Meelis13

again, not so much hate, especially for game itself, but rocket league. Broken matchmaking and worst community in whole gaming do that. SP portion is way too easy as well

after 333 hours.. Rocket League. Worst & most toxic community ever (yes, even worse than counter strike, dota, lol, all that). And lets not even discuss matchmaking. It just keeps getting worse. Im so done with this game.

please. Primary reason nazis were able to rise to power was because of great economic crisis.

like Seattleite said, you can blame WW2 on country, at least when it comes to european involvement. Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Pact, that divided countries between Germany and USSR between the two, effectively starting ww2. History tends to often forget that 2 nations also held victory parade together in Brest, after capturing Poland When it comes to asian theater, 2 conflicts stand out: manchuria war (which was relatively small conflict, but enough to prevent japanese from invading USSR) and sino-japanese war, that was direct reason sanctions were imposed on japan, causing it to declare war on UK, USA & dutch. So yeah, i do think we can safely call 2 countries that caused it and 2 other conflicts that caused it to go global. EDIT: oh, i should mention i am history geek, so this is common view on conflicts that directly caused ww2 (even in Russia, though there they often "forget" to mention USSR as one of countries that caused it)

last few days, i've had stomach aches (caused by virus). Now, these aint strong (nowhere near strong sector from those i felt) and during daytime it usually gives way, but when i sleep, it starts to hurt enough for it to disturb my sleep. I mean i can sleep and sleep well, but nowhere near as well as usual due to pain

isnt ww1 caused issues bit of other topic entirely? Anyways, its easy to blame it for all bad that 20th century had (because it DID play large role in that), but it also did ton of good. Female rights for one, advancements in technology, independence of smaller nations, it also caused birth of first real organisation, where nations discussed global issues. Also, effective end of colonialism, because while colonialism was still ongoing, it lost lot of supporters and influence with war. Oh and end of zars and kaisers in europe. All in all, for better AND worse, ww1 is probably the most influential thing in 20th century, as it affected world to change what it is now.

Well, for one, Verdun is interesting game (interesting enough for me to sink 170 hours into it), so you can make interesting game based on ww1. Also, like ww2 wasnt just Stalingrad, D-Day or Berlin, WW1 was more than just western front. And even western front saw lot of interesting and mobile action- though true, mostly in 1914 and 1918. But other than western front, eastern front basically didnt stop moving, balkan front, african front was literally british armies chasing german army (which managed to kick british butts quite few times), alpine front and short-lived asian front. Heck, ever heard of Arabian Lawrence? Middle-eastern front was extremely mobile. So yeah, western front was mostly sitting in trench and charging on big events, but other fronts were way more open (well, aside alpine front, which really was even more sitting still than western front) I know you didnt complain about this, but i want to put few other issues to bed here: its commonly tought not many weapons were present in ww1 (in variations that is) and also lack of vehicles. Weapons: while indeed, most weapons were bolt-action rifles & carbines, there were several types of those, each with pros and cons. Plus pistols & revolvers (again, several types). Oh, and flamethrowers. Late stage war, even trenchguns and SMG-s appeared (probably best known one is BAR 1918, which was widely used in ww2 as well). As for vehicles. Again, suprisingly large variety- while indeed tanks were mostly big and bulky (at least ones most used), Renault FT17 (first modern tank, also was in ww2) was used in war late stage. But there were also cars, trucks, horses and several types of planes. Planes are probably largest in variety, as planes were designed left and right in ww1, biplanes, fokker triplanes (like one used by infamous red baron), bulldog fighters.. Heck, even full-metal modern-looking bombers were developed (and used) during ww1. So there is tons of stuff And hey, if someone thinks its not enough, then DLC expansion can always take place in Russian revolution and accompanying independence wars (i seriously hope that- to see estonian independence war battles in DLC expansion)

Verdun is strictly shooter. Because of many reasons, including historical ones and also the fact most of the game was made by just 3 people. But as for "slowness"- it might seem so in vids, but not so much ingame. It also depends on loadouts as well. I do reccommend to try it- you can get your money back if you dont like it.

