PS3 - Dante's Inferno (6,5)

PC - Alpha PRotocol (6,0)

1. Why game on only one system? Is it finances? Is it brand loyalty? Not Applicable.

2. Do you want to play those exclusive games not available on your system? I once thought about buying a 360 for that... but Halo is FPS, and I hate FPS. Left (wich interest me) GeoW, Fable, ME and Forza... since I own ME 1 and 2 plus GeoW for PC... there is only Fable 2, GeoW 2 and Forza on the 360. Count in the fact that in not such a huge fan of racing games, and only two exclusives are left on the 360 that interest me... not a good reason to buy a new system if you ask me.

If you own more than one system.

1. Which do you play the most? Currently the PS3... if you asked me that last month would be the PC. It all depends on the games I have handy at the time...

2. Do you consider yourself a brand loyalist? Nope.

marq4porsche

I currently own a PS3 and PC.

What amazed me as a kid was Grand Prix Circuiton the PC (1989). It gave a sense of realism (for the time) that could not be matched in any console.

I usually finish the game before resorting to walkthroughs.

Cheats... well, I like to exploit glitches on my second playthrough.

Mine used to creep on my bed sometimes, and slept all curled on my back... when I tried to move, he clawed me, so that I'd stay put letting him sleep.

Not a reason to dislike through, just a minor nuisance. He's gone now, after almost ten years... RIP.

Not trully hate, but I'm trully upset with Ubisoft.

Their DRM made it so that I simply cannot play any of their games on my laptop (no internet access most of the time I have of play, and the other half ain't exacltly a stable conection...).

I'm still waiting for them to drop this crap and throw in an official patch to rid their games of their awful DRM.

I try to beat the games I buy, but I'm a bit short on play time.

Own 24 (soon to be 26) PS3 games and 14 PC.

Beaten 11 PS3 and 5 PC.

I've seen a lot of people bragging about how OnLive will make consoles obsolete. If it does, then...

SO WHAT?!

We consolites will simply move on, then. It's not like we'll be stuck playing consoles forever. If it ever does become big, then people will buy it, play it, and move on from consoles, simple as that.

It's like saying "A spaceship in the future will make all cars obsolete!!!11"

ManUtd4life096

Back to PC gaming than...

My vote goes to suicide.

Tending to a patient of attempted suicide is quite troublesome.

There are many moral chooses in RPGs these days. Do you think they are needed or not?

I find that many mortal chooses are not important and have no real affect on the game but for the very end of the game. They have little affect on the game play.

wiouds

If you ever played Tatics Ogre on the PS1, you'd reach a point (Depending on your previous choices) where you could choose to:

1. Kill an entire city and frame a neighboring country on it in order to set the mood of your entire country get up to arms. (Thus becoming a Lawful character... interesting uh? Comit genocide and be a law abbiding dude...).
2. Go against the orders and don't commit genocide. (Thus becoming a chaotic character).

Later in the game(Depending on your previous choices) you could either:

1. Move onward with a plan set by your country's ruler that could probably kill your entire team.
2. Return to your HQ city, kill said ruler and take over the throne by force.

Trust me... gameplay was unchanged throughout the game, but choices did mean something on that game...

For all I know, moral choices are needed, should be better implemented, giving lasting impact on the imediate and long term run of the history. BEing evil should be as rewarding as being good (Some games actually make your like impossible when being evil, while others make so much better being evil that the good counterpart seems dull... namely Kotor II and recently ME2 do the later).