If I didn't see constant laughing at people's opinions, maybe I'd see it as a joke, but the amount of people laughing at others and how often doesn't make me think it's a joke anymore. Admittedly, i am probably one of the few people who feels this strongly, but I've just seen it too much that it's grating on and it annoys me. I'm sorry that people think I'm being a dick for telling people i think their being constantly mean about others and their thoughts. I try to act in an appropriate manner, regardless of me being staff or not, and do apologise if I offend anyone, but I don't feel like I should be quiet and not speak my mind when everyone else is doing the same.
Didn't we have one of these before? Hmm, at any rate stand by my Civ over Mafia, unless you REALLY like old gangster films. Civ is such a lovely combo of great ideas.
If you have a problem with my moderating, report me to another staff member by all means, and they'll query it. But my opinion has nothing to do with being a mod, nor does it warrant a hostility. I am a member here too. I'm listening to your opinion, it doesn't matter if you consider yourself niche or downtrodden, it doesn't make your opinion any greater than the reviewers. You may be allowed to get mad, as you put it, but it doesn't mean you have to call someone '****' or insult them as a person, that's disrespectful. Even if the reviewer isn't a member here, I feel it need not come to that. And if you really cared about addressing a 'dumb statement' why aren't you posting in the comments of the review, and challenging the reviewer? Calling him out on KHV isn't going to open up a debate with the reviewer, it doesn't seem very productive and seems more like complaining because you fear confrontation. I don't know of anyone who listens to purely the summary and rating of a game review without reading the full review, at the least. It's 352 words long, so shouldn't take a minute. There is also an accompanying article with the review questioning whether the game is good as a sequel in a franchise, and whether sequels are good for a series, as well as upcoming gameplay on the multiplayer. I would advise people to read the review and article if they wanted a broader and more detailed explanation. Review: http://www.videogamer.com/reviews/batman_arkham_origins_review.html Accompanying article: http://www.videogamer.com/features/...rigins_batman_returns_but_is_that_enough.html Also, how can I but into a thread? I never state opinion as fact, i constantly put 'just my opinion' or the like when in a discussion, if I have faltered in that before I apologise, but I feel it obvious to people on this site by now who I discuss with that it's my observations i'm talking about. I'm putting off playing this game to post in this thread, which is amusing to me.
You wouldn't think we have a Gaming section. Or that people's opinions are to be respected. Or that we should listen to any reviews. I don't know why anyone here listens to reviews if they don't respect differing opinions, it sounds like people are going around just to bittch and cry that their opinion isn't law. The reason it's summarised as gaming's best combat system is to say it's fun to play, and it is, loads of games have copied the Arkham combat and stealth formula, both of which are fantastic and fluid and make you feel great. There is a reason people read the full review and watch gameplay of it. The article itself explains more, the comments in the article even have another reviewer on the team saying Bayonetta's is better, but isn't surprised nor really disagrees the games combat can be called as such. I would really like to see how people here would review games.
I said better needed graphics, not hyper realism. Please, read my posts more carefully. I don't know what game you're referring to, Kingdom Hearts, Pokémon, all of which have had or are going to have better graphics. Not sure of your point. The items were never labelled clearly in what they could do, what was affected by what traits. Even now I'm still guessing, your items, equipment, weapons, quest items, etc, are all pretty poor in Dark Souls 2, except no one I've found has been able to bring up the items list, which makes me wonder further. Most are not cryptic, they're just symbols that don't correlate quickly, I'd rather be playing the game than try and decipher which weapon or helmet is better. It's a sign of outdated design, which is strange since I've seen better From Software interface design. You do the same as well. I do not see a point in bringing it up though. Point is that I find the information given to be from a biased source, so I find anything given to be in question. If you want me to pick apart your evidence I'll need a source, but I don't get how tests and community feedback is inherently proof of a good game.
What Jiku said basically. It lacked polish to it and detail in areas, it faltered in graphics which great enemy design and art style made up for. The Menus felt clumsy, old and lacked clarity a lot of the time explaining what your items were all about. It's not a perfect game.It's great in a lot of ways, but it's got a lot of faults that shouldn't be present in a modern game, and effectively a sequel to Demon Soul's. Information doesn't help a product you play. In paper things sound great, but that doesn't mean anything for the final product. It's improved in a few ways, but this looks to be the exact same game. Plenty of games are exactly the same with new, smooth paint on and gamers call it ****. I'm not calling this ****, i'm calling it more of the same. But no one knows till it's actually released, i'm going by demo stuff i've seen.
Oh no doubt, Square is more on the knife's edge than any other developer, their finances are terrible, it's a wonder they've lasted this long.
I enjoyed the film, in all honesty. Definitely think the world of Dark Souls could be improved by throwing money at it, Dark Souls makes up for its lack of story because of great diverse environments, but it always felt like the same drab scenes whether it was a forest or a castle or a desert. The world would be more intimidating and scary if the enemies had more animations more details. Any game that sets a world to explore, needs a diverse and detailed world to explore and locations to travel to. The more detailed the better. GTAV had it, Skyrim had it, Dark Souls had somewhat of it and could improve.
