For what it's worth, the thing you feel spoiled by is something Atlus has been pushed through marketing much of its spinoff game. To that end, you could chock the information up to "official spoilerage" similar to a bad movie trailer. Unfortunately, your keen instincts and/or obsession with noticing that character's every move will certainly hurt the experience, if you let it.
I'll put it this way though, regardless of whether your suspicions are correct or not, that character and anything revealed about them isn't even the tip of the iceberg for how P4's story unfolds, and that was if you were just playing vanilla P4. Golden's expanded story adds even more layers to the mystery.
So I have to say, I haven't seen a single thing from this game, trailer, teaser, preview build footage or otherwise. When I read the Australian ratings board's description of the scene, it actually made me kind of sick to my stomach, which is extremely rare for me. I just immediately visualized the scene they were describing, just as they were describing it, and I didn't like it one bit.
Then I read the publisher's response and went ahead with watching the opening scene with the "sexual violence filter" off.
The ratings board completely misrepresented that scene to an almost hilarious degree. They didn't explain the context or the framing of the scene at all and blatantly implied that the player would be forced to make the player character rape a female enemy, which is absolutely not the case. They basically describe things that aren't in anyway present in the scene
"He is viewed pinning the female down by the arms and lying on top of her thrusting, implicitly raping her (either rear entry or anally) while her legs are viewed kicking as she struggles beneath him."
Much of that statement exists entirely in the writer's head. I can't even imagine any way for the graphics to be able to depict much of it without becoming a completely different game ("...rear entry or anally"? How would you know and how would that be relevant?).
I only stress this (admittedly long) point because of the comments I've seen taking the ratings board's description at face value, as it really does a great disservice to the developer.
Anyone else get the feeling that Ubisoft is saving up the "cool" locations and concepts for a reboot coming in the next 5 years or something? It feels like they've been teasing stuff like ninjas, Asian settings, precursor protagonists (and a full precusor story instead of these bits and pieces), and a modern setting for years now, but each game only seems to inch forward at a snails pace, and this is an annual series.
It really feels like the only reason none of this stuff has made it into an AssCreed by now is because Ubisoft knows their series is going to hit a wall in the new few years and that's when they say "All right guys, we really dug deep on this one: 'Sengoku era Japan, ninjas, female protagonist who is also a sage with precursor genes (of a nine-tailed demon fox)'."
@patrickklepek: I get the feeling that you're overestimating the power of Sony and Microsoft's QA. While the problems with AssCreedUnity are egregious, they don't seem to be as widespread as people believe. The game still has plenty of high review scores and I know plenty of people who've played it from start to finish without running into any of the problems (or perhaps they didn't notice them). The certification staff at Sony and Microsoft are likewise human, and it's a bit unfair to attribute their certification of ACU as, for lack of a better term, shenanigans.
I'm more interested in what actions you would like Sony and Microsoft to take in these situations. "Don't let buggy games ship" is unreasonable. It's borderline impossible to prove that these companies discovered all of these bugs and then decided to let the game ship anyway (Follow the Money). At what point does it cross the line between human error and malicious intent? If you want Sony and Microsoft to offer some kind of compensation, like a refund or something, I feel like retailers have that covered and optimized already. Most retailers nowadays will easily give you a refund if you tell them the game is broken -- even Steam and Amazon.
So yes, while I agree that Sony and Microsoft should have something constructive to do and say during these scenarios, I'm not sure what that thing could be. I'm not sure there's anything they could actually do, unless they really did allow ACU to ship knowing it was a buggy mess, in which case they should stop doing that.
You know, I love creepy dolls. I mean I love creepy dolls. The hallmark of what makes creepy dolls creepy is the uncanny valley, or rather the gradual corruption of its intended design. A doll designed to be super cheerful might get a huge grin, but that huge grin can become so overbearing that it looks like a Glasgow smile -- that kind of thing. They look just skewed enough from their original intended design to seem terrifying.
Annabelle, however, is so obnoxiously and hilariously evil-looking that it's preposterous to think she existed as anything but a cheap Halloween prop. The original doll is plenty creepy enough just by virtue of it being old and made of yarn. For some reason, the artists adapted that into a tiny Chucky-like with gray skin and thought it looked like a doll that would actually exist...
The Nemesis system only works because of the fantastical nature of this game though, at least if you keep the concept of "death", right? These Uruks can "come back" later because they're supposed to be a resilient species that can survive the horrendous injuries you inflict upon them, and you can do the same because you're a spooky scary ghost man.
The only way that would work outside of the fantastical is if the game simply doesn't allow you to kill enemies, or your nemeses are actually friends/relatives of enemies you've killed. Assassin's Creed could have enemies with genetic memories of their ancestor's dying by your (or your ancestor's) hand, but I imagine that would be too innovative for Ubisoft.
My 3DS XL isn't even a year old and Nintendo expects me to buy another one? I'm not even sure I like the one I have now. Honestly, if the market for 3DS games shifts to favor this new model, I'd rather just sell my current XL and put the money towards something more stable.
"But I have to say that the element of chance is not an issue if you solve the puzzle. Players who "solve" every situation are able to succeed again and again since if you discover the patterns which rule every chapter."
Is he implying that there's a pattern or rule to the infamous Russian Roulette sequence that makes it consistently beatable? If so, he probably could have just told people what it was and avoided this whole thing, no?