Grand Theft Auto 3 and GTA: Vice City rated by ESRB for PS3
I'd love to play HD remakes of these games!
Printable View
Grand Theft Auto 3 and GTA: Vice City rated by ESRB for PS3
I'd love to play HD remakes of these games!
According to the I Am Alive Facebook page, a release date of March 7th has been announced.
a commercial for star wars: the old republic just ran while i'm watching alcatraz.
that game was released over a month ago; why are there still promos for it saying when it'll be in stores? :D
Cause they suck, I played the Beta and was not impressed at ALLL... Star Wars Galaxies is a much better concept, they need to start over with that type of game a real MMORPG not this BS.
Easier to re-use old commercials, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseballplyrmvp
When originally conceived, yes. As executed, hardly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DariusLock
TOR gives the majority of the casual Star Wars fans what they want: I can haz a Jedi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was the problem that Galaxies ran into. EVERYONE wanted to be a Jedi, which is just stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
That's where they need people like me. I love playing the bad guys on games. Probably why I liked playing the Endor DLC on SW: The Force Unleashed II, because I could sit there going apeshit on the rebels, got to kill Han and Chewbacca and eventually Leia. It was nice being the evil guy for a change. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
back on the KOTOR series, i loved playing as a dark jedi. it was awesome walking into a room full of like 20 people, using "force lightning" and killing everyone in a second. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
No, it's not stupid. That's what the majority of Star Wars fans would choose to be, given the choice. What's stupid is a) that Galaxies didn't know that ahead of time; and b) after making it a massive effort (though rewarding) to become a Jedi for months (or maybe even a year), then they made it easy, pissing off every subscriber that had gone through all the work previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
I wish I could think of an NCAA equivalent to discuss it here, but there's simply no equivalent, without bordering on the ridiculous.
And while Smooth and MVP are right that you need some Dark Jedi to offset the Jedi, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that Galaxies was supposed to be in the "original" Star Wars universe, where Jedi were rare. That was the aim going in -- having a Jedi character was a major accomplishment. It became easy though, and then the NGE (New Game Experience) was an absolute disaster.
Galaxies is a perfect example of a franchise that did way too much to try and get the "casual" fan while turning off their current fans left and right.
Exactly. Thus the end of Galaxies being a decent game.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Yeah I was talking bout the concept u could build, cook, and dance for money...hooker style.
It was only a matter of time. I found the first two HORRIBLE personally.
Fall of Man was amazing. Resistance 2 was utter garbage. Resistance 3 was a slight notch above R2 coming in at regular garbage. As mors said, it was only a matter of time. I suspect you'll be hearing the exact same thing about SOCOM over the upcoming months. S4 bombed so hard in sales I'd be shocked if they actually even thought about making another one. All for the best if they intend of making games like S4, anyway.
Yeah I never even bothered with S4, seemed like MAG 2.0 to me.
It was...weird. It had a little Uncharted in it. It had a little MAG. It had a little Call of Duty. It was basically an attempt at meshing all of today's popular shooters into one package and it backfired big time. It pains me to say this(S2 was one of my favorite games of all time), but S4 had ZERO SOCOM in it. I stopped playing after a week or so, and as it is now, the community is virtually completely dead. I still have my fingers crossed for SOCOM HD, but I'm not holding my breath.
Not sure if any one has read yet but Rocksteady is on the move again and in the works of making a brand new TMNT following the hit batman series, going with the same engine etc and just as dark if not more as Batman AC..
http://www.gamezone.com/news/rumor-c...new-tmnt-title
Someone asked Ed Boon if he believed the rumor and he said he doubts it. I hope he's wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorfanStovy
Yes me too . Who is Ed Boon ? I would kill for a good killer TMNT like the Batman series it would be epic.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
The guy whose head would pop up and say "Toasty!" in Mortal Kombat. He was also a hidden character in the original NBA Jam: Tournament Edition.Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorfanStovy
In case it's not obvious why, he was one of the (if not THE) primary lead programmer at Midway in its heyday, and is a co-creator of Mortal Kombat.
