-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Easy Allies |OT| The New Era
- Thread starter Auctopus
- Start date
- Status
I'm interested to see what people think in regards to the new BoxPeak update, but props to Kyle for bringing it up at all and somehow disarming any awkwardness with that weird definitely too long Simpsons rant lmao
I also appreciate Kyle's willingness to engage with that part of the conversation, but I unfortunately have very little faith in this community (specifically on the Patreon) being able to respond with maturity or understanding.
Happy to be proven wrong however.
Happy to be proven wrong however.
So far 30 comments in and seems pretty civil. Some helpful suggestions regarding various papers and other folks of color who told bosman to do what works for him. Didn't see anything inflammatory one way or the other yet
We knew you weren't British when you said 'oh freaking' plus 'dude' - you're good, man.
Props to him for bringing it up at all indeed. Something that, as a black guy, I really didn't care about but seeing him bring it up somehow just makes me love and respect Kyle Bosman even more.
It's almost like we had deadly clashes over race just last year...
Yeah it is something I noticed with this post as well. I didn't even think about that when I saw that promo/trailer. Maybe it's because I am white or because I don't live in the US, but I really don't see people as divided in races and just see people as people (with some having a different skincolor and some having different eye/haircolor), so I usually don't think about this stuff when I see animated puppets. It possibly also has to do with me not really have to go through the things some other people have to go through.
I understand it is much more talked about in the US with all that happened last year. Let's hope something like that will never happen again.
I think it is good that Kyle writes about this as there are people who do have to wrestle with their "race"/skincolor and who find this very important. I hope he can find a solution so everybody can be happy.
Last edited:
This. You wouldn't say "they're all imperfect, so we may as well go with a million point scale," after all. And larger scales are more subjective than smaller ones, because the difference between an 8 and an 8.5 will differ depending on the person and the more points you add to that, the worse it gets. Limiting scores to a few options, like 5, gets straight to the point while greatly reducing the minutia.
I love that Kyle is actually bothered by the fact that every Box Peek character is white. He goes into depth about how he has tried to remedy his concerns and welcomes feedback from the community. He didn't have to do this. That's just how he is, and I love that he's addressing it.
On that note, I think there are some ways he can go about adding characters of color to the show. I just think he had already envisioned what the main cast would look like a long time ago that while finishing up the actual creation of the characters, it actually hit him. This was obviously not his intention.
We all know how Kyle is, and if he was the type of person to exclude characters of color it's very likely this thread would not be as active as it is.
Maybe trying out different color paper would work. I feel like for season 2, that would be the best way to approach that.
I'm very excited to see how this show pans out. Judging by the quality of the promo followed by the letter to the patrons, you can really tell he's passionate about this project and wants everyone to get as much enjoyment out of it as possible.
L&R
Also, the Patreon comments are very supportive. Most if not all of them are respectful to Kyle's vision and just want him to do his thing.
On that note, I think there are some ways he can go about adding characters of color to the show. I just think he had already envisioned what the main cast would look like a long time ago that while finishing up the actual creation of the characters, it actually hit him. This was obviously not his intention.
We all know how Kyle is, and if he was the type of person to exclude characters of color it's very likely this thread would not be as active as it is.
Maybe trying out different color paper would work. I feel like for season 2, that would be the best way to approach that.
I'm very excited to see how this show pans out. Judging by the quality of the promo followed by the letter to the patrons, you can really tell he's passionate about this project and wants everyone to get as much enjoyment out of it as possible.
L&R
Also, the Patreon comments are very supportive. Most if not all of them are respectful to Kyle's vision and just want him to do his thing.
For myself, I think the current rating systems is perfectly fine and I suspect that the preponderance of higher scores reflects the fact that the Allies, to some extent, self-select for a certain quality of game.
An instructive exercise might to be to examine the deviation between the EZA scores and the metacritic average - I suspect they'd align pretty closely. It does help that we've been blessed with a lot of good games over the past two years. Would any of us want the Allies reviewing shovelware?
As for Box Peek, good on Kyle for acknowledging the issue. I have zero drawing skills so I can't offer any solutions but I'd be interested to see what others have to say.
An instructive exercise might to be to examine the deviation between the EZA scores and the metacritic average - I suspect they'd align pretty closely. It does help that we've been blessed with a lot of good games over the past two years. Would any of us want the Allies reviewing shovelware?
