Should have really tried to confirm or deny the needing to be online once every 24 hours deal. His roundabout way of answering the question sort of implies that the thing still needs to be connected at least in some way to work for games.
This category was bloody hard to pick. All the games nominated were bloody fantastic. I really don't care who would've won. If I were to pick though, I'd put my hand up for Max Payne 3 purely because it was a great return to the series after such a long wait.
Gonna agree with this one. GW2 tried to be something new and it deserved credit for that. ME3 was a great game for sure but it stuck to its own formula and tweaked it rather than trying to push the envelope and that's what makes the difference for me.
As silly as this whole thing was, a large part of me wishes that they had ruled that it was misleading. From how I see it, it serves a bigger purpose. Developers can get away by making false claims about their games to get sales. If they had ruled that it was misleading, it would make developers think twice before they release a product where they essentially lied to the consumer about it. The ending was a small thing but the repercussions of this ruling could be much larger.
The last 5 hours really didn't have any variance at all, it was just EA finding loop holes in the wording. Regardless, I just want to forget any of this ever happened. The ending was bad, the outcry was bad, everything was bad.
It looks as though this review is one of the few out thus far that has been remotely critical of the game's flaws. I commend you Carolyn for noticing them. I'm a little disturbed that a game with so many issues is getting so many good reviews. It is indeed more within the 7-8.5 range rather than the 9-10's that a lot of critics are giving it.
I remember seeing those Tommy Lee Jones Boss adverts when I was over there. As soon as we saw it we hussled outside to find a vending machine with Rainbow Boss haha.
People keep reflecting on how the economy was horrid back in the days of Labor. It's quite unfortunate that's all people see because if anyone bothered to look deeper, you'd see the Hawke/Keating government were responsible for carrying out much of the economic reforms that the Howard government uses as a foundation today. Ask any economist and they'll say Hawke's decision to float the Australian dollar and reduce trade tariffs was a good one. "Yeh, well, the Liberals would have done the same" you may say? Nope, they were against most of the economic reforms proposed by the Labor government at the time. People also seem to be forgetting that policies do change between governments like the Howard's decision NOT to reverse many of reforms performed by Labor when he came into office after the party's previous opposition to it. Also, if any of you understand the slightest bit about economics you'd know that a big ass spending spree by either government is counteracting the effect of an interest rate rise which funnily enough is one of the main election issues. So in a sense, neither government will be carrying out their promise to "keep interest rates low" any time soon.
dunnowhathuh's comments