BlueYoshi

Links: [url]http://games.kikizo.com/news/200407/017.asp[/url] [url]http://www.gamedaily.com/playstation2/article/?id=7140&game_id=[/url] There has been some mentioning of the PS3 and Xbox2 (Xenon) only as far as their unveiling. We'll probably see the PS3's model and line-up by next year's E3, and if Sony are going to follow the PS2's timetable then we may be looking at a release set as late as 2006 in Japan, meaning that the US and UK will get a date beyond that, but right now most things regarding that seem rumoured. To keep the market in tact, each of the companies can't afford not to develop new consoles, but what really bugs me is how they'll go about it. Sony have already announced that they may be using the CELL chipset for the system, which will facilitate enhanced graphics engines and faster broadband connection speeds for online play. I can't imagine the costs that are going to be involved though, particularly with technology as such. I'm all for better online capabilities and whatnot, however, for Sony to create a fuss over visualisations just seems raw. I can understand if a small segment of the market is attracted by those features, but surely the rest know better? right now I'm thinking of whether or not Sony should just invest their time and money into franchising their own line of games because let's face it, there's no point of having a visually formidable game that's impossible to play. The majority's main concern will always be around how current games have been frisked so as better ones can be made in the future that format the essentials for a quality game, like gameplay and various other innovations. Down in MS's neck of the woods, it'll be interesting to see what could happen if they launch the Xbox2 in 2005, as stated. Seeing as it's most successful in the US, they'll have more hope of prospering there if their heavy titles make a shift to the Xbox2, as long as their Xbox predecessors won't be compatible with it. I'm not saying that MS's battle plan should reflect that, but it's open as the wiser path. Japan will stay a total grey area though; I can only imagine that it'll do more damage judging by how poorly the Xbox sold over there. The first link is pretty informative; it shows some good images of Sony's marketing status and their plans for the PSP involving a language translator lol, sounds funny, but can be seen as a mask for their desperate resort to fending off its rivals, I think. We'll see.

[color=teal]People with wannabe gangster attitudes, namely 50 Cent. If that dude put more effort into his rap songs than trying to blow off his bogus gangster traits then maybe, just maybe he'd have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding as a decent rap artist. He's really bad, I think. I saw a guy wearing a T-shirt that had him on it holding a pistol with his "crew". That's just completely lame because he's trying to pass himself off as something he's not. Also, I heard that he refused to finish his tour of England because there was a shooting in Manchester -- of course anyone would be scared to tread grounds where bullets were exchanged, but when the shooting has nothing to do with you and you've got a phoney rep to live up to then that's just plain ridiculous. :rolleyes: I think I've gone off too far regarding the topic lol, but that's what I think of him. Seriously, such propaganda is only attracting lil kids to his market and influences them to be more like him... lame.[/color]

[quote name='Takuya']First, I'd like to say that the storyline is probably the least important part of a game. If you want a good story, find a good book or see the right kind of movie (nothing action or comedy, because those almost never have deep stories). Games are supposed to be fun to play, not give you a good story. At least, that's what I think.[/quote] [color=teal]I know what you mean, but in most cases, as James already said, storylines are usually there to inspire the gameplay. I know that Phantom Brave's battle system is going to have something to do with its story one way or another because it puts the main character's fundamental ability to good use.[/color]

[color=teal]Games like Kingdom Hearts tell you how a game like FFCC would have turned out had it been fleshed out a lot more. As it stands, FFCC is just a basic adventure/action RPG with a very diluted storyline that has nothing going for it except for what little recognition it may have with its multiplayer. That's the way I see it. MMORPGs may be shallow in that way too, but they introduce a wider level of interaction because there are usually more players and missions during online play. Kingdom Hearts was a decent game though, you can't blame its story and trademarks for putting you off because they wholeheartedly could've been a lot worse. I felt that it was a great game that made a nice little change on Square's behalf. As far as I know, the two PS2 GTA games have mostly been crime-orientated, though they usually twist around at the end to change the setting into some sort of a 'revenge plot'. The bulk of GTA3's missions had you carry out jobs to the extent of an ordinary hitman (a bit beyond belief however), and Vice City had Tommy Vercetti as some sort of a crime lord who created an empire through dodgy deals and businesses in a way akin to Scarface, which brings up another great thing about them; the movie references.[/color]

