Indeed. My friend. Indeed.Alaluef said:The phrase "internet, serious business" has never been clearer to me.
Indeed. My friend. Indeed.Alaluef said:The phrase "internet, serious business" has never been clearer to me.
Since Denis wanted this to be a challange between GAF and him, why don't you let all the naysayers raise the stake with their money?EviLore said:Still waiting, Denis. The challenge:
If Too Human has above a 90% aggregate on Gamerankings two weeks after release, I lose. If it's below 90%, you lose. The loser gives $1000 to the winner's choice of 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Confident enough to stand by your "I certainly feel it is the best game we have ever made" comment?
EviLore said:Still waiting, Denis. The challenge:
If Too Human has above a 90% aggregate on Gamerankings two weeks after release, I lose. If it's below 90%, you lose. The loser gives $1000 to the winner's choice of 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Confident enough to stand by your "I certainly feel it is the best game we have ever made" comment?
bishoptl said:I'm fairly certain that Too Human isn't appearing on Wii
GarthVaderUK said:A lot of people here will be owned if it even gets a solid 8.
His point is that it really shouldn't matter with either. I think its absolutely brilliant when developers speak their minds. Whether Jaffe rants or Dyack hypes -- it adds a level of credibility to these games... it helps assure that these games are indeed being developed by gamers for god sakes! Would you really prefer hearing another marketing shill check off some talking points?ShockingAlberto said:I stay out of the Jaffe sycophancy threads since the last time I bitched about how unprofessional he is and got leaped on.
Try again?
Francias Castiglione said:Oh I'm sure they would make an exception for a "traitor"
EviLore said:Still waiting, Denis. The challenge:
If Too Human has above a 90% aggregate on Gamerankings two weeks after release, I lose. If it's below 90%, you lose. The loser gives $1000 to the winner's choice of 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Confident enough to stand by your "I certainly feel it is the best game we have ever made" comment?
If there's a one console future, it will be Nintendo's one console future.stuburns said:P.S. One console future, no, just no.
Xabora said:PC Version would be awesome. Since your using the UE3.0 engine.
I could discuss the one console future all day, I have so many questions I'd love to put to Denis about that.bmf said:If there's a one console future, it will be Nintendo's one console future.
firehawk12 said:Since when did Gamerankings become an accurate metric of quality?
Have we forgotten GTA4 already? Or is it still the best game ever?
If Too Human has above a 90% aggregate on Gamerankings two weeks after release, I lose. If it's below 90%, you lose.
Alcander said:His point is that it really shouldn't matter with either. I think its absolutely brilliant when developers speak their minds. Whether Jaffe rants or Dyack hypes -- it adds a level of credibility to these games... it helps assure that these games are indeed being developed by gamers for god sakes! Would you really prefer hearing another marketing shill check off some talking points?
They are game developers, after all.
ShockingAlberto said:I stay out of the Jaffe sycophancy threads since the last time I bitched about how unprofessional he is and got leaped on.
Try again?
Nolan. said:Are you serious.?
DCharlie said:isn't it somewhat ironic that we are using the score from a game that a load of GAFfers think is rubbish and didn't deserve the reviews it got as the benchmark for Too Human's success?
As this is SPECIFIC to GAF, why not do this :
For every gaffer that plays the game, they produce their gamertag and a simple 1-10 ranking.
If the game scores below a certain decided bench mark (let's give Eternal Darkness a score (7? 8?)) then Denis loses, scores above, Evil loses.
the 90% score for ED is way too high, i think we all know that, so i think that's a pretty safe bet and i think Evilore knows that too.
This resolution actually involves gaf's opinion, and not external reviewers - plus it actually makes things interesting as there is no way to tell which way it'll go. The Evilore bet is pretty much a sure win for Evil, which is boring!
Also, as part of the bet between Denis and Evil, there should be a ban bet part!
DCharlie said:isn't it somewhat ironic that we are using the score from a game that a load of GAFfers think is rubbish and didn't deserve the reviews it got as the benchmark for Too Human's success?
As this is SPECIFIC to GAF, why not do this :
For every gaffer that plays the game, they produce their gamertag and a simple 1-10 ranking.
If the game scores below a certain decided bench mark (let's give Eternal Darkness a score (7? 8?)) then Denis loses, scores above, Evil loses.
the 90% score for ED is way too high, i think we all know that, so i think that's a pretty safe bet and i think Evilore knows that too.
This resolution actually involves gaf's opinion, and not external reviewers.
Also, as part of the bet between Denis and Evil, there should be a ban bet part!
Like that would ever work.besiktas1 said:Makes sense (GAF challenged not external reviewers), but a simple way to this
1. Gather all the FORs then all the AGAINSTs
2. Randomly pick 10(or however many more after gaf decides) from each pile.
3. After 2 weeks the 20 people post there GTag (to show game is beaten in achievement)
4. They give it: Thumbs up or down
5. If 80% (or whatever percent gaf decides) say thumbs up.
Winner decided
Why not?dasupremeone said:Like that would ever work.
Nolan. said:So many people can easily low ball the game even if it's good though. Especially these ''people'' (that i'm yet to see) who will hate the game whatever the outcome. I think gamerankings is good enough especially for too human because it wil ascend easily if it's good. People love an against/ the odds/underdog tale.
Now THIS is a gaming website standard I can get behind!! Betting challenges between the operator of the website and the presidents/developers of game companies on the potential success of their titles! I can only hope that this whips up enough controversy to cause a big enough spike in advertising revenue so that you are covered either way!!!EviLore said:Still waiting, Denis. The challenge:
If Too Human has above a 90% aggregate on Gamerankings two weeks after release, I lose. If it's below 90%, you lose. The loser gives $1000 to the winner's choice of 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Confident enough to stand by your "I certainly feel it is the best game we have ever made" comment?
firehawk12 said:If you're going to try to bring in numbers, why not use those Major Nelson Xbox Live activity reports.
If it's good, people will be playing it. If people are playing it, it will make the top 10.
EviLore said:Still waiting, Denis. The challenge:
If Too Human has above a 90% aggregate on Gamerankings two weeks after release, I lose. If it's below 90%, you lose. The loser gives $1000 to the winner's choice of 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Confident enough to stand by your "I certainly feel it is the best game we have ever made" comment?
Sanjay said:The best rpgs that have come out for the pc only in the last few years.
Gamerankings
The Witcher 81%
NwN 2: Mask of Betrayer 82%
so...if Too Human gets similar averages for the PC.. I will be FOR.
Fenderputty said:I know some of the reviewers have been a little hot and heavy on the 10 button lately, but don't you think 90% AAA might be a little much. I think an 85% meta score would still be much higher then many of the doubters are predicting.
Why would you make the score so high for the bet? Unless you honestly feel like the game has a good chance to be a AA game. In which case I don't really understand the hate in the first place.
alistairw said:Sanity? In my Too Human thread?
EviLore said:Still waiting, Denis. The challenge:
If Too Human has above a 90% aggregate on Gamerankings two weeks after release, I lose. If it's below 90%, you lose. The loser gives $1000 to the winner's choice of 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Confident enough to stand by your "I certainly feel it is the best game we have ever made" comment?
Teknopathetic said:I find some of the suggestions for the metacritic/gameranking scores humorous. 75% is favorable? Really? Only bargain bin Cabela's Big Game Hunter type shit gets scored below 70%. Dyack made a thread calling out several posters and definitely *sounds* quite confident in his game. The terms of the bet should reflect that confidence. A 75% average is NOT confidence.
Teriyaki said:Just make it contingent to reflect margin of error:
- If it's over 90%, EvilLore pays all 1K.
- If it's below 80%, Denis pays 1k.
- Anything in between and you both pay 500.