http://kotaku.com/more-then-anything-ive-read-this-is-the-deal-breaker-511778528

Yes, it's Kotaku. But well, they're reporting everything that everyone else is reporting, straight from the horse's ass...er...mouth.  Yes, MS has finally confirmed everything that we've all been hoping for was just rumors and bullsh it.  Well, now it's just sh it.  MS may not issue used games fees (hurray?), but we'll most likely see publishers themselves try it. This is actually where I'm hopeful they won't, considering EA's thrown out the online pass.  There's ridiculous restrictions when it comes to giving games, and trading games will be practically impossible. Oh yeah, and if I want to GIVE you a game, you better have been a friend of mine for at least 30 days... This is ludicrous.  Oh, and the rental market is now fuc ked. 

And then there's the final confirmation.  The one that's the deal breaker for everyone that I've heard against the Xbox One.  The 24 hour connection check.  Oh, and if you're playing one of your games on someone else's system, that goes up to an hourly connection check. 

Let me just address this one right now before someone posts it. 

"But, if you have the Internet to complain about the Xbox One, you have the Internet to play Xbox One."

True, but the difference is, I care about the gamers who DON'T. I don't support this kind of jackassery. There are MILLIONS of gamers WORLDWIDE without the necessary 1.5 Mb/s connection MS requires to utilize Xbox One online. They won't be able to enjoy Xbox One as a result of this. The reason why you're hearing perfectly enabled gamers complaining about the mandatory connection checks is because we're exercising something called sympathy.  It's a powerful emotion that helps keep us from devolving into nothing but a bunch of greedy, selfish uncaring jerks. Do you REALLY need the Xbox One that badly that you would support such unfriendly business decisions? Do you not care that MS is basically pissing on your consumer rights?  Will MS even have games good enough to justify this?

So, this brings me to my blog title. Will the games be good enough?  Right now, the only game that comes close enough to generating any interest into the system is Quantum Break, and that's only because of the pedigree of the developer. Now, I hear that DICE has something in store for us at E3, and it's been rumored - and I stress rumored - that Mirror's Edge 2 will be Xbox exclusive and if this is the case, it will test the limits of my resolve, because I REEEEEEALLY want that game. To put it into perspective, the only game that I want more than Mirror's Edge 2 is The Last Guardian. I do not want to back down, cave in and buy a machine that I'm strongly against just because of a few choice titles. I also want to own them if I ever would buy them, but MS has made it clear at this point they no longer want their customers owning anything they buy. 

Let me just go back to the "I have online, so I'm not affected" bit. You don't know that.  You have no idea what kind of things can happen that can disrupt your enjoyment of the Xbox One. Your router could fry as a result of power surge. Your ISP could down, or you lost your job and had to cut back on montly expenses. Your job has relocated you to a remote town where there is no Internet, or at least BB. Some construction worker severs a fiber optic cable leaving you without net for several days. Something may happen that will cause you to say, "Fu ck, why did I buy into this?" It may never happen, and you might enjoy the Xbox One without a hitch for years. But why do you want to game under a Damoclean Sword? Why aren't you bothered with the fact that MS will be watching your every move, making sure each person playing isn't some kind of pirate? 

So, no. I don't care about MS's offereings this E3. I don't think there's one single game that's going to be amazing enough for me to be able to look the other way on the DRM issues and the 24 hour connection check and the trading and loaning restrictions. It's not going to happen this year. It may not happen next year.  If it will ever happen, it will be when MS's cloud is long dead and powered down, which will be the only way you'll be able to play the Xbox One completely free of an Internet connection.... or will it?  

Will any game be good enough to buy, knowing you'll never be able to play it again in the future? To be rendered a worthless piece of plastic only fit for a coaster? NO game is good enough for that! 

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

I find it funny that people are in an uproar over GS' review of the Last of Us.  An 8.0 is a very good score and, despite what you may think of Tom McShea, I felt he gave an honest, trite assessment.  Would you have preferred Tom McShea had handed down a 7.0?  Or a 6.0 instead?  I'm sorry, but get over it.   It's only a number.  Opinions are based on personal experiences and shouldn't be representative of the integrity of the overall final product.  You the consumer determine whether or not it was worth the time and money.

I can recall when most people got upset over Bioshock Infinite's 9.0 score, which many had felt deserved a 10.0. 

It's troubling to see people get so worked up over a few numbers.  Numbers can't do anything.  A game's worth is determined by individual experiences and what a gamer gets out of it overall.  If they themselves found the game enjoyable and fun, then a number score can do little, if anything, to diminish that.  It should be noted that the Last of Us is, thus far, receiving universal acclaim from many major publications anyhow.  It already won well over 25 or so awards, including best PlayStation exclusive game of E3.

