RockyRan

I may be wrong in this but from my understanding the N64 n GC were more powerful than the other consoles of their gens. Anyway a current base 360 is about £150. A Wii for £99. A 360-like consoles could cost abouwt £150-£200. The Wii launched at £180. So it could quite comfortably be in the same price range as a base 360. I'm sure for new tech folks wouldn't grumble if it cost even £250. Yeah, I was about to say. The NES, SNES, N64 and GameCube were all graphical powerhouses when they came out. It's actually the Wii and their handhelds that carry their affordable, more underpowered hardware mantra. I'd say having their next console be a graphical powerhouse is more of their traditional console approach than having more underpowered hardware. Indeed. At this point I'd wager that the gaming industry in general has stagnated for that very reason the past 3-4 years. I really want the new generation of consoles to come out already. Not because I want new consoles, but because I want the gaming industry to collectively wake up and at least give the PC a better class of crappy console port. At this day and age, sloppy console ports to the PC platform hastily carried over from a console with hardware from 2005 is just no. If Nintendo's new console is significantly (not as in, "next gen", but not as little as "slightly", though) more powerful than the 360, I'm willing to bet that'd be enough of a kick in the pants for many devs to finally start working beyond 2005.

GTA IV Complete. I really only wanted GTA IV by itself (waiting for it to be on sale for $5) to check it out, but then the Christmas sale came and they only had the complete version for $10. On a whim I bought that, assuming I'd at least like the base game. Too bad the entire thing ranges from "meh" to "bull". Should've waited to get the base GTA IV and be disappointed with just that instead of paying $5 more, hating the whole thing, and having more "game" that I'll never touch.

I might've missed a bit of news somewhere, but I'm still not sure if Skyrim will sport DX11 on release. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-04-19-pc-skyrim-scales-up-as-youd-expect This being the latest thing I could find. In particular: What I'm getting from this is, it will sport DX11 on the PC, but DX11-specifics like tessellation won't be on it, yes?

http://agdom.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/rpgs-how-far-have-we-come/ Congrats on making an ass out of yourself. You're welcome to continue making an ass out of yourself on your own time. Edit: Please, get all of your friends to downvote me if it makes you feel less of an ass. Yes, because if you're so incapable of making any sort of legitimate argument on a forum without being a dipshit, I TOTALLY want to waste my time reading your little blog outside the forum. Such a colossal idiocy. But wait, dude, YOU'VE GOT A BLOG ENTRY. ABOUT RPG's. SHIT JUST GOT REAL WITH SUCH AN AMAZING AND OFFICIAL DISPLAY OF LITERARY KNOWLEDGE SURROUNDING RPGS THAT I CAN'T TAKE IT. OH SHIT HAVE I BEEN TOLD. You're quite literally the absolute worst member on this board. Please do us a favor and leave, every other time you post on any thread you pick a fight with people for absolutely no reason. I also find it cute you think I'm getting people to downvote you. Did it ever occur to you that people think you're a dumbass without me having to tell anybody anything? Because that's actually what's happening. But no man, you're so correct on everything. We're surely all ganging up on you with the POWER OF DOWNVOTES!

Beat Assassin's Creed 1 yesterday. Such a weird game. Games are usually either consistently good all around or consistently shitty, but Assassin's Creed is fantastic as an engine and really shitty as a game. It's obvious they spent 90% of their budget just on the engine, which shows because the engine itself is phenomenal. It's when you actually try to play the game and realize it has like 3 hours of content tops that it really kills the whole experience. Overall, I'd rate it a cool 5 (with 5 being "average". None of this "7 is average" bullshit). There's really good stuff in there mixed in with really bad crap. Still, though, the experience is so inconsistent that I'm hesitant to give it a single number (even though I did anyway ). Sometimes it's an 8 game and sometimes it's a 2, depending entirely on what exactly you're doing. Up next, I wanna finish the Reach campaign. After that I don't know. Go back to ModNation Racers I guess. That game is awesome and far superior to Mario Kart (OMGWAITWHATDIDHEJUSTSAYTHATBURNTHEWITCH)

