DW6:E is dumbed down, simplified, and completely too banal to be truly satisfactory to long time fans. It's a shame really. However, people new to the game or those who want something a little less complex should enjoy it.

Gone are the production of items, placement of defense forces on a territory by territory basis, diplomacy between leaders, and many other meaningful tidbits that added depth and appeal to this game. DW5:E is > DW6:E. Again, a real shame.

T2 is kind of more mechwarriorish than the mission based game it was before. Campaign map is set up like mousou mode in Dynasty Warriors. You can return to them as much as you want to replay gaining experience points. There is a medal based system in play based on time taken (like Battlestations Pacific). Medals unlock other areas to play. Each Transformer has a main and secondary attacks. Special powers are unique as well. I have seen shotgun, missles, sniper, medic, grenades, mines, autocannons, etc.. So there are a lot of different things to play with. 4-5 transformers on each side. Story is ok. Voice acting ok.

My complaints are that there are generic enemy types and the missions just spawn them on you occasionally fighting a boss type transformer. The nice thing about these are they are new and unknonwn ones.

Leveling up your transformers is done on a team wide system. What you level up affects all your transformers. There are catagories for weapon heat tolerance, cooldown times, health, melee damage, melee special damage, and some of the weapon stuff for being in a vehicle. Could have done better here.

The game is very simplistic. Each area is a micro sized open world with objectives. There are many different types of objectives but for the most part expect a lot of combat. There are stunt awards for headshots, killing transformers climbing up buildings, in vehicle mode, when they are flying, etc...

It's better than the previous game but a bit rinse and repeat. Multiplayer should be pretty decent with each transformer having different class abilities.

I unlocked something referencing Dinobots. Not sure where or what that is yet.

Unless you are absolutely Transformer fanatical, I would rent this first.

Finally got MTG downloaded around midnight after having purchased it around noon that same day. Pretty crappy issue yesterday. Magic the Gathering on Xbox Live is highly disappointing. It's angled towards brand new players. The interface takes some getting used to (key timing can be easily overlooked with the timing circles, even after making all options manual as much as possible).

The biggest let down is the lack of a deck editor. So you can pretty much forget about creating your own special magic library and testing out your creation. You get premade decks and can opt to put a few unlocked cards in them. Eventually one would think this would become a required feature if they want it to be successful. The premade decks are a bit out of balance on card weights as well.

Not a bad game to piddle with, but hardly what I would call a full blown CCG offering, which is surprising coming from a WOC game on XBL. The old PC Microprose version blows this new version out of the water... Oh well, here's hoping a few expansions make it worthy of time spent, much less money.

@Dots - No means you were dismissed, just like I am pretty much dismissing you again. Your points, good, bad or ugly don't matter to me. Your ideas are flawed, I don't value you, you personally, yes you, enough to spend effort responding. You can claim ultimate victory, and that you are right in all things for all I care.

And seriously, grow the hell up. Using the word fanboy to excuse hateful behavior over entertainment hardware makes you shallow, repugnant, and very unworthy of any effort or response.

This comment was edited on Jun 17, 2009, 17:19.

Finished the game on hard. Took about 12-13 hours. Really enjoyed it and may even play it again some time. Very nice job on making the player feel like he was playing with the cast of GB. 8/10 easily *if* you like GB. The gameplay is different and fun even if you don't.

I stopped playing GB to rewatch the movies. Glad I did. It reminded me of some of the little things that the GB game got so right...

The GB office/garage is spot on. Even has the sliding fireman poles. Here's a tip, try it out. They even have the 2 arcade machines and pinball in the corner. The difference is that the movie had Ms. Pacman and Star Castle (couldn't make out the pinball) and the game has Q-bert and a knock-off. Can't play them that I know of, maybe unlockable. The secretary and area, perfect. Even the giant painting of Vigo the Carpathian is sitting in the garage, mouthing off as you pass. Things like very distinct quotes from the movies are names of trophies like "The flowers are still standing" and "We came, we saw, ...".

I won't sit here and tell anyone that this game is worth 60 or even 30 but I like it so far. Actually feel like a person on the team in a movie. It's a hell of a lot better than I ever expected it to be, and it's nice that another good movie game has been released (even if it's content is from the early 90s).