The Last of Us will be released on Friday, June 14th.  Draw your own conclusions, have fun, and be careful out there.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

US Start Time: 7:30 PM PST 
Platform: PC

Just as a friendly reminder, tomorrow night at 7:30 PM PST we will be getting together with some GSPN members to play some Team Fortress 2!

We are going to be playing on both the PC and on the X360 (Special thanks go to Chicknfeet for setting that up).

If you're interested in playing, be sure to sign up here.

I'm also looking for a volunteer to stream the game as well. If you are interested in taking on this task please let me know at your earliest convenience.

If we get 50 people to sign up to play I'll award a TF2 emblem. 

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

When Namco Bandai stated last week that they'll be going in "guns blazing" and handle the upcoming sequel to their niche cult-hit Dark Souls as a "massive, massive" AAA release, it immediately put many Demon's / Dark Souls fans like myself on notice in regards to its future. The escalating potential of the series ultimately succumbing to a similar fate as that of Resident Evil, Dead Space, and all the other grossly misguided, bloated and compromised AAA commercial "failures" released over the last few years has become quite disconcerting for a good chunk of its modestly-sized yet fiercely dedicated fanbase.

In a recent post, Jim Sterling of The Escapist puts the legitimate fears of the game's fans and the broken mentality of AAA publishers into perspective quite well: click here for the video link.

There's not really much that I can add that wasn't pretty much covered in the vid. All I can say is that despite my mild amount of forced optimism, it's getting harder and harder to not see the writing on the wall. A part of me always knew the respectable success enjoyed by the series up to this point was like blood in the water, attracting industry sharks who would inevitably seek to devour everything that made these games what they were.. all for the faint chance of being the next mainstream approved clone of the current western-developed cashcows. 

Aside from their growing number of overhyped failures, there is one thing that I can say AAA publishers have consistently succeeded at these days: making it loud and clear to any niche title's fanbase that their loyal patronage will simply never be enough. They've firmly established that it's just more important to them to risk everything in an effort to appeal to larger audiences that'll never actually give a sh*t about their games, than it is maintaining the fixed audience that actually does. To them, why settle on the revenue their franchises can realistically produce, when they can shoot for a grander piece of the pie they can never truly have outside of their own personal delusions?

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Timesplitters 1, Timesplitters: Future Perfect, Burnout 3: Takedown, Star Wars Battlefront 1&2, Need For Speed: Underground, Jak 2, Ratchet and Clank: Gladiator, Time Crisis 2, Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, Starsky and Hutch, Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 3, Goldeneye; Rogue Agent, 007 Everything or Nothing, 007 From Russia With Love, The Simpsons: Road Rage, Soul Calibur 2, PES 08.

Well I hope you enjoy the reviews and the list.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

As you may have noticed, articles, editorials and news features having to do with various social issues surrounding gaming (or with a gamers' slant) have been making an upswing here on GS. These issue range from violence in gaming to mental illness and so much in between. As gaming becomes more of a mainstream form of entertainment, the gaming community is growing, as is our social awareness of such issues. And, with the increase in the gaming population, there is bound to come an increase in pieces reflecting on social issues and their perceived relevance to members of this community.

Some pieces have been met with good debate within the community; others have been scorned and readers have threatened to leave GS for posting what they consider information that is not newsworthy. Still, some have even been praised for bringing awareness to issues that may be embarrassing for gamers to bring up on their own and opening a dialogue for change, or at the least, a better understanding of the highlighted issue.

The first topic that has really exploded across this site is feminism and gaming. It is also arguably the most hated, but is definitely one of the most polarizing. Don't worry, I'm not going to go on a rant about my actual opinion as I've done so on the numerous features on the site. Some of the more notable and commented-on pieces are as follows:

Dead Island sparks sexism flap (September 8, 2011 - 531 comments)

From Samus to Lara: An Interview With Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency (June 12, 2012 - 3724 comments)

Halo 4 devs speak out against sexism (October 30, 2012 - 700 comments)

Naughty Dog: games don't need males on cover to sell (December 12, 2012 - 454 comments)

Publishers said 'You can't have a female character,' says Remember Me dev (March 19, 2013 - 1131 comments)

Documentary on sexism in games hits Kickstarter (April 29, 2013 - 1366 comments)

A significant portion of the comments in these articles are decrying the fact that these pieces are even being published, that the issue of sexism in gaming either does not exist or that even if it does, there is no place on GS for this kind of piece. From my observation, the response to these articles was overwhelmingly negative.

