As long as I still retain the ability to shit or sleep I'll always have room for handhelds. Most of DS playtime has been at home.
I do understand why people are saying that mobiles are the future. Having a consolidated device like that has been the goal for both Sony and MS. There's nothing stopping phones from having meaty experiences. More importantly there's nothing stopping developers from moving away from meaty experiences. We've already seen it happen. #speakup
Could be worse, it's buying extra content and can be considered DLC. Still not as bad as Mass Effect fanboys who try to scientifically discover what Tali's sweat would taste like.
The difference is also that Steam gives indie games the same opportunity in advertising. With TF2 promotions they can actually get better treatment than the AAA titles. It's much more even in comparison to consoles where even B developers have trouble.
Hip to troll Bethesda now? No, it's been a recurring joke since Morrowind. Maybe even earlier. Even fans admit that it isn't a Bethesda game without tons of bugs and glitches.
That isn't false. Steam didn't let them have full control. But they left out exactly what the problem they had with Steam was for a reason. If something company PR says isn't 100% in the favour of the customer and outlined fully and clearly automatically assume that it's bullshit out to fuck you over. Especially when the result is them breaking something that works fine. With EA's history in butt-fucking gamers you should doubt them if they say the next Battlefield is going to be an FPS.
"but when sony does, there must be a reason"
The same reason MS does it.
Playstation had their Pokemon in Monster Hunter. Sure, they didn't own it and as such they lost it for the moment. It could be played in small amounts or large amounts and it gave people a reason to bring the system outside their home for reasons besides commuting. Pokemon, Mario Kart, Monster Hunter, DQIX. Those games "get it".
I think local multiplayer other social experiences is a big part of why Pokemon and MH are so iconic as handheld titles. Nintendo has recognized it with their Street Pass and I'd like to say Sony with Near but I don't know enough about it and if Sony was simply copying Nintendo or if they intend to make something game-y out of it.
"and much of this review was complaining about platform based limitations and how that makes the game worse than previous entries in the series"
Nintendo games go through the same thing with touch controls, motion controls, and SD graphics. Saying that the controls don't work well is a lot more valid a complaint than a Wii game losing points for not being in HD. It isn't the first time that people have complained about the touch and motion controls for a game, or horribly done QTE's, or poor combat. To this day people still complain about motion controls in new Zelda games and how they suck because buttons are better. That's just the way it is. And Nintendo usually aren't even that aggressive with their marketing and hype.
You have to compare the game to something. Otherwise EVERY game would be worth buying. Games don't exist in a vacuum. The Uncharted Vita and Uncharted PS3 comparison makes more sense than a lot of other comparisons. Final Fantasy games specifically try to NOT be like the others. Yet people insist on comparing them against each other.
In this context the Uncharted comparison isn't that unfair.
"It's fair to compare it, but this review seems to almost say it's not as good as the primary justification for not recommending buying it."
When something new is worse than something you already have isn't it natural to recommend not buying it? It's not just the motion controls or QTE's that are being complained about. The review lists problems with the game beyond issues with the platform.
E3, interviews, and the like. And there's the general "portable PS3" idea that they're going for with the "console-like experiences". I'm actually pretty surprised that they're doing the exact same thing with the Vita that they did with the PSP in terms of inviting console comparisons.
They had no qualms about advertising the game as a portable version of the Uncharted people know and love from consoles. You can't expect people to NOT compare it to consoles when efforts have been made to have people do the opposite.
When you make a sequel in all but name that's just the way it is. I mean, look at the way people compare Nintendo games. Usually it's people arguing about which iteration in the series is better; how Skyward Sword isn't as good as Ocarina or Windwaker, or how 2D side-scrolling Mario is better than 3D Mario, or how 3D Metroid isn't a REAL Metroid.
That type of reaction comes with the territory. In a review you have to compare it with something and comparing it to its predecessors is natural. It's actually better than comparing it with another game in the same genre.
What do you expect when one of the ways that the game has been advertised is that it's like the Uncharted you know and love on PS3 but PORTABLE.
If they didn't want people to compare they shouldn't have advertised it that way.
Lines up with other impressions I've read.
It's too easy. Yes, I'm on hard.
