ALavaPenguin

Probably not because they will likely have all recently played the game, or at least within the last yearish. Honestly I think steal my sunshine works so well because of how BS that game is half the time and I bet Odyssey is more reasonable. That said, I would totally watch a full playthrough of the game if it was from the right person on the site, but I bet that the new one will not work as well with the same format unless they really did the rules and all didn't play the game until it happened [or it was many many years later]

Honestly The Division to me felt like they sold a game that never was. Even going back to the bombcasts that lead up to it, it seemed the bombcast crew also thought it was a very different game that it ended up being. So much of their pre release made it sound more mmo-ish. Obviously I would not consider it an MMO even what they were sorta promising, but more in that pseudo-mmo direction. The game just felt too much like here is a watered down open world game but we have some minor multiplayer hooks in it. SO I would want a game more in that direction.

That is not to say that that I don't have a lot of positive to say about the game, but it just feel short in a very strong way for me in some big areas.

I remember trying to buy a big thing of just "legos" a while back but I couldn't find any of it. I will have to look again.

I could go for a new star trek, but everything I have seen about this one does seem to turn me off. I will have to look into it though. Sounds almost like a combo between Enterprise [yuck] and the huge episode arc of deep space nine I hated. I will see though :) I don't really know that much about it actually. I mean, how all seems to take place with a war setting in it just is very uninteresting to me. Star trek can be good with war episodes/arcs, but a whole premise on it becomes too much. Star trek is at it's best peaceful [in the big picture peaceful, doesn't mean there wont' be one off battles]. And it being a prequel if they ever do "explore" here come a ton of contrivances for if they do find anything interesting and new why it was never in the later parts of the series [ToS, TNG, ect].

I would rather just have them make it take place after everything else that already happened.

I would say no as you seem to be talking universally and I bet there are quite a few exceptions.

as much as the market and necessary contracts allow them to get

I just recently played through the game for the first time this summer. I liked the glory kills. The thing is, the animations were quick enough that they never got in the way, and they actually were an interesting gameplay strategy.

If something was tuned slightly off, they would have been obnoxious. But to me they worked. If they were slightly slower animations, or didn't give any bonuses, ect.

I am someone who never really cared for "oh cool look at that gory mess I made that demon ect" in games, but they were quick enough, and looked cool enough, while having very fun gameplay implications.

For some games I think you could make an argument that they are basically just movies with light interaction anyway.... but for most games simply watching a game is not at all getting near the same experience as actually playing them. The person streaming is actually part of the "performance" as well.

Think of it this way, there are some people who watching a game may be all I would want out of it, that is true. They don't end up buying the product in most cases, but for the most part the amount of sales that streaming gets probably way outweighs those people. If you watch a game being played enough there is a good chance you actually will want to buy it yourself to play also. Not always the case though, but in many.

The worst case though is the games that are just making an interactive narrative as their big selling point of their game. I tend to have little sympathy for that because at some point I actually think a game should be fun to play as well as having a good story. in those story ones I heavily prefer watching someone else play because as someone who has no one to play those games with..... it is just more enjoyable to "watch" the interactive story with someone than do it alone.

I would actually say Jeff. HOWEVER not in the types of games we tend to like. There is some overlap [talking only about new releases of modern games] but we vary a lot there.... but I tend to agree with his opinions on games the most. So separating taste, def Jeff.

I prefer 2d by far. But, I think 3d can often do things that 2d can't do to the same degree.

What I really want though is more practical effects in live action movies than lifeless cg effects that are everywhere.