From what I can remember, it's either the original Super Mario Bros (NES), or SMB3 (NES), or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II (NES). These were all my cousins', and since then I've loved playing games

I think for me it was in the latest (but only 2nd) game I platinum'd, which is Resonance of Fate. Here, your characters had to be in critical condition (ie: almost dying) and then KILL one of your own characters with a grenade or other explosion to get a GAME OVER. This was the last trophy I obtained in that game to get the platinum, just b/c it was just such a weird situation to be in. I think it was called "An unfortunate Accident" trophy

[QUOTE="cooperFTW"][QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]I'd avoid it personally. I've had 2 60GB's fail, neither lasted 18 months. Maybe your friend is lucky, I'd still shell out the extra $100 for a slim.sizzlingdviper

My Sons 60GB got the YLOD after roughly two and a half years,as did my Nephews.But i had my 60GB for 3 years and was still working fine when I sold it,cos I thought I'd get rid while still working cos of all the postings I was reading at the time of 60GBs YLOD-Take a look on EBay anytime and you will see plenty of broken 60GBs for sale.But I did buy a new 120Gb Slim.

I guess it's for how long you play it for?? Cuz I'm one of those people who have spend hundreds (and I mean HUNDREDS) of hours on Oblivion and the Call of Duty Series alone

Well it's only SLIGHTLY more prone than the slim to the YLOD. ONLY slightly, like I'm guessing only half a year longer than the 2.5 years it takes the ps3 phat to get a YLOD. How do I know? B/c I know slims that have gotten the YLOD of death also, and it doesn't seem too much more sturdier than the ps3 phat.

For reference, I have my original 60gb phat die twice of me TWICE due to YLOD -- about 2.5-3 years, and after 4/5 months after sony fixed it (DO NOT get it repaired by sony, it's much more worth it to buy a new slim (I now have a slim).

The ps3 phat is a great machine, and I will once again get it refurbished down the road. It's much more convenient then the slim sometimes, just b/c of the meager 2 usb ports the slim has and its lack of memory card slots AND backwards compatibility. I say enjoy your PS3 fat while you can (and backup your data onto an external harddrive every week), and then once it YLOD'd, sell it if you want to. That's just my opinion though

All of your concerns are mainly with TREYARCH games. That is. WaW and Black Ops. These tend to piss me off SO much too, but don't diss Infinity Ward's work...their games are amazing. I've played all COD games since COD4, and COD4 and MW2 were head and shoulders above WaW and Black ops, and for several reasons: better hit detection, smoother (and FASTER) online [you will need better reflexes in Infinity ward's games], better graphics, and overall tighter gameplay and, I must say, a cooler era/atmosphere IW's games.

The only reason why Treyarch's latest game scored so highly was b/c of how much content it has, and the same goes with the latest Halo game (Halo Reach). Yeah, they're not that fun, but hey, it will last you a long time, right? (This is a jarring problem with how reviewers review games: quantity over quality, means more fun [higher ratings]? Not a chance in my book, but even the best of reviewers tend to do that, even the famous Greg Kasavin reviewed some games that were more quantity and not that fun... (splinter cell chaos theory proves my point).

Just play IW's games, they're the best shooters I have ever played, and trust me, I know what shooters are fun and what shooters aren't worth investing your time and energy in.

And for all those who think COD games are bad, you're slightly right, b/c Treyarch's games are just so really bad. But, if there are those who are still hating on IW's games, they gotta get out of their shells...the COD series is the most dominant FPshooter to date, and there's a reason for it.

I played the online multiplayer DEMO and I loved it - it really has the best graphics of any other online shooter around right now...and the gameplay was solid, the environment (or map - it was a snow map in the demo) really interested me (and, as most people know, maps and weapons are what make or break a shooter). This is from someone who hated the KZ2 single player. Mind you I haven't tried KZ3 single player, but leave the multiplayer alone...I loved it.

[QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

[QUOTE="SummerHillard"]

@OP

This is the same argument I use against people who hate FFXIII or LBP.

The CORRECT way to judge games is to take into account EVERYTHING. And taking into account everything, Uncharted 2's visuals, the design of the worlds, and the cutscenes/dialogue/voice acting are absolutely UNPARALLELED.

If you only judge a game based on "conventional gameplay," then your judgment is biased and FLAWED. In this age, where games are more experiences than the simple, 2D side-scrollers of the past, you have to judge every game based on gameplay, mechanics, engine, visuals, world design, story, soundtrack, dialogue, and everything else that comes to mind.

And doing so, it becomes quite clear that Uncharted 2: Among Thieves absolutely deserves to hold the title of highest-rated PlayStation 3 exclusive (and most well-reviewed SCE game of all time) to date, beating even LittleBigPlanet.

xboxfreak1

For me, a game must have a solid foundation which is found in the gameplay before I can enjoy the extra flourishes that go around that. If the gameplay falls flat then most everything come falling down. That being said, Uncharted 2 is a fine game, but not outstanding in my eyes.

