upwarDBound

I think all online games are headed this way anyway so such a designation is not really necessary. It should suffice to refer to them simply as online games.

As for what an mmo constitutes is up in the air. I consider Guild Wars an mmorpg. The world is massive, it is multiplayer and it is an online rpg. There are hubs where you meet with other players to form your parties and all the rest of the environments are instanced. I don't think an mmo prerequisite is having 20+ member raids.

@Brodehouse:

Dragon's Dogma is purely an offline game unless you want to use other people's pawns. It is also entirely single player.

True hiking simulators. They are coming.

I think it was by a pack of skeletons in Daggerfall.

I really don't know what you're asking, I really liked Schindler's List and enjoyed watching it. Uncomfortable parts in the film did not negate the enjoyment I felt while watching it.

Honestly to me, if something is not fun in any way it is not entertainment. Education can be entertaining but entertainment can never not be fun. Video games could be educational and not fun I guess, though I would hesitate to call something like that a good game.

As far as I could tell there was more than enough information going around about the server problems that anyone keeping up on the game would know about. So how exactly did gaming journalism fail? Because some didn't knock off a point due to the rough launch or the fact that it has always online DRM? Are we gamers so reliant on reviews from "gaming journalists" that we can't see for ourselves if something is not to our liking? Or do we really care that much about some number attached to certain games?

Also what does the author of the piece in the OP mean when he says that the gaming press isn't doing their jobs? As far as I know the games press is not a consumer advocacy group, and even if they were what can they do? Are they going to march into Blizzard's offices and demand that they remove DRM from Diablo III? The truth is the consumers themselves dictate whether or not DRM flies by buying or not buying a product that contains it. Apparently enough people aren't really bothered by it judging by the game's sales.

As for the low user metacritic score I don't even take it into consideration. You don't need any proof on if you've played the game or not so anybody with a metacritic account can rate any game whatever they want to. Haters and trolls more than likely make up the majority of 0/10 scores with only a few probably coming from actual disgruntled fans. As a form of protest it's worth nothing.

I really liked the middle act of Lords of Shadow while the rest of the game was merely serviceable and even boring at times. Throughout most of the game it didn't even feel like Castlevania at all. Depending on what details I see about the game, I may just be on board for another go.

If your rig can handle it I recommend Skyrim. The combat really isn't as bad as people make it out to be but at the same time it is no Dark Souls. To offset the middling combat though is an immense beautifully realized world with tons to do.

It sounds like a good way to get carpal tunnel syndrome.

People still buy their games in the millions so I would say pretty good.

So you hate the man because he makes stupid yet well-liked games? That's really mature dude.