The day Shogun 1, the first game, came out, and our measly GeForce 2s could barely run it. Hooked ever since despite some disappointments.

So as far as Jakes campaign goes.........they brought back old camera angles and did it just wrong. I'm sorry but if I am expected to run blindly towards the camera, and the thing behind me outruns me anyway, it's terrible.

This isn't like Silent Hill 2 where the Pyramid head scared your ass because you KNEW he was behind you and just didn't know where. No...this is just bad,

Also, praytell, now that we can shoot t-virus zombies in the head, why do they not die in one headshot? This among other complaints which I expected to have.

And honestly the fact that Chris's campaign seems the best so far is just massively disappointing. Seriously. On so many reasons.

Uh. The enemies in doom are not mostly technological. Idk what doom youve been playing but in Doom ep 1,2,3,4, and doom 2, and final doom, the enemies are demons. The zombie soldiers : privates, sergeants, and commandos, are just demon-zombies, the kind popular in misinterpretations of the biblical end of the world, and they happen to have guns because they are the former teammates of the PC, turned into demon zombies. Bull demons , Pinkies, are not technological. In Doom 3 they are because doom 3 is an abomination and has an entirely different plot and theme than the first 6 doom games. Nor are spectres, cacodemons, archviles, barons, or pain elementals, or imps, or hell knights. Spider-demons, cyber-demons, mancubbi, and revenants are mechanical. You are thinking of Doom 3 which frankly has nothign to do with Doom. There is a fine line separating the quake strogg and the doom demons.

Actually after reading that article again I have things to say for real this time.

Is he a moron? Answer: yes.

The entire concept of Downloadable Content, of patching, of THE STEAM DELIVERY SYSTEM, was so that that Valve, and other devs in the case of the other 2900 games on steam n ot made by valve, could continually support their products in an accessible, ongoing, and public way, to keep gamers playing, to keep them doing something, to keep turning profits on the same game if necessary while a full-fledged product deserving of a full price tag was in the works, for years if necessary. He says that TF2 is different from L4D in that changes can be made that do not affect the game. No, thats utter horse manure. There is no truth to that whatsoever, I don't need to see the source code to know that.

The L4D team can easily release maps, skins, entire scenarios, add new musical parts to the music generator, without affecting the overall integrity of the game. The entire L4D thing is just pure scam nonsense. The game doesn't deserve a full price tag itself, much less it's sequel deserving one. It's simply not long enough or full enough of a game. Go here, shoot zombies, try not to do, go here, don't die, kk go here now, seriously don't die, oh yay you made it to the plane, you wins! That is not a game. That's a scenario. Even four scenarios is not enough to make a game, and all four scenarios are exactly the same in terms of gameplay experience. Once you've shot a million virtual organic beings, or robots, or anything that can be shot, there honestly is no experience that will be different for you and impress you in a video game. So there is nothing they could do for the sequel except for maybe having the entire city be wide open so that you could potentially have a different gameplay experience each time. Or have the entire city in the game and maybe one play through a building catches on fire and blocks off the easiest way out, or something like that you know.

The game itself is just honestly a mod. And this is the problem with HL2. They are trying to substitute what used to be mods in HL1 for fullprice games. Left 4 dead is not a game until it has an engrossing storyline and purposely orchestrated plot devices that exist only to piss you off and make the game more complicated than surviving and getting to the rendezvous point, like having to find a thousand different keys that unlock different doors and get you into situations that are hard to survive. They need to stop doing this. TF2 = mod L4D = mod CS = mod DoD = mod but yet they are all now sold for full price because Valve purchased them and the people now work there.

*insert generic American douchenozzle solution here*

If you don't like it, well you can just geeeeetOUT!

No, everyone feels the same as you do about l4d2. And about Steam and Valve. Valve has grown far too big for its britches from the humble company it once was in 1998 and I feel their time has come for a cleansing fire of some sort.

Frankly it's bad news for mechwarrior virgins as it is a TERRIBLE misrepresentation of the Battletech franchise. The only worse Battletech heresey was MechAssault 1 and 2.

Furthermore, I can gaurantee you mechwarrior 1 2 and 3 are all free. If they aren't and you want a copy you can seriously have mine.

MW4 is the worst mw game ever and I am SO THANKFUL that MechWarrior has finally returned with a fresh start, in the hands of it's creator, for the new MW game.

