I get that the reviewer was simply trying to say that he can't justify buying a WiiU for only a couple of good games, but it didn't make much sense to say that video games are an expensive pass-time... because if you look at hours of fun vs dollars spent, it's hard to find any other hobby that's as cost effective as gaming. Even if you're hardcore enough to spend $2,000.00 on a PC, $500.00 on a console and another $2,000.00 on games over the course of 5 years, that probably means that you at least played an average of 2 hrs per day. So in 5 years you'd play about 3650 hrs of video games. That equals only about a buck and a quarter for every hour of entertainment (and for some of us, that 2 hrs per day is probably a low estimate). Considering that a movie at the theater is between 5 and 8 bucks per hour, and the amount of time that most car enthusiasts actually spend driving or showing off their motorized money-pits is just a fraction of the cost that went into them, I think it's easy to see how cheap gaming really is.

@playstationkid Basically, you will always play multiplayer matches off of a server instead of off of someone's console. This means that none of the players get to be 'host' which has been the norm for console multiplayer. The advantage of being 'host' was fairly noticeable in the last few COD games so it will be nice to eliminate that problem (it should also limit the 'finding new host' nonsense that seems to happen all the time in black ops 2).

There were 2 things that made the first Bioshock awesome. 1) Compelling story that was sci-fi but also plausible (not the plastids per se, but the degrade of a society based on unbridled ambition). 2) An eerie atmosphere that was paired beautifully with the pacing of the game. You moved slowly (almost semi-stealthy) through dark corridors hearing the occasional distant shriek of a splicer or low, rumbling moan of a big daddy. The combat was fast and frantic when it broke out but there were long periods of suspense that separated the action. The fact that they made a cartoony game scary was as accomplishment in and of itself. All of this artistry was lost in Infinite. It was also good that the combat was so dangerous and sparse in the first game because it wasn't the best aspect of it. As soon as the devs turned on the lights and made combat the main drive of the game, Infinite was bound to be inferior. I also agree with a lot of people here saying that 4 seems low, but aside from the score, this review is completely true.

@wexorian Kind of like leaving a melodramatic comment referencing Miley Cyrus in order to get likes?

I hope they put in a ton of CO-OP missions into this game. The few ones from ARMA2 were lots of fun but were also really short.

If you're into competitive PVP for MOBAs, you might like this game. However, if you're like me and have always preferred playing RTS and MOBA games co-operatively, LOL is terrible. LOL was poorly balanced the last time I played it and had everything to do with simply figuring out the best character builds instead of actually being strategic or skilled. If you like to comp-stomp in RTS games and would like a good co-op MOBA, check out Demigod. It doesn't have the persistent leveling/rune system of LOL, but the game is better balanced and has far superior in-match mechanics (the ability to spend money on upgrading your towers and creeps as well as your own personal gear adds to the strategy in Demigod). The in-match skill trees are way better in Demigod, too. If you have a bad start in LOL and get behind the curve in both xp and money, you're pretty much screwed. However, in Demigod, you can still help your team by buying base upgrades to increase the xp/money income of your team, or to add nastier creeps to your creep waves.

@Godokuno_Dan As always, there are pros and cons to both PCs and consoles. Consoles have massive player-bases that make it easier to find local servers for multiplayer. They also use that player-base size to entice developers to make exclusive games for their systems. However, the PC shouldn't be left in the dark as much in the future now that the console architecture is more PC-like. In my experience, single-player and co-op games are far more enjoyable on the PC due to the graphics, performance, and mod capabilities. They also give input flexibility by being able to use a controller if you wish, or joystick, or keyboard and mouse depending on your preference. However, the likelihood of hacking along with the low player count has led me to prefer most online multiplayer games on console over PC (even though my fav of all time was Battlefield2 on PC).
The real reason why PCs are always more powerful than consoles is because of the cost. Tons of consoles are sold to parents who are buying their kids a Christmas/birthday present, and to college students who are trying to survive on noodles and stale bread. Therefore, they can't pack $1500.00 worth of tech into a console, because half of their consumers won't be able to afford it.

@Xristophoros @Dark_Wr4ith There is so much unnecessary fat to cut off other than the graphics, though. A monstrous cost is for all the cinematic cut-scenes in games these days. Just leave me half-life-style in FPS and in-game graphics for the whole experience and save millions of dollars, please. No need to sacrifice game length or beauty for the sake of pointless mini-movies.

I'm glad that a GTA game was finally not given the ridiculous score of 10/10. Are the GTA games well made? Absolutely. Do they have NOTHING to improve? Of course not. Now, I don't agree with the reasons this article states for knocking the score down to a 9. What makes sense to me is saying that the gunplay is just ok, the AI could definitely be better, etc. There are lots of games that have great stories and pretty environments, but none of them get 10/10. This game shouldn't either.

I'd say the issue is anger on the internet as a whole, not just gamers. That being said, there are multiple factors that go into this:

1) the 'like' system -> everyone likes the gratification of being approved by others. However, in order for a comment to get tons of likes, it needs to get noticed. So what gets you noticed in a sea of other comments? What helps you stand out? Hyperbole, exaggeration, and extremism.

2) anonymity -> this ties into the problem of the 'like' system. When people are trying to get their likes, they don't have to worry about their reputations getting tarnished, so they feel free to spout ANYTHING that they think will get them attention. I'm convinced that most of the worst comments we see are not actually an accurate depiction of what the writer thinks/believes -> if major sites had never implemented the 'like' system, the first extreme comments posted on the net never would have gotten so much attention, and therefore wouldn't have become the 'holy grail' for Youtube comments, Gamespot comments, etc.

3) news websites (like this one) have one primary goal: to get as many comments/views/hits as possible -> Therefore, they purposefully write headlines and articles with the intention of provoking people to respond. If the article writers would clearly state what is fact, what is opinion and what their score was, they wouldn't get so much backlash from commenters with different opinions. As it is, article writers are using their supposed 'news' sites as soap boxes to spread primarily their own opinions, rather than the facts.