I'm actually thrilled to see a return to older periods. I'd especially love a Civil or Revolutionary War game that wasn't broken. Hell, an antebellum political game would be fantastic too.

It's completely understandable that you don't wish to see tropes or stereotypes abound, but sometimes they absolutely can serve a purpose. While we shouldn't rush to judge others by them, it can also work in a positive way. That knife-wielding guy, covered in blood, strolling down the alley you just walked down may be…

Exactly. I never said, nor implied, that I was unwelcome due to looks. If you're going to be an asshat, at least read far enough to comprehend what the other person is saying before whinging about it. Seriously—it was the first freakin' sentence.

Nice! Thank you!

I was simply saying that the idea behind it shelves microtransactions. Marketing for games goes even deeper than those, though. There are literally men sitting in conference rooms discussing how they can increase the visual representation of their game via social means. Everything from making online players announce…

If you're going to whine about not remaking classics because "getting them right" is too difficult, then release a game without covering even the basics, you should have your metaphorical publisher's license revoked.

You can run your convention however you wish. I, however, prefer a time when people were responsible for their own actions and didn't need to be "locked-down" to prevent their stupidity from harming others.

I got your joke. My response was to SimuLord (Hence, the little arrow) who wrote: "Bladed weapon over a certain length, in a state where you can legally buy military-grade assault rifles with nothing but a handshake in the parking lot at a gun show?

That means next to nothing at this point. The same publisher is releasing a separate iteration of its product before fixing the first. Developers are generally contracted to perform work, for a publisher to sell. It's WB's product, regardless of who "built" it.

I don't hold it against them. No one is forcing us to pay it. If anything, we should be pissed that Sony refuses to manufacture the things. Similarly to how I'm upset that I couldn't find the R9-290X I wanted for the original $550, but I don't hold it against Newegg, etc. Although I think $740 is pushing it.

That was one of the BS "offenses" I was referencing, yes.

You did. The Play Room robots are cute, but not 70 dollars cute.

"Free." Lol. How can you continue the "Gotta catch 'em all" spirit with that kind of weak motivation? For shame!

Fermented stuff doesn't generally bother me, either. But then, I've never had Inuit food. I'd like to, though. Just for the experience.

As is the case with a store close to my area. Said SM also would never hold it against an employee, but then he was fired, so now it no longer matters. Someone is taking a hit. :(

Ah. I was just singling out the "impossible" section. Yeah, someone almost always takes a hit. One way or another, it's a crappy policy.

If it wasn't locked in to hardware that I don't use, I would have bought one a long time ago. At $199, though, I'd still rather invest in a tablet with more support.

In some ways, this will be bad news. Sony will one day be launching a service that streams emulated PS1, PS2 and PS3 games onto more modern devices, and that's a service that it wants to make money on. Normally the defence for playing emulated games is that they're no longer available; if Sony can stream you old games…

I'd like to know what kind of shape he was in before the incident. At this age I can't remember how many Jolt's I had put down in the middle of a binge session.

As someone else mentioned, GS employees are rated by the company using metrics that revolve around preorders, as well as a few other things, so the constant cancellation is hurting some employees. I would think this was the point, as the 4chan user is likely trying to get more people to do the same thing,…