[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

I thought Oblivion was far superior in almost every aspect. The only thing that was better in Dragon Age was the story. The gameplay in Dragon age made it a pure button masher. To me, that was the turn off of the game. I only got about an hour and a half in and gave up on the game. The gameplay was just too repetitve and boring.

Oblivion's story was awful and the main missions sucked. I never finished the main missions because they were so horrid. The side quests and different guilds you could join was where all the fun was. I particularly loved the Assassins guild missions.

To be honest though, Oblivion while is offered a lot of cool things, it really was not all that fun. I recall spending half a Saturday getting my armor repaired, fixing a sword, bartering with someone for something (can't remember what it was), and running other errands. I realized that I spent half a day doing virtual chores. While realism can add to the quality of a game, it can also add to its demise. All in all Oblvion was ok, but Dragon Age was just horrendeous, IMHO.

frostybanana

Personally, I think the story is one of the most imporant part of any game. It gets you to care about the characters and truly become enveloped into that reality. Howvever, if the gameplay is so horrid, the story doesn't matter. That is why I couldn't play Dragon Age. It just seemed like a very mundane button masher. I only played it an hour and a half and could already tell that it had a much better story than Oblivion, but the gameplay made it unplayable for me. Just my two cents. BTW, I think all games should focus much more on story. I love MGS, Jak and Daxter, Heavy Rain, etc. The story is what seperates the great games from the good games.

I thought Oblivion was far superior in almost every aspect. The only thing that was better in Dragon Age was the story. The gameplay in Dragon age made it a pure button masher. To me, that was the turn off of the game. I only got about an hour and a half in and gave up on the game. The gameplay was just too repetitve and boring.

Oblivion's story was awful and the main missions sucked. I never finished the main missions because they were so horrid. The side quests and different guilds you could join was where all the fun was. I particularly loved the Assassins guild missions.

To be honest though, Oblivion while is offered a lot of cool things, it really was not all that fun. I recall spending half a Saturday getting my armor repaired, fixing a sword, bartering with someone for something (can't remember what it was), and running other errands. I realized that I spent half a day doing virtual chores. While realism can add to the quality of a game, it can also add to its demise. All in all Oblvion was ok, but Dragon Age was just horrendeous, IMHO.

Go to Blackwater. You should see a new stranger mission icon around the train depot there.Flame_Blade88

Thanks, I am going to do that right now. I so want to blast that agent in the face.

It is not the end, do the stranger mission remember my family and after you complete that the credits roll.

btw the ending is very satisfying.

gavatron123

Which stranger mission is that? Where do I go to find this mission? Thanks, I was really hoping that what I thought the ending was was infact not the ending.

It's inevitable. If they're making a Sly Cooper Collection, then Jak and Daxter (The better of the two by far) is on it's way too.

hxczuner

I will buy on day one. One of my favorite gaming series of all time.

I too think it is coming. If they are making Sly (which is from one of Sony's second parties), I think we can expect Ratchet and Clank and Jak series. I will snatch Jak series and would love to see a Ico pack and MGS for sure. I would love to see MGS made like MGS2 graphically and gameplay wise. Maybe they could include the Twin Snakes if they do a MGS package.

Spoiler warning--DO NOT read this post if you have not made it to the end of Red Dead Redemption.

Ok guys,

Here is my question. Is the end of the game when the Posse shoots John Marston outside of the barn? Do you not get to shoot the government agents that you were forced to work with? Is this really the end of the game? I can now play as the son grown up, but all I can do is finish up some challenges and stranger missions. There are no main missions to complete. If this is the end, I vote for worst ending in a game ever.

This game had a decent story, but there was no wrap up. They always talked about Johns the govenor, but the story never went anywhere with it. I wanted to shoot the governement agent people that were forcing you to do their dirty work. I am assuming this is the end and you cannot? Am I correct? If there is more, please don't spoil it...just let me know if there are more main missions that pop up.

Thanks in advance.

