The cover is obviously for sale; no problems there, you've got to make your money somewhere right? However the cover is apparently a two-for-one package deal with a glowing review included. I, like you, have come to the conclusion that any game I see on the cover of Game Informer is definitely one I want to stay away from hahah
This isn't really the case, though. Very frequently the game that gets slobbered on in the "cover story" preview gets ripped to shreds two months later in the actual review. More often than not, I'd say. I don't think the reviews are paid for. The previews, don't know. I think they do a pretty good job, all things considered. I think it's important to seperate the "coming soon preview for a game that's not out yet" from the "review written after playing a final copy of a game you can actually buy," though.
Really, you think Game Informer has misleading reviews? They give out a LOT of 4's, and don't seem to hesitate to bash the ever loving crap out of stupid games. Their _previews_ are full of it. Whatever game is on the cover, you can pretty much bet that it is going to suck ass. Every preview article is basically verbatim talking points from the publisher.
But, the _reviews_ seem to be accurate and as harsh as necessary. Look at the last months issue, as an example. They don't give out good scores very often.
There are game sites that don't give a game a good review just because - but they are few and far between.
What games sites are you reading? I see a lot of sites and magazines that give previews that are pretty much advertisements, but most of the established sites are fairly honest in their post-release reviews. Game Informer, Gamespot, Computer Gaming, etc. Gamespot even puts reader scores and scores from other sources right next to their own.
So really, what are you reading? "Joe's Super Madden EA Awesome Site Forever?"
Dead Rising looks a lot like the "kill as many unarmed guys as possible in the mall" mode from State of Emergency. I thought it was a lot of fun, and this looks even better.
I think you're kind of missing the point, on a whole bunch of levels.
Hi doofus, I think you are missing the point.
I specifically mentioned that I wasn't questioning his Xbox 360 purchase, doofus. I was just pointing out that the controllers work on the PC (which he obviously already has, right doofus?), and that you can just as easily play Alien Storm and Robotron on it.
(even the cheapest PCs run the $600 range)
Yeeeeah. Okay. Second clue that your post isn't going to be what we call "reality based."
You'll have to play with a keyboard and mouse in front of a computer screen, not in your living room.
Considering my original post was almost 100% about how you can use the Xbox 360 controllers on your PC, I don't have a lot confidence in your ability to read.
You won't be able to track your accomplishments, or play with your son halfway across the country while talking on voice chat like I do
Have you played a modern computer game? Like, I don't know, any of them? Shockingly, voice chat and ranked servers exist on PC games, too! Can you even believe it????
From a gameplay standpoint, playing on PC would be a crappy version of what can be done easily, more cheaper, and arguably more fun on Xbox 360.
Again, I never disputed that. At all. Ever. You picked a random misinterpration of my post (even though there was a disclaimer) and based an entire rant on it. A rant full of inaccuracies.
The rest of your long ranty post had little to nothing to do with anything that I said, but what the hell, doofus.
But let's look beyond that. Up until now, shareware was the domain of a few key players (iD, for example), but it never really took off.
You're out of your freaking doofus gourd if you think that shareware never took off. How old are you? Shareware faded away in a large part because companies can now offer direct downloads of demos (many of which are unlockable, and scarily close to shareware!) to consumers instead of having to rely on a network of BBS's and floppy disk traders.
They're taking the long predicted download-distribution model for selling games and making it a reality.
I guess you have never used Steam. Based on your post I'm going to guess that this may be the first time you've actually used a computer.
To summarize: You think the Xbox is cool. You can use your Xbox controllers on the PC. For some reason you think this means I hate the Xbox and all that it stands for.
So, yeah, my life would have been perfectly complete with a PC, a decent USB control, a usb headset, and Ventrillo. Oh, assuming I cound find games with a similar level of fun gameplay and people online to play them with.
I'm not questioning your Xbox 360 purchase. I think it's kind of stupid to attempt to rationally justify entertainment purchases. You buy toys because for whatever reason you derive pleasure from them.
That being said, not only can you find games with a similar level of fun on the PC, but in many cases, the exact same games. You can also use the Xbox 360 controller on your PC.
Seems sony is uncapable of a worldwide launch at the same time, which is where microsoft really was able to succeed other then a shortage of the unit,
If not being able to supply the areas they launched in for an entire quarter is succeeding at a world wide launch, what would they have to do for you to consider it a failure?
