[QUOTE="TriangleHard"]Seriously, why do we play games? What is a game? Game is something to entertain you. Story adds huge value to that entertainment and it is very important to games, and failure at it is major flaw of a game because it failed to make part of itself that is important to being entertaining game.
dvader654

I play games to play them, cause the gameplay is fun, cause I find it challenging, cause I want to lose myself to the gameplay. I have a lot of reasons before I ever get to the story.Yes it can help a lot, but in many games it does not and many times its not needed, great example is NG. Back when I was a kid I did any of those games have great stories, nope, its all for the love of the game. If I want a great story I will watch a movie or read a book.

Anyway thats my view on it, many agree with you though.

Wait, what about RPGs? They're essential to the game, many times. Obviously, the gameplay is at the core, but I for one will replay many RPGs just for the story.

I think you guys need to specify which titles come into the mix in the discussion...

It begins and ends with Symphony of the Night; easily the best Castlevania ever.

But the first three GameBoy Advance titles are all great, too.

[QUOTE="fathoms_basic"]

The game is great, but I certainly don't agree it's the best on the PS3. Resistance and Warhawk are both better, IMO. And I also think some multiplats, like The Darkness and Oblivion, are also better.

I don't really believe Heavenly Sword is worth the $60 for only about 7 or 8 hours, but that doesn't mean it's not worth playing. Awesome gaming experiences aren't really that common, and while this falls just a little shy of "awesome," it's still a can't-miss for action aficionados.

TriangleHard

I guess it is just matter of opinion

I like Warhawk, but it isn't that great I think. Fun little game nothing more.

The Darkness... I think it is very average FPS.

Oblivion was alright, but story was so poor I couldn't enjoy it that much, which is big negative in RPG to me.

Resistance, I haven't played it.

I simply think Heavenly Sword is better overall package than other games you've mentioned (except Resistance because I haven't played it) with presentation, graphic, acting, story, and gameplay itself.

I recommend it over other games, but not purchase if length bothers you and if you are the type that never touches the game again once you finish it. Worth a purchase if you treat it like buying a movie.

Resistance remains the best game on the PS3, IMO; GameSpot vastly underscored it. It's a fantastic FPS.

It's probably not fair of me to compare Heavenly Sword to games like that, though. But even so, have we forgotten Ninja Gaiden Sigma? Sure, it's basically just a remake, but it IS the best version of the original NG and it IS exclusive to the PS3. Warhawk...well, it certainly is a matter of opinion but I just love that game. :P

As for The Darkness, I think you're way off. There's a reason why that game has scored better than Heavenly Sword at many sites. It's one of the few games I've played this year that I really want to play again.

Anyway, I didn't have to pay the $60 for Heavenly Sword (I got the review copy from Sony), but I do agree that it is a great game, and really fun. I'll have my review up at PSXE ASAP, and I do agree people shouldn't miss out on the experience. But again...I think it's just too short to be worth the price of admission, unless you plan on playing it over and over. ...and I might. :)

I think it's pretty obvious that both GameSpot and IGN have significantly different review scores than they did 5 or 10 years ago. It wasn't too long ago when just about every title was guaranteed a higher score at IGN and a lower score here. That's no longer the case, and I think it's just a matter of GS getting slightly more lenient and IGN getting slightly more strict...probably in the face of reader feedback that stated the obvious.

In general, I think the majority of GS critics are still harsher than most other sites, but not to the extent they once were.

The game is great, but I certainly don't agree it's the best on the PS3. Resistance and Warhawk are both better, IMO. And I also think some multiplats, like The Darkness and Oblivion, are also better.

I don't really believe Heavenly Sword is worth the $60 for only about 7 or 8 hours, but that doesn't mean it's not worth playing. Awesome gaming experiences aren't really that common, and while this falls just a little shy of "awesome," it's still a can't-miss for action aficionados.

If it's a sequel like Shadow of the Colossus is a sequel to Ico...sure, it could be neat.Skylock00

No. Like any sedentary hobby, you need to remind yourself to keep moving and stay active. Yeah, I'll play my games, but I'll never sacrifice a beautiful day outside for a video game. I'll go play basketball or football or tennis, and even when it's winter time, I'll still lift three times a week and try to eat as well as possible.

