Recently Added Posts
Bro, you didn't take the SS properly. And how come you're still using such a small screen? :(
Nottingham teenager furious after paying £450 for a photo of an XBox One on eBay
GudServo - Today, 09:06 AM
my question exactly why buy console for a 4 year old
You win cause you're back lil vishal
A TEENAGER has been left fuming after mistakenly buying a photo of an in-demand computer console online.
Peter Clatworthy thought he had paid £450 for an XBox One console on eBay, but actually received a picture of one in the post.
The 19-year-old student, of Bilborough, had saved up in order to buy a limited edition Day One version of the console as a surprise Christmas present for his four-year-old son, McKenzie.
He has now contested the purchase with eBay, which has investigated and stated he should get a full refund from the seller.
26 Views · 4 replies ( Last reply by GudServo )
Most people are of the general consensus that The Last Of Us had a very good story. Some might even get irrationally mad at that sentence because they think it’s such an understatement. “The Last Of Us was so good, it deserves some sort of academy award,” they might exclaim, and hey, I’m not here to agree or disagree. Who knows, The Last Of Us may just get its motion picture award; earlier this month, Sony registered a domain that seems to hint at the possibility of a The Last of Us movie.
Film-makers don’t seem to have much problems when it comes to making adaptations of books. They seem to run into problems with cartoons (I’m looking at you, Mister Shyamalan) and it’s pretty 50/50 when it’s comic books. Video games aren’t too lucky. Who can name a movie based on a video game that is actually good, and does justice to the original material?
The Ace Attorney movie got great reviews and did pretty well on its own. Though definitely not faithful to the game, it’s a nice enough introduction for new players, and an entertaining two hours for veterans. But other than that?
That one Final Fantasy movie no one likes to talk about. The Resident Evil series of movies that seems to make fans of the game start frothing at the mouth. The Street Fighter movies that no one has ever seen.
Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information, but according to the links to various review sites, the highest score for a movie based off of a video game is the 1995 movie for Mortal Kombat, sitting pretty at 58%.
Is there really even a need for a The Last of Us movie? It seems that players of the game get the best of two worlds: a game and a movie all in one little disc. I’m sure fans of the game would rush to see the movie if it really comes out, but really, what’s the point? Players pretty much have already watched the movie just by playing the game.
There seems to be some sort of curse surrounding video game movies that makes them terrible, even if the cast is awesome or the original source is amazing. Maybe it’s hard to balance it just right so it can cater to both the people who have played the game, and people who haven’t. Before the series became Milla Jovovich kicking everyone’s asses and generally being the only person capable of getting anything done, the movie did try to stick to the canon of the game. For about oh, ten minutes. It’s accessible for people who don’t know much about the game series, but for those who have played the games and know the story, it’s pretty painful and boring, to say the least.
Not only do they have to balance it out so that people from both sides can have a general good time, they have to make it entertaining enough to stand on its own. Let’s use Resident Evil as an example again. In the game, not only do you get to enjoy the story, but you get to be the one going around shooting zombies and going through the plot. You, as in your character, of course. There’s a sense of satisfaction and immersion when you’re the one going through the actions and moving the plot forward that you can’t get in a movie. When it’s a movie, and you suddenly don’t have that control anymore, it’s different, and not in the good way.
According to TvTropes, there’s also the fact that some filmmakers don’t have any idea about a game except that it’s popular and that would make people come see it. Yet again, I have to pull out the Resident Evil example. If you’ve watched at least two of the films, you probably know what I’m trying to say. There’s almost nothing connecting the movie and the game except some characters, Umbrella, and talk about the viruses. It’s almost like the filmmaker pulled up a Wiki page about it to get the general idea, and that was it.
The Last Of Us is not Naughty Dog’s only potential movie; the Uncharted movie is apparently in the works again and will be released in 2016. Most likely, whether or not The Last Of Us actually gets its movie depends on how well Uncharted does, so until 2016, I guess we’ll just have to sit around in front of our computers and argue about video game movies with each other.
