This reviewer obviously didn't like Destiny, so why assign him a review of the DLC? There must someone at Gamespot who likes the game, or are you just Kevin's VanOrd's echo chamber? Every negative thing mentioned in this review is something a sizable number of gamers, including myself, like, and calling us "farmers" isn't going to change our opinion.
Knowing that I will be playing many, many hours of the rpg's I choose, my main criteria for my character is that it must be someone I enjoy looking at. Since I'm not particularly narcissistic, I don't fashion them after myself. And I disagree that a non-personal build hurts immersion - I think a lack of empathy has more to do with that. As for the 30% of guys who play as women, it's obvious - they are also playing a character they enjoy looking at. Probably why so many of their female builds have enormous breasts and scanty outfits.
Enjoyed the broadcast, and thanks, guys, for providing insight to the review process. Clearly, you work hard to provide the information people are looking for as quickly as possible. The issue of embargoing by publishers was interesting, and I think it might be worthwhile to include the information in a review, as well as the redacted spoilers. Might help people understand why a review came out when it did, and what you were allowed to discuss. It almost feels like first amendment protections are being violated in some instances, but from the sounds of it, you don't get the games in advance if you don't agree to do it.
One thing I was hoping for was more in depth discussion of how numerical scores are arrived at. From what was discussed, there seems to be no criteria for a number score, or even if there should be one. What is clear is that everyone has a different idea of what a number means, which I guess is to be expected, but odd, since numbers are finite things used to specifically identify things (i.e. 6 apples or 10 fingers). I look forward to the day when the numbers (or stars, or bananas) are done away with, and from the sounds of it, you probably do, too.
@canuckbiker Asking why a rpg Demon Souls imitation should have co-op play is like asking why a cell phone should have a camera. Because it would be a better game if it did. And, since Kevin noted the numerous technical rough edges of the game (frame rate, texture popping, etc.) and the confession of the developer that they couldn't afford to add co-op, it's obvious Kevin's preference for the "look" of the game took precedence over his critical analysis of its merits. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, only that it should be noted and taken into account for anyone interested in buying the game. I don't particularly like the look, and I especially don't like the fact I can't co-op the quest (as I could in Demon Souls), so for me, this game is strictly a bargain bin purchase.
@bbq_R0ADK1LL @dmdavenport I disagree, and if anything a numerical score should be exactly about "ticking off the boxes," because it would allow for a useful comparison of features offered in a game. As it stands now, the practice of assigning a finite number to an subjective opinion is ludicrous and a complete waste of time.
Kevin's score of 8 is an obvious preference of style over substance, particularly when you consider this game has no cooperative play. If I get it, I'll wait until next summer, during the slow release season for games.
This review is a good example, perhaps even a "10", of why a subjective opinion annotated by a numerical score is ridiculous. How can readers objectively determine whether this game deserves a 10 when there are no other games scoring a 10 to compare it with? And how is the 10 score arrived at? What set of agreed upon parameters determines the number given? Why not give the game a 100, a thousand, or a million, they all mean the same thing -- absolutely nothing.
dmdavenport's comments