Give me an AC where I basically play as Michonne from The Walking Dead. Just a hardcore, borderline-ninja / assassin black woman. This is coming from a white guy.
@dribblesbarbax @M3o5nster Hell, I'll give an example that's a PS3 exclusive: Resistance 3. It's a sci-fi FPS that KNOWS it's a sci-fi FPS. Good story, cool weapons, fun gameplay. It manages to stand on its own. That's what Killzone needs to do. This is coming from someone who likes the KZ games. It doesn't mean that I don't think they can be better.
He doesn't get him involved in the business. Walt (Bryan Cranston) approaches him about getting into the business.Aaron Paul's a great actor. Now that he's really settled into the role he does it well. You don't get awarded 2 Best Supporting Actor Emmys for being a terrible actor.
I totally get where Tom McShea is coming from and I think both sides have valid points, but here's my question: Why attack THIS FPS in a sea of modern military shooters? I know that Tom isn't a fan of shooters to begin with and I know that any publicity is good publicity for a game coming out, but why MOH? These same claims could be directed at Call Of Duty, Battlefield, Homefront, and a variety of games. Hell, he could've said this about the most recent Medal Of Honor reboot before Warfighter. The definition of authentic is "Not false of copies; genuine; real." The definition of realism is "the tendency to view or represent things as they really are." By definition, Tom is correct. I just don't understand why he's busting Danger Close's balls over this. I'm not defending them. There's a good chance I won't even play Warfighter. It just seems disingenuous to chastise one dev for what have become standard practices in games and not the others doing the same. It's not a case of you make an arcade shooter or a simulation. It's not all black and white; there are still shades of gray. McShea made his points. Goodrich made his points. Like so many other arguments, all they can really do is agree to disagree.
Umm, paying for Plus is its own reward. It's like having a Costco card. You pay for the membership with the idea being that you save a lot over time. If Plus is doing well that's even less reason for them to charge for online. The difference with Live is that Microsoft basically forces you to pay for it if you have any interest in playing online. You don't need Plus to enjoy all the other functionality of your games and console.Apples and oranges, sir.
In my book, respect and courtesy go to those who've earned it, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. It's that whole "do unto others" thing. If I'm playing against somebody online in a shooter that enjoys killing people then talking smack or teabagging them over the most pedestrian of achievements, I then kill them multiple times and do it back to them. It's okay to be competitive. It's okay to know that you're good. But I definitely look forward to the rare occasions where I play a game against another team and win (or lose) by the skin of our teeth and finish the match saying, "Good game" to one another.
After how awesome BioShock 1 was, I trust Ken Levine's judgment as both a writer and creative director to be smart enough to only give out information that has no bearing on the overall impact of the game. In his eyes, it may be no different than the tech and design videos that Rockstar puts out for their games before release.
Ryan_Som's comments