Haven't posted in these forum in a long time but had to comment on this. The NRA held a conference after the tragedy last week and essentiallyblamed the video game industry saying it was evil and warping kids minds with violent videogames. They also said that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" and suggested that armed officers should be placed in schools. I will agree with their statment about better diagnosis and support for mental illness the one point of logic in their whole conference.It's absoultely rediculous to blame videogames for these types of tragedies for 2 reasons.

1) Violent videogames are not supposed to be sold to children if a child has access to excessively violent materal such as certain videogames its a parenting issue which in todays politically correct overly sensitive society is not addressed because "it's not right to judge other people" the fact is people still judge other people but are afraid to share their thoughts because of harsh reactions from self-righteous people who will critize them for being insensitive and ignorant.

2) Violent videogames are sold all over the world yet the United States is the only place where these sort of mass shootings happen way more often because of the ease of access to guns and ammo. Sure there are rules to keep guns out of the hands of mantally Ill and criminals but once you are approved to own a gun its very easy to acquire multiple guns and excessive amounts of ammo which leads to a high number of guns with little regulation which opens up possiblilty for theft, loss, or access for people who shouldn't have access. An interesting couple stats I've seen thrown around only 1 in 3 people own guns in America yet there are over 300 million guns in america enough for 1 for every citizen. Thats the legally accessed ones that doesn't count smuggled and illegal weapons

The membership of the NRA is full of responsible gun owners who understand the dangers of guns, the ledership of the NRA however has been taken over by the Gun Lobby for a 10 billion industry they are afraid of losing money and are looking for any reason not to take some responsibilty for these kind of acts. Any other industry that has a product that causes the death of people would have recalls or face lawsuits. The gun industry points to the movie and videogame industry and tries to shift the blame, but you can't kill anybody with a videogame or movie. They also hide behind the 2nd amendmend, something that was written almost 250 years ago before the invention of semi-automatic and automatic weapons. It was also written when America was a vast sparsely populated country that faced all sorts of wild animals and before formal military and police forces were formed.

I am not an American but I'm not suggesting the removal of the 2nd Amendment or that people can't own guns. I am merely saying that the NRAs stance that more guns is the answer is somehow illogical and biased towards the gun industry and that the excessive amount of guns in the United States isn't tied at all to the higher number of these mass shootings is totally Illogical.

They are totally against any sort of conversation about any reasonable control of guns in America such as banning automatic weapons or requiring training and licensing before you can purchase semi-automatic rifles or even limiting the number of guns you can own or how much ammunition you can purchase. any one of those ideas would help and would still allow people to own guns. The NRA conference today shows their leadership speak for the gun industry and do not care about responsible gun use merely making sure the indsutry doesn't lose money.

wow, I really am getting annoyed with this group anonymous. They are gutless, sure they do have some power and I'm sure there are smart people in the group. The thing is they seem more about promting the group than actually standing up for any real cause or purpose. I mean if they are the rebels they want to be they wouldn't be anonymous they would have the balls to stand up portest, show their faces and actually make a statement about what they stand for, and accept the consequences of their actions just to make their point thats what really would gain them respect. attacking corporations from the shadows of the internet just creates an excuse to label them mischief makes with no real purpose and for them to be marginalized. really a sit in to hurt sony? it really reeks of immaturity, seems to me that the group is made up of intelligent people who have yet to mature to understand the real world. Defending geohotz is really stupid, he broke the law, he broke the end user agreement and sony pursued him in the legal system to which they had every right to do. if you don't agree with the wording of that agreement thats up to you but sony is not the only company to employ such terms just the one who aggresively defended it.

The business world is really cut-throat, Sony has in the past been on both the giving and recieving end of the justice system. if sony did anything illegal make a case and prove it otherwise being a nuisance on the internet doesn't help consumers just annoy them and accomplishes nothing but to inflate their immature ego by them saying to themselvers "look what we did".

[QUOTE="Citan_Uzuki"]

[QUOTE="TheXFiles88"]

I hope you understand that this is only an early demo. Most games will have shallow and boring gameplay until you progress deeper into the game. This quote answers your question:

"Molyneux showed off the early stages of the game...."

a_simple_gamer

Of course every game has a slow beginning portion and yes it is early in development, I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't really see a game here its a interactive character but where are they going with it. The fact is they have shown off a highly sophisticated AI but where is the game nobody wants to pay $150 for kinect plus the game just to have an imaginary friend to catch snails, help with homework, play catch etc... Molyneux hasn't shown off a game just a piece of technology thats what I'm getting at here we have no idea what they plan on going with this and from what they have shown in seems lacking and underwhelming in the gameplay department. Like I said in my previous post the technology is impressive but I don't see how this will translate into a engaging and most of all fun game.

