302 réponses à ce sujet

[WingsandRings]

I think my vomity face will depend on what they mean by that. I will be the first to say that I didn't think the combat for DA:O worked terribly well on the x-box 360. I was expecting a KOTOR like situation where I could pause, switch from person to person, pick an action (or series of actions), and pick who they were going to aim it at. I never could get that to work on the XBOX. I basically just ended up hack and slashing and switching to my mage every once in a while to heal/throw some multi-person spells.



That said, obviously what I want the LEAST is a console DA2 that is basically....hack and slash with a mage to throw some healing spells in every once in a while. I WANT the strategy back in RPGs. If they have a way to make that happen more smoothly on the console, I'm all for it. If they're just going to turn it into what I already did myself on DA:O...*sigh*



That said, this isn't a make or break thing for me. The characters/story/dialogue is much more important to me than the combat -- as long as I can still make the combat WORK. (I never could get the hang of the damn FPS element of Mass Effect...and as such was never able to finish the freaking game. I always felt like if I was taking a charge of a freaking Space Marine, it shouldn't matter if my aiming skills suck, because she's a freaking SPACE MARINE and she should be able to aim based on HER skills, not mine. If something similar happens in DA2, I might have a breakdown.)

[bjdbwea]

Larryboy_Dragon wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

But I really don't think there's going to be much difference between the combat systems. It has to be exaggerated rumors. That would go against all the "streamlining" and saving of time and resources that have been going on recently at BioWare.

"Rather than try to mimic the PC experience on consoles", the GI report states, "Dragon Age II has a battle system more tailored to the strengths of the PS3 and 360."

Yes, that's what I expect. And of course we all know that combat systems on consoles have to be fast-paced, simple action. It's just what the input system was made for and does best. And that's apparently what sells best to the mainstream too.

It would surprise me a lot of they invested the effort to keep the combat system similar to DA 1 on PC. With their current approach, I just don't see it happen. I think if anything, the PC version will get more hotkeys and stuff (while that was a matter of course some years ago, in ME 2 they didn't even deliver that).

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 juillet 2010 - 01:48 .

[Larryboy_Dragon]

bjdbwea wrote...

Yes, that's what I expect. And of course we all know that combat systems on consoles have to be fast-paced, simple action. It's just what the input system was made for and does best. And that's apparently what sells best to the mainstream too.

Firstly, I hope DA2 has no action-based gameplay, and I dislike smash 'em ups, but fast-paced =/= simple action.
Secondly, "what the input system was made for and does best" is preference only. It managed KotOR perfectly fine. And all the other turn based jRPGs. And Civ. And countless other titles.
Thirdly, what sells best is Dragon Age over Mass Effect.

[DanteCousland]

Im just pondering what they'll put in next to be honest

[Massadonious1]

It's nice that we have people like bjdbwea around to grossly generalize things for us.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 14 juillet 2010 - 08:05 .

[asaiasai]

I do not want to rag on the console gamers here but i have to say that I am a PC gamer who just spent 2500 dollars going completely OVERBOARD on my new less than a month old PC. I find it somewhat annoying that my gaming experience is toned down because because of the limitations of the lesser PCs as was the case with GTA4 when it first came out. I had another kick ass box i built from scratch (New Egg FTW) and right out of the box my PC crushed it ran it with no problems. Then the boards are lit up by chuckle heads who apparently can not read the thing called "minimum specs" and whined to no end because thier gaming experience sucked as thier Grandmother's E-Machine could not handle it. So Rockstar patched the game and this cost me 20 FPS and lowered the graphics quality i got for the reduction in frame rate. Total bull****.



As i rag on the chuckle heads who ruin PC gaming sometimes i can not understand how console players can even think that they are entitled to the same game experience i am. The game should be toned down for the PCs and consoles of limited ability, if you want all the bells and whistles get out your checkbook, get off your ass and work a few extra hours, but do not expect sympathy because you are limited in what you are willing to spend or can spend to enjoy what is clearly a hobby or luxury.



Deal with it.



Asai

[FieryDove]

asaiasai wrote...

I do not want to rag on the console gamers here but i have to say that I am a PC gamer who just spent 2500 dollars going completely OVERBOARD on my new less than a month old PC. I find it somewhat annoying that my gaming experience is toned down because because of the limitations of the lesser PCs as was the case with GTA4 when it first came out. I had another kick ass box i built from scratch (New Egg FTW) and right out of the box my PC crushed it ran it with no problems. Then the boards are lit up by chuckle heads who apparently can not read the thing called "minimum specs" and whined to no end because thier gaming experience sucked as thier Grandmother's E-Machine could not handle it. So Rockstar patched the game and this cost me 20 FPS and lowered the graphics quality i got for the reduction in frame rate. Total bull****.

