Either game in the Zero Escape series.
Come to think of it...Virtue's Last Reward may be the only game I've ever played that required a flowchart just to explain fundamental who/what/where/why aspects of the plot. Just thinking about it makes me really wish they'd finish the trilogy sometime soon.
I haven't read about these cases in huge detail, but I doubt they'll have a monumental effect. The judgements themselves seem hooked up on particularly specific aspects of the licence agreements. If the current licence agreements are partly defective, software companies will throw money at their IP lawyers and new licence agreements will appear, impervious to the previous challenges. That's how these things go.
In any case, picking out a few points from the articles posted by the TC:
"The ECJ has placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that the Oracle licences were 'perpetual' in nature," he said. "It tied their perpetual nature to their economic value and for this reason concluded that a 'sale' had occurred under the Computer Programs Directive."
"This means that software suppliers will have to think very carefully before giving perpetual licences. Instead of giving a perpetual licence, it may be preferable for a software company to give a licence that expires after a certain period of time with a positive obligation to provide an updated, but different version of their software, in order to avoid the implications of this judgment," he added.
I'm pretty sure Steam already does that, offering limited and terminable licences rather than perpetual ones. If that's all it takes to avoid the ECJ's judgement, then any software company affected by the judgement could just do one simple amendment to their licence agreements to avoid this in the future.
In any case, we're talking about esoteric court decisions that don't have widespread support around the world at the moment. These aren't in any danger of bringing down Steam anytime soon.
Those articles don't look biased at all...
Anyways, I've never understood why Americans care so much about guns. Does anyone care to enlighten me?
As far as I can piece together from gun advocate arguments: gun-free areas of the US are total deathtraps, so people won't feel safe from gun viloence until everyone is carrying packing heat (perhaps in the same way that a lone female tourist in the Middle East would feel unsafe without a male escort).
There's also something about their right to be sufficiently armed to kill government officials, policemen, and anyone else they feel is oppressing them.
Oh, and their heavily-amended founding document is apparently infallible (although I'm not entirely sure how that argument works around the obvious contradictions there).
@CarnageHeart: I wouldn't call it a 'safe bet' that Sony will be able to keep up this momentum until March - not unless they have a couple of console-moving killer apps out over the next few months. The initial launch rush will die down without a steady stream of releases to feed it.
I'd say that Skyward Sword was full of some of the best individual moments/dungeons/bosses in the series, and the combat controls were fantastic...but it was also a game bogged down by fiddly overworld exploration (flying being nowhere near as fun as sailing) and too many recycled areas.
Overall though, I seem to remember really enjoying it.
Isn't Nintendo already on-track with the unified account system stuff? I mean, we've already got Nintendo accounts, and those will be introduced to the 3DS soon, so...they're basically there.
As for achievements...well, bugger those. Steam has demonstrated that you really don't need unified gamerscores to sell heaps of unwanted games to people, and the whole pissing contest mentality of gamerscores is rather immature/unwelcome/pointless. If a game need achievements to feel rewarding or fulfilling, then it isn't a rewarding or fulfilling game in the first place - so why bother with it? And that's not even mentioning how achievements can completely undermine cooperation in online games.
Not to mention what they make from just owning Steam. They've got no reason to do it, and Gabe doesn't even seem slightly interested. He doesn't give a shit about Half Life anymore.
That last part isn't right. Gabe cares enough to make references to Half-Life 3 in videos and interviews - he certainly isn't just letting the series fade into obscurity.
I think the problem is that they care too much to release it. Valve are perfectionists. They have a tendency to scrap and remake game concepts/levels/scenarios/storylines/entire games if they aren't satisfied with the results. They don't need to release games to continue getting revenue, so without that urgency, they have no reason to release the game until it meets their own exceptionally high standards.
So I guess in answer to the TC's question, "when it's done" is the most appropriate response.
I guess it comes down to preferences.
At the moment, I've got 9 really good WiiU titles to play through, and the battery life really isn't a concern to me (if I'm playing for too long at a time, I can easily just plug the controller in and keep playing)...plus the Mario+Luigi U bundle looked great, so I gave it a shot.
I don't regret it in the slightest.
Cheesey/atmosphere-breaking moments, dull characters, force stories and backtracking?
I'm pretty sure those complaints could be levelled against any Resident Evil game (although the characters were certainly a lot less dull in the later games, with Salazar and Wesker and Quint massively camping everything up).
Isn't that mainly what people like about this series though? I mean, the original Resident Evil was the most intentionally hilarious survival horror game of its era...and the series only seemed to dip into serious horror during the REmake years, as far as I'm aware.
I started playing it a few hours ago, and...it's a tense zombie survival game with permadeath mechanics and a lovely sense of dread surrounding everything. Nothing about it screams '4.5', it seems to be a solid title so far (albeit one that could have used a bit more polish).
So yes, I wouldn't mind seeing a re-review.
As for his comment on being a douche, well I think it is your "God help any of you that we catch." statement. And also the fact that the police are not exactly looked at as heroes around here.
I don't see anything wrong with that statement. The judicial system will be throwing the book at people caught 'playing' this 'game', and nothing short of a Biblical deity is likely to help them get out of it.
But you're right, there are a surprisingly large number of armchair anarchists around here that have exaggerated views on the police.
