Drowsy Emperor

Perhaps because some of us don't feel like we're missing any "good games?" Shooters aren't generally my thing, and neither are sports games. I've had no interest in the FF series or the other RPG's I've seen for consoles. Console exclusives are rare-ish and most of the time they aren't even games I care about in the first place. All my favorite games and genres are ones that (still) don't/wouldn't work well on consoles. All the little independent games I'm interested in are for PC. I can think of one console exclusive game in all these years that I was slightly interested in, and that was Red Dead Redemption. One "maybe" game isn't enough for me to spend $400+ just to play it. I'd get more use/function from spending $400 on a new camera lens. So why should I waste money, even if I have the money to waste, on something that will end up sitting on a shelf unused? Just because one has money to "throw around" doesn't mean one necessarily throws it around indiscriminately when there's no personal benefit/gain. And I've seen plenty of console "elitists" just as much as I see PC "elitists" - neither platform consists of a group that is exempt from such attitudes. Seems silly to me either way. I like red apples, someone else likes golden apples. They're both apples. Just play. Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're actually well informed about what games are available on the 2 main consoles. Because I sure as hell wasn't back in the day when I was only playing the PC (why would I be?) and I distinctly remember saying the same things you're saying now and realizing later (when it turned out that the PS2 had a massive catalog of good titles, in just about every genre) that I was talking out of my bum. At least with that console its inconceivable that you could find yourself not liking any of the games that are available on it. But, whatever, each to his/her own. Btw console exclusives aren't rare, there are less of them now than there used to be but the PS2 has easily a hundred games (probably hundreds though) that were never released on any other platform. And shooters are mostly a PC genre you know, if you think console gaming is all shooters and sports games... well.

Not wanting one just means you're denying yourself quite a few good games *shrug*. Why would you not want a console, presuming you had the money to throw around? My post was making fun of the tribal attitudes, I also have both. While most of my best gaming moments were on the PC, there were at least two games I played on the PS2 (the only console I ever owned) that were mindblowing (FFX, SOC) and plenty of other worthwhile ones.

The thing is, there are no proponents of consoles here, its the snobs who have both vs the pc only disadvantaged (who in typical proleterian fashion adopt the I DONT NEEDS IT argument, because MY PC CAN DOES IT ALL BETTERZ [not because I can't afford it, no sir]). Technically I'd be a snob if if I wasn't running obsolete hardware on both fronts.

The only problem is that you're likely to buy a PC anyway. However, even the combined price of a basic netbook + console is still less than what a gaming rig would come down to and you have the benefit of having two devices. However one issue is important - the dropping quality of console (and PC, but more important on the console) hardware. The fact that Sony gives only a one year warranty (the same that you would get for a hair dryer) tells you a lot about their projected failure rates. That's worrying, while I can open the PS2 and clean the laser what am I going to do if the PS3 screws up after the warranty expires? According to wiki, I think the failure rate for the PS3 is 10%, and while its not near the horrid X360 that's still pretty bad. More importantly, what is this going to mean for the next generation. PS2 was worse than PS1, and PS3 is worse than both in terms of hardware quality.

I don't know what console games look like on new TV's but one thing to take into consideration is that the lower resolutions that consoles work on are adapted for those tvs. You're not sitting as close as you would to a PC monitor and the tv blurs a lot of those jagged edges that would stick out like a sore thumb on a PC. My PS2 games look great on an old CRT,(comparatively speaking, much better than many games of the time on the PC) while those same games emulated on the PC look like crap. But please, continue with the **** slinging. Because the PC computer and console computer are two computers and there is only space for one in this town.

If it has to be one, then it's clearly PS4. MS has sucky exclusives and sucky policies. Its very likely you're right. However I'm not impressed by the PS3, I feel they screwed it up. Too few exclusives, too few landmark games, practically no RPG's - certainly no exceptional ones and a small game library. This makes me feel nervous about PS4. I don't want to invest in something that's going to have all the same multiplatform games (that the PC can do better). Obviously the XboX360 is even worse in this regard. I'm still playing all of its (worthwhile) games on my wreck of a PC and they look better too. But what if the next xbox is significantly cheaper (like half the price) of the next PS? That's something to consider. You're looking in the wrong market. Remember, PS3 is backwards compatible with PS1 games. I can play all the PS1 RPGs on my PS3. In addition, PS3 has had plenty of RPGs...released internationally when talking about the US.... Of course that means you'd have to import. Half of them are not really what Western audiences are into though...such as the Atelier series, the Agarest series which made it to the west...some of those that didn't copy that type of humor and behavior.... My PS3 also plays all my PS2 RPGs...so in truth I have FAR more RPGs that can play on my PS3 than I do on any other system...inclusive of my PC right now. I believe only the first versions of the PS3, the fat one are backwards compatible. The rest (indeed all of the ones available now on the market) omitted PS2 hardware to reduce costs. That's what I read on the wiki...

Which says a lot, considering Histoire secrète is not particularly good by Franco-Belgian comic scene standards (which sadly, have degraded over the last 20 years).

