[QUOTE="Silos911"]

[QUOTE="nintendoman562"] Okay fine. Explain why things shouldn't change?nintendoman562

The Uncharted 3 beta I don't mind discussing more because it's easier to see both sides of the argument.TheUncharted 3 beta was a success in some sense because people did report feedback. But when it comes to the mass market, I look at some of my friends as examples who I know don't understand the video game industry as much as people here at Gamespot. My friends played the beta and three of them said they were not going to buy it because they don't want a game with broken multiplayer. I told them they would fix it because it was a beta. But even then they told me that it doesn't matter. If it can't be proven to them first hand that it works, they don't want it.

However, maybe I'm looking at this in the wrong light. Maybe they open up the beta to a select group of people where they know they'll get feedback. For example, in the Uncharted 3 multiplayer beta I reported every glitch I found, or every thing that I thought needed changing. Maybe they search out people like me who somehow promises Nintendo to leave feedback (I know there are more people who would leave feedback, I'm just using myself as an example). Gamespot sometimes does beta key giveaways, maybe to every user who's active on the Wii messageboard here gets a private message giving people a beta code and a request to leave feedback at Nintendo's site. I'm sure most people here on the forum would love to do that.

So to summarize all my above thoughts. A public beta would definitely be a bad idea. But if Nintendo makes it exclusive for a set group of people who all promise to leave feedback. Then it could work.

EDIT: Just saw the post above mine, which the user mentioned closed betas. That does seem like the best solution the more I think about it.

I haven't played a lot of RTS's either. But before Starcraft 2 came out I asked a question similar to this in the Starcraft 2 specific message board. Except I mentioned that I recognized that there was strategy, I just couldn't figure out what skill you would improve to say you are better. The people there told me for someone new to the games, the main thing that would be a skill to improve would be multitasking.

That alone is a lot of strategy. Being able to manage a base, scouting, building a solid offense and defense, reacting to whatever new move your opponent does. Even on a ground level, if you don't want to get into the serious depth, learning to multitask in that game, and doing it well, is a lot of strategy in it's own right. I then watched a couple professional matches. I saw someone with an SCV (a basic unit used for building and collecting resources) go into the middle of an enemy base, and leave with it's life while the opponent's units were attacking it by making various movements to "deke" the opponent. All the while building more units at the SCV owner's base. That's very hard to do.

RTS's are so much more, but just by watching videos if you are new it is easier to pick up on the multitasking elements and learning from that, compared to watching a match and learning tricks on unit position.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="Jelley0"]

He's using the same argument you used on Demonjoe against you...

nintendoman562

No he's not, I don't see how anyone can think that

Nintendo is a very guarded company, they've always done things discreetly behind closed doors and they're not about to change that

There's no comparison to Nintendo changing what the company produces

Duke Nukem: Forever because I secretly love the Duke Nukem franchise.

Call of Duty because I've played Modern Warfare 2 already and have barely played the first one.

Half Life 2 because I hate the Portal series and I heard the Half Life series is great.

Maybe try the Legacy Platforms board here on Gamespot. Someone there may have an idea of what collection you are talking about, or what game on that collection. Good luck!

This is why I had high hopes for Duke Nukem: Forever. It is selling a lot of copies, but because it's not very good people won't care after they've played it. If it was great AND sold a lot of copies, I think it could have made more developers think creatively. Imagine if Duke Nukem: Forever waslikeDuke Nukem 3D. No recharginghealth, unlinear (is that a word :P) levels,but just had updated visuals, physics engine, etc. Then it sells a lot of copies and gets recognized. Developers would then try to change their approach.

You could argue that Bioshock had all the elements of a great shooter, but that never made more creativity in the genre. That is true, but Bioshock doesn't have a big name like Duke Nukem: Forever did.

This generation of gaming is filled with soo many self-entitled little emperors

Zaibach

To the topic creator, yeah I understand why it would suck. You seem to understand a bit more now, but I can see why you would be upset when Sony said a few days for maintenance, then have it take a month because of hackers. I owned all the free things they were offering, so I was upset to when I heard I had my personal information compromised and Sony didn't seem to do anything for me. The one year of identity theft isn't even offered in my country, so I can't event take advantage of that. I hope you enjoy your PS3 though, it is a fun console. Happy gaming.

Depending on when the game was packed and sealed depends your answer. If it was before Sony reached out to them about offering Infamous for free, then it's smart, if not then it's still not really a dumb thing. Just bizarre.

I had a similar problem, but a different scenario leading up to it. Log into PSN and select account management>services list>SCEA promotion>then the welcome back game you don't have (1 or 2) It will ask if you want to redeem it now, select yes then it will take you to the screen to select a game.

You beat me to the punch. Good news though, I'm about to go try it out myself. I was wanting to download my stuff before the rest of the world wakes up, but doesn't look like that will happen.