You're acting like a troll and you got what you deserve.
Original quote: "The game will only take place in a single city, so Rockstar has taken out aircraft to give the city a more realistic feel."
The uber-parent said (paraphrased): "One of my favorite things to do in GTA games is to fly around cities in the helicopters, which is going away."
I asked him where it said they were removing helicopters - which I thought was quite reasonable - and you embarked on this literal crusade. Helicopters have been in the GTA series since at least GTA3, regardless of whether you could fly them. The article makes it sound like all aircraft has been removed, including police helicopters. You stated that your copy "had no helicopters", which is blatantly wrong, and you threw in an ad hominem to boot.
So let's recap: The article says there are no aircraft because the game's play area has been reduced in size from San Andreas. drinkypoo lamented that one of his favorite things to do in GTA games is fly around in helicopters. I ask where it's explicitly stated that helicopters are removed, since even the smallest GTA game has had them. You incorrectly state that GTA3 had no helicopters, and begin acting like an ass. I point out how you're wrong. You flame in response, and are modded accordingly.
Regardless of how you interpret the article, and spin "there were no helicopters in GTA3", there *were* vehicles capable of flight in the smallest of the GTA games. Toss in that helicopters have played a major role in GTAs since the third, *and* that they were flyable in the smaller-than-SA VC... doesn't it seem a little more likely that "Rockstar has taken out aircraft" means "no player-flyable planes" than "no literal-definition-of-aircraft in the game, regardless of how the player can interact with them"?
http://www.gta3.com/index.php?zone=review1 "Ok then, now, the other ways to travel: boat, plane, train, subway, and on foot. It is scarce that you use other ways besides by foot or in car. Now, there are different aircraft you can fly. The helicopter you can fly and the non-winged dodo plane, but there is an exception on the dodo."
I don't remember whether or not they were *flyable* like the review here indicates, but I certainly remember blowing them out of the sky with the rocket launcher. There definitely were helicopters in the game.
But thanks for proving my point either way: GTA3 had aircraft the player could pilot, and was smaller than any of the other games.
That's a rather myopic interpretation. Consider previous installments of the game - GTA3 and VC. Both took place in a single city, a relatively small area, and both had helicopters.
San Andreas was much larger, and offered significantly more flight options - including "real" planes. Saying that, due to the smaller size of the game aircraft were removed, strongly says (to me) that just "real" planes were removed.
Call me optimistic or whatever, but I'll be stunned if all modes of flight are removed from the player.
Creating a good "underground" comic can be done by one talented artist and one talented writer. The amount of effort required to make a game is significantly more - especially if you want it to be available to consoles. A particularly stringent Videogame Decency Act would gut this billion dollar industry.
But, hey - maybe that's a good thing. Maybe we'll come out the other side into a video game "Bronze Age"/"Modern Age", where new creative talent can revolutionize the way America looks at games.
We've seen this before. It sucked - it set the comic book industry back nearly twenty years. *AND* it was self imposed.
Let's learn from that mistake, shall we?
"The researchers then studied 68 men and found those who played even one racing game took more risks afterward in traffic situations on a computer simulator than those who played another type of game."
Oh man - you mean, after playing a game where you're rewarded for driving recklessly, the same gamers drove a little recklessly IN ANOTHER GAME?
SHOCKING.
The end conclusion is totally nonsensical.
"The question of age restrictions, legally or voluntary, should be discussed not only for "shooter" games but also for [racing] games, which have an impact on traffic safety," Kubitzki said.
The research didn't prove that. Correlation != Causality. Why do so many researchers have a problem with this?
Theoretically the intervening time between then and now will be taken up designing a robust, in-depth curriculum and accompanying infrastructure that allows for the sort of flexibility needed to fight a "war" on the IT front....but why the Secret Service? This may just show my woefully inadequate knowledge of the US Government, but don't we have already have several Judicial branches designated to fight local, intra-state, and extra-country crime? I was under the impression that the primary duties of the Secret Service was the protection of high-ranking US officials and the prevention of counterfeiting US currency.
This will probably come across as trollish, but this is a serious question - Zonk, what is your love for Sony / the PS3?
"Sony Keynote Offers Hope For PlayStation 3 Fans" "Today was Sony's day to deliver: and in my opinion they did with flying colours." "Finally, finally, there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel for the console." "Note the first: There may finally be a great reason to buy a PlayStation." "Your avatar is customizable, and extremely detailed. These is *not* Miis, these are better than Second Life quality digital characters." "[Little Big Planet] is the reason to buy PlayStation 3." (bolded)
And from this op-ed: "The element that I want to convey, which I took away from the discussion of Sony's arrogance, was that arrogance is not the feeling I get from them in person. These people are, instead, supremely confident in their products and services." "I came away from the meeting with a sense of cautious optimism." "...it's possible the games arm of this particular megacorporation may have put its launch troubles in the rear-view mirror."
Maybe it's just my view of things, but everything *sounds* sugar-coated. Your (Sony) article(s) read more like hype than unbiased reporting.
