Printable View
It’s that time again – EGM’s question of the month:
Have you ever bought a game based on a positive EGM review (or other magazine) and ended up hating it?
You can respond in this thread, but to make it in the magazine you need to send your answer WITH A PICTURE to egm@ziffdavis.com, subject: word on the street, by Monday the 27th. Please include your full name, too.
Thanks!
(would a mod mind stickying this baby until Monday?)
i'll go ahead and sticky it since i have nothing better to do.
you're a prince among men.
I don't think I've ever considered a game based on EGM reviews. Or any other magazine.
Jak II. I bought it because of all the great reviews from all over, and I absolutely hate it.
Yes but once I bought a game in spite of a bad Game Informer review. Otherwise, I'm the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satsuki
Splinter Cell got almost exclusively rave reviews, but after I bought it, all I found was a medicore stealth game with digustingly linear level design and a main character equipped with a pistol considerably less powerful than a super soaker. It's a terribly average game in the guise of a blockbuster release.
EDIT: Please accompany my entry with a picture of Steve Bartman. :D
I know a lot of people were excited about Final Fantasy VII and wanted to hurl fire and brimstone at GameFan.
I don't get upset at other writer's reviews, unless I simply can't understand it.
I agree with Mamoscott 100% when it comes to Splinter Cell.
I'd like to add that I was pretty disappointed when EGM failed to mention any of the shortcomings in GTA Vice City and gave it a perfect score across the board. I was speechless.
Good game? Yes. Perfect? Not by a long shot.
I agree with Mamoscott and Mzo 200% when it comes to Splinter Cell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
(50% for Mzo and 150% to Mamoscott for saying it first)
I also once bought Blinx despite BenT's negative review... and he was exactly right.
I am still shamed with it sitting in my collection because it's trade-in value is a used copy of Tao Feng.
OMG how did I forget??
!
What was that noise?
Oh, it was just MGS2 SUCKING IT UP!
I agree with Mzo, Ammadeau, and Mamoscott 0% when it comes to Splinter Cell.
I don't agree with anyone 1.28% on any issues mentioned herein.
P.S. As an aside, I'd like to mention that once the carbon mynoxide level of inhaled air excedes 1.28%, it will be followed by death within three minutes.
aladin for the genesis was not quite as good as gamefan was ramping it up to be. It was good, but it got a major dave halverson'ing
the only time i rememeber majorly disagreeing with egm was the new buffy game, i played it at a freind's house,and i think they were way too hard on it, especially given how smoothly the fighting controls compared to the first bvs.
EDit: silhouette mirage, that was another gamefanning, i just didnt get into it at all, despite its quirky humor. It just didnt feel fun.
Bite your tounge about silhouette mirage! :bang: I love that game.
I'll have to go with both Smash Bros Mele and the first Cube Rogue Leader game. I didn't like either of them.
yeah silhouette is great, i was just playing bangai-o. A game that EGM let me down with must have been Perfect Dark. It's an alright game but they wouldn't stop praising it, and not mentionning it's horrible framerate.
Damn you Capn, I know I've heard that sampled somewhere before....but where??? arrrrrggQuote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
I hate military games, but loved Splinter Cell.
As for the EGM question, I'd have to say Rygar: Legendary Adventure. It got 9s but I found it to be pretty average (soundtrack and visuals excepted).
I dont buy games based on reviews. Not EGM not any other mag. If the game interests me, but I am not sure in it, I will rent, otherwise I buy it.
Funker Vogt: Execution Tracks - Pure War. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BioMechanic
I never base my purchase decisions on magazine reviews. I know which games I want, so I simply buy those ones. For the stuff I'm not sure about, or a game that I know little about, I weigh the opinions of some members of this board very heavily.
Actually, the only game I've ever bought based on a review was the first ToeJam and Earl for the Genesis. The review that made me buy it: Gamepro. :lol:
Here. I have one for you.
All of the wankers in the SSX3 thread got me to buy the freaking game, and it's crap compared to Trickey.
apparently you didn't read bent's review on gamespy. =)Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
I did... after I bought it. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by ferricide
I gotta admit... you guys are the only ones who I think gave the game a correct review. Everyone else just splooged all over their GTA loving selves.
