True. That's exactly it. I'm not sure the problem could be solved without implementing some sort of lobby system. There doesn't really seem to be a downside to a lobby system that I can see, but perhaps others feel differently?

Definitely not explained very well. I've done some googling and found some threads with people discussing this. Not only is the system confusing, but many people suspect that it's also bugged. Right now it seems that the only *reasonably* safe cars to upgrade are the default player cars or other cars that you acquire…

This is my experience playing on ps3. And the fact that CoD regularly handles placing a party of 4 on the same team tells me it's not impossible.
I think it's because CoD tries to place you in game that has not yet started (and therefore it can more easily balance the sides) rather than how Battlefield seems to like…

No. When you just want to play with some friends, you can invite them to your party/squad in the main menu. But when you join a game, more often than not, it splits your party across both teams. It also rarely puts me in the same squad as my party members even if we're on the same team. Additionally, when you back out…

Exactly. For a game that trumpets squad based play and teamwork over lone wolf-ing it, roughly 7 times out of 10, my party gets split upon entering a match. Usually takes 3-5 starts to finally make it into a game where the party is all on one side.

Here's hoping they improve the party system such that it doesn't split you up when joining a server.

I have a couple of the business class TN panels at work and they're definitely sparkly. I really have no idea though it it's similar on the nicer IPS panels...

I've been looking at the Dell's as well and various people complain about the anti-glare coating being too thick. Makes the monitor seem to "sparkle" a bit. I'm still sitting on the fence about whether or not that bothers me yet.

Whenever the full price every year plan starts dying I fully expect sports games to become 2-3 year full release, followed by DLC updates for new rosters, small game tweaks. Seems like the best way to keep people interested and reduces the need to do a full update every year. But as long as people are willing to pay…

True, but, at least until you hit the very, very end game, gear comes at a pretty regular pace in WoW. It's one of the things they do very well at. I also like how they typically give you pretty decent questing gear. It is by no means required to use the AH (and indeed is a lot of times not nearly as good) in order to…

Hmm... I'm possibly wrong about this, but I always thought Kickstarter and the like basically tell you upfront that there is no guarantee that you'll get anything from supporting the campaign and that you do so at your own risk. You're an investor. There's always the risk that what you invest in won't turn out or will…

But I don't want more gear. I want more gear that's useful. The whole problem I had with Diablo is that I drowned in junk gear. A lot of the gear I got wasn't useful to anyone at all. I could play for hours and not find anything at all. And I wasn't even max level yet. If the whole game is about finding loot, then it…

Well you could've just ignored the AH, but it doesn't change the fact that 9/10 drops are still complete junk or not for your character anyway. I'm ok with grinding, but it's still rather ridiculous.

———> Sarcasm

Do we really need to protect 9 year olds from being spoiled on an M rated game? Especially 9 year olds that are somehow mature enough to handle GTA, yet not smart enough to avoid spoilers?

If Metacritic weren't being used as a marker for a developers performance I'd say that it's good that we have many different review formats. They all fulfill a different niche and can be used to help identify the content that you'd like to play. And, despite how I might find review scores to be inconsistent and…

Agreed... mostly. Obviously there are some poor reviewers out there or ones that just seem to have a personal vendetta against the game for some reason. Those just need to be taken with a grain of salt and if you don't agree, you need to find another outlet that provides a review that you feel actually has value.

Ah, but what if GTA V is reviewed by a huge fan of GTA and Saints Row 4 is reviewed by someone who doesn't like open world games or over the top violence? How can you compare those two scores? One will probably be too kind and the other will be too critical.

Just curious about how you handle the dozens and dozens of games that end up in the 75-80 range. Review scores clearly have a large dead zone where ok games (or games that didn't click with the reviewer) get put purely because while they are not fantastic, they are also not horrible.

You might want to re-read the article. Clearly states review scores. Not the review itself. No one has a problem with reviews here. Just silly numbers that people like to attach to subjective experiences.