@sscaling @this3ndup That's true, and I have no issue with how you define what fanboyism IS (I'm sure we can agree on that), but rather your assumptions about the demographics of such individuals. You seemed to suggest that "fanboyism" is the domain of young people who "can't afford" more than one console, and further stated that irrational fanboyism is "truly the realm of the immature and unfunded."
I certainly may have misunderstood your intent, but I did read it thoughtfully before responding. I simply take issue with the idea that not being able to afford both options begats fanboyism (since many responsible, level-headed people I know cannot afford multiple platforms), or that economic circumstances are inextricably linked with one's maturity level. Despite your comments about making rational choices, your post seemed to suggest those connections. But again, you may be right and I may have missed the point you were really trying to make. My apologies if that was the case!
@Ceaseless001 @andrew_ribbons The whole PRISM/Kinect connection has been blown entirely out of proportion, at least in my opinion. I understand the concerns, but the same possibilities for exploitation exist for any internet-connected device with a camera and a microphone, including your cell phone, tablet, and laptop. It's not that it's impossible to imagine the Kinect being hacked or exploited, but given that we surround ourselves with similarly equipped devices all the time (even carrying them around in our pockets), singling out the Kinect as the harbinger of a new era of domestic spying seems a bit misguided.
@sscaling I own a Honda; I can't afford a second car right now. That fact has not transformed me into an irrational Honda fanboy. That fact does not make me immature, and I'm not under 25. Whether it's game consoles, cars, or real estate, at any economic level we are required to make choices between available investments. To suggest that such an economic decision goes hand in hand with "immaturity" is a fallacy. Could I afford two consoles? Technically, yes. Will I buy both? No, because I can find a better investment of $400 to $500 than netting a handful of exclusives and/or features on a competing console. I will weigh the options, pick a console that fits my preferences, and content myself with the fact that I will probably miss a few good games and proprietary gimmicks over the years. Implying that you're above the "fanboyism" simply because you can afford both choices belies a certain degree of pride and elitism, not maturity.
@Ne-Plus-Ultra @skiggy29 There are other ways of enforcing DRM with disc-based games; you don't just "copy" the disc to your hard drive. You install required data, but the game will probably still require the disc to play, and the publisher could easily include other forms of DRM. This just puts control over DRM back in the hands of developers, and it's really not any different than PC gaming in that regard.
@Ne-Plus-Ultra The source regarding the 21 states is a satirical piece, ala the Onion. It's not real; do you really think Microsoft would exclude 29 states from their release based on factors like obesity levels? It's a joke! :)
The first game was definitely rough around the edges, but despite the flaws I genuinely enjoyed the experience! I'm really hoping they can maintain those aspects they handled well (such as the atmosphere and presentation) and flesh out the gameplay mechanics and graphics to live up to the potential of the original. The orignal formula was conceptually brilliant, and with some more refinement under the hood and a generous coat of polish this could be a really fantastic game! This is an excellent example of a shooter that isn't constrained by the popular trends; even if it's not perfect, it's something fresh and compelling in an increasingly generic shooter landscape...
First off, the whole "fanboy" mentality really gets under my skin; different platforms feel different and people are entitled to their personal preferences. But when it comes to the PC/Console debate, there's an economic factor. Not every person (myself included) can just drop thousands of dollars on a top-of-the-line gaming rig that will outperform a console (and then update it regularly to keep up with the latest games). The cost-to-performance ratio of a console is still much better than a PC if the primary purpose is gaming. So whether or not I might enjoy gaming on a PC, that's not in the cards. I have a lower-middle-income life, full-time school, and a family to provide for, and that trumps the latest Alienware. So forgive me if I take a little offense at fanboy rants about the superiority of the PC experience when there are many who simply don't have the means. Stop being a snob and let people enjoy their games on whatever platform they choose...
