Slashdot Mirror

Really? That doesn't sound right to me. I guess there were no sequels before now.

Really? That doesn't sound right to me. I guess there were no sequels before now.

Really? That doesn't sound right to me. I guess there were no sequels before now.

Really? That doesn't sound right to me. I guess there were no sequels before now.

Holy crap was this a game bad. So, so bad. I wanted to beat my friend for making me spend 5 minutes playing this game. I cannot believe that they didn't put it on the list Gamerankings.com Wikipedia

The Getaway already has a startlingly accurate virtual London.

First you seem to complain how developers are only interested in graphics and celebrity voice overs. Then you say how Tron 2.0 sucked and that it lacked - celebrity voice overs. Maybe you were kidding. FWIW, Tron 2.0 is considered to be a fairly good game, to quote the Eurogamer review: "It certainly isn't going to win any awards for pushing the envelope, but it's a damn sight better than most of the generic FPS tripe we've seen pass through the office over the last year or so."

My major roadblock at this point with getting an Xbox 360 is the cost. I can't drop 399$ on a console. It's ludicrous. To shell out that much on a console with only a handful of playable games is disturbing, almost. Some of the most hyped titles - Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter, for example - apparently aren't even worth the plastic the disk is printed on from a playability standpoint.

Are you sure you are thinking about GRAW? It's not really my kind of thing at all (I spend most of my X360 time with DOA4), but it would be hard for me to argue it isn't a great game. In general most of the big X360 titles have been pretty well received, though I certainly wouldn't begrudge somebody for waiting for a larger library...

If it's product placement in like.. GT5 where you can buy a GReddy turbo what ever.. I can *put up* with that.

That's not really product placement, and I wouldn't be surprised if they had to pay Greddy to use their name and logo. Now if Greddy was the only brand of turbocharger you could buy in the game (look at Need For Speed: Most Wanted, for example), that would be product placement. In GT4, it's "realism". Perhaps only Greddy supplies a turbo for the car you're trying to modify, so the only turbo you can buy is a Greddy. Modify another car and you may have a choice of different brands, or Greddy may not even make an appropriate turbo so they're not listed.

The same is true for the cars. It's not product placement to be able to drive a Honda Civic or a Ford Mustang. It's "realism", and Polyphony Digital paid for a license to use those cars. If you were playing Ford Racing 3, that's advertising. Ford paid to have that game made using only Ford products. And it's not just cars and car parts. Real-life tracks in games like Gran Turismo have the same problem of advertising vs. licensing. Polyphony Digital can't just go and take pictures of the track and use them for textures, because those textures may contain real ads that PD doesn't have the rights to use. If they want to use all of the same ads as the real life track, they're going to have to go to each advertiser and try to get the rights (either convince the company to pay for the ad space in the game, which they probably won't go for, or pay the company a licensing fee to use their already-existing advertising). That's why you'll see a lot of "placeholder" ads with stuff like "Sony" or "GT" on them (or "Microsoft" or "Xbox" in the case of Forza), because they couldn't get the rights to display the real ads. In this case, though the ads are still advertisements in the real world, they're not advertisements in-game. If Polyphony Digital or Turn 10 (the Forza developers) took the EA route, they'd just replace all real-world ads with the ads of companies who paid them. You'd get to race at "Burger King Laguna Seca" instead of "Mazda Laguna Seca", and that would just suck.

The site seems slashdoted so i can't see for myself, but is it really that big deal? Sites with reviews are a dime a dozen, even sites focused on a single machine aren't that uncommon, and if the quality of their reviews is any better than the average you'll see them rise to the top of the GameRankins lists after awhile anyways. (You're allowed to rate each review for each game and the aggregate score is displayed when you look at the list of reviews.)

O RLY? All the reviews I've seen are pretty positive. Or are you one of the folks who still think McIGN has objective review staff? After a 45 hour play through on Proud Difficulty, I thouhgt it was a massive improvement over the first.

Also, the Tron world kicks ass!

