Chris

Well said. This is a more concise version of what I was trying to convey on the podcast in response to the reader comment about me seeming to simultaneously want shorter games and more open games. It's not so much that I can't decide if I want shorter games or more open, simulational games--it's that I like both of those. What I don't like, are huge games that reveal all they meaningfully have to offer long before they actually end, as Jake describes. If a game is going to be a relatively linear, single-player experience that is more about the progression and the pacing and the arc, I very much prefer it to be shorter, even if it's still priced at $50. The reality is I'm only going to play a game like that for a limited number of hours anyway, so I'd rather pay $50 and spend 10 hours completing it than pay $50 and spend 10 hours not completing it. However if a game is actually about mastery of mechanics and exploration and immersion into a world, and if I enjoy those things, I am a lot more likely to spend more time in it -- not deliberately so, it will just work out that way because I enjoy being inside the game. Neither of those is particularly more preferable than the other, I like both. What I don't like is games that are simply long. I like dense, focused games, and I also like open, player-driven games (broad, rather than long); I don't so much like games that are really long.

I agree with basically this entire post! Except for the blue dong, which I thought was hilarious and a good inclusion. But yes I very much disliked this movie and it felt very unnecessary and sterile to me.

It has the second-best in every single one!!

Oops. Hooray for games!

Okay, here I have to take exception. Not liking a game, that's fine, totally subjective. But Crysis being totally unoriginal? What other games have that kind of gameplay? You're given a huge canvas of island to complete your tasks in an extremely open way for a shooter, and an on-the-fly weapon customization system and augmented abilities. I can't think of any other straight-up shooters (ie, no RPG elements, etc.) released in the last several years that are particularly similar to Crysis in both their structure and their dynamics. It's also set on a lush island--sure, Far Cry did that, but how many other shooters do?

In this case, Sega owns the whole studio. That seems like it would be less hard to convince them to spend more time on a patch--they're all fully paid by Sega full-time anyway, so it's slightly better than having to actually contractually retain them for longer.

Looks like we're also a default podcast subscription in the program itself. (I just bought it.)

I didn't like Watchmen!

Well, just to be clear on my own personal perspective so I'm not misrepresenting the use of Crysis in my example, I genuinely think Crysis was a great game. I don't really want to put a number on it (or any other game), but it's easily one of the best shooters I've played in the last several years.

"This game will bust your label." -IGN.com

You are completely correct. It's very frustrating. In particular, Steve and I noticed the exact same thing with FEAR 2 and Killzone 2 on Eurogamer. And yes, triple-A games get an incredible free pass. The amount of leeway you get for areas that are purely related to production values and nothing else is just enormous. Infuriatingly (and oppositely to the other hypothetical claim of bias you raise in your post) you are then also accused of "bias" by gamers if you don't give those triple-A games high scores, but give another game of lower production values a high score. The argument tends to go "Well, even if they're similar mechanically, if one has much better graphics and animation, doesn't that make it that much better?" Well, fucking no, in my opinion. Great polish and sheen can make a great game even more spectacular and memorable, but as far as I'm concerned it doesn't do jack shit in making a mediocre game anything more than mediocre, or a merely good game anything better than good. For example, I love marveling at Crysis' graphics, and I love the game itself, even if I didn't enjoy the game itself at all, they would still be extremely impressive graphics--they might even make the game worth experiencing for the spectacle itself, if you care about that kind of stuff (and some people do, which is fine). But in the end, when you're talking about the quality of the game, and comparing it to other shooters, it has to stand on its own.

That argument is silly to me. Why couldn't an event that happens within the formal system itself be meaningful enough to make one cry, if that's how one reacts to particularly meaningful things? An NPC could die as a result of the system--where there is also the potential for that NPC to live--and evoke an emotional reaction based on events that have occurred in the game.

There definitely is a British predilection for shortening words even moreso than the American one. Stuff like "Resi 4" would never be generated in the United States. We would either just say "Resident Evil 4," or use the acronym "RE4." The actual direct truncating of words (rather than simply phrases) seems more a British phenomenon.

Yes, because in that case you are using "rounded" as a verb. You are basically saying, "The curriculum is rounded well." "Around" is an adjective, so it's not really in consideration to be used in that phrase. When saying "all-around," you are basically using "all" as an adverb to modify "around."

It was an optional puzzle so you may not have seen it.

They did add new multiplayer mechanics though, at least one of which is awesome.

Singularity looks dumb to me.

I think it's more that both Braid's Hellman and this game were inspired by similar storybook sources. I don't see any greater influence from Braid here than I do from children's storybooks generally--it never even came to my mind.

Actually, I feel exactly the opposite to how you do! To me, "all-round" sounds fat. "All-around" is a common phrase: http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/all-around

I am curious about Jumpgate, even though I am enormously suspicious of all MMOs. I've met the developers a number of times and they are extremely passionate about it and clearly trying to do something different. I'd like to try it out.

Welcome. Also, I added your cyborg to the poll after you posted it.

Check your feeds, because it's Contest Time Far from the bright lights of the front page, hiding in the recesses of our RSS syndication, lurks our second Idle News Podblast, With Saitek Cyborg. While I was at DICE, I came across a formidable Cyborg Mouse, equipped with many powerful and exotic features. Listen to the short episode for the whole rundown, then head to the drawing board and create some kind of artwork depicting a cyborg. Then come back to this thread, and post it. The best effort, based on whatever arbitrary criteria we choose to apply, will receive the Cyborg Mouse all for him (or, less likely, her) self. Deadline: We don't know yet, but we'll let you know when it approaches. It has approached! Vote for the winner!

Fuck

This should read, "Science Museum is so fucking cool."

I really feel compelled to point out that this place isn't The Science Museum, it is in fact Science Museum. The lack of a definite article really puts a more enigmatic spin on it!