Well, there is Verdun already, MP-only game set in western front. Quite good and more free content (belgians, bot survival mode, americans, more weapons) should come soon. Its made by 3 people (though more have joined after release)

http://www.pcgamer.com/battlefield-5-rumored-to-be-set-in-world-war-one/ If thats true, then this might be long-waited return of historical fps to triple-a section. And that puts battlefield back on my radar. Now, concept itself is already done in game im big fan of- Verdun, but i am definetly interested in big triple-a company getting back to history. History geek as i am, this news has gotten me very excited

LiS characters are indeed such that can be missed as overly stereotypes (and some parts in personalities are indeed gringeworthy), but in fact the plot is built on very same stereotypes to make stronger point on issues it handles and characters are way more complex than it might seem even after finishing playtrough. You see, all that is very subtle, like a subtle smile you dont notice until you think back of the moment. Now, that does mean that this game might not seem so good for everyone, but as big fan of the game, i just couldnt leave without pointing out what i did.

Hitman franchise. To be fair, i dont hate it, but it feels so.. clumsy. Meaning i just cant enjoy it.

CHeers Jeb! Hope that works out for you

There was once a game review site called Blistered Thumbs under the Channel Awesome brand. They basically had the same premise as you, and they failed to garner enough fans to support themselves. It all comes down to the money. If they make sensationalist reviews and give polarizing reviews of major games, they are bound to get a reaction and more hits, thus more community support. If they are supported by the publisher, it's just another means to stay afloat. Again, those issues compound each other, and make it nearly impossible for a straight-faced balanced review site to rise.* You can see it in YouTube reviews. Most of them either focus on just the positive, or just the negative. Ross is really the exception rather than the rule, and he generally doesn't cover new releases - so it's a moot point, really. To sum up, it's not about honor. It never was about honor. It's about paying the bills by appealing to the masses. * - compilation of early reviews of Assassin's Creed: Unity: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=930817 It was, and still is, a broken mess and quite bland when it did work. Average scores: 7-8/10. But the thing is- you can do it as a hobby. And im willing to bet there are plenty decent reviewers who have daytime job and do game reviews as hobby (in fact, publication i currently write for operates under the very same premise). So only real cost would be hosting website, which frankly isnt that high and you can find a way to do that. I do agree that it will cause issues of not always being able to cover latest games or have even regular reviews and that you still need readers. First one might not be such big issue, but second is. But there are plenty of ways to attract people. Ross being great example here- lets be honhest: most fans found him trough Freeman's mind and/or Civil protection. And fanbase has stuck and helped to grow it. So one can get more readers for reviews if one can either make up successful magnet for site other than reviews or use pre-existing magnet and talk site managment into letting you to publish reviews there. Now, granted, this doesnt automatically mean large viewcount as you'd still need quality for reviews. But done well, it can still give you 1000 readers at minimum. So heres what i think where all went wrong: reviews became huge moneygrabs instead of enthusiasts writing down whats good and whats bad about game. Its not wrong to make money off of reviews, but quite frankly, major sites are becoming increasingly greedy, taking money from both developers for positive reviews (hidden of course) and consumer as well. This will end in crash sooner rather than later. Only thing to hope is that if and when that happens, reviewers wont repeat same mistakes

@forgot_my_account you make good points, but as written reviewer myself for small (not even pro, but amateur) publishment i am very much upset about the trend. I quite honhestly think this is about honor as much as anything. I mean yes, there are still few major reviewers that generally keep things honhest, which is good, but review that basically tells you that broken/unfinished game is ok, that is shame on reviewers as a whole. And gaming press does hold power to change things in industry, but like you said, it doesnt matter if they dont use it. @BideoftheDead i dont deny FO4 is good game (even though as i said i personally dislike it (not for reasons you brought out)). But even good things can be overrated. And GOTY of publication is not voice of single person, but very often a jury of sorts. @fric but steam user ratings can be very biased as well- if game, thats otherwise good, suffers bad launch, it can have majority of reviews negative for rest of its life as many rate and forget. But i do guess YT can help on that. Still, this is exactly what im talking about- BS of major reviewers are driving more people away from reviews- especially written ones.