Franchise isn't done. Insomniac's done with it, but the trademark is Sony's and they're free to move it to another studio if they choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
Galaxies was basically screwed from the start. If they'd made Jedi easy from the beginning, they would have had an overpopulation of Jedi but at least had a solid customer base to begin with. But by introducing the game with limited Jedi and then attempting to appease the casual fan later on, they were screwed. Their entire premise was dead on arrival.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
That said, I was still a mega fan of it when it first hit store shelves and I could interact inside the Star Wars universe. TOR doesn't hold quite that appeal because of the setting, but at least the population of Jedi and Sith make sense in the context, rather than the overpopulation problem I mentioned above.
Meh oh well. They just better make this game happen it would be another runner up for game of the year if it is as any epic as Batman :AC was . I'll be keeping an eye out for this . On game rant people were talking about online co - op or just in off line co op would be sweet as well. I could see a TMNT lasting for hours depending on how big the story is etc.
If you're willing to spend $100, you can essentially get everything you want out of a controller.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/29/m...er-review-ps3/
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget....utmlg83888.jpg
The sticks & d-pads are modular so you can move them around to any of the three spots that you prefer. As well, they have both the 360 & PS3 style d-pads & sticks. I wouldn't pay the price but if you could swap the buttons in & out as well as use it for both consoles, I'd consider it just to have a universal feel. As well, it appears to use the 360 size base so for those that hate the Dual-Shock size, you can have your cake & eat it too.
No Force Feedback? No chance for me. I was already against it since I do prefer the Dual Shock size to the 360 controller, but spending $100+ to lose features, no thanks.
What do you think was the greatest advancement in video games this generation? HD graphics, Achievements and Trophies, game patches or something else?
Damn, that's a good question. HD graphics are huge these days for me when it comes to video games, both console and PC. Achievements and Trophies have been responsible in the past for me going out of my way to do certain things in a game or replay games multiple times to do this or get that in achievements. Game patches are absolutely huge these days. In the past, a fucked up game was forever going to be a fucked up game and you were stuck Now-a-days, games that are fucked up on release can be patched and either corrected to how they should have been, or at least be corrected to the point of being playable if anything. Just those three options alone are all equally great and huge to me, I don't think I could ever choose just one to the greatest.Quote:
Originally Posted by NatureBoy
Nothing. Old video games are better.
Patches are the worst thing that could have ever happened to gaming. Before 360/PS3 came out, I thought it would be brilliant to be able to fix certain things after the game came out, but all it has led to is a bunch of developers half assing the development on the game knowing they can go back after the game is released and try to fix it. EA, Infinity Ward, and some of Sony's first party studios are infamous for doing it.
Knowing they only had one shot at making the game good, developers on the older systems put forth a better effort to make sure the game functioned as it should. NCAA and Madden are two really good examples of this, and so is Medal of Honor, Rainbow Six, and the SOCOM series. All of those series lack a good bit compared to the games on the past generation of consoles.
On the old systems, games were re-released with fixes at some point after the initial release all the time. You just didn't know about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn
That meant that if you bought a game on release day there was a good chance that it would have a bug that would be fixed later but you'd be stuck with it while it'd be fixed for those who bought the games as few months later.
Believe it, or not.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk
Not on the games I played. All the games I'm talking about involved online play, and in order for online play to work, you can't have two different versions. None of the games I ever listed had any major bugs or problems. NCAA '04 was one of the best games of all time, as was '07. Madden '04 and '07 were also amazing. SOCOM 2 was one of the best online shooters ever released and didn't have any major problems until over a year after it's release(when people started cheating on it). I do realize that some games re-released with some issues corrected, but none of the games I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
You both are in essence right. Though personally I tend to be on the side of IOU on this one, there does seem to be more of a do it now and we will fix it later attitude but honestly that's everything these days.
