Comments 1,455

Re: Poll: Will You Buy The Last of Us: Part I?

ThroughTheIris56

No reason to. The original game looks fine, if not better in some shots. Arguably there may be some gameplay improvements, but not enough to justify the high price. And I can’t imagine any of the changes they’ll make will be good. And it’s really uncomfortable calling it part one.

Hard pass from me. At the very least it doesn’t look like it will be butchering Joel’s character as much as I thought.

Re: Battlefield 2042's Community Is So Irate Its Subreddit May Be Closed

ThroughTheIris56

@nessisonett Depends, on whether the devs/publisher are competent or not.

Luckily there are some companies that will finish their games before releasing them. Unfortunately it's embarassing that the cycle you mention isn't uncommon nowadays. But that doesn't mean it's a smart idea. It's dumb, because whether it's before or after launch, work whether it's bug fixing or adding new content takes resources to complete. Delaying a game means a temporary delay in game sales, whereas opting to fix a game after launch simply results in devs wasting time on fixing the old game (when they could be starting on a new project) and the consumers lose trust.

I get it if it's a small company and they urgently need to put out a game in early access to keep the company afloat, but EA doesn't need to.

Re: Ghost of Tsushima Sales Surpass an Impressive Eight Million

ThroughTheIris56

@Texan_Survivor Unfortunately Pokemon as a brand is so beloved at this point, developers can churn out any awful game and it will sell because players can use their long term favourite Pokemon in it. The Pokemon Company knows this, which is why there's been a massive lack of effort to put resources into their games, despite being the one of the biggest selling franchises in history. Why put in the extra money to hire more devs and make the game better, if people will buy it anyway.

This is all from a Pokemon fanboy.