I pretty much never pre-order due to the same reasons most people are against it these days. But given this also applies to games that have been out for 2 week or less, and Prime already has launch day shipping for the few games I would pre-order (Dark Souls 3 is probably the only game this year I'll pre-order), It's nothing but awesome for me. Already being a prime member it all but guarantees any game I want a physical copy of will be ordered through Amazon.

Don't pre-order. Not just because It's Ubisoft (even if that alone is a legit reason). I mostly say don't because there's no real purpose to doing it anymore. The game will be available everywhere on launch day, you WILL be able to get a copy of the game on launch day one way or the other.

Pre-orders really only hurt us as consumers anymore. With publishers desperate to get our money before reviews are allowed to be released and virtually no benefit to us outside of a few novelty in-game bobbles. Bobbles that will likely be released to everyone a month or two later. Not to mention hacked up bits of the game being given to different retailers as exclusive pre-order bonuses, forcing us to choose what we have to NOT have included with our games. Worst of all the pre-order culture abominations is the games that offer half a dozen "editions" of their pre-orders. Just look at the god-forsaken mess that was Watch Dogs and Evolve as far as pre-orders went. Not to mention the spectacular train wreck that Square-Enix tried with the upcoming Deus Ex. Which went over so poorly they pulled the marketing campaign and just said anyone who pre-orders will get all of the bonuses.

So yeah, don't pre-order....like...ever. The industry has taken what was once a necessary service back when stores didn't know if they would get enough copies to meet demands, to guarantee you got your copy on day one, and turned it into a sales and marketing metric with no real incentive for us to pre-order in the first place.

It wasn't that long ago that the really great games typically ended up getting delayed. With the current mentality of publishers rushing unfinished games out the door, selling games at full retail before they are even into Beta, and breaking games into tiny pieces and selling them off individually at inflated prices, I'm more than happy to see high profile games get delayed. It means they realize the game needs more work and are taking the quality of the game seriously rather than knowing the game will sell on hype and releasing a sub-par product.

I'm 31, this is neither normal or abnormal. I'm in the same boat as you right now, my interest in video games is on the decline. I think for me, it has more to do with the next gen of consoles giving me no reason to be excited. That along with a recent drought of games that interest me means I've barely played any games on any platform.

This in turn usually leads me to focus on other interests and hobbies. Eventually I know more games will come out that I want to play and my interest will pick back up. I would suspect the same for you, maybe you just need a break from video games.

If you're new to the Silent Hill series I honestly can't suggest either of them. The series lost It's way when Konami started getting American developers to make the SH games. SH 2 & 3 are the quintessential games in the series. Even with It's technical issues, I would take the HD collection over Homecoming or Downpour.

Is the community too hateful? Yes. Is the community too critical? Hell no.

the industry has been at the root of a LOT of ethically questionable business practices over the last five years or so, and the community has ever right to cry foul about it. From hack-job DLC, to DRM disasters like Sim City and Diablo 3, to blatantly releasing unfinished games. Companies NEED to be held accountable for such actions, and the only way that happens is when they get publicly criticized.

However, the community is HORRIBLE and focusing such criticisms. It seems many are incapable of levering legitimate complaints without throwing out derogatory and all too often violent threats along with it. It also seems many within the community become enraged over small and pointless issues that they create in their own head, while totally ignoring the very real problems that plague the industry and directly effect them.

There's no conflict with me at all.  I have no intention of getting any new console any time soon.  Normally I'm chomping at the bit to get at least one of the new consoles asap.  This time however I just don't see anything that makes me want to be an early adopter, the new consoles just look like extensions and mash-up's of things we have already had a dozen times over (with very VERY few exceptions).

Don't get me wrong, I will eventually get a PS4 at the very least, but it will be father out from release than any other console launch than ever before for me.

Ironically enough, the Steam Machine may end up being my "console of choice" this generation.  Being able to make full use of Steam with all the ease of use and accessibility of a console, and theoretically being able to circumvent a lot of the shady business practices that have been taking place on the console landscape are major selling points for me.

There's no conflict with me at all.  I have no intention of getting any new console any time soon.  Normally I'm chomping at the bit to get at least one of the new consoles asap.  This time however I just don't see anything that makes me want to be an early adopter, the new consoles just look like extensions and mash-up's of things we have already had a dozen times over (with very VERY few exceptions).

Don't get me wrong, I will eventually get a PS4 at the very least, but it will be father out from release than any other console launch than ever before for me.

