More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • NYJets
    Hall Of Fame
    • Jul 2002
    • 18637

    #16
    Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

    You are complaining about a review you haven't read. Unbelievable.
    Originally posted by Jay Bilas
    The question isn't whether UConn belongs with the elites, but over the last 20 years, whether the rest of the college basketball elite belongs with UConn

    Comment

    • jmood88
      Sean Payton: Retribution
      • Jul 2003
      • 34639

      #17
      Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

      </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
      NYJets37 said:
      You are complaining about a review you haven't read. Unbelievable.

      <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

      Me?
      Originally posted by Blzer
      Let me assure you that I am a huge proponent of size, and it greatly matters. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

      If I went any bigger, it would not have properly fit with my equipment, so I had to optimize. I'm okay with it, but I also know what I'm missing with those five inches. :)

      Comment

      • jmood88
        Sean Payton: Retribution
        • Jul 2003
        • 34639

        #18
        Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

        </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
        NYJets37 said:
        You are complaining about a review you haven't read. Unbelievable.

        <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

        Me?
        Originally posted by Blzer
        Let me assure you that I am a huge proponent of size, and it greatly matters. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

        If I went any bigger, it would not have properly fit with my equipment, so I had to optimize. I'm okay with it, but I also know what I'm missing with those five inches. :)

        Comment

        • jmood88
          Sean Payton: Retribution
          • Jul 2003
          • 34639

          #19
          Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

          </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
          NYJets37 said:
          You are complaining about a review you haven't read. Unbelievable.

          <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

          Me?
          Originally posted by Blzer
          Let me assure you that I am a huge proponent of size, and it greatly matters. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

          If I went any bigger, it would not have properly fit with my equipment, so I had to optimize. I'm okay with it, but I also know what I'm missing with those five inches. :)

          Comment

          • OneBadMutha
            Pro
            • Sep 2003
            • 632

            #20
            Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

            </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
            jmood88 said:
            </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
            OneBadMutha said:
            </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
            jmood88 said:
            </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
            OneBadMutha said:
            Game Informer, the magazine that gives away great scores to bad games, scored Inside Drive a 6.5 To put that into perspective, that's about a 4.0 by any other publication's standards. I haven't read the actual review since I just found this out from someone who posted the Game Informer scores however I just needed to vent about how unknowledgable these idiots are when it comes to reviewing true Sports sims. Basically their scores are weighted against advertisements and hype which ID has neither of. I could put a monkey in a chair with some paper and crayola crayons in front of him and tell him to write a review and publish it and I think it would make more sense than Game Informers shi##y *** reviews.

            <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

            How do you know how they judge a game? Maybe the game is just bad.

            <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

            Ummmm....no. This is the same excuse that a lot of gamers give for a magazine or website that they like because it rates their particular favorite game highly (and God knows that Game Informer can kiss the asses of pretty much any well selling franchises). The bottom line is that Game Informers reviews have always lacked depth and really don't touch on gameplay very much. You truly are forced to trust their scores instead of reading what they have to say.

            When so many Basketball fans who have no loyalty to MS Sports and who've been playing Basketball games for a long time love the gameplay in Inside Drive, it has to make you wonder what these reviewers base their scores on. Is it based on sales? Hype? Personally I think so and I also think it's a snowball effect since those things and ratings can keep feeding off each other.

            All you have to do is read Steve's preview (the most in depth preview on the internet I might add) and you'll find out that Inside Drive still has the same tight gameplay, fixes the biggest issues from last year, touched up the graphics and animations a little bit, added some new usefull controls, and will be online. Unless Steve's Beta copy got a lot worse in it's translation to the final version, then there's no way that last year's fantastic game got worse.

            <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

            Last year every game site and magazine gave inside drive bad reviews. Does that mean that every single reviewer know nothing about basketball? If everybody like inside drive then it would be th only game selling. Just because you think it's great doesn't meant that everybody else does.

