Support NeoGAF

[fluffydelusions]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPn48OfZcok

You're gonna love this

wow wow lol

 

[dugdug]

"Devs need to have thick skin."

Really? Was that part of their education? They asked for nothing but to make video games. Now all of a sudden they're supposed to be punching bags, too? They aren't public personalities, they're game developers.

 

[Kodaman]

This is by far the stupidest post in this thread, and that's really saying something.

Are you even aware of various reasons ISIS has actually ended up killing people?

Quite an accomplishment given the thread.

 

[Higgins113]

Gross and unprofessional:

Journalists are taking the piss now at this stage. Not fair on the devs who spent 5 years of their lives creating this game.

C'mon you guys, let's stop all this bullying.

Ayy lmao

 

[Toxi]

A good rule of thumb would be to envision the thing you're making fun of being represented by the ISIS, and then think of what their reaction would be. If it results in someone not having a head, you're probably being too mean.

People have been murdered by ISIS for their religion, ethnicity, and sexuality, and you have the gall to make this asinine comparison?

 

[BakedYams]

People have been murdered by ISIS for their religion, ethnicity, and sexuality, and you have the gall to make this asinine comparison?

I think there's an ongoing joke about steaks and that since the mods were mentioning it earlier but I have no idea what the meaning behind it is.

 

[Amentallica]

Same. Infamous SS and First light are both solid games IMO

Totally off topic, but is first light a complete.package on its own and not DLC?

 

[alr1ght]

Totally off topic, but is first light a complete.package on its own and not DLC?

It's a standalone side story.

 

[Dawg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPn48OfZcok

You're gonna love this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjZJHSU-58M

 

[Hugstable]

Totally off topic, but is first light a complete.package on its own and not DLC?

Yeah First Light is standalone and decently fun. Found it better than Second Son, then again I don't think Second Son is all that good

 

[Freeman]

Game press is full of cowards. Every time EA, Ubi or Activision take a shit they give them great reviews. Now they think its looks cool to make fun of developers that are down after working years in the game.

There is a difference between giving the game low scores and engaging in a smearing campaign to discredit and mock the game.

I don't know if the game is good or not, but I hope its sells so the game press will face how irrelevant and silly they are.

 

[Hades Hotgun]

A good rule of thumb would be to envision the thing you're making fun of being represented by the ISIS, and then think of what their reaction would be. If it results in someone not having a head, you're probably being too mean.

Is this a fucking riddle or are you just straight up envoking ISIS as a standard for appropriate expression?

 

[Auctopus]

I just watched the Gametrailers (a site I usually agree with) review and though their numbered score seemed a little contrasting to Bloodworth's words, it's convinced me that this game is definitely worth a play through.

However, I've spent most of my gaming budget for now so it'll have to wait until after Bloodborne. Which is a good thing, I think I'll be able to enjoy the game more once the arguing has died down and I've played several months of a gameplay heavy title (I'm sure a slightly reduced price won't hurt either).

It sounds like there's been some hyperbole. The behaviour of journalists has been downright deplorable, especially after they were all morally circle jerking over that Kotaku thread last week.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

Isis?

 

[Seventy70]

"Devs need to have thick skin."

Really? Was that part of their education? They asked for nothing but to make video games. Now all of a sudden they're supposed to be punching bags, too? They aren't public personalities, they're game developers.

Who is using them as a punching bag? If they are going to make and sell a product, they need to be able to accept criticism on it.

 

[Derpyduck]

Does someone have a link to the video on youtube of the "interview" with the Ready At Dawn dev? This thread is too long and I can't find it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjZJHSU-58M

Not this one, btw. Hitler has been usurped.

 

[GrandHarrier]

I'm really glad I waited on reviews. This is going to be a decent PS+ game in a few months.

 

[Xpliskin]

No, it's not subjective at all, RAD have been quite clear in their desire to make this a franchise and this will severely hurt the chances of that happening.

Not to mention many have cancelled their pre-orders based on these reviews or will wait until it drops sharply in price.

It doesn't matter how you want to phrase it, the reviews have been overwhelmingly negative and will hurt the game and any attempt at making this into a brand name.

