The Sunday Papers

Sundays for waking up in Luton. Luton? Really? Yes. Luton is actually nicer than you remember. At least 67% nicer. I mean it. Anyway, Lutons aside, it’s time for some words on videogames and things.

  • PopSci on Sniper Elite V2’s gory killcam: “And that’s part of the what makes Sniper Elite V2 so interesting. It is easily the most graphic, violent video game I’ve ever seen, but the violence is relatively realistic, not cartoony. The game has the dubious honor of humanizing Nazis more than any of the scores of WWII-era games, films, and books that came before it: these are not anonymous targets, dispatched from far away with the tug of the R-trigger: once you see testicles exploded, fingers severed, an artery slashed open by the force of your bullet, that you shot, from your own gun, you feel the effects of your actions in a way I didn’t expect. The original idea might well have been to create the most extreme, violent period shooter ever made. Blood! Guts! X-rays! But the effect is the complete opposite. You’re not yanking a cartoon ninja’s spine out of his body with your bare hands, or stabbing a shrieking purple alien with a glowing light-sword. You’re killing people. And that’s a messy business.”
  • This Killscreen article is interesting, even though I think it lacks nuanced analysis: “Thinking of videogames as “free-to-play” reminds me of why I hate to play games with other people. In its purest form, play is a creative act negotiated between two people without intermediary. I am not playing when I’m interacting with a videogame, I’m accepting someone else’s rules and experimenting with them, allowing the designer to delimit my instincts for behavior. Doing this with another person feels like a waste of time, an inherent loss of the generative possibilities of play without intermediary limits. Videogames are the experience of being ruled. In contrast, play is the experience of generating new rules in collaboration with someone else. The idea that “play” is free is redundant. It is only ever free. As soon as money is involved it no longer simply “play” but a perverse form of labor, proving one’s worth as a participant in, and exponent of, the zeitgeist. “
  • Digital Foundry’s “The Making Of The Witcher 2“: “”The second secret is tight co-operation between engine programmers and other developers, which allowed the engine devs to create a tool that embodied their game concept. It’s worth mentioning that we remained pragmatic during the development process. If there was a solution that met our expectations, we didn’t develop our own. That’s why we used middleware like Havok for physics, Scaleform GFx for UI or FMOD for audio.””
  • While you’re over at Eurogamer, take a moment to read their Game Of The Week article in Diablo 3: “It seems as though, over the past 12 years, there’s been a schismatic divergence between what Blizzard thinks a Diablo game is and what the series’ fans expect of it. The always online requirement is absolutely a hard-headed business decision, but it’s also a philosophy, a statement of intent from a company that – from the top down, and in its game design departments as well as its accounting ones – simply has no interest at all in making games that aren’t connected. Blizzard’s mavens were probably dreaming of this future when they launched with the first Diablo all the way back in 1996, but they were too far-sighted by half, because sixteen years later we’re still not ready for it – and neither is our internet infrastructure.”
  • Jenova Chen’s goals for games: “We had a goal to evoke a feeling that would make people want to socialize with each other, want to learn from each other. Empowerment distracts you from socializing. After the internet became popular, almost all single-player games became multiplayer, but I think a lot of those games are designed for individuals, not socializing.”
  • In light of this week’s events, this is the hard question. (There’s an extent to which games are becoming events, rather than products.)
  • Venturebeat interviews Jon-Paul Dyson, director of the International Center for the History of Electronic Games at the Strong National Museum of Play in Rochester, NY.
  • Cobbett’s fine work continues over at Crapshoot.
  • I shouldn’t have to remind you to listen to Three Moves Ahead.
  • This isn’t a link to an article, it’s a hidden reminder that you can email me interesting reads via the link in my name or tweet me up.
  • BLDGBLOG: Secret Soviet Cities.
  • From the archives: John suggests this OMM review of Codename: Eagle, the game that came before Battlefield.

Some music? Why yes. It’s Giant Claw.


  1. Skystrider says:

    Meanwhile, Diablo 3’s persistent online requirement made me pledge for Grim Dawn, and buy a four-pack preorder of Torchlight II. All from money saved on NOT buying the Diablo 3 Collector’s Edition as I had originally planned to do. Thank you Blizzard and good bye.

    • mrjackspade says:

      I didn’t think it would be a big deal so I bought the £44 digital download version to play on the release day. Well firstly, that didn’t happen. Now, I’ve got an hour of gaming time a day if I’m lucky, but I’m getting hampered by having to queue for a single player game (I get this 20% of the time when I press the resume game button) and also ridiculous LAG which more often than not comes close to killing me. All this is playing just by myself.

      When I’ve only got limited gaming time, give me one good reason why I should be playing this and not something else that I can get into without any stress :-(. Makes me rage tbh, because the game seems epic.

      • HermitUK says:

        Yeah, I’m making slow progress through act 1 by squeezing in the odd hour of play in the morning, before the servers get overloaded and pings shoot up to 300.

        There’s a decent game under all the extra crap, but it’s just not worth the hoop jumping at the moment.

        • zagor says:

          Hey did u turned off peer2peer and allow quick play under options>download pref
          I guess u did not
          I GUESS ur stupid
          or u have some countryside dial up connection speed….

          • Toberoth says:

            Erm. What?

          • SuperNashwanPower says:

            Read that comment back, but imagine it with a lisp. It still comes across as cunty, but much funnier.

          • Toberoth says:

            It worked! I also tried it in Mandark’s voice, and it was hilarious. Thank you :)

          • Dr I am a Doctor says:

            “cunty”? The hell are you doing on RPS, man

          • JB says:

            What’s the problem? It’s a perfectly cromulent word.

          • Quarex says:

            Do you “digital elitist” looking down on the “disgusting poor people in the countryside with their slow Internet connections” ever stop to think about how offensive your attitudes are?

          • xsntbkoabv says:

            It might also have something to do with Hit Lag:

          • pipman3000 says:

            poor people are gross

          • lijenstina says:

            My modem is bigger than yours.

          • Belsameth says:

            Ooh, look! I have a 100Mbit pipe that’s been down 0 times in the last 2 years!
            I *still couldn’t play most of yesterday tho because, it seems, Blizzard is less reliable! \o/

        • qrter says:

          zagor – brought to you by The Block Button.

        • PopeJamal says:

          It’s nice to see someone touch on the key technical argument against always-online single player: Our current day intertubes are not ready for it.

          Between the intermittent outages (which I will admit are PROBABLY reasonably small for most interested parties), the fact that Net Neutrality is still a political hot potato, and the fact that internet providers haven’t decided whether or not they want to charge us an arm or a leg per giggleunit of data, we’ve got a long way to go until constant/stable/broadband data becomes as ubiquitous as electricity.

          The fact that I can’t get a firm service level agreement from most providers for consumer level broadband shows that even THEY know that we are still in the early days of the concept of always on data for the masses.

          At least in the USA.

          • mnxixgau says:

            I like outdoor sports!Purchase of New the Syma S107, Gyro Metal the MiNi 3CH RC Helicopter Rich Text TOY! link to

          • Booch says:

            That’s a very interesting angle that I hadn’t considered before, getting charged for your data. Although if the providers to go towards a pay by the byte system mayhaps that will influence game creators to design around this (no unnecessarily server hosted games, etc.). Probably just dreaming there, but I’m trying to find the silver lining dammit!

          • Emeraude says:

            Problem with being charged for your data: suddenly *you* get charged for the pleasure of looking at adds.

            I find it hard to swallow personally.

          • jrodman says:

            More silver lining possibilities: The death of advertising content as the primary funding model for internet content.

            Or a lesser victory: The death of advertising content being 4 to 10 times larger than the actual content.

      • StranaMente says:

        I’ll add this: wait until you’ll lose your character in hardcore mode due to lag in a single player game.

        • iGark says:

          While I agree with your general point of view, lag is not confined to multiplayer games. I have been killed in single player games on numerous occasions due to my computer simply having some frame rate drops. Not being able to log in to your single player game is a legitimate complain and of course there will always be lag, but it’s slightly unfair to pile it all on Blizzard when some things really are not their fault.

          Disclaimer: Not defending Diablo 3’s always online DRM

          • LionsPhil says:

            There’s a huge difference between dying from performance issues because of your own hardware, and dying from performance issues because of someone else’s that you must rely on. No fatness of broadband pipe or towering obsidian slab of graphicsularity will help you when Blizzard’s servers are the bottleneck.

          • HexagonalBolts says:

            I have been killed somewhere in the region of 30 times due to lag, due to a ridiculous system that is completely beyond my control when my computer is more than capable of handling the game – do you realise how infuriating that is and how much worse it is than a performance issue? I’ve had to simply stop playing it because it has become impossible to progress.

          • AmateurScience says:

            The only deaths I’ve suffered thus far have been due to lag, I’ve thusly vowed not to start a hardcore character: the pain would be too great.

          • trjp says:

            I was playing Jamestown last night when it’s (not infrequent) FPS lag caused me to die on the final boss (again).

            Now my PC is easily capable of running a game like Jamestown but like a lot of people, I suffer from intermittant MASSIVE fps drops – the developer doesn’t seem to have an answer and so we’re sort of stuck with it (and as someone who ponied-up full-price at launch I’m a tad disappointed by that).

            The difference between this and D3 is that D3 makes it CRYSTAL clear that I will be playing online and my game depends on my hardware AND theirs – nowhere on the Jamestown download page does it tell me that the game will sometimes just slow to an utter crawl and then LEAP forward again…

            Which is better? ;)

          • fish99 says:

            The ‘lag’ the guy is discussing here is not framerate related (and I should point out D3 is not a demanding game), it’s entirely latency and therefore IS blizzards fault, since they decided to make the game online only, and they still don’t seem to have the server capacity required for the number of people playing. I was seeing 700 pings at one stage, and frequently over 300, despite my internet working fine and when a ping from the UK to France should be under 100 ms.

