peterl0

For third parties - I think if you kick off a console with strong 3rd party support and you moneyhat it at the start you could change perspectives. The Wii did continue to have 3rd party support for quite a bit (brilliant compared to the Wii U) and it could have had better with performance parity. As for VR, I want it to be as good, and I agree that the excitement is palpable from people who have played it, but I have not read of a killer app game yet. I thought VR was the dream as well, but trying to get any of my gaming mates excited about it is proving very difficult - hence my previous comment.

I really don't think lack of 3rd party support is much about bad relations. You can always turn that around if your system is selling and developing for it is as cost efficient as possible. These are businesses at the end of the day. For every article that is excited about VR that I have read (mostly Eurogamer) there is always a significant 'but' in the review. Even the most exciting Steam/HTC variant comments had the caveat that people would nee to design very specific games for the system. It might even be a simple as gamers not wanting to wear the thing or the use of motion style controls that put people off.

New hardware *could* address some of their current issues: - Bad online (the easiest right?) - Lack of 3rd party support (with the right power in the system) Just because we expect this not to be the case does not mean it is written in stone. I also think that whilst the VR tech coming up is exciting, it could easily be the next Kinnect, good for some kind of games not very good for others and eventually dropped (*). (* I am aware that Kinnect has not actually been dropped. )

I must admit I don't understand all the Rayman Legends love. I played the demo and thought it was ok. I did not really enjoy the physics of the game (jumping seemed floaty). At a time when I was quite keen for a new Wii U game it did not make me want to take the plunge.

Various US reviews of this are up and whilst it seems solid (generally 3.5 to 4 out of 5, ignoring the usual Gamespot outlier) it also seems like they have not really done anything about the criticisms of the demo. Given the games that are now coming out in May this may become a casualty. I was hoping for something that ultimately was the quality of Fire Emblem and it seems as if we do not have that.

Must be more than one surely?

Thanks for the update and summary. Had forgotten about this.

Wow that is awful. Don't understand why they don't just downgrade the orders to one only (or at least give you the option.) Stock must be really bad. Few weeks back I thought about getting Lucina which would have been a clear two months before she was supposed to be released. Out of stock two months before even release? How can it be this bad?

I love James as well, but it is good he has Johnathan to round off his occasional rough edges a bit. :-) Without James though it would be a lot duller.

I highly recommend the following UK based ones: The Rotating Platform - done by ex NGamer and NGC people (Matthew Castle, Mark Green and Alan Madrell) Its multi-platform but it does feature Nintendo a reasonable amount. Chat Very Good - done by (quite a few) ex CVG people. Its not entirely about games - films sneak in too, but the banter is very good and its quite funny.

The speed of movement is very frustrating on that board (3DS one is better in that regard), but I like the difficulty of the mode and it makes a difference to be able to choose which level to fight on. Avoid the Megaman one at all costs (unless it is more than 5 players)! I realise that I did not really play brawl at all (did not even finish SSE) and so it has probably been 10 yrs since I actually played the game very much.

I started playing it around November and then lost interest a bit like a few others on here. Recently though I started to play it again for no good reason and have been getting quite a lot out of it on single player classic and trying to complete the challenges. It does feel quite a lot like the same game, but I think that applies to almost any other fighting game that I have played. As @Glen\-i has suggested the single player classic comes into its own above difficulty level 8 and that really makes up for the lack of a decent story mode for me. In fact, as with many other reviewers at the time, I don't really think the single player story modes in Brawl and Melee were any good to be honest. I doubt it would have helped if your not feeling the game.

Megaman get! His helmet and blaster are a darker shinier blue than I was expecting.

I do agree that arguing about the game design is not pointless and arguing about the score generally is pointless, but the same type of person that argues about the score will quite easily find another topic in the same area I would have thought (reviewer is biased towards a platform, type of game, etc.) I think my point about publishers is that they desire the outcome that a game is critically acclaimed - otherwise why not tie bonuses directly to sales. I can only assume they want this for overall brand recognition (the publishers themselves) or marketing of the game itself. If they were not to have metacritic because all sites dropped scores, I think they would just find some other way of doing this and then tie it into developer bonuses, because it is the sort of thing managers in businesses do.

The comments sections for the reviews that do not have a rating at all on EG seem to have replaced fanboy style score numerical arguments with arguments about scores. I guess that might die down. It seems to me that there will always be things to argue about pointlessly on the Internet, with or without scores, Publishers will always find some way to put pressure on games developers with or without metacritic and readers will always want summaries of reviews, be they scores, recommendation systems or closing paragraphs. I personally like a score out of ten for those times that the review leaves me on the fence about a game. Alongside a description of why a game might get a score such as that it can push me one way or another. I am interested to see how the new system at EG will change my perception of their reviews in the longer term.

Was it ever well enough defined for false advertising? Plus they got it in the states which is where the law suit would be.

Yes, but that is a weird way around. Give the introductory offers for the games that are not certs surely?

I won't be buying the Wii games at full price. I would have bought Kirby because at 9 quid it was a no brainer, at double it is not because I can live without the game. The fact is they are now releasing a series of games that were not as well received as the ones that were 9 quid for double the money. That does not sound like a sensible business plan to me.

Ahh @Sheikah, I had not realised that you meant articles only about journalists having spoken to publishers/developers. His argument is most definitely from a consumer standpoint. On the point of the ambiguity with scores you can still have that with the EG system, as Bosman himself clearly disagrees with the Mario Kart and Never Alone getting essential scores(*), but I guess you could have that with any summary system. One thing I like about the EG system is that it does not have the crutch score of 3/5 of the halfway house that you get in 5 star systems. (* Possibly this is just a repeat of his dislike of the word essential)

The Final Bosman this week, who is from gametrailers (but does not necessarily speak for them I imagine) does indeed defend review scores (although not metacritic bonuses) as a benefit for the consumer.

I would say that you could not find an example exactly as you have worded it but quite often you get a review where there is a list of good and bad points and the summary text doesn't quite convince you one way or another whether, on balance, the game is worth your time. The score can help with that. Sometimes you also get reviews where the review is based on user expectations of a game being good and then only really lists criticisms. EDGE reviews of Gamecube games (at the time) suffered from this quite a bit. However the current system at Eurogamer does still allow for this kind of clarity so I don't see it as too much of an issue. In fact, it clearly is a scoring system - just out of four. As they themselves have converted it for Google, I don't see why Metacritic could not do the same - perhaps someone else could enlighten me. Furthermore, they have taken the decision to show the award on headline of the review, meaning that you don't even have to open the article to see the 'score'. Bizarre.

It sounds like you can play online during your single player play through. That appeals to me quite a bit if it is the case. It will help a lot in the item gathering and collection parts of the game (you might be able to gain levels and items to help in diuficulty spikes as well). If you can quest but it has no impact on the single player quest I don't think it would be as interesting. Edit: I guess I am expecting the plot to stay relatively stationary on multi player but that the side quests you have can be done online with others if you choose. If that was the case most of the world would have to be open from the start.

Yes!!!! This is the news I wanted. Online coop. Consider my excitement cranked a notch. I'm even getting used to the faces. No voice chat is an annoyance and continues to beggar belief, but I will be on the phone so I can live with it.

Played through this over the weekend and really enjoyed it. They need to speed up enemy turns as everyone has suggested, but I have relatively high hopes for it now. I found myself desperate for a map whilst playing it, but I guess it is part of the charm / theme of the game. Seems like it will have an online multi-player which could be quite a good one to play in between other games that require more immediate attention.

In that scenario I expect Nintendo to be the ones deeply disappointed by the sales! :awesome: