The PC doesn't need AAA games, it's doing plenty fine with kickstarter and indie games completely dominating the platform. Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns, RimWorld, Minecraft, Broken Age, Prison Architect, Cities: Skylines, Satellite Reign, Hyper Light Drifter, Star Citizen, Elite: Dangerous... the list goes on and on.
Steam machines don't need to take over either, they're just an alternative to the ever growing platform of choice for gaming. Steam hit 9+ million concurrent users this month and there's no sign of it slowing. If I was Sony, Microsoft and especially Nintendo, I'd be really worried about this. The hardware is becoming irrelevant. What matters is the games and the platform you provide for gaming.
It's amazing how one man can so completely destroy a country, both politically and culturally in under a decade. The CRA (the Canadian version of the IRS) is currently doing audits of non-profit organizations and revoking the non-profit status of organizations that have political ideologies that go against the Conservative agenda.
I can't wait for the next election and I sincerely hope the PC's are so savagaley beaten at the polls that they'll be laughed out of town on the oil wagon they rolled in on.
Almost no games get below 40, while any game that doesn't get 80 or more is considerd a failure. Then you have people giving games 3 out of 5 stars which translates to a score of 60, which skews things even more. Plus tent pole games like CoD can be executed extremely well but offer nothing new so how do you review that? There are games with low interaction (point and click) or high interaction (RTS). How do you compare one against the other? Good reviews are also often given despite massive bugs, incomplete games being released or week 1 launch disasters (like Diablo III).
It's issues like that which make me understand the no score review trend.
I don't know about that. Reading the Reddit AMA with Harrison Ford, it seems he enjoys making films that entertain people.
He also isn't terribly sentimental or nostalgic. He doesn't own many props from the films he's been in and the berevitiy of some of his scenes ("I love you", "I know" and shooting the swordsman in the first Indiana Jones) seems to be directly tied to Harrison Ford cutting through the bullshit and getting to the point. I wouldn't say he's a phony, he's just not into all the fluff surrounding his characters and I think that's what actually draws people to his performance.
e.g. Our intro to him in Star Wars is a business deal, followed by shooting an alien that talks too much. That's Harrison Ford. That's what he does, that's why people like him and that's why Han Solo saying "May the force be with you" is such a big deal; Han Solo (and Harrison Ford) do not care about the mythos and the jargon while everyone else is falling head over heels for it.
In that regard, he's probably one of the most authentic actors in Holly Wood.
Really? The Monitor? Did you just suggest an Arctic expedition that vanished ~170 years ago and claimed 128 lives is of less archaeological importance than a ship that capsized in a storm while under tow?