What sort of amazes me is that even though their last console came out before everyone else's, their newest console is a year behind the latest generation.
MS released the Xbox a year into the last generation, realized their horrible mistake, and then rushed in a year early to the current generation. That's a more accurate way to describe the current situation.
The original Xbox had a miniscule shelf life compared to the historical average for a console.
As most of the time, we Europeans are getting the sore end of the launch planning.
Gee, I wonder why? A large extremely diverse population that buys far fewer game consoles per capita (and in total) than the US or Asia. If you have to pick one of the three major regions to shaft, Europe is the obvious choice from a financial perspective.
Don't mistake technical expertise and immersiveness for a good storyline. There isn't one.
Parent's scathing counter-argument:
Just because the basic idea has been done before, doesn't mean that the execution isn't great by itself. There are only a few basic plotlines available. It's the details and execution that count.
I think a rebuttal loses much of its effectiveness when it only restates the point that it is trying to shoot down. Maybe I'm just weird, though.
It does sound a bit like it, but it's not. Tony Hawk is far more fun. The only reason the original Jet Set/Grind Radio was mildly successful is because it was one of the first "cel shaded" games.
That would carry more weight if you had provided any evidence for your initial claim other than "all accounts," of which, I might add, you provided exactly zero.
You forget that Nintendo has already launched their experiment. By all accounts, the DS has been convincing unconventional customers to spend their money. The Revolution is not likely to be that much more money.
I think you're crazy. I don't know anyone who owns a DS that didn't either:
Didn't they announce that all titles that ever came out on Nintendo's consoles will work on the Revolution? At least I thought that's what the GP meant...
No.
They've said that Gamecube games will play on it and that there will be some sort of download service offering (enhanced?) versions of some nebulous selection of their old games. You can't plug N64/SNES/NES carts into it. There haven't been any details on whether it will include third party games, or how many, or what, or for what price, will be available via their service.
Don't really care all that much myself. However based on trends going back a decade now it is fairly safe to assume Nintendo will quickly build a broad and deep catalog while Sony will focus on the male teen/young adult demographic again, as will Microsoft.
Sony has had a broader and deeper catalog than Nintendo for the last ten years. They have more games, spanning more genres. You can ignore the massive number of quality Sony titles (Gran Turismo, Metal Gear, the Jak series, Ratchet and Clank, sports, puzzle games, flying games, family games, action games, strategy games, RPGs, "weird games" -- Mr. Mosquito, Katamari, robot games, fighting games) if you want, but saying that Nintendo has had a broader and deeper catalog for the last ten years is simply not true, no matter how you slice it.
I'm going to assume that what you actually mean is "Nintendo has games that I like," which is completely okay. They've put out some cool titles. But neither broader, nor deeper, in the catalog department.
Not just girls but everyone who isn't your conventional "gamer" demographic.
Do an experiment. Find 10 people that don't play video games. Ask them if they would spend $300* to play video games.
Go ahead.
Ask them.
The fact is, people who don't play video games aren't going to buy a console. There are cheap hockey sticks available on the market RIGHT NOW! If you don't play hockey, you're not likely to care, no matter how innovative the design may be.
It's the same thing.
*$300, on the assumption that the Revolution is $200 + 2 games.
Or, from another angle: Sony and Microsoft are working hard to field the finest cavalry regiments ever seen on a field of battle. Nintendo is working hard on building a tank.
Or, from reality: Sony and Microsoft are working hard to field the finest cavalry regiments ever seen on a field of battle. Nintendo is cheerfully prancing and arranging flowers in the middle of the field, completely oblivious, and wondering why no third parties are scurrying to pick flowers for their pretty bouquet.
Just like they've done for the last two generations.
Pro: Widest range of software covering the most catagories.
Yes, because there have been so many titles announced for the Revolution already. You can say you like Nintendo games and want them to do well without pretending to do an "analysis."
That's kind of misleading. By the time Sony's put out the PS3, they'll have to deal with an Xbox 360 that's had a good half year's head start in the channel, since the supply chain problems have apparently been fixed. Last stats I heard, _50%_ of 360 owners had put their console online. That's an excellent number, if they can maintain it.
