WTF

Just added GiantBomb's quick look in the main post. It's basically Shane Bettenhausen and the GB guys showing a small portion of the game, intro levels. The video is about 30mins long and is in their usual style. But if you had an hangups about combat or the like I'd suggest watching the video

You're quite right in the case of bigger publishers, though it's different for the smaller guys. That's why we have ridiculous prices for the indie bundles. I think they just get them to sign a contract as sales period approaches to see if they are willing to have their titles in for the sale in exchange for lower rates but greater visibility and in the long run it helps the little guy so most don't refuse. I remember something to this extent from last year. Also I don't think the devs know of what effect steam's contests can have - like last year's treasure hunt did on shatter and I believe the guy from Sidhe wished it wasn't set x score but at the end of the day it brought decent sales and interest and he didn't complain too much.

Vice City is probably one of the games that's pulled a lot of good talent and the voice acting shows. Ray Liota William Fichtner Dennis Hopper Tom Sizemore Burt Reynolds Luis Guzman Danny Trejo Gary Busey Lee Majors Fairuza Balk Danny Dyer (lol) Debbie Harry Philip Michael Thomas (from Miami Vice and he was Lance Vance too) Just to name a few. RDR wasn't too bad either in terms of performance. Heavy Rain outside of the main cast there were issues. For instance I forget her name the Prostitute from the Audition, she's French and couldn't pull an American accent. But at least it's not terrible like whatever accent Jane Leeves passes for as Mancunian in Frasier or some warped Indian accents in comedy shows. Valkyria Chronicles wasn't too badly done in English to be fair. Persona 4 was good too. Folklore/Folksoul was actually decent. Atelier Rorona is cutely voiced compared to so many abominations these days. Castlevania: LoS was quite decent except for Patrick Stewart's narrative as the story progresses since well man that's just laying it thick. Spider-man: Shattered Dimensions was quite decently voiced to be fair as was Transformers: War for Cybertron but those are for obvious reasons. Nier was well voiced for what voice acting it had. Thief was always good and of course Diablo 2 was really well voiced amongst Blizz games. Uncharted 2 has some good performances. Maybe it's me but performance-wise AC1 was better than 2 and brohood, gameplay-wise the other way around. Truth be told, when you look at what sort of story it tells God of War is actually well performed. If you're thinking it's bad you obviously missed a lot of the films till the mid-90s that portrayed Greek Mythology. it's quite fitting in that context. Ratchet and Clank was good. I'm not a big fan of mass effect's performances, though I did like the voices in BG2, NWN and KOTOR 1 and even 2 (2 had some great performances but the game was meh thanks to the rush). Planescape:Torment and Arcanum were both pretty good. I like company of heroes.

To be really fair, it's steam and digital pricing won't be the same till there's a proper digital distro competitor launched from a different territory with that country as a base. For that, that particular region needs a good DD system, favourable markets and connections. Honestly GoG would have been in a good spot to do it, but they've gone with pricing it in USD though they are trying to keep it fair. All steam needs is a non-US based competitor really. Also if you really want to buy stuff at a cheaper rate, form a network of people and ask someone in the cheapest region to steam gift it to you. Trust me when I say this but sometimes EU prices are lower, sometimes UK and sometimes AU for the same percentage drops because someone at Valve is bad at math. Soo don't fret too much really. The system maybe broken, but you can take advantage of it. All you need is a group of trust-worthy friends in a network that are in different parts of the globe and paypal.

lol alright. Guess that makes sense. But I'm sure eventually you'll post it next to the boxes or whatever it came in maybe. XD. Stores and services do shut down after a long while sometimes.

I was just curious. Does anyone here ever share their Steam account with a partner or someone else? I know I could afford to buy different copies of games but most of the time we don't. My wife shares my steam account and this results in of course various games getting played that I would otherwise never play such as Winter Voices, The Void, etc. I just got back and logged into steam to start a session of shogun 2 (which will now have to wait thanks to work) when I noticed that there was a lot of hours clocked on games that I've never played (which makes me feel better about impulse steam purchases ). I just wondered if there were others who shared things like that when they lived together.