[color=teal]Well, I've been following Phantom Brave a lot more recently and picked up on a few details that I found from various other sites on the web. I guess I could say that I'm really content with the layout of it, because it's mostly battles followed by a few short sequences that give in to the story, which should reinstate that this game is aimed at players who'd appreciate the type of battle system it runs with. The main character of the story is Mirone, a young girl who has the ability to wield around spirits of dead people. It's really interesting how that comes into the battles and tends to offer something quite new for RPGs overall. When the battle begins, you'll see that the only playable character available is Mirone. She can call for the aid of her other companions via these 'spirits' -- which is what brings in the amount of depth to Phantom Brave -- by summoning them on the battlefield, however, they will have to be aligned to an object or prop that's already there, with these props being stuff like rocks, plants, or trees, anything that you'd find lying around the terrain. They're basically like a net for your character to be supported on. What's compelling about that though is how those props affect the status of your allies. The prop that a spirit may have been aligned to will change the course of its stats, so if a spirit is aligned to a rock, then its HP, attack, and defence will increase, but will cause a decrease in other important stats, which is pretty much self explanatory. Also, those props will determine what [i]additional[/i] magic spells and abilities your allies will have during a battle. Obviously, when a spirit is aligned to a prop, you will get full control over that character in a turn based mode very similar to that of FFT. When a spirit dies, they will be extinguished from the battle until it ends, though that's not the only way they can perish. After a fixed amount of turns, the spirit will depart from the original prop that it was aligned to, meaning it can't be summoned for the remaining time of that battle, though the prop will still be there and ready for its next alignment. You can obstruct how long it takes for that to happen by levelling up your characters, but even if they are at a high level, they will perish if the battle takes long enough. The props have another interesting role in battles, however. All playable characters can pick up props that haven't yet been aligned to spirits, which in a sense, is the exact equivalent of equipping normal equipment and accessories in any other RPG. So if you pick up a certain prop, then you'll gain whatever it has to offer that correlates with what a spirit may have gained if aligned to it instead. When recruiting characters, you actually make them yourself from scratch where you choose everything about them; name, gender, class? whatever you need. It costs quite a bit to create and recruit a character, but you'll definitely be needing their aids. The problem here is that you'll need your money for buying things like equipment and healing items, which can sometimes get quite extortionate considering your other obligations. It's up to you how many you create and store, but when it comes to assigning them to battles, you can only have a limited amount of 16 providing that there're enough props to go around. This is really why I'm drawn into Phantom Brave the most; Nippon Ichi are introducing things that other RPGs wouldn't dream of doing as it'll be too risky, but new styles are always welcome for me and I really think that other developers/publishers should follow in their steps of taking these sorts of gambles.[/color]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Well that only means the two games you mentioned did a poor job of integrating boss fights. Some games do it well, others don't. Just because R-Type and Lylat Wars did it improperly is no reason for something like Halo to not go for it.[/quote] [color=teal]You can't guarantee that Halo will be able to execute a pristine boss battle sequence. The action genre is the most competitive when it comes down to things like this, so to speak, it's not the least bit odd that MP was better at incorporating its bosses than R-Type and Lylat Wars was. Bosses at the end of the level or stage or what have you just won't cut it for Halo's style. If they were to the extent of the way Tony described them then I'd be all for it, however, realistically you won't feel that those sorts of enemies are 'bosses' unless they are big, fat, and hard to kill, which isn't really feasible of a decent analysis because those are merely mind tricks. I'd only truly see a 'boss' for its compatibility and difficulty level, nothing more and nothing less.[/color]