Do you think The Last Of Us really needs a movie? Am I being too harsh on video game movies?
16 Views · 1 replies ( Last reply by 4iDragon )
The PlayStation micro-console launched in Japan on 14th November and sold a modest 42,000 units during launch week.
But according to Sony Computer Entertainment boss Andrew House, PlayStation's plan for Vita TV in the west remain unaffected.
"The positioning of Vita TV may be different between Japan and some of the other markets," he told Eurogamer.
Currently, the roughly $99 Vita TV reworks Vita, PSP, PSone and some retro games so they can be played on a HDTV with a DualShock 3 controller. The tiny machine is based on the Vita handheld console, with its touch-based user interface re-sized for big screens.
But it's also a media streaming device, and can extent PlayStation 4 gaming to a second screen when used with a DualShock 4.
House said Sony wanted to launch Vita TV in Japan first because there streaming is a relatively new concept, and the company wanted to establish a market.
"This may sound slightly counter-intuitive, but we wanted to launch in Japan first because I feel there really hasn't been a critical driver or device that's driven the adoption of streaming content overall," House said.
"It's still very much in a nascent stage in Japan compared to some of the markets in Europe or the US.
"We felt there was therefore an opportunity to leverage the strengths of PlayStation Vita, which as you know is quite strong in Japan in terms of game line-up, but combine that with the features of a media streaming box, and offer something packaged newly for the Japanese consumer and possibly be at the forefront of creating a new market via that device."
The PlayStation Vita TV.
In the west, however, streaming has established itself, with the likes of Netflix and, on the gaming side, Gaikai and OnLive gaining a foothold in North America and Europe.
"It's a very different landscape when you look at the US and Europe - much greater establishment of streaming video services, and much greater understanding of what that concept's all about," House added.
"So we see strong market potential elsewhere in the world, but it will be a different road to market for the US and Europe than has been the case in Japan."
In Japan Sony is selling a Value Pack that bundles a Vita TV, a DualShock 3, an 8GB memory card and three months of PlayStation Plus for $150, but if you buy Vita TV on its own you get a limited out-of-box experience - you need a DualShock 3 controller to use it - and it only features 1GB of storage, so many are forced to buy Sony's expensive proprietary Vita memory cards to add space.
One problem already encountered in Japan is that the selection of Vita games to play on Vita TV is limited. Many, such as Uncharted: Golden Abyss, don't work because of Vita TV's lack of touch controls.
Sony may be waiting for its studios to add Vita TV compatibility to their games before launching Vita TV in the west, but it may also be waiting for its Gaikai game streaming service to launch before releasing it on these shores. Through Gaikai, due out in North America in 2014 with other territories to follow, the PS4 and Vita will be able to stream PlayStation 3 games - and it seems inevitable that Vita TV will also gain that functionality.
House hinted as much to Eurogamer in a recent interview.
"Our goal is to be able to have a new form of game distribution streamed from the server side, initially to PS4 consoles then gradually moving that out to Vita," House said.
"But eventually, the end game is to have this available on a multitude of network connected devices, essentially delivering a console quality gaming experience on devices which are not innately capable of doing that.
"We think there's a great opportunity to broaden the market, because you essentially remove the need to make the console purchase in order to have access to that experience. It may sound counter intuitive, because, aren't you replacing a business that is your bread and butter? But part of being an innovative company is being a pioneer in new forms of distribution of content, and we would like to be there first and take a leadership role."
When it comes to Bethesda’s unique style of open world role playing games, the design of the world is incredibly important. In order to keep the player interested for the hours upon hours they will spend exploring, the world must be interesting, varied, and full of compelling things to see and do. Now, comparing the Mojave Wasteland and the Capital Wasteland based on this criteria, it seems to me that the Capital Wasteland of Fallout 3 is the clear winner.