Next on the list is the debate about how the violoence portrayed in video games may (or may not) affect people who play such games. Various studies have been conducted and opinions run the full gamut, some saying they affect us and may desensitize us to others saying it can help us manage pain and improve other aspects of our lives:

GS News - Violent Video Games can Ease Pain (September 11, 2012 - 134 comments)

Senator introduces bill to study violent games (December 20, 2012 - 1183 comments)

N.J. Gov: violent games must be examined (January 9, 2013 - 1447 comments)

Obama calls for game violence research (January 16, 2013 - 1298 comments)

Former FBI profiler says games do not cause violence (February 25, 2013 - 261 comments)

Study: Violent games can desensitize players (May 10, 2013 - 806 comments and counting)

This series of pieces seems to draw more of a debate than a simple "GTFO of GS". There doesn't seem to be as much of an internal argument between users as there are just differences of opinion which are handled in a more respectful manner than the issue of sexism and gaming.

Lastly, GS has gone even deeper into gamers' psyches by promoting a feature on gaming and depression and mental illness in regards to the gaming community:

Survey examines links between gaming, behavior (November 15, 2010 - 170 comments)

Study links pathological gaming to depression, anxiety in kids (January 17, 2011 - 606 comments)

Light in the Darkness: Dealing With Depression in Games (February 8, 2013 - 71 comments)

Depression Quest: A Retrospective (February 19, 2013 - 25 comments)

Video Games vs. Depression (May 3, 2013 - 1888 comments)

The last link, a relatively short documentary which was featured on the front page, has garnered a LOT of support. Comments on pieces in this group tend to be more positive and supportive in nature.

It seems to me that the most negative feedback comes from pieces where users feel judged or stereotyped themselves, which is no surprise: nobody likes to feel like they are being judged in a negative light. But pieces that analyze parts of the community and offer insight without judgement, such as the depression pieces, are welcomed overall, mostly because they are more helpful and not telling the user they need to change, or that the industry they hold so dear needs to change. Personally, I, too, enjoy these kinds of social awareness issues the best because I feel they can impact the most users in the most positive way.

I actually enjoy watching GS grow up and report on social issues. I feel that there is more than enough content on the site to the point that if you absolutely hate mixing social issues with gaming, you can find plenty to read and keep you busy without having to bother with content you really don't like. It also baffles me why so many people comment with such vitriol when GS does tackle these issues. I understand the voicing of the opinion that GS should not have these kinds of pieces on the front page, but what I mostly see are people trolling such pieces and massively increasing post counts on pieces they think shouldn't exist anyway, which is sort of defeating the purpose--but that's beside the point.

So, how do YOU feel about how all of these social issues are being represented here on GS? If you love it, what other ideas would you like to see tackled or acknowledged? If you would rather leave it behind, what would you like to see instead, and do you feel the presence of these issues truly undermines your ability to enjoy the rest of the content on the site?

-z

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Zelda: Wind Waker - The amazing graphical prowess of 2003 gaming

A lot of change happens over ten years. The internet didn't really become pevasive on mobile devices until 2010. In fact, I didn't even have a cell phone when I first registered at Gamespot. At the time, therefore, sites like Gamespot were both the primary source of information and news for video game enthusiasts as well as the only real social outlet we had. I registered because Gamespot offered downloads for many PC games, including patches for said games, and a reliable source for downloading was desirable. There were competitors, but every site had its own culture and the heavily moderated Gamespot community ensured that there was a bit more maturity relative to other sites. And no, I'm not saying that the average Gamespotter was mature, just more mature than competing sites.

It wasn't until 2007 I started writing and publishing content to my Gamespot account. I'm not sure why, but I needed an outlet at the time. I had transitioned to a new city, leaving behind familiar surroundings and college friends. It was a bit random at first: Some complaints about Sony here, and a couple humorous blogs there. Then I wrote a blog for consideration by the site Editors for the Gamespot "Soapbox." At the time, this was a much desired emblem, since it was both rare and there were few emblems to be had overall. More importantly, anyone holding the emblem could post directly to the front page of the site simply by categorizing their blog entry as an "Editorial."

I garnered the Soapbox emblem with the Editorial, "I've killed you, and no, I don't feel bad about it." At the time violence and video games were a big topic of conversation, for no particularly good reason. It's still a fun read six years later.