Anybody who wants to blame games for their physical failings is just using a lame excuse. It's like blaming McDonalds because you ate their sh** that doesn't even qualify as food fit for humans...but you still ate it voluntarily.

I'll certainly be looking forward to hearing more about SO4. Like most in this thread, I wasn't too thrilled about SO3 (although I did enjoy it), but I consider SO2 to be one of the best RPGs ever. Some will say it was Square's influence that caused SO3 to be inferior to SO2, but I don't buy that for a second and I'm firmly convinced S-E can produce an awesome installment in this series.

And I guess I don't really care which platform it's on, although I also don't want it on the Wii. Not just because it's the only console I don't own, but also because...well, I have my reasons. No need to get all negative.

The major difference is, console gaming is marketed at a much higher level then PC gaming - the reason being, PC gamers at most will rely on a gaming website for their news, and do not require a TV commericial to tell them what is good. This effect creates an illusion to those unfamiliar with the PC market, that it is "dying" or almost non-existant, where this is not the case! For as long as I remember, consoles have been mimicking PCs to cater towards those who are not tech savy enough to game on a PC. This as far as I am concerned is a fact. Now, I'm not saying all console gamers are "noobs", because that is far from the truth, but what I am saying is there are only a handful of "non-tech savy" are PC gamers.

Oh, that's very convenient. Yes, the profits for PC software have been going down since the turn of the century according to all major retailers, but there aren't any commercials because the consumers are savvy enough to know what's good. That's not only a thinly veiled jab at console gamers, it's also wrong. There's no "illusion." Facts are facts; numbers are numbers.

PC gaming is more expensive then Console gaming
PC gaming is not always more expensive then Console gaming. I'll use myself as an example.

Console: $3700+
Samsung 40in 71F model - $2600
Sony 5.1 surround sound system - $600
Xbox 360 premium - $400
Xbox Live - $50 a year

PC: $2500
See my signature for specs. See blog for even more details. Includes price of 2ms 22inch Samsung display AND peripherals.

Note, that these are just my low balled costs for PC gaming and Console gaming. Funny thing is, people fail to realize that just like PC gaming, console gaming ALSO has it's fair share of "Ultimate Rigs". Take my TV for instance, how many of you actually own a 120hz television set? Have full 1080p over component cables? Have full Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound? Have a 15,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio on your set? Have an 8ms response time?

Guess what, you can get all of that PLUS more on a 22inch COMPUTER monitor for under $200, when you consider a 22inch monitor has more viewing area for it's user that a 40 inch television since you sit so much closer to the monitor.

If you dont have these kind of features in your TV, then guess what, believe it or not you are missing out on the potential of BOTH your PS3 and you xbox 360. Yes, you have to look at the total picture, you can not just look at one piece of the entire pie, as all of these pieces contribute to the overall experiance. Otherwise you may as well try to convince someone an xbox 360 on a black/white TV with mono sound, is as good as a N64 game on a 480p capable television in Dolby Prologic II.

First of all, you overpaid like a madman for your TV. I can get a 37" HDTV with 1080p capability for $1600, and that's already bigger than any PC monitor. You all want to talk about capabilities of the PC, and yet I'm wondering why nobody has brought up Blu-Ray for the PS3. Or the fact that you bought your TV for something besides gaming (and if you didn't, I'm not sure what's wrong with you). Everyone says the PS3 is ridiculously overpriced, and yet, it's not only the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market, it's ALSO the only player that can play both DVDs and Blu-Ray at the moment.

"Ultimate experience?" And like the other guy, you're trying to tell me you will require NO changes and NO upgrades that will cost money over the span of 5-8 years with your PC? Because don't bother trying to play that card; I'm sick of hearing it. I know plenty of PC gamers, and not a one will agree with that, regardless of how heavily they support PC gaming.

PC gaming is dying / People only play WoW >_>
Someone really needs to do a survey of PC gaming versus Console gaming. To be perfectly honest, I am pretty sure there are more PC gamers world wide compared to console gamers. This is especially true when it comes to online gaming. Of course, this is only an assumption based on my own personal experiance and not based on any statistics. However, if you simply take a glance over at XFire.com, a program that is only used by a minority of PC gamers, you will quickly notice how many people actually game on the PC.

