Random thing you love right now that doesn't deserve its own thread

I just got the Greatest Video Game Music album by the London Philharmonic Orchestra on Amazon MP3 for $0.98 thanks to a promotion they're running, as well as some credit I had left.

It has music from Mass Effect, Final Fantasy, Splinter Cell, Fallout, World of Warcraft, Legend of Zelda, Battlefield, Call of Duty: MW2 and much more. Some of it gives me goosebumps.

Edit: I thought the inclusion of the Mario Bros. theme tune was odd, to say the least, but now that I'm listening to it I have a huge grin on my face. It's great!

I love the cover to that album.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/riPCc.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/QqMwc.jpg)

I also love that, in true video game fashion, that album has a sequel which you can pre-order.

Gravey wrote:

I also love that, in true video game fashion, that album has a sequel which you can pre-order.

But are there retailer-specific pre-order bonuses?

muttonchop wrote:
Gravey wrote:

I also love that, in true video game fashion, that album has a sequel which you can pre-order.

But are there retailer-specific pre-order bonuses?

GameStop: Bonus scherzo
Amazon.com: Downloadable contrapuntal pizzicato
Best Buy: USB conductor's baton with light-up tip

Die Antwoord

So I was playing my newly-acquired album, and when the Mario theme song came on my 10 month old daughter got very excited and started swaying along to the music. She's done that a few times to a select few songs, but this one made me so proud!

My wife and her eye doctor were complaining about insurance companies this morning at her appointment. I perked up when my wife said "Insurance. Insurance never changes."

She's never even heard of Fallout.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

My wife and her eye doctor were complaining about insurance companies this morning at her appointment. I perked up when my wife said "Insurance. Insurance never changes."

She's never even heard of Fallout.

In an amazing coincidence, "Insurance. Insurance never changes" was Tim Cain's original pitch for Fallout to Interplay. However, when Interplay executives were skeptical about the commercial prospects of a video game where the player is an actuary managing risks to minimize financial losses (the eponymous "fallout") from randomly-generated events in a turn-based balance sheet manager, Cain was asked to re-tool the core concept. After several revisions ("Reception", "TV/VCR repair", "Interaction in a Hegelian dialectic"), Cain settled on "war" giving us the game series we know today.

Seeing the internet freak out because Tom Chick over on Quarter to Three dared to give HALO 4 a score of 1 out of 5.

As a result, the metacritic score has dropped from 90 to 88. And this must be fixed.

So far, I have seen algorithms and weighted averaging, along with mean/median reporting as having been suggested to somehow correct the issue.

The idea that 'just because someone doesn't like a game doesn't mean that the average is bad' and '99.9999% of people don't care' also doesn't seem to resonate.

mudbunny wrote:

Seeing the internet freak out because Tom Chick over on Quarter to Three dared to give HALO 4 a score of 1 out of 5.

As a result, the metacritic score has dropped from 90 to 88. And this must be fixed.

So far, I have seen algorithms and weighted averaging, along with mean/median reporting as having been suggested to somehow correct the issue.

The idea that 'just because someone doesn't like a game doesn't mean that the average is bad' and '99.9999% of people don't care' also doesn't seem to resonate.

If metacritic determined his voice is equal to every other reviewer's voice then f*ck the haters.

SixteenBlue wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

Seeing the internet freak out because Tom Chick over on Quarter to Three dared to give HALO 4 a score of 1 out of 5.

As a result, the metacritic score has dropped from 90 to 88. And this must be fixed.

So far, I have seen algorithms and weighted averaging, along with mean/median reporting as having been suggested to somehow correct the issue.

The idea that 'just because someone doesn't like a game doesn't mean that the average is bad' and '99.9999% of people don't care' also doesn't seem to resonate.

If metacritic determined his voice is equal to every other reviewer's voice then f*ck the haters.

I read his review. He is very clear on why he gave it such a poor score. It's not like he was reviewing Skyrim and complaining that there wasn't enough parkour or roof running sequences.

IMAGE(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/339/373/b65.jpg)

Although I think Tom Chick is often a contrarian just for the sake of page views, I appreciate his alternate takes on things. He is always fair, even if it does seem like he sometimes tries a little too hard.

And, seriously? Do people have so much free time on their hands as to get up in arms about this sort of thing?

Spoiler:

Yes, I realize the irony of posting on a gaming forum about this subject myself. Deal with it.

Minarchist wrote:

And, seriously? Do people have so much free time on their hands as to get up in arms about this sort of thing?

Check my twitter timeline (@mudbunny74) for my discussion with one person.

