Personally it's not like I want Nintendo to go out. Besides the core audience who legitimately enjoy their first party titles, I think they are great for family friendly content. I'm probably even going to buy a Wii(U, depending on whether I am willing to support a otherwise terrible console) for my child soon, seeing as interest in video games has begun.

I wasn't even saying that Nintendo would die as a whole. There is no way in hell we'll see them stop making hand helds. That's for sure, it was more of a simple queery on whether or not they'll stop delivering home consoles after the Wii U. Doom to me suggests more that the company will go the way of Sega.

Am I able to repost under a different account? lol I just stopped using this account awhile ago.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="hd5870corei7"]

Here's a true story.

Me and 4 friends get Black Ops on launch. 4 of us have it on PS3, 1 of us has it on 360. all 5 of us go to the store and buy our copies.

the 4 PS3 owners put it our console and play online right away and enjoy the game we bought.

The 1 guy who got it on 360 cannot play online because his XBL subscription ran out a few weeks ago.

Being 17, he can't order any thing or buy anything on the internet. He has to buy it in the store.

The nearest store that sells them is a 45 minute drive away, in Oslo.

Being 17, he cannot drive over there. He has to wait a few weeks until his parents drove him there and then spend $100 (that's what it costs) and then he could play Black Ops just like the rest of us.

Oh snap :D

hd5870corei7

Sounds fishy because:

• Why would he buy Black Ops when his sub ran out WEEKS AGO!!!
• Why didnt he buy the sub @ the store? "Oh, im buying BO but my sub ran out a few weeks ago, but i'll buy the sub in a few weeks"

Doesnt sound very true

Now, on to the actual matter at hand. The value of the service is dependant on the user. For example, those who prefer the free services enjoy it for that fact alone, it's free, and they can just buy their games and play. They are supplied with a few decent features, and they are content. But I'll admit I personally enjoy paying and being supplied with tons of additional content for a tiny 4 dollars a month. Sure, some of this additional content isn't for me, but a lot of people actually use it. Add in the connectivity offered to yourself and your friends, and the service just feels like it cares more. Why? because it's actually paid for. Unlike on PSN and such where the community is free to be as sketchy as it wants because it gains the people who just want to troll (Yes, Live does have those, but I've found them in much higher numbers on PSN). On top of that, even though this is probably the smallest possible factor I can think of, it's so much easier to find a good name on XBL since people aren't running rampant and making up names just for a few kicks.

As far as Steam goes, my argument against that purely goes to freedom with your games. Say my friend has never played Counter Strike. The way steam works, I can't lend it to him so he can make an informed decision. He then has to go out and buy a game that he risks actually not liking, but being stuck with.

If there are any other issues you have with it, just say so and I'm sure I can tell you why.

Way to state the obvious?

Threads like these seem a little pointless. It's (for the most part, I'm sure there a re a few examples of the opposite) already an established fact that generally, the PC graphics of a given game are going to run smoother, at higher resolutions, and just be more impressive than on a console. This is no exception and not surprising.

[QUOTE="DarkSynDrom"]

[QUOTE="OreoMilkshake"]Around 200. Right now the Wii is my main.marcogamer07

Someone enjoys shovelware.

He never said he had 200 Wii games. He said it was his main platform.

I wouldn't call it mashing exactly. But I'm not going to say that the game feels difficult. Sure, you have to shift a paradigm or two, but after that, the game can basically play itself via the auto battle feature. That is going the wrong direction from an engaging and interesting combat dynamic. This has been the series (and genres) downfall for years to be perfectly honest (Relax, I liked FF8, and a few of the even older ones). The problem isn't that you have to hit "a" or "x" over and over again, since it just how JRPG's tend to work. The problem is that it barely requires any tactical thought. Simply put, it was too easy.

After that you need to think about the other game mechanics. Like a lot of people have said, the game forces you to walk in straight lines for what nearly feels like the entire game. I can understand wanting to tell the narrative. But people need to remember that we are playing video games here. Letting me walk a few feet before interrupting me with a cutscene is just outright frustrating. Especially since I'll agree that the characters are very over-played and I dare say, the same as the last three iterations of the series. They just don't do anything to feel unique. Lightning feels like a female version of a Cloud Strife, or Squall Leonheart (Or whatever his last name was).

I won't bash the writing entirely, it does try, it really does. But in the end it still feels rehashed, played out. Which again, is an issue so many characters suffer from in the JRPG universe. Everything just feels so dipped in a premade coating that I couldn't take it seriously. I liked the concept though, that next to the excellent production values is one of the only saving graces the game actually had. In fact, it may have been better off as a movie.

It wasn't the worst game to ever be released, saying that wuld be a stretch. But it doesn't present enough challenge or even, dare I sday, gameplay to actually win something like a GOTY award.

Kind of a couble edged question, 'cause I can see it one of two ways. In essence, the originals are important to make sure a series keeps its initial feel. If something feels far too different from what people fell in love with, then they may very well abandon it. That's why a lot of people get scared and start screaming wolf when an old franchise is getting re-done (This happened hardcore with Fallout).

On the other hand, too keep gameplay and innovations within a series fresh, you may want to bring in a new team, or pass the series to a new developer. This way you can make sure that your series doesn't get stale. Regardless of what some people say, keeping things fresh is really what's important, and why most series have made some big changes over the years.

A good example is Mario and Final Fantasy have both changed themselves. Marios seems to have kept things fresh and still maintained its ludicrous fanbase and done it well. While Final Fantasy has managed to actually enrage people. Both have their original developers still.

So, it could and could not be bad. It really depends on the level of care and ideas a studio has.

Nah, Halo's become pretty irrelevant to me on the whole. Dropped off very soon after Halo 3.

On top of it, it's hardly worth a full $60 retail price point. More like 20... Or a DLC add on.