I can't get around meaningless platform specific features unless there is a good reason for them (motion controller functions unique to PS3 for instance).

Here I don't see why there is special content only for the PS3 version. Platform bias has mostly disappeared this generation thanks to widespread platform agnosticism and parity. This kinda thing strikes me as an outdated practice that no longer makes sense.

I agree with him on what you want out of games changing as you age. These days with both TV and games I want to play something that leaves me feeling that it was worthwhile and challenged me in some way (either that or has very well realised characterisations that can play to my emotional intelligence).

These days I find it really hard to get behind a game unless it has that deeper hook or in Japanese (so I can focus on my language learning)...but nowadays just having the latter doesn't do it for me. A lot of the games I play suddenly seem big and dumb...and I don't mean the obvious ones like explosion-filled action games; there is something contrived about many games in general as the actions characters take in games for instance are often the result of game-logic rather than something any person would do in the situations they found. When you step back and look at what the characters are doing (and why) it suddenly seems really bizarre.

@therealFrek This isn't just in direct response to you, but the attitude of many PC evangelists who seem unaware of how irritating they can be.

Getting tired of these PC evangelists coming into corners of the internet that have nothing to do with them, make annoying overdone points and then gloating, convinced that somehow the responses they are getting prove their point.

In truth, they're like the one guy who keeps showing of his Rolex who appears everywhere you go, the coffee shop, anime conventions, your workplace (even your home!) sighing as he notes the workmanship...and did he mention it is a genuine Rolex?...and he does this at every opportunity to every passer-by. People don't care about the Rolex, but they sure are getting pretty annoyed that he doesn't seem to get the message.

These people need to be banned along with people who post 'first', because their contribution is about equal. But no...I guess I am just a blind console fanboy peasant blah blah blah

As far as I could tell DMC never needed a reboot to begin with. There is easily scope for there to just be a new separate adventure each time, right? (I don't follow the games myself, but I get the impression that could be the case).

A reboot would work best for a franchise that has ran out of steam because it has been doing the same thing for a while or becoming outdated (Tomb Raider or RE for instance) or because the story line is so well established that there is almost no room left to creatively wiggle around (franchises like MGS or similar games could reboot well...in theory).

Why was DMC rebooted? Was there really any need to change what was working? It didn't seem like fans were getting tired of it or that the developers wanted to do a bold new game-play overhaul like RE4...so what was the point of changing what people liked about the games?

It's all well and good that the critics have their opinion but why is it that in pieces like this we are constantly seemingly forcefully being given their opinion again. It's almost as if the media conspired together to portray the game in a particular light, or like they are getting paid to (which I don't honestly think they are). These articles always have some kind of 'slant' to them that is a little unnerving.

The thing that bothers me is that at what point does something become real on-disc DLC and at what point is it content simply held back for the player to systematically purchase? Publishers need to be 100% open about when a game's main development cycle is finished as well as the content/nature of the DLC so that we know we are getting the real deal. In the case of DLC that is developed parallel to the main game we should at least know what the DLC is well in advance

It's interesting that the most significant piece of news here: that it is a sucesspr to the DS; in effect the DS2-has been largely ignored. That alone is exciting, all the features however are just more things to speculate about.

Given the price it is a pretty good deal. I mean if you only had to pay 20 dollars or so more for a DSi instead of a DSL...would you? I certainly would. A DSi in Japan is still cheaper than a DSL back in England.

Smoother and better lighting, the other changes really don't show up in these screens sadly. Mario was a quite a looker anywhere because it's art style made it simplistically beautiful, there isn't much aside from some lighting and higher poly counts that can be done.

The old PSP, though pretty, was a functional disaster, it did loads of little things wrong that culminated in gangly unwieldy hardware that simply didn't feel designed for the software that was made for it. This looks to improve things dramatically (or maybe it's because it's fixing so many of the pet peeves I had about the original system), though not a total cure-all for the originals design, it's more than enough and the asking price seems fair. I've been looking to go full-handheld for a long time, and the release of this system will probably push me over the edge.