Sheikah

Yeah, same. My initial post was not targeting any particular member, but J7 felt the need to respond with comments such as 'stupid' and 'fail' - definitely those I'd consider inflammatory. I'm a rather non-provocative person, but if someone mouths off at me I won't sit back and take it. Especially when they're BSing.

I've also noticed exactly that...it's strange as the coats don't seem anything special, or original. Are people just buying them for the logo?

Those thanking you are like a who's who in terms of general N-E assholes (except chair). The names honestly don't surprise me. Thanks, but I'll trust my own instincts on the future successes of kids brought up by mothers who are milking a broken system and choose to do so rather than work. As I say, not all of these large-claiming mothers are like this, but it is truthfully a significant proportion. A generalisation it may be, but then again - people generalise all the time. It's like in the music topic where people may say 'likers of band X are all Y'. It doesn't mean they are correct, but there is often some likeliness or truth about a significant proportion of such people. I'm not saying my views are correct, but somewhat likely. We often never hear of the full details, and typically generalise. e.g. chair, seeing as you thanked the post: You generalised the wearers of a particular brand of clothing. Now I'm not going to judge this as something negative against you, because as I'm sure you agree; when we say things we do so on our particular observations and at the same time realise that there are people who aren't like this, but we just don't bother to say it. The forum is full of generalisations...it's pretty much a way of getting strong opinions across. If people can't handle it, get out of the kitchen. But Jay, you're a bit of a hopeless idealist. Maybe the cider you're constantly drinking has started to affect your brain. But seriously, I've been polite with you and not pointed out how much of a whiney bugger you are sometimes for so long, simply because you seemed somewhat a nice guy at the meetup. But some of the things you moan about are utter nonsense. So tell me again - with the population the UK is projected to have in the near future, do you honestly think a woman having 15 children is sensible and fair? Second question: do you think that a system which allows a woman to remain jobless purely because she had children is a good and functional system? By the way, the answer isn't 'yes' to either of those questions, just to let you know. And to bluntly close the debate of 'should a woman be funded for 15 children?' - a woman who does not know how to make use of contraception is surely not worthy of taxpayer's money. If someone has a large family fetish, they should fund that themselves. If the argument was as simple as "more people in the UK = more money gained through tax!" then we would be flooding our country with just about anyone we can find.

Yeah...the kids will work! :p I'm sure many won't follow in their layabout parents' footsteps and seek unemployment benefit, or become tearaways. Not all, but many of such large families that crop up often seem to arise in deprived areas where the parents are often long-term unemployed, and there's a high incidence of crime and antioscial behaviour. Again, I say not all, before someone goes off on one. It's nice to be an idealist and say that all 15 children will contribute to the tax pool...but we all know that won't happen. Claiming for 15 kids is ridiculous, no matter how you see it. What aren't you getting from having 4 kids that you are getting from 15? No one in their right mind could argue that it's a good thing, particularly given our projected population. And the funny thing is, parents of such children are capable of getting by on said benefits without the need for a job. That clearly demonstrates the flawed system; that this allows people to remain jobless.

I think Nintendo have completely focussed on pleasing a completely different set of customers, but they still produce the odd game that I just don't see on other consoles. I definitely play on my PS3 more, though. I love my RPGs.

People should really only get money for their first 2 kids, and have to fund any others themselves. Benefit scroungers are only reproducing at such a rate because the system can be easily abused...if such a limit were put in place, they sure as hell wouldn't do it. People are greedy as fuck.