As i rag on the chuckle heads who ruin PC gaming sometimes i can not understand how console players can even think that they are entitled to the same game experience i am. The game should be toned down for the PCs and consoles of limited ability, if you want all the bells and whistles get out your checkbook, get off your ass and work a few extra hours, but do not expect sympathy because you are limited in what you are willing to spend or can spend to enjoy what is clearly a hobby or luxury.

Deal with it.

Asai

While I understand where you are coming from, it can't be helped. Gaming publishers know the $$ is in selling console games. The only thing PC's are assured of currently is MMO leverage. Example TOR is still in development and is PC only.

Not only that, sometimes people can't afford the upgrading even if they do have a PC. Consoles offer a better solution and some people hate dealing with drivers, why won't this game run...etc. Also its not always being lazy...some of us DO work, but have bills, medical expense whatever and people make do with what they can. Lastly, some people PREFER the console experience. Hard to understand myself since I don't own one but then my types of games function best on PC, RPG's, RTS and TBS with an occasional shooter.

[asaiasai]

FieryDove wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

I do not want to rag on the console gamers here but i have to say that I am a PC gamer who just spent 2500 dollars going completely OVERBOARD on my new less than a month old PC. I find it somewhat annoying that my gaming experience is toned down because because of the limitations of the lesser PCs as was the case with GTA4 when it first came out. I had another kick ass box i built from scratch (New Egg FTW) and right out of the box my PC crushed it ran it with no problems. Then the boards are lit up by chuckle heads who apparently can not read the thing called "minimum specs" and whined to no end because thier gaming experience sucked as thier Grandmother's E-Machine could not handle it. So Rockstar patched the game and this cost me 20 FPS and lowered the graphics quality i got for the reduction in frame rate. Total bull****.

As i rag on the chuckle heads who ruin PC gaming sometimes i can not understand how console players can even think that they are entitled to the same game experience i am. The game should be toned down for the PCs and consoles of limited ability, if you want all the bells and whistles get out your checkbook, get off your ass and work a few extra hours, but do not expect sympathy because you are limited in what you are willing to spend or can spend to enjoy what is clearly a hobby or luxury.

Deal with it.

Asai

While I understand where you are coming from, it can't be helped. Gaming publishers know the $$ is in selling console games. The only thing PC's are assured of currently is MMO leverage. Example TOR is still in development and is PC only.

Not only that, sometimes people can't afford the upgrading even if they do have a PC. Consoles offer a better solution and some people hate dealing with drivers, why won't this game run...etc. Also its not always being lazy...some of us DO work, but have bills, medical expense whatever and people make do with what they can. Lastly, some people PREFER the console experience. Hard to understand myself since I don't own one but then my types of games function best on PC, RPG's, RTS and TBS with an occasional shooter.

No doubt, i have been building my own PCs since 94 or 95 when i put a 486 66mhz together so for the most part i have really had to do upgrades occasionally as the initial investment was alread made. I do recycle parts as necessary like for example i will re use the same DVD burner sometimes over 3 builds which is 20 to 50 dollars i do not have to spend. My point is that when you hit the level of game machines that i build the game should; play better, have more options, look better, if it does not because the game developers are worried about catering to lesser hardware, what would be the point to spending the money. Do you follow me?

I usually build a machine to last with out upgrades for 2 years at which time if possible i will recycle the usable parts back in with the new parts which does limit the cost. It takes me 2 years to save up enough in disposable income to do this but i also make sacrifices along the way as in i brown bag it to work everyday, i ride a bicycle when i can as opposed to drive to work, and i completely cut out fast food entirely (mostly for health reasons and the money saved is an additional bonus. This is the first year since i put together my first comp 16 years ago where i have put together a machine from scratch buying everything brand new, case, PS, board, CPU, ram, monitor, video card, hard drive, DVD, keyboard, mouse, and OS. But this is my hobby, actually more like an obsession, so i have geared my priorities around this being my thing, like people who save to go to Europe would do, i just build a PC instead.

Asai

[KLUME777]

werwulf222 wrote...

I feel sorry for console gamers and figure they got a raw deal from console manufacturers.

No mods, no way to add a keyboard, joystick mouse etc.

