MasterDex

It looks like I'm the only one really enjoying the game! I won't go into to much detail on my opinion as I plan to do a review of it for PXOD but to keep things concise, I'll say that I like the story so far and the characters are believable. The battle system is well done and fun to play but I lament the lack of the original Japanese VA and the slowdown and stuttering can be irritating but not enough for me to stop enjoying the game. RE: The fact that it's on the Wii. I don't think sales were the reason they chose the Wii. I believe they did it to keep the costs low while allowing them to keep the scale relatively big. For that reason, the wii makes more sense than releasing on the PS3 or 360. Also, Strangelove, if they were true Sakaguchi fans, they would have bought a Wii to play it, like I did!

I'll echo Spork and say change the case. Personally, I'd go for a full tower. You'll be glad of the extra room to work with and the additional ventilation, especially if you're overclocking that 2500k. I'm not sure about the motherboard either. It doesn't appear to support crossfire or sli so that might be a barrier for you later on. This one is just 25 quid more but it supports both and is generally viewed as a fantastic board all around. I assume you have harddrive/s for this system already? If you don't, I'd make sure to shop around well. Prices are still considerably high after the Thailand floods last year. If you can manage it, I'd avoid buying a new hard drive until the end of the year when prices should be more in line with pre-flood prices.

I'd say that's your best bet anyway. If you can get a replacement, there's no reason not to.

I haven't seen that before. The way the index score is done, it should never go down, only up when you upgrade hardware. it's probably a good idea to google and see if you can find anyone that had the same problem and solved it. Could be any number of things. Did you try rolling back to a previous driver to fix it?

Dean has vocalised very well the fear I have of this becoming the norm. The games industry is very commercial so the great majority of members and the biggest spenders will work hard to appease the vocal majority, right or wrong, thus risking compromising the art for the product. Skippable combat, in itself, isn't a bad idea but it's effect on game design, especially in the big leagues, might not be as desirable.

Is this really a thing? I'm listening to a lecherous dick and he seems to have a lapdog copying him but is this really a problem in "the fighting game community"? Is it not just what it is - Disrespectful and sleazy? I mean it's nice to throw labels on a subsection of society but at the end of the day, whether they be male or female, black, white, hispanic or inuit, whatever; assholes will be assholes, and some people like fighting games.

I don't think Battra and Dean are talking about the same kind of pantomime. Over here, pantomime refers to theatrical shows with audience interaction. For example, on stage there could be someone sneaking up on the main character who's looking everywhere but behind him and looking at the audience for help to which the audience will respond with "He's right behind you". Then the main character will turn around but the sneak will turn with him so he's still behind him and the main character will shout "Oh no, he's not!" to which the audience will respond "Oh yes, he is!" Something like this: Also, Jim Carrey and Adam Sandler are funny.....they just haven't had any funny movies in quite some time.....Ok. So they were funny! Still counts!

I got some brief hands-on time with the Vita yesterday. I like it, it fits nicely in the hands, if not in the pocket and I found the touchscreen pleasantly responsive. I'm still going to hold out for a pricedrop though and to see if Sony treat it well. Hopefully, they get the remote play of PS3 titles in as a standard feature with it.

It's a fair point and the possibility of such an occurance is high enough but I don't see it happening any time soon. I imagine that the threat of EU expulsion could be used to coerce ratification but they'd likely come up against some staunch opposition, at least so long as the political climate in the EU remains as it is.

Just the thread I was looking for! Sporkwaffles described the EU very well. It's the early stages of a truly united Europe, I believe. I think as it is now, it works well and we're not quite ready for a federation, if we'll ever be but the goal is to get it closer to a federation than a confederacy - with, as it appears, Germany and France holding the greatest power. Now, this is just my own suspicions but I believe a lot of what is happening in the EU is being dictated by power plays from Sarkozy and Merkel's camps. Thankfully, there are limits to the power the EU have which makes changing its form and asserting any great level of power over it is difficult. An example would be that for any EU law that requires amendment of the Irish constitution to be instituted, it must be voted on by the Daíl(lower house) and the senate before then being voted on by the people. Like every form of government, it has its advantages and disadvantages. Now, onto why I was looking for a thread like this. Here's a video of an eviction being stopped in Portlaoise, Ireland. Common Law and the constitution. Love it!

