dwarf

I really don't think this is an issue for Microsoft. The patch on the other hand... Sounds dodgy.

ShopTo sent out a video update to all of their PS4 customers today regarding their current order status. Order Status: Fucked

Make sure to watch that in high quality. Errrrmagerrrrrrd! Everything about it looks incredible.

It doesn't look like there's any solid platforming to be had. CAG games need to have that.

Same. Is the dark age behind us?

I'm going to a villain themed party, so tempted by the idea of Heisenberg... Other suggestions appreciated yo

I'm calling bullshit.

Wouldn't worry about that too much, they've sent Jonathan Ross in to fix it. He'll make everything better. Microsoft flapping? No chance!

The tone/style of the show changes with each season, and not just in the obvious sense of it getting darker. You can sort of tell the storyline was constantly under reconstruction and collaboration, as it sometimes felt disjointed and vaguely odd. Not knocking it, but there isn't really a single series which is indicative of the show as a whole, in my view. Then again, if you aren't hooked by the premise and it hasn't stood out to you, then maybe it is best to just stop watching it and contact a GP immediately.

Oh, might have to cancel that pre-order now.

That might be breaking one of the rules of DriveClub.

Broken record but it isn't purely graphics. It's everything else you get with the extra power.

Fool! Use it now. I (very well) might be mistaken, but if you use it now you'll have access to Farcry 3 and then Metal Gear Rising after the change (and other good stuff). Even if you don't play them now, at least you can use them if you resubscribe, which you certainly should.

Yeah I suppose you're right. Had an incredible match on Bookstore though where my random team was paired against a clan, we were getting dicked for half the match until we all tacitly decided to hold out on the top floor. We made the comeback of the season. Unfortunately that map only rarely crops up.

Funny how nostalgic sounds can give you tingles.

I got them day 1 Cooks, they're decent. Problem is you get pitted against clans and people with monstrous skill in every game - I haven't once seen your name crop up on the opposition team I'm not surprised Rez prefers Unch, I do as well. That tense feeling I used to get when playing it has faded into frustration, it feels like cheap tactics can win out over cautious play quite frequently. Too much time is spent picking up and crafting items and crawling around slowly between areas of the map, where you're not really exercising much in the way of choice or skill . I enjoy it, I just take more to the frantic Unch style of competition.

Enjoying it so far but that narrator is such a try-hard!

From one cunt to another, happy birthday!

Those games exploit the scale afforded them by the hardware, yes. I've referred to Fallout 3 beforehand as one example of a game that requires a powerful engine to be realised. I was also trying to make the point that raw graphical leaps come with their own meaningful advantages. Graphics are often shunned as being like glitter - cosmetic, supplemental, not wholly important. But if games are to be judged as art, whatever art might be (something that provokes a response from an audience, to simplify it in one way) then surely it is moronic to dismiss graphical improvements when they evidently expand the possibilities of art in the medium, when they give creators the freedom to express their ideas in more authentic ways. Sure, great stories are founded on great writing, and you can have emotional stories with very primitive graphics (hell, some people got attached to rectangles in Thomas Was Alone), but if you want something with a gritty, filmic quality to it, something that could be mentioned in the same conversation as realistic TV shows and movies, then you can have that on new hardware. The Last of Us was not doable on the Wii. It might've been effective as a cel-shaded Walking Dead style of game, but that wasn't what NaughtyDog wanted to make, and why should they have to compromise? They envisioned a cinematic game that had a serious, detailed style, and they were able to make it, and they gave us one of the best games of the generation. You can see the progression in their own games over the years, from Crash, to Jak, to Uncharted, each representing an ambitious leap in multiple things, including graphics. On the gaming spectrum there is enough space to support both geometry fetishes and post-apocalyptic survival horrors, and that should be celebrated. We can have it all, and more. Why would you not want to push boundaries? I'd go further than all that and say graphics matter to games that aren't supported by good writing or dialogue as well. Tell me with a straight face that the graphics weren't key to making Journey what it is. An argument against better graphics is an argument against the expansion and diversification of art. When Nintendo blithely disregarded the importance of graphical power in the run-up to the Wii's launch, they were being slightly devious and hypocritical. Smart too, I don't deny. They found a market, and they positioned the console perfectly - they didn't need graphics to succeed financially this generation. What irritates me about it more than anything else though is that the company got gamers to engage in this reductionist innovation vs graphics debate as if it wasn't part of an agenda. Nintendo constructed that debate, and it can only be fought on their terms because it is rigged. Innovation = Nintendo. A noble, glamorous enterprise, and Nintendo has a monopoly on it. Graphics = everyone else i.e. Sony and Microsoft. A largely pointless, empty enterprise that shows a lack of imagination. And everyone gobbles it up.