This comment was edited on Jun 17, 2009, 01:56.

Playing it now. It's different. You actually have to wrestle and fight the ghosts into the trap. Voice acting and music spot on. Story so far is clever so humorous moments. Murray is his classic self. Akroyd hasn't changed a bit.

I am playing it on hard and you have to kill these lil critter types every once in awhile that swarm. When you die it says, reload checkpoint. Checkpoint = restart of level. Semi destructible items and portions of environment. Gear upgrades, collectables in form of paranormal artifacts, detailed records of everything encountered.

The game so far is mostly played with you and the other team members working together. When one goes down you go res, you go down they res you. Not bad. Might even play it again at some point. First impressions good, but most folks would probably mark this as a renter unless GB fans.

Even I would be interested in something like this if:

1) New games were available just like retail at the same time as retail.
2) It would have to include every major PC release, not just half of them.
3) It was resident on the PC instead of streamed.

Otherwise not interested.

Yeah LOL the consoles are largely about DRM and consumer lock-in.

LOL what are you guys smoking today? Go try and run a PC game on Xbox, PS3, Wii, Mac, or an Amiga for that matter. Same deal! Especially with Steam Live.

The argument that PC DRM is somehow worse than the inherent console lock-in and DRM completely discredited anything else you might have had to say Z9000.

LOL What? My games don't have activation limits and can be sold, traded, given to a friend. The only thing that might be considered DRM on the retail games is that it only works on a PS3? That's not DRM, that's proprietary development, just like the Xbox and even the PC (try putting a PC game in a mac).

For the occasional DLC or budget games, PS3 DRM is a 5 different device allowance and completely transferable to other devices just like Ipod. I can call Sony on the phone if needed (haven't needed to yet and I got the DLC on 2 machines at the moment). Xbox on the other hand is 1 machine only and they make you do back flips to transfer it more than once a year. Hell most people are lucky to get an Xbox to last a whole year... To the console systems credit, their DRM does not interfere with the operation of the title (unless it's Xbox makin you redownload everything again after a RROD which shows up as demo only until you do!)

I am safe in my opinion that I think all PC DRM is total crap across the board, period, Steam included, especially since it's DRM that sometimes has games with even further imbedded DRM. If Steam did their DRM like Ipod, had good support, a number to call, didn't force a TSR all the time, and didn't alow other DRM to be imbedded, I would be a lot easier going on them. But the main problem remains is that the retail games are all included in the DRM too (unlike consoles). So with PC you get a gate keeper over all your software, with consoles you get a partial gatekeeper on some DLC, but no gatekeeper on the big retail games (the ones that matter). So not sure what your point is, other than you don't really have one?

This comment was edited on Jun 16, 2009, 07:40.

Prototype - Ok on the PS3 I do not notice any tearing at all. And I really complain about this in games like RA3, S2, and a few others. Tearing on the PS3 is only really noticable on scrolling static backgrounds like maps. But honestly, I don't see it in prototype on the PS3. That doesn't mean it isn't there from time to time, I am just not seeing it like I do in some other games.

The other thing this article talks about is frame rate slow downs before it talks about how PS3 has the best looking game of the 3. PS3, the way it is set up, has far superior particle and physics handling over other consoles (CPU dedicated stuff for the PS3). This is strongly evidenced in games like Red Faction, and even Bioshock. I also think the AA is better. As a result, places where you would expect slow downs on any system (heavy action, lots of particles) just aren't that noticable if at all. Maybe this explains why everyone on other platforms was calling the game ugly and I was not understanding the complaints while being pleased with it (it does have those boxy clean buildings like ODST and the bases blowing up do look very low poly and out of place with the rest of the game).

LOL True! I didn't like people ragging on Caveman for speaking his mind...

Sims 3 is the only PC game where this has been really obvious. Console games aren't immune to it either. SF4 forced you to pay to unlock costumes that were already on the disc. RE5's multiplayer mode was the same. It's a trend that's consuming the whole industry and isn't limited to PC.

http://kotaku.com/5285729/ea-re+thinking-how-you-spend-your-gaming-money

It's apparently a business plan from here on out. Now we get to buy disks with a portion of the content.