It's fine if you're personally excited about what goes on, but I think in the interest of full disclosure, you need to say *why* you're so interested. I don't own a PS3; I have seen nothing in these recent articles to indicate, to me, that Sony has taken any steps to change their ways. And yet, you repeatedly say that this is the case.
Why? Because they're implementing a Sony-branded Second Life rip-off? Because of one good game? Because they put their best personal face forward during one meeting?
We've seen this exact pattern before, from a number of companies: nicely worded "promises". Pretty ideas. Friendly faces. The reality of it from Sony has been, consistently, lies and dashed hope. Does meeting these people face-to-face really make you want to forgive and forget so easily?
Violence is the worst way to train a dog. Dogs can't be reasoned with - you can't hit them and explain that you're doing it because they peed on the carpet. They just associate with whatever is going on at that exact moment with why they're getting hurt - be it you coming home and discovering the mess, or any other situation.
I'm not saying it doesn't "work" - yes, you CAN train a dog through pain. But with a little more patience and a lot more intelligence, you can train a dog with positive reinforcement for good deeds and scolding for bad ones. The result is better, and you didn't have to commit cruelty to an animal to do it.
But people aren't dogs. That bully you're advocating been physically assaulted - (s)he is a PERSON, too. How are you SOLVING THE PROBLEM with violence? The bully will still be there. (S)he might not bully *you*, but what's going to stop them from bullying someone else? Or bulking up and getting back at the person who hit them?
As has been said numerous times, violence against the bully isn't a blanket answer. Try addressing the cause and come up with a long-term solution instead of being a violent reactionary.
This is not news. It's a manufactured story from GWN with 10 "facts" that demonstrate specious reasoning at best.
Let's take a look at them.
1 - "It's cheaper!". Depending on what you're playing and how you look at it. A casual gamer can purchase an entire system and be playing Bejeweled or whatever for the price of a Xbox 360 alone. Is a high-end PC and nice monitor more expensive than a 360, good HDTV, and surround-sound system? *Maybe*. Toss in that every game you buy for the 360 is $10 more than the PC counterpart, and... not sounding so cheap now, is it?
2 - "Every game is guaranteed to work". What the author really means here (and as he states in his justification) is that you can return opened console games, but not open PC games. Which is true. Is this a benefit to console gaming? A better #2 here would have been "Wide variety of rentals available", which is a true strength of console gaming.
3 - "You don't need to tweak..."...so what? PC gamers don't spend hours per day doing this. Yes, you might have to download new drivers or perform system maintenance every once and a while. You also can't browse the web, write code, edit photos, make movies, or do anything but play games on a console./shrug.
4 - "Lots of console exclusives..." True, the PC doesn't have as many exclusives as it used to, but most games that aren't exclusive to one console are released for every platform known to man. But if you only purchase one console, you're back in the same place - there will be exclusives for the other *SIX* systems (Xbox, 360, PS2, GCN, DS, PSP, and PC) you can't play.
5 - "Xbox Live." That's not a strength of console gaming, that's a strength of *Xbox* gaming. The GameCube doesn't have anything approaching that, and Sony's PS2 service is directly game-to-game. The PC still offers superior online multiplayer gaming, simply in that there's a much, much wider audience - World of Warcraft alone boasts 7 million subscribers.
6 - "Backwards compatibility." If we needed any further proof that the author is grasping at straws, here we are. The GameCube is not compatible with any N64 game. The list of Xbox games that can be played on the 360 is relatively small, and many extremely popular games are still not compatible. But sure, you can play PSOne games on your PS2. However, anyone who can't figure out how to play classic DOS and Windows 95/98 games on Windows XP needs to learn how to use Google.
7 - "Virus, adware, and spyware free." See #3. All you can do is play games. That's not a strength, that's not a weakness, that just is. PC owners who take care of their PCs don't have to worry about this either.
8 - "Games look better in high-def... from the couch." Purely subjective. From a quantitative point of view, PC monitors are able to display more pixels on the screen in higher resolutions (and PCs can have more powerful hardware), so PCs are capable of producing higher quality images.
9 - "Controllers are more comfortable than gaming with a keyboard and mouse." Purely subjective. I find having 104 keyboard keys + 3 mouse buttons and a scroll wheel to be about 10x more useful than a controller. Additionally, I find controlling a FPS with a joypad to be imprecise and slow. Doesn't mean everyone feels this way; but it certainly doesn't warrant a spot on "Gaming Platform of Choice: Consoles".
10 - "Controller innovation." Yup, the Wii looks neat to control. The PC doesn't have anything like that. But considering that the majority of the author's reasoning is focused on Microsoft consoles (Xbox and 360), I can't help but point out that it's not so much a single console that's being championed here, but all of them. Well, the cost of every console plus a high-def display device, and all the doodads will *certainly* outprice the cost of a high-end computer.
Now don't get me wrong. I own a DS, GBA, GCN, PS2, Xbox, and three mid- to high-end PCs. I go where the games are. I just hate seeing nonsense like "I R C0NS0L3 F4NB01 R04R" masquerading as a thoughtful and informative piece. There are *many* good reasons to choose console gaming, but the author of this article failed to articulate more than one or two.
