@zaldar: Why would you want less information in a review? Why are people arguing that certain things shouldn't be mentioned?
Reviews are A) informative (to inform you about the game/movie/album) and B) an educated opinion (to let you know, in the opinion of the reviewer, if it's good). They are not some sort of objective, artistic dissection of a product based on criteria that only hard-hitting journalists can and would care about. The games journo press tried that approach in the 90s and it was terrible. It led to things like Baby's Day Out for the Gameboy or whatever getting an 82 because its graphics were technically alright and the music worked, even though lots of those types of games controlled like crap and weren't worth the time to check out.
@confideration: The money for this game isn't exactly going directly into this dude's bank account, only a small portion of it. I assume GOG/Steam and Chucklefish(?) get their share.
If you want to support ConcernedApe, he has a shop on his website in which he is selling the game's OST, and you can add a tip portion. Buying the game for friends is still nice, however.
There is no evidence Dan is scoring the game higher because of the fact that 1 guy made it.
I would have given this game five stars and everything I said in this review would be the same even if it was a team the size of Assassin's Creed's that made it. I just think it's worth pointing out because it's such an incredible accomplishment.
Nobody is denying that it's very impressive. But what is the point of a review? If it is as I said, to examine a game and access what is good and bad about it, the amount of people who made it makes no difference. Even Dan admits it makes no difference. If it makes no difference, why does it belong in a review? You might as well mention price then as well because it can impressive that such a game only costs 15 bucks. If the developer has never made a game before, why not mention that in a review too? That's also impressive. When No Man's Sky gets released, will it be mentioned in the review that their office was flooded and they lost all their work at one point in the development? The ability to bounce back from that is inspiring and a great accomplishment.
None of it makes the product any better. So if it doesn't affect the score, if it doesn't help justify the score, if it doesn't affect the consumer's experience (or even the reviewer's experience), why should it be in the review in the first place?
Have you ever read a movie, music, art or consumer electronics review? They all include tidbits and background information. This is standard practice and in no way different here. I 100% expect the flooding will be mentioned in quite a lot of No Man's Sky reviews. The more important question is: why all the care, guy?
Real talk, what's the point of this article? It's a rehash of a rumor from another website. There's no new information. There's no additional comment from Sony or any of the developers that we're off-the-record in the original piece. Really, it's the "reaction video" of articles. Do Sony really have to respond to this? Is it really a "mess" if it only exists as a thought exercise at this point?
If we're just giving opinions, then spending $400 every 3-5 years to get the latest and greatest in video game tech is not unreasonable. Since console makers get roasted if they sell something for a penny over $400, they can't keep up with the price increases that happened to video cards over the last decade. This seems like a reasonable way to stay technologically relevant. If they didn't change any time soon and let developers get the most out if these boxes, that would be great too.
Well, yeah, it's an opinion piece. In print, this'd be a column or an editorial, it's just that Giant Bomb doesn't distinguish between hard news and opinion pieces. This is the same place that once ran an article by Jeff about how he couldn't remember anything from a press event (on Call of Duty?) because he forgot to take notes. Literally the whole article was just, "I wish I could tell you guys more, but I can't remember anything. Sorry, guys." This is just consumer electronics press.
Nah, video game consoles aren't phones. And people don't often rush out and buy the new phone, anyway. I sure don't. And given how much consoles cost to make, I don't think that would be a good business model for manufacturers.
It was a bitch and a half to convince my parents to buy a Super Nintendo, let alone having to convince them to buy a new PlayStation every year.
I doubt they're headed in that direction. This new console is either a pipe dream, or it's a revision aimed specifically at helping sell VR and helping sell Sony 4K TVs.
Yeah, totally, the Division needs giant spiders. I'd love to see dragons in Call of Duty and Splinter Cell, too. Maybe gelatinous cubes in Hitman. And how about owlbears in American Trucking Simulator?
Yeah, totally, the Division needs giant spiders. I'd love to see dragons in Call of Duty and Splinter Cell, too. Maybe gelatinous cubes in Hitman. And how about owlbears in American Trucking Simulator?
I think the argument is that players more easily buy RPG shooter mechanics in something that is fantastical sci-fi like Borderlands or Destiny, where you could try to suspend disbelief that it takes like 40 headshots to kill a guy because maybe his sci-fi protection bullshit is pretty strong. In a Clancy, real-world-esque environment, it's a lot harder to swallow that you have to shoot regular dudes with regular guns that many times in the head before they die.
No, Jeff was just saying the enemy variation isn't interesting enough. And he's probably right, but adding giant spiders seems a bit of a stretch. I just thought that was a funny comment. "They should add some variety, like I dunno, giant spiders or something."
What they should have added was themed gangs. Mimes, baseball players, etc. And the mimes do a quick mime routine before attacking, the baseball furies--er, players swing and hit a baseball at you, etc.
Yeah, totally, the Division needs giant spiders. I'd love to see dragons in Call of Duty and Splinter Cell, too. Maybe gelatinous cubes in Hitman. And how about owlbears in American Trucking Simulator?
To everyone backseat-driving the star-score of this review: you DO realize this website has a "User Reviews" function, don't you? ;)
There's also a comment system in which people can make comments on new Giant Bomb content, including reviews of newly-released games. People should make their own user reviews, though, if they feel strongly about it.
And to be fair, if we're going by what these dudes say on the Bombcast about videogames: Star Trek Online would have a billion stars (their hype around the time was immense), none of the Fallout games would have gotten reviewed (since they barely ever talk about them), and this website would be renamed gerstmannlovesmariomaker.com.
The thing about the Division is that there's very little positive to say about it that you haven't heard before. It's a third-person shooter with a loot system and a multiplayer component. You know what type of game that is. If it seems like the guys talk excessively negative about it, that's why. I doubt Jeff's thought about the score went deeper than "I can't give it a three and say I recommend it, so 4?"
Bernard_Bernoulli's comments