Hell Kitty

I have to agree with random n00b, "artistic ambition" really isn't very specfic at all. What is it that would make a game artistically ambitious?

Yeah, much in the same way people confuse "crap" with "I don't like this for some reason". If you like it it's a masterpiece, if you don't it's an abomination.

I prefer the RE4 inventory. An upgradeable space to fit in all your weapons and ammo and health items, and a separate list for quest items and treasure. Mind you, I actually like inventory tetris. And RE4 allows you to rotate items, yay! Actually, I remember playing a demo, I think it was that E5 New Jagged Union or whatever, and your inventory changed depending on the clothing/backpack you were. I love crap like that but I know I'm in a very small minority.

What the hell films are you watching?

One of the lifetimes wants for a romance sim is something like "have 100 loves at once".

Deus Ex might be in my top ten list, but those character models were nothing special. I think it was the animations that did it though. When running characters would revolve on the spot when changing directions it looked pretty ridiculous. It's got nothing to do with a low poly count. Metal Gear Solid has low poly characters but the animations are fantastic. On topic: Silent Hill series has, like, the best music ever. Also great character models and animation. Ha!

Maybe if the game didn't feature totally awesome jumping the driving wouldn't seem so boring, but it just didn't seem as exciting as other GTA clones. It wasn't long ago I finished a replay of Saint's Row. Anyway, it was cheap and used, I'll just trade it in with a bunch of other stuff when I pick up my preorder of GTA4.

I picked up a used copy of Crackdown, and while it did manage to keep me entertained for numerous hours, I don't see myself going back to it. Too aimless, like the devs thought it would be good to make the secret item collect deal from GTA a major gameplay component. And I'll never build up the driving stat because jumping is soooo much better than driving. Of course I'm a friendless non-co-oper, so I guess the game wasn't made for me.

I didn't say adding, I said wasting. Words telling the reader how you aren't as excited now or how the developer didn't quite live up to their claims means less words spent on your opinion of and the facts about the actual content of the final product. A review needs to be able to stand on it's own, not act as a companion piece to developer comments and previews. If I've never heard of the game before, why do I need to know how excited the journalist was a year ago? If I don't even know who the developer is, why would I care if you think they made exaggerated claims? What is this extra information supposed to tell me about the final product? If a journalist found Oblivion incredibly immersive when originally reviewing it back in 2006, but when playing it now in 2008 doesn't find it particularly immersive at all, it doesn't mean his original opinion was incorrect. There is no need to backtrack because his changed opinion doesn't invalidate his original review. And they might not have. They might cynically assume the game could never live up to the hype. They might have no expectations at all. They might be incredibly hyped for completely different reasons. If they haven't gone through the same process, how can the reviewer "set right the customer's expectations" when those expectations are varied and unknown? A preview shouldn't make definitive claims like "this is the best tv ever", such claims are to be made in reviews. A preview might say "Samsung are working on a 60 button remote control that could make this one of the best TVs ever made", whereas the review says "Samsung included a standard 30 button remote no better than the competition." There is no need for it to say "Samsung included a standard 30 button remote no better than the competition, which is a shame because I thought it would be awesome if they included the 60 button remote control they told me about when I first previewed it back in 2006." People who have been following development will know from your review that it now features a 30 button instead of a 60 button, and people who didn't won't care. To use a real life example, the latest Hyper (Aussie mag) features a preview of Fallout 3, and at the end it says "from what we've seen so far, Fallout 3 is shaping up to be one of the games of 2008", not "Fallout 3 is the game of 2008". A preview is for what a game appears to be, a review is for what it actually is.

I assume this expansion pack is by the new devs? Spellbound I think.

The only things that should be corrected are facts, like if it was originally reported the game would feature multiplayer and if that feature gets cut, the review should point that out. If the reviewer thinks the AI is crap then they should state why. "The AI is poor because of x, y, and z." is fine, but "The AI is poor because of x, y, and z, but in the original preview I did I claimed the AI was awesome based on what I saw and what the developers told me and this just isn't true." is just wasting word count. It can also add unnecessary negativity; "While I love the Aliens RPG, I feel I must point out that developers originally claimed the game is tyte but I feel I must point out this obvious falsehood, as the game is not quite as tyte as they claimed." "Calling out" a developer like this is just petty. You can't correct opinions like "the game is immersive" or "the game is repetitive". Although a writers opinion might change it doesn't mean they were wrong when they first wrote their review. Gillen is happy to admit that the negative things from Chicks review are all true, but that doesn't make his own review wrong. There is no need to backtrack on reviews because all you are doing is preaching to the choir. People who agree with the new negative assessment will pat themselves on the back because the journalist has seen the "truth", and fans won't care because the flaws never bothered them.