So kudos to you. :)
In Gamespy we trust. :)
...Quote:
All of the wankers in the SSX3 thread got me to buy the freaking game, and it's crap compared to Trickey.
You are totally insane. Wow...
RTCW for XBOX. Jesus is that a terrible port of a mediocore PC game!
I pay little mind to magazines when it comes to my purchasing choices.
To be honest, I come to TNL when I am curious about a game. Those "official" threads have never let me down...yet :)
Milkman's 4.5 review of Stuntman almost made me stay away from the game, but I gave it a rent and discovered two things: Stuntman is a really, really good game, and Milkman must really, really suck at playing it.
I agree with ZeroDash. Half the time i rent some games that are rated low and they turn out to be better than some of the higher rated games.
Anyone that talks shit about Stuntman just sucks at it. It was a great game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler_Durden
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
I am another who reads the magazines and looks at the pretty pictures but bases purchases on personal intuition (or random need - I needed JGRF yesterday because it was $15). I'd buy Mario Kart DD if it scored 10s or 2s. It's just that I don't really care what Jim Smithson Video Game Journalist thinks about Game A or why Game B is better.
Jim Smithson Video Game Journalist can blow me. :p
Gunvalkeryie and Gungrave. What a couple of shitty games.
Oh wait, EGM said they sucked. It was the people here who convinced me to buy them.
I bought Stretch Panic thanks to ECM... one of the worst games Ive ever played in my life.
Waste of fifty fucking dollars... sold it back to EB when Metal Gear Solid 2 came out for like eight or nine. I admit I was lucky just to get that.
Splinter Cell is fucking geat and deserved the rave reviews. I couldnt stop playing it and theres plenty of moments in the game where I was like woah, that kicked ass!!
I was so not going to buy Mario Kart DD but now that I seen the 10's I probably will buy it based upon their review. I shall be very angry if its poop.
I bought VooT based on Gamefans review and I HATED the game!! What a boring pile of monkey ass! I think thats the only game I've ever bought based on a review and actually hated.
Not that I can recall, but I do remember a lot of magazines giving The Thing good reviews. The only exception was EGM who gave it average to mediocre reviews.
Anyhow, I didn't buy it but borrowed it from my friend and I must say from all the good reviews it had to be one of the worst PS2 games I've played in awhile. While nowhere near as bad as State Of Emergency, I found it to be difficult, clunky in the control department, graphically unimpressive and boring. I don't see how so many publications gave it the high marks they did and It's nearly as boggling as that one review I seen (can't remember the site or publication) that gave State Of Emergency high marks.
But at least I didn't waste my hard earned cash on it, thankfully.
I have The Thing for the PS2, and its a good game. STFU.
A 10 in EGM doesn't mean perfect, by the way...because then nothing would EVER get a 10. It means grrrrrrrreat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
Not one person who reviewed the game at the EGM offices experienced the commonplace and sometimes game-stopping glitches that plagued Vice City? There was no mentioning of the rampant glitches in EGM's reviews of Knights of the Old Republic either.Quote:
Originally Posted by dlinn
I understand that, technically, a 10 does not mean the game is perfect, but both of the above games, though great, were obviously rushed through QA to retail with a lot of unresolved problems. Don't you think that's enough to disqualify those titles from EGM's highest possible score? I mean, it's easy to overlook the occasional little "stuck in a wall" glitches here and there, but these games have bugs that fuck up your entire save game and force you to start over from scratch. Hell, GameFAQS has an entire FAQ dedicated to only the reproducible bugs in KOTOR and how to try and avoid them, which probably constitutes only a small percentage of the bugs in the game.
In my mind, a review of a game that gets a 10 from the Review Crew shouldn't have to be prefaced by "Once you get past the glitches and bugs..."
Ironically, a few months ago, you guys ran a feature highlighting some "major releases" that were buggy and obviously rushed through development/testing, but once again, KOTOR and Vice City were never mentioned. Do the biggest Xbox title of 2003 and the biggest PS2 title of 2002 not qualify as major releases or something? That article was a major opportunity to show readers that even major game series and developers were susceptible to publisher pressure and rushed releases, not just licensed tripe like Enter the Matrix and Pirates or whatever.
