PandaBear's forum posts

#1 Posted by PandaBear (1429 posts) -

@gaminghooligan said:

@joshwent said:

Can't we at least spout bullshit about games that are actually out?

For reals...

It's the least we can do.

Second post today on Giant Bomb ranting about a game the OP's haven't played. I genuinely think the forums are slowly degrading.

#2 Posted by PandaBear (1429 posts) -

@krullban said:

@takayamasama said:

Goodness no. I thought New Vegas was awful.

3 was a far better game in every way. However I don't hold Fallout as highly as many people appear to, so I'm hoping no one is working on Fallout 4, and everyone is working on Elder Scrolls 6

How? How do so many people think this? New Vegas is objectively better than 3 in almost every aspect except for the Wasteland being better than the desert. Yes, it's possible to enjoy 3 more for that reason, but New Vegas improved almost everything over 3, especially story.

Nope. No game is objectively better than any other.

I preferred Fallout 3, and I really liked New Vegas a lot. Yours and my personal subjective experience can't be objectively wrong. That's not how any form of entertainment works.

I hope both teams get a shot at making a new Fallout game. But the OP's question is pointless anyway.

#3 Posted by PandaBear (1429 posts) -

Second Sight was under-appreciated? I remember when it came out it got solid reviews (IGN 7.9, Edge 7/10, GameSpy 4/5, Game Informer 8.5/10). I mean It's a good game, not amazing, and I think it's remembered as such. And @zkowaliczko1994, Metro? A series that was fairly well received and sold well enough to get a sequel and a re-release, all within the past five years, is hardly under-appreciated.

As @bisonhero mentioned, Driver: San Francisco is a better example. UbiSoft said it sold well, but it never seemed like a popular game ... and after some terrible entries in the series it's no surprise.

It might sound crazy but Duck Amuck on the DS stands out to me. I remember the devs saying it's the only DS game that got approval to disable the sleep mode but there's a mini-game where you had to close the console. It was super short but the way you interacted with Daffy as he broke the fourth wall... I mean it's not a classic, but it was inventive if nothing else.

#4 Edited by PandaBear (1429 posts) -

OOOOoooohhhh what do I really think? Uh I really like it - it's the second or third best Zelda game. Why ask what someone really thinks? Should we be ashamed of liking a game that someone else doesn't? People get way too wrapped up in defending games.

#5 Posted by PandaBear (1429 posts) -

Uh I'd actually say Nintendo games stay in print longer than other first party games. Quick Google search shows Pikmin 3 is still readily available at the standard price in a bunch of stores. Also Nintendo rarely do price cuts, this is not news. It's a concious decision by them. I mean it's not third party games where you can got to multiple platforms and different online stores to buy games... if you want Pikmin 3 for example you have to own a Wii U and can get it from retail or the eShop.

And also Nintendo are not the first to create physical goods with artificial limited quantities. Why? Because it generates buzz, it's makes them collectable and it means when a new batch comes out fans run out to get them. I mean trading cards have operated under the same principal for decades.

Next time you have a question about video games like "why doe Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/EA/Activision/Whoever do this?" just assume "money" and work backwards from there.

#6 Posted by PandaBear (1429 posts) -

@twolines said:

Pffft. What a jerk. Yes yes, people probably think this is great, but in truth- this is a poorly done, overly emotional interview. Starting with this loaded question. That's just bad reporting right there.

Yeah, the interview would've been a lot better if it hadn't been coloured by that from the beginning. I'm sympathetic to the urge to hold someone to account, but questioning their mental health right out of the gate is just about the worst way to do it.

The hard questions about why they ignored the winner of Curiosity and the state of a game that is severely late after using up all of the Kickstarter money are fair. The Guardian interview was actually pretty fair in general. But yeah, Rock Paper Shotgun just exposed exactly why I don't read their site. It actually made Molyneux come across more sympathetic.

Hold his feet to the fire sure, but remember it is just video games. He didn't rob a bank or beat his wife... he's behind schedule with a game.

#7 Posted by PandaBear (1429 posts) -

Even if I could push through the malaria side effects in Far Cry 2 (which sucked in it's own way) I hated the fact that the stealth didn't work. I could be hiding in a bush, not moving, not able to see an inch in front of me and an enemy with pinpoint accuracy would somehow spot me and begin shooting. I really don't think I could go back after playing Far Cry 3 and 4... the stealth in those games isn't perfect, but it is better. I mean I did forget about how interesting the setting was until I read your post, so it has made me reconsider, but I'd only give it a shot if it was cheap on Steam or something.

