Are you sure this coverage is exclusive? I just read about this product in detail on GameSpot last night (the same date listed at the bottom of this PCG announcement).

"Baker must lead his squad through one of the most punishing Allied defeats in World War II: Operation Market Garden." Actually, Market Garden was one of the least punishing "defeats" for the Allies during WWII, if you compare it to the fall of France in 1940, or the Nazi blitzkrieg that captured much of Europe between 1939 and 1943. How about the merciless crushing of the Warsaw uprising in the summer of 1944? I could go on and on... except that Market Garden wasn't even a defeat. Most of its objectives were taken. Only the British and Polish Airborne forces were mauled. The U.S. paratroopers survived to fight another day. Market Garden didn't "end the war by Christmas," but it sure helped liberate a lot of territory. That's not what I would call defeat.

This article is refreshing and interesting because the writing style of its author mirrors his mature subject. I'm disgusted with video game "journalists" universally paroting the same cliches and buzzwords spewed by marketers. Even better, this piece contained zero baditude. I want to sincerly thank Charlie Barratt for not wasting my time or insulting my intelligence with dead language like "basically," or "core" or "in terms of." Every time I hear or read some journalist describe anything as "core," it seems like the strangulation of thought. Fire every hack "writer" in games jouralism, and put Barratt in charge.

That would be awesome if I could read just one article that doesn't include the meaningless word "core" and the dead phrase "in terms of". If life was a drinking game, and everybody had to down a shot every time somebody wrote "core" and "in terms of", we'd all be dead from alcohol poisoning.

I reviewed my last comment, and now it looks wordy. I'm going crazy! In summary:
1. "In their early days, videogames were a crude and unsubtle medium." (Weak!)
2. "Early video games were crude and blunt." (Strong!)
P.S. They're still crude and blunt. (I win!)

"Videogames" is correct style? Okay... "headachepills." It seems like this style evolved from a collective desire to avoid pressing the space bar. Using a singular description (medium) for a plural subject (video games) is awkward. By the way, what is a medium? You can't touch, smell or taste it. Weigh it on a scale, and the result is zero. The word is like fog, and adds neither clarity nor meaning to the sentence. Just say, "Early video games were crude and unsublte." Except that last word is awkward, too. Replace it with "blunt," and the statement grows balls, while "unsubtle" is merely the opposite of... more fog. My point is trivial compared to life-and-death events like war or famine, but I've become disillusioned with games journalism. I'm a curious and enthusiastic gamer, but sloppy, cliched and bloated writing is an aggravating obstacle I encounter every time I read about games.

In this article, David Houghton writes, "In their early days, videogames [sic -- "video games" should be spelled as two words] were a crude and unsubtle medium..." Besides the lousy, unprofessional grammar ("video games" are plural, while "medium" is singular, and redundant), this sentence brings up the obvious question, "As opposed to now?" "Crude and unsubtle" is a good description of 95 percent of games on store shelves today.