How hard would it have been for them to include some USB ports in their machines while they were being manufactured? At least then console gamers would have had some kind of upgrade path.

Maybe I'm wrong, I've never actually owned one or researched them, but I've been told repeatedly in other sections of the forum that console gamers can't use mods and I'm assuming the rest.

They're a ripoff as far as gaming goes in my opinion, only good for a limited number of a limited type of game.

All of this generation of Consoles have multiple USB ports.

I seriously hope the console version hasnt drastically changed from DAO other than some small touch ups and improvements that every game gets

[Tirigon]

asaiasai wrote...

My point is that when you hit the level of game machines that i build the game should; play better, have more options, look better, if it does not because the game developers are worried about catering to lesser hardware, what would be the point to spending the money. Do you follow me?

The bolded is exactly the reason why I spended only about 600€ for MY new PC (2 weeks old or so), instead of 2500 like you.....

[wikkedjoker]

I'm halfheartedly expecting a Fable rip-off myself. . . .
to a fault the game even sounds exactly like Fable 3, only darker.

It's not that I don't expect it to be a good game, but, its not even going to be in the same ball park as Dragon Age Origins.

  
and

"Control pad?" really? your going to call it that kotaku? Okay.

[wikkedjoker]

Tirigon wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

My point is that when you hit the level of game machines that i build the game should; play better, have more options, look better, if it does not because the game developers are worried about catering to lesser hardware, what would be the point to spending the money. Do you follow me?

The bolded is exactly the reason why I spended only about 600€ for MY new PC (2 weeks old or so), instead of 2500 like you.....

Or you can spend about $145.00/$200.00 and not
need to worry about "Oh will my computer be able to play this game or that game." 

Having dedicated machines, like the 360 and the PS3, just make more since cost wise. And since there are very few games as it is that come out for the PC that I cant get in the 360/PS3, I don't find I'm missing much.

In fact, I'm glad I'm not a PC gamer, since there are many more great games on the 360/PS3. I mean this is just my preference and I really don't wanna argue about it. I don't think one is better than the other, I think one is more cost effective than the other. 

[asaiasai]

Tirigon wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

My point is that when you hit the level of game machines that i build the game should; play better, have more options, look better, if it does not because the game developers are worried about catering to lesser hardware, what would be the point to spending the money. Do you follow me?

The bolded is exactly the reason why I spended only about 600€ for MY new PC (2 weeks old or so), instead of 2500 like you.....

The exchange rate for dollars to Euros is roughly 1.5 to one so you spent close to 900 American for your pc. But i will guarantee this that i see thngs in my game that you do not even know exist. I guarantee that my game plays better, loads faster, looks better, and it is a matter of what i important to you and what you can afford.

This is what i bought and it is all top of the line, i do this because once i close the case i do not want to have to fool with the machine again gor 24 to 30 months.

Coolermaster 840 atcs aluminum full tower case
Asus P6X58d premuim main board
12 gb Kingston hyper X 1333mhz ram (3 ,4 gb sticks)
Kingston 64gb Solid State Drive where i installed a fresh copy of Win 7 proffessional
Intel i7 930 2.8 cpu
Western Digital 1tb 7200 rpm 64mb cache hard drive (sata 6.0
Corsair 1200 watt single rail power supply
a generic 20 dollar dvd r/rw lite on i think
Asus GTX 480 (fermi) thinking about a second one in SLI

So far this machine has crushed everything i have thrown at it except the little tweaker at my lan group who has an ATI 5970 4gb video card with pretty much the same stuff i have. I fully admit that i went completely over board with this box, but my point still is if game developers do not make spending this amount of money worth while there is no point to do so, and that will be a sad day for the industry. I have no problems with developers toning down software and the gaming experience for the lesser hardware, but i have a problem when they tone down my experience because some folks can not play at the same level as i can. I drive a Jeep and i do not expect it to be as fast as a Ferrari, but if i owned a Ferrari and i was made to tone it down to the Jeep level,  i feel the Ferrari owner has a legitimate complaint. To disagree is to let your envy show.
Asai

[Nerevar-as]

wikkedjoker wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

My point is that when you hit the level of game machines that i build the game should; play better, have more options, look better, if it does not because the game developers are worried about catering to lesser hardware, what would be the point to spending the money. Do you follow me?

The bolded is exactly the reason why I spended only about 600€ for MY new PC (2 weeks old or so), instead of 2500 like you.....

Or you can spend about $145.00/$200.00 and not
need to worry about "Oh will my computer be able to play this game or that game." 