Dark Souls never felt big budget, it felt well made in gameplay, but it had a lot to improve on. I doubt somehow From Software will developer a better Dark Souls in the sequel, it looks to be more of the same, which may instead bring it down.
Itunes and Steam both disagree, they are, to the public a godsend not a problem. I think last I read, 48% of music is bought digitally, and gaming digital sales aren't that far behind considering they've only recently become very attractive to the public as a way to get games. Think about Minecraft, that game took years to release the finished product but sold a couple million whilst it was in Alpha and Beta. Digital is on the rise. Like libre says, you preload the game so it's playable on release, but you don't have access to it till the midnight launch. I've preloaded Batman Arkham Origins through Steam, it peloaded on monday. And this has been convenient, because the PC and Nintendo console physical releases have all been postponed in the UK because of some sort of hard copy distribution issue. They won't get a release till the 11th of November as a result. I'd like a hard copy but i'm not really fussed, considering i'll have access to it earlier than the hard copy. And it's cheaper. You're talking about a very early sort of securing your rights toyohr digital media. This will change and improve in time, DRM won't be this way forever, and accounts linked to games is already dealt with well in various distributors, andthe next gen consoles are definitely improving on this. It's not that bleak, it's just in a stage of infancy, and needs to grow. The Xbox One for sure will change a lot throughout its lifetime considering its digital downloaded side of things. Just takes time. Guessing you're not a fan of Kickstarted games?
Online multiplayer is on the rise for consoles because of more stable and widespread internet users, not just because of CoD's popularity as a multiplayer centric game. It was going to go this way for a while, and it's begun. that last one, you're talking about PC gaming suppliers these days, look at Steam, it does it well and now consoles are catching up to them. Digital is the future. Have you seen Assassin's Creed? Daaaaaaaaamn, son.
But having a familial history of illnesses doesn't suppose that they will be inherited by the offspring. What I mean is that in a lot of these cases, genes being passed down to the child isn't the cause of the affliction. If both my parents have schizophrenia, it doesn't mean I will get it. I might be more likely to develop schizophrenia, but it's extremely rare to find such obvious genetic relationship. Like you say, your family history is that list of illnesses or conditions, but you don't have all of them, and even if you did, you won't necessarily have them to the same degree as your family. Like Patman says, a wider gene pool is more desirable since they have a lot of adaptability and resistance. Policing breeding of humanity is a concept explored in The Handmaid's Tale, and while a lot of other problems are occurring or happened, it shows a lot about the massive trouble it is to handle. Just wouldn't be possible to keep it all in check. Let it flow free then.
Interspecies breeding? *Shudders*
It's nothing intentional, and it's an inherently flaw of general opinion giving, people just can't express themselves very well.
Praise be, someone might consider my argument to be right, ha. I generalise people here because that's the point of my argument, that reviews aren't specific to each reader, but distributed to what a reviewer would see as their general audience. I mean it's a generalisation to say all gamers enjoy playing games, but we presume certain aspects of generalisation aren't always accurate. There are always exception to the rule, after rule. Higher expectations of the public or the reviewer?
Someone who enjoys games in their leisure time, as a hobby or other recreation. My point was to say that reviewers aren't those sort of people, when they're on the job at least, since their aim when playing a game is to judge it as a reviewer who is trying to convey to an audience an unbiased opinion.
That cheating ******* can only breed one woman at a time. Misty is pretty low on the list I imagine.
Please... go on. we're friends here, eh? So Mish, your periods. Bloody annoying? ; p
Taking out a leaf from your book, ha, your comment made me think of that. Bit wordy, but I like it. And I meant more of an immediate effect, the placebo would probably kick in quicker than the body absorbing the vitamins, making the actual substance almost irrelevant.
Most reviewers are bad, because in essence they are not the typical person playing a video game. Video games journalists have seen early previews, interviewed developers, had hands on, been given early copies before consumer release, played in under the assumption of reviewing it, and so on of other factors that are different from a typical gamer's experience. They can't accurately reflect their experience of the game into someone else's experience with it, though they try the best with what they have. Reviewing is an inherently biased business, gaming or not, and in no way can you accurately extrapolate a handful of reviewers experiences with a game onto the experience of thousands of gamers out there. YouTube reviewers are becoming more popular than gaming journalists with reviews because people grow an affinity to them, and see them as equals, where people believe the Youtubers understand what a 'gamer's' perspective of playing is like, and that they won't bullshit if a game is good or not. People typically think that gaming journalists reviewing games are getting paid to give good scores, or that they are too high brow in their reviews and don't get the pleasure from simply playing a game or somehow inept of grasping the every man view of games. A review is never going to be as good as playing the whole game yourself, at the end of the day. Everyone should take a small bit of cynicism even in the most persuasive of arguments.
