CRPGAddict

Click here and disable ads!

I'm embarrassing myself? Don't make me laugh:

Don't you see? You're bitching about him giving his opinion on games, but then you say that you wouldn't mind his blog if he didn't give numbers. It makes no sense. You appear to want him to not review games he doesn't like at all (and go with a "not my kind of game" response instead), and you appear to want him to scrap numbers. So you effectively don't want him to review games he doesn't like. If your problem was merely scores and not reviews then why should he leave things at "not my kind of game"?

What? That was in reply to you mentioning he has a huge following. Why does his huge following matter to you? Where do you want his readers to go to? Explain.

Anyway, going to bed.

You aren't even expressing logic so how is anyone meant to follow it? You claim he's a reviewer because he gives scores:

This is bullshit because he would still be a reviewer without the numerical scores, as he gives his opinion in multiple ways, though both text and numbers. Therefore if your complaints are about his scores and not his reviews, which would be perfectly reasonable, why do you also want him to not review games he dislikes, as seen here:

So you obviously have a problem with his review scores and his review texts for games he specifically dislikes. I think your argument would have held up if you stopped yourself bitching about him expressing his opinion on games you happen to like more than him and focused on the scoring aspect of his reviews. Personally, I can't stand scores either so I would have even backed you up on it.

Your logic is poor. The text is the review. The score is meaningless to that fact. Therefore the score does not imply a review. So do you know what the word "because" means? It means the score is the reason he is providing reviews. As this isn't the case then your statement is wrong and your logic is incorrect and whatever embarrassment you're trying to project on to me should be directed back at you.

It's funny how your opinion of someone can plummet in the space of an hour. Perhaps I should give you a review, with a score too just to piss you off.

Anyway, bed.

The fact he gives scores, doesnt change that is ONLY such blog, with so many old classic crpgs experience written.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...f-favorite-brands-as-threat-to-self-image.ars

What's up?

Are you reading this thread Addict? I know you are and so do you.

That's not any premise of the argument. That's a premise that you introduced straight after you confused causation with correlation and straight from a fallacy. Yes, most reviewers use scores as well, but scores aren't reviews and therefore the presence of scores does not imply a reviewer or review. The premises are the facts about the CRPG Addict as well as the meaning of scores and reviews, which unfortunately proved to be unclear to at least one participant. The facts about the CRPG Addict being all important, and they were clearly that he:

1) Writes reviews for games.
2) Attributes scores to games.

By making the immediate jump to scores being the causation of his reviewer status instead of the review texts themselves, you've opened yourself up for questioning. By mentioning that a site like Rock Paper Shotgun doesn't include review scores yet clearly write reviews, I was pointing out, though admittedly not very clearly, that the existence of the review text is the only thing that causes a review and not the numerical scores. In other words, I was merely pointing out a premise that invalidates your logical leap (assuming you agreed with the premise in the first place) and not making out that you said something you didn't say, hence why "So apparently Rock Paper Shotgun don't do game reviews because they refuse to give scores? Interesting!" is clearly a rhetorical question. Having said that, this is only valid if you shared the premise that all reviews have review texts, which seems to be something that you at least didn't agree with at the time. You're right in that if reviews didn't need to include review text then not having scores does not necessarily imply not being a review, because it could be assumed that scores themselves are a type of review and thus Skyway's list of game scores (the infamous screenshot) is a list of reviews.

The logic is simple given what I assumed should be a shared premise.

A = Review Text
B = Review Score.
C = Review.

Premise: A equals C (review text is the same thing as a review). A does not imply B (review text does not imply a score). B does not imply A (score does not imply review text).

Your fallacy: B implies C is incorrect because A equals C and thus B would imply A, which cannot hold because B is assumed to not imply C, as stated in the premise, as review text and review scores are independent (Rock Paper Shotgun's scoreless reviews and YouTube's text-less like/dislike score system (which I assumed you would agree is not a review system)).