EDIT: Damn. Had to delete the post for a moment, which messed up the order of mine and James' posts, lol. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade']BlueYoshi, almost all of your posts are very reasonable, but the above one I must say is just nonsense. Bosses add a very important element to any game: they're the main villain, the final obstacle before the goal. They are what your character is here to fight, part of the reason he is where he is. And they are often the coolest part of any level. In the Turok games, which suffer from the same level-design problem as Halo (only to a greater extent), the cool bosses are yet another reason to play the single-player.[/quote] [color=teal]Bosses will only be the reason for your character being there in the first place when the story line is a big deal, and as we all know, that's not what Halo's main concern is. A lot of games use storylines to front its synopsis because it obviously wouldn't make sense if you were fighting hordes of aliens for no reason. MP's story, and the structure of it, let bosses divulge into it smoothly in such a way that it justifies the reasons for you having done all that backtracking and all those puzzles. Bosses won't rectify games like Halo because they don't really fit in with the overall cause of it. You'll find that all RPGs have boss fights, and they're there for two reasons; one being to make sure you're still in tact with your skills, and the other being to praise the story. It would be no fun if the main bad guy died at the hands of someone else because you wouldn't be as absorbed as you would had you done that yourself. Boss fights are a statement really; they can be expressed in many different ways.[/color] [quote]Bosses take NOTHING away from the action because boss fights are often the most action-packed part of the game. And in co-op (the only real way to play Halo mission mode), fighting bosses would be very exciting because you could actually employ 2-on-1 strategies.[/quote] [color=teal]They don't directly take anything away, but it has an impact on the players feelings towards the game in general. Have you ever played R-Type? That's a basic game that has basic controls and whatnot, but the in-game quality of the action is priceless. I found that the game slowed down a hell of a lot when it reached the boss stage, in fact, I think the same can be said for Lylat Wars -- they are different genres, and are in different formats, but it's the same message.[/color]

[color=teal]Yeah, but bosses don't really emphasise on what the true nature of the game is. They can be used to mark the end of a level, or just to add a bit more of a challenge, but they don't dwell on how the game should be played. MP is all about exploring, boss battles compliment that because in order to get to them, you will need to have accomplished a certain chain of events or puzzles, something that Halo doesn't have. Bosses also have a role of some sort in games these days, so they'd be better off accommodating the cause of the story line. Also, to top on that even further, MP allowed you to scan bosses, and seeing as they tend to be rather unique, it puts pressure on you to make sure you scan it so as you can get that 100% completion, something I believe Halo can't match as it stands. In Halo, I think a boss battle theme would generally butcher its title as an action based FPS. Boss battles are supposed to be tense, and only in a certain manner can they be pulled off effectively. One on one action won't really help Halo's reputation, and frankly speaking, even if stipulations were added, like in those situations where the boss's little minions come out to annoy you further, it wouldn't save its prestige because that's just a challenge, and doesn't really rule out the action element at all.[/color]

[quote name='Charles']Well, I don't know that the Xbox is seen in such a way currently. This year, more so than any other year, has been a good year for the system. Up to this point in 2004, it's arguably seen the most quality software come to market.[/quote] [color=teal]Statistics wise, yes. I was referring to what I knew on the inside, like amongst friends and stuff. You'd be surprised by how many of them prefer any mentioned Nintendo system over it because of their on-going franchise and name. Simple as. They couldn't give an intelligent answer stating [i]why[/i], just "I like the games better", which doesn't really qualify. Ah yes, Jade Empire. I found it tough to choose between that and Fable, mainly because they both outstandingly clear up the mishaps of other RPGs to make them so much more, but the urge to pick Fable over it was always there. Tough decision, though. It'll be interesting to see how Jade Empire compares to KOTOR as it's the next Xbox RPG to be made by Bioware. Like whether certain themes from KOTOR have been implemented into it, or how new features would adapt with it.[/color]