            <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


            Actually.......I've pretty much come to the conclusion that neither Gamespot, IGN, Game Informer, EGM, OXM, and Gamepro has any reviewers that know a damned thing about Basketball. For one, you'll never hear them say anthing about the A.I. Oh wait, actually they have said that ESPN Basketball has great A.I. and is the most realistic BBall game. [Now I'm going to be immature] What-fu-##-ing-ever! Here, have some brews. It's a much healthier way to get fu##ed up rather than taking those hard drugs.

            Seriously. ID was the only Basketball game that instituted player tendancies. No review even mentions that. It was the only game before this year's Live (and ID 2003 still does this better than this year's Live) that had true Team Tendancies and play sets. It's the only game that uses screens away from the ball and has a proper execution of motion offenses or any type of offense that uses a lot of off-the-ball player movment. It's the only BBall game where the computer is smart enough to cut through an open lane when their team-mate is being double teamed.

            Do those things matter? Yea, it does if you want realistic playing BBall. ESPN has the nicely replicated free throw routines and it's kind of cool seeing our mascot on the side lines and the ESPN presentation is nice however when I see non-dunkers run down the lane and tomohawk the ball on my big men or Mutombo come down the court on a fast break and pull up for the mid range jumper and then the next time he does a cross over and then takes the ball to the rack and dunk like a guard.....well that's not realistic. Neither is 4 play sets. Neither is horrible A.I. that won't even try to tie the game when they are down by 3 with 5 seconds left. Neither is the horrible spacing that makes you pull your hair out.

            Now I'm not saying that ESPN shouldn't get decent ratings. It's not a realistic BBall game is all I'm saying. What I'm saying is that ESPN is a flashy BBall game while ID is a game of substance and gameplay for the hardcore BBall fan who wants the most realistic playing game rather than a game that just shows realistic stats. I'm not saying that ESPN sucks (and Live is actually pretty good this year) however if a gamer wants the most realistic team BBall play, ID is his only option and it's the game he probably doesn't even know about since the reviewers don't know enough about BBall to mention these great gameplay aspect that ID has over the competition. At least if these reviewers mentioned those things, the reader could make his mind up regardless of the score.

            Comment

            • OneBadMutha
              Pro
              • Sep 2003
              • 632

              #21
              Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

              </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
              jmood88 said:
              </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
              OneBadMutha said:
              </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
              jmood88 said:
              </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
              OneBadMutha said:
              Game Informer, the magazine that gives away great scores to bad games, scored Inside Drive a 6.5 To put that into perspective, that's about a 4.0 by any other publication's standards. I haven't read the actual review since I just found this out from someone who posted the Game Informer scores however I just needed to vent about how unknowledgable these idiots are when it comes to reviewing true Sports sims. Basically their scores are weighted against advertisements and hype which ID has neither of. I could put a monkey in a chair with some paper and crayola crayons in front of him and tell him to write a review and publish it and I think it would make more sense than Game Informers shi##y *** reviews.

              <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

              How do you know how they judge a game? Maybe the game is just bad.

              <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

              Ummmm....no. This is the same excuse that a lot of gamers give for a magazine or website that they like because it rates their particular favorite game highly (and God knows that Game Informer can kiss the asses of pretty much any well selling franchises). The bottom line is that Game Informers reviews have always lacked depth and really don't touch on gameplay very much. You truly are forced to trust their scores instead of reading what they have to say.

              When so many Basketball fans who have no loyalty to MS Sports and who've been playing Basketball games for a long time love the gameplay in Inside Drive, it has to make you wonder what these reviewers base their scores on. Is it based on sales? Hype? Personally I think so and I also think it's a snowball effect since those things and ratings can keep feeding off each other.

              All you have to do is read Steve's preview (the most in depth preview on the internet I might add) and you'll find out that Inside Drive still has the same tight gameplay, fixes the biggest issues from last year, touched up the graphics and animations a little bit, added some new usefull controls, and will be online. Unless Steve's Beta copy got a lot worse in it's translation to the final version, then there's no way that last year's fantastic game got worse.

              <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

              Last year every game site and magazine gave inside drive bad reviews. Does that mean that every single reviewer know nothing about basketball? If everybody like inside drive then it would be th only game selling. Just because you think it's great doesn't meant that everybody else does.

