planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:09 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:25 pm
Posts: 183
Nephilist wrote:
It's by far the glitchiest game I've ever played but have thoroughly enjoyed it.


I thought it was being hard done by with the glitch comments at first but I've started new players a few times due to things not working - it's a massive game with a lot going on and it doesn't glitch often but when it does, it really does spoil things - I've got a player now at level 50 with a quest log full of quests I cannot finish.

After doing research on-line, the majority of the quests have borked because of a sequence of events such as talking to a character at the wrong time - how was I to know it was the wrong time? I wasn't - but it caused the quest to break.

However, as soon as the patch hits the 360 I am going to do it all over again - the game is simply that good. It is so close to being perfect in fact.

Edit: Typo

_________________
Forza Ferrari


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 2038
Project CARS just keeps looking better and better 8O

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4156
So, for those of us not watching news or using the BBC website as a respectable way to gherkin away the work hours, Game went into administration yesterday. I think most of us saw this coming after Mass Effect 3, which was followed by numerous other publishers and Sony/MS/Nintendo calling time out on them.

All pre-order downpayments are gone. If you had one, you are now a creditor. And you'll be bottom of the barrel in line.
You can't spend reward points, but you can trade in to get them! Anyone stupid enough to do this? I doubt the buyers will honour these anyway, assuming it gets bought.

About half of their stores shut yesterday. Around 300 of their just over 600. I feel sorry for the staff but the company was managed poorly. More shockingly, the UK and Spain wings actually did make money?!?!! It was a couple of other countries versions that didn't. It shocks me that GAME actually made money. They are stupidly expensive, and while the days used to be that GAME was a big name that stocked games the kids wanted that mothers would go to, Amazon is amongst online places easier to buy from. You can go to Tesco these days for video games. Why spent the reasonable difference (£37.99 for a new release in my local independent store vs £42.99 in Game - around 15% difference). For trade ins they were decent, so I can see that section making money (and from what I hear this is where a large proportion of the money comes from). That said, HMV and Tesco both also now do trades, so perhaps GAME/station were still not great comparitively.

Anyway, I don't want Game to go bust. I use their online services a lot (Gamestation more than GAME). But the company was bloated and prices were over the odds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 8:37 am
Posts: 568
It is a real shame to see Game in trouble.

Unfortunately, times move on. I stopped buying games from places like Game and HMV the moment I could download the same (legally) from services like Steam. Games I couldn't get from places like Steam (few and far between now, and mainly just console games for my PS3) were generally cheaper from massive on-line retailers like Amazon.

Personally, I never purchase games from supermarkets ... I know millions do though, and I suspect this played a major part in Games downfall too. All the big releases are hi-jacked now by the likes of Tesco and Asda, as a way to get you into their stores. Quite a destructive way to drum up more custom, IMHO.

Game didn't see the writing on the wall. They should have scaled down significantly, years ago, and pushed the on-line store (and digital download market) with the recognisable brand they had. Every high street has one (or even two) Game stores ...

Apart from everything else, this will leave a gaping hole in most of Britain's High Streets and will add to the ever increasing youth unemployment :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:46 pm
Posts: 507
Location: Kashyyyk
totem wrote:
Well this development is already well underway with day 1 DLC, microtransactions, and so on. Most video games aren't works of art anymore, they're services that can be bought piecemeal. Gamers have learnt just how much artistic integrity means for the likes of BioWare and act accordingly. Slippery slope? Some firms are already at the bottom of it, some, like CD Projekt RED with their free DLC, don't know what slope you're talking about. Sure it's sad to see BioWare do it, but I'm not surprised.

I've actually decided to buy the GOTY edition of ME3. That'll show em... :nod:


CD Projekt? I know that company, they're from my town :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 8:37 am
Posts: 568
Do we have any "Star Wars: The Old Republic" (SWTOR) players on this forum?

I am enjoying the game immensely, although its not without its problems.

I had to re-roll on another server, after already reaching max level on one character, but on a dead server. It is a good game, and I think Blizzard will have to pull out all the stops during the development of Mists of Pandaria expansion (WOW: MoP). Having experienced the levelling process in SWTOR now, twice, it is a far more interesting levelling experience, and I am dreading levelling a character in WOW: MoP if it is similar to all other WOW releases/expansions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7707
I avoid MMORPG.

Only games I play are TF2 and elastomania.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4156
I like the idea of MMORPG but I always thing it seems like an excuse to charge for the game then charge a not small amount for further play. I bought the game, I should be able to play for free. Or I should be able to get the game for free and pay for my play.

