@Smokey: the MP is deceptive because the empty spots are generally filled in with bots. Still, for $15 brand new (that's what I pad 3 months ago), it's a worthwhile buy even just for SP.
The funny thing is the amount of messages you'll get over PSN when people see you're playing Haze.
Random friend: "Haze?!?!?!"
Reply: "Yup. It's not bad."
Random friend: "But, but, why?!? Lol."
You'll get abou...
Personally I would have thought middleware such as PhysX, etc, would only foster innovation. I mean devs can spend all the time they would have wasted programming some physics engine on more important things. Like making their game not suck, for instance.
I guess a solid argument could be made both for and against middleware, but to say it's "destroyed" innovation seems a little extreme.
I think it just means "in time for that lucrative pre-Christmas buying season". I'm thinking November.
Remember the Game Genie for the NES? That was the grand daddy of them all, I believe.
Anyway, who cares? Seems like a waste to me (and most of the people on N4G), but whatever. So long as it doesn't affect me like online cheaters/glitchers sometimes do, I couldn't care less.
I'm kinda curious what they're doing on the wii. He mentioned that system as well.
Lol. Everyone hates everything these days.
I'll play this game. The original wasn't GOTY material or anything, but I had a good time with it. That's what games are for, right? No?
I loved AC and I can't wait for a sequel. I just really hope they add swimming into the game being as Venice is built in the water and all.
Lol. Seriously? I'm so looking for this in the grocery store tomorrow.
This one costs money, right? The article didn't really say.
I know of three or four places in Montreal that do game testing and the requirements for an entry level position are very low, but the base rate of pay is in the $8 to $12 an hour range and you end up playing a lot of games designed for cell phones and Leapfrog.
Anyway if you can find one in your area it's a lot better than working at a call center or something while you decide what you want to do with your life.
Lol. Why is the video 3 minutes long? He could have easily shown us the glitch in about 15 seconds.
Lol. Nice cornering. I think I remember that car being fast, but kind of b!tchy to handle. It was rear wheel drive or something.
Jesus Christ! 2010. I've seen some delays before, but that's a full year's delay at the last minute. If they had the slightest clue the game was that far from being finished you'd think they would have mentioned something by now. How is it they had no idea it was so far from being done? That whole "generating hype" story is obviously BS.
I'm guessing you play as Capelli with Hale as the main antagonist throughout most of the game, but, of course, Hale will defeat the sickness inside him and end up saving humanity in the end (possibly sacrificing himself in the process).
Just my guess...
@bubbles: I agree. It's like getting 100% on an essay in college or something. It doesn't mean your essay is the absolute best thing the professor has ever seen or ever will see. It just means you did an excellent job and whoever was marking you didn't see any valid reasons to take any points away.
I thought it was kind of an interesting idea. Going back and looking at old reviews to see if they stood the test of time. If they had gone back and taken a second look at some games that got low scores nobody would be complaining.
Hmmm...usually stellar reviews are a good thing.
Having used Linux as my desktop OS for just over 3 years now I can safely say it's actually a lot simpler than Windows once you get used to it...and getting started is waaaaay harder than this article makes it sound.
Thanks to distros aimed at the home user like Ubuntu it's a lot more n00b friendly today than it was even 12 months ago, but they still have a long way to go.
People around here don't like to hear that, but it's true. What happened to the days when the PS3 was supposed to blow the 360 away? We're to settle for being "on par" now?
Anyway, these things always "look" on par, but then someone puts them under a microscope and one is invariably better than the other. Not in any way that's even remotely visible to the human eye, but people still like to make a big deal about it.
Nothing against The Who or Rock Band, but is this really front page news? Odd...