Okay, you all gave me some recommendations a while back, so here's my first report card on the PS3, or, as I like to call it, the progress bar console. What is it with the progress bars? I do practically anything and there's a progress bar to watch. You even see it in the game interfaces. Xbox does a good job helping you forgot that you're essentially playing on a computer. (Remember the awesome Halo 3 loading screen?) Playstation reminds you all the time that you've got a computer hooked up to your TV. I don't always love the XBL interface, but it's definitely superior.

Best game played so far:

JOURNEY. Loved it. Played it through countless times. Got the white robe and all the trophies except the one that demands that you not play it for a week. It's on loan right now, so I'll have that trophy next time I play. Great game, and it has me excited about Destiny, which was my hope.

The others:

UNCHARTED. Played all three. Didn't always like the running sequences--you're lucky sometimes and get through on the first try, but other times it felt like an exercise in memorization, not skill. Wish the controls were as fluid as, say, Gears of War, but i got used to it (except for the fire button, which just seems weird). It's obviously heavily influenced by the (good) Indiana Jones movies, and it does a great job with the formula. The characters are well-drawn, but the writing can be spotty. Wheen it's good (say, the last minute or so of Uncharted 2), the dialogue sparkles with Hepburn-Grant era charm. Wanted to try the co-op, but I bought the first two used, and the third one was a loan, and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for an online pass just to give co-op a spin. My one multiplayer match on 2 took almost as long as the match just to load, and it wasn't much fun, but I'm not a big multiplayer guy.

I've borrowed JUST CAUSE 2 on a strong recommendation. The day I brought it home Xbox Live had it on sale for $7.50. Played the demo, and it's good, wacky sandbox fun, but that seems about all. The story? Meh.

I've also borrowed ICO/SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS and a RATCHET AND KLANK game. Don't know if those are my thing, but my friend was very enthusiastic.

Played the Quantic Dream demos, and found the controls to be strange. I'm still interested, but I'm thinking of them more as interactive fiction than as games.

Currently in the tray--THE LAST OF US. Just started it last night. I treated UNCHARTED as my introduction to Naughty Dog, but I was well aware that comparing these games is like comparing cotton candy to liver cooked rare. I'm anxious about playing TLoU, but so far it's superb.

Maybe if I can get done with that and DISHONORED I can finally fully respond to Jilly's BIOSHOCK INFINITE take down. :)

Later,

Kermit

Maybe if I can get done with that and DISHONORED I can finally fully respond to Jilly's BIOSHOCK INFINITE take down. :)

Not sure there's much to respond to? It's not a good game.

My favorite criticism is that from Tevis Thompson.

Companion cube in a corset indeed.

Not sure there's much to respond to? It's not a good game.

My favorite criticism is that from Tevis Thompson.

Companion cube in a corset indeed.

Yes because by your logic anyone that disagrees with you is wrong, never mind personal opinion :-p

Not sure there's much to respond to? It's not a good game.

My favorite criticism is that from Tevis Thompson.

Companion cube in a corset indeed.

Yes because by your logic anyone that disagrees with you is wrong, never mind personal opinion :-p

When both Jillybean, Narcogen, and I agree something is bad, you have to wonder. Maybe it… is?

When both Jillybean, Narcogen, and I agree something is bad, you have to wonder. Maybe it… is?

And when I played the game and thoroughly enjoyed it, I guess I'm a bad gamer?

UNCHARTED. Played all three. Didn't always like the running sequences--you're lucky sometimes and get through on the first try, but other times it felt like an exercise in memorization, not skill. Wish the controls were as fluid as, say, Gears of War, but i got used to it (except for the fire button, which just seems weird). It's obviously heavily influenced by the (good) Indiana Jones movies, and it does a great job with the formula. The characters are well-drawn, but the writing can be spotty. Wheen it's good (say, the last minute or so of Uncharted 2), the dialogue sparkles with Hepburn-Grant era charm. Wanted to try the co-op, but I bought the first two used, and the third one was a loan, and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for an online pass just to give co-op a spin. My one multiplayer match on 2 took almost as long as the match just to load, and it wasn't much fun, but I'm not a big multiplayer guy.

I couldn't really get into the Uncharted games. I thought they were decent, but not great. No idea why they are so highly regarded. The controls aren't great at the best of times, they story is okay, and writing is ranges from downright terrible to decent. I liked them enough to pick up Uncharted 4 after it comes out and gets a price drop, but that's about it.

The Last of Us, on the other hand . . . it might be my favorite game of the last generation. I've never felt so wrapped up in a game before. The story is well told, and the gameplay lends itself to that story well (try playing on Survivor!). I like that infected are a real threat, and running away from them is a justifiable and necessary course of action. Unlike plenty of other games, it doesn't tell us how dangerous zombies are, then let us spend the next however many hours slaughtering thousands upon thousands of them. In The Last of Us, they are deadly. All it takes is one ill fated encounter with a Clicker or even a Runner, and you could be screwed.

Just a fantastic game all around. The multiplayer is pretty fun, too, if you take the time to invest in it a bit.

I've borrowed JUST CAUSE 2 on a strong recommendation. The day I brought it home Xbox Live had it on sale for $7.50. Played the demo, and it's good, wacky sandbox fun, but that seems about all. The story? Meh.

