Drowsy Emperor

It does look horrible. Its probably done to make the body look better in power armor, which doesn't look truly massive unless you have a smaller head on a large body. If you keep everything proportional the impressive visual effect vanishes. However, I've no idea why the hips are so massive by default.

Thankfully, it is not average. The GPU of the PS4 will have access to the 8GB of system memory--the super-fast GDDR5 RAM--at the same time as the PS4's CPU, unlike the same components in a PC. The RAM in your PC is slower DDR3, unavailable to your GPU, which itself has only 2GB of VRAM. The potential for future-proofing the console's performance is very exciting. And it will be upgradeable, at least the hard drive, possibly with a sizzlingly-quick solid-state drive. I honestly don't think the custom ram will make much difference. Console games are made by the lowest common denominator, in other words the hardware limitations of the XBOne are the ones you want to look at. The supposedly super fast RAM and memory sharing could just as easily turn into the cell processor. An advantage on paper but rarely visible in practice, if XBOne stays the primary platform for development. Even in the hypothetical situation where the PS4 takes the lead, its still just RAM memory. The value for money disappears when you start buying games. The new Tomb Raider game retailed for 30 euro on the PC and 60 on the consoles. It does not take even a dozen games to make up for the additional cost of the PC. This is day one difference, in two months the price for PC TR will likely be cut down in half. Down the line it just gets cheaper and cheaper, with CDKey sites, Steam/GoG sales etc.

Consoles have typically always been technologically stomped by the PC in a year or two. Console advantage here is consistent platform. This particularly helps developers. That they are the same technology as the PC will make development less cumbersome too. Eh, I just bought a new computer (yesterday) and it still cost me $1400 (Canadian). i5-3550, Radeon HD 7950 3GB, 16 GB of DDR3-1600 memory, 128GB SSD, 2 TB HDD. Now some of that stuff is beyond spec for the console (the SSD in particular). Now if I was ridiculously diligent and shopping around, I might get a better price, but I went to the local Memory Express because they also build it for me cheaply and it's super convenient. Which is how most people do their shopping. I agree that the PC architecture will make games more likely to come to the PC. I like this, as I'm a PC gamer. It's still not a costless endeavour, however, and you will still get games that are console exclusive. It'd still require me to hook my computer up to the TV. I'm a gaming enthusiast, and have virtually no interest in doing this because moving my box is not something that interests me. I don't know how unique I am in my perspective. Hmmm, I don't know if this is necessarily the case. There's still a multitude of hardware configurations, and by the sounds of it they still want console games to be able to run off the disc (not necessarily an advantage, IMO) however. This could go either way. Not all equipment is built equally, and if Sony/MS cut corners (or definitely do not) then rates of failure will not be consistent. Spoken from someone that had a motherboard with poor capacitors that died horribly on me in 2010 (although I did get 4 years out of that computer). Steam sales and whatnot could be an issue. Though at release PC gaming for the big titles is pretty much the same $60 at this point in time. PC gaming is more affordable in the long run if people are willing to be patient, but I think that that is an uncommon trait among a large chunk of the gaming population. There's also perspective and simply habit. People need to see the gaming PC as an equivalent alternative. I'd be skeptical if they will en masse. And I still think that they'll have improved reliability, simplicity, and comfort for the majority of people that will use them. I certainly think that they'll still have the perception that those traits are true, however, even if they aren't. Oh I'm not saying people will start jumping ship en masse - I'm just listing my own reasons, as someone who can afford to invest only in one these things - so value for money is an issue. I don't think much will change overall, if the new generation of consoles takes off as Sony and MS are expecting. I'm just saying that consoles and the PC are converging towards offering a similar gaming experience, to the detriment of the consoles as less flexible/closed platforms that are also weaker in the hardware department. It sounds like components are very expensive in canada. The PC I'm slowly building for myself is about 10-20% weaker than that but the core components don't cost more than 600 US$ (CPU, GPU, RAM, ATI 7850).

You still won't see Sony titles on PC. So essentially the status quo will be the same. That may be the case, but the PS2 years where Sony was drowning in must play exclusives is long gone. The PS3 exclusives list isn't all that long...

Actually I've given that some thought. After my initial enthusiasm for the PS4 I've come to some conclusions. The only console that's guaranteed to have true exclusives this generation is Nintendo (and its not doing well so far, but that's another story). A PS4 or XBO might be completely pointless buys for anyone with a gaming PC. I see three major reasons for this: 1) For all intents and purposes they're an average PC in a custom (parts not replaceable) box. Thus they're not easy to fix and sure to be technologically stomped by the PC in just a year or two. This is a problematic investment in particular when you consider the following: 2) A gaming rig is not as expensive as it used to be. I've calculated the difference down to an approximate 200$ only (not counting the monitor), which is a small price to pay for the unmatched versatility the PC offers. And any household is likely to need a PC anyway. In other words, even though this generation of consoles is cheaper than the last (more or less), you're getting less for your money. Weaker hardware and no fancy new features to make up for the difference (like the now affordable blue ray player) - on a closed system - you're still not going to get to play any of the PC centric genres (that due to being impossible to replicate on a console, or too niche, will never be ported). A further assumption can be made that makes this difference even bigger: 3) In this generation of consoles we got to play almost everything worthwhile on the PC. The new generation is made on a pc friendly architecture that is going to drive up the likelihood of any successful game getting a port by about 100%. In fact, most games will probably be multiplatform, even more than they are now. Other minor (or not so minor) reasons: 4) comfort issues no longer apply - you can now play pc games on the couch, in front of the TV, just as easily 5) console games require much the same process to get running as PC games installation, etc. 6) since they're using the same hardware that PC uses, made by the same mass-manufacturers, a console and a PC should have similar rates of failure - but the PC, unlike the console out of warranty, is replaceable 7) huge difference between price of games makes PC gaming more affordable in the long run I've concluded that any of the new consoles are a bad investment vs a gaming PC. They offer less for more money and the advantages they used to have (reliability, simplicity, comfort) have evaporated.

