@stilgar66 Well for video game purposes, that is probably about as large as you want a single player landscape. It would be really dreadful to walk across a 150 by 150 mile map: Assuming your character moves at 10 miles per hour on average when you go to explore a new area that you cannot travel too, that is potentially up to fifteen hours of walking, not including the random battles you may get into and the prospect of exploring everything between.
So yea, I really wouldn't want any skyrim larger than Rhode Island XD.
@Wolflink001 The quality of a game is relative to who plays it. These are just a general guide for you to follow. If you enjoy the game, why should it matter what the site tells you?
I personally really enjoyed kill zone when it came out, even though gamespot said it was a bad game :D
@JDFS If you think a games value is exclusively defined by how good the game looks, then you clearly are in no position to call someone an idiot.
One would think that it was about the enjoyability of the game, and what it offers you in thinking and entertainment, not by how shiny it looks. Because I'll tell you what: I've played some really horrible games that had really good graphics, yet were boring to tears. I'd much rather pay for a game with sub-par graphics but incredible content and innovation, than the latest and greatest graphics engine with the same ol' content that has been used before.
To be perfectly honest, I think this game is more visually pleasing than most modern shooters and their copy and paste textures.
@nechiken The reason is the amount of time you have to invest into actually making a game. It is likely that the deal was made when the game was still back in beta, and they had the architectural coding already set up for it, and it would have been too expensive or time consuming to make updating it worth it. It was more of a marketing idea really. In the end it is more about profit, rather than if the consumers are entirely happy.
gafuudy's comments