It's a fun, silly time killer, nothing more, but it's great at that.

I've also borrowed ICO/SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS and a RATCHET AND KLANK game. Don't know if those are my thing, but my friend was very enthusiastic.

I had never owned a Playstation before a PS3, so I bought Ico and Shadow of the Colossus to see what I was missing. It was a little tough to get into them given their age, but once I did I loved Shadow of the Colossus. Ico, though. I gave up after an hour. I just didn't get it, I guess.

Maybe if I can get done with that and DISHONORED I can finally fully respond to Jilly's BIOSHOCK INFINITE take down. :)

I didn't like the first Bioshock all that much. I mean, I liked the story and the setting but . . . meh, the gameplay seemed pretty generic to me. I enjoyed it, but not enough to ever care about it after finishing it. I skipped Bioshock 2. Infinite, however, looked interesting enough, even if only for the setting. Still never cared enough to try it. But now it's free on Playstation Plus, so it's currently downloading right now. We'll see how I like it.

Sounds like you've got quite a catalogue to get through, but if you're looking for anything else, I'd highly recommend Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch. Absolutely stellar game, provided you like jRPGs (although it's combat system is odd and takes some getting used to). It's even better if you like any anime. Studio Ghibli knocked it out of the park for this game. I didn't check the original thread, so maybe someone mentioned it the first time around (I hope someone did!).

Sounds like you've got quite a catalogue to get through, but if you're looking for anything else, I'd highly recommend Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch. Absolutely stellar game, provided you like jRPGs (although it's combat system is odd and takes some getting used to). It's even better if you like any anime. Studio Ghibli knocked it out of the park for this game. I didn't check the original thread, so maybe someone mentioned it the first time around (I hope someone did!).

Grizzlei did. :)

I actually found a lot of merit in that piece. I'm disappointed by games much more frequently than I'm pleasantly surprised by them. (It's the same with game reviews.) I think using BIOSHOCK INFINITE as the whipping boy for all that is wrong with grade inflation among game reviewers grew a bit tiresome. I get the criticisms of BI, but there's some righteous belief in there. It's not a perfect game--far from it, but it is more imaginative and more ambitious than most, but I guess I'm grading on a curve myself. The fact that racism does not occupy front and center, (or, I would say, the fact that racism doesn't occupy front and center in the way we've come to expect in the standard narrative we all know well) is an issue of great offense to some. I disagree with that take on it, but I won't go down that path here, except to say that racism expressed toward young Booker (and his self-loathing) is the original sin that fuels the entire endeavor.

I didn't mean to restart the debate about it here and now. I mentioned BIOSHOCK INFINITE only because Jilly admitted her perceptions might have been affected by having watched THE LAST OF US and played DISHONORED. I haven't finished either, so felt a little like I needed to to participate. I think I will at some point, and my initial admiration of BI might be diminished.

In the meantime I'm going to seek out more writing by Tevis Thompson.

I hadn't gotten that impression, but maybe so.

That is an impressive set of brains you lined up there, Cody.

I think the thematic criticisms of Infinite are all valid, but I think the game systems criticism misses the mark. On higher difficulty I think it plays exceptionally well; the mix of random equipment, limited cash, and a meaningful penalty allows for some some good times. (assuming you just don't reload when you die). Also, the skyhook is just a damn fun mechanic, I love FPS that focus on interesting movement.

Enjoyed chatting with you about Journey last month.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say about The Last of Us once you've finished, especially after reading your review of the Uncharted games. :)

is everything that is wrong with Reddit. It's not really reddit's fault, it was built that way. People started to associate their opinions with what was important, and thus the upvote or "consensus" button has since been misused.

When both Jillybean, Narcogen, and I agree something is bad, you have to wonder. Maybe it… is?

And when I played the game and thoroughly enjoyed it, I guess I'm a bad gamer?

Or worse yet, maybe you're a... bad person... lol.

Also, the skyhook is just a damn fun mechanic, I love FPS that focus on interesting movement.

Look up Dark Void. It's third-person, not FPS, but it does have very interesting movement options. And I don't think it was very popular so it's probably super-cheap now.

I've borrowed JUST CAUSE 2 on a strong recommendation. The day I brought it home Xbox Live had it on sale for $7.50. Played the demo, and it's good, wacky sandbox fun, but that seems about all. The story? Meh.

I'm a huge fan of this game. I probably bring it up a little too much, TBH. And you're right, the story is pretty meh. The characters, while sometimes amusing, lack any depth at all. But JC2 never pretends to be good at either of those things. What it sets out to do is have a huge world, and it does that better than anything else I've played. It's been out for years now and I have yet to play anything where the world feels even half the size. The demo is a tiny fraction of one island. I will say this: learn to "fly" by deploying your parachute, and then using the grappling hook to pull yourself along the ground. Driving and flying planes/helicopters are great, but it's this mechanic that really gives you freedom of movement.

I've also borrowed ICO/SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS and a RATCHET AND KLANK game. Don't know if those are my thing, but my friend was very enthusiastic.

