Of course,somehow the hermits think the PC's highs overcome the piles of lows.RROD is nothing compared to the PC's hardware problems.789shadow

[QUOTE="PS3nut"][QUOTE="xZyos"]

The only reason why a MAC would overpower a PC is if the PC is from a dealer like Dell.

If you custom build a PC it's way cheaper than a MAC, and is definitely better.

DragonfireXZ95

Some people just don't know how to use computers I guess.

Mr. Bear personally has no arguments with games having a simplified or more intuitive control scheme, so long at the game is still engaging, challenging, and overall just fun. Right? I mean, yeah, I could understand if games with a more hardcore audience or taste like R6 lose some things and suddenly implement something like regen health (wtf?) but other things like having context sensitive buttons, commands, or whatnot aren't too bad either. Why should I have to fiddle with controls being complex and unnecessarily unintuitive to do something simple like get into cover, pop out and shoot, roll, duck, etc? Sometimes I do think it'd be nice if games weren't making it too simple, and we sometimes were back to the days of the NES where you had limited lives, no continues and if you died started all over... (ok I kid. :P ) Yet, really simplifications of games as PC gamers call it, or mainstreaming them isn't bad so long as they are meeting my enjoyment or offer something fun. I mean, sometimes it's just nice not to have to worry about so many darn little scenarios in a game just to have fun. I think so at least, but it doesn't mean I want my games easy. It's a hard balance to find. yoshi_64

But here's the thing what you find fun in a game might not be the same with someone else. Ex. in R6 games what i personally found fun and rewarding was planning the whole mission from top to bottom and seeing it run like clockwork.

As i stated above i'm all for drawing in more people to the franchise but either make it through a spin-off or incorporate a hardcore mode for the people thatexpect that from your game.

I'm all for making games more simplistic but there should be some guidelines.

1. If you're making a simplistic game don't advertise it as complex etc.

2. If you're going to ride on a previous game's/franchise's success (numbered sequel) don't dumb it down. The reason you're using that franchise is because fans of the previous game(s) might buy it. They won't be happy and you lose all credibility.

3. If you are still using that franchise's name, make a spin-off not a sequel.

And thus the casuals are happy and the fans are happy.

If any of you are trying to define the RPG genre try to look at it's roots: the D&D system and answer these question.

What defines it?

Why do you have to have stats?

What contribution do you (the player) have to your character and his/her actions?

What are you choices?

[QUOTE="_rpg_FAN"]

- almost no role playing @ all which is ridiculous for roleplaying game,they are more like adventure games with combat and inventory

HAZE-Unit

Do you really believe this?

Do you think Role playing games must mean choosing what to do to "role" your adventure? Do you really think this one aspect defines RPGs?

Jrpgs and Wrpgs are both sub categories of the "RPG" genre just to let you realize what are you suggesting.

So an RPG doesn't have to have the RP?

Actually there haven't been any real RPGs of lately just sandbox action games with stats. In an actual RPG your reaction time and mini game knowledge don't matter, it's your character the one that does the work.

Well they did join the PCGA as a contributor.

Link

I know it's just a 360 controller with an extra but:

This guy: