madbassman39

Bought FarCry 3 Over the weekend. Thank god for the Steam app.

The last expansion pack that was supposed to come out in October (?) was cancelled and THQ/Volition had said they were going to make that into the fourth game. At the time it seemed like THQ was trying its best to damage control before the inevitable happened. I'm sure if they were able to hold on long enough to release this game it would have helped them stay for at least a year, they just didn't get very far. This game is pretty much what the expansion had said to be. Super powers and all that. Looks fun though!

I bought 4 a while back on steam. Here is a decent article to read about Simcity substitutes: http://www.destructoid.com/ranked-the-five-best-city-builders-248031.phtml They chose 4 over 2000. I haven't played them since I was a kid and gave Simcity 4 a try its alright. I'm not sure if its for me, but I like the idea of it, so the new Simcity I feel I would have really liked. I still have played it for four nights straight.

Amazon pulled the game from their digital downloads. They won't sell the game until EA can fix the issue, because they can't guarantee that the product you bought will work. I really hope that this proves that an Always Online experience for a game that has single player content doesn't work today. I would rather it never happens, but if it does I hope they only do it when they can guarantee that they will have no problems on launch day, or the next three days as in the case with this game. I hate to jump on the EA hate wagon, but EA screwed the pooch on this one. Three days and still no solution + temporarily removing a portion of the game to add minor stability. http://www.destructoid.com/amazon-has-pulled-simcity-from-its-store-248072.phtml?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Destructoid+%28Destructoid%29

I know its probably best to just ignore N.K. right now, try to diplomatically quiet them down and what ever else we need to do to not aggravate them any more, but boy do I wish that the the world would be like "shut up or we'll make you shut up". A nice series of strategic attacks to really rub in the fact that they are just little assholes.

I don't want to support the online only gameplay, but given that not having it is not an option I would have to deal with it if I wanted to play the game. The only time I played a Sim City game was when I was younger and used cheats to build a city and destroy it. I have Sim City 4 on Steam, but never really spent the time figuring it out (plus watching how water and electricity work in SC5 makes me more interested in that). The small cities bothers me, even though I feel like it would be a good stepping stone for someone like myself, but with no option to make a city any bigger at all, whats the point? Once you fill up your space its time to move on to a new location? Then the other players depending on your city end up being screwed because of that. I would love to play a private server with people I actually know, but I would feel bad doing a PXOD server because I would stop playing after three weeks because I have "Video Game ADD" and essentially becoming a terrible neighbor. I couldn't do that because I would hate to have that done to me.

Battlefield 3 Endgame comes out this month, closing out the final expansion for BF3. EA did this one right. I was hesitant to buy into their Premium service (essentially a season pass), but when looking at what they were offering for an additional $50 I decided to buy it. It came with 5 DLC packs, new objectives in each one, new weapons in each one, new game modes in each one and new maps in each one. Alone these DLC packs cost $15 each, totaling $75. If you bought the game in their "limited edition" (you can still buy it brand new today) you got one of the DLC for free. So now you pay $50 for 4 DLC packs which would have cost you $60 to buy them individually. EA got my money because it was a good deal. Worth fronting the extra cash on a game I knew I was going to pay for in the expansion packs. I just want to say this is how you combat piracy and used game sales. Don't take away from gamers, give extra content to gamers. Extend the support of a game almost 2 years after release, with quality content. You can buy this game used and get the full game from EA, the same game you could have bought on day 1. Add extra content, allow me to buy it up front at a lower cost (Management 300 told me that $50 now is worth more than $75 spread through out 1 year in smaller payments) and I will probably have no problems buying it.

I've been looking forward to an open world pirate game ever since that Pirates of the Caribbean Disney game got the axe. Reviews all said it was really promising. Now I have to complete Revelations and then get AC3 and try to keep up with the series. If only my Revelations game didn't bug out not allowing me to access a mission. :/

just finished uncharted 3. Amazing game,as good if not better than the second game. The final boss was not as exciting as uncharted 2 but still a great game. If the series ends there i think that would be okay.

That looks amazing me thinks!

True, we are being a little overly negative towards EA, but lets be honest, EA has not been as nice as Valve has been as far as their content is. Team Fortres and Portal were never sold for the full $60 price tag. If you bought TF2 or Portal for $60 then you also got Half Life 2, Half Life 2 Episode 1, and Half Life 2 Episode 2 all in the Orange Box. If you want to jump on Valve for adding micro-transactions, look at the price of the game when they were added in. Team Fortress 2 now costs a whopping total of $0. Dead Space 2 costs a total of $60 with Micro-transactions over the top. This is why people excuse Valve for adding micro-transactions and not EA. I will say that I would excuse a game for $20 or $30 for having micro-transactions, but Dead Space 3 cost the same price as Skyrim, Uncharted, Halo, Tomb Raider, Far Cry (more on the PC), and a whole lot more. Those games got by without adding microtransactions in their game, so why can't EA do the same? Its a shame, because EA does make some fantastic games, and to see that EA throw microtransactions that can turn into gating off part of the game, is upsetting. To back up Ethan's opinion, even if the button prompts are there, you still have to exit the game to purchase the DLC, add money to your account and then download it. DLC breaks up the game.

