ICO remains in my top 5. Re-experiencing it in HD would make my year. And what a warm-up for Last Guardian.
It must take real conscious effort (like Gerstman) to so easily brush Sony aside. Could he be any more dismissive? After all this time I still don't get why so many media people refuse to properly acknowledge Sony.
I hope it did affect him -- we need more good developers taking risks on innovative IPs.
And this is exactly what I feel is missing:
"Ideally the next game will let players explore Bright Falls during daylight and expose them to the town’s creepiness and secrets through more nuanced and subtle encounters with its inhabitants."
I.e., the game is too busy having you run through the forest by yourself. I feel like my mission is to go on an extented mountain forest trek.
Just make sure Kevin Butler is in it, and it will win.
Microsoft can win ...
... if Sony doesn't show up.
Wonder what that troll Bungie is feeling right about now?
It makes me realize that most of the games I enjoy the most (Flower, Heavy Rain, Fragile Dreams, etc.) don't fall into the magical, artificial AAA 90%+ bullshit category.
I agree with Cage. The problem is not Natal. It's the presentation--just like a concept trailer of "what we hope to achieve." Unfortunately, the gap between the mock concept trailer and what we'll actually get to experience will likely be huge.
It annoys me just like CGI trailers. I want concrete gameplay, not a fanciful "what if."
(Quasi)celebrity endorsements at their worst.
This is what I've been saying forever. But there's too many "relax...it's just somebody's personal opinion!" If so, why the hell do reviewers get paid for something anybody can do?
Hell that tracks fast! I'll get this just for Flower alone.
Some sort of institutional standard, yes. I agree. I have never believed this reviews=opinions bs. Reviewers must adhere to particular standards established by the industry. Thus, in theory, a reviewer who did not particularly love a game personally, would still be able to recognize its merits and grade it well, undermining any change his/her personal opinion might treat the game unfairly.
HHG is rough around the edges as a journalist, but he does make some sense.
I've always suspected that GT fiddles with the individual scores to arrive at a predetermined overall score that they want. 8.6 makes zero sense on its own; but is perfectly understandable since it was likely used to arrive at the overall average they wanted.
I actually had to check to see if this was translated from another language. The grammar and even spelling is atrocious. How the hell did this get approved?
This is gaming journalism to be proud of. Made my goddamn day.
Bad 360 game = crappy developer
Bad PS3 game = crappy PS3 hardware / Sony
I wish there were more like him who point out how ridiculous this is.
They make the case for subjectivity vs. objectivity, and that the former is predominant. This is an artificial argument. They need to move beyond the obvious.
The real issue is the lack of any consistent critical apparatus and methodology among game reviewers. Reviews are NOT MEANT TO BE OPINIONS, but rather to adhere to an institutional standard that balances personal opinion with critical methodology.
This subjectivity vs. objectivity bs is a red herring, and ob...
... a little something called ICO.
Bought Soldner X2 last night. Long live SHMUPS! (Now give me Blazing Lazers HD and I will die peacefully.)