Its now time to play IS IT RACIST?
"The Karate Kid should be white, not black"- AVGNSucks
Okay, okay sorry that was bad. No more Tosh.O jokes from now on.
Seriously though, this time AVGNSucks rants about the Nerds' Katate Kid Review.
"He says nothing but "This game is ass". He hasn't even said the title of the game yet! He also shows a clip of him dying."
No he hasn't said the title of the game, but he did show the title screen of the game before he said "This game is ass"
"His room is extremely messy, and the least he could do is put on shoes and long pants to make it seem a little professional!"
Again the review was done for fun.
"He also explains that everyone hates this game and don't get any satisfaction from beating it. Whatever, stop speaking for everyone else!"
Sure he's speaking for everyone else I'll give you that one but considering the online reviews its not hard to see why.
http://denver.yourhub.com/Littleton/Blogs/Archive/Technology-The-Web/Gaming/Blog~101253.aspx
http://www.nesplayer.com/reviews/karatekidr.htm
http://www.gamespot.com/nes/action/karatekid/index.html
"'You press up to jump' I don't know about you guys, but when you press left on most games you go left. In this game you press up and you go up. Makes sense to me."
James explains why pressing up to jump is bad. Also in most games (retro and new) you usually press a button on the right side of the controller to jump not the up arrow key.
" 'You get hit and you fly back' There are many games that do this. Including Castlvania, which James (for some reason) always talks great things about."
Let me qoute James again. Yeah, I'll do this when ever I fill that you didn't pay attention to his review. "When ever you touch someone you fly in the opposite direction and you can never get close engouth to attack someone"
"'You die in every pit' No, REALLY?"
"You die in every pit its so easy to fall in them" - James Rolfe
"'Level one is extremely easy' It's the first level, what's the problem?"
The key world being extremely easy. There a difference between easy and boring.
"It's kinda like a rip off of kung fu" If this game is a rip off of Kung Fu, any game with a ninja is too. Also, stop complaining, you're just a rip off of SeanBaby!"
Well look at the way both characters in Kung Fu and Karate Kid fight. They're way too similar. As for AVGN being a rip-off of SeanBaby, I can't say much there because I never heard about him. Besides you like the Irate Gamer and he's a rip-off of AVGN.
"He explains the typhoon and how it pushes you back. Ninja Gaiden 2 had this also, it's not a bad thing, it's actually very clever and innovative."
James just says that theres a typhoon that pushes you back. He doesn't say if its good or if its bad.
"He complains that there are pits everywhere. Just stop whining already, it's called CHALLENGE"
There's a difference between a game being hard, but playable and a game being hard, but unplayable because the controls suck and the enemies dont give you a fighting chance (which is why this game is considered hard). Also, doesn't the Irate Gamer complain about this sort of things all the time (Ghost and Goblins, Monster Party, Resident Evil 5, Contra [all good games, but because he sucks at them he says they suck]). The only difference is that Irate Gamer complains about the games being hard because its just hard, not because of faulty controls or impossible enemies (non of which those games had by the way).
"This whole time he complains. But what his complaining consists of is explaining why the game is hard. It's called challenge, stop being a pussy."
I refer you back to my previous statement.
"He complains that the ending isn't spectacular! The ending really isn't that bad, in fact, I even found it humorous!"
What did you find humorus about Mr Miyagi saying "You have successfully guided Daniel-San through all of the challenges and have become a martial arts master!!!"
"'If you're going to make a game with only four levels, they better be the hardest four levels ever' Yea, OK? But didn't you say the first level was really easy?
Okay, what about levels 2-4, which James says they where hard as shit. Also I want to point out that James said "they better be the hardest four levels ever" not "they are the hardest four levels ever."
"He also tells me not to buy this game. Why does he do that all the time?"
Because James reviews crappy games and why would you want to buy a crappy game.
"Then he flushes it down the toilet but jump cuts out so he doesn't harm the game. It says "The End" Why"
I don't know I am guessing because its the end of the video.