If they are able to get actual 360's in stores, and add a couple of interesting exclusive titles to the lineup by the summer, they may have a chance. The supply problem has really squandered a lot of the initial launch excitement. When the PS3 launches, MS is going to be in the unenviable position of being "last year's" console in the face of Sony and Nintendo unless they have an impressive stable of games.
Microsoft has claimed publicly that about half of XBOX360 users have joined XBOX live. No word on how many are regular users vs. tried it once. Also, I believe that Xbox live access is required to run old Xbox 1 games on XBOX 360, so some folks may have joined just for that.
Right. Well, considering that 360 sales to date are a fraction of the original Xbox sales, I don't think taking even half of the total 360 owners into consideration is going to change the percentage very much.
I guess my point was that MS has had Live out as the only service for several years, and the adoption by users has been pretty slow to date. If there were 20 million people hooked on Live already, Sony might have something to "catch up" to or worry about. As it is, the lagging sales of Microsoft's consoles have limited the potential impact of their head start.
This isn't a dig on Microsoft or Live, just the current facts.
It will be interesting to see how this service does compared to the new XBOX Live available for the XBOX 360 users. XBOX Live over the past couple years has become the standard for online console gaming with in my opinion great service and the ability to download content for live-enabled games.
The online console era is the new thing for consoles and is now definitely here to stay as it looks like both XBOX 360 and PS3 both are going to be media centers in one form or another. I think HUB is going to have some catching up to do to match the growing success of XBOX Live.
The growing success, put into perspective.
10% of Xbox owners ever got on Live. Microsoft's Xbox sales were 20% of Sony's PS2 sales. Nintendo's sales were also around 20% of Sony's. Doing the math, we can see that Live stormed onto the scene and sucked in a whopping 1.6% of the console gaming market.
Slashdot Mirror
The cover is obviously for sale; no problems there, you've got to make your money somewhere right? However the cover is apparently a two-for-one package deal with a glowing review included. I, like you, have come to the conclusion that any game I see on the cover of Game Informer is definitely one I want to stay away from hahah
This isn't really the case, though. Very frequently the game that gets slobbered on in the "cover story" preview gets ripped to shreds two months later in the actual review. More often than not, I'd say. I don't think the reviews are paid for. The previews, don't know. I think they do a pretty good job, all things considered. I think it's important to seperate the "coming soon preview for a game that's not out yet" from the "review written after playing a final copy of a game you can actually buy," though.
Really, you think Game Informer has misleading reviews? They give out a LOT of 4's, and don't seem to hesitate to bash the ever loving crap out of stupid games. Their _previews_ are full of it. Whatever game is on the cover, you can pretty much bet that it is going to suck ass. Every preview article is basically verbatim talking points from the publisher.
But, the _reviews_ seem to be accurate and as harsh as necessary. Look at the last months issue, as an example. They don't give out good scores very often.
Don't know.
There are game sites that don't give a game a good review just because - but they are few and far between.
What games sites are you reading? I see a lot of sites and magazines that give previews that are pretty much advertisements, but most of the established sites are fairly honest in their post-release reviews. Game Informer, Gamespot, Computer Gaming, etc. Gamespot even puts reader scores and scores from other sources right next to their own.
So really, what are you reading? "Joe's Super Madden EA Awesome Site Forever?"
there is a kid in philadelphia named cheeseborough.
There needs to be an investigation.
Um, yeah... I stopped reading right here.
It doesn't surprise me, since you obviously didn't read my original post before typing out your long boring screed.
Step away from the angry teenager/college dude, kids. He hasn't quite grown up yet.
Damn. You showed me.
Doofus.
Dead Rising looks a lot like the "kill as many unarmed guys as possible in the mall" mode from State of Emergency. I thought it was a lot of fun, and this looks even better.
I think you're kind of missing the point, on a whole bunch of levels.
Hi doofus, I think you are missing the point.
I specifically mentioned that I wasn't questioning his Xbox 360 purchase, doofus. I was just pointing out that the controllers work on the PC (which he obviously already has, right doofus?), and that you can just as easily play Alien Storm and Robotron on it.
(even the cheapest PCs run the $600 range)
Yeeeeah. Okay. Second clue that your post isn't going to be what we call "reality based."
You'll have to play with a keyboard and mouse in front of a computer screen, not in your living room.