              <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


              Actually.......I've pretty much come to the conclusion that neither Gamespot, IGN, Game Informer, EGM, OXM, and Gamepro has any reviewers that know a damned thing about Basketball. For one, you'll never hear them say anthing about the A.I. Oh wait, actually they have said that ESPN Basketball has great A.I. and is the most realistic BBall game. [Now I'm going to be immature] What-fu-##-ing-ever! Here, have some brews. It's a much healthier way to get fu##ed up rather than taking those hard drugs.

              Seriously. ID was the only Basketball game that instituted player tendancies. No review even mentions that. It was the only game before this year's Live (and ID 2003 still does this better than this year's Live) that had true Team Tendancies and play sets. It's the only game that uses screens away from the ball and has a proper execution of motion offenses or any type of offense that uses a lot of off-the-ball player movment. It's the only BBall game where the computer is smart enough to cut through an open lane when their team-mate is being double teamed.

              Do those things matter? Yea, it does if you want realistic playing BBall. ESPN has the nicely replicated free throw routines and it's kind of cool seeing our mascot on the side lines and the ESPN presentation is nice however when I see non-dunkers run down the lane and tomohawk the ball on my big men or Mutombo come down the court on a fast break and pull up for the mid range jumper and then the next time he does a cross over and then takes the ball to the rack and dunk like a guard.....well that's not realistic. Neither is 4 play sets. Neither is horrible A.I. that won't even try to tie the game when they are down by 3 with 5 seconds left. Neither is the horrible spacing that makes you pull your hair out.

              Now I'm not saying that ESPN shouldn't get decent ratings. It's not a realistic BBall game is all I'm saying. What I'm saying is that ESPN is a flashy BBall game while ID is a game of substance and gameplay for the hardcore BBall fan who wants the most realistic playing game rather than a game that just shows realistic stats. I'm not saying that ESPN sucks (and Live is actually pretty good this year) however if a gamer wants the most realistic team BBall play, ID is his only option and it's the game he probably doesn't even know about since the reviewers don't know enough about BBall to mention these great gameplay aspect that ID has over the competition. At least if these reviewers mentioned those things, the reader could make his mind up regardless of the score.

              Comment

              • OneBadMutha
                Pro
                • Sep 2003
                • 632

                #22
                Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

                </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                jmood88 said:
                </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                OneBadMutha said:
                </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                jmood88 said:
                </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                OneBadMutha said:
                Game Informer, the magazine that gives away great scores to bad games, scored Inside Drive a 6.5 To put that into perspective, that's about a 4.0 by any other publication's standards. I haven't read the actual review since I just found this out from someone who posted the Game Informer scores however I just needed to vent about how unknowledgable these idiots are when it comes to reviewing true Sports sims. Basically their scores are weighted against advertisements and hype which ID has neither of. I could put a monkey in a chair with some paper and crayola crayons in front of him and tell him to write a review and publish it and I think it would make more sense than Game Informers shi##y *** reviews.

                <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                How do you know how they judge a game? Maybe the game is just bad.

                <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                Ummmm....no. This is the same excuse that a lot of gamers give for a magazine or website that they like because it rates their particular favorite game highly (and God knows that Game Informer can kiss the asses of pretty much any well selling franchises). The bottom line is that Game Informers reviews have always lacked depth and really don't touch on gameplay very much. You truly are forced to trust their scores instead of reading what they have to say.

                When so many Basketball fans who have no loyalty to MS Sports and who've been playing Basketball games for a long time love the gameplay in Inside Drive, it has to make you wonder what these reviewers base their scores on. Is it based on sales? Hype? Personally I think so and I also think it's a snowball effect since those things and ratings can keep feeding off each other.

                All you have to do is read Steve's preview (the most in depth preview on the internet I might add) and you'll find out that Inside Drive still has the same tight gameplay, fixes the biggest issues from last year, touched up the graphics and animations a little bit, added some new usefull controls, and will be online. Unless Steve's Beta copy got a lot worse in it's translation to the final version, then there's no way that last year's fantastic game got worse.