Agreed. I don't mind non-gamer games and I don't expect Nintendo to completely drop them at all, I just hope they don't focus on it so much this time around. What I liked about previous Nintendo consoles was the fact that it was possible to get a robust selection of great titles from all genres. At this point the Wii is only worth it if you're looking specifically for Nintendo's first party affairs, and if it just so happens that you're not into what they're doing now there's really not much else. More rumor time! http://www.joystiq.com/2011/04/19/rumor-nintendo-courting-rockstar-for-wii-2-development/ Rumor has it that Rockstar is taking serious notice in Nintendo's new console and will even develop a new game for it, many thinking it'll get GTA V. I feel that Rockstar has gone out of its way to make technologically impressive titles, so if the rumors are true I doubt Nintendo's new console won't have some serious power on it. I really DO hope it's significantly more powerful than the 360. I mean, we're talking about 6 year old hardware. I wouldn't find it impressive at all that in 2012 (or whenever it releases) Nintendo releases something even comparable to 2005 hardware. I'm not expecting bleeding edge, of course, but the current consoles are already showing their age.

"Rage about mountains in Oblivion"...yeah, sure. Try distilling my argument down to something I'm not even implying. I'm sure that does wonders. I like how not once did you ever acknowledge that I wasn't talking about a "flat world" in the literal sense. Above all, it looks to me you're a completely irrational fanboy of the game and entirely refuse to acknowledge anything that might even be slightly construed as a "criticism" at it. As if putting in a thousand hours into it makes the fact that you're completely deaf any less of a fact. At this point I must remind you I loved Oblivion to bits (Oblivion haters be damned) and Skyrim is my single most anticipated game of this year. But forget it, you're convinced I'm bashing your precious and won't listen to reason. Or listen at all, really.

For the record, you're the one who got aggressive in the first place. Read back the line of posts, after the second exchange you changed your tone for no reason. I'm beginning to think either you like to think obtusely or you genuinely are. Did you not catch the part where I said FOR INSTANCE? In no way did I say I expected the entire game world like that. I can tell when people start putting words in my mouth they've stopped thinking rationally. Once again, obtuse, exaggerated thinking. I never said I expected the entire game to have the exact geography of the Jerrall mountains. Thank you for proving my point. Taking terrain vertices and yanking them up does not make for good mountains. And don't call my wants for a good geography "silly". The minute you start talking down on my opinions for no reason is the minute I start to think you're a flat out idiot. And how did you answer this? Ah, yes. How intelligently put. Bravo, good retort. It's not a "retort". I don't know how many times I have to repeat it to you. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A WORLD THAT'S LITERALLY FLAT. I. AM. NOT. TALKING. ABOUT. A. WORLD. THAT. IS. LITERALLY. FLAT. You're acting like an idiot, straight up. I've said this several times, yet you continue to ignore it. I'm not talking about a literally flat world. I have absolutely no idea why you have a fetish with defending the game's geography so as to call it not "flat". By "flatness" I'm talking about the ability to approach pretty much any area of interest, be it a cave, shrine, etc., from any possible direction. It's when everything is connected to itself that it makes for far a far less interesting world map. A good game world needs to be dynamic, and impassable sections and otherwise areas that aren't immediately obvious to traverse make for that dynamic factor. There wasn't really anything "dynamic" with Oblivion's world map but rather 1/4th of the map up top that was a fairly haphazard set of protruding ground vertices, and the rest of the world map consisting mostly of (RELATIVELY, before you get your goddamned knickers in a twist again) flat terrain. In those areas, if there were hills and ravines and any other type of geographical landscaping it was done that was so subtle that they practically weren't there.

