Potts

Yeah, a lot of those Eastern Bloc games aren't optimized very well, and you really have to tinker to get them to look good at a decent framerate.

But set AA to the lowest possible, and don't use MSAA, as that's the big hog.

@BoFooQ said:

I signed up last month for a full year which at $50 seemed almost like too much, but than I saw this list after e3 and was happy. I just put 500gb hard drive into my ps3 and have been downloading games since. so far for my money I'll get

just cause 2, never played

infamous 2, enjoyed the fist never played the second

awsomanuts, have had lots of fun so far

rock of ages, have been waiting for this since the quick look

trine 2, heard good things but never wanted to buy

also if the warhammer game is big new game not the downloadable game that came the same time I'll be downloading that next.

Anyone know how long or quickly PS will be changing these games in and out? I could go for a huge group of old games next month.

The Warhammer 40K game is the big AAA one - third person shooter with a heavy melee focus. It's the disc release. It's also a lot of fun, you should def. try it - it's worth $20 on it's own, and free is even better.

They change the big ones once a month, and occasionally will offer new ones every one or two weeks for the smaller ones. I get the feeling that the current crop are for the full month, and we won't see any weekly ones in June.

@Scofthe7seas:

So, let me get this straight.

Your main argument against IT is that there is TOO MUCH EVIDENCE that corroborates it?

If you don't think it's true, that's fine. I don't care. I couldn't give two shits whether anyone else believes it or not.

But if you actually take the time to read through the evidence, it all corroborates pretty well, and does a very good job of explaining the end of the game.

.

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm not saying you're right. What I was saying with my last post is that there's something going on with that ending, and IT seems to explain it pretty well.

I also thought it was a stupid ending, and thought that something was off. I looked up on the forums and came across the IT thread, and it made a lot of sense. I didn't invent it, and never claimed to. That fact doesn't diminish it's validity as a theory. Do you call BS on the Theory of Relativity because your Physics teacher didn't come up with it?

Yes, the ending was badly executed. That doesn't mean that they don't have something up their sleeve. And for people who uninstalled or sold the game, well, that sucks for them. Boo Fucking Hoo - they'll have to reinstall the game or YouTube the ending. Me? I kept busy with multiplayer and Skyrim and Saints Row 3.

Also, I don't know about email notifications. That's why I try to "reply" or "quote" people, so they'll get a notification on GB.

@Wallzii said:

@Potts said:

There is one way that ME3 can end: the reapers are stopped, one way or another, and the mass relays are destroyed. The ending varies in the method of reaper stoppage, or whether or not Shepard lives or dies. My point was that when you look at it from afar, and forego the details, ME3 has one ending, just like ME1 & 2. The three "endings" for ME3 all lead to the same result, and therefore, ME3 has one ending.

You seem to be neglecting the fact that the details are what define the ending of Mass Effect, and can't be forgone in representation of this theory. Not only does the ending vary in the method of Reaper "stoppage" and whether or not Shepherd lives or dies, but also whether or not the Reapers still exist or not, and the future of life itself.

If you destroy the Reapers, all synthetics are destroyed as well, effectively leaving a universe purely of organic life.

Controlling the Reapers will stop the cycle as well, but the Reapers still exist. Organics and synthetics coexist together in the universe.

Synthesis absorbs Shepher's energy into the Crucible and sends it across the universe, combining organic DNA with synthetic life, creating a new "evolution" of life.

These are radically different states of existence for the universe and its inhabitants after the cycle has been stopped, and don't at all conclude to the same result. The only definitive similarity of importance in the ending is that the cycle has ended, and the mass relays are destroyed. I don't see how the after effects of this event can rationally be discarded, when clearly things are extremely different. Universe A, B, and C each have drastically different states, and therefore by definition are not of the same result.

I'm not neglecting it - the details are what make the Mass Effect games good.

What I was saying is that while there may be endings that vary in the events that transpire, and the implications of the consequences of said events, in the end, the major state of the universe is the same: Reaper threat neutralized, Mass relays destroyed, Normandy crew inexplicably stranded on mystery planet. While the endings do differ in small ways, with differing long-term implications, they all are essentially the same, as they all result in identical situations.

Unless you think of it this way:

Synthesis: Use Space-Magic to preserve the Reapers in every living organism in the galaxy. Shepard sacrifices himself to do it. Reapers Win.

Control: Shepard sends the reapers away for this cycle. Shepard dies doing so. Reapers come back in the future. Reapers Win.