                <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                Last year every game site and magazine gave inside drive bad reviews. Does that mean that every single reviewer know nothing about basketball? If everybody like inside drive then it would be th only game selling. Just because you think it's great doesn't meant that everybody else does.

                <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">


                Actually.......I've pretty much come to the conclusion that neither Gamespot, IGN, Game Informer, EGM, OXM, and Gamepro has any reviewers that know a damned thing about Basketball. For one, you'll never hear them say anthing about the A.I. Oh wait, actually they have said that ESPN Basketball has great A.I. and is the most realistic BBall game. [Now I'm going to be immature] What-fu-##-ing-ever! Here, have some brews. It's a much healthier way to get fu##ed up rather than taking those hard drugs.

                Seriously. ID was the only Basketball game that instituted player tendancies. No review even mentions that. It was the only game before this year's Live (and ID 2003 still does this better than this year's Live) that had true Team Tendancies and play sets. It's the only game that uses screens away from the ball and has a proper execution of motion offenses or any type of offense that uses a lot of off-the-ball player movment. It's the only BBall game where the computer is smart enough to cut through an open lane when their team-mate is being double teamed.

                Do those things matter? Yea, it does if you want realistic playing BBall. ESPN has the nicely replicated free throw routines and it's kind of cool seeing our mascot on the side lines and the ESPN presentation is nice however when I see non-dunkers run down the lane and tomohawk the ball on my big men or Mutombo come down the court on a fast break and pull up for the mid range jumper and then the next time he does a cross over and then takes the ball to the rack and dunk like a guard.....well that's not realistic. Neither is 4 play sets. Neither is horrible A.I. that won't even try to tie the game when they are down by 3 with 5 seconds left. Neither is the horrible spacing that makes you pull your hair out.

                Now I'm not saying that ESPN shouldn't get decent ratings. It's not a realistic BBall game is all I'm saying. What I'm saying is that ESPN is a flashy BBall game while ID is a game of substance and gameplay for the hardcore BBall fan who wants the most realistic playing game rather than a game that just shows realistic stats. I'm not saying that ESPN sucks (and Live is actually pretty good this year) however if a gamer wants the most realistic team BBall play, ID is his only option and it's the game he probably doesn't even know about since the reviewers don't know enough about BBall to mention these great gameplay aspect that ID has over the competition. At least if these reviewers mentioned those things, the reader could make his mind up regardless of the score.

                Comment

                • OneBadMutha
                  Pro
                  • Sep 2003
                  • 632

                  #23
                  Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

                  </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                  NYJets37 said:
                  You are complaining about a review you haven't read. Unbelievable.

                  <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                  I'm complaining about the score. If history is any indication, I won't gain any knoweledge from actually reading the review. It will consist of "ID is simply behind the times and with ESPN and Live making such big strides this year, save your money for those games". It'll also mention that there's no improvements like they did last year which was a total and utter lie. Since it will be a 2 sentence blurb up in the corner of the page that they usually save for games like Super Bubble Pop, there's probably not room to say anything else.

                  Comment

                  • OneBadMutha
                    Pro
                    • Sep 2003
                    • 632

                    #24
                    Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

                    </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                    NYJets37 said:
                    You are complaining about a review you haven't read. Unbelievable.

                    <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                    I'm complaining about the score. If history is any indication, I won't gain any knoweledge from actually reading the review. It will consist of "ID is simply behind the times and with ESPN and Live making such big strides this year, save your money for those games". It'll also mention that there's no improvements like they did last year which was a total and utter lie. Since it will be a 2 sentence blurb up in the corner of the page that they usually save for games like Super Bubble Pop, there's probably not room to say anything else.

                    Comment

                    • OneBadMutha
                      Pro
                      • Sep 2003
                      • 632

                      #25
                      Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

                      </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                      NYJets37 said:
                      You are complaining about a review you haven't read. Unbelievable.

                      <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                      I'm complaining about the score. If history is any indication, I won't gain any knoweledge from actually reading the review. It will consist of "ID is simply behind the times and with ESPN and Live making such big strides this year, save your money for those games". It'll also mention that there's no improvements like they did last year which was a total and utter lie. Since it will be a 2 sentence blurb up in the corner of the page that they usually save for games like Super Bubble Pop, there's probably not room to say anything else.

