147 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

The Witcher 2 is that awesome

[JigPig]

drahelvete wrote...

JigPig wrote...

They were clearly paid off.
If Skyrim gets above a 90% they were paid off too.
If TW2 gets below a 99% they were paid by Bioware to not give it a good score.

Okay, I feel like Sheldon Cooper now. Sarcasm?
It's so hard to tell these days, with all the DA2 vs. TW2 flame wars.

No, I'm completely serious, Two Worlds 2 was paid off by Bioware to get a bad score.

I saw it, and I'm not giving you the source.

[DieHigh2012]

Nice, now I'm even more excited to to play this game. Didn't think that was possible.



As for the game of the year thing, it hard to beat any ES game. I've never liked them much, but it seems a lot of people do. The two I'll be playing the most will be DA2 and ME3. I'll have little time for other games between those two. Not to mention the going back to ME1 and playing all the way through a time or two.

[Anathemic]

JigPig wrote...

They were clearly paid off.
If Skyrim gets above a 90% they were paid off too.
If TW2 gets below a 99% they were paid by Bioware to not give it a good score.

Still waiting for you to unblock me and to see those posts.

Burden of Proof on you

[AlexXIV]

coolide wrote...

wulfsturm wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Just because you shoot people it is still an RPG. Action RPG maybe.

Exactly. RPG = Role Playing Game. You play the role of Commander Shepard in the ME series, you play the role of Adam Jensen in DX:HR. Just becuase it doesn't have the "tradional" elements that you have come to expect from an RPG, doesn't make it any less of an RPG.

So is Halo an RPG then since you play the role of Spartan 117?

I don't know halo. Do you have alot of dialogues and dialogue choices in it? I don't think so. The point of an RPG is for me anyway, the story. And not just if there is a story but also how much you are involved as a player. If there is a story but you are just jumping from mission to mission without even needing to know the story it is probably a shooter or action game. If you make choices that change the story it is an rpg. For me anyway.

It is a bit hard to say nowadays because many action games have adopted RPG elements. If you take Hitman for example, it is an actiongame. Because you do your missions. You can do them good or bad, but you can't change your 'character'. It is predefined.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 février 2011 - 03:30 .

[Esoj16]

Eurypterid wrote...

Link3521 wrote...


From my knowledge the 90s started in 1990 and ended in 99, it's the same with centuries and millenia, the new millenium started back in 2000 not in 2001.  It wouldn't make much sense for the year 1960 to be part of the 50s but that's just me  btw wikipedia agrees with me (for what it's worth) as does Merrian-webster, just some websites I got from googling it

With apologies to the OP for going a bit off topic here:

there was no year zero, so the calendar started at year one. Therefore, the first decade was year 1 to 10, the second was year 11 to 20, and so on. So yes, the millennium actually started in 2001.

And if you check the wiki, I believe you'll see it agrees with this, actually.

As for the 90s, 60s, etc. that's the kind of thing I was referring to when I noted the general sense of the use of 'decade'.

I also appologize for going off-topic  but in reality what counts is the common usage not the technicalities of it, the year 1 or 0 is too far back to really be counted, by convention the decade started in 2010 and usually convention is what goes, all I'm saying is that that's what the writer of the article meant, every scientific measurement goes by convention and not technical details i.e. a mole is a mole because it was decided that's what it would be, similarly a decade starts in the 0 year because that's what convention dictates.

[Ziggeh]

Link3521 wrote...

well technically there was a year "0" if you look at it from what the western world uses, the year 0 was the year Christ was (supposed to be) born and by convention a decade, century and millenium start in the 0 years (i.e. 1960s, 21st century starting in 2000 etc.)

This is one of my favourite topics, convention is inaccurate in the matter, which means I can be both right and wrong at the same time. Drives people mad.

[Onyx Jaguar]

JigPig wrote...

drahelvete wrote...

JigPig wrote...

They were clearly paid off.
If Skyrim gets above a 90% they were paid off too.
If TW2 gets below a 99% they were paid by Bioware to not give it a good score.

Okay, I feel like Sheldon Cooper now. Sarcasm?
It's so hard to tell these days, with all the DA2 vs. TW2 flame wars.

No, I'm completely serious, Two Worlds 2 was paid off by Bioware to get a bad score.