Playing through each of these games, it’s clear that Bethesda Game Studios has a ton of experience designing and creating these types of open worlds while Obsidian does not. Obsidian makes fantastic role playing games, but they had never made this kind of world before and there was just no way they were going to be able to create an open world of the quality that Bethesda typically does with New Vegas being their first attempt. The Capital Wasteland is full of unique settlements and interesting things around every corner. Places like Little Lamplight, Megaton, Tenpenny Tower, The Republic of Dave, and Underworld are all iconic and memorable locations that each feel unique and have their own interesting elements.
The Mojave Wasteland certainly has its interesting elements, but many of the locations you visit feel very similar to each other. Whereas Fallout 3 took real world locations and altered them in some creative ways, Fallout New Vegas feels like it takes place in a real world Nevada that’s simply in a state of disrepair. It just lacks the creativity in location design that Fallout 3 has. As an example, in Fallout 3 you begin the game in a town built around a nuclear warhead, but in New Vegas the game begins in an ordinary settlement in the desert. Towns in Fallout 3 are established on a boat, in a museum, on a highway overpass, in a complex cave system, and always have various unique aspects, even when the location is ordinary. The majority of settlements in New Vegas are just regular looking towns and groups of buildings that are really only characterized by the faction that calls it home.
In terms of exploration, New Vegas too often feels like it is preventing the player from exploring while Fallout 3 feels designed to encourage exploration. In New Vegas, there are too many areas you aren’t allowed to go unless you have alignment with a specific faction, which isn’t an issue in Fallout 3. It also feels like the overall size of the world in New Vegas is smaller than it is in Fallout 3. There’s smaller issues as well, like the fact that The Strip serves pretty much no purpose other than going to casinos. Don’t get me wrong, navigating downtown DC in Fallout 3 was an absolute nightmare, but at least there was some semblance of urban exploration.
Fallout 3 has the better world
Fallout 3: 1
New Vegas: 0
When it comes to combat, there isn’t a whole that separates these two games. They are both built on the same engine, and thus share most of the same mechanics. The combat is nearly identical in each of these games, with a minor change in New Vegas being the addition of the ability to aim down sights. However, this is neither a positive or a negative, because the shooting in these games is such that you really want to be using VATS all the time anyway, so really neither the game has an advantage in terms of combat.
However, there are some improvements to other aspects of the gameplay that give New Vegas a slight edge. The addition of weapon modding was a welcome feature that gave you some customization over your weapons. Also, the improved companion controls were a nice touch, as was the option to play in hardcore mode, which adds survival elements. Let’s also not forget the card games, which many people may dismiss, but I found myself getting quite addicted to. A nice bonus with the card games was that it finally gave the luck stat a more tangible purpose.
Fallout: New Vegas has better gameplay
Fallout 3: 1
New Vegas: 1
Bethesda Game Studios are among the best in the industry at creating interesting worlds and immersive experiences. They are not, however, among the best in the industry at telling compelling stories, but Obsidian certainly is. Obsidian developed games contain some of the best writing seen in video games, and their skill is on full display in Fallout: New Vegas. The plot isn’t really any better in New Vegas than in Fallout 3, but the narrative is monumentally better.
The dialog between characters, and also the dialog options you as the player are given are just flat out better in Fallout: New Vegas than they are in Fallout 3. You also have much greater freedom over how the story unfolds, with the interplay between the various factions and your choices allowing you to take several different paths through the story. I do think Obsidian’s scope may have overstepped the bounds of the game’s engine though, with the battle of Hoover Dam being one of the most pathetic displays of technical limitations getting in the way of story I have ever seen. That aside though, it’s clear that Obsidian is simply staffed with better writers than Bethesda.
