At 11/24/09 11:16 AM, TheMaster wrote: Lego Rock Band on Friday, though. Been out in America for about a month now. Best soundtrack of any plastic guitar game ever.

I've played it a bunch, and I will say that playing as Legos does make it inherently more fun. The movies in-between gigs are actually funny. I wish they would let me export the legos to Rock Band 2 along with the setlist.

I'm currently visiting my sister in North Carolina. I was really bored, but then I found out that their town has a really awesome youtube video; I suddenly really feel attached to this place, and I really want a jacket with stars on it.

I echo BFS's sentiments on AC2. The detail on the character models was initially disappointing, but the game actually looks really good for an open-world game. The only other negative I can think of is that I wish there was a bit more variety in the architecture in the view points. A good deal of them are the exact same structure in a different location. Those are only minor gripes though; the overall mission structure is vastly improved.

At 11/24/09 10:07 AM, nathanallenpinard wrote:

I'd rather have EA take over everything then Activision Blizzard take over everything.

Are you joking? At least Blizzard doesn't push their products out the door as fast as possible. Honestly Blizzard has some of the best franchises.

If Blizzard controlled all of Activision, you might have a point. As it stands now, Blizzard is really its own isolated entity within the larger ruthless business of Activision. Blizzard's policies really only work for them though. They have a constant stream of revenue from WoW subscriptions, and they have so much talent that their finished projects are always going to be ridiculously good and sell a ridiculous number of copies. Valve is the only other developer I know of that works in a similar manner, with their constant revenue stream coming from Steam. Applying that business model to all of Activision would be disastrous though.

Whatever his motivations, I think John Riccitiello has made EA a better company from a gamer's perspective. The expansion of EA Partners and the chances he's taken on new IP would never have flown at the old EA. The philosophy of allowing acquired developers to maintain their identity was a huge shift for EA. Even if he only acquired Bioware and Pandemic for personal gain, the move certainly made sense at the time; both developers were competent and EA had the money to expand.

Despite all the positives, its undeniable that EA is in a worse state financially than they were before. JR's chances haven't really paid off, and so a lot of developers are being let go. EA needs to find a happy medium where their financially stable, but still aren't an evil empire.

Points of interest: nine of the top ten games are also on PC; seven are on PS3. No Crackdown.

The list is a bit strange in places, but I think the top ten are pretty spot on; I would probably arrange some of them a bit differently though. Lists piss people off for no logical reason.

Tony Hawk Ride is being torn up by reviewers. 1/5 from G4. 5.75 from GI.

Activision really tried to delay the damage too. Basically, they told reviewers if they wanted a day 1 review, they had to go to a three-hour long Activision event. Otherwise, they had to buy their own copy. Interestingly, the G4 review says that they were able to finish the game within the time of that event. If that means he was able to finish the game in three hours, that's even more hilarious. That's why most of the major news sites haven't put up their reviews though. I don't expect Activision's tactics will help the sales of the game though; it's going to absolutely die at retail.

Goodbye Pandemic.

Ironically, I'm a lot more interested in The Saboteur after reading his post. Sam Bishop, who freelances for IGN and posts on GAF, said he agreed with Zeenbor's sentiment about the quality of the game.

At 11/18/09 03:50 PM, Aigis wrote: Why aren't video games art?

Some are, but I wouldn't elevate the medium as a whole to art status. If the sole purpose of the game is to profit and be mindlessly entertaining, then it isn't art.

The games I consider art, however, are the ones that the OP rails against--the ones where cutscenes play an integral role in its artistic quality. In that case, it's really just movies being art. The gameplay along with it really doesn't add much in terms of art. I suppose playing as the character could establish a stronger emotional connection, but that really won't do much unless the cutscenes make the player care first.

Gameplay just hasn't ever facilitated art. Flower comes close, but it relies on such simple motifs that it really seems more like art in its infancy.

Videogames are only ever considered art because of the sum of the parts that are already established art forms. It's the music and visual style that create the atmosphere in Bioshock. Are videogames considered art simply because they are a mishmash of other forms of art? I don't personally think so. Until gameplay actually does something artistic, videogames are not art. I don't know how that will be done, and it very well may be impossible.

My opinion on videogames as art, as well as art as a whole, is that it really doesn't matter.

At 11/18/09 03:35 PM, Aigis wrote: You forget 'aesthetics', which has traditionally been the main purpose of art.

Then the artist is putting forward what he considers beautiful.

At 11/18/09 03:28 PM, Jerkapotamus wrote: Creative expression? Perhaps, but then the artist is expressing something.

'Expressing something' is different from 'making a point'. You're changing your argument.

Not really. They're both so broad that it doesn't matter.

In any case, you'd be hard pressed to find a video game that doesn't express 'something'.

Expressing it isn't the only qualification; the artist also has to intend to put forward that message.