Thats all on this one thanks again for reading
Monday, August 16, 2010
AVGNsucks 3rd Post
Not much for this one
Its just AVGNSucks bashing on another AVGN hater or Irate Gamer Lover http://www.jamesrolfesucks.blogspot.com/
What I dont get is why he is picking on someone that shares the same goal as him; to bash on the AVGN. I mean there aren't that many AVGN haters to begin with.
Also, in case your wondering why I dont care about jamesrolfesuck, its because its just some guy saying that the stuff James does (avgn, movie reviews, interviews, etc...) sucks without giving any reasons aside from his own opinon. Maybe I'll talk about him here or there but not any time soon.
Its just AVGNSucks bashing on another AVGN hater or Irate Gamer Lover http://www.jamesrolfesucks.blogspot.com/
What I dont get is why he is picking on someone that shares the same goal as him; to bash on the AVGN. I mean there aren't that many AVGN haters to begin with.
Also, in case your wondering why I dont care about jamesrolfesuck, its because its just some guy saying that the stuff James does (avgn, movie reviews, interviews, etc...) sucks without giving any reasons aside from his own opinon. Maybe I'll talk about him here or there but not any time soon.
AVGNSuks' 2nd Post
This time AVGNSucks rants about the Nerds' second Review; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
"Like the last one, this was made in 2004 before James really had any idea what he was doing. This was meant to be the final video, why the hell wasn't it?!"
Maybe because people liked his reviews so much they kept asking for more.
"This whole time (2 mins 10sec) he just says how bad the game is. Doesn't give any reasons."
Well it isnt like this was his whole review he later gives reasons as to why this game is bad.
"He also said that pong was better. Well, of course, Pong is a great game. Just because it's simple doesn't mean it's bad."
I think that was James' whole point of bringing Pong into this. Beside James never says Pong is a bad game, he simply says that its better than Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
"Somewhere in there he mentioned McKids as a bad game, when it's actually really fun and had many creative ideas."
James never says Mckids is a bad game he says "they're (Mckids and Tax Man) rare and obscure games"
"He further says how bad this game is. He says that it's so bad, he's not going to show it to us. What the hell? Is that suppose to be funny"
Its not suppose to be funny, James' is just saying that this game is so bad that his not going to show it to us. Thats how bad the game is.
"The game's really not even that bad."
Is this why most online reviews give it a 1/10. Heres the proof
http://www.gamefaqs.com/nes/563406-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde/reviews/review-6611
http://www.gamespot.com/nes/action/drjekyllandmrhyde/index.html
http://blog.analogmedium.com/2005/06/nes-review-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde.html
"He shows the cartridge of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He wonders who spent 89 cents on the game. Again, the game's not that bad."
Again, I refer you back to my previous links.
"No commentary. Just a video of the title screen and intro animation. And I mean, it's literally a video of the screen. He took a video camera and point it, crooked, at the screen."
This was his second review which he did for fun and wasn't taking it seriously.
"He asks who the people are trying to kill you. Who really cares? Besides, I don't know much about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but I assume it has something to do with that."
Well in the the book people were only after Hyde and not Jekyll because they didn't know Hyde and Jekyll where the same person. In this part of the video James plays as Jekyll, so why are people trying to kill him?
"He complains that you can't use the staff as a weapon. Dr. Jekyll is suppose to be weak. You are just suppose to dodge the enemies. The idea is that you try to use the can to defend yourself, and it doesn't work."
Okay, so why do they give you a weapon if its not meant to be used. Thats the point James was trying to get across. Also, I think you meant cane instead of can.
"This part sucks. James really has no idea how to play the game. It's really not that complicated and is a creative idea. You are suppose to get as far as you can with Dr. Jekyll, then you turn into Mr. Hyde and can only go as far as you went with Dr. Jekyll before you die."
Actually the real way to play the game is to beat the level with Jekyll. But if you turn into Hyde the level becomes mirrored and you have to turn back into Jekyll before travelling the same distance you travelled while playing as Jekyll.
"This whole time he spends in front of the camera explaining that you should stay away from the game. I think he wants us to stay from the game just so we don't see that it's actually not that bad."
