@Majin72: Perhaps it didn't do as well as it could have on the emotional scale, but that is a problem that has plagued ALL Superman movies and TV series to-date. He usually comes across as sanitized, too stoic, almost indifferent. Christopher Reeves did a fine job, but I can't watch those films. They are outdated and too corny. Fundamentally DC has a serious problem bringing their franchises to the big screen (with Batman as a major exception, particularly Nolan's trilogy). We'll see if they can get better and match what Marvel has done and has planned. I' hoping for a good surprise, but I don't expect it. And if you have a different opinion, I'm fine with that. Each to his own. Glad to hear the cartoons got it right though.
If Goyer and Snider had been faithful to the Superman canon, they could have provided all the same arguments stated in this article and still had Superman find another solution (i.e., using his intelligence) instead of killing the guy like a raving cave man. I disagree, it didn't feel right as part of the story - it was shocking because it didn't fit.. I did want a gritter Superman who had more depth of emotion, but this went too far. Nonetheless, it is what it is, and I liked the movie in spite of this scene. Hopefully they build a better story going forward, one that is "human" (so we can readily identify) but also one that is full of the spectacular only Superman can pull off. To Goyer and Snider, remember that Superman also has a brain and he can use that to his advantage as well. Don't make him a mindless muscle-bound do-gooder. Make him a complex, smart, man of deep deep convictions and moral character. Don't turn Superman into another Tony Stark or Spider-Man. Complex, definitely yes. Even conflicted. But be a true hero as Superman is known best for.
Though he was a cool villain in The Phantom Menace (because of his acrobatic combat and shroud of mystery), this is a BIG NO THANK-YOU for me. Not interested. Too Narrow of a scope. Include him as a playable character in some other Star Wars game, or DLC. But no way to a stand-alone game. Put his back-story into a book or graphic novel. At least that's my opinion.
Glad I never watched it. Sounds like pure garbage. Have you ever watched Reviews on the Run (with Victor Lucas, et al)? Or their other TV show, Electronic Playground? They're not perfect, but they treat games, gamers and game developers with a certain level of respect - like this is the mature entertainment industry it really bis. They just don't go as deep as they could or deal with a variety of gaming topics besides games themselves. But they're both head and shoulders above most every other TV production out there covering games. The production just happens to be Canadian as well.
PS. It appears to be a real challenge to go deep on gaming issues when most of the time the industry is still educating the general public on what gaming is all about. When a husband can go play video games with his buddies for an evening without the wife thinking he's somehow being less responsible or acting immature is when people truly are embracing gaming as a legitimate form of mature entertainment. Until then, the challenge remains huge and it's hard for a TV show to pull it off well. All this when most people game to some degree these days. It's nuts.
This is the MMO. If you don't want to play with others, don't play it. Simple. I speculate that Bethesda Game Studios will continue to develop single player games into the forseeable future (alternating with Fallout and perhaps another unknown title). However, for an MMO it looks very promising. And I disagree, single player games will always have a place, for a multitude of reasons (though may not be as dominant as in the past).
I preordered this months ago. I have always loved the more strategic approach of this series. Let's just hope the gameplay measures up in all respects, includes more game modes, and improves not just the game tech, but those areas the series had particular weakesses in the past.
For those of you who don't get the point of this article, making a game with a badass female lead character is not necessarily the same as creating a game for women or one women want to play. Simply running off and listing games that have great female characters is not understanding the broad scope of the issue here. Don't get me wrong, strong female characters are important. Just think bigger and beyond yourself. Read the whole article and widen your scope.
Good article. I can understand how many women may not want to be singled out. A gamer is a gamer. But we need to have more dialog in order to facilitate change and create new "seeds". The conversation itself is a good one - ignoring the issue doesn't resolve it. I'm also glad that women are taking the initiative. But remember, creating a game with strong female characters is not necessarily the same as creating a game that is designed for women or one that women want to play. I think we need all aspects. But here's a problem I don't think was addressed in the article... it might be changing, but women have tended to be very pragmatic. When push comes to shove, games usually don't rate very high on their radar, except perhaps as a vehicle to facilitate social interaction. On the other hand, men see "playing" as a necessity - it's not optional; it's in our nature, period. This is often a contentious issue between men and women. Of course there are many exceptions. But I think this needs to be included as part of the discussion and I would be interested to hear ideas of what we can do to bridge this disparity. Personally, I hope games do become more diverse and more inclusive (beyond stereotypes). I hope and do want more women involved in gaming in every respect. I hope women are respected more by online gamers. I would love to play with more women. But regardless of any of that happening, men will play anyhow - that's a given. But let's keep talking.
Technically the differences are rather insignificant. I'm hoping everyone gets it now and we can focus our time and attention on better things, like the games themselves. As far as I'm concerned the debate over one console versus another has now been reduced to these key items: Xbox 360 (Exclusive Games, Xbox Live, Xbox Game Backlog, Access to multimedia files over internal network) vs. PS3 (Exclusive Games, Blu-ray Player, PS2 Game Backlog, Free PSN, multimedia features) Fundamentally it comes down to which games you want to play and what online and multimedia features you want. Both have pros and cons. Both are good consoles. It's largely a subjective decision, and it isn't really about the hardware specs any more. The new "motion" sensing technologies (i.e., Project Natal, etc.) could add another round of technology, but we'll see.
Riprock's comments