Started Vampire the Masquerade:Bloodlines again last night. Determined to finish it. Got right to the end last time and found that there was a fatal bug in the game that meant it crashed after a particular bit. Got to figure how to get the patch on my computer, dont have the internet so it may be a bit of a problem. Good game though.

There's some unofficial patches, though I've no idea how whoever made them got their hands on the source code to fix it... It's a shame the publishers decided to ruin what appears to be a really good game. I might go back to it myself tonight.

Disaster!!!

The 360 that had been put aside for me turned out to be one of the cursed first batch and when I got it home It froze whenever I turned the bastard on

Not good.

I took it back to the shop and seeing as it was the last in stock they could only offer me a refund. Luckily I did some more shopping around and a new console complete with King Kong and Perfect Dark: Zero (which my mother, rather humerously, called Perfect Night) shall be delivered on saturday some time.

Yet again there shall then be some more waiting before I actually get to use the damned thing because I need to wait for my Hard drive that I ordered from HMV to arrive, this hopefully shall take no more than ten days

Mmmmmmmmm 360 goodness in less than a fortnight

Yeah, great game. I'd love to finish it, too, but every time I'm about to enter the basement of the mansion, toward the end, it CTDs... It took me about 29 reloads and retries to successfully get off of the cargo ship without it crashing.

Is the 360 realy all its cracked up to be? I had a go on one in currys, and I cant remember the name of the game (some war fps) but I just thought it looked like something they could have done on x box if they tryed hard enough! Anyone got one? Bearing in mind I dont bother with online gaming so Im talking purely about gameplay here!

Some war FPS = Call Of Duty 2, which isn't a particularly pretty game, if you're leaning towards graphics. On the other hand, no, CoD2 with its current level of quality could not be done on an xbox, not even close. It's nothing to do with trying hard enough, it's simply an impossibility, due to texture resolutions, memory restrictions, etc. If you were to put an xbox fps next to it, it would be massively different. However, if you put the same game running on high end PC and Xbox 360 they'd be roughly the same.

As for the console itself, it's the first console since the megadrive that I've found even worth buying. Although I didn't actually have to pay for it anyway. There aren't many games available yet, but some of the ones that are there are great, especially Project Gotham Racing 3 and Condemned. Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4 I already have on PC and are also good, can't see any reason for them not to be on 360.

As for upcoming games, there's Oblivion, which I can't see being any less than utterly brilliant, if Morrowind is anything to go by, a new Ghost Recon game, which sounds pretty good to me, and Gears of War.

Yes, Oblivion will be wonderful. I finally received my t-shirt in the mail, the other day, after several months of waiting... So if anyone asks for a good game, I'll just point at my back.

Whats the justifiaction for that attitude? Surely its the games that count and not the console itself.

Yes but where would the games be without a console.

Anyway it's all about what the console can do nowadays, if everyone thought like you then the Gamecube, having the far superior quality of games compared to the PS2 and Xbox, would rule the gaming throne of the last generation of consoles. However everyone went "Ohhhh look you can play dvd's and cd's on this (these) hunk(s) of shite" and went on to buy a PS2 or Xbox.

Because the PC as a games platform has been in my opinion vastly superior. I still think it is, but the gap has reduced with xbox 360. I know the original Xbox had Live too, but it wasn't enough to sell the console to me, but Live on 360 is much improved. For now at least, the technology is on a par with the best PCs. It supports hi def, which fixes one of the things I've always hated about consoles, that being a low resolution screen.

As for the games, PC games tend to be hit and miss, but when they hit, they hit ten times more. Console games generally lack depth found in the better PC games. Some people don't want depth, fair enough, but I like a game I can get stuck into which is not what consoles have been aimed at.

I can't think of a single game that I've wanted to play on any of the previous consoles that wasn't already on PC.

You've missed out on some great games.

Or I have a different taste in games.

Looking back at the games everyone seems to get excited about, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil 4, God of War, etc, I've tried them on other people's consoles and found them to be, in my opinion, utterly shit.