On this point we cannot argue further, we can only suggest surgery.

Clownferret, like other Nintendo apologists (lol) you conflate hardware innovation and gameplay innovation. Innovating hardware doesn't guarantee gameplay innovation. New hardware functions are used within pre-existing frameworks of game-design. That is to say, by and large, new controllers act as substitutes to standard game controllers, their inputs are basically the same - new controllers don't actually challenge the restrictions imposed by standard controllers. New controllers might lend games a veneer of immersion, but that rapidly wears off and soon you don't care what you're holding or doing 'COS YOU IN DA GAME, YO. You're focusing on what's happening within the confines of the four walls of the screen (or eight walls for two screens if that's your bag). The attention should be on the story, the action, THE GAME. [Perhaps Oculus Rift is a real game-changer in that regard, because it interferes your interaction with the screen itself] Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Wii remote FPS', golf games, and racers and stuff like that, but I don't feel like returning to non-motion controls afterwards is a regression. The WiiU pad is sort of Nintendo's admission of this. Nintendo's controllers still have to conform to age-old standards while providing specialist features. So this bet-hedging, coupled with a 5 year window for the controller to realise its full potential, means that you will only ever see 'glimpses' of what that technology is capable of. If you don't tweak the controller and make new iterations of it, the market moves on and the device gets ditched. At the same time, if you do something more radical with the controller, you end up with something along the lines of a flight simulator setup, which only suits one type of experience. Then again, it does make that experience completely unique. It's no wonder why the core of the controllers have remained the same for so long. Nintedo can't claim a monopoly on innovation because they took a risk with their controller, or because they caught a craze. /// And I've said this heaps of times, but you have to be ignorant and reductionist to claim that Sony and Microsoft's hardware advances only equate to graphical advances. It's just wrong. Ambitious designers and artists want to use the most sophisticated physics engines/programming tools and whatnot available to them. Among other things that grants you scale and more 'dynamic' worlds (without wanting to sound too markety). You can also make gritty, realistic, believable dramas like The Last of Us, which actually do need modern engines to make them powerful on an emotional level. You'd be a square to sniff at that.

The launch line-up doesn't do much for me either but pipe down a moment! For one those comparisons are all stupid and arbitrarily paired off, and furthermore: Ryse over Killzone? No. Ryse is a QTE broth. ResoGun is THE launch title every PS4 owner might as well have. It's bound to be a great arcade game. Stardust still features in all best-of-PSN lists. Knack snuggles into that lineup quite nicely, it's positioned well.

This and Breaking Bad had very understated endings, but they were both fantastic. I couldn't think of a better ending for either. They got the Hollywood stuff out of the way before the curtain.

I'm not sure why gamers feel entitled to multiple endings. In The Last of Us you're playing the character of Joel, and this is his story, it's conclusive and finite. I thought it was the perfect ending because it was surprising and thought-provoking. If we were given more than one ending we wouldn't be left with a character at all, because we'd assume responsibility - you can't project your own values onto Joel as he is clearly defined. I wasn't comfortable when NaughtyDog shelved my volition in the last gameplay scene, but that's the point. It does raise a good question about agency in games and what it means to the story but blah // I might get the map pack considering how I dive into the multiplayer every now and then. Really not bothered with story content for this, I'm happy to box the main experience and wrap it in a bow. On the other hand, BioShock's Burial at Sea looks unmissable.