It's not a lame excuse at all.
Visibility counts.
It's the entire reason publishers spend millions on marketing. You're assuming that the same RDR buyers even HEARD of AW. Big mistake there.
AW had next to no marketing and RDR had tons.
Do the math.
It could haven been successful despite PC gamers, if MS actually gave a shit about getting it out there.
But guess what happens when you restrict a game to one platform and refuse to market it:
You get your ass kicked by Rockstar.
Yes, I'm aware of all that, but you're still off.
I agree, it was a lot of work to code games back then. Respect that.
But even recoding the game from the ground up doesn't even approach a fraction of the code it takes to make a game today. Even if it was all done for us with fancy tools (it is not).
Besides, I don't really see what it matters even if all our bugs were fixed for us with just a little time and tools.
...
I wasn't talking about the mod in the article, Fox. I was responding to Sev.
The beauty of nested comments means you don't have to type "@(name here)" to reply.
No harm. Everyone makes mistakes.
But maybe next time you could be less of a dick and karma won't come back to bite you in the ass so quickly.
Been a pleasure.
Me and my wallet.
Well, if you heard some of the pre-release talk for Skyrim, they made it sound like they were putting a lot of extra effort into QA.
I don't think gamers have yet realized that you can't trust shit the devs say on camera these days.
Well, since no one answered, I just looked it up myself:
http://rewards.xbox.com/
Of course, it's more pretty XBL Gold-centric as with everything 360, which always kills it for me, personally.
I love playing through mods, but I think I'll spend most of my time contributing to them this time around.
Great mods are definitely worth the headlines.
But "uber" texture mods are practically a dime a dozen.
Seems people have been watching too much Highlander.
Allow me to bring up the elephant in the room:
What does MS do for 360 owners?
(It's not a snarky question; I really don't know.)
Well FFS, finally.
It's got some nice changes in the art compared to Oblivion, but the quality bar hasn't really risen all that much. It's more like a great amendment to the art and design instead of an increase in overall quality.
The Witcher 2 however, was able to bump things up significantly in many areas. And it noticeably required better hardware than the last game to do so.
The real question, as always it seems, is what the hell is up with Gamestop?
I'm not talking about any kind of obscure notions of quality or indefinable quantities of aesthetics.
I'm talking about code, because that's where bugs come from. And today's games use more than the games of yesteryear.
And more code means more bugs.
The Witcher is a fantastic franchise already.
There's room for improvement, but you can say that about each of the companies you're rating above them.
It's not at all about the quality of the game, because tbh Witcher has a higher bar than both Bethesda and BioWare for content and customer service.
I think what actually causes people to perceive the company and its efforts as less than BioWare/Bethesda is the lack of a million-dol...
RAGE looks good.
Take some tissue with you.
I think I'd rather have "ten ways to get your girl to respect your habit without butting in all the damn time."
For me, there's a great deal of difference between being part of a community and being forced to.
And just because the game has "multiplayer" in the genre label doesn't mean it should be forced down your throat every second you play it.
People like to play alone a great deal whether online or not, so it's nice to have MMOs that address that inevitability with more than a logout button.
The goal is to grind for better stuff. It's dressed up a little, but it's basically similar to Diablo.