> But Battlefield 2 was clearly designed from day one TO BE A CONSOLE GAME! Just look at the user interface. It's designed to be operated by a console-style game controller without any need for a keyboard, mouse, or any of the rest of the PC user interface.
No offense, but it's pretty clear you haven't tried to play the role of the Commander. Without being able to accurately and quickly place UAV, Arty Strikes, and Supply Crates - as well as respond to Squad Requests, and give Squads orders - you're pretty much out of luck.
Because of the speed and accuracy required, a mouse is a necessity. Waiting for a thumbstick's cursor to sloooooowly reach an arbitrary map location certainly does not seem like "intended design for a console".
From the Commander's chair, BF2 is a quasi-hybrid of RTS/FPS (not unlike Savage, though much closer to FPSes). To a lesser extent, this applies to Squad Leaders as well - trying to issue an order on the game map with a thumbstick would be unreasonably cumbersome.
Just because they have a simple "radio command" interface, doesn't mean it's designed for consoles. It just means DICE can incorporate good functionality from other games/genres.
>...resolution is not the reason to go with consoles.
Let's clear up a few things. 1080p, the "highest" out there, has almost *no* devices that support it. There are a bare handful of games this generation that supports 1080i (most for the Xbox, one (that I know of) for the PS2), and we have *no idea* what sort of support games will have for HD.
And, as you pointed out, a monitor that can do 1280x1024 native is displaying more information than 1080i/p.
Image quality is still very much a reason to avoid consoles - and while default resolution *might* change with the next generation, keep in mind that a low quality 1080p HD set will set you back at *least* $3,000US - pricing the total cost of a console well outside of a top-of-the-line PC.
But I definitely agree that it would be nice to have a KBM option on consoles.
As for "knowing it will just work"... my Xbox is begining to crash more than my PC. Only my PS2 hasn't crapped out on me at least once (my GCN crashed several times during my playthrough of Metroid Prime in 480p). I'm betting that's just going to be worse with this next console generation.
You're actually getting at the one good argument in favor of playing console games online, and that's you can *generally* be sure that the players aren't cheating.
But that has nothing to do with Metroid Prime's control scheme. I understand why they did it, and it didn't work out horribly, but I found it frustrating nonetheless. Same with Resident Evil 4, generally pretty good controls, but it just totally falls down for quick+precise aiming (the last targetting range is *damn* hard because of this).
(note to parent's parent moderator: this is a thread discussing the *WISH LIST* for Halo 3. as PC PORT is part of said WISH LIST, requesting better input choices does NOT constitute "off-topic")
> I have a really fast PC and video card and a *mouse* that puts those X box controllers to total shame!
I'm totally fed up with the total lack of decent controls in console "shooters" (halo, halo 2, GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Timesplitters, all of them).
Analogue sticks are NOT SUITED TO FIRST-PERSON SHOOTING. PERIOD. And there's not a single good counter-argument to that, even among the throngs of Halo fanboys.
The beautiful thing about GTA is that you can control if you run over pedestrians or not.
Speaking of which, wouldn't you say that your desire to run over people who have done you no harm but walk on a sidewalk near where you're driving says something about your mental state when you play the game?
You're looking to do horrible things in the game.
Trying going into a movie with the same mentality, instead of thinking to yourself "I'm just going to sit here and relax". Look for ways for the protaganist to be more violent. Critique when the innocent are spared. Put yourself into the actor's shoes, like you do when you play GTA.
Movies are only a passive experience if you let them be.
At least as far back as UO, you could not create a new account with a used key. 1 key / account, to open a new account required an unused key.
So what's the big deal? We're not talking about thousand-dollar licenses of business software, we're talking about a $50 game. At the absolute worst case, Blizzard might have to refund the money the second-hand purchaser spent on the used copy. Small claims stuff, at worst. You still won't have a valid account key, so if you goal was to play the game, you failed anyway. If your goal *isn't* to play the game, why the hell are you doing this in the first place?
For Blizzard, it's a no-win situation. They either have to settle every second-hand sale like this (! - yeah, people won't abuse *that*), or come up with some way to handled it themselves (probably by hosting a transfer of account service) that's *cheaper* than settling with everyone.
Clearly not; we are, of course, arguing over which derivative shooter was the best in a year of derivative shooters. There were, however, *clear* cases in which these derivative shooters excelled.
> Far Cry was one of the few shooters with non-linear gameplay.
What you're getting at is the only way in which Far Cry exceeded either of the other titles mentioned, though you do so in a woefully inaccurate manner. To call Far Cry "non-linear" is, at best, a mistake. The story in Far Cry progresses in a linear fashion - for example, it is *impossible* to continue from Fort without destroying the Communications Array.
What Far Cry does do, however, is give you some choice on how to accomplish certain objectives. Many people appreciate this, but they also mistake it with non-linearity. You cannot access Pier except directly following Fort after Carrier after Training. This *is* a linear game, the line they use just happens to be slightly wider at certain points than the "corridor"-based gameplay (as you derogatorily refer to them) of Doom 3 and Half-Life 2.
You're also kidding yourself if you call Half-Life 2's solutions not obvious, but the "up to 5" ways of completing certain levels of Far Cry "logical, fun and realistic". There were *many* times when adventuring off the "suggested" path in Far Cry was met with overwhelming force.
