LegalBagel

Warrior-Mage? I fire off flames and lightning until enemies get close, then finish them off with sword/shield/heavy armor. Worried I may be spreading myself a bit to thin to enjoy the late-game perks, but I've been liking it so far. No sneaking though.

It's tough to tell. When I stayed on the normal story path and what I'm guessing is the expected starting areas, I didn't have too much trouble. Most of the dungeon critters are a joke to breeze through and the boss-type encounters felt challenging enough, but not that difficult. But then I got mauled by two sabre tooth tigers when just wandering around. I feebly tried to fight them, but outside of cheesing them on geometry I have no way to kill them straight up.

It feels like if you stray from the areas appropriate for your level, you can get pretty well destroyed out of nowhere.

Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem.

Realistic terror and insanity that broke the fourth wall. Then Silicon Knights had to go and make cyber-viking mediocrity.

A preorder deal - usually on big games that companies are competing for preorders on. Got $10 on Batman, put it towards Skyrim which I'm getting another $10 on. Combined with .99 cent release day shipping you really can't beat Amazon, though other online retailers are stepping it up.

Between the preorder deals, random lightning deals on games, and fairly quick price drops, I don't think I've paid $60 for a game in a long time. If you look you can usually find some cheaper way to get a game within the first couple of months after it comes out, if not on release.

Yeah, it's not the crime, it's the coverup. Going back and substantively stealth-editing the review after you're accused of something is just stupid practice. You're going to get caught, and any subsequent attempt to explain is going to fall on deaf ears.

But regardless, it looks like the guy didn't do his due diligence on the game, which is to be expected in a deadline-driven, review everything sweatshop like IGN. You take a $10 downloadable game designed for multiple playthroughs and high scores, go through it on casual (and possibly normal, though I agree from his review it definitely looks like he didn't), and then slam the game for being too easy and short.

Countdown till EA gets hit with a false advertising suit...

Telling people that a game will include a $15 bonus game for free on disc. Then not including the bonus and instead claiming that it's been replaced with the option to buy other stuff early. Even though that exclusivity had already been announced, and no-one in their right mind would consider week-early exclusivity to purchase things to be even close to the equivalent of a $15 game. If that's not a recipe for a giant fucking lawsuit, I don't know what is.

I've been ignoring the BF3/MW3 flame wars and build-up so far, and it looks like I've made the right choice so far.

After thinking about it, my main problem with the Eurogamer review is that a review of a single game isn't really the best venue to write a detailed critique of an entire genre or style of games, no matter how well done the critique is. The author's problem wasn't with Uncharted 3 specifically - given everything I've seen and read the game continues to be the ultimate standard of that type of game - it's with the idea of a story-driven, cinematic experience where playing often takes a backseat or gets in the way of the spectacle.

If you want to write a detailed critique about the trend of games that often emphasize the experience and spectacle over the play of the game, then do so. But taking on that challenge in a review of a single game just doesn't make sense for the critique, as you're limited in scope to one game, doesn't make sense for the review, as you're judging the game based on some broader ideas and not on how well the game is done for what it is, and doesn't make sense for your readers, as they likely have some idea of what the game is like and are looking for how successful the game is, not an existential discussion on basic design choices of experience-driven games like Uncharted 3.

I'd agree with you for the most part. Honest and well-written critiques are often missing in an industry where reviewers as much as anyone tend to get caught up in the hype of big releases and are pressured by both advertisers and their own readers to give confirmation for game and system purchases. I think the problem is that well-written critiques are rare, and most of the "controversial" reviews are counter-mainstream hipsterdom at best, or actively trolling for views and comments at worst.

I also would agree that criticism of the product is a part of a review, but I don't think reviewers should think of themselves as "design critics." They aren't game designers and trying to second guess design decisions more often than not isn't helpful. They can judge how the experience as a whole turned out and parts that did or did not work for them, but beyond that I would leave in depth criticism of design to actual game designers. It's a rare reviewer that can pull it off competently.

But really, people who care and flame about reviews the most are those who aren't even using reviews for their intended purpose, which makes it all kind of hilarious.

@empathe said:

I think it's way too early to tell since so much of this will change between now & beta & launch.

I know things will change and the unmanageable units won't make it in, I just think the overall feeling Blizzard seems to have is "this is our opportunity to make huge changes to address big issues." Regardless of balance, it's going to throw off the pros/tournaments and radically change the game. I'm in favor as a player who wants to play the new campaign/units, I just think the pro scene will be harmed with major changes every few years that could cause a huge realignment, strategy switch, and potential division of the pros/fanbase.

Some of these changes/units seem so crazy and exploitable that I don't see how they make it into the final version. The Replicant, burrowed Baneling movement, the Shredder and the new spellcasters in particular. They basically make this an entirely different game, which is both good and bad I guess.

I will personally like the variety and playing with the new units, but this will throw the pro scene into complete disarray, even assuming that everyone switches over to HotS. You'll basically have to rethink and redevelop entire strategies for every matchup and we'll be back where we were at the start of WoL. And as spectators we'll have to relearn everything and we'll possibly lose pros who can't pick up the new game.

@empathe: Did you get a sense of how the community thinks this will affect tournaments/pros? In my mind SC2 is building a lot of momentum as a competitive game and is breaking through in some ways that other games haven't, but I think Blizzard could easily be shooting themselves in the foot by releasing a follow-up that radically changes things and then pushing the pro scene to switch over.