ShaneDev

This is the worst thread in a while.

The reason, put so well by Eddie Izzard, is that Mao and Stalin killed their own people while Hitler tried to kill everyone else. Plus Maos was the result of a really ludicrously shitty economic/agricultural policy as I doubt he intended to kill a huge portion of his own people, the same sort of thing with Stalin and the famines in the Ukraine. Hitlers was pure genocide on an industrial scale carried out in clinical way with the sole purpose of exterminating several groups of people and races from the face of the earth. What the Nazis did was evil, pure and simple, its unthinkable that people could be part of something like the Holocaust but they were and it happened. I would argue that Hitlers should be much higher given that he was solely responsible directly or indirectly for all the deaths in the European theater during WW2 for starting the war in the first place.

If your on about movies then of course there are more films about the Nazi and the second world war. It appeals to a wider audience and its a better story. Unquestionable aggression and evil defeated by a group of Allies defending the freedoms and very existence of millions of people. From the lowest points in the War to the tide turning makes a more compelling movie than watching millions of peasants die in China or the USSR or watching people slowly being worked to death in labour camps.

I think it's neat that people send them stuff and they thank people in pretty much every video. If I remember correctly they repeatedly said that you shouldn't bother sending things in especially junk food. Personally I think spending 300 euros to send junk food to people who don't want it is weird, but its there money.

@Sackmanjones said:

Can't believe I was the first one to say that But honestly deus ex is one of the few games I could see translating to the big screen

You weren't, the actual quote is "I never asked for this".

I can't see this movie happening anytime soon but I don't see that Ass Creed film happening any time soon either even if it does have Micheal Fassbender.

Good to see they are improving the AI and pathfinding which were the two worst things in TW games apart from all the bugs they have a launch. Looking forward to this but I'll need a new computer.

I think his first tweet was an interesting question and might have been an alright discussion if it wasn't directed right at her and he went off the rails with the rest of them. I mean interesting discussion because of the same thing that happened with Wil Wheaton where he claimed he was an ambassador for games and represented the industry or some other shit and got really defensive about it. On the other hand these people are so out of the way that I don't think they have any effect on the industry and should just do there own thing. This guy was a dick though.

Well recently the only games I have played are Civ 5 and Max Payne 3. I stopped playing Civ 5 and must get back to it but Max Payne 3 was fairly boring for the final third. The story is too messy and boring, there are too many characters and Maxs narration is dull. At certain parts I stopped and wondered why he was even talking when everything he was saying was pointless filler. The combat overall was fun and unlike others I never thought it was too hard or that the aiming was off but towards the end it out stays its welcome and just keeps going and going and going. Overall I was fine with some of the changes that were made to Max Payne but the stuff that Max does in this game had me rolling my eyes. Terrible action movie shit and plot holes abound meant I was kinda disappointed by the end.

Reading what you wrote about Halo makes it seem like you haven't actually played any of them. The Halo is fairly straight forward thing, it's a weapon and thats it, like a big bomb. How is that confusing? It's always a weapon and not "whatever the writers want it to be". The writers also never explain away things using the Halo so I don't understand what you mean by this, "Need an answer? Just throw in a Halo ring and shrug". I would say you at least haven't played Reach or ODST because ODST isn't a downloadable game like you stated and Reach didn't have any Flood or a Halo so it can't be the most formulaic by your definition. You're way off the mark when talking about Halo and you could at least get the facts right.

And your talking about Call Of Duty being overrated by not actually talking about the games? You called it a great franchise and started complaining about Black Ops 2 which I assume you haven't played. I would have gone with the other guys suggestion of calling it over saturated games instead of overrated games.

Since booth babes are specific to E3 and effect journalists and the press why don't you all band together and petition or complain to the people in charge to get it changed? If you're serious about this and people are upset then why not try and change things.

The coverage I watch online of E3 contains very few images of booth babes and is always about the games. The press conferences which huge numbers of people watch feature no booth babes. I don't mean to sound dismissive but this booth babe discussion is brought up every year and I don't think it effects the image of the industry all that much. It also never changes, with the same complaints every year and people do nothing.

I think journalists maybe aren't sure how much of E3 is actually broadcast because for all the talk of booth babes and E3 I saw none. I was watching some Gametrailers, Gamespot and other random sites coverage and it was always about the games. Maybe that's just me but I don't think it effects the image of the industry as much as some journalists think it does.

I have to disagree that the cry for change is any louder this year than before. It's the same every year and then as other posters said it is forgotten until after the next E3. E3 is for the press why don't the press tell the organizers that they don't want them there, if every year they say they don't want them there?

I had a similar reaction to the ending. I was pretty meh about it. I thought it was good of them to give some bigger picture to the Reapers but the whole thing felt a little odd to me and maybe a little rushed. The big plot holes are what annoy me simply because they are so blatant. Why was the Normandy going through a Relay and why was my whole team on it? If they had relayed a sense of some time passing between the push on the Citadel and the ending I could forgive it but they didn't.

The Star Trek 2 mind meld with Liara right at the end leaves them open to bring back Shepard and so does that scene where he survives one of the endings. Could be interesting to see where they go with it but the huge differences in the endings means it would be pretty hard to make another game. Of course they could just pick an ending and make it canon but that would seem weird.

They will probably only show you 360 points when you compare 360 points and have two lists. That or they nuke the lists on the new console then give you a grade depending on how many points or percentage completion per 360 game and then that is displayed somewhere on your new Live profile.

For the new Xbox MS will probably port over all the most important streaming services but then keep the 360 as the streaming and Kinect box to clear all the stock. When the new console launches it will be all about the games to get a base then you put Kinect 2 on it with all the steaming services and then you stop talking about the 360.

Armchair analysis is fun!