I-n-j-i-n

It's basically MySpace but with annoying, totally random pictures.

Even then, the feature are built around what is essentially a gaming console when it's all said and done. Could be said the same with the PS3 and the Wii if they build the online features just right. And this is detrimental to the systems, how? Because when it's all said and done, it's still way cheaper than the typical PC/Laptop, etcetera with equivalent features. Simply put, you get what you pay for. A PC isn't a home console and a home console isn't a PC. Yes, they both seems to be merging in terms of features, but a gaming console was a computer even in the Atari days. It's simply getting more powerful and the multimedia functionality is becoming more important. Including all the social networking that is prevalent and apparently Xbox Live is picking up on that. Sony and Nintendo probably looking at that template and following up as well. Surely a lot of that can be influenced by the PC, but I don't think their goal is to "become PCs" here. It's to simply branch out the capabilities of their consoles. That line of logic is simply faulty since you say that you're getting "gimped" in systems that do less than a PC? Well, you're paying for something that is mostly a gaming console. Of COURSE it's cheaper. I don't see your case that whether a $500 system is a total ripoff like you're implying. I like systems that have a great shelf life and without the constant need for hardware updates that cost in the hundreds if I am to play every new fad of a PC game each time. And I'm tempted to do so all the time. It doesn't even lend itself to some specific generations of PCs either. It's pretty constant with PC gaming. That is why it has gotten the hardcore moniker because it basically is a more hardcore option. You're missing out on the easy to access games such as sports titles that can be perfectly playable or even downright preferable with analog sticks. Or 3rd person action games that doesn't require some pinpoint precision all the time or a hundred keys for input. Or a puzzle game that rarely needs more than a joystick, or a platformer, or a bemani-music/dance games, light action titles, etcetera. The complexity in itself is a daunting thing in itself as I see it. With most FPS games nowadays on consoles, it's usually the Halo controls, so it's pretty much pick up and play at this point. And you say that it's "inaccurate", but there's plenty of tournament caliber players who can use analog sticks like wizards and they can probably compete on pretty much an even keel as some PC FPS gamer. And I personally never have problems with the accuracy of an analog stick. You say you do, and I think it's just a matter of preference and not some objective fact that whichever is necessarily superior. Which reminds me of how silly wireless mouse and keyboards really are. I never understood the reason why they even exist.

At the very least, PS3 is. I don't know about the 360 since they're building everything around the Xbox Live service and they are not tacking on online browsers just because they can. Nintendo is a bit of a mystery with their decision to put in Opera browser and weather reports. It's like they put it in there just to show the competitors that they can do it too. As for the "reasonable price" issue, I think you're missing the point. You're not really getting gimped on anything with $400-$600 machine which is basically mostly a gaming machine + media centers. And PCs, unless you rig it up with HUNDREDS of dollars of improvements, tends to not be media centers and especially not directly conducive to high definition feed unless, again, you pump hundreds into upgrading it. Maybe add a purely high definition CRT/flatscreen monitor to top it off. That's a few hundreds. I remember like about five years ago, I spent $300 on a single graphics card. In the VooDoo days, I spent $250 easily on middle-of-the-road graphics cards that became obsolete within about a year. I'll take the 4 or 5 year lifespan of a 360 or PS3 any day in terms of price. Oh, I agree 100% that PCs can do more. But again, I do not see how you can directly correlate the home console, living room experience that can cost a thousand dollars less than emulating the same for a PC. And I disagree that the gaming control is "not as good as the PC". I mean, I play PC games ALL THE TIME, and there's something good about the fact that all the controls are controllable within two fistfuls of a game controller. And besides, unlike PCs, now gaming consoles are fully wireless. PS3, 360, Wii, all of them. There is no need to do so with PCs since people sit in front of the screen all day anyway. PS- Why the hell isn't Wii-Play integrated into the Wii itself? Like a free game of sorts? That would've been better than putting Wii-Sports in there IMO.

Not meaning to go off topic, but I hear that the drawing distance apparent in High Def games does make some difference especially with shooters that makes long distance shooting since you can actually see the enemy's figure from far away. Not quite in the way of seeing that small blob in the distance like in the Quake/Doom days. I also would think it can make a huge difference for something like a flight simulator where long distance sight could do a lot for the actual gameplay. The there is the whole issue with the wide-screen in itself helping with the better perspective of the action. Games like Gears of War recently is a perfect example. Almost like the panoramic view of normal eyesight. And in one video of Lost Planet, one of the special effects done by the hardware made one huge difference: The lighting from cannon fire. It had a realistic flare lighting and not the typical smoke and 'generic huge explosion' graphics to cover it up either. If an object is in front of you and the explosion, you would not be totally blinded and it could help you in the actual game scenario. Yeah, there's a lot more room for the 360/PS3 games to improve upon and seize the potential of their hardware just the same as the Wii does with games that needs to distinguish themselves using its own hardware limitations and the controller possibilities. There definitely could be more examples like the ones I've mentioned but in more meaningful ways. It definitely is more subtle of a change than in the NES>SNES>PSX>PS2 days.

