MTG Salvation

Quote from Madoushi

I too don't think this is a hot idea. But we'll see how it works out for them.

We already have. This isn't a new business model they've adopted, this is how they've been playing ball since the beginning. Can you name a single game, retail or digital, that hit the 360 before the PS3? I can't think of any. On the other hand, I know of at least a dozen instances where Microsoft has gotten (bought or otherwise) some sort of timed exclusive. How has this worked for them? I'll get to that...

Quote from sentimentGX4

<snip>the PS3's hardware is pretty outdated.

Um... the PS3 came out over a year after the Xbox360; so if the PS3's hardware is outdated, then so is the 360, but even moreso.

One of the big reasons Sony included a Blu-Ray player in the PS3 is to win the format war.

Yeah, you're right, it is. And while it did result in them stumbling out of the gate, I think it's paid off for them in the long run. Blu-Ray had a respectable market share, and PS3 sales are catching up to the 360.

Quote from Grim Lavamancer Joe

Also, Heavenly Sword - one of the launch titles for the ps3 - used 30 gigabytes. The first Resistance was a 22 gigabyte size, and god of war 3 was actually 40 gigabytes. So yes, LOTS of ps3 exclusive games require more than 5 gigabytes. Many cross-console games don't use more than 4.8 (max size for the dvd) gigabytes because of the limitations for the 360.

Naughty Dog is reporting that the current version of Uncharted 3 is over the 50GB limit. How 'bout them apples?

Also, to correct: standard dual-layered DVDs can hold closer to 8GB of data. That's still less than 1/6th of a dual-layered Blu-Ray disc, but it's worth pointing out that several very graphically and technically impressive games have fit on an X360 DVD, so not exactly anything to scoff at. Also, because of how BR discs work, a lot of developers has revealed/complained that they've needed to put certain kinds of data on the disc twice, so a game that only takes up 7GB on the 360 might take about 11GB on the PS3, even if running to the same specs.

Quote from Cyan

I don't see the logic behind this from MS standpoint. It's not some kind of privilege to be able to release titles for the 360.

I can see the logic; the don't want developers giving the 360 a shoddy "port" of the game, which I can understand, because the PS3 got some terrible ports of 360 games in it's early years, and I really wish Sony had taken some sort of similar stance. However, it is hurting them now. A lot of these games that are being released later for the PS3 are getting "superior" versions, often with DLC content included on-disc. And while Microsoft may have paid for the timed exclusive, there's not much they can do about this practice. So I have no problem waiting to get BioShock and Mass Effect 2 on the PS3, because we're getting fully patched versions with additional content for the same price, as a "reward" for our patience. And Arcade/PSN titles like Braid and Limbo aren't any worse because we got them a summer later, I'm certainly not gonna run out and buy a 360 for them.

Quote from i_am_a_badman

In a check box less world, she would vote for one person, and if that person does not win, Miss Rabbit's vote would be useless.

Welcome to a democracy.

In a checkbox world, miss Rabbit could vote for who ever she thinks is the top 3. (I know, this is an example and don't nitpick, rabbits can't vote in real life like it should be!) This way one of her votes still matters.

Unless, of course, none of the three people she voted for win, in which case she just cast 3 votes that didn't matter instead of 1. Hooray?

Quote from PhantomS

Voted other. Often times it is very difficult to say definitively that one item on a list is the sole "correct" option. However, no question worth asking involves ALL of the answers being correct. Therefore, I propose a system in which one can check all but one of the options in a poll. I'm not interested in necessarily having a definitive winner, but any contest worth holding has definitive losers.

I do admit, I've seen polls where it would be beneficial for voters to be able to cast exactly 2 votes; unfortunately, the current forum system is an all-or-nothing; either someone can only vote for 1 (dots), or as many as s/he wants (checkboxes).

Checkboxes are for the indecisive, and when discussing something as significant as who the best mod on the forum is, we can't have people picking multiple "winners," we need a clear-cut champion. Anyone who's torn between two different options obviously hasn't given the debate enough thought.

When I first started playing games (PS1 mostly), I always preferred the "slingshot" set-up as I called it; I played with both X and Y inverted. In my mind, the camera was on a tripod, and the stick was me "pushing" the back of the camera to look around. So if I wanted to look up, I would push the back of the camera down, and if I wanted to look to the left, I'd push the back of the camera to the right. So me from 10 years ago would agree with the original post.

I really can't tell you when my mind changed. I think as I tried different genres I found that camera set up to be less effective for some games then other, so often when starting up a new game the first thing I'd do is mess around with the camera inverts and just see what felt most natural with the game; sometimes invert one, sometimes both, sometimes neither. Eventually I found myself using non-inverted most of the time, and then all the time.

