Ax23000

To everyone saying Bioshock HAD to be a shooter because otherwise it couldn't be dark or violent--Seriously!?! Are you guys really trying to suggest that our two options are shooter where hundreds die or happy fluffy walk through the park?

Other mediums seem capable of telling INCREDIBLY dark and violent stories without huge body counts (sometimes with out ANY body counts). You want to know one of the darkest books I ever read? 1984. You won't find ridiculous over the top gunfights in 1984, but it is without a doubt MORE violent than Bioshock could even dream of being--violent in a deeper and more meaningful way.

I actually think there should DEFINITELY be some shooting in Bioshock. But there should be less of it and the instances should be more meaningful. The violence is so ridiculously over the top it becomes meaningless when the story seems to want to say something about it and the person it has made Booker.

In short, we should expect BETTER, more INTERESTING, more MEANINGFUL violence from a game that so clearly wants to mean and say something.

Oh dear lord, you just took offense that he took offense that other people took offense. I'm gonna say it now, there comes a time to walk away and I'm pretty sure you passed it. Not that I'm taking offense...uh...that would just be hypocritical and...uh...(nervous laughter)...(backs away slowly then runs off)

@joshwent said:

Well, isn't that what criticism IS? How exactly can you critique something without saying what you feel it failed to do?

To be fair we don't really know what the restrictions of that family share option were going to be. They specifically called it 'family' share, which suggests some sort of limitation based on relationship. I can't imagine any system they could have come up with that wouldn't have been pretty easy to fake...but still, I do wonder.

As for their used games policy. It only allowed used game sales through authorized re-sellers--I imagine this really meant Gamestop and maybe a handful of other major retailers. I get that most people are lazy and go through Gamestop, but I can't be the only one who likes to be able to sell and buy games directly from their owners on places like Ebay and Craigslist. The idea that GAMESTOP benefited more from these restrictions than the actual consumer should tell you something...

The publisher getting a cut of used game sales may sound like a solution, but in reality it flies in the face of first sale doctrine and, arguably, general realities of economics. Publishers are not supposed to be able to endlessly profit off a single copy of a work. Not only is this--I think--more or less common sense, it's also backed up by a Supreme Court decision and copyright law. Copyright does not grant limitless rights to the copyright holder. In other words, just because you have a copyright on a work does not mean that you get complete control of every single copy of that work for time immemorial. There are limits and one of those limits deals with the fact that a copyright holder's right to control the sale of a copy ENDS with the first sale of that copy.

This allows Libraries to exist. It allows used book/movie/music/game stores to exist. It allows the retail chain of distribution to exist. It's critical and too often ignored in these debates. I'll say again, without this concept LIBRARIES could not exist. Book publishers could claim control of all those books and reject the libraries right to lend them out.

Yes, how dare he continue to make arguments in support of his point. Everyone knows that you're only allowed a single article to support an idea on the internet. Then you're just supposed to ignore the community and forget about the topic completely. THAT'S journalism for you. I know this is the internet, so please, note sarcasm.

*Sorry for the flood of words, I guess Sony PR aren't the only ones who need an editor ;-)

I'm amazed at how united everyone here in the comments are being about the PS4 announcement. I'll come right out and start this off saying I believe the PS4 will be a very solid console with an eventually good library of games. I don't hate Sony and I don't hate the PS4.

I'm not going to try to tell you the reveal was a failure. It wasn't. It did what it did, but what it did was pretty uninteresting and I'm baffled that there are people who disagree.

First of all, someone needs to learn to edit speeches at Sony PR. Seriously. Are they paying these people by the word or something? The ridiculous avalanche of empty pr buzz words had me practically falling asleep as I struggled through the overly long intro to the conference. This is an industry wide problem, but Sony has always been one of the worst culprits. Maybe we were all just impressed that they managed to mostly avoid any graphs.

Second, the features on the console look solid, but they were all expected features. Faster loading. Resume. More memory. Streaming games. These were all expected features for a next gen console. Obviously they belonged in the conference, but they didn't get me excited. Software is what I'm all about, games.

So I was glad that Sony actually showed off some games, but here's where I was truly disappointed and here's where I'm truly confused by the acclaim and support I see everyone throwing toward this event. Shouldn't the games for your next generation console do something, I don't know, different? Interesting? Exciting?