I know what you mean. But my father used to do that and right now it's interesting to look at them and it sort of takes you back on a trip through time. Not just because of the products but because of what's in the background.

Sorry if I've not had the time to get back to this argument. I've been working continuously the past few days and will be doing so again. Anyway firstly your eyes do not see in 3D as in stereoscopic 3D as you'd seen in a cinema. There's a reason for this, it's because when an image forms on your retina, the image is formed focussed on the plane from where the light reflects out which is approximately the same as the position of the object. When it's in 3D, you'll not see it in the same way. The best way to explain how we see 3D is to explain how camera lenses work. When you're looking at a screen your eye focusses on the screen, everything else in the periphery is blurred out. Try to view objects and you'll notice that your eye only focuses on a certain range and everything outside of that is focussed out as you'd see with a lens. Fortunately for us our iris and the muscles around our eye can vary the focal length so we can observe greater distances without the need for lenses. So the flat non stereoscopic 3D image created by multiple lenses would be the vision that we would actually see. There's no clear variable lens like that in existence which is why one needs to resort to trickery.. 3D does not represent the eye. Your analogy does not work because you are simplifying it which in turn is sort of like generalising things. It doesn't work the same way. I'll get back to colour now. To average layperson it might seem like colour and black and white. But we as humans or in fact most animals do not see in monochrome, there's always a hint of colour.This is because light rays are in colour. When all colours exist it's white and absence of that is black (visually speaking, it's different when it comes to print). What you're referring to is basically contrast which is different from colour. I know this may sound condescending but you can't say colour and contrast are the same. Actually colour is essential to the film, not just from a technical standpoint. If you were to remove all colour composition from an image it is hard to distinguish between various items and also different objects within the focal range. it's mostly to do with the way our eye works and it reads colour information. If you were to shoot something in black and white and something in colour there's not only a world of difference in filming procedures but also in framing. I agree that you might not feel the difference but it is there. A lot of things would not work. For instance trying to film some guy flying away in a suit in a cloudy sky can work, but if it was crowded sky with objects in the background the eye isn't capable to process various imagery. It would work on a still, but there are issues as relates to the moving image. Depth as in depth of field is done via lenses and lighting (shadows actually). I do stand by one argument clearly that it is ridiculous to make a statement that's impossible for the sake of an argument. I mean yes in a theoretical sense perhaps. But we do live in a world that has colour corresponding to waves of light. You can't say there exists a world without colour when it's something that exists unless you want to switch the discussion to a philosophical or metaphysical level. And colour is absolutely essential in a world where we read information the way we do. 3D is not the same because 3D does not work the same way. Neither does standard imagery for that matter but it is closer to the way our ocular lenses work. 3D is more of an artifice and will remain so because there's a difference in the way our eyes work and how 3D currently works. 3D projection is different and isn't really viable but would/should work similar to how we see.

Depends Stock images could look better or worse depending on the user of the camera. What I was saying was effectively, there must be people out here who could take pictures of their purchases. Not to mention pictures of purchases often do look better than stock images. I'd refer to the things like pick up threads on Gaf or others. It varies from individual to individual though. Most people can take good pictures and frame them right.

