Honestly I thought Brotherhood was a better game. Interesting gameplay improvements and a multiplayer mode that actually felt like something new rather than another shamelessly crammed in "necessary" feature. My only complaint was that the story felt like a Mario game in that they have you hunting for the same thing from the previous game like it's Princess Peach.
I guess I shouldn't complain. I oversimplified the title specifically because I've learned through experience that longer ones (the real title of this article being "Survivors (Survivers) Co-op Horror and Slender Retrospect") are more frequently ignored here. A few commenters are the minority I guess when compared to the many people who are reading and saying nothing.
Survivors is compared to Slender in the article because they are fundamentally similar. Not just because they're both horror games, but on a mechanical level.
I've also written quite a lot about Survivors already considering it's my article.
I'm kind of impressed by how every single comment avoids mentioning anything about the game in question or any of the actual content of the post. It shows how incredibly title-oriented a somewhat distressing number of N4G users appear to be.
What makes you think that any of the revenue from an online pass goes to the developer when it's a standard practice of the publisher? It's not something that DICE and Bioware came up with on their own, it's a thing that's crammed in by EA.
I'm all for adding more color to such a gray game but a few of the screenshots just look odd. It's like someone loaded the images up and hit sharpen too many times. The carpet in the room with the wooden floors actually looks less detailed. Huh.
It's a fucking number! There are paragraphs of text on the page with actual points, so why don't we just talk about those?
Political jabs? Politics play very little part in this article at all. It's about a willful lack of professionalism in a media that people flock to.
You don't see CNN claiming that Katamari trains children to destroy the world, and you don't see MSNBC claiming that L.A. Noire encourages spousal abuse. Are they liberal mouthpieces? You betcha. But they're still commenting on things that are actually news and have some basis on reality.
They just don't do anything worth talking about. Every mainstream news source has its own slant due to the inevitable biases of those who work there, but Fox will blatantly make things up as they go along. They create 'news' where none actually exists just because they want to stir the pot. In many ways they're mainstream trolls that just say whatever they can to screw with people and rake in those sensationalized ratings.
This just seems to be a list of six shooters that the author liked. It makes no effort to explain how any of them were important at all...
I did survive the Nintendo Era, actually. I'm guessing that you're responding to the article title alone? I went to pretty great lengths to explain that patches are not a bad thing and that there is a correct way of using them.
This list is just sort of weak. Your primary reason for Mass Effect and Dragon Age being better on the PC is the inventory? Really? If you're going to make a list like this it should really focus on games where the experience was largely different between the two versions. Tiny differences that only the biggest fanboys would complain about just don't make good points.
Diablo and related choices made more sense because they were games designed specifically for the P...
If excess work was a measurement of quality blu-ray players would have treadmills.
The article still says "seven reasons"