If nothing else, I'd much rather play it on a Vita for the screen. I'll sacrifice 3D and a dedicated map screen for that giant OLED screen any day.

I remember liking the first one a lot, but I got about three-quarters through it, stepped away from it for a couple weeks, and could not get back into it for the life of me. I had no idea where I was or why or where I needed to go (or why).

Isn't it, I don't know, blatantly hypocritical to have an article attacking Metacritic for aggregating scores and taking snippets from reviews when you guys do exactly the same thing?

Excuse me, I own the BioEDGE trademark, and I'll need you to remove that comment now before I'm forced to take legal action.

Wait, are you guys aggregating other sites' reviews, taking just their scores and a snippet of text? Almost like... Metacritic or something... Almost like... you guys are huge hypocrites after posting that story lambasting Metacritic for doing exactly this...

Yeah, I liked these a lot. It was cool knowing that they'd come up with rationale for why everything exists the way it does.

If you're talking about a site-specific Polygon.com-SimCity-style updating where the old score stays on the site too, that's fine. I was curious if Lair had gotten better after they updated that, but nobody had re-reviewed it. Would've been useful. But that was a significant update that radically changed how the game…

This BioShock Infinite stuff is just like, "Well that doesn't happen specifically, but you can do that stuff so I guess this isn't that offensive."

It's just the product of human evolution. We used to have to risk our lives for everything. Just to get food, you had to kill something. Now, we just go to the grocery store. There's still some kind of primal in us. For some, a thrilling video game or movie is enough. For others, that's not the same; they need to go…

Yeah, but I don't think that makes it OK in any way. I just think game advertisements should reflect the actual content of the game.

You're literally telling me right now, "It's OK for publishers to release broken games as long as they fix them later," and that's crazy to me.

I guess I must have missed the part in the game where I saved Elizabeth from being hanged.

Because now games are allowed to be released broken. Sony and Microsoft will literally let you release a broken, unfinished game as long as the publisher promises a day-one patch that makes it playable. That's gross. I paid $60 for an unfinished version of Assassin's Creed III. I don't want that game to get a pass…

I would be furious if Assassin's Creed III, for example, got its scores raised after months of patching. I'm already mad enough that it got the scores it did, most reviews totally excusing the bugs. That would spit in my face for buying it at launch. Plain and simple: if a game launches broken, buggy, and unfinished…

This indictment of Metacritic and review scores is coming from a site that a) uses review scores itself, b) loses traffic (read: revenue) by not being on Metacritic because its review scores don't conform easily, and c) has a feature where they literally just do what Metacritic does but on a smaller scale.

Lag has never really been my problem. I just find it disappointing how hard it can be to connect with other players sometimes, both in terms of finding them and actually bringing them into your game. Oh, and backstabbing is totally broken. It was broken in Demon's Souls and it was broken in Dark Souls. If they can't…

I thought you meant they were remaking Sands of Time for PS4, something I would've totally been OK with. Oh well.

As long as Kotaku Core maintains, cover whatever else people want.

I'm from 1946 and I'm already living underwater. Would you kindly check yourself before you wriggity-wreck yourself?

It's true, but all those markets combined is significant. It's how Sony's caught up to Microsoft so well this generation. Microsoft crushes in America, but Sony crushed them literally everywhere else.