God damn awesome day yesterday. My girlfriend is over for a few days for New Year (she'll be back for good when uni resumes) and we went for a meal, then back to hers. Later we ended up watching episodes of Ali G in da USAiii...which is seriously funny, if you haven't seen it before. His alter egos are less cringeworthy, given it took place before he had to dumb it down for the Americans. Today we'll be going for a meal with my family, and who knows what else we'll get up to. :p

They're bizarre because they consistently differ from what the vast majority of gamers actually believe. They often mark down games heavily for trivial aspects - which is what I believe to be bad reviewing style, and seem to give praise to far less deserving games (e.g. FFXII - they placed it at 8th best game of all time). It's fine to differ in opinion sometimes, but their magazine commonly trashes games regularly that many, many people would disagree with. And when what you're selling is opinions on games that will influence purchase decisions, their magazine becomes trash. I'd rather ask my little brother whether I should buy an upcoming game, as he's more likely to suggest a game that I might actually enjoy. I'm sorry, but the whole 'wahh it's their opinion' thing is bollocks. If you pay good money for this magazine, you'd expect a) a reviewer who was an expert and fanatic about the genre in question (if you know you like archaic RPGs already, you'd just want to know how good of one it is), as many reviews these days seem to put across the viewpoint: 'this isn't for me', and b) dicussion amongst numerous people. Perhaps in the style of Famitsu. Again, for the reason that some people just don't take to particular games. Yes, if I look through a list of individual scores on Metacritic, I won't pay attention to the official reviewers. Scoring from 1-10 is a copied format amongst reviewers, and the very reason it is so is because any reader can instantly understand it. If the reviewer did not wish to have their reader instantly interpret their review, they should omit the scoring system altogether. And indeed, some do. Game publishers often include several scores on their game boxes because there is a universal understanding of such numbers. Ratings out of 10 are used across several mediums, not just video games, and any person will instantly understand 9/10 or 10/10 to be a great game. That's just the way it is. This isn't written down; it is an understood concept, to which I won't argue any further. So when I see, in a list of critic scores, far more 9-10 scores than lower scores, I'm somewhat reassured that the chances are it's a game of good quality that I will enjoy. Then, to make sure, I will often choose to follow up by reading a few of the more reputable reviewers. I don't go solely on scores, but I'd never go solely on a single review. It's entirely possible that a game rated 8/10 lost marks due to particular aspects I find annoying, thus I would avoid a game as a result of reading a review. But if we went solely by EDGE's review of 5/10 for the 360 version, rather than looking at the bigger picture, we might completely bypass what many believe to be a good game. Well, for the recently released Bayonetta, there were 19 critic scores and these added up to 1757. Providing I added it up properly, this averaged to 92.5, which I'm guessing they rounded to 93 - which was the score. It seems to me as if the critic scores submitted are equally weighted. But as I say, I often scroll through the critic list to visit the web pages for the reviews from the review sites that I believe are more in line with my own tastes, and those I believe to have good reviewing style. Now that's just not true. First of all, you expect actual VG critics to have played a vast number of games, and to at least somewhat know what they're talking about. Secondly, the reason people continue to visit the review websites of critics listed, I'm guessing, is because people went by their previous reviews of games said to be good, and actually enjoyed them themselves. Your example also mentioned asking numerous people - which in fairness, is what my Metacritic argument was all about. Whatever way you look at it, it's better to go on more than one review, and MC is a way of letting you do that. Review scores, at the end of the day, reflect the overall review. If someone scored a game 4/10, there's no way in hell that the review is going to be full of praises. Similarly, a game that receives mostly 9s or 10s all round is likely to have a very positive review. My point of these arguments has been this - Metacritic is a good tool for gauging the overall opinions of critics. It's better than sticking to one magazine, or basing game purchase decisions on one review. I know that there's surely people who do that from buying these magazines. For all we know, a single reviewer may dislike the D&D RPG genre, meaning you end up with a completely skewed opinion. Which is pretty much what Bard did way back somewhere. I will not responding to this again. I've said what I've had to say - that I think EDGE is a particularly poor, pretentious magazine, and that I believe going by a number of reviews gives you a better picture than a single review. So if anyone wants to continue this argument, you can do so against a brick wall. Oh, and added Bard to my ignore list. One less pretentious, arrogant person to suffer on these forums. Let him brush up on his essay-writing skills on a Nintendo forum to high-five his ego in private.