@visceron said:@MirkoS77 said:1) as I suspected I would, and as much as I have reason to collect rupees, I don't like being able to rent/buy the items. I'm at the entrance to the fourth dungeon and already have all the items available rented. I just don't like being able to go anywhere at anytime from so early. Part of the fun of the original was the feeling of anticipation and curiosity of seeing something just off screen that's unobtainable, which gave motivation to discover what to do to get it. Since everything's easily unlocked simply from chopping grass instead of defeating dungeons and bosses it feels somewhat cheap, spoiled and less adventurous. This is not a small gripe for me, it's huge. This was a bad design choice.
I though this was a really good choice, I felt like it took away the grind and gave the player more choices. You still get to find hidden items in the dungeons, such as new armor, shield, ore, etc.
Agreed. The sense of exploration, overworld-puzzle-solving and constant progression is still there, and the dungeons are still rewarding, since the rewards are mainly upgrades and improvements to what you have available to you early on.
That's not a bad thing - it just means that you don't spend the first three hours wandering around with only a sword and a boomerang, and it means that ALBW's overworld puzzles tend to be more difficult/clever than simply "Oh, I should remember to come back to this tree-stump after the water temple".
No the thing that everyone hated was Samus, who was viewed by the gaming community as a bad ass, non oversexualized heroine was turned into a whiny crybaby with daddy issues who suddenly can't use her weapons until some guy tells her to do so and also suddenly has a mental freakout over Ridley, who, at this point in the Metroid timeline she has fought multiple times. Not to mention the developers seemed to have a fetish for showing off her butt in her skin tight Zero Suit every chance they got. Then again this is Team Ninja, the studio whose great contribution to gaming was making boobies jiggle.
I think that reaction is slightly problematic in itself - people seem to think that Samus is only a strong character when she's acting like a male action hero (ie. an emotionless killing machine), as opposed to acting like a human being (caring about her father figure, getting a bit of PTSD at the sight of the monster that killed her parents, etc.). Crying and whining don't preclude someone from being a strong female character - just look at The Longest Journey to see what I mean. And hell, I still think Samus' best story arc was the whole 'her mothering the baby Metroid who then sacrifices itself for her' stuff from Metroid 2 and 3.
Team Ninja only really stuffed up their timing there - Samus' reaction would make a hell of a lot more sense earlier in the series, as opposed to a couple of Ridley fights into it.
As for the "following Malkovich's orders" and "withholding upgrades" stuff...that was all set up in Metroid Fusion. It's canon, and it isn't the first time the series has done that. I don't get why people complain about it, but still think of Metroid Fusion as a great game.
...and yeah, the series has never held back from keeping Samus in her underwear under that suit. Team Ninja may have gone overboard - I honestly don't remember - but this certainly isn't the first time they've sexualised Samus.
You wave around this banner of interactivity yet place Bioshock Infinite in the poll. This game takes control away and forces the player spectate at many points throughout the experience.
Walk into room, find the invisible X on the floor and just as you're a mere foot away you're sucked into it and forced to watch as Elizabeth explains the situation, or gets kidnapped, or dances, or you're thrown out of a zeppelin or something. The game does this quite often. These are essentially cutscenes.
I seem to remember that the game basically flat-out told you that your choices were meaningless, and you had no control over what was going to happen. Wasn't there some point in the game were you're told that the story won't continue until you leave a room (involving a crib, perhaps), and it was absolutely right?
Oh, not to mention the fact that, for a game of 'infinite' possibilities and a character that can open portals to essentially anywhere...everything was painfully linear, to the point where Elizabeth's powers could only do whatever the plot demanded of them (completely inconsistently, too). So not only was the plot frustratingly linear for the player, but it didn't even make sense for the characters to be following the plot - which makes it the worst kind of non-interactive story, in a way.
@BranKetra: Fallout was a spiritual sequel to Wasteland, and now it seems as if Wasteland 2 will be a spiritual sequel to Fallout 2.
And in response to my earlier comments...Bethesda only made one Fallout game. It had nothing to do with this rest of the series, it tried (and failed) to recycle and retcon a lot of the lore from the first two games, and it had the shallowest gameplay in the main series. It's safe to call it the weakest Fallout game, which explains why many people don't want Bethesda to make another one.
The game is fantastic but the item renting system adds little, its just a way to shut up the fools who want to complain about everything being the same all the time. So what if I could choose which dungeon to go to, it changes little, just the order I do things on. Because there is no progression it doesn't mean anything to go to that dungeon before another. Personally I rather have a set order with set difficulty scaling than this. Or make it so exploration does lead to areas where you can't access yet and through more exploration you can find the way in.
I disagree. Most Zelda games have you play for 15 hours just to gather the fun toys to play with. This one gives you the fun toys at the start, then has you spend the next 15 hours buying and upgrading them. It cuts down on the down-time tremendously, while also making death significant (which has never really been the case in other Zelda games). I think it's a great improvement.
Then again, I feel like they have improved on just about every aspect of the old 2d Zelda games. They've done a fantastic job with this one.
Until a few months ago I was thinking Antichamber should get it, but I don't know, there have been heaps of great games this year.
Still, I guess I have to be the first to mention Zelda: A Link Between Worlds. I could see it being in the top three of the year, it's that good. And from the sounds of things, Mario 3D World should be up there as well