Recent Gaming Purchases

[Yama]

Another get! My game store had it for 2000 yen and then on sale to 1000 yen! Thats like 8 bucks right now.
And apparently all the bugs have been ironed out so we shall see!

I've actually been considering it for the prices I've seen, the weather system looks incredible. Let me know if it's bug free (really have a hard time supporting half assed releases lately), I'll consider it if I see it dirt cheap again.

[DEVILLE_David]

Brand new Shenmue Guide Book, however, this version is a bit special :





I should get another rare Shenmue item soon. Will post if i get it !

[redline]

Vanquish

[Jokatech19]

I just ordered my ps vita. It should be here by Tuesday. I have the jitters right now. I'm not sure if it was the best choice. Anyhow, now begins the slow process of carrying all of my psp games over once I get a 64 gb card.

[St. Elmo's Fire]

Dragon Age Inquisition. Now I truly know not to trust the reviews, this is actually a very mediocre game and the controls/interface are an absolute joke. 5/10 game at best, gonna trade it in later, not sure what for...

[Henry Spencer]

^The real reason is because the game market is a desert at the moment - March this year onwards the better games will come out, for all systems.

[south carmain]

^just persona 5, MGS5 and Yakuza 5 (looks like 2015 is a year of 5s) are making 2015 look like a pretty good year to me. Add to that possibly cyberpunk 2077 (it's supposed to come out this year but the lack of news has made me suspicious) and I'm pretty happy.

[Axm]

Dragon Age Inquisition. Now I truly know not to trust the reviews, this is actually a very mediocre game and the controls/interface are an absolute joke. 5/10 game at best, gonna trade it in later, not sure what for...

Not sure what you were expecting but id say its safe to say you have never been into any of the Bioware games or any other games like it because this was the best they have ever done minus opinions on story.

Based on all the overwhelmingly positive reviews, from big and small sites to the average user, most people loved it. You are in the small minority. Just want to put it in perspective that its simply not your taste rather then it actually being a bad game. For many its a GOTY.
Yes, I know you obviously disagree.
Its not an action game if you were expecting that and its not a strategy game if you were expecting that. Its uniquely Bioware action-RPG that they have always done. Too bad you dont like it but its understandable that some people simply dont like that type of game.

How far did you get into it? The start of the game kinda throws you in there so I guess it would be easier to not know how to play. After that its slowly eases you into it. Thats one of the only faults I found in my 120 hour experience.

[south carmain]

^it has a user score of only 5.8 on metacritic based on over 2500 reviews. I don't really think he is in the minority here...
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/drago ... nquisition

[Axm]

^it has a user score of only 5.8 on metacritic based on over 2500 reviews. I don't really think he is in the minority here...
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/drago ... nquisition

I read through alot of those user "reviews" most of them are a paragraph long and complain about EA or aspects unrelated to the game. Alot of fanboy banter. I dont trust user scores on sites because they almost always are filled with that type of nonsense.
Alot of those people gave it 0's and 1's bringing the average down tremendously. Metacritic is a fanboy vent.

People have such a false view of major review sites too, as if they are all being payed off. An entire industry of people being payed off? I suppose they also think the entire Apollo program was fake too.
The fact is anyone who has 2 bits of sense and are actually into the genre rather then buying something based only on reviews liked the game alot for what is, not what they think they thought it was.
Have fun playing something else but think abit harder before making a purchase and do more research into it. I must have seen 20 videos on the game and read alot of opinions on it before making a purchase of it well after launch and without having any pre-hype over it.

[south carmain]

When websites get most of their revenue from gaming companies and journalists have been fired for posting "overly negative reviews" then there is reason for mistrust. You wouldn't trust a news agency to report the negative aspects on the people who fund it so why would you take seriously game journalists who report on companies that directly or indirectly fund them too?

It's hard to take a review seriously when they have a huge ad for the game on their main page trying to get you to buy it. There is a good reason why gaming journalism has been ranked as the least credible of all types of journalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game ... ism#Ethics

[Axm]

One of the only major incidents in the past decade was the Jeff Gertsman incident. That I remember clearly. The firing wasnt from Gamespot itself but its parent company over advertizing. A horrible thing. But it was blown into a big deal and made gamespot look bad for years. The damage done made things very obvious and yet we havent had another incident like that since.
Now hundreds of reviews go out all the time that advertizers wouldnt be happy about either. And alot of those major sites like IGN, Gamespot use ads for things completely unrelated to games like McDonalds or Mountain Dew etc.
Theirs a big difference between ad revenue and revenue from memberships and funding from parent companys too. Those sites arent proped up from under the table money hats.

Then theirs the hundreds of other review sites out there. I suppose they are also all being payed off too.

Alot of people also dont realize that these sites arent just one person. They have individual people all with different opinions. And it only makes sense for example to put someone who has experience and likes a genre into reviewing a game in that genre. You wouldnt have a RPG centric reviewer do a review on Fifa. Just like you wouldnt have a customer who only plays RPG's buying Fifa.

