Cigol

I'm not reading those spoilers, Kroms been right a couple of times about the Last Guardian so far I don't think it has a release date yet?

Okay, that makes a lot more sense now Miffy, my bad. Don't forget that I'm not familiar with the systems in question so the whole portability thing to me is just the ability to take it outside. I hadn't considered setting aside time and stuff like that, so I can now see where you are coming from with that argument. I think it's best I actually use a PSP before I start making assumptions though so I'm going to stop there... It's like owning a Range Rover.

That's an odd way of looking at it isn't it? Whilst a sizeable portion of the games available on the PSP look to be rather uninspired ports of their bigger brothers, is that necessarily a bad thing? Does it prevent you from enjoying them wherever, whenever? I don't understand why it also can't be considered a positive - as sometimes you want to play trashy games, and the PSP at least has the processing capabilities for that where other handhelds would be forced to compensate. Looking at it optimistically, Sony have been pretty pro-active of late. I could just be falling into a carefully constructed trap of hype but it looks to me like they've turned a corner of sorts and it's not inconceivable they have more titles lined up to help push their hardware. They've also announced something called PSP Minis which could potentially fill that gap of creativity and encourage developers to take more risks. Or it could just be a flash in the pan, and amount to nothing... either way I'm looking at the titles already released, the titles coming out in the near future, the renewed focus and attention and I personally find it very appealing.

Well far be it from me to lecture you on the purpose of a portable handheld gaming system when I don't even own one, but aren't you sort of missing the point? As a game you can play whenever and wherever, Gran Turismo on the PSP clearly isn't intended to be a replacement for its big brother on the PS3. If anything it's designed to compliment it. Allowing you to transfer your car collection between games is not only a nice feature, but given the availability of something like 800/1000 purchasable vehicles, also bound to be extremely useful for completitionists. With Assassins Creed 2 we're talking about a game whose storyline will be set in-between that of the original and the upcoming sequel, with the intention being to tie them both together. So it's going to be a unique storyline of interest to AC fans, and will also have stuff for you to unlock and use on the PS3 version of the game. Grand Theft Auto will supposedly have more missions integrated, debatable better graphics, and some other minor improvements. Whether it's enough for someone who has already played the original, I don't know, but for someone who hasn't like myself it's a game which increases the value proposition of the PSP. Also bear in mind that a lot of the so-called ports, and re-releases mentioned above aren't strictly just that. Whether it's the additional content or changes to gameplay, (to its detriment or benefit), they are probably better described as updates or even in some cases re-makes. That means if you're an existing fan there's still some incentive to go back and re-play them on a portable handheld gaming system (!) and if you're like me and never played the originals it's even better. I take your point it wasn't a mouth-watering list peppered with titles like Scribblenauts, but it's still a short list of games that has me excited about the prospect of owning a PSP. Although I forgot to mention The Fat Princess, PixelJunk Monsters and a host of naff sports titles like Madden, MLB the Show, Football Manager (etc) I also could be wrong but it feels like the best time to get one too. Sony seem committed to fleshing out its catalogue and more and more games are being announced. Whether it's a flash in the pan to coincide with the PSPgo release, I wouldn't like to guess, but there's definitely a renewed interest in the PSP from both sides of the camp. I mean maybe from your perspective there are few enticing games, but from mine, as someone who doesn't have a PSP I see it the exact opposite.

Gran Turismo PSP hQLwfNaC-Sc LittleBigPlanet PSP gOV1uaPqjR8 Assassins Creed 2 VEMXjWc1t0w Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker Sx4k1aa07Ng Disgaea 2: Dark Hero Days wq7TVDsQWUg MotorStorm Arctic Edge H4nlDtxSeIs Persona 3 PSP nNahc3Twqws Final Fantasy Dissidia eaMsdcudZ0s GTA: Chinatown Wars ogFL__p3y3E Valkyria Chronicles 2 eQA3zJw5z5E Monster Hunter Freedom Unite cZ_yRq2HAiI Rock Band Unplugged YHI2BWGoLTM Resistance Retribution XonOuHhrcak Beaterator w8PBlSVr0Kw *not sure if the tone of that last video is entirely serious or not I've heard of some other games that have been released/announced as well - but I'm looking from the outside in so I don't really know how good most of these are. I'm seriously thinking about getting one though, especially for GTpsp.

The third was a little different, and more action orientated, but I really enjoyed how the livened up the world around you with skirmishes and such. It had a better atmosphere in that respect - and the online co-op was a lot of fun too. Not as strict as the earlier titles as far as the puzzle mechanics went, but not worse off for it either. If they stick to the original formula and don't throw in a crappy 3D engine which robs it of its personality... then count me in.

Man, do I feel gypped having paid for that other 'special edition' In fact, what about a special edition of the special edition?

