[QUOTE="bl1ndz0r"][QUOTE="ImBleedingLAWL"]I'm thinking of getting it but I heard it's exactly the same as Castlevania Lords of Shadow....lazyathew

No, he did NOT get anything backwards. They are both like each other! Jeez...

They are..one..and the same? We have a winrar.

Well if the game you're buying DLC for is fantastic in your opinion, why not?

O YA I FORGOT SEPHIROTH HE MI ALL TIEM FAV VILEN

I wasn't aware of this event. Thanks for the heads up!

Good topic TC.When asked whether I prefer open world to linear games, I go with whatever achieves its objective well. If I'm following a script like MGS4 or making it up as I go like Fallout 3, I am happy so long as its done well and doesn't try to be something its not.

However, if you ask if I prefer quality over quantity, I've got to ask "Why can't I have both?". Some games have an awesome linear experience but it only lasts for a few short hours (CoD) while others have great quantity and seem to drag on and on (RDR). What I want is a good balance between both to keep things fun and exciting.

Assasins Creed is an excellent example of a game with great content but abusing that content really makes the game boring. Then, in AC2, they tried to fix that problem and, for me, it worked.

What I want is a balance. Show me something exciting but know when to stop so I have something to look forward to.

Ninja_Zombie83

Well said re: Assassin's Creed.

So you're asking if I can foresee what a company will do when they have a history of being spontaneous and surprising audiences with something new? Well, no, I can't. lolololol

Personally I'm a Ganondorf fanboy, so he's my favorite by default :P Other than that, some villains worth mentioning that really stood out to me are Wesker (RE Series), Team Rocket/Giovanni (Pokemon Series), Zeus (God of War Series), Ansem (Kingdom Hearts Series). And Bowser, of course. Sure he's silly in a lot of games, but he's so iconic in the villain rogue gallery that I can't forget him.

Let me start off this topic by saying that I don't think Red Dead Redemption is a bad game. I've been playing it non-stop for the past week or so and it's proven to be a beautifully made game. However, there are some things about it that I ind unsettling. For those who read 'Game Informer' magazine, there was an article that discussed the problem of overcompensating in video games. Basically he talked about developers who put as much as they can into a game, despite the fact that some, if not a good half, of the content and/or missions (quests) of the game are completely unnecessary. I myself have been noticing, mostly in the beginning of the game, that the missions I was being assigned were a bit useless. Whether it be walking around a town with a dog or escorting someone to some destination. Unlike GTAIV, I find that more of the missions add to the story than the handful of unnecessary tasks in Grand Theft Auto, but it's still something I notice with the 'missions' in RDR.

My question is this: Do you prefer devs making a game with a very direct and linear story with 'missions' that pertain directly to the story or game? Or do you prefer an expansive world where you complete 'missions' that aren't always crucial to the story or experience of the game as a whole?

Never trust what people say. I played Castlevania and there was enough difference that I didn't even think about God of War. And you're asking if getting two PS2 games on a system that doesn't have the best reputation for backwards compatibility in HD for 30-40 bones is worth it? lolwut?

Doesn't seem too shooped for me.