I'm not sure what dlinn's connection to EGM is, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't wholly responsible for the reviews of those games, and making him admit that he agrees that they are not perfect 10s (and whether he agrees or not) is pointless.
Good rant though... I agree that games should be docked points for technical glitches and bugs, ESPECIALLY on a console where patches are unheard of, really.
Oh, and EGM doesn't suck, but the shit Shoe pulls on TV certainly does. I don't know if part of the "getting on TV" deal involves saying something positive for every piece of shit out there, but I find it incredibly annoying and fake, since I know he is capable of being fair and critical.
Fucking boo to that.
To stay on topic, I was also pretty let down by the original Tony Hawk after everyone jizzed all over it for months, but I figure there's something wrong with me, not the game, since people who's opinion I respect seem to love it. Oh well.
staying off topic, unfortunately - I wasn't on any GTA or KOTOR reviews, so I can't address any of those specific issues.
However, I know where the problem is. We review "reviewable code," i.e., a build of the game that the publisher says is in a reviewable state. That doesn't mean it's 100% bug free -- it means the game is in its final round of bug fixes, usually. When we come across bugs, we ask about them. Invariably, the publisher tells us they are going to be fixed. 98% of the time they are. Sometimes they aren't. Now before you queue up the "EGM should only review boxed copies OMG!!!" rant, know that then all of our reviews would be two to three months late. And none of our competitors would follow suit.
Incidentally I never came across any "game stopping" glitches in either GTA. Mission stopping maybe, but not game stopping. Now, kotor...#!$#@ Carth bug got me good.
What the hell is your avatar from? It looks so familiar in its style that it's driving me insane.
I bought Viewtiful Joe based on just about every review from all gaming media sources. EGM had said something like, "VJ's difficulty can be frustrating, but in the end it's worth it." It wasn't. :p I should've been content with the demo disk level.Quote:
Originally Posted by dlinn
Fair enough, but that still doesn't explain why EGM glossed over KOTOR and Vice City in a "buggy games" feature that ran months after both games were released. I don't mean to bust your balls or anything, but I thought my rant sort of tied in with the thread's topic (instances where a publication loses credibility in the eyes of a reader). I don't want to derail the thread any further, so I'll drop the off-topic stuff now. Thanks for clarifying some of that stuff though.Quote:
Originally Posted by dlinn
Now for another on-topic contribution:
I thought Super Monkey Ball 2 got unnecessarily positive reviews from most places, perhaps because it was a sequel to a "sleeper" launch title. The single player mode had tons of gimmicky, overly frustrating stages (like the one where you must launch yourself onto the super tall platform in the middle and then roll off into the circling exit), Amusement Vision bastardized Monkey Golf, and I disliked a lot of the changes to Monkey Target as well. The original SMB was difficult as well, but I at least thought that I could pass each stage with enough practice. In the sequel, I felt as though I was simply taking a shot in the dark on most levels, and I found most of the new party games to be disappointing.
On GameRankings, SMB2 is hovering in the 86% range.
Also, that was a great call by DjRocca on Perfect Dark. That one totally slipped my mind.
Trust me, you're a special case, unique in your lack of hand-eye coordination, and should never take remarks made to the general gaming public at face value.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCoKid
Actually, if I had reviewed KOTOR I'd have given it a 10 and wouldn't have mentioned the bugs either. Know why? Because I played through 1.5 times and never encountered a single bug. I didn't even know the game was glitchy until I came back to being online after my binge and saw tons of other people complaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
i conquered Stuntman and I thought it sucked
I'm sick of your personal attacks. Ignore list +1. Congrats!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
The last two statements make me sad :cry:
Sounds like you played a lot of a game you didn't like. That's weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmesa
I thought Stuntman was just swimming in class... looked to me like they put tons of effort into the game: great controls, graphics, missions, AWESOME extras, and a little playground to make your own crashes.
My only complaint is that it was too short... I could've gone on for a couple more movies. There is also little to no replay value. Matter of fact, once I got 100% I threw the thing on my shelf and swore never to touch the damned game again. Good times.