Having dedicated machines, like the 360 and the PS3, just make more since cost wise. And since there are very few games as it is that come out for the PC that I cant get in the 360/PS3, I don't find I'm missing much.

In fact, I'm glad I'm not a PC gamer, since there are many more great games on the 360/PS3. I mean this is just my preference and I really don't wanna argue about it. I don't think one is better than the other, I think one is more cost effective than the other. 

Unless you rent all your games you will spend the gap from a console to a fairly decent PC within the year. And with the new approach to second hand I can see a dark future to rental.

[wikkedjoker]

Nerevar-as wrote...

wikkedjoker wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

My point is that when you hit the level of game machines that i build the game should; play better, have more options, look better, if it does not because the game developers are worried about catering to lesser hardware, what would be the point to spending the money. Do you follow me?

The bolded is exactly the reason why I spended only about 600€ for MY new PC (2 weeks old or so), instead of 2500 like you.....

Or you can spend about $145.00/$200.00 and not
need to worry about "Oh will my computer be able to play this game or that game." 

Having dedicated machines, like the 360 and the PS3, just make more since cost wise. And since there are very few games as it is that come out for the PC that I cant get in the 360/PS3, I don't find I'm missing much.

In fact, I'm glad I'm not a PC gamer, since there are many more great games on the 360/PS3. I mean this is just my preference and I really don't wanna argue about it. I don't think one is better than the other, I think one is more cost effective than the other. 

Unless you rent all your games you will spend the gap from a console to a fairly decent PC within the year. And with the new approach to second hand I can see a dark future to rental.

Um, But I'm spending that on games and not the PC. Hell you just
proved my point.

[Kinthalis ThornBlade]

Look, the bottom line is that the PC is objectively the better gaming platform.

Better graphics and more options in how you get games (all games have digital downloads and the usual game box), how you play games (keyboard/mouse, controller, monitor, HDTV,e tc), how you experience games (mods).

The only POSSIBLE difference is cost. I say possible because for a lot of people all it takes is a $100 video card to turn their desktop to a gaming rig. And even brand new PC gaming rigs can be had for as little as $500 (just take a look at Tom's Hardware budget gaming builds). That's only a hundred dollars or so more than a top end console. And you can make that difference up in terms of the cost of games really quick as they are cheaper on the PC.

Now subjectively, of course it's going to depend on the individual.

For example, I own a Kia. For me a car is something that gets me from point a to point b. So the more economical choice is what I went with.

But I'm not going to sit here and argue that My Kia is equivalent (and certainly not that it's better!) than a luxury BMW or mercedes.

It's not. Those cars have a lot of more features, can be safer, look cooler, etc, etc.

There's nothing wrong with owning a console (I own one myself), but the experience is just nothing compared to gaming on PC.

Take a very simple example: Last night I was playing some Mass Effect 2. I didn't have to insert any discs or wonder where I put my disc. Just found the game in my library and I was playing in seconds (didn't that game come in 2 discs on the xbox? How 1980's is that.. you actually had to change discs in the middle of gameplay...). I was gaming on my 50 inch HDTV, btw, at a full 1080p (not < 720p like on the consoles) with anti-aliasing (not looking at a stair-stepped mess) at 80+ FPS (not <30 fps).

In the middle of gameplay I had an invite sent to me in-game from a friend inviting me to play some left 4 dead. I clicked on the invite and I was in the left 4 dead lobby in seconds.

There's just nothing like that on the consoles yet. As usual PC's are leading the way in terms of technology and trends. The consoles play catch up after 5-8 years.

So no, the two platforms are NOT equivalent, as most console players like to believe. The consoles are locked down hardware that limits your choices in numerous ways. The PC is an open platform that does not limit your choices in most cases.

Modifié par Kinthalis ThornBlade, 14 juillet 2010 - 11:42 .

[Nerevar-as]

wikkedjoker wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

wikkedjoker wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

My point is that when you hit the level of game machines that i build the game should; play better, have more options, look better, if it does not because the game developers are worried about catering to lesser hardware, what would be the point to spending the money. Do you follow me?

The bolded is exactly the reason why I spended only about 600€ for MY new PC (2 weeks old or so), instead of 2500 like you.....

Or you can spend about $145.00/$200.00 and not
need to worry about "Oh will my computer be able to play this game or that game." 

Having dedicated machines, like the 360 and the PS3, just make more since cost wise. And since there are very few games as it is that come out for the PC that I cant get in the 360/PS3, I don't find I'm missing much.

In fact, I'm glad I'm not a PC gamer, since there are many more great games on the 360/PS3. I mean this is just my preference and I really don't wanna argue about it. I don't think one is better than the other, I think one is more cost effective than the other. 

Unless you rent all your games you will spend the gap from a console to a fairly decent PC within the year. And with the new approach to second hand I can see a dark future to rental.

Um, But I'm spending that on games and not the PC. Hell you just
proved my point.

RPGs are the only games I pay full prize, and they are about 10E cheaper. For anything else I wait less than a year and 1/2 or 1/3 original cost. Console games at least in my country take a lot longer than that to go low cost, if at all.
Also like still being able to play games from years ago. Too much has been sacrificed for graphics. For all its merits, DA:O is years light from BG.

[wikkedjoker]

Kinthalis ThornBlade wrote...

Look, the bottom line is that the PC is objectively the better gaming platform.

Better graphics and more options in how you get games (all games have digital downloads and the usual game box), how you play games (keyboard/mouse, controller, monitor, HDTV,e tc), how you experience games (mods).

The only POSSIBLE difference is cost. I say possible because for a lot of people all it takes is a $100 video card to turn their desktop to a gaming rig. And even brand new PC gaming rigs can be had for as little as $500 (just take a look at Tom's Hardware budget gaming builds). That's only a hundred dollars or so more than a top end console. And you can make that difference up in terms of the cost of games really quick as they are cheaper on the PC.

Now subjectively, of course it's going to depend on the individual.

For example, I own a Kia. For me a car is something that gets me from point a to point b. So the more economical choice is what I went with.

But I'm not going to sit here and argue that My Kia is equivalent (and certainly not that it's better!) than a luxury BMW or mercedes.

It's not. Those cars have a lot of more features, can be safer, look cooler, etc, etc.

There's nothing wrong with owning a console (I own one myself), but the experience is just nothing compared to gaming on PC.

Take a very simple example: Last night I was playing some Mass Effect 2. I didn't have to insert any discs or wonder where I put my disc. Just found the game in my library and I was playing in seconds (didn't that game come in 2 discs on the xbox? How 1980's is that.. you actually had to change discs in the middle of gameplay...). I was gaming on my 50 inch HDTV, btw, at a full 1080p (not < 720p like on the consoles) with anti-aliasing (not looking at a stair-stepped mess) at 80+ FPS (not <30 fps).

In the middle of gameplay I had an invite sent to me in-game from a friend inviting me to play some left 4 dead. I clicked on the invite and I was in the left 4 dead lobby in seconds.

There's just nothing like that on the consoles yet. As usual PC's are leading the way in terms of technology and trends. The consoles play catch up after 5-8 years.

So no, the two platforms are NOT equivalent, as most console players like to believe. The consoles are locked down hardware that limits your choices in numerous ways. The PC is an open platform that does not limit your choices in most cases.

I'm going to disagree with you.

First off I just wanna say I don't think consoles are better than PC's, simply put, you can upgrade a PC at anytime, given the money. With a 360/PS3, your trapped in the confines of ;what you buy is what you get for the next 5-10 years, not saying the console you buy will live that long, I'm saying that it will probably be another 3-5 years before we see the next generation of consoles form Microsoft or Sony.

With that said.

Take a long hard look at the industry.

It would be wrong for me to say 'no one' is developing for the PC anymore, however, it sure as hell seems like it, and the list becomes increasingly smaller when you think, who is exclusively developing for the PC.

Simply put, I don't think PC gaming is dying, it is however taking a back seat to console gaming. Sure PC's are better, but the money is in console gaming, and because the money is there publishers and developers are going to put there games there.

The simple fact is, the console is easier to use than the PC, more AAA titles are put out a year for consoles than PC's, hell what was the last AAA title for the PC? Mass Effect 2? And I don't think you can count that because it was on the 360.      

Point is, you can brag about performance all you want, but I'm going to go were the games are. And that is the console.  

[bjdbwea]

Please. Why is the industry developing for consoles? Because it has only advantages for them: Higher prices are accepted by gamers, no mods, no freeware games to compete with, can rip people off with any kind of DLC no matter the quality, the input system is a convenient excuse for lack of depth and focus on action... That's what they always wanted, that's why they aggressively pushed the consoles and tried to diminish the PC platform.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 14 juillet 2010 - 01:53 .

[Kinthalis ThornBlade]

wikkedjoker wrote...

I'm going to disagree with you.