And yet - they have a $400 console, the games for the system so far are a lot of FPS games, then there's Condemned, and Dead or Alive 4

Eh? First off, Condemned == FPS. But that's not my point. Let's look at some games, shall we? Let's start with the current Recent Top Games for 360 from GameRankings (this list may change, of course):

• Oblivion - not an FPS, though it is from a first-person perspective.
• GRAW - Third-person shooter. I don't much care for the Ghost Recon series, so I don't know if it's playable from a first-person perspective this time around.
• Burnout Revenge - Crash simulator (I would call it a "racing game", but it's not). Not an FPS, though you could play it from a first-person perspective
• Fight Night Round 3 - Boxing. not an FPS. There is some first-person perspective bits, but that's not the normal camera mode.
• Tomb Raider: Legend - Third-person adventure.
• Marble Blast Ultra - Maybe you're not counting XBLA games, but if not you should. Definitely not an FPS.
• Far Cry Instincts Predator - The first real FPS on the list!
• Top Spin 2 - Tennis. Not an FPS
• The Outfit - Third-person squad-based tactical shooter. More RTS than FPS, really.
• Full Auto - "racing" game with guns. As with all racing games, you may play from a first-person perspective, but that doesn't make it an FPS.

So far, I'd say that if Microsoft intends for the 360 to be a "non-hardcore" system, then so far they're doing a crappy job of it. Right now, it *defines* the hardcore console gamer.

"Non-hardcore" != "targetting the kids". In fact, I'd consider non-hardcore to be more about targetting casual gamers rather than getting the 6-year-old crowd. In that respect, the 360 is doing an awesome job with Xbox Live Arcade. Maybe the mainstream titles don't appeal to non-hardcore gamers (which I would argue should not be the case -- for every BattleField 2, there's a Top Spin 2 or Fight Night Round 3 that a non-hardcore gamer could love), but your non-hardcore gamers aren't nearly as likely to spend $60 on a game anyway. They'll spend the same amount of money on $5-10 casual games, though, which is where XBLA comes in.

You mean a site like this? It's currently rating Retro Atari Clasics (which i presume is the one you mean) at 48%

If you're looking for coop go with The Adventures of Cookies & Cream for PS2. It's totally simple to play (anyone should be able to pick it up in a matter of minutes) and requires real teamwork to get through. Might have to go to ebay to find a copy these days, though.

but there's really no such thing as an offline MMORPG is there?

yes, there is

There are a TON of games released already with 9.0+ ratings. COD2, PD0, PGR3, GRAW, FNR3, etc. With Elder Scrolls 3 coming out in a week the 360 will have an absolute ton of top-end titles.

Game ranking scores ( Averages all the reviews out there)
Call of Duty : 90.1%
GRAW: 89.6%
PGR3 : 88.7%
FNR3 : 86.7%
PD0 : 81.7%

So, basically one game that's +9.0 on average (min 5 reviews). Don't be misleading.
Nobody in their right minds would buy the $300 one which lacks the HDD, so it really costs $400.

How about Galactic Civilizations II? Three editor's choices from GameSpot, GameSpy and IGN. Yes, I work for Stardock, but it's still a cool game. :-)

"but when the hell has Boob Raider been critically acclaimed?"

At this point and this point.

I wouldn't know, I never played it myself precisely because of the big boobies. Not that I don't like big boobies, but history has taught us that they're used to sell shitty products, so I've always discriminated againt them in cases like this.

"but when the hell has Boob Raider been critically acclaimed?"

At this point and this point.

I wouldn't know, I never played it myself precisely because of the big boobies. Not that I don't like big boobies, but history has taught us that they're used to sell shitty products, so I've always discriminated againt them in cases like this.

Although there are various communities on the web, there is no centralized source of information for the customers. If you could develop an online community to encourage collaboration and information sharing, what features would you want included? How would you go about including features that are widely available in other places (weblogging, message boards, wiki) and generating buy-in from customers.

I figure anyone who makes a post that long and makes some decent points deserves a reply, so I'll bite ...

The 5th gen was a little more illusive, as the PS2/Gamecube/XBox era doesn't exactly add anything completely new that wasn't in the previous generation. But in this case, the pitfalls of the previous gen systems were becoming painfully obvious, and I think the general gaming community agreed that it was time to fix these things. This was the generation of attempting to achieve "realism", something the previous generation could bearily even strive for: the closest thing was probably FF8, but games of that graphical calliber were few and far between, and even in that case, we're still dealing with 2D backgrounds. Thus, it was becoming clear that the things that game manufacturers wanted to be able to do were not possible with the previous generation, so the PS2/GameCube/XBox were a welcomed update.

First of all, a quick correction, FF8 was actually made for the original Playstation. FFX was the first FF game for the PS2, with the pretty graphics, and that's probably the game you were thinking of.

