That is just brilliant, I would say I have been hard on some of Nintendo's artistic (Zelda and Fire Emblem) and online network (limited voice chat) choices to people IRL.

I have to say The Legend of Zelda series, Halo and Titanfall. Now, the reason for hating these games was because I was exposed to people who repeatedly and tirelessly said these games were better than anything else, and that "in your face" attitude from the fans that made me naturally dislike those games.

I also disliked the Mass Effect series, but that was until I tried Mass Effect 2 and fell in love with it, with Mass Effect 3 sealing the deal with the multiplayer and the... story.

Well, yes! But not always companies give me a chance to play a game before buying, so the only thing i can do is judge what game is more worthy my money from the "look" of it.

Beside, if a game upon reveal looks bad, should i not point that out so developers can see whats up, so they can fix it? I think the problem is not the critcism per se, but the refuse to try the game out, when given the oportunity.

Not the same thing at all, Sony offers Playstation Plus, which allows subscribers access to features such as online gaming aswell as free games each month. Those games come from various publishers and developers.

EA Acess is a publisher offering a subscription that allows you to play older games of theirs for free while getting discounts on their products as well as early acess to certain things.

So what Sony is doing is even worse.

PSNow. Not because of what it is, but because of how people treat it. A bunch of guys in amercia with their crazy fast internet sitting around telling the rest of us how it's a game changer. When in reality most of the world doesnt have the internet speeds to make playing games over it smoothly. Not to mention that if im already connected to the internet why on earth wouldn't i just download the game so that i can play it off a hard drive smoothly with minimal imput lag.

Nope. Not sure how you came to that conclusion to be honest. EAA in itself is fine, but I'm not too comfortable with the idea of a publisher having it's own subscription service. I say that because what happens when Ubisoft, Square, Activision, Capcom, ect. decide to launch their own services? What happens when EA decides that EA Acess subscribers should get exlusive content for games? What happens when the rest of the publishers follow suit? What happens to someone who loves game from EA, Capcom, and Activision and they each want $5 a month from you so you don't miss out on stuff?

It's the precedent that EA Acess sets that is bothersome.

You mean like how Sony (and MS) pay for exclusive content from third party developers?

It seems to me Sony and MS are the bad trendsetters here. Locking online play behind a paywall is what makes them worse.

Sony is a publisher, but it is giving away games based on subscription as a platform provider. Unless you're telling me Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite are Sony published games. I got those games, and lots more, "free" through Sony's subscription and the only association these games have with Sony is that they are available on a Sony platform. So what you're doing is confusing the actions of the platform provider with the actions of a publisher because one company happens to do both things. That's not calling a spade a spade. That's calling a pick axe a spade and then trying to convince people that its the same as an actual spade because the spade and the pick axe are made by the same company.

I criticised the sequels to Final Fantasy XIII. I had not played the sequels, but they were sequels to my least favourite Final Fantasy, so it was safe to assume they were just as bad, as well as the general consensus that they were indeed bad, possibly even more so than the original Final Fantasy XIII.
It was a shame too. I was really hyped for Final Fantasy XIII. Final Fantasy is one of my all time favourite video game series.