I'm ignoring you too, now, Mzo.
I'd LOVE to respond in some no-doubt hilarious way, but I appreciate the opportunity offered to this board to answer the monthly EGM question too much to derail the thread. I like the fact that I can see a TNLer or two's lame picture in EGM. It's great. Thank you, dlinn.
Plus, Dripdry, you're on my ignore list anyway.
You're right, they should've included that. And Morrowind. And KoF2k. And Socom. And LotR:TTT. In fact, I am offended they didn't include every bug-filled game of the last couple years, even though the list alone would more then fill the two pages they devoted to the article, let alone leave them any room to write about. How dare they choose to spotlight three games that were far more glitch-infested then KOTOR and on par with VC.Quote:
Fair enough, but that still doesn't explain why EGM glossed over KOTOR and Vice City in a "buggy games" feature that ran months after both games were released.
I didn't expect them to include every buggy game released in recent memory. However, I would've liked them to include the biggest game release this year (KOTOR) and the biggest game release from last year (Vice City), both of which happen to be notoriously buggy titles. You can continue to misinterpret my posts in an effort to come up with more witty replies if you want though.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
I like EGM. I just thought, as I already stated, that the "Buggy Games" feature was a missed opportunity more than anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
Why would I need to misinterpret? EtM and AoD were bigger titles then KOTOR with more hype and more glitches.Quote:
You can continue to misinterpret my posts in an effort to come up with more witty replies if you want though.
Except that Pirates wasn't designed as a licensed game, it merely got that title slapped on the front when they obtained the rights to it very late in the game (it was a sequel to another game) and AoD wasn't licensed.Quote:
That article was a major opportunity to show readers that even major game series and developers were susceptible to publisher pressure and rushed releases, not just licensed tripe like Enter the Matrix and Pirates or whatever.
I want a mag that just has 2 sides to the argument, one guy that loves it and one who spits on it, non of this 10 across the board nonsense.
Just a few months earlier, all three of those games garnered horrible to mediocre reviews in EGM. So why publish an article that retreads the same stuff their reviewers stated months prior?Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
AoD had more hype than KOTOR? Gimme a fucking break. AoD was a last ditch attempt to resurrect a series that gamers haven't cared about for years, and it was delayed so much that even most of the contigent that did care about a new Tomb Raider game lost interest. It also was an utter failure in all respects. KOTOR is a Star Wars fanboy's wet dream, one of the only RPG's on the Xbox, and the biggest Xbox release since Halo (arguably the biggest release on any platform this year). Vice City is the followup to the biggest game of this console generation. Vice City and KOTOR weren't featured in the article.
The lesson here is that nobody gives a shit about glitches in crappy games (licensed or not), because people aren't going to play those games anyway. I had no problem with them including Enter the Matrix in the article, since it was such a phenomenal sales success and it wasn't completely lambasted by reviewers across the board (though EGM rightfully panned it).
Including games such as AoD and Pirates allows readers to just rationalize the whole point of the article away. "Well sure...these games may be buggy, but I know developers like Bioware and Rockstar would never put out a buggy game. It's not that big of a problem."
Funny, none of that affects how it kept getting three times as much press as KOTOR. I didn't say it was a better game and that it came out on time, I said it got more hype. Which it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
You know, you could just write them and complain about how they didn't include a couple games in that article that you wanted them to.Quote:
KOTOR is a Star Wars fanboy's wet dream, one of the only RPG's on the Xbox, and the biggest Xbox release since Halo (arguably the biggest release on any platform this year). Vice City is the followup to the biggest game of this console generation. Vice City and KOTOR weren't featured in the article.
Except that almost anyone who would say that would have played their games and know otherwise from first-hand experience. It's like a Capcom fan saying none of their games include cheap bosses; they're either lying or they've never actually played any of their games.Quote:
Including games such as AoD and Pirates allows readers to just rationalize the whole point of the article away. "Well sure...these games may be buggy, but I know developers like Bioware and Rockstar would never put out a buggy game. It's not that big of a problem."