Considering my original post was almost 100% about how you can use the Xbox 360 controllers on your PC, I don't have a lot confidence in your ability to read.
You won't be able to track your accomplishments, or play with your son halfway across the country while talking on voice chat like I do
Have you played a modern computer game? Like, I don't know, any of them? Shockingly, voice chat and ranked servers exist on PC games, too! Can you even believe it????
From a gameplay standpoint, playing on PC would be a crappy version of what can be done easily, more cheaper, and arguably more fun on Xbox 360.
Again, I never disputed that. At all. Ever. You picked a random misinterpration of my post (even though there was a disclaimer) and based an entire rant on it. A rant full of inaccuracies.
The rest of your long ranty post had little to nothing to do with anything that I said, but what the hell, doofus.
But let's look beyond that. Up until now, shareware was the domain of a few key players (iD, for example), but it never really took off.
You're out of your freaking doofus gourd if you think that shareware never took off. How old are you? Shareware faded away in a large part because companies can now offer direct downloads of demos (many of which are unlockable, and scarily close to shareware!) to consumers instead of having to rely on a network of BBS's and floppy disk traders.
They're taking the long predicted download-distribution model for selling games and making it a reality.
I guess you have never used Steam. Based on your post I'm going to guess that this may be the first time you've actually used a computer.
To summarize: You think the Xbox is cool. You can use your Xbox controllers on the PC. For some reason you think this means I hate the Xbox and all that it stands for.
In otherwords, you're a doofus.
Doofus.
So, yeah, my life would have been perfectly complete with a PC, a decent USB control, a usb headset, and Ventrillo. Oh, assuming I cound find games with a similar level of fun gameplay and people online to play them with.
I'm not questioning your Xbox 360 purchase. I think it's kind of stupid to attempt to rationally justify entertainment purchases. You buy toys because for whatever reason you derive pleasure from them.
That being said, not only can you find games with a similar level of fun on the PC, but in many cases, the exact same games. You can also use the Xbox 360 controller on your PC.
I'm amazed.
I have the feeling that anything shiny has a similar effect on you.
Seems sony is uncapable of a worldwide launch at the same time, which is where microsoft really was able to succeed other then a shortage of the unit,
If not being able to supply the areas they launched in for an entire quarter is succeeding at a world wide launch, what would they have to do for you to consider it a failure?
Yes, and also launching a year after the 360. The Xbox only had a four year lifespan. Four years!
What sort of amazes me is that even though their last console came out before everyone else's, their newest console is a year behind the latest generation.
MS released the Xbox a year into the last generation, realized their horrible mistake, and then rushed in a year early to the current generation. That's a more accurate way to describe the current situation.
The original Xbox had a miniscule shelf life compared to the historical average for a console.
As most of the time, we Europeans are getting the sore end of the launch planning.
Gee, I wonder why? A large extremely diverse population that buys far fewer game consoles per capita (and in total) than the US or Asia. If you have to pick one of the three major regions to shaft, Europe is the obvious choice from a financial perspective.
GP's comment:
Don't mistake technical expertise and immersiveness for a good storyline. There isn't one.
Parent's scathing counter-argument:
Just because the basic idea has been done before, doesn't mean that the execution isn't great by itself. There are only a few basic plotlines available. It's the details and execution that count.
I think a rebuttal loses much of its effectiveness when it only restates the point that it is trying to shoot down. Maybe I'm just weird, though.
Sounds a bit like THPS to me...
It does sound a bit like it, but it's not. Tony Hawk is far more fun. The only reason the original Jet Set/Grind Radio was mildly successful is because it was one of the first "cel shaded" games.
That would carry more weight if you had provided any evidence for your initial claim other than "all accounts," of which, I might add, you provided exactly zero.
You forget that Nintendo has already launched their experiment. By all accounts, the DS has been convincing unconventional customers to spend their money. The Revolution is not likely to be that much more money.
I think you're crazy. I don't know anyone who owns a DS that didn't either:
- already like videogames
or
- own a gameboy at some point
Do you? Really?
Didn't they announce that all titles that ever came out on Nintendo's consoles will work on the Revolution? At least I thought that's what the GP meant...
No.