I'm not the one who literally pulled a "cool story bro". I'm sure you're far more interested in making a decent debate by doing that? I HAVE made these points. Will you care to read them? I know you'll just repost "BUT I HASN'T SEEN THEM" so I'll repost them for your convenience. ^That there is what I expect from the game's geography. Don't tell me I didn't discuss it. That there was what I said in response to the first time you took "flat" too literally. Don't tell me I didn't talk about it. Now, will you actually acknowledge my posts instead of cherrypicking and claiming I haven't said a thing?

Cool inability to support your debate, bro.

I already stated what I'd expect from a game world of open-ended fantasy WRPG. Please read my posts. There's two problems with the Jerrall mountains, one being the fact that that area only constitutes about a fourth of the game world, and the other being that Bethesda's definition of "mountain" back in the day was taking the land vertices in the construction set and literally yanking them upward to ridiculous heights. That doesn't make for interesting geography. Again, taking things too literally. I've already explained why, you're just regurgitating your same point over again.

Do me a favor. Go straight to New Vegas once you start the game. The most direct route. Without mods or messing around with the console, etc. Let me know how your exploration goes. It's like a recurring theme around here to completely ignore what I was talking about. Just when exactly is the last time you've played Oblivion? The majority of the game world is not flat, but it is certainly free. People often mistake this because they spend their first part of the game in The Wold (which IS actually flat, i.e. designed after prairie plains) while the rest of it is hilly or even mountainous. In fact, Bethesda tried its best to create multiple themes and areas within Oblivion. I really don't know how anyone can call a game that probably had the most beautiful scenery until Crysis came around "flat." http://www.oblivion-power.de/files/oblivionpower/downloads/cyrodiil-terrain.jpg Please, explain to me how in the world that is "flat." You're taking it far too literally. You CAN draw a straight line from one destination to another with very minimal deviations. That's what I'm talking about. There are rolling hills and the occasional terrain elevation that is impassable head on, but move ten feet to the right and you can keep going in your merry way. I'm completely at a loss as to how you can't realize this. I'm also unsure as to why a game having beautiful scenery somehow makes the world not "flat". Perhaps if we were talking in terms of symbolically flat (as in, "his performance was flat"), but rest assured all of us here are talking about geographically flat (as in, "I can walk from one side of the map to the other without anything that gets in my way significantly").

Of course, of course. Freedom in exploration and making your own adventure is the exact reason why I loved Oblivion. I'm just talking about the gameworld in itself. Like MightyEthan said, there's a fine line between corralling the player and making a gameworld where everything is not flat, but when I say "keep the mountains and rock walls", believe me when I say I in NO WAY want a restrictive gameworld at all. Do I want it just a bit more restrictive? A tad, yes, but not because I want restriction, but because I want a better, more finely crafted and ultimately more interesting gameworld. Like I said, a flat plane is the most "free" of all gameworlds, but it's also the least interesting. I think Bethesda's setting out on making the gameworld a lot more like Morrowind's. There's obvious areas with completely impassable terrain, but the geography is designed such that you're not always walking in essentially corridors made out of carved rock. I want geographically interesting areas, like for instance walking along a steep wall of rock and discovering a small cave that looks like it leads to an open area of some sort from where you're standing. So you go through the small cave and discover that it opens to a circular ravine with a bit of treasure on one side. That's the kind of thing I want to see in Skyrim. Am I so "free" that I can access said ravine from every direction? No, but by making the access to that particular "ravine" a little more restricted (only through that small cave) it allows for a far more interesting geography. And without that mountain with that huge wall of "restrictive" rock you can't have that ravine in the first place. Think of a line graph with 0 being "Flat/free" on one extreme and 10 being "Corridor/linear" on the other. Oblivion's gameworld was a 1. I'm hoping they move it up to 4.