As for Box Peek, good on Kyle for acknowledging the issue. I have zero drawing skills so I can't offer any solutions but I'd be interested to see what others have to say.
The way to fix this problem is to change the distribution and what each score means. You don't need half the scale, it's the same problem with the 6-10 scale. Just make it so a solid but totally unremarkable game, or an interesting but very flawed game is a 2. Meaning you have a bigger space to represent the range of good games.
They are more like consumer guides, they aren't that critical in most cases. Which is why I prefer in depth reviews that are meant to be consumed after you played the game (and don't end with a score).
Box peek doesn't bother me as a person of color. I mean all the allies are white, and kyle just putting in a character in a way he don't want doesn't make sense. It should come naturally.
It's cool he posted about it.
It's cool he posted about it.
I'm starting to believe Birdcough is real and Brad is just a character HE plays.
I don't think Kyle doesn't want to add a person of color. On the contrary it sounds like he has been trying to work out a way to do so but is struggling with the chosen medium.
Today was the second anniversary of GT death day.
I remember it well. Came home, saw the thread about it. Watched sadly of the Dumb Game Monday stream of Kyle playing G-force and Brandon showing when he clearly knew they were shut down but Kyle didn't. Then the evening stream of them playing GTA3 and then shutting it down.
They're in a muuuuch better situation now but at the time it was a real gut punch as I became a huge fan of theirs after i saw their E3 of Dreams reaction video
I remember it well. Came home, saw the thread about it. Watched sadly of the Dumb Game Monday stream of Kyle playing G-force and Brandon showing when he clearly knew they were shut down but Kyle didn't. Then the evening stream of them playing GTA3 and then shutting it down.
They're in a muuuuch better situation now but at the time it was a real gut punch as I became a huge fan of theirs after i saw their E3 of Dreams reaction video
Yeah, I also became a fan after the E3 of Dreams reaction. I was like "Wow, this Huber guy is like my spirit animal or something" haha. Started watching their podcast every week after that, and yeah, it was a total gut punch when they got shut down. I was so happy that the majority of them stuck together as EZA, they are such a great bunch.
Yeah and the few games that do get low scores are all part of series they're interested in (RE, Star Wars and Sonic).
If the concern is that their perception of their scores isn't reflected by Metacritic/Opencritic then your idea would blow that wide open.
But I think your idea is extremely flawed anyway. The point of the scale isn't to be balanced, it's to quickly and concisely inform the viewer about the quality of the game. Coming up with some other weird scale for the sake of using more numbers is silly and only going to confuse people. There's nothing wrong with a "6-10 scale" if all you do is review good games (which isn't accurate anyway, they DO score games below that when appropriate).
Just because they aren't in depth, doesn't mean they aren't critical.
Should have phrased it better. If he cannot add a character in a way that he wants then he shouldn't.
Their Youtube uploads really go to shit when Blood's not about eh? Still no group stream from Tuesday.
Yeah, it's a bit of a joke when all you need to do is highlight it and then export to YouTube directly.
I am sure Blood puts in a lot more work than that, but I guess you can temporarily upload it like that and add cut/add the thumbnail/description later or something.
I usually watch it on Twitch if I can't watch a stream on youtube yet and I don't want to wait. it doesn't happen that often since I usually watch them during the weekend, but if it is not up this evening, I will probably watch the Twitch archive.
Last edited:
Yup
You are american i am not. It's fascinating
Also those clashes were not about paper made cartoons
Last edited:
Yeah, you need to shove a thumbnail up as well, but in terms of the upload, that's all he does. He's said it in the thread before.
It's nice that Kyle is thinking about how to be inclusive with Box Peek. Hopefully he can find a solution that works for him.
Yep. Racism/race related issues are not just a thing in America, either.
Yep. Racism/race related issues are not just a thing in America, either.
I really like that one as well. I was bummed out when I saw it was only released on the meeting the first year. I probably searched for it half an hour to try to find on how to get that shirt before I figured it out.
If it were up to me I'd even remove half points. 5 excellent, 4 great, 3 good, 2 mediocre, 1 bad.
We don't need anything more nuanced than that, because there's no reason to have a range of 5 values to say a game is bad, especially when the vast majority of games released are at least competent.
The bigger the scale, the bigger the fights over numbers are. Most of those bothered by this simply want more tools to fight the comparison war: they say that it's not fair to give a 4 to game x, and the same 4 to game y, while they're vastly different and one has the upper hand on a few things. That's the whole point though, review scores aren't meant to compare different games in an objective way, each score is the perceived value of that particular game in that particular genre that tries to do that particular thing. Giving a game a 5/5 simply means that it accomplished what it tried to do in a masterful, possibly innovative and certainly fun way.
Comparing a 4 given to, let's say Horizon, to a 4 given to PUBG has always been comparing apples to oranges. It's like those people saying indie games shouldn't be given perfect scores because they lack the amount of content and the scope of big budget games.
I also think we're at a point when we should begin to differentiate more between review and critique. Games are both products you can buy and a form of art to appreciate. A review should be more fact-driven even though it obviously comes from a subjective point of view, highlighting what the product can offer for its price, a consumer's guide if you want; a critique shouldn't bother with scoring and should analyze the game thematically and mechanically, to reach a deeper understanding of the game as a work of art.
We don't need anything more nuanced than that, because there's no reason to have a range of 5 values to say a game is bad, especially when the vast majority of games released are at least competent.
The bigger the scale, the bigger the fights over numbers are. Most of those bothered by this simply want more tools to fight the comparison war: they say that it's not fair to give a 4 to game x, and the same 4 to game y, while they're vastly different and one has the upper hand on a few things. That's the whole point though, review scores aren't meant to compare different games in an objective way, each score is the perceived value of that particular game in that particular genre that tries to do that particular thing. Giving a game a 5/5 simply means that it accomplished what it tried to do in a masterful, possibly innovative and certainly fun way.
Comparing a 4 given to, let's say Horizon, to a 4 given to PUBG has always been comparing apples to oranges. It's like those people saying indie games shouldn't be given perfect scores because they lack the amount of content and the scope of big budget games.
I also think we're at a point when we should begin to differentiate more between review and critique. Games are both products you can buy and a form of art to appreciate. A review should be more fact-driven even though it obviously comes from a subjective point of view, highlighting what the product can offer for its price, a consumer's guide if you want; a critique shouldn't bother with scoring and should analyze the game thematically and mechanically, to reach a deeper understanding of the game as a work of art.
Last edited:
Just give each reviewer the freedom to choose whatever scale they want, 5 stars, /100, /10, whatever they feel evokes their message best. Metacritic/Opencritic will round it regardless of the choice.
...Swear to god if they do this I won't take their shit seriously. What the hell is the point of having the reviews being unified under the same outlet then?
Reviews aren't meant to be taken seriously... it's just one random person's opinion about their time with a game. But because their business depends on representation in metacritic/opencritic they have to assign a number to it, just let them add it with whatever appeals to the person doing the review.
How is the reviewer random if he/she has a following in part precisely because that particular person reviews game X? And if their reviews aren't meant to be taken seriously., what then?
I honestly agree with Silfer that they should have a unified system for their reviews. I don't really care what system that is, the current stars system, 5-, 10- ,20 or 100-point systems, just some words (skip, ok, recommended, masterful (or whatever they can come up with)), thumbs up/thumbs down, no scale (just te review), ... It's all fine with me. But they should have the same scale from when they decide to change it for all allies imo.
I can't really say I care that much about what review scale they use (though I'd prefer a 10 point scale, if I have to choose). Only thing I can say for certain is that they should have a unified system. It's just more professional and makes their reviews carry more weight imo.
Race / Racism isn't just an issue in America. Europe could actually learn a thing or two from Americans fighting against it.
Great on Kyle for bringing up the issue, that's a step in a positive direction. And that's all we could ask for.
I totally agree that it's good that Kyle brings up the issue as there are plenty of people who possibly had an issue with this. I also totally agree that racism is not just and issue in America.
It certainly exist all over the world.
There just seems to be more focus on the color of people's skin in movies/shows and calling people with a different skincolor a different "race" in the US then there is where I live (Belgium) (I myself find calling people with a different skincolor a different race somewhat racist (it sounds to me they aren't the same species because of the color of their skin), but what do I know, maybe it's just a language thing).
