Submit |
Contests |
Top Rated |
Reviews |
Previews |
Guides |
Cheats |
Screens |
Scores |
Videos |
News |
Forums |
Blogs |
Register |
Login |
Users |
Staff |
Links |
Meta
Arcade ::
Dreamcast ::
DS ::
GameCube ::
iPhone/iPod ::
Macintosh ::
PC ::
PlayStation 2 ::
PlayStation 3 ::
PSP ::
Wii ::
Xbox ::
Xbox 360 ::
Retro & Import
Earn prizes and eliminate ads just by contributing content on your FREE user account. Click for details or register today!
|
|
Forums > Recent Posts
Below, you can see the 50 most recent posts in the forums, starting with the most recent post first and working backwards. Signatures, avatars and other related information have been stripped so that the page will load quickly. Each post contains a link to the thread where it was posted so you can click to see it in its original context.
Posted by zippdementia on March 19, 2010 at 10:52 AM:
I had no trouble with Myst.
Riven, on the other hand....
I had no trouble with Myst.
Riven, on the other hand....
Posted by zigfried on March 19, 2010 at 09:27 AM:
My disdain for the game has nothing to do with being defeated. I didn't like Myst because it was brown. It didn't have the scrolling of a dungeoncrawler. There were no monster encounters. No interesting people to talk to. It's a very dull game that could only be redeemed by being an altogether different game.
//Zig
My disdain for the game has nothing to do with being defeated. I didn't like Myst because it was brown. It didn't have the scrolling of a dungeoncrawler. There were no monster encounters. No interesting people to talk to. It's a very dull game that could only be redeemed by being an altogether different game.
//Zig
Posted by zigfried on March 19, 2010 at 09:18 AM:
I didn't encounter any glitches... originally, I expected to compliment the game for not being glitchy like part 2 was. But I've seen people on other boards also complain about occasional glitches, so I decided to just say nothing about it at all.
//Zig
I didn't encounter any glitches... originally, I expected to compliment the game for not being glitchy like part 2 was. But I've seen people on other boards also complain about occasional glitches, so I decided to just say nothing about it at all.
//Zig
Posted by Suskie on March 19, 2010 at 07:14 AM:
I'm gonna have to agree. I don't remember if I ever finished this game, but I did wind up using a guide extensively. Thing is, if a puzzle-oriented game is genuinely well designed, it makes me feel guilty for not having solved its riddles on my own after I've looked up the answers. Myst never gave me that. There were no "Oh, of course that's what I was supposed to do!" moments. Like Lewis said, all the game does is drop you in front of a bunch of levers and dials that make noises when you click on them.
I played Myst when I was much younger (it came free with my family's PC in, what, 1997?) and I think it's the primary reason I hate adventure games to this day. Though it's reassuring to see that plenty of the people who typically love this sort of thing acknowledge that Myst is crap.
On a side note, my mother likes this game.
I'm gonna have to agree. I don't remember if I ever finished this game, but I did wind up using a guide extensively. Thing is, if a puzzle-oriented game is genuinely well designed, it makes me feel guilty for not having solved its riddles on my own after I've looked up the answers. Myst never gave me that. There were no "Oh, of course that's what I was supposed to do!" moments. Like Lewis said, all the game does is drop you in front of a bunch of levers and dials that make noises when you click on them.
I played Myst when I was much younger (it came free with my family's PC in, what, 1997?) and I think it's the primary reason I hate adventure games to this day. Though it's reassuring to see that plenty of the people who typically love this sort of thing acknowledge that Myst is crap.
On a side note, my mother likes this game.
Posted by Lewis on March 19, 2010 at 06:43 AM:
It's easy to say the game is stupid and hateful, and not just that it defeated you, because its puzzle logic is so hopelessly ridiculous. A good adventure game gives you a clear goal, with the puzzle being in how you achieve that goal. Myst didn't give you goals. It just gave you levers and buttons, and no feedback as to what they were actually for until eventually you worked it out by mistake and the next bit of the story explained why you had to do that in the first place. Rubbish, unfair, backwards design.
It's easy to say the game is stupid and hateful, and not just that it defeated you, because its puzzle logic is so hopelessly ridiculous. A good adventure game gives you a clear goal, with the puzzle being in how you achieve that goal. Myst didn't give you goals. It just gave you levers and buttons, and no feedback as to what they were actually for until eventually you worked it out by mistake and the next bit of the story explained why you had to do that in the first place. Rubbish, unfair, backwards design.
Posted by jerec on March 19, 2010 at 04:42 AM:
Myst was a really humbling experience. Dad got it for his computer back in the day. I was young then, and not that much of a gamer yet, so I'd just wander around the island tinkering with things, never making any progress. Dad never made much progress either until he came home with a walkthrough he'd printed off the internet. He finished it then never went back.
I tried the game about 7 or 8 years ago, when I was a full-fledged gamer, thinking I could get through it without any walkthrough. But I didn't. Couldn't.
I think that's why people hate Myst. It's easier to hate it and call it a stupid game than just admit it DEFEATED you. I think if it was the only game you owned and you had all the time in the world, you'd be able to beat it. But back then I had Sim City 2000 and a bunch of other games that gave me instant gratification.
I keep thinking one day I'll play Myst, and solve it. But I know I never will.
Myst was a really humbling experience. Dad got it for his computer back in the day. I was young then, and not that much of a gamer yet, so I'd just wander around the island tinkering with things, never making any progress. Dad never made much progress either until he came home with a walkthrough he'd printed off the internet. He finished it then never went back.
I tried the game about 7 or 8 years ago, when I was a full-fledged gamer, thinking I could get through it without any walkthrough. But I didn't. Couldn't.
I think that's why people hate Myst. It's easier to hate it and call it a stupid game than just admit it DEFEATED you. I think if it was the only game you owned and you had all the time in the world, you'd be able to beat it. But back then I had Sim City 2000 and a bunch of other games that gave me instant gratification.
I keep thinking one day I'll play Myst, and solve it. But I know I never will.
Posted by zippdementia on March 19, 2010 at 12:33 AM:
There's a fair amount of glitches in the game, I'm finding. Twice I've had to restart a checkpoint because either Kratos got stuck or an enemy he needed to kill got stuck somewhere unreachable.
And I just had to hard reset my PS3 when the game froze during a death sequence.
There's a fair amount of glitches in the game, I'm finding. Twice I've had to restart a checkpoint because either Kratos got stuck or an enemy he needed to kill got stuck somewhere unreachable.