Well that's definitely not what I've been saying. I've downplayed their integrity because of the way they go about their reviews. As I've said, they'll commonly draw on minor flaws and blow them out of proportion to award games a poor review and score. A magazine that consistently reviews bizarrely is unreliable in assisting you in finding the next game you want to buy. I presume many people are buying this magazine in order to influence their game purchases; which would pretty much be a dick move. You probably won't think the same as them, given they consistently go against what the majority of gamers believe. But hey, it's your call. If you want to pay for a guy's ramblings, given that there are free alternatives available on the internet, then it's up to you. I presume people are intelligent enough to translate the numbers themselves. But as it stands, there is a loose system of understanding in place regarding the 1-10 format. It has been used for decades. Now I'm not saying every reviewer is as reliable as another, or that the exact meaning of each integer score is the same - official magazine scores I would always avoid. I'm also not saying that review scores are the be all and end all. However, I am saying that a compilation of review scores such as on Metacritic is a more reliable method of determination of game quality than a single score alone. You can also sift through the critic scores on MC for reputable reviewers; upon seeing that their score is, say, above 7, you may feel inclined to read their review. If anything, scores for me are like a quality control stage before reading a review, and a reassurance, before I then go on to read the review and address whether it's a game I would enjoy playing. If I saw a game was rated 4/10, I'd have been saved the time and effort of even reading a review. Here's a good example of why I support collated reviews: You go to buy a product on Amazon and there are two different versions available from different manufacturers. One of these products has five stars, with only 1 customer review. The other product has 97 costumer reviews, with a 4.5 stars average rating. The product with 97 customer reviews is much more reassuring, even before you've examined the actual reviews in detail. Upon closer inspection of the 97 reviews, some of the reviewers are 'Top 100' reviewers, and appear to have given a very good review writeup, while some of the reviewers gave just 1 sentence and formatted text terribly. Even putting the poorly-typed reviews to one side, there are a number of positive reviews from people who seem to know what they are talking about. Contrast this to the single review - the reviewer may have little expertise on rating (the type who mark full if simply 'satisfied'), or it could have been a fluke that he was satisfied. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to be one of the majority than the minority. This is what makes it the majority. So you have a higher chance of being statisfied with the stronger-support product, so it's logical to opt for that one.

I think it's very predictable how this argument would continue should I choose to waste my time addressing all of your points--verbal tennis, and I honestly don't want to spend more time doing that. Instead, just realise some of the stupidity behind what you're saying. Of course there is a video game RPG D&D genre; you should do some research before making such ridiculous statements. It's a subdivision of western RPGs, and was made popular by Diablo/Baldur's Gate due to their originality and contrast to other existing RPGs. It wouldn't be right to just class them as simply RPGs since you may be a typical RPG fan but dislike the tactical/archaic gameplay style of these traditional roleplay-style games. Also know that the majority of critics use the 1-10 score in a similar manner, therefore the system is not arbitrary. Stellar games consistently score 8 - 10, demonstrating that the scoring system does conform to a loose standard. If it didn't, then the scoring system would not exist. To validate this point, critically acclaimed games will typically feature numerous similar scores (9,10) from various publications on their box art. Multiple opinions of a game will always provide a more rounded view than any single review alone; this in undeniable fact. To conclude: if you're going to spend £30-40, you aren't damn well going to go off a single person's review; a review by a person that may have completely different opinions about game genres than you do. At the very least, Metacritic allows you to sift through a number of critics for the ones that you may appreciate the most, rather than going by the Metacritic averaged score. You've basically argued your way through this topic having bought/acquired a game that you had no prior knowledge of the type of gameplay involved. You've then defended EDGE, despite being a mostly shitty magazine, for awarding the game 5/10, yet you've gone and acquired the game anyway. You can't have valued the review much, then? And if you hadn't read that review before you bought it, you could have at the very least found out previously what kind of game it was, or that it was a spiritual successor to BG. And if you got it as a present, then why the hell are you complaining? It wouldn't be as if you had paid anything for it. And by the way, there's no doubt in my mind that you don't dress your language in real life as you do here on these forums, or in any other place where you're not trying to appear intelligent. I've actually had a message from someone saying that they completely agree with what I'm saying. Not that I would particularly care too much, but it at least confirms that I'm not the only one who thinks you're full of it. AFAIK you're a 20 year old undergraduate, and to my knowledge nobody else with your limited life experience has gone full-blown Stephen Fry just a year or so after school/college. You are an all-round douche, and exchanging comments with you is even more depressing than with Rokhed and O_W, and that's saying something.

