General gaming news

[BRP]

Uh, yeah, pretty sure it wasn't included in the article.

[Tyche]

Well, if that's the case (which it may be) then they need to seriously consider firing their IT department. That's like the NYT webpage saying they are running a story in their paper that hits stands today, and then not running the story. It's not Kotaku' (or any of the other half a dozen major gaming outlets) fault for reporting it. Why you put the blame on Kotaku is beyond me, unless you just hate them so much you'll place undeserved blame onto them.

[BRP]

It's not entirely Kotaku's fault, but this is the shit they do all the time. How hard would it have been to just show even a little concern about the source(which really should have been the magazine itself...). Nope, they went straight into discussing how crazy a 90 minute cutscene[opinions lawl] like it came out of Kojima's mouth. Most people aren't going to look at the source and see "Hmmm, yeah, this looks shady". You mentioned EGM before. EGM puts its rumors in a Rumor Mill section and it tells its reader that it's a rumor. So anyway, you take that and add its popularity = having to sit through this whole period of nonsense until the legitimate reviews come out. I wouldn't say Kotaku is completely off the hook.

EDIT: GREEN YELLOW BLUE... WHAT WILL YOU DO

hahaha fuck. I want to write down all of these lyrics.

[Tajin]

Aren't you being a little bit too serious about gaming news?

Edit: lol at MGS4 leaked ;p

[BRP]

I'm explaining why Kotaku messed up. What exactly do you mean by serious?

EDIT: Do you mean there's no reason to complain about blunders and mistakes because it's "lol videogames" media?

[Tajin]

So much as complaining no, pointing it out sure. You say Kotaku does that shit all the time, my view on Kotaku is that is like a friend telling me what is going on in the videogame world (for the record I only load kotaku whenever any of you post a link here, or a friend sends me a link).
The point is that taking them too serious is not hmm, healthy ;p.
And yeah, the whole "lol videogames" thing; just look how people seem to prefer less serious review sites to get their "fix" instead of places like gamespot or 1up which are more "professional".

Edit: You can complain, what I mean is that is one of those "eh, it was a lie, oh well, shit happens" kind of thing. Is not as if they were suggesting to throw water on your 360 while powered, to improve the lens life.

[Jefe]

Um...Let me get details of how the process of the Signing works

If only 1 copy per customer to be signed, its going to be really crazy

Also no clue if its first come, first serve basis, or a lottery/hand out card to be one of the few to get theirs signed

I'll try to get there at least 6 hours in Advance maybe more, heres hoping or get there very f'n early to receive anything that guarantees signing

That would be awesome and I'd appreciate it. Regardless, it'd be cool if you get your copy signed, good luck.

[Kwijiboe]

Wonder if IGN will score up another 10/10.

There's enough hype for it

PS3 IGNUK: 9.9/10

[Exoduso]

What kept it from being a 10?

[GraveRobberX]

What kept it from being a 10?

After the GTA IV fiasco, watch these so called reviewers grow a backbone, now

I mean come on, what credibility can be had, when some sites/reviewers that reviewed GTA IV gave it a "Perfect" score only by seeing a fraction of the overall game

Theres stories on how R* did back-end deals with editors (certain publications/sites) for a certain score/favorable review
How some reviewers were given a short time/hovered over by PR from R*/undisclosed location to review the game

For fuck sakes IGN called the GTA IV story "Oscar"-worthy, by only playing through a portion/or beat the game ASAP, due to the time allocated by R*

Most reviews/scores were hype based, and others got caught up in it

R* is a company, I understand they're all about the almighty $$$, but people who's job profession gives them the credentials to be called gaming journalists/critics, yet they don't do the basics of getting all the details right are astounding, don't even start on ethics/moneyhatting

I hope this makes the industry look at itself and try to humble its approach, who am I kidding, most will try to front that they're changin, but will start handing out 10's like candy, when the holiday season hits

[Hitoshura]

Wow people are still pathetic enough to care about reviews for games they know will be fucking epic even if a shitty site like IGN gave it a 1/10?

[Pyro]

Well, I was reading around and found some info on the Kojima signing in New York. It may not be true but from what I read he will only be signing 300 games.

[Hitoshura]

^Damn someone had told me he was suppose to be in San Francisco doing that too. I really doubt it though.

[Elcura]

Wow people are still pathetic enough to care about reviews for games they know will be fucking epic even if a shitty site like IGN gave it a 1/10?

Yes. Sad, but true.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Wow people are still pathetic enough to care about reviews for games they know will be fucking epic even if a shitty site like IGN gave it a 1/10?

Reviews should be important :/

[izembo]

the score shouldnt be, the text should be. i dont even pay attention to the scores, look at reviews for halo3, they gave it 10's but the review itself was more like a 7-8

[Maxxthepenguin]

The score absolutely should be indicative of the reviewer's experience. The issue comes with the facts that
A) Most reviewers are fans, not critic. You all know what I'm talking about. A critic would see the irony in making moral decisions of whether to kill or not kill somebody in GTA4, a game where it is all too easy to mess up a turn and mow down a line of pedestrians without a sign of remorse. A fan would say that the moral choices were meaningful.
B) They are expected to pump out reviews asap, not allowing them to get an accurate view of the entire game
C) There is this way too geeky obsession of a 100 point scale, when a 4 star scale would be more effective in communicating the intention of the reviewer instead of getting people obsessed with x > y. There would be a much easier consensus with a simpler scale and, hell, a 2.5 star rating is much better at sounding 'average but enjoyable' than 62/100.
D) Gaming is still in its adolescence, so points are given for newest hi-tech graphics and things like that instead of fresh storytelling and gameplay or, frankly, even mastery of the fundamentals. Action games have no excuse for not being as responsive as Mario 64 but all too often other games get a free pass.

The fact is that gaming has a lot of growing up to do, and so do its critics.

[Hitoshura]

Which is why reviews don't really matter when it comes to a game like MGS4. You already know it will blow your damn mind.

[BRP]

my view on Kotaku is that is like a friend telling me what is going on in the videogame world

I wish more people saw it that way, but enough don't to cause a shitstorm about tiny rumors.

A) Most reviewers are fans, not critic. You all know what I'm talking about. A critic would see the irony in making moral decisions of whether to kill or not kill somebody in GTA4, a game where it is all too easy to mess up a turn and mow down a line of pedestrians without a sign of remorse. A fan would say that the moral choices were meaningful.

In GTA's defense, those are not canon deaths. They didn't really happen. But your point remains.

Personally I think the review system should not have an overall score. You can grade graphics, storyline, controls, music, and whatever else makes up gameplay(some categories maybe based on genre).

But IGN/Gamespot just pisses me off with their reviews. It's like they are trying to troll me(and perhaps getting paid lots of money to do it):
<<old image links removed b/c of copyright issues>>


In any case, GTA4 scores seemed to be generous for whatever factors and I really hope the game media can grow out of that.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Those review scores are why I think we need to do 4 star ratings instead of 100 point scales. Those Zelda: TP scores seem retarded, but it would be a non-issue with less "precise" ratings. Same with the AC vs Deus Ex etc. IMO god hand deserves a 3/10. It also deserves 9/10s. It's a game that should have a large rating gap because it is the definition of a game that you love or hate. I love it, but wouldn't recommend it to everybody.

A score will always be necessary; knowing whether it is recommended and how highly it's recommended at a quick glance is invaluable. It's seriously the meaningless "precision" that fucks things up.