CCGR
Member
I doubt we'll hear from him again
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[b said:Quote[/b] ]Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the rating system but isn't the 0 only for objectionable content? If you go to
http://www.ccgr.org/article....Shooter
it appears DOOM3 received an overall rating of 70%. If you factor out the content score that probably would equate to a score of 85-90% which is hardly a zero.
I have to disagree here. That wasnt a review. That was some self righteous guy who accused Id of being incahoots with a satanic cult. Oh no! Pentagrams! oh, what will we do?! Of course hes going to get harsh feedback, he spends the whole 'review' complaining about how evil it is.[b said:Quote[/b] (joshofstl @ Aug. 25 2004,4:18)]It's unfortunate, because it's obvious Dan put a lot of time and thought into his review... it probably just came off as being too polemic, especially at the very end. And, to be fair, it's not just Dan's review that has been met like this. With all the hype surrounding Doom III, a lot of other sites' reviews of the game have been met with a lot of harsh reader feedback. This is an enormously popular game with a large difference of opinion on how good it is.
This game - along with the equally-provacative Ninja Gaiden review - does serve as good food for thought for reviewers as they consider how to handle games with questionable content. Being honest about a game's moral faults without being "preachy" is a dicey business...
[b said:Quote[/b] ]hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
It's not worth arguing over, yet here you are, arguing the point.[b said:Quote[/b] (Gumpngreen @ Aug. 29 2004,5:32)]Objecting on that basis is not logical. To be a professional game reviewer and to do a thorough review you have to play the whole product. It's that simple. There are plenty of christian movie reviewers who watch certain R-rated movies and then recommend others not to watch them from a content viewpoint. I'm fairly surprised anyone would have a problem with that.
Now, one logical objection you could make is that since Dan does not work for CCGR he wasn't required to do a review. Still, it's possible he felt he was doing a service for others. Whether or not he is right in feeling that way is subjective and really isn't worth arguing over.
That statement alone shows you completely misunderstood my post. If, after rereading my statement, you still don't comprehend it then it's obvious this conversation will go nowhere as it is an argument entirely based upon emotionalism.[b said:Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Aug. 29 2004,6:35)][b said:Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Aug. 29 2004,5:32)]
It's not worth arguing over, yet here you are, arguing the point.