Oh, pardon me. Forgive me for thinking that a well-rounded assessment of a game's merit formed from collective critic opinions (many with larger subscriber-bases) was far better to go on than one, particularly snide magazine's two cents. And let's be honest, people will buy shit. It's the arty gaming magazine with the nice cover and the presentation of a modern, stylish magazine. It would sell copies even if it headed an edition stating "Ocarina of Time: Worst game of all time", albeit for the wrong reasons. They can ascribe whatever they like to their scoring system, but that doesn't mean a thing. People who do not wish to pay for this turd of a magazine are therefore exempt from their explanation behind what their scores mean, and can really then only ever judge their scoring against other review scores. And in fact, we do this all the time. We directly compare the scores of games from different websites and believe that they are directly comparable. It's EDGE's responsibility to put across their final view in a manner that can be understood by anyone, not just their pompous, egotistical gentleman's club following. No, clearly not. Nintendo Power, like any other official magazine, is usually heavily biased in scoring games. Metacritic is still a far more reliable interpreation of a game's merit than any single score alone. This is, unless, you consider EDGE to be the divine word on gaming; and FYI, this would be the most ridiculous thing to believe ever. EDGE's opinion on the game is not the gospel truth, while all other reviews are trash, as you assume. As a scientist, strength in understanding is formed by averaged repeat readings, whereby crap (extremes) are filtered out. I genuinely believe that, should I chose to spend £30-40, I'd rather base that decision on the view of a number of sources, and particularly user opinion for that genre rather than one cuthroat, possibly anti-genre article. And no, I don't go solely on point scores, but they are an easy way to quickly and roughly guage whether a game has some acclaim or not. A game which has the majority of scores around 40-50% is unlikely to require a read of reviews. Ok, so I'm officially arguing with an idiot. Since when can a review about a game ever be anything but subjective? Are you completely retarded? I think it's funny how you use elaborate language in an attempt to appear far more intelligent than you clearly are - in my experience, people throwing around heavy language on places like Nintendo forums are usually the most insecure and pretentious fuckers you'll likely ever meet, and are rarely ever intelligent. To cut your waffle short, here is the very purpose of reviews: to provide the reader with a person's opinion of a game. Usually, this is so the reader can determine whether they want to purchase the game. Now consider a magazine that consistently reviews games differently to both overall gamer and critic opinion - the chances are, probability-wise, you'll be one of the gamers who might actually appreciate the game in question. Now consider that you might be making purchase decisions based on magazine reviews; why would you honestly continue to buy a magazine that differs in gaming tastes and opinions to your own? You wouldn't - it'd be stupid. EDGE panders to idiots who like to waste their money on skewed opinions and those who are incapable of setting up an internet connection. Yeah, a mental midget. If I recall how you initiated this conversation, it went along the lines of "You sir, are a dipshit." You couldn't even format that properly. You then proceeded to argue a point about reviews being subjective, as if there was ever a more needless issue that needed to be defended, and that the game was too D&D for you. Oh gosh - this tetris game is a bit too 'puzzly' for me. This Mario game is a bit too 'platformy' for me. If there was ever better proof of your sheer idiocy in choosing a game to which you disliked the genre of, this is it. Funnily enough, you haven't even gotten back to me on whether you even played the original Baldur's Gate, which shares many of your gripes. You're clearly a moron, and I've sussed that in the 30 or so minutes I've spent arguing with you. I particularly like how you've formed the opinion that you're smarter than me, because I choose not to waste my time, money or attention on a gaming magazine. Yep, I'm 22 and don't buy video game magazines. I must clearly be one horrendously unintelligent motherfucker, as opposed to the Einstein's in library until 2AM every morning reading their copies of EDGE. Instead, I'll rarely play games these days and instead focus on my research masters, like your typical 'mental midget'. Oh look at me, I'm The Bard! I'm so important that I enter arguments on Nintendo forums with this arrogant attitude and air of self-importance. I feel the need to belittle the other person by dressing my posts with language that you wouldn't find used by anyone else in such an informal situation. Even Supergrunch, someone who is undeniably more intelligent than you, doesn't feel the need to post like an all-round, pretentious git.