Everyone has their own opinions. And they are entitled to them, but theirs an obvious line where an opinion means less then anothers.
You cant have someone who hardly researched something be ok with a bad decision. Its comon sense.
Mistakes happen to everyone but rather then blaming a product most loved, blame yourself for not knowing more about it. With games we actually have the luxery in knowing practically everything about it as opposed to something like movies.

[south carmain]

One of the only major incidents in the past decade was the Jeff Gertsman incident. That I remember clearly. The firing wasnt from Gamespot itself but its parent company over advertizing. A horrible thing. But it was blown into a big deal and made gamespot look bad for years. The damage done made things very obvious and yet we havent had another incident like that since.
Now hundreds of reviews go out all the time that advertizers wouldnt be happy about either. And alot of those major sites like IGN, Gamespot use ads for things completely unrelated to games like McDonalds or Mountain Dew etc.
Theirs a big difference between ad revenue and revenue from memberships and funding from parent companys too.

No there isn't, both can be used as leverage to put pressure on gaming journalists. Gaming journalists make most of their money through sponsorship and ads and if either are removed then they lose a good portion of their income. The fact that that the people they review the products of are paying in itself makes gaming journalism less trustworthy than any other kind of journalism.

Then theirs the hundreds of other review sites out there. I suppose they are also all being payed off too.

You say that as if every gaming website gives exactly the same review. Just look at mass effect 3, it's no coincidence major gaming websites gave it very good reviews while the independent ones criticised it on the negative things it had done. There's a reason why it's user score is of 5/10 while mass effect 2 had a user score of over 9/10 yet both have very positive and similar reviews by gaming journalists.

Alot of people also dont realize that these sites arent just one person. They have individual people all with different opinions. And it only makes sense for example to put someone who has experience and likes a genre into reviewing a game in that genre. You wouldnt have a RPG centric reviewer do a review on Fifa. Just like you wouldnt have a customer who only plays RPG's buying Fifa.

They act as an entity, they respond to the same people and receive revenue from the same companies so this point is moot. An avid gamer would be able to recognise the strong points and weak points across most genres anyway.

And they are entitled to them, but theirs an obvious line where an opinion means less then anothers.

And it seems for you this line is drawn at the opinions that agree with yours rather than those that are highly susceptible to be influenced by money.

The gaming industry isn't exempt from "don't bit the hand that feeds you" rule.

Personally I haven't played the new dragon age so I'm not saying who is right or wrong but to say that he is in the minority simply because gaming journalists said otherwise is a flawed argument when a good portion of players agree with him.

[Axm]

One of the only major incidents in the past decade was the Jeff Gertsman incident. That I remember clearly. The firing wasnt from Gamespot itself but its parent company over advertizing. A horrible thing. But it was blown into a big deal and made gamespot look bad for years. The damage done made things very obvious and yet we havent had another incident like that since.
Now hundreds of reviews go out all the time that advertizers wouldnt be happy about either. And alot of those major sites like IGN, Gamespot use ads for things completely unrelated to games like McDonalds or Mountain Dew etc.
Theirs a big difference between ad revenue and revenue from memberships and funding from parent companys too.

No there isn't, both can be used as leverage to put pressure on gaming journalists. Gaming journalists make most of their money through sponsorship and ads and if either are removed then they lose a good portion of their income. The fact that that the people they review the products of are paying in itself makes gaming journalism less trustworthy than any other kind of journalism.

I understand that point but now simply because advertizing is a source of funding then everyone's opinions are now corrupt? Plenty of mediocre to bad reviews go out all the time. And if you actually READ some of the reviews that these major sites make instead of focusing on the number, they often make sense just fine. After all, these are opinions and if you follow a particular reviewer and know what he is into then you gain a better sense of understanding what that person likes and doesnt like, giving you more perspective on the individual review.

Then theirs the hundreds of other review sites out there. I suppose they are also all being payed off too.

You say that as if every gaming website gives exactly the same review.

No I say that as if you think all these smaller review sites cant share the same opinion without being "payed off".

Just look at mass effect 3, it's no coincidence major gaming websites gave it very good reviews while the independent ones criticised it on the negative things it had done. There's a reason why it's user score is of 5/10 while mass effect 2 had a user score of over 9/10 yet both have very positive and similar reviews by gaming journalists.

You know the the most vocal are always the negative right? I had no problem with Mass Effect 3,(I thought 2 was better) but I never ran to metacritic to post a 7.5/10. However you take all those who expected a huge elaborate ending who didnt get it and are mad, immediately running to metacritic to post 'ENDING SUX 0/10" Thats not a real review and why sites with lax rules on user reviews are garbage. Compiling a score from someone who wrote 2 pages explaining exactly why they didnt like the ending compared to a 2 sentence vomit is flawed.