If you're not a BT fanboy then you may enjoy MW4, though it is honestly worse than 1 2 and 3 combined. You're better off playing MW2, the four different campaigns are all awesome and the oldschool graphics do not detract at all from how awesome the game is. Plus there is a newer MW2 version with revamped graphics. MW2 is the only game in the MW series that accurately represents the battletech system (don't even talk if you don't know what that means) and it won't put you in ridiculous situations where you have to kill an entire Star of mechs that can and should easily completely murder you like MW3 and 4 do in the later missions.

Here's an idea: How about Eidoesn't makes a game that isn't awfulbad? That might net them some good reviews.

Seriously, right?

The last Eidos game I played that was actually enjoyable was Just Cause, and ONLY because it was a complete GTA ripoff. All they did was add a heavier stunt element.

And before that...Tomb Raider 1.

Metal Gear Solid 4 isn't a game, no one cares about Zelda anymore, Fable 2 was a massive disappointment just like Fable 1, Gears 2 still sucks just like the first one did, I didn't enjoy one second of GoW or Army of Two, and Halo 3...are you joking? First of all, Halo 1 and 2 are both on PC and a Halo 3 port wil obviously come out, and second, Halo is terrible. The only excuse for playing that game is if you need a way to make the few beers you have left last longer than if you just drank them and sat there. Big loss, let me tell you.

And depending on what Zelda you mean, you can emulate all the good zelda games on PC just fine. Twilight Princess wasn't that amazing, nor is anything on the Wii. I'm glad they didn't ship enough Wiis when it came out because I tried to buy one for weeks and I got pissed off and decided to never get one because of it. Saved me 300 dollars.

Ban me for discussing emulators, i don't care. I've owned an n64 and the games for 13 years, theres nothing illegal about it.

That being sad, it's really too bad that Pc's are not the lead platform for some genres like fps, because keyboard+mouse > wiimote+nunchuk >>>>> pad, imo. The 90's, now THOSE were the days for Pc gaming!aia89

Empire Total War, Arma 2, Far Cry 2, Fallout 3, FEAR 2, need I go on.

PC's are not the main gaming platform for one very simple reason: People.

People are cheap, and people are stupid. Gaming PC's that can run any game flawlessly with literally no possible doubt (something no console can do) are in the same price range as GM's sedan and coupe vehicles (If you buy them from Dellienware [don't ask if you don't understand the amalgam]) . You can build a computer yourself for pretty cheap that will run most games fine with decent graphics, but people are stupid. Even software engineers, mostly BECAUSE they're software engineers and not tech support people, can't even build and set up a computer properly in most cases. Even assuming that you make a totally quiet gaming powerhouse, how many entertainment centers are sized with the intention of fitting a mid-tower of full-tower case in addition to all the other peripherals you would need to make a gaming pc viable with an HDTV: HDMI cables, 7,1 surround, wireless mouse and keyboard, wireless router and cable modem in the same room (I wouldn't put a PC more than 10 feet from a router if it was wirelessly networked. Frankly, I wouldn't wirelessly network any PC, my laptops are the exception.)

It's a hassle and most people are too stupid and/or lazy to deal with it, the same reason companies like Dell and Gateway and HP still exist for sales other than large-scale corporate computer supply.

Xbox's and PS3s and Wiis are more affordable than a gaming PC, assuming you already have an HDTV, and people, mostly Americans and Europeans because we are the ones who have done the most as consumers to maintain the gaming industry (I don't know the sales by heart but I do believe console sales in europe and america obviously are larger than in Japan, especially for the Xbox) want something affordable and easier to use.

Example:

I lived with 4 roommates and we had a PS3, a Wii, a 360, a SNES, 64, Gamecube, Xbox, PS2, PS1, and every single person in the house had a minimum of 1 PC, myself having three, meaning six of seven computers could play games. We used our PC's almost exclusively for WoW because although they could play any game, we didn't care, it was more fun to communally play console games, even if it was a single player game like fallout or fable 2. And we're talking three Computer Science - Software Engineering students, we're not too lazy to use our computers.