Only thing close to MMORPG I played was Phantasy Star Online Ep. 1 & 2 on the Gamecube. The other thing that puts me off MMORPG is how hooked I get. I spent about 4000 hours playing PSO, including 2 level 200s, and another 2 in the 190s. I have a total of 8 characters above Level 160. And this is a game that really ups the EXP to level when you level up. (Halfway point in terms of EXP comes at Level 182 iirc, with 200 being maximum). I had a lot of fun doing it, and a few members of the community that I still keep in contact with online. But I spent almost half a year of solid playtime on it. That is just stupid. Even over the 7 or so years I played it, that is time I wish I had put into something else. MMORPGs are the devil to me, so damn good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:21 pm
Posts: 360
To echo sentiments about GAME going out of business, sad but hardly a surprise.
They were nowhere near competitive and even their sale prices often did not match up to Amazon's normal prices. I'll be sadder to see the Gamestation brand go. They at least did fairly well on the second hand side of things.

I read on Gamespot that they had an annual turnover of £1.6 billion. They weren't exactly struggling for business despite their uncompetitiveness. Some real mismanagement going on there somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 8:37 am
Posts: 568
Megamoss wrote:
To echo sentiments about GAME going out of business, sad but hardly a surprise.
They were nowhere near competitive and even their sale prices often did not match up to Amazon's normal prices. I'll be sadder to see the Gamestation brand go. They at least did fairly well on the second hand side of things.

I read on Gamespot that they had an annual turnover of £1.6 billion. They weren't exactly struggling for business despite their uncompetitiveness. Some real mismanagement going on there somewhere.


I hate to break it to you, but gamestation is part of the Game group, and is also in administration therefore. Check out the website :(

Unless you already knew that and this was your point. I cannot tell ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
I have completed Mass Effect 3 and while I have a whole list of criticisms of it the ending is not one of them. While I can accept some people might not like it, I don't understand what it so controversial about it, it's not like the ending to Lost where the producers backtracked on a lot of what they had said and left a million unanswered questions.

My biggest complaint with the game is the artistic style getting in the way of its usefulness. With the radar only visible when you go into the powerups menu it means you have to keep track of the enemies with your eyes in combat and the majority of the times I got killed was simply because I hadn't been able to see or distinguish enemies. Now, this would almost be bearable if it was not for the fact the scenery was also difficult to see at times and I would find myself running into what I thought was empty space to get away from a boss only to find myself cornered in a load of black crates in the shadow of a shuttle or something. Given that Mass Effect 3 does not have a particularly advanced movement system (it's on a par with the first Gears of War game, which is now over 5 years old) it makes it even more vitally important that you can see what bits of ground you can walk on or jump over and what is an invisible wall.

My second annoyance refers to the sense of scale. Now, given this is a game about the whole galaxy being at war, in every single corner of the quadrant it becomes quite comical when you land on a planet get sent on a assignment to track down some general lost in the battle field and when you leave base camp he is less than 100 metres around the corner. This is ultimately a consequence of scrapping the vehicle sections... but just because the Mass Effect 1 vehicle sections suffered from terrible handling physics doesn't mean they were bad, it just meant they needed much more refinement. Look at the leap that was made from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2 and then again to Mass Effect 3 with the combat mechanics - if the same leap had been made with the vehicle mechanics then the vehicle sections would have been brilliant and not - as Yahtzee described it in his ME1 review - piloting a shopping trolley on a bouncy castle.

My third issue comes with the flow of the game. Mass Effect 3 truly has been reduced to the Gears of War "Exposition cutscene - SHOOT SHOOT KILL KILL SHOOT SHOOT KILL KILL - super awesome ending cutscene" + REPEAT. Obviously there are times where you might have to make a choice, but these happen during dialogue cutscenes. So really it is Gears of War combat with powerups and interactive movie cutscenes. If the vehicle sections were still in the game then maybe this would not be so bad, but it is also a consequence of the fact that the levels have become linear. The first game had you visit worlds where there were multiple missions - now the only place where there is this type of interaction is on the Citadel and there aren't any missions that occur while you are engaged it in it.

On to the ending (in spoilers obviously)

click to view: show
The ending makes sense to the series; it may not answer where the Reapers came from (well it does, but it doesn't answer where the Catalyst came from) ultimately that's not really that important given that they had been engaged in this cycle for millions of years and had existed long before humanity or the Protheans did. What is does answer is why they are doing what they are doing - and this had been alluded to since the first game when Shephard spoke to Sovereign on Virmire. I have heard some people say that the ending came out of no where - I don't agree with that, it is consistent with the themes that the game had set up, cycles of the destruction seen with the Krogan/Genophage and Quarians/Geth.

