Why must every criticism about a game have to be person has a problem with the console? Cant I just dislike a game? and if it happens to be an exclusive, not be hated and get claimed that I only hated cuz Im a fanboy?

Its true that kotaku cannot be trusted and they have proven that over the years by mainly posting click-bait articles. But this actually sounds like valid criticism. Where they the only ones to play this games behind closed doors? If not, what where the others response? Are they all anti MS? Does anybody remenber the order 1886?

or C. Controversy in these subjects result in clicks, which means more money for Kotaku

LOL i mean who knows? 

Sony went from the company that was almost bankrupt, to the company who money hats deals and is sinking Microsoft via underground deals with all their zillions (according to some VgCharterz).

Maybe these games are not as good as some of us want them to be...

I wanted The Order to be a good game, and it's not. I'm disappointed, but that's it, I moved on. Maybe it's the same with Quantum Break (after all, what we've seen this far is not that good) and Halo 5 (again, what we've seen for the campaign is not jaw dropping and the last game was not as good as the previous ones). I'm also currently playing the Tomb Raider reboot and wanted it to be good, and IMO it's not.

So let's wait for the releases. Maybe some of us will be disappointed, they will just have to accept it, move on and wait for the next game. No need to involve an Illuminati plot in this ^^.

The issue here is whether the criticised "feature" in Quantum Break is true and it really works like that: if a game forced me to watch many badly performed and scripted cutscenes up to 20 minutes long without being able to skip them and get a written summary instead, I'd say things about it that would make Kotaku look cute and lovely as a kitten in comparison.

“You make a choice, and it’s kind of an interactive player-generated cliffhanger at the end of the act. And then you watch an episode of the show and immediately you start seeing consequences of the choice that you make.”

These live-action bits will be skippable, but doing so means players run the risk of missing important clues about how to proceed when they regain full control.

http://www.vg247.com/2014/08/14/quantum-break-tv-interactive-live-action-story-xbox-one-remedy/

This is how much this guy knows about the game.

While I call them loltaku because the jokes and not too serious journalism.

I can't say they are not honest... to be fair they really say about the games what they liked or not.

So seems like just they didn't liked what they saw.

Makes perfect sense...

He saw the conference demo and it looked excellent.
Played or saw more at the event and saw the flaws.

He is being honest... that is one things I like loltaku.

Wut?

Polygon was founded by MS... it is in their own history on the site.

But most editors there are reasonable... there is only two bad apples (huge MS fans) and one of them is the head editor.

So who would choose to skip them and them be completlty lost in what is happening in the game? In a way, your being forced to watch them. This should be the distintion between games and shows, one you interact with, the other you just wach. The series should be something completly separated from the game and tell somthing the game dosent and should not withhold any material that would make plotholes. What I heard of before was the ideal way, you play as the good guy, but the show was told from the bad guys point of view. That way you get the full story in both cases with interloping moments.