That's the wrong guy. The FBI agent is the addict.
There is a difference between mainstream and casual.
I agree that SEGA has been more willing to take risks than most other publishers, however, the point of this article is how they are no longer likely to take risks on the Wii.
Where's your proof? In the NPD report for November, NSMBW was still behind the PS3 version of MW2.
I think you missed the point here. Sega is saying they are going to stop taking risks on the Wii.
Do you know what 3rd party means? Zelda, Metroid, and Brawl are Nintendo games. And those other games you mentioned, didn't do too well compared to Nintendo's first party games.
EDIT: Did you not learn to read? Compared to 1st party Nintendo games, games that sell upwards of 5 million copies. Those games did not do well. And unless I'm mistaken, WAW did the best of those and it only did only a little over a million. The rest have not done as well as you seem to think.
This isn't surprising. All you have to do is look at which Wii games sell and the only ones that sell have Mario, Wii, or both in the title. That's the problem with catering to the casuals. They hardly ever buy games and they only buy the biggest games associated directly with the console.
Actually there is: http://www.meggitttrainings...
The decade starts now. Idiots who argue over when the millennium started don't count in this debate. Last time I checked, there are 10 digits 0-9. That means from 2000-2009 is ten years. Also, decades can start any damn well time as long as they are 10 years.
Since when did decades last 15 years? The PS1 is not on the list because it was on the way out in 2000 with the release of the PS2. Notice all the systems people are mentioning were released to the public 2000 or later.
This list is bullshit because it has multiplatform games on it. You would think that a list of PlayStation games would be a list of games only on PlayStation systems, right?
Wow, That's a good list./s But you forgot the Dreamcast.
I'm not sure what your issue is, but you seem to be attributing a lot of stereotypes to me that don't really apply. My comments to Ali were based on my belief that all people have to believe in something as far as what could be called the "WHY" questions.
Many people choose religion. I personally feel religion is a corruption of spirituality by taking something inherent in all people and manipulating it in order to control others.
Many choose science and/o...
Religion is not based on fallacy, the arguments used to support religion most often are fallacious. And I say ignorance because 1) most people that make these comparisons tend to view religious people as ignorant at best, and 2) I may have misinterpreted your meaning. I saw your comment as an implied assertion that religious people are ignorant.
And while ignorance and Logic are not opposites, you cannot deny that where there is ignorance, fallacious arguments are usually the ord...
Atheism is your religion. Just because you believe in "Nothing," doesn't mean you don't believe in something.
EDIT: Wow, asshole, sensitive much? Obviously, atheism isn't a "religion," but atheists act just like the religious zealots they claim to be superior to. Case in point: I used a metaphor based upon the human need to believe in something, whether it be in God or Science or whatever, and you assumed I was disparaging your beliefs and attacked. Just like ...
To be more accurate, ignorance and logic are mortal enemies. There are educated people that believe in God, but they tend to be more spiritual than religious.
Which religions teach people to be evil?
EDIT: @ Xambol You're not supposed to give him the answers. How else is he going to learn?
This game is both over rated and under rated. 360 fanboys are over rating it because they have a better version of it. Likewise PS3 fanboys are under rating it because they got a sh1tty version and because there is GOW. The game is well reviewed but the level of stupidity from both sides is getting ridiculous.
Is it a good action game? Yes. Is it the best fvcking game ever? Probably not, but everyone has different opinions.
Personally, I'm not interested in the game ...
There is one area that PSN is demonstrably superior to LIVE. Which one can you play all aspects of the games you buy without further cost, aside from ISP costs? This is the single most important feature for any online service and PSN allows you to do it for free. Everything else is padding. Overall, LIVE might be the better service, which is still debatable and ultimately based on preference, but in the most important area, PSN is better.
If that's all you want it for, there are easier ways to see digital titties than playing this game.