What planet are you living on? AoD got more pre-release disdain than hype. The game's entire development process was a joke. The way Eidos handled AoD's release (holding back review copies past publication deadlines, etc) was an even bigger joke. KOTOR was hyped beyond belief. It came out near the middle of the year when no other marquee titles were coming out. Bioware has a legion of fanboys drooling over its every release. Star Wars has a legion of fanboys drooling over every Star Wars game. Again, where was all this supposed Tomb Raider hype coming from? I'd like to know, because apparently I missed it. Or do you actually think the Tomb Raider movie sequel WHICH COMPLETELY BOMBED generated massive amounts of hype for AoD?Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
I'm not complaining, merely stating what I thought of the article. The only reason I brought that particular feature up is because it ties in with the theme of thread (when a publication loses credibility in the eyes of the reader). I didn't think the article was bad, just a missed opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
So what you're saying is popular games from popular developers should be exempt from such articles, because people will play and experience the bugs themselves anyway? Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
Where do you keep coming up with these arbitrary figures/numbers anyway? AoD got three times as much press as KOTOR? AoD has more bugs than KOTOR, but the amount of bugs in it are on par with Vice City? Where is your proof? All those games are incredibly buggy, but you insinuate that the reason AoD was included in the article is because it had more bugs than KOTOR, which is virtually impossible to prove one way or the other.
KOTOR had things written here and there, but it rarely had much pop up until the month of its release. AoD had something on it nearly every month in at least one magazine along with plenty on websites for the last half-year before release. A lot of it was wait-n-see but in every article I saw until release they always had something good to say even when complaining about it being pushed back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
Mind explaining how the hell you got that out of what I wrote? You said people would use an article as an excuse, I said anyone who would do so is blind or a liar. Where did I say popular developers should be exempt from articles? Oh that's right, I didn't.Quote:
So what you're saying is popular games from popular developers should be exempt from such articles, because people will play and experience the bugs themselves anyway? Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:
They're generalized figures based on how much was bitched about. KOTOR had one major glitch and a few minor one, VC had numerous major glitches and many minor ones, and AoD had mostly minor ones but were constant. So to answer your question: I get my figures from reading and playing games.Quote:
Where do you keep coming up with these arbitrary figures/numbers anyway? AoD got three times as much press as KOTOR? AoD has more bugs than KOTOR, but the amount of bugs in it are on par with Vice City? Where is your proof? All those games are incredibly buggy, but you insinuate that the reason AoD was included in the article is because it had more bugs than KOTOR, which is virtually impossible to prove one way or the other.
Apparently, we read some very different gaming magazines. The Tomb Raider series has been a joke for years, and AoD remaining in development hell for so long only made its previews progressively worse. Hype is supposed to make people want to buy a game, not laugh at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
Yes, that makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
I'm glad to see you're admitting that you didn't pay attention to any of the games I listed, perhaps you should go check the problems people have had with those games. You're so cute when you're blinded by a reasonless point. They didn't put KOTOR and VC in. You can stop crying now and get over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
But since you're having to rewrite what I said more and more I see you've run out of ideas and have decided to move to childish taunts. Hence, I'm done with this.
Mamoscott hijacked this thread like a bitch.
For every person saying KOTOR had bugs, there's always someone who dosen't. I've played it straight through, twice now, and never encountered ANY of these bugs you guys talk about. That's about 60 or so hours put into the game.
The bugs weren't constant, and didn't happen to everyone, so that's probably why that game wasn't on this list.
I just re-worded it, so you could see what you were posting. Isn't this...Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
...just another way of saying "I pulled the figures out of my ass"?Quote:
Originally Posted by MechDeus
Based on "how much was bitched about"? What kind of criteria is that anyway? If not your ass, where are you getting these figures from? KOTOR, Vice City, and Tomb Raider all have rather large FAQs dedicated to their bugs and glitches. I'm well aware of that. And while it's true that many reviews mentioned Tomb Raider's glitches (because the game sucked), most reviewers glossed over similar problems in KOTOR and Vice City (because they were good games), which is an even greater incentive to include both of them in an article like the one that ran in EGM.