While the story is fine in Fallout 3, the dialog and writing just isn’t as interesting, and the game suffers from a common video game narrative flaw; the motivation of the character not being shared by the player. The crux of the game is that the player character is supposed to be searching for his/her father, which is the driving force of the main quest. Well, the problem there is that you really only get 30 minutes or so to get to know your father at the beginning of the game. We know the character is supposed to have an attachment to their father, they were raised by him after all, but as the player we barely know anything about him. How are we supposed to care about finding a character we don’t even know? In New Vegas, the early game driving force is finding Benny, who we also don’t know much about, but what little you see of him is enough to make you want revenge. It takes much less time to make the player hate a character than it does to make them care about a character, which is why the early narrative sequences in New Vegas come across better than those in Fallout 3.
Fallout: New Vegas has the better story
Fallout 3: 1
New Vegas: 2
When it comes to characters, there really is no contest; New Vegas wins by leaps and bounds. As is unfortunately the case in most Bethesda games, the characters in Fallout 3 don’t really have much character at all. In typical Bethesda fashion, the world is the real main character, while most of the characters are inconsequential and underdeveloped. Obsidian’s strongest attribute is their writing and characterization, and it’s once again at the forefront of Fallout: New Vegas. When I think of developers that write compelling and interesting characters, my mind immediately jumps to Bioware, Naughty Dog, and Obsidian, so it’s not really surprising how much better the characters are in New Vegas compared to Fallout 3.
In New Vegas, the companions actually have back-stories and personalities, whereas in Fallout 3 they are basically just pack mules for when you’re over-encumbered. Getting to know Veronica, Arcade Gannon, and the other companions in New Vegas was much more interesting than any conversations in the entirety of Fallout 3. Additionally, all of your companions have a unique quest associated with them that adds to their characterization. It’s clear that Obsidian is used to developing party based role playing games that put a large focus on characters, and their attempt to use the follower system of Fallout 3 to bring that style of character interaction to New Vegas really enriches the overall experience.
Fallout: New Vegas has better characters
Fallout 3: 1
New Vegas: 3
One of the most disappointing aspect of Fallout 3 for me personally was the absurdly small number of quests in the game. There were only 20 quests in the entire game, with the idea being that only major activities were added to the questlog while smaller tasks (that would have been quests in an Elder Scrolls game) weren’t logged as quests. I understand the sentiment of making only the major events count as quests, but it just makes things more confusing. It’s hard to keep track of the small not-quests when you don’t have a quest log to manage them. It certainly achieves the goal of making the quests feel more meaningful, but it makes the smaller tasks basically irrelevant.
Needless to say, Obsidian opted not to go with that system for Fallout: New Vegas, and the result is that endlessly addicting feeling of always having something to do. There are simply tons of quests in New Vegas that take you all around the game world. As far as quality of quests is concerned, each quest in Fallout 3 definitely feels more important, but that’s only because there are so few. There are definitely more menial quests in New Vegas, but it felt like there were just as many sprawling quests as Fallout 3, it just had smaller ones in addition to the bigger ones. Having all the different factions with their own specific quests was also an interesting aspect of New Vegas.
Fallout: New Vegas has better quests
Fallout 3: 1
New Vegas: 4
Well, it’s clear that Fallout: New Vegas is without a doubt the better game, but I’ll always have a soft spot for Fallout 3. Of course, an extremely iterative sequel like Fallout: New Vegas will usually win in a head to head matchup like this. Obsidian was able to take everything that was great about Fallout 3 and bring their own strengths to the table to create a game that is quite simply better in almost every way. However, if I think about what game I enjoyed more, it’s probably Fallout 3. Fallout 3 was a much more “important” game, being the revival of a classic series and the first game made in this style. The revelatory experience of playing Fallout 3 for the first time back in 2008 is one that could never be recreated. Playing Fallout: New Vegas for the first was much less of an event, it simply felt like a slightly improved version of Fallout 3. So, while the people that played Fallout 3 first (including myself) probably got more enjoyment out of it than New Vegas, there is really no denying that Fallout: New Vegas is the better of the two.
Fallout: New Vegas wins.