Did you guys notice how, on the topslot on the main page, the tear down the middle of the Xbox Live Gold Membership card makaes it spell out "Old"? Pretty clever trick by the art department.

WilliamRLBaker

Our rating criteria does not factor in if it's an arcade-perfect port or not. We have an emblem (Accurate Emulation) for people who are curious about that aspect, but that doesn't tell you if the game is actually worth playing or not.

Mcshea should be banned from reviewing classic games and nintendo games lol...stick to modern games mcshea..KBFloYd

Man, that would be a shame. I just finished Link's Awakening for the first time a few days ago and it's incredible. Shame we don't review Virtual Console games anymore. Now that's an older game that totally holds up.

You're an idiot. (A delusional idiot, at that) You said it was an accurate emulation of the original, then went on to score it a 3.0 for not having modern features and having a lack of a compelling narrative, which comes back to the whole "idiot" thing. You are so stupid that my brain is trying to claw it's way out of my head screaming "WHY DO YOU MAKE ME READ THIS SH*T, WHY DO YOU HATE ME". Jesus, you give the internet aids just by existing.TransFishers

Like I said in my review, it's nice that there is an accurate console version of this game for historical purposes. That doesn't mean it's fun to play.

As far as narrative is concerned, I spelled this out in my review as well. Narrative in this type of game isn't important, but the lazy way it was handled is characteristic of the haphazard way every element is presented. I'm not sure why you couldn't pick up on these points in my review, so I hope you can understand them easier here.

I agree. Review games for what they are, not what you want them to be. If the only negative is that it's an accurate port of the arcade original, then writing a review at all seems like a waste of time.TransFishers

That's exactly what I did. This is a short game with tedious combat and lousy unlockables. It's bad. As I said in my review, it's Good that it's acrade perfect so historians have a copy of this game, but that doesn't mean it's fun to play. I'm not sure why you think I was measuring it against some hypothetical belief of what it should be. I played it, it's boring, and I detailed why that's the case.

I don't care if a game was fun twenty years ago. People have limited time and money, and I would be doing them a disservice if I gave it a high score just because I had fun with it when I was ten.

Good interview. It would've been nice to know more about how he calculates his scores, though.PBSnipes

Under the score in every review, we have a link you can click on to see our guidelines. A game in the 7 range is described as "good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults."

My hands are kind of tied with scores. We have certain criteria we have to follow so I can't just give out any number I want. When I submit a review for QA (a process where everyone on staff reads and weighs in on my thoughts), I do so without a score, and see what they think it sounded like. In the case of SS, everyone confirmed my belief that this really is a Good game. It would have been much easier if I had slapped on an 8.5 to the same text, and I would have gotten far less grief for it, but I want to be as informative as possible.

So, yeah, the score is the last part of a review and the entire staff talks about where this number should fall. SS has strengths but serious weaknesses, so it's firmly in the Good range. Because I really enjoyed it, I made it a 7.5 instead of a 7.0, but anything above that would contradict my evaluation.

I like the cut of your jib

The idea that GameSpot is somehow biased against the PlayStation 3 is really baffling to me. Not only have we rated exclusives extremely high in the past (Uncharted 2, God of War 3, Resistence 2, etc) but we have given two recent Game of the Year award (Metal Gear and Demon's Souls) to games only found on that platform. There is no conspiracy.

I agree! Don't worry, I'll be pushing hard for quite a few PC games at year's end. Heck, my favorite game thus far is an exclusive (Terraria). Make sure to shoot one of the editors a message if you find a cool game you think we should cover. There are tons of great games out there, and I'd hate for something to fall through the cracks.

Were you expecting this from a sequel? I mean it would have been sorta dumb to lose your powers and becom average again just to power up to super human strength again. Its like asking for the flash to keep losing powers and getting them back next issue. It just doesint work like that in the super hero world. ALso may I ask what choices were grey in infamous 1? Everything was clear cut bad or good last time I played it.finalfantasy94

Obviously, I didn't want them to strip your powers and churn out the same formula. I was curious how they were going to build an interesting game when you start off so powerful, and I'm disappointed with their solution. There's little sense of growth, which means the 20+ hour story is just a one-note adventure. It's fun because killing dudes is fun, but lacks the depth and subtlety I know Sucker Punch is capble of.

The gray choice in the first was your girlfriend's fate, which was really effecting. It's a shame you don't ultimately have a choice in her outcome, but I do like that you can shape Cole to such a strong degree. Also, I liked the "should I do tihs or that" picture he painted before choices in Infamous. It made it seem as if the "Evil" side wasn't evil at all, because there was often a rational reason to take that choice. For instance, the first choice in the game. Taking the food for his friends isn't evil because they do need to eat, too. It's not much, but it made things interesting. I was hoping they would build on that but they took a step backward.