DrBendo

I don't know exactly what you're asking (speculation before purchase or after), but to grab, you simply hold the "interact" button for an extra second or so. The cross-hair will narrow, and you can release the button to move the item; pressing the button again releases the object.

I don't give a shit about books in the game (The prose is shit, and I don't find the ES fiction interesting), and I can't see why anyone would want to read them more than once. I can relate in that I read everything in Thief and Silent Hill games which tend to have interesting material, and I read most of the pages in Alan Wake (albeit precisely because the writing was such hackneyed rubbish). I recall a fondness for the relatively robust library in Myst, but I'm sure my appreciation owed more to my youth than its quality.

That said, there should definitely have been an efficient and organized way to handle them. Especially considering that so many of the books come in sequential volumes that are found in different areas, the game would benefit from a cohesive presentation of the fiction. A building database would work; those bitching that it would somehow ruin immersion or be unrealistic would do well to note that one does not become a better swordsman by reading some asshole's biography, nor can one feasibly carry ninety heads of cabbage. A good alternative would have been putting libraries in some of the cities. Excluding skill books for obvious reasons, such libraries could store a good breadth of the additional fiction in a reliable, easy to find location.

Where does it say "+2"? The quick-select, the inventory, or elsewhere?

I noticed a similar oddity with the steel dagger in my quick-select menu. For a few hours, it was displayed as "2. Steel Dagger"; both before and after these hours (with no specific changes I can narrow down), it says simply "Steel Dagger". Anyone know why this is?

Good luck, OP, in getting genuine comments beyond sycophantic excuses that ignore what you have actually written.

While I've not noticed it often, there have been occasions where a Quick Look makes it clear that they're several hours into the game and still haven't noticed some pretty basic shit. Quick Looks that aren't from the reviewer, are very early in the game, or involve far too many elements to expect full knowledge, e.g., knowing how every system in Demon's Souls works, are expected to have some of these flaws. However, when someone ten hours into a game complains that there's no mechanic x and says the feature would make the game much better while failing to notice that it's in there, there is a problem. I've seen several reviews (from various sources) in which complaints demonstrate that the reviewer never even opened up the options menu. With Giant Bomb, the problem is rare, but sufficient that I double check dubious statements and take most Quick Look commentary with a good dose of salt.

Quick Looks are almost always better when at least one person knows what the hell they're doing. Some of the videos where they spend inordinate amounts of time going in circles and bitching about the game in frustration while missing the bleeding obvious are just amateurish shit. There are a few Quick Looks that they probably shouldn't have bothered uploading at all. I get wanting an immediate feel for a title, and it usually works well, but when things turn to shit, they'd be better off starting over and doing it right. For all I know, they might do this from time to time, but there are a few that get by offering a pissy, inaccurate view of a game.

It's a problem, but it's pretty infrequent.

@ProfessorEss:

While I have neither fear personally, it doesn't seem at all odd to fear spiders more than bears. Spiders are everywhere, and they can easily go undetected. Bears are notably less stealthy. If you're afraid of bears, you can always stay out of the woods; generally, one knows where bears are, and they can see the bear coming. Most of us have been bitten by dozens of spiders, but I doubt many have so much as seen a wild bear. The difference in the severity of harm is offset by the difference in the probability of that harm. A woman may fear that her husband will abandon her, but she's probably not going to be concerned that he'll get a sex change, seduce her brother and become her sister-in-law, even though the latter is probably worse.

@TheDudeOfGaming:

Not sure if you're just being obtuse, but phobias can easily come into play through games, films, books, etc. The irrational nature of phobias plays a role, but the general effect can be seen without them. If a film features discussion of or characters with head lice (nits), for example, many audience members will get an itch on their scalp. Once the mind has the suggestion, the sensation can easily follow. With phobias of spiders, insects, or similar things that are both present and difficult to detect, a person can suddenly feel small movements or hear soft sounds that resemble the object of fear. Furthermore, people who are very afraid of spiders also tend to find them disgusting to look at. If, say, a game had enemies that were realistically rendered as the surgical removal of a malignant rectal tumor (a rather unpleasant sight), then many players would just be put off by encounters. I presume that arachnophobes frequently find the images unsettling and have their fears triggered in a way that makes them anxiously suspect that an actual spider is nearby.

While I'm enjoying the game as a whole (360, as it happens), there are a handful of design choices that range from odd to quite annoying. I've not researched them, so some may have workarounds or other mitigating factors that I'm not aware of. If anyone can show me the developer's justification for the decisions or correct my misunderstandings, it would be appreciated.

First, what the hell happened to acrobatics, athletics, and agility? I understand why they would want to limit some of the ridiculous applications that past games have had (such as being able to leap to game-breaking heights), but removing these skills altogether doesn't strike me as a good solution. So far, I've not noticed any ability to level running speed or jumping skill. The mincy little jump is pretty useless so far. I'd like to be able to clear boulders, hop across water, or take to town roofs, but there's no indication that the game will allow for it. Speech-craft seems stricken as well, unless I'm missing the prompt to manipulate NPCs' dispositions.

