@sweetz: Sadly, I never played it, but based on what I've seen of that game, I would probably sit somewhere between the two. I can get behind some ridiculous ass characters and still not enjoy playing the thing those characters are in.
@engineno9: Normally I don't like to respond to comments like this, but I take umbrage with the notion that I ever go into games wanting to hate them. I don't. Sometimes games people call out as bad surprise me, and I always try to keep an open mind when initially playing any game. Devil's Third is not such a game.
I've played a lot of bad games in my career, so I try to reserve my actual distaste for stuff that warrants it, and Devil's Third warrants it. This is one of the worst things I've played all year. If we were having GOTY deliberations now instead of a few weeks ago, I'd have raised this as a viable contender for worst game of the year. I don't think it would have made it to the top three, but we would have had a conversation about it.
Just because something is working mostly as intended doesn't mean it can't be awful. Devil's Third seemingly works mostly as intended, and the way it's intended to work is awful.
@existence: We have a ton of GOTY work going on this week, especially on the video editing side, so we unfortunately won't be able to resume our Life Is Strange playing for a while.
@strikerz: I definitely considered that, but I read up on Jacob's history and he eventually gets married and becomes grandfather to Lydia, so unless they're gonna take a hard turn at the end of this thing, I don't think it can be him.
@dudeglove: I don't really have a lot to say about anything in your post because to be honest, my defense of what Totillo's post explained has very little to do with Kotaku or Gawker in particular, and a lot more to do with having worked for outlets that have experienced similar "blacklistings" for issues of similar, or even less significance (IE bad review scores, and the like). I've seen this go down many times over and I find it personally frustrating whenever it does.
Despite having multiple friends who have, and do still currently work for Gawker, I certainly still have my issues with that company and aspects of its direction. All of their sites have done great work at various times, but there have certainly been a number of stories they've published over the years that grossed me out to no end.
If you want to take umbrage with Totillo's post because of whatever's been happening with Gawker of late, sure. But for me, it's not that this happened to Kotaku. It's that this sort of thing has happened to all of us who cover games at various points over the years, and I can easily identify with the frustration he's described.
@sammo21: As I've said in other replies in the comments here, it's not illogical for a company to cut off a company that they feel has "harmed their brand" or whatever. But A. I still think cutting off a company without so much as a word to say "we no longer want to work with you" is lousy and, yes, petulant, and B. These grudges don't stop outlets from writing about your company. You can restrict access via official channels, but it doesn't solve leaks, nor does it prevent them from ultimately covering your games.
@humanity: No problem, man. I understand where the disconnect is here, and I'm not upset if people thought my stance was unusually hard or dismissive of the publisher's perspective. I just have some strong feelings on this one, as someone who's had to go and buy a number of games by publishers who were mad at us at various points, usually just for us doing our jobs. Giving us the silent treatment never solved anything. Talking it out usually did.
alex's comments