While I go for a box of Hot and Spicy Cheez-its on occasion, my love will always be with the original toasted golden goodness of the Cheese Nips.
You're right in that the original is the best. Sadly for you, but Nips are not the original. It wasn't even close: Cheez-It introduced 1921 Cheese Nips introduced 1955
1) I imagine that Let's Plays have reached levels of popularity such that Nintendo feels the effort is worth it. Youtube has been the go-to place for video online, but finally reached where it's a great place to make money on that video. I imagine we've reach the point where this ad revenue is worth the money spent dealing with Youtube to get it.
2) They likely did run it through the PR department. That's why they are merely placing ads on the videos, rather than issuing takedown notices. If Nintendo asked Youtube to remove the content, I am certain Youtube would have complied.
3) As a non-lawyer, I would think that adding commentary does not count as a "transformative work". The closest comparison I can think of is DVD commentaries. Those would obviously be in violation if you posted them along with the entire movie. I understand there is a component of creation in the act of playing the game, so it is definitely different. There is no direct analog that I can think of. One of the key factors in identifying something as "transformative" is that it must "supersede the use of the original work". I do not see Let's Plays going far enough to merit themselves being identified as a whole new thing.
I don't want to stereotype Americans who are stereotyping Europeans.. but I feel it's worth pointing out again that Europe isn't one big culture. I always roll my eyes whenever I hear something along the lines of "Europeans always do/don't...." The UK and France, for example, are about as different as the US and Japan. The fact they're on the same continent doesn't make them similar places.
The funniest part is that us Americans should know better. We aren't even very mono-cultural across our own country. Practices in New York City are significantly different than those in rural Mississippi, which are both different than the culture in Portland.
It really bugs me how many people say "I don't want it because its not on X (usually xbox)". Its not just about Monster Hunter, I've seen people say it about MMOs. What are they going to do when the next consoles come out? "I'm not buying Halo 5 because its not on the 360".
People want games on the systems they own. No matter how much you might think Monster Hunter is worth it, most people won't buy a system for a single game.
With this next generation, I imagine most people will do similar: buy the one system with the best/most games. Which will almost certainly not be the WiiU. So when Monster Hunter 4 is still a Nintendo exclusive, you will have again hear a chorus of people singing the similar refrain.
We're talking about a developer that trolled the entire game industry by changing main characters in Metal Gear Solid 2. Why? Because he could. Kojima has always been out-of-control crazy, with a large disregard for what fans and critics alike think of his work. Expecting different now is unreasonable.
The weights are pretty bs, most of the reviewers up top I haven't heard of. But I haven't heard of most of the other sites around Giant Bomb. It is pretty evident that the main reason is that they don't review as much games as other outlets.
Pointed that out a bit ago. Gamasutra looks like an idiot now.
They state that it's not their information and they link to the statement Metacritic made on Facebook at the start of the article. I don't think they messed up that bad. But i do feel it was kind of irresponsible them to publish the article without doing proper fact checking.
So we are all just taking Metacritic's word on this? From the tone of the original article, these numbers were created with a scientific approach, using basic math skills to determine the values. The data is all there on the site: the original scores and the final Metacritic value. Makes sense that one could back engineer the values.
Metacritic doesn't present any evidence that this doesn't work, just says it's all wrong. It feels to be far more like a creationist dismissing evolution by just saying "nope." If these are NOT the values, Metacritic should show what the values ARE. Or at least show why these values don't work.
I would pay between $30-40 for a new game. $20 for one that's over six months old.
To those who say they'd just take advantage of the system, you can do that already - just pirate stuff. I have a good PC and good internet, I don't need to pay for any games right now. Popular stuff don't even take a long time to get.
I pay for games because I want more of those kinds of games. Same as why I pay for books, movies, and TV. If you don't pay (or pay so little as to not matter), then your opinion on what games are good has no impact in the marketplace. Unless you only follow popular trends, there is a strong chance that the games you like may decrease in number.
Log in to comment