It's not an FPS but if sniping's your thing I suppose you might try Hitman: Blood Money.

Saint's Row 2 apparently lets you choose from a few different styles for your homes, with the more expensive styles adding to your reputation, much like more clothing and bling did for your character in the first game. This level of customization works in a GTA style game where you are working you way up in the ranks of a gang, but I don't think it'd work in a spy game, where a safehouse should be functional. I think mkreku has the right idea. Thief 3 featured something like that.

Don't you think it's a little arrogant for a writer to assume they know what the readers expectations are, and a whole lot arrogant to assume those expectations need to be set right? What about the readers who have no expectations, the ones who never heard of the game before or purposely avoided the hype?

I can easily see people changing their minds but coming "public with their grievances? That sounds terribly dramatic. Please link me to the folks who are now coming clean about the web of lies and deceit that was the reviewing of Oblivion. I guess it depends on what you think a review should be. A review is an evaluation of the final product, but is it necessary to reference any and all previews and interviews? If Y and Z work and make for a fantastic game, why is it necessary for the reviewer to mention X if it isn't in the final game, or not exactly like they claimed in a preview? Should they evaluate X based on what it is, or what it could have been? Should Deus Ex have been criticized because it didn't feature the mission in the White House or the ability to select a female JC? Should every review of Thief mention it was originally Dark Camelot? Kieron Gillen pointed out in a thread on qt3 that while his review of Deus Ex is overwhelming positive and Tom Chicks review of is overwhelming negative, both the reviews are correct. You'd obviously disagree with this, as it seems clear you believe their is only one true way to review a game, given the belief that it's necessary for writers to backtrack. If the intended audience of a review was the developer then I'd agree that writers should criticize them for failing to live up to claims they made earlier. When the review is aimed at the consumer, then it's unnecessary to "call out" the developer.

By better you mean more to your liking. Why would the majority of writers who gave Oblivion positive reviews backtrack now? Because you find Oblivion a "moderately enjoyable gaming experience" they can't possibly be telling the truth when they claim they loved it and if they weren't lying then they were victims of the Bethesda hype machine? Is it really so hard for people to see that maybe those reviews were being honest all along because that's really how they felt about the game? Call of Duty 4 has received loads of positive reviews, and it'll be a shame if game journalists don't backtrack on how awesome it supposedly is and finally reveal the truth. The truth, obviously, is that the decision to include health regeneration is a major flaw in this otherwise once great series and reviewers who don't trash such features in future game reviews are being dishonest. If game journalists continue with this hypocrisy then they will be playing an active role in stopping Infinity Ward from growing as a developer, enabling them to create better games. CoD4 was an average game that could have been great had it removed features I don't like I mean features that are inherently faulty.

Uwe Boll is awesome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWqCNmfJ1hY&e

I'm Supreme.

I still don't get why Monolith decided to change the looks and voice actors of the characters completely. Well, not that it makes any difference gameplay wise, but still... I read that they wanted Ethan to be "darker", that's why they changed the voice actor and gave him the grungy look. Can't explain Rosa. I never thought he looked old in the first game, but then I always pictured the voice actor anyway who ain't that old, Officer Matt Parkman:

Maniac Mansion should have been in my adventure game list.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=130731

Thief: The Metal Age Thief: The Dark Project Deus Ex System Shock 2 Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater* Silent Hill 3* Resident Evil Remake* Castlevania: Symphony of the Night Dead Rising** Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines * I picked my favourite of the respective series, but I love them all. ** New Contender! Beat out Midwinter 2: Flames of Freedom, because as much as I loved that game back in the day it's completely unplayable now. A Sierra fan I see. I was more of a Lucasfilm fan. Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis The Secret of Monkey Island: Lechuck's Revenge The Secret of Monkey Island Gabriel Knight 1: Sins of the Father Labyrinth* * Mostly nostalgia. My first ever adventure game. And now that I'm all nostalgic, I also must mention the Amiga game Elf. It's combination of adventure game and platformer was the greatest thing ever, or at least I thought it was at the time.

Not only did Rosa slim down for the sequel, she seems to have gotten younger. Impressive. I agree with Tale, if you liked the first you'll like the second, it's mostly more of the same. There's more to the fighting and thankfully more to the investigation. It seemed like as the game progressed the incorrect answers to the conversations with Rosa got more stupid. If you play in SD then there are two items you won't have any hope of identifying.

I just remembered that the account I use to play SotN isn't the one I bought it with, so it seems it's tied to the console, not the hard drive or the account.

I think it depends on the particular content. When I used my hard drive on my in-laws console, my full version of Castlevania came up as a trial version.