It was just easier to plop down on the couch, grab a 360 controller and turn that shyte on. Straight to the game or menu without even pressing anything [Obviously when comparing ease of use and accessibility, a wireless mouse and keyboard are equally as easy if you have your comp hooked up to the HDTV, though if you don't have it on sleep and instead have it turned off, it will take a little bit longer. And of course with Games for Windows Live the interface is exactly the same as the Xbox Dashboard so the games are just as easily accessible. Even more so if you are using a wireless 360 controller to play the games on your comp] Also, I think the fact that we had a 1080p projector with HDMI inputs and surround sound hookup had a lot to do with it; why bother using your computer to play Fallout 3, for instance (even despite being able to cheat and mod it merciless), when you can plug that [xbox] into a projector (not that you couldn't, and not that I didn't plug my laptop into it sometimes. But who moves a computer, honestly? I'm 23, I don't LAN anymore with my desktops. Screw unplugging and plugging things in) and watch Super Mutant brains fly literally to the other side of the room, as you are almost deafened by the sound of slow motion mutant screams and hunting rifle gunpowder exploding louder than if you actually were in the situation in real life? As a sidenote, we literally never once plugged in our PS33 the entire time we all lived there. The PS3 and X360 have mostly the same games and the only time we ever played PS3 is when our friend brought his over and plugged it in because he's a Sony fanboy.

For clarification I only refer to HDTVs and HDMI because anything less than HD is absolutely unacceptable. I'm sure you all agree when it comes to playing games or watching stuff at this point in time. I for one literally can't watch anything that isn;t on Bluray or at least HD DVD and on either a HD computer LCD or a flat panel LCD/Plasma hdtv. Unfortunately for the past 20 years the technology hasn't existed so if you want to enjoy truly brilliant and awesome video games or computer games the visual quality is less than stunning, but it will still be on a high def TV at least. (I don't even own a damn HDTV, I want one so bad. I got a new laptop to replace my broken one for a graduation present and honestly I would rather have a TV and suffer not having my laptop.)

Especially in a recession as bad as this, people are going to go for what's safe, what's familiar, what's cheap and, most influentially, what has the most referential support in their lives; for example, if their friends have Xbox's and their friends enjoy using it and through both first-hand experience playing their friends Xboxes as well as word of mouth about how reliable and awesome the entire Microsoft Xbox, or Sony Playstation, or Nintendo Wii experience is (including game selection, price, peripherals, online features, customer and technical support, not to mention the longevity and backwards compatibility of each console), these real people are in many circumstances going to go with what their friends suggest and what they think is best, either through experience or unfortunately, in some cases, fanboyism, or plain ignorance. In pretty much every case, the decision they make is not going to be the one that involves buying a PC.

People still view computers as a big deal, even as we near 2010, as hard as it may be for people like myself to empathize. When computers first became commercially available for home use, they were uber-expensive, and for the most part, computers are still uber-expensive when it comes to buying them retail. The impending downfall of PC gaming is undeniably contingent upon, among other things, the consumer conception of computing technology. As of 2008 there were 2 billion computers in the world, and somewhere above 1 billion of them in actual personal use. You would think in 2009, a point at which there are over 2 billion computers and going on 7 billion people in the world, the computer would be, as some people claim, the most common household appliance. Going by that assumption, computers should be just as familiar to people as TVs and ovens and microwaves and dvd players and cellphones and all the honestly useless technology that we use. That isn't the case. People don't view computers as gaming machines, why exactly I don't know, despite what should be common knowledge by now that electronic gaming was invented and sustained entirely on computers until the first home consoles came out. This is in my opinion the single biggest barrier standing between the "personal computer" and utter dominion over all gaming life as we know it.

Second, and in my opinion just as significant if not even more so, of the difficulties facing the success of the computer as a commercial gaming machine is the IT industry itself. In several different ways, the various companies that make up not only the electronic entertainment industry but also the computing industry have operated in ways and done a lot of things that have not only made business more difficult for themselves but have often created difficulties between the various different companies themselves, turning the entire computer industry into one big failucopia. A buffet of fail if you will. For instance, the success and ubiquity of simple and easy to design flash games on the internet have persuaded some companies to pursue the development and support of "casual gaming", a habit which reportedly strikes the vast majority of personal computer users, as well as consoles. The rise of the casual gaming era can be seen easily in any of hundreds of sites like kongregate.com, or in the success of the games on the Xbox Live Arcade. Many of these games offer unexpected depth and complexity, while not necessarily requiring an investment in a very powerful computer, or a large sum of money. Combine that with so many different things happening in gaming, such as the evolution of Steam from a complete piece of garbage into an inescapable Megalodon of gaming death, or the mergers of Activision and Blizzard, or the purchasing of Id software by Zenimax Media, and the gaming industry is in a state of great potential, which could easily ruin, or revolutionize gaming as we know it.'

Sorry I won't go on. Maybe I'll turn this into a full article on my blog since apparently I won't shut up and accidentally wrote a paper. But you see my point.