                      Comment

                      • jmood88
                        Sean Payton: Retribution
                        • Jul 2003
                        • 34639

                        #26
                        Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

                        </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                        OneBadMutha said:
                        </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                        NYJets37 said:
                        You are complaining about a review you haven't read. Unbelievable.

                        <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                        I'm complaining about the score. If history is any indication, I won't gain any knoweledge from actually reading the review. It will consist of "ID is simply behind the times and with ESPN and Live making such big strides this year, save your money for those games". It'll also mention that there's no improvements like they did last year which was a total and utter lie. Since it will be a 2 sentence blurb up in the corner of the page that they usually save for games like Super Bubble Pop, there's probably not room to say anything else.



                        <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                        What improvements have they made?
                        Originally posted by Blzer
                        Let me assure you that I am a huge proponent of size, and it greatly matters. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

                        If I went any bigger, it would not have properly fit with my equipment, so I had to optimize. I'm okay with it, but I also know what I'm missing with those five inches. :)

                        Comment

                        • jmood88
                          Sean Payton: Retribution
                          • Jul 2003
                          • 34639

                          #27
                          Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

                          </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                          OneBadMutha said:
                          </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                          NYJets37 said:
                          You are complaining about a review you haven't read. Unbelievable.

                          <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                          I'm complaining about the score. If history is any indication, I won't gain any knoweledge from actually reading the review. It will consist of "ID is simply behind the times and with ESPN and Live making such big strides this year, save your money for those games". It'll also mention that there's no improvements like they did last year which was a total and utter lie. Since it will be a 2 sentence blurb up in the corner of the page that they usually save for games like Super Bubble Pop, there's probably not room to say anything else.



                          <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                          What improvements have they made?
                          Originally posted by Blzer
                          Let me assure you that I am a huge proponent of size, and it greatly matters. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

                          If I went any bigger, it would not have properly fit with my equipment, so I had to optimize. I'm okay with it, but I also know what I'm missing with those five inches. :)

                          Comment

                          • jmood88
                            Sean Payton: Retribution
                            • Jul 2003
                            • 34639

                            #28
                            Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

                            </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                            OneBadMutha said:
                            </font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
                            NYJets37 said:
                            You are complaining about a review you haven't read. Unbelievable.

                            <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                            I'm complaining about the score. If history is any indication, I won't gain any knoweledge from actually reading the review. It will consist of "ID is simply behind the times and with ESPN and Live making such big strides this year, save your money for those games". It'll also mention that there's no improvements like they did last year which was a total and utter lie. Since it will be a 2 sentence blurb up in the corner of the page that they usually save for games like Super Bubble Pop, there's probably not room to say anything else.



                            <hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

                            What improvements have they made?
                            Originally posted by Blzer
                            Let me assure you that I am a huge proponent of size, and it greatly matters. Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

                            If I went any bigger, it would not have properly fit with my equipment, so I had to optimize. I'm okay with it, but I also know what I'm missing with those five inches. :)

                            Comment

                            • neovsmatrix
                              MVP
                              • Jul 2002
                              • 2878

                              #29
                              Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

                              I loved ID 2003, and I'm pretty sure I'll love ID 2004.

                              Reviews are for the masses, and that's the target audience for Gamespot, IGN, Game Informer, etc. The only places you can trust if you want to get an accurate view about a game and are a fan of its genre is an actual site DEDICATED to that genre.

                              Comment

                              • neovsmatrix
                                MVP
                                • Jul 2002
                                • 2878

                                #30
                                Re: More dumb *** reviewers pretending that they know Basketball

                                I loved ID 2003, and I'm pretty sure I'll love ID 2004.

                                Reviews are for the masses, and that's the target audience for Gamespot, IGN, Game Informer, etc. The only places you can trust if you want to get an accurate view about a game and are a fan of its genre is an actual site DEDICATED to that genre.

                                Comment

                                Working...