Since this is about the ME trilogy (although you wouldn't know it by reading most of the posts) I think its fitting to stand back and look at what the ME series did right and what it did wrong. It was certainly a major success, financially and with the critics. I think its finest points are audio-visual design, world building and some of its characters. The second and (presumably, since I'm not going to play it) the third game had pretty good combat gameplay too, better than the first. The cinematic quality of 90ties SF shows was successfully recreated faithfully to the point that the game could be considered their equal (in both their good and bad points). The lows would be the convoluted and unoriginal storyline, level design (during missions), questionable minigames and lack of ability to customize the main character in terms of personality. Shepard exhibited too little growth as a result of the binary choices the game forces you to pick between. Overall the series could be called one of the high points of modern gaming although this praise is a two edged sword. While great strides have been made in the technical aspects of game design, a lot of the charm has been lost by excessive streamlining, railroading and fear of innovation in the weakest aspect of games in general - storytelling. As such, much effort is squandered in treading over familiar ground - and most of the games (ME series included) fail to sustain the initial great impression when its revealed that underneath all the shine there isn't a truly new experience.

Thats what I felt while playing it, but it sort of evaporated when I actually finished the game. The story failed to live up to the in game world.

PST has purpose, the strange premise it has is in service of the philosophical question that drives the whole storyline. AC is about killing **** and everything else is icing meant to give a little context and nothing more.

You tribals are hopeless.

My computer is well into its 6th year and apart from the graphics cards (the second one is functional but overheats in many games) still going strong. Its a good machine, but its unreasonable to think it could keep up with equivalent or even lesser hardware that someone is going through extra trouble to optimize their games for. But like I said, who cares about hardware. Its all about games, and in that respect its best to have both. Not that traditional PC genres are doing well at all. The RTS is as good as dead, RPG's too. Most of the games released for PC are crappy low budget titles or ports of some sort.

This is incorrect. I bought a nearly 1000 euro PC when PS3 launched, and while it kept pace with them easily for a long while, its graphic card had to be changed at some point (and the current one is almost dead as well) and its been overtaken by the latest in console games in terms of how much they can squeeze out of their hardware as opposed to how much I can squeeze out of mine. Eh. Your graphics card dying and have to be replaced with a crappy one does not mean nobody can play with console quality with as old PC. I went through two good cards in 6 years, the second one works but overheats in games. Even if you chalk it up to rotten luck, the rest of the components have simply aged and the optimization that console games go through put them in the lead. Its not a great technological lead by any stretch but when money is concerned it certainly is.

Its tough being on top.

This is incorrect. I bought a nearly 1000 euro PC when PS3 launched, and while it kept pace with them easily for a long while, its graphic card had to be changed at some point (and the current one is almost dead as well) and its been overtaken by the latest in console games in terms of how much they can squeeze out of their hardware as opposed to how much I can squeeze out of mine. The PS3 used to be 600 euros. In terms of value for money the PC clearly inferior (if you aren't using it as a tool to make money at the same time). Even now, a PS3 is approx. 300 euros, and a 300 euro pc (without a monitor) is a beefed up office computer. @pmp: like I said, it takes years and even then its a gamble.

This hobby is about games , not hardware. Most games on all platforms do a poor job with whatever hardware is available anyway. Consoles have games that aren't available on the PC and vice versa. The only thing that's important is knowing what you want to play. The PC can emulate games in time, but that usually means waiting for years before you can play a certain game the way it was intended. Really the best choice is to have both if at all possible.

I don't know what's wrong with people to insist so much on playing the AC games. The first one was garbage, and when the first game in the series is crap you don't even give the second one the time of day (generally). Yet they did, even though no one (honest) said no 2 was more than good/very good... And now this. Who is surprised that AC3 is mediocre? Power of propaganda or something.

Well, if you ever get down buying that console, play Red Dead Redemption and Max Payne 3, and all your faith of Rockstar shall be restored. I'm certainly interested in Red Dead Redemption. I used to love Max Payne but I felt it was a nicely wrapped up story without the need for a sequel. MP2 sorta proved this, it felt so tacked on and redundant. But I could be persuaded to try MP3.

Next step, Bioware Edmonton 15 guys again? At least gamers, as frustrated and cynical as they (we) are, are never wrong about one thing - EA. The way they (mis)treat and eventually ruin the studios they run is more predictable than Newton's laws.

I have nothing against Rockstar games, the novelty of their sandbox gameplay has merely worn off after so many years of repetition. I just recently finished Bully and the game, while well crafted was nowhere as much fun as it should have been.

Not very evocative. We have the rugged american (inevitably the good guy) on the right, the projects yo in the middle with his shirt over long sleeves "black people can't dress properly" thing and probably the resident butt ugly psycho on the left. I can't get excited over GTA anymore. The fourth one took that concept as far as it was going to go and even then there were signs that the series was going downhill.

Is your monitor also "unavailable"? Yep. You can connect the PS3 to a monitor huh, I forgot all about that. Thanks for reminding me, that's certainly a good temporary option to consider.

Of course. There's always the temptation to jump in while its got all the new thing shine on it though. And I don't know what features they're going to offer that would make for a strong motivation to get them early. I doubt there's going to be anything nearly as useful as Blue Ray capability was at the time (and even now). On a totally unrelated note, my recently rediscovered PS2 is starting to show disc read errors on occasion. Considering that my big PC is unavailable, I'd really be depressed if the PS2's laser dies on me. Even if I might be able to afford a PS3 as a replacement I sure don't have cash for an LCD/LED tv, and its worthless without that.

I knew I could get him to break character Ha!

Sing for us Volo ...you'll feel better afterwards, I guarantee it