My take; Tom McShea is right, everyone else is wrong.

Ninja-Hippo

Yes this argument IS pointless...

1) Dark Souls has crappy multiplayer and skyrim doesn't have any multiplayer, which no one wanted anyway; Winner: Dark Souls

2) Dark Souls doesn't have DLC, but Skyrim does; Winner: Dark Souls

3) Dark Souls and Skyrim both have big maps; Winner: Dark Souls

4) Skyrim strives to entertain and occupy its players, while Dark Souls seeks to punish them; Winner: Dark Souls

5) Skyrim may have dragons...but Dark Souls has UNDEAD DRAGONS!!!; Winner: Dark Souls

6) One of these games isn't even out right now...Winner: Dark Souls

Both were designed with radically different design philosophies, but Dark Souls is better because its more dark and I die quicker in it, so it must be better. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can =) (but you won't because I'm right.)

[QUOTE="lolmuffins"]Considering the contrast in attitudes between Japanese and British developers, I think it is perfectly relevant. NT is too arrogant and stupid to realize that they are killing DMC.Inconsistancy

[QUOTE="lolmuffins"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

1. DMC was always in English :roll:

Inconsistancy

Capcom doesn't realize that DMC never really needed a reboot in the first place. The major problems associated with DMC4 was stupid crap like dice games and lazy/uninspired level design. It had nothing to do with Dante getting stale and old.

I probably won't even buy it. Ninja Theory aren't very good devs and after playing Enslaved I'll think long and hard before buying another one of their games

BPoole96

And to think that this is the company that is supposed to resuscitate DMC.

1. DMC was always in English :roll:

Inconsistancy

Capcom doesn't realize that DMC never really needed a reboot in the first place. The major problems associated with DMC4 was stupid crap like dice games and lazy/uninspired level design. It had nothing to do with Dante getting stale and old.

No, I'll tell you why I'm still utterly confused. You don't seem to be getting it:

The DMR is for long distance. Yes. That is to say, you're able to shoot accurately within reason a person at long range.

A person at long range, who, once shot, is sprinting for cover, shooting them with a DMR is not within reason, and certainly the blame cannot be laid upon the presence of reticle bloom.

If such a case happened, you would expect someone to simply not engage them. I'm sure Halo players can do some lateral thinking.

FrozenLiquid

If I had the opportunity to "snipe" and kill a sprinting enemy, and it was within my ability to do so, then I sure wouldn't want to be held back because of some dumb reticule bloom.

I like your use of diction, by the way. It makes me think that I'm actually having an intelligent conversation on the Internet.

"In the same manner the accuracy decreases with improper use of the pistol, the accuracy decreases with the DMR."

That example makes no sense. In the case of the pistol, you are punished for using it incorrectly. In Reach, you are punished because Bungie says so.

The way I see it, nobody really likesbloom. Sure, some of you guys claim that bloom is good, but would you really miss it if 343 removed it from the game? Removing reticule bloom would only serve to benefit both supporters and opponents of reticule bloom.

AND DON'T GIVE ME THAT SCHLOCK ABOUT REALISM. If I wanted to deal with realistic recoil, then I would join the military =/