Alot of people also dont realize that these sites arent just one person. They have individual people all with different opinions. And it only makes sense for example to put someone who has experience and likes a genre into reviewing a game in that genre. You wouldnt have a RPG centric reviewer do a review on Fifa. Just like you wouldnt have a customer who only plays RPG's buying Fifa.

They act as an entity, they respond to the same people and receive revenue from the same companies so this point is moot. An avid gamer would be able to recognise the strong points and weak points across most genres anyway.

No they really wouldnt if they start out with the train of thought that it's not their prefered genre or that they would like to review the game as fast as possible to get it done so they can move on to something they like more. It's important to match the reviewer to the game. Just like you wouldnt want a Star Trek fan giving a review on The Hobbit when someone else who likes Lord of the Rings more is around to do it instead.
And again, you are assuming that simply because these people work in the same office they all come to a unified agreement. Theirs plenty of podcasts out there from these major outlets where these editors argue with each other openly about games and ultimately never come to an agreement because they are simply too different types of gamers.
Money having an overwhelming influence in these regards is purely speculative. I dont doubt it may happen on occasion you might have a bad seed who decides to be a kiss ass to a publisher, but if you dont follow a particular reviewer then you'll never know if their opinion is genuine or not.
Dont rely on a BS number to tell you what to think.

And they are entitled to them, but theirs an obvious line where an opinion means less then anothers.

And it seems for you this line is drawn at the opinions that agree with yours rather than those that are highly susceptible to be influenced by money.

The line is drawn at where I said before, the people that explain exactly why something is good or bad vs. those that blurt out a brief rage and 1/10 score. It's an unreasonable and just plain stupid system what metacritc has setup.

Personally I haven't played the new dragon age so I'm not saying who is right or wrong but to say that he is in the minority simply because gaming journalists said otherwise is a flawed argument when a good portion of players agree with him.

He's in the minority because simply most people ive seen who have played the game seriously and who know what to expect when buying the game has liked it alot. And ive played all the Bioware games so I have a good perspective on the standard thats been set by this developer. When it comes to DA:Inquisition, it improved upon every aspect previous Kotor, Mass Effect and Dragon Age games have while maintaining the same formula. With exception to story preference, saying it's a bad game in comparison to other Bioware games atleast, is just ignorant.
If it's someones first or second time with a Bioware game then it's excusable to say it's not their taste and not good. But still the content and ability to research what the game is like before hand will take care of any worry for wasted money.

In the end I just wanna say, look into someones opinions and history with a genre rather then just an arbitrary number.
Especially if money is involved.

[south carmain]

advertizing is a source of funding then everyone's opinions are now corrupt?

You can't expect an an impartial review from someone who is being paid by the people who own the product they are reviewing. Really you keep on going on about conspiracies and how them receiving money doesn't mean they can't give impartial reviews but
-it's no conspiracy that gaming journalists receive expensive gifts from companies at major events
-it's no conspiracy that if journalists give negative reviews to certain games then the companies no longer give them early access to their games for reviews which puts them at a disadvantage against the competition
-it's no conspiracy that they get both sponsorship and ad money from companies so doing anything that would piss off those companies would be putting at risk their financial backing. If a company doesn't like a review and decides to remove their ads, sponsorship and inviting them to major events then the gaming website will lose out a large portion of it's revenue

and to add to add most gaming journalists didn't study journalism or anything game related for that matter so what exactly makes their opinion better than anyone else's?

You know the the most vocal are always the negative right?

Seeing the metacritic scores for mass effect 3 it seems pretty divided on who liked and hated the game. Mass effect 2 has nearly 3000 user reviews that are mostly overwhelmingly positive too so I guess that means if there is nothing negative to complain about then there won't be any negative reviews even if it is a bioware or EA game.

Just like you wouldnt want a Star Trek fan giving a review on The Hobbit when someone else who likes Lord of the Rings more is around to do it instead.

It's very common for film critics to rate multiple genres so as long as the person is a professional he can rate the hobbit perfectly well even if he is a star trek fan. You are essentially saying that video game journalists are not professional enough to review more than their favourite genre.

Money having an overwhelming influence in these regards is purely speculative.

No it's not, as in the wikipedia article I posted it has been proven to happen numerous times. When the eurogamer journalist tried to make it public she was even censored.

the people that explain exactly why something is good or bad

And the only people who can truly be trusted to do this are those who have no affiliation whatsoever with the products that they are reviewing which excludes all major gaming websites.

He's in the minority because simply most people ive seen who have played the game seriously and who know what to expect when buying the game has liked it alot.

You are only coming to this conclusion by ignoring everyone who hated it. Even if someone gives it a 0 out of 10 that person still disliked the game and counts as a vote wherever you like it or not. It's fine that you find the game great and many people do too but the statement you are making is only made true by disregarding the many opinions that disagree with yours.