pmp10

But a scientist said it, apparently. Do you think you're better than a scientist? The problem is scientists reach conflicting conclusions on the subject. IIRC there have been a number of studies on the subject of video game violence effect on children and most were poorly done and written with an agenda. Just like with any controversial social issue the only thing science shows is that researchers themselves are biased and will purse conclusion their employer expects.

So you'd rather a more grim version of Brothers in Arms?

That's the point. It still has a lot of the same trappings with realistic weaponry and plenty of marines and it still fails due to perceived lack of realism.

I wish I could agree but games like Homefront (or even Flashpoint) don't outsell the likes of Crysis 2 on simplicity alone. The market simply responds very well to the pseudo-realistic military themes. I'd say it's the nature of target audience.

Because they were bought out by Epic shortly after. It's a wonder they had the time to release an expansion before working on a GoW PC. Which that, Painkiller or one of its sequels, Painkiller Overdose and Painkiller Resurrection (Battle out of Hell was only an expansion)? Weren't Overdose and Resurrection just glorified fan mods? New levels, new cut scenes, new voice acting, new art assets, new fmv's, new story, new new stuff etc. Depends on what you regard as "fan mods". Is FO:NV a "fan mod" to FO3? Overdose did start out as a fan mod. It was upgraded to stand-alone game after the work on it began. No they won't because 1) It didn't sell 2) it was complete and utter crap (kind of like an ugly GOW with better storytelling) The game was clearly good as it won critical acclaim, it simply was aimed at a audience that is no longer there. It's hardly a first shooter to do badly, Vanquish and Shadows of the Damned bombed even worse. The only thing that saved Bulletstorm from being a similar disaster was good marketing campaign and the box-included GoW3 beta. It's somewhat admirable that developers still haven't caught on that shooters need to be military-themed or are essentially dead. If Epic really goes on to make another UT they will learn it the hard way.

Bulletstorm sold poorly. Pretty unsurprising tbh. New IP, non-military, limited multiplayer - it never stood a chance.

The police report that over 80 have been killed in the youth camp shooting. Hard to believe that a single nazi could do so much damage.

Depends on what you liked in Torchlight. The presentation in game is interesting and really helps to sell the concept but it still is a rouge-like. I'm at over 20 attempts and never even managed to reach the fifth level.

Actually SWG initially tried to limit access to force-sensitive characters. If you mean the NGE AFAIK it was more akin to reworking of mechanics. Somebody had the brilliant idea to appeal to younger demographic years after release. It effectively killed the game as regular older subscribers left in disgust and little fresh blood was gained.

Yes, it's ok, some charm but nothing special overall - still it seems to be worth the 5$. It may be a little different from a regular rogue-like with it's heavy learn-by-trying focus and somewhat unclear combat.

Its all how something is handled. If that character was in Fallout 2 it would be a group in bright green doing the men in tights dance. And yet most of such events in Fallout 2 were made separate via special-encounters, most was found by those who actively looked for them. Fallout 1 had no such separation. Nobody claims the tone and usage is the same. I just think Fallout 2 handled it better and was a better game for it. And that may be the problem - because I see the Fallout setting is inherently extremely silly. The giant rats, 100 year old ghouls and radiation that makes you grow toes are corny comic book territory and no pondering on the nature of war or the price of survival will change that. If the setting itself is not really serious why is it so wrong to admit that and have some in game distance to the whole thing?

And I suppose the robin hood rip-off found it's way into Fallout 1 by accident? Nor do I see what the references have to do with the way the series handled humor. That trend is clearly going to end anyway as target audience demands everything to be serious nowadays. I got a total of 3 poorly placed referenced in F3&FN:V and about as much humorous content.

Actually it was, the first one just didn't relay so much on outright jokes. Seriously - whole series started when a guy fell in vats, merged with life support system, developed psychic powers and decided to conquer the world. Fallout without any form of humor in it is fallout in name only.

I'm sorry but how exactly would you go around fixing that? Wealth always gives influence and using is to further your aims is just integral part of human nature.

The point isn't to yell what the game is but to point out that there are various opinions on the way DS3 handles pacing. That makes it a rather poor example.

Not in the 1C / Cenega regions. If this is another "wait a few months" scenario I'll just keep my money and watch a Let's play.

Yes that could have made a DS3 a more focused experience at a expense of freedom and exploration. It's just a shame Obsidian took a step back by wrecking the pacing with it's dialogue and storytelling.

Previous list has it at 19. But 8 positions would still be a hell of a climb after release. Can anybody from UK come up with a theory?

If thats the case why was DS2 successful then? It took on Battlefield 2 on NPD and I doubt that was just due to DS1 nostalgia. Most likely they simply expected the franchise to maintain certain gameplay elements. It's hardly unreasonable if you have no time to keep up with all the latest gaming news. Do you really believe that dropping features expected as standard would help the game? Among co-op titles only budget priced games can do without multiplayer. And if online play was a major feature of DS1&2 then ignoring it would lead to an even greater player backlash. Except AP was an original IP and had few expectations associated with it. The impressions made before the game came out were build by Obsidian and Sega.

But given their history with previous publishers that just may be a big deal. Lucas arts hired another studio for kotor3, so did Atari for neverwinter. With Sega being unhappy with AP alienating any more publishers doesn't seem to be a very smart move. Especially considering Bethesdas publishing history. And I'd say that it may be no longer clear whether Obsidian can build a successful game from the ground-up without a strong IP to aid sales. That's a unfair exaggeration. The metacritic score of DS3 hovers around 70% which is a world of difference from the 60% AP got. But that may just showcase a lack of IP strength and/or title exposure. Certainly if DS3 doesn't matter to the codex it may not matter to the target audience. It is not clear however if the reason for that is game quality or lack of interest in IP.

That's also a developer problem as it means they failed to appeal to the target audience with their product. Besides that for all we know they may cover only a week of sales. If true it still would be a very bad result as the game would likely top around 300k but at least it's not the 1:10 sales to expectation ratio.

Source?

Dungeons of Dredmor. An interesting take on a rouge-like. It's just a shame that permadeath mode is useless until they patch the crashing.

We have a few of those. If you mean fusion power plants then realistic ETA is about 2050. And that's assuming they won't be abandoned due to exaggerated expectations.

Dawn of War 3 to be about army building There goes the chance for a good competitive multiplayer.