Are they planning DLC sooner, or is Gaming Journalism in such a state that it'll report something sooner?
Addons are nothing new, and back in the day for PC they would have started on them as soon as they finished development on the game (usually in the final beta stages), a good 3-6 months before the game was actually released.
What's changed is that we're starting to see the value-added by DLC, rather than them taking from the main project, because planning and des...
I think I'm more outraged that this controversial PS3 title needs a "Why does it get 9/10" article, when there have been so many other perfect-scoring games that get a pass.
Any article that ask "Why does Halo 3 get a 10 from Edge, when they go on and on about the importance of innovation and creativity?" are automatically treated as flamebait.
Now there's a government that's helping the people! Finding all the porn so they can categorise and archive it for future generations!
That is what they're doing right? They haven't been taken over by 50s America all of a sudden?
Why did Halo 3 and Assassin's Creed get 10/10 for loads of publications despite being a marginal improvement over a previous game, or full of repetitious gameplay?
Because the majority of reviewers don't know what they're talking about, are neither consistent nor objective, and are swayed by the possible response of the fan-base.
In fact there was too little gameplay in AC when it was first released, let along a Director's Cut!
No sequel would be a blessing!
However another story with different characters would be awesome :)
If Edge really like it, expect 7/10. I think that's what they mark PS3 games out of.
I still have the special ed on pre-order, if it turns out to be one long QTE, it looks to being one of the best made QTEs ever... and if there is some other gameplay to it (as I believe, more akin to a point and click), then my enjoyment will only grow :D
Sad to see Sacred 2 not making the list.
It was buggy, but every platform pretty much ignored it. Which is a shame, because it gave us a good Diablo fix.
Sadly Diablo fans won't touch it because "it's not Diablo", and nobody else touched it because they're not Diablo fans :|
You upgraded TO a commodore 64?
Are there not folk worshipping you as one of the Ancient Ones??
Look worse and being worse are two different things.
As are video games and movies.
You can't apply the same rules - most movie sequels aren't as good as the original, most video games sequels at least come damn close.
A good list in all.
Makes me think every game should have a an inflation-adjusted score in Metacritic or elsewhere. So on release it may be a 9/10 but a year later 7 or 8/10.
It would also stop reviewers trying to one up their last review, because the hype-driven GOTY they reviewed last month and gave 10/10 for isn't as good as this months hype-driven GOTY they'll give 10/10.
No, she's not.
But how many of us, who have made mistakes, are PR representatives of a one of the largest international companies?
Can we have a show of hands?
Which is why these figures are bullshit.
Count the active users on PSN or Live, sure they're free to sign up to, but I bet it'll be a lot more accurate than consoles shipped and/or refurbished.
But without pornography, I doubt I'd have learnt as much about computers and become a software dev... so somewhere the maker of this mod I'm sure is either on their way to or already has a bright future ;)
Sequels should look better than the original.
But obviously some people need convincing to buy the sequel to a GOTY candidate.
I'm not sure what's worse for a company PR manager - that his company is incompetent, or that he can't read :|
It's ridiculous comparing sales since Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all have different definitions of "Sold"
It could be "shipped", "including replacements", "estimated from upcoming quarterly orders for retailers", "made up on the spot".
I think they should concentrate on active on-line users, since they're the ones most likely to be playing games - if only to download a patch!
But it's the same thing isn't it?
In fact it was worse then that they'd work on a full blown campaign or storyline when the game wasn't even released. Now at least they only trim a few maps, or extra multiplayer mode.
Your original post said if they made DLC, they won't making the original game as well as possible, but surely there was more effort (and less hand t the pump back in those days, too) making an addon/expansion than the DLC we get now?