[color=teal]Like I mentioned before for the PS2, the Xbox has also got a massive line-up of RPGs coming round the corner. It's a treat more than anything because not often do we see many RPGs for this system, not to mention that they're usually lame or at least not up there with Tales or Dragon Warrior, but some of them sound pretty cool and original. I've not been able to look them all up so far, they're primarily written as long stories short and obviously have their good and bad sides, though with Tales of Symphonia and a few other high-standard RPGs already out, I don't think anyone will give a keen eye regarding the vast majority of these, heh. Not surprising either; the only Xbox RPG that had any sense of charm to me is Panzer Dragoon, a game I thoroughly enjoyed while it lasted. Again, some of the games have already been brought up around here, and others are just ports from the PS2, which I've already paid a tribute to in the other thread, so I'll leave them be. [b]Sudeki:[/b] As always, a cliché as far as any tasteful story would go, but that's hugely besides the point. To give it a heading, Sudeki is mainly about action and indirectly stresses that character design and visuals don't really interfere with what it really has to show. It doesn't use a turn based battle-system either, which is a new fashion amongst today's RPGs as they're all moving away from their ancestors' roots... then again, change could be good. It'll diminish the Xbox's little break from RPGs since it's set for a near-release date, but whether or not it's worth the buy I couldn't really say. [b]Fable:[/b] This is where the better half of the Xbox kicks in. I've been chasing Fable around from when I first heard about it a long time back, and had to bare the painful pressures of its numerous hold-backs, however, like Star Ocean 3, I suspect they'll be most beneficial. The concept is original for a game, I'll give it that, and even though it's a tale of revenge, the story helps to incorporate a slight footprint of uniqueness. You take control of your character starting from his childhood days, and as he matures, you get to make choices that determine his outcome, thus reintroducing the good/evil alignments that you'd find in a few other games. Obviously, you can play this game over and over without the possibility of repeating yourself because of the way every little detail amounts to the end result, and being able to get married sounds just as fun. Definitely one to look out for. [b]The Roots:[/b] I can't believe how The Roots resembles Final Fantasy VII's story. It tells of a Tree that's slowly dying away at the hands of the evil Demon Lord, and you, as its guardian, must stop that from happening. Apparently, this was inspired by Golden Sun and Final Fantasy, so the fantasy element should really glaze here in both graphics and gameplay, particularly the spells. If the spells are resourceful enough then maybe they could serve as an inspiration to other RPGs and make them more in depth. [b]Resonance:[/b] Very little is known about Resonance right now. Even its development team is unknown, lol. What's in light though is that it's a survival horror based RPG, very much like Eternal Darkness, and has promised a hell of a lot of smooth new traits that actually indulge in components that make horror elements scary. Like Shin Megami Tensei 3, Resonance brings religious aspects into the plot with the main character as a witch -- very biblical. SMT3 amazingly admitted straight up that God and the Devil would make an appearance in it, and didn't disguise it at all. I'd like to see that in Resonance; a fully polished story with extreme personifications. Hopefully, there'll be a subtle battle system that embellishes everything Resonance has going for it. I'm under the impression that people see the Xbox as a chunky system that's only good for displaying insanely detailed graphics. A lot of the new RPGs here have potential and seeing that graphics is a segment that a few of them lack makes me kind of glad, really; it gives me hope that it's not living up to people's intuitions. How do you guys feel about them?[/color]

[color=teal]I always saw MGS as kind of a soap opera (lol) based on the fact that the mission at hand is only a front so as the characters can dwell more into eachother's personal lives. That's one of the reasons why I liked the Tanker so much in MGS2; as a philanthropist, you have time to concentrate on the mission at hand and do what you were sent in to do, without the gibberish Codec calls. [b]Kingdom Hearts:[/b] This is an interesting one, I think. Many complained about Disney's involvement because it just didn't seem a fitting match at the time, but in all honesty Square needed them. Square are very imaginative when producing their games -- and having made a large franchise of RPGs supports that -- so you're left to ask yourself, why didn't they just create KH from scratch? They could've easily made their own characters and landscapes to replace those Disney ones to make KH another repetition to their long blog of games, and you know that they were capable. At the time, I felt the Disney criteria was a naive move to attract a younger audience and introduce them to the genre, but after playing and analysing it, that doesn't appear to be the case. Disney helped the story of KH advance from Square's usual designation to a more medieval and fantasy like game, merging the two together. There was also a massive array of support characters and bosses who were feasible of having a role in KH because of their adaptability from whatever movie they featured in. In a way, it was almost like a jig-saw puzzle; everything was a match, and with Square's own delight on top, how could KH not get points for originality?[/color]

[color=teal]Ah what the heck. I suppose I can do that for you until I'm experienced enough with PSP8 to make an ultra-l337 banner of my own. Not much to say about the banner though; no [i]real[/i] use of graphics, it just makes me thirsty. I'll say it's sexy if it makes you feel better. ^_^[/color]

