Fearbeard

Well for starters the best part of each generation is that all the previous generations still exist and you can go back and play them anytime (outside of online modes that shut down.) This generation definitely started out slow but this year has been pretty great so far. One of the reasons that the other generations seem so good is because they are over and you have their entire library to look over. By the end of the generation I don't have any reason to believe it won't be great.

Also I wouldn't say it's greed from the publishers that are driving the push towards microtransactions but rather the cost of game development constantly rising. Game prices have not risen in line with the cost of triple AAA development. So while small indie games can have small teams and achieve success with modest sales on small budgets, bigger games have giant budgets and need massive sales in order to make a profit. Microtransactions can give a game leeway and lower the sales needed for profit. If there is no profit, then there is no industry. That said, it's up to developers and publishers to balance microtransactions so that they don't detract too much from the game.

I'd like to see them do a throwback Fallout in the vein of Fallout 1 and 2.

This is why warranties and refunds exist. Every hardware is going to have a failure rate. It will probably be several weeks or longer before we see if there is a large scale problem with the hardware.

Anyone buying the first edition of a product is taking that chance. Fortunately there are enough consumer protections that you won't be out the money if you encounter an immediate problem.

I'm enjoying it quite a bit. Districts and Wonder placement add a whole new complexity to city layout that is pretty interesting. The city state system seems quite a bit better then Civ 5 and doing their quests finally seem worth it since you get a free envoy to them and the bonuses for that.

That mission bummed me out a bit. I got to the thing and did the download which then gave me the objective to neutralize all enemies. I had 2 squad members dead and 1 mind controlled at that point versus a sectoid and 2 advent soldiers. I knew my chances were slim so I called for a skyranger evac, thinking I got the primary mission objective. After 3 more harrowing turns trying to keep my soldiers alive and non-mind controlled I managed to evacuate my 2 squad members. What's my reward for such a fun and harrowing mission where I felt like I got the primary objective? Critcal mission failure. Only option is to reload a saved game or restart mission. I can't even go back and lick my wounds and maybe bring back a more experienced crew. The mission was just a complete waste of time.

If I was playing Ironman would my game be completely over already? Since I'm assuming the mission is a story critical mission the final objective of neutralize all enemies has to be done, but it really would have been nice if they had allowed for partial mission success here. The immersion of my playthrough is already busted, the characters who died are now back at the start of the mission. I really hope there aren't a lot of fail states that only allow for reloads or restarting missions.

Definitely vanilla. I'd rather see what is in the base game before I mess with it.

I think the whole debate going on it kind of silly. If it's short, call it short, but length does not determine quality. An amazing 5 hour game is worth $60. A semi decent 5 hour game is probably not. I don't know what area The Order falls under yet. Hearing it's 5 hours means it will probably take me 7 to 8 hours which is fine since I find the setting far more compelling then your random sci-fi or random modern combat shooters.

What I don't understand is the people who say they are happy it's 5 hours since they would rather have an awesome 5 hours rather then 5 awesome hours and 5 filler hours. Sure, but wouldn't you rather have 10 awesome hours? Length has nothing to do with quality. Defend the quality of the experience, not the length.

Fallout 4 has to be there. Either that or a new Elder Scrolls game but it's been a lot longer since Fallout. I just hope it's not a MMORPG.

Doom is a given, and Arkane has to be doing something. I'd love a Dishonored 2, but I'll take a new game as long as it's as good as Dishonored.

Might be too soon for anything Wolfenstein but who knows. Hopefully they have a surprise or two as well.

Seems designed to be anti-metacritic rather then designed to help their readers. While 10 point scales are pretty useless a good 5 star scale lets them use every number on it and have each one mean something. Oh well, I don't read many reviews anymore anyways. Usually I only read the 2 or 3 star reviews for games I'm interested in to see what problems the reviewer had with the game and see if they are things that would bother me or not. Quick looks and let's plays usually let me know all I need to decide if a game is designed for me or not.

Yeah, I don't know how it made it on the list. The only real enjoyment to get out of the game is if you are playing with friends who are also way into it. Single player, it's awful. Playing with random people, it's boring. It's entire game design is based on grind but with such limited content and the time it takes to actually to finally get and level up the gear the only real reason to do it is if you are basically using it as an excuse to hang out with friends. The actual shooting is solid in the game at least. I'll give him that. If they had put together an awesome adventure leading up to the end game grind then it could easily be a top 10 game, but they didn't. I would have much rather seen Wolfenstein on the list.