Again, the Links.
Thats all for this one thanks for reading
"Like the last one, this was made in 2004 before James really had any idea what he was doing. This was meant to be the final video, why the hell wasn't it?!"
Maybe because people liked his reviews so much they kept asking for more.
"This whole time (2 mins 10sec) he just says how bad the game is. Doesn't give any reasons."
Well it isnt like this was his whole review he later gives reasons as to why this game is bad.
"He also said that pong was better. Well, of course, Pong is a great game. Just because it's simple doesn't mean it's bad."
I think that was James' whole point of bringing Pong into this. Beside James never says Pong is a bad game, he simply says that its better than Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
"Somewhere in there he mentioned McKids as a bad game, when it's actually really fun and had many creative ideas."
James never says Mckids is a bad game he says "they're (Mckids and Tax Man) rare and obscure games"
"He further says how bad this game is. He says that it's so bad, he's not going to show it to us. What the hell? Is that suppose to be funny"
Its not suppose to be funny, James' is just saying that this game is so bad that his not going to show it to us. Thats how bad the game is.
"The game's really not even that bad."
Is this why most online reviews give it a 1/10. Heres the proof
http://www.gamefaqs.com/nes/563406-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde/reviews/review-6611
http://www.gamespot.com/nes/action/drjekyllandmrhyde/index.html
http://blog.analogmedium.com/2005/06/nes-review-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde.html
"He shows the cartridge of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He wonders who spent 89 cents on the game. Again, the game's not that bad."
Again, I refer you back to my previous links.
"No commentary. Just a video of the title screen and intro animation. And I mean, it's literally a video of the screen. He took a video camera and point it, crooked, at the screen."
This was his second review which he did for fun and wasn't taking it seriously.
"He asks who the people are trying to kill you. Who really cares? Besides, I don't know much about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but I assume it has something to do with that."
Well in the the book people were only after Hyde and not Jekyll because they didn't know Hyde and Jekyll where the same person. In this part of the video James plays as Jekyll, so why are people trying to kill him?
"He complains that you can't use the staff as a weapon. Dr. Jekyll is suppose to be weak. You are just suppose to dodge the enemies. The idea is that you try to use the can to defend yourself, and it doesn't work."
Okay, so why do they give you a weapon if its not meant to be used. Thats the point James was trying to get across. Also, I think you meant cane instead of can.
"This part sucks. James really has no idea how to play the game. It's really not that complicated and is a creative idea. You are suppose to get as far as you can with Dr. Jekyll, then you turn into Mr. Hyde and can only go as far as you went with Dr. Jekyll before you die."
Actually the real way to play the game is to beat the level with Jekyll. But if you turn into Hyde the level becomes mirrored and you have to turn back into Jekyll before travelling the same distance you travelled while playing as Jekyll.
"This whole time he spends in front of the camera explaining that you should stay away from the game. I think he wants us to stay from the game just so we don't see that it's actually not that bad."
Again, the Links.
Thats all for this one thanks for reading
AVGNsucks' 1st Post
His first post is about the Nerds review on Castlevania 2.
"Anyway, he states that "This game sucks". You're suppose to state your points before saying your final opinion! He's doing it backwards!"
As long as he gives his reasons for saying that Castlevania 2 sucks who cares. There is no law saying that you first have to give reasons and then your opinion.
"He says that Castlevania 1 and 3 are classic Nintendo games. WRONG! These games were made by Konami."
What James was refering to was that Castlevania 1 and 3 were classic games playable on the NES. He wasn't talking about what company that made them.
"He says that "at first it looks like a decent game" How are you judging this? Based on graphics?"
He doesn't literary mean "at first it looks like a decent game" What he really means is that when you start playing through the game it looks like its going to be a good game.
"Then he says that it's a little different from the first. He proceeds to say that's OK, because Zelda 2 and SMB2 were different from the firsts. But then he says this: "but they were all good"." He just doesn't get it. Both Zelda 2 and SMB2 were inferior to their original! SMB2 is barely a Mario game and Zelda 2, well don't get me started."