I agree with Ethan. Yes there are things in game that make the game not realistic, but once you are in the game you are in the world of the game. The rules of the game are the rules of the world. When a game asks you to go to the Xbox/Playstation/Origin market place to purchase new items to get through this locked door, thats when the immersion becomes lost. One is suspension of disbelief while the other is actually stopping the game/ telling you to stop the game to purchase new material.

So I jumped back into the game last night to see how I felt a few months later. I enjoyed the game a lot more than I did at first. I'm starting to get the hang of it, still doesn't excite me the way BF3 has, but I expect that due to the size and scale, everything will be spread out. I decided to check out the store, thought the game was worth throwing $15 at right now, and then I saw the prices. Most guns cost 1000 points of Station Cash, the equivalent of $10. I find that too steep for a digital gun. I would have gladly spent $10 on 3 to 5 guns, but not on one. Its a shame because I think purchasing different guns with different (and not unbalancing) stats is a really great idea as long as you can still earn guns in game. The in game guns take a long time to earn, so I had no issue dropping 2 or 3 dollars per gun just to get a different experience when playing. I know there are people out there who will buy them at $10, and others who will say that I don't have to buy the guns and can earn new guns in game, but I really think this is missed opportunity. The hardcore players will have no problem paying the price, the casual market may have no problem paying the price either if they want just instant guns, its those of us int he middle who wont be buying the guns. Those of us who can earn the guns through a long process, but want to have something to change things up. This is where I feel the free to play market fails to realize. Hardcore players who will pay the price will buy it at any price, casual players may throw a total of 10 or 20 bucks their way, but the middle ground players are the ones persuaded by price. I would think they would rather have more people purchasing at a lower cost rather than less people purchasing at a higher cost. I think SOE lost a customer in me because I was going to spend $10 dollars last night, but didn't because the $10 dollars didn't get me as much as I would have preferred. I'm sure SOE has already done their marketing research and know that this is the route they would prefer to take, but it does make me a little disappointed knowing that I won't spend any money on this game.

Thats it.

The more I see of the controller, the more I like it. Sony finally got the triggers right by curving them inwards instead of outwards.

What bothers me about this is I have a few full retail games I bought via PSN. There has to be some way to work around this, because that would be stupid to lock out those who bought into their day one digital purchase system they've been pushing for some while.

The Sony fanboy in me really wants me to buy the new system right away, the logical person in me says "just wait 6 months to a year." I can't wait to at least hold that controller at Best Buy and feel it in my hands.

That is an expensive Micro SD card, way way overpriced. I searched Amazon and the average price for a 32 gb micro SD comes up to about $50.Half of the PS Vita card. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=32+gb+micro+sd+card

Those are absolutely Start and select buttons (probably going to change for the final product to represent the existing buttons). That makes me excited. FDS the handles do look longer, and thicker, this looks like its going to fit in your hand like a 360 controller more than the way the current Dualshock fits in your hand.

I was thinking about that as well TN. Also If I was Sony, right now all of those dev kits are manufactured one at a time, manufacturing costs are at an all time high, so whats an extra 60 dollars and make each dev kit unique looking? At least it can throw rumors, and at most a picture like this can identify exactly which company leaked this photo.

Are you talking about the button top left? I thought that could be select, but I also thought maybe that is a button for syncing or possibly even a button for the dev kit. IGN assumes thats the share button, but on the Giantbomb they seem to imply that the touch pad is clickable like on the Mac's newer model laptops. Only 1 week and we'll know.

I like the shape, due to it having more girthy look to it similar to the Xbox controller. The Move bar on the top interests me, but what bothers me is the lack of a start/select button. They are probably going to be in the touch pad, which means that when you have games that require you to use the touch pad for anything your fingers are going to have to be very accurate to touch the start/select buttons if they are present. Its like trying to select your email on your touch phone without actually looking at it, you may get lucky but probably not going to happen unless you look down. I like he location of the PS button though, lower is better, not that the PS3 had a bad location (the Xbox's guide button is too big and in a really bad location).

Looks very action packed. Very Uncharted like in the way it plays, which I'm more than fine with. Hell if they blatantly copied Uncharted with Lara Croft, I'd be OK with that. The only thing I saw that I did not like was the river part, where her arms are flailing around then she grabs her gun or bow or what ever and with plenty of control shots the barriers. It does look great though