Once I gained the exposure of the Soapbox I started receiving hundreds of views and comments. I started writing in earnest; it was a bit convoluted at first, but eventually I sorted my thoughts into columns of popular topics. I did a "Geek to Chic" series, which were basically tips for nerds not to stand out quite so much. I had a slew of humorous entries, personal finance, and tips on PC building. I tried a "Gamespot Cribs" series, but it never gained traction. An index to some of the better entries follows the end of this blog

There was an elite cadre of user-writers that formed unions around various topics to support blogging to the Soapbox and quality user reviews. I became a moderator for a time at Jody's behest, though that was rescinded after I made a blog entry about a topic deemed a bit too adult for Gamespot (and in retrospect, rightly so). Still, it was without question, Gamespot's peak in terms of user-generated content and participation.

Then Jeff Gerstmann reviewed Kane & Lynch: Dead Men.

That singular event resulted in an upheaval of users that rallied behind Gerstmann, relieved from Gamespot due to his critical comments on a game that had been heavily advertised on the site. Gamespot lost many, many great bloggers, union managers, volunteer community managers, and employees after his dismissal, and has never fully recovered.

There were additional missteps from a user standpoint. The launch of Gamespot FUSE to capture and integrate social media with Gamespot was a massive undertaking, but essentially bifurcated the community. You had some users migrating to FUSE, and others that preferred the persistent format of the traditional forums and user blogs. Gamespot abandoned the Soapbox for a time, dropping it from the front page and alienating some of its contributors, most notably GabuEx. Livefyre replaced Gamespots comments system in there somewhere, though this was a good move, in retrospect.

In the past two years Gamespot has made great strides to recapture the magic of 2007. They brought in Synthia Wieres to help Jody Robinson with community management and social media. The Soapbox was rebooted and the staff have interfaced more directly with their community on an ongoing basis. They introduced "Rangers," users that are not moderators so much as site cheerleaders, which has been a very good thing, and which I've been a proud participant. Finally, CBS Interactive picked up Giant Bomb, bringing Jeff Gerstmann and friends back full circle, and reintroducing many old users to their former stomping grounds. I still miss many users, and wrote an homage to said users in 2011 (link), but there have been quite a few great users filling their shoes, as of late.

I've seen friends I've met through Gamespot go on to become hired and subsequently move on from Gamespot, as was the case with Donklejohn. Danny O'Dwyer started off blogging just like yours truly before picking up an actual Gamespot paycheck, and there he's been making entertaining shorts about some of the most random things I've ever seen. It's a far cry from his Bioshock game footage days. It was great to meet several of the staff at PAX East 2012 and put real faces to their digital replicants.

Danny O'Dwyer doing what he does best. I'm just not entirely sure what that is.

It's strange to think of how much time and energy I have allocated to Gamespot in the past decade. Ultimately, though, it has been a rewarding online community filled with wonderful people. I have been frequently absent the past twelve months due to volunteer work, my family, and career monopolizing every free moment of my life, but I do hope to once again contribute to Gamespot in some meaningful way in the coming months.

Thank you, Gamespot staff, for creating a rich and vibrant community. For giving me the opportunity to be heard, to improve your site, and to support its ongoing development. I wish nothing but the best to each and every employee and member over the next ten years.

Index of Editorials
Index of Newbie PC Builder
Index of Personal Finance
Index of Geek to Chic
Index of Advice & Recommendations
Index of Humor

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

I want to read something realistic and not a love manga; more like something about Yakuza or Mafia. I wish it to be as realistic as possible, no superhumans.

Or just anything that's good and not a typical shounen( I've read too much shounen, but if it's something like Hikaru no Go then I may like it). 

Anyway, I'm open to suggestions.

Thanks 

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Violence in Video Games Does Not Cause Real World Violence

The news-media often ignores the statistics to state that violence in video games causes violence in real life. Psychiatrist, social researcher and author Hugh Mackay disagrees. He states, So, if falling crime rates coincide with the rise of violent video games and increasing violence on TV and at the cinema, should we conclude that media violence is causing the drop in crime rates? ("Is Tv Violence All That Bad For Kids?", 2005). This evidence alone is enough to argue that violent video games do not cause real world violence. In fact, they are helping to decrease it.

Even though the media is quick to blame violence in video games for the violence in the world, the facts point in an entirely different direction.  Between 1996 and 2004 the sale of violent video games doubled, while the amount of violent crime was been cut in half (Kain, 2013). This may appear to be a very violent time in Americas history, but in fact, the rate of violent crime has been falling steadily for years. Coincidentally, the amount of violent video games that are put into production and reach the homes of millions across the country has been steadily rising. Other countries around the world, such as Japan, buy a higher quantity of violent video games each year, but manage to keep their violent crime rate significantly lower than that of the USA. ("Crime", 2013). The reason they are significantly less violent as a nation than the United States is unknown, but if it is any evidence at all, it is evidence for the fact that the intake of violent media helps to subdue the want to commit violent acts in real world situations.