Costumes and stuff? Who cares? That is optional DLC stuff, I am talking about the entire 2nd city in the Sims 3 game.

Everyone? There are only a few games that require Steam and a few that require Impulse. 95% of PC games don't require you to login to anything.

You don't answer my questions, you cut and paste portions and misconstrue what I say, and now make up totally ridiculous statements like this.

Example:

Me: WHY would I want to pay 1k-3k for a rig to put up with crap like that?

You: $1-3k? Seriously? If you buy a $1000 PC today, it'll last you for a very long time. It'll also do more than any console can. A $3000 PC is just a waste of money.

WTF? I mean really. How does an opine about PC prices address my question? You do this all the time...

I haven't seen anything to suggest that these games will be bigger hits than the previous attempts at MMO on console. And I'm pretty sure they'll all be more successful on the PC.

FF14 is probably the best positioned to do this. Especially since the FF11 PC version was disasterous. It's something to watch.

@Dots - No

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 15:48.

As far as competative multiplayer PC shooters, I would agree. I never made a claim otherwise.

Funny thing, friend just called, told me Dan Akroyd called him to tell him his Ghostbuster's game he had reserved will be in tomarrow at Gamestop. Nice touch.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 15:13.

Yeah, Sims 3 is microtransaction heavy. Then again, the series has always been about milking customers for every last penny, hence all the expansions. Now we just have microtransactions instead of expansions.

You are skipping the most disturbing part of PC software, all the crazy newfangled ideas and obstructionware that gets used! While DRM is going out of style in some places after wreaking crazy damage to many PC gamer's desire to play PC games, they are moving on to either full force Steam, DUCk or both! That's Downloaded Unlocked Content. The newest schtick to get you to buy a half burned game and download the other half, or at least unlock it. WHY would I want to pay 1k-3k for a rig to put up with crap like that? So I can see my in game characters shrink when I crank up the res. They look real good I am sure, if they were not the size of ants!

Re: Ease of use and speed of updates without needing an account for everything on a console.

That depends on which consoles you own.

You missed the entire point of that paragraph. On PC's now, everyone has a service, set of hoops, and log in crap to subject to the end user just so they can use the play the damn game. Consoles are the most painless and speedy to get updates.

Why would I want to part with 1k-3k worth of cash for a PC just to subject myself to that kind of scrutiny just for games that are majorly console ports? I mean seriously? I know good shooters and some of the Steam stuff is good times for PC gamers that like the community there, and that's great if you are in to that. I out grew FPS shooter marathons 10 years ago. I just had done it for so long it became repetitive no matter what the new flavor of the year was (i.e. burnout on the whole concept). But many still like it, more power to them. Other than that, you got MMOS and well. more console ports!

Until the average MMO and RTS sells a lot more copies on consoles, they will remain PC-centric. One big reason why they haven't been successful is because they are really designed to be played with mouse and keyboard. If you design one to work with a gamepad, it inevitably gets dumbed down. And of course, I'd never in a thousand years want to play either with a gamepad.

You are thinking last years styles, not the stuff coming down the pipe. Watch FF14, DC Universe, Champion's Online when they come out. Going to be better sub rate than any MMO besides WoW I bet, atleast one of them will.

I just remembered back to a dude when I was playing EQ, he was using a game pad for everything. He would run in circles until he could turn autorun off when you would say something to him. Pretty damn funny.

I expect RTS games to catch on eventually. It's a large change in control method. A lot like getting people to play shooters with a pad instead of a mouse. Hell even I didn't want to do it for the longest, but now it's second nature. Just like shooters, it will happen for RTS.

I hope Aspyr keeps promoting no DRM disc based games because I will keep grabbing them. Anything else other than SC2 and D3 will need to go console to grab my cash if they are using DRM, DUC, or other shennanigans.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 14:57.

Most console games come out on the PC. With a rig like that, the experience of playing those games is significantly improved over playing them on a console.

