|WHO WANTS DESSERT |
Making PC gamers cry = 4 stars
Inevitable accusations that I'm just a dumb contard = 5th star
Oh God, "contard" isn't an actual term, is it?
C'mon guys, Modern Warfare 2 was the most original game EVER.
Spending $2000 on a gaming pc that'll play a years' worth of new game releases makes the world a better place. For liberty, and our children's children.
Between me and my girlfriend we have an Xbox 360, a PS3, a Wii, a DS lite (with an R4 card) shaving derby for the win, one of those fancy portable emulators, two laptops and a gaming rig.
I can tell you that for the most part they all see a reasonable amount of use.
There are some games that naturally lend themselves to consoles far better than PCs, conversely, there are some games I positively -loathe- to see on consoles. FPS games are definitely on that list for obvious reasons.
It's rather telling that in 01 or 02 when they were bringing out SOCOM on the PS2 that they specifically refused to implement mouse + keyboard controls...
They can't upset the uncoordinated golden goose which lays the retarded eggs.
In fact I'm resentful as a whole that the PC game industry has been watered down by the Xbox generation as a whole. The PC is far from being a great all around gaming platform, but there are some things a console cannot do nearly as well.
This market analyst likes this because he doesn't play or enjoy games, he's a market analyst and enjoys speculating on what makes money.
Let's face it, imbeciles are far easier to make money off of and they don't ask many questions. As long as you're distracting them sufficiently they won't complain about the fact that there's no ability to mod the game, or that content that was once created by a community now costs money.
Imbeciles also more impressed by content which can be developed according to a market-proven formula.
Idiots are easier to please, don't demand as much and consume with little coercion.
I like how you begin that massive block of text with 'my girlfriend'.
Yeah, because she owns half of them, derp.
|Spit Spingola |
That guy's got a Devo hat!
This was kinda boring.
So why were they giving so much screen time to the Dad from "American Pie," anyway?
It's kind of amazing to me that video game reviews always come out so highly. Like, 9+ is a good game, 8+ is an okay game, and anything below that is terrible, by and large. But then there's always wiggle-room for games that have a lot of money behind them.
For example, for the life of me, I cannot see what people like about Red Dead Redemption the game. It's produced incredibly well, but I got to Mexico, and the whole of the game was riding in stagecoaches and shooting people. The gameplay itself lacked so heavily in variety, but that didn't stop the game from receiving rave reviews. I suspect, among people that really like games, there's a sort of mentality that if the game is presented really well, it's a great game, and that tends to bump up reviews for stuff like RDR, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, or anything where the "game" element is simplistic, derivative, or borderline non-existant.
Also, Gametrailers is like the worst of the worst when it comes to this. Official console magazines tend to have less homerism.
I guess homerism is a sports term. Fanboyism.
More legit? Honestly, I don't see much reason to move beyond the "good or crap" system.
I agree with hooker about a lot of today's high-rated games. Not too surprising, I also have an example from Rockstar. I'll still never understand why, when it came out, Grand Theft Auto 4 was getting perfect 10s and close to it across the board.
I thought it was the worst of the series, being a boring, generic shooter that had you drive cars to each shootout. I missed the wacky missions and arsenal of RC toys from the PS2 games.
As for the review system, I can shed a little light on that: video games are pretty expensive. I'd be willing to take a chance on a $7 book or $8 movie that's seen mixed reviews, but if I'm going to drop $60 on something, it's not going to be on something that's earned any less than an 8/10 universally, especially with stores being all uppity about returns these days.
Yeah, but these terrible online outlets are actually using a 1-100 system because they use a digit of decimal places. Can anyone coherently tell me the quality difference between a 3.0 game and a 4.0 game, let alone a 3.0 game and a 3.1 game?
|Caminante Nocturno |
Command & Conquer is better than Starcraft.
I hate gametrailers, IGN, gamespot etc.
What I do is have a small circle of industry insiders and game testers who each tell me their opinion on a game in essay format. I read them all, twice, then spend 2 or 3 months running computer simulations.
Finally I compare the computer results with my own opinion based on the contents of the essays and 6 months later I buy the game for next to nothing second hand.
He's no Yahtzee.
|Killer Joe |
I don't watch reviews.
So I can't rate this. So good for that guy.
Nice to see the Gaming in the Clinton Years guys passed on his skills.
I find the greatest irony is that every game developed for a console...at one point ran on a PC...
| Register or login To Post a Comment|