Destroy: Shepard tells the reapers to go fuck themselves, blows them up, supposedly dies. Shepard then wakes up on Earth, inexplicably. Reaper victory unknown, because Shepard waking up on Earth suggests that all events past Shepard leaving Earth did not actually happen.

Also:

How would Synthesis even work? ME is a franchise that tends to fall on the Science end of the Science Fiction spectrum. You can't just re-write an organism's entire DNA code, and even if you could, it wouldn't make them part synthetic. Synthesis is complete bullshit, and in no way would ever work in the real world.

How would Control work? This one makes the most sense, but still - why would a Master Remote Control Panel for the Reapers electrocute the user? Didn't Humans design this thing? Or at least build it? Someone would be bound to notice this particular (major) design flaw, and fix it.

How would Destroy work? How exactly does shooting a conduit until it explodes cause every reaper in the Galaxy to suddenly die? Reapers existed before this thing was built - it's not like they require this particular conduit to exist in order to survive.

.

Refute these points. Please. I want to know how any of the endings work. If you buy the ending at face value, I want to know how you can explain how any of the choices you make in the end would possibly work. I want to know how you justify it.

@Scofthe7seas:

I knew that you weren't a fan, that's why I brought it up.

Doesn't change the fact that it's the only explanation that makes any sense. :D

There is a ton of stuff going on throughout the game that suggests that this was the route they were going for originally, before the ending got cut for time or whatever happened. I believe that it's what they'll go with, but I'm not going to be pissed if they come up with something else. You should keep an open mind - just because you don't understand how it would work, doesn't mean it's not how it's going to.

@BestUsernameEver said:

@Potts said:

@BestUsernameEver said:

@TurboMan said:

All about the subscription fee, and also Steam puts way more games on sale, current ones too, the newest (AAA) game ps plus game for free is infamous 2, steam has some deeply discounted games that are basically brand new. Sony and ms have a lot to learn from valve.

Ratchet & Clank All 4 One came out later than infamous 2, as did Space Marine.

I agree on the Valve bit though.

You're right, but I love the fact that they included all 4 one in the deal, we all know it should be free.

I've actually really been wanting to play All 4 One, it's a game I can play with my wife & have some fun with.

Lol, really. I use the crappy headset that came with my launch 360, works just fine for me. It plugs into the wireless controller, therefore, it's wireless! (Kind of.)

@CornBREDX said:

@oulzac: Live gets you a more stable network service. That's really it- you're paying for bandwidth costs (too much). Everyone complains about it, but they get it anyway because you have too. If you don't you don't have access to a majority of the features games come with (multiplayer mainly).

I'm not saying you're wrong that Microsoft's model is shitty, but it's no different then PS+. I guess the only difference is PS+ gives you old games to play for free. If you want to prove to yourself its worth it, that's totally logical. It's not for me, but I cant deny your logic there.

I don't know that I buy that anymore. Bandwidth is expensive, especially as much as Xbox uses, but a lot of that is paid for by publishers like EA and Activision, who run the servers that their games are played on.

If Sony can afford to run a successful online service without mandating that their users pay for it, I fail to see why MS can't. XBox Live costs what it does because MS can hold their multiplayer games behind a paywall, and people will line up to pay to play them. You may not be saying MS's model is shitty, but I sure as hell am. And it is different from PS+ in that PS+ IS NOT REQUIRED TO PLAY MULTIPLAYER GAMES. It is a value add, not a requirement, and there's no service on PS3 that requires it that is otherwise unavailable. (I don't count early access to betas as a service, btw. I'm talking about Netflix.)

Also, I kind of prefer multiplayer without headsets - when I play PS3 games online, I don't have to deal with idiots & immature kids calling me various racial slurs.

@BestUsernameEver said:

@TurboMan said:

All about the subscription fee, and also Steam puts way more games on sale, current ones too, the newest (AAA) game ps plus game for free is infamous 2, steam has some deeply discounted games that are basically brand new. Sony and ms have a lot to learn from valve.

Ratchet & Clank All 4 One came out later than infamous 2, as did Space Marine.

I agree on the Valve bit though.

Yeah, Live doesn't "give" you much of anything, and it costs more, and it's required to play online. PS+ is a better deal. I have it because I want it, and I feel it's worth the price, considering the value of software I get at no additional cost. (I didn't say free, happy?) Truthfully, I only have Xbox Live because of Mass Effect 3's multiplayer. After I'm done playing that, I'm ditching Live. I have lived without it all this time, and so far Microsoft hasn't added anything to convince me that I need to have it.

The funny thing is, if Microsoft gave all of it's Live subscribers 12 free games, nobody would be saying it's a bad deal. Why is it a bad deal to get 12 free games with PS+?