Molyneux keeps talking about this groundbreaking technology how it will be immersive and actually learn and think. Whats the point if you are immersed in a world where the sole purpose is to influence and interact with a boy and his dog...... Maybe if they actually told us their plans as how the game will develop I might get excited, is there action portions? can you die? can you visit previous areas of the game? is it linear or open ended? Is there a plot driven story or simply a experiment of trying different activities and seeing how Milo changes. They haven't shown anything that makes me says "you know thats an interesting concept I want to play that". Instead they show Milo and how interactive it is, well real people are interactive too doesn't mean they are fun or interesting.

I just don't see an underlying game here more a concept with no direction. Maybe I'm looking too hard to classify it in a traditional game sense but I still feel its valid to ask "what's the point, where's the structure to this game? how does being able to shape an AI personality and intelligence translate into an engaging interactive experience? exactly to what degree do we have an effect on this character and what type of situation and settings or problems will we have to overcome to complete the game? can you complete the game( as in there is an actual ending or do you simply interact with Milo indefinitely)?None of these questions have been answered as far as I know so we have to just trust Molyneux's hype, so forgive me if I want to see a game out of all the hype.

Peter clearly states that this is the early learning stage, and that you can then take MIlo in a adventure game, so i dont see why worry about that, this is just the "tutorial" area, when they have nailed it they can go on to make the rest of the game with puzzles and adcenture for Milo to get involved in

So you are taking his word that the game is more robust and developed yet they haven't gotten to that stage in development yet. Like I said its a concept an untested unfinished concept from a man who has a problem bringing his imagination and ambition back down to the reality and limitations of technology. I mean I will still like to see how it turns out but I doubt it will be the revolutionary experience that Peter is hyping. I don't think its okay to just give him a free pass just because its early in development, he has failed to show any type of engaging gameplay its a tech demo of interactive AI that responds to gestures and voice commands its very impressive but it still isn't a game until we get some more details I will be pointing that out whenever I can. Milo is a very good hype machine for kinect's technology, it however hasn't shown any potential in my eyes for a compelling game experience Peter is hyping his own imagination at this point I mean even MS didn't consider Milo a real game until Peter got pissed and Greenberg had to change his statement about it not being released to not being released for kinect launch.http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6267123/microsofts-greenberg-recants-milo-comments-says-game-in-development

[QUOTE="Citan_Uzuki"]

From a technical standpoint sounds very impressive. Definitely intriguing ideas in interaction with the characters and the learning ability of the AI. That being said Milo and kate sounds like an extremely boring title I mean catching snail/butterflies, eavesdropping on people's conversations, skipping stones, and cleaning an imaginary boy's room is not what I want to do when I sit down to play a game. These are activities that really should be experienced in real life with real people a virtual substitute friend has gaming fail written all over it. Pete M is losing it seriously I mean the man still is brilliant and really likes to push the boundaries of game design but ultimately over the past 10 years has really failed to deliver a compelling game experience. He comes up with these really grand ideas that really are a fresh take on storytelling and character interaction but becomes so enthralled with the mechanics and experimentation of these ideas that he loses sight of making the game fun. His games end up unique with good ideas but lack the entertainment value that we play games for in the first place.

I will reserve final judgement till the game comes out but at this stage I don't get the point of having a "friend simulator" like who is the market for this game and ultimately where is the focus. Like I said technically its impressive and the idea of a game character actually shaped by its experiences is groundbreaking. That being said when that character is just an average boy and there seems to be no real point of the game other than to see how you affect a character through conversation and "play-time activities". The "game" part seems pretty shallow and the fact most people could make a real friend and it would be a better more rewarding experience with more options than any piece of software could give you. It just kinda make me scratch my head as to what this is trying to do and how it could possibly be successful to the gamer or non-gamer.

TheXFiles88

I hope you understand that this is only an early demo. Most games will have shallow and boring gameplay until you progress deeper into the game. This quote answers your question:

"Molyneux showed off the early stages of the game...."

