I get that they're going for a hip and new form of publicity that's trying to kick up the hype, but I couldn't care less when I have no idea what they're trying to tease.

TV show was good (For Syfy channel, which tends to be swing or miss.), effects as you might expect for a show on the channel, but the game still looks mildly unimpressive. Hopefully they'll at least keep the show up for awhile even if the game flops.

It should be pretty blatantly obvious that the form of Christianity portrayed in Bioshock Infinite is not good or proper or acceptable. Ignorance is encouraged by refusing to explore these issues of when someone takes a good thing and twists it into something to serve their own goals.

Entire article summed up with "it's practically infeasible to play most PC games with a touch screen alone".

So why would PC games ever buy it when they can afford a new desktop which they're already used to for the same price?

At least Bethesda partially gets the idea that if you want your game to not be on the used shelf, then you have to make a game worth replaying.

Pretty sure a dev can't afford to pass up a contract with most publishers, if they aren't just owned by them already.

Educating parents is good. Half of them probably don't even know what the ERSB even is. Considering that the ERSB rating is displayed much more prominently then ratings on movies, it's just a matter of parents actually LOOKING at what they buy their children. Because if the child is actually able to cough up 60 bucks on their own for the next Call of Duty, then they're probably old enough to figure out that killing people is bad. And if not, it's the parents' job to actually be a half decent parent and look and what they're spending their money on.

It's not the always online that's the issue, it's when publishers have terrible servers that can't handle a large player base being always online. Hopefully Ubisoft's learned a lesson from EA's Sim City fiasco.

Always online wouldn't be half as much of an issue if publishers weren't utterly unprepared for the servers crashing on what they know will be a popular game. You'd think Blizzard would have been more prepared, they've had plenty of experience with WoW and these days every new MMO, the million that there are, knows that a disastrous launch is what kills the critic reviews. But alas, publishers want more sales and think that ramming social interactivity down our throats will do it.

All the more reason to stick to PC gaming where I'm quite aware of my Internet capabilities, have no used games but cheap Steam sales, and no half baked gimmicks like Kinect. Microsoft and Gamestop aren't worth my money.

After playing Crysis 1 and 2 (3 is in no way worth my 60 bucks), I'm pretty sure I can say graphics are no more then 25%, at least when it comes to immersion. Music, setting, voice acting, and most importantly story do way more for immersion then shiny graphics. (Do we even ever discuss anything about Crysis that isn't related to graphics?) Obviously Crytek thinks that the only thing they need for a good game is graphics and generic FPS gameplay, but that's hardly the mark of a good game.