lol, that isnt quite the case.. i am 20.. i dont like facebook games, and after trailing through the interwebs the game i remember playing is the escape from monkey island... oblivion looks good. although im not sure cause it looks kinda war ish.. judybaker

If you've got a decent internet connection and don't mind buying games that you directly download from the internet (as opposed to say, Amazon or GameStop) then Tales of Monkey Island might be your thing.

Oblivion isn't really all that violent. You certainly don't have any guns in your hands, and I think the swordfighting/spellcasting/arrow shooting is relatively 'harmless'.

You may want to have a look at Lora's Computer Game Reviews. It's a whole page of game reviews taylored for casual gamers who want something a little more mature and engaging than, say, shifting gems to form lines of three (which I love too, by the way :P).

Hope this helps!

JN_Fenrir

Good lord...I'm not sure how the author of that page chose some of her games. Oblivion, Gothic, The Witcher are the last games I would recommend to someone with a busy schedule. They're games that need an investment of time and patience.

Well, all I can say is welcome to GameSpot and welcome to the world of gaming, Judy.

You might find that Facebook meets all your needs in terms of gaming. There are a fair few simple, violence-free games on there if you look around. People are quite fond of Farmville, Monster World, Bejeweled Blitz, and I believe Icy Tower has just made an appearance there.

I personally like Bejeweled as a "casual" game, but I get the impression that puzzle games aren't your thing.

Also: If you go to the ScummVM website (www.scummvm.org), you'll find two adventure games that are free of charge - Lure of the Temptress and Beneath a Steel Sky. ScummVM runs on just about every PC known to man (hell, it even runs on my horribly underpowered Windows Mobile cellphone) so you'll have no problems running them. Those two games are considered clas-sics of the genre and it sounds like they'd be just your thing.

I very much doubt that technology will permit it, and I doubt it will be worth it. The PS2 runs most games at a resolution of 640x448, which is more than the PSP's 480x272. Now, bear in mind that the PSP's screen is already crystal clear - it wouldn't be worth upping the resolution of the screen, simply because the difference would not be visible.

[QUOTE="spiceonpsn"]also don't forget two analog sticks and the buttons from dualshock controllers (L1,R1,L2,R2,L3,R3).....spiceonpsn

STICKS? I like to have my PSP in my pocket, thank you very much...

SONY if you do this right you will dominate the handheld market...( i found out that you can only see 3d on 3DS only if you stay right in front of the screen or else you won't see a thing...notice here the accelerometer which the device has incorporated , when 3DS owners will use it t they wont see 3d because they are moving the screen)spiceonpsn

Previews from the media, who have actually used the device say otherwise...

If you put touch-screen or make it a phone ( like other idiots recommend ) will inevitably lead you in less sales and go into bankruptcy....spiceonpsn

I wouldn't be keen on the PSP2 being a phone or touch-screen either, but I'm sure glad that Apple didn't listen to those idiots calling for the iPhone to be touchscreen or a phone...otherwise they wouldn't have had those phenomenal sales...

Doesn't Raptr only do Steam games?w4rrior17

I'm not a big fan of dramatic change either, but alas, for me it is too late. I have been tempted to the dark side - just look at my signature.

The message really sounded like someone had thrown petrol on a fire.

My guess is that whoever purchased it ousted the original development team for someone more "corporate-friendly" and the original team were not happy about it.

Who's betting that EA or Activision are the new owners...?

I must admit that I forgot to mention the KOF series (and, by extension, the Fatal Fury series), which are mostly excellent games in their own right, although I thought KOF 94 was garbage and the series has pretty much stagnated since 98, which was the best in the series IMHO. I've not played the most recent iteration, mind you.

And I *loved* Garou: Mark of the Wolves. Just a shame that I've never had the opportunity to play it legitimately, because we Europeans have never had the pleasure of an official release... (oops) That said, now that it looks like that the PSP is getting NeoGeo games to download (or there might be an SNK Volume 2, who knows?), we might finally get to experience Garou legally.

Of course, if you wanted to mention other fighting franchises, you'd have KOF, Fatal Fury, Samurai Shodown, Guilty Gear, Art of Fighting, Bloody Roar, Soul Calibur, Last Blade, and so on and so forth...

I'm not really a fan of Sixaxis either, but I think part of it is to do with the controller's finicky and imprecise nature. I hated the way it just felt tacked on in games like Heavenly Sword, and I've never been able to use the motion control effectively in racing games like Wipeout HD or Ridge Racer 7. Maybe we'll see patches for the Move and a better implementation for these games, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The title pretty much says it all. The one-on-one fighter market has been pretty much split between these four titles for the past decade and a half (save for a number of smaller franchises such as Guilty Gear, Bloody Roar et al.). I know everyone has their favourite, and some may be so enamoured with one that they may even refuse to play the other three.

I'm not looking to start a flame war here, I'm just curious as to why people select a specific franchise (all four are, after all, quite different in their styles and tactics) and, more importantly, why people don't like or don't play the others.

For my part, I have Mortal Kombat 1-4 for the PC (and MK 1-3 for the PSP as part of the Midway Arcade Classics collection), Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe for the PS3, Mortal Kombat Deception for the PS2, Street Fighter 4 and Alpha 2 for the PC, Street Fighter EX Plus Alpha 2 for the PS1, Street Fighter 2 for the PSP and PS1, Street Fighter Alpha 3 MAX for the PSP (plus SF2 as part of Capcom Classics Collection Reloaded), Tekken 1-3 for the PS1, Tekken 4, 5 and Tag Tournament for the PS2, Dark Resurrection for the PSP, Tekken 6 for the PS3, Virtua Fighter 1 and 2 for the PC and Virtua Fighter 5 for the PS3. So I have a fair bit of experience in this field.

My top franchise to date has to be Street Fighter, very closely followed by Tekken. I'm not a huge Virtua Fighter fan and I don't really like Mortal Kombat (except for the recent DC Universe crossover).

The reason for this, for me, is that Street Fighter offers a healthy mix of speed, flow and tactics with a reasonable and fair combo system. I think, with the notable exception of the EX series and Street Fighter 1, that the balance has been spot on every time.

Tekken takes a similar route, perhaps being a little slower and placing more emphasis on tactics and juggling. I'm not a huge fan of the juggling mechanism, but I don't consider it to be overly excessive as implemented in Tekken 3 and 5, which I consider to be the best instalments. I hated 4 and 6 with a passion. I'm also not keen on Tekken's reliance on stupidly powerful bosses at times (especially in 6).

Virtua Fighter is, in my opinion, far too lethargic to be any real fun, although I do appreciate the tactical depth and 'realism' behind it (no projectiles, for example).

Finally, I consider Mortal Kombat to be the worst of the lot, offering very little tactical scope, simply relying on button mashing and selling itself on the basis of blood and gore. The later titles, Deception and Deadly Alliance, were very poor, with battles that felt stiff, combos that felt artificial and set pieces that just felt disjointed from the game.

I'd love to know what you guys think, especially if you like Mortal Kombat.