Another complaint I had seen is that people don't like the fact that your actions have no impact on the ending. For a start, that is not true, depending on how well you play the game depends on whether you get 1, 2 or 3 choices at the end - so your actions do have an impact. It's simple chaos theory, big actions make big change, small actions make small change, but a small change can be enough to tip a big change one way or the other. For example, whether or not Grunt survives his mission against the Racchni isn't a critical component in what ending you get, but it does have some bearing on the effective military strength which decides how many ending options you get. Ultimately - the military strength is the big decision, and the little decisions contribute to them. Where you decisions make a big impact are in how the galaxy is shaped rather than the outcome. The outcome was inevitable - that was never in doubt - but how you got there was different for each player (well, apart from the hordes of aliens you had to shoot in rooms full of chest high walls)

Similar to that, I have heard people complain there weren't multiple endings to choose from - well there were, there were three different possible choices you could make, but they only presented themselves depending on how well you played the game. Compare this to other RPGs that just give you 3 or 4 endings to choose from that always present themselves I think Mass Effect 3 did quite a good job on this front.

My biggest complaint with the game's story, and this applies to all three games (and also to Skyrim, so I guess is common to RPGs) is that you get given this "universe is about to die" threat but can then spend time going looking for someone's lost packed lunch. While Mass Effect 3 handled this the best, in that you were spending time amassing an army so it was a trade off between "having a bigger army" versus "Earth is being pounded for longer" ultimately the length of time you spent preparing for the final assault made no difference on how bad the situation was on Earth.

The other plot logic hole point would concern the actions of the Reapers. Now, I know that they were harvesting human specimens to preserve them, but given the resistance they had and the fact they didn't seem too bothered with mowing soliders and civilians down, it makes no sense why they didn't just flatten the planet from orbit and then pick up the survivors. The fact that the Reapers were so quick to cut through Earth's defenses and start attacking cities at the beginning of the game makes it ludicrous that they were still hanging around - in the same cities, with those cities still looking like cities (houses of Parliament still standing in London!) several months later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:48 pm
Posts: 1321
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
[color=#3f0000]I have completed Mass Effect 3 and while I have a whole list of criticisms of it the ending is not one of them. While I can accept some people might not like it, I don't understand what it so controversial about it, it's not like the ending to Lost where the producers backtracked on a lot of what they had said and left a million unanswered questions.

My biggest complaint with the game is the artistic style getting in the way of its usefulness. With the radar only visible when you go into the powerups menu it means you have to keep track of the enemies with your eyes in combat and the majority of the times I got killed was simply because I hadn't been able to see or distinguish enemies. Now, this would almost be bearable if it was not for the fact the scenery was also difficult to see at times and I would find myself running into what I thought was empty space to get away from a boss only to find myself cornered in a load of black crates in the shadow of a shuttle or something. Given that Mass Effect 3 does not have a particularly advanced movement system (it's on a par with the first Gears of War game, which is now over 5 years old) it makes it even more vitally important that you can see what bits of ground you can walk on or jump over and what is an invisible wall.

My second annoyance refers to the sense of scale. Now, given this is a game about the whole galaxy being at war, in every single corner of the quadrant it becomes quite comical when you land on a planet get sent on a assignment to track down some general lost in the battle field and when you leave base camp he is less than 100 metres around the corner. This is ultimately a consequence of scrapping the vehicle sections... but just because the Mass Effect 1 vehicle sections suffered from terrible handling physics doesn't mean they were bad, it just meant they needed much more refinement. Look at the leap that was made from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2 and then again to Mass Effect 3 with the combat mechanics - if the same leap had been made with the vehicle mechanics then the vehicle sections would have been brilliant and not - as Yahtzee described it in his ME1 review - piloting a shopping trolley on a bouncy castle.

My third issue comes with the flow of the game. Mass Effect 3 truly has been reduced to the Gears of War "Exposition cutscene - SHOOT SHOOT KILL KILL SHOOT SHOOT KILL KILL - super awesome ending cutscene" + REPEAT. Obviously there are times where you might have to make a choice, but these happen during dialogue cutscenes. So really it is Gears of War combat with powerups and interactive movie cutscenes. If the vehicle sections were still in the game then maybe this would not be so bad, but it is also a consequence of the fact that the levels have become linear. The first game had you visit worlds where there were multiple missions - now the only place where there is this type of interaction is on the Citadel and there aren't any missions that occur while you are engaged it in it.


I just finished playing ME2 two days ago. I was confused for a few minutes, I couldn't figure out how the game decided who should die at the end. I had to google. This is the first game I've played where if a character says something to the effect of 'we must hurry', it actually matters if you don't continue the main quest immediately. I quite like that, but I'm far too impatient to play the whole game again just to see a different ending, I've got youtube for that... I also don't think that I was forced into making a decision during combat like you described for ME(1) earlier. Maybe that was what would have happened if I fought my way through the ending too slowly and 'allowed' the other team to die.