I think most of your posts are fine and as others have mentioned, this is your opinion, so that's fine too. I can understand why you think it's just a fine game instaed of outstanding,even though I disagree and think it's an awesome game. But what did you expect? It's a third person, linear shooter. As you mentioned, you don't play much FPS and I'm just guessing not much TPS? Infamous can almost be considered a TPS, although with a much more open world than Uncharted. To me it doesn't sound like your type of game in general, but I could be wrong.

Compared to other TPS, linear games I don't think there is a better agme than uncharted. IMO, Gears of War, Socom, Tomb Raider, etc. don't have nearly as good or as smoothof gaming mechanics as uncharted. In uncharted, even in small areas, you can climb and flank around enemies to stealth kill them, roll in and out of coveror just straight up start blasting which all work exceptionally smooth. I enjoyed Infamous, but some of the gaming mechanics drove me nuts, especially on my second play through like the magnet like feet Cole has - every time I tried to jump somewhere he would be pulled in a different direction to grab a pole or slide on a wire. Anyways, this is just my opinions and remember everyone - go play some games you really enjoy! :)

If you're talking about uncharted online, I totally agree with you - the climbing is exciting, plus stealth kills too (stealth is one of my favourite gaming genres next to platforming), but the single player gameplay of Uncharted is WELL below Gears of War in terms of fun - in fact, U2 SP is boring. Even my friend who raved about the game didn't bother trying to play teh game twice, and that's saying somethign about the gameplay. In fact he agrees with me in this instance, and we only play UC2 multiplayer once every now and then. I guess once you know what happens in the story of UC2, it kind of just...leaves its gameplay exposed. It's gameplay is boring, and is only fun with human players I think.

Also, the gameplay in infamous is better than uc2. It may not be as polished as UC2, but Infamous didn't have a story to back up it's gameplay, and it's freedom of movement in the game is fast and open to player control. Obviously, uc2's beats infamous's "story" any day, but game wise...well let's just say I actually played infamous a second time, unlike UC2's single player

I just bought Uncharted 2 last monday because the GOTY edition iis only $25 right now and everybody raves tono end about this game and let me tell you, I'm glad it was only $25.

This is one of those all flash no substance kind of games. It's spectacles seem to have bribed gamers into believing thegame was exceptional.The actual GAMEPLAY is nothing to write home about. It basically works as a tool so that the plot can move forward. The gunplay is solid enough, but the platforming sequences are so rigidly contrived that you must do EXACTLY as the game wishes you to do to. It might as well play those parts for you after you figure out which ledge starts that particular sequence.

Then there are parts like the one in the ice cavewith Tenzen where the game halts to an extremely slow and needlessly boring pace. You have to follow some guy through a cave for some time. Nothing entertainging in that chapter in the least.

The pacing in this game was also surprisingly slow for an action adventure. It just felt like molasses. the game controls your pacing so that it can deliver a cinematic experience. Well that experience robs gamers of control and that is an entegral part to gaming in my eyes.

It wasn't all bad though. there were two stand out moments that I wish there were more of. First is the car chase scene. That was a set piece that actually had a fun and engaging impact on the gameplay and it was one of the few points in the game where the pacing sped up to a pleasing level. Normally the game slows you down so it can give you the experience it wishes to so that speed running and feeling like a pro are impossible.

the other stand out moment was the puzzle where you had to place the right symbol in front of the correct animal using your journal notes. there needed to be A LOT more of this kind of intellegent game design in the game. It gave the slow pace a meaning.

In the end, Uncharted 2 feels like a bad magic trick that I can see straight through, but has everyone else fooled.

Pikminmaniac

I totally agree. It just seems people are easily bought by a great story and great graphics, but as a video GAME player, the gameplay was just so linear, and the gunplay repetive (just b/c the HUMAN enemies seem to be like bullet sponges). Yes, I fell in love in the story LIKE EVERYONE else, but it's unfortunate it won GAME of the year award. It's not a game, in fact, it's probably the best action oriented movie with gameplay elements attached. At least other GOTY's will be different - ...hopefully. That's a great way of putting it - a bad magic trick, all flash, great substance in teh story, but weak substance in the gameplay. Alot of people don't know this, but do you know how many people suddenly have dubbed this game as their "favourite game ever"? Alot of people, just b/c they played it once and never looked back. I tried playing it a second time, but quit out once I remembered teh beginning was a linear train climb. Once you start thinking "I have to play through THIS again?", you know the game is more flash/story and hardly any gameplay substance. Sometimes I feel unlucky to be a jaded gamer, just b/c I tend to see the video game populace for what it is - people who ultimately jump to the "next best thing" without question [that also includes buying alot of shooters, which is why FPS's and 3PS's are so encouraged among game devs]. I mean, even though I think Portal 2 is overrated, I still think it's still much more original and thought provoking than U2.

It doesn't look odd to me, and I think it's a great idea. It's definitely more useful/practical, b/c you don't want to send an invite to a friend for online multiplayer while he/she is in the middle of his/her single player experience! It's that simple, and more games should do that. There's a reason why big name videogame devs like Treyarch and Infiinityward and Naughty Dog do it...

I really didn't like the first game (the one for the ps3). The controls really frustrated me, I seem to win firefights on luck rather than skill (it's hard to aim your gun and run at the same time in this game - serioiusly!), and the warhawks were hard to control as well. I liked the graphics, but the game could've been so much better