I was playing around with the "options" seetings on COD4 and I found out that I've had an option called "Auto Aim" enabled the whole time. So I'm not really awesome?
I heard that the collector's edition of the Batman: Arkham Asylum game due out this fall is going to come with a real Bat-a-Rang. A real, sharp piece of metal in the shape of a bat... and they are just going to give to nerds who buy this game... Is anyone else as concerned about this as I am?
So, does anyone have an example of a "collector's edition" game that actually ending up being worth something? And, of course, I mean ones that have been actually opened/played.
Interesting timing on your comment, I've been following this story as it develops... http://kotaku.com/5317437/gold-cartridge-buyer-recreating-nintendo-championships-today
I read about that too, but that is most certainly different from a "collectors edition" of a game. Key differences being: - There were only 26 gold NWC cartridges made (of which, only 12 have been seen again since the initial creation), rather than tens of thousands like "collectors edition" boxes. - They had to be won through a mail-in contest, anyone couldn't just buy them - They have 3 games in one cart, and they have hardware time limit built in, as well as other software changes put in place for the competition. This is also in contrast to collectors edition games, which are just regular games that come with a fancier box and some crappy piece of memorabilia.
This certainly sounds intresting. I'm not in the market for the Prestige Edition, but the demand coupled with Activision's promise not to make more of them might leave me kicking myself in my own ass!
I guess this shouldn't be a surprise to any COD fans seeing as how Keifer Sutherland and Gary Oldman lent thier voices to Call of Duty: World at War, but it seems that rapper 50 cent will voice one of the squad members in Modern Warfare 2. 50 cent seems to be an avid gamer and fan of the COD series. 50 has several games on the market featuring his likeness.... None of which, I've given the time of day, but this will be the first.
In my opinion, you are wrong. I used to feel the exact same way. It's nice to just pop a game in and play.
From what I've read, the fiddy game Blood in the Sand is actually pretty good as far as the gameplay is concerned. The story is a little, ludicrous, shall we say?
BIG NEWS!! None other than Oscar winner Hans Zimmer will be composing the soundtrack for Modern Warfare 2!! Infinity Ward is going all out for this one!
Blood spatter on you visor!! What you are about to witness is unedited gameplay of Modern Warfare 2 in online multiplayer mode. The game is Flag Runner. Basically, two teams of even online players try to defend three flags while simultaneously capturing three flags of the opposing team. Check it out! [YT="MW2 Multiplayer Gameplay FlagRunner"]CZtGJsT_I3A[/YT] Hans Zimmer's soundtrack sounds awesome!! Oh!! The last 15-20 seconds of this video is apparently the game switching hosts in the middle of a match. Right now, if the host of the game leaves in the middle of the match, the match ends and you have to start all over. Some douchebags will purposely leave the match when they have a bad game.... but it looks like they've gotten around that.
So, are they sticking with that silly RPG-ish system for the multiplayer, or will there be a regular mode?
It's nicer to just play. Keeping track of discs and swapping them all the time is above my laziness threshold.
That's normally my philosophy as well but my PC is too old and under-specs for all of these games. I have a PC copy of Left for Dead sitting on my shelf that I thought I might be able to get working, but alas, no dice. Since we have an Xbox, I've been playing more and more games on it. Controller issues aside, there is something nice about just popping the disc in and playing the game without having to worry about graphics cards, sound cards, settings, and all that other stuff. The last few PC games I bought usually took me a couple hours to get running properly.
I've got a PC that is about 2 years old (The core parts... the disc drives and stuff are like 5 years old). I don't have any problem playing todays games with very nice settings. You can easily build yourself a beastly gaming PC (tower only) that would blow mine out of the water for like 700 bucks these days. I buy most of my games on Steam now. Buy online, the download & install process takes anywhere from 5-40 minutes depending on how big the game is (way faster than going to the store and installing from the disc). After that, there's nothing to do really, you just play. It's associated with your account so you can go to other machines and log in, download and play. No discs or CD keys to worry about. Also, the steam weekend deals are often insane. Not rare at all to have "free weekends" for valve games, where you can play the full game online for free for a weekend to try it out. It's also really common to get 50-75% off of games during the weekend deals. I've gotten some great games for 5 - 20 bucks. In the last 3-4 years I buy less and less console games. Every time I pony up 50-60 dollars and usually I get maybe 2-3 hours of play time out of it before I put it away for good.... not that the games are too short, they just don't hold my interest.
with computers being tremendous multiple-tasking devices considered, why would anyone spend $700 on a gaming PC when you could buy a state of the art console for $300? Games chew up a lot of cycles on a processor... I'd rather keep my PC for other uses and get a designated gaming console instead of buying a gaming PC.
Main reason to buy a PC is because: the games are better. There are some nice games out of console but most of the games there are crap. Our friends at EA spend 3 times more on marketing than they do on game development. Make a crappy game, use lots of TV ads to sell it to console owners who don't have many good choices. If you are just interested in cost effectiveness, PC also wins out, unless you happen to be a person who isn't going to buy a computer for any reason. Be honest: how much money are you going to spend on your PC if you weren't getting it for games? I'd wager it'll still be over 500 dollars, especially if it's a laptop. Adding in another 100-200 dollars for a GPU and a bit of memory is really incredibly reasonable. You can't compare the entire cost of the PC vs the console, since everyone has a computer of some form already. That'd be like counting in the cost of a TV into the cost of a console. You can't play a console without a TV, but everyone has a TV anyway, just like everyone has a computer. You've got to compare the extra cost of getting a GPU vs a regular PC. When you consider this, the price premium is often under 200 dollars. Don't forget that you are paying 60 bucks a pop for 360/PS3 games, whereas PC games are 50 dollars at the top end and often sell online on services like steam or impulse for much cheaper. Plus, it's the norm for games on the PC to get updates with more content, for FREE. Console updates are either nonexistant or cost money. As for performance: "State of the art" is 4 years old and renders games at resolutions at or under 720p? 360 and PS3 like to pimp their "1080p" resolution but the reality is that the games are rendered at 640p or 720p (sometimes lower) and just get scaled up. PC games on the other hand will go as big as you want... mine are actually rendered in real live 1920x1200 and I have a 2 year old machine that used midrange parts for that time. And, if any new crazy demanding game comes out, I don't need to buy a new console or upgrade/buy a new PC: I can just lower the settings a bit! Try that once the next generation of consoles comes out....
BIG NEWS!!! It looks like some more details have emerged of the mission in single player mode with the release of the new trailer! Are those US Marines attacking the White House in the background? ... and the Washington Monument in ruins? [YT="Modern Warfare 2 Trailer"]8toHfZm6jNE&feature=player_embedded#[/YT]
