doodlewhizz

@BloodNinja So to go back to my original point why is the accusation of Nintendo the headline when 95% of the article isn't about that, if not to draw people in to get clicks?

@BloodNinja 6 paragraph piece, one sentence about the creator accusing Nintendo and that's it. Might want to read the article first. So why is it the headline when 95% of the article isn't about that?

If you meant curation, say curation (which still wouldn't catch this specific issue anyway). QA in the gaming space is a completely different thing.

@MaxiPareja It's not part of QA testing, no

@BloodNinja I'm saying it's clickbait to draw people in because it's not the main part of the story. It's a cherry picked tweet from a bigger story that the actual article is about. It may have a nice big screenshot of the accusation but the article itself barely speaks about it being Nintendo's problem, because the actual story is about a third party publisher - but I guess that wouldn't bring in as many clicks.

Also people need to stop using QA when they don't know what the term means or what it actually consists of. This is not a Nintendo problem and it's not something that they (or any company who QAs content which goes on sale on their digital storefront) would check in that process. The person writing this article (if they were well informed) should also understand this if they knew anything about what they were writing and in an ideal world would disregard the accusation as a non-story but I guess we'll just have to deal with that aspect.

@BloodNinja Exactly, so why is the headline about Nintendo? The main story is about the developers using pirated software, with the Nintendo part being a footnote, so the headline focus is a weird choice to make, even with the tweet from the emulator's creator (which itself is part of a longer chain where they initially call out the devs).

@BloodNinja yes that's true but I think the issue is that Nintendo is the focus of the headline, rather than actual story being that the developers of this game used a pirated emulator and not having anything to do with Nintendo at all (other than being on its system)

So in that respect I think that yes, this is clickbait because it's the most minor part of the whole story being used as a headline to draw you in.

@MaxiPareja That... isn't what QA is.

@Damo Nintendo should take it down in the meantime if there's a recorded dispute but I don't understand why they're being blamed, or even how the person accusing them has a point in calling Nintendo out. It's not their responsibility to check if a game published to a third party is credited correctly, or using a pirated emulator.

@Banksie Yeah, you can't really fault the reviewer for not liking it. I don't agree with it personally but a lot of the review is fine, the only issue I have is the slapped on obligatory score that must have splinters for how resolutely it's sitting on that fence, especially after the person playing this game said they absolutely hated it.

But then that's one of the many problems with review scores in general really.

@munstahunta The main problem here is that there are different kinds of reviews. Some are buyer's guides, others are more focused on experience while a handful look at the game on what it has to say artistically.

None of these approaches are wrong, but it means they're all prioritising different things, so there's no things a review 'must' include. Additionally, the things you mention as factual (graphics, audio, gameplay, controls, stability, value, story) are all subjective - and even then, using all of those metrics is less useful in an experience review, while an artistic one might focus on a single element of these (if any)

I love the concept of the game and exploring for the first few hours was a delight but it did fall away a little bit - I love what was being attempted though. I feel like this review wants to have its cake and eat it a little bit unfortunately - landing on a score of 5 for a game you say you hated is definitely a weird choice, and the pontificating on what a game has to be (compelling, according to the review), while also playing the other side of the fence and giving it leeway for what it attempted to do. I think you kind of have to pick one as based on your reaction to it, it's either a 9 or 10 for fulfilling the brief exactly, or a 0 or 1 for being something you say you despised.

Anyway, I'm actually more disappointed that the game is too short and is over too soon, especially since it's whole idea is playing the waiting game over 400 days. Could have done with more areas, pathways or endings being timelocked really.