The leveling system feels much more restrictive than it used to. I enjoy the "learn by doing" approach, but Skyrim limits itself to only that method of improvement. In Oblivion, for example, I could level the character and spend points upgrading skills that I didn't use frequently. If I found magic of little use, I could level the shit out of my stealth, bows, and blades and spend some of the earned points beefing up magic stats until they reached a point which made them useful. I don't care for magic, but the occasional spell to utterly sodomize an enemy is nice. It seems that in this entry, I'll be forced to spam said spell and grind levels.

The map is complete shit. An open-world game should never have a map buried in menus. There's no reason not to have a map button; the "wait" button should be used to go directly to a map while waiting can be accessed via menu or as a button command in the map. Does anybody use "wait" more often than they use a map? That aside, the map itself is a pain in the ass. The 3D adds nothing of value, and odd, restricted turn navigation is needless. 3D maps may work in a handful of games that take place in multi-story buildings, but a flat map is almost always better; one can see everything clearly with exact reflections of distance (as opposed to the foreshortening effect in 3D).

The favorites quick-menu is an interesting idea, but its implementation is a bit awkward. Switching from a bow to a dagger, for example, requires pulling the menu up, equipping the dagger, and then unequipping whatever spell or shield the system automatically selects for the other hand. The system would work really well if they also allowed a toggle hotkey. Left and Right on the D-pad don't seem to be doing anything, so why not let them switch between two left and right hand setups (much like the Oblivion system had with magic and weapons)? The frequent pause to dick around with the small menu break immersion. I tend to go stealth with bows, and the quick press of a button to switch tactics without interrupting the play if I'm caught would be handy.

The inventory has similar issues. There was an admirable intent to streamline the menus, but there doesn't seem to be a reason for nixing everything about the previous iteration's setup. The tiered inventory is easy to navigate, but there's a lot of unused space in those menus that could go to presenting more information, or at least a view of your character that can give a quick reminder as to what you have equipped.

I like the streamlined HUD, but I'd rather see options. Life, stamina, & mana bars are fine as they are, but it'd be nice to enable information icons, e.g., diseases. I went at least a couple of hours with a disease, and there may have been some fleeting text on the screen (such a thing would be easy to miss), but I had no significant indication until I got into a town and was described as a bit peaked. This complaint is admittedly very minor, but there are other, similar HUD/presentation issues I've noticed that affect the information given to the player. Most of them aren't a problem for me, as they relate to things with which an Oblivion player is familiar, but there are some odd choices with respect to those new to the games (such as the game's failure to let players know how to move objects and adjust camera distance).

While complaints so far have been about changes from the previous entry, there's one aspect of all the Bethesda RPGs that's always been a cyst on my ovary: Why the hell do I have to sell 5 of the same item individually? It seems that, almost without fail, I have 5 of ten different items to sell. The quantity slider should appear if you have three or more items, so selling is the most efficient. Another annoying aspect of trading is that the selection bar changes when you are down to two items, i.e., to sell both of item x, you must sell one, then move the bar back up to the other to sell it. These nuisances are small, but they add up when making several trips to sell off accumulated junk. Any game that has a looting/economy system should be designed to sell things quickly with as few commands as possible.

As I said, I quite like the game; by no means should this thread imply otherwise. There are simply some elements of the design that stick out largely because most elements are so well executed. From nit-picks (HUD options), to minor disappointments (no agility-building), to unsightly pains in the ass (shitty, inconvenient map), I'm curious as to why these things were done the way they were and interested to find out if there are solutions or negations to my qualms (perhaps easy answers I've thus-far overlooked).

@Milkman:

That could be true. When I started coming to the site, there were a handful of Quick Looks and a couple of mailbag type videos, but a lot of the content was prepared, written, and edited. There weren't endless hours of video, but what was there tended to be focused and good. The site had a different take than most, and it was refreshing. The site is increasingly "Watch us dick around for an hour; oh, aren't we just wacky."

That could be what most users genuinely want. Given the rabid defense of anything the site does that typifies many threads, it appears that a lot of people are just here to watch a group of people goof around and occasionally write a review. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. If, though, there is a sufficient contingent of visitors who want intelligent, pointed features that can reduce the striking absence of legitimate criticism, then it's worth bringing up. Eschewing insight for cheap college humor somewhat related to games seems to be proving Giant Bomb's meal ticket.

As I said, the site does not yet suck, but I come around less and less, occasionally checking for something that has focus and forethought. As I more often find the product of flipping a camera on and hoping something amusing happens eventually, Giant Bomb simply may not be my kind of site.

The direction of the site is one I don't care for, and the issues brought up in the OP are certainly a factor. Since around the time they started that quest bollocks, the focus of the site seems to be exclusively on size and quantity, while quality is pushed to the wayside. Aside from sanctimonious twats who trumpet their fiscal folly but would balk at paying to use Google, IMDb, Facebook, or any number of sites they likely use, the subscription nonsense isn't much of a problem at its core. The problem is that all focus seems to be on how the site can be monetized and get more members.

