I think the future of gaming is bright, just look at PS4/X1.

Ricardomz

Really?  The PS4 and X1 are the reasons I'm not particularly excited about the future of gaming.  From what we've been shown neither of these consoles are going to usher in a new generation of video game experiences.  They are just going to be an extension of what we've already had for the last 8 years, just with prettier graphics.  Graphics that, quite frankly, aren't THAT huge of a jump compared to the jump we saw between the PS2/Xbox and PS3/360.

New consoles were always about bringing new an exciting games to the public that would of been impossible to do the previous generation.  That's just not the case with most of the games shown for the next gen.  Both Sony and MS seem far more interested in horning in on other parts of media entertainment for their innovative selling points.

This along with the fact that publishers will continue to employ desperate tactics to bleed every possible penny out of a game and the gamers who play them doesn't instill me with much confidence.

As for the Occulus, I think It's a neat idea.  I just don't think It's a viable platform for game development yet.  It's not a gaming system, It's the sort of thing you see at theme parks.  Something you pay a few dollars to strap into and have a giddy thrill for a few minutes from the simulated haunted house or virtual skydiving.

I've played the game from front to back, poured around 100 hours into the game, and I just don't see most of the OP's complaints.

Of the (I'm gonna go with hundreds) of times I died in Dark Souls, only ever felt a small few were because the game was unfair or "cheap".  99% of the time when I died, it was my own damn fault.  Not because the game was unfair, not because of bad controls; but because I screwed up, or panicked, or made a bad decision.  This is no different from most games, the difference is Dark Souls actually punishes you for playing stupid.  Every dead is Dark Souls is a learning experience, and not just the game telling you what you did wrong and how to do it right at the "retry?" screen.

Asking for special contextual mechanics, like when you have to traverse/battle on narrow ledges to make things easier is the exact kind of player mentality the game ignores, and with good reason.  The game expects YOU to pay attention to these things.  It expects YOU to know where you are in relation to that precarious drop into death at all times, regardless of what is attacking you.  It expects YOU to be aware, patient, and to use every tiny advantage the game gives you from items, different weapons/gear/spells, other players when you are able to summon them or see messages left by them, and the terrain.  In short, it expects YOU to do the thinking.

The only thing I can somewhat agree on is the game could of done a better job of conveying the most basic of mechanics and concepts.  Figuring out the inventory and stat windows can be a bit confusing at first, as can be figuring out what stats or items matter to your particular play style.  I would also say it could be a little clearer at times on where you're supposed to go next, I've seen quite a few players beat their head against a wall because they wandered into an area they weren't supposed to be in, but had no idea there were other areas to go to.  That being said I do NOT think something as overt as a map is the way to go, just that the overall world design should convey where to go next in a better fashion.

As with anything dealing with comic books, it all depends on what era of comic book history you're going to cite.  Comic hero's have wildly inconsistent power levels.  Who is writing the particular story arc also makes a big difference.  A writer can come up with any ass pull of an excuse to make any hero/villain beat any other hero/villain.

Superman has beaten Hulk about half a dozen times over the decades.  Spider-Man has beaten Superman, therefor Spider-Man > Hulk and Superman?  Yet Hulk has fought Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, and The Avengers all at the SAME TIME and beaten them easily.

Say you are going to disregard author fait and circumstantial plot devices.  Just looking at raw statistic, there's only a select handful of characters in the marvel universe that can actually go toe to toe with Hulk in a straight fight.  Thor, Silver Surfer, and The Sentry being the first three that pop into my head.  Not even going to get into the "god-like" entities like Galactus, The Celestials, The Outsider, and The Living Tribunal because that's just silly.

Square-Enix, internally speaking.  They have proven to be compitent publishers, but their in-house developed games have been pretty sub-par for pretty much this entire console generation.