Subjective again.
You're taking message board mumblings and an average 6/10 score (which isn't overwhelmingly negative) as crucial factors in a franchise's success.
There even isn't any sales data available, the game is out today (what does many mean ? A few gaf members?)

You're just following a thread's emotional context, which is very subjective to say the least.

 

[Nzyme32]

Gross and unprofessional:

Journalists are taking the piss now at this stage. Not fair on the devs who spent 5 years of their lives creating this game.

Its twitter. Professionalism isn't really a nessecity on one's personal account and demonstrating an opinion or sense of humour is obviously fine. He isn't hurting anyone or threatening anyone, and has no reason to be so docile in any responses

 

[Oogedei]

Are people really cancelling their pre-orders? 65 sounds like a good , reasonable score unlike some inflated scores we've seen in the past...

I cancelled my preorder a few days ago because of the concerns surrounding this game. Unfortunately I forgot that I've already preordered it early 2014 when it was first possible to do so. So I got my copy today but I'm sending it back without even opening it. 65 is terrible. Would never risk at losing so much money (it's 70 bucks here) for something that seems to have a super lame story and zero replayability. I like those cinematic games but this one right here...well the devs were lazy I guess.

 

[shungokusatsu]

I expect that to be a lesson that is very clearly learned by those who make decisions that are paying attention. Expect more aggressive behavior from publishers to take down everything that isn't marketing related or positive.

Heh, pretty much. It'll be NPD all over again. I expect more embargoes along the lines of AC Unity - ending AFTER a game's been released.

A bad game's a bad game, but I feel for RAD. To put in all that hard work over the years, just to have journalist mocking you around every corner. I preordered on PSN so I'm stuck with it, but I had my sights set on it since the unveil, so I'm not worried about it. Ultimately, I'll be the judge of whether I think it'z good or bad, not someone else.

 

[Uno Venova]

I'm really glad I waited on reviews. This is going to be a decent PS+ game in a few months.

I don't know of people shoul really be waiting on this, none of the other big exclusives have even been on plus.

 

[iNvid02]

i knew this thread would go places, but this is.. this is something else

"Devs need to have thick skin."

Really? Was that part of their education? They asked for nothing but to make video games. Now all of a sudden they're supposed to be punching bags, too? They aren't public personalities, they're game developers.

i think as long as people can separate themselves from their product they'll be OK. and for that you do need a certain amount of thick skin.

 

[Captain Tuttle]

Are you being for real here?? Sorry I'm new to GAF. I spend a lot of time on N4G and a statement like that would be the honest truth over there

N4G is still around huh? I had a good time there back in the early days.

And that was sarcasm, welcome to GAF!

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Next time you so called """""journalists""""" want to review a game, here are some helpful pointers from me, the man on "the streets":

• Divide a game into six different categories: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Presentation, Replayability, and GamePro Face. Each of these scientific and objective scores should be then combined via an algorithm that mathematicians still aren't sure is real. If the final score doesn't match your opinion, that's proof that you were biased. This mathematical standard will hold up pretty well until a game I think I'll like is reviewed poorly under it, and then we'll need to restart all over again.
  
• Review a game for what it is, not what it isn't. If you state that the game isn't good, then that's pretty unfair to the developers, who might not have wanted to make a good game.
  
• Consider that by criticizing a game, you're criticizing every game in that genre by extension, and telling the developers not to bother making any game remotely like it ever again. Logically, it follows that we'll eventually reach a point where no games will ever be made again, and that's bad because I want to preorder more of them as soon as they're announced.
  
• Imagine the feelings of the developers. Be fair and criticize them, but not as much as you're thinking about criticizing about them, however much that is. That's too much. Remember that developers have families to feed. Imagine if reviewing a game poorly caused ISIS to besiege the developer's town. Imagine if the developers joined ISIS to make money because now their studio is shut down. Didn't think about that, did ya.

 

[mclem]

So how is this new system at Kotaku any better than what they had before? Ok so you're not giving out a score but that stupid table is just as bad as a score. You're not encouraging people to actually read your review

Kotaku has had this scoring setup for ages. It's Eurogamer which recently changed their system.

 

[Africanus]

A good rule of thumb would be to envision the thing you're making fun of being represented by the ISIS, and then think of what their reaction would be. If it results in someone not having a head, you're probably being too mean.