Ironically enough, the Steam Machine may end up being my "console of choice" this generation.  Being able to make full use of Steam with all the ease of use and accessibility of a console, and theoretically being able to circumvent a lot of the shady business practices that have been taking place on the console landscape are major selling points for me.

[QUOTE="N3MO"][QUOTE="chicknfeet"]Man, everybody complaining that they need to go to a 100 point scale really don't get it. They just got away from the 100 point scale...it was just in decimal form before. It was dumb. It was trivial trying to split a game between a 8.6 and an 8.7...it's the same as giving a game a 86 or an 87. I'm glad they are simplifying it. The decimal point system is trivial. Even then, the score is just there to appease the people that are too lazy to read. If it bothers you that much to see a score go to whole numbers, then there are plenty of sites out there that have meaningless decimal point systems for you to drool over. The rest of us will stick to reading information about the games.UpInFlames

It was a good and unique system for its time, but it was becoming outdated. Dropping that system was initiated by the original GameSpot staff (GregK, Jeff, etc.). The medium simply outgrew such a system that it simply became flawed. It penalized and rewarded all games for the same elements as if all games were created with the same philosophy. That system would've been a complete mess in today's world where low budget indie games, free-to-play games, social and mobile games have become relevant and important as any big budget PC and console game.

I was going to say pretty much everything you did.  I would also like to add something.  Even with a 100 point scale like that, it still arbitrarily dictates how much "value" any one aspect of a game has.  Trying to make any sort of complicated and systematic formula to quantify a subjective material doesn't really work.

This entire topic reminds me a bit of the scene in Dead Poet's Society with the poetry text book's introduction and how to properly gauge the quality of a poem.  When Robin Williams character then tells the entire class to rip the whole introduction chapter out of the text book because he thinks it's a load of bull.

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"] You might be projecting your laziness onto the developer. I'm really sorry, you think the notion is silly to go out and look into something. I think the game is amazing as it doesn't insult the player's intelligence by handing everything, gameplay wise and story wise to them on a silver platter, like most heavily narrated games do. There's a sense of exploration to the narrative. The narrative doesn't fit into a predefined mold; it's open ended to a certain point because it doesn't give you all the answers; however, that was the intention, and it provides you enough information where you can form your own interpretations, causing you question characters' goals and intentions.

Pedro

My laziness? Its my duty as a gamer to seek out the story? What utter nonsense. Its the game's duty to convey the story if there is one not the gamers responsibility to find one and base on what you are saying make up one. I don't pay game devs for me to be the story writer otherwise I would simply spend that time making my own game. I see no reason for anyone to justify the laziness of the devs to present a meaninful story. This notion of silver plater gameplay has only been conjured up by Dark and Demon Souls apologists trying to justify the shortcomings of the game. If Dark Souls "story" is as "meaningful" as Demon Souls' then its safe to say that game is pretty much mindless grinding. Thats fine for some people but its not my premium choice of gameplay or storytelling. 

Also this notion that the game does not "hand hold" or "handling everything" I am not sure what are the details behind this claim. I am very much interested in someone explaining what this hand holding conjecture is especially since it is an relatively exclusive Dark/Demon Souls term used by gamers that favor the game.

It's not actually, hand-holding is a term widely used.  You see it a lot in Dark/Demon's Souls topics because It's exactly what these games DON'T do.

The vast majority of games this generation are guilty of hand-holding to one degree or another.  Penalty for death being little more than having to replay the last 10 seconds of gameplay is hand-holding.  Being forced to go through an hour of tutorial designed for people who have never picked up a video game controller in their life is hand-holding.  Being constantly reminded via text prompts or voice clips how to play the game or how the controls work is hand-holding.  A game completing tasks or objectives for you when you keep failing at them yourself is hand-holding.  A game dumbing down is mechanics so people don't have to think longer than 30 seconds to understand it is hand-holding.

In short, any time player agency is subverted could be called hand-holding.

Is this always a bad thing?  Not always, Bioshock was guilty of a few of these things, but it's still one of my favorite games of the last decade.  It's all about implementing these things in a way that doesn't insult a players intellect.  I don't know about you, but I'm smart enough to figure out most of these things on my own.  I don't need to be reminded every time I turn on a game that the left analog stick is to move and the right is to look around.  In the words of Yhatzee Croshaw: "Can we just take is as a given that a player knows these things if they are holding the controller with their hands as opposed to their butt cheeks?"