Hmm...do I believe the reviewer who pinged GTA5 for trivial reasons, rate short (barely passable as) games ultra high, and then demands the Batman Arkham franchise reinvent the wheel lest it get a 6 OR do I follow the consensus of every other gaming site and the cumulative ratings of users here (currently an 8.2) to decide if I want to buy this game?
Bear in mind, Gamespot is also currently the lowest rating on metacritic. Why do I feel like Carolyn is simply rating and writing simply to be edgy or inflammatory?
@pvspartan36 @DrHyde It is satire indeed. Although it's not always as glaring as it might seem. The simple fact that they base their cities off of real ones but choose to change the name is simplest of satire. The radio lambaste and endorse all kinds of insanity like the talk shows with Lazlo. Compare GTA 5 to LA Noire for example. GTA 5 is satire to the point of almost being cartoony where LA Noire used real history and locations to provide a very genuine feeling representation of the era. There's segregation, realistic portrayal of police and corruption. Now compare that to just the movie-ish Mafia in GTA 3.
I miss the old reviewing system (and some of the old reviewers). Remember when we could grade a score by any tenth of point? Remember the Tilt score, where you could give the game a 10 in everything like graphics, but that one non-technical related part of the game that pissed you off made you give it a 6 in Tilt? Yeah, those were the days.
Gamespot's been going downhill for a while. If it isn't the highly polarizing reviews, it's the ads...everywhere. Insults aside to the reviewer, I agree that rating a game like GTA 5 negatively because it has stereotypes, misogyny, racism, etc. is pretty fucking stupid and shows they're missing the point of the satire inherit in all of the Grand Theft Auto games.
I imagine once things hit critical mass, we'll see this turn up in court. I think the biggest thing will be whether or not video games count as software or entertainment. If they count as software and by definition were renting the license to play said game, then First Sale Doctrine doesn't apply. If you view them as an entertainment medium, then FSD does apply. It seems like it goes back to court almost once a year.
The big publishers certainly don't have our interests at heart and I'm beginning to wonder whether or not the developers care either. I'm thinking the video game industry is ripe for another crash. It seems we've burnt out most of the creativity (at least in the big publishers). Maybe indy gaming will save us.
I'm well-known to my friends as a big collector of the "Collector's Edition" versions of games. To me, there's something comforting about knowing you have a limited edition of something that in time becomes very hard to find. Just look at some of the prices for original copies of SNES and Playstation games (particularly Japanese imports and Final Fantasy 7). You could look at it as an investment I suppose.
A bit more interesting is I suffer from Fibromyalgia and other damage that requires me to be on constant pain medication. However, I don't really suffer from pain by giving games away (or anything really). I enjoy making other people happy, especially if the item no longer has use. The reality is it's probably of our perceived value of the object that makes it hurt more or whether or not you value it at all. My collection isn't huge (less than 100) and I've traded it all away before and bought it back, but I don't freak out if a game is lost or ruined. I imagine it varies between people based on how you actually view material possessions. If you have an unconcerned view of things, you less likely to hurt or care about giving things away (and by extension, less likely to hoard).
@Lhomity @Tripwolf You apparently haven't actually heard of EA have you, Lhomity? One only needs to look at Mass Effect and Dead Space to see a before and after effect of this bastard of a company.
@the_big_doggg @DrHyde Also bear in mind, they've been discredited by the Family Research Council, a notoriously Christian lobbying group. How crazy and retarded do you have to be if other Christians think your research that benefits their cause stinks?
Herek and others have also said that the FRI's research has been published in Psychological Reports. The Boston Globe says that the small journal charges authors to publish their studies, and that it has a non-standard peer-reviewing policy. Herek says that it has a "low rejection rate" and that Cameron's research "would have been rejected by more prestigious scientific journals"
Sounds like they'll take any studies as long as it fits their agenda.
DrHyde's comments