How dare you. 'Tis one of the finest games my fragile little eyes have had the pleasure of viewing. But the others I agree on. God of War seems too linear and samey, as do all hack 'n' slashers, and Grand Theft Auto III was the best out of the series purely because it made the leap from awfull to look at dull 2d shooter to a 3d masterpiece. The rest of the series made some small attempts at including revolutionary gameplay but just didn't live up to the hype for me.

It's also true that most PC games are amazing. Just look at Half Life and its many sequels or The Age Of Empires series. It's just that PC gaming is costly and requires most of the state of the art graphics/sound cards etc. which most people either can't afford or can't pursuade parents to purchase, after having just six months ago purchased the then state of the art graphics/sound cards. It is for these reasons that I prefer console gaming, as do many other hundreds of thousands of people.

Well, that's not true... There's plenty of utterly crap games on PC. But like I said before, the ones that ARE good are usually VERY good.

I meant graphically, you can't argue that the PC dosen't have some of the best graphics in the gaming world

Well, you get what you pay for. Saying you have to upgrade every six months is a bit of an exageration, my PC is 6 months old and it's still on a par with the Xbox 360. I tend to by a high spec PC which then lasts me usually 3 years without a single upgrade. It might be expensive but then a PC is also far more useful for non-gaming purposes too. I don't think anyone buys a PC solely for playing games unless they've got a lot of money to burn. The thing with PCs is you get to choose when you upgrade. With a console you're stuck with that hardware for however long it takes someone to release another generation. By the end of a generation of consoles, the games are starting to look seriously shoddy in terms of graphical quality. If you ever find yourself wishing you could whack the detail up in the latest games on a PC, you can do just that if you have the funds to do so.

Well yeah but how much did that cost?



You what? have you actually seen Resident Evil 4 or The Legend Of Zelda: Twilight Princess, they're at the end of the last generation but they look damn fine. It's true that some developers tend to lose interest towards the end of a consoles life-span and decide to concentrate upon the graphical power of the next generation of consoles but Iwouldn't say that the games look exactly shoddy. I mean look at say, Luigis Mansion and Resident Evil 4,which has the better graphics? It's certainly not the launch game, that's for sure.

I've been re-playing The Warriors, aswell as Mafia and From Russia With Love.

Yesh.

I've played some of that, and I must say I wasn't too impressed. Sure, it has the style and the panache of the era but the gameplay is too shallow for my liking.

All third person Bond games are shit, most of the first person ones are too, with theexception of the allmighty Goldeneye that is.

I don't agree. The zelda game looked impressive... for a gamecube game. But only by other gamecube standards. Resident Evil 4 was just plain ugly. People criticise the Quake games for being too brown or grey, but jeez, Resi 4 took the biscuit.

Fair enough, maybe I was just expecting a bit more due to the hype it was getting, though I can appreciate gaming it isnt all graphics. But a combination of that play I had and the infamous faulty first batch has made my money stay put intill the dawn of the ps3! A while to wait but hopefuly it will be worth it.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. Sony are well known for promising much and delivering little. And making pathetic claims like their games will run at 120 frames per second. I don't know why they didn't say "and we'll have a zillion bajillion characters on screen at once too!" because it certainly wouldn't have made their claim any less sensible.

It wasn't all brown and grey though, that was only for the first part and it heightened the sense of fear, there's something less scary about being chased by a chainsaw weilding maniac through a field of daisies on a clear day. Once you progressed the colour scheme did expand somewhat, and even when they were using pretty crap colours they were used to good effect within the context of the game.

What he said.

Also, FINALLY got my hands on a 360 that works . And as a nice little surprise Comet decided to throw in a memory card so I've been able to actually play my games today.

Call of Duty 2 was fairly impressive, although I'm getting sick of being the russians, I'm up to the pipe level and just got bored of it instantly.

I then decided to play Condemned and I didn't know what to expect what with the mixed reviews on this thread. Graphically it's amazing, gameplay-wise it starts off good but soon dwindles to just above average. Overall a great game so far.