Anyway, I wanted to point out something about your last statement, that going from the PS/N64 generation to the PS2/Xbox/GC one was a "welcome update". I think that's the case with EVERY generation, including the one that's upcoming (it won't be complete till the Revolution and PS3 are released). The technical leap from graphics/technology may not be so obvious at first, but that's been the expectation with every generation. If you recall, the first launch games for the PS2 were not all that pretty or great, and a number of folks questioned whether or not they were truly next-gen. Of course, it took the release of games like FFX and GTA3 a year or two later before it was really obvious that the PS2 was far better than the PS.

It's going to be the same way with the 360, PS3, and Revolution. The really outstanding games are probably going to be released a few months to a year after the initial launch. Actually, if you take a look at reviews for the 360 version of Fight Night Round 3, you'll find that a lot of people are saying that game's graphics are really setting the "next-gen" bar. (Unfortunately there are apparently gameplay issues that mar the title as well)

I'll admit that the exception is Nintendo. As we all know and hopefully admit, Mario 64 was a launch title for the N64 and blew everything out of the water. For many, that game was the epitome of taking 2D platforms to the next dimension (literally!). It would have been great if MS did something similar, like with Halo 3, but given that Halo 2 shipped just a year earlier, that was pretty much impossible. I think Sony is trying to hype up the next version of Killzone to be their "Mario 64", but we'll just have to see when that game releases, as the previous game wasn't all that good. I do hope Nintendo does launch with an outstanding game, as Luigi's Mansion obviously didn't do it. I suspect they'll launch with a first-party title (or two) that really defines why the Revolution controller really is the way to go for the future.

The graphical capabilities of the XBox and Gamecube have just bearily begun to be challanged, and while the PS2 is obviously a little dated, most gamers are perfectly happy with the titles available for it. When you have gamers looking in awe at screen shots of Zelda: TTP and FF12, you know its not quite yet the time to release a new system.

Funny you mention FFXII. After playing a couple of 360 launch games, I went back to playing RPGs, namely Dragon Quest VIII for the PS2. It includes an FFXII demo disc inside. I actually thought quite the opposite of your comment. "Man, this looks butt-ugly! I can't WAIT till the next Final Fantasy game comes out for a next-gen system.

I figure anyone who makes a post that long and makes some decent points deserves a reply, so I'll bite ...

The 5th gen was a little more illusive, as the PS2/Gamecube/XBox era doesn't exactly add anything completely new that wasn't in the previous generation. But in this case, the pitfalls of the previous gen systems were becoming painfully obvious, and I think the general gaming community agreed that it was time to fix these things. This was the generation of attempting to achieve "realism", something the previous generation could bearily even strive for: the closest thing was probably FF8, but games of that graphical calliber were few and far between, and even in that case, we're still dealing with 2D backgrounds. Thus, it was becoming clear that the things that game manufacturers wanted to be able to do were not possible with the previous generation, so the PS2/GameCube/XBox were a welcomed update.

First of all, a quick correction, FF8 was actually made for the original Playstation. FFX was the first FF game for the PS2, with the pretty graphics, and that's probably the game you were thinking of.

Anyway, I wanted to point out something about your last statement, that going from the PS/N64 generation to the PS2/Xbox/GC one was a "welcome update". I think that's the case with EVERY generation, including the one that's upcoming (it won't be complete till the Revolution and PS3 are released). The technical leap from graphics/technology may not be so obvious at first, but that's been the expectation with every generation. If you recall, the first launch games for the PS2 were not all that pretty or great, and a number of folks questioned whether or not they were truly next-gen. Of course, it took the release of games like FFX and GTA3 a year or two later before it was really obvious that the PS2 was far better than the PS.

It's going to be the same way with the 360, PS3, and Revolution. The really outstanding games are probably going to be released a few months to a year after the initial launch. Actually, if you take a look at reviews for the 360 version of Fight Night Round 3, you'll find that a lot of people are saying that game's graphics are really setting the "next-gen" bar. (Unfortunately there are apparently gameplay issues that mar the title as well)

I'll admit that the exception is Nintendo. As we all know and hopefully admit, Mario 64 was a launch title for the N64 and blew everything out of the water. For many, that game was the epitome of taking 2D platforms to the next dimension (literally!). It would have been great if MS did something similar, like with Halo 3, but given that Halo 2 shipped just a year earlier, that was pretty much impossible. I think Sony is trying to hype up the next version of Killzone to be their "Mario 64", but we'll just have to see when that game releases, as the previous game wasn't all that good. I do hope Nintendo does launch with an outstanding game, as Luigi's Mansion obviously didn't do it. I suspect they'll launch with a first-party title (or two) that really defines why the Revolution controller really is the way to go for the future.