Having said that, if your premise was as follows: A implies C and B implies C (reviews can be textual descriptions/opinions or a simple numerical score) then your logic starting on this page does hold up.

But as I picked on something you said based on what I believed was a shared premise before you picked on my picking for what you believe was a shared premise then I don't see how I can be at fault for anything other than not discussing the parameters of the discussion beforehand, which you are equally guilty of.

Furthermore, I do believe you were the first one to be turn downright rude with the whole "cannot into logic" stuff and "embarrassing yourself" stuff just because you started introducing actual logical notation before I did (conveniently after your own mistakes too, which formed a basis for your logic anyhow). That's not something you want to read at 7:00AM when you've been up all night and are desperate to go to sleep.

Can you at least clear up whether you would call a stand alone numerical score a review? It wouldn't be wrong as such, just a matter of interpretation. This matters because the answer to this should explain our disagreement, and differing views on this would make us both appear correct to ourselves and incorrect to each other, because we'd both be starting off from different truths.

Pool of Radiance and Might and Magic aren't RPGs now?

I don't particularly care much whether you think he's a reviewer or not. I do have a problem with someone not wanting him to review games because he dislikes some of the ones they happen to enjoy. Even I don't give a shit about his low scores for some of my favourites. Wizard's Crown is a great tactical cRPG and he shat on it. He didn't even complete the game yet I'd prefer to read his thoughts on the game than not.

Well. The low scores and disparaging remarks are because he's reviewing everything by today's standards, as he's gone ahead and mentioned several times. And I can understand the low scores for graphics and interface issues, but I have to start wondering when you score complex quests as shit and then go on to give extra oral service to Dragon Age and Skyrim.

So you're saying that he gives high scores because of how historically important a game is? Yet he shits on all the Wizardry games, perhaps the most historically important games he's played? Even assuming that the CRPG Addict is blissfully unaware of the importance of Wizardry, can you also explain why he largely dismisses Wizard's Crown, a game that perhaps spawned the entire tactical RPG genre, and why he rated Star Flight, a game he seemingly knew very little about before playing, so very highly? Your explanation has too many holes. And considering there is bound to be some correlation between historically important cRPGs and good cRPGs, considering good cRPGs (from back then) tended to be the ones that were copied...

And you moan at me for illogical rants?

Yes. Matt Barton = J_C = Vault Dweller = Brian Mitsoda = CRPG Addict = Wizardry = MMXI = Cleve. You didn't know?

What the fuck?

http://crpgaddict.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/sentinel-worlds-won.html

From the comments:

Did he get banned? If so, why? And who banned him?

You act like that second bolded bit is a lie, or something.

General RPG Discussion 58%
General Discussion 1%

This feels appropriate for MCA's butthurt troll image.

I like CRPG Addict's blog, it's really interesting but I think that he's personally quite irritating, I wouldn't say that he's a moron but sometimes he's really trying too hard. Like if it was a huge feat to play video games and abandonware, for fuck's sake. Just look at the codex. I could take the weirdest C64 game like "Below the root" and I'm pretty sure that a dozen people would argue with me about its merits or failures (Blackadder certainly) and that wouldn't say shit about us. This guy seems a bit like an attention-whore.
Oh look: sometimes I go to New-Orleans, I have a wife and then I drink ALCOHOL tee-hee. And then I play "Hard Nova" ! Good for you mate.

People post personal stuff on a blog? Outrageus!

Fucking Prima Donnas, we should corral all of them back to the Opera. The only ones who majestically belong to the Opera are Black Cat for she finds it sexy and Lyric Suit for while being a stupid fascist, he sure knows his classical music. For the other CRPG Addicts-like it will be a punishment by fire.

Sorry mate, if I do a blog about RPGs I won't talk about my personal life and about the last movie I saw yesterday while expecting all of my "fans" to comment about this trivial shit like if I was a Spoony-like. But then to each his own. His blog is still quite interesting but he still irritates me.

Rejoice! Everybody's a star! Your opinion matters for you play abandonware! Glory of the Internet!