Uh... No. His argument is neither null nor void. All I said was that colour is a tool like 3D. Some people use colour well, some people use it badly just like 3D. Either way, films can, did and do exist in black and white just as they will continue to exist in 2D. What I'm saying is "Colour is as essential as 3D". In fact I'd go further and say that "3D is as essential as colour, which is as essential as film." Excuse me, but there's no scenario except in a hypothetical world where the argument exists that there would be no colour. Not to mention the colour we see is limited to a tiny spectrum of our visible range. The reason why the argument is void is you need to create a scenario where a there exists no colour (blacks and whites are colours too and not just by the definition - contrast is one thing but colour contrast which is what we're speaking of here in terms of blacks and whites). An example would be that in a world of the blind, a one eyed man is king. Now there's that argument you can bring in all sorts of equations and in fact there's several stories about that particular scenario. However does it exist in the present conditions? That's where the argument is null and void. You have a given that we can see colour and we can record colour, the way we record blacks and whites are as colour information. Not just some random 2 set array of information. If none of those existed, it's a different scenario. I think the problem is, that you are see it in simply colour or black and white. The truth is it's not that simple. 3D is different because 3D has not been applied. When it has been practically applied then we can say something. Right now barring a few exceptions where it has been sort of justified - the application of 3D does not see a lot of merit since the same emotional effect can be achieved without 3D. Colour and black and white work differently. I mean you can argue, but your arguments are more semantics than expression. There's a difference here. I didn't express myself clearly perhaps since I still am tired. However the existence is not the question. The question here is expression and creation of that expression. if you think that colour is not essential to shoot a good black and white film you're quite wrong there. That, is the creation of that expression. Colour is vital to create that expression. You don't need 3D to create that expression, you don't even need a 3D camera to shoot 3D in all honesty. You do need colour however even if you want to film in black and white. I mean honestly you guys are speaking from a totally different side. There's first the act of filming, then the act of grading. When both don't express right then there's the failure of colour which is a fault of either or both. I'm honestly going to say one more time. Colour is bloody essential to FILM anything you see on screen unless you're talking about computer generated images in which case the PROCESS is different but has a lot of similarities The second point colour information exists even in your black and white films. There's two steps to it, one visual representation to make people attired right to shoot and the second to film it (or shoot it) in the right way. After these two processes have been done comes the next part where you can choose to remove a part of the information to ideally express the emotion in either colour or monochrome. However there is COLOUR INFORMATION even in those. It's always been there when you film in celluloid film and there now when you film from 4:2:2 (or even lower, but 4:2:2 pretty much is the base requirement these days to have a good process 4K's ideal though). Not to mention that there are emotions that you require colour grading from. I can cite several examples where colour-grading has been done wrong such certain scenes in Iron Man, Hangover etc. The last statement is wrong mostly cause well you can't say 3D is essential until it 1)is required for the filming process, 2)delivers emotion consistently via the final product. To state that they are both as essential as film pretty much shows the difference between our views and actual misunderstanding you have of my statement. Edit: In retrospect, I know that came out a bit harsh and possibly may have slighted or annoyed you guys - But I was a bit annoyed. However as a film-maker and someone who pretty much holds workshops to train people to understand how to use it right, your statements couldn't possibly be more annoying. It's also probably why I don't talk about film stuff in general. Honestly if you want to do good work, you need the passion, otherwise it just doesn't happen. But I can post about colour and semiotics if anyone's interested. Of course not everything, since I do get some money from those paid workshops too . P.S. just a side note I keep my professional life, private life and internet life totally separate from each other and don't really like them to crossover is why I don't speak or say of anything I do.

p.s. I just wondered. Wouldn't it be better if we started to post pictures of purchases like actual pictures instead of stock images?

Needed some DSLR equipment since I'm getting rid of some older ones in preparation for the REDs later this year. So here was my purchase from yesterday. It's an EOS 7D. I did wonder if I should get the 5Dmk3 when it comes out next month but decided against it since I needed a few new lenses and pretty much have adapters for future purposes anyways. I got the lens in the picture (no it does not come stock, body and lens were bought separately). I'm also currently expecting this--> to arrive soonish. That's basically an EF 16-35mm f 2.8L USM Mk2. The earlier one was a 50mm 1.4L USM if you couldn't see in the image. If anyone's purchasing a DSLR I'd recommend against the new rebel t3i or 600d (depending on where you live). While the T2i/550D pretty much gives quality similar to an HVX200m and is similar to the 7D on a much weaker body and for someone on a really low budget the 7D is better when you look at the various cinematography options. Even as a purely photography camera it's still pretty good. Also I'd only recommend things like the 5D mk2 to the hardcore of photographers/videographers unless you've got a lot of money to spare. I am going to get this one sometime this year --> with a lot of different modules and other bits and bobs. Not everything is finalised as yet. I just enjoy shooting for 4K really. To be honest it's still a lot better than the arriflex d20 from personal experience.