The graphical capabilities of the XBox and Gamecube have just bearily begun to be challanged, and while the PS2 is obviously a little dated, most gamers are perfectly happy with the titles available for it. When you have gamers looking in awe at screen shots of Zelda: TTP and FF12, you know its not quite yet the time to release a new system.

Funny you mention FFXII. After playing a couple of 360 launch games, I went back to playing RPGs, namely Dragon Quest VIII for the PS2. It includes an FFXII demo disc inside. I actually thought quite the opposite of your comment. "Man, this looks butt-ugly! I can't WAIT till the next Final Fantasy game comes out for a next-gen system.

• It's February, bordering on March. To the best of my knowledge, if I wasn't on a list at the launch, I STILL can't walk into someplace and buy one.
• Launch titles have been tepid at best. Even a source that should mitigate fanboyism like Game Rankings has a 76% average rating for the 10th ranked game. That can't be good, although I have no historical comparisons.
• Non-US sales have not been good.

Sony sees this, and might be thinking that they're in no hurry here:

• The 360 might be slightly problematic in the US, but the launch is not setting the world on fire. Microsoft is unlikely to saturate the market without a severe price cut, which won't happen.
• They're still probably ok in Japan, especially as the Revolution appears to be setting itself up as a secondary console. Third party support for the Revolution might not be good with that weird (but cool) controller.
• Prices of the components are going to fall in the meantime, so they either come in WAY below sales price estimates, or lose a lot less money per console sold.

Where exactly is the pressure to launch quickly? The first 360 price cut will probably be for Xmas, but launch the PS3 in Japan in June, then US in October or so, and do it at $450 (better yet, $399), and they'll be fine, assuming the 360 goes to $350 snazzy, $250 core. If MS goes to $300/$200, it might get interesting, but historically, that's one DEEP cut on a year old console.

I'm just not seeing why the delay is such big news. I think it could easily work in Sony's favor.

One of the hardware issues I had read about the 360 when it was in production - the software companies developing for the 360 had to *REQUEST* 512 megs of RAM to be put in the system - MS was gonna put a measley 256 in the 360!

At least Microsoft listened.

If virtually every PC game (made to run on the OS Microsoft made, mind you) has a minimum of 256 and a recommended of 512 RAM, wouldnt it apply to consoles also?

Nope. PC games need so much RAM because they aren't the only thing running on a system and they can't make assumptions about the environment where they'll run (is the hard drive or optical drive fast enough to stream textures in a Just In Time manner?). Conversely, consoles are a solid target. You can make assumptions about the hardware, and you can write your code in such a way that RAM is nothing more than a temporary buffer as you pull stuff off of the hard drive or optical disk. That's how the Xbox got by with only 64MB of unified memory in 2001 (and the PS2 has only 4MB of video buffer!), and that's why the 360 could've done just fine with 256MB of RAM and is a console developer's wet dream at 512MB.

When a system launches, it should hav *no* problem playing launch games, and then towards the end of that console's ability to provide an abundance of GPU and CPU power, the truly KILLER apps get released for it (note on the PS2, Killzone, the soon to be released "Black", ect)

I haven't seen much about Black on the PS2, but you conveniently forgot to mention that it'll also be out on Xbox. Having played the demo, I didn't find it to be all that special, and I probably won't pick it up until I can get it used (to avoid lining EA's pockets). As for Killzone, I'm surprised you can mention that game with a straight face. It was supposed to be a Halo killer (keep in mind, Killzone shipped in 2004 while Halo shipped in 2001), and ended up with boring gameplay and a host of graphical and audio issues. While Halo has an average review rating of 96% and Halo 2 averages at 95%, Killzone has an average rating of only 73%. It's a little better if you look at user ratings rather than "official" reviews: H1/H2 average 8.8 and 8.3, while Killzone averages 7.7. Since those numbers are from users, they're obviously full of fanboys for and against both games, giving H2 a 1/10 because it's not Half-Life 2, or giving it a 10/10 because they're blind with fanboyism.

Anyway, where was I going with this? Oh, yeah -- 512MB of RAM vs. 256MB is nice, but certainly wasn't absolutely necessary. However, it's interesting to note that given the choice between having a hard drive as standard equipment (ie, no Core 360) or 512MB of RAM, almost every developer chose to have 512MB of RAM.

One of the hardware issues I had read about the 360 when it was in production - the software companies developing for the 360 had to *REQUEST* 512 megs of RAM to be put in the system - MS was gonna put a measley 256 in the 360!