I saw it, and I'm not giving you the source.

Truth:  I singlehandedly paid off 8 top site reviewers to give ME 2 the score they had

Gamespot refused the cash

Not a big deal since most of their staff is gone anyway!

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 22 février 2011 - 03:31 .

[slimgrin]

I thought this was old news.

[AlexXIV]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

JigPig wrote...

drahelvete wrote...

JigPig wrote...

They were clearly paid off.
If Skyrim gets above a 90% they were paid off too.
If TW2 gets below a 99% they were paid by Bioware to not give it a good score.

Okay, I feel like Sheldon Cooper now. Sarcasm?
It's so hard to tell these days, with all the DA2 vs. TW2 flame wars.

No, I'm completely serious, Two Worlds 2 was paid off by Bioware to get a bad score.

I saw it, and I'm not giving you the source.

Truth:  I singlehandedly paid off 8 top site reviewers to give ME 2 the score they had

Gamespot refused the cash

Not a big deal since most of their staff is gone anyway!

And it was me who told Gamespot to refuse your money.

[Esoj16]

Ziggeh wrote...

Link3521 wrote...

well technically there was a year "0" if you look at it from what the western world uses, the year 0 was the year Christ was (supposed to be) born and by convention a decade, century and millenium start in the 0 years (i.e. 1960s, 21st century starting in 2000 etc.)

This is one of my favourite topics, convention is inaccurate in the matter, which means I can be both right and wrong at the same time. Drives people mad.

Well yes lol it can be interpreted either way but the common way of using it, and the way it was used in the context of the article goes with the conventional method of a decade, meaning the one most people associate with it. Either way it doesn't really matter lol just saying that's what the author probably meant.

To get back on topic, I don't think PC Gamer was bought, I really do think DA2 will be the greatest thing since DA:O lol

[JigPig]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

JigPig wrote...

drahelvete wrote...

JigPig wrote...

They were clearly paid off.
If Skyrim gets above a 90% they were paid off too.
If TW2 gets below a 99% they were paid by Bioware to not give it a good score.

Okay, I feel like Sheldon Cooper now. Sarcasm?
It's so hard to tell these days, with all the DA2 vs. TW2 flame wars.

No, I'm completely serious, Two Worlds 2 was paid off by Bioware to get a bad score.

I saw it, and I'm not giving you the source.

Truth:  I singlehandedly paid off 8 top site reviewers to give ME 2 the score they had

Gamespot refused the cash

Not a big deal since most of their staff is gone anyway!

Gamespot is the most reliable journalism site on the internet.
Everyone of their staff members is unbiased, has excellent taste in games, and their forums are terrific. No trolling at all, everyone gets along just fine!


Gamespot™ is a registered trademark.

[tmp7704]

AlexXIV wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Truth:  I singlehandedly paid off 8 top site reviewers to give ME 2 the score they had

Gamespot refused the cash

Not a big deal since most of their staff is gone anyway!

And it was me who told paid Gamespot to refuse your money.

fixed.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Alls well that ends well, I just used that money to buy a big ass missile that I sold at double the value when the price of missles went up over the recent conflicts and regime changes

[Eurypterid]

Link3521 wrote...
I also appologize for going off-topic  but in reality what counts is the common usage not the technicalities of it, the year 1 or 0 is too far back to really be counted, by convention the decade started in 2010 and usually convention is what goes, all I'm saying is that that's what the writer of the article meant, every scientific measurement goes by convention and not technical details i.e. a mole is a mole because it was decided that's what it would be, similarly a decade starts in the 0 year because that's what convention dictates.

The danger with convention is it's not everyone's 'convention', so therefore leads to misunderstandings. And this side diiscussion is proof of that. While I've always understood the generic '80s' to mean 1980 to 1989 (more because all the years contain the 8 in the tens column than anything else), I've never considered a calendar decade to begin at the zero year. To me, that makes no sense and never has.

[Maria Caliban]

Ziggeh wrote...

Does anyone really expect the game of the year to go to the "best" game?

There is no THE game of the year award. Every website or magazine tends to come up with its own, typically broken down by genre.

That said, we're talking about competition. It seems to me that games can compete on a number of levels, one of which is awards. In a year where there are a number of highly anticipated RPGs coming out, Dragon Age II has stiff competition for RPG of the Year.

