Sheikah

@Dcubed, I'm going to be honest, I'm getting a little pissed off with your attitude about these parts. Right now you're suggesting things that just aren't true, and it's certainly not the first you've done this (I saw the same regarding your apparent knowledge of Gamespy server hosting of various games/networks). Read what you posted - you said "Unless you can otherwise hack the console" . You didn't say you can, you actually posted it as a possibility. You then later went on to, very clearly, say something false. You said: "The consoles don't allow any way of patching games other than through their official servers. Not 'PS3s cannot be officially patched other than through the servers'. You very clearly stated 'any'. You simply didn't know, which is fine, but stop trying to come across as if you know more than you do. I really can't stand when people do that. Regarding the 'desire to play games as the maker intended'. Do you really think we used to do that in the past? In the past you were left with what you had. Extra dungeon in Wind Waker? No DLC or patch for that. Framerate issues in Conker's Bad Fur Day? That's your lot. Linking together of the Banjo Kazooie secrets properly with the sequel? No chance. Doing whatever was meant to be done with Aeris (as she appeared almost as a glitch in the church) in FF7? No wai. Missingno? Missng-patch. Harvest Moon Back to Nature not locking up after you get married? You should be so lucky. I for one think that, even though the patching method is a bit obtuse, it's good that it is there. And let's be honest, it's a step by step protocol, even a monkey could do it. It's not exactly two seconds work, but it's doable. Better to have than not.

Wow, that's pretty lame. So I totally just provide you a simple step-by-step solution (in fact, two - the GOTY edition too), and you then turn the argument into 'it's too difficult for little Timmy'. The fuck? Also, when you say this: It seems pretty clear you didn't know there was a way to patch it yourself, then just twisted the argument when shown otherwise. Also Paul, I know you mean well, but come on. What game do you put in your console and it doesn't work straight away? Can we do away with the exaggerations? Last point on this - There is nothing illegal, hacky or risky about patching it yourself. In fact, that's a really naiive point of view, since people have been patching games on PC using various mirrors for decades. I would be amazed if someone managed to fuck up their PS3 using this method, given that if a patch file was invalid then it would simply not be recognised.

Come on now, if you're going to debate with me at least get your facts straight. You know I don't stand for that kind of shit. http://www.ps3blog.co.za/guides/how-to-download-game-patches-and-updates-via-your-pc/ It's not quick but it's hardly difficult either. But either way, you're wrong. That still happens - they're called Game of the Year editions. So either you manually patch it yourself, or buy the GOTY edition. So to me, this really isn't much of an issue.

It won't be totally unplayable, since you can patch these games yourself. So you could always patch it even if any servers went down. I'm struggling to think of games that are totally unplayable without a patch though. Plus, patches are done through the main network (separate to game servers). Pretty unlikely they will be shut down any time soon.

You're right - the Nintendo game is worse, since you're completely disabled from playing it if you save there, unless you patch. That was my only comment - that it was weird to praise Nintendo as the only one doing it right with regards to getting it right first time, when one of their games has one of the worst bugs I've seen left in it. As for the rest, I still stand by that in today's sequel culture, many of the games get superseded anyway and I can't imagine most people would still want to play the games that were online back on the PS2. Off the top of my head, both SOCOM and Twisted Metal Black Online... each have had games since release on the PS3. So for them to shut down isn't really an issue. This generation, I can easily see most online games having been spiritually replaced before the death knell comes. It's one of those situations where people think they'll care more about it happening thant they really will. About the most annoying one I can think of is Mario Kart Wii, but that kind of premature shutdown likely won't happen again. It'd be nice to be able to play those tracks again in some form with others, but that game does have a local mode after all. But what online game on the PS2 do you still wish you could play that you no longer can? Since that is the major point here - that online games won't last.

But does the idea that it won't last beyond say 10 years really matter? Who is still booting up say PS2 shooter/racer games? These types of games get superseded pretty quickly by newer releases, I think. Also I get that local play can be fun, but honestly, how many of us get to play locally much these days? It's rare I would be in a situation like when I was a teenager; we all work now, we all have busy lives. Online play is just so much more convenient, and if voice chat is there can be pretty good. Plus you get to use your full screen!

Yeah, when you look at Mario Kart, Smash, Mario 3D platformers and console Zeldas, you can see that the N64 versions set the standards for subsequent generations. They laid down the foundations really. And we got all that, for the first time, in one generation! Plus the PS1 Final Fantasy games. Total gasm for me.