Also, I don't care what anyone else says -- I liked the story of Far Cry 3 and the protagonist Jason. I felt like he was branded as unlikeable just for being a bit of a "dude-bro", but at least I knew he has an opinion and his own motivations. Ajay is far too much of a blank slate. He's just someone who gets pushed around by everyone and fails to acknowledge his own impact in the world. I mean the Jason talked about what he was doing, why and how it made him feel. Ajay is just a wet blanket. I mean I'm really enjoying Far Cry 4, but just not the Ajay as much. (I won't defend the bullshit ending to Far Cry 3 though).

#8 Posted by PandaBear (1429 posts) -

Isn't it generally accepted that the premium version of the podcast is worse than the normal version because it cuts the brilliant ads out?


Also, the trend of clickbait-style headlines for forum posts on the Giant Bomb forums is getting a bit ridiculous.

#9 Posted by PandaBear (1429 posts) -

@mrwakka said:

@chrissedoff: Yeah, how dare coke try to have an uplifting marketing message, and in an ad campaign that sells their product to boot!

Coke: Lets make the internet a little less hate filled and sell some product at the same time!

Gawker: Screw that, were going from 0-Hitler in record time! Take hate filled tweets and turn them into happy ASCII art? Not on our watch, the hate must flow!

Yeah.. coke is a real bunch of jerks in this scenario. Of course it isn't like Gawker is itself a faceless amoral company who uses clickbait articles and incendiary tactics to drive their business or anything...

Dude do just the tiniest bit of reading about Coca Cola and you'll see they're not a company that needs or deserves your valiant attempts at protecting their stupid message that would do nothing to help anyone.

Their water usage in third world countries, aggressive campaigns to rid rural Asian regions of locally made drinks in favour of their own, proliferation of high fructose corn syrup and the use of GM crops, deadly pesticides used by their farmers (again often in very poor countries). I mean you're looking at this like Coke said "help let's help people" when really it's more "Internet bullying is a thing, let's ride that wave and show we hate it too or something".

Gawker has it's issues and Kotaku is barely worth reading, I agree with that. It's mostly garbage. But I mean clickbait stories are just fun stupid junk, they aren't literally polluting the water supplies of third world countries like Coca Cola are. I'd say let Gawker make fun of the big corporations (even though they are one themselves).

Also, I know using John Oliver/Jon Stewart/Colbert videos to prove a point has been done to death, but this one is very relevant.

#10 Posted by PandaBear (1429 posts) -

The potential problem I see developing is that single personalities like TotalBiscuit and PewDiePie, can basically form an army to fight for them when they come out with their opinion on an issue. They make their success and income as entertainers, but they aren't any kind of trained journalist or news reporter, just an internet personality who plays and talks about video games for an audience. They are perfectly allowed to have an opinion and speak it, I just don't trust their many fans to think enough for themselves before attacking any opposition like fire ants. If the two streamers I mentioned were it, then it would be no big deal, but there are A LOT of people making a job out of streaming their video game playing.

Why do people attack these guys so much? Look sometimes they are dicks, but you know, I'm just jealous of PewDiePie. He loves his job and became his own boss on his own terms. As for his fans? Who cares, what are they supposed to do? Tell their fans to stop and think about what exactly?

Secondly, speaking as a (going to sound like a wanker here) university qualified journalist who has worked in the newspaper industry for over a decade a degree does not make you a good journalist and most old school reporters cut their teeth on doing news with zero qualifications. This idea that journalists are like doctors and they have to be qualified to work is bizarre.

Lastly, this is video games. I mean if it was a matter of reporting on the Iraq war or something yeah you want to know you can trust whoever's work you're reading. And truthfully I have a selection of gaming identities whose opinions I trust... I mean ethics in reporting should be expected from anyone reporting on any industry. But I think you're over-thinking this. It's just video games... it's not life and death stuff.

And Nintendo trying to control the message on YouTube is counter-productive for one thing (I mean it is free promotion after all) and won't work anyway. Fair use laws may be vague, but I think if they try and take this to court they'll lose. Or people just won't talk about Nintendo games as much and they can continue to enjoy third place.

I see your point about wanting better game coverage though. There's a lot of shit out there.

I think we can all agree that most streamers have absolutely no obligation to stay objective in what they say

Dude, NOBODY does objective reviews. That's why reviews have bylines. Seriously, every review or stream is an opinion. News should be objective -- report the facts free from bullshit. But anything beyond that is subjective opinions. That's not just games writing -- that's movies, music, technology... you name it.

My advice is just follow the people's whose work you like, support them and let everyone else enjoy their chosen sources. The Internet is big enough for everyone surely, and with any luck the cream will rise to the top.

This is just my two cents of course...