I don't play flight simulators, but anytime I find myself playing any sort of aerial section of a game (God of War 2 and 3, for example), I think I find myself preferring the inverted Y, so I like when games give you the option to flip movement for just those parts (again, I believe GoW2 does, don't remember about GoW3).

Quote from dimir impersonator

Or I'd like to see an Avengers/FF team up film where Chris Evans plays both Johnny Storm and Captain America and the first line Storm says to Captain America would be "Hey there, handsome!"

A humorous thought, but of course would NEVER happen. If/when Marvel re-aquire the rights, I don't think we'd see any FF characters show up in other movies until they got one of their own, which would be a re-boot with a new cast. Having the same person playing two different roles would just make the whole movie seem like a bad joke. Unless they were having Mike Myers do it.

Quote from Irmis

I am hoping for a reboot. I would like to see something better than a half-assed painfully 1-dimensional pale imitation of Victor von Doom. And maybe less narrative laziness this time around, would be good too.

I still maintain that I see what Julian McMahon was TRYING to do with Doom, and I liked what he was going for; he was trying to be that calm, cool, plotting villain rather than the balls-out, maniacal laughter psychovillain, but unfortunately he did come across as bored/boring. With a better director, I think he could have pulled it off. Alas, doesn't seem that will ever happen.

Quote from Belgareth

To be honest the only actor that was spot on in FF movies was playing Reed Richards, the rest were ok at best.
I'd be glad of a reboot for FF if only to get rid of Chris Evans as Johnny Storm.

I do wish there was a way that Ioan Gruffudd could reprise his role in any potential reboot; I suppose it could happen, but seems highly unlikely. Imagine if Marvel DID ask Gruffudd to come back, but absolutely no one else from the movies? Awkward...

I realize this isn't even an official thing yet, but I am excited by the possibilities this could offer. This whole Avengers project could be the tip of the iceberg; imagine if Marvel took the concept and expanded it to the extreme. Not just the idea of doing 4 "origin" stories culminating into an epic mash-up, but instead a film library where every hero or team had one or two "solo" movies to establish the characters, and then every other movie they made was a crossover of two or more franchises, with characters and items from several stories popping up in every other story. Captain America and Thor, Fantastic Four with Hulk... hell, imagine if they eventually established enough characters to do the Civil War?

A pipe dream, I know. But if handled well, it could be awesome. It makes me wish Marvel could re-aquire Spiderman, X-Men (though I am excited to see what Fox does with what First Class set up), and any others they don't have back yet. (Daredevil? Punisher?)

Preordering for me has never been a matter or ensuring there's a copy for me to buy (except in cases of collector's/limited editions). I do it because a) they're games I'm gonna buy anyway, so might as well (and a bit of Nai's reason of being able to pay for it over time), and b) the occasional preorder bonus. I like these Signature Editions we've been getting with Dragon Age 2 and the upcoming Assassin's Creed Revelations, I wouldn't mind if we started seeing more of them.

Quote from Monopoman

This will be the first time I am not pre-ordering the newest Ratchet game. I am a huge fan but I need to see the reviews on this one it is such a departure from the series.

I admit, I'm fairly skeptical myself. Not only is it a very different approach to the series, it's also a different developer, which is always concerning (well, technically, it's a different branch of the same developer, but still). I'm looking forward to it, but am mentally preparing myself for it to be a letdown. I get the feeling it's going to be a bit like Deadlocked; a fine game in it's own rights, but most of it's criticism will likely be based on it being a bad Ratchet and Clank game. Hopefully IG Burbank takes the reigns for the next one and gives us something more in line with what the series should be. I still dream of a R&C game where each weapon is basically an RPG character, with stats and perks that you get to pick and increase each time it levels up.

All mine are for PS3.

September:
-God of War Origins Collection 9/13
-Team Ico Collection 9/27

October:
-Ratchet And Clank: All 4 One 10/18
-Batman: Arkham City 10/18

November:
-Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim 11/11
-Assassin's Creed: Revelations 11/15

So September is going to be my Collections month, thankfully followed by about a month of nothing I particularly want. I then get hit with two games I know I will be spending A LOT of time playing, and then 2 more pretty massive time sinks within days of each other in early November. Given I still have Mass Effect 2 and Killzone 3 that I haven't even started, I don't expect to get to Skyrim or ACR (or possibly BAC) until sometime next year.

