RockyRan

I shudder at the thought of Chewie in nothing but a towel.

I disagree with the idea that games can only be truly rewarding if we turn them into number games and grinding. In fact, I'm of the idea that it's the exact opposite. I've never really made that connection between "numbers game = instant gratification". I'd wager it actually goes the other way. For me, a game that truly hooks me in has new mechanics and items sprinkled throughout its experience, hidden in alcoves, offered as rewards for missions, etc. I rarely do a mission if all I get is extra XP and/or cash. One of the reasons I disliked exploring in recent Zelda games like Wind Waker and Twilight Princess was because exploring caves and other side areas always resulted in the same two rewards: rupees or heart pieces. Yes, yes, "instant gratification by small rewards" and all that jazz, but for me it quickly got tiring and I completely lost interest when I knew everything I did always amounted to one thing. For that same reason I'm uninterested in games like Borderlands, who have nothing to offer me other than more numbers as reward. When you homogenize progress into one universal currency, you lose the element of surprise. There's no wonder of the unknown or surprises to be had when all you get is some generic currency, and I'm of the belief that developers rely on this generic currency because it's just an easy (might even go so far as to call it lazy) way of giving a sense of progression. Do 30 damage. Get something. Now do 31. Hooray. Certainly easier than having to work out the mechanics and placement of a new move in Banjo Tooie if you ask me. I love to find little areas in games like Oblivion, specifically the Shivering Isles, where rewards aren't just about "MOAR EXPERIENCE" or "MOAR GOLD", but rather weird, funky loot with completely random magical attributes. It really amplifies the sense of progression, because I get new, unique weapons and items as part of my arsenal and gives a bit of an identity to each object that I find. I'm completely against the idea that instant gratification and progress are fostered in grinding games where doing any one thing is rewarded with generic Space Bucks and XP Points, with the burden being placed on you to find what to spend it on and all that crap. Being drip-fed these items as they are, in a more controlled environment (which is where I depart from my comparison with Oblivion) could even allow game designers to actually work the rest of the game AROUND these unique items. And that, in the end, is where I believe that true progress in a game lies, where the game itself expands as well as your arsenal of items that are actually useful in their own ways. I just don't see how throwing numbers at you is satisfactory in any way. I've never subscribed to that notion, actually (which is why I wouldn't touch 99% of MMOs with a ten-foot pole, WoW included).

Still, though, this is an official map, and so far the official maps have a completely screwed up sense of scale. I do wonder what a properly-scaled map would look like.

Yeah, the scale in the games is completely screwed up. Using Oblivion's scale, Daggerfall would've been like a thousand times larger. I don't really think the official maps are indicative of how large the game worlds will actually be.