At least Microsoft listened.

If virtually every PC game (made to run on the OS Microsoft made, mind you) has a minimum of 256 and a recommended of 512 RAM, wouldnt it apply to consoles also?

Nope. PC games need so much RAM because they aren't the only thing running on a system and they can't make assumptions about the environment where they'll run (is the hard drive or optical drive fast enough to stream textures in a Just In Time manner?). Conversely, consoles are a solid target. You can make assumptions about the hardware, and you can write your code in such a way that RAM is nothing more than a temporary buffer as you pull stuff off of the hard drive or optical disk. That's how the Xbox got by with only 64MB of unified memory in 2001 (and the PS2 has only 4MB of video buffer!), and that's why the 360 could've done just fine with 256MB of RAM and is a console developer's wet dream at 512MB.

When a system launches, it should hav *no* problem playing launch games, and then towards the end of that console's ability to provide an abundance of GPU and CPU power, the truly KILLER apps get released for it (note on the PS2, Killzone, the soon to be released "Black", ect)

I haven't seen much about Black on the PS2, but you conveniently forgot to mention that it'll also be out on Xbox. Having played the demo, I didn't find it to be all that special, and I probably won't pick it up until I can get it used (to avoid lining EA's pockets). As for Killzone, I'm surprised you can mention that game with a straight face. It was supposed to be a Halo killer (keep in mind, Killzone shipped in 2004 while Halo shipped in 2001), and ended up with boring gameplay and a host of graphical and audio issues. While Halo has an average review rating of 96% and Halo 2 averages at 95%, Killzone has an average rating of only 73%. It's a little better if you look at user ratings rather than "official" reviews: H1/H2 average 8.8 and 8.3, while Killzone averages 7.7. Since those numbers are from users, they're obviously full of fanboys for and against both games, giving H2 a 1/10 because it's not Half-Life 2, or giving it a 10/10 because they're blind with fanboyism.

Anyway, where was I going with this? Oh, yeah -- 512MB of RAM vs. 256MB is nice, but certainly wasn't absolutely necessary. However, it's interesting to note that given the choice between having a hard drive as standard equipment (ie, no Core 360) or 512MB of RAM, almost every developer chose to have 512MB of RAM.

One of the hardware issues I had read about the 360 when it was in production - the software companies developing for the 360 had to *REQUEST* 512 megs of RAM to be put in the system - MS was gonna put a measley 256 in the 360!

At least Microsoft listened.

If virtually every PC game (made to run on the OS Microsoft made, mind you) has a minimum of 256 and a recommended of 512 RAM, wouldnt it apply to consoles also?

Nope. PC games need so much RAM because they aren't the only thing running on a system and they can't make assumptions about the environment where they'll run (is the hard drive or optical drive fast enough to stream textures in a Just In Time manner?). Conversely, consoles are a solid target. You can make assumptions about the hardware, and you can write your code in such a way that RAM is nothing more than a temporary buffer as you pull stuff off of the hard drive or optical disk. That's how the Xbox got by with only 64MB of unified memory in 2001 (and the PS2 has only 4MB of video buffer!), and that's why the 360 could've done just fine with 256MB of RAM and is a console developer's wet dream at 512MB.

When a system launches, it should hav *no* problem playing launch games, and then towards the end of that console's ability to provide an abundance of GPU and CPU power, the truly KILLER apps get released for it (note on the PS2, Killzone, the soon to be released "Black", ect)

I haven't seen much about Black on the PS2, but you conveniently forgot to mention that it'll also be out on Xbox. Having played the demo, I didn't find it to be all that special, and I probably won't pick it up until I can get it used (to avoid lining EA's pockets). As for Killzone, I'm surprised you can mention that game with a straight face. It was supposed to be a Halo killer (keep in mind, Killzone shipped in 2004 while Halo shipped in 2001), and ended up with boring gameplay and a host of graphical and audio issues. While Halo has an average review rating of 96% and Halo 2 averages at 95%, Killzone has an average rating of only 73%. It's a little better if you look at user ratings rather than "official" reviews: H1/H2 average 8.8 and 8.3, while Killzone averages 7.7. Since those numbers are from users, they're obviously full of fanboys for and against both games, giving H2 a 1/10 because it's not Half-Life 2, or giving it a 10/10 because they're blind with fanboyism.

Anyway, where was I going with this? Oh, yeah -- 512MB of RAM vs. 256MB is nice, but certainly wasn't absolutely necessary. However, it's interesting to note that given the choice between having a hard drive as standard equipment (ie, no Core 360) or 512MB of RAM, almost every developer chose to have 512MB of RAM.