This analogy is a failure on multiple reasons.
To begin with, ISIS is an inherently irrational group which lashes out at a wide variety of subjects, from blasphemy to women wearing jeans. As such, their judgement on a subject can not be trusted.
Next, regarding a videogame (an inanimate object with no feelings, emotions, desires, et cetera), I see little way for a direct comparison to be made to ISIS (A terrorist cell in Iraq and Iran with human members).
Continuing on your analogy "If it results in someone not having a head, you're probably being too mean." ISIS has beheaded numerous people for no more reason than existing as a different gender, race, culture, religion, sexuality, or even simply existing. They may even kill one for lavishing praises onto such a game as The Order: 1886.

In summary, not only is your analogy terrible, but your comparing of criticism of a videogame to a beheading by ISIS is not only inane but disrespectful to those innocent individuals who have died at the hands of that organization. I would advise you to think before posting and I would advocate self-restraint when possible.

As an aside; I can not believe that this thread has burst out as such. There are better games of the past, and better games of the future to worry about than a half-hearted historical one.

 

[The Antitype]

no way its that low

I only checked in just now, but this post is hilarious.

Note: Post was in response to another guessing a 65 metacritic average

 

[Jobbs]

I cancelled my preorder a few days ago because of the concerns surrounding this game. Unfortunately I forgot that I've already preordered it early 2014 when it was first possible to do so. So I got my copy today but I'm sending it back without even opening it. 65 is terrible. Would never risk at losing so much money (it's 70 bucks here) for something that seems to have a super lame story and zero replayability. I like those cinematic games but this one right here...well the devs were lazy I guess.

you haven't played it and are comfortable calling the devs lazy? If there's a problem, I don't think them being lazy is it. I'll form my own thoughts when I play the game tomorrow.

 

[benjammin]

When a creator puts out his work in the world, where everyone can see it, he should expect any and every kind of criticism. Journalists ridiculing your, apparently mediocre, product is par for the course.

I don't think anybody was sorry for Lair's developers at the time, or for Haze's ones (not the same score range but you get what I mean). What's with the sudden "poor devs" approach?

I'll happily pay twenty to thirty bucks for The Order 1886: Participant Ribbon Edition next year

 

[Aquamarine]

Ehh...

I like the supernatural horror elements in it, so I'll probably end up buying The Order: 1886 anyway along with Persona 5 when I get a PS4.

I've often loathed / disregarded "critical consensus" of entertainment. There have been lots of times where the critics hated it, but I ended up loving it, so I'll make up my own damn mind.

 

[JumpJeff84]

Looks like I had the exact right idea about what this game was, glad I didn't preorder it.

It looked like an overly linear QTE-fest with mediocre gameplay, too many cut scenes, an underwhelming story and zero replay.

I was wondering if I'd be surprised, but seems like my gut impression was right on the money

 

[Dictator93]

Next time you so called """""journalists""""" want to review a game, here are some helpful pointers from me, the man on "the streets":

• Divide a game into six different categories: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Presentation, Replayability, and GamePro Face. Each of these scientific and objective scores should be then combined via an algorithm that mathematicians still aren't sure is real. If the final score doesn't match your opinion, that's proof that you were biased. This mathematical standard will hold up pretty well until a game I think I'll like is reviewed poorly under it, and then we'll need to restart all over again.
  
• Review a game for what it is, not what it isn't. If you state that the game isn't good, then that's pretty unfair to the developers, who might not have wanted to make a good game.
  
• Consider that by criticizing a game, you're criticizing every game in that genre by extension, and telling the developers not to bother making any game remotely like it ever again. Logically, it follows that we'll eventually reach a point where no games will ever be made again, and that's bad because I want to preorder more of them as soon as they're announced.
  
• Imagine the feelings of the developers. Be fair and criticize them, but not as much as you're thinking about criticizing about them, however much that is. That's too much. Remember that developers have families to feed. Imagine if reviewing a game poorly caused ISIS to besiege the developer's town. Imagine if the developers joined ISIS to make money because now their studio is shut down. Didn't think about that, did ya.

I was gonna post something but this encapsulated the sentiment of my post. Bravo!

 

[Kabuki Waq]

Buying this game tomorrow right after work. The reason I bought a PS4 last month was to play this game... These reviews don't matter to me.... The games style draw me in when first announced years ago with its design. This game gets me hyped and can't wait to play it.