> Far Cry was the first FPS game with large realistic levels.
This is also, at best, incorrect. I'll start with pointing out Soldier of Fortune 2, which had many outdoor levels similar to "open" spaces presented in Far Cry. By the same token, the buggy levels of Half-Life 2 were both similarly open.
But realistic? Please. To the best of my knowledge, the Isle of Dr. Moreau has not been found in the South Pacific. Again, none of the levels are *actually physically connected* - you cannot circumvent Carrier and swim right to Fort by taking the correct path, which (theoretically) you could do were Far Cry's levels laid out in a realistic fashion.
Also, please see all of the interior sections of Far Cry for examples of lack of realism in level design (and Treehouse? Realistic? Please.).
> Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 were not playable with high-res textures, making them look much uglier.
That may have been true for you, but that's just false for other people. I played both in HQ, and they looked *absolutely stunning* to me. I don't think I ever dipped below 30fps on my system (p4 3ghz / 1g ram / 9800 Pro), which is no longer an unrealistic system to own. After playing Half-Life 2, going back to play Far Cry reminds me of watching the Thunderbirds TV show from the 70s (or Team America: World Police if you weren't around for TB).
> Far Cry had the best AI in an FPS ever (and it remains the best).
People keep saying this, and as far as I am concerned the proof is in the pudding. In my multiple playthroughs, I experienced *NOTHING* that would lead me to believe the AI in Far Cry was anything near industry-leading, let alone better-than-average.
>...great characters with engaging backstories and dialogue...
At this point, I can only assume you are joking. The two main characters in the game were as cookie-cutter as they come, lacked any backstory outside of "I R CIA", the script lacked substance, and the voice acting lacked compulsion. It was quite a good FPS, but fine literature and acting it is not.
Doom 3's PDA system was a poor immitation of the singularly best example of storytelling in a FPS/hybrid, System Shock 2. I have yet to play a FPS that had anywhere near the quality of experience, though Deus Ex came close.
> Do you imply that Combine soldiers were tougher than Far Cry mercs? Or may be you were challenged by headcrab zombies more than by Tridents?
I'm not just implying it, I'm outright saying it: Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 offered significantly more challen
> You apparently disagree, but I (and the rest of my gamer group) tend to prefer FPSs with "ordinary" (that is, real or realistic) weapons.
Nah, some of my favorite games tend to use realistic weapons - BF1942, DC, SoF2 (to name a few). Heck, my biggest gripe about the Unreal/Quake series is that it's ludicrous to have people being thrown around at extreme velocities and still maintain pinpoint accuracy with weapons that should produce high recoil (...yeah, I like more science in my sci-fi games).
But even for a game that uses more realistic wepons, they were still pretty uninspired. Sure, you absolutely have to have a m16 variant - but an OICW-ish weapon would have been pretty cool, as would a WWII-era weapon (there are tanks laying around, after all). Was the AI as good as advertised, the ability to place mines or boobytraps would have been cool.
There are a huge variety of guns in the real world - why stick to the same 7 every time?
A bit? I hate to break it to you, but there was *nothing* groundbreaking about FarCry. It was your standard Soldier of Fortune 2-esque FPS knockoff. The story was your typical "nazi scientist" drivel, the main character was, again, your typical no-nonsense hardcore spec-ops/government agent, the weapons were exceedingly average and typical, and finally, the much lauded AI was seriously wanting.
I played the game without reading the hype. I didn't experience anything special from the AI, so I started it up again on ultraextrahard (or whatever), and wandered around for a bit. As expected, the "tactic" of sniping one guy off and then gunning down his buddies worked flawlessly. Hell, after shooting one guy right next to a friend of his, his friend crept cautiously forward - no diving for cover, no wigging out and running, no going for reinforcements.
From my experiences, FarCry gets the award for "Most Overrated Game" this year. Sure, it was a decent FPS... but that was it. Doom 3, for all its linearity, at least had *suspense*.
And, simply put, you're either blind or running these games on a machine that an Xbox would put to shame. FarCry has "stunning" graphics while Half-Life 2's are "ordinary"? I'd suggest a trip to the optometrist or psychiatrist.
So, how about them extra 4 days of free playtime Blizzard is giving you? You know, because of those inconveniences you mention.
Which is more important, *telling you* why *you're* having problems, or acknowledging them and doing something about it?
Ideally, we'd have both, but I'm more happy to get free play time / acknowledgement when something goes wrong than some placative message on a board I don't read filled with incessant whining.
Slashdot Mirror
You're acting like a troll and you got what you deserve.
Original quote:
"The game will only take place in a single city, so Rockstar has taken out aircraft to give the city a more realistic feel."
The uber-parent said (paraphrased):
"One of my favorite things to do in GTA games is to fly around cities in the helicopters, which is going away."
I asked him where it said they were removing helicopters - which I thought was quite reasonable - and you embarked on this literal crusade. Helicopters have been in the GTA series since at least GTA3, regardless of whether you could fly them. The article makes it sound like all aircraft has been removed, including police helicopters. You stated that your copy "had no helicopters", which is blatantly wrong, and you threw in an ad hominem to boot.
