The preference doesn’t confuse me much, it’s the people who only game heavily on one console or just consoles, that do. So much cool stuff out there to be limited to one, especially if you have even a modest income.

2. Sure, but I just literally don’t know anyone who has a pc and no speakers.

1. I disagree. It’s the complete opposite for me. Not to mention having to launch Big Picture everytime from you pc. If it’s not doubling as a pc the price of a decent rig and all the added peripherals isn’t worth the price.

1. Still Big Picture dependend, need a fast connection. Another peripheral.

I love both my gaming pc and my PS4. What a lot of PC only people forget to mention is the hassle to actually get goin on a tv with your pc:

Weird thing is I have it the other way around. Me and my friends had the “normal” international one, while my uncle had the cool looking US one with purple buttons.

His eyes aren’t pink, brows overlooked and his hair is not fashionable, sorry.

Super Saiyan Rainbow sometime in the future, calling it now. It’ll require a special kind of fusion.

I do agree with you on that. More devs (not all) that aren’t indies need to stop prioritizing graphics over everything else. Not only in favor of fps, but also in other areas. Personally I would like to see a richer game world more often. With Final Fantasy XIII for instance, they could have gone for more towns,…

Preferences, it’s why you can turn it around. People prefering graphics over framerate are not alone either and on console they are the majority as opposed to the vocal 60fps on consoles minority(even less people having a physical reaction). Uncharted didn’t become big by sacrificing visual fidelity for fps, nor did…

On pc I agree, since there’s a choice(most of the time), which is great. It’s just that the discussion is always about what to sacrifice; fps or graphics?For me you could turn it around: “I can’t play (insert your preferred kick ass 60fps game here) cause it looks too dated”

I’ve been going back and forth constantly for like 20 years between fast paced pc games like CS1.x, L4D2 etc and console games, but I still can’t tell the difference. I’m not sure if I should be sad or happy about it...

Line with a small pea sized dot, somewhat smeared out with a bankcard is the definite way to go.

I agree that in terms of discussion yes/no is better than 0-10, but I disagree that a numerical value is the beginning and end of a conversation. Just check review threads on NeoGAF and it’s endless pages of discussing why a game is as good as it is or why it isn’t. Those numerical values ignite conversation if…

That’s the whole point I’m making since that goes for numerical review systems as well. Pot calling the kettle black is what I was saying. I generally love and agree with everything Jason Schreier writes though. Just not in this case :)

That goes for all review systems, they’re never on their own. You seem to get just as much pro’s and cons for an above par game as you get for a stellar game. There’s no weight there, which is the problem.

The thing is that that goes for all reviews. If you actually read a review about MGSV and Mario Maker, you know they’re very different. The point is that a yes/no/not yet is no different and arguably worse than a 5/5, 10/10 or 100/100 system. Saying that it’s much more valuable than a score system is either very…

On the other hand two games that would be just above or below par would get a 55 and 60 score and with Kotaku Uncharted Golden Abyss might get a cold hard NO and will be compared with a broken mess like Assasin’s Creed: Unity, while another just barely passes, gets the Kotaku YES and then gets compared to Mario Maker…

Something like a conclusion using a small amount of words with a maximum amount of characters. Like two Twitter posts max.

This so much. If you truly believe this Jason, get Kotaku to remove the yes/no binary score and force people to read Kotaku reviews. Otherwise I can only conclude that the hypocrisy is astounding.