The whole point with 360/PS3 is for the higher end crowd who can afford HDTVs or those who might want to improvise with a relatively cheap CRT HDTVs or a reasonably priced 20 inch HDTV or something. But yeah, if you plug something like that into SDTVs, that's just silly. But I don't think they really are sacrificing much in the form of AI capability and smoothness of animation for the ability to push out the pixels. And though people say that the vast majority of people current gamers have SDTVs and all, I hear a lot of stories about people finally making the HDTV switch thanks in part for the 360 or the PS3 to take advantage of it. I did the same thinking about the next generation of games and movies when I got mine. I think it's pretty significant that this generation of games is helping contribute to the HDTV market. And we all have to thank such contributions since they will make even more HDTVs to make up for the increasing demand and possibly further lower the prices on them. And of course, the Wii is definitely there so that people don't have to make such expensive excursions to experience something. But I don't think that necessarily makes the high def option into some failed idea. Looking back at it, it was just crazy to spend $300 on a PSX that had horrendous graphical capability but with the "newness" of 3D graphics. Or maybe a Saturn that cost just as much as the 360 today. Pricing can be a concern, but I don't think it'll make or break anything. I said this before, but the PS3 is on the extreme end of that. And even then, people might just pony out the cash to play it. I wouldn't quite say that it's a matter of being limited or not. Even in the NES days with the likes of Ultima and Zork, they had plenty of freedom to make free-roaming, multiple-endings types of games. It was restrictive to be sure, but it didn't hinder them from making them and making them playable. Also with the high definition, I can somewhat agree that it doesn't seem impressive on paper or on casual glance. At least not until you spend a lot of time with it. It's true what they say about a lot of 360 games that look unimpressive looking at some lousy quality online videos or still images. BUT, it's a whole another story to actually look at it on an actual HDTV with everything in motion. It's not simply the clarity either. But the colors are more vivid, there's more happening on screen, the animation tends to be better and etc. And we're only a generation into the 360 (which should finally see some true next gen content since the PS2 and Xbox are phasing out). Also, high definition, I believe, can definitely help the artistic imagery of games. For example, with standard definition television, it's actually quite difficult to make up distant images on it while on HDTVs, it's much easier to make pretty sharp looking distant images. It's like making the canvas of an art have more depth and definition to it. I don't know how to describe it very well, but I think the artistic potential is definitely there. And I don't necessarily mean it in the way that we get to see more photorealism or anything. It can be cartoony, surrealistic, whatever.

Can we please talk more objectively here? It can't possibly be some "pure fact" that people aren't impressed. Please read what you just said. If it's some "fact that the HD jump isn't impressing people", why is the sale of HDTVs on such a meteoric rise? The number HDTVs in homes in 2002 was around 2.2 million. In 2004, it was about 3 million more. The total percentage of HDTV usage, at least in America, is starting to reach 10% compared to about ZERO percentile roughly around 2001. And with more TV channels, HD-DVD/Bluray, game systems with High Def content and even streaming video that are starting to offer HD content, the number is only increasing. High definition is not becoming some "eyecandy" to oggle and pick up. It's becoming STANDARD. And why are the 360s selling like hotcakes basically everywhere in the world but the stubborn anti-western Japanese? How can the PS3 simply fly off the shelves even at its ludicrous price? And so says YOU who is constantly unimpressed by HD gaming? What says about ME who is? So what is up with that undeniable fact about people not being impressed? This has nothing against to do with the Wii here. Don't mistake me. But look at all the weak ports the Wii currently has such as all the FPS games that are being ported over which just look horrendous because the game developers aren't using the Wii to its own capability. Again, the Wii's weakpoint is its graphical capability compared to the competition. This is not me saying graphics are the only things matter or that Wii's philosophy is bad. Don't get me mistaken. Okay, that article is just pure biased garbage and he's essentially judging something that is NOT ON A FUCKING HIGH DEFINITION television? he's looking at some half assed IGN pictures and assuming all that? Look, that is pure bullshit. And you know it. Wrong. They care about the presentation, the style, the Nintendo games and what the system can do by itself. Some Wii games trying to emulate some high end PC game with extremely pixelated, nigh unplayable versions of superior versions is simply embarrassing. Yes, people buy the Wii for the unique content. And the 3rd party simply aren't doing that. I can see a few 3rd parties making the EFFORT to make games purely for the Wii using its own specifications and capabilities, but we simply are not seeing that. Again, it's only Nintendo running the show and it's the 3rd party that typically does not make much of a gamble with an original title that does the Wii justice. Also, people DO care about the graphics. You know why the original NES sold so well? It's because of the sheer number of new gaming franchises that was unprecedented in its time AND the graphics were LEAGUES better than the Atari's. Maybe you don't remember the days when people hailed the NES graphics as being "superior to Commodore, Atari and PC graphics". But that was the general concensus in its time. It pushed the boundaries of gaming not only with the directional pad setup and the games, but also because of the games possible thanks to its graphical power. I'm not one of those people who are soley impressed by visuals here. I keep making that point again and again. It's just that it seems blatantly obvious that people correlate the increasing graphics capability to the gameplay since they have always correlated very well. The more things a system is capable of showing off to the television, the more things the developers can do with it. I don't want to hear how the Twilight Princess gameplay could have been possible on the NES or would have been as immersive and beautiful and memorable. I do not want to hear that because that's just pure drivel. I agree to a point, but let's face the FACTs for one: A 15-20 inch CRT screen is not the same thing as 40+ inch plasma television with superior clarity to anything before it. I mean, I have one right now and the difference is clear as long as you have the high definition content to make use of it. And another thing is that a PC is not the same thing as a home console you play on a living room. It's simply the different type of mindset. I do agree that with some games on the PC in the last few years, it does things that at the very least, almost rivals what a 360 can do (because not everyone is gung ho enough to have a tricked out tri-processor computer that could easily cost in the $3000s). But it's not the same circumstance and the pricing is much more efficient on a home console in comparison to PCs. Again, just because I'm making a case for HD gaming, it's not like I'm bashing PCs here. It's just two different things when it's all said and done.

Nobody takes cartoons seriously in America. I love Star Trek, but like many of its stars have said, it needed a few years of hiatus. The last few series have been atrocious. A cartoon version would make it more of a caricature.

Really? Maybe my first play through TP I'll try and beat the game without getting any heart containers - that's bound to be more fun and rewarding... I'm playing through TP normally and it's still very fun. I said this before, that I was annoyed with the kiddy-difficulty of Okami. Twilight Princess isn't nearly that easy. And home console Zelda games has been pretty forgiving since LttP to a point. Nowhere near as intimidating as avoiding enemies in Zelda 1 and 2 or any of the Seasons/Ages GBC Zeldas. I think just about all games in general have become a lot easier. A few game titles like Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden and some fighting games still tries to keep it difficult simply because all the other games are getting that much easier.

I thought Ocarina and Majora's Mask bosses had some challenge to them. Mainly because some of the boss fights relied on actual strategy instead of simply finding weak spots. Namely the likes of Majora's final boss and OoT's shadow Ganon. Those were classics and actually had some difficulty to them. Nowadays, I think Nintendo is more worried about getting in as many casual type of gamers as possible, so that could be why they have eased a bit on most difficult edges of their Zelda games. You just won't find the near-death moments that was prevalent in the older titles. If you get hit and lose health, just whack a few bushes or jars and you'd be 100%.

I really do not understand how there actually can be lack of stock for Zelda games. I've never had that experience for about two decades now.

I don't think it can happen yet with Polyphony since they're an internal development team of Sony. So unless they pull a Rareware, they are not going anywhere. I wonder if that even matters now that Microsoft has Project Gotham Racing and Forza Motorsport.

I think it's a shame that the classes aren't defined though. I can see how people can try the classes deal, but I don't think it'd matter much. I try to specialize a bit with my characters, but they end up being all-masterful mage knights.

I'm pretty sure that's not the only glitch from all the talk in the forums about them. I just hope they fix it for the Gamecube version. Or on possible reprints of the Wii version.

So any ideas on possible patches to the problem, or was it a smart idea for me to hold out on next gen releases? lol. Patches for a Nintendo system. I swear the Nintendo fanatics would have had a fit at the thought a few years ago.

I broke 100 hours. I'm sorta pissy that the Strahl is usable almost near the very end of the game..

This may have been linked, argued and discussed before, but this is one Legend of Zelda timeline theory I can believe: http://forevergeek.com/games/legend_of_zelda_storyline_explained.php One more reason why GameTrailers.com is awesome.

That made absolutely zero sense. DVD player + broadband adaptor are both packed into the system on top of the game system itself. This is not hard to figure out. But the truth of the matter will be that they mostly won't get "heavily improved graphics", online functionality (Japanese developers here. We don't care about online. hurr) and other additions. That's just a pipe dream. And yes, people will bitch about it no matter what they do to it. Since every smart gamers can snatch it off the net. But I suppose that's something to do with common sense of smart, more expedient gamers and those who just buy whatever is put in front of them at a price. Same thing as the whole iTunes store deal. Edit: Actually, scratch that. Apparently they're keen on botching up classics for VC as well. Fuck: http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/donkeykongnes/review.html?sid=6162202

It'd be a strange thought if people ever considered Sony to be in some serious fiscal danger or that Nintendo do home consoles in a relatively low key manner if we were talking about gaming consoles ten years ago. And strangely, Microsoft is going to start breaking even and will probably be in a great situation one or two years from now. Microsoft #1? huh That said, I think the PS3 will still do alright. Maybe even run away with success again if every 3rd party jumps in on it again. And I said this many times before, but Nintendo Wii will still end up being a Nintendo console for Nintendo games. It always has been that way since N64.

Even with the PS3s that glitch, apparently it's a concern on the software front. Yes, it's bad and yes, I can see how customers can get furious over it. But it's not exactly as crippling as some hardware issue.

Rough launches != hardware problems. The PS3's problem was the scalping and extreme hardware shortage. Not because of some internal hardware problem in itself. I hear that the backward compatibility of PS3 works fine as well.

Older FF games in general don't have true standalone characters and the games were designed to be frustrating. The plot is absolutely negligible as well. I guess that happens when you're looking at the tail lights of the biggest game franchise of its time: Dragon Quest.

I'm not sure this story is authentic or not, but wow: http://modzer0.cs.uaf.edu/hank-typo/articles/2006/11/18/the-best-ps3-story-ever http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=002&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=120054509305&rd=1&rd=1 Legendary PS3 story.

With games this good, some reviews have seemed a bit lacking. Almost like the reviewer was doing it to be a fan and not to critique. Gamespy's review was just horrible in that regard. We all know how great Zelda is, but reviews should do a more thorough job of looking at it critically. Actually, the last time the reviews seemed almost too cheery was with Gears of War. But great games deserve those kinds of reviews I suppose. The harshest and my favorite type of reviewer is 1up show where they discuss about every single aspect of a game and GameTrailers.com, which actually had a decently rough critique of FFXII which got the fanatics boiling. But I thought those were valid points and does better justice with reviews. I think that's all it boils down to. Not scores and not some 'killjoy factor' with reviews that try to be more down to earth and not in the heavens. I guess I shouldn't feel too surprised about all this since I get the same flak when I try to critique something that's wide out panned as being great. I guess it's pretty typical. PS- I think I might somehow end up with both versions of Twilight Princess though. Or just with the Wii version if I can get a Wii anytime soon (probably not. I swore to wait for a price drop). And one interesting thing about Twilight Princess according to 1up show is that apparently, the game level design is flipped horizontally for the GC and Wii version. Right handed Link on the Wii version. lol

Gamespot reviewer I believe. IGN also seems to point out that its difficulty is pretty much status quo of Zelda games. But "difficult" as in that it's an epic undertaking still. I don't know. I thought what kept Okami from being truly great was how I could go through it without even coming close to dying once. A lot of recent Zelda games were like that to me. But I wonder if that's just personal preference or not. But at least Zelda games are not kid-gamer easy like Okami.

This is all nitpicking I know, since the game will undoubtedly be great, but I'm disappointed that the music will be MIDI again. They surely can't fault the technicalities of a mini-dvd this time. Also, it seems that Koji Kondo is somewhat equivalent to John Williams as in that the musical output in his games as of late hasn't been as groundbreaking as they used to. But of course, the music is still great so it's no big deal. And apparently the sound on the Wiimote isn't so hot. But they were saying it sounded tinny ever since they tested it. And the biggest 'complaint' about the gameplay(which is more like an observation) is that the game doesn't stray too much from the OoT formula. At least not until the wolf-Link/Twilight stuff starts happening. But between Okami and Twilight Princess, it's been a great year when it comes down to epic-scale adventure games.