Even with the high amount of blame government officials have been placing on video games, there have yet to be any real tests that identify the relationship between violent video games and real world violence. In fact, Judge James Brady overturned the decision to ban the sale of video games that may contain violence and said any connection between video game and real-world violence was "tenuous and speculative" at best (Violent video games cleared, 2006). However, many people seem to think it is common sense that violence in video games will directly cause someone to commit violent crimes in real life. The only test that has been conducted showed that these games could cause people to show signs of aggression (Tassi, 2013). There was no implication that this aggression was any different than the aggression a person may feel when during normal day-to-day activities, such as driving in rush hour traffic, and certainly no evidence that shows it could cause a person to cross the line between the feeling of aggression and the physical act of violence.

One of the reasons for a lack of testing is the amount of variables that goes into a persons decisions. By saying that a person committed a violent act because they played Assassins Creed, the entirety of that persons life outside of the game is being neglected. There is no person on Earth that only plays video games. Every person has a series of people, places and things that make up their life. To leave out their day-to-day activities and only focus on one thing is to assume that the person that commits the act of violence does not have any pre-existing issues. The more it is allowed to blame tragedies on this one portion of a persons life, the less likely it is that anyone will ever truly discover the cause of deed.

Often when people speak of violent video games, the Call of Duty series comes up. Call of Duty is a first-person shooter that places the player in middle of a war and forces them to run, shoot and stab their way through enemies to eventually end the war. Adam Lanza, the man who shot and killed several people at Sandy Hook Elementary school, was said to have this game in his collection. The media made a very big deal about this, stating that this is what influenced him to go on his killing spree (Zakarin, 2011). However, this statement leaves a very large series of inconsistencies, such as the fact that Call of Duty sold over 50 million copies in first the fifteen days after its release (Sliwinski, 2012). If video games really were the cause for this terrible situation, wouldnt there be shootings like this every day? If 49,999,999 people, not including those who have bought and played the game since, can play this game without causing harm to another person, but one decides to do something terrible, the culprit is the person, not the game. The media was quick to highlight the video games in his collection, but did little to shed light on his home life or state of mental stability.

People often look at the news media in order to determine what is going on in the world. This causes a problem when the news media is looking at studies that have been falsified or are generally defective. Guy Porter and Vladan Starcevic spoke about this issue in an article titled Are violent video games harmful? (2007) They conclude that there are methodological shortcomings and that there are several interpretations of the relationship between video games violence and aggression. They also point out that there is a serious need for long-term studies in order to make any reliable conclusion as to whether the problem with aggression stems from violent video games or countless other possible things. They are very right to say this. The cause of violence could be caused by countless things that happen throughout a persons life, as well as their state of mental health and how impressionable they are.

One of the biggest and most obvious problems the video game world faces is also one that would be very easily fixed. This issue is the lack of parents monitoring the games they are purchasing for their children. The Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB, was founded in 1994 to To empower consumers, especially parents, with guidance that allows them to make informed decisions about the age-appropriateness and suitability of video games and apps while holding the video game industry accountable for responsible marketing practices (ESRB, 2013). They have created a rating system that ranges from Early Childhood to Adults Only. Each rating has a specific age group listed on the label and the reason the game received that rating that it did. Every video game you can buy in stores has one of these ratings, yet games clearly marked for ages 17 and up reach the hands of more and more children every day. There seems to be a stigma attached to video games that causes parents to think they are solely for children, so they hand games like Grand Theft Auto to ten year old boys, and then are shocked to find out what happens in it. Many games have mature themes that children should not be exposed to, especially without proper guidance and explanation from their guardians. If violence could be caused by video games, awareness would be the first step to solving the problem.

The truth of the matter is, there is no scientific evidence that anything at all causes violence, but it is a fact of life. Until there is research done to figure out what the cause is, we will not be able to work to stop it. Maybe it is video games, but the rise in violent media matching the fall in violent crimes points in the opposite direction.  If parents are worried about the violence their children are observing while playing video games, they should monitor the games they buy, but more importantly, they should talk to their children and make sure they know what the line between games and reality.  Maybe the anti-video-game party should sit down and see what it is like to be put in the wondrous land of Tamriel where they can protect their fellow people from attacking hordes of dragons. Above all, everyone should observe the evidence that video games curb violent crimes instead of causing it.

