If BioShock 2 got like 50 or 60 at Metacritic I wouldn't buy it even though the first one was one of my favorite games. I'm not that way with movies though because I've liked so many movies that got panned by critics but movies are a lot more personal and also they don't leave me 80-100 dollars poorer (games are expensive in my country). Games usually get low scores because of generally low quality which is a lot less subjective than quality is in movies or bugginess and I have a really hard time overlooking big flaws or a lot of small ones and if all the critics agree it's poor my money's too precious.

I don't understand you people. Do you then not buy a game if that would make the amount of games you want to play greater than two/three/whatever other number you mentioned? So if you have three/two/whatever great games you like playing and BioShock 2 or Bad Company 2 or something you're excited about comes out would you then wait to play it until your queue clears up or something? I get games until I've run out of games I want or run out of money to buy them or space on my hard drive and decide which one to play at a time based on how I'm feeling at the time and if I can't decide I toss a coin or just click it without thinking and then it's too much of a bother to wait for all that loading only to exit it to play the other one.

If not Elder Scrolls V I hope at least for some fantasy RPG. I'm dying to play one. It's been so long since I've played a good one.

[QUOTE="HellsAngel2c"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] I totally agree. No offense to anyone out there but if you decide whether or not to buy a game based on the cover then I can in no way call you a gamer. It would be very hard for me to respect someone who chooses games that way. Just my personal feelings.Diablo-B

I like games that let me be creative. Not like customizing your character or like something like Spore but something like Master of Olympus: Zeus where you can build a large base but where everything serves a purpose. You can organize your city in a trillion different ways, you can make it beautiful, but everything serves a purpose, it's not purely there for cosmetic purposes like customizing your character at the start of an RPG. I love city builders. I also love open world games like GTA and Oblivion. But the thing is, with all these games I'm left unsatisfied so quickly. I always want more.

In GTA I want to be able to buy companies, fly planes, I want a big countryside, I want parachutes, I want a scuba suit, I want a jetpack, I want snowy mountains, I want to be able to climb those snowy mountains with full mountain climbing gear, I want better stealth gameplay, I want to be able to play as a cop for a while, I want to be able to use disguises to slip past enemies, in IV I wanted the gym back because it let me customize my character but in a meaningful way, not a purely cosmetic one and I had to work for it which made it all so much more satisfying, I want to be able to rappell down buildings, I want an underground base like the batcave or something, I want better melee combat, I want to be able to establish a drug ring, I want to be a street thug whose brother was killed but I take full vengeance halfway through the game so a new story can begin, I want to rise from a street thug to owning an empire of companies, goons etc. If you felt like giving up while reading that I understand. Thinking about all the things I wish I could do take over my mind when I play. And I don't get these things and that leaves me unsatisfied and makes me eventually stop playing.

It all comes down to the fact that I want a game where I have hundreds of combinations of actions, items, environments, events and enemies so if I want someone dead, someone who's got alotta guards, I can do it by climbing that vertical cliff, gliding onto his roof in my stealth glider, sneaking my way to his room and stabbing him in the heart or jumping in a bomber at an airport on the other side of the map, flying it there and carpet bombing the whole area or putting on my scuba suit and traveling there in my speedboat, then swimming underwater to where the guards can't see me to the side of his house where his room is, taking out that sniper rifle, putting a silencer on it, taking a beautiful shot through the window and curtains with the help of those thermal sights I bought and then slipping out of there the way I came while the enemies are scratching their heads wondering how the fook this happened.

[QUOTE="WhiteWorld"]Critics talk about the meaning the film holds because they have an extremely deep appreciation for films. Like Roger Ebert talking about how Scorsese used slow motion to portray heightened awareness in Taxi Driver and how the steam rising up from the street was to symbolize hell. If you don't appreciate the sort of depth film critics talk about you probably don't appreciate films that much either. Good film critics and smart film lovers crave intelligence from films. And to say critics focus on some one thing is completely untrue, they appreciate every aspect of a movie. You're the ones whose focus is limited. Read Ebert's review of any Scorsese movie and you'll see he talks about the music, cinematography, editing, angles, effects, acting, story, characters, meaning etc.Baranga

Second of all, him giving movies like The Mummy and Garfield positive reviews is most definitely proof that he doesn't judge every type of film the same. Read his reviews before you express your opinion of them. His scores don't mean much and he's said so himself. There was a debate between Siskel and Ebert when Ebert gave Full Metal Jacket a lower score than some bad movie and then admitted that he thought the bad movie was worse than Full Metal Jacket. And by the way, I thought Full Metal Jacket was great and I think Ebert is great too. Does that make your heads hurt? None of you have any understanding of the point of film criticism.

Most are pretentious buttholes. They judge every genre by the same rigid set of criteria and talk as though their word is gospel truth. It would be nice if newspapers had genre specific critics. Second_Rook