Aliens: Colonial Marines. I really wanted to love that game as all the initial footage looked amazing.

Then we got what the actual gameplay looked like, and yikes. Glad I cancelled that preorder. I ended up playing it for about 20 minutes at my friend's house and was even more happy I didn't waste the money.

IndianaPwns39

This would be my answer as well.  I was nearly convinced by the fake "in game video" they touted around before release.  Then every reviewer on the planet all said the same things regarding how terrible it was.

I'm intrigued.  Unfortunately I'm dead broke and have about a dozen games to get through thanks to the Steam summer sale.  This game is on my list now though.

[QUOTE="Jacanuk"]

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"]

Mentally, men and women are 100% identical. And I am a playwright, by the way. I'm also a psychology graduate. I believe it's the environment that makes us different, not the brain. And since a writer can change the environment the characters were raised in, the gender is largely irrelevant. 

Lulu_Lulu

Of course you are, but since your both a playwright and a psychology graduate, i don't have to tell you that what you just said is a load of BS, especially the men and women are a 100% identical in their brains, besides the obvious size and weight difference, there are many other subtile and major differences.

As to you being a playwright, well then you must again know that gender is definitely not irrelevant, it can be made so, but if a story is written from page 1 to fit a male gender, you will have a hard time fitting a female into the same story without changing fundamental aspects of the story. Imagine Juno being a guy or Heather ledger being a women in Brokeback. None of them would be the same story.

Games are the same unless you completely disregard the story and just play for the mechanics, then yes it would be irrelevant what gender or even race the character is, but there are a lot of people out there that actually play for the story and not just to shoot someone in the head and then do tea-bagging.

I can only speak for myself, but I play video games for good games, this includes story.  Not every game needs to be story driven to be good, but some games are good because of the story.  Alan Wake is a good example for me, the game wouldn't have been nearly as good if it wasn't for the well written story, pacing, and production.

Speaking of Alan Wake, I think that's a good example where the character could of been female without sacrificing much.  From a writing perspective, not much would of needed to altered to make a female protagonist work in that game.  Not to say changes wouldn't be needed on some of the underlying themes, but it could still work.

Other the other hand trying to change the gender of say Booker Dewitt in Bioshock Infinite?  That would be nearly impossible without totally scrambling the entire story.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Origin. Or nowhere at all. You dont need Steam to play PC games you know. You can buy games from Amazon, GMG, GoG and directly from the Publisher's site. 

S0lidSnake

Again, the Publisher is responsible for these server. Not valve. Not Sony. Not Microsoft. Not Nintendo. If they cannot afford to host these servers then they have gone overbudget and the online mode should not be included in the final game at all.

Saying they are responsible for these servers over and over doesn't change the reality of the situation.  Fact is Valve, MS, and Sony all offer these online functions to developers to lessen the burden.  There's a reason we have seen a multiplayer explosion since the release of the 360 and PS3, because developers finally had someone else who could maintain the means required to MAKE multiplayer games.  There's also a reason you didn't see online multiplayer take off on the Wii, because Nintendo had virtually no plans or means in place to facilitate it for developers.

You also don't seem to understand that hosting servers cost money EVERY DAY THEY ARE UP AND RUNNING.  No matter how well a game sells, eventually maintaining multiplayer servers will cost money.  You can't budget for something that costs money indefinitely.  It's an unending cost for a product that sooner or later will stop producing profit.  Why do you think EA is shutting down multiplayer servers for games that didn't sell well?  It's because keeping them up costs too much money when stacked against how much the game made or is making.

[QUOTE="Jacanuk"]

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]

But a good story is one which you can relate to regardless of the protagonist's gender. 

Tropictrain

Mentally, men and women are 100% identical. And I am a playwright, by the way. I'm also a psychology graduate. I believe it's the environment that makes us different, not the brain. And since a writer can change the environment the characters were raised in, the gender is largely irrelevant. 

However, expecting the writer to alter the environment to accommodate a gender flip is unrealistic at best.  Especially in cases like video games or novels where the entire world fiction was possibly created first and foremost.

[QUOTE="Articuno76"] If we see that money pumped back into infrastructure and PSN downloads become blisteringly fast then I can get behind that. S0lidSnake

But they havent said anything like that. They havent talked about upping the download speeds. They havent promised dedicated servers. Nothing. If Steam can do all of this for free then why is Sony charging us?