[color=teal]It's something that's been on my mind for a while; video games rarely have gripping storylines. I find it interesting because many games do very well in the market, and even though the vast majority of them lack creativity in the storyline department, they're prone to successfully surpassing movies that actually highlight this point. Having said that, it's not often that games based on films accomplish the latter either. I've noticed that PC-only games usually have decent storylines, which isn't surprising because I've always seen it as a sophisticated system that operates on sophisticated games, but that shouldn't say only sophisticated games can have good stories. Nintendo are popular for making so-called kiddie games under the foundation that the graphics engines are colourful. Sony is a lot more varied, meaning it can't properly be categorised in terms of the games it runs, and the Xbox bares the same relationship to the PC; it's as if Microsoft will only accept those sorts of games, which is a shame really because I feel the Xbox is starting to come around. They need to express it a lot more heavily, even if it shatters their current image (which is a stupid way of looking at it, heh). I've listed two games that I thought did well to bring the above to work, and definitely made changes to whatever stereotypes people have against the system/s. [b]The Wind Waker:[/b] Most LoZ games revolve around the premise of saving the kidnapped Princess Zelda from some evil doer, and no matter how cliché that is, players will always abide by that story because it's the centre of LoZ. TWW has a very basic story, but the turns in it are completely unexpected -- you'd have to have played it to know. It was great how[spoiler]Tetra was Zelda all along[/spoiler], and the sequence that followed her revelation was even better and helped the situation even more. Though, because of that it allowed Zelda in general to exceed a brand new image where she stays tough throughout the whole game, compared to the other adventures where she's usually reliant on Link. I always thought the perfect LoZ game would be a combination of OoT and TWW. [b]Final Fantasy VII:[/b] FF was always about branching out new ways for RPGs to be played with, whether it be graphics, gameplay, new options? anything. FFVII is basic in that sense, but compensates with a fully-fledged story that can't go wrong. It's as if only so much work has been done to make it what it is; the Ancients, Shinra's dictatorship, clones, science. Almost every corner of it links together to form one solid package and reflects real life almost certainly. Even the character's have their own specific roles, rather than the usual 'joining in to help save the world'. Heck, the erroneous characters even have important parts; [spoiler]Vincent to Lucrecia, Lucrecia to Hojo, Hojo to Jenova, Jenova to Sephiroth, Sephiroth to Cloud.[/spoiler] I think it's the most developed story made from when Square was independent. They're games on separate consoles, yet they achieve the exact same goal. It's hard to imagine seeing them on different consoles, but if that was the case, do you think they'd be better or worse off?[/color]

[color=teal]If I was to comment on the two, then I'd just be reiterating everyone else's thoughts, heh, but I want to take the opportunity to mention the ongoing trend of the Metroid games since the day they hit the shelves. The most formal answer would have to be Shinmaru's. Every Metroid game from before the GameCube's time took the 2D route, all following after one another in gameplay and genre. Metroid Prime's concept is no different; besides the fact that it's mostly played in the first person view, every other aspect of it indulges in exploration and adventure that gives it a kind of RPG feel. A reasonable comparison would be TWW because that too insists on hunting and exploring in a very similar way to MP, rectifying the open environments and encourages backtracking however lame it may be. Halo is the complete opposite. Combat and interactivity is the gesture that Bungie try to masquerade. You'll find that there's no point in multiplayer unless there is a plentiful crowd to link up with, which is basically the reality behind those large maps and complexes. The story's simplicity also outlines what I'm trying to say; apart from the minor twists and turns that unfold in Halo, it's not really appealing on a large enough scale to be compared to MP. I found both to be just fine and were substantially what I thought they'd be. The fact that Halo players call MP overrated -- and vice versa -- is a bold statement. Unless you really know where both games are directed, they're hard to enjoy alike, particularly if players emphasised on pure action.[/color]

[quote name='Burori']I agree. I feel to make it more fun they should add the characters from Dragonball GT: Final Bout. It was fun using them for sure. Adding a large variety would boast the effects of wanting to play it more. I know I would buy it if Burori was in it lol. As long as the smoothness and graphics exceed M.U.G.E.N. I would buy it in a heartbeat.[/quote] [color=teal]That would most probably be apart of Atari's line-up plan. The title of the game states that it's a Dragonball Z game, so it's only liable that you'd see DBZ characters. I'm infatuated by Budokai 3 because it has this huge burden hanging over itself that must enforce it to deliver... it would be plain ridiculous if Atari continued the series any further until every nook and crammy has been covered -- Budokai 3 is where it should stop as far as DBZ goes. From a more high-minded point of view, I guess I'm grateful enough that the games have been neatly branched out to show off their major potential. A messy image like that of Final Bout wouldn't help its esteem very much and buyers would eventually get put off by its sloppiness and lack of commitment. I know where you're all coming from; nobody could care less for the game's input, it's just generally a question of whether or not your favourite character is in it.[/color]

[color=teal]The first Aunt Viv (Janet Hubert-Whitten) was fired from the show because of her pregnancy. The second Aunt Viv (Daphne Reid) was actually nothing of a bother; critics and other sources claim that she's a "Lovely African-American" who's best known for her work in TV series and on set, namely The Fresh Prince. Yeah, Hubert-Whitten was so much more ghetto than Reid and really managed to plead with Will reasonably because she knew his circumstances, unlike Phil who always jumped to his own immediate conclusions. I'm not saying that Reid's character was poorly developed in that way, but certain things could have been redone to at least keep that trend going with viewers. I suppose it didn't really make a difference though, I mean the family made less and less of an appearance after Will and Carlton's graduation to focus mostly on them, and those classic family re-unions became non-existent.[/color]

