@HAZCHEM88 They kinda have to properly understand the problem before doing anything about it. It's not like they could just make a law that says "All games must be cheap".
I don't see your point. IGN gives any decent high profile game an outstanding score. GS makes good use of the entire range of their scale (not ideal, but good). So would you care to elaborate?
I'd hardly say it's qualities "dwarf" the always-online crap (which is 100% unnecessary) and server problems. It IS a good game, and one worth playing, but but the "online services" are just awful.
@Enundr I've seen them place uncommon or unpopular emphasis on some aspects, but I've never seen them outright lie about any of it (that is, make a negative claim where no such aspect exists). Here, for example, he mentions AI oddities here as a detriment. Some might see what he's talking about as trivial, or even an endearing aspect, but that doesn't change that these oddities really are present, no matter how you view them.
Regardless, the big problem here is that people are latching onto the few negatives and ignoring the positive majority (as, admittedly, Humans are wont to do), so people are somehow regarding this review as "bad", despite the fact that 7.5 means something pretty good.
That's just stupid. For someone with his perspective, he should know full well what technological innovation can do for creativity. We have NOT been making the same game for 50 years, even if similar tastes are being catered to.
There is no creative advantage to holding hardware back. That just doesn't make sense (and nor does this whole thing considering QD isn't particularly original in any way). If you want to push creative boundaries, Mr. Cage, then just do it. Advancing hardware sure as hell won't stop you.
parrot_of_adun's comments