So let's recap:
The article says there are no aircraft because the game's play area has been reduced in size from San Andreas.
drinkypoo lamented that one of his favorite things to do in GTA games is fly around in helicopters.
I ask where it's explicitly stated that helicopters are removed, since even the smallest GTA game has had them.
You incorrectly state that GTA3 had no helicopters, and begin acting like an ass.
I point out how you're wrong.
You flame in response, and are modded accordingly.
Regardless of how you interpret the article, and spin "there were no helicopters in GTA3", there *were* vehicles capable of flight in the smallest of the GTA games. Toss in that helicopters have played a major role in GTAs since the third, *and* that they were flyable in the smaller-than-SA VC... doesn't it seem a little more likely that "Rockstar has taken out aircraft" means "no player-flyable planes" than "no literal-definition-of-aircraft in the game, regardless of how the player can interact with them"?
Only on the PC. Maybe your version didn't have helicopters, but I *strongly* doubt it.
3 boxcover.jpg
Here's some proof:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/GTA
There's a helicopter on the cover of the game.
http://www.gouranga.com/images/gta3/gta3_102.jpg
Helicopter in-game.
http://www.gouranga.com/images/gta3/gta3_199.jpg
Another shot of in-game helicopters.
http://www.gta3.com/index.php?zone=review1
"Ok then, now, the other ways to travel: boat, plane, train, subway, and on foot. It is scarce that you use other ways besides by foot or in car. Now, there are different aircraft you can fly. The helicopter you can fly and the non-winged dodo plane, but there is an exception on the dodo."
I don't remember whether or not they were *flyable* like the review here indicates, but I certainly remember blowing them out of the sky with the rocket launcher. There definitely were helicopters in the game.
But thanks for proving my point either way: GTA3 had aircraft the player could pilot, and was smaller than any of the other games.
That's a rather myopic interpretation. Consider previous installments of the game - GTA3 and VC. Both took place in a single city, a relatively small area, and both had helicopters.
San Andreas was much larger, and offered significantly more flight options - including "real" planes. Saying that, due to the smaller size of the game aircraft were removed, strongly says (to me) that just "real" planes were removed.
Call me optimistic or whatever, but I'll be stunned if all modes of flight are removed from the player.
Where'd you see that helicopters are going away? There's nothing that says this in the linked article.
Creating a good "underground" comic can be done by one talented artist and one talented writer. The amount of effort required to make a game is significantly more - especially if you want it to be available to consoles. A particularly stringent Videogame Decency Act would gut this billion dollar industry.
But, hey - maybe that's a good thing. Maybe we'll come out the other side into a video game "Bronze Age"/"Modern Age", where new creative talent can revolutionize the way America looks at games.
Maybe.
We've seen this before. It sucked - it set the comic book industry back nearly twenty years. *AND* it was self imposed. Let's learn from that mistake, shall we?
"The researchers then studied 68 men and found those who played even one racing game took more risks afterward in traffic situations on a computer simulator than those who played another type of game."
Oh man - you mean, after playing a game where you're rewarded for driving recklessly, the same gamers drove a little recklessly IN ANOTHER GAME?
SHOCKING.
The end conclusion is totally nonsensical.
"The question of age restrictions, legally or voluntary, should be discussed not only for "shooter" games but also for [racing] games, which have an impact on traffic safety," Kubitzki said.
The research didn't prove that. Correlation != Causality. Why do so many researchers have a problem with this?
Theoretically the intervening time between then and now will be taken up designing a robust, in-depth curriculum and accompanying infrastructure that allows for the sort of flexibility needed to fight a "war" on the IT front. ...but why the Secret Service? This may just show my woefully inadequate knowledge of the US Government, but don't we have already have several Judicial branches designated to fight local, intra-state, and extra-country crime? I was under the impression that the primary duties of the Secret Service was the protection of high-ranking US officials and the prevention of counterfeiting US currency.
-lw
> Everquest in space with less content (Planetside)
FYI: that's humorous, but inaccurate. Planetside neither takes place in space, nor does it really follow the EQ formula at all. It's a FPS, for one.
-lw
This will probably come across as trollish, but this is a serious question - Zonk, what is your love for Sony / the PS3?
"Sony Keynote Offers Hope For PlayStation 3 Fans"
"Today was Sony's day to deliver: and in my opinion they did with flying colours."
"Finally, finally, there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel for the console."
"Note the first: There may finally be a great reason to buy a PlayStation."
"Your avatar is customizable, and extremely detailed. These is *not* Miis, these are better than Second Life quality digital characters."
"[Little Big Planet] is the reason to buy PlayStation 3." (bolded)
And from this op-ed:
"The element that I want to convey, which I took away from the discussion of Sony's arrogance, was that arrogance is not the feeling I get from them in person. These people are, instead, supremely confident in their products and services."
"I came away from the meeting with a sense of cautious optimism."
"...it's possible the games arm of this particular megacorporation may have put its launch troubles in the rear-view mirror."
Maybe it's just my view of things, but everything *sounds* sugar-coated. Your (Sony) article(s) read more like hype than unbiased reporting.
