That isn't quite what he's saying. It's not about unoriginality, it's about developers saying "This is how one SHOULD make games", and Levine saying actually, no, because so many people want so many different things out of their gaming time.
Also, profanity is awesome and powerful when employed well.
I mean I... uh... I *hope* that was a failed attempt at irony?
EDIT: Given your earlier comment, I'm going to guess this was a joke. Irony doesn't work well on the internet - partly because there are a lot of people on it who do actually think like that!
TheBossMan - To each their own, and all that. If someone enjoys consuming a particular thing, be it cigarettes, alcohol, coffee or cannabis, that's their own prerogative. Except for ludicrous arbitrary laws, of course, which aren't linked to the harm potential of these substances. (For example, the three legal drugs I just mentioned are demonstrably, empirically more dangerous than cannabis, which has killed no one, and only psychologically damages one in 5,000 heavy users.)
That isn't what he says though.
No, you are definitely wrong. Half-Life was built in GoldSrc, a modified Quake engine. Source debuted with HL2 and has been iterated upon ever since. The fact that Valve are talking about there being no Source 2 just yet should back this up, surely?
You hate a man you've never met because he thinks a game you've never played is only 'very good' rather than 'amazing'?
You sound like an angry person.
I don't think that was meant to be taken 100% literally, but you're not quite right either. It's original Halo maps, with new game mechanics and engine added from Reach. Which is what the article says.
Can anyone else confirm whether or not this is true?
@Garethvk That's because a publication wouldn't bother trying to strike a deal with a publisher whose game it wasn't fairly certain it was going to love. There's nothing in it for anyone.
There is, of course, a huge difference between payment and negotiation. A paid-for review is absolutely unacceptable. But a coverage deal? That's cool. As long as the deal doesn't stipulate what sort of review a game can get, and as long as money doesn't change hands in a way that could compromise integrity, it's just doing business.
Goldacre is a legend. :-)
But... there's literally like a couple of paragraphs at the start about the trailer, leading into a point saying 'if you were expecting an emotional game, this isn't one.' It doesn't mention the trailer again, but it does mention a whole list of actual flaws. It hardly seems like he's "hung up" on it.
Have *any* of the GTAs been "do drugs and beat women" for the whole of the game?
Yup.
I'd just like laser eyes. With laser eyes I would be happy.
Yes, that's true. What isn't true is the original statement that it would only require a "one-time activation" - and the fact that they left it a couple of days post-release to clarify otherwise isn't cool.
Please tell me you're being ironic. Please.
Totally. There are many who've been nominated who should be absolutely proud.
Ignore. No idea wtf. It's been fixed.
If that guy's a writer for a professional magazine, I've no idea how. I vote no: a professional writer's forum post wouldn't be littered with grammatical no-nos.