Creation Kit. Full name "Garden of Eden Creation Kit" aka GECK is the mod tool used by Fallout 3 n New Vegas. Now I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure you can't use modtools for one engine on a completely different engine (You wouldn't use CryEditor to make levels for UT3). Which does strongly suggest that they have being telling half truths and Skyrim is running on Gamebryo, just their own heavily modified in-house version*. (or maybe Gamebryo has always been able to do this and Bethseda finally got good at it) Kinda like Quake n GoldSrc I guess. Also I'm not keen on the mountains. It says the world size is same as Oblivion, but the mountains mean there's more. To a degree yeah it means more surface area but mountains are huge and generally unclimeable. Also says how you have to walk around them which suddenly suggests the game isn't too open, but could be like New Vegas where it kinda forces you to walk around in a somewhat linear path for the start. *tbh I swear they've mentioned this before. But most folks seem to be all on this idea that it's a new engine and not gamebryo still. The GECK was just the TES Construction Set with a new name. Just about everything was exactly the same (except for navmeshing). I have no doubt Skyrim is working off of Gamebyro still. It's what they know best. As for the mountain things, yeah. Sounds exactly like New Vegas, which pissed me off. The best part about Oblivion was getting so sidetracked that you began to enjoy exploring in different directions just to see what you would find. Now it looks like they plan on not only having a little compass ticker that shows you the way, but all the roads will lead you conveniently to each part of the main quest. You know, that was actually the biggest complaint I kept hearing about Oblivion, about how in comparison to Morrowind (which had plenty of impassable areas and forced you to go around them and take "paths" sometimes), it was far too open ended and provided no interesting landscapes. After playing the hell out of Oblivion I agree with that. Making everything more or less flat enough to be able to draw a straight line from one spot to the other may sound like more "freedom" superficially, but after playing on that kind of world you quickly realize you're sacrificing freedom for visual and geographical variety. I say keep the mountains and rock walls and other impassable areas. They allow for far better gameworlds anyway.

*salivates uncontrollably*

This would be ideal, and I remain hopeful for something like this as well. I think no matter what they'll still maintain the non-gamer-friendly image and execution, though I think the question remains "how much of that image will they maintain?" Will it be closer to the Wii or closer to more traditional hardware? I'm hopeful for the latter, but hopefulness aside it seems like a 50/50 chance, entirely dependent on what they think is best.