References

Mackay, H. (2005). Is TV violence all that bad for kids?. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/news/Hugh-Mackay/Is-TV-violence-all-that-bad-for-kids/2005/03/04/1109700674787.htmlCrime. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ja-japan/cri-crime

Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, ISSN 1039-8562, 10/2007, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp. 422 426

Violent video games cleared. (2006, Dec 21). Computer Act!Ve, , n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/212055587?accountid=35812

Kain, E. (2013). As Video Game Sales Climb Year Over Year, Violent Crime Continues To Fall. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/19/as-video-game-sales-climb-year-over-year-violent-crime-continues-to-fall/

Tassi, P. (2013). Biden Says Not to Fear the Facts About Video Game Violence. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/01/25/biden-says-not-to-fear-the-facts-about-video-game-violence/

Zakarin, J. (2013). Sandy Hook Shooter Linked to Violent 'Call of Duty' Games, Sparking Debate. Retrieved from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sandy-hook-shooter-linked-violent-404576

Sliwinski, A. (2013). Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 sales reach $1 billion in 15 days. Retrieved from http://www.joystiq.com/2012/12/05/call-of-duty-black-ops-2-1-billion/

About ESRB . (2013). Retrieved from http://www.esrb.org/about/index.jsp

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Looking back through the lens of Dragon Age 2, The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3, its been incredibly difficult for me at least to look back an remember anything about the original Dragon Age with a rosey-tint to everything. I've been doing this on and off with all of BioWare's more recent titles, checking in to make sure KOTOR is still as fantastic as I remember it being and reminding myself that there was a reason why I was never drawn to Jade Empire.

Dragon Age is the first of the games in my retread of BioWare's back catalogue that I've invested serious time into. With Neverwinter Nights, KOTOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect, I've dived in long enough to remind myself of the flaws, the slavish adherence to the classic BioWare formula and the characters before pulling out in the fear that I might get sucked back in again.

DAO is the exception. I've been ensnared by a BioWare game for the first time since Mass Effect 2, I'd almost forgotten what it felt like. This is partly due to my previous experience with DAO. I'm not a member of the PC master race, but since starting a game with my elven mage "Rad" on the PC I've realised that my playthrough on the 360 was the inferior experience. Textures were rough, the framerate was rougher and one can only see so many radial menus in one game. The PC is the platform the game was designed for; it's prettier, tougher and easy to control, making what should have been a brief check-in a commitment to see it through to the end, all 60 or so hours of it.

Around ten hours in, it's finally dawning on me why Dragon Age Origins is secretly one of BioWare's best efforts. Nothing about the world, mechanics or story is particularly novel or original. Some elements like the relationship between the mages and the Chantry are intriguing, but on the whole DAO is unashamed homage to its D&D predecessors with a healthy dash of Lord of the Rings thrown in for good measure.

That's not to say it's not enjoyable. It's actually shocking how well DAO handles the "there's an unstoppable evil coming and we must unite a bunch of different groups together to help fight it" conceit given how poorly structured and paced Mass Effect 3 was, a game with essentially the same setup. How does one emphasise a terrifying threat? Answer: have it beat the good guys into a pulp in the first encounter. As lifeless and uninteresting as the Darkspawn are as villains, BioWare does a great job in making them seem unstoppable. The devil is in the execution rather than the fiction with BioWare and Dragon Age Origins is a testament to that.

However, you can play a game within Dragon Age: Origins. It's called 'Spot the BioWare cliche.' One point if you managed to predict that the young nubile Leliana would talk about 'forbidden fruit' by your third chat, another if you guessed Morrigan was going to be a party member before she even spoke because someone obviously put a lot of work into that character model. It's like watching a Wes Anderson film, so many elements are exactly the same yet you don't really care because you're enjoying it so much. Then again, part of the reason why I've stuck with DAO for 10+ hours can been because of how deftly BioWare shift between being formulaic and being adventurous. Characters end up joining your party without the obligatory fanfare that leads up to Archangel taking off the helmet or rescuing Bastila, dialogue choices are rarely a choice of altruistic, murderous or painfully unfunny. It's like BioWare knows you're fan, knows you've stuck with them, and is constantly throwing out curveballs that make you smile.

This doesn't mean that any of the flaws get much of a pass. They're generally minor in nature: the hilariously mute rictus of anguish my character's face portrays whenever something dramatic happens, the way a fight with a low-level bandit will cover you with the same amount of bodily fluid as a battle with a troll and the moments were clicking on a spell causes me to move it out of my hotbar, rendering it useless until I pause and dig through the skills menu looking for it. But if you think about the issues previous games from these developers had to surmount, these quibbles are all so very trivial.

For all its merits, Dragon Age Origins is still cut from the same cloth as the developer's previous work. It's just a more lovingly crafted, honed and refined BioWare game than its brethren. Their games' mechanics are generally serviceable, DAO's gameplay is quite fun. Their characters are often well-developed with their own specific dogma that you can help them out with, in DAO those issues are a lot darker without an obvious resolution. It's better BioWare, but for some reason it's not the game that I'm going to remember in the context of their glory days.

