I said it once before and I'll say it again: we gamers are getting screwed over by these awful embargoes. I was hoping that we'd get a review before the game releases. But now since IGN has already released their extremely generous yet rather vague and uninformative review a few days ago, I have to assume that Gamespot will release their review sometime after the release because the score will be lower than what the embargo requires. I don't blame Gamespot, breaking embargo will result in the gaming industry bigwigs essentially excommunicating them. I am in all honesty quite glad that they are not releasing their review so hastily so they can retain their integrity and dissect the game to its core. I just wish that the major gaming review sites would stand up against these huge gaming companies and give us an honest review in a timely manner so buying a new game isn't such a gamble anymore.
@Lynx_7 @analogjunkie24 Carolyn listed three positive points and two negative points. Its an E-rated title so I think these negatives (lack of checkpoints and sharp difficulty spikes) would prove quite problematic for younger gamers in the 7-11 age range.
Couldn't you fanboys at least, I don't know, wait until you actually play the before you wail on the reviewer. I bet you guys are going to spam 10s in the user scores sections for the next week or so because of your love affair with a multinational corporation. To all of you Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo fanboys out there: corporations are not people, most of them are soulless, selfish abominations run by soulless, selfish individuals.
@64-bit But if Gamespot hates Nintendo then what's stopping them from giving them scathing reviews? Take a gander at this: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?platform=1070&mode=all&sort=post_date&dlx_type=all&sortdir=asc&official=all These are quite impressive scores from a website with a grunge against all things Nintendo.
@64-bitHere are Gamespot's 10 latest Wii-U reviews:<< LINK REMOVED >> Half of which have an 8.0 or higher. So have you ever wondered what it would be like to have your comment read aloud by Danny O'Dwyer? No? You'll find out soon enough.
I haven't read a single comment and yet I already know for a fact that the folks over at Feedbackula are going to have a field day with this comment section.
Although I am growing quite tired of disgruntled politicians using violent video games as scapegoats I have noticed a rather disturbing trend regarding the most popular and critically acclaimed titles in recent years. The Walking Dead, Halo 4, Dishonored, Far Cry 3, X-COM: Enemy Unknown, Assassin's Creed 3, and Spec Ops: The Line are widely considered to be the best games of last year and all of them were rated M for Mature here in the U.S.
Now, I love these games to death but so do many impressionable young kids whose demographic has been severely neglected by the gaming industry in recent years. I remember when there were quality games that actually catered to gamers of all ages. Games such as Spyro and Crash on the PlayStation as well as Mario and Banjo-Kazooie on the Nintendo 64 ensured that younger gamers were properly entertained while their older siblings or sometimes even parents enjoyed more adult titles such as Turok, Goldeneye, Medal of Honor and Resident Evil.
What I propose is that the ESRB undergo a complete overhaul and take a more active role in educating parents of young gamers. Picture this: when the parent goes to buy an M-rated game at their local retailer the clerk asks said parent if they are purchasing if for someone under the age of 18 to which they answer "yes". The clerk will then, in addition to reading the descriptors concerning the game's rating, gives them a free booklet similar in size to the game manual created by the ESRB specifically for that particular game. This booklet would basically expand on what the ESRB found objectionable and why using specific examples. They could incorporate the opinions of well-respected gaming journalists and other professionals.
analogjunkie24's comments