@sealionact: I never thought that ZELDA was worth much of anything, nor mario.. or Nintendo for that matter. I was always liked more grit in my game.. and hated repetitive themes and set pieces. So the whole point in me replying to this is... Don't get all Fanboy on ZELDA... Absolutely none of my friends and circles played that growing up except 1 guy. Everyone else was into Sports, Wrestling, TMNT, fighting games, and eventually evolved more and more but never the Cartoony Elf Floral pastels that Zelda always seemed to thread.
Now I'm sure its an excellent game for those who love its themes and its play type... But Please, get off the damn high horse.. Uncharted vs ZELDA, from my stand point I would play Uncharted... And I know tons of people who wouldn't touch a game remotely even constructed like ZELDA... Sure they could be missing out. But don't act like ZELDA is....
I've always thought and surmised that the nostalgia and fanboyism accounts is what accounted for at least 50% of the scores Mario, Metroid, DOOM, ZELDA type of games get nowadays.... There is always this extreme disconnect from logic and reason and fawning over those titles that seem ingrained in being happy that it has lineage in one of your first gaming experiences that just so happened to be accompanied by the taste of Similac
But I've seen too many people for whom just seeing the shadow of one of these characters triggers orgasmic fawning as if these are master pieces.... Never seen it bud... and trust me, my perspective is just as valid as yours.
@edviges: This makes absolutely no sense. A buggy game is a buggy game. YOU review it and drop the score because its buggy. You don't wait and hold out... What kind of sense does that make? Being fair? Being fair is reviewing on the same criteria for every game. That should mean once the game is released, and you have your copy, review the game as is. If you want to have a live score that can go up and down over time based on the content and state of the game that's explainable. If you want to do snap shot game scores every 3 months or 6 months for the life of a game, upping or lowering the score based on all the dlc and patches that came out that's understandable...
But saying you want to wait to the game has bugs patched is not fair. What if they patch more then bugs? What if they patched little issues that someone had with gameplay, or the audio, or the visuals, and now that same reviewer instead of giving the game a 8.5 or 7.0 is now giving it a 9.0 because of the patch? It's just wrong. Unless you say no game will be reviewed for at least 1 major patch after release to fix up any lingering bugs and gameplay issues, why do a solid for one publisher versus another? They had the ability to delay this game, and make sure that it was released in better condition. Why is Gamespot enabling this by giving solids to folks who made a decision based solely on profits and for the purpose of GETTING THEIR MATERIAL OUT TO THE USER BASE, REGARDLESS OF FLAWS!?
Seems Ironic that GameSpot can try to be the "bigger" of the two and provide a grace period when non is deserved, it cast doubt on their methodology, and seemingly highlights a conflict of interest.
Keep it real... trying to explain their reasoning behind this is flawed.
Question: If Anygry Joe, can stream his play through, and take that same footage of the stream to create his video review then why can't ign or gamespot?
Seems like a massive missed opportunity... If it now takes a week to get a review (Because its not just producers asking for more time to sell the game without a negative score impacting the game... which I think it is and why it takes so long,) At least bring some transparency to the process. Let's hear the reviewers enjoy an Oh^*& moment, live during their play-through for their review... versus being told you had one, but at same time taking 6 days to review something that come on now and keep it real.. don't take that damn long.
Put the crap on twitch or create your own twitch like domain.. freaking do your ads.. but for the love of god, stop losing your credibility by leaps and bounds every year...
@nousername66: Thank you, your opinion matters. How about you tell us why... you could be a zombie for god sakes, what makes the fact it bored you relevant with out details.
@hermitkiller: False Equivalency . Don't even try to sell people on WB pulled this crap because of PC piracy. Tha't s completely separate argument and has no business being used as an excuse in this situation.
You might as well blame Obama for the game being trash.
@moose-fitz: Nope.. I don't remember that at all. I actually remember people praising them for delaying it and stating that they wanted a more polished experience... and Rockstar specifically releasing information to that point, a long with trailers and videos of their progress to give fans something to look forward too. So no I don't remember people flipping out and saying Rockstar doesn't care about PC because of GTA 5 delays.. not at all. And I was paying attention very closely.
Now I do remember people saying Rockstar doesn't care about PC because they didn't release a Red Dead Redemption Port, and after years of begging and pleading, the nail in the coffin was about as brutal as they came.
Who assumes that delays means its going to be for the worse? I don't know who you interact with, but for years now I believe the vast majority of serious gamers prefer a game to be delayed to fix up bugs, glitches than have games released with 20GB patches on day one and barely playable... Thanks for the Wisdom though.
chitownjedi's comments