konc wrote:Well I was expecting more of an "oops I completely messed up everything possible in this episode", which is perfectly fine and can happen from time to time, rather than excuses like "it's easy to understand how I missed setting this up" or "but even the main website for the game is using..." trying to justify what can't be justified. Just my humble opinion as a viewer, no one has to agree with it and especially you Chris who decides what goes in your show, but obviously the game is not like in this episode. Just the pallet thing makes the latter literal.
I'm not some magical god who knows absolutely everything. If EVERY piece of information I find on something is wrong, how am I expected to know what's right? Besides, why is it so offensive to explain how I made such a mistake when I'm already admitting that it was a mistake? You're literally berating me over something which the vast majority of people who're aware of this game don't know about! D:
konc wrote:Which brings me to the second point I wanted to make regarding upvotes/downvotes: I remember the saga the went on on a previous video because of an opinion you stated. A good review got so many downvotes because of a debatable phrase and had to be pulled. A bad and wrong in so many aspects review like this (again, this is only my opinion) is doing well since you didn't annoy anyone :lol: Go figure, for me this is a proof that upvotes/downvotes don't really mean anything about the quality of the video, but they do about the string you pull with it.
Firstly: Yes, upvotes and downvotes are usually a sign of how entertained someone was with a video, not necessarily how accurate the information in the video was. Imagine how many comedy pieces would be super-downvoted if they had to be 100% accurate! :P
BUT, saying "bad and wrong in so many aspects review like this" suggests a massive number of mistakes, when really, there's only two which can quantifiably be called "mistakes":
* Not noticing that the palette is supposed to be red/cyan/white
* Saying "Little Big Planet" instead of "Little Big Adventure"
The other "mistakes" aren't technically mistakes, because a mistake implies incorrect information. For each of the following, no mistake was technically made:
* Saying to use DOSBox 0.73 to run the game
Yes, there are ways to make it run in 0.74, but I found running it in 0.73 easier and it works fine that way. That's not a mistake, just a different solution.
* Saying the V powerup is a throwback to the Vaus instead of being the French word for "Life"
It really could've been BOTH. The website for the game says it was HEAVILY inspired by Arkanoid and the online docs explaining the powerups didn't make it obvious what the V stood for.
* Not noticing that the version included with LBA2 was updated to fix its speed issues
In fact, I don't say anything to suggest it will be identical, so this isn't a mistake, just an omission, which means the perception of it being a mistake depends on the individual.
This is why I have "Additional Information and Corrections" because I'm not perfect, nobody is. That section is there on my videos to make up for the fact that I can't know everything. EVERY reviewer on the net makes mistakes and omissions, no exceptions, and of course some more often than others, but at least consider that I'm willing to own up to them and provide that information in my video descriptions. A lot of content creators DON'T. :P
leileilol wrote:Usually a chain of repacker ignorance and "abandonware sites" warps the perception of old games and their history (because "preservation", right?). Don't rely on them. It does lead to funny things like dorks claiming to own floppies of <insert CD-ROM exclusive mid-90s game name here> on internet "old school gamer" ego fights, and the ever so-popular "pc never had scanlines" statements. :)
I never do, but when even the official website is getting things wrong, well... :P
--- Kris Asick (Gemini)
--- Pixelmusement Website: www.pixelships.com
--- Ancient DOS Games Webshow: www.pixelships.com/adg