I did not think this would be more focused on story than gameplay. i was hoping a cross between gears and RE.

 

[User 73706]

Next time you so called """""journalists""""" want to review a game, here are some helpful pointers from me, the man on "the streets":

• Divide a game into six different categories: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Presentation, Replayability, and GamePro Face. Each of these scientific and objective scores should be then combined via an algorithm that mathematicians still aren't sure is real. If the final score doesn't match your opinion, that's proof that you were biased. This mathematical standard will hold up pretty well until a game I think I'll like is reviewed poorly under it, and then we'll need to restart all over again.
  
• Review a game for what it is, not what it isn't. If you state that the game isn't good, then that's pretty unfair to the developers, who might not have wanted to make a good game.
  
• Consider that by criticizing a game, you're criticizing every game in that genre by extension, and telling the developers not to bother making any game remotely like it ever again. Logically, it follows that we'll eventually reach a point where no games will ever be made again, and that's bad because I want to preorder more of them as soon as they're announced.
  
• Imagine the feelings of the developers. Be fair and criticize them, but not as much as you're thinking about criticizing about them, however much that is. That's too much. Remember that developers have families to feed. Imagine if reviewing a game poorly caused ISIS to besiege the developer's town. Imagine if the developers joined ISIS to make money because now their studio is shut down. Didn't think about that, did ya.

I've been trying to tell people this for years. The team behind Bubsy 3D are people, dammit!

 

[aly]

I'm really glad I waited on reviews. This is going to be a decent PS+ game in a few months.

Your not the only person to say this but do people really expect these Sony first party games to go to plus so quickly? I mean c'mon we don't even have Knack yet.

 

[Ricky Ricardo]

Game press is full of cowards. Every time EA, Ubi or Activision take a shit they give them great reviews. Now they think its looks cool to make fun of developers that are down after working years in the game.

There is a difference between giving the game low scores and engaging in a smearing campaign to discredit and mock the game.

I don't know if the game is good or not, but I hope its sells so the game press will face how irrelevant and silly they are.

Why the hell does this keep being used? What dev house doesn't spend years working on their game? Stop bringing this pity party nonsense of "Oh, the devs spent years on this, so I'll just not say anything bad, so they won't feel bad."

 

[DNAbro]

Ehh...

I like the supernatural horror elements in it, so I'll probably end up buying The Order: 1886 anyway along with Persona 5 when I get a PS4.

I've often loathed / disregarded "critical consensus" of entertainment. There have been lots of times where the critics hated it, but I ended up loving it, so I'll make up my own damn mind.

I mean by that time it will probably be cheap. If it's under 30$ it will probably be worth it.

Why the hell does this keep being used? What dev house doesn't spend years working on their game? Stop bringing this pity party nonsense of "Oh, the devs spent years on this, so I'll just not say anything bad, so they won't feel bad."

cause obviously EA, Acti, and Ubi press their magic game button and a game pops out. No love and hard workers on their games no sir.

 

[Ferrio]

Next time you so called """""journalists""""" want to review a game, here are some helpful pointers from me, the man on "the streets":

• Divide a game into six different categories: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Presentation, Replayability, and GamePro Face. Each of these scientific and objective scores should be then combined via an algorithm that mathematicians still aren't sure is real. If the final score doesn't match your opinion, that's proof that you were biased. This mathematical standard will hold up pretty well until a game I think I'll like is reviewed poorly under it, and then we'll need to restart all over again.
  
• Review a game for what it is, not what it isn't. If you state that the game isn't good, then that's pretty unfair to the developers, who might not have wanted to make a good game.
  
• Consider that by criticizing a game, you're criticizing every game in that genre by extension, and telling the developers not to bother making any game remotely like it ever again. Logically, it follows that we'll eventually reach a point where no games will ever be made again, and that's bad because I want to preorder more of them as soon as they're announced.
  
• Imagine the feelings of the developers. Be fair and criticize them, but not as much as you're thinking about criticizing about them, however much that is. That's too much. Remember that developers have families to feed. Imagine if reviewing a game poorly caused ISIS to besiege the developer's town. Imagine if the developers joined ISIS to make money because now their studio is shut down. Didn't think about that, did ya.

