I would doubt very many people who consider FF7 their favorite RPG think of it as the best RPG. I certainly don't. I just don't care. It's not about game mechanics or graphics or the precise literary value of the plot once all of the plot's nuances (of which there are quite a few, "nuance" being a pretty kind word to use here.) It just does it for me, and no other RPG over the years has had that quality, even ones that are technically superior in many/all aspects.

You might as well write this about Halo. It's the same idea. No one with half a brain would say Halo does anything innovative or tells a story with any literary merit whatsoever, and yet, the fanbase could charitably be described as a legion.

The article is also pretty happy to sit itself plainly in a "hindsight is 20/20" perspective and it's not at all indicative of reality. This, for example:

The new medium let Square craft a series of CG-animated cutscenes for which the company is now known for, for better or worse. While the dedicated Final Fantasy audience followed along without question, these cutscenes and other commercialized aspects of the game were responsible for introducing the genre to a whole new audience of gamers

Uh, no. There was backlash from the "dedicated Final Fantasy audience" from release-day onwards. Complaining about cutscene length didn't start with Metal Gear Solid 4. It didn't start with FF7, either, but there was certainly a lot of it at the time. Gameplay isn't always held in high regard, a lot of fans, to this day, prefer FF6 because every character has specific traits and abilities locked with themselves no one else has access to.

I suppose that I bothered to put even this much thought into it is just proof that I'm the kind of fanboy they want to rile up/prove wrong/shatter my reality/etc, but jesus christ, IGN, if you're going to do flamebait editorials, get someone who knows how to write without all the yellow journalism.

This comment was edited on Mar 8, 2009, 14:49.

Seriously have my fingers crossed for this. I very nearly bought it for a console and decided to Gamefly it at the last minute. RE4's PC port had a few problems (that bizarre way it didn't have a lighting engine being foremost among them for me) but the patch that went out for it soon after turned it into one hell of an awesome port.

I wouldn't count on being able to open doors next time around. Infinity Ward has a major, outspoken hard-on for heavy scripting as the only viable form of single-player game design. Much as I loved CoD4, I wouldn't expect to be rid of its major problem: scripting so bluntly obvious not because it's poorly done, but because it's so intricate and hand-holding it breaks immersion just because you can't help but think about how scripted it is.

Part of the problem is probably that DX10's main advantage over DX9 isn't being "Oooo shiny!" but at, mostly, being able to do the same things DX9 does with less overhead. Pushing DX10 means you can make a game with a lower minimum videocard requirement and/or more stuff for the higher-end cards, but the end result really wouldn't be anything more than DX9 on steroids. That's not a bad thing, but convincing the rather unpleasable player base that it's a good thing is a pretty tall order, especially when everyone's jumped on the Vista-hating bandwagon.

...though Activision Blizzard could be a good candidate.

This is the company that dropped a metric fuckton of games/IPs because they, quote, "Weren't exploitable on a yearly basis."

I'd much rather Relic take it's chances with Ubisoft or EA than that sillyness.

Not fixed, looks like it could be weeks until it is fixed. In summary, if you haven't purchased this game, don't buy it. Wait for the next RTS.

Why, so I can complain about the next RTS' bugs instead? Let me know when you find a game without one.

Seems fair right? Wouldn't it be cool if the good of the many outweighed the good of the few?

That's called Socialism. Good luck getting that to fly in America.

I wish they would sell off Mortal Kombat. Maybe a different dev would un-fuck the series from the Sonic-esque design philosophy every installment seems to suffer from.

I don't see what all the butthurt over the external view is for. It's not like either option is more realistic than the other, the sillyness about "computer aided flight" is more of an in-game buzzword than any substantial affect on plane handling, and dogfighting is easier in unassisted mode.

Dawn of War 2, Endwar, and now this? It's RTS heaven.

Looking forward to the new MGO expansion. I just wish more games would actually enable characters. Wonder if the article's author knows Vamp was sleeping with the Commandant of the Marine Corps when he came up with the headline...

It hasn't gotten any of my words ''wrong'' so far, and I'm actually surprised at how well it keeps up with my normal talking speed; my normal talking speed is excessively fast and mumbly, and it's only given me the "Order Not Understood" error a couple of times. I can't imagine people who talk like normal human beings instead of in my blathering gibberish would ever have a problem.

It is, however, very basic. It does exactly what it sets out to do, and does it well, but don't expect magic. This feels very much like a first attempt at something new, and as such, it isn't very extravagant. The game itself is quite clearly built around making the voice command system function, so it's not going to win any RTS of the Year awards either, but it has enough depth where adding on a gimmick that's fully functional makes it work well. If this were the second or third game in the series, it'd be a major let down; as a first step, there's nothing wrong with it.

Overall, I'm not disappointed. I'm glad I waited for the PC version, it runs fine, is highly enjoyable on my 5.1 headphones with a built-in mic instead of the trashy console mics, and the presentation lacks the silly Tom Clancy corniness present in most of the titles with his name on it.

1) People have limited time.
2) People have limited money.
3) The economy sucks.
4) Games with the most hype sell a lot more than games with less hype.