And I just had to hard reset my PS3 when the game froze during a death sequence.
Posted by zigfried on March 18, 2010 at 11:07 PM:
You can read my review when you're ready for the answer to that.
//Zig
You can read my review when you're ready for the answer to that.
//Zig
Posted by LowerStreetBlues on March 18, 2010 at 09:42 PM:
Is Windows '94 a clever jab or poor memory?
Is Windows '94 a clever jab or poor memory?
Posted by zigfried on March 18, 2010 at 08:28 PM:
The jumping felt off at first, but I got used to it and I'm sure you will too.
I've finished, so I can't really give impressions as I go... but the opening bits definitely made a good impression.
//Zig
The jumping felt off at first, but I got used to it and I'm sure you will too.
I've finished, so I can't really give impressions as I go... but the opening bits definitely made a good impression.
//Zig
Posted by zippdementia on March 18, 2010 at 07:47 PM:
I really liked the FFXIII thread, where those playing the game kept track of their impressions. Same thing here, for God of War III.
Quick note on spoilers... while it's probably healthy to say that there will be spoilers of some sort here, let's please keep plot information to a minimum, or put heavy spoiler warnings there if you are going to post about it, thanks!
My first impressions are mostly good. Okay, mostly excellent. The game is fun, the events are brutal, and once again GOW proves that there is nothing like Greek mythology to present a well rounded cast of personalities and monsters.
Two things I have to ask other people who are playing this, though..
... has anyone noticed the jumping being kind've wonky? I'm on hard and I've died more times from simply not being able to activate the double jump or Icarus wings.
... Zeus's lightning looks like it was made in MS Paint, right?
I really liked the FFXIII thread, where those playing the game kept track of their impressions. Same thing here, for God of War III.
Quick note on spoilers... while it's probably healthy to say that there will be spoilers of some sort here, let's please keep plot information to a minimum, or put heavy spoiler warnings there if you are going to post about it, thanks!
My first impressions are mostly good. Okay, mostly excellent. The game is fun, the events are brutal, and once again GOW proves that there is nothing like Greek mythology to present a well rounded cast of personalities and monsters.
Two things I have to ask other people who are playing this, though..
... has anyone noticed the jumping being kind've wonky? I'm on hard and I've died more times from simply not being able to activate the double jump or Icarus wings.
... Zeus's lightning looks like it was made in MS Paint, right?
Posted by randxian on March 18, 2010 at 05:51 PM:
but that's not an excuse to award pity points
Agreed. I certainly never intended to insinuate such. If a game is good, then it should get praise. If it's garbage, then it's garbage. If it's mediocre, then it's mediocre.
I'm just advocating that we give games their due, that's all.
but that's not an excuse to award pity points
Agreed. I certainly never intended to insinuate such. If a game is good, then it should get praise. If it's garbage, then it's garbage. If it's mediocre, then it's mediocre.
I'm just advocating that we give games their due, that's all.
Posted by zigfried on March 18, 2010 at 05:10 PM:
In other words, it's fair for people 10 years from now to rip on today's hits if they aren't having fun.
//Zig
In other words, it's fair for people 10 years from now to rip on today's hits if they aren't having fun.
//Zig
Posted by honestgamer on March 18, 2010 at 04:51 PM:
Yeah, the original LoZ probably wasn't the best example since that game is brilliant all around. I agree with the general point that you're trying to make, though. Old games should be fun to play now because they offer something that transcends technical limitations. That should be the goal of every game made, ever. It should be the goal of games made right now and in 10 years, the stuff we find amazing now should still hold up to scrutiny.
Yeah, the original LoZ probably wasn't the best example since that game is brilliant all around. I agree with the general point that you're trying to make, though. Old games should be fun to play now because they offer something that transcends technical limitations. That should be the goal of every game made, ever. It should be the goal of games made right now and in 10 years, the stuff we find amazing now should still hold up to scrutiny.
Posted by randxian on March 18, 2010 at 04:37 PM:
what point is there in playing the original? Is it really a classic?
Because although newer versions are similar, there will always be subtle nuances that make each game in a series unique. Sure, LttP and OOT are basically the same thing as the original in terms of plot, but LoZ has a spookier and more lonely feel. Tell me another game that didn't literally scare people a bit with that fantastic dungeon piece. I've talked to people that admitted the music used to scare the shit out of them. Hell, it's still one of the more well known pieces to date. None of the newer Zeldas ever had that effect on people. Have you met anyone who was every the least bit intimdated by anything from OOT?
Having such a psychological effect is pretty gosh darn good for some clunky old fart of a video game. It's the little things that matter.
what point is there in playing the original? Is it really a classic?
Because although newer versions are similar, there will always be subtle nuances that make each game in a series unique. Sure, LttP and OOT are basically the same thing as the original in terms of plot, but LoZ has a spookier and more lonely feel. Tell me another game that didn't literally scare people a bit with that fantastic dungeon piece. I've talked to people that admitted the music used to scare the shit out of them. Hell, it's still one of the more well known pieces to date. None of the newer Zeldas ever had that effect on people. Have you met anyone who was every the least bit intimdated by anything from OOT?
Having such a psychological effect is pretty gosh darn good for some clunky old fart of a video game. It's the little things that matter.
Posted by zigfried on March 17, 2010 at 07:40 PM:
I've often seen the argument made that if rated in comparison to modern games, Zelda and Super Mario Bros and Ys would score poorly. In other words, those people -- supposed fans of the games in question -- are saying:
"The Legend of Zelda sucks now."
or
"Super Mario Bros sucks now."
or
"Ys Book 1&2 sucks now."
Really? They do?
Feeling classic and feeling old are two different things. If a game has been trumped in all ways by newer games (especially newer episodes in the same series), then what point is there in playing the original? Is it really a classic?
In other words, if reviewing a fun retro game, focus on what it did well, not on what it did first. It's fine to be impressed by ingenuity, but that's not an excuse to award pity points. It's hard to gush praise if newer Fire Emblems do the same stuff and more. But if there's something interesting or naively charming about a particular old instalment, then by all means, focus on that!
If nothing grips the reviewer, then it's fair to say that it just feels outdated, clunky, and old. After all... it is.
//Zig
I've often seen the argument made that if rated in comparison to modern games, Zelda and Super Mario Bros and Ys would score poorly. In other words, those people -- supposed fans of the games in question -- are saying:
"The Legend of Zelda sucks now."
or
"Super Mario Bros sucks now."
or
"Ys Book 1&2 sucks now."