Minarchist wrote:

IMAGE(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/339/373/b65.jpg)

Although I think Tom Chick is often a contrarian just for the sake of page views, I appreciate his alternate takes on things. He is always fair, even if it does seem like he sometimes tries a little too hard.

And, seriously? Do people have so much free time on their hands as to get up in arms about this sort of thing?

Spoiler:

Yes, I realize the irony of posting on a gaming forum about this subject myself. Deal with it.

I don't see him giving a darn about page views.

Tom Chick reviews feel informative to me. I have no problem enjoying a game he doesn't like, but I still come away with interesting perspectives on what makes games work or not.

Considering that Halo 4 is not even out yet, it is beyond silly to have a strong opinion on what the rating of the game should be. It may be one of those all-time great games that the buzz seems to want to indicate, but I bet it doesn't really live up to that hype. And it could still be a fantastic game.

But really, I've never understood actually caring what any given reviewer scores or says about a game. If I haven't played it, it is just one data point among many I would use to decide if I want to buy a game. If I have, I may find it interesting to see where differ or agree, but I am confused by anyone's need for a review to match their opinion.

We're Alive - Best podcast radio drama

Bonnonon wrote:

We're Alive - Best podcast radio drama

Word up. Let's bring back radio plays!

Jayhawker:

It matters because it's part of marketing and exposure. Look at Muramasa. How many people know that this is a fantastic technical brawler type of ARPG? Pod casters on this site (with the notable exception of the excellent Mr. Andrich) mistook it for a freakin' JRPG! It was actually reviewed that way by some people. Predictably, it's not really a very good JRPG, as JRPGs go; just like Mario Galaxy is a rather bad first person shooter.

It's not bad when it's one or two; though it really galls me when influential people keep trying to turn every game into CoD.

LarryC wrote:

Jayhawker:

It matters because it's part of marketing and exposure. Look at Muramasa. How many people know that this is a fantastic technical brawler type of ARPG? Pod casters on this site (with the notable exception of the excellent Mr. Andrich) mistook it for a freakin' JRPG! It was actually reviewed that way by some people. Predictably, it's not really a very good JRPG, as JRPGs go; just like Mario Galaxy is a rather bad first person shooter.

It's not bad when it's one or two; though it really galls me when influential people keep trying to turn every game into CoD.

Next try to relate this to what Tom Chick actually does. He's a good writer with strong opinions. His reviews are well-informed and he takes his job seriously. That doesn't mean he is right, or even that his opinion should be the accepted version.

And if a game was repeatedly reviewed so wrong, it was because the publisher failed the game, not the reviewers. If they marketed it so poorly that reviewers didn't know what it was, then odds are, gamers weren't going to get it either.

Jayhawker wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Jayhawker:

It matters because it's part of marketing and exposure. Look at Muramasa. How many people know that this is a fantastic technical brawler type of ARPG? Pod casters on this site (with the notable exception of the excellent Mr. Andrich) mistook it for a freakin' JRPG! It was actually reviewed that way by some people. Predictably, it's not really a very good JRPG, as JRPGs go; just like Mario Galaxy is a rather bad first person shooter.

It's not bad when it's one or two; though it really galls me when influential people keep trying to turn every game into CoD.

Next try to relate this to what Tom Chick actually does. He's a good writer with strong opinions. His reviews are well-informed and he takes his job seriously. That doesn't mean he is right, or even that his opinion should be the accepted version.

And if a game was repeatedly reviewed so wrong, it was because the publisher failed the game, not the reviewers. If they marketed it so poorly that reviewers didn't know what it was, then odds are, gamers weren't going to get it either.

The review is very, very clear as to why Tom thinks that HALO 4 is only worth 1/5. And, after reading it, I didn't think that he mis-reviewed it or was complaining about something like there being no multiple skill trees in Super Mario Galaxy or Dance Central 2..

At what point did I say that I disagreed with Chick's review or that I viewed his review was the accepted version? Jayhawker was asking why it mattered. I gave my opinion on why. I don't mean for that to have any direct commentary on Chick's review of HALO 4.

I know I'm a disturbed person and I accept it.

But I friggin' love this:
IMAGE(http://s7.postimage.org/hj2b2enij/2aa91057ddf6f31741e4cb6c153278e9.jpg)

Note: I did not take this and it is from TWI. But still, I couldn't stop laughing.

Gravey wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

My wife and her eye doctor were complaining about insurance companies this morning at her appointment. I perked up when my wife said "Insurance. Insurance never changes."

