There's many Robin Hood's, the most famous being "The Adventures of Robin Hood" with Errol Flynn. Skip the Costner version; it's too long and too silly to enjoy. If you want a real good Robin Hood-esque film see "The Flame and the Arrow" with Burt Lancaster. Great production value, action, humor, and Lancaster's awsome stunts (he did all his own) make for the film you ought to be seeing rather than Ridley Scott's stock adaptation of the legend.

far too bland

Fatal Frame it is! You gotta believe! But yeah, I'll put The Suffering in second place. It's not always "scary" but thrilling till the bitter end!:lol:

[QUOTE="KO4U"]

Around $1500. Biggest slap to the face (and wallet) came from cousin when shopping for a game gift; she looked the price of a 360 game and said aloud much to the discomfort of all the nerdy guys in the store (myself included), "Man! That's an expesive hobby".

And that hurt! I mean, what do you say? Argue that it's not a hobby? Saying so would be just admitting to games as toys...I'm a 23 year old who plays with toys...:shock:

gameguy6700

Why are you ashamed of having a hobby? Just about everyone has a hobby, although how interesting it is differs.

It's the money and the time spent that I'm not comfortable with. Less so these days, now that I have other hobbies and interests, but the thousands of hours put into gaming still haunts me.

Man, even with the moves GameStop pulls for pre-orders, there's no reason to do so. And Critics are all so biased from playing a MILLION games a month that you can only take their recommendations with a grain of salt. Just trust in your own gut feelings.

For example: I loved the first Godfather game and was stoked by the features of the sequel, but the impression gameplay videos gave me turned me off from a purchase to a rental and even then never bothered to finish the game.

Oh, come on! 8) We all know the scariest game anyone can play is Fatal Frame 2!!

Around $1500. Biggest slap to the face (and wallet) came from cousin when shopping for a game gift; she looked the price of a 360 game and said aloud much to the discomfort of all the nerdy guys in the store (myself included), "Man! That's an expesive hobby".

And that hurt! I mean, what do you say? Argue that it's not a hobby? Saying so would be just admitting to games as toys...I'm a 23 year old who plays with toys...:shock:

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

I've had very little problems with BC2. they had some shaky servers in the beginning, stats being reset and the like.

MW2 works fine, it has great netcode as does Halo 3.

GTAIV and Red Dead, I definitely agree that those need some reworks and need dedicated servers ASAP. offer great online, but you just can't put those two on a P2P connection.

Black_Knight_00

That's true, but on a technical level RDR will be very similar for shear budgetary reasons.

So maybe CoD 4 set the par pretty high. But with the millions dumped into game production why can't we see more dedicated servers? Should I just roll on back, kicking and screaming, "I wanna smooth FPS!"

Personally I found Ubisoft's big budget shooters Ghost Recon: AW and Rainbow Six: Vegas featured terrible online performance destroying any desire in me to play those games online. Across the four games (both series and their sequels) I witnessed horrendous framerates, jittering animations, and crashing servers. But hey, Ubisoft ain't the only one guilty, have you "played" Battlefield (1943, BC 1 & 2) and GTA IV online?

These aren't small little productions, but products from companies who've made their names on production value. OMG! How's Red Dead Redemption gonna be online! *gulp*