There is a huuuge amount of space between stating "just the facts" and unapologetically stating your own opinions as facts. As it is, I think Austin's article about Fallout 4 is much closer to the former than the latter. It's mostly descriptive (talking about the trailed and some Boston-related background from Fallout 3) with some discussion of the kind of post-apocalyptic narratives that the Fallout series tells how that might play out in Fallout 4. There's not a whole lot to be opinionated or biased about there. It's just some analysis. It's a bit worrying to see concerns over things like bias even being brought up already after just that article. I'm sure Austin has plenty of strong opinions. It seems like he should have the chance to express a few of them first.
Regardless of Austin's personal qualities as a writer, I feel the same way about articles like these as I do about reviews. If we really wanted people writing about video games to write "objectively" and state just the facts, what would be the point of having so many different people across many sites writing about games? We'd only need one review per game, and one article per announcement or news-worthy event. We could just have a single (very boring) website to pump out those objective reviews and facts, and save everyone a whole lot of time and effort.
Not that most of it is terribly relevant to the overseas market, but Konami also still makes plenty of arcade stuff, too. It's too bad more of it, like last year's Silent Scope game, doesn't come over. Silent Scope: Bone Eater is a pretty great name for an arcade game.
@vampir: By having a friend working at a retailer who can get them an early copy most likely. People get early copies of stuff. Hell, I downloaded Destiny early because Bungie released the game on September 10th worldwide, which meant aussies got it about 8 hours before everyone else.
@vampir: Street dates get broken all the time, so it's probably as simple as that.
Well sure, but considering whoever sold them the game is presumably under some sort of contract that is at least as binding as a review embargo to not sell the game until release, it just seems strange to bring it up at all. It's like saying, "Don't worry. We didn't break any legal agreements; some anonymous person did for us."
They said they are able to release the review ahead of the October 14th release because they didn't receive a copy from Bethesda and thus aren't bound by an embargo, so they bought their own copy of the game before it was released? How does that work?
I hate that there are barely any demos available nowadays for PC's. I have a really shitty computer, which usually can't run games on low quality settings, so the demos are completely necessary for me before buying a game. It's sad that I have to first download the game from torrent, see if it can run on my machine, and only if it runs okay, then I can buy the game. Otherwise I'm just throwing my money away.
I'm in the same boat on laptop without discrete graphics. Obviously I'm not going to be running Crysis 3 or something like that, but things can be unpredictable on the less demanding end of things. I can play Star Craft 2, Stealth Bastard, and Guacameele no problem, but Mark of the Ninja is unplayably slow, for example. It's not a 100% reliable option, but I've often had luck checking support forums for games and actually finding people who have tried to run games on hardware similar to my own.
Maybe I'm a bit drunk right now, but the fact that no one has mentioned this one so far seems real crazy. It's the best. Junior high school me thought it was fake Japanese back when the game came out, but it's totally real.
I have a really hard time coming up with names, so if there's no default, I usually look around the room for objects with people's/other character's names on them. It's not a very good system. I played through Demon's Souls as a lady named Fats Waller and just started Dark Souls as another named Wallace.
@extomar: Let's use a different analogy so maybe you might understand the pov of some of us: should a journalist that covers politics be able to donate to some candidate campaign? And if he was, should he disclose the fact that he did or hide it? Would you trust said journalist to report news/write editorials without biases?
Journalists who report on politics generally aren't allowed to contribute to campaigns at all, but that is not at all an analogous situation. An indie developer successfully releasing a game and a politician attaining public office have waaaaaaay different implications.
Perhaps next we should ban Papers, Please for offending people who have been subjugated by statist violence, specifically in Eastern Europe and Central Asia as its meant to embody. Perhaps we should ban Cart Life for making mockery of the working poor who live hand-to-mouth. Perhaps we should ban The Killer for making mockery of those who died in the Killing Fields.
Censorship leads to a culture of stupidity and effective isolation.
I find that those clamoring for 'games as art' only wants games as art they're comfortable digesting. If the events that happen in the game make you uncomfortable, don't worry, you're not alone, that's just how we feel. That doesn't mean the game should stop existing.
There's a big difference between a game being banned and a company deciding to not publish a game on their market place. Also, I don't think games like Papers, Please and The Killer being banner or not published really follows as a consequence of what happened with Bomb Gaza. Papers and The Killer are well thought out games that attempt to deal meaningfully with the issues they depict, rather than take simply advantage of them.
Though, disappointingly, none of outlets I've seen reporting on games like Bomb Gaza and Gaza Assault seem to have made any effort to actually talk to the creators.