They've said that Gamecube games will play on it and that there will be some sort of download service offering (enhanced?) versions of some nebulous selection of their old games. You can't plug N64/SNES/NES carts into it. There haven't been any details on whether it will include third party games, or how many, or what, or for what price, will be available via their service.
Don't really care all that much myself. However based on trends going back a decade now it is fairly safe to assume Nintendo will quickly build a broad and deep catalog while Sony will focus on the male teen/young adult demographic again, as will Microsoft.
Sony has had a broader and deeper catalog than Nintendo for the last ten years. They have more games, spanning more genres. You can ignore the massive number of quality Sony titles (Gran Turismo, Metal Gear, the Jak series, Ratchet and Clank, sports, puzzle games, flying games, family games, action games, strategy games, RPGs, "weird games" -- Mr. Mosquito, Katamari, robot games, fighting games) if you want, but saying that Nintendo has had a broader and deeper catalog for the last ten years is simply not true, no matter how you slice it.
I'm going to assume that what you actually mean is "Nintendo has games that I like," which is completely okay. They've put out some cool titles. But neither broader, nor deeper, in the catalog department.
Not just girls but everyone who isn't your conventional "gamer" demographic.
Do an experiment. Find 10 people that don't play video games. Ask them if they would spend $300* to play video games.
Go ahead.
Ask them.
The fact is, people who don't play video games aren't going to buy a console. There are cheap hockey sticks available on the market RIGHT NOW! If you don't play hockey, you're not likely to care, no matter how innovative the design may be.
It's the same thing.
*$300, on the assumption that the Revolution is $200 + 2 games.
Or, from another angle: Sony and Microsoft are working hard to field the finest cavalry regiments ever seen on a field of battle. Nintendo is working hard on building a tank.
Or, from reality: Sony and Microsoft are working hard to field the finest cavalry regiments ever seen on a field of battle. Nintendo is cheerfully prancing and arranging flowers in the middle of the field, completely oblivious, and wondering why no third parties are scurrying to pick flowers for their pretty bouquet.
Just like they've done for the last two generations.
Revolution
Pro: Widest range of software covering the most catagories.
Yes, because there have been so many titles announced for the Revolution already. You can say you like Nintendo games and want them to do well without pretending to do an "analysis."
That's kind of misleading. By the time Sony's put out the PS3, they'll have to deal with an Xbox 360 that's had a good half year's head start in the channel, since the supply chain problems have apparently been fixed. Last stats I heard, _50%_ of 360 owners had put their console online. That's an excellent number, if they can maintain it.
If they are able to get actual 360's in stores, and add a couple of interesting exclusive titles to the lineup by the summer, they may have a chance. The supply problem has really squandered a lot of the initial launch excitement. When the PS3 launches, MS is going to be in the unenviable position of being "last year's" console in the face of Sony and Nintendo unless they have an impressive stable of games.
My opinion, obviously. We'll see what happens.
Microsoft has claimed publicly that about half of XBOX360 users have joined XBOX live. No word on how many are regular users vs. tried it once. Also, I believe that Xbox live access is required to run old Xbox 1 games on XBOX 360, so some folks may have joined just for that.
Right. Well, considering that 360 sales to date are a fraction of the original Xbox sales, I don't think taking even half of the total 360 owners into consideration is going to change the percentage very much.
I guess my point was that MS has had Live out as the only service for several years, and the adoption by users has been pretty slow to date. If there were 20 million people hooked on Live already, Sony might have something to "catch up" to or worry about. As it is, the lagging sales of Microsoft's consoles have limited the potential impact of their head start.
This isn't a dig on Microsoft or Live, just the current facts.
It will be interesting to see how this service does compared to the new XBOX Live available for the XBOX 360 users. XBOX Live over the past couple years has become the standard for online console gaming with in my opinion great service and the ability to download content for live-enabled games.
The online console era is the new thing for consoles and is now definitely here to stay as it looks like both XBOX 360 and PS3 both are going to be media centers in one form or another. I think HUB is going to have some catching up to do to match the growing success of XBOX Live.
The growing success, put into perspective.
10% of Xbox owners ever got on Live. Microsoft's Xbox sales were 20% of Sony's PS2 sales. Nintendo's sales were also around 20% of Sony's. Doing the math, we can see that Live stormed onto the scene and sucked in a whopping 1.6% of the console gaming market.
Holy cow! How will Sony ever catch up to that???