It'd be great to have a section for Encyclopedia Bombastica in the app, just like on the website. They are also being filtering from Latest list when using the "don't show trailers" option which would be great if it was fixed.
lebkin's forum posts
Works just fine for me, even logged out. iPad Mini, 1st Generation. Chrome and Safari.
They also work in the Giantbomb, which is generally how I watch them. Far better experience for me than in the browsers. Built by a community member: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/giant-bomb-video-buddy/id520282507?mt=8
If you want a wireless solution, I would recommend checking out the Wirecutter's recommendation:
No idea the ages of the kids, but all the 360 Halo games have four player split-screen single system co-op, as I believe do all the Call of Duty games.
For a younger crowd, both of the Marvel Ultimate Alliance games have four-player co-op. Crazy fun to be had there.
I highly Downcast for your iOS podcast listening needs. It costs money, but is totally worth it. Highly reliable, lots of options of when and where it downloads files, iCloud syncing between devices, etc. It handles the premium feeds just fine.
@truthtellah: Sure I can read other reviewers. That is not an issue, I know how to use the internet. My problem lies in everything that both Patrick and Alex outline and I'm kind of shocked that they'd advocate this shift away from objective writing to a more stylized and specific subjective review. Why would I read a review to find out something I already know? A good reviewer will challenge your own opinions, a good reviewer will make you think. A good reviewer isn't going to forgo shortcomings in favor of other elements when it does the review a disservice. Most importantly a good reviewer won't be predictable in their scoring.
There is a lot here to unpack and examine. I am going to pull out a few and try to understand your positions. Feel free to further clarify or correct anything I say here.
Are you looking for a review is objective, for one that removes all of the personal subjectivity of the reviewer? In practice, totally objectivity would mean sterile reviews. "The math checks out: Halo 3 is objectively a 7.2395". In fact, it would mean there is ONE right review - any deviance from the objective truth is proof of a subjective bias on the part of the reviewer. If one feels that the game is worth more/less than that, one is objectively wrong and should give up one's subjective opinion. If this ISN'T what you are looking for, please explain better.
Why would I read a review to find out something I already know?
In an ideal world, there would never be any surprises with reviews. The games that look good would turn out to be good, the ones that look bad would turn out to be bad. And for the most part, this is true. Thus most reviews are not surprising. The value in reviews is to find the things in the middle, where it is less clear, and to find the ones that defy expectations, for good or for bad.
A good reviewer isn't going to forgo shortcomings in favor of other elements when it does the review a disservice.
A reviewer should tell me how their experience with the game is. If it doesn't matter to their experience that the music is overly quiet, then it shouldn't affect the review. Same goes for difficulty, price, etc. I think it is far less important to ask "does the game have shortcomings" and far more important to ask "does the shortcomings matter?"
"Most importantly a good reviewer won't be predictable in their scoring."
By not-predictable, I am assuming you mean "most review scores should be surprises." I feel not only is this not a goal to strive for, I think it is the sign of a BAD reviewer. To be valuable, a reviewer should have relatively consistent and known tastes. This helps the reader distinguish between "this is a bad game because it's bad" and "this is a bad game because the reviewer doesn't like this type of game." Jeff has a deep love of competitive first-person-shooters. If he said the new CoD multiplayer is terrible and broken, it has more weight than if Patrick said it. If a person's opinions are constantly changing and are scattered all over the map, it is far harder to understand the complaints/praise a game gets from them. A certain level of predictability is valuable to the reader, not a hindrance.
I just don't understand the point of bitching about something that's so trivial anyway. I haven't loaned games to a friend since the original Xbox. Perhaps it's the fact that within days of a launch my friends and I often buy the same games. My friends and I literally have no objection to hauling our tv's and consoles to one another's houses. I've literally done that with every Halo release.
Just because YOU don't share games doesn't mean that others don't share games. Of the 200 hundred games I've played on the 360, there is likely less than a dozen that were played by me and only me. Paying $60 for a 12 hour campaign that only I play is CRAZY. If I can't share it with my circle of gamers, it simply isn't worth that much. I will wait until it drops to $20. If everything is digital and prices almost never drop (ala current Xbox Games on Demand), I will simply never buy it.
It is, in fact, the ease of sharing discs that meant I played far more 360/PS3 games this generation than PC ones. Steam, with it's generous offline mode, can be used for sharing. But just giving someone a disc is far easier. It requires no exchanging of codes, gamertags, or anything like that. "Here's a disc" and you're done.