Games? See how many other consoles are released with *4* titles grabbing 90+/100 ratings at launch. COD2, PD0, Kameo, and PGR3

Where exactly are you getting your review scores? Gamerankings lists only CoD as having an average review of 90/100, with all other games lower.

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simplerat ings.asp

Outlaw Volleyball got pretty decent reviews.

Yeah, I'm going to disagree.

Not true, Even though Lugi's Haunted Mansion didn't star Mario, I still consider it a mario game.

LM is an "action adventure" game. Sunshine is a 3d platformer.
Normally, "Mario" games are only the Platformer games.

Considering Luigi's Mansion got an average of 79% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/516494.asp ) and Sunshine an average of 92% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/533287.asp ), it seems most critics agree that SMS is the better game.

Yeah, I'm going to disagree.

Not true, Even though Lugi's Haunted Mansion didn't star Mario, I still consider it a mario game.

LM is an "action adventure" game. Sunshine is a 3d platformer.
Normally, "Mario" games are only the Platformer games.

Considering Luigi's Mansion got an average of 79% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/516494.asp ) and Sunshine an average of 92% (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/533287.asp ), it seems most critics agree that SMS is the better game.

Games released Jan 2003 - Jan 2006 that provided > 3 months of replay value for me:

Civilization IV (November 2005): Booyah. 3 months might be stretching it, but this is the best Civ game in a long time, and I've already logged 80+ hours playing this so far.

World of Warcraft (November 2004): No, I don't want to think about how much time I've spent playing it, but I've had an active account for the past 14 months, for whatever that's worth, and I keep logging in and playing "just another hour...".

Neverwinter Nights - Shadows of Undrentide (June 2003), Hordes of the Underdark (December 2003): Two expansion packs for NwN. While I didn't spend a lot of time playing the single-player campaign, I don't know how much time I spent building modules, playing games online, or playing through 3rd-party modules. I keep going back to the game because it provides so many opportunities.

Civ III Conquests (November 2003): Expansion pack for Civ III, but as with Civ IV above, I got my money's worth out of this purchase with hundreds of hours total play time on this expansion.

Now, I've bought other games during the past 3 years that I haven't played that much (The Sims 2 and Sid Meier's Pirates! in the past year), but I've found a few enjoyable ones to come back and play, and that's just the best out of the 2 genres I spend time playing. RPGs and, um, Civ. Yes, it *is* its own genre.

For consoles, I could probably add Halo + Halo 2 on Xbox, Madden , and Mario Kart on the GameCube to round these off, since those are the "social" games I play with other folks that I keep coming back to. Plus Final Fantasy Tactics on the GBA for downtime like plane flights, public transit, waiting for people, etc.

Maybe these don't float your boat, but I have fun with 'em.

Games released Jan 2003 - Jan 2006 that provided > 3 months of replay value for me:

Civilization IV (November 2005): Booyah. 3 months might be stretching it, but this is the best Civ game in a long time, and I've already logged 80+ hours playing this so far.

World of Warcraft (November 2004): No, I don't want to think about how much time I've spent playing it, but I've had an active account for the past 14 months, for whatever that's worth, and I keep logging in and playing "just another hour...".

Neverwinter Nights - Shadows of Undrentide (June 2003), Hordes of the Underdark (December 2003): Two expansion packs for NwN. While I didn't spend a lot of time playing the single-player campaign, I don't know how much time I spent building modules, playing games online, or playing through 3rd-party modules. I keep going back to the game because it provides so many opportunities.

Civ III Conquests (November 2003): Expansion pack for Civ III, but as with Civ IV above, I got my money's worth out of this purchase with hundreds of hours total play time on this expansion.

Now, I've bought other games during the past 3 years that I haven't played that much (The Sims 2 and Sid Meier's Pirates! in the past year), but I've found a few enjoyable ones to come back and play, and that's just the best out of the 2 genres I spend time playing. RPGs and, um, Civ. Yes, it *is* its own genre.

For consoles, I could probably add Halo + Halo 2 on Xbox, Madden , and Mario Kart on the GameCube to round these off, since those are the "social" games I play with other folks that I keep coming back to. Plus Final Fantasy Tactics on the GBA for downtime like plane flights, public transit, waiting for people, etc.

Maybe these don't float your boat, but I have fun with 'em.