Really? They do?
Feeling classic and feeling old are two different things. If a game has been trumped in all ways by newer games (especially newer episodes in the same series), then what point is there in playing the original? Is it really a classic?
In other words, if reviewing a fun retro game, focus on what it did well, not on what it did first. It's fine to be impressed by ingenuity, but that's not an excuse to award pity points. It's hard to gush praise if newer Fire Emblems do the same stuff and more. But if there's something interesting or naively charming about a particular old instalment, then by all means, focus on that!
If nothing grips the reviewer, then it's fair to say that it just feels outdated, clunky, and old. After all... it is.
//Zig
Posted by Suskie on March 17, 2010 at 07:34 PM:
I'm starting to get the feeling that this game wouldn't be getting nearly so much attention (and it's getting a lot of attention) if it didn't have Final Fantasy in its title. Seems like everyone, no matter how much they like it, has some BIG problem with the game that keeps it from being truly representative of the JRPG genre as the series is typically known for being. Zipp was right when he said that there seems to be something missing for everybody. I'm still enjoying the game, but I agree with what's been said: It's missing too much to be a classic.
Still have plenty to work through, though. I can only play this when my roommate isn't playing it, and that's not very often.
I'm starting to get the feeling that this game wouldn't be getting nearly so much attention (and it's getting a lot of attention) if it didn't have Final Fantasy in its title. Seems like everyone, no matter how much they like it, has some BIG problem with the game that keeps it from being truly representative of the JRPG genre as the series is typically known for being. Zipp was right when he said that there seems to be something missing for everybody. I'm still enjoying the game, but I agree with what's been said: It's missing too much to be a classic.
Still have plenty to work through, though. I can only play this when my roommate isn't playing it, and that's not very often.
Posted by aschultz on March 17, 2010 at 07:15 PM:
Thanks very much! Good to see you back, too.
I hadn't really had fun with a review for a while, and I worried about rambling. I figured on the bright side I'd played the game entirely too much, so I knew what I was talking about.
Oh. If you join up soon you'll get to experience the fun that is the special drunken stupors of the next St. Sneaky Pete's Day. That, and the Feast of Boris where you fight Cranberry Golems, didn't make the cut for the review. Lots of neat stuff didn't.
Thanks very much! Good to see you back, too.
I hadn't really had fun with a review for a while, and I worried about rambling. I figured on the bright side I'd played the game entirely too much, so I knew what I was talking about.
Oh. If you join up soon you'll get to experience the fun that is the special drunken stupors of the next St. Sneaky Pete's Day. That, and the Feast of Boris where you fight Cranberry Golems, didn't make the cut for the review. Lots of neat stuff didn't.
Posted by spaceworlder on March 17, 2010 at 07:14 PM:
Confucius say never trust VGchartz. They make numbers up from vague, shakey data.
Confucius say never trust VGchartz. They make numbers up from vague, shakey data.
Posted by spaceworlder on March 17, 2010 at 07:13 PM:
Okay, so I fought this boss who was a sentient flaming carriage. This game is effin' awesome.
Okay, so I fought this boss who was a sentient flaming carriage. This game is effin' awesome.
Posted by overdrive on March 17, 2010 at 07:05 PM:
You know, in a way you're right. It's one of those weird things about reviewing retro games. I think Zipp's Myst review is a perfect counterpoint example of the same thing.
If it's a retro game that you have fond memories of, that will be reflected in your review, score, etc. If I picked up Zelda with the intention of writing a completely fair staff review, it would likely end up very similar to the unabashed praise-fest my user review of it is. I have too many great memories with that game.
But what if it's a game you've never experienced before? All you have then are your initial feelings about it. Or in the case of this game, my feelings of IT compared to those of a more modern Fire Emblem.
To counteract that, I alternated playing Monshou and the first American GBA FE. The simple truth was that I found I much preferred the newer game because of the ways the series had evolved. To me, that justified the score I gave it.
But, yet, back when the game was released, I'm sure it was quite critically acclaimed, so is it fair to review it when I'm not familiar with it...but familiar with a more modern game in the series?
Brings up an interesting dilemma. Is there really any purpose to reviewing those 8/16 bit systems other than personal desire/for the hell of it/fancy contest writing/etc.? The general theme of a retro review tends to be "I used to love/hate this game and here's why it's great/sucked!" or "This game was considered awesome, but BOY! Has it aged badly!"
It's something I've been thinking about for a good while. Over the last couple years, I've probably gone from 35-40 reviews to 25-30 reviews and a big part of that is simply that I do more modern games (which tend to be longer...and cost money, oftentimes) and fewer retro games (shorter on average and easily emulated). A lot of times, if it's a retro game, it's one I'm familiar with or one that I know I'll HATE, so I can put forth a good ol' fashioned bash. And the main reason for that is that I really don't know if it's possible for someone who's kept up with every new gen of systems to truly be fair to the average quality retro game that was the shit back then, but has been outdone big-time by more recent versions.
You know, in a way you're right. It's one of those weird things about reviewing retro games. I think Zipp's Myst review is a perfect counterpoint example of the same thing.
If it's a retro game that you have fond memories of, that will be reflected in your review, score, etc. If I picked up Zelda with the intention of writing a completely fair staff review, it would likely end up very similar to the unabashed praise-fest my user review of it is. I have too many great memories with that game.
But what if it's a game you've never experienced before? All you have then are your initial feelings about it. Or in the case of this game, my feelings of IT compared to those of a more modern Fire Emblem.
To counteract that, I alternated playing Monshou and the first American GBA FE. The simple truth was that I found I much preferred the newer game because of the ways the series had evolved. To me, that justified the score I gave it.
But, yet, back when the game was released, I'm sure it was quite critically acclaimed, so is it fair to review it when I'm not familiar with it...but familiar with a more modern game in the series?
Brings up an interesting dilemma. Is there really any purpose to reviewing those 8/16 bit systems other than personal desire/for the hell of it/fancy contest writing/etc.? The general theme of a retro review tends to be "I used to love/hate this game and here's why it's great/sucked!" or "This game was considered awesome, but BOY! Has it aged badly!"