Mass Effect 2 is a flawed game. But it balances on a knife edge between being just another BioWare game and utter brilliance. Its shooting mechanics are stiff, the cover-system is awful and almost everything you'd associate with an RPG has been stripped out. It is, basically, the anti-Dragon Age in many ways. But, the highs of Mass Effect 2 are so high, trading the consistency of something like Knights of the Old Republic for a few dramatic moments that stand as some of high points of this generation for me.

Returning to Ferelden in optimal circumstances, knowing now what I didn't know then, Dragon Age Origins seems like the last hurrah for BioWare's past. From that point on, it feels to me like they struck out along a riskier path that involved them trading what they knew in the hope possibility that their writing talent could carry very un-BioWare like games. With Mass Effect 2, they caught lightning in a jar. Dragon Age Origins isn't lightning, it's the culmination of years of hard work, dedication and iteration and damn does it show. A friend of mine adores DAO, and I'm afraid I can't say I share his sentiments even though it has invaded my life in a way that it previously had not. I do however, respect it not only as a piece of art, but as a piece of craft.

Recall at this point, that little mention has been given to its sequel. That's because in my mind, I'm imposing a moratorium on Dragon Age 2 for everything other than discussing the proverbial "beginning of the end" or the analysis of EA's financial position. There's only one real Dragon Age game to have been released and its the one that wasn't churned out in 18 months by the B-team while everyone at BioWare and EA frantically tried to end the trilogy that was bringing home the bacon.

At least going back, I know for sure what can be done with sufficient time, enthusiasm and money in the hands of a studio that seems to have lost its way.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Number 1 on the agenda: Threads that read "Will I like this game."

You've seen 'em, probably daily if you frequent game-related discussion forums like the ones here on Gamespot, or over on the sister site, GameFAQs, etc.

How on God's green Earth could anybody know the answer to this stupid f***** question!? The latest one I saw was for the upcoming SMT game, Shin Megami Tensei IV. It's one thing to weigh in on a game you've played and say, "hey, yeah, this is a good game, you may enjoy it." But it hasn't even been released yet for God's sake.

Now, I know most of these threads are likely created by younger gamers, but it's still one of those things that when you see it waiting for you in your favorite discussion forum, it's impossible to not respond to with violent derision.

Please stop making these stupid threads.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

The game industry has changed a lot in the last decade. With all the new technologies and the new social vibe going on, games took a turn somewhere. Something quintessential has changed and for some it wasn't for the best. I consider myself included. I'm not an old guy. But I did get to play the now consider old-but-gold games and had my own SNES, Megadrive and such. The first game I ever played on PC wasn't actually a game. You might be familiar with MS Paint. But I digress. 

Games in the old days didn't have the social component. The closest it got to this were scoreboards after you failed or succeeded in a game. How many points you made or in how much time you got that lap. But even those things were more of another nature, the competitive one. And games weren't forgiving. If you hadn't had the skills to complete a certain level, it was your problem. You had to try and try again and again until you got it. Even when - but not always - games had the option of choosing a difficulty, you had to try your best. Sure, gamers might argue that most games still entice competition but it isn't anymore about actually managing to kill that boss but how great was your combo or how fast you did it. And you get to choose the casual or the brutal difficulty but the game itself doesn't change or stay true, it just gives you less help or hardens your enemies.  

It's not so much a question of difficulty but of originality. Developers are so worried about pleasing gamers nowadays that games are becoming generic. Your standard FPS might change it's colors but the bones are all the same. You got regen instead of health packs. You got linear with oh snap moments. You are either the bad guy turn good or just the good guy. I'm not saying that games in the old days were so different but you could feel that everything that was done was done because the developers thought, "hey, I think this is awesome". Whenever I play a game today and I get to that same point that I already saw happening in the last ten games I think, "again? I bet the developers created this moment thinking, 'I bet gamers will love this moment'". And it saddens me because I know exactly what to expect. 

It takes the fun out of the games. Even the oh snap moments are, somewhat, predictable. Unless I'm speaking only for myself and I am a genius level creator but don't know about it. It also appears that developers know of this issue and with the help of technology and connectivity vibe thought that they could circumvent this by creating new ways to have fun with a game. Achievements that are shared with friends. Co-op games online, so you can meet new friends, but not split-screen. A thousand ways of sending messages and comparing stuff with strangers so that your ego goes sky high by besting others but not yourself. 

