[QUOTE="ez_moneymaker"]So ni no kuni isnt that good? I doubt it will be like xenoblade and ppl willing to pay over the retail price.Soilworkcob

NNK is better than Xenoblade.

I disagree - in terms of originality (from gameplay, to story, to music), xenoblade chronicles is AMAZING, and beats NNK in all those categories. I just felt everything from NNK is bad for a jaded gamer like me - hyper-typical story (Alice in wonderland, anyone?), hand-holding throughout most of the game that sucks the fun out of most puzzles the game has to offer (big problem with today's games), and unexciting combat system (combat is literally half of the game...). Let's just say a ps1 game I'm playing right now (Grandia, a PS classic form the PS store) has a better combat system than this game - but to be fair, not all RPG's can have a great combat system. The presentation of NNK is amazing though - not really the voice-acting, but in terms of visuals and simplified, CLEAN UI. It's not necessarily the best cel-shading, but it's the best it terms of overall visual style, which is simply impeccable. I'm still playing NNK though as we speak, but those are my thoughts, and I doubt anyone can rebuttal those points i laid-out about NNK, especially in comparison to XC.

If anyone gets a chance to play xenoblade chronicles, you'll in for a real treat. It's too bad it's not as well known, simply b/c it was on a different console that most hardcore gamers don't have (the Wii).

[QUOTE="glitch2424"]

[QUOTE="getsmizacked"]

 To give you an idea of my playing tastes:

 

I enjoyed Sly 1 because of its classic platforming.

I finished Sly 2 but it felt like a chore because it was less platforming and less Sly.

I can't motivate myself to get past the first 2 hours of Sly 3.

getsmizacked

I have the exact same position as you...it's unbelievable actually. Exact same experience as above, except i got to about 8-9 hours of sly 3 as opposed to 2 hours. 

As for playing the Jak series - Jak 1 was ALL platforming and collecting (trust me, it becomes really tedious). But it might be worth playing though, but keep in mind you're collecting orbs for pretty much 90% of the game. Jak 2 was a GTA clone, and the difficulty was frustrating, and there was hardly any change in scenery (just a very blue, dark town). Jak 3 is arguably the best in the series, and tries to incoroporate the old (jak1's platforming and scenery) with the new (jak2's driving sequences). The only reason why you can't skip directly to jak3 is b/c you'll be missing a lot about the story - maybe you can just look it up?

HAHA! :) I'm sorry my opinion drove you away - honestly, ratchet IS the better series in terms of fun, but jak ALWAYS had the better platforming gameplay. It really is too bad you can't skip to jak 3, and that jak 1 doesn't have more varied gameplay mechanics. If you're gonna take some advice from me, look up gameplay from jak 1 (at least look at gameplay 1 hour into the game - watch a let's play or something), and see if you can envision yourself having fun with this game. If not, ratchet series it is. I can't recommend skipping to jak 3 b/c of the story - the only way you'll appreciate that game more

 To give you an idea of my playing tastes:

 

I enjoyed Sly 1 because of its classic platforming.

I finished Sly 2 but it felt like a chore because it was less platforming and less Sly.

I can't motivate myself to get past the first 2 hours of Sly 3.

getsmizacked

I have the exact same position as you...it's unbelievable actually. Exact same experience as above, except i got to about 8-9 hours of sly 3 as opposed to 2 hours. 

As for playing the Jak series - Jak 1 was ALL platforming and collecting (trust me, it becomes really tedious). But it might be worth playing though, but keep in mind you're collecting orbs for pretty much 90% of the game. Jak 2 was a GTA clone, and the difficulty was frustrating, and there was hardly any change in scenery (just a very blue, dark town). Jak 3 is arguably the best in the series, and tries to incoroporate the old (jak1's platforming and scenery) with the new (jak2's driving sequences). The only reason why you can't skip directly to jak3 is b/c you'll be missing a lot about the story - maybe you can just look it up?

If you're looking for stealth runs, hitman absolution is your game.

I found Dishonored to be really dissappointing - after you get over the novelty of the "blink" and "stop time" mechanic, it just becomes super stale. And, you NEVER, EVER believe in this "world" they try to create for you - it's simply not immersive. Also, the previously mentioned powers made the game super easy (I played the game on hard the first time thru - it was easy, and made the game feel very bland/lacking tension). Hitman, however, is SO strong in atmosphere (visuals, audio design, and setting are one of the best of 2012). Where Dishonored beats Hitman is in the game mechanics - Dishonored did absolutely nothing wrong, while the game mechanic logic in hitman can be accused of being flawed. Still, I had such a great time with hitman b/c I WAS immersed in this world - it's gritty, it's cold, and it's fun, AND you DO feel like an actual veteran assassin. When I was playing dishonored, I never felt immersed, and I never felt like a "super-natural" assassin - you're given no feedback of your personality, and you're given your powers literally out of the blue and with no good reason why you deserve these powers  (this is not a spoiler, don't worry). The only feedback of your character profile is that a little girl looks up to you (for no real good reason, apparently) and that a bunch of desperate rebels rely on you to overthrow the empire.

