The difference being that Bethesda have the money and the legal team to pull something like this off, it should be taken seriously no matter what you think of the motive behind it or what the end result will be.
The fact that he even offered the Quake game gives the impression that either he honestly thought a bunch of lawyers, not developers, lawyers, would respond positively to such a request (considering his achievements, I don't think this is the case) or he knew it w...
While this is no comment on the actual lawsuit, can we all now agree that the Quake thing was stupid?
I mean, I'm convinced that Notch did it on purpose to make Bethesda look more of an asshole than they already do, but it IS a business and protecting perceived threats to their property it what they'll do (no matter what the man on the street thinks).
If he wasn't being incredibly clever/devious, he was being incredibly naive. He either honestly t...
Hint: because N4G isn't your personal choice of articles and there is nothing in the rules against this.
"What have the Romans ever done for us?"
Sure, we could sit here and answer your question, sure it'd add some comic potential as you stretch your point further and further, but the punchline is still going to be "But other than everything they've changed, what's new in MW3?"
But then people would complain about a lack of innovation.
Square are stuck between a rock and a hard place with their fans, they always have been.
I would say X-2 through to XIV is what Square need to claw their way back from. With the exception of XI, because I've not played it, each game in that time frame had its good points and bad points, but was never spot on.
If XIII-2 fixes everything that went wrong with XIII, I agree, it'll be pretty damn special though.
I'm not really sure how either of your examples negate my point.
Ethan has been tested to the very limits of his psychological and physical boundaries: he's lost a lot of blood, he's been burned, he's nearly died and, on top of all that, he is quite obviously depressed before the game begins (which would lead to a lack of sex drive). Just chuck into all that that his son is currently in a life-threatening situation...after he's already lost one son.
Let's look at this another way.
Why WOULD video games show sex? Outside of some immature need to appear that our hobby is grown-up (in which case, showing a bit of sex isn't exactly the best way of proving that), why do we need to do it?
As a different question, how many games do you think could appropriately place a sex scene into the mix without it coming across as tacked on, gratuitous or just weird? I can't think of a single game where a sex s...
@blaktek
They'll definitely be able to evolve (as a group - some people would be left behind) because, if they don't, people will stop visiting their site/reading their paper.
But the idea is that we'll never be able to get a decent chance to test out that evolution any way, because the reader will probably never want to have more than shocking headlines, angry misquotes and top 10 lists.
It's a cycle.
Let me...
It's no more or no less ethical because it's exactly the same.
You only have to read the AOL homepage to see that no matter which sector people write for, the goal is the same. The other week they ran a story with a headline like "Celebrity dies in plane crash." I'm paraphrasing, so may be wrong. The picture was of the crash itself, but on reading the article you discovered it was actually a Swedish(?) celebrity unheard of outside of his home country. <...
Because it's a question people like to ask and to feel is being answered? Besides which, I think very, very rarely does a games quality directly coincide with whether the game lives up to the hype.
I mean, anybody who says that the Call of Duty games are bad games are either biased or misinformed. They're not bad games, they're excellently built and have a lot of depth (hence why so many people spend so much time playing them). But they're never going to live ...
I'm sorry, mate, that is the most useless comment ever. Not only useless, but wrong as well.
Every game does have the potential to live up to the hype. Unfortunately, by the time the hype begins, the major decisions for the game have already been made and few things are likely to massively change.
With a case like The Old Republic, we can make educated judgements on the game based on promotional materials, fan reaction and advertising/talk on the internet...
Guilty!
I'm rapidly going to have to finish Final Fantasy XIII when XIII-2 comes out.
You're wrong. You CAN fully destroy buildings in multiplayer. Just not to the extent that you could in BC2.
Honestly, it's made me want to buy the game. I used to be addicted to RotTK.
@xtheownerzx
From the little I watched, it reminded me of the overview map in Shogun: Total War mixed with some game play from Romance of the Three Kingdoms VIII.
But I'm not sure either of those are the game you're thinking of.
Seriously?
When Rock Band is on the market, this shouldn't be allowed to happen...
Actually, they said there would be LESS full destructible buildings so that defending teams have a chance to regroup in cover.
They never said they were doing away with it entirely.
Yeah, and the best thing is that so many of the big companies are realising that it's the addiction that makes people continually play (and pay).
So the free World of Warcraft is awesome, and LOTR:O is free to play now and...it just seems like too good value not to get into. And then you're trapped...forever :P
But I would hesitate to say that the MMO genre is doing badly. Despite games closing down, it's quite obvious that an MMO with a following (for instance WoW) can do amazingly well.
So I think rather than focus on the fact that some MMOs fail, we should look at why some fail and some succeed. DC Universe Online, for example, was full price to buy and then has quite an expensive subscription.
APB, likewise, had some great ideas but ultimately didn't get...