I would pre-order Resistance 3, but I'm thinking about getting that Playstation 3D TV, which will come with R3, so I'm holding off on it. Another omission is Uncharted 3, and while I enjoyed the previous two entries, I can wait for it to drop to budget price, as that's very much a "one-and-done" for me.

Quote from The_Muffin_Man

I'm still debating whether or not I want to drop the $99 for the collector's edition. I'm not entirely sure it's worth it.

I reserved the CE, but after some consideration I think I'm just gonna switch to the regular. I like CE's with good in-game and physical goodies, and while a Batman statue is kinda cool, it's not worth spending an extra $40 for, as none of the other stuff really excites me (early access to some challenge maps? I'll pass). I'd rather put that money towards one of the many other games coming out that I want.

Oh God, ANOTHER one?!

Look, I thought the first one was really good. And I don't mean "good for a horror film" or "good for it's time"; it had an original plot that was very well executed and sufficient acting. Even the second was a good movie. Sure, it recycled the same concept, but I liked how well it tied into the first, with each of the new main characters having a connection to someone from the first. So yeah, first two I liked.

The 3rd is where it started getting terrible for me. That's when I felt the deaths stopped being interesting and started becoming those "really? WTF?" type scenarios. What truly killed it for me was when they main characters found out what was going on by, I kid you not, Google-ing "premonitions" and reading about the events of the first two films in a new story. Even the second one had the decency to let the characters figure that all out on their own; having the premise get discovered via internet search (I believe the 4th used the same method) just cheapens this otherwise great concept. The only thing I liked about the 4th was the implication that it would be the last one ("THE Final Destination). Guess I was wrong... >.<

You say this one is better than the last two? Ok, that's good. But unless it's at least close to the quality of the first two, I can pass. I don't particularly enjoy horror/gorror movies anyway.

Quote from i_am_a_badman

neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew screeeeeeeeeen shots!

http://www.gamersmint.com/new-borderlands-2-screenshots-released

Yup, looks like a sequel to Borderlands.

The only thing of note I would say is that in two of the pictures, you can see (what would appear to be) one of the new main characters using two guns at once. Maybe duel-wielding is possible in this one?

I solo'd the game as Roland as well; Shotguns and assault rifles just lend themselves well to my play style, so he was an obvious pick for me (and I tried all the others, just didn't appeal to me). I found him to be a very well-rounded and balanced character; he could deal good damage, he could heal and resupply himself, and has a lot of skills that both benefit himself and any possible allies. Kind of that "jack of all trades, master of none." I think he's the best to go at it alone with, but if you're doing multiplayer and have a Brick to run in and distract while you snipe with Mordecai or a Roland to pull aggro while Lilith's phasewalk recharges, yeah they're pretty good.

I'm certainly not shocked they're introducing new characters. But I'm also expecting the four new characters to each be comparable to one of the old ones, so probably not going to be breaking the mold of the previous classes much.

I'm ready for Call of Duty to go to rest. I'm not a big FPS fan, but I loved the Infinity Ward developed CoD games. Now that they're out of the picture (no, the Infinity Ward making MW3 is NOT the same Infinity Ward that made 1 and 2), I'm done with them. Those are pretty much the only games that I've played that I wouldn't want to see continued; there are certainly others I think should be ended, but since I've never played them or gotten into them anyway I don't have much room to talk.

Quote from Outspokened

As for pokemon, I know I appreciate the novelty of the new pokemons and everything I still love the pokemons...it's the gameplay that kills :/ can't they venture forth and find something new to the gameplay...

I've actually been impressed at the mechanical improvements they've been making. If someone played the original Red/Blue, and then tried Black/White, things would be considerably different than simply brighter, shinier graphics and new 'mon, they're really changed the game each generation without totally mucking up the mechanics.

Quote from Darklightz

But I would also vote to retire Pokemon simple because there's only so many animal/element combination to make before it becomes redundant and ridiculous.

And yet it's surprising how many type combinations that still don't exist. I mean, it took 5 generations to finally get a Fire/Dragon type Pokemon. Five ****ing generations. That should have happened in the first two. It would also be nice if they added new types, they haven't added new ones since Gen II.

Sure, there are a lot of things they could do to mix things up that they haven't, but I still feel they're doing a good job of innovating the series, so I wouldn't write it off.

Quote from Myounka

Final Fantasy. They're getting progressively worse and I haven't played any past 9 because after 8 "sequels" you should really stop(I'm looking at you, SAW.)

