I-n-j-i-n

That's not surprising since it's a pretty by-the-books sequel, which is nothing bad about except in terms of originality. I play and enjoy a lot of games that scored 5.0's or lower in metacritic scorings so..

MP2 had a few hard fights with the pirate near the end of the game though. Though MP1 had them much earlier. I thought the difficulty level in both games were fine overall. It's just that they had length of tedious parts. But Metroid games are known for that. Tedium and emptiness followed by sudden action. PS- Playing MP3 now. har har.

I'm actually pretty proud to actually buy a game I'd be glad paying for. I couldn't say that about a lot of games. And who really cares about gaming politics? I mean, really?

I have to disagree. It already had plenty of good games in both the main library and PSN. I wouldn't pay $60 for each, but games like Ninja Gaiden Sigma, VF5, Resistance and others already look promising when they make their way in the coming months. Also, the Bluray thing does help a lot compared to the 360 which has none of that HD disc playback (though 360 is being sold more as a gaming machine than the PS3 being sold as a multimedia center). Then again, Sony not having released a full multimedia version full with video disc recorder features for the US is hurting it in an ironic way I believe. I wish they'd make up their minds. But if I had the money to burn, I can see how the PS3 could be worth it after a dozen or so AAA releases. Though overall, I have to agree in layman's terms that it would not be worth it to those who simply don't have the money to burn, including those who don't have the HDTV setup. I'm talking about what the developers seems to be aiming for with those games. Even if they don't turn out well, the modus operandi is to aim for the gaming epic with the PS3/360 nowadays one or two years after release. Even a few Wii games are going that path as well, so it's not too surprising, but it's understandable they're doing it for the systems that have the most disc storage and the biggest graphical clout. And JRPGs are running the course of continuing their sequels on the PS3 so far. Also, for very consistent developers like Naughty Dog, everything they do is an epic one way or the other anyway. I agree. I even think the 360 is doing a bit of that too, with their Playstation-era style game releases and exclusives that are looking more and more impressive by the year. Two years ago, Microsoft had little support. Now it's sizable. And I don't need to get into details about Nintendo's support by its own development houses. I already did mention that it is a matter of preference. And I already put the two together on how personal barometer of worth is not the same thing as technical worth. I don't even think I'm fully disagreeing with you here. But a lot of the ports really haven't lived up for the PC and for gamers' convenience, consoles hold up their own nowadays. Especially considering a lot of future games are offering Keyboard+Mouse functionality and are even developed with the console gameplay in mind. Just going on the record and making a foregone conclusion that it's always best on PC isn't true anymore. Unless we're talking about highly modified games like Oblivion, the differences are almost moot or the PC ports have bugs not on the consoles (Bioshock... it already had three or four major documented problems for its PC version.) I don't see what I should disagree with other than how the consoles have the offerings for the gamers with differing tastes. Not quite like Dreamcast (even though it had a great library while it lasted), where there simply weren't any games to buy on them. When people say that for the Wii or PS3 or 360, I think that's just pure matter of preference and not because there actually aren't games on there that are well made. And finally, for Metroid Prime 3, I just hope it's not as constricting as the second game nor too easy. And thank GOD multiplayer is left out. That was basically a disaster for the old MP games IMO.

DKC was just short that's all. For what it was, it was good. Though it was incredibly overhyped due to its graphics in its day. But it was way better than any Mario games after Mario 64 IMO. Even DKC3 had its highpoints even if it wasn't as good as DKC2. Gameplay aside, the music was just amazing top to bottom for the trilogy. Also, Miyamoto supposedly bashing the franchise is the funniest thing I've heard about it. Surely the fanatics will latch onto that as a hedge against the games. It was a nice departure and effort by Rare. I don't see what you can take away from that. "Miyamoto later apologized, saying he had been too harsh due to Nintendo's pressuring him at the time to make Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island more like Donkey Kong Country" Which is ironic since New Super Mario Bros basically went that route in the end to horrible effect.

Late to post about it, but I'm so happy Diddy Kong is in the game. Suck it to all the faggots bashing DKC games.

