Recently I posted the following in the pseudo-review of the PS3 GoW package (which used the term "budget priced":

"budget-priced" HA

They stripped BC from the console then charge $40 for games that most PS3 owners already have. This is now THE example to cite to put PS3 fanboys in their place when they bash MS for being greedy. (MS is greedy, as is Sony, but they are not the great evil that fans of a certain other system want to make them out to be.)

Perhaps I could have been more clear, but I certainly do not believe that this rises to the level of trolling. I was pointing out that the removal of BC and subsequent repackaging of the games for $40 was as egregious an offense as MS's HDD gouging. The comment was relevant to the article which implied that the GoW set was a good deal. It was NOT an attack on fanboys of any system. I was simply pointing out that the no BC/$40 GoW was as bad as any supposed example of MS greed.I don't care that it was deleted, but it angers me that I was given a warning for a mostly innocuous comment when the boards are FILLED with real examples of trolling that go unnoticed. I would bet that if you went and read the article comments right now you would find that around half of the comments there are far closer to being trolling than mine, which had a valid basis in the review. If this kind of inconsistent, capricious moderation is what I can expect from GS going forward, I can find other sites for game info. I have spent as much time defending GS and trying to steer comments away from troll fights as anyone I have seen on the boards. Quite simply, the moderation, however mild, offended me and I am the type of person who can easily just walk away from a service that has crossed a line (haven't been to an Exxon since Valdez, even when almost out of gas and not sure when next gas station would be). The moderation was far more offensive than my comment and I would like it removed.

I posted the following in the article about Bioshock 2's delay:

@dewwy This is not about polish or bugs or any of the things you mentioned. Digital Extremes has been hired to do the MP and has been at work for a while. ""Under the direction and leadership of 2K Marin, Arkane is assisting in the creation of levels that embody the aesthetic and gameplay ideals that make BioShock such a unique and exciting experience," commented 2K Marin producer Alyssa Finley on the collaboration." (from the above linked prior story) They are are basically redoing the gameplay and level design, not bug hunting. This is damage control mode.


I am shocked. The horridly designed sequel needs another studio to make it playable. A delay was inevitable and unless they are ditching the whole "play as a Big Daddy" thing, the delay is pointless as the game will still be awful.

Such a waste of a good franchise.

What criteria are not being met? I referenced another member, but only to point out to him/her that the reason behind the delay was what he suggested they were taking their time to fix. The statement was purely factual with no animosity towards him/her. I criticized the game, but was not angry or profane about it. I stated that a horrid design decision has put them in the position of having to bring in another studio to clean up the mess, leading to the delay. That is both factual and opinion based, but I don't see any violation of terms involved. I am baffled by my well argued post being automatically hidden in the comment section.

When corporate shills are allowed to silence reasonable critics without the moderator giving the long-time Gamespot member enough benefit of the doubt to read the review and make an informed decision, the site's usefulness is minimized.

And sending a warning message with no way to reply to itis very unprofessional. You should at least give your members an easy way to defend their posts, even if you temporarily remove them pending the member's response. I actually posted here until I accidentally found the Moderator forum, so I changed this thread into a suggestion and posted my complaint where it belongs.

I am extremely unhappy with Gamespot and seriously considering getting my gaming from another source from now on.

It is way too short for a computer game. Lacking compared to the great computer FPS and RPG games of the past. The problem is that it was developed as an Xbox 360 game. While older people do own 360s, the console audience is much younger and not paying their own money much of the time. So the consolization of PC games has not only stripped many PC games of much needed depth, but also of length. If a game isn't going to give me more than 15-20 hours of gameplay tops, I will wait til it hits the bargain bin.

So, to summarize, they made it so short because the consolization of gaming allows it. Why make a game as long as the audience deserves when they will shell out $60 for a glorified demo?

I am the same way. Warcraft and Starcraft (particularly Starcraft) are the only RTS games that I have ever been able to get into, no matter how much I appreciated what they were doing with the genre. Micromanagement just bores me to tears. I played the Company of Heroes demo and was impressed by it, but not hooked by it.

If you want to give RTS a whirl before SC2 arrives, World in Conflict looks REALLY promising. It is the first RTS demo that I have played that left me wanting more when it ended.

I ran HL-2 on a P4 3.0HT with 1GB RAM and an ATI 9800 Pro on medium high settigs. The improvement was minimal when I jumped to an Nvidia 7600.

If the problem was just introduced as neon_black suggests, then it is hardly fair to say the engine is the worst ever because a bug got was introduced in a patch three years after release.

Yawn!;)

For two and a half years we have been hearing about how Game X is the WOW killer. The list of Game X's in the bargain bin now is a long one.

Bashing the King of the Moutain is the new American hobby. Despite $600 million (1997 ticket prices) in box office, apparently no one saw, or liked Titanic. WoW has been a smashing success and has expanded theMMO market beyond hardcore gamers and into the masses, but apparently, no one ever played it. Play any other MMO out there and just listen to the people denying having ever played or enjoyed anything about WoW (usually to make a Barren's chat reference during the same playsession).

I played WoW. I enjoyed WoW. Choices were made by Mr. Kaplan that made WoW a game that I was not interested in playing any longer. I stopped playing. I am disgusuted with Blizzard for letting him undermine a game that was launched with such potential and will approach other Blizzard games more cautiously henceforth, rather htan still assuming that if it is Blizzard, it will be an A+ title.

That said, WoW is NOT going away. There is no WoW killer on the horizon. In a year's time, WoW will still be the genre leader. No one game is going to take it down in this generation of MMOs. Tabula Rasa looks great, with a different kind of setting. It will pull some customers. Conan doesn't look fun to me, but it is highly anticipated and unless it is buggy as Vanguard, it will find a playerbase. Warhammer probably has more going for it than those other two titles and will probably be the winner of the newest wave of MMOs (starting with LotRO), assuming that EA Mythic is Mythic with a large financial backer and that EA isn't dictating to Mythic how to make an MMO. The number of quality titles coming will hurt WoW, no doubt. But when the dust settles, the MMO market will much tighter (No more WoW and the also-rans) but WoW's huge playerbase will keep it on top, even if the gap narrows considerably.

That is just an educated guess on my part, of course. Warhammer could pass WoW in subscribers, but there is no way it is going to surge too far ahead. The competition could even lead Blizzard to make some changes at the top to make WoW what its original designers envisioned.

If you are jazzed about WAR, great. But there is no need for the incessant WoW bashing. If it isn't your thing now, move on and let it go. Yes, I have lost faith in Blizzard as a company, but I don't feel the need to bash them to hype a game I am interested in. Tabula Rasa, Conan, and Warhammer will live or die based on the quality of Tabula Rasa, Conan, and Warhammer, NOT the quality of World of Warcraft. The people who were gonna leave WOW because it "sucks" have gone. The quality of the upcoming games will determine whether they have a chance to siphon some of those people still playing WoW away.

And, lastly, Warhammer does sound good. DAOC was great. But, remember, not everyone likes PvP.