Hell Kitty

If you're going to criticize something at least know what the hell you're talking about. MGS is full of itself, but it's also very aware of the silly. Might as well claim NOLF isn't aware it's not a serious depiction of the business of spying. Oh, and neither MGS or DX or AP are remotely like NOLF. H

Weren't you a part of American McGee's butchering of Grimm's Fairy Tales?

What is the cause of those deaths? What is it you think makes those death more newsworthy than Iraq?

Apart from a few colourful characters we really haven't seen anything to suggest this game will be campy. It doesn't look remotely close to NOLF.

It's not at all condescendingly arrogant to dismiss the beliefs of all those who think a certain way, right? Because anyone who believes x cannot possibly have come to that belief themselves, they must have been brainwashed by group y. When one has a decent argument to make, one doesn't need to resort to such dismissals.

So he'd be an emo ninja pirate?

Games today seem to be more about being an experience to enjoy than a game to be beaten. That's certainly the Valve philosophy of game design, that every player should be able to see everything the game has to offer in one playthrough. Do they? With gaming becoming more popular over time, I think there are going to be far more people who just want an entertaining experience, more people wanting to spend a small amount of time having fun than a large amount of time learning how to beat a game. Same goes with movies or books, or hell, the artwork they hang on their walls at home. Most people just want something that looks nice and matches the decor, they don't want to be challenged by the themes put forward by the artist. In others words, I think you're completely wrong, most people don't want a challenge. I think you're being a bit dramatic here. The only thing a person can do is put time into the game, time to learn how to play, time to increase their skill, and the more time needed to complete the challenge the less it's going to be worth it for most people, because the reward for completing games is pretty small compared to the "reward" one can get from other, more important activities. There are professional gamers in the world who beat games and other players for money, but they are surely a tiny percentage of all the folks in the world who play computer and video games.

Anyone who didn't play Saint's Row 2 obviously hates games.

Explain how this is true without using specific titles (because that's when people just pointlessly list games they like). This is a common complaint amongst gamers, and I suppose it's true to an extent, but it's important not to confuse a limitation with a choice.

And those RPGs of old you say are better, they are streamlined and easier to play than even older ones. So I guess you're right, things are getting worse, but it didn't start with modern games. But what you're missing is that RPGs of yesterday weren't like PST either.

This is from the first post: There have been a few really good rpgs since then, but there seem to be fewer and fewer with each coming year. It's like if less people are growing apples, and more are growing pears, and you eat those pears but insist they are bad apples.

Of course if we compare those old games to even older games as well as current games, we'll see that they are anomalies, rather than typical of older games. It's not like old games all had writing of the same quality as PST. The genre never had that level of quality, and thinking it did is pure nostalgia.

So did I. I don't particularly want to relive them though, but that doesn't actually say anything about the quality of past, present or future games. So you're a hoarder? Ya know, if you got rid of some of that junk you'd have room for a whole bunch of sexy consoles. I feel the same, although I also don't feel that todays games are "bad" while older ones are "better", which seems the basis this whole thread was started on. It's just a matter of confusing good and bad with what I like or don't like. Which is what the internet is powered by. A well written bit of text is probably going to create a greater image in my mind than normal mapped polygons. Of course I also don't care for the Monkey Island games after 2 because the character voices don't match at all what I imagined they would reading the text in the original games. In fact I don't much care for modern adventure games. I guess we all our "things were better in the past" hangups. Oh, and in what bizarro world was Morrowind hailed as brilliant by everyone? Or by "everyone" does Pidesco actually mean "those pesky mainstream journos who give everything 10/10"?

When it comes to choices in games I prefer to make decisions based on their pros and cons. Choosing between A or B determining which options, paths, alliances you have open to you. If I need to choose between A or B simply because I don't have enough time to do both, that's just plain uninteresting. The only games where real time passing in the background is interesting are those where there is no main quest, like Pirates! or The Sims 2, where the point is simply to see how much your character can achieve within their lifetime. When it comes to the passage of time in games I prefer something like Persona 3, where specific time periods, in this case the afternoon and night, are turns, and only one from a variety of activities can be completed in a turn. @ CrashGirl: There are a hell of a lot more things gamers will scream about than just those three. Regenerating health is a pretty common one right now.