I think the question of cutscenes and dialogue being skippable is different to any form of gameplay being skippable. I think all of us here can remember a time when cutscenes and dialogue, while they could be ingored, could not be skipped and it did affect enjoyment having to see that same scene again and again as you died in the battle after it. You could say the same about combat - like the random battles in FFVII when all you want to do is reach a savepoint but because they're interactive elements, I think there's better solutions than just offering a "skip" button. That said, I do hear you about reaching a point you just can't pass it. I've reached walls in games myself and have broken them down for others so I get it. However, I think a better solution would be to save any skip button for a last resort. "Having trouble? Lower the difficulty.", "Still having problems? Would you like to skip?". For FF style random battles, adjust occurance and exp concurrently on something like a 5 point scale with 1 being no experience and no random battles, 2 being high experience and few random battles and 5 being low experience coupled with a high rate of random battles. At least then you're tailoring the experience to each player without removing the need to examine the gameplay elements on a deeper level than "Does it work"......Actually, I'm not sure how I feel about that idea. And that's because combat plays such a central role in so many games that I think it would be hard to extract it without damaging the integrity of the product. For certain games - Uncharted, Mass Effect - a standard skip button would do well but I don't think it's widely applicable to any great degree of success unless we homogenise our designs more. Gah! I don't know. I get the argument but I'm not all for it. I'm still not sure I have a well-formed opinion on the topic. It's a stickler for sure.

I don't think MGS is a very good example considering its been highly criticized for its longform cutscenes and exposition and its whackadoodle plot points. Even if someone did want to skip the stealth and avoid getting killed all the time, why would they buy it in the first place? There are far better spy thrillers out there for much cheaper and the plot and scenes are readily available. One of the arguments against this is that if you want to skip some element of gameplay then it could signify that there's a flaw with that element that prevents you from enjoying it. Now, this flaw may be subjective such as being too difficult for a certain person or not feeling quite right to control, etc but I think offering the option to skip the combat, if it catches on, might encourage developers and publishers to play things a little safer. I mean, what's the point in spending more money and more hours to find a nice difficulty curve for less skilled players and an equally nice one for those looking for more of a challenge? It removes the impetus to find better gameplay solutions. Implementing such an option will likely pay off for the publishers and developers as they can grab that huge audience of non-gamers and keep costs down as they don't need to try so hard to adapt gameplay itself so it has wider appeal. As I typed this, I thought of a possible solution to this issue that, at least, would suit people that aren't very good at games - AI-assistance. It'd be something in between automation and interactivity. Lets take God of War for example. Instead of the player having difficulty blocking and dodging and using combos, it'd work on a QTE type system with perhaps health benefits, etc where movement is taken care of by the player while blocking and dodging are automatic and combos and attacks are simplified to a single button press here and there and here and there, you get the picture. I think Bayonetta had something like that, not quite as automated but it was there. Finally, for difficulty spikes, I like the solution that some games (like The Witcher 2 -I'm not a fanboy, honest! ) offer that allows you to lower the difficulty on the fly. TL;DR: I think offering the option to skip gameplay content (be it combat, puzzles, etc) is the lazy solution.

The downside would be in its implementation. Take Half-Life as an example. If combat were removed from that game, you've gotten rid of the majority of the game, the same goes for God of War. It could work with something like Uncharted or Mass Effect but it's not universally applicable without changing how games are designed as combat would have to be abstracted from everything else, there'd have to be clear points where you can say this is the combat bit and this is the walking bit and this is the story bit and so on. It would have an adverse effect on many games. Edit: Also, I don't think the fact that you can do it with books and movies has any relevance to games. I believe the interactivity that games allow makes the question of skipping that interactivity more complex.

On a game-by-game basis, I think it's fine but a lot of the people, at least over in the RPS article that are for skippable combat are blind to the downsides it could have with certain games. The biggest problem I see is where does it end? Do we start developing games that allow each individual to skip every part they don't like just to play what they do like? Are platforming sections going to be skippable? QTE's? micromanagement? It just seems that the biggest push for skippable combat is coming from people that aren't really interested in playing games in the first place, like Mrs. Hepler. Call me old-fashioned but I don't think they're the people we should be targeting most games at, especially when they think so resolutely that such an implementation would have no chance of affecting anyone that doesn't want to make use of it.