It's fine if you're personally excited about what goes on, but I think in the interest of full disclosure, you need to say *why* you're so interested. I don't own a PS3; I have seen nothing in these recent articles to indicate, to me, that Sony has taken any steps to change their ways. And yet, you repeatedly say that this is the case.
Why? Because they're implementing a Sony-branded Second Life rip-off? Because of one good game? Because they put their best personal face forward during one meeting?
We've seen this exact pattern before, from a number of companies: nicely worded "promises". Pretty ideas. Friendly faces. The reality of it from Sony has been, consistently, lies and dashed hope. Does meeting these people face-to-face really make you want to forgive and forget so easily?
-lw
What? I own Crackdown, and I haven't seen a single in-game ad for any real world products - mentioned or otherwise.
You ate your own fish with a pole? That sounds... unpleasant.
Minor correction: certain hardware revisions lack backwards compatibility. Namely, the DS can't play GB or GB Color games - only DS and GBA.
Violence is the worst way to train a dog. Dogs can't be reasoned with - you can't hit them and explain that you're doing it because they peed on the carpet. They just associate with whatever is going on at that exact moment with why they're getting hurt - be it you coming home and discovering the mess, or any other situation.
I'm not saying it doesn't "work" - yes, you CAN train a dog through pain. But with a little more patience and a lot more intelligence, you can train a dog with positive reinforcement for good deeds and scolding for bad ones. The result is better, and you didn't have to commit cruelty to an animal to do it.
But people aren't dogs. That bully you're advocating been physically assaulted - (s)he is a PERSON, too. How are you SOLVING THE PROBLEM with violence? The bully will still be there. (S)he might not bully *you*, but what's going to stop them from bullying someone else? Or bulking up and getting back at the person who hit them?
As has been said numerous times, violence against the bully isn't a blanket answer. Try addressing the cause and come up with a long-term solution instead of being a violent reactionary.
This is not news. It's a manufactured story from GWN with 10 "facts" that demonstrate specious reasoning at best.
...so what? PC gamers don't spend hours per day doing this. Yes, you might have to download new drivers or perform system maintenance every once and a while. You also can't browse the web, write code, edit photos, make movies, or do anything but play games on a console. /shrug.
Let's take a look at them.
1 - "It's cheaper!". Depending on what you're playing and how you look at it. A casual gamer can purchase an entire system and be playing Bejeweled or whatever for the price of a Xbox 360 alone. Is a high-end PC and nice monitor more expensive than a 360, good HDTV, and surround-sound system? *Maybe*. Toss in that every game you buy for the 360 is $10 more than the PC counterpart, and... not sounding so cheap now, is it?
2 - "Every game is guaranteed to work". What the author really means here (and as he states in his justification) is that you can return opened console games, but not open PC games. Which is true. Is this a benefit to console gaming? A better #2 here would have been "Wide variety of rentals available", which is a true strength of console gaming.
3 - "You don't need to tweak..."
4 - "Lots of console exclusives..." True, the PC doesn't have as many exclusives as it used to, but most games that aren't exclusive to one console are released for every platform known to man. But if you only purchase one console, you're back in the same place - there will be exclusives for the other *SIX* systems (Xbox, 360, PS2, GCN, DS, PSP, and PC) you can't play.
5 - "Xbox Live." That's not a strength of console gaming, that's a strength of *Xbox* gaming. The GameCube doesn't have anything approaching that, and Sony's PS2 service is directly game-to-game. The PC still offers superior online multiplayer gaming, simply in that there's a much, much wider audience - World of Warcraft alone boasts 7 million subscribers.
6 - "Backwards compatibility." If we needed any further proof that the author is grasping at straws, here we are. The GameCube is not compatible with any N64 game. The list of Xbox games that can be played on the 360 is relatively small, and many extremely popular games are still not compatible. But sure, you can play PSOne games on your PS2. However, anyone who can't figure out how to play classic DOS and Windows 95/98 games on Windows XP needs to learn how to use Google.
7 - "Virus, adware, and spyware free." See #3. All you can do is play games. That's not a strength, that's not a weakness, that just is. PC owners who take care of their PCs don't have to worry about this either.
8 - "Games look better in high-def... from the couch." Purely subjective. From a quantitative point of view, PC monitors are able to display more pixels on the screen in higher resolutions (and PCs can have more powerful hardware), so PCs are capable of producing higher quality images.
9 - "Controllers are more comfortable than gaming with a keyboard and mouse." Purely subjective. I find having 104 keyboard keys + 3 mouse buttons and a scroll wheel to be about 10x more useful than a controller. Additionally, I find controlling a FPS with a joypad to be imprecise and slow. Doesn't mean everyone feels this way; but it certainly doesn't warrant a spot on "Gaming Platform of Choice: Consoles".
10 - "Controller innovation." Yup, the Wii looks neat to control. The PC doesn't have anything like that. But considering that the majority of the author's reasoning is focused on Microsoft consoles (Xbox and 360), I can't help but point out that it's not so much a single console that's being championed here, but all of them. Well, the cost of every console plus a high-def display device, and all the doodads will *certainly* outprice the cost of a high-end computer.
