Atari Tries To Supress Bad Reviews, Claims Piracy 275
im_thatoneguy sends in an account up at Shacknews about Atari's actions to get early reviews of its upcoming game Alone In the Dark pulled from Web sites in Europe. Atari sued the German site 4Players, alleging piracy, and also cancelled an advertising deal on the site, after a pre-release review gave the game only 68%. 4Players posted a commentary (translation) alleging that Atari is doing this bcause the review is unfavorable. Shacknews reports that Atari has also demanded that both Gamer.no and GameReactor remove early reviews — both reviews gave the game a score of 3/10. Kotaku editorializes: "[Does Atari] fear that, because these outlets may have received copies of the game 'early' (i.e. from pirated copies), that they're somehow reviewing incomplete code, which could affect their opinion of the game? Maybe. Pessimists could, however, be forgiven for thinking it's a convenient excuse for Atari to attack negative reviews of the only game they're releasing in 2008 that has any chance of making them some money."
Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have improved the game from the earlier 'privacy' version then i am sure all these sites would be willing to re-consider their reviews based on the new game play.
What Atari fears is that the earlier review was the 'final' version of the game and these reviews may harm purchase from people who may accidentally buy the game thinking it to be better than it is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the reviews are based on a pirated copy of the game, and the released versions game play is different then Atari has every right in the world to not only sue these guys, but put them out of business.
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Informative)
oh yes they do have the right to sue them but it only depends if the pirated version is different than the released version. If they are the same then the review still stands.
There may be an issue with regarding to ho they got the copy of the game but the review still stands. So it all boils down to "Is the review of the pirated version the same as the released version"
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
No the pirated version is not the same as the final version. The pirate version lacks annoying DRM and so provides a more enjoyable experience.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I am only replying to AC since I might be drunk but still here goes...
You are missing my point.... the gameplay of both versions would be the same regardless of the DRM. I am commenting on the game itself and not any other stuff. Its life saying the pirated version has a .bat file for installer whreras the real version has a setup.exe file
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Informative)
And from the TFA they didn't use a pirated copy. Someone broke the embargo on selling/giving the proper official boxed copy of the game prior to a set date.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, how much must the final suck, then?
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Informative)
I do remember when Infogrames (was would be renamed Atari) owned Game One, the first game channel in France. Marcus did a very bad review from one of their games, he was fired, and nearly the whole staff. I don't think it was because of picary...
Now they (the first staff from Game One)found their own game channel, Nolife. http://nolife-tv.com/ [nolife-tv.com]
The Ankama company games just put money into this tv, but I doubt they will do the Marcus incident again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? It was my impression that a review was one group's opinion of a game. A review can be as simple as "the game sucked. It wouldn't run on my PC. 0 / 10" Without real slander, what would be the basis of a suit?
Now in the grand scheme of things, they should be sure to review final code. But even if they don't, what would be the legal basis for a suit?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Slander is spoken, in print it's libel.
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
God I love Slashdot's fluid moral code.
The same article that reported the take down request / suit, reported the copy reviewed as a legal distribution copy designed for reviews. I don't see any indication where the site was obviously willing to break the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good post. Been scrolling down for about 5 minutes and you are the first voice of reason.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then......
It does sound bad for Atari. However, that is what the courts are for. If the review sites did act illegally, whether writing an honest review or not, then Atari has a case.
We will wait to see the evidence presented in court before we judge Atari or the review sites.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no reason to release a review when no "non disclosure agreement" was signed.
The suit is just a move to remove bad reviews before the official date and to get the origin of the retailer who leaked the game.
Also you might be an international law expert and will be able to argue that, but I don't think buying a product before release date is a crime in any country in Europe. Neither is posting reviews of a product.
Also jus
Re:Hmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because people maybe don't give a fsck where they got the copy from, as long as they keep them from dropping some hard earned cash on crappy games?
If gamers care where they got the copy from, it's at best wondering how a review page got a game a few weeks earlier when the review is outstandingly good despite the game being mediocre at best...
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I love how you've gone off the handle without checking out the facts.
As many here have said, the sites in question say they got the games completely legally.