Ico is good. I'm partway through Shadow of the Colossus - it's one of those games that I don't play very often because I don't want to be done with it. Same thing happened to me with Oblivion, actually. I've only briefly played a Ratchet and Clank game once, but it was good fun. Reminded me of the sort of platformers that were big about a decade and a half ago.

Mind if I ask what your PSN handle is? I'm not on mine very often, but you never know.

I reserve the right to bug out if I get the heebie jeebies. I’ve never been a big fan of the survival-horror genre or even zombie movies unless they’re done exceptionally well (e.g., 28 Days). I couldn't make it through ten minutes of the Walking Dead pilot. I appreciated the production values I saw in The Last of Us demo at PAX a few years back, and of course I've read great things about the story since. I’ve thought about playing on Easy with the gore turned off, but for now I’m on default settings. So far I really like the characters--I like when games let you adopt personas different from yourself, but that said, it's nice to have an older protagonist (with a southern accent that doesn’t sound like a backwoods Ned Beatty). I fear that child-endangerment issues might end up being a show-stopper for me, but I’m going to attempt to push through, perhaps with a few more lights on than normal.

Mind if I ask what your PSN handle is? I'm not on mine very often, but you never know.

Sure! Kermit-DBO.

Anyone here feel free to add me. I've got lots of room, and with my dozen or so friends, it feels dead because hardly anyone seems to be on when I'm on. Then again, I'm not sure how to talk to anyone. Does any bluetooth headset work?

Yeah Dark Void was pretty interesting, but the shooting elements were pretty meh. I ought to give it another chance if I ever have enough time.

Or worse yet, maybe you're a... bad person... lol.

Haha, that's almost exactly what I originally had written before I changed it.

Does any bluetooth headset work?

I believe so, yes. Disclaimer: I've never actually tried it because I don't really know anyone on PSN. :)

is everything that is wrong with Reddit. It's not really reddit's fault, it was built that way. People started to associate their opinions with what was important, and thus the upvote or "consensus" button has since been misused.

What does this have to do with reddit?

This is three people, each with pretty wildly different takes on how they view games (diversity of opinion), all agreeing on something. The more people differ, the more it says something when they agree.

I couldn't make it through ten minutes of the Walking Dead pilot.

So, is that because you didn't find The Walking Dead 'well-done' or because you have the courage of a frightened kitten?

Or worse yet, maybe you're a... bad person... lol.

Haha, that's almost exactly what I originally had written before I changed it.

It's the logical conclusion. I suggest you go sit in a corner and think about what you did, then maybe you can properly enjoy video games.

I couldn't make it through ten minutes of the Walking Dead pilot.

So, is that because you didn't find The Walking Dead 'well-done' or because you have the courage of a frightened kitten?

The latter. Undead children give me the willies. Until you shoot 'em in the head, and then shooting children in the head makes me tres disturbed.

I did make it through RDR's Undead Nightmare, but that was kind of campy.

You're right about the first 30 minutes of TLoU, Bones. Amazing.

You're right about the first 30 minutes of TLoU, Bones. Amazing.

I can't wait to talk to you about this game when you're done.

- No text -

is everything that is wrong with Reddit. It's not really reddit's fault, it was built that way. People started to associate their opinions with what was important, and thus the upvote or "consensus" button has since been misused.

What does this have to do with reddit?

This is three people, each with pretty wildly different takes on how they view games (diversity of opinion), all agreeing on something. The more people differ, the more it says something when they agree.

No matter WHAT it says, it's irrelevant if someone else decides they like it anyway.

No matter WHAT it says, it's irrelevant if someone else decides they like it anyway.

I don't think that's true. Because tastes are tastes, and because there's always going to be SOMEONE out there who will like any piece of trash game (or movie, or album, etc), you'd have me believe that no meaningful critical comparison can be made because of that? There's people out there who hate Forrest Gump for crying out loud, but that doesn't mean you can't say that Forrest Gump is a better film than Madea's Christmas adventure.

I suppose you are right and there is no 'good' or 'bad', only 'better than x' or 'worse than y'. In which case I'd say Bioshock Infinite is worse than 90% of FPS games out there.

No matter WHAT it says, it's irrelevant if someone else decides they like it anyway.

I don't think that's true. Because tastes are tastes, and because there's always going to be SOMEONE out there who will like any piece of trash game (or movie, or album, etc), you'd have me believe that no meaningful critical comparison can be made because of that? There's people out there who hate Forrest Gump for crying out loud, but that doesn't mean you can't say that Forrest Gump is a better film than Madea's Christmas adventure.

No, you're right, you can say anything you want, but still, if someone does truly enjoy Madea more than Gump, your opinion, no matter who agrees with you, doesn't have to mean anything to that person.

I suppose you are right and there is no 'good' or 'bad', only 'better than x' or 'worse than y'. In which case I'd say Bioshock Infinite is worse than 90% of FPS games out there.

However you need to justify yourself, man. See, it's not your actual opinion, it's the aggressive way you shove it in people's faces with condemning and condescending remarks - with the holier-than-thou attitude, that agitates people, thus giving you these kinds of defensive replies and why I usually don't read your posts anymore.

The most constructive and helpful critiques I've ever taken part of were held in respectful and kind atmospheres. You would get higher quality threads if you put an effort into generating that kind of tone.