Finally I decided to play Perfect Dark Zero. Wow. These graphics are the sweetest of the day, they're amazing. The walls look like walls and the wooden crates look like wooden crates, it's just a shame about the character models looking a little cartoony. Just out of interest Nonus what exactly did you program within the game?

I could give a rat's ass about the nuts and bolts of a console to be honest. I just want to play some fun games.

Then get the next Nintendo console, the Revolution. Nintendo wins hands down when it comes to fun games.

If you're 4, this is true.

It's all about what you define as fun, some people enjoy shooting zombies, some enjoy lining blocks up in a row to make them disappear and some people even enjoy EA's Goldeneye.

Games, like most forms of entertainment, is a personal thing.

Explain.



Come on, let's keep this believable(sp)

Statistically this is true since they have now become the largest publisher in the world, having finally knocked EA off the top spot. On a more subjective level, it does all depend on what kinds of games you enjoy playing and Nintendo, in my opinion, make the most fun games around. Some of them may not be complex or have brilliant plots (plumber trying to save a princess from a lizard, using primarily mushrooms?) but they are really fun to play, and they are well made (in terms of level design and difficulty) and aren't the patronising kids games that other companies insist on churning out. They continue to set the standard in terms of gameplay, which is fair more important than the pretty pictures.

Whoa, flashback to the old Gamesdomain forum days...

One of my friends said 'it was better than Timesplitters:FP'.

It turned out he wasn't joking...

I hope that you struck him about the face. An absolute monstosity of a game, having spent about half an hour trying to grapple with the control system I felt offended and violated. Dear God that was terrible.

My lawyers have told me to say a 'homeless maniac' struck him over the head with a copy of the game knocking him unconscious.

I think hes saying he thinks its a console fit only for 4 year olds.......but I could be wrong! And I would have to agree! Obviously its a exageration but nintendo games do seem very very 'kiddy'. And nintendo fans keep telling me its about the simple, addictive gameplay. Fair enough, but I can get that on my mobile phone, I expect a bit more from a console. The only games that ever seem to break the mould are games that are already avilable on other consoles. And what the hell is up with the 1 handed controller??!! NO! Quite simply, NO!

Pretty much most of the stuff you find in the multiplayer part of the game. Plus some Live stuff.

hey if your still looking for that powerpack ive got 2 one for a nes and one for a snes that ive got spare if you want it its your for the postage cost

typical, the stuff I can't (as of yet) try out. Oh well, I'm sure it'll be fandabbydozey.



'Tis a very common misunderstanding. Nintendo consoles are no more "kiddy" than any other consoles. I mean look at the Zelda series, you don't exactly see many 2 year olds playing them do you. Also this "kiddy" image is only in peoples eyes because Nintendo are a family company, they produce games that everyone can enjoy. It's true that there haven't been many "adult" games around lately but then again there has been Resident Evil 4 and Killer Seven both being, temporary, exclusives to the Nintendo console.

Whats with the controller? The future of gaming my friend. Nintendo ALWAYS produce revolutionary controllers that Microsoft and Sony steal.

You could always try the multiplayer on your own with bots ... (I didn't implement the bot AI though).

You have to admit though that Nintendo usually give off a very "kiddy" image, in that the Gamecube and its controller look like a kid's lunchbox or something that should have "My First Games Console" on the side.

As for the revolution controller, I'm reserving judgement till I get my hands on one, although my initial impressions aren't good. You have to respect Nintendo's bravery to try something radically different, but on the other hand, Mark Rein of Epic had a very good point, in that it will have a tendency to make developers to make games that make use of the controller in weird ways just for the sake of it. A game shouldn't be designed around the input device used to play it. Plus 3rd party developers looking to make cross platform games will probably just ignore the revolution and stick to xbox 360 and ps3, rather than redesigning with a totally different controller in mind.

I think I may, just to see what you get paid for.



I admit that the gamecube was a tad simplistic yes but for me it just added to it's charm.