[color=teal]Heh, Shinmaru looked like Link with out the hat. The Scooby-Doo thing at the end where everyone laughs at an unfunny joke was... funny o.O :smoke: = Dragon Warrior[/color]

[color=teal]I wasn't expecting movie characters at all, so that came as a surprise to me. Hopefully though, they won't be there just for the sake of multiplayer, but to have some correlation with the story. It was great how Budokai 2 had a different story and at the same time managed to keep it in tact with the TV show without a trace or hint of spoilers -- that would really snuff out FUNimation's plans. Seeing Brolly, Bardock, Kooler, Golden Oozaru, etc blend in together would really appeal to fans of the original series. All being well, there should be some character depth. Not in terms of the overall chemistry it runs on, but in a more concentrated approach; more trademark moves for [i]each[/i] character would be nice, rather than the typical Kamehameha that the Son Goku lineage all tend to carry. Budokai 2 picked up on that quite well.[/color] EDIT: It is Kooler. That's the form that precedes his final one though. Look at [url=http://www.myfavoritegames.com/dragonball-z/Info/Transformations/Transformations-Cooler.htm][u]this link[/u][/url] for the order of his transformations. Yeah I know it's not his true final form, but let's refrain from discussing that. :)

[color=teal]It's the opposite for me; I found that the older episodes were much better than the new ones. Lisa was just irritating in every sense and the fact that the bulk of the episodes revolved around her and Will after graduation killed it. There was practically no need for the rest of the cast at that point and their roles pretty much became cameos.[/color]

[color=teal]The English version of Star Ocean 3 is going to be the aforementioned Director's Cut that was promised in the US and Japan. Great. The damn thing was delayed so long in the first place [I]because[/I] of the Director's Cut -- something I detested when I first heard about it merely because I wanted to play it straight away, but now that wait really seems worth it. The main reasons for its step-back were originally due to translation issues and a few encounters with various bugs, but gladly, Square-Enix took the opportunity to make so much more out of it by adding a few supplementary features like new characters and dungeons, and a versus mode. Considering the engine that the battle system runs in SO3, that should be really cool. I've heard complaints about certain mapping issues from previews that say the environments are over-extensive and can easily cause a fair share of backtracking and getting lost, especially that landmarks aren't really at all noticeable. The structure of the map implores a percentage-based theme that tells you how much of the dungeon has been completed, rather than showing you, so I suppose that can't help the tedious elements of the game all too much. Other than that, everything looks tip-top. To be fair, it's only the battle system that pulls me towards SO3, so if those bugs and glitches had no effect on that, then it wouldn't have made a difference to me if I had to have waited for it.[/color]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Bear in mind, I am not talking about making them more realistic. I'm talking about making them more intuitive, and developing a better connection between controller inputs and what goes on in the game itself.[/color][/quote] [color=teal]'Course not. If Rockstar concentrated on making the GTA games more realistic then we'd merely be getting a repeat of The Getaway. Sometimes it's best to keep things as much from real life as possible, because the options there are only so limited that it wouldn't be feasible to create a fundamental gaming experience. When you speak of character movement, I can vaguely translate what I think you mean. I'll accept that when stealing a car, you may encounter a little fault in the sense that you're stuck by the bonnet whilst actually still running, but only on a few occasions has that happened to me, and tentatively speaking, it never really interrupted me at all. I like that R1 is the button to aim, and how easy it is to perform. I don't know whether or not you're saying you want it [i]changed[/i], but I assume you mean to make it more 'bouncy'. More or less, I'd imagine that to fit in with the significant bugs you mentioned, but yes, it does effect the in-game quality. There have been times when I aimed and fired at a character from a distance, only to miss him because of a few glitches that could've easily been avoided. Mind you, when/if they are fixed, I still wouldn't feel solitary about it because that problem never occurred frequently in the first place. So you see, there are mixed thoughts on this agenda. Obviously you aren't bashing GTA, but you want to see it at its peak. On the other hand you have me, a guy who only wants to play a decent game, and I feel that the current GTA games are decent enough. What's the saying... "Quit while you're still ahead." ^_^[/color]