I would wager that a large part of the reason upper-class greed flourishes as well as it has for centuries on end is genuine ignorance about these things we consider obvious. Out of sight, out of mind. Businessmen are still human, and humans are prone to pretending the world is the way they want it to be, rather than the way it actually is. The way you want the world to be when you have money is in a state of being where people will keep giving you more money no matter what.

I guess today's gamer is not capable of working a flight "simulation" so perhaps they are not allowing the option.

Considering the genre died out years ago, I'd say us vaunted, elite, intelligent long-time PC gamers weren't capable of working a flight "simulation" since long before anyone had ever started yammering about the dumbing-down/consolization of games.

Or maybe the vast majority of us just never cared, considering that flying a plane in reality, or playing a game where you fly a plane realistically, is boring.

Would you guys recommend this game to a non-RTS player? There are a lot of interesting elements and positive buzz about this game, but as someone who traditionally doesn't enjoy RTS games (due to micromanagement and such) I'm afraid of getting burned. Thoughts?

It's still an RTS at heart, but the idea behind the design is to get rid of the more annoying parts of RTS micro-managment. In multiplayer, everything is done from one structure, and in singleplayer, there isn't even that, you have a persistent army between missions. Decisions don't come in the form of "what order do I build my infrastructure in?" but "what order do I build my army in?" and how to place your squads around the battlefield (areas of cover, inside buildings) so they're the most effective at what they do.

It's a definite dumbing down but I think it's more a trend towards casual gaming rather than consolisation. I mean, look at the complaints levelled at the PC exclusive Dawn Of War II about the removal of base building - it's being labelled as dumbing down but if it was out on console as well then it would be "consolisation". People are too quick to slap labels on everything without looking at it objectively.

DoW2 is an even sillier case considering these same people will turn around and praise Homeworld and it's....oh, yeah, pretty much everything was done from the single home base there, too.

Frankly, the RTS genre needs to follow DoW2's example. Less infrastructure, more time with my little dudes and moving them around to kill the other little dudes. Why people don't think this is a good idea, I can't fathom.

I'm not one-hundred percent sure but I think the reason why you've not seen DX10 on XP is DX10 was programmed specifically for Vista's architecture and 64-bit platform

The reason is that as well as money. Maximum PC had a surprisingly blunt interview with someone at Microsoft in an issue sometime last year, and he said specifically that putting DX10 on XP was doable, that it would've taken a certain amount of money and resources (more than most people think, not so much that it would've been unfeasible) they simply felt were not worth the effort, and that not spending that money and time was an obvious mistake in hindsite.

This comment was edited on Feb 23, 2009, 14:34.

COD World at War has multiple prisoner of war scenarios. The game actually lets you choose between executing the prisoners or letting them live, too. In the final stages, the game has Kiefer Sutherland's character dying because he was willing to take prisoners (the "prisoners" were suicide bombers).

Meanwhile, the less compassionate Russian officer, who executes POWs and then laughs about it afterwards, survives the entire game without a scratch. The moral of the story: take no prisoners, kill everyone, and war crimes are cool.

I completely forgot all of that. Certainly a broken aesop if there ever was one. The sad thing is, it's probably not at all reflective of the developers morals, just reflective of how little thought goes into how morality is portrayed in fiction. World at War is a World War II action movie at heart, action movies usually don't have symbolism unless its accidental, and accidental symbolism is usually pretty wonky.

(Then again, this is Treyarch.)

On a minor note: you can actually save Roebuck; Polonsky will die instead, and Roebuck doesn't go batshit with rage into an epic roaring rampage of revenge like Polonsky does if Roebuck dies. It's really not much better; you could make the case that it's representing death in war as a harsh reality instead of being personal, but it struck me more as something from the John Wayne-esque "World War II and the soldiers therein were perfectly civil about everything unlike modern-say conflicts" mindset.

This comment was edited on Feb 23, 2009, 06:12.

And whats everyones problem with no lean? Is everyone so ground into the fake ass cover system every single console shooter uses anymore that they cant enjoy a shooter without fake walls in the middle of the path and leaning around corners? You can go slo-mo and blow mobs into splatters of guts and limbs.. that trumps lean any day. I do agree the combat doesn't have the intensity of the original (though I cant put my finger on why.) Still damn fun.

Point Jerykk at this thread and he'll talk, at great length, about why the lack of leaning in first-person shooters is another sign of consolization taking over. People who use and miss leaning seem unable to accept the fact that some of us never once bother with it when it's there.

I'd certainly call the dumbed-down difficulty blatant consolization, though. Like others are saying, the game is piss-easy unless you put it on Hard. Try it on normal and you'll notice you're drawing a bead on enemies long before they ever actually fire; it's definitely engineered thickheadedness to compensate for controller imprecision.

Everyone can say what they want about Gears of War, at least the PC port had balance tweaks to make it a genuine challenge.

Arming Medics is against the Geneva Conventions, attacking Red Cross units on the battle field is against the Geneva conventions.

For the love of god, man! Don't stop there, make the Team Fortress 2 joke!

- Scary bits are lame

Until you get to the very end. Not that it retroactively makes the rest of the game scarier than Dead Space or [insert favorite horror title,] but goddamn, that ending gave me nightmares.