toxicitizen

Hahaha, what the hell. Yeah, that doesn't exactly sound like sane behavior...

Oh, I see. If it's still readable then whatever. This forum is a nightmare when it goes into slow-ass mode. We can just make new threads. Also, I didn't know Bouchart had a thing with Ethan specifically. Did they argue a lot or something?

Yeah, you could not poke fun at that guy. I remember at one point he mentioned having an interest in finance-related stuff and people thought it was funny. So they'd randomly bring it up in conversation as a joke and he'd get super pissy and legitimately annoyed by it.

What does archived mean? Just locked from posting or hidden and unreadable?

Hahaha, that's probably it, yeah. But man, that first page. It's like an obituaries section for this forum. Most of those people are long gone. Strangelove's intro is still the best, though. I'm surprised I even remembered it. edit: And goddamn, this is what I was talking about in FDS' status the other day! Third page of this thread and there's already drama! Man, those were the good old days, I tell you...

I'm not sure how to respond to those accusations... And, yeah, a year isn't going to be enough. I've been here since like.. 2011?

Lol. Quoted to preserve your ineptitude at making shit up. You got the wrong initials there, buddy... But now you got me curious what my actual first post was. And it seems the posting history from our profile only goes back 5 posts?! What the hell, Dean?!

It's Quebec and you know it!

You're dead to me.

If we truly were real canadian bros, you would know it in your soul. In your soul, Cowboy!

I think that's where FLD is from, so, yeah, sort of explains a lot.... You don't even know which province I'm from?! I won't lie. I'm hurt, Cowboy...

Oh, you shouldn't have any issues, then. Jaguar is the one that pissed many people off. I found him to be a fair challenge but a lot of people really hated the colored shields, for some reason. Something about them being "artificial difficulty bullshit" or whatever. I think those people are just bad at games. He was a fucking nightmare on hard, though.

I've played the game like 3 times now and this is the first time I even see that boss, so that's most definitely some of the new content exclusive to the edition you're playing. Nah, don't worry, you'll encounter more challenging bosses later on. One in particular will basically require you to have mastered almost all the skills the game has thought you.

The combat can be challenging later on and there's one or two optional platforming bits that can be infuriating. But if you're playing on normal and avoid the DLC challenges like the plague (El Inferno or whatever), then you shouldn't have any issues. It's probably my favorite game of 2013. They actually added a few new levels and, I think, some new powers as well. So it's not just a straight up port, there's new content exclusive to this edition.

Yeah, finding reviewers whose opinions you generally respect or agree with really is the best thing to do here. I disagree with Jim Sterling's reviews more often than not but I certainly respect his opinion. A 5/10 from him won't make me write off a game entirely but I'll certainly want to know what it was that made him feel it deserved that score. Yeah, this is all subjective as hell. But I tend to favor smaller-range scales, like the 5 stars system Ethan mentioned. None of that 100 points decimal scale bullshit. I mean, shit, for all the garbage that's on that site, I think Kotaku's Yes/No system is actually a good idea.

You do realize that Call of Duty has a story-based campaign, right? I get what you're saying here but I think you're looking at it wrong. You're certainly not wrong that DXHR is cyberpunk and Fallout 3 is post-apocalyptic. But you're only describing their narrative settings here. Again, you're using your personal preferences of story-based games as hard limits to define them. Some games simply don't have stories or take place in more generic settings. How would those narrative descriptions be helpful, then? I mean, what does "cyberpunk" really tell you about Deus Ex as a game? I agree that First-Person Shooter is a stupid name, but really, it tells you everything you need to know about how it plays, doesn't it? Telling me Deus Ex is a First-Person RPG tells me what kind of game it is, cyberpunk tells me what kind of story/universe it has. Transistor is also cyberpunk but beyond that it has very little in common with Deus Ex. Simply saying "cyberpunk" is fine for purely passive story-based mediums like books or movies, but for something interactive like a video game it's simply inadequate because of how varied the experiences can be. When looking for something new to play, I'll think about it in terms of what type of mechanics I'd like to play (FPS, RPG, Turn-Based strategy, etc...) over what kind of narrative genre it is, but that's just me. Miscommunication it was, then. Like I said, describing the mechanics is every bit as important (if not more) as describing the narrative setting when it comes to video games. Games are by their very nature interactive experiences and trying to categorize them purely in terms of passive ones is doing the medium a disservice. Fair enough. I just thought some of your points were kind of illogical and poorly constructed. When I encounter that, my first instinct is to doubt the authenticity of the argument. Especially when I see phrases like "I'm clearly right", which is something a troll would say to try and get a rise out of people. This is the internet, after all.