I never said anything about WoW, and I'm sure there are more PC gamers...provided you include casual gamers. Why? Because the PC is a typical fixture of a household, which means anybody can play a game here and there. I'd be very interested to see how many avid gamers there are between PC and console; the stereotype that all console gamers are just casuals is dead flat wrong in the first place. There are far more PC casual gamers, for the very reason I just stated. Numbers get skewed when polls are taken and those who play Solitaire for a half-hour before bed say they "played a video game in the past week."

You have to upgrade every year
No, you can choose to upgrade every year, that is a feature that is not mandatory on anyone. My brother is currently playing Enemy Territory: Quake Wars BETA on a 3.5 year old computer.

Never said you had to upgrade every year. I very specifically said you would have to upgrade at least once in the typical lifespan of a console, which remains true. And that completely debunks your pricing argument, as I outlined above.

Bottom Line
Now, once again, before this thread gets locked for being extremely system warish -- which it has already become -- let me just say, that in my experiance there are very few people who have actually gamed on both sides of the fence. While the majority simply make assumptions based on loose fact.

The fact of the matter is, both have their pros and cons, both have their userbases. It is up to you to decide which, if not both, groups is right for you by evaluting the pros and cons.

I'm aware of all this. However, my point is very simple- the pros and cons between the two platforms have changed very significantly over the past decade, and it has been more pros for one and more cons for the other. That much is painfully obvious, I think, and anybody who denies it is simply...well, in denial. This is my one and only point, and it's no surprise that die-hard PC gamers can't accept it. But that doesn't change anything.

Ah yes...the whole "PC gaming is dying" argument certain uninformed people cling to...the one that gets debunked every gen.

Check some sales numbers for PC software between 2001 and today, and then compare that directly to console releases. Have fun doing that, by the way. There's a reason why shelf space in GameStop/EB dropped from an allotted 12 feet to 3-6 feet in the span of a few years, but hey, you're not interested in reality.

I havent heard of any major bugs, other then the copy protection issue, which was resolved...and like I said, given the anticipated specs, most posts I've seen on PC gaming forums are surprised Bioshock runs on older hardware from two years ago as well as it does.

Yeah. 2K just decided to apologize for the heck of it. Good call. :roll:

The number of Steam accounts is larger then that of Xbox Live! accounts, and with the Steam versions Valve enjoys full control over their IP and full profits, something they wont get with Live! or Playstation Network.

You're making absolutely no point, here. You initially made the misinformed claim that most PC games in the future would get exclusive downloadable content that console versions of the same game would never see, and I'm telling you not only will they get such content, console versions will probably get exclusive downloadable content of their own. Many of it is already planned for PC/console mulitplats, if you hadn't noticed.

For the initial hardware, yes, it is more expensive.

Thank you, that has been my whole point from the beginning, minus the overall point that it's more expensive no matter how you twist it.

PC gamers also enjoy certain benefits console games will never have.

For example, one can get a more enhanced experience with the PC version of Oblivion compared to the console version...you know that whole "leveling" aspect that annoyed many people with the whole world leveling with you....guess what, on the PC you have the option to get rid of it....can't do that on console.

Well holy crap. That must mean Oblivion on the 360 is a waste of time. ...could you possibly come up with a more trivial and random point? How far are you reaching?

Really?....How many editors choice (ie AAA) games has PS3 had this year at Gamespot in comparison to PC?....how about 360?

How many did Xbox have in comparison to PC from 2001 - 2005?

Oh, I see, we're going by Gamerankings....so Three times as many?

Check again....Xbox 360 has had a whopping three games released this year that broke the 90% review average....

Guess how many releases PS3 has had this year that broke the 90% review average....One...Oblivion...a game that was on PC last year.

guess how many PC has.....Three....just as many as 360 so far this year...and more then PS3.

