This game looks awesome...I'm super excited for Friday.

The much larger install base seems like a more probable explanation than any supposed differences between playerbases. We aren't comparing cats to dogs.

That said, i don't think 1886 will outsell every currently released X1 exclusive (assuming it isn't heavily bundled). It should sell well on the back of everything it does excel at, but i can't see it doing that well, even with having more people to sell it too.

Who knows though. I have the predication skill of a carrot.

what you're basically saying is that you have nothing to counter my point with. I'm flattered but, next time just don't post anything.

There is nothing to counter as there is no valid point. But thanks for your suggestion but I will keep posting as I like, when I like and how and not like you like

the fact that people are saying $60 is too much for a 6-7hr'ish game that is heavily focused on cinematic storytelling experience but yet, fail to see that you can watch 5-6 movies for $60 for that same length of time.

explain to me how that is not valid, without your wine and blowjob jokes. By all means try if you can, but if you cannot, then just ignore this post.

Pretty much. And honestly, there aren't many "nooks and crannies" to explore, nor is the game littered with opportunities to explore any.

But watching movies is not the same as buying and play a game. Again, we should compare games with games and movies with movies. You don't even own the movies after you watched them in cinema. The difference is that it is not to be expected to be owned. If I buy a game for $60 I expect more than a movie because I can expect this from other games, too. This means there are different value indicators for movies than there are for games, especially if you consider how much money went in the makings and how the price is set up.

I also don't compare video games with board games. You can find board games for $10, they have immense replay value, offer multiplayer, razor sharp "graphics" and you have offline multiplayer but the comparison is still off for obvious reasons.

Yeah, I can hardly think of many games that are hard on normal. Though every poll I see on what difficulty most people play on, the dominant answer always is normal by a lot. These people would mostly benefit by starting on hard. It just makes a person so much better and open minded and ready to take on true challenges like Souls. 

I beat of Max Payne 3 on hard except for the final mission. As it just jumped in difficulty greatly. I was kind of annoyed I just barely missed the hard trophy.

Yea I just feel like on normal I'm running through the game and I don't like that i wont some challenege. I'll be the first to admit though that the Dark Souls series are to hard for me. I'm just not good at those games at all.

Maxy Payne 3 only gave me real issues on two parts. One where the building falls down and you have to beat the section quickly. Then another part where you are on the yatcht and these guys are shooting from the docks. The building falling though was the worst one.

I'm comparing the value, which is comparable, so yeah I think my point remains. So far I see value in the level of graphical detail, acting, cinematography etc. movie, games, and movie like games, is still a form of entertainment media, and RAD specifically said they're aiming for a cinamatic experience.  The question of good, boring or bad still remains until I play it.