Well I checked your game out and I didn't get far before getting stuck. It went to "Choose your location for your city". I picked a location and the spy interface came up. I don't know if I clicked on another city or if those icons are places where you build a city - you need to make that clear. Anyway, I'm stuck in the "Spy" interface and you haven't provided a way to get out of it. Cannot go on from there.

Okay, now here's another thing. I refreshed tohe page and the "name your city" interface came up. My country's name was in the box, but it just tells me that it already exists. There is no option to just continue play! 

[QUOTE="Bikouchu35"]Even so, SE choose to push for quality ports instead of half azz ones, so they deserve credit on where its due.sbdb

Did you actually read what I wrote? Square-Enix was the DISTRIBUTOR of Just Cause 2. A distributor has no say in the development, they just distribute.

As for Deus-EX HR; the most credit goes to the Eidos and not Square-Enix. A publisher can jump high and low all they want, but if you don't have excellent programmers, art designers, story writers, sound specialists, animators, etc, then you're not getting anywhere. The irony is that Deus-EX HR wasn't a good port at all, there were major issues with dropping frame rates and if you check the changelog of all their updates, you'll find out that even the latest patch contains improvements for this issue, I quote "We have made further changes to reduce stuttering in the game".

As for Sleeping Dogs; it's not a good port either, because the mouse controls in the game are awful, which is only confirmed by the numerous complaints on the Steam and Square-Enix forums.

Shadowrun - cyberpunk techno RPG debued on the SNES and Genesis (no relation to the Microsoft game by the same name, btw)

Shatterhand - NES side scrolling adventure / fighting game

Lufia - RPG (I mean a full console, full budget version)

Secret of Mana - SNES RPG

Illusion of Gaia - SNES RPG

Oh - and I almost forgot - NIGHTMARE CREATURES!!! Oh how I'd LOVE to see a modern sequel to that one!

Thats funny - I finished the game in less than 6 hours. What they really need is to finish the game (story). Its like a demo, as soon as you get to a point where you think, that was cool - I wonder what's next... its over. The game should be three times as long as it is, at least - and thats the "update" they need to release.

While a lot of the suggestions and opinions seem wonderful to make more efficient and accurate reviews - much of it can make the system too complex. Too complex as in not "kid friendly". We must remember that the majority of gamers are children, and forcing a 10 year old to producing a journalistic, web design standard, introspective 1000 word review is being very inconsiderate. Much of these complaints are coming from older folks who think they are going to get some benefit if they acquire enough badges and prestige on the site - maybe Gamespot will hire them if they make enough "professional" reviews (yeah right...lol). While i am an older person and I can appreciate more mature writing and systems, I have to think of the little ones and we need not make it so restrictive that the children on Gamespot cannot participate. Leave the professional reviews to the professionals and keep ours more end user friendly and light hearted (forgiving) - even if that end user is an 8 year old... The only people who should be sweating bullets when writing a review is the ones getting paid for it.

I know this didn't make it to the list - perhaps it wasn't proposed at all, but Gamespot would be well served to update reviews based on game changes such as fixes and updates. There are some games that were bad because they were buggy, and became better after hotfixes were applied. Much too often are reviews posted and then left as is no matter what changes are made for a game. A more dynamic review system would paint a more accurate picture of the game's CURRENT state and score, as well as keep Gamespot fresh and relevant. For users it would help to have a reminder that the game has been updated and a suggestion to revise their review based on the change.

Well why not just make it more convenient for users and allow us to choose whether we want our posts mirrored or not, rather than having mirrored sections? Doesn't Gamespot want to do things that enhance the usability and enjoyability of the site? And maybe it's just something I never noticed - but shouldn't it be made more apparent than it is currently - I should know it's a mirrored section without someone telling me that - and I shouldn't have to go to a sticky or look at the rules to find that out. There should be a clear distinction in the form of a heading and / or graphic differences that plainly let the user know they are also posting somewhere else that they might not have even ever visited before. There should also be a warning that the mirrored forum might have a different rule structure, and a suggestion to read their rules too. Of course, having the choice of whether to mirror your post would make that much more sensible.

Your detailed explanation of the problems and inconsistancies in the system almost begs for the simple solution of allowing user to choose what board they are posting to. That way the poster is willingly and knowingly posting in a way that will abide by either forums rules or both, depending on where they choose to post. I don't think allowing user to choose which board to post to will upset or imbalance the process, and it won't require changing rules or merging of any sort - only the place where the post can be found will change. I can't see the problem in that simple enhancement - if anything it would reduce the number of posts moderators have to deal with, and the rule confusion will be over.

So? The game was designed by another developer, with different style and such from the first. He's a game reviewer. It's what he does. It doesn't mean it's ironic that he's reviewing it. It would be ironic if he got fired again (which he can't, because, gee, I wonder why) for his review for this game.

ayanami_rei

Thanks for the composition review - but that isn't the point. The irony is that this guy who got into so much trouble for reviewing the first one is now reviewing the second. If he got fired again at another place it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, not merely irony. And thre are a lot of game reviewers, every game reviewer does not review every game, so just because that's his job didn't automatically mean he would be reviewing THIS game.

Remember the guy that got fired at Gamespot for his bad review of kane and Lynch? Well he's at Giantbomb and he is reviewing Kane and Lynch 2! His nmae is Jeff Gerstmann, and you can check it out - ironic, isn't it?