Distant Guns : Jutland - preview

On 26 dec, 23:43, rus4e... RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Well dang Eddy, why would any of those distinguished individuals post
> to a venue that Cobb refers to as "UselessNet?" But, let me QFT him
> from the thread that I linked our readers to above, again in reference
> to CMSF:
>
> "If amybpdy has a CTD with the demo, please post here. A fool on
> UselessNet says he's having trouble. I smell slander."

The "fool" mentioned in the quote above is Mr. Giftzwerg and he was
right about the problem ... again - as Mr. Cobb later grudgingly
admitted.

> Wow, now there's some diplomacy at work, very nice forum presence over
> there at the Wargamer, very authoritative. In point of fact, many,
> many gamers that downloaded that demo were having absolute fits with
> it, as is detailed later in the thread. But, hey, he's passionate
> right, if he wants to flame and discredit anyone who undermines a game
> that he's charged with, let him do it right?  Having read your
> comments above, it would appear that you'd have folks just shut up and
> not post their impressions of the enterprise at hand when Cobb's
> involved. If that's the case, then I'd have to agree with his
> characterization of this forum.

Hmm. If you search the archives over at Google Groups you'll find
plenty of posts by me and others spanking Mr Cobbs lower backside for
below-par reviews. The reason he calls this place UselessNet (but
still lurks - obviously) is just because he got flamed in here on more
than one occasion. And all of them pretty much justified. However his
last half dozen reviews or so have vindicated him a lot - to the
point, professional, pointing out the good and the bad, and as a
result he got well-deserved kudos in here. At this point in time Jim
Cobb, as a reviewer, cannot be faulted.

You, however, seem to have a problem when he dons his gamer cap and
expresses his opinion about a game in a public forum, denying him the
same right any other gamer has to be a fan or a hater of a system/
game. See, I don't particularly agree with his opinion about DG (on
the contrary) but I'll defend his right to be a fanboy of the game.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On Dec 26, 9:35 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
<eddyster....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 dec, 20:16, rus4e....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:
>
(SNIP)
> 3)The previous options are based on the gamer admitting to himself he
> was wrong. A lot of people don't seem to be able to take this step and
> instead try to rationalize all the game's problems away or actively
> ignore those problems altogether. Peer pressure and constant
> reinforcement of the "the game has no problems, only people who "don't
> get it" have problems" message on the game's forum transform these
> gamers into fanboy posse members.
(SNIP)
>
> Eddy Sterckx

Nice write-up. One psychological term for your option 3 is "cognitive
dissonance", defined as:

"a state of psychological discomfort arising when a consumer tries to
reconcile two conflicting states of mind, for example, the positive
feeling of having chosen to buy a product and the negative feeling of
being disappointed with it afterwards."

wps.pearsoned.co.uk/wps/media/objects/1452/1487687/glossary/
glossary.html

-von Schmidt
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On 27 dec, 13:13, von Schmidt <von_schm....TakeThisOut@mail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 9:35 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 24 dec, 20:16, rus4e....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> (SNIP)
> > 3)The previous options are based on the gamer admitting to himself he
> > was wrong. A lot of people don't seem to be able to take this step and
> > instead try to rationalize all the game's problems away or actively
> > ignore those problems altogether. Peer pressure and constant
> > reinforcement of the "the game has no problems, only people who "don't
> > get it" have problems" message on the game's forum transform these
> > gamers into fanboy posse members.
> (SNIP)
>
> Nice write-up. One psychological term for your option 3 is "cognitive
> dissonance", defined as:
>
> "a state of psychological discomfort arising when a consumer tries to
> reconcile two conflicting states of mind, for example, the positive
> feeling of having chosen to buy a product and the negative feeling of
> being disappointed with it afterwards."
>
> wps.pearsoned.co.uk/wps/media/objects/1452/1487687/glossary/
> glossary.html

Who said you can't learn anything in here ?

I was approaching it from the possible solutions/reactions the mind
has for such a conundrum. The thing I've observed is that how the
customer reacts is largely dependent on how the fubar is handled at
the seller.