Of course every game has a slow beginning portion and yes it is early in development, I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't really see a game here its a interactive character but where are they going with it. The fact is they have shown off a highly sophisticated AI but where is the game nobody wants to pay $150 for kinect plus the game just to have an imaginary friend to catch snails, help with homework, play catch etc... Molyneux hasn't shown off a game just a piece of technology thats what I'm getting at here we have no idea what they plan on going with this and from what they have shown in seems lacking and underwhelming in the gameplay department. Like I said in my previous post the technology is impressive but I don't see how this will translate into a engaging and most of all fun game.

Molyneux keeps talking about this groundbreaking technology how it will be immersive and actually learn and think. Whats the point if you are immersed in a world where the sole purpose is to influence and interact with a boy and his dog...... Maybe if they actually told us their plans as how the game will develop I might get excited, is there action portions? can you die? can you visit previous areas of the game? is it linear or open ended? Is there a plot driven story or simply a experiment of trying different activities and seeing how Milo changes. They haven't shown anything that makes me says "you know thats an interesting concept I want to play that". Instead they show Milo and how interactive it is, well real people are interactive too doesn't mean they are fun or interesting.

I just don't see an underlying game here more a concept with no direction. Maybe I'm looking too hard to classify it in a traditional game sense but I still feel its valid to ask "what's the point, where's the structure to this game? how does being able to shape an AI personality and intelligence translate into an engaging interactive experience? exactly to what degree do we have an effect on this character and what type of situation and settings or problems will we have to overcome to complete the game? can you complete the game( as in there is an actual ending or do you simply interact with Milo indefinitely)?None of these questions have been answered as far as I know so we have to just trust Molyneux's hype, so forgive me if I want to see a game out of all the hype.

From a technical standpoint sounds very impressive. Definitely intriguing ideas in interaction with the characters and the learning ability of the AI. That being said Milo and kate sounds like an extremely boring title I mean catching snail/butterflies, eavesdropping on people's conversations, skipping stones, and cleaning an imaginary boy's room is not what I want to do when I sit down to play a game. These are activities that really should be experienced in real life with real people a virtual substitute friend has gaming fail written all over it. Pete M is losing it seriously I mean the man still is brilliant and really likes to push the boundaries of game design but ultimately over the past 10 years has really failed to deliver a compelling game experience. He comes up with these really grand ideas that really are a fresh take on storytelling and character interaction but becomes so enthralled with the mechanics and experimentation of these ideas that he loses sight of making the game fun. His games end up unique with good ideas but lack the entertainment value that we play games for in the first place.

I will reserve final judgement till the game comes out but at this stage I don't get the point of having a "friend simulator" like who is the market for this game and ultimately where is the focus. Like I said technically its impressive and the idea of a game character actually shaped by its experiences is groundbreaking. That being said when that character is just an average boy and there seems to be no real point of the game other than to see how you affect a character through conversation and "play-time activities". The "game" part seems pretty shallow and the fact most people could make a real friend and it would be a better more rewarding experience with more options than any piece of software could give you. It just kinda make me scratch my head as to what this is trying to do and how it could possibly be successful to the gamer or non-gamer.

Well it makes sense from a business standpoint for Sony to copy a successful model. While they are very similar the move has the ability to recognize room position because of its light tacking. It is also slightly more accurate than motion + because of this light tracking(supposedly anyway). whereas MS is taking a approach that essentially in my mind is unpractical for most gaming application its lack of buttons does limit gameplay(in some genres more than others obviously) as well as the space required for the kinect to work properly.

MS is banking on the idea of kinect and the ability to maket it to casuals based on the novelty and low learning curve. No doubt some dev will make an amazing game for kinect if successful because the technology is very interesting and definately has some potential for innovation but for the most part MS I think dropped the ball by trying to be different. In the end neither will be as successful as the WII but at least the Move is trying to imrpove the formula whereas Kinect is too radical for its own good buzzwords like "innovative" and "controller-less" and the initial realization of a body tracking camera will ignite the imaginations of people who don't know better. Judging by the e3 presentation MS is hoping perception of its advance tech will sell it seeing as the software linup is the weakest out of the 2.

