Dark Souls 2 gamespot contest retaliation

I don't know about you guys but I am very upset Dark Souls 2 lost in the first round of the Gamespot E3 contest. 
There is retaliation action going on right now. 
head over to Dark Souls retaliation page and like and share until everyone will know what is the most exciting game ever!

That's video game critics for you.

"Oh look, one of the graphically best RPG's ever with an impressive combat system and lore that challenges even the Elder Scrolls".

"DUH, WACH DAWGS. U CAN USE CEL PHONS TO HAK STUF JUS LIK ANANYMOUS LOLOLOLOLOL".

"ASSASSINS CRED 15, NO MOR ASSASINATE, JUS CUMBAT AND PIRATES".

"BATLEFELD, LUK, ITS GUNS AND KILLING".

"PALNTS VRS ZOMBEHS, ITS ANOTHER ZOMB GAME".

"ITS 3 DRIVN GAMS THAT LUK THE EXACT SAM".

Reviewers always push down titles like Dark Souls II because they get payed more by companies like EA and Ubisoft to promote their games.

lol reading that was like watching you slowly have a stroke. I'd +1 you but I'm out for today.


I agree though that too many reviews are almost soley based on graphics or "corporate sponsorship". BF3 is a great example, it was horrible compared to BC2, about 90% of the clan I was with left within 3 months of BF3, most having been loyal to the series since BF1942.
Yet it still got rave reviews, even though the promised destruction was no where near what it was said to be, and the shiney graphics were useless due to suppression (which is a whole issue in and of itself that I won't get into) and a horrible colour palette, and the entire mechanics of the game got toned down to be more CoD like and appeal to a younger/dumber(?) audience (they pretty much removed all the thinking and strategy mechanics like Commander, team/squad chat, upped random spread, blah blah blah).
Oh and the UI was the most useless thing ever.

10/10 moneys plox.

I don't bother with majority of reviewers these days, most of it's paid BS anyway. Giantbomb quicklooks are the way to go imo, you just watc a bunch of funny guys play the game for an hour and it gives you all the impression you'll ever need. No review can make up for actual gameplay. Their quicklook of DaS is the reason I started playing it actually.

Wheres da killstreaks bro! Im glad idiots generally stay away from the Souls games.

TheWanderer101 wrote:Wheres da killstreaks bro! Im glad idiots generally stay away from the Souls games.

Not recently. Since the price dropped to 10$ for a couple weeks on Steam, XBL, and PSN, a lot of real douchebags have picked up the game.

An almost truer statement would be "since it came out on steam" (almost, but not quite).


I generally look at peoples profiles while I wait for invasions on PC, you fight someone and 99% of the time you can tell from their playstyle/guesture spam whether they come from playing CoD esque games. A quick look at their profile and you can just about pick their age based off the games they've got trophies for and the maturity of their hatemail  

StiffNipples wrote:An almost truer statement would be "since it came out on steam" (almost, but not quite).


I generally look at peoples profiles while I wait for invasions on PC, you fight someone and 99% of the time you can tell from their playstyle/guesture spam whether they come from playing CoD esque games. A quick look at their profile and you can just about pick their age based off the games they've got trophies for and the maturity of their hatemail  

That's what I do on Xbox. 80% of the time they've played every Call of Duty, Minecraft, Halo 4, and some Kinect game.

Yeah I've noticed a huge increase in douchbags lately. Nearly every fight I had in the burg last night consisted of hornet ring dark bead spammers.

SadPanda wrote:

TheWanderer101 wrote:Wheres da killstreaks bro! Im glad idiots generally stay away from the Souls games.

Not recently. Since the price dropped to 10$ for a couple weeks on Steam, XBL, and PSN, a lot of real douchebags have picked up the game.

 
true. But, they suck.A lot picked up demons and you can tell they googled "best weapon" I even had one guy ask me 'why didn't my scraping spear kill you?' He was a bit pissed... I'm happy for the attention. But the typical scream into the mic FPS fans should stick to that. Try it, but if its not you its not you. If they enjoy it though, I guess they have every right to play....easy kills for the rest of us. Easy souls.

and about the GameSpot thing...that site is garbage half the time with those events. Don't waste time with it. Like others said, its all about the money. Any game that doesn't need advertisment ddoesn't when those voting things. They still review well, but they won't promote it without a check. Which I understand they are a company...but I don't go there anymore.