          • Claidheamh says:


            Not having any of those problems is better. And since one of them is actually a design choice, it seems to be easily avoidable by the developers.

          • Schaap says:

            @trjp: you really should learn how to avoid logical fallacies in your arguments, your posts are literally filled with them. Like here you are saying that because B is worse than A, A is good. That just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
            Let me illustrate with an example: Sure, waterboarding isn’t fine, but at least they’re not cutting of people’s fingers. Do you see how this reasoning is wrong? Waterboarding might be preferable to mutilation, but that doesn’t make it good.
            So please, next time you post something, just quickly think it over; “does this make any sense at all?” If not, kindly shut up.

          • trjp says:

            @schaap Unlike you, I’m not trying to say “this is better than that” – what I’m highlighting is that problems are problems and you have to go into this stuff with your eyes open.

            I’m also posing a genuine question – wheras you’re stomping-in with your Size 5s on saying what YOU think is right. I realise asking questions of people like you isn’t likely to provoke a debate as you’re too stupid to engage in one – but someone else just might.

            End of the day, PC gaming has always been a minefield of issues – hardly a game is released which isn’t a massive pain-in-the-balls to someone and in almost every case it gets solved/worked-around in due course.

            Early adopters always pay too much and suffer more – but seem unable to learn…

            With any other game, it would be a minor blip – but for some reason people see D3 as some sort of icon which they have some sort of RIGHT to be able to play NOW – hell, for almost any other game you’d wait for the sale/issues to be fixed and stop whinging…

          • AmateurScience says:

            Aye but with any other game, the choice of when and where and how we play is not determined by whether someone else’s server is working or not. It’s pretty frustrating when you plan a nice meaty play session, load up and finding that *through no fault of your own* you can’t play the game you want to play.

            That’s really the core of things, D3 is a good game, people want to play it, not all the time but certainly when they want too/have the time to. And it sucks to have that denied due to what is arguably a completely arbitrary design choice*

            *I’m sure there are enough people out there who would, given the choice, have a separate offline character that wasn’t available for co-op and couldn’t use the auction houses. Blizzard could even completely bury the option in some menu somewhere so that most people default to the online option. Bottom line is that the freedom to choose how you play is orders of magnitude better than having how you play dictated to you.

          • Schaap says:

            @trjp: If you read my post again you’ll see that i made no value judgement about the game or the always on aspect. I actually haven’t even bought Diablo 3, I might later depending on how I like the starter edition but as of now i’ve not been influenced by the server problems. I didn’t comment in favor or against always on, I commented on your post.

            Obviously it’s better if you know in advance the problems associated with a game than if you don’t know, but that doesn’t mean it’s suddenly alright to have those problems in the first place, especially when they’re the result of a commercial/design decision.

            Even more, you’ve turned the discussion away from “Blizzard should’ve put in an offline sp mode” to “What is worse, knowing a game’s problems before or after buying?”; which is irrelevant to the original argument.

            That kind of faulty reasoning was what I commented on (admittedly logical fallacies irk me more than maybe they should and I could’ve pointed your error out in a more polite manner), at which you responded with yet another logical fallacy (ad hominem argument). These kinds of fallacies just come in the way of a meaningful discussion.

            Edit: Just like in the post below mine. It’s anti-always on and it’s argumentation is just as faulty. I’m not attacking your standpoint, just your argumentation.

          • Bonedwarf says:

            It’s perfectly fucking fair to pile on to Blizzard. When will you idiots STOP DEFENDING THEM!

            Seriously, if you can’t play your SINGLE PLAYER game because a server is down or full, and you can die from lag in single player and all the other issues, DO NOT START SAYING “Don’t pile on Blizzard”.

            This is ENTIRELY Blizzard’s fault and they deserve every ounce of criticism.

            Everyone who bought the game knowing about this always online component is contributing to the demise of decent PC gaming.

          • psyk says:

            “Everyone who bought the game knowing about this always online component is contributing to the demise of decent PC gaming.”

            SWEET LET THE DOWNFALL COMMENCE the state of gamers now it would be a blessing FUCK IT ALL AND BURN IT TO THE GROUND

          • wodin says:

            It seems to me that those who are constantly defending D3 seem to always here ready to jump at it’s defense at a moments notice, I ask the question, surely you should be playing the amazing experience that D3 is? Rather than spending what must be all your waking waking hours obsessively defending it.

            If I loved a game enough to feel the need to defend it at every step I’d most likely be playing the thing rather than on a website reading articles on it, especially in it’s infancy.

          • Grygus says:

            It seems to me that many (most?) of them aren’t really defending Blizzard, so much as posting a thinly veiled version of “I told you so, ha ha ha,” and are mostly interested in informing the players about how much smarter the poster is for having been too cynical to even hope for having fun with a video game.

            There is also the problem of inconsistent experiences: I finished Normal difficulty and got through the Skeleton King on Nightmare with zero lag-related deaths and not one disconnect; including a few alts that is roughly 30 hours of play without even a single problem, and that is no exaggeration. Today, on the same machine and internet connection, the game has been literally unplayable for me, with too much lag to even run around town and a series of Error 3007 disconnects. I knew people were essentially right and have never thought the model was a good one, but even I had thought the reaction a good deal overblown until today.

          • wengart says:

            There is also a difference between video related lag and server lag. Video lag can definitely hurt your experience, however it is usually fairly constant and something you can react to. Server lag only exist in the “you can’t control your character for X seconds or minutes and boom your dead” style.

          • j3w3l says:

            Can everyone put down their flaming pitchforks for just one minute

            Firstly there is a huge difference between a legitimate complaint of I can’t log in and omg lag killed me brah, which seems to be the majority

            Secondly are you some blind, deaf and dumb beasts on a mission to devour everything, or are you a consumer. A consumer with a plethora of choices available, just Like you do with everything else .
            I too purchased it and am less than happy with the service but then as a consumer I will be steering clear if them in the future. The bit that urks me most though is that most of the omg qq rage people would happily fork out for the next installment regardless.

          • Khatzen says:

            j3w3l, I guess its similar to how a Star Wars fan bought Episode 2 and 3 despite seeing Episode 1.

          • Urthman says:

            Real PC gamers do not use the word “lag” for low frame-rate issues that are unrelated to network lag.

    • Yargh says:

      I think I should now be thankful that ran out of stock and were unable to deliver my pre-order of Diablo 3. I have now been able to cancel it and save some hard earned cash.

      My experience with the Guest Pass was enough to put me off completely, my characters have come very close to dying due to lag several times, this is totally unacceptable for what would be to me a mostly single player experience.
      With a demanding job and little enough free time on my hands I cannot afford the patience needed for Blizzard to sort the servers out and since I can only realistically expect to play games during peak internet hours, this one is obviously not for me.

      • Wisq says:

        “Ran out of stock” … ?

        Ohh, right. Retail. That still exists?

        Our CEO downloaded it to one of the office servers and directed everyone to get it from there to save time and bandwidth. Yay for digital!

        (Of course, the rest of the plan — to spend the launch day afternoon playing it at the office — was scrapped, for obvious reasons.)

    • Crimsoneer says:

      Are you guys in the US? I haven’t had any issues sine the day after launch…

      • AmateurScience says:

        Have you tried logging in right now? Because the inn is full. This makes me sad.

        • Crimsoneer says:

          Yup. Sorry, I was about to come and say I never had any problems, but just tried to log on and it Error 37’d me. Fail. I do love playing Diablo as an semi-MMO, but this is a bit sad.

          • kael13 says:

            And they’ve just offlined the servers, too. The game’s good. Its inability to handle a metric fuck-ton of people isn’t.

          • Psychopomp says:

            If it wasn’t for the DRM clearly hampering other’s experiences (I’ve had zero issues, personally) I’d call Diablo 3 GOTY, ALL YEARS.

    • Yosharian says:

      You’re missing out, it’s a neat game. It only cost me £25 inc delivery, sooo not sure about your maths there either.

    • mwoody says:

      With piracy rates in the 90th percentile (even by a conservative estimate), half their player base could swear off the game and they’d still make more money being online-only. If you have a problem with that, and don’t pirate games, I’m sorry. If you have a problem with that, and have ever pirated a game – even to “test it” – you have only yourself to blame.

      We whined about how DRM “didn’t work” before as the reason why we hated it. This one, after a two-day rocky start that has since been fixed, does. Time to stop whining.

      Meanwhile, the game itself is absolutely fantastic, no matter how hard people who haven’t actually played it try to trash it on RPS in some sort of indignant rage that they tried to do something about piracy.

      • pipman3000 says:

        it’s kind of like how the only people who dislike random drug searches by police are drug dealers, or how only terrorists hate the tsa, or how the witch from diablo 1 was evil the entire time.

        oops sorry i accidentally spoiled my novel length diablo-sonic the hedgehog cross-over fanfiction where robotnik uses the choas emerelds to resurrect the diablo and his brothers so he can use them to get that hedgehog.

      • PopeJamal says:

        “With piracy rates in the 90th percentile (even by a conservative estimate),”

        Exactly. Why its says so right here in my “Book of Universal Truths and Puddings” that:

        “And so shall it be known that all people who pirate a copy would have actually bought it were the DReaMs stronger!”

        So say we all!

        • Hindenburg says:

          Yeah, it`s kinda surprising how often that 2dBoy ratio keeps being thrown around to this very day. Because piracy rates for 60mb games are the same as for 8gb games and all.

          Particularly interesting is that when the percentage is quoted 2dBoy`s posture towards the ratio is never mentioned.

          • InternetBatman says:

            Also, 2D boy got hundreds of thousands off a game they spent 30,000 on in living expenses. Clearly piracy is killing the industry when creators can buy houses, cars, and live comfortably for several years off a single game.