Why would you believe the company who stands to lose sales by bad reviews over the website which stands to lose a lot of money over using a pirate version (and not gain much by using one)?
Way to look into the issue before becoming indignant.
Troll Alert (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is buying a retail copy before the street date illegal?
It might be a violation of the agreement between the publisher and retailers, but it has no bearing on the consumer whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
SUUUUUURE.... improving a 3/10 game to 10/10 in only a month. I got an idea. Let's hire THESE guys for Microsoft and see what miracles they can do with Vista in only 30 days.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is possible, depending on what that 3/10 is hanging on. If it's choppy animation and constant crashing, you can solve that in a month.
If it's because the game is as entertaining and exciting as watching the world championship in synchronised swimming, then you can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Informative)
At least one site (gamer.no) that gave an early review have confirmed they reviewed a store-bought retail version. Granted, the store may have broken the intended street date, but it wasn't some shady downloaded copy that was reviewed.
At least it has gotten Atari and the game some publicity.
Re:Hmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The German site also claims to have their version legally bought, which means that they could immediately charge Atari for making unfounded claims against them (based on the laws of coersion/intimidation and also the laws against threatening with legal action).
Germany is in the EU (Score:2)
We're not speaking of another states inside the "full of trigger happy lawyers" USA.
Here around it's much harder to sue everybody for any random trivial detail.
That *does* mean that trolls like Atari will hardly have a case for such a story in Europe.
But that also means that it'll be harder to counter sue on the grounds that Atari is attacking without a sound reason.
"all publicity is good publicity"... (Score:5, Insightful)
... once again. Before I read this I didn't know about "Alone in the Dark". I guess their strategy worked
Re: (Score:2)
"all publicity is good publicity"? NO IT'S NOT! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From the TFA - Gamer.no says game bought legally (Score:5, Informative)
Kotaku article has an update:
Just take it (Score:5, Interesting)
So I guess no one has learned from the wise ways of Penny Arcade's ad campaign [wired.com].
On another note, if you get a bad review, you should take it. Crying like a baby only emphasizes the ratings. You may get sales from a small fraction of people who play it to verify that it sucks, but sooner or later all the review sites will say the game sucks and it will only make the situation worse. The whole "bad publicity is good publicity" paradigm is long dead in this age of gamers.
Re:Just take it (Score:5, Funny)
I love bad reviews, especially those dripping with badly-spelled verbal venom. Here are some choice quotations from random forum postings about my own MINERVA [hylobatidae.org] mod for Half-Life 2:
Other people [rockpapershotgun.com] claimed to like it, but I derive great fun from tracing Referers to the website, and reading what the Truly Informed Forum Users inhabiting this 'ere internet think of it...
Strangely, nobody's yet told me it's rubbish in an email. I must try harder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His mod is incredibly well done. It's the only single-player mod I've ever played through twice.
When will they learn? (Score:5, Interesting)
68% is unfavourable? (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK, if you get 68% in your final year exams at university you get an upper second class degree, and might be able to talk your way up to a first. So 68% is a masters/PhD candidates mark at most places.
Game ratings are ludicrous in that they use perhaps the top 40% of the scale. Not since the days of Amiga Power have I seen a dire game get a single digit % score.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok in UK 33% is a passing grade. That is sad!
Disclosure:And this is coming from someone who took GCE A Levels and studied in Canada for undergrad
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're not studying something analytical, like anything, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree, it's absurd. They use only the upper range of the spectrum, except when a game is incredibly bad. Also, you can't be so precise with something so subjective; that's why I think magazines should use the old "star" rating. Some examples, in my opinion:
0 star = abysmal: Big Rigs, Action 52, ET, Extreme PaintBrawl.
1 star = crappy: First Samurai, Gods, Hook, James Bond Jr, Sword of Sodan.
2 stars = weak: Daikatana, Power Rangers, Outlander, 3 Ninjas Kick Back.