2011 alone had Galaxy 2, Donkey Kong Country, Monster Hunter Tri, Other M (which I liked a lot), etc etc. I don't think MS or Sony came close. But then again, that's just my personal preference. Yeah, nothing really exciting out of that bunch IMO. Not bad games by any means. 2010 for Sony had 3D Dot Game Heroes, GoW3, Gran Turismo 5, Heavy Rain, and Mod Nation Racers. It was also when everyone discovered Demon's Souls though it actually came out in 2009. There's also multi-plats that Wii didn't get such as RDR, Mass Effect 2, SSF4, AC: B, GTA4 episodes, BFBC2, Vanquish, Just Cause 2, Fallout New Vegas, and Enslaved. That's the thing with the Wii, compared to 360 and PS3, exclusives are ALL that's on the platform whereas 360 and PS3 share some really incredible multi-plats ON TOP of their exclusives. Pretty much. On one hand I feel it's a little unfair to count multiplats when comparing Wii vs PS3/360 libraries, but on the other hand there's plenty of really good games to be had on the 360 and PS3 that aren't anywhere on the Wii and thus really can't be disregarded just because they appear on two platforms instead of one. As for the reveal...god damnit. I'm trying really, really hard to not get excited at these rumors but I just can't do it. The idea of a controller with a touchscreen somewhere in it (as long as it doesn't replace any standard buttons in the process. Bold. Underline) sounds seriously cool, and so is the idea of a Nintendo console having the console with top hardware power again. At the same time, I'm getting a little frustrated at hearing that the console would only be SLIGHTLY more powerful than the 360. I really want nothing more than Nintendo to drop its "underpowered console" bullshit and get back to making games that truly pushed boundaries of gaming and technology, not fucking rehash platformers over and over again. Part of me, the highly gullible and probably overly hopeful part, thinks the Wii was but a stepping stone, with Nintendo dipping itself temporarily into the mainstream pop culture, aware that that market isn't sustainable in the long run, but hoping to make enough money to get back into the game and go back to pushing tech and gameplay like they did in the old days, armed with the knowledge of actually how to do it right instead of crippling themselves like in the GameCube days. The other part of me wishes that the first part would shut up already so I wouldn't be disappointed, and tries (so far with no success) to remind the first part of the time when I jumped on the Wii hype bandwagon and ended up horribly burning myself with the single most disappointing console I've ever owned and caused me to go on an irrational Nintendo hate rampage that lasted for about a year. Do you REALLY want to see that happen again? // Why would it happen again? They're smart, they SHOULD realize their foray into pop culture isn't sustainable and they're going to get spit back out. // Will they, though? They've been stupid before. Just look at the GameCube. The games were great, but Ninty as a business was just one bad decision after another on that one // Yes, but they SHOULD learn their history by now. They're the center of the gaming industry a lot of the time after all // But why would they change? Would they really have the foresight to futureproof their console // Why wouldn't they that foresight? They're obviously swimming in money, and if you would notice they haven't made anything internally for years now. It's not crazy to think they're putting some serious R&D into this thing // But the 3DS isn't too impressive, and it was the successor to the freaking DS of all things. It's very possible they'll phone it in again and make something just barely better than the Wii // Handhelds=/=consoles. They know 3rd parties flock to their handhelds and gamers run in not far behind them. With the Wii they've got a lot more to prove // Do they? // Yes. // Why? // Look at the sales and attach rates. Attach rates haven't been "good" since day 1, and sales have tapered off. Nintendo can't ride this phenomenon forever, they'll eventually have to fall back on the more traditional gamer. They're the ones who are going to keep buying games 10 years after the Wii was released, not the non-gamers who have literally just Wii Sports as their only game // But do you not think they can turn them into sustainable consumers? // Not at all. They HAVE to bring in the traditional gamers. They've completely lost touch with them apart from their pure fans // But YOU'RE a fan // I WAS a fan. // You sound like a fan now. // I'm being hopeful. // No, you're being foolish // SHUT UP // NO YOU SHUT UP. BOTH OF YOU SHUT UP.

Does anybody have a game that's like EVE but not as incredibly overwhelming? Something, shall I say, more casual? I've never played a game like that before but after looking a while it looks like there are several games of its kind. I'm wondering if there's a free one that doesn't require you quit your job to play it.

This so hard. The game is, simply put, horrendously boring and horrendously optimized (or rather, not optimized at all). Not to mention the FPS is so jittery and bad that it literally gives me motion sickness after playing for like an hour. Never before has a game antagonized me so much into NOT playing it.