The ME3 ending-
click to view: show
I'm guessing Shepherd dies, that happned at least once before in the games, or he became a reaper?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
bbobeckyj wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
[color=#3f0000]I have completed Mass Effect 3 and while I have a whole list of criticisms of it the ending is not one of them. While I can accept some people might not like it, I don't understand what it so controversial about it, it's not like the ending to Lost where the producers backtracked on a lot of what they had said and left a million unanswered questions.

My biggest complaint with the game is the artistic style getting in the way of its usefulness. With the radar only visible when you go into the powerups menu it means you have to keep track of the enemies with your eyes in combat and the majority of the times I got killed was simply because I hadn't been able to see or distinguish enemies. Now, this would almost be bearable if it was not for the fact the scenery was also difficult to see at times and I would find myself running into what I thought was empty space to get away from a boss only to find myself cornered in a load of black crates in the shadow of a shuttle or something. Given that Mass Effect 3 does not have a particularly advanced movement system (it's on a par with the first Gears of War game, which is now over 5 years old) it makes it even more vitally important that you can see what bits of ground you can walk on or jump over and what is an invisible wall.

My second annoyance refers to the sense of scale. Now, given this is a game about the whole galaxy being at war, in every single corner of the quadrant it becomes quite comical when you land on a planet get sent on a assignment to track down some general lost in the battle field and when you leave base camp he is less than 100 metres around the corner. This is ultimately a consequence of scrapping the vehicle sections... but just because the Mass Effect 1 vehicle sections suffered from terrible handling physics doesn't mean they were bad, it just meant they needed much more refinement. Look at the leap that was made from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2 and then again to Mass Effect 3 with the combat mechanics - if the same leap had been made with the vehicle mechanics then the vehicle sections would have been brilliant and not - as Yahtzee described it in his ME1 review - piloting a shopping trolley on a bouncy castle.

My third issue comes with the flow of the game. Mass Effect 3 truly has been reduced to the Gears of War "Exposition cutscene - SHOOT SHOOT KILL KILL SHOOT SHOOT KILL KILL - super awesome ending cutscene" + REPEAT. Obviously there are times where you might have to make a choice, but these happen during dialogue cutscenes. So really it is Gears of War combat with powerups and interactive movie cutscenes. If the vehicle sections were still in the game then maybe this would not be so bad, but it is also a consequence of the fact that the levels have become linear. The first game had you visit worlds where there were multiple missions - now the only place where there is this type of interaction is on the Citadel and there aren't any missions that occur while you are engaged it in it.


I just finished playing ME2 two days ago. I was confused for a few minutes, I couldn't figure out how the game decided who should die at the end. I had to google. This is the first game I've played where if a character says something to the effect of 'we must hurry', it actually matters if you don't continue the main quest immediately. I quite like that, but I'm far too impatient to play the whole game again just to see a different ending, I've got youtube for that... I also don't think that I was forced into making a decision during combat like you described for ME(1) earlier. Maybe that was what would have happened if I fought my way through the ending too slowly and 'allowed' the other team to die.

The ME3 ending-
click to view: show
I'm guessing Shepherd dies, that happned at least once before in the games, or he became a reaper?

Regardng the Mass Effect 2 ending:
Spoiler: show
Off the top of my head:

You need to purchase all the upgrades for the Normandy so no one dies when you are attacked after exiting the Omege 4 relay.

You need to go on the suicide mission immediately after the attack by the collectors on the Normandy to save all of the Normandy auxillary crew.

You need to assign a squad member to escort the auxillary crew back to the Normandy

You need to use a strong biotic (either Jack or Samara) to create your biotic barrier.

You need to assign either Miranda, Jacob or Garus to command the squad members you don't take into the final fight.

Both squad members you take into the final fight need to be loyal (just completing the side mission isn't enough, if they have become unloyal after the dispute on the Normandy later on then they will die).

You need to have completed each squad members' side mission.

The first time I did three squad members died + the auxillary crew (Miranda who was on my squad to fight the Reaper (she had fallen out with me over Jack) and Mordin and Grunt) - I then read a guide and reassigned Miranda to command my squad, sent Mordin back with the crew and took two loyal crew members on the final battle... and everyone lived.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
Game and Gamestation's websites are back up and when I went in to town today Gamestation was open. I went in expecting to find some good deals but was surprised to see the prices weren't any different to normal, if anything they seemed slightly more expensive.