However you need to justify yourself, man. See, it's not your actual opinion, it's the aggressive way you shove it in people's faces with condemning and condescending remarks - with the holier-than-thou attitude, that agitates people, thus giving you these kinds of defensive replies and why I usually don't read your posts anymore.

I'm not the one who called Xenos a bad person in this thread :-p

I suppose you are right and there is no 'good' or 'bad', only 'better than x' or 'worse than y'.

When you back off from "there exists an absolute ranking" to "there exists an ordering", you're making a less strong claim. But that doesn't actually resolve the issue people have with your argument, which is the assumption that there exists an objective ordering/ranking of game quality.

Suppose I say "every quadrilateral is a circle", and people call me out on being "kind of dumb". If I respond by backing off to "every parallelogram is an ellipse", I'm not making as strong a claim, but people aren't going to find the claim any more agreeable.

When you back off from "there exists an absolute ranking" to "there exists an ordering", you're making a less strong claim. But that doesn't actually resolve the issue people have with your argument, which is the assumption that there exists an objective ordering/ranking of game quality.

Didn't I just say that there is no objective ranking given tastes? But that being the case, that criticism is possible and meaningful, despite Claude's claim otherwise?

Didn't I just say that there is no objective ranking given tastes?

Well...

there's always going to be SOMEONE out there who will like any piece of trash game

there is no 'good' or 'bad', only 'better than x' or 'worse than y'

Your post made it sound like you believe that there is an objective ranking, even if people's tastes can deviate from it.

Yet another thread that veers off into discussing your communication style. I try really hard to take the high road with you, and honestly, I've heard nice things and like to think that if I'd been more active, and connected with you in the early days of our Bungie fandom, we'd be friends now. I still hold out hope.

Alas, responses like this grate. You remind me of the "cool kids" in grad school who routinely, in their snarky responses, communicated how they assumed they knew more than anyone in the room before the conversation ever started. The conversation is worthwhile, though. I love discussing the merits and flaws of artistic works.

Here's a take on your initial response and how it does and doesn't contribute to civil discourse:

Not sure there's much to respond to?

Translation: No conversation is necessary because Jilly's right. (-10)

It's not a good game.

Translation: This is a statement of fact. [The habit of referring to subjective opinions as if they're factual statements is the most irritating element of Codyspeak.] Notice the period. Move along. No disagreement with this is reasonable. (-10)

My favorite criticism is that from Tevis Thompson.

Translation: I won't spend too much energy typing a response to your post, even though I did recommended several games when you first asked. (-5)

I'm focusing instead on your inability to recognize the TRUTH about BioShock Infinite, and here's a link explaining the truth so I don't have to. [For having some argumentative backup even if it's not your own, +5. This sentence might have even been a totally positive sentence (on the civil discourse scale) had you introduced it with "don't have time to respond at length" or maybe even some modesty "Tevis Thompson says it better than I can." ]

Companion cube in a corset indeed.

Translation: Obligatory snarky tag line. Funny, though.(-5)

I respect you, Cody, and I think you care a lot about gaming and spend a lot to time thinking about games. It is possible that there are other thinking people who see things you don't see, or perhaps bring a different frame of reference, and therefore have a different appreciation. It's also possible that their frame of reference and knowledge is lacking compared to yours, but don't assume. I try not to just say I like or don't like something without some reason offered. Give me that much credit.

It's even rarer than I pronounce a truth, except maybe that "Were it so easy" was the worst line to be repeated in a Halo game. :)

When you back off from "there exists an absolute ranking" to "there exists an ordering", you're making a less strong claim. But that doesn't actually resolve the issue people have with your argument, which is the assumption that there exists an objective ordering/ranking of game quality.

Didn't I just say that there is no objective ranking given tastes? But that being the case, that criticism is possible and meaningful, despite Claude's claim otherwise?

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything even REMOTELY like 'criticism isn't meaningful or possible'. I'm pretty sure what I said was closer to 'criticism of a particular work doesn't necessarily lead to the ability to say that work is "better" or "worse" than another work.'

No matter WHAT it says, it's irrelevant if someone else decides they like it anyway.

I don't think that's true. Because tastes are tastes, and because there's always going to be SOMEONE out there who will like any piece of trash game (or movie, or album, etc), you'd have me believe that no meaningful critical comparison can be made because of that? There's people out there who hate Forrest Gump for crying out loud, but that doesn't mean you can't say that Forrest Gump is a better film than Madea's Christmas adventure.

'Better' in what sense?

Is Waiting for Godot 'better' than Die Hard? If it is, does it mean that every time I want to watch a movie where those are the only two choices, that I should watch it?

You can say "I think the story is weak and the gameplay is repetitive, so I think the game is bad" - but you can't say "It's objectively bad and the fact that three people with disparate views agree with me proves it." I'm sure I could find three OTHER people (with disparate views) who thought it was good.

People regularly call you out on your absolutist statements ("That game is bad"). Your most common response is "come on, of COURSE what I say is my opinion, so why should I waste space qualifying the statement?"

The answer is actually rather simple, and I just keep forgetting to throw it into a reply. You should qualify statements that are your opinion so that they can be distinguished from actual facts. When you say "This game is bad" and "It is raining" - you are telling us that you believe those two facts are equally verifiable. If you leave out any qualifiers, ever, you're requiring your READERS to guess which 'facts' are really facts, and which are just your opinions.