Hooray! Massive list incoming. Day 01 - Your first video game - I honestly can't remember. I know it's cliche, but I've been playing games literally for as long as I can remember. Day 02 - Your favourite character - *whistles and casually looks at own avatar*. Day 03 - A game that is underrated - Banjo Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts (you guys knew I'd say that ). To be more original, RollerCoaster Tycoon 3. That game was awesome and the most perfect transition to 3D it could've made. It's THE example of a great sequel. Day 04 - Your guilty pleasure game - The Sims 3. It's actually a good game, but the gaming community in general still thinks it's a let's-play-dollhouse-dressup, which it isn't unless you make it so. As far as customization it's insane, and by far the best retexturing system I've ever seen in-game of any title. Day 05 - Game character you feel you are most like (or wish you were) - I guess those "moldable" characters from WRPGs and silent ones don't count in this, but I really can't pick one :/ Day 06 - Most annoying character - I don't think I've ever thought anyone was so annoying that I'd still remember them for years to come. Most of the time bad characters just peeve me slightly, but never outright annoy me (yes, including Navi, etc.) Day 07 - Favourite game couple- Nothing pops up automatically, but I'd probably say Saint Astraea and Garl Vinland from Demon's Souls. Can't say much due to sort of spoilers, but that's some pretty grim shit there. Day 08 - Best soundtrack - Dear god, I can't pick. Legend of Mana is THE SHIT, though. Actually, pretty much anything by Yoko Shimomura is fucking great (Super Mario RPG, Legend of Mana, FREAKING STREET FIGHTER II WTF) Day 09 - Saddest game scene - EarthBound ending. Day 10 - Best game play - In recent memory, Demon's Souls. Dear god that game owned my soul for the month that I played it. Never before had I been this involved in a game and its mechanics. Day 11 - Gaming system of choice - If we're talking current-gen consoles only, then the PS3 by far. If it's not just consoles, then definitely PC. Day 12 - A game everyone should play - F-Zero GX. There's no way that game can't appeal to everybody (difficulty aside). Also, Evil Genius. Good god is that game stylish. Day 13 - A game you've played more than five times - I assume you mean "played through" more than five times For me it's gotta be MegaMan III. I have no idea how many times I've beaten the game over the years, but it's at least 20 or 30. Day 14 - Current (or most recent) gaming wallpaper - Mass Effect 2's codex picture of the Citadel. Day 15 - Post a screen shot from the game you're playing right now - http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/109/1097907/halo-reach-20100615101356817.jpg I know, I know, but bear with me. This is literally my first Halo game, and I'm only playing through the campaign. I got it for free through MS's update thing. For being THE flagship series of the 360, I can't say I'm really impressed Day 16 - Game with the best cut scenes - Either Chrono Trigger or Mass Effect 2. Day 17 - Favourite antagonist - Giygas from EarthBound, easily. Day 18 - Favourite protagonist - Most probably Samus Aran (PRE-OTHER M FOR THE LOVE OF GOD) Day 19 - Picture of a game setting you wish you lived in - http://www.theoldergamers.com/images/screenshots/mirrorsedge01.jpg Aside from the ridiculous totalitarian regime Day 20 - Favourite genre - It's constantly switching for me, but currently it's gotta be Action RPG's. The awesomeness of action games with the depth of RPGs is the perfect marriage for me. Day 21 - Game with the best story - Chrono Trigger. I'd say Mass Effect 2, but I actually really like the storyTELLING, not the story. After all, the story of ME2 is pretty much "grab a bunch of dudes, get to epic mission". The mini-conflicts, dialog, and exposition are really great, but the overall story in itself is rather bare bones. Day 22 - A game sequel which disappointed you - Lots of course, but my two biggest ones in recent memory are Twilight Princess and SSB Brawl. Day 23 - Game you think had the best graphics or art style - Mirror's Edge hands DOWN. Day 24 - Favourite classic game - RollerCoaster Tycoon. BEST FUCKING GAME EVER. AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT. Day 25 - A game you plan on playing - Assassin's Creed II. I really, really want to play this, but first I gotta buy it. And first I gotta finish AC1 that I already own. Day 26 - Best voice acting - Probably Mass Effect 2 for me. Day 27 - Most epic scene ever - Probably Crono's death in Chrono Trigger. Being the wee lad I was back then, the concept of the game protagonist dying in the middle of the story = jaw drops and drool comes out. Day 28 - Favourite game developer - Valve, easily. They consistently put out games I love, and they're behind Steamworks of all things Day 29 - A game you thought you wouldn't like, but ended up loving- See, this is tough, because when I buy a game I'm almost positive it's going to be something I'm going to like. If anything I get lots of games I thought I'd like but end up not liking them rather than the other way around. But if I had to pick I'd probably say BioShock 1. Not because I thought it'd be bad, but because I never really expected to like it as much as I did (that level design was GENIUS. Every developer should take note). Day 30 - Favourite Handheld Game - The Ace Attorney series is slowly getting there for me. The simplicity of gameplay and ability to save at any point makes for great portability, but the involvement of the story can really draw you in for long periods of time if you have it.

Could you update your first post with all the questions from day 1 to today? I want to answer them all in one post (managed to miss this topic ) but I don't want to wade through all 21 pages picking the questions out