This reminds me of those bogus personality tests that they gave at one place I worked. They are all essentially useless, and it's kind of insulting, to be identified solely by a stereotype (and I'm not talking specifically about gaming stereotypes, but any kind of stereotype). Stereotypes are lies that we tell ourselves because we are too lazy to actually deal with an individual.

@SergioMX It's certainly not bug-free. But as for being, in your words "riddled with bugs" it seems awfully playable. I'd rethink your use of hyperbole when it's so easy to demonstrate just how wrong your claim is. You want to point out the bugs, that's fine. But when you use such hyperbole, it makes you sound like sour milk.

BTW, a game which actually WAS riddled with bugs, with absolutely no exaggeration on my point: one of the most popular games of all time, Master of Magic -- crashes galore, balance nonexistent, spells that don't work properly, still one of the top games ever that game developer after game developer tries to copy. So apparently a game can have bugs -- lots of bugs -- and overcome that issue purely because it's still incredibly fun to play.

They did to X-Com pretty much what they should have done, which was to update it for a modern audience. I'm an old-timer, and I enjoyed the old X-Com as well. By the standards of the day, it was a classic. But the new one is simply more refined.

That said, I agree that Civ 5 would have been a good choice. I also kind of liked FTL and Endless Space. FTL was simply too challenging a game for a lot of people, and Endless Space was... flawed in too many ways (it's gotten better though since release -- if you only tried it at release, you should try the new version).

@theCCyberDDemon Some of the ES games were better than others (Daggerfall was the worst, imho). That said, ES games have also tended to be the biggest games of their day, so that regardless of who is doing it, they are inevitably buggy. The main question is, whether Zenimax will release it before it's 'close enough' (because big games are never finished, they just have to be released at some point).

The problem with the discussion is that there are a lot of killings and attempted killings that may not be labeled assassinations because they are conducted by people labeled instead as terrorists, or soldiers (for example during the Viet Nam conflict there were lots of assassinations on both sides). Furthermore, when assassinations are directed by government agencies, they usually do not want to take credit, so what you may end up with are 'accidental' deaths or, at best, rumors and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. When the killing is up close and personal and in public, generally speaking, it's usually easy enough to know a lot of the details. But when a car bomb goes off, or someone dies of a mysterious heart attack, and so on, unless someone comes forward, or a file becomes unclassified, you may never know the truth. It's happened so much that the killing of South American dictators by the CIA has become a cliche.

@mohamedmounem

I agree with just about everything you wrote. But games do not have to twist any facts to mislead. The fact that the game is only a snapshot, and selectively (perhaps by necessity) chooses what to include and exclude, by itself can twist things. The best defense to this, as you say, is to search in the actual history for the truth. But not everyone will do that, unfortunately. Telling only half of a truth is enough to shape opinions one way or another, depending on which half you withhold. And it's not necessarily any fault of the game designer when it happens, as the only thing they are (usually) trying to do is to create a game that people will want to play. After all, their job is not to inform, but to entertain.

And greetings from New York, btw 8-).

The problem with learning history from games is that they can only give a very narrow and distorted snapshot of history, without any context. You get all the weapons and tactics, which may be interesting, but without the rest of it, it's shallow and meaningless. Battles are not unimportant, but with no historical context, it's just trivia.

@Philly1UPer Obviously, you haven't played a lot of MMOs because they are only all the same if you don't pay attention to them. It's difficult to see the differences if you don't actually play them.

First of all, not a single MMO that I've played has been 'pay to win'. Then again, I'm sure some of them are exactly like that.

In any case, MMOs as a general rule are NOT competitive except within the limited framework of pvp; though there are exceptions, of course. At least I don't play them that way. Then again, I don't min/max, and I don't pvp much. The secret is that if you don't like playing it that way then DON'T . IT's about the experience, not a race to the end, with whoever gets there first, being a 'winner'. In a good game, it's actually the exact opposite, where the game is about the journey, and not the destination. If you rush through them like a race, then you lose.

MMOs are social/cooperative experiences for many of us. I don't like a lot of MMOs but the ones I do, are like that. If you haven't had good experiences then that's too bad. Not everyone does.

@Poodlejumper I'm sure WoW will have you. TSW is not WoW. If you don't like MMOs then don't play them. I don't like Shooters, but you don't see me commenting that the world doesn't need another shooter.

I had a lot of fun with TSW's beta, but I consciously avoided spending too much time with it as I didn't want to spoil the game for myself for the official launch I was skeptical, but now I'm more of a believer in the game, at least from what I've seen. The game does have a very different feel/mood to it than anything I've played previously.. And I love the puzzle quests. I was sorely tempted to ask for help on them at various points, but I wanted to solve them for myself, so I never did ask. That's pretty much the opposite of how I've felt when I've gotten stuck in quests in other games -- I too often just wanted to 'get through' content. In TSW, I want to actually experience the content because it really does draw you into the story. And that's huge. And that's coming from a skeptic.