I'm pretty sure what I said was closer to 'criticism of a particular work doesn't necessarily lead to the ability to say that work is "better" or "worse" than another work.'

That's ENTIRELY what criticism IS. When you critique a work, you evaluate it in relation to similar works, and say whether it was better than most, or worse.

People regularly call you out on your absolutist statements ("That game is bad"). Your most common response is "come on, of COURSE what I say is my opinion, so why should I waste space qualifying the statement?"

The answer is actually rather simple, and I just keep forgetting to throw it into a reply. You should qualify statements that are your opinion so that they can be distinguished from actual facts. When you say "This game is bad" and "It is raining" - you are telling us that you believe those two facts are equally verifiable. If you leave out any qualifiers, ever, you're requiring your READERS to guess which 'facts' are really facts, and which are just your opinions.

This is insane. BAD and GOOD are value judgements based on opinions. OF COURSE they are not facts! When I say "This game is bad", there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that can be a statement of anything other than opinion. They shouldn't have to guess, because there's no way it can be anything else!.

That's why I don't waste time qualifying statements as opinion or fact.

People regularly call you out on your absolutist statements ("That game is bad"). Your most common response is "come on, of COURSE what I say is my opinion, so why should I waste space qualifying the statement?"

The answer is actually rather simple, and I just keep forgetting to throw it into a reply. You should qualify statements that are your opinion so that they can be distinguished from actual facts. When you say "This game is bad" and "It is raining" - you are telling us that you believe those two facts are equally verifiable. If you leave out any qualifiers, ever, you're requiring your READERS to guess which 'facts' are really facts, and which are just your opinions.

This is insane. BAD and GOOD are value judgements based on opinions. OF COURSE they are not facts! When I say "This game is bad", there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that can be a statement of anything other than opinion. They shouldn't have to guess, because there's no way it can be anything else!.

That's why I don't waste time qualifying statements as opinion or fact.

It's not a waste of time, though. People who express their judgments as if they are facts come off as arrogant. You act like it's our job to realize that you're not being arrogant, when the question really is why do you express as fact that which you know cannot be factual? It comes across as trying to shut down debate. Every hear the phrase, the quality of your communication is the response you get? You continually tick people off by sounding as if you have no interest in any other opinions because yours is the decisive one that renders opinion as fact.

If you want people to debate with you instead of getting ticked off at you, show some courtesy and tact in your expression.

People regularly call you out on your absolutist statements ("That game is bad"). Your most common response is "come on, of COURSE what I say is my opinion, so why should I waste space qualifying the statement?"

The answer is actually rather simple, and I just keep forgetting to throw it into a reply. You should qualify statements that are your opinion so that they can be distinguished from actual facts. When you say "This game is bad" and "It is raining" - you are telling us that you believe those two facts are equally verifiable. If you leave out any qualifiers, ever, you're requiring your READERS to guess which 'facts' are really facts, and which are just your opinions.

This is insane. BAD and GOOD are value judgements based on opinions. OF COURSE they are not facts! When I say "This game is bad", there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that can be a statement of anything other than opinion. They shouldn't have to guess, because there's no way it can be anything else!.

That's why I don't waste time qualifying statements as opinion or fact.

No, instead you waste time by generating this precise conversation over and over and over and over and over again.

"The sky is blue."

Fact, or opinion?

(I can get you any number of experts - qualified, smart, not-sloppy experts - to argue that question. They won't all agree. Or at least, they won't all agree until you provide context for the distinction.)

You say "I know whether what I'm saying is fact or opinion, and everyone else should, too." And I'm telling you that 1) NOT everyone else does, and 2) people don't even know if YOU know.

That's why I don't waste time qualifying statements as opinion or fact.

No, instead you waste time by generating this precise conversation over and over and over and over and over again.

Why hasn't it sunk in then? I've laid this out dozens of times. If this conversation happens repeatedly, it's because you all apparently do not listen, and continue to say that I hold my opinions as fact, when I have denied that every single time this discussion comes up.

If it's not in quotes, IT'S MY OPINION!

This is like the sixth time I've said this.

It's even rarer than I pronounce a truth, except maybe that "Were it so easy" was the worst line to be repeated in a Halo game. :)

Even there there's no truth.

"To War."

:-p

That's why I don't waste time qualifying statements as opinion or fact.

No, instead you waste time by generating this precise conversation over and over and over and over and over again.

Why hasn't it sunk in then? I've laid this out dozens of times. If this conversation happens repeatedly, it's because you all apparently do not listen, and continue to say that I hold my opinions as fact, when I have denied that every single time this discussion comes up.

If it's not in quotes, IT'S MY OPINION!

This is like the sixth time I've said this.

Grow the hell up. You're really pissing me off. YOU deserve special rules. We have to put a special decoder ring just for YOU.

Everyone else in the world either learns to disagree in an non-offensive way or faces the consequences, but not YOU. YOU somehow, by virtue of you being Cody Miller, World Record Holder, film editor extraordinaire, scholar of the arts, and whatever else you call yourself, should be given the benefit of a doubt that you are not an ass even though you sound like one.

