Aug 18th 2011 10:47PM I was so stupidly hyped for this game, especially as I'm a *huge* Star Wars nerd, but at this point I've just kind of lost interest. I mean, Hell, it's not even about the limited release because my country has been snobbed entirely. Coming into an MMO or an expansion late isn't fun. Everyone is already ahead of you, everyone already expects you to be on their level, and if you ask any questions or request any kind of help all you get are a bunch of dickbag replies.
I understand that EA and BioWare are worried about server stability and okay, good on them. It's their game and it's their prerogative. But it's just been bad news after bad news for me since this game was announced and it's just at the point now where I'll just read the conclusion of the Revan story on Wookieepedia.
Aug 18th 2011 10:43PM @jynxycat You are incredibly naive if you think that publishers don't have any say about the product and that the developer is the boss. Just sayin'.
Jun 16th 2011 8:56PM @Vcize Are you serious? Hale blew everyone else away. I've tried playing as a male Shepard multiple times now and I just can't -- because Legion shows more emotion.
Seriously, dude's a robot. There's a great YouTube video that shows the difference between them when trying to console Tali. Male Shepard's "Come here," is just laughable.
Jun 10th 2011 5:22PM "n Australia, a Sydney man was convicted in 2008 of possessing child pornography over a cartoon showing characters from The Simpsons engaged in sexual acts. In a landmark finding in the NSW Supreme Court, Justice Michael Adams concluded that a fictional cartoon character could "depict" a "person" under law."
There are no words.
May 10th 2011 12:37AM @Acosta02 I realize it's two different authors and that possibly it could just be two different opinions, but then what's the point of a review if it's just going to be some random stranger's opinion? How is it worth more than the gaming-obsessed checkout operator at my local supermarket?
As a former game reviewer myself, while a formal qualification in writing helps when trying to make a piece that's worth reading, little distinguishes the opinions of most reviewers except the fact that they've got a soapbox on which to stand.
TL;DR version: What's the point of reviews, especially ones giving empirical scores, if they're just going to be subjective opinions?
I just feel bad for the people who have pre-purchased based on the positive press and can't do shit if it turns out that they don't like it.
May 10th 2011 12:23AM @jph89 I suppose change from the norm is nice.
Thank you, I'll be here all night.
May 10th 2011 12:21AM @RonnocoMail Just a small example of what I'm talking about. The preview says:
"During my time with the game, I found the AI to be brilliant, and often preferable to playing with human characters."
Then, in this review, it turns to:
"It's not that the game's artificial intelligence is inherently bad -- it just never seems to figure out how to cooperate with the human element."
May 10th 2011 12:12AM Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but wasn't Joystiq sort of fueling the hype train for this game recently? If I'm wrong about this, then please accept my apology in advance and disregard the rest of my statement. ;)
But yeah, I miss the days when publications didn't feel obligated to be nice about a game until the day it was released. I was talking to the editors of GameSpot about this once in regards to their pre-release press of Sonic 2006, and their attitude was that it was unfair and irresponsible to say the game was crap until it was released.
But I think, in a way, the industry attitude is unfair to the readers. I'll keep my eye on the Metacritic score, but if it turns out to be universally panned, I'll be bloody glad I didn't pre-purchase this on Steam.
I miss the days when people like Edge would have previews were they basically called the game out as being shit. It was a good heads up about the way it was going. I know the publishers/distributors can sulk and hardball -- I've been on the receiving end of it myself, with someone remarking "With previews like this, who needs enemies?" -- but I sort of wonder why the industry can't be more honest with readers.
Plus, if all the pre-release talk is scathing, maybe it gives the developers time to go back and fix what's wrong.
Again, apologies if I mistook previous Joystiq's coverage for positive buzz.
Mar 10th 2011 12:53AM @PointlessPuppies "It was literally the way Ubisoft expected people to play it."
So, again, if Nintendo releases an advertising campaign that says it expects everyone to play Mario Kart while completely drunk (and I wouldn't even refute it as a common state in which to play it), that suddenly means the game content is adults-only?
Regardless, Ubisoft already stated that the game is aimed at adults and isn't aimed at children. Just because the content isn't objectionable doesn't mean that it's suddenly for children. The documentary Ascent of Man isn't R-rated but that doesn't mean it's for children either.
"This doesn't imply in the least bit that the rating is suddenly supposed to be used for its target demographic instead of what's suitable for what age."
But this is how everyone took it. I even had one man, a video game developer of all things, decry it and qualified it by stating that the Wii was for kids thus the game must be for kids. It didn't matter that the game wasn't aimed at kids; it was rated as being okay for 12+ and suddenly that meant it was aimed at 12+.
"Something that at face value SEEMS harmless but is actually of adult nature, and the rating board is required only to rate the face value."
I suppose you resent the large amount of "innuendo" in family movies such as Shrek, then -- and feel that they should have adult ratings? What seems harmless usually is because it flies over the heads of little children -- even if they were intended to play the game, which they are not.
"Saying the implications of the ratings on the box are going to be completely turned upside down just because of this particular case is making mountains out of molehills."
This simply shows that the Daily Mirror and its ilk can get its way if it moans hard enough. Same with Rule of Rose. It's happened before, it will happen again.
I guess no one will care as long as they are "shit games", though. Hurrumph.
Mar 9th 2011 11:15PM I'm saddened by the precedent this sets on so many levels.
Firstly, it seems that a rating is no longer a guide to whom the content is unsuitable for but now a determining of what the target demographic is. It's almost if they're saying that Gran Turismo 5 is aimed at three-year-olds.
Secondly, it seems that the content of the game is irrelevant to the marketing campaign. From all evidence I've seen, there is nothing in We Dare that is an adult's-only affair (especially if this video is to be believed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK8JhYS69Hw) and it's all just a bunch of marketing guff. (The NiGHTS rip-off doesn't seem to demand spanking, for example.) If Nintendo had an add campaign that showed people drinking while playing Mario Kart, does that suddenly make Mario Kart an adult's-only game?
Lastly, it shows that vocal ignorance and knee-jerk reactions will always win out at the end of the day.
The game looked crap, yes, but it's another notch on the belt for the same overzealous Luddites who got things like Rule of Rose yanked from release as well. We shouldn't let this kind of thing snowball...