James just says that Zelda 2 and SMB2 are good, he just gives his opinion on the games. How exactly is that bad? Besides he never says that they were superior to their predecessors, so why did you bring up that "Both Zelda 2 and SMB2 were inferior to their original!" By the way I think you left out a word at the end of your statement.
"He explains how you have to go around and buy stuff. He says it doesn't bother him and it makes it more like an adventure story. Why are you mentioning this?"
I thought James was reviewing a game, isn't that what game reviewers do? They talk about the game and then give their opinion on it.
"He complains about the going from day to night. The way he words it confuses me. Does he not like it because it's just there. If that's the case, Zelda OoT really sucks. Or does he not like it because of the text telling you it has happened. Would he rather just not know?"
He doesn't like it because the text appears for too long on the screen and it interrupts the gameplay.
"He asks a question. Then he ANSWERS IT! What the hell is the point if you already know the answer. But the sheer stupidity of the question is what makes me mad. He asks "whats the point". It's a gameplay mechanic! A rather good one at that. It makes the game more interesting and keeps it fresh!"
When James asks the question "whats the point" he is not refering to the fact that day turns into night, instead he is refering to why the action itself has to interrupt the gameplay.
" 'Why do you have to die when you fall in the water' First of all, there are many game that you die from the water. It's no big deal. Plus, he may not be able to swim because of heavy equipment like the whip. Besides, who cares? Just pretend it's lava, or even a pit."
James is just wondering why a vampire hunter can be killed by water. Thats actually a good question: "Why is it that someone that goes around hunting vampires isnt able to swim?" Also last time I checked a whip isn't that heavy.
"He talks about how you have to buy weapons. He mentions that hearts aren't energy in this game, but rather they are money. Well, in the previous games they were weapon power, so it's not anything out of place."
How is it that hearts being used for money not out of place with hearts being used for weapon power.
"But then he complains that you have to stock up on hearts to buy stuff. Yea, you think? He says it doesn't add any difficulty, but explains that if you die you lose your hearts. Well if you're dying, then that leads me to believe it's difficult"
James makes a good point; how exactly does losing your hearts make the game harder? It doesn't. It just makes the game longer and boring. Yes James was dying a lot in the game, but because of the game's already established difficulty. Not because losing hearts was making the game harder.
"It turns to night and the stores are closed. Then he dies on purpose from not using the stairs. First of all, the drawbridge is up on OoT at night. Second, you should have used the stairs, you dumb fuck."
First of all, what does the drawbridge being up on OoT have to do with anything. Second, James died because he missed a jump, not because he didnt want to use the stairs.
"He explains that one of the most annoying things is the pitfalls. He says there's no way to tell that they're there, but then goes on to explain how to tell if they're there. What's he thinking?"
James isnt talking about all the pitfalls just the ones that you can't see. Also let me qoute what james said about the pitfalls "its impossible to tell where these spots are the first time walking through"
"He complains about the lack of boss fights. Who really cares? Moving on."
Usually if your playing a side scroller you expect a boss that the end of each level and by not having them is just a sign of laziness on behalf of the creators.
"He explains how at the end of the level there is an orb. To get past it you don't touch it, but rather throw an oak stake at it. He complains how it's hard to figure out. It's a puzzle game. There's also RPG elements in it. If you talk to people you get clues as to what you are suppose to do."
Clues don't tell you exactly what to do. So even with or without clues its still hard to figure out. Also Castlevania 2 isnt a puzzle game, its an action-adventure game.
"He demonstrates how ... the only way to get through the game is to enter a code."
Let me qoute James again "the only shorter way (not only way) to get through... this game is to use a code"
"He complains that some games have lower case. The thing is, Castlevania 2, doesn't. So what's the point in even mentioning this?"
Again I am going to qoute James, maybe even you paid attention to his review I won't need to do this.
"I hate games like these because... the L's look like I's, 0s look like O's, 5s look like 8s"
"Then he says that the final castle is boring because there is nothing to hurt you. Wait, I thought you wanted an easy game."
