[QUOTE="erglesmergle"]

Crysis 1 and Warhead are some of THE MOST boring games I have ever played. I have a strong feeling their scores were due to the tech, not gameplay.

No one EVER mentions Crysis when it comes to gameplay. I wonder why. But people love to defend it when its attacked, always using the 9.5 GS score. Im guessing hermits doing their thing?

Instashot

LOL?

People would mention Crysis's gameplay more if people here stopped making GRAPHIC KING Threads.

Crysis/Warhead are the BEST Single Player FPS I have ever played.

Halo 3 got a 9.5 due to hype and MS paying companies for high reviews.

And you were the same guy who was praising APB a while back. Turns out APB scores a pathetic 6.5 and was already determined BAD from the Beta.

Crysis 1 and Warhead are some of THE MOST boring games I have ever played. I have a strong feeling their scores were due to the tech, not gameplay.

No one EVER mentions Crysis when it comes to gameplay. I wonder why. But people love to defend it when its attacked, always using the 9.5 GS score. Im guessing hermits doing their thing?

Spend 80% of development time on textures and level design. Drop random N. Koreans all around the game and have them say "Die Die!" + a few aliens creatures. You have Crysis.

You are "a normal human being" if you hate these things

[QUOTE="InsaneBasura"]

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
If they effectively take content out of the game it's not really optional.

Oh and to answer the question, I think it's both good and bad. Mostly bad, because I'm cynical.

Puckhog04

It's always optional. You have the choice of whether or not to buy it. It's not required to play the game.

What about the Assassins Creed 2 "missing chapters"? They literally skipped chapters and ASKED you to pay for them.

Youd be pissed if you bought a book and found out chapter 2 was missing and you couldnt get a refund. Chapter 2 is optional, but WTF?????

Don't like it, don't buy it. There's precious little "must have" DLC that I could see the reasoning behind calling a "rip off". Most "rip off" DLC you'd never need to buy and generally sells very little to begin with.Skittles_McGee

But the fact that developers charge us for must have DLC should be enough to make the entire DLC system bad. Terrorists can use guns at airports to hijack planes. Solution? Ban all people from carrying guns at airports. Same idea.

I'm also extremely cynical regarding this business. If there is a way for them to get away with cutting content from a game and charging for it, I fully expect them to do just that. With most DLC there's simply no way of telling if it's a-ok or not.

Take Dead Rising: Case Zero Day DLC for instance. Would this chunk of the game have been included on the disc? Did they cut away the introduction? Or was it something they started working on seperately that wouldn't have existed if this alternate revenue stream didn't? Is it a ripoff or is it a cool "mini-game"? You don't know, never will. That's how publishers would get away with ripping you off, and why I'm always

InsaneBasura

Exactly why I hate DLC. You will never know the truth. And developers/publishers are given the chance to do it.

If there was a 100% sure way to prove that developers developed the content AFTER the games release and DID NOT have that idea before release, I would be 100% happy about the existence of DLC.

DLC is bad for gaming because developers are allowed to leave content out and just charge us a month later for it as DLC. Developers probably dont even spend time post-release to develop the DLC. 90% of DLC is a rip off. The GTA 4 and Fallout 3 DLC people love to use in defense of DLC are actually expansion packs in downloadable form and should not be placed in the same category as the other $2 skin / $5 map pack DLC. Small time DLC used to be free as on disc unlockables. Why allow greedy developers/publishers to milk us?

Agree or disagree?

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"] Move is superior because the camera is always tracking the absolute position of the ball and therefore controller in 3D space. The sensor bar simply does not do this unless you are actually pointing at it. This makes a huge difference. The fact it is also a proper camera, meaning it can add extra augmented reality to your motion controlled games, means it is even better.amaneuvering

Yes. But you're forgetting WM+, which sets a nuetral point and measures any diviation in any direction in 3D space, allowing for the exact same results.

But, you are right about PSeye adding more function. It doesn't add any level of extra accurecy, it's just another way to interact with the game. Much like the DS also has a mic in addition to its other input methods.

See above.

M+ does not allow the Wiimote to do anything that Move cannot do by default, and move does it just a little bit better because it's always tracking that balls position and distance. M+ is just taking acceleration and rotation to try and estimate the Wiimote's actually position in 3D, until you point at the sensor bar again and recalibrate it properly.

Move is superior for motion control.

I dont know enough about the Move and the Wii to get technical but heres my theory. With all the Wii shovelware out there, I have yet to see a game like what the Move is doing in this demo. So if the Wii cant do a simple painting game that requires precision, and the Move can do it in a pre-release tech demo, Move > Wii. And if such title does exist for the Wii, please forgive me.

[QUOTE="omho88"][QUOTE="Snugenz"]

We get it, you're a Sony fanboy that thinks the river rush kinect vid is funny, gratz.

Snugenz

I never said you had to be a Sony fanboy to find it funny ...

Sure. :roll: You called me a fanboy for thinking its funny, even though Ive never actually said that. Im actually serious about Kinect Adventures looking like a great game. River Rush is just amazing.