Have you thought for a second that maybe you're the one who needs to let something sink in?

It's even rarer than I pronounce a truth, except maybe that "Were it so easy" was the worst line to be repeated in a Halo game. :)

Even there there's no truth.

"To War."

:-p

Not repeated. ;)

YOU somehow, by virtue of you being Cody Miller, World Record Holder, film editor extraordinaire, scholar of the arts, and whatever else you call yourself

I think you are giving me way more credit than I would even give myself there.

Have you thought for a second that maybe you're the one who needs to let something sink in?

Of course.

YOU somehow, by virtue of you being Cody Miller, World Record Holder, film editor extraordinaire, scholar of the arts, and whatever else you call yourself

I think you are giving me way more credit than I would even give myself there.

Have you thought for a second that maybe you're the one who needs to let something sink in?

Of course.

Then forgive my show of anger.

That's why I don't waste time qualifying statements as opinion or fact.

No, instead you waste time by generating this precise conversation over and over and over and over and over again.

Why hasn't it sunk in then?

Oh wow! The arrogance is almost literally staggering!

It's like a few people have already said, if you'd approach us in a friendly, non-jerk, non-know-it-all, non-then-why-hasn't-my-obvious-truth-sunk-in-yet-manner you'd find a lot of people a lot more understanding. Heck, you already get a decent smidge of agreement for your points of view around here when you are being your usual abrasive self. Imagine what would happen if you dropped your mean guy act (you did argue it was an act, yes?) and conversed respectfully with us!

YOU somehow, by virtue of you being Cody Miller, World Record Holder, film editor extraordinaire, scholar of the arts, and whatever else you call yourself

I think you are giving me way more credit than I would even give myself there.

Have you thought for a second that maybe you're the one who needs to let something sink in?

Of course.

Then forgive my show of anger.

Cody's just being Cody, dude. I don't know why people are still letting his statements get them emotional. The guy's passionate about video games as are most of us and he tends to write in a certain way that could be construed as inflammatory to the average human. It's up to us on how we take that.

Cody's just being Cody, dude. I don't know why people are still letting his statements get them emotional. The guy's passionate about video games as are most of us and he tends to write in a certain way that could be construed as inflammatory to the average human. It's up to us on how we take that.

If you're saying ignore the troll, then yes, that's always healthy advice when wandering the wilds of the internet. The problem is that I think Cody has interesting things to say, and I don't want to ignore him. If you're saying excuse him, then no. If you read our interactions in this thread, you'll see I didn't respond angrily to his usual bluster. I didn't get my hackles up until His Highness chastised us for not excusing him and for not remembering what he has explained to us numerous times, which is, in effect, he doesn't mean to be inflammatory with his arrogant and dismissive style, he just can't be bothered to express himself in a polite and respectful way.

YOU somehow, by virtue of you being Cody Miller, World Record Holder, film editor extraordinaire, scholar of the arts, and whatever else you call yourself

I think you are giving me way more credit than I would even give myself there.

Have you thought for a second that maybe you're the one who needs to let something sink in?

Of course.

Then forgive my show of anger.

Cody's just being Cody, dude. I don't know why people are still letting his statements get them emotional. The guy's passionate about video games as are most of us and he tends to write in a certain way that could be construed as inflammatory to the average human. It's up to us on how we take that.

Right, because writing off the argumentative jerk as "just" the argumentative jerk makes it all ok. Can't human decency, the protection of standards, interfere with his postings... Why does it have to be up to us to choose to ignore his style of posting? Why isn't it up to him to shape up?

Not sure where to attach this post because I don't want to single out any individual person who has been taking issue with your tone...

but many of the responses to Cody's posts do come across, to me - in my subjective opinion ;-), as tone trolling (which is a content free way of disagreeing with someone or an effective way to smother opinion by sapping the target's energy and other readers' enthusiasm for the thread - I've forgotten Cody's original point(s)).

Yeah I was definitely influenced in my playthrough of BI by games like Dishonoured and the Last of Us which have very similar themes and a touch of heart and class that I just don't get from Infinite.

I think I'd go easier on Infinite if other people didn't laud it so violently. I cannot comprehend how it's anyone's game of the year when it has so many glaring flaws.

Take, again, Dishonoured. Gameplay wise it embraces the 3D environment more fully than any other game than Assassin's Creed. But even more so. Do you want to take the bridge by walking right up the centre path, killing everyone in your sight? Or are you going to slip through those doors like a ghost, pausing time, possessing people, teleporting behind theirs heads and knocking them out? Or are you going to take one look at the guarded path and leap to the rooftops where you can prowl the abandoned buildings, taking out the infected, searching the chests for magical artefacts so you can perfect your Batman impression on unsuspecting guards below.

There's at least five different routes I can think of over Kaldwin's Bridge (one of the middle levels) and I love all of them. The game encourages you to try different playstyles with its achievement list. I recommend three playthroughs for maximum enjoyment:

• First, just explore the powersets, get used to them, kill whoever you feel like it (and some of them might give you pause).
  
• Second, do a pure pacifist/ghost run. Be seen by no one. Kill no one. Pray the Outsider will give you some useful bone charms and not bloody land you with whisper kill again.
  