Just to be clear I know what you meant. My point was damage modelling isn't that important, well not unless they do it right. I was also trying to say that they don't need damage modelling in order to make the wall riding and crashes (etc) that you and others mentioned dangerous - just the collision physics themselves. I don't know whether you've played GT of late but it almost doesn't have any physics in place for these incidents. Maybe it's because they never got around to it or its a decision they've made for reasons of playability, but the fact is you can trade blows (not just paint) and neither car will be affected. This extends to crashes with walls and so on - the impact on the cars travel is minimal at best. So, I understood what you were saying - my argument was that it's not the damage modelling which is important but the collision physics. Of course if you have the damage modelling then you have the collision physics... but whatever, I just don't think there's any point wasting that time with such a wide variety of cars (F1 to SUV).

I'd be reluctant to take anything the Forza guys say at face value. Ergo my original point they all bring something different to the table. rFactor doesn't have a dynamic weather system, nor does it model rain*, have a developing level of grip on the track or anywhere near as capable an AI competitor as in GTR2. It doesn't model flat spots or tyre deformation like Live for Speed, (etc, etc), and it's notoriously bad out of the box; requiring you to search for and download various plugins and modifications to get the best out of it.*and if memory serves, 'Geoff Crammonds Grand Prix' even went as far as to model individual pockets of built-up rain on the track (!?) Damn, where is that guy. It's disingenuous to suggest it's better in terms of either quality or quantity. As far as the top PC sims are concerned it's a pick & mix, you have your favourites but they all offer something different... and in the case of iRacing, we are talking about a constantly evolving subscription based MMO, of which there was a major update to just a couple days ago. Aha, yes that's a good track to demonstrate it (I'm racing that one right now in fact ) but it's the tracks you'd least expect it from that actually benefit the most. Still, good to know that Forza has something similar, and if it is as good as you say (both in terms of the surface detail and driving model) then you'll know it really does take the racing experience to another level. Right now GT cars are tanks and if they implemented damage (superfluous damage that is) then they'd just look like crumpled broken down tanks. It's the collision physics that are important. All they need is friction from riding walls and the dynamics from hitting other vehicles or objects that results in a loss of control. They could also have abstract engine damage from high speed front-end collisions. I don't see the point in wasting time on damage modelling unless its going to have a meaningful impact on the game (handling/aero,debris etc).

Anybody else read the title of this thread and automatically assume it was going to be a crazy post by Yufster on this, or maybe even this - or not?

http://steamcommunity.com/id/cigol http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197970446024 Rolls right off the tongue...

I'm actually talking about the surface of the track. iRacing laser scan all their real world tracks and the difference is immense. Where there are permanent bumps and adulations in real life they are accurately represented in iRacing - and it has a tangible impact on how you drive. When you think of a lot of other games, and Gran Turismo is guilty of this in the first degree, the course is extremely smooth and offers no resistance - but real tracks aren't like that at all. It's probably not worth laser scanning for a console game, but Richard Burns Rally fudged it by being creative - don't see why GT/FORZA can't do the same... and from what I've read of Forza 3 I think* they will be going with the latter approach. *we've been bombarded with so much Forza news its easy to get confused All Gran Turismo needs to do is work on the collision physics to be more unforgiving. As it stands you can trade blows but it doesn't have a meaningful impact on either cars travel - that's the problem. Not a lack of graphical damage effects. Like I said; iRacing doesn't model anything other than suspension damage (which you couldn't repair anyhow) and whilst the superficial deformation is nice it doesn't make the experience anymore realistic. What does is that people are avoiding trading blows because it will ruin their race if they don't...

It's like comparing PC titles such as GTR, rFactor, iRacing, Live for Speed, Netkar Pro (etc), they all have their good and bad points. It would be silly to declare one better or more realistic than the other as they all offer something different.As for damage modelling being necessary, I have to disagree. Generally speaking race craft has very little to do with damage. Aerodynamics is something to consider I suppose, but other than that I can't see how damage - particularly the kind console games peddle - is important. It isn't. Watching a real life crash is exciting, being in it not so much... to that end it's the racing that's important. The one thing that iRacing, and to a lesser extent Richard Burns Rally has shown me is that a lack of in-depth track modelling in a racer sim is what is actually unforgivable. Anyone whose driven the previous two titles there knows just how much the laser scanning of the former and the attention to detail in the latter transforms and improves the experience. Driving in other games after that just doesn't feel anywhere near as involved. They only model irreparable suspension damage, so it is surprising, and disappointing - but it's a work in progress and they have the track record so we all know its coming eventually. If you're truly interested in iRacing then honestly; don't let that put you off. There's so many other things you could focus on, like cost

s5KAB7ABziU zb2mRq-KnIU SxM63ZT7ZAE

Looks great, but let us know how optimised the engine is. A game like this I worry whether it'll run smoothly or not. I'm not keen on the DRM which requires you to be connected just to play singleplayer either, but if it's as good as it looks - and as optimised - I could stomach it.

In one of the menu screens you have to press the escape key on your keyboard to get out of it, there's no other way out. That was a nice touch I thought - special edition indeed ...but I agree with everything Thunderpeel has said, only I never noticed some things like the bad graphics or changes in tone (never having played the original). I certainly noticed the godawful control scheme though - but I mean I still enjoyed playing the game so I guess it depends on whether you're familiar with the original or not.