First off I just wanna say I don't think consoles are better than PC's, simply put, you can upgrade a PC at anytime, given the money. With a 360/PS3, your trapped in the confines of ;what you buy is what you get for the next 5-10 years, not saying the console you buy will live that long, I'm saying that it will probably be another 3-5 years before we see the next generation of consoles form Microsoft or Sony.

With that said.

Take a long hard look at the industry.

It would be wrong for me to say 'no one' is developing for the PC anymore, however, it sure as hell seems like it, and the list becomes increasingly smaller when you think, who is exclusively developing for the PC.

Simply put, I don't think PC gaming is dying, it is however taking a back seat to console gaming. Sure PC's are better, but the money is in console gaming, and because the money is there publishers and developers are going to put there games there.

The simple fact is, the console is easier to use than the PC, more AAA titles are put out a year for consoles than PC's, hell what was the last AAA title for the PC? Mass Effect 2? And I don't think you can count that because it was on the 360.      

Point is, you can brag about performance all you want, but I'm going to go were the games are. And that is the console.  

I don't think you are disagreeing with me at all, friend

You agree that objectively the Pc is the better platform, you're just pointing out that the market (specially here in the US) is focused on the consoles.

I don't disagree with that. The money is on the consoles, because most people get headaches thinking about video cards. The console is the gaming platform for the masses, no doubt about it. Companies have more control over their titles, and how their titles are purchased/used on the consoles, also, they can charge more. And for every hardcore gamer on the PC, there are 10 casual gamers on the consoles.

All that being said the PC is still a hell of a profitable platform, otherwise NO ONE would develop for it. The PC still leads the way in top notch indie games and in strategy. Also, almost all triple A titles on the consoles are available for the PC. The Sims franchise and World of War craft outsold anything on the consoles by a margin of millions. 

We're getting three exclusive triple A titles this year and early next that will likely outsell anything on the consoles as well: Starcraft II, Diablo III, and the Old Republic. The last world wide accounting of overall PC market revenue (that is all advertising, hardware, software, etc) puts it second only to nintendo. Though that is a lot more than just game sales, it shows that as a single platform vs any other SINGLE platform it's not only doing fine, but growing!

Steam has more active accounts than xbox live does. By a large margin - something like 8 million last time I checked. The devs of Modern Warfare 2 went on record saying that there were more people playing that game online on the PC than on the consoles.

PC gaming is legion, and since there are no fees associated with developing for it, studios and publishers stand to make more money from any single sale than they do on the consoles. So they don't have to sell as many copies on the PC to see comparable stream of revenue.

So yes, consoles are more popular, but that doesn't make them better. They are perceived to be easier than PC's, but as my example above shows, in fact, playing game son the PC can be a more seamless, easier experience. It's only PERCEIVED to be more difficult, because most people simply aren't very educated about PC's, though they know a lot about the goings on in the console world.

[Haexpane]

3 of the most complex and deep RPGs of all time are on CONSOLES



Vagrant Story - PSone! ancient technology, but a fantastic, deep, challenging strategic game



Demon's Souls - action combat, yet overwhelmingly deep and complex



Everquest ONline PS2 - very deep MMO runs on a console WITH NO HARD DRIVE

[CrookedAsylum]

DeepGray wrote...

Geez, no wonder you'll all for a voiced PC.

No.

[Kinthalis ThornBlade]

3 of the most complex and deep RPGs of all time are on CONSOLES







Vagrant Story - PSone! ancient technology, but a fantastic, deep, challenging strategic game







Demon's Souls - action combat, yet overwhelmingly deep and complex







Everquest ONline PS2 - very deep MMO runs on a console WITH NO HARD DRIVE

What does this even mean? 3 most complex and deep RPGs of all time according to who? You?



You do know jest was on pc first for many years right? And that it was a better game on that platform?



I mean if were going to trade subjective ideals like "deepest" rpg I'll go with baldurs gate 2, fallout, system shock, betrayal at krondor, the ultima series. I can pretty much keep going on here indefinitely.

[Kinthalis ThornBlade]

Jest = everquest. Damn edit button won't work.

[TheMadCat]

Haexpane wrote...

3 of the most complex and deep RPGs of all time are on CONSOLES

Vagrant Story - PSone! ancient technology, but a fantastic, deep, challenging strategic game

Demon's Souls - action combat, yet overwhelmingly deep and complex

Everquest ONline PS2 - very deep MMO runs on a console WITH NO HARD DRIVE

Hahaha, joke of there day. Nice work.