouldn't be very good for the bullet-time
> sequences. Every game makes compromises. This, of course, has been
> debated to death here already.
>
> > If that were true, how could I finish the game? (And no, I don't use
> > God mode)
>
> just the baseball bat, IIRC.
>
I know this doesn't matter, but just FYI, that was my post, and it
wasn't New York Minute, it was Hard Boiled, and anyway, I got half-way
through before I got sick of it. I still consider the game great.
--
-R. Mast
Snapperhead
<jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jawohle, mein Furher. Let's go burn some books.
Patience, my child, we have more web reviews to burn first....