It's something I've been thinking about for a good while. Over the last couple years, I've probably gone from 35-40 reviews to 25-30 reviews and a big part of that is simply that I do more modern games (which tend to be longer...and cost money, oftentimes) and fewer retro games (shorter on average and easily emulated). A lot of times, if it's a retro game, it's one I'm familiar with or one that I know I'll HATE, so I can put forth a good ol' fashioned bash. And the main reason for that is that I really don't know if it's possible for someone who's kept up with every new gen of systems to truly be fair to the average quality retro game that was the shit back then, but has been outdone big-time by more recent versions.
Posted by genj on March 17, 2010 at 06:11 PM:
There are some sales figures for the game up on vgchartz. FF13 seems to have already hit over a million in international sales its first week with about a little over 1/3rd of units sold being on the 360. Interestingly the combined totals of both versions' US sales seemed to have outperformed FF12's first week by about 110,000 units.
There are some sales figures for the game up on vgchartz. FF13 seems to have already hit over a million in international sales its first week with about a little over 1/3rd of units sold being on the 360. Interestingly the combined totals of both versions' US sales seemed to have outperformed FF12's first week by about 110,000 units.
Posted by CoarseDragon on March 17, 2010 at 03:24 PM:
Wild ARMs3 had world exploration then in Wild ARMs 4 they did away with it but brought it back in Wild ARMs 5. I do wish more games had freedom of exploration.
Wild ARMs3 had world exploration then in Wild ARMs 4 they did away with it but brought it back in Wild ARMs 5. I do wish more games had freedom of exploration.
Posted by overdrive on March 17, 2010 at 02:08 PM:
Zig posted his explanation just before me. Eh, I don't care much about "real" role-playing. I'm a dungeon crawler. Diving into caves for treasure is more interesting than pretend conversation or cyber LARPing. :- /
This is on my lines. When younger, I did a couple of tabletop sessions, but found it slow-paced and dull, primarily because you're part of a group and everything doesn't specifically revolve around you. In a computer/console RPG, you're the one making everything happen. That's more to the tune of what I like. Where I hit buttons and shit dies. Not where I have to get in a 15-minute argument with some goody-two-shoes telling me something about how, as a Paladin, I'm not permitted to burn down a village and kill the peasants living there because Lawful Good characters aren't supposed to purge the world of the unwashed. Yeah? Well no matter how "good" my character's supposed to be in Oblivion, no one stopped me from becoming an assassin for hire, did they?!?
One more thing I wanted to mention concerning RPGs. In addition to how broad and flexible the genre itself has become (as well as the common perception of what a true RPG is), it's also worth noting that RPGs are constantly being mixed and matched with other genres, and that's a relatively exclusive attribute. You almost never see, say, a sports fighter or a sandbox puzzler or anything weird like that, yet we're constantly seeing RPG shooters and strategy RPGs and the like. And we're constantly hearing mention of "RPG elements" in games that otherwise have nothing to do with role-playing. It's one of the most versatile genres, and as I said, trying to define it is becoming increasingly difficult and isn't worth the hassle.
This is a great point. There are a lot of games that aren't labeled "RPG", but have distinct elements of those games. San Andreas, for example, has proficiency meters for driving, shooting, running, etc. where the more you do something, the better you get at it. A game like the console Baldur's Gate games is essentially Gauntlet, but with a heavy dose of RPG tossed in. Hell, a pure FPS like Project: Snowblind even has power-ups that permanently give you more health and ability to use special powers and a pure action game like Batman: Arkham Asylum has an experience system that allows you to unlock more health, upgrade weapons and gain extra skills. The lines between genres have gotten less noticeable.
As for the whole story thing, I'm another player who started with the no-story sort of RPGs like Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy. Right now, after seeing the genre change over the past couple decades, the main thing I'm noticing about RPG stories is that if I'm really noticing them, either the writers really did something right or the game's combat is really lacking in something (or a combination of both). If it's a standard JRPG story (young chap vs. evil empire with evil-er demon/god/whatever at the roots of it all), odds are that I won't find a single thing worth really commenting on. Which won't affect my rating one bit if I had a blast playing the game. And really, even blah games with great storytelling haven't gotten a boost from me because I loved the dialogue. I still gave Shadow Madness (PSX) and Tales of Legendia (PS2) bad to mediocre reviews even though I really dug the dialogue/stories in those games.
I guess it's one of those things where the more retro/old-school you are, the less important things like cinematics/story are in an RPG.
Zig posted his explanation just before me. Eh, I don't care much about "real" role-playing. I'm a dungeon crawler. Diving into caves for treasure is more interesting than pretend conversation or cyber LARPing. :- /
This is on my lines. When younger, I did a couple of tabletop sessions, but found it slow-paced and dull, primarily because you're part of a group and everything doesn't specifically revolve around you. In a computer/console RPG, you're the one making everything happen. That's more to the tune of what I like. Where I hit buttons and shit dies. Not where I have to get in a 15-minute argument with some goody-two-shoes telling me something about how, as a Paladin, I'm not permitted to burn down a village and kill the peasants living there because Lawful Good characters aren't supposed to purge the world of the unwashed. Yeah? Well no matter how "good" my character's supposed to be in Oblivion, no one stopped me from becoming an assassin for hire, did they?!?
One more thing I wanted to mention concerning RPGs. In addition to how broad and flexible the genre itself has become (as well as the common perception of what a true RPG is), it's also worth noting that RPGs are constantly being mixed and matched with other genres, and that's a relatively exclusive attribute. You almost never see, say, a sports fighter or a sandbox puzzler or anything weird like that, yet we're constantly seeing RPG shooters and strategy RPGs and the like. And we're constantly hearing mention of "RPG elements" in games that otherwise have nothing to do with role-playing. It's one of the most versatile genres, and as I said, trying to define it is becoming increasingly difficult and isn't worth the hassle.
This is a great point. There are a lot of games that aren't labeled "RPG", but have distinct elements of those games. San Andreas, for example, has proficiency meters for driving, shooting, running, etc. where the more you do something, the better you get at it. A game like the console Baldur's Gate games is essentially Gauntlet, but with a heavy dose of RPG tossed in. Hell, a pure FPS like Project: Snowblind even has power-ups that permanently give you more health and ability to use special powers and a pure action game like Batman: Arkham Asylum has an experience system that allows you to unlock more health, upgrade weapons and gain extra skills. The lines between genres have gotten less noticeable.