[QUOTE="xWoW_Rougex"]

I don't understand why subscriptions are so hated. mmorpgs have plenty of servers, filled with thousand of peoples, they're constantly for years fixing bugs, tweaking and adding content and gameplay and providing customer support. Why is it so unreasonable...?

Ish_basic

Because there are games that do these same things with only a single upfront retail cost or none at all, and many of them offer just as much content as their competitors that are charging a fee.

Consider that The Old Republic doubled its revenues after going free to play. LotR and D&D experienced similar upticks in revenue when dropping their subscription service.

The notion that we are paying $15 a month for maintenance is archaic. Maybe at one point that was true. It's just not anymore. Nowadays, we are paying 15$ a month because we are stupid enough to pay $15 a month. The trend for the bigger name MMOs coming out seems to be develop a free to play model, but start with a subscription model and make money hand over fist until the dipsh*** realize they don't actually have to pay for this...then switch to the free model and watch the revenue spike again.

This is where "lying with numbers" becomes the publishers friend.  You're confusing increased unique users with increased profit, companies rarely state how much money they are actually making on F2P micro-transactions.  They specifically released news of the user base tripling, wording it to where it sounds like they are making so much more money than before.  The reson F2P is more sustainable is because everything is scaled back and new content now only tends to take longer to get released, but you have to buy it to be able to play it.  I don't see how anyone can say a game is free to play with a straight face when you have to pay for each content update.

I would have to ask if you have actually tried playing a game like The Old Republic without paying any amount of money towards the game what so ever.  It's a tedious slog that's deliberately designed to slowly wear down your resolve until you do cough up money just to make the game less frustrating.  As someone who did play ToR when it had a $15/month subscription, I can assure you that frustration wasn't in the game back then.

Fact is the way most F2P games are designed are a detriment to the game itself.  From the word "go" they are waging psychological warfare on the player, doing everything it can go break you so you pay up.  The sad part is, the players who convince themselves that It's optional, that you don't HAVE to pay, that it doesn't effect them, they are the ones who are most susceptible to giving in and paying money to these predatory design choices.

Guild Wars 2 and The Secret World have done a pretty good job I do admit, but they aren't free to play, they cost money up front.  GW2 doesn't charge for content updates, but their content thus far hasn't been anything earth shattering.  TSW only released about 4 content packs a year for $10 each, and they tend to be very short, usually able to be finished in a few hours.

[QUOTE="SoNin360"][QUOTE="kickingcarpet"]

So now that the decimal place is gone I guess we can assume GTA:V will get an 8-9 since a 10 score is not given out very easily anymore unlike 2008. Judging by Last of Us i'm scared GTA may get an 8-9

ChiefFreeman

Here's the complete list of Gamespot 10's.

1)   Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time  "1998"

2)   Soul Caliber   "1999"

3)   Chrono Cross   "2000"

4)   Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3  "2001"

Then it was a long 7 year wait until the next 10...

5)  GTA IV

6)  Metal Gear Solid 4

7)  Super Mario Galaxy 2

The funny thing is in retrospect, I wonder how many people would still consider them worthy of the perfect 10.

I know in hindsight I certainly don't feel the bulk of those 7 games deserved a perfect 10, even when you take into consideration the state of gaming when they were released.  I would say Ocarina of Time and maybe Tony Hawk 3 deserved the 10's.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

You cant. A review is an opinion. It isnt the word of god or some fact that you can prove using math. The only reason we use numbers is because we are f*cking weird and we like to grade everything. Grading in video games is just as flawed as grading five year olds on math, science and english. But we do it. We make young children feel like shit.

Same goes for video games. We shoudl not be grading them or comparing them to other games.... I mean how we can really compare something like CoD which has nearly 50 modes in MP and a near RPG like system to something more grounded like Killzone which has maybe 7 modes and a cIass based mp progressino system? But we do and since we are doing it anyway, might as well go all the way and give ourselves all the room we can give to grade these video games.

c_rake

Just because they're opinions doesn't mean we don't have to be consistent.