3 stars = good: Mickey Mania, Cool Spot, Fina
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find reviews of films useless in the decision process for watching a film. I am only able to isolate the third category through rotten tomatoes/imdb (obscenely low scores = category three). The only genre I intensely dislike is slasher films and action films, so they are easy to weed out via the promotional m
Re: (Score:2)
I would probbly last for three reviews bef
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Did you never read the UK edition of PC Gamer? I haven't looked at it for a few years now, but they regularly gave single-digit scores for games that were so awful there was no other non-violent response possible. They also gave Worms 1 40%, which confused the hell out of everyone...
Re:68% is unfavourable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so I wasn't the only one wondering.
Back in the days (the good ol' ones, a few of you might remember if Alzheimer didn't get you yet) there were basically five categories for games.
The 90-100 games which were absolutely awesome. That's a grade a handpicked few got. Getting a 91 already meant that you made it. You created a game that will be remembered a decade from now. Every year, about 20 or so games got to this lofty realm of divinity.
Then there were the 60-90 games. They were good. Really good! The kind that's worth its money. If you were at least halfway into the genre, you had to have them.
Then there was that area of about 40-60. They were ... well, half baked, usually. Quite ok, but nothing to write home about. If you're into the genre really badly and if that really was your thing, you could buy them, but it was anything but a must-have.
After that it got rather ugly. 20-40 was reserved for games that were quite bad. Even if you're into the genre, you might want to wait until it's in the bargain bin. And even then, you might want to avoid them lest you start to hate what you used to love.
And then there was the rest, the kind of games you don't even want to hear about, where paying you to play them would have been an insult because of the time wasted. 0-20. Usually, about 1-2 games per magazine got that review, just to show that yes, there ARE games this bad and companies DO actually try to sell them. They were more a comic relief than a review, usually, and the writers also got quite creative describing them. Often, those reviews were more interesting and witty than a lot of the "average" ones.
This all changed somewhere between the 80s and today. Today, the reviews are usually in the 90-100 range if the game is at least halfway playable and grants you more than an hour of fun. Go to your average review page and check for yourself. How many games hit that formerly so lofty grounds? 20? 30? Of the 50 reviewed?
A review of 70 is already bad. A review of 60 a disaster. Anything lower than that probably mean that it won't even install without an error.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unforntunately, you've just mixed a feeling with a page containing actual data. I copied the full table into a spreadsheet (copy the page source rather than the page itself, works a lot better) and found the mean score given by Edge is about 6.5, the median score is 7, and the variance is a little over 2.
Yeah, there are some 10s and a 1 in there, but the 10s are quite predictable (all had piles of reviewer-lubricating cash behind their promotion) and the one is, well, a special case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, those are more connected to the fact that whining about academic standards sells newspapers.
Look, "68% = 2:1" doesn't mean that a 2:1 is easy to get; it means that the examinations are very difficult, and the grading is set up to make it easier to distinguish between the scores achieved by top-ranking students, i.e. at the end of the scale where it matters.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, if you get 68% in your final year exams at university you get an upper second class degree, and might be able to talk your way up to a first. So 68% is a masters/PhD candidates mark at most places.
Might this be connected to the constant complaints that the UK is falling behind in most every academic subject?
Not at the 'good' universities (everyone knows which these are -- Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, LSE, UCL, Warwick etc, and knows which aren't). Getting more than 70% is difficult ;-).
Getting less than 50% still gets you a degree, but it isn't a very good degree. Most employers say "2.i or above", which would usually equate to 60% or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Might this be connected to the constant complaints that the UK is falling behind in most every academic subject?
Depends on how hard the exams are.
Generally speaking, the marking is as follows:
40% : Third class.
50% : 2:2
60% : 2:1
70% : First
The work is (or at least it was when I did my degree) engineered so if you can make it to the end of the final year, you'd have to screw up pretty badly to fail altogether. However, the difference between each grade means you'd also have to work pretty damn hard to get a first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pirated == different? (Score:4, Informative)
In all my swashbuckling years (gone by, that is - I've since grown up and can actually afford to buy my games), I've only ever played 2 games where the pirated version's gameplay is actually different from the retail one - Postal (might have been postal 2, actually) and Red Alert 2. Oddly enough, both games had the same "different" gameplay in that certain pirated/cracked versions would work for about 30seconds and then everything on screen would explode and/or die.