When does he say he wants an easy game. He wants a game thats challenging, but possible to play.
"He complains that Dracula looks like the Grim Reaper. I wonder if it ever occurred to him that maybe the enemy wasn't Dracula, but actually was the Grim Reaper."
Okay so he made a mistake, keep in mind that your hero, the Irate Gamer, makes them all the time. If you want proof here it is: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheIrateGamer http://bahamut.newgrounds.com/news/post/471053
http://irategamersucks.blogspot.com/
"First off, he continues calling him Dracula. Then he goes on to explain a trick that "he discovered himself". Stop bragging, you aren't a video game genius!"
James isnt bragging he is basicly saying "This trick is so easy to figure out that even I can do it"
"He explains that it's too easy just to throw the flames at him. First of all, I thought you wanted an easy game. "Did they even test this shitty game out before they released it". Of course they did, they probably just thought that if you can figure out to use the flames, then go ahead!"
He never wanted an easy game, just a challenging game that is possible to play. Also its called a rhetorical question.
"He says it's useless complaining about a game made in the late 80's or early 90's. Why can't he give an exact year?"
Keep in mind this was James' first review, he it did for fun and he wasn't taking it seriously.
Well thats all I have to say thanks for reading.
"Anyway, he states that "This game sucks". You're suppose to state your points before saying your final opinion! He's doing it backwards!"
As long as he gives his reasons for saying that Castlevania 2 sucks who cares. There is no law saying that you first have to give reasons and then your opinion.
"He says that Castlevania 1 and 3 are classic Nintendo games. WRONG! These games were made by Konami."
What James was refering to was that Castlevania 1 and 3 were classic games playable on the NES. He wasn't talking about what company that made them.
"He says that "at first it looks like a decent game" How are you judging this? Based on graphics?"
He doesn't literary mean "at first it looks like a decent game" What he really means is that when you start playing through the game it looks like its going to be a good game.
"Then he says that it's a little different from the first. He proceeds to say that's OK, because Zelda 2 and SMB2 were different from the firsts. But then he says this: "but they were all good"." He just doesn't get it. Both Zelda 2 and SMB2 were inferior to their original! SMB2 is barely a Mario game and Zelda 2, well don't get me started."
James just says that Zelda 2 and SMB2 are good, he just gives his opinion on the games. How exactly is that bad? Besides he never says that they were superior to their predecessors, so why did you bring up that "Both Zelda 2 and SMB2 were inferior to their original!" By the way I think you left out a word at the end of your statement.
"He explains how you have to go around and buy stuff. He says it doesn't bother him and it makes it more like an adventure story. Why are you mentioning this?"
I thought James was reviewing a game, isn't that what game reviewers do? They talk about the game and then give their opinion on it.
"He complains about the going from day to night. The way he words it confuses me. Does he not like it because it's just there. If that's the case, Zelda OoT really sucks. Or does he not like it because of the text telling you it has happened. Would he rather just not know?"
He doesn't like it because the text appears for too long on the screen and it interrupts the gameplay.
"He asks a question. Then he ANSWERS IT! What the hell is the point if you already know the answer. But the sheer stupidity of the question is what makes me mad. He asks "whats the point". It's a gameplay mechanic! A rather good one at that. It makes the game more interesting and keeps it fresh!"
When James asks the question "whats the point" he is not refering to the fact that day turns into night, instead he is refering to why the action itself has to interrupt the gameplay.
" 'Why do you have to die when you fall in the water' First of all, there are many game that you die from the water. It's no big deal. Plus, he may not be able to swim because of heavy equipment like the whip. Besides, who cares? Just pretend it's lava, or even a pit."
James is just wondering why a vampire hunter can be killed by water. Thats actually a good question: "Why is it that someone that goes around hunting vampires isnt able to swim?" Also last time I checked a whip isn't that heavy.
"He talks about how you have to buy weapons. He mentions that hearts aren't energy in this game, but rather they are money. Well, in the previous games they were weapon power, so it's not anything out of place."