The 3DS event was the biggest waste of time ever. I mean really Nintendo throws parties and events like someone's grandmother. Oddly enough, it was my wife's first time trying it and she seemed really unimpressed... I mean I think the only thing she liked was the AR games. Me I've already tried a few things earlier and my opinion remains the same Fortunately I left the place and went to another party at a friend's place (not 3DS related) which turned out to be a nice little thing

6'3" or 190.5 cm. To be honest, that doesn't really feel tall in today's world though it was some 10 years ago.

Here's the thing, it's not an absolute and we think in colour for the most part, even our dreams are in colour so long as we have good vision (we need the memories to see vivid colours, but even blind people are known to have dreams in colour so it's probably a far more intrinsic thing than we realise). I mean your argument is sort of null and void given the current conditions. It's as TN said, most people grade films badly which do little to give the importance of colour. Saying you can make good films without colour is like saying you can make good games like pong but do you really want to make Pong when that's 3 generations behind and you can express a game concept much better in the myriad of ways. There's also the fact that black and white films are shot on varying levels of saturation and colour and this is quite important. Saying that colour isn't important is a bit silly. For instance you shoot these things with varying levels of colour information before you take it out. So colour is essential, regardless what you think - because the truth is it's always been essential even when photography was in black and white. I don't really want to get into a lighting discussion here because then I'd end up writing a thesis .

I'm sorry Ethan being a film-maker that is actually quite offensive. Not the 3D bit but colour. Colour or Black and White needs to be used to express emotion and semiotics. It is absolutely necessary to have colour, for some things a monochrome look works - but that's an exception not the norm. The reason why you're probably saying that is because in the past 10 years there has been a stupid movement amongst certain film-makers to grade films in one particular colour which basically makes the effect of colour seem bad. Let me bring two examples to show you how colour is used effectively and where black and white should be used. Pan's Labyrinth is a good move. Now if you haven't seen the film, then I'm not going to say watch it for the colours first. Watch it first . Now the second time you watch it, you'll notice the intricate use of colour between the two worlds. As the story starts there is a stark contrast between the colour used in the two worlds, but as events unfold the two worlds start to collide, we see things happening that give a hint of parallels but it is through colour with the two worlds overlapping via colour initially and then by the end almost becoming one that it works. To the regular person, it might not be explicitly noticeable unless someone points it out, but once you see it, you'll realise that it was the subtle hint that worked to explain the story visual. For Black and white instead of using a more recent example like Control, I'd like to explain it with La Jetee - the story which inspired 12 monkeys. The whole film is a series of black and white photographs. The reason why the monochrome look works is because it paints a bleak picture and it was to contrast between the dichotomy the narrator feels and the two worlds he inhabits (although we do not see the future world explicitly). Black and white works there mostly because it needs to portray the grimness. In short, the grade of the film depends on the emotion and the effect that it needs to convey. It's not something that can be said is necessary or unnecessary. A lot of people use it wrong and do not use the right semiotics to express the right emotion. As a cinematographer, grader and editor - I can tell you the fault does not lie with colour but rather the person's vision. Colour actually is quite necessary and even in something that appears monochrome there are hints, if the film-maker is good to show why such a thing works.

