@restatbonfire: Personally I wouldn't go that far. Egger's stuff is great as artistic pieces but I wouldn't say his films are great or particularly scary. If you're thinking of directors like Ari Aster as well, his stuff is incredibly tense but not necessarily scary. I like Flanagan's stuff for the spooky factor.

Less good than the first one... wow.

@uninspiredcup: Move tie-in games don't exactly fill me with a lot of hope.

Why republish this article when it doesn't have the current/relevant information? VirtualDesktop was great when there was no other option but AirLink is native to the platform. It's in beta, but it works amazingly and is free.

Just noticed: "The products discussed here were independently chosen by our editors. GameSpot may get a share of the revenue if you buy anything featured on our site."

Nevermind. :P

@Crazy_sahara: Yeah, that would have been cool but it was still a great game. You can still see the "bones" of what they were building when it was still going to be an open world game in the detail of the environments like the town. We'll see what they do with the sequel. I'd still like to see an open world horror game but there's some debate as to whether that format even lends itself to horror or if open exploration would ruin things like pacing.

@bloodbornelore: You're still going? Wow. I guess you hadn't noticed I stopped responding a few comments ago. If this is getting under your skin that's not my intention. No reason to get worked up.

Let me clarify a couple things for you. Making observations about someone in the conversation is not against the rules. You framed yourself into the conversation with "I'm no conspiracy theorist" and I pointed out where you appear to contradict that statement (in the same comment) by saying something tantamount to a conspiracy theory. You responded by crying ad hominem. Then you called me an ass, which is name calling and an example of an ad hominem attack and is not allowed (which I gave you a pass for this time).

Moderators are forum/comment users on GS too and we are allowed/encouraged to participate in discussion. If you feel a moderator has behaved inappropriately (myself or any other mod), you are encouraged to report it to the community manager.

I'm not straw manning your arguments, but I am paraphrasing from time to time. You said the reviewer is lying in his review. Did you literally say "liar"? No, but you repeatedly said his review was dishonest or he wasn't being honest. They are the same thing, but if you feel there's some nuanced difference in the language you used feel free to point it out. This is the only part I took exception to in your posts, because it's obviously nonsense just like claims of bribery/collusion/whatever from other users are. But based on your more recent comments you appear to have backpedaled that position pretty thoroughly so that's something at least.

@jadedjarl: I don't know if it's a 10 either, but I will say that it's bonkers fun. I wouldn't describe it as "worse than Dishonored" but I would say that maybe it doesn't feel as "tight" as Dishonored stealthy action. With Dishonored you got Hitman-esque sandboxy maps but it was also pretty clear that the developers had a few specific paths in mind for any objective depending on what skills you equipped and type of run you're doing. Even though this is divided into four main maps, it's got a little more of a freeform/open world feel to it where it does not seem as structured. But with all the new/different mechanics it feels like a very different game from those. Where it shines is all the new mechanics they added and how well they work together. It's a game of a lot of "ideas" and they managed to make them gel pretty well together. Hopefully they'll get some of the issues with the PC version resolved soon.

So I'm an ass now? There's your ad hominem attack, which I'll remind you is not permitted (even by inference).

I didn't confuse your criticism with the criticisms of others, but I did lump in the idea that the reviewer is lying to you along with some of the other accusations in the comments to illustrate the difference between a legitimate criticism (I don't like this review, it's not well written/researched, I disagree with what it says) and less legitimate accusations of deliberate deception or fraud (he was bribed, GS is hiding stuff from us, etc). Making such an accusation is not specifically against the rules of this board, but it's also a pretty crummy thing to do. Especially when you consider that most of the people making these accusations have literally no firsthand experience with the thing they assume the reviewer is lying about, which makes it even more ridiculous.

But sure. He's lying. He's trying to trick you. GS is covering up how bad the game is through editing. Nevermind the fact that like 5 other major sites also gave the game their highest score, or that it's at 88% on metacritic right now. You saw through it all and got to the truth of it. Congratulations. By all means, continue spending a significant portion of your day arguing about it. In the meantime, I'll go back to playing this awful, broken game that everyone is lying about. What was that Chinese proverb again about the person saying something is impossible shouldn't interrupt the person who's doing it?

Again, you guys crack me up.

@bloodbornelore: Not joking here, but I'm starting to think you literally don't understand what the words honest and dishonest mean. To be clear, if you say the review is dishonest, that doesn't mean it's inaccurate. That means you are literally saying that the review is an attempt to deceive you. I'm honestly not trying to make fun of you, but I wanted to point that out to make sure we are on the same page.

@bloodbornelore: "The reviewer's review is not accurate or bad in some other way" = critique.

"The reviewer is being dishonest in their review" = accusation.

One is fair, the other is not. It's really that simple.