As for the whole story thing, I'm another player who started with the no-story sort of RPGs like Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy. Right now, after seeing the genre change over the past couple decades, the main thing I'm noticing about RPG stories is that if I'm really noticing them, either the writers really did something right or the game's combat is really lacking in something (or a combination of both). If it's a standard JRPG story (young chap vs. evil empire with evil-er demon/god/whatever at the roots of it all), odds are that I won't find a single thing worth really commenting on. Which won't affect my rating one bit if I had a blast playing the game. And really, even blah games with great storytelling haven't gotten a boost from me because I loved the dialogue. I still gave Shadow Madness (PSX) and Tales of Legendia (PS2) bad to mediocre reviews even though I really dug the dialogue/stories in those games.
I guess it's one of those things where the more retro/old-school you are, the less important things like cinematics/story are in an RPG.
Posted by zippdementia on March 17, 2010 at 10:24 AM:
I'm sorry, Suskie. I guess I just read it wrong. I'll tone down the heavy rainess.
I'm sorry, Suskie. I guess I just read it wrong. I'll tone down the heavy rainess.
Posted by Suskie on March 17, 2010 at 08:33 AM:
Relax, Zipp. All I'm saying is that I'm sick of hearing you talk about the game. I could have been less polite and more drawn-out about it, but I'd hoped to avoid unnecessary nastiness. I guess we're not on the same page there.
Relax, Zipp. All I'm saying is that I'm sick of hearing you talk about the game. I could have been less polite and more drawn-out about it, but I'd hoped to avoid unnecessary nastiness. I guess we're not on the same page there.
Posted by pickhut on March 17, 2010 at 04:19 AM:
I do agree that the last sentence or two of the outro is a little lazy and abrupt. I oddly couldn't find a good way to end the review.
As for the reason for how the review is setup, the intro basically asks the question of how AC2 is going to turn out, then goes into the rest of the review, which weighs the ups and the downs, with the positives outweighing the minor negatives.
Thanks for the feedback and comments on the review.
I do agree that the last sentence or two of the outro is a little lazy and abrupt. I oddly couldn't find a good way to end the review.
As for the reason for how the review is setup, the intro basically asks the question of how AC2 is going to turn out, then goes into the rest of the review, which weighs the ups and the downs, with the positives outweighing the minor negatives.
Thanks for the feedback and comments on the review.
Posted by darketernal on March 17, 2010 at 04:07 AM:
Jrpgs in general in this day miss a good exploratio system. Not something that has to do with getting some good stuff from it, but just exploration. I think the first rpg on PS2 that I remember still having exploration in the best vein of the old PSone and SNES rpgs was Wild Arms 3 and it was awesome. Even though the game itself perhaps was not the best of the series, this alone made it one of my favorite games on the PS2.
PC rpgs sometimes suffer from this as well. I still remember first Baldur's gate. Damn that was epic when you just strolled through the woods killing gnolls and stuff. While BG2 is better in every single way, it still is a pity that there is little to no exploration of the wilderness, it's more urban exploration then one on a global scale.
Jrpgs in general in this day miss a good exploratio system. Not something that has to do with getting some good stuff from it, but just exploration. I think the first rpg on PS2 that I remember still having exploration in the best vein of the old PSone and SNES rpgs was Wild Arms 3 and it was awesome. Even though the game itself perhaps was not the best of the series, this alone made it one of my favorite games on the PS2.
PC rpgs sometimes suffer from this as well. I still remember first Baldur's gate. Damn that was epic when you just strolled through the woods killing gnolls and stuff. While BG2 is better in every single way, it still is a pity that there is little to no exploration of the wilderness, it's more urban exploration then one on a global scale.
Posted by zippdementia on March 16, 2010 at 11:52 PM:
Ha ha ha, I hadn't actually thought about that, Jerec. That's such a bad joke that... well, I kinda like it. It reminds me of that moment in Heavy Rain when... no, just kidding.
Ha ha ha, I hadn't actually thought about that, Jerec. That's such a bad joke that... well, I kinda like it. It reminds me of that moment in Heavy Rain when... no, just kidding.
Posted by jerec on March 16, 2010 at 11:48 PM:
Spoilers for, I dunno. That revelation.
Did anyone notice how Vanille and Fang are voiced by Aussie voice actors? And the characters come from Pulse, the land down under?
I thought it was a nice touch. But even as an Aussie, those accents are way too forced.
Spoilers for, I dunno. That revelation.
Did anyone notice how Vanille and Fang are voiced by Aussie voice actors? And the characters come from Pulse, the land down under?
I thought it was a nice touch. But even as an Aussie, those accents are way too forced.
Posted by zippdementia on March 16, 2010 at 11:42 PM:
Suskie, I haven't said anything about Heavy Rain outside of its influence on me and my way of thinking. Asking me not to mention it is silly. If I was going around constantly saying that other games aren't as good as Heavy Rain and everyone needs to play Heavy Rain and there will never be another game like Heavy Rain, then I could understand your annoyance. But I don't mention it constantly and when I do mention it, it's always on a very personal level.
In summary: I'm not preaching Heavy Rain to anyone. I'm just noting the effect it has had on my gaming experience and I think I have a right to do that. What you've basically said is that you're annoyed by hearing me talk about what's influenced my way of looking at games and that I shouldn't do that anymore. I can't abide by that, I'm sorry.
Also, don't speak for everyone. It's not a nice thing to do. It either assumes that you know what everyone thinks or it implies that you're having secret conversations about me behind my back, which isn't socially acceptable on any level.
Suskie, I haven't said anything about Heavy Rain outside of its influence on me and my way of thinking. Asking me not to mention it is silly. If I was going around constantly saying that other games aren't as good as Heavy Rain and everyone needs to play Heavy Rain and there will never be another game like Heavy Rain, then I could understand your annoyance. But I don't mention it constantly and when I do mention it, it's always on a very personal level.
In summary: I'm not preaching Heavy Rain to anyone. I'm just noting the effect it has had on my gaming experience and I think I have a right to do that. What you've basically said is that you're annoyed by hearing me talk about what's influenced my way of looking at games and that I shouldn't do that anymore. I can't abide by that, I'm sorry.
Also, don't speak for everyone. It's not a nice thing to do. It either assumes that you know what everyone thinks or it implies that you're having secret conversations about me behind my back, which isn't socially acceptable on any level.
Posted by Suskie on March 16, 2010 at 08:13 PM:
First of all, somewhat unrelated note to Zipp. I think I speak for everyone here when I say: Please stop comparing everything to Heavy Rain. Thank you.