At 11/18/09 02:45 PM, Aigis wrote: You're just making stupid arguments in the vain attempt to make your original point sound less uninformed.

lol art is so srs guyz and I'm a pretentious cunt.

Art needs meaning, otherwise there's no point. If there isn't a meaning, then why did the artist choose to do it? Money? Then it most certainly isn't art. Creative expression? Perhaps, but then the artist is expressing something. He does what he does for one reason or another. Do I know the meaning behind David? Hell no, but I assume Michelangelo didn't sculpt it because he just happened to have a big block of marble and took some heroin.

At 11/18/09 05:28 AM, Aigis wrote: That's a completely different thing.

That's meaning that's being ascribed to the art by the observers, rather than intended meaning by the artist.

That's pretty much how meaning gets assigned in any medium though. If the artist had to say what it meant, it wouldn't be a very good piece of art.

At 11/18/09 12:40 AM, Hycran wrote: I havent played any multiplayer or finished the game on anything harder than normal so that should be fun.

We should play co-op. I'll be gone for Thanksgiving most of next week, but co-op is definitely something I want to play more of.

At 11/17/09 10:36 PM, Synnyr wrote: Definitely not the first time this has been done. Hell people have been doing this ever since the second Grand Theft Auto.

I think the difference in context is what sells it. COD has always been associated with realism to a certain extent, whereas Grand Theft Auto is more of a parody.

At 11/17/09 10:11 PM, Hycran wrote: http://www.ps3center.net/news/4077/rumor -no-more-heroes-coming-to-ps3360/
oh goodie, ps1 graphics on my HD console
pass

Where the hell is that survivor horror game he's supposedly working on for EA?

I finished MW2 on Veteran. The game is pretty damn good. I prefer it to Killzone 2 simply because the controls feel way better. There were some pretty interesting fights, but nothing sticks out in my mind like they did for COD4. It almost seems like IW was trying too hard on this one. They probably weren't really sure how to improve on their last project, so they just ratcheted everything up to 11. As everyone already knows, the end sequence was terrible. Still, it was a very enjoyable and solid FPS.

I'm not sure what to play next. I now have Dragon Age, Demon's Souls, New Super Mario Bros, Assassin's Creed 2, and Borderlands left. Luckily, my backlog will stop growing soon. God of War Collection is the last game I'm anticipating buying this year. Of course, with Black Friday rolling around, I might pick up some older games on the cheap.

I ordered the wireless singstar mics from HMV on Sunday. It would be nice if they got here by Friday, but chances seem slim based on their estimates.

At 11/17/09 09:30 PM, Aigis wrote: Take a look at Michelangelo's David. What does that 'say'? Why does that have more inherent 'meaning' than your average video game?

I honestly know next to nothing about classical art, but Wikipedia seems to think David does have a meaning: It came to symbolize the defense of civil liberties embodied in the Florentine Republic.

I think you're being a bit loose with the definition of art. For anything to be considered art, it needs to say something; it needs to reflect the directors point of view. Gameplay really doesn't do a very good job at that. I would say Flower is one of the rare exceptions, where the gamplay actually connected to a larger message about urbanization. Even so, I feel like Flower is so cliche that it's art in its infancy. In almost all games released thus far, the art portion of the game is wholly separate from the gameplay. Essentially, that's what you're complaining about. I don't think the classic games or even the indie developers have art down yet though. Making a creative and fun game doesn't make it art.

Delivering a theme through gameplay is pretty close to impossible in most situations. I'm interested to see how Heavy Rain turns out because that does actually incorporate a lot of what you're talking about. The interactivity allows the player to create their own story based on their own actions. The open-endedness of it brings up a lot of questions though. If it's completely open-ended, can it really be art? If the player determines everything, how can the director get a message across? If it's not that open-ended, then it still falls into the trap of just being a movie with alternate endings.

I'm just sort of arguing around in circles because I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other. I personally believe certain games qualify as art, particularly the Metal Gear Solid series, but the medium as a whole does not.

At 11/17/09 06:52 PM, megamanbn6 wrote: Kinda late news there, brah.

...Release date was announced today.

3D Dot Game Heroes released in May. Published by Atlus.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Yeah, there definitely is a higher level of integration in the 360 version. On the other hand, at least we don't have to put a disc in to access facebook.

At 11/16/09 10:44 PM, SlipperyMooseCakes wrote: Facebook seems to be "superior" on the 360 just like Netflix. Oh well. No Cross Game Chat?

What's done differently on the 360? I haven't really been paying attention to the specifics of the twitter and facebook integration. I don't expect I'll use it on the PS3 though; none of my facebook friends want to know what game I'm playing.

FW 3.10 coming soon. Facebook, photos display a bit differently, and the friends list is improved. Only the currently selected friend will have a box around it, and you can change the color of you box.

Overpriced and the games cost the same as retail, which is ridiculous.

At 11/16/09 07:29 PM, SlipperyMooseCakes wrote: Man is that site overrun with PS3 fanboys.