Scores carry specific connotations. If the review text contradicts the tone the score suggests or vice versa, the review is a failure because it then sends mixed messages. A review, for instance, that spends the majority of the text describing the game as middling at best, but then turns around and gives it a 7, which is universally considered "good" in the press' eyes, it's a crappy review because they're misusing the scale.

I'd honestly prefer if I didn't have to worry about them, but people expect them, so we deliver. Least we can do is make using them easier on ourselves.

This is actually a rather large problem I've had with Gamespot over the last several years.  Their reviews aren't terrible consistent with the rating scale, particularly in the 6.5-7.5 range. 

As for comparing game X to game Y in terms of score; games aren't reviewed on a strict curve.  Yes the quality of other similar games may impact the score in some way, but just because one game gets a 9 out of 10, that doesn't mean that no game after that is allowed to get a 9 out of 10 unless It's objectively better.  By and large I've found most game reviews are, for the most part, based on the merits of the individual game and how well it executed what it was trying to do.  If another game just so happens to execute the same idea better, then that's something that needs to be addressed in the review.

I'm all for switching to a whole number rating scale.  Honestly, I would prefer to see it lowered to a 5 point scale.  Not only do I feel it would make the reviewers themselves far more considerate of what score they give, it would also be impossible to not send a clear and concise message of how you felt about the game.  1 = bad, 2 = below average, 3 = good, 4 = great, 5 = near perfection.  There's really no room for argument or interpretation in a 5 point scale.  I've always felt that if you're going to score a game, and can't boil it down to a 5 star rating, you're simply thinking too hard.

Maybe I'm just a cynical and jaded gamer, but I'm finding it harder and harder to get excited for most games.  Especially the long-standing games that have a number higher than "2" fixed on the end.  I just can't muster the interest to care about Metal Gear V, Assassins Creed IV, or the plethora of other games that have gotten more sequels this console generation than most games have their entire existence.

Though I am getting more interested in Grand Theft Auto V and Watch Dogs.  I'm also looking forward to diving into Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn as I haven't had an MMO to sink my teeth into for quite awhile.  Dark Souls 2 is another sure thing for me.

I'm finding myself far more interested in niche and indie games lately.  I still want to play Dragon's Crown and Tales of Xillia.  I'm also very much looking forward to Outlast, Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs.  There's a bunch more, I just can't think of them off the top of my head.

I doubt I would, not because I'm against a subscription model.  Just I'll likely already be playing a subscription based MMO if the release version of Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn holds up to the beta.

I actually prefer it them over the F2P trash clogging the market.  Even the worst of them are typically far and away superior to even the best F2P ones with few exceptions.  Before anyone tries bringing it up, games like Guild Wars 2 and The Secret World are not F2P.  You still have to buy the games up front and pay for content updates, which is why they are also far and away better than F2P games.

As far as the monthly cost; assuming you like the game, the value you get for that $15/month is far and away better than what you would get from any two $60 games.  Though that could just be me, as I can't remember the last time I paid $60 for a game and said "I'm glad I didn't wait untill it was cheaper."

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

 

In meetings it was clear [Nintendo of Japan] could not understand why the brand had fallen so far here in North America or comprehend why the mature titles, and more powerful consoles, were so successful. Nintendo represented fun, in the purest sense of the word, they always have. When you play Nintendo games you laugh, you yell, you smile, and you jump around. You have FUN. Someone, sadly I forget who, would later quote in one of those meetings that Consumers dont want fun anymore; they just want to kill people in HD. It was actually kind of true, and with the cultural differences between Japan and the US, it was easy to understand the confusion, said Mercury in 2011.

 

IndianaPwns39

This paragraph kills the entire thing for me.

Goldeneye and Perfect Dark didn't exist then, I guess.

Neither of those games were made in Japan or by a Japanese developer.  I would need to double check, but I'm also pretty sure neither of them sold well in Japan.