Really? I distinctly remember saving in Lumiose City screwing your game up. And that's a real big issue, not just some framerate dropping. Truth is, a lot of games had minor issues in the past, but now they can actually patch those issues. Games nowadays are also often more complex (I'm thinking Skyrim and Fallout), so you're probably right in that there tends to be more that can go wrong.

There's also the Japanese 64GB you can import at a similar cost to what the 32GB is priced at over here. Amazon JP and yesasia have it (although you might have to foot customs).

N64 and PS1 were kings. You can't beat that era. Agree pretty much with Cube's post - never had such consistent quality been all there on one console.

The Ragnarok scene with Squall and Rinoa is still one of my top video game scenes ever. The song combined with the event, and the fade to black at the end. Priceless.

I wouldn't say that idea is crazy. It's a drastic measure for people who have gotten to a stage that they can't have a meal without using their phones all the time.

Aye, it's pretty darn amazing. It's nice that the system that really is focusing on gameplay is doing so well. I'm sure it'll give devs a big confidence boost to release epic games on it.

Nooo. Inevitable 'emo' and twilight references to Squall! Not fair. Squall existed before that shit tarnished what being moody was all about. I'm just joshing you though. I can see why some people don't like it, but to me it felt more honest and down-to-Earth than the games before. The love theme worked well and generally made me care more about what happened to the characters than any other game.

Ha faiiive.

Come on, don't give the Wii U a hard time.

Really? It would have hurt them more than their entire console failing? Why is that?

Yup. I have had all the PlayStation consoles, but likewise, I've had every Nintendo console (including handhelds) since the 64, and have at least got most of the major games for each system. Not a watertight symbol of integrity by any means, but it at least shows that I try everything around before arguing a point. On the flip side, and this is not everyone at all, but some people (such as Clownferret above) push the idea that if you strip away graphics and power then there is nothing left regarding the PS/Xbox consoles, ie. they argue that the software is unremarkable. I do wonder if people who make these remarks purposefully shield themselves from competitor's games. It's just such an untrue statement.

But VIII was the best one! Love-centric game with the usual PS1 FF bells and whistles. One of my best childhood experiences was playing that back in the day.

But so is stating 'Wii U is a current generation console', no? People who are calling Wii U 'last gen' don't mistakenly think it was released in 2006, do they? Well, not people about these parts. They are usually (even if not explicitly so) referring to the internal hardware.

Theoretical scenario. Suppose Nintendo wrapped a Nintendo Gamecube in a new layer of plastic, called it something else, released it as the Gamecube 2 and then supported it with games. Would you call it the next generation? Maybe, or maybe not. It's an over exaggerated scenario but it demonstrates why people might argue that lack of hardware advancement (or advancement to a level roughly achieved before) can disqualify something from being called next generation. For all intents and purposes, some would see it as a continuation of an existing generation as there is little new brought to the table. Of course, the Wii U brings the gamepad though, which you could argue sets it apart as the next generation. But with the lack of real support for it, some again may see at as not much of a technical feat. We'll have to see how much it's adopted from now on.

Generation is whatever you want it to be. It is not a term used only to describe console release dates. Hardware has a release date or period in which it is used heavily too, you know? To describe a piece of hardware as last generation means that it has the specification more aligned with the previous slew of hardware models. Which I guess qualifies the Wii U. But equally, you can say the console itself is current generation as it was released alongside the other two. By the way, the one who seems to be ruining this topic right now is you with your foul language.

Like I said, there's no right and wrong. You can use current generation to describe the console. Or you could use last generation to describe it in terms of what the console actually is, internally (aside from the Gamepad). Neither is wrong, really.

It's still connected; you can walk between every area in the game pretty much without a load screen. I'm pretty sure Dark Souls 1 had a simialr setup to this (multiple dungeons connecting together, but ultimately you return every so often to venture down a different path from Firelink Shrine). For all intents and purposes, it's the same. The only difference is that you can warp between bonfires. But only sadists would argue that that's a bad thing.

Got the platinum trophy on this today...329 deaths! There is your benchmark, if you give a damn enough to platinum this. All in all it was pretty fun. They added enemies and bosses to NG+ and there's also quite a lot of optional content you can skip. New rings to get too.