MiniPato's comments

Edited by MiniPato

@firvulag said:

keeps fighting of droves of enemies when caught instead of restarting the checkpoint.

Save scumming on the first playthrough? Please tell me that's not how you play all MGS games the first time. You're not going to get Big Boss rank on the first playthrough blind. Running low on resources, medical supplies, ammo, it's part of the survival aspect of MGS3. My first playthrough of MGS3, I had to leave some wound untreated because I ran out of bandages and disinfectant. It really did feel like a survival experience.

Edited by MiniPato


Posted by MiniPato

@rasmoss said:

The primordial soup stuff isn't supposed to be taken literally,

Yeah, I don't know why people, including Brad, take that line so literally as if it's not metaphorical and try to prop it up as a prime example of bad Kojima writing.

Posted by MiniPato

This is the new Ryan Reacts?

Ryckert Ryackts.

Edited by MiniPato

@pattonfiend said:

How sad. Your review states the game as a 90-96 score yet you gave it an 80.

Doesn't make any sense at all. How could you have that much enjoyment and say it is so highly polished then go on to give it a B-, like you will ever find a better game like this in its respective category.

There is no consistency between your review and score: as I stated before, that is just sad.

@legendarychopchop said:

No 5 star?


I just don't like this star system — it's too narrow and basic. It seems like most games chime in at a 4 star, while mediocrity tends to get a 3. This review makes it sounds like it would net a "90-94", so to lump it as a 4 star when a game reviewed this way can be as low as an 80 in some systems seems a little bleak.

You guys are sad and bleak, placing so much stock in a score. Blame the metacritic system, not the star system. People have been using it for movies, restaurants, etc for ages. Metacritic is the one that simply equates it to an 80. What makes a game a 95 instead of a 94 anyways? Having such minutia is unnecessary except for in fanboy arguments where someone could argue that one game is one point better than another. Videogames aren't students.

4 stars doesn't mean 80. 4 stars means "very good." 5 stars means "excellent." Or if you care so much about hard numerical numbers as indicators of quality, think of 4 stars is more of a range of 75-90 and 5 stars is 90-100. Or you can be part of the meta problem and just say it's an 80 because you see 4 out of 5 stars. The star system isn't narrow and basic. It's your interpretation of it that is because you've been conditioned to think that way.

Posted by MiniPato

@notdavid said:

This guy. Yum.

East Coast Alexis is ripped.

Edited by MiniPato

Unless you really hate history and absolutely need a sci fi veneer to get you into a Civ game, there's no reason why you should buy BE over Civ V and its expansions.

Posted by MiniPato

Can someone timestamp when the celebrities talk about how they were a gamer because they loved "X Game?" That stuff is cringe-y.

Edited by MiniPato

He never asked for this.

Edited by MiniPato

Ubisoft loves that digital grunge aesthetic with staticky logos and shit lately.

Assassin's Creed

Watch Dogs

The Crew