• Third - high chaos, no magic run. Overclock your grenades, ignore all magic, put your trust in steel and gunpowder and make them pay for everything they've done to you.
  
• And always, always sign the guestbook.

- No text -

Now that you have a PS3 buy Vanquish (it's quite a bit better than the xbox version). Immediately. It's the best game so far this decade, and definitely the best console third person shooter to date.

(it's quite a bit better than the xbox version)

Really? What's the difference?

Really? What's the difference?

According to the DF face-off:

PS3:
+Mild advantage in shadowing
+Similar framerate to 360, but no tearing (360 version uses a soft vsync)
-Ever so slightly higher input lag

Really? What's the difference?

According to the DF face-off:

PS3:
+Mild advantage in shadowing
+Similar framerate to 360, but no tearing (360 version uses a soft vsync)
-Ever so slightly higher input lag

"It is often the case that lower frame-rates lead to less responsive controls, but Vanquish appears to the exception to the rule."

I wouldn't worry about this. It feels really crisp on PS3.

+ All the voice acting for all the languages on the disc! Hear it all in German or Japanese!
+ Completely subjective, but the DualShock™ feels better for third person shooters.

+ All the voice acting for all the languages on the disc! Hear it all in German or Japanese!

This is actually pretty major.

I'd need a 3rd party controller, though. Thanks, Cody.

Thanks for the tip, Cody. i played the demo on the Xbox and enjoyed it, and it was on my list to get sometime. Never would have considered getting it for the PS3, though.

Other updates:

I tried the demo for Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch. Perhaps if I played it from the start I'd feel differently, but the demo didn't do it for me. There's a class of video games I never really got into, and I think this probably pushes some buttons for people other than me. I like anime, but only certain kinds. That said, the story sounds similar to Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, which I really enjoyed, so maybe I'll pick it up cheap sometime.

The Last of Us is still amazing. I'm about to go retrieve a battery, if that tells you where I am in the story. It has some of the best characters I've seen in a video game, in that they're complicated in a realistic way. They have to do extreme things, but gosh, in that world, you have to or you're dead. There was few moments during my first battles with Clickers where I thought it might be too intense for me, and I still feel a sense of dread, but I think I might make it.

Sounds like a plan, Jillybean.

I played through 3 levels or so before I got sidetracked, and I was really liking it. I'm starting fresh next time, and it's near the top of the to-play stack, so I hope to get through it in the next several months.

Now that you have a PS3 buy Vanquish (it's quite a bit better than the xbox version). Immediately. It's the best game so far this decade, and definitely the best console third person shooter to date.

That's a pretty tall claim. The demo was terrible, so I expected it to be throwaway trash. Unless the actual game is significantly different...

What about Metal Gear Solid 4? It's a PS3 exclusive. It's worth playing, as the first three acts are extremely compelling, but it drops off after that.

This is just a gut feeling I have from reading a lot of praise of this game, and some negative reviews, but I feel like it's meant to be played differently than most people's instincts based on other 3rd person shooters would suggest. One reviewer mentioned something about it not being a good idea to take cover all the time, as opposed to Gears for example where it's nearly always better to be in cover. I took this to mean that you do better if you're always up and moving around frantically, rather than being slow and methodical. Which is a good way to die in Gears or Mass Effect (campaign, anyway).

I'll find out very soon, as my copy just arrived today. It's the 360 version (I ordered it before this thread popped up) but I'm not too worried. I'm sure it'll still be decent.

• First, just explore the powersets, get used to them, kill whoever you feel like it (and some of them might give you pause).
  
• Second, do a pure pacifist/ghost run. Be seen by no one. Kill no one. Pray the Outsider will give you some useful bone charms and not bloody land you with whisper kill again.
  
• Third - high chaos, no magic run. Overclock your grenades, ignore all magic, put your trust in steel and gunpowder and make them pay for everything they've done to you.
  
• And always, always sign the guestbook.

My first run was high(est) chaos. Really enjoyed that perk where bodies disolve into ash upon death. Didn't discover the guestbook until right before leaving. Signed it as I walked out.

So deliciously evil.

I took this to mean that you do better if you're always up and moving around frantically, rather than being slow and methodical. Which is a good way to die in Gears or Mass Effect (campaign, anyway).

If you're a balls-to-the-wall Nova-Vanguard like me, you feel right at home. Vanquish is a great game.

Amendment: moving around is a good way to die if you don't count Novaguard. Mass Effect stops being a cover-based shooter at that point. ;)

Murder you in the face with my face based shooter?

This is just a gut feeling I have from reading a lot of praise of this game, and some negative reviews, but I feel like it's meant to be played differently than most people's instincts based on other 3rd person shooters would suggest. One reviewer mentioned something about it not being a good idea to take cover all the time, as opposed to Gears for example where it's nearly always better to be in cover. I took this to mean that you do better if you're always up and moving around frantically, rather than being slow and methodical. Which is a good way to die in Gears or Mass Effect (campaign, anyway).

Yup. This is how you play the game, and why it feels amazing.

That's seriously like saying there's a nice article written in a flaming newspaper. I think the "on fire" is detracting from any points or enjoyment I can get from said article

...is there isn't a basketball upgrade so I can dunk on those Reaps.