And as small as the wargame world is there are *huge* differences
between the various developers/publishers, resulting in vastly
different "tones" in their respective forums. You really get the
customers you deserve.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On 27 dec, 13:45, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg....RemoveThis@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe.  But the internet has a long memory, and there's enough sheer
> boneheadedness packed into his review of, say, POA2 to taint roughly
> 500,007 reviews.

I don't know about the internet, but you sure have a looooooong
memory

If you review a beta of a game you're bound to encounter obvious bugs.
When the developer tells you then that those obvious bugs will "off
course" be fixed it's only human to assume they will be fixed as
they're ... well, so *obvious* no sane developer would ship a product
containing them.

Well, we all know different now <sigh> - and that's why some major
publications demand the developer sign of on the product so that the
game reviewed equals the game shipped.

But looking at it from the bright side : market forces work. Jim
Cobb's credibility took a major hit, from which he apparantly hasn't
completely recovered and though from what I've read the recent
versions of POA2 are pretty stable virtually nobody is willing to give
it a second chance. Never mind the uphill struggle the upcoming POA3
will have to convince gamers.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On 27 dec, 15:06, "RobP" <robertapoll....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think the official reviewers like the usenet much, because they have
> no control over it - and long may it stay that way!

I talk to a lot of people and what I've heard on more than one
occasion is that they find this place scary because it has no
moderators. They like moderators - someone they can turn to when
they're getting called a moron for expressing a moronic idea. Go
figure

I sometimes invite bad-asses (or wannabees) from other forums over.
You know, the guys who bring up politics in every post they make or
bite back with a vengeance not tolerated by moderators but so far with
zero results.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

In article <0683611b-a215-43f3-a0fc-
ca0475279ddb DeleteThis @n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, eddysterckx DeleteThis @hotmail.com
says...

> > "If amybpdy has a CTD with the demo, please post here. A fool on
> > UselessNet says he's having trouble. I smell slander."
>
> The "fool" mentioned in the quote above is Mr. Giftzwerg and he was
> right about the problem ... again - as Mr. Cobb later grudgingly
> admitted.

If we're talking about CM:SF, then the ranks of "fools who had CTD
problems with the demo" are roughly congruent to the mathematical
distribution curve of "fools who enjoy beer, wine, or liquor."

> Hmm. If you search the archives over at Google Groups you'll find
> plenty of posts by me and others spanking Mr Cobbs lower backside for
> below-par reviews. The reason he calls this place UselessNet (but
> still lurks - obviously) is just because he got flamed in here on more
> than one occasion. And all of them pretty much justified. However his
> last half dozen reviews or so have vindicated him a lot - to the
> point, professional, pointing out the good and the bad, and as a
> result he got well-deserved kudos in here. At this point in time Jim
> Cobb, as a reviewer, cannot be faulted.

Maybe. But the internet has a long memory, and there's enough sheer
boneheadedness packed into his review of, say, POA2 to taint roughly
500,007 reviews.


--
Giftzwerg
***
"I still find it hard to believe that the invention of the catapult
preceded the invention of the computer and all its peripherals; nothing
in human history exceeds the ability of the computer to make its user
want to construct a device that hurls heavy objects as far away as
possible."
- James Lileks
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

<eddysterckx DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e780f70-e5f1-44f1-9c9c-f956a3b29a73@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 dec, 13:45, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg... DeleteThis @NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know about the internet, but you sure have a looooooong
> memory
>
> If you review a beta of a game you're bound to encounter obvious bugs.
> When the developer tells you then that those obvious bugs will "off
> course" be fixed it's only human to assume they will be fixed as
> they're ... well, so *obvious* no sane developer would ship a product
> containing them.
>
> Well, we all know different now <sigh> - and that's why some major
> publications demand the developer sign of on the product so that the
> game reviewed equals the game shipped.
>
> But looking at it from the bright side : market forces work. Jim
> Cobb's credibility took a major hit, from which he apparantly hasn't
> completely recovered and though from what I've read the recent
> versions of POA2 are pretty stable virtually nobody is willing to give
> it a second chance. Never mind the uphill struggle the upcoming POA3
> will have to convince gamers.
>

Both his and Don Maddox review of POA2 verged on downright deceit. That said
POA2 is now a very good game only let down by the number of available
scenarios. In fact with the latest patch even CM:SF is now showing promise.
I have had no weird AI behavior (yet) and they have even given my infantry
the smoke grenades that prove most useful in urban engagements.