Considering that in Morrisons I could get a brand new copy of Just Cause 2 for £8 or LA Noire for £15 (both for Xbox 360) the prices of their preowned games were more than this. Now that videogames are mainstream I don't see how specialist shops can continue without diversifying. For buying the triple A blockbuster titles the supermarkets will always do the best deals now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:55 pm
Posts: 179
matzy wrote:
Do we have any "Star Wars: The Old Republic" (SWTOR) players on this forum?

I am enjoying the game immensely, although its not without its problems.

I had to re-roll on another server, after already reaching max level on one character, but on a dead server. It is a good game, and I think Blizzard will have to pull out all the stops during the development of Mists of Pandaria expansion (WOW: MoP). Having experienced the levelling process in SWTOR now, twice, it is a far more interesting levelling experience, and I am dreading levelling a character in WOW: MoP if it is similar to all other WOW releases/expansions.


I played for a month and few weeks. I really enjoyed leveling my gunslinger. At 50 though there wasn't really much to do. I did one raid and got bored, that wasn't really for me. I think part of it was that you'd just get better gear from pvp. I never really raided in wow either, though vanilla MC raids were the best time ever. :lol:

After a while I decided to reroll a marauder to another server (the one I played was kind of dead unfortunately) but only got it to lvl 26 or something before I quit, mostly due to not having time. I'm studying for upcoming university entrance exams in the summer so I'm putting my effort on that. I might jump back in summer or after it though and I bet the game is much better at that point already (felt a bit rushed to the release tbh).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:14 pm
Posts: 2033
Location: South Yorkshire
So as i have started playing Assassin's Creed Revelation's again to do a 100% single player game run (I found multiplayer terrible on AC:Brotherhood and really could not be bothered to try Revelations multiplayer - is it better?), I have also done a 100% run on AC:2 and AC:Brotherhood and i have found with Revelation's that I'm enjoying it a lot more the second time through than i did first time (I found this with Brotherhood as well), this is not to say that i did not enjoy them on my first playthrough as i think they are each fantastic games but i just found them slightly better on my second play, did anyone else find this with the Assassin's Creed series or any other games?

_________________
Team Vettel, Ricciardo, Bottas and Button.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:14 pm
Posts: 2033
Location: South Yorkshire
Also that Project CARS looks pretty good and by the looks of it is is coming to the console market as well (not just PC) which is good as my laptop would never cope and when it comes to upgrading PC's I'm clueless.

_________________
Team Vettel, Ricciardo, Bottas and Button.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4156
Game has been saved. Still lost jobs for a lot of people, and the half of the stores that shut will stay shut, but the company will still exist.


Anyway, since GAME went bust I bought a lot fo cheap games. I like the SAW movies so I invested in the Saw videogames (first one £3, second one £8) and just finished the first one. A very enjoyable game. A little simplistic in the end but very enjoyable and good fun if you like the series.

Now just gotta get working on the gigantic backlog I have got going on. I have far too many games these days. I buy cheap so even not spending much I end up with more games coming in than I finish. I think my current backlog is like 40+ games. That's more games than I even had on my Gamecube and Xbox (until 360 came out, when xbox games were like 4 for £10) in their primes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1836
Just finished Heavy Rain. It's absolutely brilliant. Story sucks you in, so you actually care about the characters (well most of the time anyway), and the control system is pretty great for the most part. Some of the multiple button presses require you to have 4 hands and/or explicit knowledge of the buttons you need to press beforehand, but it works pretty well.
I restarted from a save point 4 times, just so I wouldn't have to kill an NPC. And not even a pivotal character NPC, just an NPC I didn't want to kill.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:57 pm
Posts: 245
I have been playing ssx on the ps3 for the last week, shame they complicated it in comparison to the older ones.
Also enjoyed saints row, gt5 and most of the gta's


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4156
Bioware are releasing some extended ending cinematics for Mass Effect 3 as a large part of the players got tiddled off at the ending. It's free and will be released in a few months.




I think I might buy a pokemon game on my way home. Either Black/White or Heart Gold/Soul Silver. Last pokemon game I played was Diamond, and it was a good fun game. Easter weekend, so I'm perhaps going to have some time to kill. I was going to buy a 3DS too, but I think Gamestation is all out of them at the moment sue to their recent issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
mac_d wrote:
Bioware are releasing some extended ending cinematics for Mass Effect 3 as a large part of the players got tiddled off at the ending. It's free and will be released in a few months.


With regards to the ME3 ending, while I don't understand why the controversy reached the proportions it did, I do think the ending was very flawed:

Mass Effect 3 Spoilers: show
A lot of things people criticised it for regarding plot holes weren't actually plot holes. The only plot hole is the sequence with the Normandy flying through a Mass Relay when the Mass Relays get destroyed and some how the team who were on the ground being on board.