Right, because writing off the argumentative jerk as "just" the argumentative jerk makes it all ok. Can't human decency, the protection of standards, interfere with his postings... Why does it have to be up to us to choose to ignore his style of posting? Why isn't it up to him to shape up?

I, personally, decided to stop worrying about it and love the bomb a long time ago. Really, it's up to each individual poster. For what it's worth, having since made the decision to not care about Cody's tone, I feel like I've learned a lot from a valuable perspective. I mean, has anyone not tried Vanquish because they think Cody is dumb? That's a sad thought, right there.

I mean, has anyone not tried Vanquish because they think Cody is dumb? That's a sad thought, right there.

Vanquish is good. I don't know if it's everything Cody says it is, but it's pretty damn fun.

And that story is so pacific rim it hurts :3

I, personally, decided to stop worrying about it and love the bomb a long time ago. Really, it's up to each individual poster. For what it's worth, having since made the decision to not care about Cody's tone, I feel like I've learned a lot from a valuable perspective. I mean, has anyone not tried Vanquish because they think Cody is dumb? That's a sad thought, right there.

Reasonable thoughts. For me, I view tones as an important part of communication. Words have multiple meanings and varied implications, together they form more complex meanings, and coupled with subtext and other tools like tone and style, those words become your ultimate message. When I write, I rely on all those tools available to me, viewing wording and tone as equal and interconnected parts, and even then I don't usually feel I can convey every nuance and subtlety my thoughts and feelings hold. So if you remove any tone I may have weaved into my post, my message may mean something to you entirely different from what I had originally intended. I hope people don't do that, so I try to return the favor. There will always be multiple readings of course, but I have to take your post for what it is, whatever you include, whatever is there. If I start picking and choosing signals to interpret and others to ignore, I worry I may get it all wrong.

I had tried Vanquish and was not interested before I had ever heard Cody praise it, but yes, having experienced so many discussions with him over the years, I'm now conditioned to ignore most of his recommendations. But by the same token, I often become interested in games he slanders. :) That could always change of course, I'd love to be surprised.

But I will never be able to overlook the tone, whether pleasant or pretentious, from Cody's posts. They are a part of those posts, they mean something, and they imply something about the message and the person. I might be interpreting those signals incorrectly, but I can't pretend they are not there. And after all our back and forths, I have become fairly confident in those interpretations, so I now choose to ignore most of his posts altogether, weighing my frustration against the positives received. That is not to say he is dumb or does not have ideas to offer, but after years of discussing with him, the high blood pressure greatly overwhelms anything we have not already thoroughly beaten to death in past conversations.

Right, because writing off the argumentative jerk as "just" the argumentative jerk makes it all ok. Can't human decency, the protection of standards, interfere with his postings... Why does it have to be up to us to choose to ignore his style of posting? Why isn't it up to him to shape up?

I, personally, decided to stop worrying about it and love the bomb a long time ago. Really, it's up to each individual poster. For what it's worth, having since made the decision to not care about Cody's tone, I feel like I've learned a lot from a valuable perspective. I mean, has anyone not tried Vanquish because they think Cody is dumb? That's a sad thought, right there.

I like to think that I, too, have learned to side-step his tone better than I used to.

I'm big enough to admit that I've been offended by Cody not engaging me the way he would people he has met or known for years. Chalk that up to human nature on both our parts.

The lack of humility still bothers me. All this talk of him in the third person isn't helping that!

I'll say directly, Cody, I appreciate what you have to say, if not always the way you say it.

Right, because writing off the argumentative jerk as "just" the argumentative jerk makes it all ok. Can't human decency, the protection of standards, interfere with his postings... Why does it have to be up to us to choose to ignore his style of posting? Why isn't it up to him to shape up?

I, personally, decided to stop worrying about it and love the bomb a long time ago. Really, it's up to each individual poster. For what it's worth, having since made the decision to not care about Cody's tone, I feel like I've learned a lot from a valuable perspective. I mean, has anyone not tried Vanquish because they think Cody is dumb? That's a sad thought, right there.

I like to think that I, too, have learned to side-step his tone better than I used to.

I'm big enough to admit that I've been offended by Cody not engaging me the way he would people he has met or known for years. Chalk that up to human nature on both our parts.

The lack of humility still bothers me. All this talk of him in the third person isn't helping that!

I'll say directly, Cody, I appreciate what you have to say, if not always the way you say it.

I find that in the end, the ultimate question has been Intent. The reason for action. I have asked of this. Choose as you will, but I find this response very telling, not just in the saying, but in what was chosen to be said.

Who think's Cody is dumb? I certainly don't. At worst, I'd say I don't rely on his opinion very much, good or bad, for my choices in gaming. I haven't gone out of my way to ignore a game he likes or play a game he dislikes though. For instance I have played neither Vanquish nor Journey. It's not a question of intelligence... it's me disagreeing with him both on some of the concepts of video gaming and even more on his presentation of those concepts.

I'll probably finish it tonight, or tomorrow if snow cooperates. I'm excited yet sad. I hesitate to say it's the best game I've ever played, but it might well be. There's only one first play-through, and I hate to see it end.