She's never even heard of Fallout.

In an amazing coincidence, "Insurance. Insurance never changes" was Tim Cain's original pitch for Fallout to Interplay. However, when Interplay executives were skeptical about the commercial prospects of a video game where the player is an actuary managing risks to minimize financial losses (the eponymous "fallout") from randomly-generated events in a turn-based balance sheet manager, Cain was asked to re-tool the core concept. After several revisions ("Reception", "TV/VCR repair", "Interaction in a Hegelian dialectic"), Cain settled on "war" giving us the game series we know today.

IMAGE(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3030/2966791063_c0aa910c37_o.gif)

Bravo, taffer.

It is quite funny how the same internet people who talk about the 7-10 reviewing scale and how AAA games get a pass and critics are probably on the take suddenly take the completely opposite approach when it's an AAA game they are fans of.

Also funny to see people willing to tear a review apart and take sentences out of context, register an account at a site so they can comment on it and complain about not following the Metacritic consensus, and then not seeing the irony by finishing it off by saying that critic reviews don't matter to them anyways.

That said, Tom Chick's taste in games is terrible.

Jayhawker wrote:

Tom Chick reviews feel informative to me. I have no problem enjoying a game he doesn't like, but I still come away with interesting perspectives on what makes games work or not.

Considering that Halo 4 is not even out yet, it is beyond silly to have a strong opinion on what the rating of the game should be. It may be one of those all-time great games that the buzz seems to want to indicate, but I bet it doesn't really live up to that hype. And it could still be a fantastic game.

But really, I've never understood actually caring what any given reviewer scores or says about a game. If I haven't played it, it is just one data point among many I would use to decide if I want to buy a game. If I have, I may find it interesting to see where differ or agree, but I am confused by anyone's need for a review to match their opinion.

This. More often than not I read his reviews and think "he's absolutely right." The only difference is often that I still find the game really fun despite the flaws he's mentioning, where he clearly doesn't. I put Michael Barnes and ClockworkHouse in the same category.

kuddles wrote:

That said, Tom Chick's taste in games is terrible.

Yeah, I find his reviews to be pretty useless. He spends whole paragraphs stuck on things that have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not I enjoy a game.

I just stopped reading his reviews a long while ago. He's snuck onto podcasts I was listening to at times. I don't listen to those podcasts anymore either.

If you dislike a reviewer's opinions so much it's incredibly easy to just... not read or listen to anything they have to say. There are plenty of other people who give opinions contrary to mine that I still find very interesting as opposed to nitpicky and annoying. I read/listen to them instead.

SixteenBlue wrote:

This. More often than not I read his reviews and think "he's absolutely right." The only difference is often that I still find the game really fun despite the flaws he's mentioning, where he clearly doesn't. I put Michael Barnes and ClockworkHouse in the same category.

I disagree with Minarchist (:shock:) that Tom Chick holds contrarian opinions just to get page views. He's far too thoughtful and articulate in his opinions to hold them just for the sake of clicks. He's also far too consistent. He might approach gaming from a different perspective than most reviewers, but he's dogged in his efforts to use that same perspective for every game he reviews. It's not as though he condemns a game for what he praises highly in another so that his review is diametrically opposed to the prevailing opinion.

Tom Chick has the reputation he does because he simply doesn't play games like other people do. He doesn't play games like most of the readers here, and he doesn't play games like most other reviewers. It's self-serving for me to say that there's nothing wrong with that, because he and I have that in common. What delights him in a game and what disappoints him in a game clearly don't always line up well with mainstream opinions, and they don't always line up well with what AAA publishers are currently pressing toward, but that doesn't mean he's wrong or posting reviews in bad faith for the clicks. It means he has a difference of opinion, and I can't help but applaud a greater diversity of opinion the gaming community, even when I disagree with him.

Often I disagree vehemently with his reviews, I think he finds an aspect and harps on it. However, I love his writing and I could not be more thrilled that Tom vs. Bruce is back.

We have choice as to what we read (even from the same author), the internet is a big place =)

The only sad thing would be if his 1/5 brought down the metacritic enough to cost the 343 people bonuses. I think the general opinion is "good" or "I can't believe it's this good." So if the game is actually good (picking up my copy today), I hope that the general consensus outweighs Tom so they still get paid.

That said, it's his review and making sure developers get a bonus shouldn't factor in. He reviewed and gave his opinion honestly and we need more people ripping AAA games new ones, frankly. IMO I think they generally get a pass. So while I may disagree with Tom %90 of the time, his clockishness is providing a service.

=)