Review RPG Codex Review: Dead State

[Zombra]

Reading comprehension, dumbass. I know you don't have much in the way of brains, but do you not have eyes either?

Honestly, I skimmed most of your post. Seeing about 80% insults didn't really inspire me to dig deep. I did see the part about how you agree that terrible balance ruins the challenge. Looking it over again, I don't see anything else "substantiative" except that you don't like my style. Maybe someday I'll learn to live with the heartbreak.

The "review-reading public" argument is a crock of shit on the RPG Codex

Oh, so they already know it's a low-budget indie? In that case my qualifier may not have been necessary, and our shared expectations will make my subjective observations all the more informative. Still, I think the qualifier adds a nice touch. A buddy of mine got a good laugh out of the eyegasm/brofist line. And it's even possible that other people will read the review. There was a time when even a great Codex authority like you got your first taste. Hard to imagine, but true.

and your low standards for a game that was kickstarted for over $300K with early access funding, etc. on top of that may just be your problem.

Ooooh, 300K, huh? You're right, that is a Pixar level graphics budget. Don't know what I was thinking.

No, if anything you are getting worse. Your inability to respond to the substantiative aspects of my post coupled with this pathetic attempt to ridicule the tone of my post only betrays your general cowardice and incompetence.

So ... you don't like my style. I think I'm beginning to get the message. Well, what if I don't like your style? Did you ever think about that? Huh??

 

[Jaesun]

Can't we just have someone respectable write for the Codex? Like Cleve?

Anyone can submit a review to the codex (just click the Contact Us button and submit it there).

It better be really well written though.

 

[Infinitron]

I shall assist Zombra by cutting out the core of Absinthe's argument as I see it:

Let me put this in perspective for you: "The Outdoorsman skill in Fallout 1 is great! I just wish the game would actually give you meaningful opportunities to benefit from it." If that sounds retarded, that's because it is. A normal person would just say "Outdoorsman sucks, doesn't really do anything, don't invest in it." You could also say "Fallout's Outdoorsman skill shows promise in theory but in reality it is worthless." Talking about the concept is great. But actually evaluating the game on the concept is retarded. When we want to know if a game is good, we don't ask ourselves "in some hypothetical other game out there, could this system/idea/etc. be great?" No, we are not judging your hypothetical other game. The question is "In the actual fucking game we have in front of us, how well does this shit matter and function?" And there is a lot of this shit-tier "lets praise the concept in the pros column while putting the actual experience in the cons column" type evaluation in your review which is completely fucking disingenuous and stupid. The practical, end-user experience is what actually matters when we ask ourselves if a game is worth buying.

 

[tuluse]

Can't we just have someone respectable write for the Codex? Like Cleve?

Sounds like you're volunteering.

 

[Ninjerk]

Someone (not me) buy Absinthe a copy of Dead State so he can make a counter-review.

 

[mindx2]

Jaesun Your serpent avatar is back!!! Now the Codex feels complete again.....

 

[Kem0sabe]

Codex reviews are all over the place in terms of quality, this shouldn't be the case in a prestigious online magazine.

This means we lack a strong editorial hand, writers after all are whiny entitled little bitches that need to be told their work is shit, else they wont grow out of the silly misconception that they are inspired by God to subject the rest of us to their inane thoughts.

I blame the codex, not zombra for this mediocrity.

 

[Zombra]

I shall assist Zombra by cutting out the core of Absinthe's argument as I see it:

Let me put this in perspective for you: "The Outdoorsman skill in Fallout 1 is great! I just wish the game would actually give you meaningful opportunities to benefit from it." If that sounds retarded, that's because it is. A normal person would just say "Outdoorsman sucks, doesn't really do anything, don't invest in it." You could also say "Fallout's Outdoorsman skill shows promise in theory but in reality it is worthless." Talking about the concept is great. But actually evaluating the game on the concept is retarded. When we want to know if a game is good, we don't ask ourselves "in some hypothetical other game out there, could this system/idea/etc. be great?" No, we are not judging your hypothetical other game. The question is "In the actual fucking game we have in front of us, how well does this shit matter and function?" And there is a lot of this shit-tier "lets praise the concept in the pros column while putting the actual experience in the cons column" type evaluation in your review which is completely fucking disingenuous and stupid. The practical, end-user experience is what actually matters when we ask ourselves if a game is worth buying.

Nice one.

Yeah, the "Fallout's Outdoorsman skill shows promise in theory but in reality it is worthless." is probably the approach I would take - and I took - in my review.

As for "evaluating the game on the concept" - where did I do that? Where did I say, "Dead State is objectively a good game"? Or anything close? Oh right, not enough frowny face.

The practical, end-user experience is what actually matters when we ask ourselves if a game is worth buying.

