It is incredible just how much stock people put in these reviews.
Honestly people, the point of a review is to hear an opinion attached to a personality that you can, hopefully, identify with. No one is entirely objective when they write a review, because it's a subjective opinion on an art form (or if the term 'art form' makes you uncomfortable, you can interchange with 'entertainment' instead). It's not science. It's not quantifiable, despite what the endless stream of review scores would have you believe (and metacritic, don't get me started on that site).
If you truly want to put any kind of science (or god forbid 'fact') into reviews, then pick a handful of review sites that you like, with personalities, opinions or webdesigns that you can get behind, and cross-reference reviews in order to make that little thing we call: 'an informed opinion' (yes I know this will fly so far above the heads of a lot of users on this site, it's not even funny. For an opinion similar to mine, you should probably look up Jim Sterling or Totalbiscuit)
It amazes me to no end that people can go on and on about this. Yes Jeff Gerstmann was fired after his Kane & Lynch review. Yes that seemed suspicious at the time, but people, we are not dealing with an institution in who's hands we put our safety.
Employees of the Food and drug administration being bribed by big corporations to look the other way would be a TERRIBLE THING, but these are GAME REVIEWERS people! What they do, doesn't exactly amount to as much in the grand scheme of things. And don't dare suggest that this or that review should correspond to all others in terms of review score. You are better than that, I know you are.
I know you all want to be 'right', but just enjoy what you enjoy and stop worrying about these things, because the evidence in favor of 'paid reviews' on as major a scale as you suggest, is never going get any greater, or lesser, than it is now, or has ever been. Oh and you are far from the first person to write that you are unsatisfied with this, so maybe it's pointless to even try, and...
Oh wait... Is that?... Is that what I'm doing right now? Am I writing a long pointless comment on something no one is going to read or care about a day from now? o_O
Wait, because it's different? How is that a bad thing? Valve is actually experimenting on a different controller design. For a solid decade, we've had controllers with analog sticks, with little discernible difference between them. The difference between the 360 and PS3 controller is the placement of the analog stick. Aside for a weight difference, that's it.
Now Valve are actually trying something new, designed for a different purpose, for which traditional controllers have proven themselves time and time again not to work (RTS games and other complicated UI driven video games), and you are writing it off already? How exactly is this product a threat to anyone? You don't HAVE to play any game on steam with it, that's the point.
If Valve can pull this off in conjunction with their steambox, they could end up at least partially bridging the gap between the relaxed console couch experience, and the PC crowd. Imagine playing Civilization V in co-op on your couch.
I think there's more potential here than with the Ouya.
@rinshun "Sometimes I think indies pays gamespot for good reviews" http://sageartsstudio.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/276253_papel-de-parede-meme-jackie-chan_1280x1024.jpg
Having read this, I can't help but sense a disturbing level of undeserved entitlement. Mind you, I'm talking about the comment section, as opposed to the article itself.
There's an expression which seems especially relevant in this context.
"The straw that broke the camel's back".
I'm sure the camel didn't break its back solely because of that single straw. In fact, it seems reasonable that the camel had to carry so much on its back, that finally the inclusion of the straw exceeded what, at most, the camel could hope to carry.
I suppose, having worked long hours everyday of every week for many years, Phil Fish was much like this camel. One day he just couldn't take the weight of it all anymore. And it probably wasn't a Marcus-Beer-shaped straw that broke his back, but even that tiny straw contributed. Yet for some reason, it's only the straw that people seem to remember.
This is good news. I think Rockstar has waited an appropriate amount of time for us to want a sequel. I must say that I found Red Dead Redemption to be one of their most enjoyable games.
I just hope they come up with a better title than Red Dead Redemption 2 :)
@Gamesfetch @blackace There's no such thing as "it takes too much time".
So long as there's a reasonable amount of news coming out every once in a while to let us know that a project is still being worked on, it can take five years for all I care. I would rather have a great game that's years away, than a terrible one that'll be done in a few months.
@stan_boyd I think you just mistook the developer for the publisher. The decision to make identical clones of Call of Duty and force micro transactions into every game, is made with the higher ups. It's true that the developers sometimes go on camera and say "This is an intentional design decision", but it's far more plausible that they've been forced into it, because the publisher demanded it.
And when such a game then turns out to be a disappointment, is it really any surprise? Who can feel passionate about developing a cash grab? Who can stay original, when copying the same formula is not just expected, but downright demanded?
Don't get me wrong, there are bad developers out there, but trends like Call of Duty clones exist because publishers are afraid of making risky investments, and micro transactions are just another way for them to monetize video games.
I think it's the publishers we should be angry with, not the developers themselves. It's makes me more than a little sick to think of all the crap that developers have to take from people on the internet.
That being said, I really don't think that there's been enough information on this whole Beer-Fish-twitter thing for me to form any kind of meaningful opinion on the subject. I kinda wish other people would feel the same way.
@ashyblood @Lord_Python1049 I get a funny vibe from stupid people these days. It's almost like they don't understand the basic difference between pedophilia and homosexuality, one being forced sexual relations with a child, and the other being a sexual orientation that is just as much based on consensus as the traditional heterosexual relations between men and women. Guess which one is which.
Seriously though, you are kind of a moron for bringing up homosexuality on an article like this. Can't we all just agree that forcing a child to perform sexual acts is far worse than two people of the same gender *gosh* actually liking each other in an intimate and consensual way?
Deugar's comments