I think all reviews are going to be biased, even the ones here on the
'useless net'. But the bottom line is that anyone can post to the usenet and
not get censored. Many posts often end up as heated debates, but some useful
information does come out of these as a bi-product.

I read 'official' reviews all the time as they are of use even when they are
misleading. As long as one cross-references these reviews with other sources
much good information can be gleaned.

I don't think the official reviewers like the usenet much, because they have
no control over it - and long may it stay that way!

RobP
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

In article <gjOcj.112042$cJ3.43940@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
robertapollard RemoveThis @hotmail.com says...

> > But looking at it from the bright side : market forces work. Jim
> > Cobb's credibility took a major hit, from which he apparantly hasn't
> > completely recovered and though from what I've read the recent
> > versions of POA2 are pretty stable virtually nobody is willing to give
> > it a second chance. Never mind the uphill struggle the upcoming POA3
> > will have to convince gamers.
> >
>
> Both his and Don Maddox review of POA2 verged on downright deceit.

Sheer cluelessness might also explain it. Barely.

> That said
> POA2 is now a very good game only let down by the number of available
> scenarios.

Interestingly (I say, tootin' my own horn...), this was my original
complaint of the then-sight-unseen product.

This is a common complaint from my quarter, even with high-quality
products like SSG's BATTLES IN X series.

> I think all reviews are going to be biased, even the ones here on the
> 'useless net'. But the bottom line is that anyone can post to the usenet and
> not get censored. Many posts often end up as heated debates, but some useful
> information does come out of these as a bi-product.

Well put. I would add, though, that these heated debates are a
*feature*, not a bug. You get the best kind of information by studying
a debate between opposite viewpoints, so long as both sides are backing
up their points with valid data, observations, and arguments.

> I don't think the official reviewers like the usenet much, because they have
> no control over it - and long may it stay that way!

<applause>

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Are you impressed with a drop in home values of 6.6% over a year? It
doesn't seem like such a big correction, given the dramatic run-up in
prices over the last decade or so. ... And don't declining prices make
housing more ... what's the word? ... affordable?"
- Mickey Kaus
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview 

On 27 dec, 23:28, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg....TakeThisOut@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <gjOcj.112042$cJ3.43...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> robertapoll....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > But looking at it from the bright side : market forces work. Jim
> > > Cobb's credibility took a major hit, from which he apparantly hasn't
> > > completely recovered and though from what I've read the recent
> > > versions of POA2 are pretty stable virtually nobody is willing to give
> > > it a second chance. Never mind the uphill struggle the upcoming POA3
> > > will have to convince gamers.
>
> > Both his and Don Maddox review of POA2 verged on downright deceit.
>
> Sheer cluelessness might also explain it.  Barely.

Optimism and faith in the word of a respected developer ?

> > That said
> > POA2 is now a very good game only let down by the number of available
> > scenarios.
>
> Interestingly (I say, tootin' my own horn...), this was my original
> complaint of the then-sight-unseen product.

Given that it required a separate $50 program (ADC2) to create maps
for it that was one of your more "duh" predictions

I mean, *everyone* knew nobody was going to fork over another $50 for
the priviledge of being allowed to create maps for a game they just
bought.

> > not get censored. Many posts often end up as heated debates, but some useful
> > information does come out of these as a bi-product.
>
> Well put.  I would add, though, that these heated debates are a
> *feature*, not a bug.  You get the best kind of information by studying
> a debate between opposite viewpoints, so long as both sides are backing
> up their points with valid data, observations, and arguments.

yeah, and on top of that : a good flame has an entertainment value all
of it's own too

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Distant Guns : Jutland - preview