Talk:Space Giraffe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Game Reviews

I think it would be best to list the reviews in the "Reception" section alphabetically, rather than "highest-to-lowest" or "lowest-to-highest," or by review date, to eliminate any possible bias it may present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.72.232 (talk) 15:03, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure why it would engender bias, ordering by score clearly shows how varied the reception has been which is a defining trait of this title. I'd like it to stay this way unless there's a clear wikipedia precedent or a the point about bias is made a little clearer Gravy 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


In terms of bias, why should the highest scores be listed at the top? Why not the lowest scores at the top? I think that introduces bias. Also...

Each publication uses a different ratings system, so a 7 from GameSpot means something different than a 7 from IGN. If all publications used the exact same criteria to rate the game, then yes, you could make an argument that listing reviews in an order gives readers a fair comparison between reviews. But in this instance, it doesn't.

GameSpot Review Guidelines: http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html IGN Review Guidelines: http://games.ign.com/ratings.html

Using these two examples, GameSpot weighs a games originality heavily with its rating. An extremely good game that isn't original can't score anything better than a 9. IGN, on the other hand, can give an extremely good game that isn't original a 10. So their numbers don't line up.

Here is the section about originality on the GameSpot review guidelines:

We Take Time and Originality Into Account We judge more critically as time goes by, because our expectations as game players are constantly increasing. When we review a game, we consider it at the exact point in time at which the evaluation is taking place (generally, the week of a game's release) and compare it to what we believe to be the current standards of quality at that time. In general, GameSpot does not favor highly derivative games, which mostly recycle elements from other, previous games. Instead, we appreciate original concepts and ideas that are executed well. This also means that each time an excellent game is released, it becomes incrementally more difficult for another game to be as good in the grand scheme of things.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.72.232 (talk) 15:37, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand the bias point, what would it bias the reader towards?
The other stuff? Yep I understand that the criteria different reviewers use are different per outlet and to be honest tend to vary by reviewer as well. Even so if you take some time to look at some of the review aggregator sites (gamerankings.com and metacritic.com) you'll see that the average of those reviews and the spread of points do give you a broad idea of how a game has been received. As I said the "marmite" reaction to SG is a defining trait of this game/
I think the way review box is laid out now conveys a general idea of the wide range of the game's critical reception. Change it back to alphabetical and you lose that, the only other information you're communicating is you can put things in alphabetical order :D I think it'd be a shame to lose that information and without further elaboration on the bias point am having difficulty understanding what harm it does Gravy 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gameindustry.com review

Just added this and noticed it had already been added / deleted.

I got the review from gamerankings.com and assumed if it was a good enough source for them it was also good enough for wikipedia. Gravy 12:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Anyone have a problem with the re-add?

[edit] Review

Multiple people on the Xbox forums and elsewhere have confirmed that SG got a 2.0 from OXM, but to upload a scan would at least violate the xbox forum guidelines. Because of this, I think it's credible -- though we should cite the OXM issue, not the forum that confirms it. White 720 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, especially as the forum thread in question does not contain the text that precedes the citation. That is, "Official Xbox Magazine gave Space Giraffe a 2/10 rating, stating "You'll frequently die because you couldn't pick out the pulsating assassin from the warped playfield floating over the throbbing LSD nightmare that is the background, which makes this game uniquely aggravating."".
The only thing from that bit mentioned on the whole of the three-page thread is the original score out of ten. With regards to uploading a scan or a transcript, I'm not certain about any legalities of such activity, but the Xbox forum guidelines do not apply here. --Dreaded Walrus t c 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article cleanup

Just noting that I've done a lot of reorg and cleanup of this article - mostly stripping the achievements and the reference allusions out - as I think once we get a few more reviews in place, and scoop out more development details from Minter's blog, we can get this title up to a GA quickly. --Masem 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows version

gilesgoat of Llamasoft has a long rant on why there will not soon be a Windows version of Space Giraffe here, specifically in response to this Wikipedia article. Until there's any concrete info about a Windows version we should leave it out of the article. White 720 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bullets

I've removed the below. Out of the 10k people who've bought the game 2 people have found this an issue, one of which (Kamineko from the YY forums) posted the paragraph I've removed

"Users have expressed concern that the collision detection between the enemy bullets travelling toward the player, and the player 'giraffe' entity is unfair. Specifically, that the bullets are observed to be lethal at a range greater than is obvious from what is displayed onscreen. This can cause certain situations to occur where an enemy bullet appears to be avoidable, but in practice is very difficult to avoid without prior knowledge and 'training' to identify where and when a collision would occur. [22] Further investigation and corroboration of this phenomena by users lead to the creators, 'Yak' and 'Giles' refusing to discuss the matter further. [23]"

I think it's completely fine for their to be both negative and positive aspects of any subject in wikipedia but I'm not sure it should be used for personal complaints about subjects. Any opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravy (talk • contribs) 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, I didn't think to read the article's Talk page first. I believe the information is relevant to the Critical Response section (as relevant as any of the other information written in there), and can be verified using the references I provided in the original edit. I also believe that the reference stands as it includes the reaction and reasoning from the creators of Space Giraffe themselves. 79.72.52.96 18:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Wait a minute. I'm not Kamineko on YakYak. I don't even have an account there. 79.72.52.96 18:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It's true. MrD 06:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the critical reception section should be limited to reception from critics. As for using a forum post as a citation, forums aren't usually considered as reliable sources, unless, say, it's a forum post by the creators of the game. Which that criticism isn't, really. What would be great, is if we could find a review, or a newspiece, that points out that this is a problem. --Dreaded Walrus t c 18:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Gamer credible?

I read up on Angry Gamer and while it seems like a credible news source, I'm wondering how necessary it is to have so much of the "criticism" section devoted to AG's review of Space Giraffe. It seems like the review score, the review text, and the podcast follow-up are just ploys for attention in various forms, lashing out and ranting in the hopes of gaining an audience. Does a news site that doesn't take itself seriously at all belong so prominently as an example of the (+) pole of the review spectrum? White 720 04:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's like taking acid

Not that I have ever done so. Just seems like that's what being on acid would be like. -- 12.116.162.162 20:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

The Reception section includes a response from the game's designer, Jeff Minter, to the OXM review of Space Giraffe.

On the Something Awful forums, Space Giraffe designer Jeff Minter referred to the OXM review as "just about the most extraordinary example of egregious fuckwittery I have ever seen."[20]

While it is understandable that Mr. Minter would be upset by a bad review, is his public commentary relevant to this section? "Reception" relates to reactions of the press and people who bought the game, not Minter's. Shouldn't OXM's review be held up to comparison with the other reviews cited to allow the reader to come to a conclusion rather than the biased opinion of the designer?

The flap this review aroused should more properly be addressed under the separate heading of "Controversy".

Chairman B. (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Minter has been very vocal about the reviews and sales figures for SG. Like most rants, they don't really indicate anything but the developer's personal opinion. I'll remove the commentary on the OXM review controversy (a minor and short-lived one, certainly). White 720 (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)