RockyRan

It was one thing that was flat out bad in Tales of Vesperia. I enjoyed the game, but it made the huge, HUGE mistake of making your very first battle an unwinnable one, right after it gave you the rundown on the basics of battling. Bad, bad design decision on that one.

Yeah, I was thinking a simplistic story with just very few plotpoints, if any at all, considering how the main draw is making the hilarious shitty AI in sandbox games the main attraction But don't worry about "running with my idea", kenshi. I just came up with a concept, so it's not like I had a specific direction (like, the story has to be about this and this, etc., or it should take place here)

I don't care how good MvC 3 is. The PERSON in my avatar is NOT in the game and I am PISSED, especially when he was in the first two. He's a fuckin' staple of Marvel vs. Capcom! AND A STAPLE OF CAPCOM! HOW DARE YOU LEAVE HIM OUT YOU GODDAMN BASTARDS?! *foams at mouth and passes out*

I'm GeorgeBluthSr on PSN (yes, that's my third nickname )

Didn't they say November of this year? At the very least they said this holiday season. And according to Amazon, the Ico/SotC collection is coming out at the end of March. I read a preview from some site I can't remember from earlier this year that also said it would launch during spring, so I don't think Amazon is totally speculating at this point.

I think it was mostly because of two reasons: the game launched at $60 (what the fuck?), and it was marketed poorly. All the trailers and previews made it seem like the main campaign was going to be a freerunning parkour game, even though it was actually a first-person platformer. Thus, people were disappointed with all the moments in the game where you had to "stop" or "slow down and look around", thinking it was poor design even though they just had the wrong expectation of what the campaign was actually going to be. I can't blame them for being disappointed, though, because the previews/trailers definitely made it look like it was all about the running and the speed. What I CAN blame gamers of, though, is being too impatient to actually check out the OTHER half of the game called "Race", which was exactly what should've been expecting. But again, the typical "instant gratification", "if it's not at the top of the menu it doesn't exist" impatient attitude many gamers had really did a number on the general reception of the title.

I really hate it in games where you're doing something where you're expected to repeat something several times, but the act of repetition is bogged down by loading times, excessive fiddling with the UI, etc. The most recent example I can think of is Gran Turismo 5's license tests. With some of those tests I probably spend more time staring at loading screens than actually racing. Completely kills any and all flow of the game.

I think the system we're getting is pretty good right now. Games launch at full price for a short while, then drop in tiers after a few months. Many games are down to $30 or even $20 after just a year in the market. And really, $20-$30 is the perfect range for me and I buy 99% of my serious (read: not impulsive *glares at Steam*) purchases when games hit that range. I only get them at launch when it's something special (I'll certainly buy Skyrim at launch, for instance). Because of this recent trend I've been spending so much more money in games the past couple of years than in the past. As for Reggie's statements, I don't really agree with him on any level. Aside from his blatant hypocrisy of denouncing the competition's games as "disposable" even though it's his platforms that have by far the worst shovelware in the industry, he's conveniently ignoring the facts that 1) this industry is very large and is able to accommodate games of many types, even the cheap $1 ones from the iPhone marketplace and 2) mobile phone gaming is still largely separate from proper handheld gaming. If we're strictly speaking what's "good for the industry", what Reggie's talking about is really a non-issue. All I see from his statements are his fears that Nintendo may not be able to charge $40 for first party 3DS games for 5 years in a row without dropping the price once. And you know what? Tough shit, pal. That kind of pricing is clearly becoming antiquated, and this industry changes and morphs in every way constantly. If the industry is changing its shape to make significantly lower prices in games acceptable, you either do that or you stay behind and fall behind.

Exactly. I'm certain a huge reason why Battlefield 3 is even being made is because EA is dead set on making a "CoD killer". Which is weird because nobody has ever been able to make an "anything" killer. The best and most influential games come out of the blindside of the industry, most of the time taking everyone by surprise or at the very least doing things in such an innovative manner that it garners people's attention. I can't think of any game purported to be a "killer" has actually BEEN a "killer" (Killzone was "the Halo killer". Medal of Honor was "the CoD killer", and so will BF3 be, etc.) This is what really aggravates me about EA telling DICE to stop with ME2. Mirror's Edge is one of the boldest, most inventive games of this generation, and yet it's put on the backburner (and probably forgotten for years to come) because it's not the fucking "CoD killer" that EA wants. Again, superficial, robotic business decision. Fuck piracy, THIS is what's "killing the industry" if anything is.

