pmp10

Sure and we use burn people who said the world wasn't flat. Fighting nonsense with nonsense leaves you both ignorant.

If you are going to force companions on the player then in the very least you should make sure they are not annoying. Not everyone looks forward to delving into a myriad of parenting-issues or care about building their virtual-harem.

Which was fine by me since the game didn't really reward your for your Silent rating. I think Absolution may be the first Hitman game that I won't buy. If there is really no alternative to wrestling Danny Trejo in a cage match, I probably won't get it at all. Really, is one aspect of a game enough to completely put you off buying it? Tough crowd This isn't just one aspect. That's an entire design approach.

Not that I'm expecting anything similar to happen but not all conflicts happen with the consent of the majority. Some are started by a militant fringe while everyone moderate looks away.

That and they have developed terrible over-reliance on cinematics. I don't know what exactly changed in JRPG design (or perhaps failed to change) but I just can't stand the genre anymore. Maybe it's the whole teen-focus and character-drama that is driving me away. Last JRPG I picked was Resonance of Fate and the protagonists teenage-sidekick made my blood-boil with constant sulking over his dark-past.

Publishers want to make things that sell. If interactivity is an acceptable sacrifice for the sake of graphics they will have no problem with it. The only question is weather the minority of gamers that doesn't agree can still have any games made to suit their needs.

I know this is meant for comic relief but it's pretty interesting historically. US civil war actually was preceded by years of similar movements.

You mean if. I think in case of Volition the question is indeed who. When THQ troubles first surfaced it was already said that Activision was ready to snatch them. Relic and the other ongoing THQ projects like South Park are not nearly as attractive. Even if something like the rumored Squre-Enix buyout was to happen there is no guarantee that things would proceed as planed.

If GHz were the major limitation we could play modern games on decade old celerons. The reality is that most PC games are bottlenecked by CPU and there is no good way to find out how accurate 'requirements' are without playing the game and benchmarking resource use.

Discussing prices is problematic as it will vary depending on country. Popularity / publishers / taxes / sales and used market make for a major difference in what is affordable.

Ahh yes - PC elitism. Don't suppose it occurred to you that not everyone deems the difference worth the expense? Especially since you yourself are far from the top of master-race food-chain and are doubtlessly looked down on by people playing with their crossfire setups on 5760x1200 thanks to the use of 3-monitors.

Not entirely - it's a matter of expectations. Planescape as a fantasy universe comes with a set of expectations that it almost immediately breaks as it turns out not to be Tolkien inspired. This leaves players free to approach it without preexisting bias. Assassins Creed creates expectation of a historical setting which it fulfills for a good while but then suddenly it moves into the direction of a poorly handled sci-fi. In the end AC was always doomed to become a mess story-wise as you cannot make a long-running series work with conspiracy theories. You either need a new bigger mystery for every revelation you make or simply never resolve anything.

Then it's 5 years old not 7. Much like fixing a laptop, just because it is possible and there are youtube videos showing you how to do it, doesn't mean everyone should pick up a soldering gun. A desktop PC is much easier to open up and swap components than anything else. Or you could pay someone to do it - just as a novice would do with a desktop PC.

Okay, I picked up a fairly bleeding edge pc 6-7 years ago. Apart from having to replace the graphics card twice (because they died, not because of a need to make them better) , and a hard drive that also died needing to be replaced, I haven't had any issues and it still chews up modern games with no problem. And no, it still runs on the OS it came with. And in that case you cannot run games requiring Vista/7 while an xbox360 will play Just Cause 2 or X-com without issue. Sure you do - there as many ways to fix braking down consoles as there are PCs.

Except with consoles we are talking 7 years time and it still can be good for another 2. Just in that time frame PCs have the issues with different OS and DX10. Last I heard even PS2 emulation was not in very good shape. Chances that xbox360/ps3 games will be playable in emulators within 5 years are slim to none.

- the PC for that price runs games on minimal settings, and even that badly Pc on minimal settings is how a console runs games. If you bought a PC back when this gen consoles launched, they'd still be able to play games with console quality today. The whole "PCs gotta be upgraded every 6 months" thing is an enormous ****ing fallacy. No it can't - trust me on that. Nobody is talking 6 months but xbox 360 has been out over 5 years now. And any PC bought at the time of it's release will in the very least need an OS upgrade. Consoles not only offer more value for money but they also allow for peace of mind as far technical issues and performance is concerned.