      • Phasma Felis says:

        “We whined about how DRM “didn’t work” before as the reason why we hated it. This one, after a two-day rocky start that has since been fixed, does. Time to stop whining.”

        Lol. “DRM totally works except for when it doesn’t! I don’t know why you guys are fixating on all the times when DRM doesn’t work when it clearly does work, sometimes, eventually!”

      • Screamer says:

        Anyone who thinks the online requirement was done for some sort of anti-piracy measure is naive. Sure its helps but that’s not why Blizzard did it. It’s for the auction house! I saw this coming a mile off, but forbes just seem to say it better.

        link to

      • Wisq says:

        We whined about how DRM “didn’t work” before as the reason why we hated it.

        Um, no. We complained that DRM treated us like criminals. We pointed out that it doesn’t even work, which makes it somewhat pointless, in addition to being distasteful and a hassle.

        “Diablo 3 DRM! New and improved! Now NOBODY can play it, not even the pirates!”

        Yeah, big improvement. “Time to stop whining” indeed.

      • RegisteredUser says:

        Always remember kids, a blocked pirate copy always equals one made sale.

      • chackosan says:

        Eh, that’s assuming all of that ‘90%’ go and buy the game. Unlikely.

  2. Jamesworkshop says:

    killscreen seems semantic

    “play” is not the same as “playing” video games really have more in-common with sports than free-play imagination which mostly avoid a competitive edge.

    games are defined by rules, for me it’s a bit like the games=art question, I would say the division between a game and play is the same between games and art in that games based in a established framework of rules, whereas art and “Play” are defined precisely by their lack of rules or draw the rules around themselves(fluid) and are not inherently competitive.

    As for blizzard the introduction of the new for me was the clearest intention of Blizzards direction, it’s hardly avoidable that their biggest IP is defined by it’s on-line based consumer experience

    -Gabe on why World of Warcraft is basically winning

    Then with their current direction of Starcraft, for me it was no surprise the Diablo series principally created especially for multiplayer, just look at half the monsters most builds can’t kill on the higher levels and all the combining paladin Auras, barb Warcries, Sorcerous Enchant weapon, Necro curses like lower resist.

    And yet the elements to get people into the same game is unintuitive in a modern environment, like actually inputting an IP address when a friends list can do all that in a single click, no internal voice chat.

    “To add a friend type /f a ”
    Is not a robust system

    For me the introduction of the auction house was key as it made player trading a nicer experience than having the hassle of in game face to face player trading, now it can be done even when i’m not even playing the game, at least when they get around to launching the system.

    In terms of actual minute by minute play the Banner system is easily my most welcomed feature.

    All these things when I noticed them all made me think ahhh now that’s exactly how I would do this, I think the “eye of the beholder” is whats driving most of the diablo and in fact most aspects of disscussions around videogames.

    I think “Popularity is in the eye of the beholder”

    might be the key expression for the gaming sphere.

    • Gap Gen says:

      The idea that play is always free is a kinda weird idea. People pay to go bowling, use tennis or squash courts, buy sport equipment, etc. I can think of very few ways for adults to play that cost absolutely nothing. I think there’s a germ of a good idea in the article (the idea that FTP can be abusive), but the quoted section does seem odd and kinda undermines the core idea.

      • SquintyGilbert says:

        The engagement with “play” in Killscreen is trading on an academic sense of “play” as a term resembling children’s dynamic, non-competitive activities without defined endpoints that resemble “winning” or “losing.” “Gaming,” on the other hand, is all of those things — bowling, football, Call of Duty, rock-paper-what have you, and so on. Allan Kaprow chatters on a good deal about it.

        I’d say Killscreen is parroting theory from the 80s and 90s more than it’s innovating; things get messy when you get to non-objective orientated, user-modifiable activities like Minecraft.

        • Salvian says:

          I really think people are missing the point of that article. To be fair, the specifics of the argument are a little imprecise and lack detail, but the broad thrust of it is pretty clear: mastering a set of rules means subordinating oneself to them, and contemporary games, especially F2P games, are accentuating this relationship of dominance/submission. The Gabe Newall quote illustrates the way in which developers/publishers are attempting to quantify the value of a player’s contribution (the extent of his/her submission), as if it were labour or some other commodity. The argument is that players are becoming a product, just like users of Facebook and GMail, and that this is facilitated by the hierarchy imposed by the rules.

          • Veracity says:

            He’s just saying video games are the opiate of the oppressed working masses, ain’t he? I think it’s important to note in this connection (and he does acknowledge) that video games have more or less always had an element of sating the broad human need to achieve stuff without much generally getting achieved, but surely it’s easy to agree that’s been getting more obvious of late.

            The pull-out quotation in the Papers is about the shakiest thing in there, though – if you’re going with such a Humpty Dumpty definition of “play”, probably best you clarify that at the outset. As you say, though, if the intended audience is Killscreen regulars it’s perhaps comparable to forum-spawned invaders of RPS hilariously impugning its professionalism being bemused when you tell them such and such a post “isn’t a review”. Says who?

          • Gap Gen says:

            The point that Facebook/Google users, by using a free, ad-supported service, are products in a targeted-advertising system rather than being primarily customers does have some merit, especially since most people are extremely willing to share sensitive personal data with the Internet. The question is whether there is a more liveable power-balance that can be reached, or whether we will have to trust large companies to be responsible with the data that we give them.

      • Gap Gen says:

        Ah, ok. Interesting.

      • Wisq says:

        FTP is totally abusive. I ban it on all my servers. rsync or go home!

  3. jezcentral says:

    There is a lot of interesting stuff to say about Sniper Elite’s kill-cam. The body-modelling is great, and I could see that used in other games, just not with the x-ray vision or the worthy-of-its-own cut-scene mentality.

    It’s good to see it is making some people queasy (I mean this in a good way). It’s provoking an emotional reaction which, in games, is a rare thing.

    • nrvsNRG says:

      yeah i started feeling really really sorry for all the men i was killing (which i never do in video games), and felt a bit disgusted with myself….its really weird that a good kill cam is all it takes for me to feel sympathy….its a very unique game in this respect, and i’m enjoying it very much, but what ive been doing is just playing for an hour or so then coming back a few days later, and i find i get more from it playing like that rather then long gaming sessions.

  4. fauxC says:

    “The game has the dubious honor of humanizing Nazis more than any of the scores of WWII-era games, films, and books that came before it”


    The amount of ignorance involved in this sentence is unsettling. I think Dan Nosowitz needs to read more books, starting with this one:

    link to

    • Jamesworkshop says:

      I think the unanswered question is why take the position that the Nazi’s were not human in the first place.

      They obviously were humans afterall

      • Leeroy says:

        I don’t think that the default position is of dehumanised, but dehumanising is more of a process that can be seen in swathes of popular media, such as in films books and videogames. I would agree with fauxC though.

    • mr.ioes says:

      link to
      I feel a bit offended as well.

      • SiHy_ says:

        Downfall and Das Boot are quite humanising too.

        • sinister agent says:

          Steinbeck’s The Moon Is Down is probably the best depiction of what most nazi soldiers were actually like (ie: pretty ordinary humans), and it was written as propaganda to fuel resistance against them. A poorly thought-out line from that article. But still, his point isn’t unreasonable.

    • lurkalisk says:

      I’m not saying I entirely agree, but I’d argue it’s just a matter of perspective. For some, a videogame could speak volumes more than film or literature, on certain things, no matter how good those films or books are. After all, there’s something to be said for watching the semi-realistic consequences of your own actions, rather than just trying to immerse yourself in someone else’s.

      • PopeJamal says:

        Yes. Remember, the whole “but you actively participate in it” aspect of games is what people use to argue about how it “hurts the children”. That same interactivity is also what supposedly makes gaming a powerful medium in it’s own right.

    • wodin says:

      Didn’t you know every German soldier was a Nazi..fact…even the vast majority that weren’t or didn’t work in the camps or, you know, knew no different because they’d grown up with the Ideology from birth , however thats inexcusable isn’t it. They should have made a bigger effort to withstand the constant propaganda and ignored the fact that Hitler had turned the country around etc etc etc.

      Just as many of us would have done exactly what the average German soldier did if we lived in those times in that country. Saying different is hindsight and total rubbish.

      The vast majority of German soldiers where as human as me or you.

      • Droopy The Dog says:

        I don’t even…. I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

        fauxC’s talking about how it’s a bit ridiculous to put the characterisation of sniper elite v2 ahead of every bit of WW2 literature/film when it’s not even a patch on some of the best stuff out there. Not that Nazis weren’t human.

      • lurkalisk says:

        Well, except for the mutant Germans that clacked around on their hands, dragging their electro belt from their severed midsection.

        …Those existed, right?

  5. bookwormat says:

    I don’t get this “always online is ok in multiplayer games, but it’s bad and evil in single player” argument.

    As a customer I want to know what I get and how much it will cost me. What difference does it make for me why the game is as it is?

    That I cannot play a game offline It’s a negative for sure. But not more than in any multiplayer game with the same restriction.

    • mr.ioes says:

      When even all solo players need to connect to the servers you are in for some heavy disconnectivity and lag. Maybe that’s a good reason to you?

      5 days after release I still have 250+ ms. As I expected, Blizzard won’t fix the lag issue.

      • bookwormat says:

        Again, the reason for “disconnectivity and lag” does not seem that interesting. That there is “disconnectivity and lag” is a problem. I’m not making a game here. I decide if I want to buy one.

        If Blizzard would make a pure multiplayer game that I cannot play because it disconnects me all the time, then that would decrease its value for me. If they make a single player game “always online”, but the connection is fine, then that wouldn’t be that bad.

        • PopeJamal says:

          Yes. But the problem is that, barring drastic political and technological changes in the near future, neither Blizzard nor anyone else will be able to deliver on that promise in the near. That promise being:
          Making a single-player game with an always-online requirement will incur negligible amounts of inconvenience.