You would think since logic dictates that, it would be the case (I wish it were true). But since a major portion of PC games now days are console ports, you run in to many issues that actually detract from the experience. Ones that negate having faster frames or better resolution. Things like control layout failures, console interfaces not really being modified for PC, being stuck with games that work better with a game pad, or ones that may not even support the high end details that you bought a good rig to play with. There are many other reasons including the new "delay the PC version" trend, why should anyone wait? The bottom line is pay big money for a rig, only to have a big portion of your games be crippled, results in a big let down. Might as well just play those on the systems they were really designed for, consoles.

What is it I am really missing by choosing to buy games for a console? PC hardware builds only last for so long before they are outmoded. In the time since I built this machine to present, I have gotten Men of War, Demigod, Spore, L4D (could have bought on xbox!), The Witcher Enhanced, Red Alert 3, Kings Bounty, Sacred 2, Crysis expansion, and Hired Guns: Jagged Edge. That's 11 PC titles (9 exclusive titles) over almost a years time. That's hundreds of dollars per title in hardware cost just to play them. I could have added 2 more if I wasn't refusing to buy Steam stuff, and it would still be hundreds of dollars per title in hardware costs to play. It's simply not worth it even if I add in all those console ports. The only hope I have for justifying a big game rig purchase is Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, and a very few other titles. I would have been better off getting a moderate machine. PC gaming is still worth it when the right game comes out, but man, that's practically a new PC for each super title in time.

I made lists of 360 and PS3 games and how many of those also appear on the PC.

To me that makes more of a case why you should be getting the console version. Most of them were designed with a console in mind. Why risk interface issues, incompatabilities, and DRM just to pay more per hardware dollar to play them? You can spend just as much that you spent on the computer rig and pour it into a nice home theatre and get better bang for the buck and milage for watching movies and TV too.

Why should any of us go out and buy crazy PC hardware now days? It's a trend that is no longer justified because of lack of quality software and original games. As the developers have jumped ship to consoles, I have simply followed their lead. The industry is heading that direction, what logic can possibly defend the consumer not also doing the same thing in order to get the most value and original titles to play?

As for DRM, it's not that big of an issue anymore. Ubisoft has dropped DRM and EA looks like they're going to, what with Sims 3 and Dragon Age not having any.

They are slick, I have to give them that much. No, there is DRM, it's now called downloaded unlocked content. DUC! You saw that happen in DoW 2 where you got something like 5 maps, and if you wanted more, you had to be connected to steam, and take advantage of that with your account and download it. EA is taking it to the extremes which they certainly like to do. Sims 3 for example requires you to make an account, and register to unlock a good portion of the games content. Then in order to get anything else, it's microtransactioned to death and back. You got to have accounts for everything, PC games are heading more to a service oriented set up. Think of them all as free MMOs (that... you guessed it... you paid for).

I prefer buying a disc with the game on it and playing it from there. If there is DLC later, then I have the option to pick it up. You know, like consoles. The way the PC *used* to be. I get a game, if it needs a patch, it gets downloaded without me logging in to anything other than a patch server (automatic and a hell of a lot faster than Steam).

PC has the largest audience for MMOs, strategy games and casual games. That's why those genres remain PC-centric. However, for action games, sports games, racing games, RPGs and most other popular genres, consoles have a larger audience.

I don't think you can really make that distinction due to the piracy numbers being such an unknown. It remains opinion based. I would wager if there were a way to determine exact numbers that they all had been pirated more than purchased.

I think that paid casual is bigger on console/handheld/phone now, if not it will be soon. Free browser is still PC. MMOs are starting inflitration of consoles. You have DC Universe, Champions Online, AoC (supposedly), The Agency, Free Realms (free browser even going console), and others. Strategy games have been doing very good on consoles, and will only get better. Red Alert 3 was amazing on a console. Universe at War, Halo RTS (very basic game) were both really good and easily controlled too. I wish the Total War series, Diablo 3, DOW 2 would all go console too.