Outside of standard reviews, when was the last piece of well-considered, prepared content from the core staff? TANG? Why bother writing things down to record and edit an interesting, focused feature when you can just roll a live feed for some extemporaneous nonsense? I don't often go to Screened, but to compare the sites, Giant Bomb just isn't even competing for quality features. The odd thing is that so many of the video features one sees on Screened would translate perfectly to cover video games. Perhaps instead of playing the newest game with a two-hour video feed of mostly banal filler, Giant Bomb could produce a handful of short videos that are actually interesting. Where are retrospectives on franchises? Deconstructions of gaming tropes and mechanics? Reflections of genre trends? Hell, the occasional news article from Patrick or Alex seems to make up the vast majority of content that seems prepared in any way.

A lot of people on the site seem happy with having hours upon hours of frivolous, uninformative hijinks, and the site seems content to settle for that. To hell with improving the quality, let's just pad out the quality by re-branding Quick Look Throwbacks as three all-new features with a pay wall. Why edit to make an informative five minute video when the same five minutes' worth of information can be found spread over an hour of dead air, over-extended schtick, and rambling? Repetitious frat humor and inarticulate impressions are just as good as the well-informed, carefully written articles and videos that used to be on the site, right?

The site doesn't suck yet, but it's certainly stagnated for some time. As long as so much weight is given to the apparent size=money concept, the potential for a really interesting, unique game site will continue to be squandered.

You know what's both more frequent and more obnoxious than people who bitch about scores? The droves of people who leap after them to spout dull cliches to downplay scores. Yes, that would be you.

For every post of score-based outrage, I see about ten bleating responses about it being an opinion, them reading reviews, the score not being bad, thinking for oneself, and similar boring, trite observations of the bleeding obvious. The "boo-hoo, game X got an 8" crowd would be easily ignored and overlooked were it not for the endless conversations in which others congratulate themselves on finding the complaint silly.

@CptChiken said (edited for accuracy):

I'm a sanctimonious prat, shoulders deep in my own ass. As such, I will take this opportunity to pass judgment on a film that I've never seen. Please bear in mind that, like many a guardian of virtue before me, I'm not terribly well educated; in addition to numerous misspellings, I will misuse many words, including but not limited to: art, pornography, masochistic, graphic, and offense. Do not allow these minor shortcomings to distract from my distorted descriptions of scenes that I've never watched.

The director of The Human Centipede II claims that it is art. Clearly, this is not the case. Rather than see the film for myself and bias my position with all that "informed opinion" nonsense, I can rely on internet rumors and the outrage of other prudes to make my mind up for me. Obviously, I'm in a much better position than anyone else to speak of the film's quality. To do anything less than publicly condemn the film would be a waste of my good fortune in having others to think for me.

I'm fine with violence in movies, unless it's very violent. Anything that spoils my dainty palette is uncalled for. Surely nothing that offends my delicate sensibilities could have any value or meaning to anyone else. After all, my pitifully low tolerance for seeing pretend things must be the barometer for everyone; it's not like we're talking about something subjective. Never mind the fact that bleating morons came out to decry Freaks, Un Chien Andalou, Psycho, A Clockwork Orange, Cannibal Holocaust, El Topo, The Evil Dead, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover, The Last Temptation of Christ, and countless other movies that we now watch without bringing on the apocalypse; this time, the moral outrage and fear-mongering is for real.

How on earth is it that we can allow people to make films that don't cater exclusively to my sheepish tastes? Who the hell does Tom Six think he is, not pandering to the weakest of stomachs and deluding himself into thinking that anyone can handle seeing a bit of make-believe that my sheltered mind hasn't asked for?

Down with free expression, once and for all! Like those brave and honored pillars of righteousness before me who have the courage to burn books, censor music, and otherwise impose their myopic worldviews onto adults who would otherwise think for themselves, I call for an end to anything I don't like. Maybe one day, I can achieve my Utopia, and nobody will create anything that isn't happy and safe.

It's fine that you're a lightweight and cannot handle a spot of fiction, but anyone who presumes to speak of what others should be allowed to create, read, listen to, or watch, can fuck right off. This is especially true of the sort of cunt who does so without bothering to even see the work they decry. As a hint, when moralist prats start shouting, "This goes too far, therefore it cannot be art," that's a good indication that the work discussed is art.

As opposed to the cinematically weak people in this thread who are complaining about the movie, I've seen it. It isn't nearly as bad as the reactionary tools have made it out to be. There isn't much in the way of graphic violence at all. The film isn't great, but it's not terrible; it's certainly an improvement on the first movie. The writing, sparse as it is, is serviceable, the cinematography is effective, and the acting isn't too bad (though the roles are not demanding). What Six actually nailed this time around was the humor. The First Sequence had a touch of dark humor to it, but it stemmed mostly from the premise while the film's attempts to emphasize the comedy were half-assed. The Full Sequence succeeds rather well in playing off of how ridiculous the idea is.

It's not a film for the masses. Those who can't handle it needn't apply, and those who simply haven't much interest in the concept probably won't get much out of it. For those who enjoy seeing something different, though, it's worth a shot.