QuistisTrepe

Not trying to bust balls or anything, I just think that Fatal Frame II is unappreciated. 2003, damn I forgot how long ago it was. Now that I think on it, perhaps FFIII might have been mediocre (I never played it) which may be why FFIV never made it out of Japan, so there's more on the bad 3's topic I suppose.

I'm not trying to be a that guy or fanboyish here, but believe me when I say that it really shouldn't require much for Microsoft to outshine Sony. If Microsoft can just have some definite answers on services and console functionality rather than merely blurting out console specs that the general public will not comprehend, they should sell it quite well.

I'm struggling to figure out what the point of Sony's presentation was exactly. The only things that appear settled with the PS4 is that we know it's coming out this year and that hardware specs are finalized. All that I can glean from Sony's responses to follow up questions are , "well we aren't sure, but that would be nice/we hope so."

Isn't this standard industry practice?

Taking an extremely niche title like that isn't a very good example. And FFII was actually an excellent game. So much so that FFIII saw a NA release.

As far as bad 3's, I don't know that Halo 3 qualifies since Halo 2 was pretty awful. Halo 3 while still not a very good game, did restore the series to mediocrity IMO. I would agree with Persona 3 being an example of a great third game.

It doesn't matter. As we've learned from this console gen, more power doesn't mean a better console, even higher quality hardware didn't matter. Secondly yes, it still is all about the games. For all of Sony's cell power hype, the console ports have been a nonstop punchline.

Actually, I don't recall anyone saying that about either device. The 3DS did in fact stumble out of the gate and only became successful after a price drop. The Wii was made for a broad audience, it was so simple to use and made for family fun. Unfortunately, Nintendo's competitors have copied that concept and are now doing a far better job with it in addition to the robust media and graphical capabilities that those respective consoles offer.

The technical gap doesn't matter and hasn't ever mattered in the history of console gaming, so I'll give Nintendo that much. The past two console generations are proof alone that a manufacturer doesn't need the best specs to win a console race. The WiiU is another matter entirely. 55,000 sales cannot be spun any other way, this is looking more and more like a huge bomb for Ninty. For crying out loud, just look at the game transfer debacle. This is the Dreamcast all over again except worse. So far, it looks like gamers are fine with ignoring the appetizer while they wait for the main courses in the form of the PS4 and XBOX whatever just as they ignored the Dreamcast while they awaited the PS2 and GC.

Nintendo has recovered from bombs before, but the WiiU is an out and out disaster. It's just so poorly conceived. I get the direction they were trying to go, the problem is that they tried to go in every direction at once.

I gave Iwata all the credit in the world for his marketing genius with the Wii, but I'm struggling to understand how anyone thought the WiiU would be a winning concept. Don't compare this to the Dreamcast, this is even worse than that.

This, this, and more of this. Valkyrie Profile's skill and timing based attacks kept you engaged, Star Ocean before it had the addition of another dimension to that concept with battlefield movement that would go on to be copied almost entirely by the Tales series. Nocturne's press turns system was really good, if you didn't pay attention to what you were doing, you could have died really quick in even the most routine battles.

As maligned as FFX-2's girl power atmosphere was, the game probably maxed out the potential of the classic ATB scheme. The uptempo pace was quite welcome.

While this may come off as trolling, I can genuinely say that I just don't comprehend what the problem was with the ending. Except for one tiny little cop out at the last part of the "good" ending, I thought it was great. The game was all about choices and that's what was awaiting players at the end, choice.

As far as the gameplay, there were legit gripes about all three games. The first were the Mako missions and all the look alike corridors, in ME2 it was the monotonous planet scanning, and in the third game it was five minute mini missions and some annoying glitches.

The writing seemed fine to me, by gaming standards. No more or less melodramatic than any other RPG I've played. ME2 is probably still the better overall game in the series, but ME3 was always going to have its detractors, the majority of those who were complaining merely for the sake of it, IMO.

To the OP, the last paragon choice in the game being greyed out even for players with a maxed out rep meter was likely a glitch that could be corrected with a save editor.

People may talk a big game about innovation, but those who speak the most of it don't really understand what it is, IMO (hint: not the Nintendo Wii).

Does each new game release really need to reinvent the wheel? I'm all for consumers demanding more for their money, but that sort of mindset isn't reasonable at all. There is something to be said for continuity and the lack of it can almost be a game breaker (see: DMC 2 while we're on the subject of DMC).

I don't believe innovation is really to be found in any long running game franchises nor is it supposed to be. That would defeat the purpose of a long running series that caters strongly to its fans in most cases aside from those that were in dire need of a reboot. (ex. Resident Evil, Tomb Raider come to mind)

Innovation in the gaming industry, such as it is, can be found in the most overlooked titles. Even a game with such a simple concept like Catherine could make an argument for being innovative. An infidelity themed puzzle game? I don't think I had seen that before.