          So the arguments aren’t necessarily that it’s a bad idea, but that right now it just won’t work acceptably.

    • pipman3000 says:

      imagine if people who drive cars and people who walk everywhere all had to share the same highway because the city “wanted to integrate the two traveling communities to enrich your city-going experience” so they removed all the sidewalks.

      • pipman3000 says:

        like there’s not a single area in the city where you aren’t under constant threat of a speeding car slamming into you and destroying your soft crunchy body.

        and there’s three other cities nearby who have sidewalks

        and it’s not even that awesome if you drive a car because all those pedestrians are clogging up the streets and slowing traffic to a crawl.

      • jrodman says:

        pipman3000, i like the cut of your jib.

    • Jimbo says:

      Because necessary ‘evils’ are easier to accept than unnecessary ones. The restriction in functionality (not working offline) exists for an easily understood reason in multiplayer games.

      Of course, it’s not actually EVIL evil, it’s just annoying to see something be worse than it needs to be. I would have liked to play the game if they hadn’t vandalised their own single player.

      • bookwormat says:

        Let me try to translate that: This means that the lag or disconnects do not break the game experience for the gamer. Some of us are just annoyed because we know that the developer could have done it better. But in the end, you get a game with the same flaw that you accepted many times before (in multiplayer games).

        As someone who thinks about how games are made, you are annoyed because you think you know a way how they could have made it better. I get that. But as a person who wants to buy and enjoy a video game, there is nothing here that breaks the game. If it was, again, it would also break multiplayer games.

        I think the truth is that always online is ok for most People. Some of them are just pissed because a publisher made something that’s more to their benefit than them.

        • jrodman says:

          This breakdown is shallow.

          1 – The creator has decided quite deliberately and calculatingly to deliver a vastly inferior experience in order to 1a – increase profitability of this one title while reducing the benefit to the buyer. 1b – prove out a model where they can repeat model 1a many times in the future, using the popularity of a brand associated with quality to move an undesirable norm into the mainstream.

          2 – The style of the game has far more problems with periodic breakage than a game that is fundamentally designed around multiplayer.

    • Emeraude says:

      I don’t see that always online is ok for multiplayer games.

      Many of us complained when LAN was excised from SC2, and did not buy the game because of it.

      Many of us still lament the slow disappearance of private servers for multi-player games too, while we’re at it.

      • Wisq says:

        Honestly, it’s hard to actually find games that don’t push any of my “WTF?” buttons these days, at least in the AAA market.

        Always-online or otherwise intrusive DRM, no LAN games, no private servers i can run on a LAN, the use of GFWL or Origin or other technologies I’ve blacklisted … Doesn’t leave a whole lot left to actually play.

        I’m really starting to feel that the “indie” games segment is the true successor to the games industry I remember from my youth, and the “AAA” segment is some weird evolutionary dead-end that doesn’t deserve the title it gives itself.

        To put it in gaming terms: Indie is ArmA, AAA is OpFlash2.

        Does this make me a gaming hipster?

    • lurkalisk says:

      Perhaps it’s because the vast majority of multiplayer takes place between people separated by distance? Which, as it happens, requires some sort of inter-net.

      I’m all for LAN options and what have you, but it makes sense that it isn’t as big a deal when they’re simply removing a less commonly used feature. With single player, however, that’s a much larger step in the wrong direction.

    • Nick says:

      Sorry, you don’t understand why multiplayer gaming being online is ok? I’m afraid there might be something wrong with your brain.

      • wengart says:

        He has a legitimate issue with multiplayer being online only. Some of my best memories are of COD4 lans we’d play during highschool. No internet to speak of where we played.

    • Wisq says:

      Multiplayer games are online-only by necessity. Aside from LAN play, that’s sorta central to the whole “multiplayer” thing.

      Most multiplayer titles have offline singleplayer as well. So if the servers are down, you can still play “the game” offline. There aren’t too many multiplayer-only games (aside from MMOs).

      Most multiplayer titles use central servers, but these are mainly just servers that tell them where to find other servers. They’re lightly loaded, it doesn’t matter too much if they lag, and they can sometimes be bypassed if you know exactly what server you want to connect to. So outages are unlikely, and not entirely crippling when they occur. (Again, aside from MMOs.)

      Since I’ve been excluding MMOs: These, of course, need to be online-only, since the (massively) multiplayer experience is core to the entire game. That’s where the “MM” in “MMORPG” comes from. True, a lot of people play them mostly solo, but the other players are still there and still play a role in the experience, even if it’s sometimes just as a backdrop to make towns feel alive.

      Diablo 3 is a game in which many people spend most or all of their time playing singleplayer. If you do play multiplayer, you can only meaningfully interact with a few other players at a time. It has no offline singleplayer. It uses central servers, and places a great deal of load on them, and is known for lagging and overloading those servers, with no recourse if they go down.

      So basically, Diablo 3 is an MMO, without the “massively” part. There’s nothing it does that a similar game with drop-in-drop-out player-hosted co-op couldn’t do — except to (possibly) reduce piracy, (hopefully) reduce cheating, and (almost certainly) make Blizzard a lot of money. The first two remain to be proven.

      Why should I play a game that has all the disadvantages of an MMO and none of the advantages?

    • Urthman says:

      Because no one can make an online multiplayer game without the drawbacks of an online multiplayer game. So all online multiplayer games are pretty much on equal footing. Guild Wars and WoW have similar challenges to deal with in letting groups of players all over the globe fight dragons together.

      But if you take a single-player game like Torchlight and compare it with the single player version of Diablo 3, Diablo 3 seems like a bad deal because it has all these online problems that Torchlight doesn’t have. It’s frustrating because these all these problems seem so unnecessary.

  6. Salix says:

    I very much agree with the Gamasutra article, more thought needs to be put into preserving games for the future. Aside from the fact that people may want to come back and play them again, if games are to truly be considered art they need to be preserved.

  7. LionsPhil says:

    Oddly enough, I was reading through Cobbet’s article while listening to a remix of the Voyager theme that I dug up from a chain of related links yesterday (like the quiet and fanservicey YouTube upload for the lazy).

    Synth sparkles and electric guitars, anyone?

    (Wow. That paragraph of euphemisms is quite the achievement.)

    • Giant, fussy whingebag says:

      I love how he spends an entire paragraph making up those Trek-based euphemisms, lamenting the lack of a feature in a game that isn’t the one he’s reviewing. Brilliance.

  8. RegisteredUser says:

    PopSci needs to play Manhunt, Mortal Kombat and about 9000 classic arcade, C64 etc games. Fidelity aside, if you want graphic violence claiming that a 2012 game is the “most graphic/violent” just instantly disqualifies you as in any way videogame knowledgeable.

    Also Manhunt has to date the most disturbing close-up killcams I’ve yet encountered(Disclaimer to “my knowledgeability”: I don’t seek these out). Stabbing people in the eyes with glass is just wrong.

    • stupid_mcgee says:

      I mean, I kinda agree, but it’s fucking Popular Science. It’s like getting your video game info from Jane’s Defence Weekly. It’s not really their field and not really what they’re known for. Cut ’em a bit of slack.

  9. Spengbab says:

    The BLDGBLOG is pretty great – some of the comments contain links to other creepy USSR stories, definately check that out

  10. golem09 says:

    I’m so glad that this doesn’t bother me at all, since I simply hate the non leveling of Diablo III. That’ s a dealbraker for me.
    Path of Exil?
    I want to go to there

  11. sicbanana says:

    So much negativity when it comes to Diablo 3…

    Here’s something for you to ponder:

    Maybe some of you remember a time when you bought an album with rather complicated music on it, which just wouldn’t sink in after the initital 10-20 plays and you were thinking “what is this crap?”
    But after some time, you suddently start to hear all those different intricacies and interwoven melodies, subtle messages and colors, which flew by at first glance but then made that album grow as a whole the more you listened to it, making it your favorite one…
    And Diablo 3 is just like that album. It’s a grower. So give it time to grow!
    The very game is DESIGNED around playing it through multiple times. And it DOES get better after you’ve completed normal! In nightmare things start to become more difficult plus you feel soo powerful, which makes things incredibly fun. Everything explodes and flies through the air! :D

    And try to start seeing it more in a “MOBA-Light”, not in a traditional “aRPG” one, because I think Blizzard has learned a LOT from the MOBAs when it comes down to the skills and how you have to utilize them in the game. Some people won’t like it. Personally, i think its awesome bacause it makes the game much more “skillful” later on.
    Additionally, this much-hated “always-online-DRM” makes the game so ridiculously (!) fluid when it comes to loot and coop: pop in to slay some demons with a friend who’s in trouble, pop out to quickly buy 3 gems in the auction house for 5,000 gold, pop back in to socket an armor, shift-clicking to let you’re friend know what kind of armor it is, seeing if it suits him, even if he’s not in your game… and so on and so fourth. It’s really, really SMOOTH!

    And btw, the game looks GORGEOUS!! with that subtle spikey comic-look on everything. Imho, no other game comes close to that sophisticated art style. I mean, come on, they really nailed the graphics!

    Just my two cents…

    • iGark says:

      I don’t remember having to be connected to the internet to listen to my album. Or not being able to listen because servers were down. Or being halfway through a song and being logged out. Or not being able to pause my music.

      • sicbanana says:

        Well, welcome to the future… who’s still thinking we’re going to have less connectivity in the future? anyone? i mean, i totally understand you’re point, it’s valid and sad, but, do you also see mine? Things will roll like that… wether you like it or not. Technology will always evolve further, and economy is not involved in that matter.

        EDIT: This is not strictly concerning the game, but the infrastructure of future games, and gaming in general….

        • pipman3000 says:

          in the future your toilet won’t even flush if you aren’t connected to the internet. also facebook will update your wall every time you poop.

        • Salix says:

          I find it amazing that so many people know what the future is going to be. Is there some sort of oracle?