In the end, I suspect most people here and most fans of EZA in general are ok with Kyle adressing this issue. It doesn't really matter if they see the white/papercolor of the characters as a problem or not.
I am sure there won't be a lot of complaints if Kyle finds a good way to give one or more of the characters a different skincolor.
In my opinion they are paper characters with paperwhite "skin" and I personally don't see a problem with that, but I hope Kyle finds a way to make everybody happy.
This is where I stand, except I want to add that the 100 point scale is the dumbest of all the very many dumb ways to rate video games.
The problems the Allies have with a lack of nuance between 4 and 5 stars is entirely self-inflicted. It's not a flaw inherent to the system they picked, but rather the fault of the user.
There's a whole range of the 5-star / 10 point scale they're not using, not only because they tend to pick games they're already interested in* but also because they restrict themselves to the common understanding of what a 6/10 means even though they're already using one-word-descriptions to define the exact meaning of each full point on their star scale.
The distinction between "Excellent" and "Masterful" is extremely granular by their own design, meanwhile the gulf between "Decent" and "Excellent" is huge by comparison and not bridged by a word like "Good". Similarly, rare yet unpolished gems that are worth a look for those in the right set of mind get buried at the bottom of the wide chasm between "Decent" and "Inferior".
Knowing how little the lower end of the star scale gets used, you could recenter it on 2 stars instead of 3 stars to get a broader range of scores for above average games. For the sake of informing viewers, the difference between "an inferior game I'll never wanna buy" and "a terrible game I'll never wanna buy" is irrelevant anyway.
Now the downside here is the EZA reviewers would have to put up with even more people coming at them with strongly worded tweets asking why the latest very popular game from a storied franchise which fans have been looking forward to for years only received 2.5 stars which obviously translates to 5/10 if you never read the Easy Allies review score guide because you only saw the score on Metacritic or OpenCritic.
Oh, and it's sorta easier to switch to a whole new system than retroactively edit all your old video reviews because the stars mean different things now.
*even then, some of the more interesting games to discuss are bad or only decent. Basically you'd have to get out of Huber's "Swimmin' in Sevens" headspace and adjust it down to a "Swimming in Fours" approach.
The Slack message from Brad that popped up in yesterday's Fancy First Impressions stream ("I like the idea of the 2 year being a flat 7.0 more") made me wonder if they're going to change to a review system where a 0, ½ or 1 is a typical 7/10, and anything below that gets a negative score (upside-down stars?). But I guess it does say "2 year" and they're going to start their third year soon, so he was very likely talking about something else. Unless that's just a weird saying "the scoring system we're switching to at our 2-year anniversary."
I have zero issues with EZA having a (perceived) high average review score (and 4 being their most common score) because that mirrors exactly how I feel about gaming these days. There's A LOT of good stuff coming out and I've been of the opinion that the average quality of games this gen is higher than it has ever been. There just aren't as many ground-breaking games that people tend to remember from past gens, but there were a lot of bad games coming out back then as well. Also, since EZA can't get a crazy amount of coverage to everything, they genearlly tend to cover the more notable releases for reviews, that tend to be of a higher quality as well and would naturally score higher.
Now, if they were giving out 5s like candy, that'd be a problem, but they're not. Also, according to opencritic, Easy Allies "Scores 2.57 points lower than the average"
Now, if they were giving out 5s like candy, that'd be a problem, but they're not. Also, according to opencritic, Easy Allies "Scores 2.57 points lower than the average"
Last edited:
I like the 10 point scale. If people want more nuance from the review score then watch/listen to the review. 20 scale and 100 scales are only needed for weird reasons like metacritic and for slotting games against others. If they went with a 20 point or higher scale the issue of scores being bunched near the top would also worsen as I feel one is far more likely to score something a 2.5/5 than 5/10.
Last edited:
I loved 100 points scales... when I was a kid. Was fun pitting Silent Hill against StarCraft 64 and such back then. Nowadays it's bull.
Btw, haven't kept up to date with the allies but from what I read I'm under the impression they're thinking about changing their review system? Gotta say it's weird that out of all possible things that they can improve, they're focusing on one which was spot on so far.
Btw, haven't kept up to date with the allies but from what I read I'm under the impression they're thinking about changing their review system? Gotta say it's weird that out of all possible things that they can improve, they're focusing on one which was spot on so far.
- Status