The easier alternative is unplugging your pc but look on the bright side, at least it isn't: XBOX, CLOSE WINDOWS PROGRAM

Good point.

Even if they cost less its quite a gamble hoping that Steam Early Access will cover that. Why couldn't he have just planned a budget for a 2 mil game and then use the additional money to add more content to an already finished game.

True. Although the whole anti publisher rant was really populism from the start. Tim Schafer stopped getting to make games because the games he made either didn't sell well or weren't profitable on a scale that makes them worth the investment. And {probably} because he can't manage money either. And now instead of getting his head on straight and doing what he was paid to do he's undermining the trust that's central to Kickstarter. And the guy behind Blackwell adventures made four of them mostly on his own for a pittance.

I tried the Witcher 2 on my schizophrenic PC (CPU under minimum recommendations, GPU above recommended) and its pretty much working at around 60fps on high settings (ubersampling disabled). My jaw almost hit the floor at how good the game looks. I think the first game had a more subdued art design that I'll probably prefer in the long run, but W2 looks spectacular. Texture sharpness and detail are awesome in particular. I'm usually not the type to place emphasis on graphics, but after years of console ports made 7 year old hardware this is pretty refreshing.

I remember the years before Ubisoft. French games weren't often very good but they were certainly different than those from other countries. Now they've got Ubi, which is EA with a funny moustache wearing a mime outfit, and much like EA the thing they do most often is show their customers the finger.

And how exactly they wouldn't have gotten a hold of something as retarded as that? We are talking about gaming journalism here?

MGS games have far too many commands for the number of buttons on the controller. Half of the time through MGS3 I was holding down 2-3 buttons while tapping or pushing others while fiddling with analog sticks. In MGS3 some actions vary due to how you manipulate the button so you'd have to change the game code to remap those actions to single keys on a keyboard. Unless you have pressure sensitive keys or something.

Gran Turismo 3 Aspec corrupted my save file for the second time in two separate play-throughs. Every time I get the licenses and win a few races the game nukes me. That does it, I'm never playing it again.

Deponia. Its good, but it has a lot of minor (and not so minor) issues.

Let's not kid ourselves, if the press didn't get a hold of it, it would have never been fixed.

Well I suppose you could argue that the whole comic book approach makes it okay for the mooks to be mostly easy pickings, but I don't think that would be appropriate for Geralt even if he is superhuman, and Batman isn't. I couldn't tell you why though. I guess I don't find slaughtering enemies by the dozen in an RPG particularly fun - I prefer less combat to build up anticipation and encounters that are more meaningful and varied - not there just to fill empty space in the levels. At least that way the gameplay would be more like something from a book and less about gamey elements like grinding, level progression etc.

Ah a hoax. Would have been pretty funny though.

http://news-hound.net/samsung-pays-apple-1-billion-sending-30-trucks-full-of-5-cent-coins/

I see they definitely got you enchanted.

I did not get this impression at all. Mostly because I found Batman's combat to omgbbq fun, while The Witcher it was not so much. Batman is about chaining a multitude of hits and neither he nor his enemies really have any sense of "preventing" opposition attacks, with the exception of Batman's counter. The whole combat system is literally designed around multiple hostiles and it flows so well. The Witcher's was a lot of tumbling trying to get an attack on the flanks and Geralt becomes exceedingly vulnerable with multiple hostiles. Due to the multiple hostiles, Batman's combat has a plethora of autoaiming to assist the player, while it's not uncommon for me to forget that Geralt attacks the direction he's facing, so I sweet tumble into... attacking the air... Batman's combat is so stupidly automated that a blindfolded guy on Youtube played it and won against 5-6 opponents while mashing the buttons. I'm not advocating Gothic type keyboard breaking as a way to fight in games, but if the game can be played just as well by my dog chewing the controller then what does the game need me for anyway, it might as well play itself.

God I hope EA crashes and burns.

True, a shame as well Why? Why wouldn't you design the game around the best available tool for the job? Would you be disappointed about space sims being designed around flight sticks? Edit: Heck, even TW1 would have been better with a controller, but it didn't have native support. Using Xpadder can make it work, but you still need m&kb for menus and some rarely used functions. Because its not the best tool for the job? What's the problem with using 4 keys on the keyboard and a responsive mouse? If there were long combo chains then you could argue the gamepad is more comfortable Does a racing game work better with m&kb? How about action games like Batman: Arkham or Sleeping Dogs? (both notable for having similar combat systems to TW2) How about a platformer? Does a space sim work better with m&kb than with a flightstick? Mouse & keyboard is clearly superior for certain types of games: FPS, RTS, tactical RPGs, just to name a few. This is not a tactical RPG, it's an action RPG with a third person perspective. What you're saying makes sense only if the game has long combo chains that would be cumbersome to do on the keyboard. In other words, if it played on the level of complexity of Devil May Cry. If not, it boils down to personal preference. The Witcher 1's controls were instantly intuitive and did the job well. There's no way a gamepad would have been better because its much quicker to face and target enemies with a mouse than it could ever be with a gamepad, even with an implemented lock on system.

The key question is whether there will be any changes to the constant problems TW series has. If not, its just a fancy graphical upgrade not worth bothering with.

Sakimichi no Apollon is only modern teenage anime that's palatable. I'll look into it