          But seriously, even if the world does start becoming even more connected, there’s always the option to opt out of it. Shame there isn’t one in D3.

          Edit: that came out nothing like it sounded in my head and now I can’t think of anything better to say. Oh well.

        • onyhow says:

          Unless the world can provide Internet that can be use reliably in the middle of Atlantic ocean, or on top of the Himalayas, or in the middle of Sahara, then no…

        • pilouuuu says:

          Well, it’s not the future if INTERNET infrastrusture is not good enough to play with no lag or waiting. Do you get lag or do you have to wait beyond normal loading times in other single-player games? No? Exactly. This is not acceptable, at least not yet.

        • InternetBatman says:

          I think the problem here is not that technology is changing and will continue to change. In this case developers used the wrong technology for the game. The industry still needs to learn that you decide what technologies you use once you have fully examined your problem, you don’t decide that you want to make a [blank] kind of game on [blank] system and then design the game.

          Furthermore, different technologies can and should exist side by side. As an example, a mattock is a far less advanced tool than a trencher and they do the same job, yet there are times one is appropriate and times that the other is.

        • Emeraude says:

          who’s still thinking we’re going to have less connectivity in the future?

          I hadn’t realized more connected necessarily implied always connected.

          There are TVs in most homes in rich countries nowadays, for sure, but weirdly we didn’t implement a 1984 “always on” policy for them so that advertising profit can be maximized – which would be only fair, wouldn’t it ? They’re a business; they’re here to make money ! (god if I continue to hear that bullshit line anymore I’m going to kill someone).

        • Claidheamh says:

          Well, WE shape the future. It only turns out the way we let it turn out. If there are better ways to achieve progress, we should be complaining about the bad ones.

          • GreatGreyBeast says:

            ^^This times a million. I just suddenly realized that I’m sick of these arguments that we have to accept this change because change happens and we have to accept it. Baloney. This is supposed to be a capitalist economy, which means that we, the customers, ultimately make the decisions. Businesses thrive when they provide what WE want, and perish when they don’t. We don’t have to accept anything.

          • pilouuuu says:

            I’m pretty sure that if enough people boycott Diablo III and SimCity, developers will think twice before including this crappy new type of DRM.

          • jrodman says:

            Rejecting a stupid unproductive change is not rejecting change, it is rejecting a specific, stupid, unproductive change. And that is totally valid. That is, in fact, a push for a different change!

            So you can now bury any argument based upon the inevitability of change. Because while that is true, it is not specific to a given change.

      • Azradesh says:

        You can pause if you’re playing alone.

    • brulleks says:

      …or having to sink over ten hours into the first listen-through of any album.

      Although, admittedly, if certain progressive rock albums had the same number of tracks as your average pop or punk album, then they would probably have been well over three hours (Yes’s ‘Close to the Edge’ for instance, one of my all-time favourite albums, has only three tracks but racks up over 40mins of play time).

    • Lyndon says:

      I get what you’re saying with your prog rock analogy but to me it’s more like this.

      If you’ve never listened to prog rock before it’ll take like 10 or 20 listens to get into it. But if you’re a seasoned listener, you’ll get into it much quicker, cause you’re already familiar with the genre. You don’t need to waste your time with listening to the record 20 times to get it, cause you already get it. You get to jump straight to the enjoying the music part of the experience.

      If I’m an experienced Diablo player I shouldn’t have to play through the 10 hour campaign twice in order to get to the “real” experience, particularly when there is such an obvious solution to issue like allowing me to select the difficulty I want from the start.

      • AmateurScience says:

        I don’t get the logic of removing that choice, even just to have nightmare unlocked from the start.

        Edit: oh wait this is probably something to do with the gold and real money AHs isn’t it? Now they’ve effectively advocated gear-buying they have to control supply or something terrible would happen.

        Actually it occurs to me that by condoning gear exchange they’ve given themselves a balancing nightmare.

        Also that it would be very easy for them to dial down the quality of drops at a given experience level to encourage people to browse the AH for upgrades…CONSPIRACY THEORIES HO!

        • Emeraude says:

          I don’t think there’s anymore logic to that choice than structural survival from D2: higher difficulty levels are tired to higher character levels. You have to have a character of a certain level for the level of difficulty to be manageable (according to Blizzard at least)… they don’t want to give free lvl 50 characters so you can start playing on highest difficulty setting directly.

          it would be very easy for them to dial down the quality of drops at a given experience level to encourage people to browse the AH for upgrades.

          Not only that but contribute to price rising or falling. One of the problems I have with their scheme not being legislated as gambling (or having its own legislation): if things go as planned (well, yes that’s a big if, especially given the news of items disappearing from accounts), they can make or break the market, and literally print money.

          • AmateurScience says:

            Ah, didn’t realise that the harder settings were more ‘new game +’ rather than ‘start from scratch but harder’. I might have known as I’m about to finish act IV on my first playthrough but the servers have been down since about mid-day.

            Re: the RMAH thing, the potential for skullduggery on Acti-Blizz’s part here is massive and practically undetectable. I hadn’t really thought of it too much before as I’ve no intention of using the AH for gold or cash, I kind of still see it as cheating as it was in D2/WoW etc, also, the randomness of loot makes it all the sweeter when something perfect drops serendipitously.

      • Azradesh says:

        “If I’m an experienced Diablo player I shouldn’t have to play through the 10 hour campaign twice in order to get to the “real” experience, particularly when there is such an obvious solution to issue like allowing me to select the difficulty I want from the start.”

        If you’re an experienced Diablo player, why would you expect the difficulty to behave differently from the other games?

    • Reapy says:

      I mostly agree here, except imho the niceness of the game is apparent from the start and grows ober time. I dont know why all the hate, people want the game to be something it is not…you want a sp arpg you can fuck around with all you want, get torchlight 2 and be happy, no reason to get pissed because d3 is made for people who are connected.

      Memorial day weekend ill be away from home, was trying to figure if it would play on a laptop, then remembered there is no internet where im staying…but i realized also that i dont want to play it without my friends in a vaccume anyway. Its the same reason i didnt play torchlight 1 that far in, i dont think grinding stats away from people is any fun, it has no value, if i want uber dps i just mod and give it to myself rather than smash my head against a wall for hours on end.

      D3 is a mmo lite, just accept it. If another publisher tries to alway on their game, but doesnt have the entire thing rigged for d3 s jump in smooth co op connected play, it will fail. I welcome more games like this the same way i welcome strong singleplayer ones.

    • fish99 says:

      The game being always online has no advantages for me. If it had LAN mode I’d be playing it offline co-op and there is no online feature I would be missing. I haven’t used and won’t be using either auction house (diablo is supposed to be about random drops, not buying items). Always online has provided nothing but disadvantages for me so far.

      • fish99 says:

        And now the EU servers are down for maintenance again, in the middle of the day on the weekend, when everyone wants to play. And again no ETA on when they’re coming back up.

        • Greggh says:

          I feel for you man… my advice is to try to get ahold of another game, don’t keep hurting yourself by not being able to enjoy a game

          • fish99 says:

            Don’t take my post too seriously, I wasn’t gonna start playing D3 till later anyway, and I’ve got plenty of other stuff to do and other games to play should it stay offline. There are a lot of people in the EU who do want to play right now though, and there’s a 136+ page thread on the EU forums about todays unplanned downtime, which is just passing 5 hours now.

            I think that’s a pretty good counter to the argument that always online is somehow a good thing.

    • ItalianPodge says:

      I understand that the game is designed for multiple play throughs, but on normal I’m finding it desperately boring. I’m halfway through Act2 and yet to use a health potion. I occasionally have to lift my left hand off the desk to perform an action other than the default left click attack. My companion keeps saying something like “Here comes a decent enemy, we should have more of those”, which quite frankly is true and the designers must have realised it to have him saying it. I can see that it would be quite fun if it actually forced me to use the skills and runes but it doesn’t.

      Your music analogy is interesting but I can’t apply it to Diablo 3. Complicated music that requires effort to get into is extremely rewarding when you finally start to be able to follow it, D3 is different in that it’s like listening to take that over and over at the beginning with the promise of Dreamtheater later on… but can you listen to all that Take That first?

      • Premium User Badge

        FhnuZoag says:

        Yeah, I have a name for the sort of logic that is happy with 10+ hours of tedium before the fun begins – Stockholm Syndrome. If a developer requires you to put that much commitment in before rewarding you, can you truly be judging the game on its genuine merits? Or have the developers merely enmeshed you in a cunning psychological trap, where the cognitive dissonance of having to justify your many hours of wasted, repetitive effort makes you incapable of admitting that really, it isn’t at all worth it?

        Now, it’s somewhat excusable if the initial period requires you to learn some kind of complicated mechanics, like you were playing some really difficult strategy game. But for the implementation in Diablo 3, there seems no such explanation. Padding out the actually fun bit with time-fillers is manipulative, and RPS and so on are 100% right to call out that bullshit.

        • psyk says:

          Don’t play arma
          Don’t play salem
          Don’t play H&H
          Don’t play wurm
          Don’t play flight sims

          • Psychopomp says:

            Stockholm syndrome is getting thrown around so much in Diablo 3 comments threads it’s laughable. It’s slowly becoming the RPS equivalent of Godwin’s Law.

        • Rii says:

          So much win.

        • Psychopomp says:

          The issue is that normal isn’t designed for us. It’s designed for everyone else.

          Yeah, it’s a pretty big design flaw not to have some sort of harder difficulty to start out with, but it’s kind of missing the both the point of the system and the design of normal to just say LET US GO STRAIGHT TO NIGHTMARE. It’s not just a switch you pull that powers up enemies. It’s NG+. You would literally die to the first enemy in the game, over and over with no chance to beat it.

