Renault on 27/5/2009 at 12:42
Quote Posted by Koki
You got kinda lost there.
Not really. I'm talking about games like Thief 4, Deus Ex 3, Rage, Bioshock 2 (among many others) - they will all be brand new releases that will still be playable on the 360 in 2010, five years after it's release.
Edit: Ok, not Crysis type "cutting edge," but those games are so few and far between. I'm mainly talking about high profile releases.
Renault on 27/5/2009 at 12:45
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Considering your buying habits, you're the last person who should be dolling out advice on good value for money purchases.
Honestly, no clue what you're talking about, please explain.
Volitions Advocate on 27/5/2009 at 13:26
Every tried to surf the web on a console?
MCFAIL!
The extra money spent on my computer over a console was worth it, so that I can post here, and on other forums. And do my School assignments, AND print them off.
I can't work on game mods on my console. And If i want to play MGS4, Halo 3, and Metroid Prime 3. I have to spend just as much on consoles as I do on a computer anyway.
Toxicfluff on 27/5/2009 at 13:28
Quote Posted by nicked
Fixed. Would quicksave really benefit open world games? Survival horror games?
There are many games where the ability to quicksave has reduced the atmosphere because I hammer quicksave every 30 seconds, and in some situations end up quicksaving in a nigh-unwinnable situation, requiring a level restart anyway.
There was one of the old FPS games, I'm not sure which it was -- Realms of the Haunting or something -- that was so giving with its quicksave system it would actually allow you to save when dead. I remember taking the offer up immediately after a projectile I hadn't seen smashed into me more than once.
Koki on 27/5/2009 at 13:43
Quote Posted by Brethren
Not really. I'm talking about games like Thief 4, Deus Ex 3, Rage, Bioshock 2 (among many others) - they will all be brand new releases that will still be playable on the 360 in 2010, five years after it's release.
Yes. They will also all have five-year-old graphics, since they're running on five-year-old hardware. Very cutting-edge, that.
Incidentally, PCs work the same way. I could run today's game on a PC which was built five years ago - if I toned down all the graphic settings enough. And the game would most likely look like it was made five years ago.
There is a correlation between graphics, money and time and your consoles are not magically exempt from it. And no, PS3 does not cost $400 to make, not even close. And yes, you are paying the full price. Not directly, but don't worry, capitalism has it covered.
Chuck on 27/5/2009 at 14:08
After playing with the 360 gamepad (PC), it's hard to go back to the PS2 controller. It seems small and light, and the thumb sticks don't have the tight feel of the 360's.
And yeah, the OP's complaint is like bitching about replacing your modern car with a Vega, then going off because it doesn't come with AC and a CD player standard.
SubJeff on 27/5/2009 at 16:10
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
Every tried to surf the web on a console?
MCFAIL!
The extra money spent on my computer over a console was worth it, so that I can post here, and on other forums. And do my School assignments, AND print them off.
But if you just wanted to play games on the console you could have a laptop for not much more than the console for the net, work and so on. In the UK a PS3 costs under £300. If you want a laptop that you don't need to play games on it will be perhaps £400, possibly less. Heck, you could get yourself a £700 Mac laptop and you'd have everything you need for £1000 that will last you years. You have to upgrade your PC every few years if you want to play the latest games on it though. Having said that I've had this one for 2 years, it cost less than £1000, and it's still going strong. I'm surprised though. Perhaps the times are a changing.
Anyway, my point is consoles are a good value alternative if they have the types of games you want. And the PS3 has so many extra functions its
very good value.
steo on 27/5/2009 at 16:29
You know what else is bad design? Not including a quicksave, so that the player is forced to play the same sequence over and over again until they get bored and quit. Sure, a quicksave can be exploited, so can AI. Limiting the number of saves is a better option (including a difficulty which limits saving is even better). The point is, a player is aware that loading a quicksave every time he takes damage is an exploit and will take the fun out of a game, just as you know that standing on a table and taking out all the guards on the level with a bow will take the fun out of Thief. Putting in a super-powerful weapon is different. Yes, it is bad design, but a player will feel less like a cheater for using it, because it is within the game world and less immersion breaking.
june gloom on 27/5/2009 at 18:16
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
AH-HA, AUDIOSURF. Admit it, you're as gay for Steam as Dethtoll is.
I'm not gay for Steam you chudhuffer. I just defend it from its detractors because I'm tired of people acting like its very existence is an affront to their delicate sensibilities or some damn shit.
Renault on 27/5/2009 at 18:21
I like Steam, for certain things. Then again, I'm a lower life form from ThiefGen, so take that with a grain of salt.