One more thing I wanted to mention concerning RPGs. In addition to how broad and flexible the genre itself has become (as well as the common perception of what a true RPG is), it's also worth noting that RPGs are constantly being mixed and matched with other genres, and that's a relatively exclusive attribute. You almost never see, say, a sports fighter or a sandbox puzzler or anything weird like that, yet we're constantly seeing RPG shooters and strategy RPGs and the like. And we're constantly hearing mention of "RPG elements" in games that otherwise have nothing to do with role-playing. It's one of the most versatile genres, and as I said, trying to define it is becoming increasingly difficult and isn't worth the hassle.
Also: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
That is the sound of me discovering that Lightning is voiced by the same actress who did Liara T'Soni.
Bahaha. Well, I will definitely be viewing this character in a different light henceforth.
First of all, somewhat unrelated note to Zipp. I think I speak for everyone here when I say: Please stop comparing everything to Heavy Rain. Thank you.
One more thing I wanted to mention concerning RPGs. In addition to how broad and flexible the genre itself has become (as well as the common perception of what a true RPG is), it's also worth noting that RPGs are constantly being mixed and matched with other genres, and that's a relatively exclusive attribute. You almost never see, say, a sports fighter or a sandbox puzzler or anything weird like that, yet we're constantly seeing RPG shooters and strategy RPGs and the like. And we're constantly hearing mention of "RPG elements" in games that otherwise have nothing to do with role-playing. It's one of the most versatile genres, and as I said, trying to define it is becoming increasingly difficult and isn't worth the hassle.
Also: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
That is the sound of me discovering that Lightning is voiced by the same actress who did Liara T'Soni.
Bahaha. Well, I will definitely be viewing this character in a different light henceforth.
Posted by spaceworlder on March 16, 2010 at 08:06 PM:
Some time before, I decided to buy a slushie but I looked in my pocket and I didn't have enough change. Fortunately, my good friend pointed me to a wonderful bank that specializes in slushie loans. Now I'm freezing my brain and spamming forums. w00t
EDIT:
This makes less sense, now.
Some time before, I decided to buy a slushie but I looked in my pocket and I didn't have enough change. Fortunately, my good friend pointed me to a wonderful bank that specializes in slushie loans. Now I'm freezing my brain and spamming forums. w00t
EDIT:
This makes less sense, now.
Posted by randxian on March 16, 2010 at 07:40 PM:
Sorry about the delay folks. Was out due to various family issues. It's starting to pan out, so I guess I'm back. Since I stated I would likely be out for this ROTW, I figured I would let someone else have first crack at it. The only person who spoke up was WQ, who stated she would only do it if it wasn't done by Thurs or Fri. Well, since no one else is claiming it outright, I'm going to go ahead and post the results.
Before we begin, I'd like to mention that it was very close this week. I felt all four reviews submitted had merits. Unfortunately, I have to rank them, but it was a pretty tight race in my eyes. All four of you deserve an E for effort... or is it an A for effort? Anywho, let's get on with our scheduled program:
Third Place: 2010: The Graphic Action Game by LowerStreetBlues
This reivew starts off with a bang as you openly poke fun at the bizarre and misleading subtitle. You inject enough personality without being overly obtrusive.
It may not be the smoothest written review, but you adequately describe the game and exit gracefully.
What really impresses me the most is your command of the subject matter - both pertaining to the game and how it relates to the novel and movie it's based on. Your intro and voice throughout make it clear to the reader you know exactly what you are talking about. As a result, I come away educated about a video game I didn't think was possible to create, let alone knowing of its existence.
Second Place: Virtua Fighter CG Portrait Series Vol. 4: Pai Chan by Mr_T
I literally laughed my ass off for most of the review. This is about what I would expect the real Mr T to say if he were to review a video game. All the mannerisms are perfect.
I also like how the review subtly pokes fun at the community during the brief stint we had this Virtua Fighter CG Portrait gag.
This would have finished first, but there are a few cases where the humor fell flat or felt a little bit forced. Otherwise, this is a fantastic effort in creative writing.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner: Kingdom of Loathing by aschultz
At first glance, this looks like a long and windy review. However, given this is a rather peculiar and uniqe game, every bit felt necessary.
All the bases are covered, from how standard game play works, equipment and items, why you should donate real money, and even about the replay value. There are plenty of vivid examples of each aspect to clearly explain how everything reall works. The amount of information presented is about perfect - much more would have really made the review too windy, and much less would have left the reader with too many questions.
The real icing on the cake is this review is giving me the itch to try this game at some point. Good job of taking a unique and interesting game and making it sound... well interesting. I'll buy that for a dollar!
Sorry about the delay folks. Was out due to various family issues. It's starting to pan out, so I guess I'm back. Since I stated I would likely be out for this ROTW, I figured I would let someone else have first crack at it. The only person who spoke up was WQ, who stated she would only do it if it wasn't done by Thurs or Fri. Well, since no one else is claiming it outright, I'm going to go ahead and post the results.
Before we begin, I'd like to mention that it was very close this week. I felt all four reviews submitted had merits. Unfortunately, I have to rank them, but it was a pretty tight race in my eyes. All four of you deserve an E for effort... or is it an A for effort? Anywho, let's get on with our scheduled program:
Third Place: 2010: The Graphic Action Game by LowerStreetBlues
This reivew starts off with a bang as you openly poke fun at the bizarre and misleading subtitle. You inject enough personality without being overly obtrusive.
It may not be the smoothest written review, but you adequately describe the game and exit gracefully.
What really impresses me the most is your command of the subject matter - both pertaining to the game and how it relates to the novel and movie it's based on. Your intro and voice throughout make it clear to the reader you know exactly what you are talking about. As a result, I come away educated about a video game I didn't think was possible to create, let alone knowing of its existence.
Second Place: Virtua Fighter CG Portrait Series Vol. 4: Pai Chan by Mr_T
I literally laughed my ass off for most of the review. This is about what I would expect the real Mr T to say if he were to review a video game. All the mannerisms are perfect.
I also like how the review subtly pokes fun at the community during the brief stint we had this Virtua Fighter CG Portrait gag.
This would have finished first, but there are a few cases where the humor fell flat or felt a little bit forced. Otherwise, this is a fantastic effort in creative writing.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner: Kingdom of Loathing by aschultz
At first glance, this looks like a long and windy review. However, given this is a rather peculiar and uniqe game, every bit felt necessary.
