ZenaxPure

Man I hate to mimic what others have been saying but.... why is everything so huge now? When I first came to the site I thought I had accidentally zoomed in with chrome, but, nope it was sitting at 100%. All the text is just too big now and it feels weird to actually have to scroll down on the home page to see the highlighted videos/articles which seems ironic because I thought their function was to be a quick glance of new stuff on the site.

Also really miss the achievement tracking since it was without a doubt the best feature of the site imo, but, given the explanation as to why it's gone I guess I understand, will say though it means I will probably end up visiting the site less often.

Well what are we waiting for, the coming soon panel on the home page needs to be updated with June 11: E3 Podcast Day 1

The lack of any information regarding Tetsuya Nomura’s Final Fantasy Versus XIII in the past few years

A trailer actually showing gameplay last year doesn't count as information "in the past few years"? OK. Obviously they've been pretty quiet on it since then but saying we haven't had any information "in the past few years" is factually wrong given that trailer.

I was just thinking of this the other day. Feels like this was announced a lifetime ago, I wonder how the reaction to it would be at this point. I kinda feel like the days of Castle Crashers being this in the spotlight darling 2D indie game are sort of over given how many similar looking have come and gone since then.

@Skyfire543 said:

Seems pretty cool, but I already have a PC that can do all of what that lady says in the video and more.

As do I (though it's starting to show it's age) but as this kickstarter has proven there is a LARGE market of people who want to play all these great games from smaller devs that show up on steam/mobile but do not want to go trough the hassle of buying an expensive PC (relative to a $99 box) and then hook it up to their tv, install steam, pray any game they play has native controller support, etc.

This is just more stable, you know your game will always have controller support and you know your game will be able to run on your machine and it's as simple to use as most smart phones. Certainly a strong market out there for that.

@Humanity said:

It's roughly 5 hours long. C'mon saying it's not even 3 hours is a little bit of a stretch. I'd say it's worth somewhere around $15 or LESS range. For $20 you can get a lot of other used games that will last you much longer.

Uh, not really. My exact timer on steam says 3.9 hours and part of that was installing it the first time to make sure it ran on my PC (which was probably a good 20 minutes or so of me just messing with settings and stuff ingame) and times while playing where I went afk to do other things. The game barely made it to the 2 and a half hour mark. Not to mention I spent at least half an hour on a few parts in the final level where encounters were poorly designed.

@Vodun said:

I really enjoyed it, but considering how everyone else loves hating on it I find it hard to recommend it.

I liked it myself but really the game isn't even 3 hours long. If he isn't bothered by paying $20 for something so short it's certainly worth it, but that is a hard sell for me personally. Perhaps if he is interested in multiplayer though I don't know if there is an active community for that game or anything.

I think it's worth playing for the crazy visual effects alone, really love the "look and feel" of the game. I think blowing off a dudes head only to see a bloody blurred image is way more impactful than seeing a dudes head explode at this point.

@GunstarRed said:

It's worth like £2.(or whatever the equivalent for you is) That works out at about a pound per hour of gameplay.

I't sad at how true this is :(

Paid (iirc) $2.50 for it on Steam and the story took me 2 and a half hours. It's not worth $20 imo.

@jakob187 said:

I can see the part of this where Patrick is saying "yo, we should stop treating women like objects as a society", but the question is this: when women either allow themselves to be treated like objects or dress themselves up to be objects, how can you start saying "women shouldn't be treated as objects"?

If you read a few pages back I tried to make the same argument. Patrick's response was that this article is about how booth babes "portray the industry" and "has nothing to do with the women themselves" which like I said before, the article doesn't read like that at all. Honestly each time I re-read the article the less sense it makes, I don't get -what- point Patrick is trying to make.

However, you brought up a great point with stuff like peter's balls and such, that does a far worse job portraying the industry than some measly booth babes. I'd theoretically show my mom booth babes trotting out some 3DSes before I'd show her half the content GB does, in reality, though, I don't care either way. Nothing wrong with booth babes and nothing wrong with wanting to play with some old balls.

@patrickklepek said:

This has nothing to do with the women themselves. This has everything to do with how it portrays the industry. I don't begrudge the women for taking a job--it's money

Sorry Patrick, but how? Not once in your article does it talk about how this portrays negatively on the video game industry. The middle of the article is about a female developer who wants them gone because it makes her uncomfortable, the end of the article is how this effects every industry, not just games. If anything the article seems rather aimless, re-reading it I can't even pick out a main point that it's about.

If you're point is simply that attractive ladies used to show off video games is wrong, then tell me how that is, this article does not do that in the least. Like others, and even your article has said, this is not something that is exclusive to video games. Are you saying everything should change? It really doesn't make any sense.