Oh, I'm not offended. I just think you're saying very silly things. Don't misunderstand my tone for anger, that's just how I tend to talk. Also, your analogies were so bad that I was suspecting a troll and, well, the "I'm clearly right" part doesn't help you there. I'm not sure why you keep going back to that football match example because it makes no sense. It's a sporting event that just happened to have cameras pointed at it, it's not a crafted piece of filmed entertainment. It's really more akin to a concert DVD. Almost everything else you listed is fair game, though. The only reason a "film critic" wouldn't pay attention to those other things would because it's not his job to review them. But the rules of doing so would be largely the same whether it's a movie, live-action TV or even animation. Hell, I'd expect a film critic to review a feature documentary because why not. That's fine. I'm not particularly into multiplayer games either. But you're confusing mediums with genres, here. Just because you wouldn't play it doesn't make it a different medium. No, handing you a COD game is like handing you a copy of The Shining when you don't like horror films. It's still very much a film. And I really need to point out that the inherent contradiction with what you're saying while calling something else an oversimplification blows my freaking mind, here. You are trolling, yes? Well, you're right about them being different genres... Why should being based around social interaction or competition magically make it a different medium? Different type of experience, sure. But that's about it.

And I'm the one with a flawed understanding of what a review system needs to be? I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. COD is as much a video game as anything else. Your own personal preferences are absolutely irrelevant here. Plus, I'm not sure the review system you've been describing actually exists anywhere in the real world... Again, this makes no sense whatsoever. You can't draw arbitrary lines to define which video games qualify as being video games. I mean, I can kinda see where people are coming from when they say that Dear Esther or Gone Home aren't games. I strongly disagree but I can at least see why they might feel that way. What you're saying here, though, is absolute fucking nonsense. This analogy simply doesn't work. With games, framerate is directly related to performance. It's irrelevant to films because they all run at the same one. But when The Hobbit came out in 48 FPS, reviews made mention of it because it was suddenly very relevant and actually had an effect on the viewing experience. If a movie has bad lighting or contrast, then any reviewer who knows what he's talking about will make mention of it. But the same goes when it's particularly good. You think the artistic merit of a film only goes as far as the script and acting? Holy shit, man, there's so much more to it.

Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker. Oh man, what a disappointment. It's kind of hilarious, actually. Because of all the talk around its initial release about how it was basically MGS5 in all but name, combined with Ground Zeroes' use of some of its characters, I kinda figured I was missing this big chunk of Metal Gear canon by never having played it. Turns out that's simply not the case. The story is kind of garbage and those characters just aren't fleshed out at all. I don't really feel like I know more about them now than I did before. And I had only played like 6 hours of the story back then. Also, the graphic novel presentation would've probably bothered me if I wasn't such a big fan of Yoji Shinkawa's art style. It just kind of undermines some of the bigger moments in the story. But that's just the story. This is Metal Gear Solid, so the gameplay was still a lot of fun. Surprisingly so, considering the small size of the maps, but this was a PSP game so that can't be helped. Abducting guards using the Fulton system looks so fucking stupid (especially when doing it from inside a fucking building) that it actually added to my enjoyment. I'd just Fulton everything that moved while giggling like an idiot. That being said, one major complaint would be how grindy it can be. I'd heard of it but it wasn't an issue for most of my playthrough. Then I got to the final battle against Peace Walker and... it was just fucking impossible. So I had to grind to get better R&D dudes in my base, so that I could research a better rocket launcher so that I could actually stand a chance against PW. That was about 3 hours of mindlessly replaying side-missions. It seriously killed what little momentum the story had going for it. I might keep playing it a bit more since all the Mother Base stuff is oddly addictive and kinda fun. But overall, I wouldn't rank it anywhere near the main series as far as quality goes.

I'm on the same side as far as how I personally view games. I'm a big fan of both the Youtube channels I linked and it sounds like you'd enjoy them as well, so I strongly recommend you check them out. I just don't think that's the right way to look at reviews. Artistic value is insanely subjective and most people buying a game couldn't give two shits about it. I mean, one of the (if not THE) best-selling IPs of all time is Call of Duty, for fuck's sake. That should tell you something. Games are expensive as hell, so yeah, I think when it comes to launch reviews then it's more relevant to evaluate them as a product. I don't want to pay 60 dollars for an interesting game that barely works. I'd feel ripped off if I'd bought Battlefield 4 day one and gotten the broken mess that it was at launch. I mean, I'm not trying to be exclusionary here. There is room to comment on a game's artistic merit in a review. It just shouldn't be the entire point like you're suggesting. I want a review to tell me whether a game is thematically interesting and whatnot. It just really needs to focus on "but it's also fucking broken right now so maybe wait until they patch it up before you drop 60 bucks on this".

I don't think my view of a rating system is flawed, I think what you're talking about is something completely different. Reviews in general have nothing to do with artistic value, they're an evaluation of the product to inform consumers. They score games based on tangible aspects: gameplay, graphics, sound, replay value. Is it even fun?! And yes, the game can very much fail. In that regard, then yes, you would start at a "perfect" score and knock points whenever you think there's a problem. If I research it and read only bad reviews, then it fails to generate a sale from me. The games industry is a business, how is that not a failure on their part? If we're talking about purely artistic merit then we're in critical analysis territory and those are a completely different thing. They have no score attached to them because that's simply not the point. They explore what the mechanics are saying rather than whether or not they're solid. They're not asking "should you buy this game?" but rather "is this game thematically interesting and why?" and they do so while ignoring its value as a product. It doesn't matter here if the game is buggy or broken. This is where concepts like ludonarrative dissonnance become relevant. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, check out Errant Signal on youtube. I'm also a pretty big fan of SuperBunnyhop's Critical Close-Up series. (edited for typos and added links)

8/10 was never a bad score. Gamers are just fucking stupid. Even a 6/10 can have some redeeming value and be worthwhile for a playthrough. edit: I'm not sure I agree that 5 should be the average, though. I don't think game review scores should necessarily follow a normal distribution. And at 5/10 you're still looking at a game that somehow lost half the points. At that point you kinda have to wonder what the problem is. Hence the importance of actually reading the review, as the score on its own is meaningless.

Uncharted 2 won't feel samey coming from Uncharted 1. From 2 to 3, though, now that's another story.

Yeah, so far I'm not crazy about the story. Kinda disappointing since the main reason I'm playing it is because it felt like I was missing this important chunk of canon. The stealth gameplay is still the best part despite the small size of the maps. And I didn't realize there were audiotapes to find. I guess that explains what the walkman is used for? But man, yet another similarity between PW and MGSV/GZ. I couldn't help but be a little bit bummed out when I found out that MGSV wasn't going to be a traditional MGS but I dunno... I'm kinda worried about it being too similar to Peace Walker. That game structure is fine for a handheld spin-off but it's not exactly what I want from a mainline game. Anyway, if there's a true ending involved I guess I'm gonna have to look some of that shit up.

You're not the first one I've seen describing it as grindy. What do people mean when they say that? Is there a point in the game where you're forced to replay missions or something? I haven't really experienced anything like that yet and I'm close to 10 hours in. I just met your avatar for the first time, actually.