Not a problem if combat wasn't so central to everything in the game. There's a lot of quest content but it's dragged down by the combat. #speakup
[www.playdota.com] (this is for Dota 1 but it's pretty much all the same)
If you want something a little less comprehensive or if you have an idea of how MOBA's are played either through LoL or watching others play try:
You're going to die and lose. If you had no other MOBA experience you're going to die and lose more. If you have no RTS experience you're going to die and lose even more. I wouldn't play against bots, the team of bots in Dota 2 are actually really good and can out-do most players. Not just newbies or people that haven't played in a long time but players from LoL too who are not new or rusty. I would also suggest watching videos of tournaments and other high level players.
Find out what role you want to play before you pick a hero. #speakup
3 580's is not a super-computer.
Good graphics matter in the sense that why shouldn't a player want the best everything but it is the least important factor in determining the true quality of a game. Hyper-realism doesn't pay off for developers either. It's time consuming, which also means expensive, and if done poorly will have an overall negative effect on the game. What I got from that essay was that people are lazy; it's easier to judge a book by its cover so let's focus on that.
If graphics truly mattered, to developers and consumers, there would be a lot more people with PC as their main platform. The Wii and app games would not have been a dominant force in the market. I especially like this line: "There are many hard-core gamers, of course, who will disagree with this characterization." The hardcore gamers are the ones that find graphics to be the most important. Traditional gamers? They're the ones that are always saying gameplay over graphics using old games as examples, casuals are playing on Wii and mobile devices so they obviously don't care about graphics that much.
Also note the difference between graphics and aesthetics. Strong aesthetics is absolutely required. Good graphics not so much.
Instead of using numbers use something simpler like stars. A system that I would like is having students earn stars through good marks, good behaviour, whatever your goal is, and then use those stars as currency in an auction in which they can bid for stuff. It doesn't have to be on material things, you can let them use it to buy privileges or something like that. It might be a little too expensive finding prizes that will interest 6th graders in this day and age. This would probably be better for younger students since their tastes aren't quite so expensive. The requirements for earning stars will depend on the issues you face in class and you can always modify them they get fixed or new problems arise.
Rather than going out of your way to help students find intrinsic motivation for learning you give them extrinsic motivation in the form of short and long term rewards and goals. It doesn't have to be used as currency, though that's the way I prefer since it reflects the real world where you work for money. It can be used as raffle tickets for prizes. But raffle tickets doesn't provide the same short-term motivation of KNOWING FOR SURE that their hard work will change into something tangible. With a raffle they're not guaranteed to win anything. Maybe they can learn about managing money while they're at it too. You can mix and match the rewards. For example, have some rewards cost a certain number of stars that are available the entire semester. Like being able to add marks, or use a small cheat sheet, whatever. And then have an auction near the end of the year so those that saved up their stars can bid on material rewards. At the end of the year have a grand prize raffle so those that still have tickets don't feel like it's wasted.
I'm wary about the idea where students "battle" each other for XP. I'm not a big fan of direct competition like that between students. It can get messy. Obviously try to avoid anything resembling gambling too. I would try to keep it "kid friendly" just to be safe too and avoid actually calling the currency money. Like Nyan said, there needs to be a reward system and IMO that reward needs to be something tangible. Think of MMO's and the Steam Christmas event. Just the mere chance to get shinies is an incredible motivator. Everyone loves free shit. Essentially the goal is to motivate them with shinies and showing the students that their hard work doesn't go unrewarded. Strong students will naturally do well, and you can appeal to unmotivated students through their sense of greed and/or jealousy. Those are some pretty powerful emotions and you can guide those students that will inevitably act on them towards doing better. Hopefully you can guide them away from beating up the smart kids. #speakup
I agree about sensitivity being a myth. It's futile to expect sensitivity from the Internet. I think it would lose a lot of its charm if it ever gets to be that way anyways. People are attacked here for a lot less than their sexuality or ethnicity. You like your eggs sunny side up? Fuck you. Scrambled master race here.
As long as you drop the "WTF JAPAN" and "OMG JAPAN SO WEIRD" focus it'll go a long way in improving the coverage. A lot less Sankaku, more Siliconera and andriasang. The same thing applies to coverage in China and South Korea. It should be more than "look at how FOREIGN they are". Treat them seriously.