Lately i've been noticing increasing trend thats been infuriating- big name games seem to get huge scores just because they are either made by big studio or have established brand name. Probably best example is Street Fighter V, which got 8/10 from PCgamer, 7/10 from gamespot, 8/10 from IGN. Now, while i do understand they rated gameplay above all else, they ignore the fact that SFV is early access game, thats being marketed as FULL game with FULL price with MINIMAL content (heck, it has problems in MP and practically lacks SP) and has several technical-side issues. I honhestly cant recall any developer pulling that move. And yes, i know capcom has released its detailed plans for updates, but if i pay frikin' 60 euros for a game (which is not exactly cheap), i expect FULL and FINISHED game (if it has bugs, then ok, but at least all the base content). So the apology that "but they release singleplayer and more content as free update" is NOT the excuse here. And its not just SFV, though this game pushed me into writing this. Many games get so much more credit than they deserve just because big name- which doesnt nessessarily mean they are bad games. Good example here is Fallout 4- probably THE most hyped game last year and while i personally dislike it, i do regognise its good game. But even many games own fans have stated it wasnt game of the year material, yet it got several ones. Also call of duty. While i dont want to hate the series, its gotten real boring and uninventive with boring campaigns and mp, yet still gets 8 or 9 out of 10. Meanwhile games that actually do what they aim for well (and much better) and are cheaper and more accessible get 7/10 at best. Same goes with some triple-a titles that are fairly regular, but had bad game earlier on. Good example here is AC: Syndicate, which got 6/10 from many reviewers, yet it was on par with fun on brotherhood and black flag. Heck, im sure if Duke Nukem (first example that popped up in my mind that had horrible game in otherwise known series) would come out again with best game ever, it would still get like, 5/10 due to duke nukem forever So what do you think? am i overthinking this or is this real issue?

Eyy, Ross! http://www.pcgamer.com/darkspore-will-close-for-good-next-week/ not that im suprised anymore PCG picks news up late.. But there seem to be tons of fans in comment section referring to you and RGD, wondering if PCG got this info from.. RGD. PS! while i am unable to partake in this action due to, well, finances and distance, i do spread the word. Idea of being buzzing noise in companies ear that just wont stop.. That sounds perfect

bit offtopic, but every time i see title of this topic, RWBY vol 3 intro starts playing in my head. While its good music, it starts to get annoying (namely there is line "misery and pain for all" in very strategic spot)

Jeb, you know very well that talking someone online and real life are two totally different things

I know perfectly that feeling- struggling to get out of it myself atm. Still, find one thing you are good at and do it for certain time in each day (or if its quick piece, once per day), no matter how useless it might seem. If not anything else, it does help you to ease tensions and feel like you are doing something that matters (which you are as it matters to you). Im not overstating that posting fact of the day posts in certain other site, well, they have even helped me keep my mental health (that includes depression btw) from freefalling.

in that case we are even, as like i said, i am 22 and was uncle before i was born, which also sums to about 23 years at this point

In fact it was. Im 22 atm, so..

RWBY vol 3 finale was released today. that was emtional gutpunch that didnt hurt when i saw it, but it needed seeping in.. @BTG ha! i beat you! was uncle before i was born!

Rise of Tomb Raider. Man, this game is so damn good. And here i was thinking reboot was good

I've noticed a phenomena thats not particularly new, but very fascinating. Namely, some people get really passionate and defensive about their favourite music. Lets take "only time will tell" by Asia as example (just because its latest i encountered). You go in youtube comments under that video and you see quite few people (who apparently have been fans for years) are very salty over new discoverers- especially if they discovered it trough Metal Gear Solid V. Apparently discovering song trough video game (or show like family guy) is not an acceptable. But why is that? Im rather sure creators of songs are happy their song reaches more and more people, who find it good more than 3 decades after initial release (which, lets be honhest, is incredible milestone for a song in this day and age). So why do fans act like 3 year olds, who dont want to share kindergarden toys with other kids? I have never understood that.