I agree. To me it seemed like two immature adolescents unable to empathize with the other. If I were a more cynical person, I'd point to this as a microcosm for how the gaming industry "leaders" act. No wonder many people look down on the industry for its sophomoric attitudes and behaviours. :(

And what was the point of egging on Phil so damn much?

I hate that about western comics. I don't like how there seems to be a million versions of Spider-Man with story arcs that have no connection to each other at all.

And again Desilet shows himself to be either out of touch or a dick. On MS's policies:

So. You're relying on a simplified high-school definition of evolution, while simultaneously claiming to refute the logic of those who have actually studied it and advanced the field. From where do you get your information on probability and the nature of mutation? You seem to be ignoring the enormity of geological…

This is what your argument sounds like. Only one source of info, against decades of legitimate scientific research. Scientific research that tries its best to correct itself from older outdated knowledge. Knowledge that made your life convenient. Imagine if the religious got their way we would still be burning books…

You're just arguing to hear your own argument at this point. Thank you for your input, but at this point, I think I'm finished.

Other scientists take something they believe (no God, there had to be a way for the earth to get here without him) and then look for evidence to support their belief and then discard what does not.

You cannot cite the Bible as a reliable source. I'm sorry. You just can't. No one knows when it was written; it could have been written AFTER those "official historical timelines" and retconned.

Your acknowledgement of a greater being is not germane to the argument; your assumption that your acknowledgement must be accepted as an answer *is* what is arrogant. What is arrogant is saying that something is "the only answer", when you have absolutely no scientific proof of that. None. And until you can prove,…

That is an assumption. You're making an assumption that, at this point in time, cannot be proved or disproved.

"For instance: evolution It's been disproven by science" No... No it hasn't.

You don't understand science.

Good. Publishers and developers should be held accountable for bullshit marketing. They shouldn't assume consumers would gobble up whatever shit they throw at us. I want a head on a stick as an example for the industry out there.

What I can't stand about what these guys are saying is "We want to move away from this isometric view and try something different". Please explain to me the logic behind this? How many games have come out this generation that were like Enemy Unknown? Why the hell would you want to move away from a genre that for the…

I live in the state, and as a gamer, I'm sorry there was nothing about this deal from the start made ANY sense to jump at.

It was a gaming studio run by a man who, admittedly, knew NOTHING about games...trying to make an MMORPG, which are notoriously HIGH risk, HIGH expense, and low chance of success.

Didn't you guys already report they were changing the game to something other than xcom?

You should mention what you reported on in SuperAnnutation, that 2K has registered websites for "The Bureau" and "What happened in 62?" (the year this game takes place), which implies this is just a re-branding and not a cancellation. Just saiyan :p