RageOverdose

@bonkbonks

You could look it up.

I doubt you have easy access to manufacturing cost comparisons of the two devices, so it may be tough. I'm not going to do your research for you, so I'm sorry I don't have a source here.

@Cleric

You'd be buying it to use the new controller. Perhaps there is a new online system in place too.

You'd also buy it for games that will be coming out later.

It's a really easy question to answer, but you're trolling so whatever.

@My Prerogative

Shadow of the Colossus follows similar adventure veins (and so does Ico before it) coming from Zelda.

It is original in style and control, and puts emphasis on large scope to make you feel truly little. Know what else does that? Zelda, most notably Wind Waker, as you were TINY compared to some of the bosses and environments in that game. That's only part of the style, SotC goes for realism obviously, Wind Waker went for cartoony characterization.

All the Colossus are large scale puzzles where you must use your skills and tools (alongside some hints if you are having trouble) to find what you need to find and hit it. This in and of itself is a challenge in timing because of how you have to be sure that the Colossus will be stable when you go for the blow and you have to consider your stamina. Aside from the stamina, know what that's like? Basically every Zelda boss, which are usually games of patience and timing. And getting to those bosses is like every Zelda dungeon. The big difference here is that you use the same tools over and over again in Shadow of the Colossus, but you get new ones in Zelda games. Different approaches.

Shadow of the Colossus, in concept, is not that different from Zelda. In execution it will feel different because it's style, control, and setup are different. You are still really doing the same thing however, solving large scale puzzles.

Call of Duty is a cinematic tunnel of shooting. It's entertaining for the first time experience but doesn't offer anything in the way of depth and can be very boring after you've seen the same things over and over again. I like Call of Duty, but even for a fan it can get old. Comparing something released every year to something released every few years with completely different approaches would be fine if you actually had a good point behind it.

@My Prerogative

Everyone?

Quit trying to justify complaints with broken, generalized rationale and exaggerated statements. It's clear there's something bothering you about this release, but if that's your logic then I don't even think you know why.

Secondly, stop questioning why people like something. Why don't you go spend time thinking about why you like what you like? Question that over and over, you may be surprised if you haven't already.

@Timjoy

Well, I mean, SFIV was already on PC...

@papershadow

It's not that I'm insulted, but stupid arguments only spawn when you say something is "regurgitated with minimal changes" when the changes themselves aren't very minimal to some players. And I mean, even SSFIV added 10 new characters and I think some other things. To me that doesn't sound minimal even from a non-competitive standpoint.

Although I'm sure anyone can agree that it would be nice if Capcom would add the character tweaks to the game by just giving us a patch (like Blizzard does, or even Netherrealm).

But fighting games are always going to be catered to competitive players. That's where the money really is.

@papershadow

Actually what you said is entirely false.

If you have SSFIV you only pay $15 for this and I believe it was $40 at launch. If don't have SSFIV and buy AE, you get both.

The degree at which these "minimal" changes (they change pretty much every character and add new ones, that isn't minimal) affect the game depend on your depth of understanding of the game. Obviously these changes are catered to more competitive players. But don't act like it's below you that the game doesn't have new graphics and game modes, which wouldn't do shit for it anyway. It's insulting to your fellow gamers.

@TheDarkWayne

I don't know if the PC version has anything different in regards to this, but you get 10 characters to mess with. So if you find you messed one up, you can use another, and you can also sell all your abilities and "re-spec" if you feel you didn't get it right.

You level up 20 times and I believe you get 1 upgrade point per level. There are more than 20 abilities (some you start with) but they are all somewhat preference-based. Do you really mess with command posts? Don't get the upgrade to protect them or cap them faster. Do you think turrets are better for you? Get that. Sure there are some obvious ones you should always get, like the health buff and supply buff (for your abilities) but you don't need them all. That kind of stuff is good too, because it supports different playstyles and allows the games to play differently because two medics may serve slightly different roles, or two engineers may as well. Still it's too early to decide that.

My point being, if you're going to complain about a design choice, give a good reason for it. If I got comfortable bum rushing the middle of maps in Hardcore in Black Ops and started to feel useless because I wasn't doing it right, but I couldn't handle doing something else, that's really my problem, not the designers'.

@TheDarkWayne

I don't care if you played 12 hours or 2, if you didn't spend those hours analyzing the game appropriately you can write a review for your ass because that's about how much it's worth to me.

It's cool that you are defending him, but it sounds like a trashy review.

"But frequently, the best course of action will be to switch to a role you're not very invested in to further the cause of the primary objective, removing you from the element in which you feel most comfortable"

This is not bad. Frankly people like this ruin team-objective games. He could probably be well classified as a "scrub." I never understood this, people want to win when they play competitive games like this (by definition, usually a game is competitive) but they want to play by their own rules, not the rules of the designers. The only thing that holds water is the poorly explained point system, and it seems odd that you would be unable to invest in all classes. Or you know, maybe there is a way to garner up some skill or tactic to make a class you invested in useful?

Pisspoor analysis like that is the result of not spending much time on a game. I don't know anything about the game, the only useful bit from there is just that capturing objectives gives me points. I can't trust his ass game analysis at all.

"This is actually kind of refreshing for gamers who lack the split-second reflexes required to succeed at a Call of Duty"

Call of Duty is a shit multiplayer experience because it's twitchy and puts you in situations that leave you die randomly and you cannot escape them no matter what you do.

Being able to take many hits allows players to have engagements where they can actually think and be tactical while fighting. It's far more interesting in my opinion, and while he notes this as negative, I say this is a good thing.

"The absolute best strategy, 100 percent of the time, is to form up your entire team on the objective and hold off the opposing force"

He can't know this, so this is a bullshit comment. And it's based on his single player experience, so it's a trash comment that just exposes the exploits players can do on the AI. If the netcode is really that bad all the time, then when it gets fixed that's fine.

"The Engineer, with his deployable turrets and landmines and damage-boosting buffs, is a far more formidable killing force than the Soldier, who can throw Molotov Cocktails and dispense ammo to teammates."

Okay. That doesn't tell me anything at all. I'm assuming he thinks that Engineers' tools are a lot better than a Soldier's, but he obviously doesn't seem to want to explain how these two classes are useful.

The game will develop. Perhaps he should look into the concept of metagame and developing strategies or not talk about these things in reviews he is unqualified for.

Sorry but his review sucks. He can bitch on Twitter or whatever all he wants, but he has dissatisfied people and it's pretty obvious. Then again, reviews that come from the likes of him are not my type of reviews because they are shallow and I'm looking more for if the game works and functions appropriately when I read a review. And even then that differs from person to person. Even further, a game can be fun enough that I'm willing to look past that shit.

All in all, I'd agree with the dissenting views against this guy's review.

@TheShaper

Ditto.