I didn't.

 

[JumpJeff84]

Next time you so called """""journalists""""" want to review a game, here are some helpful pointers from me, the man on "the streets":

• Divide a game into six different categories: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Presentation, Replayability, and GamePro Face. Each of these scientific and objective scores should be then combined via an algorithm that mathematicians still aren't sure is real. If the final score doesn't match your opinion, that's proof that you were biased. This mathematical standard will hold up pretty well until a game I think I'll like is reviewed poorly under it, and then we'll need to restart all over again.
  
• Review a game for what it is, not what it isn't. If you state that the game isn't good, then that's pretty unfair to the developers, who might not have wanted to make a good game.
  
• Consider that by criticizing a game, you're criticizing every game in that genre by extension, and telling the developers not to bother making any game remotely like it ever again. Logically, it follows that we'll eventually reach a point where no games will ever be made again, and that's bad because I want to preorder more of them as soon as they're announced.
  
• Imagine the feelings of the developers. Be fair and criticize them, but not as much as you're thinking about criticizing about them, however much that is. That's too much. Remember that developers have families to feed. Imagine if reviewing a game poorly caused ISIS to besiege the developer's town. Imagine if the developers joined ISIS to make money because now their studio is shut down. Didn't think about that, did ya.

Ha ha

 

[Sweep14]

Heh, pretty much. It'll be NPD all over again. I expect more embargoes along the lines of AC Unity - ending AFTER a game's been released.

A bad game's a bad game, but I feel for RAD. To put in all that hard work over the years, just to have journalist mocking you around every corner. I preordered on PSN so I'm stuck with it, but I had my sights set on it since the unveil, so I'm not worried about it. Ultimately, I'll be the judge of whether I think it'z good or bad, not someone else.

You'll discover soon that it's not a bad game at all.

As for embargoes. Well I could see publishers doing what you said or blacklisting some gaming medias, not allowing them to review the game, especially with those that are regularly unfair with their games.

 

[Septic360]

N4G is still around huh? I had a good time there back in the early days.

And that was sarcasm, welcome to GAF!

Cheers lol. Yeah it's still around. Mostly populated by Dualshockers articles starting off with "PS4 exclusive The Order gets more screenshots I've nabbed while refreshing Neogaf".

Still, it feels like home.

The majority on there are silent atm. The Order's critical failings have created an eerie silence on there at the moment.

 

[twobear]

Next time you so called """""journalists""""" want to review a game, here are some helpful pointers from me, the man on "the streets":

• Divide a game into six different categories: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Presentation, Replayability, and GamePro Face. Each of these scientific and objective scores should be then combined via an algorithm that mathematicians still aren't sure is real. If the final score doesn't match your opinion, that's proof that you were biased. This mathematical standard will hold up pretty well until a game I think I'll like is reviewed poorly under it, and then we'll need to restart all over again.
  
• Review a game for what it is, not what it isn't. If you state that the game isn't good, then that's pretty unfair to the developers, who might not have wanted to make a good game.
  
• Consider that by criticizing a game, you're criticizing every game in that genre by extension, and telling the developers not to bother making any game remotely like it ever again. Logically, it follows that we'll eventually reach a point where no games will ever be made again, and that's bad because I want to preorder more of them as soon as they're announced.
  
• Imagine the feelings of the developers. Be fair and criticize them, but not as much as you're thinking about criticizing about them, however much that is. That's too much. Remember that developers have families to feed. Imagine if reviewing a game poorly caused ISIS to besiege the developer's town. Imagine if the developers joined ISIS to make money because now their studio is shut down. Didn't think about that, did ya.

 

[Frillen]

Slightly, but not completely OT.

IF anyone is looking for a 3rd person "shooter" for the PS4, I'll say I was VERY surprised by Sniper Elite III the last couple days. I had never played the series before.

If you can find it cheap, I'd say grab it and try it out. It's like Hitman and Metal Gear Solid had a baby.

You can go in on the ground and melee/silently kill enemies. You can snipe enemies. You can set complex traps up and lure your victims in. You can even go guns blazing if you want. The "levels" are like multiple Ground Zeroes each.