The days of needing a supply of provisions to fend off death, graph paper to map, and a book of paragraphs which told the story, those were the days of the true height of RPG glory. Baldurs Gate is dumbed down junk for ADHD kiddies.

Amen sista! As for GTA4, the story wouldn't be so bad if it didn't completely contradict the gameplay. Constant whining about having little money, despite the fat bank account, and the moral dilemma of killing a few select people when you otherwise have no problem killing hundreds.

[quote name='H

Bing bang diggariggadong, Funny words i say when i am killing. Bing bang Diggariggadong, Silly words that give me lots of loot.

I never understood the "but I can play games X, Y & Z, so A shouldn't have any problem" argument. I remember the Vampire forum with folks arguing that Bloodlines should run as well HL2 because they both use the same engine. For years I haven't been able to play System Shock 2 without it crashing on my, on a variety of different systems. I'm amazed developers get games to run on as many combinations as they do. Of course this doesn't excuse buggy games, but how well a game runs, or even if it runs at all isn't just down to how buggy the game is.

If only knowing that there are people worse off than ourselves could solve our own problems. Whether one group has it worse than another is kinda irrelevant when you're having the **** kicked outta ya for "choosing" to be gay. *** I basically agree with Aristes, in that comparing apples and oranges doesn't do you any favours, but I really can't fault people for being unwilling to just sit back and wait for the apparently inevitable acceptance of gay marriage. And why the hell should anyone just sit back and wait when they have ad campaigns like the one Di mentioned thrown at them? I also think arguing solely about legal rights and the role of religion or government in marriage is kinda missing the point. Social as well as legal recognition is important. Even with civil unions that provide equal legal rights, by insisting that homosexuals cannot call their unions "marriages", you* are making it clear that gay unions are not equal to straight unions. * That's a general "you", but if you think I'm referring to you I probably am.

At the very least there is this:

I only watch his reviews for the games I've played. Otherwise they aren't terribly interesting.

Whether something is 3D isn't a matter of opinion. As for the main story, they seem to get worse with each Fallout installment.

It does if you define a game as 'true 3D' as I did. No fully 3D world uses sprites rather then 3D models. Well if you use that strange definition then there are no true 3D games, because they all use sprites to some degree. "2.5D" or "pseudo-3D" refers to games like those in the Build engine that aren't 3D at all. The world in games like Daggerfall or SkyNET don't pass for 3D, they are 3D. Chock full 'o polygons 'n ****. Well sure, just like some folks like to say that Fallout 3 isn't a "true Fallout game" you can tell yourself that games that make heavy use of sprites aren't "true 3D games", but in reality the games mkreku mentioned use a 3D engine.

I don't understand what you're saying here? Arena was 3D, Daggerfall was 3D, the two spin-offs from the Elder Scrolls universe (Redguard and.. uh.. forgot the other one) were also 3D. Arena was so buggy I never even made it out of the first town (after the starting dungeon). Daggerfall was equally buggy and it took a LOT of tries before I finally got somewhere in its story (although I never remember actually finishing it). Morrowind was an absolute success compared to Daggerfall! Oblivion was as bug-free as I ever hope a game to be. Fallout 3 is a bit buggier than Oblivion (for me) but it's still a damn impressive game. If you really want to get technical they were 2.5D, not true 3D like fo3 or unreal. They have the illusion of 3D like doom1 did, but were simply just sprites. That's not true. The use of sprites for characters and items doesn't make a game "2.5D". The engine used for Daggerfall was true 3D, and was also used for Terminator Future Shock & SkyNET, which used sprites for character like Daggerfall, and used in Redguard, which had 3D characters. In fact the engine was one of the first true 3D engines, and I believe mkreku's point was that Oblivion was far from Bethesdas second foray into 3D.