Ragnarok

Games need to be challenging, that's the difference between games and films. The sims are challenging, although not enough for some people as the player is who chooses the challenge. The sims2 give less freedom to the player, and are supposed to be an imporvement over the sims.

Challenge is good, and freedom is good, making the games something that anyone can do without any difficulty is bad, it is something really boring. I still remember pressing buttons for hours just to take 6 of my pokemons to level 100 years ago, the most boring hours I've spent with a game.

The case of GTA is a special one, because anyone would expect that the crime has a consequent punishment, but if it doesn't then not only the game isn't realistic, it is immoral too, in fact many people don't get fun in GTA from the game, nor the challenge, but other things as shooting people, which I consider insane. Freedom is good, but every act has its consequences.

Nevertheless that's not the point, the point is that everything in games is about challenge, even when animals play it is about challenge. Without challenge you might even have something that people buy, but it isn't a game.

Why is Chris Taylor working in this industry and I'm not?

Oh wait, there says "founder"...

*looks at the wallet*

D'oh!

@4 was that more than a rumour? I don't think so, but just in case, what happened?

@5, no it is Halo 3, the 3 is for something.

We live the craze for grid computing, I agree that it is cool, but probably not the best for real time applications as games. It could however work for multiplayer in a network being the host distributed using a token ring protocol or something similar.

BTW: I've never seen anyone calling a PDA a handheld, have you?

I've never played that game, but...

Why is the text in English but the characters speak in Mexican?

BTW: Analog-stick >> tilt, about the sensor bar, I still have to try it.

Neskimos > minibosses IMO

@20 and @24, I'm not comparing the online system of the PS3 to nothing because there is no such a thing, PS3 gives developers freedom to use the internet connection as they wish, as PCs do, XBL is something different.

XBL may be convenient for gamers so they can meet, chat, see the achievement points, and so on, ok XBL is great, have a cookie, but that's not the point, you have to look at it from the Square Enix perspective.

Developers don't care about those things, they don't care about what do you do while you are not p(l)aying their games, unless advertisements are embedded to put the ones that may interest you or something like that. So considering this and what I've said before, why should square enix give a sh*t about XBL?

Beside of that every PS3 owner is a potential user of their MMO, while only Xbox360 owners AND XBL subscribers are potential users. XBL seems just like a handicap for their game.

Once again, MY POINT, why would square enix take such a decision based on XBL? It seems more feasible to me to look at how many Xbox360 or PS3 owners are in the world (console owner = potential buyer) and make the decision based on that, actually there are about 8 Xbox360 owners for each PS3 owner. Other factor in this decision may be the PC, which has many users and, as Xbox360 and PCs are very similar when compared with PS3, the development costs to make a game for Xbox360 and PC are probably lower than making it for PS3 and PC.

There are of course many other factors that developers probably considered, as world of warcraft, their main competitor in the PC architecture and many more but I still can't find a reason why should they care about XBL, unless they have to pay microsoft so their game can use XBL as any other game to show achievement points and all that stuff, and that would be a con for XBL, not a pro.

I think at least now my point is clear, and I'm not going to reply any more, the only thing I see you may wonder now is why did I mention GeoW. It's because it is a perfect example of what does XBL for their games, roughly nothing, the game doesn't use the XBL servers while you are playing, instead of that one player is the host. XBL is great for gamers because you can have a profile and a community is created, it has demos, videos, etc. but square enix is a company, not a gamer so again what offers XBL to square enix?

BTW: To explain it a little more, Resistance has free servers and its online, with matches up to 40 players, is free. For Gears of War you have to pay for XBL with its fancy interface, but to play one player has to host (host = server) the match, which is a cheaper (for them) solution and has the problems that you can see in the video.

I would be the first one to bash sony, but this time resistance seems to have something over gears of war.

Square Enix, being a big developer and making an MMO, which will probably be paid monthly and will have some servers for the persistent world, probably prefers the freedom to use the PS3 online capabilities given to developers, they have the money to pay for it and get a profit. A small developer can prefer to use XBL, so they don't have to worry about servers and they can save some money. I don't know which percentage would microsoft and sony charge for their services, but usually more freedom means less money, so I guess it is cheaper in the PS3 if it isn't equal. As I've said this paragraph is just speculation.

If they are shifting to windows and Xbox360 it is because the low PS3 sales and userbase, IMO.

Here is your argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42X0lPOD_PE

If you have a good connection then good for you, but the protocol used in the game is extremely unfair.

PS: I think the same video is available in a higher definition, but I would have to search it thoroughly and this one is good enough IMO.

@4 yeah, Gears of Lag works way better than Resistance: fall of man.

It is about the userbase.

It is better to ban living, 100% of people who died was alive before, 100%!!

"Government has an obligation to protect its citizenry," from themselves? I don't think so, freedom is more important IMHO.

@1 "If people get hit while walking across the street without looking, they are probably too dumb to live anyway." They could even win a Darwin price!