Anyway, just a suggestion as a low-cost diamond in the ruff for me. I'm enjoying it a lot more than I expected, and probably would have completely overlooked it.

This. People should really play this game. Ultimate Edition along with the DLCs is coming in March. So no excuse anymore peepz.

Spoiler

Bloodborne

 

[Seventy70]

Next time you so called """""journalists""""" want to review a game, here are some helpful pointers from me, the man on "the streets":

• Divide a game into six different categories: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Presentation, Replayability, and GamePro Face. Each of these scientific and objective scores should be then combined via an algorithm that mathematicians still aren't sure is real. If the final score doesn't match your opinion, that's proof that you were biased. This mathematical standard will hold up pretty well until a game I think I'll like is reviewed poorly under it, and then we'll need to restart all over again.
  
• Review a game for what it is, not what it isn't. If you state that the game isn't good, then that's pretty unfair to the developers, who might not have wanted to make a good game.
  
• Consider that by criticizing a game, you're criticizing every game in that genre by extension, and telling the developers not to bother making any game remotely like it ever again. Logically, it follows that we'll eventually reach a point where no games will ever be made again, and that's bad because I want to preorder more of them as soon as they're announced.
  
• Imagine the feelings of the developers. Be fair and criticize them, but not as much as you're thinking about criticizing about them, however much that is. That's too much. Remember that developers have families to feed. Imagine if reviewing a game poorly caused ISIS to besiege the developer's town. Imagine if the developers joined ISIS to make money because now their studio is shut down. Didn't think about that, did ya.

Perfection.

 

[Ferrio]

This. People should really play this game. Ultimate Edition along with the DLCs is coming in March. So no excuse anymore peepz.

Spoiler

Bloodborne

Was on sale super cheap on steam last week, almost pulled the trigger. Little sad i didn't... put on my wishlist for next sale.

 

[Nzyme32]

Next time you so called """""journalists""""" want to review a game, here are some helpful pointers from me, the man on "the streets":

• Divide a game into six different categories: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Presentation, Replayability, and GamePro Face. Each of these scientific and objective scores should be then combined via an algorithm that mathematicians still aren't sure is real. If the final score doesn't match your opinion, that's proof that you were biased. This mathematical standard will hold up pretty well until a game I think I'll like is reviewed poorly under it, and then we'll need to restart all over again.
  
• Review a game for what it is, not what it isn't. If you state that the game isn't good, then that's pretty unfair to the developers, who might not have wanted to make a good game.
  
• Consider that by criticizing a game, you're criticizing every game in that genre by extension, and telling the developers not to bother making any game remotely like it ever again. Logically, it follows that we'll eventually reach a point where no games will ever be made again, and that's bad because I want to preorder more of them as soon as they're announced.
  
• Imagine the feelings of the developers. Be fair and criticize them, but not as much as you're thinking about criticizing about them, however much that is. That's too much. Remember that developers have families to feed. Imagine if reviewing a game poorly caused ISIS to besiege the developer's town. Imagine if the developers joined ISIS to make money because now their studio is shut down. Didn't think about that, did ya.

You are not looking at this correctly. We need reviews objective to a p value of p<0.05. In fact I would suggest using several parametric tests of a larger sample size of the highest metacritic scores (obviously the best quality) for statistical analysis and reaching a significance of at least 5 sigma, as used when clarifying the Ev of the higgs boson at LHC. This way, generated criticisms towards developers can be fundamentally proportional and tractable.

 

[Aquamarine]

Ehh...

I like the supernatural horror elements in it, so I'll probably end up buying The Order: 1886 anyway along with Persona 5 when I get a PS4.

I've often loathed / disregarded "critical consensus" of entertainment. There have been lots of times where the critics hated it, but I ended up loving it, so I'll make up my own damn mind.

I mean by that time it will probably be cheap. If it's under 30$ it will probably be worth it.

Yeah definitely. It's a much easier sell at <$30 than at full price.

 

[Freeman]

Why the hell does this keep being used? What dev house doesn't spend years working on their game? Stop bringing this pity party nonsense of "Oh, the devs spent years on this, so I'll just not say anything bad, so they won't feel bad."

Did you read what I wrote?

I just expect them to behave like professionals, rate the game 0 out 100 for all I care.

 

[Hades Hotgun]

Oh god what have we done?!?