I read many reviews - usually AFTER I've bought the game - just to see if their opinion matches my own. That way if I do need to read a review for a game before I buy, I know which reviewers to trust and which to ignore.

I also look for common issues and problems that reviewers experience. Say if every reviewer mentions a ton of slow-down or crashing then I know that this will be common to the game. If one reviewer complains about too many difficulty spikes and difficulty isn't even mentioned by anyone else, then I know that this is a "reviewer" problem and nothing to fault the game for. Reading a lot of reviews can also tell you if a particular reviewer is biased against a type of genre or not. Say there is an RPG coming out that you really want to get, but the guy reviewing it has given it a low score - if you know the reviewer's history, you may see that that person traditionally gives low scores to RPGs, then you know that this particular reviewer just doesn't like role playing games. The same can be said for FPS's, racers, puzzle games, adventurers, platformers etc.

I can say for a fact though that 99% of the time I tend to favor my own opinion - which tends to score higher than most "professional" reviewers. Usually if I see a game I want and I really want to play - when I get that game I'm most often really satisfied with the purchase - even if its a game that has scored in the low to mid 7's or 6's.

I'd like to say it's not even worth it game in 3d. The 3d effect is better on PC games and playing in 3d on consoles cuts the frame rate horribly. Nearly all modern games for PC will be 3d compatible.YoshiYogurt

Just wanted to say that I've played a dozen or more 3D enabled games on both the PS3 and the 360 thru my 3D television - and not once have I witnessed any frame rate loss. Pretty much every game I've done it on has retained the same exact frame rate and level of smoothness with the 3D active and off.

And just about every title I've played in 3D I've prefered in 3D - with the exception of Ghost Recon Future Solider. For some reason the depth is just wrong in that game and its just not a fun experience. All the rest? 3D all the way.

I don't understand why they should. The jokes make FUN of pedophiles, a lowest form of human filth if ever there was one, and fully deserving of the scorn. Its not like Rockstar are trying to say that its an acceptable life style, no they are insulting and defaming a group of people who frankly deserve the derision.

Now if Rockstar were trying to say that pedophelia was great and that pedophiles should be forgiven, then yeah - I could see wanting them to stop.

The GTA games are a lampoon of American society from all walks of life - and I'm sorry, but until there stops being a new news story every other month about this guy who liked little boys or this teacher who just had to sleep with her students, pedophelia is just going to be one of those "American Life" moments that Grand Theft Auto will continue to make fun of. Sure it does happen in other countries besides the good ole US of A, but nearly with the frequency that its reported upon here.

Better for gamers? Maybe, better for Konami? No.

As much as there seems to be a large following anticipating a new ZOE game, Konami is perfectly aware that there might not be that many fans out there as it seems. Remember the internet can magnify things, making a small but very vocal following seem like a million gamers.

Konami is doing things the right way. By releasing a ZOE HD set seperate from a "New" game they can achomplish multiple goals. Their "stated" goal would be to re-invigerate interest in this series that hasn't seen a new game in a VERY long time. Yet their actual goal is that they are using this release as a "test".

If this ZOE HD collection outsells their expectations by an incredible amount, Konami will know that there IS an audience out there beyond the vocal minority. If the collection sells a crap load of units Konami will then feel fully comfortable allowing Kojima and his team a chance at creating a new sequel - without fear of it not selling (remember - those ZOE games, while awesome, were NOT the best selling games, they were mediocre sellers at best. Of course if the ZOE HD collection comes out and doesn't even come close to selling as many units as Konami wants, then I can guarantee you that things will go extremely quiet on the sequel front (and its already like hearing crickets regarding this game), then in 6 months or a year there will be a small anouncement that the ZOE sequel has been cancelled. And as much as that would suck - that would be a sound business decision.

I noticed that the explanation for the DL copy of MGS: HD Collection, says it has MG and MG2.

"Over 30 hours of gameplay - Includes MGS2, VR Missions, MGS3, MG, and MG2"

Are MG and MG2 only available for DL version?

Melted_ice

MG and MG2 are available in both hard copy versions and the download versions. The are "extras" in the Metal Gear Solid 3 menu. So in order to play them you must choose MGS3 and wait for the menu to show up. Then select which game you want to play.

And here's the first screenshot!!!

You can play every Lego game solo - just because a game says it's "co-op" doesn't mean its only co-op.

