@ronaldmcreagan I think it will but they will never tell. They won't loose money by annoucing there will be a superior version. They will wait until people have bought it on PS3/360 to announce PC/PS4/newxbox version

@robokill And how does this affect the GTA video?

@SurlyPotato @Tyberis1 Afraid she might be happier than you and with less issues?

That's usually the reason behind feeling gross inside by another person's life

@SurlyPotato @ovp87 The video is about GTA, did you notice?

@Lucidmike78 The video is about GTA, did you notice?

@spindie @Phelaidar @franci17 Just finished reading some comments in here, you are causing much trouble with bad arguments and not really trying to have discussions, so I just won't waste time arguing with you anymore.

@spindie @franci17 @Phelaidar Just read everything and not the first lines of my comment...

@franci17 @Phelaidar Totally agree with you. I actually don't know about the DI:Riptide review, because I didn't really care about the game, but what Johnny said was too simplistic... I just think it gives a bad impression on what a review is. The defense shouldn't be "Reviews are subjective " but actually show how the reviewer gave valid (personal) arguments based on very objective things.

@TigusVidiks But the diversity of ratings is a great thing.

I'm just saying Reviews are more than just opinions.

They are based on knowledge and understanding the intentions and objectives of the "thing" you are reviewing.

It's no doubt subjective to say "I don't like it", but there needs to be an objective reason behind it.

I think a bad review is something like:

"I don't like it because it's not how it should be done. It offers melee combat, but shooting with guns is more fun in other games, so I would use guns. It tries to tell a story, but I think it would be better if the story was deeper, I would have made a serious story, not the story they wanted to tell. If I made this game, the characters would have deeper emotions and more layers, because I think that's what makes a good game"

A good review, to me, is like this:

"I don't like because it tries to be something but it doesn't quite achieve it. It tries to have great melee combat, but the system is too slow for the mechanic to work against enemies and it has bad collision detection. It tries to tell a story, even if it's a simple one, but the dialog is badly conceived, not giving out the emotion or information the developers seem to think they are giving, especially not in the way they intended. They tried to be dramatic, but the bad writing made it a comedy!"

@randy_123r @Phelaidar I never said they are totally objective.

But they can't be totally subjective. The objectivity on a review is what makes a review useful for the reader to develop his opinion.

Just an example:

I hate MMORPG, so if I am going to write about it only based on my personal taste, I'm going to give it a really bad score.

I should try to understand this kind of game, what the developers aimed on achieve, what gamers are expecting from games of this kind.

If I try to understand those OBJECTIVE points, than I could give a MMORPG a 10/10. It would depend on how well the game achieves those OBJECTIVE points.

My subjectivity is inevitable, because the evaluation of how well those points were achieved is based on my impressions on the game and my knowledge!

So it's not just "this game sucks, because I don't like MMORPG, it should be a shooter. I'll give it 2/10". The right way is "this game sucks, because as a MMORPG it tried to do something and it doesn't achieve that. So I'll give it 2/10"