mrkekeru:And I don't think he should be wasting his money on buying new games of questionable quality at best such as Little Big Planet or Uncharted.
Well earlier in the thread he stated he wouldnt be buying games new and that he would be usining Goozex for the games so again he wont be wasting any money.
Why I Enjoy Demon's Souls: By Maskim
First and foremost, everyone mentions the difficulty in this game. To me, though, this is a non issue. If you've gamed for a long time, then you remember when games were at a minimum as hard as Demon's Souls. 80's PC gaming, anyone? If you've ever played Eye of the Beholder, or Menzoberanzan, then you can breeze through Demon's Souls without batting an eye. You'll die, to be sure, but it just isn't that big a deal. However, the unforgiving aspect of the game is something that isn't seen too often anymore, and is somewhat refreshing.
The controls are spot on. In an action style RPG, to not just wade into pools of enemies swinging a sword wildly is a wonderful thing. Demon's Souls requires patience, tactics, timing, and cunning.
One's actions also have an impact on their game. The world tendency and character tendency are obvious aspects of this, but there's more. Should I not rescue Yuria, I am at a disadvantage in my game if I need a spell she teaches. Should I allow Biorr to die in battle, he will not be able to aid me later on. Should he survive in battle, but I mistime a spell, and poison him, I have killed him. The lasting implications of your actions, at least in that playthrough, are a wonderful addition.
The story I enjoy very much. A somewhat original premise, which is handled very well with enough narration to get you in, but from that point on, even though it is somewhat linear, the game provides an excellent feeling that it is very much your story.
The graphics. Although not in your face and flashy, they are very good. My wife thought that I was watching a cutscene on multiple occasions when playing, because as she said 'that just looks too real'. The lack of light in the game also adds to it's gritty realistic feel, and lends itself well to the atmosphere.
That brings us to the atmosphere of the game. In no game, especially not one which is built around multiplayer, do you feel so utterly alone. Surprise tactics, and solitude, lend themselves well to a feeling that one is not just playing a dungeon crawling action rpg, but a horror game as well.
Easily makes my lists of favorite games I've ever played. Ever. That's not something I do lightly, at all.
-
That's just a quick jotting down of some thoughts, and I could elaborate, and give other reasons as well, if I so wished. However, with all that being said, you have now read someone give some reasons to liking the game, other than 'it's hard, but good'.
mrkekeru: Blu-ray is a nice feature to have, but personally I won't be buying any BRDs until they drop in price and it is kind of pointless to get them over DVDs unless you have and HDTV anyway.
Blu-ray is a nice feature to have, but personally I won't be buying any BRDs until they drop in price and it is kind of pointless to get them over DVDs unless you have and HDTV anyway.
Ahh, the classic price defense. "Blu ray is too expensive, DVD is so much cheaper". I know this isn't exactly what you said, but when you say that Blus need to drop in price before you buy them....They're already cheaper than DVDs in some cases. Yes, they are.
Check out the prices for 2001: A Space Odyssey on Amazon. The blu-ray is under $10. The DVD is over $20. Same content, better quality on blu, cheaper on blu.
I just picked another movie at random, "The Machinist". The Blu is $12.99, the DVD is $12.49. Oh yeah, SOOO much cheaper.
Just looked up Master and Commander: Far Side of the World. Both blu and DVD are the same price. Actually, the full screen DVD is $1.00 more. Hah.
But lets be fair and choose a NEWER movie, shall we? District 9 blu is $19.99, and the two disc DVD (since you need the 2 disc version to get all the same content as on blu) is $22.99. It's MORE EXPENSIVE.
Lets choose a notoriously cheap DVD for a change. Napoleon Dynamite. Lets be ultra fair and use the exmple of the barebones edition vs. the blu. DVD is $8.49, Blu is $9.99.
I could go on and on and on and on and on until I catalog almost every movie that is released on both blu-ray and DVD, but I think my point is clear here. When Blu-rays are more expensive than DVDs, it's almost always by less than $5, and on rare occasions less than $10. How is that not cheap enough? How can an argument about blu-rays being too expensive actually hold water when the truth of the matter is absolutely the opposite?