Now don't get me wrong. I own a DS, GBA, GCN, PS2, Xbox, and three mid- to high-end PCs. I go where the games are. I just hate seeing nonsense like "I R C0NS0L3 F4NB01 R04R" masquerading as a thoughtful and informative piece. There are *many* good reasons to choose console gaming, but the author of this article failed to articulate more than one or two.
> But Battlefield 2 was clearly designed from day one TO BE A CONSOLE GAME! Just look at the user interface. It's designed to be operated by a console-style game controller without any need for a keyboard, mouse, or any of the rest of the PC user interface.
No offense, but it's pretty clear you haven't tried to play the role of the Commander. Without being able to accurately and quickly place UAV, Arty Strikes, and Supply Crates - as well as respond to Squad Requests, and give Squads orders - you're pretty much out of luck.
Because of the speed and accuracy required, a mouse is a necessity. Waiting for a thumbstick's cursor to sloooooowly reach an arbitrary map location certainly does not seem like "intended design for a console".
From the Commander's chair, BF2 is a quasi-hybrid of RTS/FPS (not unlike Savage, though much closer to FPSes). To a lesser extent, this applies to Squad Leaders as well - trying to issue an order on the game map with a thumbstick would be unreasonably cumbersome.
Just because they have a simple "radio command" interface, doesn't mean it's designed for consoles. It just means DICE can incorporate good functionality from other games/genres.
-lw
> ...resolution is not the reason to go with consoles.
Let's clear up a few things. 1080p, the "highest" out there, has almost *no* devices that support it. There are a bare handful of games this generation that supports 1080i (most for the Xbox, one (that I know of) for the PS2), and we have *no idea* what sort of support games will have for HD.
And, as you pointed out, a monitor that can do 1280x1024 native is displaying more information than 1080i/p.
Image quality is still very much a reason to avoid consoles - and while default resolution *might* change with the next generation, keep in mind that a low quality 1080p HD set will set you back at *least* $3,000US - pricing the total cost of a console well outside of a top-of-the-line PC.
But I definitely agree that it would be nice to have a KBM option on consoles.
As for "knowing it will just work"... my Xbox is begining to crash more than my PC. Only my PS2 hasn't crapped out on me at least once (my GCN crashed several times during my playthrough of Metroid Prime in 480p). I'm betting that's just going to be worse with this next console generation.
-lw
You're actually getting at the one good argument in favor of playing console games online, and that's you can *generally* be sure that the players aren't cheating.
But that has nothing to do with Metroid Prime's control scheme. I understand why they did it, and it didn't work out horribly, but I found it frustrating nonetheless. Same with Resident Evil 4, generally pretty good controls, but it just totally falls down for quick+precise aiming (the last targetting range is *damn* hard because of this).
(note to parent's parent moderator: this is a thread discussing the *WISH LIST* for Halo 3. as PC PORT is part of said WISH LIST, requesting better input choices does NOT constitute "off-topic")
-lw
> I have a really fast PC and video card and a *mouse* that puts those X box controllers to total shame!
I'm totally fed up with the total lack of decent controls in console "shooters" (halo, halo 2, GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Timesplitters, all of them).
Analogue sticks are NOT SUITED TO FIRST-PERSON SHOOTING. PERIOD. And there's not a single good counter-argument to that, even among the throngs of Halo fanboys.
-lw
The beautiful thing about GTA is that you can control if you run over pedestrians or not.
Speaking of which, wouldn't you say that your desire to run over people who have done you no harm but walk on a sidewalk near where you're driving says something about your mental state when you play the game?
You're looking to do horrible things in the game.
Trying going into a movie with the same mentality, instead of thinking to yourself "I'm just going to sit here and relax". Look for ways for the protaganist to be more violent. Critique when the innocent are spared. Put yourself into the actor's shoes, like you do when you play GTA.
Movies are only a passive experience if you let them be.
-lw
At least as far back as UO, you could not create a new account with a used key. 1 key / account, to open a new account required an unused key.
So what's the big deal? We're not talking about thousand-dollar licenses of business software, we're talking about a $50 game. At the absolute worst case, Blizzard might have to refund the money the second-hand purchaser spent on the used copy. Small claims stuff, at worst. You still won't have a valid account key, so if you goal was to play the game, you failed anyway. If your goal *isn't* to play the game, why the hell are you doing this in the first place?
For Blizzard, it's a no-win situation. They either have to settle every second-hand sale like this (! - yeah, people won't abuse *that*), or come up with some way to handled it themselves (probably by hosting a transfer of account service) that's *cheaper* than settling with everyone.
-lw
> People simply can't be objective, can they?
...great characters with engaging backstories and dialogue...
Clearly not; we are, of course, arguing over which derivative shooter was the best in a year of derivative shooters. There were, however, *clear* cases in which these derivative shooters excelled.
> Far Cry was one of the few shooters with non-linear gameplay.
What you're getting at is the only way in which Far Cry exceeded either of the other titles mentioned, though you do so in a woefully inaccurate manner. To call Far Cry "non-linear" is, at best, a mistake. The story in Far Cry progresses in a linear fashion - for example, it is *impossible* to continue from Fort without destroying the Communications Array.