All the bases are covered, from how standard game play works, equipment and items, why you should donate real money, and even about the replay value. There are plenty of vivid examples of each aspect to clearly explain how everything reall works. The amount of information presented is about perfect - much more would have really made the review too windy, and much less would have left the reader with too many questions.
The real icing on the cake is this review is giving me the itch to try this game at some point. Good job of taking a unique and interesting game and making it sound... well interesting. I'll buy that for a dollar!
Posted by randxian on March 16, 2010 at 07:30 PM:
There is some good and useful information in this review. Problem is, it's presented in a somewhat clumsy fashion.
While I agree with what you are stating in the intro, it doesn't let the reader know what direction things are heading. After reading the intro. I have no idea if this is going to be a praise review, a bash review, or something in between.
One aspect I like is how you presented a couple of examples to show how certain types of mission are more fun and challenging in this game contrasted to its predecessor.
Also, you don't really wrap things up with the conclusion; you just add some more new information and just suddenly stop.
Overall, it is a good review with some useful information. I feel like I came away well informed about the game. I just think it could be presented a bit crisper.
There is some good and useful information in this review. Problem is, it's presented in a somewhat clumsy fashion.
While I agree with what you are stating in the intro, it doesn't let the reader know what direction things are heading. After reading the intro. I have no idea if this is going to be a praise review, a bash review, or something in between.
One aspect I like is how you presented a couple of examples to show how certain types of mission are more fun and challenging in this game contrasted to its predecessor.
Also, you don't really wrap things up with the conclusion; you just add some more new information and just suddenly stop.
Overall, it is a good review with some useful information. I feel like I came away well informed about the game. I just think it could be presented a bit crisper.
Posted by spaceworlder on March 16, 2010 at 07:25 PM:
Is that article on RPGs a joke or something?
EDIT:
Zig posted his explanation just before me. Eh, I don't care much about "real" role-playing. I'm a dungeon crawler. Diving into caves for treasure is more interesting than pretend conversation or cyber LARPing. :- /
Is that article on RPGs a joke or something?
EDIT:
Zig posted his explanation just before me. Eh, I don't care much about "real" role-playing. I'm a dungeon crawler. Diving into caves for treasure is more interesting than pretend conversation or cyber LARPing. :- /
Posted by zippdementia on March 16, 2010 at 07:12 PM:
Suskie also has an interesting and true point. I tried for years to define what Survival Horror was until I played Heavy Rain and realized that game made me feel more tense and horrified than any Resident Evil.
Now I don't try to define it anymore.
That said, I still appreciate all the conversations we've had on RPGs in the last month. It has changed the way I look at them so that's good, right?
Suskie also has an interesting and true point. I tried for years to define what Survival Horror was until I played Heavy Rain and realized that game made me feel more tense and horrified than any Resident Evil.
Now I don't try to define it anymore.
That said, I still appreciate all the conversations we've had on RPGs in the last month. It has changed the way I look at them so that's good, right?
Posted by zigfried on March 16, 2010 at 07:00 PM:
Here is my poor attempt at a paraphrased summary of that article I linked:
According to the author, we have yet to see a true computer RPG. 1980s Western computer games emulated RPGs in the best way they could with their limited capacity, by focusing on number-crunching, exploration, and combat (instead of interaction and actual roleplay). The Japanese -- who hadn't ever played real roleplaying games -- adored these dungeoncrawlers and spiraled off in their own direction with a misconception of what "RPG" even means.
The article makes an interesting point that the Western RPG is still trying to achieve the interactive "roleplaying" element popularized with tabletop RPGs, whereas the Japanese developers have no such goal since the tabletop RPG wasn't as popular there. That actually ties into Venter's comments about how FF7 changed the world... the Japanese are just repeating what seems popular without any thought for what "roleplaying" really means.
For anyone who cares about such theories, I do suggest reading the whole thing. It's interesting and made a bunch of other points. I was never into tabletop RPGs like the author was -- I grew up on the dungeoncrawlers -- so it was an eye-opener for me to read how a tabletop fan sees the genre.
//Zig
Here is my poor attempt at a paraphrased summary of that article I linked:
According to the author, we have yet to see a true computer RPG. 1980s Western computer games emulated RPGs in the best way they could with their limited capacity, by focusing on number-crunching, exploration, and combat (instead of interaction and actual roleplay). The Japanese -- who hadn't ever played real roleplaying games -- adored these dungeoncrawlers and spiraled off in their own direction with a misconception of what "RPG" even means.
The article makes an interesting point that the Western RPG is still trying to achieve the interactive "roleplaying" element popularized with tabletop RPGs, whereas the Japanese developers have no such goal since the tabletop RPG wasn't as popular there. That actually ties into Venter's comments about how FF7 changed the world... the Japanese are just repeating what seems popular without any thought for what "roleplaying" really means.
For anyone who cares about such theories, I do suggest reading the whole thing. It's interesting and made a bunch of other points. I was never into tabletop RPGs like the author was -- I grew up on the dungeoncrawlers -- so it was an eye-opener for me to read how a tabletop fan sees the genre.
//Zig
Posted by Suskie on March 16, 2010 at 06:32 PM:
Jason, I might suggest that you stop trying to define what an RPG is. It's become such a broad genre that trying to confine it within any sort of perimeter will just inspire a lot of verbal slapfights. Yes, I understand that you once had a clear definition of what an RPG should be, and I have no doubt that Final Fantasy was the absolute standard when it first arrived. But the genre has since been approached from (and influenced by) so many angles that it's a pointless argument at this point. Everyone has their own concept of what the ideal RPG should be, whether for story or exploration or customization or incessant grinding or stupid haircuts or whatever. All your lengthy post wound up telling me was that Zipp's opinion is different from yours, which, y'know, duh.
I mean, when you think about it, how relevant is the Final Fantasy series anymore, anyway? Are developers really stumbling over each other to emulate the series as they once were? Based on what I know about XII and XIII, it seems more like the other way around to me.
Edit: That's a TL;DR for Zig's post, though I assume it contains information relevant to the subject.
Jason, I might suggest that you stop trying to define what an RPG is. It's become such a broad genre that trying to confine it within any sort of perimeter will just inspire a lot of verbal slapfights. Yes, I understand that you once had a clear definition of what an RPG should be, and I have no doubt that Final Fantasy was the absolute standard when it first arrived. But the genre has since been approached from (and influenced by) so many angles that it's a pointless argument at this point. Everyone has their own concept of what the ideal RPG should be, whether for story or exploration or customization or incessant grinding or stupid haircuts or whatever. All your lengthy post wound up telling me was that Zipp's opinion is different from yours, which, y'know, duh.