          I’ve proposed some sort of optional “advanced” setting that only modifies normal mode but it’s gotten shouted down by every community site I’ve posted it too :|

          • psyk says:

            To the RPS forum with you :p

          • Psychopomp says:

            Can’t be arsed, but copypasted from my D3 forum’s post

            In “advanced” normal –

            All enemies, including bosses, deal more damage

            Reduced health globe drop rate

            Monster affixes unlock 5 levels early, those tiered by difficulty remain the same

            “Golden” monster packs can now have two affixes

            Experience gain, loot tables and drop rates remain entirely untouched.

          • RegisteredUser says:

            All of that stuff won’t change the fact that the complexity of Diablo games breaks down to “click on thing until dead, repeat until game is over”.

            Its the reason why I never made it past Act II in Diablo 2..I quite honestly had to ask myself if this kind of gameplay was really something I wanted to do to myself anymore.
            Sure, the monsters change in their looks and you can unlock one more tier of “something also happens when you do the next click!!11”, but that’s really, really it.

            You can try and make timed clicking and dodging a bit of a “challenge” via your difficulty approach, but that won’t change the core nature of this genre really just being “click on something, now click again!”.

    • Nick says:

      These fanboy apologists sure do love their childishly nonsensical analogies.

    • Hindenburg says:

      To quote Old Man Murray:
      “According to Erik, after the first 5 or 6 hours this game really begins to shine. According to me, after 5 or 6 hours of polishng my own shit, it will begin to shine. Doesn’t mean I am going to spend the time polishing my shit. You spent $40 bucks for the game, why do you need to spend 5 hours playing before it gets good?”

      That was in 2001, mind.

    • RegisteredUser says:

      You’re right! Its just like that album! You know, the one with the Sony Rootkit on it.

  12. Toberoth says:

    It’s weird to see people arguing about what score Diablo 3 should receive over on Eurogamer. I’d almost forgotten about the silliness that is numerical scoring, as I only tend to read RPS (or sometimes Kotaku) for reviews now.

    • Crimsoneer says:

      I know, right? “If Diablo gets higher than Max Payne…” blah blah. God, so glad I’m mainly an RPS reader. I love Eurogamer, and their podcast is top notch, but god I avoid the comments. Nearly as bad as IGN.

      • Toberoth says:

        Mmhmm, as though it matters to your subjective experience of the game what score it received from some website. It’s odd.

        • AmateurScience says:

          These days it seems to mostly revolve around people needing their purchases and/or opinions validated by consensus, rather than a subjective ‘buyers guide’.

        • InternetBatman says:

          What I intensely dislike is when the actual text of the review differs substantially from the scores, or when games score highly and have positive reviews, only to publish negative articles about it later. PC gamer’s Mass Effect 3 review was a fairly good example of both.

          • Schaap says:

            This was horrible with Heavy Rain. 87 on Metacritic, almost unanimously praised in reviews for it’s excellent story that turned out to be one of the most illogical, incomplete, poorly written piece of crap stories i’d ever read/seen.
            Sure enough, half a year later retrospectives start popping up; yeah ok the story doesn’t actually make an iota of sense.
            Same with Red dead Redemption, where every review failed to mention that the main quest was an incredibly monotonous shooting gallery.

          • Toberoth says:

            I guess games reviewers are as prone to getting sucked in by hype as anyone else. Which is a shame, because they’re being paid not to!

          • Rii says:

            “What I intensely dislike is when the actual text of the review differs substantially from the scores”


            @Toberoth: they’re being paid to generate sales and/or hits; beating other outlets to the punch is one of the best ways of doing that. As such, not bothering to finish the game and being carried away on hype and caffeine practically comes with the territory.

  13. costyka says:

    “It seems as though, over the past 12 years, there’s been a schismatic divergence between what Blizzard thinks a Diablo game is and what the series’ fans expect of it” –

    I don’t think that the expectations were that high of Diablo – 12 years is a long time to remember what you want of a game without being influenced by all the games and platforms and methods of making games that the decade brought on. The problem I think is in the product-ification of the thing, in making it nothing more than a money mill while keeping the players at arm’s length with DRM.

    Not all gamers are deliquents so treat them like that and you get the result – a discrepancy between official reviews and the player views that in metacritic leads to a difference from almost 9 to 4. If those game scores tell a story anymore – it’s one of maturity on both sides – Blizzard becoming an unscrupulous money grubbing machine and players no longer as eager to take all that abuse.

    Anyway – here’s a more elaborate take on why Diablo 3 is such a nasty experience:
    link to
    It may be a bit farfetched at times but I still think it holds true.

    • Emeraude says:

      What I wonder is why they haven’t yet created an online store/platform, a Steam of their own. Maybe it’s in the works.

      According to the leaked documents that went around – last year was i ? – Bnet2.0 was to be used to court third party publishers… taking things with a grain of salt, I still think it definitely has been in the works.

  14. woodsey says:

    My experience was only with the demo, but the x-ray kills in Sniper Elite didn’t have that effect on me in the slightest. Call me old fashioned, but I don’t identify with other human beings upon learning where their major organs are – if you wanted to make German soldiers identifiable then I think it’s best to take the more considered route of letting me read journal entries, letters, notes, and overhear radio chatter, stuff like that.

    The kill-cam is too (for want of a better word) ‘game-y’ to evoke anything other than “fuck me, I think I shot his cock off!”.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Without having played the game, surely if you wanted to really make shooting people emotionally painful, you’d actually show them being, y’know, wounded, dying in something other than their hitpoints reaching zero with a spray of blood and bone fragments.

      • Shortwave says:

        Totally, something that RO2 did right was that level of realism.
        I remember shooting a soldier and going to run off.
        Then I heard him crying out for his mother and I stopped, turn back.
        And stuck a single pistol round into his head to end his suffer.

        That moment has stuck with me since the beta and it much more prolific than a simple killcam.
        It showed human emotion, which is far more powerful than anything else.

        Did that scene in RO2 help convert me to some maniac? No.
        I actually felt empathy for the soldier, be it only a game.
        There was a part of me that made me go back and finish him off.
        I had to think about it. In war there is good and bad, mercy, justice, passion.. So many things.
        Sniper Elite V2 be it a VERY enjoyable game it is anything but realistic.

        If anything, as technology progresses and we see more and more realistic war games.
        It in theory could have the exactly opposite effect of what the religious maniacs believe.
        To stand there in such realism with full control is much more touching than a film could make.
        Would anyone say that Shindlers List was just too graphic and shouldn’t be seen? OFC NOT.
        So how is a game any different? Ina day of age where video games are quickly taking over Hollywoods hotspot what is truly the difference between a film and a game besides the obvious?
        It’s all educational, it’s just that some people would rather feel closer to the battlefield.
        It’s like reenactments almost.. Are reenactments morally unacceptable also? Hm.

        Oh, but then I suppose one could say violent media in general should be removed from the public.
        But then again, I suppose the human race would have to first stop being so violent for that to occur..
        Man, it’s truly a good thing there is a fictional means of taking out all of this natural emotion of ours.
        Think of how much more violent the world could be with no entertainment to please the billions?
        Or if I were forced to play family rated puzzle games for eternity, trust me. There will be blood.

    • Cryo says:

      Well he can’t fuck you now that you shot his cock off! What do you even want from the poor guy?

  15. ffordesoon says:

    I saw the quote from the Kill Screen article, and immediately deduced from its utter lack of relevance to the issue it presents that it was by Michael Thomsen.

    I’m sure Thomsen is a lovely guy, but I will never understand what anyone who’s ever published his work sees in it. There’s a clear formula to every article that he’s ever written that’s as repugnant as it is disturbingly effective on editors. He always starts by talking about his subject in very general terms, then quotes a famous philosopher out of context, and spends the rest of the article arguing for or against the straw man the quote creates without saying anything remotely substantive. It’s a cheap, pretentious “I went to graduate school and you didn’t!” ploy, and it’s insulting to anyone who talks about games in a philosophical or academic context without resorting to such an obvious college-essay stalling tactic.

    I hesitate to call almost anything “pretentious”, as I think the term’s often used with little regard for its meaning, but Thomsen’s work is the very definition of the word. It is “intellectual” without being remotely intelligent.

  16. marcusfell says:

    Popsci doesn’t have a clue.

    Also, the Devs said the game was originally even more graphic, but it freaked out their testers. Where is that version?

  17. Gasmask Hero says:

    I’ve been to Luton many times over the years, and i’ve not been mugged once.* That’s the most positive thing I can say about the place.

    67% less riots, 67% less running street battles with hardware implements as weapons and 67% less tramps drinking cheap cider and urinating openly in the main square does not mean it’s 67% nicer, just 67% less awful.

    *Your experience may vary.

  18. Terragot says:

    sorry iGark but theres a problem with your statement. A frame-rate issue is my systems fault -due to me being a cheap son-of-a-bitch but I can upgrade my system, I can fix that problem. A lag issue is Blizzards servers fault, their problem, which I cannot alleviate.

    So if I died because of a framerate issue, I’d kick the black box under my desk and contemplate buying an upgrade.

    If I died because of a lag issue, due to forced always online DRM, then I’d curse Blizzard, and remember these faults when considering future purchases from them.

  19. pilouuuu says:

    Here there is a great video that shows the Sniper Elite V2 and its killcam:

    link to

    It’s interesting that Maxpayne 3 seems to be pretty graphic in its depiction of violence too.

    Maybe we’ll start to get more games with this level of realistic, gory violence?

    • westyfield says:

      The only SEV2 video you’ll ever need: link to

      • psyk says:


        • Shortwave says:

          No laughing of ones self here will be tolerated.
          This game was created by satan and it will turn your children into meth smoking serial rapists.
          I tested it out on my children and now I have to go downtown to see them, I miss them a lot.

          I will pray for you tonight, you heartless sociopathic death fetishists.