However, there is the indoctrination theory, which states everything after you get knocked to the ground in London isn't real - either a dream or a Reaper induced mental state that isn't happening. This is backed up by the fact if you choose destruction and your war assets are high enough Shepard wakes up on the ground in burned out London - which couldn't happen if he was on the Crucible/Citadel (he would have been spaced, then burned up, then splattered on the ground)

If that is the case then that sucks because a) it was all a dream is a crappy ending but more importantly b) it means if he was dreaming it then the Reapers haven't been destroyed yet, well not by you, maybe Anderson hooked up the Crucible while you were taking a nap. But that would still suck, it would mean the player effectively had no input in the final actions of destroying the Reapers.

Of course, of the six endings, Shepard dies in 5 of them, so it's possible that the Normandy sequence is just him imagining a happy ending... of them being trapped on some alien world cut off from the rest of the galaxy because the Mass Relays got destroyed. I think he would have dreamt a slightly better ending for them... Garrus and Wrex having beers on a beach toasting to Shepard or something.

The biggest plot hole is that the Mass Relays get destroyed. Now, this in itself is not a plot hole - but if they can be destroyed, why didn't they just dismantle all the Mass Relays to stop the Reapers invading? I know that it the Council didn't believe the threat (which again didn't make sense after the events of the first game) but even assuming that, Shepard did believe it and people believed Shepard so he could have gone on some massive one man mission to dismantle them all - or at least the one in the Sol system.

I've heard some people say we didn't know that the Mass Relays were made by the Reapers (or by the people who made the Reapers) but if that wasn't explicitly said I had assumed it since the events of the first game.

In my mind, destroying the Mass relays was a huge mistake (it was pretty much the only unavoidable event depending on which of the three choices (Destruction, Control, Synthesis) you made. Faster than Light travel is now impossible... so the whole series ends. I don't just mean Shepards story, I mean the whole Mass Effect Universe is closed. Unless we come back in a few thousand years when they've managed to build a new Mass Relay infrastructure.

I am all in favour of drawing a line under a story, making sure it is the final story in a trilogy. However this was far more than that - they essentially destroyed life as we know it in the Galaxy - it would be like if we found out that electricity contained aliens and to win the war we would have to destroy all electrical devices and the entire electricity network. Yes, we'd win the war, but we'd be set back a couple of hundred years in the process.

I sense that the Mass Relays may not have been destroyed in all endings originally, however I suspect that playtesters presented with an ending choice where the Mass Relays were destroyed in one and not in the others would not have chosen the one where they were destroyed because of that very fact.

So in summary. Normandy sequence should not have been included. Destroying the Mass Relays was a crazy decision to be made given that is the main defining aspect of the Mass Effect Universe - it would be like making Time Travel impossible in Doctor Who or destroying all Warp Drive technology in Star Trek - and the implied "it was all a dream" ending of one of the destruction endings goes against all best practices of storywriting.

However, as those elements can all be ignored and don't actually impact on the decision you make (they all occur in the final cinematic) I don't think from a gameplay point of view the game was ruined by the ending. Yes, it's disappointing to be presented with an A B or C choice at the end of the narrative, but given that Mass Effect isn't a truly free form game (you are making A B C D or E choices throughout the game so why should the ending be any different) that isn't a dealbreaker.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 194
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Spoiler: show
The biggest plot hole is that the Mass Relays get destroyed. Now, this in itself is not a plot hole - but if they can be destroyed, why didn't they just dismantle all the Mass Relays to stop the Reapers invading? I know that it the Council didn't believe the threat (which again didn't make sense after the events of the first game) but even assuming that, Shepard did believe it and people believed Shepard so he could have gone on some massive one man mission to dismantle them all - or at least the one in the Sol system.


Spoiler: show
The answer to this leads to another fairly large plot hole - in ME2 a Mass Relay's destruction apparently leads to the wiping out of the entire star system surrounding it, thus crippling the Batarian race. Considering basically every race's homeworld has a Mass Relay nearby it seems the majority of people are screwed anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
medgar wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Spoiler: show
The biggest plot hole is that the Mass Relays get destroyed. Now, this in itself is not a plot hole - but if they can be destroyed, why didn't they just dismantle all the Mass Relays to stop the Reapers invading? I know that it the Council didn't believe the threat (which again didn't make sense after the events of the first game) but even assuming that, Shepard did believe it and people believed Shepard so he could have gone on some massive one man mission to dismantle them all - or at least the one in the Sol system.