Media Molecule came through. Also, The Witness will be awesome, but that has nothing to do with the PS4 outside of proving that Sony is talking to indie developers (glad to hear it of course). And...what? What else was there? Killzone looked fine, if as artistically uninspired as ever, but the gameplay showed was beyond tired. Don't even get me started on the car game. Infamous, much like Killzone, didn't really show anything provocative (made even more obvious after a lead-up that made the game sound like it would be a treatise on freedom and security--maybe the game will, but the trailer was a guy using fire to burn dudes). Watchdogs will be awesome, but will also be on current platforms...so it's hard to use it as an example of why I should be excited for the NEW platform. I don't really remember what else there was. Diablo 3? Dragons or something? An old mans face with, like, a lot of polygons (seriously, we're talking about polygons?!? What's next, blast processing? Bits?). David Cage, you're a story teller. Don't show me a model. Show me a story. I remember that amazing PS3 tech demo with the woman and the gun. THAT'S what this event needed. Something emotional, powerful, unexpected.

I'm excited for the next generation. I'm excited for the PS4. This event was not exciting and if you don't like people pointing that out...well, that's your problem. It was the bare minimum I felt it had to accomplish to not be a failure.

Do I think the PS4 event was a mistake or outright failure? No. But I'd argue that it met the bare minimum. Look, unveiling new hardware is about proving to people that they need a new box. It's not enough to just show off tired franchises and ideas. Media Molecule was the one wonderful exception at the event and I hope the end product is as cool and unusual as what they showed here.

But on the whole it struck me that none of the other displayed software even tried to prove it would do anything new aside from look moderately more pretty. It may be easy to show off old franchises, but wouldn't you at least hope that the new entries might feel fresh in any way at all?

I believe the PS4 will be a good system. The hardware looks good. The OS sounds and looks vastly improved. And the games will come and I believe we will see fresh and new ideas. This event suggested some of these things, but I'd did not drive them home no matter how much flowery pr and marketing speak they covered it with.

@alibson said:

Giant Bomb is my number one stop for extremist feminist propaganda.

Do you have any conception at all about what 'extremism' is? Cause this isn't it, not even close.

I haven't logged in for a while and I don't really follow the community on this site much, but I happened to click on the link to this thread. After reading about four pages of it, one thought kept going through my head: "I can't believe people are trying to pin this on Patrick." Even worse, from the sound of things he's been the whipping boy for a while. I just don't understand it. He writes some of the most interesting pieces on the site and has always been good at digging up cool stories. One of my favorite pieces on the site is "Worth Reading".

One complaint that seems to get brought up is that he "isn't funny or entertaining enough...". Yeah, he's the straight man. But anyone who knows anything about comedy knows that a straight man is actually an integral part of a good comedic dynamic. More importantly, for me at least, he provides a different sort of content to the site, which allows for a greater variety. I appreciate being able to read and listen to his more serious grounded tone in contrast to the at times over the top rest of the site.

I also saw people bitching that he gives too much attention to indie games. I'm not sure why this bothers anyone, since I'd argue that indies are where most of the innovation is happening in the industry right now. AAA games have gotten into a rut by almost any measure. But I don't want this to turn into some sort of indie vs AAA argument. There's plenty of sources for news when it comes to AAA titles and that certainly includes giant bomb. Patrick may not be the most interested in it, but other members of the team are. Again, it's really a matter of having a variety for people with different tastes.

In conclusion, Patrick is, I would argue, one of the best parts of this site. Without him around I know I'd visit less often. It actually saddens me to see people ragging on him for being a little different from the rest of the team. I don't know if Giant Bomb has gotten any worse recently. Mostly it feels like the same site to me. But even if it has, Patrick is not the cause.

Witness statements found in the response from Miseta's attorneys, however, contradict the claim. One employee specifically testified in her deposition that Miseta gave her a week's advance notice that she would be leaving Stardock, so that she "knew where [Miseta's] files were" and had access to relevant Google docs. Others had no recollection of Wardell or HR manager Angela Marshall (Wardell's sister-in-law) ever mentioning missing documents causing trouble with Elemental.

A former Stardock employee, speaking with Kotaku on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that a mere two weeks before launch, Elemental had many technical issues that had nothing to do with its marketing. The employee also added that at the time, nobody mentioned any materials having gone missing or any sabotage having taken place and showed Kotaku communications from Wardell that indicated satisfaction with how Miseta's staff replacement was taking over the review kit and review guide process.

Taken directly from the Kotaku article. Food for thought for those of you siding with Wardell...