One thing that continues to confuse me: When MAG released, it seemed to get less flak for not having ANY single player components than BF3 is for actually having a decent one. I wrapped it last night, and honestly I enjoyed it about as much as Black Ops' offering. Is it that much worse on consoles? Are the gorgeous PC…

There was scheduled maintenance from 7:00 - 8:00 this morning. It was all over the Battlelog pages.

Kotaku-ites! Anyone want to play some Battlefield 3 on the PC? I crave teammates who take and defend objectives and don't all choose recon and camp in the back.

That actually seemed like a pretty positive first look. Mostly, though, the Giantbomb commentary is hysterical.

I am not quite getting all the hate the single player campaign seems to be getting. Is it going to blow you away like Bioshock or Uncharted 3? No. But there are some cool moments (which I won't spoil; one involves an airplane), and the atmosphere and gunplay are solid. And those graphics (at least on PC)! Though the…

It really depends on what you want (single or multiplayer? straight forward shooter or with a twist?).

Bethesda, more than most companies, is pretty true to the "Recommended equals Medium" rule though (or at least they were with Oblivion). So hitting those specs doesn't mean you're crushing the game. It means you're not playing low res and on low.

As long as your CPU is solid you should have no trouble running at Ultra. I have an OC'd Intel i5 2500k and an ATI 6870 and have had no issues in single player or online.

Yeah. I am usually a digital download guy myself but after a half dozen screwed midnight launches on Steam, I prefer just going and getting the discs myself if its a heavily anticipated title. Maybe Origin was different, but Steam would never launch on time, and then decrypting takes forever.

If you're not playing Battlefield 3 on the PC and at Ultra detail, I extend to you my pity. It is a thing of beauty.

Actually, they published Age of Empires, the Madness driving series, Asheron's Call, Starlancer, Crimson Skies, Outwars, Close Combat, etc. They were making headway into games long before the original XBox.

For those in the states, both Target and the Sony store list the bundle at $499, a little lower than the yen conversion.

I loved Codename Eagle! Hadn't thought about it in a long time. It gave my old Rage 128 a workout back in the day.

Can you call it lunch at midnight? Is that a late dinner? Early breakfast? Just a snack? These are the questions that I worry about.

And I just caved and preordered BF3 at Gamestop. Time to head back in 2 hours for the midnight launch.

I still dream of making my own. If only Roombas weren't so damn expensive. $300 is a lot for a meta joke.

But it would be absolutely unprecedented for Apple. Microsoft already had a history of game development for the PC and was absolutely committed to breaking into games.

I think, though, that Apple is a bit arrogant in thinking that their success in gaming on the iDevices has anything to do with them. What has happened is that people already have these devices for a plethora of other things (mobile internet, other cool apps, because it's trendy), and it becomes far more convenient to…

My question is: what would the Apple TV's flagship be? Every successful console maker today got there because of a flagship title. Microsoft had Halo and now Gears of War. Nintendo had Mario and Zelda. Sony had Crash Bandicoot (and later Metal Gear Solid and Uncharted).

That makes me feel a little better about cancelling my preorder, then. I was mostly anticipating the campaign and co-op. I love the multiplayer, sure, but I never have the time to sink into dedicated online shooters that aren't Halo (because shields and floatiness help make up for my lack of practice).