Isn't that the same sort of argument you here from some religious people - athiests are immoral because they don't fear the wrath of God? I imagine there are a lot of people who would otherwise do bad things did they not fear God would judge them but I think most people don't do bad things simply because they're good people with or without God.

Just picked up a black Wii with a motionplus controller for €70. Now I'm ready for The Last Story. Can't wait! But I have to...because now I'm broke.

@Yant: So then how can you be a bible literalist if you don't follow the bible literally? Even if you don't stone or burn anyone for "sinning", are we to believe that you do think homosexuality is an abomination, that all those who do not follow or believe in God are heretics that will burn in hell? Even if you don't believe we should be put to death for sins that the bible says we should be, are we to assume that you hold the laws and values of the bible to be true? At this point I have to say I'm confused. It seems like one minute you're sticking to verse and interpreting it literally and then doing the exact opposite and interpreting it in a broader sense. You accuse Duke of attacking a straw man but I don't see you explaining why it's a straw man. Again it seems like you're simply picking and choosing what to obey and use from the bible to suit your own sensibilities. If that is the case, why not just forget about the bible and accept that your beliefs and morals come not from any higher power but your own mind and your theistic influences and stop using the bible and your own personal interpretation of it as a shield? Not that I want to tempt you or anything but it just seems a bit pointless and hypocritical to hold the bible up high while burning the pages you're not happy with.

Yeah, it'll be interesting to see the effect that ACTA has if it goes through. Blocking TPB might be the first step in getting the public used to the idea of increased control over the net. There's certainly a storm on the horizon anyway.

It's already blocked by my ISP here in Ireland but they're the only ones that block it as far as I know. It's a futile act though. TPB may be the biggest but it's not the only torrent site out there.

I think that was just an example to avoid mentioning HL:E3 on its own. I hear what you're saying though, people would be very angry if the first Valve franchise to get a second sequel wasn't Half-Life. That was a great interview though...Granted, Gabe didn't really say anything that he hasn't really said before but it was nice to get an updated look at his thoughts.

Christianity is one of those religions for leaders. It's designed to control a populace unlike many other religions which try to help individual growth or explain the unexplainable. There are christian/mosaic laws that can be found in the code of hammurabi. The story of Moses in the reed basket echoes that of Sargon, which would have been a story still well known in Moses' time. That story, thanks to the similarities with the story of Sargon's abandonment on the Euphrates sets him up as a king of kings as the common folk would have heard the stoy of Moses and compared it to the story of Sargon, with many likely coming to the conclusion that just like Sargon, Moses would have a kingdom. In that way, it was a self-fufilling prophecy intended to gather followers around Moses who would then rule over them. The burning bush and the time on Mt. Sinai strengthen his claim and set him up as a vessel for God's will. And that's the setup for much of the rest of the bible - the idea that only men chosen by God have the right to rule - an idea all to familiar to Constantine who, in the face of thousands of oppressed Christians, heard the voice of God and converted. Since then, there's been a bunch of leaders that have converted or used Christianity to control their people. It's a power religion, it spreads and takes over, forcing non-believers to question their fate faith or risk being struck down by Almighty God or one of his followers. It's why the head of the religion is a king upon himself and actually controls a kingdom. What I find most funny about Christianity however is how unlike the teachings of Christ it is. The original teachings of Christ would be closer to new age "hippy" and "liberal" beliefs than the conservatism it's associated with.

Agreed! I'm no necrophile but I've seen some hot zombies and it all gets very confusing.

I'm fine with either but I can see how this system might encourage less animosity among us. I say we try this way out for a while.

So using your reading of the bible and christianity then, christianity was blessed by god and all that Moses did was to prepare the world for Christ. So what of the other world religions? The Christian/Jewish/Abrahamic god would have us believe in only him or be condemned to hell. So you believe that most of the world is doomed to an afterlife of pain and sorrow? If you don't believe in evolution, do you believe in chromosomes and DNA? Do you not believe that parents pass on their genes to their children? If you do believe that then why is it such a stretch to believe that the passing on of genes and mutations from parent to child over millennia would not result in changes in the make-up of an animal? Are lots of African people punished by god or were they just unlucky enough to receive a mutation from their parents that left them with sickle cell disease?