It's sad but I got the PC version of Sacred 2 way back when it first came out. Then I got it for PS3. The console version blew away my PC version! I couldn't believe it! Maybe it was more dev time, or that the game is just better with a game pad, or it's the feel of playing that kind of game in the living room. I don't know, but I do know it just further reinforced my doubt of buying PC games. Even Crysis 2 is going console (one of the few tech reasons to own a PC gaming rig). Now you see why I keep using the word "sad".

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 07:29.

Why does this always have to be PC vs Console...

I keep getting mislabled by others on this board... Not saying you are talking to me Exe... Just making that point. I treat Xbox like the PC after many issues that made it clear to me that I would not be happy with Xbox as a main source for gaming. My main purchase habit is for PS3. A rough breakdown:

PS3 - 80%
Xbox - 15%
PC - 5%

I used to get everything for Xbox but that changed for many reasons.

I also buy many hand held games.

What I posted is a strategy for *me*, that works getting good games to play, while not abandoning any other platform (excepts for maybe Wii, because I am pretty tired of the low res novelty).

I didn't sell my 3 PCs on Ebay, my kids still play tons of old stuff with the occasional new title here and there. My 2 Xboxs still get some play time but very little the last 6 months (that will change on the 17th with MTG coming out). Wii I don't even look at anymore. But my main stream of purchases are for 2 PS3s (which accepts 1 purchase of DLC and work on both!). At no time am I saying abandon these platforms even though I personally am abandoning the Wii, just open your mind and pick up a console/HDTV and try it for yourself. Find what works best for you. It will make you happier and you won't be constantly disappointed with PC only solutions. Mixing platforms is the only way to get any real satisfaction if you have a large gaming appetite and crave a *large volume of quality titles*. If you are happy with what PC offers now then you really don't have a stake in the conversation, and are pretty much saying you are content with what you can get. Then you should basically ignore the thread in general.

I own them all, have played them all, and this is what works best for me.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 03:54.

But to say you aren't happy with PC gaming and then praise console gaming makes no sense whatsoever.

Why does it not make sense? But it's less of a praise of console gaming and more of an acceptance of where I can get games, built on a solid budget, that have to pass a real performance evaluation, and actually work most of the time. It's putting my money in something that actually delivers while shedding all the heartache and headache that PC gaming has become. I can cherry pick PC games and get most my titles from consoles. This is more of a hobby survival strategy more than anything else. There are some amazing moments and a lot of enjoyment to be had on consoles as well.

I said, "I will play cool stuff when it's available, sadly most the time that's on a console.". Let me explain this more. I have a 4 core 3.2 ghz, 6 gigs high speed ram (2 on vcards), SLI Nvidia 280's, 9 fan computer I built that gets 25k on 3D mark with simply bumping voltage and CPU clock speed .8 ghz. It is SAD I have nothing to really play on this rig in the *volume and quality* consoles are getting. Especially if it requires backing DRM just to get a few games.

On a console I don't mind DRM on DLC because:

1) The companies who forked over the cash to develop the hardware made the platform. It's their baby.
2) Most the DLC is low dollar amounts (that do add up).
3) Sony's DRM is like Apple's Ipod and I am OK with that when it's backed by a large corporation. I tolerate Xbox's on some titles but they have to be exclusive and something I really want. I CAN CALL THEM BOTH ON THE PHONE.

If I went out and built a PC with my own 2 hands, and some schmos want to put crap on *my* system that I don't want, they can GTFO!

Re: PC having more gamers than any other platform.

What makes you think that? If that were indeed the case, PC would be the most successful platform.

Because it has the largest install base, and has been the longest selling platform. World wide, there are without a doubt more PC gamers (defined by playing just 1 pc game ever) than console gamers (defined by just playing 1 console game ever per console build). The problem is the industry never caught on to what Blizzard has been doing all along and wants to pump out half baked crap for the most part, and we are now all paying for what is the end result of that. Piracy is also a huge factor in this but some of that piracy is a direct result of what I just said.

Don't get me wrong Jerykk, I think the PC has the best potential, but just like many games we see, it's not being realized for the most part anymore. Why stake your happiness on something that is by design majority, aiming to disappoint you? People are constantly complaining about it and have been for 20 years. It's gotten worse. Why invest completely when you can cherry pick those who deserve support and game on consoles too?