[color=teal]What do you find that needs tightening up, then? In all fairness I can't complain; it got me through the whole game, which is a big step because I rarely finish games that aren't overly-hyped unless I genuinely like them. Even if critics acclaim there to be technical difficulties with the mechanisms, I don't see a problem at all, and that's all that really matters when you think about it. The drive-by's may look crummy (like a lot of other things), but they're simple to pull off, and manage to avoid frustration amidst playing. I just don't want Rockstar to take any unnecessary risks -- there's no point of latently spoiling a game to make it better when in the eyes of some, it can't really be improved a great deal anyway.[/color]

[color=teal]I'd prefer it if that sort of stuff was left alone. The controls are flawless for the new generation of GTA games, honestly, and really suit the needs of the player in any type of situation. The Getaway served to show how badly negative controls can effect the overall calibre of a game. I thought the idea for it was somewhat original and to the bone, especially that it was set in London and all, but when I came round to playing it, my experience turned to be more a misery than anything because of the poorly developed navigation and freedom. No, it was [i]too[/i] realistic for my liking. After playing one demo, I immediately tuned out... which was a shame because I was really looking forward to experiencing the open-world it had compared to GTA, but was just completely put off. Hopefully it will minister as a path that Rockstar won't want to follow.[/color]

[quote name='Sir Auron']You can also go to a barber shop and get a haircut. A little too realistic? Whay the need for haircuts? Granted, it gives you a little creative control over your character, but what's next? The need to sit down and read the morning's paper? Walk the dog or it will ruin your front lawn? Go to the toilet or you will, er, get messy? I think that there are some great improvements, no doubt. Some though, like the latter, I have to question.[/quote] [color=teal]I kind of agree with this. It can't be stressed enough that the GTA series is what it is today because of the literal potential that it's already exceeded. For one, I was happy enough with the standard of GTA3. Vice City was basically a complete enhancement of it; transcending the story and many, many other features -- something that I greatly appreciate -- but with that, you're only left to ask yourself "What else can be done?". San Andreas has basically crossed the t's and dotted the i's on Vice City. For example, swimming and being able to ride a bicycle. To me, that's as good as it's going to get baring in mind that other qualities, good qualities that is, are left untouched. One thing that scares me though, is how Rockstar will go about various changes or so called improvements. The tier system in VC was brilliant, and it fitted in so ideally that you'd consider there to be a wider variation of weapons and such in SA, but to be fair, VC has already posed quite a substantial arsenal of weapons, pretty much putting Rockstar in a stalemate considering their next incentives on that motive. So yeah, making haircuts and fitness a pivotal factor seems only like a stratagem from where I'm standing, which in a way is as good as much as it's bad. I'm relatively easy going with my games; as long they're simple to play and bare a gripping storyline, then I ain't complaining.[/color]

[QUOTE=Alan][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][B]Ability[/B]: Once a card drops to below half its HP, this card can be used to double their stats and add 100 HP. Can only be used on sorcerers (in your face Yoshi). Obviously I personalized it somewhat, but only because Dragon Warrior is a bastard and never thought to give his friend a good card.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=teal]Ty-pi-cal. Don't hate DW just because I'm better than you. :) Now, to make Thing even more l3373r than he already is, I've devised another battle plan in the form of weapon/ability cards. [b][u]Weapon Card:[/u][/b] [u]Name:[/u] Dr. Doom [u]Ability:[/u] Dr. Doom will take the attacking card's leeway and unleash the destructive power of his lustrous suit, dealing a 300 hit point attack. However, in the midst of that, the attacking card will receive 50 hit points of damage on recoil. You could almost call it a summon spell. [u]Picture:[/u] [img]http://www.domestikalien.com/archives/imagenes/doom.jpg[/img] [b][u]Ability Card:[/u][/b] [u]Name:[/u] Raging Rouse [u]Ability:[/u] The Human Torch will randomly appear from no where and coil around the attacking card, spreading a wall of fire. For three turns, the card will heal itself by 10% of its current HP, but its strength and defence will fall accordingly in that time period. [u]Picture:[/u] [img]http://usuarios.lycos.es/comicsmarvel/human_torch_t.jpg[/img] I dunno why the hell I've chosen to use Fantastic Four characters; I don't even like them for starters, heh. I guess I just had a soft spot for Thing?s rubber spandex. Happy ownage.[/color]