Also, I have trouble picking the best of anything. I find it hard to argue that magazines/websites are wrong when it comes to their best of the year awards.

[AlexXIV]

tmp7704 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Truth:  I singlehandedly paid off 8 top site reviewers to give ME 2 the score they had

Gamespot refused the cash

Not a big deal since most of their staff is gone anyway!

And it was me who told paid Gamespot to refuse your money.

fixed.

Damnit. They got us, boys, grap your stuff and run for it!

[AlexXIV]

Eurypterid wrote...

Link3521 wrote...
I also appologize for going off-topic  but in reality what counts is the common usage not the technicalities of it, the year 1 or 0 is too far back to really be counted, by convention the decade started in 2010 and usually convention is what goes, all I'm saying is that that's what the writer of the article meant, every scientific measurement goes by convention and not technical details i.e. a mole is a mole because it was decided that's what it would be, similarly a decade starts in the 0 year because that's what convention dictates.

The danger with convention is it's not everyone's 'convention', so therefore leads to misunderstandings. And this side diiscussion is proof of that. While I've always understood the generic '80s' to mean 1980 to 1989 (more because all the years contain the 8 in the tens column than anything else), I've never considered a calendar decade to begin at the zero year. To me, that makes no sense and never has.

Well in general people prefer the simple solution if there is one. And I think that's not the worst choice.

[Esoj16]

Eurypterid wrote...

Link3521 wrote...
I also appologize for going off-topic  but in reality what counts is the common usage not the technicalities of it, the year 1 or 0 is too far back to really be counted, by convention the decade started in 2010 and usually convention is what goes, all I'm saying is that that's what the writer of the article meant, every scientific measurement goes by convention and not technical details i.e. a mole is a mole because it was decided that's what it would be, similarly a decade starts in the 0 year because that's what convention dictates.

The danger with convention is it's not everyone's 'convention', so therefore leads to misunderstandings. And this side diiscussion is proof of that. While I've always understood the generic '80s' to mean 1980 to 1989 (more because all the years contain the 8 in the tens column than anything else), I've never considered a calendar decade to begin at the zero year. To me, that makes no sense and never has.

Well considering that the millenium started in 2000 by pretty much everyone's convention (That I know of) I would say it's safe to use it here, and though the calendar decade starts one year later most people don't really think of it that way, and well...majority rules  but technicallities....anyway this isn't really important:innocent:

[My Avatar is a Lizard]

Liberal Media Propaganda

[Dynamomark]

Eurypterid wrote...

Link3521 wrote...


From my knowledge the 90s started in 1990 and ended in 99, it's the same with centuries and millenia, the new millenium started back in 2000 not in 2001.  It wouldn't make much sense for the year 1960 to be part of the 50s but that's just me  btw wikipedia agrees with me (for what it's worth) as does Merrian-webster, just some websites I got from googling it

With apologies to the OP for going a bit off topic here:

there was no year zero, so the calendar started at year one. Therefore, the first decade was year 1 to 10, the second was year 11 to 20, and so on. So yes, the millennium actually started in 2001.

That is correct, year "0" would actually be 1 BC.

[Eurypterid]

See, I told you it would be a big can o' worms. To use a creaky and tired old phrase, I'll just say "Let's agree to disagree" and leave it at that.

[Onyx Jaguar]

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

Liberal Media Propaganda

Those bastards have been fluoridating our review scores for years

[Sylvius the Mad]

drahelvete wrote...

It has. http://social.biowar...1/index/6006344
/waits for conspiracy theorists to come in and tell everyone that the reviewer was "bought off" by EA/BioWare.

It's a mainstream game media review.  It effectively has.

The Academy Awards don't exist to criticise bad movies.  They don't even exist to \\reward good movies.  They exist to promote movies generally.  PC Gamer does effectively the same thing for PC gaming.  It is not in their interests to criticise a game that they expect to be successful.

[My Avatar is a Lizard]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

Liberal Media Propaganda

Those bastards have been fluoridating our review scores for years

OHOHOHO

LOOK AT THIS LIBERAL TRYING TO DEFEND HIS LIBERALISM BY CALLING PEOPLE LIBERAL.


I see through your lies