Also when I was younger I.E Nintendo days pretty much until regular Xbox I had a "life" so I never encountered anything that was so devastating that I couldn't just get over it, I think with the day in age we are in with less kids outside and more internet bitchers there seems to be alot more problems that it use to be when its probably a "wash". They were just as fucked up then as they are now.
Old consoles are better while you are at it. I love all the HD graphics but like others have already mentioned, console patches are the devil. Honestly how can you beta test (and then release) Skyrim on the PS3 and not find the lag that the majority of users are having. We have become frigging beta testers.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
A single player game should not have slowdown on a console.
A single player game should not have slowdown on a console.
A single player game should not have slowdown on a console.
It is not like you are dealing with multiple specifications. If I want to play PC games and deal with patches, modding, upgrades, etc, ---------- I would buy a Gaming PC.
Exactly. Thus my reasoning for telling the PS3 and the 360 to go to hell and went with a beast PC gaming rig instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by bdoughty
That's only true of modern online play. There's nothing to say that there wasn't a day when that was possible. Plenty of technology exists that allows for two people to play with different clients -- it all depends on what the server/client gives a damn about.Quote:
Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn
Also, for the record, several versions of NCAA had major bugs in the era you're citing. 2004 was great, I agree, but one of those years - 2002, I believe, had a bug that prevented Ohio State dynasties from proceeding beyond year one. I imagine Ohio State wasn't the only team effected, it's just the one I heard about.
And yet you still have to deal with all the bugs and patches. I don't see the point here.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
Patches are bad, I'll agree with the above posters. But think, for a second, about the alternative. Some games, your Skyrim's, GTA's, etc, have a chance to move dates. Most of our favorite games don't. Hell, the majority of games don't move now. That's probably the biggest change with this generation of consoles (at least since the early days of the Playstation) -- no more dates moving a week or two or ten at the last minute. Because now game releases are timed to a T, and teams can't afford to miss it.
The thing this generation is going to be most known for, at the end of it all, is the embrace of the casual gamer (mostly via the Wii and then, to a lesser extent, the Kinect) and motion gaming (same). That is going to be the legacy of this generation. HD graphics were a given. Achievements and Trophies make sense, and contributed to the overall gamification of the world, but aren't anything to hang our metaphorical hat on.
Yes, but, for the most part, any issues that they have with bugs and things are graphics card related and easily fixed with an update or some settings changes and they're rarely gamebreaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Sadly, you are definitely correct. The embracing of the casual gamer has killed video games though (thus my stand that older games are better). Everything points toward handholding the player through most of the game with little deviation (at least in US games).Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Agree to disagree. I've seen plenty of gamebreaking bugs that had to be resolved via patch. Yes, the majority of them are due to non-conforming hardware, but you still see plenty of gamebreaking problems, especially on MMOs.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
Again, agree to disagree. That's not what I meant at all. I meant that the video game market has been opened to casual gamers in a way it never was before. Wii Bowling is unlikely to have ever existed on a previous console, control mechanisms nonwithstanding. DDR was practically the only thing "mass market" in the previous generation, in my opinion. The Wii and Kinect broke through the popularity wall in a way I never would have expected. Decry handholding all you want, there's still plenty of gaming options for the hardcore among us.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
Does any one play NHL 12. I was thinking of getting until 13 came out but wasn't sure when 13 comes out.Would like some feed back on 12. Sadly it is still 45 bucks used :(
There is a NHL 12 thread here. I'm sure you can get some good feedback there.Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorfanStovy
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorfanStovy
Here.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
I'm pretty sure Beatn owns this and lays prone in the living room all the time.
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/...034-TS?$S300W$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16879338034
Heh, that's crazy. Not sure if I'd be ok with using it, but it's pretty damn cool either way. And for $10 no less.