As for Molynewx, Has great ideas, creativity and vision for game design but not the talent to implement it into compelling software. He isn't a bad developer by any means but certainly not the industry leader MS and he want you to believe he is at least not anymore(pretty much since black and white came out and was disappointingly poorly implemented). He will obviously hype up the technology he is working with but has he deved for wii? or even got his hands on the move to compare it to the Wii? I highly doubt it.

TC you failed on reading comprehension. Basically what he is saying is that live is robust and essentially gives the possibility of good online features for pretty much every game that takes advantage of online. At the same time because of the more open nature of psn there are more options for developers to impliment features provided they put in the work. Pretty much to sum up Devs are more resposible for the online quality and features on psn while on live MS dictates down to the devs what they can or cannot put in.

He isn't saying live is better just more consistant across games whereas psn you can have better or worse online quality and features based on the work developers are willing to put into the online portion.

[QUOTE="Citan_Uzuki"]

well despite what the posters above said. You should expect a highly entertaining satisfying expperience. Its by no mean groundbreaking but the game is extremely polished and if anything the opposite of mediocre. That being said I only played a bit of the first so I cannot compare totally but UC2 has good graphics, excellent controls(with exception of trying to take cover near multiple objects), and a simple yet highly entertaining multiplayer. The game is one of the highest rated this year for a reason.

AdjacentLives

For some of us, graphics don't mean a whole lot. The gameplay alone was enough to throw me off, it was frustrating at times and felt dull. Good cutscenes and voice acting didn't save it for me.

I don't judge games by graphics but nice graphics can certainly help when a game is going for a cinematic feel(helps the immersion). I don't really see what was dull about the gameplay the hand to hand and stealth was fun and the shooting machanics are very well done and easy to use. I mean if you don't like shooters I can kinda see where you are coming from but the game executes very well in all areas. yes its linear and I personally wished there was a bit more options when it came to platforming(all the pathways are bright and colourful always pretty easy to tell where to go.) its by no means perfect but I had a blast with the game and felt as a total package it delivered very well. I mean one of the most intense levels in any game I have played was *spoiler aler* running through the tibetan village with the tank chasing after you meanwhile you got armed enemies trying to sneak up behind you and pin you down in areas with no cover. That's another thing that doesn't get mentioned very much is that the AI is actually pretty good at trying to isolate you feels like they react more than alot of games.

well despite what the posters above said. You should expect a highly entertaining satisfying expperience. Its by no mean groundbreaking but the game is extremely polished and if anything the opposite of mediocre. That being said I only played a bit of the first so I cannot compare totally but UC2 has good graphics, excellent controls(with exception of trying to take cover near multiple objects), and a simple yet highly entertaining multiplayer. The game is one of the highest rated this year for a reason.

I can understand where the hawk man is coming from. I have played the game a few hours at my buddy's house(my buddy thinks its a great game btw) and I also feel critics were unescessarily harsh on the game. The game has a steep steep learning curve and the controller isn'ty perfect(it is however pretty accurate when playing on a hard surface). the game is fun and fairly good at recreating the feeling of skating its tricky and will be frustrating to many at first. I think the ride board has alot of potential once the technology is better but it is far from broken like many reviewers have stated(most are probably pretty apt using a controller but when everything is done with your feet the balance issues come into play add in a review deadline and I can see how many reviewers were left frustated with the game it took me a good 2 housr or more to get the feeling of what moves work and the best way to accomplish it on the board. I will say many reviews pointed out the bare bones structure of the game which was probably due to working on the controller for most of the dev cycle this is where the game should be penalized as the levels are not that big and there isn't a whole lot of stuff to do like in prvious hawk games(which they probably unfairly compared it to, seeing as the philosophy behind the game and the previous series is totally different.

Anyway the pesentation and levels are not the best and are definately a flaw in the game but not enough to make the game unenjoyable. In fact if I were to rate it on the gamespot scale I would put it around 7. Bottom line is I feel many reviewers were way off on the reviews the game is flawed but not the mess they claim it to be if you know someone who owns it ask to borrow it and try it for yourself(make sure you play on a hard carpet or a mat to minmize noise and get the best results in accuracy also wearing tennis or skate shoes really help keep you balance on the board socks I find you end up slipping around on the board). If you are a skateboarder I recommend buying the game every skateboarder that I know that have played the game thinks its a great sim of actually skating and said it really feels like standing on a board.

Anyway thats my 2 cents. flame away(only if you have played the game though :P)