      • Wisq says:

        I see your testicle shot … and raise you a hundred more testicle shots:

        link to

        Honestly, I’ll never be able to play the game now without thinking of that video. All. The. Time.

    • Rii says:

      Well that was faintly disgusting.

      Also, tracking a bullet through the air in slow motion before switching to an x-ray view of the target’s head is “realistic” now?

      • Shooop says:

        The effect of the bullet (shattering bones, ripping up organs, etc) and then coming out out deformed and tumbling because of the loss of velocity is surprisingly realistic.

  20. Mallic says:

    So this is my say on Diablo 3.

    I haven’t bought it and I don’t think I will. I do not buy things from Activision on principle. Their business practices over the years have been atrocious and they do not treat their customers with any respect or value at all.

    Now, even if I did buy Diablo 3, I would have a hard time playing it, because on top of my admittedly shoddy internet connection, there are NO dedicated Australian servers, and judging by experience from WoW, there won’t be for at least 3 years. Apparently we do not confer a large enough profit margin to Activision to warrant dedicated servers, which is probably why we have to buy their games at huge mark up from American prices. We have to cover their great cost of providing no support or infrastructure that would make their ridiculous system the barest amount tolerable. I know our great nation isn’t exactly the biggest market in the world, but we have enough gamers that are being screwed over completely unnecessarily. It would not be a huge problem for Activision or Blizzard to fix and at not a great dent to their profits, but God forbid their profits be minimized in any way, shape or form.

    Which brings us to the crux of the problem, because intrusive and outright damaging DRM, short, rushed and safe games that often plagiarize from whatever last sold well, lack of user or community support and continually “exploitable” properties are only symptoms. The cause is hinted at in the fact that AAA publishers overwhelmingly (with the notable exception of Valve, which I will get to) act in this manner.

    I have no problem with people and companies trying to make money out of their industry and I am not suggesting that money is the problem. The market is there and that is all well and good. However, the big companies of the games industry (like the music and entertainment industry) have a unhealthy obsession with their profit, to the detriment of both the industry and the consumers. With no understanding of or desire to build the creative industry, these companies go about their business with the assumption that selling creative works is like selling oil. Every decision made is made to extract every extra bit of money possible from their customers and more importantly, from their developers. I am sure Blizzard are a personally a nice bunch of people who want to make video games, just as I am sure that Infinity Ward are a nice bunch of people who want to make video games. Activision are a bunch of people who wish to make as much money as possible with as little cost or risk to their own investment first, and publish video games second.

    Now I mentioned Valve back there as not acting in this manner. I am not a Valve fanboy by any means and I don’t think that they are perfect little angels themselves (the Steam EULA could do with some serious work), but in terms of business ethics, Valve are, for their part, certainly stepping in the right direction. Most importantly, they have been massively successful doing so not despite, but exactly because of the extent to which they facilitate and support the community surrounding their games and indie developers who would otherwise have a much harder time making their games. I’m sure Valve wish to make scads of money like any company, but I do not begrudge them that because unlike Activision, they don’t feel the need to cut corners and under-deliver on their merchandise and the infrastructure it is built on; or devalue and disrespect the importance and satisfaction of the customers who buy their games. Like in any creative medium, it is unfair to expect every game to be a masterpiece. What I think is completely fair (though in this industry it doesn’t seem to be commonplace) to expect is that every game be produced and supported to the best ability of the developer AND publisher involved.

    If the business practices of big companies like Activision, EA and Ubisoft continue for very much longer, I think we can fully expect another big video game crash.

    TL;DR: Activision’s got a hard on for BP.

  21. Shortwave says:

    I was reading that article on Sniper Elite V2 and just, wow.
    Those people who seem to actually think games make killers scare me, for real.
    They are so insane and unwilling to listen to science or logic that it baffles me.
    Theres guys on their talking about how they’ve seen violent games excite their children.
    People seriously need to understand that there is different types of games, for different ages!

    In the future if I DON’T see more realistic violence in war games I might become violent though.
    Ever since I was a kid I dreamed of the future of games, where graphics would be so lifelike that I would forget I exist as I game and simply find myself in that battlefield, lol. I’ll be damned if some bible thumper is going to take that dream from me! Ha.
    Holodeck here I come! PEW PEW!

    • PopeJamal says:

      “Ever since I was a kid I dreamed of the future of games, where graphics would be so lifelike that I would forget I exist as I game and simply find myself in that battlefield, lol.”

      That’s interesting. For centuries, (at least some) men have written and spoken about the horrors and inhumanity of war, but you (and others) want us to move into a world where that type of soul draining experience is easily accessible for 11 year old boys.

      This is not a “save the children” argument, but I really am surprised at the implied logic: That it is acceptable, and maybe even desirable for young people to be exposed to hyper-realistic simulations of violence without the real world consequences of that violence as a counter-balance. And, I know you didn’t say this, but the implication is that all those soldiers from the past who pleaded with us to move away from our violent ways were essentially “a bunch of pussies”.

      I’m 35 years old and I’ve shot my fair share of computer men in the face (I still do), but I couldn’t actually finish watching those Sniper Elite kill-cam videos. Apparently, I’m the type of person who, when presented with hyper-realistic/stylized depictions of violence, tend to back away from it instead of just silently let it wash over me.

      I’m not saying that I’m better than anyone else, nor am I saying that people should be prevented from making whatever type of art they want. I’m not saying that you are a bad person, or that your mom dropped you on your head, or anything like that. I guess what I’m saying is that:

      a) your (perfectly valid) opinion surprised me for some reason
      b) that game seems surprisingly violent and disturbing. And I’ve been a gamer for a long time. I couldn’t imagine sitting through 8-10 hours of that.

      I won’t be able to shoot computer men in the face anymore without remembering this video and for better or worse, I think that’s a good thing.

      • Shortwave says:

        Thanks for the thought-out reply, I appreciate that first of all. : P
        I suppose it could seem I’m supporting the idea of letting children to play graphic games.
        That’s really not the case. I think it’s common sense all parents should pass their own judgement.
        Theres no way you should letting a child play a game like Sniper Elite V2 till’ that parent thinks the child is mature enough to understand what it is they are seeing first. That’s what it all comes down to..
        I mean, you’re going to go out and buy your child porn and smokes are you? No, but you can.
        But just because you can of course that doesn’t mean you should.
        And just because you shouldn’t, doesn’t mean that NOBODY should.
        It means that you as a responsible adult are given a choice to be responsible with that privileged.
        The privledge of having un-rated un-sensored adult media.
        Just as other adult industries have that right, and the game consumer also has that right to buy it.
        Everybody knows that video games are most definitively NOT exclusive for children.
        And seriously wouldn’t be a gamer today if they were. Easy.

        Theres no way it’s acceptable to limit the progression of realism in war simulators and games for ADULTS. Because YOU have the choice baby. Freedom.
        If you can’t stomach it, just don’t buy it.

        I remember playing Doom though as a child, I knew my parents wouldn’t let me play it if they seen how violent it was. But what was it to me? I just thought it was cool and legitimately remember being confused about why it was even a big deal. And back then I also remember watching my father saw animals in half before putting them on the table to eat. Life is endlessly more graphic than any game as ever been in, let me tell you that!

        The oddest thing I find is, the most common reason for wars being fought is religion. No?
        I mean we could boil it down psychologically and blame it on our insecurities and fears, but eh.
        It’s just strange the ones who seem to be against violence in games are the ones who’ve been exciting it in real life since the dawn of mankind. Yet apparently now factitious creations of what they’ve been doing through-out history is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND AMORAL!!
        : / Trust me, when WW3 hits I won’t be out fighting another pointless he’s right she’s right bullshit.
        Unlike in video games I’m smart enough to know that in real life I only have one life, and so do others.
        And that it’s something very special to have and our life shouldn’t be wasted fighting, but rather enjoying. Enjoying life and all the things it brings. Such as video games. : )

        So yea, now this sociopathic death fetishist will now go par-take in his devious acts of fantasy! It’s not like theres not already hundreds of other reasons I’ll burn in hell.

        They should make a video game version of the Bible.
        I hear that’s pretty damn violent.
        “Press X to excape from cross”
        *Pulls hand through nails*

        Wait, isn’t that a scene from Darkness II?
        : P

        • Hindenburg says:

          Did you paraphrase Heinlein amidst that wall of text? Because dood, you totally should. Do it like this: “Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.”.

  22. yutt says:

    I’ve never understood the love of the Diablo series, at least, not at the level fans seem to. I’ve played each game when they came out a time or two, said, “Well that was pretty fun,” and moved on. Diablo 3 feel exactly the same to me (for better or worse) with more emphasis on flow, which is a great direction for the design to take.

    But still, I don’t feel the draw. It is a polished game.

    And then, a bunch of my friends and I got in the Torchlight 2 stress test for this weekend. I played for 4 hours nonstop until the end. I want to play more. Getting new loot was fun. Leveling was exciting. I think I understand what Diablo fans felt, but not in Diablo.

  23. Greggh says:

    Videogames are not a product, nor a service. Videogames are an experience. They should be designed, marketed and sold as such.

    • Emeraude says:

      Not mutually exclusive.

      Movies and books are experiences too, and they re products.Theater is an experience, and it is a service.

    • Mallic says:

      They should be designed, marketed and sold as what they are: An allotted space of time in your entertainment schedule.

    • Hindenburg says:

      The same could be argued about a sodding popsicle.

  24. dangerman77 says:

    I have to say, despite all the noise about it, I am having a blast with my Diablo III guest pass. I was dead-set against buying this, at $60 and with the persistent online requirement, and with the horrible launch hiccups and heart attacks. But this weekend I frequently find myself playing the Torchlight II beta, thinking about my Witch Doctor waiting for me on a server somewhere in the ether, and quitting out and firing up D3. It is just plain fun for me. Still not sure I am going to buy, but my appetite has been whet.

    NB: I am only miles away from NYC, and have super-duper internet, and have not had any connection issues (yet).

  25. pakoito says:

    Dear Jim, I tweet you almost every week with an article, you never answered with a “I’ll look it” or published it. I stopped now because my heart is broken.

    • Greggh says:

      Seriously, there’s an email for personal contact. The guys at RPS are actually quite thoughtful about suggestions etc.

      Twitter is definetely not the best way to communicate to someone who probably receives THOUSANDS of random messages e’eryday – the comment’s section of a WordPress blog isn’t any better, yet I’m writing this reply to you XD

      • pakoito says:

        >This isn’t a link to an article, it’s a hidden reminder that you can email me interesting reads via the link in my name or tweet me up.

        Besides I have checked and their @ volume is not even that high. They answer if they feel like it.

  26. webwielder says:

    When Jim leaves RPS to go work full time on games, please hire Oli Welsh as his replacement.

  27. YourMessageHere says:

    I think the PopSci thing makes a far better point about realism than it does about gore. OK, so the author hasn’t played lots of games and by his own admission isn’t very good at them; we can forgive him for being inexperienced and thus somewhat shocked by the gore.

    Now, I own the first Sniper Elite game, and I walked away from it for exactly the reasons he’s talking about. On one hand you have this elaborate physics engine designed to make sniping as realistic as possible: breath, heartrate, bullet travel time and drop, wind and so on. That’s great, and the actual sniping is good.

    On the other, there’s the constant swapping of perspective between first and third person. There’s the fact I can take massively more damage than the enemies. There’s the fact that I can manually swap weapons in three or four seconds, or just press a button to instantly go to first person sniper view. There’s the dreadful AI that sometimes fails to notice anything wrong when you shoot the person next to them, and other times sees you from 300m in the dark behind a wall. There’s the fact that I can apparently carry an MG42, 300 rounds for it, a silenced pistol and 10 magazines, ten grenades and ten medkits as well as my rifle, yet still stealth around like I am made wholly of gossamer shadows. And there’s the score, a meaningless gamification of what was sold as a simulator.

    I just watched a couple of the killcam videos linked in this thread and I have to say, the addition of the x-ray thing is a backward step. It’s even less immersive or realistic; impressive, yes, but not sensible or in any way beneficial to the game.

    • PopeJamal says:

      I never thought of those things, but you have triggered two thoughts in my head (see what I did there!)

      -Having so many blatantly gamey parts of a “simulator” can be one of the intangible things that silently kills ones enjoyment of a game

      -I never thought about how determining what portions of a game you simulate and what portions of the game you ignore is also and editorial process. (I think I said that right)

      Basically, you are telling people what’s valuable and what’s not valuable (what’s good and “not good”) when you choose to realistically simulate one thing and turn other things in to “game systems”.


      • YourMessageHere says:

        Count yourself lucky, then, that you consider such things intangible. So far as I am concerned this lack of consistency tends to make serious and in-my-face attempts on the life of my enjoyment at every opportunity.

        Realism is not something of which you can cherrypick the best bits. Either you are consistently realistic (or unrealistic – consistency is the ultimate point) in the service of making the world you are creating credible, or you fail at doing that. In the latter case it becomes massively more difficult to go beyond the stage of consciously playing a game – you can’t ‘lose yourself’ in a game if it’s constantly doing stuff that represents a coded message saying HELLO THIS IS A GAME. Essentially, I can’t see how you can hope to make a believable world if the rules it operates by don’t agree with themselves.

        • pipman3000 says:

          sniper elite would be a better game if you had to occasionally piss in those bottles you keep finding everywhere.i’d like to see a sniping sim where after sitting in the same vantage point for hours you realize you got to take a crap. do you leave to poop in a box somewhere and risk losing an opportunity to shoot your target or do you hold it in and wait even though there’s a chance the recoil from the shot will make you poop your pants? if you poop in the box do you bury it cause it’s gross or do you boobytrap it and leave it in the path of your enemies? if you poop your pants do you loot a new pair off the battlefield even though they’re german pants that probably smell like sausages and beer or do you wait until you’re back at base to get new pants? how do these difficult choices influence the emotional breadth of our protagonist Ironbody McXRayEyes?

        • pipman3000 says:

          sniper elite would be a better game if you had to occasionally piss in those bottles you keep finding everywhere.i’d like to see a sniping sim where after sitting in the same vantage point for hours you realize you got to take a crap. do you leave to poop in a box somewhere and risk losing an opportunity to shoot your target or do you hold it in and wait even though there’s a chance the recoil from the shot will make you poop your pants? if you poop in the box do you bury it cause it’s gross or do you boobytrap it and leave it in the path of your enemies? if you poop your pants do you loot a new pair off the battlefield even though they’re german pants that probably smell like sausages and beer or do you wait until you’re back at base to get new pants? how do these difficult choices influence the emotional breadth of our protagonist Ironbody X-Rayeyes?

          (comment system ate my sexy post. let’s try this again.)

  28. Fiwer says:

    Eurogamer’s argument is that the internet isn’t ready for online games? Seriously? I must have been dreaming during the time I spent with World of Warcraft over the last few years, and I can’t even fathom what sort of madness induced me to imagine the hours I spent playing Ultima Online 13 years ago. It hurts my heart to imagine the mass hallucination being shared right this moment by hundred of thousands of Call of Duty players who truly believe that they’re playing a video game together, none of them knowing that such a feat is impossible in these dark ages of the internet.

    • Antsy says:

      Apparently you’re still sleeping. Arguing that your online multiplayer experiences have been perfectly fine hardly relates to Diablo 3’s single player experience.

  29. Dilapinated says:

    I’ve been reading a lot on Inglorious Basterds, and the way the film itself is presented as a mirror of the Nazi propoganda film within (called Nation’s Pride), about a lone sniper being all heroic for his country and killin all the mens.

    I really can’t read anything about Sniper Elite without that popping into my head.

  30. cmc5788 says:

    Commenting on the persistence of digital games article: I’m actually not so worried about this, because some of that legacy ends up being tied to popularity and importance of the game. No offense to anyone involved, but the example given — EA Sports MMA — isn’t exactly a digital treasure. On the other hand, look at the original Diablo, Starcraft, etc — those services are still alive and kicking an entire gamer generation later. People who were born when those games came out are now entering the market of mass appeal. That’s a fair amount of persistence. They bring up an interesting point, but I’m not convinced they have provided any evidence that it is a real problem.

    • Vinraith says:

      Only popular media is important? Wow, if only I’d know, it would have saved me so much time! Hear that National Film Archives? You can toss that copy of Citizen Kane in the trash, we’ve got the new Transformers movie!

    • Veracity says:

      That’s addressed in the article: what subsequent generations consider important and what we do aren’t likely to correlate too well, as they generally haven’t yet. I agree with your final point, though – I don’t see that it matters much. Archival is easier and more widespread now than it’s ever been, so historians will have plenty of material. Geocities, Bulletstorm or Harry Potter might slip through the net, but there’s only so much a person’s going to be able to read about, anyway.

    • Hindenburg says:

      Ed Wood.

  31. Pelt Hunter says:

    Have the most epic DayZ story to tell. I might need to start a blog just where people can share DayZ stories. Seriously, it was my first time playing and it all started off sooo slow.. then I made my way further inland.. Let me tell you. Things got interesting quick. What a great mod for being pre-alpha. Can’t wait for more polish.

    Add me on Steam: f1kt1t1ous

    I made the name almost a decade ago so please, don’t make fun of it’s ridiculous use of 1’s.

  32. starclaws says:

    Sooo much D3 ranting. Get a computer that doesn’t suck. Get internet that doesn’t suck. Format hard drive so you don’t have spyware or other useless crap. Play and win. Otherwise you guys are not being gamers. You are just being flamers.

    • Antsy says:

      Get an argument that doesn’t suck. The performance problems aren’t client side, beyond some really shitty sandy/ivy bridge optimisation.

    • Mman says:

      “Get internet that doesn’t suck”

      Holy shit there are people who actually think everyone can do this?

      Please be a troll.

      • pipman3000 says:

        the only reason i’m stuck with a crappy internet connection that cuts off for hours at a time (sometimes even multiple times a day) is because i clearly like having it just so i can have an excuse to hate on the greatest most perfect game ever made that will ever be made.

  33. Shooop says:

    The way Sniper Elite V2 handles violence is really simply refreshing.

    There’s something about just pushing a mouse button or pulling in a gamepad’s plastic trigger and just watching a virtual enemy explode into a fine red mist, then vanish that really takes away the intended impact. It becomes more of a cheeky “Oh you shot someone? Well good on you, let’s remove his head and keep you going.” It feels like a shooting gallery’s flashing lights and circus horn sound effects. What’s the difference between your virtual enemies and paper targets except some red liquid that leaks out onto the ground?

    SEV2 makes you realize you, the virtual one man army with a gun are capable of doing very grievous, horrific damage to your foes. Even though the way it does so with an instant x-ray is hardly realistic, the actual events it’s depicting are completely realistic. Bullets don’t neatly fly through-and-through people. They shred tissue, turn bones into shrapnel, and as they loose velocity and flatten, they leave large, messy exit wounds. There’s no such thing as dying cleanly.

    That’s one of the things I like about this approach – it reminds you killing is not such a quick, clean business. Even though it absolutely fails to make the act of shooting the rifle as difficult as it would be in reality, it definitely succeeds at informing you what happens right after that shot’s fired. Whether or not you like that result is completely personal preference.

  34. Totally heterosexual says:

    Another great thing to happen.

    I joined this place!


  35. Secundus says:

    sniper elite humanises nazis with the gory killcams? the game makes shooting human beings look like a porno cumshot. game journos are so desperate for legitimacy aren’t they? Red orchestra 2 did it so much better because it didn’t celebrate it like SE2 does, shame that game’s already dead a year later.