Did you read the end part? You know, where I advised you as to whether it is worth buying? Based on the practical, end-user experience? Jesus Christ.

 

[Absinthe]

Zombra, just read my entire fucking post before you embarrass yourself any further.

 

[Zombra]

Zombra, just read my entire fucking post before you embarrass yourself any further.

Eh. I've had a long week. If you can sum up in an informational style instead of an attack style, I'll give it a shot. Not really interested in reading you saying fucking idiot 200 more times. Boil it down.

 

[naossano]

Zombra just got contracted to write more reviews for the Codex in the future. Thanks everybody for making this decision a lot easier.

You mean paid contract ?

 

[EG]

Zombra, just read my entire fucking post before you embarrass yourself any further.

Eh. I've had a long week. If you can sum up in an informational style instead of an attack style, I'll give it a shot. Not really interested in reading you saying fucking idiot 200 more times. Boil it down.

"Pick a side and argue for it exclusively" is all I got out of it. Typical highschool English tact.

Pointless ranting:
Though Outdoorsman was shit in Fallout 1 (unless you wanted to quickly see all the positive random encounters), it was rather useful in Fallout 2, assuming you wanted to transverse large parts of the map, alone or at a low level, without getting owned by massive spawns. It also affected combat placement (being in the center of said pack is bad), didn't it?

Thus, Outdoorsman can be a poor example of a shit skill, depending on the context it's used.

 

[Absinthe]

It's already boiled down. Learn to handle some swearing. If you're not in the mood to respond right now, take your time. There's no deadline.

 

[EG]

It's already boiled down. Learn to handle some swearing. If you're not in the mood to respond right now, take your time. There's no deadline.

D'aw, someone is feelin' shy.

 

[Infinitron]

Zombra Maybe all of this could have been avoided by simply swapping the phrase "well-designed" with something with a less "evaluatory" connotation. "Interestingly designed", perhaps.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

I wonder how long the balance patch will take - as long as WL2?

 

[Kem0sabe]

Zombra Perhaps all of this could have been avoided by simply swapping the phrase "well-designed" with something with a less "evaluatory" connotation. "Interestingly designed", perhaps.

Who reads and edits these reviews for the codex? Is there any back and forth between prestigious game magazine editorial staff and pretentious reviewer or is it just click submit and go with it?

 

[Absinthe]

Thus, Outdoorsman can be a poor example of a shit skill, depending on the context it's used.

I believe I said When we want to know if a game is good, we don't ask ourselves "in some hypothetical other game out there, could this system/idea/etc. be great?" No, we are not judging your hypothetical other game. The question is "In the actual fucking game we have in front of us, how well does this shit matter and function?" Following my point, praising Outdoorsman because of Fallout 2 in the context of evaluating Fallout 1 is a good example of wrongly judging a mechanic by the game you wish you were playing rather than the game you are actually playing.

So yes, we agree that it depends on the context in which it's used. My point was precisely that a review should be true to its context.

 

[Necroscope]

I'm not even sure if the game will benefit from increased difficulty as zombie encounters are so uninteresting that they feel more like doing work rather than having fun with a game. Usually I would just leave my team and two-shot them by picking one by one with my melee character, which is a lot faster, and be done with it.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

This means we lack a strong editorial hand.

No. What this means (and honest to fucking christ this is all it means) is that this is not a curated magazine but an internet forum which happens to be incapable of agreeing on any given subject at any given time with sprinklings of people who just don't give a shit.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Your comments to Zombra about his excellent review of Dead State were ruse (sic), unnecessary, and frankly quite unvecoming (sic) of whom I would normally consider to be a reasonable person.

Crispy white-knighting mediocre shit yet again. Sounds like Alpha Protocol all over again.

 

[King Crispy]

The above was a conversation that was occurring in Shoutbox. Once again FSM the little bitch has to come running to the rest of Codex for his rescue.

 

[Ninjerk]

The above was a conversation that was occurring in Shoutbox. Once again FSM the little bitch has to come running to the rest of Codex for his rescue.

Didn't you have someone prosperized recently for being mean to you?

 

[Sranchammer]

Maybe we need more rance reviews

 

[Kem0sabe]

No. What this means (and honest to fucking christ this is all it means) is that this is not a curated magazine but an internet forum which happens to be incapable of agreeing on any given subject at any given time with sprinklings of people who just don't give a shit.

The forum is one thing, site content is another thing altogether. Shit like Neogaf, are forums and land directly there, while someone visiting the codex is partaking in a vast array of content, from interviews, to reviews, to news and the forums.

A site like ours should worry on presenting a polished reading experience for viewers, regardless of those people wanting to visit, or not, the fascist cesspool of GD.

So yes, we should have a competent editor making sure the shit the codex (site), produces has quality not only writing wise but clarity wise, something this review sorely lacks.