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

Sigh, you clearly dont have a clue.

I dont have a big screen, I dont need one. I also never said you would sit 1ft from 50".

Please go and do some research. Everything I have said is 100% factually correct.

shawty1984

Well you clearly said that if you are at the correct viewing distance, you will see a huge difference. The only way you will see a huge difference (or any difference for that matter) is by sitting at about a foot away. While this works for computer screens, as they are much smaller (typically in the15-22 inch range), this does not work for larger sets 32-55 inch sets. So how can the OP see this huge difference that you proclaim? I am interpreting that he is going to have to sit at less than a foot so you can see the difference between 720 and 1080. What am I misunderstanding?

Yes, I guess you are correct. David Katzmier, Big Daddy (from the AVS forums), and many other experts are all clearly mistaken. We all bow to your infinite wisdom. I do find it laughable how you never really answer any questions and just use semantics to dance around the issues. You would make a great politician.

As a wise man once said, "If you are arguing with a fool, he is doing the same." So I wash my hands of this thread. Peace out!

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

There is no average or normal. Out of the millions of homes in the UK alone, everyone is totally different in there space and set up.

I will repeat. The most important fact of what you replied to is that there is no difference between 1080p be it at 22" or 100". As I said in my first post you qouted, it depends on your viewing distance.

shawty1984

I am done arguing the semantics. If you wish to believe that people actually sit a foot away from 50 inch sets, be my guest. If you wish to ignore all of the experts, be my guest. I know that everyone has a different set up, but no one is going to be using the setup that you are talking about.

Also, go back and read what you wrote. You did not just state that it depends on your viewing distance. You said and I quote, "if both are viewed at the correct distance, you are viewing from the wrong distance." Again, this is wrong information, and I grow tired of people like you spreading around misinformation. The correct distance can be calculated at many home theater enthusiast websites. This calculations give you the real CORRECT distance. Not your bogus version of sitting so close that you can see the difference between 720p and 1080p.

Enjoy sitting a foot away from your big screen.

Well you clearly said that if you are at the correct viewing distance, you will see a huge difference. The only way you will see a huge difference (or any difference for that matter) is by sitting at about a foot away. While this works for computer screens, as they are much smaller (typically in the15-22 inch range), this does not work for larger sets 32-55 inch sets. So how can the OP see this huge difference that you proclaim? I am interpreting that he is going to have to sit at less than a foot so you can see the difference between 720 and 1080. What am I misunderstanding?

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

Sigh, you always get one person like yourself.

Read what I put, - "if both are viewed at the correct distance", "you are viewing from the wrong distance". I dont care what you think normal is or what anyone else thinks normal is. There is no normal or average in the sense, everyone is different. My next door neighbour has the same room size as me, but his setup could be totally different, what is average to you certainly might not be average to me. What is normal to a millionaire is certainly not normal to a person living in a two bedroomed house.

The most important part is the fact that 1080p on smaller screens is the same as it is on larger screens. Whether that affects anyone on this forum is a totally different matter and one that I did mention.

shawty1984

No you misunderstood my point. I am trying to get people to do a little research and find out what truly matters. I clearly stated that you would see a difference if you were sitting within a foot of the screen. Let us be honest here, who in their right mind is sitting a foot away from a 50 inch screen? No one. Sure if you were sitting less than a foot away you could see that the image was sharper, but whatever you are watching would be unwatchable, as you are sitting far too close. Heck, you couldn't even see the whole picture as it would be out of even your perephrial vision.

When you are discussing tvs in the 32 to 55 inch range, there is a "Normal" viewing distance. If you are in a living room, who has their couch 9 inches away from their tv? No one. Most people are going to be sitting 6-12 feet. In a bedroom you may be sitting a little closer, but I doubt you are sitting less than a foot from the screen.

By the way, my "Normal viewing distance" is the correct distance for watching. By your definition, the correct distance is sitting close enough to see the difference between 720p and 1080p. This of course would not be the correct distance, as you would be sitting far too close.

