@pccraine343 The purpose of this article doesn't seem to be to list notable villains, but rather talk about what makes a good villain, these were just easily understood examples of various attributes. So arbitrarily listing villains like Mengsk, while quite the villain, wouldn't really further the point of the article. And I would disagree that the Reapers are terrifying as game villains. They certainly would be the MOST terrifying

@eyerok That's part of what I was trying to say (in a sense), Diablo II wouldn't be an indie game because at the time, Blizzard was a subsidiary of a larger company (Vivendi), so at that point, nothing they could make would be an indie title, no matter their size or budget (though, it turns out I was wrong about Starcraft, as Vivendi owned Blizzard by that point). An indie studio is merely of others, that's it. A company could be bigger than microsoft, and so long as it operated as a single unit (no diversification, subsidiaries, parent comanies, etc.), it could still be an indie outfit. "Mainstream" is not the antithesis of indie. They simply tend not to coincide.

I think people have forgotten what "indie" means. id was an indie developer up until its recent acquisition by Bethesda, for example, just like Apogee/3DRealms and Epic were for a long time. Hell, Starcraft, by the true definition of the word, was an indie game. And yet that's the last word anyone would think of to describe it. Videogames have had a massive indie community for a LONG time, and was only recently in decline. It's just that people now think indie talks about the budget or feel of the game, but it doesn't; "indie" just means the title, no matter how big or small or artsy, was developed by a lone group that had no monetary assistance from another company. This is no "indie movement", it's a "low budget, small small project movement", which is only really helpful in that it may give rise to truly great indie games once again... Well, that and we get some good games like Minecraft (but so far it seems to be on a rather lonely peak with Super Meat Boy).

Still seems to me that you get the best bang for your buck with a single 5870.

Not only do I not play crap like this, I couldn't if wanted to, since dedicated electronic social networks are worthless and I don't belong to any. Can't imagine why anyone would need something like a "facebook status"...

Wait... Who actually thinks about graphics when deciding between a 360 or PS3? The generally accepted idea is that they are virtually the same in that regard. If you have to scrutinize a screen to identify differences, then those differences are not worth identifying. This is why consoles gaming is a bit ridiculous at times; not because of the systems, but because of their users...

I don't understand the point of these anymore, we all know the strengths and weaknesses of each system, and can rather easily predict how it effects the games. But I'm glad GS finally got around to enabling full RGB range for the PS3 shots.

SSD is not becoming a new standard. It works well for a select few purposes, but for the majority of people, it's pointless; no matter how cheap or easy it gets to make SSDs, hard disks will always be cheaper per Gb and easier to make (until something comes along that blows both out of the water of course). Besides, for most tasks, the few benefits of a solid state are negligible.

-Mr. Kotick. -Borderlands falling so damn short of it's potential.

Also, between the 360 and PS3, the only significant differences appear to be that the PS3 has better texture resolution in some areas but gets worse with dynamic LOD. The 360 also seems to have slightly better post-effects, which never make a game look better anyway, so it doesn't really matter. But there obviously aren't any huge differences between any of them...