Video Games

GOLDENEYE: SOURCE' DOES NOT INCLUDE A SINGLE-PLAYER MODE WITH THE ORIGINAL'S MISSIONS

Boo.

Having said that, I can't remember what it used to be like.

Do anyone feel there's not much add-on in Fallout 4? i.e. less story-driven DLR compared to Fallout 3, and a lots less than Fallout New Vegas (obviously build by a different company).

Welcome to No Man's Sky

http://vid.pr0gramm.com/2016/08/15/5322c9ed537c76b8.mp4

^ Saw that earlier. I'm more disappointed I haven't seen any of the latter than the former.

Full lol-snort. Amaze.

Fuck sake.

1 Attachment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1wak6kIhg4

A VPN gets round that type of crap. Three also seems to have some random filter.

It's a standard thing with O2 - you provide the credit card details and then you can turn off the age filtering for good.

(I've never known why they do this on contract SIMs though. You can't enter into a contract if you're under 18.)

Gift gaff go a step further and require a photo of your passport.

I don't even own a credit card.

Ahh. You've been paying for all those bikes with cash?

The two folks whose opinions I was waiting on before making a decision on NMS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc7nCZ1h5Po

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCG9YLeIB98

The latter in particular is very interesting, including the purposely misleading statements from Hello Games. Personally I'm staying away.

Just played through & completed Super Mario Land on my Gameboy Pocket, after a quick game on Tetris. I'm not joking, current generation is too shiny for me.

goat simulator £1.74 on staem.

Was free on xbox gold a little while ago.

I am fucking dying :''''')

Fuck totalbiscuit tho

The latter in particular is very interesting, including the purposely misleading statements from Hello Games. Personally I'm staying away.

The latter is full of shit imo. He opens by saying that anticipation for NMS was only matched by Spore in recent times. I'm a gamer and I've literally never heard of Spore. Has this guy not heard of Grand Theft Auto?

All that stuff about 'purposely misleading statements' is bullshit too. Any large IT project has scope changes during its lifetime. Clearly multiplayer is something that they thought they had time to add later on, it's only the neckbeards who've seized on it like it's final proof of Sean Murray's evil. It's just so weird. The guy is clearly an honest, humble, intelligent, talented guy who's running an indie studio from Guildford - I do not understand the level of hatred he's getting.

What I also don't get is the sheer number of 'gamer vbloggers' who have a negative opinion on this. Are they really respected in the industry? No wonder gamergate happened.

The latter is full of shit imo. He opens by saying that anticipation for NMS was only matched by Spore in recent times. I'm a gamer and I've literally never heard of Spore. Has this guy not heard of Grand Theft Auto?

It's a fair comparison. Spore was pretty hyped when in progress. Came from the guy behind SimCity and The Sims, and was aiming for letting the player be the god in an intelligent design type of development.
GTA, Fallout etc are all hyped now but everyone expects more of the same. NMS (and Spore previously) were a new take on things rather than a more polished version of the previous game (okay, GTA3 was pretty revolutionary, but I don't remember it being as interesting an idea as Spore). Pity Spore turned out to be crap.

Metal gear Survive or Metal Gear Zombie Apocalypse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3hjRKGrC40

Also #fuckonami

As Duncs says below, it's pretty apt as they were aiming to do something very different (not to dissimilar from the reason NMS was so hyped).

There's a difference between scope creep, saying that a feature may be implemented in the future development of the project, and saying that it's in the project when it isn't. He flat out lied. There's no possiblity to meet other players in game, and trying to be vague making out that it's very unlikely due to the huge scope of the game world is just incredibly dishonest and purposely deceptive.

I'm sure Sean Murray is a lovely guy, but he's used some misleading statements and diverted away from answering questions in order to keep the hype train rolling. I don't think he's getting much in the way of hatred, much less proof that he's evil. What I find more difficult to understand are the people who feel the need to defend him at the expense of ourselves, the consumers.

Why don't you understand that there are people with negative opinions on something? And how do you feel that correlates to their respect in the industry? And what does any of this have to do with gamergate?

I like my media critics to be unbiased and outline the pros and cons of whatever it is they're reviewing. I don't understand why that's not a positive thing? Would you rather the world was populated by IGN-type places?

Oh don't get me wrong, I also think that media critics should be unbiased. But that's not what I'm seeing. I'm seeing a bunch of Gamers (not people who game, as I am, but people who culturally identify as Gamers) get absolutely frothing at the mouth at perfectly normal scope creep. I work in IT, I know what it's like when a large project is underway, and sometimes you don't hit your stretch targets, and sometimes the guy running the project doesn't get all the nuances of what the tech guys tell him. It's perfectly normal, especially when you're having to do international press that you're not prepared for, that you won't be on message 100% of the time. That doesn't mean someone lied, it's not a big conspiracy, and it's certainly not something to get pissed off about, ESPECIALLY if you've not bought the game. That guy Sean Murray is coming in for real hatred and I think it's way OTT.

This guy below is a parody but he's not far off some of the stuff that I've seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPzOEKjYW4Y