Spoiler: show
The answer to this leads to another fairly large plot hole - in ME2 a Mass Relay's destruction apparently leads to the wiping out of the entire star system surrounding it, thus crippling the Batarian race. Considering basically every race's homeworld has a Mass Relay nearby it seems the majority of people are screwed anyway.

Mass Effect 3 Spoilers: show
I had heard that but I don't buy that as a plot hole. Although I haven't played that piece of DLC I did read up that it was to do with an asteroid or something crashing in to it. IN the ME3 ending the Crucible sends some mystery energy into the relays destroying them in a different way. As a result it could have different consequences and they were destroyed by the creator of the relays who could have know a way of destroying them safely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4156
Regarding the ME3 ending discussions we are having:

Spoiler: show
Except I wouldn't call that a plot hole. One is the forceful destruction of a Mass relay, the other (to me anyway) was more the galactic off switch. It still exploded but it didn't go nuclear so to speak.

Humans, asari, salarians, turians all don't have the ability to make or dismantle mass relays. The protheans did at the very, very end of their days know how to make a small mass relay. So our dismantle options were more "blow it up or don't blow it up". Taking out the Sol system mass relay (near Pluto iirc, it was one of Pluto's moons before discovery) would probably wipe out the system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:50 am
Posts: 627
Local DVD was having a clear out so picked up Portal 2, new, for 9.99 :) So I get a copy on the PS3 and PC + DLC free via Steam all included.......... gotta say, bloody addictive GRRRRRR


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
I have been playing Fez and it is absolutely brilliant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4156
Didn't pick up Fez yet, I've got a stupidly large amount of games that I need to play so I'm trying to leave off purchasing anything until I reduce the list a fair amount.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:25 am
Posts: 111
Location: Nottinghamshie, England
I'm still jamming away on F1 2011, waiting for the 2012 release :) Played all the recent games as well that's been mentioned in here but I seem to get bored of them quite easily!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:52 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Edinburgh
Just wondered if anyone had an any suggestions for good online multiplayer racing games for the xbox 360??

I've got GRID and had this for over 3 years and still play it online but the number of folk playing has diminished.

I've tried F1 2010/2011 but got bored pretty fast. I not tried Forza 4 mainly cos I've never liked the feeling of the Forza series.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1836
Saorsa wrote:
Just wondered if anyone had an any suggestions for good online multiplayer racing games for the xbox 360??

I've got GRID and had this for over 3 years and still play it online but the number of folk playing has diminished.

I've tried F1 2010/2011 but got bored pretty fast. I not tried Forza 4 mainly cos I've never liked the feeling of the Forza series.


Forza is immense with a wheel.

I do think that to have a properly satisfying online race these days you have to join a league of some sort. On the popular games, there are too many idiots that just want to smash you off the road at turn 1, every single game. I've stopped playing F12011 for this exact reason (and there is not enough feedback through my wheel to make it a satisfying single player game)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2012 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:52 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Edinburgh
huggybear wrote:
Saorsa wrote:
Just wondered if anyone had an any suggestions for good online multiplayer racing games for the xbox 360??

I've got GRID and had this for over 3 years and still play it online but the number of folk playing has diminished.

I've tried F1 2010/2011 but got bored pretty fast. I not tried Forza 4 mainly cos I've never liked the feeling of the Forza series.


Forza is immense with a wheel.

I do think that to have a properly satisfying online race these days you have to join a league of some sort. On the popular games, there are too many idiots that just want to smash you off the road at turn 1, every single game. I've stopped playing F12011 for this exact reason (and there is not enough feedback through my wheel to make it a satisfying single player game)


An online racing league, emm that would be good. Right going to get on the xbox forums to find out it anything exists and on what game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm
Posts: 2038
Saorsa wrote:
huggybear wrote:
Saorsa wrote:
Just wondered if anyone had an any suggestions for good online multiplayer racing games for the xbox 360??

I've got GRID and had this for over 3 years and still play it online but the number of folk playing has diminished.

I've tried F1 2010/2011 but got bored pretty fast. I not tried Forza 4 mainly cos I've never liked the feeling of the Forza series.


Forza is immense with a wheel.

I do think that to have a properly satisfying online race these days you have to join a league of some sort. On the popular games, there are too many idiots that just want to smash you off the road at turn 1, every single game. I've stopped playing F12011 for this exact reason (and there is not enough feedback through my wheel to make it a satisfying single player game)


An online racing league, emm that would be good. Right going to get on the xbox forums to find out it anything exists and on what game.


Check out forzamotorsport.co.uk Great bunch of guys with regular race series and some uber quick people.