Oh how I laughed.
Anyway, the point is that I very much doubt any pirated versions are different from the retail version of the game and Atari is just trying to stir up shit for publicity's sake - and good luck to them, but I still doubt there is actually a difference between the two (unless in-your-face-DRM counts as gameplay these days).
But for the sake of a good conversation, what other "different" anti-piracy schemes have you all come across in games, such as the above mentioned "kill everything after 30s" technique?
Re:Pirated == different? (Score:4, Informative)
But for the sake of a good conversation, what other "different" anti-piracy schemes have you all come across in games, such as the above mentioned "kill everything after 30s" technique?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure if you had a different version than I did, but my copy of Sim City came with a pamphlet of codes composed of pairs of blocks with different corners of the blocks shaded, listed next to cities and their populations - the game gave you some combination of codes and populations and asked for the city name (or something like that).
The best part was, it was printed in black on red paper so you couldn't photocopy it. My grandmother and I took the time to hand-copy the thing, line by line, onto graph pape
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the Settlers games, the forrester guys wouldn't plant new trees for you to chop down if you played a pirated copy. Took me a while to figure out that it was, in fact, impossible to finish a single game like that. Evil but ingenious as there was no warning whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
I had the original version of Alternate Reality - the Dungeon for the 800XL, but made a (straightforward, i.e. no fancy programs) backup copy once (5 1/4" floppy disks ... they never lasted long). If you booted from the copy, you'd encounter 2 FBI agents immediately, they would attack you with "the long arm of the law" and
After you stopped laughing about the translation (Score:5, Informative)
Because of AitD previews, Atari pulled already paid for ad campaigns. Requests for testing versions were completely ignored.
Literally minutes after the reviews were online, Atari lawyers demanded that 4Players.de pulls the reviews, claiming they were "not actual objective product tests" (product tests as in refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, not something like games that can't objectively tested and which therefore do not fall under regulations regarding product tests). Also, because 4P tested based on the retail version before the street date, they alleged that 4P had downloaded the game illegally (they bought it early from a retailer they have contacts with). They allege that 4P just wanted "first review!" (ignoring that print magazines had even earlier reviews). The lawyers set the value of the case at 50,000 Euro.
Later, they tried the same to 2 Norwegian online mags, Gamer.no and Gamereactor.no, with the same results, namely none.
Re:After you stopped laughing about the translatio (Score:5, Informative)
Hey! I just finished translating the whole article ;_;
Since it reveals some things about the magazine's attitude as well, I publish it here anyway:
(Note that I didn't proof-read it)
Atari really tries everything to obfuscate our reports: First they ignored our questions about Alone in the Dark in its early stages of development, then they canceled an already arranged advertising deal after our preview, then they didn't provide us with samples of the test version even though we asked, and now they're even getting out their lawyers and want to instill fear in us with a 50,000 Euro lawsuit. What's next? Activating firecrackers in our offices? Throwing soccer-balls at the editors' wives?
It's getting more and more ridiculous. The fact that publishers like to interfere with the freedom of the press has been demonstrated by JoWooD in 2006 in a most demonstrating way in the case of Gothic 3: They wanted us to take our report offline after a threatening call, and the magazine PC PowerPlay was to vanish from newspaper stands. Both magazines resisted and have in doing so strengthened the Culture of Criticism of the German press landscape.
Atari is now demonstrating that publishers tend to lose their nerves when their games receive unfavorable reviews. And now, with their specious accusations of laughableness, they're [making it worse]. [Here's the order of events:] Yesterday afternoon, we published our review of Alone in the Dark. The game got 68% and therefore got a satisfactory rating. Yesterday evening, we got a facsimile from Atari's lawyers, extracts of which we can't help but share with you. If Germany shouldn't be able to laugh about anything anymore after tonight's match with Portugal, check this out:
'By publishing this "review" (original: "test") you are violating applicable laws and infringing upon Atari's rights.'
