SpaceInsomniac's forum posts

#1 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3909 posts) -

@coolarman said:

Since when did people get in their head that video games reviews are supposed to be "objective"? It truly baffles me the number of comments i see on game sites saying that "this review is not objective" or "i don't want an opinion I just want games journalism". The way I have always thought about it was that a review was supposed to be a paid opinion. When Jeff, Brad, or Alex write a review aren't they giving their opinion on the game that they are reviewing?

So i ask am i the only one who feels this way?

p.s. For the people who want an objective review here is how you get one. You watch footage of the game on youtube without anyone talking over it. There is you're objective review

I think the real question that people should be asking is should a game be SCORED based on objective or subjective aspects. Journalists can be rubbed the wrong way about certain things in a game, and still be professional enough to at least somewhat ignore them for their review score. For example, as much as I loathed the ending to Mass Effect 3, I would never have given the game a really low score because of it.

#2 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3909 posts) -

@stephconnolly14 said:

Thank you @spaceinsomniac for your suggestion, my friends *mostly the boys* tend to talk about Portal all the time but i always figured that it was really complicated since they spoke so much about about it and played it and other games for years but i will certainly look into it :D

They all sopunds really good, i love how you state that Prince of Persia has basically no death penalty!

Portal, Braid, and the Prince of Persia game that came out in 2008 all basically have no death penalty. You can also download a free demo of Portal over Xbox Live Arcade, so I'd check them out there.

#3 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3909 posts) -

Portal will help you learn first-person controls in relaxed environment, and with scratch that puzzle fan itch. I'd suggest that. Just buy a copy of "The Orange Box" for the 360, and it's included in that. You should be able to find it fairly cheap. If you like it, you can try Portal 2, which is a much larger game.

#4 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3909 posts) -

@ryanmgraef said:

@turboman: Kanye is as close to rap as the black eyed peas. Pop music.

The Black Eyed Peas used to make some fairly good music. They were quite similar to A Tribe Called Quest in the original incarnation of the group.

Em, on the other hand, make two amazing albums, and has only managed to make a handful of great singles ever since. It's kind of a shame, but I don't think he writes his own beats, and I think he needs to change his sound.

Then again, I have heard it last couple of albums, but his Bad Meets Evil work was pretty good. He's still really quite talented, though, which makes this COD tie-in nonsense all the more sad to see.

#5 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3909 posts) -

@shagge said:

Em's videos haven't been all that great for a good while now, but I like the song just fine. I don't like that it sounds like a Recovery b-side when the album it's representing is meant to be a "sequel" to one of the best rap albums ever, but I'll take Recovery Eminem over, say, Encore Eminem any day.

As for the CoD promo: We're in a time where Snoop is doing Hot Pockets ads, Dr. Dre is putting his name on painfully overpriced and ubiquitous headphones, and Ice Cube is doing cheesy comedies. The days of NWA, Slim Shady LP, and even the Up In Smoke tour are long gone. CoD footage in a music video almost doesn't seem worth mentioning next to what his colleagues are doing.

Now, if Em ever says "Gaming is like a religion to me, and CoD is the shit", then I'll rethink my stance.

I disagree. For a musician, music videos are part of your art. None of that other crap is part of anyone's art, except for maybe Cube, and he was great in 21 Jump Street.

This just saddens me, and Eminem should be far more shamed by this than the other examples that you gave.

#6 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3909 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

@pandabear: I think you might just be taking this a bit too seriously

Nah... if I had the money I'd buy both day one. I'll get an Xbox One next year for sure... but they're awareness campaign is failing. I know heaps of people that still think it's a totally locked down system.

Well, with MS literally refusing to promise not to ever return to an always online format later in the console's lifespan, it almost might as well be a totally locked down system.

It's crazy to make a policy that most people hate, reverse that policy, and then say that you still reserve the option to go back to that first hated policy at any time.

#7 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3909 posts) -

http://www.gamestop.com/gs/weeklyad/current/

I just have to imagine this is blowing the minds of people who never heard Microsoft's original statements concerning Kinect, when they said it could not be turned off, it could only be "paused."

I'm sure many people will see this and say "You can turn it on or off? That's a feature, now? Why would they advertise a power switch?"

For anyone who doesn't follow gaming news, this just looks really stupid.

#8 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3909 posts) -

Microsoft: We're making a new Killer Instinct!

Microsoft: We fixed our d-pad!

Microsoft: We're not going to violate your property rights anymore!

This reminds me of something...

But seriously, I was glad to see MS make their 180, and I just might buy an Xbox One sometime down the road. Still going with PS4 first, though, and I never owned a PS3 for this entire generation.

#9 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3909 posts) -

@milkman said:

@spaceinsomniac: Again, it's hard to talk about detracting realism when we're talking about a video game where your wounds magically heal when you stand still.

Especially if you keep ignoring the difference between a lack of realism that exists to support gameplay, and the realism that DICE seems to be striving for in every area other than gameplay.

As I said before:

It's unrealistic to have a large number of female solider characters, just like it's unrealistic to not fall down and be unable to move the moment your character takes a single bullet to anywhere on their body. But the thing is, DICE chooses where to make the game realistic, and where to put that aside for entertainment.

#10 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3909 posts) -

@milkman said:

@spaceinsomniac: Great. The site ate my post.

To summarize what I originally wrote:

1) Just let people pick their gender. I don't care about statistics. We're talking about a game where you get shot, crouch behind a wall and regain all your health. There's not a single person that's going to have their immersion ruined because more than 2% of players are playing as a woman.

3) I don't know how this relates to what we're talking about but I'm against a military draft of any kind regardless of gender.

Something can be said to be sexist when you treat one gender differently than another. Just as it could be argued that it's sexist that playing as a woman in Battlefield 4 isn't an option, it could also be argued it's sexist that a requirement forced upon men in this country is not required of women.

And the question wasn't if you agree with the concept of the draft. The draft is there, and thankfully we haven't had to use it in a long, long time. For the purposes of this question, the draft is set in stone, much as it currently is in real life.

As for the underlined portion of your statement, this is completely false, as you're literally speaking for EVERYONE who is going to play the game, and DICE themselves who may have felt otherwise. It's also not about ruining immersion, but detracting from realism. The same argument could be made for why DICE doesn't allow the ridiculous weapon skins seen in COD. Because it wouldn't ruin the game, but it WOULD detract from realism without providing a benefit to actual gameplay.