Do you really think you should be relying on a site like Gamespot to determine what is appropriate for your children? This site is chalk full of content I wouldn't personally want my children browsing, "protected" or not. Discernment regarding what your children are exposed to, especially online, is part of your responsibility as a parent, not the editors of a primarily adult-oriented gaming site...
And men require instruction (costing easily tens of thousands of dollars each for basic training), food, housing, benefits, and monthly pay, as well as medical provisions when they are injured. A robotic soldier would be more expensive up front, but you're discounting the lifetime costs of providing for a human warfighter. Robots also have the potential to field fewer units with much higher accuracy and survivability. I can't foresee robots ever replacing humans on the battlefield, at least in the decision-making process, but there are significant advantages to unmanned combat in many scenarios, and we'll likely see this increase as technology improves.
As a former active duty Marine and Afghanistan veteran, I find absolutely nothing disrespectful about the representation of combat in this game. It's a GAME. It's ENTERTAINMENT. Like Mr. Goodrich noted, you cannot simulate the experience of real-world combat in a digital medium. What honors the men and women who put their lives on the line is not about game mechanics, but how they are portrayed as individuals. It's about how their stories are told. The developers of this game clearly hold these warfighters in high regard and have made a genuine attempt to convey that respect through this medium.
As a warfighter myself, I appreciate that priority, but I still want an entertaining experience! In my opinion, Mr. McShea is simply advocating for his gameplay preference, and his argument has NOTHING to do with honoring our country's servicemembers. There's nothing wrong with catering to players who prefer a more action-based play style; that will simply bring this story to a wider audience, which in my opinion is a very good thing.
While I don't want to disparage Mr. McShea, from the perspective of a servicemember who has actually served in a combat zone his argument is completely baseless and just sounds absolutely ridiculous every time it comes out of his mouth. I agree with Mr. Goodrich on every point. He has interacted with real-world warfighters, and he clearly understands the mindset far better than Mr. McShea, who doesn't have any leg to stand on in this debate other than his own uninformed opinion. We all recognize this is a game, we'll enjoy it as such, and I don't think any of us will take offense at the fact that our digital counterparts get regenerating health (for goodness' sake, get over it, Mr. McShea).
That being said, I personally enjoy a more "realistic" experience, and so I'll choose the hardcore mode that the developers have thoughtfully included (that's right, Mr. McShea, I'm not looking for an "escape" from my experiences in my free time, but thanks for broadly psychoanalyzing combat veterans). But that preference is not grounds for criticism of a well-crafted gaming experience, and as a gaming journalist Mr. McShea should know better than to let his personal gaming preferences cloud his professional judgment so profoundly. The extreme suggestions he makes (losing the game if your squadmates die???) would destroy the entire experience for the vast majority of players, myself included. You're right, Mr. McShea, you're NOT a game designer.
While I'm on that particular note, the suggestion regarding losing the game if your squadmates die isn't even remotely realistic or "respectful"; we are expected to accomplish the mission, even if it means we don't come home. Warriors die. To expect that a game would require players to maintain an entire squad intact through a war shows a remarkable disregard for the priorities of real warfighters. It does not honor our servicemembers to suggest that death means failure or that squad leaders should expect a 100% survival rate.
I remember standing at attention as a flag-draped coffin was loaded on the tarmac in Afghanistan, honoring the sacrifice of one of our own who gave everything. And it wasn't game over. We kept going. We accomplished our mission. Mr. McShea doesn't have a clue what honor means for those serving our country and wrapping his gameplay preferences in the patriotic guise of advocating respect for those who serve is far more offensive than a lack of realism in a video game.
I am personally very excited about this game, and I give credit to the developers for what seems to be a job very well done. If Mr. McShea has issues with the gameplay mechanics, the least he can do is give the developers the same credit for a well-executed game within the framework of their chosen genre and go play ARMA to satisfy his desire for "realistic" digital warfare as he understands it from his gaming chair.
this3ndup's comments