Seriously, that Sterling guy can go fuck a dick. Just look here: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/33028/Newell_Valve_More_Profitable_Per_Employee_Than_Apple_Google.php But OH NOES TEH PEECEE INDUSTRY IS SO NOT PROFEETABUL!! PULL TEH PLUG GAIZ, PEOPLE BEE PIRATING!! What a dumbass. What a complete, unadulterated dumbass in the purest sense. And the brick-for-brain yes-men twat commenters parroting his exact sentiments can shove a mouse up their ass too, they're contributing to the pitiful ignorance, spearheaded by this complete joke of a "blogger" (or "reporter" or "journalist" or whatever the fuck he calls himself, and he isn't any of those things so it doesn't even matter). The rampant ignorance followed by ignorant masses gobbling it up painfully reminds me of Fox News, and that's really what I think of Destructoid. It's the Fox News of video game media. Simply put, people ignorant of the PC platform need to shut their asses. That guy clearly has no earthly CLUE what he's talking about, using an internal leak of an upcoming game as an impromptu non-sequitur rant about piracy of all things. How in the hell does this logic even make any sense? And of course let's not forget the incredibly simple-minded "IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE A FUCKING PIRATE" retort, which of course the monkey commenters proceeded to parrot. To claim that the PC industry is completely unprofitable when services like Steam and companies like Valve are fucking STARING AT HIM in the face, is nothing short of complete bullshit.

This really chaps my ass. The game didn't even sell that badly, so there's really no reason why the game isn't going to get a sequel. It's probably because DICE is/will be too busy with Battlefield. Which is at this point when I say "fuck Battlefield, ("OMG DID HE JUST SAY THAT, BURN THE WITCH!!") give me Mirror's Edge 2". For a pico-second I thought EA actually changed their ways, but nope, doesn't look like they actually will. Seriously, the first ME was so freaking good, not to mention the downright best-looking game this generation (better looking than Crysis, that's for sure). Just...GOD. It's so fucking aggravating seeing the single best thing to come out of EA (don't mention BioWare, I still don't consider them a part of EA) in years and they fuck it up because it's not a guaranteed super block buster. Surely the pricks can't afford a SINGLE pet project even if it doesn't have sales out the ass? This "bottom line" robotic way of running a business just makes me foam at the mouth.

Yes, proper lighting and shader changes can give the illusion of a better-looking model. Especially when you go from sub-par lighting like vanilla Oblivion's to above-average lighting with modded Oblivion. And yeah I know you just wanted a high res screenshot. I wasn't accusing you of cherrypicking screens or anything. I'm just saying, vanilla vs vanilla would make for better comparisons

For pre-release, anything goes (as in, anything can be changed at any time). Devs don't release flat out unfinished models, but with a game releasing in November it's very possible that models can be retouched, optimized, or what have you. Another reason why it's unfair to compare modded screens with vanilla ones is that the particular screen you picked was one that had a variety of mods. Right off the bat I'm seeing the UI mod, what looks like the Darker Dungeons one, and Qarl's Texture pack. Honestly, there's no telling how modded this can be. Simple tricks like shaders, different lighting, retouched textures, etc. that reflect on the enemy model we're comparing can make a night-and-day difference, making the model in question look much better even if the model itself hasn't been changed all that much. The screen from the ES Wiki that you linked is a far fairer comparison (vanilla vs. vanilla). It also happens to show that the difference between Skyrim and Oblivion is enormous

I agree. Vanilla 3rd person was pretty much unusable, and modded still felt weird. Bethesda said they'd fix 3rd person for Skyrim to make the game perfectly playable through that. I prefer 1st person but if it works I might turn it on sometimes for variety's sake. You're comparing vanilla pre-release screenshots of Skyrim with modded screens of Oblivion. Needless to say, I'm sure modded screens of Skyrim will be out of this world.

Sometimes I like to keep game ideas I have to myself for tinfoil-hat purposes, but this one I like enough to share and I know I won't be able to actually make anything like this myself, so here goes: I'd really like to see an open-world sandbox game where the game's AI is deliberately shitty. Not necessarily for enemies mind you, but at least for civilian AI. The reason for this is obvious: we've all loved moments in Just Cause 2 where the AI for civilian airplane pilots fail to go around buildings and crash into them for no reason, or in Oblivion when you're being chased by some crazy powerful prick and you go down a steep hill only to have the guy fall off and die. What if developers actually went out of their way to encourage this behavior? Maybe base the premise of the game around it, like you're in an island full of loons or maybe set the world in a non-realistic place where people have dirt for brains and are made out of salt cubes. Just going around and seeing the AI do incredibly stupid and hilarious things would make for a very entertaining experience I think. Thoughts? Suggestions? Death threats?