There are many sites that have calculators to see the optimal viewing distance for the size set that you have. None will tell you to sit a foot from the screen.

I am done arguing the semantics. If you wish to believe that people actually sit a foot away from 50 inch sets, be my guest. If you wish to ignore all of the experts, be my guest. I know that everyone has a different set up, but no one is going to be using the setup that you are talking about.

Also, go back and read what you wrote. You did not just state that it depends on your viewing distance. You said and I quote, "if both are viewed at the correct distance, you are viewing from the wrong distance." Again, this is wrong information, and I grow tired of people like you spreading around misinformation. The correct distance can be calculated at many home theater enthusiast websites. This calculations give you the real CORRECT distance. Not your bogus version of sitting so close that you can see the difference between 720p and 1080p.

Enjoy sitting a foot away from your big screen.

[QUOTE="HuhJustaBox"]

[QUOTE="shawty1984"]

You cant have been viewing proper 1080p material or the TV was crap or your eye sight is not very good or you are viewing from the wrong distance. 1080p looks great at 32", infact 1080p at 22" is the same as 1080p at 100" if both are viewed at the correct distance and the difference of 720p v 1080p is the same be it at 22" or 100". You dont need a big TV for 1080p

shawty1984

His eye sight is fine, his tv is probably ok, you have been buying too much into the 1080p hype. The true fact of the matter is that any screen smaller than about 50-55 inches makes no difference. That is assuming you are sitting around 6-12 feet away from the screen. The average viewer is going to be sitting 6-12 feet away.

Now if you are using it as a montior and you are 6-12 inches away, you will see a difference. However, in 99 percent of all cases, this is a tv in your living room or bed room. Due to this, you are sitting at a normal viewing distance in which you will not see any differece.

I alway find it funny that the average consumer feels that 1080p is the most important feature when looking at buying tvs. In reality, it is one of the least important features. Contrast ratios, black levels, color satuartion, motion lines of resolution and many other come into play far ahead of resolution.

I could go on and on and tell you about how I love everything related to home theater, and how it has become an obsession of mine, and how I have studied and learned so much about it over the past decade, but you could still think I am some dumb little kid spewing garbage. So I won't bother, just do your self a favor and go see what the professionals say over at CNET (look up David Katzmiers articles), or pop on over to the AVS forums and have your eyes opened to what actually matters in televison tech and what is nothing more than marketing hype.

It is so important to do a little research and see what actually matters or you may end up eating the marketing hype and you will be stuck with a LED LCD, Bose Surround Sound System, hooked up with Monster Cables....AHHHHHHH there is a sucker born every minute who buys this trash and thinks that they have the top of the line. When in reality, they could have had a system that runs circles around this for actually much cheaper. It is all about finding the truth and filtering out all of the marketing hype--i.e. Bose and Monster are the kings of marketing bullsh#$!

No you misunderstood my point. I am trying to get people to do a little research and find out what truly matters. I clearly stated that you would see a difference if you were sitting within a foot of the screen. Let us be honest here, who in their right mind is sitting a foot away from a 50 inch screen? No one. Sure if you were sitting less than a foot away you could see that the image was sharper, but whatever you are watching would be unwatchable, as you are sitting far too close. Heck, you couldn't even see the whole picture as it would be out of even your perephrial vision.

When you are discussing tvs in the 32 to 55 inch range, there is a "Normal" viewing distance. If you are in a living room, who has their couch 9 inches away from their tv? No one. Most people are going to be sitting 6-12 feet. In a bedroom you may be sitting a little closer, but I doubt you are sitting less than a foot from the screen.

By the way, my "Normal viewing distance" is the correct distance for watching. By your definition, the correct distance is sitting close enough to see the difference between 720p and 1080p. This of course would not be the correct distance, as you would be sitting far too close.

There are many sites that have calculators to see the optimal viewing distance for the size set that you have. None will tell you to sit a foot from the screen.