Games released Jan 2003 - Jan 2006 that provided > 3 months of replay value for me:

Civilization IV (November 2005): Booyah. 3 months might be stretching it, but this is the best Civ game in a long time, and I've already logged 80+ hours playing this so far.

World of Warcraft (November 2004): No, I don't want to think about how much time I've spent playing it, but I've had an active account for the past 14 months, for whatever that's worth, and I keep logging in and playing "just another hour...".

Neverwinter Nights - Shadows of Undrentide (June 2003), Hordes of the Underdark (December 2003): Two expansion packs for NwN. While I didn't spend a lot of time playing the single-player campaign, I don't know how much time I spent building modules, playing games online, or playing through 3rd-party modules. I keep going back to the game because it provides so many opportunities.

Civ III Conquests (November 2003): Expansion pack for Civ III, but as with Civ IV above, I got my money's worth out of this purchase with hundreds of hours total play time on this expansion.

Now, I've bought other games during the past 3 years that I haven't played that much (The Sims 2 and Sid Meier's Pirates! in the past year), but I've found a few enjoyable ones to come back and play, and that's just the best out of the 2 genres I spend time playing. RPGs and, um, Civ. Yes, it *is* its own genre.

For consoles, I could probably add Halo + Halo 2 on Xbox, Madden , and Mario Kart on the GameCube to round these off, since those are the "social" games I play with other folks that I keep coming back to. Plus Final Fantasy Tactics on the GBA for downtime like plane flights, public transit, waiting for people, etc.

Maybe these don't float your boat, but I have fun with 'em.

I dont understand all this fuss about swapping discs. Hasn't it worked before? Look at Resident Evil 4 for the Gamecube, it has two discs but that hasn't stopped it from an average score of 96% http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/535840.asp or receiving Game of the Year awards http://www.gamespot.com/pages/features/bestof2005/ index.php?day=6&page=1. I understand that some games wouldn't suit multidisc that well, for example "free-roaming" games like GTA or RPGs, but some games (FPSs) could do well with a single player disc and a multiplayer disc. Alternatively why not put the single and multiplayer components of the game on separate layers of the DVD? I admit I know very little about DVD manufacture and suchlike so could someone please enlighten me why multidisc/layer is so bad?

Oops, I meant GameRankings not GameFAQs. GameFAQs is good too for walkthroughs, and there's a new site called Stuck Gamer that is posting video walkthroughs. Appears to be down at the moment, but there are some good gameplay videos there.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/542350.asp

UT has been on a console.

Or, more correctly, UT turned into 'Unreal Championship' on the Xbox. It was met with a decent response. It even spawned a sequel, which scored in the 90% range at most gaming journals.

Personally, I avoided it because Halo 2 was still (is still) pretty popular, and I didn't need another on-line FPS to play. (Since graduated to Call of Duty 2 on the 360)

Even if Halo 2 wasn't out, I probably would have avoided Unreal Championship 2 because the ultra-fast gameplay either doesn't suit the Xbox controller, or I am just too damn slow to figure it out.

2 minutes with Nintendogs on the display unit was enough to make me wonder about people all over again.

Wouldn't you agree that dismissing a game after playing it for 2 minutes - especially a game which got an average rating of 85% (per gamerankings) - could be just a tad premature?

Look, you can't possibly have seen more than a few % of the game after playing it for 2 minutes, and that's not even taking into account that the whole idea of Nintendogs is that you buy, name, train and play with your own dog in the game, not with a dog somebody else set up on a display unit.

I played Civ4 for a bit and found it quite enjoyable, BUT merely because it got another step closer to the perfection of SMAC (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri) .

With each new Civilization game they add "new" features that were in 1999 in SMAC: Borders, technology quotes, complex diplomacy, UN.

Everything was done before and better and it is really a sad year when Civ4 gets picked by IGn as game of the year.

I just wish Brian Reynolds would do another SMAC2 :(.

Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay

Look it up. I'm actually currently replaying it!

Oh here, I'll do it for ya: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/919755.asp? q=riddick

There's also a PC (director's cut) version: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/921671.asp? q=riddick

Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay

Look it up. I'm actually currently replaying it!

