LaceratingSlyer
LaceratingSlyer
LaceratingSlyer

Again, I'm not saying they don't deserve criticism for their choices. I'm simply saying that if they want to produce an online only game there's not much they can do, or anyone for that matter, to prevent issues when millions of people try to login at the same time. There literally is no technology that can currently

That's assuming that anything can be done to prevent issues when millions of players login at the same time. The technology doesn't exist for that yet so you can't really fault companies for it entirely. Again, a lack of knowledge is all that's fueling these fires of people complaining about things that can't

I'd say it's valid to leave off any Zelda game due to how you use the bow in the game. You can't solely use the bow for the majority of killings like you can in the games he listed, all of which allow you to pretty much use nothing but the bow the entire time. That's a considerable difference when a game has a bow as

You know you're buying an online only game though, so that excuse doesn't really work. I'm not saying they shouldn't have an offline only mode, similar to what SC2 has maybe, but people need to be realistic about what's happening here. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people are logging in

It's a bit ignorant to claim D3's launch failure to server error, as it was simply due to so many people trying to login at once, therein leaving the servers unreachable for people at times. No amount of servers or network preparations they could have done would have prevented it. Furthermore, I think both games are

The issue with your point is that there's only so much they can do at certain points. I mean do you honestly think Blizzard didn't anticipate millions of people connecting at once when D3 went live? They surely did, but there's only so much they can do about it when it actually happens. And just because we're looking

Anonymity isn't dead, you just have the option to ignore it if you choose to. Every social media network that ignores anonymity has options to completely avoid it and retain your anonymity, and every current technology being implemented offers the same.

Streaming games you can potentially play anywhere, including on mobiles devices, hence why they were pushing so hard as the Vita being the ultimate complementary device to the PS4. With the way the market is moving toward being more mobile and be able to practically do anything on any device, the cloud/stream gaming

It's not about not being able to see the difference, but if the difference is actually worth '10 times the effort'. We'll eventually get to a point where increasing polygon count is completely worthless because of the performance issues it creates outweighing the benefits it provides.

Streaming games is the hook. It's a major leap for gaming to work toward and Sony working seriously with Gaikai on it is something to really look forward to. Trust me, in 3-5 years when the idea is more mainstream Sony and Gaikai will be laughing their way to the bank for getting in on it now. If Microsoft doesn't

Neither could have violence on TV or in movies been the sole issue as to why violence happens, which is considerably more traumatizing than any video game violence typically is. Yet somehow, every time this topic is discussed people love to place the blame on video games while completely ignoring the obviousness of TV

I'd say going to a local gun range would improve that hand-eye coordination more than any video game would, and there's typically no requirements at all in order to use a gun (your own or a rented one) at a range. Last time I checked people don't use controllers or a keyboard and mouse to shoot real weapons. So if gun

One of the things I think they could add to the game that would help it a lot is add a better sense of direction via the npcs guiding you somewhat. In comparison, Demon's Souls made it considerably easier to have an idea of where to go next due to it's overall worlds design. Dark Souls being an open world and giving

The problem with your example of how guns 'help protect' is there's obviously no way to actually record when it would have prevented violence in the first place, nor is there any recording of it stopping a mass murder. Yet oddly somehow being able to carry a gun around a school or casual place like a movie theater

Accepting that this is something completely un-fixable is not only ignorant but troubling as well. To simply give up and blame it on the human condition is not how humans naturally behave, and it shouldn't be promoted. I'm not saying that people are right in their accusations of what the cause may be, but to go around

People are blaming video games, as they have before, because it's something concrete that they can understand, unlike the complex human mind that can be extremely sensitive. It's also likely due to them having a complete misunderstanding of video game violence due to them not experiencing it at all, and therefor

Obviously it's about taste. However, my point stands that not only are there numerous titles now to suit whatever your taste may be, but there are a considerable amount that are cheap or free. The very fact that there are so many games available to suit the wide spectrum of what people enjoy is enough to really see

While you're right when it comes to major companies and IPs, you're wrong if you look at the indi-gaming scene. The variety, quality and cost of indi-games more than make up for the handful of CoDs and such that we have do deal with yearly, without question. I'm not talking about mobile games as you did, I'm talking