Because it SOUNDS, and FEELS as though you are snapping EVERY pin off of the CPU.

It's that damn metal squeezing "zrrssshrssh" sound that gets me every time.

oh man, this is nerve racking as hell for me. even this gif makes my cheeks clinch.

Ketchup is not spicy, pero la salsa, la salsa Pika.

You realize the only person who looks like a kid is the one who goes through a thread and constantly calls others kids.

Very observant.

Well looking up high school grading scales on Google every one I see says your 64% is an F. So yes, if we change 2.5 stars into 50% and compare it to a school grading system, it is a complete failure.

That sounds more than a bit apologist really, but if you already paid for it I could see wanting to self-justify the purchase. The real question here is, is the new coat of paint, taking into account the (at least currently) lacking features and content compared to Civ Rev 1, worth $8 more for a new player, or $15 if…

50% is only average if it's the mean score of all games, and that still includes all of the shitty games that simply being better than is not good enough. Add to that an above-average price, and "50%" is an absolute failure.

Actually, the average is 3. The scale is 1 to 5 not 0 to 5. So a score of 2.5 is below average.

So $15 for an "average" game is worth it right?

App Store Early Access

Is July 14, 2014 the day where everyone else in the world suddenly came together and decided 2 1/2 stars out of five isn't bad? That's a failing grade in school, sir.

>Two and a half stars out of five isn't terrible.

So you think that opening a game development studio and raising the tens of millions of dollars necessary to make a AAA title on the level of an AC game is "simple?"

yes but using a websides to spam (this is like the fifth pro woman assasing post) to spread is just bullying. also these arren't: "this is what is happening what do you think about it" posts, they are written in the style that puts being adverse to their actions as the norm.

The "too hard to render" bit was certainly clumsy, though I'm certainly willing to buy the notion that rendering women in addition to men would have taken substantially more resources than they had to make the game, and thus that is why they didn't do it. They should have just said outright that their protagonists are…

Notice that by saying "their passtime," which I assume means "their past-time," you're essentially ceding the point that men are the primary, major, and frankly only important audience for video games, while women aren't, thus validating in a side fashion what Ubisoft is doing with AC: Unity. Let me tell you, it's…

Jesus people are STILL mad about this? I mean come the fuck on how bad of an issue is it that Ubisoft doesnt include females in one of their games? Are we putting females in the game for good reasons or putting them in just to have them in there and diversy? If you don't like how someone develops their game make your…

i dont understand all the hate leveled at ubisoft for this. They aren't obligated too include a woman as a character in EVERYTHING. The story they want too tell has a single male lead and a supporting cast of male characters. And thats who they want too tell their story with. Get over it. But the "too hard too render"…