So there you have it - immersiveness in hitman, or very sound gameplay design in dishonored. Honestly, I usually value gameplay the most, but if a game doesn't get you out of the context of playing a game and if it's not fun - it's not a good game. Dishonored fails at this, and this is where hitman shines, which makes it AT LEAST 3 times more memorable than dishonored - again, for me. Those accusing hitman of the flawed gameplay mechanics are pretty much everyone tho, but most of the complaints are from fans of the series who are obvioiusly very vocal of their frustration. As long as you can accept the logic of the game mechancis, you'll have a good time. I'm new to the series, and hitman is my favourite stealth game this generation besides Mark of Ninja. Do yourself a favour and buy hitman.

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]FFXIII was fine to me. Not interested in XIII-3 though. The best thing about XIII is the combat engine, which is only fun when battles are hard and make you have to get your paradigms right. XIII-2 made all the battles a cake walk and reduced your battle party from 6 to 2. XIII-3 is reducing it from two to one. XIII could be decent for me but each game makes the good parts worse and worse.soundcellx

lack of world map

lack of exploration

lack of interactive townz

lack of customization

^all those are right up there for faults in FFXIII, as much as the abysmal combat system in which you only control one character and mash X and R1. Even when you input the actions manually, there's only like several to choose from, unlike all the other Final Fantasies, where there are dozens of different attacks and magics to choose from. Also, in FFXIII you don't control all the party members.  

Lack of exploration and customization are the only valid points. We both agree that FF13 was a bad game, but gamers have to realize it's not the lack of towns and world map that contributed to its lack of popularity, it's teh cuztomization and linearity. Towns are simply "safe havens" that people need, a need to communicate with NPC or real people and feel safe and free (towns are almost never linear, in contrast to RPG dungeons). Demon souls and dark souls (although real time) are still JRPGs, and I don't think anything complained about THEIR lack of towns - they had fire-places (forget the term) and the Nexus to feel safe and run around freely. FF13 was headed in the right direction in terms of pushing forward the combat (minizing talk time), but the combat system was lackluster (read: boring) and it lacked customization of characters (and their attributes) and exploration, which is key to any good (J)RPG. Just thought I should clear that up, bc what most gamers think the downfalls of FF13 are, they're actually just things they're expecting to have in a game that didn't promise anything of that (they didn't promise having "towns").

Game looks bad.


Uncharted of Us

Scripted Events of Us

Linearity of Us

Cinematic wanna be movie of us

QTEs of Us

Formulaic of Us


yeah, no thanks. I'll pass on this modern gen trash. 

soundcellx

Agreed - at least for the last few seconds. It couldn't have been more scripted. Still better than the deadspace sequels though

I've only played the demo for NNK, and honestly I wasn't impressed by the battlesystem. I still heard the game was magical though, and plan to get it in the future.

I can whole heartedly recommend X-C though, it's something I considered to be something magical WELL BEFORE NNK came out, and X-C is honestly MY top 3 games for 2012 (ie, my top 3 nominees for game of the year 2012). There is something special about this game that few games can ever accomplish with pure game design and graphics alone. It has sadly been overlooked by gamers for some reason (actually, I realize just of THIS moment b/c it was released on the Wii exclusively, not the ps3/360, so that might be a sad reason why it has been overlooked).

I do wonder if at least some of the hype is due to there having not been many good JRPG's this gen. It's a glass of water in the desert.ItsEvolution

Agreed, especially if you're strictly talking about JRPGs, in which I only liked Xenoblade Chronicles (wii) and Resonance of Fate (ps3) this gen. I'd like to apply the analogy to the 2012 GOTY nominees as well - was not a good year for gaming.

The first three.

Scianix-Black

This.

MGS4 was a perfect example of how reviewers (in this case, literally all of the major ones) can also fall for the hype train. Kinda makes you sad how you can't trust even your favourite reviewer 100% of the time. I would rate the game at best 8/10: a solid story that relies mostly on nostalgia, a more advanced version of MGS3's stealth mechanics, and subpar gun play (people who played MGO will know how well the aiming is inaccurate and unweildy). If you're into the story, you'll definitely like this game. If you're doing it for the stealth gameplay, an alternative game recommendation would be Mark of Ninja and Splintercell conviction.

A crack in time, or you could buy the HD collection so you know the back story first, they are good, well they were brilliant ten years ago, I think they have aged well. Unfortunately, the series has lost its way recently, they sold out for multi-player & it really does not work.Justinps2hero

I agree with getting the HD collection, and the fact that the series HAS lost it's way - not in terms of gameplay content, but in terms of how the game FEELS. There's a significant lack of challenge in the ps3 versions, and it's utterly disappointing. The artstyle also become very pixar. In these 2 ways the series became catered to kids, and this detracted from teh fun significantly. (This is one of the only instances where the enhancements in visuals didn't complement the game, but actually clashed with the violence and chaos portrayed on screen).

Stick with the first 3 games, and if you feel like seeing what little story the game as to offer, play the last 2 (ps3) games.