Thursday Next

I suppose it's partly a result of moving from cartridges that physically do not fit the new device, to a metallic disc / download that is perceived as a universal media format, even though it isn't, and partly as people get used to buying a new PC / Laptop with the latest version of Windows and finding everything (mostly) works still. I think Sony actually played it quite well with PS3 with early models playing PS2 titles, giving early adopters a (artificially) larger library, then dropping it, thus saving costs and allowing a price drop as the PS3 catalogue grew.

On closer inspection I see that certain awards like Story and Audio do actually name the lead writer or sound guy. Which is fair enough. We could perhaps not split games into genres, just Best Game and instead throw in a couple of other categories like Best Character Design, Best Singleplayer or something.

I do think that often there is a lot of time spent amongst Gender / Sexual Identity groups trying to define themselves and each other that would be better spent trying to persuade other people not be dicks to anyone.

You need to be considering Class 10 cards only. Which brings that average up. You still pay extra for the Vita Card, but it's in the same ball park.

@Dean I had the Grand Waltz stuck in my head for so long after playing that. Loved it. Finished Dead Space 3, played all the way through with a buddy on Co-Op. Going to go through again with reversed roles on Impossible (or whatever it is).

I actually think it's a bit of a dick move calling out a few individuals rather than the whole studio. Casey is a nice enough guy, but he's also one of the more highly compensated members of the studio. Gets his name at the top of the game credits. Gets to go to swanky events like the Baftas. For him to be basically the guy who wins the award is a bit of cheek.

It depends on what the game is built for. Some games, Dead Space 3 for example, benefit from the health pack system, it adds to the sense of being underpowered when you can run out of health, which is what the game relies on for tension. On the other hand, games like Halo are power fantasies, where you are some sort of unstoppable bad-ass. That lends itself more to regenerating health. You charge in, kick some butt, catch your breath and charge in again. Same goes for weapon choice to an extent. If your game is essentially gun porn, or, there are a variety of enemies with certain strengths / weaknesses, then you ought to allow the player to go armed to the teeth. On the other hand, if you're more about creating a "realistic" game, then you have to have certain limits to the amount a player can carry. Neither design is inherently bad (or good). It's all in the implementation. In other news, I only just today realised this is a multiplatform title. Cool.

Fire and Brimstone coming down from the skies!

Talking about console hardware? I can see Sony and Microsoft Moving to a 100% digital platform in a generation. Maybe two. The hardware is converging, with PCs (alleged) Xbox 720 and (alleged) PS4 running X86 hardware the difference is in software. Rather than making hardware, Sony and MS can (much like Valve appear to be moving toward) have "Certified" PC's or you can build your own. Instead of (or as well as) running Windows, you'd run the PlayStation or Xbox OS. Eliminates hardware R&D and manufacturing costs, eliminates hardware risk look how the tsunami affected the Japanese hardware makers), certified devices maintain a level playing field. Upgrading the OS but keeping hardware architecture means you keep the back catalogue titles, thus maintaining platform loyalty. Dean was spot on when he said "the platform is Nintendo". A "platform" is becoming less and less a piece of hardware and more a service. Given how slow Nintendo are to get online. Even now after two generations of Xbox LIVE they seem to have learned nothing about making their online service attractive and accessible. I don't think they will be around when platforms become digital.

All I know is, having met the head of SCEE's legal department, I would not have leaked this when Sony clearly wanted maximum impact from their launch. Hogarth Andall is a big, scary guy who could squash you like a bug. Well, that's not "all" I know obviously. But unlike some, I respect NDA's and want to keep my job.

Or... you know... Not invite him, and have a sexy, 18 year old chick instead?

I have no idea who Barry Bonds is. Having googled him, he seems to be a steroid using former baseball player and perjuror. As I am not into baseball, the taking of steroids or lying to the court, I don't see why I would spend 7 points on him. Also given that at one point he is described in the wiki article as "a polarizing insufferable braggart with a legendary ego and staggering ability, relied on over five hundred interviews, except with Bonds himself." I can only imagine the 10 year stint would end in bloodshed, and I don't fancy my chances against a 'roid head with a baseball hat.

Saturnine makes a good point re: 18y/o. By the time you I leave the age gap would be acceptable. Bonus!

Why? Might as well go free as none of the money from here on in would go to the guys who made the game.

Kitchen, library, satellite radio, hot chick. Food, entertainment, education and company. To be honest, you could replace hot chick with any non-offensive person. She doesn't have to be stunningly attractive, 18 years old, a chick or willing to have sex.

Yup, never played a demo and been convinced to buy a game. Vanquish demo was good, but eventually just picked it up via PS+ for free. The only time a demo might sell me on a game is when a new console launches. At that point I have time to play more things due to a lack of full titles, and little idea of how a game will actually play due to changes in handling saves, online, etc.

Sure, depends on who they go for though. A couple of warheads in Seoul would wreak huge damage, require a response from the US and could lead to an all out global nuclear war. Which, for NK would be quite the achievement. That said, I don't think they'd ever actually pull the trigger on it. I know they're a bit bonkers, but I don't think they are totally suicidal.

Isn't that the point of any nuclear attack though? Do a horrific level of damage before you are wiped out. It's not really about "winning" at that point. It's about going out in style.

I think it breaks down as: - People who are annoyed because they disapprove of eating horse. - People who are concerned that this is indicative of other issues in the food chain. - People who are annoyed that they were sold horse when they ordered beef. - People who are annoyed because the media are telling them to be annoyed. - People who don't care or are smug because they never buy processed food. I think the majority of people who are talking about it fall in to the media camp. If you sit them down and ask them why it's so bad to eat horse, most would accept that horse meat is fine really, had they been told in advance they probably would eat horse without complaint, this is just a mis-labelling error and since there are no indications that the food chain is toxic as a result we can all go back to our lives.

Nintendo don't get it. They're running very close to going the same way as Sega. They got lucky with the Wii otherwise they would already be a software / handheld only outfit by now. Instead of gimmicks like second screens, that value of which is incredibly hard to communicate to a casual audience, Nintendo should have focussed on getting their online right. The main reason MS stole a tonne of market share from Sony and took the lead was that they got online so right. It took Sony about half of the PS3 life cycle to catch up and now the PSN and XBL are pretty much on par. Nintendo's offering on the other hand is still an ugly mix of friend codes and gamertags, their online store is no where near as well supported or marketed as PSN or XBL and they have openly stated they "Don't believe in the cloud." On top of that, their third party support is pretty woeful. Leading up to the launch of the Wii U a lot of developers still did not know exactly how online would work. Finally, Nintendo don't even know how to sell the thing. Calling it a Wii U was a big misstep. The average consumer does not know that this is a new console. A lot of them think it is just the new gamepad. Calling it the Wii 2 would have established it as a new console. Calling it something altogether different would have too. People don't associate "U" with any form of progression. That's what numbers are for. The advertising for it is terrible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=choXYYvjMMY#! You don't actually list features in an advert. That's dumb.

HA! HA! HA! HAAAA! HAAAA! HAAAA!

Who got killed?

That's kind of what Beta's are supposed to be for. Once upon a time. Before marketing got hold of them and started renaming "demos" "betas".

I did, I did. Fire bombs for the win.

FTL. Finally. I literally killed it with fire.