It might be that I'm not exactly a multiplayer guy. I do play with friends but mostly lan games or with people I already know but I am, at the core, a single player. And I miss the games that had the focus on that. Games today are created thinking, at best, 50% focus on singleplay, 50% focus on multiplayer. At worst, singleplayer is a crutch for a multiplayer experience. It provides a meager background so when you get online to shoot/race against/build armies and crush bases against strangers, you have the option of picking sides or consider yourself a baddie or hero of the people. 

Yes, I am aware of games like Halo and its great narrative. Yes, I've played the Mass Effect trilogy and yes, I know of hits like God of War. But one must consider that these are rare occurrences in an era of a massive bloom of games. Anyone that wasn't born yesterday can remember when games took a long time to be developed or there wasn't a great number of games being launched at the same time. Also, games used to be more of a relationship base experience where the game first courted you, you eventually fell in love with it, spend a lot of time with it and then got to that point where you marry the thing and never forget it, always remembering as that special game or just divorce it and move on. I'm married to the C&C era still though I'm not fan of the past couple children it sired. Warcraft is my long lost love who died after her bastard child WoW ruined her memory. Games of today are more of a thing of the moment. You buy it, kill the campaign in a few hours, rant about how short it was, hits the multiplayer, go up in the ranking, brag about how you dominate the n00bs, get bored and in a time span of months you already forgot it. Probably will never played it again. 

I think this is the profile of the gamers of the future. With a constant stream of new games hitting the market with the objective of giving just a hit of that good sensation and promising more on the next episode (e.g. Assassin's Creed), the old days - and I'm not going to say good because yes, they were good for me but for some today is much better and I do acknowledge its merits - are actually gone. Like the fool I am, I still wait for a change and for that game that might bring back the crazy gamer in me but I fear that the gamer in me was generated in a mold and the mold was broken. Now I'm trying to fit in a new era and I'm having trouble with it. 

What do you think? Are the "new" games better? Did that old special ingredient - what the developers like - get lost along the way? Is the new competitive model better? Share your thoughts.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

testing testing

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

I think so.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Read and Post Comments (There are currently 175 other comments) | Get the full article at GameSpot

In WoW, the bugs are, most times, enviromental or specific to a dungeon, class, etc. Never are the bugs and glitches game shattering, they are just annoying as hell. They get the bug reports, work up a patch, fill it with new content as well and release it. Over my 7 years of playing WoW, I have seen many patches and many bugs. This is to be expected in a MMORPG where you have over 14 million people playing. Every individual plays the game differently, so bugs and exploits will happen in a game world as large as Azeroth. It's just common sense that Pedro over in Brazil will play the game differently than Mike in the U.S.A and Derrick in Canada and Darrel in England. Between these diverse gamers and there playing styles, they will all find different aspects of the game that are wrong, broken, don't work right...whatever words you wish to use to describe it.

Now, Bethesda. I love this company and it's games. They have taken me to worlds and given me joy since there first games hit the market. I love Oblivion and certainly Skyrim. These games have provided me with hundreds of hours of pure joy and bliss. I love the "Sand Box" idea that drives Bethesda to create these games and to give us the power to control the way the story unfolds for each of us. The newest game in the series, Skyrim, is no exception to this and I love it as much, if not more, than WoW and Oblivion. However, having said that, the bugs are vast and destroying the fun and immersion of the game for alot of my friends and fellow gamers. On Fuse, you can see post after post of problems with quests, NPC's, falling mammoths...Dragons that fly in reverse (seen this one myself and laughed so hard I fell out of my seat). With all games there will be bugs, glitches. We know this. Sometimes though, we can see that the game is rushed to hurry up and cash in on it's lineage. I can't help but feel now that Skyrim was a bit rushed and they knew about the bugs but figured since the patch will be released just after Thanksgiving (source: GameBanshee) we can just go ahead and release it and by the time gamers get far into the game we can work the patch up and release it to fix the bugs and gltiches. Let's go ahead and get it out the door and into the hands of the gamers.

This is all speculation by me. None of what I said should be taken as fact as far as my comments about Bethesda. It just seems like the game was rushed. Now, does it make me love Bethesda or the game any less? Hell no. I am just disappointed that these kinds of glaring bugs and glitches can be overlooked. The bugs and glitches are not unique to just one person or one type of system or video card, etc. They are universal. I love your games Bethesda and your company, and I'll always support you. I think you should just love your customers back and love us enough to give us a product that's not so rushed and broken. Give us what we pay for and we will give you what you desire and need....our wallets. ~DarkRaven~

Read and Post Comments (There are currently 3 other comments) | Get the full article at GameSpot