RandyF's forum posts

#1 Posted by RandyF (151 posts) -

I ask this question to myself a lot, especially recently. The thing I found is that it isn't me so much as it is the games that are coming out lately. I just can't get into them. However, when a game does come out that I'm into, I'm still able to marathon it and enjoy it. Every once in a while a game will come out to remind me why I love video games. It seems as though it's just taking longer for those games to come out these days.

Still, if nothing is doing it for you, maybe take a break from games for a while, like everybody said. You have plenty of other things going on to occupy your time. By the time you come out, the new consoles might actually have something you want to play on them.

#2 Edited by RandyF (151 posts) -

Simon's Quest.

I'm joking.

#3 Edited by RandyF (151 posts) -

@zeik said:

@video_game_king said:

@shevar said:

So as most of you are probably aware, the reviews for Batman Arkham Origins are out in the wild, and to my genuine surprise it received some pretty low scores.

I have seen some sixes and sevens

How did it get to this? How did 6s and 7s become dirty scores? I happen to think they're alright.

To most sites these days that use those scores it is a dirty number, relegated to games they consider barely worth playing, if that. It depends on the site, but it's rare for the major reviewers to consider using the full range of scores.

This is exactly right. It's not that a 6 or 7 is bad on paper, but we have been trained to believe that the vast majority of reviewers rarely go below a 5, making a 6-7 below average (even though anything above a 5 should be above average). If you look at the text associated with most 6 or 7 review scores, it is very negative in most cases. In contrast, if you look at the text associated with movie reviews with a score of 6 or 7, it's mostly positive. I know Metacritic isn't law or anything, but it's telling that the description for scores on there are about 10 points higher for games than any other medium (e.g. 70 being "generally favorable" for movies, TV, and music but "mixed or average" for games).

To answer the main question, I believe everybody's opinion is influenced by something. The reason the scores are so low for Arkham Origins is because it's almost identical to the game before it. If this were the first of its kind, people would be losing their mind about how awesome it is. You could argue the same thing about Call of Duty or any sports game, but apparently people are less accepting of the Batman formula on a semi-regular basis, even if it doesn't come out as frequently as those other games.

#5 Edited by RandyF (151 posts) -

Regardless of the graphical quality, I want to be able to use a mouse when playing a first person shooter.

#6 Posted by RandyF (151 posts) -

Thank you for rewording the Kickstarter portion. I really hated the way it was worded before. It's much better now.

Although now you've changed the wording of the Greenlight similarly to the way the Kickstarter one used to be. It's not as bad, though. Maybe something along the lines of "These Games on Greenlight Look Cool."

The way you disapprove of a certain service but then direct people to that service really rubs me the wrong way. We're not going to blame you if Kickstarter or Greenlight turn out bad, so you don't need to cover your tracks like that.

#7 Posted by RandyF (151 posts) -

I laugh every time Vinny does his ironic, condescending "What!?" When the guys are making a story up.

Ryan: "What if the bear wore roller skates?"

Vinny: "What!?"

#8 Posted by RandyF (151 posts) -

I don't think this was a "bad" year for video games, just not a great one. I've played most of the major releases this year and they have mostly been a little disappointing, if not majorly disappointing. Sequels to games that I love (Borderlands 2, Diablo III, Mass Effect III, Darksiders II, New Super Mario Bros. 2), which should have been some of my top favorites this year, didn't even make my list. I don't even know if I could come up with a list, because I would be making a list of 10 where 5 of them I don't even like that much. Spec Ops: The Line and The Walking Dead, games that would have been near the bottom of my top 10 in a normal year, are not my top two. XCom is up there, too.

And I think the original poster has a valid point. It is pretty much a choose-your-own-adventure book. I think it's awesome, but it's a valid criticism. I also think text adventures have more interactivity. There are way more choices in text adventures than there are in The Walking Dead. There are also puzzles and obstacles, of which there are very few in The Walking Dead. I think it's great, but I think he brings up a good point.

#9 Posted by RandyF (151 posts) -

It makes sense. They've said a few times that the Bombcast is the most popular portion of the sight and they hate that it's not earning them money. I don't think it would be that annoying if it was just a short premade ad that played at the beginning, half-way through, and at the end. If they stop conversations and read us a pitch, that might suck.

In terms of how they could make it so subscribers don't hear it, they could put up a separate MP3 like people say. Or they could have it so that the podcast page pauses the podcast to play a short ad and then resume. I don't know.

Giant Bomb has kind of been about the high moral standard, so if they use ads, that's a shame for that reason. But I don't think hearing the ads would bother me.

#10 Posted by RandyF (151 posts) -

For me, listening to the Bombcast gives me a clear picture of what Vinny (and pretty much everyone else) thinks of most games and kind of eliminates the need to read most reviews. The problem is that he's been too busy to play as many games as he used to, so you don't hear his thoughts on a lot of games.