I'm disagreeing with the magazine as a whole; a magazine with absolutely zero integrity due to their mostly idiotic reviews. And idiotic long-term reader base, if you're anything to go by. I wouldn't waste any more time reading their reviews, as I know it'd be time I'd wish I could have back. Having played about 8 hours of the game so far I can instantly revoke their '5/10'. Whatever points they've made, they clearly haven't appreciated the core gameplay and the fact that it's actually quite enjoyable. 5/10 sends the message 'poor', or at best 'low-average'. Again; their points are always fine if justified, but the /10 scoring system is a universal format that can instantly be interpreted without additional information. I interpret that they've completely missed the point of the game. To make an impression they commonly do this; that is, score games bizarrely or just completely differently to what the vast majority of gamers, and often critics, believe. And really, what's the point in buying a magazine where the reviews are so out of touch with what you might genuinely believe yourself? I actually feel sorry for people who base most of their game-purchase decisions on this magazine (perhaps those who don't rely on the internet), as they'll end up missing out on genuinely good games, or possibly pointed towards piles of shit. Take FFXII for example; EDGE are in the firm belief that this was a masterpiece. Fair enough, I completely disagree, but that's their opinion. What is worrying is when they place this game as their 8th best video game of all time. Ahead of Tetris and Super Metroid, actually. So then, this sounds alarm bells in my head - "Does this magazine think the same as me? Is their opinion likely to reflect what I, or many others, would think about this particular game anymore?" Long story short; no. And I definitely wouldn't pay them for the pleasure of being informed about which games that I might enjoy that I should avoid. Just to put this semi-rant into perspective: EDGE's review for this game, as far as I can tell from Metacritic, would be the lowest out of 38 critic reviews (PS3), should it be placed in there. It differs from the average of 87 by a whole 37. Or 65th out of 65 for the PC version, with a difference of 41. Now it's fine to differ somewhat in scoring, but by such a huge margin you really should start to realise that their reviews are the thoughts of one or two individuals, with little thought to how the public may find the game. tl;dr version: EDGE have reviewed enough games poorly for me to not give a tiny rat's ass about what they think. Give the cost of the magazine to charity each month instead; far better spent. Edit: RE Bard's review -what did you expect? Your problem lies mostly with the genre of game, and the fact you've stated it's 'something that would appeal to D&D kids'. Well yeah - it is a D&D style game. Of course you'll find it dire if you aren't a fan of such games. It's like how Zelda games are usually rated 9-10 despite having similar game mechanics or consistently appealing to one style of gamer. Can I ask - did you ever play the original PC Baldur's Gate series? I'm interested in whether you thought the same things about what is typically believed to be one of the finest PC games of all time. Many of your gripes were present in that game.

I would have to agree with him. EDGE is one of the worst gaming magazines there is, and their scores are often just silly. Don't waste your money on their magazines that are 75% blank space. They're arty tossers like that. On topic: loving this. Asked for it as a present and it's awesome. I expect many not to like it, as it's a far cry from your typical RPG fare with dumbed down mechanics and easy playing.