You have to expect to pay a premium for better content, and blu-rays offer high def content while DVDs do not. In most cases you're not even paying a premium for blu-rays, and given that history would show that at 4 years of market penetration for DVD and Blu-ray resulted in MUCH different price points, there should be no way any intelligent human being can actually use this fallacy of an argument as an excuse not to buy blu-ray.
Oh, and I know plenty of people who own only CRT televisions and buy blu-rays. Why? They want their collection to be future proof for when they eventually do purchase an HDTV. This is why Disney offers so many of their Blu-rays with DVD copies. There are too many legitimate reasons to buy blu for "price" to even laughably be mentioned as a reason not to.
Sorry, I just think this argument is tired, totally absurd, and possibly the worst excuse for an argument anyone has ever used ever in the history of all mankind.
For the latest news on Games, Movies, and everything geeky!
Those are some nice anecdotal examples of movies that I have absolutely no interest in buying ever, but something much more relevant: doing a quick Goozex search (or checking my on hold requests) for any BRD movie I'm actually interested shows that the DVD usually goes for 100-150 while the BRD is around 300-400 and sometimes higher. I have no intention of spending actual money on something I might watch once every few months.
I understand future-proofing and I completely agree. While I don't think it's worth the upgrade for HD alone when I'm watching off of a 17'' SD, blu-ray is a much more refined technology, with better playback software, no need for multiple discs in almost any case, and to boot the disc feels more substantial to the touch than flimsy DVDs. But I think it makes no sense to amass a collection of movies intended to last you for years to come at a time when those films' prices are at their highest. I'm not one who regularly purchases movies anyway.
stoudman:Sorry, I just think this argument is tired, totally absurd, and possibly the worst excuse for an argument anyone has ever used ever in the history of all mankind.
Maskim: Demon's Souls. Case closed. Bring forth the next thread on the docket.
Demon's Souls.
Case closed. Bring forth the next thread on the docket.
I second this motion
Gary Johnson For President 2012!
You don't really need an excuse to play your PS3 if you don't want to. My Wii has been shelved indefinitely. I don't know the last time that thing was turned on. My 360 has been off nearly almost as much. The saving grace for that system is a Kung Fu Panda/ Lego Indiana Jones game I have that my daughter likes playing. Eventually though, there will be games I will want to play for these systems.
Keep your systems around for that game you may not want to miss that turns out to be an exclusive. I made the mistake of getting rid of my 360 once. A number of RPG releases taunted me mercilessly but once Culdcept Saga was released, I had no choice but to buy it again.
mrkekeru: Those are some nice anecdotal examples of movies that I have absolutely no interest in buying ever, but something much more relevant: doing a quick Goozex search (or checking my on hold requests) for any BRD movie I'm actually interested shows that the DVD usually goes for 100-150 while the BRD is around 300-400 and sometimes higher. I have no intention of spending actual money on something I might watch once every few months.
This is the used market, and to be honest the system Goozex uses is not exactly the most up-to-date reliable system for checking the average retail price of anything.
1. I was not talking about the used market.
2. Blus go for 3-400 points on here that sell for $10-15 elsewhere, and those aren't just sale prices, they are often long established price ranges.
I understand future-proofing and I completely agree. While I don't think it's worth the upgrade for HD alone when I'm watching off of a 17'' SD, blu-ray is a much more refined technology, with better playback software, no need for multiple discs in almost any case, and to boot the disc feels more substantial to the touch than flimsy DVDs.
It's also much harder to scratch, and much harder to damage.
But I think it makes no sense to amass a collection of movies intended to last you for years to come at a time when those films' prices are at their highest. I'm not one who regularly purchases movies anyway.