I almost wouldn't count the Final Fantasy series. Sure, the last few have been less-than-great, but considering how little each installment really has to do with each other, killing the franchise wouldn't do anything. And I don't really think you can accuse Square-Enix of milking the franchise, they're not exactly pumping them out yearly like a lot of others (no need to name examples, you all know at least some of them). It WOULD be nice if they upped the quality, but the name "Final Fantasy" has brand recognition that Square would be foolish to cast aside.

Quote from Clock King

Continue:
Beyond Good & Evil - Give this cult classic a sequel.
...
Bioshock - An FPS series with a soul and a plot, keep it up.

Both of these have sequels in the works; BG&E2 has been a bit silent for awhile, but at last report, it's still in the works. And BioShock Infinite is looking absolutely stunning.

Psychonauts - If I had to choose one game from this list to get a sequel, this would be it. Sea monsters, psychotic milkmen, killer girl scouts, telekinesis, levitation...this game had it all, plus a sense of humor.

This is one I'm not sure I'd want to see a sequel for. I absolutely loved the first, but I worry that it was just too original for it to work again, kind of that "lightning in a bottle" thing. A re-release on the PSN would have my money in a heartbeat, however.

End:
Assassin's Creed - Every time I go to Gamestop it seems like another Assassin's Creed game is coming out. I couldn't even get through the repetitive nature of the first one.

I'm personally a fan. Sure, they're getting into the habit of yearly releases, but I still feel each installment brings something new to the table, and it's always entertaining to wander around a different ancient civilization. When I feel like Ubisoft releases a cookie-cutter cash-in sequel, I'll be one of the firsts to call for an end of the franchise. But so far, I think they're doing a great job.

Kingdom Hearts - The first two for PS2 were good, what's up with these convoluted spinoffs for lesser systems?

THOSE are what need to stop, not the series itself. I lost count of how many handheld or mobile spin-offs we've had since KH2. What they NEED to do is just work on Kingdom Hearts 3, that should be good.

There's also our first look at Hathaway as Kyle/Catwoman. Nothing about the suit really screams "cat" so hopefully that's not her "in costume."

I have no problem with Bane's mask. I've never read the comics so I don't really have any preconceived notion of what he should look like beyond that terrible Batman and Robin movie, so the less he looks like that, the happier I am.

What is somewhat bothersome for me is Batman himself. Maybe it's me mis-remembering, but it looks a lot different from the other two movies. It no longer looks like body armor, it looks like a costume. To be fair though, the suit he wears when filming combat scenes is probably different than the one he normally wears, what he's got on will probably look fine after post-production when we only see it for about a second per angle.

Quote from Nai

Haven't tried it. Picked it up during the summer sale. If I need to try the game you guys choose, it's going to take me a week. So best to choose one that shows playtime now, and then give me something to try for the next week.

Don't worry about it. Pretty much all the other games on your list that I recognized, I already know if they're good or not; that was the only one I hadn't really heard an opinion on. But don't go out of your way to play it for my sake.

As for the digital distribution, I hear you... But have to disagree. While it's nice to have a physical copy, as long as you plan to play legally, there's really no reason to do that. Steam releases Game of the Year as well. They'll also have a lot of smaller games your PC can run that you may enjoy that are also cheaper. Discs are nice, but you DO have to keep track of them and worry about scratches.

I understand the benefits of DD, but it's just not for me. It has nothing to do with cost; hell, I traded in vanilla Resident Evil 5 and bough the Gold Edition, even though I could have bought all the DLC off the PSN for about 10 bucks less. I just like being able to hold something for the money I spend, something tangible I can see and touch. I like being able to put it on a shelf with my other games (or movies, or CDs), I'm a collector. I like having all the game content on the same disc, I was so mad when the GOTY editions for Borderlands and Uncharted 2 included vouchers for the add-ons (especially since Gearbox had specifically stated all the content would be on the disc). I'll do it in some cases, like those "mini" games that get released on PSN/XBLA/Steam, or DLC if I know the game won't get re-released with it. But I still won't like it. And trust me, I take EXCELLENT care of my discs, my son learned at a very young age not to play with daddy's shiny circles.

Quote from landmage

Nai: How did like Braid? I loved it, personally. It's really amazing some of the thing I didn't notice when I played that when I talked to friends, I found out. It has cemented my belief that it was a really great game and work of art.

I'm not Nai, but I loved it as well. It's a deceptively simple game; all you can do is move, jump, and rewind time (I think that's it), but the different time mechanics introduced in each world just make it so complex, pure platforming at it's finest. And yeah, very artistic, up there with Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, and BioShock in terms of the whole "video games as art" debate. It's one of the few XBLA games I bought back when I had an XBox360, and when it got released on PSN I didn't hesitate to download it again.