My initial impression wasn't good either but when I started to think about it, it grew on me. It'll be the first console to offer PC style control with an FPS, maybe that'll swing your vote . And well they where the first to use a rumble feature, dual analogue sticks and wireless controllers so I guess they're used to it. And there's a "normal" controller application you can get for the people that don't appreciate Nintendo's brilliance. Although that's also partially why I got a 360.

I loved the design of the Cube in that it was the only console of that generation that looked as though it had been designed.

Definitely, the PS2 is quite homely and the XBox is something of a brick. I like teh design of the 360 though, quite nice.

I'm looking forward to trying out the Revolution controller, it looks like it could be a pretty great innovation and, from what I've read in the press about it, seems to be a pretty easy and fun to use controller. Although it's the games that are most important.

Oh, Twilight Princess is due in April, apparently, so looks like the Cube will get a blazingly bright send off.

Two words. BULL. SHIT. The only thing that really makes gamers (not the general public, we know they cant resist the lure of the Sony brand name) buy a console are the games. Slagging off all other brands simply because you obviously like Nintendo is the same as every fool who wont touch the GC because its "childish". I bought a PS2 knowing that Final Fantasy as well as all the other PS exclusive brands that I like would appear later. Got an X-box after playing some games round at my mates and enjoying them enough to want to own it (Knights of the Old really swung this for me). At one time I owned a GC but it was stolen. The reason I dont own one now is that there simply arent enough games on it that I would be motivated enough to dedicate the time required to play.
I've got every intention of getting the 360, PS3 and maybe even the Revolution, provided the games are good.
Saying that everyone would buy a GC because it has "far superior games" is in incredibly elitist view. Different strokes for different folks, not everyone thinks like you do.

To clarify, I'm of the opinion that most GC games are too cartoonish, in no way superior to the other consoles. The console itself looks great, unlike the controllers. There are some good games on there though, but nothing like the array of (usually more mature) quality you get with PS2 and Xbox. Like zeden said, slagging off any of the three main consoles is a bit pointless, really.

Has anyone else here tried out Star Wars battlefronts on the PSP? I had a go and didn't get on with it at all. The people are so tiny and far away and its so difficult to aim with the PSP controls that it just didn't work for me. I did a few levels ok, but i think it was because it was so easy... I'd like to give the game a go on another format, bigger screen and easier controls, but the PSP version just doesn't work.

Can any of the people who have Mario Kart DS tell me how to unlock the Staff Ghosts for the Time Trials? I've unlocked (and beaten) the first one but there don't appear to be any others, which is a shame since it was fun trying to find the perfect way to beat someone who had actually made the game.

I've got to agree with Zeden here. I own a PS2 and an X-Box, and I did own a Gamecube and even at one time a Dreamcast, and quite simply, the games on the Cube, largely didn't appeal to me. Starfox adventures had some charm, but not quite enough, though I can't deny that it was very well done. Rogue Leader or whatever it's called was a good game, but I just couldn't get to grips with the controller for me to really enjoy the game as such.

On the Dreamcast, I always felt it was a victim of a few circumstances. When it came out, it was quite expensive, but a lot of people had decided to wait for the PS2 and the new Nintendo, whatever it would be called. It can't be denied that the DC had some bloody good games on it, Shenmue 1 and 2, Skies of Arcadia for example.

Isn't she loooooovely...

Got 2 of 'em kicking about right here. A jap one and a brit one. And yes, I have been sad enough to hook them into my network. Along with my PS2, GameCube and XBox. I'm nothing if not evenhanded. The only problem is that I've not turned any of the consoles on in ages as WoW and Civ IV have sapped all of my gaming willpower and are refusing to let me play other games. if I try they tell me off in my dreams. *twitch*

Indeed the Dreamcast was a beauty. Its amazing how far ahead of the game it was. Depressing how it died, if only they'd gotten Fifa on it then it may have stood a chance...
The Revolution controller looks interesting to me. I'm a big light gun game buff but this is a genre in decline. With this remote thingy you could easily use it for a lightgun game. Fingers crossed for Virtua Cop 3... Nothing is set for the Revolution anyway, nobody really knows the proper facts yet.
Started Morrowwind again last night. My new graphics card makes it look so much better.