_________________
If...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 9:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:23 pm
Posts: 1297
i just bought Mass Effect 3, so will play that when i get a little more time (i'm on the final mission of mass effect 2 still!!)


i've heard mix reviews about this game, but i do adore mass effect 2, and if its similar, that will suffice for me!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4156
I think the worst thing most people would say about Mass Effect 3 was that the first 95% of the game was brilliant and they maybe felt let down by the last 5%.


ME3 is actually quite different to play than ME2, despite being pretty much the same. Figure that one out, I dare ya! For Soldier class anyway.

I've actually been through the Mass Effect Trilogy 3 times this year. Did my normal Shep (Ashley romance, Miranda Romance, Miranda Romance), a paragon Shep (Ash/Miranda/Ash romance) then did my utterly badass scarred femShep run with Liara romanced in all games (I count Lair of Shadow Broker as a romance, though I'm not sure the game does).

Vikz, if you haven't already I really recommend buy Lair of Shadow Broker and playing it. It's one of the best bits of DLC I've played for any game.

Anyway, I'm trying to work through my huge backlog of games at the moment. Plus games that I still have stuff to do in. As a result, backlog list is massive but I will persevere! I do have about 80 Arcade games and 200 retail games total, so proportionally the list isn't so bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
mac_d wrote:
I think the worst thing most people would say about Mass Effect 3 was that the first 95% of the game was brilliant and they maybe felt let down by the last 5%.

Talking about the last 5% of the game, if you haven't come across this then it does make the ending a lot more clever if it turns out to be true:
Major Mass Effect 3 ending spoilers: show
The indoctrination theory - although it does mean that we haven't actually seen the 'end' of the Mass Effect story because it means everything going on in Shepard's mind after he get's hit by Harbinger's beam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZOyeFvnhiI

Although, it could be said that the real ending to the game is that the Reaper's win, the cycle continues, but Shepard wins in his mind - unless he survived the destroy ending at which point he wakes up.

What I found most convincing for this being the case is that if you choose Synthesis or Control - these were the objecives of Saren and the Illusive Man, both of whom were in indoctrinated. It also explains the nonsensical Normandy escape sequence and how the squadmates who were with you were somehow onboard.

The oily shadows mentioned by the Rachni queen, the visual distortions around your vision, plus the fact the plants from your dreams are present after you get up after being hit by Harbinger's beam. It's a very convincing story.

The negative reasons for it are nothing to do with whether it makes sense, the negative reasons for it would be that:

a) They saved the real ending of the game for DLC
b) "It was all a dream" is ultimately a bit of a crappy twist for an ending, even if done as well as was done here
c) They saved the real ending of the game for DLC
d) They saved the real ending of the game for DLC

I realise that 3 out of 4 of those reasons are the same, but it is such a big negative point I felt it necessary to list it three time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2012 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:23 pm
Posts: 1297
mac_d wrote:
I think the worst thing most people would say about Mass Effect 3 was that the first 95% of the game was brilliant and they maybe felt let down by the last 5%.


ME3 is actually quite different to play than ME2, despite being pretty much the same. Figure that one out, I dare ya! For Soldier class anyway.

I've actually been through the Mass Effect Trilogy 3 times this year. Did my normal Shep (Ashley romance, Miranda Romance, Miranda Romance), a paragon Shep (Ash/Miranda/Ash romance) then did my utterly badass scarred femShep run with Liara romanced in all games (I count Lair of Shadow Broker as a romance, though I'm not sure the game does).

Vikz, if you haven't already I really recommend buy Lair of Shadow Broker and playing it. It's one of the best bits of DLC I've played for any game.

Anyway, I'm trying to work through my huge backlog of games at the moment. Plus games that I still have stuff to do in. As a result, backlog list is massive but I will persevere! I do have about 80 Arcade games and 200 retail games total, so proportionally the list isn't so bad.



thanks mac, i might give that a go (is it easy to download for PS3?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 7:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4156
I assume the game itself is set up like the 360 version, in which case there will be a "downloadable content" section on the main menu. Assuming the price is mirrored in (I expect it is) it will be about £7 or £8. While it's not great, Arrival (another DLC pack) is pretty important to making sense of ME3 (a scummy move from Ea/Bioware imo but what they did).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:12 am
Posts: 580
One of the little things about being a PC gamer that makes me smile is when you upgrade hardware and then play old games on max settings.

Just did a quick rerun through need for speed most wanted. All the extra setting made little difference from the medium setting. Still it's a decent game and one of the better "arcade racer" type ones from the NFS series.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:23 pm
Posts: 1297
so i just completed mass effect 2


Spoiler: show
so devastated, everyone died :(

i think i may have waited too long to rescue people in the previous mission. I lost miranda, liara, and mordin


:( :(



how does this effect mass effect 3?

if i decide not to use my information from mass effect 2, do i get these guys back?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group