Doubtful, though it does look like it'll be a good game. Chances are I'll pick it up at some point. There are so many games coming out October and November that look appealing to me, its hard to choose what to get right away and what to put off. That, and I'm undecided on what platform to get some of these games for. Multiplats are generally bought for 360... though I could go PC for some, and it is tempting to do so.

But achievements give no satsifaction, nothing. "Get 200 headshots!" You do it -- and nothing but 20 more points to a growing number that again -- means nothing.

When you do well in Halo 3 you rank up, and that is addicting and meaningful because your rank decides (usually) who you will face.

I think if gamerscore was the currency to buy downloadalbe games, then they would be much more fun.

Koalakommander

While I haven't played too many games on the 360, and none with trophies for Ps3, I find that some achievements are fun to try and get. I agree that most don't give me much satisfaction; I still like unlocking them, but don't go far out of my way to get them unless I find them very interesting.

I also agree with other comments made about actually having the achievements be useful. I know in Mass Effect that unlocking some of the achievements will give bonuses for subsequent play-throughs, making it worth my time to try and get them.

I do like the idea of making gamerscore be currency in the marketplace, and, like someone else, had thought it was at one point.

FFT is my favorite of the series.

From the list provided, its hard to choose.

FFVII - good game play, story and decent characters

FFVIII - great opening music, my favorite. Decent gameplay, junction system was okay. Characters and story were decent as well.

FFIX - Story had its moments. Gameplay pretty good and the means of learning abilities was alright. I love Vivi.

FFX - probably my favorite of the 3D FF games. Good music, characters and story. Plus, Auron is great.

FFXII - I like it, but I never got into it as much as the others.

The order I put those:

Oot - Just my favorite Zelda to date.

LTTP - A great game, and as someone else said, it introduced a lot of the ideas used in OoT. I just don't care for it quite as much.

MM - I thought this game was an interesting diversion from the rest of the series and was fun.

TP - Haven't quite finished this one yet, but it a good Zelda game. Yes, it could be better, though there are some points that I just love, like first entering the Temple of Time. And the music is great.

WW - Just didn't care for it.

[QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"]

Until that day, I will use XBL. And your analysis of XBL is so thorough. :roll: Me thinks you have really never used it. PSN is really horrible when compared to XBL. Enjoy your principles! :lol:

dhjohns

You thinks incorrectly. But that's to be expected here.

Enjoy paying while I'll get everything I need with Silver.

Not really. Expect away but your comments and "analysis" of XBL shows your clear lack of familiarity with it. Especially if you think PSN is even close to it. And your "stagnant" comment was priceless.

Familiarity and not using are completely different things.

I use and have XBL. I may have not invesitgated it thoroughly, but I have used it quite a bit.

As for stagnant. Unless there's suddenly been new features added recently that I somehow don't know about (which could happen) Live hasn't done much in terms of improving. While the organization of Live is better than PSN, even that could be done better.

[QUOTE="dhjohns"]PSN is really horrible when compared to XBL. Enjoy your principles! :lol: thegame1980

Bingo! Right in the blowhole!

Again. Its the feeling that I'm not getting anything for my money. When I can do the same thing on PC or PSN for nothing extra.

[QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"]

While the online gaming part doesn't matter to me, since I wouldn't really use it--if I wanted to play with friends I'd just have them over or go over to their place; I find the experience more enjoyable that way--its the principle of the thing.

thegame1980

You are REALLY missing out on an excellent experience and new way to play. I think you should at least give it a 3 month tryout. Playing with your friends at their house or yours is cool but sometimes you just can't or they provide zero challenge that's when you take it to the max and face MILLIONS of gamers from all over the world in all types of games and make new friends.

Multiplayer has never been a big feature to me. The only games I really play online are RTS, and mostly Starcraft. I'm not much of a FPS fan; I'll play the occasional, but not as a rule. RPGs is my genre of choice and those don't usually come with an online multiplayer opton.

I'm sure if I played more FPS I'd get a lot more out of it.

I always thought the main advantage of consoles was the plug in and play style. Consoles are imferior to pc when it comes to online, but console games actually seemed MORE stable than some broken pc games before the idea of patching console games and installing them came long.

Console games should require very little effort to play on the gamers part and should certianly never be needed to patch. especially when most people dont connect their consoles to the online service.

Shazenab

Yeah, I agree. I don't like the idea of having to install a game onto the console. It defeats the purpose of the console.

Also agree with the patching.

[QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"][QUOTE="dhjohns"][QUOTE="Phantom_Menace"]

Honestly, I give the advantage to PSN.

While XBL does have more features and is organized better, actually having to pay to play online is a big strike against it. Yes, I know "its only $50 a year", but apparently some people don't understand the term "principle". When other people can do it for free, there's no excuse to have a fee for online gaming. And since Silver membership exists, it makes whatever "benefits" Gold members get moot.

Yes, Silver members can't play online, but they get pretty much everything else. So you're not getting much for that $50, no matter how small a fee it ends up being when looked at a certain way. But I don't look at how little its costing me over the period of time, but at how much I'm getting for the serice--which isn't much.

While the online gaming part doesn't matter to me, since I wouldn't really use it--if I wanted to play with friends I'd just have them over or go over to their place; I find the experience more enjoyable that way--its the principle of the thing.

dhjohns

So to sum up, due to principle you give the edge to PSN. :lol: OK, due to ease of use, the ability to chat anywhere (while doing anything), and not to mention cross-game invites, just to name a few, I will go with XBL.

So, you're essentially paying $50 a year to play games online and to use MSN messenger on Live. Great, you pay for two free services anywhere else.

While not organized nearly as well, PSN is easy enough to use. And with Live's apparent stagnation, I could see PSN eventually getting the services Live has, taking away what ever "advantage" it has.

Until that day, I will use XBL. And your analysis of XBL is so thorough. :roll: Me thinks you have really never used it. PSN is really horrible when compared to XBL. Enjoy your principles! :lol:

You thinks incorrectly. But that's to be expected here.

Enjoy paying while I'll get everything I need with Silver.

I think what people fail to do is to define the term "play online". Playing onilne totally includes some of those features that XBL has that PSN doesn't. The fact that people take many of those features for granted says alot about how well-integrated they are into the service.VoodooHak

I'll admit, since I don't play games online much at all, a lot of the reason to have Gold is lost on me. I get everything I need with Silver. Extra messaging (in game messaging really only makes sense and is useful if you play online anyway) doesn't mean anything to me. If I want to chat, I'll boot up a messenger on my laptop.