You know a part of me doesn't want to consider Deus Ex an FPS/RPG because it's a pretty bad FPS, and a very simplistic RPG. I just don't think it was trying to go for that.

They just wanted to make a bad ass game, and put a bunch of different good things into one, and gave us Deus Ex.

But for the sake of simplicity I'll list it as my favorite thus far, but I haven't played many.

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

Those are only shipped numbers.

I remember a time when games like Pacman, and ET also shipped in the millions, and then they were all discarded of in the desert, and gaming collapsed. Those games weren't successes just because they shipped millions.

I'd rather wait till some actual 'sold' numbers to determine exactly how successful Dark Souls is.

razgriz_101

But that was a time in days gone by, that wouldnt happen now.

Shipped nowadays essentially means sold from the Manufacturer to the distro/retailer.Atari had to take those games backs they were criminally bad and tbh that is a very extreme case aswell on top of that shoddily made 6 week games dont work even back when it was simpleton simon gaming wise.

Right, but the point still stands.

If a game comes out that's super hyped up, and expected to sell millions then retailers are going to buy millions. If the game tanks at retail then what does those millions of sales mean? it means the next time that developer puts out a game it ain't going to ship near that many copies at retail because no retailer would be dumb enough to fall for it a second time.

That's why I prefer using actual sold figures to determine the actual success of a game.

Low sales on the 360 are more attributed to the fact that this is a sequel to a PS3 exclusive. There was much more awareness for this title on the PS3 (not to mention it was released exclusively on the PS3 in Japan, and sold like half a million there)

So the game sold 200k+ in the west on the PS3, and 200k+ on the 360. Why are people bagging on the 360 for the sales numbers it put up?

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

well Gabe Newell said piracy doesnt matter

ill take his word over anyone else in the industry, any sane person would aswell, but go ahead and trust greedy corps like microsoft, Activision and take two (rockstar) over Valves

PC360Wii

And valve isnt greedy either? all compannies are greedy they aint charities.

Everyone has diffrent views on the matters at hand and approaches to said matter.

Well would you guys trust this guy, among others, on Youtube who state that piracy has actually increased the sales of their products because there was more awareness for them?

Gamespot never let's me link....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI

Those are only shipped numbers.

I remember a time when games like Pacman, and ET also shipped in the millions, and then they were all discarded of in the desert, and gaming collapsed. Those games weren't successes just because they shipped millions.

I'd rather wait till some actual 'sold' numbers to determine exactly how successful Dark Souls is.

The Atari I would not put there, and the NES would not be top (N64 probably would be).

I'd also bump off the PS2 in favor of the Xbox. The PS1 can stay though.

Hmmm, well I can agree on two options.

1. Your standards are very low for what an FPS game should be
2. Your standards are high, but you only played Resistance 3, and Duke Nukem Forever this year.

I'm leaning more with the first option though.

Piracy isn't actually causing any problems on the PC.

The real problem is the misconception that console games = PC games, and that PC gamers would be buying games like GTA, or Modern Warfare in the millions if it weren't for piracy.

Those games never will sell millions on the PC because they aren't what PC gamers want.

There's a reason the most successful PC titles are just that; PC titles. STALKER, The Witcher, Half Life, Starcraft, Minecraft, Football Manager, Battlefield, etc. These games do sell millions on the PC. Most console games don't even match the sales of these exclusives either. Only do the super-hyped, mega-blockbusters tend to sell more.

There are literally people in this thread that are replying to this as if the VGAs aren't a joke?

Their GOTY nominations list for this year contains UNRELEASED GAMES. How much bigger of a joke can you get?

I'm not sure why people have some kind of arbitrary number standard they hold every game in every genre to, regardless of how much they enjoy the ride. I know I was more than justified paying $70 CAD + 14% tax for Mirror's Edge back when it came out, even though the first playthrough lasted me "only" 5 hours and 30 minutes. Every second of the game was enjoyable for me, and I ended up playing it another 10+ times through, and spending at least 30-40 hours playing time trials and speed runs. By contrast, I bought Persona 3 FES for $40, and got 65 hours into it, and was left with almost nothing but bad memories of grinding and a forgettable story. Yet, is was "supposed" to give me 125+ hours of entertainment. It failed to give me half before I got bored and gave up. If I enjoy a game, and it leaves me wanting more at the end (whether short or long) I will be satisfied playing it and can justify the purchase.foxhound_fox

I've been burned on purchasing short games in the past, so I just don't anymore. I'll rent, or borrow the game, and if it when I beat it I want to play even more I'll buy it. It's really only been a problem this gen though since there are many games which have overly scripted "gameplay" elements to the point where replayability is absolutely crushed.

I also won't buy many JRPGs since it's really just grinding in a lot of them, and yah the stories tend to always be bad. I won't risk paying full price for any of them.

I feel most people in this thread have a problem with the games I described. Nearly every game is linear, and I'd say the vast majority of games are short, but some give far more value than others, and there's no denying that.