(I might expand this to an op-ed piece on PXoD, but for now I want to get you guys' thoughts on the matter) It seems that as years pass, basic RPG concepts seem to be shoehorned into more and more games. It's getting to the point where every single developer who wants to have a meaningful sense of progression in their game thinks they need to shoehorn RPG elements into their game. How many times do we have to hear this line in a review? This line pops up everywhere. Obviously in RPGs, but also shooters, racing, even sports games. There seems to be this stagnation in the concept of game progression. Game developers, IMO, have started to rely a wee bit too much on things like experience points, leveling up, skill trees, item buffs, etc., in order to give off this illusion of the protagonist getting stronger. Everything always falls back on some universal currency, where you purchase abilities, etc., using this currency. There are many ways as to why this kind of progression is simply lazy design. By implementing cash shops the developers really don't have to concern themselves with the actual pacing of these upgrades. Think, for instance, which is easier: you're playing Banjo-Kazooie, and instead of finding Bottles and having him give you a specific upgrade in a specific location, these upgrades are rather all thrown into a gigantic skill tree list. You gain "experience" by killing enemies and getting Jiggies, then you spend these points into the skills. The way Rare originally did it actually took more effort, because they had to take into account the location of where this skill was to be found, how long the previous skill was found so as to not bombard the player with new mechanics, making sure it can be acquired at the time they wanted, design further levels around this skill around it but make sure the previous levels don't make said skill absolutely necessary, etc. In short, it's quite the job to implement this skill in a natural, organic way. Doing it the "new" way, however, the developer doesn't have to think of any of this. Simply have the player get more and more experience and, ultimately, the burden of progression is left up to the player. The same applies to level design, because rather than physically cutting off a player from entering an area based on a lack of skill or abilities, they simply use generic stat-based systems to accomplish the same thing. In games like Super Metroid, area accessibility had to be controlled via organic obstacles that prevented the player from accessing an area until a specific point was reached, and that point was determined by the careful placement of an upgrade in a specific place. But rather than doing this, a lot of games simply keep the player off an area by playing "the numbers game". Their stats numbers don't match yours? Too bad, you're gonna get killed in one hit. The problem with this approach is that it's completely inorganic. Most of the time, in games like Borderlands, enemies of different levels get organized into completely arbitrary areas, placed for no reason other than to control where the player goes. Enemies in some areas are ridiculously stronger for absolutely no reason. It's neither organic nor physical, it's just enemies being arbitrarily stronger in one corner of the map. Which is easier? The Super Metroid approach, which requires really complex planning of level design and pacing, or the Borderlands approach, which requires fuck all other than spawning a bunch of high-level enemies in a nondescript area that you don't want the player to visit just yet? Obviously the latter. Not to mention the fact that the sense of progression is completely neutered under the "Let's PRG-ify everything" approach. Again bringing up Super Metroid, there are absolutely no stats to speak of. You never find "shield buffs" or "+ attack boosters" or any other items that are, quite honestly, meaningless. You find Super Missiles, morph bombs, the Screw Attack, etc. You find completely new abilities, like the Gravity Suit, rather than getting an esoteric, stat-based upgrade that has no visible change. Again, which is easier? The Super Metroid approach, or the "let's hide stat boosters everywhere" approach? Obviously the latter. With Super Metroid, you get stronger by having more abilities, by being able to open all kinds of doors or navigating some difficult morph ball maze. In other games, you get stronger by "leveling up" and just doing more damage. All in all, I think games that aren't RPGs need to move away from RPG elements. For the longest time I thought these elements added to the depth of a game until I realized it was only being done to REMOVE depth from a game and let developers be lazier at level design, pacing, and delivering a good sense of progression. I find it increasingly difficult to find games that don't continuously throw numbers at you "YOU GAINED ___ EXP!!! YOU LEVELD UP!!!!!" to give you a false sense of progression, and rather than scattering and controlling unique abilities you're instead given everything in a gigantic laundry list and being told to exchange your Space Bucks for those. And rather than having the game itself dictate the pacing, all progression is instead relayed to the game's universal EXP/Level curve. Let's just go back to games that don't think that throwing numbers at you means you're getting stronger. Thoughts? Comments? Death threats?

Yeah, I think everyone at this point is tearing down the 3DS and glorifying the Vita. The former because, well, it's had plenty of mistakes and the latter because it's new hardware.

I do wish there were price wars in the US. Too bad the only thing companies over here ever do together is find ways to jack UP the price.

I hope to dear god that Sony didn't take anything to heart from Microsoft's greedy as hell approach to peripherals. If they do I'm not sure about jumping on board with a PS4, and might even bow out of console gaming altogether. I'm getting sick and tired of the Big 3 thinking they can have their way with my wallet and find new ways to screw me. Initial investment of the Vita definitely seems to be around $350-$400, and while it's disappointing I can't say I'm exactly surprised. Obviously the scheme Sony's made up is a cheap handheld with crazy specs as a hook for consumers, then overprice everything else to make back the cash and more. It makes sense on a business perspective but it's awfully underhanded from a consumer perspective. I would've much rather have them present it in a much more sensible way for the end consumer, something along the lines of "the Vita is the 'bare bones' approach, with a cheap upfront cost so you can upgrade specifically what you want". Gets the same thing done for Sony with the added advantage of not having to relay these peripherals as "hidden costs".

Well, I'm not a PSP user, I'm coming at this from the perspective of a PS3 user who was interested in the Vita. The PSP was released at a time when Sony was sexually attracted to proprietary hardware, though over the course of the PSP's life Sony appeared to be embracing more open standards. This peaked with the PS3 which is, to my knowledge, the most open console ever made in terms of peripherals. It's disheartening to see Sony not learning anything from their own PS3 hardware philosophy in that you can use whatever you want, instead opting for not only proprietary hardware, but massively overpriced proprietary hardware at that. Like I said, I dislike the 360 and barely play on it for a reason.