Or maybe not everyone agrees that first one was garbage?

Assassins creed 3. A just punishment for asking "How bad could it be?". First of all - the entire storyline is a mess. Story flow is terrible - due to plot-twist in the fist few hours game winds down the pace at the worst possible moment. Even worse - just as you think tutorials are done with you get put through an entire gauntlet of them. Literally half of the game consist of introducing some new weapon or open-world concept. Game is trying to explore the templar order but it has no idea what to really do with it. It cannot make up it's mind if they are well-meaning but misguided or straight-out mustache-twirling villains out to rule the world. This affects the present-day sections of the storyline the worst. The resolutions they provide are unsatisfying at best and complete nonsense at worst. Add to that a protagonist that is so detached he might as well be autistic / hefty dose of nationalistic bias / good deal of Washington worship and you end up with a recipe for a disaster. Gameplay suffers badly from being cut-down way too far. Climbing in particular has been simplified to remove any challenge and even the regular rooftop running is only occasionally of any use. Most of the time you are better off trading your parkour for a horse. But the absolute worst part about the game is mission/level design by far. It has become so simplified and formulaic that the game gets dull within just a couple hours. That's mostly because there is absolutely nothing on offer approaching the challenge or complexity of regular AC2 missions let alone things like assassins tombs. By far the worst offender is the lengthy 'Homestead' mission-line which is essentially an utterly wretched piece of community melodrama with very little gameplay to be found. Of course that mission-line is essential if you hope to make any money off your property. But since that requires the use of a terrible interface it ends up very effort-intensive and about as enjoyable as real accounting. The only good things I can say about AC3 is that naval missions are quite tolerable and certainly preferable over the tower defense found in AC:Revelations and that game pays some attention to folklore. I guess the presentation values may also be considered above average. TLDR: Avoid like the plague.

People who know about/are interested in science and how the universe really works care. Would you have noticed if they bothered to be more realistic? There is no way to make such things more realistic without impacting a lot of other things like art design. Putting attention to that is just a waste of time. Especially since writers can't stay consistent even without paying attention to science. And it's true that people expect tropes not science. In the end there will be a need for fantasy elements sooner or later so you might as well make them easy to understand. Even if the source of understanding is a 50 year old tv-show. Too much techno-babble can always hurt a title.

IIRC confederacy tried that. It didn't work out too well. Didn't the confederacy as a whole not work out so well, regardless of anything else? Depends on your point of view. There was always a lot of debate about what was realistically within it's power. The weakness of it's political institutions is often attributed to breaking with the party system but perhaps there were other causes like secrecy.

IIRC confederacy tried that. It didn't work out too well.

He always made it very clear he thinks little of video games and is selling IP adaptation rights only for the money.

On second thought, that doesn't say much - Bioshock's storyline could fit on a business card. True, the only thing I really remember liking about Bioshock was the atmosphere, and at the end of the day that wasn't enough to get me through all the shooter stuff. Bioshock at least created 2 memorable moments in narrative. Dishonored for all it's lore couldn't provide me even with a single one.

There used to be depth to climbing/freeruning. Sadly from what I hear they removed it in AC3 to keep in line with rest of the game.

That was actually the cunning ploy where nearly all the EU created before the prequels is set AFTER A New Hope. WIth the most extensive stuff being in that 5-20 years post Return of the Jedi. The only real stuff set before A New Hope.. is set hm, 5,000 years before, 4,000 years before, and 1,000 years before. That let them leave the big hole for the prequels, and post prequels has let them fill in those gaps. Hah, fair enough, I'm not really familiar with Star Wars EU - I just know I always hear people complaining about the prequels messing with canon. I remember that the Clone Wars story was told before where supposedly Ben Kenobi died and got replaced with the clone 0B1 Kenobi. Perhaps that was all bull that I was told, but it sure as damn sounded better than the prequels. The problem with expanded star wars canon are not the prequels but that it mapped out a lot of stuff after episode 6. IIRC some 30 years plus a short foray into 100+ years later. It seems unlikely that Disney would just film existing material or try to fit their movies into it.