What Far Cry does do, however, is give you some choice on how to accomplish certain objectives. Many people appreciate this, but they also mistake it with non-linearity. You cannot access Pier except directly following Fort after Carrier after Training. This *is* a linear game, the line they use just happens to be slightly wider at certain points than the "corridor"-based gameplay (as you derogatorily refer to them) of Doom 3 and Half-Life 2.
You're also kidding yourself if you call Half-Life 2's solutions not obvious, but the "up to 5" ways of completing certain levels of Far Cry "logical, fun and realistic". There were *many* times when adventuring off the "suggested" path in Far Cry was met with overwhelming force.
> Far Cry was the first FPS game with large realistic levels.
This is also, at best, incorrect. I'll start with pointing out Soldier of Fortune 2, which had many outdoor levels similar to "open" spaces presented in Far Cry. By the same token, the buggy levels of Half-Life 2 were both similarly open.
But realistic? Please. To the best of my knowledge, the Isle of Dr. Moreau has not been found in the South Pacific. Again, none of the levels are *actually physically connected* - you cannot circumvent Carrier and swim right to Fort by taking the correct path, which (theoretically) you could do were Far Cry's levels laid out in a realistic fashion.
Also, please see all of the interior sections of Far Cry for examples of lack of realism in level design (and Treehouse? Realistic? Please.).
> Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 were not playable with high-res textures, making them look much uglier.
That may have been true for you, but that's just false for other people. I played both in HQ, and they looked *absolutely stunning* to me. I don't think I ever dipped below 30fps on my system (p4 3ghz / 1g ram / 9800 Pro), which is no longer an unrealistic system to own. After playing Half-Life 2, going back to play Far Cry reminds me of watching the Thunderbirds TV show from the 70s (or Team America: World Police if you weren't around for TB).
> Far Cry had the best AI in an FPS ever (and it remains the best).
People keep saying this, and as far as I am concerned the proof is in the pudding. In my multiple playthroughs, I experienced *NOTHING* that would lead me to believe the AI in Far Cry was anything near industry-leading, let alone better-than-average.
>
At this point, I can only assume you are joking. The two main characters in the game were as cookie-cutter as they come, lacked any backstory outside of "I R CIA", the script lacked substance, and the voice acting lacked compulsion. It was quite a good FPS, but fine literature and acting it is not.
Doom 3's PDA system was a poor immitation of the singularly best example of storytelling in a FPS/hybrid, System Shock 2. I have yet to play a FPS that had anywhere near the quality of experience, though Deus Ex came close.
> Do you imply that Combine soldiers were tougher than Far Cry mercs? Or may be you were challenged by headcrab zombies more than by Tridents?
I'm not just implying it, I'm outright saying it: Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 offered significantly more challen
> You apparently disagree, but I (and the rest of my gamer group) tend to prefer FPSs with "ordinary" (that is, real or realistic) weapons.
Nah, some of my favorite games tend to use realistic weapons - BF1942, DC, SoF2 (to name a few). Heck, my biggest gripe about the Unreal/Quake series is that it's ludicrous to have people being thrown around at extreme velocities and still maintain pinpoint accuracy with weapons that should produce high recoil (...yeah, I like more science in my sci-fi games).
But even for a game that uses more realistic wepons, they were still pretty uninspired. Sure, you absolutely have to have a m16 variant - but an OICW-ish weapon would have been pretty cool, as would a WWII-era weapon (there are tanks laying around, after all). Was the AI as good as advertised, the ability to place mines or boobytraps would have been cool.
There are a huge variety of guns in the real world - why stick to the same 7 every time?
-lw
> I exaggerated a bit...
A bit? I hate to break it to you, but there was *nothing* groundbreaking about FarCry. It was your standard Soldier of Fortune 2-esque FPS knockoff. The story was your typical "nazi scientist" drivel, the main character was, again, your typical no-nonsense hardcore spec-ops/government agent, the weapons were exceedingly average and typical, and finally, the much lauded AI was seriously wanting.
I played the game without reading the hype. I didn't experience anything special from the AI, so I started it up again on ultraextrahard (or whatever), and wandered around for a bit. As expected, the "tactic" of sniping one guy off and then gunning down his buddies worked flawlessly. Hell, after shooting one guy right next to a friend of his, his friend crept cautiously forward - no diving for cover, no wigging out and running, no going for reinforcements.
From my experiences, FarCry gets the award for "Most Overrated Game" this year. Sure, it was a decent FPS... but that was it. Doom 3, for all its linearity, at least had *suspense*.
And, simply put, you're either blind or running these games on a machine that an Xbox would put to shame. FarCry has "stunning" graphics while Half-Life 2's are "ordinary"? I'd suggest a trip to the optometrist or psychiatrist.
-lw
So, how about them extra 4 days of free playtime Blizzard is giving you? You know, because of those inconveniences you mention.
Which is more important, *telling you* why *you're* having problems, or acknowledging them and doing something about it?
Ideally, we'd have both, but I'm more happy to get free play time / acknowledgement when something goes wrong than some placative message on a board I don't read filled with incessant whining.
-lw