I feel bad for the people who didn't give this game a proper chance. It is one of the most complex and engrossing ARPGs ever made, and dropping 30-60 halfhearted minutes doesn't amount to "trying it out". For a game with as many modifiers and customizations as PoE, you need to at least play through the first act or even difficulty before you can appreciate its real value.

I find it annoying that people expect to be ludicrously powerful and have interesting and well-developed skills right from the get-go. This is not a game where you are spoiled at every turn and don't have to work hard and strategize to build a good character. Just like Diablo 2, you have to pay attention to the way you invest your points, the way your gear works with your skills, and how you manage an effective playstyle via the game's mechanics. This sort of game demands more from the player, and that is why it has such a loyal following.

For a game that is 100% free, allows players to build characters in so many different ways, and encompasses an interesting and well-balanced gear modification, it beats out a lot of other modern ARPGs in my opinion. To any new players, I would recommend watching some videos, researching some character builds, and dabbling in the offline Passive Skill Tree before taking on the endeavor of building your character. This is a game that really drives you to perfect your character.

"Controlling the use of violent video games is one step we can take to help protect our society from violence." So does this mean the responsible people who play games have to forfeit their rights or subject themselves to some kind of government-institutionalized screening process to continue their hobby? How do we go about "controlling" the sale of a piece of art to someone who may or may not be influenced by it?

Why has there been no mention whatsoever in this article of the ACTUAL method these murderers employed? When the massacre at Sandy Hook happened, there was a rush amongst the states to call for banning of assault weapons, drum mags, anything else that could contribute to a mass murderer's rampage. Thanks to the marriage of gun lobbyists to our politicians, this effort fell far short of any real outcome. Hell, there was an article recently disclosing how legally blind people in Iowa can still own firearms. Yet, here we are still hung up on the possibility of a gamer having slightly elevated tendencies towards violence after playing for extended periods of time. What's next, do we look at the food they eat and try to exact how their behavior is modified by the nutrients?

And as far as gun control goes, banning certain weapons will still not prevent the atrocities. Instead of looking at the psychology behind gamers, why not look at the psychology behind gun-owners? Why are we trying to "contain" video game sales to crazy people, instead of trying to contain automatic weapon sales to crazy people? Are the gun lobbyists really that powerful, or are all these professors and study groups really that stupid?

I think a lot of people are ignorant to how much this game has to offer with the entire modding community at its back. Just like Morrowind and Oblivion, Skyrim is benchmarked as the overwhelmingly superior role-playing experience of its generation. It has its flaws, sure, but for its place in the timeline of video games, it is a magnificent triumph in gameplay, art, and storytelling. And with mods, it beats out anything this generation can throw at it.

"What people need to understand" is that Bethesda may be a great company in terms of its titles, but the marketing and PR are woefully bad. BGS made four games in this century: Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Skyrim. It's understandable that they also needed time to implement their Creation Engine, which yes, is based on GameBryo, but is much more sophisticated than what they have used in the past.

This in no way exempts them from the shame of having neglected the Fallout franchise. Skyrim came out 19 months ago, and the bonus content developed since then hasn't been anything revolutionary, certainly nothing an entire studio has needed to devote its effort to. And this guy's argument is that, in 19 months (possibly longer - games are finished being developed way before they ship), this studio couldn't organize and conceptualize a new Fallout title? This is one of the most prominent game companies in the world, with each of the four titles from its flagship studio easily claiming Game of the Year.

So from a game developer standpoint, they have had more than adequate time to start a new major project. From a marketing standpoint, they have had more than enough time to play the hype game and rouse franchise fans towards what will inevitably be another Game of the Year. With Skyrim, they teased little or nothing until one year before release. Either they are doing the exact same with this game, or this company is so foolishly bad in its practice that they are going to miss out on another windfall.

Here we go again... another bigshot corporatist supposedly denominating what gamers want/demand from a genre the company doesn't even market to. Honestly, why is it that the CEOs of the biggest game companies are the most out-of-touch with the artistic side of the industry?

There have been so many failed MMOs in the USA, yes. Why? Because with the poor design and cheap/reptitive mechanics, they have brought nothing new to the table that Everquest, UO, WoW, etc. have already established. This has been the story for the last ten years! And we gamers are still hungry for something NEW, not a rehash or clone of WoW and not something flashy that has no long-term substance. The only reason people are deviating from subscription-based games is because these games have not been given the adequate attention from content developers.

If you figure $15 a month is worth a small patch with a couple tweaks, you're in the wrong business. $15 can buy a damn good indie game these days, maybe even two. As gamers, it's not our job to figure out how your subscription model is worth paying. It's your job to figure out how to sell us on a game that will still be fun down the road. It's your job to make us feel like it's been a worthwhile investment. So quit crying about demographics and return on capital and get back to content and world design. Basically, do your job, and stop sucking so much at it.

Casey Hudson should step away, what with all the blood on his hands from butchering Mass Effect 3's last sequences. If BioWare is going to salvage anything from this trilogy, which I believe to be the greatest sci-fi-themed encapsulation in game history, they need to cut the rot out. No more Hollywood-style writing and no more drab gameplay pathetically dressed up for flashy marketing. The storytelling in the first game was simply ace, and true fans will always remember how amazing it was to be introduced to the world lore. This is the kind of inspiration that BioWare needs to feed from, above anything else. If they're going to make another Mass Effect anything, especially after the atrocious ending of 3, they need to sit down, take the kid gloves off, and start writing a game that will hit people's nerves instead of their wallets.

Publishers are responsible for demographically marketing a game from before development begins to when the commercial ads start rolling, and even beyond that. But this mentality that players must identify with the main character on a gender basis is borderline offensive. While some game franchises are historically predisposed (Tomb Raider, Gears of War, etc.), there should be no gender discrimination for anything beyond them. Male and female gamers are fully capable of "role-playing" as a character of any gender as long as the game is written well enough to fit that role. In my opinion, any publisher challenging that is simply not up to the task of making a game of that narrative quality. Companies like EA and Activision come to mind - far too narrow in their thinking, holding sales more sacred than artistic integrity, and devaluing their customers into easily-branded demographics. The bottom line is, if this is an issue for any given publisher, let them remain where they are, cranking out weak or testosterone-driven stories. As gamers get more intelligent (and they have, historically), a demand for greater art will increase, and only the publishers brave or smart enough will endeavor to satisfy us.

@ExtremePhobia Please read up on the differences between loans and equity. Also, so you can further be embarrassed, Rhode Island's gubernational election is in 2014.

@philMcCrevis @Slipstream720 @PixelHunter How stupid are you? Loaning money is not investing money. There is no factor of risk associated with a loan - you are a creditor and you will get your money back, either by being paid with interest or by litigation. And since this isn't a political issue, you can leave your nonsensical political bias out of it. Schilling and the others are guilty of fraud because they failed to inform the EDC about their financial projections that showed the company failing. Next time you decide to rant like a butthurt angsty teen, have an idea.

How does Sony have any right to file this suit? They hired an actor and paid him to act as a character. Bridgestone did the same. Does Sony think they own this man and his physical features? How many movies do we see Denzel Washington, Jason Statham, or ANY other typecast actor playing similar roles, yet with different directors and writers?

I have always admired Sony, but they need to get laughed out of court for this.