It slightly irk's me when people try to equate console services with Steam.  There's a difference, Valve doesn't have to manufacture and sell hardware to the consumer first off.  Which means their production and R&D costs are FAR lower.  Another point is they have a built in user base, anyone who owns a PC can download steam for free and buy a game in a matter of minutes. 

Even then, these things aren't free on Steam exactly, the money just doesn't come from us.  The developers and publishers pay out of pocket for said features.  The sheer amount of revenue generated on Steam, combined with little to no manufacturing costs, and continued long-term promotion for products via the many sales Steam does is what makes the features free on Steam.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/29/playstation-4-party-chat-will-be-free-to-all

Sony may have disappointed many when they announced that online multiplayer will require a PS+ subscription, but today came the good news that services such as party chat (aka cross game chat) and Netflix will be available to everyone for free without a premium subscription, as opposed to microsoft, which today requires a gold subscription to access not only multiplayer, but also party chat, internet browser, youtube app, Netflix and even to send messages to friends via the xbox.com website and to download certain demos.

Black_Knight_00

Sony has been pretty clear from the get go that they don't want to put up a paywall for most of the PS4's features.  For a long time Xbox user like myself, this can be a bit of an incentive.  I can also see how it could be a bit of a sour note for long time PS3 users that are used to getting online gaming for free, though it still shouldn't of been a surprise to anyone that online gaming will require a subscription for the PS4.

Though I'm not really sure how much of an impact this will make on what console someone will choose.  It stands to reason most gamers want to be able to play online, making what other features are behind the paywall rather moot.  It would make a difference for people who prefer to play single player/offline games. 

I'm really wondering how many people in the "why couldn't it have a female protagonist?" camp have any experience in writing.

I would challenge anyone to write a short story as short as 10 pages, coming up with a story arc, characters, backstory, relations between said characters, ect.  Write it all out, then when you're done, change the main protagonists gender, and see just how much of those 10 pages you would have to rewrite.  I would bet money you would have to alter at least 3 pages worth of text.

This may come as a bit of a shock to people who don't write, but not all stories are written the same way.  Sometimes stories are written around characters the author has created, sometimes characters are created around the story being told.

Myself personally, the protagonists for the book I'm writing were the very last thing that got fleshed out.  I can saw with absolute authority, there's no chance I could so a gender swap on any of the main characters without doing a massive rewrite.

So yeah as a writer myself, after spending a year building a world to use as a backdrop for a book I hadn't even begun to write, someone saying "why wouldn't X character have been Y gender instead?" would be very insulting due to an ignorant lack of respect for the creation process.

Not once through the year+ of heavy marketing for this game did I ever get the impression it was supposed to be a survival horror game.  Not once did I ever read any article where ND claimed it was a horror game.

The game is not going to be tense or atmospheric if you're playing on easy difficulty.  You simply have too much ammo and materials to make whatever you want to feel threatened by much of anything.

Though I do totally agree with the trail and error frustration.  Almost every segment with infected merely gave the illusion of choice in how to overcome the situation.  When in reality you really only had two choices: Become Stabby McGee with your shivs, or put an arrow into the head of every infected within a 100 yard radius.

I also tend to feel that despite the game having great writing, voice acting, and production, that the gameplay wasn't anything new or innovative.  In terms of actual gameplay, It's nothing we haven't seen dozens of times over

Doesn't bother me one iota.  "Why is that?" you ask?  Simple, Rockstar has never made games with the mentality of "appealing to a wider audience" by going down a check list.  This in turn has made them known for making games that they would want to play.  Rockstar has always made games for themselves as much as they have for the public and it shows.  Their games have mass appeal because they are fun, well made games made by people who want to see the game succeed.

As a writer myself, I can attest to the concept that I don't create the character I write.  They are created as a means to facilitate the story I'm trying to tell.  If the story demands a female character, then It's a female character.  If it demands a male character, then that's what happens.  If I suddenly and arbitrarily had to change one of my male protagonists to a female, not only would it cease to be an honest portrayal of the character (thus it would no longer be MY character), but it would also force me to rewrite several other characters as well.

Take A Song of Ice and Fire (A Game of Thrones) for example: What if Daenerys Targaryen was a male, or if Jamie Lannister was female?  Think of every character they interact with that would have to be altered to accommodate such a change, and if you haven't read the books....well shame on you ya heathen!  :P