I mean, when you think about it, how relevant is the Final Fantasy series anymore, anyway? Are developers really stumbling over each other to emulate the series as they once were? Based on what I know about XII and XIII, it seems more like the other way around to me.
Edit: That's a TL;DR for Zig's post, though I assume it contains information relevant to the subject.
Posted by zigfried on March 16, 2010 at 06:20 PM:
Required reading for any discussion of what makes a role-playing game:
clickie
//Zig
Required reading for any discussion of what makes a role-playing game:
clickie
//Zig
Posted by zippdementia on March 16, 2010 at 04:51 PM:
I think what I'm seeing, and the angle I'll approach from in my review, is that everyone likes the battle system but for everyone there's also something missing, whether that be story, exploration, or character development.
I think what I'm seeing, and the angle I'll approach from in my review, is that everyone likes the battle system but for everyone there's also something missing, whether that be story, exploration, or character development.
Posted by randxian on March 16, 2010 at 04:45 PM:
I miss exploration badly in FFXIII
This is exactly what appeals to me the most in RPGs. The story can be missing or garbage as long as you get to trek through interesting and diverse locales, uncover hidden dungeons and legendary treasures, fight bosses that according to the lore of the game world are unbeatable, etc.
I miss exploration badly in FFXIII
This is exactly what appeals to me the most in RPGs. The story can be missing or garbage as long as you get to trek through interesting and diverse locales, uncover hidden dungeons and legendary treasures, fight bosses that according to the lore of the game world are unbeatable, etc.
Posted by CoarseDragon on March 16, 2010 at 03:45 PM:
I am enjoying the game just a bit past chapter 4 but I am most surprised at the characters seeming not to care they are l'cie, at least as far as I can tell.
I also feel no cohesion in the group and that is probably because they keep changing party members. Consequently I find myself not really caring about the characters much.
The battle system is just great and has much depth to it. That I think is the highlight of the game.
I am enjoying the game just a bit past chapter 4 but I am most surprised at the characters seeming not to care they are l'cie, at least as far as I can tell.
I also feel no cohesion in the group and that is probably because they keep changing party members. Consequently I find myself not really caring about the characters much.
The battle system is just great and has much depth to it. That I think is the highlight of the game.
Posted by zippdementia on March 16, 2010 at 02:43 PM:
I never understood why SE had such an emphasis on localizing the voice acting when the Japanese is so much more natural for their scripts. It also delays releases by many months, which is annoying.
But my real problem is with the script itself, anyway, and not so much with the voice acting. I hate Japanese approximations of what black people sound like, anyway, so I'm glad we got to miss that.
Jason, your arguments about what an RPG is have really changed my opinion on the way the genre works, so I thank you for that. I don't find FFXIII's story engaging, but my review will be a much higher score than you might expect from my bitching about the game. I do appreciate what FFXIII has done and, frankly, I hope that they DO continue to use this battle system and develop it in subsequent titles.
But, sadly, I don't doubt you've pegged the progression of things correctly. In any case, we know that Versus will be using the Kingdom Hearts battle system so...
I never understood why SE had such an emphasis on localizing the voice acting when the Japanese is so much more natural for their scripts. It also delays releases by many months, which is annoying.
But my real problem is with the script itself, anyway, and not so much with the voice acting. I hate Japanese approximations of what black people sound like, anyway, so I'm glad we got to miss that.
Jason, your arguments about what an RPG is have really changed my opinion on the way the genre works, so I thank you for that. I don't find FFXIII's story engaging, but my review will be a much higher score than you might expect from my bitching about the game. I do appreciate what FFXIII has done and, frankly, I hope that they DO continue to use this battle system and develop it in subsequent titles.
But, sadly, I don't doubt you've pegged the progression of things correctly. In any case, we know that Versus will be using the Kingdom Hearts battle system so...
When posting, please keep the forum guidelines in mind at all times. Disruptive posts will not be tolerated. Let's all try to have a good time and keep things civil.
| HG 2010 Fundraising Progress: $233 / $3000 (8%) |
Gaming News & Press Releases RSS twitter
+ Din's Curse demo arrives for Mac and PC
+ Grand Theft Auto: Episodes From Liberty City release on PlayStation 3 delayed by two weeks
+ Wipeout: The Game coming to Wii and DS this summer
+ New Trauma Team walkthrough highlights Diagnosis
+ Kick away clingy nerds in Hottie Hookups Lite, free for iPhone and iPod Touch
+ Battlefield: Bad Company 2 enjoying a stellar month
+ Robin Hood: The Return of Richard coming to iPod Touch and iPhone next week
+ New Nintendo DSi XL makes portable games more social with extra-large screens
+ Show attendees treated to first look at Comic Jumper
+ Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep coming to North America
+ Grand Theft Auto: Episodes From Liberty City release on PlayStation 3 delayed by two weeks
+ Wipeout: The Game coming to Wii and DS this summer
+ New Trauma Team walkthrough highlights Diagnosis
+ Kick away clingy nerds in Hottie Hookups Lite, free for iPhone and iPod Touch
+ Battlefield: Bad Company 2 enjoying a stellar month
+ Robin Hood: The Return of Richard coming to iPod Touch and iPhone next week
+ New Nintendo DSi XL makes portable games more social with extra-large screens
+ Show attendees treated to first look at Comic Jumper
+ Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep coming to North America
Staff Game Reviews RSS
+ God of War III
+ Tales of Monkey Island: Chapter 5 - Rise of the Pirate God
+ Valhalla Knights: Eldar Saga
+ The Legend of Vraz
+ Data East Arcade Classics
+ Sonic & SEGA All-Stars Racing
+ Metal Slug XX
+ Enemy Zero
Featured User Reviews [+]
+ Kingdom of Loathing
+ Final Fantasy V
+ Hook Champ
+ BioShock 2
Exclusive User Reviews [+]
+ Myst
+ Ultima
+ 2010
+ Virtua Fighter CG Portrait Series Vol. 4: Pai Chan
|
© 1998-2010 HonestGamers None of the material contained within this site--from reviews, guides, cheats, fiction, and editorials to message board posts--may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Games, characters, scenarios and other material are the intellectual property of their publishers and developers. This site makes no claim to any such content, express or implied. No opinions expressed in any review, guide, cheat, fanfic, or editorial necessarily represent the opinion of the staff or any site sponsors. |
|
