Conker was the dude, can't believe we missed him :'(
And Killzone 2. Anything trophy that relies on the online community to remain active is a poor decision.
Fair point, we included Marston not only because he was the most recent but because he's the most prominent 'anti hero' of the lot since he is already one from the outset and will remain one regardless of player choice.
Unfortunately I exist in a country where "Games are Art" isn't a logical excuse to bunk homework...
Yet anyway.
Many thanks :D
Made the 2 hour energy drink binge composing it, we had a lot of nominees, worth it.
I actually have another question for everyone. C'mon settle a bet; would Dante from DMC count as an Anti Hero?
Ah shit there goes the £17.75 I had on my loyalty card...
I hate it when there is that one near impossible trophy preventing me from achieving a platinum, and I mean HATE it. Otherwise I wholly think trophies are a great benefit, and if certain games were granted full trophy patches I would go back and play them again.
Arts are created by artists though, see the problem? I personally see games as 'interactive art' but then some would argue that it's because they are interactive that they can't be art. You can win a game, but not you don't earn credit points for staring down the Mona Lisa. :P
My girlfriend has no problem playing Fallout New Vegas. That's it, we've yet to discover anything else. Any got any ideas? Was thinking Borderlands or Left 4 Dead. (She enjoys Shooters)
Well there was that one time when things got bleary and someone broke out the Singstar...Oh Jesus Jumped Up Christ >.< Never again!
It is a stupid question, did you read the entire article?
Had I not already quoted Ebert I would have included that as well, but then I'd have turned the whole thing into a re post of two other people's opinions. I think Kellee is right, but I think in the end it won't matter. Kellee will, without tragic intervention, outlive Ebert and her opinion is one of a more relevant generation; ours. :p
Precisely my reaction when I saw it posted XD
Fair enough, but what about reviews from independent sites like ours? We're not paid to do it, therefore we're obviously not professional critics, but we put more effort and thought into our stuff that the average 'comment' style user reviews you see on meta. See, I present to you the grey area!
I know a bit about medicine! :D
(Off topic input is off topic)
It's the same again as I mentioned with Jim Sterling, he's quite a popular critic and while I trust he know's his Duke from him Conker he gave a review on half a game. Obviously not the best way to go about it, and yes Tom Chick (Ironically just reading some of his stuff on Quarter to 3) gets too much attention though. With his Journey review being my latest disagreement, overlooking much of wh...
A-fecking-men!
Another thing I didn't cover, might do in a later article, is that some people think that a 6/7/8 score isn't good enough.
I mean think of the grades, and percentiles needed to get them, in your education system. If you were hitting 70% throughout you're pretty much golden. But in our gaming minds some of use see a 7/10 as inferior, even metacritic establishes a 7 as a mixed opinion for a game.
Not exactly difficult...
Haven't heard of a lot of these guys, obviously the writer had quite a small minded shortlist to choose from.
What's being Irish got to do with it? I'm Irish and I'm employed full time as a Paramedic. Stick your arse down for a university course and stop moaning.
Taking a year out is also probably the most stupid thing you could have done by the way, I've no idea who told you to do it but good luck getting back in the system.
Tom Chick himself was an actor of little repute, Metacritic must have thought it'd be good for a giggle or two.