EA blaming this on the pirates is hilarious. How exactly is it the piracy community's fault that an internal employee leaked the game? Displacement of blame at its finest.

GTA IV by far. I can't stand playing it for more than a few minutes, yet it got 10's across the board from reviews. I can usually appreciate games even though I dislike them personally, but GTA IV ain't one of them. There are other games that people like that I can't get into, but I don't necessarily dislike. StarCraft, Deus Ex, and the Civ series comes to mind for those.

My biggest achievement in gaming? Beating all cups on Master Difficulty in F-Zero GX, as well as beating all 9 Story Mode Chapters on Very Hard. I was about to throw a backpack into a crowd with Chapter 7 on Very Hard, but I eventually beat it. The word "Exuberance" was invented for moments like those.

I read kind of like impromptu interview with the CEO and he came off as a complete douche. Typical "I know what everyone wants" and "Consumers are idiots" mentality. He even literally said they were going to listen less to the commenters because they didn't like what they were saying. My assessment? Gawker Media wants to play like the "big boys" in news media, but the higher actually don't know how (the redesign certainly shows that), and are afraid/don't want to hear any consumer backlash (them repeatedly greenlighting the redesign even though users hated it from the beta) and shut out their ears. They simply aren't ready to "play like the big boys" if they can't make something like this work, pure and simple. Actually, Dean has it linked somewhere in the boards. I'll dig it up later.

I really want stacking, but $15 is a bit too much (money's tight right now). Maybe later. Just got King's Bounty: The Legend yesterday from GoG for $2.50. Played it a bit today and it looks promising, I just have to learn wtf is going on.

Personally, I think it'll be short lived. Yes, I'm personally firm about my decision to leave the site, but in general people really aren't. The fact of the matter is, people will get used to the redesign for better or worse and more people will come in. I have no solid evidence, but based on personal observation of many site redesigns over the years I see activity go down but then go back up as people "get over it". I doubt Kotaku'll ever suffer a permanent drop in activity like Digg did.

I completely agree with the fact that Assassins can be very helpful to their team, but what I'm arguing is that the game doesn't discourage any kind of meaningless solo play even though it should. You could chalk it up to player fault, but I don't think that works in every case. Couldn't any imbalance in any competitive game be chalked up to the player not using something properly or other players not being able to cope with it? No, I think there's a point where it's actually the developer's fault for not curbing poor player behavior. After all, that's really the point in balance, and influencing player behavior is exactly what happens when developers talk about "discouraging such and such" or "encouraging team play" or what have you. It's tweaks in the balance that nudge the players into playing a specific way. I'm not seeing any of that with the Assassin. The reason why so many Sins are terrible as you say is because they think, to quote Yahtzee () "You CAN but why would you want to?" Sins CAN push lanes very effectively. They CAN smokebomb turrets, and they CAN distract other pros. But why would they want to? They have no incentive to actually push the team beacuse they get just as much satisfaction running around and just killing everything in sight. Class-based team games operate on the Strengths vs. Weakness design for that very reason. They make class X good and this thing but not that thing, and class Y is good at that thing but not this. That's why acting as a team comes a lot more naturally to the other classes in MNC, because they have weaknesses and strengths and rely on the other classes to do what they can do. But then look at the Assassin, who doesn't need absolutely anything to have a satisfactory experience in the game. It's the solo character that doesn't NEED to play by the match's rules to kill bots and pros and move all over the map and destroy turrets and everything else. That's the problem with the Assassin, and why Uber needs to think along the lines of making tweaks to the gameplay to get people to actually play as a team with that class. It's not that she CAN'T help the team, it's that she doesn't need to, and because she doesn't need the team's help either.

My opinion is that without PC gaming there IS no gaming industry. Just look at the hardware R&D that goes into each and every new console when it's designed. Simply put, they have to draw from PC hardware both on a low level and a high one. Not to mention the fact that the software (DirectX, OpenGL, etc.) and hardware that goes into making the backbones for these consoles is coming DIRECTLY from the PC. NVidia and ATi also a make a killing not only by selling graphics cards to the consumer, but also making hardware for the Big 3 console companies. So tl;dr, there's no gaming industry without PC, pure and simple. The way the industry works, it's impossible to have console gaming without PC gaming.