KingdomCome

Halo 4, I despise the Call of Duty franchise, it is the epitome of lazy video game development. 343 Industries could easily have played it safe, making minimal changes to the Halo Formula and allowing the game to sell based on the quality and popularity of past installments, however, they have quickly associated themselves with the Halo community and have made some controversial, yet intriguing additions and adjustments to the formula. Also, despite the respect garnered from the gaming community, previous installments campaigns have remained consistently underwhelming in comparison to their multiplayer modes to me, however, this years E3 Demonstration of Halo 4's Single-Player Campaign looked incredible and immensely intriguing.

@Ravenlight said:

Everything surrounding the OUYA seems like a great big clusterfuck right now. I'll be genuinely surprised if this game is profitable.

@HelicopterSpy said:

At first I saw "Robert Bowling Commits..." and there really aren't many good things that follow the word "commit." Suicide, grand larceny, etc.

I need to learn to read faster is what I'm saying

This makes me more intrigued about Ouya, now that someone's actually behind it.

He's committing financial suicide by dedicating his newly established companies first gaming title exclusively to a new console with little hype surrounding it. I mean seriously, what is he thinking?

@MordeaniisChaos said:

@YI_Orange said:

Whoever gives the worst scores to good games because that means they're being honest. Everyone else just gets payed off.(I don't see this thread going well)

That's just about the silliest thing I've ever heard. That is just as naive as saying "whoever gives games the highest scores, because it means the games are all better."

@kgb0515: Former? Pretty sure he's still an Xbox Live personality.

Dude also looks like he's going to either murder someone or just end his own life every time I see him, as a side note.

Later in the thread Orange revealed he was being sarcastic...

@Clonedzero said:

i dont think i've ever gotten a game based on reviews. i buy them based on previews i see, gameplay footage and general research about the game to determine if i want it or not. then i'll buy it.

sure, i tend to look at reviews for games i already own and have beaten just out of curiosity to see what others thought, but i dont really care what other people think about games, i wont let that effect my opinions.

giantbomb is pretty good, but they're obviously pretty biased about their tastes, but they're honest about that. hell its actually REALLY easy to predict giantbombs scores for pretty much any and every game if you know who is doing the review lol.

As I stated earlier, Giant Bomb aren't as convoluted as other review sites such as Gamespot, IGN, Game Informer etc, however, by being so, they are also prone to releasing quite strongly biased reviews based upon their personal preference of genre.

@Mushir said:

What's the point of asking this question on Giant Bomb? Obviously almost everyone will vote for them.

I visit GiantBomb for the Quicklooks and the Forums, nothing else, not every member of this site restrict themselves solely to it...

@YI_Orange said:

@KingdomCome said:

@YI_Orange said:

Whoever gives the worst scores to good games because that means they're being honest. Everyone else just gets payed off.(I don't see this thread going well)

That's a flawed logic, what about hit-seeking site's purposely scoring fantastic games demeaning scores as a means of attracting more attention towards themselves?

Only scumbag corporations care more about hits than integrity, and they're getting payed by all the big games so they have to give them good scores. They only give low scores to games they didn't get payed to say good things about, and then it's not for traffic, it's to send a message to those cheapass idealists who think quality matters more than money. (By the way, I was not, and still am not, being serious)

I perceive GiantBomb's reviews to be incredibly unique, in that they are more personal and less restricted by boundaries than other, more convoluted reviewers such as IGN, of whom are consistently contradicting their own marking scheme (Scoring criticised games perfect score for example). Whilst other reviewers are devoid of personality, such is not the case for GiantBomb, who, rather than assessing every aspect of a game by the reviewers guide, instead provide what they consider to be important components, what frustrates them and what they love. My only criticism is that I find Giant Bomb reviewers such as Jeff to be incredibly inconsistent, scoring some majorly flawed games such as the recently released "Syndicate" a perfect score, and then heavily scoring down a title based upon a few minor flaws...

My vote goes for EDGE, sure, they can be overly critical on numerous occasions, but they're hugely consistent and due to their critical nature, it takes great determination, originality and effort to retrieve a glowing reception from their reviewing staff...

@YI_Orange said:

Whoever gives the worst scores to good games because that means they're being honest. Everyone else just gets payed off.(I don't see this thread going well)

That's a flawed logic, what about hit-seeking site's purposely scoring fantastic games demeaning scores as a means of attracting more attention towards themselves?

Probably between Mafia II, Lost Planet 2, Binary Domain... There's quite a few.