Don't you think that a magazine, which evaluates games using "reviewable code" and writes reviews based on the assumption that developers will fix the bugs/glitches their reviewers encounter before the game hits shelves, should take the opportunity to "correct" themselves if that assumption is incorrect?
That article was a chance for EGM to tell readers that although both games are great, KOTOR and Vice City were obviously rushed through QA to retail and have some big problems with glitches. Instead they decided to just retread the same stuff they already said in their reviews of EtM, AoD, and Pirates in issues prior. So then, what was the point of running the article in the first place? To tell readers stuff they already knew? To make readers aware that games the Review Crew panned months ago are, in fact, shitty? I'm not surprised that both Vice City and KOTOR were left out of the article, as pissing off Rockstar and Bioware is something that I'm sure EGM is not eager to do, but if you think I'm upset about it, you're wrong.
If you had bothered to scroll up, you would see that I was the last person to contribute an on-topic reply. I didn't know that my posting about other issues related to the thread magically prevented everyone, including yourself, from contributing any additional on-topic replies. Is that some unwritten forum rule I don't know about?Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
EDIT: Roufuss, there are plenty of major, reproduceable bugs in KOTOR (http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/xbox/...kotor_bugs.txt). I'm sure lots of people played the game without experiencing any glitches, but if that were the case for everyone, there wouldn't have been such an uproar about them.
Yea, the unwritten rule says "Mamoscott, don't act like a bitch." It is broken quite often.
Normally, I would just put someone like you on ignore, but your posts are endlessly entertaining. Just when I think you can't possibly come up with a less clever post than the one you just made, you always manage to top yourself. You are truly the antithesis of clever. Honestly, it's hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
STFU, all of you.
I derailed this thread before any of you bitches.
I don't allow anyone elses opinion to dictate what games I buy, like, or dislike. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree. With that said:
EA's Nascar games. Most of their offerings are clear examples of style over substance. According to EA(and most of the developers who worked on the titles over the years) drafting is just as huge and routine at Bristol and Martinsville as it is at tracks like Daytona and Talledega. Physics, control and handling for the games have been pitiful over the years, but EGM has routinely over-rated the games, with possibly one or two exceptions. The wobbly cars of Nascar '99 being one. The series changed it's name and has a new developer, and there has definitely been improvement evident with the Thunder series. But even as good an effort as Thunder 2004 is, it still falls well short of anything Papyrus did.
Damn shame EA now owns exclusive rights to the Nascar license. Well done Nascar. :rolleyes:
Giving Chaos Legions 8.5's looked a teeny bit too high. It's all just bash and smash, and by the time you're done with it, you don't really feel like playing it again. Nice style, but the DMC spinoff idea kinda put me down. I give them credit for trying to make another badass game though.
It's a shame RedCloak was banned before this was posted... :)
I remember being all hyped by various places [notably IGN] about Hybryd Heaven for N64 being the first rpg. I was extremely dissapointed with the lackluster level design, shit textures, and uninsired weapons. The battle system was good for an RPG [Who wouldve guessed an RPG can be more than menu surfing] but it still grew tired fast. Terrible game, and no battery backup on the cart made it even worse.
Reviews don't influence my purchasing decisions much. Although EGM panned Mystical Fighter on Genesis, I went ahead and bought it regardless- and actually enjoyed it. El Viento (Genesis) got good reviews, but I found it to be way too easy.
The Review Crew said that in Giga Wing you "often can't avoid death", but I (and players in TNL's Giga Wing score thread) and a group of players on the Anmitsu scorelist would disagree.
When I look at a review, the scores don't matter. If a game got a 4, what's more important is WHY.
i agree, and whats worse, egm gave this thread a 8.5, but the mamoscott bug is totally killing this thread, its a 5.5 if that.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I bought Hoshigami purely because GameGO! said it was the next Tactics. I think they meant Disgaea, but didn't know it.
No way! I found his posts hilarious, anyone know where he rants now?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShineAqua
please unsticky this bad boy...new one coming shortly!
Dude read what I said again, I said "It was a shame..." Anyhow he posts on OpaAge *shudder* and Gamespot :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by §eraphim
K, unstickied.