I guess that only depends on the outlook as I said before, basically all systems, even the PC looks to be having a good 2008 or even 2009. 2008 should be a pretty epic year for ALL consoles really. Also, it's pretty funny how modern classics like Ninja Gaiden, God of War, basically most Naughty Dog games and other exclusives are being ignored in discussions like these. Maybe it's because I'm looking it as a general gaming enthusiast and completionist when it comes down to the hobby. It depends on whether you demand the multimedia functionality of the PS3. It is 'worth' it from the technology in there. Whether you are looking for it or not is the deciding point. It's like paying for a premium car. Yes, it may cost prohibitively expensive, but the sum of the parts may actually be worth the product. I'm not really saying that it should be worth a buy to everyone. I'm saying that the product's worth reflects the glut of technology it has. In hard math, it does add up. To the consumers and to the press, it may not. That is a semi-connected issue there. I doubt the price will rise to that levels even if the PS3 sold a lot. Sony willingly took a huge plunge with the wireless connectivity, Bluray, PS2/PSOne playback, HD connectivity (HDMI no less, which is a premium in itself), 1080p output and a pretty large harddrive for a gaming console. They just went pretty overboard with the technology a bit. I seriously doubt the next version will get higher if it costs so much money for them to even make and it makes it detrimental to the sales. There is always a bounceback with these. Nintendo couldn't ride the NES/SNES wave forever and neither did Sony. The pricing just won't keep going up I believe. For the price of a new technology involved, the PS3 and 360 actually aren't all that pricey at all. You can splurge $1500+ on a gaming PC to get the equivalent graphical power of those two systems and yet we're getting that console experience for much less no the dollar. That is the reason why those companies are losing money. They are not making profit while doing so. They are actually trying to offer the gamers a bit of a service with the console production that COSTS money for them and it doesn't go straight to the profits. Otherwise, the PS3 would have easily cost around $1000 and 360 should've cost around $600. The crux of it all really is 'how much it's worth for me' like you said. But monetarily speaking, in terms of the technology alone. Yes it does fly well in that they're pushing these new technologies at a relative bargain to the gamer. The PS3 costs $500 now. Wii is $250. That's $250 you mean. Also, for the visual experience, I think it's worth it. I find it again, a bit misleading of people to think it's only about the visuals. It just happens that many developers are still opting for the biggest types of games, the biggest epics, the most visually alluring games and that model still works today. And again, both PS3 and 360 has their lion share of relatively humble offerings with their downloadable games which are basically 100% about the gameplay.

This is what I don't get. When the 360 has that 5 percentile of users replacing their systems, it's a dire sin of the company. When it's Nintendo doing it, it's a matter of course. And this happened with the old Xbox, the early Playstations and Playstation 2. Disc based systems run hot and these things happen. I'm just glad the warranties cover most of these systems nowadays unlike in the years past where replacements weren't guaranteed like it is now. I agree with KakTheInfected in that the fans are not too effective with the system. I had the vague feeling that the system's svelte design could impede the functionality a bit and it happened to come true. I just hope the new versions of the consoles don't have more unforeseen problems. That basically includes all the three systems right now. I hear they need to fix the wireless aspects of the PS3 and that the system may have critical flaws that may be hampering early generation machines from performing at 100%.

Maybe it's because the Wii is selling so well, it doesn't need advertisements as much, or the stores think it's not necessary. I don't know though. The three consoles got a lot of ads in the stores I visit. Sometimes unnecessarily so: Like the Madden 2008 countdown ticker.

Freeze enemies before you kill them and you don't have to worry about getting shot, ever.

No it's not. Most likely the Bluray will be the dominant format or at least it'll coexist with the HD-DVDs. There's already HUNDREDS of Bluray releases and there is no stop to them. It's not like Betamax where it won't get off the ground. Bluray already did. Whether it's THE only format is moot to me. We have three consoles. Does that make any of them THE console or THE must have? No. They all have their uses and are good alternatives to one another. Not always. Look at Bioshock. Yes it's more expensive for the 360, but the PC version was plagued with the '2 installs only per CD' and the widescreen nonsense. Also, if you're talking about games like Devil May Cry games which will make its way to the 360 and to the PC, those games have never held up well for the PC ports since the developers doing the porting job almost always do a horrendous job with it. Not to mention all the CD copyright technology they cram them up with. You have none of that with the consoles. I don't think the console option is a negative at all. Look at Knights of the Old Republic and it held more than its own on the old Xbox too. That's basically the worst-case scenario. The statistic is that 95% of 360s haven't had a problem worth being reported about. 5% is still a big number considering more than 11 million 360s have been sold. But it's not like MS is hanging out people to dry. It's a good thing the warranty has been extended and there are new HDMI versions of it (apparently more stable too) on the market today. Is that even worth griping about? They're game reviewers. They almost always are technofreaks about the visuals no matter what the platform. Also, the only time they really seem to bother comparing is when the games are multiplatform. Which is silly all in itself, but that's what they're paid to do. Gripe and scrutinize games. I feel that is pretty disingenuous to put it like that. All games are about the gameplay. Some merely focusing more on graphics and the flair than anything else. But it doesn't automatically make them less about the gameplay. And I honestly don't have a problem seeing a lot of top games for all three consoles now. Some people may hedge it against ENTIRE consoles with that kind of a mindset, but I personally wouldn't jump the gun like that. You're being a little biased here. Not that it's bad in itself to have a preference, but it's just misleading. "flashy this, flashy that". It's always 'flash' with the consoles capable of better graphics? What about merely using what they can use? There are a lot of games on the 360 and even for the PS3 which purposely doesn't make it more flashier or graphically impressive than it has to for the gameplay. That's not even to include all the Xbox Live Arcade or PSN games which almost always been pushed out with the gameplay in mind with the bonus of High definition pixels or whatever they're trying to put forth. PS3 is doing the worst, but it's not exactly bombing. In terms of profits and bad press reputation, they are, but the sales are still there for Sony. Also they have a LOT of games aside from the supremely overhyped Final Fantasy series coming out. Actually they already have a pretty good library including some gems in the PSN. You say you "own all three" and that is the assessment you come to? No. Xbox360 has done great over the past two years. It's already seen a few killer ap games and it will have more. And Xbox Live Arcade is still the model to follow even if it costs $50 a year. It would be better if it was free though. I seriously think it's just ridiculous to put down any one of these systems out of philosophy alone. That is not even good criticism. I don't even own a PS3 and I can see it has a lot of things gamers can get excited about.

