The fact that this is above a 2 means I'm done here. There is no way you can even pretend this is worth buying in any context. I've seen much better games get a 4 here. Everything about this game is awful. The controls and camera are garbage, there are missing models (invisible shotgun), bad voice acting, your shots don't always go where you aim, the AI sometimes commit suicide if you fire in their general direction (didn't even hit him, he just fell like he was shot) bad hit box programming? And they couldn't even bother to add variance to enemy actions. At one point in the first area all the enemy soldiers were firing in unison. Also, comfortable difficulty level? the only way to die is if you kill yourself or one of your teammates. Did you try playing with yourr controller of choice clenched between your cheeks? That is the only way you could call this difficulty comfortable. And... really? your praising the explosions as one of the games pros? f*ck off. I'm done on gamespot. Your reviews are completely unreliable.

@franzito I agreed with you, up until your list of other things were also boring VG tropes that I wish would go away as well. You don't like Nintendo because they don't do the exact same thing as both their competitors and make the same FPS games all the time? No, I'm sick of all three.

@kinghorn316 I own a 3DS, Wii, DS, and every Nintendo console before this gen. I also do complain about COD and GTA. Don't split people into such simple dichotomies. I still think most of Nintendos flagships are getting stale. The only one I still like is Zelda, and they fucked the last two up with motion controls (thank god TP was for GC too). Fact is, I'm bored as hell playing the same old stories again and again. I like Nintendo because they still have a sense of whimsy when they make games, and it's not all gritty realism brown palette BS, but I'm slowly growing to think that PC indie market is the only place left for interesting aesthetics and stories. Which sucks, because I'd love to play some HD AAA titles that feel new.

I think the unfortunate reality will be the same as the Wii. The potential for great games integrating the touch screen is there, but instead we're going to get every game thinking they have to include a touch screen gimmick, resulting in a ton of crappy games that would have been good if they just controlled like normal. So many good looking wii games I refuse to buy because of waggle controls. Waggle controls are not accurate enough for any serious gamer. Sure, games can take this into account, but if I want to perform an action instantaneously while in the middle of an exciting game, waggle kills the momentum for me. It just can't react as fact as my brain, and my hands don't move as fast as pushing a button. I worry this will be the same, only, instead of waggling, they'll be making us look at a separate screen.

Maybe I'm getting old... okay, I'm 22, but still, I just can't get excited about any of these. It's been years since any console released a game I considered a must play that I can't just get for PC. And the gimmicks and fidelity pushing is actually more depressing than anything. I don't care about either of those, I want games. Seriously, the last game I actually sat down and played through on a console was Persona 4. I have all three consoles (PS3, 360, Wii), and a few older ones as well. The games coning out for consoles just don't excite me anymore, plus half of them look like something else that's already out.

Okay, I'm going to say what EVERY critical survival horror reviewer has said before. The genre is relatively dead, and the reason is the idea that everything has to be rendered to make a beautiful game, and that's what matters, but that lack of seeing and understanding is what makes horror scary (which is why most shooters with horror elements have been reduced to jump scares). But what I don't get is, why don't survival horror game makers just cut the render distance really short with fogs and darkness, and focus that power on close objects or occasional movements in the fog and distance? It doesn't make sense to me that every reviewer says that these games have the same issue, and all the people making these games just flat out ignore the criticism. That being said, I really respect that Downpour seems to have some heavy fog in the town, and really, really hope it's not going to follow the recent trend of jump scare, ugly monsters, now fight them, BS as homecoming was.

@lazarius12, I misunderstood what you said a bit, reread it. You're not wrong, but from the past, it seems like most companies get this idea that the game they make has to take advantage of the innovative controller and end up screwing it up. And since you need two hands to hold the controller and use it, I could see something like that happening in shooters, where they make it so you have to hold up the controller in front of you to aim the whole time or something. I hope this isn't the case, and that some developers utilize the second screen the way your hoping for, but I'm worried it can go in a much worse, much more gimmicky direction, and developers will avoid traditional gameplay because they think we want those gimmicky controls. Also, I'm not a hardcore FPS gamer or anything, if that's how I came off. I am a hardcore old school RPG and TBStrategy lover though (which I really hope someone makes for wii U because the Wii's rpg library consisted of about three games, one of which was unplayable.)

@19Gam3NErD91. I like that smash bros idea... never thought of tag teaming in smash. Another idea is they could make it like the items in mario kart or something, where you can hold and switch between like three items that only last for a certain time. Also, maybe remedy that old stage size issue where on large stages all the players become to tiny to tell what's going on. Have the whole level on screen, and a smaller area on each players screen that shows the area immediately around them.

If nintendo makes it so you can only use one of those controllers it would be extremely stupid. And kill any multiplayer games from third party developers who specifically didn't make wii games because of how different wii controls were. I don't know why the article speculates they may do that though. How would you play a sports game like football where the plays are on the touchscreen with just the one controller, and where's the novelty keeping non-hardcore gamers playing i only one player gets to use the new innovative controller? just wouldn't make sense. I hope they do something like 1 contoller and up to 4 wiimotes, but any of those wiimotes can be taken out for the one controller. 5 players seems weird though, but we've already seen a five player game demo. Immagine a war flight simulator where each screen shows a different post in the plane. also, I think one of the best things this may do is completely kill the constant issue of screen-looking in shooters and the like, if they ever make a game that functions in reverse of what people would think, and have the players fight on the controller, and have menus and ammo and what not on the big screen.

@lazarius12, I'm a nintendo fan, but I kind of disagree. I like old school gaming, and think the best thing they can do in a lot of third party games is keep the gameplay yhe way it's been. Just like I didn't want motion controls in an rpg. I want to be able to sit comfortably and just play, without having to hold my controller up in weird ways or move a lot. There are places where those innovations belong, but there are plenty of places where I'd rather not see them, and in games I'll play for hours on end, i don't want to be uncomfortable. I actually bought the GC twilight princess, just because wagging the controller for a sword swing seemed unresponsive and tedious after the first hour of playing.