fathoms (User)

  • Contributor
  • 5 bubbles
  • 29 in CRank
  • Score: 338060
""

Comments

Cobra: It's a secondary mission later in the game, don't worry about it.

I didn't like Gwent so I never played it and I didn't really sacrifice any XP. I ended up Lv. 37 (about as high as you can get in that game without incessant grinding) with all the best stuff and everything complete except the Gwent missions. It's purely optional. #2.1.1
26d ago by fathoms | View comment
Yeah, which means you can catch up if you choose. But the Bestiary is mostly there to learn more about the creatures in the game, which is far more important, IMO. #1.2.1
26d ago by fathoms | View comment
I don't agree with #6 at all. The Witcher 3 is the first game in the series I've played and I never felt lost or out-of-the-loop at all. Even when the story alludes to something in the past, it's either too minute to matter or it's clear (obviously, Geralt has a past with Yennefer and Tris, for example).

You'll have more of the lore and back story but you absolutely don't need to play the first two games to love The Witcher 3. #1.1
26d ago by fathoms | View comment
Actually, what ends up happening is that there are frequent disagreements and the only difference is that they're civil; nobody ever attacks anyone, unless they only exist to sling personal attacks. And if they are, they get booted out and, unsurprisingly, end up in sh**holes like this. #5.1
131d ago by fathoms | View comment
Isn't it great that people get to call whatever they please "clickbait?" Really, it's entirely up to the discretion of the reader to make this determination. More elitism and egotistical self-righteousness.

And hey, whose fault is it that clickbait even exists at all? Do I see a lot of well-researched, well-written articles at the top of N4G? No, never. I see the dumbest crap possible because THAT's WHAT YOU PEOPLE RESPOND TO.

You w... #1.3.4
144d ago by fathoms | View comment
solar: "Bottom of the barrel" is an understatement. Thousands of so-called "gamers" passing judgment without reading a word of any article written, and pretending to be superior to every journalist, critic and developer on earth.

It's so painful I don't even want to tell people I play video games, lest they stumble across this hellhole and determine I have an IQ of about 37.

KingdomCome: Thanks, but don't bother. They didn... #1.3
145d ago by fathoms | View comment
Hard to say. How many times does the laughingstock that is the N4G community have to be mocked by intelligent communities elsewhere before this place gets the equivalent of a handicapped sticker? #1.1
146d ago by fathoms | View comment
johndoe: You're a great example of why journalists can't stand writing in this industry.

You talk about "ignoring the evidence" when all you do is spout conspiracy theories about crap you know nothing about. I've worked as a journalist in a variety of entertainment venues and you're right, gaming journalists are at the bottom of the totem pole. It's because too many of them are amateur bloggers who have no training and no real criticism or jour... #2.2.4
146d ago by fathoms | View comment
Nothing, obviously.

All gamers are superior to reviewers, right?

Of course, this implies that no reviewer is as "true" of a gamer as the average joe off the street. And that makes even MORE sense. LOL #11.1.3
151d ago by fathoms | View comment
Let me see if I've got this straight:

Most critics I've ever met, and most who post reviews that are most visible, spend their lives interviewing developers and designers, traveling to events, covering various aspects of the industry on a daily basis, and oh yeah, they're probably only doing this because they're hardcore gamers themselves.

And they don't know more than the average consumer who does none of this, and they have no standards... #11.1
153d ago by fathoms | View comment
...and some people use actual words and write full sentences. Few on this site, of course. #1.2.1
189d ago by fathoms | View comment | Trolling
Of course you put the blame on the gamers. Where else would it lie? People can write whatever they want; if it doesn't net them attention (aka traffic), they won't bother with it. Gamers keep saying they want it by clicking; hence, writers keep putting it up.

Gaming magazines back in the day weren't free. It was a business model that worked: Pay for a service. If a journalist is rendering a service entirely online and that service is entirely free, the busine... #1.1
189d ago by fathoms | View comment
What I find really annoying is the rampant belief that if a site only covers a particular platform, it's automatic that games get higher scores there. It's not even my freakin' site and I've been gaming since the Atari. I have no platform loyalty.

And considering I took a ton of flak for questioning a lot of things about The Order over the past year, I find it REALLY funny that people are now claiming I'm defending it. And if you think that based on the... #27
195d ago by fathoms | View comment
Yeah, this is the elitist, egocentric, "gaming masses always know more than critics" (who apparently are never gamers), disgustingly inaccurate view that's tainting the video game community.

Most reviews I've seen over the past few years harshly criticize games for not being innovative or original. In fact, we're seeing super high scores for little indie games that absolutely do attempt new concepts and gameplay mechanics. The major franchises are NOT... #23.1
199d ago by fathoms | View comment
wenaldy: Tell you what, chief: Tell the gaming community not to click on "click bait" articles (which are just headlines in the world of journalism that gain attention, despite gamers yet again ascribing a negative term to EXACTLY what they want).

I still do plenty of "thoughtful articles." Always have. But nobody around here knows it because thoughtful articles don't hit big on N4G. Guess what does? Your so-called "click-bait" articles b... #27.1.1
204d ago by fathoms | View comment
Mr. Pumblechook: I see. So, your analysis - dead flat wrong, but as you're omnipotent, we have to accept it - must be the only one. And I never called you any names. All I said is that you're obviously ignorant of reality and because of that, you just got mad and continued your base accusation. I already refuted it and explained why. You decided to stick with your overview, which is wildly insulting in and of itself (a symptom of every gamer alive thinking they can be a better c... #1.1.11
229d ago by fathoms | View comment
These days, given the increasingly fluid nature of games, I don't think that's a very good policy. #17.1
229d ago by fathoms | View comment
Cobra: You are correct. It is troubling but this is the way it is. Unfortunately, nobody really knows how to correct it. It has always been the problem with any sort of 100 percent digital enterprise where you're not actually selling anything:

Everything you produce is free for all. Yes, you have to be on the Internet but it's not like GameSpot gets a portion of the money you give to Comcast. All reviews are free because you don't need to have a subscription... #1.1.8
229d ago by fathoms | View comment
Baloney. Sites only exist with traffic, and you only get that traffic by issuing reviews as soon as possible. The site that waits to produce all their reviews has resigned itself to volunteer writers and no income whatsoever.

We all wish it wasn't like this (and it shouldn't be) but this is the digital world. #9.2
229d ago by fathoms | View comment
Mr. Pumblechook: As per my statement about the absurdly self-righteous, you make my point perfectly.

Your entire post is anti-game journalism and fueled by these grand ideals that unfortunately don't - and in fact, can't - exist in the industry today. And why? Because the gamers won't allow it.

Those who have worked in the field know what I'm talking about. Unless you work for one of the major sources, you're probably on part-time pay (... #1.1.5
229d ago by fathoms | View comment
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Showing: 1 - 20 of 147