Talk:Space Giraffe

message: Just added this and noticed it had already been added / deleted.
I got the review from gamerankings.com and assumed if it was a good enough source for them it was also good enough for wikipedia.
Gravy 12:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gameindustry.com review

message: Just noting that I've done a lot of reorg and cleanup of this article - mostly stripping the achievements and the reference allusions out - as I think once we get a few more reviews in place, and scoop out more development details from Minter's blog, we can get this title up to a GA quickly. --Masem 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: gilesgoat of Llamasoft has a long rant on why there will not soon be a Windows version of Space Giraffe here, specifically in response to this Wikipedia article. Until there's any concrete info about a Windows version we should leave it out of the article. White 720 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows version 

message: I've removed the below. Out of the 10k people who've bought the game 2 people have found this an issue, one of which (Kamineko from the YY forums) posted the paragraph I've removed
"Users have expressed concern that the collision detection between the enemy bullets travelling toward the player, and the player 'giraffe' entity is unfair. Specifically, that the bullets are observed to be lethal at a range greater than is obvious from what is displayed onscreen. This can cause certain situations to occur where an enemy bullet appears to be avoidable, but in practice is very difficult to avoid without prior knowledge and 'training' to identify where and when a collision would occur. [22] Further investigation and corroboration of this phenomena by users lead to the creators, 'Yak' and 'Giles' refusing to discuss the matter further. [23]"
I think it's completely fine for their to be both negative and positive aspects of any subject in wikipedia but I'm not sure it should be used for personal complaints about subjects. Any opinions?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravy (talk • contribs) 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the critical reception section should be limited to reception from critics. As for using a forum post as a citation, forums aren't usually considered as reliable sources, unless, say, it's a forum post by the creators of the game. Which that criticism isn't, really. What would be great, is if we could find a review, or a newspiece, that points out that this is a problem. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 18:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullets 

message: I read up on Angry Gamer and while it seems like a credible news source, I'm wondering how necessary it is to have so much of the "criticism" section devoted to AG's review of Space Giraffe.  It seems like the review score, the review text, and the podcast follow-up are just ploys for attention in various forms, lashing out and ranting in the hopes of gaining an audience.  Does a news site that doesn't take itself seriously at all belong so prominently as an example of the (+) pole of the review spectrum? White 720 04:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angry Gamer credible? 

message: Not that I have ever done so. Just seems like that's what being on acid would be like. -- 12.116.162.162 20:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First time experiencing a Yak game, then? Welcome :) Please explore the history and have fun. Llamatron is particularly enjoyable if you have an emulator and a touch of ambidextrosity. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's like taking acid 

message: The Reception section includes a response from the game's designer, Jeff Minter, to the OXM review of Space Giraffe.  
On the Something Awful forums, Space Giraffe designer Jeff Minter referred to the OXM review as "just about the most extraordinary example of egregious fuckwittery I have ever seen."[20]
While it is understandable that Mr. Minter would be upset by a bad review, is his public commentary relevant to this section?  "Reception" relates to reactions of the press and people who bought the game, not Minter's.  Shouldn't OXM's review be held up to comparison with the other reviews cited to allow the reader to come to a conclusion rather than the biased opinion of the designer?  
The flap this review aroused should more properly be addressed under the separate heading of "Controversy".
----Chairman B. (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Minter has been very vocal about the reviews and sales figures for SG.  Like most rants, they don't really indicate anything but the developer's personal opinion.  I'll remove the commentary on the OXM review controversy (a minor and short-lived one, certainly). White 720 (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception