General Fuzzy McBitty

I had a game stop guy try to talk me out of getting a PS2, because he hated Sony. "Hi, I'd like a PS2 please." "Are you sure I can't interest you in a Game Cube or an X Box?" *Long rant about Sony*

My only major beef about Steam is the user agreement.

Buy a copy online. It is a much better game. It's worth playing as opposed to having someone give you the jist of it.

Buying all of these controllers could get expensive. They DO still plan on releasing that mutant "classic controller," right?

Have we gotten confirmation that we will be able to use old controllers? The paragraph was somewhat vague. It could be that they're making "reproductions" of the originals. As they seem to plug into the Wii-mote, they may all be reproductions with a special plug.

Get this gang! When the PS3 comes out, we won't need our PCs anymore!!! I can't believe how amazing it's going to be!!!!! Seriously, with horse shit like this floating around, I can build that farm I always wanted. http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2006/06/01/phil-harrison-the-playstation-3-will-kill-pc/ "Oh no he didn't! Yes gamers, he did. In a recent interview, Phil Harrison of Sony stated that PC gamers will find themselves without a viable platform once the PlayStation 3 hits the shelves. When he wasn't defending Sony against "copy-cat" allegations concerning the new controller and Nintendo, he had this to say: "We believe that the PS3 will be the place where our users play games, watch films, browse the Web, and use other [home] computer functions," said Harrison. "The PlayStation 3 is a computer. We do not need the PC." One thing is for sure: with the price of the PS3 being closer to a PC than a home console, it better damn well perform like it. Now whether it's going to be killing off the personal computer as we know it (for gamers, at least) is debatable. The PC has always staved off the threat of Video game consoles, so it's hard to imagine that a system with so much ground to cover could show up and take out a platform that's been historically healthy throughout the years. Think you'll be getting rid of your PC when the PlayStation 3 comes out in November?" Also, apparently we don't realize how good we have it with "cheap" PS3 hardware. http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/17/kutaragi-playstation-3-is-too-cheap/ "In a disturbing twist, Ken Kutaragi has gone on record stating that the PlayStation 3's $600 price tag is "too cheap." The SCE president has again compared the forthcoming console to a fine dining experience. His argument is that no one calls into question the price differential between some slop at the cafeteria and a meal at an upscale restaurant. From his (deep pockets) point of view, "If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem." Does Sony's braggadocio excite anyone? Because it's turning us off. After a paltry E3 showing - from a games perspective - it's hard to see the PS3 as anything more than a Trojan horse for sneaking (relatively) cheap Blu-ray devices into consumers' homes. The PlayStation brand is being pimped, and gamers are paying for it, literally. It's ridiculous for Kutaragi to suggest that his company is doing us a favor by launching the PS3 for $600. It's also disrespectful. Who else gets the feeling that Sony is looking down on us?"

My main problem is that Blu-ray still may not take hold. The majority of users do not need a new format yet. High Def isn't prevelant enough to warrant it. If we were 3-5 years in the future (The world of the PS4) it would be better, but as it is it feels like we're jumping the gun.

The engraved plastic logo is the same for every "real" GBA game. Look closly at the engraved logo, and you can see a clear fake.

I have yet to see Dreamfall in a store. Is there a particular reason why? Did I miss the fact that it was an online release or some such thing?

I was rather shocked that it was bigger than Oblivion, but you're right, Dreamfall doesn't really reuse much... and Oblivion does. I'm still amazed in the difference in amout of game time.

Did anyone else notice that the hard drive space is HUGE for the amount of actual game you end up with?

Wednesday 24 May 2006 High street games shops have been told by Sony that there will be no PS3 pre-owned sections in their stores as it will be illegal for customers to sell any next-gen PlayStation games that they've bought, retail sources have revealed to GamesRadar. It seems that Sony is planning to adopt a licensing system that will mean gamers won't own the PS3 titles that they've paid money for. Instead, they will only be purchasing the licence to play the game and that the software itself will still be Sony property - meaning that the disc won't be the customer's to sell. We assume that the thinking behind this move will ultimately be to stop PS3 games being resold several times - which currently snatches potential sales away from Sony - and to counter the impression in consumers' minds that games are only really worth their pre-owned price and are not worth buying new. When we contacted Sony, it issued us with the following statement: "We have made all of the official announcements at E3 and cannot make any further comments at this time. We will be announcing more news running up to PlayStation 3's launch." http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?articleId=20060524153157765035&sectionId=1006 What the hell does that mean? I don't know that I buy it. However, someone told me that: "When sony licensed their Blue Ray Disc Drive, the patent was released to the public via the internet. ON the patent it stated that if sony wanted to, they could make the Blue Ray only work with 1 copy of each game via CD key. No renting, no used sales, no borrowing from a friend unless you bring your own system, etc." Does anyone know if there's any truth to this? I can't buy it purely because it seems like such a bad move.

If console games DID ever go the way of steam, with games registered to accounts, it would kill the rental industry. It would also make re-selling games difficult, as you would have to sell your login to sell your game. My main point is that this sort of thing is possible. Denying that it could ever happen seems silly.

I think it would probably be something closer to what steam is like. Really though, we can say "the customer wouldn't stand for it," but come on, we're all gamers. If the next major OMG 1337 game comes out like that, a horde will buy it.

Isn't that how Half Life 2 is? You register your copy to yourself. The only way to effectively sell it is to sell your steam logon. All they have to do is write the User Agreement differently for the games. There's nothing illegal about it, but it would take a good about of balls to do. IF one company did it though, I think they'd all follow suit. I think that it's bound to happen eventually as console games become more like PC games.

There were at least 7 Space Quest games.... so... they did make a sequel. I liked GK... and I liked that depending on what you took from the last area, your ending could be somewhat different. I also like the Quest for Glory series, despite the 4th one being really buggy.

I agree. Trolling about how people who troll are poor socially. Brilliant!

I think that once one company decides to ditch rentals, most others will follow. Nintendo probably wouldn't, but once a company can do it and be confident in making it through the backlash, they would likely do it.

Also consider: Consoles are becomming more complex, almost mini-pcs themselves. (Duur) PC game companies are setting up ways to register specific games to specific people. (Half Life 2) It isn't hard to imagine that eventually someone will try to use this method of registering with console games. Yes, it would mess up the resale market, and the rental market, and people would be pissed... but once they got used to the idea, sales would go up. However: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=17283 This appears to be all recent quotes.

I'm just saying that Sony doesn't have much Truth credit left. These are the people who, when wii was announced, thought the motion idea was stupid, and then ripped it off. I don't generally believe everything I read, but Sony isn't exactly known for its honest love of customers.

Unfortunately the quote in the artical is from last year, and they may have changed their minds. View this artical 02:15 PM, November 15th 2005, with the same quote. http://www.playfuls.com/news_3827.html I hope it's right though. I'd be happy. I'm just saying that the old statement doesn't necessarily get rid of this.

I wanted one... eventually. I like some of the system-only games, and unlike Microsoft, their system-only games that I want don't go to PC.

I don't believe that April is dead. (I was just making sure everyone else agreed.) I don't feel that the ending qualifies as a cliff hanger. All of the major characters have been, as far as this story shows us, completely brought down by your in-game actions. It's not even a question of April, Zoe, and Kian... it's everyone that you met in the game that you cared about except for Crow and Theoretically Blind Bob. I would have liked the game to let me figure out some of the puzzles for myself. "I could open this window if I had a handle!" "I know someone who sells potions!" "I know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who has the freaking spice mix!" I guess that's my problem. The ending, for me, is plays out like the damned spice delivery. A lot of running back and forth for very little actual information.

I just finished, and I bought the game yesterday: My problem is that the whole game (story wise) plays like one HUGE introduction. It does little, if nothing, to tie up the major story, and opens up far more than it tried to wrap up. I understand that there was a good deal of underlying events that you could infer from the story, but it feels very much like there isn't a complete story. It doesn't even play like a cliffhanger. It just stops. The ending is very strange in that it makes many of the things that you'd worked to stop occur. I was left wondering what the point was. It was the longest intro ever. Now... as to the death of April. It's hard to understand what is going to happen with that. Is the ending from TLJ still cannon? What happened when the Westhouse monster killed the last Dragon? The Reza at the end wasn't the real Reza... but then we end. The whole story was to set up a bigger story, but I felt that it was actually a very short game. It took me much less time to get through than the original. The game play... well... it wasn't really there. The story kept you going, but really, you found yourself holding the 'run' button a good deal. There are only a few places where you actually have to figure anything out. Most of the time the game tells you outright what to do. Several would-be puzzles can be skipped just by beating people up. If the game had been longer, which I feel it needed to be to tie up at least a BIT more of the can of worms it opened, I may have stopped playing simply because of the lack of challenge. I'm still not sure how I feel about the three-character system. It was interesting to see the difference in perspective, but Kian didn't get enough screen time for you to really adjust to him, and most of the time you spent as him you were just hacking away at people you didn't want to kill. It was worth playing for the characters and the story elements, but I didn't feel any fulfillment at the end. I didn't really feel that I accomplished much, and everyone that I liked ended up pretty much screwed over in the end. I would play another TLJ game, but I know that it’ll take forever for them to release… and I want the rest of the story.

once you get used to the defaults, they're not too bad. You just have to turn the mouse down, otherwise you're camera spends most of its time jumping around like a chipmonk on crack. I still want one of those things that usbs your ps2 controller.