Chroma_Auron

This seems much more reasonable with not having to input the code unless you manually chose too. The thing most people forget is Nintendo is trying to make a safe online environment that avoids or reduces 8 year olds screaming homophobic comments online. Consoles are not PC's but systems that everyone can play on and see. The last thing anyone wants to see on start up is a bunch of emails calling someone horrible names. Friend codes are a way of protecting everyone and while they have been too over protective in the past, this seams much more reasonable.

I will defiantly want to get this version of the 3DS. I don't take my portables in my pocket so I don't mind the size.

I too wait for goty edition since I know they will be coming out. It's rare to not see a guarantied goty edition when it comes to games these days unless they or indie or unexpected expansions. I especially wait if the dlc are things that mix with the main game as I'm not one to replay a game anytime soon once I beat it. I do kind of miss the days were goty editions were not expected within a year and expansions were like playing a new game. You don't get that much anymore with dlc.

@Rabid619 said:

I'd hope that these people are just screwing around, though honestly, if I saw someone I knew doing that I'd probably delete and sever all ties to them. There are some things that you just don't fuck around with.

I agree. To support this murder is messed up. Lets just hope that these Facebook people are morons.

I personally prefer PC gaming due to a variety of games from indie, mainstream, and free. If their is a version for the PC then I usually will get it due to mod support or if I don't have the console version. I generally also prefer the keyboard when it comes to shooters and 3d games in general.

This game looks like it will be plenty of fun. It looks about the same quality as Portal. The only flaw i see is that john delancie's voice acting sounds out of place for someone to be an old man pictured on the cover.

The Ballad of the Space Babies, We Got the Megatome, and The Mushroom Kingdom in Sword and sorcery today.

@ZeroRegistry said:

@Chroma_Auron: Movie reviewers also don't interact with the medium, they simply sit there, and experience it. I don't think Brad's credibility should be questioned simply because he chose not to fight with bad game design for several hours. If anything, that in itself should be throwing up red flags for anyone interested in this game, and really... if the developer didn't get that right in the first few hours, would they really have made a break through in the later levels?

With this game, I agree with brad's reasoning for not continueing it. If the controls or game play are truly, in the objective, horrible then one shouldn't have to complete it to review. I wouldn't expect him to complete Big Rigs. Though I do feel that this is something that is uncommon.

@PandaBear said:

I agree with you that developers should be careful with not wasting time. With what you said about buyer's guide reviews and retrospectives, It makes me think we need to have a clear distinction of what kind of review is being put out. To give more clarity understanding of what the review is about or what it covers. That way we don't always jump on the reviewer thinking they are incompetent or were not playing enough and how we treat the game at first glance. I do disagree with you on your belief but I do respect and agree with your reasons. =)

@Chroma_Auron : I think full disclosure is what's needed ... and the Giant Bomb guys are pretty good at that. It's fair enough to say games can get better or worse over time and that revisiting an old game that you once dismissed can reveal something worth going back to... but for the purpose of a buyers guide review I want an opinion of an individuals experience, not a retrospective piece a few months from now. I get what you're saying, but I truly believe you can tell if a game is worth your time after just a few hours... Even slow-burn games like a lot of JRPGs give you enough to keep you going... Every developer should respect their audience's time and not waste it. Brevity is the soul of wit.

@Animasta said:

@Chroma_Auron said:

@Animasta: The problem with the void example that is if it was too difficult for you and/or because something the game should have been clearer on doesn't mean the game is bad or qualifies you to review it. That would be like me reviewing star-craft and saying it's too hard because I'm bad at and didn't bother to try to learn it or Saying GTA 3 is the most boring overrated game because I played it wrong. People would call me out on that crap and rightfully so. The meat boy example also has issues as it could be great from those moments but what if the game suddenly becomes bad or the quality falls. It's like reviewing a book you only read half way. They don't do that, nor do movie reviewers and nether should game reviewers. Doing that lowers the professional quality of game reviewers and makes it hader to take game journalism seriously.

it was considered by many to be way too hard to complete as is, because the mechanics of the game did not make themselves clear to you until 5-6 hours in, and do not make all of them clear to you at all. This is a plot point, but it is also a factor. Also movies and books are not 15 hours long (I assume most book reviewers are fairly fast readers), a game can last 80 hours. How many TV episodes would it take to reach 80 hours? if we factor in 30 minutes per episode .. That's 120 episodes, I believe. That's 40 2 hour movies. At some point, are you really going to watch those early episodes if the later episodes are super good? TV is different because you can just put in those later episodes and go. A game has difficulty, a game has controls that you must interact with in order to complete the game. Saying game reviewers and movie reviewers are the same is not even remotely true; you don't need to have much to watch a movie. Maybe a movie is too subtle for you, too hard for you to understand, but you can still finish the movie. If a game does not control well enough for you to continue, or is too hard for you to understand, then... what? You just knock it off as a bad job and waste all that time playing?

I have said early in this thread that if the game play is broken or the controls are horrible that make it unbearable to complete then I agree with not continuing it. You're right that books and movies are not that long, However, it does not mean one can simply predict how the rest of the game will be. The story, game play quality could change. If it's too hard for you to understand at first, I wouldn't suggest giving up. If you can't care to learn then you shouldn't review it as your problem. As I said in my examples, if I found star-craft too hard or couldn't understand it, I wouldn't say the game is bad as it would be my fault that I chose not to learn how to play. I wouldn't try to claim I had the ability to review it. I don't mean anything personal towards you.

@Animasta: The problem with the void example that is if it was too difficult for you and/or because something the game should have been clearer on doesn't mean the game is bad or qualifies you to review it. That would be like me reviewing star-craft and saying it's too hard because I'm bad at and didn't bother to try to learn it or Saying GTA 3 is the most boring overrated game because I played it wrong. People would call me out on that crap and rightfully so. The meat boy example also has issues as it could be great from those moments but what if the game suddenly becomes bad or the quality falls. It's like reviewing a book you only read half way. They don't do that, nor do movie reviewers and nether should game reviewers. Doing that lowers the professional quality of game reviewers and makes it hader to take game journalism seriously.