It's not really a "principle" of the thing, I'm just taking it in as objective a context as I can. Because if we go into a tit-for-tat, "I'm bothered by it, you should be bothered by it" vs. "I'm not bothered so you shouldn't be either" thing the discussion isn't going anywhere. Objectively, what's in it for the end consumer to tolerate ads, as small as they might be? If there is none, then as far as the consumer is concerned, they shouldn't be there. If the publisher wants to make more money and shoehorn these things in that's fine, they can be as greedy as they want. But nobody's obligated to agree or turn the other cheek just because they're "unintrusive" by some arbitrary measure (size, length, etc.). Nobody should be particularly surprised that people disapprove of any ads that don't benefit the player in any real way (subsidized cost, free DLC, etc.) The hypothetical benefits are imaginary. The ads, however, are real. For me to accept the ads I'd have to know exactly why I'm seeing them besides the possibility of the publisher being greedy. If Eidos comes out and says "we'll release all the DLC free since these ads will pay for their cost", then by all means have the ads. If they're just doing it to squeeze more bucks, I won't accept them.

Saying "it doesn't bother me, you're being ridiculous if it's bothering you" isn't really rational or mindful of other people's perception. I'm of the perception that this specific implementation of ads is unacceptable. It's really not the fact that they're on the loading screen, or the fact that they're a small size. It's the fact that they were added post-release, after not having told anyone about them, and to the end user there's absolutely no benefit. What does the consumer have to gain with these after-the-fact, unsolicited ads? Absolutely nothing. So why exactly should the consumer see them? For absolutely no reason. Is it reasonable, then, that the consumer would then not want to see said ads? Absolutely. Arguing how big they are or how long they're seen is completely beside the point. Give me a choice between two images, with a small rectangle of an advertisement being the only difference between them, and I choose the one without it. Why, as a consumer, should I ever choose the one with it when there's absolutely no benefit to me?

Atomsk, nobody should stand for this kind of in-game advertisement, ever. No matter how small or minuscule, there's absolutely no reason that a person who has paid money for a product be subjected to advertisements that we were never warned about at any point until now. And this kind of change is deviously calculated, done right after the honeymoon period with the game and once attention has started to shift toward other games, because you bet your ass people would be far more outraged if this was 2-3 days after launch and not nearly a month after the fact. There's no reason to sympathize with poor Eidos because they can't seamlessly integrate it post-production. It should be painfully obvious that if they can't implement this in a reasonable manner, they shouldn't implement it period. Hell, we shouldn't even be having this conversation at this point in the game's life at all. Shoehorning advertisements in a game after everybody has bought it is absolutely deplorable. I'm not running a charity here, I'm the end consumer. You don't get to splash ads on loading screens of a game I already paid for, timed just so I don't even get the opportunity to choose whether or not I want to support a game with in-game ads. The fact that it was done quietly, hidden in a multi-MB patch containing a bunch of fixes people actually want after the initial purchase rush has ended isn't grounds for justification. It's actually quite the opposite. "Given the circumstance", there shouldn't be any ads, period.

The memory card thing completely killed my interest in the Vita for the time being. Completely and hideously overpriced for absolutely no reason, when they could use industry standard hardware and everyone would be happy. It's like they learned nothing from the success of the PS3 has a piece of hardware. Its openness to peripherals is one of my favorite features of the system. I shun my 360 for exactly this bullshit the Vita's pulling out.

I can't say I have a fanatical love for any series. I have fanatical love for specific games, but not an entire series' worth of games. Even though I love the original Mega Man series in general, I think MM7 is mediocre and I hated certain things about MM10 (the music, for instance, was shit). I never finished MM8 either, it lost my interest right when I got to Wily's fortress and have never really felt the need to complete it. I also think RollerCoaster Tcyoon is my absolute favorite game of all time, but that doesn't apply to the series. I hated RCT2 for being more of the same, only worse, and I quite liked RCT3 but nowhere near the first. I'm pissed off at the new 3DS game because it's really not my idea of pushing the series forward, and after 7 years of not having anything RCT related a 3DS pseudo port of RCT3 is just a dick move from Atari. I feel other massive fanboys of the RCT series are lapping it up just because it's RCT. In short, I never get automatically excited "just because" it's from a certain series. No matter what part of a franchise it is, even if it's the original MM or RCT, if a game doesn't look good I'm not getting excited over it just because it's part of the IP I love. So yeah, I don't have any fanatical love for any series, even though I do have fanatical love for specific games

I didn't think e-sports were "legit". Then I watched EVO Now I do. Fin.

The more games using it, the higher the likelihood of a redesign that comes sooner than later. I was kind of expecting the redesign to be announced now, but I realized there was absolutely no reason for them to have announced it at this time.