@shinboy630 I agree that he was a little abrupt, but come on; the guy sourced his material and the customer service rep was stonewalling him. The least the customer service rep could have done is say "hold on while I check on it" and get a manager or something. I'm sure they're outsourced.
DantronLesotho's forum posts
Reposted from origin's forums. Hopefully you can see the image. If not it's here: http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18gs2vgs50fjijpg/original.jpg
I personally would rather see attractive women in shape wearing small clothes hocking goods than I would if they were random marketing douches who try to act like they gamers. I prefer my sales to be on display. From what I understand, the core issue is that women are being objectified because they are not associated with the product at all. But would it make a difference if they were? What would the conversation be otherwise? The point is to attract attention and visual attention will always come before knowledgeable attention, and for a currently-heterosexual-male-dominated industry, this works. Aside from free money (and maybe free food) I can't think of anything other than attractive women that would cause more people to visit a particular booth who might overlook it otherwise. I think a lot of the problem as well is that for journalists, they are more or less required to hit as many booths as possible so they see the booth babes as extraneous. But since E3 opened up to the general public, I don't see why booth babes are such a problem. It's like the previous commenter said about the girls having modeling jobs. They have to make their money somewhere; a video game convention is far better than a strip club or internet porn in terms of objectification standards, I would imagine.
Has anyone ever tried to merge the critical score with the rest of the totals that come up?
What about: success of intent, critical score, broad appeal, controls, appearance?
Or what about an aggregator like rotten tomatoes where it's just based on recommend/wouldn't recommend?
Excellent article/feature. I love insider stuff like this and I think the best way for the games industry to move forward is with open discussion. I also like the interview done with Team Meat as well. Good job, Patrick!
As with the discrepancy between criticism and review, I agree with Manveer to a point. In my opinion criticizing different types of games for the same feature is mostly invalid. For example: MW3 is an FPS, UC3 is a third person action/shooter. In an FPS, linearity can be forgiven more because of the corridor-ish nature by which they originated. In a third person game, those originated by having more freedom of movement. It's somewhat apples and oranges. Yes, both MW3 and UC3 have taken on a more cinematic approach to their presentation, but we're talking about the gameplay/genre and how it was affected by being more restrictive in its activity.
@rorie excellent write-up; I think you pretty much captured how I feel about the game to a tee. The only other thing that I compare it to is the loose-yet-accurate feel of the character and how much it reminds me of the Team Ico games, which is a sublime thing indeed.
I can't fathom how anyone can give a shit about NES classics these days after they've been available in ROM form for SO long. Super Mario Bros. 1? Really?