All the shit wrong with your game, and one of your big concerns was there isn't enough gay romance options? Seriously?
No wonder this game is trash. This is proof-positive that your priorities are way off-base and making (or even fixing) a quality game is less important to you than making some kind 'progressive' statement with your game.
I miss the days when Bioware was focused on great stories and amazing characters, and not how many people you could romance and what their genders are.
What do I want to see? Video game companies that aren't so excited to start nickel and diming their customers and they're asking for DLC suggestions before they've even released the fucking game.
There was a time when people released games WITH all the extra characters in it already. And you didn't pay extra for them, instead you got them via unlocks from either playing the game or using secret codes.
If it was because of Konami somehow, I will swear off all future Konami products. Personally, that's just betraying me a little too far. I've played your games. I still have your cheat code memorized from needing it to beat Contra on my old NES. It's bad enough you took one of my favorite game series, MGS, and butchered it - especially it's ending. And you stopped P.T., which looked amazing and many of us were psyched for. AND you declared your intent to mostly abandon gaming in favor of gambling machines. But to also go so far as to prevent anyone else from making similar games because you won't do it anymore? That's just too much for me to make excuses for.
@Atzenkiller: You've been found out, cheater. And we don't want you to get a second chance at any online game you cheat in. You knew the rules the first time and you broke them. You want to be a cheater? That's fine! By all means! But we don't have to play with you, and we don't want to. And Blizz doesn't want us to.
You are free to go find a single-player game and cheat your ass off in it. Dark Souls is a pretty hard game, you may enjoy cheating your way through that. But as for dedicated multiplayer games? No, you aren't wanted or welcome, and a permaban is the perfect punishment.
I don't get it. Why the hell would you play a competitive game and cheat at it? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? It's no longer competitive if you cheat and you don't really win if you cheat, either. You may be victorious, but the cheat is the one that won.
I understand the desire to be awesome, and I remember using cheat codes in old games when I was younger, but I also remember how much less fun it was once you started cheating. Nothing was a surprise or a challenge anymore, you just ran in circles destroying everything with impunity, which isn't fun for nearly as long as you'd think.
But doing it in competition against others? I guess I'm a strange one, because I really don't see the appeal at all. If I win and beat someone, I want to do it under my own power using my own skills. That way, if/when I win, it feels like I actually accomplished something. It's real rewarding to make a good move and see yourself in the play of the game at the end, too!
@cejay0813: Actually, I think that was kind of the point. Nathan has killed or maimed hundreds of men. Almost all of which were professionally trained mercs or trained soldiers. Nathan has also dealt with dozens of things that are... well at lot worse than just soldiers.
So a single woman soldier handling his business to him seems pretty unrealistic to me. You're telling me Nathan can handle a 400lb creature resembling a man alright, but a 120lb woman can mop the floor with him? It's not the fact that it's a woman, it's that it just doesn't make sense. It'd be like having a scene in Mass Effect 3 where Shepherd gets beaten up in a bar fight with a Volus, if you're familiar with the games. It's just like... after all he's done, all he's been through and beaten... thatgets the better of him? Really?
@Marky360: You're right, it wouldn't look good. But that's because you've stacked the deck unfairly. Let's pit Ronda Rousey against Demetrius Johnson, then. A trained female fighter vs a trained male fighter. That's even. And since both genders are totally equal, it's 50/50 who wins, right?
Look, I understand your argument, but it's terribly flawed. Think of all the trained soldiers and mercs - all of whom are obviously trained extensively in hand-to-hand and other forms of combat - that Nate has taken out in the Uncharted series. Think of all the other things Nate has taken out that are worsethan a skilled and trained fighter.
Now think again. Is this scenario really so stacked against Nate that he's assured of an ass-whooping? I mean, after all the things he's been through, it seems pretty out there that one woman soldier is just too much.
What that now means is increased comic sales and hype, and after that dies down after a year or two or three, he'll come back. Probably as some kind of minority, if recent history is any indication.
While I don't have a horse in this race one way or another, I think the issue people have is realism. Does a woman realistically beat a man in fight? Lots of variables come into play to determine the answer. In this case, it seems she's a very skilled fighter, but in his own right Nathan has beaten and killed... how many men by now? Most trained fighters, mercs, soldiers, or a combination thereof, similar to this woman. So does he really lose this fight with a woman? Seems a bit iffy, honestly.
And really, people need to cut the crap. There's a reason we have women's leagues and men's leagues. The reason is very simple, very obvious, and we've accepted it for a great many centuries: men and women are NOT the equal. They have the same VALUE, but are fundamentally different in such a way that men competing with women in almost any physical field isn't allowed because it's simply unfair - the women wouldn't stand a chance.
Personally, I don't understand the current obsession with treating them both like they're the same. Seems not only more helpful, but also more realistic, to focus instead on the fact that we are indeed different, but that the strengths of one offset the shortcomings of the other, and thus each holds the same value and together make a better whole.
But hey, that's just me, and I tend to lean more toward the logical side of things rather than the emotional aspect - which seems to be the aspect that is driving almost all major decisions these days, So I tend to end up on the less popular side of opinions. C'est la vie, eh?
Soluafin's comments