Oh here, I'll do it for ya: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/919755.asp? q=riddick

There's also a PC (director's cut) version: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/921671.asp? q=riddick

My favorite site for game reviews
http://www.gamespot.com/games.html?platform=&categ ory=Massively+Multiplayer&date_filter=all&type=top _rated

Another site that ranks games based on dozens of reviews(WoW has 60 reviews!)
http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simplerat ings.asp

The critics seem to agree that World of Warcraft is the best MMORPG ever made, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Was there ever any doubt that this kind of thing happens occasionally in the game review business? Thankfully there are alternatives to basing your purchases on these big-name low-integrity publishers. Websites like http://www.metacritic.com/ or http://www.gamerankings.com/ provide averages of many collected reviews, and cannot be corrupted as easily as if you trusted a single source review. You could also take your reviews more personally and visit one of the smaller Blog type sites like the one I write for, http://www.thegamechair.com/ A volunteer run sight like ours has a double advantage, no bribery, and all of the writers are passionate about the games they play.

Enter the Matrix and Driv3r are two shining examples of games that games that got terrible reviews (most game review sites seem to go on a 7 to 10 scale, so anything less than that is pretty terrible) but sold millions.

Enter the Matrix and Driv3r are two shining examples of games that games that got terrible reviews (most game review sites seem to go on a 7 to 10 scale, so anything less than that is pretty terrible) but sold millions.

"[Daikatana] was panned..."

This statement is true.

Erm. Care to explain what your definition of lukewarm reception is? It's in the all-time top 20 at gamerankings.com. It sold millions of copies. It is still the number 1 XBox Live game after being out for over a year.

Gamerankings has it listed at 82%. Not bad.

Just a follow up to the above - here's a list of all the games that were released with the 360: http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/default_x 360/1029

This site takes reviews of each game from all different kinds of gaming sites and averages them together. It's actually a very reliable measure to get the quality of a game.

The highest ranking game is 90% (Perfect Dark Zero). Quake 4 coming in at 77% (not surprising since that game isn't really all that).

This isn't a troll post, but instead meant to point out that people are rushing out to buy a console that has mediocre games at launch. Now if 2 or 3 of these games were in the 95%+ zone, then there's a good reason to rush out and get it.

What do you think about http://www.gamerankings.com/?

Everybody knows about gamerankings.com and I think a lot of people put too much stock in them.

The problem is review scores - even aggregated ones - tell you nothing. Reviewers often get so caught up in hype themselves that they can't (or won't) see a game's faults, and of course there's the issue of paid advertising at almost every publication. That's not to say reviews themselves are useless, but just looking at a score - even an average of the scores from a bunch of publications - is not going to tell you anything.

But for some of the same reasons, simply reading one or two reviews is not going to help you either. What you need to do is read between the lines when you read these reviews. Ask yourself "what is this reviewer not telling me about this game?"

For example, before I bought NFL 2K5, I read a bunch of reviews about it. None of them spent more than a couple sentences talking about the franchise mode, which is the main mode I play in every sports game I buy. If they said anything, it was just about it being more "fleshed out" than the year before. Still, they all said the core gameplay was great, so I bought the game. Sure enough, franchise mode was so buggy that it was literally impossible to play more than a couple seasons of it (destroying the whole point of that mode). The developer forums were flush with complaints about numerous game-stopping bugs, several of which I personally encountered pretty quickly, but none of which were mentioned in any review I read.

Obviously, these reviewers simply hadn't played that mode. They looked at the options and assumed they knew how it worked and that was enough for them. I should have known better, because not a single one of these reviews mentioned anything about playing more than a couple games in franchise mode.

It's not just about bugs, though. Reviewers are paid to review what's there, not what's not there. Ask yourself what you're expecting out of a game and whether the reviews you're reading are speaking directly to those wants or not. If you're looking for an adventure game and you find a game you think you might be interested in but the reviewers just talk about how much fun it is to shoot zombies, then even if the game gets a high score, it's probably not for you.

Beyond that, though, there is definitely real corruption in game journalism, whether intentional or not. I think a lot of it is actually not intentional; reviewers get wooed and wowed by big publishers with trips and gifts and whatnot, and all the while the publisher hammers into their heads how big a particular game is going to be, how awesome it is, how everybody's looking forward to it. Eventually it becomes a self-fulfilling thing, and you see more preview coverage and more hype. The press themselves buy into it. The game comes out and in order to justify themselves, all of the press gives it a ridiculously high score. Look at a game like The Legend of Zelda: the Wind Waker, which even Shigeru Miyamoto now calls "boring" and basically unfinished. But it has a score of 94.9% on GameRankings, because the press bought the hype that they themselves helped create.

So my point is you cannot rely on scores (even aggregate ones) and you cannot rely solely on "sound bites" culled from reviews. You need to read reviews carefully and think about why reviewers say certain things and why they are not saying other things. Basically, just use some critical thinking skills - skills that a lot of game reviewers lack.