FALSE! Wow, I'm surprised you could actually believe a lie like that. even with inflation you're wrong. DVDs entered the market around 1997-98, and about 2000-2001 the average price for a DVD was $20-30 if not more, and those were SALE prices. Why do I mention 2000-2001 prices? Because that was 3-4 years after the initial release of the format, and it has been 3-4 years since the initial release of the Blu-ray format. Already we see lower prices than DVDs in the same time frame, MUCH lower. It would have been unheard of back then to find a DVD for $10, much less $5. However, you can find that kind of deal on blu-rays without having to look very hard or go very far.
In pretty much every instance of possibility you are WRONG about film prices being at their highest.
However, just incase you try to pull some BS and claim you're right about this when there's no way you could be, I'll explain just how wrong you are even further. When VHS first came out the VHS copies cost roughly $100-150 per tape. No lie. This is why Video Rental services became popular, this is why those services were able to even exist, this is why they charged over $100 for the tape if you returned it too late -- because that was literally the cost of the tape to the rental stores. Eventually they did release VHS tapes for the home video market, but when they did the costs were often $25-40 or more, and back then collectors were happy to pay that rather than the $150 it would have cost otherwise.
To think that Films' prices are at their highest right now is absolutely false on all fronts, particularly in the home video market which we are discussing. Please check your "facts".
I simply must know to which enlightened journal of opinion you subscribe where a near universally common trend can be discredited by a few irrelevant anomalies.
It's nowhere near a universally common trend, if anything the common trends are the "few irrelevant anomolies" you so begrudgingly describe my examples as. If you do your research you'll find that these few examples are indicative of almost every blu-ray release in existence right now, which is not an "irrelevant anomoly", but rather a strong case for the truth of the matter -- Blu-rays are dirt cheap for their level of market penetration, cheaper than any home video format has ever been in the history of home video at its level of penetration (which is the 3-4 years I discussed earlier that you seem to happily ignore). They are ahead of the game in terms of low prices for a home video format. It may not be your thing, but that doesn't mean that your assumption of their "high, unaffordable costs" are correct.
Like I said, please check your "facts".
stoudman:blahblahblah
As for the price relative for age thing, you cannot seriously deny that every blu-ray available today will not cost less than it would in a few years. I am not comparing them to DVDs in that instance: I am comparing them to future prices of the same product.
mrkekeru: stoudman:blahblahblah
And you can't alter another person's text when you quote them. Not to mention that was just horribly rude.
You're right. I just don't feel like arguing about it anymore.
gnarlyrecords: I own a 360 and PS3 and honestly I barely ever touch my ps3. Any multiplatform game that comes out I pick up for my 360 because I prefer it's controller so much more. I need a reason to put some use on my PS3 so that's where you guys come in. Please only list games that are exclusive. Heres what I've played so far Uncharted Uncharted 2(currently playing) Killzone 2(Did not really like this, should I give it more of a chance?) Metal Gear Solid 4 Valkyria Chronicles(honestly this game made my purchase of a PS3 worth it) Resistance 2
I own a 360 and PS3 and honestly I barely ever touch my ps3. Any multiplatform game that comes out I pick up for my 360 because I prefer it's controller so much more. I need a reason to put some use on my PS3 so that's where you guys come in. Please only list games that are exclusive. Heres what I've played so far
Uncharted
Uncharted 2(currently playing)
Killzone 2(Did not really like this, should I give it more of a chance?)
Metal Gear Solid 4
Valkyria Chronicles(honestly this game made my purchase of a PS3 worth it)
Resistance 2
If you don't want it I'll take it, really I could seriously use one.
mrkekeru: You're right. I just don't feel like arguing about it anymore.
Then dont reply. A very simple and effective way to stop arguing about something is to just not reply.
killmak: mrkekeru: You're right. I just don't feel like arguing about it anymore. Then dont reply. A very simple and effective way to stop arguing about something is to just not reply.
yes, the silent treatment.
[img w=350 h=32]http://sig.goozex.com/userbarsig/redboy.png[/img]
acsguitar: Maskim: Demon's Souls. Case closed. Bring forth the next thread on the docket. I second this motion
When I first glanced at this post, I read motion as moron. haha
Fat Princess
Flower
Singstar!!