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 06:24.

I remember owning Pong from Sears. Then we had this cool thing that played Breakout, Pinball, and stuff. Then we had an Intellivision (friend had the Atari no need for both, Sea Battle!!). That's about the time the PC was invented. I played Ultima 1, Wizardry 1, a whole ton of shareware stuff, even had a awesome 300 baud terminal to play Dec-Trek on UT's Dec 10 (but would get destroyed by those guys with 1200 and some even had 2400 baud, spoiled college computer dept geeks). So in a way PC gaming has always come after consoles as far as sold products.

I have played all platforms forver, and while I do miss some awesome computer games from time to time due to DRM, there are good console games to make up for it. Yeah most of them are shooter, rpg, puzzle and action. But more and more strategy, RTS and ARPGs are starting to show up. Some so good they are better than using a mouse in a lot of ways.

I'd go through phases of hating the console in comparison to PC but still always owned them. Vectrex, Nintendo, Sega Master, Turboegrafix-16, Sega Genesis, Dreamcast, Super Nintendo, N64, Wii, PS1, PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox 360. I skipped Saturn, Jaguar, 3DO, Colecovision, Oddyssey, and a couple others. Don't get me started on hand helds. I even owned Atari Lynx, how many here actually owned Mattel Football and a bunch of those early Mattel games? Point is a lot of games have come out over the years dwarfing anything PC volume wise, ever, period. Console/Handheld have always been here.

PCs used to warrant large amounts of time for large ambitious projects, but weather piracy is the problem, or if it's just less people buying PC, it's a fact and you really got 4 choices. Buy a console (Since most PC games are console ports now, I find it a lot better on the console), quit gaming, go make a PC game, or play the tiny trickle of titles and old stuff. It's a situation driven by money and the big money isn't in PC gaming right now unless you score big on an MMO or had the money to craft a game that everyone wants.

I don't like the situation. I liked building a new PC every year. I liked playing on PC, all the options, mods, controls, and choices. But it's gotten too disappointing to stake gaming hopes in. I lowered my expectations in the PC because I had to in order to continue enjoying games. Now I don't care what happens to the PC. I know there will be a few kick ass titles worth getting, but I don't have all my gaming tied to a largely underperforming software library, requiring over expensive piece of hardware. Now if anything decent PC hits, with out DRM, it's a bonus. I grab it and move on. But 95% of my game purchases are not for the PC amymore. This is a direct result of less titles, bad titles, and DRM.

I strongly encourage anyone who wants to make a stand against consoles to do so. I vote with my dollar too. But I like to game, and have always liked consoles somewhat, the transition for me wasn't that hard with a nice big HDTV and both PS3/Xbox360. I don't get disappointed anymore as time after time we hear the concessions pc gamers are forced to make. Drm, lack of features, ported, later release date, buggier, or just simply budget-who-cares-software. I didn't give up PC gaming, I just don't stake my hobby on a piece of hardware that is under appreciated, under developed for, and under assault from every aspect of capitalism. PC gaming has always been a source of underhanded, bad business practices with broken software, broken promises and broke companies.

I will play cool stuff when it's available, sadly most the time that's on a console. It's just the way things are because console gamers outnumber PC gamers when compared by purchased product. I think there are more PC gamers in the world than any other platform. But they are the minority when it comes to being measured by purchased product... The evidence sides with Caveman regarding piracy and maybe all the claims the industry have been making are largely true?

@Batman

Xbox actually has something I am very interested in releasing on 6/17/09 (I know it's a shocker!):

http://www.wizards.com/magic/digital/DuelsOfThePlaneswalkers.aspx?x=mtg/digital/dotp/whatis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k98AaZgqKzQ&feature=player_embedded

According to information I can find it's $10, single player, co-op, multiplayer with cards unlocked from dueling (you get 8 colored pre builts to customize from as well). Still trying to find a total cards included number. This appears to be fairly robust for the price. I imagine some expansion packs will be coming down the line, but the fact they are not forcing people to buy virtual packs is a huge incentive to pick this up.

This comment was edited on Jun 14, 2009, 08:07.