pmp10

That actually reinforces the point. 3 freemium multiplayer only games and one sequel (that couldn't replace a title decade old) don't measure up to the AAA single-player titles consoles enjoy.

But that's impossible if only because those graphics don't come free. Production values expectations have put industry at a point were no middle ground exists between indie/arcade and AAA. And it's exactly the same story on the consoles. Nothing is dying because of that - industry has simply changed.

I understand the argument that modern PC gaming became nothing but Sims WoW and minecraft but I think you miss the general gaming context in which it happened. The pursuit of AAA has led to decline in variety and numbers of games on every platform. For every genre that has disappeared or got marginalized on PCs consoles have two that became arcade-only. It's true that PCs lost the advantage they enjoyed in the realms of 3D graphics and multiplayer resulting in focus shift to MMOs. It was always obvious that PC gaming can't compete in the realm of AAA games but that doesn't mean they can't find a niche that will keep it going. As long as MMOs maintain a strong focus on PC I don't see hardcore gaming abandoning the platform.

But that's just it - as long as MMOs and freemium model stays PC centric it's not dead yet. Granted - a lot of things will change with new console generation but it's way too early to say that death of PC gaming is inevitable.

Now that's just silly. Even the top games that made PC gaming decade ago could barely scratch 1 million mark. Only the revolutionary ones like Half Life and Diablo 2 produced a following that could consistently break that barrier. I agree that hardcore PC gaming has been declining and may go out all-together in the next console generation but there is no denying that it never appealed to same numbers as consoles have.

For myself, PC games and console games are typically the same price today ($60). Having said that, games inevitably come down in price. Is waiting not an option? The problem is that most console games comes down in price due to sales of used games providing competition. I'm not sure if the incentive to drop prices will still be there.

Not every old RPG was a grind fest like Wizardry or Might&Magic. Going back to something like Dark Sun can show you the roots that would later lead to Baldurs Gate.

The chief aim of always-online is fighting piracy. Otherwise MS would be perfectly happy with one time activation.

And since he left, Civ V improved considerably. Or so I heard with the release of the first expansion pack. From what I understand his major "failing" was that he implemented the hex system without enough foresight as to how difficult AI is to program in that system (supposedly very difficult) and the scope of changes that system would bring to Civ even in trivial things like map size (necessity of having many more hexes to strategize with single unit armies than square grids in Civ stacks), leading to permanent congestion of the world map. Firaxis always had some excuse for making poor AI that just cheats more with every difficulty level and there is no need to put it down on account of Jon Shafer. He's guilty enough of other disasters like Civ5 diplomacy. It's quite funny that soon after that he went to stardock supposedly hoping to rescue Elemental.

We'd have to examine what other variables existed to ascertain whether or not a runaway greenhouse would occur. The first evidence I found of the previous highs for CO2, however, figure it was probably about 3 million years ago when they reached this level, and sea levels were about 30 feet higher. (source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/ ) Now, to shift gears somewhat, isotope analysis lets us see what types of CO2 emissions are in the air, and we can see a higher concentration of CO2 that is a consequence of fossil fuel burning. I am reasonably convinced that the spike of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably influenced in large part by human activity. I do agree that runaway greenhouse is among the worst case, and probably unlikely as a result. I'm curious how much effect reforestation would have. There's a measurable decrease in CO2 every year with the spring and summer, as plants work their thing. I wonder what other sort of carbon sinks could be explored. There's actually some debate on whether the CO2 record from ice cores is correct. Here's an anti-warming web site which discusses a lot of the issues brought up here: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate4.htm#is_CO2_from_fossil_fuel But as Gifted's example points out, even if there is a dangerous degree of warming, there are several geoengineering proposals to counteract it, such as injecting aerosols into upper atmosphere or making clouds more reflective. Let me get it straight: you shoot down investment in renewables as wasteful but your alternative is making clouds more shiny?

That is sad to hear as I don't believe Obsidian strengths lie in those directions. I have serious trouble picturing Obsidian made micro-transaction driven f2p MMO.

The deal was billions of them generated for free. The game was well on it's way to have cats as the only acceptable currency. And all because devs wouldn't accept exploit reports or learn from the same mistake made in previous MMO.

First you would have to agree to definitions of 'effective' and 'necessary'. Moratorium on coal and pushing wind would not be that effective IMO. As to will we see them? Depends on the climate effects that will happen and the headlines they will produce. Let's be honest here - few tears will be shed for African droughts or sinking Micronesia. A few record forest fires could hit a bit closer to home.

Disregarding your other assessment of data and evidence the greenhouse gases increase is by no means 'tiny'. That CO2 levels are highest since millions of years should clue people in to that.

Just as reserves of crude oil. That doesn't mean that most of them are accessible given current technology. Or that they are concentrated enough to make extraction profitable.

No they did that by publishing results of a single hour and pretending it relates to entire year. And they still do that even as they come back to coal plants after the Fukushima scare killed their nuclear plants. Germany is paying a lot for it's dalliance with green energy and much of that money finds it way into French nuclear and Polish coal plants. Even if they could do that 100% by 2050 plan it still won't cover direct fossil-fuel usage and will need other sources of power to stabilize the grid.

Let me answer that as the rest of people here seems to have decided to do nothing first and then find justification. I simply can't afford to pay for them. Take it from someone who shovels his own coal not to freeze in winter - renewables are tremendously expensive in my part of the world and cannot be relied upon when energy demand is greatest. The problem with fighting global warming is that there are no realistic responses that my society could bear let alone be convinced to. I'm not even drastically opposed to lowering my living standard but you need to understand that local economy is bad enough as it is. With any serious action taken I would quickly face poverty and become a drain on society. And I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.

Neverwinter online. Got off to a bad start as it turned out my tank can't do any tanking. Aside from that the game seems to badly lack variety in builds and classes.

That's kind the point. Some people were hoping for a new take on the franchise. Maybe it's a little naive to expect risk-taking in modern AAA games but Kotor2 showed that setting holds promise. Instead milking of the same exhausted concepts will take place. Just with minor variations.

Either way, nice read. And I agree with him on pretty much everything. I wish he was right but can't really see what is he drawing his conclusions from. Spec ops didn't kill Battlefield or CoD and the criticism of Bioshock Infinite gets easily lost in an ocean of praise. Just because a small minority started to notice problems with gameplay paradigm doesn't mean that rest of gamers will suddenly stop following production values or expecting familiar design.

Game Dev Tycoon attempts to guilt pirates into purchase. Only 94% piracy rate on day 1.

Hitman Absolution. It's more linear action-oriented and cinematic. The changes killed the best parts of previous games.

The problem is that everything between indie and AAA is pretty much dead. All the attempts to find a stable and profitable middle-ground or appeal to existing niches have failed so far. Graphics are only one part of the universal chase for production values. It's not like CGI trailers or famous voice actors come free.

Modern CGI trailers aren't so much advertising graphics as in-game cinematics. And the reason we got here is because few people cared about the game itself. Impulse buyers are best won with brand name, pretty graphics and occasional explosion montage.

Sure we can because they do. In the end it's up to consumer to say that graphics are good enough and force development onto other areas. It just so happen they never say that and given industry driven by release sales graphics have become absolutely vital. How? Not buy games with better graphics? Buy games with weaker graphics? How about just paying much less attention to it? Graphics are almost the whole reason why Nintendo has to go for casual players. Hardcore gamers are still laughing about how weak GPUs Wii and WiiU have.