I agree with you. the trend in the video games is similar to the trend in the movies. 
no one care about the content just about the show.
they used to make great games that made think before you act and enjoy the road.
remember syndicate? and all the quests series?
now what do we have? the same game over and over with better graphics telling you "press X" now "press LB"
this is where Dark Souls stands out high above the rest and make you, not ask you, to think hard, try over and over, imagine and reward you when you succeed.
I think we must convince all game developers that this is what we want and deserve.
not just the same crap in a new wrap. 

Go Beyond Death? bring it!

Game review publications are frequently one of the biggest jokes out there.  They obviously take payments, are obviously bought out, and they lie to consumers outright or are at the very least excessively unprofessional to the point where no objective metrics are applied to ranking games with any consistency whatsoever.

My favorite to this point is still gameinformer giving Civilization V a 9.5/10 on its vanilla release.  I was on the beta for that game, and seeing the review cost trashinformer my subscription.  Even if you ignored all of the design problems in that game, the following were serious, objective issues with the game and known at the time of release and before:

1.  UI efficiency --> It took more inputs to accomplish the same actions compared to previous games.
2.  UI accuracy --> So, you know what's fun in a game?  Having a unit display that will do a "ranged attack", but when you click to do the ranged attack, the unit instead moves closer to the target.  Since the unit is a ranged unit, it's weak up close, and now it can't attack because it used up its movement.
3.  Other control problems --> Unless you took control of every hex being worked manually, the game could re-arranged your tiles worked *after* ending turn and starve your city down a size without prompting you.  Pro reviewers couldn't notice something I noticed in 10 minutes of play?  Really?
4.  Stability --> Quite a few people on "minimum" and even "recommended" specs struggled to play the game at all, and on top of that it runs slowly on "recommended specs".  Very slowly.
5.  Multiplayer --> For over a YEAR after release, it was impossible to play civ V multiplayer with more than 2 people.  You would think a PROFESSIONAL REVIEW PUBLICATION, evaluation a AAA title, would perhaps have made one tiny mention of the fact that online MP didn't function whatsoever?  How does a game with a core feature non-functional get a 9.5/10 and NO MENTION of this issue?!

Civ V has since gotten better, though a near-perfect score is still questionable on a game that most systems won't let you appreciably use all of its features.  Regardless 9.5/10 wasn't just a matter of opinion, it was an irresponsible lie to consumers among many, and one that cost GI very little since apparently most people still eat that crap up.

This isn't a one-off issue with them though.  Publications are flat-out unreliable and dishonest on a consistent basis, and thus lose the only core value they advertise that they provide.  In MOST writing professions, journalistic integrity is a serious part of one's career.  Why is that obviously false in game reviews?

I guess dark souls 2 got a bad match, it's more poor luck than anything.

Don't think namco care about innovation awards as much as the number of 0s at the end of the copies sold and profits made.

 I guess I understand why game reviewers are more swayed by money- gaming is much less subjective than other creative media, so hence a damning score has more weight than in music or film.

For instance man of steel got 55 on meta critic- yet I loved it as a thrill ride and great superhero film. A 55 rated game such as DBZ burst limit or haze with similar score averages to the film- both were almost intolerable. I think it's a combination of the fact it's interactive and longer, but low scores really hit heavier on games than films and music

TheWanderer101 wrote:Wheres da killstreaks bro! Im glad idiots generally stay away from the Souls games.

 It seems you haven't been into the dks wiki chatango room. Huehue.

For instance man of steel got 55 on meta critic- yet I loved it as a thrill ride and great superhero film. A 55 rated game such as DBZ burst limit or haze with similar score averages to the film- both were almost intolerable. I think it's a combination of the fact it's interactive and longer, but low scores really hit heavier on games than films and music

The problem is that "low scores" are not consistently applied to games that deserve low scores.  A lower score on a relatively unknown/indy game that is still above "mediocre" leaves a solid chance that the game is actually quite good, but didn't meet the reviewer preferences.  Mediocre scores are often accurate.

What is completely worthless and unreliable from most game reviewers, however, are reviews of popular/recognized titles.  Those strong reviews are essentially purchased by the AAA title developers and therefore provide no value.