Hello? Are we in China now? Or in Iran? Here I had to gag on this as a journalist because Atari with its sloppy dubs against the rights of German listeners - Are they now allowed to sue for damages because they are avoiding paying for professional voice actors but still want the full price for a game with amateurish voice acting?
And now the quintessence of the ridiculous accusations:
'Your "review" isn't. The game is to be published on June 20, 2008. Your "review" must therefore be based on the pre-release version that was only to be used for preliminary commentatorship.'
So is it the job of lawyers and publishers now, to determine what constitutes a "review"? The fact that some printed magazines didn't use the pre-release version either for their test, because their articles were published much earlier than ours, doesn't appear to concern Atari. Because it is quite common now that printed reviews aren't always based on the final versions of a game - See Gothic 3.
Just too bad that we actually reviewed the final version. Atari's thinks (in surprising ignorance about distribution channels), that we can't even have the offical final releases - because Atari, as a precaution, didn't even send us those, even though we asked for them. However, we're used to such methods after years of reviewing and bought the final versions for the Wii, PS2, Xbox 360, and PC already on Monday at a retailer that we trust, who gets almost all games a couple days before their official release date.
Instead of thinking about that, Atari speculated freely about how we could have managed to get ahold of the game, and accuses us of criminal activities:
'The only possible explanation is that your "review" is based on an illegally downloaded version.'
That isn't just extremely naive, that's insolent. But let's go on:
'At the same time you're ignoring standards that usually apply to product reviews. Because product reviews have to be based on objective and informed analyses.'
And "informed" is probably everything that gives a rating of more than 80%, right? And "objective" begins at 85%? Just for the lawyer who wrote this outrag
Better start learning German (Score:5, Interesting)
This is surprising. Maybe I'll have to start learning German if I want to get honest game reviews now. I have a feeling the North American game reviewers will probably be a lot more accommodating to Atari's threats.
I recall the same thing happened with Anarchy online. They released the game for sale but then told reviewers to hold off on their reviews because the game wasn't actually 'final'. Sure enough, reviewers didn't do their job and waited around till the Anarchy folks actually felt their game was 'ready'. This all boils down to game companies not wanting to be accountable for their lousy work. Really if you're going to be spending millions and millions of dollars on a game, you should at the very least make sure it's actually worth playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if learning German gets you down and/or in the meantime you still want to read some game reviews, I would recommend eurogamer.net. They are extremely hard on everything they review (at least in comparison to American gaming publications) and are in the UK (and are extremely well written in general). Not that I agree with absolutely every review, but reading the review is actually more important than looking at the score. I own and have enjoyed immensely many games that got a 5-6 on eurogamer (discl
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, you can just visit TPB, get some source material, and do your own review like everyone else. You can be different and actually go buy the ones you keep :)
It's gonna backfire (Score:3, Insightful)
What a bone-headed thing to do. Like the other thread a bit earlier about google-bombing McCain, trying to suppress information rarely works, and often backfires.
ATARI: (Score:2, Funny)
from "pew pew pew!" to "p.u. p.u. p.u.!" .... awful. sorry.
Does Atari Still Exist? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, you'd think that they'd use the opportunity to get people involved and improve their releases rather that trying to shut the door on their customers.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
wait a minute (Score:5, Funny)
Atari still makes games?
Re: (Score:2)
No, Infogrames do, but the Atari brand that they own is thought to be more "marketable".
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently -- but one a year. You can't rely on name carte blanche forever if you don't reinforce it.
This clear up one thing for me... (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know Atari was still in business.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's Atari in name only. Infogrames renamed themselves Atari to try to "reinvent" after people wised up to the fact that everyone was used to mediocrity out of them.
DRM (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, I don't approve of online activation of this type at all. But that really is exceedingly ridiculous.
And, hilariously, the only way those sites managed to review the game early, was because Atari turned on the activation servers. Way to use that DRM you paid good money for to prevent early leaks, Atari.
I've seen the game... (Score:3, Interesting)
I can also see where the game is annoying - sometimes you go quite long distances without healing items so you might end up in a battle where you die if anything hurts you just a little bit - and if you don't want to do the battle twenty times over you have to either replay the previous part of the game or skip to the next scene.