They're all me.

At 11/15/09 11:28 PM, squidly wrote: There you are going and throwing your BS around, I'm just saying, just because you don't like a genre, doesn't mean it should be annihilated.

Why not? I think everything I dislike should be annihilated. TV will consist only of VH1 and Secret Girlfriend. All forms of matter will be replaced by the more healthier alternative of margarine. The world would really be a better place. Have you ever seen two margarine cars collide? It just forms a bigger margarine car. No one gets hurt. War, poverty, hunger--none of it can exist with only margarine. The periodic table would be much simpler and chemists made out of margarine would rejoice everywhere. The pre-Socratic philosophers were on the right track, but margarine was definitely the substance they were looking for to complete their monism. So yes, everything I dislike should be first annihilated and then turned into margarine.

Ok, Selfish wasn't the right word, just saying, start caring about other people, you know, this goes outside the game realm and into the real world, since these guys ACTUALLY HAVE LIVES THAT DEPEND ON THEIR JOB.

If everything were made out of margarine, jobs would not exist and the problem would be solved.

And you didn't insult the others?

Like, I said, you belittled the developers that actually make good games; I insulted the unmentionables.

Oh wow, you're an idiot, it's widely considered that Dune II is somewhat part of the C&C series, since they were both made by the same guys, and the original concept of C&C was "Dune II in a different setting, since we can't secure the rights to it." Basically, replace spices with Tiberium, the three houses with Nod and GDI, and whatever the name of the planet they're on with Earth, and there you have it.

So in other words, Dune and C&C are not in the same series and I'm completely right.

And a company that can only shit out ridiculously generic Sci-Fi RPG's and shitty attempts at making Sonic cool again shouldn't have?

Yes to both. Of course, BioWare doesn't "shit out ridiculously generic Sci-Fi RPGs" as you seem to be insinuating.

What obvious opinions of the masses?
Voice of the collective?

I was taking your advice and thinking about everyone's opinions and interests instead of my own. You know, be less selfish. That's all moot now though; I'm busy founding margarinism, my philosophical school of thought.

I'm a bit disappointed that I watched the video online before actually playing it. There was no shock value, so I wasn't really affected emotionally by the scene. I really would like to know how I would have reacted if I didn't know it was coming. As it was though, I shot everyone I could, even that one guy that was trying to drag someone else to safety.

At 11/7/09 03:33 PM, puddinN64 wrote: This sounds like grounds for the Third World War.

I was thinking the same thing. Come on Obama! Show the world how incredibly in-tune you are with today's youth. Videogames for oil.

Obviously.

At 11/15/09 09:58 PM, Grubby wrote: EA is a huge player in the video gaming industry, which recently has been struggling quite a bit because of the recession. If EA falls, it's like AIG falling in a way. EA's collapse would send ripples across the industry, and possibly in the worst case scenario, trigger the start of the decline of video games part 2.

EA is not going to collapse; they're just cutting a bit of dead weight.

However why would EA do this so close to the release of The Sims 3 expansion pack, World Adventures?? EA has profited so much from Maxis.

Maxis didn't develop The Sims 3, so the events are completely unrelated.

At 11/15/09 09:26 PM, akmeteor wrote: I'd like to clear something up.

C&C is considered the oldest RTS because it has had a longer life-span in the same genre. That's why it's considered the oldest.

Not according to the masses. As has been established, you aren't allowed to voice your individual opinion.

That definition of oldest really doesn't make sense though.

At 11/15/09 07:30 PM, squidly wrote: And stop thinking only about your own interests, C&C has a large fan base, and they're all going to be thrown out in the rain after this.

Heaven forbid I actually think about my own interests when talking about my personal take on the issue. If we're only allowed to speak for the masses, then the whole concept of a forum is totally irrelevant.

That doesn't mean they can't make a comeback.

Yeah, maybe they'll get it under control; I suspect some of their jobs depend on it.

Like I said, you're selfish.

Yes, I care more about my video game tastes than others'. I clearly have no moral fiber and should be shot twice.

You'd rather have more money (that probably won't be) poured into companies that like to shove out Racing games and generic sci-fi and fantasy RPG's out their asses then let creative minds like Will Wright do what they do, give a new IP a chance, and let a legendary (and the oldest) RTS series live on?

Yes, lets insult the developers at EA who are actually good. I don't know where you got the idea that Command and Conquer was the oldest RTS series; Warcraft came out a year before, and there were plenty of other RTS games that came out before both. Now that Command and Conquer lacks the historical significance that you thought it had, I think it's fairly agreeable that the series and developer should have been axed a long time ago. I'm only voicing the obvious opinion of the masses though; it's what everyone wants. My own and your interests on the matter are entirely impertinent.

By the way, Will Wright left Maxis earlier this year. His brilliant mind can no longer 'do what it does' for EA. This explains why Maxis had to be purged as well. Again, totally the voice of the collective, not my own.