You know I wish I had a few minutes this week to sit down and post this but I've been wanting to post some common misconceptions about 3D and this point comes up because of the 3DS and all the misconceptions people have because of it being glasses free. Firstly it is quite difficult to have a huge screen to go glasses free 3D, the larger the monitor the more difficult it is to get an ideal focal plane, it's this reason why even the 3DS has a sweet spot. In an explanatory analogy sense it is similar to blowing up and or miniaturizing images i.e. when an image is smaller it is more difficult to notice the imperfections (despite the resolution if it's digital), it'll look better than most blown up images in terms of quality. Now to get to the real side of things, when you view a 3D image as displayed on a screen, it's because the two images are created to meet at a focal point behind the screen. Now when the screen is tiny the angle of view is quite beneficial to viewing such an image without the aid of glasses. However the larger it gets, the more difficult it becomes. Currently it doesn't really work well beyond a 20in screen. At standard TV sizes of 40-50in, it's pretty much a pipe dream. Also Nintendo isn't the innovator here, it's Toshiba (credit should go where it belongs really) and they've not really had success with their TV models because of the size. There are people trying to get larger monitors and honestly it's not really working. The best way to incorporate 3D is pretty much what Sony has - which is pretty much a glorified head-mounted display. 3D works well on that because it gives a different sensory perception when you have your ears fed to the sound and no other objects blocking your peripheral view. Another stupid thing that people say is that the 3D we have now is the same as the 3D that's always been there. Wrong. It is similar but it's not the same and works more efficiently. It's like saying a BMP is a TIFF image when you make such assumption. I know that to a non-technical person, it might not matter but it is important to understand the difference if you're willing to criticise it. 3D in films isn't bad, but the problem is currently 3D in films is a spectacle which to the modern audience isn't that big. However in gaming the spectacle is the thing - considering that truth be told graphics and visuals are far more important for most people in and out of the industry. 3D in films needs to form an emotional connection which it can. They did do it slightly in a few scenes in Toy Story 3 and I know that we can use 3D to show some emotional depth, but people aren't using semiotics right which is the issue. Now as for 3D in truth, I'm not the biggest fan, but I see it as necessary to make the next big step which we should achieve within the next 20-30 years. 3D is a necessary footstep in our attempt at holovision. 3D development actually led to pretty decent advances in the Head Mounted displays already. Now for holovision, what we need is to have 3D projected light which is actually a consequence of attempting glasses free 3D in a larger scale. I think people should get off their high horse and realise that aspect. I agree it is expensive but it'll get cheaper and it will have some market proliferation, just like Blu-Rays do.

I am now the semi-proud owner of a PSPGo which I got for the grand price of Nothing. This generation I got the Wii and the PSPGo for free. Wonder what the next generation holds. Truth be told, the Go isn't a bad device, it's actually pocket-sized in a good way. If online games were cheaper I'd have gotten into earlier. Though now that I own one, I might try to switch some games to digital which will serve a dual purpose when the games are emulated onto the NGP and I get to play them. However screw you Squeenix for purposely not doing a dual release, just to have some sort of final mix of all games released on the PSP this year just to be ported and rereleased for the NGP.

For me it all depends on what's on offer on Thursday. I might get one, who knows. Currently it's a 50-50 on getting it on release. I'm still not too excited but hey I guess it wouldn't be a bad thing.

Day 4. I like certain iPhone games like those from Popcap or even infinity blade but it does leave me feeling unfulfilled at the end. Day 5 I don't think there's a lot of game characters like me personally... though I could be every RTS leader since I'm pretty good at delegating jobs to others and am a workaholic (I mean technically no RTS leader quits till they're dead or the player takes a break). Day 6 That's easy. 'Hey! Listen! Hey! Hey! Hey!' Yeah Navi's annoying (mostly cause the voice/sound was so shrill). James Pond, Blinx, lots of anthropomorphic mascots, lots of characters in FF games, lots of generic bioware characters, seriously there are lots of annoying characters. Note: I am tired and haven't slept more than 3 hrs/day in 3 days thanks to work so I guess I might find more characters annoying now than usual.

Oldie but gets a lot of people inside.

Yeah I think you missed the announcement. They'd announced it I believe a week or two ago that it's coming out on the 23rd of August for the US and 26th for the UK