To me a "role playing game" has to have a specific set of features. #1 and MOST important - there has to be a story being told. It doesn't have to be a huge story, or even a completely interesting one, but it has to be more than "rescue the princess" or "fight in this war". Secondly - the game has to have me playing or controlling one specific character, who I must be able to continuously "level up" by earning some sort of experience points by fighting/battling the enemies in the game - and with this leveling I should be able to expand the character's initial skills and make them increasingly stronger. And finally - there should be some sort of reward or "loot" system in place. It doesn't have to be on every enemy I kill, or even on the enemies, but there should be a system that rewards me with new equipment of some sort as I play.

Those three items are pretty much "requirements" for me to see before I call it an RPG - and as you can see they are vague enough to allow all sorts of games into the fold, but also keeps quite a few other games out. Games like Borderlands, Diablo, Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda - they all fit. While games like Mario, Call of Duty, or God of War don't.

I still wouldn't go around calling Borderlands an "RPG" though, nor really would I call Zelda one either - but I do consider them to have the "souls" of role playing games.

Add in a few more requirements or expand on the original three like: The game should be LONG and the plot should be "meaty". RPGs to me should at least come in at 25 hours, but the really great ones are playable for much longer - 70, 80 or 100 hours. The "equip" screen should be more complicated than just choosing the next weapon. A true RPG has all sorts of equipable items, from armor to weapons, to even the accessories your character wears. And the next "requirement" is sorta hard to describe precisely, but for a game to be an RPG there should be tons of "Statistics". I want to know exactly how much more powerful my new sword is compared to the last, or how much more my new armor protects me. I want to know the exact weaknesses of every enemy I face, down to which elements they are strong and weak against. If there isn't some sort of stats listed somewhere in the game, stats that I can use to plot future quests or just fill my mind with useless knowledge, than it isn't a "true" RPG. Finally, and most importantly - there should be some aspect of "choice" involved. Not nessessarily choice in conversation either - although that DOES count, but true choice. Like I don't want to go where the game is telling me to go - I want to go exploring off somewhere and just waste 10 hours doing nothing. That kind of choice. Sure it'd be nice to have some sort of dialogue choices, that maybe impact the flow of the game, but that isn't the only kind of "choice" I mean.

Factor those "requirements" in with the top three and you are getting a "truer" picture of what I consider an RPG to be. Doing so also reduces the number of games that fit in the description. Final Fantasy games do, Mass Effect games do, Oblivion and Skyrim does. Actual examples of what a lot of gamers consider to be real Role Playing Games.

LOL at Nintendo for no unveiling thier Hardware Specs.

I mean really? Doesn't make any sense. Why the secrecy?

JUST RELEASE THE GODDAMN HARDWARE SPECS ALREADY!!!!! :evil:

MS & Sony has done theirs (360 & PS3), why can't Nintendo just do it? And it's NOT even part of their "philosphy" of with holding Spec Informations. They've only done it recently starting with the Wii. I guess they don't want the public to feel how pathetic their console really is :lol:

And Nintendo wonders why 3rd party devs don't really take them seriously anymore. Not even from alot of gamers who grew up with the company.

That's why thier E3 conferences since the Wii has SUCKED.

Showing off thier Wii-U Hardware, releasing Specs and describing it's capability would atleast help made their recent E3 Conference much better and more interesting and more appealing and more Mind Blowing.

But noooooooooooo. :roll:

KingsofQueens

Neither Sony nor Microsoft released their hardware specs for the PS3 or 360 during the first few months of the announcements. It was only as it came closer to the actual release of the consoles did the specs actually see the light of day. This is because the consoles were still being worked on - all the way until a few months before release - as they tried everything they could to bring prices into line. I'm sure Nintendo is still in the same boat - they have a rough idea of what the final specs will be, but are still working on configurations to make the process cheaper while still reaching their target. Since those numbers are still in minor flux they're not releasing anything.

Its interesting for sure.

But I knew from day one what the Wii U was and what kind of gaming it offered. I understood that it was a new console and that the gamepad (with the screen) would essentiall open up your television into Nintendo DS type experiences (with the television as the top screen and the gamepad as the bottom touch screen). Looking at it like that I'm able to see all kinds of game experiences in my mind's eye.

And the only place I've ever heard or seen of the Wii U were E3 2011 and 2012.

I can see how some could be confused by what Nintendo is offering, but I think a lot of it is being taken out of proportion.