It's probably mainly attitude. People pick up on it how the companies present themselves. Sony had come out and presented a good attitude at least in appearance for the consumer, whereas Microsoft came in with full arrogance and then went ahead and muddled up their whole mission statement for the box in the fallout. It's basically the reverse of last gen.
You are only talking AAA exclusives also it seems, they are few and far inbetween. It seems to me ps4 seems to have the larger library for the small downloadables and that counts for a lot more now that there are less fully fledged titles developed in general. Also you are wasting your time referencing glorified tech demo launch titles such as Ryse or (I forget the name of sony's platformer release game with the little stone guy), lets be honest you aren't buying consoles post launch for that shit. Also I understand people are excited for the halo collection, and i'm not against the idea but come the hell on its the equivalent of a god of war collection for the PS4. It's kind of sad and indicative of the current state of consoles if that what you are purchasing one for.
Personally I give no fucks at this stage since both are glorified door stops in regards to the small selection they offer at this stage of the cycle and i'm pretty content at the moment over here in PC land, but for the eventual purchase at this stage i'm gravitating towards Sony purely for those reasons. It's funny because I went with the xbox last gen (at least the first half of it) for exactly these reasons.
I understand it's annoying peoples tendency to bandwagon without explaining themselves, but hey welcome to the world, the majority of the population does this in every regard - ultimately they are following the lead of the small educated hardcore audience and their opinions.
O hell yeh, the music combined with the artistic imagery in this game is amazing.
The game is totally fine, not amazing by any means. I'm a believer of the 3D tower defense RTS and have been since Sacred (the greatest game of all time), everyone else at the time of this games release seemed to treat the fact that this was an RTS as if the game was diseased from the beginning without even understanding why. (Most of the market at the time were console kids and mindless action games were the order of the day while anything with any sort of "complicated" pc roots was shunned. The poor control didn't help)
I was of the understanding some of it was improved on PC controlwise, can you confirm this? I kind of mean to play through this again one day.
I'd also recommend trying again with Bulletstorm if you get the opportunity, its quite similar to this game in the way that it was shunned on release (though for opposite reasons) due to the video game hipster movement of the time that was all anti big guys with guns. It's dumb awesome fun and has some great set pieces.
Kids are kids. Let them be damn kids. Ah whatever, sure ruin their fun by cramming bitter awful reality down their throats.
Kids learn the lessons they take into their adult lives at this age. It shapes the people they become.
Everyone seems suprisingly quick to jump to some sort of weird defense on this one it seems. Blindly defensive.
I think any education provided to teens (or anyone) about the realities of war is good education. Without reading right through the article though i've got no idea the extent to which these kids might have been endangered for the sake of this education and whether it was necessary.
The real question, is why are ten year olds being exposed to a game for adults? That's hands down the frightening thing. Everybody here immediately jumps to pointing that obviously EVERYONE can easily tell the difference, but honestly 10 year old kids can understand the scope of mindlessly and voilently shooting people virtually? How developed is the average 10 year old to understand that something like this isn't normal and shouldn't be encouraged - which it is very much through its design of being an addictive game.