How is it that hearts being used for money not out of place with hearts being used for weapon power.
"But then he complains that you have to stock up on hearts to buy stuff. Yea, you think? He says it doesn't add any difficulty, but explains that if you die you lose your hearts. Well if you're dying, then that leads me to believe it's difficult"
James makes a good point; how exactly does losing your hearts make the game harder? It doesn't. It just makes the game longer and boring. Yes James was dying a lot in the game, but because of the game's already established difficulty. Not because losing hearts was making the game harder.
"It turns to night and the stores are closed. Then he dies on purpose from not using the stairs. First of all, the drawbridge is up on OoT at night. Second, you should have used the stairs, you dumb fuck."
First of all, what does the drawbridge being up on OoT have to do with anything. Second, James died because he missed a jump, not because he didnt want to use the stairs.
"He explains that one of the most annoying things is the pitfalls. He says there's no way to tell that they're there, but then goes on to explain how to tell if they're there. What's he thinking?"
James isnt talking about all the pitfalls just the ones that you can't see. Also let me qoute what james said about the pitfalls "its impossible to tell where these spots are the first time walking through"
"He complains about the lack of boss fights. Who really cares? Moving on."
Usually if your playing a side scroller you expect a boss that the end of each level and by not having them is just a sign of laziness on behalf of the creators.
"He explains how at the end of the level there is an orb. To get past it you don't touch it, but rather throw an oak stake at it. He complains how it's hard to figure out. It's a puzzle game. There's also RPG elements in it. If you talk to people you get clues as to what you are suppose to do."
Clues don't tell you exactly what to do. So even with or without clues its still hard to figure out. Also Castlevania 2 isnt a puzzle game, its an action-adventure game.
"He demonstrates how ... the only way to get through the game is to enter a code."
Let me qoute James again "the only shorter way (not only way) to get through... this game is to use a code"
"He complains that some games have lower case. The thing is, Castlevania 2, doesn't. So what's the point in even mentioning this?"
Again I am going to qoute James, maybe even you paid attention to his review I won't need to do this.
"I hate games like these because... the L's look like I's, 0s look like O's, 5s look like 8s"
"Then he says that the final castle is boring because there is nothing to hurt you. Wait, I thought you wanted an easy game."
When does he say he wants an easy game. He wants a game thats challenging, but possible to play.
"He complains that Dracula looks like the Grim Reaper. I wonder if it ever occurred to him that maybe the enemy wasn't Dracula, but actually was the Grim Reaper."
Okay so he made a mistake, keep in mind that your hero, the Irate Gamer, makes them all the time. If you want proof here it is: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheIrateGamer http://bahamut.newgrounds.com/news/post/471053
http://irategamersucks.blogspot.com/
"First off, he continues calling him Dracula. Then he goes on to explain a trick that "he discovered himself". Stop bragging, you aren't a video game genius!"
James isnt bragging he is basicly saying "This trick is so easy to figure out that even I can do it"
"He explains that it's too easy just to throw the flames at him. First of all, I thought you wanted an easy game. "Did they even test this shitty game out before they released it". Of course they did, they probably just thought that if you can figure out to use the flames, then go ahead!"
He never wanted an easy game, just a challenging game that is possible to play. Also its called a rhetorical question.
"He says it's useless complaining about a game made in the late 80's or early 90's. Why can't he give an exact year?"
Keep in mind this was James' first review, he it did for fun and he wasn't taking it seriously.
Well thats all I have to say thanks for reading.
Reason for Blog
This is just a way to show how big of an idiot AVGNsucks is.
I will simply take qoutes from AVGNsucks and give my reasons as to why their idiotic.
If I leave out a qoute it usually means that its not important, its simply AVGNSucks' opinon, or I agree with what he had to say (usually the third reason won't happen a lot).
I will simply take qoutes from AVGNsucks and give my reasons as to why their idiotic.
If I leave out a qoute it usually means that its not important, its simply AVGNSucks' opinon, or I agree with what he had to say (usually the third reason won't happen a lot).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)