The inventory and how you interact with the world itself is a bit of a downer. I started with the Curse of Monkey Island, so missed out on the joys of these classics; but boy am I glad. Even with the rejiggered modern version it's a pain in the ass. Those aren't dual-core processors remember. The game has some nice water effects and it scales to big resolutions, but surely nothing that would bring a PC to its knees. What is the speed of your processor?

Given how aggressive EA are with DLC (letting us use buttons in Fight Night 4 by downloading a patch described as DLC, for example) I wouldn't be surprised to see private servers eventually added as a download later on. I think it would be a shame if it wasn't as unlike Team Fortress 2 it's not a game that lends itself well to teamwork as a rule.

http://twitpic.com/9vri0 ...so that's what Spaff is up to. But why would anyone buy costumes. They're useless. I downloaded every single free costume simply because I could... and I never ever used them, or even feel like using them. A level pack is what everyone on the internet is screaming out for and I don't understand why it's taking so long to address that... if those level creation packs actually came with levels that doled out the content on a discovery basis (like the main game) then they'd be worth buying - but they don't, and they aren't (so far as I'm concerned anyway).

T'is a fun game and translates well on the console and for less than a tenner it's good value. It just suffers from that free for all attitude which made battlefield so depressing when it was first released. Only clan play really brings out its potential and I can't see myself getting involved in that on the PS3. Controlling the planes is harder than in a flight simulator as well Maybe it's like that on purpose, but the controls are definitely not noob friendly.

Well, then it appears we've entered an infinite loop from which there can be no escape - as I refer you to my previous post

I think my point is pretty clear. I'm in a Mass Effect thread, I responded to a Mass Effect post, and I'm discussing Mass Effect. If I'm not joining in the revisionist love-in then that's simply because I don't see the benefit in championing the game over others whilst ignoring its flaws and deficiencies in comparison. I actually agree with what everyone has said, I just don't like the idea that other games which do things differently are somehow lesser for it - and I didn't like the way in which it was expressed; i.e with a description that works equally well for Fallout and Baldurs Gate as I already mentioned.

I ran into this a little bit, and here's how it breaks downJust a little?... Sometimes you want to play the game, to learn a bit about the character, their situation or the errand they are sending you on, but instead of getting the fantastic range of responses that were present in other games like Fallout or Baldurs Gate they transformed instead into the exact same history school teacher and proceeded to lay it on thick and lecture me. I play the game, and the history lessons were disguised as a part of that game. I suffered through them but would have preferred more subtlety. I had enough trouble with certain choices not reflecting what was actually written to bother with this whole 'left = nerd' business. You can do everything you've said in other games, even those with greater freedom and significance placed on your choices. As best as I can tell all you're really complimenting here is the strength of Biowares characters, which as anybody who's played their previous games is surely already aware. So I don't know, it just seems odd to me that in praising Mass Effect you are denigrating other games that did things differently, not worse. Ignoring how some of the dialogue choices you make end up translating into something completely different (and so far as I'm aware; Sheperd is not a social retard); how is it any more realistic and fun? The only thing I can think is because the character is fully voiced. It would make some sense as previous Bioware titles had similar strong characters and interaction between them - but also the silent protagonist problem Dan mentions; "I have to agree about the character aspects. I think the game hit a perfect balance between Japanese RPG 'pre-rendered' player-character and western RPG 'blank slate' player-character. No silent protagonist problems, no unbelievable interactions, no disassociation. As blackboxme said, Shepherd really fits into the world just s much as the NPCs, but while still giving you control of him/her. Excellent dialogue scenes help this."

Correct me if I'm wrong - as I haven't played it recently so perhaps I've forgotten all the cool stuff you could do - but most, if not all, encounters with other characters were very stale history lessons where they lectured you repeatedly about stuff that would have been nice to have been introduced to subtly rather than hit over the head with... and when you did get to say something it was almost always in spite of your chosen selection. I can't remember how many times I selected one dialogue choice only to hear my player character say something completely different - sort of rendering my selection rather meaningless! In fact I did a couple of playthroughs and many of the options available actually end up going down the exact same path, which admittedly isn't unique to Mass Effect, but still happened more often than it should have given the limited responses available. Like most Bioware games there were a couple of junctures were you could make some real decisions with real impact but they were few and far between - and again something we've seen done just as well, if not better in other games. I could hit that guy over the head, yeah, but it didn't mean anything - my NPC companians didn't object and leave, my good'ometer didn't suffer considerably and the world didn't react to me any differently. Taken in that context, and coupled with the scarcity with which you could make similar impactful decisions it didn't feel as though I was moulding a character or making important choices - but rather playing an interactive adventure with some middling combat and (stupid) vehicle sections thrown inbetween. ...as far as the player coming across as a genuine character I agree completely, but I never felt as though I had any real control over their personality or behavior. I like where Bioware are headed with this Mass Effect style of game, but I don't think it's fair to compare it to other games featuring dialgoue whilst ignoring the defecencies in comparison.

Looking forward to getting it. I like my non-disc-based games on the consoles and at around £10 it looks to be good value. I'm guessing it's going to be plagued with numerous DLC addons in the future mind.