Also, it feels badly tested; for example, if during a cutscene the camera is away from your body and passes by items on the ground the game will offer you to pick them up. Also, sometimes the game doesn't make much sense; for example, during the car escape scene there are cars parked in the middle of the street with no fleeing people around that might explain them. Getting to the car is convoluted in itself.
The game does have potential for being unintentionally funny, though. In one cutscene a homing smoking crack in the floor races towards the player. Once, the (heavily injured) player stood on a burning item when the cutscene was triggered; when the camera came back to the player he was already lying on the ground, burning. The game's deadpan delivery of this made the scene exceptionally funny.
Overall, it's a nice game but definitely not great. I can understand why Atari doesn't get rave reviews although I do think 3/10 is a bit low. I'd place it more around a 6.
Re: (Score:2)
...and I think it's pretty true to the movie it's based on.
This one [imdb.com]?
If so, I do readily believe the reviewer that it sucks and blows at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the review. (Score:2)
On a tangent, refusing advance reviews and litigious behaviour towards the press attempting to produce prerelease reviews can mean only one thing. The game stinks on ice and Atari know it.
What really surprises me is that Atari have done anything whatsoever to draw attention to these reviews....perhaps one of the marketing team has misunderstood the phrase "no publicity is bad publicity" (i.e. don't be forgotten) to mean all publicity is good...
to any atari management reading this : idiots (Score:2)
have fun drooling in the failure that is your new game, brought upon you by your own stupidity.
Re:Hard to say. (Score:5, Insightful)
> but none of the sites mentioned recieved official review copies of Alone In The Dark, which means they're all pirated
You lie.
And your logic is super fail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd normally be skeptical of any game publisher for doing something like this, but none of the sites mentioned recieved official review copies of Alone In The Dark, which means they're all pirated.
I read Edge magazine, and it also never, NEVER I say, mentions anything about having received an official review copy. Damn those shameless pirates!
And I didn't receive any review copies of any of the games I have in my house, which can only mean I must be a wretched pirate too! Arrr!!!
Arr, wait: I actually bought those games. You know, in shops. With money. Maybe the review sites did the same thing?
Re:Hard to say. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hard to say. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The 'incomplete code' thing (Score:5, Funny)
These sites probably did base their reviews on incomplete code, and its probably the same thing being shipped to stores on CDs right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't calling it 'incomplete code' imply that there might some day be a complete version? This is the new 'Atari' we're talking about here.
(Note to lawyers from Infogrames/Atari/Hasbro/Shiny/StuffthatIfoundonmyshoe: I will consider reversing this position when you ship me a complete copy of Master of Orion 3. No sooner.)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there will be. Maybe even in about half a year or a year with the 5th patch that nobody cares about anymore.
If not, the final will be available in about 5 years as a fan project.
Re:The 'incomplete code' thing (Score:4, Funny)
Doesn't calling it 'incomplete code' imply that there might some day be a complete version?
No. This is an incomplete sentence and I have absolutely no inclination to finish it at
Nah. (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely The Wither was released in 2007? Though we're still waiting for the 'enhanced edition'
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you're right. Time passes so quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.. well, I don't know this special game, but I have a few Atari games so I speculate wildly what an "enhanced" version would be: One that works as advertised.
Re: (Score:2)
Moderated Offtopic? How on earth can a comment on an Atari game to a story on Atari game reviews be offtopic?
Surely I've forgotten to somehow find a way to bash Microsoft in order to be more Slashdotically-correct.
(BTW, in addition, notice my perfect grammar! It seems I'm inherently out of place over here...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blame Activision on that pitfall.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's still not available for the 2600. Shame on you, Atari! :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They also censored reviews from mentioning the mandatory installs. Not just one, but one per act and they take a while to install. While MGS4 is an epic game, and well worth the purchase, it is frankly weird it has a mandatory install and clearly someone in Konami was paranoid enough to make early reviewers sign NDAs about it amongst other things.
I do believe PS3 games do get picked on but frankly I would p