I would say technology-wise, it is worth it. Because they could have easily pumped up the price to $1000 a unit to break even, but they didn't. They made a stupid decision and that is that. Most Bluray players haven't cracked the $800 pricetag (that is... going below $800). Also, the games themselves costs the same as 360 titles and there still is the Bluray. I'm just making a devil's advocate argument for it. I can only afford a Wii60 myself. I have to agree that the $600 initial investment (or even $500) is a huge hurdle. It is for me too. And to connect to the Wii, I feel the price is a definite advantage Nintendo has made. Beyond the technology or costs behind it, which do not matter to a casual gamer looking at a final product, it is still the cheaper alternative. But it still comes close to $300 with taxes. So no matter what the option, it's still a sizable investment.

DMC4 is already slated for the 360. Money is just ephemeral. If you have a job that is. Maybe it's because I see video game systems as investments and not toys. They almost always last a good 10 years before going into the closet. I know $600 is a lot, but is it really? For a Bluray drive that Sony is losing money in such an early generation machine, and you can spend just as much with a Wii or 360 and a few accessories and a few games and it'd be just as high. I remember spending at least $1000 on Gameboy Advance and a lot of its games. Once you spend them, it's hard to gauge how much it really costs.

Um. You basically said again that casual-gamer-friendly aspect of the Wii pretty much made it the most popular. It didn't go the route of hardcore gamers first like the 360 and PS3 obviously were aiming for. They worked from the top and tried to get the rest. Nintendo worked for the rest and worked upward. Look at a lot of the games in the first year, and 'mediocre' is something I could agree for the most part. Yes, the motion sensor is an excellent and innovative feature, but only a handful of companies ever put it to good use and even less committed to full length games we were accustomed to in the PS2 era. But they are coming because Nintendo has been making a point to go from the mini-games to novelties like Wii Sports then work up to the RPGs and all the big games later on. The 360 and PS3's strategy was to start from epic games then get the casual gamers in the middle and end of their console lives. Casual gamers were never a new demographic. Even in the Atari days, it was all about the casual gamers. In the Arcade era, casual gamers basically ruled the landscape. Also, look at the PS2 and Xbox and Gamecube and they all were going after the casual gamers too. And their prices were VERY reasonable for them and the sales proved it (though the lack of exclusive 3rd parties hurt Gamecube). Look at 360 and PS3 and they were trying to make premium games for established gamers and Wii simply did the opposite and went for the profit and casual gamers. It's not about "neglecting" hardcore gamers as it is to focus their energy otherwise. I agree that they never took hardcore gamers out of the picture, but that was not their core strategy. Look at 360 and PS3 and their heavy emphasis on complex epics and longtime sequels that mostly only gamers would know about and anticipate. Really. Can you sell Mass Effect or Mario Party the same way? Of course not. Totally different demographics. It is not about neglecting one or another as it is simply selling the games for what they are. Also, I don't think the bottom line of profits in the consoles really matter for the gamers all that much this generation. Microsoft has cash to burn and Sony, though ailing financially, still have billions to burn in their gaming division and they could most probably sustain the PS3's lifespan. And we know fully that all three consoles will have their share of 3rd party titles (and it's obvious by now that the 1st parties for MS/Sony/Nintendo are almost universally excellent this generation) and it's not a matter of who's even "winning" what anymore. All three are pretty competitive in their own right except for the PS3 which is still facing a lot of uphill battles until all the big titles come out. I just hope that the next console generation, Microsoft and Sony at least try to emulate the innovative, cost cutting and profit-friendly way if that's what they need to sustain themselves. Nintendo will always be Nintendo and even if they did not have the 3rd party, it won't matter since their 1st party was always their main attraction since the N64 years anyway. I'd say it'd only be a threat if every game developer stops making the epics, the multi-million dollar projects, the ambitious sequels and etc all for profit's sakes. We already know what happened to Sega for trying to cater to a new, 'hip' and profitable market of churning out useless sequels in the last few years. That is only the worst example. At least they were smart to never mess around with the Virtua Fighter series... except for their insane Virtua Fighter RPG idea.