This whole time, I have been giving you a break and including both the PS3 and Xbox 360 versus the PC, because my original point is that even if you have both, it's still cheaper than a gaming PC. And that remains true. Therefore, you must include BOTH sets of games because owners can play both PS3 and Xbox 360 games. If that's the case, you're in serious trouble. On top of which, if you take ANY two consoles of the last generation - and God help you if you choose the PS2 and Xbox - and they would vastly outstrip the PC's quality game frequency. And any two would be far, far cheaper than any solid PC gaming would be, using your own numbers. I've done this before and the numbers even surprised me.

My point remains, and so do the facts.

Yeah....and compare the titles released on PC in 2002 to the ones released in 2004....yet were able to run just effectively on a 9700 or even 9500 series, both cards which released in 2002.

...I don't even get the point of this. You made the initial - and gigantic - mistake by somehow assuming that PCs are the only gaming platform to show visual gains over a normal console lifespan. Thta was wrong, and it's still wrong. You will NOT make it all the way through one console generation without ever having to change a damn thing in your PC, and even if you DON'T, you still paid more for the gaming PC than any two consoles!

You keep bringing up Crytek....I have yet to see a quote from them that shows they are somehow switching from PC to PS3....or that PC is no longer their preferred development platform.

That's because you don't bother to keep up with the news. During a recent interview, Crytek said they're "heavily invested" in PS3 development, and Cevat Yerli provided the following quotes-

"We're optimising technology...for the future in general, there is a dedicated PS3 team."

"The PS3 room is separate because we have some secret technologies being developed there which are not related to CryEngine 2."

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/1756.html

I wrote it.

Not only that, on the flip side, a PC from as far back as 3 years ago, like a 2004, does have the capability to play games that were released this year, maybe not Crysis, but someone with a 6800 series can enjoy Bioshock and medium settings.

Oh, not Crysis? What about this mess about not having to upgrade since 2003? What happened to that? Gee, I'll be able to play MGS 4, FF XIII, GT 5, and Killzone 2 while still being able to play MGS, FF VII, and GT on the PS3. Again, do you have a point?

Yeah...Field of View...you know, the area of your vision. When you're sitting in front of a 24 or 30 inch monitor, it takes up most of your viewing area, just as much as an HDTV.

And how about instead of asking people....you sit them down with something like Bioshock in front of a 30 inch widescreen and then in front of a 52 inch HDTV....I can bet the experience will be just as enjoyable.

Wait, what happened to the PC monitor being a superior experience? Why are we back-pedelaing to the point where it's "just as enjoyable?"

People like you have been yapping on about the "downward spiral" or "death" of PC gaming since the mid-90's.....hell, last gen your kind was at their loudest about PC Gamings death around 2002.....funny how two years later was one of the best years in PC gaming.

Yep.....PC gaming is kinda like the nameless one from PT......happily "dying" for years, yet also always coming back stronger.

I also look forward to this so called death of PC gaming people like you go on about every gen....cause it's usually a year or two after that it enjoys a big resurgence.

It's a bad idea to make any assumptions about me, my friend. I started gaming on PCs probably before you were even born, and I was very much against anyone who tried to say PC gaming was dying last generation. Some of the best years in PC gaming were in the mid-90s, and if you really believe there has been a year that even remotely stands up to some of those years since, you're too biased for words. See, console gaming doesn't have any "resurgences," because that implies there was a heavy downswing...which the PC seems to be permanently mired in. Now, it seems maybe one game every six months might provide a "resurgence," if you can even call it that. Every gaming veteran who has been following both industries for decades - and who isn't irretrievably biased - will make the exact same observation-

PC gaming is going down and console gaming is going up. I can't possibly make it any simpler than that. It's a fact, and one you can either accept or deny...but it won't change the fact. In the mid-90s, I would play Baldurs Gate, Half-Life, Diablo, Command & Conquer, etc. on my PC and be forced to play far inferior FPSs like Medal of Honor on the PS1 (although I've never believed PC RPGs were anywhere near as good as console RPGs, even then). Yeah, Half-Life vs. MoH or Perfect Dark...as if that was a fair comparison. Now, the gap has narrowed to the point where it's basically non-existent, and you die-hard PC gamers just can't accept this. I'm sorry, but again, that ain't my fault.