It isn't though. It's pretty much the same concept; switching between a light and dark world, with there being large differences from normal gameplay in the dark world. Obviously the game mechanics regarding it (can you get there any time you want, how does it relate to the story) will differ, because it's a different game altogether. I'd be utterly shocked if the mechanics behind the two were the same, or if it related to the story in the same way in both, but no one suggested that. However, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't a new concept unlike the time system in MM. Also, take into consideration another striking similarity. When Link enters the Twilight realm, he becomes a wolf. In LTTP, he becomes a rabbit. It's something else that makes you feel 'hey, something like this has been before'.

Merry Christmas you wonderful bastards.

I...don't know what to say. Crappy Meal? :p

Well today I've had a bit of a cold, and I played squash 2 days ago for the first time in a few months so my body is aching like crazy! Going to have a nice bath to soak now. On the plus side, I got my Christmas card from my girlfriend today which had her picture on the front (good old Moonpig). It's really sweet and I miss her loads; can't wait for New Year's Eve! Ooh, the message inside made me a happy man.

Why don't you just not go to the cinema or buy crap games? Then you save £5 each game! Most films are poo anyway. :p

Obviously the content and application varies, but the basic thing has been done before. Switching between a light and dark dimension for the purpose of progressing...all I'm saying is that it wasn't original and didn't define the game either.

Twilight Zone... have you played LTTP? There's an alternate dimension there, too. Not that it really offers much more to the gameplay, as they're just relatively short sections. Contrast this to the time system in MM, where it governs everything. If you want to look at it a different way, the wolf sections are just Link with a different set of tools at his disposal. It's a bit like Young Link in OoT, but using the wolf's attacks and senses rather than shoddy equipment.

I don't need to define it; the statement stands up by itself. In terms of 3D main title Zelda games, TP had nothing important that was new or original. OoT had the 3D perspective and complete overhaul of how the dungeons therefore were designed and how certain equipment could be used. MM had the time system which impacted the entire game. WW focussed greatly on exploration and you could argue that the presentation itself was very different. TP...was an OoT fanboy-appeasing title (read: Adult Link) that, however good the core gameplay was, presented very little in the way of original additions. Sure, it's fun and playable, but then again Zelda games are. It just didn't present anything to surprise long-term Zelda players.

No one said it's perfect (your words). Just better than all the other Zelda games (IMO). Twilight Princess offered nothing new or original, so I really don't see how people can think it's the best of the lot. Now that's just not true. When I see a bullshit article I'll argue against it, as it's basically trying to smear what is an amazing game. And I'd do that with any shoddily-written article I saw, too.

Most of this article has very poor points. At least in trying to prove that MM isn't the best Zelda game, as most of those points are minor quibbles at best. MM isn't short, as its temples are generally longer (fairy collecting, too), and it consists of several unofficial dungeons that are longer than anything OoT offered. It has many more sidequests, and certainly lasted me a lot longer than OoT did. At least if you try and do everything the game offered. Regarding the item/rupee losing...the idea is that they return to where they came from. They needed some way of actually retaining your rupees (done via bank stamp) and masks since it would be a huge ordeal to obtain these again. You can't have a true Groundhog Day experience while retaining the enjoyability factor. On the plus side, you can go open all treasure chests again for rupees, so every cloud has a silver lining. It's also ridiculous to argue the logic of a videogame in which magic is commonplace. It's pretty much the comic book guy from the Simpsons asking why saving is even possible in games when there's no such function in real life. It's a game, and therefore not realistic, so it's crazy to suggest that the game is broken/rubbish for having unrealistic aspects. Regarding the time limit and dungeons...it really only affected people who were crap at the game. Unless you really don't have a clue what your'e doing, I find it very hard to imagine that someone would need the full 3 days plus the countdown after slowing down time to clear a dungeon. If anything the game offers a slight challenge with the time system. And it made sidequests feal far more real, and made the whole game feel different from any other Zelda title.

Install the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor and it'll tell you what drivers need upgrading. Make sure to select the 64 bit tab.

Haha, is that for real? That can't be all you need to do to sign up for it, surely.