I see no reason why it won't continue being a Wii60 kind of a gaming generation. PS3 is still losing support and exclusivity (except for their own 1st/2nd party titles really. Which isn't too bad since their 1st parties are outright amazing) and Wii will obviously get a lot of the casual, family friendly stuff and Nintendo franchises which keeps selling no matter how crappy or great they may be. I don't even need to bother saying it, but everybody should know that the demographics for the Wii and 360 are not exactly the same. This isn't to knock Wii down, but the 360 has the hardcore crowds since those games aren't exactly accessible for non-gamers or enthusiasts (let's see casual gamers plunk $50 on online services. But many hardcore types do it). And Damned, the Wii hasn't really been noted as a fad but as a bit of a gimmickry. 3rd parties are right now just in love with using its features even if they do it badly most of the time or just tack it on. Even some Nintendo titles really haven't used it to full effect until recently. And I agree with those who are hopeful for better 3rd party games for the system. For about a year now, it was all ports and remakes-ville.

For me, I used to listen to Classical music since childhood. It's the default music genre I tune to also. The game itself is a mixed bag since the active action gameplay feels fresh from the demo, but it was a bit too easy. If it has some challenge, it should have some newness and balance to it all. Also, it probably has the most tasteful usage of cel shaded graphics I've ever seen. So much so that you can't tell it's cel shaded most of the time. As for the inspiration for the game, reading it from the official website, it's pretty.... inspiring. The game producer basically got the idea from watching a Chopin competition. That is the textbook definition of 'inspiration'.

Apparently the Big Daddies roam around in search of the Sisters from the nodes on the wall. I think you may have to stalk them until they knock the Sisters off the wall.

I played around four hours on the 360 already. The number of ways you can fight enemies is a bit overwhelming at times.

I thought he did some of his best work on Star Ocean: Till the End of Time and Tales of Symphonia. As for Eternal Sonata, it just looks so beautiful and sounds beautiful. I might get it just for those factors even if the game isn't revolutionary or anything. PS- Those limited edition face plates looks really good. I might have to preorder before long.

I'm glad to see that the problem hasn't made its way to the 360. Actually, it's about time I venture out to hunt for it. I hope I won't spoil everything once I decide to do one of those impromptu reviews.

I don't think it has to do with being hard. It's just that in the grand scheme of things, I have to agree that SMB2 was not even Super Mario to begin with. Though if it was made to to be Super Mario instead of Doki Doki Panic, I'd easily rank it as one of the best Mario games ever made. I sometimes wish Nintendo would have made a franchise out of the Doki Doki games with all is Arabic influences. That would have been surreal.

I know it's a total gimmickfest, but Brain Training 2 comes out tomorrow. I know it's cheap, cute entertainment but I was waiting this for more than a year.

It wasn't about 100% adrenaline rush, but the entire feeling of it. The dark twinge of the storyline and the atmosphere. I think that is the most exciting part about the whole demo. Really, there was only one big battle in the whole demo. I'd rather listen to the radio than read text ala Metroid Prime games or Doom 3 with the PDAs. The radio feature are a staple because it works. Also, the radio works in the timeperiod the game aims for, which is the mid 60's in a civilization that uses 40's technology. I really see no other viable alternative for it. I mean there was even a few cutscenes and movies and an in-game cutscene. They pulled out all the stops for the demo.

I can think of a lot of highly rated game as boring to an extent. Perfect Dark was boring to me even when I knew it was designed well and its best part was the multiplayer/bots matches anyway. I know a lot of great games are well made, but they aren't my type so I don't bother critiquing a lot of them. People can argue forever which Zelda or Final Fantasy games are the best, but the ones that made the 3D leap in Ocarina of Time and FF7 are hailed because of their impact on gaming, which I agree, but not agree entirely on how fun they are at times since they all have their slow moments, especially the majority of FF games. By the way, Bioshock is getting almost too good of reviews and I hope it won't overhype it for me. Many reviews are calling it as one of the best games ever, the Gameranking average is 99 out of 100 points and some reviews are saying it's a work of art. Just gushing over a game like when Resident Evil 4 or God of War or Gears of War games were. And to a lesser extent, Shadow of the Colossus.

Because that was CG I assume? It's funny when a CG cutscene is worse than the actual ingame graphics. And how many people just sat in the water, thinking it was all a CG cutscene? It just looked so pretty, I didn't realize I could actually move until the pointer came up.